Necromancy

← Encyclopedia

Necromancy is divination by way of the dead: the practice of summoning, questioning, or compelling the spirits of the deceased in order to learn what the living cannot otherwise know — chiefly the future, the hidden, and the fate of the soul beyond death. The word comes from the Greek nekromanteia, from nekros, a corpse, and manteia, divination. The dead know because they have crossed over; consulting them is a way of reaching across that border without going through it. The premise is unsentimental and almost juridical: the dead have access to a ledger closed to the living — what is coming, what is concealed, where the buried thing lies, who did the killing — and the necromancer’s art is the protocol by which a fragment of that ledger is read aloud. It is a species of divination, set apart from the rest not by its instrument but by its informant. The augur reads birds, the haruspex a liver, the lecanomancer the play of oil on water; the necromancer reads the dead themselves, and so works at the one frontier that every other art only points toward.

The Mesopotamian ground

The conviction that the dead can be made to speak is very old, attested in Mesopotamia and across the ancient Near East before it reaches the Greek world. In the Akkadian death-imagination the disembodied ghost — the eṭemmu, Sumerian gidim — survives the body and descends to the great below, Irkalla, but it does not simply vanish: it remains tethered to the living by a ritual economy of obligation. The monthly kispum, the ancestor-feeding rite, broke bread and poured cool water and pronounced the ancestral names so that the ghost stayed at rest; a ghost left unfed, or one who died badly — unburied, drowned, childless — turned hungry and aggrieved and walked the upper world as a cause of disease. A whole branch of healing magic, the diagnostic category qāt eṭemmi — the hand of a ghost — was devoted to sending such ghosts back down. Necromancy proper inverts that traffic. Where apotropaic magic labors to silence and dismiss the dead, necromancy deliberately raises a named ghost and compels it to answer.

The Mesopotamian manuals for this are rare but real. A handful of cuneiform witnesses — among them a Neo-Babylonian instruction from Ashurbanipal’s library and the Assur ritual tablet KAR 267 (VAT 8242), edited by Erich Ebeling in the early 1920s — preserve the architecture of a rite in which a salve is prepared from named plant-substances and applied to a human skull, while an incantation is recited, so that the ghost manifests and answers questions audibly. It is, in the Assyriologist Irving Finkel’s characterization, a speaking-skull rite, and it anticipates by more than a millennium the trench-and-blood scene of the Greek epic. Finkel’s foundational survey of the cuneiform evidence appeared in Archiv für Orientforschung 29–30 (1983–84). The point worth holding is structural rather than diffusionist: long before Greece, the dead were understood as a layered postmortem person who could be ritually obliged, and the obligation could run either way — toward dismissal or toward interrogation.

The Near Eastern setting also supplies the answer to the art’s governing question — why the dead should know anything at all. In the Mesopotamian and the early Hebrew underworld alike, and in archaic Greek Hades beside them, the dead are not wise in any exalted sense; the shade in the Odyssey is feeble, witless until it drinks. What the dead possess is not intelligence but position. They have crossed the boundary the living cannot cross and lived to one side of it, with the buried, the forgotten, and the not-yet-arrived for neighbors; they are downstream of every secret. The necromancer’s premise, then, is less that the dead are clever than that they are placed where knowledge collects. This is why the rite so often targets a named and recently dead person — one still close to the affairs of the living, like Samuel to Saul, or a murdered man who knows his killer — rather than the anonymous mass of the long-dead.

Endor: the king, the woman, the prophet

Its best-known appearance in scripture is the episode at Endor. King Saul, having driven the mediums and the spirit-consulters out of the land in obedience to the law that condemned them, finds himself on the eve of battle with the Philistines abandoned by the ordinary channels of divine counsel — dreams, the sacred lots, the prophets all go silent. In desperation he disguises himself and goes by night to a woman at Endor who keeps the forbidden art, and asks her to bring up Samuel, the prophet who had anointed and then repudiated him. She calls the dead man up; she sees, and is afraid, and recognizes the king by what she sees. Samuel rises as an old man wrapped in a robe, and what he delivers is not comfort but sentence: the kingdom torn away, and Saul and his sons dead by the next day. The biblical writer reports the scene with unease — a thing done against the law, at night, in disguise, by a man who had himself outlawed it, and answered by a verdict he could not bear. The Torah is explicit and severe on the practice: the consulter of the dead is an abomination, to be cut off from the people, and Israel is warned not to take up the arts of the nations it is to dispossess (Leviticus 19:31 and 20:6; Deuteronomy 18:9–14). Endor is the law’s own narration of its transgression — necromancy shown working, and shown damning the man who resorts to it.

The Greek and Roman registers

Greek and Roman literature returns to the theme repeatedly. Its founding scene is the nekyia of the Odyssey, where Odysseus sails to the edge of the world, digs a trench, and pours into it the blood of black sheep; the shades crowd up out of the dark, and only those permitted to drink recover, for a moment, the power of speech. He comes for the ghost of the Theban seer Tiresias, whose foresight survives his death — the canonical literary statement of the whole premise, that the dead seer knows the road home. The poem holds the two registers in a single passage: the blood that coaxes the faded shades into speech, and the drawn sword that keeps them back until the right one has drunk. Both gestures recur across the tradition. Beside the literary scene stood the institutional one. The Greek world maintained dedicated oracles of the dead, nekuomanteia, sited where the ground opens onto the lower world: cave precincts at Heracleia Pontica on the Black Sea and at Tainaron on the southern tip of the Peloponnese, and lakeside oracles at the Acheron in Thesprotia and at Avernus in Campania, near the Italian shore through which Virgil would later send Aeneas down. There the inquirer might sleep in the precinct to meet the dead in incubated dream, or undergo a staged descent. Daniel Ogden’s Greek and Roman Necromancy (2001), the first comprehensive survey of the field in any language, sorts the evidence into ghost-raising, the oracle sites, dream-incubation, and the reanimation of corpses and skulls, and treats these less as a single recoverable technique than as a spread of related rites and stories — some institutional, some literary, their actual procedures often beyond recovery. The presiding power of this lower traffic was Hecate, goddess of the crossroads and of the restless dead, whose name is invoked wherever the literary necromancer works.

The Greek tradition gave the art its specialists. The psychagōgos, the leader of souls, was a figure who claimed to draw up ghosts or to lay them — a Thessalian and Italian profession with semi-institutional standing, summoned to settle hauntings as readily as to consult the dead. Alongside stood the goēs, whose very name derives from goos, the ritual lament wailed over the dead, so that goēteia — sorcery — carries in its root the cry that calls the dead up; and the foreign magos, the Persian-named practitioner from whom the broad word for magic descends. The technology these figures worked with, so far as the texts let it be reconstructed, ran along a few channels: the blood-offering at the trench or pit; incubation, in which the inquirer slept on a tomb or in an oracle precinct to receive the dead in dream; the binding-tablet or katadesmos folded and buried with a corpse so that the restless ghost would carry its command down into the earth; and, in the lurid extreme of the literary imagination, the reanimation of a fresh corpse to make it speak, as Lucan’s Thessalian witch Erichtho does for Sextus Pompey in the Pharsalia. The architecture is what survives; the operative detail, by design and by accident, mostly does not.

What the practitioner thought he was doing varied with what he thought the dead were. Where the shade was a faded remnant, barely more than a dream, the work was coaxing and offering — blood, libation, the murmured name, the patient summons of something that wants to be remembered. Where the dead retained power and grievance — the violently killed, the unburied, the aōroi who died untimely and the biaiothanatoi who died by force — the work shaded into coercion: binding the angry dead by names and compulsions, harnessing precisely the restlessness that made them dangerous. Sarah Iles Johnston’s Restless Dead (1999) traces how this second class of ghost — the powerful, aggrieved, prematurely dead — moved to the center of Greek magical practice, the very souls a healer would banish becoming the souls a necromancer would conscript. The two registers are not two techniques so much as two postures toward the same border: supplication where the dead are weak, mastery where they are strong, and the practitioner’s reading of the case deciding which. The ancient world generally regarded the whole art with fear rather than reverence: a transgression of the boundary between living and dead, and a trafficking with powers better left undisturbed. This is the register in which it sits beside theurgy and the broader field of magic and yet remains distinct from both — theurgy ascends toward the gods to make the soul divine; necromancy descends toward the dead to make them talk. Roman law treated divination touching the death of the emperor as treason, and the consultation of the dead fell under its shadow; later Christian authority condemned the art outright, ranking it among the gravest of the forbidden arts.

The medieval drift: from nekro- to nigro-

Through the Middle Ages the term itself mutated. Latin scribes, hearing nekro- as nigro-, recast necromantia as nigromantia — black divination, by false but durable association with Latin niger — and under that name the word widened far beyond the dead. Nigromantia came to mean illicit conjuration in general: the summoning not only of departed souls but of spirits of every kind, and above all of demons. The clerical underworld that produced and copied the grimoires worked largely in this expanded register. As Richard Kieckhefer showed in Forbidden Rites, his edition of a fifteenth-century necromancer’s manual, the practitioners of this learned art were disproportionately educated men — many of them in minor clerical orders, the literate few who could read the Latin handbooks, construct the protective circles, and pronounce the long adjurations. What they conjured was rarely the dead at all but the legions of demonology, the named demon bound and commanded inside the ring. The narrower sense — calling up a dead soul — survived alongside the broader one, and the line between the two was, in much of this literature, deliberately blurred: a shade and a demon were both spirits to be compelled, and the same circle would serve for either. The Church drew no fine distinction. To raise the dead and to summon a fiend were, in the canon and the confessor’s manual alike, the same crime under the same condemnation — a commerce with the unclean that no licit end could excuse.

Critical apparatus and reception

The modern study of necromancy rests on a small set of foundational works. Daniel Ogden’s Greek and Roman Necromancy (Princeton, 2001) remains the standard survey of the classical material, organized into Places, People, Technology, and Theory, and it is Ogden’s re-examination of the Acheron and Avernus sites that has reshaped the geography of the field. For the deep background, Irving Finkel’s “Necromancy in Ancient Mesopotamia” (Archiv für Orientforschung 29–30, 1983–84) established the cuneiform evidence as a coherent body, and JoAnn Scurlock’s Magico-Medical Means of Treating Ghost-Induced Illnesses in Ancient Mesopotamia (Brill, 2006) anatomizes the ghost-economy out of which it grows, a frame she condenses in her essay on the restless dead of Mesopotamia (Religion Compass, 2016). Sarah Iles Johnston’s Restless Dead: Encounters between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece (California, 1999) supplies the Greek theory of the dangerous dead. Richard Kieckhefer’s Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer’s Manual of the Fifteenth Century (Penn State, 1997) edits and reads a single surviving handbook (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 849) and is the indispensable witness to the medieval nigromantia. The classical primary scenes are read most fully in the Odyssey Book XI and in Aeneid VI; the Neoplatonic frame within which the later tradition theorized commerce with spirits is set out in Iamblichus on the Mysteries and the Chaldean Oracles.

The impulse, renamed

The impulse outlasted the name. The Spiritualist séance of the nineteenth century, with its mediums and its messages from the departed, revived the old hope in a new idiom — stripped of the grimoire’s menace, detached from the trench and the bound circle, and recast as consolation. The doctrine that crystallized around the Hydesville rappings of 1848 and spread through the parlors of America and Europe gave the dead a gentler office: not to deliver verdicts of doom on the eve of battle but to reassure the bereaved that the change called death had changed nothing essential, that the beloved continued, progressing through luminous spheres, and could be reached across a table by a sympathetic medium. The continuity with the ancient art is exact in its core premise — that the dead persist, and can be addressed, and will answer — and the divergence is total in everything else. The companion currents of spiritualism and the Kardecist spiritism of the Francophone and Latin-American world carry the practice into the present as a religion of communion rather than a forbidden art of compulsion. What one age treated as a crime against the order of things, another offered as comfort to the bereaved.

→ In the library: Iamblichus on the Mysteries (Taylor, 1821) · The Chaldean Oracles (Mead, 1908)

→ Related: Divination · Spiritism · Eschatology · Mesopotamia · Odysseus · Tiresias · Middle Ages · Demonology · Demon · Theurgy · Magic · Soul · Spiritualism · Hecate