TABLE OF CONTENTS
| 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] | |
ERRATA
Page [21], line 19, instead of verbe read verbo.
Page [49], lines 9 and 10, instead of marvelour read marvelous.
Page [58], at close of first foot-note, instead of 66 read 67.
Page [71], line 10 of foot-note, instead of άλλὰ read ἀλλὰ.
Page [101], line 8 of foot-note, instead of factorum read fatorum.
Page [105], line 2 of second foot-note, instead of εἷναι read εἶναι.