It's fascinating to note that the Anglo-Saxon Hwicce, the original Tribe of Witches, had no word for 'magic.'

Instead, they had numerous words denoting different kinds of magic. At this remove of time, we can often no longer distinguish clearly between them

Bealcræft, 'bale-craft': magic intended to harm.

Drýcræft, 'druid (?)-craft': Possibly, druid magic. Specifically what kind of magic the Anglo-Saxons believed the druids to have practiced, we no longer know.

Dwimorcræft: 'dwimmer-craft': Necromancy (?)

Dwolcræft, 'dwele-craft': Apparently, magic intended to mislead or cause confusion.

Galdorcræft, 'galder-craft': Sung magic.

Heagorún, 'hedge-rune': Boundary magic?

Lybcræft: Magic using herbs or drugs.

Rúncræft, 'rune-craft': Rune-magic.

Scinncræft, 'shine-craft': Glamor, magic causing illusion.

Spellcræft, 'spell-craft': Word magic, story-magic.

Wicce-cræft, 'witchcraft': Witch magic (whatever that means).

I might add that the same situation also obtains in Old Norse and Biblical Hebrew, the only other ancient languages of which I have sufficient command to be able to form an opinion.

What is most interesting to observe here is the fact that apparently the ancestors did not perceive these different kinds of what we would today call 'magic' as belonging to the same category.

Our contemporary use of the word 'magic' dates only from the Renaissance. It effectively lumps together things that the ancestors saw as being different.

In short, 'magic' is a category invented by people who no longer believed in magic.

In light of this, it is perhaps worth asking: Does the word 'magic' actually retain any usefulness to us today?

Perhaps, like the similarly-problematic concept 'Nature,' 'magic' is best viewed as a term of convenience, but not a term of art.