what is a magician?

For if, as I read in so many authors, the magician in the language of the Persians is what the priest is in ours, what crime is there then in being a priest with solemn knowledge, skill and practice of
the laws of the religious ceremonies,
the dictates of the rites
and the order of the divine services,
especially if magic is as Plato interprets it, when he recalls the education that the Persians provide for the youth among them destined to rule. I remember the exact words of the divine man; consider them, Maximus, along with me:

DI\S E(PTA\ DE\ GENO/MENON E)TW=N TO\N PAI=DA PARALAMBAN/NOUSIN OU(\S E)KEI=NOI BASILEI/OUS PAIDAGWGOU\S O)NOMA/ZOUSIN: EI)SI\N DE\ E)CEILEGME/NOI *PERSW=N OI( A)/RISTOI DO/CANTES E)N H(LIKI/A| TE/TTARES, O(/ TE SOFW/TATOS KAI\ O( DIKAIO/TATOS KAI\ O( SWFRONE/STATOS KAI\ O( A)NDREIO/TATOS. W(=N O( ME\N MAGEI/AN TE DIDA/SKEI TH\N *ZWROA/STROU TOU= *W)ROMA/ZOU: E)/STI DE\ TOU=TO QEW=N QERAPEI/A: DIDA/SKEI DE\ KAI\ TA\ BASILIKA/.

Those whom they call royal tutors take over the education of the child when he has reached the age of fourteen years. These are the select four of the Persians deemed to be the best in their generation, one the most wise, one the most just, one the most balanced, and one the most manly. One teaches the magic of Zoraster, the son of Oromazus: this is the service of the gods. He also teaches the ways of royalty.[LINK]

[26] Did you hear that word magic, you who heedlessly make an accusation of it? Did you hear that it is an art sanctioned by the immortal gods,
the instruction in their reverence and worship,
a pious art knowing of matters divine,
noble in descent from its authors Zoraster and Oromazus,

MAGIC,

the very priestess of the heavens?
Actually, this instruction takes place only among the ranks of royalty, and it is no more likely for any random Persian to be made a magician than it is for him to be made king. In another of Plato's dialogues about a certain Zalmoxis, a man of the Thracian race but of the same skill as Zoroaster, he wrote:

TA\S DE\ E)PW|DA\S EI)=NAI TOU\S LO/GOUS TOU\S KALOU/S.

"Incantations are pretty words."[LINK]

Such being the case, why am I not allowed to study the good words of Zalmoxis or the priestly craft of Zoroaster?

But if in fact these men understand 'magician' according to the vulgar usage, as a man who is able, through a communing with the immortal gods, to cause any miracle he wants with a special power of incantation, then I am amazed that they aren't afraid to accuse a man who, by their own admission, is capable of such a fearsome thing. For it isn't possible to guard against such a secret and supernatural power as it is against other things. The man who brings a murderer to trial comes accompanied by a guard; he who accuses the poisoner is careful when he eats; he who charges the thief looks out for his belongings. And yet what guard, what caution, what watchfulness against unforeseen and inevitable ruin is there for the man who brings to trial on a capital charge a magician of the type these men describe? None, of course; and thus a charge of this type is never made in good faith.

[27] But men generally raise these charges against the philosophers--a common error of the ignorant. They think some philosophers are irreligious and they say philosophers don't respect the gods because they investigate the plain and simple causes of the physical world, like, for example,

Anaxagoras, Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus

Epimenides, Orpheus, Pythagoras and Ostanes.

I congratulate myself, that I am in such good company.

And yet, I still fear the empty and patently false charges which they have made up as evidence of a crime, because you might think there were crimes simply because there are accusations.

"Why," he asks, "did you seek out certain species of fish?"
(As if the philosopher weren't allowed to do for knowledge what the rich man does for his gut.)

"Why did the woman marry you after thirteen years of being a widow?"
(As if it weren't more amazing that she didn't marry for so many years.)

"Why did she see fit to write something in a letter before she married you?"
(As if it were my job to account for someone else's sentiment.)

"And actually, she's older than he is and despises his youth."
(This itself is proof that there is no need for magic, when a woman wants to marry a man, a widow a bachelor, an elder her junior.)

And there was more in the same vein:
"And Apuleius has a certain something at home that he worships religiously."
(As if it were not more of a crime to worship nothing at all.)

"The boy fell down in Apuleius' presence."
But what does it matter if a youth, or even a old man, should take a tumble with me nearby, whether because of an infirmity of the body, or because he slipped on some mud? Do you accept these as evidence of magic, that a boy falls, a woman marries and some fish are purchased?

[28] I could, of course, be satisfied with what I've said so far and, at no great risk, deliver my summation. Since, however, the water-clock is still abundantly full due to the length of the accusation, I'll forge ahead--if it's appropriate--so let's go through it point for point. And I'll deny none of the accusations, whether true or false. Instead, I'll grant them, as if they were based on fact. That way, this whole crowd--which has gathered here in such great numbers and from so many places, in order to listen--may clearly understand: nothing is said truly or invented deceitfully against philosophers, that, although they could deny it, they would not prefer to challenge, due to faith in their own innocence.

First, therefore, I will expose their arguments and disprove that these pertain to magic matters in any way.
From there I will show that even if I were the greatest of magicians, they had neither cause nor opportunity to try me for any wrongdoing.
Then I will also argue about their duplicitous envy and my wife's letters, so basely read out and even more basely interpreted,
and also about my marriage to Pudentilla, showing that I entered into this more out of a sense of duty than for the sake of profit.

The fact was, for Aemilianus here, our marriage was a source of immense anguish and great vexation. From this has arisen all the anger, rage and, finally, the insanity of his filing this suit.

Once I have proved all of this, openly and clearly, then, and only then, Claudius Maximus, will I call upon you and all who are present, as witnesses: this young man, Sicinius Pudens, my stepson, under whose cover and at whose behest his uncle accuses me, who only recently was snatched from my custody after the passing of his brother Pontianus (his senior in years and better in morals), and who has spoken so shamelessly against me and his mother--through no fault of mine, having now abandoned his education and refusing all form of instruction, Pudens will, on the basis of this vicious accusation, turn out to be more like his uncle Aemilianus than like his brother Pontianus.

[29] And now, as I indicated, I will take up all the nonsense of Aemilianus here, beginning with what you noticed he mentioned first as the strongest grounds for suspicion of magic: that I sought to obtain several types of fish from certain fishermen . . . for a price!

Is there anything in this to justify a suspicion of magic? That fishers fished for me? Maybe I should've avoided this slander and given the job to some folks who embroiderer for a living or maybe to some carpenters and had them all switch professions, ending up with the carpenter netting me fish and the fisherman doing the woodworking.

Is the problem that they were paid for? Is that what makes you think that I wanted the poor little fish for evil purposes? (So, I'd have gotten them for nothing if I'd wanted them for a dinner party?) Then why don't you censure me for other things, as well - and man, there's a heap of them! Often, I've paid money for wine, and vegetables, and fruit, and bread. By your reasoning, you would condemn all caterers to starvation. Who'd dare let them prepare their feasts if it's decreed that if you actually pay for something you can eat, it's needed for magic, not dinner?

So then, if nothing suspicious remains, not in offering to pay fishermen to do what it is they do, (that would be, to catch fish) -- I might add that none of these were produced as witnesses, for the simple reason that there were none -- and not in the actual price of the merchandise -- not that they named the amount, of course; by giving too low a price they'd be ridiculed; by giving too high a price they wouldn't be believed -- anyhow, if there's nothing suspicious in all this, Aemilianus might answer me, please: what unmistakeable signal sent him to this accusation of magic?

[30]

"Fish!" he says. "You buy fish!"

But I ask you, is everyone who buys fish a magician? I don't think so. And what if I were buying rabbits? Or boars? Or pheasant? Is it only fish that have something about them that's hidden to others but known to magicians? If you know what it is, then by golly, you're a magician yourself! And if you don't, then you've got to admit that you're making accusations which you yourself don't understand. Are you so completely illiterate, ignorant of all folktales even, that you couldn't make these things sound a bit more believable? How could something that low on the food chain, like a fish or anything else taken from the sea, be suited for fanning the flames of fancy? Or were you drawn into these lies by the story of Venus having risen from the sea?

Listen to me, Tannonius Pudens, and hear just how ignorant you are -- you, who settled for an accusation of magic based on fish. If you had read Vergil you'd know that other things are generally sought for this sort of thing. As far as I recall, he mentions "soft fillets," "lush foliage" and "male frankincense"; "varicolored threads" and "brittle bay-leaf"; "mud to be hardened," "wax to be melted," and also what he wrote in his serious work:

Sought by moonlight, cut with brazen sickles,
Are grasses oozing with milk of black poison;
Sought, too, is the charm ripped from the brow of
A new-born foal, love stolen from its mother.

I'd also remind you of similar things in Theocritus and of others Homeric or, particularly, Orphic; I could also repeat a bunch of things from the Greek comedies, tragedies and histories, if I hadn't already pointed out your inability to read Pudentilla's letter in Greek. So I'll add just one more Latin poet, whose verses anyone who's read Laevius will recognize:

They pull love-potions everywhere,
There, a charm against pain is sought:
Pellets, ribbons, and fingernails,
Small roots, grasses, and tender sprouts,
Two-tailed lizard serves as a lure,
And the neigh-sayers' charms as well.

TH=| PLEI=STA FE/REI ZEI/DWROS A)/ROURA
FA/RMAKA, POLLA\ ME\N E)SQLA\ MEMIGME/NA, POLLA\ DE\ LUGRA/.

to her the fruitful earth bears an abundance of remedies, many excellent when they have been mixed, but many harmful. [LINK]

Indeed, no one in his work has ever treated anything with the catch of the day---
not Prometheus, his form,
not Ulysses, his trench,
not Aeolus, his bellows,
not Helen, her mixing-bowl,
not Circe, her cup,
not Venus, her girdle.

Since the dawn of time, only you have managed to dredge up nature -- you've taken the power of herbs and roots and sprouts and stones and transported it from the highest mountains down to the sea and sewn it into the bellies of fish.

And so, in the past it was customary at magical ceremonies to summon up
Mercury, who brings song,
Venus, who seduces souls,
Luna, privy to the night,
Trivia, potentate of the shades,
under your direction. Now, Neptune, along with Salcia, Portunus, and the entire chorus of Nereids will be transported from the undulating sea to the undulations of lust.

[32] I've given my opinion as to why I don't think magic and fish have anything to do with each other. But if it please the court, let's take Aemilianus's word for it that fish, too, can increase magical powers. Does that mean then, that anyone who buys them is a magician? By this reasoning, anyone who buys a sloop would have to be a pirate, anyone with a crow-bar a house-breaker, and anyone with a sword a murderer.

You can't say that there's anything in the world so harmless that it can never be used to do harm, or anything so delightful that nothing sad can be found in it. And yet, that's no reason for throwing nasty suspicion on everything -- as if frankincense, mezereon and myrrh and other fragrances of this type could only be bought for a funeral, even though they can also be used as remedies and for sacrifices.

Again, with the same fishful thinking, you'll be claiming that even Menelaus's companions were magicians, since the greatest poet says that before the island of Pharos they put curved hooks to use to ward off their hunger. Even gulls, dolphins, and sea-leaks you'd indict, and all gluttons, who buy far more from the fishermen, and even the fishermen themselves, who collect all kinds of fish in a day's work.

"So why do you want them?"

I don't think you need to know.

It's up to you, if you can, to prove that I bought them for a certain reason. It's as if I bought hellebore or hemlock or poppy juice or some such thing, which is good to use in moderation, but poisonous in mixtures or large amounts. Who would let you bring me to court for these drugs, just because a person could be killed with them?

[33] But let's look at the kinds of fish that it was so necessary to have, and that are so rarely found that it was worth offering a reward to get them. They've named three all together, mistaking one and lying about two. They were mistaken when they called one a sea-hare, which our servant Themison -- no idiot in matters medicinal, as you've heard from him -- has brought here on his own initiative for your inspection. It must have been a completely different fish, for, it seems, he still has not found a sea-hare. But I confess, I'm looking for this and other kinds, and have given not only fishermen but also my friends this assignment: that whoever sees a little-known kind of fish should either describe or show it to me -- alive, or, if that's impossible, dead. I'll tell you soon why I bother.

Where they lied, on the other hand, was when my accusers - who think themselves quite cunning -- made up, for the sake of the slandering me, that I had tried to obtain two obscenely named sea-creatures. Tannonius thought he recognized in them words referring to the genitals of either sex, but, due to his lack of eloquence -- the great pleader! -- he couldn't pronounce them. Then finally, after much hesitation, he beat around the bush and still managed to be vulgar and disgusting in naming the male fish; as for the female, for all his efforts he found no elegant way of putting it, so he took refuge in my writings and read from one of my books: "that she might conceal the area between her thighs by putting one leg forward and covering herself with her hand."

[34] This too, in his great sternness, he makes into a fault of mine: that I'm not embarrassed to speak with decency of even more degrading things. I think I'm more justified in censuring him, a man who publicly claims to be a defender of eloquence, and then blathers nastily, even about things which can be spoken of decently, and often stutters or loses his tongue entirely over things that aren't in the least difficult. Come now, if I hadn't said anything about the statue of Venus and hadn't mentioned her crotch, how would you have formulated the accusation -- given the bounds of your stupidity and your language? Is there anything more stupid than to assume that because things have similar sounding names they also have similar properties?

Or maybe you figured that you'd very cleverly doped out how to claim formally that I'd sought these two sea creatures, the cockfish and seacunt, for magical charms. In fact, learn the Latin names for the things which I've named so you can accuse me again, using proper information. But don't forget that the argument that the smutty sea creatures were sought for erotic practices will be as ridiculous as if you should say that a seabrush was sought in order to comb hair or a hawkfish in order to catch birds or a boarfish in order to hunt boar or a seaskull in order to raise the dead.

Ask a stupid question, get a dopey answer.

I did not seek these maritime trifles and lowtide nonsense for a price, and I did not seek them for free.

[35] And I'll respond to yet another point: you don't know a thing about the stuff you pretend I was looking for. For the bulk of these trifles that you've named are found on every beach in clumps and heaps, and without anyone's effort they're thrown up on the shore when the waves come in only lightly. So why don't you also say that, at the same time, I paid the price and, with the help of many fishermen, sought

=>a conch with a striated shell,
=>a smoothly worn stone,

and on top of that,

and to top it off,

and finally,

For suspicions can no less easily be matched to the items I mentioned based on the connotations of the words. You claim that the clam and sea cucumber can be taken from the sea for erotic purposes on account of the double entendre of their names: how much less could a stone from the same shore be related to gallstones, a pot to probate, a crab to cancer, sea growths to warts.

You, Claudius Maximus, are truly an amazingly patient man of incredibly admirable courtesy, considering that you've endured, by Hercules, the loooooooong arguments of these men here. As for me, I was laughing at their stupidity and at the same time admiring your patience while those men where stating these things as if they were serious and convincing.

[36] But let Aemilianus learn why I know about so many fish, and why I don't want to be ignorant of these still, since he's shown such concern for my affairs. Although he's already in the waning years of advanced old age, nevertheless, if it makes sense, let him learn a new trick at this late date. Let him read the works of the old philosophers so he finally can see that I'm not the first to have investigated these things. My ancestors did quite some time ago, meaning Aristotle, Theophrastus, Eudemus, Lyco, and the rest of Plato's lesser followers, who have left behind lots of books about the reproduction of animals, their manner of living, their parts, and every difference.

It's a good thing this case is being prosecuted in your court, Maximus, since a man of your learning has obviously read
Aristotle's PERI\ ZW/WN GENE/SEWS, On the Generation of Animals [LINK]
PERI\ ZW/WN A)NATOMH=S, On the Anatomy of Animals [LINK]
PERI\ ZW/WN I(STORI/AS, On the Science of Animals [LINK]
(multi-volumed tomes), and beyond that, the countless "Problems" of the same author, and of the other exponents of the same school who considered various things of the sort. Now, if writing about these matters which they researched with such care brought glory and honor to those men, why would it be shameful for us to do research, especially when I strive to write out more elegantly and concisely these same things in Greek and Latin, and in every case either to find out what's been left out or expand on what was inadequate?

If it's worthwhile, allow a few things to be read from my so-called works on magic so that Aemilianus may know that I research and carefully investigate more than he thinks. Please take one of my books in Greek, which my friends and supporters just happen to have here -- one on natural history -- and particularly the part where the topic focuses most on the species of fish.

While someone looks for the passage, I shall tell a relevant anecdote. [37] The poet Sophocles was Euripides' competitor and outlived him, for he lived to extreme old age. When his own son accused him of senility, as if he were already losing his mind because of his age, it is said that he offered as evidence his "Colonus," the most outstanding of tragedies, which he happened to be writing at that time, and that he read it to the judges and didn't add anything else to his defense, except that they should confidently judge him guilty of senility, if the old man's poetry displeased them. In that situation I take it that all the judges stood up for such a poet and complimented him with wonderful praise on account of the brilliance of his defense and the tragedy of such eloquence, and they were not at all far from finding the accuser guilty of senility instead!

Have you found the book? Thank you. Give it here and let's see whether my work can be of use to me in the courtroom, too. Read a bit from the beginning and then some about fish. But you, while he's reading, stop the clock.

******** ***** **** ********* ********* ********** ****
**** ******* ********** ********* **** ****** *********

[38] Most of what you have heard, Maximus, you had surely read in the old philosophers. And remember that I wrote these books just about fish:
which of them reproduce through intercourse,
which are born from the mud,
how often and at what time of year the females and males of each species are in heat,
what organs and forces nature uses to distinguish those which give live birth and those which produce eggs - for that's how I refer in Latin to what the Greeks call ZW|OTO/KA and W)|OTO/KA.

I shouldn't get too sidetracked by the reproduction of animals, concerning the difference and manner of living and limbs and life cycles and all the other many things. While they're certainly important to know, they're inappropriate in a courtroom. I will order a few things from my Latin works to be read which are relevant to this same field of science, in which you'll notice that I have not only compiled things that are infrequently known, but even names that are most obscure to Romans and totally unknown until today as far as I know; but even so, through my effort and interest, these names have arrived from the Greeks counterstruck as Roman currency.

So, Aemilianus, have your supporters tell us where they have read these words that have been uttered in Latin. I'll just talk about sea creatures and not other animals unless I should touch upon interspecies differences that are common across genera. So listen to what I'm going to say. Soon you'll shout that I'm reciting magical names in the Egyptian or Babylonian rite:

SELA/XEIA MALA/KEIA MALAKO/STRAKA XONDRA/KANQA O)STRAKO/DERMA KARXARO/DONTA A)MFI/BIA LEPIDWTA/ FOLIDWTA/ DERMO/PTERA STEGANO/PODA MONH/RH SUNAGELASTIKA/

"shark-fish, soft-fish, soft-shell-fish, lumpy-spiny-fish, shell-skin-fish, sharp-tooth-fish, ____, leather-eye-fish, covered-foot-fish, stationary-fish, the not-to-be-laughed-at-fish ..." [LINK]

- I could go on. But it's important not to waste the day on these things, so that I'll have time to move on to other matters. Meanwhile, repeat just a few of the words I've said that I expressed in Latin. ____________ ________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _______

[39] So what do you think about a philosopher who isn't unrefined or ignorant with the abandon of the Cynic but who is mindful of belonging to the Platonic school? Do you think that it's shameful for him to know those things or not? To overlook them or focus on them? To know how much natural order is in those things or to believe mommy and daddy about the immortal gods?

Quintus Ennius wrote the Good Eats in verse. He took account of countless types of fish which he obviously knew intimately. I remember a few verses, let me say them:

The burbot is best of all Clipean fish;
For mussels of Aenus one hardly could wish.
To Abydos for oysters, let's take to a gallop
And stop on the way for some Mytylene scallop.
(They're good at Charadrus, that's found on the border
Of Ambracia -- get some, and yes, that's an order.)
If you ask me, at Brundisium, I would advise
Getting the sargus, if it's a nice size.
The boar fish is best at Tarentum, but then
If you're at Surrentum, it's sargus again.
At Cumae, the blue shark is really a find,
But wait! I forget! (Am I out of my mind?)
The parrot-wrasse can't be forgot --
Is Jupiter's brain better? Not.
(I might add that the very best are
Ones found in the land of Nestor.)
And, of course, I've never seen a
Nicer fish than the umbrina,
Melanura, wrasse. And hire a
Mode of transport to Corcyra:
The octopus is best there, but
Let's not forget the shellfish, what?
Bluefish, bass, and no more searchin' --
Just finish up with some sweet urchin.

[40] I've addressed this point sufficiently, so consider something else. So what, if I am neither uninterested in nor ignorant of medicine and I look for some medicine in a fish? Just as lots of remedies have obviously been seeded and sewn in everything else by the same gift of nature, so there are even a few to be found among fish. Do you think knowing remedies and searching for them is more the business of the magician than of the doctor? Or, to take it a step further, more than of the philosopher, who will use them not for profit but for good? Ancient doctors knew spells as cures for wounds, as Homer, the most reliable source for all antiquity, states, when he portrays blood flowing from Ulysses' wound as stopping because of a spell. For nothing that is done to bring about good health is criminal.

"But why," he says, "did you dissect the fish that Themison, your slave, brought to you -- if not for evil purposes?"

As if I hadn't just said that I write about the anatomy of all animals, about their manner, number, and cause, and that I carefully research Aristotle's books A)NATOMW=N Of Anatomy [LINK] and make them more complete. And I am absolutely amazed that you know that I examined one minuscule fish, considering that I've examined lots of them in the same way, wherever they happened to be available. I am especially amazed because I did none of this the least bit secretly but entirely in the open so that anyone, even an outsider, could be an eyewitness. This was the technique and practice of my own teachers, who said that a free and high-class citizen ought to show his mind with his face wherever he goes. I even showed this little fish (that you've called a sea hare) to the many people who were there.

And I can't yet decide what they would call it, unless I investigate the matter a bit more carefully, because I find no description of this fish among the old philosophers, though it is the rarest of all fish and, by Hercules, must be recorded. In fact, that fish is unique , as far as I know, since it was in every other respect boneless, yet it had twelve bones shaped like the knuckle bones of a pig conjoined and connected in its belly. It goes without saying that Aristotle would never have failed to commit this to writing, since he recorded as an important fact that the heart of the hake, alone of all fish, is located in the middle of its stomach.

[41] The accuser says: "You dissected a fish."
Who'd say that this is a charge against a philosopher, when it has not been one against a butcher or a cook?

"You dissected a fish."
Is it because it was uncooked? Is that your complaint? If I cooked it and I made a close search of its stomach and prepared its liver, just as this little boy Sicinius Pudens learns with his own meals at your house, you wouldn't think it necessary to make an accusation of this; yet, it's a greater crime for a philosopher to eat his fish rather than dissect it. Is it acceptable for seers to closely examine livers, but not for a philosopher to contemplate them, though he knows that he is a diviner of all animals, a priest of all gods? Or is this your accusation against me? The fact that Maximus and I hold Aristotle in esteem? Well, unless you purge the libraries of his books and wrench them from the hands of scholars, you can't accuse me of anything. But I have almost said more than I ought to on this matter.

Now consider elsewhere how they contradict themselves. They claim that my wife was obtained through magic arts and sea charms at that very time that I was - and they won't contradict me - in the Mediterranean mountains of Gaetulia, where fish are found thanks to Deucalion's flood waters. But I'm thankful that they don't know I've read Theophrastus's PERI\ DAKE/TWN KAI\ BLHTIKW=N On Beasts That Bite and Sting [LINK] and Nicander's QHRIAKA/ On the Bites of Wild Animals [LINK]. Otherwise they would've accused me of poisoning, too! But seriously, I discovered this occupation through reading and imitating Aristotle and through my Plato's advice, who said that the man who tracks down such things A)METAME/LHTWN PAIDIA\N E)N BI/W| PAI/ZEIN. "plays like a child at sport not to be regretted in (this) life."