9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Innovative and compelling treament of magic ritual, January 14, 2002
By A Customer
The latest work by Naomi Janowitz of UC Davis and Hebrew University is a fast-paced and well-organized treatment of "magic" in the first three centuries. "Magic", as Janowitz shows, was at this time very much defined by those who were hoping to discredit a ritual or practice of another party, and was in most cases merely an adjective of disparagement used by the competition. To those using it, magic wasn't magic at all, rather magic was power and efficacy steeped in ritual. Discussions include Greco-Roman, Christian, and Jewish concepts of magic, theories on daemons and angels, cursing and binding spells, practices of divination and deification, and a focus on the gender bias against women in the practice of magic throughout the period.
I found the book a breath of fresh air, and an enormous step forward, not least of which in the portions dealing with women's issues, which should prove a major contribution to women's studies in late antiquity. But also the bibliography alone is worth noting as it is extensive and reveals the wide range of sources brought to the topic, and is alone worth the price of the text. The book is not long and can be easily read, even by a newcomer to the topic, in one or two sittings.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Magic in the Roman World, December 17, 2009
This review is from: Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (Religion in the First Christian Centuries) (Hardcover)
The intriguing question of why people believe these ideas and rituals will not be addressed in this study, but two preliminary points on this topic deserve attention. First, in order to begin thinking about why people might believe in notions of cause and effect different than ours we must start with a careful examination of the specific historical context. It is the premise of this study, learned from recent anthropological theories, that notions of cause and effect are culturally based. This is not a claim of radical relativism; some of the basic principles of logic may turn out to be cross-culturally true. Most of the time, however, people are not using strictly logical modes of thought. This leaves us plenty of room for cultural and historical variation in modes of thought about cause and effect.
Second, at quite a different level, partial answers to this question may come from the world of psychology and thus are beyond the scope of this study. It is possible to induce incorrect notions of cause and effect in most people in just a few minutes. All that is necessary is to expose them to rewards which they believe they are generating based on their actions when in fact the rewards are randomly awarded. People will latch onto any seeming success and repeat it, even when they have to explain repeated failures as well. It appears practically impossible, or at least very rare, for humans not to be influenced by immediate experiences of concrete results. This is true even if these experiences turn out to have limited theoretical validity. The moment of surprise is not when people repeat alchemical failures but when they begin to do something else.
Despite our desire to see ourselves as direct heirs of late antique beliefs, we must develop a sense of being visitors to this world. And most of all we must be willing to look at rituals which might seem familiar with new eyes lest we too join the polemical wars of the ancient world. While we begin looking at "magic" what may change for us is our notion of the contours of the human imagination.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No