[MUSIC] Hi there! Welcome to the last mandatory video of this unit. But don't be sad about it! If you want to know more about the relationship between magic and religion, you can still watch the optional videos devoted to the Jewish idea of magic. Today, to put it bluntly, we are going to talk about demons. How cool is that? In the following unit you will learn everything about witches, warlocks and the savage persecution that hundreds of men and women, but mostly women, suffered for that alleged crime at the very end of the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era. However, as I anticipated in our last video, the kind of magic we are going to discuss in this lesson was almost exclusive to men. Why was that? Well, let's begin by presenting it properly, shall we? <b>Necromancy</b>, also called nigromancy, means literally, "divination through the dead", from the Greek <i>nekros</i> (dead body) and <i>manteia</i> (prophecy or divination). At least that was its original meaning. A necromancer conjured the spirits of the dead to foretell the future, use them as weapons, or to force them to reveal hidden information. But bringing back the dead could pose somewhat of a problem for a religion based on the resurrection of its most important figure, who had only been able to come back himself and resurrect others (remember the story of Lazarus?) through the power of God. Therefore, Christian authors interpreted these events in terms of demons, who took on the appearance of dead people to commit all sorts of mischiefs. By extension then, the term "necromancy" started to be used to refer to the conjuring of demons, and that was its most common meaning in the Late Middle Ages. We have seen how among medieval theologians we find different opinions as to the degree of involvement of demons in the various types of magic, but necromancy was, unquestionably, demonic in nature. Necromancers invoked demons, and did so more than willingly. And how did they do it? Well, surprisingly enough, Necromancers were mostly clerics, that is, generally speaking someone who knew his Latin (note here the gender of the possessive "his", for as you may have guessed already Latin was mainly, if not exclusively, accessible to men and only to a few men at that). To be more precise, these clerics were usually ordained, at least to lower orders. They belonged to the lowest ranks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In any case, necromancy could only be learnt from books, for it involved complex conjurations that needed to be very specific if they were to produce the desired end. The inquisitor Nicholas Eymerich, whom I mentioned briefly in the last video, wrote in his <i>Directorium Inquisitorium</i> around 1376 (where he assimilates sorcery with heresy, thus justifying his own involvement in the matter) ...he wrote that he had confiscated books devoted to necromancy from the necromancers themselves, books which he promptly and publicly burned, of course. These books, as well as the confessions of those necromancers unfortunate enough as to stand before the Inquisitor, provide Nicholas and his colleagues with a wealth of information as to the practices of these wayward clerics. They baptized images, knew the names of demons, mixed them with the names of saints and angels in order to pervert prayers, burnt the carcasses of several different animals, and, worst of all, explicitly worshipped demons. Necromancers bowed to demons, honoured them, and promised them obedience in exchange for their favour. As usual when dealing with inquisitorial sources, we must be very careful as to their reliability. In other words, how much of what they confessed under probable duress was true? The thing is that, confessions notwithstanding, several extant manuscripts contain such rituals and descriptions. And I'm not referring to the works of those who sought to eradicate necromancy. I'm talking about full-fledged proper books for necromancers. The uses of having demons on one's side were countless, and so were the conjurations, specific for each purpose: mainly to affect other people's minds and bodies (for example, to attract their love, harm them, in some way or force them to do a certain deed), create illusions (raise the dead, make something appear out of thin air), and discover secrets about the future or the past. Needless to say, none of these purposes seems especially adequate for religious men... The main elements of this type of magic are always magic circles, conjurations, and sacrifices, all of which are rather complex and require certain skills and training. As to their efficacy, as you saw in the introductory unit and we have repeated in our last videos, it is not our purpose as historians to discuss, or even consider, the so-called validity of the approaches of our ancestors. If that is a sound argument for the study of history in general, and medieval history in particular, it is especially important in the historical study of magic. The most interesting thing in the analysis of the development of necromancy is that both its practitioners and its detractors perceived it as a further step in knowledge. Necromancy and its condemnation showed that medieval society strongly believed in the power of rituals and their perversion. If certain words pronounce in a certain order and as a part of a certain performance could provide demonic power, the same could be said about proper prayers and the ritual performance of sacraments. We would be utterly wrong if we gave in to temptation and disregarded medieval people as naïve, even the most educated men (necromancers on the one hand, the only ones capable of accessing such a complex knowledge; theologians and inquisitors on the other, the only ones capable of perceiving the threat it posed). We ourselves are the heirs to their conceptions and still grant the utmost importance to all sorts of rituals. Think about that the next time you avoid walking under a ladder or, for that matter, the next time you say a prayer. See you in our next unit! [MUSIC]