Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:58:34.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Another view of the Pergamon divination kit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2015

Richard Gordon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is very welcome that A. Mastrocinque (above) has re-opened the dossier relating to the Pergamon Zaubergerät, first published by R. Wünsch almost a century ago. The discovery in 1977 of a very similar ‘triangle’ in the Maison du Cerf at Apamea seemed to confirm Wünsch's account of the kit as the equipment required to perform a type of divination very similar to that described in Hilarius' confession relating to the seance of A.D. 371. My remarks are not directly concerned with the possible theurgic background of the Pergamon kit, though I admit I am rather sceptical of it. I wish rather to take the opportunity to reconsider the kit as a whole, in the light of the find from Apamea.

The problem is easily outlined. Rhetorically, Wünsch's commentary leads up to a kind of revelation, the disclosure of the true sense of the kit as whole. In the last major section of his account, Wünsch discussed each object in turn, noting the use of similar objects in diverse magical contexts. For his interpretation the crucial apparatus was the inscribed disc, which has 24 fields in the three outer circles, that is, the number of letters in the Greek alphabet. That implied an alphabet-oracle, and it was then easy to point to Ammianus' already famous report. It is his story of the ‘wizard at work’ that caught the imagination of his readers, the story of the polished stones used as protective amulets, the ring hung from the nail over the circular disc, which was moved by the handle to create words or sentences from the signs inscribed on its surface. But if one looks closely at the disc, it is very difficult (indeed, in my view impossible) to credit that it could have served as an alphabet-oracle or anything similar. If so, does the disc belong to the triangular support at all? Can the other appliances be understood differently from the way Wünsch suggested? My argument is that we might read much of his own commentary as undercutting the final disclosure that depends so heavily on Hilarius, and that we should revert to his own initial conception of an ensemble, a group of instruments with a variety of ritual uses. Indeed, there are reasons for thinking that the individual items were not conceived as a group, but rather assembled over time from various sources as a collection. I incline to understand the ensemble as not so much a ‘kit’ as a rag-bag collection.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Roman Archaeology , Volume 15 , 2002 , pp. 188 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of Roman Archaeology L.L.C. 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I am grateful to Attilio Mastrocinque for asking me to look through his original essay and thereby renewing my interest in the Zaubergerät, which long ago I had given up as impenetrable; and to the editor for forcing me to shorten an almost equally impenetrable manuscript. I also thank I. Trabert (Antikensammlung, Berlin) for sending me photographs of the kit taken by Geske, I. and Tietz-Glagow, J.. PGM refers to Papyri Graecae Magicae, Preisendanz, K. and Henrichs, A. (edd.) (2nd edn., Stuttgart 1973–1974)Google Scholar; PDM refers to the translations of the Demotic papyri by Johnson, J. in Betz, H. D. (ed.), The Greek magical papyri in translation (2nd edn., Chicago 1992)Google Scholar.

2 Donnay, G., “Instrument divinatoire d'époque romaine,” in Balty, J.-C. (ed.), Apamée de Syrie: Actes du colloque 1980 (Brussels 1984) 203–9Google Scholar (I thank M. Martens [Instituut voor het Archeologisch Patrimonium, Tienen] for obtaining me a copy of this article). Hilarius: Amm. Marc. 29.1.28-32.

3 I very much doubt whether the disc can represent the cosmography of the Myth of Er even in a modified manner, and there is no other evidence for alphabet-oracles invoking Hekate.

4 Wünsch, R., Antikes Zaubergerät aus Pergamon (JdAI Ergh. 6, 1905) 38–48 Google Scholar.

5 Amm. Marc. 29.1.30: Cuius in ambitu rotunditatis in extremo, elementorum XXIV scriptiles formae incisae perite, diiungebantur spatiis examinate dimensis.

6 I reproduce Wünsch's pl. 2, figs. 8-9; note however that, although the individual charakteres are drawn accurately enough, the draughtsman has regularised the dividing-lines between the outer segments of the concentric circles, so the drawing must be controlled from the photograph (fig. 4 in Mastrocinque above).

7 Corp. Herm. XVI.2: φωναῖς μεσταῖς τῶν ἔργων. On the subjective intentions of charakteres, note Hopfner, Th., s.v. “Χαρακτῆρες,” RE Suppl. 4 (1924) 1183–88Google Scholar; Lewy, H., Chaldaean Oracles and theurgy (2nd edn., Paris 1978) 252–54Google Scholar.

8 For the terms, see Leach, E., Culture and communication: the logic by which symbols are connected (Cambridge 1976) 11–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 King Nectanebo is supposed to have had such a disc made with the decans round the circumference, then the 12 zodiacal signs, and the Sun and Moon in the centre: PsCallisth.RA p. 40 Tallet-Bonvalot; p. 4 Bounoure; cf. Aufrère, S. H., “Quelques aspects du dernier Nectanébo et les échos de la magie égyptienne dans le Roman Alexandre ,” in Moreau, A. and Turpin, J.-C. (edd.), La magie, 1: Du monde babylonien au monde hellénistique (Montpellier 2000) 107–8Google Scholar. But as a form of dice oracle (supposing it is not an utter flight of fancy), this instrument, unlike our disc, must have been plane.

10 Mastrocinque, A., “Una donna di Comum che credeva nella magia: la laminetta magica,” QuadTic 30 (2001) 235–50Google Scholar.

11 A. A. Barb thought the disc was an astrological oracle, directly comparable with the iatromathematical ‘circles of Petosiris’, which have enjoyed such success in Arab, mediaeval and even Tibetan magic, but wisely refrained from explaining exactly how, on such an hypothesis, it might have functioned; he saw Hilarius’ alphabet-oracle as a late degeneration from this type of onomatomancy (divination by name): “The survival of magic arts,” in Momigliano, A. (ed.), Paganism and Christianity in the fourth century (Oxford 1963) 112–13Google Scholar. In my view, our disc bears only the most superficial resemblance to these ‘circles’, for which see Bouché-Leclercq, A., L'astrologie grecque (Paris 1899) 538–41Google Scholar.

12 The 1-cm convexity is clearly seen in Wünsch's side-view (fig. 2 here).

13 On discovery, the handle was corroded fast at an angle of 40° (Wünsch 14). The piece of wire has since been removed by the Museum.

14 I take it that the disc was polished.

15 PGM XIII 750-52. On katoptromancy in general, see Ganschinietz, R., s.v “Κατοπτρομαντεία,” RE XI (1921) 27–29 Google Scholar; Delatte, A., La catoptromancie grecque et ses dérivés (Liége-Paris 1932)Google Scholar; Fick, N., “Magie et religion dans l'Apologie d'Apulée,” Vita Latina 124 (1991) 14–31 at 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 PGM IV 3251-54, transl. W. C. Grese. The recipe has been clumsily edited from at least two others, and the instructions are not quite consistent. ‘Reciting into the bowl’ is the usual technique: cf. PDM. xiv 851-55.

17 PDM xiv 285-86, 411-17; also xiv 69-72.

18 Yet a third (less likely) possibility is that the disc was suspended over burning incense or a consecrated lamp to absorb the fragrance/smoke, and then placed under the practitioner's pillow to obtain a prophetic dream: cf. PGM VII 740-55.

19 The disc must have been held fast somehow at the top. A similar device appears in the magical papyri: PGM IV 3172-3208.

20 Tables: PGM XIII 14-21; IV 2187-88; cf. V 216, 220. Tripods: the case in V 200-1 seems decisive, since the tripod is placed on a house-altar of clay and the spice burned on it; III 187-96 is less clear; cf. XIII 1008-14.

21 PGM IV 1909-10. Tables could be used for the same purpose: 1840-70; 1877-1901 (statuettes of Eros).

22 PGM IV 3144-45. They may be identifiable with the small round clay stands, sometimes supporting shallow dishes, which have been noted from Egypt: Weber, W., Die ägyptisch-griechischen Terrakotten (Berlin 1914) 259 Google Scholar no. 473, with pl. 42; Dunand, F., Catalogue des terres cuites gréco-romaines d'Egypte (Musée du Louvre 1990) 947 no. 946Google Scholar.

23 PGM IV 2631-35 and 2880-90. Both spells are directed towards Selene-Hekate, so that the protective amulet protects the practitioner against the goddess herself.

24 All but one come from the Great Paris codex: PGM IV 1390-1495 (violently negative); 2441-2621; 2708- 84; 2785-2890; 2943-66; also 2622-2707; XXXVI 187-210.

25 PGM IV 2714, Διώνης ἡ μεδέουσα.

26 PGM IV 2774-75 with ll. 65-67 of Wünsch's transcription of the base (id. 12-13 and 25-26). The next epiklesis in his transcription is ἰὼ πάντα ἐφέπουσα, ‘O goddess who haunts all things’, which is hardly Greek; the epiklesis in the papyrus, ἰὼ παντρεφέουσα (ll. 2775-76), would make much better sense.

27 The inscription on the stand, however, contains a number of unusual epithets which may point in a different direction. Mêlinoê, which must mean ‘quince-yellow’, recalls Hekate's epithet krokopeplos in H. Orph. 1.2 (already of Enyo, in Hesiod, , Theog. 273 Google Scholar), and seems to point to the context of the Orphic Hymns: the Hymn to this ‘nymph’ of the Underworld (no. 71) treats her as a form of Hekate (Wünsch 26). Leuko(ph)ryênê and Phoibiê are unusual epithets of Artemis. Ameibousa (also at Apamea) is unparalleled, though by no means unintelligible: Wünsch (23) relates it to the changing phases of the Moon, but it more probably evokes the thought οὐρανία, χθονία τε καὶ εἰναλία of the Orphic Hymn to Hekate 1.2, or the function of transmitting souls and daemones across the boundary between the earthly and celestial spheres, which Hekate shared with Selene: Johnston, S. I., Hekate Soteira: a study of Hekate's roles in the Chaldaean oracles and related literature (Atlanta 1990) 29–31 Google Scholar.

28 Zografou, A., “L'énigme de la triple Hécate: de l'entre-deux à la triplicité,” in Batsch, C. et al. (edd.), Zwischen Krise und Alltag: Antike Religionen im Mittelmeerraum/Conflit et normalité: Religions anciennes dans l'espace méditerranéen (Potsdamer Beiträge 1, 1999) 57–79 Google Scholar.

29 On the imagery of Hekate, see Sarian, H., s.v. “Hekate,” LIMC 6 (1992) 985–1018 Google Scholar.

30 Frankfurter, D., “The magic of writing and the writing of magic: the power of the word in Egyptian and Greek traditions,” Helios 21 (1994) 205–10Google Scholar; id., Religion in Roman Egypt: assimilation and resistance (Princeton 1998) 248–56.

31 Cf. Preisendanz, K., “Zur synkretistischen Magie im römischen Ägypten,” in Gerstinger, H. (ed.), Akten des VIII int. Kongresses für Papyrologie, Wien 1955 (Vienna 1956) 116–17Google Scholar.

32 Wünsch ibid. and 43. He was heavily influenced by the two protective charms of PGM IV (a composite recipe) at 2630-35 (Hekate) and 2694-2702; and that at 2878-90 (Hekate).

33 Lucian, , De Navig. 42–44 Google Scholar; on magical rings and gems, see briefly Ganschinietz, R., s.v. “Ringe,” RE 1A (1914) 838 f.Google Scholar; Hopfner, Th., Grieschisch-ägyptischer Offenbarungszauber (2nd edn., Amsterdam 1974–1990)Google Scholar vol. 1 paras. 552-89, esp. 581.

34 PGM XII 201-69, 270-350; V 213-303.

35 PGM IV 1596-1715; VII 628-42; V 447-58.

36 E.g., PGM IV 2943-66; XXXVI 187-210. Analogous recipes call for sealing magical ‘pills’ with an iron ring bearing the image of Hekate (IV 2690-93), and sealing a defective oracular skull, also with an engraved iron ring (IV 2125-39).

37 On the amuletic image as a direct mediator, see Janowitz, N., Magic in the Roman world: Pagans, Jews and Christians (London 2001) 57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 A. Bouché-Leclercq, s.v. Divination in Dar.-Sag. 301; id., Histoire de la divination dans l'Antiquité (Paris 1879-82) vol. 1, 183.

39 Wünsch 39 and 48. Touchstones are a black variety of quartz or jasper, also called basanite.

40 On this tradition, see the introduction to Halleux, R. and Schamp, J., Les lapidaires grecques (Paris 1985)Google Scholar; on the Babylonian stone-books, Reiner, E., Astral magic in Babylonia (Philadelphia 1995) 119–32Google Scholar.

41 Respectively: NH 37.145, 148, 157, 161, 174, 189; 36.159, 128.

42 Respectively, Pliny NH 37.160, 164, 165, 192.

43 Wünsch 43-44.

44 Two were found, the larger measuring 16 × 5 cm, the smaller (if the surviving drawing is life-size [which seems unlikely, since it would have been disproportionately narrow]), 11.5 × 2.7 cm.

45 PGM IV 2145-2240. Other recipes require an inscribed lamella to ensure the divine presence for divination; or to obtain victory: III 424-66; XIII 1003-25.

46 PGM XXXVI 275-83.

47 2Jeu para 52, edd. Schmidt and MacDermott, cited by Frankfurter 1998 (supra n.30) 261-62. The Kestner Museum in Hanover possesses a tessera made out of an early 4th-c follis that bears a complex design with some affinities to the Pergamon ‘plates’: Mlasowsky, A., Die antiken Tesseren im Kestner-Museum (Sammlungskatalog 8, Hanover 1991) 46 Google Scholar no. 2 = Bendlin, A. et al. (edd.) Axt und Altar: Kult und Ritual als Schlüssel zur römischen Kultur (Exh. cat., Erfurt 2001) 64 no. 52Google Scholar, with col. pl. 10.

48 The text is given by Wünsch 12-13.

49 There may be a parallel case in Kotansky, R., Greek magical amulets 1 (Opladen 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar no. 49 = IGLS 5, 2494 (Emesa), which mainly consists of onomata, none of which bears any resemblance to Egyptian.

50 Cf. Small, J. P., Wax tablets of the mind (London 1997) 255 n.81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 On the rôle of the ‘House of Life’, see Frankfurter 1994 (supra n. 30) 189-21; id. 1998 (supra n.30) 238-56.

52 Barely competent in my view are at least: Kotansky (supra n.49) nos. 1, 3, 5-6, 10, 12, 14-16, 20-21, 24-25, 30, 40, 42-44, 50, 63, 65-66; only one of these (50) comes from Egypt or Syria. Sometimes it is competence in Jewish divine lore that is demonstrated (e.g., Kotansky 41, 52, 56); or in both GraecoEgyptian and Jewish (e.g., 38, 48).

53 Kotansky nos. 35 (Antioch in Pisodia) and 34 (Aksaray, central Turkey), respectively. No. 36, however, is a very early (1st c. B.C to 1st c. A.D.) amulet from Pontus, showing considerable competence in organisation and use of onomata. Defixiones from Asia Minor are very uncommon, but Jordan, D. R. (“A survey of Greek defixiones not included in the special corpora,” GRBS 26 [1985] 194 Google Scholar) lists one learned or ritual example each from the Upper Maeander valley and Klaudiopolis.

54 Bloch, M., “Astrology and writing in Madagascar,” in Goody, J. (ed.), Literacy in traditional societies (Cambridge 1968) 278–97Google Scholar.

55 The fact that the Apamene stand is not inscribed with a long incantation suggests that the owner of the Pergamon stand was keen to distinguish his own as especially significant.