Magic represents a category used in the study of religion and the social sciences to define various practices and ideas considered separate to both religion and science. The category developed in Western culture although has since been applied to practices in other societies, particularly those regarded as being non-modern and Other. Various different definitions of magic have been proposed, with much contemporary scholarship regarding the concept to be so problematic that it is better to reject it altogether as a useful analytic construct.

The concept of magic has been an issue of debate among academics in various disciplines. Scholars have defined magic in different ways and used the term to refer to different things. One approach, associated with the anthropologists Edward Tylor and James G. Frazer, suggests that magic and science are opposites, with the former based on hidden sympathies between objects that allow one to influence the other. An alternative approach, associated with the sociologists Marcel Mauss and Emile Durkheim, emphasises an opposition between magic and religion, arguing that the former takes place in private, while the latter is a communal and organised activity. Many scholars of religion have rejected the utility of the term magic, arguing that it is arbitrary and ethnocentric; it has become increasingly unpopular within scholarship since the 1990s.

The term magic comes from the Old Persian magu, a word that applied to a form of religious functionary about which little is known. During the late sixth and early fifth centuries BCE, this term was adopted into Ancient Greek, where it was used with negative connotations, to apply to religious rites that were regarded as fraudulent, unconventional, and dangerous. This meaning of the term was then adopted by Latin in the first century BCE. Via Latin, the concept was incorporated into Christian theology during the first century CE, where magic was associated with demons and thus defined against (Christian) religion. This concept was pervasive throughout the Middle Ages, when Christian authors categorised practices such as enchantment and divination under the label magic. In early modern Europe, Italian humanists reinterpreted the term in a positive sense to establish the idea of natural magic. Both negative and positive understandings of the term were retained in Western culture over the following centuries, with the former largely influencing early academic usages of the word.

Throughout Western history, there have been examples of individuals who engaged in practices that their societies called magic and who sometimes referred to themselves as magicians. Within modern occultism, there are many self-described magicians and people who practice magic. In this environment, the concept of magic has again changed, usually being defined as a technique for bringing about changes in the physical world through the force of one's will. This definition was pioneered largely by the influential British occultist Aleister Crowley, who defined the term as magick and who had been influenced by scholarly studies of magic and personal practices.


Since the emergence of the study of religion and the social sciences, magic has been a "central theme in the theoretical literature" produced by scholars operating in these academic disciplines.[1] According to the scholar of religion Randall Styers, attempting to define magic represents "an act of demarcation" by which it is juxtaposed against "other social practices and modes of knowledge" such as "religion" and "science".[2] Scholars have engaged in extensive debates as to how to define magic,[1] with such debates resulting in intense dispute.[3] Throughout such debates, the scholarly community has failed to agree on a definition of magic, in a similar manner to how they have failed to agree on a definition of religion.[3] Even among those throughout history who have described themselves as magicians, there has been no common understanding of what magic is.[4] Thus, as the historian Michael D. Bailey describes it, "magic" represents "a deeply contested category and a very fraught label".[5]

"Magic has often been dismissed as either primitive and irrational and therefore alien to modern society, as inherently opposed to the Judeo-Christian traditions of the West, or as incompatible with religion in general. These antipathetic sentiments are deeply embedded in Western culture, and the term magic has typically been used to describe non-mainstream beliefs and practices — non-Christians, heretics, non-Westerners, indigenous, ancient or 'primitive' cultures — any that might be considered 'Other.' The image of magic as inherently linked with the Other has functioned as an important factor in the construction of the self-identity of Western culture, for by defining magic as something alien, exotic, primitive, evil, deviant or even ridiculous, our society also makes a tacit statement as to its self-perceptions."

– Historian of religion Henrik Bogdan[6]

Many scholars have argued that the use of the term as an analytical tool within academic scholarship should be rejected altogether.[7] The scholar of religion Jonathan Z. Smith for example argued that it had no utility as an etic term that scholars should use.[8] The historian of religion Wouter Hanegraaff agreed, stating that "the term magic is an important object of historical research, but not intended for doing research."[9] The scholars of religion Berndt-Christian Otto and Michael Stausberg suggested that it would be perfectly possible for scholars to talk about amulets, curses, healing procedures, and other cultural practices often regarded as magical in Western culture without any recourse to the concept of magic itself.[10] The idea that "magic" should be rejected as an analytic term developed in anthropology, before moving into Classical studies and Biblical studies in the 1980s.[11] Since the 1990s, the term's usage among scholars of religion has declined.[8]

The concept and term "magic" developed in European society and thus using it when discussing non-Western cultures or pre-modern forms of Western society raises problems, as it may impose Western categories that are alien to them.[12] While "magic" remains an emic term in the history of Western societies, it remains an etic term when applied to non-Western societies.[13] During the twentieth century, many scholars focusing on Asian and African societies rejected the term "magic", as well as related concepts like "witchcraft", in favour of the more precise terms and concepts that existed within these specific societies.[14] A similar approach has been taken by many scholars studying pre-modern societies in Europe, such as Classical antiquity, who find the modern concept of 'magic' inappropriate and favour more specific terms originating within the framework of the ancient cultures which they are studying.[15] Alternately, this term implies that all categories of magic are ethnocentric and that such Western preconceptions are an unavoidable component of scholarly research.[16]

Within Western culture, the term "magic" has been linked to the idea of the Other,[6] and with the idea of "foreignness".[17] In Styers' words, it has become "a powerful marker of cultural difference".[18] It has also been repeatedly presented as the archetypally non-modern phenomenon.[19] Among Western intellectuals in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, magic was seen as a defining feature of "primitive" mentalities and was commonly attributed to marginal groups, locations, and periods.[18]

Magic is one of the most heavily theorized concepts in the study of religion;[20] Styers believed that it held such a strong appeal for social theorists because it provides "such a rich site for articulating and contesting the nature and boundaries of modernity".[21] Scholars have commonly used it as a foil for the concept of religion, regarding magic as the "illegitimate (and effeminized) sibling" of religion.[22] Alternately, others have used it as a middle-ground category located between religion and science.[22] The context in which scholars framed their discussions of magic was informed by the spread of European colonial power across the world in the modern period.[23] These repeated attempts to define magic resonated with broader social concerns,[19] and the pliability of the concept has allowed it to be "readily adaptable as a polemical and ideological tool".[24] The links that intellectuals made between magic and "primitives" helped to legitimise European and Euro-American imperialism and colonialism, as these Western colonialists expressed the view that those who believed in and practiced magic were unfit to govern themselves and should be governed by those who, rather than believing in magic, believed in science and/or (Christian) religion.[18] In Bailey's words, "the association of certain peoples [whether non-Europeans or poor, rural Europeans] with magic served to distance and differentiate them from those who ruled over them, and in large part to justify that rule."[17] Many different definitions of magic have been offered by scholars, although — according to Hanegraaff — these can be understood as variations of a small number of heavily influential theories.[20]

Intellectualist approach

Tylor and Frazer, the primary anthropologists associated with the intellectualist interpretation of magic.

The intellectualist approach to defining magic is associated with two prominent British anthropologists, Edward Tylor and James G. Frazer.[25] This was an approach that viewed magic as being the theoretical opposite of science,[26] and came to preoccupy much anthropological thought on the subject.[27] The use of the term magic for sympathetic magic was also a feature of the ideas of Herbert Spencer in his A System of Synthetic Philosophy.[28] Spencer regarded both magic and religion as being rooted in false speculation about the nature of objects and their relationship to other things.[29]

Tylor's understanding of magic was linked to his concept of animism.[30] In his 1871 book Primitive Culture, Tylor characterized magic as beliefs based on "the error of mistaking ideal analogy for real analogy".[31] In Tylor's view, "primitive man, having come to associate in thought those things which he found by experience to be connected in fact, proceeded erroneously to invert this action, and to conclude that association in thought must involve similar connection in reality. He thus attempted to discover, to foretell, and to cause events by means of processes which we can now see to have only an ideal significance".[32] Tylor was dismissive of magic, describing it as "one of the most pernicious delusions that ever vexed mankind".[33]

Tylor's ideas were adopted and simplified by Frazer.[32] He used the term "magic" to mean sympathetic magic,[34] describing it as a practice relying on the magician's belief "that things act on each other at a distance through a secret sympathy", something which he described as "an invisible ether".[32] He further divided this magic into two forms, the "homeopathic (imitative, mimetic)" and the "contagious". The former was the idea that "like produces like", or that the similarity between two objects could result in one influencing the other. The latter was based on the idea that contact between two objects allowed the two to continue to influence one another at a distance.[35] Like Taylor, Frazer viewed magic negatively, describing it as "the bastard sister of science", arising from "one great disastrous fallacy".[36]

Where Frazer differed from Taylor was in characterizing a belief in magic as a major stage in humanity's cultural development, describing it as part of a tripartite division in which "magic" came first, "religion" came second, and eventually "science" came third.[37] For Frazer, all early societies started as believers in magic, with some of them moving away from this and into religion.[38] He believed that both magic and religion involved a belief in spirits but that they differed in the way that they responded to these spirits. For Frazer, magic "constrains or coerces" these spirits while religion focuses on "conciliating or propitiating them".[38] He acknowledged that their common ground resulted in a cross-over of magical and religious elements in various instances; for instance he claimed that the sacred marriage was a fertility ritual which combined elements from both world-views.[39]

Functionalist approach

The functionalist approach to defining magic is associated with the French sociologists Marcel Mauss and Emile Durkheim.[40] In this approach, magic is understood as being the theoretical opposite of religion.[41]

Mauss set forth his conception of "magic" in a 1902 essay, "A General Theory of Magic".[42] Mauss used the term magic in reference to "any rite that is not part of an organized cult: a rite that is private, secret, mysterious, and ultimately tending towards one that is forbidden".[40] Conversely, he associated religion with organised cult.[43] By saying that magic was inherently non-social, Mauss had been influenced by the traditional Christian understandings of the concept.[44] Mauss deliberately rejected the intellectualist approach promoted by Frazer, believing that it was inappropriate to restrict the term magic to sympathetic magic, as Frazer had done.[45] He expressed the view that "there are not only magical rites which are not sympathetic, but neither is sympathy a prerogative of magic, since there are sympathetic practices in religion".[43]

Mauss' ideas were adopted by Durkheim in his 1912 book Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse ("Elementary Forms of Religious Life").[32] Durkheim was of the view that both magic and religion pertained to "sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden".[46] Where he saw them as being different was in their social organisation. Durkheim described magic as being inherently anti-social, existing in contrast to what he referred to as a "Church," the religious beliefs shared by a social group; in his words, "There is no Church of magic."[41] Durkheim expressed the view that "there is something inherently anti-religious about the maneuvers of the magician",[41] and that a belief in magic "does not result in binding together those who adhere to it, nor in uniting them into a group leading a common life."[46]

Scholars have criticized the idea that magic and religion can be differentiated into two distinct, separate categories.[47] The social anthropologist Alfred Radcliffe-Brown suggested that "a simple dichotomy between magic and religion" was unhelpful and thus both should be subsumed under the broader category of ritual.[48] Many later anthropologists followed his example.[48] Nevertheless, this distinction is still often made by scholars discussing this topic.[47]

Emotionalist approach

The emotionalist approach to magic is associated with the English anthropologist Robert Ranulph Marett, the Austrian psychologist Sigmund Freud, and the Polish anthropologist Bronisław Malinowski.[49]

Marett viewed magic as a response to stress.[50] In a 1904 article, he argued that magic was a cathartic or stimulating practice designed to relieve feelings of tension.[50] As his thought developed, he increasingly rejected the idea of a division between magic and religion and began to use the term "magico-religious" to describe the early development of both.[50] Malinowski understood magic in a similar manner to Marett, tackling the issue in a 1925 article.[51] He rejected Frazer's evolutionary hypothesis that magic was followed by religion and then science as a series of distinct stages in societal development, arguing that all three were present in each society.[52] In his view, both magic and religion "arise and function in situations of emotional stress" although whereas religion is primarily expressive, magical is primarily practical.[52] He therefore defined magic as "a practical art consisting of acts which are only means to a definite end expected to follow later on".[52] He for instance believed that fertility rituals were magical because they were carried out with the intention of meeting a specific need.[52]

Frued also saw magic as emerging from human emotion but interpreted it very differently to Marett.[53] Freud explains that "the associated theory of magic merely explains the paths along which magic proceeds; it does not explain its true essence, namely the misunderstanding which leads it to replace the laws of nature by psychological ones".[54]:83 Freud emphasizes that what led primitive men to come up with magic is the power of wishes: "His wishes are accompanied by a motor impulse, the will, which is later destined to alter the whole face of the earth in order to satisfy his wishes. This motor impulse is at first employed to give a representation of the satisfying situation in such a way that it becomes possible to experience the satisfaction by means of what might be described as motor hallucinations. This kind of representation of a satisfied wish is quite comparable to children's play, which succeeds their earlier purely sensory technique of satisfaction. [...] As time goes on, the psychological accent shifts from the motives for the magical act on to the measures by which it is carried out—that is, on to the act itself. [...] It thus comes to appear as though it is the magical act itself which, owing to its similarity with the desired result, alone determines the occurrence of that result."[54]:84

According to Stanley Tambiah, magic, science, and religion all have their own "quality of rationality", and have been influenced by politics and ideology.[55]:2 As opposed to religion, Tambiah suggests that mankind has a much more personal control over events. Science, according to Tambiah, is "a system of behavior by which man acquires mastery of the environment."[55]:8

Etymology and conceptual development

Ancient world

One of the earliest surviving accounts of the Persian mágoi was provided by the Greek historian Herodotus.

The English words magic, mage and magician come from the Latin magus, through the Greek μάγος, which is from the Old Persian maguš ("magician").[56] The Old Persian magu- is derived from the Proto-Indo-European *magh ("be able"), which was absorbed into the Iranian language; Iranians thereafter began using the word maguš ("magician"; i.e., an "able [specialist in ritual]") or *maghu, which may have led to the Old Sinitic *Mᵞag ("mage" or "shaman").[57] The Old Persian form seems to have permeated Ancient Semitic languages as the Talmudic Hebrew magosh, the Aramaic amgusha ("magician"), and the Chaldean maghdim ("wisdom and philosophy"); from the first century BCE onwards, Syrian magusai gained notoriety as magicians and soothsayers.[58]

The Magi are mentioned in both the Book of Jeremiah and the Behistun Inscription of Darius I, indicating that they had gained considerable power and influence by the middle of the first millenium BCE.[59] A number of ancient Greek authors discuss these Persian mágoi in their works. Among the first to do so was the historian Herodotus, who states that the mágoi were one of seven Median tribes and that they served as functionaries at the court of the Achaemenid Empire, where they acted as advisers to the king.[60] According to Herodotus, these Persian mágoi were also in charge of various religious rites, namely sacrifices and the interpretation of dreams.[60]

For the storm lasted for three days; and at last the Magians, by using victims [cut up in pieces and offered to the manes] and wizards' spells on the wind, and by sacrificing also to Thetis and the Nereids, did make it to cease on the fourth day.

— Herodotus Book VII.191, an example of the work of the Magi that is similar to that of their Chinese counterparts[61]

The Magi travelled far beyond Mesopotamia and the Levant. They were present in India by at least the first century BCE, as well as in Ethiopia, Egypt, and throughout Asia Minor. Many ancient sources claim they were Zarathustrians, or that Zarathustra, who may have lived as early as 1100 BCE, was himself a Maguš; according to sinologist Victor H. Mair, they arrived in China at around this time. Ilya Gershevitch has described them as "a professional priesthood to whom Zarathustrianism was merely one of the forms of religion in which they ministered against payment, much as a professional musician earns his living by performing the works of different composers".[62]

During the late sixth and early fifth centuries BCE, the Persian maguš was Graecicized and introduced into the ancient Greek language as μάγος and μάγείά.[60] In doing so it underwent a transformation of meaning, gaining negative connotations, with the magos being regarded as a charlatan whose ritual practices were fraudulent, strange, unconventional, and dangerous.[60] This change in meaning was influenced by the military conflicts that the Greek city-states were then engaged in against the Persian Empire.[60] In this context, the term makes appearances in such surviving text as Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, Hippocrates' De morbo sacro, and Gorgias' Encomium of Helen.[60] In Sophocles' play, for example, the character Oedipus derogatorily refers to the seer Tiresius as a magos, reflecting how this epithet was no longer reserved only for Persians.[14]

In the first century BCE, the Greek concept of the magos was adopted into Latin and used by a number of ancient Roman writers as magus and magia.[60] The Roman use of the term was similar to that of the Greeks, but placed greater emphasis on the judicial application of it.[60] Within the Roman Empire, laws would be introduced criminalising things regarded as magic.[63]

Early Christianity and the Middle Ages

In the first century CE, early Christian authors absorbed the Greco-Roman idea of magic and incorporated it into their developing Christian theology.[63] These Christians retained the Graeco-Roman negative connotations of the term and enhanced them by incorporating conceptual patterns borrowed from Jewish thought.[63] Thus, for early Christian writers like Augustine of Hippo, magic did not merely constitute fraudulent and unsanctioned ritual practices, but was the very opposite of religion because it relied upon cooperation from demons, the henchmen of Satan.[63] Ever since, the idea that magic is something defined in opposition to religion has been pervasive throughout Western culture.[3] This Christian emphasis on the inherent immorality and wrongness of magic as something conflicting with good religion was far starker than the approach in the other large monotheistic religions of the period, Judaism and Islam.[64] For instance, while Christians regarded demons as inherently evil, the jinn—comparable entities in Islamic mythology—were perceived as more ambivalent figures by Muslims.[64]

The model of the magician in Christian thought was provided by Simon Magus, or "Simon the Magician", a figure who opposed Saint Peter in both the Acts of the Apostles and the apocryphal yet influential Acts of Peter.[65] The historian Michael D. Bailey stated that in medieval Europe, "magic" was a "relatively broad and encompassing category".[66] Christian theologians believed that there were multiple different forms of magic, the majority of which were types of divination.[67] For instance, Isidore of Seville produced a catalogue of things he regarded as magic in which he listed listed augury, necromancy, astrology, incantations, horoscopes, amulets, geomancy, hydromancy, aeromancy, pyromancy, enchantment and ligatures.[68]

In early medieval Europe, magia was a term of condemnation.[69] In medieval Europe, Christians often suspected Muslims and Jews of engaging in magical practices.[70] Christian groups often also accused other, rival Christian groups—which they regarded as heretical—of engaging in magical activities.[65] Medieval Europe also saw the term maleficium applied to forms of magic that were conducted with the intention of causing harm.[66] The later middle ages saw words for these practitioners of harmful magical acts appear in various European languages: sorcière in French, Hexe in German, strega in Italian, and bruja in Spanish.[71] The English term for malevolent practitioners of magic, witch, derived from the earlier Old English term wicce.[71]

Modern world

Early modern Europe

Frontispiece of an English translation of Natural Magick published in London in 1658.

During the early modern period, the concept of magic underwent a more positive reassessment through the development of the concept of magia naturalis (natural magic).[63] This was a term introduced and developed by two Italian humanists, Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola.[63] For them, magia was viewed as an elemental force pervading many natural processes,[63] and thus was fundamentally distinct from the mainstream Christian idea of demonic magic.[72] Their ideas influenced an array of later philosophers and writers, among them Paracelsus, Giordano Bruno, Johannes Reuchlin, and Johannes Trithemius.[63] According to the historian Richard Kieckhefer, the concept of magia naturalis took "firm hold in European culture" during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,[73] attracting the interest of natural philosophers of various theoretical orientations, including Aristotelians, Neoplatonists, and Hermeticists.[74] Despite thus, it did not supplant traditional attitudes toward magic in the West, which remained largely negative.[75] At the same time as magia naturalis was attracting interest and was largely tolerated, Europe saw an active persecution of accused witches believed to be guilty of maleficia.[74]

While the proponents of magia naturalis insisted that this did not rely on the actions of demons, critics disagreed, arguing that the demons had simply deceived these magicians.[76] By the seventeenth century the concept of magia naturalis had moved in increasingly 'naturalistic' directions, with the distinctions between it and science becoming blurred.[77] The validity of magia naturalis as a concept for understanding the universe then came under increasing criticism during the Age of Enlightenment in the eighteenth century.[75]

In the discourse of early modern Europe, the term magic also continued to be used in a negative sense; Protestants often sought to denigrate Roman Catholic sacramental and devotional practices as being magical rather than religious.[78] Many Roman Catholics were concerned by this allegation and for several centuries various Roman Catholic writers devoted attention to arguing that their practices were religious rather than magical.[24] At the same time, Protestants often used the accusation of magic against other Protestant groups which they were in contest with.[79] In this way, the concept of magic was used to prescribe what was appropriate as religious belief and practice.[24]

Colonialism and academia

In the sixteenth century, European societies began to conquer and colonise other continents around the world, and as they did so they applied European concepts of "magic" and "witchcraft" to practices found among the peoples whom they encountered.[80] Usually, these European colonialists regarded the natives as primitives and savages whose belief systems were diabolical and needed to be eradicated and replaced by Christianity.[81] Because Europeans typically viewed these non-European peoples as being morally and intellectually inferior to themselves, it was expected that such societies would be more prone to practicing magic.[82] Women who practiced traditional rites were labelled "witches" by the Europeans.[82]

In the nineteenth century, the Haitian government began to legislate against Vodou, describing it as a form of witchcraft; this conflicted with Vodou practitioners' own understanding of their religion.[83]

In various cases, these imported European concepts and terms underwent new transformations as they merged with indigenous concepts.[84] In West Africa, for instance, Portuguese travellers introduced their term and concept of the feitiçaria (often translated as sorcery) and the feitiço (spell) to the native population, where it was transformed into the concept of the fetish. When later Europeans encountered these West African societies, they wrongly believed that the fetiche was an indigenous African term rather than the result of earlier inter-continental encounters.[84] Sometimes, colonised populations themselves adopted these European concepts for their own purposes. In the early nineteenth century, the newly independent Haitian government of Jean-Jacques Dessalines began to suppress the practice of Vodou, and in 1835 Haitain law-codes categorised all Vodou practices as sortilège (sorcery/witchcraft), suggesting that it was all conducted with harmful intent, whereas among Vodou practitioners the performance of harmful rites was already given a separate and distinct category, known as maji.[83]

By the nineteenth century, European intellectuals no longer saw the practice of magic through the framework of sin and instead regarded magical practices and beliefs as "an aberrational mode of thought antithetical to the dominant cultural logic - a sign of psychological impairment and marker of racial or cultural inferiority".[85] As educated elites in Western societies increasingly rejected the efficacy of magical practices, legal systems cased to threaten practitioners of magical activities with punishment for the crimes of diabolism and witchcraft, and instead threatened them with the accusation that they were defrauding people through promising to provide things which they could not.[86]

This spread of European colonial power across the world influenced how academics would come to frame the concept of magic.[23] In the nineteenth century, a number of scholars adopted the traditional, negative concept of magic.[75] That they chose to do so was not inevitable, for they could have followed the example adopted by prominent esotericists active at the time like Helena Blavatsky who had chosen to use the term and concept of magic in a positive sense.[75] Various writers also used the concept of magic to criticise religion by arguing that the latter still displayed many of the negative traits of the former. An example of this was the American journalist H. L. Mencken in his polemical 1930 work Treatise on the Gods; he sought to critique religion by comparing it to magic, arguing that the division between the two was misplaced.[87]

The scholarly application of magic as a sui generis category that can be applied to any socio-cultural context was linked with the promotion of modernity to both Western and non-Western audiences.[88]

In contemporary contexts, the word magic is sometimes used to "describe a type of excitement, of wonder, or sudden delight", and in such a context can be "a term of high praise".[89]

Modern Western occultism

Concepts of modern magic are often heavily influenced by the ideas of Aleister Crowley

Modern Western magic has challenged widely-held preconceptions about contemporary religion and spirituality.[90] The polemical discourses about magic influenced the self-understanding of modern magicians, a number of whom—such as Aleister Crowley and Julius Evola—were well versed in academic literature on the subject.[91] According to scholar of religion Henrik Bogdan, "arguably the best known emic definition" of the term "magic" was provided by Crowley.[91] Crowley—who favoured the spelling "magick" over "magic" to distinguish it from stage illusionism[92]—was of the view that "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will".[91] Crowley's definition influenced that of subsequent magicians.[91] Dion Fortune of the Fraternity of the Inner Light for instance stated that "Magic is the art of changing consciousness according to Will".[91] Gerald Gardner, the founder of Gardnerian Wicca, stated that magic was "attempting to cause the physically unusual",[91] while Anton LaVey, the founder of LaVeyan Satanism, described magic as "the change in situations or events in accordance with one's will, which would, using normally acceptable methods, be unchangeable."[91]

These modern Western concepts of magic rely on a belief in correspondences connected to an unknown occult force that permeates the universe.[93] As noted by Hanegraaff, this operated according to "a new meaning of magic, which could not possibly have existed in earlier periods, precisely because it is elaborated in reaction to the "disenchantment of the world"."[93] For many, and perhaps most, modern Western magicians, the goal of magic is deemed to be personal spiritual development.[94] The perception of magic as a form of self-development is central to the way that magical practices have been adopted into forms of modern Paganism and the New Age phenomenon.[94] One significant development within modern Western magical practices has been sex magic.[94] This was a practice promoted in the writings of Paschal Beverly Randolph and subsequently exerted a strong interest on occultist magicians like Crowley and Theodor Reuss.[94]

The adoption of the term "magic" by modern occultists can in some instances be a deliberate attempt to champion those areas of Western society which have traditionally been marginalised as a means of subverting dominant systems of power.[95] The influential American Wiccan and author Starhawk for instance stated that "Magic is another word that makes people uneasy, so I use it deliberately, because the words we are comfortable with, the words that sound acceptable, rational, scientific, and intellectually correct, are comfortable precisely because they are the language of estrangement."[96]


The "Magician" card from a 15th-century tarot deck.

Many of the practices which have been labelled magic can be performed by anyone.[97] For instance, some charms can be recited by individuals with no specialist knowledge nor any claim to have having a specific power.[97] Others require specialised training in order to perform them.[97] Some of the individuals who performed magical acts on a more than occasional basis came to be identified as magicians, or with related concepts like sorcerers, witches, or cunning folk.[97] Identities as a magician can stem from an individual's own claims about themselves, or it can be a label placed upon them by others.[97] In the latter case, an individual could embrace such a label, or they could reject it, sometimes vehemently.[97]

There can be economic incentives that encouraged individuals to identify as magicians.[86] In the cases of various forms of traditional healer, as well as the later stage magicians or illusionists, the label of magician could become a job description.[97] Others claim such an identity out of a genuinely held belief that they have specific unusual powers or talents.[98]

Some historians have drawn a differentiation between those practitioners who engage in high magic, and those who engage in low magic.[99] In this framework, high magic is seen as more complex, involving lengthy and detailed ceremonies as well as sophisticated, sometimes expensive, paraphernalia.[99] Low magic is associated with simpler rituals such as brief, spoken charms.[99]

In some cultures, terms such as sorcerer, wizard, witch, etc. are applied to specific types of magicians based on their abilities, sources of power, moral standing within the community, etc.[100]

A variety of personal traits may be credited with giving magical power, and frequently they are associated with an unusual birth into the world.[101]

However, the most common method of identifying, differentiating, and establishing magical practitioners from common people is by initiation. By means of rites the magician's relationship to the supernatural and his entry into a closed professional class is established (often through rituals that simulate death and rebirth into a new life).[102]:41–44

Mauss argues that the powers of both specialist and common magicians are determined by culturally accepted standards of the sources and the breadth of magic: a magician cannot simply invent or claim new magic. In practice, the magician is only as powerful as his peers believe him to be.[102]:33, 40

Suspicions and accusations of witchcraft

Those regarded as being magicians have often faced suspicion from other members of their society.[103] This is particularly the case if these perceived magicians have been associated with social groups already considered morally suspect in a particular society, such as foreigners, women, or the lower classes.[104] In contrast to these negative associations, many practitioners of activities that have been labelled magical have emphasised that their actions are benevolent and beneficial.[105] This conflicted with the common Christian view that all activities categorised as being forms of magic were intrinsically bad regardless of the intent of the magician, because all magical actions relied on the aid of demons.[64] There could be conflicting attitudes regarding the practices of a magician; in European history, authorities often believed that cunning folk and traditional healers were harmful because their practices were regarded as magical and thus stemming from contact with demons, whereas a local community might value and respect these individuals because their skills and services were deemed beneficial.[106]

In Western societies, the practice of magic, especially when harmful, was usually associated with women.[107] For instance, during the witch trials of the early modern period, around three quarters of those executed as witches were female, to only a quarter who were men.[108] That women were more likely to be accused and convicted of witchcraft in this period might have been because their position was more legally vulnerable, with women having little or no legal standing that was independent of their male relatives.[108] The conceptual link between women and magic in Western culture may be because many of the activities regarded as magical—from rites to encourage fertility to potions to induce abortions—were associated with the female sphere.[109] It might also be connected to the fact that Western cultures regularly portrayed women as being inferior to men on an intellectual, moral, spiritual, and physical level.[110]


Ancient Mesopotamia

Bronze protection plaque from the Neo-Assyrian era showing the demon Lamashtu

The ancient Mesopotamians believed that magic was the only viable defense against demons, ghosts, and evil sorcerers.[111] To defend themselves against the spirits of those they had wronged, they would leave offerings known as kispu in the person's tomb in hope to appease them.[111] If that did not work, they also sometimes took a figurine of the deceased and buried it in the ground, demanding for the gods to eradicate the spirit, or force it to leave the person alone.[111]

The ancient Mesopotamians also used magic to protect themselves from evil sorcerers who might place curses on them.[111] They had no distinction between "light magic" and "black magic" and a person defending him or herself from witchcraft would use exactly the same techniques as the person trying to curse someone.[111] The only major difference was the fact that curses were enacted in secret;[111] whereas a defense against sorcery was conducted in the open, in front of an audience if possible.[111] One ritual to punish a sorcerer was known as Maqlû, or "The Burning".[111] The person afflicted by the witchcraft would create an effigy of the sorcerer and put it on trial at night.[111] Then, once the nature of the sorcerer’s crimes had been determined, the person would burn the effigy and thereby break the sorcerer’s power over him or her.[111]

The ancient Mesopotamians also performed magical rituals to purify themselves of sins committed unknowingly.[111] One such ritual was known as the Šurpu, or "Burning",[111] in which the caster of the spell would transfer the guilt for all his or her misdeeds onto various objects such as a strip of dates, an onion, and a tuft of wool.[111] He or she would then burn the objects and thereby purify him or herself of all sins that he or she might have unknowingly committed.[111] A whole genre of love spells existed.[111] Such spells, which usually invoked the aid of the goddess Ishtar, were believed to cause a person to fall in love with another person, restore love which had faded, or cause a male sexual partner to be able to sustain an erection when he had previously been unable.[111] Other spells were used to reconcile a man with his patron deity or to reconcile a wife with a husband who had been neglecting her.[111]

The ancient Mesopotamians had no distinction between "rational science" and magic.[111][112][113] When a person became ill, doctors would proscribe both magical formulas to be recited as well as medicinal treatments.[111][112][113] Most magical rituals were intended to be performed by an āšipu, an expert in the magical arts.[111][112][113] The profession was generally passed down from father to son[111] and was held in extremely high regard and often served as advisors to kings and great leaders.[111] An āšipu probably served not only as a magician, but also as a physician, a priest, a scribe, and a scholar.[111] He would have likely owned a large library of clay tablets containing important religious texts and hymns.[111]

The Sumerian god Enki, who was later syncretized with the East Semitic god Ea, was closely associated with magic and incantations;[111] he was the patron god of the bārȗ and the ašipū and was widely regarded as the ultimate source of all arcane knowledge.[111] The ancient Mesopotamians also believed in omens, which could come when solicited or unsolicited.[111] Regardless of how they came, omens were always taken with the utmost seriousness.[111] The Mesopotamians also invented astrology.[111]

Ancient Egypt

Ancient Egyptian Eye of Horus amulet

Magic was an integral part of ancient Egyptian religion and culture.[114]:66 The ancient Egyptians would often wear magical amulets, known as meket, for protection.[114]:66 The most common material for such amulets was a kind of ceramic known as faience, but amulets were also made of stone, metal, bone, and wood.[114]:66 Amulets depicted specific symbols.[114]:67 One of the most common protective symbols was the Eye of Horus, which represented the new eye given to Horus by the god Thoth as a replacement for his old eye, which had been destroyed during a battle with Horus’s uncle Seth.[114]:67 The most popular amulet was the scarab beetle, the emblem of the god Khepri.[114]:67 Pregnant women would wear amulets depicting Tauret, the goddess of childbirth, to protect against miscarriage.[114]:44 The god Bes, who had the head of a lion and the body of a dwarf, was believed to be the protector of children.[114]:44 After giving birth, a mother would remove her Tauret amulet and put on a new amulet representing Bes.[114]:44

Like the Mesopotamians, the ancient Egyptians had no distinction between magic and medicine.[115] The Egyptians believed that diseases stemmed from supernatural origins[115] and ancient Egyptian doctors would prescribe both magical and practical remedies to their patients.[115] Doctors would interrogate their patients to find out what ailments the person was suffering from. The symptoms of the disease determined which deity the doctor needed to invoke in order to cure it. Doctors were extremely expensive,[115] so, for most everyday purposes, the average Egyptian would have relied on individuals who were not professional doctors, but who possessed some form of medical training or knowledge.[115] Among these individuals were folk healers and seers, who could set broken bones, aid mothers in giving birth, proscribe herbal remedies for common ailments, and interpret dreams.[115] If a doctor or seer was unavailable, then everyday people would simply cast their spells on their own without assistance.[115] Although most Egyptians were illiterate, it was likely commonplace for individuals to memorize spells and incantations for later use.[115]

Illustration from The Book of the Dead of Hunefer showing the Opening of the Mouth ceremony being performed before the tomb

The main principle behind Egyptian magic seems to have been the notion that, if a person said something with enough conviction, the statement would automatically become true.[114]:54 The interior walls of the pyramid of Unas, the final pharaoh of the Egyptian Fifth Dynasty, are covered in hundreds of magical spells and inscriptions, running from floor to ceiling in vertical columns.[114]:54 These inscriptions are known as the "Pyramid Texts"[114]:54 and they contain spells needed by the pharaoh in order to survive in the Afterlife.[114]:54 The Pyramid Texts were strictly for royalty only;[114]:56 the spells were kept secret from commoners and were written only inside royal tombs.[114]:56 During the chaos and unrest of the First Intermediate Period, however, tomb robbers broke into the pyramids and saw the magical inscriptions.[114]:56 Commoners began learning the spells and, by the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, commoners began inscribing similar writings on the sides of their own coffins, hoping that doing so would ensure their own survival in the Afterlife.[114]:56 These writings are known as the "Coffin Texts". [114]:56

Eventually, the Coffin Texts became so extensive that they no longer fit on the outside of a coffin.[114]:56 They began to be instead recorded on scrolls of papyrus, which would then be placed inside the coffin with the deceased’s own corpse.[114]:56 The writings on these scrolls are now known as The Book of the Dead.[114]:56 There were hundreds of different versions of The Book of the Dead, all of them containing different spells.[114]:56 Egyptologists have identified more than four hundred different spells belonging to The Book of the Dead collectively.[114]:56 Egyptologists have codified and classified these spells, assigning them specific numbers based on their content and purpose.[114]:56

Shabti belonging to Pharaoh Rameses IV of the Egyptian Twentieth Dynasty, currently held in the Lourve in Paris

As The Book of the Dead became more popular, a whole industry of scribes arose for the sole purpose of copying manuscripts so that customers would be able to buy copies of the spells to be buried with them in their tombs.[114]:56-57 The quality of manuscripts was highly variable.[114]:56-57 Some editions were ninety feet long and contained beautiful, color illustrations to illuminate the text;[114]:56-57 others were short with no illustrations whatsoever.[114]:56-57 The scrolls were copied before they were bought, meaning that the name of the owner was unknown.[114]:56-57 As such, the scribes would leave the places for the person’s name blank and fill in the person's name after the scroll was purchased.[114]:56-57 Sometimes scribes would accidentally misread or miscopy what they were writing.[114]:56-57 Sometimes the spells would be abbreviated in order to avoid running out of space.[114]:56-57 Such mistakes could render the texts unintelligible. [114]:56-57

After a person died, his or her corpse would be mummified and wrapped in linen bandages in order to ensure that the deceased's body would survive for as long as possible[115] because the Egyptians believed that a person's soul could only survive in the Afterlife for as long as his or her physical body survived here on earth.[115] The last ceremony before a person's body was sealed away inside the tomb was known as the "Opening of the Mouth".[115] In this ritual, the priests would touch various magical instruments to various parts of the deceased's body, thereby giving the deceased the ability to see, hear, taste, and smell in the Afterlife.[115]

Before dead person was buried, his or her mummified corpse would be stuffed full of magic amulets and protective charms in order to ensure that he or she would be safe in the next world.[115] The family would also place important grave goods inside the person’s tomb in order to ensure that he or she had everything he or she would need in the next life.[115] Among these grave goods were small figurines made of faience or wood known as shabti. The shabti were intended as slaves for the deceased.[115] The ancient Egyptians believed that physical labor was just as necessary in the Afterlife as it was in the present one.[115] As such, they believed that the deceased could cast a spell to animate these figurines so that he or she would be able to order them to perform tasks and chores in the Afterlife so that the deceased him or herself would not be forced to perform any labor.[115]

Classical antiquity

Hecate, the ancient Greek goddess of magic.
Ancient Greek curse tablet, or katadesmos, from Eyguières

Ancient Greek scholarship of the 20th century, almost certainly influenced by Christianising preconceptions of the meanings of magic and religion, and the wish to establish Greek culture as the foundation of Western rationality, developed a theory of ancient Greek magic as primitive and insignificant, and thereby essentially separate from Homeric, communal ("polis") religion. Since the last decade of the century, however, recognising the ubiquity and respectability of acts such as katadesmoi ("binding spells"), described as magic by modern and ancient observers alike, scholars have been compelled to abandon this viewpoint.[116]:90–95 The Greek word mageuo ("practise magic") itself derives from the word Magos, originally simply the Greek name for a Persian tribe known for practising religion.[117] Non-civic "mystery cults" have been similarly re-evaluated:[116]:97–98

the choices which lay outside the range of cults did not just add additional options to the civic menu, but ... sometimes incorporated critiques of the civic cults and Panhellenic myths or were genuine alternatives to them.

— Simon Price, Religions of the Ancient Greeks (1999)[118]

A common form of magic in ancient Greece and Rome involved invoking the chthonic deities of the underworld, using the spirits of the dead as messengers.[119] One popular method of doing this was taking a lead tablet and inscribing it with the names of individuals that the person wished the curse.[119] Then the person would "cancel" the tablet by driving nails through it or by otherwise rendering it no longer usable for living beings.[119] Such lead curse tablets were known as katadesmoi (Latin: defixiones)[119][116]:95–96 and were frequently executed by all strata of Greek society, sometimes to protect the entire polis.[119][116]:95–96 Communal curses carried out in public declined after the Greek classical period, but private curses remained common throughout antiquity.[120] They were distinguished as magical by their individualistic, instrumental and sinister qualities.[116]:96 These qualities, and their perceived deviation from inherently mutable cultural constructs of normality, most clearly delineate ancient magic from the religious rituals of which they form a part.[116]:102–103 Another common technique involved a primitive form of voodoo doll;[119] the spellcaster would take a lead figurine with its arms bound behind its back and drive nails or needles into it, often through the breast.[119]

The ancient Greeks often wore magic amulets to protect themselves from curses and misfortune. Amulets made from precious stones or metals were believed to be especially effective.[119] A large number of magical papyri, in Greek, Coptic, and Demotic, have been recovered and translated.[121] They contain early instances of:

  • the use of "magic words" said to have the power to command spirits;[122][page needed]
  • the use of mysterious symbols or sigils which are thought to be useful when invoking or evoking spirits.[123][page needed] Magicians would often use secret code names for their ingredients to make them sound more foreign, exotic, and intimidating than they really were.[124]

The practice of magic was banned in the late Roman world, and the Codex Theodosianus (438 AD) states:[125]

If any wizard therefore or person imbued with magical contamination who is called by custom of the people a magician...should be apprehended in my retinue, or in that of the Caesar, he shall not escape punishment and torture by the protection of his rank.

Middle Ages

Ars Magica or magic is a major component and supporting contribution to the belief and practice of spiritual, and in many cases, physical healing throughout the Middle Ages. Emanating from many modern interpretations lies a trail of misconceptions about magic, one of the largest revolving around wickedness or the existence of nefarious beings who practice it. These misinterpretations stem from numerous acts or rituals that have been performed throughout antiquity, and due to their exoticism from the commoner's perspective, the rituals invoked uneasiness and an even stronger sense of dismissal.[126][127]

One societal force in the Middle Ages more powerful than the singular commoner, the Christian Church, rejected magic as a whole because it was viewed as a means of tampering with the natural world in a supernatural manner associated with the biblical verses of Deuteronomy 18:9-12. Despite the many negative connotations which surround the term magic, there exist many elements that are seen in a divine or holy light.[128]

Diversified instruments or rituals used in medieval magic include, but are not limited to: various amulets, talismans, potions, as well as specific chants, dances, prayers. Along with these rituals are the adversely imbued notions of demonic participation which influence of them. The idea that magic was devised, taught, and worked by demons would have seemed reasonable to anyone who read the Greek magical papyri or the Sefer-ha-Razim and found that healing magic appeared alongside rituals for killing people, gaining wealth, or personal advantage, and coercing women into sexual submission.[127] Archaeology is contributing to a fuller understanding of ritual practices performed in the home, on the body and in monastic and church settings.[129][130][page needed]


However this verses does not confirm, that magic necessarily exists. Islamic scholars differ in the regard of the true essence of magic:

  • Magic mentioned in Qur'an is thought to be illusive and caused by superstition. Especially the Muʿtazila were famous for rejecting the supernatural.[131]
  • Magic is the work of Jinn. Therefore a sorcery needs the aid of spiritual entities to pretend performing magic.[132]
  • A divination between licit and illicit magic (witchcraft), therefore licit magic is done by God's mercy and illicit magic in aid of demons or Jinn. The ability to perform magic is viewed as a divine gift.[133]

Ibn al-Nadim explains the difference between magic and witchcraft as the following: Exorcists gain their power by their obedience to God, while sorcerers please the demons by acts of disobidience and sacrifices and they in return do him a favor.[134] However in the most concepts of Sharia magic became prohibited.[135]

Common features of magical practice


Set of objects used for a magic ritual

S. J. Tambiah notes that even if the power of the ritual is said to reside in the words, "[they] only become effective if uttered in the special context of other actions."[136]

Magical symbols

Helm of Awe (ægishjálmr) - magical symbol worn by Vikings for invincibility. Modern day use by Ásatrú followers for protection.

Principle of contagion

An example given by Tambiah relates to adoption: among some American Indians when a child is adopted, his or her adoptive mother will pull the child through some of her clothes, symbolically representing the birth process and thereby associating the child with herself,[55]:59 thereby 'becomes' hers emotionally even though their relationship is not biological.[citation needed]

Symbols, for many cultures that use magic, are seen as a type of technology: native peoples might use symbols and symbolic actions to bring about change and improvements in the same way as those from advanced cultures use advanced irrigation techniques to promote soil fertility and crop growth. Michael Brown discusses the use of nantag stones among the Aguaruna as being similar to this type of technology.[137]

Magical language

In "The Magical Power of Words" (1968) S. J. Tambiah argues that the connection between language and magic is due to a belief in the inherent ability of words to influence the universe. Bronisław Malinowski, in Coral Gardens and their Magic (1935), suggests that this belief is an extension of man's basic use of language to describe his surroundings, in which "the knowledge of the right words, appropriate phrases and the more highly developed forms of speech, gives man a power over and above his own limited field of personal action."[138]:235

Magical speech is, therefore, a ritual act, and is of equal or even greater importance to the performance of magic than non-verbal acts.[136]:175–176 However, not all speech is considered magical. Only certain words and phrases or words spoken in a specific context are considered to have magical power.[136]:176

Magical language, according to C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards's (1923) categories of speech, is distinct from scientific language because it is emotive and it converts words into symbols for emotions. On the other hand, in scientific language, words are tied to specific meanings and refer to an objective external reality.[136]:188 Magical language is therefore particularly adept at constructing metaphors that establish symbols and link magical rituals to the world.[136]:189

Malinowski argues that "the language of magic is sacred, set and used for an entirely different purpose to that of ordinary life",[138]:213 the two forms of language being differentiated through word choice, grammar, style, or by the use of specific phrases or forms: spells, songs, blessings, or chants. Sacred modes of language often employ archaic words and forms in an attempt to invoke the purity or truth of a religious or a cultural golden age, the usage of Hebrew in Judaism being cited as an example.[136]:182

Another potential source of the power of words is their secrecy and exclusivity: very sacred language is differentiated enough from common language that it is incomprehensible to the majority of the population and it can only be used and interpreted by specialized practitioners (magicians, priests, shamans, even mullahs).[138]:228[136]:178

In this respect, Tambiah argues that magical languages violate the primary function of language: communication.[136]:179 This leads Tambiah to conclude that "the remarkable disjunction between sacred and profane language which exists as a general fact is not necessarily linked to the need to embody sacred words in an exclusive language."[136]:182

See also



  1. ^ a b Styers 2004, p. 3.
  2. ^ Styers 2004, p. 25.
  3. ^ a b c Otto & Stausberg 2013, p. 1.
  4. ^ Otto & Stausberg 2013, p. 7.
  5. ^ Bailey 2018, p. 8.
  6. ^ a b Bogdan 2012, p. 2.
  7. ^ Hutton 2003, p. 103; Styers 2004, p. 7; Otto & Stausberg 2013, p. 1; Bailey 2018, p. 3.
  8. ^ a b Hanegraaff 2012, p. 166.
  9. ^ Hanegraaff 2012, p. 168.
  10. ^ Otto & Stausberg 2013, p. 11.
  11. ^ Hutton 2003, p. 100.
  12. ^ Otto & Stausberg 2013, p. 6; Bailey 2018, p. 27.
  13. ^ Bailey 2018, p. 27.
  14. ^ a b Bailey 2018, p. 19.
  15. ^ Hutton 2003, p. 104; Bailey 2018, p. 20.
  16. ^ Otto & Stausberg 2013, p. 6.
  17. ^ a b Bailey 2018, p. 89.
  18. ^ a b c Styers 2004, p. 14.
  19. ^ a b Styers 2004, p. 8.
  20. ^ a b Hanegraaff 2012, p. 164.
  21. ^ Styers 2004, p. 21.
  22. ^ a b Styers 2004, p. 6.
  23. ^ a b Styers 2004, p. 61.
  24. ^ a b c Styers 2004, p. 9.
  25. ^ Hanegraaff 2012, pp. 164–165.
  26. ^ Hanegraaff 2012, p. 165; Otto & Stausberg 2013, p. 4.
  27. ^ Otto & Stausberg 2013, p. 4.
  28. ^ Cunningham 1999, pp. 16–17.
  29. ^ Cunningham 1999, p. 17.
  30. ^ Bailey 2018, p. 15.
  31. ^ Hanegraaff 2006, p. 716; Hanegraaff 2012, p. 164.
  32. ^ a b c d Hanegraaff 2006, p. 716.
  33. ^ Cunningham 1999, p. 18.
  34. ^ Hanegraaff 2006, p. 716; Bailey 2018, pp. 15–16.
  35. ^ Cunningham 1999, p. 19; Hanegraaff 2006, p. 716.
  36. ^ Cunningham 1999, p. 19.
  37. ^ Cunningham 1999, p. 19; Hanegraaff 2006, p. 716; Bailey 2018, pp. 15–16.
  38. ^ a b Cunningham 1999, p. 20.
  39. ^ Cunningham 1999, pp. 20–21.
  40. ^ a b Hanegraaff 2006, p. 716; Hanegraaff 2012, p. 165.
  41. ^ a b c Hanegraaff 2012, p. 165.
  42. ^ Bailey 2018, p. 16.
  43. ^ a b Cunningham 1999, p. 47.
  44. ^ Hanegraaff 2006, p. 717.
  45. ^ Cunningham 1999, p. 47; Hanegraaff 2006, p. 716.
  46. ^ a b Cunningham 1999, p. 44.
  47. ^ a b Otto & Stausberg 2013, pp. 5–6.
  48. ^ a b Cunningham 1999, p. 49.
  49. ^ Cunningham 1999, p. 23.
  50. ^ a b c Cunningham 1999, p. 24.
  51. ^ Cunningham 1999, pp. 28–29.
  52. ^ a b c d Cunningham 1999, p. 29.
  53. ^ Cunningham 1999, p. 25.
  54. ^ a b Freud, Sigmund; Strachey, James (1950). Totem and Taboo: Some Points of Agreement Between the Mental Lives of Savages and Neurotics (Repint ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0393001431. 
  55. ^ a b c Tambiah, Stanley Jeyaraja (1991). Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality (Reprint ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521376319. 
  56. ^ Hanegraaff 2012, p. 169; Otto & Stausberg 2013, p. 16.
  57. ^ Mair 2015, p. 47.
  58. ^ Mair 2015, p. 36.
  59. ^ Mair 2015, p. 36-37.
  60. ^ a b c d e f g h Otto & Stausberg 2013, p. 16.
  61. ^ Mair 2015, p. 37.
  62. ^ Mair 2015, p. 36-39.
  63. ^ a b c d e f g h Otto & Stausberg 2013, p. 17.
  64. ^ a b c Bailey 2018, p. 72.
  65. ^ a b Bailey 2018, p. 99.
  66. ^ a b Bailey 2018, p. 21.
  67. ^ Kieckhefer 2000, pp. 10–11.
  68. ^ Kieckhefer 2000, p. 11; Bailey 2018, p. 21.
  69. ^ Flint 1991, p. 5.
  70. ^ Bailey 2018, p. 88.
  71. ^ a b Bailey 2018, p. 22.
  72. ^ Kieckhefer 2000, p. 12; Hanegraaff 2012, p. 170.
  73. ^ Kieckhefer 2000, p. 12.
  74. ^ a b Styers 2004, p. 35.
  75. ^ a b c d Otto & Stausberg 2013, p. 18.
  76. ^ Hanegraaff 2006b, p. 739.
  77. ^ Hanegraaff 2006b, p. 738.
  78. ^ Styers 2004, pp. 9, 36–37.
  79. ^ Styers 2004, p. 37.
  80. ^ Styers 2004, p. 60; Bailey 2018, p. 23.
  81. ^ Bailey 2018, p. 23.
  82. ^ a b Bailey 2018, p. 98.
  83. ^ a b Bailey 2018, p. 25.
  84. ^ a b Bailey 2018, p. 24.
  85. ^ Styers 2004, p. 27.
  86. ^ a b Bailey 2018, p. 103.
  87. ^ Styers 2004, pp. 9–10.
  88. ^ Hanegraaff 2012, p. 167.
  89. ^ Flint 1991, p. 3.
  90. ^ Bogdan 2012, pp. 1–2.
  91. ^ a b c d e f g Bogdan 2012, p. 11.
  92. ^ Bogdan 2012, p. 12; Bailey 2018, pp. 22–23.
  93. ^ a b Hanegraaff 2006b, p. 741.
  94. ^ a b c d Hanegraaff 2006b, p. 743.
  95. ^ Styers 2004, p. 19.
  96. ^ Styers 2004, pp. 19–20.
  97. ^ a b c d e f g Bailey 2018, p. 85.
  98. ^ Bailey 2018, p. 105.
  99. ^ a b c Bailey 2018, p. 40.
  100. ^ Filotas, Bernadette (2005). Pagan Survivals, Superstitions, Popular Cultures. Toronto: Pontifical Inst. of Medieval Studies. p. 222. ISBN 9780888441515. Retrieved 15 May 2016. 
  101. ^ Glucklich, Ariel (1997). The End of Magic. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 87. ISBN 0195355237. 
  102. ^ a b Mauss, Marcel; Bain, Robert; Pocock, D. F. (2007). A General Theory of Magic (Reprint ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 0415253969. 
  103. ^ Bailey 2018, p. 68.
  104. ^ Bailey 2018, p. 71.
  105. ^ Bailey 2018, pp. 71–2.
  106. ^ Bailey 2018, p. 90.
  107. ^ Bailey 2018, p. 92.
  108. ^ a b Bailey 2018, p. 93.
  109. ^ Bailey 2018, p. 94.
  110. ^ Bailey 2018, p. 96.
  111. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac Farber, Walter (1995). "Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Ancient Mesopotamia" (PDF). Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. New York City, New York: Charles Schribner’s Sons, MacMillan Library Reference USA, Simon & Schuster MacMillan. 3: 1891–1908. ISBN 9780684192796. 
  112. ^ a b c Abusch, Tzvi (2002). Mesopotamian Witchcraft: Towards a History and Understanding of Babylonian Witchcraft Beliefs and Literature. Leiden, The netherlands: Brill. p. 56. ISBN 9789004123878. 
  113. ^ a b c Brown, Michael (1995). Israel's Divine Healer. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. p. 42. ISBN 9780310200291. 
  114. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag Brier, Bob; Hobbs, Hoyt (2009). Ancient Egypt: Everyday Life in the Land of the Nile. New York City, New York: Sterling. ISBN 9781454909071. 
  115. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Mark, Joshua (2017). "Magic in Ancient Egypt". ancient.eu. Ancient History Encyclopedia. 
  116. ^ a b c d e f Kindt, Julia (2012). Rethinking Greek Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521110920. 
  117. ^ Copenhaver, Brian P. (2015). Magic in Western Culture: From Antiquity to the Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 6. ISBN 9781107070523. 
  118. ^ Price, Simon (1999). Religions of the Ancient Greeks (Reprint ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 115. ISBN 0521388678. 
  119. ^ a b c d e f g h Garland, Robert (2008). Ancient Greece: Everyday Life in the Birthplace of Western Civilization. New York City, New York: Sterling. pp. 203–205. ISBN 9781454909088. 
  120. ^ Hinnells, John (2009). The Penguin Handbook of Ancient Religions. London: Penguin. p. 313. ISBN 0141956666. 
  121. ^ Betz, Hans Dieter (1986). The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. xii–xlv. ISBN 0226044440. 
  122. ^ Lewy, Hans (1978). Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire. Paris: Études Augustiniennes. ISBN 9782851210258. 
  123. ^ Hutton, Ronald (2006). Witches, Druids and King Arthur. London: Continuum. ISBN 185285555X. 
  124. ^ McKeown, J. C. (2013). A Cabinet of Greek Curiosities: Strange Tales and Surprising Facts from the Cradle of Western Civilization. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. pp. 217–218. ISBN 978-0-19-998210-3. 
  125. ^ Drijvers, Jan Willem; Hunt, David (1999). The Late Roman World and Its Historian: Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus (1st ed.). London: Routledge. pp. 208–. ISBN 9780415202718. Retrieved 22 August 2010. 
  126. ^ Flint, Valerie I.J. (1990). The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe (1st ed.). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 4, 12, 406. ISBN 0691031657. 
  127. ^ a b Kieckhefer, Richard (June 1994). "The Specific Rationality of Medieval Magic". The American Historical Review. 99 (3): 813–818. doi:10.2307/2167771. 
  128. ^ Lindberg, David C. (2007). The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450 (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 20. ISBN 0226482057. 
  129. ^ Gilchrist, Roberta (1 November 2008). "Magic for the Dead? The Archaeology of Magic in Later Medieval Burials". Medieval Archaeology. 52 (1): 119–159. doi:10.1179/174581708x335468. ISSN 0076-6097. Retrieved 8 March 2017. 
  130. ^ Gilchrist, Roberta (2012). Medieval Life: Archaeology and the Life Course (Reprint ed.). Woodbridge: Boydell Press. ISBN 9781843837220. Retrieved 8 March 2017. 
  131. ^ Alireza Doostdar The Iranian Metaphysicals: Explorations in Science, Islam, and the Uncanny Princeton University 2018 ISBN 978-1-400-88978-5 page 54
  132. ^ Lebling, Robert (2010). Legends of the Fire Spirits: Jinn and Genies from Arabia to Zanzibar. I.B.Tauris. p. 85. ISBN 9780857730633. 
  133. ^ El-Zein, Amira (2009). Islam, Arabs, and the Intelligent World of the Jinn. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. p. 77. ISBN 9780815650706. 
  134. ^ El-Zein, Amira (2009). Islam, Arabs, and the Intelligent World of the Jinn. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. p. 77. ISBN 9780815650706. 
  135. ^ Gerda Sengers Women and Demons: Cultic Healing in Islamic Egypt BRILL 2003 ISBN 978-9-004-12771-5 page 45
  136. ^ a b c d e f g h i Tambiah, S. J. (June 1968). "The Magical Power of Words". Man. 3 (2): 175. doi:10.2307/2798500. 
  137. ^ Brown, Michael F. (2006). Tsewa's Gift: Magic and Meaning in an Amazonian Society (3rd ed.). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. p. 118. ISBN 081735364X. 
  138. ^ a b c Malinowski, Bronislaw (2002). Coral Gardens and Their Magic: A Study of the Methods of Tilling the Soil and of Agricultural Rites in the Trobriand Islands (Reprint ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 0415262496. 


Bailey, Michael D. (2018). Magic: The Basics. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-80961-1. 
Bremmer, Jan N. (2002). "The Birth of the Term Magic". In Jan N. Bremmer and Jan R. Veenstra (eds.). The Metamorphosis of Magic from Late Antiquity to the Early Modern Period. Leuven: Peeters. pp. 1–2. ISBN 9789042912274. 
Bogdan, Henrik (2012). "Introduction: Modern Western Magic". Aries: Journal for the Academic Study of Western Esotericism. 12 (1). pp. 1–16. 
Cunningham, Graham (1999). Religion and Magic: Approaches and Theories. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 9780748610136. 
Flint, Valerie I. J. (1991). The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 
Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (2006). "Magic I: Introduction". In Wouter J. Hanegraaff (ed.). Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Brill. pp. 716–719. ISBN 9789004152311. 
Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (2006b). "Magic V: 18th-20th Century". In Wouter J. Hanegraaff (ed.). Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Brill. pp. 738–744. ISBN 978-9004152311. 
Hanegraaff, Wouter (2012). Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521196215. 
Hutton, Ronald (2003). Witches, Druids and King Arthur. London and New York: Hambledon and London. ISBN 9781852853976. 
Kieckhefer, Richard (2000). Magic in the Middle Ages (second ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521785761. 
Mair, Victor H. (2015). "Old Sinitic *Mᵞag, Old Persian Maguš, and English "Magician"". Early China. 15: 27–47. doi:10.1017/S0362502800004995. ISSN 0362-5028. 
Otto, Berndt-Christian; Stausberg, Michael (2013). Defining Magic: A Reader. Durham: Equinox. ISBN 9781908049803. 
Styers, Randall (2004). Making Magic: Religion, Magic, and Science in the Modern World. London: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195169416. 

External links

Quotations related to Magic at Wikiquote