This page intentionally left blank

oI

MAGIC
This page intentionally left blank
 Introduction
o

Settling on a precise definition of magic is not easy, so let me begin with a

practical interpretation. According to Lynn Thorndike, magic includes
‘‘all occult arts and sciences, superstitions and folklore.’’∞ In truth, how-
ever, this is not a satisfactory definition, for magic is but one of the occult
sciences. Moreover, Thorndike uses the vague term superstition, which
characterizes the attitudes of a supposedly more enlightened age and
civilization. Finally, he includes folklore, which in itself is not an occult art,
although folktales are often about witches, sorcerers, and the like. In the
present context, I would define magic as a technique grounded in a belief
in powers located in the human soul and in the universe outside our-
selves, a technique that aims at imposing the human will on nature or on
human beings by using supersensual powers. Ultimately, it may be a
belief in the unlimited powers of the soul.
The multitude of powers can, perhaps, be reduced to the notion of
power, or mana. The Greek equivalents, found in Hellenistic texts, are
dynamis ‘power’, charis ‘grace’, and arete ‘e√ectiveness’. This magical mana
is freely available; all it needs is a vessel or a channel, and the true magus is
such a medium—even his garments or something he touches can receive
and store the mana.
In a polytheistic society such as Greece or Rome, it was only natural
that the one Power took on the forms and names of many powers—gods,
daemons, heroes, disembodied souls—who were willing, or even eager,
to work for the magus. When the magus summoned these powers by
means of his magical knowledge and technique, he could either help and
heal or destroy and kill.
One important concept in all magic is the principle of cosmic sympa-
thy, which has nothing to do with compassion but means something like
‘‘action and reaction in the universe.’’≤ All creatures, all created things, are
united by a common bond. If one is a√ected, another one, no matter how
distant or seemingly unconnected, feels the impact. This is a great and

33
 Arcana Mundi

noble idea, but in magic it was mainly applied in order to gain control.
Scientists think in terms of cause and e√ect, while magi think in terms
of ‘‘sympathies’’ or ‘‘correspondences’’ in the sense defined above. The
positions of the planets in the signs of the zodiac, as well as their aspects in
relation to one another, govern the characters and destinies of human
beings, not by some sort of direct mechanical influence but rather by a
hidden ‘‘vibration.’’ The microcosm reflects and reacts to the macrocosm
because both share certain deep a≈nities. This doctrine was held, with
variations, by Pythagoreans, Platonists, and Stoicists. Among the Stoi-
cists, Posidonius of Apamea (c. 135–50 B.C.) should be mentioned, and
among the Neoplatonists, Iamblichus (c. A.D. 250–325), whose treatise
On the Mysteries of Egypt deals with theurgy ‘higher magic’, which he
defines as an activity surpassing the understanding of man, an activity
based on the use of silent symbols that are fully known only to the gods.
In fact the higher magus, or theurgist, does not quite understand what he
is doing; the ‘‘sympathy’’ somehow works through him. The secret is
‘‘power through sympathy’’ and ‘‘sympathy through power.’’
Can a clear distinction be drawn between religion and magic? Many
approaches to the problem have been tried, but none seems to work
well. Four fundamentally di√erent positions on the relationship between
magic and religion have been argued: (1) that magic becomes religion
(K. T. Preuss); (2) that religion attempts to reconcile personal powers that
magic has failed (Sir James Frazer); (3) that religion and magic have
common roots (R. R. Marrett); and (4) that magic is a degenerate form
of religion (P. Wilhelm Schmidt). It has been said that the religious
person prays to a deity in a humble, submissive manner, whereas the
magus compels his gods by means of threats; that the religious person
relies more or less on the goodwill or mercy of a god, whereas the
magician uses some special knowledge that gives him power (sometimes
he knows the secret name to which a daemon will respond). This may be
generally true. And yet we find a religious mood in magical texts [no. 25],
and the magi use rituals and liturgies not unlike those performed in the
great religions of the present and the past. Their concerns are the same:
health, wealth, good looks, children, protection from dangers or disasters,
and so on. For the magi, however, there is such a thing as black magic,
whereas almost by definition religion itself can do no harm. Still, the
threatening of deities is not unknown in religious contexts. When Ger-
manicus, the adopted son of Emperor Tiberius (and much more popular
than his adoptive father) died a mysterious death, Tacitus [no. 15] did not
exclude magical operations, and when the people of Rome heard the
news, they stormed into the temples and kicked the statues of the gods
into the streets.≥ It is said that even in more recent times Italian fishermen

34