Magicians and Miracle-Workers: a New Method in the Realm of Magic
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Magicians and Miracle-Workers: A New Method in the Realm of Magic Paden Alexander Unruh M.A. in Religious Studies, CU Boulder, July 23, 2020 Committee: Dr. Samuel Boyd, Dr. Elias Sacks, Dr. Deborah Whitehead A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment Of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Religious Studies 2020 ii Abstract: Paden Alexander Unruh, M.A., Religious Studies, “Magicians and Miracle-Workers: A New Method in the Realm of Magic”, Dr. Samuel Boyd. The current methods for identifying what is “magical” and distinguishing it from what is “religious” have hitherto been relatively vague and inconsistent within the academic field.1 In order to identify more clearly these two categories, which have been heavily entrenched within modern culture, it is necessary to approach the issue in an entirely different manner than what has been attempted. This work proposes a new method of identification that questions the course of past studies, looking instead to the practitioners themselves and identifying them as a magician, a miracle-worker, or an outlier along a magico-religious spectrum. When the figure has been appropriately identified through two primary criteria, it is then possible to label their associated supernatural actions as either “magic” or “miracle.” This work will then apply the new method of identification to several different case studies, showcasing how this approach may be applied across a variety of examples. 1 For example, both essentialist and functionalist definitions have had positive and negative aspects to their application. See Andrew M. McKinnon, “Sociological Definitions, Language Games, and the ‘Essence’ of Religion”, Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2002, pg. 61-83. iii Acknowledgments I would like to thank all of the faculty, staff, friends, and family that have helped me to learn and grow over my time at CU Boulder, including Dr. Boyd, Dr. Sacks, Dr. Whitehead, my colleagues in the graduate department, and my loving and supportive family. Most of all I would like to thank Sage, my husband and my rock, whose love and support inspires me daily. iv Contents: Introduction- pg. 1 Chapter One: Scholarly and Theoretical Works on the Subject of “Magic”- pg. 10 Chapter Two: Defining a Magician: Laying the Groundwork for the Future and the Two A’s- pg. 50 Chapter Three: Miracle-Workers- pg. 60 Chapter Four: Magicians- pg. 72 Chapter Five: Outliers- pg. 90 Conclusion- pg. 102 Bibliography- pg. 105 1 Introduction The prospect of distinguishing “magic” from “religion” has proven to be a difficult task, though one that has been the subject of many scholarly works.2 Many writers have sought to define religion and magic, often labeling the prominent figures that follow these abstract categories as miracle-workers3 or magicians; however, as explored below, this is an ineffective way to approach the issue, often culminating in either blatantly false information (as biased by religious and cultural norms of the era) or a concession that “magic” has little meaning outside of its relation to religion (itself a very ambiguous term). Religion and magic, terms which are heavily entrenched in the modern academic field, need to be identified in a way that is more quantifiable and recognizable.4 As such, this work proposes that a new system be implemented for identifying a magician and distinguishing them from a miracle-worker. Due to the prior academic focus on tools and rituals yielding mixed results, this work will instead focus on the individual practitioner rather than on the tools they use, thereby relegating “magic” or “religion” to the respective toolkits of 2 A discussion of some of these thinkers will follow in chapter two. Due to the parameters of the present research not all major thinkers will be referenced as thoroughly as their work deserves, and some rather influential thinkers had to be left out altogether. For an analysis on some of these thinkers, including Sigmund Freud, Max Muller, Carl Jung, and Baron Carl du Prel, see Jason A. Josephson-Storm, The Myth of Disenchantment: Magic, Modernity, and the Birth of the Human Sciences, 2017, pg.179-208 3 “Miracle worker” is a term used in this study to denote men and women who perform supernatural, miraculous or otherwise seemingly impossible deeds with the help of divine intervention in some form. The term “theurgist” was initially considered but was ultimately too tied in with specific religious traditions to be applicable in many cases. 4 This is due in part to the fact that “magic” has historically been used to define the “religious other.” This will be covered in more detail in chapter two. 2 their user.5 Thus, I propose that we move forward with a method that first identifies the role of the practitioner, whether as a magician or miracle-worker, then label their actions accordingly.6 This method will label magic (or miracle) based on the practitioner and their actions.7 It will function primarily as a tool for scholars to identify more readily and consistently the phenomena of magic. This will likely receive some criticism, as it moves in the opposite direction of most analyses of the topic.8 However, this is exactly why this method was decided upon, as it will aid in the creation of a more consistent system of identification, one that is flexible enough to be versatile when needed but concrete enough to be consistent. An analogy that has often come up in the process of this research is that of a blacksmith and their tools. One could, theoretically, look at a blacksmith’s toolkit (magic, in this analogy) and 5 Several of these prior academic works will be discussed in the subsequent chapter on ancient magic. The method proposed in this research will be taking a more utilitarian approach to the analysis of religion and magic, drawing from multiple approaches to the topic while not subscribing to any one pre-existing view on magic. 6 It should be noted that the method itself will examine actions taken by these individuals, whether they be magician or miracle-worker, but will do so primarily with the intent of an initial categorization of the figure in question. Once the individual has been analyzed and properly categorized their actions will be labeled as “magic” or “miracle” (denoting a religious phenomenon) accordingly. All actions taken by this figure, until the individual is identified, will be analyzed but not categorized. Supernatural feats accomplished by the individuals will be seen as occurring somewhere within a “magico-religious spectrum” until the practitioner’s nature is established. 7 Tools and rituals are therefore still important, but will not be the point that distinguishes the individual. Going back to the blacksmith analogy, a set of tongs could be used as a blacksmith’s tool and identified as such, but could also have been used in basic cooking. What is important is to see how the individual used it, and identify the tool accordingly. If the individual used the tongs in the process of heating and shaping metal, then it is the tool of a blacksmith, while tongs that were used to flip hunks of meat over an open flame would be the tool of a cook. In this sense, the intent and purpose of the tool is what is important, not the tool itself. 8 The views that are more commonly espoused will be discussed in chapter one. 3 thereby figure out the nature of the blacksmith (the magician) and their work. However, this approach leads to questions that problematize the identification itself. How does one know what is in a blacksmith’s toolkit without first identifying the job and nature of the blacksmith? How can a researcher be sure that one toolkit is the same as another? If the toolkits all contain a hammer, does this make all hammers innately a blacksmithing tool? These manner of questions are very similar to the identification of “magical” practice and implements, which could include anything from prayers and elaborate rituals to bejeweled skulls, grimoires, and engraved gems. Instead, we must reverse the direction of analysis, looking to the craftsperson instead of the craft. If, for example, we identified a blacksmith as someone who heats raw metal and shapes it into something else (such as a tool, weapon, etc.), then we have a much clearer path ahead of us. One would simply look for a figure that fits these criteria, then examine the tools they use in the process of their craft. As such, the blacksmith’s toolkit is identified by its association with the blacksmith and the blacksmith’s goals, not by the tools contained therein. In a similar fashion, magic in this scenario would be associated with the magician and would include any tools, rituals, or practices that were involved in the execution of their craft.9 Miracle-workers and magicians 9 As will become apparent in the following sections, this will inevitably upend some definitions already proposed for magic and its practitioners. However, the author believes that such upheaval is necessary, and will inevitably lead to a more identifiable set of figures within the studies of both magic and religion. 4 will both be examined based on the character and goal of the individual10 rather than on the methods they employ.11 It is important to note that this definition will be on a sliding scale. Many figures remain consistent throughout their careers, but many others have a diverse set of stories that seem to portray opposing depictions of their actions. As such, some figures who are at one time labeled as a miracle-worker might, in a different case, be identified as a magician, as will be discussed in- depth later on.