22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2015
Divination was one of the most important features of the learned magical arts in the Imperial period. Not only do the Graeco-Egyptian ‘magical papyri’ contain an abundance of recipes which claim to enable the practitioner to know the future, but several ancient authors attest that divination was of special interest to occultists. Recent scholarship has indeed recognised the importance of divination in ritual-magical practice, but the relevant archaeological evidence has not been much discussed since the publication of the second volume of Th. Hopfner's Griechisch-ägyptischer Offenbarungszauber in 1924. The major new evidence here has been the Near-Eastern divination- and incantation-bowls. The present article, however, is concerned with the possible implications of a much older find, the divination kit from Pergamon, and its recently-discovered analogue from Apamea in Syria, for the study of specifically theurgic divination. The rôle of magical ritual within theurgy has received considerable attention in recent years, but the relevance of the divination kits has not hitherto been noticed. I shall argue that the physical instruments employed in theurgic divination help us to understand several features of theurgic practice. I shall also stress the possible contribution of magical gems in the same context, for in them we can recognise images and attributes of divine beings with whom magicians and theurgists identified themselves during their performances.
1 My use of the term “magical” is purely conventional and refers primarily to the specialised forms of non-collective religious ritual for a variety of purposes known to us from the ‘magical papyri’ and implied by the ‘magical amulets’, together with their theurgic analogues, especially the Chaldaean Oracles, which aimed at ritual systasis (contact with the divine). The term thus implies no opposition between ‘religion’ and ‘magic’.
2 Eitrem, S., “Dreams and divination in magical ritual,” in Faraone, C. A. and Obbink, D. (edd.), Magika hiera. Ancient Greek magic and religion (New York 1991) 175–87Google Scholar; Graf, F., “Magic and divination,” in Jordan, D. R., Montgomery, H. and Thomassen, E. (edd.), The world of ancient magic. Papers from the First Int. Samson Eitrem Seminar, Athens 1997 (Bergen 1999) 283–98Google Scholar
3 E.g., Montgomery, J. A., Aramaic incantation texts from Nippur (Philadelphia 1916)Google Scholar; Isbell, C. O., Corpus of Aramaic incantation bowls (Missoula 1975)Google Scholar; Ginoux, P., Incantations magiques syriaques (Louvain 1987)Google Scholar; Naveh, J. and Shaked, S., Amulets and magic bowls (Leiden 1985)Google Scholar; Naveh, J. and Shaked, S., Magic spells and formulae: Aramaic incantations of late antiquity (Jerusalem 1993)Google Scholar; Segal, J B., Catalogue of the Aramaic and Mandaean incantation bowls in the British Museum (London 2001).Google Scholar
4 Luck, G., “Theurgy and forms of worship in Neoplatonism,” in Neusner, J., Frerichs, E. and Flesher, P. (edd.), Religion, science and magic: in concert and in conflict (New York 1989) 185–225 Google Scholar; Johnston, S. I., Hekate Soteira (Atlanta 1990) 77–148 Google Scholar; van Liefferinge, C., La théurgie, des Oracle $ Chaldaïques à Proclus (Kernos Suppl. 9, Liège 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Conze, A. and Schuchhardt, C., “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1886-1898,” AthMitt 24 (1899) 199–200 Google Scholar; R. Wünsch, Antikes Zaubergerät aus Pergamon (JdI Ergh. 6, 1905); Neugebauer, K. A., Führer durch das Antiquarium, 1: Bronzen (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin 1924) 80–81 Google Scholar
6 Ritner, R. K., in Betz, H. D. (ed.), The Greek magical papyri in translation (Chicago 1986) 195, n.143Google Scholar; 270, n.2; cf. Merkelbach, R. and Totti, M., Abrasax 1 (Opladen 1990) 222 Google Scholar; ibid. 2 (Opladen 1991) 57, 61. The vox magica occurs in the magical papyri: PGM XIII 1055; XXXVI 43, 228; cf. IV 961; on a gold lamella from Thessaloniki (2nd c. A.D.): Kotansky, R., Greek magical amulets 1 (Opladen 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar no. 40, 1.3 f.; and on another stone axe: Iliffe, H., “A Neolithic celt with Gnostic inscriptions at Toronto,” AJA 35 (1931) 304–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7
Dorigny, A. Sorlin, “Phylactère alexandrin contre l'épistaxis,” REG
4 (1891) 291
Google Scholar; according to
Mouterde, R., “Le glaive de Dardanos,” MélUSJ
15 (1930–1931) 104–5,Google Scholar ΠΙΠ corresponds to Hebrew 
, “He who is”; cf. Theodoret, Quaest. in Exodum, 25 Migne PG 80:244, on God's name: ‘the Jews called him Aia’. In the inscription on the stones the vox ιαια occurs twice.
8 Donnay, G., “Instrument divinatoire d'époque romaine,” in Baity, J. (ed.), Apamée de Syrie. Bilan des recherches archéologiques 1973-1979. Actes du colloque 1980 (Brussels 1984) 203–7Google Scholar A ‘tripod of Hekate’ was kept in the praetorium of Constantinople: Cedrenus 1:563 Bekker. The form of these round instruments survived in Arab culture and into the Renaissance: Barb, A. A., “The survival of magic arts,” in Momigliano, A. (ed.), The conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the fourth century (London 1963) 113 Google Scholar; also Ganschinietz, R., “Zum pergamenischen Zaubergerät,” ArchReligWiss 17 (1914) 346–47Google Scholar
9 Supra n.5, 39-40.
10 Cf. Butler, E. M., The myth of the Magus (Cambridge 1948).Google Scholar
11 Cook, A. B., Zeus, 2.1 (1914–1940, repr. New York 1965) 507–13Google Scholar (on the Pergamon stones: 512); Cherici, A., “Keraunia,” ArchCl 41 (1989) 329–82Google Scholar
12 Pliny, NH 30.14 (transl. J. Bostock and H. T. Riley).
13 NH 37.135.
14 Amm. Marc.29.1.29-32 (transl. J. C. Rolfe, with some changes). The consultation of 371 is also related by a number of other sources (listed in PLRE 1: 898): Zosimus 4.13 (who maintains Theodoros was guilty); Sozomen. HE 6.35 (who says that the consultants were philosophers); Socrates HE 4.19 (who writes that several people whose names were Theodoros, Theodotos, Theodosios, Theodoulos or Theodosiolos were put to death); Zonaras 13.16 (who claims that the séance employed ‘alectoromancy’, i.e., an ear of grain was placed over each of the 24 letters of the alphabet, and the consultants noted the word spelled out by the sequence in which a cock pecked them up); Cedrenus 1:550 Bekker (who gives the same method, but adds that the consultants were Libanius and Iamblichus, who had been involved in the trial and committed suicide); Philostorgius 9.15 (according to whom there were several possible interpretations of the oracle's answer: some thought the future emperor would be Theodosios, others Theodoros, still others Theodoulos).
15 Zosimus 4.3.2.
16 CTh. 16.10.5.
17 CTh. 9.16.7: ne quis deinceps nocturnis temporibus aut nefarias preces aut magicos apparatus aut sacrificia funesta celebrare conetur.
18 CTh. 9.16.3.
19 CTh. 9.16.4; cf. Desanti, L., Sileant omnibus perpetuo divinandi curiositas: indovini e sanzioni nel diritto romano (Milan 1990)Google Scholar; Clerc, J.-B., Homines magici. Étude sur la sorcellerie et la magie dans la société romaine impériale (Bern 1995) 204–37Google Scholar
20 Dio 56.25.5.
21 Cf. CTh. 9.16.6 (Constantius II, in 358). The best account is still Funke, H., “Majestäts- und Magieprozesse bei Ammianus Marcellinus,” JbAC 10 (1967) 145–75Google Scholar; see also Blockley, R. C., Ammianus Marcellinus: a study of his historiography and political thought (Brussels 1975) 108–22Google Scholar; Rike, R. L., Apex omnium: religion in the Res Gestae of Ammianus (Berkeley 1987) 11–17 Google Scholar; Matthews, J. F., The Roman empire of Ammianus (London 1989) 219–24Google Scholar; Clerc (supra n.19) 210-14.
22 Amm. Marc. 29.1.7; 31.1.4-5; 14.8-9.
23 Hopfner, Th., Griechisch-ägyptischer Offenbarungszauber (1921-24, repr. Amsterdam 1974–1990)Google Scholar 2.2 paras 306-9 (pp. 526-33 of the Hakkert edition); Agrell, S., “Die pergamenische Zauberscheibe und das Tarockspiel,” BullSocLund 4 (1935-36)Google Scholar; Stuhlfauth, G., Das Dreieck (Stuttgart 1937) 14–16 Google Scholar; Mitten, D. G. and Doehringer, S.F. (edd.), Master bronzes from the classical world (exh. cat., Mainz 1968) no. 312 Google Scholar; Vierneisel, K. (ed.), Römisches im Antikenmuseum (Berlin 1978)Google Scholar no. 25 (H. Hiller); Donnay (supra n.8) 204-6.
24 Eunapius, VPhil. 474 Giangrande; on Maximus and on connections between Aedesius’ pupils and theurgy, see Penella, R. J., Greek philosophers and sophists in the fourth century AD: studies in Eunapius of Sardis (Leeds 1990) 65–76 Google Scholar
25 Eunap. 473, 478; Julian, Or. 7 (235a); Amm. Marc. 29.1.42; Liban., Or. 12.34; cf. Athanassiadi, P., Julian: an intellectual biography (2nd edn., London 1992) 34–37 Google Scholar
26 Eunap. 473-74; Damascius, Vita Isidori fr. 22, 30 (26-27 Zintzen), celebrates the tripod of the Muse, where the poets sat.
27 Penella (supra n.24) 66. Eunapius' second account of Maximus, in the context of his account of Chrysanthius (500-1), is less flattering.
28 Eunap. 475. The ritual was evidently a form of telestikê, the ‘binding and loosing’ of a god of his or her own free will: cf. Lewy, H., Chaldaean Oracles and theurgy (2nd edn., Paris 1978) 247–48Google Scholar Analogue Graeco-Egyptian compulsive magical rituals may be found in PGM IV 2708-84, 2785-2890, 3125-71, etc. Lewy, following Bidez, locates the incident at Ephesus.
29 Penella (supra n.24) 72-75.
30 Eunap. 480.
31 Similarly, Aedesius found some oracular hexameters on the back of his hand after invoking a god to give him an oracle in a dream (Eunap. 464); cf. Penella (supra n.24) 63.
32 Eunap. 460, 481, 500, 504 (Aedesius and his pupils), 469 (Sosipatra), 474 (Maximus); Cedrenus 1:788 Bekker (he knew a Pergamene magician).
33 Fr. 132 and fr. 213 (180 f. Zintzen). They derive from the same passage, quoted by the Suda.
34 Lewy (supra n.28) 362-66; Johnston (supra n.4) 49-70.
35 Dillon, J., The Middle Platonists (London 1977) 358 Google Scholar
36 PGM IV 2553-56; her mastery of land, sea and air is emphasized in Hymn. Orph. 1.2 (note that a hymn to Hekate opens this collection).
37 Cf. frgs. 51-56 des Places.
38 Lewy (supra n.28) 355-58.
39 Lewy (supra n.28) 47-55. Hekate as mistress of oracles: Or. Chald. frgs. 146-48 des Places (the ‘voice of fire’); 219-22 (address by Hekate, who has deigned to appear); 223-24 (instructions for procuring a visitation). Several scholars, however, doubt that the Hekatic oracles preserved by Eusebius (des Places nos. 219-23: ‘fragmenta dubia’) come from the Oracles. Van Liefferinge (supra n.4) 143-44, for example, assigns them to unnamed ‘magical traditions’.
40 E.g., Iamblichus, Myst. 3.27-28 and 31; 10.5 des Places.
41 On the theurgic iynges, see Cremer, F., Die Chaldäischen Orakel und Jamblich de Mysteriis (Meisenheim am Glan 1969) 71–77 Google Scholar; Majercik, R., The Chaldaean Oracles (Leiden 1989) 9–10 Google Scholar; Shaw, G., Theurgy and the soul: the Neoplatonism of Iamblichus (University Park, PA 1995) 170–88Google Scholar; van Liefferinge (supra n.4) p. 134; 149-50. It must, however, be admitted that iynges were also used by non-theurgists as a means of communication with the divine.
42 Plat., Rep. 10, 616b-617d; cf. the vision of Timarchos during his soul-journey in the sublunar regions of the heavens (Plutarch, de genio Socratis 591b7-9), where we find the same conception of the universe as in Plato's Republic, with the three Fates as the daughters of Necessity.
43 Plat., Rep. 10, 617 C, transl. P. Shorey (with slight changes).
44 E.g., Vettius Valens, Anth. 1.11; Serv. ad Verg. Aen. 6.714; in general, Gundel, W. and Gundel, H., “Planeten,” RE 20 (1950) 2163–65Google Scholar Hilarius’ apparatus reportedly carried only 24 letters on its outer rim; the Pergamene disc has 21 charakteres in the outer circle, 25 in the middle, and again 21 in the inner; the center has 8 charakteres and 8 series of vowels (38 in all). Hilarius’ disc may also have employed an eight-fold grouping (3 × 8 = 24).
45 Given the two-dimensionality of the design on the disc and the three-dimensionality of Plato's conception, only a faint analogy was achievable.
46 Johnston (supra n.4) 44.
47 Berthelot, M. and Ruelle, C. E. (edd.), Collection des alchimistes grecques (2nd edn., Paris 1888) 30 Google Scholar; cf. Mertens, M., “Une scène d'initiation alchimique: la ‘Lettre d'Isis à Horus’,” RevHistRelig 205 (1988) 16–18 Google Scholar. Lewy (supra n.28) 363 n.203, rightly explains the ‘three Anankai’ as the three faces of Hekate.
48 PGM IV 2795 f.; 2858 f. (to Selene).
49 Les tablettes astrologiques de Grand (Vosges) et l'astrologie en Gaule romaine, Table ronde 1992 (Lyons 1993).Google Scholar
50 Hist. Alex. Magni 1.4 Kroll, cf. Aufrère, S. H., “Quelques aspects du dernier Nectanébo et les échos de la magie égyptienne dans le Roman d'Alexandre,” in Moreau, A. and Turpin, J.-C. (edd.), La magie. Actes du colloque int. de Montpellier 1999 (Montpellier 2000) vol. 1, 107–8Google Scholar.
51 I do not propose to discuss here the well-known use of the iynx in love-magic, on which see Tavenner, E., “Iunx and rhombus,” TAPA 64 (1933) 109–27Google Scholar; Gow, A. S. F., “ΙYΝΞ, ΡΟΜΒΟΣ, rhombus, turbo,” JHS 54 (1934) 1–13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Detienne, M., Les jardins d'Adonis (Paris 1972) 160–72Google Scholar; Tupet, A.-M., La magie dans la poésie latine 1 (Paris 1976) 50–52 Google Scholar; Pirenne-Delforge, V., “L'iynge dans le discours mythique et les procédures magiques,” Kernos 6 (1993) 277–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnston, S. I., “The song of the iynx: magic and rhetoric in Pythian 4,” TAPA 125 (1995) 177–206 Google Scholar. In folk-magic, iynges were wheels to which a iynx-bird (wryneck) was tied and then spun, but the category is also taken to include rhomboi, tops and other spinning devices. However, Faraone, C., Ancient Greek love-magic (Cambridge, MA 1999) 63–64 Google Scholar, has recently argued that the iynx in folk-magic was just a miniature torture-wheel of the usual Greek kind, and was not a whirling device at all. This view is difficult to square with the archaeological evidence (e.g., ear-rings, vase-paintings) in which Erotes are often represented spinning discs on strings (cf. Anth. Pal. 5. 205; Schol. Pindar Pyth. 4.381a = 2:149-50 Drachmann). However that may be, it is obvious that theurgic iynges were very different (cf. Hesychius, Photius and the Suda s.v. Ἴυγξ and supra n.41), and had only the name in common.
52 See Lewy (supra n.28) 132-36, 162-63, 249-52; Johnston (supra n.4) 90-110. Van Liefferinge (supra n. 4) 135, however, is rather sceptical.
53 Psellus, , Opuse. 38 Google Scholar ( Philosophica minora 2 [ed. O'Meara, ] 133 Google Scholar); cf. Johnston (supra n.4) 90-91, whose translation I mainly follow; compare another short passage of Psellus ( Bidez, , CMAG 6. 201, 20 Google Scholar; cited by Lewy (249 n.78) where the use of the strophalinx (whirling instrument) is connected with whips of bull- leather, which were evidently used to flail the air. Helios and Selene used whips to impart motion to their spheres.
54 Damascius, De princ. 2.95 Ruelle.
55 Lewy (supra n.28) 249-50.
56 According to Marinus, Vita Procli 28 (p.84.686-87 Masullo), Proclus used his iynx to produce rain and thus save Attica from a terrible drought.
57 Lewy (supra n.28) 249-52, offers no example, but Nagy, A., “Pilula crystallina,” BullMusHongr 73 (1990) 16 n.28Google Scholar, suggests that the sphairai described by Psellus were small rock-crystal balls engraved with magical signs.
58 Delatte, A., “Etudes sur la magie grecque, I. Sphère magique du Musée d'Athènes,” BCH 37 (1913) 246–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar But it is far too heavy to spin or whip.
59 Nagy (supra n.57) 11-19, publishing a rock-crystal ball in the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Budapest, makes reference to the theurgical iynges in order to explain the meaning of odd magical stones such as these. The first line of the inscription on the Budapest specimen, CΩΘΗCΙ ΝΕΙ / ΩΕΙΗΩΙΟΥ / ΦΗΘ / ΒΑΙΝΧΩΩΩΧ; CΩΘΗC is not in fact ‘meaningless’: Cῶθιc is the star Sothis, traditionally identified with Isis, a fact known to the theurgists (Damascius, Vita lsidori, fr. 70 [98 Zintzen]); I NE I may be inexplicable, but perhaps we may refer to the verb ἰνέω, purify. There are two gems representing Aphrodite, with the inscription Cῶθηc ινιc: Kopp, U. F., Paleographia critica 4 (Mannheim 1829) 49 Google Scholar; Delatte, A. and Derchain, Ph., Les intailles magiques gréco-égyptiennes (Paris 1964)Google Scholar no. 241; cf. also on the Pergamene stones (above, fig. 1), face a, 1.7. The so-called spindle-shaped gems might also be cited: cf. Bonner, C., Studies in magical amulets (Ann Arbor 1950) 315–16Google Scholar, nos. D365-68, esp. 367, which represents 4 figures: a triple Hekate holding her typical symbols; a female figure in a gesture of proskynesis; another goddess with the head and neck of a snake, holding a staff and whip; and a male figure.
60 Philipp, H., Mira et magica: Gemmen im Ägyptischen Museum–Staatl. Museen Preußischer Kulturbesitz (Mainz 1986)Google Scholar no. 138.
61 Pannuti, U., Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. La collezione glittica II (Roma 1994)Google Scholar no. 269
62 Macarius, J. and Chifflet, J., Abraxas sen Apistopistus (Antwerp 1657)Google Scholar pl. IV 16; Gorlaeus, A., Dactyliotheca (2nd edn., Amsterdam 1707)Google Scholar no. 345; de Montfaucon, B., L'antiquité expliquée (Paris 1719–1924)Google Scholar = Antiquity explained (Engl, transl., London 1721) 2 Google Scholar, pl. 48. There may be another representation of this god on the jasper published by Capello, A., Prodromus iconicus sculptilium gemmarum Basilidiani amulectici atque talismani generis (Venice 1702)Google Scholar no. 153, and reproduced by Zazoff, P., AGDS 3, Braunschweig, Göttingen, Kassel (Wiesbaden 1970)Google Scholar no. 129, who describes the small figure above the anguipede cock as a baboon.
63 A similar masturbating god appears on another gem, in Paris: Delatte and Derchain (supra n.59) no. 226 (though according to the authors he has a donkey's head).
64 du Molinet, Cl., Cabinet de la Bibliothèque de Ste Geneviève (Paris 1692)Google Scholar pl. 30, I-II; B. de Montfaucon (Engl, edn., supra n.62) 2, pl. 53; Carnegie, H. (ed.), Catalogue of the collection of ancient gems formed by J., ninth Earl of Southesk, K.T. (London 1908) 1 Google Scholar no. N 24 (with photo).
65 du Molinet (supra n.64) pl. 30, VII-VIII; Montfaucon (Engl, edn., supra n.62) 2, pl. 51; Derchain, Ph., “Le démiurge et la balance,” in Religions en Égypte hellénistique et romaine. Colloque Strasbourg 1967 (Paris 1969) 32 Google Scholar and pl. 1.3, explains why the balance as a symbol of the pantheistic magical god signified the masturbating act of Atûm: Egyptian iws'w, ‘(masturbating) hand’, was pronounced like iwsw, ‘balance’.
66 Nag Hammadi ‘Treatise without title’ 100, 114, 119; Hypostasis of the Archons 94; Apocryphon of John (BG version) 37; Pistis Sophia 1.31-32, 39; Origen, , contra Celsum 6.30-31 Google Scholar. Anyone who is familiar with the creation tales collected and studied by the ethnologists will be aware that such conceptions are widespread.
67 Compare the claims by practitioners that they are named gods, on whose authority they make their commands: e.g., PGM VIII 36-38: ‘For you are I, and I am you; your name is mine, and mine is yours. For I am your image’ (transl. W. C. Grese); VIII 49 f.: ‘I know you, Hermes, and you know me; I am you and you are I’; XIII 700 f.: ‘Lord, I imitate you, by [saying] the seven vowels’; XIII 795: ‘You are I and I am you’; LXI 26: ‘because I possess his power’, i.e., the god's power). This is not simply a matter of demonic possession (as argued by Eitrem, S., “La théurgie chez les Néo-platoniciens et dans les papyrus magiques,” SymbOsl 22 [1942] 67)Google Scholar, but they also connote the practitioner's acts: he used the same instruments as the god, spoke and looked like him.
68 For exorcists roaring, see Bonner, C., “Traces of thaumaturgic technique in the miracles,” HTR 20 (1927) 174–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69 PGM XIII 471-531; cf. Dieterich, A., Abraxas (Leipzig 1905) 20–31 Google Scholar
70 PGM III 187-96 with pl. II fig. 4. On private divination in the papyri, see Gordon, R. L., “Reporting the marvellous: private divination in the Greek magical papyri,” in Schäfer, P. and Kippenberg, H. G. (edd.), Envisioning magic: a Princeton Seminar and Symposium (Leiden 1997) 65–92 Google Scholar; Johnston, S. I., “Charming children: the use of the child in ancient divination,” Arethusa 34 (2001) 97–117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
71 Pearson, B. A., “Theurgic tendencies in Gnosticism and Iamblichus’ conception of theurgy,” in Wallis, R. T. and Bregman, J. (edd.), Neoplatonism and Gnosticism (New York 1992) 255;Google Scholar cf. Cremer (supra n.41) 21-22.
72 On the identification between theurgist and the creator-god, see Shaw (supra n.41) 153-61; J. P. Anton, “Theurgia-demiourgia: a controversial issue in Hellenistic thought and religion,” in Wallis and Bregman ibid. 9-31
