The Digital Ambler

This post is part of a series, “49 Days of Definitions”, discussing and explaining my thoughts and meditations on a set of aphorisms explaining crucial parts of Hermetic philosophy. These aphorisms, collectively titled the “Definitions from Hermes Trismegistus to Asclepius”, lay out the basics of Hermetic philosophy, the place of Man in the Cosmos, and all that stuff. It’s one of the first texts I studied as a Hermetic magician, and definitely what I would consider to be a foundational text. The Definitions consist of 49 short aphorisms broken down into ten sets, each of which is packed with knowledge both subtle and obvious, and each of which can be explained or expounded upon. While I don’t propose to offer the be-all end-all word on these Words, these might afford some people interested in the Definitions some food for thought, one aphorism per day.

Today, let’s discuss the thirty-ninth definition, part IX, number 4 of 7:

Soul’s illness: sadness and joy; soul’s passions: desire and opinion. Bodies are silimar to souls when they are seen: none (is) ugly (if it is) good, none is evil (if it is) honest. Everything is visible to one who has Nous; who(ever) thinks of himself in Nous knows himself and who(ever) knows himself knows everything. Everything is within man.

The Definitions have been good in explaining things at a high level: where we came from, what our job is, the nature of God, and so forth. Being short as it is, however, it doesn’t afford us many of the details to a lot of the questions it brings up. This is how we have a traditions of philosophy that go back for two thousand years and analytic texts that help explain the core tenets of a religion and how things play out based on actual scripture which, almost always, doesn’t answer every question in full. That’s often the point; what’s the point of describing the nature of God to someone who doesn’t know what God is? The core texts exist to help get the proper footing needed to start learning and experiencing on our own. Likewise, with the Definitions, we’re not told much about some of the things that we may want to know. For instance, consider the soul: we know that all moving things have souls and that Man’s soul is different from other types of soul. We know the high-level bare-bones theory of the soul, but we haven’t talked much about the nitty-gritty details of soul. While we don’t (and can’t) know everything from a simple single text, we can get a basic grasp of it from learning and reasonable speech, which the Definitions provide us. And this short definition has quite a lot to unpack.

Here, we learn that the soul isn’t something immutable: it has illnesses and passions. Illnesses, broadly speaking, are temporary conditions where something is afflicted and cannot function properly. For instance, a cold or catching the flu are illnesses, where the body’s immune system is compromised and several parts of the body go out of whack for a short while. Some illnesses don’t affect us much and are as quickly lost as they were caught; some have a sudden onset and kill us; some linger around forever waiting for an opportunity to strike in tandem with something else to kill us. Passions, on the other hand, are strongly felt emotions or mental states that drive us to action; the root word for this in English comes from Latin meaning “to suffer”, while the Greek means “feeling”, “suffering”, or “what befalls to one”. Passions change us, drive us, and steer us to certain actions that normally might not be taken. The difference between illnesses and passions is that illnesses affect someone from the outside; they’re never caught in isolation (I’m referring only to the common sense of communicable diseases, not genetic or other “natural” diseases). Passions, however, arise from within. If we restrict the meaning of “illness” to communicable diseases, passions might be associated with genetic disorders or other internal states such as heat, hunger, or fatigue.

We now know that the soul has two illnesses, “sadness and joy”, which arise from external causes. The soul doesn’t make itself sad or happy, but gets the causes for these things from outside itself: the body, things that happen to the body or soul, and other external events or entities. Likewise, the soul has two passions, “desire and opinion”, which arise from internal causes. The soul creates these or are predisposed to these things on its own; we don’t directly get desires or opinions from outside ourselves, but come up with them on our own. Of course, the two are connected; emotions (“illnesses”) can provide the impetus for passions, such as finding something that makes us happy and us leading to believe that we should get more of it. Likewise, passions can help produce emotions once effected, such as desiring something that we cannot obtain, the lack of which makes us sad.

The illnesses and passions of the soul, though different and arising from different sources, are intertwined in a complex way. Both, however, afflict the soul. A healthy soul free of illness would be free from sadness or joy, and a calm soul free of passions would be free from desire and opinion. Of course, no soul in a body can be properly free of these things; these are all qualities, and a soul gains “quality and quantity as well as good and evil” when it gains a body, “for matter brings about such things” (VII.4). These things cloud the judgment, knowledge, and action of the soul, and so change the movement, function, and state of the body that it inhabits. Because the soul would not have these things without a body, the body can be said to be the cause of both soul-illness and soul-passion, though it may not be the source for their’ arising. Just as bodily illnesses prevent the body from acting the way it should, soul-illnesses prevent the soul from acting as it should. Similarly, just as bodily passions drive the body to act in certain ways, soul-passions drive the soul to act in certain ways. While all illnesses are to be avoided since they prevent action, not all passions are bad if they drive us to act a certain way; after all, it’s a good and healthy passion of the body to live and eat, and it’s a good and healthy passion of the soul to desire and know Nous (VII.3). (The terminology here hints at Hermeticism’s influence from classical Stoicism, one of my favorite philosophies.)

Why are things like sadness and joy bad? After all, while sadness might be seen as undesirable (note how a passion here comes into play!), we often find joy and happiness to be desirable and fun. Keep in mind, however, that these are things that arise from external things, which are material in nature. If we pursue the material for the sake of the material, or if we produce things that make us happy because they make us happy, then we’re effectively rising no higher than the material realm where these things exist. If we pursue things for their own sake or for a proper opinion of them (as developed by Logos and Nous within ourselves), and if we become happy in the process, awesome, but that shouldn’t be the goal of our pursuit and only serves to distract us if we hold onto that feeling. (I’m reminded of the Zen koan “if you meet the Buddha in the road, kill him”.) It’s normal for us to be afflicted by sadness and joy as we go through the world doing our stuff, just as we’re accosted by germs and parasites and viruses every time we leave the house to go to work or the store. We get these things that may make us sick in the course of doing something else; we don’t try to hold onto them, so that way we don’t get distracted from what we went outside our houses for. If we become happy on the way to the grocer because we enjoy driving, we don’t keep driving for the sake of driving hoping that it continues to make us happy. We drive to get to the store and we drive back, lest we run out of gas on the road and end up never going to the store or getting home. Likewise, if we become happy or sad in the process of our Work, that’s just what happens to us; we should shrug it off naturally as the body sheds off illnesses naturally,

Opinions and desires, on the other hand, drive us to do different things based on what we consider. These are things that arise up out of the soul from different intelligible causes; according to opinion, after all, many gods have come into being that are not God (VIII.1), yet, through unreasonable speech and opinions, are worshiped as ultimate divinity for spiritual or political reasons (VIII.3). While the Nous dwelling within the soul provides a set of natural opinions and desires that would help us lead proper lives, we as humans are capable of choosing them or choosing other ones that can lead to God or to elsewhere (VIII.6). Depending on what external stimuli we have, our opinions and desires are swayed both by them and by Nous, and depending on which tendencies to action are stronger, our bodies and selves are led to act in certain ways by our souls, which can produce more sets of external stimuli. For instance, we desire to go to the store to get food to cook for the week, but we may be tempted by an immediate hunger and a carelessness of money and go to a fancy restaurant instead. Likewise, we may desire to study magic or religion, but we can be persuaded by other people to study this tradition instead of that one or no tradition at all, or we can get tempted to use it more of a means to impress or socialize other people because we think it more helpful to us instead of studying it for its own sake as a means to gnosis.

Sadness and joy, the illnesses of the soul, happen to us and afflict us as they will; just as exposing ourselves to bodily illness largely can’t be avoided, so too do we expose ourselves to them, though we can take measures and caution to make sure they don’t affect us too much and prevent us from acting how we will. Desires and opinions, however, are much more within our control, and how do we form these? With deliberation and our use of reason and speech, which help to provide knowledge (V.2). By this knowledge we come to understand the world around us, which helps to provide knowledge of God. Thus, by even trying to know God as bodily beings, we expose ourselves to danger and affliction, but this is just part of being a material being with qualities, quantities, and “good and evil”. We should choose good, but what is good? Knowledge, which is God, which is Nous, which is light (IX.2). When we have Nous and knowledge, we know things as they are (II.2), which produces desires and opinions that lead us to where we need to be.

Thus, when we truly see things, we know them as they are. ”Bodies are similar to souls when they are seen: none is ugly if it is good, none is evil if it is honest”. We do not fear the things we know (IX.3), so we are not averted by them; thus, if things are good, we know them as they are and as part of God, and so they are not “ugly”, which would cause fear and aversion if we did not truly see them. Similarly, if they are honest, they show themselves as they are, not hiding anything. If something hides itself without honesty, it is a lie, which is a result of unreasonable speech; further, if it hides from light which is Nous, it clouds knowledge of itself and produces darkness, the absence of light. These things are then “evil”, since they prevent knowledge from being obtained. These things hide, and hiding is caused by fear (IX.3), which is caused by a lack of knowledge, which is ignorance, which is evil (VII.5). We can draw several comparisons here:

Things that are good are not ugly (causing attraction)
Things that are good are honest (truth)
Things that are evil are ugly (causing aversion)
Things that are evil are not honest (lies)
Things that are ugly are not honest
Things that are honest are not ugly

With light, one can see; with knowledge, nothing is hidden (V.2). Nous is knowledge; thus, “everything is visible to one who has Nous”, since Nous sees all things (V.1). Further, since one’s self is within Nous as everything is, “whoever thinks of himself in Nous knows himself and whoever knows himself knows everything” (cf. the Delphic maxim “know thyself”). Everything is within God, which is Nous. If we know ourselves, we know God, and if we know ourselves, we know everything. Thus, this definition finishes with a powerful statement: “everything is within man”. We’ve seen references to this before: “man is a small world…a perfect world whose magnitude does not exceed…the world” (I.4);”God is within himself, the world is in God, and man in the world” (VII.5). We are a microcosm, a reflection of the world as well as of God, and if we know one part of the Whole, we come to know the Whole, so if we come to know ourselves, we come to know the Whole, which is everything. Everything is within us.

Today, let’s discuss the fortieth definition, part IX, number 5 of 7:

Who(ever) behaves well towards his body, behaves badly towards himself. Just as the body, without a soul, is a corpse, likewise soul, without Nous, is inert. Once a soul has entered the body, it (soul) will acquire Nous. That which does not require (it), goes out such as it had entered. For every soul, before entering the body, is deprived of Nous; then Nous joins it from the body, so that eventually the soul becomes endowed with Nous. That (soul) which has gone out of the human body has (got) an ill memory: for soul, (even) covered with the body, is forced to remember its (soul’s) unforgetfulness. One change is unforgetful and (another) change brings about forgetfulness.

We know that humans are constituted out of many things, and what makes us essentially human is really just that: the essence of being human. This is an idea, a form that we realize through our bodies, souls, spirits, and minds. Our bodies are born, live, increase, decrease, and die in the material world and the material world alone; our souls are sent into our bodies so they can be perfected through the life of the body; spirit is the medium between the soul and the body; the mind is what is able to use reason and the ability to know God. This idea has been developed over the course of the Definitions, and this ninth set of definitions helps us understand how we can perfect the body by saying something a little more descriptive than “know yourself” or “know God”.

Although the soul lives within the body, what happens to the body is not always good for soul; the last definition talked about the illnesses and passions of the soul, which can prevent the soul from properly acting and developing or can sway it into acting in a manner that is unhelpful to its development. We also know that actions, opinions, and speech that is unreasonable, i.e. it does not serve the goals of Nous/the Good, basically limits itself to the material world we live in (V.1, V.2), and to limit ourselves to this world causes ignorance and is thus evil (VII.5, VIII.6). Thus, if we place the body over the soul, we do our souls damage, which then does ourselves damage (VI.3). Thus, “whoever behaves well towards the body, behaves badly toward himself”. If we treat our bodies as first and foremost, lavishing it in luxury and simply “treating it well”, then we neglect our souls, which should deserve that same or better treatment. This isn’t to say that we should totally neglect the body, of course; if the body isn’t well maintained, then the soul doesn’t have a chance to perfect within it. Rather, we should strive to perfect the soul and maintaining our bodies as necessary along the way. It’s similar to how happiness and sadness happen to us when we interact with the world; we don’t strive to be happy for the sake of being happy, but we should strive for something good which makes us happy as a result. Likewise, we shouldn’t treat the body well for the sake of treating it well, but we should strive for Nous which makes our body well as a result.

After all, “the body, without a soul, is a corpse, likewise soul, without Nous, is inert”. The two rely on each other in order to live, and so they need to support each other. If we neglect the soul, the body dies; if we neglect the body, the soul remains imperfect. Neither of these are good, though it’s worse for the soul to remain imperfect than the body dying. Again, though death is generally a bad thing, that only affects our bodies, which is not the entirety of us. We are more than dying bodies; we are both mortal and immortal (I.5), and we have the power of choosing immortality and making ourselves the gods we ought to be (VIII.7). All told, while we should neglect neither the body nor the soul in our lives, we should focus on the development of the soul as our primary task and the development of the body as a secondary (but still as necessary) task, or as a co-equal task in the process of perfecting the soul.

Going back a bit, “soul, without Nous, is inert”, meaning it has no motion, no impetus, no drive. After all, just as God has no means to sense since there is nothing outside God to sense (VIII.2), the soul without body has no means to move since there is nothing to move. Thus, it is motionless, incapable of doing anything. ”Once a soul has entered [a human] body, [the soul] will acquire Nous”; once the soul gains a body, it gains the ability to move and a source from which motion is derived. This is the soul-Nous that comes with soul, not the divine Nous that we have to strive for with Logos (VIII.4). So, before a soul ever gets to a body, it has no Nous, though it still exists within Nous; then, once it joins with a body, it is given Nous. But if a soul already has Nous before entering the body, then it has already acquired it and does not get an “extra portion” of Nous: “[the soul] which does not require [Nous], goes out such as it had entered”. This means that the soul has already been joined to a body before, and has already been given Nous, yet the soul is going to another body; thus, the soul has left one body and goes to another. This statement implies reincarnation or transmigration of souls, which fits with hints from before about souls perfecting themselves through bodies.

To begin with, however, “every soul, before entering the body, is deprived of Nous”. Then, “Nous joins it from the body”; note that soul-Nous is not simply given to the soul from Nous, but from the body. The body is crucial to the soul’s development, and is the basis for soul-Nous to even be present. Just as the world is in God and Man is in the world (VII.5), so too is God in the world, since “everything is within man” (IX.4). God is in itself, too, but the soul is only intelligible and not sensible, though still lacking God in itself. The soul must be mixed with the body in the essence of Man in order to be given soul-Nous; only then can it “eventually [become] endowed with Nous”. There doesn’t appear to be any difference between different disembodied or unembodied souls, though once a soul has been mixed with the essence of Man, it gains the capacity for Nous in a way that other souls do not; the soul undergoes a fundamental difference. To use alchemical terms, this makes the material world and the body the crucible within which the actions and reactions of spiritual “materials” interact with each other to refine themselves, using the body as the base stratum of material. Through refinement and perfection, incorporating true knowledge of the world, ourselves, and God, the prima materia of the alchemists is transformed into the purest gold and leaves the Caput Mortum behind, the end result and Great Work of the alchemists, the Magnum Opus of the magician.

Still, this process isn’t easy, and can be easily set back. “That soul which has gone out of the human body has got an ill memory”; we know from before that the soul “will not know the beings outside the body” (VI.2), but now we see that there’s more at stake here. ”Soul, even covered with the body, is forced to remember its unforgetfulness”. This is a little unclear, but keep in mind that memory is the retaining of knowledge and the ability to access it later on in time. Knowledge is God; by remaining in knowledge, we remain in God. By forgetting knowledge, we leave God. Thus, by remembering our unforgetfulness, we remember our tendency to always be in knowledge/God, and so remember who and what we truly are as Man. While we may not yet be unforgetful, we still have unforgetfulness. This is what our immortality (at least in part) consists of.

Of course, that’s not all we are. As Man, we have two natures, the immortal and mortal, and also the unforgetful and the forgetful. Our eternal knowledge and union with God is our immortality and also our unforgetfulness; thus, our mortality and forgetfulness is our live and death as a living bodily creature. Neither of these things is either the body’s or the soul’s pristine form, however: “one change is unforgetful and another change brings about forgetfulness”. The bestowing of Nous upon the soul gives it unforgetfulness; the death of the body around the soul brings about forgetfulness. We must choose immortality and Nous to never forget who we are; to choose mortality and the body, “to treat the body well [over the soul”, brings about forgetfulness, a lack of knowledge, and the “perdition” of V.2.

A number of my friends on Twitter make use of this website called Shindanmaker, a kind of random fortune-telling site:

Shindanmaker is a joke web service which diagnoses you by your inputting your name. Although “Shindan” originally means “diagnosis”, sometimes the meaning of “fortune-telling” is also used. You can enjoy Shindan made by other users and you can also make them.

Often, they’re kinda silly, though they can be fun. You just put in your name (any name will do), and it randomly selects for you a particular result for any given shindan. Look through the site and see what appeals to you; they’re all free and simple to use. They’re meant to be posted to Twitter in some ways, so if you have a Twitter account (and you totally should and follow me), you can post your results for any of them.

Last night, I got bored and decided to try my hand at making a few shindans. A simple one I made (available here) generates four geomancy figures based on your name. This changes from day to day, so it can help in getting a “chart for the day” based on your name. It can be useful, I assume, so why not give it a whirl the next time you’re interested in doing a daily divination? Another one was based off some banter between me and the boyfriend, and determines how presh (precious) you are. Just a silly little thing.

Another one I made, though, is entirely a joke. You know how a lot of magical or religious organizations have really obscure, long, complex, or convoluted names, right? I decided to make a random magical order generator, complete with assigning you a rank or grade within the organization. So, for instance, as of this writing, if I put in “polyphanes”, I get “polyphanes is a Bellator Jovis in the Qabbalistic Skete of the Earthy Death”. Not bad for a random generator, eh? It’s just a cute little thing, but it could be helpful for people wanting to start a magical order of their own or something, even if only in tabletop RPGs for the sake of making a dungeon master’s life easier. I’m still expanding it with whatever adjectives and nouns I can find that are appropriate, so it’ll probably get more varied as time goes on.

And, yes, while it’s possible to get “X is a Magister Templi in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn”, you have about a 1 in 24,224,311,440 chance of doing so (as of this writing). Good luck! Feel free to share or post your results in the comments.

Today, let’s discuss the forty-first definition, part IX, number 6 of 7:

Where(ever) man is, also (is) God. God does not appear to anybody but man. Because of man God changes and turns into the form of man. God is man-loving and man is God-loving. There is an affinity between God and man. God listens only to man, and man to God. God is worthy of worship, man is worthy of admiration. God does not appear without man; man is desirable to God and God to man, because desire comes from nowhere, but from man and God.

“[Both God and man] are one: God and man after the species” (I.1); “nothing is uninhabited by God…God is in heaven, and heaven in the world” (III.1); “God is within himself, the world is in God, and man in the world” (VII.5); “everything is within man” (IX.4). These are all things we’ve seen before: not only does God dwell within the soul that dwells within the body, but that not only is Man within God, but God is within Man. Moreover, “whoever thinks of himself in Nous knows himself and whoever knows himself knows everything[;] everything is within man” (IX.4). This tightly couples up the identities and existence of God and Man so closely, especially with knowledge itself delivered by God/Nous/light being everywhere as it is. Man, being endowed with Nous, can know all things, and can in a way be everywhere just as God is everywhere. Thus, this definition starts off with a profound statement: “wherever man is, also is God”. We are not only made in the image of God, and we are not only endowed with the power of God, but we are with God wherever we go. We are always within and with God, so perhaps it’s not shocking, but this definition makes it clear that we are never separated from God.

Moreover, “God does not appear to anybody but man”. This is probably shocking, but consider that Man is the only one among the living beings capable of Nous. Because of this, we’re the only ones who are able to transcend the material realm (VIII.7), and we’re the only ones capable of examining the entirety of creation (VI.1, VII.2). While Nous sees all things through all souls, only Man among all the ensouled creatures can know Nous in the other direction, and in the process know himself and all other things. Other creatures are limited in what they can see, and can only see themselves and their own worlds that exist within God. But Man is Man because “he has got a notion of God” (IX.1), so only Man truly understands what God is, while other beings don’t. Man is special because he alone can know God, and since knowledge is so tightly bound up with light and sight, Man is special because he alone can see God. Thus, “God does not appear to anybody but man”.

Of course, if we can see God appear, then that means God must appear sensible to us, but we know that God is intelligible. But that’s not always the case: “because of man God changes and turns into the form of man”. God condescends down to us and takes on a human form, which allows us to know God. This can be taken in two big ways, as far as I can tell: either God comes down as his own human to lead us to God, or God comes down as us and becomes us so we can know ourselves to know God. The former is basically soteriology: we have some savior, some divine human (as if humans aren’t divine!) who comes down as God and appears to us, speaks to us, and leads us; this could be Jesus, or Dionysus, or Horus, or Mithra, or Krishna, or any other savior-god. This allows us to witness God as something external to ourselves (though this isn’t ultimately true, but in the world of forms and matter it can appear so), making it easier for ourselves to know God through the God-human. On the other hand, God comes down to the world as us, taking on human forms as us, and lives down here as us. In this case, it makes sense why human souls are given Nous; that’s God who dwells within us, and by coming to know ourselves, we come to know Nous, and we come to know God. In either case, we are made as God and as gods to know God, and to do this, God appears to us in ways we can understand.

But why? Why does God even bother with us? ”God is man-loving and man is God-loving”. God loves us. With knowledge, there is no fear (IX.3), but now we know that love is the opposite of fear. With knowledge, we love God, and God loves us. God, by extension, loves everything, since everything is within Man and everything is within God and Man is within God and God is within God, but we alone are the only form that God takes down here, and it’s for our sake. Everything God does is for our sake (VIII.2), because God loves us. This isn’t some passionate romantic love, but this is an existential, “you are family”, “you are part of me”, “you are me” love. This is agape, the unconditional love of God for Man, a promotion of well-being in response to having been made well. ”There is an affinity between God and man”, suggesting that everything between God and Man is mutual, and that we love each other, as spouses love each other. Together we form a whole, as was mentioned in I.1.

Not only does God appear only to Man, but “God listens only to man, and man to God”. Just as God appears to Man because Man is the only creature endowed with Nous to know and sight to see, God listens to Man because Man is the only creature capable of Logos to speak reasonable speech. Logos is the servant of Nous, and is the only means by which we can come to approach and know God (V.1). All reasonable speech is of God, while unreasonable speech is only worldly (V.2, V.3). Thus, God only listens to reasonable speech, and the only source of that that is not itself is Man, so “God listens only to man”. Man, however, listens among himself and the words of others, but can also listen to God. Whether an “only” is omitted in that latter half of the statement or whether it was intentionally left out is not known, but if we assume the parallel structure here omitted it, then “Man [listens only] to God” is what we should be reading. All speech comes from the world and the voices it produces, though reasonable speech comes from voice and Logos used at once. But the world and all voices all come from God, and voice is used according to one’s nature, whether Man or any other creature, and “nature is the mirror of truth” (VIII.5). Whatever Man hears, he can understand, and he can understand it with reason even if the original utterance was unreasonable. Thus, no matter what is said, or where or when or by whom, Man listens only to God.

God loves us and is so much bigger than us; this we know now, but we also know that everything is within God, and everything is within Man. So which is “bigger”? When you deal with matters of infinity, things can always get a little hazy, since God is truly infinite while Man is…well, Man is finite. But yet we have everything within ourselves; this isn’t as much a literal truth as it is a reflection of it. So, rather, while Man is by nature representative of God, God is in truth God; we might say that Man is the nature of God, especially if God appears in the world as Man and if truly “nature is the mirror of truth” (VIII.5). Thus, no matter how great Man may be, God is greater, and gives that greatness to us. Thus the next part of the definition: “God is worthy of worship, man is worthy of admiration”. Admiration literally means “to look at”, and we know that by knowing Man/ourselves, we know God. To know God is perfection and completion in all things, and is where our reverence and prayers truly go toward. God is worthy of worship above all, since God is the greatest and, moreover, the Good (II.1), while we have the choice between good and evil and can choose good (VII.6).

“God does not appear without man”; after all, “God does not appear to anybody but man” and “wherever man is, also is God”. This makes sense with an older definition, VI.1: “if there were nobody to see [the world], what would be seen would not even exist”. After all, if everything is within Man, and if knowledge of the world is knowledge of God, and if we know God through the world, then God appears to us through the world and through other human forms. So, if we were no Man to exist to see things, then there would be no God to see, and there would be no need for light or things to exist. Yet, here we are, and so “everything exists because of man” (IX.1). So why is it that we exist at all? Because “man is desirable to God”, so God wants Man to exist and live; moreover, “God [is desirable] to man” because we are within and blessed with God which leads us to him as our desire. Where does this desire come from? We know that desire is a passion of the soul that moves it and the body (IX.4), but this desire comes from Nous within our souls (VII.3). Desire as a passion does not come from the world, nor does it come from other humans, but it comes from within ourselves. Thus, “desire comes from nowhere, but from man and God”.

Now, one of the things that this definition introduces but does not clarify is why we should worship God. God made us, and God loves us, and God finds us desirable. Sure, okay, we can get that. We also know that because knowing God is immortality and knowledge and love, we also love God and naturally strive to know God. Okay. But why does God love us and find us desirable? This isn’t something said or known yet, and it’s unclear at this point whether the Definitions will say so later on. That said, why would it matter for the Definitions to tell us? Why would God make the world at all? Why would God make things the way God did? These are purely intelligible things, I’d claim, that are not for humans to know, at least not those without Nous. Suffice it to say that it gets us started on our path to God to know that God loves us and God wants us to live and perfect ourselves.

Today, let’s discuss the forty-second definition, part IX, number 7 of 7:

Humans work the land, (and) stars adorn heaven. The gods have heaven; humans, heaven, earth, and sea; but the air is common to gods and humans.

Finally, a short definition to close out this penultimate section! It’s a little hard to pin down, given what we’ve mentioned in the other definitions of this section, ranging from what knowledge of God entails to that God loves us and is always with us to the special place Man has in the cosmos to the means by which we can join with God through the development of the soul. And then we have this almost wistful statement about the structure of the lower earthy world and higher heavenly world. For this, rereading the definitions in section II would be helpful, but also recall that of VII.2: “and the species of every living being is only in one part of the world, but the sole species of man is at once in heaven, on earth, in the water and in the air”.

“Humans work the land, and stars adorn heaven”. There are two parts to the world, the lower world of the land and the higher world of heaven. On land, humans (not Man, but humans!) work the land, plowing it, making everything work down here, and making the land beautiful. Down here, we express our own natures and live our own lives, subject to the fate and destiny and nature we’re surrounded by. On the other hand, high above, the “stars adorn heaven”; this is a comparatively lax statement, indicating that the natures of the stars (heavenly beings, and also gods) are less than active, and certainly less active than humans. Humans scurry about hither and thither, while stars rotate and glide on through the heavens. Humans come and go; the stars burn forever. But realize that this statement also indicates something of management: humans manage, work, and cultivate the world below, while the gods manage, adorn, and cultivate the world above.

Just as fish have the sea and salamanders the fire, “the gods have heaven” and “humans [have] heaven, earth, and sea”. Remember that “man’s possession is the world” (VI.1), without distinction as to what parts. Everything belongs to Man, is created for Man, and exists within Man. While the gods live in and have heaven, that’s all they have; they do not own what happens below. Man, however, rules over and is involved with all parts of the cosmos. This includes the air, which is “common to gods and humans”, since it’s the medium that joins heaven and earth and through which the gods above can come down and interact with us below, and through which Man can rise up and become gods on their own. Plus, if you throw in the influence of astrology, then that adds even more power to this statement, where the gods above (stars, planets, etc.) influence us down below by means of the air, and from whom we can interact and pull power from again by means of the air.

While the gods are to be respected, at the very least, we know that Man “is worthy of admiration” and God “is worthy of worship” from the last definition. God, after all, is bigger than all things and includes all things within itself (III.1), and Man is the only creature able to know God and within whom all things are represented within. We are the distillation of the entire cosmos, and within us we contain all things. Perhaps this is why God loves us, because God sees itself in us just as we see ourselves within God. And God made all this, all the gods and animals and elements and worlds for us. We have our place, and though it may not appear to be the grandest or the most luxurious, that wouldn’t suit us as gods subject to death or Man made into gods. To fully encapsulate all the things in the cosmos, we must know and be part of the entire cosmos, which includes all phenomena: life, increase, decrease, death, birth, rebirth, pain, pleasure, sadness, joy, desire, opinion, reason, unreason, good, evil, and all other qualities and quantities. In this, we have our place in the grand harmony of the spheres, the unity of the Whole, the Good. And just as the stars adorn heaven in their cyclic manner according to the will of God that directs their pure souls, so too do we carry out the will of God by becoming knowledgeable of God.

Today, let’s discuss the forty-third definition, part X, number 1 of 7:

What is good? What bears no comparison. Good is invisible, (but) evil is conspicuous. What is a female? A receptive fluidity. What is a male? A seminal fluidity.

Alright, guys, here we go! We’re in the home stretch now, with seven definitions ahead of us. This is the final set of aphorisms given in the Definitions of Hermes Trismegistus to Asclepius, though Jean-Pierre Mahé notes that there was a spurious eleventh set which was copied from other Hermetic texts, and so are not given as part of these aphorisms. Mahé notes that lists of aphorisms have historically tended to be subject to additions, interpolations, subtractions, and other modifications, and we’ve seen some of these things before in sections III and VII. On the whole, however, the Definitions have been providing us with a more-or-less coherent foundation for Hermetic philosophy, and this last section should prove to be interesting. The last section emphasized the role and place of Man in the cosmos, after building up the case for the actions of knowledge and ignorance leading to immortality or mortality for man, his unique connection to God that allows knowledge of the entire cosmos, and what the cosmos is structured like. With that, let’s begin this final part of the Definitions.This definition actually acts as a definition, affording meanings for four words, two of which we’ve already seen: good, evil, female, and male.

That which is good “bears no comparison”; there is nothing that can be compared to the good. We know that good is knowledge, especially knowledge of God and the beings (VII.5), that Nous/God/light is good, or more properly the Good (II.1, II.6, IX.2), and that Man can choose to do good when he carries out the will of Nous and works toward God and perfection of the soul, a power of the gods (VIII.7). By using the associations of God with the Good from I.4, we also know that the Good is uncreated, ineffable, intelligible, immovable, and invisible, and is also eternal (I.5); further, it is also honest and beautiful (IX.4) God is, effectively, “knowledge of the beings” (VI.3), all at once, all together. God which is the Good is the Whole, the All, the One, the greatest and greater than greatest. In this light, there is nothing that can compare to the Good, hence it “bears no comparison”. Even Man, made in the image of God, is nothing like God in some ways. There is nothing that can be compared to the Good, because the Good will always dwarf everything, no matter what it may be.

Further, “good is invisible”; after all, that is what God is, being everywhere and beyond all at once. God dwells within all things, and, being light as well, “appears just as it is by itself” without itself being visible. We cannot see or sense the Good, no more than we can see or sense truth or knowledge directly, but it is there all the same. This is contrasted with evil, which is “conspicuous”. Evil is everything we can see or sense that we know for a fact is not Good. Of course, since everything is within God, everything is (as it is) good and nothing is to truly be feared (IX.3), but anything we see is only a reflection of truth, since it has nature and quality and quantity (VIII.5, VII.7). Evil is anything that hides the truth; it is ignorance (VII.7), darkness (implied in II.6 and VIII.5), and lies and ugliness (IX.4). Evil is what keeps us from attaining knowledge of God, and what prevents us from knowing the Good.

Does this mean that the material world is evil? Basically, yeah. Evil is that which hides the good, ignorance that hides knowledge. This material world we live in with bodies, increase and decrease, birth and death is all natural, sure, but it is a reflection of the truth, which is invisible and immaterial. Truth is God, God is good; nature is not truth, therefore nature is neither God nor good. (This shows the Platonic/Neoplatonic/Gnostic influence on Hermeticism, which holds that material things are evil and not really made by God, but that a greater and more perfect world exists beyond this imperfect, fatal one and whoever made the mistake of making this world fucked shit up.) But if you follow this through, it accords with the rest of what we’ve said before. Remember the warning about “whoever behaves well towards his body, behaves badly towards himself” (IX.5), “just as you will behave towards the soul when it is in this body, likewise it will behave towards you when it has gone out of the body” (VI.3), and “speech which comes from speech is only perdition” (V.2)? Whatever comes from this world is nothing more than nature arising from nature. Without Nous/God or Logos/Reason to guide or create things, there is no good in them. Speech that comes from speech, or that comes from the world about the world for the world, is essentially unreasonable; treating the body before the soul or instead of the soul neglects the Good within ourselves.

So what exactly brings about nature that generates nature? This definition introduces to us two new terms: female and male. They are both “fluidities”, which indicates flow, transformation, change, and mobility. Female fluidity is receptive; it is changed. Male fluidity is seminal; it changes other things. We might use the terms “passive” and “active” instead, if you wanted to go with a less gendered way to say it, but the concepts are the same. Anything that is shaped, molded, formed, built, and the like has female qualities. Anything that shapes, molds, forms, builds, and the like has male qualities. The interaction between these two fluidities is what generates things down here. Note that, while it may be tempting, we can’t really associate these with the elements as we know them. Earth, as we might guess, has strong female qualities (consider how many things we make out of solid objects!); likewise, water is the height of fluidity, and its flow is contained or shaped by other things. But then, water can also be male when it chips away and molds earth, and earth can be male when it contains or redirects the flow of water. Remember that female and male are fluidities, forces of change independent of form. They’re even less material than the elements themselves; they’re modes of operation, action, and change.

But, however, because they are forms of change, they are not immovable and uncreated as God is (I.4). God is immovable and cannot be moved, while things that are female are moved and are created and things that are male move and create. We might say that God takes on some male qualities, but this wouldn’t be completely honest to say at this point, I think. Female and male are qualities, which are properties of matter (VII.4), and as such are still not Good, and therefore not God, and therefore “evil”, since we can see these things or at least these forces at work in the world. This isn’t saying that female humans are receptive or that male humans are active, either; it’s important to draw the line with these definitions here in that these are forces of change and no more.

Today, let’s discuss the forty-fourth definition, part X, number 2 of 7:

Nature in man is omniform, and (it is) an energy endowed with all qualities (whose) force (is) invisible and effects (are) conspicuous. An energy is a movement. Matter is a wet essence; a body is a agglomeration of matter.

In the last definition, we talked about four terms: good, evil, female, and male. Of these, that which is Good is, basically, God; anything that is not God is within God, but not everything that is not God is evil. That which hides the Good, which is knowledge, is evil, which is ignorance, and evil resides in the material world, since this is the world of nature. Nature is a reflection of truth, but is not truth itself; nature generates within itself as God generates within itself, but that which is God stays God, while nature keeps to itself. Nature generates within itself according to two principles, the female or passive principle which allows things to be changed, and the male or active principle which allows change to happen. These are not elements, but forces present in all things; moreover, they are “fluidities”, implying constant change, motion, and mobility that constantly shifts every passing moment.

We know that everything that exists is within Man (IX.4), and that Man understands all of creation (VI.1), not least because Man is the sole creature capable of possessing Nous, but also because wherever Man is, so is God (IX.6). Since God is literally everything that exists and does not exist and all that stuff (IX.1), God is greater than Man, but because God is Nous and Nous is within Man (or at least some of Man), Man has the capability and the understanding of all things. How can this be, though? God knows all things because God is all things. If we follow that same logic, we can construct a parallel statement that also holds under what we’ve discussed so far: Man understands all nature because Man is all nature. Indeed, this definition says as much: “nature in man is omniform”. All natures and all of nature is within Man; after all, Man is a microcosm or “small world” (I.4). Within Man (properly, the essence of Man), there are all qualities, all quantities, all good, all evil, all female, all male, and all other states of nature, including light, darkness, honesty, lies, ugliness, beauty, and everything else. Every member of Man contains all natures, which allows every member of Man to be capable of experiencing and understanding all natures, much as how Man contains Nous and so is capable of receiving and understanding Nous.

Moreover, this omniform nature within Man is “an energy endowed with all qualities whose force is invisible and effects are conspicuous”. We can see nature, since “nature is the mirror of truth” (VIII.5) and since truth is invisible, but the forces of nature are not necessarily visible. We cannot see pure qualities or quantities; we cannot see maleness or femaleness, abstract number, or the like. We understand them, though they may be invisible; we can certainly see their effects in the world where truth and nature are realized and materialized. But note how these things are described: the force of nature is “invisible” and its effects are “conspicuous”. These are the same words used to describe good and evil, respectively, in the previous definition. Thus, the forces of nature can be likened to or are good and thus truths, while the effects of nature can be likened to or are evil. Again, this leads us to say that the material world, being conspicuous and able to be seen, is evil, as opposed to the invisible and intelligible truths that are God.

But there’s one term in that statement that’s confusing, since we haven’t encountered it before and which carries a fair amount of baggage in modern parlance: “energy”. Throw out all your notions of prana, qi/chi/ki, orgone, nuclear/quantum physics, or what have you; we’re not talking about those here. According to this definition, energy “is a movement”. Movement, as we know, is provided by soul (II.1), and which is seen by Nous and performed by breath (II.6). Any motion, any movement, any act of nature is energy. This is what allows plants, though they have no soul, to still yet move by breath/spirit (hypothesized from IV.2); movement is performed by breath, which plants have though they have no animating soul. Thus, they can still experience forces of nature in a way that rocks and stones cannot, but cannot move around or act as animals, humans, or heavenly beings can. Motions provided by nature are energies that work within nature, so long as there exists the forces of nature to provide them and matter to be moved by them.

Then again, what is matter? All this talk about nature and bodies and elements and forces, and yet we’re not quite clear on what matter is. This definition says that matter “is a wet essence”. Looking back, we see that water is one of the qualities which is wetness (II.1), and that water is a “fecund essence, the support of earth, as a nutritive essence” (II.4). Thus, matter is essentially watery, though no matter could exist materially without earth and vice versa. The heavens are fire (II.5), the low world is earth (II.3), and air is the medium between heaven and earth (II.2), but water is what supports earth. Water and earth are opposite qualities according to II.1, where water is wet and earth is dry; however, matter is primarily watery, which allows it to grow instead of just exist statically. Fire can inhibit or remove growth, air can link growths together, and earth is that which is grown, but water provides the growth. The world is essentially characterized by growth. Moreover, the world is essentially characterized by life; not immortality or mortality, but life, bios, living. All things that die provide life for other things, so life always continues in the world in some way. A body may die by cancer, but cancer is merely the growth of something else that takes over an existing body; a body may die by being slaughtered, but provides food for other bodies to grow; life is death, death is life. Both are wet. Thus, material reality is wet.

So what about bodies in terms of matter? A body is “an agglomeration of matter”, or matter piled on and stuck to matter. Different matters combined form a body. This is pretty straightfoward; every body is more than “a matter”, but which is why the phrase is so awkward to say when referring to physical objects. Instead, we say that every body is “matter”, using a collective noun instead of a singular. Even single atoms are compounds of smaller things, and a cloud of gas is a collection of, you guessed it, matter. And, because matter is primarily wet, all bodies are primarily wet, too, unless they have a huge imbalance of one element or the other. Dry sand, for instance, though it has some water in it, has an abundance of earth; pure water is mostly water with very little earth. While different bodies are composed of different elements (II.1), the basis for them is still matter, with the elements and fluidities of maleness and femaleness taking effect upon them.

And, because they’re material and worldly, they’re still evil. Apparently.

Today, let’s discuss the forty-fifth definition, part X, number 3 of 7:

Nous (is) in soul, and nature (is) in the body. Nous (is) the maker of soul, and soul, (the maker) of the body. Nous (is) not in all soul, but nature (is) in all body.

This section is starting to shape up to refer to how the world is. The rest of the Definitions relate to soul, or Man’s relationship to God, and so forth, but until this tenth section of definitions, we haven’t spoken much about the relationship of things in the world to each other. Now that we’re talking about matter, natures, good and evil, generation, and the like, we’re starting to understand what this hitherto missing corner of the puzzle is starting to look like. After all, the final definition of part IX referenced humanity’s place in the world as part of the overall order of the cosmos, so it is fitting we start talking about the world and our place within it beyond simply to be Man.

From before, we know that all natures that exist do so within Man: “nature in man is omniform” (X.2) and “everything is within man” (IX.4). Our bodies contain a reflection of the world, just as the sensible world is a reflection of the intelligible world and as all natures reflect truth (VIII.5). However, within our bodies, we also have soul, and within the bodies of Man, there exists Nous. Thus, this definition repeats once more that “Nous is in soul, and nature is in the body”. Based on the parallel structure here, we can infer that just as nature in the body of Man is omniform, Nous in the soul of Man is omnipresent. So not only can we understand the sensible world through and through, we can also understand the intelligible world through and through. With a grasp of the highest Nous and lowest nature, Man is able to understand everything; the breadth of knowledge available to him is rivaled only by its depth, and both of these are fairly infinite.

Further, not only is Nous within the soul, but “Nous is the maker of soul”. I mean, duh; all of creation, both the intelligible and sensible, were made and created by God. But this makes it explicit: Nous creates soul, but since soul is intelligible, Nous creates soul from itself. The soul is, therefore, something unseen, incorporeal, and invisible. This, if you recall the terms from VIII.5, is what truth is. God is truth as much as God is light and Nous and the Good, but this also means that soul itself is part of God and is also a truth, an immortal but not uncreated thing. Thus, if the soul is a truth, then there must be some nature that reflects it, yes? Yup! “Soul [is] the maker of the body”. Now this is interesting, since we haven’t come across this idea before, in that the soul not only inhabits the body but that the soul creates the body.

But this does logically follow. If all soul is is just a “necessary movement adjusted to every kind of body” (II.1), then what happens when there is no body yet for a soul that still needs to inhabit one? The soul moves part of the whole of the world, using the female and male fluidities and the four elements, and creates a body to live and grow. The soul made by God determines the body made by soul according to its needs, perfection or lack thereof, and so forth. Thus, whatever form, quirks, instabilities, infirmities, conditions, or oddities the body may have all come from soul, so it likewise comes from God. Thus, no natural, gendered, hereditary, inborn, genetic, or similar condition, including the circumstances of one’s birth, can be called “wrong” or “sinful” or “evil”; skin color, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, predisposition to diabetes or obesity, or anything else should never be used against someone, since that’s literally how they were made. It exists in the world and was made from the world; this is the definition of “natural” that we’ve been building up. If you needed to be born that way, you would yourself, since you possess the capacity for experiencing those same things; don’t maltreat others when you don’t want to be maltreated.

So, since Man can be born with any nature in any body, Man inherently possesses the capacity for nature in every body. Thus, “nature is in all body”. Considering how much we’re changing, we can change natures at almost the drop of a hat, or a needle, or a weight, or a car; our entire bodies are constantly changing, increasing and decreasing, emitting and receiving. The soul, however, is a little different. Unlike nature, which is all present in all body, “Nous is not in all soul”. Some souls do not have the full grasp of Nous, as we’ve said before (VIII.8), because they have not yet obtained perfection of soul yet. But, assuming they begin to act and speak reasonably with Logos, they will. As for those who lack even the innate Nous within the soul, that’s a little unclear; perhaps the soul needed to inhabit a body regardless for some early work before it begins its true path to perfection, but it’s unclear to me what happens to those people.

Understand that everything is created by something, and if not God directly, then something else that was ultimately made by God. The Nous creates all things within itself, by itself, and from itself, and since Nous is everywhere, Nous dwells within all things. However, the only means by which something can contact or understand Nous is through Logos; something with Nous but without Logos cannot effectively understand or know Nous. Man, since he has the means of Logos, can do just this, since he is blessed with a deliberate share of Nous more than other creatures. However, the body, being made of all the natures, also allows him to use Logos for unreasonable ends, clouding or muddling his connection to Nous. Until that connection is made perfect and perfectly clear, we will not be able to fully dwell within Nous nor can Nous fully dwell within us.

Today, let’s discuss the forty-sixth definition, part X, number 4 of 7:

The immortal nature (is) the movement of the mortal nature, (as to) mortality, earth is its grave; (and) heaven (is) the place of the immortal. The immortal came into being because of the mortal, but the mortal comes into being by means of the immortal. Evil is a deficiency of the good, good (is) fullness of itself.

So, now that we know that all of nature exists within the body of Man, what can we say about what nature actually is? We know that there are four elements: earth which forms the basis for material existence, water which helps to grow, fire which inhibits growth, and air which joins together (II.2,3,4,5). We know that there are different groups of living creatures: heavenly beings with only soul and immortal bodies, stones with only mortal bodies, plants with mortal bodies and breath, animals with mortal bodies and breath and soul, and Man with mortal bodies, breath, soul, and Nous (IV.2), and each of those bodies is composed of some mixture of the elements (IV.1). There are two fluidities, the female which receives things and the male which emits things, which are always at work in the world to cause increase and decrease (X.1). So far, that’s all we know.

Now we start to read about the interaction of different natures and what those natures are. For one, “the immortal nature is the movement of the mortal nature”. Natures with immortality refer to heavenly beings, which we can say are gods, or more Hermetically, the planets and stars of the sky. These are the beings that “have” and “adorn heaven” (IX.7), and as we might infer from the place of astrology in many occult sciences and philosophies, these are the things that influence anything and everything down below. Indeed, the planets and stars are the movement of the life and natures on the world, giving them impetus to act in certain ways just as the soul moves the body.

Further, note how this definition makes a clear demarcation between things high up and things down below: “as to mortality, earth is its grave; and heaven is the place of the immortal”. Human beings and all mortal life down here is relegated to the earth, since earth is “the receptacle of the dead” as well as “nurse of the living” (II.3). On the other hand, the immortal creatures reside in heaven, forever there and never down here, just as humans do not ascend into heaven to be immortal; after all, “you do not have the power of becoming immortal; neither does, indeed, the mortal have the power of dying” (VIII.7). The only means by which we can interact is the air, since “heavens and earth are united with each other by the air” (II.2).

So, what gives with the fact that the immortal beings move us mortal ones around? After all, isn’t Man the one to own and manage the world (VI.1)? Don’t we ourselves have the power of the gods and the heavenly beings (VIII.6)? Well, yes, we do. We have the power of leading ourselves around in a way that nothing else does; the immortal beings move the mortal things, and most mortal things would, as I read this, be influenced by and obey the immortal ones. However, we who are Man don’t have to follow suit; we can be led around by the immortal beings, or we can move ourselves. In either case, movement is still accomplished, but if we let other things push us around, we basically relinquish our control to them, and those other things may not have our best interests at heart. If our soul wants us to do one thing, but our bodies are pushed around to do the opposite, that hurts us and we’re driven further from perfection, not closer to it. Thus, we can resist the power of the immortal beings and choose our own path, though it may not be easy (and it’s often not in the face of actual danger or adversity provided by them).

So why have immortal beings at all? To help us learn more about ourselves, the world, and God. After all, “the immortal came into being because of the mortal”. The immortal beings, with their nature, have their own things and experiences and worlds that we as Man need to learn from. From them we learn immortality, rulership, power of motion over others, and the like; they came into being as the entire world came into being for us (VIII.6). However, they still have influence over us, and it is by them (not the soul, or not just the soul, as we hypothesized in the last definition!) that move bodies around down here to create more bodies. Thus, “the mortal comes into being by means of the immortal”. While the soul is the maker of the body, the body is made by the soul by means of the immortal beings in heaven. (This should sound familiar if you know emanationism in Qabbalah, where an Idea comes down from God through the sephiroth of the planets and stars down to manifestation here on Earth.)

Recall, though, that this isn’t the first mention of stars and astral influences in the Definitions. Way back in VII.5, I mentioned these two little symbols that I couldn’t type, common symbols in Armenian manuscripts for glosses, but one meant “star” and the other meant “sinner”. While the propensity and judgment of individual humans according to their soul’s “illness” and “passion” (IX.4) can lead them to choose certain actions, the motion of the stars and planets above can also lead us to do the same. We can be moved by the stars, just as anything mortal down here can, if we let it. Certain influences, thoughts, accidents, opportunities, and the like can all be presented to us to lead or move us in certain ways that our souls may agree with or cry out against.

After all, keep in mind that these heavenly beings may not have our best influences at heart; they are still in the world and thus of matter, and moreover, have no Nous (IV.2). They are entirely worldly, and as such, they are evil just as anything material is (according to X.1). Evil, as we’re aware, is “conspicuous” (X.1), and we know that not only is evil the opposite of good, but that evil “is a deficiency of good”. Evil is a lack, that which is missing something. A dark room is dark because it has no light; one is ignorant because they do not know something. Evil is defined by what it lacks; this is why it’s so conspicuous. Good, on the other hand, is “fullness of itself”; it is complete in itself, just as light shows things to be just as they are without changing or modifying them (II.6). Good “bears no comparison”, and knowledge of something cannot be compared to knowledge of anything else; ignorance is simply lacking knowledge, while knowledge is knowledge. It cannot be substituted with knowledge of anything else, nor can it be enlarged or decreased in any way.

So, about those planets, stars, gods, and heavenly beings? While they may not be outright ignorance, they don’t have all knowledge, either. They are without Nous, and so while they may exist as part of and within God, they are without knowledge of God and therefore without knowledge of the world or themselves. This makes them ignorant, and thus possessing the quality of evil. They lead us to potentially ignorant ends, unaware of the intelligible or non-worldly aspects of their actions, and can so lead us to stay trapped down here when we let them. (This should now sound like the function of the archons in Gnosticism.) With knowledge, we understand the entire world and all the influences and natures within; without, we get trapped and are moved to know only a select few things in a select few ways.

Today, let’s discuss the forty-seventh definition, part X, number 5 of 7:

Soul is bound to be born in this world, but Nous is superior to the world. Just as Nous is unbegotten, so is matter too, (although) it (can be) divided. Nous is unbegotten, and matter (is) divisible; soul is threefold, and matter has three parts; generation (is) in soul and matter, (but) Nous (is) in God for the generation of the immortal (beings).

Man is a creature composed of a material body inhabited and moved by soul, and the soul of Man (generally) have a contact with and capacity for Nous, or knowledge of God. Because of the presence of Nous within us, we’re able to use Logos, or reasonable speech, which can help us understand and direct the world around us. However, it turns out that we’re not the only ones in the game here; the immortal beings in heaven above us also move us down here, and it’s up to us to choose whether to steer ourselves in whichever way we think is best (even if it’s not really good for us) or let the stars and planets and gods steer us in whichever way they think is best.

Of course, the process of even bringing Man into the world is complicated; first Nous makes soul from itself, then soul uses the heavenly beings to create a body, then the soul joins the body at birth. Souls without bodies are “inert” and motionless, so they can only fulfill their functions when they have a body. Bodies are material, so they belong in the world; thus, “soul is bound to be born in this world”. Soul has basically no choice in the matter; if it wants to move and carry out its functions, it must have a body, so the connection between the intelligible soul and sensible body is almost mandated. However, the soul of Man is blessed with a connection to and part of Nous, and “Nous is superior to the world”. Although all things in the cosmos exist within and as part of God/Nous, Nous does not blatantly or consciously reside within all things; that’s only given to Man. This is what allows Man to be both of the world (as far as his body is concerned) and in the world (as far as his soul is concerned). Nous is not bound to the world; Nous is the world and so much more.

So, it goes without saying that God is unbegotten; God is the creator of all things, and God is both immortal and eternal, so nothing can have created God; God, simply, has always existed. Thus, “Nous is unbegotten”. However, what may be surprising is that just as Nous is unbegotten, “so is matter too”. Thus, not only does the world exist within God, but the world has always existed within God. There was never a point, except outside of time itself perhaps, when matter and the world did not exist. God and the world, Nous and matter, have always both existed. However, we know Nous to be the One, while we can pretty easily pick out different kinds of matter and different numbers of body. Indeed, “[matter] can be divided”; thus, while matter has always existed, it does not exist in the same forms from moment to moment, and can be broken off or split up or otherwise divided so as to be joined with other matter later on. Thus, “Nous is unbegotten, and matter is divisible”. This sounds somewhat like the law of conservation of mass: nothing new was ever brought in, but always existed in some form or another.

So how does soul relate to the material world, besides being in a body? Well, according to this, “soul is threefold”. That’s not very helpful, but the footnotes provided by Jean-Pierre Mahé indicate that the “threefold soul” refers to its reasonable, unreasonable, and sensible forms. By saying that the soul is threefold, I don’t believe that Hermes is saying that we have three souls, but rather that the soul has three “modes”: it can act reasonably, it can act unreasonably, or it can act sensibly. Reasonable action is when the soul acts agreeably with Nous; unreasonable action is when the soul acts disagreeably to Nous. Sensible action, however, is when the soul works with the body. The body contains the sense organs, but it delivers the sensory data to the soul for it to understand and know. Of course, all this threefold soul stuff only applies to Man, since he’s the only creature endowed with Nous and so can act reasonably or unreasonably. For all other living creatures, they can neither act reasonably or unreasonably, but only sensibly, since that’s all that’s available to them.

Matter, on the other hand, has “three parts”. Jean-Pierre Mahé suggests this to mean three dimensions, or that of length, breadth, and depth. Anything solid must exist in at least three dimensions, since two dimensional objects indicate only flat abstract forms, one dimensional objects indicate direction and motion, and zero dimensional objects indicate infinity, singularity, or nullity. All bodies exist with three dimensions, in other words, and these things are both quantifiable and qualifiable, since matter brings about these things (VII.4). We can count how long things are, how fast they may be moving, and so forth. These things are meaningless outside the sensible world, since these are all sensible qualities and quantities.

One such quantity we can measure is growth, which is continued generation. How are things generated? By “soul and matter”; soul is what makes the body and moves it, and by making use of the fluidities of femaleness and maleness as well as the four elements, the soul can direct the body to increase or decrease, or to be born or bear children, and so forth. Generation and growth exists as a property of matter. However, what about for things immortal? Immortal beings are either heavenly, in which case they are made of matter, or immaterial, in which case they have no body at all but are detached from them, e.g. Man. For the generation of mortal beings, “Nous is in God”. Nous is immortality, and God is the means by which it is spread and grows. Nothing can be immortal in the true, unbegotten sense as God or Nous is without Nous, and Nous is perfect truth, which is perfect immortality exceeding that of the heavenly beings. While birth and death are in soul and matter, truth and perfection are in God.

Today, let’s discuss the forty-eighth definition, part X, number 6 of 7:

Providence and Necessity (are), in the mortal, birth and death, and in God, unbegotten (essence). The immortal (beings) agree with one another and the mortal envy one another with jealousy, because evil envy arises due to knowing death in advance. The immortal does what he always does, but the mortal does what he has never done. Death, if understood, is immortality; if not understood (it is) death. They assume that the mortal (beings) of this (world) have fallen under (the dominion) of the immortal, but (in reality) the immortal are servants of the mortal of this (world).

The relationships between different material bodies in the world is complicated, ranging from different types of living beings, some immortal and some not, some with Nous and some not, to the motions provided by the immortal heavenly beings that influence the lower mortal ones, and so forth. Between figuring out what’s really us when we move and what’s an influence we’re being moved by can be difficult, and this is starting to raise some cosmological questions that this text is probably unsuited to answer adequately. This definition, however, affords some more reason and rules to how everything down here works.

First, we’re introduced to Providence and Necessity. We’ve already met necessity once before, in VIII.1: “there is a destiny which has come into being according to a just necessity; there is a law which has come into being according to the necessity of humans”. Necessity is, then, an ordering principle of the cosmos, which structures things just so according to what we need so that everything can work together. No matter what else happens in the world, it must fulfill necessity, else it cannot happen at all. For all intents and purposes, we can consider necessity, providence, fate, and destiny to all be the same thing here; the two terms are not seen apart from each other, even in a similar passage in the Corpus Hermeticum (chapter XII, part 14):

Necessity and Providence and Nature are instruments of Cosmos and of Matter’s ordering; while of intelligible things each is Essence, and Sameness is their Essence.

In the world, each thing that exists must fulfill a particular fate. For the mortal, these things are “birth and death”; these things are mandated for every mortal being that lives. For every birth, there is a death; for every death, there is a birth. Nothing mortal can live without being born, and all mortal things, by virtue of their being mortal, must die. On the other hand, for Man who is both mortal and immortal in his own godly way, the corresponding fate of God is being “unbegotten”. God is unbegotten, as we’ve mentioned before in the last definition, and God can neither die nor be born, nor can God grow or increase or decrease. Simply put, God is, was, always will be, and can only ever be.

So, mortal beings are born, live for a short while, and die, and immortal beings live forever. Cool. But there’s more to it than that, especially when you put two of the same kind of beings with each other. With immortal beings, they “agree with one another”; they do not fight, they do not bicker, they do not argue, but they agree and exist in more-or-less harmony with each other. They have their roles and their parts to play, they always have, and they always will. Consider the planets of the sky; though they may enter into harmful or violent aspects with each other, they do not fight or try to take from another what they have. Mortal beings, on the other hand, “envy one another with jealousy, because evil envy arises due to knowing death in advance”. So us mortal beings, including animals and plants, fight and bicker and harm each other because we always want things that others have. We envy others for what they have, and we’re jealous over what we already possess. This is because we’re afraid of losing it when we die, so we want to hold onto it as much as we can before our bodies expire.

But this is stupid, isn’t it? I mean, look at the planets: “the immortal does what he has always done”. They don’t care what other things are doing; they’ve got their own job to do, and they’re in no rush nor lax state to get it done. They just keep doing it forever; that’s their job. A mortal being, on the other hand, “does what he has never done”. Although any immortal part within us may have done it at some point before, these bodies are constantly changing (cf. panta rhei), not to mention that every body has not existed forever before. There is always something new that we’re doing that we have not yet done, and may never get the chance to do it again. We are only born once, we only take our first breath once, we only eat a particular plate of food once (different food is on it the next time!), and so forth. Nothing is ever the same for us mortals, and with death approaching as is due for all mortals, we want to try to get everything we can done, and to obtain everything we can. Being material creatures, we often find solace in material ends, which leads us to ”envy one another with jealousy”.

Still, it’s stupid. I mean, what is death? It’s just the ending of the body’s use for the soul. Man may have a body, but Man is so much more than that. The essential Man is more than the sum of its parts; the essential Man is immortal and cannot die, no matter what kind of death the body may undergo. The body simply doesn’t affect the soul in that way; while the body’s premature death may leave the soul stunted in development, it doesn’t kill the soul or the essential Man. “Death, if understood, is immortality”, which is obtained through knowledge, and knowledge is perfection of the soul. If we properly understand death, just as we can understand anything else, we will not fear it (IX.3), which then removes death from jealousy and envy and fighting over things. That said, if we do not understand death, “it is death”. By being ignorant of the nature of life and death, mortality and immortality of Man, we who are Man condemn ourselves to death and forsaking our chances at immortality and knowledge.

And, trust me, there are plenty of people who fit that bill. How many people do you know are focused only on the material world? How many who fight over money or possessions or Black Friday deals or what-have-you? How many who conceive of nuclear wars to get rid of some pesky people from the face of the planet so we can get more oil? There’s a lot of these people, and they find death to be fascinating without understanding it. These type of people “assume that the mortal beings of this world have fallen under the dominion of the immortal”. In other words, these people are violent or are ignorant because they think that’s just the way things are. They don’t stop to think how they can change it, they don’t think they’re capable of changing it, and they don’t care about what the world might be if they changed it. They think that the underlying reality of everything that happens is out of their control, so they may as well play along and “do their part” in being ignorant, however wise and reasonable it may seem to them.

But, as you who’re reading these Definitions know, that’s not the case. Those who understand the nature of beings, who know reality and God and truth, understand that Man has as much power as the gods in determining our own actions (VIII.7). We don’t have to be led around by the nose according to the whims and influences and passions of other beings. We have the power to choose good or evil, knowledge or ignorance. Those who realize these things have knowledge, and they understand that “in reality the immortal are the servants of the mortal of this world”. The immortal don’t serve to rule or own the world; that’s for Man. Man rules and owns the world, and we’re to understand and properly live our lives with the immortal beings so as to know them, by which we know ourselves, by which we know God, by which we obtain Nous, by which we perfect the soul, by which we obtain true immortality.

So what do we have to gain from the immortal gods? Let’s restrict ourselves to the topic of the astrological planets and stars, then, when we talk about these heavenly beings. Just as the four elements constitute four essences or qualities of created bodies down here, the stars and planets constitute essences or qualities of motion and action that are performed by bodies down here. Mars, for instance, cuts off and burns up and produces a heat strong enough to lead people to fight. Venus, on the other hand, embraces and nourishes and produces a cold mild enough to nurture and join people together. All the planets, stars, gods, and heavenly beings produce other effects, and they take place down here in the world. If we understand these influences, we understand what we do when we’re exposed to them, how we internalize and realize them, how we effect them, what they make use of in different situations, and how we can make the best use of them. We use the immortal beings as a means to knowledge, which is why they exist in the first place. The immortal beings, just as everything else, are a means by which we can know ourselves.

Today, let’s discuss the forty-ninth and final definition, part X, number 7 of 7:

Therefore soul is an immortal essence, eternal, intellective, having, as an intellectual (thought), its reason endowed with Nous. By understanding nature, it attracts to itself the intellect of (the planetary) harmony; then, once it is freed from this natural body, it remains alone with itself (and) is grieved, belonging only to itself in the intelligible world. It rules on its reason.

After the last few definitions, which I feel were getting a little dramatic in how they were presenting the interaction between mortals on earth and immortals in heaven and how us who are Man should act, we wrap things up with this definition, which talks about the soul, which really is the centerpiece and focus of the entire Definitions.

First, we start of with a list of attributions of the soul, and here specifically that of Man. It’s an essence, an underlying quality, which helps to define that which we are. It is immortal; it does not die, nor is it born; while it may have been made by Nous (X.3), it was not generated in the same way bodies are (V.5). The soul is eternal, which only confirms that it has always existed outside of time itself and experiences time only as much as God does or allows us to in our bodies; the soul truly is unbegotten, just as matter is (X.5). It is intellective, able to think and reason with Nous, since that is what makes Man distinct from other creatures (IV.1, V.3). Because of this, we can reason and understand the cosmos in a way that only God can, but it takes time, practice, skill, dedication, and perseverance to do so. We can similarly choose to do none of those things and remain as, essentially, animals are; we can let our reason and minds stay catatonic and remain as animals do, or we can use reason just enough to get things done but in nowhere a complete way as we ought.

The way we understand things as we ought to is obtained by acting reasonably with the soul in the body (V.3). This produces knowledge, true honest knowledge, which when obtained enough yields knowledge of everything: ourselves, all other things, and God itself (VII.5). By understanding that which goes on around us, we understand everything as it works together: how bodies increase and decrease, by what means, and why they do this. We understand the intelligible things that cannot be seen but we can still yet know, all the same. However, we must continue to choose to do this, lest influences from the heavenly beings above sway us to do otherwise. But even then, once we understand even a little bit of nature and the natural world, Man “attracts to itself the intellect of the planetary harmony”. We begin to associate ourselves with the planets and other gods, and we begin to raise ourselves up into knowledge of systems far beyond that of the material plane of the earth. As we attract ourselves to “the intellect of the planetary harmony”, we ascend into godhood, coming to know how all things work. This is not the final stage of gnosis or perfection, but it’s certainly getting there.

After all, the soul stays in the body only as long as it needs to; then, once the soul reaches perfection, the soul leaves the body to die (VI.2, VI.3). At this point, the soul is “freed from this natural body”, and, without a body, the soul becomes inert once more as it was beforehand. Thus, it “remains alone with itself”, but it is also “grieved”. After all, it has all the knowledge of the cosmos and of God at this point, yet it sheds its old skin, its old world, everything it had grown up knowing, and “grieves”. This is an interesting point, since why should we grieve? Sadness, after all, is an illness of the soul; without anything to expose itself to, how can the soul obtain anything? After all, it remains “belonging only to itself in the intelligible world”. It is without body, and it is now independent as a truly immortal being, a god, free from the sensible world in the infinity of God. It rules, on its own and by its own, according to “its reason”, it’s Logos.

So why should there be grief? All this work and perfection and godhood for…grief? It doesn’t make much sense, I’ll agree, so there’s something missing, I’d think. Jean-Pierre Mahé notes that the text is not only incomplete at this point, but that the rest of the text in several versions of the Definitions is spurious and an add-in from some other text dealing with astrological influences. It’s kind of a let-down for the final definition, but let’s assume that the text is complete, and that this is the final and definitory definition of them all. What follows is pretty much my interpretation, but this is going to be less logical and less based on the rest of the text than the other definitions.

The perfect soul, freed from the body, rules on its reason in the intelligible world of God. It, already possessing soul-Nous (VIII.4), has now also obtained divine Nous in its entirety, and thus becomes one with the knowledge of God and, thus, God. By knowing all the beings, by knowing the self, by knowing Man, by knowing God, the soul becomes everywhere God is. By ruling on its reason, which is now the Logos of the Nous, the soul acts according to the will of God without any external influence to sway it, and no unreasonable things to change its opinions or desires. It belongs only to itself, but since itself is now effectively God, then it belongs to and exists within God perfectly in harmony.

The grief mentioned in this definition refers to it being separated from the material sensible world, which is odd when you consider the etymological root of “grief” to mean “weighty” in Latin. The process of shedding the body for the soul may not be a very peaceful process, just as the process of birth for a human being is by no means easy or painless. Perhaps, then, the grief of the soul is the final removal of its illnesses of sadness and joy, or the experiences it can no longer experience as a moving soul in a sensing and sensible body. Yet, being joined in the knowledge of God, it already knows these things and experiences them intelligibly. But it also knows that there are others that have not yet experienced this, and that they suffer in envy and jealousy and death when they don’t have to. Why should they suffer? God loves Man, after all, and Man loves God; if you saw a loved one in pain, you might also do what you could to relieve it. As God, since that’s effectively what the soul is now, why wouldn’t you try to help out those who are suffering so that they wouldn’t need to suffer anymore? If that’s what reason dictates, after all, why couldn’t you return to animate a new body, speak reasonably, act reasonably, lead others to act and speak reasonably, lead others to knowledge, and help perfect the souls of others that they too might be free?

Maybe this is an indication that the soul, ruling on its reason, may reason to return to the world; after all, since this soul is now God, we know that “God changes and turns into the form of man” for the sake of Man, so that others may become God as well. In other words, to quote one of my favorite stories, perhaps the ending has not yet been written.

This post is the final recap of the series “49 Days of Definitions” that discussed and explained some of my thoughts on a set of aphorisms explaining crucial parts of Hermetic philosophy. These aphorisms, collectively titled the “Definitions from Hermes Trismegistus to Asclepius:, lay out the basics of Hermetic philosophy, the place of Man in the Cosmos, and all that stuff. It’s one of the first texts I studied as a Hermetic magician, and definitely what I would consider to be a foundational text. The Definitions consist of 49 short aphorisms broken down into ten sets, each of which is packed with knowledge both subtle and obvious, and each of which can be explained or expounded upon. I sought to afford people some food for thought with my meditations on each aphorism in a series of blog posts, one aphorism per day, and while I know I didn’t plumb the entire depths of each one, I also didn’t try to do that. Still, it was a blast to write, and I hope it helps in explaining some of the philosophy involved when dealing with Hermetic work.

For convenience, here are links to the posts for each aphorism, along with a very brief summary of each section:

Part I: one, two, three, four, five
The three worlds of creation: God, the world, and Man.
Part II: one, two, three, four, five, six
The elements of the world and light which enables the world to be known.
Part III: one, two, three, four
The ubiquity of God, the place of Man in the world, and of the world in God.
Part IV: one, two
The different types of living beings and what they’re composed of.
Part V: one, two, three
Nous and Logos, God and reasonable speech.
Part VI: one, two, three
The development towards perfection of the soul of Man in the body of humans.
Part VII: one, two, three, four, five
The immortality of Man afforded by God, and the mortality of humans mandated by the world.
Part VIII: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven
Knowledge or ignorance of God/world/Man/self, and the power of Man as God.
Part IX: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven
The place of Man in the cosmos, the nature of the soul in Man, what perfect knowledge is.
Part X: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven
The natures and realization of good and evil, how the parts of the world work together.

So, what are some of the takeaways from the Definitions?

God is both the end result of spiritual development and the ultimate source of all things that exist, don’t exist, might exist, etc. Everything else that exists does so within God as part of God. There is nothing that is not within God. God is greater than anything conceivable, and is exemplified by and is knowledge. God is intelligible, able to be known, by those who are able to understand the intelligible.
The material world is a part of God, but also hides God from those within, since the world is sensible, able to be directly perceived according to material senses, but things that are intelligible are invisible and unsensable within the world. The material world is populated with bodies, composed of matter, and different bodies have different components of elements as well as of living essences: souls, spirits, and minds.
We as humans are composed of different parts: a material body that dies, an immortal soul that moves the body, spirit that performs the movement within the body according to soul, and mind which is our connection to God. We contain the nature of all things of the sensible and intelligible worlds, and rule over the sensible world as God rules over the entirety of creation. No other creature has this distinction, since only human beings are given a special connection to God through our souls. We are both of the sensible world and of intelligible God, God made us in its image, and God loves us and we love God as spouses or children of each other.
The way to salvation (immortality, freedom from death, freedom from evil) is knowledge. Knowledge of the self is the same as knowledge of creation which is the same as knowledge of God. Knowledge is possible due to the presence of Nous/divine Mind within our human souls and the ability to use Logos/reasonable speech. Perfection of the soul is knowledge obtained by attaining Nous itself, joining ourselves with God in the process, and in the process we obtain the power to help others free themselves from suffering, ignorance, and evil.
The way to obtain knowledge is through silent contemplation, the use of pure Logos without need to further anything of this world. Logos is the servant of the Nous, pure Reason working for and under pure Mind, and through reasonable thoughts, meditation, speech, and action can we obtain knowledge. This must be aimed toward divinity, however, and all actions as well; the use of speech or action to further worldly, animal, or material goals does not fulfill this. Much as one should treat the body well so much as only to keep the soul on its way to perfection, so should all actions in this world be done with an eye on the goal of divinity.

Despite the area covered by these definitions, there are some questions leftover that I’m sure are ringing in the minds of my readers; there are some I have, as well. Some of the questions that are left unanswered wholly or in part by the Definitions that I came up with, details and minor things as they might be:

The many gods that exist are not God, this much is clear; I never claimed to think otherwise, since God and gods operate and exist on two wholly different levels. That said, there are experiences of people who encounter gods made flesh, though the Definitions preclude such a thing, relegating the gods to the heavens and out of earthy existence. What of the many myths, stories, and experiences of those who experience gods made men, not God made Man? What about the underworld gods that are immortal?
Is it possible to reconcile worship of God with that of other gods, even if we recognize the difference in nature between the two? What is the proper method of worship to God, when God is without attributes and is divinely simple and without comparison?
The Gnostic/Neoplatonic aspects of the text make the material world we live in to be evil, with the immortal and eternal intelligible world beyond good. Why is this the case? It makes sense that denying the soul is bad for it, but why should all material actions done for material purposes and aims automatically neglect the soul? Is it impossible for a combination of Nous, soul, and immortality to exist from the outset?
God made the world for Man; everything exists within and for Man. Without Man, the world may as well not exist, and likely wouldn’t. So why did God make Man? Why is Man desirable and loved by God, and vice versa? What’s the whole point, and why should we have to strive for Nous in the first place? Why does Man have to be mortal to strive for immortality?
What exactly does it mean that we are made in the species of Man after God? I’ve been using the phrase “Man is made in the image of God” from the Bible, but what does that entail? Is it physical form? Is it our ability for Nous? What is the nature of an essence, idea, or species that makes us so different from other creatures?
God is said to have conceived Logos in silence, and that we should do the same. But what is silence? Is it meditation and contemplation of reason, direct use of Logos without speech?
Because of our connection to Nous and God, we have as much power as the gods. What is this power, exactly? Just the choice of choosing knowledge or ignorance according to our soul-based passions? What does it mean that we can become gods in our own right? Gods as in the Olympians, gods as in heroes, gods as in planets or stars, gods as in God? Or just immortal, pure Man?
The text hints at but never directly states that the soul may require multiple iterations of lives in order to be perfected, i.e. the soul may undergo reincarnation or transmigration. What is the nature of death and birth, and how do souls go between one or the other? What happens to a soul that is not yet perfect when the body dies? What about humans who are born without soul-Nous/the Nous-based connection to God? What about humans who are unable to use Logos/reasonable speech?
What about the spiritual lives, if any, of animals or the gods themselves? These beings have soul, but lack Nous. Is there a possibility for them to understand God and the cosmos as well? Does reincarnation have any role to play in this, or transmigration of the soul? What about plants or stones? Many magicians work with the spirits or genii of individual places or bodies that are said to lack souls and Nous or even spirit, so how are they taken into account?

Alright! That’s it for this blog project. I really thank you guys for sticking through with me through this phase of philosophy, and I hope you got as much out of it as I did. I had read the Definitions before, but I was honestly surprised at how much I got out of it this time by going through each with analysis and writing my thoughts down. The past seven weeks really helped me put myself on a more solid Hermetic footing in my work, and I hope all you guys who stuck around got something out of this as well. If you have any questions, feel free to post in the comments and help polish and refine some of my analyses further. While the Definitions lay out the basics of Hermetic philosophy, there’s a lot that was left unsaid or unclear. That’s kind of the point of any introductory text, of course, since it serves as an introduction, so I hope you’ll investigate more of this with me, with friends, or on your own and dig deeper into the philosophy and worldview of Hermes Trismegistus.

The past 49 days have been full of writing, and would you look at that, it’s suddenly the end of 2013! I hope you guys had a fantastic winter solstice, however you may have spent it, and I hope you have an even better New Year and start to 2014! Now let’s stop talking about spirits of God and soul and let’s start talking about the spirits we’ll be drinking and enjoying tonight. Happy New Year, my fellow amblers and dear readers! You guys made this a truly awesome year, and I look forward to what next year will bring to all of us.

I get a lot of hits on my blog from across the realm of the Internet, many of which are from links on Facebook, Twitter, or RSS readers. To you guys who follow me: thank you! You give me many happies. However, I also get a huge number of new visitors daily to my blog from people who search around the Internet for various search terms. As part of a monthly project, here are some short replies to some of the search terms people have used to arrive here at the Digital Ambler. This focuses on some search terms that caught my eye during the month of December 2013. As most of you know, the 49 Days of Definitions project continued through and finished up in this month, forming the bulk of the posts, but there was time for other people to get to my blog through other terms.

“how does 2nd decan libra embrace their charm?” — Seeing as how I’m one of these myself, it’s hard to tell others how I can truly embrace my own devilishly awesome charm. It has to do a lot with drinking diet cola and not giving a shit, generally. Also being a magician. Also being humble.

“fill me with your anointing lord” — Oh baby, I’ll fill you with my holy spirit, alright. Get down on your knees and pray for it. Jesus is coming; grab a towel. (Sorry I’m not sorry.)

“favorable geomantic figures” — Personally, I dislike simply saying that a particular figure is always favorable or always unfavorable, but rather see how individual figures agree or disagree with a particular query or situation. For instance, if one wants a quick escape out of a situation, the figure Fortuna Maior (which, although greatly useful) is terrible for this since it indicates having to overcome something and conquer it instead of simply sidestepping it. That said, there are two systems I know of for determining favorable figures generally. In Robert Fludd’s system, there are three types of figures: good, which are Fortuna Maior, Laetitia, Caput Draconis, Albus, Puella, and Acquisitio; moderate, which are Populus, Via, and Coniunctio; and bad, which are Fortuna MInor, Tristitia, Caput Draconis, Rubeus, Puer, Amissio, and Carcer. An older Arabic system has good figures as Populus, Albus, and Laetitia; better figures as Cauda Draconis, Fortuna Minor, and Laetitia; the best figures as Acquisitio and Fortuna Maior; bad figures as Puer, Coniunctio, and Via; worse figures as Cauda Draconis and Amissio; and the worst figures as Carcer, Tristitia, and Rubeus. Generally speaking, I find Fortuna Maior, Acquisitio, Caput Draconis, Fortuna Minor, Puella, Laetitia, Albus, and Coniunctio to be favorable figures, from the most favorable to least favorable.

“mancy vs kinesis” — I can tell that some of the people who get to my blog are interested in comic book or RPG magic, that’s for sure. Since both of these roots come from Greek, they’re used in some words to make “schools of magic” or whatnot seem that much more fantastical. Briefly put, anything that ends in “mancy” means a divination system, and anything that ends in “kinesis” means a control or movement of something. Thus, “pyromancy” is divination with fire, such as scrying or looking at burnt patterns in wood, while “pyrokinesis” is the supernatural harnessing of flames, fire, and heat according to one’s will. In some arts, the line between divination and magic is blurred, such as in necromancy; though it ends in “mancy” and was originally and ultimately intended to gain information from the dead or by means of spirits of the dead, a lot of necromantic technique involves methods to raise the dead and commune with them in nonspecific ways, so a good deal of death magic was confused with the gaining of knowledge from the dead. In video games and RPGs, however, a lot of “mancies” are actually “kineses”; anyone who moves earth with their mind is more properly a “geokineticist” and not a geomancer.

“meditation to obtain a kinesis” — Lots of meditation, sure. I’m sure you’d eventually develop some awesome powers if you become a master of meditation in the meanwhile, but that shouldn’t be the point of meditation, in my opinion.

“orbs around my altar” — You might want to banish your shit or, like, use some disinfectant. That, or stop taking crappy photos of your altars and dust your bedroom more.

“what spirit should I summon” — That’s like asking “what prayer should I pray” or “what food should I eat”. It’s really up to you and what you feel appropriate and safe with. I mean, I could just suggest Bael or Asmodeus or Yahweh, but I don’t feel like being that mean at the moment.

“beings that require bones for.conjuring summoning evocation -game” — I don’t know of any in the Western tradition that require bones, exactly, though they’re not exactly frowned upon, either. Bones are a part of the body ruled by Saturn, being the densest part of the body as well as giving it structure. Spirits of the dead as well as certain animals appreciate bones, especially if they’re the bones of the body of the spirit when it was still alive. Bones are generally good for communing with gods of the dead, too, but they’re not required in terms of offerings or sacrifices, either. Other traditions place a large importance on bones and their spiritual uses, but I’m not as familiar with them. As far as summoning goes, very few spirits require bones to get their attention. Candles, incense, and orations get you much farther and for a cheaper, cleaner cost.

“geomancy ifa” — Ah, the two great divinatory arts of Europe and Africa. Geomancy, as I’m sure you’re well-aware, is a pretty old and well-developed form of European divination that has its roots in the Saharan Desert, going back about a thousand years. It spread from there both to the east through the Middle East and Greece as well as to the west through Spain into the rest of Europe, where it was practiced virtually nonstop from then onward. It went underground for a while in the past few centuries, but it’s starting to become more popular again. However, the roots of geomancy also went south from the Sahara into the rest of Africa, where it was practiced in Madagascar as sikidy and by the Yoruban peoples as ifá and diloggun. This was brought over with the slave trade into the Americas, where it’s practiced closely with the Santería religion and some other ATRs. While geomancy and ifá share the same origin, they developed quite independently of each other, so it’s hard for me to claim any knowledge on ifá save that it’s pretty deep. Only a select few people are meant to learn ifá (babalawos, generally), so unless you’re part of Santería communites, you’re better off sticking with geomancy.

“what is an aquarius/libra decanate land aries/leo decanate together like?” — Another decan/decanate question, woo! I’m honestly going to ignore the part about romantic pairings because, really, it’s just about pointless to answer a question like that based on Sun signs alone. Considering the importance of the other planets, the rising sign, house placements, and the like, Sun signs (though important) are only a fraction of the information a proper horoscope can give you. As for the decans themselves, this query indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of them. The decans of the signs are ruled by planets, not other signs! There are different methods to assign the planets to the decans, however, with the Chaldaean ordering being traditional in Western astrology but the Vedic system (which is associated more closely with the signs than the planets alone) has been popular of late.

“where to buy consecrated chalk” — Regrettably, I haven’t found a supplier for this, and none of the local stores around me sell common items that have already been blessed. To that end, I wrote up a short ritual for blessing your own chalk, which you’re free to use on whatever chalk you might get for yourself. Alternatively, you could probably just buy a pack of chalk and ask a Catholic priest to bless it for you. If you live near a botanica (Hispanic Santería/ATR magic store), I suggest getting a cake of cascarilla, or eggshell chalk, which is pretty good in its own right.

“how to make a real snowflake using magic without even chanting.anything” — I’m amused that this query assumes that all of magic requires chanting, but surprise, it doesn’t! Just close your eyes, go to the kitchen, open the freezer, and knock off some of the ice from those leftovers you put in two months ago. There you go, a real snowflake! And yes, the magic of refrigeration is truly a miracle and allows otherwise inhospitable places to become endurable (e.g. the entire southern US).

“is anyone transalting munich manuel of demonic magic” — I have a few sections of the Munich Manual translated, though translating any more is currently on hold for the time being. The Latin from Kieckhefer’s critical edition of the Munich Manual is pretty clear and well-organized, so anyone with even rudimentary skill in Latin and a good dictionary can get good progress on their own. I have some other projects to translate in the meanwhile, but if there’s a particular section that you’re just absolutely dying to have translated ASAP, let me know and I’ll see what I can do about getting it put into English in the near future.

Also, Happy New Year! Go get drunk, call on the stars and your ancestors, and bring in 2014 right!

2013 has finally come and gone, and now we’re in 2014. Awesome. How was last year? Fricking amazing, lemme tell you. Between a good amount of spiritual work and crafting, my first full year with my fantastic boyfriend, and no small amount of education and adventuring, 2013 really wasn’t bad at all. Now that we’re in the start of 2014, what are my plans?

Get more physically active. The past few months haven’t been kind to my waistline and it’s starting to show, not to mention that a number of the spirits are getting on my case about treating my body better. To that end, I’m changing up my daily and weekly routine to get in some more exercise (running and basic weightlifting), as well as beginning to take aikido classes. I’m specifically choosing aikido with the Northern Virginia Ki Society, not just due to the estimable opinion of my good friend, occult crafter, and martial artist Raven Orthaevelve, but because it will help in my energy manipulation and meditation skills. Add to it, it’s something that I’ve always had an interest in but hardly had the chance to take it up when I was younger, so I may as well.
Conjure the angels of the fixed stars. This past year, I finally contacted Iophiel, the angel of the fixed stars and the angel of the eighth sphere, which was an amazing experience. However, I’ve barely had time to investigate that sphere, and since it’s the most unfamiliar and complex of the spheres I’ve yet encountered, I want to spend some more time working with the forces of the stars as a whole as well as individual segments. To that end, I want to start a year-long project by conjuring the angels of the fixed stars; not just Iophiel, but each of the angels of the Zodiac (as the Sun enters each sign) and the angels of the lunar mansions (as the Sun and Moon enter each lunar mansion). This will amount to about 40 new conjurations, with about three or four new contacts being made a month. I’ll start this project once the Sun enters Aries at the spring solstice this year, kicking off the solar new year with new conjurations. This will provide a new wealth of information, I’m sure.
Buy and move into a new house. I’ve lived at my current apartment since I got out of college almost four years ago, and while I’ve enjoyed my time here, it’s time to move into somewhere better. I’m investigating the possibility of actually taking out a mortgage and buying a house for myself, my boyfriend, and two of our friends; since we’re all into magic and the occult in our own ways, that should prove to be an interesting arrangement indeed! I’ll need to start talking to my agency’s HR department as well as some of the angels and gods for the help I’ll need, too. This will definitely help me, personally, to have more space for my magic work as well as begin more intense devotional practices with the gods and spirits. Speaking of…
Start working with Saint Cyprian of Antioch. Saint Cyprian of Antioch is the patron saint of pagans, sorcerers, and magicians; need I explain further? Although no longer recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, Saint Cyprian of Antioch (not to be confused with Saint Cyprian of Carthage) is well-known by some Nordic communities of magicians as well as by many Portuguese, Brazilian, and Caribbean occultists. His ties to some ATR deities will help bridge a possible spiritual gap between me and my boyfriend and his godfamily (a group of ATR practicioners and initiates), too, as well as help give me a more solid footing when dealing with spirits of the dark and the dead. And speaking of the dead…
Start working with my ancestors more. My interactions with people of ATR faiths has shown me by force how powerful our ancestors can be in our lives. This isn’t just to say those of our family who’ve passed away in our lifetimes, but literally all of them going back to the furthest distant reaches of our genesis, even to the gods or elves or chaos or what-have-you. I’ve started a small shrine and practice to my ancestors on my main devotional altar, but it’s just a tiny squished corner for now. Once I get the space, I plan to setting up a full altar for them and getting to do more research for their names, pictures, and preferences. This will be made more convenient since I’m tasked with repairing my mother’s old computers, which have books’ worth of genealogical information on different branches of my family. Weekly chats and offerings to them would be the minimal practice here.
Translate more Latin. My boyfriend got me one of the most complete and thorough books on European geomancy ever written, the “Fasciculus Geomanticus” written by Robert Fludd in 1687. This is about 650 pages of dense late medieval Latin replete with very deep geomantic lore and technique compiled by one of Europe’s most famous masters of the art. I plan on translating this in full, perhaps even submitting it for publication or cannibalizing it into my own work on geomancy. Who’s to say? Maybe even both! Other works in Latin might be translated, too, pending advice and suggestions from my dear readers.
More trance work. This is something I’ve tried off and on again since I pretty much started magic, but I haven’t really made much progress or even much of a concerted effort. Entering states of trance, engaging in astral projection, and being able to dream lucidly is still high on my to-do list, so I’m going to devote myself to trance work on nights when I don’t work out and don’t have other magical work to do. This, combined with the above things, basically necessitates I keep a strict routine for myself with putzing around on the Internet reserved mostly for when I’m at work (hah!).

So, without further ado, the calendars and timings for things for the year of 2014. First, the updated conjuration cycle:

	Sunday	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday
1		Raphael (Air)			Tzadqiel (Jupiter)
2	Michael (Fire)		Kammael (Mars)
3	Michael (Sun)	Auriel (Earth)				Haniel (Venus)
4				Raphael (Mercury)			Gabriel (Water)
5		Gabriel (Moon)					Iophiel (Fixed Stars)
6	Personal Angels						Tzaphqiel (Saturn)

In the past, I was going on a 5-week cycle of the angels, with all the elemental archangels being done on Wednesdays (as my work schedule lets me work from home then). However, this past year, I finally gained contact and initiation from Iophiel, the angel of the fixed stars of the 8th heaven, and wanted to allow more time for that as well. Further, due to some of my other scheduling constraints, I wanted to leave my Fridays and Wednesdays mostly clear of magical work except as necessary. Thus, I expanded the conjuration cycle to six weeks instead of five, moving the conjurations of Iophiel and my personal angels (natal genius, Holy Guardian Angel, and angel of occupation) to the weekend between the conjurations of Gabriel of the Moon and Tzaphqiel of Saturn. Further, I also moved the elemental archangel conjurations to other days instead of Wednesdays.

Next, the lunar month cycle:

	1	2	5	7
New Moon	Arktos Ritual, house cleansing and blessing	General material consecration	Monthly Hermaia
First Quarter Moon
Full Moon	Full Moon Ritual
Last Quarter Moon				House cleaning

Generally the same as last year. I observe a monthly ritual for Hermes every fourth day of the lunar month, and I use the day before through the day after the New Moon to clean, cleanse, banish, and reward my house. I also set aside time on the New Moon and Full Moon for certain celestial rituals, assuming the weather allows for it. Not much of my normal work revolves around the revolution of the Moon, but it does help in getting a few things done here and there.

Of course, no schedule observing the stars could be complete without a list of planetary retrograde dates. Below are all the retrograde dates for Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury that take place sometime during 2014. Of these, only Venus and Mercury are of any real importance, but still.

Saturn retrograde from March 2 through July 20
Jupiter retrograde from November 7 2013 through March 6 2014
Jupiter retrograde from December 8 2014 through April 8 2015
Mars retrograde from March 1 through May 20
Venus retrograde from December 21 2013 through January 21 2014
Mercury retrograde from February 6 through February 28
Mercury retrograde from June 7 through July 1
Mercury retrograde from October 4 through October 25

Other astrological and astronomical phenomena:

Sun ingress Aquarius: January 20
Sun midway Aquarius (Imbolc): February 3
Sun ingress Pisces: Febuary 18
Sun ingress Aries (Ostara, spring equinox): March 20
Sun ingress Taurus: April 20
Sun midway Taurus (Beltane): May 5
Sun ingress Gemini: May 21
Sun ingress Cancer (Litha, summer solstice): June 21
Sun ingress Leo: July 22
Sun midway Leo (Lammas): August 7
Sun ingress Virgo: August 23
Sun ingress Libra (Mabon, fall equinox): September 23
Sun ingress Scorpio: October 23
Sun midway Scorpio (Samhain): November 7
Sun ingress Sagittarius: November 22
Sun ingress Capricorn (Yule, winter solstice): December 22
New Moon, first of winter: January 1
New Moon, second of winter: January 30
New Moon, third of winter: March 1
New Moon, first of spring: March 30
New Moon, second of spring: April 29
New Moon, third of spring: May 28
New Moon, first of summer: June 27
New Moon, second of summer: July 26
New Moon, third of summer: August 25
New Moon, first of autumn: September 24
New Moon, second of autumn: October 23
New Moon, third of autumn: November 22
New Moon, first of winter: December 21
Perihelion: January 4
Aphelion: July 4
Northern lunar eclipse: April 15
Southern solar eclipse: April 29
Southern lunar eclipse: October 8
Northern lunar eclipse: October 23

Festivals and holidays whose dates move around:

Hermaia: March 5
Asclepeia: March 9
Dionysia: March 11 through March 16
Purim: March 15
Pesach: April 14 through April 22
Aphrodisia: July 1
Rosh haShanah: September 24 through September 26
Yom Kippur: October 3
Chanukkah: December 16 through December 24

Other festivals and holidays whose dates don’t move around:

Veneralia: April 1
Feast of St. Isidore of Seville: April 4
Feast of St. Expedite: April 19
Feast of Mary, Queen of Heaven: May 1
Mercuralia: May 15
Feast of St. Benedict: July 11
Festival of Venus Genetrix: September 26
Feast of Saint Cyprian of Antioch: September 26
Feast of the Angels (Michaelmas): September 29
Birthday: October 8
All Hallow’s Eve: October 31
All Saints’ Day: November 1
All Souls’ Day: November 2
Feast of St. Lazarus: December 16
Saturnalia: December 17 through December 23
Christmas: December 25

Notes on the above lists:

I’m already using the Sun’s entry into the four cardinal zodiac signs (Aries, Cancer, Libra, Capricorn) to mark the solstices and equinoxes, so it makes sense to me to use the Sun’s halfway point in the four fixed zodiac signs (Aquarius, Taurus, Leo, Scorpio) to mark the cross-quarter days instead of the Gregorian calendrical method. While most other occultists and pagans will use the normal calendrical dating, I’ll stick to my solar dating and tie it to the cycle of the Sun instead. The dates are fairly close, at least, being off no more than a week from the popular observance of them. The calendar dates of these cross-quarter days are the 1st of the month the astrological date occurs in (thus May 1st for Beltane).
The period between All Hallow’s Eve and the astrological Samhain is a big deathy week for me that I’ll probably make a big to-do for the dead.
Similarly, the period between Saturnalia and the winter solstice will be a roughly week-long period of partying and fun.
Yes, dear reader, I do count my birthday as a festival, not least because it usually coincides with Columbus Day (a federal holiday, and thus three-day weekend).
The Jewish festivals are things to mark one of the cultures I come from. While I’m not very observant, I try to make these things a small reminder of what some of my ancestors have done.
While the Roman festivals are tied to the normal calendar, the Greek festivals move around due to their being tied to the lunar months. By my reckoning, the Hermaia (Hermes’ festival) takes place on the fourth day of the tenth lunar month after the summer solstice; the Aphrodisia (Aphrodite’s festival) takes place on the fourth day of the first lunar month after the summer solstice; the Dionysia (Dionysus’ greater festival) takes place on the 10th through 15th days of the third lunar month after the winter solstice; the Asclepeia (Asclepius’ festival) takes place on the eighth day of the third lunar month after the winter solstice.

With that, let’s get 2014 rolling!

To go with my prospective and plans for 2014, I decided I wanted to do a yearly geomantic reading for myself to see what 2014 might have in store for me. Then I thought, well gosh, why not do it for others as well? From now through January 30, I’ll be offering a special on yearly geomantic forecasts for only US$15! Click the button and I’ll draw up my forecast for your upcoming year!

Yearly Geomantic Forecast for 2014 — $15.00
Valid through January 30, 2014

So, what kind of forecast would you get? Well, let me show you with the forecast I drew up for myself! Feel free to draw up your own forecast, especially if you’re learning geomancy, but below is my own forecast for what I predict will happen for myself through the year of 2014.

The figures obtained were:

First Mother: Fortuna Minor
Second Mother: Puer
Third Mother: Tristitia
Fourth Mother: Fortuna Maior
First Daughter: Fortina Minor
Second Daughter: Fortuna Minor
Third Daughter: Tristitia
Fourth Daughter: Caput Draconis
First Niece: Tristitia
Second Niece: Albus
Third Niece: Populus
Fourth Niece: Coniunctio
Right Witness: Fortuna Maior
Left Witness: Coniunctio
Judge: Acquisitio
Sentence: Carcer

The figures in the twelve houses are:

Fortuna Minor
Puer
Tristitia
Fortuna Maior
Fortina Minor
Fortuna Minor
Tristitia
Caput Draconis
Tristitia
Albus
Populus
Coniunctio

The sum of the chart is 100, an even number. The Via Puncti of Fire or Water cannot be formed; the Via Puncti of Air leads to Caput Draconis as the Fourth Daughter, and the Via Puncti of Earth leads to Puer as the Second Mother. The ascendant of the house chart is Taurus. The Part of Spirit is in house VIII, Caput Draconis. The Part of Fortune is in house IV, Fortuna Maior. The significator of the querent (me) passes between houses I, V, and VI.

Overall, this year is going to be fantastic, though slow. With the Court having three of the most favorable figures in geomancy, the theme here is going to be “gain”: 2014 will see an increase in my life generally, not necessarily financial but not precluding financial gains, either. The Right Witness here indicates strong, independent success and being the support of others generally helping me through this year, and the Left Witness indicates lots of interaction, meeting with, and making plans with others. The interaction of these three figures here is fantastic, which lends itself to lots of beneficial growth and access to higher and better qualities of life. The Sentence as Carcer suggests that this year is one where things will start to be “locked down”, potentially indicating that patterns and ways of life established in 2014 will be maintained for a long time to come.

The sum of the chart here is 100, which is more than 96; thus, events this year will happen on a more-or-less slow or relaxed schedule. Delays, generally due to building things up properly taking more time than expected, are probably going to be the norm, so I’d be well advised to always allow for more time and be a little more diligent in my own work and scheduling. Plus, 100 is an even number, suggesting that more of the events that happen in my live will be dependent on others (things happening to me) than of my own volition and impetus (me acting on other things). The Via Puncti of Fire and Water not leading anywhere here indicate that this year will not be fueled by any giant goals, drives, or emotional situations, which is always good for a drama-free year. Rather, the Via Puncti of Air leading to Caput Draconis indicates that there will be new contacts and communication coming in, especially with people I will never have met before (including spirits); the Via Puncti of Earth indicate that I have some hard material goals and tasks to set myself out for, and it leading to Puer suggests that there could be troubles or conquests (or both!) when dealing with the material world this year. Tread with caution when going outside instead of out-of-body.

Fortuna Minor in house I indicates that I’ll generally be successful this year, with more ease than struggle, though I should be careful not to let big things slip through my fingers. Although the Right Witness was Fortuna Maior, indicating myself throughout the year as a whole, Fortuna Minor in house I indicates me on a moment-by-moment basis; thus, I should focus on collecting myself and my successes, tying everything into a whole, than simply getting by from one thing to the next. The cardines of the chart, read counter-clockwise starting from house I, are Fortuna Minor, Albus, Tristitia, and Fortuna Maior. This indicates that the year will be easy and fast-progressing at the start of the year (now until spring), then slow and thoughtful (spring until summer), then hard and difficult (summer until autumn), then fantastic and with lots of good results (autumn until the end of the year). I’d do well to focus on myself and personal success basically when it’s cold, and once things start to heat up to start planning things out and getting them out of the way once it gets hot. Late summer and early autumn will be the most difficult part of the year for me, generally due to the onslaught of meaningless work or endless toil that I might be mired in.

Financially, I have Puer in house II, Fortuna Minor in house V, and Populus in house XI. Finances will be interesting to work with this year; I shouldn’t expect terribly much from investments, though I can stand to make a quick buck or two if the mood to gamble strikes me. I’ll be able to rely on friends aplenty if I need to, but calling in too many favors may not be great for my friends and my status with them. My own finances will be alright, though I really should be careful with them; I should definitely calm down before making any big decisions and get a second opinion first, and I should always keep an eye out for any impulse spending that I really shouldn’t be doing.

Spiritually, I have Caput Draconis in house VIII and Tristitia in house IX. This is a fantastic time for working with spirits of the dead, land spirits, general magical fuckery, and thaumaturgy; work with Saint Cyprian, the ancestors, and other spirits “down here” or “down there” will be greatly favored, with new relationships being built. Indeed, the Part of Spirit here indicates that this is something I should really be focusing on. Tristitia in house IX, though, worries me somewhat; high astral work, celestial conjurations, and divination of all kinds will be difficult or too much to handle throughout the year. Nothing will be blocked off, but this will indicate much work to bog me down throughout the year. Tristitia appearing in house III also indicates that there will be much high work to be done around me in my local environment; with it also in house VII, this indicates a strong connection to the people I work with as well as with my boyfriend, indicating potential struggles in sharing time between my love and my work.

Otherwise, things seem pretty peachy for me. My health will be fine, and I’ll have a good grasp on whatever happens to me (Fortuna Minor in both houses I and VI), though I should beware of upper back, spinal, and cardiovascular problems. Things look good for moving to a new house, if not buying one outright (Fortuna Maior in house IV, with Fortuna Minor passing into conjunction with it from I to VI). My relationship with the boyfriend will be enduring though potentially stressed (Tristitia in house VII), likely due to spiritual work (IX) or local events (III), though work with him could lead to fantstic new heights or depths. Work will be slow and uneventful (Albus in X), with decent success and nothing to worry about. There is talk going on behind my back (Coniunctio in XII), though it’s nothing I should worry about with for now; any talk will eventually come to my own ears and table (Coniunctio as Left Witness), so I’d do best to let others talk and simply keep on my guard for being a decent person. As sport and health are ruled by the same figure (Fortuna Minor in I, V, and VI), I expect this to indicate my work with aikido; it’ll be something for me to pick up, though perhaps not last through the whole year. It could be something long-lasting, given my connections with it, but only if I have the support of others; we’ll see how long aikido lasts, but it should definitely be a beneficial act for me, if not completely something to take long-term.

Let’s see how this prediction will pan out, then! Happy New Year, everyone; now let’s make sure this new year really will be happy, fortunate, and successful for us all.

Iō Hermēs!

Carrier of Love and Sympathy
Messenger of Friendship
Consoler of the Lonely
Bond of the Scattered Family
Enlarger of the Common Life

Carrier of News and Knowledge
Instrument of Trade and Commerce
Promoter of Mutual Acquaintance
Among Men and Nations and Hence of Peace and Goodwill

by Charles W. Eliot, from the Smithsonian Postal Museum in Washington, DC

Just a heads up for you all! I’ve mentioned it before on Twitter, but my alma mater, the University of Virginia, is hosting an international academic conference on Hermes and Mercury in the near future. From Rogue Classicism:

Of all the divinities of classical antiquity, the Greek Hermes (= Roman Mercury) is the most versatile, complex, and ambiguous. His functions embrace both the marking of boundaries and their transgression, commerce and theft, rhetoric and practical jokes; he also plays the role of mediator between all realms of human and divine activity, embracing heaven, earth and the netherworld. This conference at the University of Virginia aims to bring together scholars of Greek and Roman religion, art, literature, and history to assess this wide-ranging figure. We hope also to include attention to early reception of the god and his myths outside of Greece and Rome proper—for instance, Hermes as the Egyptian Thoth, the worship of Mercury in syncretistic forms in Rome’s imperial provinces, and allegorical interpretations of the god in late ancient and early medieval times.

The conference is being held in Charlottesville, VA from Thursday, March 27 through Saturday, March 29, hosted by the Department of Classics at the University of Virginia. Featuring 21 talks (with four keynote speakers from Leiden, Penn, Johns Hopkins, and Brown Universities) over three days, the event is bound to bring Hermes, along with his many roles and forms and friends and stories, into new light with new insight. I’ve been in touch with the professors organizing the event, and it’s open to all who want to attend; no price has been mentioned by them for attendance, so come one and come all. It’ll give me a good excuse to visit my college town again, and the place is beautiful for those who’ve never had a chance to visit. While it may not be unheard of for such conferences to be held at length on the old gods, I’ve got high hopes for this one and can only hope that more of these types of events in the future. Mark your calendars and make your hotel reservations; they’re cheap this time of year.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been making good use of some of my Christmas presents (books on magic, religion, and the like) and heartily absorbing some of the points they make. While many of the texts talk about specific ways to implement ritual practices or the general cultural milieu occult practices take place within, the overarching theme that’s being presented is that it’s really really hard to make clear distinctions between magic and religion based on the evidence we have of ancient cultures. Sure, we might call ourselves “magicians” or “priests” nowadays, but the worldview we have when we apply these labels to ourselves is kinda weird when we consider what the ancients and our ancestors would have done.

For instance, a magician nowadays might set aside some time every day for magical work, but beyond that doesn’t do a damn thing; no prayers, no offerings, no involvement of “magic” beyond their set rituals. Someone we might call devout or religious might go to church every week and occasionally get involved in scripture study with their friends, but outside of that barely involves themselves in religious activity. We basically consider ourselves part-time magicians; part of the time we’re magicians, and the rest we’re just our normal mundane selves. This is such a modern way of thinking, and so prevalent around us, that it’s hard to consider that it might have been any different for the people who have gone before us.

What would the ancients have done? Rather than set aside times for doing magic or being religious, they involved these things literally all the time in everything they did. Not one single thing was separate from magic or the gods or religion; not one single act had explicitly mundane purposes completely detached from the spirits. Every herb picked, every meal served, every trip made, every speech spoken invoked the gods or spirits in some way, or was performed for some spiritual purpose no matter how small. Rather than clearly thinking of something as magical or non-magical, or religious or non-religious, their entire lives were lived by incorporating the spirits in every action. Of course, there were atheists and people with different beliefs doing the same thing as others who might be more canonical or traditional in their works, but that didn’t matter. Everything actually done was the important thing, and even those who didn’t believe in a particular spirit or the efficacy of the spirit still performed the rituals just as everyone else did.

We might call this all the “religion” of ancient peoples, but it’s unclear whether they would have considered it so. To an Athenian, their style of Hellenistic belief was simply what was always done; there was no set reference of texts, no central hierarchy, no canon. The only things that were set were the festivals, the rituals, and the observances of the gods that, as far as they were concerned, sustained them in their livelihood and lives. There was no “religion” beyond daily life itself, and all the observances and stories that gave importance to their lives.

What do we consider “religion” nowadays for ourselves, though? We might consider a set of canonical scriptures, a defined set of beliefs, some sort of priesthood or hierarchy, and regular observances of ritual or significant times. We generally consider religion to follow an orthodox (literally “right teachings”) model, where belief is the core part of religion. After all, given the past 2000 years of Christian development and influence on Western culture and philosophy, where Christians were more concerned with “what is the real word of God” or “what is heretical and against us”, this isn’t too surprising. Christians have had a set of four gospel texts with a number of other texts appended on and deemed canonical by central authorities, with any deviance from these texts considered heretical. A central authority deems whether a particular text is worth studying, or whether a particular person has been initiated into the priesthood, or whether a particular ritual is acceptable or not for use within the church. It’s all very centralized and set in stone, and any deviance from the approval of the authorities is bad. What the authorities believe is “religion”; what they don’t is deemed heretical or magical.

But this sort of central authority simply didn’t exist for most of human history, or even in a majority of world cultures. Take Hinduism for instance; while there are a few central texts crucial to the understanding of Hindu philosophy and beliefs, there is no central hierarchy to determine what’s right and what’s wrong. Local communities might practice their festivals or rituals differently, or might place more emphasis on one practice than another. Different communities might hold different stories or myths to be more important than others. They might add more scriptures, or consider fewer. None of them dispute the correctness of each other, since other practices can augment or reflect one’s own in useful ways depending on need and practice. The ancient Greeks are another good example; they might have had the Odyssey and Iliad to reflect ancient myths, or other bodies of myth and stories, but there was no central hierarchy to determine whether this temple had illegitimate practices or priests initiated incorrectly. Even within the same city, the same god might be worshipped any number of ways, and that was alright.

Rather than following an orthodox model of religion, many cultures place more importance on orthoprax models, literally “right practice”. So long as you do the rituals to spec (whatever that “spec” might have been), you’re in the clear. You might think that the god is really some other god, or that the ritual has this importance and not the one others think is important, but that doesn’t matter so long as you actually get your hands dirty and do the work. Even if the community is just a tightly-knit family with ten people, the rituals and practices and customs done would be considered legit by them, and that’s all that matters. There is no standard to determine which practices or beliefs are right or wrong, beyond what’s done for a good reason.

Partially, this lack of orthodox standard is influenced by the presence of “set texts”. Oral traditions, like the classical Hindu or modern Santería or other religions, don’t have any particular set texts. They’re all spoken aloud, passed down by word from one generation to the next; while the songs may be the same, they’re ephemeral, and require people to memorize them. Changes, especially if the songs are lost or misheard or inappropriate for further use, are organic and allow different communities to develop their own flavors of the original religion that reflect their own cultures and communities. There’s nothing to compare against besides each other, no “canon”, to say that something is right or wrong. If something simply isn’t done anywhere else and contradicts every other surviving practice, it might be weird, but if it works and gets the same stuff done, it’s hardly “wrong”. It might not be acceptable to one group, but if it works within the group in which it developed, there’s nothing “heretical” about it, so long as it pleases their gods and gets the job done.

So what’s the big difference between magic and religion? Honestly, there isn’t one as far as I can see. Even to define the two is difficult enough, but might better both be put under a broader header of “spiritual customs” that a group or individual makes use of to accomplish certain goals. Whether gods are invoked by name or a simple announcement of intent is made, these customs are something “extra” to the purely mundane causes and effects that somehow make the action fit in better with one’s life. It would seem that religion is simply the approved practices of the majority or a central hierarchy, and magic is anything outside that realm within the same culture, but this definition is kinda weak. What would we make of a curse tablet that invokes the gods of the underworld in a purely prayer format? Is that magic, or religion? Many people employed curse tablets, and there’s nothing overly disapproved of the wording. The grey area between magic and religion is so large that it incorporates both magic and religion.

Within a particular pantheon or philosophy, so long as you do what’s done, you’re pretty much set. Just because some central authority detached from your culture and need says that your actions are wrong doesn’t make it so, but not all authorities are completely detached on the matter. For instance, if you try to invoke the Santería orisha Chango in a ceremonial magic working or use symbols and offerings that are more appropriate to the Greek thea Aphrodite, that’s probably not going to end up too good. Why? Because that’s not how Chango has ever been treated, nor how Chango ever grew by those that worship him, and it’s also likely that Chango himself wouldn’t agree with the practices. It’s not bad to innovate, but it’s also not bad to listen to custom and tradition.

Those two words, “custom” and “tradition” have important etymological roots that can clarify and guide our practices. Custom ultimately comes from the Latin word “consuescere”, meaning “to become used to with oneself”. Anything that is done over time that has been adopted or integrated into a community, family, culture, or even individuals is a custom. Tradition comes from the Latin word “tradere”, meaning “to hand across, to hand down”. Anything that we are taught to do, or picked up from others, or passed down from one generation to the next is a tradition. Between these two, we already have a good body of things that can help us build our practice and educate us: the stories we’re told from birth, the tricks and quirks our parents show us in the kitchen or around the house, the polities and courtesies we show others that we were taught to show, all these things are customs and traditions that help us build ourselves into the people we are.

Neither customs nor traditions preclude changes to them or innovations of new practices, but customs and traditions should guide us and offer a sounding board for these new practices. Thus, if a particular kind of fruit offered to Chango in Africa cannot be found in Cuba where he’s also worshipped, a substitute can be made if the new fruit is appropriate (similar color, taste, texture, etc.), or the practice might be eliminated entirely. Offering Chango something entirely different with no connection or relationship to the original offering or anything Chango is known to like, however, may not be recommended unless Chango asks for it. Similarly, if one’s traditions involve calling upon Chango with another set of gods that have been passed down by one’s family or culture (e.g. native American religions or pre-slave trade Caribbean faiths), asking for Chango’s presence with another god can be good if the two gods are known to get along well. On the other hand, asking for Chango’s presence with a Celtic or Slavic god, when these gods are new to the family or culture and no connections between them have been formally made yet, may not end up too well unless one asks Chango and the other god how they might interact with each other. Overall, it’s a respect thing.

In a sense, ritual acts might be considered “wrong” only if they’re disagreeable with the forces that they call upon. If other people don’t like it, they don’t have to practice it or go along with it, especially if their traditions and customs dictate they act in certain ways that don’t agree with this other ritual. If the spirits are okay with something and its continued use, there’s nothing wrong with taking that and passing it on for others to use. If a ritual act gets something done or spiritually completes an act without harm and with benefits, it should be maintained and practiced by those who can use it. That’s really the only difference between “wrong” or “heretical” acts and “right” or “proper” acts when it comes to ritual. Acts that are deemed heretical and magical by central authorities, then, can be of no less use and efficacy than those that are deemed religious and proper, so long as the acts themselves don’t conflict with the customs and traditions that help build someone up into the person they are within the community that was also shaped by those customs and traditions.

So what’s the difference between magic and religion? There isn’t one besides what’s deemed “proper” by someone who probably doesn’t matter. What’s the difference between these and ways of life? There shouldn’t be one for those who are serious about either.

I think we can all agree that fire is a really cool thing. I mean, who doesn’t like fire, or burning things, or setting things on fire? I’m not just talking about the romanticism of bonfires on a summer or autumn night, but even simple candles that can give light to a dark room. Fire is kinda important to us, not just as magicians, but as humans. With fire, we bright light into the dark, enabling us to see what we could not previously; we can cook food, nourishing us and allowing us to eat better and safer; we can warm ourselves, staving off cold and death when there is no heat. From a spiritual standpoint, these are all really important things, and more; fire is considered holy in many traditions, not least Zoroastrianism, which actually venerates fire. After all, it always burns upward, toward heaven and God. Notions of light, illumination, and enlightenment are kinda big in Hermeticism, too, and the element of Fire is associated with the Mind, the Intellect that allows us to know the Intelligible according to Cornelius Agrippa (book II, chapter 7). Fire, among all the elements, is one that in a lot of ways is “alive”, and its special spiritual properties make it more than suitable but almost a mandatory requirement for much spiritual work. Of course, the most I usually do with fire is light candles, but it’s not all the same depending on why I’m burning candles. When it comes to burning candles for ritual work, I tend to classify candles into three groups: offering candles, work candles, and consecrated candles. I treat each group differently in their preparation, purpose, and burning.

Offering candles are those I use as sacrifices for spirits and gods; unlike incense or wine, I will always have at least one candle burning when I make an offering to a spirit. Everything else is optional, but not some sort of burnt offering. I typically use unscented white tealights, with the exception of my ancestor altar, which I use a 7-day white candle; if a particular spirit prefers or asks for a specific color or a scented candle, I’ll give that to them instead, but unscented white tealights are the norm. When making an offering, I light the candle, formally dedicate it to the spirit I’m making an offering to, and leave it to burn out completely on its own; you can find an example of such a dedication in this offering ritual I posted a while back. While I won’t formally prepare the candles ahead of time as I would consecrated candles (more on that below), I may wipe them down with a bit of Florida water or holy water to clean them and make them pure and fit for offerings, assuming the spirit being offered it would like that.

Work candles are those that I use in a non-conjuration ritual to boost the power of the working; these are your general magic candles. These will typically be colored candles, dressed with an oil, and engraved with names or symbols. Candles used in most forms of magic nowadays (like for money or love spells), and especially most 7-day fixed candles you’d find in a hoodoo store or botanica, fall into this category. The type of candle used, including color and oil and inscription, is heavily dependent on the ritual at hand. I’ll usually leave work candles to burn on their own unless a particular working determines otherwise.

Consecrated candles are those I burn as part of a ritual to bring the light of God/Ain Soph Aur/Source into a formal ritual or as protection in a room or home. These are always unscented white candles, either candlesticks or jarred 7-day candles. I always keep one burning on my devotional altar (where I make most of my daily prayers, especially to God), and I light one on my Table of Manifestation (magic altar where I do non-conjuration work) as well as in conjuration rituals (which acts as the primary source of light and Light in the ritual). With the exception of the candle on my devotional altar, I’ll put out consecrated candles either with a candle snuffer or a soft puff of breath at the end of a ritual. I haven’t found any difference between putting them out with a candle snuffer or blowing them out, so this minor detail is up to you and what you think is proper.

I prepare my consecrated candles more-or-less according to the Key of Solomon (book II, chapter 12). The way I prepare my consecrated candles requires suitable candles (obviously), holy water, holy oil (I use Lucky Mojo’s 7-11 Holy Oil, but high-quality olive oil works fine), and incense (frankincense at minimum, though I prefer a blend of sandalwood, myrrh, frankincense, and cinnamon), as well as having an already-consecrated candle lit and present (if possible). In a day and hour of Mercury during the waxing Moon, I engrave or write on the candles the following symbols:

Characters for Consecrating Candles from the Key of Solomon

If it’s a candlestick, I engrave these symbols directly onto the candle (downwards from the top) using a stylus; if it’s a jarred 7-day candle, I write this in marker on the UPC of the candle (may as well put that sticker to good use, especially since they’re difficult to remove in my experience). After this, I set a censer with the incense and light the incense, and set the candles around the censer in a circle. Then, I say Psalms 150, 103, and 117, then say the following prayer over the candles:

O Lord God, Who governest all things by Thine Almighty Power, give unto me, a poor sinner, understanding and knowledge to do only that which is agreeable unto Thee; grant unto me to fear, adore, love, praise and give thanks unto Thee with true and sincere faith and perfect charity. Grant, O Lord, before I die, and descend into the realms beneath, and before the fiery flame shall devour me, that Thy Grace may not leave me, O Lord of my Soul. Amen.

I exorcise thee. O Creature of wax, by Him Who alone hath created all things by His Word, and by the virtue of Him Who is pure truth, that thou cast out from thee every Phantasm, Perversion, and Deceit of the Enemy, and may the Virtue and Power of God enter into thee, so that thou mayest give us light, and chase far from us all fear or terror.

After this, I rub the candles with holy water (the whole candle if it’s a candlestick, or the top part with the wick and around the glass if it’s a 7-day), praying that the candle might be cleansed and purified; I rub the candle with holy oil (the whole candle if a candlestick, or the top part with the wick and inside the glass if it’s a 7-day), praying that it might shine with the light of God; and I suffumigate the candles in the burning incense, praying that it might be filled with the spirit of God to aid me in all my works. Then I let the incense burn out, let the holy water dry on the candles, and set them aside until I need them.

When I light a consecrated candle, I use the following prayer to sanctify the light:

I conjure thee, thou creature of fire, by him who created all things both in heaven and earth, and in the sea, and in every other place whatever, that thou cast away every phantasm from thee, that no hurt whatsoever shall be done in any thing. Bless, oh Lord, this creature of fire +, and sanctify it that it may be blessed +, and that it may burn for your honor and glory +, so neither the enemy nor any false imagination may enter into it, through the Most High and Holy Creator of All. Amen.

Versions of this are found in the Heptameron as well as the Key of Solomon and even Trithemius’ Art of Drawing Spirits into Crystals. I use the one from Trithemius, with a few modifications to bring it more in line with the Heptameron. At the + signs, I make a cross over the flame.

I’ve found that, in pretty much every working I do, I like to have at least one consecrated candle burning throughout the ritual, whether it’s a consecration of a talisman, conjuration of an angel, or the blessing of a home. In that latter case, I’ll light a consecrated candle and use that flame to light a whole bunch of other tealights; I set the consecrated candle by the hearth (or kitchen, if there’s no fireplace), and each of the other candles in each room of the house. Not only does this bring Light into the house, but it also helps to weaken any darkness or defilement that may have taken up residence. In this function, consecrated candles act as a kind of protection-by-holiness, which can be helpful in many cases. In conjuration, this has the effect of keeping bad stuff out of the conjuration circle, and forces whatever’s in the conjuration to be truthful and to stay away if they’re trying to deceive or lie to me. In other workings, it simply acts as a connection and representation of God, from which all power derives.

What are your thoughts on burning candles in magic? Do you have other uses of candles besides the above (and besides burning them for how pretty or warm they are)? Do you have a different candle consecration ritual, if any at all? Do you have a favorite type of candle-based spell? Let me know in the comments!

Today marks the birthday of Benjamin Franklin. Why is this important? Because I’m taking a page out of Sannion’s blog and starting to think about who my heroes (in the classical sense) might be. Of course, dear reader, you probably remember something about him being important in the Revolutionary War and development of the United States; Ben Franklin isn’t considered a Founding Father for nothing or called “The First American” for the hell of it, nor is his face on the US$100 bill for style alone.

Benjamin Franklin

Besides the whole American Revolution thing, Ben Franklin was known for many achievements throughout his life:

Began several studies on population growth, influencing Thomas Malthus with his theory of Malthusian catastrophe
Philosopher on economics, trade, mercantilism, Enlightenment ideals, and freedom
Founded the first public library in America
Created a phonetic alphabet for a spelling reform of English, which although unsuccessful influenced and was used in part by the International Phonetic Alphabet
One of the first charters of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean
Investigated and discovered the properties of electricity, and discoverer of the conservation of charge, as well as being a polymath influencing and deriving tools for optics, light, heating, and other physics
Laid out the first description of the pros-and-cons list method of making decisions
Writer of music, and player of stringed instruments as well as a glass harmonica
First named chess player in America, and a writer on the game whose works are read to this day on etiquette and style
Spy-master, public relations manager, and social engineer
First Postmaster General of the United States Post Office, chosen based on his already notable experience as postmaster
Ambassador, politician, polyglot, and advocate for religious tolerance and abolition of slavery
Grand Master of several Freemason lodges
Writer of Poor Richard’s Almanack
Printer of currency and advocate for paper money, as well as inventing several anti-counterfeiting techniques
Fugitive after fleeing from his apprenticeship without permission
Beloved of whores and many illegitimate children

Hark, A Vagrant #268 (first comic)

See why I think the dude deserves especial honor as a hero under the guidance of Hermes?

Where I work is amazingly close to the National Postal Museum, part of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC. I like taking trips there, not least because it’s basically a temple to Hermes Diaktoros kai Angelos, the Guide and Messenger, complete with hymns to Hermes and caduci lining the architecture, but because it’s small and well-contained as far as Smithsonian museums go. Add to it, there’s a large statue of Ben Franklin in the museum near the exit (where a post office is also located), to whom I always nod in honor as I walk past him. While taking a trip there recently, I decided to look on the base of the statue to actually read it, and behold!, there was a list of his achievements (which exceeded more than I had thought initially) as well as his birthday and deathday. Since his birthday was right around the corner, and being the quasi-Hellenistic Hermetic magician I am, why not do something to mark the day he was brought into the world?

While Ben Franklin was nominally Christian and raised by his Puritan parents Josiah Franklin and Abiah Franklin née Folger, he claimed Deism for much of his life, though changed directions several times that wouldn’t be unwelcome among Hermeticists. He had a strong emphasis on inculcating virtue and strong character with an emphasis on doing good, as well as living a good life; these were critical in his views on founding a new nation based on the ideal of the republic. While many religions claimed him (including the Quakers, Church of England, and Presbyterians), Benjamin Franklin was a proponent of religion for the sake of good in general, regardless of theology or dogma. Among his other virtues, he held 13 to be highly important both to the development of his own character and that of others, listing them in his autobiography and focusing on one each week of the year:

Temperance. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.

Silence. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.

Order. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.

Resolution. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.

Frugality. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.

Industry. Lose no time; be always employ’d in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.

Sincerity. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.

Justice. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.

Moderation. Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.

Cleanliness. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation.

Tranquility. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.

Chastity. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.

Humility. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

He was even a proponent of preserving the dead for later revival, first suggesting that he and his friends be “immersed…in a cask of Madeira”. Dude’s baller, yo.

So, with all this in mind, I’ll be paying my deepest respects to Ben Franklin tonight and every year on this day. According to the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary website, some of his favorite foods were, besides anything natively found and made by the Native Americans, apples, cranberries, pickles, bread and honey, potatoes, Parmesan cheese, and turkey (though Ben Franklin was an advocate for vegetarianism, and introduced tofu to the Americas). While Madeira would be an obvious choice for a liquid offering, I might try a bit of fruit rum punch instead (since Franklin is associated with a rhyming recipe for the same); his recipe for milk punch might also be good.

Come on and join me tonight in celebrating this awesome man, whose work not only benefitted the United States, but even the whole world, especially for modern conveniences like Amazon and e-mail and mixology. Even if you’re not an American, I’m sure there’s something you can thank or admire the dude for. I mean, come on; half his life sounds like a plotline from Game of Thrones. What’s not to drink to?

49 Days of Definitions: Part IX, Definition 4

49 Days of Definitions: Part IX, Definition 5

Random silliness to entertain yourselves with.

49 Days of Definitions: Part IX, Definition 6

49 Days of Definitions: Part IX, Definition 7

49 Days of Definitions: Part X, Definition 1

49 Days of Definitions: Part X, Definition 2

49 Days of Definitions: Part X, Definition 3

49 Days of Definitions: Part X, Definition 4

49 Days of Definitions: Part X, Definition 5

49 Days of Definitions: Part X, Definition 6

49 Days of Definitions: Part X, Definition 7

49 Days of Definitions: Review

Search Term Shoot Back, December 2013

2014 Ritual Calendar and Prospective

Yearly Geomantic Readings for 2014

Upcoming Conference on Hermes in March 2014!

Clarifying Magic, Religion, and Ways of Life

On Candles and Their Uses

Hail, Benjamin Franklin, Hero!