I'm trying a new format for this response than I have used in the past to focus on my questions/quotes I want to discuss more.
Sanzo compares several scholars' approaches to defining magic, including Aune, Smith, and Otto.
-
Sanzo summarizes the work of David Aune, including Aune's suggestion that "scholars ought to replace the term magic with “sorcery,” which, he contends, is not burdened with the same degree of ideological bias." (26)
-
I think "sorcery" carries more bias, in fact more negative bias than "magic" does, but perhaps that is just me. Thoughts?
-
On 29, Sanzo includes evidence from a Coptic codex that condemns sorcery as evil; if Sanzo chooses to translate a Coptic word as "sorcery" in this instance, doesn't that undermine Aune's assertion that the term "is not burdened with the same degree of ideological bias"?
-
-
What do you think of Aune's definition of magic, included on page 26? (religious deviance, etc)
-
Sanzo draws attention to examples that challenge the "public (religion)/private (magic) distinction" that other scholars have drawn (28). I myself am guilty of advocating for a version of this distinction in my earlier work, though I also complicated it with examples of so-called magic rituals occurring in temples.
-
Similarly, agreeing that "supplicatory (= religion) vs. manipulative (= magic) dichotomy" is also flawed, what distinctions can we make, if any (28)?
-
-
"overarching gendered stereotype of ancient magic is largely dependent upon scholarly projections of misogyny onto the pre-modern world." (29)
-
I want Sanzo to say more about these "projections"; yes, it is problematic to assign modern understandings of things like misogyny to the ancient world, but Gager points out that the literary evidence shows women as the primary practitioners despite the material evidence indicating the opposite (Gager, 244). What do we call that discrepancy? To what can we attribute it, if not misogyny in some form or another?
-
-
"Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith have proposed the rather influential lexeme “ritual power” as an alternative to magic," (30).
-
But rituals are not limited to "magic," and so from the very start I think "ritual power" is a poor euphemism for "magic."
-
-
Definitions of religion to work with here:
-
Apparently not all of my old notebooks made the move, so I haven't got the quotes all handy. Professor Edmonds, perhaps you have the definitions of religion put forth by J.Z. Smith, Geertz, Lincoln, and Levi-Strauss on hand? (Among others, I'm sure.)
-
-
Sanzo criticizes what he calls the "atomising approach," by which categories of magic are separated into their own sub-categories, e.g. astrology, divination, cursing…what do you make of Sanzo's criticisms? Are there any merits to the atomizing approach?
-
Sanzo brings up a good question: "Are any of the inherited qualities of magic inappropriate for the source(s) we are examining?" (39)
-
In that vein, I am particularly taken with this idea: "We must also continually bear in mind that several of the problems with magic have little to do with magic per se; they reflect broader problems with rigidly organised scholarly taxonomies." (40)
I think my journey into academia actually began in my third year of undergrad in a course on Greek and Hellenistic Religions, when I became deeply frustrated with what I perceived as the scholarly desire to squeeze everything into neat categories. Humanity is messy and defies orderly categorization. I believe that our studies should reflect that messy quality (without becoming useless). That is what I take away here -- the rigidly organized scholarly taxonomies, like "magic" and "religion," should be kept only as far as they are useful. If we do not allow for some flexibility, some overlap, some overflow, then I fear we are no longer studying the humanities as they are. There's more to unpack there over time. Stay tuned.-
My attitude here is further reinforced by Sanzo's conclusion that "we should not be shackled by our analytical rubrics, but use them in ways that are valuable to us for our particular studies. In the end, so long as our taxonomies remain flexible … magic alongside other rubrics … can help us better understand the fascinating world of antiquity," and indeed, the fascinating world around us today (41).
-
-
If we choose to continue using the word "magic," (as I think we must, just so we can get on with our studies of the things we call "magic," rather than getting stuck at the definition -- a worthy pursuit in its own right, but not the only one that interests me), questions like Sanzo's are ones we ought to keep in mind and draw out in our work. By using the term "magic," we are bringing all the word's connotations and history to the table. That cannot go unremarked upon.
-