Black Magic and White Magic
by Jacob Bronowski
|
The origins of science are intertwined with the pursuit
of the occult subjects the contemplation of which would make many a modern
scientist shudder with distaste.When John Maynard Keynes bought a trunk full
of Isaac Newton's papers and inspected them,he was startled
to find that Newton spent as much time studying alchemy
and
numerology as he did formulating
the laws of motion.Newton,he declared,"was the
last of the magicians." But not all magic is the same,as the
scientist-philosopher Jacob Bronowski (1908 - 1974) explains.
....The form of magic that I shall discuss is the notion that there is a
way of having a power over nature which simply depends on hitting the right
key.If you say "open sesame" then nature will open for you;if you are an
expert then nature will open for you;if you are a specialist of some kind
or if you are remote,if you are esoteric,if you are an initiate there is
some way of getting into nature which is not accessible to other people.
Now this was the dominant theme of all those centuries up to the fifteenth.And
all primitive forms of magic - sympathetic magic,the kind of magic you read
about in Lévi - Strauss for instance,magic that structuralists talk
about - all come back to this notion: there is a way of having a power
which is esoteric and does not depend on generally accessible knowledge.
Now I think that is fundamentally false and I also think ,of
course,that it is terribly dangerous, because it recurs in every
generation. But let me say something about it in this highly specific context
of magic up to the fifteenth century.
One of the things that must have struck you if you have read any book about
magic is that there is a tendency for the rituals of magic to turn nature
upside-down [Getting CAUSE and EFFECT the wrong way around-LB].For instance,if
you have ever seen an illustration of a witch riding a broomstick,she does
not ride the broomstick sitting forward,she rides the broomstick sitting
backward.Now it may seem a childish thing for an eminent intellectual historian
to be discussing which way witches sit on broomsticks.But the fact is that
intellectual history is made up of exactly such points.Why did people think
that satanic rituals had to be set backwards? Why did people celebrate the
black mass by going through the mass in reverse? Because the concept of that
conquest of nature was that whatever the laws of nature were,the magic
consisted of turning them back.What Joshua said was,"Sun stand thou still";he
didn't say anything about ellipses or inverse square laws.He said "let us
stop the laws of nature and turn them back in their tracks." And really,one
could say,if I may put this terribly crudely,that until the year 1500 any
attempt to get power from nature had inherent in it the idea that you could
only do this if you forced nature to provide it against her will. Nature
had to be subjugated,and magic was a form of words,actions and pictures which
forced nature to do something which she wouldn't of herself do.
Let me note here that science does exactly the opposite.But it is
important to realize that the subjugation of nature is the theme of all
magical practice.We must get her to do something for us which she wouldn't
do for everybody else - which means we must make her disobey her own laws.Of
course,people before 1500 didn't really have much of an idea of what a
law of nature was.But insofar as they conceived of nature following a
natural course, magic was something that reversed it.
What I am saying is in my view,although it is not the view of all those who
have written about magic.Lynn Thorndike,for example,was an eminent writer
on the subject.His eight-volume work on the subject is entitled The History
of Magic and Experimental Science (New York:Columbia University Press,1923
- 58). It would be impertinent of me not to state that he thought
differently.However,the very title The History of Magic and Experimental
Science implies a view of science which is different from mine.What Lynn
Thorndike said was that there are in magical and particularly alchemical
practices many techniques which later formed an important part of technology
and experimental science.Now that's undoubtedly true.But ,alas,in my
view,this has nothing to do with the case.Of course there were people of
all kinds practicing alchemy right up to the days of Newton,whose alchemical
writings are so voluminous that they were never published.Nevertheless,my
main interest is in their attitude toward how the world works and how you
make it obey,and not at all in their discoveries of how you smelt this or
how you make that process in metallurgy work.It was the view of Lynn
Thorndike,and it has been the view of some other eminent historians of
science,that there is a continuity running from even before the Middle Ages
into modern science.This is what Pierre Duhem was anxious to show,and in
a way this is what George Sarton said also.And of course, there is some truth
in that.There is not the slightest doubt that any particular piece of
science that you have today can be traced to some fantasy in the Middle
Ages......
But it is my view that those continuities give a false perspective of the
great threshold from which the burst of modern science comes.And I would
put this quite simply: I don't know whether science was born before 1500
or not (though I don't believe it was) but I do know that,mysteriously,magic
in fact died after 1500.
I ought also to pay a small obeisance to those historians who think that
we ought not to look at the history of the Middle Ages or the Renaissance
as if in some way it were a forerunner of today.I wrote a book of intellectual
history and was amused to find that one of my kinder critics said that it
was all very fine,but why did I think that the present age was any better
than the fifteenth century? Well,I don't know whether it is better,but it
seems to me terribly interesting that the fifteenth century has led to the
present age and that the present age has not led to the fifteenth century.
My view of history is essentially an evolutionary one.I think it is right
that we should look at history with hindsight,because I think,for two
reasons,that the most important species-specific thing which man possesses
and which started him off on his evolutionary career is exactly hindsight.If
you make any plans,only hindsight will tell you whether they were any
good.Secondly,we know from work on memory that it is only from hindsight,only
from memory, that imagination and foresight develops.So I make no apologies
for the fact that I shall discuss the history of the past as if the most
exciting thing about it is that it has led us to the present......
A point which must be made very forcibly about science is that it took an
irreversible step in the cultural evolution of man.I have noted that we did
not lay enough stress on the fact not only that science has made our lives
different but also that it was a threshold of this kind.Holding that view
I am bound to say that the dates of the scientific revolution between 1500
and 1700 do represent a major threshold in the development of science.
Now that seems strange to people who have tried to trace the history of science
back beyond that time,because they point out that,after all,there was a school
of people - who read Aristotle,who were Averroists,who continued to talk
about scientific truth and distinguish it from spiritual truth - in a number
of universities,such as Paris and Padua, through the thirteenth,fourteenth,and
fifteenth centuries.
The school that looks for a continuity in the development of science looks
for it there.Now I think that view is mistaken because I think that in about
1500 something very remarkable happened in all intellectual history,of which
science is a part and a crucial part.It's not terribly fashionable
to talk about the Renaissance now,because everybody is very busy explaining
how it all really started much earlier.And it's not very fashionable even
to talk about humanism, because very eminent scholars,including Professor
Kristeller of Columbia University,have pointed out that humanism was a special
kind of academic syllabus that led to the elaboration of rhetoric and theories
of language at the expense of theology and other practices.In itself,humanism
did not make a new way of life,and of course it appears to have had no influence
on science.All that seems to me to be quite right.And yet it is absolutely
true that Florence in 1500 was a different city ( I cite Kristeller again)
from Florence in 1400.Something had happened in Italy which made a great
inroad in established,authoritarian,and traditional views of life.
When we come to revalue the Renaissance over the next twenty or thirty years
of scholarship,the view that we are sure to come up with is that the most
important thing was not that people in Florence started reading Plato instead
of Aristotle,or that people from Padua argued about this or that,or that
Ficino wrote this and Pomponazzi wrote that,but that in some way a dissolution
of tradition took place and there developed an interest in new things in
which the particular character of the new was not nearly so important as
the shaking up of the old.And that characteristic was crucial to the development
of science at that particular time.To my mind,the most extraordinary thing
is that about 1500 the incursion of neo-Platonic and
mystical ideas gave that impulse to the human mind,made that intellectual
revaluation from which science and the arts took off together.The
view that I am putting forward is that this revolution worked as much
in the sciences as in the arts and that it is impossible to understand
the really radical change that the Renaissance made unless we see science
not as an afterthought but as an integral part of that humanism - rhetoric
and linguistics and all.
Now to some small,interesting,specific examples:Between 1450 and 1465 Cosimo
de'Medici began to collect a library of Greek manuscripts.They were being
brought to the West by scholars and he sent his own merchants out to buy
them up .They brought back the Dialogues of
Plato,which had still not been translated from
Greek,and they brought back also an incomplete manuscript of the Corpus
Hermeticum [Ref: Davis & Hersh "The Mathematical Experience" {Underneath
the Fig Leaf} p100 4.Hermetic Geometry;C.B.Boyer "A History of Mathematics"
Ch14 p246 {Europe in the Middle Ages}],the fabulous book of magic of the
Middle Ages of which, again,only a small part had been translated into Latin.His
secretary was a man called Marsilio Ficino,and in 1463 he was translating
the dialogues of Plato when Cosimo de'Medici told him to translate the
Corpus Hermeticum
first. In fact,Cosimo died the next year and he obviously
felt that this esoteric knowledge,this magic,he had to know.Now the Corpus
Hermeticum is an extraordinary book which remains in our language simply
because we still use the phrase "hermetically sealed" to mean sealed by secret
alchemical formulae.
Although the book is called Corpus Hermeticum because it was supposed
to be a book about Hermes Trismegistus (Hermes is the Three Times Great who
was supposed to have been a mythological Greek - Hebrew character),Ficino
thought he might have been Moses himself. I need not tell you that the books
are fakes, but that was not discovered until 150 years later - and anyway,as
I have already explained,fakery was no crime at that time.
Ficino was an extraordinary character because he came at a moment when the
old black magic,the witches' Sabbath, and so on,was not done anymore.Ficino
never got up and said "I won't go to a coven of witches." He was too polite,
too much of a gentleman,to do all this romping about in the nude in damp
fields with satanic imagery and goats,and he was from a new kind of upper
class society that was taking an interest in magic. They were sophisticated
[The word "sophisticated" comes from the Sophists who had a penchant for
making a point so unintelligible with flowery language that one could not
tell if one were being deceived or not -LB] and gentlemanly,and this was
not the kind of black magic in which they could be interested .And yet,Ficino
really did sing hymns;he really did believe that he was conjuring down the
influences of the planets and that in some way the world was opening up ,that
Orpheus and Pythagoras and all those planetary influences were one.
This is really the central point of neo-Platonism as Ficino introduced it.The
world is a great harmony,and harmony is the crucial word.It literally
meant both music and mathematics and incidentally also poetry.All these
things were different aspects of the universal spirit,the anima
mundi,the thing that Plato and Plotinus said was like a great organic
creature of the world.Indeed Giorgio said that all this was simply a
description,that the universe was the face of God and that all its aspects
- music,poetry,and mathematics - were different expressions of the fact that
it was a harmonious whole [Such is the Quantum Physical view Ref: Danah Zohar
"The Quantum Self"-LB].Music and mathematics go together because Pythagoras
and the Greeks ,three thousand years ago,had discovered that in order to
make an octave you have to make a musical string twice as long and in order
to make the other main notes you have to have whole - number separations.And
this extraordinary notion that the length of the vibrating string also gives
pleasure to the ear and fills your soul with harmony had come down from
the Greeks.For instance,Pythagoras invented the
phrase
"The music of the spheres."
[Ref: C.B.Boyer "A History of Mathematics" p55 also { Pythagorean
Pentagram}p49 and {Golden
Section} p73;Blue File: pscript5.wri] Shortly after the time I am
describing,Kepler tried to fit the
five Platonic
solids into the orbits of the solar system [Ref: C.B.Boyer "A History
of Mathematics" p84 also {Elements-Earth ,Fire,Air Water};I.Stewart
" The Problems of Mathematics" p195] because he naturally felt that all these
things must go together - mathematics,music,harmony were one.Harmony is indeed
the word to hold on to.
The exciting thing about these neo-Platonists is,first of all,that
they made people interested in mathematics.It was from that moment onward
that Greek mathematics was rediscovered,became exciting to people again;they
started arguing about Playfair's axiom and all kinds of things that were
unclear in Euclid.That led to natural knowledge though mathematics
of which Newton really set the keystone.Secondly,people like Ficino had this
marvellous sense that the world was at once both intelligible and beautiful.The
phrase (which does not come from Ficino)about its being the face of God is
the crux here.We have the sense that suddenly the Middle Ages were over.That
rather heavy view of God sitting on the world with man quietly padding about
making sure that he doesn't give offence had ended.There was suddenly
a rainbow in the sky,the world was beautiful.We have the transcending
sense of the beauty of nature,but above all the beauty of the creation.
We see this outlook in Copernicus when in the next century,in 1543,he published
the book that he had been working on for nearly thirty years about the revolution
of the planets.he talked about the sun,about how marvellous it is.Of course,the
textbooks just tell us that in effect he said,"well it works simpler if we
put the sun in the centre of the universe." But that's not what he said.He
said the sun was fit to be at the centre of the universe.The sun was
marvellous.And he took that straight out of Ficino,who in fact wrote a book
called Of the Sun.It has only recently been discovered that
when Giordano Bruno
came to Oxford in the next century and lectured about the Copernican system,the
Oxford Dons treated him with grave suspicion,and particularly because they
all spotted the quotations from Ficino that he thought they wouldn't know.
This sense that man and the universe are one,that the presence of God in
the universe is a different kind of presence, is what makes the neo-Platonic
revolution crucial in the science of the Renaissance.I have called it
antiauthoritarian,but I ought really to have said anti-traditional.Now I
do not mean by this that people would suddenly go around saying God is dead,which
would have been inconceivable then.What was happening was something quite
different:there had been a hierarchy of God,man,nature.And that in that hierarchy
God and man had moved into one position.Man was still dominating nature,but
there was no longer the sense that he was under any higher authority.Everything
that God had expressed was expressed in man.
We see this best in a follower of
Ficino,Pico della
Mirandola ,who in 1487 proposed to dispute a famous series of theses,which
have since come down to us under the title Of the Dignity of Man.Now,the
dispute really was to a considerable extent about the dignity of man,provided
that you understood this equivalence of man and God.Pico della Mirandola
was saying above all that man was a unique animal because he was the only
animal that made himself,that had no species-specific properties.Well, that
is something of an exaggeration,but you know it is not quite as bad animal
behaviour as you would think,because it is certainly true that the most important
part of the human equipment is its enormously greater flexibility and
adaptability than any other animal.In biology we generally express this by
saying that whereas every other animal fits into an evolutionary niche,man
essentially is busy hewing his evolutionary niche out of nature for himself......
Pico della Mirandola was also very much against astrology.And he says
so in the oration,which is full of all kinds of stuff out of
the Cabala
- all kinds of things that nobody reads anymore except in
corners.And yet,he says in 1487,astrology is all wrong. Why? - because
it outrages the dignity of man that we should be subject to the influence
of the planets out there travelling on their immutable,dreary,predestined
courses [But that view of the planets is a Classical deterministic view,which
is not relevant to modern mathematics whence the motions are subject
to Chaos theory-LB].That cannot be consonant with
the dignity of man.It is a gorgeous thought;naturally we would put it rather
differently now.We would say that it's not consonant with the dignity of
a planet.
Both Ficino and Pico as well as a number of other people about 1500 were
practitioners of magic,and yet their magic had a quite different quality.They
were no longer trying to force nature into a different mode.In some
way they were trying to exploit a preordained harmony in nature.Ficino says
this quite firmly: "When I sing a song to the sun it is not because I expect
the sun to change its course but (because) I expect to put myself into a
different cast of mind in relation to the sun." Now this is a very important
concept that developed between 1500 and 1550 - the notion that,yes,there
is a magic,but it is a natural magic,a white magic.No one knows
quite how it works,but it attempts to extract out of the universe its own
harmonies for our good.And here we are on the way to science as we understand
it.If one had to put a date to this,one would say that roughly speaking
between 1500 and the publication of Porta's book in 1558,which was called
Natural Magic,the turning point took place.Of course,I am not trying
to make the sort of point that on the 27th of February it all changed.History
doesn't work like that.But what did happen was that highly intelligent
people were bothered about demons and angels and all the oppositions in the
old magic; they were convinced that the universe was harmonious,that
man could be in contact with it,and they asked themselves how this could
be done.There is a fascinating series of writings to be explored still between
1500 and 1550 (complicated of course by the occurrence of the new humanism)
- those of people like Erasmus,Luther (Protestantism) which keeps on saying
- "Well,how could magic work?"
Now we come to several very interesting trends of thought.There are some
people who say,"well,you see it's all psychological" and you get this.They
say,"The faithful or the superstitious are in a special frame of mind
where they really see these apparitions and feel these influences." All
right - now nobody is much bothered about this,because psychology was the
one thing they really understood.And they understood about the art of memory
and about human imagination and about the power of imagination,but by 1500
they were asking themselves a very crucial question - "Can this be transferred
to the outside world? We are all convinced that a man can hold the audience
spellbound,but will this spell work on the chairs? Will this spell work on
dead nature?" And this question - "Is white magic transitive - can it be
transferred to dead objects?" This is what was now engaging everybody's
attention.There was wonderful excitement about how different people treat
this,but they all came back to the same thing.Now they took different lines.
Some of them said,"Well,yes,but in very special circumstances"; or "Well,yes,but
it isn't exactly that you can make nature obey your will,but if you choose
to do it at a moment when nature is ready,then you can just slightly distort
her," and so on.Some of them,of course,began to say about this time that
it's just not true.There isn't any magic at all.For several hundred
years everybody had been saying that it is well known that menstruating women
must not look in mirrors because they tarnish the mirror.And then,around
1500,people said,"Have I been looking in mirrors recently? I haven't noticed
any tarnishing." And of course,at that moment, all those delicious old wives'
tales about the influence of man on the environment began to disappear.To
summarize,I quote from Pomponazzi,who,in a book called Of
Incantations,says quite firmly,
It is possible to justify any experience by natural causes and natural causes
only.There is no reason that could ever compel us to make any perception
depend on demonic powers.There is no point in introducing supernatural agents.It
is ridiculous as well as frivolous to abandon the evidence of natural reason
and to search for things that are neither probable nor rational.
Well,of course,that's a very wild choice by this time.And Pomponazzi was
an Aristolian from Padua to whom these things came,as it were,from the
outside;but he did mark a great turning point in this period,the time when
black magic was at an end;everyone had gone through the white magic period.In
black magic,the belief was that you would make nature run against her will.In
white magic,you began to say ,"Well,you know,let's make sure nature works
with us.There is harmony;we could exploit it." Finally came the concept of
natural law itself.And that was represented,in a most spectacular way,for
the first time in the writing of Francis Bacon between 1600 and 1620.It was
Francis Bacon,whom I was quoting,who was the first person to say "knowledge
is power." It was Francis Bacon who said in the Norvum Organum "we
cannot command nature except by obeying her." At this point,the scientific
revolution was really complete.This is an important issue because there has
been a good deal of argument about who Francis Bacon was - whether he wrote
Shakespeare,for example.It is particularly important to determine how he
fits into all this.And it's really only since the publication of Paolo Rossi's
book,Francis Bacon from Magic to Science (University of Chicago
Press,1968),that it has really become clear to us that he went through all
this;he understood all this Italian stuff.And then at the end,he came out
with this simple notion;it wouldn't work.
That's a very English thing to do.One could have an entirely separate chapter
on that Puritan frame of mind which made him say,"all this stuff about the
face of God and the harmony of the spheres and the number,mythology,and the
love of God - how does it really work?" At any rate,it's clear that
he was outraged by many of the fancies of the sixteenth-century writers on
memory and magic,and that he came to this crucial conclusion,"we cannot command
nature except by obeying her." There are laws of nature,and what you really
do is not turn them back but to exploit them.
If I might give you one spectacular example,who would have thought in 1569
- when they were already well on the way to this concept - that if you really
wanted to make the biggest bang that you ever made on earth,you would not
in any way call up the sun,call up the volcanoes,call up the mystic power;you
would just take ordinary atoms of uranium and you would put the
U238 atoms in one box and the
U235 in another box and that this
simple rearrangement of nature by her own laws would blow up 120,000 people
in Japan.
I've made a passing reference to a shift to England at this time and it would
not be fair if I didn't draw your attention to the importance of Protestantism
and Puritanism.There is a very curious history about magic I believe to be
true.It has always been a puzzle why,certainly from 1640 and probably even
before,the Protestant countries began to take the lead in science.Obviously
the trial of Galileo in 1633 had tremendous influence,but there must be something
in the background of the period 1500 - 1600 which began to to shift the centre
of gravity.Now I believe that this has a great deal to do with magic,for
a very curious reason.By 1600 it was open to anybody to say "you can't
persuade people of one thing when another is true simply by using words."
But unfortunately,Thomas Aquinas had committed himself to the statement that
the words which are used in the elevation of the host have absolute power
to change the bread into the body of Christ and the wine into the blood of
Christ.And the statement that Thomas Aquinas made back in the 1250's was
so absolute that it was really impossible to get around it. The words ,"this
is my body," the words, "this is my blood," would, if uttered,make a difference
even if they were made by a priest in bad faith,by a priest in unworthy
circumstances,or by a priest who was not thinking about the subject.And if
he did not utter those words,then no transubstantiation would take place.That
was a very big issue throughout the sixteenth century because you could not
get round authority of Aquinas on this,and yet here was something which in
some way had to be explained away,and it was very adequately explained away.One
could write about Duns Scotus's view,the Thomist view,how all this was dealt
with in the sixteenth century.But the fact of the matter was that it created
an attitude,in my view,about the nature of science and the existence of magical
powers which was different in Roman Catholic countries and in the new Protestant
countries.And we know this,because the Protestant writers were busy attacking
what they called the superstition of the church.And of course,in Puritan
England this was especially true.
I have made this long historical excursion because I wanted to demonstrate
what I think Ficino did when he suddenly opened up the world and made
the rainbow full of colour and said nature and man are in harmony.
I said.... that I couldn't think of any way of being a human being other
than by being an intellectual.To me,being an intellectual doesn't mean knowing
about intellectual issues;it means taking pleasure in them.And to my mind
is exactly what happened - exactly what transformed the attitude to science
about the year 1500.the sudden sense of an opening universe - you get it
in Copernicus,you get it in Galileo.If you read Galileo's Dialogues
and all those corny jokes and all that leg pulling,here is a man who is in
love with his subject and who is no longer practicing Faustian demonic magic
and swearing to the devil.He is out in the open; he just think it's marvellous.I
think ,of course,that science is wonderful in that way. And I end it with
Francis Bacon for that very reason - that the Elizabethan Age,to us an age
of literature,was exactly that age when all this science and literature together
came to fruition in England.
I quoted the Novum Organum of 1620.It was as late as 1620 that
"knowledge is power" was written for the first time.Twenty-five years
later,on Christmas day in 1645,Isaac Newton was born;in another forty years,Isaac
Newton published the Principia,and quite suddenly the world was
transformed into something which is both rational and beautiful in
just the way that the neo-Platonists believed with all their Averroist and
their
Aristolian tradition....At one moment
in history,science and the arts rose together, because of the simple sense
of man's pleasure in his own gifts.
The World Treasury of Physics
Astronomy and Mathematics File Info: Created Updated
16/4/2001 Page Address:
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/magic.html