INNSBRUCKER BEITRÄGE ZUR KULTURWISSENSCHAFT
Im Auftrag der
Innsbrucker Gesellschaft zur Pflege der Geisteswissenschaften
herausgegeben von
WOLFGANG MEID
Neue Folge
Band 17
DANIELA URBANOVÁ
LATIN CURSE TABLETS
OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE
INNSBRUCK 2018
English translation, revised and updated, of the original publication
Latinské proklínací tabulky na území římského impéria
Host / Masarykova Univerzita, Brno 2014
Published with the financial support of Masaryk University, Brno
Cover Illustration:
Curse Tablet Bologna 1 & 3
© Museo Civico Archeologico di Bologna
ISBN 978-3-85124-245-4
© The Author, Masaryk University
and Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft
2018
INNSBRUCKER BEITRÄGE ZUR KULTURWISSENSCHAFT
Series Editor: Wolfgang Meid
Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck
Bereich Sprachwissenschaft
Copy editing by the Author and Mag. Tomás Hlavička
English translation by Natália Gachallová
Translation reviewed by Sarah Legowski
Processed for printing by ARCHAEOLINGUA Budapest
Printed by Prime Rate Kft. Budapest
Orders to be addressed to:
Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck
Bereich Sprachwissenschaft
Innrain 52
6020 Innsbruck, Austria
e-mail: wolfgang.meid@uibk.ac.at
LATIN CURSE TABLETS
OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE
DANIELA URBANOVÁ
English Translation: Natália Gachallová
Native speaker proof-reading of the English text: Sarah Legowski
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
For inspiration, advice, and support, I would like to offer my special thanks to
A. Bartoněk, P. Poccetti, P. Cuzzolin, W. Meid, B. Adamik, A. Barta,
J. Nechutová, V. Blažek, J. Franek, N. Gachallová, L. Minarini. Significant
assistance in processing statistical data provided by L. Novák. Many thanks also
to T. Hlavička for his help in technical issues regarding the text, maps, and his
friendly support as well as to L. Urbanová for her illustration. For the financial
support of the publication, I am grateful to the Dean of the Faculty of Arts at
Masaryk University M. Pol, Vice-Dean J. Horáková, and the Head of the
Department of Classical Studies I. Radová.
Ringraziamenti: Un particolare ringraziamento devo alla direzione del Museo
Civico Archeologico di Bologna, che mi ha gentilmente concesso la
riproduzione della fotografia per la copertina. ©Museo Civico Archeologico di
Bologna.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 13 
1.1 DEFIXIONES: A DEFINITION............................................................ 17 
1.1.2 Classification of Curses................................................................ 18 
1.1.2.1 Non-Specific Curses............................................................ 18 
1.1.2.2 Types of Curses According to Content ............................... 20 
1.2 PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE: A Definition.............................................. 24 
1.2.1 Prayers for Justice Outside Britannia ........................................... 26 
1.2.2 Prayers for Justice from Britannia................................................ 28 
1.2.3 Differences between Curses and Prayers for Justice.................... 30 
1.3 DATING AND SPREAD OF THE TABLETS
IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE................................................................... 33 
1.4 MATERIALS USED............................................................................. 36 
1.5 AUTHORS OF THE CURSES ............................................................. 37 
1.6 CURSED PEOPLE, FILIATION .......................................................... 38 
1.7 GODS AND DAEMONS...................................................................... 43 
1.7.1 Voces Magicae − Nomina Barbarica, Signa Magica.................... 45 
1.7.2 Script in the Service of Magic...................................................... 49 
1.8 RITUAL TREATMENT OF TABLET................................................. 50 
1.8.1 Figurines, Materia Magica, Gems ................................................ 50 
1.8.2 Final Treatment of the Tablet....................................................... 56 
1.8.3 Depositing the Tablets − Locations of Findings........................... 58 
1.9 CURSING FORMULAE....................................................................... 60 
1.9.1 Structure of Curse......................................................................... 61 
1.9.2 Optional Supplements of Curses .................................................. 65 
1.9.3 Classification of Cursing Formulae.............................................. 70 
1.10 AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS....................................... 77 
1.10.1 Aims and Wishes of the Curses’ Authors................................... 77 
1.10.2. Aims and Wishes of the Authors of Prayers for Justice............ 85 
1.11 TABLETS’ EXPECTED EFFECT − DID THEY WORK?................ 92 
1.12 CRITERIA OF ANALYSIS................................................................ 95 
1.12.1 Shared Criteria of Curses and Prayers for Justice ...................... 96 
1.12.2 Criteria of Analysis Specific to Curses....................................... 96 
1.12.3 Criteria of Analysis Specific to Prayers for Justice.................... 97 
1.13 AIMS OF THE WORK ....................................................................... 98 
1.14 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 100 
7
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING ....................................................................... 102 
2.1 SIMPLE AND COMBINED CURSES............................................... 103 
2.1.1 Simple Nominal Lists of Cursed People..................................... 104 
2.2. DIRECT CURSING FORMULAE .................................................... 104 
2.2.1 Formula 1: Direct Curse with the Predicates of Cursing............ 104 
2.2.2 Formula 1a: Direct Curse with the Predicates of Committal...... 105 
2.3 INVOKING FORMULAE .................................................................. 107 
2.3.1 Formula 2: Invoking Formula with the Predicates
of Committal, Request, and Plea................................................... 111 
2.3.2 Formula 2a: Invoking Formula with the Predicates
of Committal, Request, Plea, and Cursing .................................... 114 
2.3.3 Formula 3: Imperative Invoking Formula with the Predicate
in Imperative ................................................................................. 116 
2.3.4. Formula 3a: Extended Imperative Invoking Formula
with the Predicate in Imperative.................................................... 118 
2.3.5 Formula 4: Invoking Wish-Formula with the Predicate
in the 3rd
sg./pl. Pres. Subj............................................................. 120 
2.3.6 Formula 5: Simile-Formula, i.e. Analogy within Invoking
Wish-Formulae.............................................................................. 123 
3. OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND DATING OF CURSING
FORMULAE IN PARTICULAR PROVINCES....................................... 127 
3.1 CURSING FORMULAE IN CURSES AND PRAYERS
FOR JUSTICE..................................................................................... 127 
3.1.1 Formula 0 ................................................................................... 127 
3.1.2 Formula 1 in Curses.................................................................... 128 
3.1.2.1 Formula 1 in Prayers for Justice.............................................. 128 
3.1.3 Formula 1a in Curses.................................................................. 129 
3.1.3.1 Formula 1a in Prayers for Justice ............................................ 129 
3.1.4 Formula 2 in Curses.................................................................... 130 
3.1.4.1 Formula 2 in Prayers for Justice.............................................. 131 
3.1.5 Formula 2a in Curses.................................................................. 131 
3.1.5.1 Formula 2a in Prayers for Justice ............................................ 132 
3.1.6 Formula 3 in Curses.................................................................... 132 
3.1.6.1 Formula 3 in Prayers for Justice.............................................. 133 
3.1.7 Formula 3a in Curses.................................................................. 134 
3.1.7.1 Formula 3a in Prayers for Justice ............................................ 134 
8
3.1.8 Formula 4 in Curses.................................................................... 135 
3.1.8.1 Formula 4 in Prayers for Justice.............................................. 135 
3.1.9 Simile-Formula − Formula 5 in Curses ...................................... 136 
3.1.9.1 Simile-Formula − Formula 5 in Prayers for Justice................. 137 
3.2 CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 137 
3.3. OTHER ADDITIONAL FORMULAE .............................................. 145 
3.3.1 Time Data in Curses................................................................... 145 
3.3.1.1 Time Data in Prayers for Justice.............................................. 148 
3.3.2 Vota ............................................................................................ 152 
3.3.3 Other Optional Supplements ...................................................... 154 
4. TYPES OF CURSES................................................................................... 157 
4.1 OCCURENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE PARTICULAR
TYPES OF CURSES IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE ............................. 160 
4.1.1 Non-Specific Curses................................................................... 163 
4.1.2 Legal Curses............................................................................... 164 
4.1.3 Agonistic Curses......................................................................... 165 
4.1.4 Love Spells................................................................................. 166 
4.1.5 Rivalry in Love........................................................................... 166 
5. AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS OF CURSES WITH RESPECT
TO THE TYPES OF CURSES.................................................................. 168 
5.1 OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE AIMS OF CURSE
IN RESPECT OF THE TYPE OF CURSE......................................... 171 
5.1.1 Restrictions................................................................................. 171 
5.1.2 Disease, Disease/Death, Death................................................... 173 
5.1.3 Separation................................................................................... 175 
5.1.4 Love............................................................................................ 175 
5.2 CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 177 
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE.............. 180 
6.1 THEFTS AND FRAUDS .................................................................... 181 
6.2 AIMS OF THE AUTHORS OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
RELATED TO THE DAMAGE SUFFERED .................................... 184 
6.2.1 The Aims of the Authors of Prayers for Justice in Relation
to the Culprit – Revenge/Restrictions ........................................... 190 
6.2.1.1 Punishment/Revenge – Points in Common with Curses ... 191 
9
6.2.1.2 Restrictions/Punishment – Points in Common with
Love Spells.................................................................................... 194 
6.2.1.3 Wishes Specific to Prayers for Justice –
Punishment/Revenge..................................................................... 197 
6.3 CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 203 
7. ITALIA........................................................................................................ 206 
7.1 NEW FINDINGS ................................................................................ 206 
7.2 THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE TERRITORY OF ANCIENT
ITALIA AND ITS SPECIFIC FEATURES........................................ 209 
7.3 SPECIFIC FEATURES OF THE CURSE TABLETS FOUND IN THE
TERRITORY OF OLD ITALIA......................................................... 212 
7.3.1 Non-Specific Curses................................................................... 213 
7.3.1.1 Cursing of Body Parts ....................................................... 213 
7.3.1.2 Nomentum......................................................................... 217 
7.3.1.3 Minturno............................................................................ 219 
7.3.1.4 Rome ................................................................................. 223 
7.3.1.5 Bologna ............................................................................. 231 
7.3.1.6 Cursing of Body Parts in Particular Contexts.................... 236 
7.3.2 Other Types of Curses................................................................ 238 
7.4 A TABLET FOUND IN THE SPRING OF ANNA PERENNA ........ 240 
7.5 PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE.................................................................. 242 
7.6 ADDRESSED DEITIES AND DAEMONS ....................................... 244 
7.6.1 Voces Magicae, Signa Magica, a Non-Standard Orientation
of Script......................................................................................... 245 
7.7 FORMULAE AND CURSED PEOPLE ............................................. 245 
8. HISPANIA................................................................................................... 249 
8.1. THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE TERRITORY
OF HISPANIA AND ITS SPECIFIC FEATURES ............................ 249 
8.1.1 Non-Specific Curses................................................................... 250 
8.1.2 Legal Curses............................................................................... 255 
8.1.3 Curses with Amatory Undertones − Rivalry in Love................. 257 
8.2 PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE.................................................................. 258 
8.3 ADDRESSED DEITIES AND DAEMONS ....................................... 262 
8.4 VOCES MAGICAE, SIGNA MAGICA, PECULIAR
ORIENTATION OF SCRIPT ............................................................. 262 
10
8.5 FORMULAE AND PEOPLE ACCURSED........................................ 262 
9. GALLIA ...................................................................................................... 264 
9.1 THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE TERRITORY OF GALLIA AND
ITS SPECIFIC FEATURES................................................................ 265 
9.1.1 Non-Specific Curses................................................................... 266 
9.1.2 Curses with Amatory Undertones............................................... 269 
9.1.3 Legal Curses............................................................................... 271 
9.2 PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE.................................................................. 274 
9.3 ADDRESSED DEITIES AND DAEMONS ....................................... 278 
9.4 VOCES MAGICAE, SIGNA MAGICA, PECULIAR
ORIENTATION OF SCRIPT ............................................................. 278 
9.5 FORMULAE AND PEOPLE ACCURSED........................................ 279 
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA.................................. 281 
10.1 THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE NORTHERN PROVINCES
AND ITS SPECIFIC FEATURES ...................................................... 284 
10.1.1 Non-Specific Curses................................................................. 287 
10.1.2 Legal Curses............................................................................. 295 
10.1.3 Amatory Curses – Rivalry in Love........................................... 307 
10.2 PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE................................................................ 309 
10.2.1 Prayers for Justice in Amatory Context.................................... 310 
10.2.2 Prayers for Justice Using Formula aversus .............................. 312 
10.2.3 Prayers for Justice Using Peculiar Formulae............................ 314 
10.2.4 Prayers for Justice or Curses?................................................... 318 
10.3 ADDRESSED DEITIES AND DAEMONS ..................................... 320 
10.4 VOCES MAGICAE, SIGNA MAGICA, A NON-STANDARD
ORIENTATION OF SCRIPT ............................................................. 321 
10.5 FORMULAE AND PEOPLE ACCURSED...................................... 321 
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES........................................................................... 324 
11.1 THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE TERRITORY OF THE
AFRICAN PROVINCES AND ITS SPECIFIC FEATURES ............ 325 
11.1.1 Non-Specific Curses................................................................. 326 
11.1.2 Legal Curses............................................................................. 327 
11.1.3.1 Curses against Gladiators................................................ 332 
11.1.3.2 Curses against Charioteers and Race-Horses .................. 342 
11
11.1.4 Love Spells............................................................................... 352 
11.2 ADDRESSED DEITIES AND DAEMONS, VOCES MAGICAE .... 360 
11.3 SIGNA MAGICA, DEPICTION OF DAEMONS,
A NON-STANDARD ORIENTATION AND USE OF SCRIPT....... 362 
11.4 FORMULAE AND PEOPLE ACCURSED...................................... 363 
12. BRITANNIA ............................................................................................. 365 
12.1 THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE TERRITORY OF BRITANNIA
AND ITS SPECIFIC FEATURES ...................................................... 366 
12.1.1 Non-Specific Curses................................................................. 369 
12.2 PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE................................................................ 374 
12.2.1 Texts Pursuing the Return of the Stolen Property .................... 375 
12.2.2 Texts Pursuing the Return of the Stolen Property via
Restrictions.................................................................................... 376 
12.2.3 Texts Pursuing Vengeance upon or Punishment
of the Culprit ................................................................................. 384 
12.3 ADDRESSED DEITIES.................................................................... 394 
12.4 VOCES MAGICAE, SIGNA MAGICA, A NON-STANDARD
ORIENTATION OF SCRIPT ............................................................. 394 
12.5 FORMULAE AND PEOPLE ACCURSED...................................... 395 
12.5.1 Formulae................................................................................... 395 
12.5.2 Victims of curses...................................................................... 396 
12.5.3 Authors and victims of prayers for justice................................ 396 
13. SUMMARY............................................................................................... 398 
Appendix I: The Corpus of Latin Curses......................................................... 426 
I.1. Italia..................................................................................................... 426 
I.2. Hispania............................................................................................... 446 
I.3. Gallia................................................................................................... 449 
I.4. Germania............................................................................................. 453 
I.4.1. Noricum ..................................................................................... 461 
I.4.2. Raetia ......................................................................................... 461 
I.4.3. Panonia....................................................................................... 463 
I.5. Africa................................................................................................... 465 
I.6. Britannia.............................................................................................. 500 
12
Appendix II: The Corpus of Latin Prayers for Justice..................................... 505 
II.1. Italia ................................................................................................... 505 
II.2. Hispania ............................................................................................. 507 
II.3. Gallia.................................................................................................. 508 
II.4. Germania............................................................................................ 511 
II.4.1. Raetia, Panonia, Moesia.................................................................. 515 
II.5. Britannia............................................................................................. 516 
Appendix III: Concordance to TheDeMa ........................................................ 533 
Abbreviations and Conventions....................................................................... 539 
Bibliography .................................................................................................... 541 
1. INTRODUCTION
The aim of this work is to map and analyse the extant Latin defixiones whose
production within the Roman Empire is attested from the 2nd
cent. BCE to the
end of the 4th
/ beginning of the 5th
cent. CE. There are altogether about five
hundred Latin curse texts1
, most of which are inscribed on lead tablets. These
were intended to affect the actions or health of people/animals against their will2
and with the help of supernatural powers. As such, they provide the
epigraphical evidence of magical practices which were widespread throughout
the whole Mediterranean of antiquity. They are often aimed at rivals, e.g. in
circus or in love, opponents in lawsuits, or enemies, in general. Additionally,
there is a special category of so-called prayers for justice3
, which are
traditionally classified among defixiones4
and share several characteristics with
them. They are predominantly used against thieves, and are meant to harm or
eliminate the culprit. At the same time, their aim is to achieve justice: returning
the stolen property, a “just” punishment, or revenge for the damage suffered
(usually a theft, treachery, or fraud). I draw on all the accessible earlier editions
of defixiones, either collective or published in journals.5
Recently-found curse
tablets are usually well accessible in the form of photographs or facsimilia; the
older findings, however, are nowadays frequently completely unintelligible due
to corrosion. Scholars must therefore content themselves with older editions and
cannot check the originals. Because of this, A. Kropp includes only 3826
out of
1
There are about 1 700 defixiones known today from the entire ancient world. The
exhaustive database of curse tablets called TheDeMa (Thesaurus Defixionum
Magdeburgensis) contains an online corpus of all extant defixiones. The number of
Greek defixiones exceeds one thousand (1188 tablets according to TheDeMa), and
they date back as early as to the 5th
century BCE (see Faraone, 1991, 4). The exact
number of Latin defixiones makes 487 tablets but it is certainly not final.
2
I.e. independently on their will, see the exact definition of Jordan (1985, 151):
“Defixiones, more commonly known as curse tablets, are inscribed pieces of lead,
usually in the form of small, thin sheets, intended to influence, by supernatural
means, the actions or the welfare of people or animals against their will”.
3
The term was introduced by Henk Versnel (1991, 61 ff.; 2010, 257 –356).
4
I follow the common practice of scholarly literature and corpora and use the term
defixio to denote all the inscriptions on lead tablets which were used to affect people
or animals (curse tablets), i.e. as a superordinate term for curses, as well as prayers
for justice.
5
See the list of abbreviations and bibliography, or the key to attchaments I and II.
6
Kropp (2008, 8); and also Solin (2004, 116).
1. INTRODUCTION
14
ca. 500 extant Latin curse tablets in her recently published corpus7
. I divide the
Latin defixiones into two groups in this work − curses and prayers for justice.
Each of them is analyzed according to slightly different criteria, as the two
types are different from each other in structure, formulae and authorial intent.
For the sake of my research, I was compelled to exclude the fragmentary,
corroded, or otherwise damaged inscriptions from the corpus of Latin
defixiones, as almost nothing could be deduced from these − i.e. it was
impossible to assess at least three observed criteria (see also chapter 1.12.). On
the other hand, this work contains the recently published new findings from
Mainz, which were discovered at the construction of a department store in
1999.8
To date, 34 curse tablets9
have been found on site, but this is will not be
the final number, as suggested by the 1999 findings at the spring dedicated to
the goddess Anna Perenna in Rome.10
There have been new findings also in
Pannonia11
and Africa.12
Therefore, I base my work on 309 texts, of which 208
are curses and 101 are prayers for justice.
Latin curse tablets have been found all over the Roman Empire, wherever Latin
was spoken, while the earliest evidence comes from Italy. A. Kropp’s (2008)
new corpus includes 57 texts from Italy, of which only five are prayers for
justice. The largest body of evidence found to date was uncovered relatively
7
Kropp, Amina. 2008. Defixiones. Ein aktuelles Corpus lateinischer Fluchtafeln,
Speyer: Kartoffeldruck-Verlag Kai Brodersen, abbreviated as dfx. For the new
findings not included in Kropp’s corpus, see TheDeMa.
8
Blänsdorf (2005b, 2007/2008, 2008, 2010, 2012).
9
From the complete edition of all the texts from Mainz I include 23 published texts.
The remaining 11 texts mostly very damaged and with nothing to say, have not been
included in the corpus of this work (see also 10.1.).
10
The first report on this finding was published in 2005 (Piranomonte, 2005, 87 –104).
The first preliminary edition of the eight out of 21 texts found at the spring of Anna
Perenna in Rome was published by J. Blänsdorf (2010a, 215 –244). The tablets are
severely damaged, therefore, their interpretation is very often unclear or
problematic, I do not include these tablets in this work, but I deal with them in
Chapter 7 (see 7.4.). See also Blänsdorf (2010b, 2012a) and Blänsdorf –
Piranomonte (2012).
11
Only one of them has been published [see Barta, 2009, 23 –29; Barta − Lassányi,
2009, 63 –69] befor the start of my analysis, see also chapter 10), the present
number of Latin curse tablets from Pannonia is nine, see TheDeMa and Barta (2012,
2015, 2016, 2017).
12
These are the photos and drawings of curse tablets from the estate of A. Audollent
which are now kept in museum in Clermont-Ferrand. See the edition prepared by G.
Németh 2013 (see also Németh, 2011, 95 –110).
1. INTRODUCTION
15
recently in Britannia13
− 160 tablets altogether, most of which (more than 100)14
are prayers for justice, while only 25 curses have been published from Britannia
so far. Africa Proconsularis and Africa Byzacena are also the home of a
substantial number of tablets, the former with 37 curses, the latter with 44
curses. We have some minor evidence from Gallia, as well (29 texts, of which
there are only six prayers for justice, with the rest being curses). Prayers for
justice are more attested in Hispania (seven out of 20 tablets) and Germania (11
out of 42 tablets).15
Only very few texts come from Noricum (two curses),
Raetia (seven, of this five curses), Pannonia (four, of this two curses), Moesia
(one), and the island of Delos (one). Few Greek defixiones have been found in
Dacia, and recently a remarkable Latin curse was found in a grave in Apulum.16
Greek curse tablets have preserved in huge numbers in the eastern provinces of
the Roman Empire, as well as in Africa,17
Italy18
, and Sicily19
, where Etruscan
and Oscan defixiones20
have also been found. For the numbers of tablets
included in Kropp’s corpus, see Chart 1:
Chart 1: Overview of the numbers of defixiones according to Kropp’s corpus
(2008)
According to Kropp’s corpus dfx.
Province Curses
Prayers
for justice Total
Italia 52 5 57
Hispania 13 7 20
13
See 1.2. below. The present number of Latin curses from Britain in TheDeMa is 181
but new findings are expected to be published by Tomlin 2017 – Britannia Romana:
Roman Inscriptions and Roman Britain. Oxbow Books.
14
This makes 101 prayers for justice, the remaining 37 tablets from Britannia cannot
be classified with certainty as one of the types due to their bad condition.
15
These numbers differ from those in Kropp’s corpus (2008) because of the newly
published texts from Mainz, and are not final.
16
See Bounegru − Németh (2013, 238 –242).
17
See e.g. DT 234 –242.
18
See e.g. so-called Sethianorum tabellae from Rome, DT 145 ff.
19
See Bettarini (2005); Rocca (2012a).
20
See e.g. DT 124 –128 (Etruscan) and DT 192 –193 (Oscan); see also 7.2. and
Murano (2013).
1. INTRODUCTION
16
Britannia 22 101 16021
Gallia 23 6 29
Germania 17 3 20
Noricum 2 0 2
Raetia 5 2 7
Pannonia 2 2 4
Moesia + Delos 1 D 1 M 2
Africa Proconsularis 35 2 37
Africa Byzacena +
Numidia 44 0 44
Total 216 126 382
The numbers of tablets analyzed in this work are stated in Chart 2:
Chart 2: Overview of the numbers of defixiones analyzed in this work
Urbanová’s corpus
Province Curses
Prayers for
justice Total
Italia 45 5 50
Hispania 11 7 18
Britannia 25 69 94
Gallia 13 6 19
Germania 31 11 4222
Noricum 2 0 2
Raetia 4 1 5
Pannonia 3 1 4
Delos + Moesia 1D 1M 2
21
Some of the remaining 37 tablets cannot be marked as either curses or prayers for
justice due to their damage.
22
Unlike Kropp’s corpus 2008, the amount of evidence from Mainz continues to grow
with tablets being continuously published, see above.
1. INTRODUCTION
17
Africa Proconsularis 30 0 30
Africa Byzacena 43 0 43
Total 208 101 309
1.1 DEFIXIONES: A DEFINITION
Curse tablets, referred to as tabellae defixionum in Latin, as καταδεσμοί in
Greek. Latin noun defixio, onis, f. meaning “enchantment, spell, curse”23
has
been derived from the verb defigo, -ere, “to fasten down, to fix, to strike, to
bind with spells”. These were inscribed pieces of lead, usually in the form of
small, thin sheets, intended to affect, by supernatural means, the lives of
humans or animals against their will.24
This definition applies not only to
curses, but also to prayers for justice, although there is a difference between the
two (see 1.2 below).
Therefore, curse tablets are closely linked to the field of magic, which is
inseparably bound to ancient religion. Magical practices were very popular in
antiquity, which is testified by many accounts of magic and magical rituals in
Roman literature, whether we speak of scientific treatises or recipes for the
treatment of various diseases, i.e. in iatromagic or protective contexts (Cato,
Varro) (see e.g. Önnerfors 1993, 5 –30), or of scientific-historical works (Pliny
the Elder, see Versnel, 2002, 105 –158; 1991a, 177 –197). The fact that these
practices started to be persecuted in Rome ever since the enactment Law of
Twelve Tables only proves how deeple rooted magic was among ancient
beliefs.25
Curse tablets definitely cannot be classified among healing spells in a medical
context, as their goal is primarily to harm, limit or eliminate an opponent. Most
of them do not contain any reasons for the cursing: very often there is just a list
of names designating the people who are meant to be afflicted by the curse.
Authors of the curses usually appeal to chthonic deities, most frequently
addressing Pluto and Persephone. Eventually, they appeal to Hermes, and from
the 2nd
century CE onwards, we also find curses beseeching various exotic
deities and daemons (see 1.7 below). The author largely remains anonymous,
23
Defixio is a modern term not attested in antiquity.
24
See Jordan (1985, 151).
25
VIII 1b 8 = Plin. HN 18, 17: “qui malum carmen incantassit et fruges excantassit”
(see also Poccetti 2002, 11 –59), for further discussion see Graf (1996,41ff).
1. INTRODUCTION
18
partly to avoid any danger of the curse turning against him/her, and partly due
to his/her awareness of the fact that these actions exceed moral boundaries, as
well as the valid laws of contemporary society. Thus, curses usually express
rivalry or animosity, while it is quite probable that the cursed person could be
completely innocent.26
1.1.2 Classification of Curses
In the case of approximately half of the extant curses, it is impossible to define
with certainty what the reason or occasion for their delivery was; therefore,
these texts are classified as non-specific curses.27
1.1.2.1 Non-Specific Curses
Very often these are merely lists of people to be cursed inscribed on a tablet,
while the curse itself was probably merely uttered by the author; see e.g. No.
201 from London, dfx.3.14/15: Plautius Nobilianus, Aurelius Saturninus,
Domitia Attiola et si qui afuere. (“[I accurse/may they be accursed?] Plautius,
Nobilianus, Aurelius Saturninus, Domitia Attiola, and those who were
absent.”).28
Many times, the text of tablet is damaged to such an extent that the reason or
purpose of the curse can no longer be determined:29
No. 88 from Mainz,
26
In connection with this, H. Versnel (1991, 62 ff.) quotes views of ethnologists and
anthropologists. These either call the author of a curse an “amoral familist”, or
conversely, an able “family protector” whose aim is to “maximize the material,
short-term advantage” for his own family and whose conviction is that “all others
will do likewise”. All is fair in this fight, including magic; however, it is very strictly
defined what measures should be taken in public, and what, on the contrary, should
be kept secret (Banfield 1958; Davies 1977).
27
A. Kropp (2008) here uses a term Unspezifisch/Konkurrenz, the TheDeMa database
uses the category defixio indeterminabilis.
28
Conclusion of the curse is unorthodox, A. Kropp (2008) revises the text as “et ii qui
afuerunt”. Tomlin, R. S. O. and Hassall, M. W. C. (2003, 361 ff.) consider the
passage “et si qui afuere” to be the first extant type of an “all inclusive” formula ‒
then, the text could be interpreted in a way that the author curses not only the people
named in the list, but also those present who he does not know by name; or
eventually, that he curses the people being absent, but who are, nevertheless, his
enemies (see 12.1.1).
29
Most of the texts of defixiones have been preserved corrupted, primarily due to age,
corrosion, or mechanical damage caused by manipulation with tablet, either already
in ancient times or during the recent excavations; moreover, the texts contain a large
1. INTRODUCTION
19
dfx.5.1.5/6, DTM 8:30
Avita(m) noverca(m) dono tibi et Gratum (do)no tibi…
(“I give you stepmother Avita and I give you Gratus…”) (see also 10.1.1).
Furthermore, No. 122 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/14, reads:
A: Te rogo, qui infernales partes tenes, commendo tibi Iulia(m) Faustilla(m),
Marii filia(m), ut eam celerius abducas et ibi in numeru(m) tu(um) a(b)ias
(=habeas). (“I ask you, who hold rule over the Underworld, I commend to
you Iulia Faustilla, the daughter of Marius, so that you may take her as
quickly as possible and have her in your number [of the dead]31
.”).
Frequently, we can see the detailed accounts of the person’s body parts, which
should be afflicted by the curse. No. 12 from Nomentum, dfx.1.4.2/3, reads:
A: Malchio Niconis oculos, manus, digitos, brachia, ungues, capillos, caput,
pedes, femur, ventrem, nates, umbilicum, pectus, mamillas, collum, os,
buccas, dentes, labia, mentum, oculos, frontem, supercilia, scapulas,
umerum, nervos, ossum medullas, ventrem, mentulam, crus, quaestum,
amount of deviations from the classical norm caused by local or temporal
differences. For the purposes of this work, I give up on reproduction of these texts
(in the work itself and the attached corpus) including the symbols, brackets and
supplements according to the Leiden Conventions, which would make the text
hardly intelligible to the reader. The texts of the tablets are predominantly cited in
their revised form, and can, therefore, slightly differ from the texts of the tablets
stated in the attached corpus in their original form ‒ Appendix I and II, where
parentheses are used to denote any deviations, passages added to damaged parts,
lectiones variae, or other peculiarities. Parentheses are also used in the cases when
the revised form could pose any controversies regarding interpretation of a given
place. The texts quoted are assigned by numbers stated in the corpora of this work,
i.e. in Appendix I (curses) and Appendix II (prayers for justice). When speaking of a
tablet for the first time, I always state its number according to Kropp’s corpus
(2008) dfx., i.e. for example, the tablet from London cited as No. 201 in this work
corresponds to dfx.3.14/15 in Kropp’s corpus (2008). The tablets which are cited
more times are equipped with a reference to a particular place in this work, where
the text is cited together with an English translation, or commentary. The
concordance with the numbers of inscriptions in TheDeMa is attached at the end of
this work.
30
Most of the curse tablets from Mainz are not included in the corpus dfx.of A. Kropp,
I cite these according to Blänsdorf’s edition (2012, DTM).
31
Square brackets in English translation indicate an interpretation of the author of this
work.
1. INTRODUCTION
20
lucrum, valetudines, defigo in has tabellas.32
(“Malchio, son/slave of Nico,
[his] eyes, hands, fingers, arms, nails, hair, head, feet, thigh, belly, buttocks,
navel, chest, nipples, neck, mouth, cheeks, teeth, lips, chin, eyes, forehead,
eyebrows, shoulder blades, shoulder, muscles, bone marrow, belly, penis,
shin, business/profit, fortune and health, I accurse with this tablet.”).
The interpretation of such bizarre detailed lists of all body parts being cursed is
still subject to scholarly discussion.33
1.1.2.2 Types of Curses According to Content
Several curse tablets suggest rivalry, envy, and/or animosity in some particular
situations as the real reasons of their manufacture. A. Audollent classified
defixiones into four categories according to content as early as 1904: defixiones
iudiciariae, agonisticae, amatoriae and in fures.34
Modern taxonomy introduces
a new category of “prayers for justice” (resp. “Bitten um Gerechtigkeit”) (see
1.2 below), which can be associated with the curses classified as in fures by
Audollent. Furthermore, Ogden, D. (1999, 37 ff.), Faraone, Ch. A (1991, 3 ff.),
and Gager, J. G. (1992) distinguish the following categories according to
content, especially valid for Greek source material: 1) competition in theatre
and circus; 2) sex, love and marriage; 3) legal and political disputes; 4) business
and commerce; 5) pleas for justice and revenge. Kropp, A.35
differentiates the
subsequent categories of curses: 1) non-specific (unspezifisch); 2) legal
(Prozess-defixiones); 3) agonistic in sport context (agonistische defixiones in
sportlichen Kontext); 4) love spells (Herbeiführungsdefixiones); 5) competition
in other contexts (e.g. business); and 6) prayers for justice. This work draws on
this basic classification, whereas the category of texts connected to an amatory
context is modified to a certain extent (the cases of rivalry in love are dealt with
separately).36
32
See also the unrevised text of the curse ‒ Appendix I.
33
See especially 7.3.1.1 and 7.3.1.2 in this work; for an elaborate discussion of the
issue, see Gordon (1999, 239 –277); Graf (1996, 130 f.).
34
Audollent (1994, LXXXIII); see Kagarow (1929, 28 ff.), as well.
35
Kropp (2008a, 179 ff.); see also Urbanová (2009b, 166 –169), in TheDeMa the
category of prayers for justice is divided into defixiones criminales (for the term, see
Dreher, 2012, 29ff. ) and prayers for justice but without any clear distinction.
36
See also Faraone (1999, 28 ff.), and 4.1.5.
1. INTRODUCTION
21
1.1.2.2.1 Defixiones Iudiciariae
Legal curses are usually aimed at an opponent in court with a view to eliminate
his ability to think or speak during the process, i.e. to win a lawsuit. No. 114
from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/4, reads:
Sextiliani et Gulae Pudentis et Pacorae Acuti et M. f(ilii?), Silvani et
Sextiliani et L. Caecili Magni… alligate linguas horum, quos suprascripsi,
ne adversus nos respondere possint. (The curse begins with the names of the
cursed ones and follows: “…bind the tongues of those, whose names I wrote
above, so that they cannot testify against us.”)37
Further, see e.g. No. 115 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/5:
…facias illos mutos adversus Atlosam;38
ac ligo, obligo, linguas illorum
medias, extremas, novissimas, ne quid possint respondere contra. (“…make
those against Atlosa mute; I tie and bind up their tongues in the middle, in
the back and front, so that they cannot testify against.”).
General Latin curses against enemies and rivals in business and trade are
classified among these, as well. Legal curses are attested in almost every part of
Roman Empire, except for Britannia, and were particularly frequent in the
provinces of Germania and Africa.
1.1.2.2.2 Defixiones Agonisticae
Agonistic curses are aimed at rivals in circenses ‒ gladiators, racers, charioteers
and race-horses − predominantly supposed to limit their physical abilities and
thus prevent them from winning. No. 152 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/12,
reads:
Obligate et gravate equos veneti et russei, ne currere possint nec frenis
audire possint, nec se mo(v)ere possint, sed cadant, frangant,
dis(f)rangantur, et agitantes veneti et russei vertant nec lora teneant nec
agitare possint nec retinere possint nec ante se nec adversarios suos videant
37
See also Poccetti (2005, 242 ff.). The curse is framed by magical words (see 1.7.1
and 11.1.2).
38
Occasionally, not only the names of adversaries, but also of the representatives of
the party, for the benefit of which the curse is delivered, appear in legal curses (see
especially curses from Germania, 10.1.2 and 11.1.2).
1. INTRODUCTION
22
nec vincant, vertant.39
(“Bind up and oppress the horses of the blue and red
[teams], so that they cannot run nor obey the reins, nor be able to move, but
may they fall, break, [may their chariots] be smashed apart, may the
charioteers of the blue and red [teams] fall over, may they not be able to hold
the reins, nor drive, nor restrain [the horses], nor see [what is] in front of
them or their adversaries, nor win, let them crash over.”)
Compare also No. 130 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/22, line 15:
…obliga Gallicum, quem peperit Prima, ut neque ursum neque taurum
singulis plagis occidat neque binis plagis occidat neque ternis plagis occidat
taurum, ursum. Per nomen dei vivi omnipotentis ut perficiatis, iam, iam, cito,
cito. Allidat illum ursus et vulneret illum.40
(...bind Gallicus, whom Prima
bore, so that he kills neither a bear nor a bull, nor does he kill a bear or a bull
with a single, nor double, nor triple punch. In the name of the living
almighty god, may you carry [this] out, now, now, quickly, quickly. Let the
bear strike him and hurt him.”) The Latin curses against rivals at circus,
charioteers and race-horses are preserved only from African provinces.
1.1.2.2.3 Defixiones Amatoriae
Love spells are associated with love and its desires. In this context, two types of
defixiones appear: a) love spells41
meant to raise the affections of a beloved who
is not returning the author’s feelings, and b) curses delivered to harm a rival in
love. Love spells pursue a temporary loss of the victim’s intellectual capacity
and bodily functions of a victim until the desired love is fulfilled. In contrast
with the other types of curses, these usually contain the name of the author to
make it clear whom the target of the curse is supposed to love. The cases of
rivalry in love (with the purpose of doing harm to a rival in love) are less
conclusive, as it is possible neither to confirm nor confute in all cases that the
curse is aimed at a rival in love.42
39
The text of the tablet begins with a long list of charioteers’/racers’ (seven) and racehorses’
names (42), against who the curse is delivered (see also Appendix I and
11.1.3.2).
40
See also 11.1.3.1.
41
Faraone, Ch. A. (1999, 41 ff.) uses Greek term ἀγωγή, i.e. “a spell that leads”, or
attraction spell, German terminology uses term Herbeiführungszauber.
42
We do not know who wrote the curse, only the addressees of curses. For further
information on Greek source material, see also Faraone (1999, 18).
1. INTRODUCTION
23
See also No. 143 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/3, which, on side A, contains a
love spell meant to lead the beloved person into the arms of the author;
however, we find a curse against a rival in races, and perhaps also in love, on
side B:
A: Alimbeu, Columbeu, Petalimbeu. Faciatis Victoriam, quam peperit
suavulva, amantem, furentem prae amore meo, neque somnum videat, donec
ad me veniat puellarum deliciae.
B: Deseces43
Ballincum Lolliorum de curru actum, ne possit ante me venire
et tu, quicumque es daemon, te oro, ut illam cogas amoris et desiderii mei
causa venire ad me.
(A: “Alimbeu, Columbeu, Petalimbeu,44
get Victoria, who was born to XY
[suavulva],45
to love [me], burn with passion for me, may she not sleep until
she comes to me, the sweetest of girls.
B: Cut down Ballincus, [the charioteer] of Lolii, so that he falls down from
his chariot, and cannot outride me, and you, whatever daemon you are, I beg
you to force her to come to me out of love and desire for me.”)
See further No. 124 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/16:
Καταξιν qui es Aegupto magnus daemon… et aufer illae somnum usquedum
veniat ad me… et animo meo satisfaciat. Τραβαξιαν omnipotens daemon
adduc… amantem aestuantem amoris et desiderii mei causa. Νοχθιριφ, qui
cogens daemon coge illam… mecum coitus facere… Βιβιριξι, qui es
fortissimus daemon, urgue, coge illam venire ad me amantem aestuantem
amoris et desiderii mei causa. Ρικουριθ agilissime daemon in Aegupto et
agita… a suis parentibus a suo cubili et aerie quicumque caros habet et coge
illam me amare, mihi conferre ad meum desiderium.
(“Kataxin, the great daemon of Egypt… and take sleep away from her unless
she comes to me… and satisfies me. Trabaxian, the almighty daemon, bring
[her] over loving and burning with love and desire for me. Nochthirif, a
forcing daemon, force her… to make love to me… Bibirixi, you who are the
most powerful daemon, urge [her], make her come to me loving and burning
43
This is the interpretation of Önnerfors, A. (1993, 42), Kropp, A. (2008) reads haud
secus.
44
Magical words, probably the names of daemons.
45
In the case that the name of the mother of a cursed person was unknown to the
author of a curse, the term suavulva was used instead. We know this practice from
Greek defixiones (see Ogden, 1999, 85; and 1.6. and 1.8.1. below).
1. INTRODUCTION
24
with love and desire for me. Rikourith, the promptest daemon of Egypt,
drive [her]… away from her parents, from her bed ...(?) and from whoever
she holds dear and make her love me, and join with me as I wish.”)46
Evidence of love spells securing success in love comes almost exclusively from
Africa.47
The following curses can be considered examples of rivalry in love:
No. 109 from Ptuj, Slovenia, dfx.8.4/1: A: Paulina aversa sit a viris omnibus et
defixa sit, ne quid possit mali facere. (“May Paulina be averted from all men
and may she be cursed, so that she can do no evil...” ) (see also 10.1.3).
Finally, see e.g. No. 29 from Campania (Calvi Risorta), dfx.1.5.1/1: A: Dite,
inferi, Caium Babullium et fututricem eius Tertiam Salviam. (“Oh Dis [and] the
underworld gods, [I curse] Gaius Babullius and that slut of his, Tertia
Salvia.”).48
As apparent from the texts themselves, these can be regarded expressions of
rivalry in love; nevertheless, this motivation cannot be proved with certainty in
most cases.
The texts interpretable as displays of competition in love context come mainly
from Italy, but we know of similar texts being preserved also in Hispania, Gallia
and Germania. Kropp, A. (2008) classifies these as non-specific curses or curses
against rivals (see 4.1.5 and 5.1.3).
1.2 PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE: A Definition
A. Audollent’s (1904) classification of defixiones includes so-called defixiones
in fures ‒ curses aimed at thieves. These are either prophylactic, or, more
commonly, against an unknown thief. Until recently, ancient epigraphic
46
The name of the author and his victim are omitted in this tablet, perhaps they were
written on the other side and did not survive, as Audollent (DT 230) assumed. He
supposed so due to a damaged sequence containing peper… on side B, which could
suggest the presence of common formula quem peperit usually written after a proper
name. However, it seems more likely that the lover bought a prearranged tablet with
spaces left to fill in the particular names – see the empty spaces marked by ..., but he
simply forgot to write them (see also 1.6.).
47
The only potential exception is perhaps No. 106, dfx.7.4/1 from Raetia. But its text
is unintelligible here and there.
48
The text of the tablet, however, is damaged, Kropp, A. (2008) completes the
sequence with fututricem, DT proposes: fotr(icem) (see Appendix I).
1. INTRODUCTION
25
materials contained only a relatively small number of such lead tablets.49
However, the excavations carried out in Britain in 1970s and 1980s uncovered a
copious amount of relevant archaeological material: 140 tablets coming
predominantly from the excavations taking place in a sacred precinct dedicated
to Mercury in Uley,50
and in the thermal springs and the adjacent temple of
Minerva Sulis in the city of Bath.51
These relatively recent discoveries from
Britain have provided scholars with a sufficient amount of texts to enable them
to deduce relevant conclusions on this specific type of curses against thieves,
today also called “prayers for justice”. The term comes from H. Versnel52
, who
defines these as the prayers addressed to a god or gods so that they punish a
(usually unknown) person, who somehow did harm to the author of a tablet
(with theft, fraud, denigration, false accusation, or curse), frequently a
compensation for damage is also demanded (e.g. the thief should be compelled
to return a stolen thing or to plead guilty in public).53
Tomlin, R. S. O.54
separates this category from common curses, as well, to indicate that these are
prayers for justice rather than magical curses.55
Nevertheless, the term “prayers
for justice” has been criticized by Dreher who proposed a new term defixiones
criminales.56
The dedication of such a tablet was, therefore, not motivated by envy, or effort
to harm an opponent, nor to gain some advantages for oneself to the detriment
of others (probably innocent people), but rather by some injury to the author ‒
loss, theft, perjury. The authors generally turn upon local deities, not the
chthonic ones as is usual in curses,57
with prayers for help and to right the
wrong, i.e. to get back the lost things, or with a wish to exact “rightful”
vengeance on a culprit through the power of gods. In contrast to the curses, they
very often include the author’s name, too. With regards to the documents found
in Britain, esp. from Bath, we know for certain that these were not publicly
displayed in the shrine58
to make a culprit regret his/her crime or to return what
49
19 Greek ones and 5 Latin ones; see Tomlin (1989, 60 ff.); Gager (1992, 177).
50
See Woodword ‒ Leach (1993).
51
See Tomlin (1988); the older texts not published yet as well as the new findings are
to be published in Tomlin 2017.
52
Versnel (1991, 60 ff.).
53
Versnel (1991a); and esp. (2010, 275 ff.).
54
Tomlin (1988, 100 ff.).
55
See also 1.10.2.
56
See Dreher 2010 (301–335) and (2012, 29–30), see also the categories in TheDeMa.
57
Especially in Britannia and Germania, local deities are appealed to both as the
addressees of curses and prayers for justice (see 10.3. and 12.3.).
58
See Tomlin (1988, 59).
1. INTRODUCTION
26
s/he stole, as is the case of some Greek curses.59
The tablets found in Bath were
rolled, sometimes even pierced with a nail and thrown into the hot spring.60
This
means that the “prayers” constituted a private communication between their
authors and the gods addressed. Nevertheless, the shrine also played its
significant role in the process. The authors of the tablets often handed the stolen
things over (most frequently clothes, money, jewellery, or dishes) or the known
or unknown culprit symbolically to the deity. See e.g. No. 246 from Bath,
dfx.3.2/8: (d)eae Suli donavi (arge)ntilos sex… (“I have given to the goddess
Sulis the six silver coins...”) (see 1.2.2 below); No. 275 from Bath, dfx.3.2/76:
Basilia donat in templum Martis anellum argenetum… (“Basilia gives [in] to
the temple of Mars [her] silver ring…”); and No. 260 from Bath, dfx.3.2/36:
…Templo Sulis dono ...eum latronem, qui rem ipsam involavit, deus inveniat (“I
give to the temple of Sulis ... that thief who has stolen the property itself [that]
the god may find [him]”); or No. 247 (see 1.2.2 below). Thus it can be assumed
that the point of the process was for the deity to consider the things his/her
possession and therefore find them and get them back. The culprits were
obviously handed over to the deities to be punished. In a few isolated cases,
there are formulae suggesting that the culprit should be punished in a shrine, see
No. 244 from Bath, dfx.3.2/6: …ut mentes suas perd(at) et oculos suos in fano
ubi destinat. (“…may [the thief] lose his mind and sight in the shrine where [the
goddess] appoints.”)61
; this was a case of stolen gloves. Further, see No. 249
from Bath, dfx.3.2/23: …ut an(imam) suam in templo deponat… (“… that he
[the thief] lay down his soul [i.e. life] in the temple…”), in this case, a plough
was stolen.62
Let us now have a look at the various formulations used in the
prayers for justice.
1.2.1 Prayers for Justice Outside Britannia
There are relatively few texts of prayers for justice preserved outside Britannia.
Those that are extant most frequently come from Hispania, as well as more
recently from the excavations carried out in Mainz. These are, however,
59
H. Versnel (1991, 81; 2010, 281, No. 22) draws attention to the fact that some
tablets of the Greek production, esp. from the shrine in Knidos, have been found
unrolled or equipped with openings probably used for their fixation to be displayed
publicly in the shrine. Only rarely do we find such a tablet (meant to be exposed in
public) in the Latin production, as e.g. in the case of tablet No. 219 (see below),
which was inscribed on a marble slab.
60
See also 1.3. and 1.7.3. below; Tomlin (1988, 5 ff.); Versnel (1991, 90).
61
See also Tomlin (1988, 115).
62
See Tomlin (1988, No. 31).
1. INTRODUCTION
27
contrary to the much richer and more compact material found in Britannia, very
variegated.
See No. 219 from Mérida (Spain), dfx.2.3.1/1, which reads:
Dea Ataecina Turibrigensis Proserpina, per tuam maiestatem te rogo, oro,
obsecro, uti vindices quod mihi furti factum est. Quisquis mihi immutavit,
involavit minusve fecit eas res, quae infra scriptae sunt; tunicas VI, paenulas
linteas II, indusium… (“Goddess Ataecina Proserpina of Turibriga, by your
majesty I ask, pray and beg that you avenge the theft which has been done to
me. Whoever has taken, stolen, and robbed me of the things, which are
written below: six tunics, two linen cloaks, an undergarment…”).
The author appeals to the goddess to avenge the crime committed against
him/her, but due to a damaged conclusion of the text we cannot say whether
s/he also begged return of the stolen items.63
Furthermore, No. 217 from
Bolonia (Spain), dfx.2.2.1/1, reads:
Isis Myrionyma, tibi commendo furtum meum, mi(hi) fac tuo numini
maiestati exsemplaria,64
ut tu evites immedio eum, qui fecit furtum, abstulit
autem res: opertorium album novum, stragulum nov(um), lodices duas de
usu.65
Rogo domina, per maiestatem tuam, ut hoc furtum reprehendas.66
(“Isis Myrionyma, I entrust you with what has been stolen from me, make
me proofs of your divinity and majesty, so that you publicly take away the
life of man who did this theft, indeed who stole my property: a new white
coverlet, a new rug, two used blankets. I ask you, Lady, by your majesty,
that you punish this theft.”).
63
See 1.10.2 and especially 8.2.
64
Fac tuo numini maiestati exsemplaria is not attested on any other Latin tablet, but
we know the formula from Greek tablets preserved in Asia Minor. The power of a
god is proved by an “exemplary” punishment of a crime (see Versnel, 1991, 91 f.;
for further information on lectiones variae, emendations and various interpretations,
see Tomlin (2010, 275 ff.), esp. the commentary (Tomlin, 2010, 258; Versnel, 2010,
285).
65
The text is damaged, Tomlin, R. S. O. (2010, 258) reads meo usu, while other
editors have de usu. This seems well-founded with respect to the contrast with
stragulum nov(um).
66
The text contains many deviations from the classical norm, the problematic part ut tu
evites immedio is interpreted by editors as in medio, i.e. in public (see also the
original version in Appendix II).
1. INTRODUCTION
28
In this case, this theft of linens should even be punished by death, which may
point to the author’s momentary anger.67
See further No. 215 from Saguntum
(Spain), dfx.2.1.3/2: Quis res tunica tulit e Livia, obi eam vel eum, ite(m) qui,
quaestu(m) habeat, tra(c)ta. (“Whoever has stolen a tunic from Livia, pursue
her or him, as well as the one who could profit from it, catch [him/her].”)68
.
1.2.2 Prayers for Justice from Britannia
No. 246 from Bath, dfx.3.2/8, reads:
(D)eae Suli donavi (arge)ntiolos sex quos perd(idi) a nomin(i)bus
infrascrip(tis) deae exactura est Senicianus et Saturninus et Ann(i)ola. Carta
picta persc(ripta). (“I have given to the goddess Sulis the six silver coins
which I have lost, it is for the goddess to exact [them] from the names
written below: Senicianus and Saturninus and Anniola. The written page
[has] been copied out.”)69
Here, the author merely seeks the return of the stolen property (see 1.10.2).
Compare also No. 247 from Bath, dfx.3.2/10, dated to the 2nd
century CE:
A: Docilianus Bruceri deae sanctissimae Suli devoveo eum, qui caracallam
meam involaverit, si vir si femina, si servus si liber, uti eum dea Sulis
maximo leto adigat70
nec ei somnum permitat71
B: nec natos nec nascentes,
donec caracallam meam ad templum sui numinis pertulerit. (“Docilianus,
[son] of Brucerus to the most holy goddess Sulis. I curse him who has stolen
my hooded cloak, whether man or woman, whether slave or free that the
67
See also prayers for justice from Germania, 10.2.3.
68
See also 6.1 and esp. 8.2 below.
69
See Tomlin (1988, No. 8 and p. 119). Carta picta perscripta evidently indicates that
the author copied the formula of the curse from some model tablet. In this context,
carta means a lead tablet (see No. 306 from Uley, 1.9.3 and 12.2.3, further also No.
91 from Mainz, 2.3.5), see also 12.2.2.
70
See Tomlin (1988, No. 10). The verb adigere is documented in the collocation
vulnus adactum, mortem ferro adactam, the whole sequence maximo leto adigas
appears e.g. on the tablet from Uley (see No. 300, 6.2.1.3. and the Appendix II;
Tomlin, 1993, 115; 6.2.1.3.), further also on tablet No. 239 from Carnuntum: Defigo
Eudem(um) nec(et)i(s) eum pessimo leto, ad inf(er)os d(uca)tis… (“I accurse
Eudemus, kill him by the worst death, lead him to the underworld...”) (see 1.10.2
and 6.2.1.3).
71
The restrictive formulae present in prayers for justice seem to be inspired by love
spells, see No. 143 neque somnu(m) videat, donec ad me veniat, puellaru(m)
d(eli)cias (see 1.1.2.2.3 and 3.3.1.1, or 6.2.1.2).
1. INTRODUCTION
29
goddess Sulis may inflict death upon him and not allow him to sleep or [to
have] children now and in the future, until he has brought my hooded cloak
to the temple of her divinity.”)
The author wants not only to get the stolen cloak back, but also wants
vengeance on the culprit. Furthermore, No. 295 from Uley, dfx.3.22/2, dated to
thr 3rd
century CE, reads:
Deo Mercurio Cenacus queritur de Vitalino et Natalino filio ipsius de
iumento, quod ei raptum est et rogat deum Mercurium, ut nec ante sanitatem
B: habeant, nisi repraesentaverint mihi iumentum, quod rapuerunt, et deo
devotionem, quam ipse ab his expostulaverit. (“Cenacus complains to the
god Mercury about Vitalinus and his son Natalinus concerning a draught
animal, which has been stolen from him, and asks the god Mercury, that they
may have neither health before/unless they return at once to me the draught
animal which they have stolen, and to the god the devotion which he has
demanded from them himself.”).72
Authors sometimes promise compensation for the god, i.e. part of stolen
property as a reward.
Compare also No. 277 from Bath, dfx.3.2/78:
Execro (eum) qui involaverit, quod Deomiorix de hospitio suo perdiderit.
Quicumque res73
deus illum inveniat, sanguine et vitae suae illud redimat.74
(“I curse [him] who has stolen, who has robbed Deomiorix from his house.
Whoever [stole his] property, the god is to find him. Let him buy it back
with [his] blood and his own life.”). In this case, what concerns the author is
only the punishment of the thief.
72
See Tomlin (1993, No. 1) and 1.10.2.
73
Tomlin, R. S. O. (1988, 25) adds r(es), Kropp, A. (2008) (e)r(it). The addition of res
seems more proper to me.
74
Exsecror is a deponent verb in classical Latin ‒ exsecro is wide-spread in Vulgar
Latin, Deomiorix, a Celtic name, is uninflected here (Deomiorigi?); hospitium can
mean an inn, a lodging, or even a house in late Latin.
1. INTRODUCTION
30
1.2.3 Differences between Curses and Prayers for Justice
The main differences between curses and the above mentioned “prayers for
justice”, recently attested from the area of ancient Britannia, can be briefly
summarized in the following points.75
1) Curses usually contain the names of cursed people, an address to chthonic
deities (in most cases), the verbs of cursing and the list of damages that should
be suffered by the acursed.76
Prayers for justice are made up of the name of the
author, an address to a local deity, and mostly also the cause for the prayer
(usually a theft). In some cases, the name of the cursed person is also stated,
provided the author knows it, or suspects it; however, more than a half of these
are aimed at unknown culprits. Eventually, there is a list of punishments to be
exacted upon the cursed one, should s/he not return the stolen property, or
simply a “just” vengeance.
2) Regarding the one who curses: for the reasons stated above (see 1.1), the
cursing person is almost always anonymous in curses (except for love spells and
rarely also legal curses, which aim at mere restriction, i.e. the temporary
limitation of the victim’s bodily and mental functions, e.g. during the lawsuit).77
On the contrary, the author usually states his/her name in prayers for justice (see
e.g. No. 277, 1.2.2, with Deomiorix being the author). This is because an appeal
to the gods for help and the punishment of a culprit was regarded a justified
request, and therefore obviously in compliance with public morals.78
3) Regarding the cursed ones: in curses, the names of the cursed ones are in
many cases the only, and presumably the most important, part of the text.
Curses containing only the names of cursed people, often together with a name
75
See also Versnel (2010, 275 ff.) who in some points draws his conclusions rather
from the Greek sources; however, the Latin prayers for justice can differ. Moreover,
Versnel (2010, 279, point 3) supposes that the author attempts to legitimize his/her
actions, or tries to avoid eventual bad consequences for himself/herself. See also
Urbanová (2009, 341 –350).
76
This scheme is modified in the case of love spells (see 1.1.2.2.3). Apart from the
name of the cursed person, all features are optional.
77
See Urbanová (2009, 341 –350) and Urbanová (2015, 597ff).
78
For more detailed account, see Versnel (1991, 92) ‒ the author considers such a
tablet to be a legitimate request ‒ accordingly, he can turn upon local deities with a
plea for help in the terms of unwritten moral laws, even though the form is quite
similar to curses, see a distinctive blending of the formulae and overlapping of both
types in the prayers for justice coming from Germania (10.2.4 and 1.9.1 below).
1. INTRODUCTION
31
of father or mother,79
have been preserved from all periods of the cursing
tradition. The precise identification of the victim of a curse through the name is
essential to the successful realization of said curse. Prayers for justice usually
do not contain the names of people who should suffer harm – particularly in the
case of thefts, the culprit is very frequently unknown; therefore, general
formulae like si vir, si mulier, si servus, si liber appear on the tablets from
Britannia (see e.g. No. 247). The deity is the only one who is able to trace the
malefactor.
4) Regarding gods:80
as already stated, the authors of curses usually address
their pleas to chthonic deities (see No. 124), while those who pray for justice
seek the aid of local gods (see No. 247). The way of addressing the gods is
different, as well. Generally, the one who curses does not play the role of a
reverent supplicant, instead s/he demands: rogo vos cadant; te rogo, commendo
tibi… ut eam abducas; facias loqui non possit, or commands alligate linguas;
obligate et gravate; coge; aufer; perturba. Those who write the prayers for
justice approach gods with proper respect, as reverent supplicants do, see No.
219: dea Ataecina Turibrig(ensis) Proserpina, per tuam maiestatem te rogo,
oro, obsecro; deae sanctissime Suli; deae Suli Minervae Solinus dono numini
tuo maiestati. In addition, the placement of the prayers for justice also differs
from that of the curses: great number of the prayers for justice has been found in
the shrines of chthonic or local deities, but only a few in graves; conversely,
graves are the most common locations of curses.81
5) Regarding motifs: as previously mentioned, no explicit reasons are stated in
curses. On the contrary, the prayers for justice contain a reverent plea to the
gods and are meant to punish a thief or to get back stolen property, that is to say
that the author has good reason to seek divine intervention, and therefore these
often imitate the formulae of legal documents: fraudem fecit, furaverit,
infrascriptis, queror, vindices, exigas.82
The author explicitly states what
damage s/he has suffered and what his/her motivation for the delivery of a curse
is: involavit, perdidi, furaverit, furem. As a result, this inclusion of the damage
suffered by the author on a tablet can be regarded a distinctive feature, and on
79
For further information on the presence of a name of the mother, see 1.6 below.
80
See also 1.7 below.
81
See 1.8.3 and Versnel (2010, 279).
82
See Tomlin (1988, 63 ff.) and Urbanová – Franek (2017, 616ff).
1. INTRODUCTION
32
the basis of this inclusion we are able to classify the text as a prayer for
justice.83
6) Regarding verbs: curses mostly contain the verbs of cursing like defigo,
deligo, ligo, implico, but also rogo, peto, oro, precor vos, trado tibi, desacrifico,
demando, devoveo. The texts of prayers for justice from Britannia, as well as
from other provinces, are predominantly formulated in three ways: when
appealing to gods, those who curse use general expressions meaning a request
or a prayer, many times referring to legal terminology: rogo, ut vindices;
conqueror tibi; deo queritur; ultionem requirat; obsecro; mandate; less
frequently there are verbs of cursing present: exsecro, devoveo,84
see e.g. No.
295: Deo Mercurio Cenacus queritur de Vitalino et Natalino filio ipsius de
iumento quod ei raptum est et rogat deum Mercurium ut…; or No.247: Suli
devoveo eum, qui caracallam meam involaverit. However, the verbs dono and
do are used most frequently: No. 278: Minervae deae Suli donavi85
furem, qui
caracallam meam involavit; or No. 275: Basilia donat in templum Martis
anellum argenteum. That means that the author commends his complaint to the
deity as though pleading his/her cause before a judge, while handing over a
stolen thing or the thief to achieve justice and revenge, eventually to punish the
culprit.86
See No. 247: …donec caracallam meam ad templum sui numinis
pertulerit.
7) Regarding lists of damages: curses usually specify what damages should be
inflicted upon the accursed by a deity. In this sense, the lists of punishments to
be inflicted upon the thieves we see in prayers for justice hardly differ from
those lists found in curses. In both are lists of accursed body parts or attempts at
bringing diseases in the accursed. See No. 275: …ut sanguine et luminibus et
omnibus membris configatur vel et iam intestinis excomesis (om)nibus habe(at)
(“…may he be accursed in [his] blood and eyes and every limb, or even have all
[his] intestines quite eaten away…”) (see 6.2.1.3.). In some cases, the damages
to be suffered are quite bizarre, see No. 298: … ne meiat, ne cacet, ne loquatur,
ne dormiat (“… may he not urinate, nor defecate, nor speak, nor sleep”) (see
2.3.1.), or No. 277: … sanguine et vitae suae id redimat (“…let him buy it back
83
See also Gager (1992, 175).
84
The verb defigo, typically used for cursing, is attested only once in the context of
prayers for justice, on a tablet from Carnuntum, see No. 239, 1.9.2, 1.10.2 and
6.2.1.3).
85
Predicative in past tense, see 2.2.2. and 12.2.3 below.
86
See also 6.2.1.3.
1. INTRODUCTION
33
with [his] blood and his own life”).87
Insofar as their creativity and cruelty are
concerned, the authors of “just” complaints by no means fall short of the
authors of curses motivated by rivalry or animosity. Nevertheless, the authors of
curses are sometimes more specific about terminus ante quem the curse should
be fulfilled or generally insist on the prompt execution of demanded restriction
upon the rival. On the other hand, the prayers for justice, similar to love spells,
are usually supposed to last for a limited period of time ‒ physical or mental
harm perpetrated upon a culprit (or an object of love) lasts only until the stolen
things are returned to their owner (the object of love does whatever the author
wants her/him to do). See No. 247 above: …donec caracallam meam ad
templum sui numinis pertulerit; eventually, in the case of love spells, No. 124:
…aufer illae somnum usquedum veniat ad me... (“...take sleep away from her
unless she comes to me...”).88
Thus, the principal similarities and differences between curses and prayers for
justice can be briefly summarized as follows:
CURSES PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
name of cursed person culprit (mostly unknown)
rarely89
author’s name author’s name
address mostly to chthonic
deities/daemons
polite address to predominantly local deities
reason for prayer/vengeance – harm received
transfer of lost thing or thief to a deity
list of damages supposed to
afflict the cursed one
list of damages supposed to afflict the cursed
one/restoration of stolen things
1.3 DATING AND SPREAD OF THE TABLETS IN THE ROMAN
EMPIRE
In several cases, the dating of curses as well as of prayers for justice is
problematic due to a lack of archaeological context. Older evidence, stored in
deposits for a long period of time, is very often corroded and no longer legible.
87
See 2.3.5.
88
See 1.1.2.2.3.
89
Only rarely do the curses contain a name of author; however, names are, as a rule,
present in love spells.
1. INTRODUCTION
34
Lead itself, as an inorganic material, does not allow for precise dating of the
texts, thus, palaeography is often the only clue to detect the age of
inscriptions.90
The texts, mostly in Roman cursive, a commonly used script
well-known from the graffiti91
found in Pompeii, among other places, were
inscribed on the malleable surface of tablets with a bronze chisel92
or some
other sharp tool. Old Roman Cursive, also called majuscule cursive, was in use
from the end of the 1st
cent. BCE, and flourished in the period between the 2nd
and 3rd
cent. CE. Near the end of the 3rd
cent. CE, majuscule cursive was
replaced by the so-called New Roman Cursive, or minuscule, which was a
sketchy script that blended certain particular letters together and is, therefore,
less legible today. The shapes of the same cursive letters appear in many
variants, and often vary widely from text to text and author to author, as is
apparent e.g. from the facsimiles of letters used in the tablets from Bath.93
As it
is very hard to assess the presence and exact chronology of writing practices in
particular provinces,94
the dating based on the palaeographical data has to be
held but approximate. In this work, I use the dating stated in particular
monographs, although, I draw predominantly from the new corpus of Kropp
(2008).
Generally, it can be said that the extant curses are older than prayers for justice,
although the latter more or less mimic the expansion of the former across the
Empire with only a slight delay. The oldest evidence of Greek curses comes
from the 6th
/5th
cent. BCE.95
The practice of creating the curse tablets then
probably spreads from the region of Magna Graecia (Sicily, southern Italy)
further northward and westward.96
The oldest Greek prayers for justice come
from Hellenistic period,97
whereas Gager mentions two pieces of evidence from
the 3rd
cent. BCE. The two oldest Latin curse tablets date back to the 2nd
cent.
BCE and come from Pompeii (No. 33, see 1.10.1) and the island of Delos (No.
110). In the period between the 1st
cent. BCE and the 1st
cent. CE, there is a
substantial increase in the amount of tablets preserved in Italy.98
These two
90
See also Kropp (2008a, 245 ff.); Tomlin (1988, 84 ff.); or Bartoletti (1990, 9 ff.).
91
See Kropp (2008a, 243 ff.); Gager (1992, 4).
92
See 1.4 and PGM VII, 396 –400, see also 10.1.2; Barta (2009).
93
See Tomlin (1988, 91 –94).
94
See especially the extensive discussion of this issue in Tomlin (1988, 87).
95
See Kropp (2008a, 45); Bettarini (2005); Rocca (2012; 2012a).
96
See Preisendanz (1972, 18 ff.); Kropp (2008a, 45 ff.).
97
See Versnel (2010, 332); Gager (1992, 175 ff., No. 82 and No. 92).
98
Today, we dispose of ca. twelve tablets from Italia dated back to the period BCE,
and ca. ten tablets from the 1st cent. CE.
1. INTRODUCTION
35
centuries were, in all likelihood, the heyday of magical practices, particularly in
Italy. The following centuries provide us with a much lower number of magical
texts found in Italy. The situation in Hispania is similar, most of the texts we
have come from the 1st
cent. BCE99
and the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE. However, the
practice of cursing spread surprisingly quickly into all areas of Roman Empire,
including the distant northern provinces located south of Rhine and Danube
rivers (Germania, Noricum, Raetia, Pannonia), via Roman legionaries,
tradesmen, colonists and vagrant magicians. The major part of the texts found in
Germany dates back to the 1st
cent. CE, recent evidence from Mainz to 65–130
CE, and the tablets preserved in Raetia, Noricum, and Pannonia to the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE. That means that these are older than the evidence found in Gallia,
where the majority of the tablets dates back to the 4th
/5th
cent. CE,100
although
there are some texts preserved from the 2nd
cent. CE, as well. It is therefore
obvious that the Mediterranean cursing practices reached the distant northern
parts of the Roman Empire with a relatively small delay. The increasing
repression of magical practices and criminal charges associated with magic101
in
the era of of the Principate indicate that these practices were highly popular,
which was reflected also in literature of the time (Horace, Virgil, Propertius,
Ovid, Apuleius).102
In the 2nd
and 3rd
cent. CE, there is a substantial increase in
the number of curse tablets, especially of those found in Africa, and in Britain
most of the tablets date to the period between 2nd
and 4th
cent. CE. At the same
time, the evidence found in Italy, Hispania, and Germania decreases in the 2nd
and 3rd
cent. CE; this could, however, be just a coincidence. Based on the
epigraphic material from other provinces, it can be assumed that the period
between the 2nd
and 4th
cent. CE was the heyday of magical practices. However,
due to the triumphant rise of Christianity from the end of the 4th
cent. CE, the
production of Latin curse tablets subsides distinctively; prevalently only in the
marginal areas of Britannia and Gallia are there still numerous tablets preserved
from as late as the 4th
/5th
cent. CE.103
Latin prayers for justice, on the other
hand, do not appear before the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE, and come predominantly from
the areas of Britannia, Hispania, Germania, Italia, and rarely also from Gallia,
99
Kropp’s corpus (2008a, 45) includes altogether eight texts dated back to the 1st cent.
BCE; in this work, only six of them are stated. The other six extant texts date back
to the 1st cent. CE.
100
It is, of course, questionable, to what extent does the randomness of archaeological
findings influence these data. For celtic defixiones from this area see Meid (2014).
101
See Kropp (2008a, 50 ff.).
102
See Ogden (2009); Kropp (2008a, 58ff); Luck (1962).
103
See also Kropp (2008a, 45 ff.). See also the inscriptions from the fountain of Anna
Perenna, Blänsdorf – Piranomonte (2012).
1. INTRODUCTION
36
Raetia and Pannonia. A substantial growth in the production of these can be
observed, similarly to curses, in the 2nd
and 3rd
cent. CE ‒ this holds true mainly
for the province of Britannia.104
In the next centuries, the production of prayers
for justice declines not only here, but also in other provinces. The latest
evidence comes from Gallia and Britannia from the 4th
/5th
cent. CE.
1.4 MATERIALS USED
Most of the extant texts of curses and prayers for justice have been inscribed
into a metal, esp. into lead or its alloys.105
Lead was easily available in antiquity
and often used for writing due to its malleability; the production of such tablets,
thus, was in no way expensive or complicated.106
Lead was traditionally
supposed to be the most appropriate material to write a curse on, while gold and
silver were usually used to produce protective amulets or healing spells.107
In
some rare cases, also other materials were used to write a curse, like stone,
bronze, marble, potsherd, ceramic vessels, or gems.108
Moreover, the extant
magical instructions recommend the use of lead to write a curse, see e.g. PGM
VII 397109
: “…take lead from a cold-water pipe and make a lamella and inscribe
it with a bronze stylus, as shown below, and set it with a person who has died
prematurely.” Lead is a cold and dark grey material usually associated with
diseases, or death. What is more, it is heavy ‒ evokes troubles and lethargy, and
that is why it was the preferred medium for curses (though only in later times),
not to mention its availability to the common people.110
Some Greek tablets
104
Randomness of archaeological findings plays, no doubt, a huge role in this.
105
Tomlin, R. S. O. (1988, 81 ff.) was surprised by the fact; however, this has to be
taken into account, too ‒ only a fifth of the tablets found in Bath contains lead from
two thirds, and approximately three fourths of all analysed evidence contain more
than a half portion of tin.
106
See Faraone (1991, 4 ff.); for a detailed account of the process of their making, see
Tomlin (1988, 83 ff.).
107
See Gager (1992, 3); Bevilacqua (2010, 21), Kotansky (1991, 107ff).
108
See Bonner (1950, 103 –122). Most of the 309 texts analysed in this work
(Appendixs I and II) are inscribed on lead, only seven of these on some other
material: No. 15 on a little clay lamp, No. 25, No. 26 and No. 57 on a clay vessel,
No. 102 on a brick, No. 209 on stone, and No. 219 on a marble desk.
109
Instructions contained in magical papyri are cited according to Betz 1986 including
the English translation.
110
See Franek – Urbanová (2017). The primary reason for the use of lead has most
probably been its easy availability as a by-product of silver mining. However, the
presence of lead as a comparatum in the simile-formulae shows that specific
physical properties of the material were supposed to be projected onto the target of
1. INTRODUCTION
37
even involve a comparison of the cursed person to lead, see DTA 105, 106 and
107. Latin tablet No. 76 from Kreuznach (Germany), dfx.5.1.4/5, reads:
Sic quomodo plumbum subsidit sic Sintonem et Martialem Sintonis et
adiutorium Sintonis et quisquis contra Rubrium fr(atrem) et me Quartionem,
si qui(s) contravenerit… (“Just like lead sinks [to the bottom], may also
Sinto and Martialis [the son/slave] of Sinto and the assistant of this Sinto,
and everyone who comes out against Rubrius, my brother, and me, Quartio
[sink to the bottom].”)
Unfortunately, the text is damaged.111
Similarly, tablet No. 226 from Montfo in
Gallia, dfx.4.4.1/1, reads:
Quomodo hoc plumbum non paret et decadet sic decadat aetas, membra,
vita, bos, granum, merx, eorum qui mihi dolum malu(m) fecerunt… (“Just as
this lead is not visible and sinks to the bottom [decadet = classical decidit ‒
the tablet has been found in a well], so may the youth?, limbs, life, livestock,
grain, and trades of those who deceived me badly also fall into decay…”)112
In this tablet, the lead’s function is symbolic-metaphorical. Finally, there was
the notion, based on the easy solubility of lead, that points to the fact that tablets
could have been (like wax figurines) thrown into a fire during the cursing ritual,
as in tablet No. 236 from Mainz, DTM 11: …Sic illorum membra liquescan(t)
quatmodum hoc plumbum liquescet ut eoru(m) exsitum sit (“…may their limbs
melt, just as this lead shall melt, so that it shall be their death.”).113
1.5 AUTHORS OF THE CURSES
The qualities and educational backgrounds of the authors of Latin curses (see
1.1) varied widely, judging by extant evidence: they range from coarse and
artless drafts containing many mistakes to artfully written works with
complicated formulae, magical signs, or pictures of daemons, following the
magical prescripts preserved in Greek magical papyri.114
Professional magicians
the curses. In three Greek tablets from Attica, dated to the 4th
and 3rd
centuries BCE,
lead is described as “worthless” (ἄτιμος), “passionless” (ἄ[θ]υμος), “useless”
(ἄχρηστος), and “cold” (ψυχρός), and the adversaries of the curse-writers should
become alike (TheDeMa 120, 976, 977).
111
See also Tomlin (1988, 81); Gager (1992, 31; note 11); and also 10.1.2.
112
See also 1.9.3 and 9.2.
113
See also 1.8.1 and 10.2.4 below.
114
See e.g. No. 152, 11.1.3.2.
1. INTRODUCTION
38
are mentioned even by Plato in the 4th
cent. BCE;115
furthermore, in most
cultures charms are performed by specialists. It seems that professional
magicians did not play a major role in the Latin cursing tradition before the turn
of the new millenium.116
A series of tablets, all found in one particular locality
and displaying a number of similarities,117
prove the existence of local magical
“workshops”; see e.g. the collective curses of riders and racehorses from
Hadrumetum.118
On tablet No. 124 from Carthage (see 1.1.2.2.3 above), there
are even empty spaces which one can assume were to be filled in later at
customer’s request with the names of the particular people to be cursed. As for
the tablets found in Britannia, Tomlin (1988, 100 ff.) remarks that, although
several tablets were certainly written by experienced scribes, they lack the
diligence and neat handwriting of the tablets from Africa, and it cannot,
therefore, be even said that some groups of tablets were written by the same
hand. To sum up, it can be asserted that the extant evidence of curses and
prayers for justice consists of tablets made both by laymen and by professionals,
and that the proportion of professionally-made tablets appears to grow at the
beginning of the first millenium CE.
1.6 CURSED PEOPLE, FILIATION
As previously stated, only the names of cursed people are usually listed on the
tablets, while the authors of curses are mostly anonymous because of cultural
and legal mores (see 1.1); however, there are some exceptions, esp. in legal
curses (see 1.1.2.2.1) and love spells (see 1.1.2.2.3). Analogous to Greek curse
tablets and magical papyri, men are cursed more often than women,119
an
assertion also supported by the texts analysed in this work. Male personal
names appear on Latin curse tablets almost three times as often as the female
ones. When looking at the curses aimed against rivals in the circus, it is logical
that we see a preponderance of the male names (charioteers and gladiators being
the ones cursed), and additionally there is also a very high rate of horses’ names
(over 1200). In many cases, onomastic analysis of the names seen on tablets
enables us to assess the social standing of particular targets (see also Kropp,
2008, 57 ff.). They are very often one-word names of Greek or other foreign
115
Pl. Rep. II, 364C; see further detailed discussions of this topic in Gager (1992, 249
ff.); Graf (1996, 24 ff.).
116
Gager (1992, 4 ff.); Tomlin (1988, 100 ff.).
117
See e.g. No. 20 –24 from Rome, in all of them the complicated text is basically the
same, only the names of cursed people change (see 7.3.1.4 and Appendix I).
118
See Appendix I, No. 149 –151, and further No. 157 –161, see also 11.1.3.2.
119
See also Ogden (1999, 64 ff.); Winkler (1991, 227 ff.); Kropp (2008a, 57 ff.).
1. INTRODUCTION
39
origin, sometimes also specified by the terms referring to social standing like
servus or libertus, eventually, and sometimes also by the name of a master or a
patron. See No. 56 from Córdoba, dfx.2.2.3/4: Priamus l(ibertus) mutus sit…, or
No. 16 from Rome, dfx.1.4.4/2: Danae ancilla novicia Capitonis…, sometimes
names are modified with a particular occupation or activity, see No. 13 from
Ostia, dfx.1.4.3/1: ornatrix Agathemeris, Manliae serva, Achulea, Fabiae serva
ornatrix, Caletyche, Vergiliae serva, further e.g. No. 5 from Bologna,
dfx.1.1.2/3: Porcellus mulomedicus, No. 132 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.2/25:
Βαχα(χυχ), qui es in Egypto magnus daemon obliges perobliges Maurussum
venatorem…, No. 42 from Pula, dfx.1.7.5/2: Amandus dispensator.
Nevertheless, the practice of creating curse tablets was definitely not just a
matter of lower classes. This is evidenced e.g. in Tacitus’ description of the
death of Germanicus (Annales II, 69) which was believed to have been caused
by some kind of witchcraft.120
What is more, not only do the names of slaves or
freedmen appear on curse tablets, but the tria nomina of Roman citizens do
appear, as well. See e.g. No. 32 from Cumae, dfx.1.5.3/2: M(arcum) Heium
M(arci) f(ilium) Calidum (see 2.3.1), and No. 38 from Este, dfx.1.7.2/1: Quintus
Praesentius Albus, uxor Praesenti…; periodically, the names of those in high
offices appear, as well. See No. 47 from Ampurias, dfx.2.1.1/2: Titus Aurelius
Fulvus, legatus Augusti. When we look to the provinces, names of non-Roman
origin are referred to, as well. This is especially true in the tablets from
Britannia, and this sometimes poses a problem, it is often difficult to reliably
discern the target’s social standing.
Love spells, almost exclusively found in the African provinces, are somewhat
different in this respect. The targets of Latin love spells are almost exclusively
women, with only one exception: tablet No. 148 from Hadrumetum,
dfx.10.2.1/8, which includes the spell delivered by a certain Septima to make
Sextilius love her:
…non dormiat Sextilius, Dionysiae filius, uratur furens, non dormiat neque
sedeat neque loquatur, sed in mente habeat me Septimam, Amoenae filiam...
(“...may Sextilius, son of Dionysia, not sleep, may he burn [with passion] in
frenzy, may he not sleep, nor sit, nor speak, but may [only] I, Septima,
daughter of Amoena, be on his mind...”).121
The relatively monotonous imagery of Latin love spells is amended by the
much more varied and extensive Greek evidence, which is almost always
120
See the detailed discussion of the topic by Chalupa (2006, 101 ff.).
121
See also 1.9.2 below. The tablet is written in Latin, but in the Greek alphabet.
1. INTRODUCTION
40
written by men. In contrast, we also have Greek tablets written to love objects
of the same sex.122
Thus, if love spells were predominantly written or ordered
by men, as can be judged from the epigraphical evidence provided by the extant
corpus of Greek and Latin love spells; the literary evidence, mainly
concentrating on women seeking the help of sorcerers or witches in matters of
unrequited love, provides us with a somewhat distorted image of the real
situation.123
Conversely, Dickie, M. W. (2000, 563-583) assumes that both
sexes more or less equally contributed to the production of love spells.124
The names of the accursed are usually specified by the father’s name in the
genitive, as was common in Roman practice (e.g. Marci filius), while eventually
some other filiation is stated (e.g. uxor Praesenti). The cursed people are
identified by the mother’s name in approximately ten percent of all texts
analyzed in this book, see No. 148 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/8: ...non
dormiat Sextilius, Dionysiae filius. This holds true especially for the texts
coming from Africa, but mothers’ names also appear, albeit infrequently, in the
texts from Italy, Gallia and Britannia125
dating back to the 2nd
/3rd
cent. CE, and
only exceptio nally in earlier texts. Filiation via a metronymic is mostly found
in love spells, see e.g. No. 145 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/7:
...cogite Bonosam, quam peperit Papte, amare me Oppium, quem peperit
Veneria, amore sacro sine intermissione... (“...force Bonosa, whom Papte
122
See Gager (1992, 80); and especially the detailed analysis of Winkler (1991,
footnote 74) who states the following evidence: He wants her: PGM XVIIa, XIXa,
LXXXIV, CI, CVII, CVIII, CIX; No. 121 (dfx.11.1.1/13, DT 227); No. 124
(dfx.11.1.1/16, DT 230); No. 125 (dfx.11.1.1/17, DT 231); No. 142 (dfx.11.2.1/2,
DT 264); No. 172 (dfx.11.2.1/33, DT 304); No. 173 (dfx.11.2.1/34); No. 174
(dfx.11.2.1/35); No. 175 (dfx.11.2.1/36). She wants him: No. 148 (dfx.11.2.1/8, DT
270); DT271; PGM XV, XVI, XIXb, XXXIX; dfx.11.2.1/8 (DT 270); Gager (1992,
No. 18). She wants her: PGM XXXII, SM I 42. He wants him: PGM XXXIIa;
Faraone (1999, 43 and footnote 9), see also Urbanová (2010, 636 ff.).
123
See e.g. Hor. Epod. 5, 17; Sat. 1.8; Apul. Met. 1.5 –19, 2.5; Petron. Sat. 63; Luc.
6.413 –830.
124
Dickie (2000, 578 ff.) mainly argues that the magical prescripts in magical papyri
are meant to be a general guideline not specifically designed for any particular
purpose or person. For further information on the Greek evidence, see Faraone
(1999, 132ff).
125
See e.g. No. 1 from Arezzo, dfx.1.1.1/1; No. 18 from Rome, dfx.1.4.4/4; No. 25
from Rome?, dfx.1.4.4/13; No. 63 from Trier, dfx.4.1.3/15; No. 188 from Bath,
dfx.3.2/22.
1. INTRODUCTION
41
bore, to love me, Oppius, whom Veneria bore, unceasingly with sacred
love...),126
and in curses against rivals in circus, see e.g. No. 130 from Carthage,
dfx.11.1.1/22: ...(occi)dite, exterminate, vulnerate Gallicu(m), quem peperit
Prima... (“...kill, destroy, hurt Gallicus, whom Prima bore...”).127
The reason
such filiations were used is still the subject of scholarly discussion.128
So far, the
interpretation advocated by R. Wünsch and A. Audollent129
is the most
accepted: they suppose that this strange practice can be attributed to the rule
mater semper certa, i.e. the magicians resorted to this kind of identification
because the curse would not work if the father’s name happened to be wrong.130
This kind of identification, however, appears only after the beginning of the 2nd
cent. CE. In Greek and Roman legal documents, where the proper identification
of people is no less crucial, paternal ancestry is preferred (Curbera, 1999, 198
ff.). Moreover, we have extant texts in which the mother is stated, even though
her name is unknown, see e.g. 1.1.2.2.3, No. 143 from Hadrumetum,
dfx.11.2.1/3: Faciatis Victoriam, quam peperit suavulva, amantem, furentem
prae amore meo... (“get Victoria, who was born to XY [suavulva], to love [me],
burn with passion for me...”), here, suavulva, like the nomen in other cases,
stands for the unknown name of the mother. The use of a metronymic was
widespread in magical papyri and other Egyptian texts, as well. Despite the
strong influence of Egyptian practice on later Greek and Roman tablets (see
1.7.1 below, signa magica, voces magicae), especially in the African provinces,
filiation via a metronymic was not a deviation from normal practice in Egypt,
unlike in the Greek and Latin tradition (Curbera, 1999, 198 ff.). Graf (1996, 203
ff.), on the other hand, maintains that magical rituals and practices are typical
for their systematic effort to deviate from conventional customs and methods.
This can be seen, for example, in the frequent nonstandard orientation of script
in curses (right-to-left, upside-down etc.), and in Latin texts written in the Greek
alphabet, sacrificing unusual animals etc. Filiation via the mother’s name would
fit nicely among these deviations from the norm.
Curbera (1999, 202) assumes that the use of maternal lineage in Greek and
Latin curses derives from the appropriation of Egyptian magical instructions;
126
See also 5.1.1 and 11.1.4.
127
See 1.1.2.2.2 and 11.1.3.1.
128
For an especially elaborate discussion of older views on this issue, see Curbera
(1999, 195ff).
129
Wünsch (1912, 9); Audollent (1904, LI ff.); Kagarow (1929, 48).
130
Similarly, also Kropp (2008a, 171 ff.).
1. INTRODUCTION
42
this would, at the same time, well suit the magical effort to subvert the practices
common in the Graeco-Roman world. Generally, it can be said that names of
the accursed are usually written in the nominative. See, for instance, No. 14
from Ostia, dfx.1.4.3/2:
...Periant, rogo Icmas Mevia... occidant Rufa Papiria... Lupus... colligo
mentem... tabescant Primigenia... (“Please, may they perish, Icimas, Mevia...
may they die, Rufa Papiria...Lupus... I bind the mind of... may they rot
Primigenia ...”)131
This is especially true in the case of the texts comprised exclusively of people to
be cursed, sometimes the “stiff” nominative independent of a predicate may
have been used, as well. It is possible that those who wrote the curses did not
even try to decline the names in order to avoid any confusion of the names
concerned, thus allowing the deity to find the proper intended target of the
curse. No. 27 from Rome, dfx.1.4.4/15, reads:
Dii Manes commendo, ut perdant (= pereant?) B: inimicos meos commendo:
Domitia, Omonia, Menecratis, alius trado: Nicea, Cyrus, Nice, Porista,
Demo, Asclepiades, Time, Ce, Philaia, Caletiche, Menotia... (“Underworld
gods, I commend [to you that] they may die/lose [the lawsuit], I commend
my enemies: Domitia, Omonia, Menecratis, and further I deliver: Nicea,
Cyrus, Nice, Porista, Demo, Asclepiades, Time, Ce, Phialaia, Caletiche,
Menotia...”) (see 7.3.2).
Only about one fifth of the texts contains the names of the targets in the
accusative, except for cases in which the author employs verbs of cursing.
Regarding the curses consisting of a mere list of names, it is hardly
recognizable whether the accusative or the nominative was used because of the
very frequent omission of final –m and –s. As for the names of cursed horses,
these are predominantly in the nominative, as well (see 1.10.1 below, No.
149).132
Prayers for justice differ in this respect quite substantially (see 12.3). While the
author of the tablet often states his/her name, the potential targets, i.e. the
thieves, etc., are usually unknown. More than half of these texts, however, do
not include the name of the author either, in accordance with common cursing
131
See also Audollent (1904, L) Jeanneret (118, 132 ff.); Ruíz (1967, 219 ff.); Solin
(1968, 14 ff.) and especially Adams (2013, 215–216 and 226ff.).
132
Sporadically, a proper name in genitive appears, see 8.1 and 10.1.2 (Barta, 2009;
Boeneugru − Németh, 2013).
1. INTRODUCTION
43
practice. Two thirds of the authors’ names found in the texts belong to men, and
one third to women. Similar to curses, the prayers for justice are mostly aimed
at men. More accurate identification of the culprit by providing father’s name,
in the case s/he is known, is very seldom found.133
If the culprits are unknown,
relative pronouns are used instead, as e.g. in No. 230 from Rottweil,
dfx.5.1.7/1: Fibulam Gnatae qui involavit..., or No. 219 from Mérida,
dfx.2.3.1/1: Quisquis mihi immutavit, involavit minusve fecit (e)a(s res), q(uae)
i(nfra) s(criptae) s(unt); tunicas VI, paenula lintea II, in(dus)ium I, cuius
(no)m(en) ignoro.
Eventually, nomen simply stands in for the names of a culprit, as in No. 299
from Uley, dfx.3.22/6: Nomen furis, qui frenum involaverit... Finally, a sort of
“catch-them-all” or “all-inclusive” formula134
is sometimes used, almost
exclusively on tablets coming from Britannia,135
which should assure that the
curse reaches the unknown target. The formula consists of identifying pairs:
man-woman, boy-girl, or the social standing of the target: he-slave/she-slave,
freedman/freedwoman, and eventually, some other names, as well.136
See e.g.
No. 247 from Bath, dfx.3.2/10: ...deae sanctissimae Suli devoveo eum, qui
caracallam meam involaverit, si vir si femina, si servus si liber..., (see also
1.10.2 below), No. 303 from Uley: ...si baro137
si mulier, si puer si puella, si
servus si liber...
1.7 GODS AND DAEMONS
The names of gods and daemons addressed by the authors of curses and prayers
for justice occur within the texts in a large number of tablets. This is due to the
fact that a curse can only be realized through the influence of these supernatural
133
This corpus contains six such cases: filiation via the mother in prayers for justice is
attested only rarely (see No. 236, 1.10.2 and 10.2.4), and perhaps a modified
reference to mother in No. 226 (see 9.2).
134
See Tomlin (1988, 95; 2003, 361, note 5).
135
This formula is also once attested in Hispania, No. 218, Itálica (see 6.1, 6.2 and 8.2).
136
See e.g. No. 276 from Bath, dfx.3.2/77: seu gen(tili)s seu christianus, “whether
pagan or Christian” (2.3.3), or No. 282 from Broomhill, dfx.3.5/1: si paganus “a
civilian” si miles. See also Kropp (2008a, 171 ff.); 12.2.3.
137
The term baro has to mean “man”, in contrast to the term mulier. In classical Latin,
it is used to denote “a fool”. Apart from the defixiones found in Britannia, the use of
baro meaning “man” is documented only from the mediaeval times (see also 1.10.2
and tablets No. 260, No. 278, No. 280, and No. 299).
1. INTRODUCTION
44
powers. If deities are named,138
they are almost exclusively the chthonic ones,
especially in curses; otherwise local non-chthonic deities are named. However,
we have to remember that the ancient Mediterranean world was home to a vast
number of supernatural beings on all levels, and that almost every deity or
daemon139
could be associated with death or the underworld. The oldest
preserved Greek curses usually contain the chthonic deities Hermes,
Persephone, Hades, Hecate, Demeter, and Gaia.140
Similarly, Latin curse tablets
from the 1st
cent. BCE are addressed to the chthonic deities like Proserpine and
Pluto, sometimes even Cerberus, as well as Di Manes (the underworld ghosts),
Di inferi (the underworld gods),141
and rarely also Jupiter infernus, Juno
Aeracura, Mutae Tacitae or Celtic god Ogmius. As for the not exclusively
chthonic deities, Mars, Diana, Castor and Pollux usually appear in the tablets, as
well as the deities associated with streams like nymphs, Anna Perenna, or
Savus.142
When we look at the prayers for justice, especially those found in
Britannia, Minerva Sulis (named also Dea Sulis), Mercury, and Neptune, are
preferred. From the 2nd
cent. CE onwards, and in the African provinces, we
come across the complicated syncretistic curses with the names of daemons,
which obviously points to the process of blending of Egyptian, Jewish and
Greek religious cultures. There are, for example, the Egyptian Toth (identified
also with Hermes), Osiris (the lord of the Egyptian underworld), his sister and
wife Isis, Seth143
(identified with Greek Typhon), as well as the Jewish gods and
daemons Iaō (Yahweh), Adōnai, Sabaōth and the Babylonian Ereschigal.144
In
138
The names of deities are missing in several tablets, which could be due to the fact
that their names were merely uttered, or because the tablets were very often found in
the votive deposits of shrines or in other spaces connected to the cult of a particular
god, e.g. in Mainz, Bath, or Uley. Therefore, those who delivered curses did not
have to explicitly state deity’s name, being present in the shrine.
139
These include also the ghosts of untimely or violently dead people who restlessly
remain near their buried bodies, the so-called Nekydaímones. For a detailed account
of the powers appearing in defixiones, see Audollent (1904, LIX –LXVII);
Preisendanz (1972, 6 –8, 13 and 17); Gager (1992, 12 ff.); Ogden (1999, 44 –46);
Kropp (2008a, 94 –98).
140
For more detailed image, see Ogden (1991, 44).
141
For further information, see Kropp (2008a, 94 ff.).
142
Savus, probably a river god, is attested on tablet No. 107 from Panonnia; for Anna
Perenna, see 7.1.
143
Seth appears on the tablets from Rome, too, see DT Sethianorum tabellae, and
recently Blänsdorf (2010a, 232), as well as on those found in the spring dedicated to
the goddess Anna Perenna (see 7.1).
144
See Ogden (1991, 44 ff.), Fauth (2014), Quack (2017).
1. INTRODUCTION
45
the Latin tablets from the African provinces only a general term daemones145
is
sometimes used instead of the names of the deities called upon, some of them
even display pictures of these daemons,146
and then eventually their names, see
e.g. No. 124: Καταξιν, Τραβαξιαν etc. Furthermore, Latin curses included not
only the Egyptian god Seth, but also other deities of eastern cults, e.g. Attis or
Mater Magna in the tablets from Mainz;147
and some tablets from Gallia and
Hispania148
contain the name of Isis. The divine powers, which could indicate a
Christian or eastern influence, are very rare. The author of a curse preserved on
a clay vessel found in Rome (No. 25) appeals to “holy angels” (sancti angeli),
but these are supposed to take his adversary to hell (see also 1.10.1 below).149
Generally, the choice of a god or daemon for a particular curse depended on and
was influenced by two external forces: a) local religious cults and customs, b)
the magical papyri available to local specialists.150
Consequently, the names of
gods and daemons tell us a great deal about the faith and the local cults of a
given period of time.151
Any further relationship between the curse-author’s
choice of deity and the kind or purpose of the curse being prepared cannot be
traced.
1.7.1 Voces Magicae − Nomina Barbarica, Signa Magica
The oldest Greek evidence of curse tablets, dating back to the 5th
and 4th
cent.
BCE is comprised predominantly of lists of the names of the cursed individuals,
leaving us to assume that the other parts of the curse (cursing formulae, gods’
names) were merely uttered. However, as far as the content and form are
145
This corresponds to the Greek νεκυδαίμων (see Kropp, 2008a, 95).
146
See e.g. the series of tablets No. 162 –168 (see 11.1.3.2).
147
See e.g. No. 85 and 87, 10.1.1.
148
See No. 64 from Trier (9.1.1) and No. 217 from Bolonia (1.2.1).
149
However, the author of this curse probably does not refer to angels in the Christian
sense of the word. Supernatural powers having the role of mediators between gods
and men are called daemons, the term angeli, ἄγγελοι is attested especially in
Anatolia (see Blänsdorf, 2010a, 239 ff.) perhaps under the influence of Judaism,
although this term appears also on several Greek curse tablets (see e.g. DT 187), less
often in Latin curses, recently also on the inscription found at the spring of Anna
Perenna in Rome (see 7.1.). Greek Christian texts, especially the Coptic ones, which
contain angeli, as well, are called “Rachegebete” by their editor (see Björck, 1938,
28 and 51 ff.). There is ave, mater, ave on the tablet with a love spell No. 182 from
Thysdrus dated back to the 3rd
cent. CE.
150
Gager (1992, 13).
151
For more detailed information, see Kropp (1992, 7 ff.).
1. INTRODUCTION
46
concerned,152
the cursing tradition gradually developed to a considerable extent,
perhaps in accordance with the knowledge and use of script and the spread of
Koine and general literacy in ancient Greece. As we see from the Greek
defixiones from the 1st
cent. CE, as well as from the Latin ones from a century
later, professional magicians who followed complicated magical precepts,
including the names of daemons and magical words, played a substantial role in
this process, especially in the African provinces. The tablets thus became
complex artefacts combining several concomitant magical features: the curse
itself is usually replete with a picture of daemon, magical words, signs, strange
patterns made up of vowels or consonants, an unusual graphic layout, often
together with a nonstandard orientation of script or with the use of the Greek
alphabet to inscribe a Latin text, etc. Magicians appeal to the ghosts of the dead
and daemons in a way that reverses the usual practice of prayer. An ancient
believer appeals to gods in the normal human tongue, while a magician invokes
ghosts and daemons by using unintelligible formulae and magical words
bearing little resemblance to human language, a pattern of utterance called
voces magicae in antiquity (see Poccetti, 2002, 35 ff.). This term encompasses
the names of daemons (Iaō, Sabaōth, Ereschigal, Seth, etc.) (cf. 1.7), as well as
the magical words and incantations sometimes referred to as nomina barbarica
(ὀνόματα βάρβαρα).153
Longer sequences of magical words are called logoi in
the magical canon. These are obscure expressions which are often assignable
neither to Greek, nor Hebrew, nor any other contemporary language.154
The
most familiar are the so-called Ephesia grammata (Ἐφέσια γράμματα, “the
Ephesian letters”), the sequence of six words used for protective purposes and
exorcism: ασκιον, κατασκιον, λιξ, τετραξ, δαμναμενευς, αισιον, (or ισια).155
This
sequence is said to have been engraved on a statue of Artemis in Ephesus, and,
like the other magical incantations provided by Cato (De Agricultura 160), it
was unintelligible to later authors.156
Other incantations falling within the
category of voces magicae are usually incomprehensible expressions like e.g.
152
See also Gager (1992, 7 ff.).
153
The term is documented in Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris, 1336 ff.; see also Graf
(1996, 195).
154
See also Gager (1992, 8 ff.); Ogden (1991, 46 ff.); for the supernatural powers of
Jewish provenance, see Fauth (2014) and Quack (2017).
155
These are documented from as early as the 4th
cent. BCE. The term was sometimes
used generally to denote other magical words, as well, which are today called voces
magicae, event. mysticae (Gager, 1992, 7 and 267).
156
See Kotansky (1991, 110 ff.); 1.1.2.2.
1. INTRODUCTION
47
ABRASAX/ABRAXAS,157
ABALANATHANALBA,158
MASKELLI MASKELLÔ,159
SARBASMISARAB. Similar incantations were also used in healing to strengthen
magician’s power over daemonic forces: in this way s/he could make the ghosts
of the dead cooperate.160
Other magical features present in the curses of the
imperial period are the so-called signa magica (χαρακτῆρες), i.e. the
alphabetical and the non-alphabetical symbols and signs derived from Egyptian
hieroglyphs or other letters, some of which possibly symbolizing celestial
bodies.161
The term signa magica or charaktéres includes also the series of
vowels or shapes (triangles, squares, or other geometrical figures composed of
vowels and consonants). The seven Greek vowels α, ε, η, ι, ο, υ, ω were
associated with planets and angels. The sources from Egypt suggest that the
chanting of particular vowels in a certain order was a part of the religious ritual
(see Gager, 1992, note 40). The purpose of all these “magical” components or
peculiarities, i.e. voces magicae, as well as signa magica, or eventually also
imagines of the daemons –all differing from common practices – were not
meant to make the text difficult or impossible for the reader to understand, or
even to completely conceal its content, as was previously assumed.162
Rather,
they are used in order to distinguish one’s doings from the common practices of
written communication (normal use of script and language) as a demonstration
of refined exclusivity symbolically reflecting magical procedure, i.e. to show
the practitioner’s ability to subvert the natural order of things.163
Explicit
allusion to the magical inversion of the natural order, graphically represented by
the inverted text of a curse, is found in Greek (see. e.g. DT 67), as well as Latin
curses. See e.g. No. 100 from Cologne: Vaeraca, sic res tua: perve(r)se agas,
comodo hoc perverse scriptu(m) est.164
(“Vaeraca, this is how it is going to be
157
See Gager (1992, 265 ff.); Németh (2010, 193 ff.). Abrasax/Abraxas – very frequent
magical word – the name of a deity connected to the Sun. Numeric equivalent of the
single letters of Greek alphabet used in this name is number 365. On gems, the deity
is usually depicted as anguipes, i.e. a being with a cock’s head and snakes instead of
legs (see also Bonner, 1950, 123 ff.).
158
See Gager (1992, 265 ff.). The expression is frequently used on defixiones, in PGM
or on gems, however, its interpretation is uncertain, it is usually considered to be a
Hebrew acronym (see Németh, 2010, 193). Nevertheless, Bohak, G. (2008, 209ff)
assumes that the Hebrew etymologies of the word are ill-founded; moreover, these
words are not attested in old Hebrew magical texts.
159
See for instance PGM VII line 302, and Gager (1992, 286).
160
Audollent (1904, LXV ff.).
161
See Poccetti (2002, 42); Gager (1992, 8 ff.); Audollent (1904, LXXII ff.).
162
Especially Wunsch (1897, DTA).
163
See Poccetti (2002, 38 ff.).
164
Blänsdorf − Kropp − Scholz (2010, 272 ff.); see also 7.3.1.4 and 10.1.1.
1. INTRODUCTION
48
for you: may you go along twistedly [i.e. wrongly] just like this is written in a
twisted way [the text is written right-to-left, i.e. in an unusual manner].”). The
text is written right to left, as opposed to the normal left to right. Essentially, we
are able to distinguish two levels of typical magical procedures in the Greek and
Latin curse tablets predominantly found in Africa: the visual level, represented
by signa magica (charaktéres), and the textual level, represented by voces
magicae. Regarding the script, we are confronted with aberrance from the
graphic norm. See the writing of Latin text in the Greek alphabet in No. 145
from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/5 (line 15 ff.):
.. κωγιτε Βονωσα κουαμ πεπεριτ Παπτη αμαρε μη Οππιομ κουεμ πεπεριτ
Ουενερια αμορε σακρω… (…cogite Bonosa(m), quam peperit Papte amare
me Oppium, quem peperit Veneria, amore sacro…).165
Furthermore, a combination of Roman and Greek characters appears quite often
in Latin curse tablets: whereas Roman characters are used to inscribe the text of
the curse itself, the Greek alphabet is reserved for the names of daemons,
magical words and formulae, as e.g. in No. 161 from Hadrumetum,
dfx.11.1.1/21, a curse against racehorses and charioteers with the names of
daemons engraved in the Greek alphabet around its perimeter (see Appendix I).
See also No. 127 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/19, which shows the names of
horses in Roman characters, and magical incantations written in the Greek
alphabet not only in the margins, but also directly in the text. Transcriptions of a
Greek formula into Latin also exist, but are very rare.166
In short, the tendency
of magical prescription to subvert linguistic and graphic norms in curses is a
feature on display in tablets dating from the 2nd
cent. CE, primarily in those
from the African provinces. Only a few of similar tablets have been found in
Italy (Rome) − the heavily damaged Sethianorum tabellae (DT 140–187), see
No. 18 (1.9.2 and 3.3.3) and No. 19 (7.3.2); the recent findings in the spring of
the goddess Anna Perenna in Rome (7.4); and tablets No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5
from Bologna (7.3.1.5). The presence of voces magicae and signa magica in
prayers for justice is very exceptional, see No. 239 from Petronell-Carnuntum,
dfx.8.3/1 (see 6.2.13).
165
See also No. 147, No. 148, and No. 172; 11.1.4.
166
For an elaborate discussion of this issue, see Poccetti (2002, 44 ff.); see also
11.1.3.1. and No. 133 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/26.
1. INTRODUCTION
49
1.7.2 Script in the Service of Magic
Graphically, the most common magical peculiarity is the nonstandard
orientation of text. Unlike the magical words, which are mostly seen in the
African provinces, the names of daemons, magical signs and vocalic patterns
spread to the outermost regions of the Roman Empire. The handwriting is most
frequently oriented right-to-left, whether it is the whole text, or just some parts
of it (often names of the cursed ones). Only rarely, however, do we find spiral
or boustrophedon writing, upside-down; eventually, we do see that the texts
written right-to-left are actually written backwards. These curiosities are
attested in curses from Italy, Hispania, Britannia, and to a greater extent in
Germania (see especially the recent findings in Mainz, Chapter 10), where
right-to-left script is documented in one third of the tablets at our disposal.167
Some rare evidence of graphical disorientation of a text can also be found in
Noricum, Raetia, and Pannonia.
Prayers for justice differ from curses in this respect, as well. Approximately ten
texts with a nonstandard orientation of text, especially right-to-left writing, have
been preserved in Britannia, and four examples (written right-to-left and upsidedown)
in Germania. Aside from these few exceptions, graphical disorientation
with magical purposes is not attested in prayers for justice. Faraone and Kropp
(2010, 349 ff.) assume that a nonstandard textual orientation is a feature of a
special cursing formula, the combination of compound words derived from the
verb verto and the so-called simile-formula,168
owing to the fact that this is
usually accompanied by a peculiar orientation of text (not in all cases, though).
This is primarily documented in the tablets from Germania, although rarely also
from elsewhere: see e.g. No. 230 from Rottweil, dfx.5.1.7/1: A: Fibulam
Gnatae qui involavit aut qui melior est animi conscius, ut illum aut illam
aversum faciant dii sicut hoc est B: aversum et qui res illius sustulit.169
167
The data result from the curses analyzed in this work.
168
See 6.2.1.1, and esp. chapter 10.
169
The verb averto (“to avert, turn off/away, to reverse, remove”) and the participle
aversus (with a figurative meaning “to be hostile, disfavourable, adverse”) are used
in both senses in this texts – ut illum aut illam aversum faciant, i.e. may s/he be
afflicted by disfavour and enmity perhaps both of gods and men. Ch. A. Faraone and
A. Kropp (2010, 387ff and notes 31 and 32) point out that this could also be meant
as an equivalent of killing (avert from life), in the second part, the participle is used
in the meaning “in an opposite, reversed way” sicut hoc est aversum, i.e. just like
this is written in a reversed way, see also 6.2.1; Machajdíková (2012, 142) who cites
(P. ex F. 17,16–18L): arseverse averte ignem significat.Tuscorum enim lingua
arse averte, verse ignem appellari.
1. INTRODUCTION
50
(“Whoever carried off Gnata’s fibula or knows something more about it, may
the gods render him/her averted, just as this [text] is averted; [this holds for] the
one who stole her thing.”).170
The text is written right-to-left and partially
upside-down.
1.8 RITUAL TREATMENT OF TABLET
Archaeological evidence proves that the production and formulation of curse
tablets was just one facet of a more complex ritual: the tablets have been found
rolled or pierced with a nail (see 1.8.2 below), or together with other magical
objects (so-called kollosoi figurines), or even with some organic remains (hair,
clothes, etc.).171
The prescriptions set forth in Greek magical papyri provide us
with detailed descriptions of complicated rituals, and the archaeological
excavations have provided material evidence of these time and time again.172
In
one case, the so-called “Great Magical Papyrus of Paris” from Egypt, a love
spell intended to win a woman’s love for the author/purchaser173
of the tablet,
we have a fairly complete description of the ritual necessitated by the
Φιλτροκατάδεσμος θαυμαστός (the “wondrous spell for binding a lover”), a
charming love spell (see PGM IV 296-357). Prayers and magical formulae
addressed to gods and daemons occupy the largest part of the ritual, along with
other complicated instructions regarding the making of a clay or wax figurine
symbolizing the love spell’s victim, as well as the creation of the lead tablet
itself.
1.8.1 Figurines, Materia Magica, Gems
The Great Magical Papyrus of Paris starts with instructions on how to make
figurines (PGM IV 298):
Take wax [or clay] from a potter’s wheel and make two figures, a male and a
female. Make the male in the form of Ares fully armed, holding his sword in
his left hand and threatening to plunge it into the right side of her neck. And
make her with her arms behind her back174
and down on her knees. And you
170
See also 1.7.1 above, No. 100.
171
See Graf (1996, 121 ff.); Kropp (2008a, 75 ff.).
172
See SM (1990, 162 ff.), No. 46 –51; Graf (1996, 124).
173
The whole process of the spell is a very complicated one; therefore, we suppose that
it was carried out by professional magicians in the name of a purchaser (see Graf,
1996, 130 ff.).
174
Here, the symbolism of Greek κατάδεσμος, i.e. “the act of binding, tying up”, is
reflected.
1. INTRODUCTION
51
are to fasten the magical material [something which belongs to a victim,
most frequently hair, nails, and clothes] on her head or neck. Write on the
figure of the woman being attracted as follows: On the head: ISEE IAOITHI
OUNE... [what follows is the long list of magical words which are to be
written on ears, eyes, face, right clavicle, arms and hands, heart, belly,
genitals, butt, and soles; this is to be completed with the name of a victim
and her mother written on figurine’s chest]. And take thirteen copper needles
and stick one in the brain while saying, ‘I am piercing your brain, NN’,175
and stick two in the ears, and two in the eyes, and one in the mouth, and two
in the midriff and one in the hands and two in the pudenda and two in the
soles, saying each time: ‘I am piercing such and such a member of her, NN,
so that she may remember no one but me, NN, alone’.
Thus, the first step was to make a clay or wax figurine; in our case, the victim of
spell is symbolized by a figurine of female form. This practice is attested not
only in literary texts – see e.g. Verg. Ecl. 8, 73 ff.: Terna tibi haec primum
triplici diversa colore / Licia circumdo, terque haec altaria circum effigiem
duco. (“These threads here I first tie round thee, marked with three different
hues, and three times round these shrines I draw thy image.”)176
, or Ovid’s Am.
III, 7, 30-31: Sagave poenicea defixit nomina cera, et medium tenuis in iecur
egit acus? (“...or did a witch curse my name upon a red wax image and stick
fine pins into the middle of the liver?”)177
– but also documented by
archaeological findings including clay, wax, bronze, and lead figurines, which
were put into graves with tablets, following the above mentioned guidelines
(though not always to the letter).
175
The writer of a spell fills in the name of the victim here.
176
Translation of H. R. Fairclough, see Virgil. Eclogues. Georgics. Aeneid: Books 1 –6,
Loeb Classical Library 63, 1916, 61.
177
The translation of Ch. A. Faraone, see “When Spells Worked Magic”, Archaeology:
A publication of the Archaeological Institute of America, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2003.
This fem
grave al
spell wr
Ptolema
figurine
Though
context
bodily f
beloved
above-s
so that s
178
Musé
179
Simil
1.2).
male figurine
long with the
ritten by a m
ais.178
The c
e with thirtee
h the figurine
this denote
facilities.179
d, and as suc
said PGM IV
she may rem
ée du Louvre;
larly to the le
1
Figure
e found in Eg
e tablet (SM
man named S
concomitant
en needles is
e symbolizes
s only a tem
The one wh
ch he does n
V 325 ff.: “I
member no on
Gager (1992,
egal curses (s
1. INTRODUC
52
1: This fema
gypt was hid
I, No. 47). T
Sarapammon
ritual of th
not, in fact,
the intended
mporary rest
ho performs
not want to
am piercing
ne but me, NN
, 98); facsimil
ee 1.1.2.2.1)
TION
ale figurine.
dden inside a
The text of th
to win the l
e manufactu
as brutal an
d victim of th
triction of th
the love-cu
hurt her. Th
such and su
N, alone”.
le © Lucie Ur
or some of th
a clay vessel
he tablet con
ove of a wom
ure and pier
nd terrifying
he spell, in th
he victim’s
urse ritual lo
his is obviou
uch member
banová.
he prayers for
located in a
ntains a love
oman named
rcing of the
as it seems.
this amatory
mental and
ongs for his
us from the
of her, NN,
r justice (see
1. INTRODUCTION
53
The restriction of victim’s faculties follows next; see PGM IV 354-6: “So that
she, NN be unable either to drink or eat, that she not be contented, not be
strong, not have peace of mind, that she, NN, not find sleep without me...” Pain
and death are not the goal here: the point is to make the beloved person come to
the curse-dedicator, and for this to happen, the beloved naturally has to be
healthy and cheerful. Reading further, the aim of the author becomes clear – see
PGM IV 352 ff.: “Let her be in love with me, NN, whom she, NN, bore. Let her
not be had in a promiscuous way, let her not be had in her ass, nor let her do
anything with another man for pleasure, just with me alone...” Furthermore,
392-406: “...attract her, bind her, NN, filled with love, desire and yearning for
NN (add the usual), because I adjure you, god of the dead, [magical words]... so
that you attract her, NN, to me and join head to head and fasten lip to lip and
join belly to belly and draw thigh close to thigh and fit black together with
black, and let her, NN, carry out her own sex acts with me, NN, for all eternity.”
The manufacture of magical figurines was generally wide-spread in antiquity,180
although many fewer figurines have been found than curse tablets.181
The oldest
Greek evidence is bronze dating back to the 7th
cent. BCE;182
the most recent
findings of magical figurines in the context of Latin curses have been dated to
the 1st
-2nd
cent. CE, and come from Mainz and Rome from the 4th
/5th
cent.
CE.183
Ch. A. Faraone184
gives an overview of the extant magical figurines,
citing altogether 34 findings. In most cases, these figurines – made of wax,
baked or unburned clay, bronze, or lead – have been found together with the
tablets. Faraone185
names the typical features of these figurines: their hands are
usually tied or twisted behind their backs (rarely also feet): they are pierced
with needles; or their body parts are reversed in some way (head, legs, or chest
turned the other way round). They were commonly stored in little lead boxes
marked with the name of their victim, and put into graves or springs. In terms of
placement, the found figurines are in locations similar to those of curse tablets,
180
The oldest precept to make a wax figurine of an enemy comes from Egypt (ca. 2133
–1786 BCE); see Gager (1992, 15).
181
See the more extensive discussion in Graf (1996, 130 ff.).
182
Faraone (1991a, No. 8 –10).
183
For Mainz, see Witteyer (2004, 41 –50); for Rome (fountain dedicated to Anna
Perenna), see Piranomonte (2010, 204; 7.1) and Piranomonte (2012, 134–144.).
184
See Faraone (1991a, 200 –205).
185
See Faraone (1991a, 200), see also Sánchez Natalías (2015, 194ff).
1. INTRODUCTION
54
especially the Greek ones; chronologically speaking, the figurines are even
older.186
Three basic types of figurines were used in connection with curse tablets that
can be identified.187
The first type accompanies love spells, where the figurine
symbolizes the object of the author’s passion. Contrary to the prescription laid
out in the Paris papyrus and other magical papyri, almost exclusively figurines
of women, mostly with their hands tied behind their backs, and figurines of
copulating couples have been found in Egypt (see Faraone, 1991a, 204); no
figurine in the shape of Ares as described in the magical papyri has been
preserved (see also Graf, 1996, 138). On the contrary, the second type of
figurines was attached to aggressive curses that were aimed at enemies and
rivals with a view to doing damage, as is obvious from a finding from
Kerameikos in Athens dating back to the 4th
cent. BCE. The finding consists of
four lead figurines whose limbs are distorted in various ways and who bear the
name of their particular victim – moreover, they were stored in miniature
coffins made of lead plate.188
And finally, from the amphitheatre in Antiochia
we have figurines of racehorses, including their names, which were probably
used to symbolize a rival race team.189
Furthermore, the relatively recent (1999) findings from the spring of Anna
Perenna in Rome provide us with some interesting evidence of the use of
figurines made of organic materials. The fountain hid lidded 18 lead and 3
terracotta cylindrical vessels, some of which bearing inscriptions and pictures of
daemons, all hermetically sealed. Some of the vessels contained figurines made
of organic materials (wax, flour, sugar, and herbal materials), and, what is more,
these figurines have been found to have animal bones inside them. Similarly to
the findings from Kerameikos stored in little lead coffins, this find also stems
from aggressive magic, the figurines symbolizing the particular enemies at
whom the curse was aimed. The curse-dedicator sealed these figurines in these
containers and threw them into the spring, probably to represent the “isolation”
of the victims and the damage done by the spells, from which there is no way
out.190
The extent to which these findings from the spring of Anna Perenna in
186
See also Ogden (1999, 69 ff.).
187
Similar figurines were also used in Greek poleis at public rituals against enemies as
early as in the 4th
century BCE (see Faraone, 1991, 9; 1991a, 196 ff.).
188
See Gager (1992, 15); Faraone (1991a, No.5 and No.6).
189
Gager (1992, 15 ff.).
190
See Piranomonte (2010, 206).
1. INTRODUCTION
55
Rome resemble each other suggests that these magical items were made in a
single specialized workshop.
The instructions given by papyrus PGM IV 302 ff. mention οὐσία (substance,
matter, material), i.e. materia magica: “Adjoin a materia magica [something
which belongs to a victim, mostly hair] on her head or neck.” Literary sources
also speak of the use of hair, nails, or pieces of clothing belonging to a victim;
see the remark on the clothes of the beloved Daphnis in Verg. Ecl. 8, 91 ff.:
Has olim exuvias mihi perfidus ille reliquit, pignora cara sui, quae nunc ego
limine in ipso, terra, tibi mando; debent haec pignora Daphnin. Ducite ab
urbe domum, mea carmina ducite Daphnin. (“These relics once, dear
pledges of himself, the traitor left me, which, O earth, to thee here on this
very threshold I commit – pledges that bind him to redeem the debt. Draw
from the town, my songs, draw Daphnis home.”)191
Apuleius also refers to the use of materia magica in Met. 3,17,3: the famed
witch Pamphile falls in love with a young Boeotian fellow, and contemplates
alluring him with the help of love spell. Because she has just seen him at a
barber’s, she sends her servant Photis to fetch some of his hair. The barber
prevents the servant from doing so, however, because he rightly suspects that
the hair will be used for some magical purposes. To avoid the punishment for
not accomplishing her task, Photis brings hair from goatskin bags instead.
Pamphile performs all the necessary charms and, much to her chagrin, the bags,
now inflamed with lust, come to her at night to make love to her.
Somewhat surprisingly, given the ready decomposition of organic matter over
time, the practice of using them in ritual cursing is archaeologically attested.192
It is a kind of magical pars pro toto: what will affect a part of the victim, will
affect him/her totally (see Ogden, 19991 4 ff.).
In addition, magical gems also reflect the prescriptions set forth in Greek
magical papyri on love spells. In antiquity, small gems engraved with various
patterns or inscriptions were used as amulets endowed with a magical power.
The motifs and inscriptions on these amulets follow the prescriptions for ritual
defixiones, as well as those in magical papyri, and so can be regarded as
stemming from the same ideological background.193
The primary function of a
191
Transl. available at ˂classics.mit.edu˃.
192
See Gager (1992, 16 ff.); Jordan (1985, 251 ff.).
193
See Michel (2004, XIII).
1. INTRODUCTION
56
gem was to protect its bearer; they were either worn as jewels, or used as a
corroborative means of healing. These gems were used in love affairs, too − we
know of gems which were de facto love spells themselves, as well as gems that
served as a protection against the suffering caused by unrequited love. The gem
in the collection Skoluda M119, for instance, can be regarded as analogous to a
love spell described in magical papyri.194
On the right side of the gem, Ares is
standing (with a shield, a sword, and a helmet), and Aphrodite, face turned
aside, in front of him. Her hands are bound behind her back, and Ares the end of
the rope holds in his. On the reverse is inscribed the relevant magical
formula.195
This gem represents a somewhat milder form of love spell than
those recommended in magical papyri: the spell is not punctuated with a figure
stabbed through with thirteen needles, as recommended in magical papyri.
Similarly to the above mentioned figurines and tablets with love spells, the
owner of this gem probably used it to gain the hitherto unrequited love. There
was another type of gem perhaps used as a protection against the torments of
love: see a gem from the collection Skoluda M026.196
On it, Eros (love) is
depicted as the tormentor of Psyche (soul): he shoots arrows at her, behind him
there is a burning torch (a symbol of passion). Psyche is standing, tied to a
column topped by the bird of the goddess Nemesis (the avenger of rejected
lovers). Written above the scene is a Greek inscription DIKAIWC dikaios, i.e.
“deservedly”. In this case, we can assume that the owner of this gem hoped
either for his love to be returned, or for a just revenge in return for his
suffering.197
1.8.2 Final Treatment of the Tablet
Once a tablet was finished, including being inscribed and equipped with the
above mentioned required elements, it was mostly rolled, folded, or transfixed
194
See Michel (2001, No. 113).
195
Michel (2001, No. 113); the inscription is written as a palindrome (the same to be
read forwards and backwards) − the formula accompanying the depiction of solar
deities and love spells − agogé, according to the instructions in PGM, it should be
written also on the tablet containing the love spell. Text reads: ιαεω/ βαφρενεμ
/ουνοθιλαρικ/ρικριφιαε/υεαιφιρ/κιραλιθονουομενερφαβωεαι. It is derived from
Egyptian prayers to the solar god: “Iaó is the bearer of the secret name, lion of Re,
intact in his casket”.
196
Michel (2001, No. 111).
197
For the prescriptions for the use of magical gems in love context, see PGM IV 1716
–1870, and further PGM LXI 1 –38.
1. INTRODUCTION
57
with nails.198
Literary sources sometimes mention burning or melting wax or
clay figurines whilst performing the curse (see e.g. Verg. Ecl. 8, 80).199
There is
little concrete evidence of this practice in the extant curse tablets, however. The
most positive proof comes from Mainz, were tablets were found among the
remnants of ashes that show some traces of melting around the edges; this is
perhaps also affirmed by the texts on these tablets.200
Greek magical papyri refer
to the rolling of tablets before they are put to an appropriate place,201
and a
substantial number of Latin defixiones have been found in this form. Latin curse
tablets addressed to gods are most often rolled or folded like a letter; it is
questionable, however, whether this practice had any special symbolic magical
significance. Based on the data included in the recent corpus of A. Kropp
(2008), almost a half of the Latin tablets examined here were found arranged in
this way. Tablets showing evidence of having been transfixed with a nail are
much rarer (47) and come predominantly from Italy. This leaves the substantial
amount of tablets (67) with no final arrangement whatsoever.202
As regards this
last group, they were obviously not folded, rolled, wound with wire,203
or nailed
to secure the curse from unwelcome trespassers − these tablets were hidden in
graves, wells, or other inaccessible places; they did not need to be secured by
the curse-dedicator, because their locations made them secure. (see 1.8.3).204
There can be no doubt that nailing the tablet had a ritual magical significance205
but its interpretation is ambiguous. K. Preisendanz (1972, 5) assumed that the
rolling, nailing, or otherwise securing a tablet ensured that the victims, whose
198
See Gager (1992, 18); Preisendanz (1972, 5 ff.).
199
Limus ut hic durescit et haec ut cera liquescit / Uno eodemque igni, sic nostro
Daphnis amore. (“As by the kindling of the self-same fire / harder this clay, this wax
softer grows, / so by my love may Daphnis.”) ˂classics.mit.edu˃.
200
See 1.4 and 10.2.4, No. 236: ...sic illorum membra liquescan(t) quatmodum hoc
plumbum liquescet ut eoru(m) exsitum sit. (“…May their limbs melt, just as this lead
shall melt, so that it shall be their death.”). See also No. 89 from Mainz, DTM 10,
and 10.1.1, for the archaeological point of view, see Witteyer (2004, 48 ff.).
201
See e.g. PGM VII 460, and also 1.8.3.
202
However, the editors often do not include data regarding final arrangements of
tablets, or the tablets are damaged to such an extent that it is impossible to assess the
way they were treated.
203
See also 7.2.
204
See Gager (1992, 18); Faraone (1991, 4).
205
The nails were not used to fix the tablet on a wall or somewhere else, but purely for
the transfixion; furthermore, they were often specially adjusted and inscribed, for the
more extensive discussion of this, see E. Kagarow (1929, 15 ff.) who supposed that
the act of transfixion was meant to bring pain or death to a victim.
1. INTRODUCTION
58
names were stated within, would be affected by the curse. D. Ogden206
also sees
tablet rolling as a symbolic act: the twisting is related to the symbolic binding of
magical figurines, as well as to the nonstandard orientation of text. Puncturing
the tablet with a nail can be regarded as a physical manifestation of the uttered
or written curse defigo (“to infix, to strike, to transfix”) in the course of ritual,
symbolizing the affliction of a victim.207
The recent excavations at the spring of
Anna Perenna in Rome document a strange way of storing the tablets: several
lead tablets were found here in oil lamps.208
Altogether 74 mostly unused oil
lamps dating back to the 4th
cent. CE have been found here, six of which with
little rolled curse tablets put in them, as if in place of a wick. Curse lamps, i.e.
oil lamps with a curse inscribed on them, have also been found in other parts of
the Roman Empire, see e.g. those from Athens dated to the 4th
cent. BCE.209
In
Rome, there is an even older piece of evidence of a curse lamp: a lamp dating to
the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE (see No. 15, Appendix I). A. Mastrocinque (2007, 95 ff.)
presumes that the lamp symbolized an enemy or a rival who was transmitted to
the chthonic powers (in this case, nymphs) by the symbolic act of throwing the
lamp into the spring. The wick − the symbol of light, warmth, and life − has
been replaced by a cold, lead curse tablet which was intended to “freeze” the
opponent, while the throwing of such lamp into a well probably symbolized
death of the victim. Further bolstering the proof of the use of curse lamps are
Greek magical papyri which, in laying out the processes of magical ritual, often
refer to using lamps, especially in connection with the art of divination. There is
also proof of lamps being used in some aggressive charms (see e.g. PGM VII
376-384, the charm inducing insomnia).210
1.8.3 Depositing the Tablets − Locations of Findings
Once completed, the tablet had to be put into a place that would assure the
effectiveness of the curse. D. Ogden (1999, 15) states five most common places
of tablets’ deposit: 1) graves; 2) shrines of chthonic deities; 3) water; 4) places
with a special relation to the victim or the curse; 5) shrines of local deities.
Greek magical papyri also name the proper locations for tablets, see e.g. PGM
IV 334 ff.: “...you place it, as the sun is setting, beside the grave of one who has
206
Ogden (1999, 31): ...twisting was seen as something inherently magical.
207
See also A. Kropp (2008a, 86) who deals with the ritual treatment of tablets during
the execution of the curse.
208
Piranomonte (2010, 201 ff.).
209
Mastrocinque (2007, 88 ff.); see also 7.1.
210
For detailed discussion and the list of particular places in PGM, see Mastrocinque
(2007, 93 ff.).
1. INTRODUCTION
59
died untimely or violently,211
placing beside it also the seasonal flowers”, PGM
VII 451 ff. recommends throwing the tablet into a river or the sea, or hiding it
underground, in a water pipe, a spring, or a sarcophagus; PGM V 304-369 also
advises to put the tablet into the grave of a person who has died an untimely
death, or into an unused well. Finally, PGM VII 470 mentions the hot water
pipes in baths. Curse tablets are, indeed, usually found in graves: in fact, more
than one-third of all Latin curses have been so found.212
Regarding Greek curse
tablets, D. Ogden (1999, 15 ff.) documents a similar situation: approximately
one-half of the curse tablets whose location is documented and is known, were
found in graves.
Numerous findings also come from the shrines of chthonic and local deities, this
holds true especially for the tablets found in the shrine of Minerva Sulis in
Bath213
(predominantly prayers for justice), as well as in the votive depository
of a shrine in Mainz (both curses and prayers for justice). Other locations of
tablets, i.e. water streams or springs, amphitheatres, and houses, are
documented in much fewer cases.214
It is predominantly with love spells that the
location of deposit is connected to the victim − the ideal location being the
target’ house.215
The locations of Latin tablets, however, do not adhere to this
rule, most of the tablets with love spells have been found in graves. This could
be more the result of the fact that graveyards are much less likely to be
disturbed by urbanization, and so tablets stored here deposited here had a better
chance of being preserved up to these days than their counterparts in inhabited
areas. The curses aimed against rival gladiators, especially the Greek ones, have
been found in circuses, near the starting turning points. As for the Latin curses,
only a few texts have been found in amphitheatres, including curses against
211
This notion is connected to a deeply rooted ancient belief that the souls of violently
or untimely dead people restlessly stay near the graves until the “normal” span of
their lifetimes is filled over. This is also confirmed by the archaeological findings of
defixiones in the graves, where the age of the dead person could be verified (see
Graf, 1996, 134 ff.; Ogden, 19991, 16; Gager, 1992, 18 and especially note 93).
212
See A. Kropp (2008a, 329) who states the extact numbers actual in 2008; i.e. 152
Latin defixiones found in graves, 256 in shrines.
213
In this case, two proper disposal sites are actually combined, the tablets were thrown
into a hot spring located in the sacred precinct of Minerva Sulis in Bath.
214
A. Kropp (2008a, 329) states 29 tablets found in water streams (in the
archaeological context, the spring of the goddess Sulis in Bath is classified as a
shrine), 31 tablets coming from amphitheatres, and only 7 tablets found in houses.
For prayers for justice, see also Versnel (2010, 279).
215
See Gager (1992, 18).
1. INTRODUCTION
60
rival gladiators from Carthage,216
as well as the non-specific curses found in the
amphitheatre in Trier, Gallia.217
J. Tremel (2004, 32 ff.) explains the presence of
non-agonistic curses and prayers for justice in amphitheatres by the fact that
immediate contact with the underworld powers, esp. daemons, had to be
established for the proper execution of the curse. According to ancient beliefs,
these forces resided in the depths of wells, as well as in graves, mostly those of
the untimely dead. In this respect, an amphitheatre was as fine a place to deposit
a tablet as a grave: the violent deaths incurred by the circenses ensured the
presence of daemons. Some of the curses found in the amphitheatre in Carthage
were found in the area where the bodies of dead gladiators were put before
burial (spoliarium).
In many cases, however, we do not know where curse tablets were found,
especially in the case of the older findings from the 19th
century, which were
unearthed by amateur archaeologists and treasure hunters. Additionally, the
modern-day location of some defixiones does not have to be identical with the
original one due to erosion or other external forces that affect the terrain. With
the exception of curses against rivals in the circus that were found in
amphitheatres, any closer connection between the type of the curse and its
placement cannot be determined with certainty. The fact that all curses coming
from the province Africa Byzancena have been found in graves does not prove
anything; this is rather a coincidence related to the archaeological excavations
that took place in this area.
1.9 CURSING FORMULAE
Any attempt to classify the very variegated inventory of Greek and Latin218
cursing formulae is unavoidably impeded by several issues. The extant texts
differ not only in age and provenience, but also in type and complexity.
Furthermore, we cannot forget the question of authorship: the corpus includes
curses made by professional magicians, as well as the more or less artless
attempts of laymen (see also 1.5 above). Another issue is that the fragmentary
character of many of the extant tablets does not allow us to determine with
certainty exactly how the text was formulated. When classifying cursing
formulae, we cannot avoid the often arduous task of trying to reconcile the
216
See Faraone (1991, 3 and note 56).
217
See Appendix I, No. 130 –132, No. 134, No. 135, and No. 140; 11.1.3.1.
218
The following scholars deal with the description of Latin and Greek formulae:
Audollent (1904, XLIV –LXXXVII); Kagarow (1929, 29 ff.); Faraone (1991, 5 ff.);
Kropp (2008a, 137 ff.); and esp. Kropp (2010, 370 ff.).
1. INTRODUCTION
61
formal syntactical aspect with the semantic and pragmatic ones in order to
achieve neat, tidy categories. Complicating this is that more complex curses
usually combine various types of formulae. So on the one hand, any attempt to
account for every formal difference and to record all the possible additions to
the curses only leads to an overwhelming number of categories; on the other
hand, excessive pragmatic oversimplification leaves several important semantic
and syntactical features unnoticed. For the most part, scholars now prefer a
hybrid approach, looking at semantic aspects alongside facultative additions to
the curses, starting from the simplest form (mere lists of the accursed), through
the more developed versions (those displaying more complex structure), toward
those texts obviously drawn from the prescriptions set forth by, for example,
Greek magical papyri. A. Kropp (2008a; 2010) favours a new approach of
pragmatic linguistics and ritual performance.
1.9.1 Structure of Curse
Generally, a Latin curse consists of the following elements (see also 1.2.3):
I) The names of the accursed in the nom./acc. (eventually, with a specifying
patronymic or metronymic), be they human or equine, without any verb
of cursing:219
a) A list of cursed people:
No. 2 from Arezzo, dfx.1.1.1/2, reads: M(arcus) Ponti (filius),
Secundio, M(arcus) Ulp(ius), Anici (filius).
b) A list of cursed people, specified by occupation:
No. 13 from Ostia, dfx.1.4.3/1, reads:
Agathemeris Manliae serva,(Ac)hulea Fabiae serva
ornatrix, Caletyche Vergiliae serva ornatrix, Hilara
Liciniae serva ornatrix, Chreste Corneliae serva
ornatrix, Hilara Seiae serva ornatrix, Moscis ornatrix,
Rufa Apeiliae serva ornatrix, Chila ornatrix.
219
The fact that these texts are indeed the lists of cursed people is attested by locations
of these texts, usually in graves or wells, by the material used − lead with a text
inscribed on it – as well as by the final arrangement of a tablet (rolling, transfixion)
(see 1.8.2). In these cases, the curse itself was probably merely uttered, not written
on a tablet.
1. INTRODUCTION
62
(“Agathemeris, the slave of Manlia, Achulea, the slave
of Fabia, a hairdresser...”).
c) A list of cursed people, specified by metronymic filiations:
No. 141 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/1, reads: Laelianus,
Saturninus, quos peperit Aquilia Saturnina (see also 11.1.1)
Such “brief” cursing formula is probably the oldest type of curse,
though it was very popular and wide-spread throughout the whole
ancient cursing practice.
II) Other, more advanced types of curses consist of the names of the
accursed, specified by filiation, predicates (cursing/handing over −
defigo/trado), and/or the object in the accusative (list of cursed objects,
mostly body parts).
See No. 12:
Malchio Niconis oculos, manus, digitos, brachia, ungues, capillos,
caput, pedes... defigo in has tabellas. (“Malchio, the son/slave of
Nico, I curse with this tablet [his] eyes, hands, fingers, arms, nails,
hair, head, feet...”) (see also 1.1.2.1 and 7.3.1.2);
No. 198 from London, dfx.3.14/1, reads: Tertia(m) Maria(m)
defigo et illius vita(m) et mentem et memoriam et iocinera,
pulmones... (“I curse Tertia Maria and her life, and mind, and
memory, and liver, lungs...”). (See also 12.1.1.).
The formula rarely appears also in prayers for justice. See, for
instance, No. 269 from Bath, dfx.3.2/53:
Lovernisca d(onat) eum sive v(ir) sive femina, sive puer sive puella
qui mafortium involaverit. (Lovernisca [gives] him who, whether
[man] or woman, whether boy or girl, who has stolen [her] cape.”).
In most cases, however, this type of formula is not used separately,
but in conjunction with other elements and formulae (see below).
III) Longer, more complex curses mostly contain the names of the gods
whose help is being sought (Proserpine, Pluto, Di Manes), or the gods
1. INTRODUCTION
63
and daemons who are being sworn upon (adiuro vos daemones).220
Eventually, there is a polite address to the gods both in curses (domini
dei, sancti angeli) and in prayers for justice (see 1.2.3), although more
frequently in the latter (deae sanctissimae Suli, Dea Ataecina
Turibrig[ensis] Proserpina, per tuam maiestatem te rogo), as well as the
names of the cursed people and a filiation, although in prayers for justice,
the culprit is usually unknown (see 1.6 the all inclusive formula) –
predicates (cursing/handing over − defigo/trado), commonly extended in
the purpose clause (ut/ne + pres. subj.). Lists of the injuries the accursed
is to suffer (disease, restrictions, death) are also used. Such advanced
curses are quite easily classifiable into the particular types of curses (see
1.1.2.2).
A curse against a gladiator (see 1.1.2.2.2 and 11.1.3.1):
See No. 130 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/22 (line15):
...obliga Gallicum, quem peprit Prima, ut neque taurum singulis plagis
occidat neque binis plagis occidat neque ternis plagis occidat taurum,
ursum... (“...bind Gallicus, whom Prima bore, so that he kills neither a bear
nor a bull, nor does he kill a bear or a bull with a single, nor double, nor
triple punch.”).
A curse associated with a lawsuit (see also 1.10.1 below):
No. 70 from Frankfurt, dfx.5.1.2/1, reads:
Rogo Mane(s et Di?) inferi, ut (Ma)rius Fronto, (adv)ersariu(s) Sex(ti), sit
vanus neque loqui possit contra Sextum... (“I ask [you], Manes and the
infernal gods, may Marius Fronto, the enemy of Sextus, be unsuccessful,
may he be unable to speak against Sextus...”).
A non-specific curse (see 1.1.2.1):
No. 1 from Arezzo, dfx.1.1.1/1, reads:
A: Q(uintum) Letinium Lupum, qui et vocatur Caucadio, qui est fi(lius)
Sallusti(ae Vene)ries sive Ven(e)rioses, hunc ego apud vostrum B: numen
demando, devoveo, desacrifico, uti vos Aquae ferventes, sive vos Nymphae,
220
See also Kropp (2008a, 160 ff.): the formulae with a subsidiary function −
Beschwörungsformel.
1. INTRODUCTION
64
sive quo alio nomine vultis appellari, uti vos eum interimatis, interficiatis
intra annum istum.221
(“I commend, devote, and sacrifice to your power
Quintus Letinius Lupus, who is also called Caucasian, who is the son of
Sallustia Veneria or Veneriosa, may you, boiling Waters, or you, the
Nymphs, or whatever other name you want to be called, destroy him, and
kill him in this year.”).
A curse against an inanimate victim (here, a business venture) (see 1.10.1):
See No. 138 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/35:
Domini Dei, tenete detinete Falernas, ne quis illoc accedere possit; obligate,
perobligate Falernarum balineum ab hoc die, ne quis homo illoc accedat.
(“Lord gods, restrain and hinder the Falernian [baths], lest anyone should be
able to approach that place; bind and bind up the Falernian baths from this
day, lest any person should approach that place.”).
This type appears also in prayers for justice:
See No. 247 from Bath, dfx.3.2/10:
A: Docilianus Bruceri deae sanctissimae Suli devoveo eum, qui caracallam
meam involaverit, si vir si femina, si servus si liber, uti eum dea Sulis
maximo leto adigat nec ei somnum permitat… (“Docilianus, [son] of
Brucerus to the most holy goddess Sulis. I curse him who has stolen my
hooded cloak, whether man or woman, whether slave or free that the
goddess Sulis may inflict death upon him and not allow him to sleep...”) (see
also 1.2.2).
These advanced texts of curses sometimes act upon analogies, the so-called
simile- formula:
No. 17 from Rome, dfx.1.4.4/3, reads:
Quomodo mortuos, qui istic sepultus est nec loqui nec sermonare potest, seic
Rhodine apud M. Licinium Faustum mortua sit nec loqui nec sermonare
possit. Ita uti mortuos nec ad deos nec ad homines acceptus est, seic
Rhodine apud M. Licinium accepta sit et tantum valeat, quantum ille
mortuos, quei istic sepultus est… (“Just like this dead one, who is buried
here, cannot speak nor talk [to anyone], may Rhodine be dead for Marcus
221
The text reads intra annum itus (= istum).
1. INTRODUCTION
65
Licinius Faustus, nor be able to speak or talk [to him]. Just like the dead one
is dear neither to gods, nor men, may Rhodine be equally [little] dear to
Marcus Licinius, and may she mean to him as much as this dead one who is
buried here...”).222
1.9.2 Optional Supplements of Curses
Curses can be further extended by several optional auxiliary concomitant
supplements,223
most frequently (in approximately one-fifth of all cases),
formulae that include information specifying the terminus post, in, or ante quem
the imprecation shall be valid appear in curses and in prayers for justice. These
specify when, till when, or since when, the curse should be valid:
(till when): see e.g. No. 1: ...uti vos eum interimatis, interficiatis intra annum
istum (“...destroy him, and kill him in the course of this year.”).
(when): No. 135 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/28, reads:
...ut ursos ligare non possit, omni ursum perdat, omnem ursum Vincentius
non occidere possit in die Mercuri(i) in omni ora, iam, iam, cito, cito…
(“...so that he is unable to tie up bears, may he lose with every bear, may
Vincentius be unable to kill any bear on Wednesday at any hour, now, now,
quickly, quickly.”).224
(since when): No. 144 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/4, reads: ...ut amet me
Felicem, quem peperit Fructa, ex hac die ex h(ac hora) (“...may she love me,
Felix, whom Fructa bore, from this day on, from this hour on.”) (see 5.1.4 and
11.1.4), or No. 139: ...ab hoc die, ne quis homo illoc accedat (“...lest any person
should approach that place from this day.”) (see 1.10.1).
222
See 1.9.3 below, further also No. 67 and No. 25, 1.10.1, 9.1.2, and No. 234, 1.10.2.,
and Urbanová – Cuzzolin (2016, 333, 338).
223
See also Kropp (2008a, 160 ff.) who differentiates six auxiliary formulae:
Anrufungsformel (invocatory formula − a simple address to god);
Beschwörungsformel (obsecration by god − adiuro te); Klageformel (a complaint −
conqueror); Gelübdeformel (votum, see below); Drohformel (menacing formula, see
below), and Warnformel (warning formula, see below); however, she omits the
formulae containing time data), see also Dreher (2012, 29ff) and Versnel (2012, 34).
224
The expressions iam, iam, cito, cito are the transposition of the Greek terms ἤδη,
ἤδη, ταχύ, ταχύ (see also 1.10.1, No. 131 below, further also Kropp, 2008a, 168) and
the accumulation of synonyms (see 7.3.1.1, 10.1.1, and 11.3.1).
1. INTRODUCTION
66
Love spells, especially, include information specifying the duration of
restrictions meaning “not until, unless”:
(unless): see, for instance, No. 124: ...et aufer illae somnum usquedum veniat
ad me... et animo meo satisfaciat... (“...and take sleep away from her unless she
comes to me… and satisfies me.”) (see 1.1.2.2.3).
Prayers for justice are usually formulated similarly, see No. 247:
…nec ei somnum permitat, nec natos nec nascentes, donec caracallam meam
ad templum sui numinis pertulerit (“...and do not allow him to sleep or [to
have] children now and in the future, until he has brought my hooded cloak
to the temple of her divinity.”).
Prayers for justice, exclusively, sometimes include a formula expressing
author’s complaint about damage suffered (see also 1.2.2):
No. 303 from Uley reads: Deo sancto Mercurio Honoratus, conqueror
numini tuo, me perdidisse rotas duas... (“Honoratus to the holy god
Mercury, I complain to your divinity that I have lost two wheels...”) (see
1.10.2)
compare also No. 295: Deo Mercurio Cenacus queritur de Vitalino et
Natalino filio ipsius... (“Cenacus complains to the god Mercury about
Vitalinus and Natalinus his son...”) (see also 1.2.2. and 12.2.2 below)
and No. 296 from Uley: Commonitorium deo Mercurio a Saturnina muliere
de linteamine, quod amisit... (“A memorandum to the god Mercury... from
Saturnina a woman, concerning the linen cloth which she has lost...”) (see
also 1.10.2).
Curses and prayers for justice can be further augmented with a votive formula,
promising a reward to the deity upon fulfilment of the author’s wish, in
accordance with ancient religious beliefs.225
See e.g. No. 9 from Minturno
(Italy), dfx.1.4.1/1: Dii inferi, si illam videro tabescentem, vobis sanctum illud
libens ob anniversarium facere... (“Infernal gods, if I see her decay, I will
gladly offer you that sacrifice each year...”)226
225
See also Kropp (2008a, 164 f.) − Gelübdeformel.
226
Text of the tablet is damaged which makes any further intepretations uncertain (see
also 7.3.1.3).
1. INTRODUCTION
67
Phrases typical of votive inscriptions appear also in No. 52 from Carmona
(Spain), dfx.2.2.2/1, which reads:
Dis inferis, vos rogo utei recipiatis nomen Luxsia A(uli) Antesti filia caput,
cor, consiliom, valetudinem, vitam, membra omnia, accedat morbo cotidie et
sei faciatis, votum, quod facio, solvam vostris meritis. (“To the infernal gods,
I ask you to accept [my request/ charge against]227
Luxia, the daughter of
Aulus Antestus, may disease overcome her head, heart, intellect, health, life,
and all limbs, and if you do [this], I will honour the promise I make [here]
rightly.”)228
Promises to the gods are found in prayers for justice more frequently than in
curses, although in a modified form − the author promises a finder’s fee to the
deity (i.e. part of the stolen property or money) should it be returned:229
See No. 296 from Uley:
...deo Silvano tertia pars donatur ita, ut hoc exsigat, si vir si femina, si
servus si liber... (...a third part [what she has lost] is given to the god
Silvanus on condition that he exacts it [the stolen property/money], whether
man or a woman, whether slave or a free... [has stolen it].”) (see also 1.10.2).
Compare also No. 292 from Ratcliffe-on-Soar, dated to the 3rd
century CE,
dfx.3.19/1:
Donatur deo Iovi Optimo Maximo ut exigat per mentem, per memoriam, per
intus, per intestinum, per cor, per medullas, per venas, per…, si mascel si
femina, quivis involavit (den)arios Cani Digni, ut in corpore suo in brevi
tempore pariat. Donatur deo (suprascripto?) decima pars eius pecuniae,
quam (so)lverit. (“It is commended to the god Jupiter the Great and the
Mightiest to exact [the money] through mind, memory, entrails, intestines,
heart, marrow, veins, ... [of the one] whover has stolen them, whether a man
or a woman, the money of Canus Dignus, may s/he return it personally as
227
For the text and this interpretation, see Corell (1993, 261 ff.); Versnel (1998, 236 f.).
See also F. Maltomini (1995, 297) supposes that the sequence containing votum
refers to the utterance of the pledge to the deity while depositing the tablet. See also
Sáez (1999, 299) who adds a detailed linguistic commentary. The text contains
several mistakes (see Appendix I).
228
The text according to Corell (1993, 261 ff.); for further interpretations, see Vernsel
(1998, 236 f.), and the commentary in 8.1.1.
229
See also Kropp (2008a, 164 f.).
1. INTRODUCTION
68
soon as possible.230
A tenth of the money paid [by the culprit] will be
granted to the aforementioned god.”)
Some tablets, be they the Greek ones from Knidos231
or the Latin ones from
Germania, express the author’s wish that the gods remain unsatisfied or
unappeased, thus making the curse irreversible. No. 231 from Mainz reads:
… nec se possint redimere nec hosteis lanatis nec plumbis nec auro nec
argento redimere a numine tuo, nisi ut illas vorent canes, vermes adque alia
portenta, exitum quarum populus spectet… (“… may they not be able to buy
themselves free from your divine power either by offering sheep or lead
[tablets], or by gold, or silver, but may dogs, worms, and other monsters
devour them, may the people watch their death…”)
(see Blänsdorf 2012, DTM No. 1; and 1.10.2 below).
A similar wish is expressed in tablet No. 85 from Mainz, dfx.5.1.5/2:
...neque se possit redimere, nulla pecunia nullaque re neque abs te neque ab
ullo deo... (“may he not be able to redeem himself by any money or anything
else, either from you or from any other god,...”) (see Blänsdorf 2012, DTM
No. 5; and 10.1.1).
Prayers for justice coming from Britannia very often contain restrictions −
diseases or other limitations of mental or bodily functions that the victims
should suffer until s/he returns the stolen property. Moreover, these are the only
ones that use the formula sanguine suo redimere/satisfacere, meaning that the
culprit must pay the price with his own blood/life, see No. 274: ...deae Suli
facias illum sanguine suo illud satisfacere (“…make him/her pay for it to the
goddess Sulis in his own blood.”) (see 6.2.1.3).
Infrequently, but from time to time, curse authors use menacing formulae to
put themselves into a position superior to that of the supernatural powers,
threatening the invoked daemon with a punishment should he fail to accomplish
the task he was given.232
This is very rare in Latin curse tablets. The following
evidence is a very complicated Latin love spell written in the Greek alphabet,
probably ordered from a professional magician. In this text, which comes from
230
For further interpretations, see Vernsel (1991, 104, note 124); see also Versnel
(2010, 342 ff.): Appendix on vota in curse-text; see also 12.2.2.
231
See Gager (1992, No. 89); Versnel (2010, 285).
232
See also Kropp (2008, 165 ff.) and Graf (1996, 201).
1. INTRODUCTION
69
Hadrumetum and dates back to the 2nd
cent. CE, Septima tries to make
Dionysius love her (see also 1.6. and 1.10.1.). I provide the Latin transcription
of text No. 148 here (see Appendix I):
Adiuro… per magnum deum et per Anterotas et per eum, qui habet
accipitrem supra caput et per septem stellas, ut, ex qua hora hoc
composuero, non dormiat Sextilius, Dionysiae filius, uratur furens, non
dormiat neque sedeat neque loquatur, sed in mente habeat me Septimam,
Amoenae filiam; uratur furens amore et desiderio meo, anima et cor uratur
Sextili, Dionysiae filii, amore et desiderio meo Septimes, Amoenae filiae. Tu
autem Abar Barbarie Eloe Sabaoth Pachnouphy Pythipemi, fac Sextilium,
Dionysiae filium, ne somnum contingat, sed amore et desiderio meo uratur,
huius spiritus et cor comburatur, omnia membra totius corporis Sextili: si
minus, descendo in adytus Osyris et dissolvam τὴν ταφὴν233
et mittam ut a
fulmine feratur; ego enim sum magnus decanus dei, magni dei
AXRAMMAXALALA.234
(“I adjure you, the great god [i.e. Osiris], and
Anterotes [Anteros is a daemon who revenges those abandoned and deceived
in love],235
and the one with a hawk head [i.e. Horus, the Egyptian god of
death], and the seven stars [i.e. planets], from the moment I put this tablet
[into the grave], may Sextilius, son of Dionysia, not sleep, may he burn [with
passion] in frenzy, may he not sleep, nor sit, nor speak, but may [only] I,
Septima, daughter of Amoena, be on his mind; may he burn with love and
longing for me, may the mind and heart of Sextilius, son of Dionysia, burn
with love and longing for me, Septima, daughter of Amoena. And you, Abar,
Barbarie, Eloe, Sabaoth, Pachnouphy, and Pythipemi, make Sextilius, son of
Dionysia, unable to sleep, but burn with love and longing for me, may his
spirit and heart, as well as all limbs of Sextilius’ body be consumed by love:
if not, I will descend into the shrine [grave] of Osiris, open his grave and
throw him [into the river], so that he is carried away by the current; because
I am the great decan of the god, mighty god AXRAMMAXALALA.”)
Periodically, such admonishing formulae are used – no doubt by professionals –
to warn the invoked supernatural being about possible retaliation or ridicule
from the curse’s victim, and, at the same time, to set the daemon against the
233
τὴν ταφὴν – acc. sg.: ἡ ταφή − a grave.
234
See also 1.7.1. and 1.7.2., for a commentary, see Audollent (1904, No. 270) and
Graf (1996a).
235
See also similar depictions on gems (1.8.1).
1. INTRODUCTION
70
victim.236
The following example comes from the so-called Sethianorum
tabellae found in Rome, see No. 18 from Rome, dfx.1.4.4/4 (line 8):
...et si forte contempserit, patiatur febris, frigus, tortiones... (“and if he
happens to scorn you, may he be afflicted with fever, cold shudder, and
torments/cramps?...”); and further (line 15): Si forte te seducat per aliqua
artificia et rideat de te et exsultet tibi, vince, peroccide filium maris,
Praesenticium pistrinarium. (“If he by chance seduced you by some trick,
laughed at you and mocked you, defeat and kill the son of sea, Praesenticius,
the miller.”)237
Latin curses and prayers for justice sometimes also contain the so-called
historiola, a brief mythical story built into the context of a curse which serves
as a kind of magical precedent for author’s wish. Historiolae are especially
well-known from the Egyptian magical documentation and Greek magical
papyri. D. Frankfurter (1995, 469 ff.) who deals with the typology of historiolae
differentiates two basic types of historiolae: 1) those which work only on the
basis of a narrated story which is parallel to the situation meant to be
accomplished through magical ritual, and 2) those which work as subsidiary
elements of the invocation fo gods. Only very rarely are these found in Latin
tablets, see No. 148 above: “...if not, I will descend into the shrine [grave] of
Osiris, open his grave and throw him [into the river], so that he is carried away
by the current; because I am the great decan of the mighty god
AXRAMMAXALALA.” This historiola probably belongs to the second type
(see also prayers for justice No. 220, 3.3.2., and No. 238, 10.2.2.).
1.9.3 Classification of Cursing Formulae
E. Kagarow (1929, 32 ff.) distinguishes five basic formulae used in Greek
tablets, with a total of 18 subtypes based on further extensions of the curse:
I. Beschreibende Formeln: descriptive formulae with references to the actions of
the one who curses, the verb of cursing in the 1st
sg. pres.: καταδῶ τὸν δεῖνα, “I
bind NN”;
236
For the more detailed discussion of this, see Kropp (2008a, 166 f.) and Graf (1996,
201ff.).
237
For interpretation of this, see Solin (2004, 117 ff.). This curse against the miller
appears among the agonistic curses from Rome. Solin explains this by the fact that
his mill in the IXth
precinct probably neighboured upon the stable-rooms of
racehorses. The expression filium maris is a proverbial term name for a heartless,
rude person (see Audollent, 1904, 201; Catullus 64, 155).
1. INTRODUCTION
71
II. Prekative Formeln: precative or request formulae with the verb in the 2nd
sg.
imper., the 3rd
sg./pl. opt., or the 1st
sg. pres. ind.;
III. Wunschformeln: wish formulae, in curses without any address to the deity,
the verb in the 3rd
sg./pl. opt. or imper.;
IV. Kontaminations- oder Mischformeln: mixed formulae, curses composed of
various combinations of the particular types of formulae;
V. Vergleichungsformeln − comparative formulae that are used in curses which
are based on a comparison, see also simile- formulae, consisting of protasis and
apodosis indicated by comparative expressions like ὣσπερ – οὓτω (“just like −
equally”) which corresponds to Latin quomodo− sic (see also Kropp, 2010, 370
ff., Urbanová 2016, 329ff.). Modern, pragmatic classification of formulae in
Greek defixiones partially draws on Kagarow, as well. See Faraone (1991, 5 ff.)
who distinguishes four basic types of cursing formulae:
1) direct binding formula: the one who curses uses verbs like καταδῶ in the 1st
sg. referring directly to the cursed person or his/her body parts, which are stated
as object in the accusative. The author presumes that his performative statement
influences the victim automatically;238
this cursing formula can be extended by
names of gods;239
2) prayer formula: the one who curses invokes gods or daemons with the verbs
in the 2nd
sg./pl. imper. It is actually a prayer to the underworld deities to
accomplish the fulfillment of one’ wishes, i.e. to harm the victim in some
way;240
3) wish formula: the victim is the subject of the verb in the 3rd
sg./pl. opt.;241
4) similia similibus: a more complicated type of formula, based on analogy
(Vergleichungsformeln of Kagarow) (see 1.9.1. above, No. 17). The author
238
Faraone (1991, 10).
239
This corresponds to formulae 1 and 1a (see 2.2.1.) in this work.
240
This corresponds to formulae 2 and 3 (invoking formulae, see 2.3 ff.) in this work.
241
Ch. A. Faraone (1991, 5) states that this formula is in Greek defixiones usually a part
of the curses belonging to the next category of simila similibus. The formula is
richly documented in Latin curses and prayers for justice, too, see the invoking wish
formulae with the subjunctive (2.3.5.) and the analogies in terms of the wish formula
(2.3.6.).
1. INTRODUCTION
72
wishes the victim to resemble something s/he is not, or to be in a situation s/he
is not, see e.g. No. 226 from Montfo (Gallia), dfx.4.4.1/1:
Quomodo hoc plumbum non paret et decadet sic decadat aetas, membra,
vita, bos, granum, merx eorum, qui mihi dolum malu(m) fecerunt… (“Just as
this lead is not visible and sinks to the bottom, so may the youth?, limbs, life,
livestock, grain, and trades of those who deceived me badly fall into
decay…”) (see also 1.4 and 9.2).
Because Latin defixiones draw on the Greek cursing tradition,242
this
classification can, to a certain extent, be also applied to the Latin curse tablets,
albeit with some modifications. Most recently, A. Kropp attempted a detailed
typology of Latin cursing formulae based on the theory of speech acts.243
She
focuses predominantly on the pragmatic and ritual aspect of curses, and more or
less resigns on a formal syntactic perspective of particular statements that could
have the same goal, but are expressed by different formal means. A. Kropp
(2008a, 214 ff.; 2010, 371) postulates the following formulae from the
pragmalinguistic point of view:
1) Manipulationsformel (manipulative formula): this term refers to the physical
ritual treatment of the tablet which is, as an attack on the absent victim,
metaphorically transposed to the linguistic level (see also 1.8.2. and 2.1.). This
formula uses predicates in the 1st
sg. pres. like: defigo (“I strike, transfix”, met.
“I curse”), ligo (“I bind, tie up”, i.e. with spells), and its compounds deligo (“I
bind up”), alligo (“I fasten, bind”), obligo (“I bind up, oblige”), implico (“I
entangle, entwine”). Immergo (“I plunge, immerse”) refers to the act of
throwing the tablet into water; describo (“I write down”, i.e. “I curse”), then, to
the act of writing the curse. All these predicates refer to the ritual treatment of
the tablet symbolizing a direct attack of the author on the cursed people: ligo,
obligo, linguas illorum, see also Faraone’s direct binding formula above and in
2.2.1.
242
Greek production is older, more variegated, and outnumbers the Latin one ca. two
times.
243
See Kropp (2008a, 137 ff.): Die Formulae defigendi aus der Perspektive der
Sprechakttheorie; see also Austin (1962); Searle (1982). And further, Kropp (2008a,
144: Die Grundtypen der lateinischen Verwünschungsformeln und ihr
Handlungsgehalt); Kropp (2008a, 210 ff.: Die Klassifizierung der Formulae
defigendi); and Kropp (2010, 161 ff.: How Does Magical Language Work).
1. INTRODUCTION
73
2) Übergabeformel244
(committal formula): the curse-dedicator uses this
formula to commit the victim into the hands of the deity. A. Kropp (2008a, 146)
supposes that from the ritual point of view this is connected to the deposition of
tablets (see 1.8.3.), while formally it is identical to the direct curse (see
Faraone’s direct binding formula above). In this case, however, the predicate
prioritizes the supernatural powers to whom the victim is committed, while the
curser himself remains in the background. Committal formulae can use three
types of predicates:
a) Performatives identical to the manipulative formula in the 1st
sg. pres.: No.
32 from Cumae, dfx.1.5.3/2: ...hos homines omnes inferis (de)is deligo... (“I
bind [with spells] all these people to the infernal gods...”) (see 2.3.1.).
b) Performatives expressing the committment of a victim to the god in the 1st
sg.
pres.: do, dono, dedico, trado, (“I give, grant, dedicate, hand over”), mando,
commendo, demando, trado, defero (“I commit, commend, entrust, give over,
convey”), desacrifico, devoveo (“I sacrifice, devote”); see e.g. No. 1: Q(uintum)
Letinium Lupum... hunc ego apud vostrum numen demando, devoveo,
desacrifico... (“I commend, devote, and sacrifice to your power Quintus
Letinius Lupus...”) (see 1.9.1. above), or No. 20 from Rome, dfx.1.4.4/8:
Plotiu(m) tibi trado, mando... (“I hand over and consign Plotius to you...”); and
No. 38 from Este, dfx.1.7.2/1: Proserpina cum tuo Plutone, tibi trado...
(“Proserpina with your Pluto, I give over to you...”). This type of predicate is
very frequent, especially in those prayers for justice where the author commits
the stolen items to the deity, see No. 250 from Bath: Deae Suli Minerv(a)e
Solinus, dono numini tuo maiestati paxsa(m) ba(ln)earem et (pa)lleum.
(“Solinus to the goddess Sulis Minerva, I give to your divinity [and] majesty
[my] bathing tunic and cloak.”), or the culprit to the deity, see No. 278 from
Bath, dfx.3.2/79: Minervae deae Suli donavi furem, qui caracallam meam
involavit... (“To Minerva the goddess Sulis I have given the thief who has stolen
my hooded cloak...”).245
c) Hedged performatives246
with the verb in the 3rd
sg. pres. pass. and the agent
of the action unexpressed. These are, from the pragmatic point of view,
associated with the employment of protective tactics by the speaker. This
formula usually appears in prayers for justice, using the verb dono. See No. 306
244
See also Kropp (2010, 371).
245
See also 12.2.3. and 1.10.2.
246
A. Kropp (2008a, 148 f.) uses the term verdeckte Performative; Kropp (2010, 371ff)
“hedged performatives”.
1. INTRODUCTION
74
from Uley, dfx.3.22/36: Carta247
quae Mercurio donatur, ut manecilis qui
perierunt ultionem requirat... (“The sheet [of lead] which is given to Mercury to
exact vengeance for the gloves which have been lost...”) (see 12.2.3.), see also
No. 292 from Ratcliffe-on-Soar, dfx.3.19/1: Donatur deo Iovi Optimo Maximo
ut exigat... (“It is commended to the god Jupiter the Great and the Mightiest to
exact [the money]...”) (see also 1.9.2.).
This semantic-pragmatic aspect of the predicates used in direct curses, namely
the commitment to the god, seems to be a significant and to-date neglected
feature of these formulae. In this work, I classify the curses with this type of
predicate as a sub-category of direct curses (see 2.2.2. below, formula 1a). A.
Kropp also assigns those curses whose the predicate is extended by a relative
clause of result using ut/ne + pres. subj. (not merely by an object in the
accusative) to this type of formula. In my classification, these curses belong to
the formulae 2 and 2a (2.3.1. and 2.3.2.). A. Kropp (2008a, 149 ff.; 2010, 371)
further distinguishes:
3) Aufforderungsformel (request formula): this corresponds to Kagarow’s
precative formulae and Faraone’s prayer formula. Faraone characterizes this
formula in Greek defixiones as an appeal addressed to the gods or daemons with
the intention of making them carry out the requested curse or restriction
(through the 2nd
sg./pl. imper.).248
This definition is unsuitable for Latin
production, however, as it only accounts for one facet of the whole spectre of
such pragmatically aimed constructions. A. Kropp (2008a, 149 ff.) defines this
type of curse as a formula by which its author commits his/her affairs to the
supernatural powers by means of a request for divine intervention. Thus, the
curse can be carried out only with some external assistance.
This category is comprised of:
1) Direct speech acts with the predicates of cursing (or other) in the 2nd
sg/pl.
See No. 152 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/12:
Obligate et gravate equos veneti et russei ne currere possint nec frenis
audire possint nec se movere possint sed cadant, frangant… (“Bind up and
oppress the horses of the blue and red [teams], so that they cannot run nor
obey the reins, nor be able to move, but may they fall, break...”) (see also
1.1.2.2.2.).
247
Latin c(h)arta plumbea means lead tablet (for more detailed account, see Tomlin,
1996, 439), and it appears also on tablet No. 91 from Mainz (see 2.3.5.).
248
Faraone (1991, 5): Prayer formula − “Gods and Daemons are invoked and urged by
a second-person imperative to perform similar acts of binding....”
1. INTRODUCTION
75
or No. 130 from Carthage: ...(occi)dite, exterminate, vulnerate Gallicu(m),
quem peperit Prima... (“...kill, destroy, hurt Gallicus, whom Prima bore...”)
(see also 1.9.1.); and No. 124: ...daemon, urgue, coge illam venire ad me
amantem aestuantem amoris et desiderii mei... (“...daemon, urge [her], make
her come to me loving and burning with love and desire for me...”) (see also
1.1.2.2.3., formula 3, 2.3.3.)
2) Explicitly performative formulae with the predicates expressing a plea or a
request in the 1st
sg. − oro, rogo, peto, precor (“I pray, ask, demand, request”),
obsecro, adiuro (“I adjure, forswear”), mando (“I commit, order”) with a
purpose clause attached by ut or ne + present subjunctive. The analysis in this
work suggests that the predicate rogo appears both in curses and prayers for
justice almost to the same extent, see No. 52: Dis inferis, vos rogo, utei
recipiatis nomen Luxsia A(uli) Antesti filia. (“To the infernal gods, I ask you to
accept [my request/charge against] Luxia, the daughter of Aulus Antestus.”)249
(see also 1.9.2. above); No. 64: ...rogo te, domina Isis, ut illi profluvium mittas.
(“...I ask you, Lady Isis, to invoke bleeding/diarrhoea on him.”);250
and further
prayer for justice No. 233 from Mainz, DTM 3: Rogo te domina mater Magna,
ut me vindices de bonis Flori coniugis mei, qui me fraudavit Ulattius Severus...
(“I entreat you, Lady Mater Magna, to avenge me regarding the property of
Florus, my husband, [of which] Ulattius Severus has defrauded me…”), or the
use of predicate precor with the subjunctive alone, as in No. 151 from
Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/11: ...precor vos, sancta nomina, cadant homines et
equi frangant... (“...I beg you, holy names, may men fall and horses break
down...”). The predicate adiuro is attested only in Africa,251
see e.g. No. 148
above: Adiuro... per magnum deum... ut, ex qua hora hoc composuero, non
dormiat Sextilius... (“I adjure... the great god... from the moment I put this tablet
[into the grave], may Sextilius... not sleep...”). This predicate is often further
extended, as in No. 132 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1./25: Et te adiuro quisquis
inferne (es) daemon per haec sancta nomina necessitatis... (“And I adjure you,
whoever infernal daemon you are, by all holy names of the Necessity...”).
However, adiuro mostly appears as an accompanying emphatic element
combined with the verb demando, extending the formulation of the curse and
classified as formula 2/2a in this work (2.3.1. and 2.3.2.), see No. 179 from
249
For the interpretation of the whole text, see 8.1.1.
250
The term profluvium can mean both bleeding and diarrhoea; unfortunately, the text
does not indicate what of these two does the author of the curse mean, the 2nd part
of the tablet is problematic (see the detailed discussion in 9.1.1.).
251
See also 1.9.2., A. Kropp (2008a, 161 ff.) classifies adiuro as an auxiliary
obsecrating formula.
1. INTRODUCTION
76
Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/40: ...adiuro te demon, quicumque es et demando252
tibi, ex hac ora et ex hoc momento, ut crucientur equi... (“...I adjure you,
whatever daemon you are, and order you, from this hour and moment on, may
the horses be tormented...”).
However, A. Kropp presumes that only the aforementioned verbs are used as
the predicates in main clauses. This type of curses with the same syntactic
structure can be found , although not very often, also with the predicates of
cursing like ligo, deligo, implico, see e.g. No. 136 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/32:
...colligo, ligo lingua(s)... media(s), extrema(s), novissima(s), ne quid
respondere possint... (see 11.1.2.). These cases are missing from Kropp’s
classification; in this work they are classified as formulae 2 and 2a. Moroever,
Kropp does not differentiate the curses with the predicate in the 2nd
sg./pl. in a
subordinate clause, where the author addresses the deity directly (as in No. 122:
Te rogo..., commendo tibi Iulia(m) Faustilla(m)..., ut eam celerius abducas...),
from those with the predicate in the 3rd
sg./pl., where the curse is aimed at the
victim (as in No. 177 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/38: ...Rogo vos cadant,...
nec vincant...; No. 30 from Capua, dfx.1.5.2/1: ...Astragalum v(oveo), uti
tabescat morbo...). She only points out that the predicate is in relative clauses
usually used in the 2nd
sg. and only very rarely in the 3rd
sg.;253
however, my
analysis does not suggest anything like this, (see 2.3.1.). Finally, A. Kropp
(2010, 370 ff.) recently introduced another subtype of request formula named
restrictions without specific addressee, which had been classified as
Wunschsatz (wish clause) in her previous work (Kropp, 2008a, 152 ff.). This
concerns a request or a wish with the verb in the 3rd
sg./pl. subj. See e.g. No.
109 from Ptuj, dfx.8.4/1: A: Paulina aversa sit a viris omnibus et defixa sit, ne
quid possit mali facere. (“May Paulina be averted from all men and may she be
cursed, so that she can do no evil...”)254
(see also formula 4, 2.3.5.). Faraone
(1991, 5 ff.) classifies this type as a wish formula, which corresponds to the
Greek predicates in the 3rd
sg. opt., and is usually only a part of more complex
simile- formulae. Eventually, A. Kropp (2010, 372) classifies the
aforementioned formula similia similibus as a sub-category of request formula,
calling it analogy within request (see 2.3.6.).
My aim in this work is, among others, to map the development of formal
structures used to achieve the purpose of particular speech acts in Latin
252
The verb demando in this combination become the predicate with a dependant
relative clause using ut/ne; therefore, it puts on rather the meaning of “to order, to
impose, to pray”.
253
Kropp (2008a, 151).
254
See also formula 4, 2.3.5., and Faraone − Kropp (2010, 394).
1. INTRODUCTION
77
defixiones. Therefore, in chapter 2 of this work I introduce my own modified
classification of cursing formulae.
1.10 AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS
The use of curses and prayers for justice has always been connected to practical
authorial goals. The prescriptions set forth in magical papyri offer a wide range
of spells applicable in particular situations or designed for particular occasions.
This chapter deals with the aims of curses, as well as with their content, i.e.
what formidable things do the authors want to happen to their victims.
1.10.1 Aims and Wishes of the Curses’ Authors
As already mentioned in 1.1, the primary goal of writing or ordering a curse
tablet was to influence the actions or health of people or animals by means of
supernatural powers, against the victims’ will, and without their awareness.255
In
other words, curse tablets were intended to hurt, limit, or eliminate the
victim/rival for personal gain. The exact purpose of some curses, however,
cannot be determined, especially with the non-specific curses (see 1.1.2.1., No.
201 and No. 88), which consist simply of lists of the names of targets. This is
presumably due to the fact that the curse itself was uttered during the ritual.
Furthermore, there are many tablets damaged or corroded to such an extent that
it is impossible today to distinguish the author’s intent. E. Kagarow (1929, 55
ff.) gives a detailed account of the various aims of Greek defixiones in his “Die
verschiedenen Arten der bösen Wünsche”.256
The authors of the curses usually
want to afflict the victim’s physical and/or mental health by death, disease
(fever, blindness, muteness, etc.), amnesia, insanity, or insomnia. Furthermore,
they try to adversely affect the victim’s family and/or love life (loss of family,
loss of a partner), personal achievements (victory in the circus), business
pursuits, or litigation. Sometimes even the victim’s suffering on earth will not
suffice and his/her posthumous life is cursed, as well. The situation is largely
similar in the Latin production. The aim of the curse is usually related to a
particular curse type (see 1.1.2.), although not in all cases. Several non-specific
curses clearly define the damage which should be done to a victim, but do not
say a word about the author’s motivation (see 1.1.2.1., No. 122), as in No. 90
from Mainz, DTM 13: Cassius Fortunatus e(t) bona illius et Lutatia Restituta
necetis e(os). (“Cassius Fortunatus and his property and Lutatia Restituta, kill
them.”) Such text cannot be classified as a typical representative of any type of
255
Jordan (1985, 206); Tomlin (2004, 11); Gager (1992, 21 ff.).
256
See also Kropp (2008a, 179 ff.); Gager (1992, 21 ff.).
1. INTRODUCTION
78
curse according to the context (defixiones iudiciariae, agonisticae, or
amatoriae), although its aim is very clear: the death of the targets and loss of
their property.
There are also texts in which the context is not explicitly stated, but the author’s
intent is nevertheless clear from the subtext of what is written, e.g. to win a
lawsuit, to win at the circenses, to gain someone’s love, etc. Generally, the
desired results of curses can be classified as follows: a restriction (usually of
victim’s bodily and mental functions), a disease, a disease/death (combination
of diseases leading to victim’s death), and death. When looking at the amatory
corpus, it is usually gaining someone’s love (love spells), separation (rivalry
in love) (see also Chapter 5 below). The different basic types of curses mostly
show the author’s attempt to injure his/her victims in an iterative and
stereotyping way dictated by the situation. (see also Kropp, 2008a, 179ff).
Most frequently,257
the author aims at a restriction, i.e. a limitation of the
victim’s mental or bodily functions that assures personal gain in a particular
situation. This is typical of the curses against adversaries in lawsuits, which
usually focus on the victim’s ability to testify in court (mutus sit/fiat, neque
loqui possit, ne adversus nos respondere possint), or to intervene in some way
(sit vanus). Some curses directly attempt to paralyse the victim’s tongue to
impede speech; see, for instance, No. 114: alligate linguas horum, quos
suprascripsi, ne adversus nos respondere possint... (“bind the tongues of those,
whose names I wrote above, so that they cannot testify against us...”) (see also
1.1.2.2.1., No. 115).
Other curses pursue the total mental paralysis of the victim so that s/he is mute
and unable to do anything, see e.g. No. 70 from Frankfurt, dfx.5.1.2/1:
Rogo Mane(s et dii?) inferi, ut (Ma)rius Fronto, (adv)ersariu(s) Sex(ti), sit
vanus neque loqui possit contra Sextum, ut Fronto fiat mutus, cum
accesser(it) consularem, ut sit mutus neque pos(sit) loqui, neque quicquam
agere tamquam nullum ad inf(eros) re(ligatum?). (“I ask [you], Manes and
the infernal gods, may Marius Fronto, the enemy of Sextus, be unsuccessful,
may he be unable to speak against Sextus, may he become mute when he
approaches the legate, may he be mute and unable to speak or do anything,
as if he were not here, but bound in the underworld.”)
257
This is the case of almost a third of the Latin evidence analyzed.
1. INTRODUCTION
79
Another case of a complex curse explicitly aimed at adversary’s inability to win
a lawsuit is No. 67 from Chagnon, dfx.4.3.1/1:
Denuntio personis infrascriptis Lentino et Tasgillo, uti adsint ad Plutonem,
ad Proserpinam, hinc a(beant?). Quomodo hic catellus nemini nocuit, sic…
nec illi hanc litem vincere possint. Quomodo nec mater huius catelli
defendere potuit, sic nec advocati eorum eos defendere possint… (“I
denounce the people stated below, Lentinus and Tasgillus, in order that they
may depart from here to Pluto and Proserpine, and to leave this place. Just as
this puppy harmed no one, so [may they harm no one]258
... and may they not
be able to win this suit; just as not even the mother of this puppy can defend
it, so may their lawyers be unable to defend them...”) (see Gager 1992,
No.53; also 9.1.2.).
In this case, the ritual probably also included sacrificing of a dog (see Graf,
1996, 117 ff.). Legal curses pursue the death of an adversary only very rarely,
however: usually the purpose of the curse is only a temporary restriction of
victim’s faculties.
The same holds true for the curses associated with the rivalry between
gladiators and charioteers, which are often aimed at racehorses, as well (see
1.1.2.2.2., No. 152 and No. 130). These usually seek a temporary restriction of
the physical abilities of gladiators, charioteers, or horses during contests in
order to achieve victory over the adversaries; only very rarely do these curses
beg for death.259
See the curse aimed at ca. 35 racehorses, No. 149 from Hadrumetum,
dfx.11.2.1/9:
Sarbasmisarab (SM) Delicatianus, Capria, Volucer, Nervicus,
Comes/comes260
cadat, cadant, frangant, disiungantur, male girent, palmam
vincere non possint. (“Delicatianus, Capria, Volucer, Nervicus,
Comes/conductor, may he fall, may they fall, break, [may their horses]
258
This is how Gager fills in the lacuna (1992, No. 53).
259
Gager (1992, 22 ff.) contemplates to what extent the curses should be understood
literally (see also Faraone, 1991, 8 and note 38). In some rare cases, the curse aims
at the death of a rival in circus (see chapter 5 below).
260
Here scholars disagree on whether the name denotes a horse or the person in charge
of the horses (see DT 272; Tremel, 2004, No. 22).
1. INTRODUCTION
80
unyoke themselves,261
turn wrongly, may they be unable to win the palm-
branch.”)
See also an extensive curse against gladiators, No. 131 from Carthage,
dfx.11.1.1/23:
Sancte,… adiuro te per deum viv(um ut) facias Tziolum,262
q(uem) p(eperit)
Restituta et Tzelicam (appa)ritorem… Aedesiculam q(em) p(eperit) Victoria
victos, pervictos, exaclos/exactos,263
exiliatos, pilatos, pla(n)gatos. Obligo et
impli(co et tib)i trado… (ut facias) vulneratos, (cru)entatos de amphiteatro
exire in die muneris filio(s Ae)miliani pri(di)e idus ianuarias sive idus. Age,
age, iam, iam, cito, cito, ἤδη, ἤδη, ταχύ, ταχύ. (“Holy... I adjure you by the
living god to make Tziolus, whom Restituta bore, Tzelica, the servant,... and
Aedesicula, whom Victoria bore, defeated, completely outdone,
exhausted/hissed off, expelled, devastated, beaten. I bind and entwine [them
with spells] and commend [them] to you to make the sons of Aemilianus
leave the amphitheatre injured and stained with blood on the day of the
games, either before or on the Ides of January. Hurry up, now, now, quickly,
quickly, now, now, quickly, quickly.”)
The temporary restriction of physical or mental faculties is also found in love
spells,264
the aim being to confound one’s beloved into returning one’s
affections,265
though in a somewhat milder form. In this case, the victim should
be afflicted with the sort of love sickness that borders on madness. This
261
The verb di(s)iungo is attested in Varro: diungere boves ab opere, “to unyoke the
bulls”; in our text it probably refers to the situation when the harnessed racehorses
break free from the chariot. J. Tremel (2004, No. 22) translates: “sie werden
auseinander gehen”.
262
The tablet dates back to the 3rd
cent. CE, according to M. Jeanneret (1917, 48 ff.), to
the beginning of the 3rd
cent. CE. The graphic treatment displays the late ancient
assibilation of t~ group expressed by the writing of Z after the dental consonant T.
This writing, though with Greek ζ, is also attested on tablet No. 135 from the 2nd
cent. CE (see 11.1.3.1.).
263
J. Tremel (2004, No. 94) interprets the term exaclos as exanclatos = exhaustos, and
further plagatos = pla(n)gatos. A. Kropp (2008) proposes the reading exaclos =
exactos. I regard both of them plausible, exactos can perhaps be understood as “may
they be hissed off” (see also DT 248; 11.1.3.1.).
264
For the Greek production, see especially Faraone (1999, 132 ff.) and Gager (1992,
78 ff.). Love spells make approximately a quarter of all preserved Greek texts; there
are only very few extant Latin love spells, though (see chapter 5 below).
265
See also 1.1.2.2.3., No. 124 and No. 143A below; further also 1.8. and 1.8.1.
1. INTRODUCTION
81
corresponds to the belief, deep-rooted in ancient literature and medicine, that
intense desire or deep love is a pathological state befalling mind and body just
like a disease. And although well distinguishable, love-sickness was also
considered treatable only with great difficulties.266
The typical symptoms are:
pathological pallor, feverish states, apathy, insomnia, lack of appetite, deranged
mind. Let us recall, for example, Propertius, who starts his first book of Elegies
by complaining about his unrequited love. Rather than naming his condition
amor, he calls it furor, see Prop. I, 1, 6-7: et mihi iam toto furor hic non deficit
anno / cum tamen adversos cogor habere deos (“It’s already been a whole year
that the frenzy hasn’t stopped. / Even now, the gods are against me.”)267
The
poet contemplates using a love spell, asks witches for help, and mentions pallor
– a common symptom of love-sickness, see Prop. I, 1, 22: dominae mentem
convertite nostrae et facite illa meo palleat ore magis. (“change my mistress’
mind, / make her face more pale than my own!”)268
Insomnia is very commonly employed as a means to force the beloved out of
his/her wits and into the arms of the curser, as e.g. in No. 148: … non dormiat
Sextilius, Dionysiae filius… (“...may Sextilius, son of Dionysia, not sleep...”); …
ne somnum contingat sed amore et desiderio meo uratur, huius spiritus et cor
comburatur… (“...unable to sleep, but burn with love and longing for me, may
his spirit and heart be consumed by love...”). Other curses also seek the
limitation of other basic physical needs, as e.g. in No. 144: … ut amoris mei
causa… non cibum non escam accipere possit… (“...may she... because of her
love for me... be unable to accept any meal or food...”). Still others seek to limit
the victim’s mental faculties, see e.g. No. 146 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/6:
...obligate illam in sensum et sapientiam et inte(llectum)… (“...bind her senses,
reason, and intellect...”), or No. 144: … ut obliviscatur patris et matris et
(propinquor)um suorum et amicorum omnium (et aliorum) virorum, amoris mei
causa… (“...may she forget her father, mother, and her relatives and friends, and
[other] men because of love for me...”) (see also 5.1.4. and 11.1.4.). Whatever
the discomforts and limitations, they are meant to last only until the beloved one
comes to the curse-dedicator, thus fulfilling his/her wish, see e.g. No. 124: …
aufer illae somnum usquedum veniat ad me… et animo meo satisfaciat...
(“...take sleep away from her unless she comes to me… and satisfies me...”)
(see 1.1.2.2.3. above).
266
See Winkler (1991, 222); Luck (1962, 7 ff.).
267
Translated by Vincent Katz (1995).
268
Ibid.
1. INTRODUCTION
82
In the context of rivalry in love, the aim is to disrupt a rival’s love affair (see
also No. 109 and No. 29, 1.1.2.2.3.). See e.g. No. 33 from Pompeii, dfx.1.5.4/1:
A: Philematio Hostili (serva): faciem… capillum, cerebrum, flatus,
ren(es)…, ut illi non succedat… ut ille illam odiat. Quomodo… haec nec
agere ne illa… quicquam agere possit… Philematio… B: nec agere… nec
ullas res possit petere, quae ullo humano… Quomodo is eis desertus, illa
deserta sit cunno. A(nte) d(iem) N(onum) C(alendas) N(ovembres?)
defixos… (“Philematio, [the slave] of Hostilius: [I curse? her] face... hair,
brain, breath, kidneys..., may she not succeed... may he hate her. Just like...
this one [can]not do anything... may she equally be unable to do anything...
Philematio... may she be unable to act... or to ask for anything, what to any
human?... Just like this one is deserted by them, may she be deserted in her
bed. The ninth day before the Calends of November [these were]
cursed...”).269
See also tablet No. 104 from Bregenz, which includes: ...ne quiat nubere (“so
that she cannot marry”).270
Nevertheless, as previously mentioned (see
1.1.2.2.3.), it is not always possible to conclusively prove that a curse was
intended to break a relationship in terms of a love triangle.
Other curse tablets try to induce a disease, especially a fatal one – and some
even death – in the victim. The latter two – fatal disease and death – are more
common than simply disease (see chapter 5). For a disease only, see also No. 64
from Trier, dfx.4.1.3/16:
Tib(erium) Claudium Treverum natione Germanum lib(ertum) Claudii
Similis, rogo te domina Isis ut illi profluvium mittas. (“...I ask you, Lady Isis,
to invoke bleeding/diarrhoea on Tiberius Claudius Treverus of German
origin, the freedman of Claudius Similis.”)271
269
The text inscribed on two tablets is damaged to a large extent; it starts with the list
of cursed body parts. We do not know exactly what Philematio should not succeed
in because of the lacunas. The simile- formula quomodo probably refers to a dead
person, into whose grave the tablet was then put; deserta sit cunno, more accurately
“may she be deserted in her lady parts”. There is a name of another rival also being
cursed (Vestilia Hostili) at the end of the second tablet; therefore, the final defixos
makes sense (see also Appendix I).
270
The name of the victim has not preserved due to the extensive damage of the text
(see also 10.1.3.).
271
The further text is obscure; for the detailed discussion, see 9.1.1.
1. INTRODUCTION
83
If just diarrhoea were the goal of the curse, it could be considered humorous;
however, more often the curses seek much more serious suffering. The curses
that include the lists of body parts to be cursed are probably also intended to
induce a disease resulting in the victim’s death; such texts are predominantly
found in Italy.
See No. 20 from Rome:
Bona pulchra Proserpina, Plutonis uxor, sive me Salviam dicere oportet,
eripias salutem, c(orpus, co)lorem, vires, virtutes Ploti… Tradas illum febri
quartanae, tertianae, cottidianae, quae cum illo luctentur, deluctentur, illum
evincant, vincant, usque dum animam eius eripiant…. Proserpina Salvia, do
tibi frontem Ploti, Proserpina Salvia, do tibi supercilia Ploti, Proserpina
Salvia, do tibi palpebras Ploti, Proserpina Salvia, do tibi pupillas Ploti,
Proserpina Salvia, do tibi nares, labra, aures, nasum, linguam, dentes
Ploti… (“Good, beautiful Proserpina, wife of Pluto, unless it would be fitting
for me to call you Salvia, snatch away Plotius’ health, body, complexion,
physical and mental faculties. ... Hand him over to the fourth-day, the thirdday,
the daily fevers,272
let them wrestle and tussle with him, let them
conquer and overwhelm him to the point that they snatch away his soul. ... I
give you the forehead of Plotius, Proserpina Salvia. I give you the eyebrows
of Plotius, Proserpina Salvia. I give you the eyelids of Plotius, Proserpina
Salvia. I give you the pupils of Plotius, Proserpina Salvia. I give you the
nostrils, lips, ears, nose, tongue, teeth of Plotius Proserpine, Salvia...”) (see
the whole text in 7.3.1.4.).
Not very many extant curses ask for the victim’s death, as has already been
said, and this pertains mostly to the non-specific curses (see also No. 90, 1.10.1.
and 1.1.2.1. above). Rarely do we find a request for death in legal curses, curses
having to do with amatory rivalry, or rivalry between gladiators. See No. 122:
A: Te rogo, qui infernales partes tenes, commendo tibi Iulia(m) Faustilla(m),
Marii filia(m), ut eam celerius abducas et ibi in numeru(m) tu(um) a(b)ias.
(“I ask you, who hold rule over the Underworld, I commend to you Julia
Faustilla, the daughter of Marius, so that you may take her as quickly as
possible and have her in your number [of the dead].”)
272
This probably refers to the symptoms of malaria (Fox, 1912, 36). See also No. 18:
patiatur febris, frigus, tortiones, pallores, sudores, obripilationes meridianas,
interdianas, serotinas, nocturnas (see 1.9.2. and 5.1.2.).
1. INTRODUCTION
84
Furthermore, see an interesting curse probably coming from Rome, dated to the
4th
/5th
cent. CE (see also 1.7. above), No. 25 from Rome, dfx.1.4.4/13:
Deprecor vos Sancti Angeli. Quomodo haec anima intus inclusa tenetur et
angustatur et non videt neque lumen, neque aliquem (refri)gerium non
(h)abet, si(c a)nima, (mentes, cor)pus Collecticii, quem peperit Agnella
teneatur, ard(eat), detabescat. Usque ad infernum semper ducite
Collecticium, quem peperit Agnella. (“I beg you, holy angels/daemons. Just
like this soul is enclosed inside,273
imprisoned, and sees no light, nor has any
recreation, may the soul, mind and body of Collecticius, whom Agnella bore,
be equally enclosed, may it burn, and fall into decay. Lead Collecticius,
whom Agnella bore, away as far as to hell.”)
From time to time we see curses aimed at inanimate objects.274
See e.g. curses
No. 138 and 139 from Carthage, aimed against public baths, see No. 138:275
(VM, SM) Domini Dei tenete detinete Falernas, ne quis illoc accedere
possit; obligate, perobligate Falernarum balineum ab hoc die, ne quis
homo illoc accedat (VM, SM);
and No. 139:
(ne) Illoc eat lavare. Nodate Falernas ab hac die. Obligate,
perobligate balineum Falernesi, ne quis illoc ire possit ab hoc die.
(“Lord gods, restrain and hinder the Falernian [baths], lest anyone should be
able to approach that place; bind and bind up the Falernian baths from this day,
lest any person should approach that place. Lest any person go there to the bath;
bind the Falernian [baths], from this day, bind and bind up the Falernian baths
from this day, lest any person should approach that place.”)276
273
The exact location of the finding is unknown, H. Solin (1968, No. 34) states that the
inscription, which is damaged to a large extent, was painted with black colour on the
inner side of a terracota urn (see the attachment I; Kropp’s interpretation of the text,
2008).
274
See Gager (1992, 21 ff.) and No. 79 − a Greek curse against Italia and the gates of
Rome.
275
The two tablets were found together in a spring and date back to the 2nd
/3rd
cent. CE,
No. 139 is a continuation of No. 138.
276
See Gager (1992, No. 82), the texts on both tablets start with voces magicae which
are not stated here. See also Urbanová – Cuzzolin (2016, 318, 333ff.).
1. INTRODUCTION
85
1.10.2. Aims and Wishes of the Authors of Prayers for Justice
The circumstances of prayers for justice are somewhat different, and it is not
always easy to find an unambiguous answer to the question of what their
authors wanted to achieve and by what means they intended to do so.277
All were
written under similar circumstances: the author had suffered some sort of
damage, like a theft, or being defrauded, etc. A. Kropp (2008a, 119 ff.) names
her subchapter on prayers for justice “Zwischen Fluch und defixio − Gebete für
Gerechtigkeit”, and in it she illustrates the limitations scholars face in the
interpretation of these texts. This is caused by several similarities as well as
differences between prayers for justice and curses (see also 1.2.3.). R. S. O.
Tomlin (1988, 62) considers prayers for justice to be, in fact, letters addressed
to gods written by men who felt the right to complain. Similarly, H. S. Versnel
(1991, 68 ff.; 2010, 321 ff.) strictly separates them from regular curses, arguing
that these are prayers rather than magical spells. On the contrary, J. G. Gager
(1992, 175) and D. Ogden (1999, 37 f.) classify them as a special category of
curses different from the more common curses used in legal, amatory, or
agonistic contexts.278
A. Kropp (2008a, 119) also assumes that they represent a
special type of curses, one that is not intended to eliminate an opponent, but to
exact justice/revenge, which is the author deems to be rightful.279
Several
prayers for justice, however, do not differ from a curse at all in a practical sense
− such cases, i.e. those texts which containing the typical agressive features of
curses but are incorporated into prayers for justice, are regarded as a borderland
category by Versnel (2010, 232 ff.). Likewise, Ogden (1999, 38) speaks of
these texts as cross-over cases (see also below), see also Dreher’s criticism on
Versnel’s categories.280
Nevertheless, the texts of prayers for justice are often very aggressive. The
polite addresses to gods and complaints about theft are usually followed not
only by a sober request to get the stolen property back, but also a plea for cruel
revenge. Very few of the extant texts try only to get the stolen property back, as
e.g. No. 246 (1.2.2.) and No. 270 from Bath, which reads:
277
See also Urbanová (2009a, 130 ff.).
278
The differences are apparent especially from the structure of the texts (see also
1.2.3.).
279
See also G. Björck (1938, 28, 51 ff.) who calls them “Rachegebete”, i. e. literally the
prayers for revenge.
280
Dreher (2010 and 2012). In this work, curses and prayers for justice are dealt with
separately, which allows for a more accurate analysis of this type of evidence.
1. INTRODUCTION
86
(…)eocorotis perdidi la(enam) (pa)llium sagum paxsam do(navi)… (S)ulis ut
hoc ante dies novem (si l)iber si servus si libera si serva (si) puer si puell(a
i)n rostr(o) s(uo) defera(t…)… caballarem, s(i servus si liber), si serva si
libera, si puer (si puella) in suo rostro defer(at)… (“[I] ...eocoritis, have lost
[my] Italian/Greek/Gallic cloak281
[and] tunic, [which] I have given... Sulis,
that he may bring it down in his beak before nine days, [whether] free or
slave, whether free woman or slave woman, [whether] boy or girl... horse
blanket, [whether slave or free, whether] slave woman or free woman,
whether boy [or girl], bring it down in his beak...”)282
More often, the authors of prayers for justice pursue multiple goals at once. On
the one hand, they want their things back; on the other, they want revenge
against the culprit, i.e. they want him/her to be punished by the deity for what
s/he did, frequently with the same cruelty and creativity as those of the authors
of curse.
See No. 236 from Mainz, DTM 11:
A: Mando et rogo religione ut mandata exagatis Publium Cutium et
Piperonem et B: Placida et Sacra, filia eius: sic illorum membra liquescant
quatmodum hoc plumbum liquescet ut eorum exsitum sit. (“I hand over [to
you], and, observing all ritual form, ask that you require from Publius Cutius
and Pipero Also Placida and Sacra, her daughter,283
the return of the goods
entrusted to them, may their limbs melt, just as this lead shall melt, so that it
shall be their death.”).
In these prayers for justice, various restrictions similar to those in love spells are
sought (see 1.10.1. above). And like in love spells, the restriction lasts only until
the author is satisfied. See also No. 247 above:
281
Tomlin (1988, No. 62) supposes that the three above mentioned terms for basically
the same piece of cloth, pallium, Greek cloak, sagum, Gallic cloak, laena, Italian
cloak are explicitly stated not because the author lost all three, but to make it easier
for the goddess Sulis to find it. Paxsam is probably related to pexus [pecto], “teased,
soft” and refers to a woolen tunic.
282
The term rostrum preserved in Spanish and Portuguese in the meaning of “face,
mouth” (see also Adams, 2007, 387 ff.).
283
Latin text continues on the other side with two female names in the nominative. This
may be a mistake or the so-called fixed nominative (see 1.6.). Therefore, the English
translation is “from Publius Cutius, Pipero, Placida, and Sacra, her daughter;” see
Blänsdorf (2010, DTM 11).
1. INTRODUCTION
87
...nec ei somnum permitat B: nec natos nec nascentes, donec caracallam
meam ad templum sui numinis pertulerit... (“...and not allow him to sleep or
[to have] children now and in the future, until he has brought my hooded
cloak to the temple of her divinity.”) (see 1.2.2.).
See further No. 250 from Bath, dated to the 3rd
/4th
century CE, dfx.3.2/24:
Deae Suli Minerv(a)e Solinus, dono numini tuo maiestati paxsa(m)
ba(ln)earem et (pa)lleum, (nec p)ermitta(s so)mnum nec san(ita)tem ei, qui
mihi fraudem fecit, si vir si femi(na), si servus s(i) liber nisi (s)e retegens
istas s(p)ecies ad (te)mplum tuum detulerit… (“Solinus to the goddess Sulis
Minerva, I give to your divinity [and] majesty [my] bathing tunic and cloak.
Do not allow sleep or health to him who has done me wrong, whether man
or woman, whether slave or free, unless he reveals himself and brings those
goods to your temple...”) (see also 1.2.2., No. 295).
Similar to love spells is the prayers for justice begging insomnia in the victims,
which is used as a means of driving the beloved person to the one who wrote
the spell (see 1.10.1.), see e.g. No. 148: non dormiat Sextilius, Dionysiae filius.
In prayers for justice, insomnia is usually associated with poor health, and a
typical alliterative formula is used: nec illi permitas nec somnum nec sanitatem
(“do not let him/her sleep nor be healthy”) (see No. 250). Another similarity
between love spells and prayers for justice is the authorial desire for the
limitation of victim’s mental or bodily functions. See No. 303 from Uley, dated
to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE:
Deo sancto Mercurio Honoratus. Conqueror numini tuo, me perdidisse rotas
duas et vaccas quattuor et resculas plurimas de hospitiolo meo. Rogaverim
genium numinis tui, ut ei, qui mihi fraudem fecerit, sanitatem ei non
permittas nec iacere nec sedere nec bibere nec manducare, si baro si mulier,
si puer si puella, si servus si liber, nisi meam rem ad me pertulerit et meam
concordiam habuerit. Iteratis precibus rogo numen tuum, ut petitio mea
statim pariat me vindicatum esse a maiestate tua. (“Honoratus to the holy
god Mercury, I complain to your divinity that I have lost two wheels and
four cows and many small belongings from my house. I would ask the
genius of your divinity that you do not allow health to the person who has
done me wrong, nor allow him to lie or sit or drink or eat, whether man or a
woman, whether boy or a girl, whether slave or a free, unless s/he brings my
property to me and is reconciled with me. With repeated prayers I ask your
divinity to immediately hear my petition so that I am revenged by your
1. INTRODUCTION
88
majesty.”),284
see also No. 244 from Bath: ut mentes suas perd(at) (“may
[the thief] lose his mind”) (see also 1.2. and No. 146 above, also 1.10.1. and
11.1.4.).
Prayers for justice sometimes invoke a disease or death, as well, and include
“catalogues” of body parts, although much more briefly and less frequently than
curses do, see e.g. No. 261: ...non illi permittas nec oculos nec sanitatem nisi
caecitatem orbitatemque... (“...you are not to permit him eyes or health, unless
blindness and childlessness...”); and No. 275 from Bath: … ut sanguine et
luminibus et omnibus membris configatur vel et iam intestinis excomesis
(om)nibus habe(at). (“...he may be accursed in [his] blood and eyes and every
limb, or even have all [his] intestines quite eaten away”) (see 1.2.3.). In some
rare cases, the author of prayer for justice does not only seek the return of the
stolen goods, but also wants the thief’s death as revenge. See No. 247 above:
...uti eum dea Sulis maximo leto adigat, nec ei somnum permitat… donec
caracallam meam ad templum sui numinis pertulerit… (“ …that the goddess
Sulis may inflict death upon him and not allow him to sleep... until he has
brought my hooded cloak to the temple of her divinity.”).
Furthermore, some texts, especially those from Britannia, include the author’s
promise to give the deity a part of the property s/he wants to get back. See No.
296 from Uley, dated to the 2nd
– 4th
century CE, dfx.3. 22/3:
Commonitorium285
deo Mercurio a Saturnina muliere de linteamine, quod
amisit. Ut ille, qui hoc circumvenit, non ante laxetur, nisi quando res
(supra)dictas ad fanum s(upra)d(ic)tum attulerit, si vir si mulier, si servus si
liber. Deo s(upra)dicto tertiam partem donat ita, ut exsigat istas res, quae
s(upra)s(crip)tae sunt,… quae per(didi)t. Deo Silvano tertia pars donatur
ita, ut hoc exsigat, si vir si femina, si servus si liber. (“A memorandum to the
god... Mercury286
from Saturnina a woman, concerning the linen cloth which
284
See the commentary of Hassal − Tomlin (1992, 310 ff.); the verb vindico can mean
revenge or death as well as acquirement of the stolen property in the context of
prayers for justice. Concordiam is similar to conscientiam (Hassal − Tomlin, 1992,
311), attested nowhere else.
285
See the commentary of Tomlin (1993, 121 ff.); commonitorium is a technical legal
term, which does not appear before the 4th
cent. CE; here, in the meaning of
“application, request”.
286
The name of god Mercury was written over another name of god Mars Silvanus who
is, nevertheless, mentioned once more in the tablet; the tablet has been found in the
1. INTRODUCTION
89
she has lost. [She asks] that he who has stolen it should not have rest,
before/unless/until s/he brings the aforesaid property to the aforesaid temple,
whether man or woman, whether slave or free. She gives a third part to the
aforesaid god on condition that he exact this property which has been written
above. A third part [what she has lost] is given to the god Silvanus on
condition that he exacts it [the stolen property/money], whether man or a
woman, whether slave or a free... [has stolen it.”) Further also No. 295:
...nisi repraesentaverint mihi iumentum, quod rapuerunt, et deo devotionem,
quam ipse ab his expostulaverit. (“...before/unless they return at once to me
the draught animal which they have stolen, and to the god the devotion
which he has demanded from them himself.”) (see 1.2.2.).
Finally, most of the extant prayers for justice do not seek the return of the stolen
property, merely a rightful revenge, i.e. the punishment of the culprit. These
have the most in common with curses, although they are motivated by
justifiable reasons (loss suffered); the aim of both is the same: to harm or kill
the victim with the help of supernatural powers. Perhaps the prayers for justice
that seek only revenge are just the vitriolic expression of the momentary mental
state of an agry, bereaved victim of theft and is not the sincere plea for the
return of lost. As there is no hope that s/he gets the stolen items back,287
the
victim simply tries to cope with the sheer fact of having been robbed. In writing
these tablets, perhaps the punishment of the culprit is sufficient satisfaction.
Prayers for justice by no means fall short of curses in terms of cruelty and the
invention of various horrible torments. No. 260 from Bath, dated to the 3rd
/4th
century CE, dfx.3.2/36 reads:
A: Aenum meum qui levavit (e)xonic(tu)s288
(e)st. Templo Sulis dono si
mulier si baro si servus si liber si puer si puella et qui hoc fecerit,
sanguinem suum in ipsum aenum fundat. B: Dono si mulier si baro, si servus
si liber, si puer si puella, eum latronem, qui rem ipsam involavit, deus
inveniat. (“[The person] who has lifted my bronze vessel is utterly accursed.
I give [him] to the temple of Sulis, whether woman or man, whether slave or
free, whether boy or girl, and let him who has done this spill his own blood
sacred precinct of Mercury. Perhaps it is a Roman identification with a local deity,
see Tomlin (1993, 120).
287
See also Urbanová (2009, 346 f.).
288
See the commentary of Tomlin (1988, 164 f.); the text probably reads the hapax
exconfixus (however, there is only xconics written in the text). For other instances of
a prefix attached to a verb with prefix, see also No. 275 above: intestinis excomesis
derived from comedo. The text is stated in its edited form (see also Appendix II).
1. INTRODUCTION
90
into the vessel itself. I give, whether woman or man, whether slave or free,
whether boy or girl, that thief who has stolen the property itself [that] the
god may find [him].”)
Most of the prayers for justice that seek aim the culprit’s death, belong to the
category of requests for mere revenge. Phrases like sanguine et vitae suae illud
redimat appear in these. See No. 277 above: ...deus illum inveniat, sanguine ut
vitae suae illud redimat. (“...the god is to find him, let him buy it back with [his]
blood and his own life.”); No. 239: ...nec(et)i(s) eum pessimo leto… (“...kill him
by the worst death...”); and No. 236: …sic illorum membra liquescan(t)
quatmodum hoc plumbum liquescet ut eoru(m) exsitum sit (“…may their limbs
melt, just as this lead shall melt, so that it shall be their death.”).
The special formula sanguine suo redimere/satisfacere is very frequent in the
tablets from Britannia: see e.g. No. 274 from Bath: ...deae Suli facias illum
sanguine suo illud satisfacere (“...make him/her pay for it to the goddess Sulis
in his own blood.”) (see 6.2.1.3.). Furthermore, the author’s emotional mental
state is well illustrated in No. 283 from Caerleon, dfx.3.6/1:
Domina Nemesis do tibi pallium et galliculas, qui tulit, non redimat, nisi
vita, sanguine suo. (“Lady Nemesis, I give you [my] cloak and shoes, may
[the person] who stole them not redeem [them/it?], unless with his own life
and blood.”).289
The elaborate and evocative prayers for justice from Germania are worth
mentioning, as well. Their authors took pleasure in complicated simileformulae,
which are only very rarely attested elsewhere in such texts.290
This is
especially true in the case of the recent findings from Mainz written in highly
stylistic level of classical Latin (see Blänsdorf, 2010, 162), and pursue
particularly cunning revenges. See No. 234 from Mainz, DTM 6:
A: Quintum in hac tabula depon(o) aversum se suisque rationibus vitae male
consumantem. Ita uti galli Bellonarive absciderunt concideruntve se, sic illi
abscissa sit fides fama faculit(a)s. Nec illi in numero hominum sunt, neque
ille sit. Q(u)omodi et ille mihi fraudem fecit sic illi, sancta Mater Magn(a),
et relegis(ti?)291
cu(n)cta. Ita uti arbor siccabit se in292
sancto, sic et illi
289
See also Gager (1992, No. 100); Versnel (1991, 86; 2010, 287).
290
See 1.9., 2.3.6., and especially chapter 10.
291
See Blänsdorf (2010, DTM 6). I do not find Blänsdorf’s amendment relegisti (2012,
DTM 6) correct, see also 2.3.6. and 10.2.2.
1. INTRODUCTION
91
siccet fama fides fortuna faculitas. Tibi commendo Attihi domine, ut me
vindices ab eo, ut intra annum vertente(m…) exitum illius vilem malum.
(“On this tablet I curse Quintus, may the gods avert from him and his
business, may he spend [his time] miserably. Just like the priests of Mater
Magna [i.e. galli] and the priests of Bellona have castrated or cut
themselves, so may his good name, reputation, the ability to conduct his
affairs be cut away. Neither they are numbered among mankind, nor may he
be. Just like he deceived me, so may [you,] holy Mater Magna take
everything away from him. Just like the tree in the shrine will desiccate, so
may his reputation, good name, fortune, and the ability to conduct his affairs
do the same/wither. I commend to you, lord Atthis, that you take vengeance
on him for me, so that by the end of the year (he may suffer) a horrible bad
death.”).
Text No. 229 from Gross-Gerau also seeks the cruel punishment of the thief, but
one that is unique in the Latin canon in terms of the level of wrath displayed:293
(H)umanum quis sustulit Verionis palliolum sive res illius, qui illius minus
fecit, ut illius mentes memorias deiectas, sive mulierem sive eas, cuius
Verionis res minus fecit, ut illius manus, caput, pedes, vermes, cancer,
vermitudo interet membra, medullas illius interet. (“The human who stole
Verio’s cloak or his things, who deprived him of his property, may he be
bereft of his mind and memory, be it a woman or those who deprived Verio
of his property, may the worms, cancer and maggots penetrate his/her hands,
head, feet, as well as his/her limbs and marrows.”).294
292
The interpretation of this tablet went through some changes, between in and sic in
line 7 there is QUINTI NOMEN written upside down, which somewhat changes
text’s interpretation with respect to the formula aversus (see Faraone – Kropp, 2010,
386). On the one hand, I follow the editor’s translation (see Blänsdorf, 2007/2008,
19 ff.), but on the other, I also take into account the new interpretation of the term
aversum (Faraone – Kropp, 2010, 386). J. Blänsdorf (2012, DTM 6) states that P.-Y.
Lambert discovered the sequence QUINTI NOMEN. For the whole text of the tablet,
see the Appendix II; the reverse side was probably written by another hand.
293
See also Versnel (2010, 280).
294
See the commentary of Blänsdorf (2007, 62 ff.); 2010, 185) who assumes that an
assault or devourment by worms was one of the most gruesome kinds of death that
could be imagined in antiquity. For example, Galerius Maximianus, the persecutor
of Christians, is said to have died in this way (Lactantius: De mortibus persecutorum
33.7). This kind of death is also found in Herodotus (4.205) and in the Bible (Isaiah
66.2). See also skaphismos in Plutarch’s Artaxerxes 75. See Blänsdorf (2007, 61 ff.;
1. INTRODUCTION
92
Some Greek and a very few Latin prayers for justice try to achieve also the
culprit’s public punishment or confession (see 1.2.1., No. 217; Versnel, 2010,
274 ff.). In No. 231 from Mainz, DTM 1, we see an example of another refined
revenge. It does not only include the diseases and worms the author hopes will
infect the victim, but also explicitly emphasizes the irreversibility of the curse,
i.e. that the culprits cannot redeem themselves in any way:
A: (line 17): … Verecundam et Paternam: sic illam tibi commendo, Mater
deum Magna, rem illorum… quale rogo co(n)sument(u)r in… quomodo et
res meas viresque fraudarunt, nec se possint redimere nec hosteis lanatis B:
nec plumbis nec auro nec argento redimere a numine tuo, nisi ut illas vorent
canes, vermes adque alia portenta, exitum quarum populus spectet.295
(“…Verecunda and Paterna: for thus I give her [=them] to you, Great Mother
of the Gods, their property… I ask that they may be destroyed just as they
have defrauded me of my property and resources; may they not be able to
buy themselves free from your divine power either by offering sheep or lead
[tablets], or by gold, or silver, but may dogs, worms, and other monsters
devour them, may the people watch their death…”)296
Some prayers for justice from Germania and Pannonia display a peculiar
blending of the formulae typical of curses with those of prayers for justice. This
is probably caused by the laymen/authors’ own creative modifications.297
1.11 TABLETS’ EXPECTED EFFECT − DID THEY WORK?
This is a difficult question to answer. Science can tell us nothing about the
actual effects of curses, because magic presumes the effects that can be neither
2010, 185). J. Blänsdorf (2007, 62) translates the sequence sive res illius, qui illius
minus fecit as “oder den Besitz dessen, (er) der (den Besitz) dessen geringer gemacht
hat”. For the phrase res minus fecit, see also tablet No. 219 (1.2.1., 1.10.2., and 8.2.)
from Mérida in Hispania, dfx. 2.3.1/1: Dea Ataecina Turibrig(ensis) Proserpina, per
tuam maiestatem te rogo, obsecro, uti vindices, quot mihi furti factum est. Quisquis
mihi immutavit, involavit minusque fecit (e)a(s res), q(uae) i(nfra) s(criptae) s(unt),
tunicas VI, paenula lintea II, indusium..., in which the phrase appears in an
intensifying tricolon of synonyms; therefore, I regard it to be the synonym of
sustulit.
295
The text of the curse is damaged, only the extant passages are cited here; for the
interpretation, see Blänsdorf (2010 and 2012, DTM 1); for the whole text, see the
Appendix II and 10.2.3.
296
See 1.9.2. and 10.2.3.; see also Blänsdorf (2010, 163 ff).
297
See also Urbanová (2015, 597 ff.).
1. INTRODUCTION
93
proven nor disproven by scientific methods. It can only be assumed that ancient
people believed in the effectiveness of magic, just as many modern people do;
the basis of these beliefs can be explained through psychological lens (see
below). That the ancients had faith in magical practices is substantially
documented in literature.298
Pliny, in his Naturalis Historia, mentions that there
is no one who would not be afraid of curse tablets: defigi quidem diris
precationibus nemo non metuit.299
Laws against magical practices constitute
another piece of evidence, as e.g. in the case of Lex Cornelia de siccariis et
veneficiis from the time of Sulla:
Magicae artis conscios summo supplicio affici placuit, id est bestiis obici aut
cruci suffigi, ipsi autem magi vivi exuruntur; libros magicae artis apud se
neminem habere licet, et penes quoscumque reperti sint, bonis ademptis,
ambustis his publice, in insulam deportantur, humiliores capite puniuntur,
non tantum huius artis professio sed etiam scientia prohibita est.300
(“It was
decided to inflict the maximum penalty, i.e. damnatio ad bestias or
crucifixion, up on those who are versed in magical practices, the wizards
themselves are to be burned to death; no one is allowed to possess magical
books, and if they are found at someone’s place, they are to be burned
publicly and those guilty are to be deprived of their property and deported to
an island, the ignoble ones are to be executed, not only the practising of
magic is forbidden, but also its knowledge.”). Nulla poena sine culpa.301
Earlier scholars were influenced by the works of J. Frazer, who regarded magic
as proto-religion. He built on the presumption of the mutual interdependence
called sympatheia, as well as the desire to command the gods,302
and supposed
that no spells, charms, or amulets could actually work (see also Gager, 1992,
22). However, these assumptions have recently been re-assessed by modern
scholars.303
J. Frazer perceived magical activities as the laws of causality
wrongly applied. Particularly his evolutionary conception of magic (magic as
proto- religion) has been rejected by modern religious science. Magic is treated
298
See also 1.3. and 1.10.1.
299
See Plin. NH 28, 4, 19; for more detail, see Kropp (2008a, 60 ff.).
300
Paulus Sententiae 5, 23, 17 –18.
301
Lex Corneia de siccariis et veneficiis probably did not solve the problem of curse
tablets in any way. Moreover, Paulus’ text is controversial because of the distinction
honestiores − humiliores, which speaks rather in favour of later modifications (A.
Chalupa, orally), see also Graf (1996, 62ff.).
302
See Chalupa (2006, 106 ff.).
303
For the detailed discussion of the modern attempts to define magic, see Chalupa
(2006, 106).
1. INTRODUCTION
94
as one of the aspects of religion, one which exists within religion, and therefore
it cannot be regarded an earlier phenomenon. There is no doubt, however, that
magic is concerned with a certain form of the construction of causal
relationships.
Even if we were to call faith in spells groundless and absurd and presume
magical practices to be entirely ineffective, we would not be able to escape the
fact that magic was practised for centuries. The extant corpus of Latin curse
tablets dated from the 2nd
cent. BCE up to the 5th
cent. CE proves this well
enough. There is, however, no extant evidence, in which the authors of curses or
prayers for justice report successful curses or prayers for justice that achieved
the return of stolen property. Modern scholars, however, cite the tablets’ very
existence as a sort of proof of efficacy. Tomlin (1988, 101) examined this
problem with regards to the prayers for justice found in Bath, and has come to
the conclusion that the fact that people resorted to such practices for two
centuries implies that the tablets worked, or rather that they were believed to
work, and that it is possible that this faith was well-founded. Moreover, he
posits that the question of whether they worked or not, is de facto irrelevant, as
the mere existence of such belief is indisputable and sufficient response in itself.
Every tablet was born of the dedicator’s belief in the curse or prayer it carried.
And it is worth noting that the tablets themselves are not without some
scepticism. This is well illustrated by the included vota, which suggest that
authors hope for the fulfillment of their wishes, but do not completely rely on
the curse’s effect, see No. 52: … et sei faciatis, votum, quod facio, solvam
vostris meritis. (“...and if you do [this], I will honour the promise I make [here]
rightily.”) (see 3.3.2. and 8.1.1.; see also No. 20, 7.3.1.4., and No. 220, 8.2.).
Moreover, there is the argument that defixiones worked in a way, but not
necessarily to the extent suggested by the curses (see Gager, 1992, 23; Ogden,
1999, 80). Tomlin proposes various perspectives on the psychological utility of
the cursing ritual: the catharsis, the relief from tension and the transfer of
emotions.304
He further states that to write a tablet and to throw it into a sacred
spring could provide its author with the relief of feeling as though something, at
least, had been done in this dire time (Tomlin, 1988, 101 ff.). In case of prayers
for justice, it can be presumed that the tablets could have been displayed in the
temple for all to see, thereby engendering the pangs of guilt in the culprit, or at
least a fear of divine intervention that could inspire him/her to return the stolen
things. Unfortunately, public display of prayers for justice is documented only
304
Tomlin (1988, 101).
1. INTRODUCTION
95
rarely in the Greek tradition,305
and is almost impossible in terms of the Latin
tradition. Archaeological evidence from Bath shows that the tablets were
thrown into the sacred spring and, what is more, were mostly rolled (see also
Ogden, 1999, 80). P. Kiernan (2004, 99 ff.) looks at this evidence, and attempts
to reconcile it with the proposed psychosomatic effect of the tablets, arguing
that the tablets from Britannia could have been first displayed publicly in the
temple and later thrown into the sacred spring. Taking into account that some
tablets from Britannia contain also promise of reward to the deity if the thief is
found and punished, he associates prayers for justice with votive inscriptions.
But Versnel (2010, 342 ff.) criticizes such views and shows that these are not in
fact promises to the deity in the sense of votum oriented to the future: the
authors do not try to promise anything to the deity. Rather, these have to be seen
as parallels of judicial accusations,306
in which the injured party – in either the
present or past tense – commends the culprit a tithe of the stolen property, or
both to the deity, while offering a reward in some cases (see 3.3.2.).
On the other hand, the whole matter can be attributed to the idea that blaming
the vagaries of human life – disease, suffering, failure, loss – on the effect of the
curse can make them more socially tolerable and easier to bear (see Gager,
1992, 23).
1.12 CRITERIA OF ANALYSIS
The opening chapters introduce the complex and diverse issues concerning the
Latin magical texts analyzed in this work. Curses and prayers for justice are
both similar and different in many ways. It seems useful, therefore, to analyze
each group following slightly different criteria based on the different nature and
diction of the two types of texts. For instance curses can be differentiated
according to the type (or context) of their manufacture, i.e. legal curses,
agonistic curses, love spells, etc., while this criterion cannot be applied to
prayers for justice, as these were all made in the same context, i.e. the author
had suffered some loss or damage. Curses and prayers for justice frequently
differ also in structure, as well as in the aims and wishes of their authors. Thus,
the criteria of analysis must be adjusted to the specific features of the particular
texts: at some points these overlap, while at others they differ to a substantial
degree; some features are found only in curses, some only in prayers for justice.
305
See Versnel (1991, 75 ff.), and especially Versnel (2010, note 22).
306
Versnel (2010, 342): prayers for justice, which are quasi-judicial accusations”.
1. INTRODUCTION
96
1.12.1 Shared Criteria of Curses and Prayers for Justice
The following criteria are taken into account when analysing Latin curses and
prayers for justice:
1) provenance (province, locality)
2) dating (see Chapter 1. and 1.3.)
3) place of finding (grave, spring, circus, shrine, etc.) (see 1.8.3.)
4) final arrangement of the tablet (if it was punctured, rolled, etc.) (see
1.8.2.)
5) cursing formulae and their combination (formulation of the
curse/prayer for justice from the syntactic and pragmatic points of view)
(see 1.9. and Chapters 2. and 3.)
6) additional elements, including time data (the terminus post or ante
quem the curse/prayer for justice should be executed, or its intended
duration) or vota (promise of a reward to a deity for the fulfilment of
author’s wish) (see 1.9.2.)
7) graphic disorientation (curses, and less frequently prayers for justice,
can be enriched with specific magical features on the graphic level of
text, i.e. written right-to-left, upside down, etc.) (see 1.7.2.).
1.12.2 Criteria of Analysis Specific to Curses
The following criteria can only be distinguished in curses:
1. the type of curse, i.e. whether the curse is aimed at adversaries in
lawsuits, at competitors in contests and races, or against rivals in love,
or if it is supposed to raise affection, or the non-specific curse (see
1.1.2.2.).
2. the authors and the accursed (if the author’s name is stated, which is
very rare in curses), whether the curse was aimed against men, women,
or horses (see 1.5.), and the filiation (further identification of the cursed
people via mother’s/father’s name) (see 1.6.)
3. the aims and wishes of authors (what is sought via the curse, what is
author’s intent, in what way is the victim supposed to be harmed or
limited − disease, death, restriction, separation, etc.) (see 1.10. and
1.10.1.)
4. gods (and supernatural powers) who are supposed to execute the curse,
particularly the chthonic deities and daemons (see 1.7.)
5. other magical elements: apart from the aforementioned non-standard
orientation of writing, these are also so-called voces magicae (names of
1. INTRODUCTION
97
daemons and magical words); charaktéres, i.e. grammata (magical
patterns made of sequences of vowels and consonants); signa magica
(magical non-alphabetic signs); imago (the image of daemon depicted
on tablet) (see 1.7.1.); and graphic peculiarities, i.e. the use of Greek
alphabet to write a Latin text, or a combination of Roman and Greek
letters, which is especially true for the texts coming from African
provinces [see 1.7.2.]). The use of Greek alphabet to write a Latin text
is attested only once in prayers for justice (No. 239), the same in the
case of signa magica (once in the analyzed corpus, No. 222).
1.12.3 Criteria of Analysis Specific to Prayers for Justice
Latin prayers for justice (1.2.) are analyzed either according to the criteria in
common with curses (see points 1-7 above), or to their own specific set of
criteria, as follows:
6. the occasion of prayer (theft, loss, perjury) (see 1.2.-1.2.3.)
7. the stolen property (clothes, jewellery, money, or some other loss)
(see 1.2.)
8. the aim of prayer and author’s wish (what does the author want to
achieve: returning of the stolen property, return of the stolen property
together with vengeance upon the thief, or mere vengeance) (see
1.10.2.), and the related restriction/punishment (limitation of bodily
functions, disease, or death) (see 1.10.2.)
9. the author’s name (see 1.5.); the culprit’s name (although the culprits
are often unknown) (see 1.6.); filiation (further identification of the
cursed people via mother’s/father’s name) (see 1.6.)
10. gods (predominantly the local deities)307
(see 1.7.)
11. address to the god (whether the author explicitly addresses the deity
s/he appeals to) (see 1.2.-.1.2.3.) and the committal (of the thief or
stolen property to the deity) (see 1.2.-1.2.3.)
These criteria could, at first sight, seem to be a mixture of incongruous and
random data. They are, however, based on the logic of the curse and the cursing
ritual by which it was dedicated. The curse was written according to the
prescriptions of magical canon. The performance of the ritual, including both
the verbal (inscribing and utterance) and non-verbal features (treatment of the
307
These are not necessarily stated explicitly, but can be deduced from the place of the
particular finding, e.g. the shrine of a particular deity.
1. INTRODUCTION
98
tablet, its final arrangement and placement) attending the dedication of the curse
constitute the practice of magic as we know it in the ancient world.
1.13 AIMS OF THE WORK
Based on the analysis and evaluation of the aforementioned data, I examine the
occurrences, development and expansion of Latin cursing tradition in the
various provinces of the Roman Empire; determine the specific geographical
and cultural peculiarities of the texts of curses and prayers for justice; explore
the expansion of the types of curses and cursing formulae; and observe the
tendencies in their development, their mutual interaction and the adaptation of
the Mediterranean magical tradition especially in the more remote areas. By
way of introduction, I submit that the differences between the curses from the
African provinces and the curses from all other European localities of the
Roman Empire are striking. The African curse tablets were probably made by
professional magicians experienced in charms and magical formulae. They are
influenced by Egyptian and Eastern magical doctrine, which has been preserved
partially in the form of the Greek magical papyri. These include complicated
curses replete with the names of daemons,308
unintelligible magical words, and
symbols. In Britannia, however, prayers for justice must have been popular,
because we have a great number of them, and they are very complicated texts
aimed against thieves and written by the victims of damage or loss
themselves,309
while only a few very simple examples of curses have been
preserved there. The northern provinces of Noricum, Raetia, Germania
Superior, and Pannonia are interesting for their own adaptations of the
Mediterranean tradition that incorporate local religious beliefs. Especially the
recent findings from the votive depository adjacent to the temple of Mater
Magna and Attis in Mainz provide us with good evidence of the blending of the
formulae typical for curses and prayers for justice, along with some remarkable
examples of the peculiar adaptations of traditional magical customs attested
nowhere else in the Roman Empire. I am fully aware, however, that our
knowledge of preserved Latin curses and prayers for justice – i.e. the
documentation analyzed in this work – does not necessarily yield a concise and
realistic image of ancient cursing practice. Curse tablets were designed for and
addressed to the supernatural powers, and not to be seen by the eyes of mortals.
308
See 1.7. below.
309
Until now, there is only one extant tablet explicitly stating that it was written for
someone else, see No. 294 from Ratcliffe-on-Soar, dfx.3.19/3: ...nomine
Camulorigi(s) et Titocun(a)e mulam quam perdederunt in fanum dei devovi... (see
6.2.).
1. INTRODUCTION
99
As such, they were often carefully hidden – the randomness of the
archaeological findings notwithstanding. Hence, it can be presumed that the
extant defixiones are but a fragment of the overall ancient production and,
consequently, that the corpus of curse tablets at our disposal cannot be regarded
a representative sample of the Latin cursing tradition.
Furthermore, this work deals with the differences and common features of
curses and prayers for justice, the latter being considered a parallel category of
magical texts (see 1.10.2.). At this point the question arises to what extent are
prayers for justice mere modifications or applications of usual curses, or if they
should be regarded as a separate magical category fundamentally
distinguishable from curses and votive inscriptions. On this question, scholarly
opinion is split: J. Gager (1992, 175), D. Ogden (1997, 37 f.), M. Dreher
(2010,2012) and A. Kropp (2008a, 119) look at the typology, ritual and
formulae prayers for justice, and believe the former; H. S. Versnel (2010, 275
ff.) and R. S. O. Tomlin (1988, 62) propose the latter. I point out that especially
in terms of authorial attitude and intent, prayers for justice are different from
curses: the authors of prayers for justice seek “just” revenge, and the damage
suffered is their motivation for manufacturing the tablet (the main goal is not a
malevolent elimination of an opponent for one’s own sake, but revenge or
compensation/satisfaction for the damage suffered). In comparing the extant
Latin curses and prayers for justice, we may find more detailed data concerning
the particular aims and wishes of the authors of prayers for justice, as well as
the differences in this practice in various parts of the Roman Empire, thus
helping to clearly define the extent of common features and differences between
the two types of texts.
In this work I put forth a comprehensive examination of the extant evidence (a
total of 309 tablets); I do not, however, examine the fragmentary texts. I am,
then, only here concerned with those texts, which can be assessed according to
at least three aforementioned criteria. The observed criteria can be divided into
two groups: a) criteria concerning external, material features of the curse, e.g.
ritual treatment of the tablet, places of deposition, etc.; b) criteria concerning the
text of the curse or prayer for justice itself. This especially includes the data
resulting from the analysis of the formulae used in the texts (5) and of other
additional elements (6); as for the occurrence and spreading throughout the
Roman Empire, focus on the specific types of curses (8); aims, wishes, and
attitudes of the authors of curses (10) as well as of prayers for justice (15); and
finally, examination of the motivations of prayers for justice (13) and stolen
things (14). The addresses to deities, as well as the committal of culprits or
stolen property in prayers for justice (18) are discussed in a separate chapter. A
1. INTRODUCTION
100
brief overview of the data not directly related to the text itself and its content,
i.e. ritual treatment of the tablet, place of deposition (3), final arrangement of
the tablet (4), dating (2), was given in the Introduction. The chapters dealing
with the specific features of the extant texts from particular provinces are then
focused on their authors and the accursed (9); or, in prayers for justice, on the
authors and the culprits (16); on the deities and other magical features of curses
(11 and 12) and in prayers for justice (17); as well as on the non-standard
orientation of the script in curses and prayers for justice (7).
1.14 METHODOLOGY
In order to analyze the extant evidence, I compiled the texts which are
observable according to at least three of the aforementioned criteria (cf. 1.12.1.).
Therefore, the number of tablets used in my corpus is lower than that of
Kropp’s (2008) corpus, which includes 382 defixiones (see Charts 1 and 2 in
Chapter 1). This work includes 208 curses and 101 prayers for justice (see
Appendix I Latin Curses, and Appendix II Latin Prayers for Justice). The texts
of curse tablets are given in their edited form, as is common practice (the
original versions of often fragmentary texts include several peculiarities and
deviations from Classical Latin, and would have to be cited using the Leiden
Conventions common in epigraphy; this would impede the normal reading and
quick orientation in the text). See also A. Kropp (2008), who cites the texts in
their original form, as well as in the completed version modified into Classical
Latin for the sake of better reading (“Lesetext”). Simplified original texts of
defixiones are included in Appendixs I and II, directly in text only if there is
disagreement on the interpretation of some passages. The places where the text
was damaged and afterwards edited are marked with parentheses. In several
cases, the lectiones variae stated in the older editions of inscriptions are also
taken into account, if they are significant for the interpretation of the text, its
evaluation according to the applied criteria, or for the visualization of the extent
of the damage to the text.
Afterwards, I analyzed the inscriptions according to the aforementioned criteria
and statistically processed the results which enabled me to evaluate the data, the
number of occurrences of particular observed phenomena, and mutual
similarities and differences while applying different analytical criteria − these
are sometimes not noticeable at first sight, like the use of particular cursing
formulae when daemons are addressed, or that some of the seemingly
interconnected features of the curses turn out to be mutually unrelated or
independent of each other. Many combinations of compared criteria are open to
analysis; however, not all of them lead to relevant results or reveal significant
1. INTRODUCTION
101
relationships. My particular interest is to compare particularly those parameters
whose evaluation could reveal relevant interconnectedness or relationship
between the particular features of curses. This will depend, for example, on the
type of curse or the special use of particular types of curses in particular regions
and times, as well as the ways of formulating curses or prayers for justice,
authorial intent, the deities appealed to in particular regions or provinces, or the
territorial proliferation of the more technical or practised magical elements
suggesting the possible presence of professional magicians in the area, etc. The
results of these comparisons are discussed in the analyses of the particular
categories and in the Conclusion.
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
When analysing cursing formulae in this work, I link the pragmatic-semantic
perspectives, with some modifications drawing on the classification of formulae
by A. Kropp (2010, 362 ff.) and Ch. A. Faraone (1991, 5 ff.) with the syntactic
ones. In wider sense, I distinguish:
1) simple nominal lists of cursed people, formula 0 (2.1.1.)
2) direct cursing formula, formula 1 and formula 1a (2.2.1. and 2.2.2.)
3) invoking formulae of request and committal
• formula 2, 2a (2.3., 2.3.1., and 2.3.2.)
imperative invoking formulae using imperative/subjunctive (direct
speech act)
• formula 3, 3a (2.3., 2.3.3., and 2.3.4.)
invoking wish-formulae using subjunctive (indirect speech act)
• formula 4 (2.3. and 2.3.5.)
simile-formulae, i.e. analogy within invoking wish-formulae
• formula 5 (2.3. and 2.3.6.)
The relationship between the function of a speech act statement and its
linguistic form (in a broader sense) is a complex one: on the one hand, the
linguistic form itself does not always correspond unambiguously to a particular
type of speech act; on the other hand, the pragmatic value of a statement can
often be expressed by various types of linguistic means, while these are often
combined in one and the same utterance. 1
Thus, my intention is to encompass
the variability of all formal means used in this specific, usually not analyzed,
context of the ritual magical statements, in this I draw on the work of R.
Risselada Imperatives and other directive expressions in Latin. I proceed from
the simple formulae (predicate + object in the accusative) towards the more
structured types (predicate + subordinate clause). I regard these two basic types
of formulae to be the fundamental units on which the more complicated curses
combining various types of formulae are based. The predicates of the main
clause are classified into three main groups: direct curse (defigo); committal to a
deity (trado, do); and request addressed to a deity (rogo), whereas all three are
also analyzed according to the formal criteria, i.e. person, tense, mood.
Furthermore, the way of application of the predicates of relative clauses is
1
Risselada (1993, 66ff).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
103
analyzed, as well, if these are applied in the given formula, because I consider
these to be an inseparable part of the formula.
Invoking formulae using imperative/subjunctive and wish-formulae contain in
the main clause the predicates of cursing, as well as general predicates
connected to the specific type of curse. Therefore, any further subdivision
according to the meaning seems purposeless, as the type of predicate does not
express the different approach of curse’s author to the act of cursing itself,
unlike the direct cursing formulae and the invoking curses using requesting and
committal formulae; the invoking curses sometimes also contain the simile-
formula.2
Concerning the fact that the texts of defixiones are very often damaged or
fragmentary to some extent; moreover, they contain a lot of original, sometimes
even unintelligible, formulations and deviations from the Classical Latin norm,
as they have been written by non-professionals. Therefore, it is not always
possible to assign them to the particular formula (see also 1.9.3.) without
doubts. There are altogether 16 curses and 18 prayers for justice using the
formulae which cannot be determined with certainty.
The analysis of used formulae takes into account the origin of a tablet, i.e. the
province it comes from, its dating, and whether it is a simple or a combined
formula. In the case it is a curse, I state also its type, if it is a prayer for justice,
this criterion is not applied, as the context is still the same, i.e. loss or damage
suffered.
2.1 SIMPLE AND COMBINED CURSES
The basic formulae described below are found either separately, or in a
combination, on tablets. I speak of a simple curse, if only one formula was used
in one curse and on one tablet. Approximately 30%3
of all Latin curses
comprise of mere nominal lists of cursed people (see 2.1.1. below), while the
simple curses are used on one quarter of all tablets. Most (three quarters) of the
tablets contain some mutual combination of formulae coming after each other or
repeating themselves. If the text of a curse contains more than one formula or
the same formula used repeatedly throughout the tablet, I speak of a combined
curse. Similarly, there are more prayers for justice with combined formulae
2
See 1.9. and 1.9.3. above, as well as 2.3.6. below.
3
For the tablets with curses, 100% equals 208, for the tablets with prayers for justice
100% = 101.
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
104
than those with the simple ones, the ratio being 6:1, while at least ten per cent of
the evidence cannot be determined with certainty due to corruptions in texts.
2.1.1 Simple Nominal Lists of Cursed People
The texts, usually curses (see also 1.1.2.1. and 1.9.1.) and rarely also prayers for
justice, which contain only the nominal lists of cursed people (these were
inscribed on the tablet, while the curse itself was probably merely uttered,) are
classified as formula 0 curses. Such texts make approximately a third of all
extant curses (see 2.1.) and are attested in almost all provinces, most commonly
in Italy (13), Germania (ten), and especially in Britannia (20). As a matter of
fact, these are predominantly classified as the non-specific curses (see 1.1.2.1.).
In some rare cases, the context of a curse can be deduced − if there are the
names of horses, the curse was probably delivered in the agonistic context, here
and then the names include also attributes, as e.g. in No. 10 adversarius, No. 46
inimici, No. 48 atvocati which point to the legal context (see also 8.1.2., 1.6.,
No. 2, 13, and 141, 1.9.1.). This formula appears altogether 66 times in curses,
which makes 30 per cent of all tablets.
This type of formula is used only very rarely in prayers for justice (if the
nominal list contains also the data referring to theft or revenge), two times in
Italy and one time in Germania, see e.g. No. 210 from Concordia, dfx. 1.7.3/1:
Secundula aut qui sustulit. (“Secundula or whoever stole it.”).
2.2 DIRECT CURSING FORMULAE
These are simple formulae correspondent to the term direct binding formula of
Ch. A. Faraone (1991, 5 ff.) and to the term performative statement of A. Kropp
(2010, 370 ff.), i.e. manipulation formulae and partially also committal
formulae (see 1.9.3.). The formula contains a verb in the 1st
sg. pres. appended
by an object (in substantive form) and is divided into two categories 1 and 1a
according to the meaning of its predicate defigo × trado.
2.2.1 Formula 1: Direct Curse with the Predicates of Cursing
The formula comprises of the predicates in the 1st
sg. like defigo, ligo, deligo,
obligo, describo, the names of cursed people in the nom. or acc., the list of body
parts, the mental and bodily functions, or the property and business of a victim,
which are to be afflicted by the curse (prevailingly expressed by substantives as
objects in the accusative). The one who curses is the subject of the cursing
formula and automatically presupposes its execution (see Faraone, 1991, 10).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
105
This type, sometimes including formidable lists of all body parts, is not very
common, it is attested in curses 15 times, which makes approximately 5.3% of
tablets, and 4 times in prayers for justice, which makes 4% of tablets. It is used
predominantly in the non-specific curses (see 1.1.2.1. and No. 12 below); in No.
11 it is combined with other formulae used in the legal context. Curses
dominate this formula, only here and then it is found in prayers for justice (see
No. 277 below), or with the predicate in pass. enconfixus (see No. 260, 1.10.2.
and 3.1.2.). No. 198 from London reads:
Tertia(m) Maria(m) defigo et illius vita(m) et me(n)tem et memoriam et
iocinera, pulmones… (“I curse Tertia Maria and her life, and mind, and
memory, and liver, lungs...”) (see also 1.9.1.).
Compare also No. 12: Malchio Niconis oculos, manus, digitos, brachia,
ungues, capillos, caput, pedes,… defigo in has tabellas. (“Malchio, the
son/slave of Nico, I curse with this tablet [his] eyes, hands, fingers, arms,
nails, hair, head, feet,...”) (see also 1.1.2.1., 1.9.1., and esp. 7.3.1.2.).
No. 11 from Mentana, dfx. 1.4.2/2: A: T(itus) Octavius sermone, M(arcus)
Fidustius mutus (sit) sermone,… d(e)scribo cilos… B: membra omnia: latus,
lingua, flatus, coria, talos, exta, ungues… (“May Titus Octavius [be
deprived] of speech, may Marcus Fidustius [be] mute [and deprived] of
speech... I curse the eyelids... all limbs: hip, tongue, breath, skin, ankles,
guts, nails...”) (see esp. 7.3.1.6.)
and No. 277 from Bath: Execro (eum) qui involaverit, quod Deomiorix de
hospitio suo perdiderit… (“I curse [him] who has stolen, who has robbed
Deomiorix from his house.”) (see 1.2.2., 1.9.2., and 1.10.2.).
2.2.2 Formula 1a: Direct Curse with the Predicates of Committal
The structure of this formula is identical to the direct curse 1, the only
difference lies in the use of predicate. The predicates used are do, dono, voveo,
mando, trado, commendo, desacrifico, defero in the 1st
sg. + the name of the
cursed person in the nom. or acc. + the list of body parts and functions (in
substantive form usually as an object in the acc.), sometimes completed with the
names of deities: No. 75: Dis Manibus hos(tes) voveo. The writer of the curse
commends curse’s victims to gods (in prayers for justice, also the culprit and
stolen property are commended), while he himself remains the subject of the
cursing formula which is to be executed by gods. This formula is classified by
Faraone (1991, 5) under direct curses as the direct binding formula, and by
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
106
Kropp (2010, 370 f.) as the committal formula (see 1.9.3.). It usually appears in
combination with other formulae in more sophisticated curses with nonspecific,
legal or agonistic (rivalry in love) context (see No. 29 below). In
curses, the predicates of committal prevail over the predicates of cursing;
however, their dominance becomes more remarkable in prayers for justice (see
No. 288 below). The formula and its variants (see below) is used 24 times in
curses on approximately 11.5% tablets, and 9 times in prayers for justice, which
is 9% of tablets. See No. 9 from Minturno, dfx. 1.4.1/1, which reads:
Dii inferi, vobis commendo illius membra, colorem, figuram, caput, capillos,
umbram, cerebrum, frontem, supercilia… (“Underworld gods, I commend to
you her limbs, hue, figure, head, hair, shade?/hair?, brain, forehead,
eyebrows...”).4
Compare also No. 27 from Rome, dfx. 1.4.4/15: Di Manes… inimicos meos
commendo: Domitia, Omonia, Menecratis, alius trado: Nicea, Cyrus, Nice,
Porista, Demo, Asclepiades, Time, Ce, Philaia… (“Unerworld gods, I
commend my enemies [to you]: Domitia, Omonia, Menecratis, and further I
deliver: Nicea, Cyrus, Nice, Porista, Demo...”) (see also 1.6. and 7.3.2.).
No. 76 from Kreuznach, dfx. 5.1.4/5: ...Sintonem et adiutorium eius Sintonis
defero ad inferos… (“I drive down to the gods of the Underworls Sinto and
the assistant of this Sinto...”) (see also 1.4. and 10.1.2.).
No. 288 from London, dfx. 3.14/6: (D)eae Dea(na)e dono capitularem et
fas(c)iam5
minus parte tertia. Si quis hoc fecit, si puer si puella si ser(vus)
s(i liber) don(o eum) nec p(er) me (vi)v(ere) possit. (“I give to the goddess
Deana [my] headgear and band less one third. If anyone has done this,
whether boy or girl, whether free or slave, I give him [to the goddess] and
through me [i.e. my curse] let him be unable to live.”) (see also 12.2.2.).
This formula can be varied by the predicates of handing over in the past tense
(see No. 278), or in the form of the pf. pass. participle (see No. 31 and No. 82),
in some cases the verb is completely omitted (see No. 29). A. Kropp6
classifies
such cases as latently performative predicates (see also 1.9.3.). Such predicates
in the past tense are found also in prayers for justice from Britannia like, for
instance, No. 278:
4
See also 1.9.2. and 7.3.1.3., the text is damaged to a large extent.
5
R. S. O. Tomlin (2003, 362 ff.) states that capitulare probably meant a cap, while
fascia a scarf (see also 12.2.2.).
6
See Kropp (2008a, 148) and esp. Kropp (2010, 370 f.).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
107
Minervae deae Suli donavi furem, qui caracallam meam involavit… (“To
Minerva the goddess Sulis I have given the thief who has stolen my hooded
cloak...”) (see 12.2.3., and Kropp, 2008a, 155 f.).
These peculiarities appear not only in curses, but also prayers for justice (see
also No. 299 below).
See No. 31 from Cumae, dfx. 1.5.3./1: Nomen delatum Naeviae L(ucii)
l(ibertae) Secundae, sive ea alio nomine est. (“Naevia Secunda, the
freedwoman of Lucius, or if she is named differently, has been
denounced/handed over.”).7
No. 82 from Kreuznach, dfx. 5.1.4/11: Data nomina haec ad inferos.
(“These names have been handed over/denounced to the infernal gods.”) (see
also 10.1.2.).
No. 29 from Calvi Risorta: Dite, inferi, Caium Babullium et fututricem eius
Tertiam Salviam. (“Oh Dis [and] the underworld gods, [I curse] Gaius
Babullius and that slut of his, Tertia Salvia.”) (see also 1.1.2.2.3.).
and No. 299 from Uley, dfx. 3.22/6: Nomen furis, qui frenum involaverit, si
liber si servus, si baro si mulier, deo donatur… (The name of the thief [i.e.
the thief, see 1.6.] who has stolen the bridle, whether free or slave, whather
man or woman, is given to the god...”) (see also 1.6.).
2.3 INVOKING FORMULAE
All formulae whose predicates express an invocation in wider sense, i.e. plea,
command, or wish, are classified under the category of invoking formulae.
This includes: the invoking formulae with the predicates of request/committal
in the 1st
sg. further extended by a purpose clause, not merely by a substantive
object, i.e. formulae 2 and 2a (see 2.3.1. and 2.3.2. below); imperative
invoking formulae with the predicates in imperative/subjunctive extended
either by a mere object − formula 3), or by a purpose clause − formula 3a (see
2.3.3. and 2.3.4. below); invoking wish-formulae with the predicates in
7
The interpretation of the term nomen is two-fold − either it is an expression used
instead an unknown person because the one who writes the curse is not sure about
victim’s name (see 1.6.), or it is a loan from legal language, similarly to No. 52 (see
1.9.2.): nomen deferre “to denounce someone”; see also No. 82 below. See
Urbanová – Franek (2017, 618ff.).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
108
subjunctive which express a wish without explicit addressee8
− formula 4 (see
2.3.5.), and the simile-formulae, i.e. analogy within invoking wish-formulae
− formula 5 (see 2.3.6.).
The curses which contain request and committal formulae 2 and 2a with the
predicates in the 1st
sg. usually contain either the verbs denoting committal like
do, dono, voveo..., i.e. the same as the predicates of formula 1a (see 2.2.2.
above); or the verbs denoting plea or request like oro, rogo, peto, precor (“I
plead/ask”), obsecro, adiuro (“I adjure, I forswear”), mando (“I
commend/command”) in the 1st
sg. pres. Both groups of predicates are further
extended by a purpose clause connected by the conjunctions ut or ne + present
subjunctive, or using mere present subjunctive. In some rare cases, the
predicates of cursing (defigo, see 2.2.1. and 1.9.3.) extended in this way appear,
as well. This formula corresponds to A. Kropp’s (2010, 370 ff.) committal as
well as request formula. The formula serves to commend the author’s concern
to a deity, or to directly ask for the execution of the wishes expressed in the
subordinate clause − in curses this is the harm which is to be done to the
victims, in prayers for justice a compensation or revenge. This formula
represents the more complicated extension of the predicates of committal (see
formula 1a above), not very frequently also of the predicates of cursing (see
formula 1 above), as well as of the invoking predicates of plea or request. This
work takes into account also the author’s, i.e. agent’s, attitude towards the
addressee. The predicate of the subordinate clause is either in the 3rd
sg./pl. as in
No. 27: Di Manes commendo, ut pereant. (“Gods Manes, I commend [to you],
may they die.”) (see formula 2 below, 2.3.1. and 1.6.); or in the 2nd
sg./pl. as in
No. 64: ...rogo te, domina Isis, ut illi profluvium mittas (“...I ask you, Lady Isis,
to invoke bleeding/diarrhoea on him”) (see formula 2a below, 2.3.2., for the
complete text, see 9.1.1.).
The result of my analysis is that formula 2 with the predicate of subordinate
clause in the 3rd
sg./pl. (see also 1.9.3.) is the type of formula most frequently
used in curses. On the contrary, A. Kropp (2008a, 151) states that this type of
formula appears very rarely, but this is not supported by my analysis (see 2.3.1.
and 2.3.2. below). In prayers for justice the type with the predicate of
subordinate clause in the 2nd
sg./pl. (formula 2a) is used most commonly.
8
See A. Kropp (2010, 371 f.) who classifies these formulas under the category of
request formulas as indirect speech act, instruction without explicit addressee. A.
Kropp (2008a, 152 ff.) calls this formula Wunschsatz (see also 1.9.3.).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
109
Formula 2 represents the direct speech act of a third person (see Risselada,
1993, 42 ff. and 270 f.).9
In formula 2 the predicates of main clause are in the 1st
person, while the subordinate clause expresses the action carried out not by the
addressee (i.e. the deity), but by the absent victim. However, the addressee
plays a significant role in the execution of the action expressed in subordinate
clause, because the author makes him responsible for the execution of the
action, sc. the deity should arrange for the harm or restriction which is to afflict
the absent victim. In formula 2a with the predicates of subordinate clause in the
2nd
sg./pl. the author appeals to the deity with request or plea for the execution
of the action specified in subordinate clause, i.e. the deity is the agent of the
action in this case.
Furthermore, there is the imperative invoking formula with the predicate of
main clause in imperative/subjunctive (see formula 3 below, 2.3.3.), in which
both imperative and subjunctive are used collaterally having the same
function.10
Imperative in the 2nd
sg./pl. is usually used in curses, rarely imper. II
is found, as well. Roughly one sixth of the curses contain subjunctive with
formula 3 and 3a, usually in the 2nd
sg./pl., here and then also in the 3rd
sg. This
formula corresponds to the prayer formula of Ch. A. Faraone (1991, 5 ff.)
which serves to invoke gods and daemons with the imperative in the 2nd
sg./pl.,
and to the request formula of A. Kropp (2010, 371) which is described as a
direct speech act with the predicate in imperative of the 2nd
person or
subjunctive used instead of imperative. In this work, the invocations with
imperative/subjunctive are divided as follows:
Formula 3 − imperative invoking formula, the predicate in the 2nd
person
imperative/subjunctive extended by an object in the accusative: No. 115: …
facias illos mutos… (“...make them mute...”) (see 1.1.2.2.2.); No. 18: … tene,
contere, confringe et… trade morti, filium Asseles, Praesenticium (“…take hold
of, destroy, bring to naught and... commit to death Praesenticius, son of
Assela...”) (see 1.9.2.).
9
R. Risselada (1993, 258 ff.) calls this type a metadirective challenge:
“Metadirectives are expressions by means of which the speaker explicitly mentions
the perlocutionary effects that are systematically connected with the speech act that
is being performed and “directs” the addressee to realize these effects.” This type
with the predicates of main clause in the 1st
sg. is attested only rarely in Latin
literature. More often it appears after a directive predicate like age, fac, see formula
3 below, 2.3.3., e.g. Tranio age, canem istanc a foribus abducant... (“Tranio, make
it happen that the dog is dragged away from the door...”; Pl. Most. 854).
10
See also Kropp (2008a, 151); Menge (2000, 551 ff.); and esp. Risselada (1993, 107
ff.).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
110
Formula 3a − imperative invoking formula, the predicate in the 2nd
sg./pl.
imperative/subjunctive extended by the subordinate clause with ut/ne or with
mere subjunctive: No. 114: … alligate linguas horum,… ne adversus nos
respondere (possint)…(“ bind the tongues of those... so that they cannot testify
against us...”) (see 1.1.2.2.1.); or No. 147 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/7: fac,
Totti(na)… me amet… (semper?) de me cogitet… (“make Tottina love me...
constantly? may she think of me...”) (see 11.1.4.), in which the predicates of
subordinate clauses are in the 3rd
sg./pl.11
(see 2.3.4. below); or marginally, an
infinitive clause appears: No. 124: ...coge illam venire ad me... (“...make her
come to me...”) (see below and 1.1.2.2.3.).
Formula 4 − invoking wish-formula with the predicate in subjunctive, see
subchapter 1.9.3. and esp. 2.3.5., corresponds to Faraone’s (1991, 5 ff.) term
wish formula used for the Greek documentation (the victim is the subject of the
3rd
person optative). Kropp (2010, 371 ff.) classifies it under the more general
term of request formula as “instructions without explicit addressee”, see also
1.9.3. above. In Latin this denotes the author’s wish expressed by the
subjunctive clause with the predicate in the 3rd
sg./pl. (sometimes introduced by
conjunction ut), the victim being the subject of the clause, while the addressee is
unexpressed, see No. 35: Philocomus…tabescat, dominis non placeat… (“May
Philocomus decay, may he displease the masters...”).
Formula 5 − simile-formula, i.e. analogy within invoking wish-formulae (see
1.9.3. and esp. 2.3.6.) corresponds to Faraone’s (1991, 5) simila similibus
formula which is the part of wish formula in terms of the Greek documentation,
Kropp (2010, 375) refers to it as the analogy within the scope of invoking
formula. In curses the persuasive analogy is applied via the comparative clauses
of quomodo − sic type with a wish-formula using subjunctive in the main clause
(2.3.5.), see e.g. No. 226: Quomodo hoc plumbum non paret et decadet, sic
decadat aetas, membra… (“Just as this lead is not visible and sinks to the
bottom, so may the youth?, limbs...fall into decay…”) (see also 1.9.3., 1.4., and
9.2.).
11
Apart from rare exceptions, e. g.: tablet No. 89: facia(ti)s, ut eorum ixsitum (=
exitum) audiam… (“make it happen that I will hear about their death...”), and No.
106.
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
111
2.3.1 Formula 2: Invoking Formula with the Predicates of Committal,
Request, and Plea
This the formula which uses the predicates of committal like do, mando,
commendo, trado, voveo, defero (these are the most common in curses, unlike
prayers for justice where the amount of the predicates of committal and request
is almost even), the predicates of request/plea like oro, rogo, peto, precor,
adiuro (see 1.9.3.) (these are less common in curses except for adiuro), and the
predicates of cursing like ligo, oblio, alligo, deligo (almost exclusively found in
curses, esp. from African provinces), all in the 1st
sg. pres. However, the
predicates are very often combined, esp. those of request and committal, see
No. 30 below: mando, rogo.12
The request is usually addressed to the explicitly
stated deity: ad inferos, dis inferis, Proserpina, together with the name of victim
in the acc./nom. The predicate of purpose clause and introduced by conjunction
ut/ne is in the 3rd
sg./pl. pres. subj., or a mere subjunctive is used, and it aims at
an absent cursed person who is the agent of the action expressed in subordinate
clause, see No. 30 below: mando, rogo, uti tabescat; No. 115: ligo, obligo
linguas, ne possint respondere (see also 1.1.2.2.1.); the formula can be enriched
with a catalogue of body parts, as well (see No. 20 below). This formula is
almost exclusively included in the more complicated curses (much more often
than in prayers for justice), and is documented in the tablets coming especially
from Africa, Italy and Germania. It is attested 90 times in curses (ca. 22%) and
26 times in prayers for justice (ca. 23%). It is found in almost all types of
curses, most frequently in the legal curses (see No. 70 and No. 181), the nonspecific
curses (see No. 30 and No. 32 below), further also in the curses
concerning rivalry in love (see No. 20 below), in love spells (see No. 173), in
the agonistic context (see No. 151), and in some prayers for justice (see No.
298, No. 247, and No. 292 below). See No. 30 from Capua, dfx. 1.5.2/1, with
the predicates of committal and request:
Cn(aeum) Numidium Astragalum v(oveo?) illius vitam valetudine(m),
quaestum ipsumq(ue), uti tabescat morbo. (Ac) Sextius tabe(scat),
mando, rogo. (“I dedicate? Gnaeus Numidius Astragalus, his life,
health, profit and himself, may he die of disease. May Sextius die, I
commend [him to you] and ask.”) (see also 1.9.3.).
12
A frequent phenomenon in curses is the accumulation of synonyms (see 7.3.1.1.,
10.1.1., and 11.3.1.).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
112
No. 20 from Rome with the predicate of committal:
…Proserpina Salvia, do tibi nares, labra, aures, nasum, linguam, dentes
Ploti, ne dicere possit Plotius. (...Proserpina Salvia, I give you the nostrils,
lips, ears, nose, tongue, teeth of Plotius, so that Plotius may be unable to
speak...”) (see also 1.10.1. and 7.3.1.4.).
No. 32 from Cumae, dfx. 1.5.3/2 with the predicate of cursing:
M(arcum) Heium M(arci) f(ilium), Calidum… hos homines omnes inferis
(de)is deligo, ita ut ne q(uis) eorum quemcumque… possit, neve… quidquam
agere p(ossit?). (“Marcus Heius, son of Marcus, Calidus... [the list of other
six people follows] all these people I bind [with spells] to the infernal gods,
so that none of them is able to… anyone, nor… [is able to] do anything.”)
(see also 1.6. and 1.9.3.).
No. 70 from Frankfurt, dfx. 5.1.2./1 with the predicate of request:
Rogo Mane(s et dii?) inferi, ut (Ma)rius Fronto, (adv)ersariu(s) Sex(ti), sit
vanus neque loqui possit contra Sextum… (“I ask [you], Manes and the
infernal gods, may Marius Fronto, the enemy of Sextus, be unsuccessful,
may he be unable to speak against Sextus.”) (see also 1.9.1. and 1.10.1.).
No. 181 from Hadrumetum, dfx. 11.2.1/42 with the predicate of plea/request:
Annibonia, Conscius, Laurentius, Piquarius, Felix, Copo, Salvus. Oro vos,
ex hoc die, ut taceant, muti, mutili sint; Damnameneus.13
(“Annibonia,
Conscius, Laurentius, Piquarius, Felix, Copo, Salvus. I plead you, may they
not speak, may they be mute, mutilated from this day on; Damnameneus.”).
No. 173 from Hadrumetum, dfx. 11.2.1./34 with the predicate of cursing:
…(Perse)phone, … obligo… (ex h)ac die ex hac ora, ut obliviscatur patris et
matris (et) omnium suorum… (“...Persephone, I bind [with spells] from this
day and hour on, [may she forget about her mother, father, all her relatives
and friends...]”) (see also 11.1.4.).
and No. 151 from Hadrumetum, dfx. 11.2.1./11 with the predicate of
plea/request:
13
See 1.7.1. and Gager (1992, 267).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
113
A: Sarbasmisarab.14
Delicatianus, Capria, Volucer Nervicus… precor vos,
sancta nomina cadant homines et equi frangant. Sarbasmisarab…
(“Delicatianus, Capria, Volucer Nervicus [the names of horses]... I beg you,
holy names, may men fall and the horses break down.”) (see also 1.9.3.).
Rarely, the variants of this formula are found in the prayers for justice from
Britannia, namely the formula with the predicate of main clause in the 3rd
sg., as
e.g. in No. 275: Basilia donat in templum... (see 1.2. and 6.2.1.3.) or in No. 298
which probably imitates the official language (see Kropp, 2008a, 156). In some
cases, the goddess Sulis is both the addressee and the agent of subordinate
clause (see No. 247), or there is the predicate of main clause in the 3rd
sg.
act./pass. together with the predicate of subordinate clause also in the 3rd
sg./pl.,
whereas the deity is both the addressee and the agent of subordinate clause,
while the author as the agent of the predicate of main clause recedes (see No.
292 below).
No. 298 from Uley, dfx. 3.22/5, makes use of the predicate of committal:
Biccus dat Mercurio quidquid pe(r)d(id)it si vir si mascel, ne meiat, ne
cacet, ne loquatur, ne dormiat, n(e) vigilet nec s(al)utem nec sanitatem nis(i)
in templo Mercurii pertulerit… (“Biccus gives [over] to Mercury whatever
he lost, whether [the culprit is] man or male15
, may he be unable to urinate,
nor defecate, nor speak, nor sleep, nor wake, nor [have] vigor nor health,
until he brings [it] to the temple of Mercury...”) (see also 6.2.1.2.).
Compare also No. 247 with another predicate of committal:
A: Docilianus Bruceri deae sanctissimae Suli devoveo eum, qui caracallam
meam involaverit… uti eum dea Sulis maximo leto adigat nec ei somnum
permitat… (“Docilianus, [son] of Brucerus to the most holy goddess Sulis. I
curse him who has stolen my hooded cloak... that the goddess Sulis may
inflict death upon him and not allow him to sleep...”) (see 1.2.2. and 2.2.2.)
or No. 292 from Ratcliffe-on-Soar, dfx.3.19/1, too, with the predicate of
committal:
14
This is the magical word, the tablet is equipped with magical signs, as well. It
concerns the cursing of 26 horses and riders (see Appendix I).
15
Tomlin (1993, No. 4); this is a mistake of the writer, resp. a replacement of the
formulas commonly used in prayers for justice from Britannia si vir si femina and si
mascel si femina (see 1.6. and 1.10.2.).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
114
Donatur deo Iovi Optimo Maximo, ut exigat. (“It is commended to the god
Jupiter the Great and the Mightiest to exact...”) (see also 1.9.2.).
2.3.2 Formula 2a: Invoking Formula with the Predicates of Committal,
Request, Plea, and Cursing
This is the invoking formula which uses the predicates of request/plea like oro,
rogo, peto, precor, deprecor, obsecro, queror, mando, demando16
(these are the
most common, esp. in prayers for justice); or the predicates of committal like
do, mando, commendo, demando, trado, devoveo, desacrifico (these are less by
half than the predicates of request/plea, more frequently used in prayers for
justice, in which the predicate of complaint − conqueror − also appears; see No.
266 and No. 303 below, 1.10.2. and 1.9.2.); or the predicates of cursing like
ligo, colligo, implico, obligo (these are documented predominantly in curses,
esp. those coming from African provinces, and are very rare in prayers for
justice) in the 1st
sg. pres. The request is addressed to the mostly explicitly
stated deity or daemons, e.g. Nymphae, Orce pater, Proserpina, Dis inferis,
domina Isis, Cuigeu, Censeu, Cinbeu (see No. 165) with the name of victim in
the acc./nom. The predicate of purpose clause and introduced by
conjunction ut/ne is in the 2nd
sg./pl. The author appeals directly to the deity
who is both the addressee and the agent of author’s wish expressed in
subordinate clause, i.e. the agent of the predicate of subordinate clause, see No.
122: Rogo, commendo..., ut eam abducas... (see 1.10.1.). This formula is almost
exclusively included in the more complicated texts and is used 23 times in
curses (8.5%), and 42 times in prayers for justice (29%). It is found in the nonspecific
(see No. 1 and No. 64), legal (see No. 183), and agonistic context (see
No. 165) and is very well documented in prayers for justice (see No. 217, 1.2.1.,
No. 236, and No. 266). Whereas curses usually contain formula 2 rather than
formula 2a (in the rate of 2:1), formula 2a prevails over formula 2 in prayers for
justice in the same rate of 2:1. The frequent use of subordinate clause with the
predicate in the 2nd
sg./pl. in prayers for justice is related to the usual term of
address to the deity and the committal of thief or stolen property to gods.
See No. 1 with the predicates of committal:
Q(uintum) Letinium Lupum… hunc ego apud vostrum numen demando,
devoveo, desacrifico, uti vos Aquae ferventes, sive vos Nymphae…, uti vos
eum interimatis, interficiatis… (“I commend, devote, and sacrifice to your
16
The verbs mando and demando can either be the predicates of committal meaning “I
commend, entrust”, or the predicates of request meaning “I command, order, plead”.
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
115
power Quintus Letinius Lupus,... may you, boiling Waters, or you, the
Nymphs,... destroy him, and kill him...”) (see also 1.9.1.).
No. 64 with the predicate of request:
Tib(erium) Claudium Treverum, natione Germanum, lib(ertum) Claudii
Similis, rogo te domina Isis, ut illi profluvium mittas. (“...I ask you, Lady
Isis, to invoke bleeding/diarrhoea on Tiberius Claudius Treverus of German
origin, the freedman of Claudius Similis.”) (see also 9.1.1.).
No. 183 from Constantine, dfx.11.3.1/1 with the predicates of
committal/request:
…demando tibi, ut acceptu(m h)abeas (S)ilvanum quem… et custodias…
(de)mando, ut facias illum mortuum. Deponas eum ad Tartara… (“...I
commend to you [the daemon is addressed] to take Silvanus who...and... to
guard [him]... I order you to arrange for his death. Put him in Tartarean
regions...”).
No. 165 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/25 with the predicate of request:
Cuigeu, Censeu, Cinbeu… obsecro te, venias ad… et hos equos…
contrahas… et auferas ab eis nervos, vires, medullas, impetus, victorias…17
(“Cuigeu, Censeu, Cinbeu [the names of daemons], I conjure you to come
to...and to overthrow those horses...and to deprive them of muscles, strength,
entrails/marrow, run-up, victories...”).
No. 217 from Bolonia. dfx.2.2.1/1 with the predicate of request:
Isis Myrionyma… rogo domina, per maiestatem tuam, ut hoc furtum
reprehendas. (“Isis Myrionyma... I ask you, Lady, by your majesty, that you
punish this theft.”) (see also 1.2.1.).
17
The text is damaged, but daemons are invoked and there is a figure of a daemon on a
ship depicted on the tablet (see also 11.1.3.2.).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
116
No. 236 from Mainz, DTM 11 with the predicates of committal and request:
Mando et rogo religione, ut mandata exagatis Publium Cutium… (“I hand
over [to you], 18
and, observing all ritual form, ask that you require from
Publius Cutius ... the return of the goods entrusted...”) (see 1.4. and 1.10.2.)
and No. 266 from Bath, dfx.3.2/46 with the predicate of complaint:
…conqueror tibi Sulis, Arminia, (ut) Verecundinum Tarenti c(ons)umas, qui
argentiolos duos mihi levavit,19
no(n il)l(i p)ermittas nec sedere nec iacere
nec ambulare nec somn(um nec) sanitatem… (“[I] Arminia, complain to you,
Sulis, [so that] you kill Verecundinus, son of Tarentus, who has stolen two
silver coins from me. You are not to permit him to sit or lie, or to walk, or to
[have] sleep, or health...”) (see also 12.2.3.).
2.3.3 Formula 3: Imperative Invoking Formula with the Predicate in
Imperative
This formula uses the predicate in imperative/subjunctive and appeals directly
to gods ordering them how to treat the victim of the curse. The deities are
mostly explicitly stated, see e.g. No. 20: bona pulchra Proserpina, Plutonis
uxor; ca. in one third of all texts and most of the tablets coming from Africa the
authors appeal to daemons, see No. 132 below: Βαχα(χυχ), qui es in Egypto
magnus daemon. There are either the predicates of cursing like alligate,
obligate, defigite, or the predicates concerning the general actions related to
curses like retinete, cogite, facite/facias, interficite tere, contere, eripias,
necetis, occidas, tradas..., in prayers for justice vindicare (“to claim, avenge”)
and exigere (“to exact back”) are found. The imperative or subjunctive predicate
is further extended by an object in the accusative. Thus, it can be regarded an
equivalent of formula 1, see 2.2.1. above, No. 198: Tertia(m) Maria(m)
defigo..., and formula 1a, see 2.2.2. above, No. 27: di Manes... inimicos meos
commendo..., which differ from each other in the type of predicate, author’s
attitude and mood. This formula usually appears as a part of the more
complicated texts and combined with other formulae, it is found 72 times in
curses (ca. 16%), and only 7 times in prayers for justice (ca. 4%). The formula
is attested predominantly in curses, esp. those with the non-specific (see No. 5),
18
The names of the deity are not written in the tablet itself, but the author probably
addresses Attis and Mater Magna (the Great Mother), as the tablet has been found in
the depository of the shrine devoted to them.
19
There is revavit in the text, which is probably a mistake (see Appendix I).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
117
legal (see No. 116), love (see No. 182), and agonistic context (see No. 132).
The author directly orders gods and daemons what to do, only very rarely this
formula appears in prayers for justice (see also 2.3. and No. 276).
No. 5 from Bologna, dfx.1.1.2/3, reads: Porcellus, Porcellus mulomedicus…
interficite eum, occidite, enecate, praefocate Porcellum et Maurillam
uxorem ipsius… (“Porcellus, Porcellus the veterinarian... destroy him, kill,
slay, strangle Porcellus and his wife Maurilla...”).20
See also No. 116 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1./6: Domina (Te)rra(?)...mutos et
m(e)tu plenos facias… (“Lady Earth?, make them mute and filled of fear…”)
(see also 11.1.2.).
No. 182 from Thysdrus, dfx.11.2.2./1: retine mi(hi) Patelariam Minorem,
amor piger n(obis)… (“Hold Patelaria Minor for me, our love is
sluggish...”).21
No. 132: Βαχα(χυχ), qui es in Egypto magnus daemon, obliges, perobliges
Maurussum venatorem… (“Bachachuch, [you] who are the great Egyptian
daemon, bind and tie up Maurussus the hunter...”) (see also 11.1.3.1.).
and No. 276 from Bath, dfx.3.2/77: Seu gen(tili)s seu christianus,22
quicumque utrum vir, utrum mulier, utrum puer, utrum puella utrum servus
utrum liber mihi Anniano Matutene de bursa mea sex argenteos furaverit, tu
domina dea ab ipso perexi(g)e (eo)s… nec sic ipsi dona, sed ut sanguinem
suum (r)eputes23
qui mihi hoc inrogaverit.24
(“Whether pagan or Christian,
20
The text of the tablet is damaged (see Appendix I and esp. 7.3.1.5.).
21
See also Appendix I.
22
The tablet dates back to the 3rd
/4th
cent. AD and R. S. O. Tomlin (1994, 106)
assumes that its author was probably a Christian. Moreover, Tomlin (1988, 233)
argues that this is the first epigraphic evidence of the word christianus in Britannia.
23
R. S. O. Tomlin (1988, 232 ff.) adds (r)eputes meaning “to settle a debt, pay off”. H.
S. Versnel (1991, 89) and A. Kropp (2008, dfx.3.2/77) read epotes, i.e. “drink up!”;
if it is so, the goddess Sulis (not explicitly named, but the tablet was found in the
sacred spring in Bath) is to drink up culprit’s blood for punishment. No similar
expression is attested elsewhere, despite the popularity of blood as the means of
punishment in the texts from Britannia – sanguine suo solvat, redimat (see 1.2.3,
1.9.2., and 1.10.2.). The proper name Matutene is probably a metronymic.
24
The nominal list of suspected people follows: Postum(ianu?)s, Pisso, Locinna,
(Al)auna, Materna, Gunsula, C(an)didina, Eutychius, Peregrinus, Latinus,
Senicianus, Avitianus, Victor, Sco(tr)us, Aessicunia, Paltucca, Calliopis, Celerianus
(see Appendix II).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
118
whosoever, whether man or woman, whether boy or girl, whether slave or
free, has stolen from me, Annianus (son of) Matutina?, six silver coins from
my purse, you Lady Goddess, are to exact [them] from him ... and do not
give thus to him, but reckon as? the blood of him who has invoked this upon
me.”) (see also 1.7.).
2.3.4 Formula 3a: Extended Imperative Invoking Formula with the
Predicate in Imperative
This is the formula which uses the predicate in imperative/subjunctive and is
extended either by the subordinate clause with ut/ne, or by simple subjunctive
(ca. one seventh of formulae), rarely by a non-finite independent clause with the
accusative after the predicate coge (see also 2.3. and No. 124 below). The
formula is explicitly addressed to gods (see e.g. No. 20),25
especially to
daemons (this holds true for the two thirds of the texts, as well as for all tablets
coming from Africa, which use this formula): Iaō, Adōnai (see No. 161,
dfx.11.2.1/21); daemones infernales (see No. 171 below); Tu autem Abar
Barbarie Eloe Sabaoth Pachnouphy Pythipemi (see also 1.9.2., No. 148). The
formula uses either the predicates of cursing: perobligate, implicate and
especially alligate, obligate, gravate − this tricolon was a very popular formula
in agonistic context: it concerns the cursing of charioteers and racehorses and it
is attested only in the texts from Africa probably as a result of professional
magicians’ batch production (see No. 152-161, 11.1.3.2.); or the predicates
referring to the action of the curse esp. in agonistic, love, and legal contexts:
fac/faciatis, coge, urgue, perturba, occidite, frangite, tenete, detinete, premas,
deprimas. These predicates are extended, similarly to the formula 2 (see 2.3.1.
above), either by the subordinate t clause with the predicate in the 3rd
sg./pl.
pres. subj., or by simple subjunctive, while the action aims at an absent cursed
person who is at the same time the agent of the subordinate clause.
This type of formula appears almost exclusively in combination with other
formulae in the more complicated curses and it is documented mostly in African
provinces, further also in Italy, rarely in Hispania, Germania and Pannonia, as
well. It is mostly used within agonistic context, especially in curses aimed
against charioteers and racehorses (see No. 152 below, No. 143 and No. 171),
but also in non-specific curses, love spells (see No. 124) and legal curses (see
No. 38 below). Its occurrence in terms of curses and prayers for justice is
analogous to formula 3, it is found altogether 49 times in curses (ca. 17.5%) and
25
See also 2.3.3. above, this concerns a complicated curse which combines formulas 3
and 3a (see esp. 7.3.1.4.).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
119
only 7 times in prayers for justice (ca. 6%) (see No. 212 and No. 217 below,
1.2.1., as well as No. 276: nec sic ipsi dona sed ut sanguinem suum (r)eputes,26
2.3.3.). No. 152 reads:
Obligate et gravate equos veneti et russei, ne currere possint nec frenis
audire possint, nec se movere possint, sed cadant, frangant,
dis(f)rangantur… (“Bind up and oppress the horses of the blue and red
[teams], so that they cannot run nor obey the reins, nor be able to move, but
may they fall, break, [may their chariots] be smashed apart...”) (see also
1.1.2.2.2. and 11.1.3.2.).
Compare also No. 143: Deseces Ballincum Lolliorum de curru actum, ne
possit ante me venire et tu, quicumque es daemon… (“Cut down Ballincus,
[the charioteer] of Lolii, so that he falls down from his chariot, and cannot
outride me, and you, whatever daemon you are...”) (see 1.1.2.2.3.).
No. 171 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/3: …daemones infernales, obligate
illis equis pedes, ne currere possint, illis equis, quorum nomina hic scripta et
demandata habetis; obligate illos, ne currere possint crastinis et perendinis
circensibus… (“... Underworld daemons, bind up the hooves of those horses
may they be unable to run, of those horses whose names you have inscribed
and commended here; bind them up so that they cannot run in the circenses
held tomorrow nor the day after tomorrow...”) (see also 11.1.3.2.).
No. 124: …Bιβιριξι, qui es fortissimus daemon, urgue, coge illam27
venire ad
me amantem aestuantem amoris et desiderii mei causa… (“Bibirixi, you who
are the most powerful daemon, urge [her], make her come to me loving and
burning with love and desire for me...”) (see also 1.1.2.2.3.).
No. 38 from Este, dfx.1.7.2/1: Privatum Camidium, Q(uintus) Praesentius
Albus, Secunda uxor Praesenti… si quis inimicus, inimica, adversarius,
hostis, Orce pater, Proserpina cum tuo Plutone, tibi trado, ut mittas et
deprimas, tradito tuis canibus tricipitibus et bicipiti(bus), ut eri(piant)
capita, cogit(ata), cor… (“Privatus Camidius (in acc.), Quintus Praesentius
Albus, and Secunda, wife of Praesentius...if any [of them] is a foe, enemy,
and adversary, be it man or woman, oh, Father Orcus, [and] Proserpine with
your Pluto, I hand [them] over to you so that you throw down and suppress
26
The predicate of the subordinate clause is in the 2nd
sg. and is related directly to the
addressee (deity), see also No. 282 from Broomhill, dfx.3.5/1: …(ne ei) dimitte
(male)ficium, dum tu vindicas (see 12.2.3. and No. 217, 1.2.1.).
27
The name of the woman has not been preserved in the tablet (see 1.1.2.2.3.).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
120
[them], hand [them] over to your two- and three-headed dogs, may they tear
their heads off?, thoughts, heart...”)28
(see also 1.6. and 1.9.3.)
and No. 212 from Mariana, dfx.1.9.1/1: (Persequa?)ris eum, ut male
contabescat, usque dum morietur,… et illum persequaris, ne annum ducat…
(“Persecute him so that he languishes badly, until he is dead,... and persecute
him so that he does not live more than a year...”) (see also 7.5.).
2.3.5 Formula 4: Invoking Wish-Formula with the Predicate in the 3rd
sg./pl. Pres. Subj.
This is the wish-formula which uses the predicate in the 3rd
sg./pl. pres. subj., in
some cases introduced by conjunctions ut or sic, and expresses author’s
unaddressed wish concerning what should happen to the victim being the
subject of the predicate in the 3rd
person, without the author playing the role of
the agent. The addressee is not directly expressed or addressed as in the
previous formulae (see also Kropp, 2008a, 153). No. 35 reads:
Philocomus, Antiochus, Pharnaces, Sosus, Erato, Epidia tabescat, dominis
non placeat, item hi, quorum nomina hic sunt, perea(nt)… illorum dicta,
facta ad inferos… (“Philocomus, Antiochus, Pharnaces, Sosus, Erato,
Epidia, may they decay, may they fall into disgrace of their masters, and
may those, whose names are [inscribed] here, die... [I commend?] their
words and deeds to the infernal gods...”).
A direct reference to a god or some other agent of the curse in the 3rd
sg. is
found only very rarely (see No. 277 and No. 229 below). The formula uses
general predicates associated to the context and actions of the curse like
tabescat, obmutescant, sileat, amentita surgat; simple subjunctive is here and
then accentuated by ut − ut insaniat, or sometimes by sic: sic non possit loqui.
The curses made in agonistic context contain predicates like cadant, frangant,
rarely also the passive predicates like implicetur, obligetur; in love context
uratur, ardeat, obliviscatur, non possit dormire, etc. Prayers for justice,
especially those coming from Germania and Britannia, usually employ the
predicates related to revenge: Priscilla pereat (No. 228, see 10.2.1.), ut illas
vorent canes (No. 231), ut animam suam in templo deponat (No. 249), sanguine
28
The text of the tablet is damaged, completion eri(piant) seems to be the most logical
one, i.e. the author orders the Underworld gods to toss out his enemies to the dogs.
Not the victims of the curse, but the infernal dogs are the agents of subordinate
clause in this case.
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
121
suo solvat (No. 286) (see 12.2.2.). This type of formula appears more frequently
in the texts from Italy, here and then also from other European provinces and
Britannia, though half of these texts comes from Africa. It is found purely in the
more complicated curses in combination with other formulae, and is attested in
non-specific, agonistic curses − the cursing of gladiators (No. 134), charioteers
and racehorses (No. 157), love spells (No. 121), legal curses (No. 56 and No.
105), and in the curses related to rivalry in love (No. 51, No. 91, and No. 198).
It appears 50 times in curses (ca. 18%) and 31 times in prayers for justice (ca.
23%), see No. 230, 1.7.2.; No. 23, 1.9.2., 1.10.2., and 10.2.3.; No. 244, 1.2.; No.
260, 1.10.2.; and No. 277, 1.2.2., 2.2.1., and 1.9.2.
See No. 134 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/27: …Sapautulus currere non possit,
obligentur illi pedes, nervi… (“… may Sapautulus be unable to run, may his
feet, muscles... be tied up.”) (see 11.1.3.1.).
No. 157 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1./17: Naucelliu, Supe(r)stianu, Heliu,
Privatianu, Zenore, Castore, Aratore29
… cadant; Macedone, Atquesitore
cadant, Hellenicu Virgineu cadant, Comatu Indu cadant, Fariu Amatu
cadant, Ideu, Centauru cadant, frangant, disfrangantur ma(le) girent,
palma(m) vincere non (p)ossint, nec frenis audiant, cadant. (“Naucellius,
Superstianus, Helius, Privatianus, Zenor, Castor, Arator… may they fall,
Macedon, Atquesitor, may they fall, Hellenicus, Virgineus, may they fall,
Comatus, Indus, may they fall, Farius, Amatus, may they fall, Ideus,
Centaurus, may they fall, may they break, may [their chariots?] be smashed
apart, may they turn wrongly, may they be unable to win and get the palm of
victory, may they not react to the bridle, may they fall.”).
No. 121 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/13: Uratur Successa aduratur amo(re)
vel desideri(o) Successi. (“May Successa burn, may she be set on fire with
love and desire for Successus.”) (see 11.1.4.).
No. 56 from Córdoba, dfx.2.2.3/4: Priamus l(ibertus) mutus sit omnibus
modis. (“May Priamus the freedman be mute in all ways.”) (see 8.1.1.).
29
Most of the agonistic tablets from Africa including the long nominal lists of horses
and charioteers from the cursed team put the names of the cursed persons and horses in
the nominative, prevailingly omitting final –s. Therefore, some editors amend all
horses’ names in African defixiones to their nominative forms (Kropp 2008). However,
in the texts of ca. ten tablets (DT No. 275–284) from Hadrumetum, the names of horses
stand in the accusative, as third-declension names clearly show, e.g. Castore, Aratore
and others. See Herman (1987: 103ff) and Adams (2013: 249 ff.).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
122
No. 105 from Kempten, dfx.7.2/1: Mutae30
tacitae, ut mutus sit Quartus,
agitatus erret ut mus fugiens aut avis adversus basyliscum… (“Silent
Mutae,31
may Quartus be mute, may he stray around roused up like a mouse,
or a bird, fleeing from a basilisk...”).
No. 51 from Saguntum, dfx.2.1.3/1: Quintula cum Fortunali sit semel et
numquam. (“May Quintula never meet Fortunalis again.”).32
No. 91 from Mainz, dfx.5.1.5/4, DTM 15: Prima Aemilia Narcissi agat,
quidquid conabitur, quidquid aget omnia illi inversum sit, amentita surgat,
amentita suas res agat. Quidquid surget, omnia interversum surgat. Prima
Narcissi agat como haec carta nuncquam florescat, sic illa nuncquam
quicquam florescat.33
(“[Whatever] Aemilia Prima, [the lover?] of Narcissus
may do, whatever she attempts, whatever she does, let it all go wrong [lit.
may it be perverted]. May she get up [out of bed] out of her senses/mind,
may she go about her work out of her senses/mind. Whatever she strives
after, may her striving in all things be reversed. May this befall Prima, the
lover of Narcissus: just as this tablet shall never bloom, so she shall never
bloom in any way.”).34
No. 198 from London, dfx.3.14/1: Tertia(m) Maria(m) defigo et illius
vita(m) et mentem et memoriam et iocinera, pulmones… Sic non possit loqui,
quae secreta sint... (“I curse Tertia Maria and her life, and mind, and
memory, and liver, lungs...Thus may she be unable to tell the secrets...”) (see
also 1.9.1., 2.2.1., and 12.1.1.).
No. 249 from Bath, dfx.3.2/23: Si (qui)s vomerem Civilis involavit, ut
an(imam) suam in templo deponat… (“If anyone has stolen Civilis’
ploughshare [I ask] that he [the thief] lay down his soul [i.e. life] in the
temple…”) (see also 1.2. and 12.2.3.).
No. 277 from Bath, dfx.3.2/78: Execro (eum) qui involaverit, quod
Deomiorix de hospitio suo perdiderit, quicumque res deus illum inveniat,
30
Ov. Fast. II, 572 refers to the infernal goddess named Tacita, as well as the nymph
called Muta (Ibid., verse 538).
31
For the detailed commentary, see 10.1.2.
32
For the interpretation of this tablet, see Corell (1994, 281 ff.); see also 8.1.3.
33
For the interpretation, see Blänsdorf (2007/2008, 6). The text is written counterclockwise
(see also 6.2.1.1., compounds of the verb verto, and 10.1.2.).
34
Blänsdorf’s translation in Gordon − Simón (2009, 170); for the simile-formula, see
also Urbanová (2016, 333ff.).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
123
sanguine et vitae suae illud redimat. (“I curse [him] who has stolen, who has
robbed Deomiorix from his house. Whoever [stole his] property, the god is
to find him. Let him buy it back with [his] blood and his own life.”) (see also
1.2.2., 1.9.2., and 1.10.2.).
and No. 229 from Gross-Gerau: (H)umanum quis sustulit Verionis palliolum
sive res illius, qui illius minus fecit,… ut illius manus, caput, pedes, vermes,
cancer, vermitudo interet membra, medullas illius interet. (“The human who
stole Verio’s cloak or his things, who deprived him of his property,... may
the worms, cancer and maggots penetrate his/her hands, head, feet, as well as
his/her limbs and marrows.”) (see also 1.10.2.).
2.3.6 Formula 5: Simile-Formula, i.e. Analogy within Invoking Wish-
Formulae
This is the formula based on the analogy which is expressed by the wish that the
victim becomes similar to something s/he differs from, or that the victim
happens to be in a situation different from his/her recent condition (see 1.9.1.
and 1.9.3. above, No. 226). It uses the comparative clauses with conjunctions
quomodo − sic, ut/ita − sic. No. 17 reads:
Quomodo mortuos, qui istic sepultus est nec loqui nec sermonare potest, seic
Rhodine apud M(arcum) Licinium Faustum mortua sit nec loqui nec
sermonare possit… (“Just like this dead one, who is buried here, cannot
speak nor talk [to anyone], may Rhodine be dead for Marcus Licinius
Faustus, nor be able to speak or talk [to him]...”).
What is to happen to the victim is expressed by the wish-formula in the 3rd
sg./pl. subj.35
in the main clause introduced by sic (see formula 4 above, 2.3.5.).
The subordinate clause using indicative and introduced by quomodo formulates
what the victim of the curse should resemble. Simile-formulae, just like
figurines (see 1.8.1.), employ the so-called persuasive analogy, which, unlike
empirical analogy, does not anticipate future events by virtue of parallel events
observed, on the contrary, it tries to influence future events according to the predesigned
model. The persuasive analogy in terms of cursing ritual is intended to
transfer the desirable features of one object to another, while the objects
concerned possess differences, as well as similarities (see Tambiah, 1978, 275;
35
Mostly, pres. (or pf.) subj. is used, rarely also pres. ind. appears in main clause (see
No. 101 below). In relative clause, indicative is usually used, but sometimes also
subjunctive is found (see No. 91 and No. 25) and Urbanová (2016, 334ff.).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
124
Faraone, 1991, 8; Kropp, 2008a, 175 ff.). The subjunctive in main clause
expresses the wish that something is similar to something else, or that
something attains the features of something else, which is founded on a strong
belief in the power of some rituals or formulae. In the above mentioned case,
Rhodine is supposed to resemble the dead man with respect to the inability to
speak to Marcus Licinius, just like the dead one cannot speak anymore (see
Faraone, 1991, 8 ff.). This formula is not documented very often, it appears 26
times in curses (ca. 9%) and 20 times in prayers for justice (ca. 12%). The
curses which use this formula come from Africa, Italy, and Germania, rarely
also from other provinces, especially in the contexts related to lawsuits (see No.
118 below and No. 67 above, 1.10.1., and No. 76, 1.4., and 10.1.2.), and rivalry
in love (see No. 91 above, 2.3.5.): Prima Narcissi agat como haec carta
nuncquam florescat, sic illa nuncquam quicquam florescat; and No. 100, 1.7.1.
and 7.3.1.4.), as well as in the non-specific curses (see No. 25 below),
concerning the rivalry in circus (No. 140) and related to love spells. The
situation of prayers for justice is somwhat different, almost two thirds of the
texts using this formula come from Germania (see e.g. No. 231 above, 1.10.2.;
No. 235, 10.2.2.; No. 236, 1.10.2., 10.2.4.; and No. 234 below), rare pieces of
evidence have been found in Gallia (see No. 226, 1.4. and 9.2., 10.2.2. and
10.2.3.), Britannia (see No. 242 below), Pannonia (see No. 239, 1.10.2.,
6.2.1.3., and 1.7.1.), and Noricum (see No. 101 below).
No. 118 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/8: Claudia Helene, Clodia Successi,
Clodia Steretia, Clodius Fortunatus, Clodius Romanus… (quomodo) huic
gallo… lingua(m) vivo extorsi et defixi, sic inimicorum meorum linguas
adversus me obmutescant… (“Claudia of Helen, Clodia of Successus,
Clodius Fortunatus, Clodius Romanus [probably the names of freedmen]...
just like I ripped out and transfixed alive the tongue of this cock, may the
tongues of my enemies be equally struck mute against me...”).36
No. 25 from Rome (?), dfx.1.4.4/13: …Quomodo haec anima intus inclusa
tenetur et angustatur et non videt neque lumen, neque aliquem (refri)gerium
non (h)abet, si(c a)nima, (mentes, cor)pus Collecticii, quem peperit Agnella
teneatur, ard(eat), detabescat… (“...Just like this soul is enclosed inside,
imprisoned, and sees no light, nor has any recreation, may the soul, mind and
body of Collecticius, whom Agnella bore, be equally enclosed, may it burn,
and fall into decay...”) (see also 1.10.1.).
36
I state the edited text of Kropp (2008), see also Appendix I and 11.1.2.
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
125
No. 140 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/37, reads: A: Σεμεσειλαμ37
… q(omod)o
ped(es) (h)abes l(igat)os, sic et iis albis ligate pedes Alumno et Pyro,
Poliacre et Lascivio, obligate pedes… ut obruant. (“...just as your feet are
tied up, may you [in plural] bind the hooves of [the horses of white team?]38
Alumnus and Pyrus, bind up the hooves of Poliarcus and Lascivius… so that
they fall over”).39
See also No. 234 from Mainz: …Ita uti galli Bellonarive absciderunt
concideruntve se, sic illi abscissa sit fides, fama, faculitas. Nec illi in numero
hominum sunt, neque ille sit. Quomodi et ille mihi fraudem fecit sic illi,
sancta Mater Magna, et relegis cuncta. Ita uti arbor siccabit se in sancto, sic
et illi siccet fama fides fortuna faculitas. (“...Just like the priests of Mater
Magna [i.e. galli] and the priests of Bellona have castrated or cut
themselves, so may his good name, reputation, the ability to conduct his
affairs be cut away. Neither they are numbered among mankind, nor may he
be. Just like he deceived me, so may [you,] holy Mater Magna take
everything away from him. Just like the tree in the shrine will desiccate, so
may his reputation, good name, fortune, and the ability to conduct his affairs
do the same/wither.”) (see also 1.10.2.; and Blänsdorf, 2010, 170 ff).
No. 242 from Bath, dfx.3.2/1: Qui mihi VILBIAM (fibulam) involavit, sic
liquat40
com(odo) aqua…, qui eam involavit… Velvinna, Exsupereus,
Verianus, Severinus, Augustalis, Comitianus, Minianus, Catus, Germanilla,
Iovina. (“May he who has stolen the [brooch] from me become as liquid as
water ... who has stolen it… [a list of potential culprits follows].”) (see also
9.2.). This is the only evidence of the simile-formula used in Britannia;
And No. 101 from Mautern, dfx.6.1/1: Pluton, sive Iovem infernum dici
oportet, Aeracura Iuno inferna, acciete iam celerius infrascriptum et tradite
37
J. Tremel (2004, note 160) identifies this magical word with Hermes; J. Gager
(1992, 269) associates it with the Hebrew word meaning “sun” which is frequently
attested in PGM.
38
This place is interpreted according to J. Tremel (2004, No. 68, 179 f.) sic et iis albis,
in the tablet there is also a depiction of a demonic figure with hands tied to a cross
(see also 11.1.3.2.).
39
This is a rare example of the simile-formula used in combination with formula 3a
using imperative, not the usual wish-formula (formula 4).
40
Liquat – probably a misspelling instead of liquetur, liquatur, or liquescat (see
Tomlin, 1988, No. 4).
2. TYPOLOGY OF CURSING
126
Manibus41
Aurelium Sinnianum Caesarianum. Sic Silvia inversum maritum
cernis, quomodo nomen illius scriptum est. (“Pluto, or, if it is fitting to say
the infernal Jupiter, Aeracura, the infernal Iuno, summon the one written
below as fast as possible and hand over Aurelius Sinnianus Caesarianus to
Manes. May you, Silvia, see your husband upside-down, just like his name is
written.”)
This text contains a simile-formula combined with formula 3: acciete, tradite
Aurelium, while, at the same time, applies the magical use of script (see 1.7.).
The wife of the victim (Silvia), not the victim himself,42
is directly addressed,
which is a very rare phenomenon − in fact, the author probably aims his curse at
Silvia trying to cause her pain by the curse deadly afflicting her husband.
Most of the preserved texts of curses and prayers for justice include one of the
aforementioned types of formulae. However, various peculiarities and
modifications of these sometimes appear, mostly due to the non-professionals’
own invention (see 2.3.2. and 2.3.1. above).
41
Victim’s name (Aurelius Sinnianus Caesarianus) is inscribed in a right-to-left
direction and upside-down. The curse relates to the magical application of script (see
1.7.). Inversum means “the other way round, upside-down” and refers not only to the
way of inscribing the name of victim, but also to the persuasive analogy anticipating
that the victim will be “inverted” in a way, too. The committal of the victim to the
underworld ghosts (Dis Manibus), as well as to Pluto, probably means death, like in
No. 27: Di Manes, commendo, ut perdant/pereant, inimicos meos commendo (se
also 2.3.3. above; Faraone – Kropp 2010, 387 ff.; and esp. 10.1.1.).
42
See 10.1.1.
3. OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND DATING OF CURSING
FORMULAE IN PARTICULAR PROVINCES
3.1 CURSING FORMULAE IN CURSES AND PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
This analysis of cursing formulae includes 208 curses using altogether 443
formulae. 88 tablets contain either simple formulae (27), or nominal lists (61)
(see 2.1.); 104 tablets include combined formulae; while in the case of 16
tablets it is impossible to determine whether the formula used is simple or
combined.
Furthermore, I analyze 101 prayers for justice using 173 formulae. 71 of these
contain combined formulae, 12 include simple formulae, and in the case of 18
prayers for justice, formulae cannot be determined due to the damage of the
text.
3.1.1 Formula 0
The tablets including Formula 0, i.e. mere nominal lists of cursed people, while
each side of the tablet often contains a different list (see 2.1.1.), makes ca. 30%
of all tablets.1
This formula is attested 66 times in curses (ca. 15%); the oldest
evidence is documented from the 2nd
cent. BCE (No. 6 from Etruria), while the
tablets from Italy (No. 10) and Hispania (No. 46, 8.1.2., and No. 54) using this
formula date back to the 1st
cent. BCE. The amount of evidence gradually grows
from the turn of the 1st
cent. CE and culminates between the 1st
and the 3rd
cent.
CE, the most recent evidence being from the 5th
cent. CE from Britannia. The
nature of this formula mostly does not allow determining the context it was used
in; therefore, we usually speak of non-specific curses, in ca. ten cases it is
possible to guess the curse has been written in the legal context thanks to the
use of terms like inimicus or adversarius, the formula rarely appears also in the
agonistic context, e.g. the cursing of racehorses in No. 176 and No. 180), resp.
the love context in No. 142: Victoria, quam peperit suavulva, puella(rum
deliciae?) (“Victoria, daughter of NN, [the most beautiful of girls?]”).
Concerning the curses coming from Britannia, where this formula is represented
abundantly, the context can be assessed only in one case, namely No. 198 (see
2.3.5. and 12.1.1.) which could be connected to the rivalry in love. There are no
names of deities in this formula. It hardly ever occurs in prayers for justice, as
the character or context of the curse or prayer cannot be assumed on grounds of
a mere nominal list. Only in three cases, the texts contain supplements which
1
All numeral data pertain to the corpus of this work, if not stated otherwise.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
128
help us to estimate that the formula was used in prayer for justice, this makes
1.7% of all attested formulae (see e.g. No. 210, 2.1.1.).
3.1.2 Formula 1 in Curses
There are not many tablets containing Formula 1, i.e. the direct curse with the
predicate of cursing (type Tertia(m) Maria(m) defigo, see 2.2.1., No. 198). It is
used 15 times in 11 tablets, which makes 3% of all formulae used, mostly in
combined curses. It is found in the tablets from Italy (six), together with the lists
of body parts, see No. 11 (2.2.1. and 7.3.6.1.) and No. 12 (2.2.1., 1.1.2.1., and
7.3.1.2.), as well as from Britannia (six), see No. 198 (2.2.1. and 1.9.1.).
Besides, the texts of curses from Britannia use also the predicate of cursing in
pf. part. pass., see No. 199 from London, dfx.3.14/2: Titus Egnatius Tyrannus
defictus (= defixus) est et P(ublius) Cicereius Felix defictus est. (“Titus
Egnatius Tyrannus has been cursed and Publius Cicereius Felix has been
cursed.”) Formula 1 is documented from the 1st
cent. BCE from Italy (see No.
11 and No. 12), then from the first half of the 1st
cent. CE also from Italy (No.
14, see 1.6.), and from Britannia (No. 198, see 2.2.1., and No. 199). Other texts
date back to the 2nd
cent. CE; finally, the most recent evidence dates back to the
4th
/5th
cent. CE and comes from Gallia (No. 63, see 9.1.1.). Most frequently, the
non-specific curses are concerned (six), only No. 11 is classified as a legal
curse, and No. 26, 57, 104 (see 1.10.1.), and 198 can be, more or less reliably,
associated to the context of rivalry in love; see also No. 57 from Maar, dfx.
4.1.2/1: Art(um) ligo Dercomogni (filium) fututor Artus fututor. (“I bind [with
spells] Artus,2
[son] of Dercomognus, whoremonger, Artus is a
whoremonger.”). No deity is explicitly addressed or appealed to in most of
these texts, which is typical of the direct curse.
3.1.2.1 Formula 1 in Prayers for Justice
Formula 1, i.e. the direct curse with the predicate of cursing (type Execro (eum)
qui involaverit, see 2.2.1., No. 277), logically appears very rarely in the tablets
with prayers for justice, because this formula is inconsistent with the very
purpose of prayers for justice, i.e. to ask the deity for the compensation or
revenge for damage suffered, not to directly curse the culprit. It is found only
four times in four tablets (two from Gallia, two from Britannia), which makes
2% of all formulae used in prayers for justice analyzed in this work. See e.g.
No. 277 (1.2.2., 2.2.1.) and also No. 260 from Bath: Aenum meum qui levavit
2
See 9.1.3.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
129
exconfixus est.3
(“[The person] who has lifted my bronze vessel is utterly
accursed.”). The texts with this formula are relatively late − date back to the 3th
–5th
cent. CE. The use of brief Formula 1 with the predicate of cursing can
suggest that the text concerned is an attempt to curse the thief rather than a real
prayer for justice, even if the connection with a damage suffered is implied (see
also 1.2.).
3.1.3 Formula 1a in Curses
Formula 1a, i.e. the direct curse with the predicate of committal (type Di
Manes… inimicos meos commendo, see 2.2.1., No. 27), is attested altogether 24
times in 13 tablets, which makes 5.4% of all formulae used, mostly in combined
curses. This means that this formula is more frequent than the previous Formula
1. The tablets containing this formula mostly come from Italy (12) and
Germania (eight), only rarely from Hispania, Gallia, Britannia, and Africa. The
formula is documented as early as from the 1st
cent. BCE from Italy (six) and
Hispania, its occurrence slightly increases in the 1st
cent. CE, and there are four
pieces of evidence dated back to the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE, while the most recent one
comes from Gallia from the 4th
/5th
cent. CE (No. 62, see 9.1.1.). There is the
predominance of the non-specific curses (16, see e.g. No. 9, 2.2.2.), and the
legal curses (six, see e.g. No. 27, 2.2.2. and 7.3.2.), and one evidence of rivalry
in love also appears (see No. 29, 2.2.2.). This type of formula is documented
only once in a curse tablet from Britannia, whereas it is more often found in
prayers for justice in this province. There is one piece of evidence coming from
an African province, as well, which is probably caused by the fact that in this
area the more complicated curses were usually made by professionals. One of
the variants is used in almost half of the texts containing this formula, i.e. the
predicates of committal in passive and past tense (see 2.2.2. above). The texts
including such peculiarities come predominantly from Italy (see No. 31, 2.2.2.)
and Germania (see No. 82, 2.2.2. and 10.1.2.). A deity, to which the victim of
the curse is commended, is usually explicitly stated; this pertains most
frequently to Proserpine, Pluto, Cerberus, or a general address to the infernal
gods – Di inferi.
3.1.3.1 Formula 1a in Prayers for Justice
There are relatively few tablets with prayers for justice which contain Formula
1a, i.e. the direct curse with the predicate of committal (type (D)eae Dea(na)e
dono capitularem, see 2.2.2., No. 288) in Latin documentation, although this
3
See also 1.2., 1.10.2., and 12.2.3.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
130
formula appears more frequently than Formula 1 with the predicates of cursing
(see 3.1.2.1.). It si documented nine times in nine tablets, which makes 5% of
all formulae used in prayers for justice, mostly in combined curses. It occurs
mostly in tablets from Britannia (seven times in seven tablets), rarely also from
Germania (one) and Hispania (one); the largest amount of curses containing this
formula have been found in Italy. The prayers for justice using Formula 1a are
younger than the curses with this formula (six tablets from the 1st
cent. BCE);
the oldest evidence dates back to the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE and it comes from
Germania, while most of the texts from Britannia date back to the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
CE. This formula with the predicates of committal is usually accompanied by
the name of a deity to whom the author commends the thief or stolen things (see
No. 288, 2.2.2.), in some cases the predicate is in passive (see No. 269, 2.2.2.).
3.1.4 Formula 2 in Curses
There are altogether 45 tablets which contain Formula 2, i.e. invoking formula
with the predicates of committal, request, plea, cursing + ut + 3rd
sg./pl. pres.
subj. (type mando, ut tabescat, see 2.3.1., No. 30), mostly in combined curses.
Thus, it is the formula most common in curses − appears 90 times, which makes
20% of all formulae used. It is found in the curses coming from almost all
provinces (except for the curses coming from Noricum and Britannia, but it is
very frequent in prayers for justice from the latter province). Most frequently, it
occurs in the texts from Africa (31 times in 21 tablets), Italy (46 times in 12
tablets), and Germania (eight times in eight tablets); other occurrences are rare.
The formula is documented from the 2nd
cent. BC onwards (No. 33, see 1.10.1.),
later on its occurrence increases: there are six pieces of evidence from the 1st
cent. BCE (five from Italy and one from Hispania), some tablets from Italy and
Germania date also to the 1st
cent. CE, while altogether 19 pieces of evidence
predominantly found in Africa come from the 2nd
/3rd
cent. CE. It was used in all
types of curses, mostly in non-specific curses (14 tablets, see No. 30 and No.
32, 2.3.1.), in legal curses (11 tablets, see No. 70, 1.10.1., 2.3.1., and No. 181,
2.3.1.), in love spells (eight tablets, see No. 173, 2.3.1. and 11.1.4., and No. 143,
2.3.1. and 1.1.2.2.3.), as well as in agonistic context, esp. in the curses
associated with racehorses (six tablets, see No. 151, 2.3.1.). The names of
deities are usually stated together with this formula, most commonly those of
Pluto, Proserpine, and Cerberus. The tablets from African provinces usually
contain the names of daemons and magical words; only one sixth of the texts
does not contain any reference to a deity.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
131
3.1.4.1 Formula 2 in Prayers for Justice
There are altogether 21 prayers for justice which contain Formula 2, i.e.
invoking formula with the predicates of committal, request, plea, cursing + ut +
3rd
sg./pl. pres. subj. (type mando, ut tabescat, see 2.3.1.), mostly in combined
curses. The formula appears 21 times, which makes 12% of all formulae used in
prayers for justice, while roughly the same amount of the predicates of
committal and of request is used. The occurrence of Formula 2 in prayers for
justice is much lower than in curses, where this formula is attested most
frequently (see 3.1.4.). The highest number of texts comes from Britannia (15
times in 14 tablets), some rare pieces of evidence have been found in Hispania
(three times in two tablets), Italy (one), Gallia (one), and Germania (one). The
formula is attested from the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE onwards (one from Germania, one
from Italia, and one from Britannia), its use then slightly increases in the course
of the 3rd
/4th
cent. CE, esp. in Britannia (ten). The lower occurrence of this
formula when compared to Formula 2a, as well as to the occurrence of the same
formula in curses, is probably caused by the typical diction of prayers for
justice, which are addressed or appealed to a deity, which, at the same time,
becomes an agent of the predicate of relative clause. Some prayers for justice
include also variants of this formula (see 2.3.1.), i.e. a deity, not the
victim/culprit, is the agent of subordinate clause (see No. 247, 2.3.1.), or the
predicate of main clause is in the 3rd
sg. (see No. 246, 1.2.2.), resp. in passive
(see No. 292, 1.9.2. and 2.3.1.). The formula is usually accompanied by the
name of a deity to which the author appeals or commends his stolen
property/the culprit.
3.1.5 Formula 2a in Curses
There are altogether 17 tablets containing Formula 2a, i.e. invoking formula
with the predicates of committal, request, plea, cursing + ut + the 2nd
sg./pl.
pres. subj. (type demando tibi, ut acceptu(m h)abeas, see 2.3.2. and 5., No.
183), mostly in combined curses. The formula itself is attested 25 times in
curses, which makes 5.6% of all formulae used. Thus, this formula appears
almost four times less often than the previous Formula 2. Only the tablets
coming from Africa contain this formula in any larger extent (16 times in 10
tablets); besides, there are some rare pieces of evidence from Italy (twice in two
tablets), Hispania (twice in two tablets), Gallia, and Germania. Concerning the
tablets from Britannia, the formula is documented only in prayers for justice,
not in curses. It is attested from the 1st
cent. BCE onwards in Italy (one) and
Hispania (two), the largest amount of evidence dates back to the 2nd
/3rd
cent. CE
and comes from Africa; the most recent piece of evidence also comes from
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
132
Africa and dates back to the 3rd
/4th
cent. CE. The formula is used in non-specific
curses (six times, see No. 1 and No. 64 above, 1.9.3., 2.3.2., and 9.1.1.), in
agonistic context, esp. in the curses against racehorses (five times, see No. 165,
2.3.2. and 11.1.3.2.), and in legal curses (three times, see No. 183, 2.3.2. and
5.), rarely also in the cases of rivalry in love. It is prevailingly accompanied by
the names of deities, in the tablets from African provinces daemons are usually
addressed and magical words are used.
3.1.5.1 Formula 2a in Prayers for Justice
There are altogether 29 prayers for justice which contain Formula 2a, i.e.
invoking formula with the predicates of committal, request, plea, cursing + ut +
the 2nd
sg./pl. pres. subj. (type rogo, ut reprehendas, see 2.3.2., No. 217), mostly
in combined curses. The formula itself is attested 42 times, which makes 24%
of all formulae used in prayers for justice. This means that it is the most
frequent formula used in prayers for justice, while curses most often contain
Formula 2 (see 3.1.4 and 3.1.4.1.). Most often it is documented together with
the predicates of request like rogo and the predicates of plea like oro, precor, in
lesser extent also with the predicates of committal, while only once with defigo
(see No. 239, 1.10.2., 6.2.1.3.). The largest amount of the texts containing this
formula comes from Britannia (28 times in 19 tablets); however, it is interesting
that no extant curse from Britannia includes this formula; then there are several
pieces of evidence from Germania (five times in four tablets), and Hispania
(three times in three tablets), while there is one piece of evidence from Gallia,
Raetia, and Pannonia. The oldest prayer for justice with this formula dates back
to the 1st
cent. CE and comes from Hispania, in the next centuries the amount of
evidence slightly increases − four texts from Germania date back to the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE, the largest number of evidence (16) comes from the 2nd
/3rd
cent. CE
and comes predominantly from Britannia. This formula regularly appears in
connection with the names of deities, which are appealed to and commended the
stolen property or the culprit.
3.1.6 Formula 3 in Curses
There are altogether 36 tablets which contain Formula 3, i.e. imperative
invoking formula with the predicate in imperative/subjunctive (type trade morti
filium, see 2.3.3. and No. 18, 1.9.2.), almost exclusively in combined curses.
The formula itself is attested 72 times, which makes 16% of all formulae used;
the predicates are in subjunctive 14 times, the rest being in the 2nd
person
imperative. The formula appears most frequently in the texts from African
provinces (28 times in 16 tablets), further in the texts from Italy (32 times in 11
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
133
tablets), and rarely also in the texts from Gallia (three), Germania (four), Raetia
(one), Noricum (two), and Pannonia (two) there is no evidence of the formula
coming from Hispania and Britannia. The oldest tablets using this formula date
back to the 1st
cent. BCE and come from Italy (five); several pieces of evidence
coming from Germania and Noricum date back to the 1st
cent. CE, while there is
a slight increase in the amount of the evidence during the 2nd
cent. CE (five) and
especially in the course of the 1nd/3rd
cent. CE (nine), this concerns
predominantly the texts coming from African provinces. The most recent
evidence dates back to the 4th
/5th
cent. CE and comes from Italy (see No. 25,
1.10.1.). The formula is used in all types of curses, most abundantly in nonspecific
curses, mainly in those from Italy (12 times, see No. 5, 2.3.3. and
7.3.1.5.), further also in the context of rivalry in love in the tablets coming
especially from Italy (four times, see e.g. No. 25, 1.10.1.), in love spells esp.
from Africa (six times, see No. 124, 1.1.2.2.3., 2.3.3., and No. 182, 2.3.3.), in
legal curses again esp. from Africa (five times, see No. 116, 2.3.3., 11.1.2.), and
finally in agonistic context, exclusively in the tablets coming from African
provinces, i.e. the curses against gladiators, charioteers, and racehorses (eight
times, see No. 132, 2.3.3., 11.1.3.1.). It is usually accompanied by the names of
deities, resp. daemons and magical words in the case of the tablets coming from
African provinces. Formulae 3 and 3a are used predominantly in curses from
Italy and Africa, only to a very low extent are they found in prayers for justice
(the formula appears ten times more often in curses than in prayers for justice).
This is caused by the very character of prayers for justice which appealed to
gods in a polite and suppliant way, not directively.
3.1.6.1 Formula 3 in Prayers for Justice
There are only five tablets which contain Formula 3, i.e. imperative invoking
formula with predicate in imperative/subjunctive (type ut illum aut illam aversum
faciant di(i), see 2.3.3. and No. 230, 1.7.2.), mostly in combined curses.
The formula itself is attested seven times, mostly with imperative, once with
subjunctive, which makes only 4% of all formulae used in prayers for justice.
The tablets including this formula come from Italy, Hispania (see No. 215,
8.2.), Germania, and Britannia (twice, see No. 276, 2.3.3.), while the predicates
typical of prayers for justice like vindica, perexige are used. The texts date back
to the 1st
-4th
cent. CE. This formula, similarly to Formula 3a with imperative, is
inconsistent with the very purpose of prayers for justice, which is why it
appears so rarely (see also 2.3.3.).
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
134
3.1.7 Formula 3a in Curses
There are altogether 35 tablets which contain Formula 3a, i.e. imperative
invoking formula with the predicate in imperative/ subjunctive in the 2nd
sg./pl.
+ ut/ne + the 3rd
sg./pl. pres. subj. (type obligate et gravate equos, ne currere
possint…, see 2.3.4., No. 152), almost exclusively in combined curses. The
formula itself is attested 50 times, which makes only 11% of all formulae used
in curses. Even though it is found in almost the same amount of tablets as
simpler Formula 3 (see 2.3.3. and 3.1.6. above), its repeated occurrence is lower
than that of Formula 3. The predicates of main clause in imperative prevail,
subjunctive is found only in eight cases. This formula is most commonly found
in African provinces (35 times in 25 tablets), several times in Italy (12 times in
seven tablets), and rarely in the texts from Hispania and Gallia; it is not attested
in the tablets coming from Pannonia, Raetia, and Britannia. The oldest tablets
using this formula (seven) date back to the 1st
cent. BCE and come from Italy
(six, see e.g. No. 38, 2.3.4.) and Hispania (one). Some rare evidence then dates
back to the 1st
and 2nd
cent. CE; the highest amount of evidence (17) dates back
to the 2nd
/3rd
cent. CE and comes predominantly from African provinces; the
most recent evidence also comes from Africa and dates back to the 3rd
/4th
cent.
CE (see No. 132, 2.3.3., 11.1.3.1.). The formula is used in most types of curses,
most frequently in the agonistic context of the tablets from Africa − the curses
against charioteers and racehorses (12 times, see No. 152, No. 143, and No.
171, 2.3.4.), against rivals in circus (four times); but it appears also in love
spells (six times, see No. 124, 1.1.2.2.3.), in non-specific curses (ten times), and
in legal curses (three times, see No. 38, 2.3.4. and 7.3.1.6.). It is used mostly in
connection with the names of deities, resp. daemons and magical words in the
case of the tablets coming from African provinces.
3.1.7.1 Formula 3a in Prayers for Justice
There are altogether six tablets with prayers for justice which contain Formula
3a, i.e. imperative invoking formula with the predicate in
imperative/subjunctive in the 2nd
sg./pl. + ut/ne + the 3rd
sg./pl. pres. subj. (type
fac, ut… exitum illorum sit, see 2.3.4. and No. 237), always in combined curses.
The formula itself is attested seven times, which makes only 4% of all formulae
used in prayers for justice; the predicate in subjunctive is used only twice,
otherwise imperative and general predicates like fac, dimitte prevail. The texts
containing this formula have been found in Britannia (three times in three
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
135
tablets)4
(see No. 276, 2.3.3., No. 282, 1.6., 12.2.3., and No. 289, 6.1.), Italy
(see No. 212, 2.3.4.), Hispania (see No. 217, 1.2.1.), and Germania. The texts
concerned are documented from the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE (Germania), the later texts
from Britannia date back to the 3rd
/4th
and 4th
/5th
cent. CE. The names of
addressed deities are not stated in most of the cases. As already said above
(3.1.6.1.), the low occurrence of this formula in prayers for justice is probably
caused by its directiveness.
3.1.8 Formula 4 in Curses
There are altogether 36 tablets which contain Formula 4, i.e. invoking wishformula
with the predicate in the 3rd
sg./pl. pres. subj. (type Philocomus…
tabescat., see 2.3.5., No. 35). The formula itself is attested 50 times, which
makes 11% of all formulae used in curses. The amount of tablets with Formula
4 is more or less identical to the amount of tablets containing Formulae 3 (36)
and 3a (35). The largest number of evidence comes from African provinces (24
times in 17 tablets), several pieces of evidence also come from Italy (eight times
in seven tablets), and the formula is rarely found also in the texts from Hispania
(four times in three tablets), Germania (four times in three tablets), Britannia,
Pannonia, and Noricum. The formula is documented from the 1st
cent. BCE
onwards in the texts from Italy (five) and Hispania (one, see No. 56, 2.3.5.),
some pieces of evidence from Italy (one), Hispania (two), Britannia (one, see
No. 198, 2.3.5.), and Germania (two) date back to the 1st
cent. CE, while the
amount of evidence increases during the 2nd
/3rd
cent. CE, esp. in African
provinces (13); the most recent evidence dates back to the 3rd
/4th
cent. CE. It is
used in all types of curses, most often in agonistic context − the curses against
charioteers and racehorses (nine times, see No. 157, 2.3.5.) and rivals in circus
(three times, see No. 134, 11.1.3.1.); furthermore, it appears in non-specific
curses (ten times), in the context of rivalry in love (three times, see No. 51, No.
91, and No. 198, 2.3.5.), in love spells (three times, see No. 121, 2.3.5., 11.1.4.),
and in legal curses (five times, see No. 56 and No. 105, 2.3.5.). The formula is
only rarely accompanied by the names of deities; only approximately one sixth
of the texts explicitly refer to a deity.
3.1.8.1 Formula 4 in Prayers for Justice
There are altogether 23 tablets with prayers for justice which contain Formula
4, i.e. invoking wish-formula with the predicate in the 3rd
sg./pl. pres. subj. (type
4
The texts from Britannia containing this formula include also other conjunctions,
apart from ut, see No. 282 and No. 284, 12.2.2.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
136
Philocomus tabescat., see 2.3.5.). The formula is mostly found in combined
formulae and is attested 31 times, which makes 18% of all formulae used in
prayers for justice. Thus, it is the second most common formula in prayers for
justice, exceeded only by Formula 2a (41 usages). The largest amount of
evidence is found in the tablets from Britannia (20 times in 15 tablets), several
times it occurs in the texts from Germania (eight times in five tablets), here and
then also in the texts from Italy, Hispania, and Gallia. It is documented from the
1th
cent. CE onwards in the texts from Germania (one) and Hispania (one); later
on the number of evidence increases, three tablets from Germania date back to
the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE, six tablets from Britannia to the 2nd
/3rd
cent. CE, while most
of the texts from Britannia (nine) are from the 4th
cent. CE. Texts No. 277 and
No. 229 (see 2.3.5. and further references ibid.) include some variants of this
formula.
3.1.9 Simile-Formula − Formula 5 in Curses
There are altogether 18 tablets which contain Formula 5, i.e. invoking wishformula,
or simile-formula (type quomodo – sic, see 2.3.6.), almost exclusively
in combined curses. The formula itself is attested 26 times, which makes 6% of
all formulae used in curses. The amount of tablets using this formula is not very
high, and is comparable to the amount of tablets using Formula 2a (see 3.1.5.).
In a larger extent, it is found in the tablets coming from African provinces (nine
times in five tablets), it appears several times also in the tablets from Italy (six
times in four tablets), Germania (five times in four tablets), and Gallia (four
times in two tablets), only rarely in the texts from Raetia and Noricum; it is
documented neither in the tablets from Hispania, nor, in terms of curses, from
Britannia. It is documented from the 2nd
cent. BCE onwards in the texts from
Italy (once, see No. 33, 1.10.1), from the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE also in the tablets from
Germania (see No. 91, 2.3.6.), in larger extent it appears between the 2nd
and 3rd
cent. CE in African provinces; the most recent evidence dates back to the 4th
/5th
cent. CE (see No. 25 from Italy above). This formula is used mostly in legal
curses (six times, see No. 118, 2.3.6. and 11.1.2., No. 67, 1.10.1., and No. 76,
1.4. and 10.1.2.), in the context of rivalry in love (five times, see No. 91, 2.3.5.
and 2.3.6., and No. 100, 1.7.1. and 7.3.1.4.), in non-specific curses (twice, see
No. 25, 2.3.6.), in the context of rivalry in circus (twice, see No. 140, 2.3.6. and
11.1.3.2.), and in love spells. It is found in connection with the names of deities,
resp. daemons and magical words in the case of the tablets coming from African
provinces, while ca. one third of the texts does not appeal to any deity.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
137
3.1.9.1 Simile-Formula − Formula 5 in Prayers for Justice
There are altogether 11 tablets with prayers for justice which contain Formula 5,
i.e.simile-formula, (type quomodo – sic, see 2.3.6.), mostly in combination with
other formulae. The formula itself is attested 20 times, which makes 12% of all
formulae used in prayers for justice. Its occurrence in prayers for justice is
comparable to Formula 2 (see 2.3.1. and 3.1.4.1.) and the evidence comes
predominantly from Germania (16 times in seven tablets), here and then also
from Gallia, Raetia, Pannonia, and Britannia. The popularity of this formula in
Germania, whether we speak of curses or prayers for justice, is apparent (see
3.1.9. and No, 231, No. 235, No. 236, and No. 234, 2.3.6., 1.10.2. and 10.2.1.,
10.2.2., 10.2.4.). All texts coming from Germania date back to the 1st
/2nd
cent.
CE, the oldest evidence; however, comes from Gallia and dates back to the 1st
cent. CE (see No. 226, 1.4., 1.9.3., and 9.2.). The latest evidence comes from
Britannia from the 2nd
/3rd
cent. CE (see No. 242, 2.3.6. and 9.2.). This formula
usually appears in connection with the names of deities in prayers for justice.
3.2 CONCLUSION
The analysis of cursing formulae present in the corpus of curses (208 tablets,
443 formulae) and prayers for justice (101 tablets, 173 formulae) included in
this work has brought along some interesting facts. Simple curses with one
formula, mere nominal lists, as well as combined formulae are documented as
soon as in the 1st
cent. BCE. The two oldest pieces of evidence (No. 33 from
Pompeii, and No. 110 from Delos) date back even to the 2nd
cent. BC. This
suggests that simple and complicated formulae co-existed from the very
beginning of extant Latin production. Tablet No. 33 (1.10.1.) contains a
complicated curse with a Formula 2 and two simile-formulae; the tablet from
Delos, on the other hand, contains a mere nominal list of cursed people in legal
context. Such a parallel usage of different types of formulae appears in the
following centuries, too; therefore, no type of formula in the Latin production
can be considered older or later than another.
Prayers for justice are attested later than curses, from the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE,
predominantly in Hispania and Germania (see 1.3.). They hardly ever contain
the simplest Formula 0; however, there are some texts using simple formulae, as
well as combinations of various formulae. Similarly to curses, the more
complicated texts prevail in the extant corpus, in the case of prayers for justice
this dominance is even more striking − texts with combined formulae make
70% of all prayers for justice, in curses it is only 52%.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
138
Concerning the occurrence of particular cursing formulae in the provinces,
where a comparable amount of evidence has been found (see Chapter 1, Chart
2), i.e. if we take into consideration the documentation found in Italy (45
tablets), Germania (31), Africa Proconsularis (30), Africa Byzacena (43), and
Britannia (25), all types of formulae have been used only in Italy, where there is
the largest amount of extant formulae ever (141). Surprisingly, there is no
evidence of the use of Formula 1 in the tablets from Africa Proconsularis (77
formulae), Africa Byzacena (87 formula), and Germania (49 formulae). All
types of formulae (20) except for formula 3a have been attested even in Gallia,
where a relatively small amount of texts has been found (13). The difference
between the curses coming from Britannia (32 formulae) and those from other
Roman provinces is apparent at the first glance. The repertoire of formulae used
in the curses from Britannia is very poor as compared to other provinces −
Formula 0 (mere nominal list of people) prevails (21 times); besides, there are
Formula 1 (six times), Formula 1a (once), and Formula 4 (twice).5
It seems that
figurative and elaborate prayers for justice were the most popular genre of
magical texts in Britannia, while curses were of just a marginal concern;
although, it has to be said that the aims of their authors and damages supposed
to be done to the culprits very often remarkably resemble those expressed in the
curses from other Roman provinces.
Invoking formulae are most frequently used in curses, the committal/request
formula, i.e. Formula 2 − see No. 27: Di Manes commendo, ut pereant…
(“Gods Manes, I entrust [to your charge] may they perish...”) (see 2.3.1. and
3.1.4.); the most common formula (90 times in 45 tablets = 20% of formulae.
Thus, this formula can be regarded the most popular and universal one, as it has
been used in all types of curses.
The second most common formula in curses (attested 72 times in 36 tablets =
16% of all extant formulae), is the imperative invoking formula with
imperative/subjunctive, see No. 18:
…tene, contere, confringe et… trade morti, filium Asseles, Praesenticium
(“…take hold of, destroy, bring to naught and... commit to death
Praesenticius, son of Assela...”) and No. 115: … facias illos mutos…
(“...make them mute...”) (see 2.3.3. and 3.1.6.).
This formula has been used especially in Italy and African provinces, though it
is documented also in other provinces apart from Britannia.
5
In two cases the formula cannot be classified reliably into any of the categories.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
139
Formula 3a, i.e. imperative invoking formula with imperative/subjunctive
extended by a subordinate clause, has also been abundantly preserved (attested
50 times in 35 tablets = 11% of all formulae); see No. 114, which reads:
…alligate linguas horum,… ne adversus nos respondere (possint)... (“...bind
the tongues of those... so that they cannot testify against us...”) (see 2.3.4.
and 3.1.7.). This formula appears in all types of curses, most commonly in
Africa Byzacena.
Finally, the invoking Formula 4, i.e. wish-formula with subjunctive, is also
documented in all types of curses in all provinces, most copiously in Africa
(attested 50 times in 36 tablets = 11% of all formulae); see No. 35:
Philocomus… tabescat, dominis non placeat... (“May Philocomus decay,
may he displease the masters...”).
Formula 0, i.e. mere nominal list of people (see 2.1.1.), is another formula
attested in a large amount of tablets; attested 66 times in 61 tablets = 15% of all
formulae.
The distribution and occurrences of particular formulae partially tells us
something about erudition and attitudes of curses’ authors. The large amount of
extant formulae in Italy and African provinces probably indicates the existence
of professional magicians in these areas who made complicated curses to order.
This is obvious e.g. from the series of five tablets found near Porta Salaria in
Rome and dated back to the 1st
cent. BCE, which contains the highest number of
formulae used in one text (16) and the texts of which are basically identical to
each other, the only difference being in the name of cursed person (see No. 20-
24, dfx.1.4.4./8-12; see also 7.3.1.4. and tablet No. 132 from Carthage,
dfx.11.1.1/25 from the 3rd
/4th
cent. CE, which contains the curse against rivals
in circus with 14 formulae; see 11.1.3.1.). The addresses to daemons and the use
of magical words can also be attributed to the working of professional
magicians in African provinces and Italy, esp. when speaking of directive
Formulae 3 and 3a with imperative/subjunctive. With the help of these the
magician puts himself into a superior position over the invoked powers, see No.
130: (occi)dite, exterminate, vulnerate Gallicu(m)… (1.1.2.2.2. and 1.9.3.).
On the other hand, Formulae 2 and 2a possess a very different attitude towards
the supernatural powers; let us say a more cautious and less assertive one. By
Formula 2 (see 2.3.1.), i.e. formula with the predicates of plea/request,
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
140
committal6
in the 1st
sg./pl. and a clause with final value and the predicate in the
3rd
sg./pl.: see No. 27: Di Manes, commendo, ut pereant…, the author entrust his
matter to the charge of the gods, or pleads and asks the gods for the execution of
curse’s content specified in subordinate clause. The action of subordinate clause
aims at an absent cursed person, not the addressee of the curse, i.e. the gods.
Such formulae appear not only in the text made by the professionals in the field,
but also in the artless attempts at curse tablets. Formula 2a (see 2.3.2.), e.g. No.
122: Rogo, commendo..., ut eam abducas… (“I ask, commend [to you]... to take
her away...”), can be regarded the expression of a transient attitude of the author
between the committal/plea and directive Formulae 3 and 3a. The deity is
explicitly addressed and is both the addressee of the statement and the agent of
the content specified in subordinate clause. Such way of formulating one’s
wishes is less frequent in curses, it is found only in the curses from African
provinces, rarely from Italy, Hispania and Germania (see 3.1.5.), but it is the
most common formula in prayers for justice usually accompanied by a polite
term of address to a deity. Furthermore, formula 4, i.e. wish-formula (see
2.3.5.), is an expression of yet another attitude of the author − it is an
unaddressed wish that specifies what should happen to the victim who is the
subject of the 3rd
person predicate, while the author does not put himself into the
role of the agent, nor explicitly appeals to a deity. In such cases, the author
completely recedes and there is no addressee, only the names of victims of the
curse are explicitly stated; see No. 109: Paulina aversa sit a viris omnibus…
(“May Paulina be averted from all men...”) (see also Kropp, 2008a, 152;
10.1.3.).
Formula 1, i.e. direct curse with the predicates of cursing (see 2.2.1.) belongs to
the less frequent formulae (15 times in 11 tablets = 3% of all formulae) which
occur only in some provinces (6 times in Italy and Britannia, twice in Gallia,
and once in Raetia); see No. 198: Tertia(m) Maria(m) defigo… (“I curse Tertia
Maria...”). Unlike the previous Formula 4 with no explicit addressee appealed
to, in Formula 1 the author himself is the subject of the performative predicate
of cursing in the 1st
sg.; moreover, there is usually no explicit reference to a
deity; the author believes in the execution of the curse s/he himself uttered or
inscribed. This formula appears rather in the texts made by non-professionals.
Formula 1a, i.e. direct curse with the predicates of committal (see 2.2.2.), is
slightly more common (24 times in 13 tablets = 5% of all formulae), although it
is also documented only in some provinces (12 times in Italy, eight times in
6
In several cases, this formula is also used with the predicates of cursing, esp. ligo, in
the tablets from Africa, as well as from Italia.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
141
Germania, and once in Hispania, Gallia, Britannia, and Africa); see No. 9: Dii
inferi, vobis commendo illius membra… (“ Underworld gods, I commend to you
her limbs...”). It can be considered a pre-stage or a non-extended variant of
Formulae 2 and 2a, which are complemented with a clause with final value. In
this formula the author commends his victims to the explicitly stated gods;
however, many times it appears in different variants (see 2.2.2.).
Eventually, formula 5, i.e. simile-formula, is also one of the less frequent
formulae (26 times in 18 tablets = 6% of all formulae) and appears in all
provinces except for Britannia, Pannonia, and Raetia. This formula includes a
wish-formula imbedded into comparative clauses; thus, the attitude of the author
is basically identical to that of Formula 4.
Regarding the relation of cursing formulae to the types of curses, there is no
remarkable tendency in the use of a certain formula in a certain context. Simple,
brief Formulae 0, 1, and 1a are most frequently used in non-specific and legal
curses, in which the author settles for the nominal list of potential adversaries
and enemies. Formula 2 appears in a larger extent in non-specific curses, but its
use is basically universal, it is found in legal curses, in love spells, as well as in
agonistic context; the same holds true for the evidence of Formula 2a, except
for love spells. Similarly, Formula 3 is present in all types of curses, though it is
most frequently found in non-specific curses, love spells, legal curses, and
rivalry in circus and in love.
Two thirds of the evidence of Formula 3a come from African provinces, from
where we have all curses against charioteers and racehorses, as well as most of
love spells. This often concerns the series of curses made by professional
magicians with very similar, not to say identical, texts; the names of cursed
people or horses being the only thing which changes. Thus, this formula is
found predominantly in agonistic and love context; however, it appears also in
non-specific and legal curses. Generally, it can be aid that the directive
Formulae 3 and 3a are mostly represented in the texts from African provinces,
which is also associated with addressing of daemons (see above).
Furthermore, almost a half of the evidence of Formula 4 has been preserved in
African provinces, where it often appears in agonistic context, i.e. in the curses
against charioteers and racehorses, and combined with other formulae, esp.
Formula 3a. Here and then the formula is used in non-specific curses, as well as
other types of curses.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
142
Finally, Formula 5 is attested in all types of curses, mostly in legal curses and
the curses related to rivalry in love.
Neither gradual development of cursing practice in time, nor the use of a certain
formula in a certain time period, have been detected in Latin production of
curse tablets; on the contrary, the preserved texts suggest that various formulae
were used concurrently and were freely combined with each other. On the other
hand, a different tendency can be observed in the Greek production of curse
tablets, in which the oldest texts dated back to the 5th
/4th
cent. BC were the
simplest ones − they usually contained mere nominal lists of cursed people,
sometimes with the addition of the verb καταδεῖν or the names of gods (see
Gager, 1992, 5). Latin cursing tradition is documented ca. three centuries later
than the Greek one; although, it is very likely that in some areas of the Roman
Empire (esp. Italy) it had existed even earlier (see 7.2.). Therefore, Latin
defixiones date back to the time when the Greek-speaking world already used
all types of cursing formulae. Nor the intricate paths of the spreading of cursing
tradition throughout the large areas of the contemporary Latin-speaking world
can be regarded a crucial determinant of the usage of a particular formula,
though this tradition is the basis of not only the texts made by professional
magicians, but also of the texts of more or less educated non-professionals. It
seems that the choice of a particular formula was influenced rather by the
writer’s attitude, whether s/he was a professional or not, to the supernatural
powers s/he appealed to and to the whole cursing ritual, in general. The
committal of the whole matter to the gods, asking them for “help”, could appear
the most convenient solution to a non-professional who wished to recede into
the background.
The different attitudes of writers of curses and prayers for justice are to a certain
extent reflected also in the different application of particular formulae in the
aforementioned categories of texts.
Latin prayers for justice are not attested in all provinces and the amounts of
extant texts differ a lot territorially. The most plentiful documentation of this
genre has been found in Britannia (see 1.2.). This work contains altogether 94
texts from Britannia, out of which there are 69 prayers for justice.7
A substantial
number of texts has been preserved also in Germania (11 tablets, 36 formulae),
7
As already mentioned in the introductory chapter 1, for analysis purposes I was
compelled to exclude all fragmentary pieces of evidence in which at least three
observed criteria could not be assessed. New findings from Britannia are to be
published in Tomlin 2017.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
143
Hispania (seven tablets, 12 formulae), and Gallia (six tablets, ten formulae).
Only five tablets have been found in Italy, while we have a single piece of
evidence from Raetia, Pannonia, and Moesia. Surprisingly, no prayers for
justice have been found in African provinces, which are otherwise very rich in
curses; similarly, no prayers for justice from Noricum have been published up
to this day.8
Therefore, our knowledge of the formulae present in prayers for
justice is very much dependent on the evidence coming from Britannia
(altogether 100 formulae in 69 tablets), while in other provinces 73 formulae in
32 tablets have been preserved.
Prayers for justice most commonly contain invoking formulae, esp. Formula 2a,
which appears 42 times in 29 tablets (24% of all formulae used in prayers for
justice). Again, this formula is predominantly present in the prayers for justice
coming from Britannia (28 times), but it can be found also in other provinces
apart from Italy. Formula 2 which is the most common in curses is 10% less
frequent in prayers for justice than Formula 2a. The writers of prayers for
justice usually appeal to and directly address a deity, whereas the deity is at the
same time the agent of the predicate of subordinate clause: No. 217: Isis
Myrionyma... rogo domina, per maiestatem tuam, ut hoc furtum reprehendas.
(“Isis Myrionyma... I ask you, Lady, by your majesty, to punish this theft.”).
The belief in the legitimacy of writer’s request may have played its significant
role, too. Prayers for justice only very rarely contain the directive Formulae 3
and 3a, which have been abundantly preserved in the curses from African
provinces.
Formula 3 is documented seven times in five tablets, three times in Britannia,
twice in Germania, and once in Italy and Hispania; this makes 4% of all
formulae used. Similarly, another directive Formula 3a is found 7 times in 6
tablets in the same provinces and Britannia (three).
Only Formula 4, i.e. the invoking wish-formula, is somewhat more frequent
formula in prayers for justice; otherwise, it is very richly documented in curses.
It is found 31 times in 23 tablets, especially in the texts from Britannia (20
times) and Germania (eight times), some pieces of evidence appear also in Italy,
Hispania, and Gallia; overall, it makes 18% of all formulae used in prayers for
justice.
What is remarkable is a relatively high number of texts containing Formula 5,
i.e. simile-formula, it makes 12% of all formulae used in prayers for justice,
8
So far, only two curses have been published from this Roman province.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
144
which is twice as much as in curses. Surprisingly, this formula is most often
preserved in the texts from Germania (16 times in seven tablets), while single
pieces of evidence come from Gallia, Raetia, Pannonia, and Britannia.
Concerning curses, the formula is included to a larger extent in the tablets from
Italy, Africa, and Germania. The popularity of simile-formula in Germania
documented as early as in the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE proves the quick spreading of
Latin cursing tradition even in the marginal regions of the Roman Empire.
Formulae 1 and 1a are the most seldom of all formulae attested in prayers for
justice. Similarly to curses, the low frequency of Formula 1 (four times), i.e. the
direct curse with the predicates of cursing, is not a surprise; on the contrary, we
would expect its total absence in prayers for justice, as these are primarily
intended to ask the gods for help to achieve the returning of the stolen property,
or revenge on the culprit. The use of this formula directly with the predicate of
cursing in the 1st
sg. points either to an extreme emotional state of mind of the
author, or to a laic blending and mismatch of different formulae. Formula 1a
with the predicates of committal suits prayers for justice somewhat better, and
indeed it is documented more times than Formula 1 in prayers for justice,
especially in the texts coming from Britannia (seven times in six tablets),
individually also in the texts from Hispania and Germania; overall, it is found
nine times in nine texts, which makes 5% of all formulae used in prayers for
justice.
Formula 0 is found very rarely in prayers for justice − twice in Italy and once in
Germany (see 3.1.1. above).
Thus, the low occurrence of Formulae 3 and 3a with imperative/subjunctive in
prayers for justice can be regarded the most significant difference between the
use of formulae in curses and prayers for justice. This is caused by the fact that
this formula does not suit the author’s attitude typical of prayers for justice, i.e.
the polite and suppliant address to the gods. On the other hand, the abundant
evidence of this formula in the curses from Italy and African provinces reflects
the activity of professional magicians in these regions, whose complicated texts
are often, and in African provinces almost exclusively, addressed to the
daemons which are commanded what to do as the inferior ones. Another
remarkable phenomenon is an inverse ratio of the use of invoking Formulae 2
and 2a − Formula 2 is most often used in curses, while the subject of the
predicate of subordinate clause is an absent victim; on the other hand, Formula
2a is mostly found in prayers for justice. This divergence can again be assigned
to a different attitude of prayer for justice, in which the writer appeals directly
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
145
to a deity which is both the addressee of the prayers and the subject of the
predicate of subordinate clause. No. 266 reads:
…conqueror tibi Sulis, Arminia, (ut) Verecundinum Tarenti c(ons)umas, qui
argentiolos duos mihi levavit… (“[I] Arminia, complain to you, Sulis, [so
that] you kill Verecundinus, son of Tarentus, who has stolen two silver coins
from me.”).
The belief in the rightfulness of such prayer could also play a significant role in
this context (see above and 12.2.3.).
The frequent use of Formula 5 in the prayers for justice from Germania is
probably a reflection of its local popularity, as it is only very rarely documented
in other Roman provinces. Conversely, both curses and prayers for justice very
often contain Formula 4, i.e. the invoking wish-formula, in the case of prayers
for justice the number of its occurrences is even higher than in curses. This is
probably due to the fact that this formula lacks any explicit addressee, whereas
the author expresses just an anonymous wish what should happen to the victim
who is the subject of the predicate in the 3rd
person. The formula is found
especially in prayers for justice, whenever the writer does not attempt at the
returning of the stolen things, but asks only for revenge on the culprit, often in
the form of death. In such cases the use of formula 4 is as well-founded in
prayers for justice as in curses.
3.3. OTHER ADDITIONAL FORMULAE
As already stated (see 1.9.2.), curses and prayers for justice sometimes contain
further elaborate additional formulae. This concerns mostly time data and votive
formulae, rarely also menacing and warning formulae.
3.3.1 Time Data in Curses
Altogether 39 tablets (19% of all curses), mostly from African provinces (ten in
Africa Proconsularis; 18 in Africa Byzacena), but also from Italy (eight), rarely
from Germania (two), and Raetia (one), use formulae containing time data.
Many of these texts were probably made by professional magicians, which is
true for most of the tablets found in African provinces (these are addressed to
the daemons and use also other magical elements like voces magicae, signa
magica, etc.) (see 1.7.1. and 1.7.2. above), as well as for some tablets coming
from Italy (No. 20-24, see 7.3.1.4.). Unlike the tablets from Italy and Germania
which contain non-specific curses, the use of time formulae in the tablets from
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
146
African provinces is dependent on the type of curse. The above mentioned
tablets No. 20-24 from Rome contain a time formula:
a) referring to the cursing itself: Plotius is supposed to be afflicted by fever until
he dies in No. 20:
Tradas illum febri quartanae, tertianae, cottidianae, quae cum illo luctentur,
deluctentur illum evincant, vincant, usque dum animam eius eripiant…
Expose him [Plotius] to quartan, tertian, quotidian fever, may these struggle
and wrestle with him, may they knock him down and defeat him, up until
they rip his soul out...”).
b) associated with a votive formula expressing until when the deity is supposed
to fulfil writer’s wish, as read ibid.: hoc si perfecerit [Cereberos] ante mensem
Martium (see also 3.3.2. below and 7.3.1.4.).
Furthermore, the tablets from Italy and Germania often use a time formula
specifying, until when the deity is supposed to execute the curse, see No. 1:
…uti vos eum interimatis, interficiatis intra annum istum. (“...may you... destroy
him, and kill him in the course of this year.”) (see 1.9.1.). Tablet No. 18 from
Rome includes a formula stating precisely since when the curse comes into
force:
…ab hac hora, ab hoc die, ab hac nocte… tene, contere, confringe et… trade
morti, filium Asseles... (“...from this hour on, from this day on, from this
night on... take hold of, destroy, bring to naught and... commit to death
Praesenticius, son of Assela...”) (see 1.9.2.).
The time date included in the tablets from African provinces reflect the author’s
wish in connection with the type of curse. In love spells, especially those from
Africa Byzacena, the writer cannot wait to see his wish fulfilled; thus, he mostly
specifies since when the spell, or the restrictions related to it, is supposed to
work as in the cited No. 18. Most of love spells contain this formula, like No.
144:
...ut amet me Fe(licem), quem peperit Fructa, ex hac die ex h(ac ora) (see
5.1.4.) (“...may she love me, Felix, whom Fructa bore, from this day on,
from this hour on”) and No. 148:
…ex qua hora hoc composuero, non dormiat Sextilius… (“...from the
moment I put this tablet [into the grave], may Sextilius not sleep...”) (see
1.9.2.).
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
147
Besides, love spells usually contain another time formula referring to the lasting
of restrictions supposed to torment the victim until the author’s wish is fulfilled,
see No. 143: neque somnum videat, donec ad me veniat… (“...may she not sleep
until she comes to me...”) (see 1.1.2.2.3.), or No. 124:
Καταξιν, qui es Aegupto magnus daemon… et aufer illae somnum usquedum
veniat ad me… et animo meo satisfaciat…(“Kataxin, the great daemon of
Egypt… and take sleep away from her until she comes to me… and satisfies
me.”) (see 1.1.2.2.3.).
The time formula since when – ex hac hora... – is found also in the curses
aimed against charioteers and racehorses in connection with the forthcoming
races, see No. 162 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/22:
B: Adiuro te daemon, quicumque es et demando tibi, ex (h)anc (h)ora ex
(h)anc die ex (h)oc momento, ut equos prasini et albi crucies, occidas, et
agitatores Clarum et Felicem et Primulum et Romanum occidas… (“I adjure
you, daemon, whoever you are, and I command you, from this hour on, from
this day on, from this moment on, to torment and kill the horses of the green
and white [teams], to kill, and to kill Clarus, Felix, Primulus, and Romanus,
the charioteers...”). This formula repeatedly appears in all agonistic curses
from this provinces, except for No. 171, in which it is precisely said when
the races take place, i.e. when the curse is supposed to work:
…obligate illos, ne currere possint crastinis et perendinis circensibus…
(“...bind them up so that they cannot run in the circenses held tomorrow nor
the day after tomorrow...”) (see also 2.3.4. and 11.1.3.2.).
Moreover, there is another time datum in this curse − the writer wants the curse
to work as soon as possible: iam, iam, cito, cito. These words are transposed
from Greek terms ἤδη, ἤδη, ταχύ, ταχύ (see also No. 130 above, 1.1.2.2.2.,
11.1.3.1., and No. 131, 1.10.1.) and are found predominantly in the texts aimed
against gladiators together with the information on the date of circenses –
when, see No.. 131: …pri(di)e idus Ianuarias sive idus, age age, iam iam,
cito… ἤδη, ταχύ, (see 1.10.1.), or No. 135, which reads:
...ut ursos ligare non possit, omnem ursum perdat, omnem ursum Vincentius
non occidere possit in die Mercurii in omni ora, iam iam, cito cito facite…
(“...so that he is unable to tie up bears, may he lose with every bear, may
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
148
Vincentius be unable to kill any bear on Wednesday at any hour, now, now,
quickly, quickly, make it happen.”).9
Or in the case of No. 132, there is another specification, until when the curse
should start working:
…perducas [Maurussum venatorem] ad domus tartareas intra dies
septe(m)... (“...lead [Maurussus the hunter] to the infernal redions within
seven days...”).10
The formula iam, iam, cito, cito only rarely appears in love spells, e.g. in No.
125: … iam, iam (veniat) (see 5.1.4. and 11.1.4. below), and in legal curses
from the same province, see No. 123 (Appendix I).
To conclude, the time formulae meaning until when, i.e. until when the deity is
supposed to execute the curse (see e.g. No. 1: intra annum istum), appear
especially in the tablets from Italy and Germania (11), particularly in
combination with a votive formula in non-specific curses, in which the author
wishes death for the victim, while the time formulae meaning since when
prevail in African provinces (19 tablets = 49% of the curses containing a time
formula), especially in Africa Byzacena (e.g. ex hac hora...), while somewhat
different customs are attested in the curses against gladiators from Carthage
−the time formulae meaning when, until when, and formula iam, iam, cito, cito
are usually found in the curses against gladiators from Carthage. These subtle
differences can be assigned to the various customs of local workshops of
professional magicians.
3.3.1.1 Time Data in Prayers for Justice
Time data occur in 20 prayers for justice, which makes almost 20% of all extant
texts, and are attested in the tablets from Britannia (14), Germania (four), Italy
(one), and Pannonia (one).
These are predominantly various variants of the formula meaning until which
refer to the lasting of a restriction for the culprit (similar to love spells), i.e the
restriction lasts until the thief returns the stolen things (see 3.3.1. and 6.2.1.2.).
See, for instance, No. 247 from Bath:
9
See also 1.9.2. and esp. 11.1.3.1.
10
See also 2.3.3., 5.1.1., and esp. 11.1.3.1.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
149
…nec ei somnum permitat, nec natos nec nascentes, donec caracallam meam
ad templum sui numinis pertulerit. (“...and do not allow him to sleep or [to
have] children now and in the future, until he has brought my hooded cloak
to the temple of her divinity.”).
See also No. 289 from Lydney Park: …nolis permittas sanitatem, donec
perferat usque templum (No)dentis. (“Do not let... be healthy until he brings
[it] back to the temple of Nodens.”) (see 3.3.2. above).
or No. 265 from Bath, dfx.3.2/44: ...(ne perm)ittas (somn)um nec sanita(tem
n)isi tamdiu…quamdiu hoc (ill)ud/apud(?) se habuerit, si vir si femina et…
si ancilla. (“ ...you are [not] to permit [him/her sleep] or health except for as
long as... until s/he has it [along], whether man or woman, and... or
maid/slave woman.”) (see also 6.2.1.2.).
In the texts coming from Britannia, a modification of this formula appears using
ante and nisi. Apart from the usual connotations of the conjunction nisi “if not,
unless” (condition) and non nisi “except” (false concessive clause), nisi has
another semantic nuance here − it combines a condition with time data: non
ante nisi = “unless/not until”, as in the combination with quando: nisi quando.
The phrase nec ante nisi is closely related to the constructions using donec: see
No. 295 from Uley:
…ut nec ante sanitatem habeant, nisi repraesentaverint mihi iumentum, quod
rapuerunt… (“...so that they may have neither health before/unless they
return to me at once the draught animal which they have stolen...”) (see
1.2.2. and also No. 303, 1.10.2.).
Further, No. 241 from Aylesford, dfx.3.1.1, reads:
…nec ante sanitatem nec salutem (habeat?) nisi quam in domo dei
(pertulerit?)… (“...and may he [the unknown culprit(s)] not be healthy nor
safe before unless [he brings them] to the house of God.”) (see also 12.2.2.).
Here, conjunctions antequam and nisi are blended together (see also No.
258, 6.2.1.2.).
Another variant occurs in No 261 from Bath, dfx.3.2/37:
A: Deae Suli… is, qui… B: si servus si liber si quicumque… erit… non illi
permittas nec oculos nec sanitatem, nisi caecitatem orbitatemque, quoad
vixerit, nisi haec ad fanum… (pertulerit?). (“To the Goddess Sulis... whether
slave or free, [if] whoever he shall be...you are not to permit him eyes or
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
150
health unless blindness and childlessnes so long as he shall live, unless [he]
these to the temple...”).
Moreover, there are time formulae which express until when the culprit is
supposed to return the stolen things at god’s bidding. See, for instance, No. 235,
DTM 7 from Germania:
Quisquis nobis sustulit sacc(u)lum, in quo pecunia erat et eam pecuniam et
anulos aureos (referat)… quod des(ti)natum est XI K(alendas) Febr(uarias),
q(uae) p(roximae) s(unt)... (“Whoever has stolen from us the purse
containing money, and those money and golden rings... [may he return
them]... which is designated on the eleventh day before the following
Kalends of February...”)11
(see also 6.1.).
The writer of tablet No. 239 from Pannonia wishes that some Eudemus return a
stolen vessel in nine days: infra dies novem vasum reponat (see 1.10.2. and
10.2.2.). This kind of formula is documented also in Britannia in tablet No. 270:
...ut ante dies novem… in suo rostro defer(at)…, here the culprit is supposed to
bring the things back in nine days in his “beak” (see 1.10.2. and 6.2.1.3.).
Conversely, in tablet No. 282, the deity is supposed to punish the culprit in nine
days: dum tu vindicas ante dies novem (see 12.2.3.). See also No. 287:
Te rogo Neptunus,12
ut tu me vindicas ante q(u)od (= quam) veniant dies
novem (“I ask you, Neptunus, to avenge me before nine days come...”) (see
also 12.2.3.).
Tablet No. 290 from Marlborough Downs, dfx.3.16/1 even contains a nine-year
punishment for the culprit:
Do deo Marti… id est… equuleum13
meum et secur(im)… illum iume(ntum).
Rogat genium14
tuum, dom(ine), ut quampr(imu)m re(sideant?) nec eant per
annos novem. N(on eis) permittas nec sedere nec…(“I give to the god Mars...
11
For the interpretation, see Blänsdorf (2010, 175 ff.) and esp. Blänsdorf (2012, No.
7).
12
The tablet reads Tibi rogo Metunus (see 12.2.3.), an edited text is stated here.
13
The text reads eculium “small” or “young horse” and, with respect to the following
iume(ntum), this interpretation seems more suitable than peculium, which suggests
itself first (see Tomlin – Hassall, 1999, 378). The text is damaged to a large extent,
the writer appeals to the deity in the 3rd
sg.
14
Genium tuum is probably a mixture of per genium tuum and tuam maiestatem rogo,
the latter phrase being common in prayers for justice (see Tomlin 1999, 378).
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
151
it is... my foal and axe... that livestock. He asks your Genius, Lord, that they
[mount/stop?], as soon as possible and o not go for nine years. Do not allow
them to sit nor...”).
Number nine is probably associated with the Roman week called nundinum;
apart from that, it is also a magical number (see Egger, 1962, 87; Tomlin, 1988,
No. 62). But it does not appear in curses, in tablet No. 132 (see above) the curse
is supposed to start working in seven days.
The tablets from Italy, Germania, Pannonia, and rarely also Britannia (see
above, No. 287) contain the formula until when which refers to a deity, as it
does in curses (se 3.3.1.), i.e. until when the deity is supposed to punish the
culprit, whereas the author of the prayer for justice explicitly attempts both at
the returning of the stolen property and at the punishment of the culprit. See e.g.
No. 212: … illum persequaris, ne annum ducat (“...persecute him so that he
does not live more than a year...”) (see 2.3.4.), and No. 228:
Priscilla pereat. Per Matrem Deum intra dies C, cito vindicate numen
vestrum magnum… (“May Priscilla die. By Mother of the Gods, in 100 days,
quickly, avenge your huge divine power...”) (see 10.2.1.).
See also another tablet from Mainz No. 234:
Tibi commendo Attihi domine, ut me vindices ab eo, ut intra annum
vertente(m)… exitum illius vilem malum. (“...I commend to you to you, Lord
Atthis, that you take vengeance on him for me, so that by the end of the year
(he may suffer) a horrible bad death.”) (see 1.10.2. and 10.2.1.).
Unlike curses, which contain a great variety of different time formulae − when,
since when, until when, now, quickly (also in combination with votive
formula), which are addressed to the deity and specifying the time when the
curse is supposed to take effect, in prayers for justice only time formulae until
when and unless/if not usually occur and these are related either to the deity
(until when s/he is supposed to punish the culprit), or both to the culprit and the
deity (until when the stolen things should be returned through the god’s
intervention).
The time data in curses referring to the victim and the restrictions s/he is
supposed to be afflicted with (e.g. inability to sleep until the wish of the writer
is fulfilled) are very seldom. The formula not until, which is closely related to
conditional clauses, is used exclusively in love spells; however, it is also the
most common time formula in prayers for justice. The prayers for justice
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
152
coming from the European provinces sometimes contain the time data referring
to until when the deity is supposed to punish the culprit. Only once, in the
tbalet No. 239 from Pannonia, the specification typical of prayers for justice
appears, namely until when the culprit is supposed to return the stolen thing.
3.3.2 Vota
Curses and prayers for justice may further contain a votive formula by which
the promise of reward is made to a deity for the execution of one’s wish. Votive
formula appears relatively rarely in curses (in 9 tablets = 4% of all curses) and it
is found only in tablets coming from Italy (six), Hispania (two), and Germania
(one); there is no evidence of vota preserved in other Roman provinces. Often
they are used in combination with time data, i.e. until when the deity is
supposed to execute author’s wish (see above), and are found predominantly in
non-specific curses which are intended to invoke disease or death on their
victims. See, for instance, No. 20:
…Quare hanc victimam tibi trado Proserpina, sive me Proserpina sive
Acherusiam dicere oportet. Mihi mittas arcessitum canem tricipitem, qui
Ploti cor eripiat. Pollicearis illi te daturum tres victimas: palmas, caricas,
porcum nigrum, hoc si perfecerit ante mensem Martium, haec Proserpina
Salvia tibi dabo, cum compotem feceris. (That is why I hand over to you this
offering, Proserpine, whether I should call you Proserpine or Acherusia.
Summon and send me the three-headed dog that would tear out Plotius’
heart. Promise him that he will be given three offerings: dates, figs, and a
black pig, if he does so until March, I will give this to you, Proserpine
Salvia, if you fulfil my wish.”)15
or No. 52: …et sei faciatis, votum, quod facio, solvam vostris meritis.
(“…and if you do [this], I will honour the promise I make [here] rightly.”)
(for the typical votive formula votum solva(m) vostris meritis, see also 1.9.2.
and 8.1.1.).
This formula is even rarer in prayers for justice; it is documented only twice,
once in tablet No. 232 from Germania, and once in tablet No. 220 from
Hispania, which reads:
Domine Megare16
Invicte, tu qui Attidis corpus accepisti, accipias corpus
eius, qui meas sarcinas sustulit, qui me compilavit, de domo Hispani. Illius
15
See also Versnel (1976, 399 ff.), and the whole text with a commentary in 7.3.1.4.
16
See esp. Tomlin (2010, 261 ff.) and 8.2.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
153
corpus tibi et animam do, dono, ut meas res invenia(m). Tunc tibi hostiam
quadripedem do(mi)ne, Attis, voveo, si eum furem invenero, domine Attis, te
rogo per tuum Nocturnum, ut me quam primum compotem facias.17
(“Unconquered Lord Megarus, you who received the body of Attis, may you
receive the body of him who robbed me from the house of Hispanus. I give
and donate his body and soul to you, that I may find my property. I then
promise you a four-footed sacrifice, Lord Attis, if I find that thief. Lord Attis
I ask you through your Nocturnus, to make me master of it as soon as
possible.”). The tablet makes use of a historiola, as well (see 1.9.2.).
Concerning the taxonomy of prayers for justice, H. S. Versnel (2010, 343 ff.)
presents a hypothesis that votum should be more common in prayers for justice
than in curses, as they are more closely related to vows than to “magical”
curses. However, this idea did not prove right. Prayers for justice cannot be
classified as a sub-category of vota, rather they can be regarded a sort of actions
at law. Nevertheless, the methods of the writers of prayers for justice do not
point at future as votive inscriptions do, and there are also other differences
between the two (see Versnel, 2010, 352; see also 1.11.).
Prayers for justice usually include a different practice, not the common votive
formula (see above). See, for instance, No. 296:
Deo s(upra)dicto tertiam partem donat ita, ut exsigat istas res, quae
s(upra)s(crip)tae sunt,… quae per(didi)t. (“She gives a third part to the
aforesaid god on condition that he exacts this property which has been
written above,... what she has lost…”) (see 1.10.2.).
The writers of prayers for justice usually commend the stolen property or the
thief directly to the god who is supposed to take charge of the matter, see also
No. 292, in which the author offers a reward to the god:
…quivis involavit (den)arios Cani Digni....donatur deo (suprascripto)
decima pars eius pecuniae, quam (so)lverit. (“…whoever has stolen the
money of Canus Dignus… a tenth of the money paid [by the culprit] will be
granted to the aforementioned god.”) (see 1.9.2.).
That means that prayers for justice do not apply conditional clauses oriented
towards future which are so common in votive formulae of votive inscriptions
17
For the reading and interpretation of this text, see Tomlin (2010, 260 ff.); see also
8.2.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
154
and curses, see above and No. 9: Dii inferi, si illam videro tabescentem, vobis
sanctum illud libens ob anniversarium, facere… (“Infernal gods, if I see her
decay, I will gladly offer you annual oblation...”) (see 1.9.2.).
The committal of things and a promise to the deity are mostly enacted by
Formulae 2 and 2a, i.e. the committal formulae with clause with final value and
with the predicate of main clause in present, sometimes, past, tense. Thus,
unlike vota, they do not point at something which is only going to happen, but
refer to a symbolic action taking place right at the very moment or in the near
past,18
i.e. to the moment when the writer puts the tablet into a proper place,
symbolically commending his matter to the god. The mere fact that the prayers
for justice from Britannia offer a part of the stolen property, i.e. a kind of
finder’s reward, to the god does not necessarily make them vota to all intents
and purposes. As soon as the stolen property/the thief is in the hands of gods, in
the minds of the authors of such texts the reward probably serves as a
motivation for the deity to compel the culprit by various restrictions (see 1.10.2.
and 6.2. below) to return the stolen things to the owner.19
See No. 291, 6.1. and
12.2.2., and No. 289, from Lydney Park, dfx.3.15/1, which reads:
Divo Nodenti Silvianus: anellum perdidit, dimidiam partem donavit Nodenti,
inter quibus nomen Seneciani, nolis permittas sanitatem, donec perferat
usque templum (No)dentis.20
(“Silvianus to the god Nodens: [Silvianus] has
lost a ring, he has given half [of its value] to Nodens. Do not let any of those
named Senecianus be healthy, until he brings [it] back to the temple of
Nodens.”) (see also 6.2. below).
This formula is documented altogether ten times in prayers for justice, and it is
related to thefts and the writer’s wish to achieve the returning of his property
and the punishment of the culprit. The time data common in votive formulae do
not appear in these cases. As a result of these facts, the “finder’s” reward
promised to the deity in prayers for justice from Britannia can be regarded a
brand new formula on its own, not a votum in its proper sense.
3.3.3 Other Optional Supplements
Rarely, a menacing formula is found in curses (see esp. No. 148. 1.9.2., also
tablets No. 164 and No. 165 seem to indicate the presence of a menacing
18
See Versnel (2010, 348 ff.).
19
See also Kropp (2008a, 164 ff.); and esp. Versnel (2010, 349).
20
See also Gager (1992, No. 99).
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
155
formula). It is likely that all these three texts coming from Africa Byzacena are
the works of professional magicians. The above mentioned No. 148 is a love
spell, No. 164 and No. 165 are curses against racehorses, see also No. 165 from
Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/25, which reads:
Cuigeu, Censeu, Cinbeu… obsecro te, venias ad… et hos equos…
contrahas… et auferas ab eis nervos, vires, medullas, impetus, victorias.
Noli meas spernere voces, sed moveant te haec nomina supposita…
(“Cuigeu, Censeu, Cinbeu [the names of daemons], I conjure you to come
to...and to overthrow those horses...and to deprive them of muscles, strength,
entrails/marrow, run-up, victories. Do not despise my words, but may the
names attached urge you... [the names of daemons follow]”).21
A warning formula is documented only once (in one of the tablets belonging to
the so-called Sethianorum tabellae made by professional magicians and found
in Rome. No. 18, line 8 (1.9.2.), reads:
…et si forte te contempserit, patiatur febris, frigus, tortiones… (“and if he
happens to scorn you, may he be afflicted with fever, cold shudder, and
torments/cramps?...”),
and, further, line 15: Si forte te seducat per aliqua artificia et rideat de te et
exsultet tibi, vince, peroccide filium maris, Praesenticium pistrinarium. (“If
he by chance seduced you by some trick, laughed at you and mocked you,
defeat and kill the son of sea, Praesenticius, the miller.”).
Moreover, prayers for justice and curses sometimes include a wish that the
curse is irreversible, i.e. the victim will not have any chance to redeem oneself
nor to use a counter-spell. Concerning curses, this is the case of text No. 15
written on a little clay lamp; however its interpretation is still a matter of
discussion, at the end of the text there is:
…ne quis eum solvat, nisi nos qui fecimus. (“...may nobody be able to release
him [from the curse] except for us who made it.”).
See also No. 85 (a curse):
21
The text is damaged, it appeals to daemons and a figure of a daemon on ship is
depicted on it. See also Tremel (2004, No. 38 and 39) who interprets spernere as
“entfernen” (“to banish, to dispose”). See also 11.1.3.2.
3. OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURSING FORMULAE
156
…neque se possit redimere, nulla pecunia nullaque re neque abs te neque ab
ullo deo… (“may he not be able to redeem himself by any money or
anything else, either from you or from any other god,...”) (see 1.9.2.).
Regarding prayers for justice, such a wish appears in No. 231 and No. 232 from
Germania. No. 231 reads:
…nec se possint redimere nec hosteis lanatis nec plumbis nec auro nec
argento redimere a numine tuo… (“…may they not be able to buy
themselves free from your divine power either by offering sheep or lead
[tablets], or by gold, or silver…”) (see 1.10.2., 1.9.2., and 10.2.3.).
4. TYPES OF CURSES
A general account of the traditional classification of curses according to their
content or the context in which they were created is discussed in subchapter
1.1.2. These include the classifications of A. Audollent and other authors; the
categories used by A. Kropp (2008a, 179 ff.) and applied in her recent corpus of
defixiones (Kropp 2008; see 1.1.2.) are treated where the Latin production is
concerned. A. Kropp draws on the classification of possible causae defigendi
commonly used since Audollent’s times (1904, LXXXVIII), which divides
curses into 1) non-specific curses, 2) legal curses, 3) agonistic curses (rivalry in
sport context as well as those used in other contexts), and 4) love spells, to
which Kropp adds the new category of 5) the curses used in the context of theft
and damage suffered. This means that a lawsuit, rivalry/competition, love, theft
or damage suffered (in the case of prayers for justice), or an unspecified motive
(in the case of the non-specific curses), is regarded to be a motive or context of
the curse’s creation.1
This division of possible curse motivations; however,
leaves some room for confusion, as some motives fall within the same broad
category. For example, A. Kropp regards “love” to be the motive of all the texts
explicitly related to love, whether they address love rivalry or love spells.
Nevertheless, Ch. A. Faraone (1991, 10) places the former among the so-called
separation curses whose aim is to break up a relationship, e.g. a love triangle,
while the latter are classified as the aphrodisiac curses or agogé,2
i.e. the love
spells meant to win the unrequited love of a beloved person. In those cases
when the Latin curses are very probably motivated by a rivalry in love, i.e. the
author tries to eliminate his/her rival, Kropp designates the motive either merely
as love. See No. 57 from Maar, dfx. 4.1.2/1:
Art(um) ligo Dercomogni (filium) fututor Artus fututor. (“I bind [with spells]
Artus, [son] of Dercomognus, whorenmonger, Artus is a whoremonger.”)
(see also 3.1.2. and 9.1.3.).
or as a competition, see No. 17, dfx. 1.4.4/3, see 1.9.1., or No. 29, dfx. 1.5.1/1,
which reads:
1
See also the categories newly used in TheDeMa (defixio comercialis, defixio amatoria,
defixio agonistica, defixio criminalis, defixio iudiciaria, prayer for justice, defixio
indeterminabilis, tabella nominum.
2
In magical papyri (PGM) the Greek ἀγωγή, derived from the verb ἄγω, “to bring, to
lead”, denotes the love spells which torment a victim (usually a woman) to make her
come to the author of the spell (usually a man) (see also Faraone, 1999, 175).
4. TYPES OF CURSES
158
Dite inferi, Caium Babullium et fututricem eius Tertiam Salviam. (“Oh Dis
[and] the underworld gods, [I curse] Gaius Babullius and that slut of his,
Tertia Salvia.”) (see also 1.1.2.2.3. and 2.2.2.).
Because of her “love” category, Kropp (2008) places this type of curse, which
can be interpreted simply as a rivalry in love, either among love spells or among
the agonistic curses, i.e. aimed at the rivals in circus and charioteers, or against
enemies in the non-specific curses (see also Urbanová, 2009b, 167 f.).
My analysis of the texts of the curses stated in this work is based on the
common classification (see 1.1.2.), meaning that I distinguish the non-specific
curses (see 1.1.2.1.), the legal curses − defixiones iudiciariae (see 1.1.2.2.1.),
the curses against the rivals in circus − defixiones agonisticae (see 1.1.2.2.2.),
which are further subdivided into the curses against gladiators, charioteers
and race-horses, those aimed exclusively at race-horses, and finally the curses
related to love and its desires − defixiones amatoriae (see 1.1.2.2.3.). The latter
are further subdivided into love spells corresponding to Faraone’s aphrodisiac
curses or agogé; A. Kropp (2008a, 184 ff.) calls these Herbeiführungszauber,
“attraction spell”. In this work I use the term love spell for such texts; however,
the texts related to love and relationships in the sense of Faraone’s separation
curses are classified as the cases of rivalry in love. I do so despite the fact that
the motive of rivalry in love is not always explicitly and unambiguously
mentioned in the text of a Latin curse itself. The above mentioned tablets No.
57 and No. 29 indicate quite obviously that they can be placed in this category;
but sometimes the motive is not quite so clear. Nevertheless, several curses
included in the corpus of this work display either explicit or implicit, but
altogether sufficiently intelligible, signs pointing to their classification as cases
of rivalry in love. They are, then not non-specific curses wholly devoid of
obvious authorial intent, and are therefore not classified as such in this work. H.
Solin (1968, 23 ff.), too, regards rivalry in love as the possible motivation
behind the production of several curses. In this work, the criteria applied in the
classification of such texts into the category of rivalry in love include: an effort
by the author to make the cursed person odious to a person of opposite sex and
references to attempts at preventing or breaking a relationship or a wedding.
No. 33 reads:
Philematio Hostili (serva)..., ut illi non succedat… ut ille illam odiat...
Quomodo is eis desertus, illa deserta sit cunno. (“Philematio, [the slave] of
4. TYPES OF CURSES
159
Hostilius: “…may she not succeed... may he hate her... Just like this one is
deserted by them, may she be deserted in her bed.”).3
Compare also No. 17:
…Ita uti mortuos nec ad deos nec ad homines acceptus est, sic Rhodine apud
M(arcum) Licinium accepta sit et tantum valeat, quantum ille mortuos, quei
istic sepultus est… (“Just like the dead one is dear neither to gods, nor men,
may Rhodine be equally [little] dear to Marcus Licinius, and may she mean
to him as much as this dead one who is buried here...”) (see 1.9.1. and
7.3.2.).
There are also some curses aimed at couples (see e.g. No. 29 above), and rarely
also at men. Moreover, I include the following into this category: No. 16, 19
and 254
(see 2.3.5. and 1.10.1.); No. 26 and No. 29 (see 2.2.2.), No. 33 (see
above), No. 51 (see 2.3.5., 8.1.3.), No. 53 (see 8.1.3.) and No. 57 (see above and
9.1.3.), No.78 (see 10.1.3.), No. 91 (see 2.3.5.), No. 104: … ne quiat nubere (see
1.10.1.), No. 109 (see 1.1.2.2.3. and 10.1.3.) and No. 198 (see 2.3.5.).
Generally, it can be said that love spells – in the sense of aphrodisiac curses –
represent a category somewhat different from the texts belonging to the
category of rivalry in love, the latter being usually intended to eliminate one’s
rival in the same way as other types of curses do, i.e. by summoning a disease
or death upon the victim, or the restriction of his/her bodily and mental
functions. Love spells, on the other hand, seek only temporary restrictions
meant to torment the victim until the author’s wish is fulfilled, i.e. until the
author’s beloved returns his/her love and affections. The author does not really
want his/her beloved to suffer any real harm (see also 1.1.2.2.3., 1.10.1., and
esp. 1.8.1.).
Prayers for justice, which are regarded by many scholars to be the subcategory
of curses sui generis, are called defixiones in fures by A. Audollent, while A.
Kropp and other modern scholars call these prayers for justice (see 1.1.2.2.).
These texts are dealt with as their own category in this work (see 1.2.3.;
Versnel, 2010, 275 ff.).
3
Deserta sit cunno, see (1.10.1.).
4
See also Solin (1968, No. 34).
4. TYPES OF CURSES
160
4.1 OCCURENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE PARTICULAR
TYPES OF CURSES IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
It is extremely difficult to answer the question of the popularity and frequency
of particular types of curses in concrete parts of the Roman Empire. We would
expect that the number of tablets coming from a particular province would be
influenced by demographic and cultural factors as well as the level of
Romanisation. In other words, we would expect there to be a substantially
larger amount of texts coming from Italy and the African provinces, rather than
from Noricum, Raetia, or Pannonia, which were only sparsely inhabited and
remote from the centre of the course of events in the first centuries CE (see
Chapter 1, Charts 1 and 2). Surprisingly, a relatively large number of tablets
have recently been found in Germania (in 1999) (see chapter 1) and Britannia
(in the 1970s and 1980s). This is especially striking when we compare this to
the amount of evidence preserved from Hispania and Gallia, the two most
densely populated provinces under Roman control from the first half of the 1st
cent. BCE and into the 2nd
century CE. Roman influence became evident in
Germania only in the middle of the 1st
cent. CE, and predominantly in the
fortified centres (Colonia Agrippina, Mogontiacum), and Roman concerns in
Britannia manifested themselves in limited degrees in the south even later (the
middle of the 1st
cent. CE).5
Of course, the varied ethnic composition of the
forces of military camps could have contributed to the quicker spread of the
magical tradition to the marginal areas of the Roman Empire.
The randomness of the archaeological findings certainly contributes to the
quality and quantity of the extant Latin evidence of curses. In Italy and the
African provinces, we can presume that a greater number of curses can and has
been found, thanks to the preponderance of ancient monuments and a
longstanding tradition of professional archaeological research in these areas, as
well as the illegal activities of treasure hunters and the density of settlements in
antiquity. As for Britannia, where a substantially smaller amount of ancient
material evidence has been found, we have to take into account the progress of
archaeology and activities of professional and non-professional metal seekers.
However, in the light of the recently discovered texts from Mainz and the
amount of evidence coming from Britannia (160 published tablets), it can be
assumed that neither demographic factors nor archaeological research exercise a
decisive influence on the amount of the preserved tablets currently known.
Instead, the recent findings suggest that many tablets probably still remain
5
See Wiegels − Spickermann − Barceló (1998, 954 ff.).
4. TYPES OF CURSES
161
undiscovered in their original locations, perhaps even in the area of Italy. For
example, if we analyze the tablets written in the agonistic context, we have to
admit that all of the Latin texts of this type that we possess come exclusively
from African areas. This is somewhat surprising, considering that the
competitions in circus were popular and organized also in other parts of Roman
Empire; nevertheless, a number of tablets have been found in Africa
proconsularis as well as in Africa Byzacena. We have a substantial amount of
references in the works of ancient authors, as well as the epigraphic evidence
(for example, from Pompeii) on the gladiatorial contests and horse races held in
the area of Italy. Thus, is this lack of agonistic tablets preserved in Italy enough
to conclude that such curses were not used there, or that they did not exist in
those areas where they have not been found? This is unlikely, given the
existence of several Greek tablets found directly in Rome containing agonistic
curses. J. Tremel (2004, 28 ff.) in his work Magica agonistica, deals with the
extant texts of agonistic curses written in both Greek and Latin. These texts
have predominantly been found near stadiums or circuses in Greece (Athens,
Isthmia, Corinth), Asia Minor (Antiochia, Apamea, Beirut, Damask), Africa
(Hadrumetum, Carthage, Leptis Magna), as well as some additional texts from
Delos and the area of Caerleon in Britannia; some Greek agonistic curses have
been found in Italy right in the city of Rome. Furthermore, we currently know
of 20 Greek curses against rivals in the circus found in Rome (see Tremel,
2004, No. 70-89). Most of these have been found either at the Porta S.
Sebastiano on the Via Appia, or close to the Quirinal Hill, i.e. neither directly at
the stadium nor circus. This was a huge breakthrough − altogether 43 Greek and
five Latin tablets6
− published in 1898 by R. Wünsch and known as the socalled
Sethianorum tabellae (see 1., 1.7.1., and 1.9.). 18 of the Greek tablets
contain the curses aimed at charioteers and riders.7
One of the Greek tablets
(Tremel, 2004, No. 90) against charioteers, which was found in 1984 in Rome
during the excavations in the columbarium of the Villa Doria Pamphili from the
4th
cent. CE (see Bevilacqua, 1997, 545 ff.), starts with the words φακτιω
βενιτα, i.e. the transliteration of Latin phrase factio veneta (= the blue team), to
denote the target of the curse; it continues in Greek. From these extant agonistic
curses in Greek, we can assume a Latin production also existed in Rome, but
that the material evidence of it has, unfortunately yet to surface. What this
6
Only two of these Latin tablets are included in this work: No. 18 (a non-specific
curse) and No. 19 (perhaps rivalry in love), the remaining texts are damaged to such
an extent that they cannot be interpreted. However, none of the interpretable tablets
contains agonistic curse.
7
See Tremel (2004, No. 70 –89), i.e. the complete documentation of Greek agonistic
curses found in Rome; Sethianorum tabellae (see DT 140 –187).
4. TYPES OF CURSES
162
Roman evidence of curse tablets in Greek probably proves is the existence of a
magical workshop which used complicated Greek curses (see Sethianorum
tabellae above) and made a living from the orders related to horse races and
bets on these, while the Latin production has either not been preserved or has
not yet been found.
Tremel (2004, No. 91) classifies the Latin text found in the amphitheatre near
Roman military camp in Caerleon in Britannia as an agonistic curse, which he
does due to the place of finding. However, this added to the misleading
interpretation of the damaged text, as it is actually a prayer for justice, see No.
283 from Caerleon:
Domina Nemesis do tibi pallium et galliculas, qui tulit, non redimat nisi vita,
sanguine suo. (“Lady Nemesis, I give you my cloak and shoes, may the
person who stole them not redeem [them/it?], unless with his own life and
blood.”) (see also Gager, 1992, No. 100; Versnel, 1991, 86; 2010, 287;
1.10.2.).
The situation is similar in love spells, through which the authors try to win the
love of a beloved woman (the authors of preserved Latin texts of love spells are
predominantly men). These texts, too, come almost8
exclusively from the
African provinces: three tablets have been found in Africa proconsularis and 12
tablets in Africa Byzacena. Again, it could be assumed that this type of
complicated spells was the specialty of African provinces; nevertheless, there is
also one text from Raetia which probably represents the author’s own
adaptation of this type of spell, albeit a somewhat artless and damaged one. See
No. 106 from Peiting, dfx. 7.4/1: … Gemella sub iugum missa quiesce…
contineas te non pe(ccas?) ama Clementem...9
(“Gemella, [who are] put under
the yoke [of marriage?], be quiet, hold up, [do not sin?], love Clemens...”), (see
also 10.1.1., No. 69, 9.1.3. and 7.3.). Apart from this, there are countless
8
One text from the new findings made in the fountain of Anna Perenna has been
interpreted as a love spell, too. The tablet contains a depiction of a bound-up person
with snakes around, there are Greek letters in the upper part and a Latin text below:
quem pereo fantasia interpreted by Blänsdorf (2012a, 159) as “whom I love
passionately in my fancy.”
9
See Nesselhauf (1960, 76 ff.), some passages of the text is very hard to interpret.
4. TYPES OF CURSES
163
references to the use of enchantments and spells in love context in the works of
Roman authors.10
With respect to the gaps in the documentation of various types of curses in
particular provinces, it cannot be said with certainty that particular types of
curses were only or even characteristically produced in certain provinces and
vice-versa, or that a particular context worked as a common motive to resort to
curses. Therefore, the extant texts can work as merely the starting point for
inference and argument; they cannot provide us with all the answers.11
4.1.1 Non-Specific Curses
Non-specific curses are the most frequently attested Latin curses (see 1.1.2.1.).
The texts of these tablets do not provide us with any reference to their authors’
possible motives for creating or ordering the tablets. A substantial amount of the
non-specific curses are simply nominal lists of cursed people (see also Formula
0, 2.1.1.). The corpus of this work includes altogether 94 non-specific curses,
which accounts for approximately 45% of all curse tablets.12
Most of the
evidence comes from Italy (33), further also from Britannia (23) (see also
3.1.1.), Germania (17), Gallia (nine), Hispania (five), and this type of curses
appears rarely also in the African provinces (five). This category does not only
consist of nominal lists: many of these texts also employ more complicated
formulae; they do not, however, provide any information about their authors’
motivations. See e.g. No. 1 (1.9.1. and 2.3.2.), No. 5 (2.3.3., 7.3.1.5.), No. 9
(1.9.2. and 2.2.2.), No. 12 (1.1.2.1. and 7.3.1.2.), No. 13 (1.9.1.), No. 20 belongs
to the most complicated curses (see 7.3.1.4. below) and further e.g. No. 18
(1.9.2.) from Italy; see also e.g. No. 52 (1.9.2. and 8.1.1.) from Hispania; No. 64
(2.3.2. and 9.1.1.) from Gallia; No. 88 (1.1.2.1. and 10.1.1.) and No. 90 (1.10.1.
and 10.1.1.) from Germania; No. 101 (2.3.6. and 10.1.1.) from Noricum; No.
122 (1.1.2.1. and 1.10.1.) and No. 138 (1.10.1.) from Africa; and finally No.
201 (1.1.2.1. and 12.1.1.) and No. 199 (3.1.2. and 12.1.1.) from Britannia. Nonspecific
curses are attested throughout the whole period of the working of
magical tradition in the territories belonging to the Roman Empire; most of the
10
See e.g. Hor. Epod. 5 and 17, Sat. 1.8; Apul. Met. 1.5 –19, 2.5; Petron. Sat. 63;
Verg. Ecl. 8; Ovid. Am. 7.30 –31 Prop. 1.6 –26 (see also 1.3. and 1.10.1.; further
also Luck, 1962; and Ogden, 2009).
11
The type of curse cannot be reliably determined in 3 of altogether 208 tablets.
12
All percentage data pertain to the corpus analyzed in this work, i.e. as for curses,
100% = 208; as for prayers for justice, 100% = 101.
4. TYPES OF CURSES
164
pieces of evidence date back to the time between the 1st
cent. BCE and the 3rd
cent. CE.
4.1.2 Legal Curses
Legal curses, which are aimed at enemies in the context of lawsuits (see
1.1.2.2.1.), represent the second most frequently preserved type of Latin curses.
The corpus analyzed in this work includes 42 tablets motivated by a lawsuit,
which comprises 20% of all preserved curses. Most of these come from
Germania (12) and Africa proconsularis (14), while a much smaller amount of
legal curses has been preserved in other provinces, except for Noricum and
Britannia, where no such texts have been found so far. We have four tablets
from Italy and Hispania, three from Gallia, and two from Pannonia13
and Raetia.
This uneven amount of evidence found across the Roman Empire – where the
lawsuits took place – is less indicative of the popularity of this type of curse in
Africa or Germania, most likely, than the randomness of archaeological
findings. The popularity factor cannot be completely disregarded however,
especially in the case of Germania. The highest concentration of texts of legal
curses comes from the 1st
cent. CE or the 2nd
/3rd
cent. CE, the latter being true
especially for the tablets from Africa. The texts containing formula 0, i.e. mere
nominal lists of cursed people supplemented with attributes like
adversarius/adversaria (see No. 10, 2.1.1.), make up approximately a quarter of
legal curses. Nevertheless, the more complicated curses also exist, whose
primary aim is to negatively affect the adversary’s ability to speak or think, see
No. 11 (2.2.1. and 7.3.1.6.), No. 27 (2.2.2. and 7.3.2.), No. 38 (2.3.4. and
7.3.1.6.) from Italy; No. 46 and 47 (1.6., 2.1.1. and 8.1.2.) from Hispania; see
also the complicated curses coming from Gallia, No. 67 (1.10.1., 6.2.1. and
9.1.2.); further No. 70 (1.10.1. and 10.1.2.), No. 75 (10.1.2.) and No. 76 (1.4.
and 10.1.2.) from Germania; No. 105 (2.3.5. and 10.1.2.) from Raetia; No. 114
and 115 (1.1.2.2.1. and 11.1.2.), No. 116 (2.3.3. and 11.1.2.), No. 118 (2.3.6.
and 11.1.2.), No. 136 (1.9.3. and 11.1.2.), and No. 181 (2.3.1.) from the African
provinces. Most of the tablets containing legal curses (34) have been found in
graves.
13
The third, recently found, tablet containing legal curse is not included in the corpus
of this work; however, it has been published by A. Barta (2009, 23 ff.) (see also
10.1.2.).
4. TYPES OF CURSES
165
4.1.3 Agonistic Curses
Agonistic curses aimed at gladiators, charioteers, and race-horses (see
1.1.2.2.2.) represent the third most frequently preserved type of curse. As
previously noted, all tablets containing this type of curse come exclusively from
the African provinces; however, it can be assumed that they were used also in
other provinces, since we know circuses and organized games (see 4.1.) were
held throughout the Roman Empire. Altogether 40 tablets with agonistic curses
have been analyzed, which accounts for approximately 20% of all curses
included in the corpus of this work. These are the texts usually made by
professional ritual practitioners that make use of magical words and other
magical elements, such as a peculiar graphic arrangement, etc. (see 1.7.2.).
Surprisingly, the texts aimed against gladiators represent the smallest portion of
the extant agonistic corpus: only six tablets found in the circus in Carthage
(Africa proconsularis). The corpus analyzed in this work includes a total of 21
curses against charioteers and race-horses. Most of these (16) come from the
Roman necropolis near the ancient town of Hadrumetum (today’s Sousse,
Africa Byzacena); the rest were found in the Roman graves near Carthage. All
the tablets with curses against race-horses (13) – except for one found in
Carthage – come from the necropolis near ancient Hadrumetum. Interestingly,
Greek and Latin agonistic curses differ in where they were most frequently
deposited. The Latin curses against gladiators found in Carthage were found
right in the circus, while the curses against charioteers and race-horses have
been found in graves. The Greek documentation suggests different customs in
this respect in particular regions, with the Greek agonistic tablets from Athens
and Isthmia being found in wells, while the texts from Corinth in baths (see
Tremel, 2004, 28 f.). Randomness, however, again plays its role in this case.
Nevertheless, amphitheatres and stadia were obviously regarded the proper
places for the deposition of a tablet (violent deaths took place here), as is
apparent from the tablets containing the non-specific and legal curses found in
the amphitheatre of Trier in Gallia. The earliest tablets with the agonistic curses
are attested from the 2nd
cent. CE (four), the largest amount of evidence dates
back to the 2nd
/3rd
cent. CE (28), while there is some evidence also from the 3rd
cent. CE. See the curses against gladiators: No. 130 (1.1.2.2.2. and 11.1.3.1.),
No. 131 (1.10.1.), No. 132 (2.3.3., 1.6. and 1.9.3.), No. 135 (1.9.2. and
11.1.3.1.), see esp. 11.1.3.1.; the curses against charioteers and race-horses: No.
140 (2.3.6. and 11.1.3.2.), No. 143 (1.1.2.2.3., 2.3.4. and love spells below), No.
4. TYPES OF CURSES
166
152 (1.1.2.2.2.), No. 157 (2.3.5.),14
No. 171 (2.3.4.), No. 177 (1.9.3.), No. 149
(1.10.1.), No. 151 (2.3.1. and 1.9.3.), No. 165 (2.3.2., 3.3.3.), and esp. 11.1.3.2.
4.1.4 Love Spells
The texts containing love spells (see 1.1.2.2.3.), through which the authors seek
to gain the affections of an unrequited lover, come mostly from the African
provinces, as previously stated (see 4. and 4.1.); a single text has been preserved
in Raetia (see No. 106 above)15
. The corpus of this work includes altogether 16
tablets with love spells, which makes up approximately 8% of all the tablets
analyzed here. This paucity is probably due to randomness, too, as we have
sufficient references to love spells in Roman literature to presume their
flourishing existence in Italy (see also Verg. Ecl. 91 ff.; 1.8.1. and 4.1.). Tablets
with love spells have been found in graves in Carthage (three) and Hadrumetum
(12), and the aforementioned tablet No. 106 in a house in Raetia. Compared to
the non-specific and legal curses, love spells are later: the text from Raetia (No.
106) is regarded to be the earliest preserved love spell and is dated back to the
1st
cent. CE; three tablets date to the 2nd
/3rd
cent. CE; however, the largest
amount of these texts (12) comes from the 3rd
cent. CE. Both the tablets found
in Carthage and those found in Hadrumetum imply that they were made by
professionals in the field: see No. 124 (1.1.2.2.3.), which contains empty spaces
for filling in the name of a beloved person and other data. Tablet No. 143 is an
interesting combination of a love spell and a curse aimed at a rival in the circus
(1.1.2.2.3. and 2.3.4.). All preserved Latin love spells, except for one (see No.
148, 1.9.2. and 1.10.1.), were written or ordered by men (see also 1.6.).
Furthermore, see No. 121 (2.3.5.), No. 142 (3.1.1.), No. 144 (1.10.1.), No. 145
(1.7.1.), No. 146 (1.10.1.), No. 147 (1.6.), No. 173 (2.3.1. and 11.1.4.), and No.
182 (2.3.3., Appendix I, and esp. 11.1.4.).
4.1.5 Rivalry in Love
The corpus of this work includes 15 curses which could be motivated by rivalry
in love (see 1.1.2.2.3. and 4.), which makes accounts for approximately 7% of
all curses analyzed here. The largest amount of evidence (seven) comes from
Italy, two tablets have been found both in Hispania and Germania; there is only
14
Tablets No. 152–161 are the evidence of serial production of tablets in agonistic
context, their text and form are more or less identical, only the names of the cursed
creatures change (see also 11.1.3.).
15
For another potential love spell from Rome, see Blänsdorf (2012a, 159), see 7.3. and
No. 69 (9.1.3).
4. TYPES OF CURSES
167
one piece of evidence from each of the other provinces, except for Raetia and
the African provinces where no such type of curse has been documented. This
motivation appears throughout the whole period of the existence of magical
tradition: the tablets from Italy and Hispania date to the 1st
cent. BCE, while
most of such texts date to the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE (nine), but some rarely also to the
2nd
/3rd
cent. CE and the 4th
/5th
cent. CE. Unlike the preserved love spells, which
were predominantly written or ordered by men, the curses against rivals in love
mostly seem to be the workings of women. These texts were most likely made
in the context of a love triangle and most of them are aimed at women or at a
couple; see No. 26, No. 29, and No. 51. A man is the target of the curse only
twice: see No. 25 (1.10.1.) and No. 57 (3.1.2. and 9.1.3.). It can thus be
presumed that women used these curses more frequently than men, see also No.
16 (5.), No. 17 (1.9.1. and 7.3.2.), No. 29 (2.2.2.), No. 33 (1.10.1.), No. 51
(2.3.5. and 8.1.3.), No. 91 (2.3.5. and 10.1.2.), No. 104 (1.10.1. and 10.1.3.),
No. 109 (1.1.2.2.3. and 10.1.3.), and No. 198 (2.3.5. and 12.1.1.).
Generally speaking, the extant Latin curse tablets most likely are of limited
predictive value concerning the use or popularity of particular types of curses in
particular regions of the Roman Empire. This is due to the randomness of
archaeological findings, as well as the fact that curse tablets were usually
hidden by their authors in remote and inaccessible places like graves, springs,
wells, and the like. These were places associated with supernatural powers and
concealed from the public. Furthermore, it has to be taken into account that such
magical practices were prohibited and severely punished (see also 1.11.).
5. AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS OF CURSES WITH
RESPECT TO THE TYPES OF CURSES
As previously stated, the authors of curses and prayers for justice pursue
pragmatic goals: their desire is to use supernatural powers to manipulate others
for their own profit − mostly to afflict their rivals (in a number of contexts) in
such a way that the authors’ lives are improved. Authors typically wish to win a
lawsuit, to gain victory in circus, or love. Although these wishes do not
explicitly appear in tablets, they can be deduced from the texts themselves. In
this work, I draw on particular wishes and goals as they are expressed in the
texts.
The writers of curses attempt to temporarily or permanently harm their victims
in some way, to force them to do something, or even to eliminate (kill) them, to
inflict a disease upon them, and/or to limit their bodily and mental functions.
Only love spells are somewhat different from other curses, as their primary goal
is not to harm the victims, but to gain the accursed beloved’s unrequited love.
As in legal or agonistic curses, restrictions are employed in love spells;
however, these are supposed to last just for a limited span of time (see 1.10.1.).
The aim of curse is, in many cases, associated with the type of curse. The
restrictions to be imposed usually follow the type of curse: for instance, the
authors of legal curses very often try to afflict the victim’s ability to speak in
court. For the sake of the analysis of the texts included in the corpus of this
work, I sought to distinguish the particular aims of authors as precisely as
possible. The following categories of authors’ aims arose:
• restrictions – limitation mostly of the victim’s bodily, but also mental
functions, these can differ depending on the type of curse;
- in legal curses they are related especially to the ability to speak and
think, see also 1.10.1., see No. 114 from Carthge:
...alligate linguas horum, quos suprascripsi, ne adversus nos respondere
possint. (“…bind the tongues of those, whose names I wrote above, so that
they cannot testify against us.”) (see 1.1.2.2.1.)
- in love spells, see No. 124:
...aufer illae somnum usquedum veniat ad me… et animo meo satisfaciat.
(“…take sleep away from her unless she comes to me… and satisfies me.”)
(see 1.1.2.2.3.)
5. AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS OF CURSES
169
- in agonistic curses, see No. 149:
...cadant, frangant, disiungantur, male girent, palmam vincere non possint.
(“…may they fall, break, unyoke themselves, turn wrongly, may they be
unable to win the palm-branch.”) (see 1.10.1.).
The authors of some agonistic curses do not seek just the restriction of
adversary’s bodily functions, but also ask for his death, such cases have been
found in Africa, see No. 130, No. 132, and No. 133 (curses against gladiators)
(see 11.1.3.1.1), No. 162 (a curse against charioteers and race-horses) (see
11.1.3.2.), and No. 183 (damaged text of a legal curse from Africa). That means
that the authors pursue restrictions as well as death of their victims via these
curses. See, for instance, No. 130 from Carthage against a gladiator:
...(occi)dite, exterminate, vulnerate Gallicu(m), quem peperit Prima, in ista
hora in amphitheatri corona. Non liget ursum, ursos… Obliga illi pedes,
membra, sensus, medullam. Obliga Gallicum, quem peperit Prima, ut neque
ursum neque taurum singulis plagis occidat neque binis plagis occidat neque
ternis plagis occidat taurum, ursum. Per nomen dei vivi omnipotentis ut
perficiatis, iam, iam, cito, cito. Allidat illum ursus et vulneret illum. (“…kill,
destroy, hurt Gallicus, whom Prima bore, at that hour during the games in
the amphitheatre. May he not bind a bear, bears… Bind his feet, limbs,
senses, marrow. Bind Gallicus, whom Prima bore, so that he kills neither a
bear nor a bull, nor does he kill a bear or a bull with a single, nor double, nor
triple punch. In the name of the living almighty god, may you carry [this]
out, now, now, quickly, quickly. Let the bear strike him and hurt him.”) (see
also 11.1.3.1.).
In this context, see also a legal curse against Silvanus, No. 183 from
Constantine:
A:… ut facias illum sine sensu, sine memoria, sine (spi)ritu, sine medulla1
,
sit vi mutuscus2
B: demando tibi ut acceptu(m h)abeas (S)ilvanu(m)
quem3
… et custodias… (de)mando ut facias illum mortuum. Deponas eum
1
The Latin term medulla is hard to interpret in this context, it either refers to the bone
marrow, or to the entrails, or to the heart, but possibly also to strength, in general.
2
This is the only attested occurence of the word mutuscus in Latin. M. Jeanneret
(1917, 120) understands it as valde mutus, perhaps it could be also interpreted as
“struck dumb violently”, or as “helpless”.
3
Some parts of the text of the tablet are damaged. A. Kropp suggests to read it
according D. R. Jordan (1976, 127 ff.) who adds q(uem) p(eperit) Vulva Facta, i.e.
5. AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS OF CURSES
170
ad Tartara.4
(“...so that you make him lose his sense, his memory, his spirit,
his vigour, let him become mute by [your] power. I commend to you to take
Silvanus who...and... to guard [him] ...I order you to arrange for his death.
Put him in Tartarean regions...”).
• disease, see No. 64: ...rogo te, domina Isis, ut illi profluvium mittas.
(“...I ask you, Lady Isis, to invoke bleeding/diarrhoea on him.”) (see
1.10.1.), and further No. 12 (1.1.2.1. and 7.3.1.2.), No. 52 (1.9.2. and
8.1.1.); resp. the victim is more often afflicted with a disease leading to
death, see e.g. No. 30 from Capua: ...Astragalum v(oveo), uti tabescat
morbo... (“I dedicate? …Astragalus …may he die of disease…”) (see
2.3.1.), or No. 20 (1.10.1. and 7.3.1.4.). This type occurs predominantly
in the non-specific curses.
• death, see No. 1: ...uti vos eum interimatis, interficiatis …may you
…destroy him, and kill him…”) (1.9.1.). This is especially common in
non-specific curses; and, but is also attested − albeit to a very limited
extent − in legal curses, curses related to rivalry in love, and agonistic
curses (see above).
• gaining love in love spells (see 1.1.2.2.3., No. 143 and No. 124), or a
separation in the curses related to rivalry in love. In some cases, the
authors of the curses motivated by rivalry in love even try to completely
eliminate, i.e. to kill, the victim (see above). See e.g. No. 16 from
Rome, dfx. 1.4.4/2:
Danae ancilla novicia Capitonis: hanc hostiam acceptam habeas et
consumas Danaene. Habeas Eutychiam Soterichi uxorem. (“Danae, the new
maid of Capito: accept her as an offering and consume Danae. Take also
Eutychia, the wife of Soterichus.”).
And yet, in several texts, the aim or purpose of the curse is not specified.
“whom bore”, whereas vulva facta is a term standing instead of the unknown name
of victim’s mother. This term has been attested nowhere else in Latin curses;
however, a similar one is often used (see suavulva above, 1.1.2.2.3., No. 143). See
also 2.3.2.
4
The curse is addressed to a daemon, which is depicted in the tablet as a creature with
goat legs (see DT 300).
5. AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS OF CURSES
171
5.1 OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE AIMS OF CURSE
IN RESPECT OF THE TYPE OF CURSE
Based on my analysis of the authorial aims of the curses, I assume that
approximately one-third of the analysed evidence (77 tablets, 37% of texts)
neither the motivation to write the curse nor the way in which the victim is
supposed to be affected can be reliably judged. This is related to the formula
and type of curse used. Approximately 60 tablets (85% of cases) contain the
texts with Formula 0 (see 2.1.1.), i.e. mere nominal lists of cursed people.
Sometimes these are supplemented with the specifying terms like inimicus or
adversarius, so at least in a few cases the type of curse can be determined: such
a text would most probably be related to a lawsuit. However, no other
information is found in the texts regarding the aim of the curse or what was
supposed to happen to the victim. The texts using Formula 0 are usually
classified under non-specific curses, because neither the motivation nor the
context of the curse are clear. See e.g. No. 2 from Arezzo, dfx. 1.1.1/2:
M(arcus) Ponti (filius), Secundio, M(arcus) Ulp(ius?) Anici f(ilius). In some
non-specific curses, however, we can surmise the curse’s purpose while lacking
concrete evidence of its context or author’ s motivation (see 1.10.1., No. 122).
The occurrence of such texts in particular areas of the Roman Empire is then
connected with the use of the simplest type of curse: a simple nominal list. This
type is, to some larger extent, attested in Italy (13) and Germania (ten), but the
largest amount of these simple curses comes from Britannia (20) (see 3.2. and
12.1.1.). Only ten of these can be with certainty associated with the legal
context, and two of these with the agonistic context (the cursing of race-horses).
But in the latter case the text itself is damaged to such an extent that although it
can be presumed that the author wanted to prevent the cursed horses from
winning, it is not explicitly expressed in the text.
5.1.1 Restrictions
The authors of Latin curses usually sought a temporary restriction of bodily or
mental functions of their victims. Altogether 86 tablets (which makes 41% of all
texts analysed in this work) contain various restrictions intended to afflict the
victim. This concerns primarily the attempt to paralyse the opponent so that
s/he would not be able to do something. This holds true for the legal curses:
Oro vos ex hoc die, ut taceant, muti, mutili sint… (No. 181, 2.3.1.); ...nec illi
hanc litem vincere possint… (No. 67, 1.10.1. and 6.2.1.); …ut sit mutus neque
pos(sit) loqui, neque quicquam agere… (No. 70, see 1.10.1.); and for the
agonistic curses. No. 134 reads:
5. AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS OF CURSES
172
…Sapautulus currere non possit, obligentur illi pedes, nervi… (“...may
Sapautulus be unable to run, may his feet and muscles be tied up...”) (see
also 11.1.3.1.).
On the contrary, in love spells the victim is paralysed so as to be forced to do
something, like in No. 143:
A: Faciatis Victoriam, quam peperit suavulva, amantem, furentem prae
amore meo, neque somnum videat, donec ad me veniat puellarum deliciae.
(“Get Victoria, who was born to XY, to love [me], burn with passion for me,
may she not sleep until she comes to me, the sweetest of girls.”) (see
1.1.2.2.3.).
It can be said, therefore, that the most frequent wish of the authors of curses is
not death or elimination of the opponent, but only a restriction of his/her
abilities that is frequently meant to last for a limited span of time in most cases
(duration of lawsuit, races, or, in the case of love spells, an explicitly expressed
time span; see above).
The occurrence of curses with restrictions is related to the type of curse as well
as to the amount of evidence documenting a particular type of curses in the
areas of the Roman Empire (see also 4.1.). Most of the tablets (35) containing
restrictions come from the African provinces and pertains to the curses against
gladiators (five), charioteers and race-horses (19), or race-horses alone (11).
Unfortunately, as previously stated, no Latin agonistic curses have been found
in other parts of the Roman Empire (see 4.1.3.). Only in a very few cases did
the authors of curses seek their rivals’ death (see also Chapter 5, No. 130). See
No. 132:
A: … Παρπαξιν deus omnipotens, adducas ad domus infernas Maurussum,
quem peperit Felicitas. B:… Perversus sit, perperversus sit Maurussus,
quem peperit Felicitas, nec laqueos possit super ursum mittere, non
alligare… collegam tenere omnino non possit… Manus illi et ro(bur), pedes
illi obligentur, non possit currere… (“Παρπαξιν [the daemon is addressed],
the almighty god, bring Maurussus, whom Felicitas bore, to the infernal
dwellings… May Maurussus, whom Felicitas bore, be knocked down, beaten
hollow, may he be unable to throw nets on bear, nor tie him up … may he be
unable to hold back the corrival… May his hands and strength? and feet be
bound, may he be unable to run…”) (see also 11.1.3.1.).
Compare also No. 133:
5. AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS OF CURSES
173
(Adiuro vos) animae huiuis loci et… sancta nomina (VM)… date interitu(m)
his venatoribus… (“I adjure you, spirits of this place and… holy names [the
names of daemons follow]… bestow death upon these hunter gladiators…”)
(see 11.1.3.1.).
As already mentioned, restrictions are very often used in legal curses, as well.
In nearly two-thirds of the texts (27) of all preserved tablets (42) concerning
lawsuits, the writers pursued the restriction of opponent’s ability to testify in
court. In 11 cases the purpose was not specified, and surprisingly, in four cases
the writers wished death upon their adversaries, see No. 75 from Germania: B:
Dis Manibus hos(tes) v(oveo): L(ucium) Celi(um), C(aium) Haeb… neca illa
nom(ina) (see 10.1.2.); further also No.. 103 from Raetia (see 5.2. and 10.1.2.),
and No. 123 and No. 183 (see 2.3.2. and 5. above) from the African provinces.
Finally, restrictions appear to be necessary components of love spells, which are
primarily meant to gain the love of a beloved person; their purpose is to make
the victim fall savagely in love (see 1.10.1.). The authors usually beseech the
daemons to make the victim unable to sleep, eat, drink, walk, or think, or to
forget her/his parents, all relatives, and friends. The purpose is to make her/him
burn with desire for the author of the curse. See No. 145 from Hadrumetum,
dfx. 11.2.1./5:
…cogite Bonosam quam peperit Papte amare me Oppium, quem peperit
Veneria, amore sacro sine intermissione; non possit dormire Bonosa neque
esse… (“...force Bonosa, whom Papte bore, to love me, Oppius, whom
Veneria bore, unceasingly with sacred love, may she be unable to sleep nor
eat...”) (see als No. 148, 1.9.2., No. 144, 5.1.4., No. 146, 1.10.1., and esp.
11.1.4.).
Restrictions are also used in the context of rivalry in love (see No. 33, 1.10.1.,
and No. 91, 2.3.5.) and in non-specific curses.
5.1.2 Disease, Disease/Death, Death
Only in a relatively small number of tablets (four, which makes up less than 2%
of all texts analysed in this work) do the authors try to bring about a disease on
their victims. More frequently (11 tablets, which makes up approximately 5% of
curses), they want their victims to be afflicted with a disease that leads to their
death. Finally, most of the tablets (22, which makes up approximately 10% of
curses) express the authors’ wish to kill their victims. Death, then, is the aim of
the curse in altogether 33 tablets (almost 16% of curses).
5. AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS OF CURSES
174
The texts seeking a disease for the victim have been found in Italy, Hispania,
Gallia, and Germania. See No. 64 from Gallia: ...rogo te, domina Isis, ut illi
profluvium mittas. (“...I ask you, Lady Isis, to invoke bleeding/diarrhoea on
him.”), while the wish to afflict one’s victim with diarrhoea may look rather
ridiculous, in the case of other texts it does not bode well (see 9.1.1.).
Additionally, see e.g. No. 52: …caput, cor, consiliom, valetudinem, vitam,
membra omnia, accedat morbo cotidie… (“…may disease overcome her head,
heart, intellect, health, life, and all limbs…”) (see 1.9.2. and 8.1.1.), or No. 12
(see 1.1.2.1.), in which all the body parts of the cursed people are supposed to
be afflicted.
All of the texts that call for a disease leading to death can be classified as nonspecific
curses. They have been found mostly in Italy (nine), with single pieces
of evidence come from Germania and Britannia. No. 18 from Italy reads:
… tene, contere, confringe et… trade morti, filium Asseles, Praesenticium…
(l. 8) … et si forte te contempserit, patiatur febris, frigus, tortiones…
(“…take hold of, destroy, bring to naught and... commit to death
Praesenticius, son of Assela... and if he happens to scorn you, may he be
afflicted with fever, could shudder, and torments/cramps?...”) (see also
1.9.2.).
The tablets found in Italy include usually also a votive formula (see 3.3.2.). The
writer of tablet No. 20 seeks to afflict his victim with a fatal disease:
Bona pulchra Proserpina, Plutonis uxor, sive me Salviam dicere oportet,
eripias salutem, c(orpus, co)lorem, vires, virtutes Ploti… Tradas illum febri
quartanae, tertianae, cottidianae, quae cum illo luctentur, deluctentur, illum
evincant, vincant, usque dum animam eius eripiant… (“Good, beautiful
Proserpina, wife of Pluto, unless it would be fitting for me to call you Salvia,
snatch away Plotius’ health, body, complexion, physical and mental
faculties. Hand him over to the fourth-day, the third-day, the daily fevers, let
them wrestle and tussle with him, let them conquer and overwhelm him to
the point that they snatch away his soul..”) (see also 1.10.1., 3.3.2., and
7.3.1.4.).
The tablets in which the authors explicitly attempt to kill their opponents come
from Italy (nine), Germania (four), Raetia (two), Noricum (one), and Africa
(seven), whereas the tablets found in Africa combine restrictions with death (see
5.1.1. above). Again, this mostly concerns the non-specific curses (see No. 1,
1.9.1. and 2.3.2., No. 5, 2.3.3., and No. 14, 1.6.), as well as the curses related to
5. AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS OF CURSES
175
rivalry in love in which the authors seek the death of their rivals (see No. 16, 5.,
and No. 25, 1.10.1. and 2.3.6.), and rarely also legal curses (see 5.1.1. above).
5.1.3 Separation
Separation as the aim of the curse is limited to the texts motivated by rivalry in
love (see 4.1.5.). This type of curse is represented in 15 tablets, which makes up
less than 7% of all tablets analysed in this work. The authors’ primary goal is to
break up a love affair, probably because of a love triangle. The pursuit of
separation is usually accompanied by restrictions. See No. 17:
Quomodo mortuos, qui istic sepultus est nec loqui nec sermonare potest, sic
Rhodine apud M. Licinium Faustum mortua sit nec loqui nec sermonare
possit… (“Just like this dead one, who is buried here, cannot speak nor talk [to
anyone], may Rhodine be dead for Marcus Licinius Faustus, nor be able to
speak or talk [to him]...”) (see also 1.9.1. and further also 2.3.5. and 7.3.2.).
There is only one case when the author seeks to kill the victim (see 5.1.2. above,
No. 16).
5.1.4 Love
There are relatively few Latin tablets in which the authors want to gain love (16
tablets, approximately 8% of all texts analysed in this work), compared to the
Greek production (out of which 25% of all preserved tablets contain love
spells).5
Most of these have been found in the African provinces; only one piece
of evidence comes from Raetia (see 4.1.4.). As previously mentioned, love
spells are a special category of Latin curses. While the formulations and content
of the curses concerning rivalry in love (see above) do not really differ from
other types of curses, love spells have their own specific, one could say almost
poetic, charm. The author of a love spell wishes to gain the love of his/her
unrequited beloved by invoking various restrictions upon the desired object to
make her/him fulfil his/her expectations. Thus, we are presented with erotically
tuned wishes expressing how much the beloved is supposed to love the author
of the curse. See, for instance, No. 124 from Carthage:
Βιβιριξι, qui es fortissimus daemon, urgue, coge illam venire ad me amantem
aestuantem amoris et desiderii mei causa… (“Bibirixi, you who are the most
5
Gager (1992, 78 ff.).
5. AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS OF CURSES
176
powerful daemon, urge [her], make her come to me loving and burning with
love and desire for me…”) (see also 1.1.2.2.3.),
or No. 125 from Carthage, dfx. 11.1.1/17: …detineatur (in om)ne tempus in
a(mor)e et desideri(o) Martialis, quem peperit Coronaria… ut… ex hoc die
ex hoc momento… amet Martialem, ut omni muliebri hora me in mente
habeat et tota die (in a)nimo habeat amore(m) meum6
… iam, iam…
(veniat?)… (“…may she [the woman’s name was not preserved] be bound
by love and desire [for me] all the time, Martialis, whom Coronaria
bore…may she… from this day on, from this moment on… love Martialis,
may she all the time think of nobody else but me and feel love for me
throughout the whole day… now, now… [may she come to me?]…”).
In some tablets, the love spell author’s situation is hinted at more explicitly. See
tablet No. 182, 2.3.3.: amor piger nobis, or No. 144, in which some Felix longs
for the love of Vettia, daughter of Optata, and explicitly asks the daemons not to
let her scorn him. No. 144 from Hadrumetum, dfx. 11.2.1/4, reads:
…commendo tibi quod, ut illam immitas dae(mones/monibus?)… aliquos
infernales, ut non pe(rmittatur)7
me contemnere sed faciat (quodcu)mque
desidero Vettia, quam peperit Optata, vobis enim adiuvantibus, ut amoris
mei causa non dormiat non cibum non escam accipere possit (VM, SM).
Obligo Vettiae, (quam) peperit Optata, sensum sapientiam et (intel)lectum et
voluntatem, ut amet me Fe(licem), quem peperit Fructa, ex hac die ex h(ac
ora), ut obliviscatur patris et matris et (propinquor)um suorum et amicorum
omnium (et aliorum) virorum amoris mei autem (causa?) Fe(licis, quem)
peperit Fructa; Vettia, qua(m peperit Optata) solum me in mente
habeat…(dormi)ens vigilans uratur… (“…I commend to you to imprecate
daemons? upon her… some infernal ones so that she is not allowed to
despise me, but does anything I wish, Vettia, whom Optata bore, with your
help, may she be unable to sleep, nor to accept any meal nor dish, because of
6
The text of the tablet is written in Latin, but in the Greek alphabet, and it contains
magical words. However, it is damaged to a large extent. Unfortunately, the name of
the beloved woman has not been preserved; we have only the name of the author
(Martialis). The expression muliebris hora is unclear and attested nowhere else (see
also 11.1.4., and No, 143A, 5.1.1.).
7
The text of the tablet is partially disrupted, especially in the beginning, A. Önnerfors
(1991, 42) adds possit to the preserved sequence of letters pes…, but I regard A.
Kropp’s (2008a, dfx.11.2.1/8) addition permittatur to be more pregnant. Unlike DT,
A. Önnerfors reads perdat instead of obligo in the third line, probably having
overlooked it among the magical signs (see Appendix I and 11.1.4.).
5. AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS OF CURSES
177
love for me [enchanting words, magical signs]. I bind [with spells] the
senses, reason, intellect, and will of Vettia, whom Optata bore, so that she
loves me, Felix, whom Fructa bore, from this day on, from this hour on, so
that she forgets her father and mother and her relatives and friends and [other
men] because of love for me, Felix, whom Fructa bore; may she, Vettia,
whom Optata bore, think only of me… may she burn [with love], whether
being asleep or awake.”).
Unlike other types of curses, these texts contain a wide range of bodily and
mental restrictions meant to compel the victim to fulfil author’s wishes. The
most representative example of such a text is No. 144 above, which includes
every type of restriction sent upon the victim of a love spell: insomnia, lack of
appetite, confusion, and amnesia (see also 1.10.1. and 5.1.1. above). In curses,
such restrictions only very rarely appear. See tablet No. 165 from Hadrumetum,
dfx. 11.2.1/25, with the curse against race-horses: …auferas illis dulce somnum,
fac eos ne currere possint… (“…take sweet sleep from them, make them unable
to run…”) (see also 3.3.3.). Furthermore, tablets No. 132 which contains the
curse against gladiators makes use of this restriction:
Βαχα(χυχ), qui es in Egypto magnus daemon obliges perobliges Maurussum
venatorem, quem peperit Felicitas. Ιεχρι auferas somnum, non dormiat
Marussus, quem peperit Felicitas… (“Bachachuch, [you] who are the great
Egyptian daemon, bind and tie up Maurussus the hunter, whom Felicitas
bore. Iechri, deprive him of sleep, may Maurussus, the hunter, whom
Felicitas bore, not sleep...”).
Paradoxically, very similar restrictions are found also in prayers for justice on
the other end of the Roman Empire, in Britannia (see also 1.10.2.).
5.2 CONCLUSION
Apart from those 77 curse tablets whose aim we are unable to determine, it can
be assumed that in most cases the authors of curses pursue certain bodily and
mental restrictions for their victims (41% of analysed curses). The invoking of
a particular type of restriction depends on the situation that motivated to write
the curse; and so it is related to the type of curse. Complicating the matter is that
there are several texts in which the aims of the curse are explicitly stated but, all
the same, we know nothing of the authors’ motivations. This is especially
apparent in the curses seeking to afflict the victim with a disease or a disease
leading to death. As these texts are almost exclusively non-specific curses
containing no information on the possible motivations that drove their authors
5. AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS OF CURSES
178
resort to cursing, it is impossible to find out anything about the author’s
motivation to write or to order the curse. This holds true for all of the texts
included in the category of disease/death (11 tablets). Interestingly, all these
tablets come from Italy and date to the period between the 1st
cent. BCE and the
1st
cent. CE. The texts pursuing solely the death of the victim (22 tablets) are
very similar in this respect; this pertains mostly to the non-specific curses found
in Italy and Germania, as well as the agonistic curses coming from Africa.
Thus, the victim’s death is the goal of the authors in 33 tablets, which makes up
less than 16% of analysed curses. We will probably never know what situations
compelled ancient people to bring about their enemies’ or rivals’ death. Perhaps
fear of the tablet being found plays some role in this: the author used a nonspecific
curse to afflict his/her victim with death because any reference to the
parties involved could lead to his/her identification and consequent persecution.
However, this hypothesis is likely flawed, as in legal curses the names of the
“advocates” of the cursing party are sometimes stated, probably to make it clear
which lawsuit is concerned. Although legal curses seek the death of the
adversary only very rarely; nevertheless, tablet No. 103 from Bregenz, Raetia,
dfx. 7.1/1, includes both the name of its author and the name of the adversary
who is supposed to die:
Domitius Niger et Lollius et Iulius Severus Nigri servus adve(rs)ar(ii)
Bruttae et quisquis adversus eam loqu(i)t(ur) omnes per(da)tis. B: (Ro)g(o)
vos, omnes qui illi malum (pa)ratis8
dari… dari O(g)mio a(bs)umi morte…
(“Domitius Niger and Lollius and Iulius Severus, the slave of Niger, the
adversaries of Brutta and whoever speaks against her, ruin them all. I ask
you to hand over all those who prepare something evil for her… to hand
over to Ogmius to be consumed by death…”).
But the text of the tablet is damaged and it could well be just a layman’s attempt
at creating a legal curse. In any case, it is unclear whether the fact that death as
the primary goal appears especially in non-specific curses for concrete tangible
reasons, or if it is just a random phenomenon.
Finally, the aims of the authors of love spells and the curses concerned with
rivalry in love are quite clear. As regards love spells, we mostly have the texts
written by men to win the love of a beloved woman through various restrictions.
Conversely, the texts pursuing the separation of a couple in a love triangle (i.e.
in the context of rivalry in love) were more frequently written by women.
Whereas love spells are a marginal category on its own, and a very different one
8
The text is disrupted here and there; for a detailed commentary, see 10.1.2.
5. AIMS AND WISHES OF THE AUTHORS OF CURSES
179
from other types of curses, the cases of rivalry in love aiming at separation are
very much the same as the common non-specific, legal, or agonistic, curses:
their diction is equally foreboding and they afflict their victims equally cruelly.
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
Unlike curses, the motifs of the authors of prayers for justice are always
identical and mostly explicitly stated in the text itself. Prayers for justice were
made in the context of theft, fraud, injustice or other harm suffered by their
authors. H. S. Versnel (1991, 60 ff.) describes them as pleas addressed to a god
or gods in order to punish the (mostly unknown) culprit, frequently including a
request for a compensation for damage done to the author (e.g. by forcing the
thief to return the stolen things or pledge guilt publicly) (see also .1.2.).
Nevertheless, there is still a discussion among scholars on the nature of these
texts (see 1.10.2.). A more accurate definition of the simmilarities and
differences between prayers for justice and curses can be supplied by the
detailed analysis of formulas used in these texts (see Chapter 3) and the aims of
their authors.
The only distinctive feature, which can be regarded as typical of prayers for
justice, is a reference to the damage suffered. Moreover, in several cases the
preserved texts tell us what exactly has been stolen. Thus, they provide us with
an interesting insight into the world of ancient thieves and their victims
defending themselves against the adversities of fate. Because the culprits were
mostly unknown, these tablets were probably the only possible and accessible
way to cope with damage suffered “effectively”. The texts analysed here
suggest that the reason for the making of a prayer for justice was usually a theft
(in ¾ of cases). This context is indicated by the terms denoting either thieves:
qui sustulit, furavit, furtum fecit, minus fecit, involavit, levavit, diripuit, fur,
latro (“who has taken away, stolen, committed a theft, seized, lifted, a thief”),
or their victims: amisi, perdidi (“I have lost”). Sometimes writers of prayers for
justice ask a deity to make things right: persequaris, exigas, vindices1
(persecute, exact, punish”). Only ca. 20 tablets refer to the fact that the author
has been made a victim of fraud or deceit, see No. 226: qui mihi dolum malum
fecerunt (“those who deceived me badly…”); see also 9.2., or No. 233, which
reads:
Rogo te domina mater Magna, ut me vindices de bonis Flori coniugis mei,
qui me fraudavit Ulattius Severus (“I entreat you, Lady Mater Magna, to
1
The verb vindicare in the context of prayers for justice – vindices, vindica – usually
means “punish the culprit” or “avenge me” (see e.g. No. 219, 1.2.1., No. 233, 1.9.3.
and 1.2.2., No. 303, 1.10.2.), in a wider sense it can also denote “exact back” (see
Tomlin, 2010, 248), which is attested in Dig. 47.2.9.
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
181
avenge me regarding the property of Florus, my husband, [of which] Ulattius
Severus has defrauded me.”) (see also 1.9.3. and 10.2.2.).
In some rare cases it is impossible to find out the motif of the prayer for justice.
6.1 THEFTS AND FRAUDS
The thefts documented in the texts of Latin prayers for justice may seem
somewhat petty today, especially when taking into account that their authors
could only be satisfied by quite cruel consequences for the culprit. However,
these probably reflect the moved emotional state of the robbed one right after
s/he suffered his/her loss (see also 1.10.2.).
Clothes and shoes were the most common objects of thefts, especially while
visiting baths – let us remember Catullus’ poem No. 33, which starts with an
exclamation O furum optime, balneariorum, thus making fun of a certain
(otherwise unknown) Vibenna who was said to be the best of spa thieves.
Nevertheless, thefts were certainly committed also in other places and
situations, since sheets and other textiles were stolen too. See, for example, No.
215:
Quis res tunica tulit e Livia (1.2.1. a 9.2.), or No. 217, which reads: … qui
fecit furtum, abstulit autem res: opertorium album novum, stragulum
nov(um), lodices duas de usu. (“…who did this theft, indeed who stole my
property: a new white coverlet, a new rug, two used blankets…”) (see 1.2.1.,
stragulum, see No. 245).
Shoes are referred to in tablet No. 218 from Itálica, Hispania, dfx. 2.2.4/1:
Dom(i)na Fons fove(ns), ut tu persequaris tuas/duas2
res demando
quiscunque caligas meas telluit3
et solias… (“Helpful Lady Spring, I ask you
to trace back/exact two things, whoever stole my boots and sandals...”) (see
6.2. and 8.2.).
Tablet No. 244 from Bath is remarkable, as well – the author complains about
the gloves being stolen:
2
The text is disrupted, Versnel reads tuas (1991, 60), while Tomlin reads duas (2010,
254 ff.), the latter seems to be more probable; the list of stolen things follows:
caligas, solias.
3
Telluit, the Vulgar Latin perfect tolluit instead of the classical tulit, which is
replaced by sustulit in Late Latin (see Tomlin, 2010, 254 ff.).
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
182
Docimedis perdidit manicilia dua. Qui illas involavit, ut mentes suas
perd(at) et oculos suos in fano, ubi destinat. (“Docimedis has lost two
gloves. Whoever stole them, may he lose his mind and sight in the shrine,
where [the goddess] appoints.”).4
Furthermore, coats are mentioned here and there, see No. 270 from Bath:
perdidi la(enam) (pa)llium sagum paxsam… (“I have lost [my]
Italian/Greek/Gallic cloak…”) (see 1.10.2.), or No. 296 from Uley: linteamen (a
linen cloth) (see 1.10.2.), see also No. 293 from Ratcliffe-on-Soar: ocrea
(probably leather gaiters or leggings) (see 12.2.2.), No. 288 from London:
capitulare et fascia (headgear and band) (see 2.2.2. and 12.2.2.), further also
No. 283 from Caerleon: pallium et galliculas (cloak and shoes) (see 1.10.2. and
4.1.), No. 278 from Bath: caracalla (hooded cloak) (see 12.2.3. and 2.2.2.), or
No. 269 from Bath: mafortium (cape),5
No. 271 from Bath: …si quis balniarem
Cantissenae involaverit… (“…if someone has stolen Cantissena’s bathing
suit…”).
There are 21 tablets with prayers for justice that refer to a theft of clothes or
textiles; this makes 29% of all analysed texts concerning thefts (72 tablets).
These are documented in Hispania (four), in Germania (one), and especially in
Britannia6
(16), which is particularly connected to the tablets found in the spas
in Bath.
Like today, money was also often lost, or rather stolen. Such cases are attested
in 15 tablets (which makes 16% of all tablets) from Italy (one), Hispania (one),
Germania (three), Raetia (one), and Britannia (nine); out of these there are 12
cases of theft and three cases of fraud. Usually, smaller sums of money are
concerned, see No. 246 from Bath: (arge)ntiolos sex (see 1.2.2.), or No. 252
from Bath, dfx. 3.2/26: (denarii) V (see 12.2.1.). The highest documented sum
of money appears in tablet No. 291 from Pagans Hill, dfx. 3.18/1:
...in (denari)is III milibus, cuius dimidiam partem tibi (dono?), ut ita illud
exigas a Vassicillo ...pecomini filio et uxore sua,… quod illi de hospitiolo
4
The tablet comes from the sacred spring in Bath dedicated to the goddess Minerva
Sulis. It is a unique record of the Latin word for gloves – manicilia, newly attested
also in tablet No. 306 from Uley (for the detailed discussion of this, see Tomlin,
1988, No. 5; see also 1.2.).
5
Short coat worn by women (see Tomlin, 1988, No. 61; see 1.9.1.).
6
It has to be stated here that most of the evidence of prayers for justice comes from
Britannia, A. Kropp (2008a) mentions 101 tablets, and this work contains 69 of
them.
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
183
meo (pec)ulaverint. (“…in three thousand dinars, of which [I give?] you a
half so that you exact it from Vassicillus, son [of]…, and his wife,
because/whatever they have stolen it from my house.”) (see also 6.2. and
especially 12.2.2.).
In some cases, the writer of the prayer for justice has been deprived not only of
money, but also of other valuables, especially jewellery, as tablet No. 235 from
Mainz, DTM 7, shows:
Quisquis nobis sustulit sacc(u)lum, in quo pecunia erat et eam pecuniam et
annulos aureos… (“Whoever has stolen from us the purse containing money,
and those money and golden rings...”) (see 10.2.2.).
Furthermore, see No. 238 from Wilten, dfx.7.5/1:
Secundina Mercurio et Moltino mandat, ut si quis sustulit 14 (denarios) sive
draucos duos, ut eum sive fortunas eius in(fi)dus Cacus sic auferat quomodi
ill(a)e ablatum est id, quod vobis delegat, ut persequatis… (“Secundina
commends to Mercurius and Moltinus that whoever has stolen two necklaces
worth fourteen denarii7
may be deceived and deprived of property by the
perfidious Cacus, just as she was deprived of hers, which she orders you to
trace back, and she orders you to chase him…”).
Stolen jewellery is found only in nine tablets from Gallia (one), Germania
(two), Raetia (one), and Britannia (five), which makes 12% of all cases of theft.
For example, see No. 225: dextrale (bracelet), or No. 248: Nomen rei, qui
dextrale involaverit…, further also fibulas, as in No. 230: Fibulam Gnatae,
qui sustulit (see 1.7.2.), or a ring, as in No. 275: Basilia donat in templum
Martis anellum argenteum… (see 6.2.1.3. below).
Moreover, stolen dishes are mentioned in six tablets from Pannonia (one) and
Britannia (five), see e.g. No. 239: vasum reponat (see 1.10.2. and below), and
dishes made of tin are referred to in No. 284, dfx. 3.7/1 vasa stagnea (see
12.2.2.), or No. 273 from Bath, dfx. 3.2/57: pannam ferri (iron pan) (see
12.2.3.).
Finally, thefts of cattle are also found in tablets, as in No. 295 from Uley
(1.2.2.) (iumentum), in No. 290, dfx. 3.16/1 the author complains about his foal
7
This is the interpretation of J. G. Gager (1992, No. 101) who associates the word
draucus with draukion, a Greek term for necklace (Versnel, 1991, 83). Moltinus
probably refers to a Celtic deity. See also 10.2.2.
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
184
and axe being stolen (equuleum, securim) (see 3.3.1.1.), and in No. 294, dfx.
3.19/3 theft of a mule is mentioned (mola = mulam) (see 6.2.). Various items of
everyday use associated with the cultivation of soil and cattle breeding appear
in prayers for justice, as well. In tablet No. 249, a certain Civilis writes that he
has been robbed of his plough vomer (see 2.3.5. and 12.2.3.), the author of
tablet No. 264 refers to the loss of a horse blanket (caballarem), the writer of
tablet No. 281, dfx. 3.4/1 has lost his caricula (probably a cart) (see 12.2.3.),
and in tablet No. 303 the author complains at length about the fact that he has
been deprived of two wheels, four cows, and a lot of small belongings he had at
home (resculas) (see 1.10.2. and 12.1.1.).
Concerning the prayers for justice connected to any kind of fraud, we are
usually unable to find out more information on the exact situation referred to, as
e.g. in tablet No. 305 from Uley, dfx. 3.22/34: tibi commendo… qui mihi fraudem
fecit de denariis illis, quos (mih)i debebat… (I commend to you… [the
one] who cheated me of those dinars he owed me…”) (see 6.2.1.1.). Moreover,
the prayers for justice from Germania referring to frauds are remarkably
elaborate (see e.g. No. 234, 1.10.2., No. 233, 6.1. and 10.2.2., and also No. 232,
1.10.2. and 10.2.3.). Rarely, we also find the prayers for justice motivated by an
injustice related to love or family relationship, as in No. 228:
...commendo deabus iniurium fas, ut me vindicetis a Priscilla Caranti, quae
nubere erravit (“I commend to the goddesses [my] fatal injustice, so that you
avenge me on Priscilla, the daughter of Carantus, who made the mistake of
getting married.”).8
The author of tablet No. 257 from Bath, dfx. 3.2/32 probably complains about a
false accusation:
…qui calamea (i.e. probably calumniam) negat, sanguine… de(s)t(i)nat…
(“whoever denies the fallacy, with blood… where he resides…”).9
6.2 AIMS OF THE AUTHORS OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE RELATED
TO THE DAMAGE SUFFERED
As the definition of prayers for justice suggests, their authors try to achieve
punishment for a person who did them wrong, or compensation for the damage
8
See Scholz – Kropp (2004, 34 ff.); see also 10.2.1, with another interpretation,
Urbanová – Frýdek (2016, 343ff.).
9
See Tomlin (1988, No. 40).
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
185
done, all with the help of gods. (see also 1.2. and 6.). Therefore, it can be said
that their aims and wishes fall within two categories: either they are related to
the stolen things and seek compensation for the damage done, or they pursue a
punishment or revenge upon the culprit to get at least some kind of justice.
Thus, they want the tablet to somehow limit or do harm to the culprit, or,
especially, to make him/her give the stolen things back. We would expect that
the one being robbed very much cared about getting his/her things back, so that
his primary goal would be to make the culprit return them by various
restrictions and with the help of divine interference (see also 1.10.2.). However,
the analysis of the preserved prayers for justice shows that the authors instead
mostly pursue punishment of or revenge on the culprit. Thus, it can be assumed
that the authors of prayers for justice did not even expect, quite realistically, that
they would get their things back. Such prayers for justice, concerned with the
punishment of or revenge on a culprit, are closely related to curses – they have
the same goal, i.e. to harm, or even kill, the culprit; albeit, unlike curses, this
does not bring any advantages to them, unless they take some satisfaction in the
mere fact that the culprit has at least been punished. However, this satisfaction
is in fact disputable and dreamed-of, since even if the deity fulfilled author’s
wish and punished the thief, s/he may never know, because the culprit is mostly
unknown.
The authors of prayers for justice then usually explicitly pursue: 1) the return of
the stolen items (wish only to get the stolen things back with the help of a
deity); or 2) the return of the stolen items using restrictions (wish both to get
things back, especially to make the culprit return the stolen things using
restrictions, and to punish the culprit); 3) only the punishment of/revenge on the
culprit (see also 6.2.1.3.).
After a second look at the wishes of the authors of prayers for justice concerned
with the compensation for the loss, it is quite clear that only a tiny portion of all
prayers for justice (four out of 101 texts analysed in this work) seek the mere
returning of stolen things without any explicit reference to the punishment of
culprit – one tablet from Hispania, three from Britannia (see e.g. No. 270,
1.10.2., and No. 246, 1.2.2.). Tablet No. 218 from Itálica, dfx. 2.2.4/1 is an
example of such a “moderate” prayer for justice:
Dom(i)na Fons fove(ns), tu persequaris tuas/duas res, demando. Quiscunque
caligas meas telluit (= tulit) et solias, tibi, dea, demando, ut tu illas,
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
186
ad(cep)tor10
si quis puella, si mulier sive (ho)mo, involavit, (ut) illos
persequaris. (“Helpful Lady Spring, I ask you to trace back/exact two things,
whoever stole my boots and sandals, I entrust them to you, Goddess, that
you exact them, whether the thief that stole them is a boy or girl, a woman or
a man.”) (see also 6.1. and 8.2.).
Less than a third of all evidence, i.e. 28 tablets analysed here, pursue the
returning of stolen things using restrictions, including also the punishment of
culprit. The tablets from European provinces express a wish to get the stolen
things back in connection with the subsequent revenge on the culprit, see e.g.
No. 239 (see 1.10.2. and 6.2.1.3.), or No. 236, which reads:
A: Mando et rogo religione ut mandata exagatis Publium Cutium, et
Piperonem et B: Placida et sacra, filia eius, sic illorum membra liquescant
quatmodum hoc plumbum liquescet, ut eorum exsitum sit. (“I hand over [to
you], and, observing all ritual form, ask that you require from Publius
Cutius, and Pipero and Placida, and Sacra, her daughter, the return of the
goods entrusted to them, may their limbs melt, just as this lead shall melt, so
that it shall be their death.”) (see 1.10.2. and 10.2.4.).
On the other hand, in the tablets from Britannia restrictions appear only for a
limited span of time and the deities use them to make the culprit return stolen
things. See, for instance, No. 295 from Uley:
…ut nec ante sanitatem habeant, nisi repraesentaverint mihi iumentum, quod
rapuerunt. (“…that they may have neither health before/unless they return at
once to me the draught animal which they have stolen.”) (see 1.2.2. and
11.2.2.).
The prayers for justice, which express both the wish to get things back using
restrictions and to be revenged, are documented in Hispania (twice), Germania
twice), Pannonia (once), and Britannia (23 times); in seven tablets from
Britannia the author promises to the deity a substantial part of the stolen money
or a part of the value of stolen things, see No. 291 (6.1. and 12.2.2.), or No. 292,
which reads:
Donatur deo (suprascripto?) decima pars eius pecuniae, quam (so)lverit.
(“A tenth of the money paid [by the culprit] will be granted to the
aforementioned god.”) (see 1.9.2. and 3.3.2.).
10
This part of the text is disrupted, R. S. O. Tomlin (2010, 254 ff.) proposes to read
adceptor (who has them?), or also adiutor (who helped the thief, etc.).
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
187
Tablet No. 289 from Lydney Park is remarkable in this context:
Divo Nodenti Silvianus: anellum perdidit, dimidiam partem donavit Nodenti,
inter quibus nomen Seneciani, nolis permittas sanitatem, donec perferat
usque templum (No)dentis.11
(“Silvianus to the god Nodens: [Silvianus] has
lost his ring, he has given half [of its value] to Nodens. Do not let any of
those named Senecianus be healthy, until he brings [it] back to the temple of
Nodens.”)12
(see also 3.3.2. above).
In this case it seems that Silvianus who had lost his ring wrote the tablet,
because he found out that certain Senecianus had it and he wanted to get it back
from him. Incidentally, a golden ring engraved with the inscription Venus and
later with a common Christian inscription Seniciane vivas in de(o) has been
found ca. 50 km far from the location of this tablet. J. G. Gager (1992, 196 ff.)
states that the two inscriptions may suggest that the ring had two owners. First it
belonged to Silvianus who lost it, and then it belonged to a Christian named
Senecianus who had the other inscription made. Furthermore, Annianus, the
writer of the tablet found in Bath, also complains about a certain Senecianus in
connection with the theft of six silver coins (see No. 276, 2.3.3.). This is the
only known example of both the tablet and the corpus delicti mentioned in the
very same tablet having been preserved; both date back to 350-400 AD.
It appears that the idea of justice or satisfaction is inevitably bound to
punishment or proper revenge in prayers for justice. Most of the preserved texts
of prayers for justice (55) pursue only revenge on or punishment of the culprit;
such tablets have been found in Italy (four), Hispania (three), Gallia (six),
Germania (nine), Britannia (31), Raetia (one), and also in Moesia (Mo. 240).
This includes more than a half of the texts, while the largest amount comes from
Britannia.13
See, for instance, No. 212 from Corsica:
...(Persequa?)ris eum, ut male contabescat, usque dum morietur,… et illum
persequaris, ne annum ducat… (“...Persecute? him so that he languishes
badly, until he is dead,... and persecute him so that he does not live [more
than] a year...”) (see also 2.3.4. and 7.5.).
or No. 226 from Montfo in Gallia, which uses a complicated simile-formula:
11
There are many mistakes in the text (see 3.3.2.).
12
See Tomlin (1988, 95).
13
In 14 out of 101 tablets, the exact purpose cannot be said due to disruption of the
text, or it is not stated at all.
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
188
Quomodo hoc plumbum non paret et decadet sic decadat aetas, membra,
vita, bos, granum, merx eorum, qui mihi dolum malu(m) fecerunt… (“Just as
this lead is not visible and sinks to the bottom, so may the youth?, limbs, life,
livestock, grain, and trades of those who deceived me badly fall into
decay…”) (see also 1.9.3., and esp. 9.2.).
The culprit in tablet No. 229 from Germania (see 1.10.2.) is threatened by
formidable penalties like losing his mind and hands, while worms and other
portents feed on his head and legs, just because a certain Verio complains about
the loss of his cloak. The lists of body parts which are supposed to be afflicted
are also found here and there. No. 237 from Mainz, DTM 12, reads:14
…qu(omo)di hoc liquescet se (… sic co)llum membra me(du)lla peculium
d(e)l(i)ques(ca)nt, eoru(m)… (“…just as this [lead] shall melt, so may his
neck, limbs, strength, savings melt away…”) (see 10.2.4.).
Quite cruel punishments appear also in Britannia, see e.g. No. 260 where the
author has been robbed of a bronze vessel:
…et qui hoc fecerit, sanguinem suum in ipsum aenum fundat. (“…let him
who has done this spill his own blood into the vessel itself.”) (see 1.10.2. and
12.2.3.).
While analysing the texts of prayers for justice, my intention was to distinguish
how exactly their authors wanted to punish or take their vengeance on the
culprits, and eventually to get their things back, with the help of a deity. Like in
curses, the authors of prayers for justice usually combine various penalties.
Generally, it can be said that in many cases the primary goal of the authors of
prayers for justice to get their property back and/or to take revenge on the
culprit are related to the type of penalty chosen; however, it is not always so.
Restrictions working for a limited span of time (as in love spells) are mainly
used in the cases when the authors want to get their stolen property back, and
their purpose is to make the culprit return the stolen things. Nevertheless, the
very same restrictions are sometimes used only to punish the culprit. If the
authors primarily pursue punishment or revenge, their goal is to harm the culprit
in the ways mostly identical to those used in curses. However, especially in the
texts from Germania and Britannia (see 1.10.2.) special types of penalties and
formulations, which have not been found in curses, appear. In 37 tablets
analysed in this work, the authors seek death of the culprit, often combined with
14
The text of tablet No. 237 is related to text No. 236 (see 1.10.2. and 10.2.4.).
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
189
other penalties (see also 6.2.1.3. below). 30 tablets contain no particular type of
restriction; this includes the texts pursuing the returning of stolen things, those
in which the authors try both to get their things and punish the culprit, as well as
those in which the aim is just to punish the culprit. Formulations like redat
pretia damno (No. 221, 9.1.3.) or rogo ut vindices (No. 219, 8.2.) are found.
Some of the texts are; however, damaged to a large extent, so that no particular
restrictions can be detected. Finally, in 34 tablets a combination of various
restrictions is used, often with temporary effect; in 15 of these cases the authors
want to get their things back as well as to punish the culprit, while restrictions
are 19 times used as a punishment. The authors try to ensure that the deity
deprives the culprit of sleep: ne illi permittas dormire (No. 307, 12.2.3.), in
Britannia the collocation nec permittas somnum nec sanitatem ei, qui mihi
fraudem fecit is very often used (No. 250, see 1.10.2.), i.e. the authors want to
deprive the culprit of sleep and health, or of the ability to have children nec
natos ei permittat (No. 247, see 1.2.2.), unless s/he returns the stolen property.
Furthermore, the prayers for justice are often meant to afflict the culprit’s ability
to think, or to remove his/her intellect: qui illas involavit, ut mentes suas
perd(at) (No. 244, see 1.2. and 6.1.). Physical abilities, especially the bodily
functions of the culprit, are the target of prayers for justice, as well, see No.
266: ...no(n il)l(i p)ermittas nec sedere nec iacere nec ambulare nec som(num
nec) sanitatem… (“…you are not to permit him to sit or lie, or to walk, or to
[have] sleep, or health...”) (see also 12.2.3.), or No. 298: … ne meiat, ne cacet,
ne loquatur... (“…may he be unable to urinate, nor defecate, nor speak…”) (see
2.3.1.). Similarly to curses, prayers for justice sometimes pursue to afflict the
culprit with a disease, or take satisfaction in culprit’s death, either in the way
identical to curses: pereat, extinguas, morietur, contabescat, consumas, or using
innovative phrases like maximo leto adigere (see No. 247, 1.2.2. and 1.9.1., and
No. 300, 6.2.1.3.), or No. 294 from Ratcliffe-on-Soar, dfx. 3.19/3, which reads:
Nomine15
Camulorigi(s) et Titocun(a)e mulam, quam perdiderunt, in fanum
dei devovi. Cuicumque nomen involasit16
mula(m) illam, ut sanguin(em)
suum mittat, usque diem, quo moriatur, quicumque involasit furta
moriatur… a deo moriatur. (“In the name of Camulorix and Titocuna I have
dedicated in the temple of the god the mule [?] which they have lost.
15
This is the only evidence of a lead tablet from Britannia, which explicitly states that
it has been written on behalf of someone else (see also 1.12.2.).
16
Involasit instead of the commonly used involavit is probably an archaism like
violasit (Tomlin, 1993, 313 ff.).
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
190
Whoever stole that mule, may he bleed until the day s/he dies, whoever stole
it, may he die… may he be killed by the god?”).17
Blood very often appears in the prayers for justice found in Britannia, and the
authors regard it a proper “compensation” for their loss. Usually the formula
sanguine suo satisfacere/redimere is used, see e.g. No. 277: ...sanguine et vitae
suae id redimat. (“…let him buy it back with [his] blood and his own life.”) (see
also 1.2.2.), or No. 276 from Bath: ut sanguinem suum (r)eputes qui mihi hoc
inrogaverit. (“…reckon as? the blood of him who has invoked this upon me.”)
(see 2.3.3.), further No. 283: …qui tulit, non redimat, nisi vita, sanguine suo.
(“…may the person who stole them not redeem [them/it?], unless with his own
life and blood.”) (see 1.10.2., 4.1.; and esp. Tomlin, 1988, 67 ff.). The ideas of
reckoning (reputes), repayment (solvere), and redemption (redimere) in one’s
own blood, i.e. life, appear exclusively in the texts from Britannia (see also
Versnel, 2010, 287 ff.); and esp. Tomlin, 1995, 373 ff.). The verb redimere is
attested also in Germania, but not used in the same context as it is found in the
tablets from Britannia – it is instead related to the wish that the curse is
irreversible and the culprits cannot buy themselves free from the power of the
deity (see No. 231, 10.2.3.).
6.2.1 The Aims of the Authors of Prayers for Justice in Relation to the
Culprit – Revenge/Restrictions
There are three types of formulas that are repeatedly used in prayers for justice
in connection with penalties and restrictions. First, there are wishes mostly
identical to the repertoire of penalties used in curses: the authors want to afflict
the culprit with a disease or death, including lists of body parts being affected,
as well (see 5.1.2.). Second, several restrictions, especially those found in the
tablets from Britannia, are identical to the restrictions used against victims in
the love spells from African provinces (limitations of bodily and mental
functions of the victims – insomnia, madness, amnesia, restrictions of bodily
functions, etc.). These are often accompanied also by an explicit wish addressed
to a deity to keep the restrictions valid until (donec) or unless (nisi) the culprit
returns the stolen things back (see 1.10.1, 5.1.1., and 5.1.4.). Third, there are
specific wishes found only in prayers for justice, or particular adaptations of
wishes usually found in curses, but formulated in a different way.
17
It seems that, when writing a deo moriatur, the author understood morior not as a
deponent verb but as a verb in passive.
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
191
6.2.1.1 Punishment/Revenge – Points in Common with Curses
Similar to the authors of curses, the writers of prayers for justice wish, although
not very often, to invoke a disease upon their enemies (see 5.1.2.). See, for
instance, No. 212: …ut male contabescat (see 2.3.4. and 6.2.), or No. 305 from
Uley, dfx. 3.22/34, which reads:
Tibi commendo… qui mihi fraudem fecit de denariis illis, quos (mih)i
debebat… seminudi, edentuli, tremuli, podagrici, sine cuiusque hominis
misericordia in fanum et thesaurum potentiss(imi) dei… (“I commend to
you… [the one] who cheated me of those dinars he owed me… [may they be
half-naked, teethless, trembling, gouty, and without the compassion of
anyone… to the shrine and treasury of the mightiest god…”).18
Apart from diseases, the lists of body parts supposed to be afflicted with the
curse, are sometimes found in prayers for justice, though briefer ones than those
used in curses (see No. 12, 1.1.2.1.). These are found in 8 tablets from Gallia
(two), Germania (two), Pannonia (one), and Britannia (three), and are often
combined with other penalties. See No. 224 from Dax/Landes, dfx. 4.3.2/1:
Leontio, f(ilio) Leontio, Didio, Iovino (in)volaverunt… manus, pedes,
oculique, quicumque levavit anul(um), immergo. (“They have robbed:19
Leontius, son of Leontius, Didius, Iovinus… I plunge the hands, feet, and
eyes of the one who has stolen the ring.”) (see esp. 9.2.).
Tablet No. 229 from Germania reads:
…ut illius manus, caput, pedes, vermes, cancer, vermitudo interet membra,
medullas illius interet. (“...may the worms, cancer and maggots penetrate
his/her hands, head, feet, as well as his/her limbs and marrows.”) (see also
2.3.5. and 1.10.2).
See also No. 292 from Ratcliffe-on-Soar:
18
The text of the tablet is disrupted so it does not concur; however, its meaning is clear
– the debtor is obviously supposed to return the stolen money to the temple of
Mercury.
19
The re-edited text is stated here. The tablet dates back to the 4th
/5th
cent. AD and has
been found in a well, which is why the cursing verb immergo is used (see also
1.9.3.). The editors presume that the names listed in the beginning are in dative (not
in nominative without the final –s), which seems more probable to me, as well (see
9.2.).
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
192
Donatur deo Iovi Optimo Maximo ut exigat per mentem, per memoriam, per
intus, per intestinum, per cor, per medullas, per venas, per…, si mascel si
femina, quivis involavit (den)arios Cani Digni… (“It is commended to the
god Jupiter the Great and the Mightiest to exact [the money] through mind,
memory, entrails, intestines, heart, marrow, veins... [of the one] whoever has
stolen them, whether a man or a woman, the money of Canus Dignus...”)
(see 1.9.2. and 12.2.2.).
The peculiar formulations per mentem (No. 292) and …(e)xigas hoc per
sanguinem (No. 258) (see below and 12.2.2.) are documented only in prayers
for justice.
Moreover, prayers for justice sometimes attack the culprit’s health and life, as
curses do, via the formula vitam valetudinem, together with the innovative (see
below) sanitatem, which is attested only in Britannia (see 6.2.1.2. below).
Compare e.g. the curse No. 52 (1.9.2.) and the prayer for justice No. 231 from
Mainz (see 10.2.3.), or No. 285 from Hamble, dfx. 3.11/1, which reads:
Domine Neptune, tibi dono hominem, qui solidum20
invola(vit) Muconi et
argenti(olos) sex. Ideo dono nomina eius, qui decepit, si mascel si femina, si
puer si puella. Ideo dono tibi, Niske, et Neptuno vitam, valitudinem,
sangu(in)em eius, qui conscius fuerit eius deceptionis, animum (eius), qui
hoc involavit et qui conscius fuerit, ut eum decipias furem, qui hoc involavit,
sangu(in)em eius consumas et decipias, domin(e) Neptune. (“Lord Neptune,
I commend to you the man who stole a gold coin from Muconius and six
silver coins. Thus, I commend [to you] the names of those [= the people]
who robbed me, whether a man, or a woman, whether a boy or a girl. Thus, I
commend to you, Niskus, and to Neptun the life, vigour, and blood of the
one who was aware [of the theft], [and] the soul of the one who has stolen it
and who was aware of it, to deprive that thief of it. Lord Neptun, take the
blood of the one who has stolen it and deprive him of [the stolen
property].”)21
The formula using the compounds of the verb verto is often used, as in curses,
in the form of participles like aversus/aversa, or perversus (No. 132, 11.1.3.1.,
and also 5.1.1.), or inversus and interversus (No. 91, 2.3.5.). The formula
20
The tablet reads (so)ldmu (=solidum).
21
The verb decipere is definitely used in the meaning “to rob sb”, Niskus is probably
the name of a Celtic water deity (see Tomlin, 1997, 455 ff.), decipere appears also in
the very damaged tablet No. 99 from Mainz, DTM 28 (Blänsdorf, 2012, No. 28), but
the context in which it is used is unintelligible.
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
193
analogically makes use both of the primary meanings of the compounds of
vertere “turn, avert, inverse”, and their metaphorical sense “to be unfavourable,
averse to, angry with sb” (see No. 230, 1.7.2.). It is often accompanied by a
magical orientation of the script, i.e. the part of the text is written upside down
or in the right-to-left direction, that means in a perverted way or “adversely” to
afflict the victim of the curse with the same kind of “aversion or animosity”.22
Faraone and Kropp (2010, 387 ff., and notes 31 and 32) notice that this could be
an equivalent of killing (“avert from life”). The formula is found in the texts of
curses from Italy (see No. 9, 7.3.1.3.), Germania (see No. 100, 1.7.1. and
7.3.1.4.), Noricum (see No. 101, 2.3.6.), and Gallia (see e.g. No. 67, dfx.
4.3.1/1, and No. 68, dfx. 4.3.1/2 from Chagnon in Gallia.23
The latter two curses
are aimed at adversaries in a lawsuit. No. 67 reads:
...Quomodo hic catellus nemini nocuit, sic… nec illi hanc litem vincere
possint. Quomodo nec mater huius catelli defendere potuit, sic nec advocati
eorum eos defendere possint…
No. 68 reads:
...aversi ab hac lite esse (debent?), quomodo hic catellus aversus est nec
surgere potest, sic nec illi, sic transficti sint quomodo ille. Quomodo in hoc
monumento animalia obmutuerunt nec surgere possunt nec illi… (“Just as
this puppy harmed no one, so [may they harm no one?] 24
and may they not
be able to win this suit. Just as not even the mother of this puppy can defend
[it], so may their lawyers be unable to defend them... [and] so [may] also
these [legal] opponents be turned back from this suit, just as this puppy [lies]
upside-down and is unable to stand up, so neither [may] they [be unable to
stand up]; may they be pierced through, just as this [puppy is]. Just as in this
tomb all [living] creatures have been silenced and cannot rise up, neither
may they [be able to speak? or rise up]…”) (see also 1.10.1.).
Concerning prayers for justice, see No. 235 from Mainz, DTM 7:
…(quo)mod(i) hoc grapphio averso, quod minime uti solet, sic
(eum)…aversum, dii deaeque (e)sse sinat(i)s et hominibus… (“...just as this
[is written] with a perverted/hostile/evil stylus, which is not usual at all, so
22
The formula is also attested in the Greek production, see Mastrocinque (2007, 88 ff.)
who cites the inscriptions with a similar formula in Greek.
23
Both tablets have been found in the same grave, No. 68 is the continuation of No. 67
(see also 9.1.2.).
24
For the interpretation of the lacuna, see Gager (1992, No. 53).
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
194
may you, gods and goddesses, make [him feel] the people’s hostility…”)
(see Faraone – Kropp, 2010, 390 ff.; and esp. 10.2.2.).
This kind of formula is also attested in the prayers for justice found in Germania
and Pannonia (see No. 234, 1.10.2.; No. 109, 1.9.3.; and No. 230, 1.7.2.).
The authors of prayers for justice often wish to invoke death upon the culprits.
They do this, as already said above, in various ways, either using the formula
vitam valetudinem (see above), or the formulations common in curses, or,
finally, a special formula sanguine suo redimere/satisfacere (see also 6.2. and
below).
As for curses, the authors wish death for the culprits in the texts of the prayers
for justice found in Italy, Hispania, Germania, Pannonia, and Britannia, see e.g.
No. 217: …ut tu evites immedio eum, qui fecit furtum… (“…so that you publicly
take away the life of man who did this theft…”) (see 1.2.1.); furthermore, the
usual verbs like pereat (No. 228, 10.2.1.), extabescat, or phrases like exitum
malum feceris (see No. 232, see 10.2.3.), or exitum illius vilem malum (see No.
234, 1.10.2. and 10.2.3.) are used. In tablet No. 236 the idea of death is
associated with melting lead:
…Sic illorum membra liquescan(t) quatmodum hoc plumbum liquescet ut
eoru(m) exsitum sit. (“…may their limbs melt, just as this lead shall melt, so
that it shall be their death.”) (see 1.4. and 1.10.2.), as in the curse No. 89
from Mainz (see 10.1.1. and 10.2.4.).
This metaphor is also documented in Britannia, but in connection with water,
not lead, see No. 242 from Bath: …sic liquat com(odo) aqua… (see 2.3.6.).
Further, in tablet No. 279 from Bath, dfx. 3.2/82 there is a wish: …deus faci(a)t
ani(m)am p(er)d(e)re sui… (“may the god take his life...”).
6.2.1.2 Restrictions/Punishment – Points in Common with Love Spells
Restrictions found in the texts of prayers for justice from Britannia often
resemble the formulations of the love spells documented in African provinces.
For both the actual penalties sent against the culprits of thefts and their duration,
it appears that the writers of the tablets from Britannia were inspired with the
wishes of the authors of love spells. Different restrictions from those present in
legal or agonistic curses are used in love spells (see 5.1.4.). However, the use of
formulas with temporary restrictions, i.e. until the wish of the author is fulfilled,
is logical in the context of theft. Such restrictions in prayers for justice serve to
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
195
make the culprit return the stolen things to the owner, but in love spells their
purpose is to make the beloved person come to the author and be at his/her will.
These parallel situations, though in different contexts (loss of things, lack of
interest of a beloved person), could easily lead to the use of the same formulae
(see also Urbanová, 2010, 644 ff.; and also 5.1.1.). In the love spells found in
African provinces the author usually asks daemons not to let his victim sleep
(see No. 148, 1.9.2.: …non dormiat, ne somnum contingat…), eat, or drink (No.
144, 5.1.4.: …non cibum non escam accipere possit…), tries to limit victim’s
bodily functions, i.e. the ability to sit, speak (see No. 148, 1.9.2.: …neque
sedeat neque loquatur…), or think reasonably (see No. 144: …obligo sensum
sapientiam et (intel)lectum…), or to make the victim mad with love (No. 148:
…uratur furens amore et desiderio meo…), or forgetful of parents and all
relatives (see No. 173: …ut obliviscatur patris et matris (et) omnium suorum…,
11.1.4.). Similar, slightly modified, restrictions combined in various ways can
be found also in the prayers for justice from Britannia, which date back to the
2nd
cent. CE or later, i.e. the same period as the love spells from African
provinces. The authors ask deities especially for the restrictions of bodily
functions, insomnia, or they try to attack the mind or health of the culprit. See,
for instance, No. 291 from Pagans Hill:
…nec illis (p)ermittas sanit(atem) nec bibere nec ma(n)d(u)care, nec
dormi(re) nec (natos) sanos habe(a)nt nisi hanc rem (meam) ad fanum tuum
(at)tulerint.(“…and do not let them be healthy, nor to drink, nor to eat, nor to
sleep, nor may they have healthy children, unless they bring that property [of
mine] to your shrine.”) (see 6.1., 6.2., and esp. 12.2.2.). See also No. 303
(1.10.2. and 12.1.1.) and No. 304 from Uley (see 6.2.1.3. below).
Rather bizarre restrictions of bodily functions are found in tablet No. 298 from
Uley and further also in text No. 258 from Bath, dfx. 3.2/33, which reads:
…(dir)ipuit, ut (eo)rum pretium… (e)xigas hoc per sanguinem et sa(nitatem
sua)m et suorum, nec ante illos pati(a)r(is bibere? nec m)anducare nec
adsellare nec (meiere?)…ius hoc absolverit… (“… has stolen, so that you
exact the price of [them] through [his] blood and [health] and [the blood and
health] of his relatives, and not allow them [to drink?] or eat or defecate or
[urinate?] [before he has]… repaid it.”) (see 2.3.1.).
Text No. 244 from Bath aims at mind, soul, and sight of the culprit: …ut mentes
suas perd(at) et oculos… (“…may [the thief] lose his mind and sight…) (see
6.1.). See also tablet No. 229 from Gross-Gerau: …ut illius mentes memorias
deiectas… (“…may he be bereft of his mind and memory…”) (see 1.10.2.).
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
196
Restriction in the form of insomnia is found in tablets No. 247 from Bath
(1.2.2.), No. 291 from Pagans Hill (see above), and No. 253 from Bath, dfx.
3.2/27, which reads:
Deae Sul(i) Minervae: rogo (s)anctissimam maiestatem tuam, ut vindices ab
his, qui (fraude)m fecerunt, ut eis (per)mittas nec somnum… (“To the
goddess Sulis Minerva: I ask your holiest majesty to avenge [me] upon those
who [defrauded?] me, do not let them neither sleep…”)
Nevertheless, the formula present only in prayers for justice is found more
frequently. This can be regarded an innovation and adaptation of the formulas
like ne dormiat, ne somnum contingat, using the verb permitto, i.e. nec ei
permittas somnum sanitatem, see No. 250 from Bath (6.2. above, 1.10.2.) and
No. 265 from Bath, dfx. 3.2/44, dated to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE,which reads:
...(ne perm)ittas (somn)um nec sanita(tem n)isi tamdiu…quamdiu hoc
(ill)ud/apud(?) se habuerit, si vir si femina et… si ancilla. (“ ...you are [not]
to permit [him/her sleep] or health except for as long as... until s/he has it
[along], whether man or woman, and... or maid/slave woman.”) (see also
3.3.1.1.).
A similar wish to the one common in love spells, i.e. to make the beloved one
avert from her relatives or to forget about them (see esp. 11.1.4., e.g. No. 144),
is found only once in prayers for justice. In the following prayers for justice the
culprit is supposed to be remote or averted from those close to him, which
probably means to lose them, while the formula aversus is used, see No. 238
from Wilten:
…ut persequatis vobisque deligat, ut persequatis et eum aversum fortunis
suis avertatis et a suis proximis et ab eis quos carissimos (h)abeat, (h)oc
vobis mandat, vos eum p(er)se(qu)atis. (“…she orders you to trace back, and
she orders you to chase him, too, and deprive him of his property and his
relatives and those he holds dearest, this she commends to you, may you
chase/seize him.”)25
However, the writers of prayers for justice use these restrictions not only to
make the culprit return the stolen property, but also to punish him or take
25
Versnel (1991, 83) reads corripiatis instead of persecuatis (see also 6.1. and
10.2.2.).
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
197
revenge on him, perhaps even together with a wish that the cursed one dies (see
No. 304 below).
6.2.1.3 Wishes Specific to Prayers for Justice – Punishment/Revenge
Some specific wishes of the authors of prayers for justice are represented by
formulations nowhere else attested in the Latin corpus; these are documented in
the tablets found in Britannia, which pursue culprit’s death. These tablets
contain the formula sanguine suo redimere/satisfacere (see also 1.7.2.), which
is attested with some alternations and often combined with other penalties
altogether in 20 tablets. It is mostly related to thefts, but it appears also in
connection with perjury (see No. 247 below) in those cases when writers want
only to punish the culprit. More than two thirds of the uses come from Bath and
date back mostly to the 2nd
cent. AD and later. See No. 274 from Bath:
Uricalus, Do(c)ilosa ux(or) sua, Docilis filius suus et Docilina, Decentinus
frater suus, Alogiosa: nomina eorum, qui iuraverunt ad fontem deae Sulis
pridie Idus Apriles. Quicumque illic periuraverit, deae Suli facias illum
sanguine suo illud satisfacere. (“Uricalus, Docilosa, his wife, Docilis, his
son, and Docilina, Docilinus, his brother, Alogiosa: names of those who
swore by the spring of goddess Sulis the day before the Ides of April [12th
April]. Whoever [of these] who broke the oath [made] there, make him/her
pay for it to the goddess Sulis in his own blood.”)26
Furthermore, see No. 304 from Uley, dfx. 3.22/32:
(Deo) sancto Mercuri(o) (que)r(or) tibi de illis, qui mihi male cogitant et
male faciunt supra... iumen(tum?)27
… si servus si liber si mascel si femina,
ut non illis permittas nec stare, nec sedere, nec bibere, nec manducare, nec
has (i)r(a)s redimere possint, nisi sanguine suo. (To the holy god Mercury, I
complain to you about those who think badly of me and harm [my cattle?]…
whether a slave or free, whether a man or a woman, so that you let them
neither stand, nor sit, nor drink, nor eat, nor redeem that wrath,28
unless with
26
R. S. O. Tomlin (1988, 226 ff.) states that this is probably the first material evidence
of the belief that hot springs punish those who swear false, as it is found in literary
sources (see also 1.9.2.).
27
This part is disrupted: supra ed… s… iumen(tum?), perhaps the culprits not only
thought badly of the author, but also somehow attempted to harm his cattle.
28
For the interpretation of this, see Tomlin (1995, 373 ff.), the expression has (i)r(a)s
redimere is uncertain and is not paralleled in any other text, it can be understood as
“to redeem oneself from the cause of anger” of the author.
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
198
their own blood…”). This text contains not only the restrictions of bodily
functions, as in love spells, but also seeks vengeance through the formula
redimere sanguine suo.
In several prayers for justice the formulations pursuing punishment or
vengeance are very similar to those used in curses; see No. 247 above in which
the author does not state his name, as is usual in curses, nor does he begin with
a polite address to a deity. See also No. 275 from Bath, dated to the 3rd
/4th
century CE:
Basilia donat in templum Martis anellum argenteum, si servus si liber,
medius fuerit vel aliquid de hoc noverit, ut sanguine et liminibus et omnibus
membris configatur vel etiam intestinis excomesis (om)nibus habe(at) is, qui
anellum involavit vel qui medius fuerit. (“Basilia gives [in] to the temple of
Mars [her] silver ring, whether slave or free, whether [someone was]
involved in this or knows something about it, may he be accursed in [his]
blood and eyes and every limb, or even have all [his] intestines quite eaten
away, he who has stolen the ring or who was involved in this.”) (see also
12.2.3.).
The author of this begins with an address to the deity, as is usual in prayers for
justice; however, she uses the verb of cursing and demands that the culprit is
punished (see also 1.10.2.). In tablet No. 294 (see 6.2.) the wish that the culprit
dies is even repeated three times:
...Cui(us)cumque nomen involasit mulam illam, ut sanguin(em) suum mittat,
usque diem, quo moriatur, quicumque (illam) involasit et ipse moriato… a
deo mor(ia)tur. (“...Whoever stole that mule, may he bleed until the day s/he
dies, whoever stole it, may he die… may he be killed by the god.”).
Moreover, the collocation maximo/pessimo leto adigere is used in the prayers
for justice found in Britannia and Pannonia (see also 6.2., No. 247, 1.2.2. and
1.9.1., No. 239, and No. 300 below). A. Kropp (2004, 87 ff.) relates this
formulation to the old Roman sworn formula documented in Livy (22.53.11),
i.e. with public curses:
Si sciens fallo, tum me Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, domum, familiam remque
meam pessimo leto adficias. (“If I wittingly speak false, may Jupiter
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
199
Optimus Maximus utterly destroy me, my house, my family, and my
estate.”)29
This formula is used also in tablet No. 300 from Uley, dated to the 2nd
–4th
century CE, dfx. 3.22/16:
Deo Mercurio Docilinus… Varianus et Peregrina et Sabinianus, qui pecori
meo dolum malum intulerunt et in t(e)rr(a) proloquuntur.30
Rogo te ut eos
maximo (le)to adigas nec eis sanit(atem nec)somnum permittas, nisi a te
quod mihi ad(mi)ni(strav)erint redem(e)rint. (“To the god Mercury
Docilinus… Varianus and Peregrina and Sabinianus, who caused a great
damage to my cattle, and may they confess [publicly?]. I ask you to drive
them to the most horrible death and not allow them to sleep nor to be
healthy, unless they redeem from you what they have done to me.”)
This interesting piece of evidence shows a lack of logic, which may suggest the
indignation of its author. If the deity really fulfilled author’s wish and adhered
to the sequence of events, as they are stated in the tablet, the culprits would
probably be dead before they could compensate for the damage they had done.
Nevertheless, similar formulations and wishes specifying when exactly the
culprit is supposed to die and return the things to the temple, are found in 10
tablets from Britannia. Tomlin (2010, 260 ff.) associates this practice with the
similar texts found in Hispania, in which authors do not mention at all that they
would like to have their things back; this is true for several texts from Britannia,
too, which seek only vengeance (see above). This discrepancy, i.e. that the dead
person cannot return anything, is then explained by the idea that by handing
over his matter to the deity in a proper way (he does not forget to name all
things which have been stolen) the author automatically supposes that it will be
the deity who avenges him and exacts the stolen property back. This is clear
from the texts using verbs like exigere or vindicare in combination with the
capital punishment. However, it is at the least questionable whether the authors
of the 55 tablets analysed in this work without any explicit reference to the
returning of things meant these or other expressions in this way, as the wish to
get things back and to punish the culprit is very often explicitly stated (28
29
See Livy. Books XXI –XXII With An English Translation. Cambridge. Cambridge,
Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, 1929.
30
The interpretation of this place in the text is disputable. R. S. O. Tomlin (1989, 329
ff.) reads prolocuntur, the whole passage is then interpretable only with difficulties,
since no formula like this is attested anywhere else. Proloquuntur may mean that the
culprits are supposed to plead guilty in public.
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
200
tablets). Scholars assume that the exalted emotional state after a damage
suffered could play a role, too; thus, it would be an expression of the
momentary rage of the author (see Ogden, 1999, 38; Versnel, 2010, 280). This
is; however, problematic because we do not know whether the particular tablets
were written right after the theft. Moreover, it can be assumed that some authors
believed in the returning of their things and, at the same time, wanted to punish
the culprit, possibly even by death, while others did not hope for this at all and
thus resorted to mere vengeance on the culprit in the way identical to curses.
The text of tablet No. 239 from Carnuntum may be crucial to the understanding
of how the authors of such texts perceived the matter:31
Sa(nc)te Dite pater et Veracura et Cerbere, auxilie, qui tenes limina inferna
sive superna (SM + VM alphab.);… v(os) pre(co)r fa(ci)a(tis) Eudemum…
(a)d r(egnum? inf)ernum quam celerisi(me) infra dies novem vasum reponat.
Defigo Eudemum nec(et)i(s) eum pessimo leto, ad inf(er)os d(uca)tis eundem
recoligatis M(anibu)s ministeria infernorum (d)eu(m). (Quom)do i(lle)
plumbus pondus habet sic et (E)ud(e)mus habeat vos iratos, inter la(r)vas…
iam hostiat quam celerissim(e). (“Holy Father Dis, and Veracura,32
and
helpful Cerberus who rule over the infernal and terrestrial lands, I beg you,
make Eudemus… into the infernal kingdom? As quickly as possible, lead
him to the underworld, may he return the vessel in nine days. I accurse
Eudemus, kill him by the worst death, lead him to the underworld and bind
him with the ghosts, you servants of the infernal gods. Just like this lead has
its weight, may Eudemus feel your anger, may he enter among the ghosts as
quickly as possible.”).
This text starts with a polite address to the gods: Sa(nc)te Dite pater et
Veracura et Cerbere; unfortunately, the following part of the text is disrupted,
and the editor’s addition33
fa(ci)a(tis) Eudemum… (a)d r(egnum? inf)ernum,
does not seem ideal, as we would rather expect some restrictions leading to the
returning of the vessel. Surely, the author does not intend to make Eudemus
deliver the stolen vessel to the infernal kingdom, though it could be argued that
lacuna in the text between the words Eudemus and the addition …(a)d
r(egnum? inf)ernum can encompass 7-8 letters.34
Moreover, there is a wish to
get the stolen property back: infra dies novem vasum reponat. In this passage
31
The text of the tablet is damaged to a large extent (see also 1.10.2. and Appendix II).
32
Veracura probably refers to Iuno Veracura – Iuno inferna (see Kropp, 2004, 86).
33
See Egger (1962, 81 ff.).
34
See also A. Kropp (2004, 87) who argues that the two fragments do not belong to
each other.
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
201
the author uses formulations typical of prayers for justice, except for one
discrepancy – he does not state his name. H. S. Versnel (2010, 279) considers
the stating of one’s name to be one of the essential distinctive features of
prayers for justice as compared with curses. Concerning the prayers for justice
analysed in this work, the name of the author is not stated in ca. 62 tablets, but
the text of 30 of these is disrupted so that it cannot be said with certainty
whether the author originally put his name after all. We can, however, be sure
that in the remaining 32 tablets the author did not state his/her name. The texts
not stating the name of the author usually come from Hispania, and ca. half of
these texts have been found in Germania and Britannia. As a result, almost a
third of all preserved texts of prayers for justice do not mention the name of the
author. However, the mood of the tablet soon after merges into the typical curse
even using the verb defigo and asking death for Eudemus, the suspected thief:
defigo Eudemum nec(et)i(s) eum pessimo leto. Although the author seeks the
returning of his property, he simultaneously curses the culprit – punishes him or
seeks vengeance on him through death. Therefore, it rather appears that the
author conceives his text more as an adaptation of a common curse
supplemented with the wish to get his things back. The texts from Britannia,
which pursue especially punishment or vengeance on the culprit, can then be
understood as prayers for vengeance35
derived from common curses (see also
10.2.3.).
The complicated, elaborate, and sophisticated texts of prayers for justice are
found only in the tablets from Germania. These document the wishes of authors
nowhere else attested, see e.g. No. 234 from Mainz (see 1.10.2.) containing the
following wish:
Ita uti galli Bellonarive absciderunt concideruntve se, sic illi abscissa sit
fides, fama, faculit(a)s. (“Just like the priests of Mater Magna [i.e. galli] and
the priests of Bellona have castrated or cut themselves, so may his good
name, reputation, the ability to conduct his affairs be cut away.”).
It has to be stated here that the whole text of this complicated prayer for justice,
which is incorporated into a simile-formula, is constructed with great stylistic
and rhetorical skill. This formula is attested only once in Germania (see
Blänsdorf, 2012, No. 6).
35
See also G. Björck (1938, 28 and 51 ff.) who speaks of “Rachegebete”, i.e. literally
prayers for vengeance (see also 1.10.2.).
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
202
Another remarkable wish documented only in two tablets from Germania seeks
vengeance in the form of the culprit being devoured by worms, see No. 229
(1.10.2.) and No. 231, which reads:
…nisi ut illas vorent canes, vermes adque alia portenta, exitum quarum
populus spectet. (“…but may dogs, worms, and other monsters devour them,
may the people watch their death…”)
(see also 1.10.2., 1.9.2., and 10.2.3.).
No vengeance similar to this has been preserved in the Latin evidence; it
appears once in Greek defixiones, see the curse against Arsinoe of Messina
dated back to the 2nd
cent. CE (see Versnel, 1998, 229 ff.; Gager, 1992, No.
116), and TheDeMa 290.
Other unusual wishes of the authors are found in the tablets containing both
prayers for justice and curses from Germania and Hispania, and perhaps also in
tablet No. 300 from Britannia (see above). The authors try to achieve public
satisfaction, i.e. the public confession of guilt, and esp. public vengeance,36
as
indicated in text No. 217 from Hispania:
…ut tu evites immedio eum, qui fecit furtum… (“…so that you publicly take
away the life of man who did this theft…”) (see 1.2.1.).
A similar wish is found also in the recently published tablets from Mainz (see
No. 232, 10.2.3., and No. 231), in which deaths of the culprits are supposed to
be watched by the people: …ut exitum tuum populous spectet…, and No. 232
also asks that the culprits confess:
Cr(ucietur/cras veniat) et dicat se admisisse ne(fa)s…37
(“ May he be
tortured and may he confess that he has committed a villany...”)
To conclude, these texts are fascinating testimonies of the intrusion, spreading,
and blending of the Mediterranean cursing tradition in the regions belonging to
the Roman Empire, as is seen from the adaptations of formulas used in love
36
See especially H. S. Versnel (2010, 284 ff.) who in this respect mentions the socalled
confession inscriptions, the steles containing confessions of guilt from Asia
Minor (Versnel, 1991, 75 ff.), as well as other cases of Greek prayers for justice
explicitly referring to the fact that the culprit is supposed to plead guilty in public
and that his punishment should take place in public.
37
The text is very long and quite damaged; for its interpretation, see Blänsdorf (2010,
180 ff.; and esp. 2012, No. 2). See 3.3.3., 1.10.2., and 10.2.3.
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
203
spells from African provinces in the prayers for justice from Britannia.
Regarding the evidence found in Germania, they may even indicate the presence
of professional magicians in the region (see Blänsdorf, 2010, 147 ff.).
6.3 CONCLUSION
Compared to the wishes and aims of the authors of Latin curses, which appear
to be quite compact, dependent on a particular type of curse, and in agreement
with the cursing practice of a particular province, the aims and wishes of the
authors of prayers for justice are more varied. The differences between the two
genres are largely dependent on the particular territory. The tablets coming from
the European provinces like Italy, Hispania and Gallia have several features in
common, and are more closely linked to curses. On the other hand, the evidence
found in Britannia indicates an autonomous and innovative development of this
genre in the region. Finally, the tablets from Germania display quick intrusion
of the Mediterranean magical practices to the more remote areas of the Roman
Empire, as well as some laic adaptations of this magical tradition – blending of
formulas and dissolving of the differences between curses and prayers for
justice.
The writers of curses mainly attempt to restrain their opponents in some way;
therefore, they most often include restrictions (86 tablets, which make 41% of
all cases). Altogether 33 curses (which make 16%) pursue death of the victim,
sometimes combined with restrictions, too; in 37% of cases the aim of the curse
cannot be distinguished.
In prayers for justice three main types of aims are involved: first, to make the
culprit return the stolen items without a mention of punishment (see 6.2. above)
– this is, however, very rare (only in 4% of prayers for justice); second, to make
the culprit return the stolen things and, possibly, to punish him – this is the case
of almost a third of all texts (28 tablets = ca. 28%); third, only to punish or to
take vengeance on the culprit – this is the aim of most of the prayers for justice
(55 tablets = ca. 55%). Concerning the types of penalties supposed to afflict the
culprits, it can be assumed that the most frequent aim of the authors of prayers
for justice is vengeance or, more precisely, death of the culprit often combined
with other punishments. The culprit, whether known or unknown, is supposed
to repay the damage done with his own life in 37 tablets (= ca. 37%). Thus,
death is twice as frequent in prayers for justice as in curses. It is disputable
whether this is related to the idea of just punishment for a crime, or rather due to
the momentary emotional state of the author. Restrictions are found only in 34
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
204
tablets (= ca. 34%) with prayers for justice, i.e. less often than in curses. In
curses the repertoire of various restrictions and penalties affecting the victim is
mostly dependent on the type of curse; however, interesting combinations of
various penalties and types of vengeance afflicting the culprit are often found in
prayers for justice. These make use of the formulations attested in curses, i.e.
the formulations used to invoke death or disease on the culprit, as well as of the
formulas attacking one’s health and life like vitam valetudinem. They also
include lists of body parts which should be afflicted by a disease, or the
formulas based on the compounds of the verb verto, like in curses.
Reception and adaptation of formulas commonly used in love spells for the
purposes of prayers for justice exists predominantly for the area of ancient
Britannia.38
Both the prayers for justice from Britannia and love spells use
similar restrictions (nec somnum permittas, nec ambulare, manducare...), which
are supposed to work for a limited span of time, specifically in prayers for
justice until the culprit returns the stolen property. Moreover, recently peculiar
formulas have been found in Britannia, which so far have been documented
neither in curses nor in prayers for justice from the continental European
provinces. One of these is the formula for a temporary restriction of culprit’s
bodily functions (nec ei permittas somnum, sanitatem...) lasting until s/he
returns the stolen things. Another such formula enables the authors to invoke
death on the culprit, mostly in those cases when they seek only punishment or
vengeance; however, it is sometimes found also in relation to the returning of
stolen things (ten tablets). The culprit is usually supposed to redeem himself
with his own blood (sanguine suo redimere/satisfacere). The texts of prayers
for justice found in Germania also contain bizarre, picturesque and nowhere
else attested penalties and restrictions (see No. 234 above: sic illi abscissa sit
fides, fama, faculitas), 6.2.1.3.; or No. 229 and No. 231: a wish that the culprit
is devoured by worms). Similarly to the Greek prayers for justice, a wish that
the culprit is publicly punished rarely appears also in the Latin prayers for
justice (see No. 217, No. 231, No. 232, and No. 300).
Generally, it can be said that ca. half of the penalties used in the texts of prayers
for justice are identical to those included in curses. The other half then comprise
either adaptations of the formulas commonly used in love spells, or completely
38
The documentation of prayers for justice outside Britannia is scarce and similar
formulas have not been attested.
6. REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
205
new, unattested formulas. However, it is surprising that the punishments used in
prayers for justice seem to be crueller than in curses.39
39
See also Ch. A. Faraone (1991, 10) who argues that in Greek curses the authors
usually pursue only the restrictions of victims’ bodily ad mental functions, not their
death.
7. ITALIA
7.1 NEW FINDINGS
Until recently, we have been acquainted with ca. 60 cursing tablets from the
area of ancient Italy; the new corpus of Kropp (2008) states altogether 521
texts
containing curses and five texts containing prayers for justice. In total, this
monograph includes and analyses 45 curses and five prayers for justice (see
chapter 1.). However, the amount of preserved evidence is certainly not definite.
During the construction of underground garages in 1999 an ancient fountain has
been discovered in Rome including a cistern built around the spring and an
adjacent reservoir.2
The two inscriptions found in the fountain with a dedication
Nymphis sacratis Annae Perennae dated back to the 2nd
cent. CE suggest that
the spring was related to the cult of this ancient Roman deity. The pottery found
at the place indicates that the fountain was used from the 4th
cent. BCE up to the
6th
cent. CE.3
The information on this cult can be found in Ovid and other
ancient authors, as well as in Fasti Vaticani.4
The rich archaeological findings
lifted from the cistern included a very precious material connected to the
1
A. Kropp has excluded some fragmentary texts published in DT, which are now
either lost or completely corroded.
2
Piranomonte (2010, 191 ff.; 2012), Blänsdorf (2010a, 2012a), and Blänsdorf, J. –
Piranomonte (2012); see also 1.8.1. and 1.8.2. above. These findings have not been
included into the analysis of this work.
3
For the inscriptions, see AE (2003, No. 251 –253); for the detailed discussion of
ancient references and epigraphic evidence concerning this cult, see Piranomonte
(2010, 192 ff.); see also Blänsdorf (2010a, 215 ff., 2012a), and Piranomonte –
Simón (2010, esp. 191 –192).
4
Ovid (Fasti III, 523 –564 and 655 –674) describes cheerful celebrations in honour of
the goddess Anna Perenna associated with drinking of wine, and states two
explanations for the origins of this cult. The first version of the story is that Anna,
Dido’s sister, came to Latium, where she was offered hospitality by Aeneas;
however, his wife Lavinia was jealous of her and attempted to kill her. Therefore,
Anna fled from the palace and became a nymph of the river god Numicius (III, 654):
amne perenne latens Anna Perenna vocor... (“In a perennial river I hide, and Anna
Perenna is my name...”; transl. according to Loeb’s edition: J. G. Frazer, 1931). The
other version of the myth speaks of an old woman Anna from Bovillae who fed the
plebeians with her bread, when they abandoned the city and receded to Mons Sacer
(The Sacred Mountain). Other references can be found in Silius Italicus (Pun. VIII,
49 –201), Varro (Menipp. frg. 506), and Macrobius (Sat. 1.12.6.). Anna Perenna’s
day is said to have been celebrated in the Ides of March (15.3.) (Fasti Vaticani, CIL2
1, p. 242; see esp. Piranomonte, 2010, 292 ff., 2012).
7. ITALIA
207
magical practices. The cistern was regarded a convenient place to deposit a
curse, since it was a water source inhabited by water deities (nymphs) who
could fulfil the wishes of the cursing one (see 1.7. and 1.8.3.).5
The
archaeological material found in the cistern connected to magical practices
includes oil lamps dated to the 4th
/5th
cent. CE, since at least six of the total
number of 74 lamps have been undoubtedly used as magical offerings − small
rolled into scrolls lead tablets have been put inside them instead of a wick (see
also 1.8.2). Three little lead slices with curses found in an oil lamp have been
published by J. Blänsdorf (2010a, No. 6a, b, c). The texts are quite damaged and
contain impenetrable sequences of magical signs; however, a typical, though a
fragmentary, formula including the name of the victim and filiation via
mother’s name appears here: Victor, quem peperit Pria(...) alluia (6a); Victor,
quem peperit Privata... (6c) (“Victor, whom ... bore.”). Moreover, 26 other,
mostly lead, tablets containing curses have been found in the cistern.6
One of
them – defixio with Christ and Nymphs (4th
/5th
cent. CE), although largely
disrupted, floats between Paganism and Christianity. This tablet, Blänsdorf –
Piranomonte (2012, 629) dated to the 4th
/5th
cent. CE, reads:
…conatas suas person(as)…ill…
et uaticolo m.l…erio…
filio et quisquis .c.rm…
(roga)mus cras deas uest(ra)s …
et cristum nostr(um)…
(Qui) gaudent timi(a)nt t…
eu(m) uincam i…c…
…suc.ui …
If Blänsdorf’s7
reading and interpretation are correct, the author of the tablet
was a Christian who did not hesitate to use all means available to achieve his
goal. The beginning of the tablet is very damaged, but in the 4th
line and further,
we can read the sequence (roga)mus cras deas uest(ras)...et cristum nostr(um)...
(Qui) gaudent timi(a)nt t...eu(m) uincam... “we will ask tomorrow your
goddesses...and our Christ... Those who rejoice, shall fear, I shall defeat
him...?”
5
See also tablet No. 1, 1.9.1.: hunc ego apud vostrum numen demando, devoveo,
desacrifico, uti vos Aquae ferventes, sive vos Nymphae, sive quo alio nomine vultis
appellari, uti vos eum interimatis, interficiatis...
6
Piranomonte – Simón (2010, 164). See also the most recent publication Blänsdorf –
Piranomonte (2012, 617 –639).
7
Blänsdorf – Piranomonte (2012, 629).
7. ITALIA
208
Finally, 24 lead cylindrical vessels including a cap, which were sealed airtight
with pitch, have also been found there.8
After being opened, two other smaller
cylindrical vessels have been found placed one inside another as the Russian
matrioshka dolls, while in some cases the tiniest vessels either had their own
caps or were turned upside down. Some of these vessels even bear inscriptions
and depictions of daemons. The depiction of the bird-headed daemon holding in
his right hand an object is very interesting; beside him there is a magical
palindrome in Greek letters. ABΛANAΘANAΛBA associated with the Gnostic
movements, and a solar religion. The Greek letters on the belly of the demonic
figure: ΙΧΝΟΠ/ΧΝΚ/ΘΘΘ can be resolved as Iesous Xristos Nazarios O Pais
Xristos Nazarios Kai Theos, Theos, Theos.9
Seven of the vessels also concealed anthropomorphic figurines10
symbolizing
the victims of the curses made of organic materials (wax, flour, sugar, milk and
herbal materials), and the core of the figurines was made of animal bones,
which sometimes bear inscriptions of their own (see also 1.8.1). The vessels
dated to the second half of the 4th
century CE probably represent the production
of a single specialized magical workshop,11
but the curse tablets also dated to
the 4th
century CE, which have been found separately in the cistern, differ from
each other extensively, where the type of script, language level, and the content
of the curses are concerned. For example, the tablet published by J. Blänsdorf
(2010, No. 7) can be regarded as the work of a professional magician (see 7.4.
below). Many of the texts are severely damaged and the interpretation of the
iconography of daemons together with the texts and magical signs is especially
problematic, given that there is no material suitable for comparison. Therefore,
it is now still too soon for the detailed analysis of these. J. Blänsdorf (2010a,
216) asserts that 19 of the inscriptions found are written in Latin and two in a
strange mixture of Latin and Greek. Seven inscriptions contain also depictions
of daemons or victims (imagines) and magical signs, two texts refer to the
spring and the nymphs, others invoke Egyptian deities, which is a practice
8
Piranomonte – Simón (2010, 205 ff.).
9
See Blänsdorf – Piranomonte (2012, 619) and Piranomonte – Simón (2010, 171); for
the interpretation of the Greek letters on the belly see Néméth (2015,55 –60).
10
A very strange figurine has been found in the container with the depiction of the
Egyptian god Seth. The figurine was made of an organic material, wrapped in lead,
and transfixed with two nails, one in its legs and another in its belly. The snake
seems to clasp the body of the figurine and bite it in the face. See Piranomonte –
Simón (2010, 9).
11
For further discussion, see Piranomonte (2010, 203 ff.).
7. ITALIA
209
similar to the so-called Sethianorum tabellae also found in Rome in the
neighbourhood of Porta S. Sebastiano (see 1.7.1. and 4.1. above).
7.2 THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE TERRITORY OF ANCIENT
ITALIA AND ITS SPECIFIC FEATURES
The Mediterranean cursing tradition very soon reached Italian shores, which has
been proved by the preserved Greek curses dated back to the 6th
cent. BCE
found in Sicily at the original site of the Selinus colony (today’s Selinunte) (see
Kropp, 2008a, 45; and esp. Bettarinin, 2005; Rocca, 2012).12
The cursing
tradition had spread across the territory of ancient Italy not only among the
Latins, but also other nations inhabiting the area at the time.13
Concerning the
Oscan epigraphic documentation, the corpus (see Rix, 2002) includes altogether
12 Oscan curses; more recently, see also F. Murano (2012) who refers to 14
Oscan curse tablets. All come from Campania, Lucania and Bruttium, i.e. from
the regions strongly influenced by Greek culture; five of these have been dated
as back as to the 4th
/3rd
cent. BCE.14
Similarly to the Latin curses, several of
these include mere nominal lists of cursed people, and four pieces of evidence
12
See Rocca (2012, 397 ff.); and Rocca 2012a, 210 who states that the corpus of
Greek defixiones from Selinus now includes altogether 45 texts.
13
See also a Greek prayers for justice dated back to the 3rd cent. BCE found in
Bruttium, DT 212; Gager (1992, No. 92).
14
The texts are cited according to the corpus of Sabellic inscriptions (Rix, 2002); or
Vetter (1953) as (Ve) in agreement with the usual practice in citing Oscan
inscriptions, i.e. bold letters mean that the inscription has been written in Oscan
alphabet. The evidence of Oscan curses: Sa 3 (Aquilonia, dated to the 3rd
cent. BCE,
includes the names of cursed people); Cm 13 (Ve 3; Cuma, dated to the end of the
2nd
cent./beg. of the 1st
cent. BCE, a legal curse, see below); Cm 14 (Ve 5; Cuma,
dated to the last quarter of the 4th
cent. BCE, the text is much damaged but probably
contained a legal curse); Cm 15 (Ve 7; Cuma, dated to the 2nd
/1st
cent. BCE, a legal
curse); Cp 36 (Ve 4; Capua, dated to the 2nd
/1st
cent. BCE, a legal curse, see also DT
192 and below); Cp 37 (Ve 6; Cuma, dated to the 4th
/3rd
cent. BCE, see also DT
193; the text is damaged but it probably contains a non-specific curse against an
enemy, the author (Vibia Aquia) commends to the goddess Ceres Ultrix to harm
Paciu Cluvatius). Altogether 6 Oscan defixiones written in Greek alphabet come
from Lucania: Lu 43 –47 and Lu 63, these are mostly nominal lists of accursed
people, i.e. non-specific curses, Lu 43 dates back to the 3rd
cent. BCE; Lu 63 to the
4th
/3rd
cent. BCE; and Lu 46 to the end of the 4th
cent. BCE.
7. ITALIA
210
are legal curses. See e.g. Cm 13 (Ve 3),15
a lead tablet found in the Oscan
necropolis of Cumae, dated to the 2nd
/1st
cent. BCE:
stenim. kalauiiúm.trí aginss.urinss.úlleis.fakinss
Stenium Calavium Tre(bi filium?) actiones, orationes, illius facinora
fangvam. biass. biítam. aftiím. anamúm. aitatúm amirikum. tíf[eí?…]
linguam, vires, vitam, spiritum? animam, aetatem, quaestum tib(i?…)16
This Oscan tablet contains a curse aimed at Stenius Calavius, probably in a
legal context − it is supposed to afflict his legal actions, speeches, deeds,
tongue, and, in the same manner as in Latin curses, also his vigour, life, breath?,
soul, youth?, and fortunes. See the similar lists of cursed body parts and
fortunes in Latin curses and prayers for justice, e.g. No. 11 (2.2.1. and 7.3.1.6.),
No. 12 (1.1.1.2. and 7.3.1.2.), and No. 226 (1.4. and 9.2., and esp. 7.3.1.1.
below).
Similarly, another Oscan defixio Cp 36 (Ve 4),17
a lead curse tablet found in a
Roman grave in the necropolis of Capua, dated back to the 2nd
/1st
cent. BCE,
contains a legal curse:
steniklúm. vírriis/ tríhpíu. vírriis/ plasis. bivellis/ úppiis. helleviis/ lúvikis
úhtavis
Steniculum Virrius, Tryphio Virrius, Plasius Bivellius, Oppius Hellvius,
Lucius Octavius
statiis. gaviis. nep fatíum. nep. deíkum. pútían/s/ lúvkis. úhtavis
núvellúm velliam/
Statius Gavius nec fari nec dicere possint; Lucius Octavius. Novellorum
voluntatem
nep. deíkum . nep. fatíum. pútíad/ nep. memnim . nep. úlam. sífei.
heriiad.
nec dicere nec fari possit, nec meminisse, nec illam sibi velit.18
15
The text is cited according to Rix (2002): Cm 13, the translation into Latin
according to Vetter (1953, No. 3).
16
Crawford (2011, 507 ff.) translates: “ (I curse) Srenius Calauius, son of Tre..., (legal)
actions, speeches of that man, deeds, tongue, strengths, life, sight (?) spirit, age,
wealth, for you... ”.
17
The text is cited according to Rix (2002): Cp 36, the translation into Latin according
to Vetter (1953, No. 4).
18
Crawford (2011, 441 ff.) translates: “Steniculum Virrius, Tryphio Virrius, Plasius
Bivellius, Oppius Helvius, Lucius Octavius, Statius Gavius, amy they not be able to
7. ITALIA
211
In the first part of the tablet, the names of those supposed to be unable to speak
or testify are stated: nep fatíum. nep. deíkum. pútían/s/ − nec fari nec dicere
possint; the other part refers to L. Octavius who should be unable to speak or
testify as the Novelli wish and forget about everything. This tablet, too, uses
formulae similar to the Latin legal curses, see also e.g. No. 113 and No. 116
from Carthage (see Appendix I and 11.1.2.). Both above mentioned Oscan
tablets are very similar to Latin curses as to the form and content; thus, it is
obvious that Oscan and Latin cursing traditions come from the same formulary
sources. The text of both Oscan tablets mentioned above has been written in a
left-to-right direction, which is unusual in Oscan inscriptions, as these prefer
right-to-left direction.19
E. Vetter (1953, 29) thought this to be the influence of
Latin with respect to the relatively late dating of both tablets. However, I
assume that it is associated with the magical use of script, i.e. unusual
orientation of script, which is found also in Latin curses from the area of old
Italy (see e.g. No. 2 and No. 7, see Appendix I, 1.9.1. and 7.7.).The corpus of
Etruscan inscriptions also includes lead tablets probably containing Etruscan
curses; however, the more complicated texts are hard to interpret. D. H.
Steinbauer (1999, 311ff., No. S 47) believes that the only certain evidence of
Etruscan curse is the inscription Po 4.4 inscribed on a lead tablet found in
Campiglia Marittima, dated back to the 2nd
cent. BCE, and identifies the names
of victims written on it.20
He regards the expression θapicun θapintaś an
Etruscan cursing formula, perhaps meaning “I have accursed with a curse”. A.
J. Pfiffig (1965, 324 ff.) treats also the texts AV 4.2-3 inscribed on small lead
statuettes as Etruscan defixiones dated back to the 4th
cent. BCE. Finally, two
other recently found texts on lead tablets Vt 4.1 and 4.2 can also be classified
undoubtedly as Etruscan curses. Both were found in a grave, rolled into scrolls
and wrapped by lead wire, and contain mainly the names of cursed people; the
tablet Vt 4.1 includes also a filiation via mother’s name, which is a typical
feature of a defixio (see also 1.6.).21
pronounce, not to speak, may Lucius Octavius not be able to pronounce not to speak
the wish of the Novelii, may he desire for himslef neither memory nor that (wish) ”.
19
See e.g. Urbanová − Blažek (2008, 160 ff.).
20
The inscriptions are cited according to Rix (1991).
21
My gratitude for this oral piece of information belongs to H. Eichner (see also
below), a similar method is attested also in the Latin tablet No. 16. The Etruscan
inscriptions usually state either only father’s name or both father’s and mother’s
names.
7. ITALIA
212
7.3 SPECIFIC FEATURES OF THE CURSE TABLETS FOUND IN THE
TERRITORY OF OLD ITALY
The earliest preserved Latin curses come from the 2nd
cent. BCE: No. 33 from
Pompeii (see 1.10.1.), and tablet No. 6 from Etruria dated to the 2nd
/1st
cent.
BCE and containing a mere nominal list of cursed people.22
Nevertheless, Latin
curse tablets, as well as the Oscan and Etruscan ones, very probably existed as
early as in the 4th
/3rd
cent. BCE. The largest number of texts found in the
territory of Italy comes from the 1st
cent. BCE (ten tablets) and from the 1st
cent.
CE (ca. ten tablets), while there are eight pieces of evidence dated to the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE and the 2nd
cent. CE.23
From the 2nd
cent. CE on, the evidence gets
more and more scarce.
Regarding the external features accompanying the cursing traditions in the
territory of old Italy, it can be said that the largest amount of tablets containing
curses or prayers for justice has been found in graves (30), two tablets have
been found in the soil, four other beside water sources, and one in a shrine,24
while the place of finding is unknown to us in seven cases. Lead is the most
used material apart from few exceptions (No. 25, No, 26, and No. 209) (see
1.4.). The usual ways of tablet’s treatment include transfixion, i.e. the ritual
defigo, in 18 cases (mostly dated to the 1st
cent. BCE), and rolling in nine cases
(mostly in the earlier tablets); ten tablets have been found with no signs of ritual
treatment. Concerning the remaining texts, the editors do not state any ritual
treatment, or the tablets have been treated in some different way.25
Compared to the evidence found in African provinces, fewer types of curses
have been found in Italy; however, we can rightly assume that this is caused by
the insufficiency of the preserved documentation. For example, no Latin
agonistic curses have been preserved from Italy; all the evidence of Latin curses
against gladiators, race horses and charioteers comes from African provinces.
On the other hand, some Greek tablets written against rivals in the circus have
22
Moreover, one Latin tablet also dated to the 2nd
cent. BCE has been found on the
island of Delos.
23
The dating of tablets is problematic (see also 1.3.), and the editors often state only
estimated dates, e.g. the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE and the like.
24
The above mentioned recent findings in the cistern of Anna Perenna’s shrine in
Rome (ca. 26 tablets) have to be added among the tablets found in the context of
water sources. The tablet found in a shrine comes from the Janiculum, from the
temple of Syrian deities.
25
For example, tablet No. 16 has been found rolled into scrolls and wrapped with iron
wire, see also the Etruscan evidence from the area of Volterra above.
7. ITALIA
213
been preserved directly in Rome. Thus, it can be supposed that there existed
also some Latin examples of this type of curse, not only in Italy, but also in
other provinces where the wrestling matches and races in the circus were held
(see 4.1.). Generally, in European provinces we know only of non-specific,
legal and rivalry in love curses, in Britannia only of non-specific curses and
perhaps also of a single piece of evidence connected to rivalry in love, whereas
only three potential love spells have been found in Europe: the first one in the
province of Raetia (see No. 106); second, the No. 69 from Gallia; and the third
one at the fountain of Anna Perenna.26
Conversely, most of the love spells and
all agonistic curses against gladiators, charioteers and race horses come from
African provinces, while no Latin curses associated with rivalry in love nor
prayers for justice have been found in Africa.
7.3.1 Non-Specific Curses
Most of the curse tablets found in Italian territory contain non-specific curses −
the corpus of this work includes altogether 33 of them, which makes almost ¾
of all cursing texts preserved in Italy. The relatively high occurrence of this type
of curse in Italy corresponds to its high occurrence in all parts of the Roman
Empire, the non-specific curses make ca. 45% of all preserved curses (see also
4.1.1.). These often contain mere nominal lists of cursed people, 14 tablets of
this type have been found in Italy (see 2.1.1. above). As already said (see
5.1.2.), the authors of non-specific curses, when compared to other types of
cursing texts, usually pursue the death of victim. This is especially true for the
non-specific curses found in Italy (see chapter 5.). 15 out of 33 non-specific
curses pursue victim’s death or a disease with lethal consequences; only once
restrictions or disease is applied. The aim of the remaining non-specific texts
cannot be determined, as these include only the nominal lists of victims.
7.3.1.1 Cursing of Body Parts
The typical phenomenon which appears in the non-specific curses from Italy is
that these often contain very detailed lists27
of all particular body parts of the
victim supposed to be afflicted by the curse. Apart from that, the authors aim at
the victim’s ability to think, or, generally, at the life and health of the accursed
26
See Blänsdorf – Piranomonte (2012, 621); however, it is unclear whether this is
really a love spell.
27
I call these lists only if there are at least three terms in sequence which either refer to
particular body parts or contain more general terms like corpus, membra omnia, or
health, mental condition, or life.
7. ITALIA
214
one. The fortune of the victim, probably a frequent cause of rivalry, is often
jeopardized, too. This means that the authors try to destroy not only the physical
health of their enemies, but also their social status.28
The lists of cursed body
parts, soul, or mind, are, nevertheless, found many times especially in Greek,
but also in Latin curses, love spells, and prayers for justice.29
The lists, whether of cursed people or body parts, are considered to be a solid
part of magical thinking. The composition of an exhaustive list of items which
are supposed to be afflicted, or of all eventual events that could happen, is at the
same time perceived as a blockage of all of the victim’s chance to escape the
curse. The similar anticipation of various situations that might happen is found
also in Roman legal documents (see Gordon, 1999, 241ff.). The oldest Greek
evidence of the lists of accursed body parts or victim’s fortunes have been
preserved from the 4th
cent. BCE in Attica,30
but from the end of the 6th
cent.
BCE also in Selinunte in Sicily,31
most frequently in connection with the actual
motif of the curse, i.e. e.g. in the legal context. In the latter, however, the curse
is usually meant to limit an adversary’s tongue and ability to speak and think; in
the context of rivalry in business, the curse usually aims at the object of rival’s
enterprise (see Gordon, 1999, 258 ff.; DTA 61a, b, a 94), while the agonistic
curses attack the physical abilities of gladiators. H. S. Versnel (1998, 217 ff.)
uses the term instrumental curses for those curse whose authors deliberately
attempt at limiting the abilities of their adversaries in agreement with the actual
purpose of the curse, i.e. to gain advantages for themselves (see also 1.10. and
esp. chapter 5. above). Unlike the most of the later curses containing extensive
lists of almost all body parts, which he calls anatomical curses, the above
mentioned kind of lists is mostly used in non-specific curses and the author’s
aim is to destroy his/her victim utterly. P. Poccetti (2002, 26 ff.) sees the
enumeration of body parts supposed to be afflicted by the curse as a linguistic
transposition of the ritual procedure (expressed by Lat. defigo) of transfixing the
body parts of the clay figurines, kolossoi (see 1.8.1.; and also Gager, 1992, 97
ff.).
The pursuit of the best possible effect of the curse is manifested by various
communicative strategies. A shortened list of accursed items can be understood
as a synecdoche, i.e. the curse is supposed to afflict the whole body, see e.g. the
28
See also Gordon (1999, 270 ff.).
29
See also H. Versnel (1998, 217) who cites some noteworthy Greek curses which use
this type of formula.
30
See Wünsch (1897); Jordan (1985, 205; 1988, 273).
31
See Gager (1992, No. 49); Bettarini (2005); Rocca (2012, 209 ff.).
7. ITALIA
215
Greek love spell from Euboea, dated to the 4th
cent. BCE, aimed at a woman.
The spell should afflict her hands, legs, and the whole body (see Gager, 1992,
No. 19; Gordon, 1999, 258 ff.). Compare also tablet No. 3, dfx.1.1.2/1, in which
the author curses the body as a whole, and then separately also head, teeth, and
sight:
Porcellus, Porcellus mulomedicus...interficit(e) omn(e) corpus caput
dente(s) oculos mortuos facite Porcellum et Maurillam uxorem ipsius…
(“Porcellus, Porcellus the veterinarian... destroy his entire body, his head,
teeth, eyes, make Porcellus and his wife, Maurilla, (dead?).32
In the Hellenistic times and especially in the following centuries, the authors
more and more often accumulate the more or less synonymic expressions in
Greek agonistic curses, as well as in several Latin ones. See, for instance, No.
157 against charioteers and race horses:
...cadant, frangant, disfrangantur ma(le) girent... (“...may they fall, may they
break, may [their chariots?] be smashed apart, may they turn wrongly...”)
(see 2.3.5.).
or No. 132, the curse from Carthage aimed against a gladiator which includes a
nominal list of body parts using two verbal tricola to specify how exactly the
daemons are supposed to harm the victim:
A: (l. 20) ....et perducatis, obligetis, perobligetis… apsumatis, desumatis,
consumatis cor, membra, viscera, interania Mauruss(i)… (“...and lead [him
to the Underworld]), bind [him], bind [him] fast... ruin, destroy, consume the
heart, limbs, guts, intestines of Maurussus...”) (see also Tremel, 2004, No.
96; 5.1.1. and 11.1.3.1.).
This curse, dating to the 3rd
cent. CE, well illustrates the further development of
cursing formulae in the Imperial Age, when the production of curse tablets in
specialized workshops of professional magicians was on the rise. In this time
the curses got more complicated and variegated and included remarkable
rhetorical features, such as frequent repeating and duplicating of the formulae.
R. Gordon (1999, 263) speaks of an emphatic redundancy, i.e. a continuous
repetition of the same thing using different words.33
Gradually, the lists of
accursed items became more and more detailed and exact; they pursue
32
The text of the tablet is corrupted and it contains lectiones variae (see Appendix I
and 7.3.1.5.).
33
See also the similar formulations used in PGM, e.g. IV 1510 –19.
7. ITALIA
216
completeness while, at the same time, they attack not only the physical aspects
of the victim, but also his/her social status, health, and fortune.34
Gordon (1999,
269) considers this cursing procedure to be a certain analogy to the clay or other
models of human organs and body parts found in shrines (ex vota) as a
thanksgiving for being cured by the deity. Furthermore, F. Graf (1996, 130 f.)
notices the link between these curses and the Egyptian healing rituals, during
which particular body parts were being consecrated to their respective deities;
thus, the cursing of the body parts can be perceived as a reversal of these
healing rituals, or as abuse of the latter to harm the victim. Finally, H. S.
Versnel (1998, 224 ff.) mentions that anatomical curses, i.e. the curses
enumerating all body parts which are supposed to be afflicted, even though they
are of later date, are not a mere rhetorical extension of instrumental curses, i.e.
the curses in which only those body parts are accursed which are connected to
the purpose of the curse. The curses containing the lists of all body parts do not
usually state any reason or context; however, their main goal is that the victim
suffers and dies. Generally, the earliest Greek curses from the 4th
cent. BCE
usually do not pursue adversary’s death, but only a restriction, i.e. the limitation
of certain functions and abilities.35
Conversely, the curses of later date
increasingly display the attempt to harm the victim as much as possible, to
afflict him/her with suffering and death. Concerning the Latin production, the
most detailed lists of cursed body parts come from Italy and date back to the 1st
cent. BCE and CE.
Altogether 27 Latin tablets36
contain the cursing of body parts (which makes ca.
13% of all texts), while this type of formulation is most often found in Italy (in
15 tablets), and in Africa (seven). The brief general lists are sporadically
attested also in Hispania (one), Germania (two), Noricum (one), and Britannia
(one). The most extensive and detailed lists of accursed body parts have been
preserved in tablets No. 9 from Minturno from the first half of the 1st
cent. CE;
No. 11 (see 2.2.1. and 7.3.1.6.) from the first half of the 1st
cent. BCE; and No.
12 from Nomentum from the first half of the 1st
cent. BCE; further also in
tablets No. 20-24 from Rome (Porta Salaria) from the first half of the 1st
cent.
BCE (Fox, 1912, 11; see below). Another very extensive example of cursed
body parts (not included in this work) was found in 2003 in Rome and dated to
the 2nd
half of the 1st
century. The curse is aimed at Caecilia Prima and appeals
to the whole infernal procession, while the victim is supposed to die a terrible
34
See also Gordon (1999, 269 ff.) and above.
35
Faraone (1991, 8 and note 38).
36
For the lists of accursed body parts in prayers for justice, see 12.2.3.
7. ITALIA
217
death inflicted upon her by all the invoked infernal powers according to their
particular competencies,37
see Bevilacqua (2009, 47-70).
7.3.1.2 Nomentum
Tablet No. 12 (see 1.1.2.1.) (side A) represents perhaps the most well-known
and cited example of the magical cursing procedure when the author enumerates
the single body parts and organs of the victim, i.e. figuratively tears the victim’s
body apart. But it does not proceed downwards systematically, as other
preserved Latin lists of body parts do (see also below):
A: Malchio Niconis oculos,
manus, digitos, brachia, ungues,
capillos, caput, pedes, femur, ventrem,
nates, umbilicum, pectus, mamillas,
collum, os, buccas, dentes, labia,
mentum, oculos, frontem, supercilia,
scapulas, umerum, nervos, ossum
medullas, ventrem, mentulam, crus,
quaestum, lucrum, valetudines, defigo
in has tabellas.38
(“Malchio, son/slave of Nico: [his] eyes, hands, fingers, arms, nails, hair,
head, feet, thigh, belly, buttocks, navel, chest, nipples, neck, mouth, cheeks,
teeth, lips, chin, eyes, forehead, eyebrows, shoulder blades, shoulder,
37
See also TheDeMa 517. The beginning of this large curse reads: Dite pater,
Proserpina Dia, Canes Orcini, Ustores inferi, Ossufragae, Larvae, Furiae, Maniae,
Aves nocturnae, Aves Harpyiae, Ortygiae, Virga, Ximaera, Geryones, Siredonas,
Circe, Gegantes, Spinx, vos precatur et petit, rogat vos, numina deum inferum, qui
suprascripti estis. Ea(m) Caeciliam Primam, sive quo alio nomine est, uti eam, Dite
Pater, deprimas malisque doloribus eam adpetas, aput te abducas. Proserpina Dia, tu
facias illam Caeciliam Primam, sive quo alio nomine est, uti eam deprimas, adimas
illae sanguinem de venis, corpus, calorem animi illae Caeciliae Primae eripias.
Canes Or(c)ini, Orcini tricipites, vos, illius Caeciliae Primae exedit(is) iocinera,
pulmones, cor cum venis, viscera, membra, medullas, eius diripiatis, dilaceretis,
lumina eius C(a)e(c)iliae P(r)imae a(d)ripiatis vosque Ustores inferi, eius Caeciliae
Primae peruratis lumina, stomachum, cor eius, pulmones, adipes, cetera membra
omnia illius Caeciliae Primae, peruratis, (a)duratis, vos, neque vivere nec valere
possit....
38
Both sides of the text contain many Vulgar Latin elements and mistakes, I state here
the amended text of the whole tablet (for the original text see Appendix I).
7. ITALIA
218
muscles, bone marrow,39
belly, penis, shin, profit/business, fortune, and
health, I accurse with this tablet.”)
Each line of the text of the curse always curses four or five body parts next to
each other but their order is not logical. The first item is the eyes, probably the
most important body part, which is also a reflection of one’s character. Then,
the hands follow − perhaps we would rather expect the sequence arms, hands,
fingers, (nails) (see No. 20 below). However, the procedure is different in this
tablet, especially the leap caput − pedes is significant − the author leaps from
the head down to the “heels” (or more precisely to the feet), perhaps following
the logic of a famous proverb. Then he proceeds again back up to the head and
again down. Some body parts appear more times, e.g. oculos in the 1st
and the
6th
line, and venter in the 3rd
and the 8th
line. R. Gordon (1999, 270 ff.) assumes
that this reduplication may be a reflection of the perception of the body both
from outside and from inside (the organs hidden inside the body); therefore, he
translates the other venter as bowels. Concerning the term oculus, he states that
its use in the beginning of the curse does not refer to the mere organ of sight,
the eye, as is the case in the 6th
line, but it has to be understood in wider sense as
a reflection of one’s soul and character. Nevertheless, it is a non-specific curse,
i.e. we do not know the context of it, so it is possible that the eyes could be the
most important instrument of the cursed one − perhaps he saw something he
should not have; anyway, the loss of sight is certainly one of the worst things
which could happen to a man. Finally, the last sequence of the curse: quaestum,
lucrum, valetudines is supposed to afflict not only the health state of the victim,
but also his social and economic status. Some curses proceed from the more
general terms concerning the physical habitus like salutem, corpus, colorem,
vires... (see No. 20 below) to the outer and inner body parts and social status, or
just briefly state the most important parts (see also No. 3 above, 7.3.1.5., or No.
30: vitam, valetudinem, quaestum, see 2.3.1.). Side B of tablet No. 12 contains a
curse against the public slave Rufa:
B: Rufa publica manus, dentes,
oculos, bracchia, ventrem, mamillas,
pectus, ossum, medullas, ventrem
39
A. Kropp (2008, dfx.1.4.2/3, A) interprets this passage as os, merillas, the tablet
reads ossu. Thus, the bones are concerned here; however, it could be read also
together with the following term merillas as “the bone marrow”, the same on side B.
See also slightly different interpretations and translations of other scholars: Gordon
(1999, 270; Önnerfors (1991, No. 19); Solin (1995, 571 ff.); Gager (1992, No. 80);
Versnel (1998, 223 ff.).
7. ITALIA
219
crus, os, pedes, frontes,
ungues, digitos, ventrem,
umbilicum, cunnum, (v)ulva(m) il(i)a Rufae
publicae defigo in has tabellas.40
(“Rufa, the public slave, [her] hands, teeth eyes, arms, belly, nipples, chest,
bone marrow, bowels... shin, mouth, feet, forehead, nails, fingers, womb?,
navel, pudenda, vulva, loins of Rufa, the public slave, I accurse with this
tablet.”).
The list of accursed limbs is briefer and limited only to the body parts,
completely omitting the head and hair,41
as well as the social status which could
not be the author’s concern in this case. The text reads venter three times, the
term being interpreted according to R. Gordon (see above) as a belly from the
outer look, the bowels, as well as the female organs, i.e. womb, although the
second to last body part referred to in the tablet is probably (v)ulva(m), which
can mean both vulva and womb. Also the corrupted term ilia can denote both
bowels as well as loins. Genitals are referred to in most detail: ventrem,
cunnum, vulvam, ilia.
7.3.1.3 Minturno
Tablet No. 9 from Minturno in Latium, dfx.1.4./1, is another remarkable
example of this type of text; the tablet dates back to the first half of the 1st
cent.
CE. Tyche, a wife or rather a slave of Charisius, is being cursed here. The tablet
has been found rolled into scrolls and transfixed in a grave under the skull of the
40
See also the interpretative notes of H. Solin (1989, 195 ff.). A. Kropp (2008,
dfx.1.4.2/3, B) adds the term quaestum which is readable only on side A, which I
find inappropriate despite the fact that the edition in DT 135 keeps a free space in
the tablet. DT 135 corrects the reading of Borsari (AE 1901, 183) quas ilae Rufas in
the final part as (v)ulva(m) ilia Rufae, “loins of Rufa”. This reading is better from
the paleographical point of view and is received also by H. Solin (1995, 571). A.
Önnerfors (1991, No. 19) translates the last part ventrem, umbilicum, cunnum,
(v)ulva(m) il(i)a as “Bauch, Nabel, Geschlecht, Gebärmutter, Eingeweide”. R.
Gordon (1999, 270) as “womb, navel, cunt, vulva, groin”. J. Gager (1992, No. 80) as
“belly, navel, genitals, womb, groin”. H. S. Versnel (1998, 223) as “womb, navel,
cunt, vulva?, groin”. That means that most of the scholars assume that the final part
of the curse is the very detailed enumeration of all body parts connected with sexual
life.
41
R. Gordon (1999, 270) notes realistically: “Rufa is represented solely as a body,
most insistently, it seems, as a thing to be penetrated.”
7. ITALIA
220
deceased, together with a small marble statuette of a woman with combed hair
(see DT 190, CIL 10, 8249) probably symbolizing the victim.42
Although the
text itself is not very corrupted mechanically, it contains many Vulgar-Latin
elements and mistakes, as obvious from the amended transcription in CIL 10,
8249.43
I state here the reconstructed lectio with the interpretations according to
DT 190 which has been taken over also by Kropp (2008):
Dii inferi, vobis commendo, si quicquam sanctitatis habetis, ac trado
Tychenem Charisii, quodquod agat, ut incidant omnia in adversa. Dii inferi,
vobis commendo illius membra, colorem, figuram, caput, capillos, umbram,
erebrum, frontem, supercilia, os, nasum, mentum, buccas, labra, verbum(?),
vultum(?), collum, iocur, umeros, cor, pulmones, intestina, ventrem,
bracchia, digitos, manus, umbilicum, vesicam, femina, genua, crura, talos,
plantas, digitos. Dii inferi, si illam videro tabescentem, vobis sanctum illud
libens ob anniversarium, facere deis parentibus...illius?… ta peculium
tabescas.
(“Underworld gods, I commend to you, if you have any power whatsoever,
and I entrust [to you] Tyche, wife/slave of Charisius, whatever she does,
may everything turn against her.44
Underworld gods, I commend to you her
limbs, hue, figure, head, hair, shade?/hair?, brain, forehead, eyebrows,
mouth, nose, chin, cheeks, lips, words (=speech?), face, neck, liver,
shoulders, heart, lungs, bowels, belly, arms, fingers, hands, navel, bladder,
thighs, knees, shins, ankles, feet, toes. Underworld gods, if I see her decay, I
will gladly [offer] you that sacrifice [probably sacrificium should be added
here] each year.”)
42
Collins (2008, 83 ff.).
43
Dii i(n)feri, vobis com(m)e(n)do, si quic(q)ua(m) sactitates (= sanctitatis) h[a]betes
(= habetis), ac tadro (= trado) Ticene (= Tychenem) Carisi, quodqu[o]d agat, quod
incida(n)t omnia in adversa. Dii i(n)feri, vobis com(m)e(n)do il(l)ius mem(b)ra,
colore(m), figura(m), caput, capilla (= capillos), umbra(m), cerebru(m), fru(n)te(m),
supe[rcil]ia, os, nasu(m), me(n)tu(m), bucas, la[bra, ve]rba, (h)alitu(m), col(l)u(m),
iocur, umeros, cor, pulmones, i(n)testinas (= intestina), ve(n)tre(m), brac(ch)ia,
digitos, manus, u(m)b(i)licu(m), visica (= vesicam), femena (= femina), genua,
crura, talos, planta(s), tigidos (= digitos). Dii i(n)feri, si illa(m) videro
tabesce(n)te(m), vobis sacrificiu(m) lubens ob an(n)uversariu(m) facere dibus
parentibus il(l)iu[s] voveo?… peculiu(m) ta[be]scas. If the addition of tabescas is
correct, it is probably a mistake instead of tabescat.
44
See also Faraone − Kropp (2010, 384 ff.); 1.9. and 6.2.1.1. − formulae using the
compounds of the verb verto.
7. ITALIA
221
The remaining text is damaged, it lacks a verb on which the infinitive facere
depends, i.e. either voveo, as is added in CIL (see above), or promitto “I
promise”45
(see also 1.9.2.). The next sequence is corrput and unclear: Di
parentes are the spirits of ancestors commemorated at the feast of the
Parentalia. The offering refers to underworld gods, but the author at the same
time promises a sacrifice to the spirits of ancestors. With respect to the
disrupted state of the text, it cannot be figured out what or who illius refers to; it
would be logical to link it with the text after lacuna: peculium tabescat, “may
she disappear, may her, i.e. Tyche’s, fortune vanish”.
The text starts with more general terms denoting the overall look and condition
of the victim: color, “hue”, here perhaps refers both to the hue of the skin and to
the state of health, appearance;46
also the term figura, “figure, shape” has to be
understood in wider sense as an overall image of the person reflecting her health
state, too.47
Furthermore, it is questionable what exactly umbra(m) means here
in the sequence caput, capillos, umbra(m), cerebru(m); the alliterative sequence
of terms referring to the head is disrupted by the term umbra which is in the
context of accursed body parts attested with certainty only in this single tablet.48
In this case it could be another expression denoting hair or feathers; eventually,
it could be seen as a metaphor of the mental condition of “light-heartedness”.49
Another problematic part is la[bra, ve]rba (CIL), A. Audollent (1904, No. 190)
reads la[bra, ve]rbum. The term verbum is associated with the function of lips
and could thus be understood as “speech” or “ability to speak”; however, it is
nowhere else attested in a similar context. Though legal curses often attack the
ability to speak, they contain rather the expressions like alligo linguas (e.g. No.
113, 11.1.2.), or mutus sit (No. 11, 2.2.1.; No. 70, 1.10.1., and No.105, 2.3.5.
and 10.1.2.). The term verbum, but used in the phrase verbum facere, appears
only in one tablet containing a non-specific curse – No. 56 from Cordoba,
dfx.2.2.3/4, which reads:
Priamus l(ibertus) mutus sit omnibus modis. Adnue, ne quis possit de
hereditate verbum quod facere, omnes obmutescant, sileant. (“May Priamus
45
DT 190 also cites other attempts at filling this free space.
46
See also No. 20; Fox (1912, 35).
47
See also OLD figura 3b.
48
Tablet No. 240 from Gigen in Moesia, dfx.9.1/1 whose text is very damaged reads
the edited sequence ne(rvis), as(pectui), um(brae)... (c)erebro.
49
See OLD umbra 3b, 5.
7. ITALIA
222
the freedman be mute in all ways. Grant that nobody is able to speak a word
about the heritage, may they all be struck mute, may they be silent.”).50
The following v(ul?)tu(m) has also been complemented and interpreted in
various ways. A. Audollent (1904, No. 190) completes the securely preserved
and intelligible letters VITU as vultum instead of halitum read by CIL 10, 8249
(see above). Neither of these two expressions is attested in Latin curses. The
term flatus appears in such contexts, see No. 11 B: latus, lingua, flatus (see
2.2.1. and below).51
Certain evidence is found only in tablet No. 33. capillum,
cerebrum, flatus, ren(es) (see 1.10.1.). Nevertheless, both interpretations are
plausible in the context given. E. Vetter (1923, 63 ff.) proposes to amend VITU
as victu(m), arguing that the change ct > tt is well documented in Latin ever
since the Republican Era. He also notices the semantically identical expression
in an Oscan curse (Ve 6) Cp 37: nip putiiad edum nec possit edere which is
attested also in Greek tablets (see e.g. DT 86). The effort to accurse not only the
particular body parts, but also the activities they are related to or responsible
for, is visible in Latin curses, as well. No. 20 reads:
...Proserpina Salvia, do tibi nares, labra, aures, nasum, linguam, dentes
Ploti, ne dicere possit… (“Proserpina Salvia, I give you the nostrils, lips,
ears, nose, tongue, teeth of Plotius, so that Plotius may be unable to
speak...”).
This type of formula, however, occurs only very rarely in non-specific curses.
The cursing of victim’s bodily functions, i.e. of the activities expressed by
verbs, is common in the legal context as a restriction; see No. 114: … alligate
linguas horum, quos suprascripsi, ne adversus nos respondere (possint) (see
1.1.2.2.1.). Concerning love spells, see e.g. No. 148 (1.9.2.), or No. 145 which
preserves also the wish to make the victim unable to eat: ...non possit dormire
Bonosa neque esse… (5.1.1.). This formula is documented also in the prayers
for justice from Britannia; see e.g. No. 304: … ut non illis permittas nec stare,
nec sedere, nec bibere, nec manducare… (“…so that you let them neither stand,
nor sit, nor drink, nor eat…”) (see 6.2.1.3.). Although Vetter’s interpretation fits
into the ideological frame of Latin curses, the noun victus is attested nowhere
else and this type of wish is usually formulated verbally not only in the
aforementioned types of curses. I translate this disputable term as “face”, i.e. as
a noun which sums up the previous parts of the face stated; then, the author
50
See Appendix I with the commentary; see also 2.3.5. and 8.1.1.
51
However, it is an edited lectio of ilatu in the case of No. 11; the tablet is corrupted
and the text contains many mistakes (see below).
7. ITALIA
223
proceeds lower to the neck, see collum. The term vultum fits well into the whole
list, and it is the most plausible solution to me, even though not unchallengeable
due to the matters stated above. The emendation to halitum is also plausible
based on the attested term flatus. In this context I regard the emendation to
victum the least probable, while the emendation to verbum is also problematic.
This tablet contains the list of organs, not of their functions which are usually
expressed verbally (see No. 20 below), as already said. If the functions of the
body parts were concerned here, a single body part, i.e. labra which is also
corrupted, would be followed by two specifications of its function: first, as an
amended verbum which would be a very rare expression of the inability to
speak; second, as an amended halitum which would refer to the ability to
breathe.
The text of the curse starts with the address to gods with a committing formula
commendo ac trado and a wish that anything Tyche does turns against her,
incidant omnia in adversa (see also 6.2.1.1.). Then it proceeds to curse the
particular body parts, both via the general term membra which is very probably
used in the sense membra omnia, as it is frequent in several tablets (see e.g. No.
4, 7.3.1.5., No. 11 B, 7.3.1.6., No. 52, 8.1.1., and No. 148, 1.9.2.), and via the
terms which represent the overall appearance symbolizing also the health state
of the victim: colore(m), figura(m). Finally, the list of body parts from head to
toes follows. No terms are repeated, and the author explicitly pursues the
victim’s death, which is clear from the unfortunately corrupted votive formula
si illam videro tabescentem (see also 3.3.2.).
7.3.1.4 Rome
Tablets No. 20-24 dated to the half of the 1st
cent. BCE and found in Rome
probably near Porta Salaria contain the most detailed and complicated texts
referring to particular body parts. The archaeological context is unknown, as
they probably were not found during any official excavations.52
The text of the
five tablets, though corrupted, has been easy to reconstruct by comparing the
preserved parts of the tablets with one another, as all the texts are identical apart
from minor modifications (omission or addition of a term, graphic differences).
The curses were very probably made by a professional magician; W. S. Fox
(1912, 54)53
notes that tablets No. 20-22 and No. 24 have even been written
with the same hand. That only the names of victims vary in the tablets while the
52
See Fox (1912, 11). In 1908 the tablets were acquired by the Department of
Classical Archaeology of the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
53
See also CIL I, 2 No. 2520, p. 729 and 967.
7. ITALIA
224
rest of the curse stays unchanged54
suggest that the cursing text could have been
prepared in advance with free spaces left to fill in the name of a victim. The
victim of tablet No. 20 is Plotius, probably a slave of Avonia who is cursed in
tablet No. 21. Tablet No. 22 curses Maximia Vesonia, tablet No. 24 perhaps
Aqu(ilia), and no name of the victim has been preserved in tablet No. 23, but W.
S. Fox (1912, 49 ff.) presumes that it was a male victim − in the line 38
(i)llun(c) has been preserved.
The preserved text of tablet No. 20 with some additions made by W. S. Fox
(1912, 16 ff.)55
is the following:
A: Bona pulchra Proserpina, (P)lut(o)nis
uxsor, seive me Salviam deicere oportet,
eripias salutem, co(rpus, co)lorem, vires, virtutes
Ploti. Tradas (Plutoni), viro tuo. Ni possit cogitationibus
sueis hoc vita(re. Tradas) illunc
febri quartan(a)e, t(ertian)ae, cottidia(n)ae,
quas (cum illo l)uct(ent, deluctent: illunc)
ev(in)cant, (vincant), us(que dum animam
eiu)s eripia(nt. Quare ha)nc victimam
tibi trad(o, Prose)rpi(na, seiv)e me
Proserpin(a, sei)ve m(e Ach)eruosiam dicere
oportet. M(e mittas a)rcessitum canem
tricepitem, qui (Ploti) cor eripiat.
Polliciarus illi te daturum t(r)es victimas
palma(s, ca)rica(s), por(c)um nigrum
hoc sei pe(rfe)cerit (ante mensem)
M(artium. Haec P)r(oserpina Salvia tibi dabo),
cum compote(m) fe(cer)is. Do tibi caput
Ploti Avon(iae. Pr)oserpina S(alvia),
do tibi fron(tem Plo)ti. Proserpina Salvia,
do (ti)b(i) su(percilia) Ploti. Proserpin(a)
Salvia, do (tibi palpebra)s Plo(ti).
Proserpina Sa(lvia, do tibi pupillas)
Ploti. Proser(pina Salvia, do tibi nare)s,
labra, or(iculas, nasu)m, lin(g)uam,
54
See also No. 124, 1.1.2.2.3.
55
See also the discussion on language peculiarities: Ruíz (1967, 62 and 229); Ernout
(1957, No. 140); from the point of view of a votive ritual, see Versnel (1976, 399
ff.), see also Adams (2007).
7. ITALIA
225
dentes P(loti), ni dicere possit
Plotius, quid (sibi dole)at: collum, umeros,
bracchia, d(i)git(os, ni po)ssit aliquit
se adiutare: (pe)c(tus, io)cinera, cor,
pulmones, n(i possit) senti(re), quit
sibi doleat: (intes)tina, venter, um(b)ilicu(s),
latera, (n)i p(oss)it dormire: scapulas,
ni poss(i)t s(a)nus dormire: viscum
sacrum, nei possit urinam facere:
natis, anum, (fem)ina, genua,
(crura), tibias, pe(des, talos, plantas,
digito)s, unguis, ni po(ssit s)tare (sua
vi)rt(u)te. Seive (plu)s, seive parvum
scrip(tum fuerit), quomodo quicqu(id)56
legitim(e scripsit), mandavit, seic
ego Ploti ti(bi tr)ado, mando,
ut tradas, (mandes men)se Februari(o
e)cillunc.
B: Mal(e perdat, mal)e exset,
(mal)e disperd(at. Mandes, tra)das, ni possit
(ampliu)s ullum (mensem aspic)ere,
(videre, contempla)re.
The text has been dated to 75-50 BCE based on the palaeographic and linguistic
features, it contains several Vulgar Latin features and dialectic expressions. For
better reading, Kropp (2008) adapts the text to Classical Latin as follows:
A: Bona pulchra Proserpina, Plutonis uxor, sive me Salviam dicere oportet,
eripias salutem, corpus, colorem, vires, virtutes Ploti. Tradas Plutoni, viro
tuo, ne possit cogitationibus suis hoc vitare. Tradas illum febri quartanae,
tertianae, cottidianae, quae cum illo luctentur, deluctentur illum evincant,
vincant, usque dum animam eius eripiant. Quare hanc victimam tibi trado
Proserpina, sive me Proserpina sive me Acherusiam dicere oportet. Mihi
mittas arcessitum canem tricipitem, qui Ploti cor eripiat. Pollicearis illi te
daturum tres victimas: palmas, caricas, porcum nigrum, hoc si perfecerit
ante mensem Martium. Haec Proserpina Salvia tibi dabo, cum compotem
56
Vetter (1923, 66) reads the corrupted quicqu(id) as quisqu(e) or quisqu(is) based on
the comparison with the other tablets.
7. ITALIA
226
feceris: do tibi caput Ploti Avon(iae),57
Proserpina Salvia, do tibi frontem
Ploti, Proserpina Salvia, do tibi supercilia Ploti, Proserpina Salvia, do tibi
palpebras Ploti, Proserpina Salvia, do tibi pupillas Ploti, Proserpina Salvia,
do tibi nares, labra, aures, nasum, linguam, dentes Ploti, ne dicere possit
Plotius, quid sibi doleat: collum, umeros, bracchia, digitos, ne possit aliquid
se adiutare, pectus, iocinera, cor, pulmones, ne possit sentire, quid sibi
doleat: intestina, ventrem, umbilicum, latera, ne possit dormire: scapulas, ne
possit sanus dormire: viscerem sacrum, ne possit urinam facere: nates,
anum, femina, genua, crura, tibias, pedes, talos, plantas, digitos, ungues, ne
possit stare sua virtute. Sive plus sive parvum scriptum fuerit, quomodo
quicquid legitime scripsit, mandavit, sic ego Ploti(um) tibi trado, mando, ut
tradas, mandes mense Februario eccillum. B: Male perdat,58
male exeat,
male dispereat. Mandes, tradas, ne possit amplius ullum mensem aspicere,
videre, contemplari.
(“Good, beautiful Proserpina,59
wife of Pluto, unless it would be fitting for
me to call you Salvia, snatch away Plotius’ health, body, complexion,
physical and mental faculties. Hand him over to Pluto, your husband so that
he is unable to escape this [curse] by his wits.60
Hand him over to the fourthday,
the third-day, the daily fevers,61
let them wrestle and tussle with him, let
them conquer and overwhelm him to the point that they snatch away his
soul. Thus I commend him as a sacrifice to you,62
Proserpina, whether it
57
A. Kropp (2008) omits Avon(iae) perhaps because she finds it to be a scribe’s
mistake. However, Ploti Avon(iae) may also mean that Plotius was the slave of
Avonia.
58
Perdat = pereat, these verbs are frequently interchanged in defixiones (see also
7.3.2. below).
59
Polite addresses like this are typical rather of prayers for justice and do not appear in
curses very often, and, provided they do, it is usually when appealing to daemons
(see No. 25, sancti angeli, 1.10.1., and No. 124, omnipotens daemon, 1.1.2.2.3.) For
the polite epithets in inscriptions, see Ehmig (2015).
60
Cogitatio probably means “the faculty of thought, reasoning of power” (see Fox,
1912, 36 ff.).
61
This probably refers to the symptoms of malaria (Fox, 1912, 36). See also No. 18:
patiatur febris, frigus, tortiones, pallores, sudores, obripilationes meridianas,
interdianas, serotinas, nocturnas (see 1.9.2. and 5.1.2.).
62
The sacrifice (victima) is Plotius who is handed over to the deity, as e.g. in tablet
No. 16: Danae ancilla novicia Capitonis: hanc hostiam acceptam habeas et
consumas (see chapter 5). However, it could also refer to the following text below,
where the author enumerates the offerings to Cerberus (namely the offerings which
7. ITALIA
227
would be fitting for me to call you Proserpina or Acherusia.63
Send me the
three-headed dog64
so that he rips out Plotius’ heart. Promise him that you
will give him three sacrifices: dates, figs, and a black pig,65
if he completes
this before the month of March.66
These will I give you, Proserpina, when
you have done for me as I have prayed:
I give you the head of Plotius, [slave] of Avonia, Proserpina Salvia.
I give you the forehead of Plotius, Proserpina Salvia.
I give you the eyebrows of Plotius, Proserpina Salvia.
I give you the eyelids of Plotius, Proserpina Salvia.
I give you the pupils of Plotius, Proserpina Salvia.
I give you the nostrils, lips, ears, nose, tongue, teeth of Plotius so that Plotius
may be unable to speak about what afflicts him;
[I give you his] neck, shoulders, arms, fingers so that he may be unable to
help himself in any way;
[his] chest, liver, heart, lungs so that he may be unable to know [the source
of] what afflicts him;
[his] intestines, belly, navel, sides so that he may be unable to sleep;
[his] shoulder blades67
so that he may be unable to sleep soundly;
[his] intimate parts68
so that he may be unable to urinate;
accompanied the deposition of the tablet, see Gager, 1992, No. 134), provided that
her wishes are fulfilled.
63
Acherusia is the epithet of Proserpina named after the river Acheron in the
Underworld, metonymically also the Underworld itself.
64
Altogether six curses from Italia are addressed to Cerberus, Pluto, and Proserpina
No. 20 –24, 7.3.1.4., No. 38 from Este: Plutone, tibi trado, ut mittas et deprimas,
tradito tuis canibus tricipitibus et bicipiti(bus), ut eri(piant) capita, cogit(ata), cor…
(see also TheDeMa 517, and 2.3.4. and 7.3.1.6.). Furthermore, the address is found
in a prayer for justice from Pannonia (see No. 239, 6.2.1.3., and Barta 2015,
TheDeMa 1115). According to the ancient tradition (Hesiod, Theog. 311), Cerberus
fed on human flesh, too.
65
The three offerings are meant for each of Cerberus’ heads, or it is due to the magical
significance of the numeral 3. Dates and figs (carica, ficus) were typically offered to
Persephone and Demeter, the same holds true for a black pig to Cerberus. The black
colour of the offerings was considered to be the most appropriate for the chthonic
deities, as proved by magical papyri (see Fox, 1912, 40 ff.).
66
See time data and votive fomulae in 3.3.1. and 3.3.2.
67
Shoulder blades are mentioned separately, because the author forgot about them in
the previous sequence of cursed body parts, see e.g. tablet No. 21 (l. 30): intestina,
ventrem, umbilicum, scapulas, latera... (ee also Gager, 1992, No. 134).
7. ITALIA
228
[his] buttocks, anus,69
thighs, knees, legs, shins, feet, ankles, soles, toes, nails
so that he may be unable to stand by his own strength;70
Whether more or less has been written, just like someone has written this
curse in a proper way [i.e. according to the magical precepts] and handed [it]
over, so I hand over and consign Plotius to you, so that you may take charge
of him by the month of February. Let him perish miserably, let him leave life
miserably, let him be utterly wiped out miserably. Take charge [of him] and
hand [him] over so that he may not consider, see, or contemplate another
month.”).
The final verbal tricolon represents the above mentioned redundant repetition of
the same thing with different words typical of curses. The interpretation of the
concluding part is problematic: Sive plus sive parvum scriptum fuerit, quomodo
quicquid legitime scripsit, mandavit, sic ego Ploti(um) tibi trado. W. S. Fox
(1912, 45) assumes that this passage proves that the curse is a revenge for the
cursing of the author himself. He refers to the Greek defixio DT 4a: ἀνατίθημι
δὲ καὶ τὸν κατ’ [ἐμοῦ] γράψαντα…, the tablets from Cnidus dated back to the ca.
1st
cent. BCE which contain a prayer for justice appealing to Demeter and
Persephone. The author who was falsely accused of trying to poison her
husband seeks justice − she wants the culprit to confess and be punished. J. G.
Gager (1992, No. 89) does not interpret the passage as an allusion to enemies
who wrote a curse against the author, i.e. as a revenge for malediction, but as
the enemies themselves who falsely accused the author he translates: “And I
hand over also the person, who has written (charges) against me...”.
Another Greek curse which is usually cited to support the interpretation of this
sequence as a possible defence or revenge for a curse having been written by
68
Although tablet No. 9 above reads vesicam, i.e. urinary bladder, viscum here is
probably a mistake in the declining of the noun viscus, visceris, “guts, intestines”. It
could also refer to testicles or uterus, see OLD: viscus 3; sacrum probably stands for
os sacrum, i.e. the innermost part of the pelvic cavity; it could also denote kidneys
which are usually not mentioned curses in the lists of body parts. I mention here two
not completely certain pieces of evidence: tablet No. 33 ren(es) (see 1.10.1. above)
and No. 104 re(nes). J. G. Gager (1992, No. 134) translates literally as a “sacred
organ”. With respect to the following specification ne possit urinam facere, it has to
refer to organs concerned with the activity.
69
The term anus is quite rare in defixiones; apart from the five tablets from Rome, it
occurs once more in tablet No. 104: anum, genita(lia) (see 10.1.3.).
70
The reading sua virtute is uncertain. There are parallels with respect to the content −
see No. 304, a prayer for justice from Britannia: ut non illi permittas nec sta(r)e nec
sedere nec bibere (see 6.2.1.3.); similarly, also a love spell No. 148, 1.9.2.
7. ITALIA
229
Plotius is DT 14; according to W. S. Fox, it could really refer to the enemies
who had cursed the author before, but it can be interpreted in two ways: Γράφω
πάντας τοὺς ἐμοί ἀντία ποιοῦντας μετὰ τῶν [ἀ]ώρων. (“I accurse all my enemies
who do something [against me] among the spirits of the dead.”), i.e. Γράφω
μετὰ τῶν [ἀ]ώρων.71
However, if we read the text as ἀντία ποιοῦντας μετὰ τῶν
[ἀ]ώρων, as “...I accurse all my enemies who do [something against me] with
the spirits of the dead...”, it means that the enemies had cursed the author of the
tablet with the help of the spirits of the dead. Thus, neither of the Greek tablets
mentioned helps us very much to interpret our curse. Among spells and
formulae of Greek magical papyri, PGM XXXVI, 256-264, there is a defensive
spell against curses which suggests how one can protect himself from being
cursed (see also No. 132, 11.1.3.1.); nevertheless, this is not the case of the
curse against Plotius, as it seeks vengeance, not protection.
Fox’s interpretation is also accepted by J. G. Gager (1992, 242) who explains
the whole text as revenge for a curse written against the author by Plotius. Thus,
the writer of the curse must have found out somehow that he had been cursed
and made his own curse to return the blow. If so, this would have to be true also
for the other four tablets No. 21-24 whose text is identical. That means that
there must have been five people the author knew about who had used a curse
against him, while hitting back against them. As already stated, the
interpretation of this section as a reference to another curse does not seem
plausible nor is it arguable on the basis of the other texts. I regard tablet No. 100
to be a better example of a Latin counter-spell:
A: Vaeraca, sic res tua: perve(r)se agas, comodo hoc perverse scriptu(m)
est. B: Quidquid exop(ta)s nobi(s) in caput tuum eveniat.72
(“Vaeraca, this is
how it is going to be for you: may you go along twistedly [i.e. wrongly] just
like this is written in a twisted way [the text is written right-to-left, i.e. in an
unusual manner]. Whatever [bad] you wish for us, may it come down on
your head.”)
Moreover, E. Vetter argued already in 1923 against the interpretation of the
passage as a counter-spell.73
71
This is how A. Audollent interprets the curse DT 14: Diis mandantur adversarii eius
hominis, qui laminam exaravit.
72
For the interpretation of this curse, see Blänsdorf − Kropp − Scholz (2010, 272 ff.);
see also 1.7.1. and 10.1.1.; see also Faraone − Kropp (2010, 395 ff.).
73
See Vetter (1923, 66 ff.).: “Diese Auffassung ist sachlich wie sprachlich gleich
verfehlt.” E. Vetter asks the same question as I do: How could the author have
7. ITALIA
230
I assume that the passage in concern − Sive plus sive parvum scriptum fuerit,
quomodo quicquid legitime scripsit, mandavit, sic ego Ploti(um) tibi trado… –
is rather a sort of final formula which concludes the curse referring to the
magical precepts and the tablet’s author, a professional magician who is not to
be identified with the one who ordered it. Thus, I interpret it as “whether more
or less has been written, just like [the magician] has written [this for me, his
client] in a proper way, and handed [it] over, so am I handing over and
commending Plotius to you...”; or “whether more or less has been written, just
like someone has written this curse in a proper way [i.e. according to the
magical precepts] and handed [it] over, so am I handing it over to you...”; or
“whether more or less has been written, [gods, consider it in such a way] that it
has been written in a proper way.74
As mentioned above, these five basically identical tablets are the most detailed
and complicated preserved Latin texts which accurse particular body parts.75
Unlike tablets No. 12 and No. 9 cited above, they do not comprise only the
enumeration of single limbs or fortune (see No. 12: ...ventrem, mentulam, crus,
quaestum, lucrum, valetudines, defigo in (h)as tabellas), but also explicitly try
to afflict the victim’s bodily as well as mental capacities related to the body
parts concerned: intestina, ventrem, umbilicum, latera, ne possit dormire. They
blend the simple lists of body parts with the wish-formulae meant to limit
specific bodily and mental functions; thus, they apply the formulations
frequently used in love spells, legal curses and prayers for justice. There is also
a votive formula which is meant to assure the accomplishment of the curse (see
also No. 9). The victim is not only supposed to be cut to pieces, but also
afflicted by a feverish disease. Similarly to the previous curse, there are more
general terms in the beginning: eripias salutem, corpus, colorem, vires, virtutes
Ploti, and after that, 36 body parts of the victim follow. It is probably one of the
cruellest preserved Latin curses ever76
. Interestingly, the death of the victim is
known about the fact that Plotius had cursed him pursuant to the laws of magic?
(See also Urbanová, 2013, 189 ff.).
74
I thank Prof. J. Nechutová for this idea of interpretation. See also E. Vetter (1923,
66) who translates the relevant text in a similar way: “Sollte zuviel oder zuwenig
geschrieben sein (nämlich von der Verfasserin der Defixion), so übergebe und
überliefere ich dir den Plotius in solcher Weise, wie es gemacht hat wer richtig
geschrieben und übergeben hat.”
75
See also a new curse tablet from Rome, Bevilacqua (2009, 47 –70) containing
another very complicated curse similar to this. It appeals to the full infernal
procession to completely destroy all body parts of the victim Caecilia Prima, see
TheDeMa 517.
76
See also Bevilacqua (2009).
7. ITALIA
231
pursued predominantly in the non-specific curses. Other non-specific curses
coming from Italy are much briefer, see No. 3 (7.3.1.1. and below), No. 30
(2.3.1.), and No. 33 (1.10.1.).
7.3.1.5 Bologna
The non-specific curses from Bologna are extraordinary texts which also
contain lists of cursed body parts, although briefer than the above mentioned
ones. These texts have a very strange history. Tablets No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5
(of this corpus) were acquired by the Archaeological Museum of Bologna, so
we do not know anything about the circumstances of the finding itself, and they
were published in 1899 by Olivieri (1899, 193–198). Later editions of and
commentaries on these texts were built on this first edition (see Besnier, 1920,
No. 1–4; Jeanneret, 1916; Ruíz, 1967, No. 5 and 8; Kropp, 2008, dfx.1.1.2/1–4).
The fragments of the tablets were put into a deposit with the coming of World
War I and, afterwards, they were regarded as lost forever. It was not until 2009
that they were re-discovered and published again (see Sánchez Natalías, 2011,
201–217 – texts Bologna 1, 3 and 4; Sánchez Natalías, 2012, 140–148 – text
Bologna 2). The tablets are fragmentary77
and they have been published as four
separate texts by A. Olivieri (this division is kept with respect to the references
to other corpora). The recent research shows that tablets No. 3 (Bologna 1
according to Sánchez Natalías) and No. 5 (Bologna 3) belong to each other and
that the two texts concur; thus, they are the parts of a single defixio. Moreover,
another tablet (Bologna 1 according to Sánchez Natalías and dfx.1.1.2/4
according to Kropp, 2008) probably belonged to the same defixio; however, it
draws on the previous fragments only after a lacuna (see Sánchez Natalías,
2011, 202).78
Finally, tablet No. 4 (Bologna 2 according to Sánchez Natalías)
represents a single text (Sánchez Natalías, 2012, 140-148). As already
mentioned, fragments No. 1, 3, and 4 are the parts of a single tablet, which was
probably made by a professional in the field; C. Sánchez Natalías (2011, 204
and 206) attaches a facsimile and a photograph of the tablet. The early editors
did not include any dating of the tablets, but C. Sánchez Natalías (2011, 201)
77
The tablet Bologna 1 is ripped into four pieces probably due to the deep furrows
made by the chisel while being made. Its proportions are 9.8 x 9.9 cm and it contains
19 lines of text. The text of Bologna 3 is the continuation of a part of the tablet
Bologna 1, and it has been reconstructed from seven fragments which fit well into
each other; its proportions are 4.1 x 7.1 cm (see Sánchez Natalías, 2011, 201).
78
Unfortunately, the text of this fragment is disrupted to such an extent that it has not
been included in the corpus of this work; nevertheless, its short intelligible part is
stated below.
7. ITALIA
232
dates them to the 4th
/5th
cent. CE for palaeographic reasons. Because of how
they were made, the author associates the texts from Bologna with the new
findings from the fountain dedicated to Anna Perenna in Rome (see 7.1.) as well
as with the so-called Sethianorum tabellae (Wünsch, 1898). The texts Bologna
1, 3, and 4 (according to Sánchez Natalías) contain punctuation – the words are
divided by a dot, which is rather unusual in curses (see rare occurences in
Appendices I and II). The tablet is especially remarkable because it depicts two
figures even before the text itself. Generally, only scarcely do the Latin curse
tablets include depictions of daemons, deities, or other figures. If figures are
present, they appear mostly in the texts from African provinces and Italy. In the
first part of tablet Bologna 1 (No. 3) there is a barefooted standing figure of a
deity incised with the hands crossed over its belly and an eight-pointed star in
the area of the genitals. Though the image of the head with six snakes emerging
from it is partially damaged, it can be reconstructed according to the identical
deity depicted in tablet Bologna 2 (No. 4) well preserved. Along the body of
this daemonic figure and right on its chest in the Greek alphabet – probably an
invocation of Hecate/Selene (see Sánchez Natalías, 2011, 209). The text of the
curse is written under the portrayal of this deity; then, it continues in the text of
Bologna 3, which starts with a depiction of a lying and tied up, as if
mummified, victim with his hands crossed over his belly and the name
Porcellus inscribed on his arms. A part of the curse runs vertically past the
image, and the text continues below it. The iconography of this tablet is
completely unparalleled, as the curses and papyri usually contain either the
depiction of a daemon/deity79
or (rarely) of a victim.80
But the tablet from
Bologna includes both the image of the deity invoked and, below it, the
depiction of the victim of the curse who is even marked by his name.81
Both
depicted figures have their hands crossed identically over the belly, which C.
Sánchez Natalías assumes to be the expression of simile magic: the daemon is
bound with the magical words, i.e. enforced to fulfil the author’s wish and to
afflict (bind with spells) the victim of the curse.
79
See esp. tablets No. 129 –132 (Carthage) and No. 162 –168 (Hadrumetum).
80
Similar depictions of the victim are attested in Greek curse tablets from Rome aimed
at charioteers, the so-called Sethianorum tabelae; see e.g. Wünsch (1898, No. 19-20)
and DT No. 158, 159.
81
For the detailed commentary on the depictions and their magical significance, see
Sánchez Natalías (2011, 202 ff.).
7. ITALIA
233
The text of the tablet from Bologna – fragments Bologna 1 and 3 (Sánchez
Natalías, 2011), i.e. No. 3 and No. 5 in the corpus of this work, is the
following:82
Bologna 1: (VM in alphabet past the figure of the depicted daemon and on
his chest in three columns): φωρβη, SM ψυιαο, τιωρ, φωρβεθ, βραι, βαριω,
φωρβεν, ω, βαθακαρ, φωρβι, καμφι, φωρρω, SM ρηο, φωρβι, ιαγαακ(ερβε)
φωρρα Cηθ.ο; the text of the curse itself begins at the knees of the standing
figure and is written in three columns:
Porcellu(s) molomedicu(s)83
// Porcellus molom(e)dicu(s) // Porcel(lus)
medicu(s) (the text continues below the depiction of the deity):
molomedicu(s). Interficit(e) omn(e) corpus caput tente (=dentes?)84
oculus85
a/u?tas (= mortuos ?)86
facite Porcellu(m) et (Mau)rilla(m)87
uxorem ipsius
dite…em?88
corpus omne membra bisc(e)d(a)89
Porcelli, qui i(n)ce(n)dat?
(cada/ perea)t?90
… languat et ru(at?)…
82
The text stated here is partially edited; for the original version, see Appendix I.
83
I.e. mulomedicus.
84
A. Kropp (2008) reconstructs the text as ten(e)te, N. C. Sánchez (2011) as dentes.
85
Probably a mistake instead of oculos.
86
N. C. Sánchez (2011: 210) proposes the addition of (pl)a(n)tas which may be
appropriate with respect to the fact that this is an anatomical curse. However, the list
of cursed body parts focuses here rather on the most important parts, i.e. I consider it
to be a shortened list of body parts (see 7.3.1. and 10.1.1.), which usually include
mainly head, eyes, heart, liver, hands, or feet. Furthermore, Sánchez contemplates
the reading (r)u(p)tas, probably due to the text of Bologna 2 which reads: runpite
binas, i.e. rumpite venas; no similar expression has been preserved in other Latin
curses. I consider A. Kropp’s (2008) amendment of the disrupted a/u?tas facite to
(mor)t(u)os facite to be more plausible. A similar phrase using the verb facio has
been preserved also in the tablet dfx.11.3.1/1 from Africa dated to the 4th
cent. CE
which reads: … ut facias illum mortuum (see No. 183, chapter 5.).
87
The earlier editors used to add the name of the wife − Sillam. Nevertheless, N. C.
Sánchez (2011, 211) states that the name Maurilla is twice well readable in the text.
88
This part seems to be impossible to interpret (see also Sánchez 2011, 211), the
additions like (occi)dite or (tra)dite are not possible, as there is no free space before
the sequence dite in the text.
89
Probably viscera.
90
N. C. Sánchez (2011, 211) mentions a possible amendment of the expression iced…
to i(n)ce(n)d(at). Although this solution is plausible from the linguistic point of view
as well as, in my opinion, possible semantically, N. C. Sánchez (2011, 211nn)
refutes it arguing that this verb has not been documented in any other curses nor
7. ITALIA
234
Bologna 3: The text written vertically along the depiction of the tied victim
of the curse, i.e. Porcellus: (Po)rcellu(s et) (Mau)rill(a) ipsius mulomedicus.
The text continues horizontally: Porcellu(s), Porcellus mulo(medicus?)
Porce(llus mu)lomedicu(s) interficite eum, occidite, eni(ca)te, profucate91
Porcellu(m) et Maurilla(m) uxorem ipsius anima, cor, nata,92
(h)epar…
(Bologna 1: “Porcellus, the veterinarian. Porcellus, the veterinarian.
Porcellus, the physician. The veterinarian. Destroy his entire body, his head,
teeth, eyes, make Porcellus and his wife, Maurilla, (dead?)… Porcellus’
body, limbs, entrails, may he burn, perish, languish.” Bologna 3: “Porcellus,
the veterinarian, and Maurilla, his [wife]. Porcellus. Porcellus, the
veterinarian. Porcellus, the veterinarian. Destroy him, kill, slay, strangle
Porcellus and his wife Maurilla, [their] soul, heart, buttocks, liver…”)
Although the very disrupted text of fragment No. 4, which is another part of this
curse, is not a direct continuation of the previous fragments, it indicates that the
author wished not only death for his/her victim, but also wanted Porcellus and
his wife Maurilla to be afflicted by a feverish disease. There are only few
intelligible words in the text; C. Sánchez Natalías (2011, 215 ff.) rightly
assumes that only the beginning of the text can be interpreted:
…(febres?) tercianas quartana(s) (pa)lloris frigora morb(os)…Porcellus
mulomedicus… (“…tertian, quartan, [fevers?]… pallor, cold, disease[s?]…
does it fit the context. However, some sort of burning or combustion may certainly
be conceivable in relation to fever or other diseases, see also TheDeMa 517. Further,
Sánchez proposes the addition of (cada)t, languat et ru(at?), which is a common
verbal tricolon escalating the harms supposed to afflict the cursed one (see also e.g.
No. 132, 11.1.3.1.); cadat often appears in agonistic context in the texts aimed
against race horses but I do not find it very fitting into the text in our case. N. C.
Sánchez (2011, 211 ff.) refuses to add pereat – as inappropriate semantically,
perhaps having in mind that the sequence lacks its logic, i.e. pereat, languat (i.e.
languescat?), ruat. Nevertheless, such logical leaps occur quite often in the texts of
curses and prayers for justice, see also No. 40 (7.7.): pereant et defigantur, not to
mention the wishes of authors of prayers for justice who want the deity to kill the
culprit and, only after that, to make the culprit return the stolen things (see No. 300,
6.2.1., and 6.2.1.3.). Thus, conversely, I regard the addition of pereat more
appropriate, as it is richly documented in curses, i.e. as an accumulation of
synonyms without any logical interconnectedness.
91
The expression eni(ca)te, i.e. probably enecate, profucate, i.e. perhaps praefocate in
Classical Latin.
92
I.e. nates.
7. ITALIA
235
Porcellus, the veterinarian… [Fire?]…”) (see also No. 18 and No. 20,
7.3.1.4.).
The remaining text is written in Latin letters, but unintelligible. C. Sánchez
Natalías (2011, 2015) supposes that the author decided to use his/her own
“magical chants”; some expressions seem to be the transcriptions of Greek
words in Latin letters; however, the overall sense is unclear.
The text of tablet Bologna 2 (Sánchez Natalías, 2012, 140–147), No. 4 in this
work, consists of two fragments having the proportions 11.5 x 6.5 cm, which
are parts of a single text. The tablet probably broke while being rolled into
scrolls or unrolled. Again, there is a barefooted standing deity depicted on the
tablet, with six snakes emerging from its head and hands crossed (or perhaps
tied) across the belly and an eight-pointed star in the area of genitals. The figure
is identical to the deity depicted in the tablet Bologna 1 (see above). From its
shoulders down below, along the sides and on its chest, there are magical words
written in the Greek alphabet – these are almost identical to the ones written on
the chest of the figure in the previous tablet. The text of the curse itself starts
about from its knees and it is aimed at Fistus (or Festus), who is said to have
been a senator.93
Bologna 2: (VM in alphabet around the figure of the depicted daemon and on
his chest in three columns):
φωρβη SM υια τιωρ φωρβεν βιρα βαριω φ(ω)ρβεο ω βαθασωρ φωρβι, κανφι,
ρηο φωρβω, οεβρνβ φωρβι ιαυαακερβε φωρρω; the text of the curse starts
with the cursing in three columns, too: Fistu(m) sina(t)ore(m)94
occi(di)te
ini(c)ate95
// Fistu(m) occidite inicate…// Fistu(m) sinator(em)… occi(dite)
… the continuous text below the picture of the daemon: (occid)ite ini(i)ca(te)
Fi(stum). Fistus difloiscat (diffluat?)96
langu(e)at… (m?)ergat et disuluite
93
N. C. Sánchez (2012, 144) states that the cognomen Fistus is documented, but no
senator of this name is known to us. With respect to the writing of sinator instead of
senator, the cognomen Festus is also possible but the exact identification of the
person is uncertain.
94
Tj. senatorem (see also Appendix I).
95
Instead of enecate as in the previous tablet (see also Appendix I).
96
N. C. Sánchez (2012: 142) amends difloiscat as dif(f)luat. The whole tricolon of
rather unusual cursing verbs: diffluat, langueat, mergat invokes the idea of a sick
man whose body decays and dissolves. The verb (im)mergo appears only once in
curses and refers to the act of the curse tablet’s immersion under the water (see No.
224, 9.2.). The wish that the victim “melts” just like lead does occurs in the tablets
7. ITALIA
236
(dissolvite?)97
omni(a) membra omni(a) viscida (viscera?)98
ipsius Fisti.
Disolbite membra biscida la(ng)u(e)at runpite binas99
ipsiu(s) rumpite omnis
memb(ra) Fisti sinat(o)ris… (“Crush, kill Fistus the senator. Crush, kill
Fistus. Crush… Fistus the senator… Crush, kill Fistus, the senator. May
Fistus dilute, languish, sink and dissolve all his limbs, all his entrails (?) of
Fistus. Dissolve his limbs [and] entrails (?), may he languish. Burst his veins
(?), break all his limbs of Fistus, the senator…”).
Unlike the complicated long texts of curses No. 20–24 from Rome (see
7.3.1.4.), the re-discovered tablets from Bologna may demonstrate other types
of magical precepts or practices in the field. The curse itself is very brief and
clear, and the author concentrates on the extensive magical apparatus – the
depiction of the deity, magical words, and peculiar orientation of the text –
rather than on the complicated, figurative, or exhausting text of the curse, so
brief and random list of victim’s body parts suffices. However, because of the
uncertain dating of the tablets from Bologna as well as the tablets from Rome,
we cannot say certainly enough that the manner of cursing developed
throughout time.
7.3.1.6 Cursing of Body Parts in Particular Contexts
Apart from the non-specific curses, in Italy the lists of body parts appear only in
two legal curses (No. 11 and No. 38) and a single case of rivalry in love (No.
25, see 1.10.1.). However, the case of tablet No. 11 dated to the first half of the
1st
cent. BCE and classified as a legal curse is a complicated one. The text is
disrupted and contains many mistakes.100
On side A there is a formula common
in legal curses mutus (sit) which pertains to Titus Octavius and Marcus
Fidustius, and another person being accursed is Irena, the slave of Plautia.
from Mainz (see No. 236); however, these use the verb liquesco, which appears also
in tablet No. 237 from Mainz: … qu(omo)di hoc liquescet se (…sic co)llum membra
me(du)lla peculium d(e)l(i)ques(ca)nt, eoru(m)… (“…just as this [lead] shall melt,
so may his neck, limbs, strength, savings melt away…”) (see 10.2.4. and 6.2.).
97
Disuluite and disolbite a line below – probably instead of the Classical dissolvite.
98
The term viscida, as well as the biscida in the same line and bisceda in the previous
tablet, probably means viscera.
99
I.e. rumpite venas. The verb rumpo is not very frequent in curses, only the
compound abrumpo occurs in a love spell but probably in a metaphorical sense, i.e.
the girl is supposed to be pulled away from those who are close to her (viz č. 145,
5.1.1. and 11.1.4.).
100
I give the edited version here (see Kropp, 2008; Solin, 1989, 198 ff.; see also
Appendix I).
7. ITALIA
237
Immediately following her name there is a list of cursed body parts which
continues on side B. Finally, Trebonius is the last cursed person – the curse
aims to afflict his fortune and to paralyse him physically. The remaining text is
damaged to such an extent that it is impossible to interpret it (see Appendix I).
It is disputable whether this curse can actually be classified as a legal curse,
assuming that the introductory sequence mutus (sit) relates to all cursed people
in the tablet (three men and a woman) and further extends to the list of body
parts. Nevertheless, as already said, legal curses usually confine themselves
only to the elimination of opponent’s ability to speak, think, or remember, i.e.
they mostly attack the tongue and mental capabilities. But to tablet No. 11 can
also be perceived as a combination of two mutually unrelated curses, which I
find more probable. Thus, I assume that the first curse is aimed against the
adversaries in a lawsuit, i.e. against T. Octavius and M. Fidustius, while the
other curse attacks Irena and Trebonius for different reasons not related to the
context of a lawsuit. No. 11 reads:
A: T(itus) Octavius sermone, M(arcus) Fidustius… mutus sermone,
Fidustiu(s) mutus, Irena Plotiaes, d(e)figere ex(t)am, umer(os?), nisu(m),
quaestu(m), caput, oculos d(e)scribo cilos…B:… mem(b)ra omnia: latus,
lingua, flatus, coria, talus, ex(t)ae, ungues, visceres… Trebonius quaestu(m),
vestigia, flatus, faci(em), latus, bona (i)ra(m) (?)… (see also 2.2.1.).
(“[May] Titus Octavius [be deprived] of speech, [may] Marcus Fidustius
[be] deprived of speech, [may] Fidustius [be] mute, Irena, [the slave] of
Plautia,101
I curse [her/their?] guts, shoulders, gait,102
profit/business, head,
eyes,103
I curse the eyelids?,104
all limbs: hip, tongue, breath,105
skin, ankles,
101
The verb defigere, written as d(e)figere is used in infinitive form, probably a mistake
instead of defigo.
102
A. Audollent (DT 134) reads nesu, which he interprets as nisum; according to DT,
the simpler and more common reading nasum before caput and oculos does not fit
into the whole sequence, despite the body parts being arranged randomly. However,
the following term quaestum indicates that it could also refer to a more general
concept – “gait, steps”, see No. 30: vitam valetudinem, quaestum. Compared to the
previous curses, the author starts rather unexpectedly – from guts to shoulders,
proceeds further to nisum, quaestum, and progresses to the head. In the list on side
B, although starting with the summarizing membra omnia, the author enumerates
various body parts completely incidentally, unlike in the previous curses whose
authors proceeded more or less from head to heels.
103
The tablet preserves olaus, which has been satisfyingly interpreted by Solin (1989,
195 ff.) as a mistake instead of oclus. DT 134 presumes ol(f)a(t)us instead of
olfactus; however, this lectio could evoke and be related to the initial nesu, which
7. ITALIA
238
guts, nails, intestines... Trebonius [I curse his] profit/business, soles/steps?,
breath, face,106
hip, fortune, anger?...”)
Finally, tablet No. 38 from Este dated to the 1st
cent. BCE is undoubtedly a legal
curse. After a long list of people (nine men and five women)107
supposed to be
afflicted by the curse, the author commends them to Pluto, just like in the above
mentioned tablets No. 20–24 from Rome (see 7.3.1.4.) and synecdochically
attacks not only the mental capabilities of the victims, but also their hearts
(usually tongue is attacked in legal curses). No. 38 reads:
Privatum Camidium, Q(uintus) Praesentius Albus, Secunda uxor Praesenti…
si quis inimicus, inimica, adversarius, hostis, Orce pater, Proserpina cum
tuo Plutone, tibi trado, ut mittas et deprimas, tradito tuis canibus tricipitibus
et bicipiti(bus), ut eri(piant) capita, capita,108
cogit(ata), cor, in tuum
gemin… r(ecipia)nt illos…
(“Privatus Camidius (in acc.), Quintus Praesentius Albus, and Secunda, wife
of Praesentius...if any [of them] is a foe, enemy, and adversary, be it man or
woman, oh, Father Orcus, [and] Proserpine with your Pluto, I hand [them]
over to you so that you throw down and suppress [them], hand [them] over
to your two- and three-headed dogs, may they tear their heads off?, thoughts,
heart... and take them with themselves to you?...”) (see 2.3.4.).
7.3.2 Other Types of Curses
There are only four legal curses preserved in the territory of old Italy – apart
from those mentioned above (No. 11 and No. 38), also No. 10 (containing a
mere list of cursed people specified by the term adversaries)109
and No. 27 from
Rome dated to the first half of the 1st
cent. CE, which reads:
may also be understood as nasum. This would only be plausible if based on the
assumption that the sense of smell was somehow important, or perhaps a source of
living, to the victims.
104
Classical cilium.
105
This is a reconstructed reading, the tablet reads ilatu.
106
A. Kropp (2008, dfx.1.4.2/2) adds faci(am?) but I regard faciem more probable. See
also the interpretation of H. Solin (1989, 195 ff.).
107
I do not state all the names in the text (see Appendix I).
108
The author probably by mistake mentions the head twice.
109
Written as arvorsa(r)ius. Tablets No. 10 (DT 133) and No. 11 (DT 134) have been
found in the same grave and both probably accurse the same person, Titus Octavius.
7. ITALIA
239
A: Dii Manes commendo, ut perdant (= pereant?) B: inimicos meos
commendo: Domitia, Omonia, Menecratis, alius trado: Nicea, Cyrus, Nice,
Porista, Demo, Asclepiades, Time, Ce, Philaia, Caletiche, Menotia, item
adversarios annorum menores. (“Underworld gods, I commend [to you that]
they may die/lose [a lawsuit] I commend my enemies: Domitia, Omonia...
and further I deliver: Nicea, Cyrus... and the younger enemies.”).110
A. Kropp (2008, dfx.1.4.4/15) interprets perdant as pereant, i.e. “may they die”,
the commutation of pereo and perdo is documented in Latin tablets, see No. 20:
Male perdat, male exeat, male dispereat, in which no other interpretation would
make sense; however, the verb appears also in the proper context, see No. 135.
...ut ursos ligare non possit, omnem ursum perdat… (“...may he be unable to tie
up bears, may he lose with every bear…” (see 3.1.3. and 11.1.3.1.). In the legal
context, perdere causam, litem means “to lose a lawsuit”; thus, this
interpretation is plausible here. Moreover, the authors of legal curses pursue the
death of their opponents only very rarely.
Seven tablets from Italy altogether can be classified under the category of
rivalry in love (see 4.1.5.). Especially tablet No. 19, dfx.1.4.4/5 dated to the
2nd
/3rd
cent. CE is especially remarkable. It has been found in Rome and belongs
to the so-called Sethianorum tabellae, see Wünsch (1898, No. 2); it contains
magical patterns and a part of the text is written bottom-up or upside-down:
Asterius, Asterius, Asterius, Asterius, Auricincta libera, quae nascitur de
matre cum Samio; Auricincta… quae nascitur de matre Auricincta,
Auricincta. (“Asterius, Auricincta, the freedwoman and [the child?] who will
be born to the mother [Auricincta] and Samius; Auricincta ... who will be
born to the mother Auricincta, Auricincta.”).
H. Solin (1998, 77 ff.) interprets the text as: a man accursing Asterius as well as
his ex-girlfriend Auricincta who is pregnant with Samius’ child.
Furthermore, the extraordinary tablet No. 17 related probably to the context of
rivalry in love which applies a complicated simile-formula against Rhodine the
author’s rival in love, and against other people, too:
Quomodo mortuos, qui istic sepultus est nec loqui nec sermonare potest, seic
Rhodine apud M(arcum) Licinium Faustum mortua sit nec loqui nec
sermonare possit. Ita uti mortuos nec ad deos nec ad homines acceptus est,
seic Rhodine apud M(arcum) Licinium accepta sit et tantum valeat, quantum
110
See also Appendix I, the unedited text.
7. ITALIA
240
ille mortuos, quei istic sepultus est. Dite pater, Rhodine(m) tibi commendo,
uti semper odio sit M(arco) Licinio Fausto. Item M(arcum) Hedium
Amphionem, item C(aium) Popillium Apollonium, item Vennonia(m)
Hermiona(m), item Servia(m) Glycinna(m)…
(“Just like this dead one, who is buried here, cannot speak nor talk [to
anyone], may Rhodine be dead for Marcus Licinius Faustus, nor be able to
speak or talk [to him]. Just like the dead one is dear neither to gods, nor men,
may Rhodine be equally [little] dear to Marcus Licinius, and may she mean
to him as much as this dead one who is buried here. Father Dis, I commend
to you Rhodine so that she may be always hated by Marcus Licinius Faustus.
[I commend to you] also Marcus Hedius Amphio, also Gaius Popillius
Apollonius, also Vennonia Hermiona, also Servia Glycinna.”)111
The author, whether a woman or a man, tries to break the relationship of
Marcus Licinius Faustus and Rhodine. At the end of the curse, s/he put also the
names of other cursed people who are probably not related to the previous
context of the curse (see also the detailed procedure in tablet No. 11, 7.3.1.6.).
Texts No. 16 (see chapter 5.), No. 29 (see 1.1.2.2.3.), and No. 33 (see 1.10.1.)
were very probably made in the same context of rivalry in love.
7.4 A TABLET FOUND IN THE SPRING OF ANNA PERENNA
Speaking about the tablets found in Italy, the recent findings briefly referred to
in the introduction to this chapter (7.1) cannot be passed over. I state here as an
illustrative example the text of tablet No. 7 (Blänsdorf, 2010a, 221 ff. and 236
ff., Blänsdorf – Piranomonte 2012, 633) dated to the 4th
cent. CE, which is
probably the most interesting, and longest extant piece of a curse from the
fountain, and, what is more, a not disrupted one. Its general execution suggests
that it is the work of a magical workshop. The text is framed on both sides with
vertical lines and four snake-like figures with small heads and open mouths
resembling beaks, which are joined together in the middle. Two heads point
upwards, two downwards. Magical signs are found above the text, on the sides
between the snakes, and also below the text. In the middle of the text there is a
rhombus filled with a schematically drawn face imposed on a thick neck and a
limbless cello-shaped body. The top of figure’s head is marked by four vertical
strokes perhaps symbolizing a crown.112
111
See also 5.1.3. and 1.9.1.
112
Piranomonte (2010, 211) considers the central rhombus to be a depiction of a vagina
and interprets the figure inside the rhombus as a symbolic depiction of the goddess
Anna Perenna. Blänsdorf - Piranomonte (2012, 633) consider the central rhombus to
7. ITALIA
241
The text of the curse above the rhombus reads as follows:
Sacras santas a supteris113
et angilis quod
rogo et peto magnam virtutem vestram:
tollatis pertollatis
oculus, sive dextrum et
sinesteru Surae, qui na(tus)
maledicta modo ets114
de vulva.
fiat rogo et peto
magnam virtutem vestra(m).
The text continues under the rhombus:
tollite oculus
dexteru sinesteru,
ne possit durare virtus arbitri
Surae, qui natu(s)
est de vulva
maledicta.115
(“Sacred, holy [nymphs],116
through the underworld [gods?] and daemons, I
ask [you] and request this by your great power: take away and remove the
eyes entirely,117
both the right one and the left one, of Sura,118
who was born
from an accursed womb.119
I ask and request [from you by] your great power
to make it happen. Take the eyes, the right one [and] the left one, so that the
be a depiction of a vulva and the figure inside the judge Sura as a newborn child. See
also Németh (2015, 55ff).
113
Supteris perhaps created analogically according to superis, i.e. inferis (Blänsdorf
2010a, 239).
114
Ets is a mistake for est.
115
For the translation and interpretation, see Blänsdorf (2010a, 238 ff.), see also No.
183 vulva facta.
116
The votive inscription (AE 2003, 251) found in the shrine addresses the nymphs as
follows: Votum sacratis quondam nymphis... et esse sanctas (see Piranomonte, 2010,
199 ff.).
117
Oculus = oculos.
118
The cognomen Sura is attested in tablet No. 107 from Pannonia containing a legal
curse, which refers to certain Licinius Sura Hispanus (see also Simón − De Llanza,
2008); however, the tablet dates to the first half of the 2nd
cent. CE.
119
I. e. mother. The mother’s name, if it is unknown to the author, is usually replaced
by vulva in defixiones (see also No. 143, 1.1.2.2.3.).
7. ITALIA
242
power of Sura the Arbitrator may not persist, who was born from an
accursed womb.”).
The content suggests that this curse has been made in a legal context − arbiter
was a state official in the Dominate whose job was to help the judge prepare the
legal procedure and secure the evidence.120
What is remarkable about this curse
is that it seeks to afflict only the eyes of the victim. Although the eyes are a
frequent target of curses, they usually appear combined with other body parts
(see above). J. Blänsdorf (2010a, 224) classifies this curse as a prayers for
justice, notwithstanding the fact that it lacks any typical features of this genre
(i.e. author’s name, motif of the curse, and esp. a reference to the damage
suffered), perhaps due to a polite address to the nymphs. As far as I am
concerned, such an address could just as well be found in any common curse. A
single common feature cannot substantiate the classification of this text among
prayers for justice; thus, I assume that it is an ordinary legal curse (see also
1.2.3.).
7.5 PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
There are only five extant texts of prayers for justice found in the territory of
old Italy and the adjacent islands; moreover, the text of these is considerably
disrupted. These are texts No. 209–213 (see Appendix II). Only No. 210 (dated
to the firs half of the 2nd
cent. – the 2nd
/3rd
cent. CE), No. 211 (the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
CE), and No. 212 (1st
/2nd
cent. CE) have been dated. Inscription No. 209,
dfx.1.5.4/3 was discovered on the facade of a tomb in Pompei and it addresses
those passing by in the way typical of ancient epitaphs:
Hospes paulisper morare, si non est molestum, et quid evites, cognosce. In
addition, it warns against false friends: Amicum hunc, quem speraveram
mihi esse, ab eo mi(hi) accusatores subiecti et iudicia instaurata. Deis
gratias ago et meae innocentiae: omni molestia liberatus sum. Finally, it
concludes with a maxim: Qui nostrum mentitur, eum nec dii Penates nec
inferi recipiant.
(“Stranger, stay a moment if it is no trouble to you, learn what you should
avoid. This man, whom I hoped was my friend, suborned witnesses against
me and initiated proceedings. I thank the gods and my own innocence. I was
120
Blänsdorf (2010a, 224).
7. ITALIA
243
set free from all troubles. Whoever of us is lying, may both Penates and the
underworld gods reject him.”)121
This inscription somewhat breaks with common usage and it is even
questionable whether it can be regarded a prayer for justice in the proper sense
of the word. The whole cause seems to be irrelevant, as the person who suffered
the damage is already dead. Though it contains a complaint, it does not pursue
any punishment or compensation for the damage, not even the culprit’s name
(which must have been familiar to the author) is mentioned; therefore, it can be
supposed that everything turned out well in the end.
Other texts available to us, No. 210 and No. 211 are short and partially damaged
(see 2.1.1. and Appendix II). The disrupted tablet No. 212, which has been
found in Corsica and dated to the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE, is also worth mentioning
here:
…ule vindica te, qui tibi male f(ecit), qui… vindica te et si C(aius) Statius
tibi nocuit, ab eo vind(ica te)… (Persequa?)ris eum, ut male contabescat,
usque dum morietur, (et qui?)cumque alius et si Pollio conscius est, et illum
persequaris, ne annum ducat.122
(“...ule [probably a fragment of the name of
addressed deity], avenge yourself [on] the one who did you harm, who…
avenge yourself and if Gaius Statius has injured you, avenge yourself on
him... Persecute? him so that he languishes badly, until he is dead, and
whoever else, and if Pollio knows [about it], persecute him, too, so that he
does not live [more than] a year...”) (see also 2.3.4.).
In the beginning which has, unfortunately, not been preserved, the author
probably commits the stolen thing to the deity who is, in return, supposed to
exact a revenge on the culprit for the damage suffered, as if the stolen thing
belonged to the deity. Prayers for justice are usually not formulated like this;
here the author addresses the deity in a directive rather than a polite way:
vindica te. H. S. Versnel (1991, 82) supports the interpretation of this text as a
prayer for justice by referring to text No. 218. In this tablet the author also
refers to the deity and, though the deity is not addressed directly as in tablet
from Corsica, uses the 2nd
person possessive pronoun tuas to do so: Domina
Fons fove(ns), ut tu persequaris tuas res demando, quiscunque caligas meas
telluit (= tulit) et solias, tibi, dea, demando… The phrase ut tu persequaris tuas
121
The translation based on Williams C. A. (2012) Reading Roman Friendship,
Cambridge Unviersity Press, p. 264.
122
For the interpretation of this, see Versnel (1991, 82 ff.) and Solin (1998, 127 ff.).
7. ITALIA
244
res is crucial here, Versnel translates: “O Mistress Spring... I ask that you track
down/claim your possessions. Whoever has stolen my shoes and sandals I ask
that you...” However, R. S. O. Tomlin (2010, 254 ff.) and A. Kropp read duas
res (“Lady Spring, I entrust two things to your spring that you exact them,
whoever stole my boots and sandals…”) (see 6.2., 6.1., and esp. 8.2.). Although
this place is problematic to interpret, the facsimile suggests that tuas is a less
probable reading.123
In any case, the text is certainly a prayer for justice,
although the phrase vindica te included in No. 212 from Corsica is rare in the
extant evidence, as is proved by the use of the expressions like vindico,
persequor?, conscius and qui tibi nocuit in prayers for justice.
7.6 ADDRESSED DEITIES AND DAEMONS
Roughly a half of the curses found in Italy appeal to some supernatural powers,
while there are 23 texts with no names of deities included, which could,
however, have been partially caused by disruptions in texts. The earliest
evidence dated to the 2nd
cent. BCE does not contain any address to a deity.
Nevertheless, from the 1st
cent. BCE we have six pieces of evidence including
the underworld trinity of Proserpina, Pluto, and Cerberus, see No. 20 (7.3.1.4.)
and No. 38 (7.3.1.6.). Generally said, the texts from Italy appeal exclusively to
the underworld deities124
: Di Manes (once), Di inferi (seven times), Pluto (three
times), apart from a single tablet address to nymphs125
(see No. 1, 2.3.2.).
Unlike the texts found in other European provinces, the tablets from Italy
relatively frequently address daemons (in five tablets: No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No.
18, and No. 25); daemons appear also in the tablets found in the sacred spring of
the goddess Anna Perenna (see 7.4. above). No particular deity is addressed in
the extant prayers for justice from Italy and the adjacent islands; tablet No. 213
from Sardinia, dfx.1.10.2/1 reads rogo, domine, but its text is very disrupted
and it is unclear to which deity the author appeals. Concerning the above
mentioned tablet No. 212, it is very likely that it included an address to the
deity; unfortunately, the beginning of the tablet is damaged.
123
See Tomlin (2010, 255).
124
For a whole underworld procession see also the tabelet from Rome, Bevilacqua
(2009, 47-70), TheDeMa 517, and 7.3.1.1.
125
However, with respect to the new findings in the spring of Anna Perenna in Rome
(see above), water deities occur much more often in defixiones than we thought.
7. ITALIA
245
7.6.1 Voces Magicae, Signa Magica, a Non-Standard Orientation of Script
The production of professional magical workshops is well documented in the
territory of Italy (in Rome) from as early as the end of Republic, but the amount
of later evidence is higher, especially from the 4th
cent. CE. This includes the
tablets found near Porta Salaria (No. 20–24), which have been dated to the half
of the 1st
cent. BCE (see 7.3.1.4. above), as well as the tablets found in Via
Appia near Porta S. Sebastiano. The latter are also called Sethianorum tabellae
(see No. 18 and No. 19; Kropp, 2008) and editors vary in dating them (2nd
/3rd
cent. or 4th
cent. CE). Finally, the most recent evidence comprises tablets and
cylindrical containers from the spring of the goddess Anna Perenna (4th
/5th
cent.
CE) (see 7.1.). Magical words written in the Greek alphabet appear mostly in
these, but also in the tablets from Bologna in Etruria (see No. 3, No. 4, No. 5,
and No. 18). Furthermore, magical signs (No. 19), vocalic patterns (No. 18), or
depictions of daemons (No. 3, 4, 18, and No. 19) occur in these. The territory of
old Italy is the area with the highest frequency of appeals to daemons, magical
words, formulae, and graphic peculiarities of all European provinces. Typically,
curses are conceived in this way in African provinces, from where the practice
of professional magicians spread to Europe. Roughly a 1/9 of the texts of curses
(see e.g. No. 2, No. 7, No. 10, No. 19, and No. 29) contain less sophisticated
graphic peculiarities like e.g. the text written fully or partially with the right-toleft
oriented script, or written upside-down or vertically, which did not have to
be made by of professionals. No magical features occur in the prayers for
justice found in Italy.
7.7 FORMULAE AND CURSED PEOPLE
The curses found in Italy contain the largest amount of extant cursing formulae
(see esp. chapter 2.) − in total, 141 formulae used in 45 tablets, i.e.
approximately three different or identical formulae per tablet. It is partially
caused by the higher number of longer and more complicated extant texts, but
this is not a decisive factor. This becomes clear if we compare the evidence
from Italy with a similar amount of extant curses from Africa Byzacena (43
tablets) − only 87 formulae occur in the latter, though these have mostly been
made by professionals. Moreover, only the evidence from Italy documents all
types of formulae dealt with in this work. Most frequently (46 times), curses use
the invoking formula 2, i.e. the formula applying predicates of committal,
request, plea, cursing + ut + 3rd
sg./pl. pres. subj. (see 2.3.1.), or the invoking
formula 3, i.e. the imperative formula with the predicate in imp./subj. (see
2.3.3.). Also the number of cursed people is relatively high: 45 tablets contain
224 victims, of which 145 are men, 79 women. This means that 5 people are
7. ITALIA
246
accursed in a single curse on average; tablets No. 19 (see 7.3.2. above) and No.
40 are even aimed at small children. See No. 40 from Cremona, dfx.1.7.4/1:
Q. Domatius C. f. bonum tempus mihi mea(e)que aetati. Id ego mando
remandata,126
quo is apud Deos inferos ut pereant et defigantur, quo ego
heres sim, pupillus Coraniu(us) C. f.,127
C. Poblici(us) populi l(ibertus)
Aphrodis(ius), L. Corneliu(s). Meo sumptu defigo illos, quod pereant.128
(“[I], Quintus Domatius, son of Gaius, [I wish that] me and my age? is
happy. Therefore I convey the order/message [i.e. the tablet with the curse]
by which they may be accursed129
by infernal gods and perish, by which I
shall become an heir [the list of the accursed ones in nominatives follows]:
boy Coranius, son of Gaius, Gaius Publicius, the freedman,130
Aphrodisius,
Lucius Cornelius. At my own cost, I accurse them so that they may die.”).
The text is hard to interpret due to its poor condition, and the inexperience of its
author. Although the cursing of rivals to influence the inheritance proceedings
suits the context of common curses well, the text contains features very
different from those present in ordinary curses. The curse starts with the
126
H. Solin (2004, 125) interprets remandata as a mistake instead of demando which is
common in curses – i.e. demandata – and translates the whole as follows: “damit
dadurch (d. h. durch die demandata) bei den unterirdischen Göttern bewirkt würde,
dass die weiter unten erwähnten Personen untergehen.” The term mandata is attested
in tablets, but in a different sense (see No. 236, see 1.10.2.) in a prayer for justice:
Mando et rogo religione, ut mandata (probably meaning “the entrusted things”)
exagatis. However, the expression demandata found in tablet No. 171 from
Hadrumetum, which contains an agonistic curse, is crucial for the context of our
curse: … obligate illis equis pedes, ne currere possint, illis equis, quorum nomina
hic scripta et demandata habetis… (“...underworld daemons, bind up the hooves of
those horses may they be unable to run, of those horses whose names you have
inscribed and commended here...”) (see 2.3.4. and 11.1.3.2.). Thus, the term
demandata can be understood as a noun meaning “order, message, and committal”.
127
I read according to H. Solin (2004, 124 ff.). In that case it could be assumed that the
accursed pupillus, the boy, is a younger brother of the tablet’s author, Q. Domatius
C. f. A. Kropp (2008) reads differently as C(ai) Grani C(ai) f(ilii).
128
Reading and interpretation of the tablet according to H. Solin (2004, 123 ff.) who
adds a missing verb meaning “to wish for” in the first sentence.
129
H. Solin (2004, 125) reads is as a pronoun in Abl. pl.; A. Kropp (2008) fixes to hi,
which seems more plausible here, as the omission of aspiration and mistakes in
endings are frequent in defixiones.
130
H. Solin (2004, 125) states that populi libertus denotes a former public slave who
has been set free; the inscriptions refer to such people as coloniae municipii libertus,
see also No. 12: Rufa publica.
7. ITALIA
247
author’s name who wishes to live happily − this phrase, although attested in
inscriptions, does not occur elsewhere in the context of curses. However, a
similar notion, i.e. that the author curses someone to live happily, can be found
in the curse No. 50 from Hispania (see 8.1.1.).
Unlike in prayers for justice, authors’ names appear only very rarely in curses,
and if so, sometimes perhaps only due to his/her inexperience (see 1.1.). To take
this text as a prayer for justice just based on the fact that its author mentions his
name is, therefore, implausible. The author seeks the death of lawful heirs so
that the money falls to him. Moreover, the author did not suffer any harm, or at
least he does not mention any; on the contrary, he tries to damage the others. To
a very limited extent, the authors’ names appear in legal curses, perhaps
whenever the author attempted to afflict all those who ran various lawsuits
against him or acted against him (see also 10.1.2.). Further, the names of
authors appear in love spells so that the daemons know to whom they are
supposed to bring the beloved person burning with love. Thus, I regard the
inexperience of the author to be the main reason for the problematic
interpretation of this curse.
The name of the author, or the person who probably ordered the curse, is
attested also in the lead tablet No. 7 from Picenum, dfx.1.2.1/1, whose text is
written right-to-left:
Antistia Sabina et Vibia Polytyche Clymene, Cambosa piam a Felicissima
Oppia Silvina dicato.131
Its text is again problematic, although names in the nominative are frequent in
curses, as its sense is rather unclear. A. Audollent in DT (No. 131) even doubts
whether this is a real curse. Anyway, the text can be interpreted as follows:
(“Antistia Sabina and Vibia Polytyche Clymene, Cambosa may she be
accursed by Felicissima Oppia Silvana.”).
This interpretation, which is supported by the material used and the orientation
of the script, presupposes that pius is used here in the sense of sacer,
“accursed”, i.e. sacras dicato. The verb dico,(-are) with its meaning “to
consecrate, commit” fits well to the context of curses, as the authors of these
often commit, entrust, or commend their enemies as victims to the higher
131
A. Kropp (2008) interprets the text as follows: Antistia(m) Sabina(m) et Vibia(m)
Polytyche(n) Clymene(m), Cambosa(m) piam a Felicissima Oppia Silvina dicat(am)
(see Appendix I).
7. ITALIA
248
powers (see 1.9.3., the committal formula), but some unusual phrases were used
in this tablet. Unfortunately, the tablet has not been dated. I assume that it very
probably contains a curse. The above mentioned unusual phrases may, again, be
ascribed to the amateurism of its author.
The names of the cursed ones usually stand in the nominative in curses; the
accusative is with certainty attested only in few tablets. Altogether 45 tablets
from Italy analyzed in this work have been aimed against 224 people, of which
there are 145 men and 79 women − the number of cursed men is almost double.
The average number of people cursed in a single tablet is 5. Only in three cases
do the authors state the filiation via mother’s name (see also 1.6.); these are
tablets No. 1 (1.9.1., 2nd
cent. CE), No. 18 (1.9.2., the 2nd
/3rd
or 4th
cent. CE),
and No. 25 (1.10.1., the 4th
/5th
cent. CE), the latter two tablets being of a later
date.
Prayers for justice found in Italy do not display many features typical of this
genre. Although there is always a reference to the damage or loss suffered, no
extant tablet includes the author’s name and the address to a deity appears only
twice − in tablet No. 212 which contains perhaps a fragment of the name of a
god (see 7.5.), and in tablet No. 213 whose text is very disrupted but we can
read rogo domine there. On the other hand, names of culprits are present in all
the texts except for No. 209, while No. 211 uses the name of the culprit in the
accusative. There are only five prayers for justice from Italy analyzed in this
corpus, victims of which are seven men and one woman. It cannot be
determined from the texts whether their authors tried to get their stolen property
back. To conclude, the prayers for justice from Italy contain only a few typical
features, which is certainly to a large extent caused by the fragmentary
condition of the extant evidence.
8. HISPANIA
Hispania, located in the territory which had been partially colonized by the
Carthaginians after the Second Punic War, was one of the first and oldest
Roman provinces outside Italy. By 206 BCE, the Romans conquered the
Carthaginian territories on the Iberian Peninsula and in 197 BCE constituted the
province Hispania citerior in the eastern parts of the peninsula, as well as the
province Hispania ulterior in its south-western parts. The remaining areas, still
opposing the Roman power at the time, were finally subdued only in Pompeius’
times. In 27 BCE, Augustus divided the territory of Hispania into three
provinces: Hispania citerior − Tarraconensis (Tarraco being its capital, present
day’s Tarragona), Hispania Lusitania (located roughly in the area of today’s
Portugal, the capital being Augusta Emerita, present day’s Mérida), and
Hispania Baetica (in the south, the capital being Corduba, present day’s
Córdoba). In the following years of peace, these areas were being quickly
romanized; in 74 BCE, the inhabitants of Hispania received Latin civil law.1
Considering the presence of Romans in the territory of Hispania as early as in
the 2nd
century BCE, the existence and early spreading of the Latin cursing
tradition can be expected here. Indeed, the earliest evidence of curses comes not
only from Italy, but also from Hispania. Almost all curses found here are dated
to the 1st
century BCE and CE; as for prayers for justice, these date back to the
1st
/2nd
cent. CE.
8.1. THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE TERRITORY OF HISPANIA
AND ITS SPECIFIC FEATURES
Kropp’s corpus from 2008 includes altogether 20 tablets found in ancient
Hispania, out of which there are 13 curses and seven prayers for justice. This
corpus contains 11 curses and seven prayers for justice (see Chapter 1). With
respect to the external features of the tablets found here, it can be said that the
highest number of curses has been found in graves (six), as most of the Latin
curse tablets do. Three prayers for justice and three curses have been found in
the soil; one curse and one prayer for justice in the water. Two prayers for
justice come from the shrines: No. 217 from the shrine of Isis, and No. 220
from the Roman shrine in ancient Salacia in Lusitania.2
One tablet has been
found in a house. All texts from Hispania are written on lead, except for No.
219 which was inscribed on a marble slab (see 1.2.1. and 1.4.). Unlike the
tablets from Italy which are usually transfixed, only two tablets found in
1
Svoboda (1974, 236 ff.); Burian − Oliva (1984, 394 ff.); Barceló (1998, 618).
2
See Simón (2004, 79 ff.); present day’s Alcácer do Sal, see also 3.3.2. and 8.2.
8. HISPANIA
250
Hispania were treated in this way. Most of the evidence does not display any
traces of manipulation; two prayers for justice have been inscribed on the socalled
tabula ansata (No. 217 and No. 218). Finally, text No. 50 is a LatinGreek
bilingual written on a metal disc.
Much like in Italy and other European provinces, there are three types of curses
documented in Hispania: non-specific (five), legal (four), and the ones probably
related to rivalry in love (see 4.1. and 7.3.).
8.1.1 Non-Specific Curses
Two of the non-specific curses found in Hispania (No. 54 and No. 55) are
merely nominal lists of people accursed. The non-specific curse No. 52 from
Carmona is remarkable, as it is one of the oldest tablets from the second half of
the 1st
cent. BCE. It is very similar to the evidence found in Italy cited in the
previous chapter and, what is more, it is the only text from Hispania which
includes the list of body parts (see also 1.9.2.). It reads:
Dis inferis, vos rogo utei recipiatis nomen Luxsia A(uli) Antesti filia caput,
cor, co(n)silio(m), valetudine(m), vita(m), membra omnia, accedat morbo
cotidie et sei faciatis, votum, quod facio, solva(m) vostris meritis.3
(“To the
infernal gods, I ask you to accept [my request/ charge against] Luxia, the
daughter of Aulus Antestus, may disease overcome her head, heart, intellect,
health, life, and all limbs, and if you do [this], I will honour the promise I
make [here] rightly.”)
Corell and Versnel point out that the curse includes phrases of legal context,
arguing that nomen recipere was a technical term related to the admission of the
charge by a Roman magistrate.4
This certainly holds true in this case;
nevertheless, the verb recipere relatively frequently appears also in the meaning
3
For the text and this interpretation, see Corell (1993, 261 ff.); Versnel (1998, 236 f.).
See also F. Maltomini (1995, 297) who supposes that the sequence containing votum
refers to the utterance of the pledge to the deity while depositing the tablet. See also
Sáez (1999, 299) who adds a detailed linguistic commentary. The text contains
several mistakes (see Appendix I).
4
The use of “legal” language is typical of prayers for justice; however, it also appears
in the typical legal phrase nomen deferre, which means “to denounce sb”; see e.g.
nomen delatum Naeviae (No. 31, 2.2.2., or No. 78, 10.1.3., and No. 80). In
Britannia, the term nomen is used in the sense of “a debtor” or “a creditor,” as well
(see 12.2.2., No. 291). See also Urbanová – Franek (2016, 616 ff.).
8. HISPANIA
251
of “to take with oneself [to the Underworld]”, or to accept as one’s victim, as in
No. 87 from Mainz, dfx.5.1.5/6, DTM 4, which reads:
Tiberius Claudius Adiutor in megaro eum rogo te, Mat(e)r Magna, megaro
tuo recipias. Et Attis domine, te precor, ut hu(n)c (h)ostiam acceptum
(h)abiatis...5
(“Tiberius Claudius Adiutor, in the megaron,6
I ask you, Mater Magna, to
receive him in the megaron [on your altar?]; Lord Attis, I ask you to
embrace him as an offering to you [lit. to possess him as an offering
received]...”).
There is a similar phrase in the curse No. 16 from Italy:... hostiam acceptam
habeas et consumas Danaene (“...accept [her] as an offering and consume
Danae.”) (see Chapter 5.).
The term nomen is frequently used both in curses and prayers for justice not
only instead of an unknown name, as e.g. in No. 299: nomen furis, or in No. 219
(see 1.6.), or refering to the names written above as e.g. in No. 150 (see 11.1.3.),
but also probably in the meaning of “a man”, “a woman”, or “a person”
attached to a proper name, as in No. 62 from Trier, dfx.4.1.3/10, influenced by
legal language: Prissiae nomen deposit(um) (“the person/woman named Prissia
has been accursed [in this tablet]”). It can also be understood as a
denouncement or a charge (i.e. nomen) against someone, i. e. the charge against
Prissia was deposited in the grave,7
see also No. 78 (10.1.3). The verb depono
refers to the deposition of the tablet in a proper place and the nomen itself is
redundant with respect to the proper name; see also the recently published tablet
from Dacia (Bounegru − Németh, 2013, 238–242) which includes the nominal
list of people accursed, while nomen here serves to introduce the proper names
in genitive: ...nomen Clianes, nomen Iulies, nomen Valeries.... A similar list is
found in tablet No. 31 from Cumae: Nomen delatum Naeviae L(ucii) l(ibertae)
Secundae (see 2.2.2.), or in No. 234 from Mainz which reads Quinti nomen (see
1.10.2.).
5
For the reading and interpretation, see Blänsdorf (2010, 173 ff.).
6
The term megaron derived from the Greek μέγαρον may refer to a part of the
sanctuary or a depository of offerings for the chthonic deities, perhaps also an altar
dug into the ground (see also No. 220, 8.2.; Blänsdorf, 2010, 174 ff.; 10.1.).
7
For the meaning of nomen in curse texts, see Urbanová – Franek (2016, 616ff.).
8. HISPANIA
252
Thus, the beginning of the above mentioned tablet No. 52 may be understood as
a legal-wise appeal to the chthonic deities to receive a woman named Luxsia.
The text continues with a more general list of cursed body parts with an
alliteration of caput and cor; then focuses on the thinking co(n)silio(m),8
health,
life; and finally, concludes with an all-embracing formula membra omnia. At
the same time, the author specifies the aim of the curse, i.e. what the victim is
supposed to suffer − all limbs are supposed to be afflicted by a disease. The
laconic defigo in has tabellas after a long list of all body parts in the curse No.
12 (see 7.3.1.2.) was probably meant in the same way. Other texts from Italy
containing lists of body parts explicitly pursue the death of the victim (see e.g.
No. 20, 7.3.1.4.). Our curse ends with a reference to votum, which means that
the author probably promised a reward to the gods for the fulfilment of his/her
wish (see 3.3.2).
Another interesting text is No. 56 from Córdoba which dates to the 1st
cent.
BCE and concerns inheritance, just like the above cited text No. 40 see (7.7.).
No. 56 reads:
Priamus l(ibertus) mutus sit omnibus modis. Adnue, ne quis possit de
hereditate verbum quod facere, omnes obmutescant, sileant.9
(“May Priamus
the freedman be mute in all ways. Grant that nobody is able to speak a word
about the heritage, may they all be struck mute, may they be silent.”).
The curse makes use of the restrictions typical of a legal context; however, the
exact situation which motivated it cannot be determined from the text.
Tablet No. 50 from Hispania citerior proves the early intrusion of the
Mediterranean magical practices in the West. Its text is inscribed in a spiral
from the periphery to the centre of both sides of a lead disc. The texts on both
sides are basically identical, except that one is written in Greek and another in
Latin. J. B. Curbera (1999a, 283) dates the text before the 1st
cent. CE based on
its linguistic characteristics (Ancient Greek) and palaeography. In addition, he
assumes that the author of the curse was more versed in Greek than in Latin,
perhaps it could be the work of a professional more eloquent in Greek, but who
for the sake of his client, as well as of the local deities, translated the text into
8
This term referring to the mental faculties is documented nowhere else; however, the
term sensus often appears, esp. in agonistic and amatory curses found in the African
provinces, see e.g. the agonistic curses No. 130 and No. 140 (11.1.3.1.); and the love
spells No. 144 and No. 146 (5.4. and 11.1.4.).
9
For the original text, see Appendix I and 7.3.1.3.
8. HISPANIA
253
Latin.10
Only very few bilingual curses in the proper sense of the word have
been preserved;11
Latin tablets usually contain only magical words or names of
daemons in Greek (see e.g. No. 124, 1.1.2.2.3.), or Greek alphabet is used to
write a Latin text in some cases (see e.g. No. 145, 1.7.1., and No. 147, 1.6.).
See No. 50, dfx.2.1.2/1:
A: ὑπέρ ἐμοῦ κα[ὶ] ὑπέρ τῶν ἐμῶν τοῖς κατὰ Ἅδην δίδωμι παραδίδωμι
Νεικίαν καὶ Τειμὴν καὶ τοὺς ἃ[λ]λους οἳς δικαίως κατηρασάμην.12
(“I give
and hand over to those in the Underworld Nikaias, Timeas, and all others
whom I have cursed rightly/in a proper way, for the sake of myself and my
family/friends.”).13
B: Pro me, pro meis devotos, defixos inferis… Timen et Niciam et ceteros,
quos merito devovi supr(a pro) me pro mei(s), Timen, Nician, Nician.14
(“For
the sake of myself and my family/friends [may they be] accursed/sacrificed
and accursed by the infernal gods... Timeas and Nikaias, and the others
whom I have accursed above rightly/in a proper way, for the sake of myself
and my family/friends, Timeas, Nikaias, Nikaias.”).
The Latin text starts with pro me meaning “to protect sb, for the sake of sb”, a
term corresponding to the Greek ὑπέρ ἐμοῦ on side A. The term is not common
in curses; rather, we would expect it in prayers for justice. Instead of the finite
forms defigo and devoveo which are usually found in curses and would
perfectly correspond to δίδωμι and παραδίδωμι in the Greek version, the Latin
text uses the passive perfect participle. J. B. Curbera (1999a, 282) presumes the
elliptic predicative construction of the munitos facies (= munies) type; thus, the
verb is missing in the beginning. The use of pass. pf. participle is documented in
curses, esp. in those from Britannia, and recently also in the tablets found in
Mainz (see 2.2.1., 2.2.2., and 3.1.2.). This is well illustrated in text No. 87,
already stated above:
A:… Attis domine, te precor, ut hu(n)c (h)ostiam acceptum (h)abiatis, et quit
aget, aginat sal et aqua illi fiat. Ita tu facias dom(i)na it, quid cor eoconora
10
Curbera (1999a, 283).
11
See DT 249 and 252 (No. 134), see Appendix I and 11.1.3.1. See also Simón (2012,
135 ff.).
12
Another possible interpretation is “to protect sb”, but this seems more appropriate
for a plea or a prayer, not for the curse, as it is the case here.
13
I thank Juraj Franek for much useful advice and help regarding the Greek text.
14
For the reading and interpretation, see Curbera (1999a, 281 ff.).
8. HISPANIA
254
(= iecinora?) c(a?)edat B: [facias] devotum defictum illum menbra,
medullas. Nullum aliud sit, Attis, Mater Magna.15
(“...Lord Attis, I ask you to
embrace him as an offering to you [lit. to possess him as an offering
received], and may whatever he does or busies himself with become salt and
water [=salty water] for him. Thus, may you, Lady, do whatever harms16
his
heart, liver, [make] him cursed and ʻcaughtʼ, in his limb, strength, let nothing
else happen [?], Attis, Mater Magna.”)
The terms devotum, defixum on side B can be related to ita tu facias domina, i.e.
“make him accursed”, as the same addition would fit in text No. 50. The
sequence et ceteros, quos merito devovi supr(a) is also problematic because
there are no other names in the text. It is, therefore, unclear who these others are
supposed to be; supr(a) appears only in the Latin text and could refer to the
names of the victims mentioned above in the curse tablet. Similar expressions
are found e.g. in agonistic curses from Carthage, see No. 114 (1.1.2.2.1.):
...alligate linguas horum, quos suprascripsi; or in prayers for justice from
Britannia, see No. 296 (1.10.2.): ...nisi quando res (supra)dictas ad fanum
s(upra)d(ic)tum attul(e)rit. J. B. Curbera argues that the sequence may refer to a
part of the curse uttered orally, in which case, supr(a) would mean “before”.
Finally, it is clear that the meaning of the term merito does not correspond to
the Greek δικαίως (“rightly/in a proper way”). If the term is transposed from the
Greek to Latin, merito could mean also “worthily”. This would indicate that the
author of the curse suffered some harm and that the text could actually be a
prayer for justice. However, the author does not mention any particular harm
suffered, appeal to the local deities, or mention his name. Thus, the term merito
probably refers only to the subjective feelings of the author. Besides, the
magical features of tablet’s treatment (the text is written in Greek formed into a
spiral) point rather to the curse (see also Curbera, 1999a, 281 ff.). On the other
hand, important parallels are found in Latin curses, if we base our
argumentation on the more consistent Greek version and translate δικαίως17
as
“in a proper way”. See No. 20:
...quomodo quicqu(id)legitim(e scripsit), mandavit just like someone has
written this curse in a proper way [i.e. according to the magical precepts] and
handed [it] over, so I hand over (see 7.3.1.4.)
or No. 236 from Mainz:
15
For the reading and interpretation, see Blänsdorf (2010, 173 ff., 2012, DTM 4).
16
Cedo = caedo? (see also 10.1.1.).
17
For δικαίως on magical gems, see Simone (2004, 264 ff.).
8. HISPANIA
255
Mando et rogo religione, ut mandata exagatis... (“I hand over [to you], and,
observing all ritual form, ask that you require... the return of the goods
entrusted...”).18
Therefore, I assume that the terms δικαίως and merito refer rather to the right
way of the writing of the curse tablet and proper performance of the
accompanying rituals, during which the above mentioned unnamed ceteri were
accursed orally. The curse is also remarkable for the fact that the author clearly
states that he accurses his opponents for his own sake and the sake of his
family, which, though it is typical of curses, is usually not mentioned explicitly.
A similar authorial approach can be seen in tablet No. 40 (see 7.7.).
8.1.2 Legal Curses
There are four curses attested from the territory of ancient Hispania which are
probably related to a legal context (see No. 46–49). These contain
predominantly the names of opponents sometimes specified by terms like
inimici or adversariii. Tablet No. 46, which has been found on a beach and
dates back to the 1st
century BCE, perhaps includes also the name of its author.
He, so as not to omit any concealed enemy, concludes his list of people
accursed without using a verb defigendi with the phrase omnes qui inimeici
Senecae (“[I accurse] all the enemies of Seneca”). See No. 46 from Ampurias,
dfx.2.1.1/1:
Veranio, Pupilius Stabilio, Apolindorus, Phylargurus Scapi, Syrisca Alexae,
Papus, Amphio Parnaci(s), Zodiana, omnes quei inimeici Senecae.19
The people accursed are probably the slaves of Greek origin, their names being
accompanied by the name of their master in genitive, Pupilius Stabilio who
could be a freedman. The name Zodiana is probably a graphic variant of a
Semitic name Susanna; perhaps it proves the Late Latin assimilation of the
group d~ pronounced as [z, dz] which appears inscribed as Z, or as ζ, as well;
see e.g. No. 135: in ζie (= die) Mercuri (3.3.1. and esp. 11.1.3.1.).
The following three texts (No. 47–49) come from ancient Emporiae, present
day’s Ampurias at the eastern root of the Pyrenees. The tablets inscribed on
18
For the reading and interpretation, see Blänsdorf (2010, No. 12); DTM 11; see also
10.2.4.
19
For the text and interpretation of proper names, see Curbera (1996, 292 ff.); see also
Solin (1968, No. 25) who cites parts of the text.
8. HISPANIA
256
both sides date to the 1st
cent. CE20
and have been found separately in the urns
located in a grave. The text of tablets No. 48 and No. 49 is written upside down
and right-to-left. H. Solin states that all the texts concern a lawsuit between the
local ethnic groups21
Olossitani (the inhabitants of the town of Olot) and
Indicetani. The high Roman magistrates are also mentioned namely Maturus
procurator Augusti and the two imperial deputies Rufus and Fulvus with the
attribute legatus Augusti. Only tablet No. 49 exceeds the merely nominal list in
the nominative; though it also lacks the verb of cursing, as well as an address to
the deity.
See No. 47 from Ampurias, dfx.2.1.1/2:
A: Maturus, proqurator Augusti, consilium legati, legati Indicetanorum.
(“Maturus, the imperial procurator, a council of the legate, the legates of the
Indicetani.”).
B: Olossita(ni), Titus Aurelius Fulvus, legatus Augusti, Rufus, legatus
Augusti. (“The Olossitani, Titus Aurelius Fulvus, the imperial legate, Rufus,
the imperial legate.”).
Compare also No. 48 from Ampurias, dfx.2.1.1/3:
A: Consilium Fulvi legati, Olossitani, Campanus Fidentinus Augus(ti)…
(“The council of the imperial legate Fulvus, the Olossitani, Campanus
Fidentinus, the imperial...”).
B: Fulvus, legatus Augusti, Rufus, legatus Augusti, Maturus, proqurator
Augusti, legati, atvocati Indicetanorum. (“Fulvus, the imperial legate, Rufus,
the imperial legate, Maturus, the imperial procurator, the legates and legal
assistents of the Indicetani.”)
and No. 49 from Ampurias, dfx.2.1.1/4:
A: (Oloss)itani, Sempronius Campanus Fidentinus atversari me(i) inique ne
int(er)sint. B: (Ful)vus legatus (Aug)usti, Rufus lega(tus Aug)usti, Matu(rus),
pro(cu)r(at)or (Aug)usti, consilium, legati atvocati (Indicetano)ru(m). (“The
Olossitani, Sempronius Campanus Fidentinus. May my enemies not come
20
See Solin (1968, No. 26 –28) who dates the texts to 78 CE because of the refernce to
Marius Maturus, Procurator Augusti, who is also known from Tacitus’ Annales (see
Gager, 1992, No. 52). See also Marco Simón (2010, 399 ff.).
21
For detailed discussion, see also Gager (1992, No. 52).
8. HISPANIA
257
out [against me] unjustly. Fulvus, the imperial legate, Maturus, the imperial
procurator, the council, the legates and legal assistants of the Indicetani.”).
The overall interpretation of the text is not without obstacles if the lawsuit
concerned these two parties, as both the Olossitani and the Indicetani, are
accursed in the tablets. J. G. Gager (1992, No. 52) cites one of the plausible
solutions,22
namely that the cursing party, the Olossitani, represented by
Sempronius is stated on side A of tablet No. 49. This party then accurses its
enemies on side B. However, this cannot be assumed in the case of the
remaining two tablets related to this lawsuit. On side B of tablet No. 47, the
Olossitani appear together with the legates Fulvus and Rufus, while on tablet
No. 48 the same legates are accursed together with the supposed counter-party,
i.e. the legal assistants of the Indicetani. The solution proposed by N.
Lamboglia (1959, 147 ff.) could be applicable to text No. 49 which is
constituted so that the sentence Atversari me(i) inique ne intersint can be
supposed to introduce the following list of people. However, the remaining two
texts do not fit this interpretation, at all, especially if we take into account that
curses often include names of various people within the same text (see e.g. No.
11, 7.3.1.6.). Moreover, putting the name of the one who accurses together with
the name of the accursed one is against the common practice in curses, although
this can be corrupted in some rare cases (see No. 47). It seems more likely that
an unnamed third party accurses both the Olossitani and the Indicetani, as well
as the imperial magistrates.23
8.1.3 Curses with Amatory Undertones − Rivalry in Love
Only two texts found in Hispania indicate the motivation to get rid of a rival in
love; see No. 51: Quintula cum Fortunali sit semel et numquam. (“May
Quintula never meet Fortunalis again.”),24
and No. 53 from Córdona dated to
the 1st
cent. BCE. The text of the latter is very damaged and it contains a lot of
deviations from the Classical Latin; however, it is not completely intellegible. It
starts probably with the name of its author who appeals to the infernal gods in a
22
See Lamboglia (1959, 147 ff.).
23
See esp. the detailed discussion of the historical background of the text and the same
interpretation of M. F. Simón (2010, 408 ff.) who shares the opinion of G. Fabre, M.
Mayer, and I. Rodào (1991, 162 ff.) that the curse could be made in the context of
the distribution of holdings belonging to the town of Emporiae during the process of
defining the territory for the recently established municipia. Therefore, a third party
could be the author of the curse, perhaps a citizen of Emporiae and the owner of the
holdings east of the town which were supposed to fall to the Olossitani.
24
Corell (1994, 281 ff.); the 1st cent. CE, see 2.3.5.
8. HISPANIA
258
very broken Latin: Dionisia Dentatiai ancilla rogat deibus, ego rogo bono,
bono, deibus rogo, oro bono einfereis bono... The further sequence is
unintellegible to a large extent, but the person accursed is probably a woman
named Salpina (see Appendix I); the conclusion is ut illam ducas, rogo, oro.25
8.2 PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
The number of preserved prayers for justice found in Hispania almost reaches
the evidence coming from Italy. This corpus includes seven tablets mostly dated
to the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE; the oldest piece of evidence is probably tablet No. 220
from Alcácer do Sal in Lusitania.26
Compared to the preserved curses, the
prayers for justice from Hispania are longer and more complicated. Most of the
prayers for justice found in Hispania are related to thefts, except for tablet No.
214 whose text is corrupted to such an extent that it cannot be interpreted with
certainty. However, it seems that it was motivated by some injustice or deceit;
the tablet reads: ...qui mi(hi) facinus inposuit... (“...who inflicted me with that
crime...”). Moreover, tablet No. 216 from Saguntum, dfx.2.1.3/3, dated to the
1st
/2nd
cent. CE concerns the peculation of money. Though its text is not very
damaged mechanically, it is hard to read and interpret:27
Felicio Aur(eliani). Rogat et mandat pecuniam, quae a me accepit Heracla,
conservus meus, ut instetur huius senus (sinus/sensus?),28
o(c)ellus (=
ocellos) et (v)ires, q(u)icumqui sunt,29
aride fiant, do pecuniam (h)onori
sacricola(e). (“Felicio the slave of Aurelianus(?), asks and entrusts the
25
See also H. Solin (1968, No. 22) who interprets this text as a case of rivalry in love.
see also Sánchez Natalías (2014, 278 ff.).
26
For the translation and commentary, see 3.3.2.
27
J. Corell (2000, 242) reads: C(h)r(y)se ligo auri po(ndo), rogat et ad Iau dat; A.
Kropp (2008, dfx.) reads the same until rogat, but then reads rogat, mandat. I take
over the amendments and interpretation of R. S. O. Tomlin (2010, 264 ff.).
28
Tomlin (2010: 267) interprets the preserved form senus as sinus and translates
bosom?, i.e. “breast, chest”(?). However, I am inclined to believe that it is more
plausible to regard the form senus as a mistake for sensus frequently documented in
curses (see the commentary to tablet No. 52, 8.1.1.). There is no doubt that this text
is a brief catalogue of the most important parts supposed to be afflicted by the curse,
i.e. thinking, eyes, and vigour, see also No. 20 (7.3.1.4.): salutem corpus, colorem,
vires…; No. 30 (2.3.1.): vita(m), valetudin(em), quaestum; and also No. 52 (8.1.1.).
29
Tomlin (2010, 267) rightly notices that q(u)icumqui obviously refers to the previous
term vires despite the fact that it is a feminine. Relative pronouns usually denote an
unknown thief; however, in this case the culprit is known to the author, so a literal
translation “whoever they are” does not make sense.
8. HISPANIA
259
money that Heracla, my fellow-slave, received from me [to deposit them? as
a loan?], may his senses be striken, his eye [eyes?] and strength, whatever
they are?... may they desiccate, I will give the money to the honour of the
priest.”).
The central part of the text is hard to interpret: a brief list of cursed body parts,
which may include sen(s)us, ocellus (= ocellos) and vires...aridae fiant, “may
his senses, eyes, and strengths... dessicate/languish”, is followed by q(u)icumqui
sunt, so the whole passage does not make much sense, perhaps it means
“whatever they are”.
All other prayers for justice from Hispania concern thefts; see e.g. No. 215
whose author Livia complains about her tunic being stolen:
Quis res tunica tulit e Livia, obi eam vel eum, ite(m) qui, quaestu(m) habeat,
tra(c)ta... (“Whoever has stolen a tunic from Livia, pursue her or him, as
well as the one who could profit from it, catch [him/her].”).30
The best-known text of this type found in Hispania is a plea inscribed on a
marble tablet from Mérida (No. 219). The end of the text is disrupted but it
displays all the features typical of prayers for justice:31
the name of the author, a
polite address to the deity, and, last but not least, three verbs of request and plea
used to make the goddess avenge the theft suffered by the author. The culprit is
unknown and the author lists all stolen things: see No. 219 from Mérida,
dfx.2.3.1/1:
Dea Ataecina Turibrig(ensis) Proserpina, per tuam maiestatem te rogo, oro,
obsecro, uti vindices quod mihi furti factum est. Quisquis mihi immutavit,
involavit minusve fecit (e)a(s res), q(uae) i(nfra) s(criptae) s(unt): tunicas
VI, paenula lintea II, in(dus)ium I, cuius (no)m(en) ignoro… (“Goddess
Ataecina Proserpina of Turibriga, by your majesty I ask, pray and beg that
you avenge the theft which has been done to me. Whoever has taken, stolen,
and robbed me of the things, which are written below: six tunics, two linen
cloaks, an undergarment…”) (see 1.2.1. and 1.10.2.).
Tablet No. 218 contains the formula si puella, si mulier typical especially of the
prayers for justice from Britannia, by which the author tries to specify who
30
See 1.2.1. and Appendix II; the text contains several mistakes. J. Corell (1994, 284
ff.) interprets obire as “to persecute, chase after”, and tracto as “to drag, slide, hold”.
31
See also Versnel (1991, 91); and recently Tomlin (2010, 247 ff.).
8. HISPANIA
260
could be the culprit so as to make sure that the deity finds him/her. As far as I
know, this is the only evidence of this formula outside Britannia:
Dom(i)na Fons fove(ns),32
ut tu persequaris tuas/duas res demando,
quiscunque caligas meas telluit (=tulit) et solias, tibi, dea, demando, ut (tu)
illas, ad(cep)tor/ (adiutor?)33
si quis puella, si mulier sive (ho)mo, involavit,
(ut) illos persequaris... (“Helpful Lady Spring, I ask you to trace back/exact
two things, whoever stole my boots and sandals, I entrust them to you,
Goddess, that you exact them, whether the thief that stole them is a boy or
girl, a woman or a man.”) (see also 7.5.).
As in the previous case, the author does not state his/her name. Tablet No. 217
from Bolonia, dated to the first half of the 2nd
cent. CE, contains a prayer for
justice addressed to Isis. The goddess is supposed to exact the exemplary
punishment and public death of the thief who has stolen the author’s clothes.
The author does not explicitly mention whether she wants her things back or
not. Wishes like punishment in public are only rarely found in prayers for
justice. For other examples of this, see texts No. 231 and No. 232 from
Germania pursuing the public punishment (see also 6.2.1.3. and 10.2.3.). For the
complete text and its translation, see 1.2.1.
Finally, tablet No. 220 from Alcácer do Sal in Lusitania dated to the second half
of the 1st
cent. CE is very interesting, too:
Domine Megare34
Invicte, tu qui Attidis corpus accepisti, accipias corpus
eius, qui meas sarcinas sustulit, qui me compilavit,35
de domo Hispani. Illius
32
The text is damaged, lectiones variae: Versnel (1991, 82) reads Foyi and tuas res;
Tomlin (2010, 254 ff.) fove(ns) and duas res; A. Kropp (2008) font(i) and duas res.
The reading duas seems to be more plausible due to the fact that it is specified by
the stolen things themselves: caligas, solias.
33
The passage is damaged, Tomlin (2010, 254 ff.) proposes to add adceptor (“the one
who has them”), or adiutor (“the one who helped the thief”), etc. (see also 6.1., 6.2.
and 7.5.).
34
Tomlin (2010, 261 ff.) interprets Megare as an epithet – the lord of megaron, i.e.
Pluto, or the genius of the underground chamber where Attis was buried (see also
the discussion of Versnel 2010, 297). M. F. Simón (2004, 79 ff.) regards the female
name Megaira, the daughter of Theban king, to be one of the options. He also
suggests interpreting it as an address to Kybelé; however, this interpretation seems
to be inappropriate with respect to the previous domine invicte in the masculine
gender. For the term megaron, see Blänsdorf (2010, 174) who relates it to the altar
dug into the ground to sacrifice victims for the chthonic deities, dealing esp. with
tablet No. 87 (see 8.1.1. and 10.1.). See also Simón (2010, 412 ff.); A. Chalupa
8. HISPANIA
261
corpus tibi et animam do, dono, ut meas res invenia(m). Tunc tibi hostiam
quadripedem do(mi)ne, Attis, voveo, si eum furem invenero, domine Attis, te
rogo per tuum Nocturnum, ut me quam primum compotem facias.36
(“Unconquered Lord Megarus, you who received the body of Attis, may you
receive the body of him who robbed me from the house of Hispanus. I give
and donate his body and soul to you, that I may find my property. I then
promise you a four-footed sacrifice, Lord Attis, if I find that thief. Lord
Attis, I ask you through your Nocturnus,37
to make me master of it as soon as
possible.”).
There are some peculiarities in the text of this prayer for justice. An anonymous
author promises a four-footed sacrifice38
to the deity so that he is able to find his
things himself. Though the author commends the body and soul of his enemy to
the deity, which (i.e. commending the culprit or the stolen things to the deity) is
quite usual in the prayers for justice from Britannia. However, the finding of the
stolen property is usually up to the deity, see e.g. No. 277: deus illum inveniat
(1.2.2.) or No. 260 (1.2., 1.10.2., and 12.2.3.), like in the case of the above
mentioned tablet No. 218. The sequence qui meas sarcinas sustulit, qui me
compilavit, de domo Hispani concerning the stolen property and the culprit is
also ambiguous. Tomlin (2010, 262ff.) supposes that the author has been robbed
by someone who came from the house of a Spaniard, living perhaps in the
neighbourhoods, and considers the name Hispanus vulgar, even abusive, in
Lusitania. However, the text may also be understood in a different way as “may
you receive the body of him who robbed me from the house of that Spaniard,
where I live right now”. The author speaks of his luggage (sarcinas) having
been stolen from him; thus, he could be on a journey and living in the house of
a Spaniard. There are terms like de hospitio and hospitiolo in the prayers for
justice from Britannia, though these probably mean the residence of the one
being robbed; see No. 303: me perdidisse rotas duas et vaccas quattuor et
(2011, 244) translates as “The Invincible Lord of the burial-mound”, i.e. the mound
Attis has been buried in.
35
The verb compilavit is attested only twice in prayers for justice: in text No. 220, and
in dfx.7.3/1, a very disrupted tablet from Raetia: … et qui meum compilavit pro…
(see Kropp, 2008).
36
For the reading, translation, and interpretation, see Tomlin (2010, 260 ff.).
37
Simón (2004, 79ff.) assumes that Nocturnus is a daemon of the Underworld; Versnel
(2010, 296) regards it to be another epithet of the deity appealed to in the beginning.
38
See also votum in 3.2.3.; this is an isolated example of the votum in prayers for
justice.
8. HISPANIA
262
resculas plurimas de hospitiolo meo (1.10.2.), No. 277, and No. 291 (see esp.
12.2.2.).
8.3 ADDRESSED DEITIES AND DAEMONS
The addresses to supernatural powers are found only rarely in the curses from
Hispania, only three out of 11 tablets contain an address to the infernal gods
(see No. 50, No. 52, and No. 53). This is perhaps due to the fact that the
evidence coming from Hispania mostly consists of brief texts, often merely
nominal lists of people accursed. In this context, prayers for justice from
Hispania are more variegated; the following deities are explicitly appealed to:
Isis (No. 217), Domina Fons (No. 218), Proserpina (No. 219), and Attis (No.
220). The names of deities are often omitted if the authors utter their promises,
prayers, or curses right in the shrine of the deity concerned. However, due to the
relatively small amount of evidence found in this area, no decisive conclusions
can be made based on these tablets.
8.4 VOCES MAGICAE, SIGNA MAGICA, PECULIAR ORIENTATION
OF SCRIPT
Only graphic magical features are found in the texts from Hispania, and none of
these appear in prayers for justice. There are no Greek magical words, names of
daemons, nor signa magica preserved in Hispania. A magical orientation of
script is, however, present in tablets No. 48 and No. 49 (see 8.1.2.): they are
written right-to-left and upside-down. Furthermore, text No. 50 displays several
magical peculiarities: it is inscribed on a disc-shaped plate and written on both
sides in a spiral in Greek and Latin. Thus, there are reasons to believe that this
text was made by a professional in the field (see 8.1.1. above). There is no
special orientation of script in prayers for justice from Hispania.
8.5 FORMULAE AND PEOPLE ACCURSED
There are only 15 formulae, a relatively small amount, used in altogether 11
curses found in Hispania. The most frequent one is formula 0, i.e. a nominal list
of people accursed (six times); the formula 4, i.e. invoking wish-formula with
the subjunctive (see 2.3.5.), is sometimes (four times) used, too. Concerning the
longer and more complicated prayers for justice found in Hispania, there are 12
formulae used in seven tablets, mostly formulae 2 and 2a (see 2.3.1. and 2.3.2.),
invoking formulae with the predicates of committal and request (see also
Chapter 3). Formula 1, i.e. direct cursing formula, and formula 5, i.e. simileformula,
have not been documented in the texts from Hispania yet. With regards
8. HISPANIA
263
to the low number of preserved texts, the average number of people accursed in
one tablet is relatively high; this is mainly due to the fact that several texts
consist of the catalogues of people accursed. Thus, there are altogether 44
victims (27 men and 17 women) in 11 curses. Just like in Italy, men are more
often victims of curses than women. The average amount of victims per curse is
four. The people accursed are slaves, as well as distinguished magistrates (see
No. 47–49). The names of victims are mostly in the nominative, only once (the
bilingual curse No. 50) in the accusative. In some cases, the names are specified
by social status: Rufus, legatus Augusti (No. 47), or Priamus libertus (No. 56).
The filiation via the mother’s name is not attested, sometimes the people are
filiated via the father’s name: Luxsia, A(uli) Antesti filia (No. 52). The author’s
name appears twice: in the legal curse No. 46, and in the hardly interpretable
text of tablet No. 53 which is probably related to rivalry in love (see 8.1.3.).
The prayers for justice from Hispania are more diverse and, compared to the
evidence found in Italy, contain more features typical of this genre. The
author’s name is stated twice: Livia in No. 215, and Felicio Aur(eliani) in No.
216. The culprits are unknown, except for one case of the conversion of funds
(Heracla in No. 216); see No. 220: accipias corpus eius, qui meas sarcinas
sustulit; No. 218: quiscunque caligas meas tulit; No. 219. quisquis mihi
immutavit... cuius nomen ignoro. The all inclusive formula otherwise
documented only in Britannia si puella, si mulier appears, too (No. 218). In
three cases, the deities are politely addressed and the stolen things or the culprit
are commended to them; twice the authors try to get their things back (see No.
218 and No. 220), or to punish the thief (see No. 216, No. 217, No. 218, and
No. 220) without any explicit reference to the stolen property. In one case the
culprit is supposed to be afflicted by death in public (see No. 217, 8.2. and
1.2.1.). Prayers for justice from Hispania display three or four typical elements
of this genre.
9. GALLIA
The borders of ancient Gallia located in the western part of Europe were marked
by the Rhine in the north, the Atlantic Ocean in the west, and the Alps in the
east, while it stretched southwards to the Mediterranean and was divided from
the Iberian Peninsula by the Pyrenees. However, Gallia, or better to say, Gallia
Transalpina or ulterior,1
was the ancient name for the area of today’s France.
This was further divided to Gallia Narbonensis (sources mostly speak of
Provincia, i.e. today’s Provence) named according to the town of Narbo located
on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, and to the so-called Gallia Comata (i.e.
“long-haired) located in the northwest. Before being conquered by the Romans,
these territories had no geographic, linguistic, or political unity;2
according to
ancient sources it was particularly Gallia Belgica located between the rivers
Rhine and Marne, which differed from the other territories.3
The first Gallic
area conquered by the Romans was the province of Narbonensis in 125-120
BCE. Other Gallic territories, esp. Comata, were subdued by Caesar in 58-51
BCE. The acquisition of Gallia enabled the Romans to take control over and
unite the nations inhabiting the vast area between the Mediterranean and the
Atlantic Ocean, which had, until then, been very ethnically diverse and
territorially fragmentated. In Augustus’ time, the Gallic territory was reorganized
– Narbonensis fell under the administration of the Senate and the
remaining territories were divided into three administrative units: Aquitania
(between the Pyrenees and today’s Garonne), Lugdunensis (in modern-day
central France up to Seine), and Belgica. The Gallic territories were romanized
relatively quickly, especially in the 1st
cent. BCE when several colonies bearing
Augustus’ name were established.4
With regards to the Roman presence in the
Gallic territory from the half of the 1st
century BCE, we may suppose also the
occurrence of Latin curse tablets in the area on the verge of the Common Era
and especially in the first centuries CE.
1
Gallia Cisalpina or citerior, i.e. “on the hither side of the Alps” (from the Roman
perspective), is the name of the area of northern Italia from which the Gallic tribes
started to penetrate the Italian territory in the 4th
cent. BCE (see Svoboda, 1974, 209
ff.).
2
Lafond − Uggeri (1998, 763).
3
Lafond − Uggeri (1998, 763 ff.).
4
See Svoboda (1974, 209 ff.).
9. GALLIA
265
9.1 THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE TERRITORY OF GALLIA AND
ITS SPECIFIC FEATURES
Kropp’s corpus (2008) includes a total of 29 tablets found in the territory of
ancient Gallia, from which there are 23 curses and 6 prayers for justice. Of
these, 13 curses and all the prayers for justice were included in this corpus (see
Chapter 1). As for the external features of these tablets, most of the curses (six)
and prayers for justice (three) were found in the amphitheatre in Trier; other
curses have been found in graves (four); and one piece of evidence (tablet No.
69) comes from the well at Roman villa;5
two prayers for justice (No. 224 and
No. 226) were also found in wells; prayer for justice No. 225 was found in a
shrine; we do not know anything about the location of the rest of the tablets.
All the texts found in Gallia are engraved into lead, be it tablets or a discus in
No. 224 (see also No. 52, 8.1.1.), except for a single text, No. 57 which was
written on a clay vessel.
The tablets were mostly found rolled into scrolls, or not manipulated at all; only
very rarely they were also transfixed. The rolling of the tablet is the most
common kind of ritual manipulation with curses and prayers for justice. This is
especially true for the tablets preserved in the African provinces and Britannia.
However, due to the relatively small amount of evidence from Gallia, no
relevant conclusions can be drawn for this area.
The dating of the texts from Gallia suggests that the preserved documentation is
very spotty and not really conclusive about the spread of the Mediterranean
cursing practice in this area. The oldest piece of evidence is the prayer for
justice from Montfo in Narbonensis, dating to the 1st
cent. CE (No. 226). The
tablets found in the grave in Evreux also date to the 1st
/2nd
cent. CE (Kropp,
2008: dfx.4.2.2/1 and 4.2.2./2) but their text is damaged to such an extent that
they could not be included in the corpus of this work; nevertheless, these are
most probably curses, as the right-to-left orientation of script suggests. Other
pieces of evidence date to the 2nd
cent. CE, while the largest number of
preserved curses and prayers for justice comes from the later periods (4th
/5th
cent. CE), including most of the texts found in Trier. Also in Gallia, similar to
the evidence from Italy (see 7.2.), it can be presumed that curses and prayers for
justice were continuously used from the beginning of the 1st
century CE , or
even earlier, until the 5th
century CE.
5
See DT 110 and 1.9.3.
9. GALLIA
266
As in the case of other European provinces, only the non-specific (nine), legal
(three), and rivalry in love (one) curses are documented in Gallia (see also 4.1.
and 7.3.).
9.1.1 Non-Specific Curses
This is the most common type of curses in Gallia, as in Italy and Hispania. Four
texts contain only the nominal lists of accursed people without any verb of
cursing (No. 58-60 and No. 64). Unfortunately, several non-specific curses from
Gallia are very corrupted and they are mostly also quite short; see e.g. No. 62
from Trier, dfx.4.1.3/10, one side of which contains magical signs, and the
other reads Prissiae nomen deposit(um). (“The person/woman named Prissia
has been accursed [in this tablet]/the charge against Prissia has been deposited
[in the grave]”) (see also 8.1.1.). Magical signs, i.e. the non-alphabetic signs
called signa magica (see 1.7.1.) occur only very rarely in the texts from Italy
and Gallia. Tablet No. 63 from Trier,6
dfx.4.1.3/15, is another example of a
corrupted text containing many mistakes, which is only partially intelligible:
Bona san(c)ta nomen (= numen) pia nomen (= numen)…denitia (=
denuntio?) tibi san(c)t(ae) Dia7
dekigo (= defigo) (Ro)danum, quen peperit
Annula Regula… domina... ekigo (= (d)efigo)… (“Good, saint, gracious/holy
goddess... I commend to you, holy goddess, and I accurse Rodanus whom
Annula Regula bore...I accurse...”).
The curse starts with a polite address to the deity just like tablet No. 20 from
Italy (see 7.3.1.4.). The following sequence nomen pia nomen is uncorrupted
and there is no doubt that nomen here does not stand for the name of the victim
(who is later named − Rodanus); moreover, the adjective pius is rather related to
the address to the goddess. The author probably meant to appeal to the deity as
6
The text was dated either to the 4th
/5th
cent. CE or to the 3rd
cent. CE. See Kropp
(2008) who states the amended version and her own reading of the text. The
preserved text is longer, but several words are unintelligible or not identifiable in the
sequence of preserved words, which makes it impossible to interpret the text as a
whole. Thus, A. Kropp leaves out some passages and reads some of the passages
differently. I state here the text amended according to the facsimile and transcription
in CIL 13, 11340, I: Bona santa nomen, pia nomen noemnolia ecesse denitia tibi
santne dia dekigo… danum quen peperit Anula Regula eatta aer domina que a… e
tanta kamapo.m… r… re… carnis Bonarium… ekigo att. . a trata… te… ti… nci…
tai. . . ta . . otun.
7
A. Kropp (2008) reads Dianae, which is allegedly written right-to-left; however,
when comparing this to the facsimile in CIL, her reading seems implausible.
9. GALLIA
267
piously as possible, i.e. using numen.8
The term numen appears in curses, see
e.g. tablet No. 1: Q(uintum) Letinium Lupum… hunc ego apud vostrum numen
demando, devoveo, desacrifico…(see 1.9.1.), as well as, and more frequently, in
prayers for justice, see No. 303: Iteratis precibus rogo numen tuum… (see
1.10.2.), or No. 231: Mater Magna, te rogo p(e)r (t)ua sacra et numen tuum…
(see 3.3.3., 1.10.2., and 10.2.3.). The sequence tibi san(c)t(ae) Deae/Dianae
defigo is unusual, as Kropp also states, while the verb defigo is used with the
object in the accusative (see No. 40. defigo illos). Thus, it can be assumed that
the author intended to use another typical cursing formula: do, demando, trado,
commendo, i.e. “I commend to you, goddess”, see e.g. No. 208: Dono tibi,
Mercurius (see 12.1.1.), or No. 122: commendo tibi Iulia(m) Faustilla(m) (see
11.1.1.). However, if we look at the facsimile in CIL, the pronoun tibi is
immediately followed by DENITIA,9
which could conceal the verb denuntio
meaning “I announce, order, commend, file an action” (in legal context),10
which is attested only once, but also in a tablet from Gallia; No. 67 from
Chagnon: Denuntio personis infrascriptis Lentino et Tasgillo, uti adsint ad
Plutonem, ad Proserpinam (see 9.1.2. below); the tablet is, however, very
damaged. On the one hand, the polite address to the goddess and the verb
denuntio, usually used in the legal context, speak rather to the diction of prayers
for justice; on the other, the presence of victim’s name, the filiation via mother,
and the use of the verb defigo point to a common curse. Besides, the verb
denuntio also appears in tablet No. 67, which is definitely a legal curse. It is,
nevertheless, remarkable that the verb appeals to the people accursed, meaning
probably “I order” (see below), while in our text the author appeals to the
goddess using the same verb, as is usual in the committal formulas (see 2.2.2.).
Therefore, if the addition of denuntio was correct, it would be evidence of an
extraordinary use of the verb in a common curse − to commend the victim to the
goddess.
Tablet No. 64 from Trier with a non-specific curse is remarkable, too:
Tib(erium) Claudium Treverum natione Germanum lib(ertum) Claudii
Similis, rogo te domina Isis ut illum profluvio mittas et quidquid in bonis
8
The interchange of o and u is well attested in curses; see e.g. grano = gran(um) in
No. 226 (9.2.). The interchange of the words nomen and numen can also be detected
in tablets No. 287 and No. 297 (see Appendix I).
9
A. Kropp states the reading together with the previous unintelligible part [---]
ecessedentia, CIL isolates denitia.
10
A. Önnerfors (1991, 46) translates denuntio as “I order” (ich befehle); J. G. Gager
(1992, No.53) as “I denounce”.
9. GALLIA
268
habet in morbum megarum. (“Tiberius Claudius Treverus, of German origin,
the freedman of Claudius Similis, I ask you, Lady Isis, to invoke the
bleeding/diarrhoea on him.”). The following passage et quidquid in bonis
habet in morbum megarum perhaps means “[may] whatever he has
good/healthy [fall] into big/terrible? disease.”).
The last word megarum is problematic: it could denote the part of Isis’ temple,
or the votive depositories of the temple (see Blänsdorf, 2010, 174 ff.). If so,
however, it is unclear how this is related to the previous text − perhaps the
author wanted the victim to fall sick in the temple?11
A similar formulation
occurs in the prayer for justice No. 244 found in Britannia: ...ut mentes suas
perd(at) et oculos suos in fano ubi destinat. (“…may [the thief] lose his mind
and sight in the shrine where [the goddess] appoints.”) (see 1.2.). But in the
latter, nothing suggests that the text is a prayer for justice; therefore, this
interpretation is inappropriate, as well. I regard Kropp’s (2008, dfx.8.1/1)
interpretation of the sequence ut illum profluvio mittas as ut illi profloviu(m)
mittas a plausible solution; M. F. Simón (2008, 74) reads the text as follows: ut
illum pro fluvio mittas saying that “Isis is requested to send Tiberius Claudius to
the river”. This interpretation seems not only very unlikely to me, but also not
corresponding to the preserved documentation. The Latin term profluvium does
not refer to a water flow, or a river, but to a flow, in general, meaning the
outflow of bodily fluids: diarrhoea, urine, or bleeding;12
this is also how it is
used in medical terminology. This leads us to a much more probable
interpretation that the author wants the goddess to invoke bleeding or diarrhoea
on the victim. The first part of the text specifies the disease supposed to afflict
the victim − the loss of bodily fluids, blood, diarrhoea (profluvium), which is
then, in the second part of the text, referred to with a more general term for
disease − morbum. Nevertheless, the word megarum, which is attested nowhere
else in Latin, remains disputable. There are two possible interpretations of this:
either megarum is a specific name of the disease which is nowhere else
preserved,13
or, more generally, it denotes a “terrible, difficult, deadly,
incurable” disease. The latter option seems more plausible, considering the
previous expressions introduced by the indefinite pronoun quidquid; thus,
morbum megarum could serve as some kind of predicate to quidquid. The term
megarum then can be regarded a transposition of the Greek μέγαλον meaning
11
See also Chalupa (2011, 239 ff.).
12
Forcellini (19654
).
13
It is only attested as a loan from Greek and in relation to a temple (see No. 87, 8.1.1.
and 10.1.1.). For an oral consult on this, I thank P. Poccetti.
9. GALLIA
269
“big”, a reverse analogical term to μέγας with the interchange of r/l; thus, the
sequence would mean “may he fall sick with a big/terrible disease”.14
9.1.2 Curses with Amatory Undertones
Only two texts from Gallia indicate the motive of trying to get rid of a rival or
to punish an unfaithful partner. One of these is text No. 57 engraved on a clay
vessel, found in Maar and dating to the 2nd
century CE. The lower part of the
vessel is engraved with a Latin alphabetic sequence, the upper part with the text
of the curse itself. After the vessel was fired, other proper names (Aprilis Kesio)
were engraved on it,15
No. 57: Art(um) ligo Dercomogni (filium) fututor Artus
fututor. (“I bind [with spells] Artus, son of Dercomognus, whoremonger, Artus
is a whoremonger.”) The interpretation of this text, however, can slightly differ:
H. Gering (1916, 632 ff.) amends and interprets the text as artum ligo
Dercomogni, fututor(em), art(um) fututor(em). (“I bind with spells the
copulating limb [= penis] of Dercomognus, the copulating limb.”) Moreover,
the beginning of the inscription can also be understood as arte [magica] ligo…
art(um)/Artum fututor(em); A. Kropp (2008) states a similar reading: Art(e) ligo
Dercomogni (filium) fututor art(us)16
fututor. I regard the first interpretation the
most plausible; the name engraved later probably belongs to another enemy,
which was subsequently added by the author. As for Kropp’s interpretation, I
regard the addition of Art(us), i.e. the proper name of the victim, more likely, as
the identification of the victim just through his father’s name would be very
unusual (see also No. 29, 1.1.2.2.3., in which a similar term fututrix refers
directly to the person stated).
Tablet No. 221 from Trier is another text suggestive of the love context. It is a
prayer for justice dating to the 4th
/5th
century CE; however, its text is so
corrupted that it is hardly interpretable. No. 221 from Trier, dfx.4.1.3/7, reads:
Matrimoni(a A)b(ae et) amicorum. (A)ba reddat (pre)tia damno… (“[I
commend/accurse?] the marriage of Aba and friends?, may Aba pay the
price? for the damage?...”), for other interpretation, see TheDeMa 721.
14
A similar expression is attested in Greek. Du Cange cites morbus magnus, morbus
grossus which was said to denote epilepsy; however, it is questionable whether such
a late datum (13th
century) can be applied to our text.
15
Facsimile in CIL 13, 3, 1, 10008, 7. It is unclear whether the names belong to one or
two people.
16
This is probably a mistake, see the reading of DT 103 and CIL 13, 3, 1, 10008, 7.
9. GALLIA
270
Finally another more extensive text is tablet No. 69 which was found in a well
in the little town of Rom in Aquitania. It dates to the 2rd
/3th
century CE17
and
has a long and complicated history. The tablet was found in 1887 and the text –
written on both sides of the tablet in scriptio continua – was deciphered and
edited by C. Jullian (1898, 168 ff.). Until R. Egger (1962, 240 ff.) examined this
hardly readable and interpretable text, it was regarded Celtic both by its first
editor and other scholars, see e.g. DT 110, Haas (1943, 285 ff.).18
However, the
new reading of Egger based on photographs significantly differed from the
previous editions. This led him to the conclusion that the text in question was a
Latin defixio written in a local dialect with Celtic names included and made in
the context of competition between actors. Thanks to this interpretation, the text
was included in the corpus of Latin defixiones (Kropp 2008, dfx. 4.3.4/1.; Gager
1992. No. 16); see also the interpretation and translation of Versnel (1985. 247
ff) who also accepted Egger’s reading. Nevertheless, it was still raising doubts
not only among the scholars of Celtic studies but also due to its atypical
character when compared to other preserved curses. In 1996, W. Meid
published a new reading of the text based on autopsy that did not conform with
the reading of A. Egger, at all.19
See the new proposed restoration of the text with word separation suggested by
Meid (2014, 60 ff.):
A: te uoraiimo, eh, za, atanto tehon, zo(a), atanta te, compriato sosin dertin
oipommio atehotisse potea(t). te priauimo atanta tehon, te, za, timezo, zia, te
uoraiimo, ape sosio derti(n) imo(n) na demtisse [ueie (?)]B: ape ci alli carti eti
heiont Caticnato na demtisse Clotucil(l)a se demtitiont eti cartaont, Dibona,
sosio, deui, pia, sosio pura, sosio gouisa [at]ehoti[sse] sosio pura heoti[sse],
sua demta apodunna uolis(s)et.
The paraphrasing interpretation of the text (Meid, 2014, 62) is as follows: „We
implore you (oravimus), divine one, immortal one of gods, living one, immortal
one, you that this beloved darling, whom I fuck, might be left to me. We pray to
you (precavimus), immortal one of gods, you divine one, I shall honour, we
implore you that this darling of mine may not be taken away, B: that any other
17
For other dating see DT 110, Kropp dfx. 4.3.4/1.
18
See the detailed discussion on the history of the interpretation of the tablet in Meid
(1996. 118 ff. and 2014, 58 ff.).
19
See Meid (2014, 59) who states: „An autopsy of the object which I made in the
Museum of St.-Germaine-en-Laye in 1987 and another one in 1997 convinced me that
the new readings [of. A. Egger] had no factual basis, and were in fact chimerical, hence
the interpretation based on them was illusionary, the result of wishful thinking”.
9. GALLIA
271
lovers leave her to Catignatus that Clotucilla is not taken away. If they take her
away and befriend her, o Divona (we implore you that) she, o goddess, remain
faithful, pure and joyful, be left pure, (and that) he (= the other lover) would be
willing to give back the one taken away.”).
The language of the text, however, is so unique that only some parts of the text
can be understood with certainty. Meid (2014, 60 ff., 1996, 121) assumes that it
uses Latin as the basic language, even though it does not appear so at the first
sight. Perhaps it documents a very specific kind of Vulgar Latin (as e. g.
priauimo – precavimus; te uoraiimo – te ora(v)imus; pia, pura etc.) mixed up
with Greek (atanat tehon – αθανατα θεων “immortal one of gods”, timezo
τιμήσω “I shall honour”) and Gaulish (the pronoun sosio, derti) elements.
According to Meid’s interpretation (2014, 61 ff.), the text is connected to love
affairs20
and was probably written by a slave which might explain the peculiar
linguistic register. Although the text was inscribed on a lead tablet and was
found in well, it is most likely not a typical love spell or curse but rather a
prophylactic plea to deities.
9.1.3 Legal Curses
Only a few legal curses have preserved in Gallia; this corpus includes two of
them. The most famous and complicated curse found in Gallia is found in
tablets No. 67 and No. 68. These are tabulae ansatae (i.e. tablets with dovetail
handles) containing a single curse, which were found in a grave transfixed and
attached to one another. There was also a coin dated to 172 CE, i.e. Marcus
Aurelius’ time, in the grave; the tablets date to the end of the 2nd
cent. CE. The
text of both tablets is sporadically corrupted;21
No. 67 from Chagnon (the
territory of the Santones), dfx.4.3.1/1, reads:
20
Meid (2014, 61) presumes a love scenario based on the text of the following tablet: a
young man named Catignatus loves a young woman Clotucilla who is his mistress.
She is referred to as derti, which literally means „skin” and is used figuratively for a
person of female sex like Latin scortum. He is afraid that she might be taken away
from him and asks goddess Divona for help.
21
C. M. Jullian (1897, 177 ff.) noticed that the text was not written all at once − the
magical formula was only later added to the end of tablet No. 67; therefore, the
sequence of magical words interrupted the continuous flow of the text (see also DT
111). I cite here the amended text according to A. Kropp (2008).
9. GALLIA
272
Denuntio personis infrascriptis Lentino et Tasgillo, uti adsin(t) ad Plutonem,
(et) ad Proserpinam, hinc a(beant?). Quomodo hic catellus nemin(i) nocuit,
sic… nec illi hanc litem vincere possint. Quomodi nec mater huius catelli
defendere potuit, sic nec advocati eorum e(os d)efendere non possint, sic
il(lo)s (in)imicos (=illi inimici) (VM): atracatetracati gallara precata
egdarata hehes celata mentis ablata.
the text continues on the tablet No. 68, dfx.4.3.1/2:
aversos (=aversi) ab hac l(i)te esse (debent?). Quomodi hic catellus aversus
est nec surgere potest, sic nec illi. Sic tra(n)specti22
sint quomodi ille.
Quomodi in hoc m(o)nimont(o) (=monumento) animalia ommutuerun(t) nec
surgere possun(t) nec illi mut(i?). (VM): Atracatetracati gallara precata
egdarata he hes celata mentis ablata. (see 6.2.1., 9.1.2., and Appendix I).
(“I order the people written below, Lentinus and Tasgillus, to come to Pluto
and to Proserpina, may they depart [?] from here. Just as this puppy harmed
no one, so [may they harm no one?] and may they not be able to win this
suit.23
Just as not even the mother of this puppy can defend [it], so may their
lawyers be unable to defend them... [and] so [may] also these [legal]
opponents...
[The subsequently added unintelligible sequence follows − obviously magical
words in Latin, which is concluded by the intelligible words celata mentis
ablata, whose meaning, however, is unclear. In this context, one would perhaps
expect a formula referring to the limitation of the mental faculties of the adverse
party’s advocates. The text further continues in the other tablet building on sic
illi inimici:]
...be turned back from this suit;24
just as this puppy [lies] upside-down and is
unable to stand up, so neither [may] they [be unable to stand up]; may they
be pierced through, just as this [puppy is]. Just as in this tomb all [living]
creatures have been silenced and cannot rise up, neither may they [be able to
speak? or rise up]…”)
22
Transpecti, i.e. transpicti, is probably a mistake instead of the Classical Latin
transfixi.
23
For the interpretation and emendation of the lacuna and translation, see also Gager
(1992, No. 53).
24
See the compounds of the verb verto in curses (6.2.1.1.).
9. GALLIA
273
The text indicates that a puppy was killed during the cursing ritual so that the
author could have achieved the magical analogy − the transfer of the desired
attributes from one object to another, i.e. the enemies are supposed to be as
helpless as the puppy (see 2.3.6.).25
Some curses contain analogies with the
dead person buried in the grave where the tablets had been put, see No. 17:
Quomodo mortuos, qui istic sepultus est nec loqui nec sermonare potest, seic
Rhodine apud M. Licinium Faustum mortua sit nec loqui nec sermonare
possit. (“Just like this dead one, who is buried here, cannot speak nor talk [to
anyone], may Rhodine be dead for Marcus Licinius Faustus, nor be able to
speak or talk [to him].”)26
In addition, tablet No. 118 from Carthage describes the ritual using a cock:
...quomodo huic gallo... linguam vivo extorsi et dexifi... (see 2.3.6. and 11.1.2.).
The victim is sometimes also compared to the lead tablet (see No. 226; 1.4.,
1.9.3., and 9.2.).27
The text from Chagnon is one of the few legal curses whose author’s explicit
goal was to kill his opponents; most of the legal curses aim only at restrictions.
Finally, the concluding unintelligible passages in both tablets, which are
obviously voces magicae, have not been interpreted yet. These are a mixture of
magical and identifiable Latin words; they are written in Latin, and in somewhat
bigger, letters.28
Most scholars agree that the expressions atracatetracati
gallara /egdarata he / hes are magical words; among these there is precata, and
at the end we read celata mentis ablata. The magical word combining the a, t, r,
and c sounds is formed similarly to the famous abracadabra, see also DT 198,
which includes a similar sequence αραραραχαραρα.29
None of these magical
words is attested elsewhere. The sequence of Latin expressions is hard to
interpret, as well, the author perhaps wanted to deprive his opponents of their
celata mentis, “secret plans”?
Another legal curse found in Gallia (No. 61) is very damaged (see Appendix I).
25
See especially Graf (1996, 117 ff.) and Urbanová (2016, 329 ff.).
26
See 1.9.1., 2.3.6., 5.1.3., and 7.3.2.
27
See also Franek – Urbanová (2017).
28
See Jullian (1897, 18) and the facsimile stated.
29
Jullian (1897, 185) points out the resemblance of the term atracatetra and the Greek
ἀρά meaning “a curse”, or the personified goddess of revenge and doom, as well as
κατάρα meaning “a curse”; and the similarity of the term egdarata and the Greek
ἐκταράσσειν meaning “to frighten, terrify”).
9. GALLIA
274
9.2 PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
There are altogether six prayers for justice preserved in Gallia. Four of them are
related to a fraud or theft of money, and two to a theft. The earliest and most
complicated text is No. 226 from Montfo in Narbonensis. The tablet was found
in a well, dates to the 1st
century CE, and reads:
Quomodo hoc plumbu(m) non paret (= apparet?) et decadet30
sic decadat
aetas, membra, vita, bos, grano(m), mer(x) eoru(m), qui mihi dolum malu(m)
fecerunt… Idem Asuetemeos, Secundina, qu(a)e illum tulit, et Verres Tearus
et Amarantis et haec omnia vobis, dii, interdico in omnibus sortebus tam
celebrare Masitlatida concinere necracantum (= necrocantum?) col…s
cantum et omnes deos…ta datus… (“Just as this lead is not visible and sinks
to the bottom [decidit − the tablet has been found in a well], so may the
youth?, limbs, life, livestock, grain, and trades of those who deceived me
badly also fall into decay… and also31
Asuemetos, Secundina, who bore
him?, and Verres Tearus and Amarantis?...”) (see also 1.4., 1.9.3., and 6.2.).
The end of the text is slightly corrupted; however, its first part can be easily
interpreted. The sequence of proper names Asuemetos, Secondina, quae illum
tulit is harder to interpret, the editor assumes that it is an unusual transposition
of the common curse formula quem peperit XY. Nevertheless, this is a prayer for
justice, and the author refers to the damage he suffered (dolum malum), so it is
quite possible that quae illum (=illud?) tulit actually means “[Secundina] who
took/stole? it”. This would correspond to tablet No. 306: qui ipsos manicilios
tulit (12.2.3.) as well as No. 283 (1.10.2.) and No. 215 (1.2.1. and 8.2.). The
following passage is problematic, as the terms Masitlatida or necrocantum are
attested only in this tablet. The editor deduces from the context that these refer
to local Gallic religious feasts.32
Lejeune (1981, 52) believes that necrocantum
is a hybrid Greco-Latin term corresponding to the Latin morticinium. At first
sight, it seems that the author forbids (interdico)33
the gods to celebrate the
feasts of Masitlatida and take part in the funerary chants in any way: ...et haec
omnia vobis, dii, interdico in omnibus sortibus tam celebrare... The mortals as
30
See especially the reading and interpretation of Marichal (1981, 41 ff.) and (Lejeune
1981, 51 ff.). Decadet = Class. decidit (see also Appendix II).
31
Though the text reads idem, it is no doubt that it is a mistaken item which is often
used in curses when the names of the victims are added (see e.g. No. 17 and No. 27,
7.3.2.).
32
Marichal (1981, 51).
33
See Marichal (1981, 50). The verb is not documented in curses.
9. GALLIA
275
well as the gods, although not manifestly, take part in religious feasts and
rituals; the absence of gods during rituals means that the ritual was
unsuccessful. The editor of the tablet assumes that dii in the sequence vobis dii
interdico should be read separately as an address to the gods, i.e. without any
connection to vobis. Thus, the author addresses the gods and forbids the
aforementioned people to take part in certain religious ceremonies and
offerings: “I forbid you (by the gods) to participate in (the feast?) Masitlatida
and the chants for the dead.”34
In tablet No. 223, found in the amphitheatre in Trier and dated to the 4th
/5th
cent.
CE, the author complains about a non-specified fraud or damage (fraus). The
text is corrupted to a large extent; however, quite well interpretable:35
No. 223,
dfx.4.1.3/11:
Si tu (H)ostillam quae e Racatia (nata est, consumpseris), frau qi (=quae)
mihi fraude(m) fe(cit), deus, nos te, q(u)i audis(ti, sacrificio colemus). (“If
you [consume/torment to death?] Hostilla, who [was born] from Racatia,
who deceived me, god, we [will honour] you, who answered [this plea, with
an offering?]”)
I consider Kropp’s (2008) reading stated above to be plausible, except for a
very strange and elsewhere undocumented filiation formula e Racatia (nata
est?). Although this solution may seem logical, the text can be reconstructed
much more easily as follows:
Si tu (H)ostillam q(ua)e e(t) Racatia(e) frau(dem) qi (= quae) mihi
fraude(m) fe(cit), (consumpseris) deus, nos te, q(u)i audis (sacrificio
colemus)… (“If you [consume/torment to death?] Hostilla, who deceived
Racatia as well as me, god, we [will honour] you, who answered [this plea,
with an offering?]”).
This interpretation does not require the erasure of the first reference to the fraud
(frau) and also corresponds to the use of the 1st
pl. pronoun nos. Thus, two
people would complain in a single tablet about the damage done to them by
Hostilla (see also Urbanová, 2013, 188 ff.).
34
Marichal (1981, 50) presumes that the tablet was made by a professional magician.
35
See CIL 13, 11340 V, which states the text as follows: Si tu (H)ostillam q(ua)e e(t)
Racatia (consumpsisti) qui(a) mihi frau(dem) fe(cit), deus, nos te q(u)i audis//deus
nosti qui audis (sacrificio colemus). The text was engraved in place of an earlier
text, which had been effaced. This reading presupposes that the text is a prayer for
justice assuming that both Hostilla and Racatia are the culprits of the fraud stated.
9. GALLIA
276
Tablet No. 224 dating to the 4th
/5th
cent. CE and engraved on a discus and found
in a well is also very damaged. The editors interpret the text of No. 224 from
Dax/Landes,36
dfx.4.3.2/1, as follows:
Leontio (T. F?) Leontio Deidio Iovino (in)bo/lave/runt (= involaverunt)
manus pedis quicumqui le(vavit) anue (= anulum?)37
culi qui i…imm+rgo
(immergo?).
The presence of the verb (in)volaverunt points to the genre of prayers for
justice. There are three more statements that have the same function: the names
of the people stated in the beginning are supposed by the editors to be in the
dative, i.e. these should denote the victims of the theft (Leontius, son of
Leontius, Didius, and Iovinus?). Then the verb involaverunt follows, i.e.
perhaps the thieves have stolen various things. Thus, the authors attack the
culprit’s hands and feet (pedis is probably a mistake for pedes, and the
corrupted term culi can be reconstructed as oculi). The text, however, lacks the
verb of cursing: defigo typical of curses, or do, mando typical of prayers for
justice can be added here. The concluding sequence with the addition of Kropp
can be interpreted as “Whoever has stolen the ring, I plunge him/her [together
with this tablet], i.e. I accurse him/her”. Based on these, the whole tablet can be
translated as follows:
(“They have robbed: Leontius, son of Leontius, Didius, Iovinus… I plunge
the hands, feet, and eyes of the one who has stolen the ring.”).
This presupposes that there were more missing stolen objects in the lacuna, as
three people could not possess a single ring, or a single thing. However, it could
be just as well assumed that the author states in the beginning the names of
potential thieves in the nominative without the final –s, i.e. Leontio(s), Didio(s),
Iovino(s) involaverunt (mihi)... A similar case is found in tablet No. 242 from
Bath, dfx.3.2/1:
Qu(i) mihi VILBIAM (= fibulam) in(v)olavit, sic liqu(esc?)at com(odo)
aqua… qui eam (invol)avit: … Velvinna, Ex(s)upereus, Verianus, Severinus,
36
See Simón − Velázquez (2000, 261 –274). The cursing verb immergo is related to
the locality where the tablet was found, i.e. the well (see also 1.9.3.). The text was
written right-to-left probably by an inexperienced and poorly educated author; it is
divided into two columns and complemented or amended after it had already been
done (see also Appendix II).
37
A. Kropp (2008) reconstructs the corrupted text as follows: quicumqui le(vavit)
anulum.
9. GALLIA
277
Agustalis, Comitianus, Minianus, Catus, Germanill(a), Iovina. (“May he
who has stolen the [brooch] from me become as liquid as water ... who has
stolen it… [a list of potential culprits follows].”)
The tablet from Dax might be understood in the same way, i.e. the author starts
with the names of people suspected of the theft and continues with the cursing
of their body parts. The translation, then, would be as follows:
(“Leontius, son of Leontius, Didius, Iovinus have robbed [me?] … I plunge
the hands, feet, and eyes of the one who has stolen the ring.”).
This interpretation seems more logical to me with respect to the common
cursing practice of prayers for justice (see also Urbanová, 2013, 194 ff.).
The last two texts containing a prayer for justice (No. 225 and No. 222) are very
damaged. In the former, only shorter sequences are intelligible:
Deus te rog(o qui) dextrale... (“I ask you, god, [punish?] the one who [has
stolen] the bracelet...”).38
Tablet No. 222 was found in the amphitheatre in Trier and is dated to the 4th
/5th
cent. CE. Its text is divided into rectangles and is partially intelligible. The first
rectangle, stretching over a third of the tablet, contains unintelligible letter
sequences and non-alphabetic magical signs; the other two rectangles contain
the text itself. No. 222, dfx.4.1.3/9, reads:
A: BAL…INABIHTIARO vestro… (rogo? Di)anam et Martem vinculares, ut
me vindicetis de ququma (= Cucuma?/cucuma?). Eusebium in ungulas
obligetis et me vindicetis. B: Depositum Eusebium. (“[the initial sequence is
unintelligible, in your...?] [I ask] the constraining Diana and Mars to avenge
me for the pot [the issue concerning the pot]39
/to take vengeance on Cucuma
on my behalf?, put Eusebius on the instruments of torture and avenge me.
Eusebius has been damned.”)
Although it cannot be refuted that the author may have wished that the deities
avenge him on Cucuma and Eusebius who had done him some harm, I regard
Önnerfors’ interpretation more plausible. He assumes that the author wanted to
38
For the whole text, see Appendix II.
39
Önnerfors (1991, No. 21) interprets ququma as cucuma meaning ‘a bog pot,
cauldron’. CIL 13, 11340, III takes it for the name of the victim, probably of local
origin.
9. GALLIA
278
take his revenge on Eusebius for a damage he had done to his pot or cauldron.
Moreover, it is explicitly repeated on side B that Eusebius has been damned in
the tablet, which rather speaks for Önnerfors’ interpretation. Considering its late
dating and the other evidence from Gallia, the tablet is written in remarkably
good Latin and without any omission of final –m.
9.3 ADDRESSED DEITIES AND DAEMONS
Half of the curses found in Gallia contain an address to supernatural powers.
Similarly to the evidence from Hispania, there are several short curses
comprised only of nominal lists of the people accursed where no deities appear.
Only in tablets No. 67 and No. 68 do the typical infernal couple of Proserpina
and Pluto occur; tablet No. 64 from Trier is addressed to Isis. The curses from
Gallia also appeal to the less typical deities, namely to Diana. In addition, the
tablet No. 69 is probably addressed to a deity called Dibona, i.e. Divona40
(see
9.1.3.). The prayers for justice preserved in Gallia are similar to this: tablets No.
221 and No. 224 do not contain any direct address to a deity; tablet No. 222
from Trier appeals to Diana and Mars, and tablet No. 223 from Trier reads only
deus which probably refers to Mars, too. The general term deus certainly
denoted a particular deity and was more than sufficient in this case, as the tablet
was found in the amphitheatre; however, today we often do not know which
god was meant by it. Finally, tablet No. 226 probably appeals to infernal deities.
Nevertheless, with respect to a relatively small number of preserved texts from
Gallia, one cannot make any relevant conclusions out of these.
9.4 VOCES MAGICAE, SIGNA MAGICA, PECULIAR ORIENTATION
OF SCRIPT
The texts from Gallia, just like those from Italy and the African provinces,
include magical words written in Greek or Latin as well as magical signs which
are attested nowhere else; signa magica appear only very rarely. Tablet No. 65
from Autun contains magical words and names of daemons written in the Greek
alphabet (αβρασα, αβρασαξ, δαμναμευς…). These accompany a very simple text
of a non-specific curse (a nominal list of victims). Tablets No. 67 and No. 68
include Latin cursing formulas atracatetracati gallara... Tablet No. 62 contains
signa magica, i.e. the non-alphabetic signs. It is very likely that the texts
containing magical words and signa magica were ordered to be written by a
professional; the other tablets seem to be mostly the attempts of laymen. In
40
See Meid (1996, 121).
9. GALLIA
279
tablet No. 57 there is also an alphabetic sequence41
engraved upside-down,
which probably had a magical function of its own, as the alphabetic sequences
are also documented in Greek defixiones.42
A peculiar magical orientation of the
script (right-to-left) sometimes appears in the tablets found in Gallia, see No.
224, though somewhat less frequently than in the texts from Italy, Hispania, and
Germania (the tablets from the grave in Evreux not included in this corpus:
Kropp, 2008, dfx.4.2.2/1 and dfx.4.2.2/2).
9.5 FORMULAE AND PEOPLE ACCURSED
There are 20 formulae, a relatively small number, used in altogether 13 curse
tablets from Gallia; these are, surprisingly, either the very simple or the very
complicated ones. Formula 0, i.e. the nominal list of people accursed, has been
used five times mostly in the tablets of later date (4th
/5th
cent. CE); the earlier
texts tend to include more complicated formulae. Tablets No. 67 and No. 68
dated to the 2nd
cent. CE contain four simile-formulae. All other formulae
appear, too, except for formula 3a, i.e. the imperative invoking formula
extended by a purpose clause with ut (see 2.3.4.).
The prayers for justice from Gallia are fairly corrupted: ten formulae can be
detected in six tablets. The imperative formulae 3 and 3a are not included due to
the polite nature of these texts; a single simile-formula is attested in No. 226
dated to the 1st
cent. CE.
Considering the relatively small number of preserved texts, the average number
of people accursed is quite high, a total of 35 people are accursed in 13 curse
tablets, while men definitely dominate the list (29 men, six women). A single
tablet includes three victims on the average; the social status of victims is
diverse (slaves, freedmen, free citizens). The names of the people accursed are
mostly in the nominative, only rarely in the accusative (No. 63 and No. 64).
The prayers for justice from Gallia refer to thefts, frauds, or thefts of money;
however, when compared to the evidence found in Hispania, there are less
typical features of the genre. The author’s name is not included in any of the
texts − only tablet No. 224 is disputable regarding this, but I believe that the
problematic names belong to the potential culprits, not to the authors (see 9.2.).
Six tablets include the names of the people accursed. A polite address does not
41
CIL 13, 1, 10008: alphabetum ad pedem litteris inversis.
42
See A. Dietrich (1901, 77 ff.) who includes all the evidence and presumes that
alphabetic sequence could have served the function of a magical formula.
9. GALLIA
280
appear either, except for only three tablets: No. 226 deus, te rogo, No. 226 dii,
and No. 223 deus. The names of the culprits are mostly known (six men and
four women), twice the name is not specified, probably due to the corruption of
the text, or because the author did not know the name of the culprit. It can be
said that the authors of the prayers for justice from Gallia, just like those found
in Italy, exclusively pursue vengeance on the culprit rather than a compensation
for the damage or return of the stolen property. However, it has to be taken into
account that some texts (No. 224 and No. 225) are very damaged and
impossible to be reconstructed any more. To conclude, the prayers for justice
from Gallia mostly contain the above mentioned three typical features of the
genre.
The filiation of the victim’s name via father is rather scarce (No. 57 and No.
64), filiation via mother’s name is attested with certainty only in curse No. 63:
defigo (Ro)danum, quem peperit Annula (see 9.1.1.); prayers for justice are
problematic in this context, too. I suppose that the interpretative amendment of
tablet No. 223: Si tu (H)ostillam q(ua)e e Racatia (nata est?) is very uncertain
(see 9.2. above). Furthermore, the formulation of tablet No. 226: Asuetemeos,
Secundina, quae illum tulit is, as well, non-standard and documented nowhere
else − it is not clear whether it can be regarded a metronymic filiation formula.
As far as can be deduced from the uncorrupted texts found in Gallia, the authors
of these, except for No. 67 and No. 68, do not pursue the death of their victims.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
This chapter deals with the evidence found in the northern parts of the Roman
Empire, namely the provinces of Germania, Raetia, Noricum, and Pannonia,
which are located along the large rivers of the Rhine and the upper and middle
Danube. Compared to the other provinces, curses and prayers for justice from
these regions employ the Mediterranean cursing practice in a very interesting
and unique way. Besides, they share several common features despite the fact
that they often come from the regions very distant from each other. Thus, it
seems that there were lively contacts between the above mentioned areas
enabled by the existence of large rivers interconnecting even the remote regions,
as well as roads established due to the fortification of the Roman borders.
Germania (Magna Germania, or Germania libera, i.e. Great or also Free
Germania) was the ancient name of the territory north of the Danube, between
the Rhine and Vistula, reaching as far as the Baltic and the North Seas.1
Caesar,
crossing the Rhine in 55 and 53 BCE,2
marked the beginning of more intensive
military strives between Germans and Romans. Although Romans attempted to
subdue the Germanic peoples, while Tiberius and Drusus the Elder managed to
penetrate from the Rhine as far as to the Elbe, the expedition of the legate Varus
to the province of Germania ended in catastrophic defeat in the Battle of
Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE. After that, Romans never really tried to subjugate the
Germanic peoples again. They only constructed the network of fortifications
called limes along Rhine and Danube to avert the Germanic invasions into the
Roman territory. The main support points of this were the towns of Colonia
Agrippina (today’s German Köln, or Cologne), Mogontiacum (today’s Mainz),
and Carnuntum (today’s Petronell in Austria). During the time of Augustus, a
province of Germania was established at the left bank of the Rhine; then, in 89
CE, Domitian divided it into Germania superior, the upper one, and Germania
inferior, the lower one bordering the northern periphery of Gallia Belgica. With
the end of the Marcomannic Wars in 180 CE, Rome got rather defensive toward
the Germanic tribes and had to face the constant invasions into the frontier
territories.3
After the second half of the 1st
century CE, Romans intensified their
presence in the areas adjacent to the Rhine. However, the vast regions north of
the Rhine and the Danube have never been conquered by Romans.
1
Svoboda (1974, 213 ff.).
2
Wiegels – Spickermann – Barceló (1998, 954 ff.).
3
Svoboda (1974, 213).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
282
The area of ancient Raetia was located beside the upper Danube in the
mountainous regions of today’s south-eastern Switzerland, Tyrol, and
Vorarlberg, including the alpine areas in between Lake Constance (German
Bodensee), the Danube, and the river Inn. The province was named after a preRoman
population, probably of non-Indo-European origin, whose language has
been documented in ca. 215 inscriptions sharing some common features with
the Etruscan language.4
Most of the region’s parts were conquered by the
expeditions of Drusus and Tiberius already in 15 BCE.5
The province of Raetia
was established probably in Tiberius’ time not later than the first half of the 1st
century CE; it bordered on Germania Magna in the north, Germania superior in
the west, and Noricum (located behind the river Inn) in the east. The most
significant commercial and administrative centres of the province were Regina
Castra (Regensburg), Brigantium (Bregenz), Cambodunum (Kempten), Augusta
Vindelicum (Augsburg), and Curia (Chur). The province was further divided in
Diocletian’s time into the western Raetia I (prima) with its main centre in
Curia, and the eastern Raetia II (secunda) with the centre in Augusta
Vindelicum. Thus, a relevant Roman presence as well as the possibility of the
occurrence of curse tablets in this area can be presumed as soon as the 1st
century CE.
Ancient Noricum was named after one of the Celtic tribes originally inhabiting
the area, the Norici. It was located in the central part of today’s Austria in
between the later provinces of Raetia and Pannonia. The inhabitants of this
region had vivid commercial connections with Rome already in the 2nd
century
BCE,6
especially thanks to the export of gold, iron, salt, cattle, skins, and wool
southwards via the contemporary commercial centre of Aquileia. Noricum was
attached to the Roman Empire in 15 BCE most likely in connection with the
conquest of the neighbouring Raetia and, probably, with no severe fights taking
place. It remained, at first, to have the status of regnum Noricum, the common
provincial administrative was being built only gradually. However, the cultural
advancement of the region (its indigenous written tradition) helped its very
early integration and intensive Romanization. The main administrative centre
was Virunum. Thus, Noricum, of all the Roman provinces along the river
Danube, was exposed to the Roman influence for the longest period of time.
Pannonia is the ancient name of the territory (and later the Roman province)
bordered by Danube in the north and east which lies in today’s Hungary and
4
See Urbanová – Blažek (2008, 70 ff.).
5
Waldherr (2001, 749 ff.).
6
Dietz (2000, 1003 ff.); Svoboda (1974, 420).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
283
eastern Austria (Carnuntum, Vindobona) and reached as far as Slovakia
(Gerulata). Its southern regions further extended to the territories of today’s
Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia as far as to the south of the river Sava; originally,
it was part of Illyricum. In 119 BCE, the Romans succeeded in occupying the
town of Sciscia (today’s Sisak in Croatia), but it was only a temporary victory,
as the town was definitively conquered in 35 BCE.7
Furthermore, the rebellious
population of northern Pannonia was not subdued before Tiberius who managed
to do so in 6–9 CE. He separated Panonnia from Illyricum; thus, Panonnia
became an independent province ca. in half of the 1st
century CE. It was in this
time that the frontiers of the Roman Empire were reinforced militarily: on the
right bank of Danube, the military camps of Carnuntum (today’s Petronell),
Vindobona (today’s Vienna), Aquincum (today’s Budapest), and Brigetium (at
the crossroads of the rivers Váh and Danube) were built, where four legions
were planted. Later, during Domitian’s and Trajan’s reign, the Roman borders
were mutually interconnected with roads and significantly enforced by the
system of checkpoints. Moreover, forward military bases were established
beyond the borders (e.g. Devín–Bratislava). The important centres of the region
were also the towns of Scarbantia (today’s Sopron), Savaria (today’s
Szombathely) in Hungary, Poetovio (today’s Ptuj) in Slovenia, and the above
mentioned Sisak in Croatia. The Roman expansion to Dacia increased the
importance of the province and in the 2nd
century CE it was further divided into
two provinces: Pannonia superior, the upper Pannonia with three legions
situated in Carnuntum, Vindobona, and Brigetium, and Pannonia inferior, the
lower Pannonia, with one legion being in service in Aquincum. The
establishment of colonies settled mostly by Italian veterans was very important
for the process of Romanization in Pannonia. Latin inscriptions and
archaeological excavations document the ongoing Romanization in the time of
the principate and the spread of Roman cults (Jupiter, Venus, Apollo, Neptune,
Fortuna, Hercules) in the area. There is also the evidence of the existence of
Romanized oriental cults and local deities (Jupiter Dolichenus, Mithras, Isis,
Sedatus) in this region. Therefore, the occurrence of curse tablets here can be
expected from the 1st
century CE.
7
Burian (2000, 250 ff.); Svoboda (1974, 452).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
284
10.1 THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE NORTHERN PROVINCES AND
ITS SPECIFIC FEATURES
Most of the curse tablets come from Germania – Kropp’s corpus (2008)
includes 20 tablets from Germania, but only two from Noricum, seven from
Raetia, and four from Pannonia.8
More tablets have been unearthed in 1999 thanks to the excavations taking
place in the construction area of a new shopping mall in Mainz (ancient
Mogontiacum, Germania superior).9
These were found in the remnants of a
sacred precinct dedicated to the Egyptian goddess Isis Panthea,10
and the
Phrygian Mater Magna (Great Mother), the deities very rarely documented in
the Northern provinces. The votive inscription found in the location tells us that
the construction of the mutually connected shrines of both deities was ordered
by an imperial freedwoman named Claudia Icmas and an imperial slave
Vitulus.11
Three clay figurines, the so-called kolossoi,12
and 34 inscribed lead
tablets13
have been found in the votive deposits probably adjacent to the temple
of Mater Magna. The complete edition of all tablets found at Mainz was
published in 2012.14
My corpus includes only 22 of these texts based on the
publications of J. Blänsdorf (2004, 2005, 2007/2008, 2008, 2010, 2012); the
other twelve tablets (not included in my corpus) published in 2012 contain
mostly hardly interpretable fragmentary or short texts including prevalently the
names of cursed people. In other words, most of the evidence of curses and
prayers for justice (34 tablets) comes from Mainz. Between 1885 and 1886,
other eleven tablets were found in the Roman burial ground near Kreuznach;15
8
New curse tablets found in Pannonia have recently been published by Barta (2009,
23 ff.; 2012; 2015, 2016, 2017, 2017a) so, up to this day, the total number of curse
tablets found in Pannonia is nine.
9
See Blänsdorf (2005, 2008, 2010, and especially 2012).
10
The name of this goddess, whose cult spread around the whole Mediterranean and is
documented in Italia as soon as the end of the 2nd
century BCE, appears also in
tablets No. 64 from Trier (see 9.1.1.) and No. 217 from Hispania (1.2.1) which
contains a prayer for justice and dated to the 2nd
century CE.
11
Blänsdorf (2008, 47 ff.).
12
See especially Witteyer (2004, 42 ff.); and 1.8.1.
13
Blänsdorf (2008, 50). However, the authors of these texts appeal only to Mater
Magna and Attis, not to Isis.
14
See Blänsdorf (2012). The texts cited according to this edition, are marked with the
abbreviation DTM, if not stated otherwise.
15
See DT (94 –103); Kropp (2008, dfx.5.1.4/1 –5.14/11).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
285
single pieces of evidence have preserved in diverse localities.16
This corpus
includes altogether 42 tablets from Germania (31 curses and 11 prayers for
justice), two curses from Noricum, five tablets from Raetia (four curses and one
prayer for justice),17
and four tablets from Pannonia (three curses and one prayer
for justice).18
Most of the texts found in Germania (ten tablets) date to the 1st
century CE, the
tablets from Mainz (ca. 17) have been dated to 65–130 CE, and single pieces of
evidence are from the 2nd
or the 3rd
century CE. The same applies to the prayers
for justice found in Germania and the texts coming from the territories of
Noricum, Raetia, and Pannonia – they were all made in the 1st
or the 2nd
century
CE. This suggests that the Mediterranean cursing tradition spread to the
Northern provinces only with a small delay, when compared to the dating of the
tablets found in Italy and Hispania (mostly the 1st
century BCE or the 1st
century
CE). Surprisingly, the texts found in the Northern provinces are much earlier
than those coming from Gallia (these are mostly dated to the 4th
/5th
century CE).
As a comparison, the texts from the African provinces and Britannia mostly
date to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE. Nevertheless, these data point rather to the
randomness of the findings than the real situation.
The largest number of curses and prayers for justice coming from Germania has
been found in the shrine’s votive deposit at Mainz (altogether 34 tablets), out of
which 22 are included in this corpus (15 curses and seven prayers for justice).19
Several tablets have also been revealed in graves (curses No. 70–81, No. 83,
and a prayer for justice No. 227), other texts were found in the soil (curses No.
82 and No. 100, and prayers for justice No. 228–230). Only a single tablet from
Germania was found in connection to a water source (No. 84). The texts from
Raetia have preserved in graves (No. 103–104, No. 238) as well as in houses
(No. 105 and No. 106); those from Noricum in the soil (No. 102) or in the
shrine (No. 101); and the ones from Pannonia in the water (No. 107), in a grave
16
See e.g. the tablet from Gellep published by Blänsdorf (2014, 181-187) which is not
included in this corpus.
17
The text of the tablets (dfx.7.3/1 and 7.3/2 in Kropp’s corpus, 2008) is very
corrupted; therefore, they are not included in my corpus.
18
A legal curse most recently found in Aquincum and published by Barta (2009, 23
ff.) is not included in this corpus; however, it is stated in the text below. For further
new evidence, see Barta (2012, 2015, 2016, 2017).
19
If we also take into account the severely damaged texts from Mainz, it can be
presumed that DTM 18, 24, 26, 27, and 34 are the curses containing the nominal list
of people accursed; DTM 9 and 29 are perhaps prayers for justice; and DTM 30 –33
cannot be classified reliably either as curses or prayers for justice.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
286
(No. 109), in a house (No. 108)20
, and in an amphitheatre in Carnuntum (the
only prayer for justice). All texts were inscribed on lead tablets except for No.
102 found in Raetia, which was written on a brick (see 10.1.1.1.).
The tablets containing both curses and prayers for justice have been mostly
found rolled into scrolls or with no signs of any ritual manipulation, only rarely
also transfixed.
As in the other European provinces, in Germania we have mostly the nonspecific
curses (17), whereas the number of the legal curses (12) is relatively
high, too; two texts are connected to rivalry in love. The two curses found in
Noricum are non-specific; in Raetia two legal curses and one curse related to
rivalry in love have been found; the same applies for Pannonia where new
pieces of evidence documenting legal curses from Aquincum were recently
published.21
One love spell comes from Raetia (No. 106)22
. Generally, it can be
said that, as far as the preserved documentation is concerned, curses dominate
over prayers for justice in the Northern provinces, which corresponds to the
general tendency manifested also in the provinces on the European continent.
However, the texts from Germania, whose number is sufficient to judge from,
suggest the increasing amount of prayers for justice; the ratios of curses and
prayers for justice are as follows: 45:5 in Italy, 11:7 in Hispania, 13:6 in Gallia,
and 31:11 in Germania.23
No prayers for justice have been found in the African
provinces yet.24
The number of preserved texts is certainly not final, neither can
be; however, with some doubts, it can be stated that prayers for justice were
more frequently made in the northern and western European provinces.
Interestingly, the evidence found in Britannia speaks for a contrary situation –
prayers for justice are much more frequent here than curses (this corpus
includes 69 prayers for justice and only 25 curses from Britannia).
20
The new curses from Pannonia found in Aquincum and Savaria come from graves.
21
Barta (2009, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2017a)
22
See also 7.3. dealing with the new findings from the fountain of Anna Perenna and
the tablet No. 69 from Gallia.
23
If all pieces of evidence from Mainz are taken into account, including those not
stated in this corpus, the ratio of curses and prayers for justice found in Germania is
36:13.
24
In her corpus, Kropp (2008) classifies the texts dfx. 11.1.1/2, dfx. 11.1.1/34 from
Africa as prayers for justice; however, I take them as legal curses.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
287
10.1.1 Non-Specific Curses
The non-specific curses are the best attested curse type also in Germania (17
tablets); two such curses have been found in Noricum, too. Two thirds of these
are very short, frequently containing mere nominal lists of the people accursed.
However, the interpretation of some texts, despite their simplicity, is still
doubted.
Generally, it can be assumed that the names of victims usually stand in the
nominative, which is often “stiff”, i.e. used independently on the relevant
predicate.25
For example, No. 90 from Mainz, DTM 13: Cassius Fortunatus e(t)
bona illius et Lutatia Restituta necetis e(os). (“Cassius Fortunatus and his
property and Lutatia Restituta, kill them.”).
Only a fifth of all texts of curses include victims’ names in the accusative;
nevertheless, in the case of mere nominal lists without any cursing verb, it is
hardly determinable what case the author actually meant, as the omission of the
consonants –s and –m in final position was a common feature at the time.
However, we have to consider also the isolation of the proper name due to a
clear focus on it in curse texts, see Adams (2013, 215-216, 226 ff.). See, for
instance, No. 97 from Mainz, DTM 23:
Minicius Campanus, Martianus Armicus Severum tesserarium, Cantarum26
equitem. J. Blänsdorf (2012, 159) interprets the text as follows: “Minicius
Campanus, Martianus Armicus [verfluchen] den tesserarius Severus und den
Reiter Cantarus.” (“Minicius Campaus and Martianuss Armicus
[accurse/damn?] tesserarius27
Severus and the equestrian Cantarus.” ).
The cursing verb is omitted so the change of case could have also expressed the
opposition of subject and object. However, it must be said that this would mean
a significant deviation from common cursing practice, as curses do not usually
include authors’ names (see also 1.2.3.) except for some rare examples of legal
curses. Names regularly appear only in love spells. The omission of the author’s
25
See Audollent (1904: L); Jeanneret (1918, 132 ff.); Ruíz (1967, 219 ff.); Solin
(1968, 14 ff.). The author could have feared to decline the victim’s name to avoid
the misidentification of the accursed person. See also 1.6., and No. 27: B: inimicos
meos commendo: Domitia, Omonia, Menecratis, alius trado: Nicea, Cyrus, Nice…
(see 7.3.2.). See also Adams (2013, 226-228).
26
However, Blänsdorf (2010, 166) reads Cantar(um).
27
The term is here used in military context: “a military officer of lower grade” whose
task was to pass the commander’s orders to soldiers (see also Blänsdorf, 2010, 166).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
288
name may have had been caused by various reasons: first, the author was very
well aware of the fact that s/he commited an act in conflict with the generally
accepted moral principles and that his/her actions were illegal; thus, no one
should have known anything about it. Furthermore, there could have been a
significant fear that the curse could backfire on the author, if his/her name was
included in the text – let us remember that the tablets rolled into scrolls were
often transfixed with a nail, in which case the curse could have also afflicted the
author. In addition, the author could have been afraid of a vengeance in the
form of a counter-spell.28
The text cannot be interpreted as a prayer for justice
either because, although this genre often contains the author’s name, there is no
reference to any damage suffered, which is the only distinctive feature
differentiating prayers for justice from curses (see also 1.2.3.). I consider the
oscillation of the nominative and the accusative cases to be a mistake or the
tendency to isolate proper names in nominative often present in curse texts, see
Adams (2013, 215 ff. and Urbanová, 2018 in print); therefore, I suppose that all
names mentioned in the tablet refer to the people accursed, i.e. [defigo]
Miniciu(m) Campanu(m), Martianu(m) Armicuu(m) Severum tesserarium,
Cantarum equitem.
The much damaged tablet No. 94 from Mainz, DTM 19, is disputable, too (the
text is probably written right-to-left): I… An… Arbil… Veceta i… Verecundus
SANAACAS29
Sottas, m(a)las. J. Blänsdorf (2008, 56 ff.; 2012: DTM 19)
presumes that the fragments of the names preserved in the beginning of the text
refer to those who are being accursed, i.e. to malas Saganas, “bad witches”.
This would, again, be in disagreement with common cursing practice, as the
authors identified by name would then accurse the unspecified and explicitly
unnamed bad witches.
Let us examine another tablet from Germania No. 73 from Kreuznach,
dfx.5.1.4/2:
Fructus Gracilis et Aureum Adiutorium def(ero) i(nfer)is, sic non possit
respo(nde)re quaestionibus. (I hand over Fructus Gracilis and Aureus
Adiutorius to the infernal gods so that they cannot answer the questions.”).30
28
See also Versnel (1991, 62 ff.) who takes into account further ethnological
perspectives.
29
DTM 19 proposes to read sacaanas (= saganas) or sana agas, the latter, however,
would probably mean that it is not a curse, see also TheDeMa 135.
30
See also Kropp’s (2008) well-grounded addition of Fructum Gracilem, for a
different interpretation see Blänsdorf (2012, 187) and TheDeMa 741.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
289
The author seems to begin with the name of the victim in the nominative;
however, the following name after the coordinate conjunction et is stated in the
accusative. This oscillation of cases is most probably the result of the author’s
negligence or the tendency to put the names of cursed persons in nominative –
i.e. in their proper forms; see also the tablet No. 97 above.
Also the following text from Mainz displays the omission of final –m, not the
functional opposition of subject and object. See No. 88, DTM 8:31
Avita noverca dono tibi et Gratum (do)no tibi… (“I give you stepmother
Avita and I give you Gratus…”).
It seems more plausible that the stepmother is the victim of this curse together
with Gratus, The other, less probable, option is that she is the author of the
tablet stating her name. Tablet No. 98 from Mainz, DTM 25, is another example
of inattentive writing: Lamixa Zerita… uilli ancil(l)am (“[I accurse] Lamixa
Zerita, the maid of ...uillius.”). The victim’s name stands in the nominative here,
whereas its attribute is used in the accusative. I assume that the authors of the
abovementioned texts No. 97 and No. 94 made the same common mistake or
wanted to keep the name of the victim in an unchanged form in nominative
which is obvious in case of the latter curse.
Similarly, in a tablet from Britannia, the names of accursed people oscillate
between the accusative and the nominative. Text No. 204, dfx.3.22/18, which
was found in Uley together with other two prayers for justice, is dated to the
2nd
–4th
cent. CE: Aunillus, V(ica)riana, Covitius Mini(f) dona(t) Varicillum,
Minura, Atavacum. The editors32
point out that the lists of cursed people found
in Britannia usually contain either all names in the nominative or (rarely) in the
accusative, based on which they assume that the oscillation of the cases is
deliberate in this tablet. That would mean that all names in the nominative are
the names of the authors, while all names in the accusative denote those
accursed. Nevertheless, three names are stated after the verb dona(t) –
Varicillum, Minura, Atavacum – out of which only two stand in the accusative.
The editors solve this problem by amending the text as follows: dona(t)
Varicillum, Minura (donat) Atavacum. However, if the other donat is not added
and if the initial names really are in the nominative, the text can, again, be
regarded an example of graphic oscillation and the negligence of its author(s).
Perhaps the text was meant as a prayer for justice with no reason stated, but this
31
See also Blänsdorf (2008, 55 ff.; 2012: DTM 8).
32
See Hassall – Tomlin (1995, 376 ff.).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
290
is a mere speculation considering the fact that prayers for justice mostly contain
a single or, at the most, two names of authors while the number of victims (if
the culprit is known or suspected) is usually higher. For example, No. 294 from
Britannia reads: Nomine Camulorigi(s) et Titocun(a)e (see 6.2.) and No. 308
(see 12.2.3.).
In addition, the new findings in Mainz provided us with two remarkable nonspecific
curses politely addressed to Attis and Mater Magna. These, however,
certainly cannot be regarded prayers for justice as they do not contain the names
of authors nor any damage suffered.33
No. 85 from Mainz, dfx.5.1.5/2, DTM 5,
reads:
A: Bone sancte Atthis Tyranne, adsi(s), advenias Liberali iratus. Per omnia
te rogo, domine, per tuum Castorem, Pollucem, per cistas penetrales, des ei
malam mentem, malum exitum, quandius vita vixerit, ut omni corpore videat
se emori praeter oculos. B: neque se possit redimere, nulla pecunia nullaque
re neq(ue) abs te neque ab ullo deo nisi ut exitum malum. Hoc presta, rogo
te per maiestatem tuam.34
(“Good, holy Att(h)is, Lord, help [me?],35
come to
Liberalis in anger. I ask you by everything, Lord, by your Castor and Pollux,
by the cistae36
inside your sanctuary, give him a bad mind, a bad death, as
long as he lives his life, so that he may see himself dying all over his body,
except for his eyes. And may he not be able to redeem himself by any money
or anything else, either from you or from any other god, but may he [die] a
bad death. Grant this, I ask you by your majesty.”)
The tablet is written in good Latin including rhetorical devices and
anaphorically ordered dicola and tricola; therefore, it can be supposed that the
author had at least some education, either a general one, or in the field of
33
Blänsdorf (2010, 149) notes that these texts in a way belong to the category of
prayers for justice, though they lack the typical features of this genre, e.g. the
damage suffered (see e.g. No. 239, 6.2.1.3.).
34
This is the reading and interpretation of Blänsdorf (2007/2008, 17 ff.; 2010, 166 ff.;
2012, DTM5). See also Chalupa (2011, 240) who, without any argumentation,
considers the text to be a prayer for justice.
35
Apart from Blänsdorf’s interpretation, this place can also be understood as a
pleonastic “appear, come to Liberalis”.
36
Cistae were probably baskets to deposit the cut-off genitals of the priests of Mater
Magna (see Blänsdorf, 2010, 168) held in the inner parts of her temple; no
sanctuaries were built to Attis. See Chalupa (2011, 240 ff.) who translates “by the
baskets (hidden) inside the sanctuary”.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
291
magic.37
Attis is addressed not as a chthonic deity but as the supreme god,
though the former aspect of his is probably present, too. The author politely
appeals to the deity: Bone sancte Atthis Tyranne and continues with two
synonymic verbs, which Blänsdorf interprets as separated from each other
adding (mihi) after the first adsis. However, I believe that this amendment is
inappropriate as there is another more plausible option – the two verbs display
the accumulation of synonymic terms common in curses, i.e. “appear, come to
Liberalis, and give him a bad mind (probably in the sense “to make him
insane”). Further, the author wishes that the victim dies a terrible and painful
death,38
which he is supposed to observe for the rest of his life, that is why his
eyes are to remain intact. The author’s wish that the victim cannot break the
effect of the curse nor escape it39
in any way (redeem himself or use a counterspell)
is an innovative feature in the extant Latin curses. This formula is
otherwise documented in this form only in Germania in curse No. 85 and the
prayers for justice, No. 231 and No. 232.40
The verb redimere also appears in
the prayers for justice found in Britannia, but it is associated with vengeance on
culprit who cannot redeem his crime in other way than with his own blood, see
No. 277: …sanguine et vitae suae redimat. (“…let him buy it back with [his]
blood and his own life.”) (see 6.2. and 6.2.1.).
Another curse addressed to Attis is No. 87 from Mainz, dfx.5.1.5/8, DTM 4,
which reads:
A: Tiberius Claudius Adiutor in megaro eum rogo te, Mat(e)r Magna,
megaro tuo recipias. Et Attis domine, te precor, ut hu(n)c (h)ostiam
acceptum (h)abiatis, et quit aget, aginat sal et aqua illi fiat. Ita tu facias
dom(i)na it, quid cor eoconora (= iecinora?) c(a?)edat B: Devotum defictum
illum menbra, medullas… Nullum aliud sit, Attis, Mater Magn(a).41
37
See also Blänsdorf (2010, 149 ff.).
38
See Blänsdorf (2010, 148), and Versnel (1998, 227 ff.) who, in the curses containing
extensive lists of body parts, notices the growing tendency to afflict the victim with
the most painful death possible (see also 7.3.1.1.).
39
This effort is also documented in the Greek texts (see 1.9.2.).
40
See 3.3.3., 1.10.2., and 10.2.3.
41
This is the rea ding and interpretation of Blänsdorf (2010, 174, DTM 4); see also
8.1.1. Blänsdorf (2007/2008, 12 ff.) states that side A of this tablet was inscribed
with capital letters including some mistakes, while side B was written in the Old
Roman cursive. He regards this to be the evidence of the fact that the two tablets
were written without any help from a professional ritual practitioner.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
292
(“Tiberius Claudius Adiutor, in the megaron,42
I ask you, Mater Magna, to
receive him in the megaron [on your altar?], Lord Attis, I ask you to
embrace him as an offering to you [lit. to possess him as an offering
received], and may whatever he does or busies himself with become salt and
water [=salty water]43
for him. Thus, may you, Lady, do whatever harms44
his heart, liver, [make] him cursed and ʻcaughtʼ, in his limb, strength, let
nothing else happen [?],45
Attis, Mater Magna.”)
As in the previous one, the text begins with the polite address to the deity
common in prayers for justice, but there is no mention of damage suffered.
Moreover, the victim, Tiberius Claudius, is handed over as an offering to the
deity as is common in curses, see also No. 16: hanc hostiam acceptam habeas et
consumas Danaen. Chalupa (2011, 241) takes into account two possible
interpretations of the sequence hu(n)c (h)ostiam (h)abiatis: the offering to the
deity is either Tiberius Claudius himself or an animal sacrifice. I am inclined to
the first option that the sequence refers to Tiberius Claudius himself,
analogically to the above mentioned tablet No. 16: hanc = Danaen. The tablet
also contains a not very detailed list of cursed body parts, which is referring to
the body as a whole: cor, iecinora, membra, medullas, as in the previous tablet.
In addition, the tablet demonstrates the blending of the formulaic expressions
typical of curses – (h)ostiam acceptum (h)abias; devotum, defixum, membra,
42
The term megaron derived from Greek μέγαρον may denote a part of the sanctuary,
a depository of the offerings to the chthonic deities, or an altar dug into the ground
(see also No. 220, 8.2.; Blänsdorf, 2010, 174 ff.). Tomlin interprets as Domine
Megare in tablet No. 220 (3.3.2.), i.e. as “the Lord Megarus” meaning the lord of the
underground sanctuary where Attis was buried; the ambiguous megaron is later in
the text elucidated by ut hu(n)c hostiam…Whatever the interpretation, the human
offering in tablet No. 87 was probably supposed to head for the Underworld (see
10.1.1.). Chalupa (2011, 241) suggests another, very likely, interpretation: “Tiberius
Claudius Adiutor, on your altar, please, Mater Magna, receive him on your altar…”
(see also Simón, 2010, 412).
43
Sal et aqua ilii fiat is probably a kind of proverb. The salt water is of no use as it
cannot quench one’s thirst. Thus, the meaning here is obvious: “may his business go
to waste, may it be of no benefit to him”, see also the Czech proverb “nemít ani na
slanou vodu” which can be translated as “not having enough money even for a salt
water” (comparable to the English idioms like “living on the breadline”, “being hard
up”, or “not keeping the wolf from the door”). This is perhaps also related to the
verb aginat – Blänsdorf (2010, 173) states aginatus – qui agit aliquid, id est
negotiatur in his commentary.
44
Cedo = caedo? (see also 10.1.1.).
45
I.e. perhaps “may it happen as I wish and not otherwise”.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
293
medulas including an alliteration – with the typical features found in prayers for
justice – Attis domine, te precor, as well as with author’s own innovations like
sal et aqua illi fiat (the expression is attested only in the tablets from Germania,
see No. 233).46
Finally, the concluding formula nullum aliud sit has been found
nowhere else so far. The text includes the features of Vulgar Latin and its
author(s) had to be acquainted with the formulae used in Roman prayers, as
these are applied here for magical purposes.47
Another non-specific curse found in Mainz, No. 89, DTM 10, is inspired by the
cult of Mater Magna and refers to the self-harm practiced by her priests;
unfortunately, the text is disrupted to a large extent and reads:
A: Mando et rogo liberta(m) Cerialis, ut ea(m) ext(r)a IPIVTI (= ipsam?)
fac(i)atis, ut se plangat… (v)elit se, quatmodum arc(h)igalli se B: CO(.)LI
sibi settas facia(ti)s,… ita me(n)ses duos, ut eorum ixsitum (= exitum)
audiam, d(i)liquescant quatmmodi hoc d(i)liquescet. (“I commend [to you]
and ask that you make the freedwoman of Cerialis out of her mind, may she
hurt herself… want to… herself just like archigalli [beat] themselves… [the
following text is unintelligible] in two months may I hear of her death…
may they melt away just as this [piece of lead] will melt away.”)48
Unfortunately, side B is completely unintelligible; therefore, the interpretation
of the text cannot be complete. However, I suppose that it contains a request to
the deity to fulfil the author’s wish within two months.
The following text, No. 100 from Cologne, makes use of the magical orientation
of the script in agreement with the formulaic use of compounds of verto (see
6.2.1.1.):
A: Vaeraca, sic res tua: perve(r)se agas, comodo hoc perverse scriptu(m)
est. B: Quidquid exop(ta)s nobi(s) in caput tuum eveniat.49
(“Vaeraca, this is
how it is going to be for you: may you go along twistedly [i.e. wrongly] just
like this is written in a twisted way [the text is written right-to-left, i.e. in an
46
A similar phrase is documented in Britannia: …sic liquat com(odo) aqua… (see No.
142).
47
See especially Blänsdorf (2010, 154).
48
The analogy between the victim and the lead tablet also appears in other tablets not
only from Mainz (see 1.4. and 6.2.1.1.; see also 10.2.4.), see also Franek-Urbanová
(2017).
49
For the reading and interpretation, see Blänsdorf – Kropp – Scholz (2010, 272 ff.);
see also 1.7.1. and 6.2.1.1.; and Faraone – Kropp (2010, 395 ff.).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
294
unusual manner]. Whatever [bad] you wish for us, may it come down on
your head.”).
This brief tablet displays several deviations from common practice. Although,
the right-to-left orientation of the text is not rare in curses, there is usually no
explicit reference to a formula based on the verb verto. Perverse agas denotes
that whatever the victim does may end reversely, i.e. badly. Such a formula
accompanied by the reverse orientation of script also appears in tablet No. 230
which was, too, found in Germania, and contains a prayer for justice (see
below); and in tablet No. 109 from Pannonia related to rivalry in love (see
below). All other extant texts either use this formula together with only a
victim’s name written reversely, or just figuratively, without any magical
orientation of the script, see e.g. No. 68 (9.1.2. and 10.1.2.). Side B of this curse
could perhaps be also interpreted as a counter-spell, if the author suspected
Vaeraca of using a curse of her own against him/her (see also 7.3.1.4. and
10.1.2. below).
A magically oriented script (victim’s name written upside-down) related to the
formulation of the curse is found in tablet No. 101 from Noricum, formerly
interpreted as a love-spell:50
A: Pluton sive Iovem infernum dici oportet, Aeracura Iuno inferna, acciet(e)
iam celerius infrascriptum et tradite Manibus51
Aurelium Sinnianum
Caesarianum B: Sic Silvia inversu(m) maritu(m) cernis, quomodo nomen
illius scriptum est. (“Pluto, or, if it is fitting to say the infernal Jupiter,
Aeracura, the infernal Iuno, summon the one written below as fast as
possible and hand over Aurelius Sinnianus Caesarianus to Manes. May you,
Silvia, see your husband upside-down, just like his name is written.”).
The tablet was found inside a tiny vessel in the remnants of a sacral building.
Egger (1963, 30 ff.) interpreted the text as a love spell by which a deceived wife
wants to get her husband from his mistress back home.52
In other words, Pluto
and Iuno are asked to hand the unfaithful husband over to the infernal gods who
50
Egger (1993, 24 –33); for the interpretation, see Faraone – Kropp (2010, 387 ff.), for
another interpretation made by Weber (1985) see TheDeMa 768.
51
The committal to dis Manibus, as well as to Pluto, obviously means death; see also
Dii Manes commendo, ut perdant/pereant?, which may refer to the wish either that
the opponent loses a lawsuit, or to destroy the opponents (No. 27, 7.3.2.).
52
Egger considered Silvia to be the name of the author which is, however, not
common in curses; therefore, he interpreted the text as a love spell, as the author’s
name is usually stated in these (see above, e.g. No. 143, 1.1.2.2.3.).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
295
are then supposed to bring him home. However, the tablet does not closely
resemble other love spells: inversus meaning “homecoming” is not attested – if
used, it always denotes “reversed, inverted, perverted” – and the committal to
the infernal deities Pluto and Iuno points rather to the common cursing practice
against opponents ending in harming or, as in this case, killing the victim.53
If
we regard the text as a curse reflecting a usual rivalry or animosity, the
unnamed author accurses Aurelius Sinnianus and, on side B, makes clear that
s/he wants to hurt him and cause pain to his wife Silvia, who is even explicitly
addressed in the curse: sic Silvia inversu(m) maritu(m) cernis. Kropp (2008a,
156) points out two other examples of the direct address to the victim in curses,
namely No. 106 from Peiting, dfx.7.4/1: Gemella ama Clementem, and No. 102
written as a letter addressed explicitly to the victim: Livia peribis. Nevertheless,
such formulations are very rare and documented only in the texts found in
Noricum and Raetia.54
The curse No. 102 found in Wilhering, dfx.6.2/1, was inscribed on a brick amd
reads:
(Do)mino fartori Victorino salutem. Mox litteras meas perceperis, ut
statuim(us). Demes litteras meas felicissime et i(n?) pos(t?) cum Livia
peribis. (“Hail to the chicken-feeder Victorinus. Soon you will receive [read]
my letter, as we proposed. You will very happily throw it away and right
after die together with Livia.”)
Kropp (2008a, 456 ff.) is inclined to interpret this text as a joke or a writing
exercise. Be it meant seriously or not, it is certainly a very peculiar and unique
evidence of cursing text. The direct addresses to the cursed people may
demonstrate the local adaptations of cursing tradition in the Northern provinces
and the amateurish attempts of the authors coming from these areas. As for the
term epistula in curse texts, see TheDeMa 1429, 1115.
10.1.2 Legal Curses
Most of the specified curses found in Germania are legal curses; out of these 12
have been included in this corpus together with three curses from Pannonia and
53
See also Faraone – Kropp (2010, 388). The sequence maritum inversum may
perhaps be understood also as a separation curse, i.e. “may he turn away from
Silvia”.
54
Kropp (2008a, 156 ff.) notes that the classification of the texts containing such
formulae is often disputable considering a peculiar location of the finding of the
material used (No. 102 written on a brick).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
296
two curses from Raetia. These texts, too, display many peculiarities deviating
from the common use of this genre – e.g. they often contain the name of the
author/cursing party. In addition, they differ in the aims of their authors – unlike
the usual restrictions found in legal curses, the adversaries at court are often
supposed to not only be limited in some way but also killed (see 5.1.1.).
Generally, it can be said that legal curses from the region in question almost all
come from Kreuznach; except for No. 92 which was found in Mainz, No. 103
and No. 105 from Raetia, and No. 107 and No. 108 from Pannonia. In these, we
find two particular ways of formulating the curse. One formulation comprises of
the nominal list of cursed people, usually referred to as enemies (inimici, hostes,
adversarii), in the nominative which occurs in five texts (apart from a single
text No. 81 which contains the names predominantly in the accusative) and a
brief concluding formula specifying what exactly should happen to the victims.
The other formula contains more detailed statements, usually referring to a
smaller number of enemies, specifying the restrictions to paralyse the
adversaries in a lawsuit.
No. 74 from Kreuznach, dfx.5.1.4/3, is one of the simpler texts:
A: Inimicorum nomina ad inferos… B: Inimicorum nomina: Optatus Silonis
ad inferos: Faustus Ornatus, Terentius Attisso, Atticinus Ammonis, Latinus
Valeri(i), Adiutor Iuli(i), Tertius Domiti(i), Mansuetus Senodatium,
Montanus materiarius, Aninius Victor, Quartio Severi, Sinto Valentis,
Lutumarus lanius, Similis Crescentis, Lucanus Silonis, Communis
Mercatoris, Publius offector, Aemilius Silvanus, Cossus Matuini.
The text is formulated as an appeal to the court. Side A starts with Inimicorum
nomina ad inferos [data or defero?] written in shapely letters, which can be
understood as “The names of the enemies [have been given/handed over?] to
the infernal gods”. Additionally, ICLUM is inscribed on the side, which is
probably the fragment of a previous text recycled as a palimpsest for the above
mentioned curse.55
The list of the enemies introduced by inimicorum nomina is
inscribed on side B of the tablet and all the names of curse victims are in
nominative. The victims of the curse are mostly slaves or freedmen; some
names are further specified by an occupation – Montanus materiarius (“the
wood trader”), Lutumarus lanius (“the butcher”), Publius offector (“the dyer”).56
55
See CIL 13, 2, 1, 7553.
56
TIL Volume IX., 2, p. 486, l. 82.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
297
Nevertheless, text No. 75 from Kreuznach is somewhat more interesting
because of the cursing formulae and the information it provides on its author’s
aims. The author uses the curse to kill his adversary at court. See No. 75,
dfx.5.1.4/4:
A: Data nomina ad inferos…57
B: Dis Manibus hos v(oveo): L(ucium)
Celi(um), C(aium) Haeb… et siquos alios hos(tes) habeo, neca illa nom(ina).
(“These names have been handed over/denounced to the infernal gods…; I
[commend?] these [people] to the gods Manes: Lucius Caelius, Caius
Haeb…, and if I have other enemies, kill them, too.”)58
Tablet No. 82 from Kreuznach, dfx.5.1.4/11, is very brief, too: Data nomina
haec ad inferos… Unfortunately, the text is disrupted so the victims’ names did
not preserve neither is it possible to assess the context of the curse.
All these texts make use of the predicates of committal in the passive (both
perfect passive participle and present participle) (see below), so that the agent of
the action remains unexpressed (see also 2.2.2.). This formula marginally
appears also in other parts of the Roman Empire. As for the tablets from
Germania, the formula occurs in tablet No. 81 from Kreuznach containing a
long list of 11 cursed people in the accusative/nominative concluded with the
verbal form datur, i.e. “is commended” (see Appendix I).
Tablet No. 79 from Kreuznach, dfx.5.1./8, displays a peculiar orientation of
script. The list of the enemies’ names in nominative is written in the central part
of the tablet and the cursing formula is written vertically along the perimeter. It
reads:
Inimici et inimic(ae)59
Caranita(n)i: Abilius Iuvenis, Sabinus apparitor,
Arria Dardisa, Optatus Silonis, Privatu(s Se)veri, Cossus Maesi, Marcus
aerari(us), Atta Marci uxor, Camula uxor Gamati Ambiti, Val(erius) Ciri,
Atticinus (Amm)onis, Terentius Attiso, Iulia(?) Attisonis, Narcissus
Caliphontis, Calipuntis(?) et Pudentis et Pudens… Albus(?) Vicinus…along
57
I state the reading according to DT 97. Both CIL 13, 2, 1, 755 and Kropp (2008)
read ad inferas larvas. Consulting the facsimile in CIL, the reading larvas does, in
fact, seem uncertain; however, these lectiones variae do not change the meaning of
the curse in any way.
58
Nomen is used here in the meaning “person” (see also 8.1.1. and 10.1.2.), see also
Urbanová – Franek (2016).
59
The tablet reads inimici et inimici, which is considered to be a mistake of the author
by editors (CIL 13, 2, 1, 7551, DT 101; Kropp 2008).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
298
the perimeter:60
Sic te morbo addicant Dii M(anes)… Dii inferi… sunt?
(“The enemies, male or female, of Caranitanus: [a list of ca. 17 people
follows,61
including three women, free citizens, as well as freedmen; the
disrupted text of the curse is written along the perimeter]. Thus, may Di
Manes summon a disease upon you… the infernal gods… are.”)
The author’s effort to make his enemies sick is similar to the restrictions
commonly used in legal curses.
Another simple legal curse is text No. 108, found in Ljubljana, dfx.8.2/1, which
reads:
C(aius) Volusius Maximus, Firmi Optati Proculus, Virotouta, Constans,
servi atque publicius Porcius Munitus, Clodius Dexter, Tullius Secundus,
Cornellius Priscus, quicumque adversar(ii) sunt omnes.
The list of people accursed is concluded by a formula lacking a cursing verb:
“and all those who are [my] enemies”.
Nevertheless, the more complicated and detailed legal curses appear more
frequently in the northern provinces than the simple ones. These usually aim at
restrictions of the victims’ ability to speak or think. Very similar texts No. 70
(see 1.10.1. and 2.3.1.) and No. 71 from Frankfurt are especially remarkable, as
they contain the name of an author, Sextus; the formulations used are very
similar, too. No. 71 from Frankfurt, dfx.5.1.2/2, reads:
(Do i)nimicos Sexti, ut sic non possint (cont)ra Sextum venire nec agere
quicq(uam) possint… ut sic (sint) vani et m(uti) q… et illi qui in… loqui
Va(le)ntinus et (Fron?)to et Ripanus et Le… et Iuventin(us?)… et Luci(u)s
e(t)… (F)rontonem… adversari… sint vani et m(uti) (qu)omodo ista… (“[I
commend] the enemies of Sextus, so that they are not able to come out or
take whatever actions against Sextus… so that they are idle and mute in such
a way… and those who… to speak… Valentinus and Fronto? And Ripanus
and… Iuventius and Lucius… Fronto [in the accusative]… the adversaries…
may they be idle and mute just like…”)
60
The habit to write the curse along the tablet’s perimeter, so that it encloses the
names of the accursed (usually horses), is well attested in the African provinces (see
11.1.3. below). In this tablet, it is probably only an unconscious attempt to make the
text special.
61
The disruption of the text does not allow us to read the whole curse.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
299
Though the text is very damaged, it is quite understandable. Tablet No. 70,
dfx.5.1.2/1, includes very similar formulae:
Rogo Mane(s et dii?) inferi, ut (Ma)rius Fronto, (adv)ersariu(s) Sex(ti), sit
vanus neque loqui possit contra Sextum. (“I ask [you], Manes and the
infernal gods, may Marius Fronto, the enemy of Sextus, be unsuccessful,
may he be unable to speak against Sextus.”)
Both tablets include also the author’s name or the name of the party on whose
behalf the curse is supposed to work.
Author’s name sometimes also appears in other legal curses, e.g. in those from
the African provinces, see No. 115 from Carthage: … facias illos mutos
adversus Atlosam (“…make those against Atlosa mute…”); and No. 116 from
Carthage: (adver?)sus Obsecram Speratae… adversus eam loqui non possint,
inimici adversus eam loqui… (“Against? Obsecra, [the daughter/freedwoman]
of Sperata… may they be unable to speak against her, the enemies to speak
against her…”) (see 11.1.2.); see also another text No. 46 from Hispania: omnes
quei inimeici Senecae (see 8.1.2.). Unlike these scarce examples from other
provinces, the curses from Germania strangely often include the author’s name.
Apart from the three aforementioned tablets No. 79, No. 70, and No. 71, names
also appear in tablet No. 76 from Kreuznach, dfx.5.1.4/5, which reads:
Sinto Valentis sive alii inimici. Sinto Valentinus inimicus. Sic quomodo
plumbum subsidet, sic Sintonem et Martialem Sinto(nis) et adiutorium
Sintonis et quisquis contra Rubrium fr(atre)m62
et me Quartionem, si qui(s)
contravenerit, Sintonem et adiutorium eius Sintonis defero ad infero(s). Sic
nusquam contra nos (inve)nisse respon(sio)nis, cum loquantur inimici. Sic
(d)esumat non parentem63
tanquam infero(s). (“Sinto, [the freedman?] of
Valens, or other enemies. Sinto Valentinus [is] an enemy. Just as the lead
sinks [to the bottom], so I drive down to the gods of the Underworld Sinto
and Martialis, [the son/slave] of Sinto, and his assistant and whomever [is]
against my brother Rubrius and me, Quartio, if anyone comes out against
[us], Sinto and the assistant of this Sinto. In this way, [he/they can] never
contrive? a response against us [to refute our statement?], when the enemies
62
The text is slightly disrupted, I state the reading from Kropp (2008) and CIL 13, 2, 1
7554.
63
I take over the interpretation of R. Wünsch who reads desumat sc. plumbum
Sintonem and further non parentem, i.e. ita ut in iudicio non appareat. The tablet
may be unfinished, as there is no space left on it, perhaps we can surmise tanquam
esset apud inferos.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
300
speak out. In this way, may [this lead tablet] afflict? [Sinto] absent [at
court?] just like [as if he was in?] the Underworld.”)
R. Wünsch assigns the hardly interpretable parts to the commonness of the
author. The tablet has been found in a grave together with tablets No. 75 and
No. 74 (see above), which also curses Sinto Valentis, probably the same person.
All three tablets date to the second half of the 1st
century CE.
Tablet No. 92, found in Mainz, is another interesting example of this genre.
Unfortunately, its text is very damaged, partially because of the iron nail
piercing it from outside. Thus, only some short parts of the texts are
understandable. It may perhaps, in fact, be a prayer for justice, but it is
impossible to tell due to the above mentioned reasons. Blänsdorf (2008, 64 ff.)
points out that several other tablets from Mainz have been transfixed, too;
however, the idea that the holes served the public exposure of the tablets in a
temple is implausible – in Mainz, as well as in Britannia, curses and prayers for
justice were thought to be reserved for the eyes of gods. Only shorter sequences
of the text are understandable; recto, the text is written in normal way but verso,
it runs in right-to-left direction. It cannot be decisively regarded a curse – the
text may well be a prayer for justice. Tablet No. 92 reads:
A: Fo(r)tunam dolus q(u)otti(die…)i… sed64
vir pa(tri?)… deo meo… i
meo.u (sp)oliav(it)… B: mentem, memoriam, cor, cogitatum il(le q)uisquis
patrem meum con(s)p(exit?), illi et ius (/sui te illi?).
The text cannot be coherently translated,65
but the less damaged side B contains
a well-readable list of cursed body parts focused especially on mental
capacities: mentem, memoriam, cor, cogitatum (“mind, memory, heart,
cogitation”). This probably points to a legal context of the curse, just like the
following sequence illi et ius, but the overall sense cannot be deduced more
accurately. Moreover, it is questionable whether the initial term Fortunam
refers to the goddess or a property. The ritual treatment of the tablet indicates
that it is rather a curse, as prayers for justice are less often pierced than curses (a
single tablet from Italy, two from Germania). The same applies to the
64
Blänsdorf (2012, DTM 16) states another possible reading of this sequence: dolus
q(u)ot ti(b)i sed, which culd then be translated either as “every day” or “how much
[...?] to you” (see also Appendix I).
65
Blänsdorf (2008, 65) states a fragmentary translation: “Fortuna die List
täglich/wieviele dir… aber ein Mann dem Vater… meinem Gott?… meinem geraubt
hat… Verstand, Gedächtnis, Herz, Gedanken, und jener, wer auch meinen Vater
an(geschaut?)… dem auch das Recht (?)”.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
301
aforementioned list of body parts, as these appear mainly in curses (see No. 87
above).66
The following two legal curses come from Raetia. Tablet No. 103, from
Bregenz, dfx.7.1/1, again, contains the name of the person on whose behalf the
tablet was made; in addition, the victims are supposed to die:67
A: Domitius Niger et Lollius et Iulius Severus Nigri servus adve(rs)ar(ii)
Bruttae et quisiquis adversus eam loqu(i)t(ur) omnes per(da)tis. B: (Ro)g(o)
vos, omnes qui illi malum (pa)ratis dari… dari O(g)mio68
a(bs)umi morte…
Niger… Valerium… et Ni(g)er. (“Domitius Niger and Lollius and Iulius
Severus, the slave of Niger, the adversaries of Brutta and whoever speaks
against her, ruin them all. I ask you to hand over all those who prepare
something evil for her… to hand over to Ogmius to be consumed by death…
[the disrupted text follows, then other names of cursed people]”).
Some parts of the text are damaged. Egger (1943, 116) amends the sequence
omnes per(..)tis as pereatis, which can also be understood as an appeal directly
to the victims of the curse, not the gods supposed to realize the curse. However,
considering the following formula rogo vos…, I regard Kropp’s emendation to
per(da)tis as a more plausible solution better conforming to the formulae
commonly used in curses (see 2.3.6.). The sequence qui illi malum (pa)ratis is
probably a mistake of the author instead of the intended parant but, due to the
damage to the text, it is also possible that some part of the text is missing or that
the text should be emended differently. The curse was made against the enemies
of Brutta who does not act in the 1st
person, though she could have been the
author of the curse; see also No. 76 above: contra Rubrium fratrem et me
Quartionem (see 5.2.).
The following tablet No. 105 from Kempten in Raetia, dfx.7.2/1, is very likely
inspired by a piece of poetry or a fable:
Mutae69
tacitae, ut mutus sit Quartus, agitatus erret ut mus fugiens aut avis
adversus basyliscum, ut eius os mutu(m) sit, Mutae. Mutae (d)irae sint,
66
Only six prayers for justice in this corpus include lists of body parts, and these are
mostly very brief ones (see No. 224, No. 226, No. 237, No. 275, No. 292, and No.
308).
67
I state the reading of Kropp (2008).
68
Ogmius was a Celtic deity equivalent to Heracles.
69
For the reading and interpretation, see Egger (1963, 248 ff.). The infernal goddess
Tacita, probably an old Roman deity, is mentioned by Ovid in Fasti II 572 and her
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
302
Mutae, tacitae sint, mutae. Quartus ut insaniat, ut Eriniis rutus sit et
Quartus Orco. Ut Mutae tacitae, ut mutae sint ad portas aureas. (“Silent
Mutae, [I ask you] may Quartus be mute, may he stray around roused up like
a mouse, or a bird, fleeing from a basilisk, may his mouth be mute, Mutae.
May Mutae be cruel, Mutae, may they be silent, mute. May Quartus go
insane, may he be driven to Erinyes and [may] Quartus [be driven to] Orcus.
May Mutae be silent, may they be mute at the golden gates.”)70
Egger (1963, 248 ff.), who discusses the addressed deities in detail, assumes
that the tablet is the first attestation of the names of the old, obviously chthonic,
Roman deities in plural – Mutae, Tacitae. Ovid (Fasti, II v. 569) even describes
the offering in honour of Tacita – the devotee should sew the mouth of a fish
with a bronze needle, pierce its eyes with it, then smear the head with pitch and
roast it on fire. The aim of this ritual is to destroy the hostile tongues and
mouths, which fits very well with the tradition of legal curses.71
With regards to
the overall context of the curse, I assume that the author appeals to Mutae and
uses tacitae as their epithet: Mutae (d)irae sint, Mutae tacitae sint, mutae.72
This curse surpasses the common use and induces a fairy-tale atmosphere,
including terrifying elements like a basilisk, which is found nowhere else in
Latin curses. The pragmatic striking the victim dumb is accompanied by a
picturesque depiction of the victim’s mental state – he is supposed to flee like a
mouse or bird, get dumb, go insane, and be driven to Erinyes to Orcus (see
Egger, 1963, 252). The interpretation …ut (ab) Eriniis rutus sit et Quartus Orco
rutus sit is also possible, meaning “may Quartus be driven by Erinyes, may he
be driven to Orcus”. Egger compares Erinyes to Gorgons who are able to petrify
cult goes back to the age of the Roman Kingdom. Ovid (ibid, v. 538) also refers to a
nymph named Muta who was deprived by Jupiter of speech and condemned to live
in the marshlands of the Underworld, because she slandered him (see Mazzolani,
1991, 309). Besides, Ovid uses the word Taciti to denote the underworld ghosts
called Manes in his description of the festival of Lemuria (November the 9th
and
May the 13th
) which is the time when the ghosts of the departed called lemures
return to their homes at night (ibid, v. 422).
70
Egger (1963, 254) associates the golden gate with one of the Silius Italicus’ verses
(XIII 556) mentioning that the gate to the Underworld was golden. This would infer
that the Mutae are supposed to stand at this gate and not to let Quartus pass to
Elysium.
71
See also Egger (1963, 250 ff.). Ovid (Fasti II, v. 581): hostiles linguas inimicaque
vinximus ora (“we have bound fast hostile tongues and unfriendly mouths”; see the
transl. of J. G. Frazer, Ovid’s Fasti, Loeb Classical Library, 1931).
72
Egger (1963, 249) interprets as follows: Mutae (d)irae sint. Mutae, tacitae sint.
Mutae!
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
303
a man; thus, Quartus is supposed to flee from these, just like a mouse flees from
the basilisk.
The following text from Pannonia including the address to the same deity,
Mutae tacitae73
, can also be considered to be a legal curse. Apart from the
aforementioned deities, the author also appeals to the river god named Savus.74
The tablet was found in the river Kupa, a tributary of Sava, near the ancient
town of Siscia. Like the other legal curses, it aims at the adversaries’ ability to
speak, see No. 107 from Kupa, dfx.8.1/1:
A: Adversar(i)o(s) nostro(s) G(aius) Domitiu(s) Secundus et Lucius Larcius
et Secundus Vacarus Cyba(lenses) et P(ublius) Citronius Cicorelliu(s)
Narbone(nsis) et L(ucius) Lic(i)nius Sura (H)ispan(us)et Lucilius Valens ne
possi(nt) contra se facere, avertat illo(s) amentes, contra loqui ne mali
illorum mutu(m) os fac(iat)(?) G(aius) Domitius Secundus et Lucius
La(r)c(i)o L(ucii filius) Cyba(lenses). Muta Tagita (= tacita)… (b?)ona
illorum… B: Data deprimenti ma(n)data data istos Savo (ut) cura(m) agat
deprima(t) adver(s)ar(i)o(s) nostro(s) obmutua(t) ne contra nos loquantur 75
(“[Against] our adversaries: G(aius) Domitiu(s) Secundus and Lucius
Larcius and Secundus Vacarus from Cibalae and P(ublius) Citronius
Cicorelliu(s) from Narbona and L(ucius) Lic(i)nius Sura from Hispania and
Lucilius Valens, so that they cannot act against [us], may [the deity] avert
them insane [from the lawsuit?], may it make their mouths mute so that they
cannot speak badly against [us]. G(aius) Domitiu(s) Secundus and Lucius
La(r)c(i)o, the son of L(ucius) from Cibalae. Muta Tacita/Silent Muta…
their property?... [The names of the enemies] given, commended to the [god]
Savus who drowns, these [names] given, [may] he take care of them, drown
our enemies [and] silence them so that they [cannot] speak against us.”)
73
For another legal curse from Aquincum containing also the name of this deity, see
Barta (2015, 101 ff.).
74
See Vetter (1959, 304 ff.; 1960, 127 ff.).
75
I draw on the recent reading and interpretation of Simón – de Llanza (2008, 168 ff.)
who managed to decipher more sequences of the text on side A (inward). For the
lectiones variae, see Kropp (2008) and especially Vetter (1960, 127 ff.). The text
contains several deviations from the Classical Latin (gemination of sibilants:
adverssar(i)o(s), liquids: Vallente, and occlusives: Luccillius), interchanges of e and
i: Dometiu; a, u and o: cuntra, cantra etc. The reading stated here has to be regarded
as one of the interpretations; for the preserved form of the text, see Appendix I. For
the most recent reading after autopsy, see Barta (2017, 26-28).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
304
There are some problematic passages in the text. A formula using the verb verto
appears, too: avertat illos amentes, which is interpreted by Simón – De Llanza
(2008, 173) in analogy with text No. 68: aversi ab hac lite esse (debent?),
“[may] these [legal] opponents be turned back from this suit”. They rightly
emphasize the fact that the formula avertat illos does not have to be interpreted
as “to kill” in this case, as suggested by Faraone and Kropp (2010, 387 ff.). For
other tablets using this formula, see also 6.2.1.1. above.76
Simón – de Llanza
suppose that the “inversion” of the opponents in the trial is intended rather as a
means to put them to silence, or a symbolic death which makes the opponent
unable to testify against the author.77
I assume that in this particular tablet the
phrase avertat illos amentes followed by contra loqui ne mali (possint?) can be
interpreted as “may they turn/invert their mind” in the sense of going insane,
not being able to think, or losing memory, thus, being unable to testify in court
(as is frequent in legal curses). The association of the compound of verto with
amentita, the term referring to a state of madness, supposed to cause a failure,
also appears in tablet No. 91 from Mainz, however, in connection with rivalry
in love:
Prima Aemilia Narcissi agat, quidquid conabitur, quidquid aget, omnia illi
inversum sit, amentita surgat, amentita suas res agat. Quidquid surget,
omnia interversum surgat. (“[Whatever] Aemilia Prima, [the lover?] of
Narcissus may do, whatever she attempts, whatever she does, let it all go
wrong [lit. may it be perverted]. May she get up [out of bed] out of her
senses/mind, may she go about her work out of her senses/mind. Whatever
she strives after, may her striving in all things be reversed.”)
The text of the latter uses a magical orientation of the script – it is partially
written in a spiral counter-clockwise (see 2.3.5.).
Most recently, another remarkable legal curse tablet, dated to the end of the 2nd
or the beginning of the 3rd
century CE, has been found in Aquincum in
Pannonia (see Barta, 2009, 23 ff.; Barta – lassányi, 2009, 65).78
It reads:
76
Though the cited parallel text from Gaul, when treated as a whole, suggests that the
authors actually wanted their opponents’ death (see 9.1.2. above).
77
Simón – de Llanza (2008, 173): “…ʻthe action of turning the adversary upside
downʼ in the coming trial would be synonymous with his silencing or ʻsymbolic
deathʼ, making it impossible for him to testify against the supplicant.”
78
The reading of Barta – Lassányi (2009, 65 ff.); for lectio varia, see B. Fehér (2011,
154).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
305
Iulia Nissa et Gaius Mutilius ne possit facere contra Oceanum, contra
Am(o)en<a>(m).79
Ne possit Gaius contra Felic(i)one(m) facere. Respectes
lingua ne possit adversus co(n)servos… [–]arr ---]rionis lingua80
ne possit [---
] facere. Eunici Suri lingua ne possit adversus Oceanu<m> Asellionis lingua
et nomen ne possit adversus Oceanum facere loqui. Ne possit Gaius aut Iulia
adversus Annia/(num ?), Anniani lingua ne possit [---contra Ocea]num81
facere et Decibali lingua et nomen ne possit adversus Oceanum facere. Eo
modo hoc ego averso graphio scribo, sic linguas illorum aversas ne
pos(s)int facere contra (h)os L[-----e]go(?) suprapos<ui>, ne Gaius aut
Iul[ia] Nissa et Eunicus Surus adversus Oceanum lin[gu?]as ob[---]AE[---
]lingu[a---] ECCIGNISN[---]contra Am(o)en<a>(m).
(“Iulia Nissa and Gaius Mutillus, may s/he be unable to act against Oceanus,
against Amoena/Amoenus? May Gaius be unable to act against Felicio. May
the tongue of Respecta be unable [to speak] against her fellow slaves… may
the tongue of …rio/Ammionis?) be unable to act… May the tongue of
Eunicus Surus be unable [to speak] against Oceanus, may the tongue of
Asellio and [the name probably refers to Asellio as a person] be unable to
act, speak against Oceanus. May Gaius or Iulia be unable [to speak] against
Annia?, may the tongue of Annianus be unable to act [against Oceanus...?]
and may the tongue and [Decebalus as a person]82
be unable to act against
Oceanus. Just as I write this with a perverted [= hostile]83
stylus, may their
tongues be perverted so that they cannot act against these?... [which I?]
stated [above], so that neither Gaius nor Iulia Nissa nor Eunicus Surus
cannot… tongues against Oceanus… tongue… against Amoena/Amoenus.”)
The text of the curse is partially disrupted and very hard to read. The accursed
people are supposed to be unable to act or speak against Oceanus,
Amoena/Amoenus?, and Felicio.84
It seems that the author emended the text
several times and added more passages between the lines – these are written by
the same hand but in smaller letters. This and the number of mistakes indicate
79
B. Fehér (2011, 154) reads Am(o)ene(m).
80
The passages inscribed with smaller letters have probably been added by the author
only afterwards (also between the lines). Fehér (2011, 154) reads Ammionis (?)
lingua.
81
I consider the recent emendation of Barta (2012) to be plausible.
82
For the strange use of the noun nomen in this text see Urbanová-Franek (2017, 623-
624).
83
The text is not written in a magical way, i.e. right-to-left or upside-down.
84
Barta (2009, 28 ff.) states that all names on the tablet are of a Pannonian origin or
from the areas adjacent to Pannonia, which proves that the tablet is a local product.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
306
that it is probably a work of a not very educated layman (see Barta, 2009, 27
ff.). Moreover, the later added sequences in smaller letters cannot be clearly
integrated into the text. The sequence Ne possit Gaius aut Iulia adversus
Annia(num), Anniani lingua ne possit [---contra Ocea]num facere, Barta
interprets the text as Ne possit Gaius aut Iulia adversus Annia(num) but in this
form it would make Annianus the member of both the cursing and the accursed
party; if the name referred to two different people of the same name, we would
expect some specifying epithet to distinguish them. Neither does it seem likely
that Annia is the name of a woman belonging to the cursing party, whereas
Annianus is probably the name of a man belonging to the accursed party. I
presume that the author made a mistake – he intended to write adversus
Amoenam/Amoenem in the sequence ne possit Gaius aut Iulia adversus Annia,
but, while writing it, already thought of Annianus, his next candidate to be
cursed, therefore, he added the formula Anniani lingua ne possit containing his
name only later and in small letters. Barta (2009, 27) even considers a
possibility that the later added text could have been a counter-spell against the
text written in bigger letters; however, she herself leaves it, as it is evident that
the text was written by a single hand. Apart from these, there is no similar Latin
counter-spell preserved in the text of the original curse. Besides, it is implied
that such a counter-spell would then be aimed at completely different people
from those on behalf of whom the curse was first written. Perhaps tablet No.
100 (see 10.1.1.) can be suspected to be the only evidence of a Latin counterspell
(i.e. there is a suspicion that there were other people who wanted to do
harm to the author of the spell); as for tablets No. 20–24 (see 7.3.1.4.), such a
suspicion is more than doubtful. Thus, as mentioned above, the curse was
inscribed on behalf of Oceanus, Amoena/Amoenus, and Felicio; the victims are
Iulia, Gaius, Respecta, Eunicus Surus, Decebalus, Ammio, Annianus, and
Asellio.
The quite simple and monotonous text comprising solely of wish clauses ne
possit facere contra, also includes a simile-formula using the compound of the
verb verto: Eo modo hoc ego averso graphio scribo, sic linguas illorum aversas
ne pos(s)int facere contra. Graphio averso probably means “with a hostile,
mean stylus”;85
the second part of the formula can be interpreted in two ways.
Either sic linguae eorum aversae (sint) means “may their tongues be perverted,
so that they cannot…”, which seems more plausible to me (see also No. 107 and
85
A. Barta informed me personally that a crooked stylus has been found next to the
tablet, which implies that the tablet could have been inscribed with a stylus which
had been deliberately bent to serve magical purposes; thus, the term averso may
refer to this fact.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
307
No. 68 in 9.1.2., and No. 91, especially 2.3.5.), or aversae can be attached to
linguae as its attribute, which would then be translated as “so that their hostile
tongues cannot act against…”. A similar formulation is found in the prayer for
justice No. 235 from Mainz (see 6.2.1.1. and 10.2.2. below).
10.1.3 Amatory Curses – Rivalry in Love
In the northern provinces, the context of rivalry in love is indicated only in four
texts: tablets No. 78 and No. 91 from Germania aimed at women in love
triangles; tablet No. 104 from Raetia concerning the same issue, and tablet No.
109 from Pannonia which is perhaps related to a competition in prostitution.
No. 78 from Kreuznach, dfx.5.1.4/7, reads:
A: Nomina data, (dela)ta(?), le(gata?) ad inferos, (ut) illos per vim
corripiant. B: Silonia Surum, Caenu(m), Secundum. Ille te (s)ponsus procat.
Il(l)um amo. (“The names given [denounced, bound?] to the infernal gods,
so that they seize them by force. Silonia [curses], Surus, Caenus, Secundus
[names in the accusative]. That [Secundus] proposes to you [Silonia]. [But] I
love him [,too].”)86
The quite well readable text was inscribed on both sides of a small lead discus.
On side B, there are three male names and a female name belonging perhaps to
a rival in love. Audollent (1904, No. 100) assumes that these are the names of
slaves; I draw on the interpretation of CIL, i.e. I regard Secundus as a groom,
admitting that the other two men were somehow associated with the matter, too,
but today we are unable to tell exactly how.
Tablet No. 91 is another remarkable text probably connected to rivalry in love.
It makes use of a simile-formula including the verb verto as well as the magical
orientation of the script (see above and especially 2.3.5.).
Furthermore, tablet No. 104 found in Bregenz in Raetia, dfx.7.1/2, reads:
A: Deo87
A M C(?) ea(m) re(m) imple(b)it D(is)p(at)er ad Era(m).88
Ogmius
salute(m), cor, talos, re(nes), anum, genita(lia)… auris B: cistula(m),
utensilia dab(it)89
spiritibus ac oboediunt ei, ne quiat nubere. Ira de(i).
86
For the interpretation of the text, see CIL 13, 2, 1, 7550, Wünsch (1897, XXVIII)
and Blänsdorf (2012, 186).
87
Egger (1943, 114) amends to de(fig)o.
88
Era probably refers to Aeracura, the wife of Dis Pater (see ibid, 112).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
308
The right-to-left text was inscribed partially as a boustrophedon; unfortunately,
it is very mechanically damaged and contains many mistakes. I base my
argumentation on the emendations and interpretation of Egger (1943, 104 ff.).
The initial sequence deo, probably the dative form of deus, is problematic, as
we would expect here some verb of committal like do, mando, etc. Thus, it is
presumed that it is a mistake and should instead be defigo. Although the aim of
the curse is clear from its concluding words ne quiat nubere (“so that she cannot
marry”), the name of the woman concerned is missing. Nevertheless, this was
necessary for the success of the curse; therefore, Egger supposed that the name
is hidden under the initials A M C, i.e. “I accurse AMC, Pluto and Aeracura will
execute90
this matter.” Even if he was right, the use of mere initial letters to
denote victim’s name would be a very unusual practice. Ogmius91
seems to be
the deity supposed to afflict the body parts of the victim. Egger compares the
text to No. 20 (see 7.3.1.4.): eripias salutem, corpus... and presumes that there
was a verb meaning “to bereave of” which is now missing due to the disruption
of the text; the list of body parts may also be related to the sequence dabit
spiritibus. Based on the above mentioned arguments, the translation of the
sequence is as follows:
[May] Ogmius [take away?/hand over to daemons her] health, heart, ankles,
kidneys?, anus, genitals?92
... ears?, the casket [further, the author wanted to
deprive the victim of her casket where she probably used to put her
valuables, as well as of other things – utensilia93
], they will obey him [=
Ogmius], so that she cannot marry.
Finally, there is an expression Ira de(i) in the end which perhaps means
something like habeat deos iratos (“may she be afflicted by the wrath of gods”).
For a similar phrase, see No. 85 (10.1.1.): Bone sancte Atthis Tyranne, adsi(s),
advenias Liberali iratus. (“Good, holy Att(h)is, Lord, help [me?], come to
Liberalis in anger.”), and especially No. 239 from Carnuntum (see 6.2.1.3):
...(E)ud(e)mus habeat vos iratos... (“...may Eudemus feel your anger...”).
89
Egger (ibid, 114) adds dabit, the tablet reads dav(it) spiridebus (see also Kropp,
2008; and Appendix I).
90
The editor amends impleid to imple(b)it; later we read dav(it). Both interpretations
of the verb dare on this tablet, be it a past tense form or a future tense form instead
of present subjunctive, are plausible and attested in other tablets.
91
See also No. 103 above.
92
The term genitalia is, as far as I know, not attested in any other tablet.
93
For the detailed discussion of this, see Egger (1943, 114).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
309
The last piece of evidence of the rivalry in love context is tablet No. 109 from
Pannonia, dfx.8.4/1:
A: Paulina aversa sit a viris omnibus et defixa sit, ne quid possit mali facere.
B: Firminam (cl)aud(as) ab omnibus humanis. (“May Paulina be averted
from all men and may she be cursed, so that she can do no evil. Seclude
Firmina from all men.”)94
This tablet probably documents the rivalry among local prostitutes.95
The curse
again combines the formula verto − aversa sit with the magically-oriented script
(the text was written right-to-left, partially as a boustrophedon, partially upsidedown;
see above, especially 6.2.1.1.).96
Such a formula accompanied by a
magical orientation of the script appears in two curses connected to rivalry in
love.
10.2 PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
So far, 15 prayers for justice have been found in the northern provinces; this
corpus includes eleven texts from Germania, and a single text from Raetia as
well as Pannonia.97
The tablets were mostly made as a reaction to theft (six
texts) or fraud, especially regarding money (four texts); tablets No. 227 and No.
228 seem to be related to some harm in a love or family affair; tablet No. 240 is,
unfortunately, so damaged that its motivation cannot be decided. Generally, the
prayers for justice found in Germania do not agree with the evidence from other
provinces in many aspects. They often contain picturesque, complicated
formulae and nowhere else attested innovations, both when speaking of the
formulation of the curse and regarding vengeance supposed to afflict the culprit.
Besides, vengeance upon the culprit is typical of the prayers for justice from
these areas; the author tries to get his/her things back only in two texts, whereas
death of the culprit is asked for five times.
94
See also 1.1.2.2.3. and 3.2.
95
See A. Premerstein (1906, 198) who states that the accursed women were local
prostitutes.
96
See also Faraone − Kropp (2010, 381 ff.).
97
Kropp (2008) states two texts form Raetia in this context: the damaged tablet
dfx.7.3/1 was not included in this work. As for the prayers for justice found in the
Northern provinces, I also include so far the only preserved text No. 240 from
Moesia.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
310
10.2.1 Prayers for Justice in Amatory Context
Tablet No. 227 from Avenches en Chaplix, dfx.5.1.1/1, was probably inscribed
because of a misfortune or loss in an amatory context:
Marium Cinnesuum et eum q(u)i exin co(n)ciliavit Aequa(m). A vita
(discedat?). ([“I accurse] Marius Cinnesuus and the one who then
won/seduced? Aequa. May he die[?].”)
The very brief text of the tablet was written right-to-left and it lacks any address
to a deity or a predicate of committal. Therefore, it could well have been a curse
– the text is formulated similarly to curses; however, provided that the verb
concilio is interpreted correctly, the damage suffered is present, too (see also
Kropp, 2008). The author may have been either a man who wished to take
vengeance upon Marius, or another man whose name he did not know, for
seducing his beloved, or a woman who tried to exact vengeance on the seducers
of Aequa, perhaps in the name of Aequa herself; the third option is that the text
was inscribed by Aequa herself. Although the authors in the nominative are
usually stated in the beginning of prayers for justice, we also know of several
cases when the offended one speaks in the third person, see e.g. No. 273 from
Britannia: Exsuperius donat pannam ferri (see 12.2.3.), or No. 275: Basilia
donat in templum Martis anellum argenteum (see 6.2.1.3.). The question
remains whether the author imitates the official language, which seems more
plausible, or the text is written on behalf of someone else, see alsoTheDeMa
738.
Another text, which is regarded by the editors as tied to the miseries of love,
addresses Mater Magna and Attis, just like the texts from Mainz; No. 228 from
Gross-Gerau, dfx.5.1.3/1, reads:
A: Deum maxsime, Atthis Tyranne, totumque Duodeca Theum, commendo
deabus iniurium fas, ut me vindic(e)tis a Priscil(l)a Caranti, quae nubere
er(r)avit. Pe(r) matrem deum vestrae ut (v)indicate sacra pater(ni/na?).
P(ri)scil(la) pere(at). B: Per matrem deum, intra dies C(?), cito, vindicate
numen vestrum magnum a Priscilla, quae detegit sacra. Priscillam
(n)usqu(a)m nullam numero. Nu(p)sit gentem tremente Priscilla quam
er(r)ante.98
(“The greatest of gods, Lord Atthis, the entireness of twelve
98
For the reading, translation, and interpretation, see Scholz – Kropp (2004, 34 ff.);
see Chalupa (2011, 244 ff.). See also Versnel’s (2010, 300 ff.) multiple additions
and interpretative suggestions, as well as his criticism of the first edition, especially
his interpretation of the sequence deabus iniuriam, fas is very persuasive.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
311
gods, I commend to the goddesses [my] fatal injustice, so that you avenge
me on Priscilla, the daughter of Carantus, who made the mistake of getting
married. By Mother of the Gods, may you avenge the secret of the
fathers/Paternus.99
May Priscilla die. By Mother of the Gods, in 100 days,
quickly, avenge your huge divine power on Priscilla100
who revealed the
secret. Priscilla is worth nothing to me, she married a terrible person,
Priscilla is so sinful.”)101
The text is problematic and makes use of strange formulations. Nevertheless, it
contains twice vindico (“to avenge”), a typical verb used in prayers for justice.
If the above mentioned interpretation is in principle right, the text is a unique
example of a prayer for justice used in an amatory context, despite the fact that
we do not know and cannot explain properly what exactly the author meant by
detergere sacra Paterni. However, if we treat the sequence as detegere sacra
paterna, it may not necessarily be a prayer for justice written in an amatory
context, i.e. a drama caused by jealousy. Sacra Paterna can also be understood
as secret family rituals known only to the family clan − sacra privata also called
sacra occulta.102
Therefore, it can be assumed that the goddesses are supposed
to exact revenge on the married woman named Priscilla, the daughter of
Carantus, who after getting married disclosed the rituals and secrets of her
99
The editors suggest two possible interpretations of the sequence sacra pater(na):
either it refers to an ancestral secret, or to a secret of Paternus, the latter implying
that Paternus was the author of the prayer for justice. Adding (vota) nuptialia after
sacra, i.e. “the wedding vows fathers had made”, would make the following passage
sacra detegere hardly interpretable (see also Scholz – Kropp, 2004, 35 ff.). Chalupa
(2011, 244) translates the sequence as “the rites of Paternus”.
100
Chalupa (2011, 244) interprets differently as follows: “avenge Mother of the Gods
with your huge divine power”. Although, it is not an accurate translation of the Latin
text, this possibility is plausible, too.
101
The translation of the concluding section by Scholz – Kropp (2004, 35 ff.) is
unnecessarily loose: “weil Priscilla (ebenso) geil wie irre ist.”
102
See a detailed discussion of this matter in Urbanová – Frýdek (2016, 348ff),
including the following translation into German: A: Größter aller Götter, Atthis,
Herr, Gesamtheit der zwölf Götter. Ich überantworte den Göttinnen das Unrecht, es
ist gerecht (fas), dass ihr mich an Priscilla, Tochter des Carantus rächt, die schlecht
geheiratet hat. Bei eurer Großen Göttermutter, rächt die väterlichen Geheimrituale.
Priscilla soll zugrunde gehen. B: Bei der Großen Göttermutter, rächt eure große
Göttlichkeit bald, innerhalb von hundert(?) Tagen, an Priscilla, die die (väterlichen)
Geheimrituale verrät. Priscilla erachte ich als absolut null und nichtig. Sie hat einen
schrecklichen Mann geheiratet, Priscilla ist so sündhaft/hat so einen Fehler
begangen.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
312
family handed over from generation to generation to the family of the groom. If
this was so, the tablet was not written by the rejected groom, but rather by the
father of the bride. Let us remember that unlike curses, which can be classified
according to their context as legal, agonistic, etc., the context of prayers for
justice is stereotypical (theft, fraud, or other damage suffered). The amatory
context of prayers for justice can be presumed only in case of the above
mentioned texts and tablet No. 221 from Gallia (see 9.1.3.); we do not know of
such examples in other provinces.
10.2.2 Prayers for Justice Using Formula aversus
A formula using aversus (a compound of the verb verto, meaning “to pervert,
avert”) is used in four prayers for justice found in Germania and one coming
from Raetia (see 6.2.1.1.). In some cases, the formula is also accompanied by
perverted or a non-standard orientation of the script fitting to the particular
simile-formula. Tablet No. 230 containing a magical orientation of the script, as
well, (see 1.7.2. and 10.1.1) is one of the most interesting documents found in
Germania.
Another example of the use of this formula, although without any special
orientation of the script, is tablet No. 233 from Mainz, DTM 3. This time the
formula is used only figuratively, i.e. meaning “adversely”:
Rogo te domina Mater Magna, ut me vindices de bonis Flori coniugis mei,
qui me fraudavit Ulattius Severus. Quemadmod(um) hoc ego averse scribo,
sic illi B: omnia, quidquid agit, quidquid aginat, omnia illi aversa fiant, ut
sal et aqua illi eveniat. Quidquid mi abstulit de bonis Flori coniugis mei,
rogo te domina Mater Ma(g)na, ut tu de eo me vindices.103
(“I entreat you,
Lady Mater Magna, to avenge me regarding the property of Florus, my
husband, [of which] Ulattius Severus has defrauded me. Just as I write this in
a perverted/hostile way, so may whatever he does and carries out be
wasted,104
may it become salt and water [= salty water]. Whatever he has
taken away from me from the property of Florus, my husband, I entreat you,
Lady Mater Magna, to avenge me/exact revenge on him for it.”)
The text indicates that the widow of Florus was deprived by Ulattius Severus of
a part of her property. Blänsdorf (2010, 153) assumes that this man may have
103
For the reading and interpretation, see (Blänsdorf 2010, 172); see also Faraone –
Kropp (2010, 390 ff.).
104
The formula sal et aqua fiat is attested also in tablet No. 87 (see 8.1.1. and 10.1.1.).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
313
been the administrator of the widow’s property. And because a woman had no
right to take legal action, she resorted to ask the deity for redress.
Furthermore, a similar tablet No. 235 from Mainz, DTM 7, reads:
Quisquis nobis sustulit sacc(u)lum, in quo pecunia erat et eam pecuniam et
anulos aureos (referat)105
… quod des(ti)natum est XI K(alendas)
Febr(uarias), q(uae) p(roximae) s(unt)… sive dolum (m)alum adhib(et)…
(quo) mod(i) hoc grapphio averso, quod minime uti solet, sic (eum)…
aversum, dii deaeque (e)sse sinat(i)s et hominibus… si qui(s hunc) manu
contigit, id aequ(e..), quomodi… sucus defluit e… hoc plumbum ussu cui…
geum desti(natum)ve esse velit… sicut innocentiam… est, si in dea… )...
(“Whoever has stolen from us the purse containing money, and those money
and golden rings... [may he return them]... which is designated on the
eleventh day before the following Kalends of February... if he uses a fraud
[i.e. fails to do so]... just as this [is written] with a perverted/hostile/evil
stylus,106
which is not usual at all, so may you, gods and goddesses, make
[him feel] the people’s hostility… if anyone holds [that money] in his
hands/touches them, it equally… just as liquid flows out of… this lead is
[will melt?]… and wants?... as innocent…”)107
The text is severely corrupted; it starts as a common prayer for justice with an
unknown culprit and continues with a time datum until when the culprit is
supposed to return the stolen property (see 3.3.1.1.), which is not very common
in prayers for justice. The formula grapphio averso appears also in the tablet
from Pannonia mentioned above in 10.1.2. – in both cases, the formula is not
accompanied by a magical orientation of the script and can be interpreted as
“with a hostile/bent stylus”. The following text is very damaged, Blänsdorf
(2010, 176 ff.) links the passage si qui(s hunc) manu contigit with tablet No.
275 from Bath (see 6.2.1.3.): si servus si liber medius fuerit vel aliquid de hoc
noverit. Even though a similar formulation might have been stated also in the
tablet from Mainz, the preserved text does not indicate any such thing.
The aversus formula is also used in tablet No. 234 from Mainz (see 1.10.2 and
2.3.6.). The text of the tablet is written in a very high class Latin and contains
105
The emendation of Blänsdorf (2012); see also Appendix II.
106
See Blänsdorf (2008, 66; 2010, 175; and especially 2012): “with a hostile, adversary
stylus”. Perhaps this refers to a ritually reversed or crooked stylus, as in the case of
the tablet found in Aquincum in Pannonia (see 10.1.2.). (see also Faraone – Kropp,
2010, 390 ff.).
107
See Blänsdorf (2012; 2010, 175 ff.).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
314
complicated and innovative formulae; aversus is used in agreement with the
orientation of the script and the name of the victim QUINTI NOMEN is
inscribed upside-down.
Finally, aversus also occurs in tablet No. 238 from Wilten, dfx.7.5/1:
Secundina Mercurio et Moltino mandat, ut si quis sustulit XIIII (denarios)
sive draucus duos, ut eum sive fortunas eius in(fi)dus Cacus sic auferat
quomodi ill(a)e ablatum est id, quod vobis delegat, ut persequatis vobisque
deligat, ut persequatis et eum aversum fortunis suis avertatis et a suis
proximis et ab eis quos carissimos (h)abeat, (h)oc vobis mandat, vos eum
p(er)se(qu)atis.108
(“Secundina commends to Mercurius and Moltinus109
that
whoever has stolen two necklaces worth fourteen denarii110
may be deceived
and deprived of property by the perfidious Cacus, just as she was deprived of
hers, which she orders you to trace back, and she orders you to chase him,
too, and deprive him of his property and his relatives and those he holds
dearest, this she commends to you that you may seize/chase him.”) (see 6.1.
and 6.2.1.2.).
The author adds a historiola to achieve a bigger effect of the prayer for justice –
the culprit of the theft is supposed to lose his property, just like Cacus deprived
Heracles of his flock (see 1.9.2.).
10.2.3 Prayers for Justice Using Peculiar Formulae
The following three prayers for justice found in Germania are remarkable for
the cruel and cunning vengeance they invoke on the culprit. Tablet No. 229
from Gross-Gerau, dated to the 1st
century CE, is written by or on behalf of
Verio who summons a terrible death on the thief who stole his cloak:
…ut illius manus, caput, pedes, vermes, cancer, vermitudo interet membra,
medullas illius interet. (“…may the worms, cancer and maggots penetrate
his/her hands, head, feet, as well as his/her limbs and marrows.”) (for the
complete text, see 1.10.2.).
108
See the lectio varia of Versnel (1991, 83) who reads corripiatis instead of
persecuatis based on the first edition (see Franz 1959, 69 ff.). This reading may be
correct, too. A. Kropp (2008) amends to persecuatis.
109
Gager (1992, No. 101) considers Moltinus to be a Celtic deity.
110
The interpretation of Gager (1992, No. 101); the other option is “fourteen denarii
and/or two necklaces”. Versnel (1991, 83) relates the term draucos to draukion, the
Greek word for necklace.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
315
The authors of the prayer for justice No. 231 from Mainz also wish to afflict
their victims, Gemella and other two women named Verecunda and Paterna,
with death caused by being devoured by worms and other beasts and, what is
more, they are supposed to die publicly. However, the exact wrongdoing of the
two women is not clear. The tablet is inscribed on both sides with two extensive
prayers for justice, each written by a different hand; the vengeance invoked on
Gemella is written on the inner side.111
The text is sporadically very disrupted
and contains all peculiar formulae found exclusively, or mostly, in the texts
coming from Germania:
No. 231 from Mainz, DTM 1: A: Mater Magna, te rogo p(e)r (t)ua sacra et
numen tuum: Gemella fiblas meas, qualis sustulit, sic et illam REQUIs
(rogo?) adsecet,112
ut nusquam sana si(t). Quomodo galli se secarunt, sic
ea(m?) velis nec se secet sic, uti planctum ha(be)at, quomodo et sacrorum
deposierunt in sancto, sic et tuam vitam, valetudinem, Gemella. Neque
hosti(i)s neque auro neque argento redimere possis a Matre deum, nisi ut
exitum tuum populus spectet. Verecundam et Paternam: sic illam tibi
commendo, Mater deum magna, rem illorum in AECRUMO DEO VIS quale
rogo co(n)sument(u)r in quomodo et res meas viresque fraudarunt, nec se
possint redimere nec hosteis lanatis B: nec plumibis (=plumbis) nec auro
nec argento redimere a numine tuo, nisi ut illas vorent canes, vermes adque
alia portenta, exitum quarum populus spectet tamquam quae c…
FORRO/MO l auderes comme(ndo) duas… very damaged text follows
TAMAQVANIVSCAVERSSO scriptis istas AE RISS. ADRICIS . S. LON a .
illas, si illas cistas caecas, aureas, FECRA E[--]I[-]LO[--]ASO OV[-]EIS
mancas A.113
(“Mater Magna, I ask you by your sanctuary and your divine force. Gemella
who stole my fibulas/broaches, [I ask you] may she [in the accusative] cut
herself?… so that no part of her be healthy. Just as the galli have cut
themselves, so [may] she want to do. And may she not cut herself so, that
she [only?] laments. As they have deposited the holy things in the sanctuary,
111
See Blänsdorf (2012; 2010, 159 ff.) who, based on the handwriting, supposes that
each text was written by a different person.
112
The term adsecet is problematic – we would expect se secet here, i.e. “may she cut
herself”. Considering the following text, Blänsdorf puts this place in relation to
tablets No. 232 (see below) and No. 234 (see 1.10.2.) containing references to the
practice of galli, the priests of Mater Magna, who used to castrate themselves; thus,
he translates as follows: “dass auch jene sich schneidet, so dass sie nirgendwo
gesund ist”.
113
For the reading and interpretation, see (Blänsdorf 2012, No. 1).
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
316
so [may] also your life and health [be deposited there], Gemella. Neither by
offerings nor by gold nor by silver may you be able to redeem yourself from
Mother of the Gods, except that people may watch your death. Verecunda
and Paterna: for thus I give her [=them] to you, Great Mother of the Gods,
their property… I ask that they may be destroyed just as they have defrauded
me of my property and resources; may they not be able to buy themselves
free from your divine power either by offering sheep or lead [tablets], or by
gold, or silver, but may dogs, worms, and other monsters devour them, may
the people watch their death…”)
The rest of the text is disrupted to such an extent that it cannot be coherently
translated. Blänsdorf (2012, 1) reads a somewhat more coherent sequence
afterwards: si illas cistas caecas, aureas (“if those hidden golden holy boxes”);
see also cistae penetrales mentioned in tablet No. 87 (10.1.1.). The right-to-left
passage AVERSSO scriptis istas may indicate the use of the formula aversus
popular in the texts from Germania, too. Then, the meaning of the passage
would be “in a hostile way”. As stated above, the text starts as a common prayer
for justice containing the names of victims, but it lacks the names of authors.
Some formulations used in the tablet are very strange and attested only scarcely
in the other provinces. The culprits are supposed to be afflicted by an
irreversible curse – they cannot redeem themselves in any way (see also 1.9.).
Concerning the punishment, both common formulations – ut nusquam sana si(t)
– and vengeance analogous to the practice of the priests of Mater Magna –
Quomodo galli se secarunt, sic ea (velit) nec se secet sic… – appear. Finally, the
revenge invoked on the victims seems especially cruel: ut illas vorent canes,
vermes (see also 1.10.2. and No. 229), while their death should take place in
public: exitum quarum populous spectet (see also 1.10.2 and No. 217, 1.2.1.).
The prayer for justice, No. 232 from Mainz, DTM 2, makes use of very similar
formulations. However, the text is interpretable only partially due to its great
damage. Unlike the previous tablet, we also find the request that the culprit
pleads guilty:
Quisquis dolum malum adm(isit de) hac pecun(i)a… (nec)114
ille melior et
nos det(eri)ores sumus… Mater deum, tu persequeris per terras, per (maria,
per locos) ar(i)dos et umidos, per benedictum tuum et o(mnes… qui de hac)
pecunia dolum malum adhibet, ut tu perse(quaris illum… Quomodo) galli se
114
Blänsdorf (2010, 180) adds nec which agrees with the translation stated. Recently
(2012, DTM 2), he has dropped this addition translating as follows: “jener ist der
bessere (= im Vorteil) und wir sind die unterlegenen”.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
317
secant et praecidunt vir(i)lia sua, sic il(le)… R S Q intercidat MELORE
pec(tus?)… BISIDIS (ne)que se admisisse nec… hostiis si(n)atis nequis t(…)
neque SUT TIS neque auro neque argento neque ille solvi, (re)fici, redimi
posit. Quomodo galli, bellonari, magal(i) sibi sanguin(em) ferventem
fundunt, frigid(us) ad terram venit, sic et (…)CIA copia, cogitatum, mentes.
(Quem)admodum de eis gallo(r)u(m, ma)galorum, bellon(ariorum
sanguinem/ritus?) spectat, qui de ea pecunia dolum malum (admisit, sic
illius) exitum spectent, et a(d qu)em modum sal in (aqua liques)cet, sic et illi
membra m(ed)ullae extabescant. Cr(ucietur/cras veniat)115
et dicat se
admisisse nef(a)s. D(e)mando tibi rel(igione), ut me votis condamnes et ut
laetus libens ea tibi referam, si de eo exitum malum feceris.116
(“Whoever has defrauded this money, [neither] is he better [for it] nor we
the worse. Mother of the Gods, you pursue [your enemies] across land and
[sea], arid and humid [places], through your blessed one [=Atthis], and
[everybody who] commits malicious fraud concerning [this] money: may
you pursue him… [Just as] the galli lacerate themselves and sever their
genitals, so may he cut… his chest [?]… And if he says he has not
committed…, let him not free, save, redeem himself with gold nor with
silver. Just as the galli, the bellonari [= the priests of Bellona], the magali117
spill their hot blood, which is cold [when] it touches the ground, so… , [his]
abilities, thinking, wits… Just as… of the galli, the magali, the bellonari…
[Just as] they watch the person who commited fraud concerning the money,
[so] let [the people] watch his death and just as salt will [dissolve in water],
so may his limbs and marrow melt away/decay. May he be tortured and may
he confess that he has committed a villany. I entrust to you [with due
respect?], oblige me to keep my promise [by fulfilling my wishes], and I
gladly and willingly return my thanks to you, if you make him die a horrible
death.”)
This interesting text starts, as many prayers for justice, with the pronoun
quisquis standing for the unknown culprit’s name. The author, who does not
state his/her name, suffered some harm connected to money from the culprit:
dolum malum; the following passage is disrupted and unclear, but the author
certainly asks Mater Magna to pursue the culprit. Like in tablet No. 231, there
115
Blänsdorf (2010, 180 ff. and 458 ff.) adds crucietur; later he adds cras veniat (2012,
DTM 2).
116
For the reading and interpretation, see Blänsdorf (2012, No. 2).
117
The term is attested nowhere else but it is probably a variant of the name of the
priests of Mater Magna or of some other cult who used to hurt themselves.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
318
are references to the ritual practice of the ecstatic cult of this deity. The tablet
makes use of three complicated simile-formulae as well as of a shortened list of
body parts: copia, cogitatum, mentes. The culprit should, again, be unable to
redeem himself: neque auro neque argento neque ille solvi, (re)fici, redimi
posit; besides, the formula contains a verbal tricolon frequently occurring in
curses. Moreover, the culprit is supposed to plead guilty: et dicat se admisisse
ne(fa)s. The above mentioned sal et aqua illi fiat formula is used in an unusual
way: et a(d qu)em modum sal in (aqua liques)cet, sic et illi membra m(ed)ullae
extabescant – otherwise, the formula is always used in connection with the
victim’s property and business in the other tablets from Mainz (see No. 87,
10.1.1., and No. 233 above), but in this tablet it is used as a parallel to the decay
of culprit’s limbs. The idea of melting or putrefaction of the victim’s limbs also
appears in the simile-formula referring to the parallel with lead (see No. 236,
1.4. and 1.10.2.), below: sic illorum membra liquescent quatmodum hoc
plumbum liquescet, and No. 237 (6.2. and below). Thus, the expression used in
the text of this tablet seems to be contaminated by the sal et aqua formula,
usually used in a property or business context, and the formula, which draws the
analogy between the melting of lead and decay of limbs.
10.2.4 Prayers for Justice or Curses?
Texts No. 236 and No. 237 found in Mainz, as well as No. 239 from
Carnuntum, are at the intersection of curses and prayers for justice. When
comparing the three tablets from Mainz, i.e. DTM 10 (No. 89) with DTM 11
(No. 236) and DTM 12 (No. 237), it becomes evident that the latter two
combine the formulae and wishes typically occurring in curses and the
formulations and aims found usually in prayers for justice.
Tablet No. 89 from Mainz, DTM 10, which is a typical curse, reads:
A: Mando et rogo liberta(m) Cerialis, ut ea(m) ext(r)a IPIVTI (= ipsam?)
fac(i)atis, ut se plangat… (v)elit se quatmodum arc(h)igalli se B: CO(.)LI
sibi settas facia(ti)s,… ita me(n)ses duos, ut eorum ixsitum (= exitum)
audiam d(i)liquescant quatmmodi hoc diliquescet. (“I commend [to you] and
ask that you make the freedwoman of Cerialis out of her mind, may she hurt
herself… want to… herself just like archigalli [beat] themselves… [the
following text is unintelligible]118
in two months may I hear of her death…
118
Blänsdorf (2012, DTM 10) translates the disrupted text sibi settas facia(ti)s as
follows: “ihr euch Anhängerschaften? verschafft”, i.e. he understands settas as
sectas.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
319
may they119
melt away just as this [piece of lead] will melt away.”) (see
10.1.1.).
The text is formulated as a common curse: the author commends his matter to
the gods but does not state the reason of his/her request – the context of the
curse cannot be determined. The vengeance upon the victim is paralleled to the
behaviour of the priests of Mater Magna; the freedwoman of Cerialis is
supposed to die within two months, specifically her limbs should probably melt,
just like lead melts.
Tablets No. 236 and No. 237,120
however, probably belong to prayers for
justice.
No. 236 from Mainz, DTM 11:121
A: Mando et rogo religione ut mandata
exagatis Publium Cutium et Piperonem et B: Placida et Sacra, filia eius: sic
illorum membra liquescan(t) quatmodum hoc plumbum liquescet ut eoru(m)
exsitum sit. (“I hand over [to you], and, observing all ritual form, ask that
you require from Publius Cutius and Pipero the return of the goods entrusted
to them. Also Placida and Sacra, her daughter,122
: may their limbs melt, just
as this lead shall melt, so that it shall be their death.”) (see 1.10.2.).
No. 237 from Mainz,, DTM 12: ...sic… s siccum QUANMI qu(omo)di hoc
liquescet se(… sic co)llum membra, me(du)lla, peculium d(e)l(i)ques(ca)nt
eoru(m), quamodum gallorum angat se… s(ic i)lla aga(t), ut de se
(pro)bant?, tu dom(i)na es, fac, ut X mensibus… exitum illorum sit. (“so…
dry… just as this [lead]123
shall melt, so may his neck, limbs, strength,
savings melt away, may she be anxious like galli do. May she go along, as
she… [?] of herself. You are the Mistress, make them die within ten
months.”) (see also 6.2.).
119
The curse was probably supposed to affect other people, too, as there are verbs in
plural on side B; see Blänsdorf (2012, 118).
120
The text inscribed on tablet No. 237 seems to be a continuation of tablet No. 236
(see Blänsdorf, 2008, 61).
121
See also Blänsdorf (2010, 178 ff.; 2012, DTM 11).
122
The Latin text continues on the other side with two female names in the nominative.
This may be a mistake or the so-called fixed nominative (see 1.6.). Therefore, the
English translation is “from Publius Cutius, Pipero, Placida, and Sacra, her
daughter;” see Blänsdorf (2010, DTM 11).
123
For the reading and interpretation of the text, see Blänsdorf (2012, DTM 12; 2010,
179 ff.). Considering the text of the previous tablet, I suppose that hoc again refers
to the lead tablet on which the text is inscribed.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
320
The texts of the previous two tablets are very similar; there is no doubt that No.
236 is a prayer for justice, as indicated by the formulation mando et rogo
religione ut mandata exagatis. Its authors want the goddess to execute mandata,
i.e. commended things (perhaps money), from Publius Cuttius and others (see
also No. 216, 8.2.). However, the authors do not explicitly address the deity nor
do they state their names – as is usual in curses – so mandata exagatis is the
only hint we have that suggests it is a prayer for justice, not a curse. The
concluding wish that the victims die is more or less corresponding to the
authors’ aim in the curse No. 89. The same wish appears also in the following
tablet No. 237; this time, it is even accompanied by the list of the accursed body
parts and a repeated wish that the victims die. Thus, despite the common
practice in both genres, the above mentioned curse No. 89 and the following
prayers for justice No. 236 use almost identical formulations.
The texts from Mainz display some repeated motifs; however, in this case they
do not imply that they were produced by professional magicians. These usually
prepared identical curses using complicated magical formulae based on magical
formularies together with some space left out for the particular victim’s name
(see e.g. tablets No. 20–24, 7.3.1.4.), but the texts from Mainz are mostly
distinct from each other. Besides, they are written in common, well
understandable Latin not including any magical words. Blänsdorf (2008, 59)
assigns the mutual differences between these texts to the invention of local
inhabitants.124
The blending and combining of the formulae of curses and prayers for justice is
also documented in tablet No. 239 from Pannonia dealt with in detail in 6.2.1.3.
The above mentioned texts indeed seem to be the adaptations of the
Mediterranean tradition adjusted to the particular situations and needs, just as
their non-professional authors perceived the whole ritual – this resulted in the
blending of curses and prayers for justice.
10.3 ADDRESSED DEITIES AND DAEMONS
Almost two thirds of the tablets found in Germania do not contain any address
to a deity; however, this includes also thirteen tablets found in the sacred
precinct of Mater Magna in Mainz in which the invoked deity is implied. Mater
124
Blänsdorf (2010, 163 ff.) considers these texts to be produced by private citizens
acquainted with the practice of cursing inscribing their wishes themselves on the
tablets, not of professional magicians or their scribes.
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
321
Magna is documented only once in the curses from Germania (No. 89); the
authors more often ask Atthis for help (No. 85 including Castor and Pollux, No.
87 together with Mater Magna). Tablet No. 84 is the only one that makes use of
magical signs, which may indicate that it was addressed to some daemon. On
the contrary, the curses from Kreuznach are explicitly addressed to deities,
mostly Di inferi and Di Manes. The curses from Noricum, Raetia, and Pannonia
often invoke the local deities, too. Tablet No. 101 from Noricum address Pluto
and Iuno Aeracura, curses No. 103 and No. 104 from Raetia mention the Celtic
Heracles named Ogmius, tablets No. 105 and No. 107 refer to the goddess
Muta, and No. 107 from Pannonia invoked the river god Savus. The prayers for
justice found in the northern provinces address a deity with a name more than in
half of the texts, most frequently addressed deities are Mater Magna and Atthis
(No. 228, No. 231, and No. 232–234); tablet No. 239 from Pannonia invokes
the usual infernal trinity Pluto, Aeracura, and Cerberus; for the invoked deities
in the new findings from Pannonia, see also Barta (2015 and 2017); finally,
tablet No. 238 from Raetia is addressed to Mercury and the Celtic deity named
Moltinus.
10.4 VOCES MAGICAE, SIGNA MAGICA, A NON-STANDARD
ORIENTATION OF SCRIPT
The curses found in the northern provinces do not contain magical words or
names of daemons, except for tablet No. 84 which makes use of signa magica.
Prayers for justice, in general, do not usually contain magical words or signs,
except for tablet No. 239 from Pannonia which contains a disrupted sequence of
magical words written in the Greek alphabet (see Appendix II). Unlike other
European provinces, a peculiar orientation of script occurs quite frequently in
the texts found in Germania – a third of the curses and five out of 13 prayers for
justice (i.e. more than 1/3 of the preserved texts); concerning the tablets from
Pannonia (No. 107 and No. 109) and Raetia (No. 104 and No. 106), these also
contain peculiarly oriented script. Magical oriented script appears only once in
Gallia (No. 224, 6.2.1.1.) and in ca. a fifth of the texts found in Britannia. Most
frequently we find the right-to-left orientation of script; however,
boustrophedon (No. 109) and upside-down writing are documented, too. In
Germania, a non-standard orientation of script is sometimes accompanied by the
formula aversus (see 10.2.2. above).
10.5 FORMULAE AND PEOPLE ACCURSED
There are altogether 47 formulae in 31 curse tablets found in Germania, which
is not a very high number. The most frequent ones are: Formula 0 (simple list of
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
322
cursed people, ten tablets), Formula 1a (direct curse with the verbs of
committal), and Formula 2 (invoking formula with a relative clause, eight
tablets). The invoking Formula 2a and Formula 3a with the imperative appear
only scarcely; simile-formula occurs five times. More complicated curses have
also been preserved in Raetia (eleven formulae in four tablets) and Pannonia
(eight formulae in three tablets) (see Chapter 2).
The relatively high number of formulae (36 in eleven tablets) used in the
prayers for justice in Germania indicates that these are complicated texts:
simile-formula (16 times), wish-formula 4 using the subjunctive, and the
invoking formula 2a are used most frequently. The prayers for justice from
Raetia and Pannonia use on average three formulae a tablet. The prayers for
justice preserved in Germania can be, with regards to their elaborateness and
diversity, regarded as the top of this genre.
Concerning the relatively higher number of texts preserved in Germania, the
average number of cursed people is rather lower in comparison with the texts
from Gallia or Hispania. Altogether 31 tablets are aimed against ca. 95 people,
whereas men (81) markedly outweigh women (14). Thus, ca. three people are
accursed in a single tablet; in Pannonia, the average is even ca. five people per
tablet. These include slaves, freedmen, as well as free citizens, the names are
more often stated in the nominative than the accusative. Some tablets also
contain the author’s name or the name of the person on whose behalf the curse
was inscribed, see e.g. the legal curses No. 71, No. 76, and No. 78; the presence
of author’s name in tablets No. 94 and No. 97 is disputable (see 10.1.1. above).
The prayers for justice from Germania, Raetia, and Pannonia usually concern
thefts, in three cases they react to deceit or fraud, and two tablets are even
connected to rivalry in love (see No. 227 and No. 228 above, 10.2.1.). Unlike
the texts coming from the other provinces, several of these are examples of rare
formulations referring to author’s wishes, including simile-formulae, which are
only very scarcely, or not at all, found in the prayers for justice from other
provinces. Some texts are very similar to curses: the author’s and invoked
deity’s names are included only in about half of the texts. Somewhat more
frequently, the texts involve a committal of the stolen property or the culprit to
the deity. The culprits’ names are mostly known (six men, six women), four
prayers for justice pursue an unknown culprit (No. 229, No. 232, No. 235, and
No. 238). Just like the authors of the prayers for justice found in Gallia and
Italy, the authors of these texts almost always sought only revenge on the
culprit; only tablets No. 235 and No. 236 from Germania and No. 239 from
Pannonia explicitly pursue the return of the stolen property. Other prayers for
10. GERMANIA, RAETIA, NORICUM, PANNONIA
323
justice found in the northern provinces mostly display very cunning types of
vengeance supposed to afflict the culprit, including a public revenge. Generally,
it can be said that the prayers for justice from the areas concerned are mostly
longer and picturesque texts – e.g. No. 228 includes five typical features of this
genre, whereas five other texts include four of them.
Filiation via father’s name appears only rarely (No. 86 and No. 228), filiation
via mother’s name is used in a single prayer for justice No. 236; however, it
does not use the usual quam peperit formula (see 10.2.4.).
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
This chapter is dedicated to the very rich and diverse curses found in the
African provinces. The areas of Africa explored and known in antiquity spread
from the Mediterranean coast in the north to the southern areas bordered by
Sahara, the Great Desert. Greeks called this land Λιβύη, and the name Africa
was probably derived from the Libyan tribe of Afers. The latter was taken over
by Romans partially also due to the epithet of Roman commander Scipio the
Elder Africanus who, during the Third Punic War, defeated the Punics and
conquered Carthage. However, the name Africa has been used ever since the
Second Punic War.1
In 146 BCE, when the Romans won the contest for the
hegemonic position in the Mediterranean and defeated the Punics for the last
time, they established the province of Africa in the former Carthaginian
territory. In 105 BCE after the defeat of Iugurtha, the northern coast of Africa
east of Carthage (today’s Libya), also called Tripolis (“three cities”) by the
Greek, was attached to the province, as well. In 46 BCE, when Caesar defeated
Pompey in the Battle of Thapsus, he temporarily attached Numidia as the
province of Africa nova to the Roman Empire; nevertheless, this territory
became a real part of the Roman property only during the reign of Augustus, in
25 BCE. The original province of Africa claimed from Carthage got the name
vetus. Colonia Carthage, founded by Caesar in 40/39 BCE, became the capital
of both above mentioned Roman provinces bordering on the province of
Cyrenaica in the east and Mauretania in the west. From ca. 27 BCE, these areas
(Africa nova and Africa vetus) joined administratively by Augustus were called
Africa Proconsularis, which was administered by the Senate.
In the following centuries, the African provinces flourished, trade and
agriculture advanced, Africa became the granary of Rome, and Carthage rose up
again as an important city. The influx of Roman inhabitants in the 2nd
and 3rd
centuries CE led to the development of a specific Roman-African culture.2
Later
on, the emperor Septimius Severus separated Numidia from Africa
Proconsularis and made it an imperial province. Finally, Diocletian divided the
original province into three administrative units: Africa Proconsularis, Africa
Byzacena, and Africa Tripolitana which was connected with Numidia. From
429 CE, the African provinces had to face the raids of the Vandals.
The preserved curses come almost exclusively from Carthage and Hadrumetum;
Kropp (2008) assigns them in her corpus to the provinces of Africa
1
See Huss – Leisten (1996, 217 ff.); see also Svoboda (1974, 35 ff.).
2
Svoboda (1974, 35 ff.).
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
325
Proconsularis and Africa Byzacena. Because the evidence from both provinces
seems to be compact and different from the evidence found in other provinces, I
deal with it as a whole.
11.1 THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE TERRITORY OF THE
AFRICAN PROVINCES AND ITS SPECIFIC FEATURES
Kropp (2008) speaks of 81 curse tablets found in the African provinces
altogether, out of which this corpus includes 73 tablets; no Latin prayers for
justice are known so far from this area. The preserved tablets are of later date
than the evidence found in the European provinces, especially Italy and
Hispania – more than two thirds of the tablets were, not very accurately, dated
to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE, and some tablets were inscribed in the 2nd
century CE
(six) and in the 3rd
century CE (12). The high number of tablets occurring in the
2nd
/3rd
century CE (46) is, no doubt, related to the huge influx of Romans into
the African provinces at the time. Only very few tablets have been dated to the
3rd
/4th
century CE but this does not necessarily imply that the cursing practice
significantly declined in the area – this can rather be attributed to the
randomness of archaeological findings.
As for the external features of these tablets, most of them were found in graves
(63): this includes all the tablets found in Hadrumetum and most of those found
in Carthage. Some tablets were also preserved in the amphitheatre of Carthage
(seven). All African tablets in this corpus were inscribed on lead slabs.
Almost two thirds of the tablets were rolled into scrolls before being deposited;
tablets pierced with a nail appear only scarcely, unlike the common use of this
practice in Italy (see 7.3.); the rest of the evidence either does not display traces
of any manipulation, or the editors do not state so.
The African provinces preserved the greatest variety of curse types. For
instance, Latin agonistic curses aimed against rival gladiators, charioteers, and
race-horses were found nowhere else, although it is more than likely that they
were used also elsewhere, e.g. in Rome (see 4.1.). Moreover, love spells have
almost entirely been preserved on curse tablets from Carthage and
Hadrumetum.3
Conversely, non-specific curses are attested relatively rarely in
Africa (five), when compared to the European provinces. Most of the legal
3
The tablet No. 106 from Raetia (see 4.1.), probably also the tablet No. 69, and one
tablet from the fountain of Anna Perenna are the only love spells found outside
Africa, see 7.3.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
326
curses (12) and curses against gladiators (six) have been found in Carthage,
whereas most of the tablets aimed against race-horses (12), charioteers and racehorses
(16), and love spells (12) have been preserved in Hadrumetum. On the
contrary, no cases of rivalry in love nor Latin prayers for justice are
documented in the African provinces.
Many of these were probably made by professional ritual practitioners
specializing in the serial production of curses. The content of the magical
apparatus used is very complicated – formulations referring to magical papyri,
influences of Greek, Egyptian, and Hebrew traditions, magical words mostly
written in the Greek alphabet, addresses to daemons (see 1.7.), and use of
imperative formulae (see 3.1.6. and 3.1.7.). The graphic layout is also
complicated – non-alphabetic signa magica, magical patterns called grammata
made of the sequences of vowels and consonants, often also non-standard
orientation of script, combination of Greek alphabet and Latin letters, Latin text
written in the Greek alphabet, etc. (see 1.7.1. and 1.7.2.). Thus, the African
curses are very different from the curses from other provinces where
professional magicians did not operate to such an extent as in Africa (based on
the preserved evidence); the only exception was Rome (see 7.6.1.). The African
curses made mostly by professionals provide us with a high-quality testament to
the adapting, combining, and blending of the Mediterranean magical traditions.
11.1.1 Non-Specific Curses
Although non-specific curses are prevalent in the European provinces,
especially in Britannia, there are only few of them in the African provinces (five
of them have been included in this corpus). Tablet No. 111 is one of the very
few containing a simple list of cursed people in the nominative (see Appendix
I). Tablet No. 141 found in Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/1, is a little more
advanced, as it also includes the filiation via mother’s name (see 1.6.):
Laelianus, Saturninus, quos peperit Aquilia Saturnina. (“Laelianus, Saturninus,
who were born from Aquilia Saturnina.”).
Tablet No. 122 probably pursues the death of Iulia Faustilla; the author wrote an
almost identical text on both sides of the tablet:
Te rogo, qui infernales partes tenes, commendo tibi Iulia(m) Faustilla(m),
Marii filia(m), ut eam celerius abducas et ibi in numeru(m) tu(um) a(b)ias
(= habeas). B: Te rogo, qui infernales partes tenes, commendo tibi Iulia(m)
Faustilla(m), ut eam celerius abducas infernales partibus in numeru(m)
tu(um) habeas. (“I ask you, who hold rule over the Underworld, I commend
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
327
to you Iulia Faustilla, the daughter of Marius, so that you may take her as
quickly as possible and have her in your number [of the dead]. I ask you,
who hold rule over the Underworld, I commend to you Iulia Faustilla, the
daughter of Marius, so that you may take her as quickly as possible to the
Underworld among your number [of the dead].”) (see also 1.1.2.1. and
1.10.1.).
The curse beginning with magical words and inscribed in tablets No. 138 and
No. 139 is remarkable, as it is aimed at the welfare of the public baths. It is one
of the few Latin examples of cursing a business venture, not a particular
person.4
11.1.2 Legal Curses
This corpus includes 14 legal curses from the African provinces: 12 from
Carthage, and two from Hadrumetum. Most of these contain complicated
formulae, whereas the authors use mainly resourceful restrictions impeding
victims’ ability to speak, remember, or testify in court. Tablet No. 112 from
Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/2, is one of the simpler legal curses:
Scribonia, Philomusus, Criso, Alypus, Lerastus, Philargyrus, Auner, Felix,
Liberalis, conservi, conservae, amici, amicae, cognati… Quicumque
conaverit, dixerit, fecerit (a)ut facere voluerit, colliberti aut colliberta(e).
(“Scribonia, Philomusus, Criso, Alypus, Lerastus, Philargyrus, Abner, Felix,
Liberalis, fellow slaves (male and female), friends, girlfriends, relatives…
Whoever would have tried, said, did, or wanted to do, fellow freedmen and
freedwomen.”).
The text, though disrupted, clearly implies a legal context;5
the verb of cursing
is missing.
Brief, simple formulae are found in tablet No. 181 from Hadrumetum whose
victims are supposed to be struck mute (for the text and the translation, see
2.3.1.). The same applies for tablet No. 137 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/34,
which reads:
4
For the complete text and translation of both tablets, see 1.10.1.; see also Gager
(1992, No. 82); for linguistic remarks, see Urbanová – Cuzzloin (2016, 318, 333 ff.).
5
Kropp (2008) considers this text to be a prayer for justice, as in the case of No. 137;
however, I suppose it is rather a prophylactic legal curse, i.e. if anyone attempted to
act against me, I accurse him.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
328
Gallus, Lunul, Fausta, Placidus, Meius, Rupilia Rupiliae, Licinius, Maxima,
Salbao, Martia, Septimius, Amiana, Saturina, Speratus et si quis contra
fecerit Cleopatra(m?). (“[A nominal list of enemies] and whoever would
have acted against Cleopatra.”)6
The text lacks any verb of cursing, and the names of enemies are inscribed in
the nominative. It can be interpreted in two ways: either it is a curse against the
enemies stated in the beginning as well as Cleopatra stated in the end, or, as in
the translation, a curse against all those who could hurt Cleopatra with her name
in the accusative Cleopatram. The name of the author or the person on whose
behalf the curse was written appears in three legal curses from Africa (see also
No. 115 and No. 116 below).
Furthermore, the tablets from Africa often directly attack the tongue of the
accursed person, see No. 114: …alligate linguas horum (1.1.2.2.1.). Another
example is tablet No. 113 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/3, which originally
contained extensive text, but is now largely disrupted. I state the reading of
intelligible fragments amended by Kropp (2008); see also Appendix I:
…lingua, ne contra me nec dicere nec facere va(l)eant nisi quod ego
voluero; al(li)go, deligo linguas…esse… Calligraphae… Primi… apud…
patri meo nec adversus me… irati… alligo… illam …linguam et…
Pudentis… alligo, deligo… Calligraphae… Alligo, deligo… (“…[I bind] the
tongue so that they cannot speak nor act against me, unless [they speak]
what I wish them to; I bind and tie the tongues…”)
The curse probably aims at three people, namely Primus, Pudens, and
Calligrapha, who are not supposed to be able to testify against the author and
his father: patri meo nec adversus me.
A very elaborate formula binding the tongue is found in tablet No. 115 from
Carthage, dfx.11.1/5, which reads:
Indico illu(m) quiq(ue i)mitati7
facias illos mutos adversus Atlosam; ac ligo,
obligo, linguas illorum medias, extremas, novissimas, ne quid possint
6
I state the text amended by Kropp (2008) who considers it to be a prayer for justice.
However, this interpretation seems at least doubtful (see also Appendix I).
7
I state here the text as amended by Kropp (2008); see also Appendix I. The tablet,
probably mistakenly, reads iudico instead of indico in the beginning of the text. The
damaged sequence ilu(m) quiq(ue i)mitati can be interpreted as “the names I have
imitated (i.e. inscribed in the tablet)” – imitati is a plausible solution here derived
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
329
respondere contra. Facias illos mutos, muturungallos, mutulos, Crispu(m)
marinis et Marinem parinis… (oblig)o? linguas illorum…8
(“I state his
[name?] and [the names?] of those who I inscribed, make those against
Atlosa mute; I tie and bind up their tongues in the middle, in the back and
front, so that they cannot testify against. Make them mute, completely
speechless, dumb, Crispus? and Marinus? I bind? their tongues…”).
The text, although sporadically damaged and unintelligible, pursues the
silencing of the adversaries in a remarkable way – the curse is supposed to
afflict, or disable, the tongues in the middle, back and front, so that the victims
really can utter no sound whatsoever. Although the author does not proceed
logically in the sequence medias, extremas, novissimas, i.e. it starts from the
middle, the formulation resembles modern phonetic studies on articulation.
Moreover, the position of medias in the beginning of the sequence may be
connected to metric structure and the number of syllables of the words coming
one after another.9
Similarly, the process of becoming speechless is expressed
by three adjectives obviously derived from common mutus, whereas the term
muturungallos is a hapax legomenon and mutulos does not appear anywhere
else in this sense.10
The curse should help Atlosa against the accursed people
whose names bear the attributes marinis and parinis. Audollent (1904, No. 219)
points out that their meaning is unclear; even if marinis was the name of
freedman Crispus’ patron, it could not at the same time refer to the master as
well as the freedman – Marinem parinis.
The formula paralysing the tongue as the organ of speech was very popular, as
is also documented in another tablet, No. 136 from Carthage, dfx. 11.1.1/32. It
comprises six fragments,11
I state here only two of them, which are longer and
amended by Kropp (2008):
Frg. I: …(alligo linguas)… medias, extremas, novissimas… colligo, ligo
linguas… medias, extremas, novissimas, ne quid respondere (possint), facias
vanos… colligo linguas… novisimas nequ(id) respondere (possint?), facias
illos mutos… (Lin)guas lig(o), colligo, (ne au)xilium eorum resp(ondere
possit)…
from imitor. Another possible interpretation is that the verbal form is derived from
immito (“send, throw”), i.e. “the names I have sent [to the gods or daemons]”;
however, no names of deities have preserved in the text (see also No. 144, 5.1.4.).
8
The end of the tablet is largely disrupted (see also the commentary to DT 219).
9
See also Poccetti (2005, 344 ff.).
10
See TIL mutulus 17315: valde mutus; muturungallos 1753, 59.
11
See DT 303; Kropp (2008); see also Appendix I and 1.9.3.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
330
Frg. II: …linguas l(ig)o, medias, extremas, no(vissimas)… ne quid possint
mihi… alligo, colligo linguas, novissimas, ne quit rispondere (possint?),
facias illos potiora… al(li)go, colligo novissimas, ne quid… Medias,
extremas, novissimas mutos, mutos… Publius Curtius alligo, colligo, ligo…
(“[...I bind the tongues]… in the middle, back and front… I tie, bind up
[their] tongues in the middle, in the back and front, [so that they cannot]
testify, make [them] idle… I tie the tongues… front [so that they cannot]
testify, make them mute… I tie, bind up [their] tongues so that they cannot
come help them?”)
The text of the second fragment is almost identical, except that it contains the
name of one of the victims, Publius Curtius. Because of the use of “tongue” in
the plural, it is very likely that the original text also included the names of other
enemies (see also 1.9.3.).
Another interesting text is tablet No. 116 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/6, which
pursues the same restrictions but adds that the enemies should be afraid, too:
A: Domina (Te)rra? facias (?) Germanum mutum… dicu accomodes
Obsecra(e) Speratae custodes… Martialim, Cosconium, Ianuarium et
Rufum, ut… (Quomodo qui) B: sunt ibi, mutos et metu plenos facias, quorum
nomina h(ic) habes. (Adver?)sus Obsecram Speratae… adversus eam loqui
non possint, inimici adversus eam loqui non possint12
… (“Lady Earth?, make
Germanus mute… arrange? that Obsecra, [the daughter/freedwoman?] of
Sperata, guard?... Martialis, Cosconius, Iuanuarius and Rufus, [just] as
[those who] are here, make them mute and filled of fear, [those] whose
names you have here [inscribed]. Against? Obsecra, [the
daughter/freedwoman?] of Sperata… may they be unable to speak against
her, the enemies to speak against her…”) (see also 2.3.2. and 10.1.2.).
Unfortunately, the text is damaged in places, which makes it impossible to
interpret it coherently. For instance, we do not know what or to whom custodes
refers to; DT 220 presupposes the presence of a disrupted simile-formula which
is suggested to be added to the concluding section of side A ut (muta sunt ossa
quae) sunt ibi, mutos et metu plenos facias quorum nomina hic habes… (“just as
these bones here are mute [an analogy to the bones in the grave where the tablet
was deposited], make those whose names you have inscribed here mute and full
of fear”). In addition, the name of the author, or the person on whose behalf the
12
For the text inscribed on the tablet see also DT 220; for new interpretation and
additions (Quomodo qui), see Kropp (2008) and Appendix I.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
331
curse was inscribed (Obsecra Speratae), is included, too, even including the her
mother’s or patron’s name. This is perhaps for accurate identification of the
people involved and the relevant lawsuit.
The disrupted legal curse No. 117 also contains a simile-formula – Securus,
Toresilaus, and the advocates are supposed to be unable to testify and speak
against the author and his father:
Se(curus?), como(d)o… no(n) potes(t) (contr)a nos d(e)respondere… sic non
(possint?) (respondere) contra patre(m) meu(m con)tra (me) advocati qui
contr(a) nos non pos(s)it… (for the complete text, see DT 221 and Appendix
I).
The complicated and interesting curse No. 118 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/8,
also makes use of a simile-formula and, like No. 68 from Gallia (see 9.1.2.),
also the magical analogy between an animal killed during the cursing ritual – a
puppy in Gallia, a cock in Africa.13
The curse is inscribed on both sides of the
tablet: side A contains the names of adversaries in a lawsuit, side B has the text
of the curse itself whose end is, unfortunately, very damaged (for the
emendations, see DT 222 and Kropp, 2008). No. 118 from Carthage,
dfx.11.1.1/8, reads:
A: Claudia Helenis, Clodia Successi, Clodia Steretia,14
Clodius Fortunatus,
Clodius Romanus, Mu(rc)ius Crim…enius, Servilius Faustus, Valerius
Extricatus. Quomodo haec nomina (ad inferos dedi sic omnes adversu)s15
me
ommutes(cant) (neque lo)qui (possint?). B: (Quomodo) huic
gallo…lingua(m) vivo extorsi et defixi, sic inimicorum meorum linguas
adversus me ommutescant. Sic qui (in?) me l(o)qui aususve fuerit, ad ni(hi)lo
(r)ediat res illius… Haec praecatio ita… est ad… (Preco?)r vos muta… per
ves(tram?)… victoria(m?), di(i) Manes, ita uti… sic adversus.
(“[The names of the accursed people, probably freedmen and freedwomen]
Just like [I commended to the infernal gods] these names, [may all] be struck
dumb toward me and [may they be unable to speak]. [Just like] I ripped out
and transfixed alive the tongue of this cock, may the tongues of my enemies
be equally struck mute against me. Equally, if someone dared to speak
against me, may his effort? Go waste… This plea in such a way...”)
13
See also the same ritual in a Greek curse text from Carthage (TheDeMa 60).
14
DT 222 suggests to read the name Speretia, i.e. Speratia.
15
DT 222 adds (adversu)s me ommute(scant); furthermore, Kropp (2008) adds ad
inferos dedi sic omnes.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
332
The rest of the text is very corrupted and cannot be interpreted coherently; the
only additional information it provides us with is that the author invokes
infernal ghosts (see also 2.3.6. and 9.1.2.).
Thus, only the legal curse No. 183 (see Chapter 5) seeks the death of the
opposing party. We also know that, despite their damaged state (see Appendix
I), tablets No. 119 and No. 120 clearly contain legal curses.
11.1.3 Agonistic Curses
All Latin agonistic curses, as already said above, have been found in the African
provinces, despite the fact that it is more than probable that rivals in the circus
were being accursed also in other places where ludi and chariot races were held
(see 4.1.). All Latin as well as Greek agonistic curses were recently analysed,
translated, and published by J. Tremel (2004).
This corpus includes seven curses against gladiators: six were found in the
Carthage amphitheatre, one in the grave in Hadrumetum (containing not only an
agonistic curse but also a love spell) (see No. 143, 1.1.2.2.3.). All texts against
rivals in the circus were inscribed by professional magicians.
A larger number of preserved agonistic curses aim at charioteers and racehorses
– this corpus includes 20 such tablets, most of which were found in
Hadrumetum (16), the rest in Carthage (four). Most of these were produced in
magical workshops and their texts are almost identical, since usually only the
names of accursed people and horses vary. As for the curses aimed exclusively
against race-horses, which were also probably written by professionals in the
field, I include 13 of these in my corpus: 12 from Hadrumetum, a single tablet
from Carthage. The distribution of findings does not seem to reflect the real
situation, rather, the locations are randomly scattered according to the
archaeological excavations.
11.1.3.1 Curses against Gladiators
The slightly disrupted tablet No. 130 is an illustrative example of the typical
curse against a rival, in this case probably a gladiator (venator), i.e. the hunter,
who was going to fight bears and a bull. It depicts a standing daemonic figure
holding a spear in his right hand and a lightning bolt in his left. The tablet is
dated to the 2nd
/3rd
cent. CE and it contains signa magica, too (see also
1.1.2.2.2. and Chapter 5). The curse addresses a daemon using imperative
formulae (see 3.2.). No. 130 from the amphitheatre in Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/22,
reads:
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
333
… (occi)dite, exterminate, vulnerate Gallicu(m), quem peperit Prima, in ista
hora in amphiteatri corona… hoc tene, illi manus oblige… obture… non
liget ursum, ursos… Obliga illi pedes, membra, sensus, medullam. Obliga
Gallicu(m), quem peperit Prima, ut neque ursu(m) neque tauru(m) singulis
plagis occidat, neque binis plagis occid(a)t neque ternis plagis occidat
tauru(m) ursu(m). Per nomen dei vivi omnipotentis ut perficiatis iam, iam,
cito, cito. Allidat illu(m) ursus et vulneret illu(m).16
(“…kill, destroy, hurt
Gallicus, whom Prima bore, at that hour during the games in the
amphitheatre… hold, tie his hands… block?17
… May he not bind a bear,
bears… Bind his feet, limbs, senses, marrow. Bind Gallicus, whom Prima
bore, so that he kills neither a bear nor a bull, nor does he kill a bear or a bull
with a single, nor double, nor triple punch. In the name of the living
almighty god, may you carry [this] out, now, now, quickly, quickly. Let the
bear strike him and hurt him.”)
The curse against gladiators No. 131 found in Carthage is another remarkable
and resourceful text (for the complete text, see 1.10.1.). It dates to the 3rd
century CE and has also been found in the amphitheatre. It was obviously made
by a professional in the field; side A depicts a standing long-eared and ass?headed
daemon holding bowls and wands in his hands. The time formula in the
end is written in Greek.18
The author/purchaser of the text intends to hurt and
kill his rival during the games in the circus. He targets the victim’s body parts
needed in combat (hands, feet), but also his adversary’s senses. His effort to
make the curse effective is illustrated by the careful enumeration of all
supposed effects of the curse19
– accumulation of synonyms like obligo et
implico (“I bind and entwine [them with spell]”), or vulneratos, (cru)entatos
(“injured and stained with blood”), just like (occi)dite, exterminate, vulnerate
Gallicum in the previous tablet; or the variations of the same word-base using
prefixes and suffixes and combined with the accumulation of synonyms, for
example (facias) victos, pervictos, exaclos/exactos, exiliatos, pilatos,
pla(n)gatos (“[may they be] defeated, completely outdone, exhausted/hissed off,
expelled, devastated, beaten”). The curse is concluded with a time formula
16
I do not state disrupted parts of the text here; for the complete text and supplements
see Appendix I.
17
The verb obturo surrounded by lacunae is obscure here, it may perhaps refer to a
restriction of sensation, i.e. “shut one’s ears”, or “strike blind”.
18
I state the Latin text of the curse according to Kropp’s (2008) and Tremel’s (2004,
No. 96) emendations. See also the description of the tablet in DT 248; Tremel (2004,
No. 94).
19
See also Poccetti (2002, 31 ff.).
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
334
specifying the exact day on which the rivals should be afflicted by the curse; the
Greek formula forces the daemon to exact the curse as soon as possible (see
also 3.3.1.).
The following text is the longest and most complicated preserved curse against
another gladiator. The text is inscribed in Latin on both sides of the tablet,
whereas side B contains also Greek maical words. The tablet dates to the 3rd
/4th
century CE and was found in the amphitheatre. No. 132 from Carthage,
dfx.11.1.1/25, reads:
A: Βαχα(χυχ), qui es in Egypto magnus daemon,20
obliges, perobliges
Maurussum venatorem, quem peperit Felicitas. Ιεχρι, auferas somnum, non
dormiat Marussus, quem peperit Felicitas. Παρπαξιν, deus omnipotens,
adducas ad domus infernas Maurussum, quem peperit Felicitas. Νοκτουκιτ,
qui possides tractus Itali(a)e et Campaniae, qui tractus es per Acherusium
lacum, (perducas ad domos Tartareas, intra dies septem),21
perducas ad
domos tartareas Maurussum, quem peperit Felicitas intra dies septe(m).
Βυτυβαχκ,22
demon qui possides Hispaniam et Africam, qui solus per mare
transis, pertranseas animam et spiritum Maurussi, quem peperit Felicitas.
Pertranseas omne remedium et omne phylacterium et omne tutamentum et
omne oleum libutorium et perducatis, obligetis, perobligetis… (oblig)etis?
absumatis, desumatis, consumatis cor, membra, viscera, interania Mauruss(i
venatoris?), quem peperit Felicitas. Et te adiuro, quisquis inferne es demon
per haec sancta nomina necessitatis.
B: (VM)23
…depre(hendatis) et, faciatis pallidum, maestum, tristem…
mutum, non se regentem Maurussum, quem peperit Felicitas; in omni
proelio, in omni certamine evanescat, ruat… Maurussus, quem peperit
20
The text is stated here in an amended form; for the original text, see Appendix I, DT
250, Kropp (2008), and Tremel (2004, No. 96). The names of daemons are found
especially in the tablets from the African provinces, but they appear also in the socalled
Sethianorum tabellae, see DT 140 (No. 18); for the specific epithets of
daemons, see also tablet No. 124, 1.1.2.2.3., and No. 133 below.
21
The sequence stated in brackets was probably inscribed once more, because the
author probably forgot to include the victim’s name (see DT 250).
22
Kropp (2008), perhaps mistakenly, leaves out the name of the daemon.
23
See Appendix I; there is a so-called maskelli maskellô formula which is attested in
curses as well as magical papyri, the complete formula is as follows: maskelli
maskellô aphnoukentabaô oreobazagra rêxichthôn hippochthôn puripêganux (see
PGM VII, 302; also Gager, 1992, 268). The above mentioned magical words
certainly contain some Greek elements; however, their meaning is obscure.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
335
Felicitas. Desub amphiteatri corona…eatem auram24
patiatur Maurussus,
quem peperit Felicitas…(vinc)ere? (non) possit, perversus sit, perperversus
sit Maurussus, quem peperit Felicitas, nec laqueos possit super ursum
mittere, non alligare (ursum possit)… collegam25
tenere omnino non possit…
Manus illi et ro(bur), (pe)des illi obligentur, non possit currere…
lassetu(r)… animam et spiritum deponat in omni proelio, in omni(bus
cong)ressionibus depannetur,26
vapulet, vulneretur… (vincat)ur27
…(d)e
(man)ibus alienis28
inde (f)igatur, trahatur. Exeat Maurussus, (quem peperit)
F(elicit)as desub amphiteiatri corona facie(s) ad terram… te cito29
depremite, defigite, perfigite, consumite… Maurussum, quem peperit
Felicitas. Et /ut? remisse ferrarum morsus (patiatur?)… (t)am tauros, tam
apros, tam leones, quae… Maurussus, quem peperit Felicitas, occidere
possit… (nulla?)m (feram).30
(“Bachachuch, [you] who are the great Egyptian daemon, bind and tie up
Maurussus the hunter, whom Felicitas bore. Iechri, deprive him of sleep,
may Maurussus, the hunter, whom Felicitas bore, not sleep. Parpaxin, the
almighty god, bring Maurussus, whom Felicitas bore, to the infernal
dwellings. Noktoukit, [you] who hold the territories of Italy and Campania,
you who were dragged through the swamps of Acheron,31
[lead to the
infernal regions within seven days] lead Maurussus, whom Felicitas bore, to
the infernal regions within seven days. Bytybachk, [you,] the daemon who
hold the territories of Hispania and Africa, the only [daemon] who pervades
across sea, pervade the soul and spirit of Maurussus, whom Felicitas bore.
24
Kropp (2008) reads eadem auguria, which would be possible, if we understood
auguria as the same curses.
25
Kropp (2008) reads (c)ol(l)ega(tum) = colligatum; DT 250 and J. Tremel (2004, No.
96) read (c)onlega(m), i.e. collegam.
26
DT 250 points out: depannetur, i.e. depanare – dilacerare.
27
The addition of Kropp (2008).
28
Kropp’s (2008) interpretation, the tablet reads e (man)us alienis.
29
Kropp’s (2008) addition of the whole formula iam, iam, cito, cito is, in my opinion,
unjustified. Furthermore, she adds the verb patiatur after ferrarum morsus.
30
Kropp (2008) logically adds (nulla)m (ferram).
31
The interpretation of Tremel (2004, No. 96; DT 250); DT 250 assumes that
Acerushium (= Acherusium) lacum refers to Acherusiam paludem, i.e. the swamps
near Cumae. It may perhaps also be associated with today’s Lago Averno, or lacus
Avernus, which was thought to be the entrance to the Underworld in antiquity. The
particular connection of this daemon to the regions of Italia and Campania, as well
as the reason for his being dragged through the waters of Acheron or the lake, are
unclear.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
336
Pervade through any defense, through all amulets and protective means and
all protecting oils32
… and lead [him to the Underworld]), bind [him], bind
[him] fast... ruin, destroy, consume the heart, limbs, guts, intestines of
Maurussus [the hunter], whom Felicitas bore. And I adjure you, whoever
infernal daemon you are,33
by these holy names of inevitability.
(VM)… Catch Maurussus, whom Felicitas bore, and make him pale,
unhappy, and sad… mute, may he not hold control over himself; in each
combat, in each contest, may [he] lose, fall down… Maurussus, whom
Felicitas bore… At the games in the amphitheatre… may Maurussus, whom
Felicitas bore, suffer;34
may he be unable to win? May [he] be knocked
down, beaten hollow,35
Maurussus, whom Felicitas bore, may he be unable
to throw nets over the bear nor tie him up, may he be unable to hold back the
corrival36
… May his hands and strength? and feet be bound up, may he be
unable to run… may he fatigue himself… may he leave his soul and spirit
[i.e. die?] in each combat, in all contests, may he be torn to pieces, flogged,
hurt, may he be transfixed, dragged with alien [opponent’s] hands. May
Maurussus, whom Felicitas bore, die with his face to the ground in the
amphitheatre… quickly press down, pierce, transfix, consume… Maurussus
[in the accusative], whom Felicitas bore. And may he [suffer?] the bites of
wild beasts… so bulls, boars, lions who… Maurussus, whom Felicitas bore,
[may he be unable to kill any beast?]”).
This curse, just like the previous one, is a very interesting example of the use of
specific language for magical purposes. It illustrates the author’s effort to use all
language means available to make the curse as effective as possible – these are
supposed to support maximally precise and detailed formulation of the curse in
32
See DT 250; this sequence clearly expresses that the daemon is supposed to break
through all protective means the victim could use against a curse, e.g. amulets,
protective gems, oils, etc.
33
The Nekydaímôn is adressed here, i.e. the spirit of a dead person who can provide
services for the living.
34
Tremel (2004, No. 96) translates auram patiatur as “Luft erdulden”, i.e. perhaps
“endure hot and dust”.
35
The terms perversus, perperversus are translated loosely with regards to the result of
the action.
36
If we accepted Kropp’s (2008) reading (c)ol(l)ega(tum) = colligatum instead of
(c)onlega(m), the passage would be translated as follows: “may he be unable to
throw nets on the bear nor tie him up… and hold him tied up”. Both interpretations
are plausible.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
337
order to fortify the desired effect.37
The very sophisticated cursing formula
makes use of the binary formulae auferas somnum and non dormiat Maurussus,
similarly to tablet No. 20 from Rome (see 7.3.1.4.). The restriction concerning a
victim’s ability to sleep is typical especially of love spells; however, it also
appears in the prayers for justice from Britannia; it is not attested in other
contexts.38
The author first addresses five daemons individually, then at the end
of side A s/he turns to them all in plural. There is an accumulation of verbs,
either of the same base with varied suffixes or of the different base with
identical suffixes:39
at the end of side A we read perducatis, obligetis,
perobligetis…(oblig)etis, absumatis, desumatis, consumatis; depremite,
defigite, perfigite, consumite… Synonyms are also cumulated, either by coupled
expressions: animam et spiritum, or, more frequently, by fours: protective
means remedium, phylacterium, tutamentum, oleum libutorium and body parts
cor, membra, viscera, interania,40
whose list is introduced by seven verbs
specifying the damage (see above). The author anxiously keeps on including his
rival’s filiation quem peperit Felicitas, whenever he states his name, Maurussus.
The text is slightly disrupted and contains several lacunae; thus, some passages
cannot be reliably interpreted.
Tablet No. 133 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/26 dated to the 2nd
century CE is also
aimed against gladiators. Unfortunately, it is severely damaged; therefore, I
state only part of it.41
It is remarkable for its use of extensive, incomprehensible
formulae containing magical words atypically written in Latin letters, and even
a Latin sequence written in the Greek alphabet occurs. Unlike the previous
texts, the text of the curse itself is formulated in a much simpler way:
(Adiuro vos) animae huiuis loci et… sancta nomina Psachyrinχ (VM)42
ter
vos adiuro, animae huius loci (VM)… date interitu(m) his venatoribus:
37
See also the lists of body parts (7.3.1.1).
38
See 5.1.1., or also 9.1.1. and 1.9.2.
39
See Poccetti (2002, 32).
40
In comparison to the non-specific curses found in Italia (see 7.3.1.1.), the curses
against gladiators contain briefer lists of victims’ body parts. The author of tablet
No. 130 attacks victim’s legs and limbs, as well as his ability to react promptly;
however, he does not enumerate the particular limbs. Tablet No. 132 accurses
probably the most significant and vulnerable organs; the following tablets No. 135
and No. 134 aim at the opponents’ strength, spirit, mind, as well as heart and liver
(see below), which are included in Greek cursing formulae.
41
For the whole text, see Appendix I; Kropp (2008); DT 151; Tremel (2004, No. 97).
42
A sequence of obscure magical words written in Latin letters follows (see Appendix
I).
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
338
Metrete, Syndicio, Celsano, Atsurio, Felici, Cardario, Vincentio, ne viribus
suis placere possint. (“I adjure you, spirits of this place and… holy names
[the names of daemons and more magical words follow], I forswear you
three times, spirits of this place [magical words], bestow death upon these
hunter gladiators [the names of the victims], may they be unable to take [the
audience’s]43
fancy with their strengths…”)
There is no doubt that the curse was written by a professional, as it includes
more magical words than cursing formulae; it is, therefore, interpretable only
with difficulties.
The following curse tablets against gladiators (No. 134 and No. 135) were
found in the Carthage amphitheatre and are dated to the 2nd
century CE. Both
probably come from the same magical workshop, as their texts are sporadically
identical, and the graphic layout is very similar, too. Tablet No. 134 represents
undoubtedly the peak of the magical treatment of the curse text, especially with
regards to its graphic conduct, i.e. the use of the magic of script. Besides, it
reflects the producer’s high erudition – the whole text is written in the Greek
alphabet and framed by magical letters called grammata (see 1.7.2.). The
magical words, probably referring to the names of daemons,44
appear in four
columns. The curse itself, or at least most of it, is written in Greek, shorter
passages also in Latin, but in the Greek alphabet. The Greek sequences contain
complicated formulae including the accumulation of synonyms, like in the
above mentioned texts, but the Latin texts is simpler.45
The author first
forswears the daemons using many magical words, then he addresses Rabkab,
the daemon of drought and braking to halt Sapautulus, the son of Ponponia. The
daemon is supposed to bind up the victim and break his strength, heart, liver,
soul, and reason. No. 134 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/27: [lines 1–10: VM and
the Greek text],46
reads:
… line 6: … Ραβκαβ καὶ σὺ θεοξηρ ἄν(α)ξ κατάσχων τὸν καρπὸν τῶν
ἀποδομῶν καὶ τὸ ὁμοιῶν κατάσχες τοῦ Σαπαυτούλου ὃν ἔτεκεν Πονπονία
δῆσον αὐτὸν καὶ…τὴν δύναμιν τὴν καρδίαν τὸ ἧπαρ τὸν νοῦν τὰς φρένας
43
For the interpretation, see Tremel (2004, No. 97).
44
See the facsimile DT 252; Tremel (2004, No. 98).
45
For the complete text of the curse, see Appendix I; DT 252, Kropp (2008). For the
translation of the whole text, see Tremel (2004, No. 98); I deal predominantly with
the Latin passages here.
46
I state the text including the Greek cursing formulae following Kropp’s reading
(2008); for the magical words, see Appendix I. The texts are stated in their original
reading, i.e. are including authors’ mistakes.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
339
ἐξορκίζω ὑμᾶς αλκ…αμηνηγεισειχεεε βασίλιον ὑμῶν ἵνα βλέπῃ?47
... [lines
11–12 in Latin:]48
implicate lacinia(m) Sapautulo in cavea corona
amphitheatri... [VM follow in lines 13–24; Greek text in lines 25–35:]
ἐπικαλοῦμαί σε ὁ μέγας καὶ ἰσχυρὸς κα(ὶ δ)υ(να)τὸς κρατῶν καὶ δεσμεύων καὶ
κατόχων δεσμοῖς ἀλύτοις αἰωνίοις ἰσχυροῖς ἀδαμαντίνοις καὶ παῦσον ψυχὴν
κράτησον καί…κατάδησον ὑπόταξον προσκλίσον τὸν Σ(α)παυ(τού)λ(ον)
κατάδησον αὐτὸν σμαύρησον… ἐξέλθε τόνδε τὸν τόπον μηδὲ τὴν πύλη(ν)
ἐξέλθη μέτε τὴν τυμηθη ἀπελθεῖν τὸν τόπον ἀλλὰ μένη κατάδησον σοίς
δεσμοῖς ἱσχυροῖς αἰωνίοις ἀδαμαντίνοις τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ Σαπαυτούλου ὃν ἔτεκε
Πονπονία [the Latin text follows in lines 36–44:] … patiatur, lacinia illi
implicetur, obligetur, ursellu(m) non respiciat, non liget neminem, pugni illi
solvantur, non sit potestatis qua (non) vulneretur, sanguinetur Sapautulus
currere non possit, obligentur illi pedes, nervi, il(i)a contra γῆς,
cont(r)a(h)ente(m?) σοῦ facite Sapautulu(m?)49
… Ianuarias in omni
momento, ἤδη ταχύ. [the curse is concluded with VM written in Greek
alphabet: lines 45–46].
The translation of the Latin and Greek cursing formulae:
([Greek text in lines 6–11:] “… Rabkab, the god of drought, [just like you]
detain the crops [so that they cannot ripen], detain also Sapautulus, whom
Ponponia bore, in the same way, tie him up and [break?] his strength, his
heart, liver, spirit, mind. I forswear you… your majesty that he may (not)
see… [lines 11–12 continue in Latin:] “Entangle the nets/straps?50
of
Sapautulus in the arena during the games in the amphitheatre… [VM in lines
13–24; Greek formula in lines 25–35:] I summon you, great and forceful,
mighty lord, binding and detaining with unbreakable, eternal, mighty, strong,
insurmountable bonds, suppress soul, seize it, tie up, enslave, knock down
Sapautulus, bind him up, debilitate [him]… so that he cannot leave this place
nor this gate… but may he stay chained by strong, mighty, insurmountable
bonds, and the soul of Sapautulus, whom Ponponia bore,… [the Latin text
47
The end of the Greek sequence is disrupted; the Latin text written in Greek alphabet
directly follows Greek passages (see Appendix I).
48
The Latin passages written in Greek alphabet are transcribed in Latin letters here.
49
The concluding sequence cont(r)a(h)ente(m?) σοῦ facite Sapautulu(m?) is obscure.
Tremel (2004, No. 98) interprets it as “mit dir als Gegner, macht des Sapautulus…”.
50
DT 252 presumes that the text concerns the venator gladiator who used nets when
fighting in the arena. Tremel (2004, No. 98) considers lacinia to be a piece of cloth
and translates as follows: “ein Stoffetzen soll um ihn gewickelt werden…”. Lacinia
means “a hem/edge of a garment”, or anything which hangs from clothes. I regard
the interpretation of DT more plausible.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
340
follows in lines 36–44:] … may he suffer, may his ropes/cloth/straps?
become entangled, may be chained, may he not spot the bear, may he not tie
anyone up, may his fists become weak,51
may there be no possibility of him
staying unharmed. May Sapautulus bleed, may he be unable to run, may his
feet, muscles/nerves be tied up, and may [he lie on the ground] prone?, make
Sapautulus… in January, immediately, right now, quickly.”)
An almost identical graphic layout, magical words, and Greek cursing formulae
are found in tablet No. 135. Unfortunately, the text is severely damaged and
also contains several mistakes. The curse is written both in Greek (in the Greek
alphabet) and in Latin (in Latin letters); I state the amended Latin passages of
the text.52
No. 135 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/28: [VM in lines 1–9; the Latin
text follows in lines 10–14:],53
reads:
Vincentζus (= Vincentius) Tζaritζo (=Zarizo) in ampitζatru (= amphiteatro)
Carthaginis in ζie (= die) Mercurii in duobus quinque in tribus novem…
(obligate, implicate laciniam)54
Vincentζo Tζaritζoni, quem peperit
Concordia, ut ursos ligare non possit in omni ora, in omni momento in ζie
Mercuri. [the Greek text follows in lines 15–16:] καὶ τὴν ἰσχὺν τὴν δύναμιν
τὴν καρδίαν τὸ ἧπαρ τὸν νοῦν τὰς φρένας ἐξορκίζω ὑμᾶς αννηναμηγισεχει τὸ
βασίλιον ὑμῶν (the Latin text directly follows in lines 16–21): in Vincentζo
Tζaritζoni quem peperit Con(cor)dia in ampitζatru Carthaginis in ζie
Mercuri obligate, implicate lacinia Vincentζo Tζaritζoni, ut ursos ligare non
possit, omnem ursum perdat, omnem ursum Vincentζus non occidere possit
in ζie Mercuri in omni ora iam iam, cito cito facite; [in lines 21–35 there are
VM inscribed in three columns; further, in lines 35–38 there is a Greek
formula, which is identical to the lines 25–35 of tablet No. 134; the same
Latin text follows; however, it is very disrupted; see Appendix I].
51
The phrase pugni illi solvantur is ambiguous – it may mean either that Sapautulus is
supposed to lose his strength to punch, or that the straps around his fists are
supposed to loosen.
52
I state only the graphic peculiarities connected to assibilation (see DT 253; Tremel,
2004, No. 99; Kropp, 2008). For the complete Latin text, see Appendix I. I state the
reading of Kropp (2008).
53
Magical words and the first Greek cursing formula are identical to those used in the
previous tablet No. 134 (lines 1 –5: magical words; lines 6–9: Greek formula).
54
This is the addition of Kropp (2008) who amends according to the following
sequence; the author probably left out the verbs by mistake. The Latin formula may
also draw on κατάσχες (“detain”), the first Greek predicate preceding the Greek
formula.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
341
The translation of the Greek and Latin cursing formulae:
([the Latin text of lines 10–14 follows the Greek text identical to the lines 6–
9 of the table No. 134: “… Rabkab, the god of drought, [just like you] detain
the crops [so that they cannot ripen], detain also...] Vincentius Zarizo in the
Carthaginian amphitheatre on the day of Mercury55
in [the fight of] two
[gladiators] against five [beasts] and three against nine, [bind up and
entangle the nets/straps] of Vincentius Zarizo, whom Concordia bore, so that
he is unable to tie up bears at any hour, at any moment on the day of
Mercury. [the Greek text follows in lines 15–16:] and [bind] his sturdiness,
strength, heart, liver, spirit, reason; I forswear you, [VM] your majesty, [the
Latin text follows right after in lines 16–21:] against Vincentius Zarizo,
whom Concordia bore, in the Carthaginian amphitheatre on the day of
Mercury, tie up and entangle the nets/straps of Vincentius Zarizo, so that he
is unable to tie up bears, may he lose with every bear, may Vincentius be
unable to kill any bear on Wednesday at any hour, now, now, quickly,
quickly, make it happen... [three columns of magical words follow in lines
22–34; after that a Greek formula in lines 35–39:] ...I summon you, great and
forceful, mighty lord, binding and detaining with unbreakable, eternal,
mighty, strong, insurmountable bonds, suppress soul, seize it, tie up, enslave,
knock down Vincentius Zarizo...”)
There are slight changes in some parts of the disrupted Latin text (see Appendix
I). Vincentius was probably supposed to die, as we read exterminate in line 43;
however, the preceding as well as following passages are unintelligible. Line 52
contains a formula not used in the previous Latin sequences but similar to the
one used in the previous tablet, No. 132: ...vincatur, vulneretur, dep(annetur...
non curre?)re possit (“may he be defeated, hurt, flogged/torn to pieces?, may he
be unable to run?”). The end of the text is full of lacunae; nevertheless, another
interesting formula has been preserved in line 64: ...vincatur, deficiat... (in
omni) hora, per spiritales tra(ctus?) (“may he be defeated, may he lose... at any
hour, may he be unable to breath?”).56
As already mentioned above, this
combined curse probably comes from the same source as the previous tablet; its
Latin text is simpler than the Greek formulae and mostly identical to No. 134,
and only slight changes appear (based on what the disrupted text suggests). The
author uses the Greek formulae to afflict victim’s body parts and tries to bind up
his rival with an eternal, strong, and irreversible curse.
55
I.e. on Wednesday.
56
For the interpretation of this part, see DT 253; or “may the daemons drag him?”.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
342
11.1.3.2 Curses against Charioteers and Race-Horses
The curse tablets against charioteers and race-horses, or against race-horses
exclusively, have mostly been found in Hadrumetum, few of them come from
Carthage. They were predominantly custom-made by professional magicians, as
whole series of very similar texts have been preserved invoking the same
daemons, using the same signa magica, and showing the same depictions of
daemons. They differ only slightly in the graphic layout and the names of
charioteers and race-horses; however, it is not uncommon that they even aim at
the same people and horses. We are able to distinguish four basic types of serial
curses used by local ritual practitioners.
The longest and most extensive series contains tablets No. 152–161 and No.
177 which were found in the Roman necropolis of Hadrumetum and are dated
to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE. DT, and also Tremel (2004, No. 25–34 and No. 49)
date the tablets to the 2nd
century CE. Tablet No. 152 is the most famous of
these – it has been preserved in almost perfect condition and its graphic layout
is of a high, nearly artistic, standard. The names of cursed charioteers (seven)
and horses (42) are interpolated by magical signs, whereas the cursing formula
itself runs around the perimeter and frames the whole text:
Privatianu, Superstianu russei qui et Naucelliu, Salutare,
Superstite russei servus Reguli, Aelius Castore, Repentinu.
SM/VM
Glaucu, Argutu veneti, Dextroiugu Glauci cadant; Lydu
Alumnu cadant; Italu, Tyriu cadant; Faru cadant; Croceu cadant;
Elegantu cadant; Pancratiu, Oclopecta, Verbosu cadant;
Adamatu cadant; Securu, Mantinaeu, Praevalente cadant;
Paratu, Vagarfita cadant; Divite, Garrulus cadant; Cesareu,
Germanicu veneti cadant; Danuviu cadnat;
SM/VM
Latrone, Vagulu cadant, Agricola cadant; Cursore
Auricomu cadant; Epafu cadant; Hellenicu cadant;
Ideu, Centauru cadant; Bracatu, Virgineu cadant;
Ganimede cadant; Multivolu cadant; E(o)lu,
Oceanu, Eminentu cada(nt); (V)agu cadant;
Eucle cadant; Verbosu cadant.
SM/VM
Privatianu cadat, vertat, frangat, male giret.
SM/VM
Naucelliu Supe(r)stianu russei cadat, vert(at fran)gat
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
343
SM/VM
Supe(r)stite russei servus Reguli cadat, vertat, fran(gat);
Salutare cadat, vertat, frangat;
Eliu cadat, vertat, frangat, vertat;
Castore cadat, vertat, frangat, vertat;
Repentinu cadat, vertat, frangat.
SM/VM
The following text inscribed around the perimeter frames the names of cursed
charioteers and horses:
Obligate et gravate equos veneti et russei, ne currere possint nec frenis
audire possint nec se movere possint, sed cadant, frangant, dis(f)rangantur
et agitantes veneti et russei vertant nec lora teneant nec agitare possint nec
retinere equos possint nec ante se nec adversarios suos videant nec vincant,
vertant.
The text starts with the names of seven charioteers of the red team (russei).
Privatianus, Naucellius, Superstianus, Superstes, Elius, Castor, and Repentinus.
The following aims at the 42 horses of red and blue (veneti) teams; some names
are repeated. After each one or two names of the horses, there is the verb
cadat/cadant (“may he/they fall”); as for the names of charioteers, the sequence
cadat, vertat, frangat (“may [the chariot/charioteer?] fall, turn over, break”) is
used. Signa magica and voces magicae are interpolated after each paragraph of
the names. The framing text of the curse itself explicitly attacks the charioteers
and the horses of red and blue teams:
(“Bind up and oppress the horses of the blue and red [teams], so that they
cannot run nor obey the reins, nor be able to move, but may they fall, break,
[may their chariots] be smashed apart, may the charioteers of the blue and
red [teams] fall over, may they not be able to hold the reins, nor drive, nor
restrain [the horses], nor see [what is] in front of them or their adversaries,
nor win, let them crash over.”)
Most agonistic tablets from African provinces which include long lists of the
names of horses and charioteers from the cursed team put the names of the
cursed persons and horses in the nominative, prevailingly omitting final –s.
Therefore, some editors amend all horses’ names in African defixiones to their
nominative forms (Kropp 2008). ). However in the texts of ca. ten tablets57
from
57
See (DT, No. 275–284); Kropp (dfx.11.2.1/12– dfx.11.2.1/22.), the numbers 152-161
in this work.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
344
Hadrumetum the names of horses stand in the accusative as third-declension
names clearly show, e. g.: Salutare, Superstite, Castore, and others. The horses’
names are governed by the verb cadat/vertat/frangat. This phenomenon has
been studied by several experts.58
Adams (2013, 250) interprets the names in the
accusative as probably based on the intransitive use of frangat (=frangat se),
vertat and cadat and states: “...expressing an event in which the subject is
inactive – and where an implicit or explicit higher agency or divine power is
envisaged as inflicting punishment.” (Adams 2013: 250).
The other tablets from this series (No. 153–161 and No. 177) are less elaborate
and contain different signa magica; however, the graphic layout of the curse is
similar and, apart from some minor changes, the names of charioteers and
horses are the same too. The framing cursing formula is a shorter variation of
the one used in tablet No. 152. Compare No. 157 (2.3.5.) or No. 160 from
Hadrumetum aimed at eight charioteers and 50 horses. The latter text accurses
the same charioteers as the above mentioned tablet: Privatianu cadat, vertat...,
as well as the same horses: Hellenicu cadat, Danuviu cadat... The magical signs
are inscribed after each paragraph and the framing curse text is as follows in
No. 160 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/20:
Alligate et obligate equos veneti et r(us)s(ei), ne c(ur)rere p(ossint nec frenis
audir)e possint (nec se) mo(v)ere possint, cadant, frangant, disiungantur,
male girent et agitantes veneti et russei vertant nec lo(ra) teneant nec ante se
vider(e possint) n(ec) adversario(s suos sed v)ertant, frang(a)nt, palma(m)
vincere non possint. (“Fasten and bind the horses of the blue and red [teams],
so that they cannot run nor obey the reins, nor be able to move, but may they
fall, break, [may their horses] unyoke themselves, turn wrongly, may the
charioteers of the blue and red [teams] fall over, may they not be able to hold
the reins, nor see [what is] in front of them or their adversaries, but may they
fall over, break, may they be unable to win the palm-branch.”).
The curse stereotypically addresses the daemons with imperative Formula 3a
including relative clause (see 3.1.7.); it also makes use of wish-formula 4
cadat/cadant (see 2.3.5.).
Another series of preserved curses contains tablets No. 162–166 and No. 179.
These are either texts aiming against charioteers as well as race-horses (No.
58
See Herman (1987: 103ff) and Adams (2013: 249 ff.).
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
345
162–163),59
or texts aiming at race-horses exclusively (No. 164 and No. 165);
tablets No. 166 and No. 167 are damaged, but they most likely curse the racehorses
whose names have not been preserved. They all come from the Roman
necropolis near Hadrumetum and are dated to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE (DT), or to
the 3rd
century CE (Tremel, 2004). I reproduce tablet No.162 as an example; the
other texts of this series were obviously almost identical but are disrupted. Side
A of the tablets depicts a long-bearded anthropomorphic daemon standing on a
ship holding an urn? in his right hand and a torch in his left.60
Left of the
daemon, there is a column of ten magical words: Cuigeu, Censeu, Cinbeu,
Perfleu, Diarunco, Deasta, Bescu, Berbescu, Arurara, Baζagra; one magical
word is inscribed on the chest of the daemon: Antmoaraitto.61
The names of
cursed horses are written inside the depicted ship: Noctivagus, Tiberis,
Oceanus, whereas the curse itself is inscribed on side B of tablet No. 162 from
Hadrumetum, dfx. 11.2.1/22:
B: Adiuro te demon, quicunque es, et demando tibi ex (h)anc (h)ora, ex
(h)anc die, ex (h)oc momento, ut equos prasini et albi crucies, occidas et
agitatore(s) Clarum et Felice(m) et Primulum et Romanum occidas, collidas
neque spiritum illis relinquas; adiuro te per eum, qui te resolvit
temporibus,62
deum pela(g)icum, aerium…(VM alphab.): Ιαω Ιασδαω οοριω
αηια. (“I adjure you, daemon, whoever you are, and I command you, from
this hour on, from this day on, from this moment on, to torment and kill the
horses of the green and white [teams], to kill, and to kill Clarus, Felix,
Primulus, and Romanus, the charioteers, strike them, leave them breathless, I
adjure you by the one who freed you by then [from the hardships of life], by
the god of sea and air.” [Greek magical words follow]) (see also 3.3.1.).
Greek magical words follow; the text is aimed at four charioteers and the horses
of white and green teams.
This series, too, contains slight variations of cursing formulations, numbers of
charioteers, horses, as well as damage done to the text. The cursing formula
varies in tablets No. 164 and No. 165 aimed at race-horses – there is a menacing
59
Tablet No. 163 is severely damaged, the names of the charioteers are not preserved.
However, it can be supposed, based on the other tablets from the series, that it was
aimed at charioteers and race-horses.
60
This figure has not yet been identified with any of the usual depictions of known
daemons, e.g. on gems.
61
This magical word and the names of the horses differ in some cases; the Greek
magical words are slightly varied, too (see No. 167, and Appendix I).
62
Based on tablets No. 168–170, we may add qui te resolvit ex vitae temporibus.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
346
formula addressed to the daemon (see 3.3.3.) and a list of body parts supposed
to be afflicted by the curse. See No. 165 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/25,
whose text is structured as in No. 162, i.e. the left column of side A contains the
same names of daemons, in the centre there is a depiction of a daemon with the
word Antmoa(r)aitto inscribed on his chest, and the names of cursed horses are
written inside the depicted ship: Lynceus, Margarira, Profugus, Oceanus. The
severely disrupted text begins under the ship: …(re)ginae (tene)brarum, rogo…
ne summas exsisti s(i)cut mihi… (“...the queens/of the queen? of darkness,... I
ask... do not take, as to me...”), and continues on side B:
sancte… obsecro te venias ad… et (h)os equos… contra(h)as tuis… e(t)…
aufer(as) ab eis nervia, vires, med(ul)las, im(pe)tos (= impetus), victorias.
Noli meas (spern)ere v(oc)es, s(ed mov)ean(t) te haec (nomina?) (su)ppos(i)t(a)…
ter si quis tali… neces finia ultima nomina Cuigeu, Censeu,
Cinbeu, Perfleu, Diarunco, Deasta, Bescu, Berbescu, Arurara, Baζagra, noli
meas spernere voce(s), sed equos prasini et albi… (c)rucia(s/tis?) auferas
illis dulce(m) somnum, fac eos ne currere possint, (h)oc te peto… nervitatem
tempus et necessita(tis?) tu(a)e depremas e(quos), e(q)uos/(q)uos tecum
h(abeas?) suppositos63
...(“...holy... I conjure you to come to... and to
overthrow those horses... and to deprive them of muscles, strength,
entrails/marrow, run-up, victories. Do not despise my words, but may [the
names?] attached urge you three times... if someone... kill them, the noble,
highest names [magical words follow], do not despise my words, but torment
the horses of the green and white [teams], take sweet sleep from them, make
them unable to run, this I request from you... strength, time?, necessity?,
oppress the horses whose [names you have?] inscribed/ in your power
[below?]” (see also 2.3.2.).
Another series of curses against race-horses and charioteers is comprised of
tablets No. 168–170 and makes use of formulae aimed at race-horses.64
All
tablets are more or less identical; tablet No. 168 depicts a sitting daemon with a
whip in his hand, the other two tablets do not contain any depiction of a
daemon. Side A of tablet No. 169 begins with magical words written in Latin
letters followed by the curse itself and is concluded by Greek magical words
together with the names of the daemons mentioned in the beginning which are,
however, inscribed upside-down this time. The curse as well as the Greek
magical words are repeated on side B followed by the name of the cursed race-
63
Kropp (2008) amends the text as follows: Deprimas equos, (q)uos tecum h(abeas)
sup(p)ositos tu(a)e.
64
Tablet No. 168 is severely damaged.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
347
horse, Lynceus. Tablet No. 170 is inscribed only on one side and contains a
curse against four race-horses using the same magical words and cursing
formulae. All three tablets come from the Roman necropolis near Hadrumetum
and are dated to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE. No. 169 from Hadrumetum,
dfx.11.2.1/29, reads:
A: VM in a column: Ocuria anoχ oton barnion formione efecebul; Adiuro te,
d(a)emon, quicunque es, et demando tibi ex (h)anc die, ex (h)anc (h)ora, ex
(h)oc momento, ut crucietur… ad diem illum. Adiuro te per eum, qui te
(r)esolvit ex vit(a)e temporibus, deum pelagicum, aerium, altissimum.
VM in the Greek alphabet: Ιαω οι ου ι α ιαα ιωιωε ο οριυω αηια;
VM inscribed upside-down: Ocuria anoχ oton barnion formione efecebul;
Lynceus frangatur illi Peciolus descum
B: Adiuro te d(a)emon, quicunque es, et demando tibi, ex hanc die, ex hanc
(h)ora, ex (h)oc momento, ut crucietur. Adiuro te per eum, qui te resolvit ex
vit(a)e temporibus, deum pelagicum, aerium, altissimu(m); (VM in the
Greek alphabet as on side A)
Lynceus (the name of the cursed horse).
A: [VM in Latin letters] (“I adjure you, daemon, whoever you are, and
demand from you that from this day, from this hour, from this moment, he
may be tormented… until that day. I adjure you by the one who freed you by
then [from the hardships of life],65
by the god of sea and air. [VM in the
Greek alphabet and VM in Latin letters] Lynceus, may he break down…”)66
The text of side B is almost identical to side A, including the Greek magical
words and the name of cursed horse, Lynceus.
Finally, the last series of curses found in Hadrumetum is aimed at charioteers
and race-horses,67
contains tablets No. 149–151,68
and is characterized by
65
See also Tremel (2004, No. 43).
66
The rest of the text is obscure: illi peciolus descum. Pesciolus probably also refers to
a horse name, as suggested by DT; although side B includes only Lynceus, the name
Peciolus appears in tablet .
67
DT 273 supposes that only horses are accursed in these; however, tablet No. 150
reads nomina hominum et equorum. DT regards this as a mistake, but Tremel (2004,
No. 23) presumes the presence of charioteers. The latter is also confirmed by tablet
No. 151 which reads cadant homines et equi frangant.
68
For tablet No. 149, see 1.10.1.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
348
simple, brief formulae which may remind us of the non-specific curses using
mere nominal lists. The text starts with magical words and signs followed by a
long list of accursed horses and concludes with a brief cursing formula and
more signa magica. Side B contains only one, probably magical, word. No. 150
from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/10, reads:
A: Sarbasmisarab, SM; Delicatianus, Capria, Volucer, Nervicus, Basilius,
Nilus, Scintilla, Hilarinus, Polydromus, Delicatus, Maurusius, Blandus,
Profugus, Pretiosus, Gemmatus, Amor, Pelops, Zephyrus, Alcastrus,
Attonitus, Roseus, Germanicus, Caelestinus, Clarus, Salutaris, Socrates,
Comes/ comes.69
Haec nomina hominum et equorum, quae dedi vobis,
cadant, precor vos. Sarbasmisarab, SM
B: Feiub
A: “[A nominal list of accursed horses and charioteers?] May these men and
horses, which I gave to you, fall, I ask you. [VM; B: VM]”)
The cursing formulae are brief in all three tablets; however, they differ from
each other. Tablet No. 149 reads: …cadant, frangant, disiungantur, male girent,
palmam vincere non possint (“…may they fall, break, [may their horses]
unyoke themselves, turn wrongly, may they be unable to win the palmbranch”);
No. 151, dfx.11.2.1/11, cursing the same names as in No. 150
(altogether 26) reads: Precor vos, sancta nomina, cadant homines et equi
frangant. (“I beg you, holy names, may men fall and horses break down.”) (see
2.3.1.).
Tablet No. 171 from Hadrumetum, dfx. 11.2.1/31, is the only one which does
not fit in any of the aforementioned series. It begins with VM inscribed in the
Greek alphabet (lines 1–8), whereas the curse itself is written in Latin letters,
although some Greek words and letters appear, too. It reads:
…tibi commendo, quoniam maλedixit parturientem, currant cuillic et
daemones infernales, obλigate illis equis pedes, ne currere possint, illis
equis, quorum nomina hic scripta et demandata habetis: Inclitum, Nitidum,
Patricium, Nautam σιουν αα ταχαρχην.70
Οbligate illos, ne currere possint
69
It is not clear whether this is a horse name (see Kropp, 2008), or a general term for a
person who has something to do with horses (see DT 272, and Tremel, 2004, No.
22).
70
DT considers the sequence σιουν αα ταχαρχην to be magical words; however,
considering the fact that ταχαρχην can also be interpreted as “starting out quickly”, it
may refer to a horse name, too, as Gager (1992, No. 11) sees it.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
349
crastinis et perendinis cir(cens)ibus Patricium, Nitidum, Nautam, Inclitum
ταχαρχην. Tu autem, Domina Campana χambtηras71
Nitidum, Patricium,
Nautam, Inclitum ταχαρχην, ne currere possint cras et perendie et omnibus
horis in circo ruant, quomodo et tu iucunde(?) emeritus es, βίοs θάνατος,
iam iam, cito cito, quoniam deducunt illos συφωνιακι δαίμονες.
(“I commend to you, because he damned/impaired [my] intentions/plans?,72
that they may run to him? and [you,] infernal daemons, bind up the hooves
of those horses, may they be unable to run, of those horses whose names you
have inscribed and commended here: Inclitus, Nitidus, Patricius, Nauta,
[VM/ʻStarting out quicklyʼ] Bind them up so that they cannot run in the
tomorrow’s and the day-after-tomorrow’s races: Inclitus, Nitidus, Patricius,
Nauta, [VM/ʻStarting out quicklyʼ]. But you, Lady of Campania/[of the
Acherusian plains],73
knock down Inclitus, Nitidus, Patricius, Nauta,
[VM/ʻStarting out quicklyʼ], so that they cannot run in the circenses held
tomorrow nor the day after tomorrow, and may they fall down at each hour
in the circus, just like you spent your day pleasantly and died prematurely,74
now, now, quickly, quickly, because the daemons of Typhon75
lead them
away.”)
The number of curses against charioteers and race-horses found in Carthage is
much lower than similar curses coming from Hadrumetum. These are either the
71
The term χambtηras is perhaps a wrongly derived form of the verb κάμπτω (“to
bend, knock down”, or “to steer/lead the horse or chariot around the base”). In this
context, Domina Campana is perhaps supposed to lead the horse and fulfil the curse
by knocking down or riding the horse wrongly (?). Tremel (2004, No. 45) translates
as follows: “…du Domina Campana beugst Nitidus…”.
72
The text reads maledixit parturientem; DT 295, as well as Tremel (2004, No. 45),
assume that the victim of the curse has accursed a female giving birth, e.g. a wife of
the author, or a mare. Gager (1992, No. 1) comprehends this sequence as me
parturientem with the verb parturio in a metaphoric sense, i.e. “to intend, plan sth”,
and translates as “he slandered (my) intention”. I regard the latter as more plausible.
73
DT supposes that Domina Campana refers to Hecate. Gager (1992, No. 11)
interprets this sequence as the names of horses: Patricius, Nitidus, Nauta, Inclitus,
Quick-Starter, Domina Campana, Lambteras, Nitidus, Patricius, Nauta, Inclitus,
Quick-Starter. I prefer the interpretation of DT 295 and Kropp (2008); see also No.
132, 11.1.3.1.
74
This is probably a reference to the prematurely deceased person buried in the grave
where the tablet was put; for the Greek βίοs θάνατος, see Gager (1992, No. 11, note
70).
75
Typhon is the daemon identified with the Egyptian god Seth, the patron of spells and
charms (see Gager, 1992, note 71).
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
350
curses aimed both at charioteers and race-horses (tablets No. 126, No. 128, No.
129, and No. 140), or the curses aimed exclusively against horses (No. 127).
Tablet No. 126 contains a nominal list of cursed horses but, unfortunately, the
names of charioteers were not preserved (see Appendix I). Tablets No. 127–
129, like the above mentioned curses from Hadrumetum, were made by
professionals. The cursing formulae are written in Latin; however, Greek
magical words, names of daemons, as well as signa magica, occur, too. Tablet
No. 127 depicts the starting turning points, while No. 129 a figure of a
man/daemon. The text of the curse is framed by magical words. Tablet No. 128
is remarkable for its graphic layout: the magical words, signs, and patterns are
organized as carmina figurata with the magical words repeating themselves in
lines (see DT 243). Unfortunately, the curse text of tablets No. 128 and No. 129
is severely disrupted.
We might compare the damaged No. 126 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/18, which
preserved only a nominal list of horses: … Gloriosus, Rogatus, Borustenes,
Ianuarius, Vitalis, Romanus, Romanus, Adauctus, Primitivus, Ephorianus,
Urbanus… The tablet does not include any cursing formula, but there is a
depiction of a cock head. Nevertheless, it is likely that cursing formulae were
originally present in the tablet, too.
Tablet No. 127 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/9, contains a brief cursing formula:
Frenalius, Venator, Exsuperus, Augur, Volens, Sidereus, Attonitus,
Hieronica, Chrysiphus. Sidereus, Igneus, Turinus, Martius, Rapidus,
Arminius, Impulsator, Castalius, Gelos, Pyropus, Eugenius, Animator,
Blandus, Sidonius, Ominipotius, Aquila, Licinus, Amazonius, Imber [VM].
Excito te daemon, qui hic conversas, trado tibi hos equos, ut detineas illos et
inplicentur nec se movere possint. [VM]. (“[A nominal list of horses] I call
upon you, daemon, who reside here, I deliver these horses to you so that you
detain them, and may they entangle [in their gears]76
and be unable to
move.”).
The curse is supposed to afflict 28 race-horses and its graphic layout resembles
the evidence found in Hadrumetum – the horses’ names are stated in two
columns between which there is a depiction of a circus, Greek magical words
are inscribed in a column in the middle of the tablet and these are followed by a
Latin cursing formula. The whole text is framed by magical sequences of Greek
76
Tremel’s interpretation (2004, No. 52); Semeseilam is a vox magica of uncertain
origin and meaning, occuring also in PGM, see Gager (1992, 269).
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
351
letters which can be compared to tablet No. 160 (see 11.1.3.2). Most of the
agonistic tablets found in Hadrumetum have a very similar structure, except that
these are framed by cursing formulae around the perimeter.
Tablet No. 140 found right in the Carthage amphitheatre and dated to the 3rd
century CE represents another type of agonistic curse. Although the text is
largely disrupted, it can be divided into three parts:77
part A depicts a figure
with crossed hands tied up, followed by a cursing formula, and the names of the
accursed ones; part B contains a vocalic triangle; and part C repeats the cursing
formula and the above mentioned names. No. 140 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/37,
reads:
A: Σεμεσειλαμ, quomodo stomachos habes ligatos, sic et Concordi… liget
bracchia, cor, sensum… cum Carchedoni cum Concordio ac cum Acenauce
cum Alumnino et Pyro, Popyrio… Lascivio… Bates et Lucifero, Concordio,
Sereno. Prehend(at)…
B: a vocalic triangle inscribed in the Greek alphabet
C: Q(uomod)o ped(es) habes l(igat)os, sic et iis albis78
ligate pedes Alumno
et Pyro, Poliarce et Lascivio obligate pedes… ut obruant. Pre(hendite),79
(ob)ligatae ped(es) (Ba)tes et Lucife(ro) et (Concordio et Sereno?).
(“Semeseilam, just as you have your entrails tied up,80
may he bind the arms,
heart, sense of Concordius, and may he also seize… of Carchedo with
Concordius and… [the names of other horses follow]; C: Just as your feet
are tied up, may you [in plural] bind the hooves of [the horses of white
team?] Alumnus and Pyrus, bind up the hooves of Poliarcus and Lascivius…
so that they fall over. Seize, bind up the hooves of Bates and Lucifer and…”)
The cursing formula proceeds in a way similar to the texts found in
Hadrumetum (see No. 171 above).
77
See Tremel (2004, No. 68)
78
I agree with Tremel’s (2004, No. 68) interpretation of the sequence eius Salbi as sic
et iis albi(s); see Appendix I.
79
Kropp (2008) reads pre(hendite)analogically to side A; Tremel (2004, No. 68) reads
Prend(at...).
80
The interpretation of Tremel (2004, No. 68): “as you hold the tied up entrails”.
Considering the depiction on the tablet, it seems to be a magical analogy − the
daemon is bound by magical words, i.e. forced to fulfil author’s wish and bind the
victim with spells (see also No. 3 and No. 5, 7.3.1.5.).
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
352
11.1.4 Love Spells
Basically all preserved love spells come from the African provinces. This
corpus includes 15 of these: three tablets found in Carthage dated to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE, eleven tablets from Hadrumetum, and a single text found in
Thysdrus. All have been dated to the 3rd
century CE except for No. 148, which
comes from the 2nd
century CE (see 1.9.2). Apart from No. 148, all of these love
spells were written by men to win the affection of a beloved woman. This is in
line with the instructions of love spells preserved in magical papyri; however,
they are contrary to the references to magical practices in Roman literature (see
also 5.1.4.). No curse tablets concerning rivalry in love have preserved in the
African provinces (see 5.1.3.).
Like the agonistic curses, love spells were also usually produced in specialized
magical workshops. Most of them contain several magical features, whether we
speak of content (complicated cursing formulae invoking mostly daemons,
Greek magical words, and peculiar magical signs), or graphic layout
(“magically” inscribed text, e.g. No. 125 from Carthage whose Latin text is
written in the Greek alphabet, see also tablets No. 145, No. 147, No. 148, and
No. 172 from Hadrumetum). This is comparable to the agonistic curses, such as
tablet No. 134 (11.1.3.1.).
The authors of love spells predominantly address daemons to force the beloved
one return their feelings (only two tablets appeal to Persephone, No. 146 and
No. 173). They are usually formulated in two ways: either the authors use
formulae to describe their wish and to specify how exactly the beloved one is
supposed to love him/her; or, more frequently, they apply formulae afflicting
their beloved one with various restrictions which serve as compulsory measures
to make the victim fulfil their wish; sometimes the two types are combined.
Accordingly, the second type is formulated exactly as a curse or a prayer for
justice (see 5.1.4.).
Tablet No. 121 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/13, can be regarded the first type. Its
formula framed by magical words is brief and clear (see 2.3.5.): Uratur
Successa aduratur amo(re) vel desideri(o) Successi. (“May Successa burn, may
she be set on fire with love and desire for Successus.”).
The severely disrupted tablet No. 125 from Carthage, dfx.11.1.1/17, is
formulated very similarly:
Quorum… magna ut… quomodo… anuntio regis… mortuus ab il(la …
det)ineatur anima… (in h)oc loco, sic et… cuius est… detineatur (in om)ne
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
353
tempus in a(mor)e et desideri(o) Martialis, quem peperit Coronaria… (VM)
...Adiuro vos per hunc pr(a)e(po)situm super necessi(tat)es terr(a)e sic et
te... dominus ex hoc die ex hoc momento… amet Martialem, ut omni muliebri
hora me in mente habeat et tota die (in a)nimo habeat amore(m) meum81
…
iam, iam… (veniat?)… ([the beginning of the text is damaged but it could be
interpreted based on mortuus and what follows:] “Just like the soul of the
deceased one? is bound to this place, may she [the woman’s name was not
preserved] be bound by love and desire [for me] all the time, Martialis,
whom Coronaria bore. I adjure you by this proposal... by the
inevitability?82
... Lord, from this day on, from this moment on, may she love
Martialis, may she all the time think of nobody else but me and feel love for
me throughout the whole day83
… now, now… [may she come to me?]…”)
(see also 5.1.4.).
Tablet No. 143 found in Hadrumetum, or, more exactly, its side A, contains
non-restrictive formulae, as well. The author, who perhaps forgot to include his
name, wishes that Victoria falls madly in love with him: faciatis Victoriam...
amantem, furentem prae amore meo... Side B of the same tablet reads a curse
aimed at a rival charioteer concluded with an erotic wish: ...daemon, te oro, ut
illam cogas amoris et desiderii mei causa venire ad me. (“...daemon, I beg you
to force her to come to me out of love and desire for me.”). For the whole text
and translation of the text, see 1.1.2.2.3.
Finally, the same wish is suggested in tablets No. 147 and No. 172 from
Hadrumetum, at least as far as we are able to read from the severely damaged
text. The tablets are Latin but inscribed in the Greek alphabet and their purpose
is to soothe the heart of a certain Tottina, probably the same woman in both.84
81
The text of the tablet is written in Latin, but in the Greek alphabet, and it contains
magical words. However, it is damaged to a large extent. Unfortunately, the name of
the beloved woman has not been preserved, we have only the name of the author
(Martialis). For the Greek transcription of the text, see Appendix I.
82
The word is obscure and probably a part of an unattested formula. Some texts, e.g.
No. 132 (11.1.3.1.), make use of nomina necessitatis (“the holy names of
inevitability”).
83
The expression muliebri hora is attested nowhere else, but perhaps it referred to the
time spent in the women’s part of the house, doing female work, or in the women’s
company, see also the translation in TheDeMa 808: “in (ihrer) ganzen
Weiblichkeit...”.
84
See DT 304.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
354
These tablets begin with disrupted sequences of magical words and names of
invoked daemons.85
The No. 147 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/7 reads:
(Colom)beu… Petalim(beu),86
fac Totti(na)… me amet… (semper?) de me
cogitet Tottina, qu(am) peperit… liquet (/linquat?) animo tuo… amo(r)e(m)
me(c)um fecit… et tu dom(ina/ine?)… (a)more… (“Colombeu...
Petalimbeu... make Tottina love me... constantly? may she think of me,
Tottina, whom... bore... [unintelligible passage], may she make love to me?87
and you, Lord,... with love?”)
The frequent lacunae make the text interpretable only with difficulties. The
sequence liquet animo tuo can be understood as “you are clear about”.
However, the addressee of these words is not clear − if it is a daemon, it would
imply that the author wants to emphasize that Tottina already made love to him
(amorem mecum fecit) and that is why he wants her; or, if it is the victim, it
would perhaps be a mistaken faciat. Nevertheless, the authors only rarely
directly address their victims (see No. 103 and No. 67 above). DT 269 amends
to li(n)quat based on the obliviscatur patris et matris formulae usually present
in love spells (see e.g. No.173–175 below), i.e. the victim is supposed to leave
her family and friends because of the author. However, the exact term in this
sense is not attested anywhere else. No. 172 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/33
(the Latin text is written in the Greek alphabet, see Appendix I), reads:
(Cogite?) Tottinam me a(mare)…sine men(dacio?)…, ut (ame)t me solum (ut
a)met me (solum) Tottina, qu(am peperit…)…videret… non possit
quamdiu… (omnibus die)bus vixerit, (usque ad diem mortis suae?).88
(“[Force] Tottina to love me... honestly/faithfully?...may she love me only,
may she love me only, Tottina, [whom... bore?]... so that she sees...may she
be unable to... until... all days of her life [until the day she dies?]”)
The damaged sequence containing non possit suggests that there originally was
a restrictive formula in the text. Unfortunately, today it is impossible to know
whether the two tablets supposed to affect Tottina’s feelings have been ordered
by the same man, as the author’s name did not survive in either of the tablets.
Thus, we cannot decide whether Tottina (if we speak of the same woman in
85
For the Greek text, see Appendix I.
86
For the emendation, see DT 269; tablet No. 143 above reads Columbeu.
87
Fecit = faciat?; a similar formulation appears in No. 124: coge illa(m)... m(ec)un
coitus facere (see 1.1.2.2.3.).
88
The emendation in DT 304 based on DT 267; see No. 145, 5.1.1. and 11.1.4.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
355
both tablets) had more lovelorn suitors, or only one admirer who ordered the
second tablet after the first one did not work as he wished.
The quite disrupted tablet No. 142 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/2, is probably
a love spell, too. The text interpolated with magical signs starts with Greek
magical words and contains also a depiction of matted ropes pierced by sword.89
The text of the spell itself is brief and its end is damaged: Victoria, quam
peperit sua vulva, puella(rum deliciae?) (“Victoria, daughter of NN, [the most
beautiful of girls?]”) (see 3.1.1.).
The Carthaginian evidence only rarely displays restrictive formulae. See No.
124 (1.1.2.2.3.), which invokes daemons using special epithets concerning their
particular competences and abilities. However, only one restrictive formula is
used in this text: Καταξιν qui es Aegupto magnus daemon… et aufer illae
somnum usquedum veniat ad me… et animo meo satisfaciat. (“Kataxin, the
great daemon of Egypt… and take sleep away from her unless she comes to
me… and satisfies me.”) (see also No. 132, 11.1.3.1.).
The restrictive formulae occur regularly in the texts found in Hadrumetum.
Several of these include almost identical formulae which implies that they came
from serial production. All types of usual restrictions used in love spells are
well illustrated in tablet No. 144 (see 5.1.4).
Tablet No. 145 was written or ordered by a certain Oppius to make Bonosa love
him “unceasingly with sacred love”. The Latin spell written in the Greek
alphabet makes use of several magical words, names of daemons,90
as well as
restrictions. No. 145 from Hadrumetum, dfx. 11.2.1/5, reads:
…cogite Bonosam quam peperit Papte amare me Oppium, quem peperit
Veneria, amore sacro sine intermissione; non possit dormire Bonosa neque
esse… Bonosa neque aliud... sed abrumpatur et me solum?91
... videret
omnibus diebus... usque ad diem mortis suae. (“...force Bonosa, whom Papte
bore, to love me, Oppius, whom Veneria bore, unceasingly with sacred love,
may she be unable to sleep nor eat... Bonosa, nor [anything else?]... may she
89
See DT 264.
90
For the text written in the Greek alphabet, see Appendix I.
91
The text reads soad, Kropp (2008) amends to solum.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
356
be torn from [her family?]92
and me only... may she see every day... until she
dies.”)
In other words, the spell is supposed to force Bonosa love Oppius by making
her unable to either sleep or eat. Despite the considerable corruption of the text,
it can be guessed, thanks to the frequent repeating of the formulae, that Oppius
probably wanted Bonosa to leave all those close to her who could somehow
impede their relationship, as well as to love him only faithfully until her death
(see 1.6., 1.7., and 5.1.1.).
The author of tablet No. 146 aims his spell, using various restriction, at Bonosa,
too; however, this tablet probably concerns another woman than the previous
tablet No. 145.93
Only fragments of this text survived, and I state here only the
less disrupted passages94
of No. 146 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/6, which
reads:
...Persefina, obligate illam in sensu et sapientia et inte(llectu)… per me…
recipiatisque nos per Bonosam, quam (pe)peri(t) Bonosa, demando et
voluntatem ut… me… (ut obliviscatur) patris et matris… ex hac die ex ha(c
ora)… per deum meum vivum… caelum et mare… ac ligo caelum terra(m)
deu(m)… qui sit sub (VM) per… Bonosa, quam vobis ego… commendo,…
recipiatis… vobis… (“...Persephone, bind her senses, reason, and intellect...
for me... betroth/give back? to us Bonosa, whom Bonosa bore?, Bonosa, I
commend... and will so that... me... [so that she forgets] about her father and
92
Perhaps the same meaning as in obliviscatur patris et matris; see No. 144, or No.
124: Ρικουριθ agilissime daemon in Aegupto et agita… a suis parentibus a suo
cubili. The lacuna after agita is not the result of text’s damage in this case, but the
space was left out on purpose so that the author could add the name of his beloved.
However, the author of our spell probably forgot to do so (see 1.1.2.2.3.).
93
Tablet No. 145 refers to Bonosa, the daughter of Papte (quam peperit Papte); tablet
No. 146, though severely damaged, suggests that it concerns another Bonosa who
was the daughter of Bonosa − recipiatisque nos per Bonosam, quam (pe)peri(t)
Bonosa (if the emendation is correct).
94
For the complete preserved reading of the text, see DT 268 and Kropp (2008);
Appendix I. I state the reading and emendations of Kropp (2008). Kropp (2004, 71
ff.) also tried to read the fragments in a new way by changing their order − she put
the DT 268 fragments III and IV forward so that they preceded fragments I and II.
She desisted from this reading in her corpus, however I regard her reconstruction of
the beginning of the tablet plausible. If we accepted this change, the tablet would
begina s follows: ...sebmen per me tialu (= per me Tial(um))? Persefina oblegate
illa(m) in sensu et sapientia et inte(llectu)... voluntatem ut...
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
357
mother... from this day on, from this hour? on... by my living god... heaven
and earth... I bind heaven, earth, god... who is under? [VM] by... Bonosa,
whom I commend... to you... receive?... to you...”)
Although the text clearly indicates that this is a love spell, it contains unusual
formulae and is hard to understand. Persephone’s name obviously had to be
preceded by the names of daemons which did not survive, as suggested by the
plural verbal form obligate. The list of mental faculties introduced by the
preposition in is unusual (in sensu...),95
as well as the verb recipere used in love
context which otherwise appears in curses in the meaning “to accept, receive”,
especially in the Underworld − see No. 52 (8.1.1.): ...vos rogo, utei recipiatis
nomen Luxsia A(uli) Antesti filia... (“I ask you to accept [my request/charge
against] Luxia, the daughter of Aulus Antestus.”); or No. 87 (10.1.1.): ...megaro
tuo recipias... (“...receive him in the megaron...”). Thus, although it would
agree with the love context, it remains unclear whether the author really meant
the phrase recipiatis nos per... in the sense “may you betroth/give back to us”.
Another verb used in the text, demando, is also typical rather of curses − it
usually appears in the sense “I hand over/commend...”, as in e.g. No. 1 (1.9.1.):
...hunc ego apud vostrum numen demando, devoveo, desacrifico... (“...him I
commend, devote, and sacrifice to your power...”). Besides, it occurs in the
agonistic curses from the African provinces in the meaning “I command/order”
− see o: Adiuro te demon, quicunque es, et demando tibi ex (h)anc (h)ora, ex
(h)anc die, ex (h)oc momento, ut equos prasini et albi crucies... (“I adjure you,
daemon, whoever you are, and I command you, from this hour on, from this day
on, from this moment on, to torment the horses of the green and white
[teams]...”); or No. 169 (11.1.3.2.). In our love spell, the author meant demando
most likely as “I commend/hand over”.
The best preserved text from Hadrumetum is the love spell No. 148. The tablet
was obviously made by a professional in the field, as it contains complicated
Latin formulae written in the Greek alphabet. It is the only love spell we have
which was ordered by a woman. The spell begins with the address to Osiris and
daemons named Anterotes who avenge those abandoned and deceived by their
loved ones,96
followed by a long list of restrictions intended to force Sextilius
fall in love with Septimia. No. 148 reads:
95
See also Kropp (2007, 72).
96
The same concepts appear on magical gems with amatory or protective charms (see
1.8.1.).
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
358
… non dormiat Sextilius, Dionysiae filius, uratur furens, non dormiat neque
sedeat neque loquatur, sed in mente habeat me Septimam, Amoenae filiam;
uratur furens amore et desiderio meo, anima et cor uratur Sextili, Dionysiae
filii, amore et desiderio meo Septimes, Amoenae filiae... (“...may Sextilius,
son of Dionysia, not sleep, may he burn [with passion] in frenzy, may he not
sleep, nor sit, nor speak, but may [only] I, Septima, daughter of Amoena, be
on his mind; may he burn with love and longing for me, may the mind and
heart of Sextilius, son of Dionysia, burn with love and longing for me,
Septima, daughter of Amoena...”).
In addition, the spell is concluded with a menacing formula (for the complete
text and its translation, see 1.9.2.
Finally, tablets No. 173–175 represent a serial production using restrictive
formulae, as e.g. No. 144 (see 5.1.4.) and No. 175. Unfortunately their text is
severely damaged; tablet No. 173 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/34, was
published by M. Bessnier (1920, No.13) including minor emendations and it
reads:
...(Perse)phone, oblig(o illius quam peperit illa… inc)olumitatem… (ex h)ac
die, ex hac (ora, ut obliviscatur patris et matris et) omnium suo(rum)…
(amor)is insanie(ns) (sed) amore et desiderio meo uratur… (ha)nc obl(igo).
(“...Persephone, I bind [with spells] her whom... bore, from this day and hour
on, [may she forget about her mother, father, all her relatives and friends...]...
may she be mad with love, [but] may she burn with love and longing for
me... I bind her...”)
Kropp (2004, 73 ff.; 2008) reconstructs the text of No. 173 (based on the more
preserved texts No. 144 and No. 175) as follows:
(…quam peperit Perse)phone oblig/(o(?)… inc)olumitatem (sapientiam
sensus ut amet me… quem peperit… ex (h)ac die ex hac (hora ex hoc
momento ut obliviscatur patris et matris et) omnium suo(rum et amicorum
omnium et omnium virorum… insanie)ns insanien(s vigilans?) uratur?
comburatur?…) amore et d(esiderio meo…ha)nc? obl(igo…).
If the addition Persephone to ...phone is right, the initial emendation97
to quam
peperit Persephone seems problematic, as one would expect rather an address
to the goddess, like tablet No. 146 above beginning with Persefina, obligate.
97
Kropp (2004, 73; 2008) adds a filiation formula before the reconstructed word
(Perse)phone.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
359
Kropp’s emendation makes Persephone the mother of the victim; however, the
use of this name as a female proper name is not attested in Greek98
or Latin.
Besides, generally, it can be said that in antiquity children were not usually
given divine names. I suppose that it is very unlikely that the filiation formula
preceded Persephone; this would work only if another proper name was present.
As for the remaining emendations, these seem justified and agree with the
formulae used in No. 144 below, although it cannot be proven that all these
formulae were really used in our text:99
…ut amoris mei causa non dormiat non cibum non escam accipere possit
(VM, SM). Obligo Vettiae, (quam) peperit Optata, sensum sapientiam et
(intel)lectum et voluntatem, ut amet me Fe(licem) , quem peperit Fructa, ex
hac die ex h(ac ora), ut obliviscatur patris et matris et (propinquor)um
suorum et amicorum omnium (et aliorum) virorum amoris mei autem
(causa?) Fe(licis, quem) peperit Fructa; Vettia qua(m, peperit Optata)
solum me in mente habeat… (dormi)ens vigilans uratur…
Tablet No. 174 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/35, is also damaged but it was
probably very similar to the previous tablet. It reads:
…(sapienti)a(m), sensus… (illam?… quam pepe)rit Rus… ob(ligo eam?… ut
oblivisc)atur patr(i)s et ma(tris et omnium suorum et amicorum omnium
alior)um viror(um)… uratur (amore et desiderio meo ex h)ac di(e, ex hac
ora).100
The tablet probably started in the same way as No. 144 above, i.e. obligo, then a
female name and filiation via mother’s name could follow, after that, the spell
attacks the victim’s mental capacities (sapentiam, sensus) followed by another
filiation formula, a restrictive formula obliviscatur patris..., and the verb uratur
meaning that the victim should burn with love for the author of the tablet.
The last text of the series, No. 175 from Hadrumetum, dfx.11.2.1/36, is longer
but also severely disrupted. I state it in the amended form according to Kropp
(2008):
98
See A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. M. P. Frazer – E. Matthews (eds.). Oxford
Clarendon Press, 2005.
99
For the whole text, see Apendix I; for the translation and commentary, see 5.1.4.
100
I state the text with the additions of Bessnier (1920, No. 14), and the emendations of
Kropp (2004, 74 ff.; 2008); see also Appendix I and 11.1.4.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
360
… (obligo… quam peperit…) sapientiam?… (ut amet me) (… ex hac die ex)
hac hora ex hoc m(omento ut obliviscatur patris et matris et suorum
omn)ium (et amicoru)m omnium et omnium vi(rorum…)… (in)sanien(s
…ins)aniens vigilan(s…ur)atur comburatur ardeat sp(iritus amore et?)
(de)siderio meo. Obli(go) caelum terram aq(uas)… aera immobile(m) sed
dom(…) amoris huius Veram. adiuro te per mag(na…n)omina eius dei qui
sub terra (sedet)… (VM)… (de)tinentem? sempiternum amorem qui… Ego
Optatus commendo deo… (Veram quam) peperit Lucifera et nulli ali(o)
attendat nis(i) mihi soli neminem alium (in mente habeat nisi me) Optatum
quem peperit Ammia P(…)ia… a Saphonia consummatum consu(mmatum
consummatum) col(l)iga in sempiterno tempore.
The order of the information was probably as follows: an address to the deities,
a formula using obligo (i.e. I bind the mind of XY, whom NN bore, so that she
loves me), and a filiation formula of the author (i.e. I, XY, whom NN bore). The
beginning of the text was perhaps preceded by another part of the formula
specifying from when the spell should work:
(“[from this day on]... from this hour on, [from this moment on, may she
forget about her father and mother and about] all her [friends] and about all
[men?]... may she be mad, mad, may she be unable to sleep, may her soul be
consumed, burnt, and be consumed [by love and]... desire for me. I bind
heaven, earth, waters?, air... immovable... of the love of this Vera. I forswear
you by the great names of this god who reside? under the ground [VM]...
[who] keeps alive? eternal love which... I, Optatus, commend to the god
[Vera, whom] Lucifera bore, and may she long for none else but me, [may
she think only of me] Optatus, whom Amia bore... Saphonia. May it be
accomplished, accomplished, accomplished, bind [her/us? in love?]
forever.”)
11.2 ADDRESSED DEITIES AND DAEMONS, VOCES MAGICAE
Most texts from the African provinces are explicitly addressed to deities; only
in 12 texts (ca. 16%) do the authors not appeal to any supernatural power, but it
has to be said that this may be due to a mechanical damage. The addressed
deities in the African curses are very specific, as the African tablets only
scarcely invoke the deities commonly appearing in curses from the European
provinces − Pluto is indirectly addressed only once in No. 122: ...qui infernales
partes tenes (11.1.1.), Proserpine only twice in No. 146 and No. 173 (11.1.4.),
Di Manes and Di inferi appear only in No. 118 (11.1.2.), Hecate is perhaps
addressed by the epithet Domina Campana in No. 171 (11.1.3.2.; see also No.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
361
132, 11.1.3.1.), and, finally, Domina Terra is appealed to in No. 116 (11.1.2.).
Almost 80% of the African tablets are addressed to daemons (mostly to the
spirits of the dead) or include magical words referring to them. This is in sharp
contrast with the tablets found in the European provinces, which make use of
these only very rarely − five tablets from Italy,101
and three from Gallia. The
Carthaginian evidence analyzed in this work contains 12 texts addressed to
daemons. Moreover, they usually invoke more daemons at once with their
names mostly inscribed in the Greek alphabet, just like the magical words. The
exceptions are: tablet No. 133 written exclusively in Latin letters, and No. 132
written both in the Greek alphabet and Latin letters. As for the evidence found
in Hadrumetum, names of daemons appear in 19 tablets, whereas, again, they
usually appeal to more than one daemon at a time. In 11 tablets their names are
written in Greek letters, and in ten texts Latin letters are used, too; in some
cases both scripts are combined (see No. 162 and No. 169, 11.1.3.2., and No.
170, Appendix I). The magical words in the texts from Hadrumetum are
inscribed both in the Greek alphabet (13 times) and in Latin letters (nine times).
The tablets, mostly made by professional magicians as already mentioned
above, invoked these powers using either only the general term daemones, or
directly by their proper names, or by Greek magical words and formulae. The
names of daemons occur in e.g. No. 148: Αβαρ, Βαρβαριε, Ελοεε, Σαβαοθ,
Παχηνουφυ, Πυθιπεμι; No. 124: Καταξιν, Τραβαξιαν, Νοχθιριφ, Βιβιριξι,
Ρικουριθ; and No. 132: Βαχαχυχ, Ιεχρι, Παρπαξιν, Νοκτουκιτ, Βυτυβαχκ. Names
of daemons were sometimes also embellished with epithers specifying their
competences or powers, as e.g. in No. 132: Βαχα(χυχ), qui es in Egypto magnus
daemon… Παρπαξιν, deus omnipotens, adducas ad domus infernas Maurussum…;
or No. 124: Βιβιριξι, qui es fortissimus daemon… Tablets No. 132 and
No. 133 combine the names of daemons with magical words: No. 132 makes
use of the so-called μασκελλει μασκελλω formula, whereas No.133 contains
sequences of magical words inscribed in the Greek alphabet as well as Latin
letters (see 11.1.3.1.). Supernatural powers were also invoked by more general
terms like animae huius loci (No. 133), daemones infernales (No. 171 and No.
144), deus pelagicus aerius (No. 162), nomina necessitatis (No. 164), or just
sancta nomina (No. 133). In addition, the initial three magical words of tablet
No. 143 inscribed in Latin letters may also refer to daemons: Alimbeu,
Columbeu, Petalimbeu, faciatis Victoria(m), quem peperit Suavulva,
amante(m)…
101
This number does not include the texts found in the fountain dedicated to Anna
Perenna in Rome; see Blänsdorf – Piranomonte (2012), and TheDeMa 517.
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
362
Magical words appear in eight tablets from Carthage, mostly in combination
with the names of daemons (seven times), and, with the exception of No. 133,
they are inscribed in the Greek alphabet. Regarding the tablets from
Hadrumetum, magical words appear in 22 of these, 13 times in combination
with the names of dameons. In these, the use of Greek alphabet (13 times)
slightly prevails over Latin letters (nine times). Tablet No. 162 from
Hadrumetum makes use of both scripts in magical words.
The tablets including names of daemons and complicated formulae are, no
doubt, the product of specialized magical workshops, which proves the huge
popularity of magical rituals and practices in the Northern Africa of the 2nd
/3rd
century CE. A long tradition of magical rituals in this region gradually blended
with Egyptian, Hebrew, and Greek magical cultures.
11.3 SIGNA MAGICA, DEPICTION OF DAEMONS, A NON-STANDARD
ORIENTATION AND USE OF SCRIPT
Unlike the tablets from the European provinces, the African texts frequently
include non-alphabetic magical signs. Only five Latin tablets from Italy, three
from Gallia, and a single piece of evidence from Germania contain signa
magica or a depiction of daemon. Furthermore, signa magica are, in some
cases, combined with a depiction of daemon, or vocalic/consonantic patterns.
Two of the Carthaginian tablets contain non-alphabetic signs, five of them
vocalic or consonantic patterns (No. 128, No. 129, No. 134, No. 135, and No.
140), and seven of them depict a daemon. These features mostly appear right in
the text of the curse, at the beginning, or around the perimeter of the tablet. The
tablets from Hadrumetum are similar − 17 of them make use of non-alphabetic
signs, especially the serially produced curses against charioteers and race-horses
(No. 149–160). These either frame the text of the curse (No. 149–151), or
appear after each paragraph of the curse (No. 152–160). Vocalic patterns are not
present in the Latin tablets found in Hadrumetum analyzed in this work.
Moreover, daemons are depicted in these quite often (nine times), or at least
other symbols are used, as e.g. the depiction of a sword? in No. 142. They
usually occur right in the text but not in combination with magical signs.
On the other hand, the orientation of script is not so variegated in the African
tablets as in the texts found in the European provinces where it plays a
significant magical role. The African tablets make use of somewhat more
complicated magical means. The Carthaginian texts are inscribed mostly left-toright
(only three tablets are partially written vertically); the tablets from
Hadrumetum also prefer left-to-right orientation of script, but the cursing
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
363
formulae are frequently written around the perimeter of the tablet and include
the names of victims, especially horses (eleven serially produced curses No.
152–161). On the contrary, perimeter of the texts from Carthage is usually
inscribed with magical words. Vertical or upside-down text appears only very
rarely in these.
The special, magical, purpose of the text of the curse is often conveyed by the
change of the common code, i.e. use of a different, unusual alphabet. This is
mostly done by inscribing the Latin text in the Greek alphabet, especially in
love spells both from Carthage (No. 125) and from Hadrumetum (No. 145, No.
147, No. 148, and No. 172).
The curses against gladiators found in Carthage combine both languages and
codes in special ways − the Greek alphabet both for Latin and Greek text is used
in No. 134, mostly Latin text is combined with Greek formulae in No. 135, and
No. 132. Tablet No. 133 even contains several Greek words written in Latin
letters among the magical formulae (see 11.1.3.1.).
As already said before, the graphic layout of the African texts indicates a very
sophisticated practice of specialized ritual practitioners.
11.4 FORMULAE AND PEOPLE ACCURSED
The number of formulae used in the texts from the African provinces is
relatively high: 77 formulae in 30 Carthaginian tablets (Africa Proconsularis),
and 87 formulae in 43 tablets from Hadrumetum (Africa Byzacena). The simple
Formula 0 (brief nominal list of cursed people is very scarce and appears only
in four tablets from Carthage and four tablets from Hadrumetum; Formula 1a
(direct curse with the predicates of cursing) is not attested. The most frequent
formulae are Formula 3a (imperative formula extended by the subordinate
clause) − 15 times in Carthage, 20 times in Hadrumetum; Formula 2 (invoking
formula extended by the subordinate clause) − eight times in Carthage, 23 times
in Hadrumetum; Formula 3 (imperative invoking formula) − 20 times in
Carthage, eight times in Hadrumetum; and Formula 4 (wish formula using
subjunctive) − nine times in Carthage, 15 times in Hadrumetum. Less
frequently, Formula 2a (eight times in Carthage, eight times in Hadrumetum)
and Formula 5, the simile-formula (eight times in Carthage, once in
Hadrumetum) appear. The high number of formulae is caused by the
complicated nature of the African curses; the professional magicians most
frequently appeal to deities with imperative formulae specifying what they are
supposed to do (see 3.2.).
11. AFRICAN PROVINCES
364
The number of victims of the African curses is related to the preserved types of
curses − the curses against charioteers, and especially race-horses have survived
only in the African provinces. The number of cursed people, as well as the ratio
of men and women and the average number of cursed people per tablet,
basically copy the numbers from the European curses. As for the Carthaginian
tablets, men (80) are four times more often cursed than women (21) which is
certainly due to the prevalence of legal and agonistic curses in the region. This
prevalence is even bigger in the tablets from Hadrumetum − men (88), women
(12) − which, again, is the result of the high number of preserved agonistic
curses. Nevertheless, the number of cursed horses is exponentially higher than
the number of cursed people. The agonistic curses found in Carthage accurse ca.
258 horses, i.e. eight horses per tablet; the texts from Hadrumetum even ca. 986
horses, i.e. 23 horses per tablet. Compared to this, the average number of people
accursed per a tablet (three in the texts from Carthage, two in the texts from
Hadrumetum) seems low but actually it corresponds to the general state in the
other provinces. The people on whose behalf a tablet was inscribed are found
only rarely: in three legal curses from Carthage (No. 115, No. 116, and No.
137), and in love spells where the author’s name is essential for the proper
functioning of the spell (No. 125, No. 144, No. 146, No. 148, No. 175, and No.
182). In some cases, probably due to disruption of the text, the
author’s/orderer’s name was not preserved.
Furthermore, filiation via mother’s name, another typical magical feature, most
frequently appears in the African texts (see 1.6.) − six times in Carthage, 11
times in Hadrumetum. Metronymics specifying the cursed person are only
scarcely attested in other provinces: three times in Italy, once in Gallia and
Britannia. It is found mostly in love spells as a way of identifying the victim,
usually in the so-called quam peperit formula; however, it also occurs in some
Carthaginian curses against gladiators. The filiation via father’s name appears
only in two texts from Carthage (No. 114 and No. 122), despite the fact that
patronymics are largely used to identify a person in the common texts from all
over the Roman Empire and are attested from almost all European provinces.
12. BRITANNIA
The first contact between ancient Mediterranean states and the inhabitants of the
British Isles, which were then1
known as Albion, took place as soon as in the 4th
century BCE. It was motivated by the search for mineral raw materials, namely
the exploitation of tin, by the Phoenicians and the inhabitants of the Greek
colony of Massalia (today’s Marseille). Strabo speaks of the region as
Βρεταννικαὶ νῆσοι and calls its inhabitants Βρεταννοί.2
The Roman names
Britannia and Britanni are attested from the 1st
century BCE in Caesar’s
Commentarii de bello Gallico. The inland of the British Isles was unknown
until Caesar’s military campaigns in 55 and 54 BCE when the Roman army
penetrated to the river Thames. However, these campaigns were not successful,
as the British king Cassiovellaunus forced the Romans to return to Gallia. Thus,
Britain remained out of Roman reach for another century. Southern Britain was
conquered only during Claudius’ reign in 43–47 CE; more territories were
attached after the suppression of Queen Boudica’s uprising during the reign of
Nero in 54–68 CE. This moved the boundaries of the Roman Empire as far as to
today’s Chester and Lincoln in central Britain.3
Nevertheless, conflicts persisted
in its western part up until the Flavian period and it was during the
administration of Cn. Iulius Agricola in 77–84 CE when the area finally fell
under the Roman control. At this time, a border defence system was built from
the east to the west from today’s Firth of Clyde to Firth of Forth. Although
Roman armies also pervaded the northern part of the country, they were unable
to hold the territory for a longer period of time. The effort to secure a stable
border in the north culminated around 122 CE when ca. 117 km long Hadrian’s
Wall was constructed across Britain. It ran through today’s cities of Newcastle
and Solway Firth and its purpose was to defend the Roman province from the
barbaric raids of the northern Caledonian tribes. In 142 CE, the emperor
Antoninus Pius rebuilt the defence line constructed in the time of Agricola but it
survived only fewer than the following 20 years.4
After that, Septimius Severus
was again compelled to re-establish Hadrian’s Wall which was regarded as the
northern frontier line of the province up until the end of Roman dominance in
Britain. In 410 CE, Roman armies were once and for all withdrawn from the
province due to the usurpation of imperial power as well as the barbaric threat
hanging over Italy. Moreover, the inhabitants of Britain asked for the help of the
Anglo-Saxons and Jutes who started to invade the area from the 3rd
century CE.
1
See Svoboda (1974, 104 ff).
2
See Eck (1997, 783).
3
See Svoboda (1974, 105).
4
See Eck (1997, 783 ff.).
12. BRITANNIA
366
Just like in Germania, Romans first got into contact with Britannia thanks to
Caesar’s military campaigns; however, the area was coherently romanised only
after the 1st
century CE, i.e. relatively late when compared to other provinces.
The 3rd
century CE was the heyday of Roman power and culture in the territory
of Britain; the most significant Roman centres were Londinium (today’s
London), Verulamium (today’s Old Verulam), Camulodunum (today’s
Clochester), Eburacum (today’s York), Aquae Sulis (today’s Bath), and
Vindolanda (today’s Chesterholme).
In the second half of the 20th
century a large amount of Roman inscriptional
evidence was found in Britain. In 1973, wooden tablets containing military
documentation as well as private correspondence5
dated to the 1st
– 2nd
century
CE were excavated in the Roman military fort of Vindolanda located
southwards of Hadrian’s Wall. As for the Mediterranean cursing tradition, the
numerous findings of curse tablets in this territory prove that it very quickly
spread up to the most western explored part of the contemporary world.
12.1 THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE TERRITORY OF BRITANNIA
AND ITS SPECIFIC FEATURES
Only ten curse tablets were known from the territory of ancient Britannia until
the 1970s and 1980s when huge archaeological discoveries of lead curse tablets
took place in Uley and Bath. The archaeological excavations in Uley started at
the end of the 1970s in the sacred precinct of Mercury6
which provided us with
ca. 140 mostly rolled into scrolls and severely damaged lead tablets. Some of
these were perhaps never inscribed or, more plausibly, the traces of the
inscribed letters faded away in the course of time. Fortunately, 86 of these still
contain some text inscribed either on both or just one side. The tablets have
been dated to the 2nd
–4th
century CE and were found in all sectors of the
archaeological area, but most of them survived in the votive depository of the
temple. The tablets are continuously published in the periodical Britannia.7
In 1979–1980, other numerous precious lead tablets were found during the
sanitation of thermal spring and the adjacent sacred precinct of goddess
5
See e.g. Bowman (1983); or Petersmann (1992).
6
See Woodword – Leach (1993). Five tablets were published by Tomlin (1993, 112 –
130); see also 1.2.
7
See the section Roman Britain II, Inscriptions. Kropp’ corpus (2008) contains 39
tablets from Uley and 87 from Bath including very damaged fragments in which
only one word or two are readable.
12. BRITANNIA
367
Minerva Sulis in Bath. Out of the total number of 130 tablets and bigger
fragments, ca. 70 tablets are at least partially readable,8
but the remaining 60 are
either small and severely disrupted fragments not yet published, or tablets
without any trace of a text.9
Thanks to Roger Tomlin, we possess an excellent
edition of the tablets found in Bath with commentary.10
Thus, if we include the
isolated findings of amateurs with metal detectors, we know of ca. 250 curse
tablets from Britannia.11
So far, ca. 160 of them have been published, mostly
dated to the 2nd
–4th
century CE (see Kropp, 2008). The corpus of this work
includes 94 tablets found in Britannia: 25 curses and 69 prayers for justice.
Paradoxically, the evidence of curse tablets in Britannia is much richer thanks to
these findings than the evidence in other provinces where magical rituals had a
demonstrably longer tradition, e.g. in Italy, Hispania, etc. Thus, the British
findings confirm the randomness and fragmentary nature of the preserved
evidence we possess from the Roman Empire. In addition, the rich material
excavated in Uley and Bath proves that curse tablets were for centuries widely
used in Britannia; the same can also be presumed in other territories of the
Roman Empire, although these have not yet provided us with such a high
number of texts. Most of the tablets found in Britain contain prayers for justice
(see 1.2. and 1.2.3.), unlike the other European provinces from which we have
mostly curses and only very few, or no (the African provinces), prayers for
justice are attested. The numerous prayers for justice found in Britannia differ
from those from the European provinces in many aspects and include many
otherwise undocumented peculiarities.
Most of the curse texts found in Britain date to the 2nd
/3rd
–4th
centuries CE (five
tablets in each); the oldest tablets come from the 1st
century CE (No. 198 and
No. 199 from London); and some pieces of evidence have been dated to the 5th
century CE. Their dating is, therefore, similar to that of the African tablets most
of which date to the 2nd
–3rd
century CE. On the other hand, the British tablets
are later than the evidence from Italy or Hispania dated usually to the 1st
century
BCE –1st
century CE, or from Germania dated to the 1st
–2nd
century CE. All
curses found in Britain were inscribed on the lead-alloyed tablets.
8
See Tomlin (1988); Urbanová (2009a, 125 ff.).
9
See Tomlin (1988, 257 ff.).
10
See Tomlin (1988, 59 –270).
11
Not all of them have been published yet, the present number of Latin curses from
Britain in TheDeMa is 181 but new findings are expected to be published by Tomlin
(2017).
12. BRITANNIA
368
Tablet No. 302 from Uley is probably the oldest British evidence of a prayer for
justice – it has been dated to the 1st
century CE ‒ of an age comparable to the
evidence from Hispania, Gallia, and Germania. The number of preserved
prayers for justice in the European provinces rises in the 2nd
century CE only to
decrease in the 3rd
century CE, whereas few pieces of evidence from Gallia
were dated to the 4th
/5th
century CE. The situation of Britannia is different: only
few tablets come from the 1st
/2nd
century CE and the 2nd
century CE, while their
numbers significantly rise in the 2nd
/3rd
century CE (28 tablets); ca. eight tablets
were dated to the 3rd
century CE and eight tablets to the 3rd
/4th
century CE; the
number of preserved tablets relatively increases again in the 4th
entury CE (16
tablets) and their production probably ceases at the beginning of the 5th
century
CE.12
Considering the external features of the tablets found in Britannia, it can be said
that the highest number of curses was found in the sacred precinct of goddess
Minerva Sulis in Bath, namely in the spring itself (No. 184–194), or in the soil
(five tablets), in the baths (three tablets), and in the shrine (four tablets from
Uley). Unlike the European or African provinces where the tablets were most
commonly, or at least frequently, found in graves,13
only a single British curse
tablet has been found in a grave (No. 195).
As for the British prayers for justice, these were, just like curses, mostly found
at shrines possessing a watersource, which is in line with the above mentioned
archaeological findings, i.e. the evidence from the thermal springs of Bath and
from the sacred precinct of Mercury in Uley (altogether 56 tablets). Only very
few tablets were located in the soil, water, or a house. This corresponds to the
situation in the European provinces where most of the prayers for justice,
documented in much less numbers, were also found at a shrine (ten tablets,
especially from Mainz), while fewer were located in the soil (six tablets), water
sources (five tablets), in the amphitheatre (four tablets), and in the grave (four
tablets). The locations of curses as well as prayers for justice from other
provinces clearly suggest that the authors (almost exclusively laymen) of often
very cruel prayers for justice rather appeal directly to the local deities and only
rarely put the tablets into the graves to invoke the spirits of the deceased as the
12
The numbers refer to the tablets analyzed in this work.
13
This applies to all African and European provinces except for Gaul, where most of
the tablets were found in the amphitheatre of Trier, and Germania, where the largest
number of tablets preserved at the shrine of Isis and Mater Magna in Mainz (see
10.1.1.).
12. BRITANNIA
369
mediators between the earthly and supernatural world. All prayers for justice
found in Britain were inscribed on the lead-alloyed tablets.
The curse tablets found in Britannia were mostly not treated in any way before
being deposited (eleven tablets), but if so, the most frequent way was rolling
(eight tablets), or transfixion (four tablets); in many cases, there are no visible
traces of any manipulation or the editors do not state so. This is contrary to the
European provinces, e.g. in Italy the tablets were usually transfixed (18),
whereas the African tablets (56) and the tablets from Germania (23) were
mostly rolled into scrolls. As for the tablets with no traces of any manipulation,
see the evidence from Hispania (six) and Gallia (five). When we compare the
data from all provinces, the most frequent adjustments of the tablets are (in
order): rolling, no manipulation, transfixion.
Whether we speak of Britannia (38 tablets) or the European provinces (ten
tablets), the prayers for justice were mostly rolled into scrolls. Many tablets
were not manipulated in any way before put into their locations (17 tablets from
Britannia, nine from the European provinces), and only few tablets display the
traces of transfixion (eight tablets from Britannia, one from Italy, two from
Germania).
The curses from Britannia, unlike the evidence from the European and
especially the African provinces, are short and monotonous, comprising mostly
nominal lists of cursed people. Thus, the particular context of most of these is
almost unidentifiable; all are thus classified as non-specific curses, except for
tablet No. 198 which is probably connected to rivalry in love. What is
remarkable in Britannia is the contrast between the brief and artless curses and
the elaborate and ornate prayers for justice.
12.1.1 Non-Specific Curses
The 25 curses found in Britannia are predominantly very short, monotonous,
and disrupted; 21 of these comprise only of a nominal list of cursed people,
exceptionally also including some specification of social standing like uxor or
servus, and even a filiation via father’s name (e.g. No. 188), some other
identifying term like Velorigam et familiam suam (No. 191 below), or a cursing
verb (No. 199).
See e.g. No. 184 from Bath, dfx.3.2/4: Britvenda, Venibelia. (“[I
accurse/commend] Britivenda and Venibelia.”). This tablet probably dates to
the 3rd
century CE and contains two female names in the nominative written in
12. BRITANNIA
370
capital letters and partially mirror-like. The names are of Celtic origin so it may
perhaps be an expression of an animosity between the Roman and local
population.
Tablets No. 185, No. 187, No. 190, No. 192–194, No. 196–197, No. 200, No.
203, and No. 205–206 have the same structure (see Appendix I).
Tablet No. 191 from Bath, dfx.3.2/45, dated to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE, makes
use of an unusual extension of cursed names:
A: D(eo) Mercuri… san(g)u(ine)m (C)ivilis… fuerit de… Trinni familiam…
Velvalis… (famili)am suam B: Markelinum familia(m), Veloriga(m) et
famili(am) (s)uam, Morivassum et (f)amiliam, Riovassum e(t) familiam,
Minoven…et familiam sua(m)… (“To the god Mercury [I commend?] the
blood14
of Civilis... so that he is?... the family of Trinnus?, Velvalis [and] his
family?, Markelinus [and his] family, Veloriga and her family, Morivassus
and [his] family, Riovassus and [his] family, Minoven... and his family...”)
The tablet dates to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE and is largely disrupted. Although it
was found in the spring of the goddess Sulis in Bath, it is addressed to Mercury.
Furthermore, it is the only text which accurses the victims with their whole
families; however, its syntax is incomprehensible. Civilis, Trinnus, and
Markelinus are Roman names, the other names are of Celtic origin.15
Text No. 188 from Bath, dfx.3.2/22, dated to the 2nd
century CE, is inscribed on
a metal discus and contains a filiation:
Severianus fil(ius) Brigomall(a)e, Patarnianus filius, Matarnus uxor,
Catonius Potentini, Marinianus Belcati, Lucillus Lucciani, Aeternus Ingenui,
Bellaus Bellini. (“Severianus, the son of Brigomalla,16
Patarnianus [his?]
son, Matarnus [and his?] wife, Catonius, [the son] of Potentinus, Marinianus,
[the son] of Belcatus, Lucillus, [the son] of Luccianus Aeternus, [the son] of
Ingenuus, Bellaus, [the son] of Bellinus.”)
Text No. 201 from London, dfx.3.14/5, can also be regarded as a curse:
14
The author perhaps meant blood metaphorically, i.e. the consanguinity of the victim,
as suggested by the term familiam.
15
See the commentary of Tomlin (1988, No. 53).
16
Tomlin (1988, 30) states that Brigomalla is attested nowhere else; however,
Brigomallos exists. If it is a female name, it is the only piece of evidence of filiation
via mother’s name in Britannia.
12. BRITANNIA
371
Plautius Nobilianus, Aurelius Saturninus, Domitia Attiola et si (= ii?), qui
afuere. (“[I accurse/may they be accursed?] Plautius Nobilianus, Aurelius
Saturninus, Domitia Attiola and those who were absent.”) (see 1.1.2.1. with
commentary).
The tablet dates to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE and, as Tomlin (2003, 361) suggests, it
is remarkable because in the British tablets the victims are only rarely identified
both by nomina and cognomina.
Three tablets explicitly use the cursing verb defigo but mostly in the passive
voice (see also 2.2.2.).
Tablet No. 199 from London, dfx.3.14/2, dated to the 1st
century CE, contains a
rare use of the verb defigo in the perfect passive participle form:
Titus Egnatius Tyrannus defictus (= defixus) est et P(ublius) Cicereius Felix
defictus est. (“Titus Egnatius Tyrannus has been cursed and Publius
Cicereius Felix has been cursed.”) (see also 3.1.2.)
Another tablet from Britannia using the same form is No. 195 from Clothall,
dfx.3.9/1: Tacita deficta... (see Appendix I).
There are not many more elaborate curses in Britannia but, for instance, No.
198 from London, dfx.3.14/1, dated to the 1st
century CE, reads:
Tertia(m) Maria(m) defigo et illius vita(m) et mentem et memoriam et
iocinera, pulmones, intermixta17
facta, cogitata, memoriam. Sic non possit
loqui (quae) secreta sint neque sinit amere (=amare) possit neque…
claudo.18
(“I curse Tertia Maria and her life, and mind, and memory, and
liver, lungs, acts, thoughts, memory. Thus may she be unable to tell the
secrets, or... love...or... I enclose/conclude.”) (see also 2.3.5.).
17
The tablet reads intermxixita, Kropp (2008) interprets as intermixta. However, this
place of the text is disrupted so the word can be either a garbled term for intestines
(?), or a term belonging to facta perhaps meaning “may she not interfere with her
acts”(?), as suggested by the following sentence. I suppose that the most plausible
interpretation is: “may her thought, memory, and acts mix up, confuse”.
18
With respect to the previous damaged text, it is unclear whether the author
“concludes” his curse or “encloses” the victim. See also No. 249 from Bath below
(12.2.3.) which contains a prayer for justice concluded with finem faci(a)m.
12. BRITANNIA
372
This is the only curse from Britannia which includes a list of cursed body parts
as well as the only text whose context can be determined – it is probably an
amatory curse concerning rivalry in love.
Another interesting curse is tablet No. 208 from Old Harlow, dfx.3.17/1, dated
to the 3rd
/4th
century CE, which reads:
A: Deo M(ercurio), dono ti(bi) negotium (A)eternae et ipsam nec sit invidia
mei Timotneo.19
Sanguine suo. B: Dono tibi, Mercurius, aliam (aliud?)
neg(o)tium Navin(ii?)… ne(c?)… sang(uine) suo.
The interpretation of this text is disputable – Wright and Hassall (1973, 325 ff.)
regard it as a curse and they translate negotium as “affair”,20
Versnel (1991, 85
ff.) compares it to the Greek curses aimed at rivals in business and translates
negotium as “shop, business, store”.21
Thus, the text can be translated as
follows:
(“To the god Mercury, I give/commend the business of Aeterna and herself,
may she not be envious of me, Timotneus, [otherwise she will pay for it]
with her own blood. I give you, Mercury, another? Business of Navinius...
own blood...”).
However, Versnel (1991, 86) interprets the sequence ...nec sit invidia mei
Timotneo. Sanguine suo... as “the guilty party must pay with his blood”, which
would classify the text rather as a prayer for justice motivated by damage
suffered than a curse. Nevertheless only an explicit reference to a theft or fraud
(i.e. a damage suffered) can be regarded the decisive criterion of classifying a
text as a prayer for justice, but our text does not contain any. Therefore, I
suppose that it is a curse (cf. e.g. No. 138 and No. 139 from Carthage, 1.10.1.)
inspired by prayers for justice in its use of sanguine suo, which usually appears
in the prayers for justice only from Britannia (see 6.2.1.3).
Unfortunately, the disrupted tablet No. 186 from Bath, dfx.3.2/9, dated to the 3rd
century CE, can also be regarded as a problematic text in this respect; it starts
with the sequence:
19
Kropp (2008) amends Timotneo to Timothei.
20
The translation of Wright – Hassall (1973, 325): “To the god Mercury, I entrust you
my affair with Eterna and her own self, and may Timotneus feel no jealousy of me
at the risk of his life blood. I entrust to you, O Mercury, another transaction…”
21
Versnel (1991, 85 ff.) translates the sequence nec sit invidia mei Timotneo as “and
don’t let there be envy on my account – Timotheus”.
12. BRITANNIA
373
Petio (= petitio/peto?): rove (= rogo?) te, Victoria vind(ex?) Cun… Minici,
Cunomolius, Minervina ussor (= uxor) Cunitius servus, Senovara ussor,
Lavidendus ser(v)us, Mattonius ser(v)us, Catinius Exactoris fundo eo22
…
Methianu(s) … dono…
If Tomlin’s (1988, No. 9) interpretation of petio as petitio and of rove as rogo is
right, this could also be a prayer for justice. The initial sequence Victoria
vind(ex?) is disputable, as we do not know whether it refers to a female name.
Other names of cursed people are here specified by epithets like uxor or servus;
however, the disrupted term vind... does not correspond to any of these. Tomlin
presumes that it may be an address to the goddess of Victory and adds vind(ex),
i.e. the author invokes the goddess Victory, the protector and avenger.23
Another possible interpretation may be: Petitio, rogo te (ego) Victoria, vind(ica
me ie. de istis nominibus), comparable to No. 287 (12.2.3.): … ut tu me vindicas
de isto nomine. Then, the text would be interpretable as follows:
(“A request, I ask you [me] Victoria, avenge [me upon these people]:
Cunomolius [the son?] of Minicius, Minervina [his?] wife, Cunitius [their?]
slave, Senovara [his?] wife, Lavidendus [their?] slave, Mattonius [their?]
slave, Catinius [the son?] of Exactor... Methianu(s)... I give...”)
Some prayers for justice, in fact, refer to themselves as requests. See, for
instance, No. 303 from Uley:
Deo sancto Mercurio Honoratus, conqueror numini tuo, me perdidisse rotas
duas et vaccas quattuor… Iteratis precibus rogo numen tuum, ut petitio mea
statim pariat me vindicatum esse a maiestate tua. (“Honoratus to the holy
god Mercury, I complain to your divinity that I have lost two wheels and
four cows... With repeated prayers I ask your divinity to immediately hear
my petition so that I am revenged by your majesty.”) (see also 1.10.2.).
Compare also No. 296 from Uley:
Commonitorium deo Mercurio a Saturnina muliere de linteamine, quod
amisit. (“A memorandum to the god... Mercury from Saturnina a woman,
concerning the linen cloth which she has lost.”) (see also 1.10.2.).
22
This sequence is obscure; one would expect some reference to a thief (see also
Tomlin with a commentary, 1988, No. 9).
23
This goddess is attested neither in curses nor in prayers for justice.
12. BRITANNIA
374
Nevertheless, the partially disrupted tablet No. 186 does not refer to any
damage suffered; therefore, I classify it rather as a curse, not a prayer for
justice.
The last, somewhat problematic, curse from Britannia is tablet No. 204 from
Uley which, according to some scholars, may contain the names of the victims
in the accusative, as well as the names of those who accurse in the nominative
(for the detailed discussion of this text, see 10.1.1.).
12.2 PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
As already said above, the corpus of prayers for justice found in Britain is
extensive; ca. 69 prayers for justice and 25 curses have been included in this
work out of total 160 published tablets from Britannia. Kropp (2008) classifies
101 tablets as prayers for justice and 22 as curses.24
The remaining published
texts (37 tablets; see Kropp, 2008) are damaged to such an extent that it cannot
be determined with certainty to what genre they belong. Moreover, they cannot
be assessed by the criteria of analysis applied in this work.
The documentation found in Britain is the main source of the information we
have on Latin prayers for justice. However, based on the less extensive
evidence from other provinces, it can be assumed that it is also considerably
distinctive.
The context and motivation of prayers for justice are always the same – the
author suffered some harm, most often theft (see 6.1.), while the individual texts
differ in the aims and wishes of their authors (see 6.2.). I divide the prayers for
justice from Britannia into three groups based on the aims of their authors, i.e.
whether they pursue:
1) only the return of the stolen property without any explicit reference to
punishment;
2) the return of the stolen property by means of restrictions or punishment of the
culprit;
3) only revenge or punishment of the culprit.
24
I consider some of the texts Kropp unjustifiably classifies as prayers for justice to
be, in fact, curses (see 12.1.1. above).
12. BRITANNIA
375
As already mentioned above in 6.2., only very few prayers for justice from all
provinces (four) seek merely the return of the stolen things. The aim to get the
stolen things back together with revenge or punishment of the culprit appears in
28 texts. The most frequent wish of the authors of prayers for justice, however,
is revenge or punishment (55 texts), and two texts even demand that the
vengeance upon the culprit is executed in public (see 6.2., 8.2., and 10.2.3.).
The situation in Britannia is quite similar – apart from 12 texts whose aim
cannot be determined, only three texts pursue the return of the stolen things; the
authors of 23 texts hoped for getting their things back as well as for vengeance
being executed upon the culprit; while, more frequently, the texts (31) seek only
vengeance or punishment of the culprit. If we compare the preserved prayers for
justice from all provinces, vengeance comes out as a prevailing wish of the
authors (55 out of 101 texts). Nevertheless, these criteria can be disputed if we
take into consideration Tomlin’s (2010, 260; 6.2.1.3.) explanation of the logical
discrepancies occurring in some prayers for justice, i.e. when the authors ask
first for the death of the culprit and only after that want to get their things back
(see e.g. No. 300). He presumes that the authors automatically expected the
deity to execute vengeance upon the culprit and, at the same time, settles for the
return of stolen property. Some texts indicate such an option by using the verbs
like exigere and vindicare in connection with the death of the thief. However, if
a text does not include any explicit reference to getting the stolen things back, I
classify it as the 3rd
group (vengeance/punishment). This is because there are
several prayers for justice whose authors explicitly state their wish to get things
back. If a text is incomplete, it is, of course, problematic to determine the whole
extent of author’s wish; see e.g. No. 251, No. 254, No. 256, No. 259, No. 262,
No. 267, No. 301, and No. 302. These texts, although being obviously prayers
for justice, are so damaged that they cannot be coherently interpreted; thus, I
state these only in Appendix II. I always base my argumentation on the
particular preserved text without any further speculations.
12.2.1 Texts Pursuing the Return of the Stolen Property
This category pertains to tablets No. 246, No. 252, and No. 270. Prayer for
justice No. 246 from Bath dated to the 3rd
century CE (see 1.2.2.) is addressed
to the goddess Sulis by an anonymous author who commends his/her money to
the goddess in return for her favours: donavi (arge)ntiolos sex (“I have given…
the six silver coins…”). The author state the names of people suspected of being
the thief: …a nomin(i)bus infrascript(is) deae exactura est…. (“…it is for the
goddess to exact [them] from the names written below…”); see also 1.2.2.
12. BRITANNIA
376
Tablet No. 252 from Bath, dfx.3.2/26, dated to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE, reads:
Deae Suli Minervae: Docca dono numini tuo pecuniam, quam… (a)misi, id
est (denarios) V, et is, (q)ui (eam involaveri)t, si ser(vu)s, s(i liber), (si vir, si
femina), exsigatur… (“To the goddess Minerva Sulis: Docca, I give to your
divinity the money which I have lost, i.e. five [denarii], and the one [who
stole] it, whether slave or [free, whether man or woman,] may s/he be forced
[to give it back?].”).25
The author of tablet No. 270 whose name was not preserved in full demands his
stolen things without any restrictions. He does so using a peculiar formulation
in rostro suo deferat, i.e. the culprit is supposed to bring it in his “beak” (see
1.10.2.).
The authors of all tablets commend the property they have lost to the deity to
exact it back, as confirmed by the verbs exigo and defero. Tablet No. 218 from
Hispania contains a similar prayer for justice using the verb persequor (see 6.2.
and 8.2.).
12.2.2 Texts Pursuing the Return of the Stolen Property via Restrictions
Some prayers for justice pursuing the return of stolen things also include a
polite address to a deity, author’s name, and the committal of the often
unknown thief, or the stolen property, to a deity. The deity is then supposed to
take over responsibility for the matter and fulfil the author’s wish. See e.g. No.
247: Docilianus Bruceri deae sanctissimae Suli devoveo eum, qui caracallam
meam involaverit… (1.2.2.); No. 250: Deae Suli Minervae: Solinus dono numini
tuo maiestati paxam balnearem… (1.10.2.); No. 298 from Uley: Biccus dat
Mercurio, quidquid perdidit… (2.3.1. and 6.2.1.). The author often commends
the culprits or the stolen property to a deity who is supposed to “take over the
responsibility”, take the matter into his/her own hands, and fulfil author’s wish.
The authors usually explicitly appeal to the culprits to bring the stolen things to
the temple of the deity. To secure the return of the spoil, the culprits are
compelled to do so by various restrictions sent upon them by the deity; see
(6.2.1) and, for instance, No. 298 from Uley, dated to the 4th
century CE:
... si vir si mascel, ne meiat, ne cacet, ne loquatur, ne dormiat, ne vigilet nec
salutem nec sanitatem, nisi in templo Mercurii pertulerit… (“…whether [the
25
The tablet has been found damaged with some parts of the text not preserved; the
verb exigatur may have also referred to the money, which would then be translated
as “may the money be exacted [from the thief]”.
12. BRITANNIA
377
culprit is] man or male,26
may he be unable to urinate, nor defecate, nor
speak, nor sleep, nor wake, nor [have] vigor nor health, until he brings [it] to
the temple of Mercury...”).
The authors mostly attack the culprit’s health and the ability to sleep, which is
probably inspired by love spells (see 2.3.1. and 6.2.1.).
No. 295 from Uley (see 1.2.2.) reads:
…ut nec ante sanitatem habeant, nisi repraesentaverint mihi iumentum, quod
rapuerunt… (“...so that they may have neither health before/unless they
return at once to me the draught animal which they have stolen...”).
Compare also No. 247 (see 1.2.2.):
…uti eum dea Sulis maximo leto adigat nec ei somnum permitat… (“…so
that the goddess Sulis may inflict death upon him and not allow him sleep
...”).
Restrictions can also be combined with the wish that the deity kills the culprit,
as seen in the previous tablet, or in No. 300, which reads:
Rogo te ut eos maximo (le)to adigas nec eis sanit(atem nec) somnum
permittas, nisi a te quod mihi ad(mi)ni(strav)erint redem(e)rint. (“…I ask
you to drive them to the most horrible death and not allow them to sleep nor
to be healthy, unless they redeem from you what they have done to me.”)
Apart from the formula maximo leto adigere (see 6.2.1.3.), a similar formula
exigere per sanguinem appears in two tablets from Bath. No. 255, dfx.3.2/20,
reads:
(Deae Suli?) dono ti(bi)… (E)xigas pe(r sanguinem? e)ius, qui has
(involave)rit vel qui (medius? fuer)it, si femina… (si) liber… (d)um?
pertuleri(t). (“[To the goddess Sulis?]: I commend to you… to exact [those
things?] through his [blood], who [stole?] them or [participated in it],
whether a woman… [or] free… [unless?] s/he brings [the stolen things]
back.”).
26
Probably a confusion of formulae si vir si femina and si mascel si femina (see
2.3.1.).
12. BRITANNIA
378
The text is very disrupted; therefore, it was amended according to the better
preserved text of tablet No. 258 also from Bath; both tablets date to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE (see also 7.1.2.1.). Tablet No. 258, dfx.3.2/33, reads:
…(dir)ipuit, ut (eo)rum pretium… (e)xigas hoc per sanguinem et sa(nitatem
sua)m et suorum, nec ante illos pati(a)r(is bibere? nec m)anducare nec
adsellare nec (meiere?)… ius hoc absolverit27
… (“…has stolen, so that you
exact the price of [them] through [his] blood and [health] and [the blood and
health] of his relatives, and not allow them [to drink?] or eat or defecate or
[urinate?] [before he has]… repaid it.”).
The same formula, though extended, appears in tablet No. 292 from Ratcliffeon-Soar
(see also 6.2.1.1. and 1.9.2.), which reads:
Donatur deo Iovi Optimo Maximo ut exigat per mentem, per memoriam, per
intus, per intestinum, per cor, per medullas, per venas, per…, si mascel si
femina, quivis involavit (den)arios Cani Digni... (“It is commended to the
god Jupiter the Great and the Mightiest to exact [the money] through mind,
memory, entrails, intestines, heart, marrow, veins, ...[of the one] whoever
has stolen them, whether a man or a woman, the money of Canus
Dignus…”).
To make sure that the stolen things really get back to the owner, the authors
sometimes promise a reward to the deity – mostly a part of the money or stolen
things’ value (see also 1.10.2., 3.3.2., discussing No. 289, No. 292, and No.
296).
Furthermore, see also No. 291, dfx.3.18/1, from Pagans Hill dated to the half of
the 3rd
century CE:
(Deo Mercu)ri(o? )... in (denari)is III milibus,28
cuius dimidiam partem tibi
(dono?), ut ita illum (=illud) exigas a Vassicillo ...pecomini filio et uxore
sua,quoniam (per)cussum?29
quod illi de hospitiolo meo (pec)ulaverint. Nec
illis (p)ermittas sanit(atem) nec bibere nec ma(n)d(u)care, nec dormi(re)
27
The text reads …bisoverit; Tomlin (1988, No. 41) adds absolverit.
28
The value of the money stated in this tablet seems very high; other prayers for
justice usually refer to much smaller sums of money (see 6.1.). However, today it is
difficult to assess the real value of the sum in the 3rd
century CE.
29
This part of the tablet is disrupted; Tomlin (1984, 352) reads tussum and amends to
(per)tussum (= percussum?) which then probably means “the coinage”, i.e. the
money, in general.
12. BRITANNIA
379
(nec nat)os sanos habe(a)nt nisi hanc rem (meam) ad fanum tuum
(at)tulerint. Iteratis (pre)c(i)bus te rogo, ut (ab ip)sis nominibus30
(inimicorum) meorum hoc (percu)ssum recipi(atur?), perven(ia)t. (“[To the
god Mercury?]…in three thousand dinars, of which [I give?] you a half so
that you exact it from Vassicillus, son [of]…, and his wife, because/whatever
they have stolen it from my house. Do not allow them to be healthy nor to
drink nor to eat, nor to sleep, nor may they have healthy children, unless they
bring that property [of mine] to your shrine. With repeated prayers I ask you
[to arrange] that the money happen to return back [to me] from these
[hostile] people.”) (see also 6.1. and 6.2.)
The custom to promise a “finder’s reward” to the deity is not attested in any of
the tablets found in Bath, but it is well documented in Uley and other locations.
See tablet No. 286 from Kelvedon, dfx.3.12/1, dated to the first half of the 3rd
century CE:
Quicumque res Vareni involaverit, si mulier, si mascel, sangu(i)ne suo solvat
et pecuniam, quam exesuerit (= exsolverit?),31
Mercurio donat et Virtuti
s(emis).32
(“Whoever has stolen the property of Varenus, whether a woman
or a man, may he pay [for it] with his own blood and from the money he
repays, may he give a half to Mercury and [the goddess] Virtus.”)
The author of tablet No. 288 from London, dated to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE,
dfx.3.14/6, promises a reward to the goddess Diana:
(D)eae Dea(na)e33
dono capitularem et fas(c)iam34
minus parte tertia. Si
quis hoc fecit, si puer si puella si ser(vus) s(i liber) don(o eum) nec p(er) me
30
Tomlin (1983, 352) notes that nomen was used in Britain to a person in general, and
especially “a debtor” or “a creditor; see also No. 246: A nomin(i)bus infrascript(is)
deae exactura est (1.2.2. and 12.2.1.) in which the term also refers to people in
general. See Urbanová – Franek (2016, 616 ff).
31
See also Versnel (1991, 84) who, based on other texts from Britannia, suggests
exsolverit (“he will pay off”) instead of the interpretation exesuerit, “he has spent”
(see also Gager 1992, No. 97).
32
The text contains several mistakes (see Appendix II); I state it here in the emended
form. For the addition s(emis), which I tend to believe, see Egger (1964, 16). Kropp
(2008) keeps s(acra).
33
Hassall – Tomlin (2003, 362) state that this is the first epigraphical evidence of the
existence of Diana’s cult in London and, at the same time, the first prayer for justice
addressed to Diana in Britain. The tablet date to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE; some tablets
addressed to Diana and Mars also survived from the 4th
/5th
century CE from Trier
12. BRITANNIA
380
(vi)v(ere) possit. (“I give to the goddess Deana [my] headgear and band less
one third. If anyone has done this, whether boy or girl, whether free or slave,
I give him [to the goddess] and through me [i.e. my curse] let him be unable
to live.”) (see also 2.2.2.).
A very strange reward is promised in tablet No. 284 from Caistor St. Edmund,
dfx.3.7/1:
A Nase… eve(h)it Vroc… sius fascia(m) et armi(lla)s, capitulare,35
speculum,36
cufia(m), duas ocrias, X vasa stagnea, si mascel, si femina, si
puer, si puella. Duas ocri(as)37
si vull(u)eris (= volueris?), factae sang(uine)
suo, ut (i)llu(m) requirat Neptu(nu)s et amictus et cufia et armilla(e)…
denarii XV capitulare. Tunc sanguin(e)… fasciam tenet fur e carta
s(upra)s(cripta)… ratione. (“From Nase… Vroc… sius carried away a scarf38
and bracelets, a cap, a mirror, a mutch, a pair of knee stockings/leggings?,
ten tin vessels, whether a man or a woman, whether a boy or a girl. If you
would like a pair of knee stockings/leggings?, [Neptune,] may they become
[yours] through his/her blood, may Neptune find him and the cloak and the
mutch and the bracelets… fifteen denarii, a cap. Then, the thief will have a
band [repaid with his own?] blood, resulted from what is inscribed above.”).
(see Kropp, 2008), e.g. dfx.4.1.3/8: …inimicum… Marti et Dianae, or No. 222
(9.2.).
34
See the commentary of Tomlin (2003, 362 ff.): capitulare et fascia; both parts of the
clothing are along with each other in other tablets from Britain, too. This suggests
that they were worn together – capitulare was probably a cap or some covering of
head, while fascia a scarf. Furthermore, notice also that the author gives an
unusually great part of the things (two thirds) to Diana as a reward; see also No. 299
and No. 293 below. The authors mostly give up a third of the stolen property for the
sake of the deity, see e.g. No. 296: …Deo s(upra)dicto tertiam partem donat… (see
1.10.2. as well as No. 286 above). The severely damaged end of the text seems to be
amended thoughtfully, although no formulation like that is documented elsewhere.
Texts from Britannia usually include the formula sanguine suo solvat, redimat (see
1.2.3., 1.9.2., and 1.10.2.).
35
See Hassall – Tomlin (1982, 408 ff.): the text reads cap(t)olare (= capitulare).
36
The text reads spectr(um)? (= speculum) (Hassall – Tomlin, 1982, 408 ff.); cufia (=
cofia), see also the Italian cuffia (“a mutch”).
37
This term probably refers to leather stockings, leggings, or gaiters.
38
The term could also refer to tights; Hassall – Tomlin (1982, 408 ff.) translate as
“wreath”, i.e. a garland, ribbons.
12. BRITANNIA
381
The text is disrupted and contains many mistakes as well as probably garbled
formulae.39
It seems that the author, probably a female as suggested by the
mutch, offers a pair of knee stockings or leggings40
as a reward to Neptune for
tracing and securing the things stolen from her. The formula factae sanguine
suo is attested nowhere else, but its interpretation fits in the context of prayers
for justice; the following sequence is very damaged (a half of the line is
missing). One would expect the usual sanguine satisfacere (No. 274, 6.2.1.3.),
or sanguine et vitae suae illud redimat (No. 277, 1.2.2. and 2.2.1.) after the
reference to blood; however, fasciam tenet fur occurs right after. The meaning
conveyed, that the thief has the scarf, does not make much sense, unless it
referred to a kind of binding spell by which the author originally meant
something like fascia teneant furem. I suggest the emendation Tunc sanguin(e)
et vitae suae illud redemat/sanguine satisfaciat, si fasciam tenet fur e carta
s(upra) s(cripta)… ratione. If we accept this, the concluding sequence can be
translated as follows: (“[as soon as Neptune finds the thief], may s/he repay for
it with his/her own blood, if the thief has [that] scarf, resulted from what is
inscribed above.”). Moreover, a formulation similar to our carta
s(upra)s(cripta)… ratione is used in tablet No. 246 from Bath: carta picta
persc(ripta) (see 1.2.2.).
Furthermore, I regard No. 241 from Aylesford, dated to the first half of the 4th
century CE, dfx.3.1.1, to be this type of prayer for justice, too.41
It reads:
B: Donatio42
diebus (= deis?). Quo(d) perit (= perdidit?) Butu resque, quae
fu(rat/ratur/ratus?) nec ante sanitatem nec salutem (habeat/habeant?), nisi
qua(m) in do(m)o die (= dei)… sanitatem in do(mo dei?) (pertulerit?).
See the commentary of Hassall – Tomlin (1982, 428 ff.) who translate the
preserved donatio diebus as “A gift to the gods?”, and the following sequence
quo perit as “by which Butu has perished”. However, although no similar
formula has been documented so far, I prefer the emendation quo per(i)at =
pereat. They also emend the disrupted fu..t to furat (instead of the expected
39
The translation is based on the interpretation and translation of Hassall – Tomlin
(1982, 408 ff.).
40
Perhaps also a sum of money correspondent to the value of the stolen property.
41
The damaged text on side A: sssti S(unt?) s(upra)s(crip)ti (see Kropp, 2008); this
addition must be followed by the thief’s name or the formula si vir si mulier…;
however, this was not preserved in the tablet perhaps due to a mechanical damage.
42
The tablets contain predominantly dono; the term donatio, just like petitio (see
above), probably imitates the official language, i.e. it refers to “a proposal”, or “a
submission” (of the request). For the original text, see Appendix II.
12. BRITANNIA
382
furatur) and translate “and the property he steals”. The proper name Butu is
supposed to be the name of the thief who should die because of the theft he
committed on the author. Kropp (2008) plausibly adds quo(d) per(did)it Butu;43
however, the beginning of the disrupted fu..t which must also have referred to
the theft or the stolen property can also be regarded as a mistake instead of the
intended furatus. If this is the case, then Butu is the author of the tablet who
afflicts the unknown culprit with restrictions to compel him return the stolen
things. This interpretation requires some emendations of the original text which
may not be unjustified considering the fact that the text contain several
deviations from Classical Latin (see Appendix II). Moreover, the latter kind of
formulation is well documented in prayers for justice. Thus, I interpret the text
as follows:
(“Committal to the gods. [What] Butu has lost, and the things that have been
stolen from him,44
may [the unknown culprit(s)] not be healthy nor safe,
until/unless [he brings them] to the temple of the god.”).45
If we followed Tomlin’s interpretation, which, however, does not have any
documented parallel in preserved texts, the beginning of the text with emended
pereat may have been as follows: (“Committal to the gods. [By which] Butu
may die, the things he steals, may he not have health or vigour…”). As the text
was probably inscribed by someone inexperienced in the practice, the sentences
do not follow coherently after each other, which makes the proper
understanding of the text difficult (see also 3.3.1.1.).
Tablets No. 250 (see 1.10.2.) and No. 261 (see 3.3.1.1.) fall within the same
category.
The much damaged tablet No. 263 from Bath, dated to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE,
dfx.3.2/39, also indicates that its author sought the return of his property:
… (tib)i(?) q(u)er(or)… exigi, (si servu)s, si liber hoc tulerit, (non il)li
permittas in sangu(i)ne… sui… (“…I complain to you, [goddess Sulis]… to
exact… [whether a slave] or a free man has taken it, do not let him, in
blood…”)
43
See a similar formulation in No. 246: (D)eae Suli donavi (arge)ntiolos sex, quos
perd(idi) (see also No. 277, 1.2.2., and No. 291 above).
44
This emendation implies the passive meaning of the perfect participle furatus, as it is
attested e.g. in Apuleius.
45
There is a doubling of the concluding sequence which is obviously a mistake.
12. BRITANNIA
383
The author of tablet No. 265 asks the deity not to let the culprit sleep and be
healthy, until he has his things back with him: …tamdiu quamdiu hoc
(ill)ud/apud? se habuerit… (see 6.2.1.2. and 3.3.1.1.).
The much disrupted text of tablet No. 272 from Bath, dfx.3.2/56, perhaps
reveals that the culprit was supposed to bring the pallium he has stolen to the
same place where he took it: …nisi eodem loco ipsum pallium (re)ducat (see
Appendix II).
The brief tablet No. 293 from Ratcliffe-on-Soar, dfx.3.19/2, dated to the 4th
century CE, also promises a reward to the deity:
Annoto de duas ocreis, ascia(m), scalpru(m), manica(s),46
si m(ulier) au(t) si
b(aro)… duas partis deo… (“I give a report/I accuse?47
[the unknown
culprit] about the pair leggings/gaiters, [which I have lost and also] an axe, a
knife, gloves [all things in the accusative], whether [they have been stolen
by] a woman or a man… two thirds to the god…”).
Tablet No. 299 from Uley, dfx.3.22/6, dated to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE, which
has not yet been mentioned, is another remarkable prayer for justice:
Nomen furis, qui frenum involaverit, si liber, si servus, si baro, si mulier, deo
donatur, duas partes a fima (= a femina?) sua tertia ad sanitatem(?)
(templum?). (“The thief who has stolen the bridle, whether free or a slave,
whether a man or a woman, is commended to the god, two thirds of his
woman?, one third to his health? [are promised to the god]”). (See 1.6.).
Tomlin (1993, 127) notes that the author probably confused the restrictive
formula ne ei permittas somnum et sanitatem referring to health with the
formula ad templum pertulerit which concerns the return of the stolen things to
the temple and would make more sense here. See also the prayer for justice No.
305 which makes use of very strange restrictions (6.2.1.1.).
46
The term manica, -ae, f. may refer either to “manacles”, or “a hook”, or “gloves”. It
is hard to decide what exactly the author has lost here, he may have just as well
meant mantica, i.e. “a sack”.
47
The verb annoto does not appear anywhere else in curses or prayers for justice. It
may mean either “I condemn”, or it may convey a similar meaning to
commonitorium or petition, i.e. peto, rogo (“I submit a request, ask, beg”).
12. BRITANNIA
384
12.2.3 Texts Pursuing Vengeance upon or Punishment of the Culprit
This is the most frequently preserved type of prayer for justice in Britain – 31
tablets. The authors of these let loose their justified anger by afflicting the
culprit with vengeance or punishment. They do not mention the return of stolen
property at all and, consequently, they do not promise any reward to the deity.
On the other hand, these texts usually contain much crueller and more creative
punishments (see 6.3.); 22 prayers for justice found in Britannia include
formulae expressing the wish to kill the culprit, in another five texts such
intention can be presumed due to the presence of the often incomplete formula
sanguine suo redimere/satisfacere (see 6.2.1.3. and 6.3.).
The diction of some prayers for justice from Britannia, as well as from other
provinces, especially Germania, closely resembles that of curses. Tablet No.
260 from Bath, dated to the 3rd
/4th
century CE reads:
A: Aenum meum qui levavit (e)xonic(tu)s (= exconfixus)? (e)st. Templo Sulis
dono si mulier si baro si servus si liber si puer si puella et qui hoc fecerit,
sanguinem suum in ipsum aenum fundat… (“[The person] who has lifted my
bronze vessel is utterly accursed. I give [him] to the temple of Sulis, whether
woman or man, whether slave or free, whether boy or girl, and let him who
has done this spill his own blood into the vessel itself…”).48
The author further commends the unknown thief to the deity who is supposed to
find him/her: …eum latronem, qui rem ipsam involvait, deus inveniat.
Tablet No. 275 expresses a similar wish which is structured as a prayer but its
content strongly reminds us of curses:
…ut sanguine et luminibus et omnibus membris configatur vel et iam
intestinis excomesis (om)nibus habe(at), qui anilum involavit vel qui medius
fuerit (“…may he be accursed in [his] blood and eyes and every limb, or
even have all [his] intestines quite eaten away, he who has stolen the ring or
who was involved in this.”) (see 6.2.1.3.).
The culprit is also supposed to be killed by the addressed deity in tablet No. 266
from Bath, dfx.3.2/46, dated to the 3rd
/4th
century CE, which reads:
48
For the whole text, see 1.10.2. and 3.1.2.1. with a commentary.
12. BRITANNIA
385
…conqueror tibi Sulis, Arminia, (ut) Verecundinum Tarenti c(ons)umas,49
qui argentiolos duos mihi levavit,50
no(n il)l(i p)ermittas nec sedere nec
iacere nec ambulare nec somn(um nec) sanitatem, (illu)m51
quantocius
consumas et iter(u)m…(no)n perveniat. (“[I] Arminia, complain to you,
Sulis, [so that] you kill Verecundinus, son of Tarentus, who has stolen two
silver coins from me. You are not to permit him to sit or lie, or to walk, or to
[have] sleep, or health, kill him as soon as possible so that it does not happen
again?”)
The end of the text is disrupted and obscure – the verb perveniat also occurs in
the concluding part of tablet No. 291 (see 12.2.2. above), but in a different
meaning. The author perhaps wishes that the culprit does not appear again and
steal something else.
Moreover, tablet No. 308 even uses the verb concrucio, which is in its simpler
form of crucio frequently found in the curses against race-horses from
Hadrumetum; see e.g. No. 162: …ut equos prasini et albi crucies…; or No. 169:
ex (h)oc momento, ut crucietur… (see 11.1.3.2.).
See tablet No. 308 from Britannia?, dfx.3.24/1, dated to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE,
in which, too, the deity is supposed to torture the culprit to death:
(Don)atur deo Merc(urio, si) q(u)is involaverit… nec non alia minutalia52
Tocitami, si baro, si mulier, si puella, si puer, si ingenuus,53
si servus. N(o)n
an(t)e eum laxet, quam membra (ra?)pi manu (ad?) diem mortis concruciat
e(u)m, qu(i) securim (I)unioris involavit… nec non et qui res (p)ictor(i)a(s?)
49
The verb consumo is attested in curses meaning “to destroy, kill”; see No. 16 from
Italia (Chapter 5): Danae ancilla novicia Capitonis: hanc hostiam acceptam habeas
et consumas Danaene… (“Danae, the new maid of Capito: accept her as an offering
and consume Danae….”); or the curse No 132 from Carthage aimed against a
gladiator: ... consu(m)at(i)s cor, membra, viscera, interania (M)auruss(i venatoris),
quem peperit Felicitas. (“…consume the heart, limbs, entrails, and bowels of
Maurussus [the hunter], whom Felicitas bore.”) (see 11.1.3.1.). It appears in the
same meaning also in prayers for justice, see No. 285 (6.2.1.1.) ... qui hoc involavit,
sangu(in)em eius consumas.
50
There is revavit in the text, which is probably a mistaken levavit (see Appendix I).
51
Tomlin (1988, No. 54) regards illum or eum the most probable emendations.
52
See the commentary of Tomlin (1991, 293 ff.), and also No. 303 resculas (1.10.2.).
53
This is perhaps an otherwise unattested variation of the usual formula against an
unknown thief si liber si servus.
12. BRITANNIA
386
involaverit.54
(“Whoever has stolen… is commended to the god Mercury…
and also other knick-knacks of Tocitamus, whether a man or a woman, a girl
or a boy, free-born or slave. [May the god let] him not rest, until? his limbs
and hands? [Mercury?] may he torture him up [until] the day of [his] death
the one who has stolen the axe of Iunior… and [may he] also [torture?] the
one who has stolen the fittings for painting/writing?”).
The text is disrupted and it seems that the formulae do not concur in the usual
way. See Tomlin (1991, 293 ff.) who supposes that the author copied the text
from a sample form without any deeper understanding of it. Formula using the
verb laxo is also documented in tablet No. 296 (see 1.10.2.):
…qui hoc circumvenit, non ante laxetur, nisi quando res (supra)dictas ad
fanum s(upra)d(ic)tum attulerit… (“…he who has stolen it should not have
rest, before/unless/until s/he brings the aforesaid property to the aforesaid
temple…”).
Thus, in tablet No. 308 we would expect something like “until he brings the
things back” after N(o)n an(t)e eum laxet; however, the author of our text
followed up with another punishment for the thief. The following sequence is
unclear, too – it seems that the author wanted to proceed with the list of body
parts supposed to be tortured by the god, but the missing part between membra
and manu amended by Tomlin as (ra?)pi does not make sense. One would
rather expect a brief list of body parts, although hands fall within the more
general term “limbs”. A similar repeating of the body parts regarded important
by the author are also found in curses (see e.g. No. 12, 7.3.1.2.); nevertheless,
our prayer for justice lacks a verb. Apart from an axe, the author has been
probably deprived of the fittings for painting or writing. The verb concrucio
indicates that the tablet is a most western adaptation of the Mediterranean, in
this case perhaps the African, cursing tradition, similarly to love spells (see
6.2.1.2.).
Tablet No. 309 from Britannia?, dfx.3.24/2, is another prayer for justice,
unfortunately disrupted, using the formulations of killing which are found
nowhere else. It reads:
54
Text contains several deviations from Classical Latin; I state it here in emended
form (see Appendix II).
12. BRITANNIA
387
…amisi, oro tuam m(aie)statem, ut furem istum, si ancilla, si puer, si
(puella), ext(i)nguas… ut illi s(ic fa)cias perduci55
(r)em ra(ptam?)… um et.
([The name of the author or a reference to stolen property did not preserve]
“…I have lost, I ask your majesty to extinguish that thief, whether a female
slave,56
or a boy, or a girl,… to arrange that s/he…”)
The verb exstinguo (“to extinguish, quench, annihilate”) does not appear in any
other curse or prayer for justice. Considering the fact that the end of the text is
much damaged, it cannot be determined whether its author sought only
vengeance, or perhaps also a return of the stolen things; therefore, I classify the
tablet as a text pursuing vengeance.
Speaking about vengeance, one cannot omit tablet No. 306 from Uley,
dfx.3.22/36, dated to the 3rd
century CE. Its author explicitly refers to the fact
that he wants revenge:
C(h)arta, quae Mercurio donatur, ut manecilis,57
qui perierunt, ultionem
requirat; qui illa involavit, ut illi sanguinem et sanitatem tollat; qui ipsos
manicili(o)s tulit, (u)t quantocius illi pareat,58
quod deum Mercurium
r(o)gamus… (“The sheet [of lead] which is given to Mercury to exact
vengeance for the gloves which have been lost, may he take his blood and
health, of the one who has stolen those gloves, may he fulfil as soon as
possible what we ask the god Mercury for...”)
A similar formulation using the verb pario is also attested in tablet No. 303:
…ut petitio mea statim pariat me vindicatum esse a maiestate tua. (“...to
immediately hear my petition so that I am revenged by your majesty.”) (see
1.10.2.).
55
Hassall – Tomlin (1988, 489 ff.); perduci is uncertain and does not fit in the context
very much, we would rather expect reduco (“to bring back”) followed by a reference
to the stolen things. However, the text is too damaged to be interpreted reliably.
56
Hassall – Tomlin (1988, 490 ff.) suggest the interpretation ancilla (“a female slave”)
based on tablet No. 280 (below) which reads si servus, si ancilla, si li(bertus, si)
liberta, si mulier, si baro.
57
The term manicilium probably means “the gloves”, it is also attested in tablet No.
244 from Bath (see 6.1.). The author of this tablet writes maneciliis instead of
maniciliis (see also Appendix II).
58
Tomlin (1996, 441); pareat = Classical Latin pariat.
12. BRITANNIA
388
Some texts suggest that the culprit is supposed to suffer his punishment,
probably die, in the shrine; see the disrupted tablet No. 249 from Bath,
dfx.3.2/23:
Si (qui)s vomerem Civilis involavit, ut an(imam) suam in templo deponat…
(si? n)o(n) vom(erem)… (si ser)vus, si liber, si libertinus59
… finem faci(a)m.
(“If anyone has stolen Civilis’ ploughshare [I ask] that he [the thief] lay
down his soul [i.e. life] in the temple… unless?60
... the ploughshare, whether
a slave or free, or a freedman… I am done [with this/him].”) (see also 1.2.
and 2.3.5.)
The formula animam deponere also appears in a curse against a gladiator, No.
132, from Carthage: …animam et spiritum deponat in omni proelio… (see
11.1.3.1.). However, the verb depono is also used in a different context, as in
tablet No. 183 from Constantine in Africa (see Chapter 5): …(de)mando, ut
facias illum mortu(um). Depona(s) eum ad Tartara… (“…I order you to arrange
for his death. Put him in Tartarean regions...”). Nevertheless, all the occurrences
of the verb depono in curses as well as prayers for justice are obviously related
to death. As for the concluding sequence finem faciam, it is not clear what it
relates to – i.e whether the author used it to make end to the injustice he
suffered, or to do away with the culprit, or perhaps it may have been the
formula used to conclude the curse, see No. 198 ending with claudo (12.1.1.).
The author of tablet No. 280 from Brandon, dfx.3.3/1, probably wishes that the
thief who has stolen an iron pan is immolated for the deity:
SERADVASORISDVAS61
si servus, si anc(il)la, si li(bertus, si) liberta, si
m(u)lie(r), si baro, popia(m) fer(re)am62
eaenec furtum fecer(it), domino
59
Tomlin (1988, No. 31) states that libertinus does not occur in any other curse tablet;
the text following after is disrupted so we do not know what it was contrasted with;
see also No. 308 using the pair si ingenuus si servus. I translate as “freedman”; see
also the following tablet No. 280 with the terms libertus, liberta.
60
Something like “unless he brings back the ploughshare” can be expected here, but
the text is damaged. The interpretation that the culprit is supposed to confess or do
penance in the temple does not seem very plausible to me.
61
The incomprehensible sequence is perhaps an anagram adversarius(?) (see Hassall –
Tomlin, 1994, 295). According to the editors, the term cor(u)lo may have been an
allusion to ritual execution or punishment.
62
See Hassall – Tomlin (1994, 294 ff.) who comment on the obscure term popia
ferrea, which probably refers not to a dipper, but a pan; see also No. 273: pannam
ferri (see below). The incomprehensible eaenec follows.
12. BRITANNIA
389
Neptuno cor(u)lo pare(n)ta(tu)r. (“[Whoever], whether a male or female
slave, whether a freedman or a freedwoman, whether a woman or a man, has
committed the theft of the iron pan and?… may s/he be immolated to the god
Neptune with a hazel-tree?”).
Hassall – Tomlin (1994, 295) state that this is the first reference from Britain to
the fact that the culprit should be immolated to the god; other texts from Britain
usually instead make use of verbs like dono or devoveo, i.e. the authors rather
commend or devote the culprit or the stolen things to the deity (see No. 247 and
No. 294).
The culprit of another iron pot’s theft is supposed to pay with his own life, too;
No. 273 from Bath, dfx.3.2/57, dated to the 2nd
–3rd
century CE reads:
Exsuperius donat pannam ferri,63
qui illi innoc(entiam?)… Sulis, si vir, (si
femin)a, si servus si liber. Ho(c)… suas invola(veru)n(t), si vir, si femina,
s(ati)sfecerit sanguine illorum. Hoc devindices, (si) quis aenum mihi
involavit. (“Exsuperius gives the iron pan, who… innocence? to him… Sulis,
whether a man [or a woman], a slave or free. This?… stole my…, whether a
man or a woman, may s/he pay for it with his/her own blood. Avenge this, if
someone stole the pot.”).
The formula sanguine suo is attested only in the texts from Britannia and almost
exclusively in prayers for justice; only a single curse (No. 208, see 12.1.1.)
makes use of it.
Furthermore, tablet No. 281 from Brean Down, dfx.3.4/1, dated to the 4th
century CE expresses a similar wish – the culprit should repay for the theft of a
cart with his own blood:
…caricula, quae64
…(si s)er(v)u(s si) liber, si ba(ro) s(i muli)er, qui…
(d)omina… facias sic (i)lla (re)dim(a)t sanguin(e s)uo… si bar(o), si
63
The term pannum ferri (= pannam?) is obscure, it cannot refer to a fabric because of
the specifying ferri; however, the term is further explained by quis aenum mihi
involavit. Thus, it must have referred to a metal pot, perhaps a pan or a baking tin.
Tomlin (1988, 201) supposes that it is a local variant of the term panna, i.e. a type of
vessel.
64
Kropp (2008) adds dono tibi caricula, quae amisi, which seems to be a logical
solution well fitting in the usual diction of prayers for justice; nevertheless, the
disrupted text does not completely correspond to this interpretation (see Hassall –
Tomlin, 1986, 434).
12. BRITANNIA
390
mulier… (“[I commend to you?] the cart/load which [was stolen from me/I
have lost?], whether a slave or free, man or woman, who [committed this]…
Mistress… make him/her redeem it with his/her own blood… whether a man
or a woman…”).
The text is very disrupted but able to be interpreted. Its author obviously
commends the stolen property – probably a cart or some load65
– to the deity.
The prayer for justice is concluded with the common formula against an
unknown culprit.
The grievance of the robbed author is apparent in tablet No. 278 from Bath,
dfx.3.2/79, dated to the the 3rd
– 4th
cent.as well. The tablet contains an unusual,
but plausible, term donum when speaking of the thief’s spoil:
Minervae deae Suli donavi furem, qui caracallam meam involavit, si servus,
si liber, si baro, si mulier. Hoc donum non redimat, nisi sangu(i)n(e) suo....
(“To Minerva the goddess Sulis I have given the thief who has stolen my
hooded cloak, whether a slave or free, whether a man or a woman. May s/he
not redeem this ʻgiftʼ unless with his/her own blood.”).
Just like in curses, the authors of prayers for justice ask the deity to carry out the
requested vengeance in a certain span of time. See No. 282 from Broomhill,
dfx.3.5/1:
Si servus, si liber, (qu)i furavit, su(st)ulit, (ne ei) dimitte (male)ficium, dum
tu vindicas ante dies novem, si pa(g)a(n)us, si miles, (qui) sustulit. (“[The
one] who has stolen, taken [it?], whether a slave or a free man, do not
forgive him his crime, until you punish [him] in less than nine days, whether
[it was] a pagan or a soldier who has taken [it].”) (see also 3.3.1.1 and 1.6.).
An almost identical formula is found in tablet No. 287 from London Bridge,
dfx.3.14/3, which reads:
Te rogo Neptunus,66
ut me vendicas de isto nomine,67
me vindicas (=
vendicas) ante q(u)od ven(iant) die(s) novem, rogo te, Neptunus, ut tu mi
65
The term caricula is not clear in this context, as it probably does not refer to “a
small dried fig”. Therefore, it may rather be a diminutive form of carrus (for a
detailed discussion of this, see Hassall – Tomlin, 1986, 435).
66
The tablet reads tibi rogo Metunus, i.e. Neptunus in the nominative instead of the
proper vocative; see also Mercurius (Vulgar Latin; see Appendix II). The text
contains several deviations from Classical Latin, and I state the amended form here.
12. BRITANNIA
391
vend(i)cas ante quod ven(iant) di(es) n(o)vem. B: (E)xsuparanti(us),
Silviel(a)e, Sattavill(a)e, (E)xsuparatus Silvicol(a)e, Avitus, Meluss: datus,
pervici tibi: Santinus, Mag…etus,… Antoni(us), San(c)tus, Vas(s)ianus,
Varasius datus. (“I ask you, Neptunus,68
to avenge me upon that culprit, to
avenge me sooner than nine days [pass]. I ask you, Neptune, to avenge me
before nine days come [the nominal list of potential culprits concluded by
datus pervici tibi…datus]”).
The concluding datus was probably meant as datus est, i.e. the author
commended the culprit to the hands of the deity; the sequence pervici tibi is
obscure.69
Perhaps it may be understood as …Melusso datus est tibi, i.e. he is
commended to you, the god, to be overcome/punished. Further, tablet No. 290
(see 3.3.1.1.) also makes use of a magical number nine when specifying the
duration of the punishment in years: …nec eant per annos novem.
Several prayers for justice also express the conviction of their authors that the
deity will really find the culprit, either due to a return of the stolen things or
vengeance. Tablet No. 277 (1.2.2.), or No. 297 from Uley, dfx.3.22/4, dated to
the 2nd
–4th
century CE, reads:
Deo M(a)rti Mercurio… anulus aureus de ho(spitiolo? involav?)erit70
et
pedica ferre(a)… qui fraudem fecit… deus inveni(a)t. (“To the god
Mercury… a golden ring, [whoever has stolen it from the house?] and an
iron shackle… who committed the theft… may the god find [him/her]”).71
Despite the damage done to the text, a reference to the theft containing
involaverit/furaverit can be added according to the usual formulae. The tablet
67
The text reads de iste numene instead of de isto nomine; the term numen would not
make sense here (see also No. 63, 9.1.1., and No. 291 above, 12.2.2.). The term
nomen refers to the unknown culprit.
68
This is probably a mistake of the author caused by the Vulgar Latin pronunciation of
the pt consonant group (see also Italian Nettuno). Moreover, no god named Metunus
is documented, only the Priapic Mutunus exists (see Hassall – Tomlin, 1987, 360)
but the editors do not take him into account.
69
See the commentary of Hassall – Tomlin (1987, 363); the text reads peruci tibi
which is amended by the editors to pervici tibi, i.e. the Classical Latin pervici te, and
translated as “I have prevailed upon you”.
70
Tomlin (1991, 308) addss involaverit; Kropp (2008) furaverit. Both additions are
logical and fit well in the usual diction of prayers for justice.
71
Tomlin (1991, 308) states that this is the only text which is addressed to Mars and
Mercury together; the tablets from Uley are usually addressed to Mercury only.
12. BRITANNIA
392
certainly mentions theft of a golden ring, but the term pedica ferrea, i.e. “an
iron manacle” or “a legcuff”, is problematic. Tomlin (1991, 308) assumes that
the term does not, in fact, allude to a stolen item but is a part of a (nowhere else
attested) formula expressing the wish that the culprit is bound with shackles.
However, because of the various common stolen things commonly referred to in
prayers for justice from Britain (see 6.1.), it seems possible that someone stole
iron shackles. The concluding, yet disrupted, formula deus inveniat obviously
concerns the thief; see also No. 277: deus illum inveniat (1.2.2.), or No. 260:
Eum latronem, qui rem ipsam involavit, deus inveniat (see 1.2. and 1.10.2.). In
contrast with these, tablet No. 220 from Hispania pursues the finding of the
stolen property, not the thief: ut meas reas invenia(m) (see 8.2.).
The perpetrator of defraud mentioned in tablet No. 307 from Wanborough,
dfx.3.23/1, dated to the 2nd
century CE, should be punished, too:
…Depre(co)r te, peto…peto iudicio tuo qu(i) d(e me? p)eculans… tum, ne
illi permittas bibere nec (esse nec vigilare nec do)rmire nec ambulare neque
ullam (partem vivere sinas? illiu)s gentisve, unde ille nascit(ur)… ulla nec
alumen72
… pr(ae?)ve(h)emente(r?) loquantur et r…ugabatur(?) certum
sciu(n)t… s… (“I beg you [and] ask… ask for your judgement? the one who
defrauded me of? ...do not let him drink, nor [eat, wake, nor] sleep, nor walk,
nor any [member?] of the family he comes from live…[the remaining text
cannot be interpreted]”).
Unfortunately, the tablet is much damaged,73
but its beginning corresponds to
prayers for justice. As for the sequence peto iudicio tuo, one may surmise that
the deity, whose name may have been stated in the text but was not preserved, is
supposed to condemn the (perhaps unknown) culprit; see Rea (1971, 366).
However, such a formula is not documented anywhere else so this passage
remains incomprehensible. The term iudico is probably a mistake for indico,
which appears, for instance, in tablet No. 115 from Carthage (see 11.1.2.);
nevertheless, the interpretation of the sequence as indico tuo qui… does not help
us much in understanding of the text. Only the restrictive formula ne ei
permittas is plausibly clear.
72
See the commentary of Rea (1972, 365) who interprets alumem as alimentum
pointing out the similarity with love spells, see No. 144: …ut amoris mei causa non
dormiat non cibum non escam accipere possit (see 5.1.4. and 11.1.4.). Perhaps the
author of this tablet No. 307 wanted the culprit to starve.
73
I base my argumentation on the reading of Rea (1972, 365 ff.). The editor himself
notes that several passages are disrupted and cannot be interpreted as a consequence.
See also TheDeMa 715.
12. BRITANNIA
393
Tablet No. 243 from Bath, dfx.3.2/2, was very likely inscribed by a Christian.74
It is dated to the 4th
century CE and contains several peculiar expressions and
even a proverb:
A: Si puer si puella, si vir si femina, qui hoc involavit non ei remittatur,75
nis(i) innocentiam… non illi dimittatur nec somnum, nisi ut Euticia modium
nebulae modium veniat76
fumi. (“Whether a boy or a girl, whether a man or a
woman, may the one who has stolen it not be forgiven… unless… innocence
(in the accusative)77
… may s/he be unforgiven, [may s/he be unable to]
sleep, only if Euticia sells a modius of mist and a modius of smoke.”).
The text does not start with a typical polite address to the deity; the author’s
name is not stated. Instead of the ne ei permittas commonly used in Britannia,
the tablet reads non ei remittitur and non illi dimittatur – see the commentary of
Tomlin (1994, 106 ff.) who thinks that these expressions imply the author’s
familiarity with Christian texts where the verbs meaning “to forgive” frequently
occur. If he is right, the text is a Christian modification of the usual cursing
formula. The end of the tablet reads nisi ut Euticia (= Class. Eutychia)…, a
formula which is not found anywhere else. The name Euticia does not refer to
any known deity or mythological figure, perhaps it alludes to some unknown
proverb which has not been preserved, or, eventually, it may have been the
culprit’s name who would then be sentenced to an unrealizable task, see also
Lat. fumum vendere. Proverbial expressions also appear in the texts from
Germania in connection with the business and property of the accursed person;
see the curse No. 87 (10.1.1.): …quit aget, aginat sal et aqua illi fiat, and the
prayer for justice No. 233 (10.2.2.): sal et aqua illi eveniat.
74
See also tablet No. 276 (2.3.3.) with a modified formula against the thief: seu
gen(tili)s seu christianus. For the adaptations of the cursing tradition by Christian
authors, see Björck (1938, 46 ff.), Blänsdorf – Piranomonte (2012).
75
The reading according to Tomlin (1994, 106); remittere and dimittere often appear
in Christian texts (and also in tablet No. 276 from Bath, 2.3.3.); however, the
commonly used formula is non ei permittas.
76
Veniat perhaps stands for vendat.
77
The text is, unfortunately, damaged. Tomlin (1994, 106) presumes that the author
may have wished that “he [i.e. the thief] is not forgiven, if he does not prove his
innocence”. However, the culprit is unknown in this text. The term innocentia
occurs in other three texts; however, these are mostly disrupted and therefore cannot
shed any light on the meaning of our text (see No. 273 above, No. 235, 10.2.2., and
No. 209, 7.5.).
12. BRITANNIA
394
12.3 ADDRESSED DEITIES
The curses found in Britannia are only rarely addressed to a deity, and only No.
191 and No. 298 appeal to Mercury. Other tablets do not explicitly invoke any
deity; however, when considering the evidence found in the sacred precinct of
Mercury in Uley, it can be presumed that the authors addressed the tablets to
him (see No. 203–207). The same applies for the findings in the sacred spring
of the goddess Minerva Sulis, No. 184–194. Thus, it can be assumed that 18
tablets appealed to Mercury or Sulis; as for the texts found elsewhere, the
addressed deities cannot be determined.
Prayers for justice found in Britannia are different in this respect due to their
distinct formulary structure − they often begin with a polite address to the deity.
Fittingly to the numerous findings of tablets in Bath and Uley, their authors
most frequently address the goddess Sulis (15 times) or Mercury (12 times). Ca.
23 tablets from Bath and Uley obviously, although not explicitly, appealed to
Sulis or Mercury; in five tablets, no address to the deity is preserved.
Furthermore, prayers for justice also invoke deities not often appearing in
curses like Neptune (four) and Mars (five), or rarely also Jupiter (No. 292),
Diana (No. 288), and Domina Nemesis (No. 283).
Generally, it can be said that prayers for justice from Britannia are more
frequently addressed to local deities not typically associated with dark forces;
they almost never invoke the powers usually appealed to in curses like daemons
or Di inferi, Di Manes, Pluto, and Proserpina. Both curses and prayers for
justice are usually addressed to Mercury or to the goddess Sulis, similar to the
tablets from Mainz whose authors usually appeal to Mater Magna and Attis.
Moreover, many tablets from Bath and Uley not explicitly stating any deity
obviously also invoked the goddess Sulis and Mercury, which is also
comparable to the tablets found in the votive depository adjacent to the temple
of Mater Magna in Mainz.
12.4 VOCES MAGICAE, SIGNA MAGICA, A NON-STANDARD
ORIENTATION OF SCRIPT
Just like those from all the European provinces apart from Italy and Gallia, the
texts from Britannia do not contain any Latin or Greek magical words, names of
daemons, or magical signs. Only graphic magical features occur, i.e. a nonstandard
orientation of script (mostly right-to-left or mirror-like writing). The
curses found in Britannia, which are much less numerous than the prayers for
justice from this area, make use only of the right-to-left orientation of script, but
12. BRITANNIA
395
with individual letters inscribed in the normal way, or the mirror-like script with
the right-to-left direction of script as well as individual letters. Such graphic
layouts appear in five curses from Britannia, i.e. almost a quarter of the
preserved texts.
The prayers for justice are more diverse in this respect again − about one sixth
of the texts are written in a non-standard way (right-to-left), especially the
tablets from Bath (No. 242, No. 260, No. 269, No. 270, and No. 277). Tablet
No. 276 was inscribed right-to-left as well as upside-down; the texts from Uley
do not make use of these techniques. As for the other locations in Britannia,
only tablet No. 241 is written as a boustrophedon; No. 287 is inscribed anticlockwise
and mirror-like around its perimeter; and No. 282 is written mirror-
like.
This leads us to the conclusion that curses make use of a non-standard
orientation of script generally more frequently than prayers for justice, although
some texts from Germania and Britannia do apply a magically oriented script to
a greater extent even in prayers for justice.
12.5 FORMULAE AND PEOPLE ACCURSED
12.5.1 Formulae
Only few formulae are documented in the curses found in Britannia: 32 in 25
tablets. Formula 0, i.e. the nominal list of people accursed, prevails markedly
(20 tablets); furthermore, Formula 1, i.e. direct curse with the predicates of
cursing in active or passive voice, is represented six times (see 2.2.1.). Formula
1a, direct curse with the predicates of committal, occurs only once; whereas
Formula 4, i.e. invoking wish-formula, is found in two curse tablets.
Although the number of formulae used in the prayers for justice from Britannia
is not much higher than that of curses (100 formulae in 69 tablets), unlike
curses, these are mostly quite complicated. The most frequent formula is
Formula 2a, i.e. invoking formula with the predicates of committal with a
purpose clause introduced by ut and the predicate in the 2nd
person sg.
subjunctive (28); Formula 4 (20) as well as Formula 2 with the predicates of
committal with a clause with final value introduced by ut and the 3rd
person
subjunctive (15) are well documented, too; Formula 1a is attested seven times.
The imperative Formulae 3 and 3a are used only scarcely (each in three tablets)
and, finally, the Simile-Formula 5 is found in a single tablet. In other words, the
formulae with the predicates of committal are used most frequently, because
12. BRITANNIA
396
they correspond to the usual structure of prayers for justice whose authors
commend the thief or the stolen things to a deity. Another frequent formula is
the indirect Formula 4 (see 2.3.5.).
12.5.2 Victims of curses
Considering the quite insufficient evidence of preserved curses from Britannia,
the average number of people accursed seems rather high when compared to
Italy or the African provinces. Altogether 25 tablets are aimed against ca. 108
people, and men (79) dominate over women (29) significantly in this respect.
Thus, approximately four people are accursed in each tablet. The victims are
slaves, freedmen, and free citizens; even the local names of Celtic origin appear.
The names of the victims are usually inscribed in the nominative, or, only
rarely, in the accusative. Two tablets include the author’s name, too − No. 208
(see 12.1.1.) and No. 204 which is, however, problematic to interpret (see
10.1.1.). There is usually no filiation via father’s or mother’s name; rather the
more general attributes occur, such as uxor or servus. Two tablets include
filiation via father’s name (No. 203 and No. 188) as well as one filiation via
mother’s name (though not expressed by the common quam peperit formula).
12.5.3 Authors and victims of prayers for justice
The prayers for justice from Britannia were mostly motivated by thefts, and
only ten times are due to a different reason like deceit, defraud, and an unstated
or undeterminable cause. This area provides the only sufficiently preserved
regional body of evidence of all Latin prayers for justice; thus, it may really be
a representative corpus of this cursing tradition pointing, at the same time, to the
specific features of the texts from ancient Britannia. It seems that prayers for
justice in Britannia were more often written by men (22) than women (seven);
however, these data are incomplete because of the often anonymous authorship
of prayers for justice, as well as of curses. The author’s name is included in less
than half of the texts (ca. 30 times). As for the victims, these are, again, more
often men (36) than women (22); nevertheless, the ratio is, in this case, not so
unbalanced as in curses. The texts mostly concern thefts committed by an
unknown culprit − 52 texts, out of which 37 use the general formula si puer si
puella... Due to the prevalence of unknown culprits (52 tablets), the names of
people accursed are included only scarcely.
The basic structure of a prayer for justice can be divided into six elements (see
Chapter 6 and 1.2.3.), whereas I consider a reference to damage or loss suffered
to be the only decisive criterion for the classification of a text as prayer for
12. BRITANNIA
397
justice is. Other optional elements appearing in prayers for justice are: polite
address to a deity, author’s name, committal of the thief or the stolen property
to a deity, culprit’s name (if it is known). Finally, prayers for justice can also
make use of the list of damages afflicting the culprit, or the restrictions leading
to the return of the stolen property. A polite address to deity was found in 37
tablets from Britannia, which makes up about half of the preserved texts in this
area. The thief or the stolen property are committed to a deity using predicates
like do and dono in 30 tablets; the author’s name also appears 30 times, as
already stated above; a reference to the culprit, whether known or unknown, is
found in almost all tablets (67); two texts are damaged to such an extent that it
is impossible to say whether they contained such a reference or not (No. 251
and No. 302). An explicit statement about the aim of the prayer for justice −
return of the stolen property, revenge and return of the stolen property, revenge
only − occurs in 57 tablets (see also 12.2.).
Only ten texts (ca. 1/7) out of the total number of prayers for justice analysed in
this work from Britain (69) contain other information than the damage suffered,
including: author’s name, address to a deity, a reference to the culprit, and/or a
reference to punishment/restrictions/return of the stolen property. 18 tablets
contain four of the above mentioned elements; 21 tablets include three of the
usual elements of prayers for justice. Finally, 16 texts contain only two usual
elements of prayers for justice. Four texts are damaged to such an extent that
only a single element can be identified with certainty. Thus, the most frequent
elements of the prayers for justice from the province of Britannia are: a essential
reference to damage suffered, to the culprit (67 times), and to the aim of the
prayer (57 times). Speaking of the aims expressed in these tablets, it must be
emphasized that in almost half of the texts the author pursues punishment of or
revenge upon the culprit (31 tablets), while 23 texts aim both at punishment of
the culprit and return of the stolen property, and only three texts refer to mere
return of the stolen things; in 12 disrupted texts the aim cannot be determined
with certainty. Other features of prayers for justice like address to a deity,
author’s name, and committal of the matter to a deity appear ca. in half of the
texts. Therefore, a reference to the culprit, whether known, unknown, or
suspected, as well as revenge upon or punishment for him, appears to be the
crucial information provided by prayers for justice (right after stating the
damage suffered). By all means, it was, no doubt, essential also for those who
inscribed the curse tablets or had them made by professionals in order to harm
their opponent/s.
13. SUM
This ch
previou
specific
the simi
The dat
Roman
Europea
prayers
justice a
with the
extant G
present
marked
M
MMARY
hapter draws
us Chapters 2
c features of
ilarities and d
ing and distr
Empire are
an provinces
for justice p
are attested f
e largest num
Greek and L
state in Th
in red.
Map 1. Distrib
on and brie
2–6. It sums
the evidenc
differences o
ribution of th
not even. C
s and Africa
preserved in
from Africa;
mber of praye
Latin defixio
heDema can
bution of def
efly summar
s up the con
e found in t
of the analyz
he curses and
Curses have
a and althou
n Hispania a
on the other
ers for justic
ones preserve
be seen in
fixiones in th
rizes the par
nclusions of
he particular
ed curses an
d prayers for
e been found
ugh a somew
and Germani
r hand, ancien
e. An overvi
ed from anti
the Map 1
he Roman Em
rtial conclus
Chapters 7–
r provinces t
d prayers for
r justice prese
d predomina
what higher
ia, no Latin
nt Britannia
iew of the nu
iquity, accor
. The greek
mpire (TheDe
sions of the
–12, i.e. the
to point out
r justice.
erved in the
antly in the
number of
prayers for
provides us
umber of all
rding to the
k curses are
eMa).
The ov
distribu
The ana
keep in
the anci
compare
excavat
many ta
where o
tablets w
Italy, ou
1
The m
texts)
influe
Piran
verview of
ution of curse
Map 2
alysis of thes
mind that th
ient cursing
e the nume
ions in Brita
ablets come
over 160 tex
were found;
ut of which o
most recent fi
) from the sp
ence the stati
nomonte (2010
the analyze
es and prayer
2. Distributio
se texts often
he fragmentar
tradition fra
erous findin
ain with the
from marg
xts were foun
whereas on
only 50 can b
indings (26 ta
pring dedicat
istics significa
0); Blänsdorf,
13. SUMMA
399
ed Latin te
rs for justice
on of curses a
n raises more
ry evidence w
agmentary, to
ngs coming
e overall num
ginal areas o
nd in only tw
nly 57 texts
be analyzed.1
ablets, many o
ted to the go
antly. See 7.1
, J. – Piranom
ARY
exts from e
can be seen
and prayers f
e questions th
we possess m
oo. This bec
from the
mber of text
of the Roma
wo sanctuari
are preserve
1
However, w
of these being
ddess Anna
1., and also B
onte (2012).
ach provinc
in Map 2.
for justice.
han answers.
makes our kn
omes obviou
modern arc
ts found in I
an Empire li
es, or Mainz
ed in the wh
we know that
fragmentary
Perenna in R
Blänsdorf (20
ce and the
. One has to
nowledge of
us when we
chaeological
Italy: while
like Britain,
z, where 34
hole area of
t magic was
or only brief
Rome do not
010a, 2012a);
13. SUMMARY
400
practiced in Italy for a long time, much longer than in the above mentioned
marginal areas − sanctions against curses appear already in the Laws of the
Twelve Tables (see 1.1.). Thus, we have to admit that the preserved tablets do
not provide us with a comprehensive image of the contemporary magical
tradition; rather they provide us with a mere glimpse of the contemporary
reality which included the evidence forever lost now or not found yet. This, no
doubt, also applies to the texts produced by specialized magical workshops,
especially the series of curses against riders and race-horses. Despite the fact
that a relatively high number of these (ca. 73 analyzable texts) have been
preserved in Africa, it must have been only a fragment of the overall production
at the time.
The lacunose evidence is problematic in other respects, too, and there are
questions which cannot be answered with certainty today. The earliest Greek
curses were found in the Greek colony of Selinous in Sicily and date to the
6th
/5th
century BCE; in Attica the first cursing texts are preserved from the 5th
century CE (see 7.2.). However, the oldest extant Latin curse, coming from
Pompeii, was dated as late as the 2nd
century BCE (see No. 33).2
The preserved
evidence implies that, despite Selinous’ position in the imminent proximity of
Italy and the 45 Greek curses found in this location,3
it would have necessarily
lasted two or three centuries until Latin curse tablets started to be produced in
Italy. But this seems very unlikely if we take into account the preserved Oscan
curses, five of which are dated to the 4th
or 3rd
century BCE4
and which contain
formulae almost identical to Latin curse texts. Moreover, the corpus of Etruscan
inscriptions documents lead tablets dated to the 4th
–2nd
century BCE probably
containing curses. In spite of the fact that the cursing formulae used in Etruscan
texts cannot be interpreted as easily as those in Oscan tablets, the ritual
treatment of the tablets (they were put in graves, rolled into scrolls, and
wrapped with a wire) speaks unambiguously for curses (see 7.2.). Therefore, I
assume that the first Latin curse tablets were probably inscribed as early as the
first Oscan and Etruscan curses, i.e. in the 4th
/3rd
century BCE.
2
Tablet No. 110 from Delos was also dated to the 2nd
century BCE, while tablet No. 6
from Etruria comes from the 2nd
–1st
century BCE (see below; 1.10.1. and 7.3.).
3
See Bettarini (2005); Rocca (2012, 397 ff.); 7.3.
4
See 7.2.
DISTR
Curses
The dist
illustrat
the unf
contains
simple
accursed
Etruria
nominal
century
The am
from thi
RIBUTION O
tribution of
ted by Map 3
fortunately v
s a list of cu
Latin curse
d people (se
dates to the
l list of accu
BCE preserv
Map
ount of evide
is era were f
OF THE EX
preserved La
3. Only two t
very disrupte
ursed body p
No. 110, d
ee Appendix
e 2nd
/1st
cen
ursed people
ved in Italy a
p 3. Curses d
ence gradual
found in Italy
13. SUMMA
401
XTANT LAT
atin curse te
texts certainl
ed text No.
parts and a
dfx.10.1/1 fr
I). Tablet N
ntury BCE a
e. Only a fe
and Hispania
dated to the 2
lly increases
y, Hispania,
ARY
TIN DEFIXI
exts in time a
ly come from
33, dfx.1.5.
simile-formu
rom Delos i
No. 6, dfx.1.
and is also
ew pieces of
a (see Map 3
2nd
-1st
centur
in the 1st
an
and also in
XIONES
and space is
m the 2nd
cen
.4/1 from Po
ula (see 1.10
ncluding the
1.3/1, from C
comprised o
f evidence f
).
ry BCE.
d 2nd
century
the Northern
graphically
ntury BCE −
ompeii that
0.1.); and a
e names of
Cerveteri in
of a simple
from the 1st
y CE − texts
n provinces,
especial
evidenc
The ext
practice
evidenc
from Af
5
See 7
lly Germania
ce have also b
Ma
tant docume
es in the 2n
ce from this
frica, see Ma
7.1., 8.1., 10.1
a where sev
been found in
ap 4. Curses
entation sugg
nd
and 3rd
c
era does no
ap 5.
., and 12.1. an
13. SUMMA
402
veral texts da
n Pannonia,
dated to the
gests that th
centuries CE
ot come from
nd Barta (200
ARY
ate to 65–13
Noricum, an
1st
-2nd
centu
here was a h
E; however,
m Italy, Hisp
9, 2012, 2015
30 CE (singl
nd Britannia)
ury CE.
huge boom
the largest
pania, or Ger
5, 2016, 2017)
le pieces of
).5
of magical
amount of
ermania, but
).
Maap 5. Curses
13. SUMMA
403
dated to the
ARY
2nd
-3rd
centuury CE.
Texts d
Britanni
Prayers
The evi
the first
century
not very
see the
century
and 92)
prayers
6
The ne
corpus, a
Ma
dated to the
ia.6
s for Justice
dence of pra
t extant praye
CE, with m
y rich Greek
evidence fro
BCE found
). Based on t
for justice, a
ew findings fr
about 16 tabet
ap 6. Curses
4th
-5th
centu
e
ayers for just
ers for justic
ost of them b
k corpus of e
om the 4th
/3r
in Bruttium
this, one may
as well as of
om Italy, from
ts are dated to
13. SUMMA
404
dated to the
tury CE com
tice seems to
e found in th
being made
extant prayer
rd
century BC
m in Italy (DT
ay plausibly p
curses, alrea
m the fountain
o the 4th
– 5th
c
ARY
4th
-5th
centu
me predomin
o be of a late
he European
in the 1st
or
rs for justice
CE found in
T 72 and 21
presume also
ady in the 3rd
n of Anna Per
century CE).
ury CE.
nantly from
er date than t
provinces da
the 2nd
centu
e is older by
Athens or f
2; Gager, 19
o the existen
d
century BCE
renna, not inc
Gallia and
the curses −
ate to the 1st
ury CE. The
centuries −
from the 3rd
992, No. 83
nce of Latin
E.
cluded in this
The am
beginnin
CE, as m
Map 7. P
mount of evid
ng in the 1st
most of the ta
Prayers for ju
dence of the
century CE
ablets found
13. SUMMA
405
ustice dated t
extant praye
E and reaches
in Britannia
ARY
to the 1st
-2nd
ers for justic
s its peak du
a were made
century CE.
e increases i
uring the 2nd
in this period
.
in Britannia
d
/3rd
century
d.
Later pi
Map 8. P
ieces of evid
Prayers for ju
ence were fo
13. SUMMA
406
ustice dated t
ound only in
ARY
to the 2nd
-3rd
Britannia an
century CE.
nd Gallia.
.
Howeve
real spre
of the t
scholar
DISTR
Non-Sp
This typ
most fre
− it com
been fo
see 12.1
10.1.1.)
11.1.1.)
magical
Map 9. P
er, it remain
ead of the co
texts is often
(see 1.3.).
RIBUTION O
pecific Curse
pe of curse,
equently pre
mprises 45%
und in Italy
1.1.) with alm
; only a few
. This type
l tradition in
Prayers for ju
s disputable
ontemporary
n problemati
OF TYPES O
es
whose motiv
served from
% of all anal
(33; see the
most no othe
w pieces of e
of curse is
the Roman E
13. SUMMA
407
ustice dated t
to what ext
ancient curs
ic and may
OF CURSE
vation and c
m all curse tex
lyzable texts
e anatomical
er extant typ
evidence com
documented
Empire, but m
ARY
to the 4th
-5th
tent the prese
sing tradition
considerably
ES
context canno
xts (see 1.1.2
s. Most of n
l curses in 7
es of curses,
me from the
d in all perio
mostly from
century CE.
erved tablets
n. In addition
y differ from
ot be determ
2. and espec
on-specific c
.3.1. ff.), Br
, and German
African pro
ods of the e
the 1st
-3rd
ce
.
s reflect the
n, the dating
m scholar to
mined, is the
cially 4.1.1.)
curses have
ritannia (23;
ania (17; see
ovinces (see
existence of
entury CE.
Neverth
differen
in love (
Furtherm
about w
Legal C
The tab
most fr
number
provinc
Hispani
docume
extant
procedu
Ma
heless, the co
ntiate legal an
(see the class
more, the te
whether the pr
Curses
bellae iudicia
equent type
r of legal c
es (14); only
ia (four), Ga
ented in Nor
legal curses
ures certainly
ap 10. The ev
ontext of pos
nd agonistic
sification of
erritorial dis
reserved text
ariae, as leg
of curses −
curses is at
y a few text
llia (three), a
ricum and B
s obviously
y took place
13. SUMMA
408
vidence of n
ssible causae
c curses, as w
curse types i
stribution of
ts really refle
gal curses ar
− they make
ttested from
ts were foun
and Pannoni
Britannia yet
does not r
e in all provi
ARY
non-specific c
e defigendi is
well as love sp
in 1.1.2.2.).
f the extant
ect the reality
re sometimes
e for 20% o
m Germania
nd in other p
ia (three); no
t. This very
reflect the r
inces. Thus,
curses.
s often obvio
spells or case
evidence ra
y of the time
s called, are
f all texts. T
(12) and t
provinces − I
o legal curses
uneven dist
real situation
it cannot be
ous, then we
es of rivalry
aises doubts
e.
the second
The highest
the African
Italy (four),
s have been
tribution of
on, as legal
e taken as a
proof th
African
how ran
the 1st
c
CE (see
Agonist
This typ
for 20%
hat legal cur
provinces,
ndom archae
century CE;
e also 4.1.2.).
tic curses
pe of curses
% of all analy
rses were pa
or even not
ological find
the African
.
Map 11. Th
aimed at gl
yzed texts.
13. SUMMA
409
articularly po
used at all
dings may be
evidence com
he evidence
ladiators, cha
ARY
opular either
in some pla
e. Most of ex
mes mostly
of legal curs
arioteers, and
r in Germani
aces, rather i
xtant legal cu
from the 2nd
es.
d race-horse
nia or in the
it illustrates
urses date to
d
/3rd
century
es makes up
All Lati
may be
and gam
made in
is clear
their ma
professi
and 11.3
(seven t
tablets a
Hadrum
matched
tablets;
proximi
7
See
Piran
M
in agonistic c
presumed t
mes took pla
n specialized
from their u
agical graphi
ionally made
3.). Only a sm
tablets) were
aimed agains
metum. Thes
d by the Gre
see Tremel
ity of Porta S
also the new
nomonte (2012
Map 12. The
curses were f
that they we
ce (see also
magical wor
se of magica
ic layout (e.g
e tablets are
mall number
e found in th
st charioteers
se varied lo
eek curses a
l, 2004, No
S. Sebastian
w findings f
2), with a curs
13. SUMMA
410
evidence of
found in the
ere used in a
4.1.)7
. Agon
rkshops by p
al words ofte
g. signa mag
mostly addr
r of agonistic
he Carthage a
s and race-h
ocations of
against rival
o. 70–90). M
no on Via Ap
from the fou
se possibly aim
ARY
f agonistic cu
African prov
all areas whe
nistic texts fr
professional r
en written in
gica, depictio
ressed to dae
c curses inten
amphitheatre
horses were f
extant Latin
s in the circ
Most of thes
ppia or on th
untain of An
med at gladiat
urses.
vinces only;
ere amphithe
rom Africa w
ritual practiti
the Greek al
on of daemon
emons (see a
nded to afflic
e; on the oth
found in the
n agonistic
cus found in
se were loca
he Quirinal, i
nna Perenna
tor.
however, it
eatres stood
were mostly
tioners. This
lphabet, and
ns, etc.); the
also 11.1.3.
ct gladiators
her hand, 34
graves near
curses are
n Rome (20
ated in the
i.e. not in a
Blänsdorf –
13. SUMMARY
411
stadium or a circus. Although no Latin curses against rivals in the circus
preserved in Rome, based on the Greek evidence, we can plausibly assume that
such texts originally existed. Curse texts were found in other amphitheatres, too,
e.g. in Trier or Caerleon in Britannia; however, these are not agonistic curses.8
Almost three quarters of agonistic curses date to the 2nd
/3rd
century CE.
Love Spells
Love spells, too, preserved almost exclusively in the African provinces, only
single and not very intelligible text No. 106 was found in Raetia − they make up
for ca. 8% of Latin analyzed texts.9
The formulations used in love spells differ
substantially from other types of defixiones (see 4.1.4.). The fact that we do not
possess hardly any tablet from other provinces, is probably due to the
randomness of archaeological findings, too, as it is suggested by the references
to the widespread use of these rituals and practices in the works of Roman
writers, especially the elegiac poets or Apuleius. The extant love spells are of
later date than other types of curses − they mostly date to the 3rd
century CE.
These were predominantly made by professional magicians as is obvious from
many graphic peculiarities occurring in these texts, e.g. Latin text inscribed in
the Greek alphabet (see 11.1.4. and 11.3.).
8
See e.g. tablets No. 58 –64 from Trier, and No. 283 from Caerleon; see also 4.1.3.
9
These are marked in pink in the Map. See also the new findings from the fountain of
Anna Perenna Blänsdorf – Piranomonte (2012), probably including a love spell of
uncertain text, which is not included in the analysis of this work, and the tablet No.
69 (9.1.3.).
.
Map
Rivalry
The tab
up for c
Europea
found in
date to
century
triangle
No. 148
a couple
DISTR
As for t
curses a
10
Thes
p 13. The evi
y in love
lets referring
ca. 7% of al
an provinces
n the African
the 1st
centu
CE. These
), contrary t
8, 1.9.2.), me
e and they ar
RIBUTION O
the distribut
and prayers f
e are marked
idence of lov
g to the fact t
l texts analy
s, most frequ
n provinces y
ury BCE; ho
were mostly
o love spells
en. They are
re formulated
OF CURSIN
tion and freq
for justice (s
in purple in th
13. SUMMA
412
ve spells and
that they wer
yzed in this c
uently from I
yet. The first
owever, mos
y inscribed b
s whose auth
most freque
d in the same
NG FORMU
quency of pa
see also Cha
he map.
ARY
d curses relate
re motivated
corpus.10
Th
Italy; no evid
t tablets conn
st of them w
by women (i
hors were, e
ntly aimed a
e way as othe
ULAE IN TH
articular type
apter 3, espe
ed to rivalry
by rivalry in
hey are attest
dence of the
nected to riv
were made in
in the contex
xcept for on
against a riva
er types of cu
HE ROMAN
es of curse f
cially 3.2.),
in love.
n love make
ted from all
ese has been
valry in love
n the 1st
/2nd
xt of a love
ne item (see
al woman or
urses.
N EMPIRE
formulae in
it has to be
13. SUMMARY
413
stated that all types of formulae are attested only from Italy, where each curse
text includes approximately three formulae on average. Many types of formulae
(all but one) are also documented in Africa and Gallia; however, the average
number of formulae per text is lower – two formulae per tablet. In this respect,
there seems to be a substantial difference between the curses found in Britannia
and those from other provinces of the Roman Empire. The curses from
Britannia are mostly comprised only of nominal lists of accursed people, rarely
accompanied by Formula 1 or 4. This stands in direct opposition to the cunning
and resourceful prayers for justice found in this area (see 12.2.).
No gradual development of cursing tradition bound to using or not using a
certain formula can be observed in Latin curses. Parallel use and combining of
various formulae appear already in the very first preserved Latin curses. This
may perhaps be due to the lacunose character of the extant evidence.
Invoking formulae are the most frequently used construction in curses,
specifically Formula 2, i.e. type commendo, ut pereant, can be regarded the
most universal and commonly used formula. Its addressee is usually an
explicitly stated deity and the 3rd
sg./pl. predicate of the subordinate clause aims
at the absent accursed person (see 2.3.1.). This formula appears in curses from
all regions (90 times), as well as in prayers for justice, although to a lesser
extent (21 times). For a more detailed account of its use, see Chapter 3,
especially 3.2.
Moreover, the choice of formulae is often a source of information on the
authors’ level of education and approach, in general. The imperative invoking
formulae, i.e. Formula 3, type interficite eum, and Formula 3a, type obligate
equos, ne currere possint, which occur especially in the African provinces and
Italy. Their use is related to the addressed deities and, in the above mentioned
cases, especially daemons, which is closely linked to the activities of
professional magicians in these areas (see 3.2.). On the contrary, these formulae
are only scarcely used in prayers for justice. The invoking wish-formula 4, type
Philocomus tabescat without any explicitly stated addressee is documented
mostly in the curses from Italy and the African provinces, too; however, it is
found also in the prayers for justice from Britannia and Germania (see 3.1.8.
and 3.1.8.1.).
The invoking formula 2a, type rogo, ut reprehendas, is typically used in prayers
for justice. It contains the predicates of request, plea, or committal and the
addressed deity is supposed to be the agent of the author’s wish (see 3.1.5.1.).
Unlike other regions, the prayers for justice found in Germania often make use
13. SUMMARY
414
of complicated and artful simile-formulae of quomodo – sic type (see 3.1.9.1.
and 10.2.). Thus, the distinct structure of prayers for justice – authors commend
their affairs and directly appeal to deity – plays a significant role in the choice
of the particular formulae, despite the fact that the authors’ wishes are
sometimes almost identical in curses and prayers for justice.
The following chart gives an overview of the most frequently used formulae in
curses and prayers for justice from particular provinces.
The frequency of particular formulae in curses and prayers for justice:
CURSES PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
Formula 2: commendo, ut pereant…
20 % (90×) Italy, Africa, Britannia
Formula 2a: rogo, ut reprehendas…
24 % (42×) Britannia, Germania
Formula 3: trade morti filium…
16 % (72×) Italy, Africa
Formula 4: Philocomus tabescat…
18 % (31×) Britannia, Germania
Formula 4: Philocomus tabescat…
11 % (50×) Africa, Italy
Formula 2: commendo, ut pereant…
12 % (21×) Britannia
Formula 3a: obligate equos, ne
currere possint…
11 % (50×) Africa, Italy
Formula 5: simile-formula
12 % (20×) Germania
Formula 0: nominal list
15 % (66×) Britannia, Italy, Germania
Formula 1a: dono capitularem...
5 % (9×) Britannia
For other additional information regarding the time data and vota in curse texts,
see 3.3. ff.
DEPOSITION OF THE TABLET – LOCATIONS OF FINDINGS
As already mentioned above, curse tablets were usually put into graves,
sanctuaries of chthonic deities, water sources, shrines of local deities,
amphitheatres, or other places having some connection to the victim (see
1.8.3.), which is in agreement with the instructions stated in the magical papyri.
The analysis of extant Latin curses reveals some differences in the customs
related to tablet’s deposition in a proper place. These depend on the character of
curse text (curse/prayers for justice) and probably also on the particular
territory, which is related to the gradual spread of cursing customs to the
Northern provinces as well as Britannia and the adjustments of these rituals
made by local people.
13. SUMMARY
415
Latin curses were predominantly put into graves, which applies for all provinces
apart from Germania, Britannia, and Gallia. In Germania, most of the tablets
were found in sanctuaries (15), less tablets were discovered in graves (13). As
for Gallia, most of the, evidence was found in amphitheatre (six), some tablets
also in graves (four). Beside the findings at the shrine of the goddess Sulis in
Bath, altogether 13 tablets analysed in this corpus were found in water
sources.11
In Britannia, the most appropriate place for tablets seems to have been the
shrines of local deities, more specifically, the sacred precinct and spring
dedicated to Sulis in Bath and the sacred precinct of Mercury in Uley. Almost
no tablets were found in the shrines outside Germania – one tablet in Italy, one
in Noricum.
Even though the potential suitable places for depositing a tablet are the same
both for curses and prayers for justice, the analysed evidence of the latter shows
a different practice. In the European provinces, and especially in Britannia,
prayers for justice were mostly found in sanctuaries or shrines with hot springs
like Bath (66 tablets altogether). More numerous findings come also from water
sources (nine tablets) or from the soil (eight tablets); however, in the latter case,
the original places of tablets’ deposition cannot be determined. Only four
prayers for justice from the European provinces were found in graves and six of
them in amphitheatres (Trier, Carnuntum, Caerleon).
Based on the extant but lacunose documentation, it can be assumed that the
preferred deposition places in the European provinces and Africa were graves
(curses) and sanctuaries (prayers for justice). On the other hand, the texts with
curses from Germania and Britannia found in shrines may suggest certain
blending of curses and prayers for justice, or of the authors’ approach to these
practices. The idea that authors of rightful prayers for justice do not fear to put
their tablets to the sanctuary of local deity to be avenged or to punish the culprit
deservedly, while the authors of curses tend to use rather graves or other places
associated with chthonic deities and daemons because they are well aware that
their amoral behaviour is not supported by the evidence. Both the authors of
prayers for justice and the authors of curses from the Northern provinces and
Britannia deposit their tablets in the shrines of local deities.
11
See also the new findings from the spring of Anna Perenna in Rome (7.1.).
13. SUMMARY
416
FINAL TREATMENT OF THE TABLET
As already stated in 1.8.2., about a half of the extant curse tablets were folded,
rolled into scrolls, wrapped with a wire, or pierced with a nail before being
deposited in a proper place.12
In all provinces, the tablets containing analysable
curses were most frequently rolled into scrolls (121) or show traces of
transfixion with a nail (28). 50 pieces of evidence do not display any signs of a
ritual manipulation; however, these cannot be distinguished in several damaged
tablets. The transfixion of tablets occurs mostly in curses from Italy (18)13
which makes it the most common way of treating the tablet in this area – only
half of the tablets found in Italy were rolled into scrolls or not ritually
manipulated at all. This type of ritual manipulation is rather scarce in other
provinces.
Prayers for justice are similar in this respect – the not very numerous evidence
from the European provinces is mostly rolled into scrolls, or not manipulated in
any way; transfixion is documented only rarely (once in Italy, twice in
Germania). The distinguishable tablets from Britannia were mostly rolled into
scrolls, too (38); 17 tablets do not show any signs of a ritual manipulation,
while eight tablets were transfixed.
ADDRESSED DEITIES
Both curses and prayers for justice often include an address to a deity who is
supposed to fulfil author’s wish; however, the explicit name of that deity is not
stated in ca. third of all texts and was probably merely uttered. Moreover, an
explicit reference to deity is often omitted in the texts which were found in
votive depositories, e.g. in Bath or in Mainz, because the authors of these
obviously appealed to the deities worshipped in the particular sanctuary. The
choice of the addressed deities was dependent rather on the territory than on the
different character of curses and prayers for justice.
Gods and Daemons Addressed in Curses
The analysis of the names of deities used in curses from all provinces shows
that 66 analysed curses do not explicitly state any deity, and 64 texts appeal to
12
For the data from the recent corpus of Kropp (2008), see 1.8.2. As for the texts
analysed in this work, some sort of ritual manipulation pertains to ca. three quarters
of them.
13
For other treatments of the tablets, see the new findings from the spring of Anna
Perenna in Rome, Blänsdorf – Piranomonte (2012) and 7.1.
13. SUMMARY
417
daemons, either via magical words or their names. Especially the tablets from
the African provinces are often addressed to daemons; the otherwise commonly
used chthonic deities like Pluto, Proserpina, or Di Manes appear only scarcely
in these. This can, no doubt, be explained by the activities of professional
magicians in this area. On the contrary, in the European provinces daemons are
more often appealed to only in Italy (see 7.3.1.5.). Only three out of the few
extant curse texts found in Hispania include an address to chthonic Di inferi;
however, in Italy we find Di inferi (seven times), Di Manes, Pluto (three times),
Pluto together with Proserpina, Cerberus (six times), as well as the deities
associated with water sources (see the most recent findings at the spring of
Anna Perenna in Rome; 7.4.). As for Gallia, ca. half of the texts include an
address to a deity, whereas other gods apart from Pluto and Proserpina appear in
these – Mars and Diana, Isis. The spread of oriental cults to the Northwestern
provinces is evident in the texts from Germania, too, where a large number of
curse tablets were found in the votive depository of the sacred precinct
including a temple dedicated to Mater Magna and the goddess Isis. Thus, apart
from the usual addresses to chthonic deities like Di inferi (four times), or Di
Manes (three times), the authors of these texts (mostly prayers for justice) also
appeal to Mater Magna and Attis. As for the other ca. 13 tablets from the same
depository, it can be assumed that their authors appealed to Mater Magna or
Attis, as well, although the names of these were not included in the curse text.
The few curses preserved in Britannia only rarely state any deity – Mercury
appears twice; nevertheless, it can be presumed that the eleven curses found in
Bath were addressed to the local goddess Sulis, while the seven tablets from the
Mercury’s sacred precinct in Uley appealed to Mercury. Concerning the less
frequent local deities, No. 103 and No. 104 from Raetia are addressed to the
local god Ogmius (10.1.2.), and the texts from Raetia and Pannonia
occasionally appeal to the goddess Muta (No. 105 and No. 107), or to the river
god Savus (see 10.1.2.).
The curses from the African provinces are always addressed to chthonic deities
or daemons, which more or less also applies to the evidence found in Italy and
Hispania which includes addresses to water nymphs, as well. On the other hand,
the spread of the cursing tradition to the northern and western marginal areas of
the Roman Empire was accompanied by the introduction of the local deities not
primarily considered as the chthonic ones.
Gods Addressed in Prayers for Justice
Prayers for justice display similar tendencies to curses with regards to addressed
deities. As already mentioned above, we possess ca. 66 curses (less than third of
13. SUMMARY
418
the evidence) which include no address to deity, if we exclude those tablets
which were found in a depository or shrine of a particular deity and can be thus
regarded appealing to the deity concerned.
The names of deities often do not occur in prayers for justice, too, especially in
the European provinces. However, this is true only for about a sixth of the texts,
if we again exclude the evidence from the sanctuaries in Mainz (three)
addressed to Mater Magna, and in Bath or Uley (23) addressed to Sulis and
Mercury. The aforementioned names are also the most frequently explicitly
addressed deities in prayers for justice (15 texts appeal to Sulis, 13 to Mercury).
Furthermore, the authors of prayers for justice, too, occasionally appeal to
chthonic deities like Di inferi, Pluto, Proserpina, or Cerberus, although much
less than the authors of curses. Magical words are found only very scarcely in
prayers for justice (see No. 239, 6.2.1.3.). What is remarkable is that curses and
prayers for justice from Gallia, Germania, and Britannia seem to appeal to the
same deities – Diana in Gallia, Mater Magna and Attis in Germania, Sulis and
Mercury in Britannia. The prayers for justice from the marginal area of the
Roman Empire sometimes appeal to local deities, as well, e.g. Moltinus (No.
238), or Juno Aeracura (No. 101 and No. 239).
Even though prayers for justice are often addressed to the local deities, the
tendency typically appears in the marginal areas of the Roman Empire,
regardless of whether the text contains a curse or a prayer for justice. The
different situation of the texts from these areas can be assigned to the local
customs and adaptations of the Mediterranean cursing tradition.
VOCES MAGICAE, SIGNA MAGICA, AND SCRIPT IN THE SERVICE
OF MAGIC
Several accompanying magical elements start to appear especially in the curses
from the African provinces from the 2nd
century CE. These frame or supplement
the proper text of those curses which were produced by specialized workshops
and based on the complicated magical instructions documented in PGM. The
authors of these appeal to daemons as to executors of their wishes not only
through their names but by using also magical words, both usually inscribed in
the Greek alphabet. Occasionally, sequences of incomprehensible magical
formulae, incantations, or the so-called charaktéres, also named grammata
(geometrical patterns built of vocals and consonants), or signa magica (strange
magical symbols) are used for this purpose (see 1.7.1.). Some tablets also
include a depiction of the addressed deity or daemon, or even of the cursed
13. SUMMARY
419
person – see e.g. the tablets from Bologna (7.3.1.5.), see also the findings from
the fountain of Anna Perenna.
On the other hand, prayers for justice almost never include these magical
elements. As for the curses from the European provinces, generally, it can be
said that they only rarely include magical words and the names of
deities/daemons. If there, after all, are some texts which use these means, they
rather date to the later periods and are located mostly in Italy (see tablets No. 3–
5, No. 18, and No. 25) or in Gallia (No. 67 and No. 68 with magical words in
Latin letters; No. 65 in the Greek alphabet).
On the contrary, the tablets from African provinces very frequently (80% of
analysed texts) used magical words and names of demonic figures or exotic
deities. In the texts found in Carthage, incantations and names of deities are
inscribed exclusively in the Greek alphabet; the extant texts from Hadrumetum,
on the other hand, use (and often combine) both Latin letters and the Greek
alphabet to inscribe magical words and names of deities with a slight
predominance of the Greek alphabet. The most northern tablet documenting
magical words written in the Greek alphabet is No. 239 from Carnuntum in
Pannonia. Therefore, despite the insufficient amount of extant evidence, we can
assume that the African cursing customs, probably thanks to professional
magicians, spread to the other parts of the Roman Empire, especially to the
Italian territory and its centre, Rome.
The situation is similar regarding other graphic magical features of tablets.
Depictions of demonic figures occur only scarcely outside the African
provinces, e.g. in Bologna (7.3.1.5.) or in Rome (No. 18 and No. 19). Recently,
they can also be found in the evidence found in the fountain of Anna Perenna in
Rome (see 7.1.). The complicated texts mostly combine these depictions with
non-alphabetic symbols and Greek incantations (No. 3.5), rarely also with
charaktéres (No. 18 from Rome belonging to the so-called Sethianorum
tabellae).14
Few signa magica are documented in the tablets from Gallia and
Germania (No. 62, No. 84, and a prayer for justice No. 222); No. 57 from Gallia
includes alphabetic sequences which may have had a magical power, too (see
9.4.).
The African evidence is the most complicated and the most elaborate as for the
graphic layout. A quarter of the tablets from Carthage (mostly curses against
14
These consist of altogether 43 tablets written in Greek and five disrupted texts
written in Latin.
13. SUMMARY
420
charioteers, race-horses, and gladiators) and a fifth of the tablets from
Hadrumetum (the series of almost identical agonistic curses aimed at
charioteers and race horses) analysed in this work include a depiction of
demonic figure (see 11.2. and 11.1.3.2.); a sixth of the texts accompany such a
depiction not only with usual incantations but also with patterns built of vocals
and consonants. Half of the mostly agonistic texts from Hadrumetum contain
also signa magica occurring after each paragraph (see especially No. 152,
11.1.3.2.). As already said above, the African tablets were mostly made by
experts in the field, which is also evident from the series of almost identical
tablets, differing from each other only in the number and names of accursed
people or horses. The differences between these series are probably due to the
distinct customs of particular magical workshops.
A certain magical effect may have also been acquired in a less sophisticated
way, i.e. not using any depictions of daemons, vocalic patterns, etc., but through
the simple change in the usual orientation of script. This kind of magical
reversal of writing (right-to-left/upside-down) is several times matched also by
the formula verto – aversus in the text (see especially 10.2.2.). In the curses and
prayers for justice from the European provinces, we find several ways of
script’s reversal: right-to-left, upside-down, spiral, or boustrophedon. It can be
assumed that these means were applied to enforce the effectiveness of curses,
especially by the authors who were only superficially familiar with cursing
conventions and made and inscribed the tablets themselves. Other than the leftto-right
orientation of script was used only in roughly 1/5 of the analysed curse
texts. Save the series of tablets against charioteers and race-horses from
Hadrumetum (11.1.3.2.) whose texts were written around the perimeter, a
special orientation of script occurs mostly in the European provinces. In Italy
and Hispania, we have five such texts, whereas 1/3 of tablets found in Germania
were written right-to-left, and the practice reached as far as Britannia (1/5 of
curses).
Prayers for justice make use of these means only rarely and almost exclusively
in Germania (more than half of texts) and Britannia (1/7 of texts).
AUTHORS AND VICTIMS OF CURSES
The analysis of curse texts shows that the victims were more often men than
women, as is stated in the conclusion of each chapter pertaining to defixiones
from particular provinces (see 7.7., 8.5., 9.5., 10.5., 11.4., and 12.5.2.). This is
probably related to the sovereign social status of ancient men, which is evident
especially because curses found in Italy aim at men twice as much as at women;
13. SUMMARY
421
in Germania, it is even four times more often men than women. As for the texts
from the African provinces, the situation is similar, although these are mostly
agonistic curses aiming at race-horses. The curses from Carthage analysed in
this work accurse about 258 horses, while the curses found in Hadrumetum
accurse about 986 horses.
Generally, it can be said that each curse is usually supposed to afflict more than
one person at a time. Thus, a single curse from Italy accurses five people on
average (the highest number of all); four people are accursed per a tablet in
Hispania and Britannia; two-three people per a tablet in other provinces.15
As already mentioned above, authors’ names scarcely appear in the curse texts,
except for love spells due to the importance of identifying the exact person on
whose behalf the daemons are supposed to “deliver” the beloved person.
Occasionally, the names of authors are also found in legal curses from Hispania
and Germania (see 8.5., and especially 10.5.).
Authors and Victims of Prayers for Justice
Prayers for justice may include both the authors’ and the victims’ names.
However, as these texts were usually aimed against thieves, the victim’s name
was often not included if the culprit was unknown to the author. In such cases,
the author usually referred to the culprit using a relative clause like e.g. qui
involavit, or the formula si puer, si puella, si vir, si mulier…, which is
frequently found especially in the prayers for justice from Britannia. Generally,
the prayers for justice from the European provinces include less features typical
of this genre than the evidence found in Britannia. Apart from Germania and
Hispania, the authors’ names are not stated at all − author’s name occurs in half
of the evidence found in Germania which is more or less matched by the far
more numerous corpus of prayers for justice from Britannia. The authors are
more often men than women, especially in Britannia where men outnumber
women by three to one.
In cases when the culprits were known or suspected, the accursed men (56)
outnumber the accursed women (34), too. Considering the accursed people from
all provinces, the victims of prayers for justice are more frequently men than
women, just like in curses. Nevertheless, the number of unknown culprits
accursed via the formula si puer, si puella or not referred to at all is the highest,
especially in Hispania and Britannia. Conversely, the texts from Italy do not
15
Love spells are usually aimed at one person only.
13. SUMMARY
422
contain any unknown culprit at all, and the texts from Gallia refer to these only
twice; the numbers of unknown culprits and the accursed men and women are
almost equal in the texts from Germania.
If we compare the structure (comprising of six elements, see Chapter 6., 1.2.3.,
and especially 12.5.3.) of the European prayers for justice (32 tablets, mostly
from Germania) to that of the Britannia evidence (69 tablets), slight differences
in the authors’ approach and local modifications can be observed in these.
Unfortunately, we do not possess compact and numerous corpora of prayers for
justice from the particular European provinces, so the data may be distorted.
However, both the European and the British evidence accord in the address to
deity and authors’ aims.
An address to deity is found in approximately half of the prayers for justice
from the European provinces (16 times in 32 texts), as well as from Britannia
(37 times in 69 texts), i.e. in the approximately same ratio (half of the texts).
Unlike the evidence from Britannia, other typical features of prayers for justice
like author’s name or committal of stolen things appear relatively less
frequently in the European provinces. The author’s name is included 30 times in
69 texts in Britannia, whereas in the European provinces, it appears only in a
quarter of cases (eight times in 32 texts); it is attested somewhat more
frequently only in Germania and Hispania.16
Similarly, the committal of the
matter to deity is preserved in about half of the texts from Britannia (30 times in
69 texts), whereas the European prayers for justice include it only in a third of
the cases (eleven times in 32 texts); again, the feature appears more often only
in texts from Germania and Hispania.
As already said before, the authors of prayers for justice seek mere return of
stolen things only rarely (see No. 218 in Hispania, three tablets from Britannia,
see 12.2.1.). More significant differences between the provinces can be
observed in cases where the author pursues both the return of his property and
punishment of the culprit − 23 texts from Britannia, but only five texts from the
European provinces (ca. 1/7 of the evidence). The authors of the European
prayers for justice mostly ask for punishment of/revenge on the culprit (24
times in 30 texts), i.e. more frequently than the tablets from Britannia where this
wish appears ca. in half of the cases (31 times in 69 texts).
Furthermore, the occurrence of structural elements typical of prayers for justice
is much lower in the European provinces than in Britannia, although the
16
These data may be distorted with regards to the disruption of preserved texts.
13. SUMMARY
423
randomness of the archaeological findings and the disruption of some texts may
play some role in this. All six elements at once (i.e. address to deity, author’s
name, committal of the thief or stolen things, reference to the culprit, and list of
damages, restrictions; see 12.5.3.), apart from the necessary reference to the
damage suffered which classifies a text in the genre of prayers for justice, are
found only once in the European provinces (Germania) and only ten times in
Britannia (see 12.5.3.). A higher number of these elements used in a single text
is attested only in Hispania and Germania (four times, four elements), contrary
to Italy and Gallia where these typical features occur only scarcely. To sum up,
based on the analysis of the extant corpus of prayers for justice it can be
assumed, with some doubts, that the European prayers for justice seem to be
closer to curses. This does not apply only to some texts found in Hispania and
Germania, which display traits common to the evidence from Britannia, the
most numerous and representative preserved corpus of prayers for justice. The
only more numerous corpus found in the European provinces (Germania and
some rare pieces of evidence from Pannonia and Raetia) contains complicated
texts with several unusual, nowhere else attested features and formulae.
Moreover, the formulations found in some of these resemble the formulations
commonly used in curses. This, together with the fact that both curses and
prayers for justice from Mainz were found in the same sanctuary context, may
indicate that the adaptations of ancient Mediterranean tradition were contingent
on the particular territory. The same is also suggested by the combining and
blending of curses and prayers for justice (see also 10.2.4.).
Aims and Wishes of the Authors of Curses and Prayers for Justice
The analysis of aims and wishes of authors expressed in defixiones analysed in
this work reveals some interesting facts. The authors of curses mostly pursued
restrictions, i.e. the paralysis of mental and bodily functions of the victims,
which they do in 41% of texts (86 texts, see 5.2.) in agreement with the type of
curses (legal, agonistic, love spells, etc.). It has to be noted here that the corpus
of curses is twice as big as the corpus of prayers for justice.
The authors of prayers for justice most frequently (55%, 55 texts) sought
revenge, or punishment of the known, or more often unknown, culprit; only in
about a third of the texts (28 tablets) they also want, beside punishment or
restrictions upon the culprit, to achieve the return of their stolen things. This
seems to be an expression of a certain scepticism and loss of hope on the
authors’ behalf about getting their things back. On the other hand, the wish to
merely exact revenge on the culprit or punish him, albeit rightfully, is more or
less matched by the wishes of the authors expressed in the curses.
13. SUMMARY
424
Restrictions occur less frequently in prayers for justice than in curses – 34% of
texts (see 6.3.). Prayers for justice from Britannia make use of both restrictive
formulae typical of love spells found only in the African provinces and various
peculiar local formulae limiting culprit’s physical abilities.
Only 16% of texts (33), mostly non-specific curses, are supposed to bring death
to the victim, most frequently occurring in the texts from Italy. The authors of
prayers for justice seek death of the culprit twice more often than the authors of
curses – 37 % of texts (37 tablets), occasionally and paradoxically even to kill
the culprit first and to obtain the stolen property back only after that (see
6.2.1.3.). Besides, prayers for justice are often supposed to afflict the culprit
with various horrible miseries which seem to be much crueller than those
expressed in other types of curses. However, the frequent wish to kill the thief
may also be a reflection of an extreme emotional state of anger or grievance of
the robbed author. The extant corpus of prayers for justice is of about a century
later date than that of curses. This seems to apply also for the not very
numerous Greek prayers for justice attested from the 4th
/3rd
century BCE in
Athens and from the 3rd
century BCE in Italy (Bruttium). Texts of prayers for
justice are probably derived from the magical rituals associated with curses;
nevertheless, the structure of the formulations themselves differs from curses: a
polite address to deity (in lesser extent) appearing also in curses, see No. 20:
Bona pulchra Proserpina...), author’s name, and legal language and
formulations (see especially Formula 2a above).
Concerning the punishment of the culprit, in approximately half of the prayers
for justice the aims of the authors are formulated as in curses, although the
afflictions stated are many times worse and more often pursue the death of the
culprit. Moreover, a special formula sanguine suo satisfacere/redimere is
documented exclusively in the texts from Britannia (see 6.2.1.3.). Particularly
sophisticated texts using complicated simile-formulae and aims of authors not
attested in any other province of the Roman Empire, apart from the Greek texts,
appear in the tablets found in Germania (see 10.5.).
Based on the analysis of extant defixiones presented in this work – keeping in
mind that we lack a representative corpus of prayers for justice not only in
Greek documentation, but also in most of the European provinces and Africa – I
suppose, unlike Versnel (2010, 275 ff) that the preserved prayers for justice can
often be regarded as peculiar innovative modifications and applications of
13. SUMMARY
425
common curses used in a specific context17
rather than an individual category of
magical rituals essentially distinct from curses and votive inscriptions. The
above mentioned analysis of both categories of texts, and especially the analysis
of the formulations expressing authors’ aims and wishes in curses and prayers
for justice, lead to the conclusion that both categories of texts are basically
identical. Both curses and prayers for justice use similar means to afflict the
victim or the culprit, whether known or unknown. The authors of prayers for
justice either afflict the culprit using the same ways that are found in curses, i.e.
the innovative adaptations of the formulae common e.g. in love spells, or, as in
the texts found in Britannia, they use completely new formulations of their own.
The texts found in Germania and Britannia, especially, point to a certain
blending in the perception of curses and prayers for justice – the authors of
these prayers for justice and curses address their wishes to local deities and
formulate their wishes in the same way, regardless of the particular type of text
(see 10.2.4.).
The curses in legal context and prayers for justice cannot be considered isolated
from the contemporary practice of law, especially when we take into account
that important social groups were denied the access to court. Contents of the
prayers for justice indicate that, first, their writers were often women and,
second, that they often include a list of possible culprits. These observations
highlight two peculiarities of the Roman law. Regarding the first case, women
could press charges (via filiae familias) only after the reign of Diocletian. The
adult women’s access to court was only possible when accompanied by their
male legal guardians, and, a lawsuit cooperation of their tutor has been required
ex lege (through the process of auctoritatem interponere). Due to the excessive
formalism of the Roman law, women, most likely, were forced to seek magical
means to achieve “justice”. In the second case, the author offers a list of names
of the possible culprits – Roman law required the wronged party to find the
culprit and press charges against him/her. If the wronged party did not find the
person guilty of the injustice (thief or a felon), the culprit could not be
prosecuted at court. The issue is made more complicated by the fact that the
members of lower social groups were often not able to file a lawsuit against the
members of higher social groups. In all these cases, magical ritual was the only
option to achieve “justice”.
17
This is in accordance with the views of Gager (1992, 175), Ogden (1999, 37 f.), and
Kropp (2008a, 119).
Appendix I: The Corpus of Latin Curses
I.1. Italia
KEY:
1st
line: inscription’s number according to Kropp: dfx.; Audollent: DT;
Blänsdorf (2012): DTM; Blänsdorf (2008, No. 7): Bl 2008, 7; Besnier
(1920): Be; Solin (1968): So; Gager (1992): Ga; Tomlin (1988): To; Tomlin
(1993, No. 1): To 1993: 1; Tremel (2004): Tr, etc.; the periodical Britannia
(II inscriptiones): Brit; (For an exhaustive bibliography of particular
inscriptions, see the corpus of Kropp, 2008 and TheDeMa).
location/place of finding of inscription (i.e. grave, shrine, amphitheatre, etc.;
x = unknown);
dating (the 2nd
cent. = the 2nd
cent. CE; 0 = unknown). + note on the
preservation of the text: corrupted, fragmentary, etc.
2nd
line: type of curse (i.e. its context: non-specific; legal; love = love spell;
rivalry in love; agonistic – competition: contestants or charioteers and
horses or horses;
the people accursed: number and gender: 1 m. = 1 male; f. = female; case of
the names of victims: nom./acc.; filiation – name of father (pater) and
mother (mater), if stated;
author’s name, if stated;
aim of the curse (i.e. what is supposed to happen to the victim): death,
disease, or restrictions (i.e. limitations of the bodily and mental faculties of
the victim); separation (rivalry in love); love (love spells); N =
unidentifiable;
3rd
line: deities appealed to: Pluto, Isis, etc., (N = none); impl. = the tablet
has been found at the shrine of a deity who, although not explicitly stated,
was probably the addressee;
magical proprieties: VM = voces magicae (names of daemons/deities,
magical words); SM = signa magica (non-alphabetical signs); I = imago (e.g.
depiction of a daemon or other); V = grammata (patterns made of letters);
graphical peculiarities: orientation of script (i.e. right-to-left,
boustrophedon, etc.; or Latin text written in Greek alphabet;
further additions – votum, etc.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
427
TEXT: the amendations, lectiones variae, and punctuation of the particular
editors are in parentheses; in the texts having more complicated structure, I
also comment on the graphical lay-out; in African agonistic texts, I state
shortened lists of the names of horses accursed.
ITALIA TEXT
1. Arezzo, Etruria dfx.1.1.1/1;
DT 129; tab. opistogr.; water
source; the 2nd
cent.
A: Q(uintum) Letinium Lupum, qui et
vocatur Caucadio, qui est fi(lius) Sallusti(es
Vene)ries sive Ven(e)rioses, hunc ego aput
vostrum B: numen demando, devoveo,
desacrifico, uti vos Aquae ferventes, siv(e
v)os Nimfas (=Nymphae), (si)ve quo alio
nomine voltis adpel(l)ari, uti vos eum
interemates, interficiates intra annum itus
(=istum).
non-specific; 1 m. acc.;
mater; death
aquae ferventes/Nymphae
2. Arezzo, Etruria dfx.1.1.1/2;
Be 52; x; 0
M(arcus) Ponti (filius), Secundio, M(arcus)
Ulp(ius?) Anici f(ilius).
non-specific; 3 m. nom.?
pater? N
N; partially right-to-left
3. Bologna, Etruria
dfx.1.1.2/1; Be 1; Olivieri
1899 (no dating); Sánchez
Natalías 2011,1
(Bologna 1),
dates to the 4th
-5th
cent. based
on palaeography; x; corrupted
text; punctuation
VM alphab. around the depiction of the
deity and on his chest in three columns:
φωρβη, SM ψυιαο, τιωρ, φωρβεθ, βραι,
βαριω, φωρβεν, ω, βαθακαρ, φωρβι, καμφι,
φωρρω, SM ρηο, φωρβι, ιαγαακ(ερβε)
φωρρα Cηθ ο; the text of the curse itself
runs in three columns at the level of the
kness of the depicted figure:
Porcellu(s) molomedicu(s) (=mulomedicus)
non-specific; 1 m. + 1 f.
nom.?; death
1
For the Bologna tablets No. 3, 4, and 5, see 7.3.1.5., and Sánchez (2011). Tablet No.
3 (Bologna 1 according to Sánchez) and No. 5 (Bologna 3) belong to each other and
are the parts of a single defixio. Similarly, the tablet Bologna 4 according to Sánchez
and dfx. 1.1.2/4 according to Kropp) was probably a part of the same defixio (see
Sánchez, 2011, 202); however, it is very corrupted. Finally, tablet No. 4 (Bologna 2
according to Sánchez) has recently been published (Sánchez, 2012, 140–148). I state
the most recent reading of C. Sánchez (2011 and 2012).
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
428
VM alphab. I – a standing
daemonic figure with hands
crossed and six snakes coming
out of its head, SM;
//Porcellus molom(e)dicu(s)// Porcel(lus)
medicu(s); the text continues under the
depiction of deity: ·molomedicu(s) ·
interficit(e) · omn(e) corpus · caput · tente
(=dentes)2
· oculus (=oculos) a/u?tas3
facite
Porcellu(m) · et · (Mau)rilla(m)4
·
usure(m)(=uxorem) · ipsius · dite…em ·
corpus · omnis · menbra · bisc(e)d(a)
(=viscera?) · Porcelli, · qui iced…
(cada)t5
…·languat (=langueat) et ru(at)…
4. Bologna, Etruria
dfx.1.1.2/2; Be 2; Olivieri:
1899 (no dating); Sánchez
Natalías (2012: Bologna 2),
dates to the 4th
-5th
cent. based
on palaeography; x; corrupted
text
VM alphab. around the figure and on the
chest of depicted deity in three columns:
φωρβη SM υια τιωρ φωρβεν βιρα βαριω
φ(ω)ρβεο ω βαθασωρ φωρβι, κανφι, ρηο
φωρβω, οεβρνβ φωρβι ιαυαακερβε φωρρω;
the text begins with a curse in three
columns: Fistu(m) sina(t)ore(m)
(=senatorem) occi(di)te ini(c)ate
(=enecate)// Fistu(m) occidite inicate
…//ληο Fistu(m) sinator(em) d caeqem tiu
occi(dite) qan…; the text under the figure:
(occid)ite ini(i)ca(te) Fi(stum). Fistus
difloiscat (=diffluat?) langu(e)at
…(m?)ergat et disuluite (=dissolvite?)
omni(a) menbra omni(a) viscida (viscera?)
ipsius Fisti disolbite (=dissolvite?) menbra
biscida (=viscera?) la(ng)u(e)at runpite
(rumpite) binas (=venas?) ipsiu(s) runpite
(=rumpite) omnis (=omnia) menb(ra) Fisti
sinat(o)ris…
non-specific; 1 m. acc.?/
nom.?; death
VM alphab. SM, I – daemon –
identical to the previous tablet
No. 3
2
A. Kropp (2008) amends to ten(e)te, C. Sánchez (2011) reads dentes.
3
Sánchez (2011, 210) proposes to add (pl)a(n)tas, or (r)u(p)tas, which are related to
the affliction of the named body parts; nevertheless, this is attested nowhere else.
The best solution, in my opinion, is the one of Kropp (2008): (mor)t(u)os facite. See
especially 7.3.1.5.
4
The former editors added the name of the wife Sillam, Sánchez (2011, 211) reads
Maurilla(m).
5
Sánchez (2011, 211) proposes to add cadat and refutes pereat, which I regard better,
see 7.3.1.5.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
429
5. Bologna, Etruria
dfx.1.1.2/3; Be 3 (no dating)
Sánchez 2011 (Bologna 3),
dates to the 4th
-5th
cent.; x;
corrupted text; part of/
continuation of tablet No. 3. +
fragment No. 4, Sánchez
(2011, 215ff)
The text written vertically around the
depiction of the tied up victim of the curse,
i.e. Porcellus: (Por)cellu(s et) (Mau)rill(a)
ipsi…us molo…medicus; the text continues
horizontally: Porcellu(s), Porcellus molo·
(=mulo) Porce(llus mu)lo · medico(s) ·
interficite · eum, · occidite, · eni(ca)te
(=enecate), · profucate (=praefocate(?) ·
Porcellu(m) · et · Maurilla(m) ·usure
(=uxorem) · ips(i)us· anima, · cor · nata
(=nates?), · (h)epar…·isi…e…m…r….us
fragment 4, the text is disrupted, only the
intellegible part is cietd here:
…(febres?) tercianas quartana(s) (pa)lloris
frigora morb(os)…Porcellus
mulomedicus…
non-specific; 1 m. + f.
nom./acc.?; death
I – victim of the curse, VM
alphab., see No. 3; part of the
text written vertically
6. Cerveteri, Etruria
dfx.1.1.3/1; So 32; grave; the
2nd
/1st
cent. BCE
…Mam(i)lius· M(arci) · f(ilius) · C(aius) ·
Mamilius· Limetanus· C(aius) Mamilius
·Atelus C(aius) ·Macius Copo ·L(ucius)
Laterius· Balbus· L(ucius) Laterius·
Corvinus, L(ucius) · Laterius· Cor(v)us,
Q(unitus) · Laterius· Rabilinus (…La)terius
·Hispanus, P(ublius) · Laterius· Luscus,
M(arcus) · (Late)rius, Q(uintus) · (Lat)erius·
Paperianus (…L)aterius Balbus…Mincius
C(ai) f(ilius), M(arcus) Laterius Mulus,
Hileria Midia, Patolcia, Pineia.
non-specific; 15 m. + 3 f.
nom.;
2× pater; N
N; punctuation
7. S. Severino, Picenum
dfx.1.2.1/1; DT 131; grave,
urn; 0
Antestia (=Antistia) Sabina et Vibia Politice
(=Polytyche) Clymene, Cambosa piam a
Felicissema Oppia Silvina dicato. CIL IX
5575; Kropp (2008): Antistia(m) Sabina(m)
et Vibia(m) Polytyche(n) Clymene(m),
Cambosa(m) piam a Felicissima Oppia
Silvina dicat(am).
non-specific, 4 f. nom?/acc.?;
N; (the name of the author?
Felicissima)
N; right-to-left
8. S. Benedetto, Marsi
dfx.1.3.1/1; DT 132; water
(lac. Fucinum); 0
Sextus Pompeiius Leonida(s), L(ucius)
Paquedius Philo, Septimius Felix, Marcius
Celadus, Hernius Labicanus, Marinus,
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
430
non-specific; 7 m. nom.; N C(aius) Gavius Secu(n)du(s).
N
9. Minturno, Latium
dfx.1.4.1/1; DT 190; grave;
half of the 1st
cent.
Dii i(n)feri, vobis com(m)e(n)do, si
quic(q)ua(m) sactitates (=sanctitatis)
h(a)betes (=habetis), ac tadro (=trado)
Ticene (=Tychenem) Carisi, quodqu[o]d
agat, quod incida(n)t omnia in adversa. Dii
i(n)feri, vobis com(m)e(n)do il(l)ius
mem(b)ra, colore(m), figura(m), caput,
capilla (=capillos), umbra(m), cerebru(m),
fru(n)te(m), supe(rcil)ia, os, nasu(m),
me(n)tu(m), bucas, la(bra, ve)rba,
(h)alitu(m), col(l)u(m), iocur, umeros, cor,
pulmones, i(n)testinas (=intestina),
ve(n)tre(m), brac(ch)ia, digitos, manus,
u(m)b(i)licu(m), visica (=vesicam),
femena,(=femina), genua, crura, talos,
planta(s), tigidos (=digitos). Dii i(n)feri, si
illa(m) videro tabesce(n)te(m), vobis
sacrificiu(m) lubens ob an(n)uversariu(m)
facere dibus parentibus il(l)iu(s)
voveo?…peculiu(m) ta(be)scas.
Transcription according to CIL 10, 8249.
non-specific; 1 f. acc.? // acc.
of cursed body parts;
serva/uxor?; disease/ death
Dii inferi
votive formula
10. Mentana, Latium/
Nomentum
dfx.1.4.2/1; DT 133; grave,
urn; the first half of the 1st
cent. BCE; corrupted text
T(itus) Octavius T(iti) l(ibertus), P(ublius)
Fidustius, Pos(tumus?), Gavia, si qui(s)
arvorsa(r)ius (=adversarius) aut(?)
arvorsa(r)ia (=adversaria).
legal adversarius; 3 m. + 1 f.
nom.; 1×libertus; N
N; partially upside-down
11. Mentana, Latium/
Nomentum
dfx.1.4.2/2; DT 134; So 1989;
tab. opistogr.; grave, urn; the
first half of the 1st
cent. BCE;
A: T(itus) Octavius sermone, M(arcus)
Fidustius v… mutus sermone, Fidustium
mutus, Irena Plotiaes (=Plautiae) d(e)ficere
(=defigere) ex(t)am, umer(os?), nesu(m)
(=nisum?), quaestu(m), caput, oc(u)lus
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
431
corrupted text (=oculos) d(e)scribo cilos … exei
B:…mem(b)ra omnia: latus, licua
(=lingua), ilatu (=flatus) coria, talus,
ex(t)ae, uncis (=ungues), visceres
(=viscera) ex (h)oc(?) tand moreo ila con
Mc… Trebonius6
quaestu(m), vestigia, ilatu
(=flatum?), faci(em/am?), latus, bona,
(i)ra(m)7
matse aepa nopru mecol i(-)nn in
// ano… the concluding sequence is
completely unintelligible.
legal mutus sermone; 3 m. + 1
f. nom.; filii/ser.? + serva;
acc.? of cursed body parts?
restrictions
N
12. Mentana, Latium/
Nomentum dfx.1.4.2/3, DT
135; tab. opistogr., grave, urn;
the first half of the 1st
cent.
BCE
A: Malc(h)io Nicones (=Niconis) oculos,
manus, dicitos (=digitos), brac(ch)ias, uncis
(=ungues), capil(l)o(s), caput, pedes, femus
(=femur), venter (=ventrem), natis
(=nates), umlicus (=umbilicum), pectus,
mamil(l)as, collus (=collum), os, buc(c)as,
dentes, labias, metus (=mentum), oc(u)los,
fronte(m), supercili(a), scap(u)las, umerum,
nervia (=nervos), ossu(m), merilas
(=medullas), venter (=ventrem),
mentula(m), crus, qua(e)stu(m), lucru(m),
valetudines defico (=defigo) in (h)as
tabel(l)as.
B: Rufa pu(b)lica manus, de(n)tes, oc(u)los,
bsac(ch)ia (=bracchia), venter (=ventrem),
mamil(l)a(s), pectus, os(s)u(m), merilas
(=medullas), venter (=ventrem)… crus, os,
pedes, frontes (=frontem), uncis (=ungues),
dicitos (=digitos), venter (=ventrem),
umlicus (=umbilicum), cunus (=cunnum),
ulvas (=vulvam ilae (=ilia)… quaestum8
non-specific; A: 1 m. nom.
fil./ser.; B: 1. f. nom.; serva
publica; disease/death?
N
6
See also the other reading in DT 134 after ilatu:connatus ex annu novo cres ex oc
tand moreo ila con matie bonus quadrin...
7
Solin (1989) reads: (i)ra(m); Kropp: (2008) ira. DT 134: ra.
8
Kropp states the interpretation of Solin (1998, 315), she adds quaestum to the text
and reads cunnum quaestum (analogically to side A) instead of the sequence
(v)ulva(m) il(i)a/ilae as stated in DT 135), see 7.3.1.2. DT 135 amends the
concluding part ilae Rufas to ilia Rufae, this reading has been taken over by Solin
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
432
Rufaes (=Rufae) pu(b)lica(e) def(i)co
(=defigo) in (h)as tabel(l)as.
13. Ostia, Latium dfx.1.4.3/1;
Be 32; So 36; grave; 0
Agathemeris · Manliae · ser(va) · Achulea ·
Fabiae ser(va) ornatrix, Caletuche
(=Caletyche) · Vergiliae ser(va) ornatrix ·
Hilara · Liciniae (serva orn)atrix · Crheste
(=Chreste) · Corn(eliae) ser(va) ornatrix ·
Hilara · Seiae · ser(va) ornatrix, Mosc(h)is
·ornatrix, Rufa · Apeiliae· ser(va) ornatrix,
Chila ·ornatrix.
non-specific; 8 f. nom., serva;
N
N; punctuation
14. Ostia, Latium dfx.1.4.3/2;
So 37; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the first half of the 1st
cent.;
very corrupted text
A: (…inf)eris (lig)o Tucia Crecta e(t)
Antonia…a…e(t) Silio e(t)…D(e)xtera
mater …d n…oc…no M(n)estus. Peri(an)t,
(r)ogo: Icimas (=Icmas) Mevia
r…a.er.pe…lus oc(c)idant. Ru(fa) Papria
Unaesi(me) (=Onaesime)…u…lu…itine
Lu(p)us …nno …r…a colico (=colligo)
mende(m) (=mentem) …tit…e Monta..lce
tabes(cant) Trimigenia
e(t)…rm..ace…(Re)stuti Resipecti Iulia
Fort(u)nata …o… vac …in … Epia
Scant(illa?) Ulia Pia peri(ant)
…o…ntri…m…t…Iucunda Maevia …e…ce
… B: Mucan(a) Iucunda (M)aevia Procla
Iu(li)a (T)ripe(a) Prote Minucia M…Cuarta
et Fadia Nereis Po…stidia Aur(elia)
Mus(a)rio…aep…
non-specific; A: 8 f. + 4 m.
nom.; B: 7 f. nom.; serv./lib.?;
death
inferis
15. Rome dfx.1.4.4/1; DT
137; So 37; x, clay lamplet,
the 1st
/2nd
cent.
Helenus suom (=eius) nomen eimferis
(=inferis) mandat, stipem strenam, lumen
suom secum defert. Ne quis eum solvat, nisi
nos, qui fecimus.
non-specific; 1 m. nom.;
inferis
16. Rome dfx.1.4.4/2; DT
138; grave?; the 1st
cent.
Danae ancilla no(v)icia Capitonis: hanc
(h)ostiam acceptam habeas et consumas
(1995, 571) and Önnerfors (1991, No. 19). Borsari (AE 1901, 183) reds in the last
but one line quas il(l)ae Rufas.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
433
rivalry in love, 2 f. nom.; ancilla/uxor;
death?/separation
Danaene. Habeas Eutychiam Soterichi
uxorem.
N
17. Rome dfx.1.4.4/3; DT
139; grave;
the 1st
cent. BCE
Quomodo mortuos, qui istic sepultus est nec
loqui nec sermonare potest, seic Rhodine
apud M(arcum) Licinium Faustum mortua
sit nec loqui nec sermonare possit. Ita uti
mortuos nec ad deos nec ad homines
acceptus est, seic Rhodine aput M(arcum)
Licinium accepta sit et tantum valeat,
quantum ille mortuos, quei istic sepultus est.
Dite pater, Rhodine(m) tibei commendo, uti
semper odio sit M(arco) Licinio Fausto.
Item M(arcum) Hedium Amphionem, item
C(aium) Popillium Apollonium, item
Vennonia(m) Hermiona(m), item Servia(m)
Glycinna(m).
rivalry in love, 1 f. nom. and
further 2 m. + 2. f. acc.;
restrictions/separation
Dis pater
18. Rome dfx.1.4.4/4; DT
140; So 1998; So 2004; grave,
urn; 2nd
/3rd
cent. – the second
half of the 4th
cent.; corrupted
text
(Praesenticius pistrinarius?) filius (Aselles)
…qui (manet in regione non)a, (trad)o9
ab
hac (h)ora, ab hoc die, ab hac nocte t…mti
c…ege…tere,10
contere, confr(in)ge et…
trade morti, fili(u)m Asseles, Praese(n)ti(ci)um
pristinarium (=pistrinarium), qui
manet in regione nona, ubi videtur arte(m)
sua(m) facere et trade Plutoni praeposito
mortuorum et si forte te contempserit,
patiatur febris, frigus, tortionis, palloris,
sudores, obbripilationis (=obripilationes)
meridianas, interdianas, serutinas
(=serotinas), nocturns ab hac (h)ora, ab
hoc die, ab hac (nocte?)(e)t perturba eum,
ne repr(a)e(h)aensione(m) (h)abeat et si
forte occansione(m) invenerit, praefocato
eum, Praese(n)tetium, fili(um Asell)es, in
t(h)ermas, in valneas (=balneis), in
non-specific; 1 m. nom./acc.
mater; disease, death
Pluto; I (standing daemon),
VM (names of daemons
alphab.), V (angular vocal.
pattern)
9
See DT 140.
10
Solin (2004, 118) reads tene instead of tere; he regards pristinarius a contortion of
Lat. pistrinarius, just like Audollent.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
434
quocumque loco, et pede(m) frange
Pr(aesentici)o Aselles et (si) forte te seducat
per aliqua (artifici?)a et rideat de te et
exsultetur tibi, vince, peroccide filium
mares (=maris), Praese(n)tecium pristinar(iu)m,
filium (A)selles, qui manet in
regione (nona, ed)e ede, tacy tacy. Victor,
Asella mater, Prae(sen)tici(us)
pris(tina)r(ius). Ουςιρωμευι, Ουςιριασι,
Ουςιρινασιρι, Ουςιρινεμορι, Ευλάμον
κατέχε.
19. Rome dfx.1.4.4/5; DT
141; So 1998; grave, urn; the
2nd
/3rd
cent.
Asterius, Asterius, Asterius, Asterius,
Aur(i)cin(cta) libera, qu(a)e nascitor
(=nascitur) di (=de) matre (c)um Samio;
CA Auricin(c)ta lou…eec libera, qu(a)e
nascitor di matre Auricin(c)ta, Auricin(c)ta.
(perhaps a man curses his ex-girlfriend who
is going to have a child with Samius? – the
interpr. of So 1998:77)
rivalry in love; 1 f. + 1 m. +
child? nom.; N/separation
SM, I (mummy, Sol/Sarapis,
hawk); written partially
upside-down, partially
vertically
20. Rome dfx.1.4.4/8; Be 33;
Fox 1; tab. opistogr.; x; half
of the 1st
cent. BCE; corrupted
text, amended according to
the following tablets; for the
reading, see Fox (1912)
A: Bona pulchra Proserpina, (P)lut(o)nis
uxsor, seive me Salviam deicere oportet,
eripias salutem, co(rpus, co)lorem, vires,
virtutes Ploti. Tradas (Plutoni), viro tuo. Ni
possit cogitationibus sueis hoc vita(re.
Tradas) illunc febri quartan(a)e,
t(ertian)ae, cottidia(n)ae, quas (cum illo
l)uct(ent, deluctent: illunc) ev(in)cant,
(vincant), us(que dum animam eiu)s
eripia(nt. Quare ha)nc victimam tibi trad(o,
Prose)rpi(na, seiv)e me Proserpin(a, sei)ve
m(e Ach)eruosiam dicere oportet. M(e
mittas a)rcessitum canem tricepitem, qui
(Ploti) cor eripiat. Polliciarus illi te
daturum t(r)es victimas palma(s, ca)rica(s),
por(c)um nigrum hoc sei pe(rfe)cerit (ante
mensem) M(artium. Haec, P)r(oserpina
Salvia tibi dabo), cum compote(m) fe(cer)is.
non-specific; 1 m., acc. of
cursed body parts, servus
(Plotius); disease/death
Proserpina (Salvia,
Acherusia), Pluto, canis
triceps (Cerberus)
votive formula
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
435
Do tibi caput Ploti Avon(iae. Pr)oserpina
S(alvia), do tibi fron(tem Plo)ti. Proserpina
Salvia, do (ti)b(i) su(percilia) Ploti.
Proserpin(a) Salvia, do (tibi palpebra)s
Plo(ti). Proserpina Sa(lvia, do tibi pupillas)
Ploti. Proser(pina Salvia, do tibi nare)s,
labra, or(iculas, nasu)m, lin(g)uam, dentes
P(loti), ni dicere possit Plotius, quid (sibi
dole)at: collum, umeros, bracchia,
d(i)git(os, ni po)ssit aliquit se adiutare:
(pe)c(tus, io)cinera, cor, pulmones, n(i
possit) senti(re), quit sibi doleat: (intes)tina,
venter, um(b)ilicu(s), latera, (n)i p(oss)it
dormire: scapulas, ni poss(i)t s(a)nus
dormire: viscum sacrum, nei possit urinam
facere: natis, anum, (fem)ina, genua,
(crura), tibias, pe(des, talos, plantas,
digito)s, unguis, ni po(ssit s)tare (sua
vi)rt(u)te. Seive (plu)s, seive parvum
scrip(tum fuerit), quomodo quicqu(id)
legitim(e scripsit), mandavit, seic ego Ploti
ti(bi tr)ado, mando, ut tradas, (mandes
men)se Februari(o e)cillunc. B: Mal(e
perdat, mal)e exset (=exeat), (mal)e
disperd(at. Mandes, tra)das, ni possit
(ampliu)s ullum (mensem aspic)ere, (videre,
contempla)re.
21. Rome dfx.1.4.4/9; Be 34,
Fox 2; So 1968; tab. opistogr.;
x; half of the 1st
cent. BCE;
corrupted text, see No. 20
A: (B)ona pu(lchra P)roserpina, Plutoni(s
u)xsor, seive (me Salviam) deicere oportet,
eripias salu(tem), corp(us), colorem, vires,
virtutes Av(on)ia(e). T(r)adas Plutoni, viro
tuo. (Ni possit cogitati)onibus s(ueis hoc)
quidqui(d) vit(are. Protinus tradas illanc)
febri quart(an)ae, t(ertianae, cottidianae),
quas cum illa (l)ucten(t, deluctent, illanc)
evincant, vincan(t, usque dum animam) eius
eripiant. (Qu)are hanc victimam (tibi) trado,
(Proserpin)a, seive me (Pros)erpina se(ive
me Ach)eruosiam dicere (opo)rtet. Me
m(ittas a)rcessitum cane(m tricipi)te(m, qui
non-specific (Avonia); 1 f.;
acc. of cursed body parts;
disease/death
Proserpina (Salvia,
Acherusia), Pluto, canis
triceps (Cerberus) votive
formula
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
436
Avoniae)s cor eripiat. (Pollicearis illi te
dat)urum tres victim(as): palmas, carica(s,
porcum ni)grum, hoc si perfecerit an(te
mensem) Martium. Haec (Salv)ia tibi dabo,
cu(m) compotem feceris: do tibi caput
(A)von(iae)s, Pr(ose)rpina Salvia, d(o) tibi
frontem Avonia(e, Pr)oserpina Salvia, do
tibi supercilia (Avoni)aes, Proserpi(na
(Sa)lvia, do tibi palpe(bra)s Avoniaes,
Proserpi(na S)alv(i)a, do (ti)bi pupillas
(Av)onia(e)s, (Proserpina Sal)via, do t(ibi)
oricula(s, la)bra, (nares), nasum, (de)ntes,
li(n)guam Avon(iae, ni dice)re possit
(Avo)nia, quid s(i)bi (dol)eat: (collum,
umero)s, (br)acchia, digito(s, ni) possit
ali(quid) se adiutare, pec(tus, ioci)nera,
cor, pulmones, ni (possit) quit sentire, quit
sibi dolea(t: intest)ina, ventrem, umbilicum,
scapul(as), latera, ni po(ssit) dorm(i)re:
viscum sac(r)um, ni possi(t) urinam
f(ace)re : (nati)s, femina, anum, gen(ua,
crur)a, tibias, pedes, talos, (p)la(ntas,
digi)tos, ungues, ni (po)ssit (stare) su(a
virtu)te. Seive plus (seiv)e p(ar)vum
(scri)ptum fuerit, quomodo quicqui(d legiti)me
scripsit, mandav(it, s)eic ego
(Avo)niam tibi trado, man(do), ut tradas
(illanc m)ensi Februario. B: (Male perdat,
male e)x(eat), male disperd(at). (Ma)nd(es,
tr)adas, nei po(s)s(i)t ampli(us) ull(um)
men(s)em aspicere, vi(dere), contemplari.
22. Rome dfx.1.4.4/10; Be 35;
Fox 3; tab. opistogr.; x; half
of the 1st
cent. BCE, corrupted
text, see No. 20 a 21
A: Bona pulch(ra Proserpin)a, Plutonis
uxsor, seive me S(al)via(m dicer)e oportet,
eripias salutem, c(o)rpus, colorem, vires,
virtutes Maximae Vesoniae. Tra(das)
Pluton(i), viro (tuo), ni poss(it co)gitationibus
su(eis hoc) quidq(uid vitare.
Pro)tinu(s) tra(das illanc) febri qu(artanae,
terti)anae, (cottidianae), quas cum illa
luc(tent, deluctent, illanc) ev(i)ncant,
non-specific; 1 f. (Maxima
Vesonia); acc. of cursed body
parts; disease/death
Proserpina (Salvia,
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
437
Acherusia), Pluto, canis
triceps (Cerberus)
votive formula
vincan(t, u)sque dum anima(m) e(ius)
eripiant. Q(uar)e hanc victima(m) tibi
trad(o), P(roserpina, sei)ve me Pros(erpina)
seive me (Acherusiam) dicere oporte(t. Me)
mitta(s arcessitu)m canem tr(ic)ep(item),
qui (Maximae Vesonia)e cor er(ip)iat.
Polli(cearis illi te da)turum tres victimas:
palm(as, caricas, porc)um nigrum, hoc sei
(p)erf(ecerit an)te mense(m) Martium.
Ha(e)c (Salvi)a ti(bi dabo), cum
compote(m) fece(ri)s: do tibi ca(put)
Max(i)mae Vesoniae, P(roser)pina
S(a)lvi(a), do tibi frontem Max(i)mae
(Vesoni)ae, Proserpina S(alvia), do tibi
super(cilia V)esoniaes, Proserpina Salvia,
do tibi palpetras Maximae Vesoni(ae),
Proserpina Salvia, do tibi pupillas
Vesoniae, Proserpina Salvia, do tibi oriclas,
labras, nares, nasum, lingua(m), dentes
Maximae Vesoniae, nei dicere possit
Maxima Vesonia, quid sibi doleat: collum,
umeros, bra(cchia), digitos, ni possit aliquit
se (adi)utar(e: pectus, ioc)inera, cor,
pulmone(s, ni possi)t sentire, quit sibi
doleat: i(nte)st(ina), venter, umb(licus),
scapulae, (latera), n(i possit dormire):
viscu(m sacrum), n(i possit u)rina(m)
face(re: natis, anum, femina), genua,
(ti)bia(s, crur)a, pedes, talos, (plantas,
digito)s, ungis, ni possit sta(re sua vir)tute.
Seive plus seive par(vum scriptu)m fuerit,
quomod(o quicquid legitime) scripsit,
man(davit, seic ego M)ax(imam Veso(niam,
Proserpina, tibi) trado, m(ando, ut tradas
illa)nc mensi Februar(io). B: (Male), male,
male perdat, (male e)x(s)et (=exeat), male
disp(e)rdat. Tr(a)das, ni possit (a)mpliu(s)
ullum (m)ensem aspi(c)ere, vid(e)re,
contemplar(e).
23. Rome dfx.1.4.4/11; Be 36; A: (Bona pulchra Proserpina, Plutonis
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
438
Fox 4; tab. opistogr.; x; half
of the 1st
cent. BCE; very
fragmentary, amended text,
see No. 20, 21, 22
uxsor), seive me (Salviam dicere oportet,
eripias salutem), c(o)rpus, (colorem, vires,
v)irt(utes …i). Tra(d)as (Plutoni, viro tuo,
ne possit cogitationib)us su(ei)s hoc
(quicquid vitare. Protinus tradas illunc febri
quar)-tan(a)e, (tertianae, cottidianae, qua)s
cu(m illo l)uctent, (deluctent, illunc
e)vin(cant, vinca)nt, usque (dum animam
eiu)s (er)ipia(nt. Qua)re hanc (victimam
tibi) tra(do, Proserpina), seive me
(Proserpina seive me Acherusiam) dicere
(oportet. Me mittas arcessitum ca)nem
(tricipitem, qui …i cor eri)pia(t.
Po)lliciarus (illi te daturum tres victimas:
palmas, (caricas, porcum nigrum, hoc sei
per)fecerit (ante mensem Martium. Haec
Proserp)ina tibi (dabo, cum compotem
fecer)is: do tibi (caput …i, Proserpina
Salvi)a, do tibi (frontem …i, Proserpina
Sa)lvia, do tibi (supercilia …i, Proserpina
Sa)lvia, do tibi (palpebras …i, Proserpina
Salvia, do tibi pupillas …i, Proserpina
Salvia, do tibi n)ares, labra, (oriculas,
linguam, dentes, n)asum…i, ni dicere
possit…ius), quid (sibi do)leat: (collum,
umeros, br)acc(hia), dig(itos, ni) possit
(aliquid se adiutareI p)ect(us, ioci)nera,
(cor, pulmones, ni pos)sit sen(tire), quit
(sibi doleat: intestina, ve)nter, umblicus,
(latera, ni possit dormire: s)cap(ul)as, ni
(possit sanus dormire: viscu)m sacrum, (ni
possit urinam) f(acere: natis,
a)num,(femina, gen)u(a, crura, tibi)as,
pedes, (talos, plantas, digitos, ungis), ni
(possit stare sua vir)tu(te. Sei)ve (plus seive
parvum script)um (fuerit, quomodo
quic)q(ui)d legitime (scripsit, mandavit),
seic ego(…) tibi trado, (mando, ut tradas
i)llun(c) m(e)nsi (Februari)o. B: Mal(e
p)erd(a)t, male (exseat, male dispe)rd(a)t.
non-specific; 1, name not
preserved, m.?; acc. of cursed
body parts; disease/death
Proserpina (Salvia,
Acherusia), Pluto, canis
triceps (Cerberus) votive
formula
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
439
M(andes, tra)das, (ni possit amplius ullu)m
m(ense)m aspicere, (videre, contemplare).
24. Rome dfx.1.4.4/12; Be 37;
Fox 5; tab. opistogr.; x;
half of the 1st
cent. BCE;
fragmentary, amended text,
see No. 20, 21, 22, 23
A: (Bona pulchra) Proser(pin)a, Pl(utonis
u)xsor, se(ive me Salviam dic)ere (oportet,
erip)ias s(al)utem, (corpus, colorem, vires,
virtutes…ae Aqu(illiae. Tradas Plutoni, viro
tuo, ni) pos(sit cogit)ationibus (sueis hoc
quicquid vitare. Tradas illa(nc f)ebri
qua(rt)ana(e, tertianae, cottidianae, quae
cum illo l)uctent, (deluctent, illanc evincant,
vi)ncant, u(sque dum animam eius eripiant.
Qua)re hanc (victimam tibi) tra(do,
Proserpina), seive me (Proserpina seive me
Acherusia)m dic(ere oportet. Mihi mittas
arcessitum canem) trice(pitem, qui…ae
Aquilliae cor eripiat. Polli)ciarus (illi te
daturum tres victimas: pal)ma(s, caricas,
porcum nigrum, hoc si perfecerit ante
mensem Martium. Haec Salvia tibi dabo
cum compotem feceris: do tibi caput…ae
Aquilliae), Pros(erpina Salvia, d)o t(ib)i
(frontem…ae Aquilliae. Pro)serpin(a Salvia),
d(o ti)bi su(percilia…ae Aquilliae.
P)ros(erpina Salvia, do tibi palpebras…ae
Aquilliae. Proserpina Salvia, do tibi
pu)pilla(s…ae Aquilliae. Proserpina Salvia,
d)o t(ibi nares, labra, auriculas, linguam,
dentes, nasum…ae, Aquilliae ni dicere
possit…a Aquillia, quid sibi doleat: collum,
umeros, bracchia, digitos, ne possit aliquid
se a)diuta(re: pectus, iocinera, cor,
pulmon)es, (ni possit sentire, quid sibi
doleat: i)nt(estina, venter, umblicus, latera,
ni possit dormire: scapulas, ni possit sana
dormire: vis)cum (sac)rum, (ni possit
urinam facere): f(emina, natis, anum genua,
tibia)s cru(ra, pedes, talos, plantas, digi)tos,
(ungis, ni possit s)tare sua (virtute. Seive
plus) seive parv(um sc)riptum (fuerit,
quomodo quicquid) leg(itime scri)psi(t,
non-specific; 1 f. (Aquillia);
acc. of cursed body parts;
disease/ death
Proserpina (Salvia,
Acherusia), Pluto, canis
triceps (Cerberus) votive
formula
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
440
mandavit), se(ic ego Aquilliam tibi trado,
mando, ut tra)das, m(andes illanc mense
Februario. B: Male perdat, male exseat,
male disp)erd(at. Mandes, tradas, ni possit
amplius ullum mensem aspicere, videre,
contemplare).
25. Rome? dfx.1.4.4/13; So
34; grave, urn; the 4th
/5th
cent.
Deprecor vos, sancti angeli. Quomodo
(ha)ec anima intus in(cl)usa tenetur et
angustiatur (=angustatur)(et) non vede
(=videt) (ne)que (l)umine (=lumen), ne(que)
a(li)quem (refri)gerium non (h)abet, si(c
a)nima, (mentes, cor)pus Collecticii, quem
pepe(rit) Agne(lla), teneatur, ard(eat),
destabes(cat) (=detabescat). Usque (ad)
infernum (se)mper (du)ci(t)e Collecticium,
quem peperet (=peperit) Agnella.
non-specific/rivalry in love?;
1 m., acc. mater; death (to be
taken to hell)
sancti angeli
dipinto
26. Rome dfx.1.4.4/14; So 33;
grave, urn; the end of the 2nd
cent.
Comodo (=quomodo) isti non qumbere
(=cumbere) inter s(e)…peculio illi inter se
consu(m)p(t)ionem cognoscunt, sic ne(c)
Eufrates Iulius, Manilia Bictoria
(=Victoria). Ego coacta pecoris, peculi, Iuli
Euphratis et Maniliae Bictorias
(=Victoriae), hos ego ubicumque deposui.
rivalry in love; 1 m. + 1 f.
nom.; separation
N; with the depiction of
married couple with a child
between them
27. Rome, dfx.1.4.4/15; So
35; tab. opistogr.; domus
Liviae, the Palatine Hill; the
first half of the 1st
cent.
A: D(ii) Manes com(m)ando (=commendo)
ut perdant (=pereant?)11
B: innimicos meus
(=meos) com(m)and(o): Domitia, Omonia,
Menecratis, alius trado: Nicea, Cyrus, Nice,
Porista, Demo, Asclepiades, Time, Ce,
Philaia, Caletic(he), Menotia, itimm
(=item) atversar(ios) annor(um?)
menor(es?) (=minores).
legal inimicos; 9 f. + 5 m.
nom.; servi?; restrictions
Di Manes
28. Rome dfx.1.4.4/16; CIL
11,616; shrine; the 2nd
cent.
T(itus), Tregillo, Celsus.
non-specific; 3 m. nom.; N
11
Kropp (2008) amends to pereant; both interpretations are possible see 7.3.2.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
441
N
29. Calvi Risorta, Campania
dfx.1.5.1/1; DT 191; tab.
opistogr.; grave; the first half
of the 1st
cent.
A: Dite inferi C(aium) Babullium et
fotr(icem) (=fututricem?) eius Tertia(m)
Salvia(m) B: Dite (pr)om(is)sum Quartae
Satiae recipite inferis.
rivalry in love; A: 1 m. + 1 f.
acc.; B: 1. f.; separation;
author’s name Quarta Statia?
Dite, di (inferi)
written vertically
30. Capua, Campania
dfx.1.5.2/1; DT 195; grave;
half of the 1st
cent.
Cn(aeum) · Numidium Astragalum v(oveo)
il(l)ius · vita(m) valetudin(em), quaistum
·ipsu(m)q(ue) · uti tabescat ·morbu. (Ac?)
C(aius) Sextiu(s) · tabe(scat) ma(n)do· rogo.
non-specific; 2 m. acc./nom.;
disease, death
N; punctuation
31. Cumae, Campania
dfx.1.5.3/1; DT 196; grave; 0
Nomen delatum Naeviae L(ucii) l(ibertae)
Secunda(e), seive ea alio nomini est.
non-specific; 1 f. liberta;
N
32. Cumae, Campania
dfx.1.5.3/2;
DT 199; grave; the 1st
cent.
M(arcum) Heium M(arci) f(ilium),
Caled(um),…Blossiam G(ai) f(iliam),
P(ublium) Heium M(arci) f(ilium),
Cale(dum), Chilonem Hei M(arci) s(ervum),
M(arcum) Heium (M(arci)(?) l(ibertum)(?)
G(aium) Blossium l(ibertum) Bithum
Atton(em?) (He)i M(arci) ser(vum)
Blossiam L(uci) f(iliam) (hos(?) homines
omnes infereis (=inferis) (de)is deligo, ita ut
ni q(uis) (e)orum quemcumque…re possit,
ni…quid(quam agere?) p(ossit?). Id ded(ico
deis inferis?) ut ea ita faci(ant).
non-specific; 6 m. + 2 f. acc.;
pater/patronus; restrictions?
inferis deis
33. Pompei, Campania
dfx.1.5.4/1; So 39; 2 writing
A:…(h)oc prim(um)… P(hi)lematio Hostili
(serva) facia(m) (=faciem)… capil(l)u(m),
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
442
tablets (lead); grave; the 2nd
cent. BCE; fragm.
cerebru(m), flatus, ren(es)…ut illai non
suc(c)edat12
n(ec)… qui praec… odiu(m)
…ut il(l)ic (=ille) illa(n)c (=illam) odiat.
Como(do) …(h)aec nec agere ne ilai
(=illa)… qui(c)qua(m) agere pos(s)it ula
…os P(hi)lematio… B: nec agere nec
in…nec u(l)la(s) res pos(s)it pete(re), quae
ul(l)o (h)uma(no… Comodo (=quomodo) is
eis desert(us), ilaec (=illa) deserta sit
cu(n)no. A(nte) d(iem) N(onum) C(alendas)
N(ovembres?) dificdos (=defixos) a dic
il(l)aec deser(ta?)…ida fiat…dic il(l)ae
…Vestilia Hostili.
rivalry in love; 1 f. ser. nom.;
separation/restrictions
N
34. Pompei, Campania
dfx.1.5.4/2;
So 40; grave; 0
Κλαυδια Ελενα (Klaudia Elena)
non-specific; 1 f. N
N; written alphab.
35. Campania? dfx.1.5.6/1; So
1998; water; the beginning of
the 1st
cent.?
Philocomus, Antioc(h)us, P(h)arnace(s),
Sosus, Erato, Epidia tabescat, dom(i)nis
non placeat. Eide(m) (=item) his (=hi),
quorum nom(ina) hic sunt perea(nt), quo(d)
e(t) placean(t) peculio. Il(l)orum dicta,
facta ad inferos.
non-specific; 4 m. + 2 f.
nom.; disease/death
ad inferos
36. Lucania? dfx.1.6.1/1; DT
211; grave; 0
M(arcus) Afarius Ampilatus.
non-specific; 1 m. nom.; N
N
37. Altino, Venetia;
dfx.1.7.1/1; in the soil near to
an ancient town; half of the 1st
cent.; fragm.
L(ucius) Caulius Hieronymus, L(ucius)
Caulius Hieronymus, Stephanephoria,
Secundus, Onesimus, Festa, Diocles,
Daphnus, Proclus, Zmyrna Hieronymis,
Naustrebius Severus, Maecius Carter,
non-specific; cca 15 m. + 6 f.
12
CIL I2
2, 2541 suc(c)edas.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
443
nom.; pater/dominus (names
repeat themselves); N
Maecius Berullus, Satrenus, Munatia
Marcella, Paetinus, Septicianus, Macrina
…ia, L(ucius) Caulius Hier(onymus),
Stephanephoria, Secundus, Onesimus,
Festa, (Di)ocles, Italus, Cervoniu(s,…)onius
Opilio, Cervonia. Dedica(ti(?)…)as13
// dedi
defic(t)as.
N
38. Este, Venetia dfx.1.7.2/1;
Be 39; grave, urn; the 1st
cent.
BCE
Privatum Camidium, Q(uintus) Praesentius
Albus, Secunda uxor Pr(a)esenti, T(itus)
Praesentius, Maxsuma (=Maxima)T(iti)
Praesenti uxor, C(aius) Arilius, C(aius)
Arenus, Polla Fabricia(?), L(ucius) Allius,
L(ucius) Vassidius Clemens, Prisca (u)xor
Vassidi, Monimus Acutius, Ero(tis?)
Acutia(?), C(aius) Pro… Damio l(ibertus).
Si quis (i)nimicus inimi(ca), adve(r)sarius,
hostis, Orce pater, (P)roserpina cum tuo
Plutone, tibi trado, ut tu il(l)u(m) mit(t)as et
deprem(as) (=deprimas), tradito tuis
canibus tricipiti(bus) et bicipitibus, ut
ere(piant) capita capita cogit(ata?), cor in
tuom gem(in?)…r(ecipia)nt il(l)os…
legal inimicus/a, adversarius,
hostis; 9 m. + 5 f. acc./nom.;
restrictions/death
Orce pater, Proserpina cum
Plutone, canes tricipites,
bicipites
39. Concordia, Venetia;
dfx.1.7.3/2; So 1977; water –
canal; the first half of the 2nd
cent. – the beginning of the 3rd
cent.; fragm.
Ael(l)ia Decimana D I Iulius …isina
deperi(ant).
non-specific; 1 m. + 1 f.
nom.; death
N
40. Cremona, Venetia
dfx.1.7.4/1; So 1998; reading
according to So 2004; in the
soil; the beginning of the 1st
Q(uintus) · Domatius · C(ai) · f(ilius). ·
bonum· tempus mihi ·mea(e)que ·aetati.· Id
·ego· mando· remandata (So: demandata) ·
quo· is14
· apud· deos· i(n)feros· ut· pereant
13
For the reading of the last two words as: dedi defic(t)as see, TheDeMa 547.
14
Kropp 2008 reads: quo(d) (h)is interpreting as ut hi.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
444
cent. ·et (d)efigantur· quo(d) · ego· heres ·sim
pupillus Corani(us) C(ai) · f(ilii),15
· C(aius)
· Poblici(us) · populi· lib(ertus) ·
Ap(h)rodis(ius) · L(ucius) · Corneliu(s) ·
meo· sum(p)tu· defig(o)· illos· quo(d)·
pereant.
non-specific/inheritance; 5 m.
pater/patronus; nom.; pupillus
(little child); death
apud Deos inferos
punctuation ·
41. Pula, Histria dfx.1.7.5/1;
Be 6; grave; half of the 2nd
cent.
Caecilius Honoratus, Mindius Donatus,
Mindius Charmides, Mindius Zoticus,
Mindius Hermes, Mindius Maleus, Mindius
Narcissus, Mindius Eititeus(?), Marcius
Soter, Decidius Hister, Decidia Certa,
Minervius Epaphroditus, Lucifer disp(ensator),
Lucifer adiutor coloni, Vitalis
disp(ensator), Trophimus, Trophimus alius,
Anconius qui vilicavit, Tertius, Amandus,
Viator.
non-specific; 21 m. nom.; N
N
42. Pula, Histria dfx.1.7.5/2;
Be 7; grave; half of the 2nd
cent.
(Mind)ius Narcissus, Mindius Maleus,
Decidius Hister, Decidia Certa, Minervius
Epaphroditus, Me(nande)r(?), Lu(cifer
d)ispensator, Lucifer alius, Amandus
dispensator, Vitalis dispensator, Trophimus
qui dispensavit, Anconius qui vilicavit,
Viator colonus. (Sept)imius(?) Sabinianus,
Flavius Hedistus, Annius Calvo, Annius
Civilis.
non-specific; 16 m. + 1 f.
nom.; dispensator (the names
from tablet No. 41 dominate);
N
N
43. Classe, Aemilia;
dfx.1.8.1/1; So 1988; grave; 0
Q(uintus) Tiburius Optatus tr(aditur?)
non-specific; 1 m. nom.; N
N
44. Classe, Aemilia
dfx.1.8.1/2; grave; 0
Venustus tr(aditur?)
non-specific; 1 m. nom.; N
N
15
Kropp (2008) reads: C(ai) Grani C(ai) f(ilii).
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
445
45. Verona, Italia; grave; the
2nd
cent. Sánchez Natalías
2016
Augustum, Carsadia(m) vel Carsidia(m),
Secundum Caupunum vel Caupon(i)um
def(ig)o.non-specific; 2 m. + 1 f. acc.;
N
N
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
446
I.2. Hispania
HISPANIA TEXT
46. Ampurias dfx.2.1.1/1; So
25; Curbera 1996; water
(beach); the 1st
cent. BCE
Veranio, Pupilius Stabilio, Apolindorus,
Phulargurus Scapi, Surisca Alexae, Papus,
Amphio Parnaci(s), Zodiana, omnes quei
inimeici Senecae.
legal qui inimici; 6 m. + 2 f.
nom.; author’s name Seneca?
N
N
47. Ampurias dfx.2.1.1/2; So
26; Ga 52; tab. opistogr.;
grave; the 1st
cent.
A: Maturus, proqurator Augusti, consilium
legati, legati Indicetanorum (consilium)
Indicetanoru(m) B: Olossitan(i), Titus Aurelius
Fulvus, legatus Augusti, Rufus,
legatus Augus(ti).
legal legati; 3 m. nom. + nonspecificied
legates; N
N; right-to-left, upside-down
48. Ampurias dfx.2.1.1/3; So
27; Ga 52; tab. opistogr.;
grave; the 1st
cent.
A: Consilium Fulvi legati, Olossitani,
Campanus Fidentinus Augus(ti)…o…
B: Fulvus, legatus Augusti, Rufus, legatus
Augusti, Maturus, proqu(r)ator Augusti,
legati, advocati Ind(i)cetanorum.
legal advocati; 4 m. nom. +
non-specificied legates (the
same people as in No. 47)
N; right-to-left, upside-down
49. Ampurias dfx.2.1.1/4; So
28; Ga 52; tab. opistogr.;
grave; the 1st
cent.
A: (Oloss)itani, Sempronius Campanus
Fidentinus atversari (=adversarii) me(i)
inique ne int(er)sint.
B: (Ful)vus legatus (Aug)usti, Rufus
lega(tus Aug)usti, Matu(ru)s,
pro(cu)r(at)or (Aug)usti, consilium, legati
atvocati (Indicetano)ru(m).
legal A: adversari mei, B:
advocati; 4 m. nom. + legates,
see 47, 48; N
N; right-to-left, upside-down
50. Barchín de Hoyo
dfx.2.1.2/1; So 30; Curbera
1999; a lead discus, opistogr.;
A: ὑπέρ ἐμοῦ κα(ὶ) ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐμῶν τοῖς κατὰ
Ἅδην δίδωμι, παραδίδωμι Νεικίαν καὶ
Τειμὴν καὶ τοὺς ἃ(λ)λους οἳς δικαίως
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
447
in the soil; before the 1st
cent. κατηρασάμην.
B: Pro me, pro meis devotos, defixos inferis
Timen et Niciam et ceteros, quos merito
devovi supr(a pro) me pro mei(s), Timen,
Nician, Nicia(n).
non-specific; 2 f. acc.; N
inferis
written in a spiral., A: Greek
text in alphabet; B: Latin
letters and language
51. Saguntum dfx.2.1.3/1;
Corell 1994; in the soil; the 1st
cent.;
Quintula cum Fortunali sit semel et
numquam.
rivalry in love; 1 m. + 1 f.;
separation
N
52. Carmona dfx.2.2.2/1;
Corell 1993; Sáez 1999; x; the
second half of the 1st
cent.
BCE
Dis · imferis (=inferis) · vos ·rogo· utei
(=uti) · recipiates (=recipiatis) · nomen ·
Luxsia · A(uli) · Antesti · filia · caput · cor·
co(n)s(i)lio(m) · valetudine(m) · vita(m) ·
membra · omnia ·accedat morbo ·
(=morbus?) · cotidea · (=cotidie) · et· sei
(=si) · faciatis · votum · quod ·faccio ·
solva(m) · vostris · meritis.
non-specific; 1 f. nom. pater;
disease
Dis inferis
votive formula
punctuation ·
53. Córdoba dfx.2.2.3/1; So
22; grave; the 1st
cent. BCE
Dionisia Den(t)atiai ancilla rogat deibus:
ego rogo, bono, bono, deibus rogo, oro,
bono einfereis bono, Salpina rogo, oro et
bonis inferis, ut dioso(m) (=deorsum),
quod fit deibus inferabus, ut hoc, quo(d) sit
causa et ecquod votum feci, ut solva(t),
rogo, ut illam ducas, rogo, oro.
non-specific/rivalry in love?;
author’s name in nom.
Dionisia; the name of the
victim is (Salpina?);
separation?
Deibus inferabus
votive formula
54. Córdoba dfx.2.2.3/2; So
23; grave; the 1st
cent. BCE
T(itus) noster, Fausta Fausti, Pollio filius,
Casius, Clipius(?), Munnitia.
non-specific; 4 m. + 2 f. nom.;
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
448
N
N
55. Córdoba dfx.2.2.3/3; So
24; grave; the 1st
cent.?
C(aius) · Nu(misius) Sex(to?) C(aius) ·
Num(isius) · P(h)ilem(on) Num(isia) ·
Hera(cl)ia Calipso · Num(isiorum) (serva),
C(aia) · Avilia · Ir(e)na· C(aius) Num(isius)
· Epa(ph)rodi(tu)s C(aius) · Num(isius) ·
Ae(s)c(h)inus, Scinti(ll)a · Num(isiorum)
(serva).
non-specific; 4 m. + 4 f.,
serva; nom.; N
N; punctuation
56. Córdoba dfx.2.2.3/4; tab.
opistogr.; in the soil; the 1st
cent. BCE
A: Priamus· l(ibertus) · mutus· sit omnibus·
modis. B: · hannue (=adnue), · n(e) · q(u)is
· pos(s)it · de (he)reditate verbum quet
(=quod) · facere· omnes · o(b)mut(e)sq(ua)nt
(=obmutescant), silient
(=sileant?).16
non-specific/inheritance; 1 m.,
libertus; nom.; restrictions;
N; right-to-left; punctuation
16
Reading according to CIL II2
251a, side B: ne q(u)is pos(s)it de (he)reditate/ silient/
quet hannue verbum /facere omnes omut[e]sq[ua]nt. I state here the word order
suggested by CIL and taken over by Kropp (2008).
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
449
I.3. Gallia
GALLIA TEXT
57. Maar, Gallia Belgica
dfx.4.1.2/1; DT 103; Gering
1916; CIL 13,3,1, 10008,7;
grave, clay vessel; the 2nd
cent.
Art(um) ligo Dercomogni (filium), fututor,
Artus fututor. reading: DT 103
written after burning off: Aprilis Kaesio.
Kropp (2008) reads: art(e) ligo… fututor
art(us) fututor
For other readings see TheDeMa 718rivalry in love Artum? 1. m.
acc.? pater?; separation
N; peculiar graph. lay-out;
alphab. sequence
58. Trier, Gallia Belgica
dfx.4.1.3/1; Be 17;
amphitheatre;
the 4th
/5th
cent.?
Primus.
non-specific; 1 m. nom.; N
N
59. Trier, Gallia Belgica
dfx.4.1.3/4; Be 20;
amphitheatre; the 4th
/5th
cent.?
Matrona.
non-specific; 1 f. nom.; N
N
60. Trier, Gallia Belgica
dfx.4.1.3/6; Be 22;
amphitheatre; half of the 4th
cent.
Ursus, Ursula, Martinianus, Ursacia…
non-specific; 2 f. + 2 m.
nom.; N
N
61. Trier, Gallia Belgica
dfx.4.1.3/8; Be 24;
inimicum… qui ... i(u)vate … Marti et
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
450
amphitheatre; 4th
/5th
cent.?;
fragm.
Dianea (= Dianae)
legal inimicum; N
Marti, Dianae
62. Trier, Gallia Belgica
dfx.4.1.3/10; Be 26; tab.
opistogr.; amphitheatre; the
4th
/5th
cent.?
A: SM
B: Prusiae nomen deposit(um). CIL 13,
11340, 8
Kropp (2008): Pr(i)ssiae nomen
deposit(um).non-specific; 1 f. N
SM
63. Trier, Gallia Belgica
dfx.4.1.3/15; Be 31;
amphitheatre; 4th
/5th
cent. –
the second half of the 3rd
cent.; corrupted text
The reading in CIL 13, 11340:
Bona san(c)ta nomen pia nomen (=numen?)
noemnolia ecessedenitia (=denuntio?) tibi
santne Dia dekigo (=defigo)…danum, quen
peperit Annula Regula eatta aer domina que
a e tanta kamapom . . r . . re . . carnis
Bonarium…ekigo (=(d)efigo?)…att. . a
trata. . te. . . ti. . . nci.…tai…ta…. otun…
The reading of Kropp (2008): Bona san(c)ta
nomen (=numen?) pia nomen noemnolia
…ecessedenitia (=denuntio?) tibi
san(c)t(ae) Dia17
defigo (Ro)danum, quen
peperit An(n)ula Regula…eatta aer domina
qu(a)e a…e tanta fama po
m…r…re…carnis Bonarium…(d)efigo
att…a…trata…te… ti…
nci…tai…ta…otun…
non-specific; 1 m. acc.;
mater; N
Bona sancta, sanctae Dianae
64. Trier, Gallia Belgica
dfx.4.1.3/16; Simón 2008; x,
0
Tib(erium) Claudium Treverum, natione
Germanum, lib(ertum) Claudii Similis, rogo
te, dom(i)na Isis, ut illum (illi) profluvio(m)
17
Kropp (2008) reads Dianae which is said to have been written right-to-left;
however, this reading does not seem possible after looking at the facsimile in CIL.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
451
non-specific; 1 m. libertus,
acc.; disease
mittas et quidquid in bonis habet in morbum
megarum.18
domina Isis
65. Autun, Gall. Lugd.
dfx.4.2.1/1; grave; the 2nd
cent.
Onesiforus, Musc(u)losus, Carpus, Attianus
nepos Veracis, Titus; VM alphab. αβραςα,
αβραςαξ, δαμναμενευς, κομπωθ, θιφεριθ,
γωματου, αβαλθχυθ, βισωτορθ, δεθερθ.
non-specific; 5 m. nom.; N
VM alphab.
66. Lyon, Gall. Lugd.
dfx.4.2.3/1; x; 0
Trivillia, sororem, matrem, Livianus,
Acitius, Casigus, Cassius, Ingunus,
Caducnius sunt?
non-specific; 2 /3? f. + 6 m.
nom.; N
N
67. Chagnon, Gall. Aquitania
dfx.4.3.1/1; DT 111; Ga 53;
CIL XIII, 11069/70; tab.
ansata, (belongs to the
following tablet); grave; half
of the 2nd
cent.
Denuntio personis infrascribtis (=infrascriptis)
Lentino et Tasgillo, uti adsin(t) ad
Plutonem, (et) at Proserpinam, hinc
a(beant?). Quomodo hic catellus nemin(i)
nocuit, sic … nec illi hanc litem vincere
possint. Quomodi nec mater huius catelli
defendere potuit, sic nec advocati eorom
e(os d)efendere non possint, sic il(lo)s
(in)imicos Atracatetracati gallara precata
egdarata hehes celata mentis ablata (et) at
Proserpinam hinc a(beant).
legal litem vincere; 2 m.
restrictions, death
Pluto, Proserpina; VM in
Latin letters
68. Chagnon, Gall. Aquitania
dfx.4.3.1/2; DT 112; CIL
XIII, 11069/70; tab. ansata;
grave; half of the 2nd
cent.
Continues in No. 67: aversos (=aversi) ab
hac l(i)te esse (debent?).19
Quomodi
(=quomodo) hic catellus aversus est nec
surgere potesti (=potest), sic nec illi. Sic
tra(n)specti (=transfixi) sin(t) quomodi ille.
Quomodi in hoc m(o)nimont(o) (=monumento)
animalia ommutuerun(t) nec surgere
possun(t) nec illi mut(i?)... Atracatetracati
legal aversi ab hac lite esse
debent; restrictions/death
VM in Latin letters
18
Kropp (2008) interprets ut illi profluvium mittas. Simón (2008, 178) ut illum pro
fluvio mittas, see 9.1.1.
19
The addition of Kropp (2008).
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
452
continues in No. 67. Rom,
Gall. Aquitania
gallara precata egdarata he hes celata
mentis ablata.
69. 4.3.4/1; Rom (Gall.
Aquitania/ Rauranum) Deux
Sèvres; DT 110; Egger 1962;
Versnel 1985; Ga 16; Meid
2014, 60. tab. opistogr.; well
at a Roman villa; the 3rd
/4th
cent.
Reading Meid (2014, 60 ff.):
A: te uoraiimo, eh, za, atanto tehon, zo(a),
atanta te, compriato sosin dertin oipommio
atehotisse potea(t). te priauimo atanta
tehon, te, za, timezo, zia, te uoraiimo, ape
sosio derti(n) imo(n) na demtisse (ueie (?)
B: ape ci alli carti eti heiont Caticnato na
demtisse Clotucil(l)a se demtitiont eti
cartaont, Dibona, sosio, deui, pia, sosio
pura, sosio gouisa [at]ehoti[sse] sosio pura
heoti[sse], sua demta apodunna
uolis(s)et.)20
non-specific?/love?; 1 m. 1. f.
Dibona; Celtic/Greek/Latin
features, unintelligible text
20
For other interpretations see, Egger (962); Kropp (2008); Versnel (1985) and
TheDeMa.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
453
I.4. Germania
GERMANIA TEXT
70. Frankfurt, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.2/1; So 13; grave (a
Roman cemetery); half of the
2nd
cent.; corrupted text
Rogo Mane(s et dii?) inferi, ut (Ma)rius
Fronto, (adv)ersariu(s) Sex(ti), sit vanus
neque loqui po(s)sit contra (S)extum, ut
F(r)onto fiat mutus, q(um) (=cum)
accesser(it) consular(e)m, ut sit mutus
neque poss(it) loqui, neque qui(c)quam
ag(e)re tanquam nullo(m) ad inf(eros)
re(ligatum?).
legal adversarius Sexti
(author’s name Sextus?); 1 m.
nom.; restrictions
Manes, Dii inferi
71. Frankfurt, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.2/2; grave (a Roman
cemetery), 0; corrupted text
(Do? i)nimicos Sexti, ut (s)ic non (p)ossint
(cont)ra Sextum veni(re) nec agero
(=agere) quicq(uam) possint (u)t sic (sint?)
vani et muti q… di et illi qui in itoac lotum
… loqui Va(le)ntinus et (Fron?)to et
Ripanus et Le … et Iuventin(us?)… et
Luci(u)s e(t) …gar…(F)rontonem …li …
adversari …sint vani et m(uti) (qu)omodi
ista garu …s…
legal do inimicos; ca. 6 m.
nom.; restrictions; identical
names in No. 70
N
72. Kreuznach, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.4/1; DT 94; tab.
opistogr.; found in a grave
together with No. 73; the
1st
/2nd
cent.
A: Fructus B: Gracilis
legal 1 m. nom.; identical
names in No. 73
N
73. Kreuznach, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.4/2; DT 95; found in
a grave together with No. 72;
the 1st
/2nd
cent.; fragm.
Fructus Gracilis et Aur(e)um Adi(u)torium
def(ero) i(nfer)is, sic non possit
respo(nde)re qua(e)s(tionibus)21
legal non possit respo(nde)re;
21
Kropp (2008) amends to Fructum Gracilem, see 10.1.1.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
454
2 m. acc./nom.; restrictions
inferis
74. Kreuznach, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.4/3; DT 96; tab.
opistogr.; grave, urn; the
second half of the 1st
cent.
A: Inimicorum nomina ad…(ICLUM)22
inferos…
B: Inimicorum nomina: Optatus Silonis ad
inferos Faustus Ornatus(?), Terentius
Attisso, Atticinus Ammonis, Latinus
Valeri(i), Adiutor Iuli(i), Tertius Domiti(i),
Mansuetus Senodatium(?), Montanus
materiarius, Aninius Victor, Quartio Severi,
Sinto Valentis, Lutumarus lanius, Similis
Crescentis, Lucanus Silonis, Communis
Mercatoris, Publius offector, Aemilius
Silvanus, Cossus Matuini.
legal? inimicorum nomina;19
m. nom. slaves /craftsmen?; N
ad inferos
A: written vertically; B: last
name written vertically
probably due to the lack of
space
75. Kreuznach, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.4/4; DT 97; tab.
opistogr.; grave, urn; the
second half of the 1st
cent.
A: Data nomina ad inferos // (inferas
larvas) 23
B: Dis Manibus hos v(oveo): L(ucium)
C(a)eli(um), C(aium) Haeb…et si quos alios
hos(tes) habeo, neca illa nom(ina).legal? hos(tes); 2; death
ad inferas larvas, Dis
Manibus
76. Kreuznach, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.4/5; DT 98; grave,
urn; the second half of the 1st
cent.
Sinto Vale(n)tis sive alii inimici Sinto
Valentinus inim(i)cus. Sic comdi
(=quomodo) plumbum subsidet, sic
Sintonem et Martialem Sinto(nis) et
adiutorium Sintonis et quisquis contra
Rubrium fr(atre)m24
et me Quartionem, si
qui(s) contravenerit, Sintonem et adiutorium
eius Sintonis defero ad infero(s). Sic
nusquam contra nos (inve)nisse respon(sio)nis
cum loquantur inimici. Sic
legal inimici; 2 m., relatives,
pater, names of the authors?
Rubriis, Quartio; restrictions
ad inferos
22
See CIL 13,2,1,7553, written up obliquely and in larger letters. Kropp (2008) reads
…lum.
23
See DT 97; CIL 13,2,17553; Kropp (2008) reads: inferas larvas.
24
The reading of Kropp (2008), and CIL 13,2,1, 7554; DT 98 reads differently:
Rubrium Fr(o)n(tonis)…respond..nis.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
455
(d)esumat non parentem tanquam infero(s).
77. Kreuznach, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.4/6; DT 99; DTM, p.
188; grave, urn; the second
half of the 1st
cent.?; fragm.
(M)ansu(e)t(us), Se(cund?)ina et omnes, qui
illi ass(u)nt (=adsunt) et doc(e)n(t illu)m.
legal? 2, 1 certainly m.; N
N
78. Kreuznach, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.4/7; DT 100; discus,
opistogr.; grave.; found
together with No. 79, 80; the
second half of the 1st
cent.?
A: Nomina data, (dela)ta(?), le(gata?) ad
inferos, (ut) illos per vim conrip(i)ant. B:
Silonia Surum, Caenu(m), Secundum. Ille te
(s)ponsus procat25
. Il(l)um amo. Kropp 2008
reads Silonia(m).
rivalry in love; 1 f. + 3 m.
(serv.?) acc.; separation
ad inferos
79. Kreuznach, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.4/8; DT 101; grave;
the second half of the 1st
cent.;
corrupted text, found together
with No. 78, 80;
Inimici et inimici (=ae) Caranita(n)i Abilius
Iu(v)enis, Sabinus a(p)paritor, Arria
Dardisa(?), Optatus Silonis, Privatu(s
Se)veri, Cossus Maesi, Marcus aerari(us),
Atta Marci uxsor, Camula uxso(r) Gamati
Ambiti, Val(erius) Ciri, Atticinus
(Amm)onis, Terentius Attiso, Iulia(?)
Attisonis, Narcis(s)us Caliphon(t)is,
Cali(pu)nti(s)? et Pudentis (e)t Pude(n)s
(…)ssia(?) (…)us Albus(?) Vicinus…nsi…
around the perimeter: Sic te morbo
ad(d)icant Dii M(anes)… Dii
inferi…sunt(?).
legal inimici;, cca 13 m. + 4 f.
nom.; fil./ser./uxor; disease
Dii M(anes), Dii inferi
The cursing formula is written
vertically around the
perimeter
80. Kreuznach, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.4/9; DT 102; tab.
opistogr.; grave; the second
half of the 1st
cent.?; frag.;
found together with No. 78,
79;
A: (Se)verinus et San(c)tius (defe)ro
in(f)e(r)is nomina … serea, ut sic mihi …
non respond(e)at …(non) respon(de)at
(Sev)erin(us…)
B: corrupted text:…ia…in sunt
25
DT 100 reads (c)onr(u)ant and adds pro(vo)cat. See also CIL 13, 2, 1 7550.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
456
legal non respondeat; 2 m.
nom.; restrictions
inferis;
81. Kreuznach, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.4/10; So 14; grave;
the second half of the 1st
cent.;
fragm.
Potitus, Fusci adv(ersarius?), Ivisum Valli,
Marullum Pusionis, Maxsumus Priuni,
(Ne)rvinum(?) Paterni, Maturum Suavis,
Turicum Macri, Sulpicium Secundani …
Prudentem Solve(n)di, Mensor Marulli,
Novim(arum?), Marulli s(ervo)s,
Secunda(m?) … es … litis va(nus?) est,
datur.
legal? 11 m. nom./acc.
pater/patronus? + 1 f. serva; N
N
82. Kreuznach, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.4/11; So 15; tab.
opistogr.; in the soil; half of
the 1st
cent.; corrupted text
A: Data nomina haec ad inferos
B: corrupted text, name?
non-specific; unintelligible
names; N
ad inferos
83. Rossdorf, Germ. Sup. dfx.
5.1.6/1; grave; the 2nd
cent.
Gn(aeus) Hor(at)ini(us) (G)n(aei) l(ibertus),
Araricus, Flav(i)a Finita.
non-specific; 2 m. lib./ser. + 1
f. nom.; N
N; written mirror-like, upsidedown,
unintell.
84. Mainz (Germ. Sup.)
dfx.5.1.5/1; water, the 3rd
cent.?; fragm.
A: Trado(?) Her(mem)
B: I(?) Ω R E
the addition of Kropp (2008).
non-specific; 1 m.?; N
SM, 0; mirror-like
85. (Mainz) Mainz, Germ.
Sup. dfx.5.1.5/2; DTM 5; tab.
opistogr.; shrine (Mater
Magna+Isis); the 1st
/2nd
cent.
A: Bone sancte Atthis (=Attis) tyranne,
adsi(s), advenias Liberali iratus. Per omnia
te rogo, domine, per tuum Castorem,
Pollucem, per cistas penetrales, des ei
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
457
non-specific 1 m.; death malam mentem, malum exitum, quandius
vita(m) vixerit ut omni corpore videat se
emori praeter oculos.
B: neque se possit redimere nulla percunia
nullaque re ne(que) abs te neque ab ullo deo
nisi ut exitum malum. Hoc praesta, rogo te
per maiestatem tuam.
Attis, Castor, Pollux
86. Mainz, Germ. Sup
dfx.5.1.5/3; DTM 21; shrine
(Mater Magna + Isis); the
1st
/2nd
cent.
Trutmo Florus Clitmonis filius.
non-specific; 1 m. nom. pater;
N
Mater Magna + Isis (impl.); +
pierced figurine
87. Mainz, Germ. Sup
dfx.5.1.5/8; DTM 4; Bl 2010:
8; tab. opistogr.; shrine (Mater
Magna + Isis); the 1st
/2nd
cent.
A: Tiberius Claudius Adiutor in megaro
eum rogo te, Mat(e)r Magna, megaro tuo
recipias. Et Attis domine, te precor, ut
hu(n)c (h)ostiam acceptum (h)abiatis et quit
aget, aginat sal et aqua illi fiat. Ita tu facias
dom(i)na it, quid cor eocnora (=iecinora?)
c(a)edat. B: Devotum defictum illum
menbra, medullas AA(?). Nullum aliud sit,
Attis, Mater Magn(a).
non-specific; 1 m.;
restrictions, disease/death?
Mater Magna et Attis
88. Mainz, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.5/6; DTM 8; Bl 2010:
4; Bl 2008:6; shrine (Mater
Magna + Isis); the 1st
/2nd
cent.; corrupted text
Avita(m) noversa (=noverca(m)) dono tibi
et Gratum (do)no tibi…E MESMANT…
non-specific; 1 f. + 1 m. acc.;
N
Mater Magna + Isis (impl.)
written right-to-left
89. Mainz, Germ. Sup. DTM
10; Bl 2008: 10; tab.
opistogr.; shrine (Mater
A: Mando et rogo liberta(m) Cerialis, ut
ea(m) ext(r)a IPIVTI (ipsam?) fac(i)atis, ut
se plangat … (v)elit se, quatmodum
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
458
Magna + Isis); the 1st
/2nd
cent.; corrupted text
arc(h)igalli se B: CO(.)LI sibi settas
facia(ti)s, … ita me(n)ses duos, ut eorum
ixsitum (=exitum) audiam d(i)liquescant
quatmmodi hoc d(i)liquescet….26non-specific; 1 f. nom./acc.?
liberta(m) Cerialis; death
Mater Magna + Isis (impl.)
90. Mainz, Germ. Sup. DTM
13; Bl 2008:9; shrine (Mater
Magna + Isis); the 1st
/2nd
cent.
Cassius Fortunatus e(t)bona illius et Lutatia
Restituta necetis e(os).
non-specific; 1 m. + 1. f.
nom.; death
Mater Magna + Isis (impl.)
91. Mainz, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.5/4; DTM 15; Bl
2010: 5; shrine (Mater Magna
+ Isis); the 1st
/2nd
cent.
Prima Aemilia Narcissi agat, quidquid
conabitur, quidquid aget, omnia illi
inversum sit, amentita surgat, amentita suas
res agat. Quidquid surget, omnia
interversum surgat. (P)rima Narcissi aga(t):
como haec carta nuncquam florescet, sic
illa nuncquam quicquam florescat.
rivalry in love? 1 f. Prima
Aemilia Narcissi (mistress?
Bl); fil./uxor/lib./serva?;
restrictions/ separation?
Mater Magna + Isis (impl.);
peculiar graph. lay-out: the
beginning of the text is
written in a spiral
unclockwise
92. Mainz, Germ. Sup. DTM
16; Bl 2010: 11; tab.
opistogr.; shrine (Mater
Magna + Isis); the 1st
/2nd
A: Fo(r)tunam dolus q(u)otti(die…)i sed //
q(u)ot ti(b)i sed vir pa(tri?)…deo meo…i
meo.u(sp)oliav(it) IUNCNOA REIANTI (?)
B: mentem, memoriam, cor, cogitatum il(le
26
Blänsdorf (2008, 60) states quatmmodi hoc liquescet, which also appears in his final
edition (2012, No. 10). However, elsewhere he states diliquesc(u)nt, too (2010, No.
14, p. 180).
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
459
cent.; corrupted text q)uisquis patrem meum con(s)p(exit?), illi et
ius //sui te illi?). 27
legal? restrictions?
deo meo?; side B written
right-to-left
93. Mainz, Germ. Sup. DTM
17; Bl 2008; shrine (Mater
Magna + Isis); the 1st
/2nd
cent.
P. Vinnonius, Primus SPAIAIE C28
non-specific; 2 m. nom.; N
Mater Magna + Isis (impl.);
peculiar letters, partially
written right-to-left
94. Mainz, Germ. Sup. DTM
19; Bl 2008: 7; shrine (Mater
Magna + Isis); the 1st
/2nd
cent.; corrupted text
I … An … Arbil … Veceta i … Verecundus
SANAACAS (i.e. /sacaanas/saganas/sana
agas?) Sottas (/Sattos), m(a)las.
non-specific; 1 m.? nom. +
several f. acc. pl.? + malas; N
Mater Magna + Isis (impl.);
written right-to-left, corrupted
95. Mainz, Germ. Sup. DTM
20; Bl 2008: 1; shrine (Mater
Magna + Isis); the 1st
/2nd
cent.
Ce(.)conius/ Cu(.)conius Anudrius.
non-specific; 1 - 2 m. nom.;
N
Mater Magna + Isis (impl.)
96. Mainz, Germ. Sup. DTM
22; Bl 2008: 2; shrine (Mater
Magna + Isis); the 1st
/2nd
cent.
A: SORE (i.e. right-to-left Eros)
B: Eros
27
Blänsdorf (2012, No. 16) states two possible interpretations of the passages reading
right-to-left or left-to-right: q(u)otti(die…)i sed or q(u)ot ti(b)i sed; and illi et ius or
sui te illi?
28
Kropp (2008) interprets the unintelligible place as an abbreviation: salutem
plurimam ad inferos ad inferos?; see Blänsdorf (2008, 55), and DTM 17.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
460
non-specific; 1 m. servus; N
Mater Magna + Isis (impl.)
str. A written right-to-left
97. Mainz, Germ. Sup. DTM
23; Bl 2008: 8; Bl 2010: 1;
shrine (Mater Magna + Isis);
the 1st
/2nd
cent.
Minicius Campanus, Martianuss Armicus
Severum tesserarium, Cantarum equitem.29
non-specific; 2 m. nom. + 2
m. acc.; N
Mater Magna + Isis (impl.)
98. Mainz, Germ. Sup. DTM
25; Bl 2008: 4; shrine (Mater
Magna + Isis); the 1st
/2nd
cent.
Lamixa Zerita…villi ancil(l)am.
non-specific; 1 f. ancilla;
nom./acc.?; N
Mater Magna + Isis (impl.)
99. Mainz, Germ. Sup. DTM
28; Bl 2008: 15; Bl 2010: 6;
shrine (Mater Magna + Isis);
tab. opistogr.; the 1st
/2nd
cent.;
corrupted text
A: E V NAMSO … NES RVOCNIOTESROSCO
(=unintelligible sequence a te
rogo?) voto me condemn(n)e(s) o. in vim
CERO LAE LIANT (unintelligible), quodsi
SEME...IS suo DEANTA VE (unintel.)
B: OIVO I TTEPE (unintel.) fero et decipio
OA cum eos devovet exfetum (=exitum?) set
sanum animosum (dam)nat?, si devove(t)
m(e)os EIVERAPE NEAG OM /ESVERAPE
… (unintel.)
non-specific; N
Mater Magna + Isis (impl.)
votive formula?;
written right-to-left in a
peculiar way
100. Cologne, Germ. Sup. Bl
2010: 3; Blänsdorf – Kropp –
Scholz 2010); tab. opistogr.;
in the soil (Roman cemetery;
half of the 1st
cent.
A: Vaeraca (/Uxeraca?), sic res tua:
perve(r)se agas, comodo hoc perverse
scriptu(m) est. B: Quidquid exop(ta)s
nobi(s) in caput tuum eveniat.
29
Blänsdorf (2010, No. 1, p. 166) used to state Cantar(um); however, later (2012: 23)
he interpreted as Cantarum.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
461
non-specific; 1 f. nom.;
restrictions
N; written right-to-left
I.4.1. Noricum
NORICUM TEXT
101. Mautern dfx.6.1/1;
Egger 1948; So 7; Faraone –
Kropp 2010; Weber 1985;
tab. opistogr.; shrine; half of
the 2nd
cent.
A: Pluton sive(m) Iovem infernum dici
opornotet (=oportet), Eracura (=Aeracura)
Iuno inferna, acciet(e) ia(m) c(e)lerius
infrascribtum e(t) tradite i Manibus
Aurelium Sinnianum C(a)eserianum B: Sic
Silvia inversu(m) maritu(m) ceernis
(=cernis), quommodi nomen il(l)ius scriptum
est.
non-specific; 1 m. + 1. f.;
death
Pluton sive Iovem infernum,
Aeracura Iuno inferna,
Manibus
the name of the victim
written upside-down
102. Wilhering dfx.6.2/1; So
8; brick; in the soil; 0
(Do)mino fartori Victorino salutem. Mox
litteras meas perceperis, ut statuim(us).
Demes litteras meas felicissime et i(n?)
pos(t?) cum Livia peribis.
non-specific, 1 m. fartor + 1
f.; death
N
I.4.2. Raetia
RAETIA TEXT
103. Bregenz, Austria A: Domitius Niger et Lollius et Iulius
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
462
dfx.7.1/1; DT 93; Egger
1943; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the 1st
cent.
Severus et Severus Nigri ser(v)us adve(rs)ar(ii)
Bruttae et quisquis adversus il(l)am
(reading of DT) eam (reading of Kropp)
loq(u)it(ur), omnes per(da)tis. B: (Ro)g(o)
vos omnes, qui illi malum (pa)ratis dari dm
… o …dari O(g)mio a(bs)umi mort(e) … t …
t … nti et Nige(r)… dim … o Valerium … a
et Ni(g)er.
legal adversarii Bruttae; 4 m.
+ et quisquis; nom.; 2 m.
servi?, author’s name? death
Ogmius
104. Bregenz, Austria
dfx.7.1/2; Egger 1943; grave;
the first half of the 2nd
cent.?;
corrupted text
A:Deo (=De(fig)o?) amc(?) ea(m) re(m)
imple(b)id (=implebit) D(is) p(ate)r ad
era(m). Ogmius salute(m), cur (=cor), talus
(=talos), re(nes), anum, genita(lia)…auris
B: cesthula(m) (=cistulam), utensilia davi(t)
(=dabit?) spiridebus (=spiritibus) ac
ov(o)ediu(nt) (=oboediunt) ei, ne quiat
nubere.
Ira de(i).
rivalry in love ne quiat
nubere; separation
Dis pater, era (Aeracura?),
Ogmius boustrophedon
105. Kempten, Austria
dfx.7.2/1; Egger 1963; So 10;
in a house; half of the 2nd
cent.
Mutae tacitae, ut mutus sit Quartus agitatus
erret ut mus fugiens aut avis adversus
basyliscum ut e(i)us os mutu(m) sit. Mutae,
mutae (d)irae sint, mutae, tacitae sint,
mutae. (Qu)a(rt)us ut insaniat, ut Eriniis
rutus sit et Quartus Orco. Ut mutae tacitae,
ut mutae sint ad portas aureas.
legal Quartus ut mutus sit; 1
m. nom.; restrictions
Muta Tacita?
106. Peiting, Austria
dfx.7.4/1; So 11; Nesselhauf
1960; in a house; the 2nd
/3rd
cent. – the first half of the 1st
cent.
Gemella supra mensuram naturae domini tui
Clementis iaces, qu(are?) ut te patitur, sic tu
patere (ver?)am eius (mensu?)ram patere
audacter, quod te iuve(t). Somnus te tuetur,
Gemella sub iugum missa quiesce …
contineas te, non pe(cca?)s. Ama
Clementem, sicut ibi eum non videbis … qua
plumbum.
love love spell ama; victim’s
name is missing, author:
Clemens;
N; written right-to-left and
upside-down, diverse
orientation of letters
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
463
I.4.3. Panonia
PANNONIA SUPERIOR TEXT
107. Kupa, Croatia dfx.8.1/1;
So 5; Vetter 1959; Simón – De
Llanza 2008; in water; the first
half of the 2nd
cent.
A: =(recto)30
: Adverssar(i)o(s) · nosstro(s)
G(aius) · Dometiu(s) Secundus et. Lucius.
Larcio(=us) et Secundo(=us) Vacarus
Cyba(lenses) · et · P(ublius) Citronius
Cicorelliu(s) · Narbone(nsis) et. L(ucius)
Licc(i)nius Sura (H)isspan(us)et Luccillius
Vallente (Valens) ne possi(nt) cuntra
(=contra) sse faceri (=facere?)31
avertat.
illo(s) amaete (=amentes) cantra
(=contra) locui (=loqui) ne mali
illorus(=m) mutu(m). os fac(iat)(?) G(aius)
Dom<i>tius Ssecundo (=us) et · Lucius
La(r)c(i)o L(ucii filius) Cyba(lenses) Muta
Tagita (=Tacita)…(b?)ona illorum…
B: =(verso): Data deprementi
(=deprimenti)32
ma(n)data data istos Savo
(ut) cura(m) agat deprema(t)
adver(s)ar(i)o(s) nosstro(s) obmutua(nt) ne
contra nos lucuia(nt) (=loquantur).
legal adversarios; 6 m. nom;
restrictions
Savus (river god), Muta;
Tacita?
Part written upside-down
108. Ljublana, Slovenia
dfx.8.2/1; So 4; at the entrance
to the house; the second half of
the 1st
cent. (So 1st
-2nd
cent.)
C(aius) Volusius Maximus, Firmi Optati
Proculus, Virotouta, Constans, servi atque
publicius Porcius Munitus, Clodius
Dexter, Tullius Secundus, Cornellius
Priscus, quicumque adversar(ii) sunt
omnes.
legal quicumque adversari sunt
omnes; 7 m. + 1 f.?; N
N
109. Ptuj, Slovenia dfx.8.4/1;
Premerstein 1906; tab.
A: Paulina aversa sit a viris omnibus et
deficsa (=defixa) sit, ne quid possit mali
30
I state here the reading according to Simón –De Llanza (2008), for a new reading
based on autopsy see, Barta (2017, 26-28).
31
Vetter (1960, 127 ff.) and Kropp (2008) read ageri = agere; both readings are
possible according to Simón – De Llanza (2008).
32
Vetter (1960, 127 ff.) reads detrimenti.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
464
opistogr.; grave; half of the 2nd
cent.
facere.
B: Firminam (cl)od(as) (=claudas) ab
omnibus humanis.rivalry in love 2 f.; nom./acc.;
separation/restrictions
N; written as boustrophedon,
side B changes orientation of
script, now and then also
upside-down
110. Delos, the Cyclades
dfx.10.1/1; So 1; grave; the
second half of the 2nd
cent. BCE
L(ucium) Paconium senem, Q(uintum)
Tullium Q(uinti) f(ilium) N(umerius)
Cottius N(umeri) f(ilius), C(aium) Seium
C(ai) filium Cilonem, (Caium Se)ium
Aristomachum…Caecilium L(uci) f(ilium),
Ar…, Q(uintum) Samiarium(?) Arc…,
M(arcum) Satricanium Ar(c…), A,
Q(uintus) Paconios Arc…, Heracleide(m)
Antipatr(i filium), Heliodorum … tiu …
Demetrium … sun …, Seuthem,
Pragmaticum, Serapion Serapionis
f(ilium), P(ublius) Granius Alexandrus,…
ailus P(ublii). filius, Arc … …ceius
Nicephorus, Cn(aeus) Paconios Apollonis,
Marai(os) (G)erillano(s), N(umerius)
Varaios et sei qui(s) alius eri(t) inimeicus
Tito Paconio.
legal et si quis alius erit
inimeicus; 15 m. acc./nom. ;
pater; N ; author: Titus
Paconius
N
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
465
I.5. Africa
AFRICA TEXT
111. Carthage dfx.11.1.1/1;
DT 215; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
Dalerius (=Valerius) Epaprhoditus
(=Epaphroditus), Valerius Oncarpus, Valerius
Pleogius, Valeriu(s) Onomacus, (Val)erius
Sabinus, Valerius, Herma, Valerius Maternus,
Valerius Romanus, Valerius Trophimus,
Plotius Hermes, Critonius Faustus, Valerius,
Hermes, Valeria Omphale, Valeria Trophine,
Valeria Flora…
non-specific; 11 m. nom. +
3 f. nom.; N
N
112. Carthage dfx.11.1.1/2;
DT 216; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
-
1st
cent.
Scribonia, Philomusus, Criso, Alypus,
Lerastus, Philargurus (=Philargyrus), Avner
(=Abner), Felix, Liberalis, conservi,
conservae, amici, amicae, c(og)nati …
Quicumque conaverit, dicerit (=dixerit),
fecerit (a)ut facere voluerit, colliberti aut
colliberta(e).
legal quicumque conaverit;
8 m. + 1 f. + conservi/ae,
amici/, cognati,
colliberti/ae; N
N
113. Carthage dfx.11.1.1/3;
DT 217; grave; tab.
opistogr.; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.;
corrupted text
A:…?osui fisci lingua, ne contra me nec dicere
nec facere va(l)eant nisi quod ego voluero;
al(li)go, deligo linguas abtracati dioti esse
hypticrati (VM?) se …uni … Callicraphae
(=Calligraphae)…reti Primi... m…trim…pho.
ri..li et pe motri …necessi aput (=apud)…ti
victo ua …patri m(eo) nec adver(sus me)…
irati … alligo d…ram illam … lingua(m) et ta
…te pe… Pudentis … ani… alligo, delligo…
la..o..nirali …a…n Callicraphae… frg. B:
corrupted text, see also DT 217.
legal deligo linguas; 1 f. +
2 m.; restrictions
N
114. Carthage dfx.11.1.1/4;
DT 218; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
(VM: αρασβεθ αραβησπιγοε ψιντιβορ)
(Sex)tiliani et Gula(e) Pudentis et P(ac)or(a)e
Acuti et M(arci) f(ilii)…ai Silvani et Sextiliani
et L(uci) Caecili(i) Ma(gni?). Adligate
lingu(a)s horum, quos suprascripsi, ne
legal alligate linguas; 5 m.
+ 2 f., pater; restrictions
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
466
VM alphab. around the
perimeter
adversus nos respondere (possint).
115. Carthage dfx.11.1.1/5;
DT 219; Poccetti 2005;
grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
Iudico (=Indico) il(l)um quiq(ue i?)mitati:
facias il(l)os muttos adversu(s) Atlosam ac
ligo, o(b)ligo, linguas illorom (=illorum),
medias, extremas, novissimas, ne quit possint
respondere contra. Facias illos mutuos
(=mutos), muturungallos, mutulos, Crispu(m)
marinis et Marinem parinis. Fragm.: (oblig)o
li(n)guas il(l)oro(m), isulcas i(l)lo(rom) …los
ar/tu(s)…l cor n…ru…tisa.
legal facias illos mutos; 2
m.? the author named
Atlosa?; restrictions
N
116. Carthage dfx.11.1.1/6;
DT 220; grave; tab.
Opistogr.; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.;
corrupted text
A: Domina (Te)rra(?).nase…(facias?)
Germanum mutum … dicu accomodes
Opsecra(e) (=Obsecrae) Isperatae
(=Speratae) custodes a..o … Martialim
Cosconio(m), Ianuarium et Rufum, ut …e
(…quomodo qui? the addition of Kropp (2008)
B: sunt ibi, mutos et m(e)tu pleno(s) facias,
qurum (=quorum) nomina h(ic) (h)abeas
(=habes). (Adver?)sus Ops(ec)ra(m)
Isperata(e …adversus eam loqui non pissit
(=possint), inimi(ci) adversus ea(m) loqui
no(n) possint?).33
legal adverusu eam
loqui…; 5 m. acc. + 1 f.
acc.; the author named
Obsecra Speratae;
restrictions?
Domina Terra?
117. Carthage dfx.11.1.1/7;
DT 221; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted text
…n…Se(curus?), como(d)o (=quomodo) …m
…ra …no(n) potes(t) (contr)a nos
d(e)r(e)spondere …eca sic no(n possint
respondere? the addition of Kropp) contra
patre(m) meu(m con)tra (me) advocati qui
contr(a) nos non pos(s)it secum ve(l)ut ruga
iu(ra) nostra Toresilius quiqui venerint.
Comodo li(t)tera(e) non possu(nt c)uicui sic(?)
nemo potes(t) ilos (=illoc) venire, comodo
Securus …o sic n(o)n pos(s)it (lo)qui, comodo
Securus non potes(t) loqui (sic n)on possint
(lo)qui arvo… (=advocati?) qui qui que…
legal non potest contra
nos; 2 m. nom.; restrictions
N
33
Reading according to Kropp (2008); see also DT 220 who slightly differs in reading
the sequence nase at the beginning.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
467
118. Carthage dfx.11.1.1/8;
DT 222; tab. Opistogr.;
grave, urn; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.;
corrupted text
A: Claudia Helenis, Clodia Successi, Clodia
Steretia, Clodius Fortunatus, Clodius
Romanus, Mu(rc)ius Crim…enius, Servilius
Faustus, Valerius Extricatus. Quomodi haec
nomina a(d inferos dedi sic omnes)34
(adversu)s35
me ommutes(cant) (neque lo)qui
(possint?).36
. B: (Quomodo)…huic gallo …
lingua(m) vivo extorsi et defixi, sic inimicorum
meorum linguas adversus me ommutescant.
Sic qui (in?) me l(o)qui osusve (=aususve)
fuerit, ad ni(hi)lo (r)ediat res illius…(ha)ec
pr(a)ecatio ita … erteta est ad … (preco?)r
vos muta … per ves(tr..) … ve(c)turia(m)
(=victoria(m?), Di(i) Manes, ita uti vost(?)
poniteque sic adversus.
legal linguas ommutescant;
3 f. + 5 m. nom., lib./ser.?;
restrictions
Di Manes
Part written vertically
119. Carthage dfx.11.1.1/9;
DT 223; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; very corrupted text,
fragm.
The text of the tablet is very damaged, I state
only the intelligible lines:
l. 5:…possin(t) contr(a…
l.14:…ut... perper(c)ussi sunt sic ante nec
valiat adversus (respond)ere...legal possint contra;
restrictions
N
120. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/10; DT 224;
grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.;
fragm.
The text of the tablet is very damaged, only the
intelligible fragments are stated here.
Frg. I: curo tequ (re)licta teque …ati i p(ri)mi
ad opius ad (a)dver…
Frg. II: …to s.um . con(tr)a atio vin ri … pi …
Africani ri …lingu…
Frg. III: …mutia oppra ra in erga inimica
Ulpia Publia sic lin(gua) in(i)mic(a) tuque sic
quic(umque) larin mena… lingua lingua
lingua l(i)nguar(um)… the following text is
corrupted
legal inimica; 1 f. + 1 m.
(originally probably more
victims); restrictions
N
34
The addition of Kropp (2008).
35
The addition of DT 222.
36
The addition of Kropp (2008).
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
468
121. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/13; DT 227;
grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
(VM: αραχσω απηιηνιαρα βαρεμαεβσ)
Uratur Suc(c)es(s)a aduratur amo(re) vet
(=vel) desideri(o) Successi …i…tutt
love aduratur amo(re);
love spell/he wants her
VM alphab. around the
perimeter
122. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/14; DT 228; tab.
Opistogr.; grave; the
2nd
/3rd
-1st
cent.
A: Te rogo · qui infernales · partes tenes ·
commendo· tibi· Iulia(m) · Faustilla(m) · Marii
filia(m) · ut · eam · celerius abducas et · ibi · in
· numerum tu(um) abias (=habeas) B: Te rogo
· qui infernales · partes · tenes · commendo·
tibi · Iulia(m) Faustilla(m) · ut eam celerius
abducas infernales partibus in numeru(m) ·
tu(um) · abias (=habeas).
non-specific; 1 f.
nom./acc.? Pater; death?
Qui infernales partes tenes
(Pluto) punctuation ·
123. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/15; DT 229;
grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; very
corrupted text
Occid(as)… facias pe(r…) facias, d(a)emo(n
…) loquto (=locuto) da… (o)bliv(i)oni cit(o)
me teneat a ta ata… et exta. (Ia)m iam (ci)to
cito. Facias ex (h)oc die, ex (ha)c (h)ora. Iam
iam, cito cito facias …m (d)onec et
(…r)e(d)eat(?) …cat… (d)onec et c (iam)
iam… cito
legal? death?
I (in the centre a headless
standing daemon in tunic
holding a bowl and a wand
with a lantern on top; part
written vertically
124. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/16; DT 230; tab.
Opistogr.; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
A: Καταξιν (q)ui es (in) Aegupto magnus
daemon … et aufer illae somnum usquedun
veniat at me … et animo meo satisfaciat.
Τραβαξιαν omnipotens daemon adduc …
amante(m) aestuante(m) amoris et desideri(i)
mei causa. Νοχθιριφ, qui (es?) cogens
daemon, coge illa(m) … m(ec)un (=mecum)
coitus facere… Βιβιριξι, qui es f(ort)issimus
daemon, urgue (c)oge illam venire ad me
amante(m) aestuante(m) amoris et desideri(i)
love adduc amante(m)
aestuante(m); names of the
beloved woman and the
lovesick man (the author)
are missing; love spell/he
wants her
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
469
VM daemons alphab.
Καταξιν, Τραβαξιαν,
Νοχθιριφ, Βιβιριξι,
Ρικουριθ
mei … causa. Ρικουριθ, agilissime daemon in
Aegupto et agita … a suis parentibus a suo
cubile et aerie quicumque caros habet et coge
illa(m) me amare, mihi conferre ad meu(m)
desiderium.
B: totally corrupted text …vi cirie aut ab
cr…t…peper…it…ap…rgiebs deoum…ep cam
…(faci)as?
125. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/17; DT 231;
grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.;
corrupted text
The tablet is written in the Greek alphabet, its
beginning is damaged. L. 2.
...περα…(κου)ωρο(μ)…κ(ο)υω ρορ … μαγνα
ουτ … διας …τ κουωμο(δο) … ανουντιο ρηγις
… μορτους αβ ιλ(λα) … (δητ)ινητουρ ανιμα …
οκ λοκο σικ ετ … κουιους εστ … τη δητινεατουρ
(ιν ομ)νε τεμπους ιν α(μωρ)ε ετ δεσυδερι(ο)
Μαρ(τ)ιαλικι κουεμ πεπεριτ Κορωναρια
σερρουσεμ …λω κνημεω τριπαρνωχι α(β)ρασαξ
σχωμονοε ευφνεφερησα μαλχαμα ιαρεμμουθου
χεννειθ; ατιουρο ουως περ ουνκ πρε(πο)σιτου
σουπερ νεκεσσι(τατ)ης τερρε σικ ετ τε …
δομινους αιη απερ …ουτ ε(ξ) ακ διη οκ μομεντο
… ατε … ιλλ(α)ς ησου …αμετ Μαρτιαλε ουτ
ομμνι μουλιεβρι ωρας μ(ε) ιν μεντε αβεατ ετ
τωτα διε (ιν α)νιμω αβεατ αμωρεμ
με(ουμ)…(α)νιμ(ω) τισ μαγνα τυ…(δομ)ινομ
ιαμ ιαμ…πενια…transcription in Latin letters:
...quorum… magna ut… quomodo … anuntio
regis … mortuus ab il(la …det)ineatur anima
… (in h)oc loco, sic et … cuius est … te
detineatur (in om)ne tempus in a(mor)e et
desideri(o) Mar(t)ialiki (Martialis), quem
peperit Coronaria VM Adiuro vos per (h)unc
pr(a)e(po)situm super necessi(tat)es terr(a)e
sic et te … dominus … ut … e(x) (h)oc die,(ex)
(h)oc momento … ill(a)s … amet Martiale(m),
ut ommni (=omni) muliebri (h)oras m(e) in
mente (h)abeat et tota die (in a)nimo habeat
amore(m) me(um) (a)nim(o) … tis magna tu…
(dom)inum iam iam … penia (veniat?). I state
love habeat amore(m)
me(um); the author named
Martialis; mater, the name
of the woman has not
preserved; love spell/he
wants her
VM alphab.
Latin text written in the
Greek alphabet
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
470
the transcription of the text in Latin letters
according to Kropp 2008; see also DT 231.
126. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/18; DT 232; Tr
51; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.;
corrupted text
…Gloriosa, Rogatus, Borustenes, Ianuarius,
Vitalis, Romanous, Romanus, Adauctus,
Primitivos, Eforianus, Urbanus catai murqk
ub…akk…v/ ovo…ab37
competition charioteers
/horses, ten horses in nom;
the names of the riders
have not preserved;
restrictions
I (a cock head)
127. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/19; DT 233; Tr
52; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
Frenalius, Venator, Exsuperus, Augur, Volens,
Sidereus, Attonitus, Hieronica, Chrysiphus.
Sidereus, Igneus, Turinus, Martius, Rapidus,
Arminius, Impulsator, Castalius, Gelos,
Pyropus, Eugenius, Anim(a)tor, Blandus,
Sidonius, Ominipotius, Aquila, Licinus,
Amazonius, Imber (VM: καρουραχχθα
βραχχθαθ ηθαειουμα νεσφομι μελα ηειηυεη
εσταβαηι) Ixcito (=excito (t)e · d(a)emon, qui ·
(h)ic conversas · trado· tibi (h)os equos· ut
deteneas (=detineas) illos · et · inplice(ntur)
(n)ec se movere posse(nt) (=possint). VM:
ρακκ ραρα ιρακ καβρακκρακκου βραχθαραθ
θαχααη ρικσονυθωθ
competition horses (h)os
equos· ut deteneas; 28
horses; nom.; restrictions
VM around the perimeter
as well as in the text
alphab.; I (starting turning
points); punctuation·
128. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/20; DT 243; Tr
62; grave; the 3rd
cent.;
corrupted text
…(n)ec se m(ove)r(e possint?) in pro(elio(?)
… cur)sare (currere) inpodesate (=impedite)
(h)os … tus …omdiate? In pro(elio?) …
cursare inpodisate (=impedite) SM (so)lvite
m.elsi…SM illum (oc)cidite do SM oamu eiu?
SM …s…s…inp SM omios uti cursare SM nes
…o…b SM tinos…vesiti victori SM
larum…victima ut SM…a. rim…r scrienalum
competition
charioteers/horses
(oc)cidite; charioteers
veneti (blue team); names
37
The names of the horses mentioned in agonistic curses are stated almost in amended
form.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
471
not preserved; restrictions la SM li … sep … ti … dierum in pr SM casis
… pa … te … dis(f)ran(g)ite asor.sia SM meis
in … pr … onissima nostro SM in crastino die
…n sate e.as ipsoru(m) SM cundesate in
eos…nietrur p. asa.et (DT interprets as
συνδήσατ, i.e. Colligate) in eos…et cursoro(m?
…spe … testis … veneti et …id(us?)…
VM, SM, alphab. V
(grammata)
129. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/21; DT 244; Tr
63; tab. Opistogr.; grave;
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
A: VM alphab.
B:…T..nioco…e crispus … eoum (=equum?)
…retinete …in ispatium (=spatium)
competition
charioteers/horses
retinete; the names of
people and the horses have
not preserved; restrictions
VM around the perimeter
and also in the text
alphab.VM, I (A: a
man/daemon? with a whip,
starting turning points)
130. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/22; DT 247; Tr
93; amphitheatre; the
2nd
/3rd
cent. corrupted text
…(occi)dite, exterminate, vulnerate Gallicu(m),
quen peperit Prima, in ista (h)ora in
amp(h)iteatri corona…et ..ar ..a… a… ludes
…orno…pe (h)oc ter…a…ias…gula neiue que
p…ave rite (h)oc tene, illi manus
obliga…obture…non liget ur(sum), ursos …
par… ill u … ra orat … Obliga illi pede(s),
m(e)m(br)a, sensus, medulla(m). Obliga
Gallicu(m), quen peperit Prima, ut neque
ursu(m) neque tauru(m) singulis plagis
occida(t n)eque binis plagis occid(a)t neque
ternis plagis oc(ci)dat tauru(m), ursu(m). Per
nomen dei vivi omnipotentis, ut perficeatis
iam, iam, cito, cito. Allidat illu(m) ursus et
vulneret illu(m).
competition contestants
vulnerate Gallicu(m); 1 m.
acc.? mater; venator;
restrictions/death
SM, per nomen dei vivi
omnipotentis, I (a standing
snake-headed man –
Typhon/Seth holding a
spear in his right hand and
a thunder-bolt? In his left
hand)
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
472
131. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/23; DT 248; Tr
94; tab. Opistogr.;
amphitheatre; the 3rd
cent.
A:… be sancte…ati(uro t)e (=adiuro te) per
deum viv(um ut) facias Tziolu(m), q(uem)
p(eperit) (Restit)uta, et Tzelica(m) (appa)ritorem
en.a A(desicu)la(m), q(uem) p(eperit)
Victoria, victos, pervictos, exaclos38
(=exanclatos,
exiliatos, exipilatos (expilatos),
pla(n)gatos. Obligo (et) inpli(co et tib)i
trado… (Aedesiclam, q(uem) p(eperit) Victoria,…
ementia … ivi A(e)desic(u)la(m), q(uem)
p(eperit) (Victoria ut facias (the addition of
DT 248) B: vulneratos, (cru)entatos de
an(pit)eatro exire i(n) di(e) muneris fili(os
Ae)miliani pri(di)e idus Ianuarias sive idus.
Age, age iam iam, cito cito ἤ(δη) ἤδη τα(χύ
ταχύ).
competition contestants
victos, pervictos; 3 m.,
acc.? gladiators, mater +
apparitor, acc.; restrictions
I (a standing long-eared
daemon with an ass-head?
holding bowls in his right
hand and a torch in his left
hand);
The end written in Greek
132. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/25; DT 250; Tr
96; tab. Opistogr.;
amphitheatre; half of the 4th
cent. (Tr the 3rd
cent.);
corrupted text
A: Βαχα(χυχ), qui es in Egipto magnu(s)
d(a)emon, obliges, perobliges Maurussum
venatorem, quem peperit Felicitas. Ιεχρι,
auferas somnum, non dormiat Maurussus,
quem peperit F(e)licitas. Παρπαξιν, deus
omnipotens, adducas ad domus infernas
Maurussum, quem peperit Felicitas.
Νοκτουκιτ, qui possides tractus Itali(a)e et
Campani(a)e, qui tractus es per Acerushium
(=Acherusium) lacum, (perducas ad domos
tartareas intra dies septe(m)), perducas ad
domos tartareas Maurussun quem peperit
Felicitas intra dies septe(m). Βυτυβαχκ,39
demon qui possides (H)ispaniam et Africam,
qui solus per marem trassis (=transis),
pertransseas hanimam (=animam) et ispiritum
(=spiritum) Maurussi, quem peperit Felicitas;
pertranseas omnem remedium et omnem
filacterium et omnem tutamentum et omnem
competition contestants
obliges, perobliges; 1 m.
acc.; mater; venator;
restrictions/death
VM alphab. (daemons
Βαχαχυχ, Ιεχρι, Παρπαξιν,
Νοκτουκιτ, Βυτυβαχκ;
magical word μασκελλει);
the same diction as in No.
124
38
Tremel (2004, No. 94) exaclos – exanclatos = exhaustos, plagatos – plangat; Kropp
(2008) suggests reading exaclos = exactos.
39
Reading according to Tremel (2004, No. 96) and DT 250.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
473
oleum libutorium et perducatis, obl(i)getis,
perobligetis …etis (oblig?)etis apsumatis
(=absumatis), desumatis, consu(m)at(i)s cor,
membra, viscera, interania Mauruss(i
venatoris?) quem peperit (Felicitas). Et te
ad(iu)ro, quisquis inferne es demon per h(a)ec
sancta nomina necessitatis.
B: VM alphab. μασκελλει μασκελλω φνουκεν
(Σα)βαωθ ορεοβαρzαγ(ρα) φηξικθων πυρκτων
φιτ… ιτηωρ κερδερνσανδαλε κατανεικανδα(λε)
depre(ndatis),(e)t faciatis pallidum, mextum
(=maestum), tristem … mutum, non se
regentem Maurussum quem pe(pe)r(it)
Felicitas; in omnem proelium, in omni
certamine evanescat, ruat … Maurussus quem
peperit Felicitas. Desub ampitiatri corona
…eatem auram (eadem auguria the addition of
Kropp) patiatur Maurussus quem peperit
Felicitas… (vinc)ere (non) possit, perversus
sit, perperversus sit Maurussus quem
(p)e(pe)rit Fe(licitas), nec lac(ueos) possit
super ursum mittere, non alligare … (ursum
possit the addition of Kropp, 2008) …
(c)onlega(m) (=collegam/ colligatum m40
)
tenere omnino non possit, manos illi et
ro(bur?) … (pe)des illi obligentur, non possit
currere, lassetu(r )… hanimam et ispiritum
deponat, in omnem proelium, in omni(bus
cong)ressionibus depannetur, vapulet, vulneretur…(vincat)ur
(Kropp 2008). … e (man)us
alienas inde (f)igatur (Kropp 2008: (d)e
(man)ibus alienis inde (f)igatur, trahatur),
tra(h)atur. Exiat Maurussu(s quem peperit)
F(elicit)as desub ampitiatri corona facie at
terrae (=facies ad terram)…te cito depremite,
defigite, perfigite, consu(mite Mau)ru(ssum)
quem peperit Felicitas. Et (ut?) remise
40
The different reading of Kropp: (c)ol(l)ega(tum) = colligatum; DT 250, and Tremel
(2004, No. 96) (c)onlega(m).
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
474
(=remisse?), ferrarum morsus…(patiatur? The
addition of Kropp) (t)am tauros, tam apros,
tam leones, quae…Maurussus quem peperit
Felicitas occidere possit…(Kropp adds
(nulla)m (feram).
133. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/26; DT 251; Tr
97; amphitheatre; the 2nd
cent.; corrupted text
(Adiuro vos a)nim(a)e…(h)uius loci (per)
(ha)ec sancta nomina Psachyrinχ (VM:
oncrobrotescirvioarcadams) ter voos (=vos)
adiuro, anim(a)e (h)uius loci (VM:
ererecisipte araracarara eptisicere (c)ycbacyc
bacacicyχ bacaχicyc obrimemao saum
obriulem patatnaχ apoms psesro (i)aω iossef
ioerbet (i)opacerbet bolcoset) date interitu(m)
(h)is venatoribus: Metrete, Syndicio, Celsano,
Atsurio, Felici, Cardario, Vincentio, ne viribus
suis placere possint. Adi(u)ro vos per
nomin(a)… audita… (adiuro vos per haec
no)mina neces(sitatis) the addition of Kropp
(2008)…(VM: cerciel baciel … aciχese
amestubal merteme perturacrini mascelli
mascello fnycentabaot zosagrac) [partially
written in the Greek alphabet, partially in Latin
letters: Hunc epitto ereπton hypo ton lepeta
oreo peganyχ et per magnum C(h)aos vos
adiuro (VM: iabezepat erecisipte araracarara
eptisicere) coggens enim vos et reges
demoniorum (VM: bacaχicyχ demenon
bacaχicyχ) cogens enim vos et iudices exsenγium
animarum, qui vos in tachymorey vite
iodicaverunt (VM: criny. arincbor) cogens
enim vos et sangtus deus Mercurius infe(rnu)s
coge(ns) ipse se … fiat desocemri?, obligate
(h)os venatores.
competition contestants
date interitu(m) (h)is
venatoribus; 7 m.,
venatores;
restrictions/death
VM in Latin letters
(daemons, ghosts sancta
nomina, animae huius loci)
134. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/27; DT 252; Tr
98; amphitheatre; the 2nd
cent.? (Tr the 3rd
cent.);
corrupted text; related to
the following text
(VM l. 1–5 + Greek text): ερεκισιφθη
αραραχαραρα εφθισικεκε ευλαμω ιωερβηθ
ιωπακερβηθ ιωβολθωσηθ βολκοδηφ
βασουμαπαντα θνυχθεθωνι ρινγχοσερσω
απομψπακερβωθ πακαρασαρα ρακουβα
ααακαχοχ) (Gr. l. 6): ραβκαβ καὶ σὺ θεοξηρ
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
475
competition contestants
Implicate lacinia(m)
Sapautulo; 1 m. mater;
restrictions
ἄν(α)ξ κατάσχων τὸν καρπὸν τῶν ἀποδομῶν
καὶ τὸ ὁμοιῶν κατάσχες τοῦ Σαπαυτούλου ὃν
ἔτεκεν Πονπονία δῆσον αὐτὸν καὶ … τὴν
δύναμιν τὴν καρδίαν τὸ ἧπαρ τὸν νοῦν τὰς
φρένας ἐξορκίζω ὑμᾶς αλκ…αμηνηγεισειχεεε
βασίλιον ὑμῶν ἵνα βλέπῃ…(l. 11–12, in Latin):
ιμπλικατε λακινια(μ) Σαπαυτούλου ιν καβια
κορονα αμπιθεατρι (VM follow in four
columns l. 13–24): χυχβαχ ευλαμω ιωερβηθ
υλαμωε ιωπακερβηθ…(l. 25–35 in Greek):
ἐπικαλοῦμαί σε ὁ μέγας καὶ ἰσχυρὸς κα(ὶ
δ)υ(να)τὸς κρατῶν καὶ δεσμεύων καὶ κατόχων
δεσμοῖς ἀλύτοις αἰωνίοις ἰσχυροῖς
ἀδαμαντίνοις καὶ παῦσον ψυχὴν κράτησον καί
… κατάδησον ὑπόταξον προσκλίσον τὸν
Σ(α)παυ(τού)λ(ον) κατάδησον αὐτὸν
σμαύρησον … ἐξέλθε τόνδε τὸν τόπον μηδὲ τὴν
πύλη(ν) ἐξέλθη μέτε τὴν τυμηθη ἀπελθεῖν τὸν
τόπον ἀλλὰ μένη κατάδησον σοίς δεσμοῖς
ἱσχυροῖς αἰωνίοις ἀδαμαντίνοις τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ
Σαπαυτούλου ὃν ἔτεκε Πονπονία ε…(l. 36,
Latin text): υριανι πατιατουρ λακινια ιλλι
ινπλικητουρ οβλιγητουρ ουρσελλου(μ) νον
ρεσπικιατ νον λιγετ νημινεμ πουγνι ιλλι
σολβαντουρ νον σιτ ποτεστατις qυα (νον)
βουλνερητουρ σανγουνιητουρ Σαπαυτουλους
κουρρερε νον ποσσιτ οβλιγηντουρ ιλλι πεδες
νερβια ιλ(ι)α κοντρα γῆς κοντ(ρ)α(η?)εντε σου
φακιτε Σαπαυτουλου ομν … φαζελουνε σου
ιανουαριας ιν ομνι μομεντο ἤδη ταχύ (VM
alphab. l. 45–46): ευλαμω (ερεικισ)φηθ αραραχ
αραρα φθισικερε.
[the transcription of Latin text: l. 11–12]
Implicate lacinia(m) Sapautulo in cavea
corona amphitheatri… (Greek text in l. 12–35,
the rest in Latin: l. 36–44):… uriani patiatur,
lacinia illi inplicetur, obligetur, ursellu(m) non
respiciat, non liget neminem, pugni illi
solvantur, non sit potestatis qua non
bulneretur (=vulneretur), sanguinetur
VM (daemons – esp. of
drought and obstruction)
around the perimeter as
well as in the text, V
(grammata);
Greek and Latin text, both
written written in alphabet,
Greek text prevail only a
part is written in Latin
(from l. 37)
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
476
Sapautulus currere non possit, obligentur illi
pedes, nerbia (=nervi), il(i)a contra γῆς,
cont(r)a(h)ente(m?) σοῦ facite
Sapautulu(m?)… Ianuarias in omni momento,
ἤδη ταχύ.
135. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/28; DT 253; Tr
99; amphitheatre; the 2nd
cent.; corrupted text;
related to the previous text
VM alphab. 1–5 magical words; the first
Greek formula follows identical to the one
used in the previous tablet No. 134, l. 6–9.
(l. 10–14, Latin text): Vincentζus Tζaritζo in
ampitζatru Cartang(in)is (=Carthaginis) in ζie
(=die) Merccuri(i) in duobus cinque
(=quinque) in tribus nove(m) (obligate,
implicate laciniam)41
Vincentζo Tζaritζoni,
quen peperit Concordia, ut urssos ligare non
possit in omni ora, in omni momento in ζie
Merccuri (l. 15–16, continues in Greek): καὶ
τὴν ἰσχὺν τὴν δύναμιν τὴν καρδίαν τὸ ἧπαρ τὸν
νοῦν τὰς φρένας ἐξορκίζω ὑμᾶς
αννηναμηγισεχει τὸ βασίλιον ὑμῶν (l.16–21,
continues in Latin): in Vincentζo Tζaritζoni
quen peperit Con(cor)dia in ampitζatru
Carthaginis in ζie Merccuri obligate,
in(p)licate lac(i)nia Vincentζo Tζaritζoni, ut
urssos ligare non possit, omni urssu(m)
perdat, omnni urssu(m) Vincentζus non
occidere possit in ζie Merccuri in omni ora
iam iam, cito cito, facite; (l. 21–35 VM in
three columns; further, l. 35–39 – Greek
formulae, the same passage as in the previous
tablet No. 134, l. 25–35);
(l. 39–44, in Latin): (Vincentζu Tζaritζoni)
quen peperit Concor(dia…oblig)ate Vincentζo
Tζarit(ζoni)…in ampitζatru in ζie (=die)
(Mercuri)…exterminate Tζaritζo(ni)… (l. 44–9
corrupted Greek text.);
(l. 49–65, in Latin): Vincentζus Tζa(ritζoni
competition conteastants
ut urssos ligare non possit;
1 m. nom., mater; (the
passages repeat themselves
with slight variations;
places identical to the
previous tablet, esp. 35 ff.);
restrictions/death?
VM (daemons – esp. of
drought and obstruction)
around the perimeter as
well as in the text; V
(grammata);
written in alphabet mostly
in Greek, only partially in
Latin language and letters
41
This addition is stated by Kropp (2008); according to the following passage, the
author probably made a mistake.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
477
quen peperit Concor)dia obligate, inplicate
Vinc(entζus Tζaritζoni quen peperit Concor)dia
Vinc(entζu Tζaritζoni … in) duobus cinque
urssos in trib(us novem …) vinccatur,
vulneretur, dep(annetur … non curre?)re
possit Vincentζus Tζa(ritζoni) facite
Vinccentζu Tζaritζoni (=Vincentium
Thearitheonem) … Vin)centζu Tζa(ritζoni in …
ampi)tζeatru Cart(haginis) … ta per…
(Vincentζu Tζaritζo)ni obligate, in(plicate
laciniam in duobus quinque, in) tribus
no(ve)… non possit… possit… (in) ζie
Mercuri(i) … ne anima (et spiritus deponat, in
omni proeli)o42
vinccatur, deficiat… (in omni)
(h)ora, per ispiritalles (=spiritales) tra(ctus?)
(l. 66–68 VM alphab.)
136. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/32; DT 303;
grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.?;
corrupted text (six
fragments).
Frg.I: ...(m)edia(s), extrema(s), novis(s)ima(s)
… col(l)igo, ligo li(n)gua(s) uc gavi(?)
media(s), (ext)rema(s,) novis(s)ima(s), ne quit
re(s)po(n)dere (possint), facias varios
(=vanos) …col(l)igo li(n)gua(s) … (novis)sima(s)
nequ(e/id) re(s)po(n)deri (possint?),
facuas (=facias) il(l)os mutos … (Lin)gua(s)
lig(o), co(l)ligo, (ne au)xili(um) (eo)rom
re(s)p(ondere possit)…
Frg.II: …(collig?)o li(n)gua(s) l(ig)o, media(s),
extrem(as), no(vissimas)… ap … soret ..s
al(l)igo, col(l)igo… (media(s)? extrema(s)?
novissi(?)ma(s) ne quit possi(nt) mihi…
al(l)igo, col(l)igo li(n)gua(s), novissima(s), ne
quit ri(s)po(n)dere (possint?) facias il(l)os
potiora…suidi vixmi Al(li)go, col(l)igo
novis(s)ima(s),ninquet (=ne quid)…
(au)x(ilium r)espon(dere? possit?) (fa)cias
(me)dia(s), extrema(s), novis(s)ima(s) mutos,
mu(tos)… Publius Curtius alligo, colligo
…ligo…corrupted text.
legal ligo li(n)gua(s); 1 m.
nom.? in frg. II; otherwise
very damaged; restrictions
N; resembles DT 219
42
The addition of Kropp (2008).
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
478
Frg.III: …qui al(l)igo, col(l)igo…media(s),
ext(remas)
Frg.IV: …quid…ne quid…
Frg.V: …lig al(l)igo, col(l)igo li(n)gua(s)…
vanos…
Frg.VI: …vi…ne quit ri(s)po(ndere possint?)
… (medias) extrema(s)…li(n)gua(s)…
137. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/34; Ruíz
(1967:68); in the soil, 0
Gal(l)u(s), Lunu(l), Fausca, Plac(id)u(s),
Meiu(s), Rupil(i)a Rup(iliae), Liciniu(s),
Maxima, Salbao, Mart(i)a, Septemiu(s)
(=Septimius), Amia(na)?, Saturina, Speratus
et(?) si qui(s) contra feceri(t) Cl(e)opatra(m?).
legal contra feceri(t); 8 m.
+ 6 f., nom.; the author
Cleopatra?; N
N
138. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/35; Ruíz (1967:
69); So 44, Ga 82; water
source; found together with
No. 139; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
VM: Αρθυ Λαιλαμ Σεμεσε(ι)λαμ αεηιουω
βαχυχ βακαξιχυχ μενε βαιχυχ αβρασαξ υχ μενε
βαιχ υχ αβρασαξ
Domini Dei, tenete, detinete Falernas, ne quis
illoc accedere posssit, obligate, perobligate
Falernaru(m) balineu(m) ab hac die, ne quis
homo illoc accedat.
non-specific/competition
(against the baths);
restrictions
domini dei; VM alphab.
139. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/36; Ruíz (1967:
70); So 45, Ga 82; water
source; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
VM: Αρθυ Λαιλαμ Σεμεσειλαμ αε(ηιουω
βαχ)υχ βακαχυχ βακαξιχυχ μενε βαιχυχ
αβρασαξ βαζαβαχυχ (με)νε βαιχυχ ἀβρασαξ
(Ne) illoc eat lavare. Nodiate (=nodate)
Falernas ab hac die. Obligate, perobligate
balineu(m) Falerne(n)si (Kropp, 2008:
Falernense), ne quis illoc ire possit ab hac die.
non-specific/competition,
addition to the previous
tablet No. 138; (against the
baths); restrictions
VM alphab.
140. Carthage
dfx.11.1.1/37; Tr 68;
amphitheatre; half of the 3rd
A: Σεμεσειλαμ, (q)uomodo (s)tomac(h)os
(h)abes ligatos, sic et Concordi … omate … A
..liget brac(ch)ia, cor, sensu(m)c …tinor …co
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
479
cent.; corrupted text (=cum) Karkidoni (Carchedoni) co (=cum)
Concordio (a)c con (=cum) Acenauce con
(cum) Alumnino et Pyr(rh)o, Porp(h)yrio …
Lascivio … Bates et Lucifero, Concordio,
Sereno. Pre(he)nd(at )…
B: vocal. triangular alphab.
C: Q(uomod)o ped(es) (h)abes l(igat)os, sic et
eius Salbi//43
et eis albis ligatae (=ligate)
pedes Alumno et Pyr(rh)o, Polyarcis et Lascovuo
obligatae (=obligate) pedesotinos? ut
obruant. Pre(hendite), (ob)ligatae ped(es)
(Ba)tes et Lucife(ro) e(t) (Concordio et
Sereno?).
competition
charioteers/horses ligate
pedes; A: 12 horses + 1m.;
C: ca. 8 horses; restrictions
I (daemon?, horses?), B: V
(grammata);
141. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/1; DT 263;
grave; 0
Laelianus, Saturninus, quos peperit Aquilia
Saturnina.
non-specific; 2 m. nom.,
mater; N
N
142. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/2; DT 264;
Vetter (1923); grave; 0 (the
3rd
cent. according to the
following?); corrupted text
Corrupted text l. 1–10 VM alphab., SM, I, then
again VM: Iαω σαβαοθ αββηλολωρ
αλεχμειωθ; Victoria, quem (=quam) peperit
suavulva, puella(rum deliciae?). SM
love puella(rum deliciae?);
1 f. nom., mater; love
spell/he wants her (the
same name appears also in
the following tablet, are
they related?)
VM names of deamons
alphab., SM, I (a sword,
key, two transfixed cords)
143. Hadrumetum A: Alimbeu, Columbeu, Petalimbeu, faciatis
43
Kropp (2008) reads…eius Salbi, Tremel (2004, 68) reads et eis albis.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
480
dfx.11.2.1/3; DT 265; tab.
opistogr.; grave; the 3rd
cent.
Victoria(m), quem peperit suavulva,
amante(m), furente(m) pr(a)e amore meo
neque somnu(m) videat, donec at me veniat,
puella(r)u(m) d(eli)cias.
B: Desecus (=deseces?/haud secus)44
Ballincus (=Ballincum) Lolliorum de curru
actus (=actum), ne possit a(n)te me venire, et
tu, quiqumque es d(a)emon, te oro, ut illa(m)
cogas amoris et desideri(i) (mei) causa ven(ire
ad me).
A: love amante(m),
furente(m); B: competition
charioteers ne possit a(n)te
me venire + love cogas
amoris; 1 f. mater + 1 m.
acc. (see No. 142), author’s
name is missing; A: love
spell/he wants her; B:
restrictions + love spell/he
wants her
VM (the names of daemons
in Latin)
144. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/4; DT 266;
Kropp (2004: 4); grave; the
3rd
cent.?
(…o)pe? commendo tibi quo(d?)… mella, ut
illan(=m) inmitas (immitas) dae(mones?
/monibus?)… aliquos infernales, ut non pes…
(=permittatur?)… is(es?) me contemnere, sed
faciat (quodcu)mque desidero. Vettia, quem
(=quam) peperit Optata, vobis enim adibantibus
(=adiuvantibus), ut amoris mei causa
non dormiat, non cebum (=cibum), non escam
accipere possit VM, SM obligo Vetti(a)e,
(quam) peperit Optata, sensum, sap(i)entiam et
(intel)lectum et voluntatem ut amet me
Fe(licem), quem peperit Fructa, ex ha(c) die,
ex h(ac hora), ut obliviscatur patris et matris
et (propinquor/ omni)um45
suorum et
amicorum omnium (et aliorum/ omnium)
virorum amoris mei autem (perhaps a mistake
instead of causa/ gratia?) Fe(licis, quem)
peperit Fructa; Vettia, que(m peperit Optata),
solum me in mente habeat… (dormi/
insaniens)ens, vigilans uratur, frigat
love ut amet me; 1 f. Vettia,
mater, author Felix, mater;
love spell/he wants her
VM alphab., SM, I;
44
Önnerfors (1991, 12) adds deseces, Kropp (2008) adds haud secus.
45
The additions of the editors are stated in parentheses, first, those of DT 266, second,
those of Kropp.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
481
(/frigeat?) … ardeat Vettia, quam peper(it
Optata… a)moris et desideri(i) m(ei causa) …
145. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/5; DT 267;
grave; 0; corrupted text:
intelligible from l. 5
The whole tablet is written in alphabet, l. 1–5
damaged text, l. 5–14 the names of daemons
alphab.; 15–25 Latin text. Latin text is stated
in Latin letters according to the transcription of
Kropp (2008); see also DT 267: …κωγιτε
Βονωσα κουαμ (π)επεριτ Παπτη αμαρε (μ)η
Οππιομ κουεμ πεπεριτ Οὐενερια αμορε σακρω
σινε ιντερμισσιονε νον ποσσιτ δορμειρε
Βονωσα νεκουε ησσε … Βονῶσα νεκουε αλουτ
… σεδ αβρομπατουρ ετ μη σωαδ ο(υ)ιδερετ
ομνιβους διηβους αδξ…ουσκουε αδ διεμ μορτις
σουε…ι…
The transcription of the text in Latin letters:
…cogite Bonosa(m), quam (p)eperit Papte,
amare (m)e, Oppium, quem peperit Veneria,
amore sacro sine intermissione; non possit
dormire Bonosa neque esse…Bonosa neque
aliut…sed abrumpatur et me soad (=solum?46
)
… videret omnibus diebus ad x … usque ad
diem mortis suei (=suae).
love amare (m); 1 f.
Bonosa, mater;, author:
Oppius; mater; love
spell/he wants her
VM (daemons/magical
words)
Latin text written in the
Greek alphabet
146. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/6; DT 268;
grave; the 3rd
cent.;
fragments
Text is very corrupted (DT 268 states 7
fragments whose order in the text is marked
here as follows)47
frg. I and II: Persefina (Proserpina), obblegate
=(obligate) illa(m) im(=in) sensem et
isapientiam (=in sensu et sapientia) (e)t inte(l
lectum?) a … recipiatisque nos per
Bonosa(m), qun (quam?)(pe)peri(t) Bonosa,
dema(n)do … (e)t
frg. IV: volumtatem (=voluntate) ut. me…
frg. I a II: (ut obliviscatur) patris et m(a)tris.
love obligate illa(m), 1 f.
acc. mater; author’s name
is missing but it probably
originally was in the text;
love spell/he wants her
Persefina
46
Kropp (2008) reads solum.
47
Reading according to Kropp (2008). Kropp (2004, 71 ff.) suggested a slightly
different order of the fragments; however, she desisted from it in the later edition;
see also 11.1.4.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
482
frg. IV: ...am ex hac diem ex ha(c ora) per deo
(=deum) meo (=meum) vivum…caelum et
mare…
frg. VI: ... ac ligo c(a)elum terra(m) deu(m
…qui sit sub os coronnos arissore hoc enobr…
eramg … s quis v.er t(er)rae (e)t
damatameneus cemesilla(m) (=semesillam?)
… de meos ades … ut…tu…
frg. V and VI: Bonosa, quem (=quam) vobis
ego… commend… recipiatis … vobis…
frg. II and IV: (1l.) sebmen per me tialu
147. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/7; DT 269; tab.
opistogr.; grave; found
together with the previous
tablet No. 146; 0 (the 3rd
cent., as well?)
The whole tablet is written in alphabet. Side A:
magical words alphab., l. 1–20, side B: fragm.
I, an address to daemons, l. 5–19 corrupted
Latin text. The transcription of Latin text in
Latin letters is stated according to Kropp
(2008); for the complete text, see DT 269
A: VM
B:VM starts with names of daemons
Columbeu … Petalimbeu …
l. 2–4: (κολομ)βεο(υ), βολυ βε…πεταλιμ(βεου)
5: φακ Τοττι(να) …με αμετ … κεξητετ … αδ …
αουε … (σεμπερ(?) δε με κογιτετ Τοττινα
κου(αμ) πεπεριτ … να …αικαινι λικουετ ανιμο
του ο β… τ αμο(ρ)ε με(κο)υμ φεκι …α ετ του
δομ(ινα(?) … (α)μορε…
(Colom)beu…Petalim(beu)… Fac (ut)
Totti(na) … me amet … (semper?) de me
cogitet Tottina, qu(am) peperit … ni liquet
(/linquat?) animo tuo b… t amo(r)e(m)
me(c)um fecit … et tu dom(ina?) …(a)more…
love fac (ut) Totti(na)…me
amet;, 1 f. Tottina mater;
author’s name has not
preserved; love spell/he
wants her
VM (daemons and magical
words)
Latin text written in
alphabet
148. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/8; DT 270,
grave; the 2nd
cent.
The whole tablet is written in alphabet, the last
line VM. The transcription of Latin text in
Latin letters is stated according to DT 270 and
Kropp (2008).
Αδ(ιυρ)ο επ … περ μαγνουμ δεουμ ετ περ
(Αν)τέροτας …ετ περ εουμ, κουι αβετ
love uratur furens amore; 1
m., mater; the author:
Septima; love spell/she
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
483
wants him αρχεπτορεμ σουπρα χαπουθ ετ περ σεπτεμ
στελλας, ουυθ, εξ κουα ορα οχ σομπποσυερο,
νον δορμιατ Σεξτιλιος, Διονσιε φιλιους,
ουρατυρ φουρενσ, νον δορμιαθ νεκυε σεδεατ
νεκυε λοκυατουρ, σεδ ιν μεντεμ αβιατ με
Σεπτιμαμ, Αμενε φιλια; ουραθουρ φουρενς
αμορε ετ δεσιδεριο μεο, ανιμα ετ χορ ουραθουρ
Σεξτιλι, Διονισιε φιλιους, αμορε ετ δεσιδεριο
μεο. Σεπτιμες, Αμενε φιλιε. Του αουτεμ Αβαρ
Βαρβαριε Ελοεε Σαβαοθ Παχηνουφυ Πυθιπεμι,
φαχ Σεξτιλιουμ, Διονισιε φιλιουμ, νε σομνουμ
χονθινγαθ, σεθ αμορε ετ δεσιδεριο μεο
ουραθυρ, ουιιυς σπιριτους ετ χορ χομβουρατουρ,
ομνια μεμβρα θοθιους χορπορις
Σεξτιλι, Διονισιε φιλιυς. Σι μινυς, δεσχενδο ιν
αδυτους Οσυρις ετ δισσολουαμ θεν θαπεεν ετ
μιτταμ ουθ α φουλ α φουλμινε φερατουρ; εγω
ενιμ σουμ μαγνους δεχανουσ δει μαγνι, δει
ΑΧΡΑΜΜΑΧΗΑΛΑΛΑ.E
Ad(iur)o… per magnum deum et per
(An)terotas … et per eum, qui habet
archeptorem (=accipitrem) supra caput et per
septem stellas, ut, ex qua hora (h)oc
somposuero (=composuero), non dormiat
Sextilios, Dionysi(a)e filius, uratur furens, non
dormiat neque sedeat neque loquatur, sed in
mentem (h)abiat me Septimam, Amene
(=Amoenae) filia(m); uratur furens amore et
desiderio meo, anima et cor uratur Sextili,
Dionysi(a)e filius (=filii), amore et desiderio
meo. Septimes, Am(o)en(a)e fili(a)e. Tu autem
Abar Barbarie Eloee Sabaoth Pachnouphy
Pythipemi, fac Sextilium, Dionysi(a)e filium,
ne somnum contingat, set amore et desiderio
meo uratur, (h)uius spiritus et cor comburatur,
omnia membra totius corporis Sextili,
Dionysi(a)e filius (filii). Si minus, descendo in
adytus Osyris et dissolvam τὴν ταφήν48
et
VM (daemons and magical
words), historiola?;
menacing formula;
Latin text written in Greek
alphabet
48
The text reads θαπεεν; see τὴν ταφήν acc. sg. of ἡ ταφή – a grave.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
484
mittam ut a fulmine feratur; ego enim sum
magnus decanus dei magni, dei
AXRAMMACHALALA.E
149. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/9; DT 272; Tr
22; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.? (Tr 1. the
2nd
cent.) series of tablets
A: Sarbasmisarab SM
Delicatianus, Capria, Volucer, Nervicus,
comes cada(n)t, Dextroiugus, Novus cum
Amando, Germanicus, Caelestinus, comes
cada(n)t, Hilarinus, Polydromus, Delicatus,
Maurusius, Salutaris cada(n)t, Blandus,
Profugus, Pretiosus, Germanicus, Amor,
Pelops, Zephyrus, Alcastrus, Clarus, Clarus,
cada(n)t, cada(n)t, Basilius, Nilus, Scintilla,
Clarus cada(n)t; comes, Salutaris, Clarus
cadan(t), frangan(t), disiungantur, male
guren(t) (=girent), palma(m) vincere (n)on
possin(t). Sarbasmisarab SM
B: Feiub
competition/horses
cadan(t), frangan(t); ca. 35
race horses; nom. ;
restrictions ; names of the
horses almost the same as
in No. 150-151.
VM, SM (eight of them up
and down, sancta nomina?)
150. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/10; DT 273; Tr
23; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.? (Tr the
1st
/2nd
cent.);
A: Sarbasmisarab, SM Delicaltanus
(Delicatianus), Capria, Volucer, Nervicus,
Basilius, Nilus, Scintilla, Hilarinus,
Polydromus, Delicatus, Maurusius, Blandus,
Profugus, Pretiosus, Gemmatus, Amor, Pelops,
Zephyrus, Alcastrus, Attonitus, Roseus,
Germanicus, Caelestinus, Clarus, Salutaris,
Socrates, comes. Haec nomina hominum et
equorum, qu(a)e dedi vobis, cadan(t), precor
bos (=vos) Sarbasmisarab, SM B: Feiub
competition/horses
cadan(t); altogether 26
names nom.; (DT only
horses, Tr horses and
riders); restrictions
VM, SM – identical to the
previous tablet No. 149
151. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/11; DT 274; Tr
24; tab. opistogr.; grave,
found together with No.
150; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.? (Tr
the 1st
/2nd
cent.)
A: Sarbasmisarab SM
Delicaltanus (Delicatianus), Capria, Volucer,
Nervicus, Basilius, Nilus, Scintilla, Hilarinus,
Polydromus, Delicatus, Maurusius, Blandus,
Profugus, Pretiosus, Gemmatus, Amor, Pelops,
Zephyrus, Alcastrus, Attonitus, Roseus,
Germanicus, Caelestinus, Clarus, Salutaris,
Comes, Socrates.
competition/horses cadant
homines et equi frangan(t);
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
485
26 horses, nom.; (riders)
identical to tablet No. 150;
restrictions
Precor bos (=vos), sancta nomina, cadant
homines et equi frangan(t). Sarbasmisarab.SM
B: aur iub
VM, SM – identical to the
previous tablet
152. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/12; DT 275; Tr
25; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
(Tr the 2nd
cent.)
An artistically composed tablet (see facs. DT 275),
the names of charioteers, horses, and SM/VM
interchange in lines. The text is monotonous, the
formulae repeat themselves, there is a formula
engraved around the perimeter of the tablet. The
names of riders and horses are probably in acc.
without the ending –m, see also Adams (2013,
250):
SM
Privatianu, Supe(r)stianu russei qui et
Naucelliu, Salutare, Supe(r)stite49
russei servu
Reguli, Eliu, Castore, Repentinu. SM/VM
Glaucu, Argutu veneti, Destroiugu Glauci
cadant; Lydu Alumnu cadant; Italu Tyriu
cadant; Faru cadant; Croceu cadant;
Elegantu cadant; Pancratiu, Oclopecta,
Verbosu cadant; Adamatu cadant; Securu,
Mantinaeu, Pr(a)evalente cadant; Paratu,
Vagarfita cadant; Divite, Gar(r)ulu cadant;
C(a)esareu, Germanicu veneti cadant;
Danuviu cadnat; SM/VM
Latrone, Vagulu cadant, Agricola cadant;
Cursore, Auricomu cadant; Epafu cadant;
Hellenicu cadant; Ideu, Centauru cadant;
Bracatu, Virgineu cadant; Ganimede cadant;
Multivolu cadant; E(o)lu, Oceanu, Eminentu
cada(nt); (V)agu cadant; Eucle cadant;
Verbosu cadant. SM/VM
Privatianu cadat, vertat, frangat, male giret.
SM/VM
Naucelliu Supe(r)stianu russei cadat, vert(at
competition charioteers
/horses cadat, vertat,
frangat; (red and blue
teams), seven riders: Privatianus,
Superstianus,
Naucellius, Salutaris,
Superstes, servus Reguli,
servus Reguli, Elius,
Castor, Repentinus, 42
(Tr)/43 (DT) horses of red
and blue teams; acc.
restrictions
SM in each paragraph, the
cursing text runs around the
perimeter
49
The text reads Supe(r)ste, Kropp (2008) amends to Supe(r)stite(s), as well as
Supestianu to Supe(r)stianu(s) .
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
486
fran)gat SM/VM
Supe(r)stite russei servu Reguli cadat, vertat,
fran(gat);
Salutare cadat, vertat, frangat;
Eliu cadat, vertat, frangat, vertat;
Castore cadat, vertat, frangat, vertat;
Repentinu cadat, vertat, frangat. SM/VM
The text around the perimeter:
Obligate et gravate equos veneti et russei, ne
currere possint nec frenis audire possint nec se
mo(v)ere possint, set cadant, frangant,
dis(f)rangantur et agitantes veneti et russei
vertant nec lora teneant nec agitare possint
nec retinere eqos possint nec ante se nec adversarios
suos videant nec vincant, vertant.
153. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/13; DT 276; Tr
26; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
(Tr the 2nd
cent.); corrupted
text; series of tablets
I state only the cursing formulae, not all the names
of horses and charioteers; for the complete text, see
the above-cited corpora.
As for riders, mostly: cadat, vertat Privatianu
cadat, vertat, Salutare cadat, vertat,
Supestianu russei qui et Naucelliu cadat,
vertat…
As for horses, mostly: cadant, 2x frangant
Lupercu, Faru cadant, Candore cadat,
Chrysaspis, Tigride cadant, Alumnu cadat,
Centauru, Ideu cadant, Virgineu, Bracatu
cadant, Lydeu cadat, Auricomu, Adamatu
cadant… in twos or threes;
The text around the perimeter: (Alligate et
obligate equos ven)eti et russei … (fran)gant,
dis(f)rangantur, male girent,(et) agitantes
veneti et russei vertant nec… (nec ante se) nec
adversario(s suos). (Kropp, 2008, amends the
formula according to No. 152).
competition charioteers
/horses cadat, vertat; (red
and blue teams), seven
riders (as in the previous
text No. 152) + Romanus,
tj. eight riders and 47
horses; acc.; restrictions
SM in each paragraph
154. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/14; DT 277; Tr
27; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
I state only the cursing formulae, not all the names
of horses and riders; for the complete text, see the
above-cited corpora.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
487
(Tr the 2nd
cent.); damaged
below
As for riders, mostly: cadat vertat Privatianu
cadat, vertat, Salutare cadat, vertat,
Supestianu russei qui et Naucelliu cadat, ver-
tat…
As for horses: cadat Argutu, Cro(ceu cada)nt,
Tyriu, Luperc(u… ca)dant, Italu cad(at …
cad)at Cen(tauru) … Chrysas(pis)
The text around the perimeter: Alligate et
obligate equos … et agitantes veneti et russei
cadant, vertant nec lora teneant nec agitare
possint nec… (Kropp, 2008, amends the
formula according to No. 152).
competition charioteers
/horses cadat, vertat; (red
and blue teams), against the
same riders as in the
previous tablet – eight
charioteers, uncertain
number of horses (ca. seven
of them have preserved);
acc.; restrictions
SM in each paragrapg as in
No. 153
155. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/15;
DT 278; Tr 28; tab.
opistogr.; grave, found
together with the two
previous tablets (DT); the
2nd
/3rd
cent. (Tr the 2nd
cent.); damaged above,
corrupted text, but probably
identical to the previous
one
I state only the cursing formulae, not all the names
of horses and riders; for the complete text, see the
above-cited corpora.
A: As for horses, mostly in twos or threes:
cadant, 2×frangant…cadat Alumnu, cadat
Adamasu cadat, Danubiu, Ideu cadant, Virgineu,
Bracatu cad(ant), Epapfu, Victore
cadant, Lydeu cadat, Elegante cadant,
Pancratiu, Oclopecta, Verbosu, Crinitu cadant,
vertant, Securu, Mantineu, Prevalente
cadant, Lydeu (cadat), Latrone, Vagulu
cadant…
As for riders, mostly: cadat, vertat Privatianu
(cadat, vertat, Salutare cadat, vertat,
Supe(r)stianu russei qui et Naucelliu cadat,
vertat, Supe(r)stite russei servu Reguli cadat,
vertat, Romanu cadat, vertat, Repentinu cadat,
vertat, Eliu cadat, (vertat Ca)store cadat,
verta...
The text around the perimeter: (Alligate et
obligate equos) veneti et russei, ne currere
possint nec frenis audiant nec pedes …
disiunga(n)tur a(gitantes) … (a)nte se nec
adversarios suos videant. (Kropp, 2008,
competition charioteers
/horses (red and blue
teams), against the same
riders as No. 153 a 154, i.e.
eight riders, 37 horses;
acc.; restrictions
A: SM in each paragraph;
B: SM
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
488
amends the formula according to No. 152). B:
SM
156. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/16; DT 279; Tr
29; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
(Tr the 2nd
cent.); damaged
below, corrupted text,
probably identical to the
previous one
I state only the cursing formulae, not all the names
of horses and charioteers; for the complete text, see
the above-cited corpora.
SM
As for riders: Supestianu, qui et Naucelliu
cadat, vertat, frangat, Zitrie cadat, vertat,
frangat, Romanu, Nofitianu cadat, vertat, frangat…
SM
As for horses, mostly in twos or threes: cadant
Verbosu cadat, Mantineu, Praevalente cadant,
Vagarfita cadat, Paratu, Elegantu (cadat),
Puerina cadat, Iperesiu …Diamante cadat,
S(ec)undin(u … s)ervu cadat…cadat, frangat,
disfringatur, SM Cassidatu cadat, Vagulu,
Oceanu cadant …SM
The text around the perimeter: Alligate et
obligate et gra(v)ate equos veneti et
russ(ei)…nec pre(he)ndant …(nec fr)enis …
cadant, fran(gant) … agitantes veneti et
russ(ei)… (ne)c vincant (vertant).
(Kropp, 2008, amends the formula according
to No. 152).
competition charioteers
/horses alligate et obligate;
(red and blue teams),
probably only five riders,
the number of horses
uncertain; acc.; restrictions
SM (5 as in No. 153, in
each paragraph);
157. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/17; DT 280; Tr
30; grave, found together
with the previous tablet –
briefer version?; the 2nd
/3rd
cent. (Tr the 2nd
cent.);
corrupted text
SM
Riders: Naucelliu, Supe(r)stianu, Heliu,
Privatianu, Zenore, Castore SM…cadant;
Horses in twos: cadant Macedone, Atquesitore
cadant, Hellenicu, Virgineu cadant, Comatu,
Indu, cadant, Fariu Ama(t)us cadant, Ideu,
Centauru cadant SM…
The text around the perimeter: cadant,
frangant, disfrangantur, ma(le) girent,
palma(m) vincere non (p)oss(int) nec frenis
audiant, cadant.
competition charioteers
/horses cadant, frangant;
five riders a 12 horses;
acc.; restrictions
SM (as in No. 153, in each
paragraph)
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
489
158. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/18; DT 281; Tr
31; grave, found with the
five previous tablets; the
2nd
/3rd
cent. (Tr the 2nd
cent.); corrupted text;
almost identical to the
previous one
SM, corrupted text
Riders: Nau(celliu, Supertianu, Heliu),
P(rivatianu, Zenore, Castore) SM…
Coupled horses: cadant Roseu Exsuperatore
cadant, Mac(e)done, Atquesitore cadant,
Helle(nicu), Comatu, Indu cadant … cadant,
Amat(u) Fariu cadant, Ideu, Centauru cadant
SM…
The text around the perimeter: (cad)ant,
frangant, dis(fran)gantur, male girent,
(pal)ma(m) (vincere) non p(o)ssint, cadant nec
frenis audiant, cadant.
competition charioteers
/horses (cad)ant, frangant;
five riders, 12 horses; acc.;
restrictions
SM as in No. 153, in each
paragraph)
159. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/19; DT 282; Tr
32; tab. opistogr.; grave,
found with the previous
one; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.? (Tr
the 2nd
cent.); corrupted
text
I state only the cursing formulae, not all the names
of horses and riders; for the complete text, see the
above-cited corpora.
SM
A: As for riders: cadat, vertat (Privatianu
cadat v)ertat, Salutare cadat, vertat, Eliu
cadat… SM
As for horses: cadat/cadant Argutu, Croceu
cadant, Tyriu, Italu cadant, Lupercu cadat,
Candore, Faru cadant, Alumnu cadat,
Adamatu cadat, Centauru, Crisaspis, Tigride
cadant, Epafu cadat, Ide(u), Danubiu cadant,
Virgineu, Bracatu cadant, Lydiu cadat, Victore
cadat, Pancratiu, Oclopecta, Verbosu, Crinitu
cadant…SM
The text around the perimeter: Gravate e(t)
obligate equos (veneti) et russ(ei ne) cur(r)ere
possint ne(c frenis) au(d)iant (nec se) mo(v)ere
possint, set (=sed) cadant, fran(gant),
disfrangantur, male girent (agitantes?) …
(v)eneti et russei ver(ta)n(t nec) lora teneant
nec agitare possint nec an(te se nec
adver)sari(os suo)s videant nec vi(ncan)t,
cadant, frangant.
competition
charioteers/horses cadat,
vertat; (red and blue
teams), the number of the
riders is unclear due to the
corruption of the text,
perhaps the same ones as in
the previous tablet, 41
horses; acc.; restrictions
A: (SM as in No. 153, in
each paragraph) B: (SM as
in No. 155)
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
490
B: SM
160. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/20; DT 283; Tr
33; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.? (Tr the 2nd
cent.); corrupted text
I state only the cursing formulae, not all the names
of horses and riders; for the complete text, see the
above-cited corpora.
SM
A: As for riders: cadat, vertat Privatianu
cadat, vertat, Salutare cadat, vertat,
Supestianu russei qui et Naucelliu cadat vertat
… SM
As for horses: cadat/ cadant …Hellenicu
cadat, cadat, Danuviu cadat, Inhum(a)nu
cada(t, D)erisore cadat, Improbu, Vagarfi(ta
cadant), Iuvene, Capria, Mirandu cadat, Cesareu,
Divite, Garru(lu cada)nt…SM
The text around the perimeter: Alligate et
obligate equos veneti et r(us)s(ei), ne c(ur)rere
p(ossint nec frenis audir)e possint (nec se)
mo(v)ere possint, cadant, frangant, disiungantur,
male girent et agitantes veneti et russei
vertant nec lo(ra) teneant nec ante se vider(e
possint) n(ec) adversario(s suo)s sed (v)ertant,
frang(a)nt, palma(m) vincere non possint. B:
SM
competition
charioteers/horses cadat,
vertat; (red and blue teams)
eight charioteers (as in No.
153), 50 horses; acc.;
restrictions
A: (SM in each paragraph,
as in No. 153)
B: (SM as in No. 155)
161. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/21; DT 284; Tr
34; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.?
(Tr the 2nd
cent.); corrupted
text
I state only the cursing formulae, not all the
names of horses and riders; for the complete
text, see the above-cited corpora.
There are VM around the perimeter, the curse
starts with the names of riders: Privatianu,
Naucelliu Superstianu russei, Repentinu…
horses separately, in twos, or in larger groups:
– cadant Elegante, Glaucu, Argutu veneti,
Destroiugu Glauci cadant, Elegante cadant,
Ideu, Centauru cadant, Bracatu, Virgineu
cadant, Noviciu (cadat), Securu, Mantineu,
Prevalente, Ilarinu cadant, Danuviu (cadat),
Pancratiu, Oclopecta, Verbosu, Crinitu
cadant, Auriscomu (cadat)…
then again riders cadant, vertant: Privatianu
competition
charioteers/horses cadant,
vertant; (red and blue
teams), differs from the
previous ones: seven riders,
60 horses; acc.; restrictions
VM (names of daemons
around the perimeter
alphab.: Iao, Adonai,
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
491
Soeches) cadat, vertat, Naucelliu cadat, vertat, Supetite
russei se(rvu Re)guli et Castore et Eliu et
Repentinu...
the curse at the end (corrupted text): Nec
agitare possint, nec retine(r)e equos p(ossin)t
nec lora (teneant)… non possint. Alliga(te e)t
ob(lig)a(te et grav)at(e) equos veneti et russei,
ne currere p(o)ss(i)nt nec frenis audire possint
nec pedes mo(v)ere possint, set cadant, frangant,
disiungantur… palma(m) vincere non
possint.
162. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/22; DT 286; Tr
36; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the 3rd
cent. (Tr the 2nd
–3rd
cent.)
A: VM in the left column: Cuigeu, Censeu,
Cinbeu, Perfleu, Diarunco, Deasta, Bescu,
Berbescu, Arurara, Baζagra; a depiction of
daemon in the middle, Antmoaraitto + names
of horses: Noctivagus, Tiberis, Oceanus
B: Adiuro te demon, quicunque es, et demando
tibi ex (h)anc (h)ora, ex (h)anc die, ex (h)oc
momento, ut equos prasini et albi crucies,
o(c)cidas et agitatore(s) Clarum et Felice(m)
et Primulum et Romanum oc(c)idas, collida(s)
neque spiritum illis lerinquas (=relinquas);
adiuro te per eum, qui te resolvit (vitae)
temporibus, deum pela(g)icum, aerium…
VM alphab.: Ιαω Ιασδαω οοριω αηια
competition
charioteers/horses ut
equos crucies; four riders
(white and green teams),
three horses names (on a
ship); nom.; restrictions/
death
VM alphab./Latin letters
(Ιαω / Cuigeu, Censeu,
Cinbeu...) ; A: I (a daemon
standing on a ship, holding
an urn and a torch)
163. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/23; DT 287; Tr
37; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.?; fragm.,
very corrupted text
A: corrupted text:… ua … om … m ve…a itar
… potu … us … omn … milue … a sit n…u
(Bub)alus gum lugo a ve…as, occidas ex (h)oc
die nerv(i)a illis concidas ne(que) asetame …
(poss)int the addition of Kropp (equos) agi-
tare…(poss)int
B:…umloscissimos a…lla…c
competition
charioteers/horses
occidas; the names have
not preserved,
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
492
uninterpretable; restrictions
I (the same daemon
standing on a ship as in No.
162)
164. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/24; DT 288; Tr
38; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.?; fragments
A: in the left column the corrupted names of
daemons identical to those in No. 162:
(Cu)igeu, C(e)nseu, Cinbeu, Perfleu,
Diarunco, Deasta, (Be)scu, (Bere)bescu,
(Aru)rara, (Baζa)gra; I: deamon in ten middle
below horses’ names: Bubalus, Nilus, Liber,
Pretiosus, Argutus, Alumnus;
a… d … cu… um … ram et te … re(ginae?)
t(e)nebraru(m) et vos … curo … eatis…
p(?)eto … ut me t ba as … (obsecro te venias
the addition of Kropp 2008 B:…s ad
m…rogate…contra(has?)… auferas ab eis
nervia (nervos), vires, medullas, impetos,
victorias. Noli meas spernere voces, set
moveant te haec nomina supposi(ta) …VM
identical to side A: Cuigeu … (N)oli mea(s)
spe(r)nere voces, set … illius ec … hos equos
… currere …. Te (adiuro) per haec sancta
nomi(na …necessit(a)tis. (the addition of
Kropp, 2008).
competition horses
auferas ab eis nervia; six
horses names (on a ship);
nom.; restrictions
VM (in Latin letters
Cuigeu, Censeu,
Cinbeu…altogether ten, as
in No. 162), sancta nomina
Necessitatis; I (the same
daemon standing on a ship
as in No. 162)
menacing formulae
165. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/25; DT 289; Tr
39; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.? (Tr the 3rd
cent.); very corrupted text
A: in the left column the corrupted names of
daemons identical to those in No. 162,
Antmoa(r)aitto + names of horses: Lynceus,
Margarira, Profugus, Oceanus,…(re)ginae
(tene)brarum, rogo… cui … e ne summas
exsisti s(i)cut mihi …bapa etes B: lve sancte …
a …eret a in te…p…et te…ta eas…cus
ops(se)cro te venias a … et (h)os equos
…tiante contra(h)as tuis… e(t)… aufer(as) ab
eis nervia, vires, med(ul)las, im(pe)tos
(=impetus), victorias. Noli meas (spern)ere
v(oc)es, s(et mov)ean(t) te haec (nomina?)
(su)ppos(i)t(a) (amended according to Kropp
2008) mate… ter si cuis (=quis) tali …ta neces
finia ultima nomina (VM as on side A)
competition horses
auferas ab eis nervia; four
horses (against green and
white teams); nom.;
restrictions
VM (in Latin letters
Cuigeu, Censeu,
Cinbeu…altogether ten, as
in No. 162); I (the same
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
493
daemon standing on a ship
as in No. 162)
výhrůžné formule
Cuigeu… noli meas spernere voce(s), set
equos prasini et albi et(?) cia …(agitatores?)
(cr)ucia(s) auferas illis dulce(m) somnum, fac
eos ne currere possint, (h)oc te peto … aure…
om nervitatem tenpus et necessita(tis) tu(a)e
depremas e(quos), e(q)uos tecum h(abeas)
sup(p)ositos tu(a)e… (amended by Kropp,
2008).
166. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/26; DT 290; Tr
40; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.? (Tr the 3rd
cent.); damaged above,
very corrupted text,
probably the same as in the
previous tablet
A: I, corrupted text
B: (Adiu)ro te demon … et dem(ando tibi) ex
hanc die, ex(h)oc mo(mento) … adiu(ro) te per
eum, qui te re(solvit) vite temporibus, de(um
pelagicum), aerium, altis(simum)…
competition horses,
restrictions
VM, I (daemon on a ship
similar to that in No. 164);
167. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/27; DT 291; Tr
41; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.? (Tr the 3rd
cent.); corrupted text
A: in the left column …(qui te) re(s)olvit ex
vit(a)e temporibus deum pela(gicum); a
depiction of daemon in the middle + VM:
(a)itmo arpitto; in the right column: adiu(ro)
te, de(mon), quicu(mque es) et de(man)do
(tibi) ex (h)anc d(ie), ex (h)anc (h)o(ra), ex
(h)oc m(omen)to, ut cru(ci)etur …u.u
B: corrupted text: (adiu)ro te demon
cuiqun(que es) et demando tibi … ut crucietur
…deum pelagi (cu)m aeriium, altissimum;
probably identical to the previous VM: Ιαω οι
ου ιαααωωωω…ια
competition horses ut
cru(ci)etur; restrictions
VM alphab.; I (daemon on
a ship similar to that in No.
164)
168. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/28; DT 292; Tr
42; tab. opistogr.; grave,
found with the previous
one; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.?;
damaged above and on
A: I (sitting daemon) + VM (corruption
identical to that of No. 169): Quint.o…Ocuria
anoχ (oton) b(arnion) formione (efecebul);
B: Adiuro te, qu(i)cunqu(e) es, et demando tibi
ex (hoc die) ex (h)ac (h)ora, ex (h)oc
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
494
sides momento, ut crucietur Adbocata? per eum, qui
te resolvit vit(a)e temporibus, deum pelagicum,
aerium, altis(simum). (Adi)u(ro), ut hos
h(a)b(i)a(s) (e)quos … d. a. b. ei bite
(co)mm(endo). VM alphab.: η ωωαηια
competition horses ut
crucietur; one name of
horse? have preserved;
restrictions
A: VM in Latin letters; B:
VM alphab., I (a daemon
sitting on a pedestal
holding a whip);
169. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/29; DT 293; Tr
43; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.? (Tr the 3rd
cent.)
A: VM in a column: Ocuria anoχ oton barnion
formione efecebul;
Adiuro te, d(a)emon, quicunque es, et
demando tibi ex (h)anc die, ex (h)anc (h)ora,
ex (h)oc momento, ut crucietur… ad diem
illum. Adiuro te per eum, qui te (r)esolvit ex
vit(a)e temporibus, deum pelagicum, aerium,
altissimum VM alphab. (Ιαω oι ου ι α ιαα
ιωιωε ο οριυω αηια ε; Lynceus…); + VM
upside-down as in the beginning + Lynceus
frangatur illi Peciolus descum?
B: identical to side A (only VM in the
beginning are missing): Adiuro te d(a)emon,
quicunque es, et demando tibi, ex hanc die, ex
hanc (h)ora, ex (h)oc momento, ut crucietur.
Adiuro te per eum, qui te resolvit ex vit(a)e
temporibus, deum pelagicum, aerium,
altissimu(m); VM alphab. just like on side A;
Lynceus.
competition horses ut
crucietur; A: perhaps two
horses: Lynceus, Peciolus?;
nom.; restrictions
VM (names of daemons in
Latin letters), VM alphab.
(always at the end);
partially upside-down
170. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/30; DT 294; Tr
44, grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.?;
corrupted text); almost
identical to the previous
one
A: VM in a column, identical to those in No.
169; Adiuro te, d(a)em(on), quiqunq(u)e, et
demando, ut ex hoc die, (ex) hac hora, ex hoc
momento crucietur… b. infernu … (v?)obis.
Adiuro te per eum, (qui te res)olvit ex ute
(=vitae) tempori(bus, deu)m pelagicum,
aerium, altissimum VM (Ιαω…) Profugu(s),
Peciolus, Frangio…Ri…+ VM upside-down
as in the beginning of the text.
competition horses
crucietur; four horses;
nom.; restrictions
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
495
VM (names of daemons in
Latin letters), VM alphab.
(always at the end);
partially upside-down
171. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/31; DT 295; Tr
45; grave; the 3rd
cent. (Tr
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.)
The beginning of the VM alphab. l. 1–8:
Γεσσε(μ)ιγαδ(ων) ια(ω)αω βαυβω εηαηιε
σοπεσαν κανθαρα ερεσχιγαλ σανκιστη
δωδε(κ)ακητη ̉ακρουροβορε κοδηρε δροπιδεη
ταρταρο̃υχε ανοχ ανοχ καταβρειμω φοβερ̀α
προςτ ε … ννη κατανεικανδρα δαμαστρε ι…σα
μεγαλόδοξε σερουαβους (the curse continues in
Latin): tibi commendo, quoniam maλedixit
parturientem, currant cuillic et d(a)emones
infernales, obλigate illis equis pedes, ne
currere possint, illis equis, quorum nomina hic
scripta et demandata habetis: Inclitum,
Nitidum, Patrici(um), Nauta(m) σιουν αα
ταχαρχην. Οbligate illos, ne currere possi(n)t
crastini(s) et perendinic (=perendinis)
cir(cens)ibus Patricium, Nitidum, Na(ut)a(m),
Incl(i)t(um) ταχαρχην. Tou (=tu) autem,
Domina Canpana (=Campana) χambtηras
Nitidum, Patricium, Nauta(m), Incl(i)tu(m)
ταχαρχην, ne currere possint cras et perendie
et omnibus horis in circo ruant, quomodo et tu
iucunde(?) emeritus es, βίος θάνατος, iam iam,
cito cito, quoniam d(e)ducunt ill συφωνιακι
δαίμονες.
competition
charioteers/horses ne
currere possint; four horses
and one charioteer? (DT)
acc.; restrictions
VM alphab. + Domina
Campana
172. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/33; DT 304;
grave; 0; very fragm.,
corrupted text
Fragm. l. 1–10 VM alphab.; l. 10.: Τοττινα με
α(μαρε)…ρ σινε μενδ(ακιο?)…ουτ (αμε)τ με
σολουμ….(ουτ α)μετ με (σολουμ) Τοττινα
κου(αμ πεπεριτ…) … ουειδερετ … σιμ …(ν)ον
ποσιτ κουανδιε…(ομνιβους διεβ)ους ουιξεριτ
(ουσκουε αδ διεμ μορτις σουε…) corrupted
text. Transcription in Latin letters:
(Cogite?) Tottina(m) me a(mare) … sine
men(dacio?)…, ut (ame)t me solum… (ut a)met
me (solum) Tottina, qu(am peperit…) …
videret…non possit quandie (=quamdiu) …
love (ut a)met me (solum) 1
f. Tottina; author’s name
has not preserved; love
spell/he wants her
VM alphab. (daemons)
Latin text written in
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
496
alphabet; (omnibus die)bus vixerit, (usque ad diem
mortis suae) the addition of DT 304
173. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/34; Be 13;
grave; the 3rd
cent.?;
corrupted text (restit.
Kropp 2004)
…(Perse)phone, obligo illius quam peperit illa
… (inc)olumitatem … (ex h)ac die, ex hac
(h)ora, ut obliviscatur patris et matris et)
omnium suo(rum) … (amor)is insanie.(sed)
amore et desiderio meo uratur…(ha)nc
obl(igo). according to Besnier; Kropp (2004)
amends the text based on other tablets as
follows: …quam peperit Perse)phone oblig/(o
… in)columitatem (sapientiam sensus ut amet
me … quem peperit … ex (h)ac die ex hac
(hora ex hoc momento ut obliviscatur patris et
matris et) omnium suo(rum et amicorum
omnium et omnium virorum … insanie)ns
insanien(s vigilans(?) uratur(?) comburatur…)
amore et d(esiderio meo… ha)nc(?) obl(igo…)
love amore et desiderio
meo uratur, woman’s and
author’s names have not
preserved; love spell/he
wants her
Persephone?
174. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/35; Be 14;
grave; the 3rd
cent.?;
corrupted text (amended by
Kropp, 2004)
…(sapienti)a(m), sensus … (illa(m?)… quam
pepe)rit Rus… ob(ligo eam(?…ut oblivisc)atur
patr(i)s et ma(tris et omnium suorum et amicorum
omnium aliorum viror(um)…uratur
(amore et desiderio meo ex h)ac di(e, ex hac
ora… according to Besnier; Kropp (2004)
amends the text based on other tablets as
follows: …sapienti)a(m) sensus (intellectum
voluntatem … quam pepe)rit Rus(…) ob(ligo
ut amet me …m quem peperit…a ex hac die ex
hac hora ut oblivisc)atur patr(i)s et (matris et
omnium suorum et amicorum omnium et
omni)um viror(um…)(insaniens vigilans uratur
comb)uratur (…amore et desiderio meo…ex
h)ac di(e ex hac hora…)
love uratur; woman’s and
author’s names have not
preserved; love spell/he
wants her
N
175. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/36; So 42;
grave; the 3rd
cent.?; very
corrupted text (amended by
Kropp, 2004)
I state the text amended by Kropp (2004):
…(obligo… quam peperit…)ns mentia
(=sapientiam? … (ut amet me) (…ex hac die
ex) hac hora ex hoc m(omento ut obliviscatur
patris et matris et suorum omn)ium (et
amicoru)m omnium et omnium vi(rorum…)
love comburatur ardeat; 1
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
497
f. Vera?, Lucifera mater, 1
m. Optatus mater; love
spell/he wants her
…N … (in)sanien(s …ins)aniens vigilan(s
…ur)atur comburatur ardeat sp(iritus?
amore? et) (de)siderio meo. Obli(go) caelum
terram aq(uas?)… et haera immobile(m) set
dom(…) amoris huiius Veram adiuro te per
mag(na?…n)omina eiius dei qui sub terra
(sedet?…) VM: osornophri oserchochlo
erboonthi im(…)hr…mne…phiblo chnembo
sar(basmisarab… de)tinentem? sempiternum
amorem qui… ego Optatus commendo deo…
(Veram, quam) peperit Lucifera et nulli ali(o)
attendat nis(i) mihi soli neminem alium (in
mente habeat nisi me) Optatum, quem peperit
Ammia P(…)ia….a Saphonia consummatum
consu(mmatum consummatum) col(l)iga in
sempiterno tempore.
VM (daemons in Latin
letters)
176. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/37; Be 5; Tr 47;
grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent. (Tr
the 1st
/2nd
cent.)
VM: Acanaxatrasamacna; horses: (Basi)lius,
Amor, Pretiosus, Profugus, Pelops, Clarus,
Salutaris. SM
competition horses, seven
horses (only names); nom.;
restrictions
VM in Latin letters; SM
177. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/38; Be 11; Tr
49; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.?
I state only the cursing formulae, not all the
names of horses and riders; for the complete
text, see the above-cited corpora.
The text of the curse as well as the names of
riders and horses run around the perimeter, SM
in each paragraph.
A: Privatianu, Heliu, Pompeiu, SM
Privatianu, Heliu, Pompeiu, Repentinu, Felice,
Surdu, Supe(r)stite russei, Regiu, Centauru,
Bracatu, Virgeneu, Celestinu, Paratu,
Glaucu(s), Eolu(s), Igneu(s), Decore, Oceanu,
Garulu, Eburnu, Verbosu, Germanicu,
Eminente, Tagu, Voluptate, Capreolu, Viatore,
Securu, Maguriu, Audace, Arbustu, Cesareu
competition
charioteers/horses
obligate e(qu)os; (red
team), seven riders + 46
horses; acc.; restrictions
SM (A: in each paragraph,
as in No. 158)
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
498
…Rogo vos cadant Privatianu, Heliu,
Pompeiu, Repentinu, Felice, Surdu, Superstite
russei…+ 46 repeating names + Rogo vos,
cadant, ci(e)ant male.
The text around the perimeter: Rogo vos,
obligate e(qu)os … minesren … (ne)c se
mo(v)ere possint, se(t c)adant, male gurent
(=girent) et agitan(tes v)ertant nec lora
teneant nec ante se nec adversarios suos
videant nec vinccant, male gurent. B: SM
178. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/39; Be 10; Tr
48; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the 2nd
cent.; corrupted text
A: Proteu, Felice, Pompeiu, Castre(n)se,
C(a)esareu, Romanu, Amandu, Acceptore,
Luxuriu… Africu … (Di)amante, (Vic)toricu
…cadant … cadant … inte … Exorbe … ne …
an … Querulu(s), Eliu(s)… gantedsvne …te
The text around the perimeter: cadant,
frangant, dis(frangantur) male gurent, vertant
nec frenis (a)udiant … (n)e currere possint,
cadant… cadant, disfrangantur, cadant…
B: SM
competition
charioteers/horses cadant,
frangant; 11 horses + three
riders Felix, Pompeius,
Proteus; acc.; restrictions
SM (A: in each paragraph
as in No. 158, B: only SM)
179. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/40; Be 15; Tr
50; tab. opistogr.; grave;
the first half of the 2nd
cent.
A: VM: I daemon; Baitmo, Arbitto (on
daemon’s chest); in the left column: Lynceus,
Margarita: premas, depremas, hocidas
(=occidas) quinto depremas; in the right
column: nervi a illis concidas neque spiritum
(h)abeant.
B: Adiuro te, demon, cuicuncue es, et
demamdo tibi ex (h)anc (h)ora, ex (h)oc
momento, ut crucietuntur (=crucientur) ecui
(=equi), cuos (=quos) abes (=habes) tecum
Donati, conditoris prasini. Adiuro te per eum,
cui (=qui) te resosvit vitae temporibus, deum
pelagicum, aerium, altissimum. VM alphab.
competition
charioteers/horses ut
crucientur; (green team);
two horses, nom.; + one
groom Donatus conditor;
restrictions
VM in Latin letters, VM
alphab. at the end; I
(daemon on a ship holding
a torch and an urn, as in
No. 162)
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
499
180. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/41; So 48;
grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
Margarita, Lynceus.
competition horses, two
horses; nom.; restrictions?
N
181. Hadrumetum
dfx.11.2.1/42; grave; 0
Annibonia, Concisus, Laurentius, Piquarius,
Felix, Cobbo(?), Salvus. Oro bos (=vos) ex
(h)anc die, ut taceant, muti, mutili si(n)t;
VM Damnameneus(?).
legal 6 m. + 1 f.; nom.;
restrictions
VM (Damnameneus)
182. Thysdrus, dfx.11.2.2/1;
grave; half of the 3rd
cent.
(H)os (=hoc) opera ritine (=retine) mi(hi)
Patelaria(m) Menor (=Minorem), amor piger
n(obis?). Ecx (=ex) of(f)icina magica dona-
tus50
t(u)is. (H)oc tibi o(p)tamus te bidere
(=videre). Bictor (V=ictor) Colon(us)
C(oloniae) Nov(a)e estrumetarius
(=instrumentarius?). (H)oc nobis o(p)tamus
AEE ave mater ave.
love amor piger; 1 f.
Patelaria Minor, the author
named Colonus; love
spell/he wants her
N partially verically
183. Constantine, Africa
Numid.
dfx.11.3.1/1; DT 300; tab.
opistogr.; grave; the 4th
cent.?; corrupted text
A:… aviuli …tei gutur babo w o o os…
o…a(?)ur…desumatur, ut facia(s) il(l)um sine
sensum (=sensu), sine memoria, sine (spi)ritu,
sine medul(l)a, sit vi mutuscus
B:…ento demando tibi, ut ac(c)eptu(m h)abeas
(S)ilvanu(m), q(uem) p(eperit?)51
vulva facta…
et custodias … nto (de)mando, ut facia(s)
(il)lum mortu(um). Depona(s) eum at Tartara.
legal sit vi mutuscus; 1 m.,
Silvanus; restrictions/death
I (daemons with goatlike
legs)
50
Kropp (2008) regards Donatus a proper name with respect to the plausible
interpretation of the whole text as follows: “With this tablet hold/bind (with love)
Patellaria the younger for me, our love stagnates. I have received from the magical
workshop, please, look at it. (I) Victor Colonus… this we wish…” I assume that the
term is a verb.
51
DT 300 reads the preserved sequence as pu(u)lvam fac(i)a(s) = pulverem; Jordan
(1976, 127–132) reads vulva; I take over the interpretation of Kropp (2008).
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
500
I.6. Britannia
BRITANNIA TEXT
184. Bath dfx.3.2/4; To 2; Brit
15; shrine (water source); the 3rd
cent.?
Britiuenda, Venibelia.
non-specific; 2 f. nom.; N
Dea Sulis (impl.); some letters
written mirror-like
185. Bath dfx.3.2/5; To 3; Brit
13; shrine (water source); the 3rd
cent.? corrupted text
Brpituenda (=Brituenda), Marinus,
Memorina.
non-specific; 2 f. + 1 m. nom.;
N
Dea Sulis (impl.)
186. Bath dfx.3.2/9; To 9;
shrine (water source); the 3rd
cent.?; two fragments
A: Petio (=petitio?): rove (=rogo?) te,
Victoria vind(ex?) Cun … Minici,
Cunomolius, Minervina ussor (=uxor),
Cunitius servus, Senovara ussor (=uxor),
Lavidendus ser(v)us, Mattonius ser(v)us,
Catinius Exactoris fundo eo Methianu(s)
… dono. … B: (… a)micus …tpiasu
...gineninsu(s) ...gienusus
non-specific; nominal list: 3. f.
+ 7 m. nom.; uxor N
Dea Sulis (impl.)
187. Bath dfx.3.2/16; To 17;
tab. opistogr.; shrine (water
source); the 3rd
cent.?; corrupted
text
A: Senianus, Magnus, M…o ,B:
Lucianu(s), Marcellianus, (M)allianus,
Mu(t)ata, Medol… geacus
non-specific; nominal list: 7–8
nom.; N
Dea Sulis (impl.)
188. Bath dfx.3.2/22; To 30;
metal discus; shrine (water
source); the 2nd
cent.
Severianus fil(ius) Brigomall(a)e, Patarnianus
filius, Matarnus ussor (=uxor),
Catonius Potentini, Marinianus Belcati,
Lucillus Lucciani, Aeternus Ingenui,
non-specific; nominal list: 7 m.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
501
+ 1 f. uxor; nom. 1×mater,
pater; N
Bellaus Bellini.
Dea Sulis (impl.)
189. Bath dfx. 3.2/29; To 37;
tab. opistogr.; shrine (water
source); the 2nd
/3rd
cent.;
corrupted text
A: Illorum anima las(s)e(tur) titumus
sedileubisediac usa quepanum
(unintelligible text)
B: Exsibuus, Lothuius, Mas(e)ntius,
Aesibuas, Petiacus.non-specific; 5 m. nom.; N
Dea Sulis (impl.)
190. Bath dfx.3.2/43; To 51;
shrine (water source); the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
Severa, Dracontius, Spectatus,
Innocentius, Senecio, Candidianus,
Applicius, Belator, Surilla, Austus,
Carinianus.
non-specific; 9 m. + 2 f. nom.;
N
Dea Sulis (impl.)
191. Bath dfx.3.2/45; To 53;
tab. opistogr.; shrine (water
source); the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
A: D(eo) Mercurio … san(g)u(e)m
(=sang-(uine)m). (C)ivil … fuerit de
…Trinni(?) familiam …Velvalis(?) …am
suam
B: Markelinum familia(m), Veloriga(m) et
famili(am) (s)uam, Morivassum et
(f)amiliam, Riovassum e(t) familiam,
Minoven…et familiam sua(m)…
non-specific; nominal list: 6 m.
+ 1 f. acc. (1×nom.); N
deo Mercurio
192. Bath dfx.3.2/66; To 78;
shrine (water source); the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; very corrupted text
(B)itilus, Linu(s), Bitiluus, Lin(us).
non-specific; 2 m. nom.; N
Dea Sulis (impl.)
193. Bath dfx.3.2/74; To 95;
Brit 14; shrine (water source);
the 4th
cent.
Cunsa, Maria, Docimedis, Vendibedis,
Sedebelia, Cunsus, Severiaianus
(=Severianus), Seniila (=Senila)
non-specific; 4 f. + 4 m., nom.;
N
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
502
Dea Sulis (impl.)
194. Bath dfx.3.2/75; To 96;
Brit 14; shrine (water source);
the 4th
cent.
Victorinus, Talipieinus, Minantius,
Victorianus, Compepedita (=Compedita),
Valauneicus, Belia.
non-specific; 5 m. + 2 f. nom;
N
Dea Sulis (impl.)
195. Clothall dfx.3.9/1; So 19;
Roman grave; 0
Vetus quomodo sanies significatur. Tacita
deficta.
non-specific; 1 f. nom.;
disease/death
N; written partially right-to-left
196. Leintwardine dfx.3.13/1;
water (baths); 0
Carinus, Similis, Consortius, Comes,
Masloriu(s), Senorix, Cunittus, Cunittus,
Cunedecanes, Ceanatis, Tiberin(us).
non-specific; 11 m. nom.; N
N
197. Leintwardine dfx.3.13/2;
water (baths); 0
Enestinus, Motius, Comitinus.
non-specific; 3 m. nom.; N
N
198. London dfx. 3.14/1; So 17;
tab. opistogr.; in the soil; half of
the 1st
cent.
Tertia(m) Maria(m) defico (=defigo) et
illeus (=illius) vita(m) et me(n)tem et
memoriam (e)t iocinera, pulmones
intermxixita (=inter-mixta) fa(c)ta,
cogitata, memoriam. Sci (=Sic) no(n)
possitt loqui (quae) sicreta (=secreta)
si(n)t neque SINIT… amere (=amare)
possit neque … cludo (=claudo).
rivalry in love, 1 f. acc.?;
restrictions/separation?
N
199. London dfx.3.14/2; in the
soil; half of the 1st
cent.
A: T(itus) Egnatius Tyran(n)us defic(t)us
(=defixus) est et P(ublius) Cicereius Felix
defictus e(s)t. B: T(itus) Egnatius
Tyran(n)us defictus est et P(ublius)
Cicereius Felix.
non-specific; 2 m., nom.; N
N
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
503
200. London Southwark
dfx.3.14/4; Brit 21; in the soil,
the 4th
cent.?
Martia sive Martina.
non-specific; 1 f. nom.
N; right-to-left
201. London dfx.3.14/5; Brit.
34; in the soil; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
Plautius, Nobilianus, Aur(e)l(ius),
Saturninus, Domitia, Attiola et si qui
afuere.52
non-specific; 4 m. nom. + 2 f.,
nom.; N
N
202. Thetford dfx.3.21/1; Brit
13; in the soil; the 4th
cent.
…Peminius Novalis, (defix)us est
Pem(inius).
non-specific; 1 m. nom.; N
N; written right-to-left
203. Uley dfx.3.22/12; Brit 26;
shrine; 2.–4. cent.; corrupted
text
Lucila Mellossi (filia) AEXSIEUMO,
Minu(v)assus Senebel(l)enae (filius?).
non-specific; 1 f. pater + 1 m.
nom., mater; N
Mercurius (impl.)
204. Uley dfx.3.22/18; Brit. 26;
shrine; the 2nd
-4th
cent.
Aunillus, V(ica)riana, Covitius Mini
(filius) dona(t) Varicillum, Minura,
Atavacum…
non-specific; 2 m. + 1 f. nom.;
pater curse 3 m. acc.?53
; N
Mercurius (impl.)
205. Uley dfx.3.22/39; Ul 86;
Brit 24; shrine; the 2nd
–4th
cent.
Petronius.
52
Kropp (2008) completes the text with et ii qui afuerunt.Tomlin – Hassall (2003, 361
ff.) assume that the sequence at si qui afuere is the first preserved “all inclusive”
formula in this region, see 1.1.2.
53
See 10.1.1.
APPENDIX I: THE CORPUS OF LATIN CURSES
504
non-specific; 1 m. nom.; N
Mercurius (impl.)
206. Uley dfx.3.22/9; Ul 20;
shrine;
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted text
Cunnovina?
non-specific 1. f. nom.; N
Mercurius (impl.)
207. Bath dfx.3.2/3; To 1;
shrine (water source); the 3rd
cent.
ABCEEFX (Kropp amends:
Abcdef(i)x(io))
alphabetical sequence?
208. Old Harlow dfx.3.17/1;
Brit. 4; tab. opistogr.; water; the
3rd
/4th
cent.
A: Dio (=deo) M(ercurio), dono ti(bi)
negotium Et(t)ern(a)e (=Aeternae) et
ipsam nec sit i(n)vidi(a) me(i) Timotneo.54
Sangui(n)e suo.
B: Dono tibi, Mercurius, aliam (=aliud)
neg(o)tium Navin(ii?)… ne(c?)… min…
sang(uine) suo.
non-specific; A: 1 f. + shop?; B:
1 m. + shop? vengeance/death
Mercurius
54
Kropp (2008) amends Timotneo = Timothei.
Appendix II: The Corpus of Latin Prayers for Justice
II.1. Italia
KEY
1st
line: inscription’s number according to Krop: dfx.; Audollent: DT;
Blänsdorf (2012): DTM; Blänsdorf (2008, No. 7): Bl 2008:7; Besnier (1920):
Be; Solin (1968): So; Gager (1992): Ga; Tomlin (1988): To; Tomlin (1993,
No. 1): To 1993:1; etc.; the periodical Britannia (II inscriptiones): Brit;
(For an exhaustive bibliography of particular inscriptions, see the corpus of
Kropp, 2008) and TheDeMa.
location/place of finding of inscription (i.e. grave, shrine, amphitheatre,
water source, etc.; x = unknown);
dating (the 2nd
cent. = the 2nd
cent. CE; 0 = unknown). + note on the
preservation of the text: corrupted, fragmentary, etc.
2nd
line: the people accursed – number, or SVSM (formula si vir si mulier),
i.e. an unknown culprit; NN (qui) i.e. an unknown culprit referred to through
a relative pronoun
motif of the making of the prayer for justice: theft; other, N = cannot be
determined;
aim of the prayer for justice: – only return of stolen things; – return (of
things) and vengeance (punishment of culprit, or restrictions until he returns
the stolen property); – only vengeance/punishment of culprit
(restrictions/death); N = cannot be determined;
3rd
line: deities appealed to: Dea Sulis, Mercury, etc., (X = none), or Dea
Sulis (impl.) – i.e. the tablet has been found at her shrine;
author’s name N (= is missing); + what the author hands over to the deity –
R (dono rem i.e. stolen things); F (dono furem i.e. a thief); 0 (not stated)
graphical peculiarities: orientation of script (i.e. right-to-left,
boustrophedon, etc.);
further additions – votum, reward to the deity, etc.
TEXT: the amendations, lectiones variae, and punctuation of the particular
editors are stated in parentheses and footnotes.
ITALIA TEXT
209. Pompei, Campania
dfx.1.5.4/3; on the facade of
Hospes paulisper morare, si non est
molestum, et quid evites, cognosce. Amicum
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
506
a tomb; 0 hunc, quem speraveram mi(hi) esse, ab eo
mi(hi) accusatores subiecti et iudicia
instaurata. Deis gratias ago et meae
innocentiae: omni molestia liberatus sum.
Qui nostrum mentitur, eum nec Dii Penates
nec inferi recipiant.
1 m. amicus; N, N
X, N, 0
210. Concordia, Venetia/
Histria dfx.1.7.3/1; Be 59;
water – canal; the first half of
the 2nd
cent. – the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted text
Secundula aut qui sustulet…(=sustulit)
1. f. nom.; N/theft; N
X, N, 0
211. Verona, Venetia/Histria
dfx.1.7.6/1; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
Trophimen, Zosimen, Chariten, vindictam de
illis fas.
3 m. acc.; N, vengeance
X, N, 0
212. Mariana, Corsica
dfx.1.9.1/1; grave; the 1st
/2nd
cent.;1
corrupted text
……ule vindica te, qui tibi male f(ecit), qui
… (v)indica te et si C(aius) Statius tibi
nocuit, ab eo vind(ica te) … (Persequa?)ris
eum, ut male contabescat, usque dum
morie(t)ur, (et qui?) cumque ali(u)s et si
Pollio conscius est, et illum persequaris, ni
annum ducat.
2 m. nom.; other; vengeance:
disease/death
…ule(?), N, F
213. Sardinia dfx.1.10.2/1; 0;
corrupted text
fr.4:… numerum venerunt ra…; fr.5: (r)oco
(=rogo) dom(i)ne, ut; fr.7:…rogo, subruptus
(=surreptus) sit Urvanus (=Urbanus); fr.
9:… denari …; fr. 10: … rogo… cum pes-
sim…
probably 1 m. nom.; theft?
return; vengeance
Domine, N, 0
1
Solin (1981, 121) dates the tablet into the period of the Early Empire.
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
507
II.2. Hispania
HISPANIA TEXT
214. Ampurias, Hisp.
dfx.2.1.1/5; So 29; in the soil;
the 1st
/2nd
cent.; corrupted text
…ei…q(u)i me sepelven…unaeos cum qui
mi(hi) facinus inposuit, (pau)cos sit
paupertati meam … hodie podui (=potui) me
inopia fuit … (c)um putet eo modo facio tibi
… parturiens p(ro) donis turnavit.
NN (qui); other; vengeance?
X, N, 0
215. Saguntum, Hisp.
Tarracon. dfx.2.1.3/2; Corell
1994; in the soil; the 1st
/2nd
cent.?
Quis res tunica tolid (=tulit) e Livia(?), obi
eam vel ium (=eum), ite(m) is qui
qu(a)estu(m) hhabeat tra(c)ta.
(See Tomlin 2010, 269ff)
NN (qui); theft; vengeance
X, Livia, F
216. Saguntum, Hisp.
Tarracon. dfx.2.1.3/3; Corell
2000; To: 2010; in the soil;
the 1st
/2nd
cent.
CR Felicio Aur(eliani) rogat et mandat
pequnia(m), quae a me accepit Heracla,
conservus meus, ut insttetur (h)uius senus
(sinus/sensus?), o(c)ellus et (v)ires, q(u)icumqui
sunt, aride fiant, do pequniam
(h)onori sacricola(e). 21 m. conservus; theft/fraus;
return?; vengeance:
restrictions
X, Felicio Aur(eliani), R
217. Bolonia, Hisp. Baetica
dfx.2.2.1/1; well in the shrine
of Isis; tab. ansata; the first
half of the 2nd
cent. To: 2010
Isis Mur(i)onumem (=Myrionyma), tibi
conmendo furtu(m) meu(m). Mi(hi) fac tuto
(=tuo) numini, ma(i)estati exsemplaria:3
ut
tu evide(s) (=evites) immedio (= in medio)
(eum), qui fecit (furtum), autulit (=abstulit)
aute(m) res: opertor(i)u(m) albu(m)
nov(um), stragulu(m) nov(um), lodices duas
de uso (=usu)4
. Rogo, domina, per
NN (qui); theft; vengeance:
public/death
Isis Muromem = Myrionyma,
2
Corell (2000, 242) reads: C(h)r(y)se ligo auri po(ndo) rogat et ad Iau dat; Kropp
(2008) partially takes over his interpretation; I take over the additions of Tomlin
(2010, 264).
3
The reading of Tomlin (2010).
4
Tomlin (2010, 258) reads meo uso; as de uso seems to be contradictory to novum.
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
508
N maiestate(m) tua(m), ut (h)oc furtu(m)
reprindas (=reprehendas).
218. Itálica, Hisp. Baetica;
dfx.2.2.4/1; in a house, tab.
ansata; the first half of the 2nd
cent.
Dom(i)na Fons font(i)/ fove(ns),ut tu
persequaris duas /tuas res demando,
quiscunque caligas meas telluit (=tulit –
sustulit) et solias, tibi dea demando, ut ut
(tu) illas, ad(cep)tor (adiutor?)5
si quis
puel(l)a, si mulier sive (ho)mo, involavit,
(ut) illos persequaris.
NN, theft; return;
Domina Fons, N, R
219. Mérida, Hisp. Lusitania
dfx.2.3.1/1; To 2010; marble
desk; water; 0
Dea Ataecina Turibrig(ensis) Proserpina,
per tuam maiestatem te rogo, obsecro, uti
vindices, quot (=quod) mihi furti factum est.
Quisquis mihi imudavit (=immutavit), involavit,
minusve fecit (e)a(s res), q(uae)
in(fra)s (criptae) s(unt): tunicas VI,
(p)aenula lintea II, in(dus)ium I, cuius
(no)m(en) ignaro… i … ius6
NN; (quisquis), theft; return;
vengeance
Dea Ataecina Turibrig(ensis)
Proserpina; N, 0
220. Alcácer do Sal, Hisp.
Lusitania dfx.2.3.2/1; Tomlin
(2010); shrine; the second
half of the 1st
cent.
Domine · Megare Invicte, · tu · qui Attidis
corpus · accepisti · accipias · corpus · eiu s·,
qui · meas ·sarcinas · supstulit · qui me ·
compilavit de · domo · Hispani · illius ·
corpus · tibi · et ·anima(m) · do, · dono, ut
meas res · invenia(m) · tunc tibi (h)ostia(m)
quadrupede(m) do(mi)ne, Attis, voveo, si
eu(m) fure(m) invenero, dom(i)ne Attis, te
rogo per tu(u)m Nocturnum, ut me
quamprimu(m) compote(m) facias.
NN (qui); theft; return;
vengeance
Domine Megare7
invicte,
domine Attis; N, F
votive formula; punctuation ·
II.3. Gallia
GALLIA
TEXT
221. Trier, Gallia Belgica Matrimoni(a A)b(ae et) amicorum. (A)ba
5
Tomlin (2010, 254 ff.) reads fonti; adceptor/adiutor, duas, see 8.2., corrupted text.
6
Tomlin (2010, 286) reds the final sequence: cuius I. C ...m ignoro i...ius...
7
Domine Megare “the Lord of Megaron”, i.e. Pluto. See Tomlin (2010, 262).
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
509
dfx.4.1.3/7; Be 23;
amphitheatre; the 4th
/5th
cent.?
reddat (pre)tia damno …
1 f.; other; vengeance?
X, N, 0
222. Trier, Gallia Belgica
dfx.4.1.3/9; Be 25;
Önnerfors 1991: 21;
amphitheatre; the 4th
/5th
cent. – the second half of
the 3rd
cent.
A:...BAL…INABIHTIARO vestro … (rogo?
Di)anam et Martem vinculares, ut me
vindicetis de Ququma (=cucuma/Cucuma?)
Eusebium in ungulas obligetis et me
vindicetis. B: Depos(i)tum Eusebium. (See
also TheDeMa 723.)
2? m. acc.; other; vengeance
Dianam et Martem vinc
ulares; SM; N, 0
223. Trier, Gallia Belgica
dfx.4.1.3/11; Be 27;
amphitheatre; the 4th
/5th
cent.?
Si tu (H)ostillam, q(ua)e e Racatia (nata est,
consumpseris), qi (=quae) mihi fraude(m)
fe(cit), deus, nos te, q(u)i audis(ti, sacrificio
colemus). CIL 13, 11340,5. The amendation
of Urbanová (2013): Si tu (H)ostillam q(ua)e
e(t) Racatia(e) frau(dem) qi (=quae) mihi
fraude(m) fe(cit), (consumpseris). See 10.2.
1 f., other; vengeance
deus; Racatiae et mihi? N, 0
224. Dax/Landes, Gall.
Aquitania dfx.4.3.2/1; well,
disk; the 4th
/5th
cent.;
corrupted text
Leontio, f(ilio) Leontio, Deidio, Iovino
bolaverunt =involaverunt) manus pedis
(=pedes) quicumqui le(vavi)t anul(um),
oculique imm(e)rgo… i … ru … e.
Kropp (2008) interprets as follows: Leontio,
filio Leontio, Didio, Iovino (involaverunt)
manus, pedes, oculique. Quicumque levavit
anulum. Immergo. Urbanová (2013):
Leontius, filius Leontii, Didius, Iovinus
involaverunt … manus, pedes, oculique,
quicumque anulum levavit immergo. See 9.2.
NN? Perhaps potential
thieves: Leontio, Didio,
Iovino,8
theft; vengeance:
accursed body parts
X, 0;
written right-to-left
8
The text is ambiguous; the names of people stated in te beginning of the text can
refer both to the victims of the theft and to the potential thieves, the latter being
more probable, see 9.2.
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
510
225. Murol, Gall. Aquitania
dfx.4.3.3/1; shrine; 0;
corrupted text
Deus, te rog(o, qui) distrale (=dextrale)
cointra (=contra) … t ... k ... futat ... o ... colas
se ...n... nusque contra … Martis a … vel
tertio… ut confet(eat) (quod) tulit torq(uem)
lues r(e) suis sic r… se et festul …m domine
numa…
NN, theft; vengeance
deus, N, 0
226. Montfo, Gall.
Narbonensis dfx.4.4.1/1;
Versnel 1991; Marichal
1981; well; the 1st
cent.
Quomodo hoc plumbu(m) non paret
(=apparet?) et decadet (=decidit), sic decadat
(decidat) aetas, membra, vita, bos, grano(m),
mer(x) eoru(m), qui mihi dolum malu(m)
fecerunt. Idem (=item) Asuetemeos, Secundina,
qu(a)e illum tulit, et Verres Tearus et
Amarantis et haec omnia vobis, dii, interdico
in omnibus sortebus (=sortibus) tam celebrare
Masitlatida concinere necracantum
(=necrocantum) col … scantum et omnes deos
… ta datus…
2 m. + 2 f. nom.; other;
vengeance: death?
dii; N; 0
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
511
II.4. Germania
GERMANIA
TEXT
227. Avenches en Chaplix/
Switzerland, Germ. Superior
dfx. 5.1.1/1; grave; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
Marius (=Marium) Cinnesuus
(=Cinnesuum) et eum q(u)i exin co(n)ciliavit
Aequa(m). A vita. (See also TheDeMa 738)
1 m. nom. + X et eum; other;
vengeance
X, N, 0; written right-to-left;
228. Gross-Gerau, Germ.
Sup. dfx.5.1.3/1; Scholz –
Kropp 2004; tab. opistogr.; in
the soil; the 1st
/2nd
cent.
A: Deum maxsime, Atthis Tyranne, totumque
Duodeca Theum, commendo deabus
iniurium fas, ut me vindic(e)tis a Priscil(l)a
Caranti, quae nubere er(r)avit. Pe(r) matrem
deum vestrae ut (v)indicate sacra
pater(ni/na?). P(ri)scil(la) pere(at). B: Per
matrem deum, intra dies C(?), cito, vindicate
numen vestrum magnum a Priscilla, quae
detegit sacra. Priscillam (n)usqu(a)m nullam
numero. Nu(p)sit gentem tremente Priscilla
quam er(r)ante. (See Urbanová-Frýdek
2016).
1 f. pater; other; vengeance:
death
deorum maxime, Atthis
tyranne, totumque Duodeca
Theum, deabus; Paternus? R
229. Gross-Gerau, Germ.
Sup. dfx.5.1.3/2; Bl 2007; in
the soil, 1st
cent.
(H)umanum quis sustulit Verionis palliolum
sive res illius, qui illius minus fecit, ut illius
mentes, memorias deiectas sive mulierem
sive eas, cuius Verionis res minus fecit, ut
illius manus, caput, pedes vermes, cancer,
vermitudo interet, membra, medullas illius
interet.
NN (quis); theft; vengeance:
death
X, Verio, 0
written right-to-left
230. Rottweil, Germ. Sup.
dfx.5.1.7/1; Faraone–Kropp
2010; tab. ansata; in the soil;
the 1st
-3rd
cent.
A: Fib(u)lam Gnatae qui involavit aut qui
melior est animi conscios, ut illum aut illam
aversum faciant di(i) sicut hoc est B:
aversum et qui res illaeus (=illius) sustulit.
NN (qui); theft; vengeance
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
512
dii; Gnata, 0; written rightto-left,
partially upside-down
231. Mainz, Germ. Sup.
DTM 1; tab. opistogr.; shrine
(Mater Magna + Isis); the
1st
/2nd
cent.
A: Mater Magna, te rogo p(e)r (t)ua sacra et
numen tuum: Gemella fiblas meas, qualis
sustulit, sic et illam REQUIs (rogo?)
adsecet, ut nusquam sana si(t). Quomodo
galli se secarunt, sic ea(m?) velis nec se
secet sic, uti planctum ha(be)at, quomodo et
sacrorum deposierunt in sancto, sic et tuam
vitam, valetudinem, Gemella. Neque hosti(i)s
neque auro neque argento redimere possis a
Matre deum, nisi ut exitum tuum populus
spectet. Verecundam et Paternam: sic illam
tibi commendo, Mater deum magna, rem
illorum in AECRUMO DEO VIS quale rogo
co(n)sument(u)r in quomodo et res meas
viresque fraudarunt, nec se possint redimere
nec hosteis lanatis B: nec plumibis
(=plumbis) nec auro nec argento redimere a
numine tuo, nisi ut illas vorent canes, vermes
adque alia portenta, exitum quarum populus
spectet tamquam quae c… FORRO/MO l
auderes comme(ndo) duas … further very
corrupted text TAMAQVANIVSCAVERSSO
scriptis istas AE RISS. ADRICIS . S. LON a .
illas, si illas cistas caecas, aureas, FECRA
E[--]I[-]LO[--]ASO OV[-]EIS mancas A
1 f. nom. + 2 f. acc.; theft;
vengeance: death – in public
Mater Magna, probably two
authors – N, 0
232. Mainz, Germ. Sup.
DTM 2; shrine (Mater
Magna + Isis); the 1st
/2nd
cent.
Quisquis dolum malum adm(isit de), hac
pecun(i)a … ille melior et nos det(eri)ores
sumus … Mater deum, tu persequeris per
terras, per (maria, per locos) ar(i)dos et
umidos, per benedictum tuum et o(mne …
qui de hac) pecunia dolum malum adhibet,
ut tu perse(quaris illum … Quomodo) galli
se secant et praecidunt vir(i)lia sua, sic
il(le)… R S Q intercidat MELORE
pec(tus?)… BISIDIS (ne)que se admisisse
nec … hostiis si(n)atis nequis t(…) neque
SUT TIS neque auro neque argento neque
NN (quisquis); theft/fraud,
vengeance: restrictions, death
Mater deum, Attis, N, F
votum
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
513
ille solvi, (re)fici, redimi posit. Quomodo
galli, bellonari, magal(i) sibi sanguin(em)
ferventem fundunt, frigid(us) ad ter ram
venit, sic et (…)CIA copia, cogitatum,
mentes. (Quem)admodum de eis gallo(r)u(m,
ma)galorum, bellon(a-riorum
sanguinem/ritus?) spectat, qui de ea pecunia
dolum malum (admisit, sic illius) exitum
spectent, et a(d qu)em modum sal in (aqua
liques)cet, sic et illi membra m(ed)ullae
extabescant. Cr(ucietur/cras veniat)9
et dicat
se admisisse nef(a)s. D(e)mando tibi
rel(igione), ut me votis condamnes et ut
laetus libens ea tibi referam, si de eo exitum
malum feceris.
233. Mainz, Germ. Sup.
DTM 3; Bl 2010: 7; Bl
2007/8: 7; tab. opistogr.;
shrine (Mater Magna + Isis);
the 1st
/2nd
cent.
A: Rogo te, domina Mater Magna, ut me
vindices de bonis Flori coniugis mei, qui me
fraudavit Ulattius Severus. Quemadmod(um)
hoc ego averse scribo, sic illi B: omnia,
quidquid agit, quidquid aginat, omnia illi
aversa fiant, ut sal et aqua illi eveniat.
Quidquid mi abstulit de bonis Flori coniugis
mei, rogo te domina Mater Magna, ut tu de
eo me vindices.
1 m. nom.; theft/fraud;
vengeance
domina Mater Magna, N;
uxor Flori; R
234. Mainz, Germ. Sup.
DTM 6; Bl 2010: 18; Bl
2007/8: 9; Faraone–Kropp
2010; tab. opistogr.; shrine
(Mater Magna + Isis); the
1st
/2nd
cent.
A: Quintum in hac tabula depon(o) aversum
se suisque rationibus vitaeque male
consumantem. Ita uti galli, Bellonarive
absciderunt, concideruntve se, sic illi
abscissa sit fides, fama, faculit(a)s. Nec illi
in numero hominum sunt, neque ille sit.
Q(u)omodi et ille mihi fraudem fecit, sic illi,
sancta Mater Magn(a), et relegis(ti)
cu(n)cta. Ita uti arbor siccabit se in sancto,
sic et illi siccet fama, fides, fortuna,
faculitas. Tibi commendo, Attihi d(o)mine, ut
1 m.; other – fraud;
vengeance: death
sancta Mater Magna, Attihi
domine, N, 0
9
Blänsdorf (2010, 180 ff. and 458 ff.) adds crucietur, in edition from 2012 DTM 2:
cras veniat.
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
514
the name of the accursed one
written upsde-down, the
reverse side written by
another hand
me vindices ab eo, ut intra annum
vertente(m…) exitum illius vilem malum.
B: (rotated 90° in the left): ponit nom(en)
huius maritabus I si agatur ulla res utilis, sic
ille nobis utilis sit suo corpore. Sacrari
horr(e)bis. QUINTI NOMEN upside-down.
See 10.2.2.
235. Mainz, Germ. Sup.
DTM 7; Bl 2008: 14; Bl
2010: 9; shrine (Mater Magna
+ Isis); the 1st
/2nd
cent.;
corrupted text
Quisquis nobis sustulit sacc(u)lum, in quo
pecunia erat et eam pecuniam et anulos
aureos (referat)10
… quod des(ti)natum est XI
K(alendas) Febr(uarias), q(uae) p(roximae)
s(unt) C … sive dolum (m)alum adhib(et
…quo) mod(i) hoc grapphio averso, quod
minime uti solet, sic (eum) aversum dii
deaeeque (=deaeque) … (e)sse sineat(i)s
(=sinatis) et (ho)minibus, si qui(s hunc)
manu contiguit, id aequ(e..), quomodi (e)t
ho…sucus defluit e…hoc plumbum ussu
cui…geum desti(natum)ve esse velit…sicut
innocentiam est, si in dea … UNN CREU.
NN (quisquis); theft; return;
vengeance: restrictions, death
dii deaeque, N, 0
scriptio continua?
236. Mainz, Germ. Sup.
DTM 11; Bl 2010: 12; tab.
opistogr.; shrine (Mater
Magna + Isis); the 1st
/2nd
cent.; found together with the
following tablet
A: Mando et rogo religione, ut mandata
exagatis Publium Cutium et Piperonem et B:
Placida et Sacra, filia eius: sic illorum
membra liquescan(t) quatmodum hoc
plumbum liquescet, ut eoru(m) exsitum sit.
2 m. acc. + 2 f. nom. mater;
theft? return; vengeance:
death
Mater Magna + Isis (impl.);
R;
237. Mainz, Germ. Sup.
DTM 12; Bl 2010: 13; shrine
(Mater Magna + Isis); the
1st
/2nd
cent.;
sic … s siccum QUANMI qu(omo)di hoc
liquescet se (…sic co)llum membra,
me(du)lla, peculium d(e)l(i)ques(ca)nt
eoru(m), quamodum gallorum angat se …
10
The addition of Blänsdorf (2012, No. 7).
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
515
probably continuation of the
previous No . 236; other;
vengeance: death
s(ic i)lla aga(t), ut de se (pro)bant(?), tu
dom(i)na es, fac, ut X mensibus … exitum
illorum sit.
domina, ie Mater Magna; N,
0; the continuation of the
previous one?
II.4.1. Raetia, Panonia, Moesia
RAETIA, PANNONIA,
MOESIA
TEXT
238. Wilten bei Innsbruck,
Raetia dfx.7.5/1, tab.
opistogr.; Versnel: 1991;
grave; half of the 2nd
cent.
A: Secundina Mercurio et Moltino mandat, ut,
si quis *(denarios) XIIII sive draucus
(=draucos?) duos sustulit, ut eum sive
fortunas eius in(fi)dus Cacus sic auferat,
quomodo ill(a)e ablatum est (i)d, quod vobis
delegat, ut B: persecuatis (=persequatis)
vobisque deligat, ut persicuatis (=persequatis)
et eum aversum a fortunis (s)uis avertatis et a
suis proxsimis et ab eis, quos carissimos
(h)abeat. (Ho)c vobis mandat, vos (e)um
p(er?)se(cu)atis?/corripiatis? – the addition of
Versnel (1991, 83).
NN (quis); theft;
vengeance: restrictions
Mercurius, Moltinus,
Cacus; Secundina; R
historiola
239. Petronell, Pannonia
Sup., um dfx.8.3/1; Egger
1962; Kropp 2004a;
amphitheatre; the end of the
2nd
cent.
Sa(nc)te Dite pater et Veracura et Cerbere,
auxilie, q(u)i tenes limina inferna sive sive
superna VM alphab.: ΔΜΟΗΡΜΗ... Σολουμ
νος σφραγες φορ(ε)ται ν ρα το? λ[εσθναι] …
v(os) pre(co)r fa(ci)a(tis) (Eudemum?)… (a)d
r(egnum? inf)ernum quam cel(e)ris(s)i(me)
infra dies nove(m) vasum reponat. Defigo
Eudem(um), nec(et)i(s) eum pes(s)imo leto, ad
inf(er)os d(uca)tis, eundem recol(l)igatis
M(anibu)s ministeria infernorum (d)eu(m).
(Quom)od(o) il(l)e plu(m)bus po(n)dus
h(a)bet, sic et (E)ud(e)mus h(a)beat v(o)s
iratos Inter la(r)vas … ate ia(m) hostiat quam
celeris(s)im(e)… m…
1 m. acc./nom.; theft;
return; vengeance: death
VM alphab., sancte Dis
pater, Veracura (Iuno
Aeracura, Cerberus; N, F
240. Gigen, Moesia … bebet in a ...pici ancil(l)is si ..l lenis menbra
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
516
dfx.9.1/1; So 1998; Egger
1952; water (baths?); the
first half of the 2nd
cent.;
very corrupted text
… ret me sic pupu(m),…us sic An(niam)
anu(m) ve … ut ego possi(m) tib(i) …(s)ic
patias res it(em?)… de(ve)xavi(t) ang(oribus)
…(ma)m(illis), ar(tubus), cer(vicibus),
ne(rvis,) as(pectui), um(brae)… (c)erebro
usque dum…
NN Annia? N?,
N/vengeance?
X, N
II.5. Britannia
BRITANNIA
TEXT
241. Eccles villa
(Aylesford) dfx.3.1/1; Brit.
17; tab. opistogr.; in a
house; the first half of the
4th
cent.; corrupted text
A: S(unt?) s(upra)s(crip)ti.11
B: Donatio
diebus (=deis). Quo(d) per(did)it? Butu
resque, qu(a)e fu(rat/ur?) nec ante
sanetate(m) (=sanitatem) nec salute(m)
(habeat?), nesi qua(m) in do(m)o die
(=dei)…sanetate(m) in do(mo dei?).
the names are missing;
theft; return, vengeance:
restrictions
diebus (deis); Butu? R;
boustrophedon
242. Bath dfx.3.2/1, To 4,
DT 104; shrine (water
source); the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
Qu(i) mihi VILBIAM (=fibulam) in(v)olavit,
sic liqu(esc)at com(odo) aqua … qui eam
(invol)avit: …Velvinna, Ex(s)u pereus,
Verianus, Severinus, Agustalis, Comitianus,
Minianus, Catus, Germanill(a), Iovina…
NN (qui) + 3 f. nom. + 7 m.
nom.; theft; suspected
thieves; vengeance: death
Dea Sulis (impl.); N (mihi),
0; written right-to-left
11
The addition of Kropp (2008) who supposes that there were several names of the
thieves, or the formula si vir si mulier…; however, the latter has not preserved due to
the damage to the text.
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
517
243. Bath dfx.3.2/2; To
100; DT 105; To 1994; tab.
opistogr.; shrine (water
source); the 4th
cent.
A: Si puer si puella, si vir si femina, qui h(oc)
invol(a)vit non ei remittatur,12
nis(i)
innocsentia(m) ale … B: non illi dimitta(t)ur
nec somnum, nisi ut Euticia modium nebulae
modium veniat fumi
SVSM/Euticia? theft;
vengeance: restrictions
Dea Sulis (impl.); N, 0
244. Bath dfx.3.2/6; To 5;
shrine (water source); the 4th
cent.
(D)ocimedis (p)erdidi(t) manicilia dua; qui
illas involavi(t), ut mentes sua(s) perd(at) et
oculos su(o)s in fano ubi destina(t).
NN (qui), theft; vengeance:
restrictions
Dea Sulis (impl.);
(D)ocimedis, F
245. Bath dfx.3.2/7; To 6;
shrine (water source); the 3rd
cent.?; corrupted text
A: lost text; B:…Stragulum q(ue)m (p)erdidi,
anima(m) … (invo)lavit … nisi s(an)g(u)ine
sua.
NN, theft; vengeance
Dea Sulis (impl.); N, 0
246. Bath dfx.3.2/8; To 8;
tab. opistogr.; shrine (water
source); the 3rd
cent.?
A: (D)eae Suli donavi (arge)ntiolos sex, quos
perd(idi). A nomin(i)bus infrascript(is) deae
exactura est: Seniciannus (=Senecianus?) et
Saturnius sed et Ann(i)ola, carta picta
persc(ripta). B: Ann(i)ola, Senicianus,
Saturninus.
2 m. nom. + 1 f. nom.; theft;
suspected thieves; return
deae Suli; N, R
247. Bath dfx.3.2/10; To
10; tab. opistogr.; shrine
(water source); the 2nd
cent.
A: Docilianus Bruceri deae sanctissim(a)e
Suli devoveo eum, (q)ui caracellam
(=caracallam) meam involaverit, si vir, si
femina, si servus, si liber, ut(i e)um dea Sulis
maximo letum (=leto) (a)digat nec ei somnum
permit B: tat nec natos nec nascentes, do(ne)c
NN (qui), theft; return;
vengeance: restrictions,
death
12
Reading according to Tomlin (1994, 106).
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
518
deae sanctissimae Suli;
Docilianus Bruceri; F
caracallam meam ad templum sui numinis
per(t)ulerit.
248. Bath dfx.3.2/14; To
15; shrine (water source);
the 3rd
cent.
Nomen rei, qui destrale (=dextrale)
involaverit (donatur/datur?).
NN (qui), theft; N
Dea Sulis (impl.); N, F?
249. Bath dfx.3.2/23; To
31; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
Si cus (=quis) vomerem Civilis involavit, ut
an(imam) suua(m) in templo deponat, (si?
n)o(n) vom(erem) … ub … (si ser)vus, si liber,
si libertinus … unan … o finem faci(a)m.
SVSM, theft; vengeance:
death
Dea Sulis (impl.); Civilis; 0
250. Bath dfx.3.2/24; To
32; shrine (water source);
the 3rd
/4th
cent.
Deae Suli Minerv(a)e Solinus, dono numini
tuo, maiestati paxsa(m)(=pexam?)
ba(ln)earem et (pal)leum, (ne p)ermitta (s
so)mnum nec san(ita)tem ei, qui mihi
fr(a)udem (f)ecit, si vir, si femi(na), si servus,
s(i) l(ib)er, nissi (s)e retegens istas s(p)ecies
ad (te)mplum tuum detulerit … (li)beri sui vel
son… sua e(t?) qui … deg … ei quoque …
xe… (so)mnum ne(c sanitate)m …n
…(p)aluleum (=pallium) et relinq(ua)s, nissi
ad (te)mplum tuum istas res retulerint.
SVSM, theft; return;
restrictions
deae Suli Minervae;
Solinus; R
251. Bath dfx.3.2/25; To
33; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
Deo Marti … do(no?) maiest(ati tuo)
sacellum (=sagellum)13
… nisi e …
NN, theft; N
deo Marti; N, R
13
The addition of Kropp (2008), probably a graphic version of sagulum, i.e. a military
cloak. Tomlin (1988, No. 31) supposes that someone might have stolen edificial
components during the construction of a small shrine.
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
519
252. Bath dfx.3.2/26; To
34; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
Deae Suli Minervae: Docca dono numini tuo
pecuniam, quam … (a)misi, id est (denarios)
V, et is, (q)ui (eam involaveri)t, si ser(vu)s, s(i
liber), (si vir, si femina?), exsigatur…
NN (qui); theft; return
Deae Suli Minervae;
Docca; R
253. Bath dfx.3.2/27; To
35; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
Deae Sul(i) Minervae: rogo (s)anctissimam
maiestatem tuam, u(t) vindices ab his, (q)ui
(fraude)m fecerunt, ut ei(s per)mittas nec
semnum (=somnum) (nec)…
NN (qui); other; return;
restrictions
Deae Suli Minervae; N, 0
254. Bath dfx.3.2/28; To
36; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
(Si? q(uis?) … et invola(vit/verit) duo de …
de(a/us?)14
adhuisgar(?) deveniat, si lib(er), si
ser(v)us, si puer, (si) (p)uella, si vir, s(i
mulier?)…
SVSM, theft; vengeance?
deus/Minerva Sulis? N, 0
255. Bath dfx.3.2/30; To
38; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
(Deae Suli?): dono ti(bi) ... ream … (se?)
l(i)sivio (=lixivio?) meo…(E)x(i)gas pe(r
sanguinem? e)ius, qui has (involave)rit vel qui
(medius? fuer)it, si femina … (si) liber …sa
…(d)um/tuum?15
pertuleri(t).
SVSM, theft; return;
vengeance
deae Suli (?) N, F?;
256. Bath dfx.3.2/31; To
39; shrine (water source);
Qui involaverit, Totia(?) volav(erit?) ... si
ser(v)us, si lib(e)r anima(m) suam ... (q)u(i
14
Kropp (2008) adds de(us); however, in this case dea would be more logical with
respect to the fact that the tablet comes from Bath and most of the tablets found in
this locality are addressed to the goddess – dea Sulis. But see also the curse No. 191
from Bath addressed to Mercury, or the identical formula in the talet No. 260.
15
The addition of tuum by Tomlin (1988, 38).
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
520
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
i)nvolav(erit?… a(m) meam… qu(i)
in(volaverit?)…
NN/Totia?; theft; N
Dea Sulis (impl.); N, 0
257. Bath dfx.3.2/32; To
40; shrine (water source);
2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted text
Qui calamea (=calum(n)ia(m)?) negat sanguine
… de(s)t(in)at.
NN (qui); other; vengeance
Dea Sulis (impl.); N, 0
258. Bath dfx.3.2/33; To
41; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
…(dir)ipuit, ut (eo)rum pretium (statuas? et
e)xigas hoc per sanguinem et sa(nitatem
sua)m et suorum nec ante illos pati(a)r(is
bibere? nec m)anducare nec adsellare
(=cacare) nec (meiere?) … ius(?) hoc …
bisoverit (=absolverit?).
names are missing/NN?;
theft; return; vengeance:
restrictions
Dea Sulis (impl.); N, 0
259. Bath dfx.3.2/34; To
42; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
a.e.na …(qui?)… fecit do(no?)…(i)n fano
Su(lis?)/su(o?)…
NN, N, N?
Dea Sulis (impl.); N, F?;
260. Bath dfx.3.2/36; To
44; tab. opistogr.; shrine
(water source); the 3rd
/4th
cent.; corrupted text
A: A(e)n(um me)um qui levavit, xconic(tu)s
(=(e)xconfictus? i.e. exconfixus) (e)st. Templo
Sulis dono si mulier si baro, si servus, si liber,
si pure (=puer), si puella, et qui hoc fecerit,
sangu(in)em suum in ipsmu (=ipsum) aenmu
(=aenum) fundat. B: Dono si mul(ie)r, si
baro, si servus, si liber, si puer, si puella.
Eum latr(on)em, qui rem ipsam involavi(t),
deus (i)nvenia(t).
SVSM, theft; vengeance:
death
deus; N, F
written right-to-left
261. Bath dfx.3.2/37; To
45; tab. opistogr.; shrine
A: Deae Suli … is, qu(i) … B: si servus, si
liber, (si) qui(s)cumq(ue) … erit. Non illi
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
521
(water source); the 3rd
/4th
cent.; corrupted text (esp.
side A)
permittas nec oculos nec sanitatem, nisi
(=sed?) caecitatem orbitatemque, quoad
vixerit, nisi haec ad fanum … (pertulerit?).
SVSM, theft? return;
vengeance: restrictions
deae Suli; N, F?
262. Bath dfx.3.2/38, To
46; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
De(ae) Suli Mine(r)vae eos, qui amaliama ...
trasvendet stilum la … corregentetc … geet …
fan … tsuu … dea … te do(no?) … et qo
habunit … setrodeam et san(g)uene sua … bit
qui me vit isetmalu.ic.em … Docigenius et …
eane16NN, theft? vengeance
deae Suli Minervae; snad
Docigenius; F
263. Bath dfx.3.2/39; To
47; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
…(tib)i(?) q(u)er(or) … exxigi (=exigi), (si
servu)s, si liber hoc tulerit, (non il)li permittas
in sangu(i)ne … sui…
SVSM, theft; vengeance:
restrictions, death
tibi – Dea Sulis (impl.); N
264. Bath dfx.3.2/41; To
49; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
Qu(i involavi)t cab(al)lar(e)m, (si vir, si
f)emina, si ser(v)us, (si libe)r… dea Sul(is).
SVSF (qui), theft; N
dea Sulis; N, 0
265. Bath dfx.3.2/44; To
52; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
(Ne perm)ittas(?) (somn)um nec
sanita(tem…n)isi tandiu (=tamdiu) ta …iat
quandiu (=quamdiu) hoc (ill)ud/apud? se
habuerit, (s)i vir, si femina et… si ancilla.
SVSM, theft; return;
16
The text comprises of seven fragments and is damaged to a large extent. The author
wrote it very negligently so it is hard to reconstruct it; see Tomlin (1988, 46).
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
522
vengeance: restrictions
Dea Sulis (impl.); N, 0
266. Bath dfx.3.2/46; To
54; tab. opistogr.; shrine
(water source); the 3rd
/4th
cent.; corrupted text
A: B +
B:…at.ad.itamo conq(u)aer(or)(=conqueror)
tibi, Sulis, Arminia, (ut) Verecundinum
Ter(en)ti c(ons)umas, qui argentiolos duos
mihi … revavit (=levavit?). No(n il)l(i
p)ermittas nec sedere nec iacere (ne)c
…a(m)bulare n(ec) somn(um nec) sanitatem,
(illu)m/(cu)m?)17
quantocius consumas et
iter(u)m … (no)n perveniat.
1 m. acc. pater; theft;
return?; vengeance:
restrictions
B: tibi Sulis; Arminia; 0
267. Bath dfx.3.2/49; To
57; shrine (water source);
the 3rd
/4th
cent.; corrupted
text
Deae … Exsib(uus?) … dona(vit) il(l)os, qui
ban … sunt … (si servus) si l(iber, si bar)o si
m(u)l(i)e(r), sa(nguinem?)…
SVSM, N
deae (Suli); Exsibuus(?) F
268. Bath dfx.3.2/52; To
60; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
Oconea deae Suli M(inervae): dono (ti)bi
pannum (=pannam?) Si quis eum …
(involavit?).
NN (quis), theft; N
deae Suli Minervae;
Oconea; R
269. Bath dfx.3.2/53; To
61; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
Lovernisca d(onat) eum, qui, sive v(ir) sive
femina, s(i)ve puer, sive puella, qui mafortium
i(n)volaverit.
SVSM, theft? N
Dea Sulis (impl.);
Lovernisca; F; written rightto-left
and mirror-like
17
The addition of Tomlin (1988, No. 54), or cum.
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
523
270. Bath dfx.3.2/54; To
62; shrine (water source);
the 3rd
/4th
cent.; corrupted
text
…eocorotis … perdedi (=perdidi) la(enam)
(pa)lleum (=pallium), sagum, paxsam
(=pexsam?). Do(navi) … (S)ulis, ut hoc ante
dies novem, (si li)ber, si servus, si (li)bera, si
serva, si pure (=puer), si puell(a, i)n rostr(o)
s(uo) defera(t) … caballarem, s(i servus, si
liber, si) serva, si libera, si puer, (si puella) in
suo rostro defer(at?)…
SVSM, theft; return
Sulis;…eocorotis (?
author’s name); R; written
right-to-left
271. Bath dfx.3.2/55; To
63; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
Deae Suli: si quis balniarem (=balnearem)
Cantissen(a)e inv(o)la(v)erit, si s(e)r(v)us, si
liber… mena
SVSM, theft; N
deae Suli; Cantissena; 0
272. Bath dfx.3.2/56; To
64; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.; corrupted
text
… quiescit18
lit … sanitatem invictus, nisi
eidem loco ipsum pallium (re)ducat.
N, theft; return; vengeance:
restrictions?)
Dea Sulis (impl.); N, 0
273. Bath dfx.3.2/57; To
66; shrine (water source);
the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
Exsuperius donat pannum ferri (=pannam?),
qui illi innoc(entiam?) … nfam tusc … Sulis,
si vir, (si femin)a, s(i) ser(v)us si liber. Ho(c)
… ill … et … er suas inv(o)la(veru)n(t), s(i)
vir, si femina, s(ati)sfecerit sanguin(e)
ill(o)rum. Hoc devindices, (si?) q(u)is aenum
mihi involav(i)t.
SVSM, theft; vengeance:
death?
Sulis; Exsuperius; R
274. Bath dfx.3.2/73; To
94; shrine (water source);
Uricalus, Do(c)ilosa ux(or) sua, Docilis filius
suus et Docilina, Decentinus frater suus,
18
One would expect rather nec quiescat here (perhaps a mistake); invictus does not
make sense: if it refers to the thief, it could perhaps stand for victus, or does it refer
to somebody else? Nevertheless, it can be presumed that there was a common
restrictive formula in the text.
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
524
the 4th
cent. Alogiosa: nomina aeorum (=eorum), qui
iuraverunt, qui iuraverunt ad fontem deae
Suli(s) prid(i)e Idus Apriles. Quicumque illic
periuraverit, deae Suli facias illum sanguine
suo illud satisfacere.
3 m. nom. + 3 f. nom.;
other; vengeance: death –
for perjury?
deae Suli, nomina ad
fontem; F
275. Bath dfx.3.2/76; To
97; Brit. 22, 23; tab.
opistogr.; shrine (water
source); the 3rd
/4th
cent.
A: Primurudeum (written vertically)19
. Basilia
donat in templum Martis anilum (anellum)
argenteum, si ser(v)us, si liber, m(e)dius/
(ta)mdiu20
fuerit vel aliquid de hoc noverit, ut
sanguine et liminibus (=luminibus) B: et
omnibus membris configatur vel etiam
intestinis excomesis (om)nibus habe(at)
(=intestina excomesa omnia) is, qui anilum
(=anellum) involavit vel qui medius fuerit.
SVSM, theft; vengeance:
death
in templum Martis; Basilia;
R
276. Bath dfx.3.2/77; To
98; tab. opistogr.; shrine
(water source); the 3rd
/4th
cent.
A: Seu gen(tili)s seu ch(r)istianus,
quaecumque (=quicumque), utrum vir,
(u)trum mulier, utrum puer, utrum puella,
utrum s(er)vus, utrum liber, mihi, Annia(n)o
Mantutene (=Matutenae), de bursa mea s(e)x
argente(o)s furaverit, tu, d(o)mina dea, ab
ipso perexi(g)e (eo)s, si mihi per (f)raudem
aliquam inde praeg(u)stum dederit nec sic ipsi
dona, sed ut sanguinem suum eputes
(=epotes/ reputes),21
qui mihi hoc inrogaverit:
B: Postum(inu/ianu?)s, Pisso, Locinna,
(A)launa, Materna, Gunsula, C(an)didina,
Eutic(h)ius, Peregrinus, Latinus, Senicianus
(=Senecianus?), Avitianus, Victor, Sco(ti)us,
Aessicunia, Paltucca, Calliopis, Celerianus.
A: SVSM, B: 11 m. nom. +
7 f.? nom.; theft; suspected
thieves? vengeance
domina dea; Annianus; 0;
written right-to-left, from
below upwards
277. Bath dfx.3.2/78; To Execro (eum), qui involaverit qui (=quod)
19
Perhaps the name of the victim? See Tomlin (1988, No. 97).
20
Tomlin (1988, No. 97) adds tamdiu, Kropp (2008) medius.
21
Tomlin (1988, 234) reads inde praeg(e)stum(?) and reputes, Kropp (2008) states
inde praeg(u)stum and epotes.
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
525
99; shrine (water source);
the 4th
cent.
Deomiorix de hosipitio (=hospitio) suo
perdiderit. Quicumque r(es)/ (e)r(it?),22
deus
illum inveniat, sanguine et vitae suae illud
redemat (=redimat).
NN (qui), theft; vengeance:
death
deus; Deomiorix; 0
written right-to-left
278. Bath dfx.3.2/79; To
65; shrine (water source);
the 3rd
/4th
cent.
Minerv(a)e de(ae) Suli donavi furem, qui
caracallam meam involavit, si ser(v)us, si
liber, si baro, si mulier. Hoc donum non
redemat, nessi (=nisi) sangu(i)n(e) suo.
SVSM, theft; vengeance
Minervae deae Suli; N, F
279. Bath dfx.3.2/82; To
103; shrine (water source),
the 4th
cent.; corrupted text
...modususio. iuiuci ?… Deus faci(a)t(?)
ani(m)am p(e)rd(e)re sui.
N, N, vengeance
deus; N, 0; boustrophedon?
280. Brandon dfx.3.3/1;
Brit. 25; water; 4th
cent.;
corrupted text
SERADVASORISDVAS23
s(i) ser(v)us, si
ancel(l)a, si li(bertus, si) liberta, si m(u)lie(r),
si baro, popia(m) fer(re)a(m) eaenec furtum
fecer(it), domino Neptuno cor(u)lo
pare(n)ta(tu)r.
SVSM, theft; vengeance:
death; F?
domino Neptuno; N, 0
281. Brean Down dfx.3.4/1;
Brit 17; shrine; the second
half of the 4th
cent.
…(dono? ti?)b(i?)24
…caricula, quae (amisi?
Si s)er(v)u(s si) liber, si ba(ro) s(i muli)er, qui
… (d)omina … facias sic (i)lla (re)dim(a)t
sa(n)guin(e s)uo … si bar(o), si mulier…
SVSM, theft; vengeance
22
Tomlin (1988, 235) adds res, Kropp (2008) erit.
23
Hassall – Tomlin (1995, 295) intepret the uninteligible part as an anagram of
adversarius?
24
The addition of dono tibi and amisi by Kropp (2008). Although tis addition is quite
logical and fitting to the formulary of prayers for justice, it does not correspond to
the preserved corrupted text; see Hassall – Tomlin (1986, 434).
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
526
domina; N, R
282. Broomhill dfx.3.5/1;
Brit 25; tab. opistogr.; in
the soil; 0
A: S(i) se(r)vus, si (l)ib(er),(qu)i (f)uravit,
su(st)ulit, (ne ei) dimitte (male)fic(i)um, d(u)m
tu vindi(c)a(s) B: ante dies nov(em), si
pa(g)a(n)us, si mil(e)s, (qui) su(s)tulit.
SVSM, theft; vengeance
X, N, 0; mirror-like
283. Caerleon dfx.3.6/1; Ga
100; amphitheatre; 1st
cent.
– half of the 2nd
cent.
Dom(i)na Nemesis, do tibi palleum
(=pallium) et galliculas. Qui tulit, non
redimat ni(si) vita, sanguinei suo.
NN (qui), theft; vengeance:
death
domina Nemesis; N, R
284. Caistor St. Edmund
dfx.3.7/1; Brit. 13; water; 0
A Nase … eve(h)it Vroc … sius fascia(m) et
armi(lla)s, cap(t)olare (=capitulare),
spectr(um? =speculum?), cufia(m) (=cofiam),
duas ocrias, X vasa stagnea, si mascel, si
memina (=femina), si puer, si pu(e)lla. Duas
ocrisa (=ocri(as), si vull(u)eris (=volueris?),
factae sang(uine) suo, ut (i)llu(m) requeratat
(=requirat) Neptu(nu)s et amictus et cufia et
arm(i)lla(e )… denarii XV cape(t)olare. Tunc
sanguin(e) fasciam tenet fur e c(h)arta
s(upra)s(cripta) … ratio(n)e.
SVSM/1 m.?; theft; return;
vengeance: death
Neptunus; A Nase…(the
author?); R; N; reward to
the deity
285. Hamble dfx.3.11/1;
Brit 28; water (estuary); the
4th
cent.
Domine Neptune, t(i)b(i) d(o)no (h)ominem,
qui (so)ldmu (=solidum) involav(it) Muconi et
argenti(olo)s sex. Ide(o) dono nomi(n)a
(eius?), qui decepit, si mascel, si femina, si
puuer, si puuella. Ideo dono tibi, Niske, et
Neptuno vitam, valitudinem, sangu(in)em
eius, qui conscius fueris (=fuerit) eius
deceptionis, animus (eius?), qui hoc involavit
et qui conscius fuerit, ut eum decipias furem,
qui hoc involavit, sangu(in)em eiius consumas
et decipias, domin(e) Ne(p)tune.
SVSM, theft; vengeance:
death
domine Neptune, Niske;
Muconius; F
286. Kelvedon dfx.3.12/1;
in a house (Roman
Quicumque res Vareni involaverit, si mulrer
(=mulier), si mascel, sangu(i)no suo solvat et
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
527
oppidum) in the stove; the
first half of the 3rd
cent.
pecunie (=pecuniam), quam exesuerit
(=exsolverit?), Mercurio donat et Virtuti
s(acra)/s(emis).25
NN (quicumque), theft;
return?; vengeance; reward
to the deity
Mercurio et Virtuti;
Varenus; 0
287. London Bridge
dfx.3.14/3; Brit 18; tab.
opistogr.; water; 0
A: Tibi rogo, Metunus (=te rogo Neptune),
u(t) m(e) vendicas de iste numene (=de isto
nomine) me vendicas ante q(u)od ven(iant)
die(s) novem, rogo te, Metunus (=Neptunus),
ut (t)u mi (=me) vend(i)cas ante q(u)o(d)
ven(iant) di(es) n(o)vem. B: Xuparanti
(=Exsuparantius, Silviele (=Silviola),
Sattavil(l)e, Xuparatus (=Exsuparatus),
Silvicol(a)e, Avitus, Melusso datus, peruci tibi
(=pervici tibi): Santinus, Mag…etus, apidimis
Antoni(us), San(c)tus, Vas(s)ianus, Varasius
datus.
13: 10 m. nom. + 3 f. nom.;
N ; supposed culprits;
vengeance?
Metunus (=Neptunus); N;
side B written mirror-like
unclockwise around the
margins of the tablet
288. London dfx.3.14/6;
Brit 34; amphitheatre; the
2nd
/3rd
cent.
(D)eae Dea(na)e dono capitularem et
fas(c)iam minus parte tertia. Si quis hoc
feci(t), (s)i p(u)er, si (p)uella, s(i) (s)er(vus)
s(i liber), don(o eum) nec p(er) me (vi)v(ere)
possit.
SVSM, theft; vengeance;
reward to the deity
deae Deanae; N, R
289. Lydney Park
dfx.3.15/1; Versnel 1987;
Ga 99; Celtic-Roman;
shrine; the 1st
/4th
-5th
cent.
Devo (=divo) Nodenti: Silvianus anilum
(=anellum) perdedit, demediam (=dimidiam)
partem donavit Nodenti. Inter quibus nomen
Seneciani nollis petmittas (=permittas) sanitatem,
donec perfera(t) usque templum
(No)dentis.
NN; theft; return,
vengeance: restrictions,
reward to the deity
devo Nodenti; Silvianus; R
25
Reading semis, see Egger (1964, 16 ff.).
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
528
290. Marlborough Downs
dfx.3.16/1; Brit 30; in the
soil; the 4th
cent.?; corrupted
text
…Do… deo Marti a.vnisea id (est?)… eculium
(=equuleum) (m)eum et secur(im) …tidisse
e(t?)… illum iume(ntum). Rogat genium tuum,
dom(ine), ut quampr(imu)m re(sideant?) nec
eant per annos novem. N(on eis) permittas nec
sedere (nec) … mimbric…
NN, theft; vengeance:
restrictions
deo Marti; N, 0
291. Pagans Hill dfx.3.18/1;
Brit 15 a 22; the first half of
the 3rd
cent.; corrupted text
(esp. in the beginning)
(Deo Mercu)ri(o?)… mitr … pio …in*
(denari)is III milibus, cuius (de)mediam
(=dimidiam) partem tibi (dono?), ut ita illum
(e)xigas a Vassicillo …pecomini filio et uxore
sua, quoniam (per)tussum (=percussum?),
quod illi de hospitiolo m(eo)…(pec)ulaverint.
Nec illis (p)ermittas sanit(atem) nec bibere
nec ma(n)d(u)care nec dormi(re) (nec nat)os
sanos habe(a)nt, nessi (=nisi) hanc rem
(meam) ad fanum tuum (at)tulerint. Iteratis
(pre)c(i)bus te rogo, ut (ab ip)sis nominibus
(inimicorum) meorum hoc (percu)ssum?
recipi(atur?), perven(ia)t.
1 m. pater + 1 f. (uxor);
theft; return; vengeance:
restrictions; reward to the
deity
deo Mercurio(?) N, R
292. Ratcliffe-on-Soar
dfx.3.19/1; Versnel 1991;
Brit 24; shrine, the first half
of the 3rd
cent.
Donatur deo Iovi Optimo Maximo, ut exigat
per mentem, per memoriam, per intus, per
intestinum, per cor, (p)er medullas, per venas,
per…as…Si mascel, si femina, quivis involavit
* (dena)rios Cani Digni, ut in corpore suo in
brevi temp(or)e pariat. Donatur deo
ssto(supra scripto?) decima pars eius
pecuniae, quam (so)lverit.
SVSM, theft; return;
vengeance: restrictions,
accursed body parts
deo Iovi Optimo Maximo;
Canus Dignus; F; reward to
the deity
293. Ratcliffe-on-Soar
dfx.3.19/2; Brit 24 and 35;
shrine; the 4th
cent.;
corrupted text
Annoto de duas ocrias (=ocreis), ascia(m),
scalpru(m), ma(n)ica(m), si m(ulier) au(t) si
b(aro)… duas partis deo ac cevm…
SVSM, theft; return; reward
to the deity
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
529
deo; N, 0
294. Ratcliffe-on-Soar
dfx.3.19/3; Brit 24; on the
surface/shrine; 0
Nomine Camulorigi(s) et Titocun(a)e molam
(=mulam), quam perdederunt, in fanum dei
devovi. Cuicumque (=cuiuscumque) num(e)n
(=nomen) involasit mola(m) illam, ut sa(n)guin(em)
suum mittat, usque diem, quo
moriatur. Q(ui)cumque invo(l)a(sit) (f)urta,
moriatur, et paulatoriam(?) quicumque
(illam) involasit, et ipse moriato mo(ri)atur.
Quicumqu(e) illam involasit et vertogn(?) de
(h)ospitio vel vissacio (bissacium?),
quicumque illam involasit, a devo (=deo?)
mori(a)tur.
NN (quicumque), theft;
vengeance: death
dei; nomine Camulorigis et
Titocunae; R; written right-
to-left
295. Uley dfx.3.22/2; To
1993:1; tab. opistogr.;
shrine of Mercury; half of
the 3rd
cent.
A: Deo Mercurio Cenacus queritur de
Vitalino et Natalino filio ipsius d(e)
iument(o?), quod ei raptum est e(t) rogat
deum Mercurium, ut nec ante sanitatem B:
habeant, nissi nissi repraese(n)taverint mihi
(iu)mentum, quod rapuerunt, et deo
devotione(m), qua(m) ipse ab his
expostulaverit.
2 m. pater, theft; return;
vengeance: restrictions;
reward to the deity
deo Mercurio; Cenacus; 0
296. Uley dfx.3. 22/3; To
1993:2; tab. opistogr.;
shrine of Mercury; the 2nd
-
4th
cent.
A: Commonitorium deo Mercurio a Saturnina
muliere de lintiamine (=linteamine), quod
amisit, ut ille, qui ho(c) circumvenit, non ante
laxetur, nissi quand(o) res s(upra)dictas ad
fanum s(upra)d(ic)tum attul(e)rit, si vir si
(mu)lier, si servus si liber. B: Deo
s(upra)dicto tertiam partem (d)onat, ita ut
exsigat istas res, quae s(upra)s(crip)ta(e) sunt
aca(?) quae per(didi)t. Deo Silvano tertia
pars donatur, ita ut hoc exsigat, si vir, si
femina, si servus, si liber … at
SVSF, theft; return;
vengeance: restrictions;
reward to the deity
deo Mercurio (re-written
over Marti Silvano), deo
Silvano; Saturnina; 0
297. Uley dfx.3.22/4; To
1993: 3; shrine of Mercury;
Deo M(a)rti Mercuri(o) … anulus aureus de
ho(spitiolo? involaverit/ furaver(it)26
et pedica
26
Tomlin (1991, 308) proposes the addition of involaverit; Kropp (2008) furaverit.
Both additions are logical and necessary.
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
530
the 2nd
/4th
cent. ferre(a) … s qui fraudem feci(t )… br… deus
inveni(a)t.
NN (qui), theft; vengeance
(see No. 277)
deo Marti Mercurio; N, 0
298. Uley dfx.3.22/5; To
1993: 4; discus, shrine of
Mercury; the 4th
cent.
Biccus dat Mercurio quidquid pe(r)d(id)it. Si
vir, si mascel, ne maiet (=meiat), ne cacet, ne
loquatur, ne dormiat, n(e) vigilet nec
s(al)utem nec sanitatem (habeat?), ness(i)
(=nisi) in templo Mercurii pertulerit, ne(c)
co(n)scientiam de (hoc furto?) perferat, nessi
me intercedente.
SVSM, theft; return;
vengeance: restrictions
Mercurio; Biccus; R
299. Uley dfx.3.22/6; To
1993: 5; discus; shrine of
Mercury; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
Nomen furis, (qu)i frenem (=frenum)
involaverit, si l(i)ber, si servus, si baro, si
mulier, deo donatur, duas partes afima(?) sua
tertia ad sanitatem (templum?)
SVSM, theft; return;
vengeance?; reward to the
deity
deo; N, F
300. Uley dfx.3.22/16; Brit
20; shrine of Mercury; the
2nd
-4th
cent.
Deo Mercurio Docilinus quaenm(?) Varianus
et Peregrina et Sabinianus, qu(i) pecori meo
dolum malum intulerunt et in t(e)rr(a?)
prolocuntur (=proloquuntur). Rogo te, ut eos
max(i)mo (le)to adigas nec eis sanit(atem nec)
somnum perm(itt)as, nisi a te quod m(ihi)
ad(mi)ni(strav)erint, redem(e)rint.
2 m. nom. + 1 f. nom.;
other; return; vengeance:
death
deo Mercurio; Docilinus; 0
301. Uley dfx.3.22/22; Brit
26; shrine of Mercury; the
2./3. cent.
Deo Mercurio Mintla Rufus: donavi eos, vel
mulier vel pariusliifaspatem(?)…(ma)teriam
sagi donavi.
SVSM, theft?; N
deo Mercurio; Mintla
Rufus; F
302. Uley dfx.3.22/24;
shrine of Mercury; the 1st
cent.; corrupted text
Mercurio res id est lanam.
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
531
N, theft; N
Mercurio; N R
303. Uley dfx.3.22/29; Brit
23; To 1993: 72; shrine of
Mercury; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
Deo sancto Mercurio Honoratus: conqueror
numini tuo me perdidisse rotas duas et vaccas
quattuor et resculas plurimas de hospitiolo
meo. Rogaverim genium numinis tuui (=tui),
ut ei, qui mihi fraudem fecerit, sanitatem ei
non permittas nec iacere nec sedere nec
bibere nec manducare, si baro, si mulier, si
puer, si puella, si servus, si liber, nissi meam
rem ad me pertulerit et meam concordiam
habuerit. Iteratis pr(a)ecibus rogo numen
tuum, ut petitio mea statim pareat (=pariat)
me vindicatum esse a maiestate tua.
SVSM, theft; return;
vengeance: restrictions
deo sancto Mercurio;
Honoratus; 0
304. Uley dfx.3.22/32; To
1993,76; Brit 26; tab.
opistogr.; shrine of
Mercury; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
A: (Deo) sancto Mercuri(o). (Que)r(or) tibi de
illis, qui mihi male cogitant et male faciunt
supra ed… s … iumen(tum?) … si servus, si
liber, si m(ascel), si (fem)ina, ut non illis
permittas nec sta(r)e nec sedere nec bibere B:
nec manducar(e), n(e)c h(as) (i)r(a)s
redemere possi(n)t, nessi sanguine suo
aene(?).
SVSM, other; vengeance:
restrictions
deo sancto Mercurio; N, 0
305. Uley dfx.3.22/34; To
1993, 78; shrine of
Mercury; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.;
corrupted text
Tibi commendo… qui mihi fraudem fecit de
denar(ii)s ill(i)s quos (mih)i debebat …
seminudi, edentuli, tremuli, podagrici, sine
cuiusque hominis missericordia … in fanum et
thesaurum potententiss(imi) (=potentissimi)
dei.
NN (qui), other; return;
vengeance: restrictions -
disease
potentissimi dei; N, F
306. Uley dfx.3.22/36; To
1993, 80; Brit 27; shrine of
Mercury; the 3rd
cent.;
corrupted text
C(h)arta, qu(a)e Mercurio donatur, ut
manecilis (=manicilis), qui (=quae)
per(i)erunt, ultionem requirat; qui illos
(=illa) invalaviit (=involavit), ut illi
sangu(in)em (e)t sanitatem tolla(t); qui ipsos
NN (qui), theft; vengeance
APPENDIX II: THE CORPUS OF LATIN PRAYERS FOR JUSTICE
532
Mercurio; N, 0 manicil(o)s (=ipsa manicilia) tulit, (u)t
quantocicius (=quantocius?) illi pareat
(=pariat), quod deum Mercurium r(o)gamus
… ura .. q.ncu …lat(?)
307. Wanborough
dfx.3.23/1; Brit 3; x, the
second half of the 2nd
cent.;
corrupted text
…(D)epre(co)r te, peto … evene … peto
iudicio tuo qu(i?) d(e me? p)eculans …tum, ne
lil(l)i permittas bibere nec (esse nec vigilare
nec do)rmire nec ambulare neque ullam
(partem vivere sinas? illiu)s gentisve, unde
ille nascit(ur) …ulla nec alumen
(=alimentum/a) … pr(ae?) ve(h)emente(r?)
loquantur et r … ugabatur(?) certum
sciu(n)t…si… meverecameve … meor..(?)
N, other; vengeance:
restrictions
X, N, 0
308. Britannia? dfx.3.24/1;
Brit 22; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
(Don)atur deo Merc(urio, si) q(u)is
involaverit c … lam .icinnum(?) nec non alia
minutalia Tocitami(?), si baro, si mulier, si
puel(l)a, si puer, si ingenuus, si servus. N(o)n
an(t)e eum laset (=laxet), quam mimbra
(=membra) (ra?)pi manu (ad?) diem mortis
concrutiat (=concruciat) e(u)m, qu(i) securam
(=securim) (I)nnioris (Iunioris?) involavit ea
… aeapr(?) nec non et ququi (=qui) res
(p)ictor(i)a(s?) involaverit.
SVSM, theft; vengeance
deo Mercurio; Toticama,
Iunior(?); F
309. Britannia? dfx.3.24/2;
Brit 19; the 2nd
/3rd
cent.
…amisi, oro tuam m(aie)statem, ut furem
istum, si a(nc)il(l)a, si (p)uer, si (puella),
ext(i)nguas … ut illi s(ic fa)cias perduci27
(r)em ra(ptam?) …um et…
SVSM, theft; return;
vengeance: death?
tuam maiestatem; N, 0
27
Hassall – Tomlin (1988, 489 ff.) suggest perduci instead of reducere?
Appendix III: Concordance to TheDeMa
No. Urbanová No. TheDeMa No. Urbanová No. TheDeMa
1. 256 51. 565
2. 264 52. 571
3. 257 53. 572
4. 147 54. 573
5. 508 55. 1153
6. 1151 56. 576
7. 509 57. 718
8. 855 58. 1184
9. 510 59. 1186
10. 511 60. 1187
11. 512 61. 722
12. 220 62. 724
13. 513 63. 727
14. 514 64. 1192
15. 515 65. 449
16. 516 66. 732
17. 263 67. 190
18. 529 68. 190
19. 533 69. 181
20. 488 70. 739
21. 489 71. 740
22. 490 72. 817
23. 491 73. 741
24. 492 74. 742
25. 536 75. 743
26. 537 76. 744
27. 538 77. 745
APPENDIX III: CONCORDANCE TO THEDEMA
534
No. Urbanová No. TheDeMa No. Urbanová No. TheDeMa
28. 1152 78. 746
29. 539 79. 747
30. 540 80. 748
31. 541 81. 749
32. 542 82. 750
33. 543 83. 766
34. 1145 84. 751
35. 546 85. 261
36. 1059 86. 752
37. 547 87. 757
38. 548 88. 755
39. 550 89. 124
40. 552 90. 131
41. 553 91. 753
42. 554 92. 756
43. 556 93. 133
44. 557 94. 135
45. 308 95. DTM 20 -
46. 561 96. 136
47. 187 97. 121
48. 188 98. 880
49. 482 99. 122
50. 372 100. 258
101. 768 154. 27
102. 769 155. 28
103. 773 156. 29
104. 774 157. 30
105. 775 158. 31
106. 777 159. 32
APPENDIX III: CONCORDANCE TO THEDEMA
535
No. Urbanová No. TheDeMa No. Urbanová No. TheDeMa
107. 778 160. 33
108. 779 161. 34
109. 780 162. 36
110. 782 163. 37
111. 884 164. 38
112. 783 165. 39
113. 784 166. 40
114. 785 167. 41
115. 786 168. 42
116. 787 169. 43
117. 794 170. 44
118. 795 171. 45
119. 796 172. 829
120. 800 173. 833
121. 804 174. 834
122. 805 175. 835
123. 806 176. 47
124. 807 177. 49
125. 808 178. 48
126. 51 179. 50
127. 52 180. 1196
128. 62 181. 836
129. 63 182. 837
130. 93 183. 838
131. 94 184. 148
132. 96 185. 149
133. 97 186. 155
134. 98 187. 1154
135. 99 188. 160
APPENDIX III: CONCORDANCE TO THEDEMA
536
No. Urbanová No. TheDeMa No. Urbanová No. TheDeMa
136. 812 189. 168
137. 814 190. 1155
138. 222 191. 627
139. 1198 192. 1157
140. 68 193. 1160
141. 819 194. 1161
142. 820 195. 665
143. 21 196. 1165
144. 821 197. 1166
145. 824 198. 668
146. 825 199. 669
147. 826 200. 1167
148. 827 201. 671
149. 22 202. 681
150. 23 203. 692
151. 24 204. 698
152. 25 205. 1180
153. 26 206. 1170
207. 604 260. 266
208. 675 261. 619
209. 544 262. 621
210. 459 263. 622
211. 555 264. 624
212. 558 265. 626
213. 560 266. 628
214. 563 267. 631
215. 568 268. 634
216. 569 269. 635
217. 570 270. 637
APPENDIX III: CONCORDANCE TO THEDEMA
537
No. Urbanová No. TheDeMa No. Urbanová No. TheDeMa
218. 598 271. 638
219. 599 272. 639
220. 600 273. 640
221. 721 274. 652
222. 723 275. 654
223. 725 276. 101
224. 733 277. 655
225. 734 278. 197
226. 735 279. 657
227. 738 280. 661
228. 260 281. 662
229. 259 282. 663
230. 767 283. 91
231. 758 284. 664
232. 763 285. 667
233. 289 286. 102
234. 765 287. 670
235. 878 288. 672
236. 754 289. 577
237. 754 290. 674
238. 109 291. 676
239. 265 292. 154
240. 781 293. 679
241. 601 294. 680
242. 150 295. 683
243. 603 296. 684
244. 151 297. 685
245. 152 298. 686
246. 575 299. 687
APPENDIX III: CONCORDANCE TO THEDEMA
538
No. Urbanová No. TheDeMa No. Urbanová No. TheDeMa
247. 156 300. 696
248. 157 301. 702
249. 161 302. 703
250. 162 303 707
251. 163 304 710
252. 164 305 711
253. 165 306 713
254. 167 307 715
255. 169 308 716
256. 170 309 717
257. 615
258. 616
259 617
Abbreviations And Conventions
Be: BESNIER, MAURICE. 1920. “Recent travaux sur les Defixionum tabellae
latines, 1904–1914”. Revue de Philologie 44, 5–30.
Brit.: Britannia, part II, Inscriptiones.
CIL: Corpus Inscriptionum latinarum.
dfx.: KROPP, AMINA. 2008. Defixiones. Ein aktuelles Corpus lateinischer
Fluchtafeln. Speyer: Kartoffeldruck-Verlag Kai Brodersen. = also
Kropp 2008.
DT: AUDOLLENT, AUGUSTE. 1904. Defixionum tabellae. Paris: Albert
Fontemoing.
DTA: WÜNSCH, RICHARD. 1897. Defixionum tabellae atticae, Inscriptiones
Graecae, 3.3. Berlin: G. Reimer.
DTM: BLÄNSDORF, JÜRGEN. 2012. Die defixionum tabellae des Mainzer
Isis- und Mater Magna-Heiligtums, Defixionum tabellae
Mogontiacenses (DTM). In Zusammenarbeit mit Pierre-Yves Lambert
und Marion Witteyer. Generaldirektion Kulturelles Erbe RheinlandPfalz,
Direktion Landesarchäologie Mainz.
Ga: GAGER, JOHN G. 1992. Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the
Ancient World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
GMP: BETZ, HANS D. (ed.). 1986. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation
Including the Demotic Spell. Chicago – London: University of Chicago
Press.
PGM: Papyri Graecae Magicae. 2001. Vol. 1: Karl Preisendanz (ed.), Albert
Heinrichs (rev. ed.), 1973 et 2001; vol. 2: Karl Preisendanz (ed.), 1974.
Alebrt Heinrichs (rev. ed.) 1974 et 2001. München: K. G. Saur.
SGD: JORDAN, DAVID R. 1985. “Survey of Greek Defixiones not Included
in the Special Corpora”. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 26, 151–
197.
SM: Supplementum Magicum. 1990–1992. Robert Daniel – Franco Maltomini
(eds.). Papyrologica Coloniensia 16, Nr. 1, 2. Opladen: Westdeutscher
Verlag.
So: SOLIN, HEIKKI. 1968. “Eine neue Fluchtafel aus Ostia”. Commentationes
humanarum litterarum, Societas scientiarum Fennica 42(3), 3–31.
To: TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. 1988. “The Curse Tablets”. In: Barry Cunliffe
(ed.). The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath. Vol. 2: The Finds from the
BIBLIOGRAPHY
540
Sacred Spring. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology,
59–270.
Tr: TREMEL, JAN. 2004. Magica Agonistica. Fluchtafeln im antiken Sport.
Hildesheim: Weidmann.
TheDeMa (Thesaurus Defixionum Magdeburgensis) http://www-e.unimagdeburg.de/defigo/thedema.php
(last accessed 12 December 2017).
Bibliography
ADAMS, JAMES N. 1992. “British Latin: The Text, Interpretation and
Language of the Bath Curse Tablets”. Britannia 23, 1–26.
ADAMS, JAMES N. 2007. The Regional Diversification of Latin, 200 BC –
600 AD. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ADAMS, JAMES. N. 2013. Social Variation and the Latin Language.
Cambridge University Press.
ADAMIK, BÉLA. 2006. “Offizielles Kommunikationssystem und Romanisierung”.
In: C. Arias Abellán (eds.). Actes du VIIÈme
Colloque international
sur le latin vulgaire et tardif Séville, 2003. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.
AUSTIN, JOHN. 1962. How to do Things with Words. The Williams James
Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
BANFIELD, EDWARD C. 1958. The Moral Basis of Backward Society. New
York: Free Press.
BARCELÓ, PEDRO. 1998. “Hispania”. In: H. Cancik – H. Schneider (eds.).
Der Neue Pauly. Vol. V. Stuttgart: Verlag J. B. Metzler, 618–622.
BARTA, ANDREA. 2009. “The Language of Latin Curse Tablets from
Pannonia. A new Curse tablet from Aquincum”. Acta antiqua academiae
scientiarum Hungaricae 49, 23–29.
BARTA, ANDREA – LASSÁNYI, GÁBOR. 2009. “Sötét, foházsok,
gondalatok a római átokszövegekről egy új aquincumi ólomtábala kapcsán”.
Ókor 3–4, 63–69.
BARTA, ANDREA 2012. “Milites magistratusque”. A new curse tablets from
Savaria. Acta Classica Univ. Scient. Debrecen IIL, 167–173.
BARTA, ANDREA. 2015. “Ito Pater, Eracura and the Messenger. A
Preliminary Report on a New Curse Tablet from Aquincum”. Acta Classica
Univ. Scient. Debrecen LI, 101–113.
BARTA, ANDREA. 2016. “New Remarks on the Latin Curse Tablet from
Savaria”. Hungarian Polis Studies 22, 63–69.
BARTA, ANDREA. 2017. “A Letter to the Underworld a Research Report on
the curse Tablet Aq–2”. Acta antiqua Academiae scientiarum Hungaricae
57, 45–56.
BARTA, ANDREA. 2017a. “The Siscia Curse Tablet from a Linguistic Point of
View. A New Autopsy.” Graeco-Latina Brunensia 22(2), 23– 41.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
542
BARTOLETTI, GUGLIELMO. 1990. “La scrittura nelle tabellae defixionum
(secc. I. a. C. – IV. d. C.). Note paleografiche”. Scrittura e civiltà 14, 7–47.
BETTARINI, LUCA. 2005. Corpus delle defixiones di Selinunte. Alessandria:
Edizioni dell’Orso.
BEVILACQUA, GABRIELA. 1997. “Nuova defixio agonistica da Roma”.
Preatti del XI Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina. Roma:
Edizioni Quasar, 545–556.
BEVILACQUA, GABRIELA. 2009. “Aurora Orchi soror”. Parola del passato
CCCLXIV, 47–70.
BEVILACQUA, GABRIELLA (ed.). 2010. Scrittura e magia. Un repertorio di
oggetti iscritti della magia greco-romana. Opuscula epigraphica 12. Roma:
Edizioni Quasar.
BJÖRCK, GUDMUND. 1938. Der Fluch des Christen Sabinus. Papyrus
Uppsaliensis 8. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells.
BLÄNSDORF, JÜRGEN. 2004. “‘Guter, heiliger Attis’. Eine Fluchtafel aus
dem Mainzer Isis- und Mater-Magna-Heiligtum (inv. Nr. 201 B 36)”. In: K.
Brodersen – A. Kropp (eds.). Fluchtafeln. Neue Funde und neue Deutungen
zum antiken Schadenzauber. Frankfurt a. M.: Verlag Antike, 51–67.
BLÄNSDORF, JÜRGEN. 2005. “The Curse Tablets and Voodoo Dolls from
the Isiac/Mater Magna Sanctuary in Mainz”. MHNH 5, 11–26.
BLÄNSDORF, JÜRGEN. 2007. “‘Würmer und Krebs sollen ihn befallen’: Eine
neue Fluchtafel aus Gross-Gerau“. ZPE 161, 61–65.
BLÄNSDORF, JÜRGEN. 2007/2008. “So verfluchten die alten Römer”.
Chronik, Schuljahr 2007/2008. Speyer: Gymnasium am Kaiserdom, 6–23.
BLÄNSDORF, JÜRGEN. 2008. “Instrumenta inscripta latina II”. In: Manfred
Hainzmann – Reinold Wedenig (eds.). Akten des 2. internationalen
Kolloquiums Klagenfurt 5.–8. 5. 2005. Klagenfurt: Verlag des
Geschichtsvereins für Kärnten, 47–69.
BLÄNSDORF, JÜRGEN. 2010. “The Defixiones from the Sanctuary of Isis
and Mater Magna in Mainz”. In: R. L. Gordon – F. Marco Simón (eds.).
Magical Practice in the Latin West. Papers from the International
Conference held at the University of Zaragoza, 30th Sept. – 1st Oct. 2005.
Leiden: Brill, 141–190.
BLÄNSDORF, JÜRGEN. 2010a. “The Texts from the Fons Annae Perennae”.
In: R. L. Gordon – F. Marco Simón (eds.). Magical Practice in the Latin
BIBLIOGRAPHY
543
West. Papers from the International Conference held at the University of
Zaragoza, 30th Sept. – 1st Oct. 2005. Leiden: Brill, 215–244.
BLÄNSDORF, JÜRGEN. 2010b. “Dal segno alla scrittura. Le defixiones dalla
fontana di Anna Perenna.” Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni. 76(1),
35–64.
BLÄNSDORF, JÜRGEN – KROPP, AMINA – SCHOLZ, MARKUS. 2010.
“‘Perverse agas, comodo hoc perverse scriptu(m) est’ – ein Fluchtäfelchen
aus Köln”. ZPE 174, 272–276.
BLÄNSDORF, JÜRGEN. 2012. Die defixionum tabellae des Mainzer Isis- und
Mater Magna-Heiligtums, Defixionum tabellae Mogontiacenses (DTM). In
Zusammenarbeit mit Pierre-Yves Lambert und Marion Witteyer. Generaldirektion
Kulturelles Erbe Rheinland-Pfalz, Direktion Landes-archäologie
Mainz.
BLÄNSDORF, JÜRGEN. 2012a. “The Social Background of the defixion
Texts of Mater Magna at Mainz and Anna Perenna at Rome”. In:
Piranomonte, M. – F. Marco Simón (eds.). Contesti magici. Atti del
Convegno Internazionale Contesti magici. Roma: Sopraintendenza Speciale
per i Beni Archeologici di Roma, 147–160.
BLÄNSDORF, JÜRGEN. 2014. “Das Verfluchingstäfelchen von Gelubda
(Gellep bei Krefeld) Grab 5486”. ZPE 192, 181–187.
BLÄNSDORF, JÜRGEN. – PIRANOMONTE, MARINA. 2012. “Schede di
catalogo IX, 49.3. – 6, IX, 49.8 –28”. In: Friggeri, R. – Granino Cecere, M.
G. – Gregori, G. L. (eds.). Terme di Diocleziano. La collezione epigrafica:
Milano 2012, 617 –639.
BOHAK, GIDEON. 2008. Ancient Jewish Magic. A History. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
BONNER, CAMPBELL. 1950. Studies in Magical Amulets. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.
BOUNEGRU, GEORGE V. – NÉMETH, GYÖRGY. 2013. “Cursing the
nomen”. ZPE 184, 238–242.
BOWMAN, ALLAN K. 1983. Roman Writing Tablets from Vindolanda.
Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Lomdon: British Museum.
BURIAN, JAN – OLIVA, PAVEL. 1984. Civilizace antického Středomoří.
Praha: Svoboda.
BURIAN, JAN. 2000. “Pannonia”. In: H. Cancik – H. Schneider (eds.). Der
Neue Pauly. Vol. IX. Stuttgart: Verlag J. B. Metzler, 250–256.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
544
BUZASSYOVA, ĽUDMILA. 2012. “Some remarks on the genitive of the Latin
third declension and its Faliscan pendant. Greek and Latin from an IndoEuropean
Perspective 3”. In: Eugen Hill – Stefan Schumacher (eds.).
Proceedings of the Conference held at the Comenius University Bratislava,
2010., 3–16. München: Verlag Anja Urbanek.
COLLINS, DEREK. 2008. Magic in the Ancient Greek World. Blackwell
Ancient Religions. Malden: Blackwell.
CORELL, JOSEP. 1993. “Defixionis tabella aus Carmona (Sevilla)”. ZPE 95,
261–268.
CORELL, JOSEP. 1994. “Drei defixionum tabellae aus Sagunt (Valencia)”.
ZPE 101, 280–286.
CORELL, JOSEP. 2000. “Invocada la intervención de Iau en una defixio de
Sagunto (Valencia) ”. ZPE 130, 241–247.
CRAWFORD, MICHAEL, H. [et al.] 2011. Imagines Italicae a Corpus of Italic
Inscriptions. Vol. 1. Institute of Classical Studies: University of London.
CURBERA, JAIME B. 1996. “A Curse Tablet from Emporiae (IRC III 75)”.
ZPE 110, 292–294.
CURBERA, JAIME B. 1999. “Maternal Lineage in Greek Magical Texts”. In:
David R. Jordan – Hugo Montgomery – Einar Thomassen (eds.). The World
of Ancient Magic. Papers from the First International Samson Eitrem
Seminar at the Norwegian Institut at Athens, 4–8 May 1997. Bergen: The
Norwegian Institute at Athens, 195–204.
CURBERA, JAIME B. 1999a. “A Bilingual Curse Tablet from Barchín del
Hoyo (Cuenca, Spain)”. ZPE 125, 279–283.
DAVIES, JOHN. 1997. People of the Mediterranean. An Essay in Comparative
Social Anthropology. London: Routledge.
DICKIE, MATTHEW W. 2000. “Who Practised Love-Magic in Classical
Antiquity and in the Late Roman World?”. Classical Quarterly 50(2), 563–
583.
DIETRICH, ALBRECHT. 1901. “ABC-Denkmäler”. Rheinisches Museum für
Philologie 46, 77–105.
DIETZ, KARLHEINZ. 2000. “Noricum”. In: H. Cancik – H. Schneider (eds.).
Der Neue Pauly. Vol. VIII. Stuttgart: Verlag J. B. Metzler, 1003–1006.
DREHER, M. 2010. “Gerichtsverfahren vor den Göttern? – “Judicial prayers”
und die Kategorisierung der defixionum tabellae. In: G. Thür (ed.).
Symposion Voträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
545
Seggau 25. –30. 8. 2009, Wien.Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 301–335.
DREHER, M. 2012. “Prayers for Justice” and the Categorization of Curse
Tablets. In: Piranomonte, M. – Simón, Marco, F. (eds.).Contesti magici. Atti
del Convegno Internazionale Contesti magici. Roma: Sopraintendenza
Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Roma, 29 –32.
ECK, WERNER. 1997. “Britannia”. In: H. Cancik – H. Schneider (eds.). Der
Neue Pauly. Vol. II. Stuttgart: Verlag J. B. Metzler, 783–787.
EGGER, RUDOLF. 1943. “Aus der Unterwelt der Festlandkelten”. Jahreshefte
des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien, 35(2), 99–121.
EGGER, RUDOLF. 1962. “Eine Fluchtafel aus Carnuntum”. In: Artur Betz –
Gotbert Moro (eds.). Römische Antike und frühes Christentum. Ausgewählte
Schriften von R. Egger. Band I. Klagenfurt: Verlag des Geschichtsvereins für
Kärnten, 81–97.
EGGER, RUDOLF. 1963. “Liebeszauber”. In: Artur Betz – Gotbert Moro
(eds.). Römische Antike und frühes Christentum. Ausgewählte Schriften von
R. Egger. Band II. Klagenfurt: Verlag des Geschichtsvereins für Kärnten,
24–33.
EHMIG, ULRIKE. 2015. “Guter Gott! Bonus Deus in lateinischen Fluchtafeln”.
Graeco-Latina Brunensia 20(2) 3–9.
ERNOUT, ALFRED. 1957. Recueil de textes latins archaïques. Paris: Librairie
C. Klincksieck.
FABRE, GEORGES – MAYER, MARC – RODÀ, ISABEL (eds.). 1991.
Inscriptions romaines de Catalogne, vol. 3: Gerone. Paris: Diffusion de
Boccard – Barcelone: Universitat autònoma de Barcelona.
FARAONE, CHRISTOPHER A. 1991. “The Agonistic Context of Early Greek
Binding Spells”. In: Ch. A. Faraone – D. Obbink (eds.). Magika Hiera.
Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–32.
FARAONE, CHRISTOPHER A. 1991a. “Binding and Burying the Forces of
Evil. The Defensive Use of ‘Voodoo-Dolls’ in Ancient Greece”. Classical
Antiquity 10, 165–205.
FARAONE, CHRISTOPHER A. 1999. Ancient Greek Love Magic. Harvard:
Harvard University Press.
FARAONE, CHRISTOPHER A. – KROPP, AMINA. 2010. “Inversion,
Adversion and Perversion as Strategies in Latin Curse-Tablets”. In: R. L.
Gordon – F. Marco Simón (eds.). Magical Practice in the Latin West.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
546
Papers from the International Conference held at the University of
Zaragoza, 30th Sept. – 1st Oct. 2005. Leiden: Brill, 381–398.
FAUTH, WOLFGANG. 2014. Jao-Jahwe und seine Engel. JahweAppelationen
und zugehörige Engelnamen in griechischen und koptischen
Zaubertexten. (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 74): Tübingen.
FEHÉR, BENCE. 2011. Tituli Aquincenses. Vol. III 1436. Péter Kovács –
Adam Szabó (eds.). Budapest: Pytheas, 154–156.
FOX, WILIAM S. 1912. The John Hopkins Tabellae Defixionum. Supplement
to the American Journal of Philology, Vol. 33. Baltimore.
FRANEK, JURAJ. – URBANOVÁ DANIELA. 2017. “Magic on Lead: SimileFormula
on Ancient Greek and Latin Course Tablets”. Poster. In: XV.
Internationaler Kongress für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik.
Universität Wien, 28.8.-1.9. 2017. Wien: Austria.
FRANKFURTER, DAVID. 1995. “Narrating Power: the Theory and Practice of
the magical Historiola in Ritual Spells”. In: Marvin Meyer – Paul Mirecky
(eds.). Ancient Magic and Ritual Power. Leiden: Brill, 457–476.
FRANZ, LEONHARD. 1959. “Ein Fluchtäfelchen aus Veldidena”. Jahreshefte
des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 54, 70–76.
FRAZER, JAMES. G. 1968 (1922). Der goldene Zweig. Eine Studie über
Magie und Religion. Köln – Berlin.
GERING, HUGO. 1916. “Artus Fututor”. Hermes 51, 632–635.
GORDON, RICHARD. 1999. “‘What’s in a list?’ Listing in Greek and GraecoRoman
World”. In: David R. Jordan – Hugo Montgomery – Einar
Thomassen (eds.). The World of Ancient Magic. Papers from the First
International Samson Eitrem Seminar at the Norwegian Institut at Athens,
4–8 May 1997. Bergen: The Norwegian Institute at Athens, 239–277.
GRAF, FRITZ. 1996. Gottesnähe und Schadenzauber. München: Verlag C. H.
Beck.
GRAF, FRITZ. 1996a. “Anteros”, In: Der Neue Pauly, Herausgegeben von: H.t
Cancik – H. Schneider (Antike), Manfred Landfester (Rezeptions- und
Wissenschaftsgeschichte). Consulted online on 12 February 2018
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_dnp_e123320>
HAAS, OTTO. 1943. “Zu den Gallischen Sprachresten”. Zeitschrift für
celtische Philologie 23, 285–297.
HASSALL, MARK W. C. – TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. 1984. “II. Inscriptions”.
Britannia 15, 333– 341.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
547
HASSALL, MARK W. C. – TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. 1986. “II. Inscriptions”.
Britannia 17, 428–439.
HASSALL, MARK W. C. – TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. 1988. “II. Inscriptions”.
Britannia 19, 485–491.
HASSALL, MARK W. C. – TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. 1992. “II. Inscriptions”.
Britannia 23, 308–312.
HASSALL, MARK W. C. – TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. 1993. “II. Inscriptions”.
Britannia 24, 310–314.
HASSALL, MARK W. C. – TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. 1994. “II. Inscriptions”.
Britannia 25, 293–314.
HASSALL, MARK W. C. – TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. 1995. “II. Inscriptions”.
Britannia 26, 376–377.
HERMANN, JÓZEF. 1987. “La disparation de –s et la morphologie dialectale
du Latin parlé.” In : J. Herman (ed.). Latin Vulgaire - latin tardif: Actes du 1er
Colloque international sur le Latin vulgaire et tardif, 97–108. Niemayer:
Tübingen.
HERMANN, JÓZEF. 2000 [1967]. Vulgar Latin. Engl. transl. by R. Wright.
Pennsylvania State University Press.
HUSS, WERNER – SCHEID, JOHN – LEISTEN, THOMAS. 1996. “Afrika”.
In: H. Cancik – H. Schneider (eds.). Der Neue Pauly. Vol. I. Stuttgart:
Verlag J. B. Metzler, 217–226.
CHALUPA, ALEŠ. 2006. “Venenum nebo veneum?”. Religio 14(1), 101–118.
CHALUPA, ALEŠ. 2011. “Velká matka a Attis na proklínacích tabulkách: role
orientálních božstev v antické magii a náboženství”. Religio 19(2), 237–252.
JEANNERET, MAURICE. 1918. “La langue des tablettes d’exécrations
latines”. Revue de Philologie 42, 126–153.
JORDAN, DAVID R. 1976. “CIL VIII 19525 (B). 2QPVULVA = Q(UEM)
P(EPERIT) VULVA”. Philologus 120, 127–132.
JORDAN, DAVID R. 1985. “Defixiones from a Well Near the South-West
Corner of the Athenian Agora”. Hesperia 54(3), 205–255.
JORDAN, DAVID R. 1988. “New Archaeological Evidence for the Practice of
Magic in Classical Athens”. In: Praktika tou XII diethnous synedriou
klasikes archaiologias IV, Athens, 273–277.
JORDAN, DAVID R. 2000. “New Greek Curse Tablets (1985–2000). In
memory of W. H. Willis”. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 41, 5–46.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
548
JULLIAN, CAMILLE M. 1897. “Tablette magique de Chanon”. Comptesrendus
des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Vol.
41(2), 177–186.
JULLIAN, CAMILLE M. 1898. “Inscription gallo-romaine de Rom (DeuxSèvres)
”. Revue Celtique 19, 168–176.
KAGAROW, EUGEN. 1929. Griechische Fluchtafeln. Eus Supplementa, Vol.
4. Leopoli.
KIERNAN, PHILIP. 2004. “Britische Fluchtafeln und ,Gebete um Gerechtigkeit’
als öffentliche Magie und Votivrituale”. In: K. Brodersen – A.
Kropp (eds.). Fluchtafeln. Neue Funde und neue Deutungen zum antiken
Schadenzauber. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike, 99–114.
KOTANSKY, ROY. 1991. “Incantations and prayers for Salvation on Inscribed
Greek Amulets. In: Ch. A. Faraone – D. Obbink (eds.). Magika Hiera.
Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 107–
137.
KROPP, AMINA. 2004. “Altes Blei neu ausgegraben. Textkritische Bemerkungen
zu den lateinischen ‘defixiones’ aus Hadrumetum”. MHNH 4, 63–
78.
KROPP, AMINA. 2004a. “‘defigo Eudemum: necetis eum’: Kommunikationsmuster
in den Texten antiker Schadenzauberrituale”. In: K. Brodersen
– A. Kropp (eds.). Fluchtafeln. Neue Funde und neue Deutungen zum
antiken Schadenzauber. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike, 81–97.
KROPP, AMINA. 2008. Defixiones. Ein aktuelles Corpus lateinischer
Fluchtafeln. Speyer: Kartoffeldruck-Verlag Kai Brodersen.
KROPP, AMINA. 2008a. Magische Sprachverwendung in Vulgärlateinischen
Fluchtafeln (defixiones). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
KROPP, AMINA. 2008b. “Drohen, verleumden, klagen oder: Wie man Götter
und Dämonen zu bösen Taten verleitet”. In: Chaniotis A. – Kropp A. –
Steinhoff Ch. (eds.). Überzeugungsstrategien. Heidelberger Jahrbücher 52,
Springer.
KROPP, AMINA. 2010. “How does Magical Language Work? The Spells and
Formulae of the Latin Defixionum Tabellae”. In: R. L. Gordon – F. Marco
Simón (eds.). Magical Practice in the Latin West. Leiden: Brill, 357–380.
LAFOND, YVES – UGGERI, GIOVANNI. 1998. “Gallia”. In: H. Cancik – H.
Schneider (eds.). Der Neue Pauly. Vol. IV. Stuttgart: Verlag J. B. Metzler,
763–770.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
549
LAMBOGLIA, NINO. 1959. “Una nuova popolazione pirenaica: gli
Olossitani”. Rivista di Studi Liguri 25, 147–161.
LEJEUNE, MICHEL. 1981. “En marge de la défixion de Montfo”. Comptesrendus
des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Vol.
125, 1, 51–52.
LÓPEZ JIMENO, MARIA DEL AMOR. 1991. Las tabellae defixionis de la
Sicilia Griega. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert.
LUCK, GEORG. 1962. Hexen und Zauberei in der römischen Dichtung.
Zürich: Artemis Verlag.
LUCK, GEORG. 1985. Arcana Mundi. Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press.
MACHAJDÍKOVÁ, BARBORA. 2012. Festi sabellica et tyrrhenica.
Recherches linguistiques et philologiques sur les lexèmes présentés comme
sabelliques ou étrusques dans le De Verborum Significatu de Verrius
Flaccus d’après les extraits de ses successeurs. Bratislava.
MALTOMINI, FRANCO. 1995. “Nota alla defixio di Carmona”. ZPE 107,
297–298.
MARICHAL, ROBERT. 1981. “Une tablet d’exécration de l’oppidum de
Montfo (Hérault)”. Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Vol. 125, 1, 41–51.
MASTROCINQUE, ATTILIO. 2007. “Late Antique Lamps with Defixiones”.
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 47, 87–99.
MEID, WOLFGANG. 2014. Gaulish Inscriptions. Their interpretation in the
light of archaeological evidence and their value as a source of linguistic and
sociological information. 3rd
edit. Archaeolingua, series minor 1: Budapest.
MEID, WOLFGANG. 1996. “Zur Lesung und Deutung der Inschrift von Rom
(Deux-Sèvres)”. In: Meid, W. – Anreiter, P. (eds.). Die grösseren
altkeltischen Sprachdenkmäler. Akten des Kolloquiums Innsbruck, 29. April
– 3. Mai 1993, Innsbruck, 118–123.
MEID, WOLFGANG. 2007. “Pseudogallische Inschriften”. In: Lambert, P.-Y.
– Pinault, G. (eds.). Gaulois et Celtique Continental. Genf, 277-290.
MENGE, HERMANN. 2004. Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Semantik.
Friedrich Maier –Thorsten Burkard – Markus Schauer (eds.). Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
MICHEL, SIMONE. 2001. Bunte Steine – dunkle Bilder. “Magische Gemmen“.
Katalog. München: Biering & Brinkmann.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
550
MICHEL, SIMONE. 2004. Die Magischen Gemmen. Zu Bildern und
Zauberformeln auf geschnittenen Steinen der Antike und Neuzeit. Berlin:
Akademie Verlag.
MURANO, FRANCESCA. 2013. Le tabellae defixionum osche. Pisa. Roma:
Fabrizo Serra editore.
NÉMETH, GYÖRGY. 2010. “Jewish Elements in the Greek Magic of
Pannonia”. Journal of ancient Judaism 1, 192–199.
NÉMETH, GYÖRGY. 2011. “Sequences of Charakteres in some Circus
Defixiones in Latin from Hadrumetum”. Acta classica univ. scient.
Debrecen, XLVII, 95–110.
NÉMETH, GYÖRGY. 2013. “The Horse Head Demon”. Sylloge Epigraphica
Barcinonensis XI, 153–162.
NÉMETH, GYÖRGY. 2013. Supplementum Audolentianum. Hungarian Polis
Studies Nr. 20. Zaragoza – Budapest – Debrecen.
NÉMETH, GYÖRGY. 2015. “Jesus in ancient pagan magic: the Anna Perenna
drawings”. In: Bakowska-Czerner, G. –. Roccati, A. –Świerzowska, A.
(eds.) The wisdom of Thoth. Magical texts in ancient Mediterranean
civilisation. Oxford: 55 –60
NESSELHAUF, HERBERT. 1960. “Beschriftetes Bleitäfelchen aus einer
rätischen Villa”. Germania 38, 76–80.
OGDEN, DANIEL. 1999. “Binding Spells: Curse Tablets and Voodoo Dolls in
the Greek and Roman Worlds”. In: Bengt Ankarloo – Stuart Clark (eds.).
Witchcraft and Magic in Europe. Vol. 2: Ancient Greece and Rome. London:
Athlone Press, 1–90.
OGDEN, DANIEL. 2009. Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and
Roman Worlds. New York: Oxford University Press.
OLIVIERI, ALESSANDRO. 1899. “Tavolette plumbee bolognesi di
defixiones”. Studi italiani di Filologia classica 7, 193–198.
ÖNNERFORS, ALF. 1991. Antike Zaubersprüche. Stuttgart: Reclam.
PETERSMANN, HUBERT. 1992. “Zu den neuen vulgärlateinischen
Sprachdenkmälern aus dem römischen Britannien. Die Täfelchen von
Vindolanda”. In: M. Iliescu – W. Marxgut (eds.). Latin vulgaire – latin tardif
III. Actes du IIIème
colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif.
Innsbruck, 2–5 Septembre, 1991. Tübingen, 283–291.
PFIFFIG, AMBROS J. 1965. “Altetruskisch – Ein späthethitischer Dialekt?”.
Glotta 43, 324–332.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
551
PIRANOMONTE, MARINA. 2005. “La fontana sacra di Anna Perenna a
piazza Euclide tra religione e magia”. MHNH 5, 87–104.
PIRANOMONTE, MARINA. 2010. “Religion and magic at Rome: the
Fountain of Anna Perenna”. In: R. L. Gordon – F. Marco Simón (eds.).
Magical Practice in the Latin West. Leiden: Brill, 191–213.
PIRANOMONTE, MARINA. 2012. “Un contesto magico straordinario”. In:
Piranomonte, M. – Simón, F., M. (eds.). Contesti magici. Roma, 134 –144.
POCCETTI, PAOLO. 1995. “Lingue speciali e pratiche di magia nelle lingue
classiche”. In: Raffaella Bombi (ed.). Lingue speciali e interferenza. Atti del
Convegno Seminariale Udine 1994. Roma, 255–273.
POCCETTI, PAOLO. 1997. “Linee generali di una storia della magia nella
cultura romana”. Bérénice, Rivista quadrimestrale di studi comparati e
ricerche sulle avanguardie 5, 168–174.
POCCETTI, PAOLO. 2002. “Manipolazione della realtà e manipolazione della
lingua: alcuni aspetti dei testi magici dell’antichità”. In: Ruggero Morresi
(ed.). Linguaggio-Linguaggi. Invenzione-Scoperta. Atti del Convegno
Macerata–Fermo 1999. Roma: il Calamo, 11–59.
POCCETTI, PAOLO. 2005. “La maledizione delle attività di parola nei testi
magici greci e latini”. Annali del Dipartimento del Mondo Classico e del
Mediterraneo Antico, Sezione slavistica (AIΩN) 27, Napoli, 339–382.
PREISENDANZ, KARL. 1972. “Fluchtafel”. Reallexikon für Antike und
Christentum VIII, 1–29.
PREMERSTEIN, ANTON. 1906. “Ein Fluchtäfelchen mit Liebeszauber aus
Poetovio”. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in
Wien 9, 192–198.
QUACK, JOACHIM. 2017. “Alttestamentliche Motive in der gräkoägyptischen
Magie der Römerzeit”. In: J. Kamlah – R. Schäfer – M. Witte (eds.). Zauber
und Magie im antiken Palästina und in seiner Umwelt (Abhandlungen des
Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 46), Wiesbaden 1996, 141–182.
RANKOV, BORIS – HASSAL, MARK W. C. – TOMLIN, ROGER S. O.
1982. “II. Inscriptions”. Britannia 13, 328–422.
REA, JOHN. 1972. “II Appendix”. Britannia 3, 363–366.
RISSELADA, RODIE. 1993. Imperatives and other Directive Expressions in
Latin. A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language. Amsterdam: J. C.
Gieben Publisher.
RIX, HELMUT. 1991. Etruskische Texte I, II. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
552
RIX, HELMUT. 2002. Sabellische Texte. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C.
Winter.
ROCCA, GIOVANNA. 2012. “Una nuova iscrizione selinuntina”. In: Vincenzo
Orioles (ed.). Per Roberto Gusmani, linguistica storica e teorica. Editrice
universitaria Forum, 397–408.
ROCCA, GIOVANNA. 2012a. “Grecità di Sicilia: il caso defixiones. Un nuovo
testo da Selinunte”. In: Convenienze etniche e contatti di culture.
Aristonothos, scritti per il mediterraneo antico 4. Trento: Gruppo Editoriale
Tangram, 209–215.
RUÍZ, GARCÍA E. 1967. “Estudio linguistico de las defixiones latinas no
includas en el corpus de Audollent”. Emerita 35(2), 219–248.
SÁEZ, ROSA M. 1999. “Notas linguïsticas a una tabella defixionis hallada en
Carmona (Sevilla)”. ZPE 128, 293–300.
SÁNCHEZ NATALÍAS, CELIA. 2011. “The Bologna Defixio(nes) revisited”.
ZPE 179, 201–217.
SÁNCHEZ NATALÍAS, CELIA. 2012. “Fistus difloiscat languat… Rereading
of defixio Bologna 2”. ZPE 181, 140–148.
SÁNCHEZ NATALÍAS, CELIA. 2014. “...ut illam ducas...Une nueva
interpretación de la defixio contra Salpina”. ZPE 191, 278–281.
SÁNCHEZ NATALÍAS, CELIA. 2015. “Magical Poppets in the Western
Roman Empire: a case Study from Fountain of Anna Perenna”. In: T.
Minniyakhmetova – K. Velkoborska (eds.) The ritual year 10, Magic in
Rituals and Rituals in Magic, 194–202. Innsbruck – Tartu.
SÁNCHEZ NATALÍAS, CELIA. 2016. “A New defixio from Verona”. ZPE
199, 119-122.
SEARLE, JOHN R. 1982. Ausdruck und Bedeutung. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp.
SCHOLZ, MARKUS – KROPP, AMINA. 2004. “‘Priscilla, die Verräterin’,
eine Fluchtafel mit Rachebeget aus Gross-Gerau”. In: K. Brodersen – A.
Kropp (eds.). Fluchtafeln. Neue Funde und neue Deutungen zum antiken
Schadenzauber. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike, 33–40.
SIMÓN, MARCO F. – VELÁZQUES, ISABEL. 2000. “Una nueva defixio
aparecida en Dax (Landes) ”. Aquitania XVII, 261–274.
SIMÓN, MARCO F. 2004. “Magia y cultos orientales: acerca de una defixio de
Alcácer do Sal (Setúbal) con mención de Attis”. MHNH 4, 79–94.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
553
SIMÓN, MARCO F. – DE LLANZA, ISABEL R. 2008. “Defixio to the river
Savus”. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu XLI(3), 167–198.
SIMÓN, MARCO F. 2010. “Execrating the Roman Power: Three defixiones
from Emporiae (Ampurias)”. In: R. L. Gordon – F. Marco Simón (eds.).
Magical Practice in the Latin West. Papers from the International
Conference held at the University of Zaragoza, 30th Sept. – 1st Oct. 2005.
Leiden: Brill, 399–426.
SIMÓN, MARCO F. 2012. “Power and evocations of the exotic: bilingual
magical texts in the latin West”. In: Piranomonte, M. – Simón, F. M. (eds.).
Contesti magici. Roma, 147 –160.
SOLIN, HEIKKI. 1989. “Zu den nomentanischen Fluchtafeln”. Arctos 23, 195–
199.
SOLIN, HEIKKI. 1995. “Corpus defixionum antiquarum, quelques réflexions”.
In: Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. Actes du IVe
colloque international sur le
latin vulgaire et tardif. Caen, 2–5 septembre 1994. Hildesheim – Zürich –
New York, 569–576.
SOLIN, HEIKKI. 1998. “Analecta Epigraphica 1970–1997”. In: M. Kajava –
K. Korhonen – M. Leiwo – O. Salomies (eds.). Acta Instituti Romani
Finlandiae 21. Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae.
SOLIN, HEIKKI. 2004. “Parerga zu lateinischen Fluchtafeln”. In: K. Brodersen
– A. Kropp (eds.). Fluchtafeln. Neue Funde und neue Deutungen zum
antiken Schadenzauber. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike, 115–128.
STEINBAUER, DIETER H. 1999. Neues Handbuch des Etruskischen. St.
Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae Verlag.
STORONI MAZZOLANI, LIDIA (ed.). 1991. Iscrizioni latine Funerarie.
Milano: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli.
SVOBODA, LUDVÍK a kol. 1974. Encyklopedie antiky. Praha: Academia.
TAMBIAH, STANLEY J. 1978. “Form und Bedeutung magischer Akte”. In: H.
G. Kippenberg – B. Luchesi (eds.). Magie. Die sozialwissenschaftliche
Kontroverse über das Verstehen fremden Denkens. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp, 259–296.
TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. 1991. “II. Inscriptions”. Britannia 22, 293–309.
TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. 1993. “The Inscribed Lead Tablets: An Interim
Report”. In: A. Woodward – P. Leach (eds.). The Uley Shrines. Excavation
of a Ritual Complex on West Hill, Uley, Gloucestershire, 1977–1979.
Oxford, 112–130.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
554
TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. 1994. “Vinisius to Nigra: Evidence from Oxford
Christianity in Roman Britain”. ZPE 100, 93–108.
TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. – HASSALL, MARK W. C. 1999. “II Inscriptions”.
Britannia 30, 378–379.
TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. – HASSALL, MARK W. C. 2003. “II Inscriptions”.
Britannia 34, 361–364.
TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. 2004. “‘Carta picta perscripta.’ Anleitung zum Lesen
von Fluchtafeln”. In: K. Brodersen – A. Kropp (eds.). Fluchtafeln. Neue
Funde und neue Deutungen zum antiken Schadenzauber. Frankfurt am Main:
Verlag Antike, 11–29.
TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. 2010. “Cursing a Thief in Iberia and Britain”. In: R. L.
Gordon – F. Marco Simón (eds.). Magical Practice in the Latin West.
Leiden: Brill, 245–274.
TREMEL, JAN. 2004. Magica Agonistica. Fluchtafeln im antiken Sport.
Hildesheim: Weidmann.
TOMLIN, ROGER S. O. 2017. Britannia Romana: Roman Inscriptions and
Roman Britain. Oxbow Books.
URBANOVÁ, DANIELA – BLAŽEK, VÁCLAV. 2008. Národy starověké
Itálie, jejich jazyky a písma. Brno: Host.
URBANOVÁ, DANIELA. 2009. “Gerechtigkeit und Rache. Die sprachlichen
Aspekte der Fluchtafeln aus Britannien”. In: Kateřina Loudová – Marie
Žáková (eds.). Early European Languages in the Eyes of Modern
Linguistics. Proceedings of the Colloquium on the Ancient Indo-European
Languages and the Early Stages of the Modern Romance, Germanic and
Slavonic Languages, Brno, 28. 9. – 1. 10. 2008. Brno, 341–350.
URBANOVÁ, DANIELA. 2009a. “O furum optime balneariorum alias die
Fluchtafeln aus Britannien”. In: Daniel Škoviera (ed.). Aspekty jazykovedy v
klasickej filológii. Bratislava, 13.–15. 4. 2007. Graecolatina et Orientalia
31–32, 125–140.
URBANOVÁ, DANIELA. 2009b. [rec.] KROPP, A. Defixiones. Ein aktuelles
Corpus lateinischer Fluchtafeln. Speyer: Kartoffeldruck-Verlag K.
Brodersen 2008, 394 S. Alessandria 3, 166–169.
URBANOVÁ, DANIELA. 2010. “L’elemento coercitivo nelle tabellae
defixionum di argomento amoroso – alcuni aspetti testuali”. In: Peter
Anreiter – Manfred Kienpointner (eds.). Latin Linguistics Today. Akten des
15. Internationalen Kolloquiums zur Lateinischen Linguistik, Innsbruck 4.–
9. April 2009, 635–645.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
555
URBANOVÁ, DANIELA. 2013. “Contributi all’inte rpretazione di alcune
tabellae defixionum”. Graeco-Latina Brunensia 18(2), 187– 197.
URBANOVÁ, DANIELA. 2015. “Die Sprache der Fluchtafeln aus Germania,
Noricum und Raetia”. In: Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.) Latin Linguistics in the
Early 21st
Century. Acts of the 16th
International Colloquium on Latin
Linguistics, Uppsala, June 6th
– 11th
, 2011. Studia latina Upsaliensia 35,
597–610.
URBANOVÁ, DANIELA – CUZZOLIN, PIERLUIGI. 2016. “Some linguistic
and pragmatic remarks on the tabellae defixionum.” Journal of Latin
Linguistics, 15(2), 313–345.
URBANOVÁ, DANIELA. 2016. “Alcune particolarità della comparazione
(quomodo – sic, quemadmodum – sic, ita uti – sic) in latino volgare, con
particolare attenzione alle defixiones.” Graeco-Latina Brunensia 2 (2), 329–
343.
URBANOVÁ, DANIELA – FRÝDEK, MIROSLAV. 2016. “Priscilla Caranti –
einige Bemerkungen zum möglichen Entstehungsszenario des Fluchtäfelchens
aus Gross-Gerau, dfx. 5.1.3,/1.” Hungarian Polis Studies,
22, 343–353.
URBANOVÁ, DANIELA – FRANEK, JURAJ. 2017. “Il campo semantico di
‘nomen’ nelle tavole defixionum”. In: García Leal, A. – C. E. Prieto
Entrialgo (eds.). Latin vulgaire - latin tardif XI. XI Congreso Internacional
sobre el Latín Vulgar y Tardío (Oviedo, 1 –5 de septiembre de 2014).
Hildesheim – Zürich – New York: Olms – Weidmann, 616–628.
URBANOVÁ, DANIELA. 2017. “Latin curse Texts: Mediterranean Tradition
and local diversity”. Acta antiqua Academiae scientiarum Hungaricae,
57, 57 –82.
URBANOVÁ, DANIELA. 2018. “Between Syntax and Magic – some
Peculiarities of Nominal Syntax in Latin Curse tablets.” (in print).
WEBER, EKKEHARD. 1985. “Das Bleitäfelchen mit einem Liebeszauber aus
Mautern an der Donau”. In: Bericht über den sechzehnten österreichischen
Historikertag in Krems 1984, Wien, 62-65.
VERSNEL, HENK S. 1976. “Two Types of Roman devotio”. Mnemosyne 29,
367–410.
VERSNEL, HENK S. 1985. “‘May be not be able to sacrifice…’ concerning a
curious formula in Greek and Latin curses”. ZPE 58, 247–269.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
556
VERSNEL, HENK S. 1991. “Beyond Cursing: the Appeal to Justice in Judicial
Prayers”. In: Ch. A. Faraone – D. Obbink (eds.). Magika Hiera. Ancient
Greek Magic and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 60–106.
VERSNEL, HENK S. 1991a. “Some Reflections on the Relationship MagicReligion”.
Numen 38(2), 177–197.
VERSNEL, HENK S. 1998. “An essay on anatomical courses”. In: Fritz Graf
(ed.). Ansichten griechischer Rituale. Geburtstags-Symposium für Walter
Burkert, Castelen bei Basel, 15.–18. 3. Stuttgart – Leipzig: Teubner, 217–
267.
VERSNEL, HENK S. 2002. “The Poetics of the Magical Charm. An Essay in
the Power of Words”. In: P. Mirecki – M. Meyer (eds.). Magic and Ritual in
the Ancient World. Leiden – Boston – Köln: Brill, 105–158.
VERSNEL, HENK S. 2010. “Prayers for Justice in East and West: Recent Finds
and Publications”. In: R. L. Gordon – F. Marco Simón (eds.). Magical
Practice in the Latin West. Leiden: Brill, 275–356.
VETTER, EMIL. 1923. “Zu lateinischen Fluchtafeln”. 1. Bleitafeln aus
Minturnae. 2. Zu John Hopkins ‘Tabellae defixionum’. Glotta 12, 65 –67.
VETTER, EMIL. 1953. Handbuch der italischen Dialekte. Heidelberg:
Universitätsverlag C. Winter.
VETTER, EMIL. 1959. “Eine lateinische Fluchtafel mit Anrufung des
Wassermannes”. Glotta 36, 304–308.
VETTER, EMIL. 1960. “Eine lateinische Fluchtafel mit Anrufung des
Wassermannes”. Glotta 39, 127–132.
WALDHERR, GERHARD H. 2001. “Raeti, Raetia”. In: H. Cancik – H.
Schneider (eds.). Der Neue Pauly. Vol. X. Stuttgart: Verlag J. B. Metzler,
749–754.
WIEGELS, RAINER – SPICKERMANN, WOLFGANG – BARCELÓ,
PEDRO. 1998. “Germani, Germania”. In: H. Cancik – H. Schneider (eds.).
Der Neue Pauly. Vol. IV. Stuttgart: Verlag J. B. Metzler, 954–962.
WINKLER, JOHN J. 1991. “The Constraints of Eros”. In: Ch. A. Faraone – D.
Obbink (eds.). Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 214–223.
WITTEYER, MARION. 2004. “Verborgene Wünsche. Befunde antiken
Schadenzaubers aus Mogontiacum – Mainz”. In: K. Brodersen – A. Kropp
(eds.). Fluchtafeln. Neue Funde und neue Deutungen zum antiken
Schadenzauber. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike, 41–50.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
557
WRIGHT, RICHARD P. – HASSALL, MARK W. C. 1973. “II Inscriptions”.
Britannia 4, 324–326.
WÜNSCH, RICHARD. 1898. Sethianische Verfluchungstafeln aus Rom.
Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
VOCABULARIES:
DU CANGE, CHARLES DU FRESNE et al. 1883–1887. Glossarium mediae et
infimae latinitatis. Niort: L. Favre.
GLARE, PETER G. W. (ed.). 1968–1976. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; abbr. OLD.
FORCELLINI, EGIDO. 19654
. Lexicon totius Latinitatis ab E. Forcellini.
Reprint edition 1864–1926. Bononiae: Forni.
Nuovo Campanini – Carboni Vocabolario latino-italiano – italiano-latino.
1993. Torino: Paravia.
Thesaurus linguae latinae. 1900; abbr. TlL.