Ancient & Biblical Fragrance: the roots of perfumery's past, and its connection to the present.

[slpfrsly]

The Greek "Χριστός" or "Christos", "Christ" means "the anointed one", "the chosen one". Perfume is closely linked to the Messianic prophecy of the Bible; the etymology of the Hebrew word for the Messiah ("mashiach") contains the same dual meaning as the Greek: of someone anointed and chosen to rule.

Anointing is the act of rubbing or pouring or touching someone with perfumed oil. Olive oil was combined with several perfume extracts: these included myrrh and cinnamon, although more ingredients/extracts are included depending on region and denomination. Fragrant oil has long had religious and spiritual significance as something connected to the transcendent. As part of ritual ceremony, the act of anointing confers spiritual and hierarchical distinction to the anointed: the divinity of a King is marked by the use of consecrated oil during coronation (King David, Samuel). In Judaism, High Priests were anointed with ointment for similar reasons: to mark as separate from other people, in service of God. In antiquity, the unwell were anointed as treatment; a modern explanation may be that some of the ingredients in the oil have medicinal properties, or that it was used for the practical purpose of masking smells and in preparation for death and burial. Yet this ignores the ancient belief that there is something spiritual in the act, marked by (but not limited to) the scarcity and expense of the perfume extracts and oil. The anointing was not merely perfunctory: perfume was connected to the divine and God. The Islamic hadiths detail Muhammad's use of perfume as a spiritual, transcendent object with metaphysical associations echoes the sanctity it has in Christianity and Judaism.

The use of incense (from the Latin "incendere", to burn; "incendiary") in religious worship continues to the present, although its roots are ancient, dating back to at least Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilisation in what is today India based on archaeological evidence. Incense, as most will of course know, is the aromatic smoke that results from burning resins, herbs, woods, and other natural materials. Instances of people and civilisations using incense extends far beyond the fertile crescent and can be found on every populated continent, in one form or another. As with anointing the sick, there is a practical purpose to incense: the masking of malodorous scents, particularly in communal places. This can still be seen, impressively, in the Santiago de Compostela Cathedral in Spain; the giant thurible was once used to mask the aromas of the congregated pilgrims. Yet there is, once again, more than just a practical reason for the burning of incense: it is spiritual, a connection the transcedent. The rising of the smoke - a visual remnant of cremation, and of ritual sacrifice - literally transcends as it rises, connecting the heavens to the earth. Where anointing has been used to mark the passing of consecreated power and lineage in life, incense has a more oblique connection to death and the afterlife - although rememberance is by no means the solitary purpose for its use.

It can be easy to think that the past is the past, and in particular the ancient past has little practical value in the present or insight in to the future. We live in a time of mass production and what Rene Guenon termed the reign of quantity. Ours is an age of quantity over quality; it is one where materialism is fixed within time, so that our concerns are with the present moment, the immediate, the obiously observable, and so on. There is no room for metaphysics or anything outside the linear march of progress: what has gone is gone and history has utility only so far as it can be wielded to shape the now. Ancient concerns, beliefs, and even perfumery are forgotten and slip in to irrelevance; we are modern, enlightened, and equal. In Scientism, there is nothing beyond the microscope, the fMRI scanner, or the Large Hadron Collider. As things stand in the C21st, perfume has been socialised in to a mass commodity. It is no longer an elite and strictly limited material/object. Perfume has become affordable to nearly all people in all parts of the world. This has been achieved via synthetic aromachemicals replacing natural extracts, and the success of modern markets has led to the production and distribution of synthetic fragrance products to become profitable business.

But does that mean the past is irrelevant? That we have surpassed the ancients, or that perfume no longer has a connection to the transcendent? In the prevailing material and functional view of fragrance, perfume can be analysed through measurement: as lasting X amount of time, projecting for Y distance, and gaining ?/10 on the arbitrary scale of merit. To the chemist, it can be analysed in even more minute detail: gas chromatography can tell you the percentages of each component of the material perfume, as if this reduction is the same as essence. For a lot of men, fragrance is mainly seen as something used to attract women. It is a functional tool that aids seduction, often with the implication of masking, preening, and obscuring - charming through the senses, bombarding the nose with 'nuclear' efficiency, often in an environment of sensory deprivation (club, alcohol, drugs, modern demands for cognitive dissonance). At some point in his life, the average man (especially those under the age of 40) has been encouraged to use fragrance as part of seduction in the manner of the gigolo. Fragrance becomes a way of boosting one's sexual market value - to aid charming women on short term flings, in clubs, on the resulting meet ups organised on dating apps. In this way, this is perfume used as part of sexual avarice, a way of sampling people as superficial morsels, sex with strangers as mutual masturbation rather than loving creation. To say this view of sex is juvenile would be to understate the debasement; to think this is the sole or ultimate function of perfume and the natural conclusion on the path of progress would be similarly misguided. Of course, there are other ways people are encouraged to buy/consume/use fragrance today: there is perfumery used as part of self-creation, a way of looking in at oneself, forming identity through consumption. Here, fragrance is used to bolster self-image, a way of connecting to the mental projection of our best selves, aided by third person representations of the ideal in advertising tropes. There is the perfume of the collector and, closesly related, the use of fragrance as part of the hedonic cycle. All of these contemporary, popular ways of using fragrance contrast with the ancient and Biblical function and purpose for perfume.

So what about the present? Is there any connection to the past, where spiritual and political leadership is designated via anointing? In short: yes. The coronation of King Charles III in May will be an ancient ritualistic service that includes his anointing by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Such is the symbolic importance of the anointing ceremony - as the formalised passing of spiritual and political leadership to the successor - it was excluded from the broadcast of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation. Many column inches have been dedicated to speculation about whether Charles's anointing will likewise go unseen by the televisin audience and public - presumably it will be hidden as well. As the monarch, Charles is head of the Anglican Church and the United Kingdom and its territories; both political and spiritual, a hereditary king and the supreme governor of the Church. For a general public more used to Presidential inaugurations and ministerial elections, the evocation of ancient rites and duties, including the explicit display of religiosity, will at the very least be something to behold.

To my mind, it is clear that events like the coronation demonstrate the lack of transcendence and connection to ancient ritual that is felt in the deracinated, globally homogenised modernity. That any still exist, considering the cultural upheaval in Europe especially in the last ~200 years, is surprising, and only reinforces that feeling of not only cultural and aesthetic but also spiritual loss of something previously important. With specific regard to perfume and fragrance, the question of quantity over quality comes to mind time and time again: the market is able to provide abundance, but only by reducing quality, changing naturals for synthetics and so on. The way we are encouraged to use fragrance in the present - especially relevant for men, but I am sure this can relate to women as well - is so glaringly different to the way fragrance has been used as something sacred for thousands of years that I can't help dwelling on certain ideas and asking myself certain questions. The connection to the divine - not only for kings, or priests; but also for the parish and pauper; anointed when sick, embalmed when deceased, perfumed by incense in the atmosphere during worship - has been severed (to say the least) in commercial perfumery. In the marketing, branding, and the culture of modern perfume enthusiasm, there are pretentions to the lost significance and grandeur of the past: the search for a "holy grail" fragrance, for example, or the exalting of a product as harbouring personal significance in a way that hints at spirituality. But that is as far as it goes, and if anything, the (possibly ironic) evocation of some greater meaning in the use of fragrance only serves to point to its absence.

The low monetary cost of synthetic perfume allows all of us on this forum, however wealthy, to wear fragrance every single day if we choose to do so. But the connection to something bigger, to something metaphysical, is absent in even the best Dior, Chanel, or Creed.

One significant change from what has been the norm across cultures is the decline in communal or shared fragrance. The way we use fragrance is very personal and individual, despite the products/perfumes themselves being mass produced and, even with thousands of commercial fragrances available, similar in smell and ingredients to the supposed market competitor. I'm thinking especially of enthusiasts like those on basenotes, where the experience of enjoying perfume becomes incredibly personal and solitary; if anyone truly wears fragrances for themselves, then they're probably on basenotes, sniffing themselves/the blotter instead of worrying about compliments and projection distance. Forums like this become virtual discussion and social spaces, where people are brought together by fragrance, but the actual sensory experience is totally solitary. When we discuss a fragrance, or read and write reviews, or give a first impression, we are not bound by the shared sensory experience as was the case with incense in a temple etc. It's also a shared experieance that is mediated through machines, where algorithims are used to incentivise/shape the experience of coming together; to my mind, the majority of these work to redirect or nudge people towards a form of experience which is, primarily, about consuming. Although I won't repeat the point I regularly make about The Carousel, if the sacred and ancient resonance of perfume and fragrance has been lost at some point in the last century, what has filled the space would be something like consumption fixed to the hedonic cycle.

However, I didn't write this thread intending to unfairly disparage modern perfumery, but to start a thread and a discussion on ancient and Biblical fragrances. There are, of course, upsides to modern perfumery. I have touched on some of the surface details of the title topic, instead of delving deep in to detail; as well as balancing some of the differences between modern perfumery and the way fragrance was used in antiquity, in the hope that they can be used as points to start a broader discussion on the topic. I'm interested to see what other people have to say on the topic, generally speaking, not just about what I have already mentioned. I'm interested if this is something that inspires discussion or interest. I welcome whatever insights or thoughts might be brought up, although keeping in mind the forum rules. I hope this will be treated as intended: as a discussion on the human use of aromatic and fragrant materials, and not anything else unpalatable or deliberately intended to offend etc.

With that in mind, it seems like a good idea to finish with a few questions. Feel free to answer these, or bring your own thoughts and opinions to the table. I'm interested to read what you think:

- Firstly, do you have any interest in ancient and/or Biblical perfumery? Or is it something you disregard as a perfume enthusiast?
- What relevance, if any, you feel ancient perfumery has to your own personal appreciation of contemporary fragrances?
- Do you find yourself drawn to commercial fragrances that have some ancient, or historical, or spiritual significance (e.g. incense fragrances)? If so, can you elaborate on this?
- Do you have an interest in other fragrant materials, e.g. incense, bakhoor?
- How do you think the old, pre-synthetic use of perfume/fragrance, some of which have been described in this thread, relates to the modern, synthetic, commercial beauty/perfume industry?
- Do you have any insight in to ancient and biblical uses of perfume and, more widely, fragrances in antiquity? If so, please feel free to these share them.

 

[hednic]

The Greek "Χριστός" or "Christos", "Christ" means "the anointed one", "the chosen one". Perfume is closely linked to the Messianic prophecy of the Bible; the etymology of the Hebrew word for the Messiah ("mashiach") contains the same dual meaning as the Greek: of someone anointed and chosen to rule.

Anointing is the act of rubbing or pouring or touching someone with perfumed oil. Olive oil was combined with several perfume extracts: these included myrrh and cinnamon, although more ingredients/extracts are included depending on region and denomination. Fragrant oil has long had religious and spiritual significance as something connected to the transcendent. As part of ritual ceremony, the act of anointing confers spiritual and hierarchical distinction to the anointed: the divinity of a King is marked by the use of consecrated oil during coronation (King David, Samuel). In Judaism, High Priests were anointed with ointment for similar reasons: to mark as separate from other people, in service of God. In antiquity, the unwell were anointed as treatment; a modern explanation may be that some of the ingredients in the oil have medicinal properties, or that it was used for the practical purpose of masking smells and in preparation for death and burial. Yet this ignores the ancient belief that there is something spiritual in the act, marked by (but not limited to) the scarcity and expense of the perfume extracts and oil. The anointing was not merely perfunctory: perfume was connected to the divine and God. The Islamic hadiths detail Muhammad's use of perfume as a spiritual, transcendent object with metaphysical associations echoes the sanctity it has in Christianity and Judaism.

The use of incense (from the Latin "incendere", to burn; "incendiary") in religious worship continues to the present, although its roots are ancient, dating back to Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilisation in what is today India. Incense, as most will of course know, is the aromatic smoke that results from burning resins, herbs, woods, and other natural materials. Instances of people and civilisations using incense extends far beyond the fertile crescent and can be found on every populated continent, in one form or another. As with anointing the sick, there is a practical purpose to incense: the masking of malodorous scents, particularly in communal places. This can be seen, impressively, in Chile; the giant Botafumeiro incense burner once masked the aromas of the congregated pilgrims who came to the Santiago Cathedral. Yet there is, again, more than just a practical reason for the burning of incense: it is spiritual, a connection the transcedent. The rising of the smoke - a visual remnant of cremation, and of ritual sacrifice - literally transcends as it rises, connecting the heavens to the earth. Where anointing has been used to mark the passing of consecreated power and lineage in life, incense has a more oblique connection to death and the afterlife - although rememberance is by no means the solitary purpose for its use.

It can be easy to think that the past is the past, and in particular the ancient past has little practical value in the present or insight in to the future. We live in a time of mass production and what Rene Guenon termed the reign of quantity. Ours is an age of quantity over quality; it is one where materialism is fixed within time, so that our concerns are with the present moment, the immediate, the obiously observable, and so on. There is no room for metaphysics or anything outside the linear march of progress: what has gone is gone and history has utility only so far as it can be wielded to shape the now. Ancient concerns, beliefs, and even perfumery are forgotten and slip in to irrelevance; we are modern, enlightened, and equal. In Scientism, there is nothing beyond the microscope, the fMRI scanner, or the Large Hadron Collider. As things stand in the C21st, perfume has been socialised in to a mass commodity. It is no longer an elite and strictly limited material/object. Perfume has become affordable to nearly all people in all parts of the world. This has been achieved via synthetic aromachemicals replacing natural extracts, and the success of modern markets has led to the production and distribution of synthetic fragrance products to become profitable business.

But does that mean the past is irrelevant? That we have surpassed the ancients, or that perfume no longer has a connection to the transcendent? In the prevailing material and functional view of fragrance, perfume can be analysed through measurement: as lasting X amount of time, projecting for Y distance, and gaining ?/10 on the arbitrary scale of merit. To the chemist, it can be analysed in even more minute detail: gas chromatography can tell you the percentages of each component of the material perfume, as if this reduction is the same as essence. For a lot of men, fragrance is mainly seen as something used to attract women. It is a functional tool that aids seduction, often with the implication of masking, preening, and obscuring - charming through the senses, bombarding the nose with 'nuclear' efficiency, often in an environment of sensory deprivation (club, alcohol, drugs, modern demands for cognitive dissonance). At some point in his life, the average man (especially those under the age of 40) has been encouraged to use fragrance as part of seduction in the manner of the gigolo. Fragrance becomes a way of boosting one's sexual market value - to aid charming women on short term flings, in clubs, on the resulting meet ups organised on dating apps. In this way, this is perfume used as part of sexual avarice, a way of sampling people as superficial morsels, sex with strangers as mutual masturbation rather than loving creation. To say this view of sex is juvenile would be to understate the debasement; to think this is the sole or ultimate function of perfume and the natural conclusion on the path of progress would be similarly misguided. Of course, there are other ways people are encouraged to buy/consume/use fragrance today: there is perfumery used as part of self-creation, a way of looking in at oneself, forming identity through consumption. Here, fragrance is used to bolster self-image, a way of connecting to the mental projection of our best selves, aided by third person representations of the ideal in advertising tropes. There is the perfume of the collector and, closesly related, the use of fragrance as part of the hedonic cycle. All of these contemporary, popular ways of using fragrance contrast with the ancient and Biblical function and purpose for perfume.

So what about the present? Is there any connection to the past, where spiritual and political leadership is designated via anointing? In short: yes. The coronation of King Charles III in May will be an ancient ritualistic service that includes his anointing by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Such is the symbolic importance of the anointing ceremony - as the formalised passing of spiritual and political leadership to the successor - it was excluded from the broadcast of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation. Many column inches have been dedicated to speculation about whether Charles's anointing will likewise go unseen by the televisin audience and public - presumably it will be hidden as well. As the monarch, Charles is head of the Anglican Church and the United Kingdom and its territories; both political and spiritual, a hereditary king and the supreme governor of the Church. For a general public more used to Presidential inaugurations and ministerial elections, the evocation of ancient rites and duties, including the explicit display of religiosity, will at the very least be something to behold.

To my mind, it is clear that events like the coronation demonstrate the lack of transcendence and connection to ancient ritual that is felt in the deracinated, globally homogenised modernity. That any still exist, considering the cultural upheaval in Europe especially in the last ~200 years, is surprising, and only reinforces that feeling of not only cultural and aesthetic but also spiritual loss of something previously important. With specific regard to perfume and fragrance, the question of quantity over quality comes to mind time and time again: the market is able to provide abundance, but only by reducing quality, changing naturals for synthetics and so on. The way we are encouraged to use fragrance in the present - especially relevant for men, but I am sure this can relate to women as well - is so glaringly different to the way fragrance has been used as something sacred for thousands of years that I can't help dwelling on certain ideas and asking myself certain questions. The connection to the divine - not only for kings, or priests; but also for the parish and pauper; anointed when sick, embalmed when deceased, perfumed by incense in the atmosphere during worship - has been severed (to say the least) in commercial perfumery. In the marketing, branding, and the culture of modern perfume enthusiasm, there are pretentions to the lost significance and grandeur of the past: the search for a "holy grail" fragrance, for example, or the exalting of a product as harbouring personal significance in a way that hints at spirituality. But that is as far as it goes, and if anything, the (possibly ironic) evocation of some greater meaning in the use of fragrance only serves to point to its absence.

The low monetary cost of synthetic perfume allows all of us on this forum, however wealthy, to wear fragrance every single day if we choose to do so. But the connection to something bigger, to something metaphysical, is absent in even the best Dior, Chanel, or Creed.

One significant change from what has been the norm across cultures is the decline in communal or shared fragrance. The way we use fragrance is very personal and individual, despite the products/perfumes themselves being mass produced and, even with thousands of commercial fragrances available, similar in smell and ingredients to the supposed market competitor. I'm thinking especially of enthusiasts like those on basenotes, where the experience of enjoying perfume becomes incredibly personal and solitary; if anyone truly wears fragrances for themselves, then they're probably on basenotes, sniffing themselves/the blotter instead of worrying about compliments and projection distance. Forums like this become virtual discussion and social spaces, where people are brought together by fragrance, but the actual sensory experience is totally solitary. When we discuss a fragrance, or read and write reviews, or give a first impression, we are not bound by the shared sensory experience as was the case with incense in a temple etc. It's also a shared experieance that is mediated through machines, where algorithims are used to incentivise/shape the experience of coming together; to my mind, the majority of these work to redirect or nudge people towards a form of experience which is, primarily, about consuming. Although I won't repeat the point I regularly make about The Carousel, if the sacred and ancient resonance of perfume and fragrance has been lost at some point in the last century, what has filled the space would be something like consumption fixed to the hedonic cycle.

However, I didn't write this thread intending to unfairly disparage modern perfumery, but to start a thread and a discussion on ancient and Biblical fragrances. There are, of course, upsides to modern perfumery. I have touched on some of the surface details of the title topic, instead of delving deep in to detail; as well as balancing some of the differences between modern perfumery and the way fragrance was used in antiquity, in the hope that they can be used as points to start a broader discussion on the topic. I'm interested to see what other people have to say on the topic, generally speaking, not just about what I have already mentioned. I'm interested if this is something that inspires discussion or interest. I welcome whatever insights or thoughts might be brought up, although keeping in mind the forum rules. I hope this will be treated as intended: as a discussion on the human use of aromatic and fragrant materials, and not anything else unpalatable or deliberately intended to offend etc.

With that in mind, it seems like a good idea to finish with a few questions. Feel free to answer these, or bring your own thoughts and opinions to the table. I'm interested to read what you think:

- Firstly, do you have any interest in ancient and/or Biblical perfumery? Or is it something you disregard as a perfume enthusiast?
- What relevance, if any, you feel ancient perfumery has to your own personal appreciation of contemporary fragrances?
- Do you find yourself drawn to commercial fragrances that have some ancient, or historical, or spiritual significance (e.g. incense fragrances)? If so, can you elaborate on this?
- Do you have an interest in other fragrant materials, e.g. incense, bakhoor?
- How do you think the old, pre-synthetic use of perfume/fragrance, some of which have been described in this thread, relates to the modern, synthetic, commercial beauty/perfume industry?
- Do you have any insight in to ancient and biblical uses of perfume and, more widely, fragrances in antiquity? If so, please feel free to these share them.

- Firstly, do you have any interest in ancient and/or Biblical perfumery? Some but, my knowledge is limited
- What relevance, if any, you feel ancient perfumery has to your own personal appreciation of contemporary fragrances? None
- Do you find yourself drawn to commercial fragrances that have some ancient, or historical, or spiritual significance (e.g. incense fragrances)? No
- Do you have an interest in other fragrant materials, e.g. incense? I like them as notes/accords but other than that - No.
- Do you have any insight in to ancient and biblical uses of perfume and, more widely, fragrances in antiquity? Unfortunately I do not.

 

[thescentguru]

The Greek "Χριστός" or "Christos", "Christ" means "the anointed one", "the chosen one". Perfume is closely linked to the Messianic prophecy of the Bible; the etymology of the Hebrew word for the Messiah ("mashiach") contains the same dual meaning as the Greek: of someone anointed and chosen to rule.

Anointing is the act of rubbing or pouring or touching someone with perfumed oil. Olive oil was combined with several perfume extracts: these included myrrh and cinnamon, although more ingredients/extracts are included depending on region and denomination. Fragrant oil has long had religious and spiritual significance as something connected to the transcendent. As part of ritual ceremony, the act of anointing confers spiritual and hierarchical distinction to the anointed: the divinity of a King is marked by the use of consecrated oil during coronation (King David, Samuel). In Judaism, High Priests were anointed with ointment for similar reasons: to mark as separate from other people, in service of God. In antiquity, the unwell were anointed as treatment; a modern explanation may be that some of the ingredients in the oil have medicinal properties, or that it was used for the practical purpose of masking smells and in preparation for death and burial. Yet this ignores the ancient belief that there is something spiritual in the act, marked by (but not limited to) the scarcity and expense of the perfume extracts and oil. The anointing was not merely perfunctory: perfume was connected to the divine and God. The Islamic hadiths detail Muhammad's use of perfume as a spiritual, transcendent object with metaphysical associations echoes the sanctity it has in Christianity and Judaism.

The use of incense (from the Latin "incendere", to burn; "incendiary") in religious worship continues to the present, although its roots are ancient, dating back to at least Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilisation in what is today India based on archaeological evidence. Incense, as most will of course know, is the aromatic smoke that results from burning resins, herbs, woods, and other natural materials. Instances of people and civilisations using incense extends far beyond the fertile crescent and can be found on every populated continent, in one form or another. As with anointing the sick, there is a practical purpose to incense: the masking of malodorous scents, particularly in communal places. This can be seen, impressively, in Chile; the giant Botafumeiro incense burner once masked the aromas of the congregated pilgrims who came to the Santiago Cathedral. Yet there is, again, more than just a practical reason for the burning of incense: it is spiritual, a connection the transcedent. The rising of the smoke - a visual remnant of cremation, and of ritual sacrifice - literally transcends as it rises, connecting the heavens to the earth. Where anointing has been used to mark the passing of consecreated power and lineage in life, incense has a more oblique connection to death and the afterlife - although rememberance is by no means the solitary purpose for its use.

It can be easy to think that the past is the past, and in particular the ancient past has little practical value in the present or insight in to the future. We live in a time of mass production and what Rene Guenon termed the reign of quantity. Ours is an age of quantity over quality; it is one where materialism is fixed within time, so that our concerns are with the present moment, the immediate, the obiously observable, and so on. There is no room for metaphysics or anything outside the linear march of progress: what has gone is gone and history has utility only so far as it can be wielded to shape the now. Ancient concerns, beliefs, and even perfumery are forgotten and slip in to irrelevance; we are modern, enlightened, and equal. In Scientism, there is nothing beyond the microscope, the fMRI scanner, or the Large Hadron Collider. As things stand in the C21st, perfume has been socialised in to a mass commodity. It is no longer an elite and strictly limited material/object. Perfume has become affordable to nearly all people in all parts of the world. This has been achieved via synthetic aromachemicals replacing natural extracts, and the success of modern markets has led to the production and distribution of synthetic fragrance products to become profitable business.

But does that mean the past is irrelevant? That we have surpassed the ancients, or that perfume no longer has a connection to the transcendent? In the prevailing material and functional view of fragrance, perfume can be analysed through measurement: as lasting X amount of time, projecting for Y distance, and gaining ?/10 on the arbitrary scale of merit. To the chemist, it can be analysed in even more minute detail: gas chromatography can tell you the percentages of each component of the material perfume, as if this reduction is the same as essence. For a lot of men, fragrance is mainly seen as something used to attract women. It is a functional tool that aids seduction, often with the implication of masking, preening, and obscuring - charming through the senses, bombarding the nose with 'nuclear' efficiency, often in an environment of sensory deprivation (club, alcohol, drugs, modern demands for cognitive dissonance). At some point in his life, the average man (especially those under the age of 40) has been encouraged to use fragrance as part of seduction in the manner of the gigolo. Fragrance becomes a way of boosting one's sexual market value - to aid charming women on short term flings, in clubs, on the resulting meet ups organised on dating apps. In this way, this is perfume used as part of sexual avarice, a way of sampling people as superficial morsels, sex with strangers as mutual masturbation rather than loving creation. To say this view of sex is juvenile would be to understate the debasement; to think this is the sole or ultimate function of perfume and the natural conclusion on the path of progress would be similarly misguided. Of course, there are other ways people are encouraged to buy/consume/use fragrance today: there is perfumery used as part of self-creation, a way of looking in at oneself, forming identity through consumption. Here, fragrance is used to bolster self-image, a way of connecting to the mental projection of our best selves, aided by third person representations of the ideal in advertising tropes. There is the perfume of the collector and, closesly related, the use of fragrance as part of the hedonic cycle. All of these contemporary, popular ways of using fragrance contrast with the ancient and Biblical function and purpose for perfume.

So what about the present? Is there any connection to the past, where spiritual and political leadership is designated via anointing? In short: yes. The coronation of King Charles III in May will be an ancient ritualistic service that includes his anointing by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Such is the symbolic importance of the anointing ceremony - as the formalised passing of spiritual and political leadership to the successor - it was excluded from the broadcast of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation. Many column inches have been dedicated to speculation about whether Charles's anointing will likewise go unseen by the televisin audience and public - presumably it will be hidden as well. As the monarch, Charles is head of the Anglican Church and the United Kingdom and its territories; both political and spiritual, a hereditary king and the supreme governor of the Church. For a general public more used to Presidential inaugurations and ministerial elections, the evocation of ancient rites and duties, including the explicit display of religiosity, will at the very least be something to behold.

To my mind, it is clear that events like the coronation demonstrate the lack of transcendence and connection to ancient ritual that is felt in the deracinated, globally homogenised modernity. That any still exist, considering the cultural upheaval in Europe especially in the last ~200 years, is surprising, and only reinforces that feeling of not only cultural and aesthetic but also spiritual loss of something previously important. With specific regard to perfume and fragrance, the question of quantity over quality comes to mind time and time again: the market is able to provide abundance, but only by reducing quality, changing naturals for synthetics and so on. The way we are encouraged to use fragrance in the present - especially relevant for men, but I am sure this can relate to women as well - is so glaringly different to the way fragrance has been used as something sacred for thousands of years that I can't help dwelling on certain ideas and asking myself certain questions. The connection to the divine - not only for kings, or priests; but also for the parish and pauper; anointed when sick, embalmed when deceased, perfumed by incense in the atmosphere during worship - has been severed (to say the least) in commercial perfumery. In the marketing, branding, and the culture of modern perfume enthusiasm, there are pretentions to the lost significance and grandeur of the past: the search for a "holy grail" fragrance, for example, or the exalting of a product as harbouring personal significance in a way that hints at spirituality. But that is as far as it goes, and if anything, the (possibly ironic) evocation of some greater meaning in the use of fragrance only serves to point to its absence.

The low monetary cost of synthetic perfume allows all of us on this forum, however wealthy, to wear fragrance every single day if we choose to do so. But the connection to something bigger, to something metaphysical, is absent in even the best Dior, Chanel, or Creed.

One significant change from what has been the norm across cultures is the decline in communal or shared fragrance. The way we use fragrance is very personal and individual, despite the products/perfumes themselves being mass produced and, even with thousands of commercial fragrances available, similar in smell and ingredients to the supposed market competitor. I'm thinking especially of enthusiasts like those on basenotes, where the experience of enjoying perfume becomes incredibly personal and solitary; if anyone truly wears fragrances for themselves, then they're probably on basenotes, sniffing themselves/the blotter instead of worrying about compliments and projection distance. Forums like this become virtual discussion and social spaces, where people are brought together by fragrance, but the actual sensory experience is totally solitary. When we discuss a fragrance, or read and write reviews, or give a first impression, we are not bound by the shared sensory experience as was the case with incense in a temple etc. It's also a shared experieance that is mediated through machines, where algorithims are used to incentivise/shape the experience of coming together; to my mind, the majority of these work to redirect or nudge people towards a form of experience which is, primarily, about consuming. Although I won't repeat the point I regularly make about The Carousel, if the sacred and ancient resonance of perfume and fragrance has been lost at some point in the last century, what has filled the space would be something like consumption fixed to the hedonic cycle.

However, I didn't write this thread intending to unfairly disparage modern perfumery, but to start a thread and a discussion on ancient and Biblical fragrances. There are, of course, upsides to modern perfumery. I have touched on some of the surface details of the title topic, instead of delving deep in to detail; as well as balancing some of the differences between modern perfumery and the way fragrance was used in antiquity, in the hope that they can be used as points to start a broader discussion on the topic. I'm interested to see what other people have to say on the topic, generally speaking, not just about what I have already mentioned. I'm interested if this is something that inspires discussion or interest. I welcome whatever insights or thoughts might be brought up, although keeping in mind the forum rules. I hope this will be treated as intended: as a discussion on the human use of aromatic and fragrant materials, and not anything else unpalatable or deliberately intended to offend etc.

With that in mind, it seems like a good idea to finish with a few questions. Feel free to answer these, or bring your own thoughts and opinions to the table. I'm interested to read what you think:

- Firstly, do you have any interest in ancient and/or Biblical perfumery? Or is it something you disregard as a perfume enthusiast?
- What relevance, if any, you feel ancient perfumery has to your own personal appreciation of contemporary fragrances?
- Do you find yourself drawn to commercial fragrances that have some ancient, or historical, or spiritual significance (e.g. incense fragrances)? If so, can you elaborate on this?
- Do you have an interest in other fragrant materials, e.g. incense, bakhoor?
- How do you think the old, pre-synthetic use of perfume/fragrance, some of which have been described in this thread, relates to the modern, synthetic, commercial beauty/perfume industry?
- Do you have any insight in to ancient and biblical uses of perfume and, more widely, fragrances in antiquity? If so, please feel free to these share them.

Wow, that was really well put together.

I've always had interest in faith, tradition and historical use of fragrance. First exposure at church at very young age.
I predominantly wear natural perfumes and oils for a reason, but commercial frags, no.
If there was one I might be inclined to check it out.
Yes, absolutely. I have a modest collection of artisan essential oils, incense and natural wood
Don't think they do.
I think you covered the topic pretty well, besides the usage many fragrant materials were given as gifts, and still are in some areas of the modern world. Kings were given the finest Frankincense, Myhhr and Aloes (biblical name for Agarwood)

 

[Monocacy]

What an extraordinary article! Thank you, slpfrsly, for sharing your scholarship with us.

- Firstly, do you have any interest in ancient and/or Biblical perfumery? Or is it something you disregard as a perfume enthusiast? I’m fascinated by ancient and Biblical perfumery. I found your article of great interest.
- What relevance, if any, you feel ancient perfumery has to your own personal appreciation of contemporary fragrances? As your article notes, we live in a time in which history and traditions tend to be dismissed. I think understanding the historical antecedents of our interests, including fragrances, enhances their enjoyment.
- Do you find yourself drawn to commercial fragrances that have some ancient, or historical, or spiritual significance (e.g. incense fragrances)? If so, can you elaborate on this? To some extent, but more so when I first became interested in perfumes. Although, I recently decided to purchase a sample of Ensar Oud’s Egyptian Musk in part due to EO’s claim that it uses similar ingredients to those used in perfumes during the Roman Empire! (It is a unique and excellent fragrance!)
- Do you have an interest in other fragrant materials, e.g. incense, bakhoor? Incense, especially Japanese incense, was one of the gateway drugs to my current fragrance addiction.
- How do you think the old, pre-synthetic use of perfume/fragrance, some of which have been described in this thread, relates to the modern, synthetic, commercial beauty/perfume industry? Perfumes continue to be used, of course, to recognize and celebrate special occasions. However, as your article mentions, modern technology has made the enjoyment of perfumes, once the province of the elite, available to large segments of society by decreasing the cost and increasing the supply.
- Do you have any insight in to ancient and biblical uses of perfume and, more widely, fragrances in antiquity? If so, please feel free to these share them. Much more insight now, thanks to your article! Otherwise, not much.

 

[saminlondon]

Still digesting that, but I just wanted to say that the famous Botafumeiro is used in Santiago de Compostela, not Santiago in Chile.

 

[Monsieur Montana]

Still digesting that, but I just wanted to say that the famous Botafumeiro is used in Santiago de Compostela, not Santiago in Chile.

Botafumeiro as you call it is performed in many orthodox churches too. It's not something specific of Santiago de Compostella. I havent been there yet thus i can't tell if the church shown in this video is the Church of Santiago de Compostella or not .
I can speak of my own experience though. If you ever have the opportunity to visit Mount Athos , which is mainly the Vatican of all orthodox Christians, and if you are lucky to be there during major religious events (Easter is for the orthodox Christians the most important of all) you can possibly have one of the deepest mystic experiences of your life. Botafumeiro as you call it here is performed in small churches inside the walls of the monasteries. They usually take place after midnight and the chor of the 4-5 monchs is out of this earth. The use of electricity is after the sunset prohibited, everything happens in candel-lighted churches which are over 1000 years old and the number of the (only male) visitors is very very limited. The experience is absolutely unique.

 

[Guasón]

I have been to Santiago de Compostela many times because my grandparents are from there and I have to say what the article mentions and as saminlondon says is incorrect. The Botafumeiro is originally from Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain and not Chile or any other place. Obviously what Monsieur Montana says is true, it is frequent in many different churches around the world (perhaps in many not so large) but I do not think it is the case: the article clearly mentions the word Botafumeiro which is a Galician word (bota-throw/fumeiro-smoke) and makes a clear and concrete allusion to that of the cathedral of Compostela. It also mentions the pilgrims who visit the cathedral from all over the world and who travel kilometers and kilometers along the mythical Camino de Santiago until they reach the cathedral. And yes, the video is of that cathedral.

 

[slpfrsly]

Still digesting that, but I just wanted to say that the famous Botafumeiro is used in Santiago de Compostela, not Santiago in Chile.

😂 Thanks Sam. I was about 90% certain it was in Spain as well. I think a combination of it being rather late on a Friday night, and a lazy google search for 'Santiago Cathedral' (I have to add that, generally speaking, google is rubbish compared to what it used to be), has led to this stinker. I'll go back and edit it now. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[baklavaRuzh]

Didn't the ancient Egyptians wear fragrant headcones of melting wax on top of their heads as perfume? I'm happy we have found other forms of application.


Firstly, do you have any interest in ancient and/or Biblical perfumery? Yes, at the same level as interest in other areas of ancient history.

- What relevance, if any, you feel ancient perfumery has to your own personal appreciation of contemporary fragrances?

None, but it was fun to buy fragrance from the Vatican pharmacy (not in the directory)

- Do you find yourself drawn to commercial fragrances that have some ancient, or historical, or spiritual significance (e.g. incense fragrances)?

No, but I will say that I do enjoy fragrances that are transportative, and the resins that have ancient traditions tend to do that,. I love myrrhe as a note.
.
- Do you have any insight in to ancient and biblical uses of perfume and, more widely, fragrances in antiquity?

It's all just a search away, but there are a lot of bad or speculative sources out there too...

 

[FlexMentallo]

Beautifully written and informative article, thank you for creating and sharing it.

I am definitely interested in ancient and biblical perfumery. The older the better. Would love to smell what the ancient Egyptian pharaohs smelled like, what the Greeks preferred etc. What Julius Caesar might have worn.

Personally, I love natural fragrances the most and wear them 99% of the time. For me, it not only adds to the luxury while avoiding the synthetic smell, but also helps others avoid headaches, etc. and helps connect what I am wearing with the past and the tradition of perfumery.

I havent gotten into incense or bakhoor yet, although I do dabble a bit in oud oils. I guess that might be the next frontier to explore.

I'll mention that during baptism and confirmation in the Catholic church, they use an oil that is just positively divine. Not sure of the ingredients but always have wanted some to have at home and use on occasion - although the holy aspects I guess would prohibit usage as a daily driver.

I personally would love to learn / know more about the effects of the different oils and products used in natural perfumery - for example frankincense or myrrh's effect on mood etc. It often feels like the earth gave us these medicines and we are attracted to them for more than just olfactory pleasure reasons.

Cheers.

 

[slpfrsly]

The coronation takes place next week, which will include the ceremonial anointing of the monarch. Some easy to digest references:

 

[slpfrsly]

For those who are interested, although the anointing of Charles will be obscured from public view, Camilla's anointing as queen consort will take place without any screen and therefore will be shown on the broadcast.

Again, if nothing else, then it's something utterly fascinating and a rare opportunity to see perfumed oil used in a truly ancient way.

 

[KingLion]

Proverbs 27:9​

Oil and perfume make the heart glad, and the sweetness of a friend comes from his earnest counsel.

Cheers

 

[cheapimitation]

Thanks for the extensive write up! I'm a musician and the ritual and religious origins of music and art always fascinate me.

I'll come back to try to answer some of the questions posed, but for now I just wanted to mention this neat little set of 3 perfumes by Astier de Villate that are meant to replicate 3 historic perfumes. I got the sample set of them from Luckyscent but have yet to give them a thorough wear.

From their website:
"Reunited in a luxurious golden box, three 10 ml perfume bottles and a book, immerse us in the incredible story of mythical perfumes, unseen for centuries. Rediscovered by historian Annick Le Guérant, formulated by Dominique Ropion, made in Grasse with the finest materials in the world of perfumery. These three perfumes bring us back to the splendours of Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome and 19th century France.

Le Dieu Bleu. 1600 B.C. Its wonderful, lively, intoxicating scents of woody honeyed broom, mystical and heady myrrh, green and fresh lentisk, and fruity opoponax, carry us away to the colorful splendours of the temples and frescoes of ancient Egypt.

Artaban. The "Royal Perfume", a pure concentrate of the wonderful universe of plants. Delight in its fragrant scents - bitter and sweet marjoram, cardamom with a spicy fruity taste, nard with earthy, resinous and woody accords, and green, herbaceous calamus with multiple fragrant facets.

Les Nuits. In the sumptuously perfumed and opulent wake of the novelist George Sand. An intoxicating scent of Turkish rose, damascena - the most noble, fragrant and luxurious, of earthy, woody, highly sensual patchouli, and of iris with woody powdery accents, powerful and refined.

A book comes with each box purchased. Printed on the Astier de Villatte typographic presses, it retraces the epic story of the three historic perfumes. Bilingual texts in French and English by Annick Le Guérant, Sophie Mazeaud and Lionel Paillès. An interview with the Astier de Villatte team and perfumer Dominique Ropion completes this book. Illustrated by the artist Eva Jospin"

 

[hollywoodforever]

interesting! I happen to be wearing Cardinal by Heeley tonight.

To my mind, it is clear that events like the coronation demonstrate the lack of transcendence and connection to ancient ritual that is felt in the deracinated, globally homogenised modernity.

I have no interest in ancient ritual. Modernity does not preclude transcendence and connection. Ritual cannot provide meaning or purpose, a real problem for churches, monarchies, and other ancient institutions in 2023.

Doesn't stop me from loving ancient ingredients - labdanum, myrrh, oud, hinoki, tolu, sandalwood...