What would a Roman call modern necromancy?

Question

Originally, the word necromantīa referred to a sort of divination using ghosts, like what Odysseus did on his journey home: he made an offering and summoned the shade of Tiresias, in order to ask him questions.

Nowadays, of course, "necromancy" generally refers to manipulating death in other, less savory ways, such as reanimating armies of corpses.

This sort of dark magic is definitely mentioned in Roman literature, such as Lucan's Pharsalia VI:

…Tunc omnis palpitat artus,
tenduntur nerui; nec se tellure cadauer
paulatim per membra leuat, terraque repulsum est
erectumque semel. Distento lumina rictu
nudantur. Nondum facies uiuentis in illo,
iam morientis erat: remanet pallorque rigorque,
et stupet inlatus mundo. Sed murmure nullo
ora astricta sonant: uox illi linguaque tantum
responsura datur…

(My translation:)

Every limb twitched and shuddered, tendons strained, and the corpse rose up from the ground—not slowly or bit by bit, but standing up all at once, forced out by the earth. Its mouth hung gaping and its eyes were held open: it didn't seem properly alive, more like a person dying. Its deathly pallor and stiffness remained, and it looked dazed from being brought back into the world. But no sound came from its twisted mouth: it had been given a voice and a tongue only to respond[, not to speak for itself].

And Lucan makes it very clear that this sort of corpse-defiling is a dark, unclean sort of magic, not the sort of thing you'd associate with Odysseus and Aeneas.

So: what would a Roman call this type of magic (the dreadful reanimation of corpses, as opposed to Aeneas's civilized catabasis)? Was there ever a specific term used for this?

Answer 1

Lucan offers a few poetic descriptions, earlier in Pharsalia VI:

…siquid tacitum sed fas erat. ille supernis
detestanda deis saevorum arcana magorum
noverat et tristis sacris feralibus aras,
umbrarum Ditisque fidem, miseroque liquebat
scire parum superos…

(Trans. mine:)

[Sextus rejected] whatever [practices] were secret but still fell within the laws of the gods. Instead, he sought the secrets of savage mages, denounced by the gods above, and the mournful altars of deathly sacraments; he placed his faith in Dis and the shades of the dead, and it seemed to the poor man that those in the heavens knew too little…

He also refers to these necromancers as Haemonidae and Thessalidae (both declined in the Greek style), and canentes arcanum ferale magos ("wizards chanting a deathly secret").

Haemonidae and Thessalidae clearly refer to the location rather than the practices: Thessaly was apparently famous for dark magic, which is referenced by e.g. Aristophanes (in the Clouds):

Γυναῖκα φαρμακίδ' εἰ πριάμενος Θετταλὴν
καθέλοιμι νύκτωρ τὴν σελήνην…

(Trans. mine:)

What if I hired one of those Thessalian women who makes poisons, and then at night, sent the moon crashing down out of the sky…

So it seems like Lucan's best adjective for the practice itself is fērālis, "deathly", sometimes coupled with saevus, "savage", or nefas, "counter to divine law". Noun-wise, magical knowledge is arcāna (neuter plural, "secrets"), a magic-user is a magus, and a spell is a carmen.

Thus, I'd go with arcāna fērālia, "deathly secrets". It seems like this on its own has a negative connotation, not like what Odysseus and Aeneas did; if you need to specify further, add saeva or nefas. An individual rite, likewise, would be a carmen fērāle.