Jachra, you weren't even responding to his point. The Order of Hermes' magic and Magic Theory are not even remotely medieval except where that's been added in later. The Techniques and Forms are 20th-century fantasy, as is the idea of a broad magic that calls solely on a personal magical Gift.
Furthermore, the magic of Bonisagus is absolutely secular and any pagan symbolism it uses has been intentionally stripped of religious association or worship. Magi draw solely on their own personal power (and in ceremony and ritual, magical elements in the natural world), and Bonisagus himself was interested in creating a unified theory of magic, not a unified theory of religion. His concern was with power, not faith, and canonically he got the one without depending on the other, to the extent where a Hermetic magus' power is not affected one bit if he is an atheist.
First, you are somewhat wrong about this being a 20th century fantasy concept only. Yes, it was largely devised now, but the idea of Platonic Forms is as old as Plato. The idea that there was a secret core to magic is also not new - that one is even older than Hermeticism itself, arguably.
Further, the idea of a magical Gift is hardly new. Indeed, the idea that magicians had a special "gift" is a major feature of European folklore.
It's probably worth discussing what actually is "canonical", because I think we're projecting a bit too much.
Something that isn't Canon as far as I can see:
Why it's called the Order of Hermes. That is never explicitly stated as far as I can see. It may be that I've missed it.
Canonical Facts:
In the 700s, Bonisagus developed a theory of magic by listening to people of very different groups. All of these groups came out of religious magical traditions, as far as I can tell - Cult of Mercury and Diedne Druids prominently among them. Also mentioned in his entry are the Cults of Dionysus, Mithras, Osiris, Diana... He found magical texts from Chaldeans, Gnostics, Christians, Jews, and writings of Moses and Solomon, here included as magic users.
House Diedne remained stoutly Pagan. Certain members of House ex Miscellanea maintain the faith traditions of their forebears.
Canonically, then, Bonisagus listened to faith traditions which were involved with drawing down magical forces through their connection with spiritual ones. He managed to strip away most of that to see to an underlying core - if you'll recall, this is essentially similar to the concept of the prisca theologia. Being an atheist myself, it's nice to think of this as a neatly secular, completely nonreligious force, but I beg to differ, and I base it on a few lines of evidence -
Exactly what goes into casting a spell is a little mysterious - ie, we know they generally do a little dance and chant (even if these can be omited with entirely mental effort), but what's going into that, exactly? It's actually never described in the core book, but we can glean it from the sourcebooks. About the closest the corebook ever gets is Ceremonial Magic, which involves calling on occult forces of unspecified nature. This is the single most Hermetic thing about Hermetic magic. Hermetic magic IRL was all about drawing occult correspondences. You wear blue robes and use blue flowers and blue candles with blue powder etc etc.
In Art & Academe's Experimental Philosophy or Natural Magic? it recommends referring to what real 13th century philosophers called "natural magic" as "experimental philosophy", because it did not derive from supernatural realms. Ergo, magic is a process of drawing forces from another realm - this we already know, but it's an important point, and I'll get to that in my next paragraph on RoP: Magic.
Realms of Power: Magic is an excellent source when talking about anything canonical regarding magic, and I think it provides some very key points which I will address in brief:
Platonic forms, things are what they are and that is objective truth. Plato was not a secular man - it is from him we derive the entire notion of Neoplatonicism and the writers even mention him in Divine as having had True Faith, which is very generous, really. One can try to separate the idea of platonic forms from the emanated universe of Plato, but one loses something in the attempt.
While there is no single guiding hand to magic, there are numerous independent spirits and magical beings that act on it - for anyone who understands Roman religious practice this should not surprise. In brief, Roman magic basically worked like this: I give the spirits worship and sacrifice, and then I demand what I want from them. This is not a secular thing, it is magic at its core - the negotiation between seen and unseen forces.
We discover in the Magical Spirits section that every plant and animal has its own associated spirit, the destruction of whom depletes magic. Elements, sensations, emotions, places - and then we get to the Theoi, the Astra Planeta, the Leti, and the lovely Kosmokrators and Protogonoi who run the very foundations of the universe.
The closest we seem to get is the very end fo the Realm of Magic, the Twilight Void. What is the Twilight Void? Who really knows, but it seems to be from whence the Arts that Bonisagus derived flow from. One can interpret this just about any way one likes, but the Platonic Forms of the Arts seems a good place to start - and since the Void corresponds to the 10 Forms rather than the techniques, that seems rather telling.
Characterizing a fully animistic world as "secular" is disingenuous. Animism itself is a religion, and it involves putting context on what is perceived.
We also learn that each spell has a spirit in mystery cults, which is pretty much rock-solid evidence of the classic anthropological concept of magic as intermediation, not simply a hammer.
Perhaps the most damning (ho ho~ ) statements of all are found in Realms of Power - The Divine, in the Holy Magic section (paraphrased for time):
Holy mages are concerned about the "idolatrous influence of pagan religions".
They seek to infuse love and respect for God into their works.
Magic theory is replaced with Holy Magic
All spells must be reinvented as Holy versions.
Hermetic words and gestures are not permitted because they "are believed to lead the magus into ingrained rites of Hermetic idolatry and invoke the symbolism of sacrilegious rituals and worldly enchantment."
Now, while other Hermetic magi consider the assertion that their magic is idolatrous insulting, there's two ways you can look at that:
A) They view it as a holy secular process akin to how a smith turns a blade with a hammer
B) They contextualize their use of pagan symbolism, rites, and deities as existing within a broader framework of magic
A is vividly against the character of magic as it is was understood throughout most of history, especially with regards to things that involve contacting unseen spirits and unseen realms. Those realms are populated and motivated by vast intelligences. Hermetic magic clearly incorporates fully nonsecular and theistic notions of spiritualism and divinity. To classify Hermetic religion as wholly secular is to ignore that it isn't about stripping out religion to find nonreligion, it's about stripping out the aspects of religion that are unnecessary - the act of magic is itself inherently religious if it involves contacting supernatural forces.
Can a magus be an atheist? Sure, nothing prevents that (even if such a person would have to be exceptionally blind to evidence) - but just because he doesn't know he's calling on divine forces doesn't mean that he isn't. Intent and will are the primary components here. I'm not saying that there isn't clearly an effort to demystify it - demystification doesn't mean the total removal of spiritual, religious, and occult beliefs. As an atheist myself I would find it personally appealing that magi buck that tradition, but I am trying to look beyond my personal biases to the best available evidence and the most flavorful interpretation of history.
Such an atheist magician just uses different names for the forces he calls upon. He may choose to believe that they're impersonal, reliable forces, but while magic is objective, the books go out of their way to remind us time after time that they are mysterious and subject to strange, mystical forces. Ignorance of the truth does not change it.
What I am saying is that interpreting this as some sort of 13th century revision of magic into a secular force makes no sense, even in the context of canonical facts. I saw nothing in the text to say canonically that it isn't so.
That magi of various religions were permitted to keep and even expand those religions is not necessarily contradictory to this - indeed, considering the idea behind Hermeticism is that all religions are wrong but also right, it makes perfect sense. There's no need to force someone to convert or make conversion to said religion continent upon conversion. They are already okay as they are.
As a final point, I would like to bring this back to a question of names:
Hermetic Magi
Order of Hermes
What, precisely, does that mean if not to say an order of people dedicated to the Hermetic ideals? One must define Hermeticism to mean something.
I suppose one could try to define it as a fully secular, nonreligious thing. My argument is that it makes no sense in the historical context not to call it what it is, however.
As I stated at the outset - a maga is uniquely positioned to observe every religion in the world if she so chooses. From the devil worshipers to the faerie worshipers to the magic worshipers to the weird guys who get Divine powers sometimes. While it may be possible to stick to one's native faith with the aid of a lot of denial and blinders, magi operate a rational system of magic and must have a rational outlook at least some of the time. For some, or even most, magi, this means clearly perceiving the flaws in the framework. Atheism is obviously absurd in-setting - it becomes clear the universe runs on spiritual forces with even a cursory glance, one must be delusional. All known religions are clearly wrong. What, then, does the average mage, who gleans truth from all religions and none, to make of the universe?
While there are a few people, I'm sure, who completely ignore ultimate questions and blithely go about their business, I'd wager that most magi aren't so blase about the universe they're studying so intimately. It beggars the imagination to imagine them all as philosophical beggars, particularly when they're trained specifically to rip the world apart in search of truth. How is it a stretch to imagine that this act informs their mythology and thus their conception of the world in what we might definitionally call a religion.
Given all these different lines of evidence and the nature of historical views on magic, concluding that there exists a Hermetic religion and it is the primary mythological outlook of the Order seems not only reasonable, but virtually demanded.
So, Ramidel, that is my response.
--
Now, I should update my original post with your Origenists and whatever other useful tidbits were in these replies - as soon as I wake up, because damn that took a long time to type.
We know that there are spirits who can be petitioned to use a power that mimicks every spell. That is not the same as saying that every spell is anthropomorphic. It's clearly possible to cast a spell without invoking a spirit, or there would be no separation between standard Hermetic magic and Hermetic Theurgy. Indeed, that argument rather defends my point: if baseline Hermetic spells invoke spirits of the Magic Realm, then what's the point of the Mystery?
Anyway, I still wonder where in your argument you get the idea that the Divine Realm is involved in any of this. What you're talking about (except when discussing Holy Magic) is a discussion of the Magic Realm, not the Divine, and the works of the Abrahamic religions clearly work on a different level. Ultimately, the Magic Realm appears to derive in some way from the Divine Realm - but not testably so, and a Muslim would reject an argument that because Magic was created by God that it is part of God (I use Islam because it devotes a fair bit of wordcount to distinguishing the creator and the created).
You assert, thus, that not only would magi hold to a particular religious viewpoint (I might even, for the sake of argument, concede that most magi would adhere to a particular set of beliefs about the functions of the Magic Realm), but that they would make claims about the Divine based on arguments made about the Magic Realm. One does not follow from the other. Also, remember that, though it's possible to learn that the Divine works for all Divine religions, there are many possible explanations for that fact and God isn't telling which one is true. Likewise, Christianity is wrong, but it's still true (as Christianity is the only major religion that makes a claim that all others are false, it's the only one that is falsified by the facts of the setting, but it remains a valid path to the Divine); also, this knowledge is not as common as the stuff about the Magic Realm. There may not be a prisca theologia, which is rather a key element of the Hermeticism you're trying to derive; you can have each separate revelation be true without there being a primeval truth beneath the revelations (and, of course, even if there is it's probably not accessible to human minds).
So while you make a good point about the Magic Realm, I don't think it extends to the Divine Realm, where magi will continue to be divided (the idea that Christianity is true is completely compatible with Judaism, Islam and Zoroastrianism). Also, I note that knowledge of the Magic Realm does not say anything about the nature of the relationship between magi and spirits. A Roman-style cult gives latria to a Magic Spirit or a Faerie (in other words, the same kind of worship that should be given to God alone); a more mercenary theurge may trade vis to Daimons for services and command lesser spirits by their power. Both types of relationship are valid, and Magic Lore won't tell you which. (It's harder to argue with the Divine position that it's sinful, but several arguments have been raised in the books for why a pagan, even a magus, would continue to reject the Divine.)
So even if all magi do come to agree to this Hermeticism, there still won't be any kind of agreement on what it means or shared doctrine (as you yourself said, it'll split based on various schools). And if you don't have a shared doctrine, then I don't think that there's likely to be a unified religious identity behind this Hermeticism...while there is already such an identity behind regular religions (and you yourself admitted that there's no reason that magi won't continue to practice their own religions). The closest thing there is to such a unified doctrine is Magic Theory (and I note that even there, there's a hell of a lot of debate on the underlying philosophy; Collegium vs. Lyceum, for example).
It's use in magic is not, though. At least until you show me a - likely very obscure - reference. Kieckhefer's Magic in the Middle Ages has none, and neither have the books of the avid but controversial collector of references to medieval magic and folklore, Gurevic, in my bookshelf.
Is it? Show me the reference to an inborn "special gift for general magic" in a book about medieval, or even baroque, folklore. If it is a "major feature", this cannot be too difficult, can it?
To Ars Magica players nowadays, the term 'Order of Hermes' needs no 'in-game historical' explanation - and tmk none is explicitly given in ArM5. This was a little different in the 1980s, and the ArM2 book The Order of Hermes (1990) actually explains it:
(underscores and (sic!) mine.) So the ArM2 Order of Hermes founded in 767 took its name from an earlier Order of Hermes, which consisted of priests of Mercury who had all but dropped religion in favor of magic. No late- or pseudo-Egyptian Hermeticism there.
I kind of remember there being some fluff in ArM2 regarding this Greek Order of Hermes originating from an even earlier, Egyptian order, or at least copying stuff from it. But I'm away from my books so I can't check it, and honestly it could just be something I made up for my saga back then, that my memory doesn't distinguish from proper (ArM2) canon.
Let us look at the religions of the founders in ArM5.
Bonisagus: Christian (HoH:TL p.4f)
Trianoma: embraced her bloodline of Titans - that means roughly no religion (HoH:TL p.6)
Guernicus: of special Mercurian lineage, but was a Christian who attended Mass (HoH:TL p.36)
Mercere: of a Mercurian tradition, unknown origin and religion (HoH:TL p.78ff)
Tremere: from a secular tradition of necromancers - that means no religion whatsoever (HoH:TL p.112)
Birna: witch-cult initiate from a remnant-Gothic tribe, visited by an ancestor - implying some form of shamanism (HoH:MC p.7)
Criamon: built his own belief around his reading of Empedocles - basically the founder of his own religion, trying to destroy any traces of his life before that (HoH:MC p.45)
Merinita: direct, personal relationship with nature (HoH:MC p.75f)
Verditius: joined a splinter of the Cult of Vulcan (magical crafters once associated with the Cult of Mercury) roughly at age 7 - resulting in a standard wizard's apprenticeship (HoH:MC p. 108)
Flambeau: Christian - apprentice of a Mithraian, whose teachings he modified to fit his personality and faith (HoH:S p.6f)
Jerbiton: Christian, apprenticeship with the Iconophile Christian Bernice(HoH:S p.39)
Tytalus: from a secular tradition of necromancers - that means no religion whatsoever (HoH:S p.71)
Pralix: from a secular tradition of necromancers - that means no religion whatsoever (HoH:S p.71)
Diedne: outcast from a druidic sect (see best subrosa #13The Storyguide’s Handbook: Unearthing the Thirteenth House by Gerald Wylie)
So only Guernicus, Mercere, Birna, Verditius and Diedne followed magical traditions that still claimed, however weakly, to be religions. And only Birna might have followed her tradition as a religion.
Considering that "secular necromancer" is my euphemism for "pupil/prey of Guorna the Fetid" (just look up the quotes), "no religion whatsoever" becomes indeed a euphemism for "used to witness utter depravity without flinching".
I'd just like to point out that the core book and LoM both refer to things like nobles/knights and other leaders of non-church-run armed forces as secular groups, despite the fact that in medieval Europe, the vast majority of nobles (and their soldiers, for that matter) would be Catholic, and strongly such at that. I don't think a group being secular reflects on its religion, it simply shows that it's not directly sponsored by a religious institution. So those necromancers could have been of any religion under the sun.
I do always like to think of Mercere as having worshiped the old Roman pantheon, though...
I said already, that "those necromancers" are a single person: Guorna the Fetid. She can be described as "rotten to the bone" in many respects - including her religion.
Guorna's tradition was decended from the cult of Pluto (TL:112), and while it is described as having been secularized, that hardly indicates that no remnants or faithfull of that religion remained. It is entirely possible that Tytalus and Tremere turned against her followers because of some issue of faith in the cult of Pluto. To say they had no religion is an assumption. To say that whatever their faith was did not get passed down as Hermetic tradition, however, is cannon.
Even if there were any other - nowhere mentioned - followers or pupils of Guorna, the "issue of faith" would have been, that Tytalus, Tremere and Pralix declined to provide Guorna with her next body. You may wish to call Guorna's practices a religion. I do not.
It should be noted that HoH:TL explicitly states that Tremere magi "believe that gods are swindlers who deserve no role in the deliberations of magi." Also, that "many Tremere magi refuse to swear oaths to Hermes, which offends some of their sodales." Finally, it also says that "the House sees little difference between demons and gods." (all this can be found in HoH:TL pages 117-118).
Now, to what extent that reflects a secular Founder is up for debate.
Yes, 13th century nobles et al, are Christian (except when they are Muslim, obviously). However, that doesn't necessarily translate into acting especially Christian: except in the superficial senses of attending mass, confessing, paying tithe, and receiving last rites. I don't think that you'd describe them as universally "strongly Christian"; at least not in the sense that 13th century monks, nuns and priests would consider "strongly Christian".
Also, you have to be careful about the word "secular". "Secular" means "worldly", not atheist. Usually, for example, the parish priest is a secular priest. This means he is an ordained priest, ordained by the bishop etc. He is "secular", because he lives in the parish and tends to the care of souls of the parishioners. The main vows he takes is obedience to the bishop and celibacy. A "religious" priest is also ordained by the bishop, but doesn't live in the world. He is a member of a monastic order and thus lives apart from the world (in the monastery). He doesn't have parishioners to look after. He takes additional vows (depending on his monastic order).
In the terms of nobility etc, "secular" just means "not part of the church". It doesn't imply that the nobles aren't Christians.
Please use caution, for you are on the verge of categorizing as irrational. I view these three religions as variations of the same faith. Not in gaming, but in real life. Greek Orthodox Christians just happen to be slightly more correct than others IMO :mrgreen:
Mage the Ascention, by White Wolf, which is directly descended from Ars Magica 3rd Edition.
There are also two contentions I would like to make at this point.
We are using words wrong in my opinion. A Regligion is an organization to which one holds allegiance to. In this context, those who devotedly attend every Cubs game or associate in a shared belief that there is no God can be (in slang) called a religion. This bothers some people, but I cannot help that.
The proper term for a specific spiritual belief is a Faith. The Christian faith, Islamic faith, Jewish faith, (type of) Pagan faith, Buddhist faith, etcetera.
I draw these definitions not from my own personal opinions, but from my study of history. Specifically, Callaghan's History of Medieval Spain, where he discusses cultural interactions between Christians and Muslims. They never used the word "religion" in conversations or debated between themselves. They saw themselves as having different Faith's as to the nature of God, which they both believed in.
Second point. Not all magi are questing scholars worried about such things. Some may be, but it has rarely ever come up in a saga so I think it might actually be a rare inquisition. The magus I have played for years is just Catholic and that is the way it is. He is not a scholar, he is a soldier. Magic did not come about because of study. It was a Gift he was born with and he was trained how to use it effectively. He also understands that the Order of Hermes is a society mostly of amoral freaks with a plethora of alternative philosophies. He is pragmatic and understands that he is the one that is unlike the others. As long as they don't associate directly with Satan or House Diedne, and they obey the strictures of code and covenant, he figures what others believe is none of his business.
I have another character whose father was a Catholic magus and her mother is a Jewish Folk Witch. She has great respect and admiration and appreciation of her Jewish heritage and has sought to protect Jewish people from persecution somewhat. But she cannot honestly deny Christ and her faith that he is the Messiah. The most she has managed to accomplish is to advocate a culture of tolerance for diversity of faith at her covenant. Most covenfolk are Christian, there are Jews and Muslims, and Hermetic freaks f all sorts.
This argument has become unnecessarily contentious so I'm taking a break from it, but since word definition is important:
Religion
"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence." [While religion is difficult to define, one standard model of religion, used in religious studies courses, was proposed by Clifford Geertz, who simply called it a "cultural system" (Clifford Geertz, Religion as a Cultural System, 1973). A critique of Geertz's model by Talal Asad categorized religion as "an anthropological category". (Talal Asad, The Construction of Religion as an Anthropological Category, 1982.)]
Calling Cubs devotees a religion is at best a slang joke, as religion is fundamentally about relating the universe.
Religion is not solely about organizations, it's about a distinct body of cultural beliefs regarding the metaphysical nature of reality.
I'm an anthropologist, so I like to use the rich, complex tapestry of definitions inherent to it.
Faith
"Faith is variously defined as belief, confidence or trust in a person, object, religion, idea or view." ~ From various Dictionary.com citations
"a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith" ~ From another Dictionary.com citation (this is the one you're using.)
"strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence." ~ And again Dictionary.com
Magic
"Magic or sorcery is the use of rituals, symbols, actions, gestures and language that are believed to exploit supernatural forces." - (Various, see citations on Wikipedia)
For me, I think that magi will be broadly speaking the same religion as their local community/culture. So, usually, Christian (Greek or Roman), sometimes Muslim or Jewish. Some magi will be pagans of one sort or another, which is probably associated with the membership of a mystery cult or similar. Some might be infernalists.
Having said that, magi who decide to think about it (not necessarily many of them) and decide to talk about it (probably even fewer) should have specific beliefs considered heretical by their local priest/bishop/etc. This is because magi know stuff about how the world works from their magic lore and magic theory (and from InVi) that is inconsistent with mainstream religious belief. But it's at the detail level, and no more heretical (for example) than some individual church theologians who disagree with mainstream interpretations.
Also bear in mind, that a lot of what magi can determine with magic lore / magic theory / InVi actually reinforces mainstream church doctrine. Magi can tell that transubstantiation is real. Magi can tell that prayer has a supernatural effect (creates Divine auras). Magi can tell that excommunication has a supernatural effect, etc. There is active debate amongst church theologians about the precise reality of these, but magi (who choose to) can actually gather empirical evidence.
Of course, given the social effects of the Gift, no wise magus will be engaging churchmen in religious debate.
) statements of all are found in Realms of Power - The Divine, in the Holy Magic section (paraphrased for time):