Purity and Purification
in the Ancient Greek World
Texts, Rituals, and Norms
edited by
Jan-Mathieu Carbon & Saskia Peels-Matthey
Centre International d’Étude de la Religion Grecque Antique
Presses Universitaires de Liège
Liège, 2018
Table of Contents
Jan-Mathieu Carbon, Introduction: Probing the ‘Incubation Chamber’ .............................. 11
ConCePts, Continuities, and Changes
Robert Parker, Miasma: Old and New Problems .............................................................
Angelos Chaniotis, Greek Purity in Context: The Long Life of a Ritual Concept,
or Defining the Cs of Continuity and Change .................................................................
Pierre bonneChere, Pureté, justice, « piété » et leurs contraires :
l’apport des sources oraculaires .......................................................................................
Saskia Peels-Matthey, Moral Purity in the Athenian Theatre .........................................
23
35
49
93
hoMiCide, Morality, and soCiety
Hannah Willey, Social-status, Legislation, and Pollution in Plato’s Euthyphro ............ 113
Anne-Françoise JaCottet, La pureté des tyrannicides
ou quand la démocratie lave la souillure ....................................................................... 133
Irene salvo, Blood Pollution and Macedonian Rulers:
Narratives between Character and Belief ...................................................................... 157
rituals, behaviour, and abstinenCe
Stella GeorGoudi, Couper pour purifier ? Le chien et autres animaux,
entre pratiques rituelles et récits .................................................................................... 173
Marie-Claire beaulieu, Θεῶν ἅγνισμα μέγιστον : la mer et la purification
en Grèce ancienne ........................................................................................................ 207
Ivana and Andrej PetroviC, Purity of Body and Soul in the Cult of Athena Lindia:
On the Eastern Background of Greek Abstentions ...................................................... 225
10
Table of Contents
ContaCts and boundaries, deMons and ‘MagiC’
Athanassia ZoGrafou, Être pur pour réussir : le conditionnement de l’efficacité rituelle
dans les « papyrus magiques grecs » .............................................................................. 261
Miriam blanCo Cesteros and Eleni ChronoPolou, The Irresistible Attraction
of Purity: Accusations of Religious Transgression in Magical Texts
from Late Antiquity .................................................................................................... 281
Moshe blidstein, Demons and Pollution in the Ancient Mediterranean: Interactions
and Relationships ........................................................................................................ 299
List of Contributors ..................................................................................................... 315
Abbreviations and Bibliography .............................................................................. 319
Index locorum ............................................................................................................... 353
The Irresistible Attraction of Purity:
Accusations of religious transgression
in magical texts from Late Antiquity*
Introduction
The concept of purity is an essential component of religion and ritual practice. To be
pure, usually as the result of carrying out an established purification procedure, was
seen as a precondition of contact with deities, who had to be approached with the
greatest caution. In the margins of official religion, the magical tradition demonstrates
the same preoccupation with purity. The surviving testimonies of magical practice
exhibit a special concern with purity and purification, considering them as essential
for the execution of the spells. It is noteworthy that, especially in the corpus of the
magical papyri, the effectiveness of a spell seems to rely much on the purity of the
practitioner. The prominent role of the practitioner’s purity is demonstrated by the
numerous purification procedures which need to be undertaken before engaging
in magical practices. 1 The corpus often features the phrase “keep yourself pure”, 2
*
1.
2.
This article was written as part of the project FFI2011-27438 of the Spanish ministry of Economy
and Competitiveness. We are grateful to all the participants at 14th International Conference of
the CIERGA in Liège, and especially to Angelos Chaniotis and Ivana Petrovic for their useful
comments and ideas on our contribution. We owe special thanks to Korshi Dosoo for his kindness
in polishing our English and discussing with us some points concerning the magical material of the
paper. His comments have contributed to improving some parts of the paper. We are also grateful
to the editors of the volume, Mat Carbon and Saskia Peels because they helped us significantly
with their comments about ritual crimes and religious terminology. Unless otherwise specified, the
English translations of the PGM have been taken from betZ (1992) [1986].
E.g. PGM I, 40-42; PGM IV, 26-29; PGM IV, 733-737. Please note that these citations are
exemplary and not exhaustive. For a more detailed analysis of purification procedures in PGM, see
the contribution of Zografou in this volume.
Cf. προαγνεύσας PGM IV, 27, 52; ἁγνεύσας IV, 785; ἅγνευσον XIII, 347; φύλασσε καθαρός IV, 3085;
δ̣εῖ προαγνεύειν III, 306, etc.
282
Miriam Blanco Cesteros & Eleni Chronopoulou
sometimes accompanied by a description of purification procedure, 3 which usually
included sexual abstinence for a set number of days and a special diet with certain food
restrictions. One phrase from a spell for revelation belonging to PGM I summarizes
the highly important role of the practitioner’s purity:
ἀπεχόμενος ἀπὸ πάντων μυσαρῶν πραγμάτων καὶ πάσης ἰχθυοφαγίας καὶ πάσης
συνουσίας, ὅπως ἂν εἰς μεγίστην ἐπιθυμίαν ἀγάγῃς τὸν θεὸν εἰς σέ. 4
Although we never find a warning in Greek magical texts about the inefficacy of
the ritual if the practitioner is improperly purified, 5 it is easily deducible from these
kind of instructions: if purity is a requirement for the interaction with gods, impurity
is an obstacle.
In connection with the importance of purity in magical thought, we may note
that in some magical texts the practitioner denounces the supposed impurity of the
victim, or provokes the gods against someone by accusing him of religious crimes.
All the accusations that we have found belong to the same category of magical texts:
katadesmoi or defixiones, 6 “binding spells”. This kind of magical practice tries to restrain
a person for various “agonistic”, rivalry objectives—such as to hinder the words and
the acts of a rival, enemy or judicial opponent—but also erotic objectives—such as to
make another person fall in love with him or her, to turn away the sexual interference
of a competitor or to take revenge on an ex-lover. 7 As in judicial oratory, the context
of the “binding spells” is triangular. The defigens (“one who binds”) is the petitioner: the
person who writes or pronounces the curse and asks for the punishment of someone.
3.
Although quite often this is not accompanied by an explicit description, which implies that there
was a generally shared understanding of what purity consisted of; see e.g. PGM VII, 363: “[be] pure
in every respect” (καθαρὸς ἀπὸ παντός).
4.
“[you must remain] from all unclean things and from all eating of fish and from all sexual
intercourse, so that you may bring the god into the greatest desire toward you…” In this passage
of the PGM I, 290-291, a divine being can communicate with a human, grant his assistance and
fulfill the human request only if the magician has previously purified himself successfully in order
to deserve the divine attention.
5.
Although we never find this kind of advertisement in Greek magical testimonies, there is a passage
in PDM (Demotic magical papyri) where it is possible to find an explicit statement : “if you do nor
purify (it), it will not succeed; purity is its chief factor” (PDM XIV, 515). “It” here (lit. him) may
refer either to the ritual or to the boy medium used. Although PDM XIV is mainly demotic, it does
contain significant Greek material, and should be considered as belonging to essentially the same
milieu.
6.
Our selection of testimonies comes from two types of magical testimonies: on the one hand,
from texts (on papyri, ostraca, or metal or wooden tablets) produced during a concrete occasion
of magical ritual; they are examples of applied magic. Others come from the so-called “magical
handbooks” which give instructions for carrying out such rituals. Both of these can be found in
large corpora of texts such as PGM and SM. The difference between these groups is while in the
first, the binding spells contain the name of the victim and other specific information (personal
details), in magical handbooks the katadesmoi leave the name blank (we generally find the generic ὁ
δεῖνα in the place of the names).
7.
For more detailed information about defixiones and Greek love magic see faraone (1991).
The Irresistible Attraction of Purity
283
Gods are the “tribunal” which must be persuaded, those responsible for carrying out
the demand of the defigens. The last member of this triad is the person on whom the
god must act, who in magical studies is referred to as the “victim”. As far as the form
is concerned, binding spells are similar to the so-called “judicial prayers”, a category
of request in which an angry person claims justice from the gods for some grievance. 8
However, the difference between the two categories is quite clear: while the aim of
judicial prayers is the restitution of the damage committed against the petitioner (as
a request for divine justice), in binding spells the punishment of the victim involves
some advantage to the defigens.
The basic ritual procedure for a binding spell is the following. The defigens wrote
the curse on a metal tablet or a papyrus and deposited it, rolled or folded, in some
hidden place. Although only the name of the victim was required in order to make
it functional, the diachronic study of these magical procedures shows that the spells
and the rituals become more complex and the arguments used by the defigens more
sophisticated as time passed. 9 As far as the victim is concerned, the most popular
technique was one of the oldest resources of judicial and rhetoric oratory: the diabolē 10
(“slander”) which consisted in the creation of an emotional distance between the
tribunal and the opponent, usually by insisting on some unpleasant aspect of his
personality.
This paper will examine several examples used to achieve this end, focusing
on those spells in which the defigens mentions impious ritual actions and polluting
behaviors committed by the victim. It is not possible for us to know if the religious
accusations of the defixiones analyzed below were actually real or not, but in the context
of the magical practice in which they are included, most of these reports seem false.
In other words, they were simply a rhetorical instrument of the petitioner used to
convince the divine powers to react against the victim. Therefore, in this paper we
have focused on these in order to analyze how these kinds of arguments operate in the
8.
This genre of curse, an ambiguous type of request between magic and religion, was pointed out for
the first time by H.S. Versnel (see versnel [1991]), who proposed the name of “judicial prayers”.
Not all scholars agree with this categorization. versnel (1991), see especially p. 80-81, considers
them a “borderline kind of prayer”, not completely magical, but not religious either, due to their
similarities with certain defixiones, while faraone (1991), p. 81, does not hesitate to classify them
as magical (he also uses the term “revenge curses” to refer to them). However, both agree that the
“judicial prayers” are a different category from the binding spells. In these judicial prayers, not only
the Olympian deities claim justice. versnel in Some Reflexions mentions the Christian God, the sun
god and Theos Hypsistos (1991), p. 191-192; in Beyond Cursing he mentions the Mother of the Gods
(1991), p. 74, and Oserapis, p. 68-69 (this text really belongs to the Egyptian genre of letters to the
gods, which are usually written in Demotic, but there are also examples in Old Coptic and Greek);
then, in Prayers for Justice he mentions Isis (2010), p. 283-284, the underworld gods (p. 290-291) and
Attis (p. 300-301, 306) among others.
9.
See faraone (1991), p. 1-15; Chaniotis (2004; 2008; 2012).
10.
See Carey (2004) for a study of theoretical ancient perspectives on diabolē in ancient rhetoric and
in practical cases. For diabolē in magic, see herrero valdés (2011) for a general study and blanCo
Cesteros (2013) for an analysis of a specific case (PGM IV, 2574-2610 = 2643-2674).
284
Miriam Blanco Cesteros & Eleni Chronopoulou
frame of magic. We will examine the testimonies in two groups: in the binding spells
of the first group, the defigens labels the victim with adjectives relating to impurity and
terminology concerning ritual pollution and religious crimes, but does not specify
what this person had done to merit these appellations. In the second group, on the
contrary, the petitioner does detail what these behaviours consisted of.
1. A First Group of Texts
1a. In PGM IV 11 there is a love binding spell in which, after a long invocation
addressed to the goddess Hecate-Selene (2241-2334), the magical practitioner calls the
victim ἐχθρῷ τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ θεῶν, “enemy of the celestial gods” (2336) and exhorts
the goddess to be angry against him by the force of her Great name (2338-2340). The
practitioner does not give further explanation about why the victim is ἐχθρὸς τῶν ἐν
οὐρανῷ θεῶν. Though being ἐχθρός of the gods does not necessarily mean that the
victim had carried out punishable actions against gods, as we will see in the examples
of group 2, being ἐχθρὸς τῶν θεῶν implies that they merit a punishment for lack of
respect and piety towards the gods. The very imprecision of this accusation is more
appropriate than a real accusation would be in the case of a magic diabolē, in which the
defigens must create the appropriate context to convince the gods and to assure their
collaboration in order to guarantee the execution of the spell.
1b. Another love-curse from the same papyrus states:
ὁ δεῖνα ἐκ τῆς τροφῆς ἑαυτοῦ καταλείψανα δάκρυσιν ἔμιξεν καὶ στενάγμασι
πικροῖς, ὅπως αὐτὸν | καρπίσησθε βασάνοις ἐχόμενον, | ἥρωες ἀτυχεῖς, οἳ ἐν τῷ δεῖνα
όπῳ συν έχεσθε, λειψίφωτες ἀλλοιόμοροι· | τὸν δεῖνα καρπίσασθε τὸν πονοῦν|τα
καρδίαν, ἕνεκεν τῆς δεῖνα, τῆς ἀσεβοῦς | καὶ ἀνοσίας… (PGM IV, 1406-1411) 12.
As in the previous case, the victim is called ἀσεβής and ἀνόσιος by the magical
practitioner, but he does not explain why this woman is scorned in this way. However,
ἀσεβής and ἀνόσιος bring us into the world of religious concepts more lucidly than
ἐχθρὸς τῶν θεῶν.
An ἀσεβής person is one who commits ἀσέβεια, “impiety”, which according
to Aristotle is “an error concerning the gods or daimones or concerning the dead,
the father or the fatherland”. 13 There are several modern studies which attempt to
11.
PGM IV (P.Bibl.Nat.Suppl.gr. no.574; Anastasy 1073; TM 64343) has been dated to the late 3rd or
early 4th century.
12.
“He, NN, has mixed with tears and bitter groans leftovers from his own food, so that you, O
luckless heroes who are confined there in the NN place, may bring success to him who is beset
with torments. You who’ve left the light, O you unfortunate ones, bring success to him, NN, who
is distressed at heart because of her, NN, the ungodly and unholy. So bring her wrecked with
torment.”
13.
Arist. VV. 1251a 30: ἡ περὶ θεοὺς πλημμέλεια καὶ περὶ δαίμονας ἢ καὶ περὶ τοὺς κατοιχουμένους καὶ
περὶ γονεῖς καὶ περὶ πατρίδα; cf. Plb. 36.9: “Impiety means committing a wrong—ἀμαρτάνειν—in
respect of what is related to gods, parents and deceased persons”. There is a magical text where the
The Irresistible Attraction of Purity
285
define the term ἀσεβής and ἀσέβεια. 14 There is a consensus that these terms imply a
transgression of religious norms in relation to gods or humans. On the other hand,
ἀνόσιος, contrary to its antonym ὅσιος—an adjective whose precise meaning has
been subject to scholarly debate for decades 15—marks a person and his actions as
“impious” and entails a sense of religious censure. 16 In consequence, ἀνόσιος is used as
a very strong accusation connected with religious pollution: Tiresias accuses Oedipus
as ἀνοσιος μιάστωρ 17 of the country and Orestes’ matricide is branded as ἀνόσιος. 18
Therefore, although this curse does not explain why the practitioner describes
the victim as ἀσεβής and ἀνόσιος, the adjectives selected by the defigens mark her (the
victim) as undeserving of divine favor, and worthy of their anger and punishment. So
their argumentative function is the same as ἐχθρὸς τῶν θεῶν in the previous example.
It is clear that this accusation serves as a pretext and an excuse in order to ask from
gods to react and punish her by torturing her.
We may also observe that the use of δεῖνα instead of the name of the defigens and
the victim indicates that this text was used as a pattern, as a standardized model of a
curse in which the magical practitioner changed the name of the man and the woman
each time in order to adapt it to a new client. The formulary character of this text thus
reinforces the use of this kind of qualifying terms as a rhetorical device of magic to
turn the gods against the victim and not as a real religious accusation.
1c. The next example comes from Messina and is dated to the II c. AD. It is a defixio
against a woman named Valeria Arsinoe, SGD 114:
term asebeia is connected with an error concerning the father: [Ἀπελ]λῆς, ἢ ἀπὸ Ἁρποχρά|[του, ὃ]ν
ἔτεκεν Τερεῦς, | [ὄντος] κακ[ο]ῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ | ἀσ[ε]βοῦς εἰς [ἐ]μὲ τὸν | πα[τέ]ρα. ἀξιῶ σε, νεκύ|δ[αι]
μον, μὴ αὐτῶν ἀκοῦ|[σαι, ἀλλὰ μόνου] ἀκοῦσ[αι] | [ἐμοῦ, Νειλά]μ̣[μ]ω[νος], ὁσί|[ου ὄντος εἰς θε] ούς,
αὐτ[ο]ὺς | [δὲ ποιῆσαι ἀσ]θενεῖς εἰς | [τὸν ἅπαντα αὐτ]ῶν βίον. (PGM LI, 20-25). Besides the religious
fault that is implied by being ἀσεβής against a father, Nilamon contrasts the ἀσεβεία of his son
with his “piety towards the gods”, unnecessarily, because the fault of a son against his father itself
deserves divine punishment. However, Nilamon presents his testimony as more reliable than the
testimony of the others only because he is ὅσιος, while others are not.
14.
See deCharMe (1904), p. 141-79; derenne (1930); rudhardt (1960) p. 87-105; dover (1975),
p. 24-54; Mikalson (1983), p. 91-105; Peels (2016), p. 184-189.
15.
There is a debate about whether ὅσιος expresses an ethical value or a religious one; see Peels
(2016), p. 4-11. In very general lines, τὰ ὅσια is commonly considered a set of rules or laws of
commendable conduct (blok [2014], p. 20; Peels [2016], p. 3) and ὅσιος when applied to humans
means that they are respectful of these rules in a broad ethical, social, and religious sense. In
relation to the divine, being ὅσιος means observing the regulations, and is usually translated as
“pious”, but on the complexity of this term see Peels (2016).
16.
Peels (2016), p. 6.
17.
S. OT 353.
18.
E. Or. 545.
286
Miriam Blanco Cesteros & Eleni Chronopoulou
Βαλερίαν Ἀρσινόην τὴν σκύ|ζαν σκώλληκες {σκώληκες}, τὴν ἁμαρ|τωλὸν
Ἀρσινόην κ(αὶ) μελεάν. | Βαλερίαν Ἀρσινόην τὴν ἁμαρ|τωλὸν, νόσος, τὴν σκύζαν
{αν} σῆψις. 19
In this defixio the defigens used a variety of depreciatory adjectives to describe the
victim as an outrageous and evil person in order to provoke the wrath of gods against
her. Among these pejorative adjectives we come across with the word ἁμαρτωλóς.
Ἁμαρτωλóς, “wrongdoer”, is a deverbal noun from the verb ἁμαρτάνω, “commit an
error”. Although ἁμαρτωλός does not have direct relation with the sphere of the
religious values, J.H.M. Strubbe has collected a series of inscriptions from gravestones
from Lycia containing imprecations against potential violators of the tomb, in which
ἁμαρτωλός has replaced the usual ἀσεβής, “impious”. 20 However, the exact meaning
of ἁμαρτωλὸς is questionable in some of the examples given by Strubbe, as he himself
admits. Ηe concludes that in any case the term ἁμαρτωλός functions as a synonym in
these inscriptions for marked religious terms such as ἀσεβής or ἱερόσυλος.
As in the imprecations published by Strubbe, ἁμαρτωλός could function in this
defixio in the same way as the adjectives examined above—ἐχθρός τῶν θεῶν, ἀσεβής,
ἀνόσιος and μιαρός—and imply (inappropriate) religious behaviour censured by the
defigens to justify the divine punishment. In order to explain this unusual connotation
of ἁμαρτωλός it is possible to point out that this term is used in Genesis to describe
someone who commits an error against the god, 21 with the meaning of “sinner”. 22
Though the testimonies collected by Strubbe were pagan, in the cross-cultural
environment of late antiquity we cannot reject the possibility that this adjective
assumed a more concrete meaning through Christian influence.
1d. We can now proceed to more specific accusations by examining a curse tablet,
published relatively recently, from Antioch against Babylas the Greengrocer: 23
19.
“(I bind?) Valeria Arsinoe, the bitch, the dung worm, the criminal and useless Arsinoe. (I bind?)
Valeria Arsinoe, the criminal, sickness, the bitch, putre- faction” (transl. J. Gager).
20.
Funerary imprecations were inscribed as epitaphs on the gravestone in order to protect the tomb
against profanation. These kinds of religious malediction were strongly formulaic and were used,
with minimal variations, by pagans, Christians and Jews. In these inscriptions, the violator of
the tomb was usually named ἀσεβής, “impious”, or less frequently ἱερόσυλος, “sacrilegious”, so
strubbe (1991), p. 34, draws attention to the uncommon use of ἁμαρτωλός in the aforementioned
group of imprecations from the south coast of Lycia.
21.
οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ἐν Σοδομοις πονηροὶ καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἐναντιον τοῦ θεοῦ σφόδρα (Ge. 13:13), cf. LSJ
s.v. ἁμαρτωλός.
22.
It is also interesting to point note that in modern Greek the word ἀμαρτωλός refers to a transgressor
against divine commandments and one guilty of offense against God.
23.
The editio princeps of this curse was produced by hollMann (2011) who describes the tablet as
follows: “on the basis of the archaeological context it has been dated to the third or fourth century
C.E. It is inscribed on both sides by the same hand. Side A contains 28 lines of a curse directed
against Babylas the greengrocer, while side B contains a separate curse of 14 lines directed against
the same Babylas and written in larger letters than those of side”, cf. hollMann (2011), p. 157-165.
The Irresistible Attraction of Purity
287
… Ιαω | βάλῃ δῆσων σύ<ν>δησω<ν> Βαβυλᾶν | τὼν λαχανοπώλην ὢ<ν>
ἤτηκεν εἱ μιηρὰ μέτρα Διωνυσία εἱ κὲ | Εἱσυχία ὐκῶ<ντα> ἐν γιτωνία Μυγδ|ωνιτῶν·
ὡς ἔβαλες τὼ ἄρμα τοῦ Φαραῶνος, οὔτος βάλη τὶν δύσωληψιν αὐτοῦ ὦ βρώ<ν>των
καὶ ἀστ<ρ>άπτων Ιαω ὡς ἐξέκωψης τὰ πρωτότυκα τῖς Ἠγύπτου, ἄ<κωψων> τἄλογα
αὐτο<ῦ> τόσυν{ΟΣΤ} ὅς{ω}περ Η|Σ ἐν ἄρτι καὶ δῖσων κατάδισ|ων σύνδισων
κατάκλιν<ον>στρέ|ψατη κλαστήτωσαν μὶ δυ|νιθοῦσιν κινῖ<σ>θ<αι> τὰ αὐτοῦ
Βα|βυλᾶ τὰ ἄλωγα αὐτοῦ τόσ|ων ὅσ<ον> ἀποὺ τῖς ὥρας ταύτις | καὶ τῖς ἑμήρας
ταύτις ἤδη | ἤδη ταχὺ ταχὺ κακιμερίας | δισιμερίας π<λ>ήσατη τοῦ αὐτοῦ | Βαβυλᾶ
λαχανοπώλι ὢν ἤτηκ|εν Εἱσυχία. 24
The texts of these two curses are of interest to us for a number of reasons. As
Hollmann notes “while instances of μήτρα as the subject are encountered in cases
in which the name of the mother is perhaps unknown, 25 the qualification with the
epithet μιαρά is so far unattested and the combination and proper name unusual”. 26
The editor goes on to observe that “on an unpublished tablet that contains a curse
against the same Babylas and was found in the same context, μήτρα is followed by
the mother’s name in the genitive and it’s also qualified by the adjective μιαρά. On
both tablets, the qualification of μήτρα by the adjective μιαρά appears, however, to be
without parallel in magic texts”. 27
Μιαρός in its traditional sense has direct connotations of impurity and moral
pollution and means “impure, sacrilegious or offensive to moral feeling”, but it is
also employed with the meaning of “hateful and odious”. 28 Regarding this last sense,
as Dickey has observed, the most common insult, which occurs in authors of all
periods, is μιαρέ/μιαρότατε (as a vocative appellation); 29 we find it, for example,
in Aristophanes, where it occurs thirty-three times, implying comic reproach. This
distribution argues for the fact that, in the classical period, the use of these terms
24.
“Iao, strike, bind together Babylas, the greengrocer whom the polluted womb Dionysia, also called
Hesykhia, gave birth to and who lives in the neighborhood of the Mygdonites. As you struck the
chariot of Pharaoh, so strike his [Babylas] offensiveness. O thunder and lightning- hurling Iao, as
you cut down the firstborn of Egypt, cut down his [livestoke?] as much as … now, and bind, bind
down, bind together, lay out, twist, let them be broken, let them not be able to move, the livestock
of Babylas himself all the time from this hour and from this day, now, now, quickly, quickly, fill
with evil fortune and misfortune this same Babylas the greengrocer, whom Hesykhia gave birth
to!” (trans. A. Hollmann).
25.
There is a long-standing debate about the use of matrilineal identification in the magical context.
See Graf (2004), p. 146: “where you do not identify yourself with the name of your father but with
that of your mother: in short a reversed reality, the world of abnormality, the word of otherness.”;
Curbera (1999); cf. Chaniotis (2008a), p. 57: “And if you write the name of the victim with the
father’s name and not with mother’s name, the curse will fail if the victim is illegitimate.” Here
μήτρα apparently is a pleonasm because from the syntax it is clear that the mother of Babylas is
Διωνυσία.
26.
hollMann (2011), p. 160.
27.
hollMann (2011), p. 158.
28.
It also occurs with this meaning in tragedy, e.g. S. Ant. 746 and S. Tr. 987.
29.
diCkey (1996), p. 167.
Miriam Blanco Cesteros & Eleni Chronopoulou
288
belonged to ordinary language, rather than simply to elevated or polished prose. It
also seems to have been one of the more offensive terms, for forms of μιαρός can
constitute the climax of a series of insults in Aristophanes, as in Frogs, 465-6. In
classical prose μιαρός is found in Plato and the orators; in the orators it is a very
common epithet 30 used as a general imprecation when attacking opponents, 31 but
Plato used it only when Socrates spoke ironically, teasing people whom he had no
intention to offend, and here it assumes the meaning of “rascal”. 32 This evidence
suggests that calling someone μιαρός was an insult or a form of invective in common
parlance and as Adkins says “a piece of ordinary language”. 33
Thus, in the case of the defixiones against Babylas, the question that arises is: what
is the intention of the defigens here when using the word μιαρή? The fact that there is
no other parallel in magical texts reinforces the interest of the question. The answer
is not straightforward, but, in any case, the appearance of a low-register word such
as μιαρός in a text from a religious context, albeit marginal as a magical text, and
addressed to the gods, demands attention. A possible answer has been proposed by
the editor: “it is presumably meant to characterize Babylas’ mother and by extension,
Babylas himself as defiled. The defiled mother’s womb transmits the sin to the son
from the very first day of his existence. It is repeated on the above-mentioned tablet,
where the matrilineal identification clause appears as τοῦ ἱοῦ Εἱσυχίας ὣν ἤτηκην εἱ
μιηρὰ μήτρα. It is followed by the clause ἐν τῦς ἀδύτυς τενκιμήνη, which is read as ἐν
τοῖς ἀδύτοις τεκομένη, “giving birth in temple sanctuaries”, possibly a further attempt
to characterize the victim’s mother as “polluted”. 34 Giving birth in a sanctuary was
indeed a very grave offense—birth and dead were regarded as polluting events. When
the Athenians purified the sacred island of Delos, they removed all the existing graves
and henceforth neither death nor birth was to be permitted in this land. 35 Similarly,
those who had entered the home of a woman just having given birth could not enter
a sanctuary for several days, and new mothers and mothers and midwives had to wait
longer. 36
30.
In Dem. 25.28 the superlative μιαρότατος expresses at the same time the moral and the ritual
pollution of Aristogeiton but in ibid. 25.79 μιαρός is used only as term of opprobrium to censure
Theoris, cf. eidinoW (2016), p. 14 n. 15. In any case, there are no less than fifty occurrences of the
word in oratory, so it would take too long discuss all of them at appropriate length here. For a more
detailed discussion see Moulinier (1952), p. 180 n. 10.
31.
See doulaMis (2002), p. 68.
32.
Pl. Chrm. 161b, 174b; Phdr. 236e; see Press (2007), p. 69.
33.
adkins (1966), p. 96.
34.
hollMann (2011), p. 160.
35.
Th. 3.104.
36.
Parker (1996) [1983], p. 33-73, passim; lee (2012), p. 32; larson (2016), p. 138; Mikalson (2010),
p. 8; Johnston (2004), p. 508.
The Irresistible Attraction of Purity
289
1e. In comparison to the curses against Babylas, the following tablet is far more
anatomically specific, DTA 77 (Attica, 3rd c. BC):
καταδοῦμεν <Καλλιστράτην> | τὴν <Θεοφήμου> ∶ γυναῖκα καὶ | Θεόφιλον
τὸν Καλλιστράτης | κα[ὶ] τὰ παιδία τὰ <Καλλι>στράτης | καὶ [Θ]εόφημον καὶ
<Εὔστρατον> | ἀδελφὸν ․․․κ[α]ταδ[ῶ·] | τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ τὰ ἔργα αὐτ[ῶν] | καὶ αὐτοὺς
ὅλους καὶ τὰ τού[τω]ν | ἅπαντα. | καὶ τὰς ψωλὰς αὐτῶν καὶ τοὺς κύσθ|ους αὐτῶν
καὶ Κανθαρί[δ]α {καὶ} καὶ τὸν | Διονύσιον ∶ | <Κανθαρίδος>· καὶ αὐτοὺς | καὶ
τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν [καὶ ἔρ]γα καὶ | αὐτοὺ[ς] ὅλ{λ}ου[ς] | καὶ τὴν ψωλὴν καὶ | τὸν
κύσθον τὸν ἀνόσιον ∶ <Τλησία>|[ς κατ]άρατος· <Θεόφημον Εὔεργον | Κανθαρίδα
Διονύσιον>. 37
This binding spell seeks the punishment of a group of persons. It denounces their
souls—τὰς ψυχάς—, their actions—τὰ ἔργα—and, more generally, all that has to do
with them—καὶ τὰ τούτων ἅπαντα. After this virulent malediction, it interestingly
becomes more specific and “binds” their genitals. In the PGM collection, we often
find magical formulas designed to render someone impotent. Thus, although its
subject matter is of no great interest, the direct address of a god using such lowregister language is. He calls the female genitals κύσθον, an extremely offensive and
vulgar term, and continues by “adorning” the female genitals with the world ἀνόσιον,
“impure”. In the malediction we do not have any indication as to why the κύσθον
is described as ἀνόσιον, and we cannot be certain that it is simply an insult, with
no religious implications. 38 In other words, although this text is interesting, this last
testimony might be outside the scope of our topic, as here ἀνόσιος does not seem
to be employed with the goal of turning the gods against the victims. Thus, unlike
the defixiones against Babylas, in this case the terminology reveals only an attitude
of aggression on the part of the defigens. Indeed, the vulgar language—ψωλήν and
κύσθον—which the defigens chose to use to express himself, and the accumulation of
the “bindings” reveal anger and aggression. We might assume that if he wanted to
denounce inappropriate religious behavior he would be better off not addressing the
gods in such irreverent language.
2. A Second Group of Texts
In the following cluster of examples, the defigens is more precise in his accusations.
We do not have simply descriptive terms for the victim of the curse, but concrete
37.
“We bind (Kallistrate), the wife of (Theophemos) and Theophilos, son of Kallistrate, and the
children/slaves of (Kalli)strate both Theophemos and ( Eustratos) the brother … I bind their souls
and their deeds and their entire selves and all their belongings. And their penis and their vagina
and Kantharis and Dionusios, son of (Kantharis) both themselves and their soul, and deeds and all
their entire selves and (their) penis3 and unholy vagina. (Tlesia) (be) cursed.(Theophemos Euergos
Kantharis Dionusios)” (transl. J. Gager).
38.
On the use of ἀνόσιον more specifically relating to problematic behaviour in the realm of love,
marriage and sex, cf. Peels (2016), p. 40 n. 65.
290
Miriam Blanco Cesteros & Eleni Chronopoulou
denunciations about impious and sacrilegious actions against the gods, incompatible
with adherence to sacred laws. As 1b, texts nos. 2a and 2b are standardized models
of curses taken from magical handbooks. As we have seen previously, in these curses
the term δεῖνα denotes the place where the defigens should place his own name or that
of the victim in order to adapt the texts to his own use. This suggests that these texts
were of a formulaic or patterned nature, and that the accusations cited in them had
not actually been committed by the victim. They seem to serve as rhetorical devices
aimed at provoking divine anger and reinforcing the curse.
2a. PGM IV, 2574-2610 (h.Mag. XIX A ) = PGM IV, 2643-2674 (h.Mag. XIX B)
Ἡ δεῖνά σοι ἐπιθύει, θεά, ἐχθρόν τι θυμίασμα· | αἰγὸς στέαρ τῆς ποικίλης καὶ
αἷμα καὶ δύσαγμα, | ἰχῶρα, κύνεον ἔμβρυον καὶ ἰχῶρα παρθένου ἀώρου | καὶ καρδίαν
παιδὸς νέου σὺν ἀλφίτοις μετ’ ὄξους | ἅλας τε καὶ ἐλάφου κέρας σχῖνόν τε μυρσίνην
τε, | δάφνην ἄτεφρον εὐχερῶς καὶ καρκίνοιο χηλάς, | σφάγνον, ῥόδον, πυρῆνά σοι καὶ
κρόμμυον τὸ μοῦνον | σκόρδον τε, μυγαλοῦ κόπρον, κυνοκεφάλ<ε>ιον αἷμα | ὠόν τε
ἴβεως νέας, ὃ μὴ θέμις γενέσθαι, | ἐν σοῖς ἔθηκε {και} βωμίοις ξύλοις ἀρκευθίνοισιν.
| ἡ δεῖνα σὲ δεδρακέναι τὸ πρᾶγμα τοῦτ’ ἔλεξεν· λεξκτανεῖν γὰρ ἄνθρωπόν σ’ ἔφη,
πιεῖν <τὸ> δ’ αἷμα τούτου, | σάρκας φαγεῖν, μίτρην δὲ σὴν λέγει τὰ ἔντερ’ αὐτοῦ, |
καὶ δέρμ’ ἑλεῖν δορῆς ἅπαν κεἰς τὴν φύσιν σου θεῖναι | ἱέρακος αἷμα πελαγίου, τροφὴν
δὲ κάνθαρον σήν. | ὁ Πὰν δὲ σῶν κατ’ ὀμμάτων γονὴν οὐ θεμιτὸν ὦσεν·σεἐκ>γίνεται
κυνοκέφαλος ὅλῃ τῇ μηνιαίᾳ. σὺ δ’ […invocation of the goddess Persephone-HecateSelene and voces magicae…] τεῦξον πικραῖς τιμωρίαις τὴν δεῖνα τὴν ἄθεσμον, | ἣν πάλιν
ἐγώ σοι κατὰ τρόπον ἐναντίως ἔλεξα λέγει πρὸς τὴν θεὸν ἄθεσμα, | ἀναγκάσει γὰρ τῷ
λόγῳ καὶ τὰς πέτρας ῥαγῆναι. 39
In this detailed curse, the magical practitioner denounces to Persephone-HecateSelene a woman (the victim) describing her as ἄθεσμος, “lawless”, but unlike in the
previous group of testimonies, here the defigens explains why he calls her ἄθεσμος:
she had committed ritual crimes by sacrificing to the goddess inappropriately with an
hostile incense—ἐχθρόν θυμίασμα—and she spoke blasphemies against the goddess
39.
“For you the woman NN burns some hostile incense, goddess; The fat of dappled goat, and
blood,| defilement, embryo of a dog, the bloody discharge of a virgin dead untimely, a young boy’s
heart, with barley mixed in vinegar, both salt and a deer’s horn, mastic, myrtle and dark bay, and
mix at random, and crab claws, | sage, rose, pits for you and single onion, garlic, mouse pellets,
dog-faced baboon’s blood, and egg of a young ibis and what is sacrilege, she placed these on your
wooden altar of juniper. She, NN, | said that you had done this matter; For she said that you slew
a man and drank the blood of this man and ate his flesh, and she says that your headband is his
entrails, that you took all his skin and put it into your vagina, | [that you drank] blood of a sea
falcon and your food was dung beetle. And Pan before your very eyes shot forth his seed unlawful:
A dog-faced baboon now is born from all the menstrual cleansing. But you AKTIOPHIS Mistress,
Selene,| only ruler, the Fortune of daimons and gods, mark her, NN, the lawless one, with bitter
| retributions. Whom I again will duly charge to you in hostile manner (of all unlawful things that
she has said against the goddess detail as many as you want), for by the spell she forces even the
rocks to burst asunder.”
The Irresistible Attraction of Purity
291
(e.g. the goddess murdered a man, ate his flesh, 40 wore his entrails as a headband, took
his skin and put it into her vagina, she drank blood of a sea falcon, her food was dung
beetle). 41
Discussing and explaining thoroughly all the elements of this diabolē would take
too long, and so for the sake of brevity, we are going to stress only a few of the main
points of this accusation. First, the hostile offering, supposedly made by the victim,
contains substances prohibited in regular Greek religious practices such as dung 42—
κόπρον—and dirt—δύσαγμα. The impiety comes from mixing lawful and unlawful
substances but it is noteworthy that some components of this ἐχθρὸν θυμίασμα may
be found in other magical practices. 43 It seems that the magical practitioner who
composed this curse was aware that some ingredients used in magical rituals infringed
on religious norms. In addition to the obvious impropriety of the offer of human
remains—παρθένου ἀώρου καὶ καρδίαν παιδὸς νέου—, 44 we find the mentioned ritual
40.
At least in Greek tradition, although the anthropomorphic perception of the divine made people
imagine gods sharing their wishes, impulses and some of their biological functions (sexual activity,
giving birth, sleeping, eating food) with humans, they still differed from them a great deal. Regarding
food, for example, in the Iliad it says that “they do not eat bread and drink wine, and therefore are
bloodless and immortal” (Hom. Il. 5.341ff.). In this case, perhaps the blasphemy consists not only
in the killing of a mortal (in Greek myths there are several examples of humans killed by gods so
this action is not specially surprising from the point of view of ancient Greek mentality), but also
on the fact that the goddess ate him. The myth of Lycaon provides us a similar—not identical—
example, which underlay the seriousness of this accusation. Lycaon was terribly punished by Zeus
when he tried to mock the god by serving him as meal the roasted flesh of his son Nictimus. Apart
from the cruelty of Lycaon towards his own child, Lycaon was also punished because he tried to
deceitfully trick Zeus into commiting an act which would be unbefitting of his status. For this myth
see burkert (1973), p. 83-92.
41.
An alternative interpretation of this passage is suggested by Korshi Dosoo (private communication),
who suggests that the crime that the victim is being accused of here is not inventing “blasphemies”
about the goddess, but rather revealing (perhaps in a sensationalised manner) a sacred myth
associated with a particular mystery, a hieros logos which should be revealed only to the initiated
(compare the similar accusation in PGM IV, 2467-2469); he points to the consumption of the seafalcon and scarab (solar symbols), and the association of the birth of a baboon (a lunar symbol)
with the monthly menstruation of the goddess, as suggestive of an aetiological myth, and to the use
of “flesh-eater” (σαρκοβόρα, σαρκοφάγος; PGM IV, 2486, 2866) as an epithet for Hekate-Selene
in contexts where no insult is suggested, as hints that the goddess may have been understood as
actually having carried out the acts ascribed to her—killing a man, drinking blood and eating flesh,
and so on.
42.
For the impurity of these substances see Parker (1996) [1983], p. 360;
p. 28-31.
43.
In fact, the shrew, the dappled goat’s fat, the river crab, ibis’ eggs and dung can be found in
PGM IV, 2455 and 2870; moreover, the magician employs the magical material of a dead dog and
of an untimely dead virgin; for the vegetable ingredients, besides the examples quoted above, cf.
PGM IV, 936 and 1341. However, some of these components (myrrh, garlic, single onion, etc.) are
very common in magical rituals.
44.
The “essence of a virgin and the heart of a young boy” lead us once again to magical practice where
the use of elements coming from corpses is not unusual; in fact, these kind of magical ingredients
are generically referred in magical praxis as οὐσία. On the other hand, their origin from a virgin and
von
ehrenheiM (2011),
Miriam Blanco Cesteros & Eleni Chronopoulou
292
material coming from some animals such as a dog and a goat, animals not always but
occasionally prohibited from the altar. 45 In a broad sense, this θυμίασμα was to be
seen as polluted and polluting.
In this diabolē one ritual act is especially emphasized by the defigens as being contra
lege —ἃ μὴ θέμις—and it seems to be in connection with the offer of ibis’ eggs —
ὠόν ἴβεως ἔθηκε ἐν σοῖς βωμίοις—. In another similar diabolē of PGM 46 the victim,
called hateful and impious—ἐχθρὰς καὶ ἀσεβής—by the defigens, is also denounced
for offering unlawful eggs—τὰ ἀνόμιμα ᾠὰ θύεται—to the goddess Hecate-Selene, an
action described as ἀνομία in the curse. We do not know if the eggs offered in this
second testimony are also of ibis, but this bird was known to be sacred in Egypt 47
and it seems that in the context of religious Egyptian beliefs, ibis’ eggs could not be
offered in sacrifice because it was like killing the future ibis.
2b. PGM IV, 2466-2488:
βαίνω γὰρ | καταγγέλλων τὴν διαβολὴν τῆς μια|ρᾶς καὶ ἀνοσίας, τῆς δεῖνα·
διέβαλεν γάρ | σου τὰ ἱερὰ μυστήρια ἀνθρώποις εἰς | γνῶσιν. ἡ δεῖνά ἐστιν ἡ εἰποῦσα
ὅτι—’<οὐκ> ἐγώ εἰμι εἰποῦσα ὅτι· ἐγὼ ἴδον τὴν μεγίστην | θεὸν καταλιποῦσαν
τὸν πόλον τὸν οὐ|ράνιον, ἐπὶ γῆς γυμνοσάνδαλον, ξιφη|φόρον, ἄτοπον ὄνομα
<ὀνομά>σασαν’. ἡ δεῖνά ἐστιν | ἡ εἰποῦσα· ‘ἐγὼ τ<ὴν θεὸν> αἷμα πίνουσαν.’ | ἡ
δεῖνα εἶπεν, οὐκ ἐγώ … βάδισον πρὸς τὴν δεῖνα καὶ βάσταξον αὐ|τῆς τὸν ὕπνον καὶ
δὸς αὐτῇ καῦσιν ψυ|χῆς, κόλασιν φρενῶν καὶ παροίστρη|σιν, καὶ ἐκδιώξασα αὐτὴν ἀπὸ
παντὸς | τόπου καὶ πάσης οἰκίας ἄξον αὐτὴν ὧδε, | πρὸς ἐμέ, τὸν δεῖνα. 48
In this diabolé, coming from a love curse, the defigens denounces a defiled and unholy
woman—μιαρᾶς καὶ ἀνοσίας—accusing her that she “slandered the holy mysteries to
a young boy fit in with the magical preference for a special kind of deceased called in magical texts
as ἄωροι. Their classification, consideration and evolution in the Greek culture and their function
in magic has been studied by Johnston (2013), p. 71-81, and 161-199, especially for the female
untimely dead (maidens who died before marriage and childless women).
45.
Sacrifices required certain animals and occasionally prohibited others. Species sometimes excluded
were pigs and goats (perhaps because of their nutritional habits, which include dung). Dogs were
banned from many temples and shrines, but the Greeks lacked any consistent rules of this sort. For
an extensive discussion of these issues, cf. Parker (1996) [1983], p. 257-365.
46.
PGM XXXVI, 138.
47.
The ibis was bred and nurtured in Thoth’s temples, and mummified with the same attention to
ritual given to humans. Τhe ibis was sacrificed in Egypt and the priests looked after its eggs with
special care. They were removed and incubated, and sterile eggs were buried; cf. sCalf (2012),
p. 33; ikraM (2012), p. 43.
48.
“For I come | announcing the slander of NN, a defiled and unholy woman, for she has slanderously
brought your holy mysteries to the knowledge of men. She, NN, is the one, [not] I, who says, ‛I
have seen the greatest | goddess, after leaving the heavenly vault, on the earth, on earth without
sandals, | sword in hand, and [speaking] a foul name’. It is she, NN, | who said it, not I, (voces
magicae) flesh eater. Go to her NN and take away | her sleep and put a burning heat in her | soul,
punishment and frenzied passion in her thoughts | and banish her from every place and from every
house, and attract her here | to me, NN.”
The Irresistible Attraction of Purity
293
the knowledge of men”—διέβαλεν γάρ σου τὰ ἱερὰ μυστήρια ἀνθρώποις εἰς γνῶσιν—
and the goddess herself, claiming that the goddess came down to earth, barefoot, and
she drank blood.
In this case, we want to focus on the accusation of slandering a sacred mystery.
We know that the mysteries were protected by rules of secrecy 49 by testimonies as
Lysias 50 or the citizen’s oath from Chersonesus. 51 The inviolability of this secrecy
was a religious precept equally protected in the profane and religious sphere by
civic laws and gods. Therefore, the woman who reveals the unspeakable mysteries
in Thesmophoriazusae becomes ἀσεβής 52 that is, she transgresses a religious norm and
commits a crime against the gods and the city. In 415, the parody of the Eleusinian
mysteries was seen as a religious profanation and the Athenian priests publically cursed
the offenders and invoked the divine anger—the ἄγος—against them. 53 This is exactly
what the magician does in this curse: he denounces a woman who has defamed the
mysteries 54—thus she is μιαρή καὶ ἀνοσία—and he asks for her to be punished by
the goddess. The defigens even claims that “he is going to speak with holy voice” (ἱερὰ
φωνή). Through this juxtaposition of the “accused”, μιαρά, and ἀνοσία—because of
her acts and blasphemies—and the “prosecutor” who utters holy words, it seems that
the defigens goes beyond the role of a particular complainant and assumes the role of
a sacred officiant—as befits the seriousness of the matter—, like the Athenian priests
in the parody of the Eleusinian mysteries mentioned above. In fact, in the context of
magic, magicians often declare to be various kinds of official priests 55 and in this role
he speak with “holy voice”. 56
2c. Curse tablet against Nikomedes found in Rome, DT 188, l. 6-13 (4th c.? AD):
49.
breMMer (2014), p. 10-15.
50.
Lys. 31.31.
51.
SEG 3, 602 / IosPE I2 401 (3rd c. BC), ll. 24-26: καὶ τὸν ΣΑΣΤΗΡΑ (σωτηρία?) τῷ δάμῳ διαφυλαξῶ
καὶ οὐκ ἐχφερομυθησῶ τῶν ἀπορρήτων οὐθὲν οὔτε ποτὶ Ἕλλανα οὔτε ποτὶ βά[ρ]βαρον, ὃ μέλλει τὰμ
πόλιν βλάπτειν. See Parker (1996) [1983], p. 194 n. 16.
52.
Ar. Th. 363. See breMMer (2014), p. 10-15, passim.
53.
Lys. 6.51; Plu. Alc. 22.5. About the scandal of the Eleusinian mysteries see Parker (1996) [1983],
p. 191-192; breMMer (1995), p. 70-78.
54.
We could not know if she has revealed secrets or has slandered the mysteries.
55.
E.g. the magician claims to be a προφήτης of Apollo (PGM III, 257); μυσταγωγὸς πραγμάτων
ὑπουργός καὶσυνίστωρ of Persephone (PGM IV, 2250), etc. For the self-identification of magicians
with sacerdotal categories see dieleMan (2005), p. 203-211; ZaGo (2010), p. 144. Frankfurter
has expressed the opinion that some of the magicians in Roman Egypt were previously priests in
Egyptian temples, obliged to become magician because of the economic decline of the temples in
the Roman period; cf. frankfurter (1997).
56.
E.g. PGM IV, 870; PGM I, 299.
Miriam Blanco Cesteros & Eleni Chronopoulou
294
[…] παράλαβε Νεικομήδην δειώκ[ων] | καθημερινὰς δὲ †ἀρὰ γεγας† | τώνδε τὼν
ἄνωμων καὶ ἀσε[βῆν], | ὥτι οὗτώς ἐστιν ὡ κ[α]ύσας τὼν | παπυρῶνα τοῦ Ὠσείρεως κ[αὶ]
| φαγὼν τὰ κρέα τῶν ἰχθύων τῶ[ν̣ ἱερῶν ? | παρ]άλαβε τὸν Νεικωμήδην, ἣν ἔτεκα […]. 57
This curse is adressed to one of the untimely dead—an ἄωρος (l. 1) 58—and Osiris
(and Typhon?) 59 in order to punish Nicomedes, who is accused of being “impious
and sacrilegious”—ἄνομος 60 and ἀσεβής—by the defigens. His crimes are burning “the
papyron of Osiris” and eating a (sacred?) fish.
To begin with this last accusation, having eaten fish, we have to stress that this
is not the only passage in Greek magical texts in which the fish taboo appears. 61
However, it is risky to make generalizations about the ban of eating fish in Ancient
Egypt, as well as in Greece. 62 What was a sacred fish in some cults was not sacred in
other religious communities. 63 Moreover, the abstinence from some types of fish was
also observed as a purity requirement in some Greek cults. 64 In any case, these ritual
prohibitions were linked with particular cults or beliefs and the taboo arises for two
main causes: because some kinds of fish were considered (a) sacred or (b) unclean
in the context of specific rites. 65 Still, compared with the revelation of ritual secrets
57.
“Take over Nikomedes, drive daily incurable (fevers) onto this wicked and impious one, for he it is
who burned the papyrus boat of Osiris and ate the flesh [of the sacred] fishes, Nikomedes, whombore, for I adjure you, then, ghost, to…” (trans. D. Jordan with exception of the word “sacred”;
Jordan restores the text as [ἀλαβήτων]).
58.
See above n. 44 for this special kind of deceased’s spirits in magic and related bibliography.
59.
The text reads τοῦ Τύσων[ος] (l. 3). Audollent corrects to the name Typhon (cf. DT 188 ad loc.),
but not all of the editors agrees with this. For example, lóPeZ JiMeno (2001), p. 193, understands
Τύσων[ος] as the name of the invoked deceased.
60.
τώνδε τὼν ἄνωμων = τόνδε τὸν ἄνομον, cf. DT ad loc. The confusion of o and ω is very frequent in
this text.
61.
The fish taboo appears also in PGM I, 120, where the magician invokes a spirit that brings all kinds
of food, with the single exception of fish; and in PGM I, 290, where the magician equates eating fish
to sexual intercourse in the prescription of a series of abstinences for purification before the rite.
62.
See below n. 64.
63.
According to Herodotus, Egyptian priests were not allowed to eat fish (Hdt. 2.37.4) and some fish
were sacred (2.72)—for example, we know that in Esna perch was not eaten and was mummified
(Pilsbury 2006, p. 244; beatens 2013, p. 17-23). But, on the other hand, Herodotus also says that
in Egypt there were people who live on fish alone (2.77.15). The species of fish, here described
only as “holy”, was probably important, although the reference here may perhaps be understood as
an Egyptianising topos; see Plu. Mor. 353c-e, 358a-b, 363e-364c and especially the commentary of
Griffiths, De Iside, p. 277-278, 342-344, 548-549.
64.
Aelian, referring to the Eleusinian rules, says that dogfish were considered unclean, because they
give birth through their mouth. According to the Cratinos, to participate in the cult of Trophonius,
the worshipper could not eat the red-skinned aixoniantriglē, the trygōn and the melanouros; cf. Parker
(1996) [1983], p. 357-365 passim; (2008).
65.
For this reason, the restoration of Audollent, τῶν ἰχθύων τῶ[ν̣ ἱερῶν], although possible, is not
certain.
The Irresistible Attraction of Purity
295
or attacking religious images and symbols—as we will see below—, there is nothing
intrinsically impure about eating fish. 66
On the other hand, the papyrōn refers to a boat of papyrus, in this case a boat
related with Osiris. So, if the previous cases refer to ritual taboos, in all probability,
the burning of the Osiris’ papyrus boat alludes to an attack against a ritual object: a
sacred boat. In fact, the sacrilege against the boat of the god Sun (in this case, Helios)
appears again in another report of ritual crimes, 67 where a crime “against your sacred
statue” is also attested:
2d. PGM III, 111:
αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἱ ἀδικήσαντές σου τὸ ἱερ[ὸν] εἴδωλον, α[ὐ]τοὶ γὰρ οἱ ἀ[δ]ικήσαντες
[τὸ ἱερὸ]ν πλοῖον. 68
There are several different papyrus boats associated with the sun gods of Egypt.
On the one hand, it is highly possible that this boat was a representation of “the
solar bark”, the boat in which the Egyptians solar gods—Ra, Osiris, 69 “egyptianized”
Helios, etc.—returned every night to east after sunset. 70 However, it could be also
the funerary boat of Osiris, represented in some magical gems of the second-third
century AD carrying the god’s mummy; 71 it was also mentioned in the mysteries of
Abydos, where the worshippers carried the mummy of Osiris in a funeral procession
on the Neshmet-barque that simulated Osiris’ travel through the Underworld. 72
Perhaps the most famous sacrilege against a sacred image in Greek history was
the mutilation of the Herms in Athens in 415 BC. 73 This event demonstrates how
66.
For this reason Parker considers this a “minor sacrilege”, cf. Parker (1996) [1983], p. 145 and 357.
67.
There may be another attestation in another text, a very damaged curse on papyrus whose
restoration is based on the defixio of Rome discussed above: σοὶ λέγω, τῷ ἀώρῳ, τῷ κ[ληθέντι καὶ
παρει]|λημμ̣ένῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀνό[μου Τυφῶνος· ἐπιτάσσει σοι] | ὁ μέγας θεός, ὁ ἔχ[ων ἄνω τὴν κατεξουσίαν
καὶ τὸ βα]|σίλειον [τ]ῶ(ν) νερτέ[ρων θεῶν· παράλαβε τόνδε τὸν ἄνο]|μον [καὶ ἀσε] βῆν, ὅτι οὗτ[ός
ἐστιν ὁ καύσας τὸν παπυρῶ]|να τ[οῦ Ὀσείρεω]ς καὶ φα[γὼν τῶν ἰχθύων τῶν ἱερῶν. παρ]|άλαβ[ε …]
(PGM LVIII, 9-14). If this restoration is accurate, both texts would be based on a standardized
curse.
68.
“For it is those same people who have mistreated your holy image, they who have mistreated [the
holy] boat” (transl. J.M. Dillon).
69.
Originally Osiris was a chthonic divinity but in late antiquity he was closely associated with solar
gods maintaining his connection with afterlife; from at least as early as the New Kingdom the sungod was believed to unite with Osiris each night as part of his journey through the netherworld; see
niWinski (1987-1988).
70.
PinCh (2002) s.v. solar bark (sun boat).
71.
bonner (1932) d-1600, d-462, d-1601.
72.
These mysteries consisted of several ceremonies and processions in memory of episodes of
the Osirian myth, including his dead and his process to resurrection, cf. PinCh (2004), p. 123;
Wilkinson (2003), p. 122.
73.
Plu. Alc. 18.5-8; And. De mysteriis; Th. 6.27-29; cf. Parker (1996) [1983], p. 168-70; for more details
about the events of 415 B.C in Athens—the mutilation of the Herms, the accusation of Andocides
and the parody of the Eleusinian mysteries—see also furley (1996) and haMel (2012).
Miriam Blanco Cesteros & Eleni Chronopoulou
296
serious this kind of sacrilegious act in Antiquity was, as well as its religious and social
consequences. 74 Greeks and Egyptians considered attacks against cultic images and
objects especially disrespectful. It was not a simple violation of religious rules, as was
the use of banned elements in offerings, or the defamation of sacred mysteries, but
a direct offence against the gods. This form of sacrilege is so terrible that no form of
purification is attested for it. It is inexpiable; the person who commits it is instantly
and drastically punished by the offended god. 75 Therefore, accusing someone of this
kind of act went beyond the justification of a divine intervention; by its serious nature,
it implies the punishment itself. This type of attack against gods spurns established
order, and the divine anger may be automatically directed towards the perpetrator (in
the case of a magical diabolē, the victim).
Conclusions
In this article, we have tried to understand the deeper function of a series of binding
spells in which the victim is described using terms belonging to the field of religious
transgressions and impurity—e.g. ἐχθρός τῶν θεῶν, ἀσεβής, ἀνόσιος, and related
adjectives, such as ἁμαρτωλός—or where the defigens reports impious, sacrilegious,
and impure acts supposedly committed by the victim.
Regarding the use of adjectives pertaining to the religious sphere in magical
testimonies, the comparative analysis between the defixiones in which the adjectives
appear as isolated, and the ones in which the defigens used the same adjectives in the
same context (binding spells) but linked them to a series of ritual actions, has allowed
us to establish that, apart from rare exceptions (e.g. 1e), these terms were used as
substantive accusations rather than mere insults. The defigens usually understood these
terms as denoting a series of outrageous behaviours towards the gods and against the
Egyptian and Greek religious norms.
The use of reports of religious transgressions in standardized models of curses
(e.g. 1b, 2a, 2b, etc.), however, confirms the thesis that these reports were not real and
had a slanderous intention (diabolai); they were a rhetorical resource used in order to
ensure the accomplishment of the curse, usually implying some form of punishment
for the victim, and some advantage for the defigens (love, victory, etc.). Moreover,
the analysis has shown that the ritual crimes and religious transgressions denounced
in these magical diabolai are not arbitrary. Although not actually committed by the
victim, the accusations were plausible: literary and epigraphic sources show that they
are based on real religious norms (sometimes protected by religious and civic laws); in
74.
Given their importance, they were a cause of religious anxiety and social alarm. For the seriousness
of these violent acts gods could send their anger against the entire community. For this reason they
are seen also as a bad omen of some threatening event; cf. Parker (1996) [1983], p. 168-70. Many
examples demonstrate that in the Old Testament such acts have the same consequences, cf. levy
(1993), p. 4-11.
75.
On this kind of religious crime, and for historical examples, see Parker (1996) [1983], p. 144-190.
The Irresistible Attraction of Purity
297
some cases, we have historical examples of similar crimes and of the ritual procedures
undertaken against the offenders to eliminate the pollution (and danger) they caused.
Interestingly, some reports refer to ritual practices that can be linked with magical
ones. The magical practitioners prove in this way to be aware of the abnormal and
impious character of some of their procedures, even in cases where they attribute
these practices to another person (normally the victim of the spell). The magician,
intentionally ignoring the fact that the ritual practice which underlies many defixiones
transgresses ritual laws and the normative religious framework, seeks to behave as
a good worshipper (perhaps even as a priest in some cases), one who recognizes
impious behaviors and reports it to the god. 76
The combination of both resources—i.e. the reference to ritual and religious
faults stressing the sacredness of the violated boundaries, by the use of adjectives
linked with the field of the sacredness and the purity—reinforces the efficacy of the
spell in two ways. First, it transformed a simple accusation related to a personal quarrel
into one between the god and the accused, developing a captatio of divine anger. The
displacement of personal quarrels to a religious field that was the concern of the
gods assured divine collaboration because someone who does not respect the gods
and the rules imposed by them becomes an enemy of the gods—someone whose
action destabilizes their sovereignty and supremacy—and, consequently, the gods are
forced to intervene and to deliver justice. In second place, pointing out the victim as
someone who deserves the requested punishment serves to justify it. A. Chaniotis has
studied how the curses, although their success is largely based on the precise execution
of the magical recipe, increasingly provided justifications in order to become more
effective. 77 The people who resorted to magic wanted to excuse themselves and try
to explain their actions. In this process of self-justification, the defigens tried several
strategies from rhetorical and ritual diabolai, to presenting himself as a pitiful and
mournful victim who used magic as a last resort in order to seek justice. 78
Finally, the rhetorical argument examined throughout these pages is an excellent
way to illustrate the cross-cultural environment of Imperial Egypt and the fusion of
different religious elements in this period, a key aspect for understanding the Greek
76.
Plato lists binding spells among practices he describes as harmful and should be penalized. Modern
scholars as stratton (2007), p. 42-43, have established that there are many reasons why katadesmoi
appeared subversive or dangerous to Greeks. To list just a few, many katadesmoi require actions—
such as desecrating a grave to hide the curse or using elements from deceased persons—which
violate cultural mores and taboos such as the respect for the dead—an integral component of
Greek culture and piety; for the religious status of the person who disturb the deceased, see strubbe
(1991); Gordon (1999), p. 261; on the sacred and/or the polluting character of the dead in Greek
religious mentality see Parker (1996) [1983] p. 33-73. This kind of magical practice also engaged
dangerous forces which caused the practitioner to incur ritual pollution as spirits of deceased or
Hecate herself.
77.
Chaniotis (2008), p.72-74.
78.
For this kind of captatio benevolentiae based on pity see above the text of example no. 1b. This is the
case, also, of the judicial prayers cited in n. 8.
298
Miriam Blanco Cesteros & Eleni Chronopoulou
magical corpora. In the examined examples, Greek and Egyptian religious norms
are put on the same level and the magical practitioner denounces infractions that are
proper to the Egyptian religion before Greek divinities, and vice versa. The texts are
also a valuable source for evaluating the religious training of their authors (cf. 2a),
who seem to have been well acquainted with Greek and Egyptian religious norms and
aware of the illegality of their own practices.
Miriam blanCo Cesteros
Eleni ChronoPoulou