# The Place of Magic in the Intellectual History of Europe/Chapter 5

CHAPTER V
Belief in Magic in the Empire
Having shown reason for believing that the Natural History is a fairly accurate mirror of the science of the past, we come now to examine Pliny's own age and to observe to what extent his attitude towards magic was characteristic of it. "His own age," I say, but this is only roughly speaking, for it is the general period of the Roman Empire that we shall now consider, with the exception of the closing century which we reserve for later discussion. We shall have now to speak first of the general attitude towards magic in the Empire, and then in particular of two or three men or works that corroborate the rich evidence which Pliny, for the most part unconsciously, gave of the place of magic in the intellectual life of the time.
I. General attitude.—At the start, just as in our discussion of the Natural History, we find it necessary to distinguish the position of men towards what they called "magic." Pliny's condemnation of the magi and of all their beliefs as a matter of general principle was probably the regular attitude. A stigma seems to have been attached to the word "magic;" and magi seem to have been regarded as dangerous characters. In his history Dio Cassius represents Mæcenas as warning Octavius Cæsar that while the practice of divination is necessary, and augury by sacrifices and flight of birds an art to be encouraged, magicians ought to be entirely done away with. For, telling the truth in some cases ​but lying in more, they incite many persons to revolt. The prejudice in the Empire against magic is further illustrated by the fact that pagan and Christian controversialists seldom failed to impute to the opposing religion the practice of this malign art.
Now and then some learned man like Eudoxus might hold that the doctrines of the magi of Persia called for eulogy rather than reproach. Thus Apuleius, in his Defense against the accusation of magic brought against him, explained that magus in the Persian language was equivalent to the Latin sacerdos or priest, and that, among the four greatest men of the realm selected to educate the heir to the Persian throne, one had the task of instructing him in the magic of Zoroaster. This magic dealt with "the rules of ceremonial, the due observance of things sacred, the law of religious rites." It was the cult of the gods.
Do you hear, you who rashly charge me with magic, that this art is acceptable to the immortal gods, consists of celebrating and reverencing them, is pious and prophetic, and long since was held by Zoroaster and Oromagus, its authors, to be noble and divine? Nay, it is included among the chief studies of royalty, and the Persians no more think of rashly allowing any one to become a magician than to become a king.
​But if his accusers mean magic in the popular sense, that is, Apuleius grants, a different matter.
Even educated men, however, probably more often, like Pliny, regarded the magi as all one with other magicians. Philostratus, in his life of Apollonius of Tyana, seems to approximate much closer to this position than to that taken by Apuleius, although one would expect a biographer of that mystic personage to view the magi with favor. Philostratus declares that Apollonius was no magician, although he did associate with the magi of Babylonia, the Brahmins of India, and the gymnosophists of Egypt. For he was like Empedocles, Pythagoras, Democritus and Plato who frequented those sects and yet did not embrace the (magic) art.
Of what we should call magic, however, there was a plenty in the Roman Empire, as in fact the words of Dio Cassius have indicated. Besides the general acceptance of divination there was a great deal of superstitious medicine. There seems to be little room for doubt that Pliny's diatribes against the medical art were justifiable, and that his own trust in marvelous medicinal properties of animals and plants was often equalled. Men of the highest eminence in public life, whom one would expect to have had at their disposal the best medical talent of the time, are reported to ​have employed the most absurd remedies. Suetonius tells us that the Emperor Augustus wore seal's skin, his successor Tiberius laurel leaves, as a protection against lightning. Pliny recounts how M. Servilius Nonianus, princeps civitatis, fearing opthalmia, had fastened to his neck a piece of linen containing some paper on which were written the Greek letters p and a. This was done before any mention of the disease was allowed to be made to him or by him. Mucianus, thrice consul, carried a live fly around in a bit of white linen for a similar purpose, and of course both men attributed their escape from disease to these bizarre methods. Moreover, much magic has been supposed to have been involved in the numerous Mysteries to which men sought initiation and in the Oriental cults which became so popular. Astrology was seemingly as universally cultivated as in the Middle Ages, and that, too, though perhaps in Roman times it was in appearance less of a science and more of a superstition.
There were occasional imperial edicts against astrologers, it is true, and even sporadic persecution of them. But the explanation of such measures is belief, not scepticism, and they denote not disbelief in the art itself but disapproval of the use to which it was put—such as revealing the fate of the present and the name of the coming ruler. Almost every emperor had an astrologer at his court, and the historians of the period delighted in telling stories of astrologers who foretold their own deaths, or of monarchs who in vain attempted to thwart the decrees of fate. Alexander ​Severus is said to have founded chairs of astrology salaried by the state and with provision for scholarships for students. Occasional persecution perhaps made the mathematici more highly valued, and the jibes of the satirists against astrologers and their followers attest rather than disprove the popularity of the art. Pliny the Elder and Tacitus asserted its great currency.
The best science of the Empire reflected to a considerable extent these superstitions sanctioned by public opinion, as our discussion of Seneca and Ptolemy will indicate in some detail. For the present we may observe how the great Galen—whose authority reduced to a single school the many quarreling medical sects of his day, was later implicitly accepted by the Arabs, and then dominated European medicine to the time of Paracelsus—was not above astrological medicine or the use of fantastical remedies. He displayed trust in amulets and believed that such things as the ashes of frogs or "hippocampi" have remedial power. He held that the critical days of disease are largely influenced by the moon, and affirmed that we receive "the force of all the stars above." It should be noted moreover that in one passage, ​in giving expression to his zeal for astronomy as the handmaid of the healing art, Galen accused many physicians of paying no attention to the stars. But he asserted that in this neglect they were no true followers of the great Hippocrates, whom they extolled but never imitated, for Hippocrates had maintained that astronomy had no small bearing on the art of the physician and that geometry was its indispensable precursor.
Philosophy as well as science was not unfavorable to some varieties of magic. Neo-Platonism, the most prominent school of philosophy in the Empire, probably led men on to belief in magic more than any previous classical system. Nature was looked upon as real only in so far as it was soul, and its process were regarded as the expression of the world-soul's mysterious working. The investigation of nature thus tended to become an inquiry concerning spirits and demons, a study into the strange and subtle relations existing between things united, as all things are, by bonds of spiritual sympathy. True, the earlier Alexandrines are said to have condemned magic arts, but we have seen that such condemnation need not amount to much. Plotinus attacked only the most extreme pretensions of astrology, and was ready to grant that the stars were celestial characters and signs of the future. He even conceded that prediction might be made from birds. But to him astrology and augury seemed of comparatively small importance, for he believed everything to be joined to and dependent upon every other thing and that in any object the wise man might see signs of everything else. Succeeding Neo-Platonists, ​at any rate, were often devoted to magic. The name of Iamblichus, for instance, is one of the most prominent in the field of the occult.
Moreover, in the time of the Empire a tendency was noticeable to confuse philosophy with magic. If this tendency was not justifiable, it is at least suggestive. Dio Cassius, in the passage above quoted, represents Maecenas as saying that not a few of those who pretend to be philosophers practice magic. Apuleius, accused of magic, stated in his Apologia that he was undertaking not only his own defense but that of philosophy. The accusation against him also suggests similar charges brought against mediæval men of learning during their lives or reputations which they won after death. Apuleius, having married a rich widow older than himself, was charged by some sycophant, jealous rival or other personal enemy with having obtained her affections by use of sorcery. Apuleius seems ​to have studied medicine, if no other branch of physical science, for he asserts that certain verses laid to his charge by the accuser deal with nothing more harmful than a recipe for making tooth-powder, and that a woman whom he was said to have bewitched had merely fallen into an epileptic fit while consulting him concerning an ear-ache. This might be taken to show that the pursuit of science was already liable to give one a bad reputation as a wizard; but it should be said that the love-verses of Apuleius, as well as his poetical prescriptions, were used to support the accusation, and that the purchase of fish was also brought forward as a suspicious circumstance. Apuleius affirms in his oration that "philosophers" have always been subjected to such charges. He says, however, that the investigators of physical causes like Anaxagoras, Leucippus, Democritus and Epicurus generally have the epithet atheist cast in their teeth, while it is the seekers into the mysteries of theology and religion like Epimenides, Orpheus, Pythagoras and Ostanes who are reputed to be magi.
II. Philo of Alexandria and allegorical interpretation.—Allegorical interpretation, unless of a very mild character, is usually a fantastic and mystical method of deriving information or inspiration. Even if an author intended to conceal secret mysteries beneath the letter of his text, there ​is very slight chance that the far-fetched and intricate mode of solution employed by the interpreter will be the one which the writer had in mind. In most cases, however, after due allowance has been made for figures of speech and play of poetical imagination, it is an erroneous and absurd assumption to suppose that an author did not mean what his language indicates and no more. Therefore the believer in allegorical interpretation would seem to be accepting something quite like a magical doctrine. Indeed, allegorical interpretation is liable to lead one into a belief that words, besides possessing a mystical significance with which the thought of their writer had endowed them, have in and of themselves great power. It borders upon the occult reveries of the Cabalists and upon that magic power of words which we have seen upheld by Roger Bacon, John Reuchlin and Henry Cornelius Agrippa.
This allegorical interpretation of literature has played a great part in human history. It was rife in the age of the Roman Empire, when Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (approximate date, 30 b. c. to 54 a. d.) was perhaps its greatest exponent, as he was also the chief member of the Jewish-Alexandrian school of philosophy.
​Philo not only represents a widespread tendency during the Roman Empire, but probably well illustrates the influence of that tendency upon later times. His numerous works were apparently much consulted by the church fathers, and thereby exerted a strong influence upon the Middle Ages. It is needless to enlarge upon the prominence of allegorical interpretation in the works of mediaeval ecclesiastical writers. The conception of knowledge as esoteric was also prevalent then, though perhaps to a less extent. To give an early instance from patristic literature, Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromata, insists upon the necessity of veiling divine truth in allegories, and has a long discussion in favor of mysticism in learning, citing as examples Greek philosophers as well as Hebrew writers. Moreover, to Philo as source we may trace back the disquisitions upon the mystic, if not magic, properties of six and other numbers which we find in Augustine and apparently in almost every mediaeval writer who had occasion to speak of the six days of creation and of the seventh day of rest.
III. Seneca’s Problems of Nature and divination. We shall next consider the Problems of Nature—or Natural Questions, if one prefers merely to transcribe the Latin—of Seneca, who was practically a contemporary of Pliny. Seneca impresses one as a favorable representative of ancient science. He tells us that already in his youth he had written a treatise on earthquakes and their causes. His ​aim is to inquire into the natural causes of phenomena; he wants to know why things are so. He is aware that his own age has only entered the vestibule of the knowledge of natural phenomena and forces, that it has but just begun to know five of the many stars, that "there will come a time when our descendants will wonder that we were ignorant of matters so evident."
One must admit, however, that along with Seneca's consciousness of the very imperfect knowledge of his own age there goes a tendency to esotericism. The following language would come fittingly from the mouth of a magician:
There are sacred things which are not revealed all at once. Eleusis reserves sights for those who revisit her. Nature does not disclose her mysteries in a moment. We think ourselves initiated; we stand but at her portal. Those secrets open not promiscuously nor to every comer. They are remote of access, enshrined in the inner sanctuary.
Seneca seems to regard scientific research as a sort of religious exercise. His enthusiasm in the study of natural forces appears largely due to the fact that he believes them to be of a sublime and divine character, and above the petty affairs of men.
​Indeed, the phenomena which he discusses are mainly meteorological manifestations, such as winds, rain, hail, snow, comets, rainbows—and what he regards as allied subjects—earthquakes, springs and rivers. Probably he would not have regarded the study of zoölogy or of physiology as so sublime. At any rate he considers only a comparatively few "natural questions," and hence the amount and variety of belief in magic which he has occasion to display is correspondingly limited.
It is evident enough, however, that Seneca by no means accepted magic as a whole. He tells us that uncivilized antiquity believed that rain could be brought on or driven away by incantations, but that to-day no one needs a philosopher to teach him that this is impossible. And, although he affirms that living beings are generated in fire, believes in some rather peculiar effects of lightning, such as removing the venom from snakes which it strikes, and recounts the old stories of floating islands and of waters with power to turn white sheep black, he is sceptical about bathing in the waters of the Nile as a means of increasing the female's capacity for child-bearing. He qualifies by the phrases, "it is believed" and "they say," the assertions that certain waters produce foul skin-diseases and that dew in particular, if collected in any quantity, has this evil property. I imagine he did not believe the story he repeats that the river Alphæus of Greece reappears in Sicily ​as the Arethusa, and there every four years, on the very days when the victims are slaughtered at the Olympian games, casts up filth from its depths. The themes Seneca discusses of course afford him less opportunity for the taking up of the magic properties of plants, animals and other objects, but he was probably less credulous in this respect than Pliny, unless his pretensions are even more deceptive.
Seneca did believe, however, that whatever is caused is a sign of some future event. He accepts divination in all its ramifications. Only he holds that each flight of a bird is not caused by direct act of God nor the vitals of the victim altered under the axe by divine interference, but that all has been arranged beforehand in a fatal and causal series. He believes that all unusual celestial phenomena are to be looked upon as prodigies and portents. But no less truly do the planets in their unvarying courses signify the future. The stars are of divine nature and we ought to approach the discussion of them with as reverent an air as when with lowered countenance we enter the temples for worship. Not only do the stars influence our upper atmosphere as earth's exhalations affect the lower, but they announce what is to occur. Seneca employs the statement of Aristotle that comets signify the coming of storms and winds and foul weather, to prove that comets are stars; ​and declares that a comet is a portent of a storm in the same way as the Chaldeans say that a star brings good or ill fate to men at birth. In fact, his chief, if not sole, objection to the Chaldeans would seem to be that in their predictions they take into account only five stars.
What? Think you so many thousand stars shine on in vain? What else, indeed, is it which causes those skilled in nativities to err than that they assign us to a few stars, although all those that are above us have a share in the control of our fate? Perhaps those nearer direct their influence upon us more closely; perhaps those of more rapid motion look down on us and other animals from more varied aspects. But even those stars that are motionless, or because of their speed keep equal pace with the rest of the universe and seem not to move, are not without rule and dominion over us.
Seneca accepts a theory of Berosus, whose acquaintance we have already made, that whenever all the stars are in conjunction in the sign of Cancer there will be a universal conflagration, and a second deluge when they all unite in Capricorn.
It is on thunderbolts as portents of the future that Seneca dwells longest, however. "They give," he declares, "not ​signs of this or that event merely, but often announce a whole series of events destined to occur, and that by manifest decrees and ones far clearer than if they were set down in writing." He will not, however, accept the theory that lightning has such great power that its intervention nullifies any previous and contradictory portents. He insists that divination by other methods is of equal truth, though perhaps of minor importance and significance. Next he attempts to explain how dangers of which we are warned by divination may be averted by prayer, expiation or sacrifice, and yet the chain of events wrought by destiny not be broken. He maintains that just as we employ the services of doctors to preserve our health, despite any belief we may have in fate, so it is useful to consult a haruspex. Then he goes on to speak of various classifications of thunderbolts according to the nature of the warnings or encouragements which they bring.
IV. Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos and astrology.—Astrology was more than a popular belief which extended to men high in social rank and public life; it was held by scientists as well, though naturally in a less naive and more scientific form. Nevertheless, the astrology of the scientist might be of an extreme enough type and of a more clearly magical variety than we were able to gather from Pliny, who, moreover, does not seem to have been acquainted with any systematic doctrine of the influence of the stars.
Such a systematized treatment Claudius Ptolemaeus set ​forth in the little volume known as the Tetrabiblos, or Quadripartitum. It would seem as if we ought to be able to regard a book by that noted geographer and astronomer as an example of the best science of his time, the middle of the second century. His works quickly became classics, and in the third century Porphyry commented on the Tetrabiblos. The Arabs eagerly accepted his writings, and it is generally held that in the Middle Ages his word was law in all the subjects of which he treated. The Tetrabiblos, therefore, would seem a landmark in the entire history of astrology as well as a crucial instance of how that branch of magic formed a part of science in the Roman Empire. True, Ptolemy does not cover the whole field of sidereal influence. He limits himself to the effects of the stars on man and does not attempt to trace out how they affect all varieties of matter and of life upon our globe. However, to make the stars control each individual man is the climax of astrology and implies that the heavenly bodies govern everything else here on earth. So the Tetrabiblos is a very satisfactory instance of belief in astrology by a scientist and its contents may well be briefly considered.
The first of the four books opens with the trite contention that the art itself is not to be rejected because ​frequently abused by imposters, and with the admission that even the skilful investigator often makes mistakes owing to the incompleteness of human knowledge. In the first place, our doctrine of the nature of matter rests, Ptolemy says, more on conjecture than on certain knowledge. Secondly, old configurations of the stars cannot be safely used as the basis of present-day predictions. Indeed, so many are the different possible positions of the stars and the different possible arrangements of terrestrial matter in relation to the stars that it is difficult to collect enough instances on which to base judgment. Moreover, such things as diversity of place, of education and of custom must be reckoned with in foretelling the future of persons born under the same stars. But although predictions frequently fail, yet the art is not to be condemned any more than one rejects the art of navigation because of frequent shipwrecks.
Thus far one might take Ptolemy for a well-balanced and accurate scientist in the modern sense of the term, but he does not maintain this level. After showing that it is useful to know the future and that astrology does not depend on fatal necessity, he proceeds to explain why the stars give knowledge of the future. This he intends to show from natural causes: ubique naturalium causarum rationem sequentes. This sounds well but his reasoning is superficial and childish, as his discussion of the influence exercised by the planets will indicate.
In each planet one of the four elemental qualities predominates (or perhaps two divide the supremacy) and endows the star with a peculiar nature and power. The sun warms, and, to some extent, makes dry, for the nearer it comes to our pole the more heat and drought it produces. The moon, on the contrary, causes humidity, since it is close to the earth and gets the effect of vapors from the latter. Evidently the moon influences other bodies ​in this way, rendering them soft and producing putrefaction. It also warms a little owing to the light it receives from the sun. Saturn, however, chills and, to some extent, dries, for it is very far from the heat of the sun and the damp mists of the earth. Mars emits a parching heat, as its color and proximity to the sun lead one to infer. Jupiter, situated between cold Saturn and burning Mars, is of a sort of lukewarm nature, but tends more to warmth and moisture than to the other two qualities. So does Venus, but conversely, for it warms less than Jupiter but makes moist more, since its large area catches many damp vapors from the neighboring earth. In Mercury, situated near the sun, moon and earth, neither drought nor dampness predominates; but that planet, incited by its own velocity, is a potent cause of sudden changes. In general, the planets are of good or evil influence according as they abound in the two rich and vivifying qualities, heat and moisture, or in the detrimental and destructive ones, cold and drought.
Ptolemy then goes on to discuss the powers of fixed stars. These powers he would seem to make depend chiefly on the relation of the fixed star to the planets or on its position in some constellation. Then he treats of the influence of the seasons and of the four cardinal points, to each of which he assigns some one predominating quality. A discussion of the importance of such things as the twelve signs of the zodiac, the twelve "houses," the Trigones (equilateral triangles each comprising three signs of the zodiac), and the position of the star in reference to the horizon, ends the first book and also the presentation of fundamental considerations.
The other three books contain "doctrinam de praedictione singularium." The second book, however, deals in the main with four points of general though subordinate ​bearing: under what stars different regions belong, how the effects of the stars vary according to time as well as place, how the heavenly bodies influence the nature of events, and finally how they determine their quality, good or bad. The third and fourth books, besides taking up separately the particular effects of each planet as it enters into conjunction with each of the others, comprise chapters with such headings as the following: "de parentibus," "de fratribus," "de masculis et femellis," "de geminis," "de natis qui nutrire non possunt sed mox extinguuntur," "de dignitate," "de magisterio," "de coniugiis" "de liberis," "de amicis et inimicis," "de servis," "de perigrinatione," "de genere mortis." These two books discuss how length of years, fortune, diseases, and various qualities of body and mind may be predicted from the stars; in short, how man's entire life is ordered by the constellations. Such is the book which Bouché-Leclercq calls "science's surrender."
V. The hermetic hooks and occultism.—An account of belief in magic in the Roman Empire would be incomplete without some reference to the famous hermetic books. Hermes Trismegistus might, as deservedly as any other man—had he only been a man and not a myth—be called the father of magic, just as he used to be known as the father of Egyptian science and just as he was regarded by many as the inventor of all philosophy. In the time of Plato the Egyptian god Thoth acquired the name of Hermes from the similarity of his functions to those of the Greek god. He also came to be considered as the author of pretty much all knowledge and was given the epithet of "Thrice Great." The entire body of Egyptian occult lore ​was attributed to him, and Manetho, who pictured him as reigning over the ancient Egyptians, declared that in addition to his royal duties he succeeded in turning off some 36,000 volumes. Clement of Alexandria, however, speaks of but forty-two books as "indispensably necessary," and says that the priests having charge of the hermetic books, by memorizing these forty-two, cover the entire philosophy of the Egyptians. Diocletian is said to have dispersed the priests and burned their books, because he came to the conclusion that the frequent revolts in the locality received pecuniary aid by means of gold artificially manufactured in the temples. Before that, however, lore supposed to be similar to that contained within the books had become disseminated. In the days of Hadrian and the Antonines, Jews and other Orientals at Rome offered to initiate persons into those occult sciences previously the monopoly of the Egyptian priesthood. Marcus Aurelius, in his later years, was thus instructed by an Egyptian diviner, who followed him in all his campaigns. Also the custom grew up rather early of passing off works on occult subjects under Hermes' name and of ascribing to him all such books which were of doubtful authorship. Of alchemy was this tendency especially true, so that it came to be known as the hermetic art. Sosimus, Stephanus and other Greek writers cited alchemical treatises under Hermes' name, and the practice of publishing spurious hermetic books continued well into ​the Middle Ages. Several such alchemical treatises are still extant; and writings on astrological medicine and the magical powers of gems, plants and animals have also come down to us under Hermes' name.
Some of the supposed writings of Hermes were mystical rather than magical; for instance, the famous Poemander which consists mainly of brief and disconnected utterances concerning God and the human soul and other subjects of a religious character. Still, one does not have to read far into its sixteen "books" before finding evidence of belief in astrology, of the mysticism of number and of an esoteric view of knowledge. It tells us "to avoid all conversation with the multitude" and to "take heed of them as not understanding the virtue and power of the things that are said." It speaks frequently of the seven circles of heaven, the seven zones, and the seven "Governors." It affirms that "the ​Gods were seen in their Ideas of the Stars with all their signs, and the stars were numbered with the Gods in them." Hence, it is probably safe enough, when, for instance, we hear that Theon, father of Hypatia, celebrated in his day as a mathematician, and professor at the Alexandrian Museum, lectured upon the writings of Hermes Trismegistus and of Orpheus—another legendary worthy charged with works of an occult character—to conclude that we have met one more case of the mingling of magic with learning.
In short, then, the mythical figure of Hermes Trismegistus became an actuating ideal to the Middle Ages, and the works appearing under his name had a considerable influence in extending belief in magic. Secondly, the hermetic books serve to typify that mass of Eastern occult philosophy and occult science which was so strong a force in the mental life of the Roman Empire.
* ↑ Dio Cassius, ch. lii sec. 36. μαντικὴ μὲν γὰρ ἀναγκαία ἐστί, καὶ πάντως τινὰς καὶ ἱερόπτας καὶ οἰωνιστὰς ἀπόδειζον, οἷς οἱ βουλόμενοι τι κοινώσασθαι σονέσονται. τοὺς δὲ δὴ μαγευτὰς πάνυ οὐκ εἶναι προσήκει. πολλοὺς γὰρ πολλάκις οἱ τοιοῦτοι, τὰ μέν τινα ἀληθῆ, τὰ δὲ δὴ πλείω ψευδῆ λέγοντες, νευχμοῦν ἐπαίρουσι. Lecky translates the passage in his History of European Morals (1889), vol. i, p. 399. The next sentence of the passage is also worth quoting: τὸ δ᾿ αὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ τῶν φιλοσοφεῖν προσποιουμένων οὐκ ὀλίγοι ποιοῦσι.
* ↑ Apologia, ch. xxv (Van der Vleet, Apologia et Florida. Lipsiae, 1900). "Leges cerimoniarum, fas sacrorum, ius religionum."
* ↑ Ibid., ch. xxvi. "Auditisne, magiam, qui eam temere accusatis, artem esse diis immortalibus acceptam, colendi eos ac venerandi pergnaram, piam scilicet et divini scientem, iam inde a Zoroastro et Oromazo, auctoribus suis nobilem, caelitum antistitam? Quippe qui inter prima regalia docetur, nec ulli temere inter Persas concessum est magum esse, haud magis quam regnare." This definition reminds one of Agrippa von Nettesheim's praise of "that science divine beyond all human tracing." In a less degree—for with Apuleius magic is the cult of the gods and not much concerned with material things—it recalls the high place assigned to magic by Porta and Francis Bacon.
* ↑ Bk. i, ch. 2 of the life of Apollonius in the works of Philostratus as edited by Gottfridus Olearius. Lipsiae, 1709. ὁμιλήσαντες μάγοις καὶ πολλὰ δαιμόνια εἴποντες οὔπω ὑπήχθησαν τῇ τέχνῃ.
* ↑ Indeed "magic," though condemned, was popular, and charlatans calling themselves "magi" did a thriving business.
* ↑ Suetonius, Aug., ch. xc; Tiber., ch. lxix. Cited by W. E. H. Lecky. Hist. of European Morals (London, 1899), vol. i, p. 367. Lecky gives a large amount of material on superstition in the Roman Empire.
* ↑ Nat. Hist., bk. xxviii, ch. 5.
* ↑ Bouché Leckrcq. "L'Astrologie dans le monde romain." Revue Hist, vol. lxv, pp. 249 et seq. If we may believe the Roman historians, Tiberius was a devotee of astrology; Caligula was warned of his death by the stars; Nero, among other acts dictated by his trust in the art, ordered a number of executions in order to avoid the evils threatened by a comet; Galba, the three Flavians and Vespasian all had their astrologers; Titus was himself an adept in the art; Domitian, when disposing of persons whom the stars designated as dangerous, made the fatal error of sparing Nerva because the constellations allowed him but a brief additional term of life; etc.
* ↑ Revue Hist., vol. lxv, p. 252.
* ↑ Nat. Hist., bk. xxx, ch. 1, and Tacitus, Annals, bk. vi, ch. 22 (28 in some editions).
* ↑ Carolus Gottlob Kuhn. Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia. (Lipsiae, 1821, 19 vols.), vol. xii, p. 362. De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis ac facultatibus.
* ↑ De diebus decretoriis, ibid., vol. ix, pp. 901 et seq. πάντων μὲν τῶν ἄνωθεν ἄστρων ἀπολαύομεν τῆς δυνάμεως.
* ↑ "Quod optimus medicus sit quoque philosophus." Ibid., vol. i, p. 53.
* ↑ Vacherot, L'Ecole d'Alexandria, vol. ii, p. 115.
* ↑ Ricardus Volkmann, Plotini Enneades, Lipsiae (Teubner) 1883. Ennead ii, ch. iii, sec. 7. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ σημαίνουσιν οὗτοι τὰ ἐσόμενα, ὥσπερ φαμὲν πολλὰ καὶ ἄλλα σημαντικὰ εἶναι τῶν ἐσομένων, τί ἂν τὸ ποιοῦν εἴη; καὶ ἡ τάξις πῶς; οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐσημαίνετο τεταγμένως μὴ ἑκάστων γιγνομένων. ἔστω τοίνυν ὥσπερ γράμματα ἐν οὐρανῷ γραφόμενα ἀεὶ ἢ γεγραμμένα καὶ κινούμενα, ποιοῦντα μέντοι ἔργον καὶ ἄλλο. ἐπακολουθείτω δὲ τῷδε ἡ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν σημασία, ὡς ἀπὸ μιᾶς ἀρχῆς ἐν ἑνὶ ζῴῳ παρ᾽ ἄλλου μέρους ἄλλο ἄν τις μάθοι. καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἦθος ἄν τις γνοίη εἰς ὀφθαλμούς τινος ἰδὼν ἤ τι ἄλλο μέρος τοῦ σώματος καὶ κινδύνους καὶ σωτηρίας. καὶ οὖν μέρη μὲν ἐκεῖνα, μέρη δὲ καὶ ἡμεῖς. ἄλλα οὖν ἄλλοις. μεστὰ δὲ πάντα σημείων καὶ σοφός τις ὁ μαθὼν ὲξ ἄλλου ἄλλο. πολλὰ δὲ ἤδη συνηθείᾳ γιγνόμενα γινώσκεται πάσι. τίς οὖν ἡ ούνταξις ἡ μία; οὕτω γὰρ καὶ τὸ κατὰ τοὺς ὄρνεις εὔλογον καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ξῷα, ἀφ᾽ ὧν σημαινόμεθα ἕκαστα. συνηρτῆσθαι δὴ δει ἀλλήλοις τὰ πάντα, καὶ μὴ μόνον ἐν ἑνὶ τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστα τοῦ εὖ εἰρομένου σύμπνοια μία, ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον καὶ πρότερον ἐν τῷ παντί. This entire third chapter of the Ennead deals with the subject. περὶ τοῦ εἰ ποιεῖ τὰ ἄστρα. See The Philosophy of Plotinus, Dunlap Printing Co., Phila., 1896, page 40, for further references to passages in his works giving his views anent astrology. He believed that the souls of the dead are still able to benefit men and to inspire with powers of divination. Ennead, iv, ch. vii, sec. 15.
* ↑ Page 66, note 1.
* ↑ Apologia, ch. iii. Even if the oration was a satire and not a speech actually delivered, the inferences to be drawn from it would be practically the same.
* ↑ Apuleius may have been guilty of attempting to practice magic. Certainly he believed in its possibility. He affirmed the existence of subordinate gods, or demons,—interpreters and ambassadors between mankind and the superior gods, who live far away from us and have no direct concern with our affairs. The demons, he believed, were susceptible to human influence and capable of working marvels. He stated that the art of divination was due to them. See his De Deo Socratis.
* ↑ Apologia, ch. xxvii. Evidently hostility to magic did not commence with Christianity. Not even, as Roger Bacon thought, did the practice of confusing philosophy with magic originate among Christian writers. Bridges, Opus Maius, vol. i, p. 29.
* ↑ See Philo's treatise De Cherubim, cited in vol. ii, p. 243, of Rev. James Drummond's Philo Judaeus; or The Jewish Alexandrian Philosophy in its Development and Completion (2 vols., London, 1888). Concerning Philo see also Edouard Herriot, Philon le Juif (Paris, 1898), where a full bioliography of Philonian and Jewish-Alexandrian literature may be found. A third important secondary book on Philo is by Siegfried: Philo von Alexandria (Jena, 1875).
* ↑ Drummond, vol. i, p. 13.
* ↑ Stromata, bk. v, ch. 9. Nor was such mysticism advocated by theological writer's alone. Roger Bacon—but one instance from many—declared that one lessened the majesty of knowledge who divulged its mysteries, and even went to the length of enumerating seven methods by which the arcana of philosophy and science might be concealed from the crowd (a vulgo), De Secretis Artis et Naturae et de Nullitate Magiae. Rolls Series, vol. xv, pp. 543-544.
* ↑ De Civitate Dei, bk. xi, ch. 30.
* ↑ "Aliquando De Motu Terrarum volumen iuvenis ediderim." L. Annaei Senecae Naturalium Quaestionum Libri Scptem, bk. vi, ch. 4. The edition by G. D. Koeler, Gottingen, 1819 has convenient summaries indicating contents at the head of each book, and devotes several hundred pages to a "Disquisitio" and "Animadversiones" upon Seneca's work. In Pancoucke's Library, vol. cxxxxvii, a French translation accompanies the text.
* ↑ "Veniet tempus, quo posteri nostri tarn aperta nos nescisse mirentur. Harum quinque stellarum . . . modo coepimus scire." Bk. vii, ch. 25.
* ↑ Bk. vii, ch. 31. "Non semel quaedam sacra traduntur. Eleusin servat quod ostendit revisentibus. Rerum natura sacra sua non simul tradit. Initiates nos credimus; in vestibule eius haeremus. Ilia arcana non promiscue nee omnibus patent; reducta et in interiore sacrario clausa sunt."
* ↑ Bk. iv, ch. 7. "Et apud nos in duodecim tabulis cavetur ne quis alienos fructus excantassit. Rudis adhuc antiquitas credebat et attrahi imbres cantibus, et repelli; quorum nihil posse fieri, tam palam est, ut huius rei causa nullius philosophi schola intranda sit."
* ↑ Bk. v, ch. 6 for animals being generated in flames. Bk. ii, ch. 31 for snakes struck by lightning. Bk. iii, ch. 25 for the Nile. Bk. iii passim, for marvelous fountains, etc.
* ↑ Bk. iii, ch. 25.
* ↑ Bk. iii, ch. 26.
* ↑ Bk. ii, ch. 32. "Quidquid fit, alicuius rei futurae signum est."
* ↑ Bk. ii, ch. 46.
* ↑ Bk. i, ch. 1.
* ↑ Bk. vii, ch. 30. "Egregie Aristoteles ait, numquam nos verecundiores esse debere, quam quum de diis agitur. Si intramus templa compositi, si-ad sacrificium accesuri vultum submittimus, togam adducimus, si in omne argumentum modestiae fingimur; quanto hoc magis facere debemus, quum de sideribus, de stellis, de deorum natura disputamus, ne quid temere, ne quid impudenter, aut ignorantes affirmemus, aut scientes mentiamur?"
* ↑ Bk. ii, ch. 10.
* ↑ Bk. vii, 28. "Chaldean" was often used to denote an astrologer without reference to the person's nationality.
* ↑ Bk. ii, ch. 32. "Quinque stellarum potestatem Chaldaeorum observatio excepit. Quid tu? tot millia siderum judicas otiosa lucere? Quid est porro aliud, quod errorem incutiat peritis natalium, quam quod paucis nos sideribus assignant: quum omnia quae supra nos sunt, partem sibi nostri vindicent? Submissiora forsitan in nos propius vim suam dirigunt; et ea quae frequentius mota aliter nos, aliter cetera animalia prospiciunt. Ceterum et ilia quae aut immota sunt, aut propter velocitatem universo mundo parem immotis similia, non extra ius dominiumque nostri sunt. Aliud aspice et distributis rem officiis tractas. Non magis autem facile est scire quid possint, quam dubitari debet, an possint."
* ↑ Bk. iii, ch. 29.
* ↑ Bk. ii, ch. 32. Seneca has been describing other manifestations of the "dtvina et subtilis potentia" of thunderbolts; he proceeds, "Quid, quod futura portendunt: nee unius tantum aut alterius rei signa dant, sed saepe totum fatorum sequentium ordinem nuntiant, et quidem decretis evidentibus, longeque clarioribus, quam si scriberentur?"
* ↑ His discussion of divination by thunderbolts is contained in bk. ii, ch. 31-50.
* ↑ The edition of the Tetrabiblos which I used is that by Philip Melanchthon, 1553. It gives the Greek text, a Latin translation and an introduction of interest, in which Melanchthon affirms his own more modest trust in astrology. Two other treatises of considerable length setting forth the principles of astrology and which have come down to us from the Roman Empire, are a poem consisting of five books of about 900 lines each by Manilius, probably of the Augustan age; and a prose treatise in eight books, and apparently left unfinished, by Firmicus who was a Neo-Platonist of about 350 a. d. M. Manilii Astronomicon, London, 1828, Delphin edition. Iulii Firmici Materni Matheseos Libri VIII, (ediderunt W. Kroll et K. Skutsch, Lipsiae, 1897, 2 vols., (Teubner edition). The essay on astrology purporting to be by Lucian is probably spurious.
* ↑ "C'était la capitulation de la science." Rev. Hist. vol. lxv, p. 257, note 3.
* ↑ Roger Bacon, Opus Minus, Rolls Series, vol. xv, p. 313, speaks of "Hermes Mercurius, pater philosophorum."
* ↑ Stromata, bk. vi, ch. 4.
* ↑ Ammianus Marcellinus, however, writing during the latter fourth century, says of Egypt: "Hie primum homines longe ante alios ad varia religionum incunabula, ut dicitur, pervenerunt et initia prima sacrorum caute tudntur condita scriptis arcanis." Bk. xxii, ch. xvi, sec. 20. Again, in bk. xxii, ch. xiv, sec. 7, Ammianus speaks of the Egyptian mystical books as still extant.
* ↑ F. J. Champagny, Les Antonins, vol. iii, p. 81 (Paris, 1863).
* ↑ See article on "Hermes" in La Grande Encyclopédie by Berthelot who has made an extended study of the history of aldhemy; and who, in his La Chimie au Moyen Age holds that Greek alchemistic treatises were continuously extant in Italy during the Dark Ages—a circumstance which diminishes the importance of Arabian influence on the study of the hermetic art in the later Middle Ages.
* ↑ See Anthon's Classical Dictionary, 1855 (no adequate account of Hermes Trismegistus exists in any of the more recent classical dictionaries).
* ↑ The Poemander (or Pymander) has been reproduced in the Bath Occult Reprint Series (London, 1884) from the translation "from the Arabic by Dr. Everard, 1650." It has an introduction by Hargrave Jennings, "author of the Rosicrucians," giving some account of Hermes Trismegistus. Vol. ii in the same Bath Occult Reprint Series—which seems to have been instituted on behalf of "students of the occult sciences, searchers after truth and Theosophists"—is Hermes’ Virgin of the World. Besides Berthelot's article, an account of Hermes may be found in pages 181-190 of The Literary Remains of the late Emanuel Deutsch (London, 1879). There is a French translation of the Poemander by Menard with an introductory essay which, however, Deutsdi characterized as "deplorably shallow."
* ↑ J. B. Bury, Later Roman Empire (N. Y., 1899), vol. i, p. 208.