Imaginal
architectural
devices
and
the
ritual
space
of
medieval
necromancy
Andrea
Franchetto
StockholmUniversity,DepartmentofEthnology,HistoryofReligionsandGenderStudies,Stockholm,Sweden
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Imaginalarchitecturaldevices Ritualspace
LiberIuratusHonorii Heterotopia Magic Necromancy
Materialengagementtheory Spatialapproach Ritualmagic Eventcognition Architecture Magiccircles ABSTRACT
Thematerialandspatialdimensionsdocumentedinthemanuscriptsofritualmagicthatcirculatedin themedievalandearlymodernperiodshavelongeludedresearchers.Studyingwherethoserituals takeplaceisimportanttounderstandthehistoryofthepracticeofritualmagic.Fewattemptshave beendonetointerpretthereasonsbehindtheconstructionofmagiccirclesandtheuseofdomestic locations. The author introduces a new interpretative category of such ritual spaces: imaginal architecturaldevices(IADs).IADspickoutaspecifickindofportable,spatiallyunfixedritualspace, where“magical”onesareakeyexample.Theyaretemporaryarchitecturalartefacts,attestedacrossa swathofsourcesofritualmagic,thatworkasstrategictoolsfororientingcognition,behavior,and belief.Drawingonspatialtheoryandcognitivestudies,theauthorconstructsIADsasatypological categoryforcomparativeanalysis.Itdescribesarchitecturaloperationsthatworkattheinterplay betweenmentalprojectionsandmaterialculture,andthatmodifytheperceptionofspace.Inthe secondpartofthearticle,IADswillbeappliedtostudythecirclesdescribedinthesecondsectionofthe LiberIuratusHonorii,athirteenth-centuryhandbookcontaininginstructionsonhowtoconjuredifferent ranksofspirits.Intheend,theauthorsuggestsfuturedirectionsofresearchonthetransmissionofIADs intocontemporaryritualmagic.
©2021TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Introduction:creatingspacefordemoncontact
Theinstructionsonthematerialsusedinritualmagicandthe
locations where rituals were performed, which have been
transmitted through medieval and early modern manuscripts,
have long eluded researchers.There isno doubtthat studying
where thoseritualstook place is importanttounderstand the
practiceofritualmagic.Performedinisolatedlocationsorwithin
theprivacyofdomesticenvironments,ritualmagicinvolvedlong
proceduresofconsecrationoftheritualspace,andthe
construc-tion of complex geometric diagrams on the floor, commonly
known as magic circles. Few attempts have been made to
interpret thereasonsbehind the constructionof magiccircles.
Generallydescribedasprotectiveboundariesandplacesofpower
(Kieckhefer,1998,pp.170–85;Simón,2014,pp.67–85),theyhave
beedtheorizedasanalogicalcopiesofthebody(Clucas,2000,pp.
113–30).NotwithstandingSmith’s(1998,pp.18–31)discussionof
the domestication of magic in late antiquity, Stephen Clucas
(2000, pp. 113–30) contends that the domestication of ritual
magicistobeattributedtothesocio-culturaltransformationof
late medieval and early modern societies. Besides,
Bernd-Christian Otto has argued that in the ritual tradition of
magicinWesternculturethereis“nodistinctivearchitecture”
(2016,p.184).Iwanttoofferadifferentperspectiveonthetopic
byintroducinganewcategoryfortheinterpretationofsuchritual
spaces: imaginal architectural devices (IADs). IADs pick out a
specifickind of portable, spatially unfixed ritual space, where
“magical”onesareakeyexample.Theyaretemporary
architec-turalartefacts,attestedacrossaswathofsourcesofritualmagic,
thatworkasstrategictoolsfororientingcognition,behavior,and
belief.
In thefirst partof this paper, Idefine IADsas architectural
operationsthatworkattheinterplaybetweenmentalprojections
andmaterialculture,andthatmodifytheperceptionofspace.Iwill
demonstrate the potentialities of using this etic category in
comparativeapproachesaswellasincontextualanalysis.Then,in
thepaper’ssecondpart,IwillapplyIADstostudytheritualspaces
describedintheLiberIuratusHonorii (LIH),athirteenthcentury
handbookthatteacheshowtoobtainabeatificvisionandconjure
differentranks of spirits. Theconjuration partof the LIH is an
exampleofmedievalnecromancy,whichofferstechnical
instruc-tiononhowtoconstructcircleswherethenecromancerandthe
spiritsarelocatedduringtheritual.Iwilldemonstratethatthe
circles used in necromancy can be seen as IADs: they mirror
imaginal constructions of cosmological topographies and they
substantiateimaginalboundaries,becomingplacesofpowerand
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.endeavour.2021.100748
0160-9327/©2021TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Pleasecitethisarticleas:A.Franchetto,Imaginalarchitecturaldevicesandtheritualspaceofmedievalnecromancy,NULL,https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.endeavour.2021.100748
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Endeavour
controloverspiritualentities.Inafinalsection,Iwilldiscussthe
fateofIADsanditsrelevancyforcomparativestudies,especiallyin
thehistoryofmagic.
Beforegoingintodepth,Iwillbrieflyintroducethecasestudy.
Magicishardlydefinable,itsambiguousrelationshipwithreligionis
atthecenterofthedebateinreligiousstudy(Hanegraaff,2016;Pasi,
2008).Nevertheless,historiansofmedievalmagicusesubcategories
to catalogue the vast panorama oftextual sources that dealwith what
isoftencalledarsmagica.Necromancyisdefinedasoneofthetwo
subcategories of ritual magic. If necromancy involves ritual
procedures“wherebydemonsareforcedtoobeytherequestsof
the operator after beingsummoned and bound,” the “angelic”
counterpart dealswithritualstoobtainvisionsand knowledge
throughthemediationofangelicbeings(Fanger,1998,p.viii;Fanger
& Klaassen,2008, pp.730–31).Historiansdefine“ritual magic”
primarily as “acertain readily identifiablegenre of text,” with
specificfeatures:(a)itisprocedural—itdealswithinstructionsto
performs rituals for obtaining material or intellectual benefits
throughtheconjuringofspirits;(b)itismainlywritteninLatinand
circulatedamongaliteratemilieu;(c)itshowsaliturgyofChristian
backgroundswithinfluencesfromArabicandJewishsources;and
(d)itis“alatemedievalphenomena,”withoutwitnessesbeforethe
thirteenthcentury(Fanger,1998,pp.vii–viii;Kieckhefer,1998,pp.
250–65;Klaassen,2019,p.202).
Nevertheless,thesamecategoryhasbeenusedtoincludemagical
textsfromlateantiquitytoearlymodernity(Butler,1949,Chapters1
and3),anditisapplied aswelltolatemodernandcontemporaryritual
practices(Asprem,2008,pp.141–42;Asprem,2014).Moreover,ifwe
takeintoconsiderationtheperspectivesofmedievalauthorswriting
aboutnecromancy,werealizethatthedefinitionisratherfluid.Terms
likenigromancia,nigromantia,andnecromantiacouldrefereitherto
formsofconjurationofdangerousdemonsortotheemploymentof
occultnaturalproperties,likeastralinfluences(Burnett,1996,pp.1–
15;Giralt,2005,pp.53–66;Klaassen,2019,pp.202–204).
The practitioners of necromancy were clerics, monks, and
scholars attending universities. The rituals areorientedtowards
getting control over spiritual entities and involving a direct
intercourse withthem.FrankKlaassen (2007,p. 69)arguesthat
“the entire library of necromancy may be understood as an
expressionofthedesiretohaveintimate,evenexplosivecontact
withthenuminous.”Examplesoftheobjectivesareacquiringhorses,
finding treasures,andgetting“honoranddignity,”whichhintat
anxietiesregardingsocialstatus(Klaassen,2007,p.62).Atthesame
time, goals like obtainingknowledgeinstantaneouslywere common.
TheArsnotoria,eventhoughfallinginthe“angelic”subcategory,
circulatedamongnecromantictexts.Ittellstheproceduresofafew
weeks’ritualtoacquireknowledgeofthesevenliberalartsand
otherintellectualgifts.Thisreflectsnotonlythepreoccupationfor
acquiring knowledge without particular effort, but also the
uncertaintyofpersonalknowledge.Thesesentimentsmighthave
beensharedamongscholars.Inaddition,thistypeofliteratureoften
showsinaccurateuseofLatin,whichmighthintat“unsuccessfulor
verymodestlysuccessfulscholars,”whowerecommonlypeople
whoattendeduniversityforashortperiod(Klaassen,2007,p.60).
AlsoknownastheSwornBookofHonoriusorLiberSacer,theLIH
showsbothIslamicandJewishinfluencesanditisattestedintwo
separatetextualtraditions.OnetraditionoftheLIHisattestedin
theSummasacremagice,ahugecompendiumofmagiccomposed
byBerengarioGanellin1346inSpain(Gehr,2019,pp.237–53).We
findevidenceoftheLatinSummainonemanuscriptkeptinKassel,
writtenaroundthefirsthalfofthefourteenthcentury.1Berengario
hascollectedtheLIH in hisSumma among othermagical texts
circulating in Spain and southern France from the thirteenth
century on. The other tradition is later and attested in three
manuscriptscompiledinEngland,andkeptintheBritishLibraryin
London.Ofthislattertradition,wehaveacriticaleditioneditedby
GöstaHedegård(2002).(OntheSumma’sversionoftheLIH,see
Veenstra,2012,pp.150–91;ontheLondontradition,seeMesler, 2012,pp.115–17).
The LIH is divided into a prologue and four sections. The
prologue tells a pseudo-epigraphic story. To avoid that their
knowledgewouldbelost,acommitteeofmagiciansappointeda
certainHonoriuswiththetaskofwritingthesecretsofmagicina
book, which theysworetoprotect. Afterthis introduction, the
handbookisconcernedwithfourdifferentrituals.Itstartswiththe
ritual for obtaining thebeatific vision of God, followed by the
conjurations of planetary, airy,and terrestrialspirits, and then
sometechnicalclarificationsregardingritualtoolsandthecircles.2
Inthefollowingsections, Iwillfirstpresentthetopicof the
“ritualspace”ofnecromancydiscussingClucas’shypothesisofthe
domesticationofritualmagicandofthecirclesasanalogicalcopies
ofthebody.Second,IwilldevelopthecategoryIhaveformulated
(IADs)withinthecontextofritualspace.Last,IwilluseIADsto
analyzethefeaturesofthecirclesdescribedintheLIH,offeringa
new interpretation of the magic circles and suggesting future
directionsofresearch.
Spacesandplacesofmedievalnecromancy
Medieval authors offer insights into the locations in which
necromancywaspracticed.TheastrologerandpoetCeccod’Ascoli
(1269–1327) says that “necromantia” is a form of divination
throughdemonsand“itispracticedwherethreeroadsmeetand
mostly in northern regions” (Thorndike, 1949, p. 346). Pietro
d’Abano (born ca. 1250) mentions the same locations: it is
practiced “especially where three or four roads meet and in
cemeteries.Iencountereditsgreaterefficacyinnorthernareas,and
in generalunder theNorthstar, and inuninhabitedplacesand
modestspaces.”3Cross-roadshavearelationwiththeevocationof
spirits since antiquity. Hecate, the underworld goddess, was
believedtoappearatcross-roads,henceherepithettrioditisfrom
thewordtriodoi,meaning“crossroads”(Betz,1980,pp.287–95).
However,inantiquitynecromantiareferredtoaformofdivination
throughthedead,henceitinvolveddifferententitiesfromtheones
employedbymedievalnecromancers,mostlydemonsandspirits.
Clucas(2000)contendsthat thespatialpracticeof Christian
ritualmagicisbothdependentonandabletorewritetraditional
Christianliturgybyappropriatingsecularizedspaces.4According
toClucas (2000,p.113), thecodification of “bodilyand spatial
regimes” of medieval and early modern magicalpractices (e.g.,
purification of body and places, fasting, and construction of
protectivecircles)canbeinvestigatedbyexaminingthe
“segmen-tationandhierarchisationofsocialspace”andthetransformation
ofthe“conceptionofhumanagency”betweenthefifteenthand
sixteenth centuries. Drawing on Ernst Cassirer, he argues that
“man’s instrumental relationship with the world” can be
spatializedinmythicalandsacredspaces(p.115).Humanpower,
1
Kassel, Universitätsbibliothek Kassel/Landesbibliothek und Maurhardsche BibliothekderStadtKassel,BerengariusGanellus:Summasacraemagicae,first halfoffourteenthcentury
2
ThislastsectionisabsentinthetraditionattestedintheSumma.
3 “in
quadrivis,triviisetcimiteriismaxime.Cuiusefficaciam,magisinseptentrioneet universaliter sub polis et in locis minus cultis simplicioribusque, maior inveni,” (d’Abano,1992,p.120).Translatedbytheauthor.
4 Clucas(2000)drawsonphenomenologicalconceptsofsacredandmythical
spacedevelopedbyErnstCassirerandMirceaEliadeastheoreticalreferencesofhis analysis.Sacredspaceisdefinedasadomainbetweenchaosandcosmos,orasthe foundationoftheworld.However,hedilutestheconceptwithaLefebvrianvisionof space,whichisthereforesociallyconstituted.
in medieval and early modern views,is subordinatedtodivine
powerbecausethehumanwill,actingintheworldisconstrained
by divine limitations. Therefore,the spaceof medieval toearly
modernChristianliturgyisaspaceof“mediationofwillanddesire
ofagency,”whichisactivatedbyformsof“humility,”“abjection,”
and“prostration”ofthebodyaimedatobtainingdivine
interven-tion(p.115).
Clucas contendsthat ritual magic“appropriated (orperhaps
simply extended, and developed) the intercessory of Christian
liturgy(themediationofbodyandspace)toextendthelimitof
operativedesire”(2000,pp.115–16).Indeed,asdiscussedabove,
the motivations that oriented medieval and early modern
necromancerswerefarfrompious:they wereselfishand
goal-oriented. The “synaesthetic verbal and bodily regimes” of this
practicemimictheprayersandmortificationoftraditionalliturgy,
butthisartisconductedinthesecrecyandprivacyofone’sown
dwelling,afteradequatepurificationandconsecrationoftheroom,
one’s body, and the object of devotion.5 Along these lines of
reasoning,Clucasconcludesthatthe“secretiveprivatenature”of
space usedbymagicians(e.g.private chambers,secretgardens,
and bedrooms), “re-codes or re-appropriates the socially
con-structedspacesoforthodoxChristianworshipandthepurificatory
bodilyregimeswhichthosespaces‘calledup’inordertoactualize
anewsetofdesiresandpowerrelations”(Clucas,2000,p.114).
AlthoughClucas’shypothesis—thatmedievalandearlymodern
magic mimics Christian liturgical praxis in the private secular
space—proposes a productivescale of analysis, one should not
forget that the dynamics of the appropriation of “secular”
(domestic) spaces that Clucas attributes to the fifteenth to
seventeenthcenturies’socio-culturaltransformationwerealready
presentinlateantiquity.Forexample,intheGreekMagicalPapyri,
amongstdiversetypesofrituals,thereareritualsofapparitions,
intendedtosummondeitiestoappearinfrontofthepractitioner.
Theseritualsweremadeupofanassemblageofelementsfrom
ChristianandGnosticideasandEgyptiantheologyandtookplace
inprivateroomsorisolatedlocations(Dosoo,2014,pp.43,376–
78).Theyrequiredproceduresofsacralizationandpurificationof
thespace,aswellasbodilypurificationsoffastingandabstinence
(Dosoo,2014,pp.381–88).Itfollowsthatthetransformationof
conceptionsofhumanagencyandthesecularizationofspacesin
the middle ages and early modernity is not thenecessary and
sufficientconditionfortheappropriationoftraditionalliturgyand
thedomesticationofmagic.Inthefollowingsections,Iwilltryto
showthatitwasperhapsthedeviantconnotationofnecromantic
practicesthatpromptedpractitionerstouseprivatedwellingsto
arrangetemporaryritualspaces.
Fromtheperspectiveofthetemporaryspatialarrangements,
certainly necromancy involved the construction of circles. The
diagrams arecomplex geometricalcompositionsmade upwith
one ormultiplecircumferences, wherethenecromancer stands
during the conjurations or where the spirits are supposed to
appear.Thegeometricalfiguresvaryagreatdealdependingonthe
manuscript, theritual, andthespirit conjured.In anycase, the
circlesweretobedrawnontheground,usuallyemployingaritual
knife or sword, adding characters or divine names.As will be
shownbelow,thecirclesnotonlyhadaprotectivefunctionforthe
magiciansbutwerealsoplacesofpowerandcontrol.
Clucasinterpretsthecircleasaparadoxicalspaceandcopyof
thehumanbody.Itisparadoxicalbecause“twoworlds
communi-cate,”buttheyareseparate,thespiritualrealmsoutsideandthe
magicianinside(Clucas,2000,p.116).Atthesametime,thecircle
reflectstheambivalenceofhumanagencyinmagicalpractices.On
the one hand, thedesire toact on reality is embedded in the
Christianframeworkofhumandependenceondivineintervention.
Thus,theverbalstrategiesandsettingsmimicChristian
prostra-tion,humility,andothersuchelements.Ontheotherhand,the
counter-desiretonotbecompromisedbytheillicitoperationsof
magicextends—or,inmyopinion,exaggerates—Christianliturgies:
hencethelongsequencesofmanipulationsofthebodyandspaces
(e.g.,fasting,ablutions,andincensing)andtheuseofcirclesserves
tofortify,preserve, and validate themagician’s actions(Clucas,
2000, p. 121). Clucas contends that the first intuitive tool of
objectiverealitythathumanshaveisthebody,towhicheverything
is referred. Being body-oriented (e.g.,front, back, sides,upside
down)meansthattheintelligibilityofobjectiverealitydependson
the orientation and analogical copy of the body. Hence, the
precinctofthecircleisananalogicalcopyofthebody:itbecomesa
virtualbody,“acarapace”(Clucas,2000,p.115).
Inthefollowingsections,Iwillshowthatanalyzingthecircles
asIADsbringsforwardadifferentperspectiveontherelationship
withthebody.Theanalysisofthematerialculturalelements,the
geometricalcompositions,andtheprocessesofmentalprojections
will show that circles are apprehended more as miniaturized
cosmologicaltopographiesandarchitecturalbarriers,ratherthan
asasecondskin.Thebody isinvolved,butitisincludedwithin
imaginalboundariesandnotextended.
I will first discuss IADsin the broader framework of ritual
theoryandthenIwillfocusontheconstructionofthreesystemsof
circlesintheLIH.
Imaginalarchitecturaldevices
In this section, Ipresent imaginal architecturaldevices as a
categoryofritualspacethatnamesspecificspatialsettingsusedin
ritualpractice.Ingeneralterms,IADsdefinethoseelementsofa
ritualthatareexpressedinarchitecturalobjectsandthatregulate
theinterplaybetweenthebodiesofthepractitioners,theirmental
imaginary,andtheritualagents.
Hence, definingIADs premises an understanding of whata
“ritual space” is. In myopinion, thechallenge of arrivingat a
definitionstemsfromthehugedebateonspatialtheoryamong
otherdisciplinesbesidesritualstudies,especiallygeographyand
architecture.Scholarsofritualstudiesborrowoverloadedterms
likeplace,space,andlocationtocraftdefinitionsofritualspaceand
sacredspace,makingtheconceptsambiguousconstructs(foran
overview,Kilde,2014,pp.183–201).Infact,notonlyisthenotion
of“ritual”atopicofon-goingdebate,6buttheconceptsofspace,
place,and location havechangedmeaningsthroughout history,
resulting sometimes in incompatible definitions (see Torretti,
2000). Ronald L. Grimes (2013, p. 257) makes a distinction
betweenplaceandritualspace:“aritualspaceisanyplaceswhere
a ritual occurs.” Place,instead,is something given,hosting the
ritual,andwhenaritualhappensinacertainplace,makesthata
ritual space. Nevertheless, Grimes use the term ritual place to
nameoneofthe“smallestunits”thatareassembledanddesigned
toproducearitual:ritualactions,ritualactors,ritualplace,ritual
times,ritualobjects,rituallanguages,andritualgroups(Grimes,
2013,pp.231–42).
5
Behind Clucas’s words lays Henri Lefebvre’s dialectic of dominant and appropriatedspaces.Lefebvreargues thatappropriatedanddominatedspaces existinadichotomousrelationship.Dominatedspace“hasverydeeprootsin historyandthehistoricalsphere,foritsoriginscoincidewiththoseofpolitical poweritself.”Appropriation,bycontrast,isaprivatepracticeofanindividualor groupthatmodifieseitheradominantspaceornaturalspacetoservetheirneeds andpossibilities(Lefebvre,1991,pp.164–65).
6
Themeanings ofritual are incontinuous transformation, andin thelast decades,socialsciencesandthehumanitieshavedebatedandreinterpretedthe term.Foranoverviewonthedifferentapproachestoritualtheory,seeBell(2009).
Therehasbeenalargediscussiononthedistinctionbetween
“place”and“space”ingeography.Yi-FuTuan(2001,p.6)argues
that“SpaceismoreabstractthanPlace”andthatspacecanbecome
aplacewhenwe“gettoknowitbetterandendowitwithvalue.”
When space becomes real, its value becomes a “concretion of
value,”apalpableobject,a“tangibleconstruction”inwhich“one
can dwell” (Tuan, 2001, pp. 6–12).7 Besides, “place” has been
definedas“ameaningfulsitethatcombineslocation,localeand
senseofplace”(Cresswell,2009,p.169;Williams,2015,p.149).
“Location”referstotheabstractspaceofgeographicalcoordinates.
“Locale” is the material tangibles or imaginary forms of place
(Cresswell,2009,p.169).“Senseofplace”isinsteadameaningful
dimensionassociatedwithaplace,namelyitssubjectiveandsocial
construction(Cresswell,2009,p.169;Williams,2015,p.149).
Whenwearetalkingaboutrituals,thenotionsof“concretionof
value,”“locale”and“senseofplace”becomefundamental,since
thespaceforaritualisindeedchargedwithvalue,acquiring
non-ordinary qualities which are brought forth by material and
imaginary features of that place. Hence a ritual place can be
conceivedasanon-ordinaryplacewhichhasnon-ordinarypowers.
Non-ordinarinesspertainstosacrality,which isa“subset”of
specialness. According toAnn Taves (2013, p. 143), the phrase
“setting things apart” describes the process by which people
perceive and conceive things as non-ordinary. Within the
continuum of ordinary things, individuals separate things that
haveaspecialvalue,markingthemnon-ordinary.Inthesameway,
CatherineBell(2009,p.74)contendsthatritualization“setsome
activitiesofffromother,forcreatingandprivilegingaqualitative
distinctionbetweenthe‘sacred’andthe‘profane’.”Intheseterms,
wecanconceivearitualspaceasanareathathavebeensetapart
and charged with non-ordinary qualities and powers, and
architecture as a powerful strategy to set things apart. These
spatial practices can encompass and integrate cognition, the
movements of thebody,and materialculture, withtheaim of
creatingnon-ordinaryexperiences.
This perspective is theopposite of Grimes’s definition, that
placeissomethinggiven,precedingtheritualspace,andthatthe
latterexistbecausethereisaplace.Indeed,Icontendthat,notonly
thesenseofplacecomesforthbecausesomeonehasdesigneda
ritual space, but that the sense of a ritual place emerges
simultaneouslyfromtheritualactionsinvolvedintheconstruction
andexperienceoftheritualspace.
Moreover,theritualspacehasatemporaldimensionaswell.A
ritual space takesplace, that is tosay isordered temporallyas
segmented time (event)—e.g., through consecration, opening,
closing, even potentially “ended” through deconsecration and
iconoclasm.Hence,theexperienceoftheritualisanexperienceof
anon-ordinaryevent(Taves&Asprem,2017,pp.43–62).Theritual
space can be conceived as series of actions that create
non-ordinary places. In other terms, a ritual event is capable of
generating a sense of place which is characterized by
non-ordinariness.
It ispreciselytherelationshipbetweenthetransiencyofthe
ritualeventandtheconstitutionofaritualspacethatIADswantto
reflect. In particular, as will be discussed later on, there exist
certainritualspacesthatlastonlyforthedurationoftheritual,as
sotheyfunctioninrelationtoritualtime.
Therefore, when we are using overloadedconcepts such as
spaceandarchitectureinritualstudies,itisultimatelyimportant
toclarifyourterminology.Iusethetermspacetorefertoabstract
conceptualizations, geometrical compositions, and metrical
dimensions that humansusetorelate withindividuals,objects
and other agents (be they human or super-human). From the
perspectiveofthespatialcritique,therearenosocialphenomena
thatarenotsomehowspatialized,forspaceisproducedbysocial
relationsandreciprocallyinfluencesthem.Hence,inthecontextof
ritualmagicandnecromancy,theritualspacecanbeconceivedas
anorganizedspacethatcreatearelationaldomain,betweenritual
actors, society and super-human agents. Space as a relational
domaincanfindexpressioninarchitecturalforms,which setup
threshold,enclosures,andboundaries.
I define architecture as a series of conceptualand operative
proceduresthatallowthecontrolofspace,andtherelationships
betweenthingsandentities.Itconcernsgeometricalcompositions
and dimensionsresponding tohuman-body proportions.
Archi-tecturaltheorypresents“space”asthephysicalmediumforthe
perceptionofarchitecture,conceivedasthevoidcontainedbythe
massof architecturalforms(Zevi,1957).Therefore,architecture
forges and contains space at the same time, constructing
boundaries and thresholds that allow to sense the qualitative
differencesbetweeninternalandexternalspaces.Thebodyisthe
generator of space and architecture, “the tangible form of the
results of the body’s interactions with the world,” producting
spatialintuition“fromtheinteractionofthebody’ssenseorgans
with the body itself and with aspects of the material world”
(Schwarzer&Schmasow,1991,p.54).
The concept of IADs describes the cognitive and material
processesinvolvedintheconstructionoftemporaryritualspaces
thatfindexpressioninarchitecturalformsandthatletasenseof
placearise.Inthissense,IADsmayofferaconceptualtoolthatis
abletotriangulate(1)thelay-outofcertainritualspaces;(2)the
significationsofritualgesturesandmaterialcultureinvolvedin
their construction; and (3) the mental imaginaries at play in
experiencing them. I will proceed todefine the features of an
imaginalarchitecturaldevice(IAD).Iwillfirstdefine“device,”and
determinewhenaritualspacecanbeconsideredasadevice.Iwill
thenconsiderhowadevicebecomesanarchitecturaldeviceandits
relationship with imagination. Lastly, I will present the social
implicationsofusingIADsinritualsettings.
Devicesandsensationalforms
Wecommonlyusetheworddevicetonameaninstrumentthat,
due toitscharacteristics,allows individuals orgroups toreach
certainobjectives. However,thenounhasfurtherphilosophical
implications.Deviceorapparatusarecommontranslationsofthe
French“dispositif”derivedfromFoucault’susage.In“The
Confes-sionoftheFlesh,”Foucault(1980,pp. 193–209)saysthatadispositif
isa systemofrelations betweendifferentelementsthat canbe
foundinsociety,andwhichstrategicallymanipulatespowerand
knowledgeinordertoorient,direct,andcontrolthoseelements.
Sometimes we find the term dispositive in philosophical
discussions, in which the term retains a technical meaning,
separate fromtheeverydayunderstandingof device,which has
indeedadifferentetymology.DevicecomesfromtheLatindividere
“todivide.”Instead,dispositivecomesfromdisponere“todispose,to
arrange.” Interestingly, the word dispositio “arrangement” was
usedbyLatintheologianstotranslatetheGreekwordoikonomia
(Agamben, 2009, p. 11). In a theological context, oikonomia
(literally“themanagementofthehouse”)wasusedinthetrinity
debate,tonameChrist’sroleasanadministratorinthenameof
GodtheFather;andthisusageformed“acaesurathatseparatedin
Himbeingandaction,ontologyandpraxis”(Agamben,2009,p. 10).
Agamben(2009,pp.15–21),movingfurtherfromFoucault,states
that the function of a dispositivo is the “subjectification” of
individuals. Subjects arethose who usedevices and are
trans-formedbythem.Devicesaremediatorscapableof transforming
behaviors,gestures,anddiscoursesofindividuals.
7
InasimilarwaythephilosopherJeffMalpas(1999,pp.31–32)suggeststhat placedependsonsubjectiveexperience.
Catherine Bell describesritualization in a similarfashion as
Agamben define devices. Bell contends that a fruitful way to
understand ritual is to shift the attention to ritualization.
Ritualizationdescribesstrategicandsituationalactivities,
embed-ded ina specificsocial context,and thathavespecial qualities:
“Ritualizationisawayofactingthatisdesignedandorchestrated
todistinguishandprivilegewhatisbeingdone,incomparisonto
other, usually more quotidian activities” (Bell, 2009, p. 74).
AccordingtoBell,ritualizationproducesritualizedbodies“through
the interaction of the body with a structured and structuring
environment.”A ritualizedbody,orfollowing Agambena ritual
subject,is“abodyinvestedwithasenseofritual”(Bell,2009,p.
98).Followingtheselinesofreasoning,aritualisadeviceinthe
sensethatitisasystemofelements(e.g.,gestures,prayers,tools,
locations)thatorientandcontrolthebehaviorsandbeliefsofthose
whoengagewithit,orientingthewaysofapprehendingtheworld
andmakingsenseofreality,makingindividualsritualsubjects.
ThewayIdefinearitualdeviceresonateswithBirgitMeyer’s
notionof mediationinreligiouspractices. Meyercontends that
materialityisapowerfulmediumforthegenerationofasenseof
presence. Every human activity (religious practices included)
produceasurplusofmeaningthatforreligiousthingsisperceived
as anon-ordinary presenceor power(2012,p. 21).Meyer calls
sensational formsthe materialmedium for thegenerationof a
sense of presence. Sensationalforms are media that affectour
perceptionatthelevelofneuro-cognitiveprocessesandcultural
framing (p.27). Thegenerationof a senseof presencethrough
sensational forms authenticates the belief and authorizes and
transmitsthesensationalformsintoareligioustradition(p.26).
Iapplytheterm“spatialdevice”toincludeallritualspacesthat
become sensational forms to orient and direct participants’
behaviorand cognition,allowingfora senseofpresence.Itis a
definitionthatfits“functionalistandinstrumentalist”perspectives
of ritual theory (Jensen, 2014, p. 99). Rituals serve to achieve
certain effects onvarious levels:psychological, material, social,
andsupernatural.Whenarchitecturalformsareusedtodoso,the
ritualspaceisanarchitecturaldevice.
Thereexistarchitecturaldevicesusedinritualpracticethatare
portableandnotassociatedwithamorefixedandstandardized
location(likeasynagogue,church,mosque,temple).Thisisoneof
thefeaturesthattheconceptofIADswantstoexplain.Inthissense,
IADshintattemporaryspaces,transientsigns,andrelatestothe
temporariness of the ritual event. We expect to find them in
domesticritual,likemagic,divination,healingandinvariousforms
ofvernacularreligion.
For example,for certain Jewish communities, observing the
Sabbath prohibits the movementof all objects fromprivate to
publicspace(Jacobs,2005,p.8256).Toovercomethisrestriction,
Sabbath observers extend the limits of the private space to a
portionofthepublicarea,demarcatingitwithaneruv.Theeruvisa
continuous line, which can be represented by everything that
marksaperimeter.Generally,itisawiretieduptopillarsandwalls,
fewmetersabovetheground,andbarelyvisible.Theefficacyin
erectinganeruvistochangebelievers’perceptionofwhatisin(the
private)andwhatisout(thepublic).Thedeviceoftheeruvsets
apart a portion of the social space from the public domain,
extendingthesacredspaceofSabbathanddelimitinganimaginal
threshold.
Withdifferentmeanings,theconstructionofmagiccirclesin
medievalnecromancyfollowthesametypologicalprincipleofthe
eruv.Aswillbeexamined moreindetail inthesecondsection,
circlesaredrawnontheground,usuallywitharitualknife,tomark
a symbolicperimeterwere thenecromancer stands duringthe
ritual.Circlescreateanimaginalbarrierthatprotectstheoperators
fromthespiritstheyhopetoconjure outside.Inbothcasesthe
ritualspaceisorganizedby(1)settingaportionofspaceapartand
qualifying it asspecial (internal);(2) signifying a prohibitedor
threateningexternalspace;and(3)maintainingacontinuousand
stableseparationthroughimaginalbarriers.Inthecasesofboth
theeruvandthemagiccircle,itismandatorythatthethinline
mustnotbebrokenforthedurationoftheritualtime.Theeruv
“must be checked every week to ensure there have been no
rupturesinitsborderenclosures”(Siemiatycki,2005,pp.259–60).
In thesameway,necromancer shouldtakeallthemeasuresto
avoidtheerasureofcircles.Forexample,itissuggestedtostepon
stools,sothatthefeetdonotrubawaythecirclelines(Hedegård,
2002,p.136).Therefore,boththeeruvandthecirclearespatial
devicesthatdeterminemovementsandthecognitionofinternal
andexternalspace.Theycontrolandorientbehaviorbysettinga
portion of space apart and delimiting a space of sacrality
generatingboundariesandthresholds forthetimeframeof the
ritualevent.
Architectureandimagination
Vitruvius dealswith therole of imagination in architecture
regardingdispositio,oneofthesixcategoriesofarchitecturethathe
introducesin his famous treatise DeArchitectura (ca.27 BCE).8
Dispositio(“arrangement”)“isthefit assemblageofdetails,and,
arisingfromthisassemblage,theeleganteffectoftheworkandits
dimensions,alongwithacertainqualityorcharacter”(Vitruvius,
1931, p. 25). There are three types of arrangements: plan
(iconographia),elevation(orthographia),andperspective
(scaenog-raphia).Thearrangementofaplanreferstotheuseofgeometryto
organizethegroundplan.Namely,iconographiaisthestructureof
thearchitecturalspacedrawnontheground,anditconcernswith
thegeometricalcontrolofspace.9Vitruviussays:“Ichonography
(plan)demandsthecompetentuseofcompassandrule;bythese
plans are laid out upon the sites provided” (p. 25), and that
dispositioresults“fromimaginationandinvention.”ForVitruvius,
“Imagination(cogitatione)restsupontheattentiondirectedwith
minuteandobservantfervourtothecharmingeffectproposed.”
While, invention (“inventione”) “is the solution of obscure
problems; thetreatment ofa new undertakingdisclosedby an
activeintelligence”(p.27).
Vitruvius’swordsareinspiringforunderstandingthe
relation-shipbetweenthecognitiveprocessesbehinddrawingaplanand
thesemioticofmaterialculture(ofthatwhichisbuilt).Icontend
thattheactofdrawingaplan(iconographia)canbeanenactive
signification: “a process of embodied ‘conceptual integration’
responsible for the co-substantial symbiosis and simultaneous
emergenceofthesignifierandthesignifiedthatbringsforththe
materialsign”(Malafouris,2013,p.99).LambrosMalafouris(2013)
explainsthatmaterialsignsactinadifferentwaythanlinguistic
signs(words).Languageis“denotative”andequatesaconceptor
somethingintheworldwitharbitrarysignifiers(words).Instead,
thematerialsigncannotbearbitrarybecauseit“doesnotstandfor
a concept but rather substantiates a concept” (p. 97). In the
material sign thesignifieddoes not ontologically precedes the
signifier.Rather,boththesignifierandthesignified“comeforth”in
thematerialsign.So,thearrangement(“dispositio”)ofspacebring
forththearchitecturalform.
Therefore,wecanexpandfurtherfromVitruvius,sayingthat
dispositioisthesubstantiationofthearchitecturalformthrougha
8 IntheFirstBook,architectureisdividedin:Order(Ordinatio),Arrangement
(Dispositio),Proportion(Eurythmia),Symmetry(Symmetria),Decor(Decor),and DistributionorEconomy(Distributio).
9
Toarrangetheorthography,instead,meanstooutline“theverticalimageofthe front”(“erectafrontisimago”),whiledisposingtheperspectiveconcernswiththe layoutofshadingsandvanishingpoints(Vitruvius,1931,pp.25–27).
materialsign.Anarchitecturalobjectisnotan“idea”thatexistsin
themindandthatfindsexpressioninthematerialworld.Rather,
architecturalobjectsemergesimultaneouslyfromtheveryaction
of tracing geometries on a material support (“through the
competentuseofcompassandrule”).Thearchitect,whiledrawing
aline,isactuallyerectingawall.Thewaythisispossibleisthrough
“cognitiveprojection,”whichis“thepervasive(andinmostcases)
unconscious capacity of thecognitive agenttoestablish direct,
implicitontologicalcorrespondencesbetweendomainsof
experi-ence”(Malafouris,2013,p.100).Inotherterms,thelinesonthe
groundbecomematerialanchorsthatsubstantiatethepresenceof
the internal image of boundaries.Indeed, material anchors are
features of material culture that allow the projections, or the
“transfers,” betweeninternaland externalelements.A material
anchorsubstantiatesa mental elementin theso-called blended
space,whichisthefusionofthementalandthematerialdomain.It
isthusaugmentedmateriality,“allowinghumanreasontoreach
out tothat which is absent, distant, or otherwise unavailable”
(Malafouris,2013,p.104).
HowdoesthisrelatetoIADsandtheritualspace?Iarguethat
ritualactorscanconstructIADsthroughenactivesignificationsof
architecturalarrangementstoaffordritualefficacy.Asimplewire
delimitingtheareaoftheSabbath,oracircletracedontheground
delimiting theritual spaceofa necromancer, areboth material
anchors.Theeruvandthecirclessimultaneouslysubstantiatean
imaginal and real space. Theyare in the minds of those who
participate in their signification and know the rules that they
signify,buttheyarealsomaterially“outthere.”Inotherterms,the
materialpresenceofthewiretiedbetweenthepillarsorthering
on the ground serves to let practitioners sense the mental
boundaries. Like the lines of a ground plan, for the architect
Vitruvius,arewallsandfoundations,soritualenclosures,asthe
ones discussed above, have the capacity to bring forth sacral
boundaries.Inthecaseoftheeruvandthecircles,theirmaterial
anchors substantiate invisible boundaries, making them more
powerful than any other physical enclosures. To say it with
MargaretOlin(2018,p.162):“aninvisiblebordercanbeasstrong
and even coercive as a fence or a wall, and the fear of what
invisibilitycanhide is oftengreaterthanthefear arousedbya
visiblethreat.”
Onestrategyforcreatingmaterialanchorsinritualsettingsis
“miniaturization.”Arrangingthespace(disponere)canbeaformof
miniaturization.Whatelseisthedrawingofagroundplanifnota
miniaturization of the elements of a building, reduced to
intersectionsoflinesandgeometries?JohnathanZ.Smith(1998,
pp.18–31)hasdiscussedminiaturizationinthecontextofritual
space. AccordingtoSmith,when religious locationsare
discon-nectedfromrituallocationsbecauseofthedistancebetweenthem,
miniaturizationcanbearitualstrategytobridgebetweenthetwo
sites. Miniaturization is a metaphoric strategy, the replication
using smallerscalesand an increasingdegreeof abstraction of
sacred objects or architectures. The abstraction involved in
miniaturization amplifiesthe meaningof theobject, making it
acquire “intelligibledimensions”(Smith,1998,p. 22).Themore
miniaturized the object, the more abstract its representation
becomes,“creatingautopia,atheatreofthemindand
imagina-tion”(Smith,1998,p.24).
Smith’sidearesonateswiththenotionofmetaphoric
projec-tion. From the perspective of cognitive theory, metaphoric
projectionis a “metaphoricmapping”of “thestructure (spatial,
perceptual,orother)ofaconcreteanddirectlymeaningfuldomain
ofexperience ... uponameaninglessabstractconceptualone”
(Malafouris,2013,p.102).Indeed,accordingtoSmith
miniaturi-zation is a form of “metaphoric transposition,” which means
“exchangingrelationsofequivalenceforthoseofidentity,”suchas
makingacopyofsacredspacefromitsprototypetomakeareplica
(1998,p.20).Theminiaturizationsofarchitectonicalelementsin
ritual practice can then show the presence of metaphorical
projections.
Wefindexampleofmetaphoricprojectionintheritualtools
describedintheLIH.Toconjurethethreerankofspirits(planetary,
aerial,andterrestrial)theoperatorneedstoconstructa
composi-tionofsigils,orgeometricaldiagramsandwordsinscribedona
material foundation (e.g., parchment or wax). It is made by
attachingthesigiloftheplanetaryangelstothesigilofGod,the
sigiloftheairyangelstotheplanetaryone,andtheterrestrialto
theplanetaryone.TheconjurerholdsthesigilofGodinhishand,
andalltheothershangdownfromit(Hedegård,2002,p.38).They
willshowthisspatialdevicetothespirits,tocontrolandconstrain
them.
Thisobjectisaminiaturizationofthecosmologicalhierarchies
accordingtowhichtheritualisconceived.Thehierarchyofbeings
describedbyHonoriusreflectsNeoplatoniccosmologies.Indeed,
theentitiesthatHonoriusinstructstoconjurearecalledangels
(“angeli”), spirits(“spiritus”),or demons(“demones”) (Hedegård,
2002,pp.65,134).Conjuringandconstrainingangelsis
unortho-doxfroma Christianperspective,perhapsmore closelybearing
characteristicsofJewishandIslamicangelology(Mesler,2012,p.
124),andthispracticeeasilyfallsinthecategoryofnecromancy.
ThomasofAquinas,inhisunfinishedtreatiseonangeliccreatures,
put under the category of “angels” all the hierarchies of
intermediarybeingstheorizedbyProclus,whodividedthemin:
“secondarygods,separateintellects,heavenlysouls,demonsgood
orwicked”(Casas,2018,p.231).Honorius’sangelsreflectthesame
structure.Weareindeedtoldthatthereexistfourtypesofangels.
The celestial spirits, which cannot be conjured since they are
subordinateonlytoGod;10andtheplanetary,aerial,andterrestrial
spirits,whichcanbeconjuredthroughtheritualprocedurestaught
byHonorius.
It is fundamental for necromancers that God give them
permission to conjure spirits. This characteristic is evident in
thestructureofLIH.Thepractitionerfirstconstructsthesigilof
God,11transcendsbeyondthecosmostohavethedivinevisionand
then, we see a downwards movement of controlling the
hierarchicalspheresinorder:planetary,aerial,terrestrial.
More-over, the necromancer operates according to a cosmological
structurewhereallthesespiritualhierarchiesareinterdependent.
Thus,itisnotsurprisingthat,beforeinvokingtheairyspirits,the
conjurercallsforth theplanetaryones(Hedegård,2002,p.134)
(Table2).
Nevertheless,eventhoughthesystemofsigilisametaphorical
projection,itisnotanIAD,forIADsalwaysinvolvetheconstruction
ofboundariesthatinteractwiththebodyoftheritualactors.What
isanIADintheLIHisthecircleusedfortheconjurationaswillbe
explainedinthefollowingparagraphs.
Tosumup,aritualspaceisanIADorismadeofIADsifwecan
recognizeallthefollowingfeatures:
(1)The construction and delimitation of the ritual area is
organized through material anchors that bring forth the
projectionof ablended spaceand whichorientand control
thegesturesandmovementsofthepractitionersand/orofthe
superhumanagents.
(2)Architectural arrangements (dispositiones) are employed to
signalthresholdsand boundariesthatarebothmaterialand
10 They are divided in nine orders:“cherubyn, seraphin,troni, dominaciones,
virtutes,principatus,potestates,archangeli,etangeli”(Hedegård,2002,p.65).
11
TheconstructionofthesigilofGodisexplainedinthefirstsection(Hedegård, 2002,pp.67–70).However,wedonothavedetailsaboutthediagramsoftheother sigils.
imaginal, and that regulate movements through exits and entrances.
(3) Thearrangementsaretemporaryandtheydependonthetime
oftheritualevent.
IADsdefineatypologyofritualspacebutnotthefunctionand
meaninginaspecificritual.TherecanbedifferentmodelsofIADs
thatrespondtodifferentritualpurposes.Theyinteractwiththe
individualsmakingthemsubjectoftheritual,orritualagents.They
areatthesametimeimaginalandreal.Hence,theyqualifyas
non-ordinaryspacesforthosewhoparticipateintheprojectionofthe
ritual-blendedspace.
Now, I will attempt to use IADs to analyze the spatial
arrangements described in theLIH. Iwill focusonthe analysis
of theconstruction of three modelsof IADs described in LIH’s
conjurationsections.Iwillshowthatthetypologyofmagiccircles
functionsasIADs.Innecromancy,thediagramsofthecirclesalter
practitioners’perceptionofspaceandarticulatecontrolandpower
oversuperhumanagents.
IADsintheLiberIuratus:thecircles
In the following sections, thethree features of IADswillbe
discussedinthecontextoftheLIH.First,itwillbeshownthatthe
circles that Honorius teaches how to construct are material
anchorsforthecognitiveprojectionofcosmologicaltopographies,
andthatthematerialityofthecirclesmakesthemarrangements
(dispositiones)ofablendedspace.Second,Iwillshowhowthese
arrangements establish a sense of presence of thresholds and
enclosures that regulates the interactions with intermediary
beings.Third,Iwilldiscusshowthecirclesrelatewiththetime
oftheritualandhowtheybecomeFoucauldianheterotopias(tobe
definedbelow)inritualpractice.
Arrangementsofcosmologicaltopographies
The shapes, dimensions, and diagramsof the circleshint at
metaphoric projections of mental imagesof cosmological
top-ographies.Therearethreedifferentmodelsofcircles,depending
onthelocationswherethreedifferenttypesofspiritsaresupposed
todwell.
In fact,Honorius teaches howtoconjure planetary, aerial,
and terrestrial spirits, which have different qualities. The
planetaryaregoodspiritsthatfirstlyserveGod,andsecondly
humankind. Theyruleanddwellintheastralspheres(“speris
stellarum”)(Hedegård,2002,p.117).Theyhavefierybodies and
theyare organized in seven ranks, correspondingto theseven
planets. The last type, terrestrial spirits, are shameful and
perverted (“sunt turpissimi et omni pravitate pleni”) (Hedegård,
2002,p.142).Theyhavebigbodiesandtheyaretall.Theyhavefive
faces,which resembleatoad, lion,serpent, manmourningand
crying,andfaceungraspablebyhumans(“hominis
incomprehensi-bilis”)(Hedegård,2002,p.143).12
Thecirclesoftheplanetaryspirits
InthissectionIarguethatthroughthespatialgimmickofthe
miniaturization of cosmological topographies, conjurers
attempted to relocate planetary spirits from a super-human,
abstract,andthereforeuncontrollabledimension,toaphysicaland
controllabledimension.Wecansaythatnecromancersaimedto
contactplanetaryspiritsthroughtheminiaturizationofspiritual
extensionsintoahumanscale.
The circles of the planetary spirits are made up of a
circumferenceof nine feetin diameter,which sharesitscenter
with a hemisphere of seven feet in diameter, and two other
concentriccirclesatthedistanceofonefootfromeachother.This
geometricalcompositioniserectedeither“onaclearinginawood,
orin ahightower.”13 First,theconjurer collectshardstonesof
equal size or bricks (made for that purpose) and joins them
togetherwithamixtureoflimeandsandtoformthefirstcircleof
ninefeet,whichshouldbeevenwiththeground.Secondly,using
cleanearth, theconjurerforgesa protrudinghemisphere,three
andahalffeethighandsevenfeetindiameter.14Third,withanew
knife,theoperatorengravestwoconcentriccircles,spacedonefoot
fromeachother.Thebiggercircleisninefeetindiameterandis
placednexttothecircleofstones(Hedegård,2002,pp.119,174).
Aroundtheperimeter,thenamesoftheangelsofthehours,days,
months,andyearsshouldbewrittenrecitinganinvocation.The
conjurers stand inside the concentric circles, while the spirits
appearinfrontofthem,inthecircleofstonesonthehemisphere
(Veenstra,2012,p.174).15Inthecenterofthecircleofstones,the
practitionerwrites: “Thisisthethroneoftheangelicvisionand
contemplation.”16
Iarguethatthisspatialarrangementisamaterialanchorfor
metaphoricalprojectionsofcelestialtopographiesthrough
minia-turizationsofcosmologicaltopographies.Indeed,thehemisphere
iscalledthe“seatofSamaym”(“sedemSamaym”)(Hedegård,2002,
p.122),whichisanevidentminiaturizationoftheheavenlyvault,
whereplanetaryspiritsaresupposedtodwell.Notonlyshamayim
refertotheHebrewwordfor“heavens”usedinGenesis1:1,17but
thebiblicalheavenisdescribedasan“invertedbowlorvaultover
theearth”(Pennington,2007,p.42).
Moreover, the shape and proportions of the circles display
metaphoricalprojections of abstractconceptsattestedin
astro-nomical literature of the time. The sphere of Iohannes de
Sacrobosco (1195–1256), professor in Paris, was “the clearest,
most elementary, and most used textbook in astronomy and
cosmography from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century”
(Thorndike,1949,p.1).Thiswidelystudiedtextwas mandatory
in university courses.18 Hence, necromancers were certainly
familiar with this treatise. Sacrobosco teaches that since the
universe includes everything existing, the sphere is the most
capacious, and convenient geometrical shape. Comparing the
structure of the universe presented by Sacrobosco and the
diagramsofthecirclesshowshowastronomicalconceptscanbe
substantiated in material anchors. Sacrobosco describes the
universeasdividedinmultiplespheres,thedimensionsofwhich
vary, since “each sphere encloses its inferior spherically.” The
heavens,or “Fifth essence,” is dividedin nine spheres. Moving
downward:thesphereoftheprimummobile;thesphereoffixed
stars;andthesevenspheresoftheplanets.Interestingly,theLIH
instructs that the“seat of Samaym” shouldhave a diameterof
12
IntheSummawehavethedistinctionbetweenspiritiboni(planetary)andspiriti maligni(airy);seeVeenstra(2012,p.173).
13
ThisindicationappearsonlyintheSumma(Veenstra,2012,p.173).
14
IntheSummathecircleistenfeetindiameter,whilestonesareemployedto constructtheinnercircle,threefeethighandsevenfeetindiameter(Veenstra, 2012,p.173).
15 Circlesusedascontainersrecallsthoseusedinastralmagicalritualsinthe
Arabicmatrix,which“demarcatedaspecialspaceinwhichthemagicalpractitioner performedhissacrificestotheplanetaryspiritsandreceivedthespiritdelegatedto speaktohiminthesmokeoftheburntsacrifice”(Pageetal.,2019,p.445).
16 “Hoc
estsedilecontemplacioetvisioangelica,”Kassel,Summa,L3fol2,inVeenstra (2012,p.173).
17IntheLiberSalomonis,thefirstheaveniscalledSamaym(deLaat,2018,p.133).
LiberSameyn(quodvultdicereLibercelorum)isthesixthsectionoftheLiberRazielis (Page,2007,p.41).
18
TheSpherewassowidespreadthatitwasalsorenderedintovulgarlanguages. ZuccheroBencivenni(active1300–1313)translateditintoItalian.SeeGabriella Ronchi’sedition(Bencivenni,1999).
sevenfeet,whichcorrespondtothesevenplanetaryspheres.The
circleofstonesistwofeetmore(ninefeettotal),representingthe
maximum extension of the Ptolemaic cosmos, the sphere of
primum mobile.Hence,thecosmological distancebetweeneach
spherehasbeenscaled/miniaturizedtothehumanproportionof
onefoot.Furthermore,Sacroboscoteachesthatthereare“celestial
circles”thatdividethespheresoftheheavensindifferentparts.Of
these,theEquinoctialdividesthespheresintoequaldomesandit
is“describedonthesurfaceofthesphereaboutitscenter”.This
mentalimageisminiaturizedin“theseatofSamaym,”whichisa
perfecthemisphere.Thegroundplanepassesthroughitscenter,
liketheplaneofthecelestialequatordividesthespheresintoequal
domes(Thorndike,1949,pp.119,123,210).
In addition, astronomical concepts are substantiated in the
tools usedtotracethesystems ofcircles. Sacroboscocontends
that“everycircleinthesphereexceptthezodiacisunderstoodto
bealineorcircumference,”while“thezodiacaloneisunderstood
tobeasurface”(Thorndike,1949,p.125).Thenecromancerusesa
newknifetotracecircumferencesonanevenground,likeona
geometricalplane,anditissignificantthatHonoriusrecommends
thatthecircleofstonesmustbe“evenwiththeground”(equalis
terre,Hedegård,2002,p.119).Namely,itshouldnotbeasurface
butalinetracedonaplane.Besides,Sacroboscowritesthatthe
sphere is a necessary shape, to avoid having residual spots (
Thorndike,1949,p.30).TheLIHwarnsthatthehemispheremust
not have any cracksor imperfections (Hedegård, 2002,p. 119).
Theserecommendationsechothedescriptionoftheheavenswe
findinthePicatrix,thefamousthirteenthcenturytreatiseonastral
magic.Itsaysthattheheavenlyvaultisasphereperfectlyshaped
and rounded, and that “it does not have any cracks or
protuberance.”19
Thecirclesoftheairyspirits
The circles of the airy spirits show the same metaphorical
strategiesbutwithimportantvariations.Indeed,airyspiritsshould
notberelocatedanywhere,sincetheyaresupposedtodwellinthe
air.20Instead,thenecromancerstandsinsidethecircles,relocating
themselvesatthecenterof thecosmological order.Thecircular
diagramsbecomeaplaceofpowertoexertcontrolfromwithin.
The diagrams emphasize the complete structure of the
universeanditscenter(Figs.1and2).Theoperatortracesthe
first circleatthedistanceofninefeet,aminiaturizationofthe
primum mobile. Then, they trace other two concentric circles
withinthepreviouscircleatthedistanceofonefootfromeach
otherandwritethenamesofangelswithinthegaps(Fig.1).Inso
doing,theyhaveminiaturizedthecircleofthefixedstars,andthe
sphereofSaturn.Then,theydrawsevenlinesconverginginthe
center,dividingtheareaintosevensegments,orientedalongthe
point of the compass. These segments correspond to the
subdivision ofthe airyspirits accordingtothedirectionof the
compass. ThosefromWestandEastaregood,gentle,and loyal.
Those from southern and northern regions are bad, of fierce
temper.Inaddition,thereareotherswhichareneithergoodnor
bad, and they are located in between the previous ones:
southeastern,southwestern, andnorthwestern(Hedegård,2002,
pp.128–29).Thediagonalsofthesquarearerepresented,dividing
the shape in multipleparts and containing the letters“AGLA,”
acronym fortheHebrew“Atah GiborLe-olamAdonai” (“You,O
Lord,aremightyforever”)(Bechmann,2006,p.1161).
The LIH manuscripts in Kassel and London (British Library,
Sloane3854) show detailed ground plans(Figs.1and 2).Even
thoughthe diagramsshowthe sametype of structure, we can
noticegeometricalvariations.Thecopyistshavetransformedthese
schemesaccordingtotheirownunderstandingoftheexactnessof
the topographical cosmology. For example, the earlier Kassel
manuscript (first half of the fourteenth century) presents a
subdivision in seven equal sections of the circumferences.
However,thiswayofdividingtheareamakestheorientationof
thecircleasymmetrical:theaxisthatgoesfromWesttoEastdoes
notpassthroughthecenterofthecircle.Thesamegoesfortheaxis
fromSouthtoNorth.Hence,intheLondonmanuscriptweseea
rearrangementofthesubdivisionofthesegmentsaccordingtothe
symmetryofthecardinalaxes.Thecopyisthasdecidedtofollow
thegeometriesoftheinternalsquaretopartitionthecircleinto
sevensegments,althoughthishascompromisedtheequalsizeof
thesevensectionsofthecircles.
Thisshowsthatorientationaccordingtocardinaldirectionsof
theentirecompositionwasmoreimportant(andsupposedlymore
effective)thanhavingproportionedsegments.Hence,notonlyare
thediagramsaminiaturizationofthecosmos,buttheyshouldalso
bealignedwiththecosmologicalaxes.Thecirclecanbelocated
anywhere on the surface of the earth; the importance is the
orientationofthespatialarrangement.Inaddition,theconceptof
theoriginoftheuniverseissubstantiatedinthediagram,atthe
centralpoint.Theentirecompositionsharesonecenter,
empha-sizedinbothimages.IntheKasselversion,itisindicatedwithfour
bluedots;intheLondonversion,bytheintersectionoftheaxes.At
thiscenter,thenecromancerisplaced atcenteroftheuniverse.
Nowthat thecosmoshasbeenminiaturized,thenecromancer’s
gazecanreachthefurthestextensionsofthecosmologicalorders.
Hence, thecirclesbecome like a panopticon, a place of power
wherecontrolisexertedthroughsight.
Theprotection ofthespace isimplementedby otherspatial
devices. After having traced the ground, the operator marks
(signare)theairabovewiththeSealofSolomonreciting:“Iplace
theSealofSolomonabovemeforsalvationanddefense,toprotect
mefromtheappearanceofenemy.”21ItissaidthattheSealshould
bemarked(signare)ataheightoftwotimesthediameter(fourteen
feet) of the circle(“aeremsuprase duobusdiametris ubicumque
signet”; Hedegård, 2002,p.130).The actof signare,apparently,
requires visualization skills, imagining the shape of the seal
appearingabove.Markingtheairmightsuggestthatsincethese
spiritsdwellsintheair,theconjurerwantstohaveprotectionfrom
allthedirections.
Inaddition,theoperatorwritesthesevennamesofGodaround
theperimeterofthecirclesonthegroundoronpiecesofparchment:
“L<a>ialy,Lialg,Veham,Yalgal,Narath,Libarre,Libares”(Hedegård,
2002,p.130).Thesenamesaresupposedtopreventthecirclefrom
being violated (“Set prius iuxta circulum hec 7 predicta nomina
scribantur,quiapossetcirculusaliterviolari”;Hedegård,2002,p.133).
Thenamesarewrittenaftertheconjurerhastracedthecirclesinthe
firstnight.Then, inthesecondnight,theyremovethembefore
callingforththeairyspirits,andrestorethemimmediatelyafter,so
thatthespacewillnotbedesecrated(“quiapossetcirculusaliter
violari”;Hedegård, 2002,p.133).Forthelast time, inthethird
evening,beforetheactualconjuration,thepractitionerrestoresthe
names,“otherwisethespiritscannotappear”(“quianonpossent
aliterapparere”;Hedegård,2002,p.136).Inthiscase,itisinteresting
toobservethattheenactivesignificationofthewordsisobtainedby
givingthemmaterialsupportandaspatialdimension,constituting
apowerfulblendedspace.
19“talissperanullunhabetexcessumneclocum”(Pingree,1986,pp.7–8).Besides,
theplanetsthemselvesarecalled“sperae”(spheres)(Hedegård,2002,p.123).See alsoPicatrix(Pingree,1986,pp.140–41).
20“quia
illiaereiapparentextracirculuminaerehomineexistenteinfracirculum,qui debetessetotusplanussicut†epiparet†”(Hedegård,2002,p.149).
21 “Signum
Salomonisadsalvacionemetdefensionemponosuprame,utsitmichi proteccioafacieinimici”(Hedegård,2002,p.130).
Thecirclesoftheterrestrialspirits
Wearetoldthatterrestrialspirits“arethemostoffensive.”The
author recommends that one should change the shape of the
circlesandthesuffumigationsusingsulfurinsteadoffrankincense
(Hedegård,2002,pp.14–143).Asfortheplanetaryspirits,wehave
twosystemsofcirclesdistantninefeetfromeachother.Onecircle,
theplacewherespiritsaresupposedtoappear,isahollow
semi-sphere,dugintheground.Themagicianstandsinsideasecond
circle,madeupoftwoconcentriccircumferenceswithagapwhere
angelic names are inscribed. These circles are drawn on level
ground.Acrossdividesthespaceinfourquarters,representingthe
fourpartsoftheworld.Wecannoticeasymmetrywiththecircles
for the planetary spirits. In both rituals, earth is molded into
hemispheres,concaveandconvex.However,thistime,theplaceof
Fig.1.©BritishLibraryBoard,Sloane3854,fol.133v,availablehttp://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=764.Diagramofthecirclesforthe conjurationsofairyspirits.Threeconcentriccircumferencesaredividedbysevenstraightsegmentsconverginginthecenter.Aredrectangleisinscribedinthesmallest circumferenceandthesegmentsdivideitintoseventrianglesthatcontainthelettersa-g-l-a-g-l-a.Theletterse-l-o-narewrittenwithinthespacebetweenthesidesofthe squareandthearcsofthecircumference.Angelicnamesareinscribedinthespacebetweenthecircumferences,whilethefeaturesofthesevencompassdirectionsappearon theoutside,inthequadrantsdelimitedbythestraightlines.
theapparitionisconcave,hencethespiritswillstandonalower plane.
Architectureinthemedievalmind
Inthefollowingparagraphs,Iwillshowhowthesecirclesas
prescribed in the medieval necromancy manuscripts are based
upon medieval, architectural principles, especially those of
“constructive geometry,” i.e., the manipulation of geometric
figures for building purposes. Moreover, I will argue that the
ritual actionsthat employthe circlesare capableof generating
imaginalboundariesandcreatingasenseofinternalandexternal
space.
In the Etymologies, Isidore of Seville (ca. 560–636 C.E.), a
Catholic archibishop and one of the most influential medieval
encyclopedists(Elfassi&Ribémont,2008,pp.3–4),describesthe
architectasamastereducatedinthescholaeandanexpertof“the
principlesand the rules that regulatethe construction” (Tosco,
1993,p.119).Isidore’s perspectiveresonateswiththeVitruvian
conceptionofthearchitectasalearnedintellectualand,although
not omnipresent in the middle ages, when used, the term
architectus could refer to “clerics specially interested or
Fig.2.UniversitätsbibliothekKassel,LandesbibliothekundMurhardscheBibliothekderStadtKassel,4 Ms.astron.3,fol.78r.LicensedunderCCBY-SA4.0,https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.DiagramofthecirclesfortheconjurationsofairyspiritsinBerengarioGanell’sSummaSacreMagice.Twoconcentricringsdividethe imageintotwoparts.Theouterringisdividedintoeightblueandredsegments.Asquareisinscribedinthesmallestcircumferenceandthecenterofthefigureisdemarcated byfourbluedots.Thediagonalsofthesquarearetraceddelimitingfourtriangles,insideofwhichthefourlettersofthewordAglaarewritten.Theletterse-l-o-narewritten withinthespacebetweenthesidesofthesquareandthearcsofthecircumference.Theareabetweenthetworingsisdividedintosevenequalparts,withinwhichthefeatures ofthesevencompassdirectionsaregiven:Oriens(East),Consol(South-East),Meridies(South),Nogahem(South-West),Occidens(West),Frigicap(North-West),Septemptrio (North).
experienced in architecture” (Pevsner, 1942, p. 556).22 Isidore
showsatheologicalunderstandingofarchitecture:“The
master-builders(architectus)arethebuilders(caementarius)wholayout
thefoundations.WhencetheapostlePaul,speakingofhimself,said
(ICorinthians3:10):‘Asawisearchitect(architectus)Ihavelaidthe
foundation’”(Barneyetal.,2006,p.377).CarloTosco(1993)states
that“tolayoutthefoundations”(disponereinfundamentis)“does
notsimplyrefertotheplacementofanobjectinspacebutalsoto
itsorientationinspace”(p. 102).Thearchitectknowstheprinciples
(ἀ
r
χαῖ)uponwhichtobuilda durablestructure(Tosco,1993,p.103). Thus, Isidore shows us that, in the imaginarum of the
medievalmind,theartofdisponerewasanalogoustolayingthe
foundations,organizingthegroundplan,ofarighteousreligious
world:PaulisArchitectusChristi,andChristhimselfisArchitectus
Ecclesiae (Pevsner, 1942, p. 550; Tosco, 1993, p.103, n. 22). In
addition,GodwascommonlyrepresentedastheArchitectofthe
Universe,“whoinhisroleascreatoroftheuniversewasdepicted
encirclingtheglobewithagiantcompass”(Coldstream,2002,p.
72).
Thisisacrucialpointforunderstandingthetechnicalemphasis
onhowtolay-outandorientinspace(disponere)thecirclesthatwe
find in the LIH, charging this act with a profound religious
meaning.Indeed,therepresentationofcirclesinmanuscriptsshow
thatnecromancershadadegreeofunderstandingoftheprinciples
of constructive geometry. The plan of the circles shows the
respective proportionsof each geometricalfigure. Atthe same
time,whenthereistheexcavationofthesoil,verticalsectionsare
provided (Sloane 3854, fol. 137 r). Given that late medieval
necromancers were learned people, belonging to the so-called
“clericalunderworld”(Kieckhefer,1998, p.12), theymighthave
been familiar with the discipline of architecture, which they
studied in texts inspired by Isidore’s model, drawing on the
VitruviantreatiseastransmittedbyCetusFaventinus,andRabanus
Maurus(ca.784–856C.E.),theauthorofthefamousencyclopedic
workDeUniverso,whichoffersasymbolical-theological
descrip-tion of the architectonic elements (mystica significatio) (Tosco,
1993,p.101,107–108).Thismightsuggestthattheywereclericsor
scholars familiar with the art of disponere the foundations of
buildings. For instance, building a cathedral required different
kindsofexpertise:knowledgeofthegeometricalproportionsof
stable structures (constructive geometry), and the skills of lay
craftsmen to build it. Architects used circlesand polygons for
laying out the ground plans; for example, they used
circum-ferencesin designing choirs(seeColdstream, 2002,pp.65–67).
NicolausPevsner(1942)showsevidencesthattheknowledgeable
architect was occasionally “a cleric of sufficient theoretical
knowledgeofarchitecture,weareentitledtoassume,toenable
himtodohisownplanning”(p.553).
Thechoiceofusingaritualknifetotracethecircumferences
mightrefertothecommontechniqueoferectingwallstodefend
cities.InhisEtymologies,Isidorewritesthattheconstructionofa
city’sdefensivewallwasbegunbyploughingthegroundwitha
circularfurrow:
‘City’(urbs)isfrom‘circle’(orbis),becauseancientcitieswere
madecircular,orfrom‘plow-handle’(urbus),apartoftheplow
bywhichthesiteofthewallswouldbemarkedout.Whence
this(Vergil,Aen.3.109combinedwith1.425):
‘Andhechoseaseatforhiskingdom,andmarkedoutthelimits
withafurrow.’
Forthesiteofthefuturecitywasmarkedoutwithafurrow,that
is,byaplow(Barneyetal.,2006,p.305).23
Hence,itissignificantthatHonoriusinstructstouseaknifeto
tracecircles,perhapsmimicking theritual actionof tracingthe
pomerium—the sacred line drawn with the plow signifing the
enclosureofLatinandEtruscancities(seePrice,1996,p.844),to
whichIsidorerefers.IntheLIH,thecirclesdrawnwithaknifeare
thosewherethemagicianstandsduringtheconjuration,letting
arisea senseof interiorprotectivespace.TheLIH saysthat the
spirits will attempt all the tricks and illusions to compel the
practitioners to exit the circles (Hedegård, 2002, p. 141). The
hypothesisthatcirclesfunctionasdefensivewallsisreinforcedby
furtherevidencein othermanuscriptswhere circlesshowgaps
calledportae(gates).Portaeareusedtoenterandexitthecircles,
andcarryintheritualtools;asanexample,seethecircleandgate
(porta)inPeterson(1999,p.51v).Isidore,writingaboutdefensive
walls,says that“a gate(porta)is thename of theplacewhere
somethingcanbecarriedin(importare)orcarriedout(exportare),”
andthattomakeaportaoneshouldliftandcarry(“portare”)the
plow,breakingthefurrowwithagap(Barneyetal.,2006,p.305).
Patternsofheterotopia
Whatis thefunction of IADsin relationto other spaces in
society?In otherterms, whydidnecromancersuseIADsrather
thanerectchurchesor temples?Theconstruction oftemporary
ritualenclosuresthatarebothimaginalandrealcanhavesocial
implications.Foucaultsaysthatthosespacesthatarefoundedin
societythataresimultaneouslyimaginalandrealareheterotopias,
andthatincertaincasescontainthose“whosebehaviorisdeviant
inrelationtotherequiredmeanornorm”(Foucault,1986,p.25).24
Thepracticeof necromancy involvesdeviantritual actions(see
also Otto, 2016, pp. 204–207), and these might have prompt
practitioners to elaborate heterotopic strategies to create their
operativeritualspaceinsociety.
While utopias are entirely imaginal, heterotopias are both
imaginalandrealatthesametime:“Placesofthiskindareoutside
of all places, even though it may be possible toindicate their
locationinreality.”Therealnessofheterotopiasisthatthey“are
formedintheveryfoundingofsociety.”Besides,sincetheycarry
imaginal features they are “counter-sites, a kind of effectively
enactedutopiainwhichtherealsites,alltheotherrealsitesthat
canbefoundwithintheculture,aresimultaneouslyrepresented,
contested,andinverted”(Foucault,1986,p.24).
Foucault describesa series of principles that create
hetero-topias.Inparticular,heterotopiashaveritualsofaccessandexit,
discontinuousrelationswithtime,andjuxtaposedspaces.Ihave
already presentedwhat Foucaultdefines asjuxtapositionwhen
discussingtheminiaturization ofcelestialtopographies.Indeed,
heterotopiascan“juxtaposeinonesingleplaceseveral
incompati-blespatialelements”(Foucault,1986,p.25).Foucaultsaysthatthe
Persian garden supposedly brings together within its four
rectangularwallsthefourpartsoftheworldandalltheelements
22InhisEtymologies,Isidoretransfiguredthenotionofthearchitect,nowawise
man(sapiens),bringingarchitecturetotherankofthenobledisciplinesofthe quadrivium.Indeed,architecturebelongedtothemechanicalarts,orappliedarts, which Cassiodorus (ca. 490 580 C.E.) downgraded as “non-scientific,” not legitimateenoughtobedrawnnearmathematicorastrology(Tosco,1993,p.100).
23Inthesectiononpublicbuildings(Deaedificiispublicis,XV,ii),Isidoregivesthe
sameprotectivemeaningtotheword“town”(oppidum):“Somehavesaidtheword ‘town’(oppidum)isfromthe‘opposing’(oppositio)ofitswalls;others,fromits hoardingofwealth(ops),duetowhichitisfortified;others,becausethecommunity ofthoselivinginitgivesmutualsupport(ops)againstanenemy....Thisisthe originoftowns,whicharesaidtobenamedtowns(oppidum)becausetheyoffer protection(ops)”(Barneyetal.,2006,p.305).
24TheconceptwasintroducedbyFoucaultin1967inalecturetostudentsof
architectureattheCercled’étudesarchitecturales,andonlypublished20yearslater. Hegaveahintoftheconceptearlier(Foucault,1966,pp.7–17).Fragmentsofthat lecturewerealreadypublished(Foucault,1968,pp.822–23)beforethecomplete versionintheformatoflecturenotesin1984:(Foucault,1984,pp.46–49).
