Week 2- Edmonds ch. 1-2

Week 2- Edmonds ch. 1-2

by Audrey Kinney -

  • How does the definition of magic as a social discourse and a non-normative ritual activity compare to your understanding of magic? (p. 5)

  • Can we know magic when we see it? (p. 5)

    • Is there no way to objectively identify magic?

  • What does the difficulty in identifying and defining Greek and Latin words relating to magic say about ancient Greek and Roman society? (p. 13-14)

    • pharmakon can be a substance or an incantation

    • epaoide is a lyrical incantation but can also be used to describe poetry

  • Versnel distinguishes between religion and magic through four criteria: attitude, action, intention, and social evaluation. (p. 15-19)

    • Religion: submissive/supplicative, personal, intangible long term goals, cohesive/positive social function

    • Magic: manipulative/coercive, impersonal, concrete and individual goals, antisocial function

    • What are the benefits and drawbacks of this definition?

  • Defining non-normative by the performer (p. 19-21)

    • Far off Thessalian women were easily associated with witchcraft because of social and physical distance from the writers of sources on them.

    • Should we be defining magic according those who “other” it?

    • Pagans, Jews, and people performing Christianity in the “wrong” way were frequently accused of witchcraft by medieval Christians. Indigenous and African diaspora religions have also been called “magic” from the colonial era to the current day. Does that make those practices “magic” if they were not accepted in wider society?

    • This may just be a specific definition for Greco-Roman magic rather than an overarching one.

  • Defining non-normative by the setting (p. 21-)

    • Women were expected to care (and perform rituals) for family tombs, but visiting a tomb at night could be suspicious.

  • On the other hand, self-labeling as “magic” is very uncommon (p. 31)

    • Do you think people who made most of these lead tablets, papyri, amulets, etc thought of it as “magic”?

    • Should these views factor in to our definition?

    • Kabbalah is perfectly normative when practiced in halacha (which is very strict) and is self defined. However, this is certainly rare.

  • In a society that is increasingly distrustful of science to the detriment of its most vulnerable members, ie. children, the elderly, and the disabled, is it important to have a solid definition of "science" in opposition to "magic"? Can trust in science be improved?

  • Why do you think foreign gods were so popular in Greek magic? (p. 36)

    • I am reminded of Victorian occultism and the way it often incorporated “exotic” practices

    • Magic as the other even by its own practitioners?

  • J.Z. Smith’s models (p. 40-41)

    • Locative: place for every entity in the cosmos, every entity in its place

    • Utopian: humans exist outside of the world order

    • Religion of here: private, personal practice

    • Religion of there: public, communal practice

    • Religion of anywhere: either

  • Gordon’s models (p. 41)

    • Objective profanation: magic defined by marginalized practitioners

    • Intentional profanation: magic defined by behavior; intentionally non-normative

  • Types of evidence (p. 42)

    • Literary texts - detailed depictions of magic, but may not be true to life

    • Historical texts - limited evidence, but less sensationalized

    • Epigraphic/Papyrological texts - direct evidence

    • What can we learn from each type, but what are its limitations?

  • Who is the audience of magic? (p. 49)