Russian Love Charms in a Comparative Light

Russian Love Charms in a Comparative Light // Charms, Charmers and Charming: International Research on Verbal Magic / Ed. by Jonathan Roper. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. P. 119-144. Russian Love Charms in a Comparative Light Andrei Toporkov (Moscow) Problems of the comparative study of Russian charms The comparative study of Russian charms [zagovory] has its own traditions, reaching back to the works of scholars from the 19th and early 20th centuries: F. I. Buslaev, A. N. Afanas’ev, A. N. Veselovskii, M. I. Sokolov, F. Iu. Zelinskii. V. F. Miller, A. I. Almazov, V. Mansikka, A. I. Iatsimirskii, N. F. Poznanskii. In recent years Russian charms have been examined primarily in comparison with the charms of other Slavic peoples (Agapkina, Toporkov 1990; Kharitonova 1991; Kliaus 2000; Agapkina 2002; Levkievskaia 2002; Toporkov 2002; Worobec 1995). There have also been attempts to compare Russian magical texts with German and ancient Indian texts (Toporov 1969; Toporova 1996: 108-123). Nonetheless, the possibilities of comparative (comparative-typological and comparative-historical) study of Russian charms have been far from exhaustively explored. Comparison of Russian charms with the charms of other Slavic and non-Slavic peoples has traditionally come down to the simple establishment of resemblances between separate texts, themes and motifs. Such lists of similarities are useful in themselves, but as a rule they have a selective character and present a somewhat accidental choice of materials. Besides this, the causes for these similarities remain unclear: are they due to a genetic relationship, a typological resemblance, or a mutual influence of various ethnic traditions? If we wish to explain its nature and ancestry, rather than simply noting the resemblance, we must consider the geography of textual dissemination, the presence or absence of texts in the manuscript tradition (where early evidence is particularly important), and their quantitative parameters (how many charms of a given type are known in this or that tradition). If Russian scholars do not take the magical traditions of other European peoples into account sufficiently, it is also true that western scholars know little about Russian charms. General works on the history of European sorcery and magical rituals have presented Russian material unsystematically and in clearly insufficient quantity; as a rule, any Russian material is drawn from English-language works by Western philologists. The comparative study of Russian charms may have two interconnected but nonetheless distinct goals: first, to reveal the resemblance between Russian charms and those of other traditions, and, second, to reveal the specific character of Russian charms in comparison with corresponding texts in other languages (formulae, themes, motifs). I would particularly like to underline the second aspect, since it often causes misunderstandings for western researchers. For Russian folklorists it is important in principle that a comparison should not only establish similarities, but also discover distinctions and particularities. Even if a text was borrowed from one ethnic group by another, complete study requires investigating the history of the text’s adoption in its new cultural sphere. We observe that a text borrowed from elsewhere does not remain unchanged. Rather, it undergoes pressure from other texts and generic schemata; it “grows into” the tradition, takes on new forms, changes its emphases of meaning, etc. In Russian scholarship the task of comparative study of charms in recent decades has been connected primarily with reconstructing the old Slavic and even the Indo-European text (Toporov 1969; Agapkina, Toporkov 1990). The essential problem, however, is that we find one and the same texts and formulae in ethic traditions that have no connection with one another from the point of view of language classification. Given their small format, the presence of a defined poetic structure, their fixation in writing, and their inclusion in sacred texts, it is easy for charms and charm-incantational formulae to migrate over time and space. They can pass from one ethno-linguistic tradition into another by way of oral contacts or translations of written texts (e.g., books of home cures and herbals). The task of re-establishing the history of magic texts in Europe from antiquity to the present and from the Atlantic to the Urals is, in any case, just as attractive as the reconstruction of ancient ancestral texts. The comparison should be carried out on several parallel levels: 1. The contrast of various ethno-linguistic traditions of verbal magic from the point of view of their structure and patterns of function: the correspondence of various generic varieties (charms [zagovory], incantations [zaklinaniia], non-canonical prayers, etc.), oral and written forms of textual function, and the presence or absence of certain functional or thematic groups of charms (medicinal, love, protective, and others). 2. Comparison of concrete charms from various traditions with the same purpose and similar themes, motifs and formulae. 3. The contrast of separate formulae that resemble one another in structure and lexical composition and appear in charms that have the same purpose. Some particularities of the Russian charm tradition Before turning to our main topic, let us make a few general observations about the particular nature of the Russian charm tradition. 1. First of all, it is extremely large and various, including many thousands of texts and dozens of themes. In recent decades, charms have been discovered in the Novgorodian birch-bark documents of the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries (Zalizniak 1993; Zalizniak 1995: 293 (No. 734), 428-429 (No. 715), 540 (No. 521); Zalizniak 2004: 694 (No, 930); Gippius 2005). The two earliest manuscript collections of charms, the so-called Olonetsky and Velikoustiuzhsky collections, date from the second quarter of the 17th century. Archival research by N. N. Pokrovsky, E. B. Smilianskaia, A. S. Lavrov, A. V. Pigin, A. A. Turilov, A. V. Chernetsov, and other scholars, has made available a whole series of formerly unknown collections of charms from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and scholars have described the forms of social function of verbal magic (Lavrov 2000; Toporkov, Turilov, 2002; Smilianskaia 2003). As a result, it is now possible to survey the Russian charm tradition in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries amid its historical dynamics and geographical and social stratification. Charms circulated actively through geographical and social space (Bobrov, Finchenko 1986: 154-55; Lavrov 2000: 99-115). This resulted in the wide dissemination of texts and their variants and versions over the territory of Russia, not only in villages but also in urban centers. Charms were found in peasant and trading environments, though they were also known among church functionaries and nobles. They were written down on separate sheets of paper or in special notebooks, which were kept at home or carried about as amulets; they were included in medical manuals, in mixed-content collections; they were confessed at interrogations, sometimes under torture. 2. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there was no strict boundary between the oral and written functioning of charms: the oral text could easily be fixed in written form, and the manuscript version was accompanied by instructions in how to pronounce it, and which ritual actions should accompany it. There was also a tradition of using manuscripts as amulets. For example, illiterate people would take a little booklet with a military charm into battle, and it was supposed to protect them, even though they could not read it themselves (Sazonova, Toporkov 2002). This half-oral and half-written kind of textual functioning led to a variety of consequences. On one hand, texts whose evolution was linked with local folklore traditions, once fixed on paper, became detached from ritual practice, moved into new social and geographical settings, and took on a more bookish and religiously-colored character. On the other hand, canonical and non-canonical prayers began to function alongside folk charms, undergoing abbreviation and various kinds of revision. One and the same apocryphal prayers, translated from Greek, were found among all the Orthodox peoples, and to some extent in the Catholic countries as well. In the Russian tradition these prayers were not only recopied, but also re-written, brought closer to the oral charms. Our textological tradition has stressed the fact that during its existence and use a prototypical text is not so much distorted as subjected to a purposeful and sensible correction with a creative character. In this sense, following the gradual evolution of the text during its recopying, inclusion in manuscripts of various contents, and replacement of the oral form of function by the written and vice versa – all this is a task no less important than the determination of its genesis. Manuscript collections were often composed and preserved by people knowledgeable about liturgical literature but at the same time close to folk culture (in part, village and urban priests; Lavrov 2000:123-27; Mikhailova 2000; Smilianskaia 2003:119-41; Ryan 1999: 166-67). On analogous phenomena in England in the 16th and 17th centuries, and in continental Europe, see Thomas 1991: 55-56, 78-80, 326-327; Arnautova 2004: 274-279. In many collections and "libraries," confiscated by the authorities over the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, we encounter a combination of charms and apocryphal prayers (such as "The Dream of the Virgin," "The Prayer of the Archangel Michael," "The Prayer of Cyprian," "The Prayer of the Apostle Paul against Snakes," "Sissinius's Prayer against Fever," etc.). Charms and apocryphal (non-canonical) prayers were not clearly demarcated (Eleonskaia 1994; Levin 1997). In manuscripts charms were often called "prayers," and it is more than likely that they were perceived in that way by their copiers. Charms reside at the intersection of the Christian church and folkloric knowledge. The whole body of magical charm texts may be imagined as a kind of continuum. Canonical and non-canonical prayers are at one of its poles, with pagan folkloric and "black" charms and incantational formulae at the other. Texts located at the extremes of this continuum are fundamentally distinct from each other in structure, lexicon, religious and moral goals, and so on. Nonetheless, the space between the extremes is continual in character, representing a series of gradual transitions between canonical prayers, on one hand, and folkloric-magical texts, correlated with notions of natural spirits and ways of interacting with them, on the other. 3. No later than the second quarter of the seventeenth century, a distinctive type of charm developed, most characteristic of the Russian North and practically absent in Ukraine, Belarus, and the south of Russia. This kind of charm may begin with the formula "I arise blessing myself, I go out crossing myself…" ['Vstanu blagoslovias', vyidu perekrestias'']. Further, these charms describe how the protagonist goes to the sea or into an open field, meets some mythical personage there and addresses a request to it (for example, to protect him or her against enemies or to inflict love on a person of the opposite sex). These charms are characterized by the presence of a subject, the motif of a "mythological center," images of the protagonist, a mediating personage and an addressee, and a description of the location in space (Toporkov 1999; Agapkina 2005). The appearance of such a structure had several consequences for the charm tradition. Texts of a single type were easy to memorize and pass on, and new texts were composed according to the set pattern. Typically, we encounter the same formulae in Russian charms as in analogous charms from other Slavic magical traditions, but at the same time the formulae are organized in a new way, included in configurations of subject and motif that are specific to the Russian tradition. Problems of the study of love charms A sizable literature has been devoted to love magic in Russia and the other Slavic and non-Slavic countries of Eurasia. Love charms are mentioned in studies of the magic and writing of Ancient India, the ancient Near East, antique Greece and Rome, Europe in the medieval, Renaissance, and early Modern eras, and Russia in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The studies of magic and rituals, family and marriage relationships, erotic folklore and erotic literature, and ethnobotany (plant aphrodisiacs) have developed their own traditions. Interest in this topic has grown significantly in recent decades through a series of factors: removal of the taboo on formerly forbidden or dangerous themes, the growth of gender and historical-anthropological scholarship, the spread of contemporary neo-pagan movements, and the publication of numerous handbooks on contemporary magic and occult sciences. Aspects of the contents and functional existence of love charms have attracted the attention of collectors, publishers and scholars of Russian folklore (Toporov 1969; Kharitonova 1991; Kliaus 1994; Minyonok 1994; Kis' 1994; Toporkov 1999; Pushkareva 1999; Kiseleva 2001; Ryan 1999: 179-83). Russian ethnographers and folklorists have studied young women’s love and marriage charms, noted the many parallels between the formulae of love charms and ritual wedding songs, and analyzed the folkloric magical repertoire of the sorcerer and the druzhok at weddings. These works rely on material from local traditions, such as Zaonezh’e and the Perm’ region (Zyrianov 1975; Lipatov 1982; Loginov 1988; Kuznetsova 1992; Kuznetsova 2000; Kalashnikova 2000). Love charms have also been studied from the structural point of view (Klagstad 1958; Chernov 1965; Peskov 1977; Carus 1977; Conrad 1989; Kiseleva 1992; Kiseleva 1998; Toporkov 1999). E. B. Smilianskaia and A. S. Lavrov have cast light on the social functioning of love charms using materials from eighteenth-century trials involving sorcery (Smilianskaia 1996: 15-19; Smilianskaia 2001; Lavrov 2000: 89-132). I would note in particular Smilianskaia’s article “‘Liubov’ tvoia rany mne velikie delaet’ (Chuvstva i strasti po sledstvennym materialam XVIII v.)” (‘“Your love causes me great wounds” [Sentiments and passions according to judicial materials from the XVIIIth century],’ 2001) and the chapter “Magic and Love” in her book Volshebniki. Bogokhul’niki. Eretiki. Narodnaia religioznost’ i ‘dukhovnye prestupleniia’ v Rossii XVIII v. (‘Enchanters. Blasphemers. Heretics. Folk religion and ‘spiritual crimes’ in XVIIth-century Russia,’ Smilianskaia 2003: 172-86). O. D. Zhuravel’ has studied the plot of the pact of a man with the devil in Old Russian literature, and besides literary texts she has brought in judicial and trial materials from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries about pacts with the devil. She draws readers’ attention to the parallels between love charms and literary texts, in particular “Povest’ o Savve Grudtsyne” (‘The Tale of Savva Grudtsyn’), and has also analyzed the motif “Plata d’iavolu: posobnichestvo v liubovnykh delakh” (‘Paying the devil: Complicity in love affairs,’ Zhuravel’ 1996: 121-24). Valerie Kivelson has examined the gender aspects of the functioning of charms in Russia in the seventeenth century in a series of articles (Kivelson 1991; Kivelson 1995). From the literature published in other Slavic countries, I would mention first and foremost the collection of Serbian love charms of M. Mijuskovic (1985), with a substantial introduction by L. Radenkovic. Fundamental edition of Romanian charms was prepared by Sanda Golopentia (Golopentia 1998; see also: Golopentia 1996; Golopentia 2004). In recent decades, scholars from Western Europe and the United States have often turned to the love magic of medieval and Renaissance European traditions (Kieckhefer 1976: 56-61; Flint 1991: 231-53; Wilson 2000: 142-47). Richard Kieckhefer’s splendid article “Erotic Magic in Medieval Europe” (Kieckhefer 1991) provides a general introduction to the topic. Another series of works investigates the love magic of a particular country (for example, Italy, Spain, and the Spanish colonies of the New World) or even city (for example, Renaissance Florence and Venice, Modena at the end of the 16th century; Brucker 1963; Brucker 1971: 266-68; Couliano 1987; Martin 1989; O’Niel 1987; Ortega 1991; Ruggiero 1993: 88-129; Scully 1995; Stephens 2002). These works offer rich collections of materials as well as valuable observations about the social and gender aspects of the function of love magic. The study of the links of verbal magic with the literature of ancient Greece and Rome has a venerable tradition. Among the most important works we may note the chapter “The literary representation of magic” in F. Graf’s book Magic in the Ancient World (Graf 1997: 175-94) and the chapter “Aphrodite and aphrodisiacs” in H. Parry’s book Thelxis: Magic and Imagination in Greek Myth and Poetry (Parry 1992: 263-83). Valuable observations have been made on the many parallels between charms and ancient Greek lyrics, including the poetry of Sappho and the second idyll of Theocrites (Segal 1974; Petropoulos 1993; Faraone 1995, and others). John Winkler’s book The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece includes a chapter on love charms (Winkler 1990: 71-98). Christopher Faraone has also devoted many articles to ancient Greek love charms (Faraone 1991; Faraone 1993a; Faraone 1993b), as well as his more general book Ancient Greek Love Magic (1999). Many of Faraone’s observations apply with certain reservations to Russian love charms, too, although the Russian charms are completely unfamiliar to him and he does not take them into account. There are special studies of specific formulae from antique love spells, in particular the formula of sending fire (Kuhnert 1894; Tavenner 1942) and the formula “let the maiden/woman be unable either to drink or eat (until she comes to me)” (Martinez 1995). In this way, Russian and worldwide scholarship has accumulated broad experience in the study of love charms from various ethno-linguistic traditions. This creates preconditions for a study of Russian love charms that examines them in comparison with analogous love spells of other peoples of Eurasia. Evolution of the Formula "Let her neither eat nor drink" The present article will examine in detail one formula from love charms – "Let the maiden/woman not eat and not drink (until she has come to me)." A comparative analysis of other formulae of Russian love charms is made in our book Русские заговоры в рукописной традиции XVII-XVIII вв. (‘Russian charms in the manuscript tradition of the 17th and 18th centuries’), forthcoming. This formula is the topic of a special article by D. Martinez, from which we will take comparative material (Martinez 1995); Faraone's book also offers some valuable observations (Faraone 1999: 53-54). Martinez examines two basic modifications of the formula: one found in oaths and vows, the other from love charms. Among the earliest fixed forms of the formula, he notes the oath of Achilles not to eat or drink until he has killed Hector (Iliad 19. 204-10), the vow of Saul not to eat until he has taken revenge on the Philistines (1 Kings 14.34), and the promise of some of the Judeans "not to eat and not to drink until they have killed Paul" (Acts 23.12). In pre-Islamic Arabia, "a man who had decided to take revenge for the death of a member of his family would vow that he would not drink wine, eat meat, rub himself with fragrant unguents, approach a woman, or wash the dirt from his hair until he had carried out his intention" (Rezvan 1988: 41). Among the early fixed forms of the formula in love spells is the Greek text on a lead tablet from the 4th century A.D. from Egypt, in which a certain Ailurion asks the spirits of the underworld to cause his beloved Kopria to be unable to eat or to drink until she has come to him and fulfilled all his wishes (Martinez 1995: 335). According to Martinez's observations, when a person made a vow he took upon himself the obligation to refrain from eating and drinking until he had done what was promised. In Greek erotic magic of the Roman and Byzantine eras, a man was trying to force restraint not on himself, but on another, the woman he hoped to win, and moreover was trying to force her to adopt this behavior against her will (Martinez 1995: 352). The magical texts containing the formula of interest to us date primarily from the third and fourth centuries A.D. However, it is also found in two early magical papyri (one from the era of Augustus, the other from the first century A.D.). The second of these reads, "If she is sleeping, let her not sleep; if she is eating, let her not eat; if she is drinking, let her not drink until she has come to me" (Martinez 1995: 353). The given sources testify that the formula was already known at the beginning of the first millennium of our era. For a bibliography of magical texts, including the formula “let her not eat and not drink, until…” see Martinez 1995: 353, note 61. The wish for a woman to be unable to drink and eat may arise independently, and it may be combined with the wish that she be unable to sleep, that she break off relations with her parents and other relatives, that she behave as if possessed or mad. The basis of these motifs is a conception of lovesickness characteristic of the ancient Greeks, reflected not only in magic, Many texts include madness in one list with other symptoms of illness, while in others it is the central idea (Martinez 1995: 354, note 64). but also in love lyrics (e. g., Sappho), and later adopted by medical literature (Galen) and the love novel (Daphnis and Chloл). Love charms happened to follow many of the same rules as charms employed to send spoiling [porcha] and sickness. Refusing food and drink and inability to sleep are characteristic symptoms of lovesickness. For example, Galen writes about those "who have grown thin, or grown pale, or lost their sleep, or even fallen ill of fever because of love" (Martinez 1995: 354). One of the love charms of the Paris papyrus from the fourth century A.D. described the desired result of the magical action this way: "she is distressed and wants to talk with you… she is distressed or even dying" (PGM IV: 132-37). English translation: Betz 1996: 40. In another charm the state so-and-so wishes to call up in his beloved recalls a clinical description of illness and greatly resembles Galen's description (PGM XXXVI: 356-60; Betz 1996: 278). In Longinos's novel Daphnis and Chloл the trials of the heroes are at times described in complete correspondence with love charms and medical literature. For example, "The dear girl did not know what had happened to her, for she had grown up in a village and had never even heard anyone say the word 'love.' Her [Chloл's] soul pined, her eyes wandered distractedly, and she could speak of nothing but Daphnis. She ceased to eat, she did not sleep at night, she did not care for her flock, first she would smile and then sob, then suddenly fall asleep and jump up again; her face would turn pale and then blaze with fire" (Daphnis and Chloл, book I, ch. 13 [Long 1969: 175]; italics ALT). Russian translation by S. Kondrat'ev [Long 1969: 175]. In the same novel, the old man Philet tells of his youthful love for Amarillis: "…Then I forgot about food, and I took no drink, and I did not know sleep. I suffered in my soul; my heart fluttered, my body grew cold; first I would moan as if I had been beaten, then I would be silent as a dead man, then, as if I had been burnt by fire, I would cast myself into the rivers. […] There is no medicine against Eros either in drink, or in food, or in magical charms, except for one thing – kisses, embraces, and also naked bodies that lie pressed one against the other" (Daphnis and Chloл, book II, ch. 7 [Long 1969: 188]). Russian translation by S. Kondrat’ev. On similar formulae in the antique love novel see Licht 1995: 194. The formula in European charms (from the Renaissance until the Modern era) As Faraone rightly observes, love charms with the formula "let her not eat, or drink, or sleep" remained popular in Europe for centuries (Faraone 1999: 54, note 63). Similar wishes occur in magical manuscripts compiled in Holland and Germany in the fifteenth century (Kieckhefer 1991: 40-41), and in Italian and Spanish love charms from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, preserved in the archives of the Inquisition (Ruggiero 1993: 45, 88-89, 167-68; Ortega 1991: 71-74). In an Italian charm from Modena in 1597 a woman, addressing St. Martha, expressed the wish "that he should fall in love with me, take drink, food, sleep, strength away from him, that he should be unable to leave or to remain in one place, nor ride a horse, nor gallop, nor stroll, nor have relations with other women, until he comes to me, to fulfill all my wishes and do all that I ask him" (O'Neil 1987: 102; italics ALT). In O’Neil’s article the text is published in English translation (ALT). One of the earliest recorded Spanish charms, preserved in the archives of the Inquisition, dates from 1499. A woman addresses nine stars and asks them to ensure "…that he be unable to eat or drink,/ Until he has come to love me well/ And receive pleasure with me" ("…que no pueda comer nн beber / hasta que a mi venga a bien querer/ e a aver plaзer» (Ortega 1991: 74; italics ALT). In another love charm from Spain, a woman asks Satan and all the devils: "...And do not permit him / to rest or eat or sleep, / He may not rest in his bed, / without thinking of me" ("…Y no le dejarйis / reposar, ni comer, ni dormir / ni en la cama reposar /sino conmigo pensar» (Ortega 1991: 71; italics ALT). Love charms in the form of prayers to St. Onofrius and St. Martha also included the formula "let him not eat and not drink" ("que no pueda comer, ni beber") (Ortega 1991: 78). Also close to our formula, although not coinciding in every detail, is one of the wish-curses addressed to Gerd, daughter of the giant Gьmir, from the so-called "Potion of Skirnir" (included in the song "The Journey of Skirnir" [strophe 27] from the Elder Edda): "Food will be more repellent to you/ Than to any man/ A gleaming snake amid the living!" (Korablyov 2003: 101; italics ALT). Russian translation by Korablyov. To supplement materials collected by scholars of European sorcery, we may add a series of examples referring to Southeastern and Eastern Europe (Poland, Bohemia, Serbia, Romania, Ukraine and Russia). Records of a judicial proceeding from 1544 have preserved a Polish love charm which begins with an address to the dawn: "Witajże zorze, idź-żesz mi do tego Filipa, roztargniej-że mu jego serce, iżby nie mógl ni pić ni jeźdź bez niej, iżby nie miał woli ni do dziwki ni do wdowy, ni do żadnego stworzenia, jedno do samej Łucyi…» ('Welcome, morning star. Go to Philip and break his heart, so that he be unable either to eat or to drink, be sexually attracted to neither maiden nor widow, nor to any other creature, except Lucia…') (Kolberg 1962: 241). For the English translation see Brzozowska-Krajka 1994: 79. E. V. Vel'mezova, compiler of the most complete collection of Czech charms, notes that there are not many love charms in Czech culture (Vel'mezova 2004: 22). She cites a single text of the kind, recorded at the end of the nineteenth century in eastern Moravia (Valasko). The charm is pronounced as follows. Thrice a day (in the morning at sunrise, at noon, and in the evening at dusk) the wise woman goes out with a maiden to an open space; the woman pronounces the charm, and the maiden repeats it after her. The text includes the following fragment, addressed to the sun: "You, clear sun, you shine for us, you see him [the intended – ALT], so inflame him and warm his heart, his lungs, his three hundred parts and joints, so that this intended one of mine, intended for me by God, so that he can neither eat, nor drink, nor smoke tabacco, nor sleep, nor be cheerful, but only think about me, the maiden christened (so-and-so), run to me, so that an hour will not be an hour for him, nor his family a family, his sister a sister, his brother a brother, his mother a mother, his father a father, so that none of that will be dear to him, only I, his intended, with God's help would stand before his eyes, so that it drips onto the crown of his head, onto his shoulder, onto his heart, into his lungs, into his three hundred parts and joints, so that he can neither eat…, but only run to the one christened (so-and-so), until he runs to her and says a word to her, and enters into marriage with her…" (Vel'mezova 2004: 84; italics ALT). In a collection of Serbian love charms compiled by M. Mijuskovic, the formula that interests us occurs only once: "Dobro jutro bel pelenche! Ja te zovem omajnice, raspornice, razbolnice, da mi omajesh dragog, da ga rasporish i ubodesh u srce, u dzigericu, za mene, u oci, u usta, ruke, noge, za mene; s dushom se rastavio, sa mnom se sastavio. […] Pa da se ukhvatish za zemlju pa da kazhesh: Ne vadzam se za zemlju, no za Dzavola da dovede dragog kod mene, da nema mira ni da ide, ni da jede, ni da spava…" ('Good morning, white wormwood! I call you, exhauster, tearer, infecter, to sweep over my darling, to rip him open and pierce him in the heart, in the kidneys, for me, in the eyes, lips, arms, legs for me; so he will part with his soul and come together with me. […] Then you touch the ground and say: I hold not to the earth, but to the devil, so he will bring my darling to me, so he will have no peace to walk, nor to eat, nor to sleep.' Mijuskovic 1985: 53, No. 77). In Romanian charms, a girl expresses the wish for a young man to be unable to eat or drink without her: "Fara mine n-au putinta, nici a bea, nici a manca, pana nu m-or saruta, nici sa beie nici sa mance, pan ce-n brata nu m-or strange" ('Without me they can neither drink nor eat until they kiss me, nor drink nor eat until they take me in their arms') (Golopentia 1998: 67-68. No. 6; see also: 217, No. 72.) A girl sends the devil to a young man and conjures him: "Si de l-ei gasi mancand nu-l da a manca, iar da l-ei gasi band nu-l da a be" ('And if you find him eating don't let him eat, and if you find him drinking don't let him drink') (Golopentia 1998: 242-43, No. 86). In other texts, the girl wants her beloved to eat and drink together with her: "Asa sa nu oiata pana cu mine nu s-o ogoi, si nu s-o odihni, pana cu mine in pat nu s-o culca si dintr-o bucata n-o manca! Sa ma visez cu dansul la masa sezand, dintr-o bucata de pane muscand si din pahar plin band" ('So may he not find solace till he takes comfort in me, till he rests, till he goes to bed with me and eats of the same food as I. Let me dream of myself with him sitting at the table, eating from the same piece of bread and drinking from a full glass.' Golopentia 1998: 223, No. 76; see also 248, No. 87). In Ukrainian charms recorded in the second half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, our formula occurs more than once, with two basic modifications. In the first variety a girl addresses three star-sisters, the wind, or the moon with the request that they let the young man neither eat nor drink; for example: "Vy zori-zirnytsi, vas na nebi tri sestrytsi: odna nudna, druga pryvitna, a tretia pechal'na. Berit' holky i shpyl'ky, hordove kaminnja; bijte joho i pechit', palit' i nudit'; ne dajte jomu ni spat', ni lezhat', ni jisti, ni pyt' – drugykh ljubyt'" ('You dawn-stars, you three sisters in the sky: one dull, the second welcoming, and the third sorrowful. Take needles and pins, stones, beat and bake, burn and urge him; do not let him either sleep, or lie down, or eat, or drink – or love others.' Vasilenko, Shevchuk 1991: 218; see also SMU 1998: 76 [No. 221]; 80 [No. 229]; 84 [No. 246]; Bondarenko 1992: 23). In the second modification, a girl asks for her young man to be unable to eat or drink his fill (that is, be unable to forget her while eating or drinking), for example: "Polety zh ty, ognennyj bugalo, do kozaka u dvir […] uchepysja ty jomu za sertse, zatomy ty joho, zanudy, zapaly ty joho, shchob vin trjassja i trepetavsja dushoju i tilom za mnoju narozhdenoju, khreshchenoju, molytv'janoju divchynoju […], shchob vin mene ne zapyv, ne zaiv i z inshymy ne zahuljav, use mene ne pomyslakh mav" ('Fly, you fiery bugalo, to the Cossack's door […] seize him by the heart, and then force him, inflame him, so that he shakes and trembles in his soul and body for me, his intended, christened, prayerful girl […], that he be unable to drink me away or eat me away and to stroll me away with others, always having me in his thoughts.' Vasilenko, Shevchuk 1991: 218-219); "Shchob ty i izheju ne zaпv, i vodoju ne zapyv, i snom ne zasnuv, ta vse dumav pro mene…" ('That you be unable to eat me away with food, and to drink away with water, and to fall asleep, but always think about me…' Vasilenko, Shevchuk 1991: 234; see also SMU 1991: 78 [No. 226]). Parallels between Greek and Russian charms In Russian charms the formula appears dozens of times in three basic modifications, and each of these modifications has a corresponding number in the Greek charms from the Egyptian papyri. For clarity, we cite in parallel the fragments of the Greek with the Russian texts; naturally, there could be many more examples: 1. 'So-and-so asks for the person of the opposite sex to be unable to drink or eat.' PGM IV, 353-355, 373-376; IV cent. A.D. Let so-and-so be unable either to drink, or to eat, or to love, let her have no strength, be unhealthy, be unable to sleep without me. …attract so-and-so to me, give her no drink, nor food eating and drinking, cut short any attempts of so-and-so to make love with any other man, even with her own husband, only with me, so-and-so… Here and elsewhere the Greek texts are translated from the Russian translation of Jan. P. Talbatsky. For an alternate English translation, see Betz 1996: 45 (S. Forrester). PGM IV: 1510-1521; IV cent. A.D. If she is sitting, let her not sit, if she is chatting with someone, let her not chat, if she is looking at someone, let her not look, if she comes to visit someone, let her not come, if she is going for a stroll, let her not go for a stroll, if she is drinking, let her not drink, if she is eating, let her not eat, if she is caressing someone, let her not caress, if she is enjoying some pleasure, let her not enjoy it, if she is sleeping, let her not sleep, but let her think only about me, let her passionately desire only me, let her love only me, let her fulfill all my wishes. See Betz 1996: 67. Pokrovskii 1987: 261; dated 1734. …pokamest menia, raba imiarek, ne uvidit i ne osmotrit i ne obozrit i so mnoiu vmeste ne prebudet, po ta mes"[ta] by ei ne vmestimo bylo ni jasti, ni piti, ni s mater'iu, ni s gosti, ni s ynymi ljud'mi ni s kakimi. ('So long as she does not see and observe me, [God's] slave so-and-so, and is not together with me, then may she be unable to eat, or to drink, neither with her mother, or with guests, or with any other kinds of people.'] Vinogradov 1908/I: 30, No. 37. Ser. 19th cent. …chtoby ne mog onyi rab Bozhij (imiarek) bez raby Bozhiei (imiarek) ne zhit', ne byt', ne s"is', ne ispit', ni chasu schasovat', ni veku svekovat', ni maloi minuty minovat'. ('…so that this (male) slave of God (so-and-so) be unable to live, or to be, or to eat up, or to drink up, or to spend an hour, or to spend a whole life, nor to spend a little minute without God's (female) slave (so-and-so).') 2. 'So-and-so asks that a person of opposite sex think of him or her while eating.' PGM XVIIa, 7-15; IV cent. C. E. Subdue her pridefulness and release her from pettiness and from her shamefulness, and attract her to me, to my feet, melting with passionate desire at every hour of the day and night, always remembering me, when she is eating food, when she is quenching her thirst, when she is working, when she is occupied with conversation, when she is resting, when she is dreaming… See Betz 1996: 45. Lipatov 1983: 104; XIX cent. Gde by on ne khodil, gde by ne gulial, khot' by on v torgu torgoval ili v piru piroval, ili v besede besedoval, vse by on menia, rabu Bozhiiu, na ume na razume derzhal pri dne, pri krasnom solntse, pri temnoi noche, pri svetlom mesiatse. ['Wherever he may go, wherever he may stroll, even if he be trading at trade or feasting at a feast, may he always have me, God's servant, in mind and in thought by day, by the red sun, by dark night, by the bright moon.'] 3. 'So-and-so asks that a person of the opposite sex feel hunger and thirst (be unable to eat or drink his fill).' PGM XXXVI: 110-113; IV cent. A. D. Enchant to me so-and-so, so that passion burns her up, so that torments dry her up, so that she goes hungry, so that she feels thirst, so that she flies in the sky, so that she does not sleep, let her fall in love with me, so-and-so, who was borne by such-and-such a woman, until she comes to me, until her female nature adheres to my male one. Now, now, quickly, quickly. See Betz 1996: 271. OR NBU, f. 301, unit 455, sheet 5 verso; end of 17th or beg. of 18th cent. …ne mogla b ona toi toski po mne, [rbi] krov'iu, lezhankoi (?) ne otlezhatts, snom ne otospatts, khozhankoi ne otkhoditts, besedoi ne otsidetts, bogomoleniem ne otmolitts, krestom ne otkrestitts, dut'eiu ne otduttse, pit'em ne otpitts, estvami ne otistittse, ni travami ni koren'iami ne otgrysts… ['…let her not be able [to bear] that longing for me, [so-and-so] with blood, not lie her fill of lying down (?), in sleep not sleep her fill, in walking not walk her fill, not sit her fill in conversation, not pray in prayer to God, not cross herself in crossing, not breathe her fill of breathing, not drink her fill of drink, not eat her fill of eating, not bite her fill of the herbs or roots…'] Vinogradov 1908/I: 47-48, No. 60; undated ms. S toi by ei toski i velikiia pechali – edoi by ei ne est' i pit'em by ne zapit', gul'boi by ne otguliat', v plat'e by ei ne otnosit'; gde by ne zaslyshala zychnyi golos, tak by ona bezhala i v sakharnyia usta tselovala. ['From that longing and great sorrow let her be unable to eat of food, and drink her fill of drink, not stroll her fill of strolling, let her be unable to wear her dress; wherever she may hear a loud voice, then let her run and kiss my sweet lips.'] Various modifications of the formula differ from one another somewhat in meaning. In one case it is a matter of depriving a person of the opposite sex entirely of food and drink (either taking them away, or else bringing her to such a state that she herself is unable to eat anything ["kusok v gorlo ne polezet," 'the piece sticks in the throat']). In the second case, the person may take part in a meal, but in so doing must think about the performer of the charm. The third case stresses that the woman should be tormented by hunger and thirst and be unable to eat or drink her fill. In Russian versions of the third modification of the formula one may see an echo of the Old Testament curse on dishonorable ones: "They shall eat – and will not be sated, they shall sin carnally – and not multiply…" (Hosea 4: 10). The semantics of the formula "let her not eat or drink" Regardless of its apparent simplicity, the formula allows differing interpretations. It contains them in compact form, and they can be actualized depending on the context. 1. Deprivation of food, drink and sleep: this is in essence torture, supposed to force a person to do something that he himself is not inclined to do, to move him to agree to everything in order to end the suffering. 2. Each of the actions declared taboo for a maiden or a woman, when they are addressees of the charm (eating a meal with others, sleeping at night, etc.), is meant not only for satisfaction of physiological needs, but also for social communication. A person who does not eat in the family circle and does not sleep at night not only has a more difficult life, but also falls out of the conditions of normal interactions, winds up in an isolated condition. 3. Food, drink and sleep are basic physiological needs, essential for life. Considering the "death-bearing" context of the love charms and how close they are to curses, one may see a concealed threat: the woman may expect to die of hunger and thirst if she does not give herself to the man. 4. Insofar as hunger and restraint in general (among other things, during a religious fast) are a means of purifying and preparing oneself to encounter the sacral world, we might see the wish that someone not eat or drink as a way of bringing that person into a special elevated condition, close to ecstasy, in order to intensify his feelings and open him to new emotional experiences. 5. The charms say that a maiden should be hungry and tormented with thirst and insomnia until she gives in to the man; however, it nowhere says that after she gives in she will get something to eat and drink and be put to bed. This may be understood as follows: love itself will ease her hunger and thirst and allow her to relax and forget herself in sleep – or else in the sense that after her "fall" she will be doing all this along with her new master. The multitude of meanings of the formulae and the possibility of variant interpretations are characteristic of the whole poetics of charms. Interpreting similarity It is no accident that the formula "let her not eat nor drink" in Greek charms from the Egyptian papyri of the first through fourth centuries and in Russian manuscript collections from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries appears so similar. It should be understood as part of a more general system of relationships and connections among love charms across Eurasia. In principle, the resemblance may be explained either typologically or else as a result of historical and cultural connections. In the first case, we see the general mechanisms of the origin and functioning of magical texts, and in the second that the Greek texts could have influenced the Slavs in one way or another (in translations directly from Greek, or else through some intermediate links). At the same time, the typological resemblance does not argue against genetic links: they may mutually reinforce and support each other. The inheritance of the antique world led in certain circumstances to new sprouts on different ethnic soil. We may also not exclude a priori the possibility that both Greek and Russian charms descended from some common, third sources (for example, the traditions of the ancient Middle East). The magical texts preserved in Greek papyri of the first through fourth centuries and in Russian manuscripts, have common typological characteristics. To a large extent, they may be considered as written traditions, "men's" and "educated" in distinction to the oral, "women's" and "simple people's" traditions. For all the differences between Egyptian Mages and Russian sorcerers (kolduny), priests or other copiers of the charm letters in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it seems probable that both groups did not merely record the texts of everyday magic, but approached the act in a creative way. They carried out a selection of texts, they reworked them in part, completed their composition, brought in charms from various regional and even ethnolinguistic traditions, etc. Let us note that in Ukrainian, Serbian and Bulgarian love magic we also see individual formulae known in the Russian and Greek charms, although on the whole the love charms of these peoples have a completely different character. In these traditions only oral magical texts are known, not written ones; they were pronounced mainly by girls or women, not by men; the performers of the charms had the goal of marriage or strengthening the family, not sexual subordination of a person of the opposite sex. From the point of view of gender, both the Greek and the Russian love charms we have been discussing are mostly men's texts, directed towards taking mastery of a maiden or a woman (though there are exceptions). Along with the men's magic, both Greeks and Russians also had maidens' and women's magic, which was distinct from the men's. As among other peoples, this aimed at marriage or retaining a husband, inspiring him to behave better towards his wife or increase his sexual activity. This women's tradition left considerably less trace in manuscripts than the men's tradition. Greek and Russian love charms share the concept of the fiery nature of love (a flame seizes the heart, the liver, and other internal organs of the victim), of lovesickness, its causes and symptoms (refusing food and drink, insomnia, heat and fever, social isolation, breaking with parents and other relations, madness or possession by evil spirits, being struck in the heart with an arrow or some other sharp weapon), the association of the emotion of love with melancholy (in part, leading to suicide), and also that love may be imposed on a person from outside, and that gods and demons (for the Greeks) or natural elements and demons (for the Slavs) may be helpers in this matter. These typological resemblances suggest a few ideas of cultural-historical and social-psychological character. In many cultures, love and magic are tightly interconnected. Attempts to act on a person of the opposite sex by magical means, and likewise to explain suddenly enflamed feelings as a result of sorcery, were known among the earliest peoples. Love charms serve in identical everyday situations and are called upon to resolve social-psychological collisions that arise completely independently and spontaneously in various societies (the impossibility for whatever reason of union with the beloved, sexual betrayal, love triangles, and so on). To these cultural universalia we may add the link of sexual relations to the problems of power and violence. Both Greek and Russian charms speak not only of taking mastery over some person, but also of subordinating her to oneself, depriving her of her own will, forcing her to act as the performer of the charm desires. This is linked to the aggressiveness of love charms and the traits of cruelty and even sadism we find in them. Furthermore, the incantational formulae of love charms not only accompany magical actions, based on the universal principles of magic; they also describe these actions. Therefore, one and the same formula, or in any case extremely similar formulae, may arise completely independently in different cultures, where the magical actions arose just as independently. For example, the formula of sending fire, of the type "As fire burns in a stove, so let the heart of N. burn," could arise in any place where myrrh or wood were ritually burned in order to inflame the heart and other internal organs of a man or woman. Finally, to a significant extent the picturesque quality of the charms grows out of linguistic metaphors. The metaphorization of love as fire is known in many languages, including, e.g., ancient Greek, Russian and English (Kцvecses 1988; Kцvecses 1991). If some language describes love as a fire (the flame of love, the heart burns, to set a man on fire, fiery feelings, fiery glances, etc.), then naturally in magical rituals and charms a person will attempt to ignite the flame of love in his victim by the means available. Given that similar linguistic metaphors are widespread in various languages, it is not surprising that charm formulae too may arise completely independently in a variety of traditions, suggested by the language. Some further hypotheses In this way, the correspondences we have shown between ancient Greek and Russian charms may be explained by the fact that they serve in identical, or at least very similar, everyday situations, and by their link with magic and the language of metaphor. Yet, nonetheless, the number and variety of the coincidences and their systematic, motivated and multi-leveled character suggest that Greek and Russian charms are most probably linked not only by typology, but also by borrowing. The very fact of the closeness of Greek and Slavic charms is neither strange nor surprising. As we know, the Church Slavic language arose in the process of translation from Greek, and old Slavic literacy initially formed as a result of intentional transplantation of the Byzantine tradition into Slavic soil. A large number of prayers close to charms were included in liturgical books translated into the Church Slavic language. We also cannot dismiss the possibility of direct inheritance between the Greek and Slavic traditions of verbal magic in the Balkans. We cannot establish direct links between Greek and Russian love charms at this time, although we can indicate one probable direction for further research. It is possible that Greek love charms reached Slavic soil among the erotic charms ascribed to the holy martyr Cyprian of Antioch. Let us recall that Cyprian (III cent.) was, according to tradition, a considerable philosopher and sorcerer. His vita is preserved in various versions in Greek and Latin. According to one version, Justina (in the Russian texts, Ustin'ia) was the daughter of a pagan priest in Antioch; she converted to Christianity along with her parents and made a vow of virginity. The upper-class youth Aglaid fell in love with Justina and appealed for help to the pagan Mage Cyprian. Cyprian sent demons to tempt Justina, but each time Justina drove away her tempters. In the end, Cyrprian became convinced of the uselessness of his sorcery, began to believe in Christ, was christened, and burned his magical books (Loparev 1993). "In another ancient version of the vita, the biography of Cyprian is told in the form of a confession in which we see the historical traits of that syncretism of religious cults and magical practices, ancient and Eastern, with which the antique world attempted to oppose the growing influence of Christianity. From an early age Cyprian had studied magic, he was a priest in the Temple of Pallas Athena in Athens, he made sacrifices to Apollo, Demeter and Hera, took part in their rites and ceremonies, was initiated into the mysteries of Mithra (the Zoroastrian cult), studied wisdom with the Egyptian priests at Memphis and knowledge of the heavenly spheres with the Chaldeans. He became 'a famous Mage and philosopher,' summoned the devil, received his blessing and help, fought with Christianity and committed a number of godless crimes with his enchantments. In this version, Cyprian is not the helper of Aglaid but his rival: having seen Justina, he himself began to burn with passion for her and wanted to win her love with the help of the devil. In some later treatments of the tale Cyprian crowds Aglaid out entirely and becomes the sole hero of the novel" (Zhirmunskii 1978: 263). Some versions of the confession of Cyprian include a wide-ranging erotic charm, which Cyprian employed as he tried to make Justina pine for love. One extant eleventh-century Coptic text of the "Confession" includes the formula, "let her not eat and not drink," and all the basic formulae of Greek love charms in general (Meyer, Smith 1999: 153-58, No. 73). There is an extensive literature devoted to the legends of Cyprian, but their history in Russia has not yet been studied (Beletskii 1911: 62-63; Bezobrazov 1917: 223-26; Zhirmunskii 1978: 263; Bagno 1985: 369; Zahn 1982; Radermacher 1927: 5-41; Bilabel, Grohmann 1935: 304-25; Jackson 1988: 33-41). In the Great Reading Menaion of Metropolitan Makarii, the entry for October 2 includes several versions of the legend of Cyprian and Ustin'ia: "Cyprian's Repentance," "The Life of the Holy Maiden Ustina," "The Torments of Saint Cyprian and the Maiden Ustina" (Velikiia Minei-Chet'i ['The Great Menaion for Reading'] 1870: 45-80). These works do not include any retelling of the love charms. While further research is needed to confirm or refute our hypothesis, the question of the intermediate links between the Greek and Slavic traditions of verbal magic, in any case, requires the special investigation of specialists in Byzantinology. For some information on love charms in Byzantium see: Greenfield 1988: 246-248. BIBLIOGRAPHY Agapkina 2002 — Agapkina Tat’iana A. “Siuzhetika vostochnoslavianskikh zagovorov v sopostavitel’nom aspekte.” Literatura, kul’tura i fol’klor slavianskikh narodov (Moscow, 2002): 237-49. Agapkina 2005 – Agapkina Tat’iana A. “Siuzhetnyi sostav vostochnoslavianskikh zagovorov (Motiv mifologicheskogo tsentra).” Zagovornyi tekst: Genezis i struktura (Moscow, 2005): 247-91. Agapkina, Toporkov 1990 — Agapkina Tat’iana A., Toporkov Andrei L. “K rekonstruktsii praslavianskikh zagovorov.” Fol’klor i иtnografiia: Problemy rekonstruktsii faktov traditsionnoi kul’tury (Leningrad, 1990): 68-75. Arnautova 2004 — Arnautova Iu. E. Kolduny i sviatye: Antropologiia bolezni v srednie veka (St. Petersburg, 2004). Bagno 1985 — Bagno V. E. “Dogovor cheloveka s d’iavolom v ‘Povesti o Savve Grudtsyne’ i v evropeiskoi literaturnoi traditsii.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, vol. XL (Leningrad, 1985): 364-72. Betz 1996 — The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation. Ed. H. D. Betz. 2d ed. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1996. Bezobrazov 1917 — Bezobrazov P. Vizantiiskie skazaniia. Part I. Rasskazy o muchenikakh. Iur’ev, 1917. Beletskii 1911-1912 — Beletskii A. I. “Legenda o Fauste v sviazi s istoriei demonologii,” Zapiski Neofilologicheskogo obshchestva pri S.-Peterburgskom universitete, vyp. 5 (1911): 59-193; vyp. 6 (1912): 67-84. Bondarenko 1992 — Taiemnaia sila slova (Zahovory, zamovliania, zaklinaniia). Ed. G. B. Bondarenko. Kyпv, 1992. Brucker 1963 — Brucker, G.A. “Sorcery in early Renaissance Florence.” Studies in the Renaissance. Vol. 10, 1963. Brucker 1971 — Brucker, G.A. The Society of Renaissance Florence. New York, 1971. Carus 1977 — Carus, A.B. ‘The Affective ‘Grammar’ and Structure of Great Russian Charms.” Forum at Iowa on Russian Literature, vol. 2 (1977): 3-19. Chernov 1965 — Chernov I. “O strukture russkogo liubovnogo zagovora.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam, vyp. 2 (Tartu, 1965): 159-72. Conrad 1989 — Conrad, J. L. “Russian Ritual Incantations: Tradition, Diversity, and Continuity.” Slavic and East European Journal, vol. 33, no. 3 (1989): 422-44. Couliano 1987 — Couliano, I. P. Eros and Magic in the Renaissance. Trans. M. Cook. Chicago, 1987. Eleonskaia 1994 — Eleonskaia E. N. “K izucheniiu zagovora i koldovstva v Rossii.” Eleonskaia E. N. Skazka, zagovor i koldovstvo v Rossii (Moscow, 1994): 99-143. Faraone 1991 — Faraone, C. A. “The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding Spells.” Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, Ed. C. A. Faraone, D. Obbink. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991: 3-32. Faraone 1993a — Faraone, C. A. “The Wheel, the Whip and Other Implements of Torture: Erotic Magic in Pindar Pythian 4:213-19.” Classical Journal, vol. 89 (1993): 1-19. Faraone 1993b — Faraone, C. A. “Molten Wax, Spilt Wine and Mutilated Animals: Sympathetic Magic in Early Greek and Near Eastern Oath Ceremonies.” Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. 113 (1993): 60-80. Faraone 1995 — Faraone, C. “The ‘Performative’ in Three Hellenistic Incantations and Theocritus’ Second Idyll.” Classical Philology, vol. 90 (1995): 1-15. Faraone1999 — Faraone, C. A. Ancient Greek Love Magic. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1999. Flint 1991 — Flint, Valerie I. J. The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe. Princeton, NJ: 1991. Gippius 2005 — Gippius A. A. “‘Sisinieva legenda’ v novgorodskoi berestianoi gramote.” Zagovornyi tekst: Genezis i struktura (Moscow, 2005): 136-42. Golopentia 1996 — Golopentia S. “Love Charms in Cornova, Bassarabia.” Studies in Moldovan: the History, Culture, Language and Contemporary Politics of the People of Moldova / Ed. by L. D. Donald. New York, 1996: 145–205. Golopentia 1998 — Golopentia S. Desire Machines: a Romanian Love Charms Database. Bucharest, 1998. Golopentia 2004 — Golopentia S. “Towards a Typology of Romanian Love Charms.” Charms and Charming in Europe. Ed. by J. Roper. New York, 2004: 145-187. Graf 1997 — Graf F. Magic in the Ancient World. Translated by F. Philip. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Greenfield 1988 — Greenfield, R. Traditions of Belief in Late Byzantine Demonology. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1988. Kalashnikova 2000 — Kalashnikova R. B. “Svadebnoe soderzhanie i ‘prisushivatel’naia’ simvolika zaonezhskikh besiodnykh pesen vtoroi poloviny XIX veka.” Kizhskii vestnik, no. 5 (Petrozavodsk, 2000): 72-94. Kharitonova 1991 — Kharitonova V. I. “Liubovna mahiia slov’ian (serbs’ko-rosiis’ki paraleli).” Problemy slov’ianoznavstva (L’viv, 1991): 59-66. Kieckhefer 1976 — Kieckhefer, Richard. European Witch Trials: Their Foundations in Popular and Learned Culture, 1300-1500. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1976. Kieckhefer 1991 — Kieckhefer, Richard. “Erotic Magic in Medieval Europe.” Sex in the Middle Ages. Ed. J.E. Salisbury (New York, 1991): 30-55. Kieckhefer 1991 — Kieckhefer, Richard. Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer’s Manual of the Fifteenth Century. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997. Kiseleva 1992 — Kiseleva Iu. M. “Smyslovye komponenty zagovora kak deistvuiushchego slova.” Konferentsiia “Slovo kak deistvie.” Tez. dokl. (Moscow, 1998): 32-37. Kiseleva 2001 — Kiseleva Iu. M. Smyslovaia organizatsiia russkikh lechebnykh i liubovnykh zagovorov. AKD. Moscow, 2001. Kis' 1994 — Kis' R. “Eros i vodna styhiia (Pervisna semiotichnist’ shljubnoi mahii).” Suchastnist’ (Kyiv, 1994), No. 1: 83-98. Kivelson 1991 — Kivelson Valerie A. “Through the Prism of Witchcraft: Gender and Social Change in Seventeenth-Century Muscovy.” Russia's Women: Accommodation, Resistance, Transformation. Ed. Barbara E. Clements, Barbara A. Engel, Christine D. Worobec. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1991: 74-94. Kivelson 1995 — Kivelson Valerie A. “Patrolling the Boundaries: Witchcraft Accusations and Household Strife in Seventeenth-Century Muscovy.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 19 (1995): 302-23. Klagstad 1958 — Klagstad H. L. “Great Russian Charm Structure.” Indiana Slavic Studies, vol. 2 (1958): 135-44. Kliaus 1994 — Kliaus V. L. “Vzaimootnosheniia polov v slavianskikh zagovorakh (na materiale iuzhnykh i vostochnykh slavian).” Zhenshchina i svoboda: Puti vybora v mire traditsii i peremen (Moscow, 1994): 369-73. Kliaus 1995 — “Zagovory i magicheskie sredstva” (st. i pub. V. L. Kliausa). Russkii eroticheskii fol’klor: Pesni. Obriady i obriadovyi fol’klor. Narodnyi teatr. Zagovory. Zagadki. Chastushki (Moscow, 1995): 344-61. Kliaus 2000 — Kliaus V. L. Siuzhetika zagovornykh tekstov slavian v sravnitel’nom izuchenii. Moscow, 2000. Kolberg 1962 — Kolberg O. Dzieła wszystkie, vol. 15. Wielke Księstwo Poznańskie. Cz. 7. Wrocław; Poznań, 1962. Korablev 2003 — Korablev L. Runicheskie zagovory i apokrificheskie molitvy islandtsev. Moscow, 2000. Kovecses 1988 — Kovecses, Z. The Language of Love: The Semantics of Passion in Conversational English. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press; London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1988. Kovecses 1991 — Kovecses, Z. “A linguist’s quest for love.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, vol. 8 (1991): 77-97. Kuhnert 1894 — Kuhnert, E. “Feuerzauber.” Rheinisches Museum, vol. 49 (1894): 37-54. Kuznetsova 1992 — Kuznetsova V. P. “O funktsiiakh kolduna v russkom svadebnom obriade Zaonezh’ia.” Zaonezh’e (Petrozavodsk, 1992): 117-31. Kuznetsova 2000 — Kuznetsova V. P. “Druzhka i ego rol’ v russkoi svad’be Zaonezh’ia.” Kizhskii vestnik, no. 5 (2000): 95-104. Lavrov 2000 — Lavrov A. S. Koldovstvo i religiia v Rossii: 1700-1740 gg. Moscow, 2000. Levin 1997 — Levin Eve. “Supplicatory Prayers as a Source for Popular Religious Culture in Muscovite Russia.” Religion and Culture in Early Modern Russia and Ukraine (De Kalb: Northern Illinois Univ. Press, 1997): 96-114 (In Russian: Levin Iv. Dvoeverie i narodnaia religiia v istorii Rossii, trans. A. L. Toporkov and Z. N. Isidorova (Moscow, 2004): 84-109). Levkievskaia 2002 — Levkievskaia E. E. Slavianskii obereg: Semantika i struktura. Moscow, 2002. Lipatov 1981 — Lipatov V. A. “K probleme regional’noi spetsifiki fol’klora: O variativnosti zagovorov.” P. I. Chaikovskii i Ural (Izhevsk, 1983): 99-108. Likht 1995 — Likht G. Seksual’naia zhizn’ v Drevnei Gretsii. Trans. from English by V. V. Fedorin. Moscow, 1995. Loginov 1988 — Loginov K. K. “Devich’ia obriadnost’ russkikh Zaonezh’ia.” Obriady i verovaniia narodov Karelii (Petrozavodsk, 1988): 64-76. Long 1969 — Longinus. Dafnis i Khloia. Akhill Tamii. Levkippa i Klitofont. Long. Dafnis i Khloia. Petronii. Satirikon. Apulei. Metamorfozy, ili Zolotoi osel. Trans. from ancient Greek and Latin. Moscow, 1969: 167-34. Loparev 1993 — Loparev Kh. M. “Kiprian.” Khristianstvo. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1993): 736-37. Martin 1989 — Martin, R. Witchcraft and the Inquisition in Venice, 1550-1650. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. Martinez 1995 — Martinez, D.G. “‘May She Neither Eat nor Drink…’: Love Magic and Vows of Abstinence.” Ritual Power in the Ancient World. Ed. M. Meyer, P. Mirecki (Leiden, 1995): 335-360. Meyer, Smith 1999 — Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power. Ed. M. Meyer and R. Smith. Princeton, NJ, 1994. Mijuskovic 1981 — Mijuskovic M. Ljubavne cini. Belgrade, 1985. Mikhailova 2000 — Mikhailova T. V. “Predstaviteli dukhovkogo sosloviia v koldovskikh protsessakh vtoroi poloviny XVIII v.” Vestnik molodykh uchenykh. Istoricheskie nauki (St. Petersburg, 2000): 31-40. Minczev 2003 — Minczev G. Święta księga — ikona — obrzed: Teksty kanoniczne i pseudokanoniczne a ich funkcjonowanie w sztuce sakralnej i folklorze prawosławnych Słowian na Bałkanach. Łódz, 2003. Minenok 1994 — Minenok E. V. “Rol’ zhenshchin v zagovornoi traditsii.” Zhenshchina i svoboda: Puti vybora v mire traditsii i peremen (Moscow, 1994): 362-368. O’Neil 1987 — O’Neil, Mary. “Magical Healing, Love Magic and the Inquisition in Late Sixteenth-Century Modena.” Inquisition and Society in Early Modern Europe. Ed. and trans. S. Halizer (London, 1987): 88-114. Ortega 1991 — Ortega, M.H.S. “Sorcery and Eroticism in Love Magic.” Cultural Encounters: The Impact of the Inquisition in Spain and the New World. Ed. by M.E. Perry, A.J. Cruz (Berkeley, 1991): 58-92. PGM — Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die Griechischen Zauberpapyri. Herausg. von K. Preisendanz et al. 2. Aufl., vol. 2. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973-1974. Parry 1992 — Parry, H. Thelxis: Magic and Imagination in Greek Myth and Poetry. Lanham, New York, London, 1992. Peskov 1977 — Peskov A. M. “Ob ustoichivykh poeticheskikh elementakh russkogo zagovora.” Filologiia, vyp. 5 (Moscow, 1977): 26-39. Petropoulos 1993 — Petropoulos, J.C. “Sappho Sorceress: Another Look at Frag. 1 (L-P).” Zeitschrift fьr Papyrologie und Epigraphik, vol. 97 (1993): 43-56. Pokrovskii 1987 — Pokrovskii N. N. “Tetrad’ zagovorov 1734 goda.” Nauchnyi ateizm, religiia i sovremennost’. Novosibirsk, 1987: 239-66. Pushkareva 1999 — Pushkareva N. L. “‘Kako sia razgore serdtse moe i telo moe do tebe…’: Liubov' v chastnoi zhizni cheloveka srednevekovoi Rusi po nenormativnym istochnikam.” “A se grekhi zlye, smertnye…” Liubov’, erotika i seksual’naia иtika v doindustrial’noi Rossii (X-pervaia polovina XIX v.). Ed. N. L. Pushkareva (Moscow, 1999): 507-15. Rezvan 1988—Rezvan E. A. Eticheskie predstavleniia v Korane.” Иtiket u narodov Perednei azii (Moscow, 1988): 38-59. Ruggiero 1993 — Ruggiero, C. Binding Passions: Tales of Magic, Marriage and Power at the End of the Renaissance. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Ryan 1999 — Ryan William F. The Bathhouse at Midnight. An Historical Survey of Magic and Divination in Russia. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999. Sazonova, Toporkov 2002 — “Zagovory ot vrazheskogo oruzhiia v sbornike XVIII v.” Otrechennoe chtenie v Rossii XVII-XVIII vekov. Ed. A. L. Toporkov, A. A. Turilov. (Moscow, 2002): 267-89. Scully 1995 — Scully, S. “Marriage or a Career? Witchcraft as an Alternative in Seventeenth-Century Venice.” Journal of Social History, vol. 28 (1995): 857-76. Segal 1974 — Segal, C. “Eros and Incantation: Sappho and Oral Poetry.” Arethusa, vol. 7 (1974): 139-60. Shniter 2001 — Shniter M. Molitva i magiia. Sofia, 2001. Smilianskaia 1996 — Smilianskaia Elena B. “Sledstvennye dela ‘o sueveriiakh’ v Rossii pervoi poloviny XVIII v. v svete problem istorii obshchestvennogo soznaniia.” Rossica, no. 1 (1996): 3-20. Smilianskaia 2001 — Smilianskaia Elena B. “‘Liubov' tvoia rany mne velikie daet…’ (Chuvstva i strasti po sledstvennym delam XVII v.).” Mifologiia i povsednevnost’: Gendernyi podkhod v antropologicheskikh distsiplinakh (Saint Petersburg, 2001): 26-40. Smilianskaia 2003 — Smilianskaia Elena B. Volshebniki. Bogokhul’niki. Eretiki. Narodnaia religioznost' i “dukhovnye prestupleniia” v Rossii XVIII v. Moscow, 2003. SMU 1998 — Slovesna mahiia ukraпntsiv. Kyпv, 1998. Stephens 2002 — Stephens, W. Demon Lovers: Witchcraft, Sex, and the Crisis of Belief. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2002. Tavenner 1942 — Tavenner, E. “The Use of Fire in Greek and Roman Love Magic.” Studies in Honor of F.W. Shipley (St. Louis, 1942): 17-37. Toporkov 1999 — Toporkov Andrei L. “Russkie liubovnye zagovory XIX veka.” Eros i pornografiia v russkoi kul’ture. Ed. Marcus Levitt and Andrei L. Toporkov. Moscow, 1999: 54-71. Toporkov 2002 — Toporkov Andrei L. “Zagovorno-zaklinatel’naia poeziia v rukopisnykh traditsiiakh vostochnykh i iuzhnykh slavian.” Literatura, Kul’tura i fol’klor slavianskikh narodov: XIII Mezhdunarodnyi s"ezd slavistov (Liubliana, avgust 2003). Doklady rossiiskoi delegatsii (Moscow, 2002): 351-61. Toporkov, Turilov 2002 — Otrechennoe chtenie v Rossii XVII-XVIII vekov. Ed. Andrei L. Toporkov, A. A. Turilov. Moscow: Indrik, 2002. Toporov 1969 — Toporov V. N. “K rekonstruktsii indoevropeiskogo rituala i ritual’no-poeticheskikh formul (na materiale zagovorov).” Trudy po znakovym sistemam, vyp. 4 (Tartu, 1969): 9-43. (Uchen. zap. Tart. god. uni-ta; vyp. 236.) Toporova 1996 — Toporova T. V. Iazyk i stil' drevnegermanskikh zagovorov. Moscow, 1996. Vasilenko, Shevchuk 1991 — Vy, zori-zorytsi… Ukraпnska narodna magichna poeziia (Zamovliannia). Ed. M. G. Vasilenko, T. M. Shevchuk. Kyпv, 1991. Velikiia Minei-Chetii 1870 — Velikiia Minei-Chetii, sobrannyia Vserossiiskim mitropolitom Makariem. October, days 1-3. St. Petersburg, 1870. Vel’mezova 2004 — Vel’mezova E. V. Cheshskie zagovory: Issledovaniia i teksty. Moscow, 2004. Vinogradov 1908/I-II — Vinogradov N. Zagovory, oberegi, spasitel’nye molitvy i proch. (Po starinnym rukopisiam i sovremennym zapisiam). St. Petersburg, 1908, vyp. 1; 1909, vyp. 2. Wilson 2000 — Wilson, St. Magical Universe: Everyday Ritual and Magic in Pre-Modern Europe. London and New York, 2000. Winkler 1990 — Winkler J. J. The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece. New York, 1990. Zalizniak 1993 — Zalizniak Andrei A. “Drevneishii vostochnoslavianskii zagovornyi tekst.” Issledovaniia v oblasti balto-slavianskoi dukhovnoi kul’tury: Zagovor (Moscow, 1993): 104-07. Zalizniak 1995 — Zalizniak Andrei A. Drevnenovgorodskii dialect. Moscow, 1995. Zalizniak 2004 — Zalizniak Andrei A. Drevnenovgorodskii dialect. 2nd ed. Moscow, 2004. Zhirmunskii 1978 — Zhirmunskii V. M. “Istoriia legendy o Fauste.” Legenda o doktore Fauste. Ed. V. M. Zhirmunskii. 2nd ed., corrected (Moscow, 1978): 257-362. Zhuravel’ 1996 — Zhuravel’ O. D. Siuzhet o dogovore cheloveka s d’iavolom v drevnerusskoi literature. Novosibirsk, 1996. Zyrianov 1975 — Zyrianov I. V. “Zagovor i svadebnaia poeziia.” Fol’klor i literature Urala, vyp. 2 (Perm’, 1975): 49-81. OR NBU – Otdel rukopisei Nacional'noi biblioteki Ukrainy im. V. I. Vernadskogo (The Manuscript division of the V. I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine) (Kiev) PAGE 1