But Edmonds rightly focuses his analysis on the ritual practices, or more generally the activities, labelled as “magic”. The same methodology is applied here to what is, or was, called “magic,” and Edmonds’ question is not “What was ‘magical’ in Graeco-Roman Antiquity?” but rather “What were the valid cues for labelling ‘magic’?”Īs the topos of drawing down of the moon reminds us, “magic” is a literary theme made of wonders, pointing to the marvellous as one cue by which recognize “magic”. In his earlier work, Redefining Ancient Orphism: A Study in Greek Religion (Cambridge, 2013) ( BMCR 2014.07.13) Edmonds looked for what counted among the ancients as “valid cues” for labelling “orphism” as a category of ideas considered distant from mainstream Greek religion. This focus on non-normativity is a key to understand the emic, that is the Greco-Roman, way of framing the notion of “magic”. This paradox contributes to the invention of a specific concept-magic-in order to stem, even cast out, “non-normative ritualized activity” (p. 5). Edmonds III draws us directly to an abnormality: the paradoxical power of mortals who vie with the immortal. In Greek and Latin literary representations of magical arts, the ability to spellbind the moon is a paramount demonstration of the power of enchantresses. Carmina vel caelo possunt deducere Lunam: “incantations have the power to draw the moon down from the sky” says Vergil ( Ecl.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |