Augustine Magic

1. According to Augustine, are there any acceptable forms of magic? Why or why not? What is the significance of Augustine’s arguments in On Christian Teaching for the history of magic and witchcraft?

According to Augustine, all forms of magic performed by man involves discourse with demons. Magic, even if it is effective in accomplishing positive outcomes, is not meant to be wielded by man. Augustine views Pagan ritual as heresy and superstition, stating “something instituted by humans is superstitious if it concerns the making and worshiping of idols, or the worshiping of the created order or part of it as if it were God, or if it involves certain kinds of consultations or contracts about meaning arranged and ratified with demons” (Augustine,

Ritual behavior and the use of symbols is meant for communication with an intelligence, and any intelligence in the universe that is not God's is distinctly demonic to Augustine. Although, Augustine rejection of magic was not limited to forms of maleficium or evil doing, seeing as “however learned and its practitioners and defenders claimed it to be, without recourse to demons, his refusal to recognize acceptable and unacceptable levels of magic, and his emphasis on pride, sinful curiosity, and self-centeredness of those people who practiced magic was enormous” (Kors, Peters. Witchcraft in Europe. P.44). The interference with God as a singular force of power in the universe is the source of these undesirable traits that Augustine perceives practitioners of magic to possess. To wield magic, even though we are under God's domain and therefore God is allowing for the magic to be performed, is ultimately defiling his will in that magic is a power that we as God's creations are not meant to possess. Gods power is the only acceptable form of divine, or magical intervention to Augustine, and properly

The inversion seen within the events of the witches sabbath were not exclusive to the sabbath, Carnivale or Topsy-turvy-dom was used in common society as a way to reconcile the strict boundaries of everyday life and “throughout the late medieval and Renaissance period ritual inversion was a characteristic element of village folk-rites, religious and educational ludi, urban carnivals and court entertainments. Such festive occasions shared a calendrical license to disorderly behavior or 'misrule' based on the temporary but complete reversal of customary priorities of status and value” (Clark. “Inversion, Misrule and Meaning.” P.121). These values were seen as a binary, and each virtue had a corresponding sin. Furthermore, enacting misrule and opposites was a way to make a social commentary or protest against corruption within perceived virtue. The performance of “misrule strengthens the community by symbolic or open criticism and its moderating influence. Alternatively the same carnivalesque practices have been associated with innovation and protest because they offer freedom to explore relationships potentially corrosive of existing structures and therefore are not normally tolerated” (Clark. “Inversion, Misrule and Meaning.” P.123). These socially upheld structures could be explored through inversion, for example, status within