Accusations of religious transgression in magical texts from Late Antiquity

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