This chapter discusses some subjects pertaining to the larger topic of magic or witchcraft in Greco-Roman antiquity. Since âmagicâ and âwitchcraftâ do not correspond to separate concepts in ancient thought, I will use them interchangeably, in the same manner as the terms for their practitioners, who will be called âsorcerersâ, âmagiciansâ or, in the case of women, âwitchesâ. The subjects to be discussed are harmful forms of magic and their practitioners; the representation of witches in literature and some insights to be gained from this about ancient concepts of gender; and the legal status of magic in the Greek world and the Roman Empire.
Although it is customary for one to define their terms before proceeding into a discussion, the reader will, hopefully, be relieved to know that I will not attempt to give a definition of what the ancients understood as âmagicâ nor, for lack of space, will I attempt to give an overview of the endless discussions this topic has generated so far. Attempting today to give a definition of magic that would have been valid for most people in antiquity is an exercise in futility, since even then, apparently, there was hardly a consensus. Apuleius, defending himself in court against accusations of witchcraft, says that anyone in his day can be accused of being a sorcerer, if they do something slightly differing from religious custom, like praying silently or inscribing a wish on a statueâs thigh;1 he practically admits that he is a magus, but not the kind which common people mean by the term. Magicians have had a reputation for impiety since their introduction into the literary record in the Greek world in the sixth to fifth centuries BC, but in a letter attributed to Apollonius of Tyana (first century AD), he attacks an opponent by saying that magicians (magoi) are the ones who are wise in divine matters, while his opponent is not a magos but a disbeliever in the gods (atheos).2 What is treated as magic or as related to it in this study are practices and stereotypes that were treated as such, for whatever reason, in antiquity.
Harmful magic
Two major categories of harmful magic can be discerned in Greco-Roman antiquity. One is concerned with the production and administration of potions, called pharmaka in Greek and uenena in Latin. The type of potion most usually encountered is the love potion, the Greek philtron and Latin amatorium, but lethal poisons fall within that category as well. The term applied to this practice is pharmakeia and ueneficium in Greek and Latin respectively. These terms, however, came to be applied to magic-working as a whole, as in our sources we find other types of witchcraft being associated with the individuals involved in this process.
The second category, on which we possess much more detailed information, thanks to the abundance of curse tablets, the Greek Magical Papyri and frequent references in a variety of literary sources, is what is called âbinding magicâ. This is a subset of what was termed goÄteia (sorcery), the magic that worked through epĹidai or carmina, i.e. incantations. The term âbinding magicâ derives from the description of such spells by the Greek term katadesis or katadesmos (âbinding downâ), which is known in Latin as a defixio (âholding down in placeâ). The âbindingâ designation of those spells refers to the practitionerâs (the defigens) intent to restrain some kind of activity or, in a few cases, any kind of activity of their victim (the defixus or defixa), usually until the spellâs intended goal has been achieved. It should be noted that there is little if anything in execution to differentiate Latin from Greek defixiones; the Roman practice seems to be wholly derivative from the Greek.
Types of binding spells
Binding spells, which will be referred to henceforth as katadesmoi or defixiones, have been classified by Audollent3 according to their intended goals. This is a classification that has not been majorly revised since then. a) Judicial defixiones are aimed against adversaries or witnesses in a court case, with the goal of impairing their ability to speak or testify efficiently. b) âAgonisticâ defixiones target athletes, most often charioteers and their horses, in order to cause them to fail at a specific event. c) Defixiones against thieves and slanderers aim at recovery of stolen objects and retribution against those who inflicted harm on the defigens in the first place. d) Erotic defixiones are targeted against a man or woman in order to cause sexual desire or love towards the defigens; although this might seem an odd subject for a curse, one should keep in mind that erotic passion was considered a form of madness or a disease in antiquity, therefore the regular formula of a curse was apt to bring this affliction about to the victim. e) Faraone4 has identified that several of what were considered up to then judicial defixiones must have had a different goal; those were in fact defixiones against professional rivals, most often tavern keepers and prostitutes, targeting their businesses, and are known as commercial defixiones.
Technology
The physical remains of binding rituals as well as spell recipes found in the Greek Magical Papyri allow us, to an extent, to reconstruct the process and theorize about the manner in which defixiones were supposed to achieve their goal. By far the most common of physical remains is the curse tablet, which itself can be called a katadesmos or defixio; occasionally one can find lead figurines, and some curse tablets make reference to dead animals, such as cats, that were part of the ritual and deposited alongside the tablet. The extant tablets themselves are mostly lead, but this appears to be more due to the durability of the material rather than a special ritual purpose it served from the very beginning; the magical papyri prescribe that for some spells papyrus of the highest quality be used, while literary sources mention tablets made of wax as well.5
The tablets are inscribed with text denoting the purpose of the ritual or even the actual words that were probably spoken by the defigens during the ritual. There seems to be great variation in execution, but the types of formulae utilized are not too numerous.6 One common formula is to write down simply the names of the victims, in which case one can only guess at the purpose of the defixio today. Most often, the tablet will provide a verb denoting what is done to the victims, with meanings like âto bind down (katadeĹ)â, âto register (katagraphĹ, apographĹ)â or âto dedicate (anatithÄmi, anieroĹ) or their Latin equivalents (to bind: ligare, adligare; to dedicate: dedicare, demandare). In several instances, some chthonic deity or deities, like Hermes âHe-Who-Holds-Downâ (HermÄs Katokhos), Persephone, Demeter or Hecate, is noted as the one to which the victim is bound or dedicated, and the purpose of the defixio is given. Another common formula is what has been known since Audollent as the similia similibus formula, i.e. âto do like by likeâ. In these instances, the defigens will point at some aspect of the ritual wishing for a similar effect upon the victim; an example of this can be found in a defixio7 mentioning a catâs corpse being deposited along with it, wherein the defigens asks that the victims be as ineffective in court as the dead animal, that they be as unable to defend themselves as the catâs mother was to defend her young and finally that they be immobilized and twisted as the cat now is.
A constant feature of defixiones is the nature of the places where they have been deposited. Graveyards, wells, sanctuaries of chthonic deities like Demeter and Persephone â all of these and the like denote a desire, on the part of the defigens, to come into contact with the powers of the Underworld, to which they turn for assistance.8 Tombstones were particularly preferred, because the dead were seen either as messengers to the chthonic gods, or as agents carrying out the will of the sorcerer. Furthermore, not just any grave was sought out, but those of people who had died unnaturally, those who had died by violence (biaiothanatoi) or before their time (ahĹroi) or âwithout being completeâ (atelestoi), referring possibly to the uninitiated or unmarried. The restless dead were seen as apt to carry out the sorcererâs wishes, possibly out of spite and envy towards the living or, in case atelestoi, refers to the uninitiated in the mysteries, who were easy targets since they did not enjoy the protection of the gods in their death.9
It is possible that this movement towards the netherworld is an instance of the theme of reversal of mainstream practice, as Graf has pointed out, that seems to characterize magical ritual: words can be seen written backwards in some tablets, persons are specified by the name of their mother rather than their father, as is normal practice in a Greek city or in Rome, and similarly, in the instance of seeking out the powers below, the sorcerer is moving downwards instead of upwards, towards the celestial gods, whom the city honors in its public rituals.10 As Johnston has argued, however, it is unlikely that this reversal is a deliberate subversion of mainstream ritual on the sorcererâs part, given that one magical formula for bringing the wrath of a deity upon an adversary is to slander them to the deity in question, as having made a mockery of their proper rites.11
Still, we are probably far from having the whole picture about the performance of a binding ritual in every instance. Artifacts such as wax figurines mentioned by Plato as being used in katadesmoi are unlikely to survive, while literary depictions of witchcraft can mention ritual actions that would not be traceable through the physical remains of a defixio, or indeed where no curse tablet would be deposited at all. Such are for example, the binding ritual performed by Simaetha,12 where no curse tablet is mentioned, or the instructions for a spell given to a lovelorn youth in an elegy by Tibullus, wherein he has to recite a magical charm three times and spit three times after.13 It is in fact hard to imagine that there was no ritual or further utterances involved in the deposition of some of the oldest katadesmoi, which consist of nothing but lists of names.
Practitioners of magic
People whom the Greeks would call sorcerers appear for the first time in literature in a fragment attributed to Heraclitus (sixth century BC), wherein a divine punishment is proscribed for night âwanderers, magicians (magoi), lÄnai, bacchants and initiatesâ on account of their impiety.14
In the fifth century BC, the Hippocratic author of On the Sacred Disease attacks magicians (magoi), purifiers (kathartai), mendicant priests (agurtai) and charlatans (alazones) on account of their impiety in attributing epilepsy to the will of the gods and for their claims that they can persuade the gods to heal it through purifications and incantations, as well as for their other outlandish claims, like being able to control the weather and the seasons as well as bring down the moon and darken the sun.15
One finds again mention of that class of people as âmendicant priestsâ and âseersâ in Platoâs Republic, wherein Adeimantos mentions that these individuals approach wealthy citizens claiming that they have gained the ability through sacrifice and incantation to propitiate the gods and that they can perform binding rituals (katadesis) or send a ghost (an act known as epagĹge) to harm the enemies of anyone willing to pay.16
What we can see from these earliest instances, where mention of magic practitioners is made, is that these individuals are not simply sorcerers who perform binding spells but also religious specialists who claim to be able to perform all kinds ...
