| CHAPTER I |
| ILLUSTRATIONS OF BELIEF IN MAGIC IN MEDIÆVAL AND IN EARLY MODERN TIMES |
| | | PAGE |
| General belief in witchcraft, in astrology, and in the existence of magicians | [11] |
| Even the most educated men believed in astrology | [12] |
| Further illustration of such beliefs among men of learning, and even among scientists | [13] |
| Isidore and Bede | [14] |
| Alexander of Neckam | [15] |
| Michael Scot | [16] |
| Roger Bacon | [18] |
| Bacon’s acceptance of astrology | [18] |
| Bacon’s belief in occult influence | [19] |
| Vincent de Beauvais, Bernard Gordon, Albertus Magnus, Arnald of Villanova | [19] |
| Cabalistic doctrines of Renaissance scholars | [20] |
| Jerome Cardan | [22] |
| Paracelsus and Tycho Brahe | [22] |
| Francis Bacon | [23] |
| Summary of these beliefs | [23] |
| Question whether they are all closely connected | [24] |
| Question whether they were regarded by their authors as magic | [25] |
| Importance of magic | [26] |
| | | |
| | | |
| CHAPTER II |
| MAGIC; ITS ORIGINS, AND RELATIONS TO SCIENCE |
| | | |
| Magic once regarded as a reality | [27] |
| Magic præternatural rather than supernatural | [27] |
| Belief in magic perhaps older than belief in divine beings | [28] |
| Magic not originally a secret art | [28] |
| Attitude of primitive man towards nature | [29] |
| His effort to explain strange phenomena | [30] |
| His belief in lucky things | [31] |
| His desire to know the future | [31] |
| Hence the probable origin of belief in magic | [31] |
| Chief characteristics of magic | [32] |
| Difficulty in defining magic | [33] |
| Gradual disappearance of magic before science | [34] |
| Possible union of magic and science | [34] |
| Importance of union of magic and science | [35] |
| Method of treating that theme in this essay | [36] |
| | | |
| | | |
| CHAPTER III |
| PLINY’S NATURAL HISTORY |
| | | |
| A fitting starting-point for our discussion | [37] |
| | | |
| I. | The Character of the Work: | |
| | Its extensive treatment of both science and magic | [37] |
| | Objections to regarding it as a true picture of ancient science | [38] |
| | Reasons for so regarding it | [39] |
| | Pliny the Boswell of ancient science | [40] |
| | Pliny’s relation to mediæval science | [41] |
| | | |
| II. | Pliny’s Discussion of Magic: | |
| | Its significance | [41] |
| | Pliny’s remarks concerning the history of magic | [42] |
| | “Magic” false, according to Pliny | [42] |
| | “Magic” an obscene and criminal art, according to Pliny | [44] |
| | | |
| III. | Illustrations of Pliny’s Fundamental Belief in Magic: | |
| | Inconsistency of his declared scepticism | [44] |
| | His belief that animals possess magic properties | [45] |
| | His belief that plants have similar occult virtues | [45] |
| | Strange qualities of minerals | [46] |
| | Magical powers of man | [47] |
| | Efficacy of magical ceremonial | [48] |
| | Pliny’s belief unmistakable | [49] |
| | Though probably limited | [49] |
| | Question as to extent of his belief in astrology | [50] |
| | His account of the heavenly bodies | [50] |
| | Influence of the stars upon our planet | [51] |
| | Influence of the stars upon man | [52] |
| | Belief of Pliny in portents | [53] |
| | Attitude of Pliny towards various popular superstitious observances | [53] |
| | Pliny not esoteric | [54] |
| Conclusions to be drawn from the Natural History | [54] |
| | | |
| | | |
| CHAPTER IV |
| SOME ANTECEDENTS OF THE BELIEF IN MAGIC IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE |
| | | |
| Derivative and cosmopolitan character of intellectual life during the imperial period | [56] |
| Extent of our discussion of its antecedents | [56] |
| Question as to freedom of Greek thought from magic | [57] |
| Some evidence to the contrary | [57] |
| Doctrines of the Stoics favorable to magic | [59] |
| Pythagorean theory of numbers | [59] |
| Attitude of Plato towards “magic,” as he understood the word | [60] |
| Plato’s fantastic view of nature | [60] |
| Aristotle’s acceptance of astrology | [61] |
| Aristotle’s History of Animals | [62] |
| Cato’s De Re Rustica | [63] |
| | | |
| | | |
| CHAPTER V |
| BELIEF IN MAGIC IN THE EMPIRE |
| | | |
| Outline of contents of this chapter | [65] |
| | | |
| I. | General Attitude: | |
| | Prejudice against “magic” and condemnation of Magi | [65] |
| | Views of Apuleius and of Philostratus | [66] |
| | In reality a widespread belief in magic | [67] |
| | Explanation of apparent opposition to astrology | [68] |
| | Galen | [69] |
| | Neo-Platonism | [70] |
| | Philosophy confounded with magic | [71] |
| | | |
| II. | Philo of Alexandria and Allegorical Interpretation: | |
| | Question as to connection of allegorical interpretation with magic | [72] |
| | Historical importance of allegorical interpretation and of Philo | [73] |
| | Nature of Philo’s allegorical interpretation | [73] |
| | His influence in the Middle Ages | [75] |
| | | |
| III. | Seneca’s Problems of Nature and Divination: | |
| | Scientific traits of Seneca | [75] |
| | His tendency to be esoteric and mystical | [76] |
| | Ground covered by his book | [77] |
| | His partial rejection of magic | [77] |
| | His acceptance of divination | [78] |
| | His discussion of divination from thunder | [79] |
| | | |
| IV. | Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos and Astrology: | |
| | An illustration of the astrology of the scientist | [80] |
| | Ptolemy and his influence | [80] |
| | Scientific tone of the preliminary remarks in the Tetrabiblos | [81] |
| | An attempt to base astrology upon natural law | [82] |
| | Ptolemy’s explanation of the influence of the planets | [82] |
| | Summary of remaining contents of his first book | [83] |
| | Contents of the other three books | [83] |
| | | |
| V. | The Hermetic Books and Occultism: | |
| | Their nature and history, legendary and actual | [84] |
| | Their contents | [86] |
| | Their importance | [87] |
| | | |
| | | |
| CHAPTER VI |
| CRITICS OF MAGIC |
| | | |
| Review of the usual attitude towards magic in the Roman Empire | [88] |
| | | |
| I. | Opponents of Astrology: | |
| | Cicero, Favorinus and Sextus Empiricus | [89] |
| | Considerations which discount their scepticism | [89] |
| | Inadequacy of their arguments | [90] |
| | Astrology attacked as being impracticable | [91] |
| | General problem of sidereal influence left untouched | [92] |
| | | |
| II. | Cicero’s Attack upon Divination: | |
| | In a way an attack upon magic as a whole | [93] |
| | Form and arrangement of De Divinatione | [94] |
| | Its relations to the past and to the future | [94] |
| | Appeal of Quintus to antiquity and to tradition | [94] |
| | Cicero’s reply; condemnation of reliance on tradition | [95] |
| | Divination declared quite distinct from science | [95] |
| | Divination declared quite contrary to the laws of science | [96] |
| | Idea of magical sympathy rejected | [97] |
| | Cicero’s attitude very unusual for his time | [98] |
| | Question as to his consistency | [98] |
| | | |
| | | |
| CHAPTER VII |
| THE LAST CENTURY OF THE EMPIRE |
| | | |
| Intellectual characteristics of the period | [99] |
| Marcellus of Bordeaux | [99] |
| Ammianus Marcellinus | [99] |
| His description of the state of learning at Alexandria | [100] |
| His justification of divination as a science | [101] |
| His extraordinary misquoting of Cicero | [102] |
| Synesius | [103] |
| His belief that all parts of the universe are in magic sympathy | [103] |
| Further instances of his trust in magic | [104] |
| Macrobius | [106] |
| | | |
| | | |
| CHAPTER VIII |
| | | |
| Conclusion | [108] |