I will describe two models of magic history and let you decide which one is more plausible.

THE FIRST MODEL OF MAGIC HISTORY is one we often hear when magicians bemoan the tragic fall of our art: we were once advisors to kings and now we ask folks to pick a card! In "The Golden Bough," Frazer claims there has been an evolutionary development from (1) magic and myth through (2) religion to (3) the anti-supernaturalism of science and technology--magicians in cloaks becoming priests in robes becoming Mr. Wizards in lab coats.

THE SECOND MODEL OF MAGIC HISTORY is one advocated by Tarbell in Vol. 1, Lesson 1: "Even in ancient times there were two distinct branches of magic--that of divination and necromancy, communication with the spirit world; and that of jugglery and sleight of hand."

Going back to the Book of Genesis, we see everything with different roots since the beginning (in contrast with Frazer's idea of a progression from magic to religion to science). The ancient, ancient records seem to show magic and technology and religion co-existing or growing as separate branches through the ages--NOT on a continuum or evolutionary progression:

(1)The Tower of Babel may have been a peak of civilaization, including astronomy and the highest technological advances of the time (Chapter 11).

(2) Melchizedek was a priest of God Most High in Chapter 13.

(3) Joseph interpreted dreams as a prophet in Egypt where he seems to have acquired a cup for divination (Chapter 44).

(4) I am pretty sure there were prostitutes, swindlers, and entertainers at the time of Noah (Chapter 6).


What do you think? Model One = same branch OR Model Two = different roots?

How facile, Alan. Please do go back much further to the Corn God and before.

Magic is what it does. It serves to explain.
Being human comes with a need to believe that there can be and are sufficient explanations.
Sufficient to what, who, where and when you must ask.
Being human also comes with an understanding of ones practical limits on those explorations.
So what harm in saying "because he wanted it so" when asked about a house or bridge or road or man-made thing?
And by extension when asked about the features of the world?

Politics permits magic to have many names - as those who can claim what they will.

So there we are - magic from start to end. And some glimmer of it we offer as amusement.

But kindly carefully read that story about Doug Henning doing tricks for the natives up north to ground your imaginings in human political reality.

In the beginning there was sorcery out which came magic. Sorcery is things magically effecting us. As things magically effected us so we wondered if we could have magical effects on things, which is magic. Magical being an effect that happens for no rational reason. Spiritual in a word. As its pretty difficult to cause effects by the will alone but easier to make it appear so by trickery so conjuring came to be. So here we are after after all these years, still magically being effected by things and pretending we can magically effect them. So we are all full of magic in this old magical world of ours and also full of ****.

:)

PS

Today, by the way, we no longer live in s scientific world at all but live in magical times; where buildings fall down magically and your name can magically appear on a no fly list etcetera.

Your first model says nothing about magic and magicians as they are perceived today. The Magicians this model is referring to would now days be called Priests, Wizards, Psychics and a variety of other names that would denote someone in possession of true supernatural powers or access to hidden arcane knowledge.

The second model is a more accurate assumption of how the modern magician came to be. They ran parallel in development and are not descendant of the Holy men of old.

The Book of Genesis is not a volume on history and therefor is inadmissible as evidence to much of anything factual concerning the past.

Payne, the two had pretty much gone their separate ways by the time of the Ancient Greeks - and likely were presumed to have split apart (those who claim their effects are of divine origins and those who merely wish to amuse) by the time of Ancient Egypt - similarly in India and China. None the less we still have "rain makers" and leave the moral cusp intact for those who would make claims in the name of a (presumed) greater good.

But getting back to the time of the corn god - it was a pretty simple way to manage social structure back when law and order and nature where imagined to be interactive.

What we have today as our best predictive models of 'what is' still contain many (not so well hidden) presuppositions which IMHO offer a more direct sense of awe as regards what we've experienced so far of what is. For a good starter, look at the serious estimates for the age of the sun and its expected duration as is before it shifts from burning mostly hydrogen to burning helium (burning = nuclear fusion). Interesting application of statistical reasoning IMHO.

History and archeology have benefited much from the Book of Genesis, but we need not debate that issue here as I am only presenting it as a conceptual model which has influenced the minds of many people and which represents a great folk tradition. Also, because Tarbell used many Biblical references in setting up his model of magic history in Vol. 1, Chapter 1, referencing ancient Scripture has a fine precedent in magic shop books and magic websites.

Regardless, I am a fan of your model of magic history, Payne.

Hi Alan,

One problem with the first model is coming up with credible evidence to support it. If it's true (and I'm not making any claim either way), it would be bloody difficult to demonstrate its truth in any convincing way.

(It's also amusing to note that those who lived under those earlier models of the universe would not have had the same understanding of what constitutes 'true' or 'false.')

FWIW, as Joseph Campbell was so earnestly attempting to explain, there are layers to truth in political reality. A child does not need to know some things while being instructed in the rules of the community. They only need to know what will be rewarded and what will be punished. Their (the child's) requests for "why's" need to be met by suitable stories which convey a meaning while leaving out details and themes which are unsuitable. Then comes a rite of passage. Later on it becomes the adult's role in society to reinforce the boundries and with them the stories as told to children even while knowing more and (hopefully) why the stories are there and told just that way.

Are you an adult yet? What would you lose if you became an adult? What would you gain?

And yes there are more stories that suddenly reveal practical truths that you learn as you gain responsibilities for more than just your family and just your clan and just your tribe. That's what we're made of, you know, stories that inform and necessities that impose actions which must be explained.

Here we are as magicians - with the trusteeship of doors between perspectives/realities. Our job is not to inform but simply to illustrate by indirect example.

Is this the job you want?

I talked about Santa Claus on another thread, and about how sometimes the myth isn't handled right by the parents or teachers--especially that shift from the child's to the adult's view--and that when it isn't the child either refuses to join the adult world, has his view of adulthood and its relationship to childhood warped slightly or ends up with some other problem in his understanding of being welcomed into the adult community.

It is the same type of thing. The parents who tell the story should be responsible for how they handle the child's growing curiosity and knowledge. When he asks "Is Santa real?" there can be a lot riding on the answer.

The language has changed in this old world of ours and what we today call psychology is really sorcery. Vernon's psychological force is an act of true sorcery.

I think your vague use of the book of Genesis doesn't help your idea any. Melchizedek is a High Priest whos name is only mentioned twice in the bible, and there is no record of any individual works or achievements, so just because he held the title of High Priest is not enough to draw any conclusions.

The cup of which you speak in relation to Joseph was a silver cup that he had planted in his youngest brothers belongings as a way to prevent them from returning to Canaan, by making it seem that one of them stole it, they were forced to stay. When it speaks of Joseph divining in relation to the cup it could also be referring to him divining that the cup was there.

Your other statements are mere supposition, and are not valid as an argument unless there is more evidence as such. Which for the most part there is not, due to the lack of detail in the ancient accounts of such events.

I do agree that the second model is the more likely, though it's probably a mix of the two. I also think that it's a mistake to attempt to apply an evolutionary model to human history. Human history is replete with rises and falls of a variety of civilizations, some more advanced than others. It's full of knowledge lost and gained. In fact the entirety of the current modern world has occurred primarily in the last two centuries, and it was more of an explosion than an evolution.

In fact, I think it's a mistake to oversimplify anything in regards to history, especially ancient civilizations. This usually leads to a lot of fuzzy thinking and incorrect conclusions. It's like when people look strictly at archeology for clues as to the past, and neglect to read anything people actually wrote down.

I referenced Frazer and his "Enlightenment" mindset. Joseph Campbell is not such a debunker of the supernatural, although I quoted him in the introduction to my Master's thesis (from _The Hero With a Thousand Faces_) because he noted that in the modern worldview "the dream-web of myth" has been wiped away. In the opening post, I wasn't trying to open the door to all of these issues. If pressed I would say that I do not believe in the misuse of Santa Claus or the misuse of religion (Crusades) or the misuse of science (nuclear weapons); however, I believe what is Most High is more than a magical impersonal force and more than mechanics and materials in a closed, purely naturalistic system.

I would agree with Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, MacDonald and others who find in myth an echo or reflection (even if distorted, even if dim) of the Eternal, a reflection which they and I find most clear in Scripture. But nevermind: I wasn't trying to go there until some folks here dragged me over the line.

Let me step back over the yellow line into more common ground, please.

Let me just tell a story, not even a story, just a scene from a story. The images come from the old movie _The Ten Commandments_, from the animated film _The Prince of Egypt_, Penn an Teller's visit to Egypt on the A&E special, and other cultural allusions.

Here is the scene, Egypt around 1400 BC:

Moses stands with his staff in the courts of Pharaoh facing the magicians with their staffs. Outside slaves are building the pyramids--a technological marvel--and entertainers are juggling or performing cups and balls in the streets.

Magic, science, religion, entertainment--each reproducing itself after its own kind.

Scary last line there - it sounds so close to the same line of bunk as saying blacks, whites and orientals -- each reproducing itself after its own kind. Sometimes I despair of the bigotry that's permeated our society when old habits become the linguistic hobgoblins of a new age.

If you need an "explanation" you get magic. Because requires a cause. There are no truly known causes, just patterns of effects.

If you need a predicted value - you get science.

If you need entertainment - you get entertainers.

If you need to make a claim ... you get rhetoric.

If you need to justify a claim and don't feel like using force - you appeal to suitable "explanations".

No stones thrown. No need to. And over here there's another one in your ear. They understood this as far back as ancient Greece. It's just not what serves when speaking to children about what's expected of them or "why".

If you need wands and snakes and pyramids and other special cultural allusions - You get the $

:)

Jon writes, "Scary last line there..."

Sorry about distracting as I couldn't resist the creation/evolution joke. Bigotry I will absolutly not tolerate!

I agree with Payne about the second model. Aren't magicians in modern times also viewed as practicing an "art", not necessarily providing explanation of anything? Speaking of art, the new Herzog movie "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" strongly suggests that even in prehistoric times, cave art was more than functional or religious ... it was beautiful.

I also agree that Genesis should not be used as a historical reference. But this discussion belongs an another Café!

Genesis can be considered as a great folk tradition without debating any historical reliablity--along with the Odyssey/Iliad, the work of Frazer, Campbell, Tolkien, and others. Could Genesis be as beautiful as Cave Art? From a literary perspective, myth is the narrative embodiment of a peoples' perception of the deepest truths (different from the common understanding of myth as falsehood or false explanation).

I appreciate Jon's insight that the greatest stories get beyond family, clan, and tribe--perhaps to all humanity... ...and even the alien?

I also appreciate what Magic Juggler from Achorage wrote: "I do agree that the second model is the more likely, though it's probably a mix of the two."

I can see his point that--although probably growing along separate branches--the mage and the entertainment-type magician are not always mutually exclusive. (I really do apologize if throwing science, myth, and religion into the mix has not been helpful for some people.) It's just a thought experiment for me right now.

May I also recommend Lynn Thorndike's History of Magic and Experimental Scienc......3-1958). Thorndike suggested that magic, the use of techniques (technology) to effect changes in the material world, gave rise to experimental science, and that religion (appeals to a Deity) was altogether something else entirely. There are overlaps. "Psychic surgeons" and other traditional healers use legerdemain in order to provide illustrations of the power they wield on astral planes. Separated from the therapeutic or thaumaturgic content, such demonstrations may be entertaining (delighting and instructing) in their own right.

Woland, a quick scan of that book left me to suspect that author avoids the notions of effectivity, responsiblity and will. What we tell ourselves and each other about what we find as "true" or "useful" (ie effective) rules are none the less casual when applied and far from "random or natural" when encountered. Did the tree in the forest make a sound when it fell on the moon?

Or for the facile: does it matter whether there's a placebo or an allergy pill if the patient says they are feeling better?

With Halloween coming up and for your facile pleasure, I present the story of King Saul and the Witch of Endor:

When Saul saw the Philistine army, he was afraid; terror filled his heart.
He inquired of the LORD, but the LORD did not answer him by dreams or Urim or prophets.
Saul then said to his attendants, “Find me a woman who is a medium, so I may go and inquire of her.”
“There is one in Endor,” they said.

So Saul disguised himself, putting on other clothes, and at night he and two men went to the woman. “Consult a spirit for me,” he said, “and bring up for me the one I name.”
But the woman said to him, “Surely you know what Saul has done. He has cut off the mediums and spiritists from the land. Why have you set a trap for my life to bring about my death?”
Saul swore to her by the LORD, “As surely as the LORD lives, you will not be punished for this.”
Then the woman asked, “Whom shall I bring up for you?”
“Bring up Samuel,” he said.
When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!”
The king said to her, “Don’t be afraid. What do you see?”
The woman said, “I see a spirit coming up out of the ground.”
“What does he look like?” he asked.
“An old man wearing a robe is coming up,” she said.
Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.

Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”
“I am in great distress,” Saul said. “The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has turned away from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do.”
Samuel said, “Why do you consult me, now that the LORD has turned away from you and become your enemy?
The LORD has done what he predicted through me. The LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hands and given it to one of your neighbors—to David.
Because you did not obey the LORD or carry out his fierce wrath against the Amalekites, the LORD has done this to you today.
The LORD will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines.”
Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, filled with fear because of Samuel’s words. His strength was gone, for he had eaten nothing all that day and night.

When the woman came to Saul and saw that he was greatly shaken, she said, “Look, your maidservant has obeyed you. I took my life in my hands and did what you told me to do.
Now please listen to your servant and let me give you some food so you may eat and have the strength to go on your way.”
He refused and said, “I will not eat.”
But his men joined the woman in urging him, and he listened to them. He got up from the ground and sat on the couch.
The woman had a fattened calf at the house, which she butchered at once. She took some flour, kneaded it and baked bread without yeast.
Then she set it before Saul and his men, and they ate. That same night they got up and left.