64. Magic in Egypt: Budge, _Egyptian Magic_, London, 1901; Wiedemann,
_Magie und Zauberei im alten Aegypten_, Leipsic, 1905 [cf. Maspero, _Rev.
critique_, 1905, II, p. 166]; Otto, _Priester und Tempel_, II, p. 224;
Griffith, _The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden_, 1904 (a
remarkable collection dating back to the third century of our era), and the
writings analyzed by Capart, _Rev. hist. des relig._, 1905 (Bulletin of
1904, p. 17), 1906 (Bull. of 1905, p. 92).
65. Fossey, _La magie assyrienne_, Paris, 1902. The earlier bibliography
will be found p. 7. See also Hubert in Daremberg, Saglio, Pottier, _Dict.
des antiq._, s. v. "Magia," p. 1505, n. 5. Campbell Thomson, _Semitic
Magic, Its Origin and Development_, London, 1908.
Traces of magical conceptions have survived even in the prayers of the
orthodox Mohammedans; see the curious {279} observations of Goldziher,
_Studien, Theodor Nöldeke gewidmet_, 1906, I, pp. 302 ff. The
Assyrio-Chaldean magic may be compared profitably with Hindu magic (Victor
Henry, _La Magie dans l'Inde antique_, Paris, 1904).
66. There are many indications that the Chaldean magic spread over the
Roman empire, probably as a consequence of the conquests of Trajan and
Verus (Apul., _De Magia_, c. 38; Lucian, _Philopseudes_, c. 11; _Necyom._,
c. 6, etc. Cf. Hubert, loc. cit.) Those most influential in reviving these
studies seem to have been two rather enigmatical personages, Julian the
Chaldean, and his son Julian the Theurge, who lived under Marcus Aurelius.
The latter was Considered the author of the [Greek: Logia Chaldaika], which
in a measure became the Bible of the last neo-Platonists.
67. Apul., _De Magia_, c. 27. The name [Greek: philosophos], _philosophus_,
was finally applied to all adepts in the occult sciences.
68. The term seems to have been first used by Julian, called the Theurge,
and thence to have passed to Porphyry (_Epist. Aneb._, c. 46; Augustine,
_Civ. Dei_, X, 9-10) and to the neo-Platonists.
69. Hubert, article cited, pp. 1494, n. 1; 1499 f.; 1504. Ever since
magical papyri were discovered in Egypt, there has been a tendency to
exaggerate the influence exercised by that country on the development of
magic. It made magic prominent as we have said, but a study of these same
papyri proves that elements of very different origin had combined with the
native sorcery, which seems to have laid special stress upon the importance
of the "barbarian names," because to the Egyptians the name had a reality
quite independent of the object denoted by it, and possessed an effective
force of its own (_supra_, pp. 93, 95). But that is, after all, only an
incidental theory, and it is significant that in speaking of the origin of
magic, Pliny (XXX, 7) names the Persians in the first place, and does not
even mention the Egyptians.
70. _Mon. myst. Mithra_, I, pp. 230 ff.--Consequently Zoroaster, the
undisputed master of the magi, is frequently considered a disciple of the
Chaldeans or as himself coming from Babylon. The blending of Persian and
Chaldean beliefs appears clearly in Lucian, _Necyom._, 6 ff. {280}
71. The majority of the magical formulas attributed to Democritus are the
work of forgers like Bolos of Mendes (cf. Diels, _Fragmente der
Vorsokratiker_, I^2, pp. 440 f.), but the authorship of this literature
could not have been attributed to him, had not these tendencies been so
favorable.
72. On Jewish magic see: Blau, _Das altjüdische Zauberwesen_, 1898; cf.
Hubert, _loc. cit._, p. 1505.
73. Pliny, _H. N._, XXX, 1, § 6; Juvenal, VI, 548 ff. In Pliny's opinion
these magicians were especially acquainted with _veneficas artes_. The
toxicology of Mithridates goes back to that source (Pliny, XXV, 2, 7). Cf.
Horace, _Epod._, V, 21; Virgil, _Buc._ VIII, 95, etc.