defining ancient magic - san francisco state university marie... · defining ancient magic 151 in...

DEFINING ANCIENT MAGIC:A BRIEF HISTORIOGRAPHY AND ExPLoRATIoN

Colleen Marie Bradley

QNE ofthe basic tenets of History is that one must know the parameters of a subject in order to study it. For some subjects this is quite

easy. For example, it is quite clear what the parameters of nineteenth-century French political history would be. For some subjects, such asancient magic, it is far from clear what is being studied. Ancient Greekand Roman magic tended to be defined differently by every scholar whostudied it. Sometimes these scholars have been quite inaccurate in theirdefinitions, forcing modern concepts on an ancient practice. Mostmodern scholars have done their best to find a definition that wouldaccurately reflect the ancient world, but the lack of continuity in thedefinition of ancient magic has not been advantageous to the discipline.In any case, what defines the parameters of ancient magic remains one ofthe most debated subjects in ancient intellectual history. The purpose ofthis paper is to review some of the scholarly definitions ofancient Greekand Roman magic and try to decipher the ancient meaning of thesubject, and possibly come to some conclusions on how the word shouldbe defined and utilized.

There are three ways in which scholarly interpretations of ancientmagic have tended to differ. The first is magic’s place in the history ofreligious and scientific development. Many pre-196os scholars placedmagic at the beginning of a religious evolution, but more recent scholarshave not found this argument compelling. A second major focus ofscholars has been the theory behind magic—why did ancient peoplesexpect magic to work? Much of this information came from anthropological inquiry and often forced a stigma of savagery and foolishness uponthe practitioners ofmagic. The last point of contention was where magicended and religion began. The dividing line was unclear in ancientsocieties, which is especially frustrating for many modern scholars, wholargely originate from monotheistic Europe, where there is a clear-cutline between magic and religion.

150 Colleen Marie Bradley

The debate over defining ancient magic must inevitably start with SirJames George frazer’s The Golden Bough, first published in 1890. frazer’swork had a profound effect on the subject of ancient magic. The GoldenBough, while centering upon the rituals ofDiana atAricia, was a study incomparative religion and magic. frazer believed that religions wentthrough set stages and that magic, which was eventually eschewed forreal religion, was the first and most basic of these stages.1 He comparedthe rituals of the ancient Romans to rituals found more recently in whathe deemed “primitive cultures.” These cultures were primarily those ofSub-Saharan Africans, South East Asians, and Native Americans.2

Frazer designated ancient beliefs into two categories, religion andsuperstition. Magic was a part ofsuperstition and more akin to primitivescience than religion. frazer saw sympathetic magic as a part of ancientreligious belief, and claimed that with ancient magic, “we have anothermode in which primitive man seeks to bend nature to his wishes.”3frazer saw his religion as superior to that of ancient and non-Europeansocieties, at one point he commented dismissively, “There is, perhaps,hardly a savage who does not fancy himself possessed of this power ofinfluencing the course ofnature by sympathetic magic.”4 While Frazer’swork was centered on religion and not magic, his definition of magicembodied the ethnocentric arrogance ofhis Victorian age. frazer’s viewof magic as primitive continued unchecked for many decades.

Joseph Mooney’s lengthy discussion at the end ofhis 1919 translationof Hosidius Geta’s Medea elaborated on Frazer’s view of ancient magic.Mooney saw necromancy as the earliest form of Roman magic, and thatit, along with other forms ofmagic, was primarily practiced by women innocturnal rites.5 Mooney described magic in great detail and explainedthe rituals and devices involved, but could not explain how magic wasdifferent than religion, other than its illegality. He admitted that the linebetween magic and medicine was “largely mixed up” by the Romans.6Mooney attempted to systematize Roman magic, but the categories didnot come together to comprise a coherent system. Magic, it seemed, wasthe category where ancient beliefs that did not adhere to other categorieswere conveniently placed.

‘Robert Ackerman, The Myth and Ritual School:J. G. Frazer and the Cambridge Ritualists(New York: Routledge, 2002), 63.

Ibid., 50.

George Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion, vol. i (NewYork: McMillian, 1894), 12.

Ibid., 12.

Hosidius Geta, Medea, trans. Joseph J. Mooney (Birmingham: Cornish Brothers, 1919),58, 6z, 64.

6lbid., 90.

Ex PosT FAcTo

DEFINING ANCIENT MAGIC 151

In comparison, Mooney’s contemporary Eli Burriss had a very clear-cut idea of what constituted magic and what was religion. In Taboo,Magic, Spirits, written in 1929, took frazer’s belief in cultural superiorityto a new level. As a deeply religious man, he was disdainftil of ancientreligion in general and likened ancient magic to the thinking of children.7 Buriss concluded that the reason for ancients’ fallacious belief inmagic was their “underdeveloped” physiology.8 He succinctly describedthe pre-196os scholarly belief about ancient magic as such:

In the early stage of his development man has no conception ofa superior being on whom he is dependent, whose will he must win; but believes that by performing some mysterious action, usuatty imitating theaction desired, and often assisted by an incantation or charm. . . he canforce the desired result. This mysterious action and incantation, passingunder the name of magic, arises. . . from a curious twist of logic.9

Burriss not only wrote that magic came before, and therefore was moreprimitive than religion, but that later magic was a “degeneration.”°

Burriss’ curious addition to Frazerian theory was the idea that in cases where it was not clear if an incantation was religious or magical, the“mental attitude” of the practitioner was the determining factor.” Therewere, therefore, magic-like acts within mainstream Roman religion, butBurriss interpreted these as religious attempts to protect against evilmagic.’2 Burriss’ focus on the “mental attitude” of the ancient practitioners differed from frazer’s view of them as it gave practitioners some—albeit not much—agency. This meant ancient peoples were not purelyproducts of their time. In Burriss’ magical-religious landscape, ancientpersons could decide to partake in primitive acts of magic, whereasFrazer had insinuated that all rituals acts in a given period were representative of a single stage of religious development.

Cyril Bailey’s 1932 Phases in the Religion ofAncient Rome softenedFrazer’s stance on magic, by adopting the stance that religion andtherefore magic were difficult to define.’3 He maintained that magiccame before religion, but claimed that primitive elements (magic) were a

Eli Edward Burriss, Taboo, Magic, Spirits: A Study of Primitive Elements in RomanReligion (New York: MacMillan, 1931),

.His father was a minister, as stated above.

8 Ibid., 124,

9lbid,, i.‘° Ibid., i.“Ibid., 177—178.

Ibid., i44(E° Cyril Bailey, Phases in the Religion ofAncient Rome (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia

Press, 1932), 5.

VOLUME XIX 2010


part of Roman religion.’4 He kept Frazer’s general definition of magic,but claimed that the line between magic and religion was determined bywhether an act was public or private in nature.’5 As well as invokingFrazer, Bailey also utilized the works of the anthologist R. R. Marett, whoclaimed that magic was the basis for religion.’6 Ultimately Bailey believedthat “magic may be distinguished from religion because it believes thatthis force [apart from nature] resides in things or persons or acts orwords and not in beings, spiritual or personal, to whom an appeal ismade.”7 The difference between how magic and religion worked on atheoretical basis was far from clear using Bailey’s definition, which wasclearly created to separate modern monotheism from magic.

Bronislaw Malinowski, one of the most prominent anthologists ofthe twentieth century, in his posthumously published 1948 book Magic,Science, and Religion applied a more scientific approach to Frazer’stheories. Malinowski focused on contemporaneous cultures; he foundthat “the stone-age savages of to-day” still practiced magic, which heexplained as “an entirely sober, prosaic, even clumsy art, enacted forpurely practical reasons, governed by crude and shallow beliefs.”8 Hewrote that the core of magic was the spell—that words were magic andeverything else was secondary.’9 According to Malinowsid, among theseless-advanced practitioners, magical power was conceived as originatingfrom nature, but in “higher societies” magic came from spirits.20 Thesetheories were crafted from years ofanthropological study and reflected amuch more scientific approach to the subject than previous studies.Because of this careful study, Malinowski also gave magic more creditthan previous scholars. He said that both magic and religion came fromthe same need for escape from the stresses of society. Malinowskiultimately distinguished religion from magic by saying that magic shouldbe viewed “as a practical art consisting ofacts which are only means to adefinite end expected to follow later on; religion as a body of self-contained acts being themselves the fulfillment oftheir purpose.”’ Magicwas physical, while religion was spiritual.

The Scottish classicist W. K. C. Guthrie was best known for his workwith Greek philosophy, where he brought new historicism to classical

4lbid.,8.‘ Ibid., 8—9.,6 Ibid., 31—32.° Ibid., 33.,8 Bronislaw Malinowski, Magic Science, and Religion and other Essays (Boston: Beacon

Press, 1948), 51.‘ Ibid., 54.° Ibid., 56.“Ibid., 68.

Ex PosT fAcTo


studies. His text, The Greeks and their Gods, published in 1950, showed asimilar forward thinking nature. Guthrie contended that modernscholars were not able to understand non-European and premodernpeople as easily as they had previously believed, and therefore many oftheir previous assumptions about the mentality of such people werelikely false.22 Magic, to Guthrie, was an anti-social behavior that existedalongside religion, as illustrated by the numerous instances of magic inAthens’ Golden Age.23 Guthrie did not completely eschew frazer’stheories; in fact he occasionally utilized Frazer’s words and ideas. Despitehis defense of many frazerian ideas, his text marked a shift in thinkingabout ancient religion and magic. Guthrie denied that magic was the firststage in religious development and ascertained that it was not a lack ofintelligence that caused people to believe in magic.

Sir Geoffrey Ernest Richard Lloyd is an anthropologist who focuseson ancient Greek thought. His ‘979 book entitled Magic, Reason andExperience was an attempt to sweep away old anthropological theoriesand frazer’s concept of magic. Lloyd saw that translating concepts fromanother culture inevitably distorts them, but believed some comprehension was still possible.24 Lloyd, like Guthrie, also saw that magic did notcome before religion, and that it in fact survived long after the ancientworld had ended.25 Religion and science did not supplant magic; theycoexisted, and often the lines dividing them were blurred. Lloyd alsostressed “the pluralism of Greek religious beliefs” which allowed Greeksto subscribe to numerous beliefs and partake in various rituals while stillacting within the constraints of society.26

Lloyd’s focus was Greek science, but to discuss the origins of Greekscience it was necessary to deal with Frazer’s theory of magic as a veryprimitive form of science. frazer’s emphasis had been on magic’scrudeness, but Lloyd was a new kind of scholar, one that was not intenton degrading any beliefs or proclaiming the superiority of his ownbeliefs. The new scholarship that emerged from the 196os and 197os,

such as Lloyd’s, was less judgmental and attempted to amalgamatebeliefs rather than place them into rigid Aristotelian categories. Theghost of frazer was still haunting the halls of academia, but its strengthwas fading.

W. K. C. Guthrie, The Greeks and Their Gods (Boston: Beacon Press, 1950), 15.

Ibid., 270—274.

‘ G. E. R. Lloyd, Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origin and Development ofGreek Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), i—z.

Ibid., 5.6lbid., 10—14.

VOLUME XIX 2010


The Judeo-Christian religious scholar Man Segal tackled the problemof defining magic in his article “Hellenistic Magic: Some Questions ofDefinition.” While appreciating Malinowsid’s definition, Segal believedthat it was impossible to separate magic from either religion or science.27The term magic was used and interpreted differently throughout timeand across cultures, which made it indefinable.8 He faulted previoushistorians for their attempts to differentiate magic from religion in theHellenistic world, which he claimed resulted in the misinterpretation ofdocuments as fitting exclusively into either one category or another.29Comparing texts deemed “magical” and religious, he saw no compellingreason to separate the two into distinct traditions. Segal further refutedRoman legal and literary usage of the word ‘magic’ as being useful toscholars because the word always was used in a negative connotation.30In rejecting the possibility of a meaningful yet legitimate definition ofmagic, Segal rejected frazer’s paradigm of delimitating between magicand religion.

Robin Lane Fox was not interested in defining ancient magic for itsown sake, but found it necessary to discuss it in his landmark 1986 bookPagans and Christians. fox, like Lloyd, emphasized the multiplicity ofreligious beliefs accepted in the ancient world. Since Mediterraneanpaganism lacked a “concept of heresy” it was not possible to define magicas heretical religious beliefs.3’ Fox, like Segal, did not see magic as “aseparate technology,” but as a part of the religious system of the ancientRomans.32 Ancient Romans may have had a concept ofmagic being evil,but fox claimed this was a false view that needed to be overlooked byscholars. fox did, however, make a brief attempt to define two types ofmagic: one was for purely physical ends, the other for spiritual ends.33Fox’s pragmatic approach to magic gave it a place within the ancientreligious system, yet set it apart as somehow different, perhaps becausethe ancient Greek and Roman writers considered it different.

The classicist Walter Burkert, professor emeritus of the University ofZurich, focused much ofhis career on Greek religious anthropology. LikeLloyd, Burkert admitted that when “one tries to translate one religioninto the language of another, one finds.. .that this is only possible to a

7Man F. Segat, “Hetlenistic Magic: Some Questions of Definition,” in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions: Presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his 6thBirthday, ad. R. Van Den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren (Leiden: E. J. BriI, 1981), 350—351.

8 Ibid., 351.

‘ Ibid., 351—352.° Ibid., 356—365.‘ Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (New York: Viking, 1986), 31.

Ibid., 36.Ibid., 37.

Ex Pos’r FAcTo


limited degree.”34 Therefore, the term ‘magic’ will never mean to scholarswhat it meant to ancient Greeks and Romans. When explaining thereason behind the ritual transformation of the scapegoat he claimed thatit was not ‘magical’ or non-rational, just not understood by modernWestern sensibilities.35 Burkert focused much ofhis energies on explaining Greek ritual, but did not explain the difference between magicalritual and religious ritual, indicating that he either did not perceive thereto be a difference between the two or that they were so far removed fromone another that it was not worth mentioning. He stipulated that ritualsstemmed from obsolete behavioral patterns rather than ideas, makingmagic and religion obsolete when discussing ritua1.6

Burkert may not have focused on magic, but his study of religionhinted at the reasons why magic was seen as something removed fromGreek society. The multiplicity of accepted beliefs within polytheisticGreece was necessary to fill all the needs of society.37 Mystery cults,which were occasionally deemed by ancient critics as being magical,existed to calm personal anxieties, such as a fear of death.8 Publicreligion, however, was used not only to calm collective fears, but also as atool to unify the community under a set of leaders.39 Anything thatundermined public worship undermined the community and needed tobe eliminated for the welfare of the state.4° Therefore, public and privatereligious practices were given unique connotations in the ancient worldbecause these different forms of religion fulfilled different needs.

Hans Dieter Betz reminded scholars about the goal ofplacing magicin its historical context and the development of religion in “Magic andMystery in the Greek Magical Texts.” Betz claimed that no scholar haddone this or come up with a definition ofmagic that can be substantiatedwith copious evidence. furthermore, it did not matter what the distinction between ancient religion and magic was.4’ According to Betz, “ifthere is a difference between religion and magic at all, it does not really

‘ Walter Burkert, Homo Necans, trans. Peter Bing (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1983), XXI.

Walter Burkert, Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Berkeley:University of California Press, i79), 67—68.

36 Burkert, Homo Necans, 23, 28.Walter Burkert, Greek Religion, trans. John Raffan (Cambridge: Harvard University

Press, 1985), 216.38 Walter Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987),

12—16, 24—25.

Burkert, Greek Religion, 8, 257.‘1° Ibid., 75, 246, 255.‘I’ Han Dieter Betz, “Magic and Mystery in the Greek Magical Papyri,” in Magic Hiera:

Ancient Greek Magica and Religion, ed. Christopher A. faraone and Dirk Obbink (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1991), 245.

VOLUME XIX° 2010


matter as long as they work in much the same way.”42 Considering howother scholars have torn each other’s throats over the subject, thisblatant dismissal of the question of defining magic was quite shocking.The reasons Betz gave for not needing a definition was that a definitionwould always be laden with presumptions and bias. This would lead to afalse belief in the scholar’s objectivity, and by defining magic and religionrigidly, there would be no room for the two to overlap.43 Betz took aradical approach to ancient magic, but his concerns echoed those ofother scholars in the field. This nihilistic view on defining magic does adisservice to the field because the ancients saw magic as a part of theirworld, and ignoring this fact lessens our knowledge and understandingof ancient society.

Fritz Graf is one of the leading scholars of ancient religion and mayalso be the reincarnation of Frazer. His Magic in the Ancient World, firstpublished in German in 1994, was an overview of ancient magic. Grafincorporated modern scholars’ concepts of magic’s inclusive and spiritualnature, proclaiming “magical rites not only helped to harm enemies andrivals but also gave access to a higher spirituality.” Nevertheless, he heldmany of Frazer’s basic beliefs, such as “magic, in a certain sense, belongsto antiquity and its heritage, like temples, hexameters, and marblestatues.”44

Overall, Graf was more interested in the philology and structure ofmagical works than defining magic’s place within the ancient world. Thestep-by-step process of becoming a magician or creating a curse tabletinterested him above all else. One on hand, Graf compared magicians toinitiates of mystery cults, placing magic near to religion.45 But he alsobelieved Pliny’s assumption that magic started out as a form ofmedicineand was fundamentally in the realm of science.6 In this he harkenedback to Frazer, who described magic as closer to science than to religion.Grafs work was an uneasy balance of both old and new theories onancient magic.

Hans Kippenberg dealt with the legal side of ancient religion in hisi97 work, “Magic in Roman Civil Discourse.” Kippenburg started out bywriting that the old legal and literary texts once used by historians werequickly becoming overshadowed by the curse tablets and other archeo

Ibid., 245.

Ibid., 246, 247.

Fritz Graf, Magic in the Ancient World, trans. Franklin Phillip (Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1997), 2.

45lbid., 99.46 fritz Graf “How to Cope with Difficult Life: A View ofAncient Magic,” in Envisioning

Magic: A Princeton Seminar and Symposium, ed. Peter Schafer and Hans G. Kippling(Leiden: BrilI, 1997), 109—112.

Ex POST FACTO


logical finds that give a window into the beliefs that the majority of theRoman population held regarding magic.47 Kippenburg’s assertion meantthat the works of previous generations of scholars lacked insight into acrucial element of society, making much of their work obsolete. Kippenberg invoked the memory of Malinowski when he gave his definition ofmagic as an action that gave confidence to a person who was susceptibleto forces beyond his or her control.8 Kippenberg followed the recentscholarly trend by writing that magic and religion were forever linkedand sometimes indistinguishable.49 He did, however, add a new elementto the definition of magic which appears very basic but was actuallyfundamental. Magic was illegal because it was a clandestine ritual.Without secrecy it would not be magic. The key to defining magic was itssecret, and therefore illicit, nature.5°

The team of Mary Beard, John North, and Simon Price wrote andcompiled a two-volume synopsis of Roman religion in 1997, Religions ofRome. One of the basic principles of their work was that there were noclear-cut definitions of Roman religion.5’ Like religion, magic ‘is not asingle category at all; but a term applied to a set of operations whoserules conflict with the prevailing rules of religion, science or logic of thesociety concerned.”5 Magic remained an enigmatic term for the authors,one that had no definition beyond its distinctiveness from the norms ofsociety. The authors believed that Frazer’s theories were inherentlyfallacious and detrimental to the study ofmagic. They suggested that theancient sources, not modern theory, should be the backbone of anydiscussion of magic.53 As Beard is one of the most notable classicists ofthe age, the total rejection of frazerian theory in this book carries someweight. The theory put forward by these three authors is in fact in directopposition to Frazer’s clear-cut distinction between the two categories ofreligion and magic.

In 2000’s, The Gods ofAncient Rome, Robert Turcan opposed magic,astrology and the occult to the state sponsored religions ofRome. Turcanproposed that Roman piety, in its various forms, was a way of coping

47Hans G. Kippenberg, Magic in Roman Civil Discourse: Why Rituals Could Be Illegal,”in Envisioning Magic:A Princeton Seminar and Symposium, ed. Peter Schafer and Hans G.Kippenberg (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 137.

48 Ibid.,Ibid., 139.

50 Ibid., 153—157.‘ Mary Beard, John North, and Simon Price, Religions of Rome, vol. i (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1998), XI.

Ibid., 154.

Ibid., 219.

VOLUME XIX 2010


with fear.54 The state religion of Rome, along with the cult of the household Lars, pacified many of the fears of the population. These traditionalreligious elements were under the control of the community elites. InTurcan’s analysis, magic and the occult satisfied the needs of those whowere anti-social or who felt let down by traditional religion.6 Thisharkens back to Guthrie’s view of magic as an alternative to mainstreamreligion. Turcan’s sharp division between religion and magic may havebeen a bit of a throwback, but his statement that the division was due topersonal needs and individual agency was concurrent with academictrends.

Christopher A. Faraone’s 2001 work, Ancient Greek Love Magic, defined magic as:

a set of practical devices and rituals used by the Greeks in their day-today lives to control or otherwise influence supernaturally the forces ofnature, animals, or other human beings. This type of magic was traditionally mundane and unremarkable to the ancient Greeks.57

This banal, yet straightforward, definition of ancient magic obscureswhat elements may separate magic from religion, as this definition couldbe said to apply to either one. faraone admitted to the difficultly ofdefining magic, and rejected the frazerian separation of magic fromreligion and science, citing the insurmountable cultural differencesbetween ancient Greek and modern scholarly culture.8 He insisted a“firm Frazerian distinction between magic and religion” would be“oxymoronic,” as they were two sides to the same coin.59 Throughout thebook, he declared that the magic had at its core the same ideas andpractices that were found in public Greek worship.

In order to come full circle in this historiography, it would benefit tolook at C. M. C. Green’s 2007 book entitled Roman Religion and the CultofDiana atAricia. This is appropriate because the focus of frazer’s TheGolden Bough, as meandering as it was, was the cult of Diana at Aricia.Knowing full well the history of the subject, Green felt compelled tocomment on the legacy of Frazer. Green did not find Frazer’s argumentsand theories compelling, but she did defend him, stating “it is nowalmost a reflex to disparage frazer’s work,” and that few recent scholars

“ Robert Turcan, The Gods ofAncient Rome: Religion in Everyday Lfefrom Archaic toImperial Times, trans. Antonia Nevill (New York: Routledge, 2000), 11,

Ibid., 145.56 Ibid., 146—147.

Christopher A. Faraone, Ancient Greek Love Magic (Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 2001), i6.

Ibid., 17.

Ibid., 137—138.

Ex PosT FACTo

DEFINING ANCIENT MAGIC ‘59

were willing to preserve any part of his legacy.6° Green argued thatFrazer’s knowledgeable, hands-on approach had virtue and inspiredinterest and enthusiasm.6’ Green was inspired by Frazer’s enthusiasm,but she saw the cult of Diana as belonging firmly to the realm of mainstream Roman religion, whereas frazer saw it as containing magicalaspects. While Green may defend the pioneer of her scholarly subject, itis clear that the theories of frazer and his like-minded brethren nolonger hold weight among ancient Greek and Roman religious scholars.

The Greeks and Romans did not leave a definition of magic that iscomparable to modern scholars’ definitions. When and if the ancientsplaced the dividing line between religion and magic cannot be easilyascertained. The evidence available to us is scant, and comes in threegeneral forms: Laws, opinions expressed by notable persons, andevidence ofmagical practice from ordinary citizens. Of these three, lawsprovide the best understanding of the norms of society, while the othertwo forms of evidence have the potential to show more breadth ofopinions on the matter.

Records of very few laws have survived from ancient Greece, andthose that have survived do not address magic directly. The closestsurviving law to a magic law was from Teos, in which potion (possiblypoisonous) making and usage was a capital offense.62 We are left with ahandful of literary sources that give only a narrow view of the subject.Plato was a well-known critic of magic, not necessarily on spiritual ormoral grounds, but because he believed that the professional magiciansbilked people out of their money.6 In Laws, he expressed a desire to banmagic and witchcraft for its ill effects as well as the fraud that could becommitted by magical practitioners.6 Poetic and dramatic works, suchas Euripides’ Medea, showed magic in a negative light and invariablyassociated it with the works of wicked women. None of these elitesources gave a definition of magic nor explained its place in society.

Popular sources from the Greek world survive mostly in the form ofcurse tablets, which were invariably only one manifestation ofwhat theGreeks would have deemed to have been ‘magic.’ The earliest cursetablets often give only names, suggesting that many of these curses reliedheavily on spells orally recited. Curse tablets did not identify themselvesas being magical. Instead, they appeared to be binding spells, created in

C. M. C. Green, Roman Religion and the Cult ofDiana atAricia (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2007), XV.

6, Ibid., xv—xvi.6John G. Gager, ed., Curse Tablets and Binding Spellsfrom theAncient World (New York:

Oxford University Press, 1992), 23.63 Plato, Laws, 9ogb.64 Ibid., 9o9c—d, 933a.

VOLUME XIX• 2010

i6o Colleen Marie Bradley

order to affect control over a person in a specific context, be it in anathletic competition, law case, or a burgeoning relationship. The spellimplored or demanded that particular gods and/or spirits of the deadaccomplish the goals for the practitioner. Curse tablets showed up ingreat enough abundance, and with sufficient variety of styles and skilllevels, to prove that their use was not restricted to any singular group.

In comparison to the Greeks, the Romans were paranoid about magic, as the many laws forbidding various forms ofmagic attested to. In theTwelve Tables, there were stipulations for punishments for spells thatharmed other citizens, and these punishments were put alongside otherpenalties for harming persons and property using non-magical means.Later legislation was harsher on magic, demanding exile or death for itspractitioners. A law passed during the reign of Sulla regarding murderand poison also included “substances ‘acting at a distance,’ or what wecall magic” in the list of various means to commit homicide.6 Anotherlaw passed under Sulla dealt directly with magic, condemning those whopracticed or knew magic.66 During the imperial age emperors were clearin their rationale in legislating against magic, stating that “the knowledgeof those who with the aid of magic arts are discovered to have plottedagainst people’s well-being or to have diverted chaste minds to lustfulthoughts must be punished and a penalty duly exacted under theharshest of laws.”6 As Tacitus attested to several times in his works,magic was clearly a threat to the Emperor, who was always at risk ofbeing assassinated 68

The Romans’ laws showed a negative conception ofmagic, as did thetexts of Roman elites, many of which dealt with magic, albeit briefly.Love potions were the subject of many poetic works, especially those ofOvid and Horace, and later Apuleius. Love magic was viewed as beingemployed almost exclusively by women, who used a variety of spells,incantations, and rituals to subdue men. Pliny gave the best ancientdefinition ofmagic as it was applied and understood in this Roman worldin Natural History. He claimed magic was a blend of medicine, religion,and astrology and that there were several varieties of magic, such asdivination.6 Pliny also claimed that there were few in Rome who werenot afraid of magic.7°

Beard et al., Religions ofRome, vol. 2, 261.Ibid., 262.

lbid.,z63.68 Tacitus, Annals, 2.27—32, 12.52.

Beard et al., Religions ofRome, vol. 2, 264.° Gager, Curse Tablets, 253.

Ex PosT FACTO

DEFINING ANCIENT MAGIC

The non-elite evidence from the Roman world is similar to that fromGreece, although it is significantly more abundant. Most surviving cursetablets are dated from the Roman period, and show a variety in not onlytheir application, but in the supernatural powers which they invoked,including Semitic deities and angels. The only surviving ‘spell books’come from Roman controlled Egypt. One of the most interesting of thespells or rituals in these Egyptians books was not a ritual to bind, but aritual to connect with the divine. This shows that forbidden rituals werenot confined to short-term goals of psychical gain, but to spiritualmatters as well.7’ These ancient sources give only a narrow view of aparticular person’s concept of magic, and therefore a culture-widedefinition cannot be ascertained from ancient knowledge alone.

We are still left with the question ofwhat definition should be usedwhen discussing ancient magic. The frazerian model was obviouslyflawed because it was based both on a faulty concept of religious evolution and general cultural particularism. These ethnocentric and outdatedideas must be avoided at all costs. The concept ofmagic being particularto ancient or ‘primitive’ societies is ridiculous. The large number ofastrologers, tarot card readers, metaphysical stores, and magic booksthat are sustained by the modern western economy prove that magic isnot primitive, rather ever-present. furthermore, most ritual acts within areligion, when viewed by someone outside of the culture, would appearto be magic. Wouldn’t someone who was unfamiliar with Christianitycall the Eucharist’s transubstantiation of bread and wine to flesh andblood magic? If a series of non-rational rituals were sufficient to constitute a definition of magic, all religions could be said to contain magic.Magic and religion were not analogous by frazer’s definition; they wereseparated by time and cultural advancement. Ifwe reject this separation,Frazer’s model must be rejected.

We must also reject trite analogies ofancient magic to modern phenomena as the basis of any new theory, since the religious systems ofancient Mediterranean polytheism and modern monotheism are toovastly different. Even if an ancient artifact looks like a modern voodoodoll, the underlying theories behind its existence and effectiveness arenot necessarily analogous to a modern voodoo doll. An unusual objectdoes not automatically make a magical object. The ancient systemallowed for almost infinite variation while adhering to the same tenets ofreligion; the same cannot be said for modern Christianity. Scholars mustbe vigilant not to be anachronistic about intellectual history.

‘ Beard et al., Religions ofRome, vol. 2, 269—270.

VOLUME XIX 2010


The basic tenets of ancient Greek and Roman religion must be examined in order to give magic a fair definition. The religions of theancient Mediterranean adhered to the do ut des theory ofworship, wheretemples, prayers, and sacrifice were given to a god in order for thecitizens and devotees to receive something in return from the god. Thehuman obligation of this tenet was seen in public rituals and religion,since sacrifices and worship were visible to all. It is difficult to ascertain ifclandestine rituals such as magic abided by the same do Ut des tenet.

Curse tablets and magical texts are the only direct window into thesecretive rituals ofancient peoples, as literary or secondary sources wereseverely tainted by personal bias. Curse tablets give little information ontheir means offunctioning, as the text was usually restricted to the intentof the curse. They followed a basic formula containing the subject to bebound, the matter in which they were to be bound, and sometimes thereason for the binding.72 Occasionally, there is evidence of the tablet’screator giving or promising to give something to the god invoked toperform the binding. An example of this comes from a third or fourthcentury curse tablet found in Roman Britain: “Whoever stole the property of Varenus, whether woman or man, let him pay with his own blood.From the money which he will pay back, one half is donated to Mercuryand Virtue.”73 Yet these examples are rare, and curse tablets, consideredtogether as a body of evidence, do not prove that secretive rituals abidedby the do ut des theory.

Manuals of ‘magic’ give a fuller view of the secret rituals of ancientpeoples. These manuals and books sometimes gave step-by-step instructions on how to perform spells. They often explained what the cursetablets were lacking and the rituals necessary to make spells and cursetablets successful. The Papyri Graecae Magicae gave instructions forseveral of such rituals, along with the models for curse tablets, whichshowed that curse tablets had some concept of, do ut des. The souls ofthe dead were often the carriers of spells, and they were either threatened or persuaded with gifts or promises to accomplish their tasks. Smallofferings such as flowers were sometimes given with the depositedtablet.74 Unspecified gifts were also promised to the dead.75 However, itwas the promise of a happy afterlife that was most often offered inphrases such as this one found on a curse tablet in Egypt: “Ifyou accomplish this for me, I will set you free.”6 These curse tablets were often

Gager, Curse Tablets, 5—11.

Ibid., 195—196; see also 156, 189, 191—194, 197.

Ibid., 95.Ibid., 138.

76 Ibid., 100. See also Beard et al., vol. 2, 266—267.

Ex PosT FACTO


placed in the tombs of those who died violent deaths who roamed theland as restless spirits. Therefore, such spells could be seen falling intothe tenets of the do Ut des system because the completion of the cursewould bring benefits for both sides. Many of these rituals also involvedprohibitions to ensure purity, analogous to those prohibitions found inpublic rituals.77

Curse tablets and spell books do not give enough evidence to provethat do ut des was the basis of secret rituals in the ancient world. However, they do suggest it was the basis in many cases. It stands to reason thatif other rituals were based on the do Ut des system, clandestine ritualswould probably follow suit. After all, the practitioners of these ritualswere members of the polls or city-state and therefore took part in publicrituals. This was the system that they were accustomed to, and they werenot likely to have deviated too far despite the fact that the goals of theserituals were personal instead of public.

If the basic tenets of secret rites did not greatly deviate from the acknowledged public rites, then the frazer-inspired model of magic asinferior to religion must be rejected. Yet there was clearly a differencebetween secret and public rituals because, after all, one was public andthe other private. Persecution and fear of magic may have been due tooverexcited imaginations, but there must have been some reason whypractitioners of magic were never allowed to practice their craft in thepublic sphere. One possibility was that others labeled rituals done in asecretive manner as magic, and that magic was only differentiated fromreligion by its secretive nature.

It was Walter Burkert’s study of Greek religion that appears to pointto the real difference between ancient religion and magic. Religion wasin the public sphere, done for the public good. Those rituals labeled‘magic,’ were private or semi-private, done for the personal good of asmall number of people, or even just one person. The good of a singleindividual can often conflict with the good of the many, making magicpotentially harmful to society. Julius Paulus Prudentissimus, betterknown as Paul, a second and third century CE jurist, explained in hisOpinions that “those who administer a potion to cause an abortion or asan aphrodisiac, even if they do not act maliciously, nevertheless becausetheir action is a bad example,” must be punished.8 Magic was notnecessarily harmful, but any rituals done in private had the potential ofharming society, and therefore had to be stopped.

Gager, Curse Tablets, io6. Instructions on one love spell included this: “Take care tokee? yourself from intercourse, from wine, and from all (kinds of) meat.”

Beard et aI., Religions ofRome, vol. 2, 262.

VOLUME XIX 2010


Magic was not differentiated from religion because there was a difference in its theory of functionality, the disposition of the practitioner,or the level of religiosity involved. It was made distinct because it wasperceived to have the possibility of becoming damaging to the polis orcity-state. The secretive nature ofa ritual created a social suspicion aboutthe ritual’s intent; the ritual, in turn, became a legally defined act of civildisobedience and was viewed as potentially harmful to the community.In other words, magic diverges from religion along legal and politicallines, not philosophical or spiritual ones. Simply put, ancient magic was aritual that was forbidden or suppressed by a government or society.

The study of Greek and Roman magic has come a long way, yet stillremains a source of tension within the scholarly community. frazer’sbelief in the inherent inferiority of magic reigned for almost a century,until the 19605 and 1970S brought a new wave of scholars into the fold.Since the 198os, most historians, classicists, and anthropologists havebeen more sympathetic to magic. They saw it as a means of expressingburgeoning new ideas, although many scholars were remiss to define it.Ancient sources written by elites were uniformly negative towards magic,but they were also unlikely to define it. Ancient magic operated on thesame principles as, and co-existed with, ancient religion. However, it wasfeared for its secretive nature and tendency to benefit the few instead ofthe many. Magic became distinguished from religion in the ancientworld because it had the potential to harm the community, thereforebecoming a distinct entity in social and legal terms.

Colleen focuses on the history of magic, alchemy, and astrology,especially during the Greek and Roman periods. She hopes to somedayteach at a community college, where shefirstfound her lovefor history.

Ex PosT FAcTo

defining ancient magic - san francisco state university marie... · defining ancient magic 151 in...

Documents