Endeavour xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

Imaginal architectural devices and the ritual space of medievalnecromancy

Andrea FranchettoStockholm University, Department of Ethnology, History of Religions and Gender Studies, Stockholm, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:Imaginal architectural devicesRitual spaceLiber Iuratus HonoriiHeterotopiaMagicNecromancyMaterial engagement theorySpatial approachRitual magicEvent cognitionArchitectureMagic circles

A B S T R A C T

The material and spatial dimensions documented in the manuscripts of ritual magic that circulated inthe medieval and early modern periods have long eluded researchers. Studying where those ritualstake place is important to understand the history of the practice of ritual magic. Few attempts havebeen done to interpret the reasons behind the construction of magic circles and the use of domesticlocations. The author introduces a new interpretative category of such ritual spaces: imaginalarchitectural devices (IADs). IADs pick out a specific kind of portable, spatially unfixed ritual space,where “magical” ones are a key example. They are temporary architectural artefacts, attested across aswath of sources of ritual magic, that work as strategic tools for orienting cognition, behavior, andbelief. Drawing on spatial theory and cognitive studies, the author constructs IADs as a typologicalcategory for comparative analysis. It describes architectural operations that work at the interplaybetween mental projections and material culture, and that modify the perception of space. In thesecond part of the article, IADs will be applied to study the circles described in the second section of theLiber Iuratus Honorii, a thirteenth-century handbook containing instructions on how to conjure differentranks of spirits. In the end, the author suggests future directions of research on the transmission of IADsinto contemporary ritual magic.© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND

license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction: creating space for demon contact

The instructions on the materials used in ritual magic and thelocations where rituals were performed, which have beentransmitted through medieval and early modern manuscripts,have long eluded researchers. There is no doubt that studyingwhere those rituals took place is important to understand thepractice of ritual magic. Performed in isolated locations or withinthe privacy of domestic environments, ritual magic involved longprocedures of consecration of the ritual space, and the construc-tion of complex geometric diagrams on the floor, commonlyknown as magic circles. Few attempts have been made tointerpret the reasons behind the construction of magic circles.Generally described as protective boundaries and places of power(Kieckhefer, 1998, pp. 170–85; Simón, 2014, pp. 67–85), they havebeed theorized as analogical copies of the body (Clucas, 2000, pp.113–30). Notwithstanding Smith’s (1998, pp. 18–31) discussion ofthe domestication of magic in late antiquity, Stephen Clucas(2000, pp. 113–30) contends that the domestication of ritualmagic is to be attributed to the socio-cultural transformation oflate medieval and early modern societies. Besides, Bernd-

(2016, p. 184). I want to offer a different perspective on the topicby introducing a new category for the interpretation of such ritualspaces: imaginal architectural devices (IADs). IADs pick out aspecific kind of portable, spatially unfixed ritual space, where“magical” ones are a key example. They are temporary architec-tural artefacts, attested across a swath of sources of ritual magic,that work as strategic tools for orienting cognition, behavior, andbelief.

In the first part of this paper, I define IADs as architecturaloperations that work at the interplay between mental projectionsand material culture, and that modify the perception of space. I willdemonstrate the potentialities of using this etic category incomparative approaches as well as in contextual analysis. Then, inthe paper’s second part, I will apply IADs to study the ritual spacesdescribed in the Liber Iuratus Honorii (LIH), a thirteenth centuryhandbook that teaches how to obtain a beatific vision and conjuredifferent ranks of spirits. The conjuration part of the LIH is anexample of medieval necromancy, which offers technical instruc-tion on how to construct circles where the necromancer and thespirits are located during the ritual. I will demonstrate that thecircles used in necromancy can be seen as IADs: they mirror

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Endeavour

journal homepa ge: www.elsev ier .com/locate /ende

Christian Otto has argued that in the ritual tradition ofmagic in Western culture there is “no distinctive architecture”

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.endeavour.2021.1007480160-9327/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article

Please cite this article as: A. Franchetto, Imaginal architectural devices10.1016/j.endeavour.2021.100748

imaginal constructions of cosmological topographies and theysubstantiate imaginal boundaries, becoming places of power and

under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

and the ritual space of medieval necromancy, NULL, https://doi.org/

cft

Ma2tisptct&psptcb(t2

taptalifo1

sgi“

ewfi

atTcwoaubsvw

sstbfi

w

Bh

A. Franchetto NULL xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

ontrol over spiritual entities. In a final section, I will discuss theate of IADs and its relevancy for comparative studies, especially inhe history of magic.

Before going into depth, I will briefly introduce the case study.agic is hardly definable, its ambiguous relationship with religion ist the center of the debate in religious study (Hanegraaff, 2016; Pasi,008). Nevertheless, historians of medieval magic use subcategoriesocataloguethevastpanoramaof textualsourcesthatdeal withwhats often called ars magica. Necromancy is defined as one of the twoubcategories of ritual magic. If necromancy involves ritualrocedures “whereby demons are forced to obey the requests ofhe operator after being summoned and bound,” the “angelic”ounterpart deals with rituals to obtain visions and knowledgehrough the mediation of angelic beings (Fanger,1998, p. viii; Fanger

Klaassen, 2008, pp. 730–31). Historians define “ritual magic”rimarily as “a certain readily identifiable genre of text,” withpecific features: (a) it is procedural—it deals with instructions toerforms rituals for obtaining material or intellectual benefitshrough the conjuring of spirits; (b) it is mainly written in Latin andirculated among a literate milieu; (c) it shows a liturgy of Christianackgrounds with influences from Arabic and Jewish sources; andd) it is “a late medieval phenomena,” without witnesses before thehirteenth century (Fanger, 1998, pp. vii–viii; Kieckhefer, 1998, pp.50–65; Klaassen, 2019, p. 202).Nevertheless, the same category has been used to include magical

exts from late antiquity to early modernity (Butler, 1949, Chapters 1nd 3), and it is appliedas well to late modern and contemporary ritualractices (Asprem, 2008, pp. 141–42; Asprem, 2014). Moreover, if weake into consideration the perspectives of medieval authors writingbout necromancy, we realize that the definition is rather fluid. Termske nigromancia,nigromantia, and necromantia could refer either toorms of conjuration of dangerous demons or to the employment ofccult natural properties, like astral influences (Burnett,1996, pp.1–5; Giralt, 2005, pp. 53–66; Klaassen, 2019, pp. 202–204).The practitioners of necromancy were clerics, monks, and

cholars attending universities. The rituals are oriented towardsetting control over spiritual entities and involving a directntercourse with them. Frank Klaassen (2007, p. 69) argues thatthe entire library of necromancy may be understood as anxpression of the desire to have intimate, even explosive contactith the numinous.” Examples of the objectives are acquiring horses,nding treasures, and getting “honor and dignity,” which hint atnxieties regarding social status (Klaassen, 2007, p. 62). At the sameime,goals likeobtaining knowledge instantaneously werecommon.he Ars notoria, even though falling in the “angelic” subcategory,irculated among necromantic texts. It tells the procedures of a feweeks’ ritual to acquire knowledge of the seven liberal arts andther intellectual gifts. This reflects not only the preoccupation forcquiring knowledge without particular effort, but also thencertainty of personal knowledge. These sentiments might haveeen shared among scholars. In addition, this type of literature oftenhows inaccurate use of Latin, which might hint at “unsuccessful orery modestly successful scholars,” who were commonly peopleho attended university for a short period (Klaassen, 2007, p. 60).Also known as the Sworn Book of Honorius or Liber Sacer, the LIH

hows both Islamic and Jewish influences and it is attested in twoeparate textual traditions. One tradition of the LIH is attested inhe Summa sacre magice, a huge compendium of magic composedy Berengario Ganell in 1346 in Spain (Gehr, 2019, pp. 237–53). Wend evidence of the Latin Summa in one manuscript kept in Kassel,

has collected the LIH in his Summa among other magical textscirculating in Spain and southern France from the thirteenthcentury on. The other tradition is later and attested in threemanuscripts compiled in England, and kept in the British Library inLondon. Of this latter tradition, we have a critical edition edited byGösta Hedegård (2002). (On the Summa’s version of the LIH, seeVeenstra, 2012, pp. 150–91; on the London tradition, see Mesler,2012, pp. 115–17).

The LIH is divided into a prologue and four sections. Theprologue tells a pseudo-epigraphic story. To avoid that theirknowledge would be lost, a committee of magicians appointed acertain Honorius with the task of writing the secrets of magic in abook, which they swore to protect. After this introduction, thehandbook is concerned with four different rituals. It starts with theritual for obtaining the beatific vision of God, followed by theconjurations of planetary, airy, and terrestrial spirits, and thensome technical clarifications regarding ritual tools and the circles.2

In the following sections, I will first present the topic of the“ritual space” of necromancy discussing Clucas’s hypothesis of thedomestication of ritual magic and of the circles as analogical copiesof the body. Second, I will develop the category I have formulated(IADs) within the context of ritual space. Last, I will use IADs toanalyze the features of the circles described in the LIH, offering anew interpretation of the magic circles and suggesting futuredirections of research.

Spaces and places of medieval necromancy

Medieval authors offer insights into the locations in whichnecromancy was practiced. The astrologer and poet Cecco d’Ascoli(1269–1327) says that “necromantia” is a form of divinationthrough demons and “it is practiced where three roads meet andmostly in northern regions” (Thorndike, 1949, p. 346). Pietrod’Abano (born ca. 1250) mentions the same locations: it ispracticed “especially where three or four roads meet and incemeteries. I encountered its greater efficacy in northern areas, andin general under the North star, and in uninhabited places andmodest spaces.”3 Cross-roads have a relation with the evocation ofspirits since antiquity. Hecate, the underworld goddess, wasbelieved to appear at cross-roads, hence her epithet trioditis fromthe word triodoi, meaning “crossroads” (Betz, 1980, pp. 287–95).However, in antiquity necromantia referred to a form of divinationthrough the dead, hence it involved different entities from the onesemployed by medieval necromancers, mostly demons and spirits.

Clucas (2000) contends that the spatial practice of Christianritual magic is both dependent on and able to rewrite traditionalChristian liturgy by appropriating secularized spaces.4 Accordingto Clucas (2000, p. 113), the codification of “bodily and spatialregimes” of medieval and early modern magical practices (e.g.,purification of body and places, fasting, and construction ofprotective circles) can be investigated by examining the “segmen-tation and hierarchisation of social space” and the transformationof the “conception of human agency” between the fifteenth andsixteenth centuries. Drawing on Ernst Cassirer, he argues that“man’s instrumental relationship with the world” can bespatialized in mythical and sacred spaces (p. 115). Human power,

2 This last section is absent in the tradition attested in the Summa.3

“in quadrivis, triviis et cimiteriis maxime. Cuius efficaciam, magis in septentrione et

universaliter sub polis et in locis minus cultis simplicioribusque, maior inveni,”

ritten around the first half of the fourteenth century.1 Berengario

1 Kassel, Universitätsbibliothek Kassel/Landesbibliothek und Maurhardscheibliothek der Stadt Kassel, Berengarius Ganellus: Summa sacrae magicae, firstalf of fourteenth century

(d’Abano, 1992, p. 120). Translated by the author.4 Clucas (2000) draws on phenomenological concepts of sacred and mythical

space developed by Ernst Cassirer and Mircea Eliade as theoretical references of hisanalysis. Sacred space is defined as a domain between chaos and cosmos, or as thefoundation of the world. However, he dilutes the concept with a Lefebvrian vision ofspace, which is therefore socially constituted.

2

A. Franchetto NULL xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

in medieval and early modern views, is subordinated to divinepower because the human will, acting in the world is constrainedby divine limitations. Therefore, the space of medieval to earlymodern Christian liturgy is a space of “mediation of will and desireof agency,” which is activated by forms of “humility,” “abjection,”and “prostration” of the body aimed at obtaining divine interven-tion (p. 115).

Clucas contends that ritual magic “appropriated (or perhapssimply extended, and developed) the intercessory of Christianliturgy (the mediation of body and space) to extend the limit ofoperative desire” (2000, pp. 115–16). Indeed, as discussed above,the motivations that oriented medieval and early modernnecromancers were far from pious: they were selfish and goal-oriented. The “synaesthetic verbal and bodily regimes” of thispractice mimic the prayers and mortification of traditional liturgy,but this art is conducted in the secrecy and privacy of one’s owndwelling, after adequate purification and consecration of the room,one’s body, and the object of devotion.5 Along these lines ofreasoning, Clucas concludes that the “secretive private nature” ofspace used by magicians (e.g. private chambers, secret gardens,and bedrooms), “re-codes or re-appropriates the socially con-structed spaces of orthodox Christian worship and the purificatorybodily regimes which those spaces ‘called up’ in order to actualizea new set of desires and power relations” (Clucas, 2000, p. 114).

Although Clucas’s hypothesis—that medieval and early modernmagic mimics Christian liturgical praxis in the private secularspace—proposes a productive scale of analysis, one should notforget that the dynamics of the appropriation of “secular”(domestic) spaces that Clucas attributes to the fifteenth toseventeenth centuries’ socio-cultural transformation were alreadypresent in late antiquity. For example, in the Greek Magical Papyri,amongst diverse types of rituals, there are rituals of apparitions,intended to summon deities to appear in front of the practitioner.These rituals were made up of an assemblage of elements fromChristian and Gnostic ideas and Egyptian theology and took placein private rooms or isolated locations (Dosoo, 2014, pp. 43, 376–78). They required procedures of sacralization and purification ofthe space, as well as bodily purifications of fasting and abstinence(Dosoo, 2014, pp. 381–88). It follows that the transformation ofconceptions of human agency and the secularization of spaces inthe middle ages and early modernity is not the necessary andsufficient condition for the appropriation of traditional liturgy andthe domestication of magic. In the following sections, I will try toshow that it was perhaps the deviant connotation of necromanticpractices that prompted practitioners to use private dwellings toarrange temporary ritual spaces.

From the perspective of the temporary spatial arrangements,certainly necromancy involved the construction of circles. Thediagrams are complex geometrical compositions made up withone or multiple circumferences, where the necromancer standsduring the conjurations or where the spirits are supposed toappear. The geometrical figures vary a great deal depending on themanuscript, the ritual, and the spirit conjured. In any case, thecircles were to be drawn on the ground, usually employing a ritualknife or sword, adding characters or divine names. As will beshown below, the circles not only had a protective function for themagicians but were also places of power and control.

Clucas interprets the circle as a paradoxical space and copy ofthe human body. It is paradoxical because “two worlds communi-cate,” but they are separate, the spiritual realms outside and themagician inside (Clucas, 2000, p. 116). At the same time, the circlereflects the ambivalence of human agency in magical practices. Onthe one hand, the desire to act on reality is embedded in theChristian framework of human dependence on divine intervention.Thus, the verbal strategies and settings mimic Christian prostra-tion, humility, and other such elements. On the other hand, thecounter-desire to not be compromised by the illicit operations ofmagic extends—or, in my opinion, exaggerates—Christian liturgies:hence the long sequences of manipulations of the body and spaces(e.g., fasting, ablutions, and incensing) and the use of circles servesto fortify, preserve, and validate the magician’s actions (Clucas,2000, p. 121). Clucas contends that the first intuitive tool ofobjective reality that humans have is the body, to which everythingis referred. Being body-oriented (e.g., front, back, sides, upsidedown) means that the intelligibility of objective reality depends onthe orientation and analogical copy of the body. Hence, theprecinct of the circle is an analogical copy of the body: it becomes avirtual body, “a carapace” (Clucas, 2000, p. 115).

In the following sections, I will show that analyzing the circlesas IADs brings forward a different perspective on the relationshipwith the body. The analysis of the material cultural elements, thegeometrical compositions, and the processes of mental projectionswill show that circles are apprehended more as miniaturizedcosmological topographies and architectural barriers, rather thanas a second skin. The body is involved, but it is included withinimaginal boundaries and not extended.

I will first discuss IADs in the broader framework of ritualtheory and then I will focus on the construction of three systems ofcircles in the LIH.

Imaginal architectural devices

In this section, I present imaginal architectural devices as acategory of ritual space that names specific spatial settings used inritual practice. In general terms, IADs define those elements of aritual that are expressed in architectural objects and that regulatethe interplay between the bodies of the practitioners, their mentalimaginary, and the ritual agents.

Hence, defining IADs premises an understanding of what a“ritual space” is. In my opinion, the challenge of arriving at adefinition stems from the huge debate on spatial theory amongother disciplines besides ritual studies, especially geography andarchitecture. Scholars of ritual studies borrow overloaded termslike place, space, and location to craft definitions of ritual space andsacred space, making the concepts ambiguous constructs (for anoverview, Kilde, 2014, pp. 183–201). In fact, not only is the notionof “ritual” a topic of on-going debate,6 but the concepts of space,place, and location have changed meanings throughout history,resulting sometimes in incompatible definitions (see Torretti,2000). Ronald L. Grimes (2013, p. 257) makes a distinctionbetween place and ritual space: “a ritual space is any places wherea ritual occurs.” Place, instead, is something given, hosting theritual, and when a ritual happens in a certain place, makes that aritual space. Nevertheless, Grimes use the term ritual place toname one of the “smallest units” that are assembled and designedto produce a ritual: ritual actions, ritual actors, ritual place, ritualtimes, ritual objects, ritual languages, and ritual groups (Grimes,

5 Behind Clucas’s words lays Henri Lefebvre’s dialectic of dominant andappropriated spaces. Lefebvre argues that appropriated and dominated spacesexist in a dichotomous relationship. Dominated space “has very deep roots inhistory and the historical sphere, for its origins coincide with those of politicalpower itself.” Appropriation, by contrast, is a private practice of an individual orgroup that modifies either a dominant space or natural space to serve their needsand possibilities (Lefebvre, 1991, pp. 164–65).

3

2013, pp. 231–42).

6 The meanings of ritual are in continuous transformation, and in the lastdecades, social sciences and the humanities have debated and reinterpreted theterm. For an overview on the different approaches to ritual theory, see Bell (2009).

“

taWvcds“

“

(dc

vtoic

s“

pchCadwaasmc

pltrsa

rsciasogo

rrcs

stcd

p

A. Franchetto NULL xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

There has been a large discussion on the distinction betweenplace” and “space” in geography. Yi-Fu Tuan (2001, p. 6) argueshat “Space is more abstract than Place” and that space can become

place when we “get to know it better and endow it with value.”hen space becomes real, its value becomes a “concretion of

alue,” a palpable object, a “tangible construction” in which “onean dwell” (Tuan, 2001, pp. 6–12).7 Besides, “place” has beenefined as “a meaningful site that combines location, locale andense of place” (Cresswell, 2009, p. 169; Williams, 2015, p. 149).Location” refers to the abstract space of geographical coordinates.Locale” is the material tangibles or imaginary forms of placeCresswell, 2009, p. 169). “Sense of place” is instead a meaningfulimension associated with a place, namely its subjective and socialonstruction (Cresswell, 2009, p. 169; Williams, 2015, p. 149).When we are talking about rituals, the notions of “concretion of

alue,” “locale” and “sense of place” become fundamental, sincehe space for a ritual is indeed charged with value, acquiring non-rdinary qualities which are brought forth by material andmaginary features of that place. Hence a ritual place can beonceived as a non-ordinary place which has non-ordinary powers.Non-ordinariness pertains to sacrality, which is a “subset” of

pecialness. According to Ann Taves (2013, p. 143), the phrasesetting things apart” describes the process by which peopleerceive and conceive things as non-ordinary. Within theontinuum of ordinary things, individuals separate things thatave a special value, marking them non-ordinary. In the same way,atherine Bell (2009, p. 74) contends that ritualization “set somectivities off from other, for creating and privileging a qualitativeistinction between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘profane’.” In these terms,e can conceive a ritual space as an area that have been set apartnd charged with non-ordinary qualities and powers, andrchitecture as a powerful strategy to set things apart. Thesepatial practices can encompass and integrate cognition, theovements of the body, and material culture, with the aim ofreating non-ordinary experiences.This perspective is the opposite of Grimes’s definition, that

lace is something given, preceding the ritual space, and that theatter exist because there is a place. Indeed, I contend that, not onlyhe sense of place comes forth because someone has designed aitual space, but that the sense of a ritual place emergesimultaneously from the ritual actions involved in the constructionnd experience of the ritual space.Moreover, the ritual space has a temporal dimension as well. A

itual space takes place, that is to say is ordered temporally asegmented time (event)—e.g., through consecration, opening,losing, even potentially “ended” through deconsecration andconoclasm. Hence, the experience of the ritual is an experience of

non-ordinary event (Taves & Asprem, 2017, pp. 43–62). The ritualpace can be conceived as series of actions that create non-rdinary places. In other terms, a ritual event is capable ofenerating a sense of place which is characterized by non-rdinariness.It is precisely the relationship between the transiency of the

itual event and the constitution of a ritual space that IADs want toeflect. In particular, as will be discussed later on, there existertain ritual spaces that last only for the duration of the ritual, aso they function in relation to ritual time.Therefore, when we are using overloaded concepts such as

pace and architecture in ritual studies, it is ultimately importanto clarify our terminology. I use the term space to refer to abstract

and other agents (be they human or super-human). From theperspective of the spatial critique, there are no social phenomenathat are not somehow spatialized, for space is produced by socialrelations and reciprocally influences them. Hence, in the context ofritual magic and necromancy, the ritual space can be conceived asan organized space that create a relational domain, between ritualactors, society and super-human agents. Space as a relationaldomain can find expression in architectural forms, which set upthreshold, enclosures, and boundaries.

I define architecture as a series of conceptual and operativeprocedures that allow the control of space, and the relationshipsbetween things and entities. It concerns geometrical compositionsand dimensions responding to human-body proportions. Archi-tectural theory presents “space” as the physical medium for theperception of architecture, conceived as the void contained by themass of architectural forms (Zevi, 1957). Therefore, architectureforges and contains space at the same time, constructingboundaries and thresholds that allow to sense the qualitativedifferences between internal and external spaces. The body is thegenerator of space and architecture, “the tangible form of theresults of the body’s interactions with the world,” productingspatial intuition “from the interaction of the body’s sense organswith the body itself and with aspects of the material world”(Schwarzer & Schmasow, 1991, p. 54).

The concept of IADs describes the cognitive and materialprocesses involved in the construction of temporary ritual spacesthat find expression in architectural forms and that let a sense ofplace arise. In this sense, IADs may offer a conceptual tool that isable to triangulate (1) the lay-out of certain ritual spaces; (2) thesignifications of ritual gestures and material culture involved intheir construction; and (3) the mental imaginaries at play inexperiencing them. I will proceed to define the features of animaginal architectural device (IAD). I will first define “device,” anddetermine when a ritual space can be considered as a device. I willthen consider how a device becomes an architectural device and itsrelationship with imagination. Lastly, I will present the socialimplications of using IADs in ritual settings.

Devices and sensational forms

We commonly use the word device to name an instrument that,due to its characteristics, allows individuals or groups to reachcertain objectives. However, the noun has further philosophicalimplications. Device or apparatus are common translations of theFrench “dispositif” derived from Foucault’s usage. In “The Confes-sion of the Flesh,” Foucault (1980, pp.193–209) says that a dispositifis a system of relations between different elements that can befound in society, and which strategically manipulates power andknowledge in order to orient, direct, and control those elements.

Sometimes we find the term dispositive in philosophicaldiscussions, in which the term retains a technical meaning,separate from the everyday understanding of device, which hasindeed a different etymology. Device comes from the Latin dividere“to divide.” Instead, dispositive comes from disponere “to dispose, toarrange.” Interestingly, the word dispositio “arrangement” wasused by Latin theologians to translate the Greek word oikonomia(Agamben, 2009, p. 11). In a theological context, oikonomia(literally “the management of the house”) was used in the trinitydebate, to name Christ’s role as an administrator in the name ofGod the Father; and this usage formed “a caesura that separated in

onceptualizations, geometrical compositions, and metricalimensions that humans use to relate with individuals, objects

7 In a similar way the philosopher Jeff Malpas (1999, pp. 31–32) suggests thatlace depends on subjective experience.

4

Him being and action, ontology and praxis” (Agamben, 2009, p.10).Agamben (2009, pp. 15–21), moving further from Foucault, statesthat the function of a dispositivo is the “subjectification” ofindividuals. Subjects are those who use devices and are trans-formed by them. Devices are mediators capable of transformingbehaviors, gestures, and discourses of individuals.

A. Franchetto NULL xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

Catherine Bell describes ritualization in a similar fashion asAgamben define devices. Bell contends that a fruitful way tounderstand ritual is to shift the attention to ritualization.Ritualization describes strategic and situational activities, embed-ded in a specific social context, and that have special qualities:“Ritualization is a way of acting that is designed and orchestratedto distinguish and privilege what is being done, in comparison toother, usually more quotidian activities” (Bell, 2009, p. 74).According to Bell, ritualization produces ritualized bodies “throughthe interaction of the body with a structured and structuringenvironment.” A ritualized body, or following Agamben a ritualsubject, is “a body invested with a sense of ritual” (Bell, 2009, p.98). Following these lines of reasoning, a ritual is a device in thesense that it is a system of elements (e.g., gestures, prayers, tools,locations) that orient and control the behaviors and beliefs of thosewho engage with it, orienting the ways of apprehending the worldand making sense of reality, making individuals ritual subjects.

The way I define a ritual device resonates with Birgit Meyer’snotion of mediation in religious practices. Meyer contends thatmateriality is a powerful medium for the generation of a sense ofpresence. Every human activity (religious practices included)produce a surplus of meaning that for religious things is perceivedas a non-ordinary presence or power (2012, p. 21). Meyer callssensational forms the material medium for the generation of asense of presence. Sensational forms are media that affect ourperception at the level of neuro-cognitive processes and culturalframing (p. 27). The generation of a sense of presence throughsensational forms authenticates the belief and authorizes andtransmits the sensational forms into a religious tradition (p. 26).

I apply the term “spatial device” to include all ritual spaces thatbecome sensational forms to orient and direct participants’behavior and cognition, allowing for a sense of presence. It is adefinition that fits “functionalist and instrumentalist” perspectivesof ritual theory (Jensen, 2014, p. 99). Rituals serve to achievecertain effects on various levels: psychological, material, social,and supernatural. When architectural forms are used to do so, theritual space is an architectural device.

There exist architectural devices used in ritual practice that areportable and not associated with a more fixed and standardizedlocation (like a synagogue, church, mosque, temple). This is one ofthe features that the concept of IADs wants to explain. In this sense,IADs hint at temporary spaces, transient signs, and relates to thetemporariness of the ritual event. We expect to find them indomestic ritual, like magic, divination, healing and in various formsof vernacular religion.

For example, for certain Jewish communities, observing theSabbath prohibits the movement of all objects from private topublic space (Jacobs, 2005, p. 8256). To overcome this restriction,Sabbath observers extend the limits of the private space to aportion of the public area, demarcating it with an eruv. The eruv is acontinuous line, which can be represented by everything thatmarks a perimeter. Generally, it is a wire tied up to pillars and walls,few meters above the ground, and barely visible. The efficacy inerecting an eruv is to change believers’ perception of what is in (theprivate) and what is out (the public). The device of the eruv setsapart a portion of the social space from the public domain,extending the sacred space of Sabbath and delimiting an imaginalthreshold.

With different meanings, the construction of magic circles inmedieval necromancy follow the same typological principle of the

qualifying it as special (internal); (2) signifying a prohibited orthreatening external space; and (3) maintaining a continuous andstable separation through imaginal barriers. In the cases of boththe eruv and the magic circle, it is mandatory that the thin linemust not be broken for the duration of the ritual time. The eruv“must be checked every week to ensure there have been noruptures in its border enclosures” (Siemiatycki, 2005, pp. 259–60).In the same way, necromancer should take all the measures toavoid the erasure of circles. For example, it is suggested to step onstools, so that the feet do not rub away the circle lines (Hedegård,2002, p. 136). Therefore, both the eruv and the circle are spatialdevices that determine movements and the cognition of internaland external space. They control and orient behavior by setting aportion of space apart and delimiting a space of sacralitygenerating boundaries and thresholds for the time frame of theritual event.

Architecture and imagination

Vitruvius deals with the role of imagination in architectureregarding dispositio, one of the six categories of architecture that heintroduces in his famous treatise De Architectura (ca. 27 BCE).8

Dispositio (“arrangement”) “is the fit assemblage of details, and,arising from this assemblage, the elegant effect of the work and itsdimensions, along with a certain quality or character” (Vitruvius,1931, p. 25). There are three types of arrangements: plan(iconographia), elevation (orthographia), and perspective (scaenog-raphia). The arrangement of a plan refers to the use of geometry toorganize the ground plan. Namely, iconographia is the structure ofthe architectural space drawn on the ground, and it concerns withthe geometrical control of space.9 Vitruvius says: “Ichonography(plan) demands the competent use of compass and rule; by theseplans are laid out upon the sites provided” (p. 25), and thatdispositio results “from imagination and invention.” For Vitruvius,“Imagination (cogitatione) rests upon the attention directed withminute and observant fervour to the charming effect proposed.”While, invention (“inventione”) “is the solution of obscureproblems; the treatment of a new undertaking disclosed by anactive intelligence” (p. 27).

Vitruvius’s words are inspiring for understanding the relation-ship between the cognitive processes behind drawing a plan andthe semiotic of material culture (of that which is built). I contendthat the act of drawing a plan (iconographia) can be an enactivesignification: “a process of embodied ‘conceptual integration’responsible for the co-substantial symbiosis and simultaneousemergence of the signifier and the signified that brings forth thematerial sign” (Malafouris, 2013, p. 99). Lambros Malafouris (2013)explains that material signs act in a different way than linguisticsigns (words). Language is “denotative” and equates a concept orsomething in the world with arbitrary signifiers (words). Instead,the material sign cannot be arbitrary because it “does not stand fora concept but rather substantiates a concept” (p. 97). In thematerial sign the signified does not ontologically precedes thesignifier. Rather, both the signifier and the signified “come forth” inthe material sign. So, the arrangement (“dispositio”) of space bringforth the architectural form.

Therefore, we can expand further from Vitruvius, saying thatdispositio is the substantiation of the architectural form through a

8 In the First Book, architecture is divided in: Order (Ordinatio), Arrangement(Dispositio), Proportion (Eurythmia), Symmetry (Symmetria), Decor (Decor), andDistribution or Economy (Distributio).

9 To arrange the orthography, instead, means to outline “the vertical image of thefront” (“erecta frontis imago”), while disposing the perspective concerns with thelayout of shadings and vanishing points (Vitruvius, 1931, pp. 25–27).

eruv. As will be examined more in detail in the second section,circles are drawn on the ground, usually with a ritual knife, to marka symbolic perimeter were the necromancer stands during theritual. Circles create an imaginal barrier that protects the operatorsfrom the spirits they hope to conjure outside. In both cases theritual space is organized by (1) setting a portion of space apart and

5

mtaoca“

uiegtf“

asio(

raddaipsmobVobapMaiv

“

mmipsnmsusmambt

tppo(z“

m

A. Franchetto NULL xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

aterial sign. An architectural object is not an “idea” that exists inhe mind and that finds expression in the material world. Rather,rchitectural objects emerge simultaneously from the very actionf tracing geometries on a material support (“through theompetent use of compass and rule”). The architect, while drawing

line, is actually erecting a wall. The way this is possible is throughcognitive projection,” which is “the pervasive (and in most cases)nconscious capacity of the cognitive agent to establish direct,mplicit ontological correspondences between domains of experi-nce” (Malafouris, 2013, p. 100). In other terms, the lines on theround become material anchors that substantiate the presence ofhe internal image of boundaries. Indeed, material anchors areeatures of material culture that allow the projections, or thetransfers,” between internal and external elements. A materialnchor substantiates a mental element in the so-called blendedpace, which is the fusion of the mental and the material domain. Its thus augmented materiality, “allowing human reason to reachut to that which is absent, distant, or otherwise unavailable”Malafouris, 2013, p. 104).

How does this relate to IADs and the ritual space? I argue thatitual actors can construct IADs through enactive significations ofrchitectural arrangements to afford ritual efficacy. A simple wireelimiting the area of the Sabbath, or a circle traced on the groundelimiting the ritual space of a necromancer, are both materialnchors. The eruv and the circles simultaneously substantiate anmaginal and real space. They are in the minds of those whoarticipate in their signification and know the rules that theyignify, but they are also materially “out there.” In other terms, theaterial presence of the wire tied between the pillars or the ringn the ground serves to let practitioners sense the mentaloundaries. Like the lines of a ground plan, for the architectitruvius, are walls and foundations, so ritual enclosures, as thenes discussed above, have the capacity to bring forth sacraloundaries. In the case of the eruv and the circles, their materialnchors substantiate invisible boundaries, making them moreowerful than any other physical enclosures. To say it withargaret Olin (2018, p. 162): “an invisible border can be as strongnd even coercive as a fence or a wall, and the fear of whatnvisibility can hide is often greater than the fear aroused by aisible threat.”One strategy for creating material anchors in ritual settings is

miniaturization.” Arranging the space (disponere) can be a form ofiniaturization. What else is the drawing of a ground plan if not ainiaturization of the elements of a building, reduced to

ntersections of lines and geometries? Johnathan Z. Smith (1998,p. 18–31) has discussed miniaturization in the context of ritualpace. According to Smith, when religious locations are discon-ected from ritual locations because of the distance between them,iniaturization can be a ritual strategy to bridge between the twoites. Miniaturization is a metaphoric strategy, the replicationsing smaller scales and an increasing degree of abstraction ofacred objects or architectures. The abstraction involved ininiaturization amplifies the meaning of the object, making itcquire “intelligible dimensions” (Smith, 1998, p. 22). The moreiniaturized the object, the more abstract its representationecomes, “creating a utopia, a theatre of the mind and imagina-ion” (Smith, 1998, p. 24).

Smith’s idea resonates with the notion of metaphoric projec-ion. From the perspective of cognitive theory, metaphoricrojection is a “metaphoric mapping” of “the structure (spatial,

(1998, p. 20). The miniaturizations of architectonical elements inritual practice can then show the presence of metaphoricalprojections.

We find example of metaphoric projection in the ritual toolsdescribed in the LIH. To conjure the three rank of spirits (planetary,aerial, and terrestrial) the operator needs to construct a composi-tion of sigils, or geometrical diagrams and words inscribed on amaterial foundation (e.g., parchment or wax). It is made byattaching the sigil of the planetary angels to the sigil of God, thesigil of the airy angels to the planetary one, and the terrestrial tothe planetary one. The conjurer holds the sigil of God in his hand,and all the others hang down from it (Hedegård, 2002, p. 38). Theywill show this spatial device to the spirits, to control and constrainthem.

This object is a miniaturization of the cosmological hierarchiesaccording to which the ritual is conceived. The hierarchy of beingsdescribed by Honorius reflects Neoplatonic cosmologies. Indeed,the entities that Honorius instructs to conjure are called angels(“angeli”), spirits (“spiritus”), or demons (“demones”) (Hedegård,2002, pp. 65, 134). Conjuring and constraining angels is unortho-dox from a Christian perspective, perhaps more closely bearingcharacteristics of Jewish and Islamic angelology (Mesler, 2012, p.124), and this practice easily falls in the category of necromancy.Thomas of Aquinas, in his unfinished treatise on angelic creatures,put under the category of “angels” all the hierarchies ofintermediary beings theorized by Proclus, who divided them in:“secondary gods, separate intellects, heavenly souls, demons goodor wicked” (Casas, 2018, p. 231). Honorius’s angels reflect the samestructure. We are indeed told that there exist four types of angels.The celestial spirits, which cannot be conjured since they aresubordinate only to God;10 and the planetary, aerial, and terrestrialspirits, which can be conjured through the ritual procedures taughtby Honorius.

It is fundamental for necromancers that God give thempermission to conjure spirits. This characteristic is evident inthe structure of LIH. The practitioner first constructs the sigil ofGod,11 transcends beyond the cosmos to have the divine vision andthen, we see a downwards movement of controlling thehierarchical spheres in order: planetary, aerial, terrestrial. More-over, the necromancer operates according to a cosmologicalstructure where all these spiritual hierarchies are interdependent.Thus, it is not surprising that, before invoking the airy spirits, theconjurer calls forth the planetary ones (Hedegård, 2002, p. 134)(Table 2).

Nevertheless, even though the system of sigil is a metaphoricalprojection, it is not an IAD, for IADs always involve the constructionof boundaries that interact with the body of the ritual actors. Whatis an IAD in the LIH is the circle used for the conjuration as will beexplained in the following paragraphs.

To sum up, a ritual space is an IAD or is made of IADs if we canrecognize all the following features:

(1) The construction and delimitation of the ritual area isorganized through material anchors that bring forth theprojection of a blended space and which orient and controlthe gestures and movements of the practitioners and/or of thesuperhuman agents.

(2) Architectural arrangements (dispositiones) are employed tosignal thresholds and boundaries that are both material and

10 They are divided in nine orders: “cherubyn, seraphin, troni, dominaciones,virtutes, principatus, potestates, archangeli, et angeli” (Hedegård, 2002, p. 65).11 The construction of the sigil of God is explained in the first section (Hedegård,2002, pp. 67–70). However, we do not have details about the diagrams of the othersigils.

erceptual, or other) of a concrete and directly meaningful domainf experience . . . upon a meaningless abstract conceptual one”Malafouris, 2013, p. 102). Indeed, according to Smith miniaturi-ation is a form of “metaphoric transposition,” which meansexchanging relations of equivalence for those of identity,” such asaking a copy of sacred space from its prototype to make a replica

6

A. Franchetto NULL xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

imaginal, and that regulate movements through exits andentrances.

(3) The arrangements are temporary and they depend on the timeof the ritual event.

IADs define a typology of ritual space but not the function andmeaning in a specific ritual. There can be different models of IADsthat respond to different ritual purposes. They interact with theindividuals making them subject of the ritual, or ritual agents. Theyare at the same time imaginal and real. Hence, they qualify as non-ordinary spaces for those who participate in the projection of theritual-blended space.

Now, I will attempt to use IADs to analyze the spatialarrangements described in the LIH. I will focus on the analysisof the construction of three models of IADs described in LIH’sconjuration sections. I will show that the typology of magic circlesfunctions as IADs. In necromancy, the diagrams of the circles alterpractitioners’ perception of space and articulate control and powerover superhuman agents.

IADs in the Liber Iuratus: the circles

In the following sections, the three features of IADs will bediscussed in the context of the LIH. First, it will be shown that thecircles that Honorius teaches how to construct are materialanchors for the cognitive projection of cosmological topographies,and that the materiality of the circles makes them arrangements(dispositiones) of a blended space. Second, I will show how thesearrangements establish a sense of presence of thresholds andenclosures that regulates the interactions with intermediarybeings. Third, I will discuss how the circles relate with the timeof the ritual and how they become Foucauldian heterotopias (to bedefined below) in ritual practice.

Arrangements of cosmological topographies

The shapes, dimensions, and diagrams of the circles hint atmetaphoric projections of mental images of cosmological top-ographies. There are three different models of circles, dependingon the locations where three different types of spirits are supposedto dwell.

In fact, Honorius teaches how to conjure planetary, aerial,and terrestrial spirits, which have different qualities. Theplanetary are good spirits that firstly serve God, and secondlyhumankind. They rule and dwell in the astral spheres (“sperisstellarum”) (Hedegård, 2002, p. 117). They have fiery bodies andthey are organized in seven ranks, corresponding to the sevenplanets. The last type, terrestrial spirits, are shameful andperverted (“sunt turpissimi et omni pravitate pleni”) (Hedegård,2002, p. 142). They have big bodies and they are tall. They have fivefaces, which resemble a toad, lion, serpent, man mourning andcrying, and face ungraspable by humans (“hominis incomprehensi-bilis”) (Hedegård, 2002, p. 143).12

The circles of the planetary spiritsIn this section I argue that through the spatial gimmick of the

miniaturization of cosmological topographies, conjurersattempted to relocate planetary spirits from a super-human,abstract, and therefore uncontrollable dimension, to a physical andcontrollable dimension. We can say that necromancers aimed to

The circles of the planetary spirits are made up of acircumference of nine feet in diameter, which shares its centerwith a hemisphere of seven feet in diameter, and two otherconcentric circles at the distance of one foot from each other. Thisgeometrical composition is erected either “on a clearing in a wood,or in a high tower.”13 First, the conjurer collects hard stones ofequal size or bricks (made for that purpose) and joins themtogether with a mixture of lime and sand to form the first circle ofnine feet, which should be even with the ground. Secondly, usingclean earth, the conjurer forges a protruding hemisphere, threeand a half feet high and seven feet in diameter.14 Third, with a newknife, the operator engraves two concentric circles, spaced one footfrom each other. The bigger circle is nine feet in diameter and isplaced next to the circle of stones (Hedegård, 2002, pp. 119, 174).Around the perimeter, the names of the angels of the hours, days,months, and years should be written reciting an invocation. Theconjurers stand inside the concentric circles, while the spiritsappear in front of them, in the circle of stones on the hemisphere(Veenstra, 2012, p. 174).15 In the center of the circle of stones, thepractitioner writes: “This is the throne of the angelic vision andcontemplation.”16

I argue that this spatial arrangement is a material anchor formetaphorical projections of celestial topographies through minia-turizations of cosmological topographies. Indeed, the hemisphereis called the “seat of Samaym” (“sedem Samaym”) (Hedegård, 2002,p. 122), which is an evident miniaturization of the heavenly vault,where planetary spirits are supposed to dwell. Not only shamayimrefer to the Hebrew word for “heavens” used in Genesis 1:1,17 butthe biblical heaven is described as an “inverted bowl or vault overthe earth” (Pennington, 2007, p. 42).

Moreover, the shape and proportions of the circles displaymetaphorical projections of abstract concepts attested in astro-nomical literature of the time. The sphere of Iohannes deSacrobosco (1195–1256), professor in Paris, was “the clearest,most elementary, and most used textbook in astronomy andcosmography from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century”(Thorndike, 1949, p. 1). This widely studied text was mandatoryin university courses.18 Hence, necromancers were certainlyfamiliar with this treatise. Sacrobosco teaches that since theuniverse includes everything existing, the sphere is the mostcapacious, and convenient geometrical shape. Comparing thestructure of the universe presented by Sacrobosco and thediagrams of the circles shows how astronomical concepts can besubstantiated in material anchors. Sacrobosco describes theuniverse as divided in multiple spheres, the dimensions of whichvary, since “each sphere encloses its inferior spherically.” Theheavens, or “Fifth essence,” is divided in nine spheres. Movingdownward: the sphere of the primum mobile; the sphere of fixedstars; and the seven spheres of the planets. Interestingly, the LIHinstructs that the “seat of Samaym” should have a diameter of

13 This indication appears only in the Summa (Veenstra, 2012, p. 173).14 In the Summa the circle is ten feet in diameter, while stones are employed toconstruct the inner circle, three feet high and seven feet in diameter (Veenstra,2012, p. 173).15 Circles used as containers recalls those used in astral magical rituals in theArabic matrix, which “demarcated a special space in which the magical practitionerperformed his sacrifices to the planetary spirits and received the spirit delegated tospeak to him in the smoke of the burnt sacrifice” (Page et al., 2019, p. 445).16

“Hoc est sedile contemplacio et visio angelica,” Kassel, Summa, L3 fol2, in Veenstra(2012, p. 173).17 In the Liber Salomonis, the first heaven is called Samaym (de Laat, 2018, p. 133).

contact planetary spirits through the miniaturization of spiritualextensions into a human scale.

12 In the Summa we have the distinction between spiriti boni (planetary) and spiritimaligni (airy); see Veenstra (2012, p. 173).

Liber Sameyn (quod vult dicere Liber celorum) is the sixth section of the Liber Razielis(Page, 2007, p. 41).18 The Sphere was so widespread that it was also rendered into vulgar languages.Zucchero Bencivenni (active 1300–1313) translated it into Italian. See GabriellaRonchi’s edition (Bencivenni, 1999).

7

scmpsoctimpld

ttbtngttbsTnTfi

map

T

snatd

ufi

pwodscpscTtbsptaL

ta

d

A. Franchetto NULL xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

even feet, which correspond to the seven planetary spheres. Theircle of stones is two feet more (nine feet total), representing theaximum extension of the Ptolemaic cosmos, the sphere ofrimum mobile. Hence, the cosmological distance between eachphere has been scaled/miniaturized to the human proportion ofne foot. Furthermore, Sacrobosco teaches that there are “celestialircles” that divide the spheres of the heavens in different parts. Ofhese, the Equinoctial divides the spheres into equal domes and its “described on the surface of the sphere about its center”. Thisental image is miniaturized in “the seat of Samaym,” which is aerfect hemisphere. The ground plane passes through its center,ike the plane of the celestial equator divides the spheres into equalomes (Thorndike, 1949, pp. 119, 123, 210).In addition, astronomical concepts are substantiated in the

ools used to trace the systems of circles. Sacrobosco contendshat “every circle in the sphere except the zodiac is understood toe a line or circumference,” while “the zodiac alone is understoodo be a surface” (Thorndike, 1949, p. 125). The necromancer uses aew knife to trace circumferences on an even ground, like on aeometrical plane, and it is significant that Honorius recommendshat the circle of stones must be “even with the ground” (equaliserre, Hedegård, 2002, p. 119). Namely, it should not be a surfaceut a line traced on a plane. Besides, Sacrobosco writes that thephere is a necessary shape, to avoid having residual spots (horndike, 1949, p. 30). The LIH warns that the hemisphere mustot have any cracks or imperfections (Hedegård, 2002, p. 119).hese recommendations echo the description of the heavens wend in the Picatrix, the famous thirteenth century treatise on astralagic. It says that the heavenly vault is a sphere perfectly shapednd rounded, and that “it does not have any cracks orrotuberance.”19

he circles of the airy spiritsThe circles of the airy spirits show the same metaphorical

trategies but with important variations. Indeed, airy spirits shouldot be relocated anywhere, since they are supposed to dwell in their.20 Instead, the necromancer stands inside the circles, relocatinghemselves at the center of the cosmological order. The circulariagrams become a place of power to exert control from within.The diagrams emphasize the complete structure of the

niverse and its center (Figs. 1 and 2). The operator traces therst circle at the distance of nine feet, a miniaturization of therimum mobile. Then, they trace other two concentric circlesithin the previous circle at the distance of one foot from eachther and write the names of angels within the gaps (Fig. 1). In sooing, they have miniaturized the circle of the fixed stars, and thephere of Saturn. Then, they draw seven lines converging in theenter, dividing the area into seven segments, oriented along theoint of the compass. These segments correspond to theubdivision of the airy spirits according to the direction of theompass. Those from West and East are good, gentle, and loyal.hose from southern and northern regions are bad, of fierceemper. In addition, there are others which are neither good norad, and they are located in between the previous ones:outheastern, southwestern, and northwestern (Hedegård, 2002,p. 128–29). The diagonals of the square are represented, dividinghe shape in multiple parts and containing the letters “AGLA,”cronym for the Hebrew “Atah Gibor Le-olam Adonai” (“You, Oord, are mighty forever”) (Bechmann, 2006, p. 1161).

The LIH manuscripts in Kassel and London (British Library,Sloane 3854) show detailed ground plans (Figs. 1 and 2). Eventhough the diagrams show the same type of structure, we cannotice geometrical variations. The copyists have transformed theseschemes according to their own understanding of the exactness ofthe topographical cosmology. For example, the earlier Kasselmanuscript (first half of the fourteenth century) presents asubdivision in seven equal sections of the circumferences.However, this way of dividing the area makes the orientation ofthe circle asymmetrical: the axis that goes from West to East doesnot pass through the center of the circle. The same goes for the axisfrom South to North. Hence, in the London manuscript we see arearrangement of the subdivision of the segments according to thesymmetry of the cardinal axes. The copyist has decided to followthe geometries of the internal square to partition the circle intoseven segments, although this has compromised the equal size ofthe seven sections of the circles.

This shows that orientation according to cardinal directions ofthe entire composition was more important (and supposedly moreeffective) than having proportioned segments. Hence, not only arethe diagrams a miniaturization of the cosmos, but they should alsobe aligned with the cosmological axes. The circle can be locatedanywhere on the surface of the earth; the importance is theorientation of the spatial arrangement. In addition, the concept ofthe origin of the universe is substantiated in the diagram, at thecentral point. The entire composition shares one center, empha-sized in both images. In the Kassel version, it is indicated with fourblue dots ; in the London version, by the intersection of the axes. Atthis center, the necromancer is placed at center of the universe.Now that the cosmos has been miniaturized, the necromancer’sgaze can reach the furthest extensions of the cosmological orders.Hence, the circles become like a panopticon, a place of powerwhere control is exerted through sight.

The protection of the space is implemented by other spatialdevices. After having traced the ground, the operator marks(signare) the air above with the Seal of Solomon reciting: “I placethe Seal of Solomon above me for salvation and defense, to protectme from the appearance of enemy.”21 It is said that the Seal shouldbe marked (signare) at a height of two times the diameter (fourteenfeet) of the circle (“aerem supra se duobus diametris ubicumquesignet”; Hedegård, 2002, p. 130). The act of signare, apparently,requires visualization skills, imagining the shape of the sealappearing above. Marking the air might suggest that since thesespirits dwells in the air, the conjurer wants to have protection fromall the directions.

In addition, the operator writes the seven names of God aroundthe perimeter of the circles on the ground or on pieces of parchment:“L < a>ialy, Lialg, Veham, Yalgal, Narath, Libarre, Libares” (Hedegård,2002, p. 130). These names are supposed to prevent the circle frombeing violated (“Set prius iuxta circulum hec 7 predicta nominascribantur, quia posset circulus aliter violari”; Hedegård, 2002, p.133).The names are written after the conjurer has traced the circles in thefirst night. Then, in the second night, they remove them beforecalling forth the airy spirits, and restore them immediately after, sothat the space will not be desecrated (“quia posset circulus aliterviolari”; Hedegård, 2002, p. 133). For the last time, in the thirdevening, before the actual conjuration, the practitioner restores thenames, “otherwise the spirits cannot appear” (“quia non possentaliter apparere”; Hedegård, 2002, p.136). In this case, it is interestingto observe that the enactive signification of the words is obtained by

19 “talis spera nullun habet excessum nec locum” (Pingree, 1986, pp. 7–8). Besides,he planets themselves are called “sperae” (spheres) (Hedegård, 2002, p. 123). Seelso Picatrix (Pingree, 1986, pp. 140–41).20 “quia illi aerei apparent extra circulum in aere homine existente infra circulum, quiebet esse totus planus sicut †epiparet†” (Hedegård, 2002, p. 149).

8

giving them material support and a spatial dimension, constitutinga powerful blended space.

21 “Signum Salomonis ad salvacionem et defensionem pono supra me, ut sit michiproteccio a facie inimici” (Hedegård, 2002, p. 130).

A. Franchetto NULL xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

The circles of the terrestrial spiritsWe are told that terrestrial spirits “are the most offensive.” The

sphere, dug in the ground. The magician stands inside a secondcircle, made up of two concentric circumferences with a gap where

Fig. 1. ©British Library Board, Sloane 3854, fol. 133v, available http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=764. Diagram of the circles for theconjurations of airy spirits. Three concentric circumferences are divided by seven straight segments converging in the center. A red rectangle is inscribed in the smallestcircumference and the segments divide it into seven triangles that contain the letters a-g-l-a-g-l-a. The letters e-l-o-n are written within the space between the sides of thesquare and the arcs of the circumference. Angelic names are inscribed in the space between the circumferences, while the features of the seven compass directions appear onthe outside, in the quadrants delimited by the straight lines.

author recommends that one should change the shape of thecircles and the suffumigations using sulfur instead of frankincense(Hedegård, 2002, pp. 14–143). As for the planetary spirits, we havetwo systems of circles distant nine feet from each other. One circle,the place where spirits are supposed to appear, is a hollow semi-

9

angelic names are inscribed. These circles are drawn on levelground. A cross divides the space in four quarters, representing thefour parts of the world. We can notice a symmetry with the circlesfor the planetary spirits. In both rituals, earth is molded intohemispheres, concave and convex. However, this time, the place of

tp

A

pu“

fi

r

Fcimbwo(

A. Franchetto NULL xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

he apparition is concave, hence the spirits will stand on a lowerlane.

rchitecture in the medieval mind

imaginal boundaries and creating a sense of internal and externalspace.

In the Etymologies, Isidore of Seville (ca. 560–636 C.E.), aCatholic archibishop and one of the most influential medievalencyclopedists (Elfassi & Ribémont, 2008, pp. 3–4), describes the

ig. 2. Universitätsbibliothek Kassel, Landesbibliothek und Murhardsche Bibliothek der Stadt Kassel, 4� Ms. astron. 3, fol. 78r. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, https://reativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. Diagram of the circles for the conjurations of airy spirits in Berengario Ganell’s Summa Sacre Magice. Two concentric rings divide theage into two parts. The outer ring is divided into eight blue and red segments. A square is inscribed in the smallest circumference and the center of the figure is demarcated

y four blue dots. The diagonals of the square are traced delimiting four triangles, inside of which the four letters of the word Agla are written. The letters e-l-o-n are writtenithin the space between the sides of the square and the arcs of the circumference. The area between the two rings is divided into seven equal parts, within which the featuresf the seven compass directions are given: Oriens (East), Consol (South-East), Meridies (South), Nogahem (South-West), Occidens (West), Frigicap (North-West), SeptemptrioNorth).

In the following paragraphs, I will show how these circles asrescribed in the medieval necromancy manuscripts are basedpon medieval, architectural principles, especially those ofconstructive geometry,” i.e., the manipulation of geometricgures for building purposes. Moreover, I will argue that theitual actions that employ the circles are capable of generating

1

architect as a master educated in the scholae and an expert of “theprinciples and the rules that regulate the construction” (Tosco,1993, p. 119). Isidore’s perspective resonates with the Vitruvianconception of the architect as a learned intellectual and, althoughnot omnipresent in the middle ages, when used, the termarchitectus could refer to “clerics specially interested or

0

A. Franchetto NULL xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

experienced in architecture” (Pevsner, 1942, p. 556).22 Isidoreshows a theological understanding of architecture: “The master-builders (architectus) are the builders (caementarius) who lay outthe foundations. Whence the apostle Paul, speaking of himself, said(I Corinthians 3:10): ‘As a wise architect (architectus) I have laid thefoundation’” (Barney et al., 2006, p. 377). Carlo Tosco (1993) statesthat “to lay out the foundations” (disponere in fundamentis) “doesnot simply refer to the placement of an object in space but also toits orientation in space” (p.102). The architect knows the principles(ἀrχαῖ) upon which to build a durable structure (Tosco, 1993, p.103). Thus, Isidore shows us that, in the imaginarum of themedieval mind, the art of disponere was analogous to laying thefoundations, organizing the ground plan, of a righteous religiousworld: Paul is Architectus Christi, and Christ himself is ArchitectusEcclesiae (Pevsner, 1942, p. 550; Tosco, 1993, p.103, n. 22). Inaddition, God was commonly represented as the Architect of theUniverse, “who in his role as creator of the universe was depictedencircling the globe with a giant compass” (Coldstream, 2002, p.72).

This is a crucial point for understanding the technical emphasison how to lay-out and orient in space (disponere) the circles that wefind in the LIH, charging this act with a profound religiousmeaning. Indeed, the representation of circles in manuscripts showthat necromancers had a degree of understanding of the principlesof constructive geometry. The plan of the circles shows therespective proportions of each geometrical figure. At the sametime, when there is the excavation of the soil, vertical sections areprovided (Sloane 3854, fol. 137 r). Given that late medievalnecromancers were learned people, belonging to the so-called“clerical underworld” (Kieckhefer, 1998, p. 12), they might havebeen familiar with the discipline of architecture, which theystudied in texts inspired by Isidore’s model, drawing on theVitruvian treatise as transmitted by Cetus Faventinus, and RabanusMaurus (ca. 784–856 C.E.), the author of the famous encyclopedicwork De Universo, which offers a symbolical-theological descrip-tion of the architectonic elements (mystica significatio) (Tosco,1993, p. 101, 107–108). This might suggest that they were clerics orscholars familiar with the art of disponere the foundations ofbuildings. For instance, building a cathedral required differentkinds of expertise: knowledge of the geometrical proportions ofstable structures (constructive geometry), and the skills of laycraftsmen to build it. Architects used circles and polygons forlaying out the ground plans; for example, they used circum-ferences in designing choirs (see Coldstream, 2002, pp. 65–67).Nicolaus Pevsner (1942) shows evidences that the knowledgeablearchitect was occasionally “a cleric of sufficient theoreticalknowledge of architecture, we are entitled to assume, to enablehim to do his own planning” (p. 553).

The choice of using a ritual knife to trace the circumferencesmight refer to the common technique of erecting walls to defendcities. In his Etymologies, Isidore writes that the construction of acity’s defensive wall was begun by ploughing the ground with acircular furrow:

‘City’ (urbs) is from ‘circle’ (orbis), because ancient cities weremade circular, or from ‘plow-handle’ (urbus), a part of the plowby which the site of the walls would be marked out. Whencethis (Vergil, Aen. 3.109 combined with 1.425):‘And he chose a seat for his kingdom, and marked out the limitswith a furrow.’

For the site of the future city was marked out with a furrow, thatis, by a plow (Barney et al., 2006, p. 305).23

Hence, it is significant that Honorius instructs to use a knife totrace circles, perhaps mimicking the ritual action of tracing thepomerium—the sacred line drawn with the plow signifing theenclosure of Latin and Etruscan cities (see Price, 1996, p. 844), towhich Isidore refers. In the LIH, the circles drawn with a knife arethose where the magician stands during the conjuration, lettingarise a sense of interior protective space. The LIH says that thespirits will attempt all the tricks and illusions to compel thepractitioners to exit the circles (Hedegård, 2002, p. 141). Thehypothesis that circles function as defensive walls is reinforced byfurther evidence in other manuscripts where circles show gapscalled portae (gates). Portae are used to enter and exit the circles,and carry in the ritual tools; as an example, see the circle and gate(porta) in Peterson (1999, p. 51v). Isidore, writing about defensivewalls, says that “a gate (porta) is the name of the place wheresomething can be carried in (importare) or carried out (exportare),”and that to make a porta one should lift and carry (“portare”) theplow, breaking the furrow with a gap (Barney et al., 2006, p. 305).

Patterns of heterotopia

What is the function of IADs in relation to other spaces insociety? In other terms, why did necromancers use IADs ratherthan erect churches or temples? The construction of temporaryritual enclosures that are both imaginal and real can have socialimplications. Foucault says that those spaces that are founded insociety that are simultaneously imaginal and real are heterotopias,and that in certain cases contain those “whose behavior is deviantin relation to the required mean or norm” (Foucault, 1986, p. 25).24

The practice of necromancy involves deviant ritual actions (seealso Otto, 2016, pp. 204–207), and these might have promptpractitioners to elaborate heterotopic strategies to create theiroperative ritual space in society.

While utopias are entirely imaginal, heterotopias are bothimaginal and real at the same time: “Places of this kind are outsideof all places, even though it may be possible to indicate theirlocation in reality.” The realness of heterotopias is that they “areformed in the very founding of society.” Besides, since they carryimaginal features they are “counter-sites, a kind of effectivelyenacted utopia in which the real sites, all the other real sites thatcan be found within the culture, are simultaneously represented,contested, and inverted” (Foucault, 1986, p. 24).

Foucault describes a series of principles that create hetero-topias. In particular, heterotopias have rituals of access and exit,discontinuous relations with time, and juxtaposed spaces. I havealready presented what Foucault defines as juxtaposition whendiscussing the miniaturization of celestial topographies. Indeed,heterotopias can “juxtapose in one single place several incompati-ble spatial elements” (Foucault, 1986, p. 25). Foucault says that thePersian garden supposedly brings together within its fourrectangular walls the four parts of the world and all the elements

23 In the section on public buildings (De aedificiis publicis, XV, ii), Isidore gives thesame protective meaning to the word “town” (oppidum): “Some have said the word‘town’ (oppidum) is from the ‘opposing’ (oppositio) of its walls; others, from itshoarding of wealth (ops), due to which it is fortified; others, because the community

22 In his Etymologies, Isidore transfigured the notion of the architect, now a wiseman (sapiens), bringing architecture to the rank of the noble disciplines of thequadrivium. Indeed, architecture belonged to the mechanical arts, or applied arts,which Cassiodorus (ca. 490�580 C.E.) downgraded as “non-scientific,” notlegitimate enough to be drawn near mathematic or astrology (Tosco, 1993, p. 100).

of those living in it gives mutual support (ops) against an enemy . . . . This is theorigin of towns, which are said to be named towns (oppidum) because they offerprotection (ops)” (Barney et al., 2006, p. 305).24 The concept was introduced by Foucault in 1967 in a lecture to students ofarchitecture at the Cercle d’études architecturales, and only published 20 years later.He gave a hint of the concept earlier (Foucault, 1966, pp. 7–17). Fragments of thatlecture were already published (Foucault, 1968, pp. 822–23) before the completeversion in the format of lecture notes in 1984: (Foucault, 1984, pp. 46–49).

11

odpisgt

cLisdprthtod

ttttss(af

fi

orraw

aTr

TR

A. Franchetto NULL xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

f the cosmos. Two orthogonal paths aligned with the cardinalirections intersect in the center of the garden, where a fountain islaced, representing the axis mundi. This is a juxtaposition of anmmeasurable cosmological order onto a small and measurablelice of earth (Foucault, 1986, pp. 25–26). Like Foucault’s Persianardens, as already discussed, magic circles are miniaturizations ofhe immeasurable extension of the cosmos.

Tables 1 and 2 show the structure of the rituals for theonjurations of planetary and ary spirits according to Time,ocation, Ritual Actions, Material and Tools, and Ritual Goal.25 It isnteresting to see that the relationship between time and locationhows that the circles are indeed temporary. Each ritual lasts threeays, plus the purification phases, which last 32 days. The rituallace is created and transformed within the span of time of theitual. One of the ways in which heterotopias are in relation withime is temporariness. Foucault describes the circus as aeterotopia of discontinuity. The tent is a temporary constructionhat appears and disappears in a certain location at a certain timef the year, like the magic circle that can be traced and erased atifferent locations and times.Moreover, heterotopias are simultaneously isolated and pene-

rable and they regulate the movement of objects and individualshrough rituals of entry and exit (Foucault, 1986, p. 26). Accordingo the LIH, the mental state of the practitioner should be modifiedhrough a ritual purification (Prima mundacio). It lasts 32 days andtarts the day after a New Moon. It consists of reading prayers onpecific days and at specific canonical hours: matin (dawn); terce9 a.m.); none (3 p.m.); vesper (sunset). It also requires thessistance of a priest, who will perform the mass privately,ollowing precise instructions for the prayers and suffumigations.

We see also that there is a ritual of access to the circles. On therst day, the practitioner attends the mass, and goes to the locationf the circle reciting prayers. More specifically, after havingeceived the holy communion, they go to the place of the circleseciting a prayer asking God to listen to their request and then utter

series of divine names. Once arrived, they consecrate the spaceith another prayer, asking for the grace of God.The use of IADs—such as the circle—in necromancy might find

ritual event show heterotopic features, a kind of social strategy tocreate hidden and fleeting places in the society.

The fate of IADs

Foucault has argued that heterotopias vary throughout historyand among different cultures, “and perhaps no one absolutelyuniversal form of heterotopia would be found” (Foucault, 1986, p.24). As a typological concept, IADs reflect precisely this feature.Architectural theory distinguishes between type and models (Arís,2012, pp. 15–17; Purini, 2002, pp. 114–117; Quatremère de Quincy& Younés, 1999, pp. 19–33). “Type” describes the conceptual andabstract features of architecture, while “models” define thephysical architectural object(s). A type can be imitated in differentmodels; therefore, there can be variations among concrete modelsof a certain typology. In this sense IADs defines a heuristic tool—conceptual and descriptive, allowing the recognition of structuresunderlying the conceptualization of an array of ritual spaces.

Otto (2016) has already argued of the importance of conceptu-alizing typologies in the study of ritual dynamics in the history ofWestern Learned Magic, in order to “facilitate the analysis,comparison and synoptic re-narration of a large quantity of ritualprescriptions;” and to “offer a nuanced and fine-grained analyticalterminology that does justice to the complexity, heterogeneity andhybridity of the subject matter” (p. 221). IADs can operate preciselytowards these goals. Indeed, IADs describe a type of ritual spaceand not its meaning, hence it allows comparisons, namely theidentifications of the patterns of continuities and, especially, thevariations, transformations, and hybridizations that happen in thetransmission of magical practices.

For example, we can compare the medieval models, previouslyanalyzed, with those used in contemporary ritual magic, andobserve how practitioners have imitated the IAD of the circle inmodels with differing implications for ritual practice. The firstfeature of an IAD is the employment of material anchors that bringforth the projection of a blended space. The anthropologist TanyaLuhrmann (1989) has analyzed the practices of different witches’covens. The circle is a fundamental prerequisite for ritual

able 1itual phases for the conjuration of planetary spirits.

Time Location Ritual Action Materials and Tools Ritual Goal

Preparatory day Isolated Arranging the circle of stones and the semi-sphere

Stones or bricks,lime and sand,clean earth

Constructing the circles

32 days followingthe new Moon

Private dwellings and thechurch

Praying, attending mass, suffumigations Incense 1st purification(Prima Mundacio)

1st day Moving from the church to theritual location

Receiving the Holy Communion, Praying Consecration of the circles

2nd day Moving along the perimeter ofthe circle of stones

Suffumigations Incense Calling forth theplanetary spirts

Moving along the perimeter ofthe circle of stones

Calling formula

Moving around the circle ofstones

Drawing two additional circles New knife

Moving along the perimeter ofthe circles

Uttering formulas

3rd day Domestic environment Bathing, removing body hairs, wearinggarments

white-linen garments 2nd Purification

Circles Suffumigating (circle and seal of God);genuflecting and praying

Incense Preparation for theactual invocation

Standing outside the circles Uttering invocatory formulas Conjuration

nswer in the fact that they are settings for deviant ritual practices.hey erect an imaginal architectonical space for the time of theitual event. The way they are made and their relationship with the

25 The ritual for the terrestrial spirits follows the same scheme as the airy ones.

1

ceremonies. It is a simple circumference drawn on the ground.It can be a chalk one, thirteen feet in diameter or it can be drawn by“dropping brown rice” (pp. 223–25). According to Lurhmann, “themagic circle chalks out space which magicians idealize as specialand different” (p. 226). As it happens in the LIH, the witches’ circlessubstantiate an imaginal boundary that alters and modulates the

2

A. Franchetto NULL xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

perception of space, at the point that practitioners claim “to definea new space and new time whenever we cast a circle,” affecting“the sensation of space and time” (p. 227). In addition, ScottCunningham (2004, p. 60), wiccan practitioner and author,describes the circle as “a palpable construction that can be sensedand felt with experience.”

The second feature of IADs is that they are architecturalarrangements that establish thresholds and boundaries that areboth material and imaginal. The circle in contemporary witchcraftis often named a “temple,” a non-ordinary boundary that serves “tokeep the power,” which witches “believe they can raise from theirown bodies and to prevent it being dissipated before they canmould it to their own will” (Gardner, 1982, p. 26). It can be alsovisualized as sphere of colored energy, half above and half belowthe ground (Cunningham, 2004, p. 59).

The third characteristic is that IADs are ephemeral, temporaryconstructions, that do not belong to specific locations. At the end ofthe ceremonies, the circles are banished, often with a specificbanishing formula, through which all of the other super-humanentities (the elements and the gods) are dismissed from that place.

The boundaries generated by this model have a differentfunction than that in medieval necromancy. Indeed, whereas in theLIH and other grimoires like the Key of Solomon, the substatiantionof imaginal boundaries through material anchors serve only as afunction of protections from the demons conjured, in contempo-rary witchcraft it is inside that circle that wiccans meet thenuminous: “a sacred space in which humans meet the Goddess andGod” (Cunningham, 2004, p. 57).

Conclusions

To conclude, the IAD is an analytical category to studyarchitectural arrangements in rituals that orient practitioners’

IADs have been used to study the ritual space described in thenecromantic parts of LIH. It has been possible to argue that circles arenot analogical copies of the body (Clucas, 2000); instead, they areapprehended as architectural arrangements and miniaturizations ofcosmological topographies. The IADs in the LIH are constructedthrough enactive signification of foundational rituals to erectdefensive boundaries and thresholds, using temporary signs andmaterials. Through the actions involved in their construction, thinand continuous lines on the ground are effective in generatinginvisible boundaries and heterotopias of juxtaposition. Theyseparate the body of the magician from the spirits conjured and atthe same time juxtapose on the ground two “incompatible spatialelements” (Foucault, 1986, p. 25): the immensurable cosmologicaltopographies, and the human-proportioned dimensions of thediagrams. Therefore, necromantic circles modulate the perception ofinterior and exterior spaces, and relocate the position of the spiritsand the necromancers within the cosmological hierarchy, becomingplaces of power to exerts control.

In relation to this, it has been possible to show, that even thoughthe magic circle is a common typology of ritual space in medievalnecromancy, and they have been transmitted to later centuries,their functions and implications for ritual practices change. Notonly the transmission of the type to contemporary witchcraft hastransformed its models and therefore its function in ritual magicbut there are different models of circles in medieval necromancy,which relate to the cosmological location of the entities conjured inthe LIH. Indeed, the models in the LIH vary depending on the spiritsconjured. Because planetary spirits are believed to dwell atincommensurable distance from the practitioners, necromancersconstruct a replica of the heavens and ask them to descend on theminiaturized versions of their locations: “I conjure you and Icommand you with the power of God to obey my requests, so thatyou think fit to come down from the planetary spheres of Saturn,

Table 2Ritual phases for the conjuration of airy spirits.

Time location Ritual Action Materials and Tools Ritual Goal

32 days followingthe new Moon

Praying, Mass 1st Purification(Prima Mundacio)

1st night (aftercompletorium)

Moving from the churchto the ritual location

Listening the completorium, praying (17,15)

Consecration

Ritual place Drawing diagrams on the ground Constructing thecircles14 feet above the ground Drawing the seal of Solomon

(imagination)Outside the perimeter ofthe circles

Writing the 7 names of God

2nd night (aftercompletorium)

Moving along thedirections of the circles

Deleting 7 names of God,suffumigating, uttering formulas,restoring the 7 names of God

Censer, frankincense, live coal Calling forth thewinds

3rd day 600 feet from the circles Eating Wine, fish Calling forth theplanetary spirtsUttering invocatory formulas

From Frigicap Entering thecircles

Inside the circles Uttering prayer 18 Closing the circlesPlacing the associates, and the swords 7 swords, stoolsDelating the seven names of God Letting the spirits

appearIn the circles Suffumigating, uttering formulas, going

around the circle nine timesSeal of God, seal of the spirits, a censer with incense,laurel or hazel wand, seven swords

Calling forth theairy spirits

In the circles Uttering formulas, going around circlenine times, kneeling towards compassdirections

Seal of God, seal of the spirits, a censer with incense, alaurel or hazel wand, seven swords, a whistle

Conjuration

gestures and cognition of space, and regulate their interaction withsuperhuman agents. IADs do so by (a) laying out the ritual spacethrough material anchors that bring forth the projection of ablended space; (b) arranging systems of thresholds and boundarieswhich regulate exit and entry movements; and (c) making theritual space transient.

13

Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon, here below inthe circles here circumscribed” (my translation, Hedegård, 2002, p.122). At the same time, necromancers stand at the center of asystem of circles that replicated the entire cosmological order,creating a heterotopia where placing them at its center, they canexert control on spiritual entities.

ttgpwpsr

D

A

aZroi

R

A

AA

A

B

B

BB

B

B

BC

C

CC

C

d

d

D

E

F

F

F

A. Franchetto NULL xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

I want to stress that on the basis of the material engagementheory, which sees cognition as extended into material culture,hese metaphorical spaces are not representations of cosmologicaleographies but enacted blended space, artefacts for cognitiverojections. They augment the materiality of the ritual space,hich reach out what is absent or abstract (Malafouris, 2013,. 102). In this sense, IADs such as circles can be conceived aspatial strategies, or “mediums” (Meyer, 2012), to create powerfulitual spaces that bring forth the presence of what is not there.

eclaration of Competing Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.

cknowledgments

I thank Egil Asprem for discussions on the ideas presented in thisrticle, leading to new, important insights. I also thank Katerynaorya for useful comments, and Peter J. Forshaw for advice inesponse to my initial ideas for this research. I thank the participantsf the Doctoral Research School at Uppsala University, who raisedmportant questions. Finally, I also thank the anonymous reviewers.

eferences

gamben, G. (2009). In D. Kishik, & S. Pedatella (Eds.), What is an apparatus? Andother essays, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

rís, C. M. (2012). Le variazioni dell’identita. Il tipo in architettura. Torino: CittàStudi.sprem, E. (2008). Magic naturalized? Negotiating science and occult experience in

Aleister Crowley’s scientific illuminism. Aries, 8(2), 139–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156798908X327311.

sprem, E. (2014). Contemporary ritual magic. In C. Partridge (Ed.), The occult world(pp. 382–395). Abingdon: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315745916. ch39.

arney, S. A., Lewis, W. J., Beach, J. A., & Berghof, O. (Eds.). (2006). The etymologies ofIsidore of Seville. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511482113.

echmann, R. (2006). Villard de Honnecourt and the medieval craft. In W. J.Hanegraaff, A. Faivre, R. van den Broek, & J.-P. Brach (Eds.), Dictionary of gnosisand western esotericism (pp. 1159–1161). Leiden: Brill.

ell, C. M. (2009). Ritual theory, ritual practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.encivenni, Z. (1999). Il trattato de la spera. In G. Ronchi (Ed.), Volgarizzato da

Zucchero Bencivenni, Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.etz, H. D. (1980). Fragments from a catabasis ritual in a Greek magical papyrus.

History of Religions, 19(4), 287–295.urnett, C. (1996). Magic and divination in the middle ages. Texts and techniques in the

Islamic and Christian worlds. London: Routledge.utler, E. (1949). Ritual magic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.asas, G. (2018). Ontology, henadology, angelology: The neoplatonic roots of angelic

hierarchy. In L. Brisson, S. O’Neill, & A. Timotin (Eds.), Neoplatonic demons and angels(pp. 231–268). Leiden: Brill. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004374980_012.

lucas, S. (2000). Regimen animarum et corporum: The body and spatial practice inmedieval and Renaissance magic. In D. Grantley, & N. Taunton (Eds.), The body inlate medieval and early modern culture (pp. 113–130). Aldershot: Ashgate.

oldstream, N. (2002). Medieval architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.resswell, T. (2009). Place. In R. Kitchin, & N. Thrift (Eds.), International encyclopedia

of human geography (pp. 169–177). Oxford: Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00310-2.

unningham, S. (2004). Wicca: A guide for the solitary practitioner. Woodbury:Llewellyn.

’Abano, P. (1992). In G. F. Vescovini (Ed.), Trattati di astronomia. Lucidatordubitabilium astronomiae, De motu octavae sphaerae e altre opere, Padova:Programma.

e Laat, S. (2018). Liber Salomonis. A parallel edition with introduction and appendices[MA]. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit.

osoo, K. (2014). Rituals of apparition in the Theban magical library [PhD]. Sydney:Macquarie University.

lfassi, J., & Ribémont, B. (2008). La réception d’Isidore de Séville durant le Moyen Âgetardif (XIIe-XVe s.). Cahiers de recherches médiévales et humanistes. Journal ofmedieval and humanistic studies, 16, 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/crm.10712.

anger, C. (1998). Medieval ritual magic: What it is and why we need to know more

Foucault, M. (1968). Des espaces autre. L’Architettura, 13, 822–823.Foucault, M. (1980). In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and

other writings 1972-1977, Brighton: The Harvester Press.Foucault, M. (1984). Des espaces autre: Une conférence inédite de Michel Foucault.

Architecture, Mouvement, Continuite, 5, 46–49.Foucault, M. (1986). Of other spaces. Diacritics, 16(1), 22–27.Gardner, G. B. (1982). Witchcraft today. New York: Magickal Childe.Gehr, D. (2019). Berengarius Ganellus, and the Summa Sacre Magice. In S. Page, & C.

Rider (Eds.), The routledge history of medieval magic (pp. 237–253). Abingdon:Routledge.

Giralt, S. (2005). Estudi introductori. In S. Giralt (Ed.), Arnaldi de Villanova Operamedica omnia VII.1, Epistola de reprobacione nigromantice ficcionis (Deimprobatione maleficorum) (pp. 11–198). Barcelona: Publicacions de laUniversitat de Barcelona.

Grimes, R. L. (2013). The craft of ritual studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hanegraaff, W. J. (2016). Reconstructing “Religion” from the bottom up. Numen, 63

(5–6), 576–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685276-12341439.Hedegård, G. (2002). Liber iuratus Honorii: A critical edition of the Latin version of the

sworn book of Honorius. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Intl..Jacobs, L. (2005). Shabbat, (2nd ed.) In L. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion, Detroit:

Macmillan Reference USA, 8256–8258.Jensen, J. S. (2014). What is religion? Abingdon: Routledge.Kieckhefer, R. (1998). Forbidden rites: A necromancer’s manual of the fifteenth century.

University Park: Penn State University Press.Kilde, J. H. (2014). Approaching religious space: An overview of theories, methods,

and challenges in religious studies. Religion and Theology, 20(3–4), 183–201.http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15743012-12341258.

Klaassen, F. (2007). Learning and masculinity in manuscripts of ritual magic of thelater middle ages and Renaissance. The Sixteenth Century Journal, 38(1), 49–76.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20478245.

Klaassen, F. (2019). Necromancy. In S. Page, & C. Rider (Eds.), The Routledge history ofmedieval magic (pp. 201–211). Abingdon: Routledge.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Luhrmann, T. M. (1989). Persuasions of the witch’s craft: Ritual magic in contemporary

England. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Malpas, J. E. (1999). Place and experience: A philosophical topography. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Mesler, K. (2012). The liber iuratus Honorii and the Christian reception of

angel magic. In C. Fanger (Ed.), Invoking angels: Theurgic ideas and practices,thirteenth to sixteenth centuries (pp. 113–150). University Park: Penn StateUniversity Press.

Meyer, B. (2012). Mediation and the genesis of presence. Towards a material approachto religion. October 19. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.

Olin, M. (2018). In C. Ehland, & P. Fischer (Eds.), Reshaping the City: The Eruv as stealtharchitecture, Resistance and the City. Brill. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004369207_012.

Otto, B.-C. (2016). Historicising “Western learned magic”. Preliminary remarks.Aries, 16(2), 161–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15700593-01602001.

Page, S. (2007). Magic and the pursuit of wisdom: The “Familiar” spirit in the LiberTheysolius. La Coronica: A Journal of Medieval Hispanic Languages, Literatures, andCultures, 36(1), 41–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/cor.2007.0033.

Page, S. (2019). Medieval magical figures: Between image and text. In S. Page, & C.Rider (Eds.), The Routledge history of medieval magic (pp. 432–445). Abingdon:Routledge.

Pasi, M. (2008). Theses de magia. Societas Magica Newsletter, 20(1), 8.Pennington, J. T. (2007). Heaven and Earth in the gospel of Matthew. Leiden: Brill.Peterson, J. H. (Ed.), (1999). Sloane 3847. The Clavicle of Solomon, revealed by Ptolomy

the Grecian (sl3847). Twilit Grotto: Esoteric Archiveshttp://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sl3847.htm.

Pevsner, N. (1942). The term “Architect” in the middle ages. Speculum, 17(4), 549–562. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2856447.

Pingree, D. (Ed.), (1986). Picatrix: The Latin version of the Ghayat Al-Ḥakm. London:The Warburg Institute.

Price, S. R. F. (1996). The place of religion: Rome in the early empire. In A. K.Bowman, E. Champlin, & A. Lintott (Eds.), The Cambridge ancient history (pp.812–847). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264303.029.

Purini, F. (2002). In G. Neri (Ed.), L’architettura didattica, Roma: Gangemi.Quatremère de Quincy, A. C., & Younés, S. (1999). The True, the fictive, and the real: The

Historical Dictionary of Architecture of Quatremere de Quincy. London: Papadakis.Schwarzer, M., & Schmasow, A. (1991). The emergence of architectural space:

August Schmarsow’s theory of “Raumgestaltung”. Assemblage, 15, 48–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3171125.

Siemiatycki, M. (2005). Contesting sacred urban space: The case of the Eruv. Journalof International Migration and Integration / Revue de l’integration et de LaMigration Internationale, 6(2), 255–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12134-005-

S

S

about it. In C. Fanger (Ed.), Conjuring spirits: Texts and traditions of medieval ritualmagic (pp. vii–xviii). Stroud: Sutton.

anger, C., & Klaassen, F. (2008). Magic III: Middle ages. In W. J. Hanegraaff, A. Faivre,R. van den Broek, & J.-P. Brach (Eds.), Dictionary of gnosis & western esotericism(pp. 724–731). Leiden: Brill.

oucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses. Une archeologie des sciences humaines.Paris: Gallimard.

14

1013-6.imón, F. M. (2014). Nigromants and magic circles. Trials in Aragón in the early

sixteenth century. In V. Daesen, & J. M. Spieser (Eds.), Les savoirs magiques et leurtransmission de l’Antiquite a la Renaissance (pp. 67–85). Firenze: SISMEL-Edizionidel Galluzzo. 2014.

mith, J. Z. (1998). Constructing a Small Place. In B. Z. Kedar, & R. J. Z. Werblowsky(Eds.), Sacred space: Shrine, city, land (pp. 18–31). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

A. Franchetto NULL xxx (xxxx) xxx

G ModelENDE-100748; No. of Pages 15

Taves, A. (2013). Building blocks of sacralities: A new basis for comparison acrosscultures and religions. In R. F. Paloutzian, & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of thepsychology of religion and spirituality (pp.138–164). New York: The Guilford Press.

Taves, A., & Asprem, E. (2017). Experience as event: Event cognition and the study of(religious) experiences. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 7(1), 43–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2016.1150327.

Thorndike, L. (Ed.), (1949). The sphere of Sacrobosco and its commentators. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.

Torretti, R. (2000). Space. In concise Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. London:Routledge.

Tosco, C. (1993). Isidoro di Siviglia e l’architettura dell’alto medioevo. Studi Storici, 34(1), 95–124.

Tuan, Y.-F. (2001). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

Veenstra, J. R. (2012). Honorius and the sigil of God: The Liber iuratus in BerengarioGanell’s Summa sacre magice. In C. Fanger (Ed.), Invoking angels. Theurgic ideasand practices, thirteenth to sixteenth centuries (pp. 151–191). University Park:Pennsylvania State University Press.

Vitruvius (1931). In F. Granger (Ed.), On architecture: Vol. 1: Books 1-5, Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Williams, A. (2015). Place in geography, In J. D. Wright (Ed.), Internationalencyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 149–152). (second edition)Oxford: Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.72038-1.

Zevi, B. (1957). In J. A. Barry, & M. Gendel (Eds.), Architecture as space: How to look atarchitecture, New York: Horizon Press. Trans..

Archival sources

Kassel, Universitätsbibliothek Kassel/Landesbibliothek und Maurhardsche Biblio-thek der Stadt Kassel, Berengarius Ganellus: Summa sacrae magicae, first half of14th century.

London, British Library, MS Sloane 3854, 14th century, ff. 112–139.

15