In his book A General Theory of Magic, pro-magic author Marcel Mauss dedicates a chapter completely to defining what is and is not magic. In his analysis he looks at the definitions used by various groups including academics, folklorists, the religious and others. He uses a scientific approach to systematically pick through ideas such as magic is any rite or remnants of any ancient cult, magic is anything society as a whole considers magical, magic is any ritual act that causes a “supernatural” outcome, and several other definitions argued by various individuals and groups. He also focuses on ritual, divination, sacrifice, vows, healing and so on to determine whether or not these acts are magic, separating the wheat from the chaff.

Here are the concluding paragraphs of the chapter entitled, “A Definition of Magic”.

In fact, however, the various characteristics we have so far revealed only reflect the irreligiosity of magical rites. They are anti-religious and it is desired that they be so. In any case, the do not belong to those organized systems which we call cults. Religious practices, on the contrary, even fortuitous and voluntary ones, are always predicable, prescribed and official. They do form a part of a cult. Gifts presented to gods on the occasion of a vow, or an expiatory sacrifice offered during illness, are regular kinds of homage. Although performed in each case voluntarily, they are really obligatory and inevitable actions. Magical rites, on the other hand, while they may occur regularly (as in the case of agricultural magic) and fulfil a need when they are performed for specific ends (such as a cure), are always considered unauthorized, abnormal and, at the very least, not highly estimable. Medical rites, however useful and licit they may be made to appear; do not involve the same degree of solemnity, nor the same idea on an accomplished duty, as do expiatory sacrifices or vows made to a curative divinity. When somebody has recourse to a medicine man, the owner of a spirit-fetish, a bone-mender or magician, there is certainly a need, not no moral obligation is involved.

Nevertheless, there are examples of cults which are magical. There was a Hecate cult of Ancient Greece, the cult of Diana and the devil in the magic of the Middle Ages and the whole cult devoted to one of the greatest Hindu divinities, Rudra-Shiva. These, however, are examples of secondary developments and quite simply prove that magicians have themselves set up a cult which was modeled along the lines of religious cults.

We have thus arrived at a provisionally adequate definition of magical phenomena. A magical rite is any rite which does not play a part in organized cults-it is private, secret, mysterious and approaches the limit of a prohibited rite. With this definition, and taking into consideration the other elements of magic which we have mentioned, we have the fist hint its special qualities. It will be noticed that we do not define magic in terms of structure of its rites, but by the circumstances in which these rites occur, which in turn determine the place the occupy in the totality of social customs. Pages 29-30

This is what we write on our FAQ page regarding the question, “Is magic(k) part of Hellenismos?”

No. Hellenismos is not a “magical religion.” Magic(k) as a form of ritualism based on an irreligious concept of causation, whether or not it evolves from superstition, pseudoscience, or the use of fuzzy logic. These acts are seen as predominately unethical and unjust practices seeking power or wealth through the manipulation of the “supernatural.” Magic clearly has no place in any practice based on, or inspired by, the Ancient Greek religion. Some practices, such as mysticism, divination, and shamanistic healing, have become mislabeled as magic by outsiders, but things such as spellcraft, sorcery, and other forms of forced manipulation are seen as impious and/or hubris. There are those who attempt to make the argument that because magic obviously existed within ancient Greek culture that it is acceptable within Hellenismos, but magic had no part within the religion and was rejected by Hellenic society.

We have here two competing ideologies that both agree on a fundamental point of fact: magic is irreligious. Another point of fact agreed upon is magic should not be defined merely  by the act of ritual. In my book, The Beginner’s Guide to Hellenismos, I detail this with specific examples. A magical practitioner can and could reproduce every element of a Hellenic ritual, but it is the intent and the desired outcome which defines it as magical or religious.

For example, both a magical practitioner and practitioner of Hellenismos could perform the same ritual to Hermes to bring success to a business endeavor. Many people will ask, “So, what is the difference?” The difference is expectation of outcome. The magical practitioner expects to persuade the God by performing a specific formula of actions, while the religious is pleading and petitioning a God that he loves and honors for help, and who he has loyalty to and a sense of obligation toward. The magical practitioner believes, at the very least, he can create a sense of obligation to compel the God, but for the religious the sense of obligation is theirs with no exception that a specific outcome will ever occur even if desired.

This then answers the question, “Is magic hubris within Hellenismos?” Magic attempts to exploit the Law of Reciprocity, whether for good or for ill, and presumes to be able to manipulate and ensure an outcome, thus bending the Gods to human will. It is arrogance, and therefore hubris.

Tags: concluding paragraphs, cult, definition, Diana, fact, General Theory, Greece, Hellenismos, Magic, magical magic, magical rites, Marcel Mauss, medicine man, organized systems, outcome, part, practitioner, religious practices, rite, ritual, ritual act, Rudra-Shiva, spir, spiri, wheat from the chaff