MAGIC, MAGICIAN
LiTERATURE.—The most important works ere cited in the course of the article, while further references can be found from them. On traditions as to the Magi and Epiphany see also Smith, DB, art. ‘Magi’; Bingham, Origines, vol. ix. p. 66; Hone, Everyday Book, Jan. 6. V. M. BENECKE.
MAGIC, MAGICIAN.—Magie, ars magica, is the rofession and practice of the magi or μάγοι. This 1s the etymological signification of the word. The name and office are associated by Greek writers with the Persians. ‘Among the Persians they who are wise respecting the deity, and are his servants, are called magi,’ says Porphyry (de Abstin. An. iv. 16). Both Herodotus and Xenophon employ the term in the sense of priest and sooth- sayer (Her. vii. 37; Xenoph. Cyr. vu. i. 23). Indeed, according to Porphyry, Darius declared himself to be a teacher of magic (μαγικῶν διδάσκαλοΞ). In Sophocles, Qed. Tyr. 387, the word is used in an unfavourable connexion ; but this cannot be said to be necessary and inevitable. In Dn 1” Theod., 2? LXX and Theod. ete. , μάγος occurs with by no means { a bad sense attaching toit. Indeed, Daniel himself (5 Theod.) was chief magus, and obtained this appointment from Nebuchadnezzar himself (ἄρχων ἐπαοιδῶν, μάγων, Χαλδαίων, pRIvy Pee x ΓΘ 5 Ὶπ 32). And in the same ethically neutral and official sense the word μάγος occurs in the Matthew narrative (2! 7: 18), One passage in Herodotus (i. 101) need not detain us. Here the magi are called a ‘tribe’ of Medes. As Schrader points out (COT ii. p. 113), they were rather a class than a tribe, i.e. the Median priestly oniees We have a close parallel in the Hebrew evi.
The origin of the name and oflice of Magian (μάγος, Heb. 29 only in foreign name Rab-mag) is un- certain. Both Schrader and Delitzsch claim for it a Babylonian origin, and this certainly seems probable. Yet it must be confessed that at present there is no satisfactory derivation of 32 from Assyro-Babylonian forthcoming. Schrader’s com- bination of it with émku (imgu) ‘ deep,’ ‘ wise’ (p2y), is very hazardous ; while Delitzsch in his Prolegg. eines neuen Heb.-Aram. Wérterb. Ρ. 138, footn. 1, surrenders, on phonetic grounds, his former com- bination of the word (propounded in Heb. in the Light of Assyr. Research, p. 14) with the Assyr. mahhu, meaning ‘ prophet,’ ‘ soothsayer ’ (=aSipu). Nevertheless, the close parallel between the ex-
ression 32 31 (in Jer 39°) and the Assyrian title b-Sak(@) (WA ii. p1.67, line 66),* points decisively to a Babylonian origin.
But our subject is not limited by the original etymologic import of the name. agic is a term used by us to connote a certain range of acts standing in very close relation to ancient religion, yet hardly forming a normal or essential part of it. A satisfactory definition of the term is by no means easy. Ina recently published work by Dr. Alfred Lehmann, entitled Superstition and Magic, in which the accompanying beliefs and usages are traced from the earliest times down to the present, the writer defines magic as every act which arises from superstition or may be explained on the assumption of superstitious ideas (p. 7, Germ. ed.). But the definition is too broad; and when we come to the definition of superstition as ‘every hypothesis which has either no justification in a given religion or stands in contradiction to the scientific concep- tions of a given time’ (p. 6), we have too shifting a basis on which to construct an adequate definition of magic. We must therefore endeavour to fix on a more stable connotation for this term. Ludwig Blau, Das alt-Jiidische Zauberwesen, defines magic
*See Schrader, COT ti. PP, Sf., 114.
The word Jak as an Assyrian official term is to be found not only in the annals of
Tiglath-pileser mr. but also in the Rassam cyl. of Assurbanipal, col. ii. pee dake ; see Delitzsch, ΠΡ ΤΡ τ τς 3, No. 82 in the Schrifttafel.
MAGIC, MAGICIAN
as consisting of those acts ‘whereby an event or a condition is conceived of as brought to pass in some supernatural way’ (p. 3). We are here standing on firmer ground. Yet even here greater clearness is needed, for the term ‘supernatural’ requires elucidation. Robertson Smith (Prophets of Isr., Lect. vii. ad fin.) has shown that our terms ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ had no relevancy to ancient Semitic modes of thought. The definition would be clearer if by ‘supernatural’ we meant ‘transcending the normal coexistences and sequences of cause and effect.’ Yet even then Blau’s defini- tion of magic remains too broad, since it might include sacrifices, augury, and soothsaying. ut in its strict sense magic stands outside these, and should be ‘entirely separated from the normal thoughts and acts of religion.
Magic may, in its historic sense, be best described as the special and abnormal agency, whether through words or acts, whereby certain superhuman personal powers are constrained either to create evil (or good) or to avert baleful effects. Accordingly magic falls into two parts. We have to do with the art with which the Babylonian systems make us familiar, whereby the superior deities or good demons are influenced to exercise their good offices to avert the evil, i.e. whereby counter-spells or charms are worked. This art may be called ‘sacred magic.’ On the other hand, we have to do with the Black art* called sorcery (see art. SORCERY), whereby evils are wrought on the unfortunate human victim through the power of the evil eye, etc., by the male sorcerer, or more frequently through the female witch, who is able to summon ΒΡ Saree powers of darkness to his or her aid. Of this some illustrations will be given below.