Cultural Plurality in Ancient Magical Texts and Practices: Graeco-Egyptian Handbooks and Related Traditions 3161564782, 9783161564789

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
List of General Abbreviations Used Throughout the Volume
Introduction • Ljuba Merlina Bortolani/Svenja Nagel
Acknowledgements
Part I: Egyptian, Greek and Mesopotamian Traditions of Magic: Different Genres, Perception of the ‘Other’ and Possible Transcultural Exchange
Magical Practices in Egyptian Literary Texts: in Quest of Cultural Plurality • Franziska Naether
Magic and Mystery at Selinus: Another Look at the Getty Hexameters • William D. Furley
Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae • Daniel Schwemer
Part II: Cultural Plurality and Fusion in the Graeco-Egyptian Magical Papyri (PGM/PDM)
Single Handbooks and Magical Techniques
Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context • Richard Gordon
Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals • Svenja Nagel
‘We Are Such Stuff as Dream Oracles Are Made on’: Greek and Egyptian Traditions and Divine Personas in the Dream Divination Spells of the Magical Papyri • Ljuba Merlina Bortolani
Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes for Oracular and Protective Statues • Christopher A. Faraone
Specific Spells and Deities
The Heliopolitan Ennead and Geb as a Scrofulous Boar in the PGM: Two Case Studies on Cultural Interaction in Late-Antique Magic • Joachim Friedrich Quack
Traditions of Transformation and Shape-Shifting in PGM XIII 270–77
Crowns of Hermanubis: Semiotic Fusion and Spells for Better Business in the Magical Papyri • Adria Haluszka
Love Spell and Hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV (2891–941)
Part III: Integration and Transformation of Graeco-EgyptianMagic in Jewish and Byzantine Spells
The Greek Prayer to Helios in Sefer ha-Razim, in Light of New Textual Evidence • Gideon Bohak/Alessia Bellusci
Incantations in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Greek: Change and Continuity • Michael Zellmann-Rohrer
Bibliography
List of Contributors
Index of Sources
Index of Names
Index of Subjects
Plates

Citation preview

Orientalische Religionen in der Antike Ägypten, Israel, Alter Orient

Oriental Religions in Antiquity Egypt, Israel, Ancient Near East

(ORA) Herausgegeben von / Edited by

Angelika Berlejung (Leipzig) Joachim Friedrich Quack (Heidelberg) Annette Zgoll (Göttingen) Beirat / Advisory Board

Uri Gabbay (Jerusalem) Michael Blömer (Aarhus) Christopher Rollston (Washington, D.C.) Rita Lucarelli (Berkeley)

32

Cultural Plurality in Ancient Magical Texts and Practices Graeco-Egyptian Handbooks and Related Traditions Edited by Ljuba Merlina Bortolani, William D. Furley, Svenja Nagel, and Joachim Friedrich Quack

Mohr Siebeck

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani, born 1980; studied Classics and Egyptology; 2012 PhD; since 2017 postdoc researcher at the department of Classical Philology at the University of Heidelberg. William D. Furley, born 1953; 1979 PhD; since 2003 Associate Professor of Classics, University of Heidelberg; Senior Research Fellow of the Institute of Classical Studies (School of Advanced ­Studies), London. Svenja Nagel, born 1984; studied Egyptology and Classical Archaeology; 2015 PhD; since 2017 post-doc researcher at the Institute of Egyptology at the University of Heidelberg. Joachim Friedrich Quack, born 1966; studied Egyptology, Semitics and Biblical Archaeology; 1993 PhD; 2003 Habilitation; since 2005 Professor for Egyptology at the University of Heidelberg.

ISBN 978-3-16-156478-9 / eISBN 978-3-16-156479-6 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-156479-6 ISSN 1869-0513 / eISSN 2568-7492 (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Gulde Druck in Tübingen, and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents List of General Abbreviations Used Throughout the Volume ................................... VII Ljuba Merlina Bortolani/Svenja Nagel Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1  Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 23 

Part I: Egyptian, Greek and Mesopotamian Traditions of Magic: Different Genres, Perception of the ‘Other’ and Possible Transcultural Exchange ...................................................................................... 25  Franziska Naether Magical Practices in Egyptian Literary Texts: in Quest of Cultural Plurality ............. 27  William D. Furley Magic and Mystery at Selinus: Another Look at the Getty Hexameters ..................... 42  Daniel Schwemer Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae ..................................................................................................................... 62 

Part II: Cultural Plurality and Fusion in the Graeco-Egyptian Magical Papyri (PGM/PDM) ............................................................................ 87  Single Handbooks and Magical Techniques ............................................................... 89  Richard Gordon Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context .............................. 91  Svenja Nagel Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals .................................................................................................... 124  Ljuba Merlina Bortolani ‘We Are Such Stuff as Dream Oracles Are Made on’: Greek and Egyptian Traditions and Divine Personas in the Dream Divination Spells of the

VI Magical Papyri ......................................................................................................... 149 Christopher A. Faraone Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes for Oracular and Protective Statues .... 171  Specific Spells and Deities ....................................................................................... 189  Joachim Friedrich Quack The Heliopolitan Ennead and Geb as a Scrofulous Boar in the PGM: Two Case Studies on Cultural Interaction in Late-Antique Magic ............................ 191  Richard Phillips Traditions of Transformation and Shape-Shifting in PGM XIII 270–77 ................... 208  Adria Haluszka Crowns of Hermanubis: Semiotic Fusion and Spells for Better Business in the Magical Papyri ............................................................................................... 227  Marcela Ristorto Love Spell and Hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV (2891–941) .................................... 238 

Part III: Integration and Transformation of Graeco-Egyptian Magic in Jewish and Byzantine Spells .......................................................... 257  Gideon Bohak/Alessia Bellusci The Greek Prayer to Helios in Sefer ha-Razim, in Light of New Textual Evidence .................................................................................................................. 259  Michael Zellmann-Rohrer Incantations in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Greek: Change and Continuity ......... 276  Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 297  List of Contributors.................................................................................................. 341  Index of Sources ...................................................................................................... 345  Index of Names ........................................................................................................ 364 Index of Subjects ..................................................................................................... 370  Plates

List of General Abbreviations Used Throughout the Volume ANRW

AP BAM BM BoD

BRM CAD CCAG CDD CG CIA CIL CMAwR CT

CT (BM) Dend. Edfou

FGrH

H. TEMPORINI, W. HAASE (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, I–XXXVII, Berlin/New York 1972–1996. Anthologia Palatina. F. KÖCHER et al., Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen, Berlin 1963–. British Museum, London (Museum Signature). Book of the Dead. For the hieroglyphic text cf. the philologically unsatisfactory (but un-superseded) edition of E.A.W. BUDGE, The Book of the Dead: the Chapters of Coming Forth by Day: the Egyptian Text According to the Theban Recension in Hieroglyphic Edited from Numerous Papyri, with a Translation, Vocabulary, etc., I–III, London 1898. In general, for translations see R.O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, London 1985; C. CARRIER, Le Livre des morts de l’Égypte ancienne, Paris 2009; for the papyrus of Ani, including images see E. VON DASSOW, J. WASSERMAN (eds.), The Egyptian Book of the Dead: the Book of Going Forth by Day, San Francisco 1994. Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan, I–IV, New Haven et al. 1912–1923. A.L. OPPENHEIM, E. REINER et al. (eds.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago, Chicago 1956–. Catalogus codicum astrologorum Graecorum, I–XII, Brussels 1898–1953. J.H. JOHNSON (ed.), The Demotic Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago 2001. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Cairo et al. 1901–. Corpus inscriptionum Atticarum, 1825–. Corpus inscriptionum latinarum, 1863–. Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-Witchcraft Rituals (Ancient Magic and Divination 8.1–2), I–II, Leiden/Boston 2011 and 2016. I: T. ABUSCH, D. SCHWEMER; II: T. ABUSCH, D. SCHWEMER, M. LUUKKO, G. VAN BUYLAERE. Coffin Texts. Synoptic edition of the hieroglyphic texts: A. DE BUCK, The Egyptian Coffin Texts, I–VII, Chicago 1935–1961. An English translation is provided by R.O. FAULKNER, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, I–III, Warminster 1973–1978. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, London 1896–. Le temple de Dendara, I–XV, Cairo 1934–2008. I–V: É. CHASSINAT; VI: É. CHASSINAT, F. DAUMAS; VII–IX: F. DAUMAS; X–XV: S. CAUVILLE. Le temple d’Edfou, I–XV. I–II: S. CAUVILLE, D. DEVAUCHELLE [Deuxième édition revue et corrigée], Cairo 1984–1987; III: É. CHASSINAT, M. DE ROCHMONTEIX, Cairo 1928; IV–XIV: É. CHASSINAT, Cairo 1929–1934; XV: S. CAUVILLE, D. DEVAUCHELLE, Cairo 1985. F. JACOBY (ed.), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 2nd edn, Leiden 1954–1969.

VIII GMPT IG KAR

LBAT LdÄ LGG LIMC LKA LSJ NP OED PDM

PGM PRE

PT

RAC SEG SGG Sm SM SMA Sp SpTU

List of General Abbreviations H.D. BETZ, (ed.), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation – Including the Demotic Spells, 2nd edn, Chicago/London 1992 [1st edn, Chicago 1986]. Inscriptiones graecae, Berlin 1873–. E. EBELING, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts, I–II (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 28 and 34), Leipzig 1919, 1920/23. T.G. PINCHES, J.N. STRASSMAIER, A.J. SACHS, Late Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts, Providence 1955. W. HELCK, E. OTTO (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie, I–VII, Wiesbaden 1972– 1992. C. LEITZ, Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, I–VIII (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 110–16, 129), Leuven 2002–2003. H.C. ACKERMANN, Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae, Zürich/ Munich 1981–2009. E. EBELING, Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Assur, Berlin 1953. H.G. LIDDELL, R. SCOTT, H.S. JONES, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn, Oxford 1996. H. CANCIK, H. SCHNEIDER (eds.), Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike, I– XVI, Stuttgart 1996–2003. Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford 2001–. Papyri Demoticae Magicae according to the edition of H.D. BETZ (ed.), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation – Including the Demotic Spells, 2nd edn, Chicago/London 1992 [1st edn, Chicago 1986]. K. PREISENDANZ, A. HENRICHS, (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri, I–II [III], 2nd edn, Stuttgart 1973–1974 [1941]. A. PAULY, G. WISSOWA (eds.) Paulys Real-Encylopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, I–XXIV, Stuttgart 1894–1963; 2nd Series I–X, Stuttgart/ Munich 1920–1972; Suppl. I–XV, Stuttgart/Munich 1903–1978. K. SETHE, Die altaegyptischen Pyramidentexte nach den Papierabdrücken und Photographien des Berliner Museums, I–IV, Leipzig 1908–1922; trans. R.O. FAULKNER, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Oxford 1969; J.P. ALLEN, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (Writings from the Ancient World 23), Leiden/Boston 2005. T. KLAUSER et al. (eds.), Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, I–, Stuttgart 1950–. Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum, Leiden 1923–71, then Amsterdam 1979–. A. MASTROCINQUE (ed.), Sylloge Gemmarum Gnosticarum, I–II (Bollettino di numismatica, monografia 8.2.1, 2), Rome 2003–2008. Smith (British Museum, London), Museum signature. R.W. DANIEL, F. MALTOMINI, Supplementum Magicum, I–II (Papyrologica Coloniensia 16.1–2), Opladen 1990–1992. C. BONNER, Studies in Magical Amulets Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian (University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series 4), Ann Arbor 1950. Spartoli (British Museum), Museum signature. Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk, I–V. I: H. HUNGER (Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 9), Berlin 1976; II–III: E. VON WEIHER (Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in UrukWarka 10, 12), Berlin 1983, 1988; IV–V: E. VON WEIHER (Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Endberichte 12, 13), Mainz 1993, 1998.

List of General Abbreviations STT

TLA TLL

Urk. IV

IX

The Sultantepe Tablets, I–II. I: O.R. GURNEY, J.J. FINKELSTEIN; II: O.R. GURNEY, P. HULIN (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 3 and 7), London 1957, 1964. Thesaurus linguae Aegyptiae (http://aaew.bbaw.de/tla). Thesaurus linguae Latinae, editus auctoritate et consilio academiarum quinque Germanicarum Berolinensis, Gottingensis, Lipsiensis, Monacensis, Vindobonensis, I–XI, Leipzig et al. 1900–. K. SETHE, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie (= Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums IV), Leipzig 1906–1958.

Throughout the volume, Greek spelling is generally used for the names of Greek deities, divine entities and persons. On the other hand, according to customary practice, Latinate forms are used for the names of ancient authors (abbreviated references mostly follow the LSJ but are sometimes slightly expanded to avoid ambiguity).

Introduction LJUBA MERLINA BORTOLANI/SVENJA NAGEL

With the second half of the twentieth century and the reawakening of the scholarly interest in ancient magic the amount of valuable publications on the subject has been greatly increasing until today. They encompass editions of magical texts and objects, overarching studies of magic in the ancient world,1 as well as monographs on more specific topics.2 In particular, scholars had many opportunities to meet and exchange ideas thanks to various international conferences that resulted in significant volumes of Proceedings.3 However, despite this growing enthusiasm, the subject is vast and can be explored from numerous different perspectives, so that many aspects have not yet received the attention they deserve and more detailed research still awaits to be conducted. In particular, as far as the ancient Mediterranean is concerned, the protracted political, cultural and trade contacts between different areas, especially increasing from the Hellenistic Period onwards, inevitably influenced also the religious-magical tradition. Accordingly, magical texts and objects from the ancient Mediterranean often appear to display a gradual rise in the incorporation of ‘foreign’ elements, i.e. elements of different cultural origin, whether limited to ‘foreign’ magical words or including ‘foreign’ deities, mythological references, ritual allusions, etc. Therefore, the final result 1

Just to mention some of the more renowned books, e.g. mainly on Graeco-Roman magic GRAF, Gottesnähe; FLINT et al. (eds.), Witchcraft and Magic; DICKIE, Magic and Magicians; M. MARTIN, Magie et magiciens; DE. COLLINS, Magic in the Ancient; on ancient Egyptian magic, e.g. RITNER, Mechanics; KOENIG, Magie et magiciens; on Jewish magic, e.g. BOHAK, Ancient Jewish Magic; HARARI, Jewish Magic; on Mesopotamian magic, e.g. SCHWEMER, Abwehrzauber und Behexung; ABUSCH/VAN DER TOORN (eds.), Mesopotamian Magic. 2 E.g. MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax; DIELEMAN, Priests; FAUTH, Helios Megistos; FAUTH, Hekate Polymorphos; FAUTH, Jao-Jahwe; ZAGO, Tebe magica; MARTINEZ, Greek Love Charm; FARAONE, Vanishing Acts; FARAONE, Ancient Greek Love Magic; PACHOUMI, Concepts of the Divine; LOVE, Code-Switching; DOSOO, Rituals of Apparition. 3 E.g. ROCCATI/SILIOTTI (eds.), Magia in Egitto; FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Magika Hiera; MEYER/MIRECKI (eds.), Ancient Magic; SCHÄFER/KIPPENBERG (eds.), Envisioning Magic; JORDAN/MONTGOMERY/THOMASSEN (eds.), World of Ancient Magic; MIRECKI/MEYER (eds.), Magic and Ritual; KOENIG (ed.), Magie en Égypte; CIRAOLO/SEIDEL (eds.), Magic and Divination; NOEGEL/ WALKER/WHEELER (eds.), Prayer, Magic; BOHAK/HARARI/SHAKED (eds.), Continuity and Innovation; DE HARO SANCHEZ (ed.), Écrire la magie; SUÁREZ/BLANCO/CHRONOPOULOU (eds.), Papiros mágicos griegos; ASIRVATHAM/PACHE/WATROUS (eds.), Between Magic and Religion; PIRANOMONTE/SIMÓN (eds.), Contesti magici; GORDON (ed.), Magical Practice; BOSCHUNG/BREMMER (eds.), Materiality of Magic; cf. also (though not the result of a conference) JÖRDENS (ed.), Ägyptische Magie; KAMLAH/SCHÄFER/WITTE (eds.), Zauber und Magie.

2

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani/Svenja Nagel

can often look like a cultural amalgam, product of the late Mediterranean melting pot (as it was often considered by early research on the subject). Scholars should thus face the challenge not only of identifying the possible cultural origin of the single elements, but also of trying to discover which specific cultural background, if any, is hidden behind the multicultural components in order to eventually investigate the dynamics of exchange and shed light on how the mixture functions in context. Therefore, the study of the different facets of transcultural encounters remains fundamental for a deeper understanding of the source material, and thus of ancient magical practice itself. However, up to now, as a consequence of the traditional separation between modern research disciplines, the great majority of the publications have engaged with the subject mostly from one single cultural point of view. Only rarely have some studies attempted to overcome this impasse through the collaboration of scholars of different disciplines or with different expertise4 but, though representing an important step in the scholarly attitude and a reference point for future investigations, they were hardly exhaustive because of the vast scope of the material. Therefore, it remains fundamental to keep expanding our views beyond the borders of academic fields and to give to the transcultural perspective the importance it deserves in the study of ancient magic. This spirit underlies two subsequent projects conducted at the University of Heidelberg: The Magic of Transculturality, which we undertook at the Cluster of Excellence Asia and Europe in a Global Context from 2012 to 2016; and Sexual Dynamis and Dynamics of Magical Practice in Graeco-Roman Egypt: Erotic Spells in the Greek and Demotic Magical Papyri (PGM and PDM) and their Cultural Traditions, funded by the DFG from 2017 until 2020. Through the detailed analysis of the divinatory and erotic rituals of the Greek and Demotic magical papyri from Roman Egypt (see below), the projects attempted to disentangle different cultural elements and to understand the interaction of these elements within the extant spells belonging to these specific genres. During the first project, in order to broaden our perspective, we organised a conference aimed at discussing examples of cultural plurality in ancient magical texts and practices from the Mediterranean and the Near East. This volume collects the papers delivered at this conference, which took place on the 12th–13th September 2014 in the Internationales Wissenschaftsforum of Heidelberg (IWH) and gathered international specialists in different areas of ancient magic who are often confronted with multicultural influences. One of the key terms of our projects, and subsequently of the conference title, ‘plurality’, derives from the notion that discussions of cultural ‘hybridity’ have by now evolved beyond the naïve assumption that globalisation will result in increasing, and finally total, homogeneity. Still, the complex processes of partial integration of foreign elements clearly need more detailed attention. In principle, even within one culture, there can be a variety of responses to foreign components, depending on the specific discourse and factors such as public visibility or secrecy. Accordingly, different models may be used to describe and analyse these alterity experiences. Therefore, we 4 See e.g. BETZ (ed.), GMPT; MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax; A. DELATTE/DERCHAIN, Intailles magiques; MOYER/DIELEMAN, Miniaturization; CRIPPA/CIAMPINI (eds.), Languages.

Introduction

3

chose to use the heuristic term ‘plurality’ complemented by the term ‘fusion’ (as different but often contemporaneous attitudes) since they are less loaded with previous theoretical models. The contemporary presence of elements of different cultural origin can thus be described as ‘plurality’, while instances in which these elements overlap to such an extent that it is almost impossible to disentangle them can be described as examples of ‘fusion’. In detail, cultural plurality and fusion can manifest themselves in a range of different dynamics: from phenomena such as simple borrowing, through advanced adaptation, up to complete assimilation or even distortion of origin and meaning. As far as these transcultural influences are concerned, an especially rich field of investigation is the corpus of Greek and Demotic magical papyri from Roman Egypt in which, apart from the main Egyptian and Greek components, it is possible to recognise e.g. Jewish, Mesopotamian and Christian elements. Due to their particular textual history (see below), these texts, especially the longer handbooks, offer us the unique opportunity to conduct both a synchronic and diachronic analysis. In particular, the diverse cultural influences displayed in the extant papyri can provide information not only as the reflection of the multicultural society of the period, but also as the result of the employment of earlier ritual or textual sources (and more generally magicoreligious traditions) during the different stages of compilation. Therefore, it is not surprising that the great bulk of contributions in this volume is dedicated, or refers, to this source material addressing many of the issues we set out to investigate. They include research questions such as: when elements originating in different religious traditions are found together, how do they interact among each other? Why were some elements from a specific culture chosen or preserved and others not? And how were they integrated in their new context? Is it possible to identify logical patterns? And how were the different cultural contributions conceived by the compilers of the magical texts? And what about the actual users of the spells? Were they still able to differentiate between various cultural influences? Or was this heterogeneous amalgam conceived as ‘mysterious’ in itself and thus inherent in the magical nature of these texts? Though often easier to analyse when considering an extensive corpus such as the magical papyri, these research questions apply also to other textual and material sources associated with ancient magic: other magical handbooks, remains of applied magic (see below page 11) and implements or material objects (such as amulets) produced and/or used in connection with magical practice. The contributions devoted mainly to the rich source material of the magical papyri from Egypt are collected in the central part of this volume. They are framed by two complementary sections, which enrich the discussion by broadening the scope – geographically as well as chronologically – focussing on the analysis of other sources that are either directly or indirectly connected with ancient magic. The first section thus explores examples of different magical/ritual genres, the perception of foreigners and foreign rituals, and possible transcultural exchanges within the earlier magical traditions of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece. On the other hand, the essays assembled in the final part trace examples of integration and transformation of the Graeco-Egyptian magical lore in later Jewish and Byzantine formularies.

4

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani/Svenja Nagel

Part I Egyptian, Greek and Mesopotamian traditions of magic: different genres, perception of the ‘other’ and possible transcultural exchange The first three contributions provide insight into three different specific cultural milieus – Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Greek – and their respective magical traditions, especially in correlation with each other or with foreign rituals in general. How was foreign ritual power conceived by the ancient people themselves, and which political, religious or other factors and prejudices played a role in its evaluation? Can the integration or exclusion of foreign practices as described in one culture’s own literary output, and thus presented from an emic point of view, be compared with the active admixture of specific foreign elements that appears to characterise religious and magical manuals such as the Greek and Demotic magical papyri from Roman Egypt?5 To what extent did earlier or contemporary indigenous apotropaic/magical traditions actually shape these Graeco-Egyptian handbooks? Can we talk of direct transmission or borrowing, or should we just assume looser cultural contacts naturally triggered by the circulation of ideas in the Mediterranean basin? In particular, a closely related phenomenon in Greek and Hellenistic (and later on, Roman) culture is the interplay between magic and mystery cults, which in their turn often incorporated Oriental traditions. This is evident in the famous cases of the cults of Isis and Mithras, which spread in the already quite globalised Hellenistic and Roman worlds, but Near Eastern influences have been hypothesised also for some earlier Greek cults (e.g. Dionysiac-Orphic mysteries).6 Apart from the (possible) inclusion of foreign religious concepts and practices, mystery cults share with magical rituals the relevance of the personal communication and involvement of the individual with the gods, as well as the central importance and subsequent instrumentalisation of their myths.7 However, to what extent did mystery cults influence the later or contemporary magical lore? In particular, is it possible to find traces of actual continuity between earlier Greek sources and GraecoEgyptian magic?

5

See for the question of such foreign elements in the PGM and PDM, but also in earlier as well as later sources, e.g. THISSEN, Nubien; DIELEMAN, Priests, 138–43; WÜTHRICH, Eléments, 16–26 (Nubian elements); the contribution by D. SCHWEMER, in this volume (Mesopotamian elements); HOPFNER, Orientalisch-Religionsgeschichtliches; FARAONE, Mystodokos; QUACK, Zauber ohne Grenzen (various elements); in particular, for Jewish elements see below n. 43. Vice versa, on the inclusion of Greek magical texts into Jewish spells, cf. the contribution by G. BOHAK and A. BELLUSCI in this volume. 6 Cf. also the contribution by M. RISTORTO in this volume, 238–9, for the so-called ‘Oriental Cults’; for the problematic and various aspects of the cults subsumed under this designation see NAGEL/QUACK/WITSCHEL (eds.), Entangled Worlds. 7 On links between magic and mystery cults see e.g. GRAF, Gottesnähe, 96–107 (especially on initiation rites); BETZ, Magic and Mystery.

Introduction

5

In order to better contextualise the contributions of this section in connection with the later developments embodied by the Greek and Demotic magical papyri, it is important to remind that in Egypt foreign cultural elements, language and deities were adapted and integrated into religious texts already in earlier periods. This is especially well attested in the New Kingdom (c. 1550–1070 BCE), in which the extension of Egyptian power as well as diplomatic and military contacts with other peoples reached a peak.8 During this period, the cults of the Northwest-Semitic deities Resheph, Astarte, Baal, Hauron, Anat and Qadesh were installed in Egypt, some of them through the official initiative of Pharaohs like Amenhotep II and Ramses II.9 Interestingly, not all of these deities were integrated in the same way: some of them were actually ‘needed’ to fill certain gaps in the pantheon, since their competences covered also domains that were originally foreign to Egyptian culture and thus not yet under the patronage of an Egyptian deity, e.g. horses and chariots, which were imported from the Levant and accordingly remained assigned to Astarte.10 On the other hand, in the case of the newly imported Baal, some parallels in character led to a perceived equivalency or even identity between him and the Egyptian Seth, who thus became, in spite of his Egyptian origins, a deity connected with foreigners and foreignness.11 In contrast to the relatively great number of Near Eastern deities that were venerated in Egypt, gods from other neighbouring cultures, like Nubia or Libya, were hardly ever appropriated before the Ptolemaic Period.12 However, diverse foreign deities and other elements were actually integrated more freely and frequently within ritual and magical texts of various nature.13 This process was obviously relatively independent from the (official) installation of cults of imported deities described above, since also other gods, who did not have a temple cult in Egypt, could be included in these sources together with demons, myths and (at least the concept of) recitations in foreign languages. Thus, in New Kingdom papyri, not only do we find Egyptian magico-medical recipes against the Mesopotamian demon Samanu who was responsible for a skin disease,14 but one of them is also written in foreign language, possibly Minoan.15 Spells incorporating Semitic, and more precisely Canaanite, incantations appear also in other papyri of this era. 16 At the same time, 8

For cultural appropriation in pre-Ptolemaic Egypt in general, cf. SCHNEIDER, Foreign Egypt. See e.g. ZIVIE-COCHE, Dieux autres; QUACK, Importing; LIPIŃSKI, Syro-Canaanite Goddesses; STADELMANN, Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten; TAZAWA, Syro-Palestinian Deities; MÜNNICH, Reshep, 80–115; LAHN, Qedeschet; WILSON-WRIGHT, Athtart, 27–71; BONNET, Astarté, 63–7; LILYQUIST, Hauron. The introduction of Resheph and Astarte was initiated by Amenhotep II, the cult of Anat was officially installed by Ramses II. 10 Cf. QUACK, Importing, 264. For another, earlier case of adaptation of this kind (the Nubian god Dedun), ibid., 257. 11 Cf. ZIVIE-COCHE, Dieux autres, 70. 12 Cf. QUACK, Importing, 264–6. 13 Cf. KOENIG, Image of the Foreigner; KOENIG, Nubie; QUACK, Importing, 262–3 and 266. 14 See the detailed study by S. BECK, Sāmānu, esp. 171–252. 15 In P. BM EA 10059, see S. BECK, Sāmānu, 248; E. KYRIAKIDES, Language of the Keftiw; HAIDER, Minoische Sprachdenkmäler. 16 See e.g. R.C. STEINER, Northwest Semitic Incantations; SCHNEIDER, Mag pHarris XII; LEITZ, Magical and Medical Papyri, 49–50. 9

6

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani/Svenja Nagel

Nubian or even further South-East African, i.e. Puntite, ritual power and religious traditions seem to have been perceived as especially efficacious, 17 since they were appropriated even for official temple ritual18 and in the Book of the Dead.19 In both cases, sections in the (purportedly) respective languages were also included. In addition to these direct sources, Egyptian (narrative) literature often includes vivid descriptions of foreigners as well as foreign rituals. FRANZISKA NAETHER presents an overview of examples from this material in the first contribution. She analyses Egyptian literary production, in which tales of magic, divine intervention and supernatural wonders abound.20 The focus of her paper on the emic, albeit highly stylised, presentation of Egyptian priest-magicians as well as religion and (magical) rituals of neighbouring cultures serves to uncover the ancient Egyptians’ own perception of the ‘magic of the other’, as opposed to their own. Although the selected source material (narrative and instructive literature) certainly had an agenda of its own and represented the – presumably idealised and narratively embellished – views of only a small group of Egyptian society, namely the literate and educated priestly and scribal elite, it grants us valuable insights into the self-reflection and self-representation of this group and their engagement with foreign, possibly inimical or vying powers. However, even if the ‘authors’ (if we may even call them that) of the written versions of these narratives were certainly from the described social stratum, there is an important debate going on about the probable orally transmitted roots of such stories, which would re-position the attitudes reflected in them within a broader fraction of Egyptian society.21 NAETHER’s study of literary descriptions of concrete foreign magical practices and ritual experts is embedded in a broader perspective on the representation of foreigners in these texts. The description alone of some of the respective practices demonstrates a certain interest in foreign, exotic and possibly equally effective rituals, even though some of them might have existed only in fiction22 and therefore are only examples of a projection of Egyptian ideas of what foreign magic was supposed to be like. The literary treatment of these themes is not only informed by political and historical experiences, but in a way reflects and elaborates upon actual documentary evidence for the fear of malign influences of foreign magic, such as the ‘Oracular Amu17

eme.

Cf. KOENIG, Nubie; KOENIG, Image of the Foreigner, 227; QUACK, Nubisch-meroitische Lex-

18 During the Min festival, a ritual text is supposed to be recited by a ‘negro of Punt’, and some sections transcribe a non-Egyptian language, possibly ‘Puntite’, into hieroglyphs, see QUACK, Importing, 257; QUACK, Egyptian Writing. 19 In the ‘supplementary chapters’ BoD 162–5: WÜTHRICH, Eléments, esp. 16–26; WÜTHRICH, Édition synoptique; WÜTHRICH, Abracadabras méroïtiques. Cf. also the reviews by QUACK, Review of WÜTHRICH, Eléments; QUACK, Review of WÜTHRICH, Édition synoptique; and QUACK, Importing, 266. 20 For the prominence of these themes in Egyptian narrative literature in general cf. HOLLIS, Tales of Magic; SÉRIDA, Cultural Memory; DIELEMAN, Priests, 221–38; QUACK, Wer waren. Cf. also the paper by R. PHILLIPS in this volume. 21 See especially the recent study on the Demotic tales by JAY, Orality and Literacy. 22 On magical practices (like transformation) as described in fiction versus actually applied magic cf. also the contribution by R. PHILLIPS in this volume; and LOVE, Ritual Reality.

Introduction

7

letic Decrees’ from the Libyan Period (21st–22nd Dynasties).23 In some of the texts of this genre, magic of explicitly outlandish origin (Syrian, Bedouin, Libyan and Nubian magic) is warded off next to Egyptian magic. That such worries were shared by the state is demonstrated by a letter of Pharaoh Amenhotep II to his viceroy, cautioning him against Nubian magicians.24 In Classical Greece the situation was somewhat similar but also very different. As far as the adoption of foreign deities is concerned, the most famous and certain examples involve Near Eastern female goddesses such as the Anatolian Kybele and the Thracian Bendis, who were first worshipped in Greece around the sixth/fifth century BCE and were perceived as similar and/or identified with the Greek Gaia/Rhea/Demeter and Artemis respectively.25 At the same time, foreign origins and/or influences have been hypothesised for various other deities of the Greek pantheon, for example Hekate, who plays an important role in early apotropaic/magical ritual and later magic and for whom an Anatolian origin, more specifically Carian, has been posed.26 However, in cases like this, the possible foreign influences are very hard to trace since the earliest Greek sources present the deity as already integrated into the pantheon.27 More importantly, even if Hekate had a remote foreign origin, it is unlikely (and impossible for us to confirm) that she was still perceived as foreign by Greek people worshipping her, or invoking her in apotropaic/magical texts. Similarly, the god Hermes who, when providing Odysseus with the herb moly so that he can be immune from Kirke’s spells, appears to be one of the first deities displaying ‘magical’ competences in literary sources (Hom. Od. 10.27), could have hardly had any foreign connotation at the time. In Homer, as has often been underlined, the fact that e.g. a god can be skilled in the use of wondrous herbs, and that Odysseus himself can perform necromancy to consult with Tiresias (Hom. Od. 11), does not seem to imply any explicit foreign influence or, even more importantly, any negative overtones. As a matter of fact, in Homer these practices are not subsumed under one overarching term. However, it is Kirke (the great-aunt of Medea who lives in the mythical island of Aeaea) who, apart from being capable of powerful incantations herself, instructs Odysseus on how to perform necromancy. This detail might already underlie a later notion that will develop in Greece especially from the fifth century BCE onwards together with the concept of magic itself: the tendency to label foreign ritual practice as ‘magic’ and attribute great magical power to some ‘barbarian’ lands and people as clearly shown by the evolution of

23 EDWARDS, Oracular Amuletic Decrees; cf. e.g. LUCARELLI, Popular Beliefs. See FISCHERELFERT, Magika Hieratika, 82–95, 203–19, 250–52 for further examples. 24 Urk. IV, 1344, 11–12; cf. KOENIG, Nubie, 105; RITNER, Mechanics, 140, n. 623; WÜTHRICH, Eléments, 22. For differing Egyptian attitudes towards different agents and aims of magic see also NAGEL, Narrations. 25 See e.g. GARLAND, Introducing New Gods, especially 111–14; PACHE, Barbarian Bond; JANOUCHOVÁ, Cult of Bendis; ROLLER, Search of God, especially 119–86. 26 And it is now generally accepted, see in particular KRAUS, Hekate, especially 54–64; BERG, Hecate; cf. e.g STRAUSS CLAY, Hecate. 27 See e.g. Hes. Th. 411–52; h.Hom. 2.

8

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani/Svenja Nagel

the term ‘magic’ from magos, originally just a Persian religious specialist,28 and also by famous literary characters such as Medea from Kolchis. Likewise, Egypt and Egyptian priests became especially renowned for their magical lore29 following an attitude partly comparable with what we saw in Egypt itself, e.g. for Nubian and Puntite ritual power. However, in contrast with Egypt,30 the notion of magic appears to have emerged in Greece specifically as a ‘third-person attribution’31 with derogatory undertones. For it was used for practices that, when not attributed to alien and potentially dangerous ‘barbarians’, were connected with specific groups of people (within Greek culture itself) whose activities acquired a nuance of illicitness owing e.g. to fluctuations in socio-cultural views or to displacements from a public to a more private sphere.32 Despite the different theories proposed by recent scholarship to explain the emergence of magic as an autonomous category in fifth century Greece,33 there is general agreement the notion could be highly dependent on the individual point of view, and thus it often remained fluid and liable to variation. This strategy of self-definition through stigmatisation of the ‘Other’ might explain why, in early Greek evidence for autochthonous apotropaic/magical rituals, there are no clear traces of foreign influence, such as the adoption of foreign words or deities that we observe in New Kingdom Egypt. For example, the earliest Greek defixiones (fifth century BCE) are very simple, do not include any foreign element and, when mentioning deities, they stick to the tradi28

See e.g. NOCK, Paul and the Magus; GRAF, Gottesnähe, especially 24–31; BREMMER, Birth; OGDEN, Necromancy, 128–48; also HALL, Inventing, especially 143–54. 29 See e.g. DIELEMAN, Priests, 239–54; LLOYD, Egyptian Magic, especially 99–105; cf. FRANKFURTER, Religion, 217–21. 30 In Egypt the native equivalent term for magic, Hk#, did not have any negative connotation in itself, but embodied the performative force through which the transition from ideal (speech) to actual creation (matter) is achieved. This power, also personified by a deity (Heka), originally emanated from the creator god and it was supposed to be activated by priests as well during ritual performances. It was thus inherent in the creative process and it was not employed only by foreigners or a group of people outside official religion, but by gods and temple priests. See e.g. BORGHOUTS, #X.w (akhu) and Hk#.w (hekau); RITNER, Mechanics, 4–28, 217–20, 236–49; RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice, 3353–5; RITNER, Religious, Social; KOENIG, Magie Égyptienne; cf. DICKIE, Magic and Magicians, 22. 31 J.Z. SMITH, Trading Places, 18. 32 See e.g. the famous examples of Plato, Resp. 364b–e, Lg. 909a–d, depicting ‘beggar priests and prophets’ offering every sort of spells as charlatans looking for profit; or Thessalian magicians and witches as a well-acknowledged group with special magical powers, see e.g. O. PHILLIPS, Witches’ Thessaly; also HILL, Thessalian Trick; DICKIE, Magic and Magicians, especially 32–3, 103; OGDEN, Necromancy, especially 142–7, 202–7. 33 For example it has been suggested that it was a spontaneous phenomenon (DICKIE, Magic and Magicians, 18–46). On the other hand, the rise of the notion of ‘magic’ has also been explained as the consequence of the development of philosophical theology and medical science, and of the subsequent separation of the natural and divine realms (GRAF, Excluding the Charming; GRAF, Gottesnähe; GRAF, How to Cope, especially 109–14); on the whole subject see also e.g. BRAARVIG, Magic, 37–40; GORDON, Imagining; JOHNSTON, Greek Divination, especially 145–53, also stressing that often the differences between magic and mainstream religion are just in details; cf. e.g. SEGAL, Hellenistic Magic; VERSNEL, Some Reflections; HOFFMAN, Fiat Magia; FRANKFURTER, Dynamics.

Introduction

9

tional chthonic pantheon.34 Similarly in Classical literature, while of course we keep finding examples of foreigners engaging with magic,35 it is hardly possible to find any clear sign of cultural plurality in the descriptions of magical rituals performed by Greeks. 36 In fact, as far as Greek documentary, archaeological and literary sources testifying to magical practices are concerned, the clearly recognisable addition and integration of elements from different magico-religious traditions appears to be a later phenomenon, which seemingly started to develop from Hellenistic times onwards. WILLIAM D. FURLEY, in the second contribution, offers an example of the early Greek attitude, focusing on a piece of evidence from Greek apotropaic-magical tradition that does not display any clear sign of transcultural influences: the so-called Getty Hexameters. The author provides a new edition and analysis of this apotropaic Greek metrical text (written on a lead tablet from the fifth century BCE Selinus), whose interpretation is still highly controversial. Thanks to original insights and new parallels, FURLEY reinforces the hypothesis that the text originated in connection with Dionysos’ mysteries, in particular with the Orphic-Bacchic myth about the birth and childhood of the god. He also demonstrates how a passage in the text, which was previously interpreted as a Greek adaptation of an Egyptian mythical narrative, can be completely explained within the Greek religious framework and without assuming any foreign influence. Therefore, on the one hand FURLEY’s contribution sets the base for comparison with later material, also highlighting some significant characteristics of early Greek apotropaic texts, such as their frequent connection with the mystery cults’ milieu and their civic versus private connotation. On the other hand, it reminds us of various aspects of continuity between this early Greek tradition and the later GraecoEgyptian magical texts, such as the use of the so-called Ephesia Grammata,37 of specific epithets of Hekate and Apollo, and the prominent role attributed to these deities. In particular, some verses of the Getty Hexameters are paralleled in two seven/eight hundred years later magical papyri (PGM LXX and SM 49).38 This demonstrates not only that the compilers of the later Graeco-Egyptian magical literature had access to much earlier ritual texts that originated in a Greek cultural environment, but also that these texts, with their long history of transmission, though apparently originally belonging to the ritual sphere of the mysteries, were still considered powerful enough to be integrated in the newer, redesigned magical scenario. The persistence of the Getty Hexameters testifies thus to the authoritative power given to earlier ritual texts by Graeco-Egyptian magical literature and provides an example of its possible compositional methods.

34

See e.g. GAGER (ed.), Curse Tablets, 5–9, 12–13, cf. 26–7, 76–7 (no. 17), 86 (no. 19), 90 (no. 22), 124–30 (nos. 37–42), 138–42 (nos. 49–51), etc.; OGDEN, Binding Spells, 6–10, cf. 44–6. 35 See e.g. Aesch. Pers. 607–93. 36 See e.g. Pind. Pyth. 4.213–19; Eur. Hipp. 509–15; cf. also the later Idyll 2 by Theocritus. 37 A string of magical words that belongs to Greek tradition; apart from W.D. FURLEY’s contribution in this volume, see e.g. MCCOWN, Ephesia Grammata; BERNABÉ, Las Ephesia Grammata; BERNABÉ, The Ephesia Grammata. 38 Col. 1, 8 is paralleled in PGM LXX 12 (third/fourth century CE) and col. 1, 8–14 is paralleled in SM 49.64–70 (third/fourth century CE).

10

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani/Svenja Nagel

This literature could attribute authoritative power not only to ancient sources but, as already mentioned, also to foreign traditions, especially when they belonged to lands already renowned for their magical lore or when they could strengthen the efficacy of a spell with the addition of an element considered powerful in another culture and/or apt to provide an extra halo of mystery. In fact, some spells of the PDM and especially the PGM do actually in themselves claim to use purportedly Nubian, Persian/Parthian, Jewish or other foreign language for single recitations and divine names,39 or attribute the origin of a specific prescription to the established repertoire of ‘famous’ (or not so famous) magicians of Hebrew, Persian, Syrian, Trojan and Thessalian origin, next to Egyptian and Greek ones.40 Thus the texts reflect an international or transcultural selfperception claimed by their authors and/or possibly desired by their users/clients. While these references to foreign magical traditions and ritual power are clearly employed for the purpose of giving additional authority to the spells,41 to what extent did the composers have knowledge of foreign practices and mythology? There have already been several studies on the actual presence, quality and meaning of the Jewish elements, voces magicae,42 etc. Even if they are generally perceived as being rather abundant in the PGM and PDM, more detailed analyses demonstrate that they are used more superficially than previously thought, since they mainly concern divine names or single words.43 Similar problems surround the supposed ‘Mesopotamian’ influences, names and other elements within the magical texts from Roman Egypt.44

39 Nubian: PDM xiv 1097–103 (= P. Mag. LL, vs., 20, 1–7); PDM lxi 95–9 (= P. BM EA 10588, 7, 1–5); see DIELEMAN, Priests, 138–43; THISSEN, Nubien. Hebrew/Jewish: PGM III 1–164 (now PGM III.1, see LOVE, ‘PGM III’ Archive); PGM V 96–172 (mysteries and true divine name transmitted to Israel). Hebrew and Syrian: PGM V 459–89. Divine name as spoken in various languages: PGM XII 201–69; PGM XIII 1–343 and 343–646 (including animal languages); cf. DIELEMAN, Priests, 165–70. 40 Solomon (PGM IV 850–929); Moses (PGM VII 619–27); Jacob (PGM XXIIb 1–26); Ostanes (PGM XII 121–43); Astrampsouchos (PGM VIII 1–63); Pharaoh Nechepsos, i.e. Necho II (PDM xiv 309–34 = P. Mag. LL, 11, 1–26; for the identification see RYHOLT, New Light, esp. 62); Syrian woman of Gadara (PGM XX 4–12); Dardanos (PGM IV 1716–870); Pitys the Thessalian (PGM IV 2140–44); Philinna the Thessalian woman (PGM XX 13–19); cf. DIELEMAN, Priests, 260–69. PGM IV 3007–86 simply states in the end ‘this charm is Hebraic’. The tradition of the powerful ‘Thessalian witch’ still continues in a Byzantine spell, see the contribution by M. ZELLMANN-ROHRER in this volume. 41 Cf. DIELEMAN, Priests, 276–80. 42 I.e. sequences of letters apparently without meaning but with a special sound or visual impact whose origin is often to be found in ‘foreign’ words or divine names, see e.g. BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3429–38 with rich bibliography; TARDIEU/VAN DEN KERCHOVE/ZAGO (eds.), Noms barbares; QUACK, Griechische und andere Dämonen. 43 BOHAK, Linguistic Contacts, esp. 250–51; BOHAK, Hebrew, Hebrew Everywhere?; FAUTH, JaoJahwe; LIDONNICI, ‘According to the Jews’; MO. SMITH, Jewish Elements; MARCOS, Motivos judíos; LEONAS, Septuagint; QUACK, Alttestamentliche Motive. For more details, cf. also below, part III of this Introduction. 44 Cf. e.g. for divination techniques, BEERDEN, ‘Dismiss Me’; FARAONE, Necromancy, esp. 275– 7; VERGOTE, Joseph, 172–5; for specific magical spells/practices and structural elements FARAONE, Mystodokos; DICKIE, Learned Magician, esp. 183–9; GRAF, Gottesnähe, 154–7. See also the contribu-

Introduction

11

DANIEL SCHWEMER, in his essay, calls for a precise framework of criteria in order to evaluate the import of Mesopotamian traditions in these sources, to be applied also to other cases of supposed cultural borrowing: specificity, exceptionality and unexpectedness, and co-occurrence of several instances.45 In order to better understand the possible ways of transmission of Mesopotamian religious elements and magical lore, he provides a thorough survey of the history and range of āšipūtu (incantation) texts in the ancient Near East. The instructive example of the Hittite royal court in the thirteenth century BCE demonstrates that alongside the adaptation, and sometimes even translation, of Mesopotamian texts into Hittite, original Anatolian magical rituals still continued to be in use and remained unchanged by these prestigious influences:46 cultural plurality without actual fusion. Chronologically closer to the PGM and PDM are the latest copies of cuneiform exorcism texts, the Graeco-Babyloniaca, which also contain Greek transcriptions of āšipūtu-incantations. Together with traces of Babylonian traditions in Aramaic and Mandaic magical texts and in the Babylonian Talmud, they attest to a solid base of contact zones that could have permitted the transmission of such material also into the Graeco-Egyptian magical corpus. However, in the majority of cases, elements of clear Mesopotamian origin are employed in an isolated way in the PGM. They lack further epithets or motives that would show a deeper knowledge of, or real interest in, this religious tradition and, stripped as they are from their original context, they bear witness to an already very distant relationship with their cultural roots.

Part II Cultural plurality and fusion in the Graeco-Egyptian magical papyri (PGM/PDM) The central part of this book focuses on the corpus of documents commonly referred to as the Greek and Demotic magical papyri from Roman Egypt (PGM and PDM) and the evidence for cultural plurality and fusion that can or cannot be found therein. Up to now, this corpus consists of about 240 papyri of very different length and about 40 other documents on ostraka, wooden and metal tablets containing ritual spells mainly dated from the first to the fifth century CE.47 However, these numbers are not fixed since, apart from possible new finds, there are already further documents awaiting publication. The contents of the magical papyri can be divided into two main catetion by S. NAGEL in this volume. For the various suggestions to identify voces magicae see the list in BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3576–603. 45 For a similar set of criteria to be applied when trying to ascertain parallels between cultural and religious traditions see e.g. MA. SMITH, Primaeval Ocean, 207–9. 46 Cf. SCHWEMER, Gauging, 145–8. 47 For the history of studies, relative bibliography and all the following see e.g. the detailed introductions by BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri (for the Greek papyri) and RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice (for the Demotic papyri).

12

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani/Svenja Nagel

gories: proper magical handbooks to be consulted when needed (ranging from one or a couple of spells to extensive collections), which assemble rituals for many different purposes, and examples of so-called ‘applied magic’, or ‘finished products’, i.e. incantations and/or formulae and/or symbols and drawings that had to be written on different supports as part of the magical procedure: they often include the personal names of the parties involved and, as remains of rituals that were actually performed, testify to the individual use of a specific spell by a specific person. While the provenance of most papyri is unknown, some of the longest handbooks are part of the so-called ‘Theban Magical Library’, as they were allegedly found together in a tomb, in or around Thebes in Upper Egypt, sometime before 1828 (unfortunately, no details are known about the find): they represent the most impressive collection of magical texts ever discovered. 48 The main language and script of the magical papyri is Greek, but Egyptian language is also employed, mostly Demotic script, either in whole papyri or in passages or glosses. 49 To a smaller extent, the Egyptian Old Coptic50 and Hieratic scripts can also be used for passages or glosses. In addition to the employment of different languages and scripts, as already mentioned the magical papyri appear to be a complex tangle of different religious traditions (obviously Egyptian and Greek, but to a lesser extent also Jewish, Christian, Babylonian and Mithraic), reflecting the complex socio-cultural setting of Roman Egypt. Nevertheless, when the interest in ancient magic started to awaken and KARL PREISENDANZ and his collaborators in 1928–1931 published all the magical papyri known at the time,51 the Demotic (or Hieratic) texts, passages and glosses were not included in the edition. This unintentionally contributed to create a sort of confusion between Greek language and Greek cultural tradition. The multicultural religious influences were certainly recognised, but since the magical papyri appeared basically as Greek texts, they kept being studied mainly by classicists. The turning point came in the second half of the twentieth century, when the second edition of PREISENDANZ’s PGM revised by ALBERT HENRICHS appeared, 52 and one hundred new Greek texts53 and the most significant Demotic papyri were published.54 Most importantly, 48

As far as contents and conservation status are concerned; for details about the ‘Theban Magical Library’ and the story of its acquisition by European Museums see e.g. BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3400–405; ZAGO, Tebe magica, especially 31–71; TAIT, Theban Magic, especially 173–4, who discusses whether the ‘Library’ belonged to a private collector or to a temple library; DOSOO, History; see also the contribution of R. GORDON in this volume for PGM VII as not being part of the ‘Library’ as previously thought. 49 It is important to note that the Demotic texts are earlier in date (the latest ones being from the first half of the third century) in comparison with many of the Greek ones (which can date also to the fourth/fifth centuries). 50 Egyptian language written using the Greek alphabet plus some additional signs. 51 Papyri Graecae Magicae – Die Griechischen Zauberpapyri I–II–[III]. The third volume, which contained indices and explanations of magical words, is still available to scholars in photocopies since it reached only the stage of galley proofs (1941). 52 In 1973–1974. 53 In DANIEL/MALTOMINI, Supplementum Magicum (SM). 54 Two of them had already been published at the beginning of the twentieth century (GRIFFITH/THOMPSON, Demotic Magical Papyrus; H.I. BELL/NOCK/THOMPSON [eds.], Magical Texts) but

Introduction

13

the essential unity of Greek and Demotic magical texts was finally recognised as demonstrated by the work of HANS DIETER BETZ who, supervising a team of both classicists and Egyptologists, published in 1986 The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation – Including the Demotic spells. Thanks to this new interdisciplinary debate it was possible to establish some fundamental characteristics of the corpus, such as the predominance of the Egyptian and Greek components55 and the presence of many procedures and underlying conceptions that can be traced back to Egyptian religious tradition.56 Moreover, internal evidence demonstrates that the magical handbooks are the result of a long process of collection and re-elaboration of earlier material 57 and, among other specific factors, the use of Demotic, Old Coptic and especially ic58 proves that most of the compilation process must have been carried out within the Egyptian priestly milieu. 59 In particular, the compilers of the magical papyri, apart were then complemented by the editions of JOHNSON (JOHNSON, Leiden I 384; JOHNSON, Louvre E 3229). For a fifth fragment of handbook (P. BM EA 10808) see now DIELEMAN, Spätagyptisches magisches Handbuch; SEDERHOLM, Papyrus British Museum (though problematic, see QUACK, Review of SEDERHOLM). New translations of many Demotic spells appeared in QUACK, Demotische magische und divinatorische Texte. 55 Though e.g. Jewish, Mithraic, Babylonian, Christian and Gnostic elements are certainly present, they are often limited to divine names and voces magicae. Foreign influences at ritual or formulaic level are rarer, for a summary of the various cultural contributions in the PGM, see e.g. BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3422–9, with rich bibliography; in the PDM, see RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice, 3351–2; also D. SCHWEMER’s contribution in this volume. 56 These include for example the fact that the ritual expert can identify himself with the gods or compel them with threats to do his bidding, or the power attributed to the knowledge of the ‘true’ secret name of divine entities, see e.g. BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3390–95; KÁKOSY, Probleme der Religion, 3028–43; SAUNERON, Aspects et sort; RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice, 3345–55, 3362–71; RITNER, Mechanics, in particular 112–19, 157–9, 193–9; KOENIG, Magie et magiciens, 60–72, 156–65; cf. also QUACK, From Ritual to Magic. 57 Their sources can almost always be placed at least one century earlier in comparison with the dating of the papyri. On this textual history see e.g. BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3414–16; DIELEMAN, Scribal Practices; for the example of the bilingual PGM XII/PDM xii and PDM xiv/PGM XIV see DIELEMAN, Priests, especially 47–101. Considering also that among the unpublished Demotic texts there are manuals from the Saite or Ptolemaic Periods (e.g. P. Brooklyn 47.218.47 vs. and P. Heidelberg Dem. 5 that will be published by J.F. QUACK), and that some rare examples of Greek handbooks date to the first century BCE/CE (e.g. PGM XX; SM 71, 72; P. Oxy. 4468), it clearly appears that this literature must have started to circulate and be copied at a much earlier date than that of most extant documents. 58 Egyptian literacy had always been rooted in the temples (see e.g. BAINES, Literacy, especially 580–83; VLEEMING, Some Notes; TAIT, Some Notes, 190–92; CLARYSSE, Egyptian Religion, 565–8, 573) and, while in Graeco-Roman Egypt Greek was often used by literate Egyptians (see e.g. LEWIS, Greeks, 26–7; DEPAUW, Companion, 41–4; CRIBIORE, Writing, Teachers, 43–8; D.J. THOMPSON, Literacy and Power, 72–5), Hieratic had been confined to the temple scriptorium since about the seventh century BCE, and later the same happened to literary Demotic after the introduction of Greek as the language of the administration (see also e.g. DEPAUW, Language Use, 494–9; SAUNERON, Conditions d’accès, 55–7; TAIT, Demotic Literature; CRIBIORE, Gymnastics of the Mind, 22–3; D.J. THOMPSON, Literacy and Power, especially 82–3). 59 See e.g. DIELEMAN, Priests; DIELEMAN, Scribal Practices; RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice, 3361–2; FRANKFURTER, Consequences of Hellenism; FRANKFURTER, Dynamics.

14

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani/Svenja Nagel

from being trained in the Egyptian scripts, must have had at a certain stage access to temple libraries. However, considering that the rituals described by the spells are not connected with an official religious institution since they are mostly performed by the magician alone and in a private setting, the compilers were probably ritual experts, maybe off-duty priests, whom a person in need of a specific spell could consult.60 In particular, considering how the traditional Egyptian Hk# clashed with Greek and especially with Roman views,61 it is possible that with the gradual decline of the influence of the temple institution professional priests started to freelance more often at a local level shifting from official clergymen to ritual experts or ‘magicians’.62 They also had to acknowledge the existence of a new culturally mixed clientele and develop new strategies to appeal to it, such as ‘translating’ their own tradition and integrating it with other contemporary magico-religious or philosophical belief systems. Taking into consideration these essential characteristics of the corpus, recent research has produced many valuable results.63 At the same time, a new focus has been put on the importance of producing improved editions of the source material. On the Greek side, several scholars at different institutions decided to cooperate for the re-edition of the handbooks of the corpus under the direction of S. TORALLAS-TOVAR and C. FARAONE (project of the Neubauer Collegium, Chicago University, called Greek Magical Papyri: Transmission of Magical Knowledge in Antiquity: the Papyrus Magical Handbooks in Context): their main aim is to provide a more up to date text edition (compared to PREISENDANZ’s) – possibly improving papyrus readings, translations and apparatus – as well as a better understanding of the extant manuscripts themselves.64 On the Egyptian side, J.F. QUACK and K. DZWIZA are working on an edition of new Demotic fragments and a re-edition of PDM xii, xiv, lxi and Suppl. at the University of Heidelberg (project Corpus der demotischen magischen Texte).65 Such updated editions will represent a fundamental tool for future studies, especially considering that research on the magical papyri is far from being exhausted. In particular, the coherent investigation of single elements, techniques, spells or papyri and their cultural history, or of the conceptualisation and supposed functioning of the rituals in their 60

See e.g. QUACK, Kontinuität und Wandel, especially 85, 89; QUACK, Postulated and Real Efficacy; cf. QUACK, Remarks on Egyptian Rituals, 143–4. 61 See e.g. GRAF, How to Cope, 102–9; KIPPENBERG, Magic; GORDON, Imagining, especially 253–66. 62 See e.g. FRANKFURTER, Religion, 198–237; FRANKFURTER, Ritual Expertise; FRANKFURTER, Consequences of Hellenism; also KÁKOSY, Probleme der Religion, 3025–35. However, it should be kept in mind that some papyri that appear to come from Hermonthis (see DOSOO, Rituals of Apparition, 162–4; DOSOO, History, 265–6) are linked with accounts of a large estate and copies of the Psalms, so the last owner could have been a wealthy Christian without temple affiliation. 63 See above n. 1–4. 64 The latter point has already been demonstrated by the enlightening articles on PGM III and PGM VI/II: LOVE, ‘PGM III’ Archive; CHRONOPOULOU, PGM VI. For a summary of the history of research on the PGM/PDM and some glimpses into the most recent developments cf. also the paper by R. GORDON in this volume. 65 See also the new edition of the Old Coptic (parts of) spells in PGM IV by LOVE, CodeSwitching.

Introduction

15

own time frame (Late Roman Egypt) still remains a major desideratum – especially if conducted from a transcultural perspective. In order to reach an overarching understanding of ancient magic, research dedicated to material objects, especially the so-called magical gems, represents an important complement to the studies concerned with the written sources. The direct relationship between magical handbooks and gems is still controversial, since up to now only very few cases are known in which the design on an intaglio exactly corresponds to the one given in a handbook instruction. Nevertheless, even if we hypothesise different agents and places of production for manuals and gems, they clearly represent diverse but related outputs of the same mental landscape. 66 Current and future research is now facilitated by several recent editions and catalogues of gems stored in various museum collections.67 The essays collected in this section of the volume contribute toward the above mentioned research topics by illuminating the often multi-layered and multicultural nature of magical texts and practices on several levels: – Extant single papyrus manuals, in which a collection of spells, usually for various purposes, has been chosen and edited by one or several scribes who might (but need not!) have been identical with the (final?) owner/s and user/s of these handbooks.68 Close examination of the original papyri, their layout and scribal treatment of scripts, signs, structuralising markers, corrections, glosses etc. allow for well-founded hypotheses about the collecting, writing and editing process of such manuals as well as about the individual scribes/collectors. – ‘Genres’ of specific magical techniques, such as lamp divination, dream oracles or spells for fashioning divine images for oracular purposes, or for protection and prosperity. 69 When examining such spell types synoptically throughout the different manuals, the comparison between single rituals can provide valuable insights into the chronology of the development of these practices, into their cultural traditions, as well as into the editorial history of 66 On some problems concerning the research on magical gems, see QUACK, From Egyptian Traditions. 67 E.g. PHILIPP, Mira et magica; ZWIERLEIN-DIEHL, Magische Amulette; MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum; MICHEL, Bunte Steine; MASTROCINQUE (ed.), SGG I–II; MASTROCINQUE, Intailles magiques (a new edition of the gems originally published in A. DELATTE/DERCHAIN, Intailles magiques); ŚLIWA, Magical Gems; the Campbell Bonner Magical Gems Database (http://classics. mfab.hu/talismans/visitatori_salutem) aimed at bringing online the entire corpus of magical gems. On the subject see also overarching studies such as MICHEL, Bilder und Zauberformeln; ENTWISTLE/ ADAMS (eds.), ‘Gems of Heaven’. 68 Cf. e.g. the thorough study of PGM IV by LIDONNICI, Compositional Patterns. Within the present volume, this level is dealt with especially in the contribution by R. GORDON on the example of the Greek handbook PGM VII. Cf. also the paper by S. NAGEL dealing with the handbooks PDM xiv (P. Mag. LL) and PGM IV. 69 These groups of spells are examined in the papers by S. NAGEL, L.M. BORTOLANI, and C.A. FARAONE and A. HALUSZKA respectively.

16

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani/Svenja Nagel

–

–

–

closely related spells (the latter is e.g. observable in the long handbook P. Mag. LL = PDM xiv). Single spells and sections of spells. The detailed discussion of one particular example as a case study can be very fruitful for detecting elements of cultural plurality and fusion and to find out if, and how, they interact together within the spell. 70 Especially within unusual, unique texts (the aim or certain elements of which do not have other parallels), a careful comparison with sources from the cultural traditions in question is fundamental for the understanding of the mechanics and ancient concepts behind the practice. The divine world invoked and its iconography, whether fashioned or drawn in the course of the magical practice, or even depicted within the manuals themselves.71 Epithets, magical names as well as descriptions of images abound in the PDM and PGM and try to capture the nature of the deities in order to gain control over them. In this area, religious plurality is often observable, especially in the voces magicae-strings. However, to what degree was this plurality perceived by the ancient composers/users? Detailed observations on the construction of divinity in the magical papyri lead to an evaluation of its cultural origin and of the degree of fusion among divine personas of various religious systems.72 The local, institutional or private environment of composition of these spells and the socio-cultural background of their compilers and users. 73 Although archaeological data about the finds of the papyri are in most cases uncertain or even completely lost, clues for the reconstruction of a wider context of production and use of both the manuals and the specific rituals contained in them might be provided by careful studies of specific aspects: the materiality of the manuscripts, their scripts and languages, the literary and religious traditions behind their rituals, and the way these are consciously or unconsciously stylised and presented, as well as additional external evidence.74

Although most papers actually cover several of the aspects described above (cf. the footnotes), this section of the volume is further subdivided into two parts reflecting the main approach of the eight contributions contained in it. Thus, the first four papers are dedicated specifically to single handbooks and/or magical techniques, some of which

70

Examples of single spells or spells’ sections are discussed in some detail by S. NAGEL (PGM IV 930–1114), C.A. FARAONE (PGM III.2 292–310, V 447–58, IV 3125–71 and 2359–72), J.F. QUACK (PGM XII 232–5 and IV 3086–124), R. PHILLIPS (PGM XIII 270–77), A. HALUSZKA (PGM IV 2359–72, 3125–71, VIII 1–63 and IV 2373–440) and M. RISTORTO (PGM IV 2891–941). 71 Questions surrounding the nature and iconography of the deities involved are addressed by L.M. BORTOLANI, C.A. FARAONE, J.F. QUACK, A. HALUSZKA and M. RISTORTO. 72 Cf. also the monograph on this subject on the example of the Greek hymns in the PGM by BORTOLANI, Magical Hymns. 73 Some of these aspects are considered especially in the papers by R. GORDON, S. NAGEL and C.A. FARAONE. 74 Cf. also the thorough study of two bilingual manuscripts by DIELEMAN, Priests.

Introduction

17

are also attested outside the Graeco-Egyptian magical papyri, thereby employing a wide focus and synoptic methodology. RICHARD GORDON begins his contribution addressing some important questions about various characteristic features of Graeco-Egyptian magical texts. In particular, he investigates their relation to earlier Egyptian temple-practice and why they are written largely in Greek and display a strong syncretistic nature. The possible reasons behind these features appear to be the needs of the new culturally mixed clientele and the competition between ritual experts that operated at different levels, as also reflected by the different types of documents in the corpus of Graeco-Egyptian magical texts: from the ones consisting in a single magical procedure to ambitious collections of numerous complex rituals. GORDON considers the latter as especially relevant for investigating the compilers’ ‘view of the project of magic’ and self-understanding, and thus the second part of his contribution focuses on one of these ambitious collections, PGM VII. The author analyses its palaeographical details, organisation of the text, lectional marks and, most importantly, some specific formal elements ‘unconsciously’ preserved by the copyists (such as different methods of indicating the voces magicae, the omission of headings or the use of non-standard abbreviations). The analysis confirms that at a certain stage of transmission the collection was assembled from four pre-existent manuals, which, according to GORDON, were in their turn compiled from roughly 33 smaller blocks. In its different stages, this collection process appears to have relied on the circulation of the material, for example through correspondence between fellow practitioners. In the final section, GORDON discusses the transcultural elements found in PGM VII (Jewish, Egyptian and Greek) and the content of the papyrus, especially underlining the importance of analysing magical handbooks in their entirety in order to try to reconstruct the practitioners’ interests, competences and selfunderstanding and the demands of their clients. SVENJA NAGEL and LJUBA M. BORTOLANI’s contributions deal with the two interrelated divination techniques lychnomancy and dream divination. NAGEL first presents an overview of the extant lamp divination spells and analyses their general characteristics, commonalities and differences, concluding that two different types or traditions of lychnomancy rituals are present in the handbooks: an ‘Egyptian’ type and a ‘Greek’ or ‘Apollonian’ type. In the second part of the paper, a detailed case study on the example PGM IV 930–1114 throws light on the structure of this spell, the rationale of several elements of the ritual and their cultural background. Finally, the attempted reconstruction of a redactional history demonstrates the complex entanglement of various cultural elements and their successive editing in accord with the users’ needs: although the case study spell can be counted among the ‘Egyptian type’ rituals, it has been given a structural framework and additional elements that testify to a careful editing aimed at users alien to the original Egyptian ritual tradition. LJUBA M. BORTOLANI begins her contribution presenting an overview of the extant dream oracle spells. Considering that this divination technique is the most heterogeneous, the author tries to identify some common features that might help in distinguishing different subgroups of dream oracles and at the same time hint to a Greek or Egyptian cultural tradition. First, the use of lamps and the possible cultural backgrounds of the many deities invoked by the dream oracles are analysed. Second, BORTOLANI con-

18

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani/Svenja Nagel

siders the distribution of some features that are easily traceable to one or the other cultural tradition, namely the use of laurel (Greek), of bricks and the mention of the four cardinal points (Egyptian). This preliminary analysis suggests the existence of two separate lines of development for the dream oracle spells: one Egyptian, partly interrelated with the lamp divination technique, and one Greek, partly influenced by the high reputation of Apollonian divination but with no clear connection with the great tradition of Greek incubation oracles. CHRISTOPHER A. FARAONE investigates the PGM’s recipes for the creation of statues and images on gems with oracular and protective function. In particular, he compares them with similar objects and their descriptions in contemporary or earlier lapidary handbooks and literary sources. First, the author focuses on the images of Apollo used to obtain oracles and how they actually functioned. Second, he concentrates on recipes for protection and/or prosperity that employ three iconographies that had a long tradition as protective/beneficial domestic images in Egyptian, Roman and Greek culture respectively: the so-called Pantheos, the god Mercury with his wand and purse 75 and the three-bodied Hekate. Throughout the analysis the author takes into consideration the presence of cultural pluralism and concludes that, outside the magical papyri, other traditions for creating oracular/protective statues/images show few or no signs of multicultural influences. At the same time, in the analysed recipes of the PGM, the integration of other cultural traditions is often achieved in ways that are e.g. superficial or meant to be known only by the magical practitioner. A traditional image, well-known in one culture, is adapted and transformed to better fit the GraecoEgyptian users and their clientele through either simple additions/changes in nomenclature or small variations in function. These limited signs of cultural pluralism, and the fact that they were often not visible in the final product, suggest that these recipes were not always designed by Egyptian priests to repackage older Pharaonic rituals, but often represent their attempt ‘to recast non-Egyptian magical objects or rituals in a form that they themselves could appreciate and understand’. The second part consists of studies focussing on specific spells, in some cases without close parallels within the corpus (that we know of), and the deities addressed in them. JOACHIM F. QUACK illuminates the divine world and religious concepts contained in the passages PGM XII 232–5 and PGM IV 3086–124. The first section features an enumeration of the members of the Heliopolitan Ennead, with the names of the Egyptian deities either transcribed into Greek or ‘translated’ into those of divine counterparts in the Greek pantheon. By analysing some noticeable details of the spell, in which this section appears (PGM XII 201–69), the copying and editing process is assessed and it becomes clear that in its final stages the compilers’ understanding of the text was decreasing, which in its turn led to disintegration of meaning. The second case study concerns a spell called ‘The Oracle of Kronos’, especially a phylactery employed during the ritual. QUACK demonstrates that in this case, elements of two mythological traditions (Egyptian and Greek) have been fused in a meaningful way, 75 For this iconography and related spells in the PGM see also A. HALUSZKA’s contribution in this volume.

Introduction

19

which means that the author(s) must have had a deeper understanding of them in order for the mechanics of the spell to work. RICHARD PHILLIPS unfolds the mingled religious and literary traditions behind the only spell for human shape-shifting in the corpus, PGM XIII 270–77. He points out that the transformation here is especially aimed at hiding the performer’s identity and therefore belongs to the wider context of rituals for achieving anonymity, such as invisibility spells. The idea of human shape-shifters has precedents in Egyptian funerary and narrative texts as well as in Greek and Roman mythology and literature. In order to better contextualise this singular spell, PHILLIPS discusses several examples of both these traditions, paying special attention to transformations into animals, plants or other parts of nature parallel to the list of possible shapes given in the magical handbook. Similarly to SCHWEMER’s call for clear-cut criteria for the evaluation of ‘Mesopotamian’ influences in the PGM/PDM, PHILLIPS asks himself what kind of similarities or connections can be considered significant enough when trying to ascertain if a passage in the magical papyri derives from a specific textual tradition. After careful comparisons with various examples of shape-shifting scenes, he concludes that the passage in question does not descend from one specific source but is likely influenced by a plurality of connected concepts in Greek and Egyptian mind-sets. ADRIA HALUSZKA explores the complicated negotiation of meaning behind the study of sacred images analysing the PGM’s recipes for achieving prosperity in business that involve the creation of three-dimensional statuettes. Making large use of CHARLES PEIRCE’s theory of signs and especially of his concepts of ‘icon’ and ‘index’, the author underlines that, as voces magicae can serve as ‘indices’ to the designated divine powers, also three-dimensional images function as ‘indices’ to ‘an amalgam of divine forces beyond the sum of their visual iconography’. HALUSZKA analyses first the statuettes created in PGM IV 2359–72 and 3125–71,76 giving special attention to their hollowness, to the materials (often inscribed) that can be put inside them and to the consecration rituals that activate them. She then proceeds with PGM VIII 1–63 and IV 2373–440 that, though presenting some variations, follow the same main scheme according to which the statue is created using perceived iconographical associations and is provided with secret names that are somehow contained in it. The selected examples also stress the importance of Graeco-Roman Hermes (being the main deity in three of the rituals) as transcultural god of trade and commerce and his fusion with the Egyptian Thoth. Though culturally diverse clients and practitioners could be behind specific iconographical choices, it is important to remember that these statues do not function as simple iconographic representations, but can be ascribed a multiplicity of meanings as ‘indices’ pointing to the immediacy and presence of the divine forces during the rituals. MARCELA RISTORTO concludes this section investigating the dynamics behind the love spell PGM IV 2891–941 and discussing the culturally diverse details of the ritual and of the hymn to Aphrodite it contains. First, the author analyses the hymn considering its structure, the epithets of the goddess, and other divine entities and voces magi76 These two spells are discussed also in the contribution by C.A. FARAONE, but with a different focus.

20

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani/Svenja Nagel

cae employed in the composition. Through comparison with Greek literary sources it appears that, even if various aspects of the deity described belong to the Greek Aphrodite, many others were borrowed from other Greek goddesses, possibly because of the flexible nature of polytheism. At the same time, the hymn integrates elements from Near Eastern tradition, with which the figure of Aphrodite displayed associations already in the second millennium BCE. Even if some of the hymn’s epithets may allude to Aphrodite’s identification with Isis-Hathor, it is the analysis of the praxis and of its different subparts that reveals most of the Egyptian cultural elements. Structurally, the magical hymn to Aphrodite does not substantially differ from a ‘religious’ hymn, but the two can be distinguished thanks to their public versus private, magical context. Moreover, the hymn presents the goddess as an all-powerful deity with extended competence over the Underworld and integrates various cultural traditions, thus illuminating the evolution of Aphrodite’s divine persona in Roman Egypt.

Part III Integration and transformation of Graeco-Egyptian magic in Jewish and Byzantine spells The final section of this volume is dedicated to the integration and later developments of the ritual lore known from the PGM and PDM in two other magical traditions. Apart from the Graeco-Egyptian magico-religious main stratum, Jewish religion and, to a lesser extent, emerging Christianity left some traces in the material assembled in the magical papyri.77 Autochthonous Jewish magic developed especially between the third century BCE and the seventh century CE, producing collections of spells such as the well-known Sefer ha-Razim. 78 This book, that was probably written around the middle of the first millennium CE,79 has been recently confirmed to have been actually used in medieval Cairo and can be considered as the most influential text of Jewish magic in the Middle Ages and beyond. Being in origin more or less contemporary to Graeco-Egyptian magical literature, the recipes of the Sefer ha-Razim display many similarities with the PGM/PDM, so that it has been suggested that its compiler(s) were intimately familiar with them and in some cases reworked this material, while framing it with distinctively Jewish ouranology and angelology.80 On the other hand, the Jewish elements in Graeco-Egyptian magical literature do not necessarily seem to be connected specifically to Jewish magical tradition since they consist mainly in divine and angelic names that, as SCHWEMER demonstrates for 77

See above n. 43 for bibliography on Jewish elements; furthermore, on Christian influences, e.g. Great Magical Papyrus. 78 See the recent edition by REBIGER/SCHÄFER, Sefer ha-Razim. 79 Though only later copies (either fragments or manuscripts) are extant today, see e.g. MARGALIOTH, Sepher ha-Razim, 47–55; BOHAK, Ancient Jewish Magic, 170–75. 80 See the paper by G. BOHAK and A. BELLUSCI in this volume; cf. also the contribution by S. NAGEL, 142, for a parallel between passages in the PDM/PGM and the Sefer ha-Razim. VAN DER HORST,

Introduction

21

the Mesopotamian elements (see above), appear to be mostly disconnected from their original religious context.81 In fact, as BOHAK states, apart from some standard names and short phrases that are repeated quite frequently, actual adoptions of Hebrew sentences or detailed thematic motives are relatively rare, and ‘Hebrew’ interpretations that have been suggested for various voces magicae in the past were often erroneous.82 On the other hand, there is a strong tendency in the magical tradition to independently develop, modify and combine words and elements once they have entered this sphere (e.g. angel names, which could be invented ad hoc by just adding the ending -ēl to any word). However, only in isolated cases does the employment of Hebrew elements really demonstrate a deeper knowledge and meaningful integration of them into the surrounding ritual practice or recitation.83 GIDEON BOHAK and ALESSIA BELLUSCI’s contribution explores the opposite tendency, i.e. the integration and reworking of Greek recipes in the Jewish magical framework. They focus on a prayer to Helios that appears within a complex divination ritual in the Sefer ha-Razim (book that should originally be more or less contemporary to the Graeco-Egyptian manuals) and is especially relevant since it consists of a long set of Greek words transcribed in the Hebrew alphabet. Though already studied by various scholars, BOHAK and BELLUSCI provide new insights about it thanks to the publication of a new fragment from Cairo Genizah (from the twelfth/thirteenth century CE) that contains an applied spell, or ‘finished product’, including the up to now earliest known copy of the prayer to Helios. The authors provide a word by word analysis trying to reconstruct the Greek original and the various stages of textual corruption: the Greek meaning of the prayer was not understood anymore and the fragment does not preserve an accurate transliteration also because of the problems inherent in the differences between Greek and Hebrew alphabet and language. Nevertheless, some of the readings appear to be superior to the previously available textual witnesses. This allows BOHAK and BELLUSCI to present a more reliable reconstruction, which allows them to both identify some similarities/differences between this prayer and the PGM’s ones, and demonstrate that the prayer to Helios was a much simpler text than assumed by earlier scholars. As far as Christian elements in the corpus of the Graeco-Egyptian magical papyri are concerned, they are mainly limited to few names and applied spells, in which e.g. Jesus Christ is invoked instead of, or together with, the usual magical divine ties.84 However, in Egypt, the emerging Christian belief started to adapt the existing magical lore to its own social and theological framework, producing Christian amulets 81

For the few exceptions demonstrating a more extensive and consistent Jewish background, see below n. 83. 82 BOHAK, Hebrew, Hebrew Everywhere?, 77. 83 E.g. the ‘Stele of Jeu’ PGM V 96–172, PGM XXXVI 295–311, some exorcism spells and PDM xiv 117–49, cf. QUACK, Alttestamentliche Motive (especially for the latter); BOHAK, Ancient Jewish Magic, especially 196–7, 201–7. 84 There are only few references to Christian religion (i.e. to Jesus Christ) in the handbooks, e.g. PGM IV 3020 (cf. PGM XII 190–92); cf. on this subject e.g. PACHOUMI, Concepts of the Divine, 109–22.

22

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani/Svenja Nagel

and magical handbooks mainly in Coptic language that are studied today as separate corpora.85 Moreover, the persistence of the Graeco-Egyptian magical tradition can be traced even in later epochs and outside Egypt in the new social, political and cultural Christian environment. For example, as ZELLMANN-ROHRER demonstrates, magical rituals that still display a connection to earlier practices can be found in Byzantine manuscripts. Scholarly interest in this field is still quite recent86 and further investigations will be welcomed with great anticipation as they might throw new light on the mechanics of reshaping ancient magical lore in the Middle Ages and beyond. MICHAEL ZELLMANN-ROHRER, in the final contribution, takes an important step in this direction tracing examples of the survival of practices known from the PGM in Byzantine and even later Greek magical texts. Not only the positive identification of such continued traditions but also the contemporaneous scribes and users’ attitudes towards this ancient material are important objectives throughout this paper, which focuses specifically on healing and apotropaic incantations. The author considers three different ways in which earlier traditions can be treated: complete omission, direct and unmediated inclusion, and, most commonly, mediated adaptation. ZELLMANN-ROHRER lists seven structural features as direct survivals, among them the use of voces magicae and words in foreign languages, whether they consist of old formulas known from antiquity or are new borrowings and distortions from contemporary languages. Concerning the category of mediated survivals, one main mechanism of adaptation is the addition of a Christian frame to the magical practice; according to the author this was done with the aim of increasing the power, and not for ‘sanitisation’ of the rituals. In a final case study the author analyses the process of mediated survival through the example of the ‘ὑστέρα formula’. These two last contributions, with their cultural and chronological depth, underline thus the persistence of Graeco-Egyptian magical lore. ZELLMANN-ROHRER even mentions some of its possible vestiges up to modern times, providing a befitting reminder of the extent of this tradition’s reach, which has not been fully explored yet.87 As a whole, the papers of this volume examine a plurality of magico-religious traditions and how they merged and culminated in Roman Egypt in the Greek and Demotic 85 On Coptic Magic, see especially KROPP, Koptische Zaubertexte I–III; MEYER/SMITH (eds.), Ancient Christian Magic; CHOAT/GARDNER, Coptic Handbook. On Christian amulets see DE BRUYN/ DIJKSTRA, Greek Amulets; DE BRUYN, Making Amulets Christian; cf. also WILLER, Papyrusamulette; LACERENZA, Jewish Magicians. Cf., more generally, MO. SMITH, How Magic Was Changed; SPIESER, Christianisme et magie. A new (doctoral) study on the survival of ancient Egyptian religious traditions in Coptic magical texts is now envisaged by K. HEVESI, Heidelberg. Furthermore, a new research project led by KORSHI DOSOO, called The Coptic Magical Papyri: Vernacular Religion in Late Antique and Early Islamic Egypt, started at the University of Würzburg in September 2018. 86 Cf. MAGUIRE, Introduction, 7. See for some introductory bibliography e.g. n. 2 in M. ZELLMANN-ROHRER’s contribution. 87 For further examples of specific techniques known from the Graeco-Egyptian handbooks that persisted until (early) modern times, see QUACK, Zauber ohne Grenzen, 196–9 (for thief-catching spells) and NAGEL, Liebesbann, 271–2 (for erotic spells).

Introduction

23

magical papyri, which in their turn hatched further developments in temporally and geographically diverse environments. In some cases these traditions actually reached a degree of mutual fusion, while in others they contributed with more scattered elements through simpler juxtaposition. At the same time, while the accumulation of different cultural elements generally increased in time, the awareness of their origins/original meaning gradually disappeared in a transcultural ‘language of magic’.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Cluster of Excellence Asia and Europe in Global Context of the University of Heidelberg for the financial and technical support and the Internationales Wissenschaftsforum Heidelberg for providing invaluable help in organisational matters during the conference. They facilitated the smooth running of our workshop in an inspiring and comfortable atmosphere. Further thanks are due to our graduate assistant KRISZTINA HEVESI, MA, for helping us in editing this volume.

PART I EGYPTIAN, GREEK AND MESOPOTAMIAN TRADITIONS OF MAGIC: DIFFERENT GENRES, PERCEPTION OF THE ‘OTHER’ AND POSSIBLE TRANSCULTURAL EXCHANGE

Magical Practices in Egyptian Literary Texts: in Quest of Cultural Plurality1 FRANZISKA NAETHER The aim of this paper is to examine selected passages from Egyptian literary texts (narratives, wisdom and discursive texts) pertaining to cultural plurality in Egyptian magical practices – a significant part of the overall corpus of ancient Egyptian literature.2 These are drawn from my research project ‘Cult Practice in Ancient Egyptian Literature’ / ‘Kultpraxis in der altägyptischen Literatur’.3 The case studies taken from such sources and presented here contain magical elements to which cultural plurality is of immediate relevance: I will explore Egyptian views on foreigners, foreign protagonists and practices characterised as being from foreign countries.

1. Case studies: examples of cultural plurality in Egyptian literary texts 1.1. Foreign countries in general With regard to cultural plurality in magical texts, the late HEINZ-JOSEF THISSEN’s contribution about Nubian elements in the magical papyri immediately comes to mind.4 There, he argues that spells which are said to be of ‘Nubian’ origin, which have to be recited in the ‘Nubian’ or ‘Ethiopian’ language are a topos, an element of exotic 1

I wish to thank the organisers for the invitation and for having accepted a paper not about the plurality of magical practices themselves but rather on the reception of them in literary texts. Many thanks are also due to the speakers and guests of the workshop and two lectures in Leipzig who gave valuable input, hints and questions on the topic presented here and for further research. Furthermore, I am grateful for multiple suggestions by the editors as well as by GIL H. RENBERG for helpful suggestions to improve this contribution. 2 In total: 104 narrative texts (e.g. stories, novels, tales); 90 instructive texts (basically wisdom texts); 13 discursive texts (e.g. complaints, prophecies). If not stated otherwise, all transliterations are taken from the TLA, accessed on December 31, 2014. Note that not all the stories have ancient or modern titles; some are cited by their inventory or publication number. 3 This is my Habilitation thesis, for which I collect and analyse all passages that contain cult practices to explore seven research questions: 1, The Setting of the Sources, 2, Cult Practices in the Literature, 3, The Presentation of the Divine, 4, Divine Justice – Sacred Jurisdiction, 5, Fate and Future Prospects, 6, Self-Reflection about Cult Practice, 7, The Untold and the Secret. 4 For the Greek and Demotic magical papyri (PGM and PDM), see now JÖRDENS (ed.), Ägyptische Magie, especially my contribution about the magical papyri (NAETHER, Griechischägyptische Magie).

28

Franziska Naether

and foreign magic to make the spell more effective5 – though the possibility of loanwords cannot be excluded in times of cultural contact. Whether an ‘Urtext’ or etymologies can really be assigned to Nubia does not matter (and is most likely not correct), but what matters is their ritual power during performance. With that in mind, it was my hope to detect comparable phenomena in the literary texts and therefore I searched for ‘foreign’ elements in the description of cult practices, throughout the surviving body of Egyptian literature. In general, it can be observed in their literature that the Egyptian view of foreign countries (‘Fremdländer’) is a rather pejorative one.6 Egypt shared frontiers with peoples in the Libyan desert in the West, with Nubians in the South and with Near Eastern peoples, simply called ‘Asiatics’, in the Northeast. During the course of history, these areas stood under command or influence of the Egyptian crown – or, from time to time, were lost to other rulers. Apart from locally based opponents, the Egyptians fought with enemies that were harder to tackle: mobile, non-stationary ethnic groups such as the sea peoples, bedouins or marauding shepherds in the Nile Delta. That being said, it is apparent that these groups served as basic symbols of opponents not only in the political ideology and as a powerful ‘Feindbild’ in the ruler cult, but also as representations of enemies in literary sources. Some examples of that are discussed below and they feature especially the ‘Asiatics’ and the ‘Nubians’. 1.2. Egypt and the Levant According to Egyptian royal ideology, foreign countries should be under the control of the Pharaoh – after he has conquered these territories – and administrated by viceroys or ruled by crown princes who secure payments of tributes in kind. Additionally, the foreigners should at least be afraid of the Egyptian monarch, as mentioned in the Story of Sinuhe: there, the desirable amount of fear is described as being as big as the fear of

5 THISSEN, Nubien, 376. On language as means of distinction, see KOENIG, Image of the Foreigner, 225–6. Magical practices seemed to have been more inclined towards borrowing foreign elements than other cult practices; see QUACK, Importing, 262 and 268. FREDERIC KRUEGER brought to my attention the similar though not completely comparable phenomenon of the use of Old Coptic spells and the use of Coptic within Greek magical texts. For Greek, Demotic and Old-Coptic glosses, see DIELEMAN, Priests, 64–9; 71–2 and QUACK, How the Coptic Script (especially pp. 55–74) and LOVE, Code-Switching (non vidi). 6 LOPRIENO, Topos, 22–34. His methodology has been criticised by BUCHBERGER, Zum Ausländer, 10–25, who does not believe in a uniform concept of the topos of ‘foreigners’ in Egyptian culture: followed by MOERS, Auch der Feind, 225–7, who offers a more differentiated discussion of the term rmṯ ‘man’. See also O’CONNOR, Egypt’s Views, 156–61. This view can differ from the perspective on foreigners living and being acculturated in Egypt; see VITTMANN, Zwischen Integration und Ausgrenzung, 562. Focussing on the Old, Middle and New Kingdom only, but nevertheless an important contribution, is MOERS, ‘Unter den Sohlen Pharaos’, differentiating between otherness (general pejorative views on all foreigners and considering them as enemies on a political level, pp. 88– 101) and alteration (encounters on a personal level, pp. 137–45). In his communication-based approach, not all meetings of Egyptians and foreigners lead automatically to social exclusion – there are several levels of rejection but also examples of integration.

Magical Practices in Egyptian Literary Texts: in Quest of Cultural Plurality

29

the goddess Sakhmet in the year of the pestilence.7 Sakhmet, a lion-headed goddess and the warlike pendant of the rather peaceful cat-headed goddess Bastet, is associated with fighting, but also with healing. Priests of Sakhmet had special knowledge in repelling diseases and were capable of performing magico-medical practices. 8 In this example, the Egyptian king is compared to a fierce goddess who is capable of destroying humans by illnesses. A similar passage from the same story praises the king as being as powerful as the divine uraeus snake on the crown he wears on his forehead, which causes foreigners to flee from him.9 The Story of Sinuhe is one of the most famous works from ancient Egypt. Apart from its modern reception in the last century, already in antiquity we can distinguish two traditions of transmission – basically one in the Middle and one in the New Kingdom Periods (c. 12th–14th and 18th–20th Dynasty, c. 1991–1690 and 1292–945 BCE). The story is attested in ten papyri and ostraka, some of them being evidence from educational contexts of the given time. At the beginning of the narration, the Pharaoh Amenemhat I dies and the protagonist Sinuhe, an office holder of the retinue of the crown prince, flees to foreign countries. Sinuhe overhears news about the death of the king, but his role in this remains unclear over the whole course of the story. During this, he relocates to the Near East, to an area in Egyptian called Upper Retjenu. The hero survives several adventures and manages to become a high-ranking official abroad with family and property. However, the main conflict of the work is the flight of the protagonist and his eventual wish to return home to Egypt in order to receive a proper burial. The narration explains further on that it was supposedly the aim of every Egyptian not to die in a foreign country and to be buried with local rites, but to die in Egypt and receive a proper burial following mummification and the rituals meant to guarantee dwelling in the afterlife. Thus, Sinuhe wishes to avoid the Asiatic rites in Upper Retjenu. A letter from the Pharaoh invites the ‘lost son’ to return home reminding him of Egyptian cult practices involving death and burial: Think about the day of burial, the passing over to an honored state. The night will be appointed for you with oils and poultices from the arms of Tayet (goddess of weaving). A procession will be made for you on the day of interment, the anthropoid sarcophagus (overlaid) with gold [leaf], the head with lapis lazuli, and the sky above you as you are placed in the outer coffin and drawn by teams of oxen preceded by singers. The dance of the Muu will be performed at your tomb, and the necessary offerings will be invoked for you. They will slaughter at the entrance of your tomb chapel, your pillars to be set up in limestone as is done for the royal children. You shall not die in a foreign land, and Asiatics will not escort you. You shall not be placed in a ram’s skin as they make your grave. All of this is too much for one who has roamed the earth. Take thought for your dead body and return.10

7

P. Berlin P. 10499, 67–74; P. Berlin P. 3022 & fragments P. Amherst m–q (B), 43–50 (attested in the Middle and the New Kingdom). See LOPRIENO, Topos, 50–55, who wants to see irony in this passage; MOERS, ‘Unter den Sohlen Pharaos’, 144–5 highlights the positive characterization of the foreign ruler Amunnenshi, Sinuhe’s master for his life abroad. 8 ENGELMANN/HALLOF, Sachmetpriester. 9 P. Berlin P. 10499, 87–8; parallels in O. Ashmolean Museum inv. 1945.40, 32 and P. Moscow inv. 4657, 3, 1–4. 10 P. Berlin P. 3022 and fragments P. Amherst m–q (B), 190–99, translation by SIMPSON (ed.), Literature, 62.

30

Franziska Naether

The circumstances and driving power of the flight are described by him as ‘like a divine plan/ordeal’ (mj sḫr nṯr).11 The god – and here we must assume Sinuhe’s personal god – is angry with him and sends him to a foreign country by way of punishment but, when he considers Sinuhe to have suffered enough, he shows mercy and brings him back to Egypt.12 In his argumentation explaining the flight and defending his alleged cowardice, Sinuhe follows the rhetorical strategy of blaming a divine force, a divine form of justice, and later on in the narration his heart as being responsible for his actions.13 The story offers a happy ending for Sinuhe – he goes back to Egypt to enjoy his final days of life at home. The only mention of Arabia in the context of cult practice is rather meagre evidence: it occurs within a section of ‘pious wishes’ in the Demotic fable of the Swallow and the Sea. This and several other stories are written in Demotic on two large jars. The story of the swallow who asks the sea to protect her children in the nest has been dated to the first to second centuries CE and, more convincingly, to the first century BCE, and originates from the Memphite area.14 The sea does not take care of the little birds – they drown in a wave. Immediately, the swallow pursues revenge and the fable ends with her starting to throw sand in the sea to run it dry. This text is framed by a fictional letter bearing classical letter formulae.15 In fact, the fable is the main part or the body of text of the letter. Both the beginning of the letter, which features remarks of initial courtesy expressing well-wishes to the addressee, and the final scribal remark say that the Pharaoh should cut Arabia into pieces.16 In fact, the story of the swallow is a parable for the king to (re-)consider his actions towards Arabia. At the end, it is concluded that a conquest of Arabia is as impossible as the draining of the sea by the swallow – if the reading and the interpretation are correct. The land of Arabia is not further characterised here, but again the underlying concept is the Egyptian ruler’s ideology to control or at least to put fear into neighbouring countries. Similarly, rebels, Asiatics and Libyans are said to be slain by a new saviour king and calmed by the uraeus on his crown in the Prophecy of Neferti. This discursive text from the time of Pharaoh Amenemhat I (c. 1994–1975 BCE)17 contains a prophecy exeventu told by the Egyptian sage Neferti who receives a dark vision of Egypt in turmoil, where law and order (in Egyptian belief system the Ma’at) have no meaning, society is upturned and cultic secrets are revealed. Especially the Asiatics are referred 11 P. Berlin P. 3022 and fragments P. Amherst m–q (B), 42–3. See as well PARKINSON, Poetry, 155–6 and PARKINSON, Sinuhe’s Dreaming(s), 149. 12 P. Berlin P. 3022 and fragments P. Amherst m–q (B), 148–9. 13 P. Berlin P. 3022 and fragments P. Amherst m–q (B), 182–3. See, e.g., Onchsheshonqi’s similar argumentation using blame-shifting to explain to the Pharaoh why he refrained from telling him about a planned assassination (P. BM EA inv. 10508, 3, x+13–15). 14 COLLOMBERT, L’hirondelle. 15 See DEPAUW, Demotic Letter, 213–16. 16 Krugtexte, jar A, text 4, 16–17 and 22–3. There are other interpretations for the reading of this passage, such as HOFFMANN/QUACK, Anthologie, 194: ‘Weiß Pharao, mein großer Herr, daß ich fortgegangen bin aus dem Land Arabien?’ where this sentence is not part of the initial courtesy of the letter. 17 According to BLUMENTHAL, Neferti, 13.

Magical Practices in Egyptian Literary Texts: in Quest of Cultural Plurality

31

to as a negative force: they destroy fortifications of the borders and fall plundering upon the Eastern Delta region. However, this apocalyptic scenario is mended by the saviour king Ameni: The people of his time will rejoice, for this son of a man will establish his name for ever and eternity. But those who fall into evil, those who raise the cry of rebellion, they have lowered their voices through dread of him. The Asiatics will fall before his sword, the Libyans will fall before his fire; rebels will fall before his wrath, and enemies will fall through awe of him. For the uraeus on his brow will subdue his enemies for him.18

Without doubt, this also refers to political developments during the 12th Dynasty and its business with Levantine peoples. Some passages confront Egyptian and Asiatic magic and divine interventions. In the Tale of the Two Brothers,19 a lock of hair of a girl from a foreign country comes to Egypt by the sea: They (= the learned scribes) told Pharaoh, l(ife), p(rotection), h(ealth), ‘As for this tress of hair, / it belongs to a daughter of Pre-Harakhti in whom is the seed of every god. Now it is tribute to you another country. Send envoys forth to every foreign country to search for her.’20

This hair originates from a woman created by the gods. Earlier in this story, the protagonists Anubis and Bata fight against each other because Bata, the younger brother, did not respond to the sexual advances of Anubis’ wife. She takes revenge by telling Anubis that his brother wanted to rape her. The conflict escalates as Bata cuts off his own penis and flees to the Levant. Meanwhile, the Egyptian gods of the Ennead take mercy on him and create a beautiful female companion. Once when Bata goes hunting, the sea god Jam is able to obtain a lock of hair of the woman. He sends it by his waves to Egypt to the laundry of the palace where it perfumes the royal clothes. The Pharaoh is immediately attracted by the scent and after the abovementioned explanation, tries to secure the woman for himself. The creation of the woman in this narration is perceived as the work of an Egyptian god – in this case the girl being the daughter of the sun-god (P)Re-Harakhti, as the citation shows. The evil plot to separate her from her companion Bata and drawing her existence to the attention of the Egyptian Pharaoh, however, is done by the Levantine god of the sea, Jam. Here, as in the Story of Sinuhe (and as well as in the Story of Bes treated below), the foreign countries serve as destination of a flight. Both Bes and Bata hide from others and live in the woods, which does not remain undiscovered by the respective Egyptian Pharaohs. In the case of Bata’s female companion, the Levantine sea god Jam has a negative role. Jam demonstrates a similar behaviour in the story about the goddess Astarte, Astarte and the Sea.21 In both cases, the god is abducting Egyptian (or Egyptianised) holy women – a woman made by the gods (Bata’s wife) and the daugh18 Prophecy of Neferti, 61–5: translation by TOBIN, in SIMPSON (ed.), Literature, 220; MOERS, ‘Unter den Sohlen Pharaos’, 135–7. 19 The narrative is written in a beautiful late Egyptian Hieratic book hand, supposedly in the last years of king Merenptah in the late thirteenth/early twelfth century BCE. 20 Tale of the Two Brothers, 11, 4–7, translation by WENTE, in SIMPSON (ed.), Literature, 86. See also WETTENGEL, Erzählung, 133–8. 21 For the story, see COLLOMBERT/COULON, Dieux.

32

Franziska Naether

ter of the god Ptah, Astarte. Interestingly, the Near Eastern goddess Astarte/Ištar belongs to the Egyptian pantheon in this narrative. The god Jam is a powerful creature, driven by sexual instinct and portrayed as cunning, and in both stories at first successful in his attempts, though he could not compete with the Egyptian opponents in the stories. His companion’s seizure leads to further complications for the protagonist Bata in the Tale of the Two Brothers: the abovementioned envoys from Egypt succeed in finding the woman. She becomes queen and tries to have Bata put to death. After several attempts and adventures, Bata is able to become the next Pharaoh – succeeded by his older brother Anubis with whom he reconciled and who helped him on his way to revenge against his sister-in-law. This story bears further allusions to cult practices which are worth exploring within an Egyptian context, since the majority of the storyline occurs in Egypt. They are not mentioned as explicitly foreign. However, in some stories, there are veritable battles of magicians which are mentioned below and contribute more to our research question of cultural plurality. In the late Hieratic Story of Wenamun from the 21st–23rd Dynasty, which includes a couple of magical and divinatory practices, the protagonist has to fetch wood for the ceremonial boat of Amun from Byblos in the Levant. Nothing happens as planned – Wenamun is delayed by local authorities and has to wait for further proceedings.22 He slowly begins to realise that Egypt’s former glory and the power of the god Amun could not contribute much to remedy his situation of uncertainty about his departure to Egypt and the bullying by officials in Levantine ports, who also do not act when he was robbed. In his plea to the god for help, he manufactures a casket for Amun-of-theway and his ‘things’ (|X.t) and hides this in his tent. The wording in the text is not very clear, but we can think of a shrine or an altar with a small divine cult statue of Amun and perhaps some cult instruments.23 Many amulets and statuettes have been found in the Levant, one function of which might have been to protect their owners from harm during the travel on sea and land from Egypt to elsewhere (and vice versa).24 Clearly, these are Egyptian cult practices performed on Lebanese soil, and – this is the decisive point in the Wenamun story – in secret. This contrasts with the evidence for the coexistence of cultural and religious plurality in the Levant. For reasons of fear and secrecy, Wenamun could not openly perform his ritual actions. But these events do not go unnoticed and the local governor and Wenamun’s opponent, Tjekerbaal, makes an offering to his local gods. During this event, one of the men in his entourage becomes a medium for a Lebanese god and utters in his ecstasy that Wenamun and the divine image of Amun-of-the-way should be brought: Now when he offered to his gods, the god took possession of a page (from the circle) of his pages and put him in an ecstatic state. He told him, ‘Bring the god up! Bring the envoy who is carrying him! It is Amun who sent him forth. It is he who had him come.’ For when the ecstatic became ecstatic that 22 LOPRIENO, Topos, 64–72 with a characterization of the conflict between the protagonists in the foreign country; SCHIPPER, Wenamun, 171–215. 23 P. Moscow inv. 120, 1, 34 = 3, 12. See MOERS, Fingierte Welten, 92–4; 272; SCHIPPER, Wenamun, 179–83. 24 See SCHIPPER, Wenamun, 182–3 with discussion.

Magical Practices in Egyptian Literary Texts: in Quest of Cultural Plurality

33

night, I [= Wenamun] had located a freighter headed for Egypt and had (already) loaded all my possessions into it but, so as to prevent another eye from seeing the god, I was waiting for darkness to fall that I might put him aboard. The harbor master came to me, saying, ‘Stay until tomorrow, so the prince says.’25

Inspirational mantic, ecstasy and (boy) mediums are not unknown to Egyptians,26 but this divinatory technique is presented here as a foreign way to communicate with gods.27 In Egypt, divinities issued their commands far more often by dreams and even in the PGM/PDM many spells for revelation involve dreams.28 However, in this situation the foreigners use a local technique with an inspired medium whose exact designation escapes us. Wenamun and his divine protector Amun must remain behind and are unable to turn the situation in their favour. When the protagonist is finally able to flee to Cyprus, the papyrus breaks off, but a good ending could be anticipated.29 In a world of encounter with the foreign, when identity formation by ethnicity gets blurry, religion still remains a tricky issue – especially for Egyptians who consider themselves as from a god-given superior empire.30 It is also worth considering the story of Bentresh, the sick princess of tan.31 Bakhtan is a foreign Asiatic country which is apparently on good terms with Egypt, because the Pharaoh sends the god Khonsu there from Thebes, transported in his mobile processional boat. Upon arriving, Khonsu cures Bentresh by Egyptian magic. She is possessed by a demon which seemingly could not be driven out with the help of Near Eastern healers and their powers. Khonsu’s work is regarded so highly that the ruler of Bakhtan first does not want to let him return to Egypt. Nevertheless, a dream revelation leads to the sending of Khonsu back to Thebes. We can conclude from this episode that Egyptian magic, divination and the gods should be considered as superior to their Asiatic counterparts. The narrative is preserved on a stela written in NeoMiddle Egyptian hieroglyphs from the fourth century BCE; there are some further fragments on a temple wall in Luxor that await publication.32 We turn to another region, the Eastern Delta, which was home to a group constantly opposing the crown, especially in the Third Intermediate Period (c. 1069–664 BCE). Though dwelling within Egypt, the inimical shepherds living there are one of the groups challenging the Pharaoh in the narrative cycle of the Inaros-Petubastis-Stories. 25 P. Moscow inv. 120, 1, 38–43 = 1, x+3–8, translation by WENTE, in SIMPSON (ed.), Literature, 118–19. MOERS, ‘Unter den Sohlen Pharaos’, 157 comments on a part of the story in which not only Wenamun but also the god Amun is made the laughingstock of the Byblites. 26 See NAETHER, Sortes Astrampsychi, 44–6 for an overview and C.J. MARTIN, Child, for an example. There are also examples in the PGM/PDM. 27 RITNER, Ecstatic Episode. For the problematic sentence structure and the term oDdjw-o#, a loanword which is used to represent the (young?) male medium or mantic professional possessed by the god, see the comments by LUTZ POPKO in the TLA concerning this passage. 28 See the contribution by L.M. BORTOLANI in this volume. 29 SCHIPPER, Wenamun, 277–81. 30 MOERS, ‘Unter den Sohlen Pharaos’, 154–5. 31 RITNER, in SIMPSON (ed.), Literature, 361–6. See also QUACK, Importing, 269–70. 32 BROZE, Bakhtan; L.D. BELL, Nouvelle version.

34

Franziska Naether

They are called ‘herdsmen’ (o#m.w) and appear especially in the stories The Fight for the Prebend of Amun and The Fight for the Armor of Inaros. To date, several more stories from this cycle have been discovered, written in Demotic during the GraecoRoman Period but telling of an earlier period of Egyptian history. The already mentioned Story of Bes belongs to this cycle as well. Together, they form a treasure trove of narratives from the ancient world. One can assume that the territory of the rebellious shepherds in the Eastern Delta was not far away from the Sinai and their presumed wandering communities must have led to this designation – even though they perform Egyptian rites and worship Amun.33 I wish to conclude this section about Egyptian-Asiatic relations with a rather peculiar episode in the Teaching of Menena, a wisdom text from a father to his son Payiry/Mery-Sakhmet.34 Both individuals are known from other documents.35 The text is written in a late Hieratic book hand and stylised as a letter. With quotations from other literary texts, Menena is reprimanding his son in witty words for committing several crimes. The decisive sentence is in line 3, where he accuses Pay-iry of having eaten bread mixed with blood: ‘you intermingled with the Asiatics (o#m.w), while you ate bread with your own blood’.36 This kind of fraternisation with foreigners, whether true or not, must sound outrageous to Egyptians, especially to a readership of this teaching, within the context of Egyptian worldview. It might have involved a magical ritual of blood brotherhood. Maybe this short, offensive episode seemed more scandalous than Sinuhe in the Story of Sinuhe spending a considerable part of his lifetime in the Levant. 1.3. Egypt and Nubia The relationship between Egyptian and Nubian rituals and their practitioners can be distinguished from this image of conquest, integration and coexistence of Egyptian and ‘Asiatic’ cult practices. Nubia, at times under control by the Egyptian crown, has been perceived as the foreign country per se, a country of a type of magic which was different from the Egyptian one but also respected as something exotic and powerful – a classical strategy of displaying otherness.37 This rhetoric device is also used for displaying Asiatic magic – remember the episode with the ecstatic in Byblos – but not as pronounced as in the examples with Nubian magical practices as presented here. It can also be seen in a passage in the Story of Sinuhe where the protagonist tries to explain his emotional situation during his flight from Egypt many years before. After 33

QUACK, Einführung [1st edn], 55–7. Preserved on Ostrakon Chicago OIC inv. 12074 + Ostrakon IFAO inv. 2188. 35 The sources are dated palaeographically to the 19th–20th Dynasty. Other documents connected with Menena and Pay-iry/Mery-Sakhmet prove both have lived under the kings Ramses III and IV; see the comment of P. DILS, TLA, ad loc.; ČERNÝ, Blood Brotherhood, 162–3 and MOERS, Fingierte Welten, 233, n. 328, about the later fictualization of the protagonists. 36 oQw Hr snf=k; translation from the TLA; see GUGLIELMI, ‘Lehre’, and her n. l on p. 156 for a possible mocking of the protagonists; ČERNÝ, Blood Brotherhood, 161–2. MOERS, Fingierte Welten, 232–45 comments widely on the teaching but not on the blood brotherhood itself; MOERS, ‘Unter den Sohlen Pharaos’, 152–3. 37 S.T. SMITH, Wretched Kush, 19–29; O’CONNOR, Egypt’s Views, 167–9. 34

Magical Practices in Egyptian Literary Texts: in Quest of Cultural Plurality

35

several adventures and a successful career in the Levant,38 Sinuhe is offered a burial at home by the Pharaoh and is now in need of explaining why he ran away: ‘It was like in a dream, as if a man from the Delta sees himself in Elephantine, a man from the marshes in the land of the Nubians!’ 39 The seemingly unknown agent of Sinuhe’s flight is certainly a divine force. After the turmoil of the death of the old Pharaoh and in the context of blame-shifting, the flight seemed to him a divine plan as mentioned above. Characteristic of this passage is the comparison to a dream. This status between sleeping and being awake is significant for the Egyptians: there was a complex science of dream interpretation and incubation, that is induced sleep, even before the GraecoRoman Period, often in combination with other divinatory practices.40 When Sinuhe refers to this dreamlike status, he also refers to a certain state of mind or the unknown. He compares his feelings to those of a man from the North being in the South (t# stj, which is Nubia or the Southern area of Egypt having Nubian contacts), as an estranged individual being in his personal terra incognita. Behind this, there is of course a cultural model of Nubia as a ‘Gegenbild’, as unknown territory filled with negative imagery for Egyptians – a classical form of an ‘othering’ strategy.41 As a border town, Elephantine served as entry to this otherness and alterity.42 In the case of Sinuhe, we can ultimately assume that Upper Retjenu (Canaan) was never considered by him as ‘home’.43 The Story of Bes, an unpublished story about a man from the cycle of the InarosPetubastis-Stories, features several cult practices and is set mainly in Nubia. 44 This Demotic narrative from the second century CE is preserved in circa 200 papyrus fragments in Copenhagen as well as in other collections. At the beginning of the preserved text, Bes and his friend Haryothes swear an oath before the goddess Isis to be best friends forever. Haryothes plans a wedding with his girlfriend Tasis, but Bes falls in love with her and kills Haryothes during a war. Before the burial, Bes approaches Tasis in order to have sex with her in the tomb, but Tasis finds a way to kill herself down in the burial pit. In response, the goddess Isis appears and curses Bes with leprosy, leading him to flee to Nubia and hide himself in the woods while his servant looks

38

LOPRIENO, Topos, 41–59 commenting e.g. on Sinuhe’s acculturation in Retjenu and on the person of the ruler Amunnenshi. 39 |w mj [225] sSm-rs.wt mj m## sw |dH.y m [226] #bw z n H#.t m t#-ztj (P. Berlin P. 3022 and fragment P. Amherst m–q (B), 224–6). Four versions of this passage are attested; others: MR, P. Berlin P. 10499 (from Thebes-West), 65–6; O. Ashmolean Museum inv. 1945.40, 24–5; O. Ashmolean Museum inv. 1945.40, vs., 32. See also PARKINSON, Sinuhe’s Dreaming(s), 154, 156–67; PÉTIGNY, From Sacred to Law, 7–8. 40 See RENBERG, Where Dreams May Come and SZPAKOWSKA, Behind Closed Eyes, 4–13. 41 On Nubia as ‘Gegenbild’, see SÉRIDA, Cultural Identity, 32–3; RITNER, Mechanics, 140–41; 151–73 commenting on magical texts from Mirgissa and on magic against the emperor Augustus. On the bust of the latter used in malevolent magic in Nubia, see now OPPER, Meroë Head. 42 RAUE, Geschichte von Elephantine; S.T. SMITH, Wretched Kush, 4–9; TÖRÖK, Between Two Worlds, 12–15. 43 PARKINSON, Poetry, 159; O’CONNOR, Egypt’s Views, 171–2; contra, see EL-HAWARY, Sinuhe, 20–21. 44 HOFFMANN/QUACK, Anthologie, 55–9.

36

Franziska Naether

for a remedy against his disease.45 Meanwhile, the Nubian king has received notice of Bes’s presence in his country and the two meet, with Bes succeeding in inciting the king’s hatred against Egypt, and thus against the Pharaoh Inaros. After this, Inaros arrives in Nubia – officially to collect taxes but in fact to take revenge for the deaths of Haryothes and Tasis, as he seems to have received notification of Bes’s whereabouts. The Nubian king receives Inaros in a friendly manner but attacks him at night after a festival. While the papyrus fragment with the final passages breaks off at this point, the story probably continued with Inaros overthrowing the Nubians. What is remarkable here? Again, we can see the pejorative connotations of an ethnicity: Nubians are easy to persuade, dishonest and attack their ‘guests’ even after a religious festival – which must have been considered a sacrilege! – and, moreover, they do this shamefully at night when decent people normally do not fight.46 Nubia is also the place to which the murderer Bes escaped, where he was sure to hide himself and avoid being pursued for his crime. It is interesting with regard to magical practices for regenerative healing that it is in Nubia that his servant has to look for a cure against his leprosy: this is evidence of Nubia being viewed as a country of exotic and different, but nevertheless powerful, un-Egyptian magic. The story probably featuring the most numerous Nubian elements is the Second Setna novel. In this Demotic story best attested on a lengthy papyrus from the time of Emperor Claudius, a Nubian magician is the main protagonist besides Setna Khaemwaset and his son Siosiris. Setna is historically well-attested as the eldest son (c. 1277–1224) of the New Kingdom Pharaoh Ramses II.47 First, we hear about Siosiris being a true ‘wunderkind’ and learning extremely fast. One day, a Nubian magician (#tê n |gS)48 arrives at the Pharaonic court and opens up a competition to read a story on a sealed papyrus scroll. If no Egyptian magician could perform the task, the Nubian would bring the shame (DlH)49 of Egypt to Nubia. Setna is at first in despair, but his son Siosiris could read the scroll without breaking the seal. The text is a story about the Nubian sorcerer Horus-son-of-the-Nubian-woman fighting against the Egyptian 45

See WESTENDORF, Lepra. HOFFMANN/QUACK, Anthologie, 55–6. Usually, a just fight ends at night and starts again the other day after the sun comes up. See e.g. the story of the Fight for the Prebend of Amun, 16, 6–11. 47 See HOFFMANN/QUACK, Anthologie, 118–52. Not considered here is the fragmentary Aramaic novel linked to the Second Setna story; see PORTEN, Prophecy. 48 The meaning of the word #tê is problematic. It has been translated as ‘shaman’ or ‘(Nubian) wizard’ (G. VITTMANN, in TLA, s.v. #tê; the evidence in Setna II are the only attestations in the database), maybe following RITNER, in SIMPSON (ed.), Literature, 476–7, n. 12 translating ‘shaman’. ERICHSEN, Demotisches Glossar, offers ‘sovereign’ (p. 13 s.v. #tj with reference to p. 46 s.v. |tj but within the story we clearly are not dealing with an aristocratic but a magical function. CDD, letter #, s.v. #ßy ‘magician, priest’ has ‘Nubian magician’ as well (corrected from a former version translating the word with ‘rebel’). The discussion is summarised by ZIBELIUS-CHEN, ‘Nubisches’ Sprachmaterial, 285 s.v. #tê and 9–11 s.v. ##t# who is following HOFMANN, Kuschitische Horus, 209–10 explaining the word as derived from the meroitic term ‘at’ or its genitive version ‘ant’ for a priestly title – and the opponent of the Egyptian Hr-tp. Thus, we can assume the ‘shaman’ or ‘wizard’ was simply a priest with magical capacities like its Egyptian counterpart. 49 Or ‘despise’, see also the Fight for the Armor of Inaros, 12, 22. On this passage, see now QUACK, Drohung. 46

Magical Practices in Egyptian Literary Texts: in Quest of Cultural Plurality

37

sorcerer Horus-son-of-Paneshe, which had happened 1500 years before. In the course of the story it becomes clear that the Nubian magician is none other than Horus-sonof-the-Nubian-woman, and that the ‘wunderkind’ Siosiris is the reincarnation of Horus-son-of-Paneshe, who has come back from the Netherworld to prevent the Nubian and his mother from employing evil magic against Egypt and the Pharaoh. Both opponents have abilities different from those of average people and can rise from the dead and perform extraordinary spells. They can also create servants from wax,50 animate them and send them away to serve their master’s purposes. But besides their marvelous abilities, both wizards doubt occasionally whether they can manage to overthrow the other. The Egyptian magician curses and insults his opponent, e.g. as gum eater, Nubian enemy, liar and as eating dirt/muck (?) (nb oy r-x |gS).51 Remarkably, the Nubian does not reply to this with a similar form of retaliation. Furthermore, the Egyptian is able to make use of protective amulets and visits the god Thoth in Hermopolis Magna to bring him offerings, to pray and to obtain his help in a dream. As he performs incubation in the temple, Thoth tells him where to find a Book of Thoth, which contains powerful spells.52 The Nubian wizard, however, sets up a magical sign with his mother that will appear to her in case he should be in trouble.53 In the story-within-a-story, i.e. the one written on the sealed scroll, we also hear about three other Nubian magicians who praise themselves for being able to punish the Egyptians. This attracts the interest of the Nubian king, the qore, resting in a nearby forest. They talk in an unidentified location54 – remarkably, not in a temple environment, as would be expected for magical professionals – about how they could put Egypt in complete darkness for three days, bring the Egyptian Pharaoh to Nubia at night, lash him 500 times in front of the qore and send him back in six hours, as well as about how they could curse the soil of Egypt to be infertile for three years. This communication is overheard by the qore, whose interest lies especially on the second possibility. As part of this plot, the spell is cast several times by Horus-son-of-theNubian-woman. After Horus-son-of-Paneshe finds out about this, he inflicts the same on the qore. A peculiar fact in this regard is that the Nubian sorcerers throw (Hwy) their spells up to Egypt while the Egyptian lets his spells (H|Q.w) fly (fy) under the clouds to Nubia. In a final showdown set once more in the time of Siosiris and his father Setna, both magicians fight against each other in the great throne hall of the Egyptian king. While 50

There are several attestations of that in Egyptian narratives; some examples are discussed in SÉRIDA, Cultural Identity, 32–3. 51 Similar insults against Nubians, but not limited to them, can be found in the story of the Fight for the Prebend of Amun. See POPE, ‘Porridge-and-Pot’, 486–9. MOERS, ‘Unter den Sohlen Pharaos’, 134, calls such mockery ‘Entpersonifizierung’ of the stranger, resulting from unfamiliarity with foreign customs. 52 Setna II, 5, 5–15. 53 Setna II, 6, 3–5; see also below. 54 The king rests in the bushes (Stwê.w n hwr) while the magicians are in the o.wy n Xfß, the ‘house of the enemy’, an unclear location which QUACK interprets as a corrupted term mocking the Egyptian institution of the ‘house of life’ (pr onX) where magicians usually gather. See QUACK, Korrekturvorschläge, 71, n. 62.

38

Franziska Naether

Horus-son-of-the-Nubian-woman incites fire, Siosiris is able to extinguish it with a heavy Upper Egyptian rain. As a second action, the Nubian creates a thick fog, but Siosiris likewise has no difficulties in dissolving the fog. The third step of the Nubian is the creation of a large vault over the Pharaoh, separating him from everyone else. But Siosiris saves the day by hexing the vault on a barque and causing it to sail away from the throne hall. At this point, it becomes obvious to Horus-son-of-the-Nubianwoman that he can not overthrow his Egyptian opponent. Therefore, he turns invisible and changes his shape into that of an evil bird. While Siosiris is undoing the invisibility spell of Horus-son-of-the-Nubian-woman, he also turns him on his back and puts him under the control of a fowler with a sharp knife behind him. At the same time, the mother of the Nubian wizard perceives the signs which her son had set up for her: the water became blood, the food got the colour of (raw) meat and the sky turned blood red.55 Immediately, she transforms into a goose and flies to Egypt without managing to help the wizard. Instead, Siosiris is able to put her in trouble as well. Finally, the reincarnation of Horus-son-of-Paneshe kills Horus-son-of-the-Nubian-woman in a ring of fire. This second defeat represents his total destruction. The first one happened 1500 years before: on that occasion, Horus-son-of-the-Nubian-woman had to take an oath not to come back to Egypt, which apparently he did not keep. Besides the cult practices mentioned in this short summary, there are a lot more to be noted in the Second Setna novel, such as burial customs, religious festivals, dream interpretation and access to the Underworld. The work features a number of gods: in addition to Ptah, Amun-the-bull-of-Meroë as god of the Nubians, 56 Osiris, Isis, the local Ptah, Re(-Harakhti) and Atum as gods of the Egyptians are mentioned, as well as unspecified gods speaking in dreams. The scene in the Underworld of the hypostasis (i.e., the weighing of the heart to determine crimes during the lifetime of the deceased, allowing access to a life after death), with all gods and the existence of the dead there, is described in some detail. The human protagonists bear theophoric names consisting of Horus and Osiris. There is a strong connotation of divine justice in this story, especially when Siosiris and his father Setna visit the Underworld and are able to see what happens to people who led a just or unjust life. It is in this scene that it becomes obvious that Siosiris exists beyond human life – he can enter and exit the Underworld at his will and is able to move through time, Earth and Underworld, and to possess different bodies, without being subjugated by Fate. Nevertheless, even a great magician like him is sometimes in doubt regarding whether his abilities in performing magic and other cult practices are strong enough. Therefore, he pleaded to Thoth for help. The same can be said of his father Setna and of the Nubian sorcerer, who are also conscious of their limited powers and abilities in several situations. Generally speaking, this novel is quite detailed when it comes to the numerous cult practices presented in the narration. They play an important role within the plot. Unfortunately, in some cases the actual performance is hidden from the reader. Just one example will suffice here. In the story on the sealed scroll, Horus-son-of-the-Nubian55

Setna II, 6, 24–5: n# mw |w=w |r |wn n snf |.|r-Hr=t n# xr#.w nty |.|r-Hr=t |w=w |r |wn |wf t# p.t |w-|w=s |r |wn n snf. 56 THISSEN, Nubien, 369–72.

Magical Practices in Egyptian Literary Texts: in Quest of Cultural Plurality

39

woman tries to save the qore from being beaten up at night in Egypt. In this part of the story, we can only read ‘he made his magic. He filled it for the qore – life, protection, health – to protect him from the magic of Horus son of Paneshe’.57 This does definitely leave room for speculation, as well as the setting of the magical sign between mother and son in order to recognise when the son is in grave danger. Could we think of a form of a vow associated with this cult practice?58 The Second Setna novel in particular is proof of a different treatment of Nubian than of Asiatic opponents. This ethnicity, being e.g. the kingdoms of Kush, Napata or Meroë, was an enemy closer to Egyptian territory and therefore more present in daily life, political agenda (and propaganda) and cultural memory. Maybe this could partly explain why the Egyptian treatment of Nubian magicians seems more rude and severe than the treatment of their Asiatic counterparts. But, as always, this judgment might be biased due to the limited amount of literary sources and their distribution throughout several centuries and genres. As for parallels to competitions between wizards, we have to go back to the ancient Near East. The unpublished Demotic narrative The Story of King Djoser and Imhotep is a relevant source. Within the course of the action, an Egyptian priest fights against an Assyrian sorceress. Both are equated with the Egyptian divine couple of Geb and Nut. Again, the foreigners are incorporated into the Egyptian belief system in order to value them as honourable opponents.59 Yet even another, much older story from the ancient Near East can be compared to the competition of the wizards in the Second Setna novel and the The Story of King Djoser and Imhotep – the Sumerian epic tale Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta from the Ur III Period (c. twenty-first/twentieth century BCE) which survives in several copies.60 Aratta is a presumably mythic town – its exact location remains a debate. In this narrative, the lords of Aratta and of Uruk and Kulaba fight against each other through messengers who might bestow the best offering on the goddess Inanna. To this story, there is a sequel called Enmerkar and the Ensuhgir-ana/Ensukeshdanna with four episodes about the lord of Aratta fighting Enmerkar, the Lord of Uruk and Kulaba, and against Gilgamesh’s father Lugalbanda. Ensuhgir-ana of Aratta is so bold as to challenge Enmerkar of Uruk to be the rightful bridegroom of the goddess Inanna. He appoints the magician Ur-ginuna who stops the production of milk in Uruk by sabotage. As a reaction, a wise woman from Uruk named Sagburru shows up and battles with the wizard from Aratta. Both transform

57

Setna II, 5, 30–31: |r=f n#y=f HyQ.w mH=f s(t) r p# kwr onX-wD#-snb r nXt.ß=f r n# HyQ.w n Or s# p#-nSê. 58 More examples of such signs can be found in the Tale of the Two Brothers 8, 5–6 and 12, 9–13, 2 and the Story of Meryre on Papyrus Vandier 3, 12–13. See WETTENGEL, Erzählung, 110–11; 145–6 and QUACK, Review of WETTENGEL, 201. 59 See RYHOLT, Assyrian Invasion, 493–4 and 500–502 for preliminary remarks and the mention in SÉRIDA, Cultural Identity, 33; 37–9. The most recent treatment is RYHOLT, Life of Imhotep. One also thinks of motifs from the Exodus story from the Old Testament; see GÖRG, Sogenannte Exodus. 60 KRAMER, Enmerkar; see also the texts in The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, Oxford University, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ (last accessed 8 December 2015) and BLACK/CUNNINGHAM/ROBSON/ZÓLYOMI, Literature, 3–11.

40

Franziska Naether

into animals chasing each other. Sagburru wins this competition and kills the magician from Aratta by drowning him in the river. Obviously, the motif of magicians in a competition is attested not only in Egyptian literature, but can be traced also in other cultures. Parallels between Siosiris and Sagburru are evident: both represent the politically stronger and wealthier communities, and both overthrow and kill their opponents by wiser reactions to the initial provocations from Nubia and Aratta, respectively. The desperate enemies wanted to harm their mightier opponents from Egypt and Uruk by cutting them off from supplies but face destruction instead. And, last but not least: the battles involve stunning examples of transformative magic.

2. Tentative conclusions In general – and this comes as no surprise – Egyptians considered themselves as superior to other peoples and countries.61 In the literary texts mentioning foreign cult practice, the Nubians and their magic in particular are termed as the enemies per se.62 Another group connected with negative connotations is the Asiatics. The reasons underlying this stigmatisation might in both cases be rooted in historical events.63 Furthermore, it is also remarkable that when searching for several other nonEgyptian peoples, ethnicities, languages and cultures no attestations are found. The literary texts contain no explicit mentions of Palestinian, Canaanite, Samarian, Israelite, Jewish, Hebrew, Aramaic, Hurrian, Hittite, Mesopotamian, Akkadian, Sumerian, Semitic, Cypriote, Sudanese, Ethiopian, Libyan, Arabic, Greek and Latin elements. The relevant passages presented here were detected basically in the narrative literature. However, two references concerning foreign countries can be found in discourses with prophecies told ex-eventu. In Ipuwer 3, 12–13, foreign people are supposed to perceive the Egyptian king in a positive way, which is unexpected: What is the Treasury for, without its revenues – for the heart of the king is happy (only) when Truth comes to him, and then every foreign land [says]: ‘He is our water, he is our (good) fortune!’64

It would have been more probable to expect fear instead of happiness. But these are evidently characterisations of a world order turned upside down, as it is the passage in Neferti, l. 47: ‘I shall show you a nobleman with nothing, a foreigner prosperous’.65 61

See S.T. SMITH, Wretched Kush, 167–87 for creating this ‘otherness’ as part of the Egyptian royal ideology; MOERS, ‘Unter den Sohlen Pharaos’, 108. 62 As opposed to the overall perception of Nubians in the PGM as pointed out by SVENJA NAGEL in the discussion. There, Nubians are featured with a more positive view – maybe due to the different intention since magical texts tend to present their usefulness even if they include Nubian ingredients, methods and incantations. 63 E.g. the narratives from the Inaros cycle. The hero Inaros lived presumably in the seventh century BCE when Assyrian, Nubian, Egyptian and more forces competed for Egypt. See QUACK, Inaros. 64 Translation by R. ENMARCH, TLA: |w pr-HD r-m.w m-Xm.t b#k.w=f nfr |s |b n(.j) nsw |wj n=f m#o.t Xr |s [3, 13] [Dd]? X#s.t nb(.t) mw=n pw w#D=n pw. On the unclear meaning of w#D, see QUACK, New Bilingual Fragment, 161, and n. 38; ENMARCH, World Upturned, 92.

Magical Practices in Egyptian Literary Texts: in Quest of Cultural Plurality

41

Cultural plurality in the form of foreigners and foreign cult practices such as magic were inserted several times into Egyptian literary texts over the centuries. This can be explained on the one hand by certain historical realities of the times when the literature was created or by the period in which the narrations were set. Basically, the presentation and treatment of foreigners is a constructed reality making extensive use of the Egyptian royal ideology, according to which the Pharaoh always wins and his opponents shudder in fear just at the thought of him. The main enemies are the Asiatics and the Nubians, who are treated even more harshly and are characterised as more exotic and complex. Their presentation as the ‘other’ is a literary device to increase the value of the fiction in order to make the enemy more powerful – a worthy opponent and interesting ‘bad guy’. Foreigners and their societies served not only as adversaries, but as ‘Gegenbild’ to the Egyptian civilisation which presented itself as superior.66 The designation of what is foreign can be a literary construction as well: maybe some demons might be explicitly constructed as foreigners in order to be able to execrate them.67 This contribution offered a few case studies interpreted in detail. Eventually, a study of motifs such as wizards in combat in a cross-cultural perspective with more published sources might shed more light on the transmission and influence of contents.

65 Translation by TOBIN, in SIMPSON (ed.), Literature, 218. See also MOERS, ‘Unter den Sohlen Pharaos’, 142 who treats the passages from the discursive texts as a form of alterity. I tend to disagree because they represent a world upside down. 66 See e.g. NÜNNING/RUPP/AHN (eds.), Ritual. I owe this reference to SARAH ILES JOHNSTON. 67 See MORENZ, (Magische) Sprache, 198–9.

Magic and Mystery at Selinus: Another Look at the Getty Hexameters WILLIAM D. FURLEY 1. Introduction What have we done this year to ward off evil in our own lives? Most of us will have kept up multiple insurance policies, foremost among them health insurance in case we fall ill, house insurance lest lightning or flooding wreck our homes, travel insurance lest disaster strikes while we are abroad, and a number of others. A fair number of us will be taking some prophylactic medication, such as anti-hypertension drugs, statins or aspirin, as medical opinion has it that these reduce the risk of heart attack, diabetes, dementia etc. When choosing our lunch we are likely to consider the relation between what is on our plate and its possible adverse or positive effects on our long term health. Many of these measures approach the status of magical rites, as they are built on faith in expert opinion, the belief that scientists must know what they are talking about, even if we certainly do not. This situation is closely analogous to ancient Greek apotropaic rites, whether they fall into our categories of religious rites or magical practices. The seer, μάντις, was responsible for several branches of apotropaic special knowledge: augury in its various forms, extispicy (the examination of animal livers), divination by celestial phenomena, body twitches (‘palmomancy’), fire (‘empyra’) etc. Oracles dispensed privileged knowledge to private and public inquirers, all designed either to ward off future ills or to provide remedies for existing crises. Greek literature from Homer to the historians is full of incidents in which individuals consult oracles and seers in the hope of averting danger. The Greek magical papyri show us the kind of advice and remedies which magicians in Roman Egypt offered to ὁ δεῖνα, some client or other, when consulted about a personal problem. The important point here is that, amid uncertainty about the future, we humans turn to a source of authority which, by general consent, offers means to shore up our fragility against ‘a sea of troubles’.1 The composition in rough Homeric hexameters known as the Getty hexameters (because of where it is kept in the J.F. Getty Villa in Malibu, California), falls into the

1

In these introductory words I avoid issues of scientific effectiveness in the comparison of ancient with modern; in a way ancient divination and apotropaic ritual was just as ‘empirical’ as modern medicine: if one thing didn’t work, one tried another; if one expert gave ineffective advice, one went to another. Some recent general treatments are: ANNUS (ed.), Divination; JOHNSTON/STRUCK (eds.), Mantikê; JOHNSTON, Greek Divination; FLOWER, Seer.

Magic and Mystery at Selinus: Another Look at the Getty Hexameters

43

class of apotropaic incantations against evil.2 Its interest and considerable importance lies in the fact that it is a sizeable text (some fifty lines long), largely legible, of early date (fifth century BCE),3 containing some very interesting formulations of apotropaic magic. It was written on thin lead sheeting (called ‘tin’ in the inscription), was then folded up and laid to rest in a ‘stone building’ (3 λᾶος ἐν οἴκωι).4 Its purpose is unequivocally stated in the opening lines: ‘who writes these letters in tin and places them in a house of stone will be protected against all the dangers found on land or sea’. A divinity called Paieon is addressed four times, who is said to provide ἀλέξιμα φάρμακα for all eventualities: ‘apotropaic remedies’ is a literal translation of this phrase. The central section of the text concerns remedies when Death (Κήρ is BURKERT’s supplement) draws near in wartime, peace, at sea, threatening humans and livestock and human enterprise generally. This section concludes with the observation: ‘Paieon, you are remedy-bringing in everything, and good’. The final section contains further magical formulae and concludes that ‘no one will be able to harm [you], even if he comes with much magic’. The text has been known since 1981 when it was given to the Getty Museum as one among five lead tablets, one almost certainly coming from Selinus in Sicily, and three other curse tablets probably also of Selinuntine origin. The text received its editio princeps in 2011 by DAVID JORDAN and ROY KOTANSKY (henceforth JK) in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik; in 2013 there followed the volume of conference papers edited by CHRISTOPHER FARAONE and DIRK OBBINK (FO), in which contributions to a conference convened in Malibu in 2012 were published.5 The volume comes with a Greek text at the beginning, but without apparatus, and with a contribution by RICHARD JANKO in which he tries to reconstruct the archetype of the text in lead and provides valuable commentary on dialectical questions.6 He also promises a full text and critical apparatus to appear from Oxford in 2014, but inquiries about this have so far gone unanswered. The first editors and the contributors to the conference volume concur in the opinion that the text dates to the later fifth century BCE, and probably comes from Selinus.7 That much seems to be agreed. Beyond that there is a considerable degree of disagreement as to the status and the significance of the text. The first editors confidently, 2 First publication: JORDAN/KOTANSKY, Ritual Hexameters. In this both JORDAN and KOTANSKY promise independent full treatments of this important text, which we still await. For a text with some new readings and supplements see the end of this chapter. 3 Edd. pr. assign the text to approximately 425–375 BCE. 4 W. BURKERT’s proposed emendation of λαοϲ in the inscription to ἁλοῖ (3rd person indicative or subjunctive of ἡλόω, ‘nail’) can be safely rejected as it results in an ugly hiatus with preceding κεκολαμμένα; moreover, the tablet was not nailed anyway (no nail hole) and anyway one does not nail γράμματα (which is the object of the sentence) but the tablet on which they stand: BURKERT, Genagelter Zauber. 5 FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Getty Hexameters. 6 JANKO, Hexametric Incantations. 7 A number of scholars, including edd. pr., point to the sack of Selinus by Hannibal in 409, suggesting that the tablet probably antedates this event; however, GORDON, Review of FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.) says that Selinus was not ‘destroyed’ then, but a community continued there, so Hannibal’s conquering of the town is not necessarily terminus ante quem for the tablet.

44

William D. Furley

but without explanation, assert that the text contains ‘traditional legomena of a rite of initiation into the worship of Demeter and Kore’.8 DIRK OBBINK in FO similarly maintains that the text is the kind of poetry which is likely to have been produced in the context of mystery cults. Without concrete evidence he points in the direction of both Eleusinian and Dionysiac mysteries as context.9 Others have picked up the repeated apostrophe of Paieon; RUTHERFORD in particular in FO has argued that the text is a kind of embryonic paean, but in hexameters. As such he thinks rather in the direction of Apolline ritual poetry, which later, of course, became typified by the ἰὴ Παιάν epiphthegma.10 In a second chapter of FO, FARAONE considers the possibility that the text is, in fact, a kind of compendium of magical formulae and recipes, assembled in the way that the magical papyri similarly consist of collections of recipes and spells.11 Whilst the majority of contributions to FO only consider Hellenic contexts, SARAH ILES JOHNSTON has investigated the possibility that the central myth of the text, involving a mystic goat with an unending flow of milk, might derive from Egyptian historiolae, with affinities in particular to the goddess Hathor.12 How to make progress in this relatively uncharted terrain? Perhaps I might start by saying some of the things which the text is not. First, it is not an amulet offering protection to an individual. As we will see, the speaker’s addressees are a community of people with an interest in civic affairs – warfare, seafaring, manufacturing. They are to be protected from real tangible dangers – anything the sea or land may throw at them, as well as Death itself. The tablet is to be hidden in a ‘house of stone’ – perhaps pointing to a significant building such as a temple, rather than to a private house. Second, the text deviates significantly from a conventional hymn in structure and content. There is no opening epiklesis of a god or gods in combination with epithets and relative predication; true, there are repeated appeals to a god called Paieon, who is said to provide all possible remedies. But these occur more in the nature of a refrain than in sustained invocation at the beginning. Nor is there a prayer at the end, only the rather bald statement that no one will be able to destroy the power of the spell recorded in lead. Most significantly there is no sustained praise of a divinity in the form of myth or aretalogy; true, there is the intriguing narrative of the female goat in the first section (to which we will return), but this does not relate to Paieon’s power, but is rather the ‘immortal words’ which he himself speaks. At one point the speaker (or hierophant) may refer to his text as a hymnos, possibly one sung (line 24), but as a whole the composition is unlike anything we know of Greek hymns. It is, for example, quite different to the hymns found dispersed through the magical papyri, which contain pure invocation and praise of certain deities.13 In the first line the hierophant refers to his perfor8

JK, 54. OBBINK, Poetry. 10 RUTHERFORD, Immortal Words. 11 FARAONE, Magical Verses. His main point of comparison is with the Phalasarna text (SEG 42.818, third century BCE?), for which see FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Getty Hexameters, 185–7. 12 JOHNSTON, Myth. GORDON, Review of FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), gives further summaries of the interpretations given, with some critical remarks. 13 On these see now BORTOLANI, Magical Hymns, whose emphasis is on the nature of divinity in these compositions, whether Greek or Egyptian. 9

Magic and Mystery at Selinus: Another Look at the Getty Hexameters

45

mance as ἐπαείδω, incant, rather than ἀείδω, the normal verb for hymn singing.14 Perhaps the best description of the text, then, is as a sustained phylakterion or protective spell, such as were first collected by HEIM (Incantamenta) in 1892.15 In particular, we must consider the affinity of the present text with other ‘lamella’-texts found in considerable numbers in Sicily and other parts of Greece from this period: these include other inscribed texts with epōdai and the so-called Orphic-Bacchic lamellae with their hexameters for the afterlife.16 What can we reconstruct about speakers and recipients from the text itself? In the first line an ‘I’ announces that he is in a position to recite effective and – if my supplements are close to the mark – salutary words to a congregation of initiates, μύσταις. Of course, much hangs on this last word, which is only a conjecture.17 Then the speaker promises that ‘whosoever write these letters on tin’ will be protected from anything land or sea can produce. FARAONE in FO has commented on the boasts about ritual efficacy in the text.18 These lines give instructions, as it were, for producing the very text now held in the Getty Museum. Then comes the first appeal to Paieon, who is said to know efficacious remedies for everything and to have uttered an hieros logos. Thus we have a double reenforcement of the authority of the written words.19 First a hierophant, if we may call him that, utters ‘beneficial and effective words’, then he calls on the authority of Paieon for the story he is about to tell. The situation is picked up in the second section of the text, following the mythical narration (to which we will return). In this there is a 2nd person address to Paieon to listen (κατάκουε), probably to the present beseechment (γλυκὺν ὕμνον, last word a supplement).20 Then either the ‘I’ or ‘You’ (ἄνωγα or ἄνωγας at line end)21 is said to have instructed mortals to speak a certain formula when death or danger (κήρ, supplemented) draws near, whether in wartime or at sea, to humans, animals and human handicrafts (τέχναισιν βροτείαις); the formula should be spoken both by night and day. Conjecturally, I reconstruct the formula (line 30) as ‘φθόγγο]ν ἔχων hὅσιον {σιον} στόματος θυ[έεσσι μετῆλθον.’] ‘Having pure words in my mouth I have participated in the sacrificial rites.’22

14

Cf. Eur. IA 1211 εἰ μὲν τὸν Ὀρφέως εἶχον, ὦ πάτερ, λόγον, πείθειν ἐπάιδουσ’, ‘if only, father, I could persuade by incanting the word of Orpheus’. 15 HEIM, Incantamenta. Further examples: KOTANSKY, Incantations; FARAONE, Hexametrical Incantations. Phylactery is JOHNSTON’s term at JOHNSTON, Myth, 129; it comes from Greek phylakterion, protective charm. 16 After ZUNTZ, Persephone, see more recently GRAF/JOHNSTON, Ritual Texts; TZIFOPOULOS, Paradise Earned; BREMMER, Divinities; EDMONDS III (ed.), ‘Orphic’ Gold Tablets. 17 See end of chapter for text and commentary. 18 FARAONE, Spoken and Written Boasts. 19 Cf. JOHNSTON, Myth, 128. 20 Already in FO and JANKO, Hexametric Incantations; on the tablet one only sees a rough breathing before putative upsilon. 21 Cf. RUTHERFORD, Immortal Words, 159. 22 JANKO, Hexametric Incantations, 42 for comparison: χρησμὸ]ν ἔχων ὅσιον στόματος θυ[ρέτροισιν ἐν αὐτοῖς], ‘keeping holy your [oracle in] the doors of your mouth’. The metaphor of στόματος θυρέτροισιν seems, to my mind, a little fanciful for this workaday text.

46

William D. Furley

This action, it is said, is better for the city (πόλει), and that is the best part of government (31).23 This second section, then, is distinctly civic. We hear of a congregation of people and their flocks threatened by danger; of a city and its government. The unpolluted participation in some rites is said to ensure the safety of the community. Here we are a long way from private magic with its individual concerns. The target audience is clearly some community. If μύσταις is right in the first line, it is a community of initiates, with civic responsibility. The remainder of this side of the lamella contains magical formulae partially overlapping those found on other texts with magical incantations from e.g. Himera, Epizephyrian Lokroi and Phalasarna in Crete.24 The third column, written on the reverse side of the tablet, is only partially legible, but we can make out an admonition to remember (μνῆσαι) certain deities: a new supplement shows Herakles using his bow against ill-doers, and we hear of Hekatos, who must be Apollo, possibly Artemis, and another mention of Herakles’ arrows which slew the Lernaean Hydra. The last line of the text says that no one will be able to work evil against the spell, even if they come equipped with much magic. The last section, then, contains an appeal to a number of protective deities who help to ward off evil. Now we return to the mysterious narrative of the she-goat with her unending supply of milk. If we could identify a context for the goat itself and the other deities mentioned in the narrative, we would be better placed to understand the origin and nature of the whole text. In the opening lines Amphitrite is mentioned, but it seems only by metonymy, meaning the sea. In the course of the narrative, however, which constitutes the ἀθάνατα ἔπεα of Paieon, several deities are mentioned. The she-goat is said to be led out of Persephone’s Garden by a Voice (reading ὄσσα, divine voice, as subject of the sentence);25 she is described as a ‘four-legged child (reading παῖδ᾿), holy companion of Demeter’, her udder heavy with an ‘unending supply of nourishing milk’. Then Einodia Hekate enters, probably in the nominative, calling out with a ‘barbaric voice’ and leading another deity (θεὰ θεῶι ἡγεμονεύει).26 She, in turn, announces divine will (θεόφραστα) in connection with a daimon said to be ἀγλα[ο‐ something, ἀγλαοκάρπου perhaps, as JK suggest. These names and descriptions were enough to point the first editors in the direction of mysteries of Demeter and Kore, the deities of the Eleusinian Mysteries, particularly as Hekate is important in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. But 23 For the construction τὰ γὰρ κτλ. cf. Hom. Il. 19.161 τὸ γὰρ μένος ἐστὶ καὶ ἀλκή, ‘for that (eating) is (the source of) strength and courage’. 24 SEG 50.1001, 49.1360 and 42.818 respectively; see JORDAN/KOTANSKY, Ritual Hexameters, 54 n. 3, for full references. JANKO, Hexametric Incantations, 32 makes the point that the geographical distribution of these texts (as well as the Orphic-Bacchic lamellae) corresponds with the main trade route East-West in the Mediterranean then; i.e. knowledge of religious rites travelled with traders. 25 Cf. Hes. Th. 9–10 (the Helikonian Muses) κεκαλυμμέναι ἠέρι πολλῆι, / ἐννύχιαι στεῖχον περικαλλέα ὄσσαν ἱεῖσαι, ‘veiled in thick mist, they appeared by night, emitting a wonderfully sweet voice’. Note the voice in Leonidas’ epigram (AP 9.99) which comes from the ground (ἔπος ἐκ γαίης) and addresses the goat eating the vine-stock, saying it will still produce enough wine for the libation at the goat’s sacrifice. For further discussion of this textual point see appendix to this chapter. 26 For Hekate’s ‘barbaric voice’ cf. PGM IV 2531: δεινὴν ἐξ ἀτόνων πέμπεις ὀφεῖαν ἰωήν, φρικτὸν ἀναυδήσασα θεὰ τρισσοῖς στομάτεσσι, ‘you emit a dire, draconian voice of tuneless character, goddess uttering a terrifying sound through triple mouths’.

Magic and Mystery at Selinus: Another Look at the Getty Hexameters

47

the goat with its unending stream of milk was unaccounted for. SARAH JOHNSTON, who has written the first detailed study of this story, which she identifies as an historiola, has sought to connect the gist of the story with Egyptian Isis/Hathor and the milk of a gazelle, which plays a role there. Without ruling out possible intercultural links here, I think we should first scour the Greek record.27 The only goat in Greek mythology which remotely fits the bill is, as at least two contributors to FO suggest, Amalthea, the Cretan nanny-goat who suckles baby Zeus when he is hidden away from Kronos and nurtured in the Diktaian Cave, surrounded by armed Kouretes.28 But there is no indication in the Getty hexameters that the infant Zeus is intended here; above all, the Underworld scenography tells against this identification. We hear first of the ‘shadowy mountains in a dark-lit place’, then of Persephone’s Garden, which reminds one of the Groves of Persephone in the gold lamellae, clearly situated in the Underworld.29 Then Hekate, an Underworld deity, appears out of her halls (reading μεγάρων). All these pointers indicate without a shadow of doubt that the scene is infernal. This does not suit Zeus’s birth story, unless we wish to identify the Diktaian Cave with the Underworld. Nor can it be said that Amalthea is normally a ‘companion of Demeter’. A first point to make is that the goat narrative in the Getty text appears to be an expansion of a recurring formula in this and other magical incantations. The expression ‘goat from the garden’ or ‘drive the goat from the garden’ recurs in line 34 of this text (αἶγα βίαι ἐκ κ̣[ήπου]), line 6 (verse 11) of the Phalasarna text (αἶγα βίαι ἐκ κήπο‹υ› ἐλαύνετε),30 line 3 of the Himera text (οϲδ[..]πα ἐ‹κ› κ̣α[.]ο ἐλαύ[νετε) as reconstructed by DAVID JORDAN;31 a gap at the appropriate place in the comparable text from Lokroi Epizephyrioi may also have contained the formula. 32 These expressions all seem to concern a goat of unspecified gender which is led forcibly from the garden. In the expanded narrative in column 1 of the Getty text, it is obviously a very special goat: female, blessed with an unending supply of milk and on intimate terms with Demeter, no less. The expansion of the motif ‘goat from the garden’ may be parallel to other expansions in the narrative, concerning the ‘shadowy mountains’ (κατὰ σκιαρῶν ὀρέων), for example. BERNABÉ argues in FO that the Grammata Ephesia, which occur in line 33 of this text, are, in fact, a condensed and garbled version of original meaningful hexameters;33 OBBINK in the same volume suggests that the converse might just 27

JOHNSTON believes the historiola she identifies in the goat story is essentially un-Greek, representing a Greek adaptation of an Egyptian phenomenon; among other things, the Egyptian gazelle becomes a goat in its new Sicilian context. But her argument begs the question: is the goat narrative an historiola at all? As JOHNSTON herself concedes, there is no clear one-to-one analogy between mythical narrative and quotidian situation, which she says is typical of other historiolae. 28 As JOHNSTON, Myth, 143, n. 62, says, Amalthea is sometimes the name of the goat in the sources, sometimes a nymph who herds it. 29 Cf. JOHNSTON, Myth, 150–51. 30 SEG 42.818. For this text see now Appendix in FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Getty Hexameters, 185–7. 31 SEG 50.1001; JORDAN, Ephesia Grammata. 32 SEG 49.1360; JORDAN, Three Texts, no. 2. 33 BERNABÉ, The Ephesia Grammata.

48

William D. Furley

as well be true. The narrative might be a meaningful expansion of originally meaningless voces magicae.34 Whichever theory is true, it is important to realise that the mythical narrative of column 1 stands in some relation of expansion to a core element of magical spells: ‘goat by force from the garden’. But there is another goat-like figure who regularly makes his appearance in this group of texts. Although the reading is doubtful, lines 34–35 of the Getty text seem to say that a goat, whose name is Tetragos or Trax, leads the nanny-goat from the garden. In JANKO’s reconstruction: αἲξ αἶγα βίαι ἐκ κάπου ἐλαύνει· τῶι δ᾿ ὄνομα Τετραγος· σοὶ δ᾿ ὄνομα Τραξ. Line 3 (verse 5) of the Phalasarna text (SEG 42.818) has a male goat (read either as τε τράγος or Τετραγος) dragging something (ἕλκει) but what or where is lost in the unintelligible following letters. This combination of names then becomes a standard element of the voces magicae: Τραξ Τετραξ Τετραγος in line 41 of the Getty text, line 8 (verse 15) of Phalasarna, line 4 of the Lokroi text (SEG 49.1360, in JORDAN’s text Τραχ Τετραχ Τετραγος). The name Trax, and the whole sequence, would seem at first sight inevitably to recall τράγος, the billy-goat, although τέτραξ is, perhaps coincidentally, the name of a bird. The auxesis syllabarum might be seen as analogous to another Dionysiac sequence iambos-thriambos-dithyrambos, or the magical sequence Δαμνώ, Δαμνομένεια· Δαμασάνδρα· Δαμνοδαμία in an address to Hekate at PGM IV 2846–7. Goats and goat-like figures, then, populate these magical texts; we might make out both a female goat, as she appears in the Getty myth, and a male goat who seems to lurk behind the name Tetragos. But where are these goats at home in Greek religion? At this point a methodological proviso seems in order. The evidence we can muster to reconstruct the content of Greek mysteries is necessarily deficient.35 Classical authors keep quiet about aporrhēta out of respect; later Christian apologists scornfully expose pagan mysteries, but not out of a spirit of rational inquiry, but rather vitriolic bluster; their evidence is that of biased witnesses. Then there is the problem of late and geographically scattered sources. Arguing from the fifth century CE to practices a thousand years earlier is, frankly, perilous. But there is no alternative. To dismiss what evidence we have, to minimise the importance of Orphic-Bacchic mysteries, for example, because the evidence for them is elusive, fragmentary, not always consistent, is to err in the wrong direction. It is not that there were not such mysteries, or that they were not important, simply because our evidence would not stand up in a court of law; rather, we have to use the snippets of evidence we do have to make informed, but cautious, guesses.36 We are looking, then, for a context in which a person claiming privileged knowledge could address a community of initiates in Selinus and promise that, through the divine authority of Paieon, he was in a position to protect occupants of a ‘house of stone’ by a mystical narrative about a she-goat and magical spells. My hypothesis will be that the speaker was one of the ‘magicians’ or ‘seers’ mentioned by Plato who 34

OBBINK, Poetry, 182 with n. 20. See JAN BREMMER’s new book (BREMMER, Initiation), with BOWDEN, Review of BREMMER. 36 I am thinking, for example, of the overly sceptical approach of EDMONDS III, Ephesia Gramma35

ta.

Magic and Mystery at Selinus: Another Look at the Getty Hexameters

49

promise, with the assistance of a ‘hubbub of books by Orpheus and Mousaios’, that they can rid people of pollution by cleansing spells (katharmoi) and perform other magical acts, for a price (Resp. 364).37 The word Orpheotelestai, ‘Initiators into Orpheus’ mysteries’, is known from Theophrastos’ portrait of the superstitious man, Philodemus and Plutarch. 38 Their initiations were, as we now know more securely from the Orphic-Bacchic gold lamellae, most closely associated with DionysosBakchos, but also with Demeter-Kore and the Mother of the Gods. This triad of mystery cults should be our prime suspect in considering the Getty hexameters.39 The association of a goat-sacrifice with Dionysos’ cult is a well-investigated topic. It led WALTER BURKERT to his ground-breaking article on the connection of tragedy itself with the ‘Bocksgesang’, song for the tragos, that is, for a goat sacrificed to Dionysos. 40 In Euripides’ Bacchae, 138–9, for example, the choric description of Bakchos’ ecstatic cult includes the ‘hunt for the goat’s blood, the joy of raw meat’ (ἀγρεύων αἷμα τραγοκτόνον, ὠμοφάγον χάριν). Confirmation comes from the interesting fragmentary text known as the Gurôb papyrus, now in Trinity College Dublin and recently re-edited by HORDERN, Notes.41 Gurôb is a place in Egypt and the text, according to HORDERN, is ‘a curious mixture of invocations and prayers and what appear to be instructions for a ritual based around the death (and rebirth?) of the infant Dionysos, which had important ritual and initiatory significance’ (p. 131). Dionysos himself appears in the text by name in line 23 and with cult names Eubouleus (18), Irikēpaios in 22. There is, however, also mention of deities associated with the Eleusinian Mysteries (Brimo and Demeter), Rhea and the Kouretes, and Sabazios. We see here, then, the typical cluster of mystery deities, rather than Dionysos exclusively. A ram, κριός, and male goat, τράγος, are mentioned in lines 10 and 13, and there is talk of ‘eating the remaining meat’ (14 τὰ δὲ λοι̣πὰ κρέα ἐσθιέτω); clearly the rite involved the sacrifice of a goat and ram. The fragmentary hexameter in line 4 with ‘atonement for [lawless] ancestors’ (ποινὰς πατέ[ρων ἀθεμίστων), combined with the mention of Kouretes in line 7, is a clear reference to the Orphic myth of Dionysos’ birth. Firmicus Maternus and Diodorus give us details of this, well discussed by SARAH ILES JOHNSTON in a chapter of Ritual Texts for the Afterlife.42 But recent discussions of the Dionysiac mysteries have missed what I think is an interesting addition to our testimonies. Herodas’ Eighth Mime, datable to third century 37

I mean, generally speaking, the same group as referred to by RICHARD JANKO (JANKO, Hexametric Incantations, 32) as ‘wandering seers and oracle-mongers such as we see most vividly in Ar. Eq. and Av., disreputable people who peddled hexametric spells and oracles of various kinds’, whereby I would assign the word ‘disreputable’ more to our take on them. See BURKERT, Itinerant Diviners. 38 Theophr. Char. 16.12; Philod. Περὶ ποιημάτων 1.181; Ps.-Plu. Apophth. Lac. 224e, respectively. BERNABÉ, Derveni Papyrus, 78, comments that the term Orpheotelestes is not used within Orphic sources, but seems rather to have been a depiction used by those outside the magic circle. 39 Cf. GRAF/JOHNSTON, Ritual Texts. 40 BURKERT, Greek Tragedy. 41 See further discussion of this text in FRITZ GRAF’s chapter on Dionysiac Mysteries in GRAF/JOHNSTON, Ritual Texts; ROBERTSON, Orphic Mysteries; MERKELBACH, Hirten des Dionysos; NILSSON, Dionysiac Mysteries; SEAFORD, Dionysiac Drama. 42 GRAF/JOHNSTON, Ritual Texts.

50

William D. Furley

BCE Alexandria, is called Enhypnion or The Dream. Unfortunately, the papyrus, which I have been able to examine in the British Library, is very lacunose, meaning that we can only follow the story intermittently, like listening to a radio station with very poor reception.43 In the jesting tone typical of the Mimiambi of this author, Herodas explains that he had a dream last night which he will tell to Annas, his manservant, whose mind is not dim (νήπιος); this last point is important, as Herodas clearly means Annas to grasp the deeper significance of what he is about to tell him. Herodas proceeds to relate how he dreamt that he was dragging a goat through, or out of, a ravine in his dream. He met some men in the country who sacrificed the goat and fell upon its (raw) flesh. Then appeared a young man dressed like Dionysos in a fawn skin and with typical high boots. There followed horse-play with the skin of the goat, which editors have identified as the askoliasmos, or dancing on a blown up wine skin (i.e. goat skin) known from Dionysos’ rural cult. At one point a complete line says that the play corresponded to ‘the way we conduct initiations in the choruses of Dionysos’ (40 ὤσπερ τελεῦμεν ἐγ χοροῖς Διωνύσου). An old man appears to challenge, or fight with, Herodas, who appeals to the Dionysos-like youth to arbitrate; he seems to rule that both should get the prize. At the end of the piece Herodas explains that his experience in his dream corresponds to his literary fate: he has been given a gift by Dionysos – the goat which he led ‘out of the ravine’ (67 αἶγα τῆς φ[άραγγος] ἐξεῖλκον) – but critics have set upon his handsome gift and ripped it apart (69 αἰπόλοι μιν ἐκ βίης [ἐδ]ειτρεῦντο) and, like a ritual initiation, have devoured its flesh (70 τ]ὰ̣ ἔνθεα τελεῦντες καὶ κρεῶ[ν] ἐδαίνυντο). Scholarly treatments of the Eighth Mime have not hesitated to identify the young man in the piece as a Dionysos-like figure, and to recognise Dionysiac rites in the rending of the goat and the jumping around on a wine-skin; but they have not made the connection with Dionysiac mysteries, preferring to point to rural festivals of Dionysos, Διονύσια τὰ ἐν ἀγροῖς.44 I believe the further connection with Bacchic mysteries, however, is justified. First there is the key word τελεῦμεν in line 40; true, this can mean simply ‘perform’, ‘do’, but the word is also terminus technicus for ‘initiate’, with its cognate τελεταί, mystery initiations. Scholars may have thought that the atmosphere of ribald play told against the solemnity of mysteries. But Plato specifically mentions the παιδιά, fun and games, associated with Orphic initiations.45 In particular, I think the

43 See KNOX, Dream of Herodas; apart from the standard works by I.C. CUNNINGHAM, Herodas (editions 1971 and 1987), see now ZANKER (ed.), Herodas. 44 See KNOX, Dream of Herodas; I.C. CUNNINGHAM, Herodas (edn 1971); ZANKER (ed.), Herodas ad loc. 45 Pl. Resp. 364e3–365a3: βίβλων δὲ ὅμαδον παρέχονται Μουσαίου καὶ Ὀρφέως, Σελήνης τε καὶ Μουσῶν ἐκγόνων, ὥς φασι, καθ’ ἃς θυηπολοῦσιν, πείθοντες οὐ μόνον ἰδιώτας ἀλλὰ καὶ πόλεις, ὡς ἄρα λύσεις τε καὶ καθαρμοὶ ἀδικημάτων διὰ θυσιῶν καὶ παιδιᾶς ἡδονῶν εἰσι μὲν ἔτι ζῶσιν, εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ τελευτήσασιν, ἃς δὴ τελετὰς καλοῦσιν, αἳ τῶν ἐκεῖ κακῶν ἀπολύουσιν ἡμᾶς, μὴ θύσαντας δὲ δεινὰ περιμένει, ‘And they provide a whole hubbub of books by Mousaios and Orpheus, Selene and the children of the Muses, as they claim, according to which they conduct their magical rites, exercising persuasion not only over private individuals but also cities, that there are remissions and cleansings from the stain of guilt by means of sacrifices and the pleasures of revelry both for the living and

Magic and Mystery at Selinus: Another Look at the Getty Hexameters

51

hint at the beginning that Annas will understand what is meant, being ‘not dim’, points to a significance of the dream lurking below the surface. 46 Herodas could not, of course, say directly ‘last night I dreamt I took part in Bacchic mysteries’ as that would be equivalent to divulging them. What he does, in my opinion, is hint strongly that his dream experience was like an encounter with Dionysos and his entourage during Bacchic rites. If this is not too bold, the repeated statement that he dreamed he was ‘dragging a goat from a ravine’ may be connected with the byword of magical spells we are seeking to place: ‘goat from the garden’ or ‘I dragged the goat from the garden’. Herodas talks about a valley, or ravine, φάραγξ, while the magical texts have κῆπος, garden. But the action of ‘dragging from the valley/ravine’ τῆς φ[άραγγος] ἐξεῖλκον in 67 and τράγον τιν᾿ ἔλκειν [διὰ or ἐξ] φάραγγος ὠιήθη̣[ν (16)47 is quite specific, paralleled by Selinus 34 and Phalasarna (SEG 42.818) line 6 (verse 11) [αἲξ] αἶγα βίαι ἐκ κήπου ἐλαύνε‹ι›. I suggest that Herodas’ insistence on this detail of his dream would alert readers to the catch phrase of Dionysiac mysteries, ‘goat from the garden’, and thus set up an ingenious parallel between Herodas’ initiation into the Dionysiac art of mime and readers’ own experience of Bacchic rites. So we have little difficulty in arguing that the sacrifice and eating of a billy-goat played a central part in Dionysiac mystery ritual. This is still a considerable step from the she-goat with its unquenchable supply of milk in the Getty narrative. Again we need to step back somewhat before confronting the text directly. According to Clement of Alexandria (and others) the sacred tale attached to the Orphic-Bacchic mysteries involved a curious reduplication of Zeus’s birth story. 48 SARAH ILES JOHNSTON has called the narrative a ‘bricolage’ of various elements drawn both from conventional and arcane myth-making.49 Whilst mainstream theogony – e.g. Hesiod – culminated in Zeus’s reign on earth, the Orphics postulated a son of Zeus, Dionysos, by Persephone, his own daughter. This baby son was also given to the Kouretes for protection, like his father before him. We are not told whether he was suckled by the goat Amalthea or a descendant of hers. While still a baby, however, and destined to inherit the earth, the Titans lured him away from his minders with toys, killed him and chopped him up in preparation for a meal. However, Athena managed to save his still palpitating heart, and Apollo takes this and the other body parts to Delphi, where he reassembles and revives Dionysos.50 This myth underlies the so-called Bacchic mysteries, as attested by various creditable authors, such as Plutarch and Diodorus, not to mention more obscure ones such as Firmicus Maternus.51 As we have seen, the Gurôb papyrus picks up a number of key points – the main goddesses concerned, the Kouretes – and combines for the dead, which they call “initiations”, which release us from sufferings in the thereafter, but that terrible things await those who fail to sacrifice’. 46 Cf. ROSEN, Mixing of Genres. 47 ZANKER prefers ἐξ here in line with 67. 48 Clem.Al. Protr. 2.17–18. 49 In her chapter The myth of Dionysos in GRAF/JOHNSTON, Ritual Texts. See further BERNABÉ/JIMÉNEZ SAN CRISTÓBAL/SANTAMARÍA (eds.), Dioniso. 50 For alternative versions of Dionysos’ revival see JOHNSTON’s chapter in GRAF/JOHNSTON, Ritual Texts. 51 See above n. 41 for some basic works.

52

William D. Furley

these with allusion to a sacrifice of a ram and a goat, and the eating of meat. The sacred meal in ritual is likely to mirror the Titans’ meal of Dionysos – a point which is confirmed indirectly by Clement who lambasts the participants in Bacchic ritual for their obscene meat-eating ritual.52 I suggest, then, finally, that the Getty narrative is nothing other than the sacred narrative of Dionysos’ birth. Let us examine the relevant points. First, the two goddesses mentioned – Persephone in her garden and Demeter – are the relevant ones in the ‘Orphic’ myth of Dionysos’ birth. Persephone is the mother, Demeter her mother. I suggest that the goat with milk is coerced into suckling the young god in a parallel action to that of his father before him, Zeus. Whether the goat herself is to be identified as Amalthea again, is doubtful. Then Hekate appears, the goddess usually connected with the Underworld and mysteries, leading a god (θεὰ θεῶι ἡγεμονεύει); she announces that she has come to announce to the world the advent of a god whose name is not given, but the first half of whose descriptive epithet ἀγλα‐ might be Dionysiac ἀγλαοκάρπου. The next line doubtless contained news of what the new god will bring to the world (see my e.g. reconstruction of the line). The Underworld setting of the scene is an aspect singled out by Clement in his polemic against Bacchic mysteries.53 Finally, the authority of Paieon fits this account well; in one version of the Orphic-Bacchic myth, it is Apollo who saves and restores Dionysos to life after he has been mangled by the Titans. By the fifth century Paian as a cult title was most closely associated with Apollo. Our author, an Orpheotelestēs I surmise, appeals to Apollo Paian as the divine healer, who, according to myth, had even saved Dionysos as a child.54 The appeal to Paieon by no means makes the Getty text a paean, as RUTHERFORD has argued in FO; rather, this is ‘Orphic’ Apollo, the magical healer, who also plays a conspicuous role in the later Greek magical papyri. I suggest, then, that the key element ‘goat from the garden by force’ in magical spells in Crete and Magna Graecia of this period, refers to the birth-myth of DionysosBakchos. The goat comes from Persephone’s garden – that is, from Dionysos’ mother Persephone – with an unending supply of milk for the divine child. With the god, come the Bacchic mysteries for humans. For, associated with the god’s advent as a child, there is the story of the Titans’ original sin. Mystai in Dionysos’ cult felt they were expiating this original sin of their ‘lawless fathers’; they take part in a sacramental meal: the goat sacrifice and its meat were probably meant to ‘imitate’ the sacrifice of Dionysos by the Titans and their intended meal of the god.55 That a male goat took this part matches the mytheme I have been arguing for, that a female goat, companion of Demeter and from Persephone’s garden, had nourished the young god. 52 Clem.Al. Protr. 2.12.2 Διόνυσον μαινόλην ὀργιάζουσι Βάκχοι ὠμοφαγίᾳ τὴν ἱερομανίαν ἄγοντες καὶ τελίσκουσι τὰς κρεονομίας τῶν φόνων ἀνεστεμμένοι τοῖς ὄφεσιν, ἐπολολύζοντες Εὐάν, ‘the Bakchoi celebrate mystery rites for raving Dionysos with ōmophagia in a state of religious ecstasy and they perform the distribution of meat from the killing wreathed with snakes, uttering the sacred wail “Eua”’. 53 Clem.Al. Protr. 2.13.2 ὑμῶν δεδόξασται τὰ μυστήρια ἐπιτυμβίῳ τιμῇ, ‘your mystery rites are characterized by funereal honours’. 54 In some versions; in others it is Rhea or Demeter who reassembles Dionysos. 55 See GRAF in GRAF/JOHNSTON, Ritual Texts, 151–5.

Magic and Mystery at Selinus: Another Look at the Getty Hexameters

53

If this is right, the goat narrative in the Getty text is not a historiola in the sense of an apotropaic spell, such as we find in the Philinna Papyrus, for example, but rather a mythical narrative illustrating the power of Paieon, who is invoked now to ward off evil from all those dwelling in this ‘house of stone’. In magico-medical historiolae humans and animals perform various actions (such as the wolf fleeing) which promote a desired effect in the real world (such as a headache fleeing) by analogy, or ‘sympathetic magic’. The story in the Getty text, however, concerns the advent of a god, announced by Hekate and met by an alma mater in the form of a goat. This is more like typical hymnic narrative, which commonly tells of a god’s birth and wondrous deeds as a way of heightening his or her numen.56 This hypothesis may connect up with the group of contemporary texts from Sicily and other places known as the gold funeral lamellae. These have been the subject of a number of recent book-length treatments, notably GRAF/J OHNSTON, Ritual Texts; EDMONDS III (ed.), ‘Orphic’ Gold Tablets; T ZIFOPOULOS, Paradise Earned; BERNABÉ/JIMÉNEZ SAN CRISTÓBAL, Instructions. There is now general agreement that the eschatology underpinning these texts relates in particular to Dionysos-Bakchos. Bliss in the afterlife is predicated on participation in Dionysos’ rites: ‘Bakchos himself liberated me’, as one text puts it.57 A common feature of these texts is the curious formula involving milk. Some animal is said to have ‘fallen into (or onto) the milk’: a kid, ram or bull. By way of example: κριὸς ἔπετες εἰς γάλα, ‘as a ram you fell into the milk’. There has been considerable discussion of this formula, beginning with GÜNTHER ZUNTZ, who believed it was metaphorical in sense: falling into milk was seen as analogous to landing in paradise.58 Recently CHRIS FARAONE has advanced a twofold new hypothesis. The ‘falling’ into milk, he argues, points to two aspects of Bacchic ritual: the ecstatic leap of the dance, and the jumping into white foam of the sea (metaphorical milk), which Dionysos himself did when escaping from Lykourgos in the Iliad.59 But Greek πίπτειν ἐς γάλα can also mean ‘falling on the milk’, not falling into a pool or sea of milk, and refer to the way young animals fall upon their mothers’ udders to suckle. Anyone who has seen young farm animals doing this may feel sorry for the mothers: their young literally ‘fall upon’ them in their greed. The reader will see where this thought is leading. I suggest that the ritual ‘falling on milk’ in the Bacchic leaves refers to the original mythic action of young Dionysos being suckled by the goat with its unending stream of milk. The ritual passport to paradise in the afterlife, falling on milk, refers to the aition of ritual, Dionysos’ birth story. When the souls of the departed tell Persephone, ‘as a goat (or, as a ram) I have fallen on milk’ they mean to say: we have taken part in Dionysos’ initiatory rite, a kind of communion, but with milk rather than wine. Direct evidence that initiates into Dionysos’ mysteries drank milk is slight but not negligible. Euripides’ Bacchae mentions the flow of milk, wine and nectar from the

56

Plentiful examples in FURLEY/BREMER, Greek Hymns. GRAF/JOHNSTON, Ritual Texts, no. 26 a, b Pelinna, line 2. 58 See JOHNSTON, Myth, 140–42. 59 FARAONE, Rushing. 57

54

William D. Furley

ground enjoyed by the Bacchants.60 Plato in the Ion says that Bacchants draw ‘milk and honey’ from the rivers when they are possessed by the god.61 An official known as a ‘Milk-Bearer’, γαλακτοφόρος, in Dionysos’ cult in Thessaly is recorded.62 A late reference to initiation into Attis’ cult says that the initiate was fed milk ‘like a newborn’.63 SARAH ILES JOHNSTON comments:64 ‘It is difficult, to say the least, to extrapolate from these pieces of evidence back to the earlier, Bacchic Gold Tablets.’ If my suggestion for the Bacchic context of the goat myth in the Getty text finds favour, it becomes much easier to make the connection between the ritual consumption of milk and the code phrase of the Bacchic gold leaves, ‘as animal x I have fallen on milk’. It is interesting, to say the least, that TZIFOPOULOS’s gold lamella no. 4 from Eleutherna in Crete makes the connection between ‘drinking from the spring’ with a name which seems to be connected with ‘goat’: ἀλλὰ πιε͂ν μοι / κράνας ΑΙΓΙΔΔΩ ἐπὶ / δεξιά. The word Αιγιδδω is unexplained; GALLAVOTTI suggested Ἀίδαο; VERBRUGGEN αἰγι{δ}ρ̣ω (i.e. αἴγειρος black poplar). 65 It seems to me an etymological connection with αἴξ should not be ruled out. One might imagine a spring in the eschatology of the gold leaves being named after the mythical goat with unending milk. A piece of pictorial evidence should be mentioned here. A pedestal in the Vatican Museum first published by NOGARA shows a number of Dionysian scenes, including a scene of Dionysos’ arrival, a fawn being removed from its mother, perhaps for the ritual ōmophagia, and, most significantly for my purpose, a goat being milked by an elderly man, while a female figure holds its head.66 KARL KERÉNYI, who illustrated the pedestal in his book on Dionysos, believes that the goat’s milk was used for boiling a kid in a ritual imitating the Titans’ original mishandling of Dionysos.67 That seems fanciful. Much more credible would be the ritual consumption of goat’s milk by initiates in Dionysos’ mysteries, in memory of the god-child’s first meal. Ritual consumption of the kykeōn was important in the Eleusinian Mysteries; drinking goat’s milk in Bacchic initiations would be well within the typical compass of ancient mysteries. A 60

Eur. Bacch. 142–3 ῥεῖ δὲ γάλακτι πέδον, ῥεῖ δ’ οἴνωι, ῥεῖ δὲ μελισσᾶν νέκταρι, ‘the ground flows with milk, with honey, with the nectar of bees’. 61 Ion 534a: ὥσπερ αἱ βάκχαι ἀρύονται ἐκ τῶν ποταμῶν μέλι καὶ γάλα κατεχόμεναι, ‘just as the Bakchai draw from the rivers milk and honey when they are possessed’. 62 IG X.2.1, 65 (PICARD/AVEZOU, Inscriptions, 97 no. 7 = Orph. fr. 664 in BERNABÉ, Orphicorum). 63 Sallust. De diis 4.10: ἐπὶ τούτοις γάλακτος τροφὴ ὥσπερ ἀναγεννωμένων· ἐφ’ οἷς ἱλαρία καὶ στέφανοι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς Θεοὺς οἷον ἐπάνοδος, ‘And for these the nourishment is milk, as if they were reborn. Accompanying which there is merriment and crowns and an ascent, as it were, to the gods’. 64 JOHNSTON, Myth, 141, n. 56. 65 References in TZIFOPOULOS, Paradise Earned, ad loc. 66 NOGARA, Base istoriata. NOGARA describes the obscure provenance of the pedestal (from excavations on the Esquiline Hill in Rome) in the eighteenth century; he opines that the pedestal probably served for the display of a votive object or statuary, probably for Dionysos/Bakchos; the reliefs are of ‘Hellenistic inspiration’. The scene shows on the right a goddess on a pedestal, whom NOGARA identifies as Elpis, Hope. Cf. KERÉNYI, Dionysos, 159: ‘Auf den beiden Schmalseiten der gleichen Basis sieht man jene Szenen, die ihre Perspektiven erst erhalten, wenn man begreift, dass sie das dionysische Opfer vorbereiten.’ 67 KERÉNYI, Dionysos, 159.

Magic and Mystery at Selinus: Another Look at the Getty Hexameters

55

final piece of the jigsaw might also fit here; in the Gurôb papyrus, a plausible supplement of col. 1, line 25 would be αἰγ]ε̣ῖ̣ο̣ν ἔπιον, with γάλα standing somewhere before it in the lacuna: ‘I drank goat’s milk’, as one of the symbola listed from line 22. HORDERN himself wonders about ο]ἶ̣ν̣ο̣ν but the third letter from last does not look like nu.68 My suggestion αἰγεῖον must remain tentative but ἔπιον indicates that something was drunk in a ritual fashion. Finally, one should not forget that the miraculous suckling of infants in myth by surrogate animal mothers is a well-established principle. One need only think of Romulus and Remus and the she-wolf. In Pausanias (10.16) we read that the people of Elyrus dedicated at Delphi a bronze goat suckling the infants Phylakis and Phylandros, who were children of Apollo by Akakallis.69

2. Revised text The text printed here combines supplements from JK (edd. pr.), FO and RICHARD JANKO’s contribution to the latter volume, with my own suggestions based on examination of photographs of the tablet. In the apparatus I cannot properly accredit some supplements in FO, as the text there lacks an apparatus. Col. 1 [μύσ]ταιϲ̣ [ε]ὐ̣[αίωνα] καὶ οὐκ ἀτέλεστ᾿ ἐπ̣α̣ε̣ίδω· ὅστις τῶνδ᾿ ἱερῶ̣ν ἐπέων ἀρίσημα κολάψας γρ̣άμματα κασσιτέρωι κοκολαμμένα λᾶος ἐν οἴκωι οὔ νιμ πημανέουσιν ὅσα τρέφει εὐρεῖα χθὼν οὐδ᾿ ὅσα πόντωι βόσκει ἀγάστονος̣ Ἀμφιτρίτη. Παιήων, σὺ δὲ̣ παντὸς ἀλέξιμα φάρ̣μακα πέμπεις καὶ τάδ᾿ ἐφώνησας ϝἔπε᾿ ἀθάνατα θ̣νητοῖσιν· {h}ὄσσα κατὰ σκιαρῶν ὀρέων μελα̣ναυγέϊ χώρωι Φερσεφόνης ἐγ κήπου ἄγει πρὸς ἀμ
ολγὸν ἀνάγκη‹ι› τὴν τετραβή̣μονα παῖ‹δ›᾿ ἁγνὴν Δήμ
ητρος ὀπηδόν, αἶγ᾿ ἀκαμαντορόα νασμοῦ̣ θαλεροῖο γάλακτος βριθομένην̣· ‹h›έπεται θεαῖς ῥεῖ[α] θ‹έ›ουσα φαειναῖς [λ]αμπάδας· [Ε]ἰνοδία δ᾿ ‹h›Εκάτη φρικώδει φ
ωνῆι [βάρ]βαρο[ν] ἐκκλάζουσα θ̣εὰ θεῶι ἡγεμονεύ[ει·] [‘ἔρχομα]ι αὐτοκέλευστος ἐγ̣ὼ δι
ὰ νύκ̣τα β
[ αθεῖαν] [ἐγ μεγάρω]ν̣ προμολοῦσα· λέγω [θ]εόφρασ̣[τα κέλευθα] [ἀνθρώποις] θνητῶισι δὲ̣ δαίμο[ν]ος ἀγλα[οκάρπου,] [εὔχεται] ὃς τελέ[ε]ι̣ν χά[ριν] ὧ[ι] κ̣ε θ[έληισιν ἄπειρον.]’ [........]ικα.[ [...........]ταδ̣[

5

10

15

20

Apparatus: (unattributed supplements are from edd. pr.) 1 FURLEY: [3–4]ταιϲ̣[.].[c. 3–4] edd. pr. 2 κολαψας L: καλύπτει vel καλύψας vel καλύψει edd. 7 vel τάδε φωνήσας edd. pr. 8 {h}ὄσσα FURLEY: hοσσα L: ἔσκε, εὖτε, hōς κε edd.: Ὄσσα (nom. 68

BERNABÉ/JIMÉNEZ SAN CRISTÓBAL, ‘Orphic’ Gold Leaves, 83, blandly assert the reading ‘I have drunk wine’, citing HORDERN, Notes; but HORDERN only considers οἶνον as a possibility. 69 More examples given by JOHNSTON, Myth, 143.

56

William D. Furley

propr.) dubit. JANKO 9 ἄγει edd.: αγαι L 10 παῖδ᾿ FURLEY: παιϲ L hοπηδον L ἁγνὴν vel ἁγίην edd. pr.: ιαγιην L 12 FURLEY: θεαιϲ ρει
[.]θουϲα L, ῥεπ̣ιθοῦσα leg. edd. pr.: πεπιθοῦσα 13 [Ε]ἰνοδίαι δ᾿ ‹h›Εκάτει L corr. edd. 15 [ἔρχομα]ι̣ edd. pr.: JANKO, FO (‹δὲ› ante θεαῖς ins.) [ἤλυθο]ν̣ JANKO 16 προμολει
σα L corr. edd. fin. JANKO 17 suppl. edd. pr. 18 ὥς κε θάνωσιν edd. pr.: ὧι κε θελήσηις JANKO, al. FURLEY

Col. 2, Frr. 5+6, front [ —c. 13— ]δε[ [ἀγγέλλ]ων τ᾿ ἀνόμων θ̣[υέ]ων ἀπὸ χεῖ
[ ρας ἔχεσθαι.] [Παιήων,] σὺ γὰρ αὐτὸς {h}ἀ[λ]έξιμα φάρμακ̣[ α πέμπεις,] [μυστοδό]κ̣ου κατάκουε φ‹ρ›α̣σὶν γλυκὺν h[ὕμνον ἀοιδῆς.] [πᾶσιν δ᾿ ἀ]ν̣θρώποισιν ἐπιφ̣θέγγεσσθαι ἄν[ωγα] [κἀν πολέμ]ω̣ι κἄνευ πολέμω‹ν› κ̣αὶ ναυσὶν, ὅτα[ν Κὴρ] [θνητοῖς ἀ]νθρώποις θανατ
ηφόρος ἐγγὺ[ς ἐπέλθηι] αὐτῶν τ]ε
προβάτοις καὶ ἐν̣ τέχναισιν βροτ
[είαις,] αἰὲν ἐπιφ]θ̣έγγεσσθαι ἐ[ν] ἐυ̣φρόνηι ἠδὲ κατ
᾿ [ἦμαρ,] ‘φθόγγο]ν ἔχων hὅσιον {σιον} στόματος θυ[έεσσι μετῆλθον.’] λώιόν ἐ]σστι πόλει, τὰ γὰρ ἀ[ρ]χῆς ἐστιν ἄριστα̣. Παιήων, σὺ δ]ὲ
παντὸς ἀκεσσφόρος ἐσσὶ καὶ ἐσθ[λός.] ]κι κατασκι αα[.]α ασια ενδαϲ.[ ]δε αμολγον [..] αἶγα βίαι ἐκ κή̣[που ἔλαυνε] τῶιδ᾿ὄνομ[α τ]ετραγος h[ηδ. c. 9] τετροανα]ρ
ἄγετε τραγ[ c. 5 ἀνε-] μώλιος ἀ[κ]τ
ὴ hὑδάτων ιο̣[ ὄλβ[ι]ος ὧι [κε] τ
άδε σκεδαθ̣[ῆι κατ᾿ ἀμε-] ξ̣α̣[τὸν] α̣ιω [καὶ] φρασὶν αὐτ
[ ὸς ἔχει] [μακάρων κατ᾿ ἀμ]εξατὸ[ν αὐδήν· [Τραξ Τετραξ Τ]ε
τραγο[ς Δαμναμενεῦ,] [δάμασον δὲ κακῶς ἀ]έ
[κοντας ἀνάγκηι.]

25

30

35

40

22 edd. pr.: ἀνθρώπ]ων τ᾿ ἀνόμων ο[ἴκ]ων ἄπο χεῖ[ρας ἐρύκοις] JANKO 24 in. FURLEY (]κ̣ leg.): ]μ
vel ]λ̣ potius quam ]γ̣ edd. pr.: κηληθμοῦ JANKO 25 in. JANKO 26 in. edd. pr.: ὡς δήμ]ωι κἀν εὐπολέμωι JANKO: λα]ῶι κἂν εὐπολέμωι FARAONE p. 60 FO BURKERT fin. FURLEY: ἐγγύθεν ἔλθηι edd. pr. 27 in. edd. pr.: ἄφνω ἐπ᾿ JANKO 28 in. FURLEY: ὡς καὶ ἐπί JANKO: ἠδέ τ᾿ ἐπὶ edd. pr. 29 in. FURLEY: οὕτω δὴ JANKO: κἀπιφθ‐ edd. pr. 30 in. et fin. FURLEY: χρησμὸν JANKO, tum fin. θυρέτροισιν ἐν αὐτοῖς 31 in. FURLEY: βέλτιον JANKO

Col. 3, frr. 4+3+2+1, back [ c. 9 ]κηι θν[ητ [ c. 9 ]ο̣κελ̣ε[ [ c. 9 ]ω̣ϲειϲκ[1‐2]ο̣ν[ [Ἡρακλέης] Διὸς υἱὸς [ὀ]ιστεύ̣[ σ]α[ς] κακο̣[εργούς [Ἀρτέμιδός τ]ε Διὸς μνῆσαι δ᾿ Ἑκάτοιό ‹τε› Φ[οίβου] [ἠδ᾿ Ἡρακλῆο]ς τόξξων καὶ hύδρης πολυ[κρήνου.]

45

fin.

Magic and Mystery at Selinus: Another Look at the Getty Hexameters [Παι]ή̣ων, h[ὁ] γὰρ αὐτὸς ἀλέξιμα φάρμακα πέ
[μπει·] [οὐ]κ ἂν δειλήσαιτ᾿ {οὐδεὶς} οὐδ᾿ αἰ πολυφάρ[μακος ἥκοι.]

57

50

44 ]ο κέλεσθε[ JANKO 46 in. Ἡρακλέης edd. pr, al. FURLEY 47 in. Ἀρτέμιδος FURLEY, al. edd. pr.: Ἴδμων (?) hός τε edd. pr.: υἱω]νός τε JANKO (litt. ]νοϲ e Locr. coll.) tum fin. φ[αεινῶν] 48 edd. pr.: οἷς παίεις τόξων καὶ ὕδρης πολύδειρα κάρηνα JANKO 49 edd. pr. 50 edd. pr.: οὐδεὶς πολυφάρμακος ἄλλος JANKO

Prose translation For initiates I incant effective words of salvation. Whoever inscribes in clear letters these sacred words on tin (= lead) and hides (?) them in a building of stone, him neither land creatures will harm nor any which loud-sounding Amphitrite nurtures in the sea. Paieon, you provide protective remedies for everything and you spoke the following divine words to mortals. A voice from down the shadowy mountains in the dark-lit place calls from Persephone’s garden irresistibly to milking the four-legged child, holy companion of Demeter, a goat heavy with an unceasing flow of nourishing milk; it follows the goddesses, running easily, with their shining torches. Einodia Hekate cries out wildly with eerie voice as she, a goddess, leads the god. ‘I come of my own accord through the [depths] of night, leaving my residence. I announce to human [beings the ways] ordained by god of the [bountiful] deity, who [promises] to reward whomsoever he [pleases, without limit.’] […approximately 3 lines missing …] instructing [them?] to refrain from unlawful sacrifices(?). [Paieon,] since you [provide] protective remedies in person, listen in your heart to the sweet [incantation of one initiated in the mysteries]. You instructed [all] humans to sound the refrain, whether [in war] or free of war, on their ships, whenever death-bringing Fate draws near to human beings or to [their] flocks, or during human crafts, always to sound the refrain by night and by [day]: ‘With pure [voice] in my throat [I have participated in] the sacrificial rites(?).’ It is [better] for the city; that is the best thing for government. [Paieon, you] are remedybringing in everything, and good. ASKI KATASKI AA[.]A ASIA ENDASIA. [To] milking [..] [drive] a goat by force from the garden. His name is Tetragos […] [TETROANA]R lead the goat(?) […] windy shore of waters […] Happy he for whom is scattered along his way ‘io!’(?) and who in his heart holds along his path the voice of the blessed: [TRAX TETRAX] TETRAGOS [DAMNAMENEUS], [subjugate by force the wickedly] unwilling! […approximately 3 lines missing…] Herakles, son of Zeus, who shoots down the illdoers with arrows, and recall to mind [Artemis], daughter of Zeus, and [Phoibos] FarShooter, and the bow [of Herakles] and the Hydra of many [heads.] No one will do any harm, even if he comes with much magic! Select notes on new readings These notes are intended to clarify new points in the text only; they are based on inspection of good photographs of the fragments of lead tablet. 1. [μύσ]τα̣ι̣ϲ̣ [ε]ὐ̣[αίωνα] καὶ οὐκ ἀτέλεστ᾿ ἐπ̣α̣ε̣ίδω· In. [3–4]τα̣ι̣ϲ̣[.].[c. 4] ed. pr., JANKO

58

William D. Furley

μύσταις would be a reasonable guess for the first word, since this section of the text introduces the hieros logos of mystery rites. Following that we are allowed approximately six letters for a word of metrical shape   or   (or, possibly,  ) and syntactically parallel to ἀτέλεστα, εὐαίωνα, ‘blessed’ (7 letters), fits quite well, paralleled by e.g. Eur. Ion 126, in a monodic paean song, and Eur. Bacch. 426. BREMMER has pointed to other Euripidean elements in this magical text.70 If the space is not sufficient for εὐαίωνα one might consider the variant form εὐαίω (also ntr. pl.), but the contraction is unparalleled for this word, though common in other -ν- stems, of course (βελτίω etc.);71 καὶ is probably short before οὐκ, but might keep its natural metrical length. The sense of the first line thus reconstructed, then, would be to announce the fortune-bringing, efficacious, nature of the Paieon’s holy words. 2 κολάψας. The tablet clearly has this reading, from κολάπτω, ‘engrave’. Then in the next line we hear of ‘letters engraved in tin’ γράμματα κασσιτέρωι κοκολαμμένα (sic), and, at the end of the line, λᾶος ἐν οἴκωι, ‘in a house of stone’. It seems that the scribe may have written κολάψας in 2 by mistaken analogy with κεκολαμμένα; previous editors suspect that a form of καλύπτω, ‘conceal’, should be restored: καλύπτει (JK), καλύψει (FO, JANKO). The sentence certainly needs a finite verb by the standards of correct grammar, but in this subliterary text perhaps καλύψας would also be defensible, with an understood ἔχει or ἔχηι, meaning ‘whoever has concealed’. Certainly λᾶος ἐν οἴκωι makes better sense with ‘conceal’, rather than ‘engrave’, because we are told that the engraving is to be done ‘on tin’. Moreover the folded lead tablet was clearly meant to be hidden somewhere rather than displayed for reading, so a form of καλύπτω suits the context. 8 {h}ὄσσα κατὰ σκιαρῶν ὀρέων μελα̣ναυγέι χώρωι In. †hόσσα† ed. pr.: {h}Ὄσσα JANKO Clearly legible ὅσσα at the beginning of line 8 has given considerable trouble. Suggestions to date have been ἔσκε (JORDAN), εὖτε (JANKO), hōς κε (WALLACE) (see apparatus to ed. pr.). In FO p. 40 JANKO wonders whether Ossa is not the name of the child (παῖς) in 10. Ossa is known as the name of a mountain in Thessaly, but it does not convince as a name of the παῖς either in form or in position (widely separated from παῖς). OBBINK’s defence of ὅσσα = ὅσα = ὡς in epic72 will not do either as ὅσα in Homer is never directly equivalent to ὥς but always has the meaning ‘as much/many as’;73 as these lines run, ὅσα would have ϝἔπε᾿ ἀθάνατα in the previous line as antecedent, which does not make sense: it is not Paieon’s immortal words which led the goat from Persephone’s garden.74 I suggest changing παῖς in line 10 to παῖδ᾿ and keep70

BREMMER, Getty Hexameters. Note the apocop. accusative singular of αἰών, αἰῶ, restored in Aesch. Cho. 350. 72 FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Getty Hexameters, 182 with n. 19. 73 I have checked all instances. 74 I suppose, conceivably, ὅσσα = ὅσα could be an accusative of respect, referring back to ϝἔπε᾿ ἀθάνατα: ‘with reference to which many’ = ‘as regards which’, but it would be an extraordinary usage. 71

Magic and Mystery at Selinus: Another Look at the Getty Hexameters

59

ing ὄσσα = ‘voice’. That is, a ‘voice from down the mountains’ leads the goat by magical necessity; an unseen voice here makes better sense than a child leading the goat ἀνάγκηι: the voice has a mysterious and irresistible power, whereas the picture of a child leading a goat ‘by force’ is almost comic. Homeric scholia gloss ὄσσα as θεία κληδών, ‘divine voice’. H.Hom. 4.443 talks of a ‘wondrous new sound’ (sc. of the lyre): θαυμασίην γὰρ τήνδε νεήφατον ὄσσαν ἀκούω. The best parallel would be the divine voice (περικαλλέα ὄσσαν) of the Helikonian Muses, unseen, according to Hes. Th. 10, because they themselves are shrouded in mist. This is just the kind of mysteriously compelling voice apparently emanating from nowhere which I think is meant in this magical text. Moreover, taking the text like this gives better sense to κατὰ σκιαρῶν ὀρέων: the voice comes wafting down from the shadowy mountains and reaches the goat’s ears where it is standing in Persephone’s garden. If we take παῖς as subject of the sentence we get the less satisfactory sense that he/she leads the goat ‘down the shadowy mountains’ and, apparently, ‘out from Persephone’s garden’, which seems something of a contradiction. ὄσσα clearly has a rough breathing in L (i.e. ὅσσα), but the aspirate is placed wrongly at other points in the text as well (line 10 hὀπηδόν, 23 hἀλέξιμα). For magical voices in combination with goats one might also point to the epigram by Leonidas in which a voice from the ground tells a goat nibbling at a vinestock that enough of the root will survive to produce wine for a libation when the goat is sacrificed! (see above n. 25). 10 τὴν τετραβή̣μονα παῖ‹δ›᾿ ἁγνὴν Δήμ
ητρος ὀπηδόν παιϲιαγιην L: παῖς ιαγίην edd. pr.: ἁγνὴν vel ἁγίην JANKO In the previous note on line 8 I suggested reading παῖδ᾿ here as object of ἄγει (subject ὄσσα). If we keep L’s clear reading παιϲ, we are left wondering what ὅσσα in 8 can be. In order to solve the conundrum I advocate keeping ὄσσα (smooth breathing) and emending to παῖδ᾿, going with τὴν τετραβήμονα: the four-footed child, that is, the goat. Moreover if we wish to keep παῖς we are left with most abrupt syntax, as τετραβήμονα is an adjective, requiring a noun. If we want to read on until ὀπηδόν, the attribute and noun object are divided jarringly by the subject παῖς. I would go as far as to say that τὴν τετραβήμονα παῖς ἁγνὴν (or ἁγίην) Δήμητρος ὀπηδόν is intolerable Greek. ἁγνήν. The first editors read ιαγίην, but the first descender might be part of a partially degraded aspirate. JANKO discusses the relative merits of ἁγίην and ἁγνήν here. As the text stands the goat is described as the ‘holy attendant’ of Demeter. 12 βριθομένην̣· ‹h›έπεται θεαῖς ῥεῖ[α] θ‹έ›ουσα φαειναῖς ‹h›έπεται ‹δὲ› θεαῖς †ῥεπ̣ιθοῦσα† ed. pr. ἕπεται δὲ θεαῖς πεπιθοῦσα φαειναις JANKO. The context here is the goat being led by the voice to milking. The first editors wonder in their apparatus whether what they read as ῥεπ̣ιθοῦσα might be taken as παρα‐ or περι‐. FO and JANKO adopt the reading π̣επ̣ιθοῦσα, ‘trusting’ or ‘obeying’, the goddesses (θεαῖς), with ‹δὲ› inserted before θεαῖς to fill out the metre. This gives the sense ‘the goat follows the goddesses, trusting in them’. However the first letter of the word here is unquestionably rho, followed by epsilon, then a vertical line which could be the

60

William D. Furley

left bar of pi, but which I take to be iota. ῥεῖ[α], ‘easily’, ‘without resistance’, is a satisfactory supplement, followed by θ‹έ›ουσα, ‘running’. The goat ‘follows the goddesses, running easily’. Here we only need to assume that an epsilon has fallen out of θ‹έ›ουσα and there is no need to insert ‹δὲ›. The reading has the advantage of making sense of the clear palaeographic reading ρει̣[. One might also explain the missing epsilon in θέουσα with recourse to θεαῖς just before, which has to be scanned as θjαῖς. The scribe might have been conscious of that fact as he wrote θουϲα by mistake in the following word. The sense is also better, as the goat is more likely to ‘skip along lightly’ than ‘trust’ the goddesses (trusting is too human an emotion). Also we avoid the contradiction involved in the juxtaposition of ἀνάγκηι and πεπιθοῦσα; if the goat is forced along, she does not need to trust. In my reconstruction, ἀνάγκηι applies to the mysterious voice calling the goat, whilst in 12 she is tripping along (ῥεῖα θέουσα) on the heels of goddesses now (Hekate and her torch-bearing attendants).75 18 [–c. 10–] ὃς τελέ[ε]ι̣ν χά[ριν] ὧ[ι] κ̣ε θ[έληισι ὡς vel ἕως κε θάνωσι edd. pr. (in app.) τέλεσον χάριν ὧι κε θελήσηις JANKO. At the beginning of the line the first editors allow for about ten missing letters, but the writing is bigger in this section; if the missing letters were the same size as the rest of the letters in this line, I count space for approximately seven letters only. One might be looking for a finite verb (εὔχεται?) going with an infinitive τελέειν, or perhaps a genitive plural noun picked up by ὧι later in the line (χρηστῶν?). But much uncertainty surrounds beginning and end of this line. A relative predication with ὃς, referring to the δαίμων announced in the previous line, however, seems a reasonable guess. JANKO already suggested χάριν, but I would suggest a different construction around it. One might try ἄπειρον at line end, going with χάριν. Possibilities for supplementing a form of τελέω are limited: τέλεσον (JANKO), τέλεσεν or τελέειν. 24 [μυστοδό]κ̣ου, if correct, makes it clear whose song this is: one initiated in the Mysteries. The reading clearly accords with [μύσ]ταις in the first line. Kappa as first trace after the break is legible, but others have read the trace differently (see apparatus). 31 λώιόν ἐ]σστι πόλει, τὰ γὰρ ἀ[ρ]χῆς ἐστιν ἄριστα̣. In. βέλτιον JANKO. Edd. pr. allow for five letters before ἐσστι. λώιον (5 letters) might be thought to be a better epic word than βέλτιον (7 letters) here; e.g. Hom. Il. 1.229, Hom. Od. 2.169. Epic comparative is βέλτερον rather than βέλτιον (JANKO). 46 [Ἡρακλέης] Διὸς υἱὸς [ὀ]ιστεύ̣[σ]α[ς] κακο̣[έργους [Ἡρακλέη]ς Διὸς υἱὸς [.]ιϲτε[ c. 9 (sic)] πάγ̣κακ[ον ἦμαρ edd. pr. [Ἡρακλῆς] Διὸς υἱός, [.]ιστει
[.π]αγκακ[ JANKO 75

See now JOHNSTON, Goddesses.

Magic and Mystery at Selinus: Another Look at the Getty Hexameters

61

Both edd. pr. and JANKO suggest a form of Herakles at line beginning; he is a son of Zeus, and his killing of the Lernaean Hydra with poisoned arrows features in line 48. After διος υἱος̣ there is only space for one letter before clearly legible ιστε, followed by a gap of two letters at most, then α.κακο̣[. To date no supplement has been suggested for the middle position after υἱός. Ed. pr. has what must be a misprint where it is indicated that a gap of ‘c. 9’ letters follows ιστε. Possibilities are very limited for [.]ιστε[, as a short syllable must intervene between υἱός (-u) and ‐ιστε‐. I can only think of a form of ὀιστεύω e.g. ὀιστεύσας, having shot an arrow or shooting an arrow, which, of course, goes well with Herakles. No form of ἀιστόω or ἀιστός can be made to fit, nor does a sheep ὄις seem appropriate. Callimachus also has ὀιστευτής (Doric perhaps ὀιστευτάς) which might be an alternative; the Iliadic ὀιστεύσας (4.196 and 206; 8.269), however, seems to give a better precedent. At line end κακοέργους, mischief-makers, malefactors, seems a reasonable guess, but there are no doubt other possibilities, e.g. κακὸν ἄνδρα vel sim. Ed. pr. read ]παγ̣κακ[ but pi is not visible at all in the photographs I have; JANKO correctly reads π]αγκακ[ (but here the gamma is over confident!). It seems to me the traces of the left arc of omikron after κακ‐ can be seen.

Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae DANIEL SCHWEMER 1. Babylonian strands in Graeco-Egyptian magic Descriptions of the magic and religious traditions observable in the magical papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt regularly name Babylonian influences among the strands of knowledge that make up the syncretistic texture that is characteristic of the incantations and rituals from that body of texts.1 Mesopotamian motifs in the Greek magical papyri are also quoted as evidence for the longevity of Babylonian magic and religion in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.2 As has long been known, the name of the Mesopotamian goddess of the Netherworld, Ereškigal, an originally Sumerian name that is widely used not only in Sumerian but also in Akkadian texts throughout all periods of Mesopotamian history, occurs several times in Greek magical texts. Assessing the significance of the use of Ereškigal’s name in those texts poses some difficulties, and scholars do not agree on the extent to which traditional Mesopotamian magical lore, as amply attested in cuneiform sources, is reflected in the magical texts of the Graeco-Roman world. Whereas some state that traces of Mesopotamian influence beyond the mention of Ereškigal are virtually absent from the Greek magical papyri,3 others have pointed to further divine names possibly of Mesopotamian origin (infra, 4.1). It has been claimed that Akkadian phrases can be found in the voces magicae and that the pure vowel sequences in the voces magicae ultimately originate in the learned interpretation of cuneiform syllabaries by Babylonian scholars (infra, 4.2). A number of contributions, among them several by CHRISTOPHER FARAONE, have drawn attention to common motifs and ritual techniques that seem to indicate a certain cultural continuum (infra, 4.3 and 4.4). Moreover, specific Graeco-Egyptian magical texts have been identified as rituals of Babylonian origin on grounds of their structural similarity to procedures attested in Akkadian cuneiform texts (infra, 4.5). In the past, the discussion of the relationship between Graeco-Egyptian and Mesopotamian magic primarily sought to explain similarities between the two bodies of texts as elements that were (more or less indirectly) borrowed and adapted in Egypt or Greece from older Mesopotamian traditions. These had, in one way or another, sur1 BETZ (ed.), GMPT, xlv–vii; GAGER (ed.), Curse Tablets, 26; BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3425 (with further references). 2 See, e.g., DALLEY/REYES, Mesopotamian Contact, 114–15; and DALLEY, Sassanian Period, 169. 3 Cf. QUACK, Kontinuität und Wandel, 92, n. 86.

Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae

63

vived the demise of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires and the diminishing of cuneiform in Babylonia. More recent studies have begun to investigate the reverse process and have proposed to explain peculiarities in cuneiform magical texts from Hellenistic Babylonia as evidence for the adoption of Greek ideas in the Babylonian ritualistic lore of that period.4 JOANN SCURLOCK finds evidence for this process in a cuneiform manuscript already from late seventh-century Assyria, a finding that, if confirmed, may have important consequences for our understanding of the development of Graeco-Egyptian and Greek magic.5 There are two methodological considerations that are, in my view, critical for evaluating the relationship between Mesopotamian magic tradition, the texts regarded as part of āšipūtu by Babylonian and Assyrian scholars,6 and the Greek magical papyri from Egypt and other related Greek texts: 1. The expanse of Mesopotamian āšipūtu texts has to be taken into account: how widespread was Mesopotamian exorcistic lore in the various cultures of the ancient Near East? In which ways were Mesopotamian and other contemporaneous magic traditions of the ancient Near East interrelated? Which agents and media played a role in these processes? When and where did the practice of transmitting āšipūtu texts in cuneiform cease, and how did this phenomenon relate to the adoption of alphabetic scripts in Babylonia and to various forms of Aramaic becoming the dominant languages of the region? 2. Similarities between magic rituals from different ancient cultures cannot, as such, be accepted as sufficient evidence for cultural borrowing and plurality. Criteria must be applied that permit an assessment of the significance of similarities and inform the judgment on the extent and nature of any proposed cultural borrowing.

2. The reach of Mesopotamian magic With the adoption of the cuneiform writing system beyond the boundaries of Southern Mesopotamia, Sumerian and Akkadian incantation texts became known across many regions of the ancient Near East already in the course of the second half of the third and the first half of the second millennium BCE.7 The spreading of these texts is unlikely to have been limited to the context of scribal education.

4

See SCURLOCK/AL-RAWI, Weakness; SCURLOCK, Sorcery. Other recent contributions on Mesopotamian medicine, astronomy and magic that have contributed to this debate include HEEßEL, Stein; FRAHM, Text Commentaries, 369–83; GELLER, Melothesia, passim; REINER, Astral Magic, passim; REINER, Early Zodiologia, 421–7; ROCHBERG, Path of the Moon, especially chapter 7 (which was first published as an article in 1987); ANNUS, Soul’s Ascent, 1–53. 5 See SCURLOCK, Sorcery. 6 For recent overviews of āšipūtu texts and the various genres of magical rituals in ancient Mesopotamia, see SCHWEMER, Magic Rituals, and SCHWEMER, Ancient Near East. 7 For the incantations from Syrian Ebla, see CATAGNOTI/BONECHI, Magic and Divination. For recent discussions of Old Assyrian incantations from Anatolian Kaneš, see BARJAMOVIC/LARSEN, Old Assyrian Incantation; FINCKE/KOUWENBERG, ‘New’ Old Assyrian Incantation. The incantations from

64

Daniel Schwemer

In the Late Bronze Age, one can observe for the first time how Mesopotamian magical and medical expertise was imported at foreign courts, such as that of the city state of Ugarit or the Hittite capital Ḫattuša. In Ḫattuša this process can be shown to have involved the presence of experts from Babylonia and Assyria at the Hittite court and the introduction of Mesopotamian cuneiform manuscripts to Ḫattuša, to some degree even their translation and adaptation into Hittite. At the same time, the tablet collections from Ḫattuša show that the distinct Anatolian traditions of magic rituals continued to be transmitted and used without being submitted to an across-the-board transformation under the influence of the prestigious expert knowledge from Mesopotamia. The Hittite magic rituals that do exhibit Mesopotamian elements usually belong to the Hurrian milieu and owe their Mesopotamian characteristics not to syncretistic tendencies among experts at Ḫattuša, but to their originally Syrian and Northern Mesopotamian provenance. The transmission of magic rituals and incantations at the thirteenth century Hittite royal court thus offers an example of how cultural plurality does not necessarily result in syncretistic integration but can remain largely compartmentalised.8 In the late second and early first millennium, many āšipūtu texts acquired fixed forms that enjoyed wide circulation among scholars and are regularly attested in firstmillennium tablet collections in Babylonia and Assyria. With the expansion of the Assyrian empire (and its Neo-Babylonian successor state) scribal learning and, with it, Babylonian exorcistic texts and competence stretched far beyond the Assyrian and Babylonian heartlands, as is aptly illustrated by one of the most important libraries from the Neo-Assyrian Period found at the site of Sultantepe south of modern Urfa.9 At the royal courts foreign scholars from Egypt and Anatolia were employed,10 but the apparent absence of traces of their particular traditions of learning in first-millennium Sumerian and Akkadian āšipūtu texts suggests that the introduction of foreign expertise at the courts did not lead to an extensive intellectual exchange and a subsequent transformation of the established Mesopotamian body of exorcistic texts. The transmission of cuneiform āšipūtu texts in Babylonia outlasted the last Babylonian kings by half a millennium, even though royal libraries of cuneiform exorcistic texts like those of the Sargonid kings at Nineveh then had become scholarly institu-

Old Babylonian Mari on the Middle Euphrates are catalogued by G. CUNNINGHAM, ‘Deliver Me from Evil’, nos. 340–41, 407–411. 8 See SCHWEMER, Gauging. 9 For a brief characterisation of the library from Neo-Assyrian Sultantepe, see PEDERSÉN, Archives, 178–80. 10 See RADNER, Assyrian King, and, for the presence of Egyptian princes at the Assyrian court and their later appointment by Assyrian kings in Egypt, RADNER, After Eltekeh, passim. RADNER states that ‘we can be certain that scholars and priests were busy trying to integrate the newly found Egyptian traditions into the Mesopotamian world-view’ (RADNER, Assyrian King, 225); the ritual experts from Syria and Anatolia present at the royal court seem to have been mostly augurs. For the presence of Greeks in first millennium Mesopotamia, see the comprehensive overview by ROLLINGER, Zu Herkunft, and KESSLER, Neue Informationen; a presence of Greek ritual experts at the first millennium Assyrian and Babylonian royal courts is not (yet) attested in the cuneiform record.

Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae

65

tions of a bygone age.11 One of the most prolific collections of magic rituals and incantations comes from the private library of a family of exorcists in early Hellenistic Uruk,12 and copies of texts of these genres were still produced in the late second century BCE by scholars in Babylon.13 Even among the latest group of cuneiform texts, the so-called Graeco-Babyloniaca, there are excerpts from āšipūtu incantations accompanied by a transcription in Greek letters.14 Traces of Babylonian magic and religious traditions that can be found in later Aramaic and Mandaic magic texts as well as in the Babylonian Talmud indicate that in northern Babylonian cities like Babylon some ancient religious practices persisted into the second and third centuries CE.15 To what extent cuneiform literary texts were written with ink on leather – either in cuneiform or in Aramaic or Greek transcriptions – is unknown, though it seems unlikely that our overall picture of the transmission of traditional Babylonian knowledge in the late periods is greatly distorted by the fact that the more perishable writing materials like leather, wood and papyrus did not survive in Babylonia. But it is worth remembering that wax-inlaid writing boards were widely used for recording literary cuneiform texts in first-millennium Mesopotamia.16 This brief overview illustrates sufficiently the wide geographical distribution and enormous chronological extent of Mesopotamian cuneiform magic texts. The dissemination and lasting transmission of the āšipūtu texts allow in principle for many different scenarios of their diffusion into the Eastern Mediterranean, both by direct contact with Mesopotamian texts and experts or by the indirect communication of ideas whose spreading may often be impossible to trace and date with any certainty.

11

For the Nineveh libraries and their lasting influence also on Babylonian scholarship, see FRAME/GEORGE, Royal Libraries; BEAULIEU, Afterlife; FRAHM, Text Commentaries, 295. 12 For the library of Iqīšâ (family Ekur-zakir) and the slightly earlier library of Anu-ikṣur (family Šangû-Ninurta), see CLANCIER, Bibliothèques, 47–73, 81–5; FRAHM, Text Commentaries, 290–96. 13 Most of the tablets and fragments of Late Babylonian āšipūtu texts are not dated. OELSNER, ‘Sie ist gefallen’, 11–15, gives an overview of the latest dated texts from Babylon; his list does not include an āšipūtu text (cf. also OELSNER, Incantations). BM 64514 (82-9-18, 4494), a manuscript of tablet III of the anti-witchcraft ritual Maqlû, was owned by Nabû-[…], a son of Itti-Marduk-balāṭu of the Egibatila family. This Itti-Marduk-balāṭu may well be identical with Itti-Marduk-balāṭu of the same family, father of Bēl-šumu-līšer, who is named in colophons of tablets dating to the late second and early first centuries BCE (see HUNGER, Kolophone, no. 144). 14 Graeco-Babyloniaca, nos. 10 and 11. For the text group, see GELLER, Last Wedge; WESTENHOLZ, Graeco-Babyloniaca; OELSNER, ‘Sie ist gefallen’, 14–15. WESTENHOLZ argues that the tablets should be dated somewhere between 50 BCE and 50 CE. On palaeographical grounds, GELLER and, cautiously following him, OELSNER (OELSNER, ‘Sie ist gefallen’, 15, n. 40) consider a second century date for Graeco-Babyloniaca, no. 10; GELLER even considers an early third century CE date possible. 15 See OELSNER, ‘Sie ist gefallen’, 9–18; OELSNER, Incantations; MÜLLER-KESSLER/KESSLER, Spätbabylonische Gottheiten; GELLER, Influence. 16 Cf. OELSNER, ‘Sie ist gefallen’, 16–17. Writing boards are frequently mentioned in colophons of literary texts on clay tablets, but only very few have survived. An ivory writing board was found in the library of Kiṣir-Aššur, an exorcist from seventh century Aššur; a folding set of sixteen ivory writing boards was found at Nimrud (eighth century); for photos of these famous documents, see MARZAHN/SALJE, Wiedererstehendes Assur, 150; CURTIS/READE, Art and Empire, 191.

66

Daniel Schwemer

3. The significance of similarity The study of possible influences of the practice of magic and magical texts from Mesopotamia on other bodies of magical texts in antiquity must navigate between the Scylla of a minimalism that ascribes all similarities to universal characteristics of magic and the Charybdis of a ‘pan-Babylonistic’ diffusionalist maximalism that claims Mesopotamian origin based on even the vaguest resemblances. As I have argued in a study on the relationship between Mesopotamian and Hittite magic traditions,17 there are a number of simple criteria that should inform any judgment on whether similarities in magic texts from different cultures constitute independent developments or are indeed owed to cultural borrowing: 1. Specificity: The more specific a similarity between two text groups can be shown to be, the more likely it is to be explained as the result of a diffusionist process. Specificity may be established by names, foreign words or any form of translation, but also by extended structural parallels (rather than isolated resemblances). 2. Exceptionality and unexpectedness: The more exceptional and unexpected a character, action, location, material or narrative is in its present context, the more likely it is to be explained as introduced from a different cultural milieu. 3. Co-occurrence: If parallels and similarities between magical texts from two cultural backgrounds are isolated and rare, an interpretation as cultural borrowings becomes less probable. Highly specific and, at the same time, isolated similarities may indicate distance and limited familiarity between the original cultural source and the recipient. If an application of these criteria indicates that the presence of a certain deity, motif, spell or rite in the Greek magical papyri is owed to a cultural borrowing from Mesopotamia, then a hypothesis on the nature of the adaptation process must be provided. Are we dealing with an ill-defined diffusion of certain practices and motifs that may have occurred much earlier than the Greek text under study? Or are the observed similarities the result of the transmission, translation and adaptation of actual texts at a time not far removed from the formation of the Greek magical text?

4. Mesopotamian motifs in the Greek magical papyri 4.1. Deities Only one of the deities attested in the Greek magical papyri can be identified without any reasonable doubt as being of Mesopotamian origin.18 Ereškigal (Εϱεσχιγαλ), the Mesopotamian queen of the Netherworld, who is also attested on lead curse tablets and on apotropaic gems,19 occurs as a name of the Greek Netherworld goddess Persephone 17

See SCHWEMER, Gauging, 145–8. BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3425, also counts ‘Baal, Šamaš, and perhaps NEBUTOSUALETH’ among the Babylonian deities. 19 PGM IV 337 (GMPT, 44), 2749–50 (GMPT, 89); PGM LXX 5–11 (GMPT, 297). For magical gems, see, e.g., MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum, nos. 66 and 92, and ŚLIWA, Egyptian Scarabs, 87. For lead tablets, see, e.g., GAGER (ed.), Curse Tablets, 97–100, no. 28; 207–9, no. 110. 18

Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae

67

and of Hekate, the goddess of magic whose epithet ‘of many names’ is amply illustrated by the recitations addressed to her.20 Ereškigal is also attested in the voces magicae, occasionally followed by NEBUTOSUALETH (νεβουτοσουαληθ).21 In none of the contexts in which Ereškigal occurs is her name accompanied by any epithets or motifs for which Mesopotamian provenance could possibly be claimed. Even in a short invocation that is addressed to Hekate as Ereškigal, the symbols (σημεῖα) listed after her name are all well attested for Hekate and Persephone, but not for Mesopotamian Ereškigal.22 It seems worth noting here that Ereškigal, although reasonably well attested in Mesopotamian āšipūtu texts, is by no means the most prominent deity in that genre. The motivation for integrating her name into the Graeco-Egyptian tradition of magical texts was certainly not a desire to adopt important Babylonian deities of magic, but rather served the purpose of furnishing the Greek Netherworld goddess with a mysterious-sounding, foreign name. Although the choice of the name Ereškigal reveals a basic knowledge of Mesopotamian theological typology, the use of Ereškigal’s name in the Greek magical texts leaves little doubt that the experts who composed, transmitted and used these texts had either little interest in or little knowledge of (or both) the Mesopotamian traditions associated with Ereškigal in magical or other cuneiform texts. A Mesopotamian origin has been proposed for NEBUTOSUALETH, associating the phrase with the Mesopotamian god of wisdom Nabû who, as the city god of Borsippa, played a prominent role in first-millennium Babylonian religion. But there is little evidence for this equation. The god Nabû has no specific competence in magic nor is he connected with the Netherworld; more importantly, no satisfactory explanation for the second part of the phrase can be given on the basis of a Mesopotamian hypothesis.23 The sun-god Šamaš, who is, together with Ea and his son Asalluḫi, the most important deity of Mesopotamian exorcistic lore, is invoked a few times in the magical papyri, in one passage together with his Egyptian counterpart Re (Σαμασφρηθ). As with Ereškigal, the contexts in which Šamaš is mentioned do not contain any phrase or motif that may be attributed to Mesopotamian influence. Thus one could argue that 20

Cf., e.g., the incantation addressed to Hekate in PGM IV 2708–84 (GMPT, 88–90); there in line 2745 πολυώνυμε (cf. also πολύμορφε, PGM IV 2726). The interpretation of Ereškigal as an epithet of Typhon-Seth in PGM XIVc 23 (P. Mag. LL, 23, 16, see GMPT, 232) is questionable; although the spell is addressed to Typhon-Seth, the use of the stock phrase ἀκτιῶφι Ἐρεσχιγάλ νεβουτοσοαληθ in the vox magica (see MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum, 373, for a brief discussion of the ‘AKTIŌPHI-Logos’) must not necessarily imply an identification between Ereškigal and Typhon-Seth; cf. FOSSUM/GLAZER, Seth, 91. 21 PGM II 33 (GMPT, 13); PGM IV 1416 (GMPT, 65), 2749–50 (GMPT, 89), 2913–14 (GMPT, 93); PGM V 340 (GMPT, 106), 426 (GMPT, 109); PGM VII 317 (GMPT, 126), 896 (GMPT, 142), 984–5 (GMPT, 144); PGM XIII 925 (GMPT, 193); PGM XIXa 7 (GMPT, 256); PDM xiv/P. Mag. LL, 7, 26 (GMPT, 207; Demotic µrêsgSyngol); for the Demotic form, see QUACK, Griechische und andere Dämonen, 459, 482. As J.F. QUACK points out to me, the Demotic writing reflects an adaptation of the Greek form of Ereškigal’s name. 22 See PGM LXX 5–11 (GMPT, 297); cf. BETZ, Fragments, 291 with n. 20 and 21. 23 See BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3593; cf. also MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum, 373.

68

Daniel Schwemer

Σαμας should not be connected with the Mesopotamian sun-god at all, but should rather be identified with the Syro-Palestinian solar deity of the same name.24 Finally, it should at least be mentioned that HANS PHILIPP WEITZ in his 1910 article on Sarapis in ROSCHER’s Lexikon proposed to identify the word ιλιλλου, which is attested twice in a vox magica, with the Mesopotamian god Ellil.25 In the same article he argued that the divine name Ιαω in the Greek magical texts stands for Ea, the Mesopotamian god of wisdom and magic, rather than the Hebrew god Yahweh, and that the origins of the Egyptian god Sarapis likewise are to be sought in Mesopotamia.26 These hypotheses have long been refuted and are only of historical interest. 4.2. Voces magicae and litterae magicae For a few phrases in the voces magicae an interpretation as Akkadian texts was suggested in the past, but these proposals carry little conviction and must be counted among those that WILLIAM M. BRASHEAR included in his Glossary of voces magicae ‘for the sake of completeness (and for the amusement of the reader)’.27 More recently JOANN SCURLOCK claimed that the use of sequences like ηια ευω υαε ευω ιαε in the voces magicae was derived from the esoteric explanation of a list of Sumerian verbal affixes (u – a – i – e) as being associated with deities, elements and parts of the cosmos.28 In view of the fact that the use of vowel sequences in the voces magicae is explained by the texts themselves as the combination of the seven vowels of the Greek alphabet which may be combined in different order (ιουωαεη etc.),29 a derivation from a Babylonian learned linguistic theory, which is, at present, known from only one Late Babylonian commentary text, seems far-fetched. The true commonalities between the two bodies of texts are far less specific: in Mesopotamian and Graeco-Egyptian magical texts voces magicae are used, though in comparison with the Greek magical papyri this type of recitations – Assyriologists call them ‘abracadabra’ incantations – is less common in Mesopotamian magic. Also em24 See BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3598, for the attestations. GRESE, in GMPT, 102, n. 8, identifies SAMAS in PGM V 1–53 (GMPT, 101–2) as a ‘Canaanite solar deity’. SEMESILAM (σεμεσιλαμ; see BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3598; MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum, 376) is certainly Hebrew (for its interpretation as SmS owlm, cf. LEICHT, Qedushah, 159, n. 57 [comm. J.F. QUACK]). 25 WEITZ, Sarapis, 362; cf. PGM XIII 109–10, 194–5, 666 (GMPT, 175, 178); but see BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3591, s.v. λου. 26 WEITZ, Sarapis, 359–60. 27 WEITZ, Sarapis, 361; BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3591. 28 See SCURLOCK/AL-RAWI, Weakness, 371–2, with reference to passages like PGM II 158 (GMPT, 17). The esoteric explanation of the Sumerian verbal affixes is found in a commentary on the first entries of Neo-Babylonian grammatical text no. 1 (Esoteric Commentary, lines 14–15); see FRAHM, Text Commentaries, 49 with n. 198. FRAHM’s translation is superior to SCURLOCK’s interpretation of the passage. 29 Cf., e.g., PGM X 36–50 (GMPT, 150); PGM XIII 206–9 (GMPT, 178); PGM LXIII 4–7 (GMPT, 294–5); see also MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum, 376–7. For the more specific vowel sequence, with a rising number of letters from one α to seven ω, see FARAONE/KOTANSKY, Inscribed Gold Phylactery, 265–6.

Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae

69

ploying combinations of graphemes as apotropaic spells forms part of both traditions. This may have led to similar forms of esoteric interpretations which, if in contact, may have offered common ground between scholars educated in the two traditions.30 4.3. Rites and materia magica If Ištar-šumu-ēreš, a Babylonian exorcist in late fourth century Uruk, could by any chance have perused the Greek magical papyri, he would have encountered a foreign world, populated by rituals he had never heard of, deities with strange names, exotic plants, allusions to myths he did not know. Nevertheless, he would not have found it difficult to understand the function of a foreign plant like laurel if someone had explained to him that laurel in that body of magical texts played a similar role as ēru, a kind of wood (probably willow) he knew well from his own training as an exorcist.31 He would also have been familiar with many of the purposes of the rituals in the Greek texts: making someone fall in love, gaining favour with authorities, soothing anger, bringing people back to where they belong, making a business thrive, purification, warding off demons, protecting houses – for all these purposes he would have been able to produce rituals from his own tradition. Also the use of phylacteries, potions, salves and fumigations would have appeared familiar to him. He would not have been surprised by the important role of divination rituals, although most of the divinatory techniques would have been new to him. Ištar-šumu-ēreš would have readily agreed that smearing the doorposts with an apotropaic substance protects a house, that magnetic stones possess special power, and that at the end of some rituals one should go away from the ritual locale without turning back.32 He would have known from his own tradition that plants had more than one name, but he would have argued that the secret name of lupine is not ‘blood from a head’ (αἷμα ἀπὸ κεφαλῆς: PGM XII 438), but ‘lard from a white male pig mottled with 30

As noted by FRAHM, Text Commentaries, 49, n. 198, the association of the four Sumerian verbal affixes with what seem to be the four elements (fire, water, wind, mountain) in the Esoteric Commentary is intriguing and may be owed to Greek ideas about the elements (στοιχεῖον meaning both ‘cosmic element’ and ‘simple sound of speech’, ‘letter’). Note in this context the association of the Greek vowels with cosmic regions in PGM XIII 823–41 (GMPT, 191; cardinal directions, air, sky and earth). 31 For the probable identification of ēru-wood with willow, cf. STEINKELLER, Foresters, 91–2; note that an identification with laurel, as proposed by CAMPBELL THOMPSON, Dictionary, 298–300, can be safely excluded. 32 For smearing doorposts, see PGM II 150–54 (GMPT, 17); for a similar rite in a Babylonian ritual, cf., e.g., Maqlû, ritual tablet, 129’. For leaving the ritual locale without turning back, see PGM VII 439–40 (GMPT, 129); the directive ana bītīšu iššer ana arkīšu lā ippallas ‘he must go straight home without looking back’ is often found among the final instructions of Babylonian magic rituals (this parallel was observed early on; see KESSLER, Lukian, 101–2). For the use of magnetite in a love spell, see PGM IV 1722 (GMPT, 69). The stone šadânu ṣābitu ‘magnetite’ to Babylonians and Assyrians was not only known as the ‘stone of truth’, but was also used for gaining favour and sexual attractiveness; see POSTGATE, Mesopotamian Petrology, 218; SCHUSTER-BRANDIS, Steine, 425. For the use of stones in Babylonian magic rituals more generally and the reception of Mesopotamian lapidary lore in the Graeco-Roman world, see REINER, Astral Magic, 119–32.

70

Daniel Schwemer

red’ (Uruanna III 48; see CAD T 238, s. v. tarmuš). Incantations addressed to a personified plant with special powers he would have known well; nevertheless the incantation Σὺ εἶ ἡ Ζμύρνα ἡ πικρὰ ἡ χαλεπὴ ἡ καταλλάσσουσα τοὺς μαχομένους ‘You are Myrrh, the bitter, the difficult, who reconciles combatants’ in PGM IV 1496–595 would have been entirely unknown to him, even though the phrasing of the opening line would have sounded strangely familiar to someone who knew incantations like Attā imḫur-līm šammu ša ina maḫri aṣû ‘You are “Heals-a-thousand”-plant, the herb that emerged in former times’.33 Ištar-šumu-ēreš would have been knowledgeable about some of the symbolic gestures employed in the rituals of the Greek magical papyri: rings and knotted strings could be used in rituals to gain the favour of authorities and exert power over them, sweet apples were helpful in love magic, and substitute figurines could be employed for manipulating other persons.34 But the contexts in which these symbolic gestures were performed would all have looked foreign to an exorcist from Hellenistic Uruk, and only remotely related to the rituals of his own tradition where the same items and gestures appeared. 4.4. Mythological motifs Only few similarities can be observed between the mythology and cosmology of the Greek magical papyri and cuneiform magical texts. The idea that the Netherworld is a safe depository for impurity and that the deities of the Netherworld and ghosts can be called on as helpers is certainly shared by both bodies of texts. Overall, however, the invocation of Netherworld deities is much more common in the Greek texts, and the dealings with ghosts seem to be more unreserved than in Mesopotamian exorcistic rituals.35 The image of the Netherworld as enclosed by seven walls with seven gates through which those who enter the city of the dead have to pass probably originates in Mesopotamia, but circulated widely across the ancient Near East already in the second half of the second millennium BCE. As argued by WOLFGANG FAUTH, the apparent occurrence of this motif in PGM LXII 12–16 (GMPT, 292) may well have been influenced by these older models.36

33 CMAwR I, text 7.8, 3.: 17’–30’; for this type of incantation in Babylonian anti-witchcraft rituals, see SCHWEMER, Abwehrzauber und Behexung, 58; SCHWEMER, Evil Witches, 184–5, and SCHWEMER, ‘Form Follows Function’, 270. 34 For the use of a ring, see PGM V 304–69 (GMPT, 106–7); PGM XII 201–69 (GMPT, 161–3); for tying knots, see PGM XIII 250–52 (GMPT, 179); for the use of apples, see SM 72.5–15 (= PGM CXXII; GMPT, 316); for the use of a wax doll, see SM 97 (= PGM CXXIV; GMPT, 321). These rituals and some of their Mesopotamian parallels were discussed by C. FARAONE in various contributions; see especially FARAONE, From Magic Ritual; FARAONE, Molten Wax, and FARAONE, Binding. 35 A ritual like PGM IV 1390–495 (GMPT, 64–6), for example, would have been unthinkable in a Mesopotamian context: ghosts of slain gladiators are enlisted as helpers for gaining the love of a woman; this is achieved by throwing little balls of bread that have been contaminated with the bloodied soil of the arena into the woman’s house. 36 See FAUTH, Dardaniel.

Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae

71

Another trace of Babylonian mythology was identified by CHRISTOPHER FARAONE in an incantation for inflammation assigned to a Syrian woman: the reference there to seven water-carrying maidens is related, FARAONE argues, to the widespread motif of the seven water-carrying daughters of Anu in Babylonian incantations.37 ROBERT K. RITNER, however, rejects this hypothesis and draws attention to a more closely related Egyptian model for the seven blue-eyed maidens of the Greek incantation.38 In PGM VII 319–34 (GMPT, 126), a brief ritual for obtaining a vision, the cosmos is invoked to be still and quiet so that nothing may disturb the divination ritual. A similar plea, in which the regions of the cosmos are asked to stand still for the performance of a magic ritual, is known from the Babylonian anti-witchcraft ritual Maqlû, but the resemblance is too general and the contexts too different for this to be more than a structural parallel.39 4.5. Astral magic Nocturnal rituals and the invocation of astral deities are common features of Mesopotamian magic from early on. In the Persian and Hellenistic Periods the zodiac emerges as a tool for determining the favourable point of time for the performance of a ritual, enhancing the traditional hemerological methods.40 In view of the strong influence that Mesopotamian learning exerted on the astronomy and astrology of the Graeco-Roman world, traces of ‘Chaldean’ astral expertise may well be expected in the Greek magical papyri. At first glance, there are indeed some similarities: the instruction to perform a ritual when the moon is in opposition to the sun is well known from āšipūtu rituals, as is the invocation of Ursa Major, the Wagon Star (ereqqu) of the Mesopotamian night sky. But otherwise the relevant astral rituals in PGM bear no resemblance to their known counterparts in Mesopotamian āšipūtu.41 The closest parallel between a Graeco-Egyptian and Mesopotamian piece of astral magic can be found in PGM VII 284–99, a short instruction on the suitable dates for certain magic rituals according to the position of the moon in the zodiac. This instruction is structurally similar to the late versions of the Mesopotamian Exorcist’s Almanac (see 5.); but here too an actual textual correlation is excluded by the many specific differences.

37

PGM XX 4–12 (GMPT, 258–9); see FARAONE, Mystodokos, 297–333. RITNER, Wives of Horus, passim; I am indebted to J.F. QUACK for pointing me to this reference. 39 For this section of Maqlû, see SCHWEMER, Empowering the Patient, 325–7. 40 For the introduction of the zodiac as an exact coordinate system for astronomy at about 400 BCE, see BRITTON, Studies, and OSSENDRIJVER, Mathematical Astronomy, 2; the use of the constellations in astronomical and astrological texts is older, of course. 41 For a ritual to be performed when the moon stands in opposition to the sun, see PGM IV 2217– 26 (GMPT, 77); for similar instructions in Babylonian rituals, see SCHWEMER, Fighting Witchcraft. For rituals before Ursa Major, see PGM VII 686–702 (GMPT, 137–8); for Babylonian rituals before the same constellation, see, e.g., CMAwR I, texts 10.1 and 10.2. 38

72

Daniel Schwemer

5. The Exorcist’s Almanac: Graeco-Egyptian magic in cuneiform? In recent discussions of the relationship between Graeco-Egyptian and Mesopotamian magic traditions, much attention has been devoted to a small group of cuneiform texts which are concerned with favourable dates for the performance of āšipūtu rituals and therapies. This group of texts or individual tablets of this group are often referred to as the Exorcist’s Almanac in Assyriology.42 The earliest of these texts, published as STT 300 and edited recently by MARK GELLER, formed part of the library at Neo-Assyrian Ḫuzirīna (Sultantepe); according to its colophon, the amulet-shape tablet was written in the late seventh century BCE by a young scribal apprentice43 and contained ‘incantations, cuneiform knowledge from the tablet house’.44 The text provides favourable dates for more than seventy specific ritual types by month and day; occasionally periods of time are indicated (months, or certain days of one month or several months). In total about a hundred days throughout the year are specified (see Appendix 1 for a tabular overview of the tablet’s contents). A fragment from Hellenistic Uruk, published as BRM IV, 19, is closely related to STT 300. Like STT 300, this Late Babylonian text provides favourable dates for the performance of āšipūtu rituals. All rituals listed in BRM IV, 19 are also contained in STT 300, and the recommended dates are mostly identical.45 In contrast to STT 300, the rituals in BRM IV, 19 are arranged in two annual cycles which, in total, seem to contain fewer entries than STT 300. Most importantly, BRM IV, 19 indicates not only calendrical dates for the performance of the rituals, but combines dates in the calendrical format with dates in a zodiacal format.46 In doing this, the text derives the basic zodiacal position from the calendrical date by simple transfer; thus the 21st day of Kislīmu (ix) corresponds to Sagittarius (ix) 21° (see obv. 5′–6′). In addition, BRM IV, 19 provides a second zodiacal position, the so-called micro-zodiac. According to the micro-zodiac, the 30°-area of each zodiacal sign is subdivided into twelve sections (dodekatemoria) which are again named after the zodiacal signs. Each zodiacal posi42 The two Late Babylonian sources were first edited by UNGNAD, Besprechungskunst (edition of BRM IV, 19 and 20); a new edition can be found in GELLER, Melothesia, 27–58 (edition of STT 300; BRM IV, 19 and 20). The texts were discussed by BOTTÉRO, Mythes et rites, 100–112; REINER, Astral Magic, 108–12; STOL, Epilepsy, 115–17; SCHWEMER, Abwehrzauber und Behexung, 160–61. A comprehensive analysis and partial edition of all three sources was given by SCURLOCK, Sorcery. 43 STT 300 rev. 21–5; see already HUNGER, Kolophone, no. 362; the tablet is dated to the postcanonical eponym Bēl-aḫu-uṣur. For amulet-shape tablets and the magic diagram on their lug, see REINER, Plague Amulets; MAUL, Zukunftsbewältigung, 175–90; CMAwR II, commentary on text 11.4. 44 STT 300 rev. 19: šipātu(ÉN.MEŠ) mu-du11-tu sam-tak-ki bīt(É) tuppi(⸢DUB⸣) (literally: ‘incantations, knowledge of the wedges of the tablet house’); for a different reading and interpretation, see GELLER, Melothesia, 50, 57. 45 For a tabular overview of the contents of BRM IV, 19, see Appendix 2. Only very few dates are slightly different in the two texts: ritual no. 17 (STT 300: ii 13; BRM IV, 19: ii 12); no. 41 (STT 300: vii 16–20; BRM IV, 19: vii 11); no. 58 (STT 300: viii 28; BRM IV, 19: viii 18); no. 58 (STT 300: viii 28; BRM IV, 19: viii 21). 46 See STOL, Epilepsy, 116; differently ROCHBERG, Path of the Moon, 157–8, who, however, does not explain the motivation of giving the first position in the zodiac (λ1) twice.

Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae

73

tion corresponds to a micro-zodiacal position which is calculated by multiplying the degree of the zodiacal sign by twelve and advancing in the circle of the zodiac by that number. 47 Thus the sign corresponding to Sagittarius 21° is Virgo 3°, because the distance between Sagittarius 21° and Virgo 3° is 252° = 21°×12 (see Appendix 3 for a tabular overview). Another, fully preserved Late Babylonian tablet preserves a parallel text to BRM IV, 19. The tablet, which belonged to Iqīšâ, a well-known scholar and exorcist in late fourth century Uruk, was published as BRM IV, 20.48 This text, which apart from minor differences contains the same list of rituals as BRM IV, 19,49 gives no calendrical dates at all, but indicates favourable periods of time for the performance of āšipūtu rituals by zodiacal sign only (qaqqar mul… ‘region of constellation …’); occasionally two or even three possible zodiacal signs are named (for a tabular overview of the content of the text, see Appendix 3). Mostly, the constellations given in BRM IV, 20 are not the zodiacal positions directly derived from the calendrical dates, but the calculated micro-zodiacal positions, as documented in BRM IV, 19 (but in BRM IV, 20 without an indication of the degree).50 Most of the zodiacal attributions in BRM IV, 20 are therefore twice removed from the original hemerological recommendation in the calendrical format, as attested in STT 300. The simple zodiacal date format of BRM IV, 20 is found in two further Late Babylonian texts: like BRM IV, 20, the Late Babylonian fragment SpTU V, 243 was found at Uruk, though it probably comes from a different, slightly earlier, library context.51 The small fragment LBAT 1626 (BM 35537 = Sp 3, 43) was probably found at Babylon.52 The indication of dates for the performance of magic rituals by zodiacal sign is also attested in ritual texts of that period.53 47

This was first described for BRM IV, 19 by NEUGEBAUER/SACHS, Dodekatemoria; see also ROCHBERG, Path of the Moon, 157–8. 48 For the library of Iqīšâ, see CLANCIER, Bibliothèques, 47–61, with previous literature. 49 Ritual no. 27 is listed in BRM IV, 19, but not in BRM IV, 20; rituals nos. 49, 68, 69 are listed in BRM IV, 20, but not in BRM IV, 19. 50 At the end of BRM IV, 20, a commentary section is added that explains a number of the technical ritual terms. The subscript of this commentary section refers to the incipit of the commented text as ‘10th Nisannu: the (favourable) time period (for rituals for) changing (someone’s) mind’ (itiBÁRA U4.10.KAM ud-da-kam ŠÀ.BAL.BAL). Moreover, not all entries in the commentary are included in the preceding text in BRM IV, 20. Thus, SCURLOCK and FRAHM are certainly right in assuming that the commentary associated with the zodiacal almanac was based on a text that included dates in a calendrical format and was closer to a text like STT 300; see SCURLOCK, Sorcery, 125; FRAHM, Text Commentaries, 31 and 128. 51 See CLANCIER, Bibliothèques, 58–9 and 399. The fragment was edited by VON WEIHER, SpTU V, 35–6, and by GELLER, Melothesia, 59–60. 52 LBAT 1626 was discussed by REINER, Astral Magic, 110–11 (cf. also SCURLOCK, Sorcery, 125), and edited by GELLER, Melothesia, 58–9. 53 Cf., e.g., SpTU II, 23 obv. 1–2: rituals for loosening an adversary’s grip on the 10th of Ayyaru and in Virgo of Taurus (corresponding to the hemerological date in STT 300 obv. 7 and the microzodiacal date in BRM IV, 20 obv. 3; see ritual no. 14 in the tabular overviews in Appendix 1 and 3); BM 47457 obv. 15: instruction of performing a ritual for being popular and successful in the area of Virgo.

74

Daniel Schwemer

As is evident in BRM IV, 19, the original relationship between the calendrical and the astral date format is mechanical. The astral date therefore probably refers to the position of the sun in relation to the zodiac with a simplified correlation between (the day of the) month and (the degree of the) zodiacal sign. It is less clear how the attribution of a ritual to a calculated micro-zodiacal sign is relevant to the date of its performance and how it can be used on its own, as in BRM IV, 20, without any reference to the pertinent primary zodiacal constellation. Based on Graeco-Roman parallels, ERICA REINER suggested that the references to the signs of the zodiac in texts like BRM IV, 20 refer ‘to the region of the sky where the moon stands in that particular moment’.54 In view of the close connection between the calendrical date and the zodiacal attribution, this seems to be an unlikely scenario for the primary zodiacal attributions. But it may well apply to the calculated constellations and would thus provide a set of favourable time periods that is entirely different from the original hemerological recommendations in the calendrical format. Given that the moon moves swiftly through the zodiac within a month, the lunar-zodiacal system would also produce a multiplication of suitable dates. The use of the zodiac for indicating the right period of time for performing magic rituals certainly connects the Late Babylonian exorcist’s almanacs with Greek magical texts like PGM VII 284–99 (cf. supra, 4.5). In her thorough analysis of STT 300, BRM IV, 19 and IV, 20, JOANN SCURLOCK argues that the zodiacal dates are not the only feature shared with Greek magical texts, but that the types of rituals listed in the almanacs include ‘originally non-Mesopotamian’ rites that show a marked GraecoEgyptian influence. Moreover, SCURLOCK recognises in the hemerological dates of STT 300 an Egyptian calendrical pattern.55 I remain unconvinced by her arguments for the following reasons: first, although it is true that the 10th and the 21st day of a month are often mentioned in STT 300, many other days of the month occur as well. On the whole, the calendrical dates of STT 300 do not suggest an Egyptian 36 weeks – 12 months pattern. Why one would regularly pick the last day of the first decan and the first day of the last decan also remains unexplained. The types of rituals listed in STT 300 and the related texts include defensive and aggressive rituals. The terminology used for the rituals is traditional Sumerian and Akkadian in the technolect and specialist orthography that is characteristic for this genre of text. I count 104 entries in STT 300.56 Of these, 46 have a defensive, cathartic

54

REINER, Astral Magic, 108. SCURLOCK, Sorcery, passim, especially 125, 143. The opposite process was argued by MATTHEW W. DICKIE already several years ago, who remarked with regard to similarities between GrecoRoman and Mesopotamian magic and, more specifically, between Babylonian texts like the Exorcist’s Almanac and Bolus of Mendes: ‘There is the very real possibility that texts originally written in Akkadian on cuneiform tablets were translated into the lingua franca of Babylonia and Syria, Aramaic, and that they made their way to Egypt through the medium of that language.’ (DICKIE, Learned Magician, 188). 56 This number may be slightly too high. It is not always entirely clear which items form one ritual. For example, rituals nos. 34 and 35 may have to be combined. Also rituals nos. 64–6 may have to be interpreted as only one ritual (thus SCURLOCK and GELLER; cf. the following footnote). 55

Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae

75

or therapeutic character.57 A further twelve are rituals for gaining attractiveness and success and thus prevailing in society (é-gal-ku4-ra and similar).58 28 ritual types represent aggressive rituals with the goal of exerting power over other people (e.g., lovemagic of various kinds, forcing back runaway slaves, soothing an adversary’s anger or removing a man from his office). These kinds of rituals formed a ‘grey area’ in Mesopotamian magic. They were not considered illegal and exorcists copied tablets with instructions for them; but they were – understandably – regarded with suspicion, and some of them were occasionally included in catalogues of methods of witchcraft in the prayers recited during anti-witchcraft rituals.59 Five ritual types are ambiguous, neither defensive nor aggressive, or unclear.60 57 Rituals nos. 1, 3–4, 7–17, 20, 27–8, 31–2, 43–50, 56–7, 63–5, 72, 75, 82, 85–6, 89–90, 92, 96– 7, 102–4. The passage STT 300 rev. 1–3 (nos. 60–71; cf. BRM IV, 19 rev. 34–8, 20 rev. 39–42) is difficult: [ it] iAPIN U4.28.KÁM LÚ IGI ⸢LÚ⸣ ZI-e ŠÚR.ḪUN.GÁ NU! GABA.RI lu ÚŠ ⸢TAG4 lu lú UŠ11⸣.Z[ U lu munusUŠ11.Z] U, lu! MUNUS! DINGIR !(text: [ MU]NUS? lu DINGIR) DU11.DU11 ⸢lu⸣ IDIM ina É.GAL ZI-ḫi KIMIN ana ŠÀ DAB.DAB SAG.DU LÚ ana DAB-[tim], [ L] Ú ÁG LÚ ana KU5-si MUNUS ÁG KI MUNUS ana KU5-si DÍM-ma AL.[ SIL] IM, ‘28th Araḫsamna: Making a man rise against another man; calming an adversary’s anger; not being receptive to slander; or causing a dead person to depart; or (against) a warlock; or (against) a witch; or making a prophetess speak; or removing a magnate from the palace. Ditto: for seizing the ‘heart’; for seizing a man’s head; for alienating a beloved man from a man; for alienating a beloved woman from a woman. You perform (it on that date), then it will be successful’. SCURLOCK and GELLER understand the phrase lu lúUŠ11.ZU lu munusUŠ11.ZU lu MUNUS DINGIR (thus clearly in BRM IV, 19) DU11.DU11 (BRM IV, 19: šu-ud-bu-bi) to refer to only one ritual (here nos. 64–6). If this were correct, the characterisation of these rites as ‘defensive’ would, of course, be rather doubtful. Note also that SCURLOCK, Sorcery, 137, interprets KIMIN in STT 300 rev. 2 as a repetition mark for lu ÚŠ (thereby connecting nos. 68–9), whereas I take it to refer to a repetition of the date. 58 Ritual nos. 24, 33, 51, 54–5, 58–9, 62, 78–9, 98–9. The reading of ritual no. 99 (STT 300 rev. 14) is unclear. I remain unconvinced by the reading proposed by GELLER, Melothesia, 50, 57 (with a collation by S.V. PANAYOTOV, p. 53); é-lat ‘beyond’ would be very unusual, with regard to usage and orthography; also KÚRUN.NA-⸢su⸣ ‘of his tavern’ can hardly be right: sābû means ‘tavern keeper’, not ‘tavern’ (the copy records traces of the expected LÚ before KÚRUN.NA). 59 For this area of Mesopotamian magic, see SCHWEMER, Abwehrzauber und Behexung, 159–60, and SCHWEMER, Ancient Near East, 29, 39–41. Relevant are the following ritual types in STT 300 (and the related texts): nos. 5, 18–19, 22–3, 25–6, 30, 36–9, 41, 52–3, 60–61, 67–71, 77, 81, 87–8, 93, 100–101. GELLER, Melothesia, 55, translates entry no. 30, IGI.NIGIN.NA, as ‘bringing about a volte-face’. The Sumerogram IGI.NIGIN.NA usually stands for ṣūd pānī ‘vertigo’ or ṣīdānu ‘vertigo’, literally ‘spinning (of the face)’. This condition was associated with states of confusion and derangement. As a type of ritual IGI.NIGIN.NA designates rites that caused the condition of ‘vertigo’ in another person and, as such, this kind of ritual is included in lists of methods of witchcraft within antiwitchcraft incantations; see CMAwR I, text 8.3, 1.: 23; Maqlû I 91 and IV 12; SCHWEMER, Washing, 49, 54–5 (= CMAwR II, text 7.12); KAR 35 obv. 16 (with duplicates, ed. CMAwR II, text 11.4). SCURLOCK, Sorcery, 126, regards the ‘inclusion of homosexual magic (love of a man for a man …)’ as a certain indicator that the ritual types listed in STT 300 are influenced by Greek tradition. The relevant entries are no. 25 (KI.ÁG NITA ana NITA ‘love (magic), male to male’) and nos. 70 and 71 ([ L] Ú ÁG LÚ ana KU5-si ‘for alienating a beloved man from a man’ [the two later texts have ‘king’ here!]; MUNUS ÁG KI MUNUS ana KU5-si ‘for alienating a beloved woman from a woman’). The ritual types nos. 70 and 71 refer, I would argue, to a more general concept of râmu (‘to love’, ‘to feel affection’, ‘to cherish’, rather than ‘having sex with’). This line of argument may also be applied to ritual type no. 25 (thus BOTTÉRO, Homosexualität, 467–8; cf. also NISSINEN, Homoeroticism, 35),

76

Daniel Schwemer

Finally, there are eleven entries that name methods of harmful witchcraft:61 ‘distortion-of-justice’ magic (DI.BAL.A, dibalû); hate-magic (ḪUL.GIG, zīru); ‘cutting-of-thethroat’ magic (ZI.KU5.RU.DA, zikurudû); ‘seizing-of-the-mouth’ magic (KA.DAB.BÉ.DA, kadabbedû). These entries were understood by ERICA REINER, MARTEN STOL and myself to refer to the well-attested defensive rituals against these types of witchcraft.62 In contrast, JOANN SCURLOCK and MARK GELLER have argued that the references to these four methods of witchcraft should be interpreted literally as referring to the performance of witchcraft – after all, the entries do not say ZI.KU5.RU.DA.BÚR.RU.DA ‘Undoing “cutting-of-the-throat” magic’ etc.63 Those who prefer to interpret the entries as defensive rituals can point to the fact that the apparent methods of witchcraft are mentioned side by side with UŠ11.BÚR.RU.DA, rituals for undoing witchcraft, in STT 300.64 Also it would be surprising if an āšipūtu almanac included favourable dates only for these types of black magic without naming any dates for the widely attested, corresponding defensive rituals. The interpretation of the entries as referring to aggressive witchcraft rituals is, however, not only supported by the ostensible meaning of the entries. It is clear from other texts that the specific methods of witchcraft like zikurudû were less stigmatised than kišpū (UŠ11), the main term for witchcraft; indeed one prescription for kadabbedû is preserved.65 Furthermore, no. 34 in our almanac texts (‘Rituals for entrusting a person to a ghost’) indeed looks very much like a description of even though KI. ÁG NITA ana NITA should be compared with the structurally parallel entries KI.ÁG NITA ana MUNUS ‘love (magic) male to female’ (nos. 18 and 22) and KI. ÁG.GÁ MUNUS ana NITA ‘love (magic) female to male’ (no. 19), where a sexual connotation is certainly understood. However, intimate friendship between men, homoeroticism and homosexual practices were neither unknown nor deemed generally illegal in ancient Mesopotamia, though being the passive partner in anal intercourse between two men was regarded as a disgrace to be suffered only by prostitutes (see COOPER, Buddies, 82–4, for this interpretation of Middle Assyrian Laws, A 19 and 20; cf. also NISSINEN, Homoeroticism, 19–36). 60 No. 76 is unclear. No. 2 (‘Acquiring and calming head-illness’) is phrased as aggressive and defensive. Nos. 66 (‘Making a prophetess speak’) and 84 (‘Locating treasure’) are neutral, though one could argue that ritual type no. 66 implies exerting power over the woman who is to serve as a prophetess. SCURLOCK interprets no. 42, ‘Inviting (qerû) a god or a goddess’, as a ritual for summoning deities to a banquet, as is attested in Greek rituals; according to her, in traditional Mesopotamian thought such an action would amount to suicide. It is true that ‘being called (qerû) by one’s personal gods’ is a euphemism for dying in Akkadian; but this is unrelated to inviting a deity for an offering, an action well attested in Mesopotamian royal inscriptions and literature. 61 Nos. 6, 21, 29, 40, 73–4, 80, 83, 91, 94–5. 62 See REINER, Astral Magic, 109–10; STOL, Epilepsy, 115 (implicitly); SCHWEMER, Abwehrzauber und Behexung, 160–61. 63 SCURLOCK, Sorcery, passim; GELLER, Melothesia, 27. For the explicit rubric ZI.KU5.RU.DA.BÚR.RU.DA, see, e.g., BAM 461 (ed. CMAwR II, text 10.6.2). But note the reference to rites against zikurudû as né-pe-ši ša ZI.KU.RU.⸢DA⸣.M[ EŠ] in PARPOLA, Letters, 300 obv. 4’. 64 See STT 300 obv. 4, rev. 4. Also compare the implicit phrasing in rev. 18: ina 12 ITI.MEŠ kal MU.AN.NA U4.27.KÁM U4.28.KÁM U4.29.KÁM SAG.ḪUL. ḪA.ZA DÍM -ma ⸢AL.SILIM⸣, ‘Over twelve months, the whole year, the 27th, 28th (and) 29th day: (ritual against) the Sangḫulḫaza-demon. You perform (on one of those dates), then it will be successful’. Nobody would suggest that simple SAG. ḪUL. ḪA.ZA here implies anything but a ritual for dispelling that demon. 65 See SpTU II, 22 + III, 85 rev. IV 11–12 (ed. CMAwR II, text 3.4, 3.: 5–6).

Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae

77

(illegal) witchcraft; but it should be noted that all the phrases of this entry are negated in STT 300 (but not in the corresponding entries in BRM IV, 19 and 20).66 Overall, there can be no doubt that the exorcist’s almanacs – the hemerologies with calendrical dates and the astral magic texts with (micro)-zodiacal dates – included both defensive and aggressive ritual types – whether the latter included even ritual types that were usually regarded as witchcraft remains a moot point. Aggressive rituals were well known in Mesopotamian āšipūtu; and for a number of the types of aggressive rituals mentioned in the almanac texts, ritual instructions have been found in the tablet collections of Babylonian and Assyrian āšipu-exorcists.67 In our overall perception of Mesopotamian āšipūtu, the aggressive rituals – like love-magic, rituals for defeating competitors or for forcing back runaway slaves – tend to be marginalised. This tendency is, in my view, not due to a ‘non-Mesopotamian’ character or origin of these aggressive rituals, but rather to the fact that our perception of Mesopotamian āšipūtu rituals relies heavily on the royal tablet collections of Nineveh (the so-called ‘Library of Ashurbanipal’) which usually seem not to have incorporated the aggressive rituals.68 These rituals may have been considered unnecessary for the protection of the king, but the king’s scholars may also have regarded them as dubious. In any case, it is worth noting that not one of the extant sources of the so-called Exorcist’s Almanac comes from Ashurbanipal’s Library.

6. Conclusions A comparative reading of the rituals and incantations attested in the Greek magical papyri and the Mesopotamian lore of āšipūtu shows that there are significant parallels between those two bodies of magical texts. One can observe very few specific similarities that may be regarded as unquestionable cultural borrowings (in particular the use of the name of Ereškigal). Moreover, there are a number of more general similarities that may well be due to cultural contacts and the diffusion of certain rites and

66

See SCHWEMER, Abwehrzauber und Behexung, 161; SCURLOCK, Sorcery, 134, wonders whether the scribe was ‘confused or could … not bring himself to list these rites without canceling them, as it were’. 67 For love magic, see SCHWEMER, Akkadischer Liebeszauber, 70–71, n. 27; for rituals for calming an enemy’s anger and success at court, see SCHWEMER, Abwehrzauber und Behexung, 128, and STADHOUDERS, Time to Rejoice; for a leather pouch for inflicting ‘seizing-of-the-mouth’ (kadabbedû) on an adversary, see SpTU II, 22 + III, 85 rev. IV 11–12 (cf. SCHWEMER, Abwehrzauber und Behexung, 129); for rituals to force back runaway slaves, see LKA 135 obv. 11–16 (cf. also BM 40482); for a short ritual that would ensure the obedience of slaves, see BM 36330 l. e. 27–30 (cf. SCHWEMER, Ancient Near East, 40). For Sm 1379, a small fragment with behavioural omens referring to the performance of aggressive magic and witchcraft, see SCHWEMER, Abwehrzauber und Behexung, 159–60 (an almost equally fragmentary duplicate of this text has now been identified by H. STADHOUDERS in the Babylon collection of the British Museum). 68 But note that a (pseudepigraphic?) request by Ashurbanipal for collecting tablets from Babylonian libraries explicitly includes rituals of the genre é-gal-ku4-ra; see CT (BM) 22, 1: 22, ed. FRAME/GEORGE, Royal Libraries, 280–81.

78

Daniel Schwemer

symbolic gestures across the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. But since the Greek and Mesopotamian texts in which these similarities can be observed are, as texts, dissimilar and clearly unrelated to each other, the diffusion of these motifs remains, necessarily, an ill-defined process that was probably fairly removed from our actual sources. The isolated way in which the name of Ereškigal is used in the Greek magical texts confirms the hypothesis of a distant relationship. Closer contacts and mutual influences may be attested in the Hellenistic Period, especially in the area of astral magic. But the interpretation of the exorcist’s almanacs as evidence of a transformative influence of Greek magic on Mesopotamian āšipūtu from the seventh century onward does not, in my view, stand up to scrutiny. By way of conclusion, I would like to emphasise the narrow scope of the present study which was concerned with a very limited body of texts. There can be no doubt that a more comprehensive comparative approach to Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Greek magical texts would reveal more common traditions and motifs between these bodies of texts,69 even though the scarcity of relevant sources from second and first millennium Syria will always hamper our understanding of the diffusion of Mesopotamian magical lore in the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond.

69 Examples have, of course, already been identified. Apart from the contributions mentioned above (especially by E. REINER and C. FARAONE), cf., e.g., FISCHER-ELFERT, Sāmānu, or various remarks on the similarities between the use of magic stones in Mesopotamian āšipūtu and in Pliny’s Naturalis historia in SCHUSTER-BRANDIS, Steine (147 with n. 381; 425 with n. 810).

Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae

79

Appendix 1 Tabular overview of the hemerological data in STT 300 (consecutive numbering of rituals by the author): No. Month Day 1 i 1–30 2 1–30 3 4 [?]–30 5 10 6 21 7 21 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ii 10 15 12 16 17 13 18

iii

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ii, iii iv

26 27 28 29 30 31

v

Ritual purpose Acquiring potency Acquiring and calming head-illness Loosening an adversary’s grip Removing lilû-demon and epilepsy Changing someone’s mind ‘Distortion-of-justice’ magic Undoing witchcraft Illness not to approach a man Curing (a disease of) the head Dispelling raʾību-disease Healing a wound Stopping a woman’s bleeding Evil not to approach a house Loosening an adversary’s grip Undoing a curse Keeping a curse away from a man Removing lilû- and ardat lilîdemons 10 Making a man fall in love with a woman 21 Making a woman fall in love with a man 4 Removing illness 30 Hate-magic 30 Making a man fall in love with a woman 1–30 Love-magic Succeeding at court 10 Making a man fall in love with a man 21 Attracting a woman 12 Removing lilû- and ardat lilîdemons 21, 29 Undoing love-magic(?) affecting a man 10 ‘Cutting-of-the-throat’ magic 10 Causing ‘vertigo’ 29! Removing various forms of epilepsy, ‘hand-of-a-god’ and ‘hand-of-aghost’

Akkadian terminology ŠÀ.ZI.GA SA[ G].KI.DA[ B] TUK-e

ù [n]u-[u]ḫ-ḫi

Š[ U?].[D] U8?.⸢A?⸣

[ LÍL].LÁ.EN.NA AN.TA.[ ŠU] B.[ B] A ⸢ZI⸣-ḫi ŠÀ. BAL.BAL DI.B[ AL].A UŠ11.BÚR.DA

⸢ana⸣ NA G[ IG]-⸢šú⸣ NU TE-e SAG.D[ U] ana TI-ṭi

⸢ra-i-ib-šu⸣ [ana š]u-ṣi-i [s]i-im-ma ana T[ I-ṭ]i MÚD MUNUS ana KU5-si ḪUL ana É NU TE-e ŠU.DU8.A NAM.⸢ÉRIM.BÚR⸣.DA [NA]M.ÉRIM ana LÚ KU5-si LÍL. LÁ.EN.NA KI.SIKIL LÍL. LÁ. EN.NA Z[ I]ḫi KI.⸢ÁG⸣ NITA ana MUNUS KI.⸢ÁG.GÁ⸣ MUNUS ana [NI] TA G[ IG?] ⸢ZI?-ḫi?⸣ ḪUL.GIG KI. ÁG NITA ana MUNUS KI.⸢ÁG⸣ É.GAL. KU4.RA KI. ÁG NITA ana NITA

[MUNUS GIN].NA LÍL. LÁ.EN.NA KI.SIKIL LÍL. LÁ. EN.⸢NA⸣ ZI-

ḫi [ KI?.Á] G? NITA ana MUNUS ana [ B]ÚR-ri [ Z] I.⸢KU5⸣.[R] U.DA IGI.NIGIN.NA AN.[ T] A.⸢ŠUB.BA⸣ be-en-nu d⸢lugal-ir9⸣-ra ŠU.DINGIR.RA ŠU.⸢GIDIM⸣.MA ZI-ḫi

80 32 33 34

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

Daniel Schwemer vi

iv, v

–

vii

10 11, 21 16–20 16, 17

17 21 vi, vii – viii

58 59 60

10! 21 24

10 21 22

28

viii

28 28

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

KIMIN

Purification by the river ordeal Succeeding at court Rituals for entrusting a person to a ghost (but negated in this text!)

d

⸢ÍD⸣ KÙ.GA

É.GAL. KU4.RA

⸢GIDIM⸣ DAB-ti KI LÚ ana NU KÉŠ!(ka) NU LÚ ana ÚŠ NU pa-qá- ana ŠÉŠ-ši ana NAG.NAG-e Dispelling losses šu-ṣi-i Frightening a female rival DAM.TAB. BA pur-ru-di Removing a man from his position ù LÚ ina KI.GUB-šú ZI-ḫi Calming an adversary’s anger ŠÚR!(sag).ḪUN.GÁ Attracting a woman MUNUS GIN.NA ‘Cutting-of-the-throat’ magic ZI.KU5.⸢RU⸣.DA Attracting a woman MUNUS GIN.NA Inviting a god or a goddess DINGIR ana qé-re-e d15 MIN Curing sagallu-disease SA.GAL ana TI-ṭi Purifying a house É ana ḫu-up-pi lú Confining an ill person GIG ana e-se-ri (~ Bīt mēseri) Curing an anal disease DÚR.GIG ana TI-ṭi Curing a bladder stone NA4 ana TI-ṭi Stopping bowel movements ŠÀ.SI.SÁ ana ka-le-e Removing a fever KÚM-ma ana ZI-ḫi lú Confining an ill person GIG ana e-se-ri Having a good reputation in the LÚ ina É.GAL MU.NE ana MUNUS.SIG5 MU palace Removing a man from his office ana LÚ ina qí-ip-ti-šu ZI-ḫi Setting a man against another man LÚ ina IGI LÚ GAR-ni Being in good repute with a prince NUN ina É.GAL MU.NE ana SIG5-ti MU Being popular and attractive IGI-ka [ana I]GI-ka SÙ!(muš) lú Confining an ill person GIG ana e-se-ri Removing lilû- and ardat lilîLÍL. LÁ.EN.NA KI.SIKIL LÍL. LÁ. EN.NA ZI-ḫi demons Nobles not being receptive to slan- IDIM u ⸢NUN⸣ EME!(ka).SIG NU GABA.RI der Not encountering slander NU IGI šil-la-ta Making a man rise against another LÚ IGI ⸢ LÚ⸣ ZI-e man Calming an adversary’s anger ŠÚR.ḪUN.GÁ Not being receptive to slander NU! GABA.RI Causing a dead person to depart lu ÚŠ ⸢TAG4⸣ Against a warlock(?) ⸢lu lúUŠ11⸣.Z[ U] Against a witch(?) [lu munusUŠ11.Z] U Making a prophetess speak(?) lu! MUNUS! DINGIR! DU11.DU1 Removing a magnate from the ⸢lu⸣ IDIM ina É.GAL ZI-ḫi palace Seizing the ‘heart’ ana ŠÀ DAB.DAB Seizing a man’s head SAG.DU LÚ ana DAB-[tim] Alienating a beloved man from a [ L] Ú ÁG LÚ ana KU5-si man Alienating a beloved woman from a MUNUS ÁG KI MUNUS ana KU5-si woman

Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

viii

ix

–

10 21

12 [?]

Purifying a man ‘Distortion-of-justice’ magic ‘Seizing-of-the-mouth’ magic Undoing witchcraft Unclear Making a woman talk (love magic) Having a good reputation Having a good reputation

‘Seizing-of-the-mouth’ magic Causing someone to abandon his plans or knowing about them(?) 82 ix [?] Removing lilû- and ardat lilîdemons 83 ‘Seizing-of-the-mouth’ magic 84 x [10] Locating treasure 85 11 Gaining a god’s favour 86 Soothing a god’s anger 87 21 Slaves not to flee 88 Slaves to be true to their master 89 Gaining a god’s favour 90 Soothing a god’s anger 91 12 ‘Cutting-of-the-throat’ magic 92 Removing lilû- and ardat lilîdemons 93 xi 10 For a wife not to be attracted by other men 94 21 Hate-magic 95 ‘Distortion-of-justice’ magic 96 xii 27 Undoing witchcraft 97 28 Keeping evil away from a house 98 29 Brisk trade for a tavern 99 Unclear, concerning a (harbour?) tavern 100 x, xi 21 Slaves not to flee 101 Slaves to be true to their master 102 xi, xii 27 Undoing witchcraft 103 xi, xii – Uncanonical spells 104 i–xii 27–29 (Dispelling) an evil demon

81

LÚ ina KI ⸢kib⸣-ra ŠU.GUR-ri DI.BAL. A KA.DAB.BÉ.DA

ana BÚR-ri x [MUNUS] DU11.DU11 a-mir-ka ŠU.SI ana SIG5-tim ta-ra-ṣi [ana] ⸢SIG5⸣-ka ŠU.SI ⸢SIG5⸣-ti ana ⸢ta⸣-raṣi KA.DAB.BÉ.DA qí-b[it K] A-šú ana šu-ud-di-i ù lu ZU UŠ11

IGI x

LÍL. LÁ.EN.NA KI.SIKIL LÍL. LÁ. EN.NA ZI-ḫi KA.DAB.BÉ.DA ši-kin KÙ.SI22 KÙ.BABBAR DINGIR IGI.BAR DINGIR.ŠÀ.DAB.⸢BA⸣ BÚR ⸢ÌR NA⸣ NU Z[ ÁḪ] ŠÀ ÌR u GÉME KÚR DINGIR IGI.BAR DINGIR.ŠÀ.DAB.BA BÚR-ri ⸢ZI.KU5.RU.DA⸣ [ L] ÍL. LÁ.EN.NA KI.SIKIL LÍL. LÁ. EN.NA ZIḫi MUNUS [ana NIT] A ⸢IGI NU ÍL⸣ ḪUL.GIG DI.BAL. A UŠ11.BÚR.RU.DA GÌR [ Ḫ] UL-tim

ina É NA KU5-si iš-di-iḫ LÚ.KÚRUN.NA sa-da-ri É kur a x [x i]š-⸢di-iḫ LÚ.KÚRUN⸣.NA ⸢KAR? TUK!??⸣ ÌR NA NU ZÁḪ ŠÀ ÌR u GÉME NU KÚR UŠ11.BÚR.RU.DA TU6.TU6 BAR.RA SAG. ḪUL. ḪA.ZA

82

Daniel Schwemer

Appendix 2 Tabular overview of the preserved sections of BRM IV, 19 (numbering of rituals indicates correspondences to STT 300): No. Month Day 54

viii

10

55

viii

21

77

ix

10

78

ix

21

84

x

10

87 88 93

x

21

xi

10

94

xi

21

96 97 98 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 17 27

xii xii xii i

27 28 29 21

Zodiacal sign Scorpio (viii) Scorpio (viii) Sagittarius (ix) Sagittarius (ix) Capricorn (x) Capricorn (x) Aquarius (xi) Aquarius (xi) Pisces (xii) Pisces (xii) Pisces (xii) Aries (i)

10°

MicroRitual purpose zodiacal sign Pisces (xii) 10° Being in good repute with a prince

21°

Leo (v)

3°

10°

Aries (i)

10° Making a woman talk

21°

Virgo (vi)

3°

10°

Taurus (ii)

10° Locating treasure

21°

Libra (vii)

3°

21°

Slaves not to flee Slaves to be true to their master Gemini (iii) 10° For a wife not to be attracted by other men Scorpio (viii) 3° Hate-magic

27° 28° 29° 21°

Aquarius (xi) Pisces (xii) Pisces (xii) Capricorn (x)

21° 4° 17° 3°

ii iv

12 12

Taurus (ii) 12° Cancer (iv) 12°

Libra (vii) Sagittarius (ix) Leo (v)

6° 6°

31

v

29

Leo (v)

29°

34 35

vi

24

Virgo (vi)

24°

41 42 43 44 45

vii vii

11 16

Libra (vii) Libra (vii)

11° 16°

10°

Being popular and attractive

Having a good reputation

Undoing witchcraft Keeping evil away from a house Brisk trade for a tavern; eclipse Undoing witchcraft Illness not to approach a man Curing (a disease of) the head Dispelling raʾību-disease Healing a wound Stopping a woman’s bleeding Evil not to approach a house Removing lilû- and ardat lilî-demons Removing lilû- and ardat lilî-demons

17° Removing various forms of epilepsy, ‘hand-of-a-god’ and ‘hand-of-a-ghost’ Cancer (iv) 12° Rituals for entrusting a person to a ghost Dispelling losses Aquarius (xi) 23° Attracting a woman Aries (i) 28° Inviting a god or a goddess Curing sagallu-disease Purifying a house Confining an ill person

Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae 46 47 48 58

viii

18

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

viii

21

80

ix

12

85 86 36

[x]

[11]

[iv/v]

[…]

Scorpio (viii) Scorpio (viii)

18°

Gemini (iii)

Curing an anal disease Curing a bladder stone Stopping bowel movements 24° Nobles not being receptive to slander

21°

Leo (v)

3°

Taurus (ii)

6°

Taurus (ii)

23° Gaining a god’s favour Soothing a god’s anger […] Frightening a female rival

Sagittarius 12° (ix) [Capricorn [11°] (x)] [Cancer/Leo […] (iv/v)]

[Capricorn (x)]

83

Not encountering slander Setting a man against another man Calming an adversary’s anger Not being receptive to slander Causing a dead person to depart Against a warlock(?) Against a witch(?) Making a prophetess speak(?) Removing a magnate from the palace Seizing the ‘heart’ Seizing a man’s head Alienating a beloved man from the king Alienating a beloved woman from a woman ‘Seizing-of-the-mouth’ magic

84

Daniel Schwemer

Appendix 3 Tabular overview of BRM IV, 20 (numbering of rituals indicates correspondences to STT 300): No. 5 6 14 15 18 19 25 26 29 30 32 33 38 54 51 55 77 78 84 87 93 94 96 97 98 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 17

Ritual purpose Changing someone’s mood ‘Distortion-of-justice’ magic Loosening an adversary’s grip Undoing a curse Making a man fall in love with a woman Making a woman fall in love with a man Making a man fall in love with a man Attracting a woman ‘Cutting-of-the-throat’ magic

Constellation Leo (v) Aquarius (xi) Virgo (vi) Aquarius (xi) Libra (vii)

Relation to month Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac

Pisces (xii)

Micro-zodiac

Scorpio (viii) Aries (i) Sagittarius (ix); Gemini (iii)

‘Averting-the-face’ magic (or vertigo?) Purification by the river ordeal Succeeding at court Calming an adversary’s anger Being in good repute with the king Having a good reputation in the palace Being popular and attractive Making a woman talk Having a good reputation Locating treasure To return a runaway (slave)

Gemini (iii)

Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac; unclear Micro-zodiac

For a wife not to be attracted by other men Hate-magic Undoing witchcraft Keeping evil away from a house Brisk trade for a tavern Undoing witchcraft Illness not to approach a man Curing (a disease of) the head Dispelling raʾību-disease Healing a wound Stopping a woman’s bleeding Evil not to approach a house Removing lilû-demon

Capricorn (x) Cancer (iv) Aquarius (xi) 5° before […] Pisces (xii) Leo (v) Aries (i) Virgo (vi) Taurus (ii) Leo (v); Libra (vii) Gemini (iii)

Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac Unclear Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac Unclear; microzodiac Micro-zodiac

Scorpio (viii) Aquarius (xi); Pisces (xii) Taurus (ii); Aquarius (xi) Cancer (iv); Aquarius (xi) Capricorn (x)

Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac; zodiac Unclear; unclear Unclear; unclear Micro-zodiac

Taurus (ii); Libra (vii)

Zodiac; micro-zodiac

Beyond Ereškigal? Mesopotamian Magic Traditions in the Papyri Graecae Magicae 17 17 31 34 35 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 70 71

80 2 1 – 100 85 86 36 37 52 53

Removing the ardat lilî-demon

Taurus (ii); Gemini (iii); Sagittarius (ix) Removing lilû- and ardat lilî-demons Sagittarius (ix) Removing various forms of epilepsy, Leo (v) ‘hand-of-a-god’ and ‘hand-of-a-ghost’ Rituals for entrusting a person to a Cancer (iv) ghost Dispelling losses Attracting a woman Libra (vii) Inviting a god or a goddess [Aries] (i) Curing sagallu-disease Purifying a house Confining an ill person Curing an anal disease Curing a bladder stone Stopping bowel movements Removing a fever Nobles not being receptive to slander Gemini (iii) Not encountering slander [Leo] (v) Making a man rise against another man Calming an adversary’s anger Not being receptive to slander Causing a dead person to depart Against a warlock(?) Against a witch(?) Making a prophetess speak(?) Removing a magnate from the palace Alienating a beloved man from the king Alienating a beloved woman from a woman ‘Seizing-of-the-mouth’ magic [Taurus (ii)] Acquiring and calming head-illness […] Acquiring potency […] Consent of the king […] Slaves not to flee Scorpio (viii) Gaining a god’s favour Taurus (ii) Soothing a god’s anger Frightening a female rival Capricorn (x) Removing a man from his position Removing a man from his office Aries (i) Setting a man against another man

Zodiac; unclear; unclear Unclear Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac

Zodiac Micro-zodiac

Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac

Micro-zodiac Unclear Unclear Unclear Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac Micro-zodiac

85

PART II CULTURAL PLURALITY AND FUSION IN THE GRAECO-EGYPTIAN MAGICAL PAPYRI (PGM/PDM)

SINGLE HANDBOOKS AND MAGICAL TECHNIQUES

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context1 RICHARD GORDON The complex transcultural resources drawn upon by the so-called Greek magical papyri have exercised scholars almost since the dawn of serious papyrology.2 Yet, apart from the Demotic texts, of paramount importance for their linguistic interest, the genre was, until the ’80s and ’90s of the last century, almost entirely ignored by Egyptologists, for whom these texts were simply too late and too hybrid.3 Almost all the scholars involved in the creation of the first edition of KARL PREISENDANZ’s Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri, such as ADAM ABT, LUDWIG FAHZ, RICHARD WÜNSCH and later SAM EITREM, were highly skilled Hellenists with a special interest in Greek religion; apart from PREISENDANZ himself, none were professional Greek papyrologists.4 Given that ALBRECHT DIETERICH (†1908), the spiritus rector of 1

I thank the organisers for the invitation to the stimulating conference in Heidelberg and for their careful comments on previous drafts. This paper covers some of the same ground as RAQUEL MARTÍN, Coherent Division, which was written at much the same time, but quite independently. I have attempted to incorporate her results into my argument. In keeping with usages found in these texts, I regularly use the italicised terms praxis/pragma/stele (or their plural forms) to denote what are often termed individual ‘spells’, a word I try to avoid. When the word ‘praxis’ occurs without italics, I intend it in the abstract Foucaldian sense, to denote this knowledge-practice as a whole. 2 GORISSEN, Ontwikkelingsgang; BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3398–408; more briefly FOWDEN, Egyptian Hermes, 168–72. PREISENDANZ seems originally to have considered using the title Corpus Papyrorum Magicarum, which would have been a better choice, though still too narrow: PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae I, viii. The term ‘griech. Zauberpapyri’ goes back to the Copticist GUSTAV PARTHEY’s edition of the two Berlin papyri in 1865 (PARTHEY, Zwei griechische Zauberpapyri). 3 Demotic: apart from GRIFFITH/THOMPSON, Demotic Magical Papyrus, note JOHNSON, Leiden I 384; JOHNSON, Louvre E 3229; also BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3396–8; DIELEMAN, Priests, 11–16, 25–9, 40–41. J.F. QUACK is organising in Heidelberg a completely new edition of the Demotic magical texts. As for Coptic, once ADOLF ERMAN became too old to help, PREISENDANZ recruited GEORG MÖLLER to edit the relevant sections, but he died prematurely in 1919 and was replaced by the Luxemburg Copticist ADOLF JACOBY, with some help from Father ANGELICUS KROPP: PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae I, ix; II, vi. Numerous detailed, though often far-fetched, suggestions, esp. about voces magicae, were made in reviews by the Gymnasium teacher K.F.W. SCHMIDT in the 1930s, e.g. SCHMIDT, Review of PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.). 4 Several of the earliest transcriptions, on which PREISENDANZ and his team relied heavily, were however made by scholars we would now call papyrologists, such as GUSTAV PARTHEY, CARL WESSELY and FREDERICK KENYON. SAM EITREM taught himself papyrology in order to edit P. Oslo 1 =

92

Richard Gordon

the original enterprise (which was to have taken the form of a plain Teubner edition), had viewed these texts as ‘griechische Zauberpapyri’,5 it was thus more or less inevitable that the most significant early responses to PGM were also written by philologically-trained historians of later Greek religion, for whom the Egyptian content was more or less impenetrable or irrelevant to their interests.6 The poetic sections in particular were considered part of the history of Greek hymns – even by ULRICH WILA7 MOWITZ-MÖLLENDORFF, for whom these texts were otherwise beyond the pale. During the long interval between the completion of a preliminary draft of PGM vol. I (1913) and the final publication in 1928, T. HOPFNER had not only already edited many of the texts but also brought out their syncretistic Egyptian-Greek character.8 His work however was almost totally ignored (for understandable reasons) until REINHOLD MERKELBACH arranged for a type-written edition to be published (1974–1990).9 By PGM XXXVI (publ. 1925), and contributed considerably to the improvement through autopsy of the readings of the large formularies in Paris, Berlin and London: EITREM, Papyrus magiques; EITREM, Berliner Zauberpapyri; EITREM, Greek Magical Papyri. 5 See already the introduction to his Bonn dissertation (1888), which was a re-edition of C. LEEMAN’s version of PGM XII: DIETERICH, Prolegomena. DIETERICH used to read texts from the magical papyri in his Oberseminar, well aware that they were despised by the great majority of Hellenists. His justification was based on their value for Religions- and Kulturgeschichte, i.e. new types of approach to Classical and post-Classical antiquity. The suggestion that a German translation be included for readers who might not be familiar with Greek and Coptic came from RICHARD WÜNSCH, who had edited a small selection of interesting defixiones for school use: PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae I, ix. 6 NOCK, Greek Magical Papyri; FESTUGIÈRE, Valeur religieuse; EITREM, ‘Papyrologie und Religionsgeschichte’; EITREM, Magische Gemmen; NILSSON, Religion. 7 DIETERICH had previously (DIETERICH, Abraxas, 97–101) commented on several of the hymns, e.g. the ‘hymn to Helios’ in PGM IV 939–48, and wanted to edit them himself: PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae I, viii. After the death of RICHARD WÜNSCH on the Russian Front in 1915, they were eventually edited by PREISENDANZ and published in an appendix to vol. II (1934); most of his versions were however replaced by ALBERT HENRICHS in the 1973–1974 edition with the texts created by HEITSCH, Griechische Dichterfragmente. For WILAMOWITZ’s not always brilliant comments on PGM XII 244–52 = Hymnen 1, see VON WILAMOWITZMÖLLENDORF, Commentariolum, 30. 8 The publication of vol. I of Papyri Graecae Magicae was delayed for years not just by the deaths of key individuals but also by uncertain readings (esp. of the Berlin texts [5025, 5026] and P. Mimaut) and financial problems. The two volumes of HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber (1921–1924) were originally issued in a version in CARL WESSELY’s own hand-writing and were not only extremely difficult to read but offered no translation. Though no Egyptologist, SAM EITREM too was very aware of the Egyptian context and used the term ‘syncretistic’ already in the 1920s: EITREM, Rituelle διαβολή; EITREM, Sonnenkäfer. 9 I know nothing about the relations between HOPFNER and PREISENDANZ. The latter did however reprint in vol. III three texts from WESSELY’s collection that HOPFNER had edited, and made use of his work for the Index: PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae II, ix. He also specifically mentions HOPFNER’s successive contributions to Archiv Orientální on Egyptian divine names in the papyri. Vol. II of the first edition (1931) contained only PGM nos. VII–LX + 20 Christian texts and the ‘hymns’; nos. LXI–LXXXI were due to appear in vol. III, all the blocks of which were destroyed by the bombing of the Teubner printing-house in Leipzig in 1941, though fortunately a set of proofs survived and the new texts at least were added by HENRICHS to vol. II2.

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

93

that time, though, it had been rendered largely superfluous, not just by the succession of papers published after the Second World War by the now elderly PREISENDANZ insisting on the syncretistic character of the texts,10 but by a series of individual studies by Egyptologists demonstrating Pharaonic antecedents for specific passages and practices in the formularies.11 We should here add the tireless work of two Greek papyrologists, WILLIAM BRASHEAR in Berlin and P.J. SIJPESTEIJN at Leiden, in reinforcing awareness of the Egyptian cultural context through their publication of new texts.12 The latter indeed, by including magical gems among his interests, contributed significantly to the modern recognition that no clear division can be drawn between the praxis attested by the texts on papyrus, ostraka and lead and the amuletic texts/images on semi-precious stones.13 The decisive step in forcing recognition of the Egyptological frame of the magical papyri was however the decision by HANS-DIETER BETZ not only to include in GMPT (1985) translations of the Demotic texts but to recruit ROBERT RITNER to add numerous explanatory Egyptological footnotes to the English translations.14 This move corrected one of the most serious errors in the basic planning of PGM, though the older ‘activated’ texts on materials other than papyrus and ostraka were still omitted, a failure that was only made good by the editors of Supplementum Magicum, who finally decided to ignore the narrow papyrological limitation.15 Even so, their decision could hardly be retrospective, with the result that there 10

PREISENDANZ, Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte; PREISENDANZ, Zur synkretistischen Magie; PREISENDANZ, Zur Überlieferung. PREISENDANZ had himself used the expression ‘synkretistische Zaubertexte’ already in 1934 (PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae II, ix), though in these earlier years he usually preferred the briefer ‘Zauberliteratur’, ‘~papyri’, and omitted the descriptive adjective. The original intention had been to include in vol. II more informative commentaries, perhaps analogous to those in GMPT, but they all had to be removed on grounds of cost, which delayed publication by a further year: PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae II, v. 11 SAUNERON, Aspects et sort; RITOÓK, Neuer griechischer Zauberpapyrus; BERGMAN, Egyptian Theogony; BERGMAN, Nephthys découverte; RAVEN, Wax; PODEMANN SØRENSEN, Argument; KOENEN, Dream of Nektanebos. MARTIN SICHERL’s Prague dissertation (SICHERL, Tiere), directed by HOPFNER, was a casualty of the war years and remained virtually unknown; I owe my copy to the kindness of BILL BRASHEAR. 12 BRASHEAR, Berliner Zauberpapyrus; BRASHEAR, Zauberformular; BRASHEAR, Neues Zauberensemble; BRASHEAR, Magica Varia; BRASHEAR, Magical and Divinatory Texts; SIJPESTEIJN, Herbeirufungszauber; SIJPESTEIJN, Four Magical Gems; SIJPESTEIJN, Amulett gegen Skorpionstich; SIJPESTEIJN, Liebeszauber; SIJPESTEIJN, Einige Bemerkungen. 13 Despite PREISENDANZ’s Index and CAMPBELL BONNER’s explicit subtitle Magical Amulets, Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian (BONNER, SMA), gems were long filed away in a different mental compartment until the expansion of museum staffs made proper catalogues available, cf. esp. PHILIPP, Mira et magica (Berlin); MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum; MASTROCINQUE, Intailles magiques. See now the digital data-base co-ordinated by Dr. ÁRPÁD NAGY (Budapest) in the CAMPBELL BONNER project. This is not to say that magical gems were not also cut elsewhere, for example in Syrian workshops. 14 Apart from RITNER, Uterine Amulet (1984), most of his work on the practice of Egyptian magic was however published after GMPT (1985). 15 The basic design of PGM was actually decided off-hand by RICHARD WÜNSCH after DIETERICH’s death (PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae I, ix; II, v ‘offenbar willkür-

94

Richard Gordon

is even now no adequate collection of all texts belonging to the style of magical practice we term Graeco-Egyptian magic – the digital re-edition of the papyrus formularies currently planned in Chicago, however welcome, looks set to repeat the same mistake by ignoring ‘activated’ documents.16

1. Graeco-Egyptian magical texts: a working model The Graeco-Egyptian magical texts pose three major problems: 1. What is their relation to earlier Egyptian temple-practice in various languagephases and scripts? 2. Why are they written largely in Greek? 3. How is their syncretistic character best understood? It has long been recognised that in Pharaonic Egypt, a steeply hierarchical society with a specialised scribal-priestly class, the word Hk#, which most nearly approaches the term ‘magic’, is both the name of a divinity with cosmic reach and a substantive meaning roughly ‘powerful/effective speech’.17 High-ranking temple-priests disposed of the knowledge required to compose effective ritual texts, knowledge that might be employed positively (for protecting the king, a temple, a house or a tomb; for warding off snakes and scorpions; for healing) or negatively (for example, to destroy the enemies of Egypt).18 However ritual knowledge of a related order was not confined to the senior temple priesthood, since we hear of several other types of magical specialists, including ‘magicians’ (zᴈw or sᴈw), amulet-makers and medical practitioners specialising in afflictions caused by harmful spirits.19 We should probably allow for a wide range of practices and specialisms, within and outwith an institutional framework, the basic assumption being that those who dispose of the ritual knowledge of how to protect and cure are equally in a position to effect harm. Given the appropriate cosmological frame, ritual action in favour of A against B is, from B’s point of view, aggression by A. Especially in conflictual situations, there can only be claims and counter-claims, whose resolution, if any, is achieved through the working-out of asymmetrical social relations, i.e. the socially weaker party loses. ‘Events will be constructed and interpreted differently, depending on whether the active self is practitioner, victim, accused,

lich nach unklarem Plan angelegt’) which explains i.a. the odd decision to begin with the two longer Berlin papyri instead of e.g. P. Bibl. Nat. suppl. gr. 574 (PGM IV), P. Louvre 2391 (P. Mimaut = PGM III) or the two Leiden papyri (J 384 = PGM XII; J 395 = PGM XIII), all of which are far more important – WÜNSCH was outspokenly kaisertreu. It was impossible subsequently to change the order, since many of the slips for the Indices to vol. I had already been filled out by 1912. 16 See n. 80 below. 17 GUTEKUNST, Zauber. 18 KÁKOSY, Magia nell᾿antico Egitto; KOENIG, Magie et magiciens; KOENIG (ed.), Magie en Égypte; THEIS, Magie und Raum, esp. 64–257; THEIS, Defensive Magie; MAAßEN, Schlangen. A brief survey of literary genres: ALTENMÜLLER, Magische Literatur; a well-illustrated overview of the archaeological evidence in the Rijksmuseum exhibition catalogue: RAVEN, Egyptische Magie. 19 See recently THEIS, Magie und Raum, 49–58.

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

95

or quite unrelated to what is going on.’20 This conflictual or real-world aspect of Pharaonic magic is, with partial exceptions such as the Harem conspiracy against Ramses III (c. 1182–1151 BCE), the ‘ritual of breaking the red pots’ (sḍ dšrwt) and a variety of other objects employed in execration rituals, lost to us.21 If our knowledge of Dynastic magical practice is limited, the situation with regard to the post-Saite Period (after 664 BCE) is downright poor. Nevertheless it seems from J.F. QUACK’s work on the Book of the Temple that in larger temples at any rate the formal organisation of ritual life continued well into the Roman Period.22 He has also established that there is at least some continuity in the copying of magical recipes in Demotic throughout the Ptolemaic and into the Roman Period, while some apparently ‘late’ developments can already be found in one form or another in the Saite od.23 On the other hand, so far as is known, no specifically magical texts have turned up in the few temple-libraries, such as that at Tebtynis, which have been excavated. The transition to specifically Graeco-Egyptian styles thus remains obscure. We are thus obliged to operate with more general considerations. ROBERT RITNER has maintained that there is a direct continuity between Dynastic, i.e. temple-based, magical practice and the Graeco-Egyptian material;24 yet his chief evidence consists of a limited number of specific practices such as impersonation of a deity by the practitioner, threats to divinity, ‘ingestion of script’ and purity procedures. This simple position is impossible to sustain in view of the complexity of the new transcultural resources and the shift to Greek. DAVID FRANKFURTER has argued that temple-scriptoria were directly responsible for producing the Graeco-Egyptian texts, at any rate the longer formularies.25 A decade or two earlier, however, J.Z. SMITH had inferred from the formularies, which seem to assume individual practitioners conducting their rituals in private dwellings, that Graeco-Egyptian practice was no longer based on the temple.26 Working from the Greek side, C.A. FARAONE has argued that it was the appropriation by Egyptian practitioners of collections of Greek magical charms and incantations in 20

ELLEN, Introduction, 7. Harem conspiracy and similar events: RITNER, Mechanics, 199–201; KOENIG, Magie et magiciens, 165–6. Red pots: the best account is still VAN DIJK, New Kingdom Necropolis, 173–88, cf. VAN DIJK, Birth of Horus, 23–5 (on the possible psycho-social effects); see also RITNER, Mechanics, 144–53; QUACK, Ägyptische Einflüsse, 31–2; on the colour red: WARAKSA, Female Figurines, 106–13. Briefly on other execration rituals: ÉTIENNE, Heka, 35–51. For some cases of protection against perceived enemies see now QUACK, Reinigen. 22 QUACK, Buch vom Tempel; QUACK, Magie au temple. 23 QUACK, So-Called Pantheos; QUACK, Demotische magische und divinatorische Texte; QUACK, From Ritual to Magic; also his unpublished paper The Historical Development of Demotic Magic, given at the conference Egyptian and Jewish Magic in Antiquity: Contexts, Contacts, Continuities and Comparisons, organised by G. Bohak, R. Lucarelli and A. Bellusci, Bonn 5–9 July 2015. 24 RITNER, Mechanics; RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice. 25 FRANKFURTER, Religion, 210–14; cf. DIELEMAN, Priests, 286 (on P. Mag. LL). 26 J.Z. SMITH, Temple; cf. J.Z. SMITH, Trading Places. οἶκος, the usual word employed, can also mean any sort of dwelling, including a room attached to a temple. RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice, 3354, duly pointed out that it had always been the case that priests offered magical services outside the temple in their free time. It is not at all the case, however, that Graeco-Egyptian magic is ‘just the same’ as Pharaonic/Ptolemaic, and it is these shifts that must be explained. 21

96

Richard Gordon

verse circulating in Egypt during the late Hellenistic Period that prompted the gradual creation of a new synthetic style of practice.27 Still more recently LYNN LIDONNICI seems to work with a model of recipes owned not by ritual specialists but by private individuals for performing their own rituals, primarily for divination and prosperity.28 A major problem in all this has been the relatively late date both of the major formularies and the activated texts. Despite the massive loss of Ptolemaic- and early Roman-Period papyri, a handful of early magical papyri in Greek has been published.29 By far the most interesting of these is a text of the Augustan period that deploys several Egyptian features amounting to much more than simply invoking Egyptian deities but also includes a hexametric erotic praxis based on apple-throwing and another that includes a mini-narrative borrowed from the Greek trope of cursing: it is in fact by far the earliest evidence for the explicit programme of combining templetechniques with themes taken from Greek erotic lore. 30 The first century CE offers slightly more evidence for the development of this new style in different res,31 while the earliest evidence for the sophisticated stylistic features typical of Graeco-Egyptian practice, paragraphic devices, palindromes and charakteres, rather belongs to the early second century. As FARAONE has argued, the very earliest docu27

FARAONE, Handbooks, 195–7, 209–13. LIDONNICI, Compositional Patterns, 155, apparently imagines the first section (A) of her subformulary 2 (PGM IV 154–466) as appropriate to a private household: ‘A short roll with one really good divination and one really good erotic binding spell might have been a desirable item in many households’, cf. her Disappearing Magician. Although longer formularies contain an often bizarre mixture of different praxeis, it seems to me out of the question to imagine that such rituals could have been performed by individuals untrained in one or other of the relevant traditions (cf. FRANKFURTER, Dynamics) – we are not talking here about charms or magical methods that are local common knowledge. That does not imply that the texts of my category 3 were intended for practical use; indeed, I think a practical intention can be generally excluded. 29 The list in BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3412–14 is now somewhat out of date. The earliest surviving formularies are: PGM XX, the rather literary ‘Philinna’ papyrus, invoking named wise women from Syria and Thessaly; SM 71 = P. Monac. II 28 (formerly P. MonGr. inv. 216 = PGM CXVII), desperately fragmentary but with clear references to Osiris and Anubis but also to the Dioskouroi and Hades (both first century BCE); SM 72 (Augustan; see following note). Three others are dated roughly to the first century CE, later rather than earlier: P. Lips. inv. 429 = PGM LII (entirely Greek references); P. Oxy. 4468; SM 73 (see n. 31 below). SM 9, which BRASHEAR considered early, is dated by DANIEL and MALTOMINI to the third/fourth century CE. Apart from the Egyptian names, the earliest activated text, PGM XVI (first century CE), could have been written in Greece – there is no reference whatever to Egyptian religious Kulturgut. 30 SM 72 with the excellent commentary: two of the praxeis contain historiolae based on Egyptian divinities, Isis in the first case, Osiris, Amun and Isis-Nephthys in the second. 31 P. Oxy. 4468 = TM 63180 (Demotic in Greek characters: cf. QUACK, How the Coptic Script, 36; some hexametric poetry); in the same hand as PGM LII (Greek divinities only invoked); SM 73 (erotic; nothing clearly Egyptian but possibly a fragmentary sequence of voces, marked as such by means of a line above them); PGM LVII and LXXII are written on the same papyrus of late first/early second century CE; both cryptographic: LVII has the earliest known reference to a charakter, albeit in an unusual sense; LXXII is addressed by a practitioner to the Great Bear on behalf of a client, and involves writing out the request rather than uttering it. Both are rather successful examples of splicing the traditions. 28

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

97

ments suggest the use in Greek cultural environments of familiar magical conventions, including appeal to the skills of barbarian wise folk, as in the ‘Philinna papyrus’ (PGM XX).32 Of the Demotic papyri, J.F. QUACK has argued that the London-Leiden papyrus (P. Mag. LL), which is agreed to have been written during the third century CE, is a composite text, a few of whose recipes are in linguistic terms ‘traditional’, with at most a superficial modernisation, while most are in late Demotic, and it is these that show a greater degree of reliance upon Graeco-Egyptian models.33 The overall impression given by this text is that the recipes are far more Egyptian in character than many Graeco-Egyptian texts: it contains a number of words and phrases in Hieratic, clearly implying a temple-source here, and uses Egyptian scribal conventions, such as red ink for headings. At the time of redaction, the only scribes who could still compose in Demotic were temple-personnel.34 Such a date would fit with the emergence of intaglio magical gems and the earliest defixiones in the Graeco-Egyptian style found outside Egypt, which belong to the late second century. In the absence of adequate empirical materials, we must fall back on a model.35 The occasional appeal in the Graeco-Egyptian magical texts to authoritative praxeis or pragmata found in a specific temple (the earliest example is SM 72 from Abusir elMelek, at the entrance to the Fayum) or ascribed to a named practitioner of old, whether a king or a priest, continues, or at any rate cites, an ancient tradition of ‘findnotes’ in both literary and non-literary Egyptian contexts, as a device for establishing authority.36 On the other hand, the extensive familiarity of many praxeis with traditional techniques of temple magic, such as the use of eye-paint, purification with natron (bicarbonate of soda) or the availability of hieratic papyrus, to say nothing of complex theological schemes, 37 shows that temple-practice inspired parts of many praxeis, directly or indirectly. Yet if that were all, there would have been no reason either to shift from Egyptian to Greek or to incorporate so much Greek material into the practice.38 32

FARAONE, Handbooks, 197–209. QUACK, En route, 192 and 216. He also notes (p. 192, n. 6) that most of P. Louvre E 3229 (cf. JOHNSON, Louvre E 3229, translated as PDM Suppl. [GMPT, 323–30]) is somewhat earlier except for the poorly-preserved sections at the beginning and end. DIELEMAN, Priests, 293–4 also argued for a fairly long developmental process, the Theban scribes making use of Graeco-Egyptian as well as older Hieratic and Demotic texts. Note the incorporation of sections of Greek at col. 4, 9–19; 15, 25– 8; 23, 9–20 of P. Mag. LL, which are repr. as PGM XIV. 34 DIELEMAN, Priests, 293–4 suggests that this Graeco-Demotic style was developed ‘some time in the second or third century CE’. 35 I am grateful to JACCO DIELEMAN for stimulating discussions on these issues. 36 The earliest examples seem to occur on 12th Dynasty coffins; the earliest allusion to a discovery of a text in a temple seems to be found in two 18th Dynasty texts (P. BM EA 9900 and 10477); see HAGEN, Constructing Textual Identity, 192 and 197. In GORDON, Memory, 163–6, I argued that by the time of the redaction of the magical papyri this trope had become a form of memorialisation. 37 A fine example is the study of P. Mimaut (PGM III) 1–164 (PGM III.1) by HARRAUER, Meliouchos, 12–53 (with the correctives implied by the discovery that P. Mimaut is actually two separate texts, see n. 62 below). 38 DIELEMAN, Priests, 63, stresses the importance of the shift from Egyptian to Greek, a process that took place even earlier in other cultural spheres. 33

98

Richard Gordon

The most plausible explanation for these massive changes is the need for practitioners, some of them lower members of the priesthood operating now free-lance, others ritual specialists independent of the temple, to engage with clients whose primary language was Greek, not just in Alexandria but, more importantly I think, if we consider the wide distribution of these texts in the Fayum and Lower Egypt, the better-off inhabitants of the metropolises scattered all the way up the Nile, who in the second century were the beneficiaries of changes in land tenure, thanks to which the emergent elites were able to accumulate sizeable estates and in due course, under Septimius Severus, obtain city-status for their towns.39 These were the clients for whom in the first place protective amulets were written and intaglio gems cut. It was the demands of these clients for new types of magical services – new or at any rate differently conceived in Egyptian temple practice – for personal success and attractiveness, 40 for wresting women out of the power of their families, for breaking up existing relationships, for redressing wrongs, and their lack of interest in amulets against attacks by hippopotami, crocodiles, snakes and scorpions, and indeed healing in general, which were the staples of earlier practice (these clients lived in towns, did not go fishing on the river or wandering about in the bush, and could call on the service of schooldoctors; but they were afraid of daimonic attacks, sorcery and the evil eye, and they set great store by katarchic astrology). Practitioners were thus forced into a market situation in which they had to compete with one another for custom. The need to negotiate with socially-prominent Greekspeaking clients gave a powerful impetus to the abandonment of Demotic (which I assume remained the language employed in contact with monoglot speakers of Egyptian, gradually moving over into Coptic) and the adoption of Greek even in the praxeis (of course the great majority) that were hidden from clients. It was the situation of competition too that stimulated the sheer range of praxeis evidenced by the surviving texts, encouraging the most learned and skilled practitioners to produce highly elaborate, and therefore expensive, textual scenarios, but leaving plenty of space lower down the scale for extremely simple, not to say rudimentary, efforts.41 The adaptation of Greek hymnic material and metrical incantations, invocation of Hekate, astrological schemes, recherché materials from Greek mysteries, sacrificial procedures, the coinages of striking polysyllabic divine epithets, all these resources served subjectively to differentiate the truly skilled and knowledgeable practitioners from their competitors.42 And there, as I see it, lay their attraction. 39

See esp. TACHOMA, Fragile Hierarchies, 21–152. On the shift from Egyptian court-centred success-magic to Graeco-Egyptian charitesia, see QUACK, From Ritual to Magic; DE BRUYN, Anatomy. 41 The situation of competition was surely the main impetus behind the negotiation between ritual specialists and clients identified by CATHERINE BELL as crucial to change in ritual systems: C. BELL, Ritual Theory, 204–18. 42 Hymns: see the important series of editions and commentaries on the hymns in the review MHNH by CALVO MARTÍNEZ, e.g. Dos himnos; CALVO MARTÍNEZ, Himno hermético; CALVO MARTÍNEZ, Dos conjuros; CALVO MARTÍNEZ, Himno a Hécate-Selene etc.; now also the commentaries in BORTOLANI, Magical Hymns. Hekate: FAUTH, Aphrodites Pantoffel; CALVO MARTÍNEZ, Himno sincrético. Astrology: GUNDEL, Weltbild. Mysteries: BETZ, Magic and Mystery. Sacrificial proce40

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

99

Competition also worked in a different direction: practitioners required subjective reinforcement for the authority of the praxeis they formulated, and especially their voces magicae, vowel sequences and, where they used them, charakteres. This authority they acquired through revelation, dream, bowl divination, lychnomancy (lamp divination), so many ‘external’ legitimations of the authority of their individual praxis.43 Here they modelled themselves on more traditional Egyptian incubation and oneiromantic procedures.44 At the same time, they could add such divinatory skills to the range of services they offered: one or two passages imply market-place situations in which the practitioner is tested by having to declare the nature of the problem a client wishes to consult him about.45 The hierarchy of divinatory means, culminating in the face-to-face meeting with a deity (αὔτοπτος), corresponded to a continuum of perceived seriousness and difficulty, and so cost.46 We must also allow for a degree of reflexivity in the practice. An elaborate theology of Helios/Re/P(h)re, for example, is a distinctive mark of more ambitious praxeis.47 Although the texts themselves are not explicit, Origen knew that there was a theory of the nature of voces magicae, which encompassed both words in Egyptian (or ‘Egyptian’), Hebrew and ‘Persian’, as enabling direct communication with the other world.48 This belief that Hebrew names were inherently powerful surely stimulated the dures: ZOGRAFOU, Prescriptions. Commentary on major linguistic features: BARBER, Linguistic Study. 43 Lecanomancy: HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber II, §§ 228–72. Lychnomancy: ibid. §§ 212–27; ZOGRAFOU, Sous le regard; ZOGRAFOU, Magic Lamps; NAGEL’s contribution in this volume. Autopta: HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber II, §§ 120–61 (= II.1, 193–256). 44 E.g. QUACK, Präzision; QUACK, Postulated and Real Efficacy. 45 PGM III 264–75, 328–31 (now PGM III.2); V 256–66 and 291–7; cf. KOENEN, Dream of Nektanebos; FRANKFURTER, Voices. 46 There are no internal indications of charges or relative costs in the PGM, though they speak airily about gold, silver and pewter lamellae, linen garments and objects hard to obtain, such as a wolf’s eye or a hoopoe’s heart (though there were traders in this kind of thing, as in the developing world today), and imagine clients coming into the presence of a ‘king’ or ‘magnate’. The economics of magical practice is a massively understudied topic, even on the part of modern anthropologists, since informants prefer not to speak of such things (‘ein undurchsichtiges und sensibles Thema’: SÜNDERMANN, Spirituelle Heiler, 122). Based upon the evidence of LIEBAN, Cebuano Sorcery, the least expensive type of consultation/treatments in the Philippines in the 1950s were herbal-medicinal preparations, which almost all families could afford, and the most expensive, amulets made of semiprecious stones, which might cost 50 times as much. Prices in towns were considerably higher than on the land. GANANATH OBEYESEKERE and his co-workers found that the fees charged in the 1960s by shrines in Sri Lanka offering to perform malign sorcery were generally ‘within the means of the average peasant’, while individual ritual specialists (kattaḍirāla) might charge high fees to wealthy clients for similar services: OBEYESEKERE, Sorcery, 4–5. The Syrian spirit-healers studied by KATJA SÜNDERMANN in the 1990s claimed to leave payment up to the client, but also to know of other practitioners who charged considerably more and resented clients who gave too little (SÜNDERMANN, Spirituelle Heiler, 123–4). 47 See esp. FAUTH, Seth-Typhon; FAUTH, Helios Megistos, 34–120; also FARAONE, Collapse; PACHOUMI, Concepts of the Divine. 48 The most important passage is C. Cels. 1.24: ‘If we are able to prove that what is called “magic” is not, as the Epicureans and Peripatetics think, a wholly incoherent phenomenon but, as those who

100

Richard Gordon

appropriation of Hebrew divine, angelic and patriarchal names into Graeco-Egyptian practice, names that required no subjective confirmation of their power through divination.49 Finally, there is clear evidence of attempts to incorporate elements of theurgic and even Neo-platonist ideas into some praxeis, which gives us an important insight into the sheer range of possible resources available at the top end of this practice, recalling the synthesis of Greek and Egyptian speculation familiar under the general name of the Corpus Hermeticum.50 As I made clear in the introduction, the generation that created PGM thought of this practice in terms of ‘syncretism’, basically between Egyptian and Greek practice, with Jewish practice occupying an unstable but marginal position. 51 Ethnographers have generally little problem with this term, since for them it is paired with a counter-term, ‘anti-syncretism’: they take it for granted that, although there are no pure religious traditions, there are plenty of attempts to create them on ideological grounds.52 The (claimed) tradition of a family, sect, group, people or nation is thus an inherently political or instrumental construction, and constantly subject to alteration: ‘tradition is not the opposite of change’.53 In religious studies things may be different, since in that discipline degrees of subjectively-perceived assimilation may be more portant.54 Whether ‘hybridity’ and ‘fusion’ are more useful terms remains to be seen; the first at any rate has, until the rise of ‘entanglement’, been more fashionable.55 However that may be, it seems to me heuristically more useful to start from the notion of appropriation of cultural items, in this case those recognised as (potentially) relevant to a praxis that occupies a relatively specific niche high up at one pole of a are expert in it can demonstrate, quite coherent but whose principles are known only to a very few; then we will say that the “name” Sabaoth, and Adonai and all the others handed down among the Jews with great reverence are based not upon contingent or created things but upon a specific secret holy lore attributed to the creator of the world. That is the reason why these “names”, uttered in a particular imbricated sequence, have power; and so also the “names” uttered in the Egyptian language to invoke certain daimones which are powerful only in a given realm, and those uttered in the language of Persia to invoke other daimones, and similarly with each people’ (1.136.20–138.34, tr. BORRET, Origène), cf. also ibid. 5.45 (3.130.8–16 B.). See also PREISENDANZ, Ephesia Grammata. 49 See e.g. FAUTH, Arbath-Iao; CALVO MARTÍNEZ, Himno hermético; PACHOUMI, Personal Daimon. Apart from ‘Jewish’ angelic names, of which PREISENDANZ lists about 105 in Index § VIII (ending in -ήλ and -έλ, and excluding e.g. Sabaoth; cf. PETERSON, Engel- und Dämonennamen), the range of divine and patriarchal names in PGM is rather limited (cf. PREISENDANZ, Salomo). 50 See esp. PACHOUMI, Concepts of the Divine; more briefly, FRASER, Roman Antiquity, 123–5, 136–9. 51 I omit consideration of Near-Eastern, Iranian and Christian elements: the first two are more or less completely insignificant, the last an all too obviously transitional phenomenon dependent on the penetration of Christian practice into the Egyptian metropolis. 52 E.g. STEWART/SHAW (eds.), Syncretism/Anti-Syncretism. 53 SAHLINS, Anthropology of Modernity, 51; cf. KING, Koryak Traditions, 243–62. 54 See e.g. the contributions to BONNET/MOTTE (eds.), Syncrétismes religieux. DE BRUYN, Anatomy, continues to use the term syncretism without discomfort. The useful discussion by XELLA, ‘Syncrétisme’ ends by recommending the ethnographers’ perspective. 55 Cf. HOCK, Religion; HOCK, Beyond the Multireligious; BERGER/HOCK/KLIE (eds.), Religionshybride; BRETFELD, Dynamiken; also the new journal, Entangled Religions, edited from Bochum by V. KRECH.

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

101

notional continuum of effects achievable through performative ritual knowledge. The greater the range of skills claimed within the praxis, the greater will be the number of potential appropriations from distinguishable but analogous activities/texts originating from elsewhere in the contemporary culture. This holds, whether they are marked as ‘indigenous’ or ‘exogenous’ – the inside/outside boundary is continuously negotiable. The key criteria governing appropriation-strategies here is not alterity in itself but (1) the subjectively-perceived potential for adding theological, rhetorical or visual mass or weight, and (2) rarity value. What we need to focus on is the notion of an open-ended knowledge-praxis and, in the case of Ptolemaic-Roman magical practice, real-world shifts in the status of the bearers of that already diversified knowledge, uncertainty about its status, potential clients who could be made interested in needs they did not know they had, and the availability of written texts in a variety of modes and languages. The umbrella-term ‘Graeco-Egyptian magical texts’, which refers to the totality of texts ever written in this tradition, in a variety of languages and scripts, the vast majority of which are lost, thus covers a wide variety of individual and local practices, each with its own interests in extension through appropriation.56 We can model this by distinguishing between three levels of organisation: 1. Primary invention or adaptation of individual pragmata: this is the level of activity that is hardest for us to grasp, though we can find probable examples in activated documents deposited in groups by individual practitioners, for example at Athens and Hadrumetum, and in the evidence for adaptations of texts known from elsewhere in a different form.57 Individual texts of this type might be circulated to other practitioners within epistolary groups, decorated with a famous name or a puff,58 or sold to those lower down the hierarchy of knowledge who required specific types of text, primarily protective amulets or information about correct ritual procedures. 2. Collections of such primary materials acquired, perhaps over some years, by individual practitioners. Insofar as these were practical collections, a meta-level of reference was required, i.e. the more or less standardised names for different types of praxeis, such as lychnomanteion, oneiraiteton or diakopos, or those attributed to specific high-prestige practitioners in the past, such as Ieu, Pnouthis or Pibechis, or, in the specific case of P. Lond. I 121, Democritus, Moses, Pythagoras or Claudianus.59 The best complete surviving examples of such ‘middle-range’ collections, with a more or less distinct collector’s profile, are P. Oslo 1 = PGM XXXVI, with its unique collec-

56 We should not forget the wide variety of Textträger utilised for carrying texts and images in this tradition, splendidly laid out by BEVILACQUA, Scrittura. 57 E.g. JORDAN, Defixiones from a Well (Athens); GORDON, Competence; the best example of reproduction and alteration is the philtrokatadesmos whose most elaborate form is given by PGM IV 296–466; the known variants are well discussed by MARTINEZ, Greek Love Charm, cf. SM 46–51. 58 Puff: OED, sense 7: ‘…an extravagantly laudatory advertisement or review of a book, a performer or performance, a tradesman’s goods, or the like’. In our case, claims such as ποτήριον λίαν θαυμαστόν (PGM VII 643); see e.g. DIELEMAN, Priests, 275–6; GARCÍA MOLINOS, Recursos, 35–6. 59 Lists can be found in DIELEMAN, Priests, 263–70; for such claims in P. Lond. I 121, which invokes no Egyptian masters, but only Greek ones, see MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Selección, 22–6.

102

Richard Gordon

tion of imperative drawings,60 P. Berlin 5025 = PGM I, which contains two recipes for obtaining a paredros and an elaborate ‘Apollonian’ divinatory text,61 and P. Lond. 46 = PGM V, a now unbound codex concerned initially with higher-grade divination, but in which six of the ten praxeis, some of them very elaborate, lack a proper descriptive title. A somewhat different case is that of P. Mimaut = PGM III (= P. Louvre N 2391), which has recently been shown to consist of two different compositions, in two different languages, and written by two different scribes, but which were evidently kept rolled one inside the other, thus forming a tiny archive.62 3. Ambitious collections of materials, some based on individual collections as in (2) copied into a longer manuscript, others apparently viewed as repositories of a now vanishing tradition, yet others as ‘library-editions’ of especially complex praxeis. At least some of the texts acquired and later sold by Giovanni Anastasi fall into this category. Whatever view is taken of the ‘Theban Library’ story, without Anastasi’s texts we would have virtually no inkling of the sophistication and ambition of the upper levels of Graeco-Egyptian magical practice, or its relation to theurgy. If we are interested in getting beyond the individual activity of appropriation, we must feed in the notion of circulation: some explicit allusions in these texts to the epistolary exchange of individual praxeis, the use by the scribe of at least two versions of the same praxis with minor differences,63 the existence of parallel versions in different collections64 and deliberate alteration of Vorlagen, all these attest to circulation of texts, of which we can distinguish at least three different types: direct exchange between individuals living in close proximity to one another; gifts within informal corresponding circles (which might include individuals at a great distance), membership of which assumed rough equality of competence and knowledge; 65 and finally sale to practitioners at a lower level of skill. All of this circulation activity involved copying, and with copying came routinisation as well as errors of transmission, particularly in relation to voces magicae and drawings (which are often omitted in surviving formulary praxeis). Circulation also invited alteration and splicing, ‘improvement’ and adaptation to local conditions. It is in consideration of these secondary processes, essential to the establishment of a knowledge-tradition, that we can begin to speak of ‘synthesis’, the point at which the origin of appropriated items ceases to be noted and 60

For some speculations on the iconographic substrate of these images, see GRAHAM, Perseus. See the analyses and commentaries of CALVO MARTÍNEZ, ¿Licnomancia?; CALVO MARTÍNEZ, Himno a Helios, 162–3, 171–5. 62 LOVE, ‘PGM III’ Archive, 178: ‘On balance, “PGM III” is no more than a product of the synthetic text produced in Preisendanz 1928.’ It is thus proposed that they now be referred to as ‘PGM III.1’ and ‘III.2’. I thank Dr. LOVE for sending me a separatum. 63 E.g. PDM xii 47 (= P. Leid. J 384, col. I*, 26). 64 E.g. four versions of the same prayer to Helios (= Hymn 4 PREISENDANZ) are known from PGM I 315–25, IV 436–61, 1957–89 and VIII 74–81; three versions of the same prayer to Hermes (= Hymn 15/16 PREISENDANZ) are found at PGM V 400–420, VII 668–80 and XVIIb; two different versions of a διαβολή (= Hymn 19) occur in PGM IV 2574–610 and 2643–74. On the two versions of a request for an oracle from Bes (PGM VII 222–49 and VIII 64–110), mentioned below, see MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Two Requests. SM 90 is a much-edited version of a similar praxis, to the Headless god. 65 Recipes sent by a doctor in the Oxyrhynchite nome, perhaps to Thebes in Upper Egypt: P. Mag. LL, 1, 1 and 18, 7 = PDM xiv 1 and 528. 61

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

103

drops out of conscious awareness.66 It was only with the shift to a different source of textual authority, namely elements of Christian liturgical practice, that the synthesis is challenged and, over a period of some two or three centuries, eventually more or less completely replaced.

2. Ambitious collections As I have said, the category ‘ambitious collections’ is a mixed one, since it includes several distinguishable types of procedure, which again we can view as divergent models. One is represented by P. Leid. J 395 = PGM XIII, a well-written codex of eight double sheets, which contains basically two versions of the same long superpraxis in Greek, whose central element is a cosmogony;67 in the first case the praxis is represented as providing the ritual basis for pragmatic operations, such as becoming invisible, freeing oneself from physical constraints (chains) or extinguishing a dangerous fire.68 At the other extreme, the London-Leiden Demotic papyrus = P. Mag. LL, the longest surviving text in this tradition, is a roll containing 98 distinct praxeis, of very variable length and quality, which occupy 29 large columns on the recto and 33 smaller columns on the verso = 1229 lines.69 It contains numerous simple praxeis, in particular for healing, a topic, typical for Pharaonic and Demotic magic, that hardly occurs in Greek formularies (as opposed to activated amulets), many divinatory praxeis, especially dream oracles and lecanomancies with boy-medium and lychnomancies, and generally rather unsophisticated erotic praxeis that are quite different from the psychological motivation and imaginative drive of many Graeco-Egyptian praxeis.70 The sheer size and fine, careful script of this text suggest a deliberate at66 A good example is the claim in PGM XIII 38–9 that a series of voces beginning ανοχ is ‘Hebrew’, though that word means ‘I am’ in Egyptian. 67 The first three words of the second version are actually written on the very same line (343, at the bottom of p. 8 = ‘col. VIII’ in PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS’s edition) as the last two words of the first, ἔρρωσο, τέκνον. I briefly mention ROBERT DANIEL’s exemplary text with photographs en face (DANIEL, Two Greek Magical Papyri) in § 3.1 below. 68 I adopt the traditional view, represented by JACOBY and PREISENDANZ. They divided ll. 1–233 followed by 234–343 (specific applications); and ll. 343–734, followed by a series of complementary praxeis: 735–59; 761–822; 823–1001; 1001–56, followed by three brief praxeis (1057–77), of which only the title of the third was ever copied out. Ll. 933–1078 are written in a different hand from the earlier part. MO. SMITH, PLeid. J 395, repeated in GMPT, 181–2, cf. MO. SMITH, Eighth Book of Moses, argued that there are three different versions of the cosmogony, 1–343, 343–645 and 646– 734. MERKELBACH, Kosmogonie, and MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax III, commented only on 1-233. 69 The text is damaged at the beginning and strangely incomplete at the end. 70 The dominance of texts for healing (and protection from snakes/scorpions, crocodiles etc.) in earlier Egyptian practice can be seen from BORGHOUTS’s representative collection of translated texts (BORGHOUTS, Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts); divination: QUACK, Demotische magische und divinatorische Texte; QUACK, Remarks on Egyptian Rituals (on P. Louvre E 3229); QUACK, Präzision; erotic: NAGEL, Liebesbann (an excellent piece); J.J. WINKLER, Constraints of Desire, 71– 98.

104

Richard Gordon

tempt at ‘monumentalisation’ of a tradition in an Egyptian language. At some earlier date, the same scribe wrote out the shorter formulary on the damaged verso of the other Leiden magical text, J 384 = PGM XII, which is mainly in Greek, but with the first three columns (I*, II* and a very fragmentary III*) in Demotic and the last four columns (numbered I–IV from right to left) partly in Greek, mainly in ic.71 Since this too must be a temple-production, it appears to be an attempt, so far as we know unique, to express in a single composite manuscript the idea that Demotic and Greek convey the same knowledge-tradition. The most important examination of an ‘ambitious collection’ is however LYNN LIDONNICI’s fine analysis of the Great Paris Magical Codex, Bibl. Nat. suppl. gr. 574 = PGM IV, a codex of 36 large leaves written on both sides, containing 53 distinct praxeis, again of very different lengths and quality, in all 3274 lines of Greek.72 Having laid out two possible models of composition, a haphazard re-copying of individual praxeis all on different sheets accumulated from different sources over years versus a reduced number of ‘middling’ collections, as in 2) above, she argues that it was copied from an exemplar in similar form: the scribe must have had a good idea of the number of sheets he would need right from the start, sorted and folded the sheets before he began writing, and reduced the length of his lines towards the middle of the text to take account of the fact that the space available was here reduced.73 Paying close attention to differences in the incidence and types of paragraphoi, she argues that the formulary from which our codex was copied comprised five (or six) ‘middling’ collections of unequal length, viz.: ll. 1–153,74 154–1389, 1390–927, 1928–2240, 2241–942, 2943–3274. The longest section identified (2) itself seems to have been created from four smaller formularies (ll. 154–466, 467–849, 850–1226, 1227–389). She discerns an irregular tendency whereby some of the sub-formularies contained a series of major praxeis, to which shorter, even quite insignificant, items, such as the six unrelated lines from the Iliad at ll. 469–74 or the ‘Corpse interrogation of Pitys’ at ll. 2140–44, 71

The invocation to Imhotep in col. Ι* resembles two much earlier (sixth century BCE) texts, one in Hieratic, the other in early Demotic, see QUACK, Imhotep. Two of the headings in the long Greek section (which consists of 444 lines) are in Demotic; again there are several short passages in Hieratic. 72 LIDONNICI, Compositional Patterns. 73 LIDONNICI, Compositional Patterns, 147–51, 175. One additional sheet needed to be inserted, however, namely 21, both faces of which are fully written over with material carried on from 20v and over to 22r; since it was of course a double sheet, the corresponding half (16) is totally blank. The scribe must therefore have realised he was going to need more space and inserted the double sheet at a point where two blank pages would intrude least. There are also several gaps for drawings that were never inserted; presumably they were present in the original. The outer double-sheet was left almost entirely blank, apparently to serve as a cover. 74 Section 1 (1–153), which is pretty clearly marked as a unit by the empty p. 3v, includes just four praxeis, two mainly in Old Coptic, one in Greek with some Old Coptic voces, and just one, a τελετή requiring the practitioner to behead a white cockerel and drink off the warm blood, entirely in Greek (cf. JOHNSTON, Sacrifice, 353–8). The beginning of the very first praxis, in Old Coptic, is essentially the same as the invocation of P. Mag. LL, 21, 2–3. I follow PREISENDANZ against the breakdown in GMPT, xi–xii, which LIDONNICI adopts. See now the thorough study by LOVE, Code-Switching; the older study of ll. 94–153 by MEYER, Love Spell is still worth consulting.

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

105

were added as the occasion arose.75 In each case, the scribe retained the scriptual mannerisms of the original rather than subjecting all the earlier formularies to a common template. Although there may be disagreement over particular judgements, LIDONNICI’s analysis seems basically correct, so that we may conclude that the original from which the Great Paris Magical Codex was copied, or at any rate the original compilation, offers a fourth possible model for the composition of ambitious creations. The only important question that she has not discussed is whether we can say anything about the purpose of composing and (re-, re- re-)copying such an ambitious collection, and the conception of Graeco-Egyptian magical practice both composition and copying imply. On these terms, I have chosen in this contribution to look at yet another ambitious collection, namely the large papyrus roll officially known as P. Lond. I 121, though more familiar no doubt as PGM VII (= TM no. 60204). I am frankly less interested in transcultural problems, which can, in my view, only be fully appreciated through the medium of a traditional commentary written in co-operation by at least two or three specialists in addition to papyrologists (in late Egyptian religion, in late GraecoRoman religion and perhaps in Jewish magic),76 than in sketching a profile of the creator or creators of the compendium and thus inferring his/their view of the project of magic and specifically of the purpose of ambitious collections. The Lived Ancient Religion project in the Max-Weber-Kolleg in Erfurt, directed by JÖRG RÜPKE, which has recently come to an end, attempted to relocate religious practice in daily life rather than in the idealised representations of normative sources. 77 This included thinking about the self-understandings of religious specialists or practitioners whose livelihood depended on their ability to respond to the demands of their clients, and therefore favoured bricolage to a greater or smaller extent. Although in its present form P. Lond. I 121 was put together from four major Vorlagen, close inspection reveals more complex processes at work, which provide some insight into the work-methods of the earlier practitioners (or editors) whose praxeis were combined into the larger units assembled into the text as we have it.78

75

Only in the case of the final section does there seem to be no internal coherence, so these may have been directly-copied praxeis on loose leaves: LIDONNICI, Compositional Patterns, 175. 76 Such a commentary, however useful in providing insight both into the initial syncretism and the subsequent synthetic tradition, naturally cannot tell us how far the scribes/end-users of the praxeis themselves understood their contents or their specific rationale. 77 ‘Lived Ancient Religion’ (2012–17) funded by the European Union’s seventh framework programme (FP7/2013), grant no. 295555: see www.uni-erfurt.de/.../2012/2012-Ruepke_Lived_ancient _religion; RÜPKE, Lived Ancient Religion; RÜPKE, Connected Reader; RÜPKE, Pantheon, 13–34. 78 Cf. an earlier study, GORDON, Religious Anthropology, in the context of another Erfurt project, Religiöse Individualisierung in historischer Perspektive, directed by HANS JOAS and JÖRG RÜPKE (www.uni-erfurt.de/max-weber-kolleg/kfg (1. Förderperiode); see now FUCHS/RÜPKE (eds.), Religious Individualization.

106

Richard Gordon

3. P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII as an ambitious collection 3.1. Materiality Since the advent of the so-called ‘new philology’ in Medieval Studies, associated especially with BERNARD CERQUIGLINI’s Éloge de la variante (1989), it has become accepted that editions should try to respect the individuality of the text, including its materiality, within the historical context that gave rise to it. Until very recently the only publication in our area that attempted to provide a fresh semi-diplomatic text of a magical papyrus was ROBERT DANIEL’s photographic edition of the two Leiden papyri J 384 and 395 (= PGM XII and XIII), published in 1991, which prints the text of each column facing the relevant photograph. 79 DANIEL’s main intention however was to check PREISENDANZ’s readings rather than to call attention to the materiality of the text. Currently however a project organised from Chicago has set itself the task of reediting all the magical papyri, including those that were first published before the Great War, on the basis of autopsy and/or digital photographs in colour, from which we hope new inferences about questions of composition will be possible. 80 My remarks here are thus necessarily provisional.81 Before proceeding to the roll itself, I should first however say something about its provenance. 3.1.1. The acquisition of P. Lond. I 121 by the British Museum All four of the ‘ambitious collections’ listed in § 2 belonged to a group of papyri acquired, at least partly, some time before 1828 by the hyperactive Macedonian dealer in antiquities Ioannis/Giovanni Anastasiou/Anastasi/d’Anastasi (c. 1770/75–1860).82 Although the precise circumstances of the find cannot be ascertained in view of interests the various parties involved may have had in concealing the truth, even if they knew it, it is possible the papyri were found in a tomb near Thebes, a detail that is compatible with the fact that the vocalised glosses to the voces magicae in P. Mag. LL seem to be in Coptic dialect P, perhaps associated with this locality.83 Anastasi himself seems to have claimed that the finds constituted a ‘library’, though he identified the owner as an 79

DANIEL, Two Greek Magical Papyri. University of Chicago Magical Knowledge Project, sponsored by the Neubauer Collegium for Culture and Society (Chicago) and directed by C.A. FARAONE and SOFÍA TORALLAS TOVAR. The concluding meeting was held in Chicago in May 2018. When the results are published in 2019–2020, the two volumes will replace PGM and SM at any rate as far as formularies are concerned. The reexamination of PGM III (LOVE, ‘PGM III’ Archive) was undertaken in the context of this project. 81 RAQUEL MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ has been assigned responsibility for P. Lond. I 121 within this project. See MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Coherent Division, 147, n. * and MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Sobre la ordenación. 82 Anastasi/Anastasiou’s birth- and death-dates are highly conjectural; BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3401 gives the dates then accepted: 1780–1857; ZAGO, Tebe magica, 38–59 offers 1797/98?– 1857/60?; the very recent account by CHRYSIKOPOULOS, À l’aube, based on new evidence, gives c. 1775–1860. The official register of deaths in Alexandria gives his age at death in 1860 as 95. 83 JOHNSON, Dialect; DOSOO, History, 254, n. 11. 80

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

107

‘Egyptian Gnostic’ whom he dated to the second century CE.84 Apart from the ‘ambitious collections’, the find also included a codex of seven pages containing 10 pragmata (PGM V), an alchemical codex of fifteen pages (P. Holmiensis), and a loose sheet inside that codex containing a primitive three-line formula for divination.85 Although they ended up by being sold in different transactions to different European collections, so much can be established with some certainty.86 Anastasi’s idea of a ‘Gnostic library’, which has now become ‘the Theban Magical Library’, has proved very attractive. There has inevitably been much speculation regarding its contents. 87 CARL WESSELY, for example, would have liked to include P. Mimaut (P. Louvre 2391 = PGM III), which was acquired in Egypt by the French consul-general M.J.-.F. Mimaut, no doubt in Alexandria, some time between 1830 and 1837.88 The editors of a third Demotic-Greek papyrus (P. BM EA 10588 = PGM LXI) thought it might well have come from Anastasi’s ‘library’,89 but there are noticeable differences in the Demotic script between it and the hands that wrote P. Mag. LL and Leiden J 384 = PGM XII.90 There is continuing difference of opinion regarding the two papyri (P. Berl. inv. 5025 and 2526 = PGM I and II) that were acquired at the Paris auction by the Staatliche Museen in Berlin in 1857. There is no doubt that Anastasi once owned them but no positive evidence that they were in fact part of the ar-

84

In his Catalogue of the grand auction of 23–27 June 1857 in Paris at which Anastasi, three years before his death, sold much if not all of his remaining collections of Aegyptiaca, amounting to 1129 lots, FRANÇOIS LENORMANT claimed, presumably on the basis of Anastasi’s own representations: ‘M. Anastasi, dans ses fouilles à Thèbes avait découvert la bibliothèque d’un gnostique égyptien du second siècle …’ (LENORMANT, Catalogue, 84; cf. PREISENDANZ, Zum Pariser Zauberpapyrus, 575). Bibl. Nat. suppl. gr. 574 = PGM IV was sold at this auction as no. 1073. 85 Alchemical text (P. Holmiensis): HALLEUX, Alchimistes grecs. Loose sheet: PGM Va. 86 Again, GORISSEN, Ontwikkelingsgang; BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3398–408; GORDON, Memory, 148–51. According to his letter of 18th March 1828 kept in the Rijksmuseum, Anastasi purchased P. Leid. J 384 = PGM XII from native Egyptians (‘Arabes’), i.e. tomb-robbers or their middle-men. DOSOO, History, 261, rightly points out that these tomb-robbers or their middle-men may have sold Anastasi items from a single archive over an extended period of time. 87 DOSOO, History, is the fullest, very balanced account. Of recent commentators, MICHELA ZAGO in particular has tried to ascribe as many texts as possible to the supposed ‘library’, including even P. Oslo 1 = PGM XXXVI: ZAGO, Tebe magica, 59–92. In my view, this tendency is to be resisted; cf. DOSOO, History, 267, n. 57. Since this topic is marginal to my concerns here, I do not pursue it further; some additional references can be found in NODAR/TORALLAS TOVAR, Paleography, 60, n. 4. 88 WESSELY, Neue griechische Zauberpapyri, 12. In GORDON, Memory, 149, I wrongly claimed that Mimaut bought his papyrus from Anastasi in 1837; see DOSOO, History, 264, n. 42. 89 H.I. BELL/NOCK/THOMPSON (eds.), Magical Texts, 5. 90 J.F. QUACK tells me that RICHARD PARKINSON, then curator of the Museum’s papyrological collection and now professor of Egyptology at Oxford, informed him years ago that there is no evidence in the Museum’s records to link the papyrus with Anastasi. DOSOO, History, 268, confirms that it is first recorded in the Register of Unnumbered Objects from the old Collections, compiled in 1927, with no details regarding its acquisition. Moreover, there is no record of it in the catalogues of Anastasi’s auction-sales. Against BRASHEAR’s repeated claim that the same hand wrote P. Mag. LL, the Demotic sections of Leiden J 384 (= PGM XII) and P. Louvre E 3229, see DOSOO, History, 259, n. 28 (citing J.F. QUACK in his support). See also n. 92 below.

108

Richard Gordon

chive.91 Another doubtful candidate is P. Louvre E 3229, a Demotic papyrus listed in the sale catalogue of 1857, without any indication of its provenience.92 It must be remembered that Anastasi, who once sold 5675 Egyptian items to the Leiden Rijksmuseum in one transaction, had agents everywhere; we know that he bought a rather worm-eaten magical papyrus (P. Lond. 47 = PGM VI) from a dealer in Memphis, which was acquired by the British Museum in 1839, but has now been identified by ELENI CHRONOPOULOU as part of the missing beginning of PGM II, the second Berlin papyrus.93 Shortly after the publication of Papyri Graecae Magicae vol. II, PREISENDANZ also claimed that PGM VII too may have derived from the ‘library’.94 In his introduction to his edition of that text, however, he noted that it was acquired by the British Museum along with PGM VIII in 1888, that is, thirty years after the grand Paris auction of Anastasi’s property in 1857. This would in itself indicate caution. In the course of his papyrological work on selected magical papyri, KORSHI DOSOO has discovered that PGM VII, VIII and XIa were purchased together from a London firm (Bywater, Tanqueray & Co.), acting on behalf of a native Egyptian.95 The fact that PGM VIII 64–110 contains a modified form of the Bes oracle in PGM VII 222–49 led him to suspect that the three texts belonged together. Moreover, the verso of PGM XIa contains accounts belonging to an estate from Hermonthis (P. Lond. I 125 rt.). In view of the fact that it seems very unlikely that the ‘native Egyptian’ had waited 60 years to sell his papyri if they had belonged to the ‘library’, DOSOO now tentatively refers to these three texts as the ‘Hermonthis Magical Archive’ and treats them as independent of the Theban group.96 3.2. The composition of P. Lond. I 121 No one is of course more familiar with the specific character and difficulties of a papyrus text than the papyrologist who edits or, as the case may be, transcribes it. But, 91

They are listed by LENORMANT in the 1857 sale catalogue as nos. 1074 and 1075. Their general similarity to PGM IV, XII and XIII tempted RICHARD WÜNSCH to attribute them to the ‘library’, and he has often been followed, cf. DOSOO, History, 255–6. I share the reservations of BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3404 and DIELEMAN, Priests, 13, n. 38. 92 LENORMANT, Catalogue, no. 1061. JOHNSON, Leiden I 384, 55–6; BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3404, and DOSOO, History, 258, all favour the attribution. Part of BRASHEAR’s argument, however, is that P. Louvre E 3229 and P. BM EA 10588 were written in the same hand as P. Mag. LL and PGM XII, which, as noted above, is surely not the case. DIELEMAN, Priests, 13, n. 38, for whom it is ‘of unknown provenance and cannot be linked directly to any of the handbooks securely assigned to the Theban Magic Library’, classifies it merely as a ‘possible’ component of the archive. He does not comment on the handwriting. 93 Anastasi Cat. 1839 no. 5 = KENYON, Greek Papyri I, 81–3, dating to the second century CE; PGM VI (ll. 22–38 are reproduced as Hymn 10/Apollo III). See DOSOO, History, 264–5. The members of the Chicago Project were told of the identification at a meeting at Montserrat in Sept. 2016, and DOSOO just had time to discuss some implications at DOSOO, History, 273–4, cf. 256, n. 18a. 94 PREISENDANZ, Papyrusfunde, 93. 95 DOSOO, History, 265–6, cf. 261. DOSOO, Rituals of Apparition, also offers many new hypotheses about hands, composition, Sitz im Leben and use of these texts. 96 DOSOO, History, 266. Hermonthis however is not very far from Thebes.

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

109

just as in epigraphy, once a printed text exists it tends to occlude the original, which is returned to its dark slumbers. In the case of P. Lond. I 121, such occlusion has occurred twice over: it was first transcribed, at almost the same moment but independently, by CARL WESSELY and FREDERICK KENYON in 1893, and a new edition, with many alterations, new readings and expansions of abbreviations, was published almost four decades later by KARL PREISENDANZ in 1931.97 Although KENYON issued facsimiles of the London papyri in a separate volume, it was not until very recently that good colour images have been available to scholars.98 For the most part, therefore, PGM VII, like the rest of the magical papyri, has been received primarily as a printed document. Designed as it was for readability, PREISENDANZ’s text of P. Lond. I 121 in certain respects bears little relationship to what appears on the papyrus. Above all, he shifted passages around, highlighted the titles, expanded all the abbreviations, usually omitted dots marking uncertain readings, and sometimes even square brackets on account of the extra costs they caused in the age of hot-type, turned sigla such as the signs for sun and moon into proper words, normalised all ancient corrections or insertions in a second or third hand, omitted paragraphoi and other copyists’ marks, and reduced the optical significance of the onomata barbara by printing them in smaller typeface.99 Despite his invaluable apparatus criticus,100 these interventions, designed for ease of reading, make it difficult to use his version in PGM in order to answer questions about the implied history of the text, possible methods of compilation, variability of the text over time (i.e. the degree to which it was regarded as a ‘living text’), the familiarity of the implied reader with such texts, and the implications for possible inferences regarding their pragmatic use. These are the questions that concern me in the following sections. 3.2.1. Palaeographical details101 Physically, P. Lond. I 121 is a papyrus roll 78″ long and 13″ high.102 The recto contains 19 columns in all (the first two of which consist merely of fragments),103 the verso 97

WESSELY, Neue griechische Zauberpapyri, 16–55; KENYON, Greek Papyri I, 83–115; II, 51–65. PREISENDANZ made full use both of EITREM’s autopsy of the roll in EITREM, Greek Magical Papyri (1923) and of HOPFNER’s editions of the divinatory praxeis (HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber I–II). He had himself edited the Homeromanteion in 1913: PREISENDANZ, Die Homeromantie. 98 I have consulted KENYON’s monochrome plates, and thank KORSHI DOSOO for letting me have colour photos of the sheets, which were arranged by SOFÍA TORALLAS and RAQUEL MARTÍN for the Chicago project (see n. 80 above). 99 Many of these points are noted by PREISENDANZ himself in PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae II, xxx (‘Zur Benutzung von Apparat und Texten’) and 269–70 (= pp. 213– 14 of the 1931 edn) (‘Paläographische Bemerkungen zu den Papyri’). 100 To be fair, much of this information can be gleaned from the apparatus, though it requires a great effort of imagination to transpose the mass of information there into the form instantly provided by a digital photograph in colour. 101 I am most grateful here for comments by RAQUEL MARTÍN, who, as a papyrologist and editor of the new version of PGM VII for the Chicago project, is far more competent in this area than I and has saved me from several errors.

110

Richard Gordon

only 13, i.e. there are six blank columns on the back. Of these 13, only 10 are written in the same hand as the recto.104 Next to col. XXVII, we find a brief agogimon of 8 lines in a different hand, which KENYON describes as more cursive and irregular than the main one.105 In the previously empty space at the beginning of the verso, yet another hand, which KENYON judged to be of later date than the main one, has written two columns of additional material, most of which KENYON could not read, but which appear in PREISENDANZ as cols. XXIX–XXX, ll. 981–1026. Whereas KENYON, followed by PREISENDANZ, dated the main hand to third century CE, FRANCO MALTOMINI, in a re-edition of the Homeromanteion, followed by ATHANASSIA ZOGRAFOU, suggested fourth–fifth century CE. 106 In his work on early Christian books, ROGER BAGNALL reverted to the date suggested by KENYON and PREISENDANZ, while RAQUEL MARTÍN, ALBERTO NODAR and SOFÍA TORALLAS have all now come out strongly for a fourth century CE date.107 It seems therefore that our present P. Lond. I 121 was a living text, inasmuch as it has been (rather haphazardly) corrected, and at least one other individual has added to it, albeit sparingly. The majority of the text is written, according to KENYON, like the other magical texts in the British Library, in a hand ‘that approaches nearer to the formal literary cast’.108 RAQUEL MARTÍN has recently argued that the use of a variety of lectional marks and the orderly arrangement of the main text indicates that the main scribe was accustomed to writing literary texts and indeed ‘anthologies’, i.e. com-

102

PREISENDANZ worked this out as 2 m x 33 cm. The Trismegistos no. of P. Lond. I 121 is 60204. 103 KENYON, Greek Papyri I, 84. The first two columns (given by PREISENDANZ as I* and II*) were omitted by KENYON from his edition; they have now been properly edited by MALTOMINI, Homeromanteion, with the help of parallel texts. KENYON denoted the columns by means of Arabic numerals, PREISENDANZ by Roman numerals. Both begin their enumeration from the true third column (i.e. their 1/I denotes in fact col. III recto of the papyrus). For the sake of simplicity, I generally follow PREISENDANZ’s system, since PGM is far more generally available than KENYON’s edition. 104 NODAR/TORALLAS TOVAR, Paleography, 60, follow KENYON in thinking the other three are a later addition. In the margin to the left of col. XXIX are 3 lines of writing, upside-down to the main text, apparently in the hand of the main scribe. 105 PREISENDANZ counts this as col. XXVIII, ll. 973–80. 106 Third century CE: KENYON, Greek Papyri I, 84: ‘probably of the third century’; PREISENDANZ agreed, but thought that his cols. XXIX–XXX were written in a fourth-century hand; fourth–fifth century CE: MALTOMINI, Homeromanteion, 108; ZOGRAFOU, Oracle homérique, 173, n. 1. 107 Early third century CE: BAGNALL, Christian Books, 83–5; fourth century CE: MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Two Requests, 42; MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Selección, 19, n. 10 (‘en torno al siglo IV d.C.’, with her reasons). NODAR/TORALLAS TOVAR, Paleography, 60–61, adduce the appearance of majuscule (Latin) D and H, typical of the post-Diocletianic Period, alongside continuing employment of koine minuscule. I find their vague use of the term ‘Byzantine’ perplexing, however. 108 KENYON, Greek Papyri I, viii; MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Two Requests, 42: ‘trained…hand’; cf. NODAR/TORALLAS TOVAR, Paleography, 60 (citing R. MARTÍN): ‘professional [hand]’. KENYON’s transcript, much more informative than WESSELY’s, is invaluable for the points that follow. Except where noted (PR.), the line-references that follow are those of KENYON not PREISENDANZ (though they usually coincide).

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

111

pound texts containing diverse sub-divisions.109 This man was evidently a professional copyist, who was familiar with abbreviations (of which there are many) and did not mind making mistakes and starting again, as at ll. 459–61, which have been crossed out and the same prescription begun again at 462–6.110 The corrections (either by the main scribe at a later date, as RAQUEL MARTÍN thinks, or by another hand, as KENYON thought) are in smaller letters, using ink that is now faint. For example, at the very top of col. V, just above l. 169, on the recto, which introduces a series of chemical tricks, this hand has written Δημοκρίτου παίγνια halfway along the line.111 On the verso, ωαω has been written above the vowel sequence ιαεω (l. 598), αὕτη γάρ a few lines lower (604), and δεόμενος καὶ ἱκετεύων ὅπως δεήσῃς τὸ δεῖνα to mark an insertion between ὅτι and ἐπικαλοῦμαι (l. 690).112 At 601 this hand has added a marginal note to explain an unclarity, at 605 another of 14 words, and at 756 entered the word εὐχή in the middle of the line to mark the prayer that follows. On the other hand this corrector has failed to observe many other errors, such as the repetition of καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ in l. 224, the word ἐπί for ἐγώ in l. 323, and in the following line the omission of several words. After l. 249 a space has been left for a drawing, but none was made.113 At 336 the form σκ[ο]πτικόν for κ[ο]πτικόν has not been corrected.114 Ll. 591–2 PR. probably belong to ll. 559–60. There are muddles at 766–79 and 780–85 which have not been resolved. The task of correction, even if it was done by the main scribe, was thus not taken very seriously. 3.2.2. The organisation of the text To turn now to the organisation proper, KENYON suggested the following rough divisions of the text: Recto: 1. The first four cols. (I*–II*, III–IV) are taken up by the 216 randomised Homeric lines which form the basis of the Homeromanteion for which this text is famous, and the list of dates when it may be used.115 Between the Homeric lines and the list is a 109

MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Coherent Division, 149; MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Selección, 19: ‘… un profesional no sólo en relación con el arte de la escritura, sino también en el de la compilación de antologías’. 110 There is a small number of mechanical copying errors throughout, especially in the Homeromanteion, listed by MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Two More Verses. 111 The final α of this heading carries a very long flourish. On the basis of the similarity of the ink used, however, RAQUEL MARTÍN tells me she believes that it was added later by the main hand. Another addition is the two recipes against bugs and fleas (149–54), which have been inserted into the empty spaces on either side of the terminating sentence of the Homeromanteion (see below). 112 PREISENDANZ reads ποιήσῃς instead of δεήσῃς without noting the divergence in the apparatus. 113 Which might allow the inference that it was also missing in the Vorlage of this stele. 114 There is a word σκωπτικός, but it does not fit the context (στῖμι, eye-paint), since it means ‘joke-cracking’. 115 On the Homeromanteion, see MALTOMINI, Homeromanteion; KARANIKA, Homer; ZOGRAFOU, Oracle homérique; and MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Using Homer; and MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Two More Verses. Despite its title, the essay by DE. COLLINS, Magic of Homeric Verses, mentions the

112

Richard Gordon

long zigzag line in which each ‘tooth’ is filled above with a tiny v and below with the same sign inverted (ᴧ), whose terminative function is spelled out in large, clearlywritten letters in the four short centrally-placed lines immediately below: -----------τέλος ἔχει -----------τῶν ἐπῶν ---------Ὁμηρομαντίου ----------ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ -----------116

2. These four columns are followed by the Δημοκρίτου παίγνια (ll. 168–85),117 which are themselves again separated from the remainder of the column by a somewhat different wavy line, again across the entire width of the column, in which each zigzag contains a small circle (◦) above and below. Without any noticeable break, we find: 3. 186–221 (i.e. the remainder of cols. V and VI): rather commonplace magical recipes. 4. 222–71 (col. VII): recipes similar to those in P. Lond. 46 = PGM V but more elaborate than these. 5. 272–99 (col. VIII): more time-tables for divination. 6. 300–592 (cols. IX–XVII): 28 recipes, ending with a drawing of the ouroboros.118 Verso: 7. 593–973 (cols. XVIII–XXVII): 18 recipes, ending with an erotic prescription partly written in a cryptographic script. 8. [974–81 (col. XXVIII): an agogimon in a different hand.] 9. [981–1026 (cols. XXIX [placed at the beginning of the verso]–XXX): 4 recipes in another, later hand.]119 Despite its rather off-hand manner,120 KENYON’s account can stand as a very rough indication of the contents of P. Lond. I 121. My original hypothesis was that the ver-

Homeromanteion precisely once (p. 227) and, deplorably, refers consistently to the non-Christian magical papyri by means of Arabic numerals, which in PREISENDANZ’s system refer to the ‘Christian’ texts alone. NAETHER, Sortes Astrampsychi, provides a thorough account of these routinised forms of dice-divination against a fixed matrix. 116 As RAQUEL MARTÍN notes, this type of ‘horizontal filler’ is (roughly) paralleled in some literary papyri, while the termination formula reproduces that on Homeric manuscripts: MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Coherent Division, 151–2. These intertextual allusions to high-status literary products are consistent with the apparent desire to produce in the text we have a ‘monumental’ version of an existing formulary. 117 On these παίγνια and their analogies elsewhere, esp. in the Cyranides, see MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Ordenación, 22. 118 Reproduced in PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae II, Pl. I, Fig. 4. 119 In the remainder of the paper, I exclude cols. XXVIII–XXIX from consideration.

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

113

sion we have represents the process of collection of the individual praxeis, no doubt over several years, albeit at second hand, since the main text is a fair-copy written out straight121 and the copyist has taken care that in most cases the column end coincides with the end of a prescription.122 In the article I have already cited several times, however, RAQUEL MARTÍN has shown, on the basis of the distribution of identical lectional marks, that the core version of P. Lond. I 121 that we possess was constructed by the scribe (or an editor, if they were not identical) out of four pre-existing blocks of text, namely ll. 1–221; 222– 466; 467–592 (the end of the verso); and 593–972.123 This alone makes clear that my original hypothesis, that the core text directly reflects a historically-evolving practice, is implausible. The fact that the text begins with an Homeromanteion and Democritean tricks, which belong to the world of the symposium and its ‘client scholars’ rather than to a practice that looked to the temple for its legitimacy, likewise suggests that my original hypothesis was naïve.124 Nevertheless, MARTÍN’s division of the existing coretext is by no means incompatible with the hypothesis that her four major blocks are themselves composed of distinguishable pre-texts, which reflect their pre-history and so the process of composition, parallel to the case of LIDONNICI’s analysis of PGM IV. 3.2.3. Possible criteria for determining the pre-texts What criteria might we use for determining the number of the pre-texts (hereafter: Ptexts) out of which the four major text-blocks (the V-texts) were composed? Rather than looking only at the conscious organisational strategy of the main scribe, such as the use of characteristic lectional marks, we may note that there are a number of apparently ‘insignificant’ formal elements of the text, which seem not to have been of any concern to the main scribe himself but, on my present hypothesis, betray some of the differing habits of the authors/scribes of the various P-texts. These ‘insignificant’ elements include: – the different methods of indicating the voces magicae – the omission of headings – the use of lists to present complex information – less clearly, the incidence of special, i.e. non-standard, abbreviations. We must of course make some assumptions: that both the main scribe and the composers/copyist(s) of the four blocks (which we may denote V1,2,3,4) reproduced what was before them; and that the sequence of different recipes in V1,2,3,4 reproduces at least 120 KENYON was no great admirer of P. Lond. I 121, which he describes as ‘the longest of the magical papyri in the British Museum, though … not the most interesting’: KENYON, Greek Papyri I, 83. 121 Note however that the list of times suitable for using the Homeromanteion is crammed into the space at the bottom of col. IV, yet the elaborate termination formula is written in larger letters than the ordinary text, so that the list seems to have been added here as an afterthought, as must the two recipes against bugs and fleas, which are inserted on either side of the termination formula. 122 Apart from the Homeromanteion, the exceptions are 12/13, 13/14, 15/16, 24/25, 26/27. 123 MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Coherent division. 124 For the role of ‘client scholars’ in the milieu of the symposium, see e.g. HAFNER, Lukians Schrift.

114

Richard Gordon

roughly the historical accumulation of materials by their respective editors/copyists. Implicit support can be found for these assumptions if we look specifically for oddities. The so-called ὀνειρόμαντις μαθηματικός of Pythagoras and Democritus (795– 845) begins quite untypically without more ado with a description of an angel, ὁ εἰσερχὀμενος ἄγγελος, entering in the form of a friend of the practitioner with a star on his head, before the preparations for the ritual are described. It is also the only stele in the book that enjoins secrecy, requiring the reader to preserve this secrecy καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀπὀλυσιν τοῦ βιοῦ τοῦ ἐμοῦ, ‘even after I am dead’ – the sole I-reference in the book, which must surely have been taken over directly from a letter by a correspondent. In another case, a recipe using the herb kynokephale or kynokephalidion is said to have been taken from a named formulary-book, the Diadem of Moses (620–27); here alone do we find a praxis – an extremely trivial praxis - for becoming invisible, which suddenly turns into an equally trivial agogimon (forcible erotic praxis). Both the citation and the creative but incompetent editing-work again imply that the P-text of this item was a letter sent by a correspondent inspired by the Diadem (assuming it ever existed).125 In another passage, at the beginning of col. XXIII, where a list of animalforms appears without any indication of its significance, it seems clear that the V-text here was itself defective, so it is likely that the relevant information was missing in the P-text. In her work on the lectional signs in P. Lond. I 121, RAQUEL MARTÍN rightly observed that, even if we accept her division of the text into four main sections, ‘it is not easy to find a logical order among the magical recipes by looking at the content’.126 In my view, there is no hope of finding a thematically-ordered system of recipes in such a formulary: the sole order to be found is the historical order of collection, selection and copying into the four blocks.127 In other words, the ‘deep temporality’ of P. Lond. I 121 is best established, if at all, not so much by means of lectional marks, which are mainly the work of the final scribe and seem to follow an informal code, but by looking at ‘unconscious’ features of the text, whose unobtrusiveness meant that the scribe simply accepted them as he went on with his work. The four ‘unobtrusive’ P-indicators of P. Lond. I 121, which I briefly listed above, can be specified as follows: 1. Voces magicae: We may distinguish four ways in which these especially significant items are treated in the text: – not differentiated from ordinary words – not differentiated but each separated by a dot or a colon – fixed by means of a line drawn above each individual vox

125

I use the term Vorlage(n) instead of ‘antigraph’ (the usual term in papyrology for the original from which an apograph is copied) because we cannot be sure at what remove from our text of P. Lond. I 121 the oddity in question first occurred. 126 MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Coherent Division, 148. 127 I make some suggestions about the interests and priorities of the editor/scribe/user of the text as a whole in § 4 below.

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

115

–

in the case of strings, a line may be drawn over the first vox to indicate the entire sequence.128 The most plausible explanation of these variations is that they reproduce differences within the successive Vorlagen themselves (the originals of which lie, in my view, at least two copies farther back). This seems to me the most telling criterion. Others are: 2. Missing titles for individual types of pragma: As I have observed, almost all the recipes in P. Lond. I 121 carry a heading. In the six cases where there are no headings, three of them clustered together at 467–504, we may plausibly suppose that the source text did not provide them either. 3. Use of lists: Long lists occur at four points, three of them widely separated.129 Listing seems to be a distinctive technique for ordering information, and one not favoured by most practitioners. Their occurrence here probably therefore indicates a separate Vorlage in each case. 4. Unusual abbreviations: Although standard abbreviations, such as Δ, λᵃ, λᵋ or λ̥, are extensively employed in P. Lond. I 121 (λᵋ indeed occurs far more often there than in all other magical papyri put together), a mark of the main scribe’s familiarity with this type of material, and tell us nothing about sources, our text also uses at certain points unusual abbreviations, such as Ж for νικητικὀν, Π̥ for ποτήριον, Πρ for πρᾶγμα, Ο for ὄνομα, Ονειρ for ὀνειραιτητόν, which only occur at irregular intervals once or twice in the text.130 Although they too might stem from the main scribe’s familiarity with bookproduction, their infrequency and lack of standardisation suggest that they too are ultimately derived from individual P-texts. Using all four criteria, I see roughly 33 different P-texts in the four blocks that compose the core formulary (i.e. up to the end of col. XXVIII).131 If we were to include the provision of charakteres or drawings in the stela, there might be even more.132 I take it that the shifts in the source-material, while partly due to serendipity, 128

These techniques, which are not exhaustive, are best apprehended in KENYON’s transcription, checked against photos of the papyrus. In a few places voces are simply indicated by leaving a space between them. And in one case, two voces are (partly) underlined (220). 129 Col. VIII, 272–83 (months in the Egyptian calendar), 284–99 (propitious days for magical enterprises, moon in zodiacal signs); col. XXIII–XXIV, 810–21 (list of zodiacal signs); col. XXVI, 898–907 (list of angels of the 12 hours). 130 Ж : 919, 924; Π̥: 385; 643; Πρ: 479, 537; ο: 316; 461, cf. 316, 715; Ονειρ: 795 (all these are unique to this text). 131 Excluding the additions in other hands, these are (using KENYON’s line numbering, which differs very slightly from PR. and GMPT, but the column-indications of PGM, see n. 103 above): Recto: cols. I*–IV (Homeromanteion and the times specified for use); 168–85 (Δημοκρίτου παίγνια); 186– 96; 197–214; 215–21; 222–49 (Bes oracle); 250–71 (end of col. VII); 272–98 (2 lists); 299; 300–318; 319–69 (end of col. X); 370–422; 423–66; 467–504; 505–78; 579–90; 591–2. Verso: 593–619; 620– 27; 628–63; 664–85; 686–702; 703–26; 727–39 (end of col. XXI); 740–55; 756–94; 795–845; 846– 61; 862–919 (Seleniakon of Claudianus); 920–25; 926–39; 940–69; 970–73. 132 Charakteres in widely-different quantities are provided at the following points (* means that the word χαρακτῆρ also occurs): cols. V–VI (a series of routine charms for curative purposes), 196*, 204, 205–6*, 208; cols. XI–XII (mostly for domination), 392*, 399, 415–16, 421–2*; col. XIII, 464– 5*; col. XVI, 588* (phylactery); cols. XXIII–XXIV, 810–21 (sigla for each of the 12 zodiacal signs; oneiraiteton); col. XXV, 860–61* (divination); col. XXVII, 925* (niketikon); col. XXVIII, 931–9*

116

Richard Gordon

also register to some degree the gradual evolution of the interests and skills of the composers/editors of the four blocks, and perhaps an increase in the circle of their correspondents. This rather high total suggests a rather different type of collectionprocess from the case of the Great Paris codex (PGM IV), as analysed by LIDONNICI, one heavily reliant on correspondence and collection from fellow-practitioners and aquaintances. It so happens that the result of this analysis coincides exactly with MARTÍN’s proposed component blocks of P. Lond. I 121, namely V1,2,3,4. This can be most easily shown by means of a table (Table 1), which sets out in diagrammatic form the P-texts that on my hypothesis compose each of the V-texts proposed by MARTÍN. V1 was constituted by five P-texts, of which by far the most important was the Homeromanteion; V2 contained eight, almost all weighty and competent pragmata; V3 was the thinnest Vorlage, with only four, while V4 was the longest, with eleven ritual procedures filling almost four hundred lines of text.

4. Profiling the editor/scribe’s view of his competence The editor/scribe of the extant version of P. Lond. I 121, i.e. up to the end of column XXVII, thus had at his disposal four pre-existing formularies that contained altogether roughly 72 different stelai or pragmata or whatever we like to call individual prescriptions, counting each of the paignia separately but excluding the Homeromanteion and the list of permitted days for its use.133 We cannot tell whether the editor/scribe had himself collected, or contributed to, the contents of the V-texts, nor the extent to which individual pragmata were omitted from the V-texts. On balance, given the variety of ‘unobtrusive indicators’, it seems more likely that he simply followed their lead, i.e. took them over complete. Granted that in that case the editor/scribe was forced to take the chaff with the wheat, a look at the range of topics gives us a rough indication of the editor/scribe’s conception of his interests and capacities. As KENYON observed, the major concerns are 1) agogima, of which there are twelve (thirteen if we include one for male sexual potency, fourteen if we include another to appear in a dream to a woman, and seventeen if we include the three ἀγρυπνητικά for keeping a woman awake); and 2) divination by various means: apart from the Homeromanteion, dreams

(ὑποτακτικόν on a metal lamella). There are no charakteres after col. XXVII, i.e. after the end of the ‘original’ text. Drawings or diagrams occur at: col. VI, after l. 217 (PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae II, Pl. I, Fig. 1); lower half of col. VIII, after l. 299, separated by a very long line (Pl. I, Fig. 2); the whole of col. XVII (i.e. after l. 590, the last col. on the recto) (Pl. I, Fig. 4); more or less the whole of col. XXVII, ll. 931–60 (Pl. I, Fig. 3). At l. 249 it is claimed that the drawing of Bes has been placed ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ τῆς βίβλου, but so far as we can tell (col. I* is fragmentary) it is not there, so that the sentence should be taken as evidence of a Vorlage here in book-form, parallel to the Diadem of Moses). 133 I base myself on the enumeration in GMPT, xiii–xiv, which however treats the two stelai against bugs and fleas in 149–54 as one, and the variant in 250–59 as two.

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

117

(9 cases), 134 autoptic vision (5), medium (perhaps 2), i.e. sixteen in all. The dozen pragmata for medicinal purposes all occur early on and are very brief. The remaining recipes include five phylacteries, plus one κάτοχος, to constrain spirit forces, and one containing ‘compulsive words’. There are six χαριτήσια and/or νικητικά plus two φιμωτικά, for subduing enemies. Finally there are a few isolated or unclassifiable cases: a recipe for forcing a woman to say where she has been; an elaborate but incoherent procedure for seeing one’s own daimon, a general ‘Please do for me …’-pragma on the model of the petition, and two prescriptions without headings for uncertain purposes.135 The additional materials after the end of column XXVII are compatible with these interests, with two divinatory texts, one ἀγώγιμον and one νικητικόν, but also offer a novelty, a text for ensuring good business. One is also struck by the frequency with which the practitioner is allowed to formulate his request freely: the expression τὰ κοινά, always abbreviated, occurs at least 18 times. And the editor/scribe strongly favoured stelai requiring the inscription of designs and charakteres on strips of metal. The poor showing of medical recipes, which include items to cure scorpion’s sting, rheumy eyes, headaches, coughs, lumps (i.e. swollen glands), fevers and to steady a wandering womb (260–71), suggests that healing formed a very minor part of the editor/scribe’s interests (and practice), though we should perhaps add the phylacteries, especially those against evil spirits and φαντάσματα (580) or against bad dreams (311– 17).136 In my view, the divinatory pragmata, apart from the Homeromanteion, which is accompanied by instructions for use, were primarily intended to enable the ritual specialist himself to experience dreams and revelatory visions so as to be able to respond to clients’ queries. Dreams are, after all, the easiest and most direct form of communication with the other world. A possible exception is the very simple pragma for appearing to a woman in a dream (407–10). It is striking that there are at most just two procedures with a medium. One of these (348–58) provides no explanation of how the session is to be organised: the boy just lies on the ground and at once φανήσεται αὐτῷ παιδίον μελάνχρουν, ‘a black-skinned child will appear (to him)’; only then is the formula given. In the other (540–78), the boy suddenly appears in the recipe without warning; in the last section, the writer was unable to explain clearly what he meant to happen and the performance ends in complete obscurity, so that this particular procedure could never actually have been performed as given. 137 Apart from divinatory enquiries, the editor/scribe, and the authors/compilers of his four V-texts, evidently thought their clients wanted access to otherwise unavailable women, to be attractive and charismatic and to do their enemies

134 222–49, 250–59 (disregarding the variant), 359–63, 478–90, 628–42, 664–85, 703–21, 740–55, 795–845. 135 Woman: 411–16; daimon: 505–28; petition: 686–702; uncertain: 86–702; 756–94. 136 The first of these (579–90 K./580–90 P.) is also to protect the wearer against πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πἀθος. On the relation between traditional Egyptian medicine and the recipes in the Graeco-Egyptian papyri, see RODRÍGUEZ MORENO, Practicas therapeúticas. 137 Cf. HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber II, §§ 220–21 (= II.2, 368–74).

118

Richard Gordon

down, in other words, a fairly standard set of concerns for the clientele of the types of services offered by the materials of the PGM.138 We can discern in all this the roles such practitioners were cast in, as a means of escape from the daily sense of powerlessness and oppression by senior family-members, neighbours, owners of sex-workers, village overseers and other persons in authority, and, on the other hand, as a means whereby heads of families could obtain authoritative advice regarding decisions about family policy. Indeed one of the lists in col. VIII (284–99), which is paralleled by a very confused one in P. Mimaut (PGM III) 275–81 (PGM III.2), provides a primitive astrological scheme for organising the practitioner’s annual calendar based on the moon’s movements through the signs of the zodiac, in both cases beginning with Virgo, which would have been established by means of an almanac ephemeris of the usual type. 139 Each sign (apart from Virgo and corn) 140 receives a single topic, for example Scorpius for really malign magic (πανκακώσιμον or -α [?]),141 Aquarius for love-magic (φίλτρα), Cancer for phylacteries. This is one of several references to astrological knowledge in the book, and Mesekhtiou/the Great Bear/the ‘leg of Seth’ plays an important role in several texts.142 Toying with such astrological schemes is a sure sign of wanting to avail oneself of a new source of authority, one already conveniently routinised by others. If we now ask what our practitioner was not interested in, or the areas of knowledge his circle had no access to, the list is quite long. There is only one mention of eyepaint, and that cursory (335–6); there are almost no recipes requiring more than one or two botanical or animal ingredients, though bits taken from a sunken boat are twice required.143 There is not a single bowl divination144 and only one diabole (false slander 138

Cf. e.g. NAETHER, Griechisch-ägyptische Magie, 204–6. HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber I, § 828 (= I, 553–4); GUNDEL, Weltbild, 34–5. The Egyptian and the Alexandrian year began with Thoth [September], the month of Virgo. 140 Virgo: the papyrus reads παναλωιον, for which PREISENDANZ suggested πανάλωτον, ‘allbezwingend(e Magie)’, HOPFNER πανάλκιμον, ‘überaus kräftig’; WÜNSCH implausibly invented a word πανάκειον, evidently intended to mean the same as πανακές. The sign Capricorn promises success with any type of praxis (ὅσα θέλεις). 141 The correcting hand has written μ above ι here, as after ἀγώγιμ (l. 295) and ἐπιλάλημ (l. 296), so PR. must have been correct to intuit a word παγκακώσιμον. For the form Scorpius, which is a Latinisation of the Greek name of the constellation σκορπίος (e.g. Aratus, Phaen. 85), see e.g. Verg. Georg. 1.35, Firm.Mat., Math. 2.11.10, 8.13.1–3, and R.L. BECK, Planetary Gods, 19–28, 36–8 etc. 142 686–702, 862–918, also 478–90 (Erotyllos is a star in the Great Bear), 632–3, cf. GUNDEL, Weltbild, 63–4. I do not count the list of zodiacal signs in the dream-request of Pythagoras and Democritus (810–21), since it implies no specifically astrological knowledge, though, as GUNDEL observes (p. 53–4), the type of brief pragmatic instruction implied here is otherwise totally lost. 143 Writing with a nail from a sunken boat: 466; lamp-wick from (the cable of a) sunken boat: 494–5. 144 One of the anonymous readers objects that the stele that concludes col. X (319–34), which is entitled αὔτοπτος, is in fact a bowl divination. The initial directions do indeed include filling a bronze bowl with rainwater; however, the stele in its surviving form is evidently the result of editorial splicing of at least two quite different recipes, in one of which the bowl seems to have been used to produce an ‘Osiris’ as an intermediary in the transaction. Moreover, the god Anubis is expected to speak propria voce, which is not usual in a bowl divination. 139

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

119

against a target).145 Moreover, there is only one pragma containing extravagant compound adjectives, namely in the logos with medium at 354–5, which includes the words φρικτοπαλαίμονας, 146 φοβοδιάκτορας, σκοτιοερἐβους; the mistakes here indicate the copyist’s(~s’) unfamiliarity with such words.147 There is not a single certain palindrome, hardly any standard logoi; only two complex calligrams (715–25, 940– 60).148 There is only one Demotic (381) and one Coptic sign, dschandtscha (510, in an onoma).149 These absences, which are quite as important as the areas of interest, again suggest a (set of) practitioner(s) with a clear, but rather limited, view of his/their pragmatic role in relating to clients, their likely demands and what they might be prepared to pay. We cannot, of course, know whether the editor/scribe himself owned or composed other formularies: we can only draw conclusions about the type of skills (and their limitations) revealed by this one text.150

5. Transcultural resources I conclude with some brief remarks on the cultural resources revealed by the pragmata contained in the four V-texts. 5.1. Jewish resources Apart from some very cursory invocations of Iao Adonai Sabaoth, and once ‘IAKOUB IA Iao Sabaoth Adonai ABRASAX’ (649), there are virtually no allusions to Jewish materials.151 The two exceptions concern the praise-form ‘the One who is seated above the Cheruvim’. In the pragma to settle the womb that I have already mentioned, the offending organ is adjured by the One who sits over the Abyss, before the creation of the universe, who created the angels and sits above the Cheruvim (260–64). The creation of heaven and earth is alluded to once again in the prayer, before the finale: ‘Hal145

605–9. The target’s supposed insults are directed against Iao, Adonai, Sabaoth, PAGOURĒ, Michael (see p. 120). 146 The papyrus has φρικτοπολεμονας, which ADAM ABT, on the basis of the marvellous list of polysyllabic adjectives at PGM IV 1350–76, corrected to φρικτοπαλαίμονας, though this itself must be an idioysncratic form of *φρικτοπαλαμναίους, ‘fearfully avenging’, παλαμναῖος occurring several times in Greek literature with daimon in this sense. 147 Φοβοδιάκτορας is presumably a mistake for φοβεροδιακράτορας (which occurs next to φρικτοπαλαίμονας in the list at PGM IV 1353); σκοτιοερἐβους is written σκοτιοερεμ|βους (see IV 1361). All these errors were presumably in the Vorlage. I thank RAQUEL MARTÍN for help here. 148 PREISENDANZ understood the calligram in 715–25 as a palindrome covering two ‘wings’, but in fact the vox of 30 letters is simply repeated, and then reduced letter by letter. 149 However the squiggles below the drawing at 930–39 (PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae II, Pl. I, Fig. 3) may once have been Demotic signs. 150 The other two magical papyri from Hermonthis, which are conventionally dated fourth–fifth century CE, seem to be somewhat later. 151 For the Diadem of Moses (619), see 114 above. For discussions of the rather limited presence of Jewish Kulturgut in the magical papyri, Demotic and Greek, see MARCOS, Motivos judíos, and now esp. QUACK, Alttestamentliche Motive. MARMOROUTH, IAEŌ,

120

Richard Gordon

lelujah! Amen!’ (269–71) – omitting the usual ‘Selah’. This of course refers to the Hebrew expression yôšêb hak-kêrûbîm, ‘he who is enthroned on the cheruvim’, a metaphor for the majesty of Yahweh Zebaoth (e.g. 1 Sam 4:4 [κυρίου καθημένου χερουβιμ], Isa 37:16 etc.), still in use in the magical texts of the Cairo Genizah.152 The other reference to the Cheruvim is more enigmatic, since it occurs in a recipe to cause the ‘true Asklepios’, i.e. Imhotep, and not a πλανοδαίμων, a deceptive spirit, to appear to the practitioner (628–36).153 Here the phrase has evidently lost all connection to its Hebrew source and is on the way to becoming a routinised vox magica. The only other item relevant to Hebrew religious Kulturgut is the διαβολή at 593– 619, which, as noted above, involves a series of blasphemies imputed to the target, directed, uniquely in the entire PGM, against Adonai, Sabaoth, PAGOURĒ, MARMOROUTH (sic), IAEO and Michael; the latter, not said to be an archangel, is hermaphrodite (ἀρσενόθηλυς), IAEO οὐκ ἐπιστεὐθη τὴν λἀρνακα, ‘was not entrusted with the Ark of the Covenant’, MARMOROUTH was castrated and so on. Both PAGOURĒ and MARMORAŌTH are generally thought to be Aramaic epithets with solar connotations (PAGOURĒ is supposed to mean ‘dessen Licht schwindet/abnimmt’)154 found with Adonai Sabaoth, but the diabole implies more knowledge of Jewish lore than would be required simply to appropriate a vox magica. 5.2. Egyptian materials The substance of all the longer praxeis, however, is naturally Egyptian cosmogonic and religious thinking, ultimately derived from temple ritual practice. On my count, there are 19 relatively long recipes – the roll contains no very elaborate procedures – clearly based on Egyptian cosmology and/or invoking or alluding to Egyptian deities, Egyptian institutions, cosmology/astral lore and so on. JAN BERGMAN’s well-known analysis of an Egyptian theogony comes from the systasis for seeing one’s own daimon at ll. 505–28.155 Even in recipes that do not include such obvious signals, we find casual references to non-red lamps, Imhotep at Memphis, the intestines of Osiris (but also of Iao), the blood of a black cow, or goat or donkey; the brain of a black ram; a model papyrus boat; seeds of Nile reeds; a Typhonian figure; 365 knots and so on.156 The entire substructure of the formulary, as one would expect, is thus Egyptian temple-practice and temple lore.

152

E.g. SCHÄFER/SHAKED (eds.), Magische Texte III, 114–17, no. 65 [T.-S. K 1.78] l. 12. The last line could even be an indirect allusion, at several hands, to the Isaiah passage, which mentions the creation of heaven and earth. 153 I follow PREISENDANZ here, though J.F. QUACK tells me his interpretation is quite uncertain. 154 So JACOBY, in PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae III, 229 s.v., repeated by BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3596 s.v. 155 BERGMAN, Egyptian Theogony. 156 Non-red lamp: 542; 628–31: Asklepios of Memphis (i.e. Imhotep), 633; the intestines of Osiris (and Iao): 645–6; the blood of a black cow, or goat or donkey: 652–4, 301; the brain of a black ram: 539; a model papyrus boat: 618; seeds of Nile reeds: 490–91; a Typhonian figure: 468; 365 knots: 452–3.

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

121

5.3. Greek materials and allusions At the same time, many prescriptions, whatever their ritual base, have assimilated Greek Kulturgut so completely that we must speak of a now unself-conscious synthesis. Unlike many formularies, P. Lond. I 121 almost never claims that a stele has been taken from an Egyptian temple library; the one exception is the Seleniakon of Claudianus (862–918), the longest and most complex praxis in the collection. Yet even here an allusion to legitimation by appeal to Egyptian temple-practice is avoided by claiming that the library was that of ‘Aphrodite Ourania’ in Aphroditopolis.157 This ‘avoidance’ is consistent with the evidently deliberate choice of (pseudonymous) Greek rather than Egyptian legitimation displayed throughout this formulary, most evidently in the Homeromanteion itself.158 A couple of examples will serve to illustrate the degree of assimilation of Greek references. One is a pragma for an unmediated vision of a divinity (autoptos [logos or systasis]).159 The practitioner is to wear shoes made of wolf-skin, a clear reference to Homeric Apollo Lykeios, and a crown of sampsychi, which Dioscorides tells us is a ‘foreign name’ for the plant the Sicilians and Cyzicenes call amarakos, which is indeed made into crowns.160 In the first recipe in the ‘ὀνειρόμαντις μαθηματικός of Pythagoras and Democritus’ (795–845), to evoke a divine intermediary of Helios, the practitioner is to write the Greek names of the signs of the zodiac with voces on individual laurel leaves, and keep them on his person (ἐν στέρνοις) for successful evocation.161 This appropriation extends even to apparently insignificant details, of which I cite two at random. In the prescription for a lychnomanteion with a medium who just appears from nowhere (540–78), there is a tiny but interesting detail: after a sequence of 43 terrific voces magicae/onomata barbara, to be recited three times over, the boymedium is anticipated as saying, in Greek, ὁρῶ τὸν κύριόν συ ἐν τῷ φωτί (578). Even the boy is imagined as speaking Greek – has been assimilated into the Hellenophone scenario. The preceding praxis is a νικητικόν (528–39) that requires the use of the herb katananke. Both Dioscorides and Pliny tell us that this plant was used by Thessalian women, Dioscorides for philtres i.e. love magic, Pliny ad detegendas magi-

157

Aphrodite Ourania is known to have been the Greek equivalent of Hathor at Kusai (El Quseyya) on the West bank in the Thebaïs (cf. Ael. NA 10.27; CLÈRE, Deux nouvelles plaques, 16–22; ROBERT, Bulletin, 211, § 241 [I thank the editors for correcting me on this point]). Aphroditopolis was the Greek name of at least five cities or towns on the Nile, presumably named in honour of Hathor. The most likely candidate here is no doubt modern Atfih in Middle Egypt, where Hathor was worshipped as a white cow (Str. 17.1.35, 809C). 158 MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, Selección, 26, who rightly points to the cultural orientation both of the compilers of V1,2,34 and of the implied reader. 159 PGM VII 727–39. The fullest account is still HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber II, §§ 120–61 (= II.1, 193–256). 160 Dsc. Mat. med. 3.38–9. 161 The reference to Pythagoras and Democritus perhaps implies that the original came from a pseudonymous ‘Magian’ book. The second part of the recipe (822–45) has clearly been taken from another praxis entirely.

122

Richard Gordon

cas vanitates.162 Pliny also notes that as it dries, it takes on the shape of the claws of a kite, i.e. a carrion-eating bird. This plant is generally identified as Ornithopus compressus, known in various modern languages as Yellow Birdsfoot, Flachshülsiger Vogelfuß, pie de pájaro, in Catalan ungla di canari. The idea of using it in a niketikon evidently derives from the claw-like appearance of the dried seed-pods. We can have no idea how this tradition got into a relatively low-grade Graeco-Egyptian stele for getting the better of opponents. But the tiny detail gives us a vivid insight into the intensity with which Greek Kulturgut was appropriated in the process of constructing the Graeco-Egyptian magical tradition.

6. Conclusion In his excellent recent account of the long-term development of the Graeco-Egyptian charitesion from the Demotic models down into Coptic magic, THEODORE DE BRUYN emphasises the cultic tradition within which the practitioners were working. Re/P(h)re/Helios is called upon in traditional Egyptian cadences, as Helios in Greco-Egyptian fashion, as the high god in the company of Jewish angels. These different forms of address … are derivative of a cultic milieu, some more immediately than others. That is to say, they draw on traditions that developed in specific cultic settings, be that the traditional Egyptian temple cult, the more cosmopolitan Hellenistic world, Jewish circles in Alexandria and elsewhere, the devotees of Hermes, or a Valentinian Christian community.163

Looking at the development of a specific magical genre over a long period allows us to appreciate the negotiation between generic pressures, above all the prayer-form, and more contingent considerations, such as the stocking of the divine apparatus, locutionary devices or social mores. In this perspective, individual choices are less important than the external pressures. Focusing on individual pragmata, especially complex ones, such as the ‘Mithras liturgy’ or the ‘Cat ritual’ in P. Mimaut (PGM III) 1– 164 (PGM III.1), provides indispensable insight into the theological and ritual imagination of hypothetical ritual specialists.164 By contrast, examination of a single ‘ambitious collection’, with heterogeneous contents, foregrounds the theme of individual choice, even if at some remove, and so allows us to reconstruct, at any rate in outline, a (loose group of) practitioner’s(~s’) sense of his/their own capabilities and the demands of the clientele. In the case of P. Lond. I 121 (PGM VII), we may judge, the circulation of recipes within epistolary ‘communities’ played a preponderant role in freeing individual practitioners from the limitations of their own practice and thus giving them an edge in the competition with others in the same street, quarter or district. Even local reputation is a demanding master.

162

Plin. HN 27.57; Dsc. Mat. med. 4.31. DE BRUYN, Anatomy, 42. 164 Mithras liturgy (PGM IV 475–829); Cat ritual: HARRAUER, Meliouchos, 15–25. 163

Compiling P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII in a Transcultural Context

123

Table 1: The correlation beween the V1–4 structure and the hypothetical P-texts of P. Lond. I 121 V1 recto (1–221) V2 (222–466)

V3 (467–592) V4 verso (593–973)

cols. I*–IV (Homeromanteion and the times specified for use) 222–49 (Bes oracle) 319–69 (end of col. X) 467–504 593–619 703–26 846–61 970–73

168–85 (Δημοκρίτου παίγνια)

186–96

197–214

215–21

250–71 (end of col. VII)

299

300–318

370–422

272–98 (2 lists) 423–66

505–78

579–90

591–2

620–27 727–39 (end of col. XXI) 862–919 (Seleniakon of Claudianus)

628–63 740–55

664-85 756–94

686–702 795–845

919–25

926–39

940–69

Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals SVENJA NAGEL 1. Introduction This contribution is concerned with the practice of lamp divination or lychnomancy that is documented in the Greek and Demotic magical papyri (PGM and PDM) from Roman Egypt. The paper is divided into two main sections: – The first part presents a general overview of the ritual practice, the spells belonging to it and their core elements.1 – In the second part, one relatively late spell of this genre (PGM IV 930–1114) is discussed as a case study. Taking my departure in this specific example, I will try to demonstrate in which way multiple cultural traditions were fused during the process of copying and adapting spells for this technique.

2. The practice of lamp divination (lychnomancy) 2.1. (Pragmatic) Definition and interrelations with other divination practices Under the heading lychnomancy we subsume rituals for divination in which the invoked god or demon is supposed to appear directly by means of the flame of a lamp. Spells for dream oracles – as discussed by LJUBA M. BORTOLANI within this volume – in which a lamp is also used, but the god appears in a dream after the practitioner went to sleep, are excluded in this narrow definition since the final ‘medium’ for the god is obviously the dream. 2 Nevertheless, both practices are strongly related and furthermore, some of the spells considered here as lychnomancy actually present several alternative techniques, sometimes including a dream oracle after conducting the rituals and invocations (with variations or not) that are also valid for conjuring up the god directly in the flame.3 1

This section is a strongly abbreviated version of my more extensive chapter on lamp divination within a monograph on divination rituals in the PGM/PDM that is currently being prepared by L.M. BORTOLANI and myself. 2 One could label those techniques in which a lamp is used but the god does not appear in/at/around it, ‘indirect lamp divinations’. 3 P. Mag. LL, 5, 1–33; 6, 1–8, 11; 27, 13–36; and maybe PGM II 64–183 (although a dream is not explicitly mentioned, only: ‘go to sleep’). In contrast, PGM VIII 64–110 mainly contains instructions for a dream oracle but gives an alternative option at ll. 85–9 for an awake vision that is obviously

Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals

125

The spells for lamp divination also have a number of similarities to those for bowl divination or lecanomancy:4 these two genres are attested especially often in the Demotic magical manuscripts. Both objects, lamp and bowl, have to be filled with a liquid: oil in the case of the lamp; water, oil or a mixture of both in the case of the bowl. To create a vision and see an appearance of the gods, the practitioner usually has to look into the flickering light of the flame or into the reflecting liquid surface of the bowl respectively. A sequence of closing and opening the eyes is often prescribed to provoke the visual effects. In both ritual techniques a divine light is supposed to emerge and make the epiphany of a deity possible. Despite their similarities, it is noticeable that lamp divination rituals are in most cases directed to a solar deity, whereas during bowl divination chthonic deities and spirits, e.g. Osiris or Anubis, are often invoked. Another strong connection can be observed between the lamp divinations and a subgroup of divination rituals that might be called ‘sunlight divination’.5 Both groups use the light as central medium for the god, and the practitioner or a boy medium usually has to stare into it. 2.2. Status of research on lamp divination Up to now, there have only been two attempts at a more or less comprehensive survey and analysis of the lychnomancy spells: the first one by HOPFNER does not include all of the spells6 and is outdated by now, and the recent overview by GEE is problematic and inaccurate in several respects.7 Furthermore, GEE mainly gives an overview of the Demotic spells and quotes parallel sections of the Greek spells on some occasions only. ZOGRAFOU as well as CALVO MARTÍNEZ discuss some main aspects of the use of lamps in the PGM, but do not include the Demotic texts.8 2.3. Sources: the manuscripts and the organisation of the spells All in all, 14 extant spells can be counted in which the invoked god is supposed to appear directly by means of the flame of the lamp (at least as one alternative): PGM I 262–347 achieved by the preparation of a lamp and a recitation to it, thus being in line with lychnomancy spells. 4 Cf. on the strong relations between both practices also CUNEN, Lampe et coupe. 5 Cf. also QUACK, Postulated and Real Efficacy, 47. E.g. the divination rituals with a boy P. Mag. LL, 29, 1–20 and P. Mag. LL, 29, 20–30 belong to this group of ‘sunlight divination’. 6 HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber II, §§ 212–27: the Demotic spell sequence P. Mag. LL, 16, 1–17; 16, 18–30; 17, 1–26; and 17, 26–18, 6 is left out. See below (2.3) for a full list of lamp divination spells. 7 GEE, Lamp Divination. GEE does not even acknowledge HOPFNER’s groundwork (p. 207: ‘Hopfner’s classic study (...) scarcely mentions it’, with reference to HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber, 554, § 828, i.e. vol. I, which means that GEE obviously did not look at vol. II. 8 ZOGRAFOU, Magic Lamps; CALVO MARTÍNEZ, Morfología. For the Greek and Demotic spells see however the remarks by QUACK, Postulated and Real Efficacy, passim (within the wider context of the divination rituals in the PGM/PDM).

126

Svenja Nagel

PGM II 64–183 PGM IV 930–1114 PGM VII 540–78 PGM VIII 64–110 P. Mag. LL, 5, 1–33 = PDM xiv 117–49

P. Mag. LL, 6, 1–8, 11 = PDM xiv 150–231 P. Mag. LL, 16, 1–17 = PDM xiv 459–75 P. Mag. LL, 16, 18–30 = PDM xiv 476–88 P. Mag. LL, 17, 1–26 = PDM xiv 489–515 P. Mag. LL, 17, 26–18, 6 = PDM xiv 515–27 P. Mag. LL, 25, 1–22 = PDM xiv 750–71 P. Mag. LL, 27, 13–36 = PDM xiv 817–40 PSI Inv. D 90

Case study, see below with boy dream oracle with alternative option for lamp divination dream oracle with an invocation typical of lamp divinations and alternative option for lamp divination + addition/footnote on vs.: P. Mag. LL vs., 31, 1–7 = PDM xiv 1199–205 with boy, also option for dream oracle and another option for lamp divination without a boy9 with boy with boy with boy with boy with boy with boy, or alone, and also a section for a dream oracle with boy (Demotic papyrus from Tebtynis)10

Sometimes, the separation of successive instructions for rituals, alternatives and invocations into individual spells is not absolutely obvious. In some cases, subsequent ‘spells’ (in the way they are separated in BETZ’s collection)11 are or might be in fact only alternative instructions for some parts of the previous ritual. For instance, the title of P. Mag. LL, 16, 18–30, k¥ gy n.|m=f on ‘Yet another method of it’, refers back to the previous spell P. Mag. LL, 16, 1–17; considering the fact that the latter incorporates only invocations with minimal instructions, whereas the first gives a detailed ritual procedure but only one alternative invocation, it is quite likely that they belong together as one spell. This single spell would exactly fill the column 16 of P. Mag. LL, which further supports this idea. A similar case can be made for the two following instructions P. Mag. LL, 17, 1–26 and P. Mag. LL, 17, 26–18, 6, the latter being only a variation of the former’s central invocation.12 A very recent addition to the corpus is PSI Inv. D 90, the fragmentary remains of a Demotic magical handbook, identified by JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK and currently in preparation for an edition by him. The differing provenance – Tebtynis instead of Thebes – and a slightly earlier date – probably the early second century – set it a little bit apart from the other attestations (end of the second/beginning of the third to fourth or fifth century) and make it especially interesting for the analysis of this ritual technique’s development in Egypt.

9

I examine this spell as a case study with extensive commentary within the monograph on divination spells prepared by L.M. BORTOLANI and myself. 10 An edition is currently being prepared by J.F. QUACK. 11 BETZ (ed.), GMPT. 12 They are already counted as parts of one spell by the original editors GRIFFITH/THOMPSON, Demotic Magical Papyrus I, 14, but separated in BETZ (ed.), GMPT.

Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals

127

All the other extant Demotic lychnomancy spells are concentrated on the manuscript P. Mag. LL (PDM xiv) exclusively. Moreover, these recipes are strongly interrelated with each other and can probably be traced back to only one basic technique, which was expanded over time into several alternative details and variations. The huge handbook P. Mag. LL shows several sequences of spells belonging to common thematic groups like ‘divination’ or ‘love magic’. This means that at least large parts of the spells were organised in a reasonable order, perhaps not by the compiler of P. Mag. LL itself, but rather by the respective editors/scribes responsible for the various master copies from which the spells of P. Mag. LL were presumably assembled. Throughout the papyrus three such clusters of divination spells can be observed on the recto side: 1. cols. 1–10: 2. cols. 16–18: 3. cols. 27–9:

largest group of divination spells, with mainly long instructions for basic techniques, including many details. mainly lamp + one bowl divination, with many alternatives, less detailed than group I. mixed group with shorter spells (each c. half a column long), including one nearly exact duplicate of a lamp divination spell in group I, and one of a bowl divination as well.13

Lamp divination spells are a subgroup within all three of these clusters and they are the main focus of group II. In contrast, within the Greek magical handbooks, only four single lychnomancy spells are scattered over the four manuscripts PGM I, II, IV and VII, plus one lychnomancy alternative to a dream oracle spell in PGM VIII, whereas all the other Greek papyri do not contain any direct lamp divination at all. While those of PGM I and II (PGM I 262–347 and PGM II 64–183) can be considered as related, the others (PGM IV 930– 1114, VII 540–78 and VIII 64–110) are quite divergent in ritual details. 2.4. Titles The texts subsumed here under the heading ‘Lamp divination (Lychnomancy)’ actually comprise spells that were given quite varying titles by their original ancient compilers, even within one and the same manuscript.14 We have to consider that the ancient authors’/compilers’ criteria for choosing a title were obviously somewhat distinct from ours: thus, a Demotic title corresponding to our modern categorisation would be wo Sn n p# xbs (‘An inquiry/oracle of the lamp’), but it designates only one15 of the nine extant Demotic lamp divination rituals. Its Greek equivalent is Λυχνομαντεῖον (‘Light/Lamp oracle’) that is also only given as a title to one16 of the Greek spells of

13 Lamp divination parallels: P. Mag. LL, 5, 1–33 (group I) and P. Mag. LL, 27, 13–36 (group III). Bowl divination parallels: P. Mag. LL, 10, 22–35 (group I) and P. Mag. LL, 27, 1–12 (group III). 14 This is certainly the case for the numerous spells in P. Mag. LL. 15 P. Mag. LL, 6, 1–8, 11. 16 PGM VII 540–78.

128

Svenja Nagel

this genre. Other Demotic titles, however, do at least refer to the central object, the lamp, with other words.17 2.5. Ritual procedures Basically, the extant lamp divination spells seem to belong to two different groups, one with a more ‘Egyptian’ tradition, the other with a strong ‘Greek’ and more specifically, Apollonian background with probable roots in the official divination procedures of famous Apollo sanctuaries. 18 The spells of each group share many common elements. All the Demotic spells belong to the first group, but also the two Greek spells PGM IV 930–1114 and PGM VII 540–78 as well as the alternative option of PGM VIII 64–110 can be counted among them. The second group consists only of the two Greek spells PGM I 262–347 and PGM II 64–183. Type 1. The most extensive and detailed ritual instruction for the ‘Egyptian type’ is the long spell P. Mag. LL, 6, 1–8, 11, containing many elements that reappear in the other spells, and giving several alternatives for single aspects of the ritual. Furthermore, the contents, script and language of the spell show certain chronologically older characteristics in some sections (e.g. the frequent use of outdated words and grammatical structures as well as of the older Hieratic script), pointing to an earlier date of composition than other parts of the manuscript.19 The core ritual generally takes place in a room, in which the lamp is set up. The exact setting and configuration of the lamp is usually described in great detail since it constitutes the most important part of the ritual. In most cases of the ‘Egyptian type’ a child is used as a medium, but sometimes the magician can also conduct the ritual alone and thereby see the gods himself, if he prefers that. The appearance of a deity or demon is usually produced by a sequence of closing and opening the eyes to look at the lamp (which is done by the magician himself or the boy),20 while reciting to the lamp (done by the magician and sometimes the boy)21 and, in rituals with a medium, to the boy (done by the magician).22 17

E.g. n# md.wt n p# xbs ‘The words of (or: for) the lamp’ (P. Mag. LL, 16, 1–17). An extension of this including also the child medium used for the respective practice is n# md.wt n p# xbs r Sn n p# olw ‘The words of/for the lamp to question the child’ (P. Mag. LL, 25, 1–22). 18 For lychnomancies/dream oracles with such a background cf. also the contribution by L.M. BORTOLANI in this volume. 19 Cf. QUACK, En route, esp. 192. 20 In PGM IV 930–1114; P. Mag. LL, 6, 1–8, 11; 16, 18–30; 17, 1–26; 17, 26–18, 6 (closing implied); 25, 1–22; 27, 13–36; PSI Inv. D 90. P. Mag. LL, 5, 1–33, which is a ritual for the magician alone and basically to be used as a dream oracle, only gives the order to look at the lamp (without closing the eyes first). No instructions about looking or not looking at all are given in PGM VII 540– 578, VIII 64–110 and P. Mag. LL, 16, 1–17, all of which are lacking detailed instructions anyway. 21 Explicitly in PGM IV 930–1114; P. Mag. LL, 5, 1–33; 6, 1–8, 11; 16, 1–17; 17, 1–26; 27, 13– 36; PSI Inv. D 90. Probably implied also in PGM VII 540–78, VIII 64–110 and P. Mag. LL, 17, 26– 18, 6. 22 P. Mag. LL, 6, 1–8, 11; 16, 1–17; 16, 18–30; 17, 1–26; 17, 26–18, 6; 25, 1–22; 27, 13–36; and probably implied in PGM VII 540–78.

Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals

129

Type 2. The ‘Greek’ or ‘Apollonian type’ of the extant lamp divination rituals also uses the lamp to make the deity appear in/around it, but here it does not seem to be the only central element. In both spells of this group, PGM I 262–347 and PGM II 64–183, Apollo is adressed as main deity with Greek hexametrical hymns and, accordingly, laurel sprigs and leaves are used to influence him, as laurel was considered his sacred plant. The laurel leaves are supposed to be inscribed with magical names or characters. In the course of the rituals a throne and a couch or footstool are set up and covered with linen, probably to receive the appearance of the god.23 Quite in contrast to the ‘Egyptian type’, the ‘Greek type’-spells make a point of prescribing detailed food offerings, libations and burnt offerings for the deity.

3. Case study: PGM IV 930–1114 3.1. Title(s) The spell PGM IV 930–1114 is entitled Αὔτοπτος (‘visible in person’ or ‘awake vision’), which is a rather general term used also for other divination spells24 that produce a vision of the invoked deity instead of a dream. However, in the first recitation of the case study spell, in l. 953, the title is specified to αὐτόπτου λυχνομαντία, ‘lamp divination for awake vision’, and the term λυχνομαντία corresponds with the title Λυχνομαντεῖον used for the Greek lamp divination spell of PGM VII 540–78. 3.2. Position and interrelations within the manuscript The case study spell is contained in the largest known magical handbook, the codex Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale suppl. gr. no. 574, which is usually dated to the fourth century CE.25 In spite of its Greek script and mainly Greek language, this manuscript also contains spells with a strong Egyptian background, partly even written in Old Coptic. Following the very insightful study by LYNN LIDONNICI on compositional patterns in PGM IV,26 the spell under discussion belongs to a group of four divinatory spells followed by one seemingly unrelated exorcism spell: PGM IV 850–929 PGM IV 930–1114 PGM IV 1115–66 PGM IV 1167–226 PGM IV 1227–64 23

‘Solomon’s collapse’ (divination with possessed medium) ‘Visible in person’ (lychnomancy) ‘Hidden stele’ (divinatory invocation) ‘Stele that is useful for all things’ (divinatory invocation) ‘Excellent rite for driving out demons’ (exorcism spell)

On these elements cf. NAGEL, ‘Was im Tempel passiert’, 511–12. PGM III 291 (now PGM III.2, see LOVE, ‘PGM III’ Archive); III 699 (PGM III.1); V 54 (lecanomancy); Va 3; VII 319 (lecanomancy); VII 335 (Αὐτοπτική); VII 727; VIII 85 (alternative to dream oracle). 25 For PGM IV as a whole see LIDONNICI, Compositional Patterns; PREISENDANZ, Zum großen Pariser Zauberpapyrus; SATZINGER, Old Coptic Text, 213–14. For the Old Coptic sections ibid., and ERMAN, Ägyptische Beschwörungen; GRIFFITH, Old Coptic Magical Texts; new edition by LOVE, Code-Switching. 26 LIDONNICI, Compositional Patterns. 24

130

Svenja Nagel

In fact, the exorcism spell could in my opinion have been loosely connected as an auxiliary spell, because at least the first spell of this group operates by possession, so it could have been added as a possible counteragent. There seem to be some parallel cases where divination spells are also followed by exorcisms or phylacteries against daimons.27 The whole group is separated by blank spaces from the following cluster of spells.28 Furthermore, all the spells of this group are additionally connected by some details within the contents, like references and invocations of the Jewish/Christian god, Jewish patriarchs, Jerusalem etc. Thus, the whole group was probably copied together from one older original manuscript.29 3.3 Formal structure of the spell The complex lamp divination spell of PGM IV shows a very clear structure and contains many different sections that are marked in the manuscript by individual headings and mostly also by paragraphoi, some of them straight and some forked ones. This density of section-markers is unusual and not typical for the manuscript of PGM IV as a whole.30 The complete spell is also separated from the preceding one (‘Solomon’s collapse’) by circa two blank lines and a forked paragraphos. The spell is thus structured as follows: Table 1: Structure of PGM IV 930–1114 Lines of section 930– 1114

930–55

Lines of subsection  

 

933–6 938–55 955–74

955–8

Heading or subheading

Contents of the section/subsection

αὔτοπτος ‘Visible in person/ awake vision’ σύστασις ‘Encounter/ communion (with god)’ –

Spell for lamp divination

λόγος ‘Recitation’ φωταγωγία ‘Light-bringing charm’ –

Initial prayer for the support of the sun-god, which is to be spoken first to the sunrise, then to the lamp

Insertion of preparatory instructions: dress and other attire for divination Invocation of sun-god: hexametrical hymn + prose prayer Prayer to the lamp

Instructions for the prayer to the lamp (attire and posture)

27 E.g. in the same manuscript: the sequence of divinatory rituals PGM IV 1–85 is directly followed by a very short ‘Phylactery against daimons’ (PGM IV 86–7). 28 LIDONNICI, Compositional Patterns, 164. 29 LIDONNICI, Compositional Patterns, 164–6. 30 LIDONNICI, Compositional Patterns, 165.

Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals 959–74 974–85

974–7 978–85 985– 1035 985–6 987– 1035 1035–46

1035–6 1037–46 1047–52 1047–9 1049–52 1053–6

1057–65 1057–60 1061–5 1065–71

1065–70 1070–71 1071–84

1075–80 1085– 100 1103–14

λόγος ‘Recitation’ κάτοχος τοῦ φωτὸς ‘Lightretaining spell’ – λόγος ‘Recitation’ θεαγωγὸς λόγος ‘Godbringing spell’ – –

Invocation of the lightbringing god

ἐπάναγκος ‘Compulsion spell’ – – χαιρετισμός ‘Salutation’ – – κάτοχος τοῦ θεοῦ ‘Godretaining charm’ ἀπόλυσις ‘Dismissal’ – – τῆς αὐγῆς ἀπόλυσις ‘Dismissal of the brightness’ –

Compulsion spell to use in the case the god does not come

– φυλακτήριον τῆς πράξεως ‘Phylactery for the rite’ – ποίησις ‘Procedure’ σημεῖα τοῦ λύχνου ‘Signs of the lamp’

Prayer in order to keep the light

Instructions for the prayer to the light + explanation Invocation of the light Prayer to the solar creator god to enter and answer

Instructions for the prayer to the solar creator god Invocation of Horus Harpokrates

Instructions for the compulsion spell Invocation of the superior god Greeting of the solar creator god after his entering Instructions for the greeting Invocation of Horus Harpokrates Ιnstructions for the ritual of retaining the god

Dismissal of the solar creator god Instructions for the dismissal ritual Prayer of thanks to BAINCHŌŌŌCH Dismissal of the brightness

Prayer to the light to leave + explanatory remark (by redactor) Instructions for the dismissal of the brightness Ritual instructions for the phylactery

Spell to be written on the phylactery Ritual instructions for the setting of the core ritual Comment: additional explanations of how exactly the god will be seen in the light

131

132

Svenja Nagel

As is obvious from this table, the actual ritual instructions for the core part of this ritual are only given towards the end of the spell (ll. 1071–100), whereas all the different recitations that are to be uttered during the procedure are strung together in the first three quarters of the written recipe (ll. 930–1071). In contrast, the comparably detailed Demotic lychnomancies of the first part of P. Mag LL31 as well as the Egyptian type Greek spell of PGM VII32 describe the praxis first, and provide the diverse logoi afterwards.33 Furthermore, some of the sections contained in the spell under discussion are not part of the actual core ritual, but serve as additional rituals or information that help to make the performance easier: a compulsion spell (ll. 1035–46), a phylactery (ll. 1071– 84), two separate dismissals (ll. 1057–65 and 1065–71) and explanatory comments (ll. 1103–14), many of which are lacking in many of the other attested lychnomancies. Dismissals and phylacteries, however, are not obviously used at all in the Demotic lamp divinations – a point to which I will come back again below. In the following, I present some comments on the various subsections and compare them with corresponding passages in the other lamp divination recipes. 3.4. Ritual instructions for the setting of the core ritual: lamp, place/space and time In contrast to the order of the written formulary, I begin with the instructions for the setting of the core ritual (ll. 1085–100) as they present the main elements specific to lamp divination. As in all the other ‘Egyptian type’ lamp divination spells that preserve ritual instructions, including the other Greek language example of PGM VII 540–78, the main part of the ritual takes place in a room or house, constituting a demarcated space for the encounter with a deity. The creation of space or even sacred space is furthermore enhanced by the instruction to tie papyrus cords to the four corners of the room in the shape of an X, in the middle of which a mat and the lamp have to be placed. The ritual is thereby embedded into the structure of the cosmos with its four cardinal directions, which play an important role in Egyptian temple rituals as well,34 and it is thus associated with creation. The tying of the papyrus cords is probably derived from the ‘Stretching the Cord’-ritual (pD Ssr) within the Egyptian temple founding ceremony that is attested throughout Egyptian history from the Old Kingdom up to Roman times.35 Plus, by placing the lamp in the middle of the X, the medium of the deity’s 31

P. Mag. LL, 5, 1–33 (as well as its parallel P. Mag. LL, 27, 13–36) and 6, 1–8, 11. PGM VII 540–78. 33 Unfortunately, the older Demotic example from Tebtynis (PSI Inv. D 90) does not preserve the part with the ritual instructions. 34 See, in general, e.g. RAVEN, Egyptian Concepts; on the creation of sacred space in the divination rituals of the magical papyri as based on Egyptian rituals see in more detail NAGEL, ‘Was im Tempel passiert’. 35 See PARK, Stretching; LABRIQUE, Stylistique, 245–51; LEITZ, Astronomie, 61. Cf. for instance Edfou II, 31, 4–5: ‘I take the rod and I seize the handle of the mallet. I measure with Seshat. I turn my face to the path of the stars, I let my eyes reach the Foreleg (= the Great Bear) while ck-oHo (= Thoth) is at the side of his angle-perpendicular. I fix the four corners of the temple’. 32

Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals

133

epiphany stands symbolically in the centre of the universe. If we compare this instruction with those of the Demotic lychnomancy recipes of P. Mag. LL, the latter are a little less detailed and the lamp is always put on a brick and not on a mat. However, in Egyptian tradition bricks – often four of them – played an important role within several ritual contexts, the most self-evident one being again the foundation of the temple.36 They, too, served the delimitation of a cosmic space by giving an orientation according to the four cardinal points37 and thus represented a repetition of creation. Therefore, the overall symbolism is the same, but for some reason the bricks used in the Demotic spells were not adopted in any of the Greek language spells.38 As usual, a lamp has to be prepared with olive oil and a wick, which in this case has to be fashioned from reed grass and additionally rubbed with fat of a black, male, firstborn and first-reared ram. The material ‘reed grass’ is expressed by the Egyptian/Semitic word #xy transcribed into Greek (‘the so-called ἄχι’),39 which points to an Egyptian origin of this part of the spell. Furthermore, the reason for the employment of reed grass in the first place is probably its affiliation or ‘magical sympathy’ with Horus/Harpokrates, the invoked god of the spell: the child Harpokrates was raised by his mother Isis in the reed marshes of the Delta, and therefore he is for instance also called nb yx.w ‘lord of reed grass’ in a papyrus offering scene in the temple of Edfu.40 Similarly, this might be the reason for the usage of papyrus cords to tie to the four corners of the room. Substances of a (black) ram are used in several magical recipes addressed to the Egyptian sun-god41 since the ram is his manifestation in the evening/at night.42 Also 36

See e.g. ABD EL-AZIM EL-ADLY, Gründungs- und Weiheritual; LABRIQUE, Stylistique, 261–5. RAVEN, Egyptian Concepts, 51. 38 Maybe the instruction to set a lamp upon a lampstand ‘fashioned from virgin soil’ in the dream oracle spell PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64 (for PGM VI and II being part of the same papyrus, see CHRONOPOULOU, PGM VI), is a derivation from the Egyptian practices with new bricks, especially since an ‘uncorrupted boy’ is also involved. Cf. maybe also the instruction in PGM I 262–347 to ‘construct an altar of unburnt clay near the head (of the wolf) and the lamp so that you may sacrifice to the god’ (ll. 282–4). 39 PGM IV 1091. See for this word and its attestations in other languages CDD, #, 68; HOFFMANN, ‘Panzer des Inaros’, 373, n. 2299; OSING, Nominalbildung II, 602–3, n. 568. 40 Edfou VII, 259, 1. 41 E.g. PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64, IV 1275–322 and VII 528–39 (brain of a black ram as offering in all three cases); PGM XXXVI 312–20 (umbilical cord from a firstborn ram; the practitioner identifies himself with Horus); maybe also P. Mag. LL, 14, 1–34 (sacrifice/piece of meat of a black ram?), cf. J. H. JOHNSON, in BETZ (ed.), GMPT, 219, n. 323. 42 The black colour is also mentioned in a Pyramid Text and a Book of the Dead spell: ‘(...) because you are the black ram (sr), the son of the black/light-coloured sheep (sr.t)’, PT 246 (§ 252b)/BoD Ch. 177. Cf. also P. Mag. LL, 11, 8: |nk sr|w s# sr|w ‘I am (the) ram, son of (the) ram’. Explanation: In quotations of original text from the magical papyri the following typographic codes are used throughout this paper in order to reflect the complex script system in these sources: Bold type: reflects a rubric in the original manuscript. Italic type: reflects the use of Hieratic script in an original manuscript that is generally written in Demotic (for which non-italic transliteration is used). SMALL CAPS: reflect foreign words (voces magicae) rendered in Greek or Old Coptic script in the original manuscript. 37

134

Svenja Nagel

Osiris, the father of Harpokrates, can be called b# km ‘black ram’.43 In the invocations of Demotic lamp divinations reference is made to the ram-shape as well, e.g. in a compulsion spell of P. Mag. LL, 6, 1–8, 11: Dd mdw r.|nk p# Hr n sr|w• Hwnw rn=|• Recitation: ‘I am the Ram’s face, Youth is my name.’ (6, 22)

In the case study spell of PGM IV the ram is, apart from the quoted passage about the preparation of the wick, only mentioned in the form of a vox magica SRŌ (from Egyptian sr|w) in l. 1011. After the usual prescriptions for personal purity (here: three days in advance),44 the instruction to rub the wick with ram-fat is repeated at the end of the paragraph with the preparations, attesting to at least some redundancy in the otherwise carefully edited and structured spell. That it is in general very well thought-out is shown by the directive to ‘stand in the previously mentioned fashion, facing the sunrise’, when beginning the ritual (ll. 1095–7), a coherent cross-reference to the first paragraph of the spell describing the initial prayer to the sun-god and the attire and way of standing when addressing him. I will come to that section now. 3.5. Spells to the sun-god in the morning The first ritual action is a prayer towards the rising sun in order to gain the sun-god’s support for a successful divination (ll. 930–55). As it aims at some kind of alliance between deity and magician, it is called σύστασις ‘encounter/communion (with god)’ in the Greek text. The Demotic parallels of P. Mag. LL show that a prayer to the sungod in the morning was actually an integral part of the Egyptian style lamp divinations. In the long and chronologically older Egyptian spell of P. Mag. LL, 6, 1–8, 11 this recitation is quoted by title only, parts of which are written in Hieratic: mtw=k oS n# sx.w n dw# Ro tp tw¥ m Xo=f• And you recite the ‘Spells of praising Re at dawn when he rises’ (6, 3)

This points to a specific kind of text or text genre which had to be well known by the original Egyptian practitioner, since the actual words of the invocation itself are not given here.45 The greeting of the sun-god in the morning in the form of a hymn or litany had a long tradition in Egyptian religion,46 and the quoted title is actually very similar to titles of ritual books that are known from Egyptian sources at least from the superscript

: reflects supralinear glosses. •: reflects a verse point in the original manuscript. 43 See LGG II, 703c. 44 For the ritual demands for purity of the priests see e.g. QUACK, Concepts of Purity; GEE, Requirements; DERCHAIN-URTEL, Priester im Tempel, 200–202; DIELEMAN, Rituele reinheid. On ritual purity in the specific context of divine visions see also QUACK, Königsweihe; QUACK, Postulated and Real Efficacy, 50–51. 45 Cf. DIELEMAN, Priests, 54–5. 46 See ASSMANN, Hymnen und Gebete, 46–63 and 95–252; ASSMANN, Liturgische Lieder, 165– 227 and 300–332; ASSMANN, Sonnenhymnen, passim; cf. also QUACK, Postulated and Real Efficacy, 50.

Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals

135

New Kingdom onwards, although they use the expression wbn=f instead of Xo=f (dw# Ro m wbn=f ‘praising Re when he rises’ etc.) and the older rA.w instead of sx.w (‘spells’).47 In fact, a large number of attestations for the praise of the sun-god in the morning originates from Thebes,48 just like the large magical handbooks themselves. The remaining Demotic examples that contain this instruction – all of them located within the second cluster of divination spells in the manuscript P. Mag. LL – fill in some already adapted and changed material here: a recitation is actually quoted and consists of little more than voces magicae, plus in two cases a short prayer to let everything succeed: –

– –

The invocation which you should recite before Pre early in the morning (p# oS nt|-|.|r+=k oS r-Hr p# Ro n Xrp) before you have recited to the youth, in order that that which you will do will come about: ‘Oh great god, (voces magicae)’ (7x).49 You should recite this spell before Pre (r.|r+=k oS p#|.y oS r-Hr p# Ro) 3x or 7x: ‘(Voces magicae), let everything that I shall undertake here today, let it happen!’50 Another invocation which you recite opposite Pre at dawn (k¥ oS |w Xr-|r+=k oS=f wb¥ p# Ro n dw#¥) 3x or 7x: ‘(Voces magicae), may everything which I shall do today come about!’51

These similar instructions from the Demotic lychnomancy spells demonstrate again that the purpose of this morning prayer to Re was to gain his support and thereby guarantee the success of the following procedure. The sequence of voces magicae is the same in all three cases, with only spelling variations. In fact it is identical with voces magicae added at a later stage of editing to the otherwise traditionally Egyptian spells addressed to the lamp in the chronologically older spell P. Mag. LL, 6, 1–8, 11.52 Thus, it seems to me that the editor of the cluster-II-group (or rather its master copy) did not know what to make of the scarce information of the original ‘Spells of praising Re at dawn when he rises’, or was not content with it, and therefore wanted to fill in the full text of an actual prayer, which he just copied from a prayer to the lamp itself. In our Greek lamp divination spell PGM IV 930–1114 the prayer to the sun-god has been adapted and was called Systasis, to be recited first toward the sunrise and a second time to the lamp itself. The full text of a prayer is given, and it is not an Egyptian sun-litany, but a short Greek hexametrical hymn adapting a line of Homer’s Odyssey53 but reflecting Egyptian images and concepts of the young sun-god, and mixed with a

47

See SCHOTT, Bücher und Bibliotheken, nos. 1753–9 and 1150–72; cf. DIELEMAN, Priests, 55. Cf. ASSMANN, Liturgische Lieder, 182. This corpus of sun-hymns was extensively absorbed in the funerary culture of the Saite Period (cf. ASSMANN, Sonnenhymnen, XXXIV–XXXV), which again has to be seen as an important anthology from which later editors and users of religious texts, and in the end the magical papyri of the Roman Period, could pick and reformulate. 49 P. Mag. LL, 16, 15–16. 50 P. Mag. LL, 16, 19–22. 51 P. Mag. LL, 17, 23–6. 52 P. Mag. LL, 7, 6–7. 53 Od. 4.458: Menelaos tries to obtain an oracle from Proteus; Proteus assumes different forms in order to escape. See on this hymn in detail the commentary by BORTOLANI, Magical Hymns, hymn no. 5. Cf. also the contribution by R. PHILLIPS in this volume. 48

136

Svenja Nagel

few voces magicae. The concluding lines of the hymn as well as the prose appeal in the end clearly ask for the solar creator god’s support again: Be propitious to me, first father, and may you yourself grant me strength! Stay allied, lord, and listen to me (...)!

The instruction that the same prayer has to be recited again to the lamp agrees well with the mentioned fact that in the cluster-II-lychnomancies of P. Mag. LL the contents of the prayer to the sun has been copied from the invocation to the lamp of the extensive spell of cluster I (that is, probably its predecessor). This underlines the imagined direct connection between sunlight and lamplight, as it is also explained by the Roman author and philosopher Apuleius: There is nothing strange; that small flame made by human hands, however, the memory of that greater and heavenly fire, as if of its parent, can in measure both know by divine foreknowledge and announce to us what will be produced in the firmament above. (Apul. Met. 2.12)

Also, the long Demotic spell prescribes to ‘bring the lamp opposite the sun, while it (the lamp) is burning’ after the morning prayer, whereas in the instructions of PGM IV it is less clearly said in the instructions ‘light the lamp and stand in the previously mentioned fashion, facing the sunrise, whenever you perform the rite’. The orientation of the rite towards sunrise is furthermore paralleled by the setting of the room in some of the other lychnomancy spells, where a channel of communication with the rising sun has to be ‘opened’ in one way or another, so it can intrude into the light of the lamp: – in P. Mag. LL, 6, 1–8, 11 a niche has to be dug in the eastern wall – in PGM VII 540–78 the whole ritual is to be conducted in the eastern part of a house – in P. Mag. LL, 27, 13–36 the lamp is hung on the eastern wall – P. Mag. LL, 16, 18–30 as well as P. Mag. LL, 25, 1–22 specify a room with a door that opens to the east.54 Additionally, one dream oracle that also makes use of a lamp, gives the direction to point the lamp toward the east.55 The creation of a communication channel between sunlight and lamp could be compared to a passage in the Egyptian Book of the Dead spell 137 A, a spell to light the torches: these are to be lighted ‘in the presence of the beauty of Re’ (Xft nfr.w Ro), which in this context probably means the sunset.56 3.6. The ‘light-bringing charm’ (φωταγωγία) After the recitation of the described prayer to the rising sun and to the lamp, another invocation is addressed to the lamp, called ‘light-bringing charm’ in its heading (PGM IV 955–74). It corresponds closely with a central logos of some of the Demotic lych54 The last spell additionally gives the alternative option of a room with an opening to the south, i.e. the midday sun, which corresponds with the prescription of an opening to the south (without alternative) in P. Mag. LL, 5, 1–33. 55 PGM IV 3172–208 (3194). 56 See the interpretation by LUFT, Anzünden der Fackel, 92–3 and 194–5, with n. 54.

Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals

137

nomancy recipes which is entitled ‘The spells for the youth’ (n# sx.w n p# olw) in one of them, as it is to be recited into the ears of a boy medium in most of these practices.57 The recitation of the case study spell addresses a powerful god who is described as a begetter of light etc. and named with the names of the Egyptian creator god Ptah, 58 as well as the Jewish Iaō and the Jewish-sounding angel name BOUĒL. The latter is also known from revelatory conjurations in the Late Antique Jewish magical book Sefer ha-Razim, where he actually appears in a pillar of fire, corresponding to the association with light in the Graeco-Egyptian magical spells.59 He is also addressed as lightbringer60 in the Demotic lamp divination spells of P. Mag. LL cluster I and II,61 where his name appears in the forms b-o#-¥lⲃⲟⲏⲗ or bw¥lⲃⲟⲩⲏⲗ and is often reduplicated. Obviously, BOĒL/BOUĒL was mainly understood as a patron angel/deity of lychnomancy in the Egyptian handbooks,62 but he is invoked in two bowl divination spells as well.63 Furthermore, the form IAĒL (Iaō+ēl) (PGM IV 961) is paralleled in the BOĒLlogos of the Demotic lychnomancies as well. Although Ptah, the ancient creator god of Memphis, is not directly associated with BOĒL in the Demotic spells, he appears as PTHAKH ELOE – that is, also combined with a Hebrew title (‘god’) – in the long recitation of voces magicae preceding the BOĒL-logos in P. Mag. LL, 16, 1–17.64 What is also interesting is the connection of other Memphite deities in the parallel logoi, namely TAT, the deified Djed-pillar of Memphis that was associated with Ptah, Sokar and Osiris.65 Additionally, the invocation of the other Greek-language but Egyptian-type lamp divination, PGM VII 540–78, though it follows another tradition and not the 66 BOĒL-logos, mentions not only TAT, but also APH, that is the Memphite Apis-bull. In the oldest attested lamp divination spell on the Demotic Florence papyrus, either the 57

An exception is P. Mag. LL, 5, 1–33, according to which the magician operates alone and can also perform it as a dream oracle. 58 Within the voces magicae PEIPTA PHŌS ZA und PAI PHTHENTA PHŌSZA, as well as PHTHA PHTHA PHTHAĒL PHTHA. See for these variations with the name of Ptah QUACK, Griechische und andere Dämonen, 455–6; QUACK, Zauber ohne Grenzen, 187–9. 59 Sepher ha-Razim, 1, 232; edition REBIGER/SCHÄFER, Sefer ha-Razim. See GEE, Lamp Divination, 209; FAUTH, Helios Megistos, 110; LESSES, Ritual Practices, 230–54, 290–91 and 313: BOĒL is the overseer of the seventh encampment of angels in the first firmament, and he appears in a pillar of fire to interpret dreams etc. There is even a dismissal of BOĒL in the Sefer ha-Razim, containing an invocation, parts of which are rendered in Greek language (set in italics in the following quotation) transcribed into Hebrew script: ‘If you wish to release him, hurl water three times to heaven from the sea or from the river on which you stand, and say: “Invisible lord Boēl, sufficient to our need, the perfect shield bearer, I free you, I free you, subside and return to your (heavenly) course”’, see LESSES, Ritual Practices, 316. 60 p# nt| D+.t wyn m-sS sp 2 ‘he who gives very much light’. 61 P. Mag. LL, 5, 1–33; 6, 1–8, 11; 16, 1–17; 17, 1–26; 17, 26–18, 6. 62 Cf. GEE, Lamp Divination, 209; FAUTH, Helios Megistos, 110; QUACK, Griechische und andere Dämonen, 458. 63 P. Mag. LL, 1, 1–3, 35; and P. Mag. LL vs., 26, 1–27, 8. 64 16, 2. There is a number of other instances in which Ptah is connected with Yahweh and other Jewish titles and elements, see QUACK, Zauber ohne Grenzen, 188–92. 65 For the identification of TAT see QUACK, Griechische und andere Dämonen, 498; QUACK, Zu einer angeblich apokalyptischen Passage, 244, n. 6; QUACK, Zauber ohne Grenzen, 186. 66 Cf. QUACK, Zauber ohne Grenzen, 186.

138

Svenja Nagel

magician or the boy medium identifies himself as ‘the son of Sakhmet’,67 whereas the long and chronologically also relatively old spell of P. Mag. LL, 6, 1–8, 11 designates Sakhmet as ‘mother’ of the divining lamp itself.68 Sakhmet, again, was venerated as consort of Ptah in Memphis. Obviously, some kind of Memphite background has been processed somewhere in the course of the redaction history of the Egyptian lamp divinations and especially its central recitations. Even the connection of Memphite deities, especially Ptah, with Jewish religious elements could have had roots in Memphis, as the presence of Jews is attested there at least from the sixth century BCE onwards, and in letters from Aramaeans and Jews we can see that they sometimes also paid hommage to Ptah and other Egyptian deities.69 Some other names and epithets used in the ‘lightbringing charm’ of the spell under discussion also find their counterparts in other lychnomancy recipes. ‘The living god’, τὸν θεὸν τὸν ζῶντα, seems to be an equivalent to the Demotic p# nTr nt| onX (nt|-|w bw|r+=f mwt) ‘the god who lives (and never dies)’ that appears within the BOĒL-logos of four spells of P. Mag. LL.70 Within the series of magical names beginning with BOUĒL PHTHA PHTHA PHTHAĒL PHTHA is contained the vox magica ABAI, which is in all likelihood derived from Hebrew ‘my father’.71 It can probably be connected with a string of voces magicae in the BOĒL-logos of the Demotic lychnomancies of P. Mag. LL:72 p¥t¥ry

ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲣⲓ

• p¥t¥ry

ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲣⲓ

• pot¥r

ⲡⲁⲧⲉⲣ

• ¥nph¥

ⲉⲛⲫⲉ

• ¥nph¥

ⲉⲛⲫⲉ

This can be interpreted as a mixture of Egyptian and Greek, meaning: My father, my father, father, in heaven, in heaven.73

Finally, the light-bringing god is also called BAINKHŌŌŌKH, from Egyptian b# n kk(.w) ‘Ba-soul of the primeval god of darkness’. This relatively common vox magica74 appears again within the ‘god-bringing spell’, in l. 1017, in the magician’s selfidentification with this deity, and in l. 1061 in the dismissal. The same name is uttered at the end of the first recitation of the Greek lamp divination of PGM VII 540–78.75

67

PSI Inv. D 90, l. 6. It is paralleled by the identification of the magician as ‘son of Sakhmet’ in P. Mag. LL, 11, 12 (Charitesion). 68 P. Mag. LL, 6, 35. 69 See VITTMANN, Ägypten und die Fremden, 88–90; for the Jews of Elephantine: 100. 70 P. Mag. LL, 17, 1–26 (l. 2) and 17, 26–18, 6 (17, 28); without the second part: P. Mag. LL, 16, 1–17 (l. 11); vs., 31, 1–7 (l. 3) (which is actually an addition to P. Mag. LL, 5, 1–33). 71 See QUACK, Zauber ohne Grenzen, 189. 72 P. Mag. LL 5, 17; 7, 13; 17, 6; and 17, 31. 73 Analysis by R.K. RITNER, in BETZ (ed.), GMPT, 203, n. 88; cf. also GEE, Lamp Divination, 209–10; QUACK, Griechische und andere Dämonen, 468. This interpretation is partly supported by the following and clearly readable Demotic epithet p# nTr nt| n t# ry.t Hr|.t n t# p.t ‘the god who is in the upper part of heaven’. Cf. also SM 29.13–14 (= PGM LXXXIII): ‘our father who art in heaven’, part of a quotation from Matthew 6:9–11, written in normal Greek among other quotations of Biblical verses. 74 It also appears in other magical papyri and on curse tablets, see BETZ (ed.), GMPT, 333 (Glossary). 75 PGM VII 559.

Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals

139

This epiclesis is already known from the Egyptian Book of the Heavenly Cow, where the sun-god Re speaks about the Bas of the gods and says: b# pw n kk.w grH Night is the Ba-soul of the primeval god of darkness (Heavenly Cow, 180).76

The Greek spelling with three ω used in the magical texts corresponds to the numerical value 3663,77 which is exactly the number given for the pebble that the magician has to clasp to his breast according to the instructions at the beginning of our spell, and is thereby able to wield power over this deity. However, another variation or rather extension of this magical name is used in three of the Demotic lychnomancies: here, the wick of the lamp is to be inscribed with a short series of magical signs similar to Egyptian hieroglyphs and the vox magica BAKHYKHSIKHYKH, rendering the Egyptian epithet ‘Soul of the primeval god of darkness, son of the primeval god of darkness’ (b# kk.w s# kk.w) in Greek letters. Both variations probably attest to a common tradition of addressing the Ba of the primeval god of darkness during lamp divination. Actually, already in the earlier, fragmentary Demotic spell from Tebtynis, it seems that ‘souls of darkness’ (plural) are requested to be sent, and the expression is written unetymologically even here (n#.w b Q#Qh).78 Another interesting formula of the ‘lightbringing charm’ is the passage: Let there be light, breadth, depth, length, height, brightness...!

These same characteristics are repeated shortly afterwards in the ‘light-retaining spell’: I conjure you, holy light, holy brightness, breadth, depth, length, height, brightness...! (ll. 978–9),

and they furthermore recur in a very short divination spell called θεομαντεῖον ‘Divine revelation’ (PGM XII 153–60), perhaps a direct vision, where again the god Ptah is named several times within the voces magicae. Also, in a sunlight divination with boy medium contained in P. Mag. LL the magician utters a similar demand: Open to me the sky in its breadth and height! Bring me the light which is pure!79

The emergence of light and spatial dimensions evoked in the formulas recalls a primeval context of creation 80 that has already been alluded to by the ritual preparations discussed above as well as by the invocation of the primeval god of darkness, thus creating a background for the appearance of the first light. We could compare the Egyptian Coffin Texts spell CT 80, where the god Shu talks about himself: It is I who make the sky light after darkness, (...) The length of this sky is for my strides, and the width of this earth is for my fundaments.81 76

See HORNUNG, Himmelskuh; GUILHOU, La vieillesse, 98–104. Cf. BONNER, Numerical Value, 8. 78 PSI Inv. D 90, l. 5; edition in preparation by J.F. QUACK. 79 P. Mag. LL, 29, 1–20 (ll. 29, 6–7). 80 Cf. the interpretation by R.K. RITNER, in BETZ (ed.), GMPT, 159, n. 53. 81 See ALLEN, Genesis in Egypt, 22–4; BICKEL, Hymne à la vie; ZANDEE, Sargtexte, Spruch 80; KERN, Licht- und Lebensgottmotiv, 97–8. 77

140

Svenja Nagel

The creation of space takes center stage in the Heliopolitan concept of primordial creation and is generated by the separation of Sky (goddess Nut) and Earth (god Geb).82 The previous non-existence of space is expressed in the same Coffin Text spell by the words: I could find no place on which to stand or sit.

Closely related to the separation of Sky and Earth and the space emerging thereby is the first sunrise, i.e. the appearance of light and brightness. In a hymn in the Berlin papyrus 3049 (Text B2), Re is: he who gave birth to the sky and made the earth, who created water and mountains and let all that exists emerge. You have illuminated the world in the darkness, when you have risen from the Primeval Ocean. (8, 2–3)83

Also in Genesis 1, sky and earth, and subsequently light, are created first, so the order is practically the same, but this is not explicitly explained as length and breadth/width, that is creation of dimensions or space. The quality as creator of dimensions actually suits the Egyptian god Ptah quite well, who is also known as a builder and craftsman deity and is associated with angles and buildings.84 According to a hymn to Ptah in P. Berlin P. 3048, he is: The one who elevated Nut (thus created height) and extended Geb (thus created breadth/length), he, who began everything on the surface of the earth.85

In the context of the ‘lightbringing spell’ of the divination spell under discussion and its other elements, what is envisaged here is a transcendence from normal lamplight to supernatural divine light or the first light of creation that sets the stage for the final epiphany of a deity. 3.7. The ‘signs of the lamp’ I jump now to the last paragraph of the spell as it is laid out in the manual (PGM IV 1103–14), because it is in my opinion directly linked to what is said in the ‘lightbringing charm’. Under the subheading ‘signs of the lamp’ (σημεῖα τοῦ λύχνου),86 this section does not form part of the instructions and recitations of the ritual but gives a detailed description of what exactly is to be seen during the lamp divination. Accord82

Cf. for that and the following e.g. ALLEN, Genesis in Egypt, 24–5; ASSMANN, Rezeption und Auslegung, esp. 129–31: ‘Luft und Feuer – d.h. die Entstehung lichterfüllter Ausdehnung – bilden das erste kosmogonische Stadium. (...) Der kosmogonische Augenblick ist nichts anderes als der erste Sonnenaufgang (...) Auf die Entstehung des Lichts (...) folgt die Entstehung des kosmischen Raumes (...)’. 83 Cf. KNIGGE, Das Lob der Schöpfung, 148. 84 Cf. BERLANDINI, Ptah-demiurge, 15–20; for Ptah as a definer of space see also SANDMAN HOLMBERG, Ptah, 32–3; GÖRG, Nilgans, 65–6. 85 Cf. SANDMAN HOLMBERG, Ptah, 32–3. 86 See for this section also HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber II, § 216; GORDON, Reporting the Marvellous, 90.

Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals

141

ingly, when the practitioner opens his eyes for the first time after the ‘light-bringing spell’, he sees the lamp light broaden in the form of a vault. After another sequence of closing the eyes, reciting and opening them again, the lamp itself is out of sight, but instead the operator beholds everything wide open and filled with a great brightness. Thus the claim of the discussed formula to create space and brightness is fulfilled. The appearance of the god is also quite definite and in accord with the typical Egyptian iconography of the juvenile sun-god (Horus Harpokrates) in the morning, which has been, however, developed further by the addition of elements from Helios’ iconography:87 he is ‘seated on a lotus flower, decorated with rays, the right hand raised in greeting, the left [holding] a whip, being carried in the hands by two angels with 12 rays surrounding them’. At least very similar images can actually be found on numerous magical gems, 88 some of them even bearing the vox magica BAINKHŌŌŌKH as well.89 Furthermore the image of the child sitting on a lotus is also invoked as a form of the sun-god in the long prose part of the invocation in the Apollonian lamp divination of PGM II 64–183, attesting to the composite concept of a solar deity, where parts of Egyptian litanies/hymns have been added after the hymnic sections to Apollo, in order to complete the multifaceted picture of the solar god.90 In the context of our spell it fits well into the whole sphere of beginning and creation, as the childgod on the lotus is not only a symbol of sunrise, but also of the first sunrise, when the solar deity emerged from the primeval ocean Nun. The Demotic lychnomancy spells also give away some information on the process of the deity’s epiphany, but with much less details. According to some of them, the god or his ‘shadow’ is seen in the environment of the lamp (n p# Qd¥ n p# xbs) when the practitioner or medium looks at it after opening his eyes,91 but no description of the deity’s exact iconography is given there. One invocation of P. Mag. LL, 17, 1–26 hints at similar ideas about the light-vision as the PGM IV spell: in the Demotic spell, the

87 See HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber I, § 517; cf., in general, e.g. MORENZ/SCHUBERT, Gott auf der Blume; RYHINER, L’offrande du lotus; WAITKUS, Geburt des Harsomtus; MALAISE, Découverte d’Harpocrate, 32–3, 54, 89–90, 93. 88 See EL-KACHAB, Some Gem-Amulets, esp. 133–4; BAKOWSKA, Rappresentazione, esp. 302–5; MICHEL, Bilder und Zauberformeln, Pl. 107; MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum, 68–89, nos. 104–35, especially nos. 105, 106, 118, 122, for greatest similarity to the PGM description. Cf. also the instruction to engrave a gem in PGM LXI 31–2 and the epithets ‘who sits upon the lotus’ in PGM II 101 and 107; XII 87, and ‘the lotus emerged from the abyss’ in PGM IV 1684. However, there does not seem to be a parallel to the two angels surrounded by 12 rays carrying him in their hands. Sometimes, though, the usual two lotusbuds under the central flower with the god are replaced by two stars, e.g. EL-KACHAB, Some Gem-Amulets, 144, no. 5, Pl. 36, which could have been understood as angels in the late antique conception. 89 Cf. BAKOWSKA, Rappresentazione, 305. Some examples in MICHEL, Bilder und Zauberformeln, 269–75. 90 ‘Who sits upon the lotus’ in PGM II 101, and ‘you have upon the northern parts the figure of an infant child seated upon a lotus’ in l. 107. See for this text the contribution by L.M. BORTOLANI in this volume. 91 P. Mag. LL, 5, 7; 6, 6–7; and 27, 17.

142

Svenja Nagel

light is requested to ‘grow’, ‘rise up’ and ‘be high’, 92 which seems to correspond closely with the description of the light broadening to a vault. Similarly, in the conjuration of BOĒL in the Sefer ha-Razim, the text anticipates that you will see that a pillar of fire will appear to you with a cloud on it like the image of a man. Question him and he will tell you whatever you ask.93

Interestingly, in other Graeco-Egyptian divination rituals, for instance lecanomancy, a specific appearance of the sun-god is also presupposed in the text of some spells, but a different moment of the mythical and cosmic cycle is chosen: two parallel bowl divination spells in P. Mag. LL explicitly aim at ‘seeing the barque of Pre’ during its course through Heaven and Underworld.94 This specific goal (and parts of the invocations of these spells) is probably dependant on Egyptian rituals for taking part in the sun-god’s barque journey as attested in some Book of the Dead-spells where also a bowl is used.95 The Underworldly, nightly part of the journey might furthermore be especially useful for lecanomancy insofar as in contrast to lamp divinations, most of these rituals are addressed to deities of the Underworld like Anubis and Osiris, or even aim at a prophecy by a spirit of a dead person.96 3.8. The ‘god-bringing spell’ (θεαγωγὸς λόγος) The main deity of the spell who is invoked in the longest paragraph, the so-called ‘god-bringing spell’ (PGM IV 985–1035), and welcomed in the salutation (1047–52), suits the described iconography (1103–14) perfectly, as he is called by the name ‘Horus Harpokrates’ followed by a fixed sequence of voces magicae of Egyptian and Hebrew origin in each instance. He is then first praised with epithets typical for the Egyptian sun-god and referring to his mythology, e.g. his journey in the solar barque and the fight with the snake Apophis on the way, or the greeting of the sun-god by baboons. Horus Harpokrates is also called ‘god of gods’ (in Greek θεέ θεῶν) in several instances.97 The same epithet recurs, this time for Apollo, in the Greek dream oracle of PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64 (where also a lamp is used), 98 and it is employed in many other Greek language spells for several deities of superior and mostly solar character as well.99 Apart from the magical texts, this form of addressing the deity is not conven92

P. Mag. LL, 17, 13–14. o#w p# wyn, pr+ p# wyn, Ts p# wyn, Xy p# wyn. This is paralleled by a very similar conjuration of the light in the bowl divinations P. Mag. LL, 1, 1–3, 35 (ll. 2, 2–3) and 18, 7– 33 (ll. 18, 25–6). 93 Sefer ha-Razim, 1, 232; translation after LESSES, Ritual Practices, 313. 94 P. Mag. LL, 10, 22–35; P. Mag. LL, 27, 1–12. See for these recipes DIELEMAN, Priests, 58–61. 95 Especially BoD spells 130–36, see (for 133–4) RITNER, Mechanics, 64, n. 289; RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice, 3346–7; RAVEN/DEMARÉE, Ceramic Dishes, esp. 80. 96 This aspect of lecanomancy further strengthens its connection to the BoD spells mentioned before; on the close links between lecanomancy and necromancy/evocation of spirits of the dead see OGDEN, Necromancy, 191–201. 97 Ll. 992, 999 and 1048. 98 For this spell see the contribution by L.M. BORTOLANI in this volume. 99 PGM III 551 (now PGM III.1) (Helios); PGM IV 641 (Helios); PGM XIII 942 (universal solar deity); PGM IV 180 and 218 (Typhon); P. Mag. LL, 23, 10 = PGM XIVc 16 (Typhon); PGM IV

Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals

143

tional in Greek,100 but the Egyptian equivalent (p#) nTr (n#) nTr.w (‘god of gods’) is quite frequently attested from the epoch of the New Kingdom (second half of second millennium BCE) onwards, especially for solar and creator gods.101 In most cases, the cotext of this epithet in the Greek language spells has a strong Egyptian background as well. Furthermore, we can also find the Egyptian version (p#) nTr (n#) nTr.w in the shape of a vox magica written in Greek as PNOUTE NENTĒR (TĒROU = Egyptian Dr=w), PNOUTE NINTHĒR (TĒROU) or PHNOUTHI NINTHĒR in at least four more Greek spells, all of them attributed to the sun-god again.102 Here, we can observe different modes or stages of transfer of such a formula from one language into the other: in some cases, it has been translated, in others it has been absorbed as a magical word in its original form, but probably without understanding of its meaning by the final user. After the obviously Egyptian part of the recitation in question, however, other epicleses are added that seem to go back to another tradition. They describe an almighty god seated high in heaven, ruler of the seven celestial spheres and seven vowels, and superior to all the other deities. Similar characterisations of the highest deity are well known from other, mainly Greek language magical rituals. 103 At least some of the contents, though not the exact wording, have parallels in the epithets of the BOĒL-logos and other invocations of the Demotic lychnomancies. However, a direct parallel to one passage can be found in a Demotic bowl divination spell, also of P. Mag. LL, where the magician identifies himself as: ‘he whose strength is in the flame, he of that golden wreath which is on his head’ (p# nt|-|w t#y=f gm xn t# st.t, p#¥ p#y Qlm n nb nt| n D#D#=f).104 Table 2: Demotic parallels to the epithets in the ‘god-bringing spell’ PGM IV 930–1114 you who are seated on top of the world

you who have in fire your power and your strength

Demotic parallels (lamp divination spells) the god who is in the upper part of heaven (P. Mag. LL, 7, 13; 5, 17; 17, 6; 17, 31); god who is above the whole earth (P. Mag. LL, 7, 20) the companion of the flame; who is in the midst of the flame etc.; in whose hand are the greatness and the strength of the god (P. Mag. LL, 7, 8–10; 5, 12–

Demotic bowl divination

‘he whose strength is in

1146–7, 1195 and 1200 (Aion); PGM V 466–7 (Aion); PGM I 164 (Aion); PGM XXIIb 20 and 21 (‘God of the Hebrews’). 100 BORTOLANI, Magical Hymns, 106; also RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice, 3363, for the unusual Greek vocative form θεὲ often used throughout the magical papyri as a Greek equivalent to Egyptian ‘O god’ ((|) p# nTr). 101 LGG IV, 431a–432b. In the Demotic magical texts, however, it appears only in one instance within the combination ‘god of gods of darkness’ in the recitation of a bowl divination (P. Mag. LL, 28, 11–15). 102 PGM III 144 (now PGM III.1) πνουτε νεντηρ; PGM V 8; PGM IV 1643; PGM XXXVIII 15. 103 E.g. ‘the one who is before fire and snow’: cf. PGM V 1–53 (‘Oracle of Sarapis’), ll. 17–18: ‘who appeared before fire and snow, BAINKHŌŌŌKH’. 104 P. Mag. LL, 18, 7–33 (ll. 13–14).

144

you who have on your head a golden crown and in your hand a Memnonian staff with which you send out the gods

Svenja Nagel 13; 17, 1–3; 17, 27–8) in whose hand is the beautiful staff (P. Mag. LL, 7, 13–14; 5, 18; 17, 6; 17, 31)

the flame, he of that golden wreath which is on his head’ (P. Mag. LL, 18, 13–14)

3.9. Phylactery A close relation to the Egyptian identity of the invoked deity can also be observed in the instructions for the ‘phylactery for the rite’105 (PGM IV 1071–84) that follow right after all the recitations that are to be used during the ritual. Constructed according to the principle of sympathy, this amulet is made from ‘a linen cloth taken from a marble statue of Harpokrates in any temple whatever’. Furthermore, the strip of linen is to be inscribed with a magical formula and a prayer, including the self-identification of the practitioner with Horus, son of Isis and Osiris. The function of this amulet is explicitly stated in the instruction and in the words of the prayer written on it: ‘protection of your whole body’, and ‘keep me healthy, unharmed, not plagued by ghosts and without terror during my lifetime’. This last plea is nearly identical with the one uttered as part of the dismissal ritual for the god (ll. 1063–4). Phylacteries of various materials and shapes are prescribed in quite a number of divination spells to be worn during the ritual in order to protect the operator from the strong forces he voluntarily encountered and from any possible side effects or collateral damage that this contact with divine power might provoke. The temporal extension to the complete lifetime in the example at hand suggests even the possibility or fear of long-lasting damages after the ritual itself was concluded. By dressing himself with substances that belong or are dear to the addressed god the operator takes his side, so the god would not regard him as unworthy or as an enemy.106 Amulets made of cloth that was previously worn by the gods themselves – or more precisely their substitutes, the statues in sacral environments, as is the case in the PGM IV example – must have been considered especially loaded with the divine essence or power, and they were also employed in other ways during divination rituals to facilitate the contact with the gods, e.g. as wick for the lamp in lychnomancies.107 In fact, the re-use of textiles from temple cult had a certain tradition in Egypt, for instance for mummy bandages or other funerary material of high-ranking persons.108 But such sacred material could not have been too easy to come by for ordinary people, whereas an Egyptian priest could have provided it with less difficulty, which again points to the assumed origin of these magical manuals in the Egyptian priesthood.109 105

For the strong bonds between phylactery and addressed deity in the magical rituals cf. the contribution by J.F. QUACK in this volume (second case study). 106 Most phylacteries in the magical papyri seem to be fashioned according to principles of sympathy, but some make use of the opposite strategy instead, namely an aggressive, menacing one and thus work by antipathy, for instance the ‘Oracle of Kronos’ discussed by J.F. QUACK. 107 P. Mag. LL, 25, 1–22: wick made from cloth from a temple. 108 See KOCKELMANN, Mumienbinden II, 39–40; QUACK, Grab am Tempeldromos, 123–4. 109 On the question of origins in a comprehensive scope DIELEMAN, Priests.

Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals

145

In spite of the Egyptian concepts that can often be traced behind the specific manufacture of these phylacteries, it is interesting to observe that they are typically prescribed in Greek divination spells only.110 In contrast, the Demotic spells are much less instructive as far as phylacteries are concerned. There does not seem to appear a Demotic equivalent to the Greek phylakterion in this sense, or at least it is not explicitly mentioned as a subheading within the recipes for divination. However, there are some isolated cases, in which amulets are used which are similar in format to the Greek phylacteries. But less so in purpose: in a Demotic bowl divination spell (P. Mag. LL, 1, 1–3, 35) the boy medium is provided with an amulet made of 16 threads of linen in four different colours, stained with blood of a hoopoe and bound to a drowned scarab as a manifestation of the sun-god or of Osiris. The whole thing is bound around the boy’s body. So far, so good, and parallel to the Greek examples. But the text states that it enchants the bowl quickly. So its function is not protection as in most of the Greek recipes, but an enhancement of the core ritual. In another Demotic recipe, again for bowl divination, 111 an amulet made of plants in sympathy with the sun-god is also worn around the body, but its exact function is not revealed by the text. Still, in other cases, prayers for the protection of the practitioner or for the safety and health of a boy medium are uttered and seem to fulfil the same function as a material phylactery, e.g. in one of the Demotic lamp divinations, P. Mag. LL, 17, 1–26: (...) watch over this youth! Do not let him be frightened, terrified or afraid, and make him return to his original path!112 (ll. 17–20)

However, among the lychnomancy spells only the Apollonian ritual of PGM I 262– 347 and our example PGM IV 930–1114 explicitly prescribe phylacteries,113 although perhaps the phylactery following PGM VII 540–78 is loosely connected with this spell as well (PGM VII 579–90).114 3.10. Other ‘Greek characteristics’ Apart from the phylactery, there are two more proper features of the ‘Greek’ or ‘Apollonian’ type of lamp divination that are shared by the spell PGM IV 930–1114 and contribute to the idea that though the latter generally belongs to the ‘Egyptian’ group, it shows some distinct influences from the ‘Greek’ organisation of such magical spells. One of these characteristics concerns the preparations and attire of the magician, the cultural origins of which lie mainly in the Egyptian priesthood. Still, the explicit directives for the practitioner to ‘be dressed in the garb of a prophet’ etc. and to refrain 110

Greek divination spells with prescribed phylactery (or: phylactery directly following a divination spell): PGM I 262–347; VI 1–47+II 1–64; II 64–183; III 410–23 (now PGM III.2); IV 86–7, 154–285, 475–829, 850–929, 1331–89, 2005–144, 2441–621, 2622–707, 3086–124; VII 222–49 (with parallels VIII 64–110 and SM 90), 478–90, 579–90, 846–61; XIII 734–1077. 111 P. Mag. LL, 10, 22–35 with parallel P. Mag. LL, 27, 1–12. 112 HrH r p#y olw mtw=k tm D+.t |r+=f ht|#.t HnwH# Skll.t mtw=k D+.t sT#.ß=f r p#y=f myß n Xrp. 113 PGM I 262–76: a seven-leafed sprig, inscribed with seven magical characters, and an ebony staff are to be held in the hands. 114 An amulet with the drawing of an ouroboros encircling magical names, characters and a spell.

146

Svenja Nagel

from unclean things, fish and sexual intercourse,115 are part of the Greek, but not of the Demotic magical spells, and they seem to make more sense for users outside the Egyptian priestly milieu, whereas the priests themselves would have naturally known this code by heart. 116 Of course, in general, we do find instructions to wear specialised dresses that are in accordance with specific rituals also in Egyptian ritual texts, for instance in funerary literature,117 but not the general advice to wear a prophet’s garb. The second common feature of PGM I 262–347, PGM II 64–183 and PGM IV 930– 1114 is a final dismissal of the god – in PGM IV even a second ‘dismissal of the brightness’ – that consists of (reversing) ritual actions and/or offerings plus an invocation.118 Dismissals are absent from all the Demotic lamp divination spells, except perhaps the already quoted P. Mag. LL, 17, 1–26, where the magician, after finishing the inquiry of the boy medium, has to turn around, let the boy close his eyes again, and recite an invocation to protect the boy and let him return to ‘his earlier path’ (17, 17– 20). As mentioned before, this recitation might equally be interpreted as a kind of phylactery for the boy, but it seems to imply that the gods and demons leave him peacefully, and the parallel between dismissal and phylactery in the Greek case study spell supports the close relationship between both. Finally, we may ask: what might be the reasons for these differences?

4. Conclusion: cultural plurality and redactional history It seems to me that in the Greek magical formularies – in contrast to the Demotic ones – we may recognise an urge to add even more structure, explicit descriptions of details and preconditions to the instructions. This was probably done in order to facilitate the utilisation, to make it safer (phylacteries and dismissals) and potentially more successful (detailed descriptions of what will be seen)119 for users outside the ritually experienced group of Egyptian priests. 115

PGM I 262–347 (279 and 289–91): dress in prophetic garment, refrain from unclean things, eating fish and sexual intercourse. PGM II 64–183 (74–6): anointment of the body. PGM IV 930– 1114 (933–6): dress in prophetic garment with doum palm fibers, head crowned with olive sprig, tied with a single clove of garlic (or: garlic with a single shoot? σκόρδον μονογενὲς) around the middle. Cf. also PGM IV 1331–89 (a multifunctional Bear ritual): anoint lips with fat, smear body with storax oil, hold single-shooted Egyptian onion, gird with male date palm fiber. See for the single components AUFRÈRE, Parures vegetales. 116 The outsider view on and use of customs of the Egyptian priesthood or stereotypes of them has been discussed in a wider scope by Jacco DIELEMAN in his book on the London and Leiden bilingual manuscripts: DIELEMAN, Priests, 185–284. 117 See e.g. the overview in ESCHWEILER, Bildzauber, 258–63. 118 PGM I 262–347 (334–47): reversing actions, burnt offering, invocation. PGM II 64–183 (175– 83): libation and burnt offering, invocation. PGM IV 930–1114 (1055–169): dismissal 1 (reversing actions and invocation); dismissal 2 (reversing action, other action, invocation). 119 Descriptions of what will be seen/the appearance of the god/demon are relatively seldom in Demotic: P. Mag. LL, 4, 1–22; (P. Mag. LL, 18, 7–33); P. Mag. LL 23, 27–31.

Illuminating Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Plurality in Lamp Divination Rituals

147

The extremely detailed and clearly arranged structure of the Greek example spell PGM IV 930–1114 attests to a careful and well-reasoned final editing that is lacking in so many other spells of the magical papyri. Apart from that, the elaborate way in which for instance the original Egyptian ‘prayer to the sun-god in the morning’ has been realised by expressing Egyptian contents with Greek hexameters and even by quoting a Homeric passage, speaks in favour of a very well educated composer of the spell as a whole or of its central parts, who must have been versed in Egyptian theology and familiar with the Egyptian sources as well as Greek literature. This hypothetical composer does absolutely not have to be identical with the editor of the documented final version of the spell, and both are certainly not identical with the compiler of PGM IV who integrated our lamp divination – probably with no or only minor changes – into his magical handbook, which is demonstrated among other things by the mentioned structural markers, which are not used in this way in the manuscript as a whole. We may even try to follow the redactional history of this spell to some earlier stages: a rough outline, at least, can be drawn up by means of a detailed comparison with the Demotic lychnomancy spells as well as with other Greek and Demotic spells in general. At the core we have an Egyptian ritual to create visions by means of a lamp surrounded by the darkness of a room, the roots of which have probably originally developed under the influence of bowl divination.120 This latter ritual technique might in turn in its origins go back to Babylonian oil omina; comparable texts for reading omina in vessels filled with oil and water are attested already in New Kingdom Egypt.121 At some point, however, ‘ominal lecanomancy’ has advanced to a hallucinatory practice, which is the form (mostly) encountered in the PGM/PDM – most authors seem to assume that the group responsible for this change were the Persians, although direct sources are lacking.122 All the Jewish material, which is however confined to names or voces magicae and understandable epithets within the invocations, seems to have filtered in at a relatively early stage,123 as they are attested, in parts even in direct parallels, also in the Demotic lamp divinations of P. Mag. LL (but not in the earlier papyrus from Tebtynis). Additionally, we have to bear in mind that Jews were almost entirely driven out from Egypt after the revolts of 115–117 CE.124 On the other hand, by now scholars mostly assume that at least a small number of Jews survived in or were moved to Alexandria.125 In a 120

For the close ties between these two practices cf. e.g. CUNEN, Lampe et coupe. DEMICHELIS, Divination par l’huile. See on the Babylonian form PETTINATO, Ölwahrsagung; PETTINATO, Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte. 122 DEMICHELIS, Divination par l’huile, 152; VERGOTE, Joseph, 174–5; CUNEN, Prâtiques divinatoires; GANSZYNIEC, Λεκανομαντεία: lecanomancy was originally associated with the Persians by Classical authors, e.g. Varro ap. Augustinus, De Civ. Dei, 7.35; Strabo 16.2.39.12–13. 123 For early reciprocal influences of Jewish and Egyptian religion within the milieu of the Jewish communities in Egypt (from the Persian Period onwards) see MO. SMITH, Jewish Elements, 242–3 and 254–6: many Jewish elements that are found in the Graeco-Egyptian papyri probably came in through this relatively early syncretism and are not related to rabbinic Judaism. 124 Cf. MO. SMITH, Jewish Elements, 256. 125 TCHERIKOVER/FUKS, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicorum, 93; HORBURY, Jewish War, 233–5. 121

148

Svenja Nagel

more extensive survey of Jewish influences in the Greek and Demotic magical papyri, QUACK comes to the (most likely) conclusion that these elements were added only after the Jewish revolt, i.e. in the second century CE.126 At a certain time, these rituals were adapted for Greek language formularies, sometimes without many changes to the Egyptian models, as is the case for instance in the Greek language but Egyptian tradition spell PGM VII 540–78. Some other spells rooted in Egyptian tradition, however, – and to these belongs the example from PGM IV – were then dressed in a specific way for the purpose of being used handily by outsiders to the Egyptian ritual tradition (or perhaps even also to insiders to a gradually deteriorating tradition as well as to more recent currents that have grown together from many different sources?): specific prescriptions for the ritual dress and attire, amulets to be worn and more explanations were added, as well as a formal dismissal of the god, which also seems to be rather typical for Greek, less so for Egyptian spells. Fig. 1: Redactional history of lychnomancy rituals

Babylonian oil omina Egyptian ritual tradition Jewish names and epithets

Advanced Persian form?

adaptation

Egyptian oil omina

??

influence

addition

Egyptian lamp divination ritual

??

Egyptian bowl divination

Demotic lamp divinations of pMag LL adaptation

Greek lamp divinations, e.g. PGM VII 540–78 Greek hymn, isopsephy, vowels

adaptation addition

addition

PGM IV 930–1114

126

QUACK, Alttestamentliche Motive, esp. 165–71.

‘Greek’ elements for better usability

‘We Are Such Stuff as Dream Oracles Are Made on’: Greek and Egyptian Traditions and Divine Personas in the Dream Divination Spells of the Magical Papyri LJUBA MERLINA BORTOLANI The designation ‘dream oracle’ in the corpus of the magical papyri1 refers to those spells in which some kind of knowledge is acquired through an induced dream. However, despite this simple definition, it is not always easy to determine whether an incantation should be considered a dream oracle or not. For the ritual can become very complex and include auxiliary spells or implements which are typical of other divinatory techniques. At the same time, whenever the spell does not have a title or the papyrus is fragmentary, the scant amount of details can often be confusing. The criterion I chose to select the dream oracles of the magical papyri, it is simply to take into account the indication that the practitioner has ‘to go to sleep’ as part of the ritual and that whatever revelation he is seeking will be obtained through sleeping. So, regardless of whether the magical procedure requires also the use of other implements such as a lamp or a magical ring, a prescription such as ‘go to sleep’ is considered the fundamental element to identify a dream oracle.2

1 Including both Greek (PGM) and Demotic (PDM) documents. For a detailed overview of the corpus see BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, and RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice. The papyri date mainly from the second to the fifth century CE, but the Demotic ones are earlier in date (the latest ones date from the first half of the third century). The fundamental edition for the Greek material (about 200 papyri) remains PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae, complemented by DANIEL/MALTOMINI, Supplementum Magicum (SM). The Demotic material (four main papyri) was available to scholars already in the 1970s, though in separate publications: GRIFFITH/THOMPSON, Demotic Magical Papyrus; H.I. BELL/NOCK/THOMPSON (eds.), Magical Texts; JOHNSON, Leiden I 384; JOHNSON, Louvre E 3229. A fifth Demotic papyrus has recently been recognised as a fragment of a magical handbook, see DIELEMAN, Spätagyptisches magisches Handbuch; SEDERHOLM, Papyrus British Museum (though problematic, see QUACK, Review of SEDERHOLM); cf. CRUM, Egyptian Text. RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice, 3343–5, adds also a tablet and an ostrakon plus a few other papyri (from the ‘Faiyum Temple Archive’: REYMOND, From the Contents), but they can hardly be considered magical, see QUACK, Kontinuität und Wandel, n. 2. The count of the Demotic texts is still to be enlarged by a number of unpublished sources which are important for the historical development of the genre, see e.g. n. 8. For the English translation of most texts (both Greek and Demotic) see BETZ (ed.), GMPT (which is used also in this article for the translation of the prose passages of the PGM and of some PDM, cf. n. 5); see also QUACK, Demotische magische und divinatorische Texte, for an updated translation of a selection of Demotic spells. 2 Cf. for Mesopotamia the idiomatic wording ‘to lay down in order to see a dream’ as crucial to detect an incubation (see ZGOLL, Traum, 309–52).

150

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani

Following this criterion, it is possible to recognise twenty-nine dream oracles in the corpus of the magical papyri. PGM IV 3172–208 PGM V 370–439 PGM V 440–583 PGM VI 1–47+II 1–644 PGM VII 222–49 PGM VII 250–54 PGM VII 255–9 PGM VII 359–69 PGM VII 478–90 PGM VII 628–42 PGM VII 664–85 PGM VII 703–26 PGM VII 740–55 PGM VII 795–845 PGM VII 1009–16 PGM VIII 64–110 PGM XII 144–51 PGM XII 190–92 PDM xiv 93–114 PDM xiv 117–49 PDM xiv 150–231 PDM xiv 1070–77 PGM XXIIb 27–31 PGM XXIIb 32–5

‘Marvellous apparition in a dream using three reeds’ No title ‘Another’ No title ‘Request for a dream oracle from Besas’ ‘Request for a dream oracle’ ‘Another to the same lamp’ ‘Request for a dream oracle’ No title No title ‘Request for a dream oracle’ ‘Request for a dream oracle’ No title ‘Pythagoras’ request for a dream oracle and Democritus’ astrological interpreter of dreams’ ‘Oracular response by a dream’ ‘Request for a dream oracle from Besas’ ‘Request for a dream’ ‘Request for a dream oracle’ ‘An inquiry for instructions which the great god Imhotep makes’5 ‘A tested “reaching god”’ ‘An inquiry of the lamp’ ‘A spell to bring a woman to a man, to send dreams (another manuscript says to dream dreams)’ ‘Request for a dream oracle to a lamp’ ‘Another request for a dream oracle’

3 The two dream oracles of PGM V are divided by PREISENDANZ and BETZ as V 370–446 and 447–58, while here lines 440–46 have been attributed not to the first but to the second spell (i.e. V 370–439 and 440–58). In fact, in the final part of V 370–439 (a dream oracle of Hermes) we find two strings of voces magicae: a ‘Stele (στήλη) written on the papyri belonging to the figure’ and a ‘Spell of compulsion’ which should end with the ‘hundred-lettered name of Hermes’. However, the name is not written and its mention is followed by three blank lines allegedly left to insert the name at a later stage. The following section, lines 440–46, is introduced by a paragraphos and contains an invocation mainly constituted by voces magicae starting with ‘Another (Ἄλλη)… spoken to the lamp’. Ἄλλη, being feminine, seems to refer to the previous στήλη, and not to the spell of compulsion, and στήλη in the PGM usually applies either to whole spells or to an important invocation within a spell. So, if we included lines 440–46 in the dream oracle of Hermes, we should interpret them as a second, alternative ‘Stele written on the papyri belonging to the figure’ which has to be spoken to a lamp. However, curiously enough, in the rest of the spell there is no mention of it, and not even of a lamp. On the contrary, the following spell in 447–58 mentions not only a lamp, but also an invocation to be recited seven times, which surprisingly does not appear in this portion of text. Therefore, the missing invocation in 447–58 seems to be the second ‘stele’ in lines 440–46: ‘another (stele)’ should thus be interpreted as ‘another main invocation’, ‘another spell’, signalling the beginning of a new ritual procedure as the presence of the paragraphos would also suggest. 4 For PGM VI and PGM II as two parts of the same handbook see CHRONOPOULOU, PGM VI. 5 The English translation of PDM xiv 93–114, 117–49, PDM lxi 63–78, PDM Suppl. 130–38 and 149–62, generally follows QUACK, Demotische magische und divinatorische Texte.

‘We Are Such Stuff as Dream Oracles Are Made on’ PDM lxi 63–78 PDM Suppl. 130–38 PDM Suppl. 149–62 SM 79.12–18 SM 85

151

‘[A “reaching god” of] Har-Thoth’ ‘A “reaching god” of Osiris’ ‘A “reaching god” of Thoth’ ‘To see a true dream’ ‘Request for a dream’

Among these, PGM VII 222–49 and VIII 64–110 are just two different versions of the same ‘Request for a dream oracle from Besas (Bes)’: the second one is the more extended while the first one presents a shorter ritual. Similarly, PGM V 370–439 and VII 664–85 share the same metric invocation to Hermes and the second spell could be just a very simplified version of the first one (even if one cannot be totally sure since it is difficult to compare rituals that differ so much in length). We could also add to this list some ambiguous or dubious cases in which, for example, even if the prescription to go to sleep is missing, parallels, or some vague elements in the ritual or in the invocation, could suggest these spells were dream oracles: e.g. PGM II 64–183,6 PGM VII 993– 1009, PDM xii 21–49, PDM xiv 232–8, PDM xiv 1141–54, PGM XVIIb 1–23,7 PDM Suppl. 168–84,8 SM 90.9 Even without counting the dubious cases, the dream oracle remains the commonest divination technique attested in the extant magical papyri and also the most heterogeneous. In fact, many different magical practices can be used to obtain dream revelations: as already mentioned, many spells require the use of a lamp (typical of lamp divination rituals);10 others require the preparation of laurel leaves or wreaths, many different deities can be invoked and the invocation can be very long or very short (maybe just voces magicae), it can be spoken, or written or both; in some cases the magician has to write an invocation on papyrus, in some others on a strip of tin; some spells require a special bed or a special ink, offerings or compulsive procedures, a phylactery, an engraved ring, bricks, special ointments, but in many other cases none of these are mentioned; and so on… The commonest recurring elements are the presence of an invocation and the use of a lamp. But the remaining parts of these spells can vary a lot, so that it would seem to be impossible to trace all the dream oracles back to a common magical ritual. This great variety may be explained in connection with the predominance of the dream oracle technique in the magical papyri: if the dream oracle 6 This spell immediately follows the dream oracle PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64, is presented as its alternative, invokes similar deities and does include the prescription to ‘go to sleep’. However, sleeping is just a part of the complex ritual the magician has to perform and not the means through which communication with the deity is achieved. 7 This fragmentary papyrus preserved a hexametrical invocation that parallels the one found in the dream oracles addressed to Hermes (PGM V 370–439 and VII 664–85). 8 Similar cases are P. Brooklyn 47.218.47 vs. (mostly in Hieratic script but linguistically early Demotic) and P. Heidelberg Dem. 5 (Professor J.F. QUACK is working on the publication of both texts, see QUACK, Imhotep, 58–60): they contain invocations to Imhotep to obtain visions, possibly in dreams but, considering they are still unpublished and that in the majority of cases there is no clear reference to the dream oracle technique, they will not be taken into consideration on this occasion. 9 This fragmentary papyrus (= PGM CII in BETZ [ed.], GMPT) preserved an invocation and scraps of a ritual involving a lamp that parallel the ones found in the dream oracles of Bes in PGM VII 222– 49 and VIII 64–110. 10 On the subject see the contribution by SVENJA NAGEL in this volume.

152

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani

was the commonest divination method, its popularity could underlie the devising of multiple rituals for the same kind of spell. However, the popularity of the dream oracle in the corpus could be just an illusion created by the extant papyri since we cannot be sure that the situation would have been the same if more handbooks had been preserved. On the other hand, the differences in ritual could correspond to a different cultural/religious origin of the single spells, and thus their investigation could shed light on the dynamics of cultural plurality and/or fusion in the dream oracles of the magical papyri. Considering the heterogeneous nature of this category of spells, the best solution for a preliminary analysis seemed to identify some common features (even if they are not shared by all the dream oracles but only by some of them) that may help creating some dream oracles’ subgroups. Those spells that are very short and constituted only by a brief invocation but no proper ritual (PGM VII 250–54 and 255–9, PGM XII 190–92, PDM xiv 1070–77, PGM XXIIb 27–31 and 32–5, SM 79.12–18 and SM 85) will be excluded from this analysis.11 The dubious cases will be also excluded, so the discussion will focus on a group of twenty-one dream oracles and their contents, in particular on some ritual implements and on the divine personas addressed by the spells in connection with Greek and/or Egyptian tradition. Unfortunately, the commonest feature, i.e. the use of a lamp, cannot be considered particularly relevant in itself as far as cultural origin is concerned, also because we are not dealing with proper lychnomancy in the dream oracles, since the lamp is present merely as an implement, an accessory, but is not the means through which the god is supposed to appear and prophesy. First, the dream oracles prescribe to go to sleep, they often refer to the bed chamber and to the bed itself, and to the fact that they have to be performed at night. So this setting could actually be enough to justify the presence of a lamp; an object which probably anyone would have used before going to bed and that the practitioners of the dream oracles needed to provide the light necessary to perform the different preliminary rituals. The need of this ordinary object could be a sufficient reason to explain why a lamp is often used in these spells. Second, lamps are widespread in the magical papyri since, given the private setting of the spells, they are often used as domestic substitutes for temple altars, censers or sacrificial fires. And though true that they played a large role in Egyptian temple ritual, they were present also in Greek ritual, especially linked spatially to the altar and the offerings.12 As a

11

In fact, their details are so few that it is almost impossible to compare them with those of the remaining dream oracles. In particular PGM VII 250–54, 255–9, XXIIb 27–31, 32–5 and SM 79.12– 18 offer two alternative pre-set dream options and thus represent a separate subgroup within the dream oracles, see MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax V, 85–91; BORTOLANI/NAGEL, Divination Rituals. 12 See JOHNSTON, Greek Divination, 158–9 (lamp divination could also be a variation of temple cult, i.e. empyromancy, divining by the flames of the sacrificial fire, practiced at the temples of Zeus at Olympia and Apollo in Thebes) and 165–6; cf. JOHNSTON, Fiat lux, fiat ritus; see also EATON, Temple Ritual, 42–51; PARISINOU, Light of the Gods; PATERA, Light and Lighting Equipment, especially 265–6; ZOGRAFOU, Magic Lamps; GEE, Lamp Divination, 216; cf. COX MILLER, Dreams, 119– 20.

‘We Are Such Stuff as Dream Oracles Are Made on’

153

matter of fact, many dream oracles say merely that the recitation has to be spoken to the lamp, or just mention that a lamp is present. PGM V 440–58 PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64 PGM VII 222–49 PGM VII 478–90 PGM VII 664–85 PGM VII 703–26 PDM lxi 63–78

Recitation to be spoken to the lamp while waving an object towards it Recitation to be spoken to the lamp Recitation to be spoken to the lamp ‘Go to your quarters, put out the lamp’ Recitation to be spoken to the lamp Piece of papyrus inscribed with the recitation to be placed under the lamp Recitation to be spoken to the laurel opposite the lamp lit on a table

On the other hand, the presence of a lamp becomes more interesting when the spells describe some details that can be connected, at least originally, with a specific religious tradition. The most interesting cases are PDM xiv 117–49 and 150–231. In fact, these are the only two spells of the group that are actually lamp divinations, since the god is supposed to appear in the flame of the lamp, but they have been listed also under the dream oracles because they offer an alternative procedure to obtain the same revelations in a dream.13 These spells have parallels both in the ritual and in the invocations in the other seven lamp divinations of PDM xiv, papyrus London-Leiden. SVENJA NAGEL discusses lamp divination in this volume, so there is no need to get into any detail here, but it is worth remembering that these spells, though including other elements, especially Jewish, have a very strong Egyptian cultural background: there are many references to very specific Egyptian deities, or specific Egyptian mythology, and we can find various Egyptian magical techniques such as the threatening of the gods, the magician identifying himself with the deity or the use of a boy medium.14 In particular, two typical elements of Demotic lamp divinations (that appear also in PDM xiv 117–49 and 150–231)15 are especially interesting for the analysis of the dream oracles. They are, first, the prescription of using a lamp ‘not painted red’, in connection with the Egyptian tradition according to which ‘red’ was a Sethian colour and thus should be avoided;16 second, the fact that this prescription always goes together with a detailed description of the wick and the oil that have to be put into the lamp. These ‘Egyptian’ features, typical of Demotic lamp divinations, can be found again in other six dream oracles: in four cases together, while in other two the lamp not painted red is missing but we still find details about the wick and the oil.

13 There is also another case, PDM xiv 817–40: it will not be taken into consideration because here the dream oracle option is mentioned only cursorily and no details are given about the ritual procedure. 14 E.g. BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3390–95; KÁKOSY, Probleme der Religion, 3028–43; SAUNERON, Aspects et sort, 11–21; RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice, 3345–55, 3362–71; RITNER, Mechanics, in particular 112–19, 157–9, 193–9; KOENIG, Magie et magiciens, 60–72, 156–65; QUACK, From Ritual to Magic; cf. JOHNSTON, Charming Children. 15 Also in PDM xiv 817–40, see above n. 13. 16 BRUNNER-TRAUT, Farben, D.3; RITNER, Mechanics, 147–8; ZOGRAFOU, Magic Lamps, 279; for dšr, ‘the red one’, typical epithet of Seth, see LGG VIII, 668 H.5.

154

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani

Demotic lamp divinations/dream oracles: Lamp not coloured red

Details about the wick and the oil

PDM xiv 117–49

X (Recitation to be spoken to a white lamp, the magician sees the god near the lamp)

The wick has to be clean and inscribed with a vox magica and figures, the lamp should be filled with genuine/olive oil

PDM xiv 150–231

X (Recitations to be spoken to a white lamp, the god appears near the lamp)

The wick has to be clean and inscribed with a vox magica and figures, the lamp should be filled with clean genuine oasis oil (different wicks and oils are listed according to variations in the aims of the procedure)

Other dream oracles: Lamp not coloured red

Details about the wick and the oil

PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64

X (in the compulsive procedures)

The lamp should be prepared with fine, pure oil of radishes previously poured over an uncorrupted boy and then gathered up

PGM IV 3172–208

X (Recitation to be spoken to the lamp)

The lamp should be filled with pure olive oil, the wick is made with a clean strip of cloth and inscribed with a magical formula

PGM VII 359–69

PGM VIII 64–110 (PGM VII 222– 49?) PDM Suppl. 149– 62

The lamp should be filled with pure olive oil, the wick is made with a strip of clean linen and inscribed with voces magicae (the recitation has to be spoken to the lamp) X (Recitation to be spoken to the lamp)

The lamp should be filled with sesame oil, the wick is made with a strip of linen soaked in sesame oil mixed with cinnabar The lamp should be new, very clean and filled with genuine oil, the wick is made with byssus-cloth (the recitation has to be spoken to the lamp)

In PGM VII 222–49, one of the two versions of the dream oracle addressed to the god Bes, the recitation has to be spoken to a lamp but its colour or details about it and its wick are not mentioned. However, considering the parallel spell PGM VIII 64–110, this absence may be due to the shorter length of the ritual, and thus PGM VII 222–49 might also be included in this group of dream oracles.17

17 Similarly, the fragmentary SM 90 (see above n. 9) mentions a recitation spoken to a lamp and could have included details about its colour and wick.

‘We Are Such Stuff as Dream Oracles Are Made on’

155

As far as the deities invoked in the dream oracles are concerned, as previously mentioned, they are very heterogeneous (for the following discussion about the divine personas of the dream oracles see Table I). In some cases no specific god is invoked: there is just a generic address like ‘I conjure you by the sleep releaser’ (PGM IV 3172–208), or the magician appeals to unspecified entities such as ‘lords’ or ‘gods’ (PGM VII 703–26 and 740–55); Hermes appears three times (two of which in the parallel spells PGM V 370–439 and VII 664–85, and then in PGM XII 144–51); the Egyptian god Bes appears twice together with the Headless god (but again this happens in the two versions of the same spell PGM VII 222–49 and VIII 64–110);18 the Headless god though appears also in PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64, but only in the form of a drawing while the main deity in this case is Apollo invoked together with Daphne. An unspecified solar deity is the main focus of PDM xiv 93–114, while in PDM xiv 117– 49 and 150–231 the main deity appears to be Osiris conceived as the counterpart of the Egyptian solar god in accordance with the other Demotic lamp divination spells.19 Thoth appears twice (PDM Suppl. 149–62 and PDM lxi 63–78 in the form Har-Thoth), and then we find just single instances for Sarapis (PGM V 440–58), Seth (PGM VII 359–69), Eros (PGM VII 478–90), Asklepios (PGM VII 628–42), Osiris with Isis and Nephthys (PDM Suppl. 130–38), the angel Zizaubio (PGM VII 795–845), the epithet Sabaoth together with Michael, Raphael and Gabriel (PGM VII 1009– 16).20 Now, it is generally true that in Graeco-Roman Egypt, and especially in the PGM, a Greek or an Egyptian name of a god does not necessarily correspond to a Greek or an Egyptian religious background.21 But in some cases, or when more details are given, it is still possible to trace a connection with a specific religious tradition. For example, PGM V 440–58 is a dream oracle centred on a ring with an engraved image of Sarapis. The main information given about the deity is: ‘on a jasper-like agate engrave Sarapis seated, facing forwards, holding an Egyptian royal scepter and on the scepter an ibis...’. In a case like this, in which there are no other epithets or details that may suggest that the underlying divine persona is actually connected with the Egyptian Osiris, or Osiris-Apis, the choice of the Hellenistic Sarapis22 can be significant in itself, especially considering that he never appears in the Demotic spells. The dream oracle says that the figure should ‘hold an Egyptian royal sceptre’ with an ibis on top, but the fact that the author felt the necessity of specifying that the sceptre has to be Egyptian, seems to

18

Or three versions, if we consider SM 90 as a dream oracle (see above n. 9). On which, see the contribution of SVENJA NAGEL in this volume. 20 In the last two cases the addressees are mainly connected with Jewish tradition, so they will not be analysed in this discussion which focuses on Greek and Egyptian backgrounds. 21 E.g. KÁKOSY, Probleme der Religion; PFEIFFER, Entsprechung, especially 288–9; KAPER, Synkretistische Götterbilder, especially 305. 22 On Sarapis and his development from WsÏr-Op, Osiris-Apis, see QUACK, Sarapis, especially 237–8, 241–7; PFEIFFER, Serapis; S. SCHMIDT, Serapis; STAMBAUGH, Sarapis, especially 12–13, 41– 4, 61–5; DUNAND, Culte d’Isis dans le basin I, 45–66; TRAN TAM TINH, État des études, 1713–22; see also BORGEAUD/VOLOKHINE, Légende de Sarapis. In particular on Osiris-Apis, see DEVAUCHELLE, Osiris, Apis, Sarapis; DEVAUCHELLE, Pas d’Apis pour Sarapis, stressing the predominance of Osiris and the minor role played by Apis in the ‘birth’ of Sarapis. 19

156

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani

imply a ‘foreign’ perspective. Therefore, the presence of Sarapis would seem to be more in line with a Hellenistic background. On the contrary, PGM VII 359–69 invokes ‘the one who shakes, who thunders, who has swallowed the serpent... and hour by hour raises the disk of the sun, Seth...’, epithets which fit the traditional image of Seth as god of confusion, of storms, thunders and consequently also earthquakes,23 and especially his role as protector of the sungod during his journey through the Netherworld who contributes to the annihilation of the serpent Apophis.24 PGM VII 478–90 invokes Eros, but no other epithets or details are given about the deity. Therefore, despite the apparently Greek specificity of a god like Eros, who did not have a proper Egyptian equivalent, we cannot surely ascribe this deity to a cultural background because it could have been associated with Horus the child, as it happens at least in one other passage of the magical papyri (PGM XII 14–95).25 In PGM VII 628–42 the magician has to engrave a ring with the ‘image of Asklepios worshipped in Memphis’, which refers to his Egyptian counterpart Imhotep, the vizier, physician and architect who lived in the time of king Djoser, was later deified and then identified with Asklepios by the Greeks, and whose major cult site was Memphis.26 The spell does not give many other details about the god, but the specificity of the cultic site seems to imply that Imhotep is meant here.27 Imhotep appears also in PDM xiv 93–114, where the spell is attributed to him, but the god addressed in the Greek invocation is a solar god described as exerting control also over darkness (‘…I call upon you who are seated in the invisible darkness and are in the midst of the great gods, you who set and take with you the solar rays and send up the light-bringing goddess... Sun... Send up to me this night your archangel…’). In this case the invocation does not display any unambiguous specific Egyptian reference, but the deity’s connection with darkness, together with the idea that he has to ‘send up’ his archangel, thus probably from the Underworld, seem to imply that this solar 23

TE VELDE, Seth; MEEKS, Génies, anges, 35–6; ZANDEE, Seth; already in PT e.g. 247, § 1150c; see also e.g. MASSART, Leiden Magical Papyrus, recto IV 9–11, VII 5–6 and notes (pp. 66–7), X 12 and note (p. 82); see also TURNER, Seth, 69. 24 The giant serpent embodying the principle of chaos, threatening every night the sun’s journey through the Netherworld and thus the cosmic order, who every night has to be defeated by the sungod with the help of all his entourage: see e.g. BoD, Ch. 39 (where Seth uses the thunder to defeat Apophis). HORNUNG, Nachtfahrt der Sonne, 111–13; TURNER, Seth, 30, 45, 52; WIEBACH-KOEPKE, Sonnenlauf, 199–200; LGG VIII, 668 M. On the act of swallowing also as a means of annihilation see RITNER, Mechanics, 102–10; cf. BoD Ch. 108. 25 A spell to acquire Eros as an assistant, in which both a scarab (one of the manifestations of the Egyptian sun-god) is used in the procedure as a symbol for Eros and the god is addressed with many epithets of Egyptian solar deities. 26 WILDUNG, Imhotep und Amenhotep, especially 48–87; WILDUNG, Imhotep (LdÄ); D.J. THOMPSON, Memphis, 209–11; KÁKOSY, Probleme der Religion, 2973–9; P. Oxy. 1381 with introduction; QUACK, Imhotep; cf. RAY, Ancient Egypt, 176, 184; HURRY, Imhotep, 29–73. 27 The dream oracle also employs the vox magica SIPHTHA, Egyptian for ‘son of Ptah’ (and Imhotep was said to be the son of the god Ptah, see above n. 26), and prescribes drowning a lizard ‘to deify it’ (on deification through drowning as typical of Egyptian tradition see GRIFFITH, Herodotus II.90; SPIEGELBERG, Demotische Miszellen).

‘We Are Such Stuff as Dream Oracles Are Made on’

157

god is conceived as travelling through the Netherworld.28 Therefore, even if the invocation may have originated in a different cultural background, it still fits Egyptian solar deities much more than Greek ones. PDM xiv 117–49 addresses again a solar deity with an invocation which is also found in many other Demotic lamp divinations: …He who gives plenty of light, the companion of the fire, he in whose mouth is the fire which is not extinguished, the great god who is seated in the fire, he who is in the midst of the fire which is in the Lake of Heaven (metaphorical term referring to zenith, midday)... (P. Mag. LL, 5, 12–13)

Even in this case the important aspect is that, despite the origin of the single epithets,29 the connection between the fire/flame and the light of the solar gods, here triggered also by the flame of the lamp in which the god is supposed to appear, has a long tradition in Egyptian religion expressed by epithets such as ‘great of flame’ (o#nbÏt)30 and ‘the one who hides in his flame’ (sSt#-sw-m-nbÏt.f).31 At the same time, fire is one of the means with which the solar deities can annihilate their enemies as well represented by their fire-spitting uraeus. Subsequently, the solar god himself can be described as the one who spits fire from his mouth32 or has a fire-spitting tongue (stSs#, ‘with fire-sparkling tongue’).33 In conclusion, also this invocation, which appears to have been adapted to the solar-Osirian frame of the rest of the ritual, fits Egyptian solar deities more than Greek ones. The same passage appears again in PDM xiv 150–231, together with other invocations addressed for example to the wick and to the lamp itself, e.g.: ...are you the unique, great wick of the linen of Thoth? Are you the byssus robe of Osiris, the divine Drowned, woven by the hand of Isis, spun by the hand of Nephthys? Are you the original bandage which was made for Osiris Khentyamenti? Are you the great bandage with which Anubis lifted his hand to the body of Osiris the mighty god?... (P. Mag. LL, 6, 11–13)

In this case, it is not really a matter of a single divine persona, but the many Egyptian deities and allusions to Egyptian mythology, mainly centred on Osiris (also as counterpart of the solar deity),34 are enough to state that these invocations fit an Egyptian background and not a Greek one. Osiris appears also in PDM Suppl. 130–38 (‘...O Isis, O Nephthys, O noble soul of Osiris Wennefer, come to me! I am your loving son,

28 As typical of the Egyptian religious imagery, e.g. WIEBACH-KOEPKE, Sonnenlauf, especially 9– 33; PIANKOFF, Litany, 10–21; cf. BoD Ch. 17; especially on the solar-Osirian unity see NIWINSKY, Solar-Osirian Unity; SPALINGER, Solar-Osirian Theology; though cf. QUACK, Anrufungen an Osiris, especially 180–81. 29 For some Jewish influences in these lamp divination/dream oracle spells see the contribution by SVENJA NAGEL in this volume. 30 LGG II, 29. 31 LGG VI, 648. 32 E.g. KOENIG, Papyrus Boulaq 6, recto 4, 1. 33 LGG VI, 685. On the symbolism of fire cf. HERMSEN, Bedeutung des Flammensees. 34 As SVENJA NAGEL, who extensively analysed this spell, pointed out, the Egyptian myth of the death, embalming and burial of Osiris plays a central role not only in various parts of this ritual but also more generally in lamp divinations, see BORTOLANI/NAGEL, Divination Rituals.

158

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani

Horus...’)35 and again the nature of the deity described is perfectly in line with Egyptian tradition: Isis and Nephthys are mentioned, Osiris is called with one of his most typical Egyptian epithets, Wennefer, WsÏr wn-nfr, ‘Osiris the perfect being’,36 and the magician identifies himself with Horus the son of Osiris. Another reference to this deity is found in the figure of the Headless god, who is invoked in the two oracles of Bes (PGM VII 222–49 and VIII 64–110) and also appears as a drawing in PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64 addressed to Apollo. The scholars who analysed this divine entity had different theories,37 but the point on which there is general agreement is that the Headless god can be identified with Osiris – whether he was originally a form of Osiris or was later identified with him despite a different origin. For this particular headless iconography would be associated with the myth of the dismembering of the god.38 Even more interestingly, in the dream oracles the Headless god-Osiris appears twice in connection with Bes, 39 and a connection between these two deities can be found again in the city of Abydos.40 Moreover, Bes, though sometimes associated with figures such as Sileni and Satyrs in the Mediterranean world,41 was typically Egyptian and does not have a Greek counterpart in the magical papyri. Therefore, we can quite safely conclude that not only these deities, but also the association between these deities stemmed from an Egyptian religious background. PGM VIII 64–110 adds also a hexametrical hymn addressed to Helios:42 35

P. Louvre E 3229, 5, 14–15. ‘Osiris, der existiert, indem er vollkommen ist’ LGG II, 375 and 541. For the debate about the translation and precise meaning of this epithet see e.g. GRIFFITHS, Origins of Osiris, 90; GRIFFITHS, Plutarchus: De Iside, 460–61; MA. SMITH, Mortuary Texts, 100–101. 37 A. DELATTE, Études (A. DELATTE, in A. DELATTE/DERCHAIN, Intailles magiques, 42–9); PREISENDANZ, Akephalos; BONNER, SMA, 164–5, 297–8, no. 267; MEEKS, Dieu masqué; BERLANDINI, Acéphale; SARAGOZA, Acéphale. 38 As demonstrated by some earlier Egyptian representations of the headless Osiris or mentions of this deity: see the studies quoted in n. 37 above. 39 Thrice if we count SM 90 among the dream oracles, see above n. 9. 40 Abydos was considered to be one of the burial places of Osiris (e.g. GRIFFITHS, Osiris [LdÄ], II and XI; O’CONNOR, Abydos, especially 31–41; U. EFFLAND/A. EFFLAND, Abydos, especially 12–15, 17–97; cf. PETRIE, Abydos, 12–28) and, according to the myth, when the different parts of the dismembered body of Osiris were scattered by Seth in different places, Abydos received the head of the god (BEINLICH, ‘Osirisreliquien’, especially 21–7, 30–41, 69–72, 222–4; see also BERLANDINI, Acéphale, 30–31, n. 33). Moreover, Abydos was the site of the famous oracle of Bes which was active from about the first/second century to the fifth century CE and developed in the same site of an earlier sanctuary of Osiris-Sarapis (see PERDRIZET/LEFEBVRE, Inscriptiones Memnonii, xix–xxiii; PIANKOFF, Osireion; KÁKOSY, Probleme der Religion, 2935–6; DUNAND, Consultation oraculaire; FRANKFURTER, Religion, 169–74; FRANKFURTER, Voices, 238–43; RUTHERFORD, Pilgrimage; cf. U. EFFLAND/A. EFFLAND, Abydos, 126–8). On the association Bes-Headless god cf. BORTOLANI, Bes e l’ἀκέφαλος θεός. 41 See e.g. OHSHIRO, Absorption; BARRA BAGNASCO, Bes-Sileno; FISCHER, Zwerg; JESI, Bes e Sileno; MUSSINI, Musica e morte. 42 Which is paralleled in the longer metrical sections of PGM IV 436–61 and 1957–89. For the translations and a detailed analysis of the divine personas in this hymn and in the metrical sections of PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64 and II 64–183 quoted below see BORTOLANI, Magical Hymns, hymns nos. 2, 6, 7, 8. 36

‘We Are Such Stuff as Dream Oracles Are Made on’

159

You who are carried by the breezes of the air-wandering winds, golden-haired Helios, who rule the flame’s indefatigable fire, who wrap up the great pole in ethereal paths, who generate all things yourself and all things in their turn dissolve; for the elements have been arranged by you in relation to your laws, which nourish all the cosmos which is of four turns per year. If you go in the recesses of the earth, in the region of the dead, send the truthful prophet from the inaccessible places.

As well known, the presence of Greek metre is not particularly significant in itself, since some of the so-called magical hymns were probably composed ad hoc for the magical context and describe divine personas quite different from those of Greek religious tradition. 43 Like in this case, in which, apart from the typically Greek iconographical feature ‘golden-haired’, the rest of the hymn describes a divine persona much more consistent with Egyptian solar creator gods than with the Hellenistic Helios. The deity is clearly identified with the physical sun, but for example the insistence on its connection with the winds, the breezes, the lofty turns, recalls especially Amun-Re, solar creator god but also ‘god and lord of the winds’ and ‘wind’ himself.44 Moreover, the god is again imagined as travelling through the Underworld from which he has to send the ‘truthful prophet’. In conclusion, despite the fact that the hymn includes at least one element from Greek religious tradition and it is addressed to Helios, the nature of the deity invoked is closer to the Egyptian theology of solar creator gods. Another example of a dream oracle using a Greek name but addressing an Egyptian divine persona is PGM XII 144–51: the spell is quite short and does not give many details, but what we can infer about the deity is still in line with Egyptian tradition: ...draw on a strip of linen the god Hermes, standing, ibis-faced... I conjure [you] by your father, Osiris, and Isis, your mother, to show me one of your forms and reveal concerning the things I want...

The addressee is Hermes ibis-faced, thus identified with Thoth (since the ibis was both sacred to, and one of the animal symbols/manifestations of, this deity), we find the couple Osiris-Isis (and not Sarapis-Isis) and Thoth is said to be their son. It would thus seem the spell addresses Horus-Thoth, Har-Thoth,45 as it happens also in PDM lxi 63– 78: ‘…Har-Thoth... Come to me Thoth, eldest one... who came forth from Atum, who was born in the form... as limb of Atum! Come to me, Thoth, heart of the sun-god, tongue of Tatenen... lord of truth...’.46 In this case the invocation to the god is rich in Egyptian elements and, as far as content is concerned, does not present any real sign of cultural fusion since the god is described with some traditional epithets of Thoth:

43

See BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3420–21; NOCK, Greek Magical Papyri, 222; RIESENRemarques, 153–60; RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice, 3368–71; cf. FURLEY, Praise and Persuasion, 39–40. 44 LGG (AImn) VIII, 54 A.5, 68 A.5, and VII, 454 (T#w), 457 (T#w-nDm), VI, 221 (swH-mn-m-Xtnbt), I, 504 (Ïr-T#w), III, 783 (nb-T#w); cf. FAUTH, Helios Megistos, 65–6. 45 For the connection of Horus and Thoth see STADLER, Weiser und Wesir, 147–52, 310, 313. 46 P. BM EA 10588, 5, 1 and 5, 7–13. FELD,

160

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani

smsw-p#wt, ‘the eldest of primeval times’, 47 pr-m-vm, ‘who came forth from Atum’,48 Ïb-n-Ro, ‘heart of Re’, ns-n-v#-Tnn, ‘the tongue of Tatenen’,49 nb-M#ot, ‘lord of Maat (justice/truth)’.50 The situation changes when we analyse the other two spells addressing Hermes: PGM V 370–439 and VII 664–85. As mentioned before, the second spell could be a very simplified version of the first one and they both contain two versions of the same hexametrical hymn: Hermes, ruler of cosmos, who are in the heart, circle of the moon, spherical and square, founder of the words of language, (you) who obey justice, wearing a mantle, with winged sandals, who turn (around) an ethereal course beneath the abysses of the earth, who govern the wind, eye of Helios, mightiest one, founder of many-sounded speech, who with lamps make glad the mortals beneath the abysses of the earth, who have finished life; you are called foreseer of fates and divine Dream (θεῖος Ὄνειρος), you who send day- and night-oracles, cure all mortals’ pains with your healing cares. Come here, blessed one, mightiest son of Mnemosyne, who perfects mental powers...

In this case, the nature of the divine persona described is not so straightforward.51 The hymn presents quite balanced Egyptian and Greek traits: the god is a god of the moon also as the ‘eye of Helios’, i.e. the eye of Horus,52 he is the inventor of speech and writing, a god of justice, he is also imagined as travelling from/to the Underworld and playing a role in connection with the dead, and he is the one who heals all mortal pains. Though some of these functions can find a connection with Hermes,53 they especially fit the Egyptian lunar Thoth, the ‘lord of the divine-words’, nb-mdw-nTr,54 the one who ‘has let the writings speak’,55 ‘the one who acts according to Maat (justice/truth)’, ÏrM#ot,56 ‘the lord of Maat (Justice/Truth)’,57 judge of the deceased in the Netherworld, 47

LGG VIII, 719 E.1. LGG VIII, 724 P.1. 49 LGG VIII, 725 R.9. For these epithets see also STADLER, Weiser und Wesir, 180–81; DERCHAIN-URTEL, Thot, 81–94. 50 The goddess Maat personified the concept of order, truth, justice, morality and cosmic equilibrium, her symbol was a feather; for the epithet see LGG VIII, 721 G.2. See also STADLER, Weiser und Wesir, 327–43. 51 This hymn has been interpreted as the product of philosophical Hermetism (e.g. HEITSCH, Griechische Zauberhymnen, 223–36; cf. FOWDEN, Egyptian Hermes, 25–6), but it can be also explained simply as the translation of the Egyptian conception into Greek, see BORTOLANI, Hymn to Hermes (also for the translation of the hymn). See also CALVO MARTÍNEZ, Himno hermético; SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE, Himno(s)-plegaria. 52 In the Egyptian conception that imagines the moon as the eye of the solar god. OTTO, Augensagen; KRAUSS, Astronomische Konzepte, 261–74; BOYLAN, Thoth, 32–4, 62–75. 53 E.g. he was associated with speech and language as messenger of the gods and was able to travel in and from the Underworld as psychopompos, see below n. 82. 54 LGG III, 654. 55 Statue Berlin 2293: VAN TURAJEFF, Zwei Hymnen, 123 (= BARUCQ/DAUMAS, Hymnes et prières, 96, text D.3; = QUACK, Drei Hymnen, 152). 56 LGG I, 456–7, see also VIII, 720; cf. BoD Ch. 182, 183. 48

‘We Are Such Stuff as Dream Oracles Are Made on’

161

god of medicine, skilled physician and patron of physicians.58 At the same time, the deity is described not only with iconographical features typical of the Greek Hermes, i.e. ‘with winged sandals’ and ‘wearing a mantle’ (χλαμυδηφόρε, as the chlamys does not belong to Egyptian tradition), and in connection with the Greek Mnemosyne, but he is also associated with dreams (θεῖος Ὄνειρος, ‘divine Dream’),59 which is typical of the Homeric Hermes as god of sleep and bringer of dreams. PGM VII 664–85 does not give other details as far as the deity invoked is concerned, but in PGM V 370–439 the ritual itself reflects the cultural fusion in the hymn: in fact, the magician has to prepare a mixture of ingredients combined with ‘the liquid of an ibis egg’, one of the sacred animals of Thoth, with which he will make a figurine of Hermes ‘wearing a mantle’ and ‘holding a herald’s staff’, i.e. with Greek iconographical features. Therefore, it seems these spells present a mixed divine persona with both originally Greek and originally Egyptian elements. On the other hand, Thoth appears again in PDM Suppl. 149–62 and here, considering the few details we have about the god, there is no sign of Greek influence. The invocation runs: ‘I call you O Thoth, the hearing-ear, who hears everything, I call you with your names which are praised... awaken for me, lord of truth!’60 The god is called the ‘hearing-ear’ and again the ‘lord of truth’. Even if ‘hearing-ear’ is more typical of Amun since the eastern temple at Karnak was dedicated to Amun msDr-sDm, ‘of the hearing-ear’, 61 this divine ability to hear human prayers is attested also for Thoth, especially in the epithet msDrwy-sDmwy, ‘the hearing ears’,62 and in the form EHwtysDm, ‘Thoth who ears’,63 and anyway cannot be connected with the Greek Hermes. So we can ascribe this spell to the ones consistent with an Egyptian divine persona. On the contrary, the Apollo of the dream oracle PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64 appears to fit a Greek religious background, at least as far as the divine persona described in the hexametrical hymn that constitutes the invocation is concerned. Here is an example: PGM VI 25–7 (paralleled in PGM II 2–4), PGM II 5–7 O helper (ἐπίρροθος) through divinations, Phoibos Apollo, Leto’s son (Λητοίδη), who dart afar (ἑκάεργε), prophet, come here, here, come here, prophesying, give oracles in the night’s hour... If ever, with a victory-loving laurel branch, you uttered good omens more than once here from the sacred peak, now too may you hasten towards me with truthful prophecies...

57

See above n. 50. See STADLER, Weiser und Wesir, 11–35, for a summary of the studies on the subject; also below n. 82. 59 See Hom. Il. 2.22 where the ‘divine dream’ is the dream sent by Zeus to Agamemnon. Hermes as agent of the divine messages is identified with the message itself. 60 P. Louvre E 3229, 6, 7–11. 61 On the subject E.E. MORGAN, Untersuchungen, especially 43–54; GIVEON, God Who Hears; LUISELLI, Suche nach Gottesnähe, 60, 195; cf. PETTAZZONI, Onniscienza, 98–100. 62 LGG VIII, 722 M.3. 63 Cf. STERN, Säulen, 54; also LGG VI, 738 (sDm-sprw, ‘the one who hears the prayers’). 58

162

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani

The invocation presents some traditional epithets of Apollo, in particular some Homeric ones, such as the rare ἐπίρροθος, ‘helper’, Λητοίδη, ‘Leto’s son’, ἑκάεργε, ‘fardarter’ or ‘far-worker’, and they appear in the PGM only in this dream oracle.64 Moreover, the second excerpt of the hymn mentions laurel, the sacred plant of Apollo.65 Similarly, both laurel leaves and a laurel wreath are essential to the procedure in the prose part of the spell. The laurel’s prestige as prophetic plant in Apollonian divination is even more stressed in PGM VI 6–19 and 39–44, where the hexametrical invocation addresses, together with Apollo, also the nymph Daphne, alluding to the mythological episode in which she was transformed by the god into a laurel plant.66 E.g. PGM VI 6–13: Daphne-laurel, sacred plant of Apollo’s divination, …(with whose) branches Phoibos wreathed …(his) head with beautiful long hair …shaking in his hands …of the… with many valleys, lofty …prophesy to mortals …grievous… Apollo himself …O maiden…

Despite the Greek specificity of the divine personas of Apollo and Daphne in the hexametrical invocation of PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64, the ritual seems to identify Apollo with the Headless god, whom the magician has to draw on a piece of papyrus to be put beside his head before going to sleep. The reasons behind this identification appear more clearly in the immediately following alternative spell PGM II 64–183 (see above n. 6), which presents many similarities with the dream oracle in question (including a drawing of the Headless god) even if it is aimed at an awake vision of the deity. Here, after an initial part addressed to Daphne and Apollo and rich in traditional Greek elements (PGM II 81–7),67 the hexametrical invocation proceeds with a section (PGM II 88–102) in which Apollo is identified with the Hellenistic Helios described as a god in 64 Similarly, in PGM VI 30–31 and 36–8 five Homeric lines about Apollo (Il. 1.37–41) have been pasted into the composition. For ἐπίρροθος cf. also the epic form ἐπιτάρροθος, especially used by Homer (e.g. Il. 11.366, 17.339). 65 For laurel as prophetic plant sacred to Apollo, see HERMANN, Daphne; AMANDRY, Mantique apollinienne, 126–34; PARKE/WORMELL, Delphic Oracle, 3, 26, 30–31; PARKE, Greek Oracles, 75–6; FONTENROSE, Delphic Oracle, 224–5; FONTENROSE, Didyma, 55–6, 82–3,108–9; JOHNSTON, Greek Divination, 42–3, 50, 88, and 154–5 for the treatment of Daphne in these spells; GRAF, Apollo, 67. 66 Cf. P. Oxy. 1011.218–80; DORNSEIFF, Das Alphabet, 69. 67 E.g. Apollo is called Ieios, ‘invoked with the cry ἰή’, and Paian (originally a physician of the gods, Paian, ‘healer’, ‘saviour’, became a typical epithet of Apollo, see e.g. VON BLUMENTHAL, Paian; GRAF, Apollo, 81–4; RUTHERFORD, Pindar’s Paeans, 10–17), and the refrain ἰὴ Παιάν was characteristic of cultic hymns to Apollo (see e.g. FURLEY/BREMER, Greek Hymns I, 84–91; RUTHERFORD, Pindar’s Paeans, 18–25). This section even refers to the oracle of Apollo Klarios which was situated in the territory of Kolophon, Ionia, see e.g. PARKE, Oracles of Apollo, 112–70, 219–24; JOHNSTON, Greek Divination, 76–82; FARAONE, Collapse, 222; MERKELBACH/STAUBER, Orakel, for the corpus of the oracles; SFAMENI GASPARRO, Oracoli profeti sibille, 54–6; VÁRHELYI, Magic. On the relation between traditional divination and PGM see HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber II.1, 96–114, 312–17.

‘We Are Such Stuff as Dream Oracles Are Made on’

163

armour riding the sun’s chariot.68 This hymn is immediately followed by a nonmetrical section, which keeps praising a solar god but this time in Egyptian terms: ...you who are seated upon the lotus and who light up the whole inhabited world; you who have designated the various living things upon the earth, you who have the sacred bird upon your robe in the eastern parts of the Red Sea, even as you have upon the northern parts the figure of an infant child seated upon a lotus, O rising one, O you of many names, SESENGENBARPHARANGĒS; on the southern parts you have the shape of the sacred falcon, through which you send fiery heat into the air, which becomes LERTHEXANAX; in the parts toward the west you have the shape of a crocodile, with the tail of a snake, from which you send out rains and snows; in the parts toward the east you have [the form of] a winged serpent...

Even if some epithets may have a different cultural origin (such as ‘you who have the sacred bird upon your robe in the eastern part of the Red Sea’), the insistence on the image of the infant child sitting upon the lotus flower,69 and especially on the different manifestations of the sun-god in the different cardinal points,70 leaves no doubt this section fits an Egyptian background. The basic animal forms of the god listed here belong to the Egyptian religious fauna and appear in another passage of the PGM among the twelve animal forms in which the solar god can manifest himself according to the twelve hours of the day/night, representing also the Egyptian zodiac.71 68 Nevertheless, considering that Apollo and Helios began to be assimilated as early as the fifth century BCE, as a whole the nature of the god invoked in this section cannot be said to lie outside Greek religious tradition, see JESSEN, Helios, especially 75–6; GRAF, Apollon (NP), 867; GRAF, Apollo, 145–53; BOYANCÉ, Apollon solaire. The first certain attestation appears in Eur. Phaeth. 224– 6 (DIGGLE, Euripides, 147–8 ad loc.). 69 Typical manifestation of Egyptian solar gods in their child-form representing both the sun at dawn and the primeval birth of the sun at the beginning of time; see SAUNERON/YOYOTTE, Naissance du monde, 54–9; WEIDNER, Lotos, 106–13, 117–20; RYHINER, L’offrande du lotus. Cf. ZIVIECOCHE, Ogdoade (I), and especially 190–91, 199–200; BUDDE, Harpare-pa-chered, 47–50. 70 On the Egyptian gods’ ability to manifest themselves in different forms (or different deities) see e.g. HORNUNG, Conceptions, especially 113–28, 185–96, 217–26; PIANKOFF, Litany, 5, 10–19; GRIFFITHS, Motivation; PFEIFFER, Entsprechung, especially 288–9. On the importance of the number four as symbolic of the four cardinal points and four regions of the universe, and thus as a symbol of the perfection, completeness of the cosmos, see SETHE, Von Zahlen, 31–2; DE WIT, Génies, 35–9; RAVEN, Egyptian concepts; cf. GOYON, Nombre et univers, 58–60. 71 PGM IV 1596–716, cf. PGM III 494–611 (now PGM III.1, see LOVE, ‘PGM III’ Archive), see MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax I, 104–7, II, 2–8; BOLL, Der ostasiatische Tierzyklus; GUNDEL, Neue astrologische Texte, 229–35; especially on the twelve manifestations of the solar deity see e.g. GASSE, Litanie; ASSMANN, Hymnen und Gebete, no. 144B, cf. nos. 1–12; cf. PIANKOFF, Litany, e.g. papyrus of Ta-Udja-Re, 84–97, 147–57; already in BoD, cf. BRUGSCH, Kapitel der Verwandlungen. On the connection of the number four and the four cardinal points with the zodiac see HÜBNER, Eigenschaften der Tierkreiszeichen, especially 441–52; HÜBNER, Zum Planetenfragment; interestingly enough, considering the standard order in which the animals are listed (Cat, Dog, Snake, Scarab, Donkey, Lion, Ram, Bull, Falcon, Baboon, Ibis, Crocodile), the snake, the falcon and the crocodile that appear in our papyrus occupy the third, ninth and twelfth position respectively, corresponding to three of the four points in which the zodiac can be divided into four sections according to the celestial cardinal points; the only exception is the ‘child seated upon a lotus’ which seems to be used in place of the lion (which normally occupies the sixth position). The basic animal forms listed by our spell can also be found together in the iconography of Egyptian polymorphic deities, see e.g. SAUNERON,

164

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani

In conclusion, the alternative spell PGM II 64–183 helps to clarify the identification between Apollo and the Headless god observed in the dream oracle PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64: even if not openly stated, the dream oracle must imply the identification ApolloHelios-Egyptian solar god, which in its turn allows Apollo to be conceived as the counterpart of a form of Osiris, the Headless god. Therefore, even if the Apollo and Daphne addressed in the metrical invocation conform to Greek religious tradition, in this dream oracle as a whole the divine persona of the main deity presents both Greek and Egyptian traits. In particular, one of the most interesting features of this last dream oracle is the strong connection between Apollo and Daphne/laurel, which reflects traditional Apollonian divination. We know for example that the Delphic Pythia was thought to chew laurel leaves as part of her preparatory rituals, possibly in order to go into a trance, and to shake a laurel plant or laurel branches during the revelation. Both laurel wreaths and branches were also worn and carried by consultants of the oracle,72 and the Cumaean Sibyl was supposed to use leaves to write her responses.73 Since the use of laurel in divinatory context is a typical Greek feature, it seems worth checking which other dream oracles employ laurel as part of the ritual, regardless of the mention of the god Apollo (see Table II). Not surprisingly, laurel is generally not used in those dream oracles that display Egyptian elements, with the exception of PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64 and the two spells addressed to Hermes/Thoth in PGM V 370–439 and PDM lxi 63–78 (since the other spell addressed to Hermes in VII 664–85 seems to be just a very simplified version of PGM V 370–439, it may have also originally prescribed the use of laurel). Other ritual features that are worth analysing, since they can easily be traced back to a specific cultural tradition, are for example the use of bricks or the reference to the four cardinal points. We know that in Egyptian tradition bricks were used mainly with protective function in various contexts and especially in connection with the four cardinal points that, together with the four regions of the universe, played an important role in symbolizing perfection, the completeness of the cosmos.74 For example, four bricks were used in temple foundation ceremonies and Chapter 151 of the Book of the Dead deals with the preparation of the four unbaked bricks that are often found in the burial chambers of the New Kingdom in correspondence with the four cardinal points. These bricks can also bear apotropaic inscriptions that refer to the flame or the light as means of destruction against enemies.75 Moreover, mothers giving birth squatted on the four birth bricks personified by Meskhenet, goddess of childbirth, who partly determined the fate of the new born, and Meskhenet, represented as a brick with a womNouveau sphinx; SAUNERON, Papyrus magique; QUAEGEBEUR, Divinités égyptiennes; KAPER, Tutu, especially 79–104; TOTTI, Traumgott, suggested that this particular iconography, paralleled in PGM XII 87–93 and on the gem of the British Museum 56109 (G 109), could originate in the composite iconography of the polymorphic god Tutu (the hypothesis does not seem particularly convincing even if, given the solar nature of Tutu, a connection is possible). 72 See above n. 65. 73 Verg. Aen. 3.443–52, 6.74; Phleg. Mir. 10.520. 74 See above n. 70. 75 MONNET, Briques magiques; ROTH/ROEHRIG, Magical Bricks, 121–9; RÉGEN, When the Book.

‘We Are Such Stuff as Dream Oracles Are Made on’

165

an’s head, can appear in the ceremony of the weighing of the heart.76 At the same time, the appeal to the cardinal points, and different deities in connection with them, is frequent in rites that are felt as having a sort of ‘universal’ implication,77 such as the ritual of the Opening of the Mouth or the ritual of the Mysteries of the Four Pellets aimed at the protection of Osiris.78 If we look at the dream oracles, we will see that bricks and cardinal points tend to be present in those spells that are already rich in other Egyptian elements (see Table III). The general impression from this preliminary analysis is that we can distinguish two main traditions underlying the dream oracles: one stemming from an Egyptian background in connection with lamp divination rituals and the other stemming from a Greek background in connection with the popularity of Apollonian divination (see Table III). The only cases in which the two are combined are PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64 and three spells in which Hermes/Thoth appears (PGM V 370–439, VII 664–85 and PDM lxi 63–78). Interestingly enough, the ‘Egyptian’ spells seem somehow to connect the idea of dreaming with the Underworld, since the deities addressed are all deities that in one way or the other are supposed to travel or have a role in the Netherworld (Osiris, or the Headless god, Thoth, Seth, Egyptian solar deities). The only exceptions would seem to be Asklepios/Imhotep and Bes. However, Imhotep, having been the vizier of Djoser and thus a real historical person, was actually dead, and after his deification was often associated with Thoth as god of wisdom and medicine. As far as Bes is concerned, apart from the solar traits this deity acquired starting especially from the Third Intermediate Period (also thanks to his identification with Horus the child),79 it has to be remembered that the invocations of the dream oracles that mention this deity in their titles actually address the Headless god and, in one case, also Helios as Egyptian solar deity. On the other hand, in the ‘Greek’ spells this connection with the Underworld is not so conspicuous owing to the presence of Apollo and Daphne or generic ‘lords’, ‘gods’. Even more interestingly, the great tradition of the Greek incubation oracles, especially of Asklepios at Epidauros and Pergamon,80 does not seem to have reached the PGM’s dream oracles within its original Greek background. In fact, in the only case in which Asklepios appears (PGM VII 628–42), the spell not only feels the necessity to specify 76 BoD Ch. 125: when the deceased arrives in the Netherworld, his heart is put on a scale by the god Thoth and counterweighed by the plume symbol of Maat (see above n. 50): the heart must not weigh more than Maat, otherwise it will be impossible for the deceased to live his eternal life and he will undergo the ‘second death’, i.e. total cancellation from existence. On Meskhenet and her representation as a brick with a woman’s head in these scenes see SEEBER, Untersuchungen, 83–8. 77 ROTH/ROEHRIG, Magical Bricks, especially 129–37; RAVEN, Egyptian Concepts. 78 OTTO, Mundöffnungsritual; GOYON, Textes mythologiques (a ritual in which four clay spheres have to be thrown towards the four cardinal points, cf. ZIEGLER, À propos du rite). 79 E.g. WOLFF, Kultische Rolle; DASEN, Dwarfs, especially 49–50; KÁKOSY, Bemerkungen; KÁKOSY, Statues guérisseuses; STERNBERG-EL HOTABI, Untersuchungen, especially 8–19. See also above n. 37. 80 See e.g. COX MILLER, Dreams, 33, 106–17, 184–204; SFAMENI GASPARRO, Oracoli profeti sibille, 33–53, 203–53; JOHNSTON, Greek Divination, 90–96; GRAF, Apollo, 94–100; WICKKISER, Asklepios, especially 35–41; LEHMANN (ed.), Wunderheilungen, especially 29–31, 43–9; DUNAND, Consultation oraculaire, 71–2; and now RENBERG, Where Dreams May Come.

166

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani

that it is the Asklepios worshipped in Memphis, i.e. Imhotep, but also does not present any specifically Greek feature. Instead of Greek incubation, we find Apollonian divination (also alluded to through the use of laurel), as if the dream oracles were perceived as a private, home, version of the oracular consultation at the great Apollonian sanctuaries in Greece and Asia Minor. At the same time, the connection with Demotic lamp divination spells shown by the more ‘Egyptian’ dream oracles seems to be in line with the examples of PDM xiv 117–49 and 150–231, where the dream oracle is offered as an alternative to lamp divination, as if the two magical practices were not perceived as particularly different. The other interesting feature is that, especially when there are enough elements to analyse, the nature of the deities invoked seems to be consistent with the other culturally traceable features. The apparent exceptions being again PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64 and three of the spells in which Hermes/Thoth appears (PGM V 370–439, VII 664–85 and PDM lxi 63–78). However, in the first case, we find a plurality of elements but it is hard to talk about real fusion between divine personas. In fact, the invocation is mostly consistent in describing Apollo and Daphne according to Greek tradition, while the ‘Egyptian’ side of the main deity is revealed only in the ritual part of the spell. The underlying conception clearly implies that Apollo, the Egyptian solar god, Osiris and thus the Headless god are identified, but in the dream oracle this identification is achieved juxtaposing an Apollonian recitation rich in Greek elements to a ritual that displays the Egyptian background of the deity invoked. 81 Therefore, this dream oracle certainly testifies to an effort to combine the two main traditions but, as far as divine personas are concerned, it remains difficult to talk about actual fusion. Anyhow, this kind of attitude would seem to represent an exception since the other two cases in which a divine persona presents Greek and Egyptian elements (the two dream oracles of Hermes PGM V 370–439 and VII 664–85) are quite different. In fact, even if in the ritual or in the hymn to Hermes we can still distinguish the elements belonging to the Greek (Hermes) or to the Egyptian divine persona (Thoth), the divine features are presented as fused together. Such a fusion between deities does actually appear very rarely in the PGM and when it does it seems to be triggered by a preexistent superimposition of functions. Not by chance, Hermes and Thoth already shared many of their competences before any syncretistic attempt (such as the role of persuasive speakers, of heralds, and their connection with language or their role in the Underworld). 82 However, apart from the solar aspect, 83 the same cannot be said of Apollo and Egyptian solar deities. The general impression is that it is this pre-existent similarity between Hermes and Thoth that underlies the composition of these dream oracles with mixed elements and could also explain the appearance of laurel (a Greek element) in PDM lxi 63–78 addressed to the Egyptian Har-Thoth – the only dream 81

Similarly, in the alternative spell PGM II 64–183 discussed above Apollo-Helios is certainly identified with the Egyptian solar god but through a process of juxtaposition clearly shown in the invocation where the Egyptian praising section immediately follows the Greek hexametrical hymn. 82 DERCHAIN-URTEL, Thot, 136–46; FOWDEN, Egyptian Hermes; BOYLAN, Thoth; KERÉNYI, Hermes; BLEEKER, Hathor and Thoth, 106–50; KAHN, Hermès. 83 See above n. 68.

‘We Are Such Stuff as Dream Oracles Are Made on’

167

oracle invoking an exclusively Egyptian divine persona in which this plant is used. These considerations seem to confirm both that the divine personas of the dream oracles are consistent with other culturally identifiable choices in the ritual, and that Greek and Egyptian traditions remain mostly separated. For they seem to meet only on those occasions in which either the divine persona invoked is already recognised as shared, and thus allows the addition of different cultural elements, or, as in the case of PGM VI 1–47+II 1–64, in some rare efforts which reach a stage of juxtaposition more than actual fusion. In conclusion, through this preliminary analysis, it seems possible to recognise two main traditions in the dream oracles of the PGM: one Egyptian and one Greek. Despite the various cultural influences, they seem to have preserved their original consistency and, though certainly displaying cultural plurality, they do not appear to represent actual fusion. Further research may confirm these preliminary results and establish whether this tendency applies only to the dream oracles or also to other magical procedures within the extant Graeco-Egyptian magical literature.

168

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani

TABLE I Egyptian elements

Greek elements

* Mixed elements

PGM/PDM

Lamp not red

Wick/Oil

IV 3172–208

X

X

V 370–439 V 440–58 VI 1–47+II 1–64 VII 222–49

X (compulsion)

X (compulsion)

(X?)

(X?)

VII 359–69

X

Deities addressed (I conjure you by the sleep releaser) Hermes

* * (Sarapis) Daphne (drawing of the *Apollo,god) Headless * Bes, Headless god Seth

VII 478–90

Eros

VII 628–42

Asklepios

VII 664–85

Hermes * * No specific divine

VII 703–26

VII 795–845

name (lords, gods) No specific divine name (lords, gods) Angel Zizaubio

VII 1009–16

Sabaoth, Michael, Raphael, Gabriel

VII 740–55

VIII 64–110

X

X

Bes, Helios, Headless god

XII 144–51

Hermes (son of Osiris and Isis)

PDM xiv 93–114

Solar deity

PDM xiv 117–49

X

X

(Osiris/)solar deity

PDM xiv 150–231

X

X

Osiris/solar deity

PDM lxi 63–78

Har-Thoth

PDM Suppl. 130–38 PDM Suppl. 149–62

Osiris, Isis, Nephthys (Horus) X

Thoth

‘We Are Such Stuff as Dream Oracles Are Made on’

169

TABLE II

IV 3172–208 V 370–439

X

X

Laurel

*

X 28 laurel leaves have to be pounded together with other ingredients to make a dough for shaping a Hermes figurine

V 440–58

VI 1–47+II 1–64

VII 222–49 VII 359–69 VII 478–90 VII 628–42 VII 664–85 VII 703–26 VII 740–55 VII 795–845

X A spray of olive and laurel twigs have to be held by the magician and waved towards the lamp X

X

(X?)

(X?) X

PDM Suppl. 130–38 PDM Suppl. 149–62

*

*

X Hymn to Daphne-laurel; voces magicae written on laurel branches that the magician has to both wear as a wreath and hold in his hand while speaking the recitation

(X? Cf. the parallel version in V 370-439)

X Laurel leaves inscribed with signs of the zodiac (‘crown yourself with them’); laurel leaf inscribed with a magical name; laurel leaves to be put under the head of the magician X Inscribed laurel leaves to be placed near the head of the magician

VII 1009–16

VIII 64–110 XII 144–51 PDM xiv 93–114 PDM xiv 117–49 PDM xiv 150–231 PDM lxi 63–78

* Mixed elements

Deities

PGM/PDM

Wick/ Oil

Greek elements Lamp not red

Egyptian elements

X

X

X X

X X X Inscribed laurel leaf: the magician has to speak to it and then to put it under his head X

170

Ljuba Merlina Bortolani

TABLE III

X

V 370–439 V 440–58 VI 1–47+II 1–64

VII 222–49

X (comp.)

X (comp.)

(X?)

(X?)

VII 359–69

X

(I conjure you by the sleep releaser) Hermes

*(Sarapis) * *Apollo,ofDaphne (drawing the Headless god) * Bes, Headless god Eros

VII 628–42

Asklepios

*Hermes*

VII 703–26

No specific divine name (lords, gods) No specific divine name (lords, gods) Angel Zizaubio

VII 740–55 VII 795–845 VII 1009–16 VIII 64–110

X

X

XII 144–51 PDM xiv 93–114

Sabaoth, Michael, Raphael, Gabriel Bes, Helios, Headless god Hermes (son of Osiris and Isis) Solar deity

PDM xiv 117–49

X

X

(Osiris/)solar deity

PDM xiv 150–231

X

X

Osiris/solar deity

PDM lxi 63–78

Har-Thoth

PDM Suppl. 130– 38 PDM Suppl. 149– 62

Osiris, Isis, Nephthys (Horus) Thoth

X

X X X X

(X?)

Seth

VII 478–90 VII 664–85

Cardinal points

X

Deities addressed

Bricks

IV 3172–208

* Mixed elements Laurel

PGM/PDM

Wick /Oil

Greek elements

Lamp not red

Egyptian elements

(X?)

X X X (unbaked)

X (four) X X X

Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes for Oracular and Protective Statues CHRISTOPHER A. FARAONE The Greek magical papyri, especially the longer handbooks from Upper Egypt, sometimes reflect Greek, Egyptian and Jewish traditions, and if we use these longer handbooks as a model for how magic was practiced throughout the Roman Empire, one gets the impression that Graeco-Roman magic was created, transmitted and ultimately used in an environment that was culturally pluralistic or multicultural.1 I have in the past, however, argued against naïvely using the Theban handbooks as typical, because they seem to be a special case that indeed gives us a rich source of detailed evidence, but only for an isolated pocket of local and elite Egyptian practice.2 In this essay I will extend this argument by discussing recipes from the Theban handbooks for statuettes and engraved gems used as oracles or as protective amulets for houses or shops and then by comparing them with descriptions of similar objects in contemporary or even earlier lapidary handbooks or literary sources. My conclusions can be briefly stated: these long recipes from the Theban papyri do at some points re-frame or translate a well-known image from one cultural tradition, so that it appeals to people from other traditions, but this is often done in superficial ways or with coded or hidden scripts known only to the creator of the image. The added material, moreover, is usually not from a different cultural tradition (e.g. Jewish or Egyptian), but rather from a repertoire of nonsensical ‘magical’ names that seem to have been created and popularised by professional magicians primarily for purposes of mystification. Comparison with recipes from non-magical handbooks will reveal, moreover, that other traditions for creating such images outside of Egypt show even fewer signs of pluralism.

1

There seem to be two different definitions of ‘cultural pluralism’. Originally it referred more narrowly to the idea that different (minority) groups in society can keep their distinctive cultures, while coexisting peacefully with a dominant group, for example, the case of Jews and Moslems living under Christian rule. This narrower definition, if applied to the PGM, would presumably involve discussing how the recipes reflect life under Roman rule, something that is nearly invisible in the PGM, except for the language in a handful of necromantic recipes that seems to have been coded to avoid detection by the Roman authorities; see FARAONE, Collapse. The term is commonly used more broadly, however, – as I use it in this essay – to refer to a society marked by the peaceful coexistence of more than one distinct ethnic or religious groups. But in either interpretation the term ‘cultural pluralism’ is not unproblematic; see GR. WOOLF, Isis. 2 FARAONE, Handbooks; FARAONE, Problem of Dense Data-Sets, 106–8.

172

Christopher A. Faraone

1. Oracular images of Apollo and Sarapis In an article published many years ago J.Z. SMITH praised the magical papyri as ‘one of the largest collections of functioning ritual texts … produced by religious specialists that has survived from late antiquity’.3 He stressed, moreover, that among these recipes one occasionally finds miniature versions of civic and even panhellenic cult.4 Perhaps his best example of this phenomenon is a section of a fragmentary recipe for a ‘Rite for foreknowledge’:5 The preparation of the operation: Set up a self-revealing6 tripod and a table of olive wood or laurel wood and on the table carve in a circle these symbols [8 symbols]. Cover the tripod with clean linen and place a censer on the tripod. It is advantageous to place on the table a [holl]ow-[bot]tomed Apollo hewn of laurel wood. Engrave on a [tablet] of gold, silver or tin these symbols [11 symbols]. Place the tablet under the censer, near the carved image (xoanon) that was set up [at the same time as the] censer, and place next to the tripod a beaker or shell containing pu[re] water. In the center of the shrine (oikos) surrounding the tripod inscribe on the floor with a white stylus the symbol below.7 It is necessary to keep yourself pure for three days in advance. The shrine and the [tripod] must be covered. [If] you wish [to see], look inside, wearing clean w[hite] garments and [crow]ned with a cro[wn] of laurel … before the invocation sacrifice laurel to him … [during the] sacrifice honor the god with paeans.

This text is damaged, but we can see that it directs the reader to create a miniature shrine, which includes a tripod and a xoanon of Apollo carved from laurel wood. It also seems to describe a ritual of vegetable sacrifice and paeans. As J.Z. SMITH and others have noted, the tripod, the laurel and other details suggest strongly that this is a statue of the Delphic or Pythian Apollo,8 but neither epithet appears in the recipe. On the other hand, other oracular spells in the Theban handbooks do refer to Apollo’s other famous oracles in Asia Minor, Didyma and Klaros, which from the Hadri-

3 J.Z. SMITH, Trading Places, 21, cf. also 23: ‘Of all the documents of late antiquity I know of none more filled with the general and technical vocabulary and the praxis of sacrifice, than those texts collected by modern scholars under the title Greek Magical Papyri.’ 4 J.Z. SMITH, Trading Places, 24–6 lists eight examples, suggesting that they are either miniature forms of life-sized temples or normal-sized naiskoi (household shrines) like those found in Pompeii and elsewhere; he cites GRAF, Prayer, 195–6 for the latter idea. 5 PGM III 292–310 (now PGM III.2); trans. W.C. GRESE with some changes. I follow W.C. GRESE’s interpretation in GMPT of the lacunose lines 305–10. According to the new findings by LOVE, ‘PGM III’ Archive, this recipe ends at the end of column XI of PGM III.2 (corresponding to the end of the recto) since the following column XII (beginning of the verso) was written at a later stage by a different scribe. For a detailed discussion of this recipe and two similar Apolline spells see FARAONE, Collapse. 6 Both PGM and GMPT interpret this word autoptos as an additional rubric ‘for a direct vision’ and indeed we find autoptos used in this way, e.g. PGM VII 727: ‘direct vision (autoptos) of Apollo’. Here, however, the word is in the accusative and must modify ‘tripod’; see MUÑOZ DELGADO, Léxico, s.v. 7 The promised symbol does not appear at the end of the recipe. 8 For such details of the Delphic cult, see FONTENROSE, Delphic Oracle, 224–6.

Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes for Oracular and Protective Statues

173

anic period onward had in fact eclipsed the Delphic sanctuary in importance.9 This recipe, moreover, seems to mimic two aspects of Apollonian mantic cult that are, to my knowledge, attested especially at Didyma, where the priestess fasts for three days, as is required by the recipe, and a chorus sings hymns to Apollo to encourage his arrival at the sanctuary – in the Theban recipe, the practitioner ends the ritual by singing paeans to Apollo.10 We might expect, at any rate, that the apparatus described in this recipe will be used in order to get a spoken oracle from Apollo, as one would expect at Delphi or Didyma, but the instruction near the end of the recipe to ‘look inside’ the covered shrine, as well as the description of the tripod as ‘self-revealing’, suggests a visual appearance of the god, perhaps – as we will see from the evidence presented below – by falling asleep near the statue and dreaming of an encounter with him, as was commonplace in sanctuaries of Asklepios or Sarapis. Aside from the strange symbols inscribed on the table and traced on the floor with a stylus (those on the metal tablet are hidden under the incense burner), anyone viewing this tableau would think it was entirely Greek. We can, perhaps, get a sense of the original Greek domestic ritual lying behind this PGM recipe from a brief description that Tacitus gives of the trial and conviction in 49 CE of a Roman noblewoman named Lollia Paulina, who nearly became empress:11 In the same consulship, Agrippina – fierce in her hatreds and infuriated with Lollia because she had competed with her for the emperor’s hand – arranged for her prosecution and a prosecutor, who was to raise the issue of Chaldaeans, magicians, and an image (simulacrum) of the Klarian Apollo questioned about the sovereign’s marriage.

9

EITREM, Orakel, 47–52 and PARKE, Oracles of Apollo, 69–92 and 125–70. On the decline of Delphi, see AHL, Apollo, 114–16. 10 Moreover, just before the recipe for the shrine (290), the text seems to describe Apollo as ‘pliable because of these songs and psalms’. At Didyma there is a specific and close connection between a hymn sung to the god and his oracular response. In a late-imperial oracle from Didyma, Apollo addresses the Melesians and orders them ‘to sing a hymn in my sanctuaries, as before, just when the axon was about [to reveal] a word from the innermost shrine. I rejoice over every song … but chiefly if it is old’. We do not know precisely what the axon is, but it is clearly an apparatus (like the Delphic tripod) that was set up in the inner sanctum at Didyma. Here, as PARKE, Oracles of Apollo, 101–3 notes, the hymn seems to replace or be valued above the usual sacrificial rituals at other oracles – in other words, without the hymn, there will be no inspired oracle. The purificatory fasting of the priestess and the singing of hymns to receive Apollo at his oracular sanctuary are attested also at Delphi, the best evidence for the latter feature being the hymns sung at the Athenian Pythais, an irregular Athenian festival which involved a pilgrimage to Delphi, hymn-singing and consultation of the Delphic oracle, see e.g. the two hymns by Limenius and Athenaios (?) in FURLEY/BREMER, Greek Hymns I, 129–38, II, 84–100. In the other PGM spells that involve the construction of miniature oracular shrines, e.g. PGM II 64–183, the practitioner dresses like a prophet with an appropriate robe and laurel wreath, shakes a laurel bough and sings a hexametrical hymn to attract the god: ‘Ie ie famous Paean (=Apollo), dwelling in Kolophon (= Klaros), heed my sacred song (aoide) and come quickly to earth from heaven and join me. Stand near me and from your ambrosial mouth breathe songs into me (aoidas empneuson). You yourself, lord of song (molpes), come, famous ruler of song… Stand near and from your ambrosial mouth speak (ennepe) quickly your oracular power (mantosyne) to me, who am your suppliant, all-pure Apollo’. 11 Tac. Ann. 12.22.

174

Christopher A. Faraone

The terse formulation here suggests that Tacitus has summarised three parts of the indictment against Lollia: that in her desire to know the future she consulted astrologers and wizards and also questioned an image of the Klarian Apollo. For the last charge some have argued that Lollia was accused of sending emissaries to the sanctuary of Apollo at Klaros in Asia Minor. Indeed, a handful of modern historians – including SYME himself – even tried to get rid of the inconvenient word ‘statue’ (simulacrum) by emending it to ‘oracle’ (oraculum).12 H.W. PARKE, however, from his special vantage point as an historian of Greek oracles, rightly observed that there is no evidence for pilgrims interrogating the statue of Apollo at Klaros; oracular requests were, in fact, given directly to a prophet, who then disappeared into an underground chamber and never approached the statue of the god. PARKE suggested, in fact, that the mention of the simulacrum here in the same breath as wizards and astrologers points to some kind of private ceremony performed secretly with a domestic version of the Clarian statue, although he did not cite as a parallel the PGM recipe quoted at the start of this section.13 Lollia, according to this view, was successfully prosecuted on the charge that she sought out prophecies from astrologers, magicians and a statue of Apollo Klarios, consultations that could all have easily taken place in the privacy of her home. The question arises immediately, of course: how did Lollia get answers to her inquiries? It is impossible, of course, that the statue actually spoke to her, but we find precisely such a claim about an even smaller image of Apollo in Lucian’s dialogue Lover of Lies, where a superstitious and wealthy Corinthian named Eucrates remarks to a skeptical interlocutor: 14 What is your opinion about that sort of thing – I mean oracles, prophecies…. Of course you doubt that sort of thing also? For my own part, I say nothing of the fact that I have a holy ring with an image of Pythian Apollo engraved on the seal, and that this Apollo speaks to me.

The context here, at least at first glance, suggests strongly that the tiny image on the ring gives oral prophecies directly to Eucrates. We can summarise these three descriptions or reports of images of Apollo as follows:

12

The reading oraculum is a conjecture of ANDRESEN championed by SYME, Tacitus II, 479, and printed by KÖSTERMANN, Annalen. This change is defended by the alleged practice of sending messages to the oracle – a practice known only from Ovid’s passing reference in the revised dedication to his Fasti, which he likens to a ‘message sent for the Clarian god to read’. WELLESLEY, Cornelii Taciti, prints simulacrum. 13 PARKE, Oracles of Apollo, 141 with note 24. 14 Ps.-Luc. Philops. 26. The manuscripts are slightly confused as to whether the ring or the seal of the ring is engraved, but the meaning is the same.

Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes for Oracular and Protective Statues

PGM recipe

God Apollo with tripod

Image laurel wood statuette

Purpose vision(?)

Owner (N/A)

Lollia (Tacitus)

Apollo Klarios

statuette in house

was asked questions

Roman noblewoman

Eucrates (Lucian)

Pythian Apollo

finger ring with image

speaks oracles

wealthy Corinthian

175

As was mentioned earlier, it is unclear how the prophetic practices at Delphi and Klaros are replicated in the rituals associated with these miniature images. In the last two examples, at least, the owner apparently hears the divine answers or receives spoken oracles from the statues themselves, whereas at the panhellenic oracles, such speech was instead generated by human intermediaries: the Pythia at Delphi and the prophet at Klaros. A better explanation is, however, hinted at in a second PGM recipe: 15 On a jasper-like agate engrave Sarapis seated, facing forwards, holding an Egyptian royal scepter and on the scepter an ibis, and on the back of the stone inscribe the name and keep it shut up. When the need arises hold the ring in your left hand and in your right a spray of olive and laurel, waving them toward the lamp while saying the spell 7 times. Then you put it (i.e. the ring) on the index finger of your left hand with the stone facing inwards, and thus, while pressing the stone to your left ear, go to sleep without speaking to anyone.

Both the ‘spell’ to be spoken at the consecration of the ring and the ‘name’ to be inscribed on the reverse of the gem appear not to have been preserved,16 but the command regarding the latter to ‘keep it shut up’ (i.e. in the setting of the ring) suggests secrecy. The image described here of Sarapis enthroned with his sceptre and ibis is, in fact, popular on magical gems of the Imperial Period, which show the bearded god with long hair, dressed in Greek clothes and wearing on his head the god’s standard emblem, a basket called the kalathos (Pl. I, Fig. 1). He sits, moreover, on a highbacked Greek-style throne holding a sceptre in his left hand and stretching his right hand over the three heads of Kerberos.17 This type appears on a wide range of media, some with inscriptions such as ‘Protect!’ or other protective images on the reverse.18 15

PGM V 447–58. Anyhow, according to new research by LJUBA M. BORTOLANI (to appear in BORTOLANI/NAGEL, Divination Rituals), the seemingly missing spell (and possibly also the name) actually appears at lines 440–46. Confusion arises because these lines were considered by PREISENDANZ and BETZ’s editions as the final part of the previous spell (PGM V 370–446). 17 A reproduction, some scholars think, of an important cult statue in Alexandria. VEYMIERS, Sérapis, 59–66 is cautious, however, and after a full review of the evidence suggests that, because both sitting and standing statues appear on Alexandrian coins, they were both probably cult statues in the city albeit at different sanctuaries. There is less agreement about two other facts that do not affect my argument: whether the seated statue was the famous one created by Bryaxis and whether it was commissioned by Alexander the Great, when he founded Alexandria, or by Ptolemy Soter. 18 VEYMIERS, Sérapis, 284–8 nos. II.AB.1–38. Those with Greek inscriptions on the reverse appear on a variety of stones, e.g. nos. 2 (green glass with ‘charis’); 12 (hematite with magical name); 13 (lapis with long logos); 17 (opal with Harpokrates on the reverse and names); 27 (agate with 16

176

Christopher A. Faraone

Another similar type introduces important changes:19 a scorpion sometimes replaces Kerberos, a crocodile lies beneath the throne and an ibis sometimes perches on top of the god’s sceptre.20 The detail of the ibis on the sceptre suggests that this second type is the one known to the author of the recipe under discussion. All these gems seem to imitate the god’s famous cult statue in Alexandria, where the sick often went, as they did to the sanctuaries of Asklepios, in the hope of getting a dream from the god that would in some way lead to healing. In the better attested dreams at Asklepios sanctuaries the god is either seen in the dream performing medical procedures on the dreamer or gives him audible advice in the dream about what treatment or diet to undergo when he wakes up.21 It is usually the case that before going the patient prayed to the divinity to send him a dream in his sleep. The PGM recipe tells us to carve onto a gem a miniature version of this same image of Sarapis and then go to sleep with the gem pressed to our ear, but it does not say precisely what the gem was used for. But since this recipe follows another recipe for dreamincubation – one using a wax image of Hermes, the conductor of dreams – and since we know that similar rituals took place in Sarapis sanctuaries, it is entirely probable that the PGM ring was also used for dream incubation and the placement of the ring at the ear suggests that spoken advice in a dream, rather than a vision, was expected. Using this PGM recipe as a model, moreover, I also suggest that Eucrates’ ring, and perhaps also the Apolline image of Lollia, were used in a similar manner in order that Apollo might speak to them as they sleep and give them oracular predictions or advice.22 And we now have a better understanding, finally, of the text from which we started: the PGM recipe for constructing a miniature sanctuary of Apollo. I suggest that this statue, too, was also the focus of a dream incubation ritual, during which one might indeed see Apollo and get answers to questions posed before going to sleep. We need not be surprised, of course, that worshippers of Apollo might use this dream technique associated with his son Asklepios, for the father and son were sometimes worshipped together and closely aligned in the Greek mind.23 How, then, do these two PGM recipes reflect the cultural pluralism of the Eastern Mediterranean basin? We saw how the first recipe (for the wooden Apollo) told us to add strange symbols to an otherwise familiar Greek sanctuary scene (including the singing of traditional Greek hymns). The deeply Hellenised gemstone image of the seated Sarapis, on the other hand, was itself a Greek or Macedonian invention of the Ptolemaic Period, but the handbook clearly does add at least two Egyptian features not ‘protect!’ on obverse and Pantheos and a magical logos on back); 32 (agate with added stars and crescent moon on obverse and a logos on back). 19 BONNER, SMA, 235–7 and VEYMIERS, Sérapis, 289–93 nos. II.E.1–16. 20 Scorpion: of the 16 collected by VEYMIERS, Sérapis, all have the scorpion, except three (II.E.4, 10, 12) that have Kerberos. Ibis: of the 16 collected by VEYMIERS, Sérapis, the ibis appears alone on the sceptre five times (II.E.2, 6, 7, 14 and 16) and once on a kerykeion with rooster(?) (II.E.3). On one gem we find a kerykeion with two indistinct birds (II.E.5). 21 LIDONNICI, Miracle Inscriptions. 22 According to this interpretation, then, when Eucrates says ‘this Apollo speaks to me’ he means something like ‘and that the Apollo who speaks to me in my dreams is the one depicted on the ring’. 23 See FARAONE, Athenian Tradition.

Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes for Oracular and Protective Statues

177

found on the original statue: the ‘Egyptian royal scepter’ and the ibis. We should also assume that both the missing ‘name’ to be hidden on the back of the gem and ‘spell’ to be spoken over it included nonsensical magical or even sensible Egyptian names,24 but like the miniature Apollo shrine, there would be very little visual evidence that this ring was inscribed with a secret name or even that it was used for dream incubation.

2. Domestic statues as amulets for protection and prosperity25 In an article published more than twenty years ago, FRITZ GRAF rightly suggested that some of the rituals prescribed by the Greek magical papyri differed little from the ‘small-scale ceremonies conducted by ordinary householders for their household gods’,26 and in this section we turn from oracular images of civic gods to protective domestic images, for example:27 Whenever you want a place to prosper greatly, so that those in the place or temple where the protective amulet (phylakterion) is hidden will marvel. For wherever this (i.e. the phylakterion) is placed, if in a temple, the temple will be talked about throughout the whole world; if in some other place, it will prosper greatly. This is its manufacture: taking Etruscan wax, mold a statue (andrias) three handbreadths high. Let it be three-headed. Let the middle head be that of a sea falcon, the right that of a baboon, and the left an ibis. Let it have four extended wings and its two arms stretched flat on its breast; in them the statue should hold a scepter. And let it be wrapped (i.e. as a mummy) like Osiris. Let the falcon wear the crown of Horus, the baboon the crown of Hermanubis, and the ibis the crown of Isis. Put into its (i.e. the statue’s) hollow a heart of magnetite and write the following names on a piece of hieratic papyrus and put it in the hollow (i.e. of the statue).

We are then told28 to place the statue in a ‘little temple’ (naiskarion) made of juniper wood and offer it worship: a holocaust sacrifice of a falcon(?)29 and a libation of milk, 24

Magical words are actually contained in lines 440–46, which may be identified as the ‘missing’ spell, see above n. 16. 25 The arguments presented in this section have appeared in more detailed form in FARAONE, Protective Statues. 26 GRAF, Prayer, 195. 27 PGM IV 3125–71. This translation depends on that of MO. SMITH, in: GMPT, ad loc. For interpretation, see MICHEL, (Re)interpreting, 144. 28 PGM IV 3145–54: ‘Next, when you have made an iron base, stand it (i.e. the statue) on the base and put it in a little juniper-wood shrine (naiskarion)… and having fixed it [firmly] in whatever place you choose, sacrifice to it a white-faced [falcon?] and burn [this offering] entire; also pour on it as a libation the milk of a black cow …. And now make feast for it. And now feast with the statue, chanting all night long to the statue the names written on the strip put in the hollow. Wreathe the little shrine with olive and thus throughout life. And incant the same spell when you get up in the morning before you open up [i.e. your shop or temple]’. 29 At line 3146 and earlier at line 2396 in the same papyrus (in another recipe for the consecration of a wax statuette) the text says to offer a sacrifice of a ‘wild (agrion) with a white face’, which some supplement as ‘wild [ass]’ or ‘wild [ram]’ (see HOCK’s note in GMPT on line 2396). Both cases, however, involve the consecration of small images within a home and I follow MO. SMITH (in GMPT, on line 3146) in restoring the word ‘falcon(?)’, especially given the parallel of the rooster sacrifice for the Mercury statuette discussed below.

178

Christopher A. Faraone

while ‘all night long chanting over the statue the names written on the strip put in the hollow’. The first part of this recipe, then, directs us to fashion in wax and then consecrate a statuette of a popular type of Egyptian god, whom modern scholars generally refer to as the Pantheos,30 a designation that I will continue to use as shorthand, although the god in question is at best polymorphic or polytheistic, but not pantheistic.31 This statuette is, in fact, a variant form of the Pantheos that has a mummiform body of Osiris (with his hands crossed on his chest) and three different animal heads, whereas the Pantheos more typically holds Egyptian staffs or flails in his outstretched hands and has a single frontal head (often of Bes) from the sides of which flora and fauna seem to grow. SIMONE MICHEL has shown, moreover, how this three-headed version of Pantheos was also produced in miniature on a hematite gem in the British Museum (Pl. I, Fig. 2a and b), which would have been worn as a pendant or in a ring, like the Apollo or Sarapis images discussed earlier.32 Hematite, of course, is a frequent medium for Greek amulets and, like the magnetite heart inserted into the wax statue, it is an ore of iron. The inscription on the back of the gem is also ‘miniaturised’, but in a different way: it is an abridged form of the longer magical text that was placed inside the wax statuette in the PGM recipe: Text on statue: BICHŌ BICHŌ BI CHŌBI BEU NASSOUNAINTHI NOUNAITH MOUR SOURPHEŌ MOURĒTH ANIMOKEŌ ARPAĒR SANI SOUMARTA AKERMORTHŌOUTH ANIMI MIMNOUĒR IERI ANIMI MIMNIMEU Text on gem: BICHŌ BICHŌ BEU BEU CHŌBI CHŌBI BEU SOUMARTA

The initial run of ‘names’ (BICHŌ BICHŌ BI CHŌBI) seems, in fact, to reflect an Egyptian name or epithet of the god Horus as the ‘Great Falcon’.33 At the very end of the recipe, after the consecration ritual and the list of names, we find a prayer to be recited each morning before opening the shop or temple for business: Give me all favor, all success, because the angel bringing good, who stands beside [i.e. the goddess] Tyche, is with you. Accordingly give profit and success to this house. Please, Aion, ruler of hope, giver of wealth, O holy Agathos Daimon, bring to fulfillment all favors and all of your divinely inspired speeches.

The recipe then ends with another boast about its power: ‘Then open [i.e. your shop or temple] and you will marvel at its unsurpassed holy power!’ From the middle of the first millennium BCE (the oldest object with several heads probably dating to the 26th Dynasty) onwards Egyptians placed images of the Pantheos

30

RITNER, in GMPT ad line 3135: ‘so-called pantheistic god’. QUACK, So-Called Pantheos. 32 MICHEL, (Re)interpreting, 144. The gem is MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum, no. 173 = BONNER, Amulets British Museum, no. 45; A. DELATTE/DERCHAIN, Intailles magiques, no. 285 shows a similar scene on the reverse, but without the voces magicae; the editors there also point out the parallel with the PGM recipe. 33 According to MICHEL, (Re)interpreting, 145 n. 21; however, according to J.F. QUACK, this is phonetically unlikely, since in a Greek transcription of the Egyptian word ‘falcon’, the vowel should be eta instead of iota. 31

Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes for Oracular and Protective Statues

179

in their houses for protection,34 but the oral prayer just quoted assimilates this deity to a pair of Greek gods: Aion ‘the giver of wealth’ and Agathos Daimon, who was thought to bring good luck, and who was also set up in Greek houses.35 There is, in fact, a repeated overlap or confusion between protection and prosperity throughout this recipe that suggests its original protective purpose has been altered. We see it, for example, in the rubric itself, which first calls the wax statue a phylakterion, a word that usually indicates a protective amulet, but then tells us that the statuette will bring prosperity to different places. The gemstone version of the amulet, moreover, is probably a century or two earlier than the PGM recipe and it shows no sign of the additions or translations, such as we saw in the prayer to Aion and the Agathos Daimon. The shorter inscription on the gem has, moreover, a very simple form: the initial variations on Horus’ epithet ‘Great Falcon’ followed by the significant word SOUMARTA, which is, in fact, the traditional Greek rendering of the Phoenician afformative conjugation 2nd person sing. šmrt, ‘you shall protect’.36 This shorter and earlier version of the inscription suggests, in fact, that the much longer text in the PGM recipe had probably grown over the intervening two centuries in such a way as to occlude the originally protective focus of the recipe and the image. In fact, the single-headed version of the Pantheos appears frequently on gemstones of the Roman Period, and its function, when expressed, also seems mainly to have been protection, as, for example, on a Neolithic axe-head reused as an amulet in Roman Ephesos to protect a house from lightning (Pl. II, Fig. 3), as well as on a series of lapis lazuli, hematite and magnetite gems, where the god is surrounded by magical words and vowels and the generic command in Greek ‘protect (phulaxon) from evil!’ (Pl. II, Fig. 4).37 On these earlier and miniature versions of the Pantheos amulets, then, both image and text maintain their focus on protection; there is no talk of prosperity and no need to translate the image by adding the Greek names of Aion or Agathos Daimon to the invocation. The wax statue, on the other hand, is equated with these Greek gods and is additionally empowered by inserting into it a ‘heart of magnetite’, a stone that was used as an amulet by the Greeks to seduce and charm both

34

As far as images of Bes as such (or at least figures of his iconographic type) are concerned, this usage is already attested in the second millennium BCE. A new study on the Pantheos/polymorphic deities by THEIS, Pantheos, is in press. 35 Agathos Daimon, usually represented as a snake with the head of a bearded man (like Zeus or Sarapis) was a protector of houses and the guarantor of fertility in mainland Greece, especially Boeotia, and later became popular in Alexandria, Egypt; see DUNAND, Agathodaimon. He appears occasionally on magical gems in this guise, e.g. DUNAND, Agathodaimon, no. 24 (= A. DELATTE/DERCHAIN, Intailles magiques, 223) with the inscription: ‘Grace (charis) for the one who wears it’ or no. 26 where the inscription identifies him wrongly as ‘Chnoubis’. It is not at all clear who the ‘angel’ is; he is not being invoked, but rather imagined dwelling in the same place as Aion and Agathos Daimon, and perhaps also Tyche. 36 SCHMITZ, Reconsidering. 37 Argive thunderstone: see ILIFFE, Neolithic Celt, and FARAONE, Inscribed Greek Thunderstones, 261–3. Gemstones: there are at least one hundred extant gems of this type; see the list in MICHEL, Bilder und Zauberformeln, 316–21, many of which are inscribed on unusual stones, e.g. obsidian, steatite and serpentine.

180

Christopher A. Faraone

mortals and gods, if worn on the body.38 Here, perhaps, these same ‘magnetic’ properties were thought to ‘attract’ business to a shop or worshippers to a temple. Most of these non-Egyptian additions, finally, would have been hidden to the casual observer, who would see only the wax image in its juniper-wood shrine and thus be unaware of the inserted stone and text, as well as the daily morning prayer recited before the shop or temple was opened. We see a similarly secretive renaming of an image and expansion of its original power in a recipe for a wax statuette of Mercury from the same PGM handbook.39 A ‘productive’ spell: Take orange beeswax, the juice of the aeria plant, and ground ivy and mix them together and fashion a hollow-bottomed Hermes holding in his left hand a herald’s wand and in his right a small bag. Write on a hieratic papyrus these names and you will see unceasing [i.e. business]: CHAIŌCHEN OUTIBILMENOUŌTH ATRAUICH

Grant profit and production to this place, because PSENTEBĒTH lives here. Put the papyrus inside the figure and fill in the hole with the same beeswax. Then deposit it in a wall, unseen, and crown it on the outside. Make a libation of Egyptian wine and sacrifice to it a rooster and light for it a lamp that is not colored red.

This recipe recalls the previous one: a wax statue shaped in the form of a traditional domestic talisman, into which we are to insert a chit of hieratic papyrus inscribed with special words. Aside from the type of wine (Egyptian) and the nonsensical or nonGreek words inscribed on the papyrus (to which we will turn presently), there is little in this late-antique recipe that would have been unfamiliar a few centuries earlier to a person living in Rome, on the island of Delos or any other place where the Romans had colonised: a traditional Roman image of the god Mercury with his wand and purse set up in a house or shop.40 Scholars often point to the sack of coins that Mercury offers in his right hand and suppose, rightly, that these images, which first appear on the Italian peninsula in the second century BCE, are closely connected with prosperity, both as the focus of household and workshop cult and, more vaguely, as a kind of good luck charm or talisman, although, aside from our Paris handbook, no ancient text tells us this explicitly. 41 The recipe from PGM IV, however, never acknowledges that the wax statue in question is a traditional Roman image, but it identifies it as ‘Hermes’ instead of ‘Mercury’. The text that is to be inserted into the statue goes even farther to dissociate this image from its original cultural setting. As in the case of the text inserted into the wax Pantheos, we see a magical name (CHAIŌCHEN OUTIBILMENOUŌTH ATRAUICH), but this one is followed by a brief prayer (‘Grant profit and production…’). Such a request is, 38

Orph. Lith. 319–33 and Orph. Lith. Keryg. 10. PGM IV 2359–72. Trans. R.F. HOCK, in GMPT ad loc. with some changes. 40 SIMON/BAUCHHENSS, Mercurius, nos. 388–98. 41 LAFORGE, Religion privée, 89, for example, describes Mercury as ‘protecteur du commerce et de la prosperité de nombreuses tabernae … souvent représentés sur les facades des boutiques et ateliers’, and she suggests that his frequent appearance in domestic lararia may indicate that the owner of the house was a businessman. The derivation of the god’s name from Latin merx (‘commodity’) points to his original role as a god of commerce; much later he is identified with Hermes and Thoth: see LIPKA, Roman Gods, 68. 39

Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes for Oracular and Protective Statues

181

of course, completely appropriate for an image of Mercury designed for a manufacturing shop, but it has not been noticed, I think, that the final section of this prayer (‘… because PSENTEBĒTH lives here!’) imitates the so-called Herakles Kallinikos inscriptions: ‘The son of Zeus, resplendent in victory, Herakles, lives here. Let no evil enter!’ These Kallinikos inscriptions first appear in Hellenistic Gela and by the Imperial Period they are found all over the Mediterranean.42 An incident narrated in a pseudepigraphic letter of Diogenes the Cynic underscores, moreover, the protective power of this inscription, when it describes how the philosopher, after seeing these verses inscribed on a house in the Greek city of Kyzikos, pestered a reluctant bystander with hostile questions:43 But why, he asked, if this practice profits you, do you not inscribe the same thing on the doors of the city, but rather on your houses, into which Herakles is unable to go (i.e. because of his great bulk)? Is it because you are willing to let the city suffer evilly, but not your individual households?

When the poor man admits he is unable to answer, Diogenes asks him what kind of evil he had imagined Herakles to ward off, to which he responds ‘disease, poverty, death, these sorts of things’. In practice, of course, the boast of Herakles’ presence probably refers to the small statues or paintings of Herakles that were commonly placed in Greek houses or shops.44 The papyrus chit to be secretly inserted into the wax statuette of Mercury, then, imitates the form of the Kallinikos inscriptions (‘Do X, because Y lives here!’), but names the supernatural occupant and guardian as PSEN-TE-BĒTH, a name constructed with the prefix typical of Egyptian personal names and possibly a distorted form of the Egyptian psen-te-bēkh meaning ‘son of the female falcon’.45 Here, then, as in the case of the Pantheos image, the author of this Theban recipe assimilates elements drawn from various cultural traditions: a popular iconography of Mercury, the protective function of Herakles in Greek households and the mysterious Egyptian sounding name PSENTEBĒTH. However, – as is also true of the Pantheos talisman – these potential nods towards cultural pluralism remain curiously secret, in fact doubly so, because they are hidden within the wax statue, which is itself buried in a wall. In this case, however, the secret name and hidden prayer do not alter the ultimate purpose of the statue: it remains a talisman for profit and production. Similar images of Mercury show up in abundance on Roman gemstones, most of them uninscribed, but a recipe from a lapidary handbook helps to explain their power:46 42

For a full bibliography, see WEINREICH, De Diogenis; ROBERT, Échec au mal; and MERKELWeg mit dir, especially his note 1 for a dozen or so examples from areas as far apart as Pompeii and Kurdistan. A Latin version, CIL III, 5561 (Felicitas hic habitat, nihil intret mali), and a parody during the reign of Commodus (Cass.Dio 72.20.3) both point to wide usage in the Roman Period. 43 Ps.-Diogenes, Epistulae 36 (ed. HERCHER, Epistolographi). A similar incident appears in Diog.Laer. 6.50. See WEINREICH, De Diogenis, 8–10 for commentary. 44 MERKELBACH, Weg mit dir. 45 See the note of RITNER, in GMPT, ad loc. 46 Orph. Lith. Keryg. 3.5–6. BACH,

182

Christopher A. Faraone

And in addition, it (i.e. the agate) provides prosperity (euporia) to those who carry it. Carve into the stone a standing Hermes holding a sack in his left hand and a book roll (biblion) in his right and at his feet a baboon stretching forth its hands as if praying.

This agate gemstone, then, can be transformed into a charm for prosperity (euporia) simply by engraving a miniature version of the Mercury image, but here with some even more pronounced Greek and Egyptian motifs: in this recipe Mercury is again called ‘Hermes’ and he holds a book rather than his usual wand, perhaps a reference to Hermes Trismegistos; the adoring baboon at his feet, moreover, shows up frequently on magical gems, where it probably refers to some solar aspect of Hermes in Late Antiquity, given the fact that according to Egyptian tradition baboons ‘naturally’ worshipped the rising sun at dawn.47 This motif appears also in Greek sources where the additional detail of the baboons intoning the seven vowels while greeting the sun can be found.48 A unique scene on the reverse of a gem in Florence comes close, in fact, to following this recipe: on the right we see Mercury in his usual pose, but holding out the head of a ram instead of a purse, while the baboon reveres him.49 Our final case study is the traditional Greek statue of the goddess Hekate rendered with three bodies and used to protect entrances. Because of the popularity in later Greek literature of witches like Medea and their patron goddess Hekate, it is superficially easy to connect this strange triple-faced image directly to the world of Hellenistic and Roman-Period magic, but this would give a false impression and ignore the pre-history of the image.50 This doorway statue of Hekate appears in Athens at least as early as the late Classical Period, when, according to Pausanias, the sculptor Alkamenes invented the image to be placed at the entrance of the Acropolis.51 Alkamenes’ 47 ASSMANN, König als Sonnenpriester, 28–9, 49; TE VELDE, Some Remarks; MORENZ, Stammeln, 197. 48 See, e.g. BONNER, SMA nos. 244–7 and MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum, nos. 149– 54. The idea that the seven Greek vowels comprised an invocation of the sun seems to have been connected in the Greek imaginary with the baboon’s alleged habit of intoning the same vowels in their proper order at sunrise, a habit said to be imitated by the Egyptians when they worshipped the sun at dawn (Demetr. De eloc. 71). 49 MASTROCINQUE (ed.), SGG II, no. Fi 72 (green jasper with brown streaks). On the obverse, we see a lion walking left with a bull’s head in his mouth, and below his feet a thunderbolt and a scorpion. 50 See, e.g., ZOGRAFOU, Chemins d’Hécate, 230–32 and 248–83, who refutes earlier claims – e.g. TUPET, Magie, 11–15 or CARABIA, Hécate garante, 30–31 and 41–2 – that the triple-headed Hekate originally had chthonic associations and was directly connected with magic spells. 51 Paus. 2.30.2. There is some dispute as to precisely where the statue stood, some favouring the base of an old Mycenaean tower (this explains the name of the statue) and others favouring a spot still visible on the bastion of the temple of Athena Nike, which was rebuilt at this time; see the thoughtful summary of PARKER, Polytheism, 18–19. For our purposes it suffices that the statue was stationed near the entrance of the Acropolis. The role of this statue as guardian of entrances or crossroads makes sense in the case of Hekate, of course, who elsewhere holds epithets such as ‘The one before the gate’ or ‘The one before the door’ (Propylaia or Prothyria) and has shrines at the entrances to the temples of other gods, most notably next to the gate of the sanctuary of Demeter Malophoros in Selinus; for full and recent discussions, see SARIAN, Hekate, 987–8 and ZOGRAFOU, Chemins d’Hécate, 95–122.

Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes for Oracular and Protective Statues

183

monumental statue or descriptions of it do not survive, but many smaller triple images of Hekate did,52 as we can see in the examples in Pl. III, Fig. 5. These statuettes represent three maidens who stand in the round facing outwards, while resting their backs collectively on a central column and holding in their hands various implements associated with the goddess, most often torches, whips and swords. A reference in Aristophanes to such statues at the entrance of every Athenian home suggests their popularity at the domestic level, and by the end of the Hellenistic Period we find them throughout the Eastern Mediterranean.53 The placement of both the civic and domestic images of Hekate at doors and gates has long suggested, of course, that they were protective or apotropaic, as does the occasional pairing of them with herms,54 but no pre-Roman inscription or literary text actually says this. Indeed, it is not until the Roman Period that we find a recipe for the construction of such images or inscriptions on them that reveal their apotropaic nature. The recipe, however, comes not from a PGM handbook, but rather from a somewhat corrupt Greek ‘oracle of Pan’ preserved by Porphyry:55 Them [i.e. the demons] in turn you drive away by placing [the statue] ... Here are the symbola of the tri-colored wax Hekate … of white, black and red wax, having the image of Hekate carrying a whip, a torch and a sword … before the doors fashion it…

The oracle tells us, in short, that if we wish to drive away demons from the door of our house, we must fashion from wax a tri-coloured image of Hekate holding a whip, a torch and a sword, and then place it before the doors of the house.56 The text is corrupt and difficult, but I agree with FRITZ GRAF that it is most probably a recipe for a small wax statue of triple Hekate, in which each of the three figures is made of a differentcoloured wax and holds either a whip, a torch or a sword – that is, the traditional weapons that we find most often on the extant images of the Classical and Hellenistic Periods. A number of the Roman-Period images of Hekate are also inscribed or otherwise associated with texts that confirm that they were used to protect places or people from 52

For the debate about Alkamenes’ statue, see SARIAN, Hekate, 987–8; for the precedence of the domestic version, see FARAONE, Protective Statues. 53 A comic oracle refers in passing to ‘hekateia everywhere in front of doorways’ (Ar. Vesp. 804). The term can apparently refer to either statues or shrines; see SARIAN, Hekate, 988 and PARKER, Polytheism, 18–19. 54 There is some evidence that Alkamenes also designed a herm that stood in the Propylaia, and that a similar pair stood in the gate of the Athenian sanctuary of Asklepios; see HARRISON, Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture, 96 and ZOGRAFOU, Chemins d’Hécate, 155–9 with figs. 11a–b. See also Theopompus’ report of the piety of Clearchus of Methydrion, who offered incense to ancestral images of Hermes and Hekate, which likewise probably stood at the entrance to his house (Theopompus of Chios FGrH, 115F 344, quoted by Porph. De abst. 2.16.4–5). 55 Porph. De philo. 134. 56 For text and discussion see GU. WOOLF, De philosophia, 134–6. The image also has a snake entwined around it and stars. The text is somewhat corrupt, but there is no doubt that the image is the triple Hekate; I follow GRAF, Oracle, 277 in interpreting the first line of the oracle (‘Them in turn you drive away [elaunete] by placing... [the statue]’) to refer to demons that will be averted by the statue.

184

Christopher A. Faraone

various threats. Take, for example, a small marble plaque of Roman date (Pl. III, Fig. 6) from Dalmatia and now in Vienna that shows a triple-headed Hekate above and a Latin inscription below that warns passersby not to defecate or urinate on that spot or risk divine anger. 57 Note, too, that this image, like many of those from the Roman Period, has been rendered as a two-dimensional relief, a change which forces the artist to flatten out the perspective, either (as we see here) by rendering the triple heads as two profile faces flanking a frontal head or by showing only one head and body from which six arms emerge, somewhat like images of the Hindu goddess Shiva. In the Roman Period we find this same two-dimensional version carved into the flat surfaces of a number of magical gems, and once again a recipe from a lapidary handbook tells us why:58 This stone [i.e. red coral] is even called ‘gorgonios’ by some and on account of this they carve a Gorgon into it and set it in gold or silver. And if it is consecrated, it is the greatest phylactery (megiston phylakterion) ….and for slaves against the anger of masters, if they are engraved with a drawing (zodion) of Hekate.

A handful of red coral and red jasper gems, the latter probably a cheaper and more durable substitute for coral, suggests that this zodion depicted the triple Hekate. 59 These gems, moreover, are often inscribed with magical names or acclamations that sometimes end with short prayers in Greek,60 for example, ‘Rescue me!’61 We should note, then, that neither the recipe for the tri-coloured wax Hekate nor the lapidary recipe for the engraved gem add details from other traditions that reflect the supposed cultural pluralism of Roman-Period Greek magic. The reason, one might suspect, is that both recipes are unconnected with Egypt and are drawn from different Greek traditions for creating domestic and personal amulets. It is true, however, that 57

The plaque comes from Salo in Dalmatia and the inscription warns people not to deposit offal there, nor to defecate or urinate, and ends by suggesting that those who abide by it will be blessed by the goddess and those who do not will be punished; for discussion, see JAHN, Über den Aberglauben, 87–8, who connects it with the Athenian doorway statues, and CARABIA, Hécate garante, who translates the Latin as follows (p. 27): ‘Quiconque ne deposera pas d’excréments, ne défèquera pas, n’urina pas en ce lieu, que celle-ci lui soient propices! Si il passé outré, videret!’ The precise syntax of the last word (untranslated: videret) is debated, but all agree that it contains a threat of punishment. The drawing is from JAHN. 58 Orph. Lith. Keryg. 20.12–16. HALLEUX/SCHAMP (eds.), Lapidaires, ad loc. translate zodion as ‘animal’ and then (p. 327 n. 8) suggest this animal is ‘le surmelot (triglos)’, but this ignores the evidence of the gems, which show the triform Hekate. The Latin version in Damigeron-Evax makes no mention of animals when they tell us that ‘for the best protection against the anger of masters’ we should engrave the ‘nomen noctilucae, that is, the Hecates signum’. As NAGY, Gemmae magicae, points out, both texts must refer to images of the triform Hekate. 59 Coral: MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum, no. 70 (with magical names on the reverse) and MASTROCINQUE (ed.), SGG II, Vr26 (gorgoneion on one side and Hekate on the other). Red jasper: NAGY, Gemmae magicae, 157–62 discusses about a dozen red or red-orange gems (mostly jaspers), of which 7 have a gorgoneion on one side and tri-form Hekate on the other (nos. A1–7), two have the gorgoneion only (B1 and B3) and one the Hekate only (B-2). 60 MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum, nos. 68–9 (quote from the prayer on no. 68). 61 NAGY, Gemmae magicae, no. A4, which is identified as yellow marble, a rare medium, and is perhaps unrecognised faded coral.

Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes for Oracular and Protective Statues

185

some of the Hekate gems are inscribed with other texts that do reflect the same kind of pluralistic tendencies that we saw earlier, for example, a speckled red and green jasper in London has on its reverse the name of the Babylonian goddess ‘Ereškigal’, a magnetite gem in Ann Arbor that seems to address the image with the names of other goddesses,62 and a third that has on its reverse the acclamation ‘ORARA conquers, Hekate subdues!’ (Pl. IV, Fig. 7a and b).63

3. Conclusions We have seen, then, how the magical and lapidary handbooks, and in one case an oracle, preserve recipes drawn from a variety of traditions that tell us how to make domestic statues or personal ornaments to be used as oracles or amulets. I summarise the evidence as follows, adding in the first column those cases where a similar civic statue also is attested: CIVIC oracles at Delphi/ Klaros

DOMESTIC visions (?)/oracles (wood statuette) PGM III recipe (Lollia’s simulacrum in Tacitus)

PERSONAL spoken oracles (Eucrates’ ring in Lucian)

Sarapis

dream incubation in temple (statue)

N/A

dream incubation (ring held to ear) PGM V recipe

Pantheos

N/A

protection and prosperity (wax statuette) PGM IV recipe

protection (gems)

Mercury with sack

N/A

profit/production (wax statuette) PGM IV recipe

profit (gems) lapidary recipe

Hekate Trimorph

before the Acropolis/

wards off demons (wax statuette) ‘oracle of Pan’ quoted by Porphyry

protection (gems) lapidary recipe

Apollo

62 MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum, no. 66 (Ereškigal) and BONNER, SMA 63, the latter of which is inscribed (beginning on the obverse): ‘BRIMO, PROKUNE, RHEXICHTHON, AKTIOPHI, ERESHKIGAL…’. Other gems (none of them red jaspers) address a short prayer for protection to the image of the triple Hekate, but invoke her by another single name: ZWIERLEIN-DIEHL, Siegel und Abdruck, no. 115 (a heliotrope in Bonn inscribed ‘ABLANATHANALBA, protect Romana!’), MASTROCINQUE (ed.), SGG I, 303 (a lost gem of uncertain medium inscribed ‘NEBOUTOSOUALĒTH, protect!’ and PHILIPP, Mira et magica, no. 51 (a yellowish chalcedony with ‘Iao SABAŌ, protect!’). 63 MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum, no. 69 (‘ORARA’ is probably a magical name or equivalent for Hekate). See also MASTROCINQUE (ed.), SGG II, Na 23 (a carnelian with the anguipede and the word Iao on the reverse) and BONNER, SMA nos. 63 and 66 (both hematite).

186

Christopher A. Faraone

In the first two cases, we saw how civic images of Apollo and Sarapis set up in important Greek sanctuaries have been adapted for use in the household and/or on the human body, our best case being, perhaps, the small versions of the statues of Apollo from two of his most famous oracular sanctuaries – Delphi and Klaros. The Theban recipe, however, suggests that the laurel-wood statue may have been designed to generate a vision of the god, rather than a spoken oracle, perhaps in a dream, as was suggested earlier. In the last three cases, on the other hand, we found recipes for the manufacture of a traditional domestic image – Egyptian Pantheos, Roman Mercury or Greek Hekate – that was designed to protect or bring prosperity to a home or shop. The description of the Pantheos statue in the Theban handbook and its use in a domestic setting follows an old Egyptian tradition, especially when it is labelled twice in the first two sentences of the recipe as a ‘protective amulet’. We noted, however, two ways in which the scribe then ‘translated’ the image into Greek: at its consecration the Pantheos is addressed in a short prayer as Aion and Agathos Daimon, and – as befits these new names – it is now to be used to promote economic prosperity in shops or a temple, in addition to protecting them. The image of Mercury likewise takes the form of the traditional statuette found in Roman houses and shops, but in our recipes – both the PGM handbook and the lapidary – the god is called by his Greek name ‘Hermes’ and Egyptian details have been added: the wax statue is secretly called PSENTEBĒTH while the gemstone version of the image replaces the traditional herald’s staff with a book roll and adds the image of the adoring baboon. In the cases of Pantheos and Mercury, then, the Theban handbooks confirm what scholars have often suspected about these traditional Egyptian and Roman statues – that prior to the Imperial Period both served as household guardians or talismans – but they also present these images in a more culturally pluralistic manner. The same is not true, however, for the recipe preserved in Porphyry and the lapidary that tell us how and why to make images of the triplebodied Hekate. Here the recipes come from non-Egyptian sources and we find, unsurprisingly, that there are no names, epithets or iconographic details added to the design to assimilate the image to that of an Egyptian god. At no point, moreover, in any of these recipes have we seen any Jewish names or divine epithets.64 It is mainly in the Theban recipes, then, that we see some attempts to position these images before the somewhat diverse Greek or Egyptian clientele residing in Egypt. These recipes are important because we can usually see how a traditional image created by a single culture is adapted and transformed in late antique Egypt. We saw, moreover, that these nods to cultural pluralism seem to occur primarily in two ways. The first is at the rather pedestrian level of nomenclature: Egyptian Pantheos is addressed as Aion and Agathos Daimon, Roman Mercury as PSENTEBĒTH, and so on. The second kind of adaptation is, I think, more important, albeit more subtle: the PGM recipes seem to press these traditional images into duties that are new for Apollo – the image of the Delphic Apollo, his tripod and his laurel-wood temple are apparently used, for example, to generate a vision or dream of the god, while the wax Pantheos 64 The one possible hint of Jewish ideas is the ‘angel’ (see note 32 above), who is described as being with Aion and the Agathos Daimon, but the word in Greek simply means ‘messenger’.

Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes for Oracular and Protective Statues

187

statue, traditionally a protective image for homes, will now also encourage good business in shops or temples. We also saw some more subtle details of cross-cultural contact that are hard to call significant: Egyptian wine, for example, is offered to the Mercury image, and Etruscan wax is used to manufacture the Pantheos. These, then, are the limited signs of cultural pluralism in the manufacture of domestic statues in the PGM handbooks, and in most cases they would not even be visible in the final product, a feature that one cannot explain if, as some have suggested, these recipes were designed by native Egyptian priests to repackage older Pharaonic rituals and devices for their Greek-speaking clients.65 Closer to the truth, it seems, are the more recent insights that the priests and other native Egyptians themselves were sometimes the implied audiences of these handbooks, and that in some cases they were trying to recast non-Egyptian magical objects or rituals in a form that they themselves could appreciate and understand.66 In this context, the secret placement of the epithet PSENTEBĒTH inside a wax image of Mercury suggests that the author of this recipe hoped to secretly identify or further empower this foreign statue by adding a new epithet to his name or by ‘translating’ his name entirely, but without publicly acknowledging the change to his Egyptian neighbours. The statue of Mercury itself, moreover, is in the end completely hidden from view, and thus the secret name and the boastful Greek inscription about the god’s presence in the house (‘because x lives here!’) are doubly hidden and can only be appreciated by the client and the sorcerer who created the image for him.

65

FRANKFURTER, Religion, 198–237; and FRANKFURTER, Consequences of Hellenism – e.g. 181 (the PGM and PDM spells were designed ‘to create magical experiences for outsiders’, i.e. Greeks) – develops some insights of J.Z. SMITH, Temple, and argues that the longer Anastasi papyri (i.e. the Theban handbooks) were the working handbooks of native Egyptian priests struggling in the Imperial and Late Antique Periods to reconfigure their priestly and scribal selves as itinerant specialists, in part through the process of stereotype appropriation. 66 More recent work, however – e.g. GRAF, How to Cope, 103 (‘the impression of magicians working in splendid isolation, speaking only to gods and demons’); GORDON, Reporting the Marvelous and GORDON, From Substances, on the ‘marvelous’ in these spells and on the peculiar absence of references to clients; or DIELEMAN, Priests, passim, on the implied readers of the longer papyrus handbooks – has called into question the commonplace assumption that such texts were from the library of working magicians trying to translate native Pharaonic magic for Greeks; QUACK, Kontinuität und Wandel, 83–5; QUACK, Griechische und andere Dämonen, 429–30 against ascribing the ‘Theban Library’ to a direct temple context.

SPECIFIC SPELLS AND DEITIES

The Heliopolitan Ennead and Geb as a Scrofulous Boar in the PGM: Two Case Studies on Cultural Interaction in Late-Antique Magic JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK 1. Preliminary remarks While it is quite normal to find Egyptian divine names and epithets within the socalled Papyri Graecae Magicae (which all come from Egypt and date mostly to the Roman Period), most often they are rather isolated cases. This entails a serious methodological impasse too rarely discussed. Many proposals for the etymological analysis of voces magicae rely mainly on the phonetic form. Working from dictionaries, for sound sequences transmitted in the papyri, Egyptian equivalents are proposed. This is risky, because most of the scholars involved in this process are either not Egyptologists at all or, even if they are, not specialists for the intricate problems of historical phonetics.1 Thus, the questions of the vocalisation or the actual realisation of the consonants at the Roman Period (which is not infrequently different from the lemmatisation in the dictionaries which tends to represent the eldest available form) are rarely addressed adequately. Furthermore, there is little semantic control over the results, since the direct context rarely provides enough evidence for checking conclusively if the proposed Egyptian etymology makes sense or not. The inevitable consequence of this dire state of affairs is that most Egyptian etymologies proposed up to date2 have to be considered dubious or even plainly wrong, and even in quite recent studies I do not see real progress in this matter.3 Critical remarks by Egyptologists4 tend to be ignored by scholars from other fields. Obviously we are on safer ground if we can identify a coherent group where the sum of equivalents can give additional weight to a proposal.5 The evident correlation of the clearer cases can help to bolster the whole and even make certain that those which in themselves would have been considered as insufficiently proven evidently make up what remains to fill up the complete group. A classical case of this is the phonetic rendering of the members of the Egyptian Ogdoad of Hermopolis in PGM

1

For an overview, see PEUST, Egyptian Phonology. Most of them are assembled in BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3576–603. 3 This concerns e.g. MASTROCINQUE (ed.), SGG I, 98–112 and TARDIEU/VAN DEN KERCHOVE/ZAGO (eds.), Noms barbares. 4 Like THISSEN, Etymogeleien; QUACK, From Egyptian Traditions. 5 Compare the methodological remarks by SCHWEMER, in this volume. 2

192

Joachim Friedrich Quack

XIII 788–9 and PGM XXI 19.6 The Greek renderings are η ω χω χουχ νουν ναυνι αμουν αμαυνι, obviously to be understood as the Egyptian OH OH.t Kk Kk.t Nn Nn.t AImn AImn.t.7 Even the blatant case that in the actual manuscript PGM XIII 788 ηωχω is written as a single word although that would leave only six entities instead of the eight explicitly indicated in the papyrus itself (PGM XIII 788),8 and that η as well as ω are too short for certain identification while χω is likely to be a misspelling for χωχ, cannot obscure the overall impression that a specific group of eight Egyptian deities is taken up in toto in the Greek-language manuscript.

2. The Heliopolitan Ennead in the PGM Keeping this guiding principle in mind, I would like to discuss another section where I suspect that a complete group of Egyptian deities can be found, this time less in phonetic rendering and more by way of semantic equivalents. The passage in question is PGM XII 232–5.9 That we have there almost all members of the Heliopolitan Ennead has already been recognised by MERKELBACH and TOTTI, without providing, however, an in-depth discussion of its meaning. 10 DIELEMAN has also studied the passage in some detail.11 Still, not only has their identification hardly been noted by Egyptologists, but even more so, there are a number of points in the composition of the section in question as well as its treatment by the copyist which merit a more detailed treatment. First, I would like to present the actual section as preserved in the manuscript: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Ἥλιος ὁ δεδειχὼς φῶς, ἐγώ εἰμι Ἀφροδείτη προσαγορευομένη Τυφι, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἅ[γ]ι[ο]ς ἐπίβο{υ}λος ἀνέμων, ἐγώ εἰμι Κρόνος ὁ δεδειχὼ φῶς, ἐγώ εἰμι μήτηρ θεῶν ἡ καλ[ου]μένη οὐρανός, ἐγώ εἰμι Ὄσιρις ὁ καλούμενος ὕδωρ, ἐγώ εἰμι Ἶσις ἡ καλουμένη δρόσος, ἐγώ εἰμι Ησενεφυς ἡ καλουμένη ἔαρ. (PGM XII, 232–5) I am Helios who has showed forth light; I am Aphrodite addressed as Typhi; I am the holy sender12 of winds; I am Kronos who has showed forth light; I am the mother of gods who is called ‘heaven’; I am Osiris who is called ‘water’; I am Isis called ‘dew’; I am Esenephys who is called ‘spring’.

The members of the Egyptian Ennead according to the religious conceptions linked with Heliopolis are the following:13 at the beginning there is Atum who is a solar dei-

6

Already identified by SETHE, Amun, 48 with note 2; 65 § 130. See the more recent short discussion of the passage in MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax I, 139 and 152. For the Ogdoad as such, see lastly ZIVIE-COCHE, Odgoade (I); ZIVIE-COCHE, Ogdoade (II); ZIVIE-COCHE, Ogdoade (III); ZIVIE-COCHE, Ogdoade d’Hermopolis. 7 R.K. RITNER, in GMPT, 190–91, n. 118. 8 For the actual reading of the manuscript, see DANIEL, Two Greek Magical Papyri, 64–5. 9 See for the readings of the manuscript DANIEL, Two Greek Magical Papyri, 14–15. 10 MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax I, 160–61 and 173–5. 11 DIELEMAN, Priests, 147–70. 12 The manuscript actually has ἐπίβουλος ‘plotting against’ which does not make sense; the emendation to ἐπίβολος has been universally accepted.

The Heliopolitan Ennead and Geb as a Scrofulous Boar in the PGM

193

ty.14 By masturbation, he created the twin-pair of Shu and Tefnut, deities linked to air and fire.15 Those, in turn, had as their children the earth-god Geb and the sky-goddess Nut. This couple had four children, namely Osiris, Seth, Isis and Nephthys. While these nine deities form the core of the Ennead, Horus as son of Osiris and Isis is somehow the tenth god of the group. How can these Egyptian deities be related to those of the Greek invocation? ‘Helios’ is obviously the sun-god. The specific identification as Atum is due to considerations for the whole section and would not be evident from the single entry alone. That in itself would rather have been interpreted as a reference to the youthful sun-god at the morning, or rather, the birth of the world, less to Atum who is more connected with evening and night. Still, we can note that the epithet sSp t#.w| ‘who illuminates the two lands’16 is used for Atum.17 ‘Aphrodite’ leaves in itself a number of options for an Egyptian equivalent, and the most obvious one would be Hathor.18 Only the specific Egyptian name given militates against that interpretation. Still, it has to be noted that the form Typhi given in the papyrus is not without problems.19 Within the overall frame of the Heliopolitan Ennead, this should be Tefnut. But we know from two actual renderings of the deity’s name 20 as well as from Greek writings of personal names with her as a pound21 that the correct form should be τφηνι. While the replacement of η by υ might still be acceptable within the parameters of Roman-Period Greek in Egypt,22 we have definitely to state that the n has been lost and that the placement of the main vowel before (instead of after) the ph has to be counted as a serious corruption. To understand the ‘sender of winds’ as the Egyptian god Shu makes sense because Shu is often connected with the wind.23 Still, without the overall context, also other interpretations like Amun would have been possible. It is remarkable that Shu is placed here after his sister Tefnut, instead of before her as it would be normal. Furthermore, as noted above, the scribe has garbled the epithet, producing a ‘plotter against the winds’. 13 See SAUNERON/YOYOTTE, Naissance du monde, 29–30 and 45–51. An overall study is BARTA, Neunheit; see further KÖTHEN-WELPOT, Theogonie und Genealogie, esp. 54–82. 14 For him, see the study by MYŚLIWIEC, Atum I–II. 15 While the connection of Shu to wind and air is generally recognised, Tefnut has often been erroneously connected to moisture; for a correction see ASSMANN, Rezeption und Auslegung, 130 with note 13. 16 Dend. II, 57, 11. 17 MYŚLIWIEC, Atum II, 199 (the passage Edfou I, 147, 2 adduced there as well does not include this epithet). 18 DRIOTON, Notes diverses; QUACK, Beiträge zu den ägyptischen Dekanen, chapter 2.4.2. 19 R.K. RITNER, in GMPT, 162, n. 73 has even proposed to understand it as t# rpy.t which would not only also need emendation (the correct Greek form for that should be τριφι[ς]) but also does not fit in the overall frame. 20 O. Narmouthis 41, 4, see GALLO, Ostraca demotici, 17–18; P. Michigan inv. 6124+6131, B x+2, 12; see QUACK, Demotisch und altkoptisch überliefertes Losorakel. 21 OSING, Nominalbildung II, 472. 22 GIGNAC, Grammar I, 262–5. 23 TE VELDE, Some Aspects; BICKEL, Hymne à la vie; ASSMANN, Rezeption und Auslegung, 130.

194

Joachim Friedrich Quack

The equation of Kronos with the Egyptian god Geb is fairly evident and also attested e.g. in Diodorus and Plutarch,24 although his connection to light is not that obvious.25 It could reasonably be asked if this epithet is due to an assimilation to the formulation used for Helios.26 My second case-study will provide further evidence of a solar nature specific for the Egyptian Kronos/Geb (see below). The mother of gods called heaven is obviously the Egyptian sky-goddess Nut often receiving the epithet ‘mother of gods’.27 This point was even recognised in previous research without analysing the whole section as Heliopolitan Ennead.28 Osiris as well as Isis are clearly indicated by their Egyptian names in Greek garb (with case ending). Both are also correlated with phenomena of nature. The identification of Osiris with water is attested in Plutarch (De Iside, chapter 33), and especially for the Nile also well documented in Egyptian sources.29 More problematic is the identification of Isis with dew.30 The best parallel for this is found in the Greek language litany of Isis in P. Oxyrhynchus 1380.173–4, where Isis is called [ἐ]πινοοῦσα τὴν δρόσον ‘contemplating the dew’.31 I see no clear attestation in the Egyptian language, although I reckon with the possibility that such will turn up. At least P. Tebtynis Tait 14, x+4 seems to link Isis with the dew or to give her control over it, but the context is fragmentary.32 There is, moreover, a rare epithet of Hathor, namely nb.t |ô.t (LGG IV, 25 a), which could be translated as ‘mistress of dew’,33 and it is by no means inconceivable that Isis has taken over Hathoric epithets. There is also an identification of some Egyptian goddess, probably Nephthys, with dew in P. Berlin P. 15660, l. 12 (see below).

24

HOPFNER, Plutarch, 18–20; D. MÜLLER, Isis-Aretalogien, 28. For possible other Egyptian associations of Kronos see AUFRÈRE, ⲕⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ. 25 BEDIER, Rolle des Gottes Geb, 192–5 has a section on Geb as bringer of light, but little of the evidence she cites is really pertinent. 26 Also DIELEMAN, Priests, 156–7, n. 25 suspects the epithet to be mistakenly copied twice. 27 LGG III, 268. 28 STRICKER, Camephis, 6 and 30. 29 GRIFFITHS, Plutarchus: De Iside, 420–21 and 424; ASSMANN, Leichensekret des Osiris. 30 R.K. RITNER, in BETZ (ed.), GMPT, 162, n. 74, has cited Plu. De Iside, chapter 12 (355F–356A) and 33 (364B) as attesting this equation. But chapter 33 only concerns Osiris and his connection with water (not Isis), while in chapter 12 the birth of Isis near moist places is hardly specific enough for an equation with dew, see FROIDEFOND, Plutarque, 263, n. 9, who stresses that Plutarch does not associate Isis with water. What GRIFFITHS, Plutarchus: De Iside, 303–4 adduces concerning the connection between Isis and water hardly stands up to scrutiny, especially the entry on the back of the Rhind mathematical papyrus shows no more than that at one specific date, there was rain on the fourth epagomenal day, see for the passage now QUACK, Gibt es in Ägypten, 225–6. A bit more relevant is P. Vienna D 6920–22, rt. x+2, 7–8 where Isis promises to let it rain on the mountain, see HOFFMANN, Papyrus Wien D6920–22, 174. 31 See now JÖRDENS, Lobpreis, 293. 32 See QUACK, Lobpreis der Isis. 33 While in LGG it is translated as ‘Herrin des Duftes’ (mistress of fragrance), in Demotic Egyptian yt.t means ‘dew’ (ERICHSEN, Demotisches Glossar, 49).

The Heliopolitan Ennead and Geb as a Scrofulous Boar in the PGM

195

Ησενεφυς as transmitted in the papyrus is an obvious misspelling of Ησενεφθυς.34 Esenephthys (also attested as Senephthys) is, in principle, a composite of Isis and Nephthys, but one in which Nephthys dominates.35 Her identification with the season of spring is not documented elsewhere,36 and in Egypt there is not even a very pronounced seasonal phenomenon of spring; the subsequent seasons of pr.t and Smw correspond to winter and summer – otherwise only the period of inundation is set apart as a further season.37 I would not exclude the possibility that the εαρ transmitted in the papyrus is a mistake for ἀήρ ‘air’ which would be more in line with the other natural phenomena mentioned in the text. For a copyist, ἡ ἔαρ might have seemed an even more unlikely expression in Greek than ἡ ἀήρ. In all, the identification of the deities as members of the Heliopolitan Ennead has made it possible not only to correct some writing errors in the papyrus but also to reject other corrections proposed by scholars who had looked only at isolated entries instead of the overall structure. In their overall format, the sentences discussed here are first-person presentations introduced by ἐγώ εἰμι ‘I am’. This type of speech is much more at home in Egypt and the Near East than in Greece.38 The first part of the identification is typically the name of a deity, either Greek as such (Helios, Aphrodite, Kronos, the mother of gods) or adopted by the Greeks (Osiris and Isis). Only Esenephthys is a figure less at home in Greece, and it is quite significant that her name was garbled by the copyist. In one case (for Shu), no name at all is used,39 only an epithet. The divergent linguistic formulations used in these epithets are quite notable. For the four last ones, we get καλούμενος or in the feminine καλουμένη ‘called’, always followed by a phenomenon of physical nature. The second one makes use of προσαγορευομένη ‘addressed as’ which is somewhat similar but used for introducing not a phenomenon of nature, but an Egyptian name. The first, third and fourth make use of epithets which present them as exerting power over some natural phenomenon (light or wind). So, seven of the eight epithets involve natural phenomena, but in some cases as being identified with the deities, in others as being subordinated to them. All told, the homogeneity of the section is limited. Structurally similar correlations of Egyptian deities with either epithets or phenomena of the natural world occur in some passages in the bilingual P. Rhind I. In the Hieratic version of 5h8, simply p(#) nfr ‘the beautiful one’ is used while the corre34

R.K. RITNER, in BETZ (ed.), GMPT, 162, n. 75, has proposed to understand this expression as #s.t nfr.t ‘beautiful Isis’, but such an interpretation is phonetically impossible. Even more inappropriate is the proposal by K.F.W. SCHMIDT, Leydener Zauberpapyri, 1178 to correct into ησε νεφερο. 35 QUAEGEBEUR, Senephthys; DANIEL/MALTOMINI, Supplementum Magicum II, 126–7. 36 For other allegorical interpretations of Nephthys see ENGSHEDEN, Bemerkungen. 37 SETHE, Zeitrechnung I, 294–6. 38 There has been a substantial debate, mainly centering on the ‘aretalogies’ of Isis. See QUACK, ‘Ich bin Isis’, 323–4 with references; JÖRDENS, Aretalogies. 39 While the word ἅ[γ]ι[ο]ς is seriously damaged, on a good digital colour photograph (for which I would like to extend my thanks to MAARTEN RAVEN), there are clear traces of an α and the top part of an ι (going above the normal height of the letters), and a completely preserved final σ. Still, the question can be posed if a σως of the model used might have been misread as ἅγιος.

196

Joachim Friedrich Quack

sponding Demotic passage 5d6 has p# nfr nt|.|w Ws|r p#| ‘the beautiful one who is Osiris’. Similarly 6h4 gives nb |gb ‘lord of the air’, which corresponds to p# nb n p# ç#w r.tw AImn p#| ‘the lord of the wind who is Amun’ (5d4–5). Finally, 6h6 has just s#H Orion while the corresponding passage 6d5 gives swH r.tw Ws|r p#| ‘Orion, who is Osiris’. So, in these Egyptian cases, the Hieratic text gives a ‘basic’ version while the glossing by means of a clear name of a deity is restricted to the Demotic version. Thus they are the reverse of what is present in the Greek-language invocation where the names come first and the link to a natural phenomenon or epithet follows afterwards. More directly relevant concerning the last point is a passage in the Demotic magical papyrus of London and Leiden where the goddesses Nut and Ipet are addressed as mothers of respectively water and fire (rt. 6, 18–19). Highly notable is also Papyrus Berlin 15660 which contains several cases of identification of natural phenomena with Egyptian deities.40 Actually, it gives p# mw nt|.|w Ws|r p#| ‘The water which is Osiris’, t# sX.t nt|.|w #s.t t# nçr.t o#.t t#| ‘the field which is Isis the great goddess’ and t# yty(.t) nt|.|w Nb(.t)-Hw.ê(t) t#| ‘the dew which is Nephthys’41 (ll. 11–12). Finally, it should be remarked that there are only eight deities in the section I have discussed. Indeed one god is obviously missing, namely Seth. As the murderer of Osiris, he became increasingly problematic 42 and in the Graeco-Roman Period was banned in most places. In sequences listing the members of the Heliopolitan Ennead, he is often replaced by the elder Horus. In the particular incantation I am studying here, he is omitted without any replacement. Perhaps a relatively good comparison can be made with an invocation in the bilingual papyrus Rhind I (10h5–6 = 10d6–7). There, the sun-god at the beginning appears in double, as Re as well as Atum. Seth is completely omitted, and then Horus and Hathor are added at the end, before a global ‘o great Ennead, o little Ennead’. Still, there is more to discover in pursuing this point further. The specific invocation of P. Rhind I is fairly closely similar to another one attested in the Hieratic papyrus Cairo CG 58031, 4, 3–5, 1. There as well, Seth is omitted completely, and this time three different forms of Horus are added at the end. For P. Cairo 58031, it has to be stressed that the manuscript has been identified as an extract from the ritual for Opening the Mouth.43 The particular invocation to the Ennead forms part of scene 59D of that ritual which is attested in several quite divergent forms 40 ZAUZICH, Paläographische Herausforderungen I, 167. I would like to thank SVENJA NAGEL for having drawn my attention to this papyrus. It may be remarked that in line 10 ZAUZICH’s reading p# wyby should probably be corrected into &t#\ xyby(.t) ‘the shadow’. In line 1, instead of &Ny.t\ t# &ntr.t o#.t\, I would rather propose sr t# [email protected] o#.t\ ‘who announces the great Ennead’, instead of &NXb.t\ rather sr ‘prince’ (for the form of the sign see QUACK, Zur Lesung and MA. SMITH, Papyrus Harkness, 203), and at the beginning of the line probably [p#]y=| Hr| ‘my lord’. Maybe the line can be restored as ‘My lord [Osiris, lord of the god]s, [great] prince of the West, who announces the great Ennead, who announces the small Ennead’. 41 The name of the goddess was not read by ZAUZICH, Paläographische Herausforderungen I, 167 and 172, although he speculated about reading the first element as nb. I see the following group as Hw.t placed above the house-determinative. 42 For some early attestations see KAHL, Religiöse Sprachsensibilität. 43 QUACK, Fragmente des Mundöffnungsrituals, 139.

The Heliopolitan Ennead and Geb as a Scrofulous Boar in the PGM

197

in the individual manuscripts, and furthermore, to complicate matters further, the section with the Ennead forms part of a larger sequence of divine names which is attested also in several other ritual texts, mainly in the context of fumigations.44 However, only manuscripts of the ritual for Opening the Mouth give the full extent of the Ennead while all other traditions either omit them completely or mention only Atum, Shu and Tefnut. For the Rhind papyrus, the specific link with the ritual for Opening the Mouth can be enhanced further given that another section nearby (10h1–4) is closely dependent upon scene 59D of that ritual, the one directly following after the enumeration of the deities.45 While the identification of the gods named here as the Heliopolitan Ennead is certain, we should not forget that they are only part of a larger sequence which in turn is part of one magical practice for procuring a ring for every success and good fortune (PGM XII 201–69). The Egyptian roots of this practice are quite transparent given that as a section heading, a Demotic note wo gswr ‘a ring’ is used in an otherwise Greek text. If we look at the magical practice as a whole, we can recognise several distinct sections. First, we have a description of the actual ring engraving. It consists of an ouroboros snake containing an image of some deity (perhaps the moon-goddess) and the sun-god (PGM XII 202–10). The magical word ABRASAX is written on the front as well as the backside of the stone, while ‘Iao Sabaoth’ is to be written on the bezel. As far as the magical names are concerned, we can observe here the influx from Jewish traditions in a way generally frequent in Roman Period magical texts. Afterwards, we get the instructions for the sacrifices to be performed (PGM XII 210–16). With one goose, three roosters and three doves, this is already quite substantial compared to other offerings in the PGM.46 Finally, the invocations to be pronounced are given. Their first part is an address to different deities (PGM XII 216–27). The beginning, naming the gods of the heaven and the gods below the earth, sounds quite Egyptian, except that there we would expect a triple sequence of the gods of heaven, the gods of earth and the gods of the Netherworld.47 The subsequent invocation of three suns is likely, as has already been proposed previously,48 to be based on the Egyptian differentiation of the sun in three phases, Khepri in the morning, Re at midday and Atum in the evening. More problematic is the formula ανοκ μανε βαρχυχ given here,49 in which moreover βαρχυχ is likely to be a corruption of original βαιχυχ which renders Egyptian b# n kk.w ‘soul of the primeval god of darkness’. ανοκ is certainly |nk ‘I’. For μανε, the best phonetic fit would be Egyptian mn ‘NN’ (Coptic ⲙⲁⲛ) which serves in magical manuals as place44

QUACK, Götterinvokation, 99–104 and 116–19. To be added is a fragmentary attestation in the funerary papyrus Vatican 38603, fragment a, see ALBERT, Livre des morts, 104–5, 140–42, Pl. 17. 45 QUACK, Fragmente des Mundöffnungsrituals, 108. 46 See JOHNSTON, Sacrifice; PETROVIC, Tieropferrituale. 47 Compare LGG IV, 484–5, 549–50 and 553. 48 MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax I, 168–9. 49 The proposals for ανοκ and μανε given in MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax I, 169 (and ultimately deriving from JACOBY, Chnubisamulett, 271–5) are not convincing, see THISSEN, Ägyptologische Beiträge, 299 with note 67; the publication promised there has never appeared.

198

Joachim Friedrich Quack

holder for the insertion of the actual name of the practitioner. However, such a formulation ‘I, NN, am the soul of the primeval god of darkness’ does not sit comfortably in its current position in the text. We would expect it rather within the self-identification of the speaker than within the address to different deities which continues for some time in the manuscript. This address is followed in turn by a series of self-identifications of the magician (PGM XII 227–38) which include the one with the members of the Ennead. Lack of space prevents me from going into a detailed analysis, but for many of them the Egyptian antecedents are quite evident.50 At the same time, scribal corruption is tangible, especially in writing σοκρατης where rather ὁ κράτης would be expected (PGM XII 229–30). Also ουαγιον instead of ουατιον for the rendering of Egyptian w@#.t (PGM XII 230)51 casts doubt upon the scribal comprehension of the text. The content of the identifications is quite clearly solar; and I suspect that also the passage where the speaker identifies with the efflux from the blood of the tomb of the Great one can be connected with Heliopolis where there was an important sepulchre of Osiris. 52 The identification directly before those concerning the Heliopolitan Ennead is ‘I am KRATES, the holy one, who is addressed as MARMARAUOTH’. KRATES is likely to be a phonetic rendering of Egyptian xrô ‘child’. MARMARAUOTH, however, is more likely to be Aramaic ‘lord of lords’. 53 Still, the linguistic formulation προσαγορευόμενος ‘addressed as’ follows a pattern also used for Aphrodite-Tefnut in the section with the Ennead which follows directly afterwards. So we have to concede that formally the section with the Ennead is not clearly set off from its surroundings, and that nonEgyptian traditions could enter into it. There are two more self-identifications immediately following after the Ennead and couched so much in the same style that without the criterion of the specific content, they would have seemed to form a homogeneous larger unit. They are: ‘I am the image resembling the true image. I am Souchos the crocodile’. For the first identification, the most pertinent parallel seems to me54 to be PGM VIII 37–8, ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι τὸ εἴδωλόν σου, ‘for I am your image’. That passage comes from a spell having interesting parallels to an Egyptian royal ritual of protection.55 I would like to stress this connection all the more because the passage in PGM VIII 36–7 shows evident similarities to PGM XIII 795–6 which in turn, as will be demonstrated below, is linked closely in transmission history with our passage in PGM XII. The second one obviously involves the Egyptian crocodile-god Sobek. It is quite noticeable that the final place in the series of identifications, of particular weight in the compositional structure, is 50 MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax I, 171–3 as well as DIELEMAN, Priests, 150–63 give some indications. 51 Pace DANIEL, Two Greek Magical Papyri, 14 note to line 19, I think that the letter can only be read as γ, not as τ. 52 MEEKS, Mythes et légendes, 171–5; additional information can be obtained from fragments of the first column of P. Brooklyn 47.218.84 which I could identify in April 2014 and which mostly join to the existing parts of the manuscript. 53 See BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3591–2. 54 Others are indicated in MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax I, 175. 55 QUACK, Papyrus Carlsberg 475, 61–2.

The Heliopolitan Ennead and Geb as a Scrofulous Boar in the PGM

199

given to him. That might open up the question whether the final redaction of this invocation took place in a city with a substantial crocodile-cult. One overall point should be noted. While it is of course possible for an Egyptian ritualist to claim identity with deities, otherwise in Egyptian texts the Heliopolitan Ennead is much more often invoked as helpers than claimed as identity. Probably we should classify this as a creative remodelling of pre-existing text blocks and formulaic models into a new integrated composition. Afterwards a section follows which is most evidently a composition of its own, namely an invocation of the type ‘come to me’ (PGM XII 238–44 and 252–6) with parallels in two other papyri.56 In PGM XIII 760–823, this hymn serves as a compound in one version of the ‘Eighth/Tenth book of Moses’ which in itself has a complicated redactional history.57 In PGM XXI 1–28 it is transmitted as a fragment on the verso of a papyrus originally used for accounts. The relation between the three versions is quite complicated. PGM XXI and PGM XIII agree more closely and have longer versions for some parts, among them also the section with the members of the Egyptian Ogdoad already mentioned above. Simply put, there are two alternatives: either PGM XII has taken over only parts of a longer composition more fully transmitted in the two other manuscripts, or it preserves the more original state while the two other ones derive from a common source which had been secondarily augmented.58 I would rather tend to favour the first option, but regardless of its priority, the additional material in PGM XIII and XXI also stands firmly in Egyptian tradition, as does the core common to all three papyri.59 In between the two sections of the invocation ‘come to me’ found also in the two parallel manuscripts, in PGM XII 244–52, we find inserted what has been termed the most beautiful of all hymns in the corpus of the PGM.60 Its Greek meter makes it likely that it was already originally composed in that language.61 Basically, it consists of 56

CALVO MARTÍNEZ, Tratamento. See MO. SMITH, Eighth Book of Moses. 58 MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax I, have seen PGM XXI as the most original version, but given the revised date of PGM XII in the late second/early third century CE, as demonstrated by DIELEMAN, Priests, 41–4, PGM XXI can no longer be considered as the oldest manuscript. We should also keep in mind that PGM XII and XIII, although written in different hands, ended up in the same ancient collection. 59 Some clear cases have already been pointed out in the commentary of MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax I, 126–222. Among others the gift of wealth, good old age, good children and a good burial (PGM XII 254 = PGM XIII 782–3 = PGM XXI 15–16) should be linked specifically with the conception of the four kas of the demiurge at Memphis, see MEEKS, Les ‘quatres Ka’. 60 MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax I, 16–19. Study also in CALVO MARTÍNEZ, Dos himnos, 231–46. 61 Less cogent are the other points adduced by DIELEMAN, Priests, 163–4 in favour of a nonEgyptian origin. The first is the reference to the zodiac, but while that was originally conceived in Mesopotamia, it had become fully assimilated in Roman-Period Egypt where it even entered official temple decoration. The next one is the juxtaposition of the four elements of Classical antiquity, which can now be demonstrated to exist in a Demotic Egyptian theological treatise, see QUACK, Fragmente eines theologischen Traktats. Finally, while the use of the seven vowels in the system of planetary harmony only functions in Greek writing, that in itself is not sufficient reason to situate it outside of 57

200

Joachim Friedrich Quack

questions whose answer logically leads up to the concept of one single creator designated as ‘one deathless god’ who is then praised with addresses in the second person. It has been proposed by MERKELBACH and TOTTI that this hymn goes back to Zoroastrian models, probably via a Jewish intermediary.62 I must confess that I am not quite convinced by their demonstration. While they were able to cite a structurally similar hymn from the Gathas, they have overlooked the fact that this sort of questions is also attested in a chapter dealing with the greatness of the god which forms part of the great Demotic wisdom book best preserved in P. Insinger.63 Most relevant is the passage The one who wants to say ‘It does not happen’, he should look at what is hidden. For what do the sun and moon come and go in the sky? Whence come and go water and fire and wind? For whom do amulets and spells become remedies? The hidden work of god, he has made it known on the earth daily. (31, 19–23)

This sort of rhetorical question has, in turn, been compared to Job 38.64 Regardless of the validity of that claim, the section in the Demotic wisdom text shows that this way of formulation is at home in Egypt. The magical practice finishes with a highly remarkable passage which demonstrates the ecumenical spirit of the magician:65 And again I call upon you, according to the Egyptians ‘PHNO EAI IABOK’; according to the Jews ‘Adonai Sabaoth’, according to the Greeks ‘the king of all, ruling alone’, according to the high priests ‘hidden, invisible, overseer of all’; according to the Parthians ‘OUERTO, master of all’.

However, it gives one pause for thought that the ethnic apportionings indicated here have not all fared well at the hands of the modern commentators. What was claimed in the papyrus to be Parthian has been subjected to an analysis as Egyptian wr t# ‘great one of the earth’,66 and what is given as Egyptian seems to be a garbled form of semiEgyptian including Hebrew elements, either p# Nn.w Elohe Jakob ‘the abyss, God of Jacob’,67 or p# nçr n IoQb ‘the god of Jacob’.68 If these proposals are correct, they illustrate perhaps again that the actual scribe was working rather mechanically, perhaps even shuffling the coordination between epithet and ethnic, and did not fully understand his model. Egypt, only in a milieu making use of Greek as a medium of communication – as a matter of fact, Demetr. Peri Hermeneias 71, ascribes it specifically to the Egyptian priests that they honour their gods by chanting the seven vowels. See FOWDEN, Egyptian Hermes, 118–19, who already proposes the connection with the magical papyri. 62 MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax I, 18–19. 63 The overall study by LEXA, Papyrus Insinger, is outdated but not yet replaced by a modern work. See for the moment the indications in QUACK, Einführung, 113–28. Some special remarks on the chapter in question in STADLER, Hymnen, 150–59. 64 SCHNEIDER, Hiob. For the comparison of these sources with the PGM hymn, see also BORTOLANI, Magical Hymns, 212–16. 65 For such presentations in different languages see TARDIEU, Dénominations de langues; and specifically for the passage in question LIDONNICI, ‘According to the Jews’, 104–5. 66 Thus RITNER, in BETZ (ed.), GMPT, 163, n. 79. 67 QUACK, Zauber ohne Grenzen, 192. 68 DIELEMAN, Priests, 170 has proposed to derive PHNŌ from Coptic ⲫⲛⲟⲩϯ ‘god’.

The Heliopolitan Ennead and Geb as a Scrofulous Boar in the PGM

201

Finally, we should not forget that the overall context of the practice is the consecration of a ring, and that brings up one further point. A ring is an object produced by the activity of a craftsman, and in Egypt the traditional ritual used for consecrating and animating objects produced by craftsmen is the ritual for Opening the Mouth.69 Close connections between that ritual and another magical practice for consecrating a ring directly following the one discussed here in PGM XII have already been lished.70 There is one scene in the Egyptian ritual which seems especially relevant for comparison, namely scene 59C. That is a fumigation with incense before deities already mentioned above. Among those invoked, we find also the Heliopolitan Ennead. That should give some additional depth to the fact that in the Greek-language magical practice, the Heliopolitan Ennead forms part of a larger series of self-identifications strongly centred on solar connotations. Summing up, the redactor of the magical practice has integrated a passage with selfidentifications largely based on Egyptian models together with a hymn and an epiclesis of probably separate origin to form a fairly coherent composition. The preceding analysis hopefully shows that there was a well thought out concept behind the passage containing the Heliopolitan Ennead as well as the complete magical practice. While traditional Egyptian conceptions predominate, there is room for Jewish as well as (at least formally) Greek elements and even conscious invocations in yet other languages. In itself, that constitutes a fine example of cultural plurality. Still, we should not pass over in silence another point. The scribe of the papyrus has garbled quite a number of the Egyptian names, and also at least one Greek word (ἐπίβουλος instead of ἐπίβολος), probably even more. This is a fairly clear indication that he did not fully understand the intricacies of the conception but rather followed more or less mechanically an older model. Thus, the text demonstrates also the eventual disintegration of a synthesis. When all-round competence in all the different traditions is no longer assured, some parts of it will just be carried on mechanically, and thus become subject to garbling, and eventually rejection once they are no longer perceived as making sense.

3. Geb, the scrofulous boar My second case is the ‘Oracle of Kronos, in great demand’ (PGM IV 3086–124),71 or rather a special section of it. Basically, it involves the use of a mill72 and some quite exotic ingredients which should produce an epiphany of the god Kronos. An important

69 See the edition by OTTO, Mundöffnungsritual; a new edition is being prepared by a team at Heidelberg. 70 MOYER/DIELEMAN, Miniaturization; DIELEMAN, Priests, 170–82; QUACK, Fragmente des Mundöffnungsrituals, 144–5; QUACK, Miniaturisierung, 358–60. 71 Previous special studies DIETERICH, Abraxas, 78–80; HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber I, § 593, II, § 139; EITREM, Kronos; FARAONE, Kronos, 401–5; MASTROCINQUE, Kronos, 53–64. 72 FERNÁNDEZ NIETO, Ἄλει μύλα ἄλει, 78–80.

202

Joachim Friedrich Quack

part of the practice is that the magician needs a phylactery to be safe from the god. The indications for this shall be the focus of my study: The phylactery in great demand for him: on the spatula73 of a pig carve Zeus holding fast a sickle, and his name CHTHOUMILON. Let it be 74 the spatula of a black, scrofulous, castrated boar. (PGM IV 3114–18)

There is also an instruction ‘Be clothed with clean linen in the garb of a priest of Isis’ (PGM IV 3094–5). The use of bones as phylacteries is also attested elsewhere. 75 I would like to stress that its specific materiality shows a combination of Egyptian and Greek traditions.76 The advice to be clothed in clean linen like a priest of Isis also gives a link to Egypt, albeit one which removes the practitioner somewhat from a simple implicitness of being automatically in an Egyptian tradition.77 The castration constitutes a Greek motive, or at least it seems so. Originally, it was Kronos who emasculated his father Ouranos, but in later traditions of the Orphic theogony, he himself was also castrated by Zeus.78 Still, I would like to mention at least in passing an Egyptian mythological episode attested in a manual which will become important in my further argumentation. According to this, Geb raped his mother Tefnut, and by this injured his father. Then it is said in the text ‘he placed a lance in his inner thighs’. (P. Brooklyn 47.218.84, x+12, 7). While the expression is not that explicit, and the suffix pronouns used leave it open who in this act is the aggressor and who the victim, placing a lance point in such intimate parts of the anatomy would at least be close to castration. Another, equally enigmatic entry in this mythological manual says that some sort of cutting79 was made in the phallus of Geb (x+13, 1). Even more problematic is a passage in another mythological manual preserved in a Roman-Period manuscript from Tebtynis which might mention ‘castrated’ and ‘Geb’ in the same sentence (PSI Inv. I 72, 6, 5).80 Overall, the Greek derivation of the castration motif is easier, and in any case the figure of Zeus used here only makes sense within the framework of Greek mythology. 73 Early commentators (DIETERICH, Abraxas, 80 with note 8; HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber I, § 593, II, § 138) have proposed to emend the σπάθην transmitted in the papyrus into σάθη ‘penis’, but it might prove difficult to obtain that from a castrated boar. I follow PREISENDANZ, PGM I, 174–5. in retaining the reading of the manuscript and in translating as ‘spatula’; the rendering as ‘rib’ in BETZ (ed.), GMPT, 98 seems less exact. A spatula has enough surface to make the engraving of an image of Zeus practically feasible. 74 The translation in BETZ (ed.), GMPT, 98 renders here ‘Or let it be’, giving the impression that this is an alternative to the first indication. The Greek wording does not show anything supporting such an interpretation. 75 See WILBURN, Materia Magica, 152. 76 EITREM, Kronos, especially 360, thought that he could isolate an ancient Greek magical practice. Given the material adduced here, such an assumption seems quite one-sided. 77 See the contribution of NAGEL, in this volume. 78 WEST, Orphic Poems, 134–6 and 237. 79 The word grg.t used in the papyrus is lexically not clear. 80 See OSING/ROSATI, Papiri geroglifici, 172 and 177–8, n. bf. The sentence in question is hardly understandable and OSING’s interpretation entails an emendation. Discussion in VON LIEVEN, Antisocial Gods, 195.

The Heliopolitan Ennead and Geb as a Scrofulous Boar in the PGM

203

By contrast, concerning the scaly or scrofulous pig, as far as I see, there is no clear explanation from the Greek side. Previous commentators had sometimes thought that the pig might be linked with Seth-Typhon. 81 While such a connection would be in principle possible in Egypt,82 there is another option more directly relevant for Kronos as the main deity of this magical practice.83 By now, there is quite a bit of documentation demonstrating the Egyptian tradition of a scrofulous boar linked to Geb. The bestknown witness is a mythological manual preserved in a papyrus from the early Saite Period (c. 650 BCE).84 Another one: Then …85 the boar86 mangled the eye of the sun-god and devoured things from its efflux. Then an inquiry was made about it with him, and he said ‘I did not swallow it.’ Then it came out of his flesh as scrofula.87 It was taken away from him by Thoth; he pacified it and placed it in the horizon. When the day comes, it is not seen, as the date of his mangling of it has arrived. It is luminous at the time of healing. It is destroyed when it is devoured. It is brilliant when it is (re)found. Concerning the ‘great house’,88 it is called ‘the wallow of the boar’. A crossed89 (?) wood is placed at its entrance. It is the ‘House of the bird-trap’ of Geb when he was made to devour urine by the gods after he had taken the shape of a boar. It is done to him likewise because of the hurt he did to his father Shu. (P. Brooklyn 47.218.84, 6, 6–11)90

A second attestation of this incident, less well preserved, can be found on a papyrus (P. Carlsberg 418) dating, as a manuscript, to the Roman Period, but according to its language probably going back to a New Kingdom tradition.91 In spite of lacunae, it is clear in that text that Geb is involved and that sun and moon, understood as the two celestial eyes, play an important role. Especially, the deficit in the left eye (moon) is explained. Then the text says ‘a white cutaneous eruption came about below the left vertebra of Geb’. While many details are lost, this is likely to constitute another attestation for the conception of Geb as a boar with skin problems. Yet another case might be recognised in an unpublished Demotic narrative concerning the war of gods

81

EITREM, Kronos, 356. For Seth connected to a pig, especially in his attack against the eye of Horus, see EL-HUSENY, Inkonsequente Tabuisierung, 244–60; VOLOKHINE, Porc, 103–18. 83 One might also wonder whether the amulet with a boar-headed deity published by ANDREWS, Boar, 79 does not actually depict Geb (ANDREWS proposes Seth or the Libyan god Ash; similarly ELHUSENY, Inkonsequente Tabuisierung, 317–19). 84 Edition MEEKS, Mythes et légendes; see for some details the reviews by QUACK and VON LIEVEN. Study in JØRGENSEN, Mythological Manuals. A transliteration and German translation can be found in the TLA. 85 The scribe left out most of the line, indicating probably that there was a lacuna in his model. 86 I understand the group in the text as writing for (o)H#w(.t|) ‘male/wild’. 87 For the Egyptian word Hmw.t-s# see QUACK, Tabuisierte und ausgegrenzte Kranke, 67–77; KLOTZ, Caesar, 40. 88 The name of an important sanctuary at Heliopolis. 89 The determinative of the word is lost. MEEKS, Mythes et legendes, 82, n. 193 thinks that it is a fire-kindling wood, but I fail to see the sense of such an object in this context. We would expect an entry-construction strong enough to keep a fully grown boar inside a corral. 90 See JØRGENSEN, Mythological Manuals, 279–80; VOLOKHINE, Porc, 126–34. 91 QUACK, Fragment einer mythologischen Erzählung. 82

204

Joachim Friedrich Quack

(P. Carlsberg 284).92 There, a fragmentary line has ‘[…] Geb. His colour will change, he being white’. The actual root sH@ used here is the one also employed for ‘leprosy’ and similar cutaneous problems.93 Perhaps it is also of relevance that in the New Kingdom amulet P. Deir el-Medina 36, the text, which concerns the protection from skin diseases, is couched in the form of a royal decree of Osiris to Geb.94 As far as the connection between Geb/Kronos and the pig is concerned, yet another passage in a magical papyrus from Egypt might provide additional evidence. PGM XII 430, in a list of secret names of ingredients, the ‘spice of Kronos’ is explained as ‘milk of a pig’. In his commentary to the Delta mythological manual, DIMITRI MEEKS had proposed that in this passage, Geb had replaced an original Seth.95 I am not convinced. While there is indeed some evidence that Seth, if he appeared in a positive role in rituals, could in the texts be replaced by Thoth or Geb, there is no other case where Seth in a negative role was deliberately replaced by another deity. Furthermore, since Geb’s consort Nut can be understood as a sow in some Egyptian traditions,96 it makes sense that he himself is a boar. In any case, there is enough documentation that Geb could appear as a miscreant in Egyptian mythology.97 With the examples I have assembled here, we certainly have proof that at least during the Late Period Geb could be linked with a boar, 98 and there is a mythological conception that, as a punishment for his inappropriate behaviour against the luminous eye, he had serious skin problems. Adding all this together, the use of the spatula of a black, scrofulous, castrated boar intends to provide a very close link between the image and its material base. More specifically, that support links Kronos-Geb to his weak moments when he misbehaved and was seriously punished for it, while the image itself shows Zeus appropriating the castration tool which previously Kronos himself had used. Thus, the spatula serves as a reminiscence of submission and is an appropriate phylactery for protecting the practitioner from the wrath of Kronos-Geb. This fits well with the fact that also the invocation to Kronos is hardly flattering at all but rather presents the fact of the emasculation of Kronos by his own son and his enchaining by the sun-god. One further point is of relevance from the iconographic side: in Egypt, the cult of the crocodile god Sobek was linked with that of Geb, at least in some important cultplaces like Koptos and Tebtynis.99 There are Roman-Period depictions of Sobek-Geb 92

An edition is in preparation by H. KOCKELMANN and J.F. QUACK. FISCHER-ELFERT, Abseits von Ma’at, 43–6. 94 Edition of the text SAUNERON, Rhume, for the correct philological analysis of the disease terms, see QUACK, Beiträge zu religiösen und magischen Texten, 415. 95 MEEKS, Mythes et légendes, 218. 96 See VON LIEVEN, Grundriß, 158–61. See also VOLOKHINE, Porc, 147–67 who in several points relies on outdated readings of P. Carlsberg 1. 97 See VON LIEVEN, Antisocial Gods?, 190–202. 98 The claim of MASTROCINQUE, Kronos, 44, that Kronos with a boar is not an Egyptian but a Near Eastern element, cannot be upheld in the face of these attestations. 99 C.E. HOLM, Namenstudien, 49–117; and for identifications of Sobek with Kronos A. WINKLER, Document, 77–8, n. 27; now in detail KOCKELMANN, Herr der Seen, 173–9. See additionally e.g. the 93

The Heliopolitan Ennead and Geb as a Scrofulous Boar in the PGM

205

as Kronos with the sickle (harpē), sometimes holding a small crocodile. 100 Sobek, however, is often linked in a combination as Sobek-Re, thus encompassing also the solar aspect. Depictions of Kronos in Egypt on coins as well as a gem seem to be characterised by a solar globe on the head not normally found elsewhere,101 and this is likely to be due to the connection between Sobek and Re. Indeed, they show him also holding a crocodile and thus reinforce the connection to Sobek. We can even recall that in an astrological lapidary with clear Egyptian background, a man with a crocodile’s head is used for Saturn.102 The link between Kronos and Geb could be relevant for one overall point of the practice. Previous commentators have noticed that there are no other cases of oracles of Kronos.103 But if we move to the Egyptian Geb, it looks a bit different. Highly relevant is a section from the Book of Fayum describing the sanctuary of Sobek, lord of Ra-Sehui. There, it is said: s.t pw Sn+.tw %mn.ww sXr.w n |t|.w Nnw |m Snn.tw Gb sXr.w n ms+.w=f |m Snn.tw #s.t sXn.w n s#=s Or |m m oHo=f xr Sxm.t| |m It is the place where the Ogdoad enquires104 about the state of the fathers and the abyss, where Geb enquires about the state of his children, and where Isis enquires about the auguries for her son Horus concerning his life-time with the double crown.105

If I understand this correctly, we have, in an Egyptian context, an oracle of Geb at a cultic place of Sobek. Furthermore, at Koptos there is an oracle chapel of Geb dating to the early Roman Period.106 The background of Geb as a god of the earth and the vegetation growing upon it is likely to be relevant also for a detail of the practice. It is to take place where there is grass growing. Such a feature seems more evidently linked to the Egyptian Geb than to the Greek Kronos who might be a chthonic deity but does not have an explicit connec-

juxtaposition of Sobek-Re and Geb in P. Hal. Kurth Inv. 33 vs., 3, x+7, published in FISCHERELFERT, Göttlichkeit, 127. 100 RONDOT, Derniers visages, 80, 97, 123, 243–4, 301–3, 357–8, 365. 101 KOTANSKY, Kronos; WEBER/GEISSEN, Gaumünzen, 96–100 and 193–6, Pl. X–XI. 102 QUACK, Zum ersten astrologischen Lapidar, 341. 103 Most explicitly FARAONE, Kronos, 403. 104 The grammar of all three (similar) cases is not without problems. If the ending tw is understood as passive, one could translate ‘where … enquired about …’, but that would require the emendation of a preposition before the noun in each phrase. The alternative is to understand, in spite of the orthography, a relative form Snn.t. From the content, the second solution seems preferable to me. 105 BEINLICH, Buch vom Fayum, 240–41, lines 1030–38; BEINLICH, Mythos in seiner Landschaft II, 375 and 466; and for remnants of a Demotic translation BEINLICH, Mythos in seiner Landschaft III, 65–71. See also BEINLICH, Erneuerung, 54–9 who also understands this as referring to oracles, but interprets many details differently, due to divergences in translation, and STADLER, Théologie, 83. 106 TRAUNECKER, Coptos, esp. 379–87.

206

Joachim Friedrich Quack

tion to vegetation.107 The salt used in the ritual is likely to be meant as a threat of destruction of the fertility of the soil. Adding this up, we see in the specific phylactery used a mixture of Greek and Egyptian elements which works best if both traditions are fully in the mind of the practitioner. Also, we can at least suspect that the ascription of an oracle to Kronos did not come without his links to Geb and Sobek in Egypt. Some specific remarks should be made concerning the rather different interpretation of this magical practice by MASTROCINQUE.108 He sees a link between Osiris and Kronos, and points to a gem bought at Aleppo which, according to MASTROCINQUE, shows on the verso invocations typically linked with Kronos, and on the recto the mummy of Osiris together with Seth whom he supposes to menace Osiris so that he will give the oracle. The gem Bibliothèque Nationale AA Seyrig.17 109 used as a starting point by MASTROCINQUE110 is problematic in several ways. The all too classical form of the sigma as Σ is already a rather strong indication that this is more likely to be a modern production than a genuine object of the Late Antique time. While the figure next to the reclining mummy might look a bit like Seth with a donkey-head in the actual stone, iconographic parallels should leave no doubt that the figure to be expected here is Anubis with a jackal’s head, since Anubis is depicted quite often on magical gems caring for the mummy of Osiris.111 Also, contrary to MASTROCINQUE, the association of Osiris with Kronos is by no means common; as a matter of fact I see no certain indication for it at all.112 My suspicion is that the gem in question was created by bringing together different models for each side and to an extent misunderstanding them, and so there is a serious risk in accepting the link between the two sides as meaningful and to deduce from it an interpretation applicable to a divinatory practice transmitted in a papyrus from Egypt.

4. Conclusions I have purposefully chosen two cases which present a few connections but also significant differences. One obvious link is Kronos who appears in the first case as one member of the Ennead, while he is also present in the second case, and the connections between Kronos, Geb and Sobek discussed there might go some way towards elucidating some details of the first case. 107 EITREM, Kronos, 352–3, sees Kronos here as a god of harvest, but the Greek term used (χόρτος ‘grass, hay’) is not really relevant for harvest. 108 MASTROCINQUE, Kronos, 53–64. 109 MASTROCINQUE, Intailles magiques, 37 nr. 71. 110 MASTROCINQUE, Kronos, 53–6. 111 For the type, see MICHEL, Bilder und Zauberformeln, 38–9 and 314 (39.5). 112 MASTROCINQUE, Kronos, 53 only adduces Macrob. Sat. 1.7.14–15 as evidence. Even that claim is not valid because there Macrobius only mentions Saturn (Kronos) and Sarapis (not Osiris!) side by side (without implying identity!) as deities whose shrines were not located within the sacred boundaries of the Egyptians’ cities.

The Heliopolitan Ennead and Geb as a Scrofulous Boar in the PGM

207

The differences are no less evident. My second case shows a functioning synthesis where only the interplay of traditions both Greek and Egyptian permits appreciating the full depth of the symbolism of the phylactery used. The first one is considerably different. The core of the practice remains largely Egyptian, and much of it can be considered as a case of translation. The influx from Jewish traditions is limited to some names which are more juxtaposed to the rest than properly integrated with it, and also, apart from jargon and meter, specifically Greek traits are not obvious. Furthermore, the treatment by the scribe goes already some way towards disintegration, showing that the one who copied the actual manuscript was much less at home in Egyptian traditions than the one who originally composed the text.

Traditions of Transformation and Shape-Shifting in PGM XIII 270–77 RICHARD PHILLIPS 1. Introduction PGM XIII (c. 300–350 CE) is a lengthy text from the Theban Magical Library that culminates with the revelation of a sacred name and presents a series of rituals in which this name can be employed. One of these rituals formulated in lines 270–77 relates an act of transformation or shape-shifting.1 ἄλλως. ‘σὲ μόνον ἐπικαλοῦμαι, τὸν μόνον ἐν κόσμῳ διατά|ξαντα θεοῖς κ(αὶ) ἀνθρώποις, τὸν {ἑαυτὸν} ὰλλάξαντα σεαυτὸν |μορφαῖς ἁγίαις κ(αὶ) ἐκ μὴ ὄντων εἶναι ποιήσαντα κ(αὶ) ἐξ ὄν|των μὴ εἶναι, Θαῢθ ἅγιος, οὗ οὐδεὶς ὑποφέρει θεῶ`ν´ τὴν | ἀληθινὴν ὄψι{ο}ν ἰδεῖν τοῦ προσώπου. ποίησόν με γεν|έσθαι ἐν ὄμμασι2 πάντων κτισμάτων, λύκον, κύνα, λέον|τα, πῦρ, δένδρον, γῦπα, τεῖχος, ὕδωρ ἢ ὃ θέλεις, ὅτι δυνατὸς | εἶ.’ λέγε τὸ (ὄνομα). (vacat) In another way: ‘I call on you alone, the only one in the universe who gave order to gods and humans, who transformed yourself into holy forms and created existence from things non-existent and nonexistence from things in existence, holy Thoth, the true sight of whose countenance no god is able to look upon; make me become in the eyes of all created things – a wolf, dog, lion, fire, tree, vulture, wall, water (or whatever you want) – for you are powerful.’ Say the name.

Here the god Thoth3 is invoked and exhorted to grant the practitioner the ability to transform or shape-shift into a variety of forms (wolf, dog, lion, fire, tree, vulture, wall, 1 I would like to thank the organisers of this conference for inviting me to participate. The feedback I received during and after the conference from fellow participants and especially J.F. QUACK and W.D. FURLEY has been invaluable to me as I have continued to think about transformation ritual. Additionally, I have greatly benefited from the prior criticism of BORTOLANI, Review of R. PHILLIPS, and NAETHER, Review of R. PHILLIPS. MA. SMITH was kind enough to respond to my inquiries about his work during the summer of 2014, and M. PARCA graciously read early versions of my manuscript. Of course, my article has changed greatly along the way and I take responsibility for any deficiencies that remain. For an introduction to PGM XIII 270–77, as well as a critical text, bibliography and commentary, see R. PHILLIPS, Invisibility, 128–37. 2 The papyrus here reads ἐν ὀνόμασι. The emendation was first suggested by KROLL, Adversaria graeca, 422, and adopted by PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae II, 101. Other spells for anonymity often use prepositional phrases to identify those whose perceptions they wish to avoid. On which see R. PHILLIPS, Invisibility, 133, note to line 275. See n. 69 below. 3 Although the focus of my discussion is on the specific kinds of transformation represented in PGM XIII 270–77, the appearance of the god Thoth in this context also presents an interesting case study. For a general and more balanced introduction to such issues in Demotic and Graeco-Egyptian literature, see QUACK, Einführung, especially 198–202. FRANKFURTER, Religion, 240 asserts that by

Traditions of Transformation and Shape-Shifting in PGM XIII 270–77

209

water).4 Although this kind of transformation ritual is not entirely unknown in the corpus of the Greek magical papyri, it reflects a type of human metamorphosis that has precedents in both Egyptian funerary literature and tales as well as in countless representations of ‘shape-shifters’ in Greek and Roman literature. In reading this invocation, however, it is difficult to know how it relates to these divergent traditions. Indeed, although such transformations are ubiquitous in Egyptian funerary literature, by Late Antiquity this kind of ritual seems to be focused on achieving anonymity for the living rather than enabling swift and safe passage for the dead. Moreover, in many ways such a text is reminiscent of the wondrous tales of magical escapes attempted by ritual experts in Graeco-Roman Demotic tales or credited to shape-shifters in Greek literary texts—tales and motifs that, no doubt, helped to shape the worldview of our author, even if such literary instances are not the immediate inspiration for this ritual. Because PGM XIII 270–77 is unique within the papyri and at the intersection of two cultural traditions, it presents an excellent opportunity for exploring the interactions of Egyptian and Hellenistic concepts of transformation and shape-shifting as they relate to both the living as well as the dead.

2. Transformation in the Graeco-Egyptian papyri One of the initial problems in understanding PGM XIII 270–77 is that it is the only example of human transformation in the magical papyri. This is not to say that there are not examples of transformation elsewhere in the corpus. In PGM XIa 1–40 (fifth century CE), a spell entitled ‘An old female servant of Apollonius of Tyana’ (Γραῦς Ἀπολλον[ίο]υ Τυανέως ὑπηρετίς), a goddess is summoned (likely Nephthys)5 who is called keeper of the house (οἰκουρός). She first is seen as a beautiful woman who appears, descends from an ass and immediately turns into an old woman so that she may attend to the practitioner.6 This example serves as a reminder that gods are often depicted as having the power to change outward appearance—a pervasive motif in ritual and literary texts. A similar kind of ritual act can be found in PGM I 117–19 where, again, the help of a divine assistant is sought and this assistant is given the the Roman Period Thoth had become ‘the primary pseudonymous authority for priestly texts, imbuing them with a kind of ultimate antiquity and secrecy: Setna Khaemwas searches for a book full of spells “that Thoth wrote with his own hand” that lay sunken beneath the Nile’. On Thoth, also see STADLER, Weiser und Wesir. The unique spelling of Thoth here (Θαῢθ) reflects local Egyptian dialect (like Akhmimic), on which see LOPRIENO, Ancient Egyptian, 47, and suggests that the text is from Upper Egypt. See also BOYLAN, Thoth, 4. 4 In his critique of IRVING, Metamorphosis, BUXTON, Forms, 169, points out that forms like ‘water’ and ‘fire’ should not be referred to as ‘lifeless’. 5 See BERGMAN, Nephthys découverte, followed by OGDEN, Magic, 311–12. 6 ἡ δὲ εὐθέω[ς κα]ταβήσεται ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄνου κ[αὶ ἀπ]ο|δύσεται τὸ κάλλος καὶ ἔσται γραῦς. καὶ ἐρεῖ σοι ἡ γρα[υς]· ἐγώ σοι ὑπηρετήσω καὶ παρ[εδρ]εύσω, ‘Immediately she will descend from the ass and she will set aside her beauty and she will become an old woman. And the old woman will speak to you. “I shall serve you and be your helper”’ (PGM XIa 17–18). This is reminiscent of other scenes where goddesses transform into elderly women (e.g. Demeter in the h.Hom. 2.101–3).

210

Richard Phillips

power to shape-shift its form.7 Close analysis of each of these rituals, however, reveals that neither goes far in helping to contextualise rituals for human transformation, other than providing a range of physical transformations deemed possible. In the end, other literary representations of human invisibility outside of the papyri must be identified, if PGM XIII 270–77 is to be better understood. But it is here that one must proceed with caution.

3. Discoveries in the desert and the problem of contextualisation The discovery of so-called Greek magical papyri still stands as one of the landmark finds of the nineteenth century. The history of this discovery is set forth elsewhere and need not be recounted here.8 But as is the case with such finds, the process of contextualisation is a more formidable task. Part of this process has involved the gradual inclusion of a wider range of comparanda, and it is now possible to see how critiques of PREISENDANZ’s corpus, especially its designation as Papyri Graecae Magicae, have raised questions about identity and contextualisation.9 In addressing issues of language in particular, Egyptologists, noting the bilingual nature of some texts, have drawn attention to the omission of Demotic texts in the PGM and the resulting Hellenocentric tendency of earlier scholarship on the magical papyri.10 Such critiques have helped to reshape debates and, without a doubt, have led to a better understanding of the context of the papyri.11 This said, many challenges persist as the corpus consists of a complex amalgam of syncretic influences, including things Egyptian and things Hellenistic. When turning to PGM XIII 270–77, the problems of contextualisation again present themselves. Because this transformation ritual is without parallel in the corpus, it is necessary to seek examples from other kinds of literature which may help to illuminate it. But what other texts, if any, have directly or indirectly shaped this invocation? 7 μεταμορφοῖ δὲ εἰς ἣν ἐὰν | βούλῃ μορφὴν θη[ρίου] πετηνοῦ, ἐνύδρου, τετραπόδου, | ἑρπετοῦ, ‘He transforms into whatever form of beast you wish, one with wings, or living in water, or fourfooted or a reptile’. 8 The story of discovery of the ‘Theban Magical Library’ has been patched together by scholars, though much remains to be known. See BETZ (ed.), GMPT, xlii–xliv, and BETZ, ‘Mithras Liturgy’, 6– 8; BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3398–412; cf. also the contribution by GORDON in this volume. 9 In GEE, Review of BETZ, GEE calls PREISENDANZ’s two volume Papyri Graecae Magicae ‘illtitled’ and writes, ‘Unfortunately for PREISENDANZ and those who have worked with the texts after him, the documents were neither Greek, nor magical, and in many cases not even papyri.’ For a good overview of the exclusion of Egyptian material by PREISENDANZ, see DIELEMAN, Priests, 16–21. 10 Scholars, however, have also noted the neglect of these texts by Egyptologists. For example, citing two studies by BORGHOUTS (BORGHOUTS, Magical Texts, and BORGHOUTS, Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts) RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice, 3336 observes that ‘contemporary discussions of Egyptian magic have often excluded all Demotic evidence’. For an overview, again see DIELEMAN, Priests, 16–21. 11 To cite but one example, Egyptologists have been able to better identify the redactors of these texts by shedding light on the role of temple priests and those with knowledge of Demotic and Hieratic.

Traditions of Transformation and Shape-Shifting in PGM XIII 270–77

211

Where else do similar kinds of transformation scenes appear in which humans or others are portrayed as transforming via ritual act? At least three literary traditions must be invoked here: (1) transformation rituals from Egyptian funerary texts, (2) tales of transformation in New Kingdom and Demotic literature, and (3) Homer’s account of the shape-shifter Proteus in book 4 of the Odyssey. Although the discussion of these texts might raise more questions than provide answers, their inclusion is a good starting point given that each in some way played a role in shaping the literary and ritual traditions of transformation and shape-shifting in Upper Egypt, the region from which PGM XIII originated.12

4. Transformation in Egyptian funerary literature Transformation ritual is a staple of funerary literature from the period of the Old Kingdom to Graeco-Roman times, and it is documented in the Pyramid Texts,13 the Coffin Texts,14 the Book of the Dead (Spells 76–88)15 and in at least three GraecoRoman Books of Transformations devoted solely to the deceased’s posthumous transformations.16 A well-known New Kingdom example of a typical scene of transformation of a person’s ba in the realm of the dead is found in the tomb of Paheri at ElKab.17 You come in, you go out, Your heart in joy at the praise of the lord of gods; A good burial after revered old age, After old age has come. You take your place in the lord-of-life [the coffin], You come to the earth in the tomb of the West. 12

BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3415–16 notes that although texts such as PGM XIII 270–77 can be dated palaeographically to the fourth century CE, there is no way of knowing either the source of this ritual or the exact time frame of its composition. 13 MA. SMITH, Traversing Eternity, 610 cites the following transformation spells in the Pyramid Texts: 302, 521, 537, 626–7, 655, 668 and 682, which refer to the king’s posthumous transformation into a falcon, goose, swallow, jackal and scarab beetle. 14 MA. SMITH, Traversing Eternity, 610 notes ‘Utterances relating to the assumption of bird and animal forms by the non-royal deceased are scattered throughout the Coffin Texts as well. This corpus also includes spells that enable them to transform themselves into various deities’, citing BUCHBERGER, Transformation, 82–91 and BARGUET, Textes des sarcophages, 424–563. See also n. 24 below. 15 MA. SMITH, Traversing Eternity, 610 observes that the Book of the Dead groups together rituals of transformation to assume the forms of birds and animals as well as gods. He notes the following in the late Book of the Dead (616): falcon of gold, divine falcon, great one of the council, great god who illuminates the darkness, lotus, Ptah, phoenix, heron, living ba, swallow, son of the earth serpent and Sobek. 16 See MA. SMITH, Traversing Eternity, 610–49. The following transformations appear: text 55 (falcon, phoenix, three kinds of snakes, crocodile and lion?), 56 (scarab beetle, falcon, serpent, phoenix) and 57 (falcon, ibis, phoenix, ba, dog, snake). 17 The translation here is from TAYLOR, Death, 35.

212

Richard Phillips

To become indeed a living ba, It shall thrive on bread, water and air; To assume the form of phoenix (bnw), swallow (mnt), Of falcon (b|k) or heron (Snty), as you wish (pw mr=k). You cross in the ferry without being hindered, You fare on the water’s flowing flood. You come to life a second time, Your ba shall not forsake your corpse. Your ba is divine among the spirits (#X.w), The worthy bas converse with you. You join them to receive what is given on earth, You thrive on water, you breathe air, You drink as your heart desires. Your eyes are given you to see, Your ears to hear what is spoken; Your mouth speaks, your feet walk, Your hands, your arms have motion. Your flesh is firm, your muscles are smooth, You delight in all your limbs; You count your members: all there, sound, There is no fault in what is yours. Your heart is yours in very truth, You have your own, your former heart. You rise to heaven, you open Duat, In any shape (m Xprw nb) you desire (mr.n=k)…

Given the widespread occurrence of transformation in funerary ritual in Upper Egypt, it is not difficult to see why such rituals might be paired with a text like PGM XIII 270–77, if only superficially. First, the concept of the ba transforming into numerous birds (a phoenix, swallow, falcon or heron) is reminiscent of the invocation from PGM XIII 270–77 that promises to alter the shape of its user into potentially a multitude of forms (a wolf, dog, lion, fire, tree, vulture, wall, water or whatever you want), none of which happens to be in common with this particular funerary ritual (or any other). Secondly, language that is open-ended or emphasises personal volition appears in both rituals. In the case of the funerary text, discretion seems to be allowed when it comes to the kind of bird the ba of the dead chooses to become (‘to assume the form of phoenix, swallow, of falcon or heron, as you wish’).18 Later in the text, however, the choice of transformation seems more open-ended and again determined by the ba’s discretion (‘You rise to heaven, you open Duat, in any shape you desire’).19 PGM XIII 270–77 also offers its user open-ended choice in determining the outcome of the transformation (‘Make me become…a wolf, dog, lion, fire, tree, vulture, wall, water or whatever you want’). But are these two intersections, namely the possibility of transform-

18

TYLOR/GRIFFITH, Tomb of Paheri, 29 read pw mr=k, ‘as you wish’. This open-ended line (‘in any shape you desire’) has been reconstructed from other parallels, on which see Urk. IV, 115. Cf. also MA. SMITH, Demotic Mortuary Papyrus, 28 who notes the phrase Xbr nb r mr=f, ‘any form according to his desire’ in P. Louvre E 3452, 1, 2, and Xpr.w nb r Dd |b=f, ‘any form according to the dictate of his heart’ in the Book of the Dead. 19

Traditions of Transformation and Shape-Shifting in PGM XIII 270–77

213

ing into multiple forms and a language of personal choice, enough to link these two textual traditions? There are fundamental differences between the two passages as well. For example, PGM XIII 270–77 is a ritual intended for the living, not the dead. Moreover, the purpose of such a transformation seems to be to achieve anonymity in the land of the living. In contrast, in funerary texts, the dead person’s transformations are often intended ‘to assure his survival and guarantee that he would have the same freedom of movement, physical integrity and security of nourishment he possessed when alive’,20 since such texts are closely linked to the concept of ‘going forth by day’, i.e., leaving the tomb or Underworld and returning to the earth. Moreover, transformations often provide the deceased with an outward sign that connects them more closely to specific deities and their worshippers.21 Thus, transformation into a phoenix (bnw) could be associated with the worship of Re-Harakhti,22 whereas transformation into a falcon (b|k) with that of Horus.23 That such is the intent of the transformations in PGM XIII 270–77 is unlikely. However, it is worth noting that many of the transformations listed therein have precedents in funerary rituals where there occur representations of the dead, sometimes as a deity, in the guise of a wolf (jackal), dog, lion, fire, vulture, etc.24 Nonetheless, the absence of any other text with the sequence of transformations suggested by PGM XIII 270–77 may be explained by the fact that in the context of funerary ritual, transformation is perceived as occurring through the personal discretion of the dead.25 But perhaps the better question is whether any of these transformation rituals intended for the dead were ever used by the living. In considering this question, MARK SMITH writes: There is nothing in the spells themselves to indicate that they were ever employed for such purposes. Nor is there any evidence in any other Egyptian source which would lead one to imagine that this was the case. In these circumstances, the idea that transformation spells were used by the living for their own private purposes can safely be left in the realm of speculation to which it belongs.26

20

MA. SMITH, Traversing Eternity, 614. See MA. SMITH, Traversing Eternity, 615 who also notes that ‘in Egyptian usage, anything which reveals the presence or manifests the power of a god in the visible world can be described as the deity’s ba. The wind, for example, is called the ba of Shu, and the moon the ba of Osiris’. 22 MA. SMITH, Traversing Eternity, 614. 23 MA. SMITH, Traversing Eternity, 615. 24 E.g. wolf/jackal (s#b in CT VI 394d), dog (|w|w in P. Louvre E 3452, col. 7; MA. SMITH, Demotic Mortuary Papyrus, 114–15), lioness (m#t in CT V 399c)/lion (rw in CT I 2b, III 204b, VI 338i), fire (xt in CT VII 487d; sDt in CT VI 271h and VII 162m), vulture (mrt in CT VII 152d and VII 173h; gbg# in CT III 144d and VI 296), etc. One also wonders what associations some of these forms, if any, have to the Thoth cult. For example, dogs and jackals played an important role in it, on which see JASNOW/ZAUZICH, Book of Thoth, 58. 25 MA. SMITH, Traversing Eternity, 616 writes, ‘It is more likely that the order in which transformations were undergone by the dead person was left to his own discretion’, and thus, at least in books of transformations, the sequence of transformations undergone by the dead person is never the same. 26 MA. SMITH, Traversing Eternity, 617. However, this does not exclude the possibility that other funerary rituals elsewhere were being used by the living. RITNER, Mechanics, 63, while discussing 21

214

Richard Phillips

Although SMITH leaves no doubt in his assertion that funerary texts for transformation were reserved for the dead, it still remains unclear what the relationship is, if any, between PGM XIII 270–77 and funerary ritual. The function of PGM XIII 270–77 certainly appears to be different from that of a funerary text. Nonetheless, could it be that some language within the text itself has been shaped by funerary ritual? At the same time, the reference to transformation on the part of the living may signal the influence of Hellenistic tradition, in which living humans (and gods as well) are at times depicted as being able to shape-shift in order to escape. Indeed MARK SMITH has suggested such a line of reasoning while discussing the Roman era Demotic tale of Setna and Siosiris (Setna II, P. Brit.Mus. inv. 604; on which see below),27 which includes the only extant scene from Egyptian literature of a living human who transforms via ritual.

5. Transformation in New Kingdom and Demotic tales The idea that gods or humans could alter their own shapes appears in Egyptian tales from the period of the New Kingdom up to the time of PGM XIII, leading some to speculate whether they are part of an earlier, perhaps oral, tradition.28 In New Kingdom literary accounts, transformation tends to be the prerogative of gods and goddesses and is often achieved without recourse to ritual activity. For example, in the Tale of the Two Brothers,29 dating to the end of the 19th Dynasty (late thirteenth century BCE) and coming from Upper Egypt, two brothers, Anubis and Bata, are at odds with each other because Bata has been accused (wrongly) of making unwanted advances towards Anubis’ wife. There is indeed a strongly mythic undertone to the tale given the association of Anubis’ name with his divine namesake and mortuary deity and the fact that Bata’s name may have associations with Osiris, which is appropriate since Bata castrates himself after his brother accuses him of trying to violate his wife.30 Later in the narrative (14, 5 and 15, 1), following the brothers’ reconciliation, Bata transforms into a bull (k#) so that Anubis can ride upon his back and present the bull to the Pharaoh. the concept of ‘encircling’ (pxr) in the Setna I tale, writes: ‘Setna’s spells are funerary spells used with equal facility by the living, and the pxr involved is not simply figurative, but – as in the case of the mortuary literature from which it derives – represents a fusion of the magician with the god Re in his circuit.’ He also notes (RITNER, Magic, 334) that ‘numerous spells against snakes and scorpions in mortuary literature represent an obvious link to magical practices in daily life’. 27 MA. SMITH, Demotic Mortuary Papyrus, 30 does not reference PGM XIII 270–77 in his discussion (on which see n. 50 below). 28 See HOLLIS, Tales of Magic, 2256 who writes, ‘Because many collections of modern folktales derive from oral sources, the question of an oral-traditional origin for ancient Egyptian tales commonly arises in discussion. Although often mentioned, the subject has been minimally studied…since the level of literacy was no better than one percent in ancient Egypt, presumably a great number of narratives circulated orally, but how close any of the tales we have is to the oral tradition is hard to say.’ See also HOLLIS, ‘Tale of Two Brothers’, 25–7, and WETTENGEL, Erzählung, 1–6. 29 In general see HOLLIS, ‘Tale of Two Brothers’ and WETTENGEL, Erzählung, both of whom offer essential bibliography. 30 HOLLIS, ‘Tale of Two Brothers’, 49, 66–7; and HOLLIS, Tales of Magic, 2258.

Traditions of Transformation and Shape-Shifting in PGM XIII 270–77

215

This transformation, however, is not the result of any ritual act or invocation. When the bull is sacrificed, two drops of its blood hit the ground and Bata is again transformed, this time into two persea trees (16, 10–17, 1),31 and again, without ritual activity. Eventually, when the Pharaoh’s wife orders these trees to be cut down, she is impregnated by a splinter and Bata is reborn as the new crown prince.32 Whereas the Tale of the Two Brothers provides scenes of transformation in which a character like Bata (whose name is also associated with that of a local Middle Egyptian deity) transforms seemingly by his own intrinsic power, another Egyptian tale features a scene that portrays an individual deity employing Hk# to transform and achieve anonymity. Within the text of the New Kingdom tale Horus and Seth,33 which dates to the reign of Ramses V (1160–1156 BCE) and comes from Thebes, the primeval story of the struggle between Horus and Seth for the kingship of Egypt is retold. Here, the goddess Isis, while trying to gain access to the other gods (and to Seth, in particular) tricks the ferryman Nemty by transforming herself into an old woman who walks with a stoop. After bribing Nemty with a signet ring of gold, Isis is ferried across to the Island-in-the-midst where she proceeds to transform herself into a young girl with a beautiful body: wn.|n=s Hr Snty m Hk#=s |w=s |r.t Xpr.w=s m wo(.t) Sr|(.t) nfr.t m Ho.w=s Then she conjured by means of her magic, and she made her transformation into a young girl with a beautiful body.34

Although Isis is a deity and not human, if the focus remains on her intent and actions, what she does is not altogether different from what PGM XIII 270–77 promises. Certainly, she achieves anonymity in the presence of others by way of ritual invocation,35 though she does not transform into a non-human nor an inanimate form.36 This text thus seems to give us an earlier Egyptian example that is not necessarily linked to 31

On the persea tree (S#w#b), see MANNICHE, Egyptian Herbal, 121–2. It is worth noting that a late form of this myth written in hieroglyphics survives in the Papyrus Jumilhac, dating to the early Ptolemaic Period with sections likely based on older models, on which see QUACK, Corpus oder membra disiecta. For the text itself, see VANDIER, Papyrus Jumilhac. HOLLIS, ‘Tale of Two Brothers’, 47–8 and 171–6 includes related sections in English. Within this version, there are numerous transformation scenes where gods take on the appearance of other gods, but also transform into a variety of forms, e.g. a bull (k#), a dog (Tzmt), a panther (#bj) and a snake (Hf#w). Such transformations, however, are typically achieved by the power of the gods themselves and not because of ritual act or invocation. 33 For the Egyptian text, see GARDINER, Late-Egyptian Stories, 37–60a; for an English translation, see LICHTHEIM, Egyptian Literature II, 214–23. See also RITNER, Mechanics, 32, n. 143. 34 This is RITNER’s translation (RITNER, Mechanics, 32). 35 Here I follow DE. COLLINS, Magic in the Ancient, 27–9 who in a Greek context opts to focus on practice instead of terminology and thus, does not distinguish between Hk# as practiced by gods and goddesses as opposed to men. 36 Regarding the tendency of gods not to become inanimate objects, IRVING, Metamorphosis, 263 rather specifically highlights that ‘gods never transform themselves into trees as they do into animals and birds’. In response, BUXTON, Forms, 228, without accepting IRVING’s assertion, notes, ‘The logic here may be that immovability and, literally, rootedness of a tree or plant would represent an unacceptable degree of constraint or limitation upon divine power.’ 32

216

Richard Phillips

a funerary context,37 in which transformation, achieved by way of Hk#,38 allows for anonymity before others. Here, the use of Hk# to achieve transformation (and hence, anonymity) seems to be a folktale motif, but one with distinctly Egyptian colouring.39 If we turn to later Demotic tales, we encounter what has been identified as the only reference in the entire body of Egyptian texts of a living human assuming non-human form.40 In the seemingly Greek-influenced41 Demotic tale of Setna and Siosiris (Setna II, P. Brit.Mus. inv. 604)42 from the first or second century CE, Siosiris, as embedded narrator, recounts the story of a ‘magical’ contest between two ritual experts, the Egyptian Horus-son-of-Paneshe43 and Horus-son-of-the-Nubian-woman, a Nubian chieftain.44 This battle ensues only after the Nubian’s attacks against Pharaoh are thwarted and he (accompanied by his mother) travels down to the Egyptian court where Horus-son-of-Paneshe gets the better of him. While trying to escape, the Nubian casts a big cloud (Hsys o#)45 on the Pharaoh’s court by means of a spell (sp n Hyq n sx),46 so that no man is able to see his brother or his companion,47 at which point Ho-

37

However, RITNER, Mechanics, 32, n. 143, citing transformation scenes that employ ‘positive’ Hk#, notes a similar usage even in funerary papyri. 38 Although Hk# is mentioned, no invocation or ritual is said to be used. At the same time, Hk# by itself is often associated with spoken or written words, on which see RITNER, Mechanics, 35–6. 39 Indeed, motifs of transformation similar to the ones in the tale of Horus and Seth commonly appear in folktales from a number of other cultures. For similar motifs of transformation in other tales, see S. THOMPSON, Motif-Index II, 1–31, in particular section D40 (transformation to likeness of another person), D40.2 (transformation to likeness of another woman), D42 (god in guise of mortal), D49 (transformation to likeness of another person), D52 (magic change to different appearance), D56 (magic change in person’s age), D56.1 (transformation to older person), etc. 40 MA. SMITH, Demotic Mortuary Papyrus, 29. 41 See MA. SMITH, Demotic Mortuary Papyrus, 30, n. 2 and LICHTHEIM, Egyptian Literature III, 126 who cite Hellenistic influences in this account. QUACK, Einführung, 42 points to a ‘TantalosMotiv’ in this tale. Visits to the Netherworld, in general, are indeed portrayed in earlier Egyptian texts, such as Papyrus Vandier, on which see QUACK, Quelques apports, 69–74. 42 See GRIFFITH, Stories, 142–207 (transliteration and English translation); LICHTHEIM, Egyptian Literature III, 138–51 (English translation); QUACK in HOFFMANN/QUACK, Anthologie, 118–37 (German translation); and QUACK, Einführung, 34–48. For an introductory bibliography, see HOFFMANN/QUACK, Anthologie, 340; DEPAUW, Companion, 87; and RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice, 3344–5. HOLLIS, Tales of Magic, 2261–2 provides a brief overview. For a discussion of the text and its relationship to the PGM, see DIELEMAN, Priests, 234–8; cf. also the contribution by F. NAETHER in this volume. RITNER, Egyptian Magical Practice, 3344 assigns this text to the area of Krokodilopolis, near Gebelein in Upper Egypt. 43 Horus-son-of-Paneshe is called a ‘magician/ritual expert of the Pharaoh’ (Hry-tp n Pr-o#) in Setna II 5,10–11. See CDD, H 211, s.v. Hr-tb. For Egyptian terms identifying the figure of the magician, see RITNER, Mechanics, 220–21. 44 Setna II 3, 13 and passim; CDD, # 105, s.v. #t¥ n |gS translates ‘Nubian rebel’. 45 See CDD, H 264, s.v. Hsys, and ERICHSEN, Demotisches Glossar, 332, s.v. Hsjs. GRIFFITH, Stories, 197 translates ‘a great covering (?)’, LICHTHEIM, Egyptian Literature III, 149 ‘a big cloud’, HOFFMANN/QUACK, Anthologie, 135 ‘eine große Wolke (?)’. 46 On this phrase and similar ones, see RITNER, Mechanics, 68–9 and n. 311. 47 In particular, see Setna II, 6, 16 in LICHTHEIM, Egyptian Literature III, 149: ‘The Nubian did another feat of sorcery (sp n Hyq n sx): he cast a big cloud on the court, so that no man could see his

Traditions of Transformation and Shape-Shifting in PGM XIII 270–77

217

rus-son-of-Paneshe immediately uses a ritual formula and makes the cloud disappear. At last, when the Nubian chieftain sees that he is unable to contend with the Egyptian, he does a feat of sorcery (sp n Hyq sx) in order to become invisible and escape to Nubia.48 However, the Egyptian is able to reverse the spell, allowing the Pharaoh’s court to see the Nubian, who apparently was attempting to escape in the guise of a wild gander (Hp) (or perhaps just a bird, |pt, as some have suggested).49 In the end, however, to achieve safe passage the Nubian chieftain agrees to stay out of Egypt for the next 1500 years. It is only after Siosiris finishes telling this tale that he reveals to the court that he is in fact Horus-son-of-Paneshe, sent in the guise of Siosiris by Osiris to expose and defeat the renewed threats of Horus-son-of-the-Nubian-woman (see Table 1). In contrast to the Tale of the Two Brothers and the tale of Horus and Seth, here at last we see a living person who turns to ritual acts in order to achieve transformation and avoid the perceptions of others. The Nubian chieftain, realizing that he cannot contend with Horus-son-of-Paneshe, uses just such a ritual to transform himself. Although his effort to fly away and escape is foiled by Horus-son-of-Paneshe, who not surprisingly demonstrates that he is the superior magician, such tales allow us to get closer to the mindset of PGM XIII 270–77, which echoes the world of practitioners who turn to ritual action to transform as a way of escaping an unfavourable situation. In the end, however, we are left to wonder if this particular escape scene utilizing transformation is indebted to Hellenistic influences. MARK SMITH sees the utilitarian function of transformation, here with its emphasis on escape, as indicative of possible Greek colouring.50 Yet, if the transformation scene in the tale of Horus and Seth is accepted as precedent, it challenges the idea that achieving anonymity by way of transformation came about for the living as a result of Greek influence alone.51

brother or his companion.’ See also GRIFFITH, Stories, 196–7 and HOFFMANN/QUACK, Anthologie, 135. 48 See Setna II 6, 21–3 in LICHTHEIM, Egyptian Literature III, 149: ‘Then the chieftain of Nubia knew that he could not contend with the Egyptian. He did a feat of sorcery so as to become invisible in the court, in order to escape to the land of Nubia, his home. Horus-son-of-Paneshe recited a spell against him, revealed the sorceries of the Nubian, and let him be seen by Pharaoh and the people of Egypt who stood in the court: he had assumed the shape of a wild gander and was about to depart.’ See also GRIFFITH, Stories, 198–201 and HOFFMANN/QUACK, Anthologie, 135. 49 The reading of the text here is disputed. ERICHSEN, Demotisches Glossar, 302 suggests the possibility of reading |pt instead of GRIFFITH’s Hp. For a more in-depth discussion, see HOFFMANN, Einige Bemerkungen, 13–14. Cf. also CDD, H 106, s.v. Hp. 50 MA. SMITH, Demotic Mortuary Papyrus, 30 writes, ‘But some episodes of this narrative have been influenced by Greek mythology, and one cannot be certain that the episode about the transformation of the Nubian and his mother is not one of them. I, myself, am inclined to think that it is, since these transformations have nothing of the religious character which one associates with Egyptian belief about transformation, but are undergone for a purely utilitarian reason (and, moreover, an evil one: to escape the justified wrath of the Egyptian king and his people).’ 51 For other potential contexts for the use of rituals meant to achieve anonymity in the GraecoEgyptian papyri, see R. PHILLIPS, Invisibility, 31–44.

218

Richard Phillips

6. Proteus in Egypt: the motif of transformation and shape-shifting in Greek literature Ritual texts can present a busy intersection of cultural influence,52 and it is possible to explore the transformations of PGM XIII 270–77 in light not only of Egyptian texts, but also of Greek texts and ideas. Beginning with Homer, we encounter representations of individuals like Proteus, whom Homer depicts as being at the margins of society. Possessing ‘baneful knowledge’ (ὀλοφώια εἰδώς, Hom. Od. 4.460) and ‘crafty skill’ (δολίης...τέχνης, Hom. Od. 4.455), he avoids capture with his ability to shapeshift.53 Outside of the mythical and divine realm, one occasionally encounters the belief in the Mediterranean world that some individuals could actually achieve such acts of transformation. For example, Herodotus reports that once a year everyone from the northern tribe of Neurians becomes a wolf for a few days (4.105), simultaneously connecting these acts of lycanthropy with those of the γόητες.54 Similarly, in Plato’s Republic (380d) shape-shifting is said to be within the domain of the γόης.55 Moreover in Roman times figures like Apollonius of Tyana and Jesus of Nazareth, were also credited with similar acts. Philostratus in his Life of Apollonius of Tyana (1.4) says that before Apollonius was born the φάσμα, ‘ghost’, of Proteus, calling himself an Egyptian god, appeared to Apollonius’ mother and essentially proclaimed that her son

52 ROSALDO, Culture & Truth, 17. Cf. DE. COLLINS, Magic in the Ancient, 2, who writes that ‘Magic is a busy intersection, to borrow from a classic anthropological statement about ritual, and as such there are always different religious, social, cultural, and performative routes that have to be pursued in explaining it.’ 53 Numerous other shape-shifters are similarly depicted in Greek sources, including Periklymenos, Thetis, Metis, Nemesis and Dionysos: see IRVING, Metamorphosis, 171–94 and BUXTON, Forms, 168–77. 54 κινδυνεύουσι δὲ οἱ ἄνθρωποι οὗτοι γόητες εἶναι. (2) λέγονται γὰρ ὑπὸ Σκυθέων καὶ Ἑλλήνων τῶν ἐν τῇ Σκυθικῇ κατοικημένων ὡς ἔτεος ἐκάστου ἅπαξ τῶν Νευρῶν ἕκαστος λύκος γίνεται ἡμέρας ὀλίγας καὶ αὖτις ὀπίσω ἐς τὠυτὸ κατίσταται. ἐμὲ μέν νυν ταῦτα λέγοντες οὐ πείθουσι, λέγουσι δὲ οὐδὲν ἧσσον, καὶ ὀμνῦσι δὲ λέγοντες. ‘These men run a risk of being reputed magicians. For the Skythians and Greeks who live in Skythia say that once each year each of the Neurians becomes a wolf for a few days and turns back again into the same form. They do not persuade me when they say this, but they say it nevertheless and swear by it’. For more examples of lycanthropy in Greek and Roman literature, see VEENSTRA, Ever-Changing Nature. On the figure of the γόης in general, see GRAF, Magic, 24 (a goes is a composite figure that combines ecstasy with ritual lament, healing and divination, whose art Plato connects with the activities of magi, seers and initiators); also JOHNSTON, Restless Dead, 82–123; DICKIE, Magic and Magicians, 13–14; DE. COLLINS, Magic in the Ancient, 58–9. 55 ἆρα γόητα τὸν θεὸν οἴει εἶναι καὶ οἷον ἐξ ἐπιβουλῆς φαντάζεσθαι ἄλλοτε ἐν ἄλλαις ἰδέαις τοτὲ μὲν αὐτὸν γιγνόμενον, καὶ ἀλλάττοντα τὸ αὑτοῦ εἶδος εἰς πολλὰς μορφάς, τοτὲ δὲ ἡμᾶς ἀπατῶντα καὶ ποιοῦντα περὶ αὑτοῦ τοιαῦτα δοκεῖν, ἢ ἁπλοῦν τε εἶναι καὶ πάντων ἥκιστα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἰδέας ἐκβαίνειν; ‘Do you think that God is a sorcerer and capable of manifesting himself deceptively, sometimes in one form, sometimes in another, at one time transforming and changing his appearance into many forms and at another deceiving us and causing us to think such things about him or (do you think) that he is only one form and is least likely of all (beings) to step out of his own form?’

Traditions of Transformation and Shape-Shifting in PGM XIII 270–77

219

would be another Proteus. In the Gospel of Luke (24:15–16),56 Jesus keeps two people on the road to Emmaus from recognizing him, and in the later Acts of John (88–9) the apostle John recounts how he and James often saw Jesus, but at times the image that each perceived was different.57 It is quite possible that PGM XIII 270–77 has been influenced by the shape-shifting scene of Proteus in Homer’s Odyssey, since it is referenced elsewhere in the magical corpus. In PGM IV 940 (fourth century CE), part of a hymn, embedded within a ritual from Thebes entitled αὔτοπτος, ‘A Charm that produces a direct vision’,58 reveals knowledge of this Homeric scene. O’NEIL, following PREISENDANZ, says of PGM IV 940 that it is ‘An adaptation of Hom. Od. 4.458, which in the context of the spell indicates that the author knew not only the Homeric verse but the whole passage as well’:59 χαῖρε, δράκων60 ἀκμαῖέ τε λέων, φυσικαὶ πυρὸς ἀρχαί, χαῖρε δέ, λευκόν ὕδωρ καὶ δένδρεον ὑψιπετήλον… Hail, serpent and stout lion, natural source of fire. / And hail, clear water and lofty-leafed tree… 56

15. καὶ ἐγενέτο ἐν τῷ ὁμιλεῖν αὐτοὺς καὶ συζητεῖν καὶ αὐτὸς Ἰησοῦς ἐγγίσας συνεπορεύετο αὐτοῖς, 16. οἱ δὲ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῶν ἐκρατοῦντο τοῦ μὴ ἐπιγνῶναι αὐτόν. ‘15. And it happened that while they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, 16. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him’. 57 88. ὅτε γὰρ ἐξελέξατο Πέτρον καὶ Ἀνδρέαν ἀδελφοὺς ὄντας, ἔρχεται πρός με καὶ τὸν ἀδελφόν μου Ἰάκωβον εἰπών· χρῄζω ὑμῶν, ἔλθατε πρός με. καὶ ὁ ἀδελφός μου τοῦτο εἶπεν· Ἰωάννη, τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ αἰγιαλοῦ καλέσαν ἡμᾶς τί βούλεται; κἀγὼ εἶπον· ποῖον παιδίον; ὃ δέ μοι πάλιν· τὸ νεῦον ἡμῖν. κἀγὼ ἀπεκρινάμην. διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἡμῶν ἀγρυπνίαν τὴν κατὰ θάλασσαν γεγονυῖαν οὐ σὺ ὁρᾷς ἀδελφέ μου Ἰάκωβε; οὐχ ὁρᾷς δὲ τὸν ἑστῶτα ἄνδρα εὔμορφον καλὸν ἱλαροπρόσωπον; ὃ δέ μοι εἶπεν· τούτου οὐχ ὁρῶ ἀδελφέ· ἀλλ’ ἐξέλθωμε καὶ ὀψόμεθα τὸ τί βούλεται. 89. καὶ οὕτως σιγῇ τὸ πλοῖον ἀγαγόντες εἴδομεν καὶ αὐτὸν ἅμα ἡμῖν βοηθοῦντα ὅπως τὸ πλοῖον ἑδράσωμεν. ὡς δὲ ἀπέστημεν τοῦ τόπου αὐτῷ βουληθέντες ὅπεσθαι, πάλιν ὤφθη ἐμοὶ ὑπόψιλον ἔχων, τὸ δὲ γένειον δασὶν καταγόμενον, τῷ δὲ Ἰακώβῳ ἀρχιγένειος νεανίσκος. ἠποροῦμεν οὖν ἀμφότεροι ὅ τι βούλεται τὸ ὁραθὲν ἡμῖν. ‘88. For when he had chosen Peter and Andrew, whο were brοthers, he (Jesus) comes to me (John) and my brother James, saying: “I have need of you, come to me.” And my brother said: “John, what does this child who called us on the sea shore want?” And I said: “What child?” And he said to me again: “The one who nods to us.” And I answered: “Because of our lengthy watch at sea, do you not see, my brother James? But do you not see the man who is standing there, of good form, handsome and with a happy countenance?” But he (James) said to me: “Him I do not see, brother; but let us go forth and we shall see what he wants.” 89. And so after bringing the ship (to shore) in silence, we also saw him with us as he was helping to steady(?) the ship: and when we were away from that place, wishing to follow him, again he appeared to me (John) as being somewhat bald, but with a thick and flowing beard, but he appeared to James as a youth with the new growth of a beard. And so we both were perplexed as to what that which we had seen meant…’ For the Greek text, see LIPSIUS/BONNET (eds.), Acta Apostolorum II.1, 194. There is also a scene in an Arabic fragment of the Medieval Jewish anti-gospel known as the Toledot Yeshu in which Jesus temporarily escapes from his captors by transforming into a bird and then a rooster before flying up to Mount Carmel, on which see PIOVANELLI, Toledot Yeshu, 93. 58 This spell is discussed in more detail in the contribution by S. NAGEL in this volume. 59 For O’NEIL’s quote, see GMPT, 56, n. 132, here following PREISENDANZ’s app. crit. in PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae I, 104. 60 WESSELY, Griechische Zauberpapyrus, 68 reads δρακων, though the papyrus reads αρακων.

220

Richard Phillips

Let us compare the lines to Hom. Od. 4.456–8: ἀλλ’ ἦ τοι πρώτιστα λέων γένετ’ ἠυγένειος, / αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα δράκων καὶ πάρδαλις ἠδὲ μέγας σῦς· / γίγνετο δ’ ὑγρὸν ὕδωρ καὶ δένδρεον ὑψιπέτηλον. But first of all, he turned into a bearded lion, but then a serpent and a leopard and a large boar; then he turned into flowing water and a lofty-leafed tree.

The hymn retains the first (albeit in reverse order) and last two transformations of the Homeric shape-shifting list, even adopting a Homeric adjective. O’NEIL is correct to point to the immediate divinatory context of the Homeric passage which suggests that the author was familiar with the context of the passage. PGM XIII 274–5 not only utilises one of the most common Greek verbs for shapeshifting (γίγνομαι),61 already present in the Homeric text (ll. 4.417, 456), but also shares three of the Homeric transformations from lines 456–8 (lion, water, tree) and a fourth (fire) from line 418. This said, there are difficulties with the hypothesis that PGM XIII 270–77 is derived from this Homeric passage: the text does not retain any characteristic Homeric noun phrases nor the Homeric form for tree (δένδρεον); it never claims that the practitioner is going to shape-shift rapidly into multiple forms, as Proteus and other shape-shifters do; it does not reproduce the same sequence of transformations, and the particular transformations as dog, vulture, wall and wolf are not only absent from this passage, but also from the best known shape-shifting scenes from Greek literature. Could these transformations then point to an Egyptian source for this shape-shifting list?62 However, such transformations (as well as the others in PGM XIII 270–77) do appear individually in other scenes of transformation in Greek and Roman literature.63 Because the order of transformations does not seem to be following a particular text, PGM XIII 270–77 is reminiscent of transformation rituals from the Graeco-Roman Books of Transformations, which feature great variability, perhaps because such episodes of transformation emanate from personal volition. 61

See IRVING, Metamorphosis, 171, as well as BUXTON’s corrective (BUXTON, Forms, 169). See n. 24 above. Vultures also played an important role in Egypt and, in particular, in Upper Egypt where the tutelary deity was the vulture goddess Nekhbet, on which see HOULIHAN, Birds, 40– 43. Moreover, they also appear in other Egyptian literary accounts pertaining to Thoth, e.g. the Book of Thoth, on which see JASNOW/ZAUZICH, Conversations, 30, 48, and 174–87. See, in particular, the discussion by LEITZ, Geierweibchen. 63 Selected examples include the following: wolf (Hermes-Thoth in PGM VIII 11; Moeris in Verg. Ecl. 8.95–9), dog (sagae mulieres in Apul. Met. 2.22), lion (Proteus in Hom. Od. 4.456; Ov. Met. 8.732; Ov. Ars am. 1.762; Luc. DMar. 4.1; Periklymenos in Apollod. Bibl. 1.9.9; Dionysos in Eur. Bacch. 1019; Ant.Lib. 10; Nonn. Dion. 40.44–5), fire (Proteus in Hom. Od. 4.418; Verg. Georg. 4.442; Ov. Met. 8.736–7; Luc. DMar. 4.1 and Luc. Peregr. 1; Thetis in Apollod. Bibl. 3.13.5 and Q.S. 3.620; Dionysos in Nonn. Dion. 40.49), tree (Proteus in Hom. Od. 4.458; Ov. Met. 8.735; Ov. Ars am. 1.762; Luc. DMar. 4.1; Thetis in Ov. Met. 11.244), vulture (Agrius in Ant.Lib. 21 – said to be derived from Boeus’ Origins of Birds, Book 2), wall (Lucius in Apul. Met. 2.1, upon arriving in Thessaly and envisioning the objects of the inanimate world around him as if everything were the result of transformation, fears that even the walls [parietes] might begin to speak) or water (Proteus in Hom. Od. 4.418, 458; Ov. Met. 8.736; Luc. DMar. 4.1, and as such is at times portrayed as a flowing river, as in Hom. Od. 4.458; Verg. Georg. 4.442; Ov. Met. 8.737; Thetis in Apollod. Bibl., 3.13.5 and Q.S. 3.619; Dionysos in Nonn. Dion. 40.56). 62

Traditions of Transformation and Shape-Shifting in PGM XIII 270–77

221

Thus, it is difficult to say whether PGM XIII 270–77 has been influenced by the Proteus shape-shifting scene from the Odyssey or by any other specific text at all. Most likely, its author would have had general knowledge of ‘Greek-inspired’ figures with the ability to shape-shift according to desire, including Proteus. At the same time, one would presume that the original author of the text would have played to the expectations of his audience, whether such expectations had been influenced by literary accounts or folktales, shaped by the audience’s knowledge of the local environment or inspired by representations of this environment in iconography. Whether it has inspired PGM XIII 270–77 or not, the appearance of the Proteus myth in PGM IV 940 is significant since it reveals not only that an Egyptian priest had knowledge of a Greek shape-shifting myth, but also that fragments of such diction could at times actually find their way into ritual invocations from Thebes. Although the use of Homeric lines in a ritual context is well attested,64 outside of the magical corpus such lines also appear in ritual contexts as a means for achieving anonymity. Apollonius of Tyana, whose name is mentioned in PGM XIa (cited above), is depicted as vanishing immediately after Domitian requests a private audience with him.65 Though seemingly no spell of invisibility is mentioned, Apollonius disappears only after quoting line 13 from book 22 of Homer’s Iliad – where Apollo, in the guise of Agenor, utters this line to Achilles in hot pursuit, after which he escapes. The use of this Homeric line in a ritual context for achieving invisibility highlights the fact that such texts, or at least parts of Homer, could be employed in the context of someone trying to go unnoticed, which is indeed what PGM XIII 270–77 seems to be trying to achieve, if it is seeking anonymity for the living. But perhaps we should ask, ‘How is it possible to know with certainty that PGM XIII 270–77 is to be used by the living and is not simply a funerary ritual intended for the dead?’

7. Transformation and rituals for achieving anonymity in the PGM If transformation is to be better understood in the context of the PGM, we must consider the broader genre to which such rituals belong, namely those whose intent is to achieve anonymity. Such a discussion is relevant, since the corpus of Graeco-Egyptian magical texts includes a handful of rituals that promise to extend anonymity. In most cases these rituals involve the attainment of invisibility. In a number of rituals, the goal of the practitioner is not so much to make the participant disappear as to affect the perceptions of others, and in this way grant the practitioner a degree of invisibility.66 P. Oxy. 3931, for example, summons an unnamed deity to ‘dim the eyes’ of others so that the person using the spell can go unnoticed. In other cases, however, the formulation of invisibility is not clearly articulated. Thus, in 64

SCHWENDNER, Homer’s Spell, 107–18, and DE. COLLINS, Magic in the Ancient, 104–31. Philostr. VA 8.5. 66 See LIDONNICI, Disappearing Magician, 228–30 and R. PHILLIPS, Invisibility, 23–30; PEASE, Some Aspects, 10–11 discusses various depictions of invisibility as they are reflected in primarily Greek and Latin sources. 65

222

Richard Phillips

PGM I 222–31 Helios is invoked (most likely as the one whose excessive light blinds or the absence of whose light makes perceiving difficult), but instructions are also given for a mixture to be used for anointing (and perhaps camouflaging) the body. Closely related to this text is PGM I 247–62, which similarly prescribes a recipe for making a balm, but with an invocation that instead is directed towards infernal demons. PGM VII 619–22, proclaiming itself to be from a work entitled The Diadem of Moses, promises invisibility to the practitioner who invokes Hebrew-inspired sacred names and places dog’s head plant under his tongue while asleep. Lastly, PGM XIII is a lengthy ritual that culminates with the revelation of a sacred name and then presents a series of rituals in which the name can be employed, three of which, I would argue, relate to the desire for invisibility or anonymity. Two of these involve the sun, the first providing directions for a gilded falcon’s egg amulet, and the second being an invocation (addressed to the sun disk itself) that summons darkness. PGM XIII 270–77 follows closely upon the latter, and its title (ἄλλως) would seem to connect it directly to the preceding invisibility ritual. From the outset, however, it should be acknowledged that there has always been some question as to how closely PGM XIII 270–77 should be linked to the genre of invisibility rituals and in particular to the invisibility ritual that precedes it (PGM XIII 267–70).67 EITREM,68 for example, did not consider the two to be linked, arguing instead that PGM XIII 270–77 relates to changing one’s form, which to EITREM (and others) is clearly to be distinguished from a ritual for invisibility. While parsing out this distinction, he suggests emending the title of PGM XIII 270–77 to ἀλλοωσ, ‘(A ritual for) transformation’. The somewhat ambivalent title of the text, ἄλλως, certainly leaves room for interpretation. Does it pick up on the preceding ritual, hence implying ‘another way of becoming invisible’, or does it simply mean ‘another way for using the sacred name revealed in the rite’? Arguments can be made for either case. Another problem is that the prepositional phrase ἐν ὄμμασι in line 275 of our text, which is paralleled by similar restrictive or limiting prepositional phrases in other invisibility rituals, is not the reading of the papyrus, but an emendation.69 Although scholars like EITREM are quick to differentiate acts of transformation from acts of invisibility, in the context of the Graeco-Egyptian papyri it seems as if both kinds of rituals seek to achieve anonymity for the practitioner, only in different ways. Elsewhere in PGM XIII transformation is associated with the language of invisibility. In lines 69–71, for example, the creator god who has the ability to transform is called invisible: σοὶ πάντα ὑποτέτακται, οὗ οὐδεὶς θεῶν δύναται | ἰδεῖν τὴν ἀληθινὴν μορφήν. ὁ μεταμορφούμενος | εἰς πάντας, ἀόρατος εἶ Αἰὼν Αἰῶνος.

67

PGM XIII 267–9 is entitled ἀβλεψίας δὲ ὅυτως, ‘And (a spell) of invisibility (lit. blindness) (is) as follows’. 68 EITREM, Varia, 176. 69 See n. 2 above. The word ὄμμα, more commonly a poetic word (LSJ, s.v. ὄμμα), appears throughout the PGM, although this particular prepositional phrase is without parallel. Cf. its use elsewhere in the PGM with the preposition κατά (PGM IV 2599 and 2661).

Traditions of Transformation and Shape-Shifting in PGM XIII 270–77

223

Everything is subservient to you, whose true form none of the gods can see. You, who are transformed into all forms, are invisible, Aion of Aion.

Although there is variation in how anonymity is to be achieved, transformation seems to be viewed as a kind of invisibility. Returning to the tale of Setna and Siosiris, we recall that the Nubian Chieftain employs a ritual (sp n Hyq sx) that turns him into a wild gander (or bird). He does so in order to become invisible, i.e. not to be seen, at the court (r tm t| nw=f r.r=f n p# wrX) and escape to Nubia. The act of transformation is depicted as an act of invisibility or of being not seen. If PGM XIII 270–77 is to be viewed as an invisibility ritual, one must wonder if it shares a similar kind of logic with the other rituals in this genre. As noted earlier, invisibility in the papyri can often have more to do with altering the perceptions of others than with modifying the form of the practitioner. If for a moment we set aside the notion that such texts were merely marketing hooks to reel in customers or simply fictions (after all, who can actually transform their body into another shape?),70 it is possible to see how such texts might be targeting the perceptions of others. Although the papyri do not document other examples of human transformation, literary accounts from the same era do at times represent transformation as being in the eyes of the beholder. In the early fourth century, for example, Palladius of Galatia in his Lausiac History (17.6–9),71 a repository of accounts of Egyptian monks, tells a story in which a magician (γόης) transforms a man’s wife into a mare—which is not, of course, the same thing as transforming oneself into a mare! When she is led into the desert to the holy man Makarios, the saint chastises the husband saying: ἵπποι ὑμεῖς ἐστέ, οἱ τῶν ἵππων ἔχοντες τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς. ἐκείνη γὰρ γυνή ἐστι, μὴ μετασχηματισθεῖσα, ἀλλ’ ἤ μόνον ἐν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς τῶν ἠπατημένων. You (pl.) are horses, who have the eyes of horses. For she is a woman, who has not been changed in form, but rather (has been changed in form) only in the eyes of those who have been deceived.

In short, the wife is perceived by others as being transformed into a horse when in reality this is not at all the case. The notion that anonymity could be achieved by altering the perceptions of others appears in other ancient sources.72 Of course, there would 70 Concerning the former, LIDONNICI, Disappearing Magician, 235 writes ‘It is legitimate to ask who really was supposed to be impressed by the rhetorical frames that surround some of these spells when they appear in formularies, and whether the function of some of the truly amazing and farfetched applications in a formulary might not reflect the traffic in more practical spells and their ingredients, and work to enhance the value of the others, justifying higher cost for the directions or the substances needed for, e.g., the basic fever amulet or erotic binding spell.’ Along these same lines, LIDONNICI, Disappearing Magician, 228, wonders whether invisibility rituals from the PGM ‘belong with the large group of surprising but imaginable rituals and prayers, or with the much smaller group of completely amazing and one might almost say “impossible” texts with which the PGM corpus is peppered’. 71 BUTLER, Lausiac History II, 45–6. See also FRANKFURTER, Perils. 72 As early as Homer we find the goddess Athena distracting the attention of Penelope after Eurykleia sees Odysseus’ scar and tries to get her attention to reveal his identity (Hom. Od. 19.476–9). For other examples, see R. PHILLIPS, Invisibility, 29, n. 132. In later works, such as Luc. DMar. 4, Menelaos tells Proteus regarding his shape-shifting, εἶδον καὶ αὐτός· ἀλλά μοι δοκεῖς – γοητείαν τινὰ

224

Richard Phillips

have, no doubt, been a spectrum of beliefs regarding the efficacy of such rituals and how, if at all, such outcomes could be achieved. Certainly, there were also stories in circulation that suggested that actual transformation could be achieved.73

8. Conclusion: transformation in the context of PGM XIII 270–77 Anyone who reads PGM XIII (1–343) will be struck by its complexity. The primary goal of this rather intricate text is to summon a great god to provide a sacred name that the practitioner can use to avoid a multitude of potential evils. This discussion has focused on PGM XIII 270–77, a ritual for transformation. Because it is the only transformation ritual from the corpus, it has been necessary to explore other literary traditions, both Hellenistic and Egyptian, to see what light they might shed on this text and more generally on contemporary transformation ritual and practices in Upper Egypt.74 Such representations appear in earlier Egyptian funerary and folktale literature as well as shape-shifting scenes from Greek literature – all of which were known to the region of Thebes, the provenance of this text. In the tradition of funerary rituals, PGM XIII 270–77 allows its user a degree of freedom in choosing a new form. However, unlike Egyptian funerary practice, where προσάγειν τῷ πράγματι καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐξαπατᾶν τῶν ὁρώντων αὐτὸς οὐδὲν τοιοῦτο γιγνόμενος, ‘I too saw it. But you seem to me – for I will give you my opinion on the matter – to be employing an act of magic and deceiving the eyes of onlookers, but in reality transforming into no such form’. Proteus in turn suggests that Menelaos believes his transformations are mere illusions (φαντασία) before his eyes. A number of Christian authors also credit such ritual acts to fraud (THEE, Julius Africanus, 394–5) as well as demonic deception (see Augustinus’ treatment of the topic at De civ. Dei 18.18, and VEENSTRA, Ever-Changing Nature, 144–6). There are also examples where the perceptions of the person who has been transformed have also been altered, something that is slightly different. Perhaps most relevant to the Palladius example is Servius’ retelling of the story of the daughters of Proetus in which Juno is depicted as causing them to think they are cows when actually they are not (Serv. Ecl. 6.48): illa irata hunc errorem earum inmisit mentibus, ut se putantes vaccas in saltus abirent et plerumque mugirent et timerent aratra, ‘She (Juno) in her anger put this illusion into their minds so that they should think they were heifers, go off into wooded-pastures, moo often and be fearful of ploughs’. 73 As e.g. the transformation of Ocyrhoë into a mare (Ov. Met. 2.663). In this case transformation is also not achieved by ritual activity or intrinsic power, though such arts are alluded to elsewhere in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. For example, in the discourse of Pythagoras (Ov. Met. 15.356–60) we are told that Hyperborean males and Scythian women turn to ritual practice to transform into birds (esse viros fama est in Hyperborea Pallene, / qui soleant levibus velari corpora plumis, / cum Tritoniacam noviens subiere paludem; / haut equidem credo: sparsae quoque membra venenis / exercere artes Scythides memorantur easdem, ‘There is a story of men in Hyperborean Pallene whose bodies are accustomed to be covered with light feathers, when they have plunged nine times into Tritonia’s pool; for my part I do not believe it. Scythian women are also said to practice the same arts, after sprinkling their limbs with magical potions’. Proteus is also represented as having the intrinsic power to shapeshift (Ov. Met. 8.730–31). 74 In doing so I have drawn from Greek and Egyptian literary traditions, while hopefully not neglecting the synchronous aspects of PGM XIII 270–77. I have also tried to avoid the pitfall of only exploring the Greek and Egyptian divide, on which see QUACK, Einführung, 198.

Traditions of Transformation and Shape-Shifting in PGM XIII 270–77

225

the bas of the dead are depicted as transforming to achieve safe passage in the afterlife, the intent of PGM XIII 270–77 reflects a tradition where the practitioner can achieve anonymity for the living by turning to ritual action. And although the motif of transformation in Egyptian tales can be traced to the New Kingdom and perhaps even earlier, its connection to episodes of escape first appears in much later, perhaps Greekinspired tales. An overview of shape-shifting tales in Greek literature reveals that the verb γίγνομαι, which appears in PGM XIII 270–77, is commonly found in other scenes of Greek shape-shifters. Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that Greek shapeshifting scenes, like that of Proteus in Homer’s Odyssey, could at times shape the language of the Graeco-Egyptian papyri. In the end, however, it is likely that the sequence of shape-shifting that appears in PGM XIII 270–77 is not borrowed from a single text, but instead reflects the author’s personal volition as well as the expectations of the audience. One would presume that contemporary folktale traditions with local geographic and perhaps iconographic colouring might also play into the mix here. After all, the idea of transformation would only be convincing if the outcome met the expectations of its audience. In conclusion, PGM XIII 270–77 provides a tantalizing glimpse of the one and only human transformation text from the Graeco-Egyptian papyri, which survives as part of a broader genre of Graeco-Egyptian texts whose purpose was that of achieving anonymity.

DATE

Late thirteenth century BCE

1160–1156 BCE

First or second century CE

WORK

Tale of the Two Brothers

Horus and Seth

Setna II

‘Then she (Isis) conjured by means of her magic, and she made her transformation into a young girl with a beautiful body’. RITNER, Mechanics, 32. ‘Then the chieftain of Nubia knew that he could not contend with the Egyptian. He did a feat of sorcery so as to become invisible in the court, in order to escape to the land of Nubia, his home. Horus-son-ofPaneshe recited a spell against him, revealed the sorceries of the Nubian, and let him be seen by Pharaoh and the people of Egypt who stood in the court: he had assumed the shape of a wild gander and was about to depart’. LICHTHEIM, Egyptian Literature III, 149.

Krokodilopolis (Upper Egypt)

‘See, I will become a great bull with every beautiful color and none knows his nature, and you will sit on my back. By the time the sun rises, we will be in the place where my wife is in order that I avenge myself. And you will take me to where the king is because he will do for you every good thing’. HOLLIS, ‘Tale of Two Brothers’, 12.

PASSAGE

Thebes

Upper Egypt

NANCE

PROVE-

TRANSFORMATION IN EGYPTIAN TALES

Chieftain of Nubia

wild gander (or bird)

young woman

bull and persea trees

Bata

Isis

TRANSFORMATION

WHO?

Escape defeat and punishment

Go unnoticed and gain access to the gods

Avenge himself

REASON

226 Richard Phillips

Table 1

Crowns of Hermanubis: Semiotic Fusion and Spells for Better Business in the Magical Papyri1 ADRIA HALUSZKA ‘See how elegant it is in appearance, and so full of athletic vigor’, chides Apuleius reproachfully, during the trial in which he has been accused of magic (Apul. Apol. 63). The prosecution has made the claim, among others, that Apuleius practiced nefarious forms of magic through the manipulation of an image of an emaciated skeleton. But Apuleius argues that his ‘little image of Mercury’ is no gruesome statue: Notice how it has the lively face of a god, and how becomingly the down caresses both his cheeks, how the curled hair on his head peeks out from under the shadow of his hat’s brim…how dashing is the cloak that is drawn about his shoulders! He who dares call this a skeleton, surely never sees any images of the gods or is indifferent to them all. Surely the one who thinks this is a ghost is himself conjuring up ghosts.

The fact that the prosecution saw in his divine image a magical symbol for a ghost, a gruesome corpse, is nothing more than a lie, according to Apuleius, an inventive deception on par with ‘summoning ghosts (ipse est laruans)’. Yet these two possible and wildly divergent interpretations of a statue speak to the complicated negotiation of meaning behind the study of sacred images. The meanings that one can take away from any particular image, just as with any piece of art, are diverse and varied. Sacred images can carry the weight of personal or religious associations for the viewer who is a part of the culture within which the image plays a role. These interpretations are not objective, but rather they are entrenched in conceptual associations motivated by individual cultural experiences, expectations and emotions. In other words, even when we as scholars think we know whom a statue represents, that does not necessarily guarantee that we know whom (or what) the statue represents for anyone else. To complicate the picture even further, the image itself is only one type of modality that communicates meaning to participants within a religious or magical ritual, as the process of ritual action may allow for additional meaning to be ascribed to the image beyond the limits of its visual iconography. Spells in the magical papyri that incorporate the creation of an image provide descriptions of the image itself, and often include additional information regarding ritual actions to take in the process of crafting the image. In this essay, I argue that sacred images in the magical papyri function in context by ultimately becoming indices – I 1

I would like to thank LJUBA M. BORTOLANI, WILLIAM D. FURLEY, SVENJA NAGEL and JOF. QUACK for organizing an excellent conference, and for their generous reading and insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I would also like to thank SARAH ILES JOHNSTON for her helpful critique on an early draft. Any remaining faults are, of course, my own.

ACHIM

228

Adria Haluszka

use this word in the Peircian sense – to an amalgam of divine forces and powers beyond the sum of their visual iconography. I focus specifically on the creation and use of three-dimensional statues for better business and success in the workplace. These spells – linked through their function – share a base structure of ritual action, but they also incorporate a multiplicity of iconographic variations. These variations in iconography reveal elements of cultural fusion, but I will demonstrate that the final, indexical image integrates the business aspect of Graeco-Roman Hermes as an essential feature for the spell’s efficacy. In PGM IV 2359–72 the practitioner is instructed to create a statue of Hermes out of wax, which is mixed with various plant materials. Hermes is to hold a herald’s staff (κηρύκιον) and a bag (μαρσίππιον). The statue is to be made hollow, and magical names written on a piece of papyrus, along with the phrase ‘Give revenue and business to this place, because PSENTEBĒTH lives here’, are placed inside the statue.2 The iconography of this image, within a spell that serves as a charm for better business, seems fairly straightforward. Hermes carries the kerykeion in his guise as a divinity long associated with messengers, interpreters and travellers in the ancient Greek world. The inclusion of a bag gives this association a more commercial aspect and highlights Hermes in his role as a patron of commerce and merchants. The business aspect of Hermes was manifested more visually in the iconography of Roman Mercury, often depicted in his role as a god of trade throughout the Roman empire carrying a moneybag. This very urban Hermes is invoked in the spell to aid a person hoping to receive benefits in the business realm. This magical image of Hermes is an icon of the divine being Hermes according to the theory of signs formulated by CHARLES PEIRCE. An icon is a sign that represents its object based on some aspect of perceived similarity between the sign and the object. ‘Anything whatsoever, be it quality, existent Individual, or law, is an Icon of anything, in so far as it is like that thing and used as a sign of it.’3 A realistic drawing of a bonfire is an iconic sign because the drawing looks like a bonfire to the viewer. An icon does not have to incorporate or recreate a perfect likeness, as object attributes are enough to designate the object as a whole. Objects can be real or imagined, so a statue of Hermes is based upon perceptual similarity of the qualities and/or attributes imagined to be associated with the god Hermes. Because of their similarity to their objects, icons can be highly evocative, even when they are imperfect. Communication specialist KENT GRAYSON observes that ‘the icon is often experienced by viewers as having a particularly compelling relationship with its object’, adding that, ‘because we can see the object in the sign, we are often left with a sense that the icon has brought us closer to the truth than if we had instead seen an index’. Regarding possible imperfections of the sign, GRAYSON argues that ‘instead of drawing our attention to the gaps that always exist in representation, iconic

2

PGM IV 2366–8: ‘χαϊωχεν ουτιβιλμεμνουωθ· ατραυϊχ· δὸς πόρον καὶ πρᾶξιν τῷ τόπῳ τούτῷ, ὅτι ψεντεβηθ ἔνθαδε κατοικεῖ.’ 3 PEIRCE, Logic as Semiotic, 102.

Crowns of Hermanubis: Semiotic Fusion and Spells for Better Business

229

experiences encourage us subconsciously to fill in these gaps and then to believe that there were no gaps in the first place’.4 This immediacy of the iconic sign is essential to our understanding of how objects carved out of wax or stone can be ascribed such agency and power as they are throughout the magical papyri. Statues of the gods bring ritual practitioners into close association with the powers they worship. However, iconography does not communicate meaning to a viewer in isolation. WALTER BURKERT cautions that the four different factors constituting the ‘personality’ of a particular god – local cult and ritual, the divine name, mythology and iconography – interrelate in various ways, and require careful consideration with respect to how any individual element is interpreted. BURKERT states that ‘names and myths can be spread abroad much more easily than rituals, while images transcend even linguistic barriers, and so the various elements are continually separated from one another and reformed in new combinations’.5 The staff of Hermes can bring to a viewer’s mind the myths about how Hermes came to acquire his staff and rule over flocks and herds through a complex negotiation of terms with Apollo, as narrated in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes. This is but one example of knowledge that can affect how an image of Hermes is perceived or interpreted. Not every viewer or ritual participant will have this specific knowledge, nor is it required for an image of Hermes to have meaning. Regarding the statue of PGM IV 2359–72, an understanding of the business aspect of Hermes is closely tied to the intended purpose of the spell, a topic I will return to later in this essay. In the case of sacred statues for better business in the magical papyri, iconography is also closely tied to the indexical nature of the divine name. According to PEIRCE, an index ‘refers to the Object that it denotes by virtue of being really affected by that Object’ or because it directs or focuses the attention upon its object.6 This differentiates the index from PEIRCE’s third type of sign, the symbol, which ‘refers to the Object that it denotes by virtue of a law’ or by a rule or convention that must be learned (such as language in general).7 An index ‘indicates’ or points to its object. A proper name, demonstrative pronoun and a pointed finger are examples of indexical signs that designate their object. An index, in strong opposition to an icon, does not have a significant resemblance to its object, but it can draw upon associations of cause and effect or contiguity, for example, smoke in the air can indicate a bonfire nearby. Divine names are used in an indexical manner in spells and prayers to point to and call upon the presence of divinity. However, not all divine names are created equal. Voces magicae add a complicated layer to the semiotics of the divine. These words, scattered predominately throughout the magical papyri, take on a higher status as special ‘powerful’ speech, words that were thought to be particularly efficient for com4

GRAYSON, Icons, 32, 36 and 41. BURKERT, Greek Religion, 119. 6 PEIRCE, Logic as Semiotic, 102 and 108–9. 7 PEIRCE, Logic as Semiotic, 102. PEIRCE grants that signs are not absolute, and that any sign has the capacity to be an icon, index or symbol (105–8). GRAYSON suggests that ‘when we speak of an icon, an index, or a symbol, we are not referring to objective qualities of the sign itself, but to a viewer’s experience of the sign. It therefore might be more accurate to refer to iconic, indexical and symbolic experiences instead of iconic, indexical and symbolic signs’ (GRAYSON, Icons, 35). 5

230

Adria Haluszka

municating with the gods. Voces magicae, because they are semantically vacant, can be interpreted in a variety of ways or ascribed a range of powers by a ritual participant.8 JESPER SØRENSEN, in his comprehensive cognitive theory of magic, argues that aspects of magical language such as ungrammaticality and senselessness are all dependent on a default understanding of language as a medium of communication. When this default understanding is broken, when words such as voces magicae have no direct semantic reference, then the indexical and iconic aspects of language are emphasized in their ascribed function as a communicative medium of sacred space. ‘Magical agency is ascribed to linguistic signs through an “intimate connection, if not identity, between word and reference”.’9 The materiality of the sign is also significant for the meaning that the sign can have. Linguist JOHN LYONS emphasises that iconicity is ‘always dependent upon properties of the medium in which the form is manifest’, citing the example of the onomatopoeic English word cuckoo. It is only iconic in the phonic medium of speech and not in the graphic medium of writing.10 RICHARD GORDON, in his discussion of the manner in which charakteres are ascribed inherent efficacy, argues that in opposition to the ‘pure voiceness’ of voces magicae, charakteres are pure graphic signifiers often used in cases where they would be seen by the client.11 The transformation of a sign from one medium to another can change its function. FRITZ GRAF states that ‘freezing’ words on wax or papyrus can preserve the memory of the ritual act.12 Thus, voces magicae writ8

VERSNEL, Poetics, provides a comprehensive typology and summary of uses of magical language in the ancient Greco-Roman world. VERSNEL also emphasises that the ‘semantically vacant’ nature of voces magicae allows them to be applied or interpreted on various levels for various purposes (146). A brief survey of source references to the use of ‘foreign names’ can also be found in GRAF, in addition to an emphasis on the manner in which it is a characteristic of Greco-Roman thought to relate names of things to their nature (GRAF, Magic, 218–21 and 73–6). For a thorough discussion on the power of words and specialised magical language, see FRANKFURTER, Magic of Writing. 9 SØRENSEN, Cognitive Theory, 89. For SØRENSEN, loss of semantic or symbolic reference ‘is replaced with indexical references based on the conception of a direct connection between a given sign and its referent, in which the sign is seen as “originating” from, or having “power over” its referent. In this way, both symbolic and iconic signs can be understood as indices – that is, as metonymic extensions of their referent’ (72). For a complete analysis of the use of ‘linguistic anomalies’ and the manner in which deprivation of meaning allows for the ascription of magical agency on a cognitive level, see SØRENSEN, Cognitive Theory, 68–9 and 79–80. For an additional study on the distinction between aspects of sacred versus profane language, see TAMBIAH, Magical Power. 10 LYONS, Semantics, 105. 11 GORDON, Signa Noua 20 and 24–6. FRANKFURTER shows how a preference for the oral or written medium can be culturally determined: the ‘core’ of Greek spells prioritised the spoken word, while the one of Egyptian magical rituals prioritised the written word. He also demonstrates that the respective power of oral and written media converged and was synthesised during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (FRANKFURTER, Magic of Writing, 198–9). 12 GRAF, Magic, 212–13. JOSEPH W. DAY argues that archaic votive epigrams work in a similar fashion, serving not only to extend the memory of the dedicator’s name, but also to represent and extend the dedicator’s original rite. Readers of epigrams, through the experience of reading framed by specific aesthetic and religious contexts, continue or reenact the original rite of dedication (DAY, Greek Epigram). As a point of contrast, inscriptions are commonly placed inside statues of the magical papyri, a practice which may reflect not only attempts to internalise the statue’s power, but also a

Crowns of Hermanubis: Semiotic Fusion and Spells for Better Business

231

ten down on a piece of papyrus and placed inside a statue serve to perpetually invoke and entreat divine power. In semiotic terms, however, we can push this idea of preservation even further when we consider inscribed voces magicae working as indices. In the written medium, these efficacious spoken words become repositories of a special kind of power that can ultimately be transferred and contained. The indexical nature of voces magicae in the magical papyri can be inferred from situations in which ritual practitioners are instructed to write them on certain materials, then lick them off or dissolve them in a substance for consumption.13 These actions put a ritual focus on the ‘essence’ that the words contain. In the Hermes statue spell, the practitioner is instructed to write the following ‘names’ (ὀνόματα) on papyrus: ‘CHAIŌCHEN OUTIBI14 MEMNOUŌTH ATRAUICH’. When voces magicae are stated and understood to be divine names, they serve as indices to the designated divine powers, and this essence is imagined to be shared between the divine name and the divine power invoked.15 The ritual procedure of inscribing divine names on papyrus and placing them inside the

more personal intention behind their creation and subsequent use. For a comprehensive study on the wider use of inscription in ritual texts, see DZWIZA, Schriftverwendung. 13 In PGM IV 475–829, the juice of an herb mixed with honey and myrrh is used as ink to write a special eight-lettered name on a leaf. The practitioner is then instructed to lick off the leaf in order to gain a divine encounter (PGM IV 779–92). In PGM I 232–47, a special ‘Hermaic myrrh ink’ is used to inscribe a series of voces magicae, designated as names, on a piece of papyrus. The ritual practitioner is instructed to wash off the names with water and then drink the water to aid in memory retention. The idea that words can be ‘washed’ in some manner and then consumed belongs to Egyptian tradition, in which water, poured over stelae upon which Horus was engraved, or upon which mythical narratives of Horus and Isis were inscribed, was thought to be efficacious. For recent comprehensive studies of the iconography and ritual use of Horus stelae, see STERNBERG-EL HOTABI, Untersuchungen; GASSE, Stèles d’Horus; and SAURA, Estelas mágicas. For further study on therapeutic licking, drinking and consumption of materials in Egyptian ritual, see RITNER, Mechanics, 92–110. 14 PGM IV 2365–6. Additional examples of voces magicae identified as divine names in spells for better business discussed in this essay include: PGM IV 3153–64; VIII 7–8, 21–2, 42–4, 60–62. Spells in the magical papyri incorporate vowel strings and other types of sound generation that were thought to be efficacious but do not have direct semantic reference, although in many cases these types of utterances were also held to be sacred names (for example, PGM IV 604–18). For a discussion of voces magicae and their identification as the most ancient and powerful names of divine forces, and the literary source material relevant to this identification, see MARTINEZ, Greek Love Charm, 34–6. Knowledge of the special names of divinity in the form of voces magicae, or simply knowledge of these words in general, can represent the credentials and sacred status of the ritual practitioner (GRAF, Prayer, 191–3 and SØRENSEN, Cognitive Theory, 90–91). 15 SØRENSEN argues that a shared essence between sign and object is due, in part, to indexical interpretations arising from relations of identity and pars pro toto metonymy (SØRENSEN, Cognitive Theory, 55–6). An important cognitive function that underlies connections based on identity and metonymy is psychological essentialism – the conception that biological creatures, and to a certain extent inanimate objects, are thought to contain a certain type of ‘inner essence’ that is specific to their respective categorical associations (MEDIN/ORTONY, Psychological Essentialism). According to SØRENSEN, psychological essentialism is responsible for the idea that certain elements have the same essence, based on some sort of perceptual similarity or shared categorization, which can link objects across mental spaces and allow for the ascription of power to physical and inanimate objects (SØRENSEN, Cognitive Theory, 33–9 and 55–61).

232

Adria Haluszka

image incorporates the index – the essence – of the divine name into the construction of the statue. Hollowness is an important feature of many three-dimensional statues described in the magical papyri, and the most common element placed inside the hollow statues is either a piece of papyrus or a lamella, upon which has been inscribed a variety of divine names. This ‘essence’ of voces magicae – this divine power that they can be ascribed in their indexical use as divine names – thus becomes ‘contained’ in the statue when they are placed inside it. The Hermes statue in PGM IV 2359–72 is not just an iconographic representation of Hermes for the ritual practitioner who is part of the magical procedure, but it becomes an index to a plurality of divine powers and essences, all fused within one cohesive image. The indexical nature of the sacred image lends it magical efficacy or agency.16 Pieces of papyrus are not the only element contained in hollow statues of the magical papyri. Another spell, PGM IV 3125–71, instructs the magical practitioner to create a hollow statue out of wax. The stated function of the spell is to allow for a place to prosper (ἐπὰν δέ ποτε θέλῃς τόπον εὐπορεῖσθαι μεγάλως),17 and the ritual procedure shares basic structural features with the Hermes business spell previously discussed. Yet differences are present, especially in the polymorphic iconography. 18 The spell instructs the magical practitioner to form the statue with three crowned animal heads: a sea falcon with the crown of Horus, a baboon with the crown of Hermanubis and an ibis with the crown of Isis. The statue is to have four wings, crossed arms, and is to be wrapped ‘like Osiris’ (αὐτὸς δὲ ἔστω περιεσταλμένος ὡς Ὄσιρις).19 Into the hollow statue is inserted a strip of papyrus upon which have been written special divine names, along with an invocation. Also placed inside is a piece of magnetite as a ‘heart’ (καρδίαν μαγνητίνην).20 This stone has associations with life and

16

DEBORAH TARN STEINER analyses instances in which contiguity and metonymy determine the link between sign and object – when the representation works as a ‘replacement device’ – and states that the efficacy of these kinds of images can depend upon ‘a particular construction of the bond between subject and figurine, a bond that need not rest on any visible mimetic likeness, but on a notion of substitution, equivalence or sympathy’ (D.T. STEINER, Images, 3–4). STEINER discusses the differences between the mimetic and metonymic functions of images in depth, incorporating the terminology of Greek philosophers of the late Classical and post-Classical Period: ‘Where the depiction is perceived as linked to its source by virtue of an intrinsic property, where it shares with the signified an essential and enduring quality, it provides an eikōn, a stepping stone pointing to the original that gives the viewer access to a hidden or absent reality. To the realm of eidōla, imperfect, even deceptive versions of truth, belong figures that depend on a purely visible resemblance, that limit themselves to external contours’ (D.T. STEINER, Images, 5). For a comprehensive study on the manner in which statues in the ancient world can serve as ‘replacement figurines’ and on the development of their ability to present inner ‘core’ qualities: D.T. STEINER, Images, 3–32. 17 PGM IV 3125–6. 18 QUACK proposes the neutral terminology of ‘polymorphic deity’, arguing that ‘pantheistic’ and related terms are loaded with specific meanings and functions that may not be applicable to the depicted deities (QUACK, So-Called Pantheos, 175–6). 19 PGM IV 3138–9. 20 PGM IV 3141–2.

Crowns of Hermanubis: Semiotic Fusion and Spells for Better Business

233

agency elsewhere in the magical papyri.21 In a spell known as the ‘Sword of Dardanos’, the magical practitioner is instructed to use a magnetic stone which is breathing (λίθον μάγνητα τὸν πνέοντα)22 for the purpose of engraving divine figures. The magnet works in a similar manner to the voces magicae, serving to enhance their efficacy by providing an additional link to an essence of power and agency. After all of this is done and the statue is fixed into whatever place the practitioner chooses, there follow instructions to perform a sacrifice, offer libations and to feast and sing the names written earlier on papyrus, in addition to the following phrase: Give me all favor, all good business, for with you is the angel who bears good, who stands at the side of Tyche. Because of this, give revenue and business to this house. Lord of hope, Aion giver of wealth, holy Agathos Daimon, fulfill all favors and your divine oracles.23

The practitioner is urged to recite the names that have been written on the papyrus, in addition to this invocation for prosperity, each morning. The invocation draws upon the power of Tyche, Aion and Agathos Daimon, and, like the magnet heart, this indexical invocation becomes part of the finished, composite image. Overall, this spell has a similar structure to the Hermes statue spell of PGM IV 2359–72. A hollow image is created, objects are placed inside – most notably an inscribed piece of papyrus – and there is an invocation in which gods other than those represented visually are called upon. Finally, the statue is consecrated for the purpose of better business. Like the Hermes statue, the three-headed image, once made, becomes an index to an amalgam of divine, powerful forces. I present two final spells involving the creation and manipulation of a statue for prosperous business. The first, PGM VIII 1–63, incorporates the use of an olive wood statue in the form of a sitting dog-faced baboon. This figure is associated with Hermes through its iconography, as the practitioner is instructed to fashion it with a winged cap of Hermes upon its head (τὴν τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ περικεφαλαίαν πτερωτὴν).24 Additional connections to Hermes are found in the lengthy invocation to the god that forms the first half of this spell, in which the practitioner claims an intimate knowledge of Hermes, his special names, his forms and the like.25 The practitioner also calls upon Hermes as a manifestation of Thoth through the following formula: ‘As Isis, the greatest of all gods, invoked you in every dispute, in every place…and held your favor….just so do I invoke you’. The invocation finishes with, ‘Hear me Hermes…just as you have done everything in the form of your Ethiopian dog-faced baboon’.26 21

A magnet is ground up as part of an offering in PGM III 187–262, and in PGM III 494–611 (now PGM III.2 and PGM III.1, respectively see LOVE, ‘PGM III’ Archive) the magnet is claimed to be one of the sacred stones associated with Helios. 22 PGM IV 1724–5. 23 PGM IV 3165–9: δός μοι πᾶσαν χάριν, πᾶσαν πρᾶχιν· μετ’ ἐσοῦ γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθοφόρος ἄγγελος παρεστὼς τῇ Τύχῇ. διὸ δὸς πόρον, πρᾶξιν τούτῳ τῷ οἴκῳ· ναί, κυριεύων ἐλπιδος, πλουτοδότα Αἰών, ἱερὲ’ Αγαθὲ Δαίμον, τέλει πάσας χαριτας καὶ τὰς σας ἐνθέους φήμας. 24 PGM VIII 55. 25 PGM VIII 1–22. 26 PGM VIII 23–30. ἐὰν ἐπεκαλέσατό σε Ἶσις, μεγίστη τῶν θεῶν ἀπάντων, ἐν πάσῃ κρίσει, ἐν πατὶ τόπῳ πρὸς θεοὺς καὶ ἀνθρώπους καὶ δαίμονας καὶ ἔνδρα ζῷα καὶ ἐπίεια καὶ ἔσχεν τὴν χάριν, τὸ νῖκος πρὸς θεοὺς καὶ ανθρώπους κ[α]ὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπὸ τὸν κόσμον ζῴοις, οὓτως

234

Adria Haluszka

This statue is to be carved not hollow, but with a box on its back, and in the box is to be placed the special name of Hermes, later revealed to be a series of voces magicae. The structure of this spell follows the same basic pattern as the first two spells already discussed. Variations include the use of wood instead of wax, and a box instead of a hollow, serving the same function of containment. There is also an additional variation upon the visual ‘look’ of the statue, in this instance incorporating the iconography of both Hermes and Thoth. This fusion of Hermes and Thoth also exists in PGM IV 2373–440, a spell found in sequence after the hollow wax Hermes statue first presented. The spell is nicknamed the ‘Little Beggar’ and is affiliated with a prestigious heritage: ‘for Hermes made this for Isis when she was wandering’.27 The medium is unheated beeswax and the form is that of a man, with his right hand in a begging position, and carrying in his left a bag and staff with a coiled snake. He is to be made standing on a sphere with an additional coiled snake ‘like Isis’ (ὡς ἡ Ἶσις).28 This statue is not made hollow but instead requires that voces magicae be written on multiple strips of papyrus that are associated with specific parts of the statue. The end of the spell lists these parts, sixteen in total – including fourteen body parts, the bag and the snake – as well as a series of voces magicae to be inscribed for each part. The final lines of the spell instruct the practitioner to recite the following invocation: I receive you in the dwelling of the cowherd who keeps his homestead towards the south-west. I receive you for the widow and the orphan. Therefore give me favor and earnings for my business. Bring to me silver, gold, clothing and abundant wealth to good effect.29

The identity of the statue is not explicitly stated. In contrast to the specific instructions to fashion ‘a Hermes’ in PGM IV 2359–72, the ‘Little Beggar’ spell instructs the practitioner to fashion ‘a man’ (ἄνθρωπον). However, the statue gains identity through the addition of iconographical features and through later references found in the invocation. EMILIO SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE has analysed the manner in which this spell adapts the myth of Isis searching for the dismembered Osiris in a historiola that fits the practical purpose of the spell, namely, utilizing Hermes in a spell for better business. SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE suggests that the iconography of the begging position, bag and staff, in addition to the reference to the cowherd, can serve to indicate Hermes.30 This κἀγώ, ὁ δεῖνα, ἐπικα[λ]οῦμαί σε. διὸ δός μοι τὴ χάριν, μορφήν, κάλλος· ἐπάκουςόν μου, Ἑρμῆ, εὐεργέτα, φαρμάκων , εὐδιάλεκτος γενοῦ καὶ ἐπάκουσον, καθὼς ἐποίησα πάντα τῷ Αἰθιοπικῷ κυνοκεφάλῳ σου, τῷ κυρίῳ τῶν χονίων. 27 PGM IV 2377–8. τοῦτο γὰρ ἐποίησεν Ἑρμῆς Ἶσιδι πλαζομένῃ, καὶ ἔστιν μὲν θαυμαστόν, καλεῖται δὲ ἐπαιτητάριον. 28 PGM IV 2386. 29 PGM IV 2434–40. λαμβάνω σε παρὰ Βουκόλον τὸν ἔχοντα τὴν ἔπαυλιν πρὸς λίβα, λαμβάνω σε τῇ χήρᾳ καὶ τῷ ὀρφόντῃ. δός μοι οὖν χάριν, έργαςίαν εἰς ταύτην μου τὴν πρᾶξιν, φέρε μοι ἀργύρια, χρυςόν, ἱμ[ατ]ι[σ]μόν, πλοῦτον πολύολβον ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ. 30 SUAREZ DE LA TORRE, Magical Hermes, 127–9. SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE concludes that this spell shows ‘a fusion of Hermetic and Isiac elements’ (SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE, Magical Hermes, 131). In the myth of the historiola, he understands Hermes to have created a statue that is a ‘double’ of himself, and to have incorporated a ‘self-fusion’ with Osiris to increase efficacy in aiding the dismembered god. He also suggests the alternative interpretation that Hermes utilised an image of Osiris in

Crowns of Hermanubis: Semiotic Fusion and Spells for Better Business

235

method of signification is found elsewhere. For example, the three-headed statue of PGM IV 3125–71 utilises a multiplicity of divine references by means of three crowns of power, named to be those of Horus, Hermanubis and Isis. The dog-headed baboon statue of PGM VIII 1–63 is to wear a cap of Hermes and is part of a spell that includes a lengthy invocation to Hermes. The myth and iconography of Hermes are present throughout the ‘Little Beggar’ spell, but the statue allows for multiple avenues of meaning through additional references to Isis and Osiris, and through the series of voces magicae associated with various parts of the image, one of which is stated to be the name of Agathos Daimon.31 A noticeable distinction between the ‘Little Beggar’ spell and the previous business spells presented is the process of inscribing pieces of papyrus for different parts of the statue, as opposed to putting objects inside the statue. I suggest that this process can be understood as simply another method of infusing the image with the powers invoked through the indexical nature of voces magicae. This power can be ‘contained’ in the image whether it is put inside the image or inscribed on the outside of the image. This method of inscribing and ascribing power through a catalogue of parts finds parallels in other spells of the magical papyri. An agoge binding spell incorporates instructions to inscribe voces magicae on various individual body parts of a bound image.32 The statue, an indexical extension of the victim, is meant to influence the victim through binding and attracting not just in each of the inscribed areas, but as a whole, and completely. These spells for better business, linked by a common function, incorporate a core structure of ritual action, namely, the creation of a sacred image which becomes an index to an amalgam of divine powers. This fused image ‘works’, so to speak, by drawing upon perceived iconographical associations and by containing powerful divine names – an index to divine power – within or upon itself. Yet each spell features variations in iconography. Variation and alternate methods are features of the magical papyri, as magical practitioners innovated and perfected their craft in attempts to harness magical efficacy. Magical practitioners also no doubt attempted to play to the desires and expectations of clients, and variations in iconography can speak to differences in clientele the historiola, and it is the ritual practitioner who innovates upon the myth by incorporating ‘hermaic’ iconography into the statue in order to increase efficacy for the practical purpose (SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE, Magical Hermes, 129–30). I find the latter interpretation more convincing, as it nicely represents the very trend of innovation and fusion on the part of the magical practitioner himself. 31 This is a slightly revised perspective of my previous work on the indexical nature of statues and engraved imagery in the magical papyri, in which the ‘Little Beggar’ statue was not included in the category of divine images (HALUSZKA, Sacred Signified). For further discussion of the multiplicity of attributes utilised in depicting the powers and functions of Egyptian divine images, see HORNUNG, Conceptions, 109–28. 32 PGM IV 296–466. GRAF analyses this spell in depth. Regarding the words inscribed on the different parts of the statue, GRAF sees them as divine names; each part of the statue is ritually dedicated to a different power as a variant in the process of binding (GRAF, Magic, 137–45). Further support for the binding nature of this spell, with a focus towards erotic subjugation, can be found in FARAONE, Ancient Greek Love Magic, 52–3 and J.J. WINKLER, Constraints of Eros, 230–34.

236

Adria Haluszka

within the multicultural society of Graeco-Roman Egypt. Understanding meaning in signs is never an objective process, but requires careful reference to the purposes of users within particular contexts. In other words, it is essential to consider what these images mean to individual practitioners or clients - such as scribes, craftsmen, traders in a particular situation: the hope of better business and financial success. These spells emphasise the importance of Hermes as a transcultural deity of commerce and trade, and they extend beyond a simple identification of Hermes with Thoth. The association of Hermes with Thoth was long established in Graeco-Roman Egypt, an identification that developed, in one iteration of this fusion, into the figure of Hermes Trismegistos. GARTH FOWDEN claims that, ‘It is in the Greek magical papyri rather than in the Hermetica that we most clearly discern the lineaments of Hermes Trismegistos, and that the Egyptian aspects of his identity are given fullest rein.’ He goes on to argue that ‘The papyri present the new syncretistic Hermes as a cosmic power, creator of heaven and earth and almighty world-ruler. Presiding over fate and justice, he is also lord of the night, and of death and its mysterious aftermath.’33 This Egyptian aspect of Hermes as a cosmic, generative power is indeed present in our business spells. However, the specific aspects of Hermes invoked for better business point to more than just a Hellenistic wrapping for expressing indigenous Egyptian rituals used in the activation of these statues. The ‘business’ aspect of Graeco-Roman Hermes fulfils an important function for those seeking a religious edge in the competitive sphere of trade, commerce and marketing. The livelihood of both individuals and families rely upon success in trade or commerce, so it is not surprising that these spells, like many others in the magical papyri, draw upon grand myths such as that of Isis seeking Osiris, and involve a variety of gods and divine forces in the ritual procedure. A spell for better business incorporating the ritual use and burial of an inscribed egg indicates that even the generative power of the primordial egg of Egyptian cosmogonies could be invoked to aid in such success.34 There are few admonitions to secrecy apart from the directions to keep the Hermes statue unseen (ἀθεώρητον).35 The instructions to place the dog-faced baboon image of Hermes ‘in the middle of the workshop’ (τίθει ὅπου θέλεις ἐν ἐργαστηρίῳ μέσον)36 or, in the case of the three-headed statue, ‘in whatever place you choose’ (καθιδρύσας αὐτό, εἰς ὃν προαιρῇ τόπον), 37 speak to an environment where such images were viewed as a necessary or regular aspect of urbanised ritual practice. It is easy to imagine that a three-headed statue such as the one described in PGM IV 2359–72 might be preferred by a client or practitioner who found special significance in, or familiarity with, depictions of polymorphic deities. In the case of this statue, Agathos Daimon is 33

FOWDEN, Egyptian Hermes, 25. PGM XII 96–106. Creation narratives were used in ritual to solve a variety of problems, from pain relief to protection. See FRANKFURTER, Narrating Power and RITNER, Mechanics, 73–110. The cosmic egg can also be found in Orphic myth: for a discussion of the egg in Orphic cosmogonies, and its parallels in Near Eastern and Egyptian cosmogonies, see WEST, Orphic Poems, 103–106 and 198– 203. 35 PGM IV 2369. 36 PGM VIII 59–60. 37 PGM IV 3149. 34

Crowns of Hermanubis: Semiotic Fusion and Spells for Better Business

237

invoked to fulfil favours and oracles, hinting at a client who may have an already established divine relationship with these urbanised magical forces through previous rituals. Any edge one can acquire to beat the competition would certainly not be overlooked, and traders and travellers in the ancient Mediterranean world had contact and exchange among diverse cultural traditions. My focus has been on the interpretation of words and images through iconic and indexical associations in order to stress the immediacy and presence of divine forces during the course of ritual behaviour. DEREK COLLINS has argued that ritual objects can be ascribed real and efficacious social agency by ritual participants.38 He warns that categorizing ritual behaviour, such as the offering of food to sacred statues, as purely symbolic risks ‘mischaracterizing magical behavior as something akin to acting or impersonation’. He goes on to state that, ‘We as outsiders begin from the assumption that statues cannot have genuine agency and mobility, making symbolism a rational alternative to explaining how other cultures interact with them.’ 39 SØRENSEN also argues that magical rituals ‘work’ by ‘de-emphasizing the symbolic and conventional aspects of the sign, where meaning is expressed through relations to other conventional symbols. Instead, the direct perceptual and essentialist aspects are emphasized and the sign is understood as a (super-)natural and essential extension of the object’.40 In these spells for better business, the final composite sign – the statue that is created by the end of the ritual action – is best understood not just as an iconographic representation, but as an index pointing to a powerful ‘essence’ for the ritual participant. The completed image, through the containment of voces magicae, works in a manner analogous to these magical words in that it can be ascribed a multiplicity of meanings. Furthermore, voces magicae can be ascribed meaning across cultures, which makes them an elegant tool in the arsenal of the magical practitioner working with a variety of clients.41 The competitive and urban ‘business’ context of late-antique culture was likely one impetus in the appropriation of the iconography of Graeco-Roman Hermes. However, in the spectrum of iconographical variation and mythological content invoked in these spells, there is a nuanced range in the conceptions of Hermes that can prioritise and expand upon the myths and characteristics of multiple divinities.

38

DE. COLLINS, Nature and DE. COLLINS, Magic in the Ancient, 18–20. DE. COLLINS, Magic in the Ancient, 19. 40 SØRENSEN, Cognitive Theory, 57. 41 Voces magicae embrace a plurality of possible interpretations, but the meaning they can be ascribed is not completely open-ended. According to SØRENSEN, ‘linguistic elements with zero symbolic value are not only culturally underdetermined, but symbolically underdetermined. Their possible meanings are, however, loosely constrained both by schematic structure inherent in their iconic and indexical features, as well as by symbolic elements in the immediate pragmatic context’ (SØRENSEN, Cognitive Theory, 92). 39

Love Spell and Hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV (2891–941) MARCELA RISTORTO I wish to analyse the hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV 2891–941, which is to be recited within the framework of magic rituals. The aim is to examine whether this ‘magical’ hymn differs from hymns recited in ‘religious’ contexts.1 In addition, I will look into the nature of the deity who is invoked in the cultural context of religious syncretism in Roman Egypt. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to examine the structure of the hymn and to analyse Aphrodite’s features. In particular, I wish to point out how Aphrodite has been merged with other deities, and thus differs from the Greek goddess.

1. Brief remarks about religion in Roman Egypt BURKERT2 asserts that two main features of polytheism are: …the ‘migrations’ of gods from one civilisation to another, or rather diffusions of cults across existing borderlines, mostly without traumatic battles or attempts at repression, even without noticeable effect for the overall conglomerate; and the ‘translations’ of gods from one language and civilisation to another.

Moreover it is impossible not to recognise that since the second millennium BCE there were close relationships between Greece, the Near East and Egypt.3 For this reason, we must be cautious about the use of the concept ‘syncretism’ considering that ‘all religions in the ancient world can be labelled as “syncretistic” in the sense that they all contained at least some elements from different cultural backgrounds that came together’.4 In the Roman Empire, these trends were exacerbated; the so-called ‘Oriental Religions’ became part of Roman religion. The Romans ‘preserved’ foreign, exotic aspects of these religions but also added and invented new features or elements. For instance, in the Hellenistic and Roman world Isis is regarded as a mystery goddess, although in Egypt she was not.5 So the ‘Egyptian mysteries’, as described by Apuleius 1 The relationship between magic and religion is an issue widely discussed by specialists; see among others VERSNEL, Some Reflections; GRAF, Prayer; BETZ, Magic and Mystery; JOHNSTON, Sacrifice. 2 BURKERT, Migrating Gods, 17. 3 Cf. BURKERT, Orientalizing Revolution; BURKERT, Babylon. 4 KAIZER, Identifying the Divine, 115. 5 Isis as a mystery goddess is ‘the defining characteristic of the Hellenistic and Roman Isis in religious terms’ (VERSLUYS, Orientalising, 253–4). However, for a critical view on the presumed ‘mysteries’ of Isis see STEINHAUER, Osiris mystes, 47–78, who examines CUMONT’s definition of mystery religion, analysing epigraphic evidence and the Metamorphoses of Apuleius. The author concludes:

Love Spell and Hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV (2891–941)

239

in Metamorphoses, are ‘a Roman appropriation of a Hellenistic concept in which Egyptian elements … played an important role’.6 So these aspects could well be added as ‘original’; but it is important to realise that they do not work as a simple ‘continuation’ of Egyptian or Mesopotamian practices.7 If we look at the goddess invoked in this magical hymn, we must recognise, as correctly stated by BUDIN,8 that in the Mediterranean ‘there was a far more general syncretism between Aphrodite and a whole family of Near Eastern goddesses’. Thus for the Greeks Hathor was the Egyptian name for the Greek deity of love; meanwhile in Roman Egypt Aphrodite also merged with Egyptian goddesses such as Hathor and Isis.

2. Hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV (2915–41) After a love spell, we have a hymn to Aphrodite (PGM 2915–41), whose formal organisation coincides with the usual structure of a Greek hymn, since we can distinguish the invocatio, the narrative (eulogia or argumentum) and a final section that contains the request to the deity (euche or preces).9 It should also be noted that in this hymn the εὐλογία and the ἐπίκλησις are fused, as cultic names and the mentions of references to the gods who accompany Aphrodite are intertwined. ἀφρογενὴς Κυθέρεια, θεῶν γενέτειρα καὶ ἀνδρῶν, αἰθερία, χθονία, Φύσι παμμήτωρ, ἀδάμαστε, ἀλληλοῦχε, πυρὸς μεγάλου περιδινήτειρα, ἡ τὸν ἀεικίνητον ἔχεις περιδινέα βαρζαν ἄρρηκτον· σὺ δὲ πάντα τελεῖς, κεφαλήν τε πόδας τε, σαῖς τε θελημοσύναις περιμίγνυται ἱερὸν ὕδωρ, ἡνίκα κινήσεις τὸν ἐν ἄστροις χείρεσι ῥουζω, ὀμφαλὸν ὃν κατέχεις κόσμου. κινεῖς δὲ τὸν ἁγνὸν [ἵμ]ε[ρο]ν εἰς ἀνδρῶν ψυχάς, ἐπὶ δ’ ἄνδρα γυναῖκας, κἀνδρὶ γυναῖκα τίθης ἐράσμιαν ἤματα πάντα. ἡμετέρη βασίλεια, θεά, μόλε ταῖσδ’ ἐπαοιδαῖς, πότνια ἀρρωριφρασι, γωθητινι, Κυπρογένεια, σουϊης θνοβοχου· θοριθε σθενεπιω ἄνασσα σερθενεβηηϊ,

2915

2920

2925

2930

‘Bei den in der modernen Forschung als “Isis-Mysterien” beschriebenen Einweihungsritualen scheint es sich, um es mit Walter Burkert zu formulieren, wenn überhaupt nur um “einen Farbklecks der sehr viel reicheren Palette der ägyptischen Kulte” gehandelt zu haben, um einen kleinen Sonderbereich im Gesamtspektrum des Kultes, der meiner Meinung nach zudem lokal unterschiedlich ausgeprägt und keinem übergeordneten religiösen System zugehörig war’ (74). 6 VERSLUYS, Orientalising, 255. 7 VERSLUYS, Orientalising, 255. 8 BUDIN, Reconsideration, 96. 9 This tripartite structure encompasses three sections: the invocatio (ἐπίκλησις) includes the name of god, cult names and epithets; in the eulogia (εὐλογία) the praise contains a description of the god, of his favourite places and activities or a narration of any divine exploit. Finally, in the petition or prayer (εὐχή) there is a request of assistance or an expression of gratitude for the protection received cf. JANKO, Structure; STRAUSS CLAY, Homeric Hymns; FURLEY/BREMER, Greek Hymns I, 50–63.

240

Marcela Ristorto

O foam-born Kythereia, mother of Both gods and men, ethereal and chthonic, All-Mother Nature, goddess unsubdued, Who hold together things, who cause the great Fire to revolve, who keep the ever-moving BARZA / in her unbroken course; and you Accomplish everything, from head to toes; And by your will is holy water mixed, When by your hands you’ll move RHOUZO amid The stars, the world’s midpoint which you control. You move holy desire into the souls Of men / and move women to man, and you Render woman desirable to man Through all the days to come, our Goddess Queen, Come to these chants, Mistress ARRORIPHRASI, GOTHETINI, Cyprus-born, SUOI THNOBOCHOU THORITHE STHENEPIO, Lady 10 SERTHENEBEEI...

In the invocatio-eulogia we find a meticulous list of cultic titles, ensuring that the deity feels ‘obliged’ to intervene, since she is invoked considering all the relevant aspects of her divine persona. The correct invocation has great importance because the praise of the goddess involves the presentation and demonstration of her power (δύναμις, φύσις).11 Aphrodite is called Ἀφρογενής and Κυθέρεια (2915); although she is born of Ouranos’ aphros (foam) the first epithet is used only twice to describe the goddess in Hesiod’s Theogony (196)12 and in the Orphic Hymns.13 The second one is already attested in epic poetry.14 It refers to the first place where the goddess came after emerging from foam. WEST said that the shrine of the goddess in Kythera was one of the oldest and most important.15 This sanctuary is the first attestation of the relationship between the deity and the Near Eastern people, since the Greeks held that it had been erected by the Phoenicians (Hdt. 1.105.3; Paus. 3.23.1). Κυθέρεια and Κυπρογένεια not only refer to the islands, Kythera and Cyprus, where the most famous and ancient temples of the goddess are, but they also allude to her field of intervention, love, since in these places her worship was focused on generation and sexuality.16 Another appellative is ἀδάμαστος (2916), which expresses the idea of domination and power. This adjective derives from the verb δαμάζειν and suggests a comparison between the effect of sexual energy and the external forces that dominate gods, mankind and wild animals, making them defenseless whereas only the goddess 10

Translation by O’NEIL in GMPT, 93–4. Cf. MANTZIOU, Hymns, 5. 12 However, this line is rejected by WEST, Hesiod, ad loc. 13 The Proem-hymn, 11. 14 Cf. Hom. Od. 18.193; h.Hom. 5.1; Hes. Th. 196–8, 934, 1008. 15 WEST, Hesiod, ad loc. 16 There is no sure etymology for the name Aphrodite nor for the epithet Kythereia. However, scholars have suggested possible etymologies, based on etymological derivations, puns or phonetic associations. 11

Love Spell and Hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV (2891–941)

241

is not submitted to love (cf. h.Hom. 5.1–5; Eur. Hipp. 447–50). This power is associated with the goddess since the Homeric Hymn 5 (to Aphrodite) and Lucretius’ proem to De rerum natura (lines 1.1–28) being particularly important in this respect. Here Lucretius uses the name of Venus as a metonymy of the creative process of nature. In the first verse the goddess is defined as hominum- divomque voluptas. For this reason there are many terms related to procreation and growth: voluptas, genetrix, alma, genus, etc. Then, Lucretius’ Aphrodite is a complex figure since the goddess of love and erotic desire turns into the cosmic force that rules over all the cosmos.17 On the other hand, in addition, Kythereia is invoked with cultic titles that are used for other deities in the Greek tradition. At the beginning of the hymn she is called θεῶν γενέτειρα καὶ ἀνδρῶν (2915), in the same way as she is invoked in Orphic Hymn 55 (2 γενέτειρα θεά). Also Appianus, in Bellum Civile (3.4.28.15), uses this epithet to qualify the goddess of love. Here, this epithet refers to a cultic title, Μήτηρ θεῶν, which is consistent with the use we find in Euripides, who employed the adjective γενέτειρα in order to refer to Gaia (fr. 1023). The quality of begetter of all that exists also establishes a link between Aphrodite and the Mother of all Gods (cf. the Hymn to the Mother of the Gods, from Epidauros).18 In Greek mythology Aphrodite is not usually a mother, hence it is possible to argue that Aphrodite characterised as ‘mother’ may reflect the influence of Isis,19 since from Pharaonic Egypt to Roman Egypt ‘she remained essentially a “mother-goddess”, “giver of life”’.20 On the other hand, this epithet is used to invoke deities associated with the Underworld, and in Orphic Hymn 3 it serves to conjure up the Nyx and in Orphic Hymn 29 the Eumenides. Aphrodite’s association with the night may be related to the nocturnal nature of sex.21 Moreover, Nyx (Νύξ) is the mother of Love (Φιλότης), a deity that from the beginning is part of the goddess’s attendants (Hes. Th. 224). Thus the epithet γενέτειρα simultaneously evokes the fertilizing power of the deity and her gloomy side, her link with the Underworld. However, as PIRENNE-DELFORGE22 points out, the dark side of her prerogatives reaffirms her protection of vital manifestations, among which is death. Furthermore, she is called Φύσι παμμήτωρ (2916), ‘Nature, mother of all things’, which refers to Homeric Hymn 30, where the poet conjures up Gaia with this epithet. In Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων (3.32) when talking about this same goddess, Porphyry calls her παμμήτωρ. And in Dionysiaca (13.36) Nonnus uses this title to refer to Rhea. The only links between Aphrodite and these goddesses are fertility and the power to create life. Aphrodite is also invoked as αἰθερία and χθονία (2916); the first epithet in Euripides’ Rhesus (530–31) refers to the Pleiades, while in Orphic Hymn 10 it refers to the Graces. The second one is usually employed by tradition to name Hekate, as in Theocritus’ Idyll 2. Plutarch also calls Hekate with this epithet in De superstitione, 166.A.5, in Aetia Graeca et Romana, 290.D.3, and De defectu oraculorum, 416.E.4. Pausanias 17

Cf. ASMIS, Lucretius’ Venus. In IG (IV2.1, 131), but I analysed the text edited by FURLEY/BREMER, Greek Hymns I, 214–24, II, 167–75. 19 Syncretism will be examined in subchapter 5. 20 DUNAND, Traditional Religion, 179. 21 See Men. Mis. 1–14. 22 PIRENNE-DELFORGE, Aphrodite grecque, 443. 18

242

Marcela Ristorto

uses χθονία to refer to Demeter and her daughter (2.35.4.9–11, 3.14.5.3). In the Classical Period the only link that can be established between Aphrodite and Hekate starts with the Graces, since an inscription of the fifth century23 allows us to state that these goddesses were also worshipped together at Eleusis. This association may also be seen at Athens but in a later period.24 In Orphic Hymn 40, Deo and Persephone are invoked as χθονία, while in Hymn 71 Persephone, as the wife of Hades, is called νύμφην χθονίαν. Also in this collection, the Phrygian Mother, who dwells on Mount Ida or Tmolos, is praised as χθονία (Orph. H. 49). This epithet is only used to invoke Aphrodite in Plutarch Amatorius (764.D.3). Although χθονία is not frequently used to refer to Aphrodite, the goddess’s actions were linked to the Underworld. Contrary to Demeter and her daughter, who are associated with cereals, Aphrodite has power over uncultivated land; her fertility comes from unspoiled land, abundance of natural vegetation, which requires no human intervention to thrive. But the vegetal lust that underlies Kythereia, as already mentioned, has its dark side. PIRENNE-DELFORGE 25 states that the shadow side of procreation and generation was mythically expressed through the story of the abduction of Persephone by Hades.26 A possible explanation for the large number of epithets that Aphrodite receives is that in the invocatio of this magical hymn the rhetorical device of enumeration prevails, reflecting the analogy between cultic titles and the nature of the request.27 This listing of epithets is not intended to be exhaustive but rather aims to achieve absolute efficiency. The magician shows his enormous knowledge of the gods and as a result his huge power.28 This listing of epithets, which is typical of magical hymns, can be considered a stylistic feature influenced by Egyptian hymns.29 Moreover, this use of 23

Cf. CIA III, 268, ibid. I, 4. Cf. FARNELL, Cults II, 508–9. 25 PIRENNE-DELFORGE, Aphrodite grecque, 443–4. 26 In the Classical Period there was a clear relationship between Aphrodite and Persephone since the goddesses were venerated together in Thebes (cf. FARNELL, Cults II, 652). 27 Cf. POCCETI, Forma, 191–2. This diversity of epithets also refers to the various names of Aphrodite gathered in the famous Neoplatonic repertoire Lydus, Mens. 4.64, cf. TARDIEU, Noms magiques, 226, n. 4. 28 Cf. GORDON, ‘What’s in a List?’, 242. 29 This feature of Egyptian hymns should relate to the importance of the name. ‘Telling the names of a deity means reciting hymns and eulogies in his or her praise’ (ASSMANN/FRANKFURTER, Egypt, 157; cf. DUNAND, Culte d’Isis ou religion isiaque?; DUNAND, Traditional Religion). As well, in the epigraphic hymns in honour of Isis, for example those found in the temples of the goddess in Philae or Dendara among others, it can be seen that Isis is invoked with different names or epithets and often takes the name and functions of local goddesses. It is possible to suppose then that the importance of the names of Isis is related to the intention of the Egyptian hymns, i.e., to affirm the supremacy of Isis, her condition as a universal goddess. Thus, at the beginning of her study, NAGEL (One for All, 207) points out the existence of ‘a henotheistic concept of Isis as a universal goddess, as a παντοκράτωρ and panthea: Isis is “the One” or even “the only One” and at the same time she is everything, including all the other god(desse)s’. An eloquent example is the first Hymn of Isidorus in VANDERLIP, Four Greek Hymns, 17–19. It may be assumed that the magical hymns take up this feature of the Egyptian hymns, that is, they take up again the lists of names and epithets. 24

Love Spell and Hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV (2891–941)

243

epithets, commonly applied to Hekate, Gaia, Rhea, the Eumenides or Nyx, must relate to the religious conception30 according to which divine powers are permanently interrelated and their domains may not appear closed and sealed but rather interconnected: ‘en pays polytheiste une divinité n’est pas pensable de façon isolée, c’est pourquoi il faut considérer avec la plus grande attention ses liens généalogiques et ses associations avec d’autres puissances divines, que ce soit dans les mythes ou dans les cultes’.31 We can observe, then, the versatility of divine powers manifested in the plural and flexible system of polytheism, where the prerogatives of any deity can have interference in different areas. However, it is important to note that these titles could be called ‘noms barbares’32 and have an ambiguous character because these deities were linked to the Underworld. This ominous aspect of the goddess is strengthened since in the sequence of voces magicae ἀκτιωφι Ἐρεσχιγάλ νεβουτοσουαληθ (2909–10), which is employed in the coercive formula, Ἐρεσχιγάλ was the name of a Mesopotamian goddess of the Underworld.33 The presence of Helios is also important because under the name of ‘great BARZA’ he joins with Aphrodite in a loving relationship. The mention of βαρζαν is another example of syncretism, but this time with the Persian world. E.N. O’NEIL notes that ‘The word Barza is Persian and means “shining light”.’34 A possible explanation is that βαρζα derives from barãru, ‘shine’, and the expression could refer to the shining forth of the stars in the evening. Furthermore, OPPENHEIM35 states ‘the deity in Mesopotamia is experienced as an awesome and fear-inspiring phenomenon endowed with a unique, unearthly, and terrifying luminosity’. Likewise the name βαρζα in PGM XIVa 2 designates an attribute of Helios (θεὸν μέγαν βάρζαν βουβαρζαν ναρζαζουζαν βαρζαβουζαθ, Ἥλιον·). It would thus seem that βαρζα assimilated to Helios, in the Roman Empire could be identified with the Persian god Mithras, a powerful deity, characterised by his solar attributes. As TURCAN36 stated, Mithras had a close relationship with the goddess Anahita, and on this account Herodotus (1.131.10–132.1) called Persian Aphrodite Mitra. 37 BARZA-Helios has an important mission: ‘causar el movimiento de un cuerpo hacia la posesión de otro cuerpo, su captura y la intención de mantenerlo en su órbita’.38 Thus, the combined action of Aphrodite and Helios-BARZA 30

This conception is not only specifically Greek but it is shared by all the peoples of the Mediterranean area. 31 PIRONTI, Aphrodite, 171. 32 Cf. TARDIEU, Noms magiques, 228. 33 We consider that these epithets are an evidence of syncretism. Cf. TARDIEU, Noms magiques, 229: ‘Ces multiples attestations de Νεβουτοσουαλήθ montrent un nom barbare sorti de l’épiclèse d’Ereshkigal et circulant de façon autonome pour designer, non pas une déesse babylonienne, l’épouse de Nergal, mais une Aphrodite grecque interprétée en souveraine du royaume des morts, une nouvelle Perséphone en quelque sorte.’ For the use of these names in the PGM and PDM see also the contribution by SCHWEMER in this volume. 34 GMPT, 93, n. 368. 35 OPPENHEIM, Ancient Mesopotamia, 176. 36 TURCAN, Mithra, 21–2. 37 However, TARDIEU, Noms magiques, 232–3, argues that the word βαρζαν is a hypocorism of Barzokhara, epithet of the Iranian goddess Anahita. 38 ARSENTIEVA, Conjuros eróticos, 14–15.

244

Marcela Ristorto

must guarantee that the lover can satisfy his passion. Another vox magica mentioned in the hymn which may be connected with Persian tradition is ῥουζω. E.N. O’NEIL refers to HOPFNER who ‘assumes that Rhouzo is confused with the Persian magical word Zouro’.39 And TARDIEU definitely states ‘je comprends Rhouzô comme étant la transcription du moyen-perse rwz/rôz, “le jour”, suivi de la désinence grecque feminine -ώ’.40 This section ends with the highly effective voces magicae, i.e. odd words of seemingly uncertain origin since they are not Greek or Latin terms. According to VER41 SNEL: ‘The powerful sounds acquired an additional function as they were understood to be the secret names of mysterious deities invoked in the spells.’ The voces magicae exhibited the magicians’ knowledge of the secret names of the gods; and this wisdom gave them power. In this hymn the eulogia also appears fused with the request, and this important section occupies a small space as in all magical hymns. καὶ τῇ δεῖνι, ἣν δεῖνα, βάλε πυρσὸν ἔρωτα, ὥστ’ ἐπ’ ἐμοῦ τοῦ δεῖνος, οὗ ἡ δεῖνα, φιλότητι τακῆναι ἤματα πάντα. σὺ δέ, μάκαρ, ῥουζω, τάδε νεῦσον ἐμοί, τῷ δεῖνι, ὡς σὸν ἐν ἄστροις ἐς χορὸν οὐκ ἐθέλοντα ἦξας ἐπὶ λέκτρα μιγῆναι, ἀχθεὶς δ’ ἐξαπίνης καὶ τὸν μέγαν ἔστρεφε βαρζαν, στρεφθείς τ’ οὐκ ἀνεπαύσατ’ ἐλισσόμενός τε δονεῖται. διὸ ἄξον μοι τὴν δεῖνα, ἣν δεῖνα, φιλότητι καὶ εὐνῇ· σὺ δέ, Κυπρογένεια θεά, τέλει τελέαν ἐπαοιδήν.

2930

2935

and inflict fiery love on her, NN, whom NN bore, So that for me, NN, whom NN bore, She melt with love through all the days to come But, blessed RHOUZO, grant this to me, NN: Just as into your chorus ‘mid the stars A man unwilling you attracted to Your bed for intercourse, and once he was Attracted, he at once began to turn Great BARZA, nor did he cease turning, and While moving in his circuits, he’s aroused: Wherefore attract to me, her, NN, whom NN bore, To bed of love. But goddess Cyprus-born Do you now to the full fulfill this chant.42

In the εὐχή, RHOUZO is the main character; although he could be in his origin a vox magica without a clear meaning, here this name refers to a deity. 43 BACH states that ῥουζω refers to the North Star or the Demon of a star. According to

39

GMPT, 93, n. 369; HOPFNER, Offenbarungszauber II, § 207. Cf. ROSCHER, Ausführliches Lexikon VI, 763–4. 40 TARDIEU, Noms magiques, 234. 41 VERSNEL, Poetics, 114. 42 Translation by O’NEIL in GMPT, 94. 43 MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax II, 120.

Love Spell and Hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV (2891–941)

245

PREISENDANZ44 and ROSCHER’s Lexikon,45 ῥουζω could be a masculine deity, since he receives a male epithet (μάκαρ), however μάκαρ can also be an epithet of female deities.46 Therefore, μάκαρ in this hymn could praise a goddess who is a partner of Aphrodite in the chorus of the stars. It is possible to think that if the offering is dedicated to the star of Aphrodite, the pronoun σύ relates to the goddess and then the invocation is addressed to her divine assistant. Then in the εὐχή there is a historiola, a brief narrative that refers to stories or mythical tales of larger scale and known to everyone.47 The imagined setting is that RHOUZO leads the victim to the magician’s house, i.e. the historiola has the function of coercing the god. Confirming this interpretation, we quote BRASHEAR48 who says: ‘The precedent having been cited, the god is obliged to act the same way now as then, this time to the benefit of the conjuror.’ In this section of the hymn we find images of fire to describe the effects to be obtained through the spell: the magician seeks to ‘turn on’ the fire of erotic passion (πυρσὸν ἔρωτα, 2931), i.e. the victim must feel the melting power of love (τακῆναι ἤματα πάντα, 2931) and be transported to a state of erotic ecstasy. The hymn closes with a new invocation to the goddess, where she is asked to execute the ἐπαοιδή. The more usual epithets of Greek hymnic tradition are used in the εὐχή: Κυπρογένεια, βασίλεια θεά and ἄνασσα which refer to one of the goddess’s favourite places, Cyprus. Homeric Hymn 6 (to Aphrodite) describes the arrival of the deity in Cyprus, how she is received, dressed and adorned by the Hours. The poet defines in this hymn the characteristics of Aphrodite and her areas of power, since in her presentation on the Olympos she immediately provokes lust and rivalry among all the gods (16–18). Thus the nature of the request is reinforced by the epithet Κυπρογένεια and the petition has the same strength and effectiveness of the magic words to achieve the divine intervention. According to BONNET, 49 a Great Goddess usually identified with Aphrodite had been worshiped in Cyprus since the Chalcolithic Period, with cultic titles such as ἄνασσα, Κυπρία and Παφία. The names Κυπρία and Παφία are often used in Greek poetry to refer to Aphrodite but θεά βασίλεια and ἄνασσα only appear in Orphic Hymn 55 (16, 24). Athenaeus refers to the goddess as Κύπρις βασίλεια (Deipnosophistae, 12.2.16). In this magical hymn βασίλεια and ἄνασσα allude to the great power of the goddess, which the magician wants to employ to reach his goal. 44

PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae III, s.v. ROSCHER, Ausführliches Lexikon VI, 764. 46 The adjective μάκαρ only modifies female deities in Eur. Bacch. 565 and Eur. Hel. 375. Moreover the name ῥουζω given to the goddess established a sort of identity with the Persian goddess Anahita, since this was one of her epithets (cf. TARDIEU, Noms magiques, 236–7). 47 Cf. JOHNSTON, Magic, 145. This element of the magical hymn is closely related to the Egyptian tradition, as pointed out by NAGEL, Liebesbann, 260: ‘Fest in der ägyptischen Tradition verankert ist die in Liebes- und anderem Zauber vielfach angewandte Methode der Historiola, in der ein passender Präzedenzfall aus der Götterwelt erzählt und so als Form der Hypomnesis (s.o.) in das Ritual eingebunden wird.’ 48 BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3439. 49 BONNET/PIRENNE-DELFORGE, Deux déesses, 261. 45

246

Marcela Ristorto

3. Spells and magical rituals In the ancient world there are three closely interconnected ways by which man could connect with the gods: prayers-hymns, sacrifices and votive offerings.50 So through religious offerings, prayers and hymns, people seek to awaken empathy in the deities, by asking them to give assistance to the community. In the field of magic the situation does not work so differently. All magic acts constitute a union of words and praxis: an offering is dedicated in sacrifice, prayers are spoken and hymns are sung to achieve the intervention of gods or demons. According to MARCO-SIMÓN:51 Un rasgo esencial del ritual mágico es su carácter performativo, con una estructura característica: un texto que debe pronunciarse (lógos) seguido de una acción que debe llevarse a cabo (praxis). Los encantamientos en los PGM contienen la preparación de la materia magica y las invocaciones tendentes a aumentar las propiedades inherentes a ésta o a invocar a una deidad determinada.

In this particular case, the efficacy of the spell is reinforced by a hymn to Aphrodite. The spell of PGM IV 2891–941 describes the preparation for an offering to the star of Aphrodite, followed by the essential elements of the rite: the coercive formula and the hymn. To be effective the hymn should be executed at the same time that magical rituals are performed. This particular case should be included among the ἀγωγαί, i.e. the rituals that sought to lead the beloved person to the house or to the bed of the magician or to the person who had ordered the spell. πρὸς τὸν ἀστέρα τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ἐπίθυμα· περιστερᾶς λευκῆς αἷμα καὶ στέαρ, ζμύρνα ὠμὴ καὶ ὀπτὴ ἀρτεμισία, ὁμοῦ ποίει κολλούρια καὶ ἐπίθυε πρὸς τὸν ἀστέρα ἐπὶ ἀμπελίνων ξύλων ἢ ἀνθράκων. ἔχε δὲ καὶ ἐγκέφαλον γυπὸς εἰς τὸν ἐπάναγκον, ἵνα ἐπιθύῃς, ἔχε δὲ καὶ φυλακτήριον θηλείας ὄνου ὀδόν τα τῶν ἄνωθεν δεξιοῦ σαγονίου ἢ μόσχου πυρροῦ ἱεροθύτου, ἀριστερῷ βραχίονι ἀνουβιακῷ ἐνδεδεμένον.

2890

2895

Offering to the star of Aphrodite: A white dove’s blood and fat, untreated myrrh and parched wormwood. Make this up together as pills and offer them to the star on pieces of vine-wood or on coals. And also have the brains of a vulture for the compulsion, so that you make the offering. And also have as a protective charm a tooth from the upper right jawbone of a female ass or of a tawny sacrificial heifer, tied to your left arm with Anubian thread.52

The effectiveness of any religious act as well as of any magic spell depends on the connection between praxis and logos. We shall begin by considering the praxis, i.e. the inventory of materia magica required and the instructions for making the offering. There are two types of ingredients manipulated in this spell: the elements that are usually present in religious rituals, such as myrrh and artemisia, and exotic and odd

50

Cf. VAN STRATEN, Gifts, 65. MARCO-SIMÓN, Ex-Oriente magia, 32. 52 O’NEIL in GMPT, 92. 51

Love Spell and Hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV (2891–941)

247

materials such as vulture’s brains, asses’ teeth, etc.53 The use of incense in temples and domestic cults is widely attested throughout the Mediterranean world,54 being an essential element in any religious act, along with fire, oil, animal sacrifices, special garments and divine images. Therefore, it is not surprising that incense has great importance in many of the recipes of the PGM.55 In sacrificial practices scents aim to appeal to the gods. DETIENNE 56 argues that ‘Frankincense and myrrh which are thrown into the sacrificial fire in the form of little loaves or finely ground grains, establish a communication between the two worlds that are necessarily separate from each other: the world of men and the world of the gods.’ The usual religious offerings are incense, myrrh and artemisia because they smell good and are pleasing to the gods, but also there was the belief that erotic ecstasy could be achieved through contact with some of these materials. In this context myrrh is the essential erotic substance and its magical function was linked to that of Helios, Eros or Aphrodite.57 Another ingredient of this love spell was the blood and fat of a white dove, an animal sacred to the goddess, also being a common sacrificial offering. In iconographic representations the doves are usually shown flying around the goddess or posing in her hand. However, the wizard uses these offerings to unite the divine and the human, so that Aphrodite should submissively support him in his purpose. If persuasion fails and the goddess refuses to help, the manual includes other offerings that are designed to induce her to intervene (ἐπάναγκον), such as the burning of ‘vulture’s brains’ because the vulture was a predatory animal that feeds on corpses and sacred to Ares. It is therefore for the Greeks, as DETIENNE noted,58 ‘the bird most detested both by gods and by men’. But as JOHNSTON59 points out: if pleasing things delight the gods when burnt, unpleasant things such as brains will make them uncomfortable and perhaps, therefore, will make them willing to cooperate with the practitioner lest he make them more uncomfortable yet. The ideology that underlies the procedure is traditional, and it simply has been extended along logical lines: all materials can be burnt in order to send messages to the gods—unpleasant as well as pleasant.

It is possible to observe how the wizard performs the spell, adapting and giving new meaning to the traditional sacrificial practices. Besides the relationship between the vulture and Ares, we must take into account the great importance that this animal bears in Egyptian religion. Therefore, we could propose that the mention of the vulture as a sacrificial offering is an example of syncretism, because this animal has great importance in Egyptian religion.60 In addition, the vulture refers to the fusion suffered by the figures of Aphrodite and Isis-

53

Cf. LIDONNICI, Single-Stemmed Wormwood, 63. Cf. BURKERT, Greek Religion, 62. 55 Cf. LIDONNICI, Single-Stemmed Wormwood, 66. 56 DETIENNE, Gardens, 38. 57 Cf. ARSÉNTIEVA, Conjuros eróticos, 14. 58 DETIENNE, Gardens, 24. 59 JOHNSTON, Sacrifice, 350. 60 In fact, the vulture is the sacred symbol of Upper Egypt. 54

248

Marcela Ristorto

Hathor.61 Then the text explains how the magician should prepare the amulet. One of the ingredients is the ‘cord of Anubis’, an expression which possibly refers to the thread that was used in mummification.62 Anubis, as god of death and resurrection, ‘linked the darkness of the Underworld with the sun in the sky’.63 And in this magical ritual he acts as the herald or the agent of Isis. After the offering section, we find the coercive formula (ἐπάναγκος τῆς πράξεως) consisting in the logos: εἰ δὲ καθὼς θεὸς οὖσα μακρόψυχόν τι ποιήσῃς, οὐκ ὄψῃ τὸν Ἄδωνιν ἀνερχόμενον Ἀΐδαο. εὐθὺ δραμὼν ἤδη τοῦτον ἐγὼ δήσω δεσμοῖς ἀδάμασιν· φρουρήσας σφίγξω Ἰξιόνιον τροχὸν ἄλλον, κοὐκέτι πρὸς φάος ἥξει, κολαζόμενος δὲ δαμεῖται· διὸ ποίησον, ἄνασσα, ἱκετῶ· ἄξον τὴν δεῖνα, ἣν δεῖνα, τάχιστα μολοῦσαν ἐλθεῖν ἐν προθύροισιν ἐμοῦ τοῦ δεῖνος, οὗ ἡ δεῖνα, φιλότητι καὶ εὐνῇ, οἴστρῳ ἐλαυνομένην, κέντροισι βιαίοις ὑπ’ ἀνάγκῃ, σήμερον, ἄρτι, ταχύ. ὁρκίζω γάρ σε, Κυθήρη· νουμιλλον βιομβιλλον· ἀκτιωφι Ἐρεσχιγάλ νεβουτοσουαληθ· φρουρηξια θερμιδοχη βαρεωνη

2900

2905

2910

But, if as goddess you in slowness act, You will not see Adonis rise from Hades, Straightway I’ll run and bind him with steel chains; As guard, I’ll bind on him another wheel Of Ixion; no longer will he come To light, and he’ll be chastized and subdued. Wherefore, O Lady, act, I beg: attract NN, whom NN bore, to come with rapid step To my door, me NN, whom NN bore, And to the bed of love, driven by frenzy, In anguish from the forceful goads – today, At once, quickly. For I adjure you, Kythere, NOUMILLON BIOMBILLON AKTIŌPHI, ERESCHIGAL, NEBOUTOSUALĒTH PHROURĒXIA THERMIDOCHĒ BAREO64 NE.

The formula has two of the characteristic sections of prayers and hymns that were present in the context of traditional religion. The magician adapts this form to his needs; in this way an expression of defiance begins the formula, because the wizard seeks to intimidate Aphrodite. Nonetheless, in this invocatio-threat we find mythological references that are more frequent in the eulogia than in the invocatio. First the formula refers to the lover that according to mythical tradition the goddess was sup61

Cf. NAGEL, One for All, 216. See subchapter 5. GMPT, ad loc. 63 WITT, Isis, 202. 64 GMPT, 93. 62

Love Spell and Hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV (2891–941)

249

posed to share with Magna Mater at different times of the year, Adonis. The young man died while hunting and he is the only demigod that can return from Hades each year.65 However, it is possible to assume that, in the historiola, the young man led by RHOUZO to Aphrodite’s bed is Adonis, which would represent an impressive example of merging of the cultures. And the mention of ‘Ixion’s wheel’, 66 an instrument of erotic magic, alludes to Ixion, the mythical king that attempted to rape Hera and for this reason was condemned to be tied to a turning wheel. But this story also refers to the myth of Iynx. The young sorceress, daughter of Peitho or the nymph Echo, who with her spells managed to seduce Zeus or to make him join with Io. Hera took vengeance transforming her into the bird of the same name, destined to serve in love affairs.67 Moreover, the reference to ‘Ixion’s wheel’ is evidence of religious syncretism, since this instrument of erotic magic in the Archaic and Classical tradition was linked to Aphrodite, while in Late Antiquity it refers to the magical instrument of Hekate.68 The petition requires assistance to satisfy the erotic desire of the magician or of his client. It actually expresses the primary objective of the ἀγωγή. The violence of language in the spell is probably a result of the feelings of the performer, who must feel like a helpless victim of the irresistible power of eros.69 Magic love spells are used because the only way to recover from the condition caused by passion is the possession of the beloved.70 In this spell there is a strong link between love and madness, as the woman must be ‘driven by frenzy’ (οἴστρῳ ἐλαυνομένην κέντροισι, 2906). Since Greek tragedy the word οἶστρος designates erotic frenzy, and Euripides uses this term to describe the feeling of Phaedra (Eur. Hipp. 1300). This madness forces the beloved woman to do something against her will, i.e., she must leave home and join the one who loves her. The coercive formula ends with a new invocatio, where one of the traditional epithets of the goddess is reinforced with the so-called voces magicae. The explanation of their meaning is still subject to controversy; so for example, in relation to the vox magica νεβουτοσουαληθ (2909–10), very common in the magical papyri, BRA71 SHEAR points out that it has been interpreted ‘as Babylonian, Nebu (= Nabû) being a Babylonian deity, whilst others had suggested it is Egyptian’. 72 For this reason we could agree with the ancient authors that the voces magicae did not necessarily make sense in themselves and did not refer to particular objects or concepts, but they interacted with a radically different world.73 The names or epithets of other deities could 65

Cf. Theoc. Id. 15.86, 100–105, 136–44. The mention of Adonis also refers to the eastern, Phoenician character of the goddess (cf. TARDIEU, Noms magiques, 230). 66 Cf. Pind. Pyth. 4.214–16; Theoc. Id. 2. 67 Cf. Call. fr. 685 (PFEIFFER); schol. in Theoc. Id. 2.17; schol. in Pind. Nem. 4.156a; Suda s.v. Ιϋγξ. 68 Cf. KARIVIERI, Magic, 245. 69 Cf. J.J. WINKLER, Constraints of Eros, and FARAONE, Ancient Greek Love Magic. 70 In Greek poetry we could find examples of overwhelming passion that only yields after the possession of the cause of these feelings. So Phaedra in Eur. Hipp. or Simaetha in Theoc. Id. 2. 71 BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3436. 72 Cf. SCHWEMER, in this volume, for the problems surrounding the interpretations of this name. 73 VERSNEL, Poetics, 145.

250

Marcela Ristorto

also be employed as voces magicae, thus for example, ἀκτιῶφις (PGM IV 2469) or the Babylonian goddess Ereškigal (Ἐρεσχιγάλ) well-known in Mesopotamian poetry.74 Accordingly, ἀκτιῶφις might be an epithet of Selene and this name occurs elsewhere in the PGM (IV 2473, 2484, 2601, 2664, 2749, 2913, etc.). Only in PGM IV 2469 ἀκτιῶφις is called ‘a goddess’ (ἡ θεὸς) on her own. 75 On the other hand MERKELBACH asserts that Aphrodite is only one of the many shapes that Hekate could take. And he states that ‘Der geheime, wahre Name der Göttin lautet Ἀκτιῶφις, Ἐρεσχιγάλ, Νεβουτοσουαληθ.’ 76 This could for example be related to a magical gem representing the triple Hekate and engraved with the sequence Ἐρεσχιγάλ, νεβουτοσουαλη (ηθ) νελχειωθι.77 It can thus be seen that the structure of the magical spell has important functions. The invocatio calls attention to the deity, who is required to come and fulfil the desires of the lover. Yet, there may be a variation of the standard form of prayer, since the invocatio has mythical references, an element that corresponds to the eulogia. Then the request is made and finally, the spell ends with another invocation. We might think that the desire is so urgent that it is expressed immediately after having threatened the goddess. 3.1. The element of compulsion (λόγος ἐπάναγκος) It is possible to state with FARAONE78 that this spell, an example of wicked erotic magic, is ‘quite similar both in form and content to traditional Greek cursing techniques’. In fact, this scholar asserts that κατάδεσμος and defixio are words that can be used interchangeably. 79 The wizard burns an offering as a holocaust so that the beloved woman will be consumed with passion as fire consumes the oblation. Thus, while the magician enunciates the λόγος ἐπάναγκος, he burns the offerings in order to achieve the assistance of divine forces to reach the object of his/her erotic passion.80 The coercive formula (λόγος ἐπάναγκος) that accompanies the magical ritual begins with a brief invocation (θεὸς) and the specific request that the goddess may quickly execute the petitioner’s wishes next to the threat. It is in the form of a conditional clause: if the goddess does not perform the requirements of the practitioner, she will be deprived of her lover, Adonis. The wizard will tie him with indissoluble bonds, so 74

Among other authors see DHORME, Religions, 69–71, 321–3; WOLKSTEIN/KRAMER, Inanna; BEAULIEU, Mesopotamia; T. HOLM, Literature, 253–65. Cf. SCHWEMER, in this volume. 75 Ἀκτιῶφις, νεβουτοσουαληθ and Ἐρεσχιγάλ according to TARDIEU, Noms magiques, 228 undeniably belong to the Assyrian tradition, and the author also states that these goddesses are linked to spells of erotic coercion invoking Selene (PGM IV 2601–6, 2663–9). 76 MERKELBACH/TOTTI (eds.), Abrasax II, 113. 77 See A. DELATTE/DERCHAIN, Intailles magiques, 192, no. 254bis (re-edited in MASTROCINQUE, Intailles magiques). 78 Cf. FARAONE, Ancient Greek Love Magic, 49. 79 Cf. FARAONE, Agonistic Context, 3. NAGEL, Liebesbann, 220, acknowledges that: ‘In der lateinischen Nomenklatur entspricht dem katadesmos die defixio (“Durchbohrung, Bannung”), die für eine solche Bannung verwendeten Täfelchen heißen entsprechend tabellae defixionum.’ For a detailed analysis of the relationship between ‘Liebeszauber’ and defixio see NAGEL, Liebesbann, 234–6. 80 Cf. GRAF, Prayer, 196–7.

Love Spell and Hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV (2891–941)

251

the young man can never return from Hades. The magician’s words could be called ‘conditional curses’81 and we could state that he does things with his powerful words since their effectiveness is manifested at the same time the wizard utters them. It is possible to see then that the efficacy of the spell depends simultaneously on the enunciation of the magic formula and the ritual act (burning the offering).82

4. Aphrodite in the PGM: similarities and differences with the Greek poetic tradition In this magical hymn it is possible to see how certain attributes and cultic names are kept while the goddess acquires new characteristics. Even though Aphrodite was originally a pre-Olympic goddess who wielded power and dominated the other gods, including Zeus, she became his daughter and was assigned a very limited role by him (cf. Hom. Il. 5.426–30). So in the Archaic poetic tradition Aphrodite gradually reduces her powers, whereas in the PGM the goddess is presented as an all-powerful deity, whose actions only have a limit in her own will. Thus we can see that while in Hesiod Aphrodite precedes Zeus, in Homeric Hymn 5 and in the Homeric poems she is only Διὸς θυγάτηρ (‘daughter of Zeus’). Besides, at the beginning of Homeric Hymn 5 she is independent from Zeus’s will and wields power over all nature and all the gods, including the sovereign god himself (34–7, 47– 8), but the poem also shows how Zeus limits her power. By the fulfilment of the divine plan he makes Aphrodite recognise the limitations of her divine nature by imposing on her the same terrible pain she had already inflicted on other gods for joining with a mortal (81). As FAULKNER83 correctly argues: ‘The lesson she is being taught is thus that the superiority she exerted on the other gods was temporary and partly illusory; her universal power did not exclude her from the community of the immortals nor allow her to escape the law of cosmic order.’ Aphrodite has made bad use of her power and Zeus punishes her for her shamelessness; from now on she must submit to the new order established by the supreme god.84 In epic, lyric and tragic poetry Aphrodite can be defined as the goddess of erotic pleasure, whose privileged sphere of influence is love, sex and marriage’s issues. However, along with the erotic power of the goddess – she joins and reproduces animals, men and gods –, we should not neglect the destructive power of amorous passion. There are many examples throughout Greek poetry where her harmful potential is shown; the sufferings of characters such as Deianira, Medea, Hippolytus and Phaedra are only a few of them.85 In this magical hymn the magician wishes to emphasise the greatness of the deity whose assistance he requires.

81

Cf. FARAONE, Ancient Greek Love Magic, 54, n. 61. Cf. FARAONE, Agonistic Context, 4. 83 FAULKNER, Homeric Hymns, 125. 84 Cf. PIRENNE-DELFORGE, Conception, 191. 85 Cf. Soph. Trach.; Eur. Hipp. and Med. 82

252

Marcela Ristorto

It can be argued that the relationship between Aphrodite and different Eastern goddesses had two distinctive phases. There is a first association, assimilation or syncretism in the second millennium BCE. However, the goddess Aphrodite as portrayed in Archaic and Classical Greek poetry had undergone a significant transformation that differentiates her from her ancient Near Eastern archetype. Inanna, Ištar or Astarte was a goddess both of love and war, and of great cosmic powers. In Hesiod Aphrodite is also presented as a cosmic force, daughter of Ouranos and independent of the power of Zeus, whereas in the Homeric poems she is presented as the daughter of Zeus and subject therefore to his authority. She is also characterised as a comic and unthreatening goddess of love and beauty, when, for example, Diomedes wounds her on the battlefield (Il. 5.330–31). This scene makes it clear that Aphrodite is no longer a goddess of war. The second phase began in Hellenism and lasted until the Roman Period, when Aphrodite was associated with Hellenistic Isis, thus regaining power and acquiring a new prominence. In PGM IV Aphrodite receives epithets and is related to voces magicae that refer to the Underworld, turning away from the Greek tradition. In the Archaic and Classical Period the goddess is connected with the Underworld through the idea of regeneration, as PIRENNE-DELFORGE 86 argues: ‘Si Aphrodite est dès lors puissance chthonienne, c’est au moins autant en référence à la terre et à son potentiel vital qu’à la nuit.’ But in Roman Egypt, Aphrodite becomes an all-powerful deity assimilated to great goddesses such as Persephone, Hekate, Isis, Hathor, Ištar or Inanna.87 Thus the magician does not want to emphasise the dangerous aspects of the deity, but rather to highlight her power. The wizard recognises that Aphrodite is πολυώνυμος, i.e. she has many names and multiple powers.88

5. Elements of syncretism 5.1. In the hymn As we have repeatedly pointed out, Aphrodite takes specific characteristics and attributes of different goddesses in different religious traditions: Isis, Hathor, Ištar or Inanna. It is necessary to recognise that this was not a process that began at the time of the composition or circulation of the recipes of the magical papyri, for it dates back to older times. From the Archaic tradition there is a relationship between this goddess and the East. As we have already noted from Hesiod onwards, Kythereia is an epithet of the goddess that refers to the first place where Aphrodite was worshipped (Hes. Th. 192, 205, cf. Paus. 1.14.7, 3.23.1). According to Herodotus, the Phoenicians, who act as intermediaries between Assyria and the Greeks, founded the first sanctuary of Aphrodite Ourania on Cyprus (1.105). Various elements of worship reveal this relationship, e.g. the abundance of essences and incense burned on the altar of both Ištar and Aph86

PIRENNE-DELFORGE, Aphrodite grecque, 471. See a detailed discussion in the following subchapter. 88 Cf. AUBRIOL, Invocation, 482–4. 87

Love Spell and Hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV (2891–941)

253

rodite, and also the presence of the dove which was the animal consecrated to both goddesses.89 The offering here is made to the star of Aphrodite, i.e. to the planet Venus, which was considered the astral form of Inanna and her Semitic counterpart Ištar.90 Furthermore in the hymn Aphrodite is the one ‘who holds together things’ and this characterisation allows us to speak of syncretism, since this quality describes Ištar in Mesopotamian cosmology. 91 This identification is supported by the existence of Sumerian hymns to Inanna. In hymns written by the Sumerian priestess Enheduana, Inanna is addressed by the invocation ‘you hold everything entirely in your hands’. Inanna is characterised as ‘Queen of Heaven and Earth’ and as the one who ‘possesses the very design of life and controls the movement of the natural world’.92 The epithet θεῶν γενέτειρα καὶ ἀνδρῶν (2915) may well refer to Lucretius’ Venus Physica. In the De Rerum Natura, the goddess is depicted as Mother Nature, (rerum natura creatrix, 1.629, 2.1117, 5.1362). In the proem of Lucretius’ poem, Venus is presented as the vivifying force of nature, through desire she gives birth and growth to all that exists. But this epithet could also refer to the title Μητήρ θεῶν, which enables us to postulate the influence of Isis, as Mother Goddess, since according to DU93 94 NAND Isis is ‘avant tout …une “mère divine”’. Moreover, in Demotic hymns the deity is called ‘Mother of the gods’ (since she is Horus’ mother but also because she nourishes gods as well as men). Isis is both a goddess of fertility and a goddess of love and sexuality. Thereby it is natural that the deity merged with the Phrygian Mother of the Gods, Greek Demeter and with Mesopotamian Ištar.95 The expression ματὴρ θεῶν, epithet of Kybele, is also used to refer to Isis in Egyptian texts and documents from the late second century BCE. This is evidence of syncretism between the great Egyptian goddess and the Phrygian deity.96 But this assimilation between Isis and Kybele is not confined to the world of the Lagids but continues in the Roman Empire and for example in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses.97 The goddess is presented to Lucius as rerum naturae parens (11.5.1–2). This process of assimilation or identification between Aphrodite and other goddesses is an example of interpretatio, which eventually leads to what BUDIN 98 called ‘amalgamation’, i.e. the emergence of a new conception of the goddess. Thus in Roman Egypt Aphrodite is again a powerful deity. 89

Cf. MARCOVICH, From Ishtar, 48. Cf. ROCHBERG, Mesopotamian Cosmology, 326; PIRENNE-DELFORGE, Aphrodite grecque, 415– 17, esp. 415. 91 Cf. ROCHBERG, Mesopotamian Cosmology, 324. 92 DE SHONG MEADOR (ed.), Inanna, 78. 93 DUNAND, Culte d’Isis ou religion isiaque?, 41. 94 See the hymns in Demotic edited by KOCKELMANN, Praising: O. Hor. 10 (p. 13); P. Tebt. Tait 14 (p. 33). Isis is also invoked as ‘Mother of the gods’ in the first Hymn to Isis of Isidorus (second or first century BCE). 95 Cf. WITT, Isis, 131. 96 Cf. COLIN, Isis, 271. 97 Cf. COLIN, Isis, 289. 98 BUDIN, Reconsideration, 98. 90

254

Marcela Ristorto

5.2. In the spell In Egypt, the vulture was related to Isis insofar as, according to KRUG: ‘In der ägyptischen Kunst ist die Geierhaube als die bekannteste Form der Vogelkappe fest in der Ikonographie der Isis und der mit ihr verschmolzenen Göttinnen verankert.’ 99 Furthermore, the wife of Osiris was identified with Hathor, the vast sky, the Great Mother that sustains the functioning of the universe. The latter goddess was represented in different ways; in many of them she is wearing a crown with cow horns and a solar disk, a vulture headdress and a tiara with uraeus. This bird is also associated with Nekhbet, goddess of the South, who is linked to Hathor. We might see the vulture as an element that remains constant in spite of this process in which goddesses with different functions are fused together. ‘Die Beständigkeit, mit welcher die Geierhaube alle diese Wandlungen begleitet und dadurch gewissermaßen omnipräsent ist, macht sie zu einer Chiffre für die ägyptische Bildform.’100 Moreover, from the Hellenistic Period onwards Aphrodite and Isis are identified as one. There are signs of this process in statuary; the dove replaces the vulture in the headdresses of the Egyptian goddess and Aphrodite wears a crown with birds.101 The reference to the Egyptian god responsible for the funeral ritual, Anubis, demonstrates a feature of syncretism. In the Hellenistic Period Anubis is considered the traditional assistant of Isis.102 The god is also identified with Hermes for his function as a guide of the dead. In Egyptian mythology there was a close link between Isis and Anubis, and in Greek mythic-poetic tradition Aphrodite and Hermes were also related. In Demodocus’ story after Hermes praises the beauty of the goddess imprisoned in the net, she rewards him with a night of love.103 Another element of syncretism may be the mention of βαρζα,104 which could refer to the Persian world.

6. Conclusion To sum up, we might assert that as far as its structure is concerned the ‘magical’ hymn does not differ from a ‘religious’ hymn. As GRAF105 points out, magicians and authors of hymns used elements and epithets that came from the hymnic tradition. Nevertheless one particularity that distances magical from religious hymns is the presence of the voces magicae. The hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV is sung while an offering is being made (θυμίαμα) and generally hymns are sung in the context of ritual sacrifice. In both sacrificial rites (the religious and the magical) there are offerings of myrrh, incense, artemisia and other aromatic substances. Nevertheless, a distinction can be made in con99

KRUG, Isis, 185. KRUG, Isis, 186. 101 Cf. CHESHIRE, Aphrodite Cleopatra, 151–91. 102 Cf. WITT, Isis, 200. 103 Hom. Od. 8.256–369; Diod.Sic. 4.6. 104 See p. 243. 105 GRAF, Prayer, 197. 100

Love Spell and Hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV (2891–941)

255

nection with the nature of materia magica. In the ritual an animal is sacrificed or certain ingredients are offered to the deity. Such ingredients are characterised by their purity and by the fact that they can please the gods (e.g. milk, water, honey and wine), while in magical rituals, unpleasant ingredients such as ‘vulture’s brains’ are presented to the deity. Although these offerings may seem ‘repulsive’ in the Greek area they show influences of Egyptian religious concepts, according to which the vulture was seen as a sacred animal, although it is true that offering parts of a vulture is not a usual Egyptian religious sacrificial practice. The hymn is performed after uttering a λόγος ἐπάναγκος, where it could be seen that the wizard simultaneously praises the goddess and threatens her in order to achieve his aim. The analysis of the hymn to Aphrodite in PGM IV (2891–941), which has taken into account many formal features, allows us to state that the distinction between the components of religious nature and those of magical nature is not huge. However, the performance of the hymn in the context of a magical ritual enables us to point out that the main difference is related to the individual and secret nature of the magical πρᾶξις, and is defined in opposition to the collective nature of cult and rituals in public religion.

PART III INTEGRATION AND TRANSFORMATION OF GRAECO-EGYPTIAN MAGIC IN JEWISH AND BYZANTINE SPELLS

The Greek Prayer to Helios in Sefer ha-Razim, in Light of New Textual Evidence GIDEON BOHAK/ALESSIA BELLUSCI 1. Sefer ha-Razim and the Greek prayer to Helios1 Sefer ha-Razim, or ‘The Book of Mysteries’, is a Hebrew book of Jewish magic, probably written towards the middle of the first millennium CE, probably in Palestine or Egypt.2 It consists of a set of 28 magical recipes which are embedded in a wider literary framework based on the description of the seven heavens and of the angels who inhabit them. In each case, a list of angels dwelling in each heaven, or each subsection thereof, is followed by magical recipes explaining what services these angels may provide, and how to make them perform these services. In some cases, the recipes even include instructions to write down and/or recite the angelic names during the performance of the magical practice associated with them. The magical recipes display a great deal of resemblance to those found in the Greek magical papyri, but the ouranological and angelological lore is very Jewish, as are the book’s language and style. Thus, Sefer ha-Razim may be characterised as the work of a Jewish writer who was intimately familiar with the Graeco-Egyptian magical tradition, but wanted to make this technology more ‘Jewish’ by excluding some blatantly ‘pagan’ features, by reworking Greek recipes and spells in Hebrew and by embedding them in a very Jewish literary framework, including a long introduction that explains how this book had been used by the likes of Noah and Solomon. Thus far, no evidence has been found to prove that Sefer ha-Razim was used, or even read, in Late Antiquity. But from the ninth century onwards, we find a steady stream of textual evidence attesting to the book’s great popularity. On the one hand, a large number of Genizah fragments prove its popularity in medieval Cairo, and presumably elsewhere in the Jewish communities of the Islamicate world, at least from the tenth century onwards. 3 On the other hand, a large number of medieval manuscripts of Ashkenazi and Sephardic origins prove its popularity in the Jewish communities of medieval and Renaissance Europe, and the presence of modern Oriental man1 The research presented here was funded by the Israel Science Foundation (Grants Nos. 635/08 and 986/14). We are grateful to JOACHIM F. QUACK, WILLIAM D. FURLEY, SVENJA NAGEL and LJUBA M. BORTOLANI for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. 2 For detailed introductions to Sefer ha-Razim, see MARGALIOTH, Sepher ha-Razim, 1–62; REBIGER/SCHÄFER, Sefer ha-Razim II, 1–125. See also BOHAK, Ancient Jewish Magic, 170–75; HARARI, Jewish Magic, 276–84. 3 For the Genizah fragments, see REBIGER/SCHÄFER, Sefer ha-Razim I, 1–16, 121*–201*.

260

Gideon Bohak/Alessia Bellusci

uscripts proves its ongoing popularity in the Islamicate world as well.4 To this we may add the fact that it was widely cited and alluded to by medieval Jewish authors, from the Karaite authors who attacked it from the ninth century onwards to the Ashkenazi Pietists who cited it in extenso in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It was even translated not only into Judaeo-Arabic, but also into Latin (in the court of Alfonso the Wise, in thirteenth-century Castille), all of which shows once again that this was the most influential book of Jewish magic in the Middle Ages.5 In the Modern world, it was entirely eclipsed by another Jewish book of magic, the Sefer Raziel, first printed in Amsterdam in 1701. In 1966, Sefer ha-Razim was reconstructed by MORDECAI MARGALIOTH and is now recognised as the most important work of ancient Jewish magic. In addition to the wide array of evidence proving that it was read in medieval Cairo, we now have some evidence showing that Sefer ha-Razim was also used there as a magical recipe book. So far, two ‘finished products’ (or ‘activated spells’) produced according to instructions found in Sefer ha-Razim have been identified among the fragments of the Cairo Genizah.6 In the present study, we present yet another example of a ‘finished product’ that is based on this late antique book. However, the great significance of the fragment published here lies not only in proving once again that Sefer ha-Razim was being used in medieval Cairo as a handbook for the production of activated spells, but also in its citation of the Greek prayer to Helios, which is one of the most famous passages of this book. In its original context, this prayer is a part of a very long ritual, which is found in the book’s description of the fourth heaven, the one in which the Sun dwells. Here, a list of the angels that lead the Sun by day and a list of those who lead the Sun by night are followed by an elaborate ritual ‘to see the Sun by day, sitting in the chariot and rising’, and by an even more elaborate ritual ‘to see the Sun by night, walking in the regions of the north’. Within that ritual, we find detailed instructions, followed by a long adjuration of the angels who lead the Sun by night. Once the practitioner recites this adjuration, a great thunder and lightning will appear, and he or she should then recite a prayer that is clearly directed to the Sun itself, but whose contents must have been utterly opaque to anyone who was not familiar with the Greek language, since it consists of a long set of Greek words transliterated in the Hebrew alphabet. This is directly followed by an appeal to the Sun, this time in Hebrew, to appear to the practitioner and reveal to him or her all that they might want to know. Then, when this is

4

For these manuscripts, see REBIGER/SCHÄFER, Sefer ha-Razim I, 17–27. For the book’s reception history, see MARGALIOTH, Sepher ha-Razim, 29–46 and REBIGER/SCHÄFER, Sefer ha-Razim II, 86–125. 6 The first fragment is T-S NS J 594 (= G39 R-S) published in REBIGER/SCHÄFER, Sefer ha-Razim I, 190*–91*, and II, 331. It includes parts of an aggressive spell from the first heaven of Sefer haRazim, parts of other aggressive spells and the wish that ‘all these curses shall come upon the head of (‫ ’)כל הקללות האלה יחולו על ראש‬a person whose name was left blank and a woman named Baqa’, daughter of Aziza, and possibly a third person whose patronymic was Maṣliaḥ. The second fragment is JTSL ENA NS 12.5, first published in BELLUSCI, Dream Requests Genizah, 95–7. For a fuller discussion of this fragment and its implications, see BELLUSCI, Genizah Finished Product. 5

The Greek Prayer to Helios in Sefer ha-Razim, in Light of New Textual Evidence

261

done, the practitioner should recite a formula of dismissal, and the Sun would go back to its normal course. The presence of this unusual Greek prayer in the middle of a Hebrew magical text was noted by GERSHOM SCHOLEM already in 1929, but it was only after the publication of MORDECAI MARGALIOTH’s edition of Sefer ha-Razim that this prayer began to receive more scholarly attention. 7 MARGALIOTH himself asked MORTON SMITH to reconstruct the original Greek prayer from its garbled Hebrew transliteration, and SMITH’s reconstruction, with some minor modifications, served as the basis for all later discussions of this prayer.8 Moreover, this prayer often was adduced by modern scholars, who quoted it or referred to it in their widely divergent reconstructions of the place of Helios and Helios-worship in late-antique Judaism.9 However, given the absence of reliable textual witnesses, SMITH’s reconstructed Greek prayer remained highly speculative. Moreover, in their recent edition of Sefer ha-Razim, REBIGER and SCHÄFER noted that among all the Genizah fragments of Sefer ha-Razim that they could muster none contained the Greek prayer to Helios, and suggested that this absence might show that the prayer is a later insertion into the book.10 Thus, the fragment which we publish here is of some importance for three different reasons, as it (a) provides more evidence that Sefer ha-Razim was actually used by medieval Jewish practitioners; (b) proves that the book’s readers and users had access to the transliterated Greek prayer, that probably was an essential part of the original composition; and (c) provides a better textual basis for any reconstruction of the original Greek prayer. In light of all this, the following study will be divided in two main sections. In the first, we describe the new fragment, offer an English translation of its contents and analyse its likely ‘Sitz im Leben’. In the second, we focus on the Greek prayer and try to reconstruct its original Greek wording in light of the new textual witness. These two sections will be followed by a brief summary and by two appendices, one with an edition of the Hebrew text of the new fragment, and one with a synopsis of the text of this prayer as found in all the textual witnesses.

2. The new Genizah fragment and its significance The Cairo Genizah fragment we wish to publish here is found in Jerusalem, in the National Library of Israel, and its shelfmark there is Heb. 4°577.5.30. It is a piece of low-quality paper, 120 mm in height and 77 mm in width, and is inscribed on both

7

For SCHOLEM’s reference, see SCHOLEM, Unknown Composition, 275 and BOHAK, Gershom Scholem, 148. For subsequent discussions of this prayer, see esp. SZNOL, Sefer ha-Razim, and SPERBER, Magic and Folklore, 92–8. 8 See MARGALIOTH, Sepher ha-Razim, 12–13 and 99, SZNOL, Sefer ha-Razim, and M.A. MORGAN, Sepher ha-Razim, 71. 9 For some pertinent examples, see MO. SMITH, Helios, 210*; MACK, Unique Character, 53; MAGNESS, Heaven on Earth, 30, 33, 36; VON STUCKRAD, Astral Magic, 259–60. 10 See REBIGER/SCHÄFER, Sefer ha-Razim II, 255, and cf. 257.

262

Gideon Bohak/Alessia Bellusci

sides in black ink. It is well preserved, but for a few small holes. The writing is in an Oriental semi-cursive script of the twelfth or thirteenth century.11 The text (see Appendix 1) seems to begin in medias res and may be translated as follows (since the voces magicae are vocalised, we offer an approximate reconstruction of their suggested pronunciation): (recto) ... on me, that by the power of the living God / I sat, in the Name of YHWH I adjure / you (pl.) that you (pl.) will co(me) and show yourselves / to me and will talk to me like a person / (who speaks) with his friend, and you will fulfill / all my wishes. / EVINOS AVTAZLIFOS / HILOS NATOS ANDRA / PISTOS PANTA TROFOS / PIRFOROS ISETRA / FOROS AKNOKRIFOS (verso) OPISTOS HAPLA / TROCHOS OCHNO[ ] / KATATICHOS NIKMONOS / SIGMOS POLIFENTOS / KRIFIM[O]S IPTOS / TRONIOS / ISTRATIOTOS / 12 MṢR WMB YHH ‘NW / MḤY DMB MNQ ’Y‘ / ḤBW R’H YBM HYY MWM

Reading this text, we may easily identify its general purpose as divinatory in nature. The demand ‘that you will co(me) and show yourselves to me and will talk to me like a person (who speaks) to his friend, and you will fulfill all my wishes’ finds numerous parallels in Jewish magical texts aimed at conjuring demons and angels to appear before the user, and especially in the divinatory technique known as ‘dream request’. Among the Genizah fragments, there are more than fifty recipes and ‘finished products’ related to this practice, which seeks to make a non-human entity (an angel, a demon or a deceased person) appear to the practitioner in a dream and reveal to him or her what they wish to know.13 The medieval use of recipes from Sefer ha-Razim for dream request rituals is attested in another Genizah fragment, JTSL ENA NS 12.5, a ‘finished product’ intended to find hidden gold coins by adjuring angels to reveal their location.14 The function of Heb. 4°577.5.30 as a ‘finished product’ (rather than as a copy of Sefer ha-Razim) is made clear by its small dimensions, by the absence of ritual instructions, and by the fact that on the verso the end of the text is followed by much blank space at the bottom of the page rather than by the continuation of the recipe from Sefer ha-Razim. Moreover, in line 6 of the recto, the expression ‘‫‘( ’לי‬to me’) is followed by a large blank space, which might have been intended for the insertion of the user’s name. However, we are puzzled by the fact that the fragment begins in medias res, since we would not expect this page to be preceded by another page, but to be a selfstanding unit.15 11

The handwriting on the fragment is remarkably similar to that found on another Genizah fragment, T(AYLOR)-S(CHECHTER) NS 157.72, which contains a recipe for invoking Michael to descend from heaven and reveal some secrets. If Jerusalem 4°577.5.30 and T-S NS 157.72 indeed were written by the same person, that person clearly had an ongoing interest in this type of rituals. 12 The next three lines were written in a lighter ink, upside-down to the rest of the text, and after several lines of blank space. 13 For a detailed survey of the dream requests from the Cairo Genizah, see BELLUSCI, Dream Requests in the Middle East. For the dream requests from the PGM and PDM, see the contribution by L.M. BORTOLANI in this volume. 14 For a fuller analysis, see BELLUSCI, Genizah Finished Product. 15 Another possibility, which seems less likely, is that this was a single recipe, loosely based on a recipe found in Sefer ha-Razim. In such a case, the original unit may have consisted of two pieces of

The Greek Prayer to Helios in Sefer ha-Razim, in Light of New Textual Evidence

263

As an adjuration of angels or demons, and/or as a dream request, this fragment would merit no special attention, since many more such texts may be found in the Cairo Genizah. The great importance of this specific text stems from the vocalised set of voces magicae that follows this request and sounds like a garbled set of Greek words. Upon closer examination, this turns out to be a copy of the Greek prayer to Helios from Sefer ha-Razim. Comparing the text that precedes the garbled Greek prayer in our Genizah fragment and the instructions of Sefer ha-Razim, we may note the many parallels between them. The phrase ‘in the Name of YHWH I adjure you (pl.) (‫ )בש' ה' עליכם השבעתי‬that you (pl.) will co(me) and show yourselves to me and will talk to me like a person (who speaks) with his friend (‫)ותדברו עמי כאיש עם ֵרעֵהו‬, and you will fulfill all my wishes (?‫’)וכל חפצי תעשו ?לי‬, finds its parallel in the adjuration of the angels who lead the Sun by night, ‘by the name of the wondrous God, I adjure you (pl.) (‫)בשם האל הנפלא השבעתי אתכם‬, that you (pl.) will make known to me this great miracle that I desire, and that I may see the Sun... and let me ask him what I wish (‫)ואשאל ממנו חפצי‬, and let him speak with me as a man speaks with his friend ( ‫וידבר עמי‬ ‫’)כאשר ידבר איש עם רעהו‬.16 It seems as if the producer of the Genizah fragment was paraphrasing the language of Sefer ha-Razim, especially by picking out those phrases that he found more useful, and by turning the verbs which in Sefer ha-Razim refer to the Sun’s appearance, and therefore do so in the singular, into plural forms, in line with the rest of the adjuration.17 Thus, it seems as if he did not fully understand that the original spell consisted of two parts, one of which is directed at the angels who guide the Sun by night, and one which is addressed to the Sun itself.18 Moreover, it seems as if he knew well that in Sefer ha-Razim adjurations are always directed at the angels listed in conjunction with them, but in this case thought that the list of transliterated Greek words was in fact a list of angel names, those angels whom he addressed in the plural in the hope that they would reveal to him whatever he wanted to know, and would fulfil his wishes. Another aspect of our fragment, whose exact significance still eludes us, is the appearance of the sequence ‘MṢR WMB ... HYY MWM’ at the bottom of the verso. The sequence itself is well known, as it consists of the final 13 triplets of the ‘Name of 72 letters’, which is made up of 72 such triplets of letters.19 But its presence here may be paper glued together, and the missing piece would have included both the ritual instructions and the beginning of our spell. 16 Tr. M.A. MORGAN, Sepher ha-Razim, 71. 17 Especially telling is the phrase ‘like a person who speaks to his friend (‫’)כאשר ידבר איש עם רעהו‬, which is based on the biblical description of how God spoke to Moses, ‘face to face, like a person who speaks to his friend (‫( ’)כאשר ידבר איש אל רעהו‬Exod 33:11). Here, the change from the singular to the plural weakens the allusion to the original biblical expression. 18 Another possibility is that he, or the copyists of the copy of Sefer ha-Razim which he had in front of him, were aware of the problematic nature of the practice of praying to Helios, and deliberately changed the text. However, in such a case we would have expected to find in our fragment the list of angels provided in Sefer ha-Razim’s recipe, and not the prayer to Helios. Given the fact that our fragment might be incomplete, no certain conclusions may be reached on this point. 19 For this Name, and for the manner by which it is derived from Exod 14:19–21, see, for example, TRACHTENBERG, Jewish Magic, 95–7.

264

Gideon Bohak/Alessia Bellusci

explained in several different ways, none of which is very satisfactory: it might be completely unrelated to the rest of the text, and could easily have been added to it long after the original text had already been written. But it may also be related to the fact that the text itself refers to the adjuration being ‘in the Name of YHWH’, as the ‘Name of 72 letters’ is one of the most popular Names of God in medieval Jewish mysticism and magic. Finally, we might even consider the possibility that this name was a part of the answer which our practitioner received in his sleep, and which he wrote down on the margins of his dream request.20 Unfortunately, none of these explanations is quite satisfactory, and for the time being this question must remain open. Returning to the adjuration itself, we may note that it is hardly surprising that a Jew living in Cairo in the twelfth or thirteenth century would have no clue as to the nature of a Greek prayer to Helios which had been transcribed in Hebrew letters, and took it as a set of angelic names or mere voces magicae. In his world Arabic was the main language of communication, with Hebrew serving as a language of communication among Jews, and between Jews and God, and Aramaic being known especially to learned Jewish scholars with a good rabbinic training; in his world, Greek was virtually unknown. And yet, while our practitioner probably was unaware of the exact nature of the meaningless series of voces magicae he was copying and thought of it as a list of angel names, the very fact that he copied this series is of great importance for anyone who wishes to study the contents of the Greek prayer to Helios found in Sefer haRazim, since it is by far the earliest textual witness to that prayer that we currently possess. In what follows, we shall therefore focus on this aspect of the text.

3. The Greek prayer to Helios in light of the new fragment As noted above, we now have, for the first time, a Genizah fragment containing the Greek prayer to Helios. It is an Oriental manuscript, dated to the twelfth or thirteenth century, whereas the earliest non-Genizah manuscripts of Sefer ha-Razim where we can read this prayer come from Italy and Ashkenaz of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Comparing the new textual witness with those previously available (see Appendix 2), we may note several important features. First, there is no doubt that the Genizah fragment preserves a longer text than all other textual witnesses, including some words that are paralleled in only some of the other manuscripts.21 Second, in the Genizah fragment the ‘magic words’ are vocalised, a feature that finds its parallel in only one other manuscript (M248).22 Moreover, in at least some cases the Genizah fragment presents a vocalisation that accurately preserves the pronunciation of the original Greek words (see, for example, the vocalisation of πυρφόρος as ‫ִירפוֹרוֹס‬ ְ ‫)פ‬, thus proving 20

For such practices, see GOLDREICH, Automatic Writing, esp. 312–16. See especially the sequence ‫ִירפוֹרוֹס ִאי ֶסט ְָרא פוֹרוֹס‬ ְ ‫ ַפנְטָא טְרוֹפוֹס פ‬, which is paralleled in only two other manuscripts, one from Italy and one from Yemen, and which is highly likely to have been a part of the original prayer (see below). 22 Comparing the vocalisations in the two manuscripts, we find many small differences and no clear evidence of direct continuity from the Genizah fragment to the sixteenth-century manuscript. 21

The Greek Prayer to Helios in Sefer ha-Razim, in Light of New Textual Evidence

265

that it was added to the transliterated Greek prayer at a time when its contents were still understood, at least in part.23 On the other hand, it seems clear that neither the letters nor the vocalisations found in our Genizah fragment are entirely accurate, for even a cursory reading makes it clear that some of its ‘words’ cannot be an accurate rendition of Greek words or phrases, and in at least one case (that of ‫)אַבְתַ זְלִיפוֹס‬, the non-Genizah manuscripts clearly preserve a reading that is much more likely than that found in the Genizah fragment. It thus seems that the Genizah fragment preserves a better copy of this text than all the previously available versions, but is far from preserving the prayer in its ‘original’ state. Moreover, we must always remember that the Hebrew alphabet simply was inadequate for the transliteration of Greek words and texts, mainly because it could not represent the Greek vowels. Thus, every Greek word became a cluster of Hebrew consonants, with only -o- and -i- sounds being represented by a vav or a yod. And, once the Hebrew text was written down and copied from one manuscript to another, there were numerous confusions between orthographically similar letters (vav and yod, bet and kaph, etc.) and even between orthographically similar clusters of letters (e.g., tet and nun + vav or tzadi and yod + nun), as even a quick look at our synopsis surely demonstrates.24 In light of these considerations, we wish to offer a word-by-word analysis of the prayer, as found in the Genizah fragment and in all other textual witnesses, with an eye to the earlier reconstruction of this prayer by MORTON SMITH and the modifications of this reconstruction offered by subsequent scholars.25 To do so, we list in parentheses the Hebrew text offered in M(ARGALIOTH)’s edition, followed by the Greek reconstructions of SM(ITH), MO(RGAN) and SZ(NOL), and then offer our own reconstruction of the original Greek text. ‫( ְאבִינוֹס‬EVINOS) [‫ אבצבי‬M; εὐσεβῶ SM, εὐσεβής MO, εὐσέβει SZ]:26 If we follow the Genizah fragment, we must abandon the earlier reconstruction of this word and opt for an adjective such as εὐγενής, ‘noble’, perhaps transliterated as ‫*אביניס‬, with a palatalisation of the gamma. This epithet is applied to Helios in PGM VII 516. Another possibility would be εὔνους, ‘well disposed, kindly, friendly’, but this adjective would seem less relevant in this context. ‫( אַבְתַ ז ְ ִליפוֹס‬AVTAZLIFOS) [‫ אנתוליפון‬M; ἀνατολικὸν SM, MO, SZ]: Here, the presence of a zayin as the fourth letter in the Genizah fragment seems a priori less likely than the vav found in all the non-Genizah manuscripts. But we are not sure which Greek word lurks here, and the reconstruction favoured by earlier scholars, ἀνατολικὸν, ‘easterly’, seems quite remote both from the reading preserved in our Genizah fragment and from those preserved by the other manuscripts. An epithet beginning with 23

The exact date when the so-called Tiberian vocalisation system came into use is not really known, but most scholars assume that this happened around the eighth century CE. 24 For these processes, as seen in other Greek spells transliterated in Hebrew letters, see also ROHRBACHER-STICKER, From Sense to Nonsense, and cf. KRIVORUCHKO, Greek Loanwords. 25 In our attempts to identify the Greek words lurking behind the Hebrew transliterations, we made much use of the standard Greek dictionaries and of KRETSCHMER/LOCKER, Rückläufiges Wörterbuch; BUCK/PETERSEN, Reverse Index; MUÑOZ DELGADO, Léxico. 26 In a later publication, MO. SMITH translated this word as ‘holy’, clearly based on a reconstruction of the Greek word as ἅγιος; see MO. SMITH, Helios, 210* and cf. 214*, n. 109.

266

Gideon Bohak/Alessia Bellusci

ευ- seems very probable, but the number of possible candidates would be extremely large. ‫( הִילוֹס‬HILOS) [‫ היליוס‬M; Ἣλιος SM, MO, SZ]: In this case, the spelling ‫היליוס‬, offered by several non-Genizah manuscripts (with ‫ היליום‬as a close variant) seems preferable to that offered by the Genizah fragment. The identification of the Greek word as Ἥλιος seems evident, as the reference to Helios is exactly what we would expect in a prayer addressed to the Sun in Greek. ‫( נָאטוֹס‬NATOS) [‫ נאטוס‬M; ναύτης SM, MO, ναύτος SZ]: Given the close correlation between the Genizah fragment and the non-Genizah manuscripts, we have little doubt that ναύτης, ‘sailor’, indeed is the most likely Greek word lurking here. We might even postulate an original transliteration of this Greek word as ‫*נאוטס‬, which became ‫ נאטוס‬because the scribes who copied this word expected an -os ending, as in many other ‘words’ in this sequence. And the reference to the sun as a sailor might be derived from the Egyptian and Graeco-Egyptian image of the boat of the sun, sailing through the heavens. ‫( אַנְ ְדּ ָרא‬ANDRA) [‫ אגדור‬M; ἀγαθός SM, MO, SZ]: Here the Genizah fragment offers a reading that is quite different than that supported by the non-Genizah manuscripts, and thus undermines the reconstruction supported by previous scholars. The Genizah fragment’s reading looks like an accurate transliteration of ἄνδρα, the accusative form of ἀνήρ, ‘man’, but we are unsure why this word should appear in the accusative, and why it should appear in a text addressed to Helios. One possibility would be that this word should have joined the following word, but a compound such as ἀνδρα-πιστός (or, rather, ἀνδροπιστός) makes little sense. Another possibility is that it should have joined the previous word – and cf. the series of -andra epithets in PGM VII 695–6 (βιάσανδρα, δαμάσανδρα, καλέσανδρα, κατανίκανδρα) – but the combination of ‫נאטוס‬ and ‫ אַנדרא‬does not yield any meaningful Greek compound. ‫( פִיסְטוֹס‬PISTOS) [‫ אפיסטוס‬M; πιστοφύλαξ SM,27 πιστός MO, ὕψιστος SZ]: This seems like an accurate transliteration of the Greek πιστός, ‘faithful’, ‘trustworthy’, definitely a possible epithet of the ever-reliable sun, as already suggested by MORGAN. ‫( ַפנְטָא‬PANTA):28 Greek πάντα, ‘all, everything’, but see our comments on the following word. ‫( טְרוֹפוֹס‬TROFOS): Greek τρόφος. Normally, we would expect the two words to be combined into a single compound adjective as πάντροφος, ‘all-nourishing’, an epithet that would be most suitable for Helios, even though we were unable to find it applied to the sun in any Greek text. Alternatively, we would suggest the form παντοτρόφος, which is applied, for example, to the creator God in the Sibylline Oracles (παντοτρόφοv κτίστην, Or. Sib. fr. 1.5). 27 MO. SMITH’s reconstruction clearly combined ‫ פִיסְטוֹס‬with the next word in MARGALIOTH’s edition, i.e. ‫אקט‬, whereas MORGAN reconstructed the word ‫ אקט‬as ἀκτῶν and joined it to the subsequent word, ‫קוריפוס‬. But note that MO. SMITH, Helios, 210*, translated this as ‘highest governor’, clearly reflecting a different reconstruction. 28 The next five words are not attested in most of the non-Genizah manuscripts of Sefer ha-Razim. They thus were not included in MARGALIOTH’s text and in the reconstructions of the Greek text offered by MO. SMITH, MORGAN and SZNOL.

The Greek Prayer to Helios in Sefer ha-Razim, in Light of New Textual Evidence

267

‫ִירפוֹרוֹס‬ ְ ‫( פ‬PIRFOROS): This compound adjective may safely be reconstructed as πυρφόρος, ‘fire-bearing’, which is a most appropriate epithet for the sun. Moreover, this epithet is found in a Greek prayer to Helios (PGM IV 438–63), where we find the vocative form πυρφόρε (ibid. 458) as one of many epithets addressed to the Sun. ‫( ִאי ֶסט ְָרא‬ISETRA): This could represent the transliteration of several different words, but as the following word is φόρος, we assume that the two ‘words’ make a single compound adjective, for which see our comments on the following word. ‫( פוֹרוֹס‬FOROS): The most likely Greek equivalent would be φόρος, probably part of a compound adjective. ἀστροφόρος, ‘star-bearing’, is one possibility,29 ἀστραπηφόρος, ‘lightning-bearer’, is another (and note how in Sefer ha-Razim’s ritual, the Sun’s appearance is preceded by thunder and lightning). If the latter suggestion is correct, we would assume that an original transliteration ‫ *אסטראפיפורוס‬was corrupted as a result of the similarity between ‫ פי‬and ‫פו‬. ‫( אַ ְקנוֹק ְִריפוֹס‬AKNOKRIFOS) [‫ אקט קוריפוס‬M; κορυφαῖος SM, ἀκτῶν κορυφαῖος MO, κόρυφος SZ]: While we are unable to offer an obvious candidate for the Greek word lurking here, we may tentatively suggest the adjective νυκτικρυφής, ‘hidden by night’, which certainly is appropriate for the Sun. 30 If this indeed was the original Greek word, it would seem that an original transliteration ‫ *ניקטיקריפיס‬was corrupted in such a way that ‫ ני‬became ‫א‬, the ‫ ט‬was preserved by some of the non-Genizah witnesses, but not by the Genizah fragment, and the ‫ יס‬ending was ‘standardised’ into -os. ‫( אוֹפִיסְטוֹס‬OPISTOS) [‫ איופיסטוס‬M; εὔπιστος (ὔψιστος?) SM, εὔπιστος MO, SZ]: Either ὁ πιστός, ‘the faithful one’, which would fit very well, but repeat an adjective that already appeared a few words earlier, or ὕψιστος, ‘the most high’, a common epithet both in ancient Jewish texts (where it sometimes is applied to the Jewish God) and in Greek magical texts, where it is applied to several different deities.31 If we adopt the latter possibility, we should assume a corruption of ‫ *איפסיסטוס‬through the changing of ‫ אי‬to ‫ או‬and the fall of one ‫ס‬. ‫( הַא ְפ ָל ַא‬HAPLA) [‫ הזפלה‬M; ὃς πάλαι SM, MO, SZ]: This looks like some form of the Greek ἁπλοῦς, ‘single, simple’, but would make little sense in a Greek prayer to Helios.32 Or, if we follow the reading of the non-Genizah manuscripts, we might suggest ἑξαπλοῦς, ‘six-fold’, but this too would make little sense in this context. On the other

29

For this adjective, as used for Isis, see LSJ, s.v. This adjective is found in Arist. Metaph. 1040a30, and applied there to the Sun. It is not attested in the Greek magical papyri, but its opposite, νυκτοφάνεια, ‘appearing by night’, appears in a hymn to Artemis-Selene (PGM IV 2524, 2819–20). Note also the Hebrew Prayer of Jacob, where the Sun is said to be ‘hidden by night (‫)והוא ניסתר בלילה‬, in order that it would not be considered a god’. For this text, see SCHÄFER/SHAKED (eds.), Magische Texte II, 31, and LEICHT, Qedushah. And cf. below, n. 34. 31 See MUÑOZ DELGADO, Léxico, 133; MO. SMITH, Helios, 210*, translated this adjective as ‘most exalted (hypsistos)’. 32 It ought to be noted, however, that the concept of ‘oneness’ attributed to the solar god would fit in an Egyptian context, as the epithet wo, meaning ‘the one, the one alone’, is documented in the sources since the early Ramesside Period, especially in relation with Amun-Re; see, for example, ASSMANN, Search for God, 242–3. 30

268

Gideon Bohak/Alessia Bellusci

hand, SMITH’s attempt to read this and the next three words as part of one syntactical unit is extremely clever, but far from convincing. ‫( טְרוֹכוֹס‬TROCHOS) [‫ טרוכוס‬M; τροχὸν SM, MO, τροχὸς SZ]: This looks like an accurate transliteration of the Greek word τροχός, ‘wheel’, which could refer to the sun’s disk, or to the circle of heaven, or to the chariot or wheel, upon which it rides in heaven, but it is not clear how it would fit within the rest of the prayer. It is, of course, possible that this and the previous word should be read as a single compound, such as ἁλίτροχος, ‘rushing through the sea’ or ἐπίτροχος, ‘swift’. [?‫( אוֹכְנ]וס‬OCHNO[ ]) [‫ אובינוס‬M; ὄβριμον (οὐράνιον?) SM, ὄβριμον MO, ὅβριμος SZ]:33 As the Genizah fragment is damaged at this point, not much can be said about the Greek word behind the Hebrew transliteration, except to note that the reconstructions offered by SMITH, MORGAN and SZNOL seem even less likely than they did before the Genizah fragment was discovered. ‫( ָקאטָאטִיכוֹס‬KATATICHOS) [‫ קאטאסטיס‬M; καθίστης SM, MO, καθέστης SZ]: The first part of the word must be the Greek prefix κατά-, but the second part is more obscure. If we follow the non-Genizah manuscripts, SMITH’s suggestion of καθίστης, ‘founder’, seems very plausible (although we would expect a θ to be transliterated by a ‫ת‬, not a ‫)ט‬, but if we follow the Genizah fragment’s reading, we would have to emend the text in a manner that still eludes us. ‫( נִי ְקמוֹנוֹס‬NIKMONOS) [‫ קזמונטס‬M; κοσμητής (κοσμώντης?) SM, κοσμητὴς MO, κοζμοντής SZ]: In this case, MARGALIOTH adopted the reading of a single manuscript (B245), but the Genizah fragment corroborates the reading of all the other manuscripts. The most obvious Greek word would be νικώμενος, from νικάω, ‘to win, conquer’, but one would expect either the active form, νικῶν, or a preceding negation (as in PGM XIVc 19: ὁ ... μὴ νικώμενος). ‫( סִיגְמוֹס‬SIGMOS) [‫ סגימוס‬M; ἄγιος SM, MO]: In light of the Genizah fragment, which corroborates what is found in the few non-Genizah manuscripts that contain this word, the earlier reconstructions seem quite unlikely, but we are unable to offer a better one. ‫( פוֹלִי ְפ ֶאנטוֹס‬POLIFENTOS) [‫ פילי פאנטור‬M; πολοκράτωρ (πολυπράκτωρ?) SM, πολοκράτωρ MO, φιλιπάντωρ SZ]: The first part of the word clearly is the Greek πολύ, ‘much’, which is prefixed to many Greek adjectives, but the second part is less clear. πολύφαντος, ‘conspicuous’, would be the most obvious candidate, but as far as we know this adjective is never used to describe Greek gods or the Sun. Thus, we hesitantly suggest πολύφωτος, ‘brightly shining’, which was reconstructed by PREISENDANZ in PGM II 121, or perhaps πολυφεγγής, with a similar meaning. ‫( ְק ִריפִימְאוֹס‬KRIFIM[O]S) [‫ קירי פומאוס‬M; κύριε πόμπος SM, MO, SZ]: Perhaps the Greek adjective κρύφιμος, ‘hidden’, which is attested in late-antique Greek texts (as a synonym for κρύφιος) and appears once in the Greek magical papyri, as a divine epithet (PGM IV 1762; cf. PGM IV 1801, for a similar use of κρύφιος). However, its application to the Sun seems counter-intuitive, although it might make more sense in

33 MO. SMITH, Helios, 210*, translated this adjective as ‘heavenly’, clearly reflecting his preference for οὐράνιον at this stage.

The Greek Prayer to Helios in Sefer ha-Razim, in Light of New Textual Evidence

269

an Egyptian context.34 Another possibility is κάρπιμος, ‘fruit-bearing’, which is applied to Helios-Apollo in one of the Orphic Hymns (Orph. H. 8.12) and could be a suitable epithet for the fruit-producing Sun. ‫( ִאיפְטוֹס‬IPTOS) [‫ איופוטוס‬M; εὔφωτος SM, MO, SZ]: If we adopt the Genizah fragment’s reading, the most likely Greek word would be ὕπατος, ‘highest’, an epithet associated with some Greek gods from Homer onwards. In the Greek magical papyri, it is found in a compound form, πανυπάτα, ‘most high (goddess)’ (PGM VII 700). ‫( תְ רוֹנִיוֹס‬TRONIOS) [‫ תיריונוס‬M; τύραννος SM, MO, SZ]: The Genizah fragment’s reading does not entirely vitiate the reconstruction offered by all earlier scholars (although we would expect a τ to be transliterated by a ‫ט‬, not a ‫)ת‬, but a word such as *θρόνιος seems more plausible. As this is not a self-standing adjective, we might suggest a combination with the previous word, to form the compound *ὑπατοθρόνιος, ‘he of the highest throne’, which we would compare with the adjective πρωτοθρόνιος, ‘filling the first seat’, which is an epithet applied to several Greek deities.35 ‫( ִאי ְסט ְַראטִיוֹטוֹס‬ISTRATIOTOS) [‫ אסטרא טיוטוס‬M; ἀστροθητής (ἀστροθέτης?) SM, στρατιώτης MO, SZ]:36 Here the Genizah fragment seems to support the reconstruction στρατιώτης, ‘soldier’, offered by MORGAN and by SZNOL, with a prosthetic aleph, as is common in the entry into Hebrew and Aramaic of Greek words beginning with στclusters. Another possibility is ἀστροθέτης, ‘the one who orders the stars’, which is attested in PGM XII 175 and especially in PGM LXXVII 18.

4. Summary and conclusions This, then, is where we currently stand. The new Genizah fragment certainly does not preserve an accurate transliteration of the original Greek prayer to Helios, and does not enable its complete reconstruction. It is clearly superior in some of its readings to the previously available textual witnesses, but in a few cases it seems inferior to them. It thus enables a more reliable reconstruction of the Greek text, but also serves as a powerful reminder of how tricky such reconstructions are, since the very act of transliterating Greek words in the Hebrew alphabet was bound to lead to ambiguous words, and the act of copying these meaningless clusters of Hebrew letters was bound to lead to textual corruption. Thus, we would be able to reconstruct this prayer in its entirety only if we find it transmitted in Greek letters, quite an unlikely event. But even if one may debate our identification of this or that Greek word, our overall findings seem to indicate that the original Greek text consisted of a string of Greek epithets, all probably related in one way or another to the sun or to the Greek sun-god, Helios. Such 34 See ASSMANN, Egyptian Solar Religion, 70–72 and 133–55. κρυπτέ (‘hidden’) occurs among the names and epithets of god that should be pronounced in the context of the consecration of a magical ring in PGM XII 201–69 (PGM XII 265). Cf. above, n. 30. 35 For this epithet, see LSJ, 1545. An alternative reconstruction would be *ἑπταθρόν(ι)ος, ‘having seven thrones’, but we are unaware of parallels to this imagery with relation to Helios. 36 MO. SMITH, Helios, 210*, translated this as ‘soldier’, clearly reflecting his acceptance of στρατιώτης as the original Greek word here.

270

Gideon Bohak/Alessia Bellusci

strings of epithets are quite common in Greek hymns, prayers and invocations, including those found in the Greek magical papyri. Moreover, one of the common features of such hymns is the occurrence of compound adjectives, including – especially in the PGM – compound adjectives that seem to have been invented ad hoc by the magicians themselves.37 In this respect, our prayer displays the same tendencies displayed by the PGM, but there also are two crucial differences.38 First, in the PGM hymns, the epithets usually appear in the vocative, as is expected in an invocation of a deity, but in Sefer ha-Razim the epithets all seem to be in the nominative case. Second, in the PGM hymns, there often is some sort of meter, most commonly dactylic hexameter, which does not seem to hold true for the Greek prayer found in Sefer ha-Razim. Whether these differences are due to the Jewish author’s ignorance of such linguistic and cultural niceties or to his sense that they are unnecessary in a Greek prayer embedded in a Hebrew text we cannot really say. What we can say, however, is that the Greek prayer to Helios that emerges from our analysis is a far simpler and humbler text than that assumed by earlier scholars. In the final analysis, some of the high-sounding Greek phrases found in their reconstructions were due to their own linguistic ingenuity more than to that of the Jewish magicians of Late Antiquity.

37 For this process, see PACHOUMI, Greek Magical Papyri, esp. 62–3. For a list of the epithets not included in LSJ, see ibid., 151–61. 38 For a useful survey of the prayers to Helios in the PGM, and an interesting comparandum to our own prayer, see COHN, P. Mich. 3404. For the Helios-related vocabulary of the PGM, see also PACHOUMI, Assimilations of Helios.

‫‪271‬‬

‫‪The Greek Prayer to Helios in Sefer ha-Razim, in Light of New Textual Evidence‬‬

‫‪Appendix a: an edition of Jerusalem, NLI Heb. 4°577.5.30‬‬ ‫‪recto‬‬ ‫‪ 1‬עלי שבכוח אלהים חיים‬ ‫‪ 2‬ישבתי בש' ה' עליכם‬ ‫‪ 3‬השבעתי שתב'‪ 39‬ותתראו‬ ‫‪ 4‬לי ותדברו עמי כאיש‬ ‫‪ 5‬עם ֵרעֵהו וכל חפצי‬ ‫‪40‬‬ ‫‪ 6‬תעשו ל]י[‬ ‫‪ְ 7‬אבִינוֹס אַ ְב ַתזְלִיפוֹס‬ ‫‪ 8‬הִילוֹס נ ָאטוֹס אַנ ְ ְדּ ָרא‬ ‫‪ 9‬פִי ְסטוֹס ַפנְטָא טְרוֹפוֹס‬ ‫ִירפוֹרוֹס ִאי ֶסט ְָרא‬ ‫‪ 10‬פ ְ‬ ‫‪ 11‬פוֹרוֹס אַ ְקנוֹ ְק ִריפוֹס‬ ‫‪verso‬‬ ‫‪ 1‬אוֹפִי ְסטוֹס הַא ְפ ָל ַא‬ ‫‪ 2‬טְרוֹכוֹס אוֹכְנ] [‬ ‫‪ָ 3‬קאטָאטִיכוֹס נ ִי ְקמוֹנוֹס‬ ‫‪ 4‬סִיגְמוֹס פ?וֹלִי ְפ? ֶאנטוֹס‬ ‫‪ְ 5‬ק ִריפִי ְמא?]ו[ס? ִאיפְטוֹס‬ ‫‪ְ 6‬תרוֹנ ִיוֹס‬ ‫‪ִ 7‬אי ֲסט ְַראטִיוֹטוֹס‬ ‫‪ 8‬מצר‪ 41‬ומבֿ יהה ענו‬ ‫‪ 9‬מח?י? דֿמבּ מנק איע‬ ‫‪ 10‬חבו ראה יבם היי מום‬

‫‪39‬‬

‫‪, ‘that you will come’.‬שתבואו ‪An abbreviation for‬‬ ‫‪The reading of this word is uncertain.‬‬ ‫‪41‬‬ ‫‪Lines 8–10 are written after a space of several lines and in an up-side-down direction in relation‬‬ ‫‪to lines 1–7.‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬

272

Gideon Bohak/Alessia Bellusci

Appendix b: a synopsis of the prayer, as found in all the textual witnesses Our synopsis incorporates all the manuscripts in which the Greek prayer to Helios may be found, as re-examined by us at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts of the National Library of Israel, in Jerusalem (the numbers in parentheses are the IMHM microfilm-numbers).42 M – MARGALIOTH, Sepher ha-Razim, 99 (eclectic edition). B244 – Budapest, Oriental Library, Kaufmann A 244, fol. 59 [F(ICHE) 96; indicated as ‫ ק‬in MARGALIOTH, Sepher ha-Razim]; Italian, seventeenth century. B245 – Budapest, Oriental Library, Kaufmann A 245, fol. 42b–43a [F 15787; indicated as ‫ ל‬in MARGALIOTH, Sepher ha-Razim]; Oriental, sixteenth/seventeenth century. F44 – Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 44.13, fol. 120a [F 17831; indicated as ‫ פ‬in MARGALIOTH, Sepher ha-Razim]; Italian, sixteenth century. M248 – Moscow, Russian State Library, Günzburg 248, fol. 298a [F 47644]; Sefardi-Oriental, sixteenth century. M738 – Moscow, Russian State Library, Günzburg 738, fol. 129a–b [F 47568]; Italian, fifteenth century. N1879 – New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, JTS 1879 (163), fol. 45a [F 10977; indicated as ‫ א‬in MARGALIOTH, Sepher ha-Razim]; Italian, fifteenth century. N8115 – New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, JTS 8115 (829), fol. 27a [F 11306; indicated as ‫ ב‬in MARGALIOTH, Sepher ha-Razim]; Italian, fifteenth century. N8117 – New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, JTS 8117 (832), fol. 29a–b [F 11308; indicated as ‫ ס‬in MARGALIOTH, Sepher ha-Razim]; Italian, seventeenth/eighteenth century. P849 – Paris, Heb. 849, fol. 62b [F 14478]; Ashkenazi, fifteenth/sixteenth century. TA42 – Tel Aviv, Bill Gross, 42, fol. 170b [F 43552; GFC YM.011.014]; Yemenite, nineteenth century. G – Jerusalem, National Library, Heb. 4°577.5.30 (Genizah fragment).

42

After some hesitation, we decided to exclude from our synopsis the Latin version (edited by REBIGER/SCHÄFER, Sefer ha-Razim I, 47) and the Arabic one (for which see FODOR, Arabic Version, 420). In both cases, the readings are quite remote from those found in the Hebrew manuscripts, and therefore of lesser relevance for the reconstruction of the original prayer.

‫‪The Greek Prayer to Helios in Sefer ha-Razim, in Light of New Textual Evidence‬‬

‫‪273‬‬

‫‪G‬‬

‫‪TA42‬‬

‫‪M738‬‬

‫‪B245‬‬

‫‪N8115‬‬

‫‪N1879‬‬

‫‪F44‬‬

‫‪N8117‬‬

‫‪P849‬‬

‫‪M248‬‬

‫‪B244‬‬

‫‪M‬‬

‫ְאבִינוֹס‬

‫אבינום‬

‫אבינום‬

‫אבינס‬

‫אבצבי‬

‫אבצבי‬

‫אבצבי‬

‫אבצבי‬

‫אבצי‬

‫ִא ְבצַם‬

‫אבצבי‬

‫אבצבי‬

‫אַ ְב ַתזְלִיפוֹס‬

‫אבתולינאם‬

‫אבתוליפום‬

‫אנתזיליפון‬

‫אנתוליפון‬

‫אנתוליפון‬

‫אנתוליפון‬

‫אנטוליפון‬

‫אנתוליפון‬

‫אַנ ְתוֹלֵיפוֹן‬

‫אנתוליפון‬

‫אנתוליפון‬

‫הִילוֹס‬

‫הליום‬

‫היליאום‬

‫היליוס‬

‫היליום‬

‫היליום‬

‫היליום‬

‫הילייס‬

‫היליוס‬

‫הֵילְיוֹס‬

‫היליוס‬

‫היליוס‬

‫נ ָאטוֹס‬

‫קראסום‬

‫וראטום‬

‫ואטס‬

‫נאטוס‬

‫נאטוס‬

‫נאטוס‬

‫נאטוס‬

‫נאטוס‬

‫נאטוס‬

‫נאטוס‬

‫נאטוס‬

‫אַנְ ְדּ ָרא‬

‫אנדראפיטום‬

‫פִיסְטוֹס‬

‫*‬

‫‪43‬‬

‫אפיסטוס‬

‫אפיסטוס‬

‫אפיסטוס‬

‫אפיסטוס‬

‫אפיסטוס‬

‫אפיסטוס‬

‫אַפִיסְטוֹס‬

‫אפיסטוס‬

‫אקטאקריפום‬

‫אנדר‬

‫אגדור‬

‫אגדור‬

‫אגדור‬

‫אגדור‬

‫אגדור‬

‫אַנְ ַדר‬

‫אגדור‬

‫אגדור‬

‫אפיסטוס‬

‫ַפנְטָא‬

‫טְרוֹפוֹס‬

‫פנטירופום‬

‫אנטאטרופום‬

‫ִירפוֹרוֹס‬ ‫פ ְ‬

‫אסטרוטום‬

‫ִאי ֶסט ְָרא‬

‫טרפורום‬

‫פורפורום‬

‫אסטרודים‬

‫פוֹרוֹס‬

‫‪43‬‬ ‫‪, to the tenth rubric, in line with the readings of‬אקטאקריפום ‪We moved the sixth word in TA42,‬‬ ‫‪B245 and G.‬‬

‫‪274‬‬ ‫‪Gideon Bohak/Alessia Bellusci‬‬

‫‪G‬‬

‫‪TA42‬‬

‫‪M738‬‬

‫‪B245‬‬

‫‪N8115‬‬

‫‪N1879‬‬

‫‪F44‬‬

‫‪N8117‬‬

‫‪P849‬‬

‫‪M248‬‬

‫‪B244‬‬

‫‪M‬‬

‫קוריפוס‬

‫אַ ְקנוֹ ְק ִריפוֹס‬

‫*אקטאקריפום‬

‫אקנו‬

‫אקט‬

‫אקט‬

‫אקט‬

‫אקט‬

‫אקט‬

‫אַ ְקנוּ‬

‫אקט‬

‫אקט‬

‫קוריפוס‬

‫אוֹפִיסְטוֹס‬

‫איוטסטום‬

‫אוופינטום‬

‫איופיסטוס‬

‫איופיסטוס‬

‫הַא ְפ ָל ַא‬

‫הפלא‬

‫הבלאטרוכום‬

‫האסל‬

‫הזפלה‬

‫הזפלה‬

‫הזפלה‬

‫הזפלה‬

‫הזפלה‬

‫הַאַ ְפלָה‬

‫הזפלה‬

‫הזפלה‬

‫טְרוֹכוֹס‬

‫טרוכום‬

‫טודוטס‬

‫טרוכוס‬

‫טרוכוס‬

‫טרוכוס‬

‫טרוכוס‬

‫טרוכוס‬

‫טרוכוס‬

‫טרובוס‬

‫טרוכוס‬

‫אוֹכְנ] [‬

‫אודנום‬

‫אורנום‬

‫אוכניס‬

‫אובינוס‬

‫אובינוס‬

‫אובינוס‬

‫אובינוס‬

‫אובינוס‬

‫אבינוס‬

‫אוכינוס‬

‫אובינוס‬

‫ָקאטָאטִיכוֹס‬

‫קטאטיפום‬

‫קאנואטיטם‬

‫קאטאסיטס‬

‫קאטי‬

‫קאטי‬

‫קאטי‬

‫אסיטור‬

‫ניקומינס‬

‫ניקומינס‬

‫נ ִי ְקמוֹנוֹס‬

‫סִיגְמוֹס‬

‫נוקי‬

‫חיגמום‬

‫סיגמום‬

‫מינום‬

‫נוקימונום‬

‫קזמונטס‬

‫ְסנ ִימוֹס‬

‫סגימוס‬

‫ניקומינס‬

‫אסיטור‬

‫אסיטור‬

‫אסיטור‬

‫ניקומיגס‬

‫ניקומינס‬ ‫קאטי‬

‫קאטי‬

‫אסיטור‬

‫ַקא ְטי ַאסִיטוֹר‬

‫נוקוומינס‬

‫נ ִיקוֹ ִמינוּס‬

‫קצטי‬

‫אסטור‬

‫קאטאסטיס‬

‫קזמונטס‬

‫סגימוס‬

‫‪The Greek Prayer to Helios in Sefer ha-Razim, in Light of New Textual Evidence‬‬

‫‪275‬‬

‫‪G‬‬

‫‪TA42‬‬

‫‪M738‬‬

‫‪B245‬‬

‫‪N8115‬‬

‫‪N1879‬‬

‫‪F44‬‬

‫‪N8117‬‬

‫‪P849‬‬

‫‪M248‬‬

‫‪B244‬‬

‫‪M‬‬

‫פיליפ‪-‬‬

‫פוֹלִי ְפ ֶאנטוֹס‬

‫פילופטנום‬

‫פיליפנטום‬

‫פליכאנטוס‬

‫פילי‬

‫פילי‬

‫פילי‬

‫פילי‬

‫פילי‬

‫פילי‬

‫פילי‬

‫פילי‬

‫פאנטור‬

‫פאנטור‬

‫פאנטור‬

‫פנטור‬

‫פאנטור‬

‫פַאנְטוֹס‬

‫פאנטור‬

‫פאנטור‬

‫פומאוס‬

‫פומאוס‬

‫פומאוס‬

‫פומאוס‬

‫פומאוס‬

‫פוֹ ְמאוֹס‬

‫פומאוס‬

‫ְק ִריפִי ְמאוֹ?ס‬

‫קריפימאום‬

‫קריפומאום‬

‫קיריפומאוס‬

‫קירי‬

‫קידי‬

‫קירי‬

‫קירי‬

‫קירי‬

‫ירי‬ ‫ִק ֵ‬

‫קירי‬

‫קירי‬

‫פומאוס‬

‫ִאיפְטוֹס‬

‫איופנטום‬

‫איופוטומום‬

‫איופוטוס‬

‫אופיטורי‬

‫אפיטורי‬

‫אופיטורי‬

‫אופיטורי‬

‫אופיטורי‬

‫אוֹפִיטוֹס‬

‫אופיטורי‬

‫איופוטוס‬

‫אסטראיוטום‬

‫איסטראטירטוס‬

‫טיוטוס‬

‫טיוטום‬

‫טיוטוס‬

‫טיוטוס‬

‫טיוטוס‬

‫ְתרוֹנִיוֹס‬

‫תרוניום‬

‫ִאי ְסט ְַראטִיוֹטוֹס‬

‫אסטרא‬

‫תיריונוס‬

‫תיריונוס‬

‫תיריונוס‬

‫תירויונוס‬

‫ה ְַריוֹנוֹס‬

‫טיוטום‬

‫תדיוניום‬

‫טרוניוס‬

‫תיריונוס‬

‫אסטרא‬

‫אסטרא‬

‫אסטדא‬

‫אסטרא‬

‫אסטרא‬

‫ִא ְסט ְָרא‬

‫טְיוֹטוֹס‬

‫תריונוס‬

‫אסטרא‬

‫טיוטוס‬

‫תיריונוס‬

‫אסטרא‬

‫טיוטוס‬

Incantations in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Greek: Change and Continuity* MICHAEL ZELLMANN-ROHRER As a frame for this modest contribution to the study of the so-called Greek magical papyri,1 in which I evaluate evidence for the survival of practices attested in that corpus into a much later period,2 I will begin by presenting two reactions of Byzantine scribes to a formulary recipe representing a technique well-known in late ancient magical texts, the exploitation of Homeric verses in incantations.3 The passage appears in the seventh book of the Byzantine agricultural collection known as the Geoponica,4 which also contains a good deal of practical but non-agricultural advice, such as the following: ‘A drinker will not get drunk if he wears a garland of the leaves of the chamaipitus plant, or if he speaks over his first drink the line of Homer, “And counse*

I thank the organisers of the conference for their kind hospitality, and the participants for useful comments on this paper and stimulating discussion. The contribution presented here is a much condensed version of a chapter of my Ph.D. dissertation (Berkeley 2016), which analyses Byzantine and later Greek magical practices from the perspective of transmission, both from earlier Greek and Roman sources and from other cultures. All incantation texts mentioned here, and many others, are included in a corpus that I have collected as part of this project, and which I hope eventually to make available as a digital database. Fuller editions of unpublished manuscript material discussed here can be found in the dissertation. 1 These texts, comprising handbooks of recipes for ritual procedures as well as amulets and other artifacts from the application of such procedures, and dating from the Roman and Byzantine Periods in Egypt (from the first to the sixth century CE – henceforth all dates are in this era unless otherwise noted), are collected in the landmark corpus edited by PREISENDANZ/HENRICHS (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae. This corpus is augmented by DANIEL/MALTOMINI, Supplementum Magicum. An important survey and introduction is BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri. 2 For an orientation to magic in the Byzantine Period, see the introductions and various essays collected in MAGUIRE (ed.), Byzantine Magic, PETROPOULOS (ed.), Greek Magic, and the second, Byzantine portion of DASEN/SPIESER (eds.), Savoirs magiques. On legal questions related to magic see also STOLTE, Magic. 3 See most recently DE. COLLINS, Magic of Homeric Verses. Related is the use of Homeric verses in divination, which also appears in the Greek magical papyri in the self-titled ‘Homer oracle’ (Ὁμηρομαντεῖον) included in a handbook of the third or fourth century (P. Lond. inv. 121, PGM VII 1–148) and other partial copies, see further MALTOMINI, Homeromanteion, and KARANIKA, Homer. On the London papyrus see also the contribution of R. GORDON in this volume. 4 Edited by BECKH, Geoponica; there is a recent bilingual edition with facing Italian translation by LELLI, Agricoltura, and other modern translations by DALBY, Geoponika, and GRÉLOIS/LEFORT, Géoponiques. In its present form, it is the result of a process of compilation and revision in the tenth century, though it has been shown that much of the material had already been gathered by Cassianus Bassus in the earlier Byzantine Period (GUIGNARD, Sources).

Incantations in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Greek: Change and Continuity

277

lor Zeus thundered thrice from Mt. Ida”.’5 That is, Iliad 8.170. Now in one manuscript, the scribe comments in the margin, ‘What you say is incredible lunacy, the words of senseless people’.6 In another, the Homeric verse is omitted, and this has been noted with displeasure in the margin, as follows: ‘the line of Homer is missing, because some ignorant boor has erased it from the exemplar. But perhaps one might find it by inference, reading through Homer’.7 In this paper I examine some practical implications of this ambivalent attitude toward an inherited tradition in Byzantine, and post-Byzantine, incantations.8 Here I will adopt a rather loose definition of incantation as an utterance intended to achieve a direct practical effect, in particular an utterance marked by elevated language distinct from normal speech. 9 As is well known, etymologically the Latin root of the term ‘incantation’ and its Greek equivalent connote song, 10 and in fact meter or at least rhythmical speech does continue to figure in Byzantine practice,11 but for the sake of a larger sample I have also included in my discussion texts of similar construction that are to be written in the making of amulets. I focus in particular on those incantations that work primarily without the intermediation of a divinity. I have also narrowed the scope to healing and apotropaic incantations, omitting those used in erotic and other aggressive magic, though there is significant continuity in those areas as well.12 I confine myself in the main to the Greek language tradition, for the purpose of maintaining a manageable corpus, but there are significant strands of influence from other traditions too, notably Hebrew,13 where further study would be highly desirable. Now, relatively early in the period in question, Egypt, the home of the texts considered as the Greek magical papyri, was lost to Byzantium and would not contribute directly to its stock of Greek incantations, though incantations continued to figure in local practice there.14 But well before that territorial loss was sustained, Byzantium had inherited a late ancient practical literature of popular iatro-magical 5

Geoponica 7.31.2: οὐκ ἂν δὲ μεθυσθείη ὁ πίνων εἰ χαμαιπίτυος κλάδοις ἐστεμμένος εἴη ἢ εἰς πρῶτον ποτήριον λέγων τὸν Ὁμηρικὸν στίχον τοῦτον ‘τρὶς δ’ ἄρ’ ἀπ’ Ἰδαίων ὀρέων κτύπε μητίετα Ζεύς’. It is included in the collection of HEIM, Incantamenta, no. 153. 6 ἄπιστα ληρεῖς καὶ λόγους τῶν ἀφρόνων (manuscript M in the edition of BECKH = Venice, BNM, cod. gr. Z 524, thirteenth century). 7 λείπει ὁ τοῦ Ὁμήρου στίχος· βάναυσος γάρ τις καὶ ἀμαθὴς ἐκ τοῦ πρωτοτύπου ἐξαλείψατο [sic]. καταστοχαζόμενος δέ τις ἴσως ἂν εὕροι τὸν Ὅμηρον ἀναλεγόμενος (manuscript H in the edition of BECKH = London, BL, cod. Harley 5604, fifteenth or sixteenth century). 8 By Byzantine I mean the time period from the reign of Justinian I (527–65) through the capture of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453. 9 On Greek incantations from the Classical Period and Late Antiquity, see KOTANSKY, Incantations, and FURLEY, Besprechung. 10 ἐπαοιδή (ἐπῳδή) and the Latin incantatio (cf. in a similar sense praecantatio and carmen). 11 So too in modern Greek incantations, which frequently employ stress-based iambic and trochaic rhythms, among others. 12 Relevant texts are collected and analysed in another chapter of my dissertation. 13 On Hebrew influence, specifically in the form of transliteration of Hebrew into Greek, in Greek incantations from antiquity through Byzantium see BOHAK, Linguistic Contacts. 14 For Coptic magic see the collection and study of KROPP, Koptische Zaubertexte, and more recently MEYER/SMITH (eds.), Ancient Christian Magic.

278

Michael Zellmann-Rohrer

pes, 15 which would continue to enjoy wide circulation centred on manuscript book production at Constantinople itself. Our sources for this period are indeed primarily written, the diffuse recipes for healing and protection overlapping with larger collections known as iatrosophia.16 Two important related compendia, the Geoponica already mentioned and the Hippiatrica, a collection of veterinary medicine, were the fruit of antiquarian interest in the imperial court of the tenth century, though the situation is more complex than a simple compilation of late ancient sources.17 Both collections also attracted various addenda over the long course of their transmission. In general the Byzantine Period lacks the rich complement of archaeological finds of amulets and curse tablets,18 with a few important exceptions in the area of inscribed gems and medallions.19 With the advent of modern folklore studies, we gain a valuable supplement in the form of transcribed text of orally deployed incantations in modern Greece, along with descriptions of the accompanying ritual practices.20 For the Early Modern Period we also have anecdotal evidence from the accounts of witnesses such as Leo Allatius (Alacci, d. 1669), native of Chios and future custodian of the Vatican Library, who records no texts of incantations but mentions their use several times.21 Of particular interest, in a ritual directed against crop pests, the pests themselves are summoned to court either by herald or written warrant, at which point they either vanish immediately, or if not, the trial proceeds, including the examination of witnesses.22 I will return to this ritual in due course.

15

On this genre in antiquity see DE HARO SANCHEZ, Mise en texte. Important collections of material include A. DELATTE, Anecdota, with the reviews of S.P. KYRIAKIDES and PFISTER; VASSILIEV, Anecdota; the series CCAG; OIKONOMU-AGORASTU, Kritische Erstausgabe; ALMAZOV, Apokrificeskija molitvy; and PAPATHOMOPOULOS, Βερναρδάκειος. See also GREENFIELD, Contribution. The Byzantine iatrosophion genre, long neglected, has begun to receive increased attention from the medical perspective (see recently OBERHELMAN, Dreams, esp. 283–94) but remains under-exploited as a source for the study of incantations. 17 The latter corpus is edited by E. ODER and K. HOPPE (ODER/HOPPE, Corpus); see also the studies of DOYEN-HIGUET, Epitomé, and MCCABE, Byzantine Encyclopaedia. 18 Cf. RUSSELL, Archaeological Context. 19 One group of such objects is discussed in more detail below. 20 Most significant here are the publications of ἐπῳδαί (the terms γητ(ε)ία and ξόρκι are sometimes used in place of ἐπῳδή), organised by the geographical location of their performance, included in nearly every volume of the journal Λαογραφία (1909–1993), as well as the synthetic observations of KOUKOULES, Βυζαντινῶν I, 226–76. 21 E.g. an old man who calmed waves at sea with whispered incantations, as the man himself explains, funestae undae impetum frango et signo crucis aliisque precibus excanto, Leo Allatius, De Graecorum, 175 (§ 26); incantations also accompany the ritual killing of a hen to avert a bad omen, op. cit. 175–6 (§ 27). 22 relatum mihi est oportunissimum remedium esse si illi tanquam rei per praeconem aut libello scripto per nomina in curiam ad iudices citentur. sic enim uel illico euanescunt ... sunt etiam qui pro damno iam accepto et detrimento testes examinant, Leo Allatius, De Graecorum, 176–7 (§ 29). This procedure is distinct from the well-known medieval institution of the criminal prosecution of animals (on which see EVANS, Criminal Prosecution) in that it is the summons alone, employed as a ritually efficacious speech-act, that is believed to accomplish the desired goal. 16

Incantations in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Greek: Change and Continuity

279

From these sources, we can discern a process by which the Byzantines and later Greeks made use of a complex of inherited knowledge relating to incantations from Late Antiquity, for which the Greek magical papyri represent a crucial witness, along with Pliny, Marcellus and various other medical authors.23 With respect to potential survivals from the earlier period, this process has three outcomes. First, as might be expected, much of the earlier material disappears completely. There is no direct evidence, for example, that the Byzantines applied the practice of threatening the gods in incantations, ubiquitous in the magical papyri from Egypt, to Christian saints.24 Second, at the other end of the spectrum, some material survives intact and unmediated. Indeed even erotic magic, some ‘erotic curses’ quite similar to those found in the magical papyri, were still being prescribed in post-Byzantine Greek manuscripts of the nineteenth century.25 Third, and most commonly, there is continuity with some sort of mediation. I will return to this mediated class, but first it is worth considering some examples of unmediated survivals, illustrated with specific techniques of incantation-practice. The first is the direct address to the target, in the case of the incantations on which I am focusing here, a sickness to be healed or forestalled or some other nuisance to be warded off. This address proceeds most commonly through imperatives. I select here one example out of many, from a collection of recipes in a fourteenth-century codex. To combat pustules, the practitioner is to make the patient, human or livestock, stand in the water of a running river, take up a grain of salt and place it on the affected area, saying ‘I am speaking to you, pustule, swelling inward or swelling outward, milking no milk and making no cheese, flee as the salt from the water…’. As the salt dissolves, so will the affliction disappear.26 Second, this direct confrontation is extended through a specific mode of incantatory speech which, to use a term from speech-act theory, can be described as a performa23

For incantations in Late Antiquity see recently GIANNOBILE, Malanni. On Marcellus and the religious background of his work, EWERS, Marcellus. 24 It should be noted, however, that in Sicily, once a Byzantine province, saints were observed to be threatened with various abuses of their icons during a severe drought in the nineteenth century: FRAZER, Golden Bough I, 299–300. 25 E.g. a recipe in a manuscript of the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries, Athens, EBE cod. 1265, f. 38r (A. DELATTE, Anecdota, 77 with 652, and S.P. KYRIAKIDES, Review of A. DELATTE), in which the user makes an effigy of the target and curses her with the inability to eat, drink or sleep; from the earlier period cf. e.g. the Paris magical codex, BnF cod. suppl. gr. 574, f. 5v, PGM IV 348–56, and in general FARAONE, Ancient Greek Love Magic. 26 Paris, BnF, cod. gr. 2286, f. 84 vs.: περὶ συκαμίνου ἀνθρώπου ἢ κτήνους. ἀπελθὼν εἰς ὕδωρ ῥέον στῆθι ἐπὶ τοῦ χείλους καὶ στήσας τὸ πάσχον ἀναλαβοῦ ἅλατος κόμμα ἓν καὶ ἐπιθεὶς τῷ πάσχοντι τόπῳ εἰπὲ ‘σοὶ λέγω συκαμινέα ἐσοχὰς ἐξοχάς, γάλα μὴ ἀμέλγουσα, τυρὸν μὴ ποιοῦσα, συκαμινέα φεῦγε ὡς τὸ ἅλας τοῦ ὕδατος, εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.’ καὶ ῥῖψον τὸ ἅλας εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ διαλυομένου τούτου ἀφανισθήσεται πάντως καὶ τὸ πάθος. The metaphorical application of the term συκάμινον (originally ‘mulberry’) to malignant swellings can be found as early as Ps.-Galenus, De remed. parab. 14.495 (KÜHN), a recipe πρὸς ἐσωχάδας, ῥαγάδας, καὶ συκάμινα; and similarly for συκαμινέα in early Byzantine hagiography, see LAMPE (ed.), Patristic Greek Lexicon s.v., 1279a, ‘ulcer’.

280

Michael Zellmann-Rohrer

tive utterance,27 a concept which has been aptly applied to formulae of binding in ancient Greek curses,28 as well as ancient Latin incantations more generally.29 In this way the practitioner, after establishing the appropriate ritual context for the utterance, claims and simultaneously enacts the claim to perform healing, protecting and related actions. This represents a divergence from the familiar mode of seeking such benefits through prayers to, and the intercession of, the persons of the Trinity and the saints, not to mention ordained priests. It also differs in an important way from the liturgical exorcism, 30 where the constitutive performative utterance is simply the adjuration, ὁρκίζω or ἐξορκίζω, and in which the practitioner may make some imperative or threatening statement to the offending demonic force, but it is explicitly backed up with assertions that the real power that authorises the speech belongs to Christian divinities. We see quite practical examples, such as an interpolation in a fourteenth-century manuscript copy of the early Byzantine medical writer Aetius of Amida, providing a remedy for nosebleeds. The user is to wet some fabric in the blood, tie it on the neck of the patient and say, ‘Blood I check, binding with blood’.31 Others manifest a quite active imagination, for example an incantation for choking preserved in two variants in Byzantine collections of medical recipes. Here the speaker self-identifies as a Thessalian woman who has found out the powers of herbs, and is now coming from Thessaly to the patient bearing the judgments of Kirke and the Byzantine emperor and sage Leo the Wise on what the foreign object lodged in the throat is,32 and to dislodge it in turn. 27

As developed in AUSTIN, How to Do Things. Cf. FARAONE, ‘Performative Future’. 29 ADDABBO, Per una tassonomia, esp. 108–20, a study of incantations from the collection of HEIM, Incantamenta. 30 On this genre see KLAPPER, Gebet; GOAR, ΕΥΧΟΛΟΓΙΟΝ; DÖLGER, Exorzismus; STRITTMATTER, Griechisches Exorzismusbüchlein I–II; L. DELATTE, Office byzantin; GREENFIELD, Traditions; and for modern Greece, STEWART, Demons, 213–21. On instructions for another kind of interaction with demons, the offering of ritual feasts with the goal of propitiation and exploitation, see recently VLAVIANOS-TOMASZYK, Démons, a lucid presentation and explanation of the rituals, though the link drawn with the London-Leiden magical papyrus seems tenuous given the very different Egyptian context (and language!) of the latter. 31 Aetius of Amida 6.94, in Vatican, BAV, cod. Palat. gr. 199 (OLIVIERI, Medicinalia): ἄλλον πρὸς αἱμορραγίαν ῥινός. {λ} λῶμα ποιήσας λευκὸν δεύσας ἐκ τοῦ αἵματος περίαπτε τῷ τραχήλῳ λέγων οὕτως ‘αἷμα αἵματι δήσας στέλλω.’ 32 For the aura of magical power surrounding Thessaly cf. the attribution of an incantation against headache to a Philinna of Thessaly in an early Roman papyrus formulary (PGM XX 12–18), and numerous passages from Classical literature including a reference in Aristophanes to a Thessalian witch who can draw down the moon from the sky (Ar. Nub. 749–52) and Lucan’s portrait of the Thessalian necromancer Erichtho (Pharsalia 6). To the emperor Leo VI ‘the Wise’ (who reigned between 870 and 912, including an initial coregency) were later attributed various treatises on divination (e.g. a bibliomantic method in a fifteenth-century manuscript, Florence, BML, cod. Plut. 86.14, f. 28 vs., described in CCAG IV, 74), as well as designs for amulets (e.g. in a nineteenth-century manuscript in private possession, the so-called Βερναρδάκειος μαγικὸς κώδικας, f. 474v, PAPATHOMOPOULOS, Βερναρδάκειος, 309). On the legends attached to Leo in the later Byzantine tradition, including a series of oracles attributed to him as early as the twelfth century, perhaps by conflation with his contemporary and homonym Leo the Mathematician of Thessalonike, see MANGO, Legend. 28

Incantations in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Greek: Change and Continuity

281

The incantation ends with a string of magical logoi and a command to either spit the object up or swallow it down.33 The third is the device of the narrative motif, with an analogous bearing on the situation in which the incantation is applied, whose presentation lends an authoritative force to the speech act in which it is included.34 While the biblical and later hagiographical texts offer a panoply of suitable material, the search for analogy is far from limited thereto. Narrative motifs are freely fabricated from the natural order, the animal kingdom, a fertile imaginary of human actors and even the classical mythical and historical past, without any explicit connection with Christian texts. From the Hippiatrica, we find an incantation to be spoken over liquid to create an activated potion, to treat distemper, which lists the ‘thrice seven sea creatures’ who were once ‘pursuing the savage distemper’.35 This is preceded in the same recipe by another incantation that 33

The earliest version, in a fragment of a manuscript probably to be dated to the thirteenth or fourteenth century, is in Oxford, Bodleian Library, cod. Barocci 216, f. 5 rt.: πρὸς καταπότιον. ‘Θεσσαλὴ Θεσσαλὴ ἐκ Θεσσαλίας ἐλθοῦσα πρώτη καὶ εὑροῦσα βοτάνας καὶ τὰ ἰσχυρώματα Θεσσαλὴ οὖσα λέγω, καὶ ἐλεύσομαι ὡς Λέοντος κριτοῦ καὶ Κίρκης, εἴτε ὀστέον κατέπιες ἢ ξύλον ἢ ὄστρακον εἴτε λίθον ἢ ἄλλο τι, ἀνενέγκαι αὐτὸ ἔξω. ερωκα κευλα κευλα πιδα ασδυκερκαλι θερμιβιρου ειπορταβ πορτεν ερβουμου κου εξι οξει φιει. πτύσον ἢ κατάπιε.’ (‘For something swallowed [by mistake]. “A Thessalian woman I am, a Thessalian woman I am that speaks, having first come from Thessaly and, Thessalian woman that I am, discovered herbs and their powers, and I shall come as if with the judgment of Leo and Kirke, whether you have swallowed bone or wood or shell or stone or anything else, to bring it out. ERŌKA KEULA KEULA PIDA ASDUKERKALI THERMIBIROU EIPORTAB PORTEN ERBOUMOU KOU EXI OXEI PHIEI. Spit or swallow!”’). A later version, in which the woman claims that she brings an incantation (ἐπῳδή) from Kirke and Leo, as well as the natural philosopher Democritus and the bard Orpheus, appears in a fifteenth-century manuscript, Paris, BnF, cod. gr. 2244, f. 116 rt.– vs. (incipit quoted in part in MCCABE, Byzantine Encyclopaedia, 289): πρὸς καταπότιον ὄφελος. ‘Θεσσαλὴ Θεσσαλὴ ἐκ Θεσσαλίας ἐλθοῦσα πρώτη καὶ εὑροῦσα βοτάνας καὶ τὰ ἰσχυρώματα Θεσσαλὴ οὖσα λέγω καὶ ἐλεύσομαι ὡς Λέοντος ἔχουσα ἐπῳδὴν καὶ θεοῦ Ὀρφέως καὶ Δημοκρίτου καὶ Κίρκης, εἴτε ὀστέον κατέπιες ἢ ξύλον ἢ ὄστρακον εἴτε λίθον ἢ ἄλλο τι, ἀνενέγκαι αὐτὸ ἔξω. ερωκα κευλα κευλα πηδα ασδυρβερκαλι θερμιβιρου ειπορταβ ποντεν ερβουμου κου εξει οξει φιη. πτύσον ἢ κατάπιε.’ (‘A help against something swallowed [by mistake]. “A Thessalian woman I am, a Thessalian woman I am that speaks, having first come from Thessaly and, Thessalian woman that I am, discovered herbs and their powers, and I shall come with an incantation of Leo and the god Orpheus and Democritus and Kirke, whether you have swallowed bone or wood or shell or stone or anything else, to bring it out. ERŌKA KEULA KEULA PĒDA ASDUBERKALI THERMIBIROU EIPORTAB PONTEN ERBOUMOU KOU EXI OXEI PHIĒ. Spit or swallow!”’). 34 The term historiola, for which see FRANKFURTER, Narrating Power, has sometimes been applied to the earlier Greek material since the classic study of HEIM, Incantamenta, esp. 495–6. I avoid it here however as it does not correspond to any distinction drawn within the incantation tradition itself, and the Latin diminutive is misleading: the narratives’ bulk can be quite large, sometimes in length, certainly in significance and impact. 35 Hippiatrica Parisina 22 (ODER/HOPPE, Corpus; HEIM, Incantamenta, no. 65): ποτὸν πρὸς μᾶλιν ... προσφυσῶν λέγε ... ‘τρὶς ἑπτὰ θαλάσσια ζῷα, ἑπτὰ ἄρκοι ἑπτὰ λέοντες ἑπτὰ δελφῖνοι ἐδίωκον τὴν ἀγρίαν μᾶλιν’ (‘A potion for distemper … blowing on it, say … “thrice seven sea creatures, seven ‘bears’, seven ‘lions’, seven dolphins, were pursuing the savage distemper”’). The sea creatures were probably suggested by a metaphorical expression of the action of the various vegetable products suspended in the liquid potion as materia medica (beans, fenugreek, asparagus, wheat,

282

Michael Zellmann-Rohrer

addresses the distemper, ‘Flee distemper, Poseidon pursues you’. In an incantation for intestinal pain from a Byzantine manuscript of the fourteenth century, a narrative recounts how three women went to the sea ‘to wash the innards’ (ἔντερα πλῦναι) and, as they worked, one of them sang (ᾖδε), another ‘sang off’ (ἀπῇδε)36 and the third relieved (ἔπαυσε) the distress of colic.37 This may be a variant of a narrative type known from Marcellus, directed against a similar affliction, in which three maidens on an island also handle human intestines, two of them binding, the third unwinding, which may in turn recall the three Fates of Graeco-Roman myth.38 Even persons from historicising mythology of Graeco-Roman antiquity figure in such narratives in Byzantine incantations. One example, from a fifteenth-century manuscript, targets haemorrhoids. Appropriately enough for the self-identification of the Byzantines as Romans (Ῥωμαῖοι),39 it features a narrative about the Roman emperor Trajan. The incantation runs, ‘The emperor Trajan had three opposite ills, hemorrhage and hemorrhoid’,40 the omission of the expected third ill probably intentional, in the wheat flower, oats, barley, millet and ervil). The by-form ἄρκος for ἄρκτος is attested in koine as early as the Septuagint (e.g. Amos 5:19); here it probably denotes a kind of crab, see LSJ, s.v. ἄρκτος III, 242a, and similarly λέων, for which see op. cit. s.v. II, 1043b. 36 The verb ἀπᾴδειν much more likely means ‘sing off’ or ‘sing away’ in the sense of removing or dissipating the affliction by means of a sung incantation, cf. Latin excantare; the classical sense ‘sing off-key’ (with transferred sense ‘dissent’, see ADRADOS [ed.], Diccionario II, s.v., 372b) seems less appropriate. 37 Paris, BnF, cod. gr. 2510, f. 23 rt.: περὶ ἐντέρων πόνον ἀκριβὴς θεραπεία. κύμινον καὶ ἔλαιον βαλὼν εἰς τὸν ὀμφαλὸν τοῦ πάσχοντος καὶ ἐπάνω τὴν χεῖρα ἔχων λέγε τρίτον οὕτως ‘τρεῖς γυναῖκες ὑπῆγαν ἔντερα πλῦναι εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ ἡ μὲν ᾖδεν, ἡ δὲ ἀπῇδεν, ἡ δὲ ἔπαυσεν τὸν διωγμὸν τοῦ στρόφου τοῦδε.’ καὶ τρίτον ἔμπτυε καὶ παύσεται (‘For intestinal pain, an exact treatment. Put cumin and olive oil in the navel of the patient and hold your hand over it and say three times as follows, “Three women went to wash the intestines in the sea, and one was singing, another singing off and another relieved the distress of this colic.” Spit three times, and [the patient] will be relieved’). 38 Marcellus De medicamentis 28.74 (NIEDERMANN, Marcelli; HEIM, Incantamenta, no. 107): item ad rosus tam hominum quam iumentorum praecantatio sic. pollice sinistro et duobus minimis digitis uentrem confricans dices ‘stabat arbor in medio mare et ibi pendebat situla plena intestinorum humanorum. tres uirgines circumibant, duae alligabant, una reuoluebat.’ hoc ter dices et ter pari modo terra contacta expues. si iumenta carminabis ‘intestinorum mulinorum’ uel ‘equorum’ uel ‘asinorum’ dices (‘Likewise, for colic in both humans and livestock, an incantation as follows. Massaging the belly with your left thumb and two smallest fingers you will say, “There stood a tree in the middle of the sea, and on it was hanging a vessel full of human intestines. Three maidens were walking around it, two were binding, one was unwinding.” This you will say three times, and likewise you will touch the ground three times and spit. If you are treating livestock with the incantation, you will say “[a vessel full] of the intestines of mules” or “horses” or “asses”’). For the identification of the Fates in this text, see HEIM, Incantamenta, 496–7. For the Μοῖραι in modern Greece see R. BLUM/E. BLUM, Dangerous Hour, 100; and ABBOTT, Macedonian Folklore, 125–8. 39 On Byzantine self-identification see recently KALDELLIS, Hellenism. 40 Paris, BnF, cod. gr. 2294, f. 79 rt.: εἰς συκάμινον. περδικιάδα βοτάνην ἐπίθες ἢ συκομορέας φλοιὸν καύσας πάσσε ἐπιλέγων οὕτως ‘ὁ βασιλεὺς ὁ Τραιανὸς τρεῖς ἀντίας κακὰς εἶχε, τὴν αἱμορραγίαν καὶ τὴν συκαμινέαν’ (‘For haemorrhoid. Apply the herb knotgrass [perdikias] or burn the bark of the sycamore and spread it on, speaking over it as follows, “The emperor Trajan had three [sic] opposite ills, haemorrhage and haemorrhoid”’). The remedy also appeals to onomastics to establish a sympathetic connection between the affliction (συκάμινον, swellings resembling the fruit of the

Incantations in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Greek: Change and Continuity

283

spirit of such compositions.41 Another example, added in the margin to a collection of anonymous gynaecological recipes in a fourteenth-century manuscript, draws on the revered authority of Homer. To ease a difficult birth, one should write as an amulet, ‘Achilles is dragging Hektor’, an application of the ease with which that Greek hero pulled the corpse of his once-formidable opponent behind his chariot to an analogous scenario, the struggle to draw out an infant from the womb of its mother.42 The fourth is the deployment of the magical efficacy of names.43 This can take a simple form, such as the symbolic naming of coals after one’s livestock, which can then be kept safe inside the house when the originals must be left outside at pasture;44 or the resolution of conflict between a husband and wife by inscribing their names on laurel leaves, burning the leaves and giving the ash to drink to the quarrelsome member of the pair. 45 At a higher level of complexity is word-play, particularly involving the name of the affliction, as a manifestation of the user’s claimed power over it. From modern Greece we have examples of performed incantations that seek to effect the cure of a sty (κριθά) with the symbolic use of its homonym, a grain of barley (κριθά). The barley is thrown over the shoulder and told to take the sty with it,46 or threatened with being eaten, the action being accompanied by onomatopoetic gnashing of teeth. 47 A similar practice is preserved from Late Antiquity in Marcellus, where a Greek incantation orders κριθή to flee because κριθή is pursuing it.48 sycamore) and the burned materia medica (bark of the sycamore tree, συκαμινέα). The incantation comes within a medical treatise (ff. 73 vs.–95 vs.) with some similarities to that of the Therapeutics of John the Physician edited by ZIPSER (see ZIPSER, John the Physician’s Therapeutics, 26: not included in the edition, no further discussion). 41 Mythical elaborations on the life of Trajan in Byzantine literature appear for example in the Chronicle of Joel, who mentions that the emperor once instructed a subordinate, ‘Take this sword, and if I rule well, use it for me, and if not, against me’; and also that a clever concubine advised him to face all the gates of all his major cities with marble, if he wished to leave a lasting legacy, which he duly did (BEKKER, Ioelis, 29–30). Compare also the legend that Vespasian and Titus were cured of a swelling in the nostrils by prayer to the Christian God, in a hagiographical manuscript of the twelfth century (Athens, EBE cod. 2492, f. 128 rt.–vs.: see HALKIN, Novum Auctarium, 315, no. 1317v). 42 Vatican, BAV, cod. Vat. gr. 299, f. 508 vs., DE LUCIA, ‘Sezione ginecologica’, 250, Ἀχιλλεὺς Ἕκτορα σύρει. The Homeric account is at Hom. Il. 22.395–403. 43 An example of this tactic in ancient Greek texts is the symbolic effacement of the name of various afflictions, the so-called deletio morbi, on which see recently FARAONE, Vanishing Acts. 44 A recipe in a sixteenth-century manuscript, Milan, BNA, cod. E 37 sup., f. 373 vs., A. DELATTE, Anecdota, 340. 45 A recipe in a fifteenth-century manuscript, Naples, BN, cod. II C 33, f. 235 rt., A. DELATTE, Anecdota, 620. The inscription of text on laurel leaves is also prescribed in the Greek magical papyri, see the contribution by L.M. BORTOLANI in this volume. 46 Described in use e.g. at Chimara in ARNAUD, Prières, 149. For a sty (κριθά), the patient addresses an incantation to a star in the night sky, then, holding a grain of barley (κριθά), casts it over the shoulder, urging the one κριθά to take the other with it. 47 E.g. from Aidepsos, PAPANASTASIOU, Ἐπῳδαί, 45. 48 Marcellus De medicamentis 8.193 (NIEDERMANN, Marcelli; HEIM, Incantamenta, no. 58 in part): item hoc remedium efficax. grana nouem hordei sumes et de eorum acumine uarulum punges et per punctorum singulas uices carmen hoc dices ‘φεῦγε φεῦγε κριθή, κριθή σε διώκει’ [κριθή,

284

Michael Zellmann-Rohrer

The fifth is the use of excerpts from authoritative texts with some analogous bearing on the circumstances in which the incantation is to be used. As previously mentioned, Homeric epic, like Vergil in the Latin West, 49 continues to figure in incantationpractice. Homer was after all avidly read in Byzantium, and a cornerstone of the education system.50 We find one instance in the sixth-century compendium of Alexander of Tralles, for gout;51 two from the Geoponica, the prophylactic against drunkenness already discussed and another to be inscribed to preserve harvested crops;52 one in the Hippiatrica to be written as an amulet for a barren mare;53 and an anonymous recipe in an eleventh century codex for writing a Homeric line as an amulet for a child ‘unable to learn’ (μὴ δυνάμενος μαθεῖν).54 The last may serve here as an illustration of the general analogical process at work: the verse prescribed is Iliad 10.139, in which the voice of the warrior and sage advisor Nestor reaches, and is immediately perceived by, the mind of Odysseus, also famed for mental acuity, who is thereby awoken from sleep. The recipe also draws on astrological lore to increase the efficacy of the procedure, recommending that the amulet be made on Wednesday, the day of the week associated with Hermes, associated in turn, as both god and planet, with wisdom.

κριθή corr. NIEDERMANN: φεῦγε φεῦγε 〈κρείων〉 (vel κρείττων) σε διώκει coni. HEIM] (‘Likewise, this remedy is effective. You will take nine grains of barley and prick the pimple with their points and at each prick you will utter this incantation, “Flee, flee, grain of barley, a grain of barley is pursuing you”’). The broader device of sympathy (‘similia similibus’) could also be invoked to explain this usage, but the insistence on the similarity in names is striking, and surely other substances could have served. 49 For Vergil, cf. the prescription of Aen. 4.129 (= 11.1) to ease childbirth in an early medieval collection of recipes (Physica) falsely attributed to Pliny, 3.22 (in St. Gallen, SB cod. Sang. 751, p. 272; ÖNNERFORS, Physica I, 91; HEIM, Incantamenta, no. 121 with 160): item. in charta scribis ‘Oceanum interea surgens Aurora reliquit’ (‘Likewise. You will write on papyrus, “Meanwhile Dawn arose and left Ocean behind”’). 50 BROWNING, Homer. 51 Hom. Il. 2.952 in Alex.Trall. Therap. 12 (PUSCHMANN, Alexander II, 584; HEIM, Incantamenta, no. 152). 52 Hom. Il. 5.387 in Geoponica 10.87.6 (HEIM, Incantamenta, no. 154): ὁ δὲ Δίδυμος ἐν τοῖς Γεωργικοῖς αὐτοῦ φησι συνέχειν τὸν καρπὸν καὶ τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν ἔπος γραφόμενον ‘χαλκέῳ δ’ ἐν κεράμῳ δέδετο τρισκαίδεκα μῆνας’ (‘Didymus says in his Geoponica that crops are also preserved by the inscription of the Homeric verse, “And in a bronze vessel he was bound for thirteen months”’). 53 Hom. Il. 5.749 (= 8.393) in Hippiatrica Cantabrigiensia 10.5 (ODER/HOPPE, Corpus): πρὸς τὸ συλλαβεῖν στεῖραν ἵππον ... ἐν χαρτίῳ γράψας περίαπτε ‘αὐτόμαται δὲ πύλαι μύκον οὐρανοῦ ἃς ἔχον Ὧραι’ (‘To make a barren mare conceive … write on papyrus [or similar] and attach as an amulet, “And of their own will the gates of heaven groaned [in opening], which the Seasons held”’). 54 Florence, BML, cod. Plut. 28.34, f. 83 vs. (KROLL, Astrologisches, 131): πρὸς παιδία κακομαθῆ ὄντα πρὸς πᾶσαν μάθησιν. ‘φθεγξάμενος, τὸν δ’ αἶψα περὶ φρένας ἤλυθ’ ἰωή’, τοῦτον γράψον ἐν Ἑρμῇ παιδίῳ μὴ δυναμένῳ μαθεῖν [τόνδε ἐκ δ’ cod., the writer may have conflated the beginning of the verse with that of Hom. Il. 10.140, ἐκ δ’ ἦλθε κλισίης] (‘For children with difficulty learning, for learning of all kinds. “[Nestor was rousing him] by speaking to him, and at once the shout entered his consciousness” – write this on [the day of] Hermes for a child unable to learn’). On the manuscript see further CCAG I, 60–72.

Incantations in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Greek: Change and Continuity

285

The sixth is the interplay of languages, in which unaccustomed words lend an authoritative strangeness to the speech act.55 As in the Greek magical papyri, there are direct transliterations from other languages into Greek, alongside words that appear to be either deformations of such borrowings or ad hoc creations modelled thereon.56 There are, in fact, direct survivals of this kind with respect to the Greek magical papyri.57 On the other hand, examples of words borrowed from contemporary languages in contact with Byzantine and later Greek can also be seen. I will give only one example here of Latin in Greek transliteration, particularly appropriate to Byzantium due to its joint inheritance of Greek and Roman traditions and identity, where Latin also served a practical function, in the military, in court ceremonial and in the legal system.58 The recipe comes from a medical compendium and recommends, for driving out flies, that the user write the phrase εξι φορε and some magical signs (χαρακτῆρες), then fumigate the sheet with resin and attach it to the door of the house. This phrase almost certainly represents a transliteration of the Latin exi foris, ‘go outside’, addressed of course to the flies.59 Looking to its Byzantine context, we might have reason to doubt one recent scholarly verdict on the phrase, that the user would have had no idea what it meant.60 55 Compare the conscious pursuit of ‘weirdness’ of language in magical practice among the Trobriand Islanders identified by MALINOWSKI, Coral Gardens II, 218–23. The concept has also been applied to Graeco-Roman practice by FRANKFURTER, Fetus Magic, 52. 56 A catalogue and glossary of these magical logoi (or voces magicae) is provided by BRASHEAR, Greek Magical Papyri, 3576–602; see also recently DIELEMAN, Coping, 346–7, and the rather eclectic collection of essays in TARDIEU/VAN DEN KERCHOVE/ZAGO (eds.), Noms barbares. 57 I select here one example out of many, which appears in a recipe for a written amulet against sleeplessness in a fifteenth-century manuscript: Paris, BnF, cod. suppl. gr. 2316, f. 340 rt. (A. DELATTE, Anecdota, 550). γράψον καὶ ἐπίβαλε ‘σεσεγης βαρ φαραγη αλβαθαναλβα’ (‘Write and apply, “SESEGĒS BAR PHARAGĒ ALBATHANALBA”’). The formulae are variants of the well-known SESENGEN BAR PHARANGES and ABLANATHANALBA, but to my knowledge this use is unattested in the papyrus formularies. For a probable identification of SESENGEN BAR PHARANGES as the name of a protective divinity related to the ancient Sasm, see SCHWARTZ, Sasm. 58 See BROWNING/CUTLER, Latin. 59 Foris in place of the Classical Latin foras; on the common confusion of foras and foris in nonliterary and later Latin see TLL 6.1.1034–5. The recipe is transmitted with the Epitome de curatione morborum of Theophanes Chrysobalantes (Nonnus), as an alternate procedure (ἄλλο or ἄλλως) following a section on getting rid of flies (chapter 266 in the edition of BERNARD, Theophanis II, 307). As it appears in only some of the manuscript attestations of this treatise, however, it may be a later addition. It is found as early as the fourteenth century in three manuscripts (Vienna, ÖNB, cod. med. gr. 50, f. 59 vs., the ‘Ms D’ from which BERNARD prints it in a footnote in his edition, repr. HEIM, Incantamenta, no. 47; Florence, BML, cod. Plut. 7.19, f. 195 rt.; Paris, BnF, cod. gr. 2091, ff. 51 vs.–52 rt.) and in two more in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (London, BL, cod. Add. 17900, f. 54 vs.; Munich, BSB, cod. gr. 105, f. 320 rt.). The text (ἄλλως. γράψον ‘εξι φορε’ καὶ θυμίασον τὸ πιττάκιον χαλβάνην καὶ δύνοντος τοῦ ἡλίου δῆσον αὐτὸ εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν θύραν, καὶ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας τούσδε [signs] in the Vienna cod.) shows near-total consistency across these versions, and the prescribed signs (χαρακτῆρες) are presented with some variation of the individual members but in a fairly consistent order in all attestations except for the fourteenth-century manuscript Paris, BnF, cod. gr. 2091, which omits them completely. I have been able to inspect only some of the codices identified in the study of the textual tradition of Chrysobalantes by SONDERKAMP, Theophanes, from which I can report that two fifteenth-century manuscripts do not contain the recipe in the ex-

286

Michael Zellmann-Rohrer

The seventh is the construction of incantations as a sort of ritual drama, depending on dialogue. I recall here the comments of Leo Allatius on the summoning of crop pests to trial in early modern Greece. A common form of this practice, attested in both manuscript recipes and records of performed versions, is the symbolic nailing (κάρφωμα) of the affliction by the practitioner, the nail most commonly being driven into a tree. As the practitioner is working, a second participant asks him what he is doing, which provides the opportunity for the first to answer with a performative utterance, for example ‘I am nailing the headache’ of so-and-so,61 or ‘I am nailing the wolf, lest he eat the sheep’.62 An analogous dramatic performance is prescribed in the Geoponica in a procedure to make a fruitless tree bear fruit again: the first participant comes at the tree in anger as if to chop it down, and the second is to intervene and intercede on the tree’s behalf, promising to stand surety for its future fruitfulness.63 The tradition may be reflected in an earlier procedure in the medical collection circulating under the name of Pliny the Younger, though it lacks an explicit second part in the dialogue: to combat quartan fever, one is to supply a tree with bread and salt and instruct it to receive, that is, entertain, the guests who will be coming ‘tomorrow’, which suggests the periodic onset of the fever.64 I also point to a set of instructions given in a fourteenthcentury manuscript for a ritual dialogue with a star in a procedure to ‘bind the mouths of birds’. The user is to go out before sunrise and greet the ‘first star of the heavens’, asking it, ‘What have you brought us from Syria and from Rome?’ The star answers, ‘I have brought ten million teeth from wild animals, to bind the mouths of the birds’, then instructs him to take a nail and cord and, symbolically, do just that.65 pected place (Oxford, Bodleian Library, cod. Barocci 88, f. 61 vs.; Florence, BML, cod. Plut. 89 sup. 83, f. 95 vs.). On χαρακτῆρες see the recent study of R. GORDON, Charaktêres. 60 VERSNEL, Poetics, 137. 61 A recipe in a fifteenth-century manuscript, London, BL, cod. Royal 16 C. II, f. 66 rt.–vs.; and a similar prescription for the spleen in a nineteenth-century manuscript, Athens, Bibl. Soc. Hist. cod. 223, f. 66 rt.–vs. (A. DELATTE, Anecdota, 144). 62 There is a fine and unusually full description of a ritual of this type in practice on the island of Kerkyra in the early twentieth century, performed in this case by a female ritual specialist (ξορκίστρα) in KAVASILAS, Λαογραφικά, 651, no. 15. 63 Geoponica 10.83.1–2: δένδρον ἄκαρπον καρποφορεῖν. Ζωροάστρου. συζωσάμενος καὶ ἀνακομβωσάμενος καὶ λαβὼν πέλεκυν ἢ ἀξίνην, μετὰ θυμοῦ πρόσελθε τῷ δένδρῳ, ἐκκόψαι τοῦτο βουλόμενος. προσελθόντος δέ σοί τινος καὶ παραιτουμένου τὴν τούτου ἀποκοπήν, ὡς ἐγγυητοῦ περὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος καρποῦ γινομένου, δόξον πείθεσθαι καὶ φείδεσθαι τοῦ δένδρου, καὶ εὐφορήσει τοῦ λοιποῦ (‘To make a barren tree bear fruit. From Zoroaster. Dress and gird yourself up and take an axe or an adze and come up to the tree in anger, like to cut it down. Have someone come up to you and beg you not to cut it, saying that he will be a guarantor of its coming fruit, and pretend to be persuaded and spare the tree, and in the future it will be fruitful’). 64 Ps.-Plinius Secundus Iunior, De Medicina 3.15.8 (ÖNNERFORS, Plinii Secundi; HEIM, Incantamenta, no. 69): crastino hospites mihi uenturi sunt, suscipite illos (‘Tomorrow I have guests coming, receive them’). 65 Paris, BnF, cod. suppl. gr. 142, ff. 160 vs.–161 rt., ALMAZOV, Apokrificeskija molitvy, 334. The recipe is entitled περὶ τοῦ ἀποδέσαι ὀρνέων στόματα [ὄρνεον ALMAZOV, om. στόματα], and the dialogue begins, ‘καλῶς μας ἦρτες πρῶτον ἄστρον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τί μας ἤφερες ἀπὸ τὴν Συρίαν καὶ Ῥώμην;’ ‘ἤφερα χιλίους μυρίους ὀδόντας τῶν θηρίων νὰ δέσω τῶν ὀρνέων τὰ στόματα’ (‘Welcome, first star of heaven, what have you brought me from Syria and Rome?’ ‘I have brought ten million

Incantations in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Greek: Change and Continuity

287

It is also worth mentioning, finally, that we see prayers in Byzantine texts addressed to divinities not included in the usual litany of the Church: for example the sun and moon, both familiar in this capacity from the Greek magical papyri.66 The sun is invoked in one late Byzantine recipe to dry out and wither a patient’s diseased spleen; 67 and the moon likewise, in another recipe, is adjured to dry out haemorrhoids.68 Having surveyed this select evidence for direct survivals, I would now like to return to the set of mediated survivals. A noteworthy feature in this mediation is what I will call for convenience a Christian frame. I would avoid attributing to this device the intention of sanitisation; I tend to see it rather as an additive applied with the intent of intensifying an already powerful text. It appears, in any case, at a basic level in the phrase ‘in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit’, at the beginning and end, and elsewhere, in many incantations. In this way, whatever speech action the practitioner takes, it is done in the name of the Christian Trinity. Visual devices employed in the writing of amuletic texts, above all the cross and the sign of the cross as gesture employed during performance,69 contribute a similar effect of augmenting the incantation-function by setting it within the Christian dispensation. Related is an interface between incantations and liturgical prayer, an exchange running in both directions. Liturgical phrases appear in incantations, most commonly the closing στῶμεν καλῶς, στῶμεν μετὰ φόβου θεοῦ, ‘Let us stand in good order, let us stand with fear of God’, or shortened versions of it.70 The reverse appears for example teeth from wild animals, to bind the mouths of the birds’), and after listing various species of birds and other pests, the star gives the final instructions, ‘ἔπαρε μαχαίριν μαυρομάνικον καὶ κάρφωσε καὶ ἔπαρε κάνναβιν Ἀλεξανδρινόν, χαύνωσον ἀπόδεσον τῶν χιλίων μυρίων ὀρνέων τὰ στόματα καὶ τὸν κλέπτην τὴν δεξιὰν χεῖρά του, μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον τοῦ δούλου τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ δεῖνος’ [κλέπτην and τοῦτον om. ALMAZOV] (‘Take a black-handled knife, drive it in [to the ground], take Alexandrine hemp, enfeeble and bind the mouths of the million birds and the right hand of the thief, that they not enter this place, which belongs to the servant of God so-and-so’). For the dialogue with the star, compare perhaps the address to the Evening Star in modern Russian incantations (but for sleeplessness in children or fever), described by RYAN, Ancient Demons, 46–7 and n. 58. 66 E.g. P. Lond. inv. 121, col. XIV (PGM VII), line 508: χαῖρε ἥλιε (‘Hail, sun’). 67 A recipe in a manuscript of the fifteenth century, Paris, BnF, cod. gr. 2316, f. 372 rt. (OIKONOMU-AGORASTU, Kritische Erstausgabe, no. 274): περὶ σπλήνας ... λάλει τὴν γητείαν ταύτην ἀνατείλαντος τοῦ ἡλίου ‘χαίροις ἥλιε, χαίροις κὺρ ἥλιε τῷ ἀνατείλαντί σε θεῷ ... ψῦξον, μάρανον τὴν σπλήναν τοῦ δούλου τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ δεῖνα, καὶ ὀμνύει ἄλλον σπλῆνα οὐ μὴ φαγεῖν’ (‘For the spleen … utter this incantation at sunrise, “Hail sun, hail lord sun in the god who made you rise … dry up, wither the spleen of the servant of God so-and-so, and he swears to eat no other spleen”’). 68 Paris, BnF, cod. gr. 2316, ff. 361 vs.–362 rt. (OIKONOMU-AGORASTU, Kritische Erstausgabe, no. 161). 69 E.g. the procedures described in ATHANASOPOULOS, Ἐπῳδαί. 70 The phrasing appears already in patristic authors, cf. J.Chrys. De incomp. 4.391 (MALINGREY, Jean Chrysostome), In epist. ii ad Cor. homily 2.5 (MIGNE, Patrologia LXI, 399); the liturgy attributed to Basil of Caesarea (MIGNE, Patrologia XXXI, 1636); and in the full form in the Apocalypsis Iohannis (ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης εἶπεν ‘κύριε εἰπέ μοι τί ἐστιν “στῶμεν καλῶς, στῶμεν μετὰ φόβου”’, § 36 of the version edited in NAU, Deuxième apocalypse, dated approximately to the sixth to eighth centuries); cf. also N.Cabasilas, Explic. div. lit. 26.2 (BORNERT et al., Nicolas Cabasilas).

288

Michael Zellmann-Rohrer

in the liturgical exorcism, in which appear variants of a motif familiar from ancient incantations, what could be called the ‘flight and pursuit motif’, imperatives urging the target to flee because a higher power is pursuing it.71 So too do narrative motifs such as the encounter in dialogue form between a demon and a holy figure in which the demon is directed away from the patient and into the wilderness, seen as early as the well-known inscribed silver amulet for migraine from Roman Carnuntum.72 Within incantations themselves we can also see a process of addition and substitution, in which motifs surviving from antiquity are populated with Christian divinities and holy figures. The persons of the Trinity are the most prominent, alongside Mary, the vast constellation of saints and various Old Testament figures: some particular favourites are the patriarchal triad of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, along with Sarah; as well as Joshua, the prophet Elijah and Daniel. In narrative motifs, perhaps the best example is the Carnuntum amulet already mentioned. The motif of encounter figured there enjoyed a lasting popularity into modern Greece, with Christ appearing most often in the role played in the original by Artemis, who diverted the noisome divinity Antaura; angels and saints can also serve as protectors.73 There is a further profusion of related types, for example an encounter of Christ with sufferers of the particular affliction targeted in the procedure, through which healing is effected.74 A variant of this type can perhaps be seen as early as the fifth century in a set of pharmacological and incantation recipes noted down on papyrus, from Oxyrhynchus.75 Another type, which we 71 E.g. an exorcism in a post-Byzantine manuscript on Mt. Athos, Mon. Meg. Lavras, cod. Θ 20, f. 10 vs. (L. DELATTE, Office byzantin, 32–3): φεῦγε τὸ ἥμισυ τοῦ δαίμονος, τὸ τρίτον τοῦ δαίμονος, τὸ ὅλον τοῦ δαίμονος, ἀπὸ τοῦ δούλου τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ δεῖνα ὅτι ὁ κύριος διώκει σε (‘Flee, half of the demon, third of the demon, whole of the demon, from the servant of God so-and-so, because the lord pursues you’). For the motif in antiquity, see the instances collected by F. MALTOMINI in his commentary to P. Prag. I 6.1–5 in PINTAUDI/DOSTÁLOVÁ/VIDMAN (eds.), Papyri Graecae; and KOTANSKY, Incantations, 111. 72 First edited by BARB, Griechische Zaubertexte, with discussion of later parallels; cf. also BARB, Antaura. Re-edited in KOTANSKY (ed.), Greek Magical Amulets, no. 13. 73 E.g. from Aitolia, with Christ, LOUKOPOULOS, Αἰτωλικαὶ ἐπῳδαί, 39; and from Crete, with the archangel Michael, BARDAKES, Κρητικαὶ ἐπῳδαί, 245–6. The motif has also passed into modern Russian incantations, where the holy figures include Abraham and Isaac, Sisinnios and John the Baptist: RYAN, Ancient Demons, 47–9. 74 E.g. a recipe to stop bleeding in a fifteenth-century manuscript (Leiden, UB, cod. VLQ 50, f. 160 rt., ODER/HOPPE, Corpus II, excerpta Lugdunensia c. 102): ὡς ἐπεριπάτει ὁ Χριστὸς εἰς τὰ μέρη τῆς Τι βεριάδος, ὑπήντησε ἑπτὰ ἀνθρώπους πεπληγμένους, τοὺς μὲν ἀπὸ λίθων, τοὺς δὲ ἀπὸ ξίφους, ἄλλους ἀπὸ ἀγρίων θηρίων· ‘στραφοῦ δίκαιε Ἰωάννη καὶ εἰπὲ τὴν γοητείαν ταύτην “μὴ πρησθῇς, μὴ φλεγμάνῃς, μὴ αἷμα καταρρίψῃς· ἔπαρον γῆ τὸν πόνον καὶ δὸς τὴν ὑγίαν”’ [θηρίων καὶ εἶπεν suppl. ODER/HOPPE] (‘When Christ was walking about near Tiberias, he encountered seven wounded men, some by stones, some by swords, others by wild animals. “Turn back, righteous John, and say this incantation, ‘Do not burn, do not swell, do not bleed. Earth, take his pain and give him health’”’). 75 Glasgow, UL Ms Gen. 1026/16, lines 15–22 = P. Oxy. 1384 = PGM P7; edition of further medical material on the same papyrus, MAZZA, P. Oxy. XI, 1384. The identification of these later parallels allows me to propose a new supplement in line 15, such that it is specifically a group of sick men who encounter Christ in the wilderness and ask for a remedy: ἀπήντησαν ἡμ̣[ῖν ἄρρωστοι ἄνδ]ρε̣ς̣ | ἐν

Incantations in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Greek: Change and Continuity

289

might call the ‘suffering saint’, recounts how a holy figure is cured of the same disease as that targeted by the incantation, through an encounter with Christ.76 A variant is seen in the same Oxyrhynchus formulary mentioned previously, in which a group of angels suffering from ophthalmia ascend to heaven to seek a cure from their god.77 A third related type centres on a sort of cosmic disturbance: in the narrative, in which the patient is sometimes inserted directly, sometimes figured by a generic sufferer, the loud cries of pain produced by the affliction draw the attention of Christ, or other holy figures, who again dispense healing.78 Also worth noting is the survival of an apotropaic formula well known in antiquity, originally featuring Herakles. Its core is the statement that Herakles dwells (κατοικεῖ) in the place to be protected, and therefore no evil may enter, namely, in its earliest attestations, a building bearing the formula as an inscription. The formula, cast in both iambic and trochaic meter, enjoyed a broad diffusion as early as the fourth century BCE. It appears throughout the Greek world, as far east as Media, and also figures in a wall-dipinto at Pompeii; it was even subsumed into literary parody.79 Already in antiquity other divinities could fill the role of Herakles. The formula appears in the great Paris magical papyrus codex in connection with Hermes: it is to be written on papyrus and sealed up inside a hollow figurine of this god; the assemblage should then be deposited in the wall of a building, to bring benefits to the user and his activities therein.80 In Late Antiquity the formula continued to appear on buildings but was also transferred to amulets for personal protection, where the holy figure Sisinnios appears as the resident guardian, sometimes accompanied by a female companion Sisinnia and a

τῇ ἐρήμῳ κα̣[ὶ εἶπαν τῷ κ(υρί)ῳ] | ‘Ἰεσοῦ, τί ἔνη θαραπ̣ία̣ ἀ̣ρ̣ρ̣ώ̣[στοις;]’ | καὶ λέγι αὐτοῖς ‘ἔλεον ἀπέδ̣[ωκα ἐ]|λήας καὶ σβύρν[α]ν̣ ἐ̣ξ̣έ̣χ̣[υσα τοῖς] | πεποιθόσ̣ι τ[ῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ] | πατρὸς καὶ ἁγ[ί]ο̣υ̣ [πν(εύματο)ς καὶ τοῦ] | υἱοῦ’ (‘Sick men met us in the wilderness and said to the lord, “Jesus [l. Ἰησοῦ], what remedy is there for the sick [l. τί ἔνι θεραπεία]?” And he said to them, “I have given oil of the olive [l. ἐλαίας] and poured forth myrrh [l. σμύρναν] for the suffering in the name of the father and the holy spirit and the son”’). 76 E.g. an account of how John the Baptist was healed of sunstroke by Christ, in a modern Greek incantation from Rhodes, PAPACHRISTODOULOS, Λαογραφικά, 81–2. 77 Glasgow, UL Ms Gen. 1026/16, lines 23–9 = P. Oxy. 1384 = PGM P7, see n. 75 above. 78 E.g. a recipe for easing childbirth in a fifteenth-century manuscript, Paris, BnF, cod. gr. 2316, f. 360 vs., OIKONOMU-AGORASTU, Kritische Erstausgabe, no. 149: ὁ θόρυβος ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἄγγελος τὸ ἤκουσεν ἐν οὐρανοῖς. ‘τί ἔστιν ὁ θόρυβος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς;’ ‘γυνὴ γεννᾷ τὸν γεννητὴν ὡς ἡ Ελισαβετ τὸν πρόδρομον, ὡς ἡ θεοτόκος τὸν Χριστόν. βρέφος μόχθει, κράζει σὲ ἡ γῆ.’ [ὡς Ελισ. OIKONOMU-AGORASTU] (‘There was commotion on earth, an angel heard it in heaven. “What is the commotion on earth?” “A woman is giving birth to her child, as Elizabeth did with the forerunner [John], as the mother of God did with Christ. Keep struggling, infant, the earth is crying out for you!”’). 79 See HEIM, Incantamenta, 509–10; WEINREICH, De Diogenis; ROBERT, Échec au mal; FARAONE, Stopping Evil. 80 Paris, BnF, cod. suppl. gr. 574, f. 26 vs., PGM IV 2365–7 (the recipe in full runs from ll. 2359 to 2372): ‘χαιωχεν ουτιβιλμεμνουωθ· | ατραυιχ· δὸς πόρον καὶ πρᾶξιν τῷ τόπῳ | τούτῳ, ὅτι ψεντεβηθ ἐνθάδε κατοικεῖ.’ For further discussion, see the contributions of C.A. FARAONE and A. HALUSZKA in this volume.

290

Michael Zellmann-Rohrer

ferocious hound.81 The patriarch Abraham serves in this capacity in a papyrus amulet for a house from Oxyrhynchus.82 The most common substitution in the Christian Period is, not surprisingly, Christ,83 but saints also appear, St. Phokas on another early Byzantine house-amulet from Oxyrhynchus, 84 and SS. Longinus and Patapius in an incantation prescribed for fever in a fifteenth-century Byzantine manuscript, which allows us to trace the fortunes of this formula as late as the fifteenth century.85 Another result of the assimilation of incantations within Byzantine Christianity is internal reference to prescription of incantations by Christian holy figures. Christ, in one case in the Hippiatrica, is even made to refer to what he prescribes as an ‘enchantment’ (γοητεία), a striking repurposing of the Classical Greek term for ‘sorcery’.86 This recommendation constitutes a powerful authorisation, even valorisation, of the use of incantations for healing.87 Related is the assimilation of the entities involved in the incantation ritual, practitioner, patient and target, to Christian holy figures. One example involves Lazarus, from the New Testament, already seen in a recipe in a papyrus formulary of the fifth or sixth century.88 As a means of easing birth, one is to address the child as Lazarus in the words of Christ in the Gospel of John, or a close paraphrase thereof, ‘Come forth’ or ‘Come out of your tomb’, optionally followed by the statement ‘Christ calls you’. Here a direct identification of the practitioner with Christ is not present; the direct association is between the patient and a figure from scripture. Yet in an indirect sense the other equation is indeed suggested: the practi81

E.g. the bronze pendant published by BARB, Magica Varia, 353–7, side B, lines 1–7: φεῦγε φε|ῦγε Αβιζιον, | ἔνθα γὰρ κα|[τ]οικεῖ Σισινι|ς καὶ Σισινια | καὶ λάβραξ κ|ίον (‘Flee, flee, Abizion, for here dwell Sisinis and Sisinia and a ferocious hound’ [l. κύων]). For the probable identification of Sisinnios with the ancient divinity Sasm, also associated with the figure of SESENGEN BARPHARANGES, see SCHWARTZ, Sasm. 82 Vienna, ÖNB, P. Vind. gr. 19889 = PGM P2a. 83 E.g. an inscription on a stone lintel in Namer (Syria), SARTRE, Inscriptions, no. 9927. 84 P. Ryl. inv. 452 = P. Oxy. 1060 = PGM P2. 85 London, BL, cod. Royal 16 C. II, f. 49 vs.: περὶ ῥίγους. ‘εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος καὶ τοῦ τιμίου ἐνδόξου προφήτου προδρόμου καὶ βαπτιστοῦ Ἰωάννου καὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων. [signs]. Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς νικᾷ. ὁ ἅγιος Λογγῖνος καὶ Πατάπιος ὧδε κατοικοῦσιν εἰς τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ δεῖνα’ (‘For fever. “In the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit and the revered, glorious prophet, forerunner and baptist John and all the saints. [signs]. Jesus Christ conquers. Saints Longinus and Patapius dwell here with the servant of God so-and-so”’). 86 For the text, see n. 74 above. 87 It recalls ancient Egyptian healing incantations that refer internally to the use of incantations by the gods, e.g. the so-called Hearst Medical Papyrus (Berkeley, Bancroft Library, P. Hearst 1), 11, 12– 15, translated by BORGHOUTS, Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts, 37, no. 56, adapted here following the discussion and translation of QUACK, Gibt es in Ägypten, 226–7, ‘… Now, just as Seth conjured the sea, so too will Seth conjure you, Caananite (disease), and then you will not roam about, you will not roam about in the limbs of NN whom NN bore’ (cf. also the text and tr. of REISNER, Hearst Medical Papyrus, 6, no. 2). For further discussion of this text, and the encounter between Seth and the sea, see QUACK, op. cit. 88 P. Mil.Vogl. inv. 1245–53 (MALTOMINI, Nuovi papiri) = SM 96.48–50: πρὸς γενοῦσαν. | ‘ἤξερθε ἠκ̣ τοῦ μνεμίου σου, Χριστός σ̣ε̣ | καλῖ.’ ὤσστρακον δεξιῷ μερῷ (‘For a woman giving birth. “Come out of your tomb [l. ἔξελθε ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου σου], Christ is calling you [l. καλεῖ].” An ostrakon, on the right thigh’ [l. ὄστρακον δεξιῷ μηρῷ]).

Incantations in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Greek: Change and Continuity

291

tioner utters the words of Christ and expects them to have an analogous effect. That scriptural kernel received various elaborations, analogous narrative motifs of the birth of Christ and other paradoxical births, and continued in use through Byzantium into the Modern Greek Period.89 The direct identification of incantation participants with biblical figures appears also, by way of narrative motifs, in a group of incantations featuring St. Paul. Nine Byzantine manuscript versions were identified in a study by ALFONS BARB, and at least three more can be added.90 The core, according to BARB, is an exorcism of snakes and other reptiles, introduced by a first person narrative in which Paul reports that he was attacked by a viper while heaping up wood for a fire, but shook it off into the fire through the power of the holy spirit, then was presented with the exorcism by an angel in a dream, written down in a book.91 The setting is biblical, drawn from Acts 28:1–7, with the addition of the angelic apparation and of course of the exorcism. It seems probable, however, that in fact the entire text, including the first-person introduction, constitutes an incantation. This reading is supported by the fact that at least one of the manuscript versions places the framing invocation ‘in the name of the father’, and so on, at the very beginning of the text.92 At least some of the compilers who included this text, then, read it as an incantation in which the user spoke in the first person in the person of St. Paul. Further, while in the published versions available to BARB the narration specifies that Paul suffered no harm from the attack, a variant in a fourteenth-century codex claims the opposite, that in fact the apostle suffered terribly, 89 For the short version, see e.g. a recipe in a manuscript of the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century at the Olympiotissa monastery in Thessaly, cod. 97, p. 28, SKOUVARAS, Μαγικά, 80. An example of an elaborated version is in a fifteenth-century manuscript, Paris, BnF, cod. gr. 2219, f. 31 vs.: πρὸς γυναῖκα γεννῶσαν. εἰπὲ πρὸς οὖς ‘ὡς ἔτεκεν ἡ θεοτόκος τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀπόνως καὶ ἡ Ελισαβετ τὸν Ἰωάννην, φρῖξον καὶ σὺ τὸ βρέφος, καὶ πύλαι οὐρανοῦ ἠνοίγησαν, ἔξελθε καὶ σὺ παιδίον, καλεῖ σε τὸ φῶς’, καὶ ‘Λάζαρε δεῦρο ἔξω’ (‘For a woman giving birth. Say into her ear, “As the mother of God bore our lord Jesus Christ without pain, and Elizabeth John – be in awe of this yourself, infant! – and the gates of heaven were opened, come forth yourself, child, the light is calling you”, and “Lazarus, come forth”’). 90 BARB, Der Heilige, 4–9, with enumeration of nine instances, the discussion being based on a select three of these (those available in printed editions at the time of writing; to my knowledge none of the others was ever subsequently published). Three further instances are known to me, of which I am currently preparing full editions: London, BL, cod. Royal 16 C. II (fifteenth century), ff. 47 vs.–48 vs.; Paris, BnF, cod. gr. 2316 (fifteenth century), f. 319 rt.–vs.; and Paris, BnF, cod. suppl. gr. 142 (fourteenth century), ff. 161 vs.–162 rt. 91 An interesting ancient parallel, however distant, is an anecdote in Luc. Philops. 12: a Babylonian magos summons snakes and other noxious reptiles from a field by reading an incantation out of a book (ἐπειπὼν ἱερατικά τινα ἐκ βίβλου παλαιᾶς ὀνόματα ἑπτὰ καὶ θείῳ καὶ δᾳδὶ καθαγνίσας τὸν τόπον περιελθὼν ἐς τρίς, ἐξεκάλεσεν ὅσα ἦν ἑρπετὰ ἐντὸς τῶν ὅρων. ἧκον οὖν ὥσπερ ἑλκόμενοι πρὸς τὴν ἐπῳδὴν ὄφεις πολλοί...); one elderly snake does not follow, and so the magos sends a younger one to get it to come out; once all are gathered, the magos blows on them and they all burn (τὰ δὲ αὐτίκα μάλα κατεκαύθη ἅπαντα ὑπὸ τῷ φυσήματι). 92 A version unknown to BARB, in a fifteenth-century manuscript, London, BL, cod. Royal 16 C. II, ff. 47 vs.–48 vs.: εὐχὴ κατὰ τῶν ὄφεων. ‘εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. ἐγὼ Παῦλος ...’ (‘A prayer against snakes. “In the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit. I, Paul, …”’).

292

Michael Zellmann-Rohrer

before angelic intervention (δεινὸν παθὼν ὑπὸ τοῦ δήγματος).93 This version appears to represent a crossover with the ‘suffering saint’ type mentioned previously. I would like finally to illustrate this process of mediated survival by tracing the tradition of one persistent incantation type, originally an address to the womb (ὑστέρα), and henceforth the ‘ὑστέρα formula’. It is best known in a group of metal amulets from the middle Byzantine Period,94 but it has roots in incantation motifs known from late ancient sources, and its later career runs through Byzantine medical recipes from the fourteenth through nineteenth centuries and into modern Greek incantations.95 The middle Byzantine objects are pendant medallions usually featuring a Medusalike head entwined with snakes, generally thought to represent the womb, accompanied by the text of the ὑστέρα formula in various versions and in combination with other formulae. At the kernel stands an alliterative address to the womb as ‘black and blackened’ (μελανὴ μελανομένη or similar). 96 This core is then variously expanded with similes applied to the noxious effects of the wandering womb,97 most often compared to animals. Most common is the coiling or hissing snake, which likely corresponds to the iconographic motif of the Medusa head featured on the great majority of the objects.98 A closing simile may also be added expressing the hoped-for result, that 93

Paris, BnF, cod. suppl. gr. 142, ff. 161 vs.–162 rt. Studied by SPIER, Magical Amulets. 95 An Italian version prescribed in a Florentine manuscript of the fourteenth century had been identified by DREXLER, Antike Beschwörungsformeln, 605–7. SPIER, Magical Amulets, 48–9, notes a Hebrew version in another manuscript of the same century. For the extensive career of iconographic and textual elements of these amulets in Russia, borrowed from Byzantium as early as the eleventh century and lasting well into the Modern Period, see RYAN, Ancient Demons, 52–8. At least one early modern fabrication modelled on the Greek formula has been identified, in the collection of the British Museum, perhaps inspired by the engraving published in CHIFLET, Ioannis Macarii; MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum, no. 620, dated to the seventeenth century. 96 The adjective μελανός, attested in late ancient and early Byzantine koine (as early as the Periplus maris magni § 57, K. MÜLLER, Geographi I, 449–50; for early Byzantine usage see also LAMPE (ed.), Patristic Greek Lexicon s.v., 840b) is consistently used in place of the Classical μέλας. The participle μελανομένη is so consistently written with ο, even though we would expect μελανωμένη if formed from the verb μελανόω (in koine as early as the Septuagint, Cant 1:6), that I suspect a by-form μελάνω. The texts of the amulets cited in the following discussion are heavily influenced by the same itacism and other phonetic consolidation, metathesis, confusion of vowel quantity and morphological and semantic development in koine Greek familiar from the papyri (see GIGNAC, Grammar and JANNARIS, Historical Greek Grammar). I present the texts as faithfully to the original orthography as possible but provide normalised forms in the accompanying translations. 97 On this affliction see FARAONE, Magical and Medical Approaches. 98 E.g. a bronze medallion with enamel decoration, purchased in Italy and now in Paris (Louvre inv. OA 6276), FROEHNER, Kritische Analekten, 42–3; cf. SCHLUMBERGER, Amulettes, 91; SPIER, Magical Amulets, no. 37. The inscription, in part, runs: ὑστέρα μελανὴ μελανομένη ὡς ὄφης ἠλίεσε καὶ ὡς δρά{ρ}κον συρίζης (‘Womb, black and blackened, like a snake [l. ὄφις] you coil [or, slither, l. εἰλύεσαι, for Attic εἰλύῃ] and like a serpent [l. δράκων] you hiss’ [l. συρίζεις]). The restoration of σαι as the second person singular medio-passive ending, in place of the contracted Attic form, is the rule in these texts; on the development of these forms in the papyri GIGNAC, Grammar II, 358 with further bibliography for literary koine in n. 3. 94

Incantations in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Greek: Change and Continuity

293

the womb settle or lie down like calm at sea, a lamb or a sheep.99 Alternatively, the text may close with imperatives, again expressed with similes of an analogous type: the lying down of a lamb or sheep is the most common;100 the figure of calm at sea also appears.101 The ὑστέρα motif is also combined with others familiar from earlier periods.102 Of greatest interest is a variant in which the usual animal similes are elaborated in a dramatic form, by the addition of an interrogative, such that the text (and the user, if any sort of reading is involved) asks the womb why it coils like a snake and roars like a lion or bull, and so on, before ordering it to lie down like a sheep.103 This form is rem99

Calm at sea: a green jasper in a private collection (W.T. READY) said to be from Spain, first described in DE ROSSI, Capsella, 137; DREXLER, Antike Beschwörungsformeln, 596–7; SPIER, Magical Amulets, no. 56; the relevant portion runs ὑστέρα μελανὴ μελανομένη, ὡς θάλατταν γαλήνη σαίνει (‘Womb, black and blackened, as calm gladdens the sea …’). Lamb: e.g. a bronze medallion once in Venice (private collection, WEBER), MÜNTER, Sinnbilder I, 103; improved text in DREXLER, Antike Beschwörungsformeln, 595–6; cf. SPIER, Magical Amulets, no. 39: ὑσ[τέρα] μελανὴ μελανομένη ὁς ὄφης ἠλήεσε κὲ ὁς λέον βρυχᾶσε κὲ ὁς ἀρνὸς κυμᾶσε (‘Womb, black and blackened, like a snake you coil [or, slither, l. ὡς ὄφις εἰλύεσαι, for Attic εἰλύῃ] and like a lion you roar [l. καὶ ὡς λέων βρυχᾶσαι, for Attic βρυχᾷ] and like a lamb you lie down to sleep’ [l. καὶ ὡς ἀρνὸς κοιμᾶσαι, for Attic ἀρὴν κοιμᾷ]). 100 E.g. an agate gem in Gotha, BUBE, Herzogliches Kunstkabinet, 24–5, no. 120 (repr. DREXLER, Antike Beschwörungsformeln, 596; SPIER, Magical Amulets, no. 54). The inscription reads in part: ὑστέ ρ α μελανὶ μελανομένη μελανὴ ὁς ὄφης ἠλήεσε κὲ ὁς δάρκον συρχήζης κὲ ὁς λέο ν βυρχᾶσε κ(αὶ) ὁς ἀρνήον κυμήθητ ι (‘Womb, black [l. μελανή], blackened and black, like a snake you coil [or, slither, l. ὡς ὄφις εἰλύεσαι, for Attic εἰλύῃ] and like a serpent you hiss [l. καὶ ὡς δράκων συρίζεις] and like a lion you roar [l. καὶ ὡς λέων βρυχᾶσαι, for Attic βρυχᾷ] – and like a lamb lie down to sleep!’ [l. ὡς ἀρνίον κοιμήθητι]). 101 The two concur in a hematite found in Przemysl in modern Poland (Muzeum Narodwe Ziemi Przemyskiej inv. MP-H-1865), LAURENT, Amulettes, 303–7; cf. SPIER, Magical Amulets, no. 57; the relevant portion runs: ὁς θάλασα γαλήνησον, ὁς πρόβατον πράηνον (‘Like the sea be calm [l. ὡς θάλασσα γαλήνισον], like a sheep be mild’ [ὡς πρόβατον πράυνον]). The unusual intransitive construction for πραΰνω has perhaps been adopted by analogy with the preceding use of γαληνίζω (for which see LSJ, s.v., 2). 102 E.g. a variant with imperatives addressed to the womb to eat and drink blood on a lead pendant in a private collection, SPIER, Magical Amulets, no. 5: ὑστέρα μελανὶ μελ α νομένι δεδεμένι, ἑ̃μα φάε πίε (‘Womb, black, blackened and bound [l. μελανὴ μελανομένη δεδεμένη], drink and eat blood!’ [l. αἷμα φάγε πίε]). The latter phrase recalls the language of an incantation formula against bleeding, which refers to the thirst of the mythical Tantalos and instructs him to drink blood (αἷμα πίε or similar). On this type see BARB, Bois du sang, and most recently FARAONE, Vanishing Acts, esp. 38. I have identified a version of this formula in a Byzantine codex, which allows its use to be traced at least as late as the fourteenth century: Vienna, ÖNB, cod. med. gr. 52, f. 88 vs.: πρὸς τὸ στῆσαι ῥινὸς αἷμα. μετὰ ξύλου βλισκουνίου γράψον εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον ‘Τάνταλος διψᾷ’ (‘For stopping a nose-bleed. Write with the woody part of the pennyroyal plant on the forehead, “Tantalos is thirsty”’). Probably a piece of pennyroyal stalk (βλισκούνιον, on which see ADRADOS [ed.], Diccionario IV, s.v., 722c) is to be used as a pen, with the blood from the nose serving as ink. 103 E.g. a lead pendant in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, SPIER, Magical Amulets, no. 15 (no inventory information). The relevant portion is ὑστέρα μελανὴ μελανομ[ένη c. 15–20 ] τί ὁς ὄφις ἰλίεσ ε , τί ὁς {τί ὁς} ταῦρος ὀρυᾶσε; (‘Womb, black and blackened … why do you coil like a snake [or, slither, l. ὡς ὄφις εἰλύεσαι, for Attic εἰλύῃ], why do you bellow like a bull?’ [l. ὡς ταῦρος ὠρυᾶσαι, for Attic ὠρύῃ]). The verb ὠρυάομαι appears as a by-form of ὠρύομαι beginning in the late

294

Michael Zellmann-Rohrer

iniscent of the questions put to colic in a recipe preserved in a medieval Latin antidotary, but likely of ancient origin, ‘Why are you angry? Why do you toss about like a dog? Why do you leap back like a hare? Rest, intestine, and stand still, crocodile’.104 It also resonates with a group of three late ancient or early Byzantine bronze pendant amulets dealing with intestinal complaints, in which the questions asked include, ‘Why do you roar like a lion?’, ‘Why do you coil like a snake?’, and ‘Why do you gulp like a crocodile?’. 105 The comparison of the womb to animals, or theriomorphic demons, notably a dog, has been well established for earlier antiquity as well.106 Indeed, an unpublished formulary recipe in a seventeenth-century codex strongly suggests that the ὑστέρα formula as seen on the amulets arose from a fuller composition, a dramatic form in which the personified ὑστέρα is questioned and redirected. One portion of this incantation, directed against the wandering womb, is a reported dialogue with the affliction in which it is commanded not to torment the patient, expressed with three animal similes featuring a clutching crab, a grasping wild animal and a poisoning snake; it is offered instead a substitute victim and ordered to depart.107 ancient and early Byzantine koine (e.g. the Aesopic fables, HAUSRATH/HUNGER, Corpus II, 110, no. 301, ὠρυᾶτο ὥσπερ λύκος, and a hymn of Romanos the Melode, 36.13.2–3, GROSDIDIER DE MATONS, Romanos, 218, ὡς λέων ὠρυᾶτο). 104 Antidotarium Bruxellense § 147 (cod. Brux. 1342–50, ROSE, Theodori; HEIM, Incantamenta, no. 54): ad strophum. dicis haec uerba ‘quid iracundiaris? quid sicut canis iactas te? quid sicut lepus resilis? quiesce intestinum et sta crocodile’. 105 E.g. a bronze pendant now in the British Museum, BONNER, Amulets British Museum, no. 51 (repr. MICHEL, Gemmen im Britischen Museum, no. 455), lines 3–10: τ̣ί̣ | ὡς λύκος μασᾶσε, τί | ὡς κορκόδυλλος κα|τ̣απίννις, τί ὡς λέω|ν β̣ρώχις, τί ὡς ταῦρ|ος κερατίζις, τί ὡς δ|ρ̣άκων εἰλί〈ε〉σ〈α〉ι, τί ὡ|ς̣ παρᾶος κυμᾶσε; (‘Why do you chew like a wolf [l. μασᾶσαι, for Attic μασᾷ], why do you gulp like a crocodile [l. κορκόδιλλος καταπίνεις], why do you devour like a lion [l. βρύχεις], why do you coil like a serpent [or, slither, l. εἰλύεσαι, for Attic εἰλύῃ], why do you lie down to sleep like a tame creature?’ [l. πρᾶος κοιμᾶσαι, for Attic κοιμᾷ]). Two other bronze pendants, not yet edited in full, bear variants of the same sequence (one in the British Museum, cf. DALTON, Catalogue, no. 555; BARB, Magica Varia, 348, no. 4; and SPIER, Magical Amulets, Pl. 6d; the other sold at Zurich in 1989, listed in the auction catalogue WOLFE, Objects, 63, no. 197). For general remarks on the contents see also SPIER, Antique Magical Book. 106 See FARAONE, Magical and Medical Approaches, 21. 107 St. Petersburg, NLR, cod. gr. 575, ff. 32 vs.–33 rt. (acquired in Greece by the archimandrite Antonin Ivanovich Kapustin [1817–1894], cf. CCAG XII, 29 with incipit and explicit only). The incantation, of which I am currently preparing a full edition, begins in the familiar way, ’στέρα μελανὴ μελανομένη, αἷμα τρώγεις, αἷμα πίνεις (‘Womb, black and blackened, blood you eat, blood you drink …’). The novel portion runs ‘θέλεις ἄνθρωπον νά σου δώσω; θέλεις παῖδα νὰ πίσῃς;’ ‘θέλω ἄνδρα, θέλω καὶ νὰ φάγω καὶ νὰ πίω καὶ παῖδα νὰ πίσω.’ καὶ εἶπον αὐτῆς ‘μὴν κλαίῃς, μὴν θλίβεσαι καὶ νὰ φάγῃς καὶ νὰ πίῃς καὶ τὴν δούλην τοῦ θεοῦ δεῖνα μὴν κολάζῃς. μὴ ὡς κάβουρος πιάνῃς καὶ ὡς θηρίον ἔχῃς αὐτὴν καὶ ὡς δράκαινα φαρμακώνῃς τὴν βρῶσιν καὶ τὴν πόσιν αὐτῆς’ (‘“Do you want me to give you a man? Do you want a child to clutch?” “I want a man, I want to eat and drink [him], and a child to clutch.” And I said to it [the womb], “Do not cry, do not be troubled, and you will eat and drink – and do not torment the [female] servant of God so-and-so. Do not clutch her like a crab, hold her like a wild animal, and poison her food and drink like a serpent”’). The mention of ‘man’ and ‘child’ as alternative targets for the womb might otherwise suggest pregnancy, which may indeed be hoped for after the present crisis has passed, but that the primary goal is the departure of a malig-

Incantations in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Greek: Change and Continuity

295

The ὑστέρα formula was surely transmitted in written recipes alongside the Byzantine metal amulets, which may in fact have been copied from them.108 There are manuscript attestations from the fourteenth through nineteenth centuries and variants still recorded in oral use in the early twentieth century.109 The noun ὑστέρα itself is frequently replaced with ἀστέρα or ‘star’,110 and the remedy is applied to both sexes as a general protective measure against internal pain. The core address as μελανὴ μελανομένη, or similar, generally survives intact. Above all the motif proved lastingly productive, appearing in combination with numerous others. In a fourteenth-century formulary, for example, the motif follows a curious narrative motif in which a phallus falls from the sky and creates a loud disturbance, expressed in similes quite similar to those used in the address to the ὑστέρα, roaring like a lion and coiling and uncoiling like a snake.111 Performative references to binding in the first person are employed in addresses to the affliction, ‘I bind you’ and the like, familiar from apotropaic formulae in the Greek magical papyri.112 The flight and pur-

nant demonic force is confirmed by the ending, in which the womb is ordered to ‘go away and take your pain and your burning away from the servant of God so-and-so and cast them into the wilds of the hills, where not even the sound of bells is heard’ (ἀλλὰ ἄπελθε καὶ ἔπαρον τοὺς πόνους σου καὶ τὴν φλόγα σου ἀπὸ τὴν δούλην τοῦ θεοῦ δεῖνα καὶ ῥῖψον εἰς ἄγρια ὄρη ὅπου σημάντρου φωνὴ οὐκ ἀκούεται). 108 SPIER, Revival, argues that in the absence of earlier amulets of this type, the middle Byzantine amulets should be regarded as a revival, not a continuous practice. This argument ex silentio seems tenuous given the underdeveloped state of Byzantine archaeology in general, and particularly for Byzantine Constantinople where so much has been built over, destroyed or simply left unexplored. 109 Manuscript formulary recipes: e.g. Athens, Bibl. Boul. cod. 124 (nineteenth century), f. 275 vs. (A. DELATTE, Anecdota, 141): πῶς νὰ γράφῃς ‘ἀστέρα’ διὰ μικρὰ παιδία. ‘ἀστέρα μελανὴ μεμελανωμένη, αἷμα τρώγεις, αἷμα πίνεις, ’ς τὸ αἷμα συντελείεσαι ...’ (‘How to write the starincantation for small children. “Star, black and blackened, blood you eat, blood you drink, in blood is your consummation…”’). Oral versions: e.g. that described in contemporary use in Kepoureio in Macedonia by KOUKOULES, Μεσαιωνικοί, 103, ἀστέρα μελανέ, πήγαινε ’ς τὰ ἄγρια θηρία ... (‘Black star, go to the wild animals …’). On the relation of this ‘star’ (ἀστέρα) with the womb see below. 110 For the identification of this ἀστέρα with the earlier ὑστέρα, see BARB, Diva Matrix, 237, n. 301. 111 Paris, BnF, cod. suppl. gr. 142, f. 158 rt., ALMAZOV, Apokrificeskija molitvy, 316: the relevant portion runs φαλλὸς [φαλὸς ALMAZOV; or (ὀμ)φαλός?] ἐξουράνοθεν ἐξέπεσεν καὶ ὡσεὶ κάμμαρος ἐκτύπησεν καὶ ὡσεὶ λέος ἐβρυχήθη καὶ ὡς ὄφις ἐδιπλώνετο καὶ πάλιν ἀπεδιπλώνετο ... (‘A phallus fell from the heavens and thudded like a lobster and roared like a lion and uncoiled like a snake and coiled back up again ...’). I hope to return elsewhere to the rich tradition of the motif of the fall of the affliction from the sky, from antiquity through Byzantium and modern Greece. 112 Compare e.g. a formulary recipe in a sixteenth-century manuscript, Erlangen, UB cod. 93, f. 18 rt. (CCAG VII, 245–6): ἀστέρα μελανή, μελανομένη αἵματος, αἷμα πίνεις καὶ καλῶν ἀνθρώπων καρδίες παίρνεις ... ἐδῶ δένω καὶ ἀποδένω τὰς ἑβδομήκοντά σου ὤνυχας ... (‘Black star, blackened with blood, you drink blood and seize the hearts of good people … here I bind and bind up your seventy claws …’); and a fifth-century papyrus amulet, Oslo, UL P. Oslo inv. 303 = P. Oslo I 5 (EITREM, Papyri Osloenses I) = PGM P3, line 3, where the phrase ‘I bind you’ (δέννω σε) is addressed to the ‘Artemisian scorpion’ (σκορπίε Ἀρτεμίσιε), perhaps a reference to the Classical tradition of the scorpion as agent of Artemis in the death of Orion (e.g. Eust. Comm. ad Il., ed. VAN DER VALK, Eustathii IV, 226).

296

Michael Zellmann-Rohrer

suit motif also appears, directed at the affliction, with Christ as the pursuer.113 The formula also shares space, already in the Byzantine metal amulets, with prayers for help addressed to Christian holies.114 I will close by returning to the topic with which I began, the excerpting of authoritative ancient texts for the purposes of protective and apotropaic incantations. I noted the use of the Homeric poems in this role, which, as we have seen, certainly does continue in Byzantium. Not surprisingly, their stature does diminish in that period, and does not seem to survive long beyond it,115 in contrast to the burgeoning role of the obvious texts of authority in a Christian belief system, biblical scripture. But it is striking to note the great favour shown for the Psalms in particular – indeed an entire Byzantine treatise on such use of these texts survives;116 Psalms could even be deployed for erotic magic.117 It seems that the psalter best fit the role previously occupied by the Homeric poems as a unified text of great situational scope, with material appropriate to a wide gamut of affective states. At the same time, appropriately for the incantation context, it offered poetry in an archaic diction, elevated above everyday speech. As such it sublimates both practitioner and target to the plane of an authoritative narrative with cosmological extent, with added impact from artful and elevated language.

113 E.g. an oral version described in use on Paphos in the early twentieth century by PHILIPPOU, Ἐπῳδαί, 527: ’στέρα ’στέρα στερωμένη, τοῦ θεοῦ καταραμένη, τσαὶ ’ς τἄντερα περικλωμένη, ’ς τὴν καρτοῦλλαν φυτεμένη, τσαὶ μέσ’ ’ς τἄντερα πλεμένη, ὁ Χριστὸς σὲ κατατρέσ‘ει μὲ τὸ δεξιό του σ‘έρι τσαὶ μὲ ἀρκυρὸ μασ‘αίρι ... (‘Womb, womb bereft, accursed by God, and twisted about the intestines, planted in the cartilage, and coiled amid the intestines, Christ pursues you with a silver sword in his right hand …’). 114 E.g. the agate in Gotha (see n. 100 above), which has the following text on the side opposite that bearing the ὑστέρα formula: θεοτόκε βοήθει τῇ σῇ δούλῃ Μαρηααμ (‘Mother of God, help your servant Mariam’). 115 An interesting post-Byzantine instance is a recipe in a sixteenth-century manuscript, an incantation against insomnia, in which an address to sleep itself is fashioned out of Hom. Il. 14.233 plus an original composition in Homeric diction (cf. in particular Hom. Il. 14.236 and Hom. Od. 13.79), Leiden, UB, cod. VGF 25, f. 5 vs.: ἄλλο ἐκ τῶν Ὁμήρου, ποιεῖ δὲ ὑγιαίνουσι καὶ νοσοῦσιν. λέγοντος γὰρ τοῦ πάσχοντος τρίτον, ὑπνώσει. ‘ὕπνε ἄναξ πάντων τε θεῶν πάντων τ’ ἀνθρώπων, κοίμησον στέρνοισιν ἐμοῖσιν ἐὼν καὶ βλεφάροισιν ἢ νήδυμος ἔμπεσε τυτθὸν ὄφρ’ ἕκας ἔλθοιμι ἀνίης’ (‘Another, from the verses of Homer, and it works for the healthy and the sick, for when the patient says it three times, he will fall asleep. “Sleep, lord of all gods and all men, be at rest in my heart and eyes, or fall thick upon me, gently, that I may leave distress far behind”’). 116 Preserved in a fifteenth-century manuscript, Paris, BnF, cod. gr. 2316, ff. 429 rt.–431 vs., excerpts of which are published by LEGRAND, Bibliothèque II, 20–24; see also ZELLMANN-ROHRER, ‘Psalms’. 117 E.g. Ps 41 in a fifteenth-century manuscript, Paris, BnF, cod. gr. 2419, f. 199 rt. (A. DELATTE, Anecdota, 467).

Bibliography ABBOTT, G.F., Macedonian Folklore, Cambridge 1903. ABD EL-AZIM EL-ADLY, S., Das Gründungs- und Weiheritual des ägyptischen Tempels von der frühgeschichtlichen Zeit bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches, PhD Diss., University of Tübingen 1981. ABUSCH, T., VAN DER TOORN, K. (eds.), Mesopotamian Magic. Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives (Ancient Magic and Divination 1), Groningen 1999. ADDABBO, A.M., Per una tassonomia delle formule magico-mediche latine, Atti e memorie dell’Accademia toscana di scienze e lettere ‘La Colombaria’ 54 (1989) 67–125. ADRADOS, F.R. (ed.), Diccionario griego-español, I–VII, Madrid 2008–present. AHL, F., Apollo: Cult and Prophecy in Ovid, Lucan, and Statius, in: J. SOLOMON (ed.), Apollo: Origins and Influences, Tucson 1994, 113–34. ALBERT, F., Le Livre des Morts d’Aset-Ouret, Vatican 2013. ALLEN, J.P., Genesis in Egypt. The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts (Yale Egyptological Seminar 2), New Haven 1988. ALMAZOV, A.I., Apokrificeskija molitvy, zaklinanija i zagovory, Letopis’, Istoriko-filologisheskoe obshchestvo, Imperatorskiĭ novorossiĭskiĭ universitet 9 (1901) 221–340. ALTENMÜLLER, H., s.v. Magische Literatur, in: LdÄ III, 1151–62. AMANDRY, P., La mantique apollinienne à Delphes: essai sur le fonctionnement de l’Oracle (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 170), Paris 1950. ANDREWS, C., The Boar, the Ram-Headed Crocodile and the Lunar Fly, in: W.V. DAVIES (ed.), Studies in Egyptian Antiquities: a Tribute to T.G.H. James, London 1999, 79–81. ANNUS, A., The Soul’s Ascent and Tauroctony: on Babylonian Sediment in the Syncretic Religious Doctrines of Late Antiquity, in: T.R. KÄMMERER (ed.), Studien zu Ritual und Sozialgeschichte im Alten Orient: Tartuer Symposien 1998–2004 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 374), Berlin/New York 2007, 1–53. – (ed.), Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World (Oriental Institute Seminars 6), Chicago 2010. ARNAUD, L., Prières superstitieuses des Grecs de Chimara, Echos d’Orient 14 (1911) 146–51. ARSENTIEVA, N., Los conjuros eróticos eslavo-rusos en su relación con la magia greco-egipcia, MHNH: Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas 9 (2009) 5–31. ASIRVATHAM, S.R., PACHE, C.O., WATROUS, J. (eds.), Between Magic and Religion: Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and Society, Lanham 2001. ASMIS, E., Lucretius’ Venus and Stoic Zeus, Hermes 110 (1982) 458–70. ASSMANN, J., Liturgische Lieder an den Sonnengott (Untersuchungen zur altägyptischen Hymnik 1; Münchner ägyptologische Studien 19), Berlin 1969. –, Der König als Sonnenpriester. Ein kosmographischer Begleittext zur kultischen Sonnenhymnik in thebanischen Tempeln und Gräbern (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo: Ägyptologische Reihe 7), Glückstadt 1970. –, Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete, Zürich/Munich 1975. –, Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom. Re, Amun and the Crisis of Polytheism, tr. A. ALst COCK, London/New York 1995 [1 German edn: Mainz 1983]. –, Sonnenhymnen in thebanischen Gräbern (Theben 1), Mainz 1983. –, Rezeption und Auslegung in Ägypten. Das ‘Denkmal memphitischer Theologie’ als Auslegung der heliopolitanischen Kosmogonie, in: R.G. KRATZ, T. KRÜGER (eds.), Rezeption und Auslegung im

298

Bibliography

Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld (Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 153), Fribourg/Göttingen 1997, 125–38. –, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, tr. D. LORTON, Ithaca/London 2001 [1st German edn: Stuttgart 1984]. –, Das Leichensekret des Osiris. Zur kultischen Bedeutung des Wassers im alten Ägypten, in: N. GRIMAL, A. KAMEL, C. MAY-SHEIKHOLESLAMI (eds.), Hommages à Fayza Haikal (Bibliothèque d’étude 138), Cairo 2003, 5–16. ASSMANN, J., FRANKFURTER, D., Egypt, in: JOHNSTON (ed.), Religions, 155–64. ATHANASOPOULOS, T.I., Ἐπῳδαὶ ἐκ Καστρίου τῆς Κυνουρίας, Λαογραφία 3 (1911) 664–5. AUBRIOL, D., L’invocation au(x) dieu(x) dans la prière grecque: contrainte, persuasion or théologie?, in: N. BELAYCHE, P. BRULE, G. FREYBURGER, Y. LEHMANN, L. PERNOT, F. PROST (eds.), Nommer les Dieux: théonymes, épithètes, épiclèses dans l’Antiquité, Turnhout/Rennes 2005, 473–90. AUFRERE, S.H., Les parures végétales du magicien d’après les papyrus magiques grecs et égyptiens: les palmes, l’olivier, l’ail, l’oignon et le storax, in: AUFRERE (ed.), Encyclopédie religieuse II, 385–98. –, ⲕⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ, un crocodile justicier des marécages de la rive occidentale du Panopolite au temps de Chénouté, in: AUFRERE (ed.), Encyclopédie religieuse III, 77–93. – (ed.), Encyclopédie religieuse de l’univers végétal, I–IV (Orientalia Monspeliensia 10–16), Montpellier 1999–2005. AUSTIN, J.L., How to Do Things with Words, Cambridge 1962. BAGNALL, R.S., Early Christian Books in Egypt, Princeton 2009. BAINES, J., Literacy and Ancient Egyptian Society, Man, N.S. 18.3 (1983) 572–99. BAKOWSKA, G., La rappresentazione di Arpocrate sulle gemme magiche, in: R. BURRI (ed.), Incontro di studio tra i dottorandi e i giovani studiosi di Roma, Istituto svizzero di Roma, Villa Maraini, febbraio–aprile 2003 (Ad Limina 2), Alessandria 2004, 299–314. BARB, A.A., Griechische Zaubertexte vom Gräberfelde westlich des Lagers, Der römische Limes in Österreich 16 (1926) 53–67. –, Bois du sang, Tantale, Syria 29 (1952) 271–84. –, Der Heilige und die Schlangen, Mitteilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 82 (1953) 1–21. –, Diva Matrix: a Faked Gnostic Intaglio in the Possession of P.P. Rubens and the Iconology of a Symbol, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 16 (1953) 193–238. –, Antaura. The Mermaid and the Devil’s Grandmother: a Lecture, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 29 (1966) 1–23. –, Magica Varia, Syria 49 (1972) 343–70. BARBER, F., A Linguistic Study of the Greek Magical Papyri, unpublished PhD thesis, University of London 1983. BARDAKES, S.G., Κρητικαὶ ἐπῳδαί, Λαογραφία 9 (1926) 239–48. BARGUET, P., Les textes des sarcophages égyptiens du Moyen Empire (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 12), Paris 1986. BARJAMOVIC, G., LARSEN, M.T., An Old Assyrian Incantation Against the Evil Eye, Altorientalische Forschungen 35 (2008) 144–55. BARRA BAGNASCO, M., Bes-Sileno. Un’iconografia tra mondo egizio e greco: nuovi documenti, in: Sesto Congresso internazionale di egittologia: atti I, Torino 1992, 41–9. BARTA, W., Untersuchungen zum Götterkreis der Neunheit (Münchner ägyptologische Studien 28), Munich/Berlin 1973. BARUCQ, A., DAUMAS, F., Hymnes et prières de l’Égypte ancienne, Paris 1980. BEAULIEU, P.-A., Mesopotamia, in: JOHNSTON (ed.), Religions, 165–72. –, The Afterlife of Assyrian Scholarship in Hellenistic Babylonia, in: J. STACKERT, B.N. PORTER, D.P. WRIGHT (eds.), Gazing on the Deep. Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch, Bethesda 2010, 1–18.

Bibliography

299

BECK, H., BOL, P.C., BÜCKLING, M. (eds.), Ägypten – Griechenland – Rom, Abwehr und Berührung. Städelsches Kunstinstitut und Städtische Galerie, 26. November 2005–26. Februar 2006, Frankfurt 2005. BECK, R.L., Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders in the Mysteries of Mithras (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 109), Leiden 1988. BECK, S., Sāmānu. Ein vorderasiatischer Dämon in Ägypten (Ägypten und Altes Testament 83), Münster 2015. BECKH, H. Geoponica sive Cassiani Bassi scholastici De re rustica eclogae, Leipzig 1895. BEDIER, S., Die Rolle des Gottes Geb in den ägyptischen Tempelinschriften der griechisch-römischen Zeit (Hildesheimer ägyptologische Beiträge 41), Hildesheim 1995. BEERDEN, K., ‘Dismiss Me. Enough’. A Comparison Between Mesopotamian and Greek Necromancy, in: R. ROLLINGER, G. GUFLER, M. LANG, I. MADREITER (eds.), Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt. Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts, Wiesbaden 2010, 265–81. BEINLICH, H., Die ‘Osirisreliquien’: zum Motiv der Körperzergliederung in der altägyptischen Religion (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 42), Wiesbaden 1984. –, Das Buch vom Fayum. Zum religiösen Eigenverständnis einer ägyptischen Landschaft (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 51), Wiesbaden 1991. –, Die Erneuerung der königlichen/göttlichen Macht und das Lebenshaus von Ra-Sehet (Fayum), in: F. COPPENS, J. JANÁK, H. HYMAZALOVÁ (eds.), Royal Versus Divine Authority. Acquisition, Legitimization and Renewal of Power. 7. Symposium zur ägyptischen Königsideologie / 7th Symposium on Egyptian Royal Ideology, Prague, June 26–28, 2013 (Königtum, Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen 4, 4), Wiesbaden 2015, 49–61. –, Der Mythos in seiner Landschaft – das ägyptische ‘Buch vom Fayum’, I–III (Studien zu den Ritualszenen altägyptischer Tempel 11,1–11,3), Dettelbach 2013–2017. BEKKER, I., Ioelis chronographia compendiaria (Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae 33), Bonn 1836. BELL, C., Ritual Theory and Ritual Practice, New York 1992. BELL, H.I., NOCK, A.D., THOMPSON, H. (eds.), Magical Texts from a Bilingual Papyrus in the British Museum, London 1933. BELL, L.D., Une nouvelle version de l’inscription de Bakhtan de Ramsès II et la fête d’Opet dans la légende tardive, Dossiers histoire et archéologie 101 (1986) 24. BELLUSCI, A., Dream Requests from the Cairo Genizah, MA thesis, Tel Aviv University 2011. –, A Genizah Finished Product for She’elat Ḥalom Based on Sefer ha-Razim, Journal of Jewish Studies 67.2 (2016) 305–26. –, Dream Requests in the Middle East: the History of the Sheʾelat Ḥalom from the Medieval Era back to Late Antiquity (Magic and Religion in Late Antiquity) Leiden, forthcoming. BERG, W., Hecate: Greek or ‘Anatolian’?, Numen 21.2 (1974) 128–40. BERGER, P.A., HOCK, K., KLIE, T. (eds.) Religionshybride. Religion in posttraditionalen Kontexten, Wiesbaden 2013. BERGMAN, J., An Ancient Egyptian Theogony in a Greek Magical Papyrus, PGM VII 516–21, in: HEERMA VAN VOSS et al. (eds.), Studies, 28–37. –, Nephthys découverte dans un papyrus magique, in: Mélanges Adolphe Gutbub, Montpellier 1984, 1–11. BERLANDINI, J., L’acéphale et le rituel de revirilisation, Oudheidkundige mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 73 (1993) 29–41. –, Ptah-Démiurge et l’exaltation du ciel, Revue d’égyptologie 46 (1995) 9–41. BERNABÉ, A., Las Ephesia Grammata: génesis de una formula mágica, MHNH: Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas 3 (2003) 5–28. –, Poetae epici Graeci: testimonia et fragmenta: Pars II.2 Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Munich/Leipzig 2005.

300

Bibliography

–, The Derveni Papyrus: Problems of Edition, Problems of Interpretation, in: T. GAGOS (ed.), Proceedings of the 25th International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor, July 29–August 4, 2007, Ann Arbor 2010, 77–84. –, The Ephesia Grammata: Genesis of a Magical Formula, in: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Getty Hexameters, 71–95. BERNABÉ, A., JIMÉNEZ SAN CRISTÓBAL, A.I., Instructions for the Netherworld: the Orphic Gold Tablets (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 162), Leiden 2008. –, Are the ‘Orphic’ Gold Leaves Orphic?, in: EDMONDS III (ed.), ‘Orphic’ Gold Tablets, 68–101. BERNABÉ, A., JIMÉNEZ SAN CRISTÓBAL, A.I., SANTAMARÍA, M.A. (eds.), Dioniso. Los orígenes: textos e imágenes de Dioniso y lo dionisíaco en la Grecia antigua, Madrid 2013. BERNARD, J.S., Theophanis Nonni Epitome de curatione morborum, I–II, Gotha/Amsterdam 1794. BETZ, H.D., Fragments from a Catabasis Ritual in a Greek Magical Papyrus, History of Religions 19 (1980) 287–95. –, Magic and Mystery in the Greek Magical Papyri, in: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Magika Hiera, 244– 59. –, The ‘Mithras Liturgy’. Text, Translation and Commentary (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 18), Tübingen 2003. – (ed.), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation – Including the Demotic Spells, 2nd edn, Chicago/London 1992 [1st edn: Chicago 1986]. BEVILACQUA, G., Scrittura e magia. Un repertorio di oggetti iscritti della magia greco-romana (Opuscula epigraphica 12), Rome 2010. BICKEL, S., Un hymne à la vie. Essai d’analyse du Chapitre 80 des Textes des Sarcophages, in: C. BERGER et al. (eds.), Hommages à Jean Leclant I: Études pharaoniques (Bibliothèque d’étude 106, 1), Cairo 1994, 80–97. BLACK, J.A., CUNNINGHAM, G., ROBSON, E., ZÓLYOMI, G., The Literature of Ancient Sumer, Oxford 2004. BLEEKER, C.J., Hathor and Thoth: Two Key Figures of the Ancient Egyptian Religion, Leiden 1973. BLUM, R., BLUM, E., The Dangerous Hour. The Lore of Crisis and Mystery in Rural Greece, London 1970. VON BLUMENTHAL, A., s.v. Paian, in: PRE XVIII.2, 2340–62. BLUMENTHAL, E., Die Prophezeiung des Neferti, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 109 (1982) 1–27. BOHAK, G., Hebrew, Hebrew Everywhere? Notes on the Interpretation of Voces Magicae, in: NOEGEL/WALKER/WHEELER (eds.), Prayer, Magic, 69–82. –, Ancient Jewish Magic: a History, Cambridge 2008. –, Gershom Scholem and Jewish Magic, Kabbalah 28 (2012) 141–62. –, Greek-Hebrew Linguistic Contacts in Late Antique and Medieval Magical Texts, in: J.K. AITKEN, J.C. PAGET (eds.), The Jewish-Greek Tradition in Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire, Cambridge 2014, 247–60. BOHAK, G., HARARI, Y., SHAKED, S. (eds.), Continuity and Innovation in the Magical Tradition (Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 15), Leiden 2011. BOLL, F., Der ostasiatische Tierzyklus im Hellenismus, in: F. BOLL, Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums, Leipzig 1950, 99–114. BONNER, C., The Numerical Value of a Magical Formula, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 16 (1930) 6–9. –, Studies in Magical Amulets Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian (University of Michigan Studies: Humanistic Series 4), Ann Arbor 1950. –, Amulets Chiefly in the British Museum. A Supplementary Article, Hesperia 20 (1951) 301–45. BONNET, C., Astarté. Dossier documentaire et perspectives historiques (Contributi alla storia della religione Fenicio-Punica 2; Collezione di studi fenici 37), Rome 1996.

Bibliography

301

BONNET, C., MOTTE, A. (eds.), Les syncrétismes religieux dans le monde méditerranéen antique: Actes du Colloque International en l’honneur de Franz Cumont à l’occasion du cinquantième anniversaire de sa mort; Rome, Academia Belgica, 25–27 septembre 1997 (Études de philologie, d’archéologie et d’histoire anciennes 36), Brussels/Rome 1999. BONNET, C., PIRENNE-DELFORGE, V., Deux déesses en interaction: Astarté et Aphrodite dans le monde égéen, in: BONNET/MOTTE (eds.), Les syncrétismes religieux, 249–73. BORGEAUD, P., VOLOKHINE, Y., La formation de la légende de Sarapis: une approche transculturelle, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 2 (2000) 37–76. BORGHOUTS, J.F., Magical Texts, in: Textes et Langages de l’Égypte pharaonique III (Bibliothèque d’étude 64,3), Cairo 1974, 7–19. –, Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts (Nisaba 9), Leiden 1978. –, #X.w (akhu) and Hk#.w (hekau). Two Basic Notions of Ancient Egyptian Magic, and the Concept of the Divine Creative Word, in: ROCCATI/SILIOTTI (eds.), Magia in Egitto, 29–46. BORNERT, R., GOUILLARD, J., PERICHON, P., SALAVILLE, S., Nicolas Cabasilas, Explication de la divine liturgie, Paris 1967. BORRET, M., Origène: Contre Celse, I–V, Paris 1967–1976. BORTOLANI, L.M., Bes e l’ἀκέφαλος θεός dei PGM, Egitto e Vicino Oriente 31 (2008) 105–26. –, Review of: R. PHILLIPS, Invisibility, Tyche 25 (2010) 281–4. –, Magical Hymns from Roman Egypt: a Study of Greek and Egyptian Traditions of Divinity, Cambridge 2016. –, The Greek Magical Hymn to Hermes: Syncretism or Disguise? The Hellenization of Thoth in Graeco-Egyptian Magical Literature, in: J. MILLER, J. STRAUSS CLAY (eds.), Tracking Hermes, Pursuing Mercury, Oxford, forthcoming. BORTOLANI, L.M., NAGEL, S., Divination Rituals in the Greek and Demotic Magical Papyri (provisional title), in preparation. BOSCHUNG, D., BREMMER, J. (eds.), The Materiality of Magic (Morphomata 20), Paderborn 2015. BOTTÉRO, J., s.v. Homosexualität, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie IV, Berlin 1975, 459–68. –, Mythes et rites de Babylone (Bibliothèque de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, IVe section, Sciences historiques et philologiques 328), Geneva/Paris 1985. BOWDEN, H., Review of: BREMMER, Initiation, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2014.12.24. BOYANCE, P., L’Apollon solaire, in: J. HEURGON (ed.), Mélanges d’archéologie, d’épigraphie et d’histoire offerts à Jérôme Carcopino, Paris 1966, 149–70. BOYLAN, P., Thoth, the Hermes of Egypt: a Study of Some Aspects of Theological Thought in Ancient Egypt, London 1922. BRAARVIG, J., Magic: Reconsidering the Grand Dichotomy, in: JORDAN/MONTGOMERY/THOMASSEN (eds.), World of Ancient Magic, 21–54. BRASHEAR, W., Ein Berliner Zauberpapyrus, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 33 (1979) 261–78. –, Ein neues Zauberensemble in München, Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 19 (1992) 79–109. –, Zauberformular, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 36 (1990) 49–74. With a supplement, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 38 (1992) 27–32. –, Magica Varia (Papyrologica Bruxellensia 25), Brussels 1993. –, New Greek Magical and Divinatory Texts in Berlin, in: MEYER/MIRECKI (eds.), Ancient Magic, 209–42. –, The Greek Magical Papyri: an Introduction and Survey; Annotated Bibliography (1928–1994), in: ANRW II.18.5 (1995), 3380–648. BREMMER, J.N., The Birth of the Term ‘Magic’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 126 (1999) 1–12. –, Divinities in the Orphic Gold Leaves: Euklês, Eubouleus, Brimo, Kybele, Kore and Persephone, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 187 (2013) 35–48.

302

Bibliography

–, The Getty Hexameters: Date, Author, and Place of Composition, in: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Getty Hexameters, 21–9. –, Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World, New York/Berlin 2014. BREMMER, J.N., VEENSTRA, J.R. (eds.), The Metamorphosis of Magic from Late Antiquity to the Early Modern Period, Leuven 2002. BRETFELD, S., Dynamiken der Religionsgeschichte: Lokale und translokale Verflechtungen, in: M. STAUSBERG (ed.), Religionswissenschaft, Berlin 2012, 423–33. BRICAULT, L., BONNET, C. (eds.), Panthée: Religious Transformations in the Graeco-Roman Empire, Leiden/Boston 2013. BRITTON, J.P., Studies in Babylonian Lunar Theory: Part III. The Introduction of the Uniform Zodiac, Archive for History of Exact Sciences 64 (2010) 617–63. BROWNING, R., Homer in Byzantium, Viator 6 (1975) 15–33. BROWNING, R., CUTLER, A., s.v. Latin, in: A.P. KAZHDAN (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford 1991, 1183. BROZE, M., La princesse de Bakhtan. Essai d’analyse stylistique (Monographies Reine Elisabeth 6), Brussels 1989. BRUGSCH, H., Die Kapitel der Verwandlungen im Todtenbuch 76 bis 88, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 5 (1867) 21–6. BRUNNER-TRAUT, E., s.v. Farben, in: LdÄ II, 117–28. DE BRUYN, T.S., An Anatomy of Tradition: the Case of the Charitêsion, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 16.1 (2015) 31–50. –, Making Amulets Christian: Artefacts, Scribes, and Contexts (Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford 2017. DE BRUYN, T.S., DIJKSTRA, J.H.F., Greek Amulets and Formularies from Egypt Containing Christian Elements: a Checklist of Papyri, Parchments, Ostraka and Tablets, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 48 (2011) 163–216. BUBE, A., Das herzogliche Kunstkabinet zu Gotha, Gotha 1854. BUCHBERGER, H., Zum Ausländer in der altägyptischen Literatur – eine Kritik, Die Welt des Orients 20–21 (1989–1990) 5–34. –, Transformation und Transformat. Sargtextstudien I (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 52), Wiesbaden 1993. BUCK, C.D., PETERSEN, W., A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives: Arranged by Terminations with Brief Historical Introductions, Hildesheim 1970. BUDDE, D., Harpare-pa-chered: ein ägyptisches Götterkind im Theben der Spätzeit und griechischrömischen Epoche, in: D. BUDDE, S. SANDRI, U. VERHOEVEN (eds.), Kindgötter im Ägypten der griechisch-römischen Zeit: Zeugnisse aus Stadt und Tempel als Spiegel des interkulturellen Kontakts (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 128), Leuven 2003, 15–110. BUDIN, S.L., A Reconsideration of the Aphrodite-Ashtart Syncretism, Numen 51.2 (2004) 95–145. BÜLOW-JACOBSEN, A. (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, Copenhagen 23–29 August 1992, Copenhagen 1994. BURKERT, W., Greek Tragedy and Sacrificial Ritual, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 7 (1966), 87–121. –, Itinerant Diviners and Magicians. A Neglected Area of Cultural Contact, in: R. HÄGG (ed.), The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century BC: Tradition and Innovation (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 30), Stockholm 1983, 111–19. –, Greek Religion, Oxford 1985. –, The Orientalizing Revolution. Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age, Cambridge 1995. –, Migrating Gods and Syncretisms: Forms of Cult Transfer in the Ancient Mediterranean, in: W. BURKERT, Kleine Schriften II. Orientalia (Hypomnemata, Suppl. 2), Göttingen 2003, 17–36. –, Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis. Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture, Cambridge 2004.

Bibliography

303

–, Genagelter Zauber. Zu den Ephesia Grammata, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 183 (2012) 109–10. BURNETT, C., RYAN, W.F. (eds.), Magic and the Classical Tradition, London 2006. BUTLER, C., The Lausiac History of Palladius, I–II, Cambridge 1904. BUXTON, R., Forms of Astonishment: Greek Myths of Metamorphosis, Oxford 2009. CALVO MARTÍNEZ, J.L., El tratamento del material hímnico en los Papiros Mágicos. El himno δεῦρό μοι, MHNH: Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas 2 (2002) 71–95. –, Dos himnos ‘mágicos’ al Creador. Edicíon crítica con introducción y commentario, MHNH: Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas 3 (2003) 231–50. –, ¿Licnomancia o petición de demon páredros? Edición con comentario de fragmentos hímnicos del PGM I 262–347, MHNH: Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas 5 (2005) 263–76. –, El himno a Helios ‘Ἀεροφοιτήτων ἀνέμων’ en la coleción PGM, MHNH: Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas 6 (2006) 157–76. –, Morfología de las prácticas mánticas de la luz. Fotagogia y Licnomancia en los PGM, in: M. MONACA (ed.), Problemi di storia religiosa del mondo tardo-antico. Tra mantica e magia (Hierá: Collana di studi storico-religiosi 14), Cosenza 2009, 45–78. –, Un himno hermético en tres versiones, MHNH: Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas 9 (2009) 235–50. –, Himno sincrético a Mene-Hécate (PGM IV 2522–2567), MHNH: Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas 10 (2010) 219–38. –, Dos conjuros a Afrodita (PGM IV 2903–2940), MHNH: Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas 12 (2012) 239–56. –, Himno a Hécate-Selene. Práctica coactiva (PGM IV 2714–2783), MHNH: Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas 13 (2013) 207–20. CAMPBELL THOMPSON, R., A Dictionary of Assyrian Botany, London 1949. CARABIA, J., Hécate garante de la propreté: défense de déposer des ordures sous peine de…, Pallas 35 (1989) 25–63. CATAGNOTI, A., BONECHI, M., Magic and Divination at IIIrd Millennium Ebla, 1. Textual Typologies and Preliminary Lexical Approach, Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico 15 (1998) 17–39. ČERNÝ, J., Reference to Blood Brotherhood among Semites in an Egyptian Text of the Ramesside Period, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955) 161–3. CHESHIRE, W., Aphrodite Cleopatra, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 43 (2007) 151–91. CHIFLET, J., Ioannis Macarii canonici ariensis Abraxas seu Apistopistus; quae est antiquaria de gemmis basilidianis disquisitio. Accedit Abraxas Proteus seu multiformis gemmae Basilidianae portentosa varietas, Antwerp 1657. CHOAT, M., GARDNER, I., A Coptic Handbook of Ritual Power (P. Macq. I 1) (The Macquarie Papyri 1), Turnhout 2013. CHRISTOPOULOS, M., KARAKANTZA, E.D., LEVANIOUK, O. (eds.), Light and Darkness in Ancient Greek Myth and Religion, Lanham 2010. CHRONOPOULOU, E., PGM VI: a Lost Part of PGM II, Symbolae Osloenses 91 (2017) 1–8, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/00397679.2017.1296702. CHRYSIKOPOULOS, V.I., À l’aube de l’Égyptologie hellénique et de la constitution des collections égyptiennes: des nouvelles découvertes sur Giovanni d’Anastasi et Tassos Néroutsos, in: P. KOUSOULIS, N. LAZARIDIS (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean (Rhodes), 22–29 May 2008, I–II (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 241.1, 2), Leuven/Paris/Bristol 2015, II, 2147–62.

304

Bibliography

CIRAOLO, L., SEIDEL, J. (eds.), Magic and Divination in the Ancient World (Ancient Magic and Divination 2), Leiden 2002. CLANCIER, P., Les bibliothèques en Babylonie dans la deuxième moitié du Ier millénaire av. J.C. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 363), Münster 2009. CLARYSSE, W., Egyptian Religion and Magic in the Papyri, in: R.S. BAGNALL (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, Oxford 2009, 561–89. CLÈRE, J.J., Deux nouvelles plaques de fondation bilingues de Ptolémée IV Philopator, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 90 (1963) 16–22. COHN, M., P. Mich. 3404 Recto: an Unpublished Magical Papyrus, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 182 (2012) 243–57. COLIN, F., L’Isis ‘dynastique’ et la Mère des Dieux Phrygienne. Essai d’analyse d’un processus d’interaction culturelle, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 102 (1994) 271–95. COLLIER, M., CRISCENZO-LAYCOCK, G. (eds.), Ramesside Studies in Honour of K.A. Kitchen, Bolton 2011. COLLINS, DA.J. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West from Antiquity to the Present, Cambridge 2015. COLLINS, DE., Nature, Cause, and Agency in Greek Magic, Transactions of the American Philological Association 133 (2003) 17–49. –, Magic in the Ancient Greek World, Oxford 2008. –, The Magic of Homeric Verses, Classical Philology 103.3 (2008) 211–36. COLLOMBERT, P., Le conte de l’hirondelle et de la mer, in: RYHOLT (ed.), Acts, 59–76. COLLOMBERT, P., COULON, L., Les dieux contre la mer. Le début du ‘papyrus d’Astarté’ (pBN 202), Bulletin de l’Institut française d’archéologie oriental 100 (2000) 193–242. COOPER, J.S., Buddies in Babylonia, in: T. ABUSCH (ed.), Riches Hidden in Secret Places. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, Winona Lake 2002, 73–85. COX MILLER, P., Dreams in Late Antiquity: Studies in the Imagination of a Culture, Princeton 1994. CRIBIORE, R., Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt (American Studies in Papyrology 36), Atlanta 1996. –, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Princeton/Oxford 2001. CRIPPA, S., CIAMPINI, E.M. (eds.), Languages, Objects, and the Transmission of Rituals. An Interdisciplinary Analysis on Ritual Practices in the Graeco-Egyptian Papyri (PGM) (Antichistica 11; Storia e epigrafia 4), Venice 2017. CRUM, W.E., An Egyptian Text in Greek Characters, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 28 (1941) 20– 31. CUNEN, F., Les prâtiques divinatoires attribuées à Joseph d’Égypte, Revue des sciences religieuses 33 (1959) 396–404. –, Lampe et coupe magiques (PGM V, 1–52), Symbolae Osloenses 36 (1960) 65–71. CUNNINGHAM, I.C., Herodas, Mimiambi, Oxford 1971 [2nd edn: Leipzig 1987]. CUNNINGHAM, G., ‘Deliver Me from Evil’. Mesopotamian Incantations 2500–1500 BC (Studia Pohl, series minor 17), Rome 1997. CURTIS, J.E., READE, J.E., Art and Empire. Treasures from Assyria in the British Museum, London 1995. DALBY, A., Geoponika. Farm Work. A Modern Translation of the Roman and Byzantine Farming Handbook, Totnes 2011. DALLEY, S., The Sassanian Period and Early Islam, c. AD 224–651, in: DALLEY (ed.), Legacy, 163– 81. – (ed.), The Legacy of Mesopotamia, Oxford 1998. DALLEY, S., REYES, A.T., Mesopotamian Contact and Influence in the Greek World. 2. Persia, Alexander, and Rome, in: DALLEY (ed.), Legacy, 107–24.

Bibliography

305

DALTON, O.M., Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities and Objects from the Christian East in the Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities and Ethnography of the British Museum, London 1901. DANIEL, R.W., Two Greek Magical Papyri in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden. A Photographic Edition of J 384 and J 395 (=PGM XII and XIII) (Papyrologica Coloniensia 19), Opladen 1991. DANIEL, R.W., MALTOMINI, F., Supplementum Magicum, I–II (Papyrologica Coloniensia 16.1–2), Opladen 1990–1992. DASEN, V., Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece, Oxford 1993. DASEN, V., SPIESER, J.M. (eds.), Les savoirs magiques et leur transmission de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Florence 2014. DAY, J.W., Archaic Greek Epigram and Dedication: Representation and Reperformance, Cambridge 2010. DELATTE, A., Études sur la magie grecque. V. ΑΚΕΦΑΛΟϹ ΘΕΟϹ, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 38 (1914) 189–249. –, Anecdota Atheniensia I, Liège 1927. DELATTE, A., DERCHAIN, P., Les intailles magiques Gréco-Égyptiennes, Paris 1964. DELATTE, L., Un office byzantin d’exorcisme (Ms. de la Lavra du Mont Athos, Θ 20), Brussels 1957. DEMICHELIS, S., La divination par l’huile à l’époque ramesside, in: KOENIG (ed.), Magie en Égypte, 149–63. DEPAUW, M., A Companion to Demotic Studies (Papyrologica Bruxellensia 28), Brussels 1997. –, The Demotic Letter. A Study of Epistolographic Scribal Traditions Against Their Intra- and Intercultural Background (Studia Demotica 14), Sommerhausen 2006. –, Language Use, Literacy, and Bilingualism, in: RIGGS (ed.), Oxford Handbook, 493–506. DERCHAIN-URTEL, M.-T., Thot à travers ses épithètes dans les scènes d’offrandes des temples d’époque gréco-romaine, Brussels 1981. –, Priester im Tempel. Die Rezeption der Theologie der Tempel von Edfu und Dendera in den Privatdokumenten aus ptolemäischer Zeit (Göttinger Orientforschungen 4.19), Wiesbaden 1989. DETIENNE, M., The Gardens of Adonis. Spice in Greek Mythology, London 1977 [1st edn Paris, 1972]. DEVAUCHELLE, D., Osiris, Apis, Sarapis et les autres: remarques sur les Osiris Memphites au Ier millénaire av. J.-C., in: L. COULON (ed.), Les cultes d’Osiris au 1er millénaire av. J.-C: découvertes et travaux récents. Actes de la table ronde internationale tenue à Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée (Université Lumière-Lyon 2), les 8 et 9 juillet 2005 (Bibliothèque d’étude 153), Cairo 2010, 49–62. –, Pas d’Apis pour Sarapis!, in: A. GASSE, F. SERVAJEAN, C. THIERS (eds.), Et in Ægypto et ad Ægyptum, recueil d’études dédiées à Jean-Claude Grenier IV (Les Cahiers Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne 5.4), Montpellier 2012, 213–26. DHORME, E., Les religions de Babylonie et Assyrie, Paris 1949. DICKIE, M.W., The Learned Magician and the Collection and Transmission of Magical Lore, in: JORDAN/MONTGOMERY/THOMASSEN (eds.), World of Ancient Magic, 163–93. –, Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World, London/New York 2001. DIELEMAN, J., Rituele reinheid in het Oude Egypte, Phoenix 48 (2002) 63–72. –, Ein spätagyptisches magisches Handbuch: eine neue PDM oder PGM?, in: HOFFMANN/THISSEN (eds.), Res severa, 121–8. –, Priests, Tongues, and Rites. The London-Leiden Magical Manuscripts and Translation in Egyptian Ritual (100–300 CE) (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 153), Leiden/Boston 2005. –, Scribal Practices in the Production of Magic Handbooks in Egypt, in: BOHAK/HARARI/SHAKED (eds.), Continuity and Innovation, 85–117. –, Coping with a Difficult Life. Magic, Healing, and Sacred Knowledge, in: RIGGS (ed.), Oxford Handbook, 337–61.

306

Bibliography

DIETERICH, A., Prolegomena ad papyrum magicam Musei Lugdunensis Batavi, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Suppl. 18 (1888) 749–92 [repr. in A. DIETERICH, Kleine Schriften (ed. R. WÜNSCH), Leipzig 1913, 1–47]. –, Abraxas. Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des spätern Altertums. Festschrift Hermann Usener zur Feier seiner 25jährigen Lehrtätigkeit an der Bonner Universität dargebracht vom klassischphilologischen Verein zu Bonn, Leipzig 1891. DIGGLE, J., Euripides: Phaethon (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 12), Cambridge 1970. VAN DIJK, J., The Birth of Horus According to the Ebers Papyrus, Jaarbericht van het VooraziatischEgyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 26 (1979–80) 10–25. –, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis. Historical and Iconographical Studies, PhD Diss. University of Groningen 1993. DÖLGER, F.J., Der Exorzismus im altchristlichen Taufritual, Paderborn 1909. DORNSEIFF, F., Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magie, 2nd edn, 5th reprint, Leipzig 1988 [1st edn (Stoicheia 7) Leipzig 1922]. DOSOO, K., Rituals of Apparition in the Theban Magical Library, PhD thesis, Macquarie University 2014, published online: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.14/1067351. –, A History of the Theban Magical Library, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 53 (2016) 251–74. DOYEN-HIGUET, A.-M., L’Epitomé de la ‘Collection d’hippiatrie grecque’. Histoire du texte, édition critique, traduction et notes, Louvain-la-Neuve 2006. DREXLER, W., Antike Beschwörungsformeln, Philologus 58 (1899) 594–616. DRIOTON, É., Notes diverses 12. Aphrodite anadyomène invoquée comme Hathor, Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 45 (1947) 82–3. DUNAND, F., Le culte d’Isis dans le bassin oriental de la Méditerranée, I–III (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 26), Leiden 1973. –, s.v. Agathodaimon, in: LIMC I.1, 277–82. –, La consultation oraculaire en Égypte tardive: l’oracle de Bès à Abydos, in: J.-G. HEINTZ (ed.), Oracles et prophéties dans l’antiquité: actes du colloque de Strasbourg 15–17 juin 1995 (Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 15), Paris 1997, 65–84. –, Culte d’Isis ou religion isiaque?, in: L. BRICAULT, M.J. VERSLUYS (eds.), Isis on the Nile. Egyptian Gods in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Proceedings of the IVth International Conference of Isis Studies, Liège, November 27–29 2008, Leiden 2010, 39–44. –, Traditional Religion in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, in: M.R. SALZMAN, W. ADLER (eds.), The Cambridge History of Religions in the Ancient World II. From the Hellenistic Age to Late Antiquity, New York 2013, 165–88. DZWIZA, K., Schriftverwendung in antiker Ritualpraxis anhand der griechischen, demotischen und koptischen Praxisanleitungen des 1.–7. Jahrhunderts, I–II, Erfurt 2013. EATON, K., Ancient Egyptian Temple Ritual: Performance, Pattern, and Practice (Routledge Studies in Egyptology 1), New York 2013. EDMONDS III, R.G., The Ephesia Grammata: Logos Orphaïkos or Apolline Alexima Pharmaka?, in: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Getty Hexameters, 97–106. – (ed.), The ‘Orphic’ Gold Tablets and Greek Religion: Further Along the Path, Cambridge/New York 2011. EDWARDS, I.E.S., Oracular Amuletic Decrees of the Late New Kingdom, I–II (British Museum: Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum 4), London 1960. EFFLAND, U., EFFLAND, A., Abydos: Tor zur ägyptischen Unterwelt (Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie), Darmstadt 2013. EITREM, S., Les papyrus magiques grecs de Paris (Skrifter, Videnskapsselskapet i Kristiania, Historisk-Filosofisk Klasse 1923.1), Kristiania 1923. –, Zu den Berliner Zauberpapyri (Forhandlinger i Videnskapsselskapet i Kristiania 1923.1), Kristiania 1923.

Bibliography

307

–, The Greek Magical Papyri in the British Museum (Forhandlinger i Videnskapsselskapet i Kristiania 1923.3), Kristiania 1923. –, Die rituelle διαβολή, Symbolae Osloenses 2 (1924) 43–61. –, Papyri Osloenses I: Magical Papyri, Oslo 1925. –, Aus ‘Papyrologie und Religionsgeschichte’: Die magischen Papyri, Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung 19 (1934) 243–63. –, Kronos in der Magie, in: Mélanges Bidez (Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et histoire orientales 2), Brussels 1934. –, Die magischen Gemmen und ihre Weihe, Symbolae Osloenses 19 (1939) 57–85. –, Sonnenkäfer und Falke in der synkretistischen Magie, in: T. KLAUSER, A. RÜCKER (eds.), Pisciculi. Studien zur Religion und Kultur des Altertums, Franz Joseph Dölger zum sechzigsten Geburtstage dargeboten von Freunden, Verehrern und Schülern, Münster 1939, 94–101. –, Varia, Symbolae Osloenses 20 (1940) 175–6. –, Orakel und Mysterien am Ausgang der Antike, Zürich 1947. ELLEN, R., Introduction, in: C.W. WATSON, R. ELLEN (eds.), Understanding Witchcraft and Sorcery in South-East Asia, Honolulu 1993, 1–25. ENGELMANN, H., HALLOF, J., Der Sachmetpriester, ein früher Repräsentant der Hygiene und des Seuchenschutzes, Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 23 (1996) 103–46. ENGSHEDEN, Å., Am Ende ist alles allegorisch gemeint: Bemerkungen zu einem Epitheton der Göttin Nephthys in Plutarchs De Iside et Osiride, in: H. KNUF, C. LEITZ, D. VON RECKLINGHAUSEN (eds.), Honi soit qui mal y pense: Studien zum pharaonischen, griechisch-römischen und spätantiken Ägypten zu Ehren von Heinz-Josef Thissen (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 194), Leuven 2010, 185–91. ENMARCH, R., A World Upturned. Commentary on and Analysis of The Dialogue of Ipuwer and the Lord of All, London 2009. ENTWISTLE, C., ADAMS, N. (eds.), ‘Gems of Heaven’: Recent Research on Engraved Gemstones in Late Antiquity, c. AD 200–600 (British Museum Research Publication 177), London 2011. ERICHSEN, W., Demotisches Glossar, Copenhagen 1954. ERMAN, A., Die ägyptischen Beschwörungen des großen Pariser Zauberpapyrus, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 21 (1883) 89–109. ESCHWEILER, P., Bildzauber im Alten Ägypten. Die Verwendung von Bildern und Gegenständen in magischen Handlungen nach den Texten des Mittleren und Neuen Reiches (Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 137), Fribourg/Göttingen 1994. ÉTIENNE, M., Heka. Magie et envoûtement dans l’Égypte ancienne (Les dossiers du Musée du Louvre 57), Paris 2000. EVANS, E.P., The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals, London 1906. EWERS, M., Marcellus Empiricus, De medicamentis: christliche Abhandlung über Barmherzigkeit oder abergläubische Rezeptsammlung?, Trier 2009. FARAONE, C.A., Binding and Burying the Forces of Evil: the Defensive Use of ‘Voodoo Dolls’ in Ancient Greece, Classical Antiquity 10 (1991) 165–205. –, The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding-Spells, in: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Magika Hiera, 3–32. –, Molten Wax, Spilt Wine and Mutilated Animals: Sympathetic Magic in Near Eastern and Early Greek Oath Ceremonies, Journal of Hellenic Studies 113 (1993) 60–80. –, The Mystodokos and the Dark-Eyed Maidens. Multicultural Influences on a Late Hellenistic Incantation, in: MEYER/MIRECKI (eds.), Ancient Magic, 297–333. –, The ‘Performative Future’ in Three Hellenistic Incantations and Theocritus’ Second Idyll, Classical Philology 90 (1995) 1–15. –, Ancient Greek Love Magic, Cambridge, Mass. 1999. –, Handbooks and Anthologies: the Collection of Greek and Egyptian Incantations in Late Hellenistic Egypt, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 2.2 (2000) 195–214.

308

Bibliography

–, From Magic Ritual to Semiotic Game: the Transformation of Neo-Assyrian Love Spells in Classical and Hellenistic Greece, in: A. PANAINO, G. PETTINATO (eds.), Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomena (Melammu symposia 3), Milan 2002, 61–74. –, The Collapse of Celestial and Chthonic Realms in a Late Antique ‘Apollonian Invocation’ (PGM I 262–347), in: R.S. BOUSTAN, A. YOSHIKO REED (eds.), Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions, Cambridge 2004, 213–32. –, Necromancy Goes Underground: the Disguise of Skull- and Corpse-Divination in the Paris Magical Papyri (PGM IV 1928–2144), in: JOHNSTON/STRUCK (eds.), Mantikê, 255–82. –, Stopping Evil, Pain, Anger, and Blood: the Ancient Greek Tradition of Protective Iambic Incantations, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 49 (2009) 227–55. –, Kronos and the Titans as Powerful Ancestors: a Case Study of the Greek Gods in Later Magical Spells, in: J.N. BREMMER, A. ERSKINE (eds.), The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations, Edinburgh 2010, 388–405. –, An Athenian Tradition of Dactylic Paeans to Apollo and Asclepius: Choral Degeneration or a Flexible System of Non-Strophic Dactyls?, Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 206–31. –, Hexametrical Incantations as Oral and Written Phenomena, in: LARDINOIS/BLOK/VAN DER POEL (eds.), Sacred Words, 191–203. –, Magical and Medical Approaches to the Wandering Womb in the Ancient Greek World, Classical Antiquity 30 (2011) 1–32. –, Rushing and Falling into Milk: New Perspectives on the Gold Tablets, in: EDMONDS III (ed.), ‘Orphic’ Gold Tablets, 310–30. –, The Problem of Dense Data-Sets for Cartographers (and Chronographers) of Ancient Mediterranean Magic: Some Case Studies from the East, in: PIRANOMONTE/SIMÓN (eds.), Contesti magici, 103–10. –, Magical Verses on a Lead Tablet: Composite Amulet or Anthology?, in: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Getty Hexameters, 107–20. –, Spoken and Written Boasts in the Getty Hexameters: from Oral Composition to Inscribed Amulet, in: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Getty Hexameters, 57–70. –, Vanishing Acts: Deletio Morbi as Speech Act and Visual Design on Ancient Greek Amulets (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Suppl. 115), London 2013. –, Inscribed Greek Thunderstones as House- and Body-Amulets in Roman Imperial Times, Kernos 27 (2014) 251–78. –, Protective Statues for Home and Workshop. The Evidence for Cross-Cultural Contact in the Greek Magical Papyri, in: CRIPPA/CIAMPINI (eds.), Languages, 59–78. FARAONE, C.A., KOTANSKY, R., An Inscribed Gold Phylactery in Stamford, Connectitut, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 75 (1988) 257–66. FARAONE, C.A., OBBINK, D. (eds.), Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, Oxford 1991. – (eds.), The Getty Hexameters: Poetry, Magic, and Mystery in Ancient Selinous, Oxford 2013. FARNELL, L.R., The Cults of the Greek States, I–V, Oxford 1896–1909. FAULKNER, A., The Homeric Hymns: Interpretative Essays, Oxford 2011. FAUTH, W., Seth-Typhon, Onoel und der eselköpfige Sabaoth, Oriens Christianus 57 (1973) 79–120. –, Arbath-Iao. Zur mystischen Vierheit in griechischen und koptischen Zaubertexten und in gnostischen und apokryphen Schriften des christlichen Orients, Oriens Christianus 67 (1983) 65–103. –, Aphrodites Pantoffel und die Sandale der Hekate, Grazer Beiträge 12–13 (1985–1986) 193–211. –, Dardaniel (PGM LXII 12–16), Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 98 (1993) 57–75. –, Helios Megistos: zur synkretistischen Theologie der Spätantike (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 125), Leiden/New York/Cologne 1995. –, Hekate Polymorphos: Wesensvarianten einer antiken Gottheit. Zwischen frühgriechischer Theogonie und spätantikem Synkretismus (Altsprachliche Forschungsergebnisse 4), Hamburg 2006. –, Jao-Jahwe und seine Engel. Jahwe-Appellationen und zugehörige Engelnamen in griechischen und koptischen Zaubertexten (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 74), Tübingen 2014.

Bibliography

309

FERNÁNDEZ MARCOS, N., Motivos judíos en los papiros mágicos griegos, in: Religion, superstición y magia en el mundo romano: encuentros en la Antigüedad, Cádiz 1985, 101–28. FERNÁNDEZ NIETO, F.J., Ἄλει μύλα ἄλει. Tercera contribución al estudio del valor mágico de las muelas y de la acción de moler en el mundo antiguo, MHNH: Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas 10 (2010) 75–100. FESTUGIERE, A.J., La valeur religieuse des papyrus magiques, in: A.J. FESTUGIERE, L᾿idéal religieuse des Grecs et l᾿Évangile, Paris 1932, 281–328. FINCKE, J.C., KOUWENBERG, B., A ‘New’ Old Assyrian Incantation, Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 44 (2012–2013) 141–6. FISCHER, J., Der Zwerg, der Phallos und der Buckel: Groteskfiguren aus dem ptolemäischen Ägypten, Chronique d’Égypte 73 (1998) 327–61. FISCHER-ELFERT, H.-W., Abseits von Ma’at. Fallstudien zu Außenseitern im Alten Ägypten (Wahrnehmungen und Spuren Altägyptens 1), Würzburg 2005. –, Weitere Details zur Göttlichkeit der Natur – Fragmente eines späthieratischen Lexikons (Pap. Hal. Kurth Inv. 33 A–C (Halle/Saale)), Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 135 (2008) 115–30. –, Sāmānu on the Nile: the Transfer of a Near Eastern Demon and Magico-Medical Concept into New Kingdom Egypt, in: COLLIER/CRISCENZO-LAYCOCK (eds.), Ramesside Studies, 189–98. –, Magika Hieratika in Berlin, Hannover, Heidelberg und München (Ägyptische und Orientalische Papyri und Handschriften des Ägyptischen Museums und Papyrussammlung Berlin 2), Berlin/Munich/Boston 2015. FLINT, V., GORDON, R., LUCK, G., OGDEN, D. (eds.), Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: Ancient Greece and Rome (The Athlone History of Witchcraft and Magic in Europe 2), London 1999. FLOWER, M.A., The Seer in Ancient Greece, Berkeley/Los Angeles 2008. FODOR, A., An Arabic Version of Sefer ha-Razim, Jewish Studies Quarterly 13 (2006) 412–27. FONTENROSE, J., The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and Operations, with a Catalogue of Responses, Berkeley/London 1978. –, Didyma: Apollo’s Oracle, Cult and Companions, Berkeley/London 1988. FOSSUM, J., GLAZER, B., Seth in the Magical Texts, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100 (1994) 86–92. FOWDEN, G., The Egyptian Hermes: a Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind, 2nd edn, Princeton 1993. FRAHM, E., Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins of Interpretation (Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 5), Münster 2011. FRAME, G., GEORGE, A.R., The Royal Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King Ashurbanipal’s Tablet Collecting, Iraq 67 (2005) 265–84. FRANKFURTER, D., The Magic of Writing and the Writing of Magic: the Power of the Word in Egyptian and Greek Traditions, Helios 21.2 (1994) 189–221. –, Narrating Power: the Theory and Practice of the Magical Historiola in Ritual Spells, in: MEYER/MIRECKI (eds.), Ancient Magic, 457–76. –, Ritual Expertise in Roman Egypt and the Problem of the Category ‘Magician’, in: SCHÄFER/KIPPENBERG (eds.), Envisioning Magic, 115–35. –, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance, Princeton 1998. –, The Consequences of Hellenism in Late Antique Egypt: Religious Worlds and Actors, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 2 (2000) 162–94. –, The Perils of Love: Magic and Countermagic in Coptic Egypt, Journal of the History of Sexuality 10 (2001) 480–500. –, Dynamics of Ritual Expertise in Antiquity and Beyond: Towards a New Taxonomy of ‘Magicians’, in: MIRECKI/MEYER (eds.), Magic and Ritual, 159–78. –, Voices, Books, and Dreams: the Diversification of Divination Media in Late Antique Egypt, in: JOHNSTON/STRUCK (eds.), Mantikê, 233–54.

310

Bibliography

–, Fetus Magic and Sorcery Fears in Roman Egypt, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 46 (2006) 37–62. FRASER, K.A., Roman Antiquity: the Imperial Period, in: DA.J. COLLINS (ed.), Cambridge History of Magic, 115–47. FRAZER, J., The Golden Bough: a Study in Magic and Religion, I–XII, London 1911–1915. FROEHNER, W., Kritische Analekten (Philologus Suppl. 5), Göttingen 1884. FROIDEFOND, C., Plutarque, Œuvres morales, tome V, 2e partie. Traité 23. Isis et Osiris, Paris 2003. FUCHS, M., RÜPKE, J. (eds.), Religious Individualization in Historical Perspective, Religion 45.3 (2015) 323–9. FURLEY, W.D., Besprechung und Behandlung. Zur Form und Funktion von ΕΠΩΙΔΑΙ in der griechischen Zaubermedizin, in: G.W. MOST, H. PETERSMANN, A.M. RITTER (eds.), Philanthropia kai Eusebia. Festschrift für Albrecht Dihle zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1993, 80–104. –, Praise and Persuasion in Greek Hymns, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 115 (1995), 29–46. FURLEY, W.D., BREMER, J.M., Greek Hymns. Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period, I–II (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 9–10), Tübingen 2001. GAGER, J.G. (ed.), Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World, New York/Oxford 1992. GALLO, P., Ostraca demotici e ieratici dall’archivio bilingue di Narmouthis, Pisa 1997. GANSZYNIEC, R., s.v. Λεκανομαντεία, in: PRE XII, 1879–89. GARCÍA MOLINOS, A., Sobre los recursos para persuadir al lector en los Papiros Griegos Mágicos, in: SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE/BLANCO/CHRONOPOULOU (eds.), Papiros mágicos griegos, 31–44. GARDINER, A., Late-Egyptian Stories (Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 1), Brussels 1932. GARLAND, R., Introducing New Gods: the Politics of Athenian Religion, Ithaca (NY) 1992. GASSE, A., La litanie des douze noms de Rê-Horakhty, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 84 (1984), 189–227. –, Stèles d’Horus sur les crocodiles, Catalogue, Louvre, Département des antiquités Égyptiennes, Paris 2004. GEE, J., The Requirements of Ritual Purity in Ancient Egypt, PhD Diss., Yale University 1998. –, The Structure of Lamp Divination, in: RYHOLT (ed.), Acts, 207–18. –, Review of: BETZ, ‘Mithras Liturgy’, Review of Biblical Literature (February 26, 2005). GELLER, M.J., The Influence of Ancient Mesopotamia on Hellenistic Judaism, in: SASSON (ed.), Civilizations I, 43–54. —, The Last Wedge, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 87 (1997) 43–95. —, Melothesia in Babylonia. Medicine, Magic, and Astrology in the Ancient Near East (Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Cultures 2), Berlin 2014. GIANNOBILE, S., Malanni fisici e malanni spirituali nelle iscrizioni magiche tardoantiche, in: R. MARINO, C. MOLÈ, A. PINZONE (eds.), Poveri ammalati e ammalati poveri. Dinamiche socioeconomiche, trasformazioni culturali e misure assistenziali nell’occidente romano in età tardoantica. Atti del Convegno di Studi Palermo, 13–15 ottobre 2005, Catania 2006, 335–63. GIGNAC, F.T., A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, I–II (Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’Antichità 55.1–2), Milan 1976–1981. GIVEON. R., A God Who Hears, in: HEERMA VAN VOSS et al. (eds.), Studies, 38–42. GOAR, R.P.J., ΕΥΧΟΛΟΓΙΟΝ sive rituale Graecorum, Venice 1730. GOLDREICH, A., Automatic Writing in Zoharic Literature and Modernism, Los Angeles 2010. GORDON, R.L., Reporting the Marvellous: Private Divination in the Greek Magical Papyri, in: SCHÄFER/KIPPENBERG (eds.), Envisioning Magic, 65–92. –, Imagining Greek and Roman Magic, in: FLINT/GORDON/LUCK/OGDEN (eds.), Witchcraft and Magic, 159–276. –, ‘What’s in a List?’ Listing in Greek and Graeco-Roman Malign Magical Texts, in: JORDAN/MONTGOMERY/THOMASSEN (eds.), World of Ancient Magic, 239–77.

Bibliography

311

–, Competence and ‘Felicity Conditions’ in Two Sets of North African Curse-Tablets (DTAud. nos. 275–85, 286–98), MHNH: Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas 5 (2005) 61–86. –, Signa Noua et Inaudita: the Theory and Practice of Invented Signs (Charaktêres) in GraecoEgyptian Magical Texts, MHNH: Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas 11 (2011) 15–44. –, Memory and Authority in the Magical Papyri, in: B. DIGNAS, R.R.R. SMITH (eds.), Historical and Religious Memory in the Ancient World: Essays for Simon Price, Oxford 2012, 145–80. –, The Religious Anthropology of Late-Antique ‘High’ Magical Practice, in: J. RÜPKE (ed.), Individualization in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford 2013, 163–86. –, Charaktêres Between Antiquity and the Renaissance: Transmission and Re-Invention, in: DASEN/SPIESER (eds.), Savoirs magiques, 253–300. –, Review of: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Getty Hexameters, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2014.12.10. –, From Substances to Texts: Three Materialities of ‘Magic’ in the Roman Imperial Period, in: BOSCHUNG/BREMMER (eds.), Materiality of Magic, 133–76. – (ed.), Magical Practice in the Latin West: Papers from the International Conference Held at the University of Zaragoza, 30 Sept–1 Oct. 2005 (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 168), Leiden 2010. GÖRG, M., Der sogenannte Exodus zwischen Erinnerung und Polemik, in: I. SHIRUN-GRUMACH (ed.), Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology (Ägypten und Altes Testament 40), Wiesbaden 1988, 159–72. –, Nilgans und Heiliger Geist. Bilder der Schöpfung in Israel und Ägypten, Düsseldorf 1997. GORISSEN, P., Ontwikkelungsgang der studies over de grieksche magische papyri uit Egypte, Philologische Studien 6 (1934–1935) 190–209. GOYON, J.C., Textes mythologiques. II. ‘Les révélations du mystère des quatre boules’, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 75 (1975), 349–99. –, Nombre et univers: réflexions sur quelques données numériques de l’arsenal magique de l’Égypte pharaonique, in: ROCCATI/SILIOTTI (eds.), Magia in Egitto, 57–76. GRAF, F., Prayer in Magic and Religious Ritual, in: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Magika Hiera, 188– 213. –, An Oracle Against Pestilence from a West Anatolian Town, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 92 (1992) 268–79. –, Excluding the Charming: the Development of the Greek Concept of Magic, in: MEYER/MIRECKI (eds.), Ancient Magic, 29–42. –, Gottesnähe und Schadenzauber. Die Magie in der griechisch-römischen Antike, Munich 1996. –, How to Cope with a Difficult Life: a View of Ancient Magic, in: SCHÄFER/KIPPENBERG (eds.), Envisioning Magic, 93–114. –, Magic in the Ancient World (Revealing Antiquity 10), Cambridge, Mass. 1997. –, Apollo (Gods and Heroes of the Ancient World), London 2009. –, s.v. Apollon, in: NP I, 863–8. GRAF, F., JOHNSTON, S.I., Ritual Texts for the Afterlife: Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets, London/New York 2007. GRAHAM, L.D., Perseus, Mars and the figurae magicae of PGM XXXVI, 2016, published online: https//www.academia.edu/28232099/Perseus_Mars_and_the_figurae_magicae_of_PGM_XXXVI. GRAYSON, K., The Icons of Consumer Research: Using Signs to Represent Consumers’ Reality, in: B.B. STERN (ed.), Representing Consumers, New York 1998, 27–43. GREENFIELD, R.P.H., Traditions of Belief in Late Byzantine Demonology, Amsterdam 1988. –, A Contribution to the Study of Palaeologan Magic, in: MAGUIRE (ed.), Byzantine Magic, 117–53. GRELOIS, J.-P., LEFORT, J., Géoponiques, Paris 2012. GRIFFITH, F.L., Stories of the High Priests of Memphis, Oxford 1900. –, The Old Coptic Magical Texts of Paris, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 38 (1900) 85–93.

312

Bibliography

–, Herodotus II.90. Apotheosis by Drowning, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 46 (1909) 132–4. GRIFFITH, F. L., THOMPSON, H., The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden, I–III, London 1904–1909. GRIFFITHS, J.G., Plutarchus: De Iside et Osiride, Cardiff 1970. –, The Origins of Osiris and His Cult (Studies in the History of Religions 40), Leiden 1980. –, Motivation in Early Egyptian Syncretism, in: HEERMA VAN VOSS et al. (eds.), Studies, 43–55. –, s.v. Osiris, in: LdÄ IV, 623–33. GROSDIDIER DE MATONS, J., Romanos le Mélode. Hymnes IV. Nouveau Testament (XXXII–XLV) (Sources chrétiennes 128), Paris 1967. GUGLIELMI, W., Eine ‘Lehre’ für einen reiselustigen Sohn (Ostrakon Oriental Institute 12074), Wege des Orients 14 (1983) 147–66. GUIGNARD, C., Sources et constitution des Géoponiques à la lumière des versions orientales d’Anatolius de Béryte et de Cassianus Bassus, in: M. WALLRAFF, L. MECELLA (eds.), Die Kestoi des Julius Africanus und ihre Überlieferung, Berlin 2009, 243–344. GUILHOU, N., La vieillesse des dieux, Montpellier 1989. GUNDEL, H.G., Weltbild und Astrologie in den griechischen Zauberpapyri (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 53), Munich 1968. GUNDEL, W., Neue astrologische Texte des Hermes Trismegistos: Funde und Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der antiken Astronomie und Astrologie (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Abteilung, Neue Folge 12), Munich 1936. GUTEKUNST, W., s.v. Zauber, in: LdÄ VI, 1320–55. HAFNER, M., Lukians Schrift ‘Das traurige Los der Gelehrten’. Einführung und Kommentar zu De mercede conductis potentium familiaribus, lib. 36 (Hermes Einzelschriften 110), Stuttgart 2017. HAGEN, F., Constructing Textual Identity. Framing and Self-Reference in Egyptian Texts, in: R. ENMARCH, V.M. LEPPER (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Literature. Theory and Practice, Oxford 2013, 185–209. HAIDER, P.W., Minoische Sprachdenkmäler in einem ägyptischen Papyrus, in: SCHNEIDER (ed.), Das Ägyptische, 411–22. HALKIN, F., Novum Auctarium Bibliothecae Hagiographicae Graecae, Brussels 1984. HALL, E., Inventing the Barbarian. Greek Self-Definition Through Tragedy, Oxford 1989. HALLEUX, R., Les alchimistes grecs, 1: Papyrus de Leyde, Papyrus de Stockholm, fragments de recettes, Paris 1981. HALLEUX, R., SCHAMP, J. (eds.), Les lapidaires grecs, Paris 2003. HALUSZKA, A., Sacred Signified: the Semiotics of Statues in the Greek Magical Papyri, Arethusa 41.3 (2008) 479–94. HARARI, Y., Jewish Magic Before the Rise of Kabbalah, Detroit 2017. DE HARO SANCHEZ, M., Mise en texte et contexte des papyrus iatromagiques grecs: recherches sur les conditions matérielles de réalisation des formulaires et des amulettes, in: P. SCHUBERT (ed.), Actes du 26e Congrès International de Papyrologie, Genève, 16–21 août 2010, Geneva 2012, 159– 69. – (ed.), Écrire la magie dans l’antiquité. Actes du colloque international (Liège, 13–15 octobre 2011), Liège 2015. HARRAUER, C., Meliouchos: Studien zur Entwicklung religiöser Vorstellungen in griechischen synkretistischen Zaubertexten (Wiener Studien, Beiheft 11; Arbeiten zur antiken Religionsgeschichte 1), Vienna 1987. HARRISON, E.B., Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture (The Athenian Agora 11), Princeton 1965. HAUSRATH, A., HUNGER, H., Corpus fabularum Aesopicarum, I–II, Leipzig 1959–1970. EL-HAWARY, A., Sinuhe und die/das Fremde, Egyptologische Uitgaven 27 (2014) 15–22.

Bibliography

313

HEERMA VAN VOSS, M.S., HOENS, D.J., MUSSIES, G., VAN DER PLAS, D., TE VELDE, H. (eds.), Studies in Egyptian Religion, Dedicated to Professor Jan Zandee (Studies in the History of Religions 43), Leiden 1982. HEEßEL, N.P., Stein, Pflanze und Holz: Ein neuer Text zur ‘medizinischen Astrologie’, Orientalia, N.S. 74 (2005) 1–22. HEIM, R., Incantamenta magica graeca latina (commentatio ex supplemento undevicesimo annalium philologorum seorsum expressa), Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Suppl. 19 (1892) 463–576. HEITSCH, E., Zu den griechischen Zauberhymnen, Philologus 103 (1959) 215–36. –, Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der römischen Kaiserzeit I2, Göttingen 1963. HERCHER, R., Epistolographi Graeci: accedunt Francisci Boissonadii ad Synesium notae ineditae, recensuit, recogn., annotatione critica et indicibus instruxit, Paris 1873. HERMANN, A., s.v. Daphne, in: RAC III, 585–93. HERMSEN, E., Die Bedeutung des Flammensees im Zweiwegebuch, in T. DUQUESNE (ed.), Hermes Aegyptiacus. Egyptological Studies for B.H. Stricker on his 85th Birthday (Discussions in Egyptology, Special Number 2), Oxford 1995, 73–86. HILL, D.E., The Thessalian Trick, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Neue Folge 116.3/4 (1973) 221–38. HOCK, K., Religion als transkulturelles Phänomen. Implikationen eines kulturwissenschaftlichen Paradigmas in der Religionsforschung, Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift 19.1 (2001) 64–82. –, Beyond the Multireligious – Transculturation and Religious Differentiation. In Search of a New Paradigm in the Academic Study of Religious Change and Interreligious Encounter, in: V. MORTENSEN (ed.), Theology and the Religious: a Dialogue, Grand Rapids 2003, 58–63. HOFFMAN, C.A., Fiat Magia, in: MIRECKI/MEYER (eds.), Magic and Ritual, 179–94. HOFFMANN, F., Einige Bemerkungen zur Zweiten Setnegeschichte, Enchoria 19–20 (1992–1993) 11– 14. –, ‘Der Kampf um den Panzer des Inaros’. Studien zum P. Krall und seiner Stellung innerhalb des Inaros-Petubastis-Zyklus (Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, N.S. 26), Vienna 1996. –, Der literarische demotische Papyrus Wien D6920–22, Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 23 (1996) 167–200. HOFFMANN, F., QUACK, J.F., Anthologie der demotischen Literatur (Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 4), Berlin 2007. HOFFMANN, F., THISSEN, H.J. (eds.), Res severa verum gaudium: Festschrift für Karl-Theodor Zauzich zum 65. Geburtstag am 8. Juni 2004 (Studia Demotica 6), Leuven 2004. HOFMANN, I., Der Kuschitische Horus als Seth, in: E. KORMYSEVA (ed.), Ancient Egypt and Kush. In Memoriam Mikhail A. Korostovtsev, Moscow 1993, 201–33. HOLLIS, S.T., The Ancient Egyptian ‘Tale of Two Brothers’: the Oldest Fairytale in the World (Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture 7), Norman 1990. –, Tales of Magic and Wonder from Ancient Egypt, in: SASSON (ed.), Civilizations IV, 2255–64. HOLM, C.E., Griechisch-ägyptische Namenstudien, Uppsala 1936. HOLM, T., Literature, in: SNELL (ed.), Companion, 253–65. HOPFNER, T., Griechisch-Aegyptischer Offenbarungszauber. Mit einer eingehenden Darstellung des griechisch-synkretistischen Daemonenglaubens und der Voraussetzungen und Mittel des Zaubers ueberhaupt und der magischen Divination im besonderen, I–II, Leipzig 1921–1924 [2nd revised edn, Amsterdam 1974–1990]. –, Orientalisch-Religionsgeschichtliches aus den griechischen Zauberpapyri Ägyptens, Archiv Orientálni 3 (1931) 327–58. –, Plutarch über Isis und Osiris, I. Teil. Die Sage, Prague 1940. HORBURY, W., Jewish War under Trajan and Hadrian, New York 2014. HORDERN, J., Notes on the Orphic Papyrus from Gurôb (P. Gurôb 1; Pack2 2464), Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 129 (2000) 131–40.

314

Bibliography

HORNUNG, E., Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh. Eine Ätiologie des Unvollkommenen (Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 46), Fribourg/Göttingen 1983. –, Die Nachtfahrt der Sonne: eine altägyptische Beschreibung des Jenseits, Zürich 1991. –, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: the One and the Many, 2nd edn, Ithaca (N.Y.) 1996. VAN DER HORST, P., The Great Magical Papyrus of Paris (PGM IV) and the Bible, in: P. VAN DER HORST (ed.), Jews and Christians in Their Graeco-Roman Context, Tübingen 2006, 269–79. HOULIHAN, P.F., The Birds of Ancient Egypt, Warminster 1986. HÜBNER, W., Die Eigenschaften der Tierkreiszeichen in der Antike: ihre Darstellung und Verwendung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Manilus (Sudhoffs Archiv, Beiheft 22), Wiesbaden 1982. –, Zum Planetenfragment des Sudines (Pap. Gen. inv. 203), Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 73 (1988) 33–42. HUNGER, H., Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 2), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1968. HURRY, J.B., Imhotep: the Vizier and Physician of King Zoser and Afterwards the Egyptian God of Medicine, London 1926. EL-HUSENY, A.M., Die inkonsequente Tabuisierung von Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 im Alten Ägypten: seine ökonomische und religiöse Bedeutung, Berlin 2006. ILIFFE, J.H., A Neolithic Celt with Gnostic Inscriptions at Toronto, American Journal of Archaeology 35 (1931) 304–9. IRVING, P.M.C.F., Metamorphosis in Greek Myth, Oxford 1990. JACOBY, A., Ein Berliner Chnubisamulett, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 28 (1930) 269–85. JAHN, O., Über den Aberglauben des bösen Blicks bei den Alten, Königlich-Sächsische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, philologisch-historische Klasse: Berichte über die Verhandlung 7 (1855) 28– 110. JANKO, R., The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: a Study in Genre, Hermes 109 (1981) 9–24. –, The Hexametric Incantations Against Witchcraft in the Getty Museum: from Archetype to Exemplar, in: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Getty Hexameters, 31–56. JANNARIS, A.N., A Historical Greek Grammar, London 1897. JANOUCHOVÁ, P., The Cult of Bendis in Athens and Thrace, Graeco-Latina Brunensia 18.1 (2013) 95–106. JANOWSKI, B., SCHWEMER, D. (eds.), Hymnen, Klagelieder und Gebete (Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Neue Folge 7), Gütersloh 2013. JASNOW, R., ZAUZICH, K.-T., The Ancient Egyptian Book of Thoth. A Demotic Discourse on Knowledge and Pendant to the Classical Hermetica, Wiesbaden 2005. –, Conversations in the House of Life. A New Translation of the Ancient Egyptian Book of Thoth, Wiesbaden 2014. JAY, J.E., Orality and Literacy in the Demotic Tales (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 81), Leiden/Boston 2016. JESI, F., Bes e Sileno, Aegyptus 42 (1962) 257–75. JESSEN, O., s.v. Helios, in: PRE VIII.1, 58–93. JOHNSON, J.H., The Demotic Magical Spells of Leiden I 384, Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 56 (1975), 29–64. –, The Dialect of the Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden, in: J.H. JOHNSON, E.F. WENTE (eds.), Studies in Honor of George F. Hughes (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 39), Chicago 1976, 105–32. –, Louvre E 3229: a Demotic Magical Text, Enchoria 7 (1977) 55–102. JOHNSTON, S.I., Restless Dead: Encounters Between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece, Berkeley 1999. –, Charming Children: the Use of the Child in Ancient Divination, Arethusa 34.1 (2001) 97–117. –, Sacrifice in the Greek Magical Papyri, in: MIRECKI/MEYER (eds.), Magic and Ritual, 344–58.

Bibliography

315

–, Fiat lux, fiat ritus: Divine Light and the Late Antique Defense of Ritual, in: M.T. KAPSTEIN (ed.), The Presence of Light: Divine Radiance and Religious Experience, Chicago 2004, 5–24. –, Magic, in: JOHNSTON (ed.), Religions, 139–52. –, Ancient Greek Divination, Malden 2008. –, Myth and the Getty Hexameters, in: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Getty Hexameters, 121–56. –, Goddesses with Torches in the Getty Hexameters, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 191 (2014) 32–5. – (ed.), Religions of the Ancient World. A Guide, Cambridge Mass./London 2004. JOHNSTON, S.I., STRUCK, P.T. (eds.), Mantikê. Studies in Ancient Divination (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 155), Leiden/Boston 2005. JORDAN, D.R., Defixiones from a Well near the South-West Corner of the Athenian Agora, Hesperia 54 (1985) 205–55. –, Ephesia Grammata at Himera, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 130 (2000) 104–7. –, Three Texts from Lokroi Epizephyrioi, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 130 (2000) 95– 103. JORDAN, D.R., KOTANSKY, R.D., Ritual Hexameters in the Getty Museum: Preliminary Edition, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 178 (2011) 54–62. JORDAN, D.R., MONTGOMERY, H., THOMASSEN, E. (eds.), The World of Ancient Magic. Papers from the First International Samson Eitrem Seminar at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 4–8 May 1997 (Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 4), Bergen 1999. JÖRDENS, A., Aretalogies, in: E. STAVRIANOPOULOU (ed.), Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations, Practices, and Images, Leiden/Boston 2013, 143–76. –, Lobpreis der vielnamigen Isis aus Oxyrhynchus, in: JANOWSKI/SCHWEMER (eds.), Hymnen, 289– 95. – (ed.), Ägyptische Magie und ihre Umwelt (Philippika 80), Wiesbaden 2015. JØRGENSEN, J.B., Egyptian Mythological Manuals. Mythological Structures and Interpretative Techniques in the Tebtunis Mythological Manual, the Manual of the Delta and Related Texts, PhD Diss., University of Copenhagen 2013. EL-KACHAB, A.M., Some Gem-Amulets Depicting Harpocrates Seated on a Lotus Flower, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 57 (1971) 132–45. KAHL, J., Religiöse Sprachsensibilität in den Pyramidentexten und Sargtexten am Beispiel des Namens des Gottes Seth, in: S. BICKEL, B. MATHIEU (eds.), D’un monde à l’autre, Textes des Pyramides et Textes des Sarcophages (Bibliothèque d’étude 139), Cairo 2004, 219–46. KAHN, L., Hermès, la frontière et l’identité ambiguë, Ktema 4 (1979) 201–11. KAIZER, T., Identifying the Divine in the Roman Near East, in: BRICAULT/BONNET (eds.), Panthée, 113–28. KÁKOSY, L., La magia nell᾿antico Egitto, in: ROCCATI/SILIOTTI (eds.), Magia in Egitto, 7–101. –, Probleme der Religion im römerzeitlichen Ägypten, in: ANRW II.18.5 (1995), 2894–3049. –, Bemerkungen zur Ikonographie der magischen Heilstatuen, in: C. UEHLINGER (ed.), Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean, 1st Millennium BCE (Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 175), Fribourg 2000, 45–9. –, À propos des statues guérisseuses et d’une statue de Bès au Musée du Louvre, in: KOENIG (ed.), Magie en Égypte, 273–84. KALDELLIS, A., Hellenism in Byzantium: the Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition, Cambridge 2007. KAMLAH, J., SCHÄFER, R., WITTE, M. (eds.), Zauber und Magie im antiken Palästina und in seiner Umwelt (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 46), Wiesbaden 2017. KAPER, O.E., The Egyptian God Tutu: a Study of the Sphinx-God and Master of Demons with a Corpus of Monuments (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 119), Leuven 2003. –, Synkretistische Götterbilder in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit (Kat. 188–199), in: BECK/BOL/BÜCKLING (eds.), Ägypten, 305–9, 611–19.

316

Bibliography

KARANIKA, A., Homer the Prophet: Homeric Verses and Divination in the Homeromanteion, in: LARDINOIS/BLOK/VAN DER POEL (eds.), Sacred Words, 255–77. KARIVIERI, A., Magic and Syncretic Religious Culture in the East, in: D.M. GWYNN, S. BANGERT (eds.), Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity, Leiden/Boston 2010, 401–34. KAVASILAS, S., Λαογραφικὰ σύλλεκτα ἐκ Νυμφῶν τῆς Κερκύρας, Λαογραφία 2 (1910) 638–69. KENYON, F.G., Greek Papyri in the British Museum: Catalogue with Texts, I–II, London 1893–1898. KERÉNYI, K., Hermes der Seelenführer: das Mythologem vom männlichen Lebensursprung. Vorträge, gehalten auf der Eranos-Tagung in Ascona am 4. u. 5. Aug. 1942 (Albae Vigiliae, Neue Folge 1), Zürich 1944. –, Dionysos. Urbild des unzerstörbaren Lebens, Stuttgart 1994 [1st edn, Vienna 1976]. KERN, B., Das altägyptische Licht- und Lebensgottmotiv und sein Fortwirken in israelitisch/jüdischen und frühchristlichen Traditionen, Berlin 2006. KESSLER, K., Neue Informationen zu Ioniern und Karern in Babylonien, in: A. ERKANAL (ed.), Hayat Erkanal’a Armağan: Kültürlerin Yansıması = Studies in Honor of Hayat Erkanal. Cultural Reflections, Istanbul 2006, 487–90. –, Lukian und Babylon, in: M. KREBERNIK, H. NEUMANN (eds.), Babylonien und seine Nachbarn in neu- und spätbabylonischer Zeit. Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium aus Anlass des 75. Geburtstags von Joachim Oelsner, Jena 2. und 3. März 2007 (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 369), Münster 2014, 95–112. KING, A.D., Living with Koryak Traditions, Lincoln 2011. KIPPENBERG, H.G., Magic in Roman Civil Discourse: Why Rituals Could Be Illegal, in: SCHÄFER/KIPPENBERG (eds.), Envisioning Magic, 137–63. KLAPPER, J., Das Gebet im Zauberglauben des Mittelalters, Mitteilungen der schlesischen Gesellschaft für Volkskunde 18 (1907) 5–41. KLOTZ, D., Caesar in the City of Amun. Egyptian Temple Construction and Theology in Roman Thebes (Monographies Reine Élisabeth 15), Turnhout 2012. KNIGGE, C., Das Lob der Schöpfung. Die Entwicklung ägyptischer Sonnen- und Schöpfungshymnen nach dem Neuen Reich (Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 219), Fribourg/Göttingen 2006. KNOX, A.D., The Dream of Herodas, Classical Review 39 (1925) 13–15. KOCKELMANN, H., Praising the Goddess. A Comparative and Annotated Re-Edition of Six Demotic Hymns and Praises Addressed to Isis, Berlin/New York 2008. –, Untersuchungen zu den späten Totenbuchhandschriften auf Mumienbinden II. Handbuch zu den Mumienbinden und Leinenamuletten (Studien zum altägyptischen Totenbuch 12), Wiesbaden 2008. –, Der Herr der Seen, Sümpfe und Flußläufe. Untersuchungen zum Gott Sobek und den ägyptischen Krokodilgötter-Kulten von den Anfängen bis zur Römerzeit (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 74), Wiesbaden 2017. KOENEN, L., The Dream of Nektanebos, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 22 (1985) 171–94. KOENIG, Y., Le papyrus Boulaq 6. Transcription, traduction et commentaire (Bibliothèque d’étude 87), Cairo 1981. –, La Nubie dans les textes magiques, Revue d’égyptologie 38 (1987) 105–10. –, Magie et magiciens dans l’Égypte ancienne (Bibliothèque de l’Égypte ancienne), Paris 1994. –, The Image of the Foreigner in the Magical Texts of Ancient Egypt, in: P. KOUSOULIS, K. MAGLIVERAS (eds.), Moving Across Borders. Foreign Relations, Religion and Cultural Interactions in the Ancient Mediterranean (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 159), Leuven/Paris/Dudley 2007, 223–38. –, La magie Égyptienne: de l’image à la ressemblance, in: TARDIEU/VAN DEN KERCHOVE/ZAGO (eds.), Noms barbares, 177–89. – (ed.), La magie en Égypte: à la recherche d’une définition. Actes du colloque organisé par le Musée du Louvre les 29 et 30 septembre 2000, Paris 2002.

Bibliography

317

KÖSTERMANN, E., Cornelius Tacitus, Annalen, I–IV, Heidelberg 1963–1968. KOTANSKY, R., Kronos and a New Magical Inscription Formula on a Gem in the J.P. Getty Museum, Ancient World 3.1 (1980) 29–32. –, Incantations and Prayers for Salvation on Inscribed Greek Amulets, in: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Magika Hiera, 107–37. – (ed.), Greek Magical Amulets: the Inscribed Gold, Silver, Copper and Bronze Lamellae I, Published Texts of Known Provenance. Text and Commentary (Papyrologica Coloniensia 22.1), Opladen 1994. KÖTHEN-WELPOT, S., Theogonie und Genealogie im Pantheon der Pyramidentexte (Habelts Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe Ägyptologie 6), Bonn 2003. KOUKOULES, P., Μεσαιωνικοὶ καὶ Νεοελληνικοὶ κατάδεσμοι. Μέρος β’, Λαογραφία 9.1 (1926) 52– 108. –, Βυζαντινῶν βίος καὶ πολιτισμός, I–II, Athens 1948. KOUSOULIS, P.I. (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Demonology: Studies on the Boundaries Between the Demonic and the Divine in Egyptian Magic (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 175), Leuven 2011. KRAMER, S.N., Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta: a Sumerian Epic Tale of Iraq and Iran, Philadelphia 1952. KRAUS, T., Hekate: Studien zu Wesen und Bild der Göttin in Kleinasien und Griechenland (Heidelberger kunstgeschichtliche Abhandlungen, Neue Folge 5), Heidelberg 1960. KRAUSS, R., Astronomische Konzepte und Jenseitsvorstellungen in den Pyramidentexten (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 59), Wiesbaden 1997. KRETSCHMER, P., LOCKER, E., Rückläufiges Wörterbuch der griechischen Sprache, 2nd edn, Göttingen 1963. KRIVORUCHKO, J.G., Greek Loanwords in Rabbinic Literature: Reflections on Current Research Methodology, in: T.M. LAW, A. SALVESEN (eds.), Greek Scripture and the Rabbis (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 66), Leuven 2012, 193–216. KROLL, W., Adversaria graeca, Philologus 53 (1894) 416–28. –, Astrologisches, Philologus 57 (1898) 123–33. KROPP, A.M., Ausgewählte koptische Zaubertexte, I–III, Brussels 1930–1931. KRUG, A., Isis – Aphrodite – Astarte, in: P.C. BOL, G. KAMINSKI, C. MADERNA (eds.), Fremdheit – Eigenheit. Ägypten, Griechenland und Rom. Austausch und Verständnis (Städel-Jahrbuch, Neue Folge 19), Stuttgart 2004, 180–90. KYRIAKIDES, E., Indications on the Nature of the Language of the Keftiw from Egyptian Sources, Ägypten und Levante 12 (2002) 211–19. KYRIAKIDES, S.P., Review of: A. DELATTE, Anecdota, Λαογραφία 10 (1932), 589–94. LABRIQUE, F., Stylistique et théologie à Edfou. Le rituel de l’offrande de la campagne: étude de la composition (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 51), Leuven 1992. LACERENZA, G., Jewish Magicians and Christian Clients in Late Antiquity: the Testimony of Amulets and Inscriptions, in: L.V. RUTGERS (ed.), What Athens Has to Do with Jerusalem: Essays on Classical, Jewish and Christian Art and Archaeology in Honor of Gideon Foerster (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 1), Leuven 2002, 393–419. LAFORGE, M.-O., La religion privée à Pompéi, Naples 2009. LAHN, K., Qedeschet: Genese einer Transfergottheit im ägyptisch-vorderasiatischen Raum, Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 33 (2005) 201–37. LAMPE, G.W.H. (ed.), A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961. LARDINOIS, A.P.M.H., BLOK, J.H., VAN DER POEL, M.G.M. (eds.), Sacred Words: Orality, Literacy and Religion (Orality and Literacy in the Ancient World 8; Mnemosyne, Suppl. 332), Leiden 2011. LAURENT, V., Amulettes byzantines et formulaires magiques, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 36 (1936) 300–315. LEGRAND, E., Bibliothèque grecque vulgaire, I–III, Paris 1880–1881.

318

Bibliography

LEHMANN, T. (ed.), Wunderheilungen in der Antike: von Asklepios zu Felix Medicus. Begleitheft zur gleichnamigen Ausstellung der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin und des Berliner Medizinhistorischen Museums der Charité, Berliner Medizinhistorisches Museum, 10. November 2006 – 11. März 2007, Oberhausen 2006. LEICHT, R., Qedushah and Prayer to Helios: a New Hebrew Version of an Apocryphal Prayer of Jacob, Jewish Studies Quarterly 6 (1999) 140–76. LEITZ, C., Studien zur ägyptischen Astronomie (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 49), Wiesbaden 1989. –, Magical and Medical Papyri of the New Kingdom (Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum 7), London 1999. –, Die Geierweibchen des Thothbuches in den 42 Gauen Ägyptens, Revue d’égyptologie 63 (2012) 137–68. LELLI, E., L’agricoltura antica. I. Geoponica di Cassiano Basso, Soveria Mannelli 2010. LENORMANT, F., Catalogue d’une collection d’antiquités égyptiennes, rassemblée par M. d’Anastasi, Consul général de Suède à Alexandrie, Paris 1857. LEONAS, A., The Septuagint and the Magical Papyri: Some Preliminary Notes, Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 32 (1999) 51–64. LESSES, R.M., Ritual Practices to Gain Power. Angels, Incantations, and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism (Harvard Theological Studies 44), Harrisburg 1998. LEWIS, N., Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt: Case Studies in the Social History of the Hellenistic World, Oxford 1986. LEXA, F., Le Papyrus Insinger: les enseignements moraux d’un scribe égyptien du premier siècle après J.-C. Texte démotique avec transcription, traduction française, commentaire, vocabulaire et introduction grammaticale et littéraire, Paris 1926. LICHTHEIM, M., Ancient Egyptian Literature, I–III, Berkeley 1973–1980. LIDONNICI, L.R., The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions: Text, Translation and Commentary, Atlanta 1995. –, The Disappearing Magician: Literary and Practical Questions about the Greek Magical Papyri, in: B.G. WRIGHT (ed.), A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft, Atlanta 1999, 227–43. –, Single-Stemmed Wormwood, Pinecones and Myrrh: Expense and Availability of Recipe Ingredients in the Greek Magical Papyri, Kernos 14 (2001) 61–91. –, Compositional Patterns in PGM IV (= P.Bibl.Nat.Suppl. gr. No. 574), Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 40 (2003) 141–78. –, ‘According to the Jews’: Identified (and Identifying) ‘Jewish’ Elements in the Greek Magical Papyri, in: L.R. LIDONNICI, A. LIEBER (eds.), Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (Journal for the Study of Judaism, Suppl. 119), Leiden/Boston 2007, 87–108. LIEBAN, R.W., Cebuano Sorcery: Malign Magic in the Philippines, Berkeley 1967. VON LIEVEN, A., Grundriß des Laufes der Sterne. Das sogenannte Nutbuch (The Carlsberg Papyri 8; Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 31), Copenhagen 2007. –, Review of: MEEKS, Mythes et légendes, Bibliotheca orientalis 65 (2008) 618–22. –, Antisocial Gods? On the Transgression of Norms in Ancient Egyptian Mythology, in: NYORD/RYHOLT (eds.), Lotus, 181–207. LILYQUIST, C., On the Introduction of Hauron in Egypt, Journal of the Society of the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 24 (1994) 92–9. LIPIŃSKI, E., Syro-Canaanite Goddesses in Egypt, Chronique d’Égypte 80 (2005) 122–33. LIPKA, M., Roman Gods: a Conceptual Approach (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 167), Leiden 2009. LIPSIUS, R.A., BONNET, M. (eds.), Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, I–II, Leipzig 1891. LLOYD, A.B., Egyptian Magic in Greek Literature, in: KOUSOULIS (ed.), Egyptian Demonology, 99– 120.

Bibliography

319

LOPRIENO, A., Topos und Mimesis: zum Ausländer in der ägyptischen Literatur (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 48), Wiesbaden 1988. –, Ancient Egyptian: a Linguistic Introduction, Cambridge 1995. LOUKOPOULOS, D., Αἰτωλικαὶ ἐπῳδαί, Λαογραφία 4.1 (1912) 36–41. LOVE, E.O.D., Code-Switching with the Gods. The Bilingual (Old Coptic-Greek) Spells of PGM IV (P.Bibliothèque Nationale Supplément Grec. 574) and Their Linguistic, Religious and SocioCultural Context in Late Roman Egypt (Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, Beiheft 4), Berlin 2016. –, The ‘PGM III’ Archive. Two Papyri, Two Scribes, Two Scripts, and Two Languages, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 202 (2017) 175–88. –, Ritual Reality or Fictitious Fantasy? The Conceptualisation and Narration of Magical Practice in Setne I and II and Their Relationship to the Practices of the Demotic and Greek Magical Papyri, in: F. NAETHER (ed.), Cult Practices in Ancient Literatures: Egyptian, Near Eastern and GraecoRoman Narratives in a Cross-Cultural Perspective, Workshop at the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, 16th–17th May 2016, forthcoming. LUCARELLI, R., Popular Beliefs in Demons in the Lybian Period: the Evidence of the Oracular Amuletic Decrees, in: G.P.F. BROEKMAN, R.J. DEMAREE, O.E. KAPER (eds.), The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st–24th Dynasties (Egyptologische uitgaven 23), Leuven 2009, 231–40. DE LUCIA, R., La ‘sezione ginecologica’ della miscellanea medica in Vat. gr. 299, in: V. BOUDONMILLOT, A. GARZYA, J. JOUANNA, A. ROSELLI (eds.), Ecdotica e ricezione dei testi medici greci. Atti del V Convegno Internazionale, Napoli, 1–2 ottobre 2004, Naples 2006, 231–51. LUFT, D., Das Anzünden der Fackel. Untersuchungen zu Spruch 137 des Totenbuches (Studien zum altägyptischen Totenbuch 15), Wiesbaden 2009. LUISELLI, M.M., Die Suche nach Gottesnähe: Untersuchungen zur Persönlichen Frömmigkeit in Ägypten von der Ersten Zwischenzeit bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches (Ägypten und Altes Testament 73), Wiesbaden 2011. LYONS, J., Semantics I, Cambridge 1977. MAAßEN, I., Schlangen- und Skorpionbeschwörung über die Jahrtausende, in: JÖRDENS (ed.), Ägyptische Magie, 171–87. MACK, H., The Unique Character of the Zippori Synagogue Mosaic and Eretz Israel Midrashim, Cathedra 88 (1998) 39–56. MAGNESS, J., Heaven on Earth: Helios and the Zodiac Cycle in Ancient Palestinian Synagogues, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 59 (2005) 1–52. MAGUIRE, H., Introduction, in: MAGUIRE (ed.), Byzantine Magic, 1–7. – (ed.), Byzantine Magic, Washington 1995. MALAISE, M., À la découverte d’Harpocrate à travers son historiographie, Brussels 2011. MALINGREY, A.-M., Jean Chrysostome: Sur l’incompréhensibilité de Dieu, Paris 1970. MALINOWSKI, B., Coral Gardens and Their Magic, I–II, New York 1935. MALTOMINI, F., Nuovi papiri magici in copto, greco e aramaico: i papiri greci, Studi classici e orientali 29 (1979) 58–93. –, P. Lond. 121 (= PGM VII), 1–221: Homeromanteion, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 106 (1995) 107–22. MANGO, C., The Legend of Leo the Wise, Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog Instituta 6 (1960) 59–93. MANNICHE, L., An Ancient Egyptian Herbal, Austin 1989. MANTZIOU, M., Hymns and Hymnal Prayers in Fifth Century Greek Tragedy with Special Reference to Euripides, London 1981. MARCO SIMÓN, F., Ex-Oriente magia: adaptación y cambios rituales en el mundo helenístico-romano, in: J.J. JUSTEL, B.E. SOLANS, J.P. VITA, J.Á. ZAMORA (eds.), Las aguas primigenias. El próximo Oriente Antiguo como fuente de civilización. Actas del IV Congreso Español de Antiguo Oriente, Zaragoza 2006, Zaragoza 2007, 17–40.

320

Bibliography

MARCOVICH, M., From Ishtar to Aphrodite, Journal of Aesthetic Education 30.2 (1996) 43–59. MARGALIOTH, M., Sepher ha-Razim, A Newly Recovered Book of Magic from the Talmudic Period Collected from Genizah Fragments and Other Sources, Jerusalem 1966. MARTIN, C.J., The Child Born in Elephantine: Papyrus Dodgson Revisited, in: Acta Demotica. Acts of the Fifth International Conference for Demotists, Pisa, 4th–8th September 1993 (Egitto e Vicino Oriente 17), Pisa 1994, 199–212. MARTIN, M., Magie et magiciens dans le monde gréco-romain (Collection des Hespérides), Paris 2005. MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, R., Two More Verses for the Homeromanteion (PGM VII), Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 190 (2014) 97–8. –, Using Homer for Divination: the Homeromanteia in Context, Centre for Hellenic Studies Research Bulletin 2.1 (2014), available online: http://wp.chs.harvard.edu/chs-fellows/2014/03/28/usinghomer-for-divination-homeromanteia-in-context/. –, A Coherent Division of a Magical Handbook: Using Lectional Signs in PGM VII, Segno e Testo: International Journal of Manuscripts and Text Transmission 13 (2015) 147–64. –, Two Requests for a Dream-Oracle and Two Different Kinds of Magical Book: PGM VII.222–249 and PGM VIII 64–110, in: DE HARO SANCHEZ (ed.), Écrire la magie, 41–9. –, La selección de encantamientos en un libro de magia: sobre la autoridad acredita en el PGM VII, in: CRIPPA/CIAMPINI (eds.), Languages, 15–30. –, Sobre la ordenación de las prescripciones mágicas en las primeras columnas del P. Lond. I 121 = PGM VII, in: M.J. ALBARRAN MARTINEZ, R. MARTIN HERNANDEZ, I. PAJON LEYRA (eds.), Estudios papirológicos. Textos literarios y documentales del siglo IV a.C. al IV d.C. (Cuadernos de la ‘Fundación Pastor’ de estudios clásicos), Madrid 2017, 117–34. MARTINEZ, D.G., A Greek Love Charm from Egypt (P. Mich. 757) (Michigan Papyri 16; American Studies in Papyrology 30), Atlanta 1991. MARZAHN, J., SALJE, B., Wiedererstehendes Assur. 100 Jahre deutsche Ausgrabungen in Assyrien, Mainz 2003. MASSART, A., The Leiden Magical Papyrus I 343 + I 345 (Oudheidkundige mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden, Suppl. 34), Leiden 1954. MASTROCINQUE, A., Kronos, Shiva, & Asklepios. Studies in Magical Gems and Religions of the Roman Empire (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, N.S. 101.5), Philadelphia 2011. –, Les intailles magiques du Département des Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris 2014. – (ed.), Gemme gnostiche e cultura ellenistica: atti dell’incontro di studio, Verona 22–23 ottobre 1999, Bologna 2002. – (ed.), Sylloge gemmarum gnosticarum, I–II (Bollettino di numismatica, monografia 8.2.1–2), Rome 2003–2008. MAUL, S.M., Zukunftsbewältigung. Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi) (Baghdader Forschungen 18), Mainz 1994. MAZZA, R., P. Oxy. XI, 1384: medicina, rituali di guarigione e cristianesimi nell’Egitto tardo antico, Annali di storia dell’esegesi 24 (2007) 437–62. MCCABE, A., A Byzantine Encyclopaedia of Horse Medicine: the Sources, Compilation, and Transmission of the Hippiatrica, Oxford 2007. MCCOWN, C.C., The Ephesia Grammata in Popular Belief, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 54 (1923) 128–40. MEDIN, D.L., ORTONY, A., Psychological Essentialism, in: S. VOSNIADOU, A. ORTONY (eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, Cambridge 1989, 179–95. MEEKS, D., Les ‘quatres ka’ du démiurge memphite, Revue d’égyptologie 15 (1963) 35–47.

Bibliography

321

–, Génies, anges et démons en Égypte, in: Génies, anges et démons: Égypte – Babylone – Israël – Islam – Peuples altaïques – Inde – Birmanie – Asie du Sud-Est – Tibet – Chine (Sources orientales 8), Paris 1971, 19–84. –, Dieu masqué, dieu sans tête, Archéo-Nil: Bulletin de la Société pour l’étude des cultures prépharaoniques de la vallée du Nil 1 (1991) 5–15. –, Mythes et légendes du Delta d’après le papyrus Brooklyn 47.218.84 (Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Cairo 125), Cairo 2006. MERKELBACH, R., Die Hirten des Dionysos. Die Dionysos-Mysterien der römischen Kaiserzeit und der bukolische Roman des Longus, Stuttgart 1988. –, ‘Weg mit dir, Herakles, in die Feuershölle!’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 86 (1991) 41–3. –, Kosmogonie und Unsterblichkeitsritus. Zwei griechisch-ägyptische Weiherituale, in: E. HORNUNG, T. SCHABERT (eds.), Auferstehung und Unsterblichkeit (Eranos, Neue Folge 1), Munich 1993, 19–51. MERKELBACH, R., STAUBER, J., Die Orakel des Apollon von Klaros, Epigraphica Anatolica 27 (1996), 1–53. MERKELBACH, R., TOTTI, M. (eds.), Abrasax. Ausgewählte Papyri religiösen und magischen Inhalts, I–V (Papyrologica Coloniensia 17.1–5), Opladen 1990–2001. MEYER, M., The Love Spell of PGM IV.94–153: Introduction and Structure, in: T. ORLANDI (ed.), Acts of the Second International Congress of Coptic Studies: Rome, 22–26 September 1980, Rome 1985, 193–201. MEYER, M., MIRECKI, P. (eds.), Ancient Magic and Ritual Power (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 129), Leiden 1995. MEYER, M., SMITH, R. (eds.), Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power, San Francisco 1994. MICHEL, S., Bunte Steine – dunkle Bilder: ‘Magische Gemmen’ (Schriften der Archäologischen Sammlung Freiburg 5), Munich 2001. –, Die magischen Gemmen im Britischen Museum, I–II, London 2001. –, Die magischen Gemmen. Zu Bildern und Zauberformeln auf geschnittenen Steinen der Antike und Neuzeit (Studien aus dem Warburg-Haus 7), Berlin 2004. –, (Re)interpreting Magical Gems, Ancient and Modern, in: SHAKED (ed.), Officina magica, 141–70. MIGNE, J.-P., Patrologia Graeca, I–CLXI, Paris 1857–1866. MIRECKI, P., MEYER, M. (eds.), Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (Religions in the GraecoRoman World 141), Leiden/Boston/Cologne 2002. MOERS, G., Fingierte Welten in der ägyptischen Literatur des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Grenzüberschreitung, Reisemotiv und Fiktionalität (Probleme der Ägyptologie 19), Leiden/Boston/Cologne 2001. –, ‘Unter den Sohlen Pharaos’. Fremdheit und Alterität im pharaonischen Ägypten, in: F. LAUTERBACH, F. PAUL, U.C. SANDER (eds.), Abgrenzung – Eingrenzung. Komparatistische Studien zur Dialektik kultureller Identitätsbildung, Göttingen 2004, 81–160. –, Auch der Feind war nur ein Mensch. Kursorisches zu einer Teilansicht pharaonischer Selbst- und Fremdwahrnehmungsoperationen, in: H. FELBER (ed.), Feinde und Aufrührer. Konzepte von Gegnerschaft in ägyptischen Texten besonders des Mittleren Reiches, Stuttgart/Leipzig 2005, 223–82. MONNET, J., Les briques magiques du Musée du Louvre, Revue d’égyptologie 8 (1951) 151–62. MORENZ, L.D., (Magische) Sprache der ‘geheimen Kunst’, Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 24 (1997) 191–201. –, Stammeln und Gebrüll. Ägyptisches Sprachbewusstsein und die Konzeption göttlicher wie antigöttlicher Rede, in: A. EL-HAWARY (ed.), Wenn Götter und Propheten reden – Erzählen für die Ewigkeit (Narratio aliena 3), Berlin 2012, 185–208. MORENZ, S., SCHUBERT, J., Der Gott auf der Blume (Artibus Asiae, Suppl. 12), Ascona 1954.

322

Bibliography

MORGAN, E.E., Untersuchungen zu den Ohrenstelen aus Deir el Medine (Ägypten und Altes Testament 61), Wiesbaden 2004. MORGAN, M.A., Sepher ha-Razim: the Book of the Mysteries, Chico, CA 1983. MOYER, I.S., DIELEMAN, J., Miniaturization and the Opening of the Mouth in a Greek Magical Text (PGM XII.270–350), Journal of Near Eastern Religions 3 (2003) 47–72. MÜLLER, D., Ägypten und die griechischen Isis-Aretalogien (Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, philologisch-historische Klasse 53.1), Berlin 1961. MÜLLER, K., Geographi Graeci minores, I–II, Paris 1855–1861. MÜLLER-KESSLER, C., KESSLER, K., Spätbabylonische Gottheiten in spätantiken mandäischen Texten, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 89 (1999) 65–87. MÜNNICH, M.M., The God Resheph in the Ancient Near East (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 11), Tübingen 2013. MUÑOZ DELGADO, L., Léxico de magia y religión en los papiros mágicos griegos (Diccionario Griego-Español, Anejo V), Madrid 2001. MÜNTER, F., Sinnbilder und Kunstvorstellungen der alten Christen, I–II, Altona 1825. MUSSINI, A., Musica e morte nell’iconografia di Bes, Civiltà classica e cristiana 10.3 (1989) 345–62. MYŚLIWIEC, K., Studien zum Gott Atum, I–II (Hildesheimer ägyptologische Beiträge 5 and 8), Hildesheim 1978–1979. NAETHER, F., Die Sortes Astrampsychi. Problemlösungsstrategien durch Orakel im römischen Ägypten (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 3), Tübingen 2010. –, Review of: R. PHILLIPS, Invisibility, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 57 (2011) 113–17. –, Griechisch-ägyptische Magie nach den Papyri Graecae et Demoticae Magicae, in: JÖRDENS (ed.), Ägyptische Magie, 191–217. NAGEL, S., Ägypter, Griechen und Römer im Liebesbann – Antiker ‚Liebeszauber‘ im Wandel der Zeiten (mit einem Beitrag von F. WESPI), in: JÖRDENS (ed.), Ägyptische Magie, 218–80. –, One for All and All for One? Isis as una quae es(t) omnia in the Egyptian Temples of the GraecoRoman Period, in: NAGEL/QUACK/WITSCHEL (eds.), Entangled Worlds, 47–78. –, ‘Was im Tempel passiert, bleibt nicht (mehr) im Tempel’. Transformationen von ägyptischem Tempelritual und rituellem Raum in den Praktiken der demotischen und griechischen magischen Papyri, in: S. BAUMANN, H. KOCKELMANN (eds.), Der ägyptische Tempel als ritueller Raum (Studien zur spätägyptischen Religion 17), Wiesbaden 2017, 507–36. –, Narrations of Magical Power in Ancient Egypt, or: a Counter-Narrative to ‘Witchcraft’-Concepts, in: E. EIDINOW, R. GORDON (eds.), Narrating Witchcraft: Agency, Discourse and Power (Magic, Ritual and Witchcraft, Special Volume 14.1), Philadelphia 2019, in preparation. NAGEL, S., QUACK, J.F., WITSCHEL, C. (eds.), Entangled Worlds. Religious Confluences Between East and West in the Roman Empire. The Cults of Isis, Mithras, and Jupiter Dolichenus (Oriental Religions in Antiquity 22), Tübingen 2017. NAGY, Á., Gemmae magicae selectae: Sept notes sur l’interprétation des gemmes magiques de l’époque impériale, in: MASTROCINQUE (ed.), Gemme, 153–79. NAU, F., Une deuxième Apocalypse apocryphe grecque de saint Jean, Revue Biblique 23 (1914) 209– 21. NEUGEBAUER, O., SACHS, A., The Dodekatemoria in Babylonian Astrology, Archiv für Orientforschung 16 (1952–1953) 65–6. NIEDERMANN, M., Marcelli De medicamentis liber (Corpus medicorum Latinorum, Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Zentralinstitut für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie 5), Leipzig/Berlin 1916. NILSSON, M.P., Die Religion in den griechischen Zauberpapyri, Bulletin de la Société royale des lettres de Lund 2 (1947–1948) 1–35 (repr. in M.P. NILSSON, Opuscula Selecta III, Lund 1960, 129–66). –, The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age, New York 1975 [1st edn, Lund 1957]. NISSINEN, M., Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: a Historical Perspective, Minneapolis 1998.

Bibliography

323

NIWINSKY, A., The Solar-Osirian Unity as Principle of the Theology of the ‘State of Amun’ in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty, Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 30 (1987–1988), 89–106. NOCK, A.D., Greek Magical Papyri, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 15 (1929) 219–35. –, Paul and the Magus, in: Z. STEWART (ed.), Arthur Darby Nock: Essays on Religion and the Ancient World I, Oxford 1972, 308–30. NODAR, A., TORALLAS TOVAR, S., Paleography of Magical Handbooks: an Attempt?, in: SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE/BLANCO/CHRONOPOULOU (eds.), Papiros mágicos griegos, 59–66. NOEGEL, S., WALKER, J., WHEELER, B. (eds.), Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World (Magic in History Series), University Park, 2003. NOGARA, B., Una base istoriata di marmo nuovamente esposta nel Museo Vaticano, Ausonia 2 (1907) 261–78. NÜNNING, V., RUPP, J., AHN, G. (eds.), Ritual and Narrative. Theoretical Explorations and Historical Case Studies, Bielefeld 2013. NYORD, R., RYHOLT, K. (eds.), Lotus and Laurel: Studies on Egyptian Language and Religion in Honour of Paul John Frandsen (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 39), Copenhagen 2015. OBBINK, D., Poetry and the Mysteries, in: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Getty Hexameters, 171–84. OBERHELMAN, S.M., Dreams, Dreambooks, and Post-Byzantine Practical Healing Manuals (Iatrosophia), in: S.M. OBERHELMAN (ed.), Dreams, Healing, and Medicine in Greece: from Antiquity to the Present, Farnham 2013, 269–94. OBEYESEKERE, G., Sorcery, Premeditated Murder and the Canalization of Aggression in Sri Lanka, Ethnology 14.1 (1975) 1–23. O’CONNOR, D., Egypt’s Views of ‘Others’, in: J. TAIT (ed.), ‘Never Had the Like Occurred’: Egypt’s View of its Past (Encounters with Ancient Egypt), London 2003, 155–85. –, Abydos: Egypt’s First Pharaohs and the Cult of Osiris, London 2011. ODER, E., HOPPE, K., Corpus hippiatricorum Graecorum, I–II, Leipzig 1924–1927. OELSNER, J., ‘Sie ist gefallen, sie ist gefallen, Babylon, die große Stadt’. Vom Ende einer Kultur (Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, philologischhistorische Klasse 138.1), Stuttgart/Leipzig 2002. —, Incantations in Southern Mesopotamia – from Clay Tablets to Magical Bowls (Thoughts on the Decline of the Babylonian Culture), in: SHAKED (ed.), Officina magica, 31–51. OGDEN, D., Binding Spells: Curse Tablets and Voodoo Dolls in the Greek and Roman Worlds, in: FLINT/GORDON/LUCK/OGDEN (eds.), Witchcraft and Magic, 1–90. –, Greek and Roman Necromancy, Princeton/Oxford 2001. –, Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds: a Sourcebook, 2nd edn, New York 2009. OHSHIRO, M., The Absorption of Egyptian Culture into the Greco-Roman World: an Amulet of Bes and a Building Inscription Bearing the Head of Satyrs from the Southeast Necropolis in Palmyra, in: TAKAYASU HIGUCHI (ed.), Tomb F: Tomb of BWLH and BWRP, Southeast Necropolis Palmyra, Syria (Publication of Research Center for Silk Roadology 2), Nara 2001, 219–24. OIKONOMU-AGORASTU, I., Kritische Erstausgabe des Rezeptbuchs des Cod. Par. gr. 2316, f. 348v– 374v, Thessaloniki 1982. OLIVIERI, A., Medicinalia Magica, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 59 (1939) 142–3. ÖNNERFORS, A., Plinii Secundi Iunioris qui feruntur De medicina libri tres, Berlin 1964. –, Physica Plinii quae fertur (cod. Sang. 751 pp. 183–280), I–III, Lund 2006. OPPENHEIM, A.L., Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization, Chicago 1972. OPPER, T., The Meroë Head of Augustus, London 2015. OSING, J., Die Nominalbildung des Ägyptischen, I–II, Mainz 1976. OSING, J., ROSATI, G., Papiri geroglifici e ieratici da Tebtynis, Florence 1998. OSSENDRIJVER, M., Babylonian Mathematical Astronomy: Procedure Texts, New York 2012.

324

Bibliography

OTTO, E., Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual, I–II (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 3), Wiesbaden 1960. –, s.v. Augensagen, in: LdÄ I, 562–7. PACHE, C.O., Barbarian Bond: Thracian Bendis among the Athenians, in: ASIRVATHAM/PACHE/WATROUS (eds.), Between Magic and Religion, 3–12. PACHOUMI, E., The Greek Magical Papyri: Diversity and Unity, PhD Diss., Newcastle University 2007. –, The Religious-Philosophical Concept of Personal Daimon and the Magico-Theurgic Ritual of systasis in the Magical Papyri, Philologus 157.1 (2013) 46–69. –, The Religious and Philosophical Assimilations of Helios in the Greek Magical Papyri, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 391–413. –, The Concepts of the Divine in the Greek Magical Papyri (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 102), Tübingen 2017. PAPACHRISTODOULOS, C.I., Λαογραφικὰ σύμμεικτα Ῥόδου, Λαογραφία 20 (1962) 66–175. PAPANASTASIOU, E.D., Ἐπῳδαὶ ἐξ Ἁγίου τοῦ δήμου Αἰδηψίων, Λαογραφία 4.1 (1912) 44–6. PAPATHOMOPOULOS, M., Βερναρδάκειος μαγικὸς κώδικας, Athens 2006. PARISINOU, E., The Light of the Gods: the Role of Light in Archaic and Classical Greek Cult, London 2000. PARK, R., Stretching of the Cord, in: C.J. EYRE (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3–9 September 1995, Leuven 1998, 839–48. PARKE, H.W., Greek Oracles (Hutchinson University Library 89), London 1967. –, The Oracles of Apollo in Asia Minor, London 1985. PARKE, H.W., WORMELL, D.E.W., The Delphic Oracle, I–II, Oxford 1956. PARKER, R., Polytheism and Society in Athens, Oxford 2005. PARKINSON, R., Poetry and Culture in Middle Kingdom Egypt: a Dark Side to Perfection, London 2002. –, Sinuhe’s Dreaming(s): the Text and Meanings of a Simile, in: K.M. SZPAKOWSKA (ed.), Through a Glass Darkly: Magic, Dreams, and Prophecy in Ancient Egypt, Swansea 2006, 145–73. PARPOLA, S., Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (State Archives of Assyria 10), Helsinki 1993. PARTHEY, G., Zwei griechische Zauberpapyri des Berliner Museums, Abhandlungen der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1865 (1865), 109–49. PATERA, I., Light and Lighting Equipment in the Eleusinian Mysteries: Symbolism and Ritual Use, in: CHRISTOPOULOS/KARAKANTZA/LEVANIOUK (eds.), Light and Darkness, 261–75. PEASE, A.S., Some Aspects of Invisibility, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 53 (1942) 1–36. PEDERSÉN, O., Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500–300 B.C., Bethesda 1998. PEIRCE, C.S., Logic as Semiotic: the Theory of Signs, in: J. BUCHLER (ed.), Philosophical Writings of Peirce, New York 1940, 98–119. PERDRIZET, P., LEFEBVRE, G., Inscriptiones Memnonii sive Besae oraculi ad Abydum Thebaidis: les graffites grecs du Memnonion d’Abydos: nos. 1–658 (Inscriptiones Graecae Aegypti 3), 2nd edn, Chicago 1978. PETERSON, E., Engel- und Dämonennamen. Nomina barbara, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Neue Folge 75.4 (1926) 393–421. PÉTIGNY, A., From Sacred to Law, a Game of Back and Forth: the Expression o.wy n Hrr and s(y)HH in Demotic, in: K. ACETTA, R. FELLINGER, P.L. GONÇALVES, S. MUSSELWHITE, W.P. VAN PELT (eds.), Current Research in Egyptology 14, Oxford 2014, 142–52. PETRIE, W.M.F., Abydos I (Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund 22), London 1902. PETROPOULOS, J.C.B. (ed.), Greek Magic: Ancient, Medieval and Modern, London 2008. PETROVIC, A., Tieropferrituale in den griechischen Zauberpapyri aus ästhetischer Sicht, in: A. HONOLD, V. LUPPI, A. BIERL (eds.), Die Ästhetik des Opfers. Zeichen/Handlungen in Ritual und Spiel, Munich 2013, 35–62.

Bibliography

325

PETTAZZONI, R., L’onniscienza di dio (Collezione di studi religiosi, etnologici e psicologici 24), Torino 1955. PETTINATO, G., Die Ölwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern, I–II (Studi semitici 21–22), Rome 1966. –, Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der altbabylonischen Ölomen-Texte und einige Erwägungen zur Stellung der Ölwahrsagung in der Religionsgeschichte, in: La Divination en Mésopotamie ancienne et dans les régions voisines (Compte rendu, Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale 14), Paris 1966, 95–108. PEUST, C., Egyptian Phonology. An Introduction to the Phonology of a Dead Language, Göttingen 1999. PFEIFFER, S., Die Entsprechung ägyptischer Götter im griechischen Pantheon (Kat. 171–181), in: BECK/BOL/BÜCKLING (eds.), Ägypten, 285–90, 598–605. –, The God Serapis, His Cult and the Beginnings of the Ruler Cult in Ptolemaic Egypt, in: P. MCKECHNIE, P. GUILLAUME (eds.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World (Mnemosyne, Suppl. 300), Leiden 2008, 387–408. PFISTER, F., Review of: A. DELATTE, Anecdota, Philologische Wochenschrift 29.1 (1929), 4–15. PHILIPP, H., Mira et magica: Gemmen im Ägyptischen Museum der Staatlichen Museen, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin-Charlottenburg, Mainz 1986. PHILIPPOU, L., Ἐπῳδαὶ καὶ κατάδεσμοι ἐκ Πάφου, Λαογραφία 4.3–4 (1914) 527–36. PHILLIPS, O., The Witches’ Thessaly, in: MIRECKI/MEYER (eds.), Magic and Ritual, 378–86. PHILLIPS, R., In Pursuit of Invisibility: Ritual Texts from Late Roman Egypt (American Studies in Papyrology 47), Durham 2009. PIANKOFF, A., The Osireion of Seti I at Abydos During the Greco-Roman Period and the Christian Occupation, Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte 15 (1958–1960), 125–49. –, Litany of Re (Bollingen Series 40.4), New York 1964. PICARD C., AVEZOU, C., Inscriptions de Macédoine et de Thrace, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 37 (1913), 84–154. PINTAUDI, R., DOSTALOVA, R., VIDMAN, L. (eds.), Papyri Graecae Wessely Pragenses (Papyrologica Florentina 16), Florence 1988. PIOVANELLI, P., The Toledot Yeshu and Christian Apocryphal Literature: the Formative Years, in: P. SCHÄFER, M. MEERSON, Y. DEUTSCH (eds.), Toledot Yeshu (‘The Life Story of Jesus’) Revisited (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 143), Tübingen 2011, 89–100. PIRANOMONTE, M., SIMÓN, F.M. (eds.), Contesti magici. Contextos mágicos, Rome 2012. PIRENNE-DELFORGE, V., Conception et manifestations du sacré dans l’Hymne homérique à Aphrodite, Kernos 2 (1989) 187–97. –, L’Aphrodite grecque: contribution à l’étude de ses cultes et de sa personnalité dans le panthéon archaïque et classique (Kernos, Suppl. 4), Liège 1994. PIRONTI, G., Aphrodite dans le domaine d’Arès. Éléments pour un dialogue entre mythe et culte, Kernos 18 (2005) 167–84. POCCETI, T., Forma e tradizione dell’inno magico nel mondo classico, in: A.C. CASSIO, G. CERRI (eds.), L’inno tra rituale e letterature nel mondo antico, Rome 1991, 179–204. PODEMANN SØRENSEN, J., The Argument in Ancient Egyptian Magical Formulae, Acta orientalia 45 (1984) 5–19. POPE, J., Epigraphic Evidence for a ‘Porridge-and-Pot’ Tradition on the Ancient Middle Nile, Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 48.4 (2013) 473–97. PORTEN, B., The Prophecy of Hor Bar Punesh and the Demise of Righteousness. An Aramaic Papyrus in the British Library, in: HOFFMANN/THISSEN (eds.), Res severa, 427–66. POSTGATE, J.N., Mesopotamian Petrology: Stages in the Classification of the Material World, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7 (1997) 205–24. PREISENDANZ, K., Zum Pariser Zauberpapyrus der Bibl. nat. suppl. gr. 574, Philologus 68 = Neue Folge 22 (1909) 575–7. –, Die Homeromantie, Pap. Lond. CXXI, Philologus 72 = Neue Folge 26 (1913) 552–6.

326

Bibliography

–, Zum großen Pariser Zauberpapyrus, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 17 (1914) 347–8. –, Akephalos: der kopflose Gott (Beihefte zum Alten Orient 8), Leipzig 1926. –, Papyrusfunde und Papyrusforschung, Leipzig 1933. –, Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der spätantiken Magie, in: Aus der Welt des Buches. Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag von Georg Leyh, dargebracht von Freunden und Fachgenossen (Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, Beiheft 75), Leipzig 1950, 223–40. –, s.v. Salomo, in: PRE Suppl. VIII, 660–704. –, s.v. Ephesia Grammata, in: RAC V, 515–20. –, Zur synkretistischen Magie im römischen Ägypten, in: Akten des 8. internationalen Kongresses für Papyrologie, Wien, 1955 (Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, N.S. 5), Vienna 1956, 111–25. –, Zur Überlieferung der griechischen Zauber, in: J. IRMSCHER (ed.), Miscellanea Critica I, Leipzig 1964, 203–17. PREISENDANZ, K., HENRICHS, A. (eds.), Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri, I– II [III], 2nd edn, Stuttgart 1973–1974 [1941]. PUSCHMANN, T., Alexander von Tralles, I–II, Vienna 1878–1879. QUACK, J.F., Zur Lesung des Wortes für ‘Beamtenschaft’, Enchoria 18 (1991) 193–6. –, Korrekturvorschläge zu einigen demotischen literarischen Texten, Enchoria 21 (1994) 61–72. –, Kontinuität und Wandel in der spätägyptischen Magie, Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico 15 (1998) 77–94. –, A New Bilingual Fragment from the British Museum (Papyrus BM EA 69574), Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 85 (1999) 153–64. –, Das Buch vom Tempel und verwandte Texte: ein Vorbericht, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 2 (2000) 1–20. –, Zum ersten astrologischen Lapidar im Steinbuch des Damigeron und Evax, Philologus 145 (2001) 337–44. –, Königsweihe, Priesterweihe, Isisweihe, in: J. ASSMANN, M. BOMMAS (eds.), Ägyptische Mysterien?, Munich 2002, 95–108. –, La magie au temple, in: KOENIG (ed.), Magie en Égypte, 41–68. –, Zu einer angeblich apokalyptischen Passage in den Ostraka des Hor, in: A. BLASIUS, B.U. SCHIPPER (eds.), Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 107), Leuven/Paris/Sterling 2002, 243–52. –, ‘Ich bin Isis, Herrin der beiden Länder’. Versuch zum demotischen Hintergrund der memphitischen Isisaretalogie, in: S. MEYER (ed.), Egypt – Temple of the Whole World, Studies in Honour of Jan Assmann (Numen Book Series 97), Leiden 2003, 319–65. –, Griechische und andere Dämonen in den spätdemotischen magischen Texten, in: SCHNEIDER (ed.), Das Ägyptische, 427–507. –, Review of WETTENGEL, Erzählung, Die Welt des Orients 35 (2005) 198–202. –, Tabuisierte und ausgegrenzte Kranke nach dem ‘Buch vom Tempel’, in: H.-W. FISCHER-ELFERT (ed.), Papyrus Ebers und die antike Heilkunde. Akten der Tagung vom 15.–16. 3. 2002 in der Albertina/UB der Universität Leipzig (Philippika 7), Wiesbaden 2005, 63–80. –, En route vers le copte. Notes sur l’évolution du démotique tardif, Faites de langues 27, Les langues chamito-sémitiques (afro-asiatiques) II (2006) 191–216. –, Fragmente des Mundöffnungsrituals aus Tebtynis, in: RYHOLT (ed.), Carlsberg Papyri 7, 69–150. –, Das Grab am Tempeldromos. Neue Deutungen zu einem spätzeitlichen Grabtyp, in: K. ZIBELIUSCHEN, H.-W. FISCHER-ELFERT (eds.), ‘Von reichlich ägyptischem Verstande’. Festschrift für Waltraud Guglielmi zum 65. Geburtstag (Philippika 11), Wiesbaden 2006, 113–32. –, Inaros, Held von Athribis, in: ROLLINGER/TRUSCHNEGG (eds.), Altertum, 499–505. –, Papyrus Carlsberg 475. Ein neuer Textzeuge für den neunköpfigen Bes, in: RYHOLT (ed.), Carlsberg Papyri 7, 53–64.

Bibliography

327

–, The So-Called Pantheos. On Polymorphic Deities in Late-Egyptian Religion, in: H. GYŐRY (ed.), Aegyptus et Pannonia III: Acta symposii anno 2004, Budapest 2006, 175–90. –, Corpus oder membra disiecta. Zur Sprach- und Redaktionskritik des Papyrus Jumilhac, in: W. WAITKUS (ed.), Diener des Horus – Festschrift für Dieter Kurth zum 65. Geburtstag (Aegyptiaca Hamburgensia 1), Gladbeck 2008, 203–28. –, Demotische magische und divinatorische Texte, in: B. JANOWSKI, G. WILHELM (eds.), Omina, Orakel, Rituale und Beschwörungen (Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Neue Folge 4), Gütersloh 2008, 331–85. –, Review of: MEEKS, Mythes et légendes, Orientalia, N.S. 77 (2008) 106–11. –, Einführung in die altägyptische Literaturgeschichte III. Die demotische und gräko-ägyptische Literatur (Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 3), 2nd edn, Berlin 2009 [1st edn 2005]. –, Miniaturisierung als Schlüssel zum Verständnis römerzeitlicher ägyptischer Rituale?, in: O. HEKSTER, S. SCHMIDT-HOFNER, C. WITSCHEL (eds.), Ritual Dynamics and Religious Change in the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Heidelberg, July 5–6, 2007) (Impact of Empire 9), Leiden/Boston 2009, 349–66. –, Review of: SEDERHOLM, Papyrus British Museum, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 104 (2009) 27–33. –, Egyptian Writing for Non-Egyptian Languages and Vice Versa: A Short Overview, in: A. DE VOOGT, I. FINKEL (eds.), The Idea of Writing. Play and Complexity, Leiden 2010, 317–25. –, Postulated and Real Efficacy in Late Antique Divination Rituals, Journal of Ritual Studies 24 (2010) 45–60. –, Präzision in der Prognose oder: Divination als Wissenschaft, in: A. IMHAUSEN, T. POMMERENING (eds.), The Writings of Early Scholars in the Ancient Near East, Egypt, Rome, and Greece: Translating Ancient Scientific Texts (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 208), Berlin 2010, 69–91. –, Beiträge zu religiösen und magischen Texten, in: COLLIER/CRISCENZO-LAYCOCK (eds.), Ramesside Studies, 413–16. –, From Ritual to Magic. Ancient Egyptian Forerunners of the Charitesion and Their Social Setting, in: BOHAK/HARARI/SHAKED (eds.), Continuity and Innovation, 43–84. –, Remarks on Egyptian Rituals of Dream-Sending, in: KOUSOULIS (ed.), Egyptian Demonology, 129–50. –, Review of: WÜTHRICH, Eléments, Die Welt des Orients 41.2 (2011) 253–61. –, Anrufungen an Osiris als nächtlichen Sonnengott im Rahmen eines Königsrituals (Pap. Berlin P. 23026), in: V.M. LEPPER (ed.), Forschung in der Papyrussammlung: eine Festgabe für das Neue Museum (Ägyptische und Orientalische Papyri und Handschriften des Ägyptischen Museums und Papyrussammlung Berlin 1), Berlin 2012, 165–87. –, Reinigen durch Anschwärzen? Zum Motiv des Antagonistischen in ägyptischen Reinigungsritualen, in: P.H. RÖSCH, U.G. SIMON (eds.), How Purity is Made, Wiesbaden 2012, 105–21. –, Concepts of Purity in Egyptian Religion, in: C. FREVEL, C. NIHAN (eds.), Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism (Dynamics in the History of Religion 3), Leiden/Boston 2013, 115–58. –, Drei Hymnen an Thot, in: JANOWSKI/SCHWEMER (eds.), Hymnen, 150–56. –, Gibt es in Ägypten schriftliche Quellen zum Thera-Ausbruch?, in: H. MELLER, F. BERTEMES, H.-R. BORK, R. RISCH (eds.), 1600 – Kultureller Umbruch im Schatten des Thera-Ausbruchs? 4. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 14. bis 16. Oktober 2011 in Halle (Saale) (Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 9), Halle 2013, 221–33. –, Quelques apports récents des études démotiques à la compréhension du livre II d’Herodote, in: L. COULON, P. GIOVANNELLI-JOUANNA, F. KIMMEL-CLAUZET (eds.), Hérodote et L’Égypte. Regards croisés sur le livre II de l’Enquête d’Hérodote (Collection de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 51), Lyon 2013, 63–88. –, Sarapis: Ein Gott zwischen ägyptischer und griechischer Religion: Bemerkungen aus der Sicht eines Ägyptologen, in: N. ZENZEN, T. HÖLSCHER, K. TRAMPEDACH (eds.), Aneignung und Ab-

328

Bibliography

grenzung. Wechselnde Perspektiven auf die Antithese von ‘Ost’ und ‘West’ in der griechischen Antike (Oikumene 10), Heidelberg 2013, 229–55. –, Zauber ohne Grenzen. Zur Transkulturalität der spätantiken Magie, in: A.H. PRIES, L. MARTZOLFF, R. LANGER, C. AMBOS (eds.), Rituale als Ausdruck von Kulturkontakt. ‘Synkretismus’ zwischen Negation und Neudefinition, Akten der interdisziplinären Tagung des Sonderforschungsbereiches ‘Ritualdynamik’ in Heidelberg, 3.–5. Dezember 2010 (Studies in Oriental Religions 67), Wiesbaden 2013, 177–99. –, Die Drohung des Unlesbaren und die Macht des Ungelesenen. Zwei Fallbeispiele aus dem Alten Ägypten, in: T. FRESE, W.E. KEIL, K. KRÜGER (eds.), Verborgen, unsichtbar, unlesbar. Zur Problematik restringierter Schriftpräsenz (Materiale Textkulturen 2), Berlin/Boston 2014, 33–41. –, Eine Götterinvokation mit Fürbitte für Pharao und den Apisstier (Ostrakon Hor 18), in: J.F. QUACK (ed.), Ägyptische Rituale der griechisch-römischen Zeit (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 6), Tübingen 2014, 83–119. –, Imhotep – der Weise, der zum Gott wurde, in: V. LEPPER (ed.), Persönlichkeiten aus dem Alten Ägypten im Neuen Museum, Petersberg 2014, 43–66. –, Importing and Exporting Gods? On the Flow of Deities Between Egypt and Its Neighboring Countries, in: A. FLÜCHTER, J. SCHÖTTLI (eds.), The Dynamics of Transculturality: Concepts and Institutions in Motion (Transcultural Research – Heidelberg Studies on Asia and Europe in a Global Context), Heidelberg 2014, 255–77. –, Review of: WÜTHRICH, Édition synoptique, Die Welt des Orients 46.2 (2016) 268–78. –, Ägyptische Einflüsse auf nordwestsemitische Königspräsentationen?, in: C. LEVIN, R. MÜLLER (eds.), Herrschaftslegitimation in Vorderorientalischen Reichen der Eisenzeit (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 21), Tübingen 2017, 1–65. –, Alttestamentliche Motive in der gräkoägyptischen Magie, in: KAMLAH/SCHÄFER/WITTE (eds.), Zauber und Magie, 141–82. –, How the Coptic Script Came About, in: P. DILS, E. GROSSMAN, T.S. RICHTER, W. SCHENKEL (eds.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic: Contact-Induced Change in an Ancient African Language (Database and Dictionary of Greek Loanwords in Coptic Working Papers 1; Lingua Aegyptia, Studia monographica 17), Hamburg 2017, 27–96. –, Ein demotisch und altkoptisch überliefertes Losorakel, in: QUACK/RYHOLT (eds.), Carlsberg Papyri 11, 285–353. –, Fragmente eines theologischen Traktats, in: QUACK/RYHOLT (eds.), Carlsberg Papyri 11, 1–35. –, Ein Lobpreis der Isis, in: QUACK/RYHOLT (eds.), Carlsberg Papyri 11, 37–76. –, Beiträge zu den ägyptischen Dekanen und ihrer Rezeption in der griechisch-römischen Welt, OLA, Leuven, forthcoming. –, From Egyptian Traditions to Magical Gems. Possibilities and Pitfalls in Scholarly Analysis, in: K. ENDREFFY, Á.M. NAGY, J. SPIER (eds.), Magical Gems in their Contexts (Studia Archaeologica 229), Wiesbaden 2019, 233–49. –, Nubisch-meroitische Lexeme im Papyrus Brooklyn 47.218.47 vs.?, in: T. BÁCS, A. BOLLÓK, V. VIDA (eds.), Across the Mediterranean – Along the Nile. Studies in Egyptology, Nubiology and Late Antiquity Dedicated to László Török on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday, Budapest 2018, 477–87. –, Wer waren die gräko-ägyptischen Magier und was trieben sie?, in: H. ROEDER, F. ROEPKE (eds.), Zwischen Schein und Sein. Die Magieproblematik aus der Perspektive früher Hochkulturen (Ägyptologie und Kulturwissenschaft, Munich, forthcoming (2019). –, Ein Fragment einer mythologischen Erzählung, in: K. RYHOLT (ed.), The Carlsberg Papyri 15. Hieratic Texts (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications), Copenhagen, in preparation. QUACK, J.F., RYHOLT, K. (eds.), The Carlsberg Papyri 11. Demotic Literary Texts from Tebtunis and Beyond (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 36), Copenhagen 2018.

Bibliography

329

QUAEGEBEUR, J., Divinités égyptiennes sur des animaux dangereux, in: P. BORGEAUD, Y. CHRISTE, I. URIO (eds.), L’animal, l’homme, le dieu dans le Proche-Orient ancient, Actes du Colloque de Cartigny 1981 (Les cahiers du Centre d’Étude du Proche-Orient Ancien 2), Leuven 1984, 131–43. –, Le théonyme Senephthys, Orientalia Lovaniensia periodica 22 (1991) 111–22. RADNER, K., The Assyrian King and His Scholars: the Syro-Anatolian and the Egyptian Schools, in: M. LUUKKO, S. SVÄRD, R. MATTILA (eds.), Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars. Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola (Studia Orientalia 106), Helsinki 2009, 221–38. —, After Eltekeh: Royal Hostages from Egypt at the Assyrian Court, in: H. BAKER, K. KANIUTH, A. OTTO (ed.), Stories of Long Ago. Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 397), Münster 2012, 471–9. RAUE, D., Aus der Geschichte von Elephantine: Bewegte Zeiten auf dem Nil, in: L.D. MORENZ, M. HÖVELER-MÜLLER, A. EL-HAWARY (eds.), Zwischen den Welten. Grabfunde von Ägyptens Südgrenze, Bonn 2011, 15–29. RAVEN, M.J., Wax in Egyptian Magic and Symbolism, Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 64 (1983) 7–47. –, Egyptian Concepts on the Orientation of the Human Body, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 91 (2005) 37–53. –, Egyptische Magie, op zoek naar het toverboek van Thot (Exhibition Catalogue, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden), Zutphen 2010. RAVEN, M.J., DEMARÉE, R.J., Ceramic Dishes Used in the Preparation of Kyphi, Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 39 (2005) 39–94. RAY, J.D., Ancient Egypt, in: M. LOEWE, C. BLACKER (eds.), Divination and Oracles, London 1981, 174–90. REBIGER, B., SCHÄFER, P., Sefer ha-Razim I und II: Das Buch der Geheimnisse I und II, I–II (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 132), Tübingen 2009. RÉGEN, I., When the Book of the Dead Does not Match Archaeology: the Case of the Protective Magical Bricks (BD 151), British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 15 (2010) 267–78. REINER, E., Plague Amulets and House Blessings, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 19 (1960) 148–55. –, Astral Magic in Babylonia (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 85.4), Philadelphia 1995. –, Early zodiologia and Related Matters, in: A.R. GEORGE, I.L. FINKEL (eds.), Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W.G. Lambert, Winona Lake 2000, 421–7. REISNER, G.A., The Hearst Medical Papyrus, Leipzig 1905. RENBERG, G.H., Where Dreams May Come: Incubation Sanctuaries in the Greco-Roman World (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 184), I–II, Leiden/Boston 2017. REYMOND, E.A.E., From the Contents of the Libraries of the Suchos Temples in the Fayyum II. From Ancient Egyptian Hermetic Writings (Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, N.S. 11), Vienna 1977. RIESENFELD, H., Remarques sur les hymnes magiques, Eranos 44 (1946) 153–60. RIGGS, C. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt, Oxford 2012. RITNER, R.K., A Uterine Amulet in the Oriental Institute Collection, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43 (1984) 209–21. –, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 54), Chicago 1993. –, Egyptian Magical Practice under the Roman Empire: the Demotic Spells and Their Religious Context, in: ANRW II.18.5 (1995), 3332–79. –, The Religious, Social, and Legal Parameters of Traditional Egyptian Magic, in: MEYER/MIRECKI (eds.), Ancient Magic, 43–60. –, The Wives of Horus and the Philinna Papyrus (PGM XX), in: W. CLARYSSE, A. SCHOORS, H. WILLEMS (eds.), Egyptian Religion the Last Thousand Years. Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Jan Quaegebeur II (Orientalia Lovanensia analecta 85), Leuven 1998, 1027–41.

330

Bibliography

–, s.v. Magic, in: D. REDFORD (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt II, Oxford 2001, 321–36. –, Ecstatic Episode from ‘The Report of Wenamon’ (col. 1/34–43), in: M. NISSINEN (ed.), Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (Writings from the Ancient World 12), Atlanta 2003, 219– 20. RITOÓK, Z., Ein neuer griechischer Zauberpapyrus, Acta antiqua Academiae scientiarum Hungaricae 26 (1978) 433–56. ROBERT, L., Bulletin épigraphique, Revue des études grecques 54 (1951) 119–216. –, L’échec au mal, Hellenica 13 (1965) 265–71. ROBERTSON, N., Orphic Mysteries and Dionysiac Ritual, in: M.B. COSMOPOULOS (ed.), Greek Mysteries: the Archaeology and Ritual of Ancient Greek Secret Cults, London 2003, 218–40. ROCCATI, A., SILIOTTI, A. (eds.), La magia in Egitto ai tempi dei Faraoni. Atti convegno internazionale di studi, Milano 29–31 ottobre 1985 (Operazione magia), Verona 1987. ROCHBERG, F., Mesopotamian Cosmology, in: SNELL (ed.), Companion, 316–29. –, In the Path of the Moon. Babylonian Celestial Divination and Its Legacy (Ancient Magic and Divination 6), Leiden/Boston 2010. RODRÍGUEZ MORENO, I., Prácticas terapeúticas en los papiros mágicos griegos, in: J. PELÁEZ (ed.), El dios que hechiza y encanta. Mágia y astrología en el mundo clásico y helenístico, actas del I Congreso Nacional, Córdoba 1998 (Mundo griego), Córdoba 2002, 79–90. ROHRBACHER-STICKER, C., From Sense to Nonsense, from Incantation Prayer to Magical Spell, Jewish Studies Quarterly 3 (1996) 24–46. ROLLER, L.E., In Search of God the Mother: the Cult of Anatolian Cybele, Berkeley 1999. ROLLINGER, R., Zu Herkunft und Hintergrund der in altorientalischen Texten genannten ‘Griechen’, in: R. ROLLINGER, A. LUTHER, J. WIESEHÖFER (eds.), Getrennte Wege? Kommunikation, Raum und Wahrnehmung in der alten Welt, Frankfurt 2007, 259–330. ROLLINGER, R., TRUSCHNEGG, B. (eds.), Altertum und Mittelmeerraum: Die antike Welt jenseits der Levante. Festschrift für Peter W. Haider zum 60. Geburtstag (Oriens et Occidens 12), Stuttgart 2006. RONDOT, V., Derniers visages des dieux d’Égypte, Paris 2013. ROSALDO, R., Culture & Truth: the Remaking of Social Analysis, Boston 1993. ROSCHER, W.H., Ausführliches Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie, I–VI, Leipzig 1886–1937. ROSE, V., Theodori Prisciani Euporiston libri III cum physicorum fragmento et additamentis pseudoTheodoreis (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Leipzig 1894. ROSEN, R., Mixing of Genres and Literary Program in Herodas 8, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94 (1992) 205–16. DE ROSSI, G.B., Capsella pensile africana rappresentante un cavaliere armato di lunga asta crociforme, Bullettino di archeologia cristiana, serie 5, 2 (1891) 133–8. ROTH, A.M., ROEHRIG, C.H., Magical Bricks and the Bricks of Birth, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 88 (2002) 121–39. RÜPKE, J., Lived Ancient Religion: Questioning ‘Cults’ and ‘Polis Religion’, Mythos 5 (2011) 191– 204. –, The ‘Connected Reader’ as a Window into Lived Ancient Religion: a Case Study of Ovid’s Libri fastorum, Religion in the Roman Empire 1.1 (2015) 95–113. Available under: DOI 10.1628/219944615X14234960199795. –, Pantheon: Geschichte der antiken Religionen, Munich 2016.RUSSELL, J., The Archaeological Context of Magic in the Early Byzantine Period, in: MAGUIRE (ed.), Byzantine Magic, 35–50. RUTHERFORD, I., Pindar’s Paeans: a Reading of the Fragments with a Survey of the Genre, Oxford 2001.

Bibliography

331

–, Pilgrimage in Greco-Roman Egypt: New Perspectives on Graffiti from the Memnonion at Abydos, in: R. MATTHEWS, C. ROEMER (eds.), Ancient Perspectives on Egypt (Encounters with Ancient Egypt), London 2003. –, The Immortal Words of Paean, in: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Getty Hexameters, 157–69. RYAN, W.F., Ancient Demons and Russian Fevers, in: BURNETT/RYAN (eds.), Magic, 37–58. RYHINER, M.-L., L’offrande du lotus dans les temples égyptiens de l’époque tardive (Rites égyptiens 6), Brussels 1986. RYHOLT, K., The Assyrian Invasion of Egypt in Egyptian Literary Tradition, in: J.G. DERCKSEN (ed.), Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 100), Leiden 2004, 483–510. –, The Life of Imhotep (P. Carlsberg 85), in: G. WIDMER, D. DEVAUCHELLE (eds.), Actes du IXe congrès international des études démotiques, Paris, 31 août–3 septembre 2005 (Bibliothèque d’étude 147), Cairo 2009, 305–15. –, New Light on the Legendary King Nechepsos of Egypt, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 97 (2011) 61–72. – (ed.), Acts of the Seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies, Copenhagen, 23–27 August 1999 (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 27), Copenhagen 2002. – (ed.), The Carlsberg Papyri 7. Hieratic Texts from the Collection (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 30), Copenhagen 2006. SAHLINS, M., On the Anthropology of Modernity, or Some Triumphs of Culture over Despondency Theory, in: A. HOOPER (ed.), Culture and Sustainable Development in the Pacific, Canberra 2005, 44–61. SANDMAN HOLMBERG, M., The God Ptah, Lund/Copenhagen 1946. SARAGOZA, F., L’acéphale et le rituel osirien de Khoiak, Égypte Afrique et Orient 55 (2009) 49–64. SARIAN, H., s.v. Hekate, in: LIMC VI.1, 985–1018. SARTRE, M., Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie XIII.2. Bostra (supplément) et la plaine de la Nuqrah, Beirut 2011. SASSON, J.M. (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, I–IV, New York 1995. SATZINGER, H., An Old Coptic Text Reconsidered: PGM IV 94 ff., in: S. GIVERSEN, M. KRAUSE, P. NAGEL (ed.), Coptology: Past, Present and Future, Studies in Honour of Rodolphe Kasser (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 61), Leuven 1994, 213–24. SAUNERON, S., Aspects et sort d’un thème magique égyptien: les menaces incluant les dieux, Bulletin de la Société française d’égyptologie 8 (1951) 11–21. –, Le nouveau sphinx composite du Brooklyn Museum et le rôle du dieu Toutou-Tithoès, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 19 (1960) 269–87. –, Les conditions d’accès à la fonction sacerdotale à l’époque gréco-romaine, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 61 (1962) 55–7. –, Le papyrus magique illustré de Brooklyn, Brooklyn 1970. –, Le rhume d’Anynakhte (Pap. Deir el-Médinéh 36), Kêmi 20 (1970) 7–18. SAUNERON, S., YOYOTTE, J., La naissance du monde selon l’Égypte ancienne, in: La naissance du monde: Égypte ancienne, Sumer, Akkad, Hourrites et Hittites, Canaan, Israël, Islam, Turcs et Mongols, Iran préislamique, Inde, Siam, Laos, Tibet, Chine (Sources orientales 1), Paris 1959, 17–91. SAURA, D., Las estelas mágicas de ‘Horus sobre los cocodrilos’. Formación, evolución y sentido de un tipo iconográfico, Madrid 2009. SCHÄFER, P., KIPPENBERG, H.G. (eds.), Envisioning Magic: a Princeton Seminar and Symposium (Studies in the History of Religions 75), Leiden/New York/Cologne 1997. SCHÄFER, P., SHAKED, S. (eds.), Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza, I–III (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 42, 64, 72), Tübingen 1994–1999. SCHIPPER, B.U., Die Erzählung des Wenamun. Ein Literaturwerk im Spannungsfeld von Politik, Geschichte und Religion (Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 209), Fribourg/Göttingen 2005.

332

Bibliography

SCHLUMBERGER, G., Amulettes byzantins anciens destinés à combattre les maléfices et maladies, Revue des études grecques 5 (1892) 73–93. SCHMIDT, K.F.W., Review of: PREISENDANZ, Papyri Graecae Magicae II, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 196 (1934) 169–86. –, Zu den Leydener Zauberpapyri, Philologische Wochenschrift (1935) 1174–84. SCHMIDT, S., Serapis – ein neuer Gott für die Griechen in Ägypten (Kat. 182–187), in: BECK/BOL/BÜCKLING (eds.), Ägypten, 291–304, 606–10. SCHMITZ, P.C., Reconsidering a Phoenician Inscribed Amulet from the Vicinity of Tyre, Journal of the American Oriental Society 122 (2002) 817–23. SCHNEIDER, T., Mag pHarris XII, 1–5: Eine kanaanäische Beschwörung für die Löwenjagd, Göttinger Miszellen 112 (1989) 53–63. –, Hiob 38 und die demotische Weisheit (Papyrus Insinger 24), Theologische Zeitschrift 47 (1991) 108–24. –, Foreign Egypt: Egyptology and the Concept of Cultural Appropriation, Ägypten und Levante 13 (2003) 155–61. – (ed.), Das Ägyptische und die Sprachen Vorderasiens, Nordafrikas und der Ägäis, Akten des Basler Kolloquiums zum ägyptisch-nichtsemitischen Sprachkontakt, Basel 9.–11. Juli 2003 (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 310), Münster 2004. SCHOLEM, G., An Unknown Composition of R. Yohanan Alemanno, Kiryat Sefer 5 (1928–1929) 273–7. SCHOTT, S., Bücher und Bibliotheken im alten Ägypten. Verzeichnis der Buch- und Spruchtitel und der Termini technici, Wiesbaden 1990. SCHUSTER-BRANDIS, A., Steine als Schutz- und Heilmittel. Untersuchung zu ihrer Verwendung in der Beschwörungskunst Mesopotamiens im 1. Jt. v. Chr. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 46), Münster 2008. SCHWARTZ, M., Sasm, Sesen, St. Sisinnios, Sesengen Barpharangēs and... ‘Semanglof’, Bulletin of the Asia Institute, N.S. 10 (1996) 253–7. SCHWEMER, D., Ein akkadischer Liebeszauber aus Ḫattuša, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 94 (2004) 59–79. –, Abwehrzauber und Behexung. Studien zum Schadenzauberglauben im alten Mesopotamien, Wiesbaden 2007. –, Washing, Defiling and Burning: Two Bilingual Anti-Witchcraft Incantations, Orientalia, N.S. 78 (2009) 44–68. –, Empowering the Patient: the Opening Section of the Ritual Maqlû, in: Y. COHEN, A. GILAN, J.L. MILLER (ed.), Pax Hethitica. Studies on the Hittites and Their Neighbours in Honor of Itamar Singer (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 51), Wiesbaden 2010, 311–39. –, Fighting Witchcraft Before the Moon and Sun: a Therapeutic Ritual from Neo-Babylonian Sippar, Orientalia, N.S. 79 (2010) 480–504. –, Evil Witches, Apotropaic Plants and the New Moon: Two Anti-Witchcraft Incantations from Babylon (BM 35672 and BM 36584), Welt des Orients 41 (2011) 177–90. –, Magic Rituals: Conceptualization and Performance, in: K. RADNER, E. ROBSON (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, Oxford 2011, 418–42. –, Gauging the Influence of Babylonian Magic: the Reception of Mesopotamian Traditions in Hittite Ritual Practice, in: E. CANCIK-KIRSCHBAUM, J. KLINGER, G.G.W. MÜLLER (eds.), Diversity and Standardization. Perspectives on Social and Political Norms in the Ancient Near East, Berlin 2013, 145–71. –, ‘Form Follows Function’? Rhetoric and Poetic Language in First Millennium Akkadian Incantations, Welt des Orients 44 (2014) 263–88. –, The Ancient Near East, in: DA.J. COLLINS (ed.), Cambridge History of Magic, 17–51. SCHWENDNER, G., Under Homer’s Spell, in: CIRAOLO/SEIDEL (eds.), Magic and Divination, 107–18.

Bibliography

333

SCURLOCK, J., Sorcery in the Stars. STT 300, BRM 4.19–20 and the Mandaic Book of the Zodiac, Archiv für Orientforschung 51 (2005–2006) 125–46. SCURLOCK, J., AL-RAWI, F., A Weakness for Hellenism, in: A.K. GUINAN, M. DEJ. ELLIS, A.J. FERRARA, S.M. FREEDMAN, M.T. RUTZ, L. SASSMANNSHAUSEN, S. TINNEY, M.W. WATERS (eds.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty (Cuneiform Monographs 31), Leiden/Boston 2006, 357–82. SEAFORD, R., Dionysiac Drama and the Dionysiac Mysteries, The Classical Quarterly 31 (1981) 252– 75. SEDERHOLM, V.H., Papyrus British Museum 10808 and its Cultural and Religious Setting (Probleme der Ägyptologie 24), Leiden 2006. SEEBER, C., Untersuchungen zur Darstellung des Totengerichts im Alten Ägypten (Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 35), Munich/Berlin 1976. SEGAL, A.F., Hellenistic Magic: Some Questions of Definition, in: R. VAN DEN BROEK, M.J. VERMASEREN (eds.), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, Presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Leiden 1981, 349–75. SÉRIDA, R., Cultural Identity and Self-Presentation in Ancient Egyptian Fictional Narratives. An Intertextual Study of Narrative Motifs from the Middle Kingdom to the Roman Period, PhD Diss., University of Copenhagen 2013. –, Cultural Memory and Motifs of Magician Heroes from Ancient to Islamic Egypt, in: NYORD/RYHOLT (eds.), Lotus, 351–72. SETHE, K., Von Zahlen und Zahlworten bei den alten Ägyptern und was für andere Völker und Sprachen daraus zu lernen ist: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte von Rechenkunst und Sprache (Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Straßburg 25), Strasbourg 1916. –, Die Zeitrechnung der alten Ägypter im Verhältnis zu der der anderen Völker I. Das Jahr, Nachrichten der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse (1919) 287–320. –, Amun und die acht Urgötter von Hermopolis. Eine Untersuchung über Ursprung und Wesen des ägyptischen Götterkönigs, Berlin 1929. SFAMENI GASPARRO, G., Oracoli profeti sibille: Rivelazione e Salvezza nel mondo antico (Biblioteca di scienze religiose 171), Rome 2002. SHAKED, S. (ed.), Officina magica: Essays on the Practice of Magic in Antiquity, Leiden 2005. DE SHONG MEADOR, B. (ed.), Inanna. Lady of Largest Heart. Poems of the Sumerian High Priestess Enheduanna, Austin 2000. SICHERL, M., Die Tiere in der griechisch-ägyptischen Zauberei, hauptsächlich nach den griechischen Zauberpapyri, PhD Diss., Prague 1937. SIJPESTEIJN, P.J., Ein Herbeirufungszauber, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 4 (1969) 187– 91. –, Four Magical Gems in the Allard Pierson Museum at Amsterdam, Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 45 (1970) 175–7. –, Amulett gegen Skorpionstich, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 22 (1976) 108. –, Liebeszauber, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 24 (1977) 89–90. –, Einige Bemerkungen zu einigen magischen Gemmen, Aegyptus 60 (1980) 153–60. SIMON, E., BAUCHHENSS, G., s.v. Mercurius, in: LIMC VI.1, 500–554. SIMPSON, W.K. (ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt. An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, and Poetry, New Haven 2003. SKOUVARAS, B., Μαγικὰ καὶ ἰατροσοφικὰ ἐρανίσματα ἐκ Θεσσαλικοῦ κώδικος, Λαογραφία 23 (1965–1966) 71–112. ŚLIWA, J., Egyptian Scarabs and Magical Gems from the Collection of Constantine SchmidtCiążyński, Warsaw 1989. –, Magical Gems from the Collection of Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński and from Other Polish Collections, 2nd edn, Kraków 2014.

334

Bibliography

SMITH, J.Z., The Temple and the Magician, in: J.Z. SMITH, Map is not Territory. Studies in the History of Religions, Chicago 1993, 172–207 [1st edn 1978]. –, Trading Places, in: MEYER/MIRECKI (eds.), Ancient Magic, 13–27. SMITH, MA., The Demotic Mortuary Papyrus Louvre E. 3452, PhD Diss., University of Chicago 1979. –, The Mortuary Texts of Papyrus BM 10507 (Catalogue of Demotic Papyri in the British Museum 3), London 1987. –, On the Primaeval Ocean (The Carlsberg Papyri 5; Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 26), Copenhagen 2002. –, Papyrus Harkness (MMA 31.9.7), Oxford 2005. –, Traversing Eternity: Texts for the Afterlife from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, Oxford/New York 2009. SMITH, MO., Helios in Palestine, Eretz Israel 16 (1982) 199*–214* (Reprinted in MO. SMITH, Studies I, 238–62). –, How Magic Was Changed by the Triumph of Christianity, in: V. CHRISTIDES, M. PAPATHOMOPOULOS (eds.), Graeco-Arabica: Papers of the First International Congress on Greek and Arabic Studies II, Athens 1983, 51–8 (Reprinted in MO. SMITH, Studies II, 208–16). –, The Eighth Book of Moses and how it Grew (PLeid. J 395), in: M. GIGANTE (ed.), Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia, Naples 1984, 683–93. –, PLeid. J 395 (PGM XIII) and Its Creation Legend, in: A. CAQUOT, M. HADAS-LEBEL, J. RIAUD (eds.), Hellenica et Judaica: Hommages à V. Nikiprowetzky, Leuven/Paris 1986, 491–8. –, The Jewish Elements in the Magical Papyri, in: MO. SMITH, Studies II, 242–56 (Reprint, originally published in: Seminar Papers, Society of Biblical Literature [1986] 455–62). –, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh, I–II (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 130.1–2), Leiden 1996. SMITH, S.T., Wretched Kush. Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in Egypt’s Nubian Empire, London/New York 2003. SNELL, D.C. (ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Near East, Oxford 2009. SONDERKAMP, J.A.M., Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung der Schriften des Theophanes Chrysobalantes (sog. Theophanes Nonnos) (Poikila byzantina 7), Bonn 1987. SØRENSEN, J., A Cognitive Theory of Magic, Lanham 2007. SPALINGER, A., The Rise of the Solar-Osirian Theology in the Ramesside Age: New Points d’Appui, in: B. ROTHÖHLER, A. MANISALI (eds.), Mythos & Ritual: Festschrift für Jan Assmann zum 70. Geburtstag (Religionswissenschaft: Forschung und Wissenschaft 5), Berlin 2008, 257–75. SPERBER, D., Magic and Folklore in Rabbinic Literature (Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture), Ramat-Gan 1994. SPIEGELBERG, W., Demotische Miszellen 7, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 53 (1917), 124–5. SPIER, J., Medieval Byzantine Magical Amulets and Their Tradition, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 56 (1993) 25–62. –, Revival of Antique Magical Practice in Tenth-Century Constantinople, in: BURNETT/RYAN (eds.), Magic, 29–36. –, An Antique Magical Book Used for Making Sixth-Century Byzantine Amulets?, in: DASEN/SPIESER (eds.), Savoirs magiques, 43–66. SPIESER, J.-M., Christianisme et magie du IIIe au VIIe siècle, in: DASEN/SPIESER (eds.), Savoirs magiques, 333–51. STADELMANN, R., Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten (Probleme der Ägyptologie 5), Leiden 1967. STADHOUDERS, H., A Time to Rejoice: the egalkura Rituals and the Mirth of Iyyar, in: L. FELIU, J. LLOP, A. MILLET ALBÀ, J. SANMARTÍN (eds.), Time and History in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona 26–30 July 2010, Winona Lake 2013, 301–23.

Bibliography

335

STADLER, M.A., Spätägyptische Hymnen als Quellen für den interkulturellen Austausch und den Umgang mit dem eigenen Erbe – drei Fallstudien, in: M. WITTE, J.F. DIEHL (eds.), Orakel und Gebete. Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Sprache der Religion in Ägypten, Vorderasien und Griechenland in hellenistischer Zeit, Tübingen 2009, 141–63. –, Weiser und Wesir: Studien zu Vorkommen, Rolle und Wesen des Gottes Thot im ägyptischen Totenbuch (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 1), Tübingen 2009. –, Théologie et culte au temple de Soknopaios. Études sur la religion d’un village égyptien pendant l’époque romaine, Paris 2017. STAMBAUGH, J.E., Sarapis under the Early Ptolemies (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 25), Leiden 1972. STEINER, D.T., Images in Mind: Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature and Thought, Princeton 2001. STEINER, R.C., Northwest Semitic Incantations in an Egyptian Medical Papyrus of the Fourteenth Century B.C.E., Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51 (1992) 191–200. STEINHAUER, J., Osiris mystes und Isis orgia – Gab es ‘Mysterien’ der ägyptischen Gottheiten?, in: NAGEL/QUACK/WITSCHEL (eds.), Entangled Worlds, 47–78. STEINKELLER, P., The Foresters of Umma: Toward a Definition of Ur III Labor, in: M.A. POWELL (ed.), Labor in the Ancient Near East (American Oriental Series 68), New Haven 1987, 73–115. STERN, L., Die Säulen aus Philae, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 22 (1884) 49–78. STERNBERG-EL HOTABI, H., Untersuchungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Horusstelen: ein Beitrag zur Religionsgeschichte Ägyptens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., I–II (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 62), Wiesbaden 1999. STEWART, C., Demons and the Devil: Moral Imagination in Modern Greek Culture, Princeton 1991. STEWART, C., SHAW, R. (eds.), Syncretism/Anti-Syncretism: the Politics of Religious Synthesis, London 1994. STOL, M., Epilepsy in Babylonia (Cuneiform Monographs 2), Groningen 1993. STOLTE, B.H., Magic and Byzantine Law in the Seventh Century, in: BREMMER/VEENSTRA (eds.), Metamorphosis, 105–15. VAN STRATEN, F.T., Gifts for the Gods, in: H.S. VERSNEL (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, Leiden 1981, 65–151. STRAUSS CLAY, J., The Hecate of the Theogony, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 25 (1984) 27– 38. –, The Homeric Hymns, in: I. MORRIS, B. POWELL (eds.), A New Companion to Homer, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1997, 489–507. STRICKER, B., Camephis (Mededelingen der koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe reeks 38.3), Amsterdam/Oxford 1975. STRITTMATTER, D.A., Ein griechisches Exorzismusbüchlein. Ms. Car. C 143b der Zentralbibliothek in Zürich [I], Orientalia Christiana 20 (1930) 169–78. –, Ein griechisches Exorzismusbüchlein. Ms. Car. C 143b der Zentralbibliothek in Zürich II. Texte, Orientalia Christiana 26 (1932) 127–44. VON STUCKRAD, K., Astral Magic in Ancient Jewish Discourse: Adoption, Transformation, Differentiation, in: BOHAK/HARARI/SHAKED (eds.), Continuity and Innovation, 245–70. SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE, E., Magical Hermes: Remarks on the Recipe of the ‘Little Beggar’ (PGM IV, 2373–2440), MHNH: Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas 11 (2011) 123–44. –, Himno(s)-plegaria a Hermes en los papiros mágicos griegos, in: C. GIUFFRÉ SCIBONA, A. MASTROCINQUE (eds.), Ex pluribus unum: studi in onore di Giulia Sfameni Gasparro, Rome 2015, 193–212. SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE, E., BLANCO, M., CHRONOPOULOU, E. (eds.), Los papiros mágicos griegos: entre lo sublime y lo cotidiano, Madrid 2015.

336

Bibliography

SÜNDERMANN, K., Spirituelle Heiler im modernen Syrien. Berufsbild und Selbstverständnis – Wissen und Praxis, Berlin 2006. SZNOL, S., Sefer ha-Razim – El libro de los secretos: introduccion y comentario al vocabulario griego, Erytheia 10 (1989) 265–88. SZPAKOWSKA, K., Behind Closed Eyes. Dreams & Nightmares in Ancient Egypt, Swansea 2003. TACHOMA, L.E., Fragile Hierarchies. The Urban Elites of Third-Century Roman Egypt (Mnemosyne, Suppl. 271), Leiden 2006. TAIT, W.J., Demotic Literature and Egyptian Society, in: J.H. JOHNSON (ed.), Life in a Multicultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 51), Chicago 1992, 303–10. –, Some Notes on Demotic Scribal Training in the Roman Period, in: BÜLOW-JACOBSEN (ed.), 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, 188–92. –, Theban Magic, in: S.P. VLEEMING (ed.), Hundred-Gated Thebes: Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban Area in the Graeco-Roman Period (Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 27), Leiden 1995, 169–82. TAMBIAH, S.J., The Magical Power of Words, Man 3 (1968) 175–208. TARDIEU, M., ‘Ceux qui font la voix des oiseaux’: les dénominations de langues, in: TARDIEU/VAN DEN KERCHOVE/ZAGO (eds.), Noms barbares, 143–53. –, Les noms magiques d’Aphrodite en déesse barbare (PGM IV 2912–2939), in: TARDIEU/VAN DEN KERCHOVE/ZAGO (eds.), Noms barbares, 225–38. TARDIEU, M., VAN DEN KERCHOVE, A., ZAGO, M. (eds.), Noms barbares I. Formes et contextes d’une pratique magique (Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes études: sciences religieuses 162), Turnhout 2013. TAYLOR, J., Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt, Chicago 2001. TAZAWA, K., Syro-Palestinian Deities in New Kingdom Egypt. The Hermeneutics of Their Existence (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1965), Oxford 2009. TCHERIKOVER, V.A., FUKS, A., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicorum, Cambridge 1957. THEE, F., Julius Africanus and the Early Christian View of Magic (Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 19), Tübingen 1984. THEIS, C., Magie und Raum. Der magische Schutz ausgewählter Räume im alten Ägypten nebst einem Vergleich zu angrenzenden Kulturbereichen (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 13), Tübingen 2014. –, Defensive Magie im alten Ägypten. Der Schutz der Grabstätte, in: JÖRDENS (ed.), Ägyptische Magie, 119–70. –, Der Pantheos: Die Entwicklung polymorpher Göttergestalten im Alten Ägypten, in press. THIERS, C. (ed.), Documents de théologies thébaines tardives (D3T 1–3) (Les Cahiers Égypte nilotique et Méditerranéenne 3, 8, 13), Montpellier 2009–2015. THISSEN, H.-J., Etymogeleien, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 73 (1988) 303–5. –, Ägyptologische Beiträge zu den griechischen magischen Papyri, in: U. VERHOEVEN, E. GRAEFE (eds.), Religion und Philosophie im alten Ägypten: Festgabe für Philippe Derchain zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Juli 1991 (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 39), Leuven 1991, 293–302. –, Nubien in demotischen magischen Texten, in: U. CLAUDI, D. MENDEL (eds.), Ägypten im afroorientalischen Kontext: Aufsätze zur Archäologie, Geschichte und Sprache eines unbegrenzten Raumes. Gedenkschrift Peter Behrens (Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere, Sondernummer 1991), Cologne 1991, 369–76. THOMPSON, D.J., Memphis under the Ptolemies, Princeton 1988. –, Literacy and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt, in: A.K. BOWMAN, G. WOOLF (eds.), Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, Cambridge 1994, 67–83. THOMPSON, S., Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, I–VI, Bloomington 1955–1958. TÖRÖK, L., Between Two Worlds. The Frontier Region Between Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700 BC – 500 AD (Probleme der Ägyptologie 29), Leiden/Boston 2009.

Bibliography

337

TOTTI, M., Der griechisch-ägyptische Traumgott Apollon-Helios-Harpokrates-Tithoes in zwei Gebeten der griechischen magischen Papyri, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 73 (1988) 287–96. TRACHTENBERG, J., Jewish Magic and Superstition: a Study in Folk Religion, Philadelphia 2004 [1st edn 1939]. TRAN TAM TINH, V., État des études iconographiques relatives à Isis, Sérapis et Sunnaoi Theoi, in: ANRW II.17.3 (1984), 1710–38. TRAUNECKER, C., Coptos. Hommes et dieux sur le parvis de Geb (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 43), Leuven 1992. TUPET, A.M., La magie dans la poésie latine, Paris 1976. VAN TURAJEFF, B., Zwei Hymnen an Thoth, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 33 (1895) 120–25. TURCAN, R., Mithra et le Mithriacisme, Paris 1983. TURNER, P.J., Seth: a Misrepresented God in the Ancient Egyptian Pantheon? (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2473), Oxford 2013. TYLOR, J.J., GRIFFITH, F.L., Wall Drawings and Monuments of El Kab I. The Tomb of Paheri at El Kab, London 1895. TZIFOPOULOS, Y., Paradise Earned. The Bacchic-Orphic Gold Lamellae of Crete, Washington DC 2010. UNGNAD, A., Besprechungskunst und Astrologie in Babylonien, Archiv für Orientforschung 14 (1941–1944) 251–84. VAN DER VALK, M., Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, I–IV, Leiden 1971–1987. VANDERLIP, V.F., The Four Greek Hymns of Isidorus and the Cult of Isis, Toronto 1972. VANDIER, J., Le Papyrus Jumilhac, Paris 1961. VÁRHELYI, Z., Magic, Religion, and Syncretism at the Oracle of Claros, in: ASIRVATHAM/PACHE/WATROUS (eds.), Between Magic and Religion, 13–31. VASSILIEV, A., Anecdota graeco-byzantina, pars prior, Moscow 1893. VEENSTRA, J.R., The Ever-Changing Nature of the Beast: Cultural Change, Lycanthropy and the Question of Substantial Transformation (from Petronius to Del Rio), in: BREMMER/VEENSTRA (eds.), Metamorphosis, 133–66. TE VELDE, H., s.v. Seth, in: LdÄ V, 908–11. –, Some Aspects of the God Shu, Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 27 (1981–1982) 23–8. –, Some Remarks on the Mysterious Language of the Baboons, in: J.H. KAMSTRA, H. MILDE, K. WAGTENDONK (eds.), Funerary Symbols and Religion: Essays Dedicated to Professor M.S.H.G. Heerma van Voss on the Occasion of His Retirement from the Chair of the History of Ancient Religions at the University of Amsterdam, Kampen 1988, 129–37. VERGOTE, J., Joseph en Égypte, Leuven 1959. VERSLUYS, M.J., Orientalising Roman Gods, in: BRICAULT/BONNET (eds.), Panthée, 235–92. VERSNEL, H.S., Some Reflections on the Relationship Magic–Religion, Numen 38 (1991) 177–97. –, The Poetics of the Magical Charm: an Essay in the Power of Words, in: MIRECKI/MEYER (eds.), Magic and Ritual, 105–58. VEYMIERS, R., Hileôs tôi phorounti: Sérapis sur les gemmes et les bijoux antiques, Brussels 2009. VITTMANN, G., Ägypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend, Mainz 2003. –, Zwischen Integration und Ausgrenzung. Zur Akkulturation von Ausländern im spätzeitlichen Ägypten, in: ROLLINGER/TRUSCHNEGG (eds.), Altertum, 561–95. VLAVIANOS-TOMASZYK, S., Les démons se mettent à table: les festins démoniaques dans les rituels magiques byzantins et post-byzantins (XVe–XVIIIe s.), Medioevo greco 12 (2012) 313–35. VLEEMING, S.P., Some Notes on Demotic Scribal Training in the Ptolemaic Period, in: BÜLOWJACOBSEN (ed.), 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, 185–7.

338

Bibliography

VOLOKHINE, Y., Le porc en Égypte ancienne. Mythes et histoire à l’origine des interdits alimentaires, Liège 2014. WAITKUS, W., Die Geburt des Harsomtus aus der Blüte. Zur Bedeutung und Funktion einiger Kultgegenstände des Tempels von Dendera, Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 30 (2002) 373–94. WARAKSA, E., Female Figurines from the Mut Precinct. Context and Ritual Function, Fribourg/Göttingen 2009. WEBER, M., GEISSEN, A., Die alexandrinischen Gaumünzen der römischen Kaiserzeit. Die ägyptischen Gaue und ihre Ortsgötter im Spiegel der numismatischen Quellen (Studien zur spätägyptischen Religion 11), Wiesbaden 2013. WEIDNER, S., Lotos im alten Ägypten: Vorarbeiten zu einer Kulturgeschichte von Nymphaea lotus, Nymphaea coerulea und Nelumbo nucifera in der dynastischen Zeit, Pfaffenweiler 1985. WEINREICH, O., De Diogenis quae fertur epistula XXXVI et de epigrammatis graeci historia, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 18 (1915) 8–18. WEITZ, H.P., s.v. Sarapis, in: ROSCHER, Ausführliches Lexikon IV, 338–82. WELLESLEY, K., Cornelii Taciti Libri qui supersunt, I.2. Ab excessu divi Augusti, Leipzig 1986. WESSELY, C., Griechische Zauberpapyrus von Paris und London, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse 36.2 (1888) 28–208. –, Neue griechische Zauberpapyri (Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse 42.2), Wien 1893. WEST, M.L., Hesiod, Theogony, Oxford 1966. –, The Orphic Poems, Oxford 1983. WESTENDORF, W., Die Lepra im pharaonischen Ägypten, in: J.H. WOLF (ed.), Aussatz – Lepra – Hansen-Krankheit. Ein Menschheitsproblem im Wandel II (Kataloge des Deutschen Medizinhistorischen Museums, Beihefte 1), Würzburg 1986, 35–7. WESTENHOLZ, A., The Graeco-Babyloniaca Once Again, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 97 (2007) 262– 313. WETTENGEL, W., Die Erzählung von den beiden Brüdern. Der Papyrus d’Orbiney und die Königsideologie der Ramessiden (Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 195), Fribourg/Göttingen 2003. WICKKISER, B.L., Asklepios, Medicine, and the Politics of Healing in Fifth-Century Greece: Between Craft and Cult, Baltimore 2008. WIEBACH-KOEPKE, S., Sonnenlauf und kosmische Regeneration: zur Systematik der Lebensprozesse in den Unterweltsbüchern (Ägypten und Altes Testament 71), Wiesbaden 2007. VON WILAMOWITZ-MÖLLENDORF, U., Commentariolum grammaticum III (Index scholarum publice et privatim in Academia Georgia Augusta), Göttingen 1889. WILBURN, A.T., Materia Magica. The Archaeology of Magic in Roman Egypt, Cyprus and Spain, Ann Arbor 2012. WILDUNG, D., Imhotep und Amenhotep: Gottwerdung im alten Ägypten (Münchner ägyptologische Studien 36), Munich 1977. –, s.v. Imhotep, in: LdÄ III, 145–8. WILLER, L., ‘Beschreib es und trag es versteckt’: Sogenannte magische Papyrusamulette aus dem römischen Ägypten in der Praxis – Ihre Herstellung und Handhabung, PhD Diss., Heidelberg University 2015 (publication forthcoming). WILSON-WRIGHT, A.M., Athtart. The Transmission and Transformation of a Goddess in the Late Bronze Age (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2, Reihe 90), Tübingen 2016. WINKLER, A., Third Time’s the Charm? A Document from the Reign of Claudius and the Councillor Priests, Redux, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 51 (2015) 75–91. WINKLER, J.J., The Constraints of Desire: the Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece, New York 1990. –, The Constraints of Eros, in: FARAONE/OBBINK (eds.), Magika Hiera, 214–43. DE WIT, C., Les génies des quatre vents au temple d’Opet, Chronique d’Égypte 32 (1957) 25–39. WITT, R.E., Isis in the Graeco-Roman World, London 1971.

Bibliography

339

WOLFE, L.A., Objects with Semitic Inscriptions 1100 B.C. – A.D. 700, Jewish, Early Christian and Byzantine Antiquities (Auction XXIII, 20 Nov. 1989, Frank Sternberg Zürich), Zürich 1989. WOLFF, H.F., Die kultische Rolle des Zwerges im alten Ägypten, Anthropos: Revue internationale d’ethnologie et de linguistique 33 (1938) 445–514, 469. WOLKSTEIN, D., KRAMER, S.N., Inanna Queen of Heaven and Earth. Her Stories and Hymns from Sumer, New York 1983. WOOLF, GR., Isis and the Evolutions of Religions, in: L. BRICAULT, M.J. VERSLUYS (eds.), Power, Politics and the Cults of Isis, Leiden 2011, 62–94. WOOLF, GU., Porphyrius: De philosophia ex oraculis, Berlin 1856. WÜTHRICH, A., Abracadabras méroïtiques dans le Livre des Morts?, in: B. BACKES, M. MÜLLERROTH, S. STÖHR (eds.), Ausgestattet mit den Schriften des Thot. Festschrift für Irmtraut Munro zu ihrem 65. Geburtstag (Studien zum altägyptischen Totenbuch 14), Wiesbaden 2009, 267–82. –, Eléments de théologie thébaine: les chapitres supplémentaires du Livre des Morts (Studien zum altägyptischen Totenbuch 16), Wiesbaden 2010. –, Édition synoptique et traduction des chapitres supplémentaires du Livre des Morts 162 à 167 (Studien zum altägyptischen Totenbuch 19), Wiesbaden 2015. XELLA, P., ‘Syncrétisme’ comme catégorie conceptuelle: une notion utile?, in: C. BONNET, V. PIRENNE-DELFORGE, D. PRAET (eds.), Les religions orientales dans le monde grec et romain: cent ans après Cumont (1906–2006). Bilan historique et historiographique. Colloque de Rome, 16–18 novembre 2006 (Études de philologie, d’archéologie et d’histoire anciennes 45), Brussels/Rome 2009, 135–50. ZAGO, M., Tebe magica e alchemica: l’idea di biblioteca nell’Egitto romano: la Collezione Anastasi, Padua 2010. ZANDEE, J., Seth als Sturmgott, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 90 (1963) 144–56. –, Sargtexte, Spruch 80, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 101 (1974) 62–79. ZANKER, G. (ed.), Herodas: Mimiambs, Oxford 2009. ZAUZICH, K.-T., Paläographische Herausforderungen I, Enchoria 19–20 (1992–1993) 165–79. ZELLMANN-ROHRER, M., ‘Psalms Useful for Everything’: Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Manuals for the Amuletic Use of the Psalter, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 72 (2018) 113–68. ZGOLL, A., Traum und Welterleben im antiken Mesopotamien: Traumtheorie und Traumpraxis im 3.– 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. als Horizont einer Kulturgeschichte des Träumens (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 333), Münster 2006. ZIBELIUS-CHEN, K., ‘Nubisches’ Sprachmaterial in hieroglyphischen und hieratischen Texten. Personennamen, Appellativa, Phrasen vom Neuen Reich bis in die napatanische und meroitische Zeit; mit einem demotischen Anhang (Meroitica 25), Wiesbaden 2011. ZIEGLER, C., À propos du rite des quatre boules, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 79 (1979) 437–9. ZIPSER, B., John the Physician’s Therapeutics: a Medical Handbook in Vernacular Greek, Leiden 2009. ZIVIE-COCHE, C., Dieux autres, dieux des autres. Identité culturelle et altérité dans l’Égypte ancienne, Israel Oriental Studies 14 (1994) 39–80. –, L’Ogdoade à Thèbes à l’époque ptolémaïque et ses antécédents [I], in: THIERS (ed.), Documents (D3T 1), 167–225. –, L’Ogdoade à Thèbes à l’époque ptolémaïque (II): le périptère du petit temple de Médinet Habou, in: THIERS (ed.), Documents (D3T 2), 227–84. –, L’Ogdoade à Thèbes à l’époque ptolémaïque (III): le pylône du petit temple de Médinet Habou, in: THIERS (ed.), Documents (D3T 3), 327–97. –, L’Ogdoade d’Hermopolis à Thèbes et ailleurs ou l’invention d’un mythe, Egitto e Vicino Oriente 39 (2016) 57–90.

340

Bibliography

ZOGRAFOU, A., Magic Lamps, Luminous Dreams. Lamps in PGM Recipes, in: CHRISTOPOULOS/KARAKANTZA/LEVANIOUK (eds.), Light and Darkness, 276–94. –, Prescriptions sacrificielles dans les papyri magiques, in: V. MEHL, P. BRULE (eds.), Le sacrifice antique. Vestiges, procédures et stratégies, Rennes 2008, 187–203. –, Sous le regard de λύχνος. Lampes et dieux dans une invocation apollinienne: PGM I, 262–347, Mythos: Rivista di storia delle religioni 2 (2008) 61–76. –, Chemins d’Hécate: portes, routes, carrefours et autres figures de l’entre-deux, Liège 2010. –, Un oracle homérique de l’Antiquité tardive: un livre-miniature à usage oraculaire, Kernos 26 (2013) 173–90. ZUNTZ, G., Persephone, Oxford 1971. ZWIERLEIN-DIEHL, E., Magische Amulette und andere Gemmen des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln (Papyrologica Coloniensia 20), Opladen 1993. –, Siegel und Abdruck: Antike Gemmen in Bonn, Bonn 2003.

List of Contributors Dr. ALESSIA BELLUSCI Blaustein Judaic Studies Postdoctoral Associate in Medieval Jewish History Yale University Department of Religious Studies 451 College St New Haven, CT 06511-8906 USA Prof. Dr. GIDEON BOHAK Tel Aviv University Department of Jewish Philosophy and Talmud Ramat Aviv 69978 Tel Aviv Israel Dr. LJUBA MERLINA BORTOLANI Postdoctoral researcher in the DFG project: Sexual Dynamis and Dynamics of Magical Practice in Graeco-Roman Egypt: Erotic Spells in the Greek and Demotic Magical Papyri (PGM and PDM) and Their Cultural Traditions Universität Heidelberg Seminar für Klassische Philologie Marstallhof 2–4 69117 Heidelberg Germany Prof. Dr. CHRISTOPHER A. FARAONE University of Chicago Department of Classics 1115 E. 58th Street Chicago, IL 60637 USA Prof. Dr. WILLIAM D. FURLEY Universität Heidelberg Seminar für Klassische Philologie Marstallhof 2–4 69117 Heidelberg Germany

342

List of Contributors

Prof. Dr. RICHARD GORDON Universität Erfurt Max-Weber-Kolleg für kultur- und sozialwissenschaftliche Studien Postfach 900221 99105 Erfurt Germany Dr. ADRIA HALUSZKA Visiting Assistant Professor of Classics Eckerd College 4200 54th Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33711 USA Dr. FRANZISKA NAETHER Akademische Assistentin Universität Leipzig Ägyptologisches Institut / Ägyptisches Museum -Georg SteindorffGoethestraße 2 04109 Leipzig Germany SVENJA NAGEL M.A. Postdoctoral researcher in the DFG project: Sexual Dynamis and Dynamics of Magical Practice in Graeco-Roman Egypt: Erotic Spells in the Greek and Demotic Magical Papyri (PGM and PDM) and Their Cultural Traditions Universität Heidelberg Ägyptologisches Institut Voßstrasse 2, Gebäude 4410 69115 Heidelberg Germany Prof. Dr. RICHARD PHILLIPS Assistant Professor of Classics Virginia Tech Department of Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures 331 Major Williams Hall, 220 Stanger Street Blacksburg, VA 24061-0225 USA Prof. Dr. JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK Universität Heidelberg Ägyptologisches Institut Voßstrasse 2, Gebäude 4410

List of Contributors

69115 Heidelberg Germany Prof. Dr. MARCELA RISTORTO Associate Professor of Greek Literature, Latin and Medieval Literature Universidad Nacional de Rosario Mariano Moreno 323 3 “B” 2000, Rosario Argentina Prof. Dr. DANIEL SCHWEMER Universität Würzburg Institut für Altertumswissenschaften Lehrstuhl für Altorientalistik Residenzplatz 2, Tor A 97070 Würzburg Germany Dr. MICHAEL ZELLMANN-ROHRER University of Oxford Faculty of Classics Ioannou Centre 66 St Giles’ Oxford OX1 3LU United Kingdom

343

Index of Sources PGM/PDM/SM PGM I (P. Berl. inv. 5025) 117–19 164 222–31 232–47 247–62 262–347 315–25

92, 102, 107, 127 209 143 222 231 222 125, 127–9, 133, 145–6 102

PGM II (P. Berl. inv. 5026), cf. also PGM VI 14, 92, 107–8, 127 2–4 161 5–7 161 33 67 64–183 124, 126–129, 141, 146, 151, 162, 164, 166, 173 101 141 107 141 121 268 150–54 69 158 68 PGM III (P. Mimaut; P. Louvre N 2391) 14, 92, 94, 102, 106–7, 185 1–164 (III.1) 10, 97, 122 144 (III.1) 143 187–262 (III.2) 233 264–75 (III.2) 99 275–81 (III.2) 118 291 (III.2) 129 292–310 (III.2) 16, 172 328–31 (III.2) 99 410–23 (III.2) 145 494–611 (III.1) 163, 233 551 (III.1) 142 699 (III.1) 129

PGM IV (Bibl. Nat. suppl. gr. 574) 15, 94, 104, 107, 113, 116, 127, 147, 180, 185 1–85 130 86–7 130, 145 154–285 145 154–466 96 180 142 218 142 296–466 101, 235 337 66 348–56 279 436–61 102, 158 438–63 267 475–829 (‘Mithras Liturgy’) 122, 145, 231 604–18 231 641 142 779–92 231 850–929 10, 129, 145 930–1114 16–17, 124, 126– 48 939–48 92 940 219, 221 1115–66 129 1146–7 142–143 1167–226 129 1195 143 1200 143 1227–64 129 1275–322 133 1331–89 145–6 1350–76 119 1390–495 70 1416 67 1496–595 70 1596–716 163 1643 143 1684 141 1716–870 10

346 1722 1724–5 1762 1801 1957–89 2005–144 2140–44 2217–26 2359–72 2365–6 2365–7 2373–440 2396 2441–621 2469 2473 2484 2524 2531 2574–610 2599 2601–6 2622–707 2643–74 2661 2663–9 2708–84 2749 2749–50 2819–20 2846–7 2891–941 2913–14 3007–86 3020 3086–124 3125–71 3149 3153–64 3165–9 3172–208

PGM V (P. Lond. 46) 1–53 8 54

Index of Sources 69 233 268 268 102, 158 145 10, 104 71 16, 19, 180, 228– 9, 232–4, 236 231 289 16, 19, 234 177 145 250 250 250 267 46 102 222 250 145 102 222 250 67 250 66–67 267 48 16, 19, 238–55 67 10 21 16, 18, 145, 201– 7 16, 19, 177–8, 232, 235 236 231 233 136, 150, 154–5, 168–70 102, 107, 112, 185 68, 143 143 129

96–172 256–66 291–7 304–69 340 370–439

370–446 400–420 426 440–46 440–58 459–89 466–7

10, 21 99 99 70 67 150–51, 155, 160–61, 164–66, 168–70 150, 175 102 67 175, 177 16, 150, 153, 155, 168–70 10 143

PGM Va (P. Holm., p. 42) 107 3 129 PGM VI (P. Lond. 47) 1–47+II 1–64

22–38

14, 108 133, 142, 145, 150–51, 153–55, 158, 161–2, 164– 70 108

PGM VII (P. Lond. I 121) 12, 15, 17, 91– 123, 127, 132 1–148 276 149–54 111, 116 169 111 196 115 204–6 115 208 115 217 116 220 115 222–49 102, 108, 117, 145, 150–51, 153–5, 158, 168– 70 224 111 249 111 250–54 150, 152 250–59 116–17 255–9 150, 152 260–64 119 260–71 117 272–83 115 284–99 71, 74, 115, 118 299 116

347

Index of Sources 301 311–17 316 317 319 319–34 323 335 335–6 336 348–58 359–63 359–69 381 385 392 399 407–10 411–16 415–16 421–2 439–40 452–3 459–61 461 462–6 464–5 466 467–504 468 478–90

479 490–91 494–5 505–28 508 510 516 528–39 537 539 540–78

542 559–60 579–90 588

120 117 115 67 129 71, 118 111 129 118 111 117 117 150, 154–6, 168– 70 119 115 115 115 117 117 115 115 69 120 111 115 111 115 118 115 120 117, 118, 145, 150, 153, 155–6, 168–70 115 120 118 117, 120 287 119 265 121, 133 115 120 117, 121, 126–9, 132, 136–8, 145, 148 120 111 117, 145 115

590 591–2 593–619 598 601 604–5 605–9 619–22 619–27 620–27 628–31 628–36 628–42 632–3 643 645–6 649 652–4 664–85

668–80 686–702 690 695–6 700 703–21 703–26 715 715–25 727 727–39 740–55 756 756–94 766–79 780–85 795 795–845 810–21 846–61 860–61 862–918 896 898–907 919

116 111 120 111 111 111 119 222 10 114 120 120 117, 150, 155–6, 165, 168–70 118 101, 115 120 119 120 117, 150–51, 153, 155, 160– 61, 164–6, 168– 70 102 71, 117–18 111 266 269 117 150, 153, 155, 168–70 115 119 129, 172 121 117, 150, 155, 168–70 111 117 111 111 115 114, 117, 121, 150, 155, 168–70 115, 118 145 115 118, 121 67 115 115

348 924–5 930–39 931–60 940–60 973–80 981–1026 984–5 993–1009 1009–16 cols. I*–III cols. I*–IV col. IV col. XXIII col. XXVII col. XXVIII col. XXIX PGM VIII (P. Lond. 122) 1–63 7–8 11 21–2 36–8 42–4 59–60 60–62 64–110

74–81 85 PGM X (P. Lond. 124) 36–50

Index of Sources 115 119 116 119 110 110 67 151 150, 155, 168–70 110 111 113 114 110, 116 115 110 108, 127 10, 16, 19, 233, 235 231 220 231 198 231 236 231 102, 108, 124, 126–8, 145, 150–51, 154–5, 158, 168–70 102 129

68

PGM XIa (P. Lond. I 125 rt.) 108, 221 1–40 209 PGM XII/PDM xii (P. Leid. J 384) 13–14, 92, 94, 106–8, 201 14–95 156 21–49 151 47 (= col. I*, 26) 102 87 141 87–93 164 96–106 236 121–43 10

144–51 153–60 175 190–92 201–69 232–5 244–52 430 438 cols. I*–III* cols. I–IV

150, 155, 159, 168–70 139 269 21, 150, 152 10, 18, 70, 197– 201, 269 16, 192–201 92 204 69 104 104

PGM XIII (P. Leid. J 395) (‘Eighth Book of Moses’) 94, 103, 106–8, 199 1–343 224 1–646 10 38–9 103 69–71 222 109–10 68 194–5 68 206–9 68 250–52 70 267–70 222 270–77 16, 19, 208–26 343 103 666 68 734–1077 145 760–823 199 788–9 192 795–6 198 823–41 69 925 67 942 142 (PDM xiv/PGM XIV) P. Mag. LL 13–16, 97, 103, 106–8, 127, 135– 8, 147–8, 153, 280 cols. 1–10 127 1, 1 (= xiv 1) 102 1, 1–3, 35 (= xiv 1–92) 137, 142, 145 4, 1–22 (= xiv 93–114) 146, 150, 155–6, 168–70 4, 9–19 (= XIVa 1–11) 97 4, 10 (= XIVa 2) 243 5, 1–33 (= xiv 117–49) 21, 124, 126–8, 132, 136–8, 150,

349

Index of Sources 153–55, 157, 166, 168–70 5, 7 141 5, 12–13 143–4 5, 17 138, 143 5, 18 144 6, 1–8, 11 (= xiv 150–231) 126–8, 132, 134– 8, 150, 153–5, 157, 166, 168–70 6, 6–7 141 6, 18–19 196 7, 8–10 143 7, 13 143 7, 13–14 142, 144 7, 20 143 7, 26 67 8, 12–18 (= xiv 232–8) 151 10, 22–35 (= xiv 295–308) 127, 142, 145 11, 1–26 (= xiv 309–34) 10 11, 8 133 11, 12 138 14, 1–34 (= xiv 395–427) 133 15, 25–8 (= XIVb 12–15) 97 cols. 16–18 127 16, 1–17 (= xiv 459–75) 125–6, 128, 137– 8 16, 15–16 135 16, 18–30 (= xiv 476–88) 125–6, 128, 136 16, 19–22 135 17, 1–3 144 17, 1–26 (= xiv 489–515) 125–6, 128, 136, 137–8, 141, 145– 6 17, 6 138, 143–4 17, 13–14 142 17, 23–6 135 17, 26–18, 6 (= xiv 515–27) 125–6, 128, 137– 8 17, 27–8 144 17, 31 138, 143–4 18, 7–33 (= xiv 528–53) 142–3, 146 18,7 (= xiv 528) 102 18, 13–14 144 21, 2–3 104

23, 9–20 (= XIVc 16–27) 97 23, 10 (= XIVc 16) 142 23, 13 (= XIVc 19) 268 23, 16 (= XIVc 23) 67 23, 27–31 (= xiv 701–5) 146 25, 1–22 (= xiv 750–71) 126, 128, 136, 144 cols. 27–9 127 27, 1–12 (= xiv 805–16) 127, 142, 145 27, 13–36 (= xiv 817–40) 124, 126–8, 132, 136, 153 27, 17 141 28, 11–15 (= xiv 851–5) 143 29, 1–20 (= xiv 856–75) 125, 139 29, 20–30 (= xiv 875–85) 125 vs., 17, 1–8 (= xiv 1070–77) 150, 152 vs., 20, 1–7 (= xiv 1097–103) 10 vs., 24, 1–13 (= xiv 1141–54) 151 vs., 26, 1–27, 8 (= xiv 1163–79) 137 vs., 31, 1–7 (= xiv 1199–205) 126, 138 PGM XVI

96

PGM XVIIb

102, 151

PGM XIXa 7

67

PGM XX (Philinna papyrus) 13, 53, 96–7 4–12 10, 71 12–18 280 13–19 10 PGM XXI 1–28 19

198–9 192

PGM XXIIb 1–26 20–21 27–35

10 143 150, 152

PGM XXXVI (P. Oslo 1)

92, 101, 107

350 295–311 312–20 PGM XXXVIII 15

Index of Sources 21 133 143

PGM LII (P. Lips. inv. 429) 96 PGM LVII

96

(PDM lxi/PGM LXI) P. BM EA 10588 14, 107–8 5, 1 159 5, 1–15 (= lxi 63–78) 150–51, 153, 155, 159, 164–6, 168– 70 7, 1–5 (= xiv 95–9) 10 vs., 1, 31–2 (= LXI 31–2) 142 PGM LXII 12–16

70

PGM LXIII 4–7

68

(PDM Suppl.) P. Louvre E 3229 14, 97, 103, 107– 8 5, 14–15 158 5, 14–22 (= Suppl. 130–38) 150–51, 155, 157, 168–70 6, 6–19 (= Suppl. 149–62) 150–51, 154–5, 161, 168–70 6, 25–7, 16 (= Suppl. 168–84) 151 SM 9 (= PGM XCI)

96

SM 29 (= PGM LXXXIII) 13–14 138 SM 46–51

101

SM 49.64–70

9

SM 71 (= PGM CXVII)

13, 96

PGM LXX 5–11 12

66–7 9

SM 72 (= PGM CXXII) 5–15

13, 96–7 70

PGM LXXII

96

SM 73 (= PGM CIII)

96

PGM LXXVII 18

269

SM 79.12–18

151–2

PGM P2

290

SM 85

151–2

PGM P2a

290

SM 90 (= PGM CII)

102, 145, 151, 154–5, 158

PGM P3

295

PGM P7 15–22 23–9

SM 96 (= PGM CXXIII a–f) 48–50 290 288 289

SM 97 (= PGM CXXIV)

70

Egyptian sources Astarte and the Sea

31–2

Bentresh Stela

33

Bes Story

31, 34–5

Book of the Dead Ch. 17 Ch. 39 Ch. 76–88 Ch. 108

163, 211–12 157 156 211 156

351

Index of Sources Ch. 125 Ch. 130–36 Ch. 137 A Ch. 151 Ch. 162–5 Ch. 177 Ch. 182–3 Book of Fayum 1030–38

165 142 136 164 6 133 160

Fight for the Armor of Inaros 33–4 12, 22 36

205

Horus and Seth

215–17, 226

Inaros-Petubastis-Cycle

33, 35

Ipuwer 3, 12–13

40

Book of the Heavenly Cow 180 139 Book of the Temple

95

Book of Thoth

220

Coffin Texts I 2b III 144d III 204b V 399c VI 271h VI 296 VI 338i VI 394d VII 152d VII 162m VII 173h VII 487d Spell 80

211 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 139–40

Fight for the Prebend of Amun 33–4, 37 16, 6–11 36

Krugtexte

Delta Papyrus (P. Brooklyn 47.218.84) col. 1 198 6, 6–11 203 x+12, 7 202 x+13, 1 202

jar A, text 4 16–17 22–3

30 30

Litany of Re (PIANKOFF, Litany) Papyrus of Ta-Udja-Re 84–97, 147–57 165 Meryre (P. Vandier) 3, 12–13

216 39

Mysteries of the Four Pellets Ritual 165 Neferti 47 61–5

40 30–31

O. Ashmolean Museum inv. 1945.40 see Sinuhe O. Chicago OIC inv. 12074 34

Dendara II, 57, 11

193

O. Hor 10

253

Djoser and Imhotep

39

O. IFAO inv. 2188

34

Edfou I, 147, 2 II, 31, 4–5 VII, 259, 1

193 132 133

O. Narmouthis 41, 4

193

Elkab, Tomb of Paheri

211

Opening of the Mouth Ritual 165 scene 59C 201 scene 59D 196–7 Oracular Amuletic Decrees 6–7

352

Index of Sources

P. Amherst, fragments m–q (B) see Sinuhe

P. Hearst Medical (Berkeley, Bancroft Library, P. Hearst 1) 11, 12–15 290

P. Berlin P. 3022, see Sinuhe P. 3048 P. 3049 (Text B2), 8, 2–3

140

140

P. 10499, see Sinuhe P. 15660 11–12 12

196 194

P. Heidelberg Dem. 5

13, 151

P. Insinger, 31, 19–23

200

P. Jumilhac

215

P. Louvre E 3452 1, 2 col. 7

212 213

P. Michigan inv. 6124+6131 B x+2, 12 193 P. Moscow

P. BM EA 9900

97

EA 10059

5

EA 10477

97

inv. 120, see Wenamun inv. 4657, see Sinuhe P. Rhind I

EA 10508, 3, x+13–15 30 EA 10808 P. Boulaq 6, rt. 4, 1

5d4–5 5d6 6d5 10d6–7 5h8 6h4 6h6 10h1–4 10h5–6

13 157

P. Brooklyn 47.218.47 vs.

13, 151

47.218.84, see Delta Papyrus P. Cairo CG 58031 4, 3–5, 1

196

P. Carlsberg

196 196 196 196 195–6 196 196 197 196

Mathematical

194

P. Tebtynis Tait 14 x+4

253 194

P. Vandier, see Meryre

1

204

284

203–4

418

203

P. Deir el-Medina 36

204

P. Hal. Kurth Inv. 33 vs. 3, x+7

204–5

P. Vatican 38603 fragment a

197

P. Vienna D 6920–22 rt. x+2, 7–8

194

PSI Inv. D 90

126, 128, 132

353

Index of Sources 5 6

139 138

43–50 148–9 182–3 190–99 224–6

Inv. I 72, 6, 5

202

Pyramid Texts 246 (§ 252b) 247 (§ 1150c) 302 521 537 616 626–7 655 668 682

133 156 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211

Setna I

208–9, 214

Setna II (P. Brit.Mus. inv. 604) 36–9, 214, 216–17, 223, 226 3, 13 216 5, 5–15 37 5, 10–11 216 5, 30–31 39 6, 3–5 37 6, 16 216 6, 21–3 217 6, 24–5 38 Sinuhe

28–31, 34–5

O. Ashmolean Museum inv. 1945.40 24–5 35 32 29 vs., 32 35 P. Berlin P. 3022 + frg. P. Amherst m–q (B) 42–3 30

29 30 30 29 35

P. Berlin P. 10499 65–6 67–74 87–8

35 29 29

P. Moscow inv. 4657 3, 1–4

29

Statue Berlin 2293

160

The Swallow and the Sea

30

Tale of the Two Brothers

31–2, 214–15, 217, 226 39 31 39 214 214 215

8, 5–6 11, 4–7 12, 9–13, 2 14, 5 15, 1 16, 10–17, 1 Teaching of Menena

34

Urk. IV 115

212

1344, 11–12 (Letter of Pharaoh Amenhotep II) 7 Wenamun (P. Moscow inv. 120) 32–3 1, 34 = 3, 12 32 1, 38–43 = 1, x+3–8 33

Greek and Latin sources Aelianus De natura animalium 10.27

Aeschylus 121

Choephori 350

58

354 Persae 607–93

Index of Sources

9

Aesopus (et Aesopica) Fabulae no. 301

294

Aetius of Amida 6.94

280

Alexander of Tralles 284

Antoninus Liberalis 10 21

220 220

Antidotarium Bruxellense § 147

294

Anthologia Palatina 9.99 (Leonidas)

46, 59

183

Aratus Phaenomena 85

118

Metaphysica 1040a30

267

Deipnosophistae 12.2.16

245

Athenaios? (FURLEY/BREMER, Greek Hymns) Paian and prosodion to Apollo 173 Augustinus

220 220

Appianus

Apuleius

Vespae 804

Athenaeus

Apollodorus

Bellum Civile 3.4.28.15

280

Aristoteles

Therapeutica 12

Bibliotheca 1.9.9 3.13.5

Nubes 749–52

De civitate Dei 7.35 18.18

147 224

Basilius Caesariensis 241 227

Apologia 63

227

Metamorphoses 2.1 2.12 2.22 11.5.1–2

238–9 220 136 220 253

Aristophanes

Liturgia (MIGNE) XXXI, 1636

287

Βερναρδάκειος μαγικὸς κώδικας f. 474v 280 Boeus Ornithogonia 2

220

Bolus of Mendes

74

Callimachus

61

Aves

49

fragmenta 685

249

Equites

49

Cassianus Bassus

276

355

Index of Sources Cassius Dio 72.20.3

Cod. Leiden, UB 181

CCAG I, 60–72

284

IV, 74

280

VII, 245–6

295

XII, 29

294

VGF 25, f. 5 vs.

296

VLQ 50, f. 160 rt.

288

Cod. London, BL

CIA I, 4

242

III, 268

242

Clemens Alexandrinus Protrepticus 2.12.2 2.13.2 2.17–18

181 51–2

277

Royal 16 C. II ff. 47 vs.–48 vs. f. 49 vs. f. 66 rt.–vs.

291 290 286

Cod. Milan, BNA 283

Cod. Mt. Athos, Mon. Meg. Lavras Θ 20, f. 10 vs.

gr. 105, f. 320 rt.

288

295

286

Cod. Athens, EBE 1265, f. 38r

279

2492, f. 128 rt.–vs.

283

Cod. Florence, BML, Plut. 7.19, f. 195 rt.

285

28.34, f. 83 vs.

284

86.14, f. 28 vs.

280

89 sup. 83, f. 95 vs.

286

285

Cod. Naples, BN II C 33, f. 235 rt.

Cod. Athens, Bibl. Soc. Hist. 223, f. 66 rt.–vs.

Harley 5604

Cod. Munich, BSB 52 52 51

Cod. Athens, Bibl. Boul. 124, f. 275 vs.

285

E 37 sup., f. 373 vs.

CIL III, 5561

Add. 17900, f. 54 vs.

283

Cod. Olympiotissa mon. 97, p. 28

291

Cod. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 88, f. 61 vs.

286

216, f. 5 rt.

281

Cod. Paris, BnF gr. 2091 ff. 51 vs.–52 rt.

285 285

gr. 2219, f. 31 vs.

291

gr. 2244, f. 116 rt.–vs.

281

gr. 2286, f. 84 vs.

279

356

Index of Sources

gr. 2294 ff. 73 vs.–95 vs. f. 79 rt.

283 282

gr. 2316 f. 319 rt.–vs. f. 360 vs. ff. 361 vs.–362 rt. f. 372 rt. ff. 429 rt.–431 vs.

291 289 287 287 296

gr. 2419, f. 199 rt.

296

gr. 2510, f. 23 rt.

282

Dioscorides

suppl. gr. 142 f. 158 rt. ff. 160 vs.–161 rt. ff. 161 vs.–162 rt.

295 286 291–2

suppl. gr. 2316 f. 340 rt.

285

Cod. Vatican, BAV gr. 299, f. 508 vs.

283

Cod. Venice, BNM, gr. Z 524

277

Cod. Vienna, ÖNB, med. gr. 50, f. 59 vs.

285

52, f. 88 vs.

293

Corpus Hermeticum

100

Damigeron/Evax De lapidibus

184

Materia medica 3.38–9 4.31

121 122

Euripides Bacchae 138–9 142–3 426 565 1019

49 54 58 245 220

Helena 375

245

Hippolytus 447–50 509–15 1300

249, 251 241 9 249

Ion 126

58

Iphigenia Aulidensis 1211

45

Medea

251

Phaethon 224–6

163

Rhesus 530–31

241

fragmenta 1023

241

Eustathius Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 4.226 295

Demetrius Peri hermeneias/De elocutione 71 182, 200 Diodorus Siculus 4.6

49, 51, 194 254

Diogenes Laertius 6.50

181

Firmicus Maternus Matheseos 2.11.10 8.13.1–3 Geoponica 7.31.2

49, 51

118 276, 278 277

357

Index of Sources 10.83.1–2 10.87.6

286 284

Getty hexameters

9, 42–61

Herodas

50–51

Mimiambi 8 8.16 8.40 8.67 8.69–70

49–51 51 50 50–51 50

Herodotus 1.105 1.105.3 1.131.10–132.1 4.105

252 240 243 218

Hesiodus

251–2

Theogonia 9–10 10 192 196–8 205 224 411–52 934 1008 Hippiatrica

51 46 59 252 240 252 241 7 240 240 278, 290

Cantabrigiensia 10.5

284

Parisina 22

281

Homerus Ilias 1.37–41 1.229 2.22 2.952 4.196 4.206 5.330–31

5.387 5.426–30 5.749 (= 8.393) 8.170 8.269 10.139 10.140 11.366 14.233 14.236 17.339 19.161 22.13 22.395–403

7, 42, 58, 221, 269, 277, 283–4 53, 104 162 60 161 284 61 61 252

Odyssea 2.169 4 4.417–18 4.455 4.456–8 4.458 4.460 8.256–369 10.27 11 13.79 18.193 19.476–9 Hymni Homerici 2 2.101–3 4 4.443 5 5.1 5.1–5 5.34–7 5.47–8 5.81 6 6.16–18 30

284 251 284 277 61 284 284 162 296 296 162 46 221 283 219, 221, 225 60 211 220 218 220 219, 135 218 254 7 7 296 240 223

7, 46 209 229 59 241, 251 240 241 251 251 251 245 245 241

IG IV2.1, 131 (Hymn to the Mother of the Gods from Epidauros) 241 X.2.1, 65

54

358

Index of Sources

Isidorus Hymn 1

Lucretius 242, 253

Joannes Chrysostomus De incomprehensibili dei natura 4.391 287 In epistulam ii ad Corinthios (homiliae 130) 2.5 287 Joel

John the Physician

Leo Allatius

283 278, 286

Limenius (FURLEY/BREMER, Greek Hymns) Paian and prosodion to Apollo 173 Lucanus

Lucianus

Lydus De mensibus 4.64

Saturnalia 1.7.14–15 Marcellus

De Graecorum hodie quorundam opiniationibus epistola1 175–6 (§ 26–7) 278 176–7 (§ 29) 278

Pharsalia 6

242

De medicamentis 8.193 28.74

206 279 283 282

Menander Misumenus 1–14

241

Nicolaus Cabasilas Explicatio divinae liturgiae 26.2 287 Nonnus

280 175, 185

De morte peregrini 1

220

Dialogi Marini 4 4.1

223 220

Dionysiaca 13.36 40.44–5 40.49 40.56

291 174

1 Repr. in Leo Allatius, De templis Graecorum, Cologne 1645, 113–84.

241 220 220 220

Oracula Sibyllina fragmenta 1.5 Origenes

Philopseudes 12 26

241 253 253 253

Macrobius

Chronicle (Chronographia compendiaria) 283

Therapeutics

De rerum natura 1.1–28 1.629 2.1117 5.1362

Contra Celsum 1.24 5.45

266 99 99–100 100

359

Index of Sources Orphica Hymni Proem-hymn, 11 3 8.12 10 29 40 49 55.2 55.16 55.24 71 Lithica 319–33

P. Holmiensis 240 241 269 241 241 242 242 241 245 245 242

107

P. Oxy. 1011.218–80

162

1380.173–4

194

1381

156

3931

221

4468

13, 96

P. Prag. I 6.1–5

288

180 Palladius of Galatia

Lithica Kerygmata 3.5–6 10 20.12–16

181 180 184

fragmenta (BERNABÉ) 664

54

Orphic-Bacchic lamellae

45–47, 49, 53–4

Ovidius

Historia Lausiaca 17.6–9 Pausanias 1.14.7 2.30.2 2.35.4.9–11 3.14.5.3 3.23.1 10.16

252 182 242 242 240, 252 55

292

Ars Amatoria 1.762

220

Periplus maris magni § 57

Fasti

174

Philodemus

Metamorphoses 2.663 8.730–31 8.732 8.735–7 11.244 15.356–60 P. Gurôb 1 4 7 10 13–14 18 22 22–3 25

224 224 220 220 220 224 51 49 49 49 49 49 55 49 55

223

Περὶ ποιημάτων 1.181

49

Philostratus Vita Apollonii 1.4 8.5

218 221

Phlegon De mirabilibus 10.520 Physica Plinii 3.22

164

284

360

Index of Sources

Pindarus Pythian 4.213–19 4.214–16

Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων 3.32 9 249

Scholia in Pindarum, Nemean 4.156a 249

241

Ps.-Diogenes Epistulae 36

181

Ps.-Galenus Plato Ion 534a

De remediis parabilibus libri iii 14.495 279 54 Ps.-Plinius Secundus Iunior

Leges 909a–d

8

Respublica 364 364b–e 364e3–365a3 380d

48–9 8 50 218

Plinius Historia Naturalis 27.57 Plutarchus

78 121–2

Romanus Melodus

51, 194

Cantica 36.13.2–3

De defectu oraculorum 416.E.4 241 De Iside et Osiride 12 (355F–356A) 33 (364B)

194 194

De superstitione 166.A.5

241

Porphyrius De abstinentia 2.16.4–5

Apophthegmata Laconica 224e 49 Quintus Smyrnaeus 3.619–20

242

185–6 183

De philosophia ex oraculis 134 183

286

Ps.-Plutarchus

279

Aetia Graeca et Romana 290.D.3 241 Amatorius 764.D.3

De Medicina 3.15.8

220

294

Sallustius De diis et mundo 4.10

54

SEG 42.818 3 (verse 5) 6 (verse 11) 8 (verse 15)

44, 46 48 47, 51 48

49.1360 4

46–7 48

50.1001 3

46 47

Servius Commentarii in Vergilium, Eclogae 6.48 224

361

Index of Sources ch. 266

Sophocles Trachiniae

251

Strabo 16.2.39.12–13 17.1.35, 809C

147 121

285

Theophrastus Characteres 16.12

49

Theopompus of Chios Suda s.v. Ιϋγξ

249

Tacitus

174–5, 185

Annales 12.22

173

Theocritus Idyllia 2 15.86 15.100–105 15.136–44

FGrH 115F 344 Varro

ap. Augustinus, De Civ. Dei 7.35 147 Vergilius

9, 241, 249 249 249 249

Scholia in Theocritum, Idyllia 2.17 249 Theophanes Chrysobalantes (Nonnus) Epitome de curatione morborum (BERNARD)

183

284

Aeneis 3.443–52 4.129 (= 11.1) 6.74

164 284 164

Eclogae 8.95–9

220

Georgica 1.35 4.442

118 220

The Bible (including apocrypha) Acts 28:1–7

291

Acts of John 88–9

219

Genesis 1

140

Amos 5:19

282

Isaiah 37:16

120

Apocalypse of John § 36 (NAU)

287

Job 38

200

Canticles 1:6

John

290

292

Exodus

39

Luke 24:15–16

219

14:19–21 33:11

263 263

362

Index of Sources

Matthew 6:9–11

138

Psalms

14, 296

41

296

1 Samuel 4:4

120

Other sources Babylonian Talmud

11, 65

text 10.6.2 (= BAM 461) 76

BM 36330 l. e. 27–30

77

47457 obv. 15

73

64514 (82-9-18, 4494)

65

text 11.4

72, 75

CT (BM) 22, 1: 22

77

Enheduana

253

Enmerkar and the En-suhgir-ana / Ensukeshdanna 39

BRM IV, 19

72–5, 77, 82–3

IV, 20

73–4, 84–5

Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta 39

21, 120, 259– 75

Esoteric Commentary 14–15

68

Exorcist’s Almanac

71–7

Gathas

200

Graeco-Babyloniaca

11

Cairo Genizah

T(AYLOR)-S(CHECHTER) NS 157.72 262 J 594 (= G39 R-S) JTSL ENA NS 12.5

260 260, 262

Jerusalem, NLI Heb. 4°577.5.30 261–4, 271

nos. 10–11

65

KAR 35 obv. 16

75

LBAT 1626 (BM 35537 = Sp 3, 43) 73

CMAwR I text 7.8, 3.: 17’–30’

70

Library of Ashurbanipal

77

text 8.3, 1.: 23

75

LKA 135 obv. 11–16

77

text 10.1

71

text 10.2

71

Maqlû I 91 III IV 12 ritual tablet, 129’

70–71, 75 75 65 75 69

Middle Assyrian Laws A 19–20

76

II text 3.4, 3.: 5–6 text 7.12

76 75

363

Index of Sources Prayer of Jacob

267

PARPOLA, Letters 300 obv. 4’ Sefer ha-Razim 1, 232

Paris, Heb. 849, fol. 62b 272–5 76 20–21, 259–75 137, 142

Budapest, Oriental Library, Kaufmann A 244, fol. 59 272–5 245, fol. 42b–43a

272–5

Florence, BML, Plut. 44.13, fol. 120a 272–5 Moscow, Russian State Library, Günzburg 248, fol. 298a 272–5 738, fol. 129a–b New York, JTS 1879 (163), fol. 45a 8115 (829), fol. 27a

8117 (832), fol. 29a–b 272–5

Tel Aviv, Bill Gross, 42, fol. 170b 272–5 Sefer Raziel

260

Sm 1379

77

SpTU II, 22 + III, 85 rev. IV 11–12 76 II, 23 obv. 1–2

73

V, 35–6

73

V, 243

73

272–5 STT 300

72–85

272–5

Toledot Yeshu

219

272–5

Uruanna III 48

70

Index of Names Deities, Divine/Demonic Entities and Mythological creatures Abizion: 290 Adonis: 248–50 Agathos Daimon: 178–9, 186, 233, 235–6 Agrius: 220 Aion: 143, 178–9, 186, 223, 233 Akakallis: 55 Amalthea: 47, 51–2 Amphitrite: 46, 57 Amun: 32–4, 96, 161, 193, 196 – Amun-of-the-way: 32 – Amun-the-bull-of-Meroë: 38 Amun-Re: 159, 267 Anahita: 243, 245 Anat: 5 Antaura: 288 Anu: 71 Anubis: 96, 118, 125, 142, 157, 206, 214, 248, 254 Aphrodite: 19–20, 192–3, 195, 198, 238, 239–43, 245–55, see also Venus – Kythereia: 240–42, 252 – Ourania: 121, 252 Apis: 137, 155 Apollo: 9, 18, 51–2, 55, 128–9, 141–2, 152, 155, 158, 161–6, 172–8, 185–6, 221, 229 – Delphic: 172, 186 – Hekatos: 46 – Ieios: 162 – Klarios: 162, 173–5 – Lykeios: 121 – Paian: 52, 162, 173, see also Paieon/Paian – Phoibos: 57, 161–2 – Pythian: 172, 174–5 Apollo-Helios: 164, 166 Apophis: 142, 156 Ares: 247 Artemis: 7, 46, 57, 288, 295 Artemis-Selene: 267 Asalluḫi: 67 Ash: 203 Asklepios: 120, 155–6, 165–6, 173, 176, 183

Astarte: 5, 31–2, 252 Athena: 51, 223 – Nike: 182 Attis: 54 Atum: 38, 159–60, 192–3, 196–7 Baal: 5, 66 Bastet: 29 Bendis: 7 Bes: 102, 108, 115–16, 150–51, 154–5, 158, 165, 178–9 Brimo: 49, 185 Chnoubis: 179 creator god: 8, 100, 137, 140, 143, 200, 208, 222, 236, 266, see also solar creator god Daphne: 155, 162, 164–6 Dedun: 5 Demeter/Deo: 7, 44, 46-7, 49, 52, 57, 59, 209, 242, 253 – Malophoros: 182 Dionysos: 9, 49–54, 218, 220 – Dionysos-Bakchos: 49, 52–4 Dioskouroi: 96 Ea: 67–8 Echo: 249 Ellil: 68 Elpis: 54 Ennead: 18, 31, 191–9, 201, 206 Ereškigal: 62, 66–7, 77–8, 185, 243, 248, 250 Eros: 155–6, 247 Esenephthys: 192, 195 Eumenides: 241, 243 Gaia: 7, 241, 243 Geb: 39, 140, 191, 193–4, 201–6 God (Jewish/Christian): 143, 200, 262–4, 267, 283, 287–91, 294–6 Gorgon: 184

Index of Names Graces: 241–2 Hades: 96, 242, 248–9, 251 Harpokrates/Horus the child: 131, 133–4, 141–2, 144, 156, 165, 175 Hathor: 44, 47, 121, 193–4, 196, 239, 252, 254 Hauron: 5 Headless god: 102, 155, 158, 162, 164–6 Heka: 8, 94 Hekate: 7, 9, 18, 46–8, 52–3, 60, 67, 98, 182–6, 241–3, 249–50, 252 – Einodia: 46, 57 Helios: 21, 92, 99, 102, 121–2, 141–2, 158– 60, 162–3, 165, 192–5, 222, 233, 243, 247, 259–61, 263–7, 269–70, 272 Helios-Apollo: 269 Hera: 249 Herakles: 46, 57, 61, 181, 289 – Kallinikos: 181 Hermanubis: 177, 227, 232, 235 Hermes: 7, 19, 102, 122, 150–51, 155, 159– 61, 164–6, 176, 180, 182–3, 186, 228–9, 231–7, 254, 284, 289, cf. also Mercury – Trismegistos: 182, 236 Hermes-Thoth: 220 Horus: 38, 131, 133, 141–2, 144, 158–60, 177–9, 193, 196, 203, 205, 213, 215, 231– 2, 235, 253 Horus-Thoth/Har-Thoth: 151, 155, 159, 166 Hours: 245 Hydra: 46, 57, 61 Iao: 68, 119–20, 137, 185, 197 Imhotep: 104, 120, 150–51, 156, 165–6 Inanna: 39, 252–3 Io: 249 Ipet: 196 Isis: 4, 35, 38, 47, 96, 133, 144, 155, 157–9, 177, 192–6, 202, 205, 215, 231–6, 238–9, 241–2, 248, 252–4, 267 Isis-Hathor: 20, 248 Ištar: 32, 252–3 Iynx: 249 Jam: 31–2 Juno: 224 Kerberos: 175–6 Khepri: 197 Khonsu: 33

365

Kirke: 7, 280–81 Kore: see Persephone/Kore Kouretes: 47, 49, 51 Kronos: 18, 47, 144, 192, 194–5, 201–6 Kybele: 7, 253, see also Magna Mater and Mother of the Gods Leto: 161, 162 Maat: 160 Magna Mater: 249, see also Mother of the Gods and Kybele Medusa: 292 Mercury: 18, 177, 180–82, 185–7, 227–8, cf. also Hermes Meskhenet: 164–5 Metis: 218 Min: 6 Mithras: 4, 122, 243 Mnemosyne: 160–61 Moirai/Fates: 282 Mother of the Gods: 49, 241, 253, see also Magna Mater and Kybele Muses: 50 – Helikonian: 46, 59 Nabû: 67, 249 Nekhbet: 220, 254 Nemesis: 218 Nemty: 215 Nephthys: 96, 155, 157–8, 193–6, 209 Nergal: 243 Nut: 39, 140, 193–4, 196, 204 Nyx: 241, 243 Ogdoad: 191–2, 199, 205 Orion: 295 Osiris: 38, 96, 118, 120, 125, 134, 137, 142, 144–5, 151, 155, 157–9, 164–6, 177–8, 192–6, 198, 204, 206, 213–14, 217, 232, 234–6, 254 – Khentyamenti: 157 – Wennefer: 157–8 Osiris-Apis: 155 Osiris-Sarapis: 158 Ouranos: 202, 240, 252 Paieon/Paian: 43–6, 48, 52–3, 57–8, 162, see also Apollo, Paian Pan: 183, 185 Pantheos: see polymorphic deities

366 Peitho: 249 Persephone/Kore: 44, 46–7, 49, 51–3, 57–9, 66–7, 242–3, 252 Pleiades: 241 polymorphic deities: 18, 163–4, 176, 178–81, 185–7, 232, 236 Poseidon: 282 Proteus: 135, 211, 218–21, 223–5 Ptah: 32, 38, 137–40, 156, 211 Qadesh: 5 Re/Pre: 67, 99, 122, 134–6, 139, 142, 160, 196–7, 205, 214 Re-Harakhti/Pre-Harakhti: 31, 38, 213 Resheph: 5 Rhea: 7, 49, 52, 241, 243 Sabazios: 49 Sakhmet: 29, 138 Samanu: 5 Šamaš: 66–8 Sangḫulḫaza: 76 Sarapis: 68, 143, 155–6, 159, 172–3, 175–6, 178–9, 185–6, 206 Sasm: 285, 290 Saturn: 206 Selene: 50, 250 Seshat: 132 Seth: 5, 118, 153, 155–6, 158, 165, 193, 196, 203–4, 206, 215, 290 Seth-Typhon: 67, 203

Index of Names Shiva: 184 Shu: 139, 193, 195, 197, 203, 213 Sobek/Souchos: 198, 204–6, 211 Sobek-Geb: 204 Sobek-Re: 205 Sokar: 137 solar creator god: 131, 136, 159 solar god: 31, 67–8, 125, 130, 133–5, 139, 141–3, 145, 147, 155–7, 159–60, 163–6, 193, 196–7, 203–5, 243, 260–61, 263, 266–9, 287 Tatenen: 159–60 Tayet: 29 Tefnut: 193, 197–8, 202 Thetis: 218, 220 Thoth: 19, 37–8, 132, 151, 155, 157, 159–61, 164–6, 180, 203–4, 208–9, 213, 220, 233– 4, 236 Titans: 51–2, 54 Tutu: 164 Tyche: 178–9, 233 Typhon: 142 Typhon-Seth: see Seth-Typhon Venus: 241, 253, see also Aphrodite Yahweh: 68, 120, 137, 262–4 Zeus: 47, 51–2, 57, 61, 152, 161, 179, 181, 202, 204, 249, 251–2, 277

Persons (Including Heroes and Fictional and Mythological Characters) Abraham: 288, 290 Achilles: 221, 283 Agamemnon: 161 Agenor: 221 Agrippina: 173 Alexander the Great: 175 Alfonso the Wise: 260 Alkamenes: 182–3 Amenemhat I: 29–30 Amenhotep II: 5, 7 Ameni: 31 Amunnenshi: 29, 35 Anubis (Tale of the Two Brothers): 31–2, 214

Anu-ikṣur: 65 Apollonius of Tyana: 209, 218, 221 Ashurbanipal: 77 Astrampsouchos: 10 Augustus: 35 Baqa’, daughter of Aziza: 260 Bata (Tale of the Two Brothers): 31–2, 214– 15 Bēl-šumu-līšer: 65 Bentresh: 33 Bes (Story of Bes): 31, 35–6 Borsippa: 67 Bryaxis: 175

Index of Names Claudianus: 101, 115, 121 Claudius: 36 Clearchus of Methydrion: 183 Commodus: 181 Daniel: 288 Dardanos: 10, 233 Deianira: 251 Democritus: 101, 112, 114, 118, 121, 150, 281 Demodocus: 254 Diomedes: 252 Djoser: 156, 165 Domitian: 221 Elijah: 288 Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist): 289, 291 Enmerkar: 39 Ensuhgir-ana: 39 Erichtho: 280 Eucrates: 174–6, 185 Eurykleia: 223 Gilgamesh: 39 Hannibal: 43 Haryothes: 35–6 Hektor: 283 Hippolytus: 251 Horus-son-of-Paneshe: 37–9, 216–17 Horus-son-of-the-Nubian-woman: 36–9, 216–17 Ieu: 101 Imhotep: see under Deities Inaros: 36, 40 Iqīšâ: 65, 73 Isaac: 288 Ištar-šumu-ēreš: 69–70 Itti-Marduk-balāṭu: 65 Ixion: 248–9 Jacob: 10, 200, 288 James (apostle): 219 Jesus Christ: 21, 218–19, 288–91, 296 John (apostle): 219 John the Baptist: 288–9, 290–91 Joshua: 288 Justinian I: 277

367

Kiṣir-Aššur: 65 Lazarus: 290–91 Leo the Mathematician of Thessalonike: 280 Leo VI ‘the Wise’: 280–81 Lollia Paulina: 173–6, 185 Longinus, St.: 290 Lucius: 220, 253 Lugalbanda: 39 Lykourgos: 53 Makarios, St.: 223 Mariam: 296 Mary/Mother of God: 288, 296 Maṣliaḥ: 260 Medea: 7–8, 182, 251 Menelaos: 135, 223–4 Menena: 34 Merenptah: 31 Moeris: 220 Moses: 10, 101, 114, 116, 119, 199, 222, 263 Mousaios: 49–50 Nechepsos/Necho II: 10 Neferti: 30 Nestor: 284 Noah: 259 Ocyrhoë: 224 Odysseus: 7, 223, 284 Onchsheshonqi: 30 Orpheus: 45, 49–50, 281 Ostanes: 10 Patapius, St.: 290 Paul (apostle)/St. Paul: 291 Pay-iry/Mery-Sakhmet: 34 Penelope: 223 Periklymenos: 218, 220 Phaedra: 249, 251 Philinna the Thessalian woman: 10, 280 Phokas, St.: 290 Phylakis and Phylandros: 55 Pibechis: 101 Pitys the Thessalian: 10, 104 Pnouthis: 101 Proetus: 224 Ptolemy I Soter: 175 Pythagoras: 101, 114, 118, 121, 150, 224 Ramses II: 5, 36

368

Index of Names

Ramses III: 34, 95 Ramses IV: 34 Ramses V: 215 Romulus and Remus: 55

Tantalos: 216, 293 Tasis: 35–6 Tiresias: 7 Titus: 283 Tjekerbaal: 32 Trajan: 282–3

Sagburru: 39–40 Sarah: 288 Septimius Severus: 98 Setna Khaemwaset: 36–8, 209, 214, 216, 223 Simaetha: 249 Sinuhe: 29–30, 34–5 Siosiris: 36–8, 40, 214, 216–17, 223 Sisinnia: 289 Sisinnios: 288–90 Solomon: 10, 129–30, 259 Syrian woman of Gadara: 10, 71

Ur-ginuna: 39 Vespasian: 283 Wenamun: 32–3 Zoroaster: 286

Places Abusir el-Melek: 97 Abydos: 158 Acropolis: 182, 185 Aeaea: 7 Aidepsos: 283 Aitolia: 288 Aleppo: 206 Alexandria: 50, 98, 106–7, 122, 147, 175–6, 179 Amsterdam: 260 Anatolia: 64 Aphroditopolis (Atfih): 121 Arabia: 30 Aratta: 39–40 Ashkenaz: 264 Asia Minor: 166, 172, 174 Aššur: 65 Assyria: 63–4, 252 Athens: 101, 182, 242 Babylon: 65, 73 Babylonia: 63–5, 74 Bakhtan: 33 Boeotia: 179 Byblos: 32, 34 Byzantium: 277, 284–5, 291–2, 295–6 Cairo: 20, 259–60, 264 Carnuntum: 288 Castille: 260

Chimara: 283 Chios: 278 Constantinople: 277–8, 295 Crete: 52, 288 Cyprus: 33, 240, 245, 252 Dalmatia: 184 Delos: 180 Delphi: 51, 55, 173, 175, 185–6 Dendara: 242 Didyma: 172–3 Ebla: 63 Elephantine: 35, 138 Eleusis: 242 Eleutherna (Crete): 54 El-Kab: 211 Elyrus: 55 Emmaus: 219 Ephesos: 179 Epidauros: 165, 241 Euphrates: 64 Fayum: 97–8 Gebelein: 216 Gela: 181 Gurôb: 49 Hadrumetum: 101

Index of Names Ḫattuša: 64 Heliopolis: 192, 198, 203 Hermonthis: 14, 108, 119 Hermopolis: 37, 191 Himera: 46 Israel: 10 Italy: 264 Jerusalem: 130 Kaneš: 63 Karnak: 161 Kepoureio (Macedonia): 295 Kerkyra: 286 Klaros: 172–5, 185–6 Kolchis: 8 Kolophon (Ionia): 162, 173 Koptos: 204–5 Krokodilopolis: 216 Kulaba: 39 Kurdistan: 181 Kusai (El Quseyya): 121 Kush: 39 Kythera: 240 Kyzikos: 181 Levant: 5, 28, 31–2, 34–5 Libya: 5 Lokroi Epizephyrioi: 46–7 Luxor: 33 Magna Graecia: 52 Mari: 64 Media: 289 Mediterranean: 1, 2, 4, 46, 181, 239 – Eastern Mediterranean: 65, 78, 176, 183 Memphis: 108, 120, 137–8, 156, 166, 199 Meroë: 39 Mesopotamia: 3, 63–6, 70, 76, 149, 199, 243 Middle East: 78 Middle Egypt: 121 Mirgissa: 35 Mount Carmel: 219 Mount Ida: 242, 277 Mount Olympos: 245 Mount Ossa: 58 Mount Tmolos: 242 Namer (Syria): 290 Napata: 39

369

Nazareth: 218 Near East: 2, 11, 29, 39, 63, 70, 195, 238 Nile: 98, 120–21, 194, 209 Nile Delta: 28, 35, 133, 204 – Eastern Delta: 31, 33–4 Nineveh: 64, 65, 77 Nubia: 5, 28, 34–7, 40, 217, 223 Olympia: 152 Oxyrhynchus: 288–90 Palestine: 259 Paphos: 296 Pergamon: 165 Phalasarna (Crete): 46 Philae: 242 Pompeii: 172, 181, 289 Punt: 6 Ra-Sehui: 205 Red Sea: 163 Rhodes: 289 Rome: 54, 180, 286 Russia: 292 Salo (Dalmatia): 184 Selinus: 9, 42–3, 48, 182 Sicily: 43, 45, 53, 279 Sinai: 34 Skythia: 218 Spain: 293 Sri Lanka: 99 Sultantepe (Ḫuzirīna): 64, 72 Syria: 64, 74, 78, 96, 286 Tebtynis: 95, 126, 132, 139, 147, 202, 204 Thebaïs: 121 Thebes (Egypt): 12, 33, 35, 102, 106, 108, 126, 135, 215, 219, 221, 224 Thebes (Greece): 152, 242 Thessaly: 54, 58, 96, 220, 280–81, 291, 356 Ugarit: 64 Upper Egypt: 12, 102, 171, 209, 211–12, 214, 216, 220, 224, 247 Upper Retjenu (Canaan): 29, 35 Urfa: 64 Uruk: 39–40, 65, 69–70, 72–3 Yemen: 264

Index of Subjects acquatic animals and crustaceans: 146, 184, 210, 281–2, 294–5 agency: 229–30, 232–3, 237 aggressive magic: 74–7, 94, 117–18, 260, 277, see also curses and erotic magic alchemical texts: 107 amulets: 3, 21–2, 32, 37, 44, 72, 94, 98–9, 101, 103, 144–5, 148, 171, 177–9, 184–6, 200, 203–4, 222–3, 248, 276–8, 280, 283– 5, 288–90, 292, 294–6, see also phylacteries angels/archangels: 20–21, 100, 114–15, 119– 20, 122, 137, 141, 155–6, 178–9, 186, 233, 259–60, 262–4, 288–9, 291–2 – Gabriel: 155 – Michael: 119–20, 155, 262, 288 – Raphael: 155 animal material: 29, 44, 46–7, 49–55, 57, 65, 69, 99, 104, 118, 120–21, 133–4, 145–6, 161, 177, 202, 204, 215, 222, 236, 246–7, 255, 279, 281, 286–7 anti-witchcraft rituals: 65, 70–71, 75–6 apotropaic magic: see protective magic applied magic: 3, 6, 12, 21, 93–4, 96, 101, 103, 260, 262, 276 appropriation: 5–6, 95, 100–102, 120–22, 187, 237, 239 Aramaic magic and elements: 11, 65, 120, 198 assimilation: 3, 100, 121, 163, 179, 181, 186, 194, 243, 252–3, 290 astral bodies: 71, 73–4, 109, 114–15, 118, 132, 134, 136, 141, 156, 159–60, 163, 176, 182–3, 196–7, 199–200, 203, 205, 213, 222, 240, 243–6, 248, 253–4, 266–9, 280, 283–4, 286–7, 295, see also Ursa Major/Great Bear/Foreleg, Saturn (planet) and Venus (planet) astrology and astral magic: 71–74, 77–8, 82– 85, 98, 115, 118, 121, 150, 163, 174, 199, 205, 284 Bacchants: 54 binding (magical): 96, 223, 235, 248, 250,

280, 286–7, 295 birds: 30, 38, 48, 99, 104, 122, 145, 155, 159, 161, 163, 175–81, 197, 203, 208, 210–13, 215, 217, 219–20, 222–3, 232, 246–7, 249, 253–5, 278, 286–7 blame-shifting: see slander/διαβολή borrowing: 3–4, 11, 20, 22, 28, 62–3, 66, 77, 96, 225, 285, 292 boy medium: see divination, divination with (boy) medium burning (magical): 38, 157, 245, 250, 283, 291 business spells: 15, 18–19, 69, 96, 117, 177– 82, 185–7, 227–37, 289 Byzantine literature: 283 Byzantine magic and ritual: 3, 10, 22, 276–96 charakteres: 96, 99, 115–17, 230, 285–6 charitesia: 69–70, 73, 75, 77, 98, 117, 122, 138, 197 Christian tradition (and Christian elements): 3, 12–14, 20–22, 48, 92, 100, 103, 122, 130, 219, 223, 279–81, 283, 287–91, 296 clientele: 10, 14, 17–19, 42, 96, 98–9, 101, 105, 113, 117–19, 122, 186–7, 223, 230, 235–7, 249 coercive formulae: see compulsions compilation process (of magical handbooks): 3, 9, 13, 15–18, 20–22, 95–105, 113–19, 127–8, 130, 135, 138, 147–8, 192, 199– 201, 207, 261, 263–5, 269–70 compulsions: 13, 117, 131–2, 134, 150–51, 154, 243, 245–51, 255 consecration rituals: 19, 175, 177–8, 184, 186, 201, 233, 269 cosmogony/cosmology: 70, 103, 119–20, 132–3, 139–41, 192–3, 236, 253, 296 cultural fusion: 2–3, 11, 16, 18–19, 23, 100, 152, 159, 161, 166–7, 228, 234–6, 247 cultural plurality: 2–3, 9, 11, 16, 18–19, 22, 27, 32, 41, 63–4, 124, 146, 152, 166–7, 171, 176, 181, 184–7, 201 Cumaean Sibyl: 164 curse tablets: see defixiones

Index of Subjects curses: 35, 37, 96, 250–51, 260, 279–80 defensive magic: see protective magic defixiones: 8, 43, 66, 92, 97, 138, 250, 278 demon/daimon: 5, 33, 41, 46, 69, 76, 98, 100, 117, 119–20, 124, 128–30, 146, 183, 185, 187, 222, 244, 246, 262–3, 280, 288, 294 – of the dead: 70, 76, 117, 125, 142, 144, 227, 262 Demotic literature: 6, 30, 33–9, 199–200, 203, 208–9, 211, 214, 216–17, 223, 225, see also Egyptian literature dismissals: 131–2, 137–8, 144, 146, 148, 261 divination: 2, 10, 18, 21, 32–3, 35, 69, 71, 96, 99–100, 102, 107, 112, 115, 117, 125, 127–30, 132, 135, 144–5, 151–2, 162, 164, 171–2, 174–5, 185, 205–6, 218, 220, 260, 262–3, 280 – bowl divination, 99, 103, 118, 125, 127, 129, 137, 142–3, 145, 147 – deductive divination/omina: 42, 77, 147, 152 – direct vision: 99, 117, 121, 139, 172, 186, 201, 219 – divination with (boy) medium: 33, 103, 117, 119, 121, 125–6, 128–9, 137–9, 141, 145–6, 153 – dream interpretation: 35, 38, 99, 137 – dream oracles: 15, 17–18, 33, 99, 103, 114–18, 121, 124, 126–9, 133, 136–7, 142, 149–70, 173, 175–7, 185–6, 262–4, cf. also incubation – ecstatic divination: 32, 33, 173, 218, cf. also oracles (institutional), Greek – lamp divination: 15, 17–18, 99, 103, 121, 124–48, 151–5, 157, 165–6 – necromancy: 7, 142, 171, 280 – sunlight divination: 125, 139 divine epithets: 9, 11, 16, 19–20, 44, 52, 67, 98, 120, 134, 138–9, 141–4, 147, 153, 155–63, 172, 178–9, 182, 186–7, 191, 193–6, 198, 200, 239–43, 245, 249–50, 252–4, 265–70 divine iconography: 16, 18–19, 102, 141–2, 144, 155, 158–61, 163–4, 175–86, 202, 204–6, 229, 231, 235, 227–37, 247, 254, 292 Djed-pillar: 137 drawings (magical): 12, 16, 102, 104, 111– 12, 115–17, 119–20, 145, 155, 158–9, 162, 184

371

dream requests: see divination, dream oracles dream-sending spells: 116–17, 150 efficacy: 6, 10, 28, 45, 58, 94, 224, 228, 230– 35, 246, 251, 278, 283–4 Egyptian literature: 6, 19, 27–35, 37, 40–41, 97, 139, 194, 202–3, 205, 209, 211, 214– 16, 220, 224–5, 290, see also Demotic literature and hymns, Egyptian – funerary literature: 6, 19, 133, 136, 139– 40, 142, 146, 156, 164–5, 195–7, 201, 209, 211–14, 224 Egyptian magic, ritual and religion: 1, 3–8, 12–14, 17–20, 29, 31–9, 47, 64, 93–100, 103, 117, 120, 122, 128–9, 132–48, 152– 3, 155–61, 163–7, 171, 177–8, 181–2, 186–7, 191–207, 209–17, 220, 224–5, 230–31, 234, 236, 238–9, 241, 245, 247– 8, 253–5, 266–7, 290 Egyptian priests: 6, 8, 13–14, 18, 29, 36, 39, 94–5, 97–8, 134, 144–6, 187, 200, 202, 210, 221 Egyptian temples: 6, 12–14, 17, 37, 94–8, 104, 113, 120–22, 132–3, 144, 152, 161, 164, 187, 199, 242 Ephesia Grammata: see voces magicae, magical logoi epiphany: 125, 128–9, 133, 140–41, 146, 201 erotic magic: 2, 19, 22, 69–70, 75–7, 96, 98, 101, 103, 112, 114, 116–18, 121, 127, 179, 223, 235, 238–55, 277, 279, 296 exorcisms/exorcists: 11, 21, 63–5, 67, 69–70, 73–5, 77–8, 129–30, 280, 288, 291 eye-paint: see ointments figurines: 15, 18–19, 32, 70, 161, 171–87, 227–37, 289 Greek literature: 7–9, 19–20, 42, 46, 48–54, 58–9, 119, 147, 161–2, 174, 182–3, 194, 209, 211, 218–21, 223–5, 240–42, 245, 249, 251–2, 254, 280, 291, see also hymns, Greek, and Homeric verses/references used for magical purposes/in magical hymns Greek magic, ritual and religion: 3–4, 7–9, 12–13, 17–20, 42–61, 63, 69, 75, 95–8, 100, 121–2, 128–9, 145, 152, 155–6, 159– 67, 171–6, 179–84, 186–7, 201–2, 205–7, 218, 221, 228–30, 240–43, 245, 247–55, 269, 277, 280, 283, 289, 295

372

Index of Subjects

– in modern Greece: 277–80, 282–3, 286, 288–9, 291–2, 295–6

– Adonai: 100, 119–20, 200 – Sabaoth: 100, 119–20, 155, 185, 197, 200

healing spells: see iatromagic hemerology: 71–77, 79–85, 115, 118 historiolae: 44, 47, 53, 96, 234–5, 245, 249, 281 history of research: 11–15, 91–4, 106–9, 125, 210 Hittite magic and ritual: 11, 64, 66 Hk# (concept): 8, 14, 94, 215–16 Homeric verses/references used for magical purposes/in magical hymns: 135, 147, 161–2, 219–21, 276–7, 283–4, 296, see also Homeromanteion Homeromanteion: 109–11, 113, 115–17, 121, 276 hymns: – Egyptian: 134–5, 140–41, 194, 242, 253 – Greek: 20, 44, 46, 52–3, 59, 92, 98, 162, 172–3, 176, 229, 238–42, 245, 248, 251, 254, 269–70, 294 – magical: 16, 19–20, 44, 92, 98, 102, 108, 129–30, 135–6, 141, 147, 151, 158–63, 166, 173, 199–201, 219–20, 238–55, 267, 270 – Mesopotamian: 253

lamellae: 45–7, 49, 53–4, 99, 116, 232, cf.defixiones lapidary handbooks: 18, 171, 181, 184–6, 205 laurel: 18, 69, 121, 129, 151, 153, 161–2, 164, 166–7, 172–3, 175, 186, 283 layout and structure of magical papyri: 15, 17, 101–5, 111–16, 125–7, 129–30, 132, 262 lecanomancy: see divination, bowl divination lectional signs: 15, 17, 96, 109–10, 112–14 – paragraphos: 104, 109, 130, 150 legal and ethical restrictions (of magic): 8, 75, 77, 173–4, 227, 276 love spells: see erotic magic lycanthropy: 218 lychnomancy: see divination, lamp divination

iatromagic: 5, 22, 29, 33, 36, 53, 71, 75, 94, 98–9, 103, 115, 117, 119, 204, 218, 236, 277–84, 286–90, 292–6 identification: – between different deities: 5, 7, 19–20, 67, 156, 158–9, 162–6, 179–80, 193–5, 204, 234, 236, 238–9, 243, 247, 252–4, 290 – self-identification of the magician with divine entities: 13, 95, 133, 138, 143–4, 153, 158, 198–9, 201, 290–91 incubation: 18, 35, 37, 99, 149, 165–6, 173, 176–7, 185 insects and arachnids: 94, 98, 103, 111, 113, 116–17, 145, 156, 163, 176, 182, 211, 214, 285, 295 invisibility spells: 19, 38, 103, 114, 217, 221–3 Jewish magic and ritual (and Jewish elements): 3–4, 10, 12–13, 17, 20–21, 68, 99–100, 103, 119–20, 122, 130, 137–8, 142–3, 147–8, 153, 155, 157, 171, 186, 197, 200–201, 207, 222, 259–75, 277

Maat (concept): 30, 160, 165 magical gems: 15, 18, 66, 93, 97–8, 141, 164, 171, 175–9, 181–2, 184–6, 205–6, 278 magical implements: 149, 152 – bowls: 118, 125, 142, 145, 147, 172 – bricks: 18, 133, 151, 164–5 – inks: 151, 231, 293 – knots: 70, 120 – lamps: 17, 118, 120, 124–5, 128–30, 132– 3, 135–6, 138–42, 144, 147, 149–54, 157, 175, 180 – nails: 43, 118, 286 – rings: 70, 149, 151, 155–6, 174–8, 185, 197, 201, 269 magical words/names: see voces magicae magicians: see ritual experts/magicians mammals: 29, 44, 46–55, 57–61, 69, 98–9, 120–21, 133–4, 137, 142, 163, 177, 182, 186, 191, 201–4, 206, 208–15, 218–20, 222–4, 232–3, 235–6, 246–7, 254, 281–4, 286, 290, 293–5 medical spells: see iatromagic Mesopotamian literature: 11, 39–40, 65, 68, 250 Mesopotamian magic, ritual and religion (and Mesopotamian elements): 3–5, 10–13, 19, 21, 62–85, 147, 149, 185, 239, 243, 249– 50, 253 metals: 9, 11, 29, 43–5, 47, 49, 53–5, 57–8, 66, 93, 99, 118, 143–4, 151, 172–3, 177–

Index of Subjects 8, 184, 211, 215, 234, 248, 262, 284, 288, 290, 292–6 minerals and stones: 29, 43–4, 48, 53, 57–8, 69, 78, 93, 99, 139, 144, 155, 175–80, 182, 184–5, 197, 229, 232–3, 281, 293, 296 mummy/mummification: 29, 144, 177–8, 206, 248 mystery cults: 4, 9, 44, 46, 48–55, 58, 98, 238–9 myth: 1, 4–5, 9–10, 18–19, 44–5, 46–9, 51–5, 69–71, 142, 153, 157–8, 162, 202–4, 214– 15, 217–18, 221, 229, 231, 234–7, 241–3, 245, 248–50, 254, 281–3, 293 Netherworld: see Underworld Nubian magic and ritual (and Nubian elements): 4, 6–8, 10, 27–8, 34–40, 216–17, 223 Nun: 141 offerings (including sacrifice): 29, 32, 37, 45–6, 49–52, 57, 59, 98, 129, 133, 146, 151–2, 172–3, 177, 180, 197, 215, 233, 237, 245–8, 250–55 ointments: 97, 111, 118, 146, 151, 222 onomata barbara: see voces magicae oracles (institutional): – Egyptian: 158, 205 – Greek: 18, 42, 128, 152, 162, 164–6, 172– 5, 186, cf. also incubation Orion (constellation): 196 ‘Other’, perception of the: 1–4, 6–8, 10, 27– 41, 101, 146, 156 ouroboros: 112, 145, 197 palaeography: 17, 31, 65, 109–11, 206, 211, 262 paredros spells: 102, 156, 209–10 phylacteries: 18, 45, 69, 115, 117–18, 130– 32, 144–6, 151, 177, 179, 184, 202, 204, 206–7, 246, see also protective magic and amulets plants: 19, 69–70, 96, 114, 120–22, 132–3, 141, 145–6, 150, 154, 163, 172, 175, 177, 180, 205, 208, 211–12, 215, 219–20, 222, 231, 233, 246–7, 254, 276, 279, 281–4, 286–7, 289, 293, cf. vegetal material, see also laurel practitioners: see ritual experts/magicians primeval creation: see cosmogony/cosmology

373

prosperity spells: see business spells protective magic: 4, 7–9, 15, 18, 22, 32, 37, 39, 42–61, 66, 69, 74–7, 94–5, 98, 101, 103, 117, 144–6, 164–5, 171, 175–7, 179, 181–7, 198, 204, 236, 246, 277–80, 284– 6, 288–90, 295–6, see also phylacteries pseudepigraphy: 10, 97, 101, 156, 181 Pythia: 164, 175 reptiles: 29, 52, 94, 98, 103, 142, 156, 163, 176, 179, 183, 197–9, 204–5, 210–11, 214–15, 219–20, 234, 291–5 restraining anger spells: 69, 75, 77 ritual experts/magicians: 6–8, 10, 13–14, 17– 19, 32, 36–42, 48, 64, 67, 94–9, 101–2, 105, 115–19, 122, 125, 128, 134, 138, 141, 145, 152, 171–4, 187, 198–200, 202, 206, 209, 216–18, 220–21, 223, 225, 229, 231–3, 235–7, 242, 244, 247–52, 254, 261, 264, 270, 280, 286, 290–91, 296, see also witches ritual purity: 69, 95, 97, 134, 172–3, 255 sacrifice: see offerings (including sacrifice) Saturn (planet): 205 secrecy: 2, 13, 19, 32, 69, 100, 114, 174–5, 177, 180–81, 186–7, 204, 209, 236, 244, 255 separation spells: 75, 98 shape-shifting: 6, 19, 38, 40, 135, 208–26 slander/διαβολή: 30, 35, 75, 102, 118, 120 statuettes: see figurines syncretism: 17, 62, 64, 92–4, 100, 105, 147, 166, 210, 236, 238–9, 241, 243, 247, 249, 252–4 textiles: 99, 129, 144–5, 154, 157, 159, 172, 202, 280 Theban Magical Library: 12, 102, 106–8, 187, 208, 210 theogony: 51, 120, 192–3, 202 theurgy: 100, 102 threats (against divine entities): 13, 95, 153, 206, 248, 250, 255, 279–80, cf. compulsions translation (ancient) of/in magical/ritual texts: 11, 18, 64, 66, 74, 143, 187, 193–5, 207, 260 translation (concept): 14, 18, 160, 171, 179, 186–7, 238

374

Index of Subjects

transliteration (ancient) of words or magical/ ritual texts: 6, 11, 18, 21, 65, 133, 137, 139, 143, 178–9, 181, 191–3, 195, 197–8, 200, 244, 260–61, 263–9, 277, 285 tripod: 172–3, 175, 186 Underworld: 20, 62, 66–7, 70, 156, 160, 165– 6, 243 – Egyptian: 37–8, 142, 156–7, 159–60, 165, 197, 212–13, 216, 248 – Greek: 47, 52, 67, 160, 241–3, 252 uraeus: 29–31, 157, 254 Ursa Major/Great Bear/Foreleg: 71, 96, 118, 132, 146

201, 228, 230–35, 246–7, 252, 254, 280– 85, 289, 293, cf. plants, see also laurel Venus (planet): 253 vocalic sequences: 62, 68–9, 99, 111, 179, 182, 199–200, 231 voces magicae: 10–11, 13, 16–17, 19–22, 62, 67–9, 91, 96, 99–100, 102–4, 106, 109, 113–14, 119–21, 133–9, 141–3, 147, 150– 51, 154, 156, 178–81, 184–5, 191, 197–8, 228–35, 237, 243–4, 249–50, 252, 254, 262–4, 285, cf. vocalic sequences – magical logoi: 9, 47–8, 67, 119, 137–8, 143, 176, 250, 285 – palindromes: 96, 119

vegetal material: 7, 65, 69–70, 93, 97, 118, 120–21, 125, 132–3, 145–7, 151, 153–4, 162, 172, 175, 177, 180–81, 183, 185–6,

wax: 37, 65, 70, 176–81, 183–7, 228–30, 232, 234 witches: 8, 10, 75, 182, 280

Plates

Figs. C.A. Faraone, Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes

FIGURE 1: Sarapis enthroned with Kerberos (BM 30) (Photo: CHRISTOPHER A. FARAONE)

FIGURE 2A–B: Triple-headed god (BM 173) (Photo: CHRISTOPHER A. FARAONE)

Pl. I

Pl. II

Figs. C.A. Faraone, Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes

FIGURE 3: Pantheos on thunderstone from Roman Ephesos

FIGURE 4: Pantheos on protective amulet (BM 290) (Photo: CHRISTOPHER A. FARAONE)

Figs. C.A. Faraone, Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes

FIGURE 5: Triple Hekate statuettes (Reinach)

FIGURE 6: Roman plaque of Hekate (Vienna)

Pl. III

Pl. IV

Figs. C.A. Faraone, Cultural Plurality in Greek Magical Recipes

FIGURE 7A–B: Hekate / ORARA (BM 69) (Photo: CHRISTOPHER A. FARAONE)