Secret Magic publishes historical and comparative studies of esoteric texts, institutions, symbols, and practices. These subjects often mix fragmentary manuscripts, later commentary, religious testimony, modern reconstruction, and popular legend. Our research method is designed to keep those forms of evidence visible instead of blending them into one timeless “tradition.”
1. Identify the type and date of the source
Before using a claim, we ask what kind of source contains it: manuscript, inscription, printed primary text, critical edition, academic study, institutional document, later occult commentary, or personal experience. A seventeenth-century translation cannot automatically prove what a second-century author wrote, and a modern ritual manual cannot be treated as a direct record of medieval practice.
2. Prefer primary sources and critical editions
When a reliable edition or manuscript image is available, we use it to establish wording, date, attribution, and transmission. Translations are compared where a technical term or disputed passage matters. We do not assume that the most widely copied online quotation is accurate.
3. Use scholarship to establish context
Academic books, peer-reviewed articles, museum catalogues, university collections, and specialist reference works help us interpret a source within its historical environment. Scholarship does not remove disagreement; it shows readers what is established, what is debated, and why.
4. Separate evidence from interpretation
Articles distinguish among:
- Documented fact: a claim supported by an identifiable source.
- Historical interpretation: a reasoned explanation based on evidence but open to revision.
- Traditional belief: what a religious or esoteric community teaches.
- Personal experience: an individual report that is meaningful as testimony but not independently verified fact.
- Modern reconstruction: a later practice assembled from older material, with its modern authorship stated.
5. Treat supernatural claims with precision
Descriptions of angels, spirits, visions, divination, or ritual effects are presented as historical reports, religious beliefs, literary images, or personal testimony according to the source. We do not present supernatural causation as scientifically established merely because an old text asserts it. We also avoid dismissing the cultural meaning of a belief simply because it cannot be tested by historical method.
6. Track transmission and reception
Many subjects on this site changed as they moved between languages and communities. We ask how a text was copied, translated, attributed, edited, and reused. “Hermetic,” “Kabbalistic,” “Enochian,” and similar labels may describe very different materials in late antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, a nineteenth-century order, and a modern practice.
7. Cite enough for verification
Major research articles include a source list or recommended reading. Where possible, we identify author, title, editor or translator, publisher, and date. Links are provided to legitimate digital editions, archives, or institutional records when they are stable and useful.
8. Use images responsibly
Historical images should have an identifiable source and a lawful basis for use, such as public-domain status, an open license, permission, or a valid contextual use. Captions should not imply that a later illustration is a contemporary portrait of an ancient or medieval event.
9. Editorial technology and AI assistance
Digital and AI tools may assist with organizing notes, comparing repeated material, language editing, or draft structure. They are not treated as authorities. Names, dates, quotations, source attributions, and substantive claims remain subject to editorial review. We do not use automation as a reason to publish large numbers of near-identical pages.
10. Corrections and revision
Historical research changes, better editions appear, and errors can occur. Substantive corrections are made when reliable evidence supports them. Readers can send the page URL, disputed statement, and supporting source to [email protected].
See also our About page for the project’s scope and editorial responsibility.