Owen Davies. Grimoires: A History of Magic Books. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 384 pp. $17.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-19-959004-9.
Reviewed by Adam Jortner (Auburn University)
Published on H-Albion (June, 2011)
Commissioned by Jeffrey R. Wigelsworth
Published on H-Albion (June, 2011)
Commissioned by Jeffrey R. Wigelsworth
The Magic Words
Owen
Davies begins his latest history of the uncanny by quoting Richard
Kieckhefer’s observation that “‘a book of magic is also a magical book’”
(p. 2).[1] A history of grimoires, therefore, must not only recount the
contents and ideas found in self-proclaimed spell books, but also
uncover how those books were used. Such a problem, however, is one
Davies has met in previous works on ghost stories and witchcraft--which
also exist both as theories and tools.
Grimoires represents
the broadest chronology Davies has yet attempted. Magical books date
back almost to the invention of writing; this volume stretches from
Moses and the Hebrew Bible to Anton LaVey and The Satanic Bible (1969). Practically,
however, the story begins with medieval efforts to appropriate and
interpret ancient magic, through the fifteenth-century rise of
hermeticism, and into the democratizing effect of the printing press.
Davies makes much of the expanded reach print gave to grimoires, and
hence most of this account deals with the early modern and modern use of
printed magical books by esoteric gentlemen and treasure-seeking rabble
alike. Even if, as Davies argues, print did not eliminate handwritten
grimoires, the print revolution created more grimoires and more stories
about grimoires--the intellectual back and forth and anecdotal evidence
that provide the two evidentiary supports of this study.
Rather
like a magus himself, Davies weaves telling details from grimoires
throughout his narrative, vignettes of magic or advice that convey a
sense of the work and the context under consideration. Medieval
Christian grimoires often used Hebrew characters in the belief that
Hebrew letters had magical properties, and if authors did not know how
to write Hebrew, they simply made up letters that looked close enough.
Icelandic rune books featured curses that inflicted ceaseless farting on
victims. Nineteenth-century American oneiromancy manuals advised those
who dreamed of ants to bet on the numbers two, seven, and forty-one.
Davies
handles the vast scope of the book well, moving chronologically by
chapter and geographically within each era. Britain (and its grimoires)
do not figure prominently in the text, perhaps because England seems to
have preferred astrological texts to practical spell books.
Nevertheless, Davies weaves several English thinkers (Reginald Scot in
particular) into the broader debates on magic. Indeed, the scope of
Davies’s work suggests that it is in the Americas where the grimoire
tradition thrived in the twentieth century. Chicago--the home of William
Delaurence’s publishing empire--was the center of grimoire publishing
and esoteric practice in the modern age. Kardecism--one of Brazil’s
enduring religious traditions--derived from grimoire hermeticism coupled
with Spiritualist teachings. Mexico provided a home for Spanish
grimoires during the interwar years, which in turn transformed the local
healing traditions of curandismo (folk healing). The number of
examples and stories from the former colonies of Europe (rather than
Europe itself) underscores Davies’s contention that whereas the history
of the grimoire in the modern West has often focused on “the esoteric
philosophies, personal relations, and internal tensions” of a small
number of Western occultists, “certain products of the Revival reached
far beyond the parlors of Paris and London” (p. 185).
None
of these stories are, in themselves, new discoveries; indeed, almost
the entire book is synthetic, as any broad study must be. Certainly as
regards Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Davies has
debts (which he acknowledges) to Ronald Hutton and Alex Owen. But most
readers will search in vain for any extended historiographical
quibbling, except for a well-argued aside on the sensitive topic of the
grimoire tradition and life of the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith Jr. Grimoires
is not necessarily written for the layperson, but neither is Davies
writing for academics alone. The book could well form the foundation for
an upper-level collegiate class on grimoires and magic. Rather than
posit transhistorical theories about “the” nature of magical books,
Davies seems content with extensive documentation--but documentation is
not explanation.
And yet, if showing the number
and influence of magical books in Western history is Davies’s objective,
then in showing volume, he makes an implicit argument: fully two-thirds
of his world history of grimoires involves books published after the
onset of the Enlightenment. The rise of printing, the spread of
literacy, and the rediscovery of ancient Near Eastern cultures led to
the creation (and re-creation) of many more grimoires in the years since
1700 than had ever before existed. Davies’s nineteenth-century
predecessor, Arthur Edward Waite--who wrote an extended history of magic
books in addition to designing tarot cards--noted the “remarkable
bibliographic fact that such texts were issued, and on so great a scale,
in the last decade of the nineteenth century” (p. 181).[2] Seen from
the perspective of the grimoire, magic is a thoroughly modern
phenomenon--not a survival or a retention.
This
latter point represents an important piece of the argument for those who
study magic, witchcraft, and esoterica; unlike many other subfields,
historians of the supernatural often need to demonstrate the ubiquity
and extent of their subject matter to convince colleagues and committees
of the validity of their work. Several works in the last decade (some
of them by Davies) have shown that magical, mystical, and esoteric
thought thrived in the modern age, yet an older sociological
predilection still persists that treats magic and miracle as exclusively
premodern ideas that existed only as holdovers in the twentieth
century. If Grimoires is correct, however, the nineteenth and
much of the twentieth centuries provided the ideal environment for
magical thinking. Magic is very modern. Other books have made a similar
point, but it is a point worth hearing more than once, particularly when
written with Davies’s élan.
Note
[1]. Richard Kieckhefer, Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer’s Manual of the Fifteenth Century (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997), 4.
[2]. Arthur Edward Waite, Shadows of Life and Thought (London: Selwyn and Blount, 1938), 137.
No comments:
Post a Comment