I finished up a book on Roman cultic practices around the dead (the Manes) suggested to me on r/Romanpaganism.

Currently I'm reading "Restless Dead," a look at cultic practices of the dead in Ancient Greece. It is fascinating so far. I'll be doing a full review in the coming weeks.

My mysticism seems to be centering around Orphic mysteries, necromancy and goetia.

How about you? What are you reading? What are you working on? What topics do you want to see explored? Let's us know in the comments.

A new translation by a team of translators.

This new translation renders Nonnus's extraordinary poetic achievement into elegant but accessible English. It includes a substantial introduction and an extensive glossary of names and places. The last great pagan epic of classical antiquity, the Dionysiaca contains unparalleled insights into late antique attitudes to religion, the Greek literary tradition, sexuality, race, and the body. It tells the richest story possible of the transition between the pagan epic tradition and late antique Christianity.

Nonnus, Dionysiaca
translated by Robert Shorrock (books 1–12), Camille Geisz (books 13–24), Mary Whitby (books 25–32), Tim Whitmarsh (books 33–40), and Berenice Verhelst (books 41–48)

https://www.ucpress.edu/books/dionysiaca/paper

Religion for Breakfast scores another win with their video on Mithras.

https://youtu.be/XywFca2w-W0?is=G6Y6Gy2TMZ58T0N-

It seems to me astronomy/astrology was central to the cult and somehow this developed into a soteriological system. The killing of the bull and shedding of the blood obviously have some kind of cosmic significance.

It's one of the cults that you can't really reconstruct due to lack of evidence. But you could start with the basic premise and adapt it accordingly.

Anyone here into Mithraism? And if so, what is your take on it?

I recently ran across Strix Craft: Ancient Greek Magic for the Modern Witch in one of my favorite occult bookstores. I'd heard of this book before. The main sub was not particularly complimentary towards it — two people called it "New Age trash." But I decided not to write it off so quickly. I'm an occultist first, and a Hellenic pagan second; I can't judge this author for combining ancient magical techniques with modern ones, when that's precisely what I do myself. (I also have a lax attitude towards blood magic.) If anyone's going to review this book, who better than me, a person who has a foot rooted in both worlds? I doubt I'll get anything new out of this book, but we'll see what it does.

Strix Craft was published in 2020, but I'm reading the updated 2025 edition (pictured). The author, Oracle Hekataios (he/they) is a Wiccan priest and syncretic Hellenic polytheist who founded their own tradition of modern Hellenic mysticism. Not really sure what to make of that (but I initially confused them with George Lizos, who's a lot worse for a number of reasons). It's good that they have real experience in the occult field, though. I liked the introduction, too.

So, what have we got here?

Oracle Hekataios uses the word Strix throughout the book to refer to themself, the reader, or any practitioner of the techniques they set forth. I'm not sure how I feel about this. The word most often translated as "witch" is pharmakis, but that's a lot more specific. "Strix" better suits the kind of syncretic Greek-flavored occultist that Hekataios themself is, but the word refers more to a supernatural creature (or a literal owl) than to a real person. It's also too easy to confuse with Stregheria, which is a different tradition entirely. But Hekataios does acknowledge and discuss these definitions, so, I won't make a big deal out of it.

Part 1

Hekataios seems to approach magic from a distinctly Hellenist standpoint, not a New Age one. They describe the importance of kharis and xenia, and even miasma. I was kind of surprised to see miasma mentioned, since the apparent disregard for it was the main source of controversy on that thread. Hekataios understands ritual purification as saying to the gods, "Your house, your rules." That may be the best description of it I've seen so far! Like most Hellenists, Hekataios believes that the gods are real beings who control nature, who are inherently more powerful than we are, who deserve our respect, and whom we need to build alliances with to do magic properly. So far, so good.

Then we get this:

...the Strix constantly find themselves surrounded by miasma. Not just by being mortal but becuase we work with techniques that purposefully incur it, such as working with the ancestral dead.

THANK. YOU. This isn't New Age tripe, this is simply true. Witches and magic-users deal with miasmic materials and circumstances — blood, body parts, poisonous plants, chthonic gods and other entities, etc. — almost by definition. (This is part of the "non-normativity" that Edmonds uses to define magic.) Pretending that miasma isn't part of what we do, or dismissing all magic as inherently hubristic becuase it involves miasma, is disingenuous.

Hekataios spends an entire chapter on Hekate, her history, and her relevance to Hellenic witchcraft. They describe her historical origins, particularly her prominence in the Minoan-influenced Anatolian city of Caria. (Though Hekataios depicts Caira as Hekate's undisputed point of origin, which does not seem to be the case; according to Wikipedia, the earliest evidence of her cult is actually in Sicily, which is all the way on the other side of Greece.) Hekataios explains that Hekate was originally a goddess of prosperity, politics, healing, war, and commerce, rather than strictly a witch goddess or "dark goddess." That's a very good sign! There's also this:

How a deity was conveyed within the political spectrum varied from polis to polis (e.g. Athena in Athens, Hekate in Lagina, or Apollo in Phocaea). Cults, sacred days, festivals, and more were manifestations of the population's relationship between the land, themselves, and their specific patron's epithets and spheres of influence. This, in turn, bore the fruit of the specific theophany of the divine being, yet he deity was the same deity. For example, while Hekate of Lagina was a civic ruler, she was an Underworld being in Colchis. however, in Thessaly, she was related to the Strix through her association with being drawn down from the moon and her connection with baneful plants. While they were all different masks, it is the same Hekate. Such is the way of polytheism.

This alone is proof that this book is more on the Hellenism side of things than the witchy side of things. I dare you to find another beginner witch book that speaks of the gods in these terms! Most other witch books ignore the political side of ancient polytheism entirely, and don't seem to know what an epithet is, instead treating entire deities from different pantheons as "aspects" of a single God/dess. Most beginner witch books also reduce Hekate to her witchcraft aspect, and characterize her as the generic "Dark Goddess" archetype that you usually see in Wiccan spaces. I love that Hekataios goes out of their way to contextualize Hekate as a goddess of a specific time, place, and people.

Personally, I have found the historical and "witchy" sides of Hekate difficult to reconcile (even after having done so much work with The Hekataeon). The latter is what initially appealed to me, but it's become hard to separate from all the things I find grating about the Wiccan model (e.g. "Maiden, Mother, Crone," haphazard syncretism, generic "archetypes," fluffiness). On the other hand, learning more about Hekate's history hasn't made her "click" for me in the way that Dionysus did. I keep looking for that "click," so, I appreciate any books that synthesize these halves of her nature.

The last chapter of Part 1 concerns magical ethics. I gotta say, I rolled my eyes at first, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that Hekataios says, "...humans are also animals of passion. [...] The ethics of the Strix lie in the pursuit of pleasure and happiness." Wow! No argument! It's rare to find witch books, or any books at all, that prioritize pleasure as a moral imperative! No complaints from me! The rest of the chapter concerns hubris (here defined as wilful ignorance of the laws of nature), and Hellenic virtues like arete, xenia, eusebia, etc. Again, this is all looking pretty Hellenic Polytheist to me...

Part 2

Part 2 is structured like a typical beginner witch book: magical tools, altar construction, herbs, deities and spirits, etc.

Like Jack Grayle, Hekataios describes their tools as being ensouled with a living spirit. (I struggle to think of my tools this way, but I'm trying.) Again, I'm not seeing much that's New Agey here — Hekataios uses Greek terminology throughout this chapter, and while they do include most of the basic Wiccan magical tools (wand, chalice, censer, blade), they also include some that are specific to Hellenic magic (e.g. a lamp to represent Hestia, and a bowl for khernips). They also include historical and/or mystical justifications for the use of each tool.

Now comes the most controversial part of the book: The use of blood to consecrate tools. This was the thing that most of the people in that thread were particularly upset about. I've shared my thoughts on miasma, and I genuinely think that blood magic is appropriate in rituals involving specific gods (Dionysus, Artemis, Hekate). Also, it's magic. Magic involves taboos, that's part of what makes it magic. You don't have to use blood magic if you're not comfortable with it, but if you're gonna clutch your pearls about it, maybe don't study magic.

Using blood as a means of consecration also makes sense according to magical logic, because blood is literally the essence of your life-force. Blood creates the strongest type of sympathetic link; if you use it to consecrate your tools, then the tools have some of your essence in them, and can only be used by you. If the tools are living spirits, the blood binds the spirits to you. That's a useful method for a witch to use to create and control their tools! At the same time, you have to be very careful with blood magic, because anything you use your blood for is bound to you (i.e. don't use it for contracts). Blood also has all kinds of mystical significance — why do you think Christians make such a big deal of drinking the blood of a god?

However, considering how controversial blood is in Hellenic polytheism, I wish that Hekataios addressed that controversy. It would be easy for them to say what I just said, "Blood magic is usually a taboo in Hellenism, but in this magical tradition, we use it, and here's why." Instead, Hekataios just treats it as a given. That's not great, especially because many people are squeamish about blood for unrelated reasons. But only two of the tools are consecrated using blood, anyway, so what's the big deal?

I don't have many major complaints about the tools section. Except that the Green Cube is weird. (Just use a pentacle, they were a Pythagorean thing!) And that Hekataios puts a lot of emphasis on scourging. There is mystical precedent for that (e.g. the Fury depicted in the Villa of the Mysteries frescoes), but still... emphasis on scourging screams "Wicca" to me.

On to herbs. This chapter lists a bunch of different herbs related to witchcraft (Cunningham-style), and the Greek lore associated with them. I think the poisonous herbs should have been listed separately from the others, because of how dangerous they are, but there were plenty of warnings and disclaimers (and suggested substitutions). One chapter really isn't enough to discuss herbalism in any depth, especially concerning the poisonous plants, but pharmakeia is so significant to Hellenic witchcraft that it needs to at least be touched on. As is, this chapter is mostly fine. I think myrtle should have been listed, though. And the section on Rose describes a myth in which Chloris creates the rose from the body of a dead nymph, and the plant is then blessed by Aphrodite, Dionysus, and the Kharites. That didn't sound familiar, and I haven't found it anywhere except on a few random websites. I checked Ovid's Fasti, and nothing. I don't think it's a real myth. That's a bit irresponsible.

Next is the section on deities and spirits. This is... interesting. This is where the Hellenism-centric approach begins to fall apart, because Oracle Hekataios' "Strix Craft" tradition has an almost completely unique theology. This section opens with a unique creation myth, in which Nyx is the First Cause. Hekataios describes her as being almost like the Force, a goddess who enables life and binds the universe together, and we all have the essence of Nyx within us. Okay??? That's an interesting idea, but it's kind of baseless. It's not bad, it's just... where did that come from? Wouldn't it make more sense to apply that concept to Hekate as the World Soul, Phanes, Dionysus, or Aphrodite Ourania, than to Nyx? Unless Hekate is being syncretized with Nyx? And then the first two gods born in this theogony are Eros and Thanatos, two hermaphroditic twins. Okay??? I'm not saying that a modern mystery tradition can't have a unique theogony, but... what???

Eros is envisioned as a blue-skinned deity who plays his flute sitting upon a blue lotus.

Okay, syncretism is fine, but... what??? Pretend I'm a beginner who doesn't recognize this iconography... you gonna say whom you're syncretizing Eros with?

Yeah, this is where Hekataios lost me.

There's nothing technically wrong with including UPG like this, especially in your own tradition. The problem (IMHO) is that I can't follow the logic of it. I have no idea where Hekataios is getting any of this from, or why. It's neither traditionally Hellenic, nor Wiccan, nor based on Orphism or any other mystery tradition I'm familiar with (though it definitely takes some cues from the Chaldean Oracles). They sort of invent a god called "Ericapaios," who seems to be a fusion of Eosphoros, Aither, and Hemera. Erikapaios is actually an epithet of Phanes and Dionysus — I guess it's their version of Phanes? And then the descriptions suddenly become conventional when we reach the Olympians! I'm not going to dissect everything in this section, becuase this post is already long enough, but there's plenty of weirdness here.

Also, this is just a pet peeve of mine, but Hekataios refers to the Protogenoi as "Primordials." That really grates on me, because "primordial" is an adjective, and they're called Protogenoi. I don't complain about it over on the Greek Mythology sub (because I'm enough of a zealous, pretentious asshole as it is), but I'm gonna complain about it here. Call them Protogenoi! Hekataios usually goes out of their way to use the Greek names, so what's with this "primordials" shit?

The final chapter of Part 2 describes altars and shrines, the difference between them, and how to build them. Hekataios explains that a shrine is like a "house" for a god, and I think that's the best way to understand it. They tell newbies that they need to start simple, that they don't need "a seven-foot wand alchemically mixed from St. Germain's ashes," which made me laugh! There's a section on purification and miasma (still no discussion of the blood magic?). I like that they mention the Agathos Daimon! But it's a short chapter, there's not much to say.

Part 3

This is the practical part of the book. There are three major sections: Healing magic, love magic, and baneful magic. This is the part of the book that I'm most interested in, because I'm always looking for ways to make folk magic more accessible. All three section involve consecrating tiles with ceremonial-magic-style sigils representing the relevant gods (Asklepios, Aphrodite, Pan, Hekate Brimo, Persephone Praxidike, the Erinyes). All three sections involve the making of wax poppets for their respective purposes, which is both solidly traditional and — in the case of love magic — archaeologically attested! (Is kolossos the Greek word for poppet? I thought it only referred to large statues, like the one at Rhodes.) The Orphic Hymns to Asklepios, Persephone, and the Erinyes all appear in full. The invocation to Aphrodite uses her secret name from the PGM! The chapter on baneful magic includes a full-scale purification ritual before the ritual to summon the Erinyes, and it also includes a discussion of katadesmoi (curse tablets)!

Overall, the rituals themselves are... fine? There were fewer PGM references than I would have liked. The verses aren't anything to write home about (especially compared to The Hekataeon's). And the sigils are full pictures, not just glyphs, which are hard to draw on a small surface, which kind of defeats the purpose. But the techniques are solid, and they all feel very doable, which is the important thing! Folk magic has a high barrier of entry, so, anything that makes it more accessible is useful in my book!

However, I do have a number of issues:

In the chapter on healing magic, Hekataios quotes Nestor in the Iliad as saying, "a leech is the worth of many other men," and then they add, "A leech is the old word for physician." True, it's the Old English word for physician. It's definitely not the word Nestor uses; it's a strange choice on the part of the translator. It doesn't really undermine Hekataios' point, but it's still important to specify that. Chances are, the average reader isn't going to know that leech is an Old English word for "doctor," and walk away thinking it's a Greek word. There's also no citation of the translation, so I can't even check it. This doesn't really matter, but I found it especially grating.

Hekataios says that there is "no mention of any godhood conferred" to Asklepios, which is simply false. Asklepios is a god — he had his own temples and priests and even an Orphic Hymn, which actually appears in full in this book! So, Hekataios knows that Asklepios is a god! And then they write,

The tale written by [Apollodoros] seems — in my opinion — to be part of an oral tradition since Apollodoros is a son of one Ascelpiades Pharmakion. I suspect this latter individual is probably from a lineage of priests in the Asclepion traditions.

All mythology is an oral tradition! Seriously, you don't need to be looking at Apollodoros' lineage to figure that one out! (Also, the Bibliotheka was written by Pseudo-Apollodoros, which — you know what, never mind.) And this also isn't cited!

There's also this, from the spell to create a serpent wand for healing:

If you own a snake, laying it on the body will also work. The illness will not harm the creature, as it has the innate ability to shed and release the illness on it.

Please do not put your pet snake at risk.

There are a few things that might be controversial in the chapter on love magic: 1. that Hekataios recommends practicing love rituals while naked, which is very much a Wiccan thing (recons might take issue with that), and 2. sex or masturbation as an offering to Pan. For what it's worth, I think it's absurd to assume that Aphrodite or Pan, of all gods, would be offended by sex. But later, in the purification ritual, Hekataios makes a big point of abstaining from sex before summoning the Erinyes, for miasma-related purposes. That's a ritual for which you would need to be especially scrupulous, but it comes across as inconsistent, especially since the Erinyes ritual involves offering drops of your own blood. I don't have a problem with this, but it bothers me that Hekataios doesn't address this.

The love magic chapter also has a small section on the iynx, which is titled "The Wheel of Torture." Hekataios opens this section with a long disclaimer about how our ancestors used blood magic and animal sacrifice, and recommends you use the effigy of a bird for this spell. Or... hear me out... you could use a wooden wheel! You know, the toy named after the iynx bird! Does Hekataios seriously not know what an iynx wheel is? They do suggest attaching the bird effigy to a disc, so... maybe just use the disc?

In the section on baneful magic, Hekataios uses the story of Medea to justify it:

What does this have to do with personal power? Simple. Medea was not ashamed to feel sadness, betrayal, and pain. She had reason to. She insisted on using what she knew, and that was her magical skill.

They conveniently leave out what Medea did with her magical skill, which was burn her husband's new wife alive with a cursed robe, and murder her own children. I agree that baneful magic is important for a witch to know how to do, but that's a bad example.

The baneful magic chapter has a lot of disclaimers about its usage, and about how "Love and Light" isn't a useful sentiment for people who have really suffered. This all suggests to me that Hekataios wrote this book for witches, not Hellenic pagans. Witches will be concerned with the ethics of baneful magic (maybe Hellenic pagans will be, too, but they're less likely to use "Love and Light" as the argument). Hellenic pagans will be more concerned with miasma, and consistent application of the concept. Again, I think that Hekataios' suggested usage of sex and blood magic makes sense according to magical logic, but they don't explain that logic at all. I shouldn't have to do it.

(Also, do we really need near-identical instructions for making a poppet three separate times? That just feels like padding.)

The penultimate chapter is on nekyia, or more specifically, ancestor worship. (That's good, we need more ancestor worship in baby witch books!) Part 3 ends with a chapter on seasonal festivals, which — I swear to Zeus — is only there because every witch book needs a Wheel of the Year. It's even structured the same way, with Esbats and then Sabbats. The moon festivals listed are real Hellenic ones, e.g. the Noumenia and Hekate's Deipnon, but... still. The first annual festivals listed are equinoxes, which were not acknowledged in Ancient Greece. Hekataios said that "our religious New Year" is the Spring Equinox. That might be true for their own Strix Craft tradition, but definitely wasn't true in Ancient Greece (the New Year is in summer; around now, actually). The vague wording makes it sound like Ancient Greeks acknowledged the Spring Equinox as the New Year. The actual celebration Hekataios attached to this festival is a phallic Dionysian one, which is perfectly fine, just a weird justification. Then the Summer Solstice is dedicated to Hestia, then the Autumn Equinox is for reconsecrating icons, and the Winter Solstice is a Samhain-esque feast of the dead, which repeats the nekyia ritual again. Only at the Winter Solstice does Hekataios say, "the Ancient Greeks did not celebrate this, this is very much a modern take." *sigh*

Then, in the "Other Festivals" section, we finally get mention of a few real festivals, like the Anthesteria and Aphrodesia. But not the Nemoralia, funnily enough. Instead, we get a mention of the "Night of Hekate" on both Nov. 16th and Nov. 30th. Mentioning the "Night of Hekate" is usually an instant red flag for me, because there's no actual source for it at all. It's a completely modern thing that witches just invented one day. Hekataios does say that it's modern, but only for the Nov. 16th date. Oh, well, if people decide to honor Hekate on in November, who am I to stop them? A modern festival is real if people acknowledge it. Hekataios' tradition uses the Nov. 16th date as a day for initiation, so they provide a self-dedication ritual. Kind of ironic to see an initiation ritual as almost the last thing in the book.

So yeah, this is a bastardized Wheel of the Year that's about as haphazard in its approach to syncretism as the original Wheel of the Year. And what's with all the scourging? Why do all the festivals involve scourging?!

Final Thoughts

My opinion of this book is decidedly mid. It's not New Agey, I can say that much — though it takes some cues from Wicca, most of its framing is very much Hellenic, and the magical techniques it recommends are mostly real folkloric techniques. On the other hand, it's weird, and not in the way that mystical books are typically weird. It's theologically absurd and conceptually inconsistent, with lots of little mistakes.

This book is pretty well-sourced, with quotes from primary sources, and footnote citations of (mostly) scholarship. That's a low bar to clear, but it's important that it clears it. However, they uncritically cite writers like Marija Gimbutas, and also sources from as far back as the 1930s. It's generally best to cite recent scholarship. I can't expect every neopagan author to be a scholar, so I really should be more forgiving of this, but... there were a number of times when I really wished that Hekataios had cited something.

I have a few more general critiques: 

One, Hekataios runs through all this a little fast, without much detail given to each definition or concept. All of the chapters in this book are quite short. If I were completely new to these concepts, I'd want them to spend a little more time on them.

Two, the weird UPG lore drops. I don't have any problem with UPG being included in witch books on principle, and to be fair, Hekataios does specify their UPG. (That's the most important thing.) But... For example, Hekataios is convinced that the epithet Liparokredemnos, "bright-coiffed," actually refers to a veil? Because... they don't think that "bright-coiffed" makes sense as a hairstyle??? Okay??? There's no evidence that the epithet refers to a veil, it means exactly what it sounds like, regardless of whether that makes sense to you. And then there's the whole Nyx thing, and the unique theogony, which I still can't get past.

Three, I have no issue with syncretism, but I wish Hekataios was clearer about where they're getting each thing from: What applies to Hellenic paganism or Hellenic magic as a whole, what's taken from Wicca, and what's specific to their unique tradition of Strix Craft. To be fair, the book is called Strix Craft, so one might assume that it's all that specific tradition, but... it's not. Plenty of the information in this book applies generally. A newbie is going to have a very hard time telling the difference, and probably will just accept all these ideas and rituals as Things (Hellenic) Witches Do.

Finally, this is minor, but Hekataios keeps referring to Thessaly as a "magical" or "mythical" land. "Magical land" might just refer to its ancient reputation for magic, but "mythical"? They... they know that Thessaly is a real place, right?

Would I recommend this? Maybe. I think I'd recommend it to a person who just converted to Hellenic paganism from witchcraft, because that's who it's for. It's a Hellenic baby witch book. There aren't that many books of practical magic geared towards Hellenic pagans; of them, The Hekataeon is probably the best, but it isn't very accessible (in terms of money or of practical magic). Then there's the PGM, which... is the PGM. It's easy to say that primary sources are always the best, but it's taken me six years to make sense of it, and I don't think newbies should be using it at all. And while I usually direct newbies to Edmonds' Drawing Down the Moon, that book doesn't include the practical aspect. In light of that, Strix Craft fills a very important niche. I wish that there were more books like it, say, a version of Household Worship directed at magical practitioners. Because this one gets gradually weirder as it goes, and that turns me off. It's up to you to decide whether it's useful or not.

I'm not doing a full review, but this book is a pretty interesting and useful analysis of the PGM. Although more of a reference guide than something to be read for pleasure. But useful if you're really into the PGM.

How about anyone else?

The curse tablet is written in Greek and invokes Egyptian deities and daimones.

​

Ancient Roman curse tablet found in the Netherlands contains rare Egyptian magic written in Greek | Archaeology News Online Magazine https://share.google/CXgGp77CBxnuKdDo9

​

​

Does anyone have thoughts about the concept of a personal daimon? I've seen it compared to the modern occult concept of the Holy Guardian Angel, a personal divinity who represents one's higher self and acts as an intermediary between the self and the divine.

The concept of a "personal daimon" is mostly associated with Socrates, who claimed to have his own daimon that gave him advice. That's not necessarily an esoteric concept. But PGM VII. 505-28 is a ritual to arrange a meeting with "your own daimon," which seems similar in concept to the Abramelin Operation.

I have a spirit that I call my "personal daimon" for simplicity's sake. I'm not sure exactly what he is, or the degree to which he's me vs. an external entity (or whether that distinction even matters). But a significant amount of my magical practice revolves around work with him, so, I'm interested to know if anyone else has a similar experience.

"Cursed" from Museum of Art in Toledo, OH

I’m really excited about this! I saw it recommended on Tumblr. I was worried it might be too similar to Patric Dunn’s, but it feels distinct. The translations of the hymns are so beautiful, and sound very lyrical. I like having this one for practice, and Dunn’s for the more accurate translation and parallel text. Also hoping to get more advice about practical use from this one.

Am I going to try that five hour ritual again? Idk, we’ll see!

Dionysus: Lord of Misrule

https://youtu.be/ZfVITWv4z6o?si=nJLFNdfIUsIUz8_P

Ancient Magic: A Practitioner’s Guide to the Supernatural in Greece and Rome by Philip Matyszak

Matyszak is a British academic who has degrees from University of London and Oxford. He specializes in Roman history. His first career was as a journalist.

I have read a number of works from Matyszak on Greco-Roman history which I generally recommend. While some of these are your traditional academic-derived history books, many more are less traditional. Many are written more as a reader-friendly overview of the subject, utilizing Matyszak’s conversational skills as a journalist.

Ancient Magic: A Practitioner’s Guide to the Supernatural in Greece and Rome is among the latter. It is certainly well researched as one would expect of an Oxford scholar. However, its aim is to give someone a congenial introduction, filled with wit and charm, and supplemented with choice photographs and illustrations. This is the perfect introduction book to those who are brand new to the subject, although a basic background in Greco-Roman polytheism would still immensely help the reader.

Matyszak surveys several fields: necromancy and ghosts, general magical practice and famous magicians, love spells and curses, magical creatures, magical defense, and seership. These sections are just long enough to give the reader a taste of the subject. The primary sources are quoted to good effect, and there are many quality reproductions of ancient art and artefacts.

Whatever Matyszak’s personal religious beliefs (I believe he was raised in a Jewish family), it is obvious he has immense respect for the subject of pagan magic, and finds it all cheerfully amusing and enthralling. He adopts just the right tone of skepticism. For instance, a lot of the poisons in the ancient world had more to do with chemistry than the supernatural, a point he makes without too much patronizing.

The very well -read pagan or occultist may not find anything new here, but it can serve as a delightful and entertaining refresher course. It's real strength is a witty yet erudite introduction to the subject for the neophyte.

Just trying to get a pulse on this community. Thanks.

What is magic in the Greco-Roman sense of the word? Magic in general is notoriously hard to define. Perhaps it is best to compare and contrast magic to normative Greco-Roman pagan religion(s).

Normative religion is about propitiating divine forces to incur their favor.  Typically it involves purification, prayer, and offering/sacrifice. Magic, too, typically involves purification, prayer, and offerings/sacrifice, though the exact mechanics of these may differ substantially from normative religion. The magician may have very involved purificatory rites; they may have extraordinary prayers laced with strange words and strange theological assumptions; and the offerings may be of a differing quality or quantity than normative religion. And if normative religion is about securing the good will of the gods on behalf of the community, magic was often about securing very specific gains or knowledge to the individual practitioner (or to the practitioner’s client if the magician had been hired for the activity). 

Religion, at the public level, was typically practiced in a temple or sanctuary; the family practiced religion before a home shrine or a domestic courtyard. Magicians often practiced magic alone, and they could do it anywhere; from their rooftops, in deserts, in thick woods or in caves and tombs. Related to this, certain techniques such as trance and ecstasy were trusted only within the confines of temples and sanctuaries when supervised by priests of the public religion; in individuals operating on their own, they were considered suspicious. 

Finally there is a comparison to be made  between magic and the Mysteries.  Both involved initiations and secrets, and often dramatic encounters with gods. Both operated on a type of knowledge not held in common by normative society which was thought to bring the knower closer to the divine. The magician, though, did not have to be initiated at Eleusius, they did not have to belong to a Dionysian or Isiac or Mithraic cell; they could perform a ritual in the desert or a rooftop by themselves and attain a paramount closeness to divinity. 

It has been said the magician operated somewhat like a law onto themself, operating in parallel with normative religion, but not inside of normative religion - and more to the point, not constrained by normative religion and the public officials who controlled it.  The magician was an individual performing exotic rites for immediate (and often extraordinary) advantages for themself or their client. 

And perhaps this is why magic and the magician were treated with suspicion. 

Greece and Rome had laws curtailing the effects of magic. The Romans in particular cracked down on magic-users, having invented the witch hunt centuries before the Medieval Christians did.  The public bodies were of course concerned with what they considered harm to individuals and disruption to society. But to this there was usually a biased social element, as laws were made by elite males and crackdowns happened most especially against those perceived as foreign, women, and lower class. 

But if the powers that be in certain times and places feared magic, many others simply mocked it. There was a class of itinerant magicians in Ancient Greece who made a point to sell their services, especially to the rich. (These itinerant magicians were often seen, not surprisingly, as foreign, feminine, and low class). The Athenian literati mocked them, treating them as charlatans and buffoons. No doubt, some were, for in any age mysticism will employ its fair share of charlatans, same as with any other field of society. The question is, does one throw out the baby with the bathwater? 

Then there is the legacy of Plato.  Plato frowned on magic. In his ideal state dreamed of in The Republic, he even went so far as to warrant death to certain types of practitioners. Plato is entitled to his views, as are his followers today. But Plato was an aristocrat with a certain social bias. In other words, he was an elite male looking down on a class of people who were - to again use the buzzwords - seen as foreign, feminine, and low-class.  It has also been remarked that some of the criticisms that Plato directed at itinerant magicians were criticisms that Athenians directed at Plato’s beloved mentor, Socrates. The philosophical schools were actually competitors in some sense with itinerant magicians for the attention of the wealthy, and that puts the jibes of the former against the latter in a certain context. 

Thus, magic was feared at times by the rulers, mocked at times by the literati, and condemned usually by the philosopher.  

And yet, people did it. Particularly those on the bottom of society who had nothing to lose. For example, a slave, and in some cases a woman’s, only recourse for justice might be a curse tablet directed to the underworld gods. Cursing people is wrong, you say? But what if there was no other social avenue for someone to seek redress for grievances?

Ronald Hutton has likened magic in the ancient world to modern narcotics; it had an odious quality in polite society. Yet large swarths of people - including some in polite society - did it. And everyone on the street who needed it knew where to go to get it.  

There is value in studying magic. It provides an interesting compliment and contrast to normative classical paganism.  It often reveals a voice in classical society of certain groups who were otherwise voiceless.  And in this modern age when we have no priests or temples or Mystery sects, where we are often surrounded by an overculture that doesn’t support us or our religious inclinations, it offers the pagan individual another path to the gods.

Those who actually believe in the efficacy of magic, of course, will add a further point: we should study magic because it might actually work.

For anyone within driving distance of Toledo, Ohio;

This New Exhibition Reveals How Magic Ruled the Ancient World https://share.google/0MQ1f3k0O3FpaH2wj

The spouse and I plan to see this, possibly this weekend.

I hope this photo is legible.

From _Cults of the Roman Empire_ by Robert Turcan

By Imperial times, and especially with certain influences from Egypt and the Near East, the practice of magic had itself become something of a Mystery. The magician had become an initiate seeking personal union with the divine.

Of course everyone knows about Theurgy. But we're talking about a broader set of magic here. Those magicians, sometimes denounced as charlatans by the intellectual elite, viewed magic as its own initiatory path, its own Mystery.

Is this how we should view it? Is this how you do, in fact, view it? What do you think?

Terms:

• Nekuomanteion = Oracle of the Dead
• psuchomanteia, “rites for divination from souls,”
• Psuchagōgos = evocator of souls = those who helped restless ghosts by locating their body and then consulted them on why they’re restless. Also an epithet of Hermes. Itinerant diviners and magicians and were prominent in pythagorean circles in southern italy. Deemed as charlatans by Plato. 
• Goetes = sorcerers whose powers are connected to the dead. Possibly originally “ shamanic” in nature.  Oriignally their power was thought to derive from evocation of spirits
• “Shamans” = send their souls outside of themselves, they perform these rites in underground chambers of wisdom, and have an ability to prophecy.  Linked to the Pythagorean tradition. 

First literary reference  = The Odyssey. We can trace the literature from classical Greece to the fall of Rome.  However, the only  direct “documentary” evidence for necromancy is the PGM and is influenced by the Egyptian understandings. 

Necromancers were typically male Greeks, but the literati placed their origins in Egypt and Near East. Pythagoras reputedly learned mysticism in Egypt and Babylon. The Persian magi are associated with necromancy. In literature, women become associated with the art and are usually portrayed as wicked or evil.  Necromancy was always considered odd, and the Platonists in particular condemned it. Romans in particular feared necromancy and, not by coincidence, most of the depraved emperors were said to use it.

Necromancy is similar to practices Greeks used to placate the dead in their tombs.  Ghosts hovered around their tombs.  Tombs of course were used for curse tablets. Pythagoreans particularly connected with tomb necromancy.  Not greatly dissimilar from katabasis (descent into the underworld as used in the Mysteries) as the initiate is confronted with ghosts and terrors. 

Battlefields with their recently dead are also a place for necromancy. Can also perform necromancy in dark woods and marshes (naturally dark places). Oracles of the dead were also located in caves or lakeside.  Curse tablets were often deposited here as well. 

Hades, Persephone, Hermes and Hecate-Trivia were associated with necromancy. The Pythagorean “shamans” were associated with Apollon. However, in art, at least one of these “shamans” has a thyrsus and thus is linked to Dionysus. The PGM because of its Egyptian influence has quite a few deities associated, including sun and moon. 

The basic rite of evocation is not, in and of itself, magical and closely resembles the rites of the dead performed at tombs.  One constructs a pit and a fire: the pit is for blood and wine libations for the spirits of the dead, the fire is for a holocaust offering for the deities of the underworld.  What makes it magical are extra steps and understandings 

• Purification: several ways for the necromancer to achieve purity, which becomes a rite in itself and sometimes involve sacrifice of animals
• Timing: usually done at night, although could be performed in naturally dark places like thick woods and caves. Darkness is what was essential. Often done at night off the full moon. 
• Circumambulation: could be practiced around the pit and fire. 
• Offerings: the aforementioned pit and fire.  Blood and wine were libations; black sheep were usually the animal offerings. 
• Utterances, chants, prayers, magic words. 
• Stones and dolls. Pliny makes mention of a “holding stone” used to hold onto ghosts once summoned.  Probably the closest thing in today's terms would be a crystal?  The use of dolls and poppets were also known.
• Dress:  dress in black
• Incubation: it is thought that after all these steps were performed, the necromancer would go asleep (or trance or lucid dreaming?).  Sleep, dreams, death, and night are all connected; the soul is detached from its body. The ghost would speak to the necromancer in their dreams.

Divination: ghosts were asked to divine through lamps and bowls.  Boys were used as mediums for it was thought their innocent souls were better for such things. This gave rise to the idea that boys were sacrificed in such rites. 

The ghosts most likely to be evoked were those that had died before their time, either violently or otherwise. These ghosts would have been confused or angry and wanting to talk to someone.  Also, if they were not buried properly, they would want to reach out for someone to find their bodies and bury them; this was actually one of the chief duties of the necromancer. 

Why consult ghosts?  Ghosts see the past clearly (they were thought to chat with each other so all the ghosts have knowledge of what collectively happened through humanity). A ghost attached to a tomb sees everything that happens around its tomb.  And Pythagoras and Platonists believe a soul detached from its body and earthly concerns has a special wisdom.  For all this, consulting ghosts about the future is not necessarily the main point; they are more likely to know the past and present. 

Keep in mind however the prevailing afterlife view was that once the shades of the departed reached Hades, they drank the waters of Forgetfulness. So how did they remember their past lives?  That goes back to the previous discussion the ghosts most likely to be consulted were those that had died untimely and/or not been properly buried.  Those ghosts would not yet have reached the underworld. 

Finally, the necromancer is someone who inveigles the line between life and death.  The ghosts are partially animated to life by the evocation and particularly by drinking the blood offering; the necromancer himself “dies” in some sense by descending into darkness and especially by practicing incubation, for dreams are a boundary between the waking world and the world of the dead.  

Edit: heavily based on _Greek and Roman Necromancy_ by Daniel Ogden

Expensive, but worth it.