게시판  검색  자료실  사이트맵  예수와나?

[ 뒤로 ] [ ] [ 위로 ] [ 다음 ]


종교 탐방

V. Magic


In the occult, magic comprises a wide range of phenomena, from the elaborate ritual beliefs and practices that are at the core of many religious systems, to acts of conjuring and sleight of hand for entertainment. Used in the former sense magic is a social and cultural phenomenon found in all places and at all periods, with varying degrees of importance.


The term magic essentially refers to a ritual performance or activity that is thought to lead to the influencing of human or natural events by an external and impersonal mystical force beyond the ordinary human sphere. The performance involves the use of special objects or the recitation of spells (words with an innate power or essence) or both by the magician. The nature of magic is frequently misunderstood because of uncertainty as to its definition, its relationship to other religious behaviour and institutions, and its social and psychological functions. This uncertainty is largely a consequence of 19th-century views on cultural and historical evolution that set magic apart from other religious phenomena as being especially prevalent in archaic and primitive societies and as merely a form of superstition without cultural or theological significance. This view has led to magic's being considered as different and distinct from other religious rites and beliefs and the overlooking of its essential similarity and connection with them, since both magical and non-magical rites and beliefs are concerned with the effects on human existence of outside mystical forces. The frequently held view that magical acts lack the intrinsically spiritual nature of religious acts, comprising external manipulation rather than supplication or inner grace, and that they are therefore of a simpler and lower kind in theological terms, has compounded the misunderstanding. The definition given above recognizes a main point of distinction between magic and other religious phenomena, in that the latter are concerned with a direct relationship between men and spiritual forces, whereas magic is regarded as rather an impersonal or technical act in which the personal link is not so important or is absent, even though the ultimate force behind both religious and magical acts is believed to be the same. The distinction made by Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), a seminal French sociologist of religion (see below Magic and religion ), that a religious practitioner has a congregation whereas a magician has a clientele, is also a meaningful one. The difficulty in defining magic and distinguishing it from religion is due largely to Western ethnocentric views. In Judeo-Christian belief it has been distinguished from other religious acts, but this distinction is not always found in other religious systems and in fact would appear to be unusual. Many writers have referred to "magico-religious" phenomena, a convenient blanket term. (see also Index: cultural relativism)

Magic is often confused with witchcraft, especially in the history of European religions. Modern anthropologists, however, make the useful distinction between magic as the manipulation of an external power by mechanical or behavioral means to affect others, and witchcraft as an inherent personal quality motivated to the same ends. In this classification, the word sorcery is used for magic that aims to harm other people; that is, sorcery is "black" magic, whereas magic used for beneficent ends is "white" magic. This distinction does not always hold for specific societies but is a useful one in analysis. Divination, the skill of understanding mystical agents that affect people and events, should be distinguished from magic in that its purpose is not to influence events but rather to understand them. The ultimate mystical power of diviners, however, may be thought to be the same as that behind the forces of magic. In some societies, magicians act as diviners, but the two skills should be distinguished. Magicians are often confused with priests, shamans, and prophets, mainly because many of these practitioners' activities include acts that are traditionally defined as "magical"; i.e., while essentially they are regarded as intermediaries between men and gods or spirits, in the sense of acting in a direct personal relationship, some of their acts are also impersonal or "magical." It is often, perhaps usually, impossible clearly to distinguish between priests and magicians; any distinction lies in the kind of actions they perform in particular situations rather than in any true distinction between the kinds of practitioners themselves.


Magic in one form or other appears to be a part of all known religious systems, at all levels of historical development, although the degree of importance given to it varies considerably. The term has been used loosely by many writers, especially when discussing European magic. Also the ethnographic accounts of small-scale preliterate societies vary in the degree to which they contain detailed descriptions even when magic is important in a particular culture. Thus the analyses of magic in its total cultural setting are remarkably few.

Knowledge of magic in prehistory is limited by lack of reliable data. Many cave paintings and engravings, from all parts of the world, have been claimed to represent figures practicing hunting magic and sorcery, but this is only conjecture. More certain information about magical phenomena is available for the ancient Middle Eastern and Greco-Roman cultures, Christian Europe, and contemporary preliterate societies.

1) Magic in the ancient world.

There are many recorded texts of what appear to be magic spells and formulas from ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Most accounts of these cultures class almost all records of ritual as forms of magic and as examples of magical or mythopoeic ways of thought. This is usually because the writers themselves assumed that these cultures were examples of "prelogical" thought (as compared with the thought of civilized man), and so took any religious record as evidence of this. The pharaohs of Egypt, for example, were what are usually called "divine kings," and as such were believed to have the power to control nature and fertility. Many writers refer to their powers as magical, but the evidence is rather that they were expressions of royal omnipotence and contingent on their divine status. Examples of true magical spells and formulas are recorded from both Mesopotamia and Egypt; e.g., spells to ward off witches and sorcerers. Spells addressed to gods, to fire, to salt, and to grain are recorded from Mesopotamia and Egypt, as are spells uttered by sorcerers and including necromancy or invocation of the spirits of the dead, who were referred to as a last resort against evil magic. Excellent examples of spells are recorded from the earliest times, and especially in Greco-Egyptian papyruses of the 1st to the 4th century AD. They include both magical recipes involving animals and animal substances, and also instructions for the ritual preparations and purification necessary to ensure the efficacy of the spells. (see also Index: Mesopotamian religion, Egyptian religion)

In ancient Roman culture much importance was given to sorcery and counter-sorcery. These seem to have been associated with the development of new urban classes whose members had to rely on their own efforts in both material and magical terms to defeat their rivals and attain success. Spells are recorded to ensure victory in love as well as in business, games, and oratory. Along with these are counter-spells to defeat rival sorcerers. (see also Index: Roman religion)

2) Magic in Christian Europe.

For the European Middle Ages and later periods there is a vast corpus of written records. As is known from recent anthropological and historical work on witchcraft, magic, and religious syncretism, magic is specially prevalent during periods of rapid social change and mobility, when new personal relations and conflicts assume greater importance than the traditional kin and family relations more typical of times of social stability. Europe appears to have been no exception, particularly when the church, struggling to assert or maintain hegemony, leveled accusations of magic against its opponents. There are three main aspects to the history of European magic, much of which is ill-described and almost always without adequate accounts of the full cultural setting. One is that of magic and sorcery in everyday relationships at the community level from the end of the classical world until recently, when beliefs in magic have in general become weakened. In most cases these beliefs were part of the culture of lowly rural people and records are scant. An exception was sorcery used by wealthier and urban people, especially in Italy and Spain from the 14th century onward, a concomitant of increased social mobility and growth of class hierarchies. A second aspect is the better known but frequently misunderstood belief in magic defined by the church as the heretical practice of making pacts with the devil and evil spirits. St. Augustine and other early Christian writers had considered magic to be a relic of paganism and removable by conversion and education. After a papal bull in 1320, magic, regarded as synonymous with witchcraft, came to be defined as heresy, and the Inquisition's records began to mention the Witches' Sabbath (midnight assembly in fealty to the devil) and the Black Mass (a travesty of the Christian mass) as forms of magic and witchcraft. They were defined as magic because of the supposed use of material objects, philtres, spells, and poisons. The spells included the perverted use of prayers and the use of sacred writings and objects for diabolical ends. This aspect of European magic has persisted into recent times in the activities of self-styled satanists. (see also Index: Christianity, satanism)

Whereas these forms of magic were regarded as evil and tantamount to heresy, the third aspect has usually been considered as good, or "white," in intent. This is the use of magic as part of the Hermetic tradition. Followers of this tradition, who often practiced alchemy rather than magic, were sometimes considered to be evil magicians, acquiring their knowledge by a pact with the devil (as in the Faust legends), but most of them were tolerated in society because their practices, however strange, were perceived as being within the main Judaic and Christian Hermetic tradition. When their magical activities proved, or appeared, to be antisocial, the results were more often put down to simple trickery--as in the case of the 18th-century charlatan Alessandro, conte di Cagliostro (Giuseppe Balsamo)--than to supernatural agency.

3) Magic in nonliterate societies.

Most knowledge of magic in its social setting is derived from anthropological accounts of people of the non-Western world who today believe in magic. The importance of firsthand anthropological accounts, even though many anthropologists tend to make use of the ethnocentric distinction between religion and magic, is that they show how the people themselves actually regard magic and what they actually do with it and against it, rather than relying on the records of inquisitors and missionaries whose aim it was to stamp out magic. Detailed descriptions of magic come mostly from accounts of societies in Oceania and Africa; magic is also frequently reported from many Muslim societies where pre-Islamic beliefs still exist, as in Malaysia and Indonesia. A difficulty in this respect is that accounts only rarely distinguish magic from witchcraft and divination, both of which are found in virtually every known Oriental society. (see also Index: primitive religion)



1) Structure.

A general point to be made is that the frequent tales of peoples living in fear of evil magicians and black magic are merely fanciful travelers' stories. Magic is normally regarded as an everyday aspect of religion used to explain certain kinds of events and to help bring about desired eventualities. Like most religious phenomena, magic may be regarded with some sense of awe and mystery, but this is more often a sign of the importance given to it than of fear or terror. Typically people perform magical acts themselves or they go to a magician, an expert who knows how to observe the necessary ritual precautions and taboos, and who may be a professional consulted for a fee. Depending upon the beliefs of the particular culture, the skill may be transmitted by inheritance or bought from other magicians, or may be invented by the magician for himself. Magicians may be consulted for nefarious purposes, to protect a client from the evil magic of others, or for purely benevolent reasons. It seems universal that magic is morally neutral, although the emphasis in any particular society may be on either its good or its evil use.

In some religions, especially those of small-scale nonliterate societies, magic may be considered as important and even central to religious belief; whereas in others, especially in the main world religions, it may be unimportant, and often regarded as a mere superstition that is not acceptable to official dogma. It has often been maintained that magic is important in societies that possess a particular worldview or cosmology, in which a scientifically or empirically correct cause-effect relationship between human and natural phenomena is seen as a symbolic one. This view, which is associated particularly with the British anthropologist Sir James Frazer (1854-1941), is now viewed as being based on a misunderstanding of patterns of thought in prescientific cultures. It is true that these cultures may lack the scientifically accurate knowledge of Western industrial societies; they may use magical techniques (for example, rainmaking), whereas in an industrial society it is known that such techniques are instrumentally ineffective. But magic is also performed for expressive purposes; i.e., stating and maintaining the formal culture and organization of the society, so that rainmaking magic has also the function of stressing the importance of rain and the farming activities associated with it.

There are usually considered to be three main elements in magic: the spell, the rite itself, and the ritual condition of the performer. This was first stated by the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) in his study of the Trobriand Islanders of Melanesia. With the spell may be included the use of material objects or "medicines."

i) The spell.

The importance of the spell or incantation is now thought to have been somewhat exaggerated by the influence of Malinowski's work. Among the Trobriand Islanders this aspect is extremely important: using the right words in the right way is regarded as essential to the efficacy of the rite. Among the Maori of New Zealand this element is thought so important that a mistake in the recitation of a spell would lead to the magician's own death. Frequently spells have an archaic or esoteric vocabulary that adds to the respect in which the rite is held. But in many societies the spell is of minimal importance, the magician using his own words and regarding the content as more significant.

ii) Material objects or "medicines."

Equally widespread--perhaps more so than the use of spells--is the use of material objects, often known in the literature as "medicines" (hence the popular use of the term medicine man for magician). The nature of the medicines varies greatly. In some cases, medicines intended to cause harm are genuine poisons (some African peoples place poisons in rivers to stun and catch fish, but regard them as they do any other, less genuinely efficacious medicines). More usually the medicines do not empirically bring about the effect but in some way represent it; for example, it is common practice for a magician to try to harm another person by destroying something from his body (e.g., hair or nail parings), or something that has been in contact with him (e.g., a piece of clothing or other personal possession). Another kind of symbolism is exemplified by the Trobriand use of light vegetable leaves in rites to ensure a canoe's speed, symbolizing the ease with which it will glide over the water; the Azande of The Sudan place a stone in a tree fork to postpone the setting of the Sun; many Balkan peoples used to swallow gold to cure jaundice.

iii) The rite.

The significance of the magical rite itself is often overlooked by those who hold the view that magic is something apart from religion. But it seems universal that magic is practiced only in formal and carefully defined ritual situations. The rite itself may be symbolic, as with the sprinkling of water on the ground to make rain or the destruction of a waxen image to harm a victim.

iv) Condition of the performer.

The ritual nature of magical performances may also be seen in a third element, that of the condition of the performer. Even though regarded as an everyday and "natural" phenomenon, magic is nonetheless considered as potentially dangerous and polluting, as is any sacred or religious object or activity. Both the magician and the rite itself are typically surrounded by the observance of taboos, by the purification of the participants, and so on. The magician may observe restrictions on certain foods or on sexual activity, and he may be regarded as polluting to other people at these times. There are two obvious reasons: failure to observe such precautions nullifies the magic, and taking precautions indicates to the participants and others the importance of the rite itself and the ends desired. The precautions mark off the rite from ordinary and profane activities and invest it with sanctity.

2) Functions.

The functions of magic are several, but there are two main aspects, the instrumental and the expressive. A basic feature of magical rites and beliefs is that the practitioners believe that these are instrumental; i.e., they are designed to achieve certain ends in nature or in the behaviour of other people. This is usually the aspect most important for the people concerned as well as for past writers on the subject. The symbolic or expressive aspect is always present, however; it is because of its symbolic content that magic may best be understood as a part of a religious system.

i) Instrumental functions.

Malinowski and his followers have distinguished three main instrumental functions: the productive, the protective, and the destructive. Productive magic is used to ensure a successful outcome to some creative or productive activity in terms of both human labour and natural bounty, such as a good harvest or hunt. Malinowski showed clearly how it may foster confidence where technology is weak or uncertain; his example of the Trobriand Islanders making magic when fishing in the open sea but not doing so when fishing in a calm and protected lagoon makes the point clearly. In addition, productive magic may also assist the efficient organization of labour and give greater incentive to those who feel confident of success. Protective magic aims to prevent or remove danger, to cure sickness, and to protect an individual or community from the vagaries of nature and the evil acts of others. Again, it may give people confidence to continue their normal activities. Destructive magic is sorcery, directed specifically to harm other people. The fear of this form of magic may reduce individual initiative since a successful or wealthy person in an egalitarian society may fear the sorcery of the envious. On the other hand, the use of counter-magic against sorcery rids a community of its internal fears and tensions.

ii) Expressive functions.

The expressive functions of magic are symbolic and usually latent in the sense that the performers may not themselves be immediately aware of them. They have largely to do with the effects of individual acts upon society at large. It is there that the part played by magic in a total system of religion may be seen.



1) Magic and religion.

The relationship of magic to other religious activities depends on three main considerations. The first is the nature of the power toward which the rites are directed. The eminent British anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917) and his successors distinguished a personal, conscious, and omnipotent spiritual being as the object of religious ritual; magical performances have no power in themselves but are usually thought by believers to be an expression of an external, impersonal force in nature, for which the Melanesian-Polynesian term mana has typically been used. A second consideration is the participants: the magician and those who go to him. As noted above, Durkheim pointed out that a priest has a congregation whereas the magician has a clientele. A religious ritual has as its principal function (in sociological terms) the maintenance of a sense of cohesion among the members of the church, whereas the magical rite lacks this function. This view has been influential in the past and has by now become part of general anthropological thinking, although some of its details have been rejected by recent researchers.

The third consideration is that of the function of magic and of other religious activities. The magician may see the overt function of his action as instrumental, as geared to a specific end; the external observer may accept this but also see a latent function. Malinowski, for example, maintained that much of Trobriand magic was performed as an extension of human ability, as a power beyond the normal or understood. It had as its most important function the instillation of confidence in situations where human knowledge and competence cease. In addition, the rite helps to throw the importance of a given activity and the cooperation needed for it into relief and thus helps maintain the high social value of cooperation in a small community beset by disruptive jealousies and competition over scarce and difficult resources. A.R. Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955) pointed out in his work on the Andaman Islanders that their magical rites and precautions at childbirth and death may comfort those concerned, although they are also irksome, but that their main function is to highlight the social importance of birth and death and to bring to public notice the changes in patterns of local and kinship organization that follow them. Some of the hypotheses of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown are today regarded as questionable, but they have influenced subsequent studies in that they were concerned not only with the individual's belief in magic but also with the function of magic in the total social system. (see also Index: Andamanese)

In brief, it may be said that religious rites are ways of acting out beliefs about the relationships of man to God, man to man, and man to nature. In contrast, magic is a way of achieving certain ends beyond the knowledge and competence of ordinary people, especially in technologically limited societies, and of expressing their desires symbolically. Certain functions are common to both: the provision of explanation for the otherwise inexplicable; a means of coping with the unusual and mysterious; the enhancement of the social values of certain activities and situations and the coordination of socially valuable activities.

2) Magic, technology, and science.

The problem of the relationship of magic to technical and scientific knowledge has concerned most writers on the subject. Magical rites have at least superficial similarities to nonmagical technical activities. In each the actor performs an action that he expects will have a certain consequence. The distinction between the two processes made by Tylor and Frazer (see below) was that the magician assumes a direct cause-effect relationship between the action and the subsequent event, whereas in empirical fact the relationship is one of the association of ideas only. Many writers have pointed out that magic is used when technical knowledge is missing or uncertain. This is not to say that magic is a substitute for technical knowledge but that its performance gives confidence to people aware of their technical limitations. The magician does not regard his magic as being the same kind of activity as weeding a field or sharpening a knife; the magical rite is of a different order, dealing with external and mystical forces.

To the scientific mind it is puzzling that people continue to believe in magic when it seems clear that there is empirically no cause-effect relationship between a magical rite and the desired consequence. The main purpose of magic, however, is not so much to achieve a certain technical end as to perform an act that has symbolic or psychological value. It is thus pointless to test it, in the same sense that a Christian does not test the efficacy of prayer. The problem was discussed by Tylor, who produced reasons why the failure of magic was not easily apparent to believers. The idiom of magic pervades all in contact with it and cannot be tested scientifically in its own terms, so that tests as to the magic's efficacy are not in fact tests at all but rational statements about commonsense experience.


There is a voluminous literature on magic. The earliest studies were those of Judaic and Christian scholars concerned with the relationship of magic to their faiths, both as relics of paganism and as heresy. During the latter part of the 19th century, anthropologists entered the field with the aim of analyzing magic and its part in the evolution of the world's religions.

1) Anthropological.

The first important figure in the anthropological consideration of the subject was Tylor, who, in his Primitive Culture(1871), regarded magic as a "pseudo-science" in which the "savage" incorrectly postulated a direct cause-effect relationship between the magical act and the desired event. Although Tylor regarded magic as "one of the most pernicious delusions that ever vexed mankind," he studied it not as a superstition or heresy but as a phenomenon based on the "symbolic principle of magic," a logical scheme of thought founded on a quite rational process of analogy. He also faced the question of why the believer in magic did not realize its inefficacy. His reasons included the frequent association of magic with empirical behaviour, nature often performing what the magician tries to do; the attribution of failure to the breaking of taboos or to hostile magic forces; the plasticity of the notions of success and failure; and the weight of cultural belief and authority behind the magician. He also realized that magic and religion are parts of a total system of thought; they are not alternatives but complementary, and thus not stages in the evolutionary development of mankind--although he considered that magic and animistic beliefs decreased in the later stages of history.

In The Golden Bough(1890) Frazer refined Tylor's views on magical thought, discussed the relationship of magic to religion and science, and placed them all in a grandiose evolutionary scheme. He accepted Tylor's theory about the false cause-effect relationship between magical and natural events, calling magic a "spurious system of natural law," and analyzed the principles behind the false relationship. According to Frazer the principles were that "like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause" (the Law of Similarity) and that things once in physical contact with each other later continue to act on each other at a distance (the Law of Contact or Contagion). Magic based on the former he called homeopathic magic, that based on the latter he called contagious magic. He added the notion of taboo as negative magic, acting on the same principles of association.

Frazer also developed an evolutionary scheme for magic and religion. He saw magic and religion as belonging to different stages in the development of human thought. Magic was prior because it seemed to him to be logically more simple, because he assumed (erroneously, as was shown later) that the Australian Aborigines, examples of an archaic people, believed in magic but not in religion, and because magic forms a substratum of superstition even in advanced societies. According to Frazer, individuals in the earliest cultures must have come to realize the inefficacy of magic and the powerlessness of men to control nature; from this they postulated the existence of omnipotent spiritual beings who required supplication in order to direct nature as men wanted. Thus there came into existence religion. The final stage in this schema began with the recognition of the existence of empirical natural laws, aided by the discoveries of alchemy and then of science proper. With this final development religion joined magic as superstition.

These writers, and their followers such as R. Ranulph Marett (1866-1943), regarded magic as essentially an individual and intellectual matter, one of the ways in which individuals think about the world. Another line of writers widened the discussion by regarding the problem as essentially one of the social function of magic. The first such writers of note were the French sociologists Marcel Mauss (1872-1950) and Émile Durkheim. Durkheim, in The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (Eng. trans. 1915), considered that magical rites comprised the manipulation of sacred objects by the magician on behalf of individual clients; the socially cohesive significance of religious rites proper, by the priests, was therefore largely lacking. His views were followed by Radcliffe-Brown (The Andaman Islanders1922) and to a lesser extent by Malinowski (Argonauts of the Western Pacific, 1922, and various papers brought together as Magic, Science and Religion, 1925), the latter influenced more by Frazer and the early psychoanalysts. Radcliffe-Brown's main hypothesis has been mentioned above: the social function of magic was to express the social importance of the desired or protected event. Malinowski, on the other hand, regarded magic as being opposed to religion, and as directly and essentially concerned with the psychological needs of the individual. It acted to extend his normal knowledge and competence; to provide confidence in situations of technical uncertainty by "ritualizing optimism"; to express desires that are otherwise unrealizable in a small and technically limited community; and, as counter-magic, to explain failure. Malinowski's influence has been marked, due largely to the fact that his was the first detailed and firsthand account of the actual working of an ongoing system of magic. Other writers, notably Marett in England and Robert Lowie and Alexander Goldenweiser in the United States, differed from Tylor and Frazer in voicing the opinion that the distinction between magic and religion reflects an ethnocentric distinction between the "natural" and the "supernatural" that is largely untenable.

More recently there have been many reports of the working of systems of magic, especially from Africa and Oceania. On the whole they have followed Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown and have been based on the single most important work on the topic that has appeared since theirs, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande(1937), by Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard (1902-73). Evans-Pritchard shows concisely how magic is an integral part of religion and culture, being used to explain events the normal understanding and control of which are beyond the technical competence of this southern Sudan people. The Azande accept magic, together with witchcraft and oracles, as a normal part of nature and society. These various phenomena form a closed logical system, each part of which buttresses the other and provides a rational system of causation for both natural order and social order as well as for disorder or coincidence.

2) Psychological.

These various anthropological approaches to magic have had the advantage of regarding it as a social phenomenon rather than one of individual psychology. The views of Tylor and Frazer, however, are ultimately psychological, since they are based on their notions of individual ways of thought. Their work was based to a considerable extent on that of Herbert Spencer and Wilhelm Wundt and was followed by anthropologists with views on the psychological origins of magic and religion, such as Lowie, Paul Radin, and Goldenweiser, all of whom were concerned with the problem of the individual psychological status of believers. Much of Malinowski's work depends on providing psychological reasons for belief in magic. Sigmund Freud (Totem and Taboo1918) had at one time considerable influence with his view that magic, the earliest phase in the development of religious thought (following Frazer), was similar in its essential processes to the thought of children and neurotics. This view was based on his theory of the "Omnipotence of Thought," by which savages, children, and neurotics all assumed that wish or intention led automatically to the fulfillment of the desired end. This view has long been abandoned, due not so much to its inherent misunderstanding of the expressive nature of magical ritual as to the general recognition that the assumption of the similarity between primitive, infantile, and neurotic modes of thought is false; it arose largely from the ignorance about primitive culture that prevailed before the development of modern anthropological field researches.

3) Conclusion.

The study of magic as a distinct cultural phenomenon has a long history in anthropological and historical studies. Although some distinctions between it and other religious activities may often be useful, it cannot be studied in isolation as was once the fashion. It is essentially an aspect or reflection of the worldview held by a particular people at a particular stage of development in scientific and technical knowledge. It is thus a part, although to the people concerned often a very important part, of their total system of religion and cosmology. 


[ ] [ 위로 ] [ 목차 ] [ 연금술 ] [ 점술: 점성술 ] [ 그밖의 점술들 ] [ 마술 ] [ 마법 ] [ 참고문헌 ] [ 신비술 (요약) ]


 게시판  검색  자료실  사이트맵  예수와나?

[ 뒤로 ] [ ] [ 위로 ] [ 다음 ] Homepage

This page was last modified 2001/09/23