Abstract
This article considers a text-unit known in five Syriac codices and consisting of up to three magical recipes. The target of all these recipes is a mill: two of them are curses (ˀassārā ‘binding spell’) and intend to stop the mill, while the third one is a counter-spell (šeryānā ‘loosening spell’), which aims to annul the curse. One of the two binding spells includes a rare example of an Arabic incantation written in Garshuni. The main purpose of this article is to make these texts available via critical editions. In addition, light is shed on the broader context of magical practices, by drawing attention to Syriac recipes for an oven and their Jewish parallels, and by presenting two Jewish parallels of spells related to a mill: a Judaeo-Arabic text from the Cairo Genizah and a spell from a Byzantine manuscript. We offer a reconsideration of the interpretation of the Judaeo-Arabic text, as our reading differs from that of the Editio Priceps.
1 Introduction
Syriac charms1 collected in codices widely known as Book of Protection did not receive much scholarly attention and as noted by A. Pearson, “the field is still in its early stage”.2 Pearson states that in order for the field to progress, “our first task is to publish more source material”.3 An edition of these three recipes is thus valuable, not only to bring more source material to light, but for three more reasons. First, although they have not yet been truly edited, they have been interpreted incorrectly by previous scholars, H. Gollancz and K. Fr. Krämer (see below). Second, two of the recipes belong to the category of aggressive magic,4 which is even less studied than other types of Syriac magical texts. Third, one of the binding spells contains an Arabic incantation written in Syriac script. Only two Syriac recipes of this kind have been edited before the current publication.5
Though this article focusses on Syriac recipes for the mill, attention is paid to the broader context of related magic practices. A separate section is devoted to Syriac recipes for the oven and their Jewish parallels, and another one to Jewish and Coptic recipes for the mill. Such contextualization assists in better understanding the place of magic within Syriac culture, and sheds further light on connections between Syriac Christianity and other cultures.
2 The Manuscripts
Below we provide short catalogue descriptions of the Syriac manuscripts6 in which the recipes for the mill are found.
Houghton Syr. 1607 (H)
Harvard University (Cambridge MA), Houghton Library, ms. Syriac 160. Former owner: I. H. Hall (1837–1896). Title: kṯīḇtā da-nṭuryā ‘Protective Amulet’.8 Paper, 49 leaves, bound, 12 × 8 cm. Up to 18 lines to page. Script: unvocalized East Syriac. 74 chapters, 17 coloured illustrations. Date and place: 1804, the village of Shibāni, Tergawar district (Hakkari, Turkey). Scribe: Gewargis bar Zayˁa from Shamsdin.
London, British Library Ms. Or. 6673. Paper, 12.5 × 9.0 cm, 48 leaves. Script: unvocalized East Syriac. Date and place: 1804, the village of Shibāni, Tergawar district (Hakkari, Turkey). 67 chapters and illustrations. Up to 18 lines to page. Scribe: Gewargis.11 Described by Gollancz, who collated the ms. with Cod. A, and edited most of the additional content, which was not in Cod. A. This part of the manuscript is available to us only via Gollancz’s edition.
BL Or. 528112 (Blb)
London, British Library Ms. Or. 5281. Paper, 38 × 23 cm, 146 leaves. A convolute volume consisting of three manuscripts written in three different hands. It contains magical, divinatory, and astrological sections. The magical section has no beginning. The first two manuscripts contain magical texts (ff. 1–2 and ff. 2–41). This part consists of 62 chapters with 1 illustration in black. Up to 16 lines to page. Script: sporadically vocalized East Syriac. Date: unknown, paleographically dated to the 18th century. The codex also contains 47 chapters of the Book of the Bee.
IOM 413 (I)
Russia, St. Petersburg, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts,14 Osnovnoy fond, ms. Sir. 4. Title: kṯīḇtā d-nuṭṭār bnaynāšā ‘Amulet for protecting people’. Paper, 10.5 × 6.5 cm, 40 leaves, bound. Script: sporadically vocalized East Syriac. Up to 14 lines on page. 46 sections, 13 colored illustrations. Colophon lacking. Paleographically dated to the 17th–18th century by Pigulevskaya; later ownership notes of Yoḥannan bar Tērō, and of Saggō bar Merzā.
NH315
New Haven, CT, Beinecke Library, Hartford Seminary collection no. 3. Title: kṯāḇtā16 d-nuṭṭār bnaynāšā ‘Amulet for protecting people’. Paper, 11 × 7 cm, 41 leaves. Script: vocalized East Syriac. Colophon lacking; assigned to the 19th century. 50 chapters, 14 illustrations. Up to 14 lines to page. The ms. belongs to the same textual tradition as I but is written in a less skilled hand.
3 Text and Translation
Among the five manuscripts at our disposal, we have chosen H as the main manuscript. Since NH3 follows I, but is less reliable, we do not address it separately. The text-critical discrepancies between the four compared manuscripts are provided in the footnotes. A synopsis of all four versions is presented in the next section.
4 Synopsis of the Four Versions
In the table below, we provide the text of the four manuscripts divided into eight verses and presented synoptically.
In what follows, we outline the most significant discrepancies between the four manuscripts. Two of them (H and BLa) preserve three recipes: two binding spells (verses 1, 2 and 3–7) and one loosening spell (verse 8). In BLb, the text stops at verse 7, before the end of the second recipe. In I, only one binding spell has been preserved. This textual variant contains a few remarkable traits. First, its beginning is similar to the other manuscripts, alluding to Psalm 102, but what follows does not correspond to the text of the first binding spell. Instead, it proceeds with instructions similar to the second binding spell (verses 3 and 7), prescribing to recite the psalm above 7 grains of wheat 7 times. Then the grains are to be thrown into reḡlāh d-raḥyā ‘… of the mill’ which refers either to the torrent of the watermill, or to some unidentified part of the mill.
Each of the other three manuscripts (H, BLb and BLa) contains scribal mistakes, but, as a whole, the texts of H and of BLb are more reliable, while BLa contains mistakes even in the biblical citations. It appears that BLa has only one considerable advantage: it provides a better reading for klmwy in H and BLb – klmty (Arb. kalimātī ‘my words’).
The difference between the ways in which this text-unit has been segmentated in the different manuscripts is significant for its interpretation: in H, the beginning of each recipe is marked in red, while in BLa only the first and the third spell have separate headings. At the same time, in H, there are some other words written with red ink: barreḵ ‘bless’ (ll. 4, 16), wa-ˀrmī? ‘throw’ (l. 13, instead of wa-ˀrmā), which do not correspond to the segmentation of the text. The crucial place is l. 5, where we think the second spell begins. In BLa the first two spells are not divided even by a punctuation mark. In H the second piece can be distinguished as a separate spell not only due to the red ink, highlighting the words šḳol šaḇˁā perdē d-ḥeṭṭē ‘take seven grains of wheat’, but also because of the mark of the end of a paragraph (
Where BLb is concerned, a few important features of this variant can be noticed. Though it lacks the ending of the ritual instruction in the second recipe and omits the whole third recipe, it expands the text of the second recipe with a few lines (verse 6). This reading is partly supported by BLa. This verse expands the ritual instruction by adding “another word” in BLb (see section 5 under * below) and increasing the number of times the spell should be recited to up to forty (in BLb and BLa). While in BLa this last instruction contradicts the recommendation to recite the spell five times (compared with seven in H), in BLb no such contradiction is found, since this is the only place where the number of utterances is mentioned. Although the assumptions on the reconstruction of the proto text are usually vulnerable, here it seems highly probable that this contradiction was present in the original text of the recipe, which in this aspect was close to the text as preserved in BLa, but it was eliminated in the course of transmission. H and BLb represent two different decisions: to keep only the first prescription (H), or only the second one (BLb). Second, BLb provides partial vocalization of the text. Third, its manner of rendering Arabic words seems closer to the Garshuni scribal system than the manner of BLa and H. The clearest case is rendering of Arb.
5 Philological Commentary
ll. 4, 6, 16: brk (barreḵ) ‘bless’
In what follows we place the word between quotation marks, because its meaning is not easy to establish. Two questions arise here:
-
1) Does the word refer to the words mentioned before/after it, or does it refer to the separate blessing which is to be pronounced besides the other words?
-
2) What does “blessing” mean in the context of the two supposedly aggressive spells?
Concerning the first question, if we look at all the three passages, it appears that barreḵ refers to the words mentioned before or after it. A schematic representation of the three passages seems to be helpful.
ll. 1–4: “say these words from the psalm” – [the words from the psalm] – “bless upon the dust” – “throw it”
ll. 5–13: “take 7 grains” – “bless upon them [with the following] words” – [the Arabic incantation] – “throw them”
ll. 14–17: [the words from the psalm] – “bless upon the wheat” – “throw it”
The second passage presumably gives a clue to our question, because it allows us to equate the following incantation with the “blessing words”. If we expand this interpretation to the other two passages, we can argue that in the three texts the object of the verb barreḵ is the words mentioned before or after it. Turning to the second question, the problem is that when barreḵ occurs in two passages that we attribute to aggressive magic, we hardly can render it as “bless”. Similarly, if we ascribe to the verb a euphemistic meaning and render it as “curse”,18 the meaning does not fit the third passage from the loosening spell. We suggest, that in these three texts barreḵ designates an action of pronouncing words which have magic power, be it a citation from the Bible or an Arabic incantation – with a good intention, same as with an evil one. However, the issue requires further investigation based on the corpus of Syriac charms.
ll. 5, 13, 16–17: ˁynˀ d-rḥyˀ (ˁaynā d-raḥyā) ‘the mill’s eye’, i.e., the opening in a hand mill where the grain is put
Our main interpretation of this expression is based on metaphorical usages of ˁaynā ‘eye’ in Aramaic languages, such as JPA ˁyyn ‘draft hole of an oven’.19 Though we are unable to confirm or refute this interpretation based on the Syriac lexical data, a similar usage is found in JBA: bt ˁyn ‘pupil of the eye’, ‘hole in the millstone’.20
Another interpretation worth considering is based on the second core meaning of ˁaynā, i.e., ‘spring’. In this case, raḥyā would mean ‘watermill’ and ˁaynā d-raḥyā would denote a spring, or a water source, which refers to this watermill.21 A support for this interpretation may be found in I, where instead of ˁaynā we see reḡlā. The term’s core meaning is ‘foot’, but it can also denote a stream, which would fit this interpretation. However, we cannot exclude that reḡlā refers to some other part of the mill, since the term can also mean ‘foundation’ or ‘leg (e.g., of a table)’. Also, our main interpretation is supported by the external evidence, the recipe from the Cairo Geniza, which also requires throwing dust into the opening in the upper mill, which is denoted by Arb. ḥalq‑.
l. 8: sndwk bndwk (sundūk bundūk)
All three manuscripts give the same writing, and, as it seems, here we have a beginning of an Arabic spell. Initially this phrase probably was an Arabic paronomastic construction called itbāˁ. According to Pellat, this figure of speech is used in Classical Arabic when one wants to reinforce the meaning of a word. Usually, the phrase consists of two words the second of which has no existence in the language and is formed by alteration of mainly the first radical, for example ḥasan basan ‘wonderfully attractive’.22 The reconstruction of the original Arabic phrase would supposedly give ṣundūq bundūq, which indeed is attested in Classical Arabic texts.23 Given this the phrase should mean ‘an impressive chest’ which is not supported by the context and does not fit our text. However, Schorch in his study of puns in the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible in a wider context argues that paronomasia has more functions than merely creating emphasis.24 He also states that some kinds of “paronomasia are related in a certain way to the use of paronomasia in imitative magic, well attested in the neighbouring cultures of ancient Israel”.25 Moreover, this phrase occurs in a children’s game, in which a player exclaims ṣundūq bundūq beside other incomprehensible words and phrases in a colloquial Arabic, loosely connected with each other.26
l. 9: wˀlh ˀgbr (wa-ˀaḷḷāh ˀakbar) ‘and God is the greatest’
The BLb’s reading ˀlkbrˀ could be interpreted as the Arabic word al-kubrā,27 but this does not seem to fit the context. Two other manuscripts agree with each other and give what we assume to be a more spontaneous rather than a systematic rendering of the Arabic exclamation (
l. 9: klmwy (kalimātī) ‘my words’
BLa has klmty, while H and BLb read klmwy which we assume to be a mistake. Considering the possibility of incomprehension of the scribe, which will be mentioned below, this mistake could also be attributed to peculiarities of the scribal hand, in which shapes of t and w are alike.
l. 9: hdˀll ‘these?’
All three manuscripts give different sequences of letters, none of which makes any sense in this context (H: hdˀll, BLa: hll, BLb: bhdˀll). The syntax of the phrase suggests that we have here a demonstrative pronoun with kalimātī ‘my words’ as its antecedent. It is hard to equate this with Classical Arabic hāḏihī or hāˀulāˀī. The probable interpretation is to consider these letters as a distorted form of a colloquial demonstrative pronoun, cf. hadōl(e)31 in dialects of Levant, hāḏ̣ōḷ(ḷah)/hāḏoḷḷayn, hāḏōḷ/hāḏēl, hāḏōl in Bedouin Arabic dialects of Arabian Peninsula and Near East.32
l. 10: wldy (wa-llāḏī) ‘and which’
Both manuscripts agree and the reading of the phrase is clear.33
l. 10: tkyl bh (ittakal bihi) ‘relied on this?’
Two manuscripts read tkl (BLa, BLb) and one has tkyl (H). It is quite hard to understand this word especially with the next word (H and BLa: bh, but BLb: bhh, the last h of which is without doubt taken from the next word). The context suggests that we have here a verb with the meaning “to rely upon”. The writing of the assumed verb is not only unclear, but also it cannot be easily construed with the following alleged preposition b‑. Although the verb ittakala occurs in Arabic with the preposition fī, in other stems of the root w-k-l the preposition b- is used in reference to things which someone is put in charge of.34
ll. 10–11: slmwn ˀbn dwwd (sulaymān ˀibn dawūd) ‘Solomon, son of David’
Every manuscript has different writing (H: hlmwn ˀbn dwwd, BLa: hslmn ˀb dwwd, BLb: slmn ˀbn dwwd, note the previous commentary about h), but its reading is obvious.
l. 11: ḥtmt (xatamt) ‘I hereby seal’
Two manuscripts have ḥtmt (H and BLa) and the last has wktmt (BLb). It is remarkable that in these manuscripts both recorded possibilities for rendering Arabic x are present, namely with the letters ḥ and k.35 Here we apparently have the performative use of the verb ḥtm (‘I hereby seal’).36
ll. 11–12: bḥtymt ˀlgyn (bi-xātimat? ˀal-ǧinn) ‘with the seal of the jinn’
H and BLa agree with each other (bḥtymt ˀlgyn) against BLb (bktmt ˀlgyn). The context suggests “with the seal of the jinn”, but the Arabic word xātimah which fits the writing usually means ‘end, conclusion’37 with the only exception we found being ‘signature, caractère’.38 Both meanings do not allow to get the assumed meaning of the phrase. The interpretation of ˀlgyn as Arabic
l. 12: ˀrbˁˀ (ˀarbaˁ ) ‘four’
The reading is obvious (H and BLb: ˀrbˁˀ, but BLa: ˀrbˁ ), but the syntax is obscure. There could be at least two interpretations. First, it could be in apposition to the previous word ‘the jinn’ meaning ‘the four jinn’.40 This interpretation suggests that the object (the mill) of the verb xatamt ‘I seal’ is omitted. In this case the loss of the definite article before the number must be assumed. Second, it could be construed as a direct object of the verbal form “I seal”, but then it is unclear what four things are sealed especially considering unclarity of the following phrase.
l. 12: mn sˀyt (min as-sayyid)
The writing of the two manuscripts (H and BLa: sˀyt) does not lend itself to understanding.41 The interpretation of the third manuscript’s writing (BLb: syd) is clear (sayyid ‘master, owner’), nevertheless its syntactic position is difficult to comprehend. Also, the absence of the article in writing complicates interpretation of the phrase even more although this kind of recording is possible in Garshuni.42
l. 12: dfwhˀ (ḏī-fūhā?) ‘of its opening (lit. “mouth”)’
Two manuscripts agree in writing (H and BLb: dfwhˀ, but BLa: wfwhˀ). Although the grammatical rules of Classical Arabic seem to permit such a use of the Arabic nota genitivi ḏū still it seems here redundant and clumsy.43 One can reasonably suppose contamination with Syriac particle di-. Combination of the letters fwhˀ according to the context should refer to the mill and prompts to read it as ‘a mouth (of the mill)’. This naming of the opening of the upper stone indeed occurs in Arabic,44 but nevertheless the exact form of a used Arabic word (or a combination with the pronominal suffix hā)45 as well as the syntax of the whole phrase are obscure.
* verse 6
In BLa we find an additional instruction to repeat the spell given in the previous lines “for a period of forty times”. In BLb there is one more sentence. It says: “And one other word [you repeat] for many times”. The interpretation of the following two words, bh ˀytyn (vocalised as bēh ˀaytyān) is complicated, since they can be understood either as a Syriac, or as an Arabic phrase – in each case, the text seems corrupted and requires emendations.
A. If a Syriac hypothesis is considered, there are a few possibilities. Here we discuss the two which do not require changing the consonantal text.
A1. bēh ˀaytīn ‘which we adduced [above]’
A2. bēh ˀaytyan ‘with which he came upon us’
Both suggestions involve a few problems. First, the verb ˀty in C-stem is not normally used with b-, instead the object of bringing is introduced as a second direct object. Second, any Syriac interpretation of this phrase would imply a disruption in normal Syriac syntax, since a subordinate clause, i.e., “the word, which …”, is to be marked with a relative pronoun d-. Third, none of these two makes sense in our context, because none of them mentions this another word or phrase which should be uttered.
B. Alternatively, the phrase can be explained as another corrupted rendering of Arabic. The most attractive interpretation is, probably, bihi ˀtinī (
به اتني ) ‘give me this’, i.e., ‘do this for me’. In this case we must suppose omitting of alif al-waṣl in writing of the imperative of the verb ˀatā, as well as a specific syntax of the phrase possibly for the emphasis, when the preposition with the pronoun (bihi) goes before the verb (ˀti). Nevertheless, assuming an Arabic citation has an advantage compared with a Syriac one, because it allows us to avoid the problem of syntactic disruption. Also, another Arabic phrase in this charm would fit the context better.
6 Interpretation
In this section we provide a short overview of the three Syriac recipes for the mill followed by our interpretation. As already mentioned, in every place where we read raḥyā ‘mill’, Gollancz reads ryḥˀ, which corresponds to Syr. rīḥā ‘smell’. Even though this reading is supported by K. Fr. Krämer, to whose interpretation we will turn further on, we would rather suspect an editorial mistake, made by Gollancz and replicated by Krämer, than a scribal one, since the two words look very similar in the Syriac script:
There are a few reasons to treat Gollancz’s reading as erroneous. First, in the case of H, the consonantal writing is clear enough to eliminate any doubts, while in BLb the word is vocalized as reḥyā. Though not found in Syriac dictionaries,48 this vocalization is supported by the lexical data of other Aramaic idioms.49 Second, the sphere of usage of the textual block can be deduced from the content of the recipes, abundant with agricultural lexica.50 The lexical issues, together with the text-critical data and comparative data from Jewish and Coptic magic discussed below, makes the reading offered by Gollancz and Krämer’s interpretation unconvincing.
If the most extensive textual variants are considered (H and BLa), the text- unit consists of three fragments, each of them containing a ritual prescription.
1) ˀassārā d-raḥyā ‘Binding of a mill’ (verses 1–2)
The first binding spell prescribes reciting Psalm 102:11 three times above the dust51 and throwing it, most probably, into the opening in the upper mill, or “mill’s eye” (see the commentary to l. 5 below in section 5). The cited words from Ps. 102:11 are probably connected with the following prescription to take and throw dust into the mill’s eye. However, one cannot leave unmentioned the fact that the previous verse of the psalm (Ps. 102:10 according to the Peshitta numeration) reminds us of the aim of the spell: “For I was eating ashes like bread and was mingling tears with my drink”. Although, in the Syriac Peshitta we find the term qeṭmā ‘ashes’, while in the spell for a mill (verse 2) in all the manuscripts ˁaprā ‘dust, clay’ is used, we still find probable that alluding to Ps. 102:11 both verses 10 and 11 were meant here. It is also worth mentioning that the Hebrew terms for “ashes” (ˀēp̄är), used in the Hebrew version of the verse, and “dry earth, dust” (ˁāp̄ār) can sound similar and have close semantics.
2) ˀḥrēnā ‘Another [recipe]’ (verses 3–7)
The second fragment, also a binding spell, starts with a prescription, involving manipulations with seven wheat grains that should be thrown into the mill after being “blessed” five, seven or up to forty times – depending on the manuscript.
Verses 4–5 contain an Arabic spell written in Syriac script (Garshuni) with a supposed infusion of colloquial Arabic traits (on which see above). The scribal manner of H and BLa to separate each Arabic word with a word divider was discussed above in the text-critical section. It seems, that both scribes were uncertain as to where the Arabic text ends and ritual instructions in Syriac begin (verse 5). In H, the last word with a colon is ˀlgyn ‘the jinn’, while in BLa the last colon is found two words before, after ḥtmt ‘[hereby] I seal’. Though the language of these last sentences appears to be corrupted and, in some cases, may represent a mixture of Syriac and Arabic, according to our interpretation the Arabic text ends no earlier than after the word pwhˀ ‘(its?) opening’.
Some Arabic words were correctly interpreted by K. Fr. Krämer in his unpublished doctoral thesis (see section 5 above). We cannot restore the exact wording of the original Arabic spell based on the current form of the text, but the general meaning is obvious. The form of the Arabic part indicates that at some stage the text became completely incomprehensible for the copyists of the recipes.52 If they would have had any command of Arabic, the scribes would not have misspelled the name Solomon or written ‘father’ (ˀb) instead of ‘son’ (ˀbn in “Solomon son of David”) not to mention the facts that only a few words in this spell are clearly readable in Arabic and the syntax is sometimes impenetrable.
The Arabic spell alludes to the legend of king Solomon’s magic ring, which frequently occurs in both Syriac53 and Arabic54 magic. According to our interpretation the opening in the upper mill is claimed to be sealed by the seal of the four jinn. The four jinn here most probably symbolize the four cardinal points, i.e., the mill is intended to be bound from all four sides. Each cardinal point is thus governed by its jinn. This reminds us of a protective Jewish formula used in magic and in prayers: “May Michael be at my right hand, Gabriel at my left; in front of me, Uriel, behind me, Raphael; and above my head the Presence of God”. Bearing the exact opposite goal, i.e., protection instead of harm, the formula also implies positioning of the named supernatural beings according to the four cardinal points. Notably, a similar protective formula is found in Syriac and in Muslim magic texts.55
Also, it is worth to mention that seven grains occur in a Muslim story about the origins of first breadmaking.56 In this story God, via Gabriel, gave Adam after his exile from Heaven seven grains which he then sowed and harvested. After that Gabriel gave him two stones with which Adam made a hand mill. He ground the wheat and kneaded it. Gabriel taught him how to kindle a fire, so Adam was able to bake the first loaf of bread.
3) šeryānā d-raḥyā ‘loosening of a mill’ (verse 8)
The last spell is a counter-spell to the two previous ones or to any other curse intended to affect one’s mill. The recipe requires the user to recite Psalm 146 over wheat (without specifying the quantity required) which, just as in the two cursing rituals, is to be thrown into the mill’s eye.
7 The Broader Context
The first two recipes supposedly aim to stop (cf. Syr. bṭl in l. 13) the mill that belongs to the spell beneficiary’s adversary. The final goal of the two spells is presumably to harm the adversary. By causing problems with the production of flour, the spell beneficiary may seek to affect the sustenance of the spell target and his family. These considerations allow us to attribute the two recipes to aggressive magic and to compare them with various cursing techniques attested in magical texts from Egypt, both in Coptic57 and in Jewish58 contexts.
The textual variant of the text-unit found in BLb has been mentioned recently by M. Zellmann-Rohrer, who also ascribes an aggressive intention to these recipes, assuming their usage in a context of commercial rivalry59 and comparing them with recipes aimed to hinder the heating of an oven.
There are three text-units related to a furnace found in three manuscripts, which notably also contain the binding spells for a mill. The first text-unit is found in BLb (ff. 22v–23v), the first recipe is titled ˀAssārā d-ˀattūnā w-mānay d-ˀīṯ bēh ‘Binding of a furnace and the implements which are in it’. The second text-unit is contained in I (f. 37r), where only the ending of the binding spell has been preserved, but the full text is found in the closely related manuscript NH3, where it is called ˀAssārā d-ṯannūrā ‘Binding of the oven’ (f. 36v). The third text-unit for an oven is found in I (f. 35, partly lost due to the torn page) and NH3 (f. 35r): ˀAssārā d-ḵūrā d-p̄arzlā ‘Binding of an iron smelter’ (NH3, I 35). All three text-units contain both a binding and a loosening spell. Sharing a similar target, they are completely different on the formulaic and structural level, allowing us to regard them as three different text-units designed for similar purposes. These texts deserve to be the subject of a separate research, therefore, below we cite only a few excerpts from the recipes.
In BLb (the 1st text-unit) the text reads:
(…) I bind this furnace (ˀattūnā) and the smelter (kūrā). Let it be like snow and hail. (…) I bind the furnace and everything that is in the smelter. (…) And all the utensils that are in it. (…) And let them not burn but let them get broken and become like chaff that the wind carries away (BLb ff. 22v–23r).
The respective loosening spells for a furnace (šeryānā dīlēh ‘Loosening spell for it’) in BLb reads:
(…) Let this binding of the furnace and the smelter disappear, let [the furnace] return to its initial state. Let the utensils in it be heated (or inflamed), let them not be pierced?, nor broken, the small [ones] together with the big [ones] (BLb f. 23v).
The binding spell of the second text-unit contains a ritual prescription to recite the incantation above a piece of wood and throw it into the furnace, absent from BLb. As for the loosening spell, instead of a mid-length text found in BLb, in I and NH3 there is only a short prescription to recite Psalm 146 three times. Notably, the same psalm is used in the ‘Loosening of a mill’ (verses 8–9). The binding spell says:
They are igniting the furnace in vain, let [the fire in it] go out as [the fire in] the furnace of the house of Hananiah.60 By that power let the fire not burn in it and not be ignited in the furnace of so-and-so son of so-and-so (I f. 37r).
A prescription to recite the spell over three pieces of wood is found in the third text-unit, found in NH3 and I. The spell says:
“He rode upon the cherubim and flew61” – three sentences (lit. “words”). Cut three pieces of wood, recite [the words] over them and throw them into the furnace (NH3 35r).
Indeed, at least the first and the third text-units appear to refer to an industrial furnace for firing pottery or smelting metals, while the second can be designed for a baking oven – either domestic or industrial. One should note, however, that also at household level the binding of an oven could have had adverse economic implications, since this would result in more wood needing to be used and more work invested in attempting to kindle the fire. This is evident when we consider the reverse type of magical practices: those intended to hasten the cooking of food, presumably to require less wood and work. Examples of this type are found in rabbinic literature, for instance Tosefta Shabbat 7.7–8, where several practices are adduced (and prohibited) for hastening the cooking of food.62 Similarly, the Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 67b mentions “A woman who urinates in front of her pot so it will cook quickly: that action contains an element of the ways of the Amorite.”63 To conclude, whether the aggressive charms in the Syriac manuscripts referred to industrial or to home ovens, preventing them from burning would have harmed their owners.
A parallel to these oven-binding charms is found in a recipe for binding the furnace of a bathhouse from the Jewish composition Sefer ha-Razim (The Book of Secrets). The recipe begins with the words “If you wish to extinguish (the fire which heats) a bathhouse so it will neither flare up nor burn”, and continues with a practice involving the adjuration of a salamander dipped in oil.64 The oil is then dripped at the four corners of the bathhouse, with the intention to “make it like cold snow or cold water”.65 This spell is followed by a loosening formula, meant to ignite the furnace again: “I adjure you, angel of fire and angel of conflagration, that you will undo what I have bound”.66 Obviously, preventing the furnace from heating the bathhouse would have inflicted economic damage on its owners, just as the binding of an industrial or home-oven would. However, the target addressed in all the above spells is not the owner but the fire.
Additional parallels to the oven-binding and releasing recipes can be found in another Jewish composition, Ḥarba de-Moshe (The Sword of Moses), in a recipe titled “If you wish to close an oven or a basin or a pot so that (foods) will not be put (in them)”.67 This binding recipe is followed by a counter one, so that “they will be (released for) cooking”.
8 Historical Context
Aggressive magic, both in antiquity and in later periods, was usually meant to directly affect human targets. Some examples would be practices for causing bodily harm, such as disease, fever, impotence, bareness, and inability to speak, along with more psychologically oriented practices, such as those meant to cause memory loss and a change of feelings from love to hatred or vice versa. A smaller number of aggressive magical practices were directed at animals, with the intention to obliquely affect a human target. Prominent examples of this category are curses and binding spells directed at racing horses.68 Lastly, some aggressive practices focused on inanimate targets. Here, too, the ultimate intention was to affect humans, as shown in the examples below. However, the notion of binding an inanimate entity is particularly intriguing, as it addresses the inanimate as a living being.
Binding and aggressive magical practices targeting inanimate entities could include natural formations such as rivers or seas,69 agricultural products,70 and also objects and installations, such as a ship71 or the mill which is the focus of this article. The latter type of practices is found already in Late Antiquity, as evidenced by the recipes for binding the furnace of a bathhouse mentioned above. Further parallels to this type of practices can be found in Coptic magic, for instance in a manuscript currently located in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, inventory number JdE 42573, roughly dated between the tenth and the twelfth century.72 The aim of this magical text is to affect a water-wheel and prevent it from supplying water. A water-wheel is a type of revolving installation similar to the mill mentioned in the recipes we discuss. In the Coptic text, the binding of the water-wheel is to be effected by pouring a mixture of liquids onto it: acacia juice (?) and snake water, the latter possibly meaning venom. This practice is similar in form to that attested in the Syriac recipes, but lacks the verbal element.
Aggressive magic against a water-wheel is also mentioned in another Coptic text currently located in Heidelberg, P. Heid. Inv. Kopt. 408. This magical procedure – which also involves pouring a mixture of liquids – is accompanied by a historiola in which a supernatural entity named Khoubin Harpak describes himself to King Solomon and claims: “My work is destruction. (…) A thresher, I destroy it, a […] I destroy it, a shovel, I lay waste to it, a water-wheel, I destroy it, a garden, I destroy it, […] I destroy it, a storehouse, I destroy it (…).”73 As can be seen from the above list, this Coptic text was meant to affect a variety of inanimate entities (both objects and installations) and presumably ultimately to harm their human owners.
Moving now to the Jewish parallels to the mill spells, we start with the observation that two parallels have been found. The first is part of a bifolio with magical recipes from the Cairo Geniza, T-S Ar. 49.54 1:12–3:5, that has been published by Joseph Naveh and Shaul Shaked.74 Below we revise the reading of Naveh and Shaked.
Cambridge T-S Ar. 49.54 1:12–3:5. Paper bifolio, ca. 13.5 × 19.5 cm, each leaf measures ca. 13.5 × 10 cm. Inscribed in black ink by one or two hands. Oriental square script. The text contains Judaeo-Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic.
Our reading revises that offered by the first editors of this text, Naveh and Shaked, on several points. In the first recipe, lines 14–15, they read the last letters of the magic names as a final mem, while we suggest reading samekh. The scribe wrote these two letters in nearly identical form (cf. 4, line 8:
Naveh and Shaked, while noting that the term
The Genizah recipe for releasing a mill found on the verso of this leaf (2:1–5) seems to be written by a different hand, or by the same scribe but in a very different form. The letters are much larger, thicker and less cursive, and there are no supralinear dots for emphasis. If the recipe was indeed written by the same person as the previous one, the reason for the change in writing style is unclear. We should note that the writing changes again on the following leaf, in the middle of a recipe (3: 3).
The first line of the releasing recipe probably consisted of one word, its title, which could have been the Aramaic
The two magical names in the releasing recipe closely resemble those in the binding one. However, while the binding recipe contains three variations of the sequence
Both recipes on T-S Ar. 49.54 contain a mixture of languages: Judaeo-Arabic, Aramaic, and a couple of Hebrew words. This situation will be discussed further below, after presenting the second parallel.
NYPL 190, fol. 180: 20–2376
https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/8cfbe0d0-a5ee-0133-e6a4-00505686d14e
This recipe is part of a paper manuscript of 258 pages, ca. 27 × 17 cm. Date: 1468. Hand: Byzantine. Scribe: Moshe ben Yaakov ben Mordechai and Marḥaba. The manuscript contains two works by Abraham Abulafia, Ḥaye ha-Nefesh and Matsref ha-Ḥokhmah, followed by a long compendium of magical recipes in a combination of Judaeo-Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew (pp. 58–258 of the manuscript). The magic manuscript, including the recipe below, was edited by Gideon Bohak,77 who noted the partial parallel to T-S Ar. 49.54 but did not provide an alternative interpretation.
The NYPL 190 recipe consists of a simple invocation of four magical names, followed by a series of synonym verbs denoting binding effects on the mill. The subsequent results, “it will not turn and not move” prove that the interpretation of
As opposed to the Genizah recipe, NYPL 190 only consists of an incantation to be uttered, whereas T-S Ar. 49.54 also involves a practical action (taking dust and feeding it to the mill). The magical words to be uttered, however, resemble each other and clearly reflect the same incantation:
The core of the magic words in NYPL 190 and in the releasing recipe from T-S Ar. 49.54 is
In terms of chronology, both the Aramaic text preserved in NYPL 190 and that in the middle of the Judaeo-Arabic version from T-S Ar. 49.54 attest to the antiquity of these spells. In the medieval period most Jews were no longer using Aramaic. Hence, in both manuscripts the title and instructions of the recipes are provided in Judaeo-Arabic, while the actual incantation remains in the original Aramaic.78
9 Conclusions
In this study of the Syriac text-unit for a mill we have shown that the magical practices attested in these recipes have a much broader cultural and historical context. Comparing the Syriac texts with Jewish recipes, we can try to identify the core of the binding and loosening practices shared by both magical traditions. In the case of the binding spell the core-practice is throwing dust into the opening in the upper mill, while reciting the incantation. In the case of the loosening spell, in both traditions Psalm 146:7 is used for this purpose.
Notably, both in the Syriac and in the Jewish text-units for a mill a part of the recipe is written in Arabic. As we have mentioned before, Arabic was frequently used as a language of both written and spoken communication for Oriental Jews in medieval times (written often in the form of Judaeo-Arabic). However, as has also been mentioned above, the Arabic language is a highly marginal phenomenon for Syriac magical manuscripts. It is worth mentioning here that the Arabic spell (verses 5–7) in the Syriac text-unit shows not only the kind of scribal mistakes which occur during the transmission of a poorly understood text, but also mistakes and discrepancies which clearly demonstrate that this incantation was written down from hearing. In addition to the arguments presented above, it should be outlined that unlike the Jewish recipes for a mill, the Arabic spell found in the Syriac manuscripts contains clear indications of its circulation in Muslim context, cf. ˀaḷḷāh ˀakbar (l. 9), bi-xātimat? ˀal-jinn (l. 11), sundūk bundūk (l. 8). Taken together this evidence suggests that the binding practice for a mill was shared by Arabic-speaking Muslims, Jews and Syriac Christians. The Arabic spell written down in Garshuni attests to oral practice. To sum up, we do not assume, though it cannot be refuted either, that the Arabic magical tradition was a source for this practice in both the Syriac and the Jewish manuscripts. The available evidence allows us only to deduce that similar practices occurred in Arabic, Syriac and Jewish magical traditions.
Appendix
Our credits go to Maria C. H. Cioată for proof-reading this article and Nikita Kuzin (Freie Universität Berlin) for his valuable remarks.
Abigail Pearson, “Syriac Magic: an Overview of Previous Approach and Prospects for the Future,” in: Studies in the Syriac Magical Traditions, eds. Marco Moriggi & Siam Bhayro (Magical and Religious Literature of Late Antiquity, 9), Leiden, 2022, p. 13.
Ibid., p. 25.
Since the usage of the term ‘magic’ remains a subject of discussions, we affirm that it is being used in this paper for the sake of convenience and without implying negative connotations.
See Cod. A §19 (Hermann Gollancz, The Book of Protection: Being a Collection of Charms, Now Edited for the First Time from Syriac mss, London, 1912, p. 14) and a dream-request recently published by Zellmann-Rohrer (Michael Zellmann-Rohrer, “A Syriac-Arabic Dream-Request and Its Jewish Tradition,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 78/1 (2019), pp. 59–74.
Images of the relevant folios of the manuscripts at our disposal are provided in the Appendix.
A recent description with further references can be found in Michael Zellmann-Rohrer, “More on the ‘Book of Protection’ and the Syriac ‘Charms’: New Texts and Perspectives for the Study of Magic and Religion,” in: Studies in the Syriac Magical Traditions, eds. Marco Moriggi & Siam Bhayro (Magical and Religious Literature of Late Antiquity, 9), Leiden, 2022, p. 83; and Anna Cherkashina & Alexey Lyavdansky, “Syriac Love Charms. Part I. The Recipe-Type,” Scrinium 17 (2021), p. 85.
We prefer this translation instead of the common “Book of Protection”. Syriac magic codices are very rarely entitled with the Syriac term for “book”, i.e., kṯāḇā (for which see, e.g., StP18 in Michael Zellmann-Rohrer “More on the ‘Book of Protection’,” p. 88). Instead, most of them are titled with
Former “BM Or. 6673”. For the description of the manuscript see Hermann Gollancz, Book of Protection, p. 93; more recently Michael Zellmann-Rohrer, “More on the ‘Book of Protection’,” pp. 85–86.
Hermann Gollancz, The Book of Protection, pp. 101–102, §64.
Michael Zellmann-Rohrer suggests, that BLa and H can be written by the same scribe, which seems improbable. The two manuscripts are visibly written in two different hands.
For the most recent and full description and further references see Michael Zellmann- Rohrer, “More on the ‘Book of Protection’,” p. 93.
Described by
Contra Zellman-Rohrer, ibid.: “Institute of Oriental Studies”.
See further Michael Zellmann-Rohrer, “More on the ‘Book of Protection’,” p. 87.
Ms.: ktdtˀ.
Other possible cases are ˀlkbrˀ which probably stands for *ˀlh ˀkbr (ˀaḷḷāhu ˀakbar ‘God is the greatest’). Here Syriac
Cf. the Rabbinic corpus, where both Heb. brk and Aram. brk have a meaning “to blaspheme”, see Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Vol. 1, London–New York, 1903, p. 195.
Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat-Gan, 1990, p. 403, cf. also īnu in Akkadian: meaning 2. ‘hole (of a kiln)’, ‘interstice (of a net)’, ‘hub (of a wheel)’ (The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vol. 7 (I and J), eds. Ignace J. Gelb, Benno Landsberger & A. Leo Oppenheim, Chicago, 1960, p. 157).
Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, Ramat-Gan–Baltimore, 2002, p. 249, see also Gustaf Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Vol. 3, Gütersloh, 1933, p. 227.
We owe this idea to Sergey Minov (personal communication).
See Charles Pellat, “Muzāwajah,” in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W. P. Heinrichs, Vol. 7, Leiden, 1960–2007, p. 823.
See, e.g., a commentary to ibn al-Farīd’s verse in Šarḥ Dīwān al-Fāriḍ liš-Šayḫ Hasan al-Būrīnī wa-liš-Šayḫ ˁAbda al-Ġanī an-Nābulusī, Arnaud, 1853, p. 508.
Stephan Schorch, “Between Science and Magic: the Function and Roots of Paronomasia in the Prophetic Books of the Hebrew Bible,” in: Pun and Pundits. Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature, ed. Scott B. Noegel, Maryland, 2000, pp. 206–7.
Ibid., p. 218.
See, e.g., Muḥammad Rajab al-Sāmarrāˀī, “ˀIṣdārāt Nādī Turāṯ al-ˀImārāt,” al-Ṯaqāfah al- Šaˁbiyyah 5 (2009), p. 190, https://www.folkculturebh.org/upload/issues/issue5.pdf (2022, May 4).
But for use of y instead of al-ˀalif bi-ṣūrat al-yāˀ in Garshuni see, e.g., Joseph Moukarzel, “Le Garchouni. Remarques sur son Histoire et son Évolution,” in: Scripts beyond Borders: A Survey of Allographic Traditions in the Euro-Mediterranean World, ed. Heijer, J., Schmidt, A. & Pataridze, T., Louvain-la-Neuve, 2014, p. 135.
On phonetic rendering of the word aḷḷāh in Garshuni see, e.g., ibid.
See, e.g., ibid., p. 133.
Karl Friedrich Krämer, Textstudien zu Ostsyrischen Beschwörungsgebeten (unpubl. diss.), Berlin, 1924, p. 84.
Peter Behnstedt, “Árabe Levantino,” in: Manual de Dialectología Neoárabe, ed. Federico Corriente & Ángeles Vicente, Zaragoza, 2008, p. 163.
Peter Behnstedt, “Árabe Beduino (Península Arábiga y Oriente Próximo),” p. 81.
For this kind of spelling see, e.g., Joseph Moukarzel, “Le Garchouni. Remarques sur son Histoire et son Evolution,” p. 135.
For Classical Arabic see, e.g., Albert de Biberstein-Kazimirski, Dictionaire Arabe-Français, Vol. 4, Barrois, 1860, p. 1599 (ˀittakala ‘Se fier entierement à quelqu’un, s’en remettre de tout à sa volonté, av.
Joseph Moukarzel, “Le Garchouni. Remarques sur son Histoire et son Évolution,” p. 133 and Emanuela Braida, “Neo-Aramaic Garshuni: Observations Based on Manuscripts,” Hugoye, 17/1 (2014), p. 21.
See, e.g., Wolfdietrich Fischer, A Grammar of Classical Arabic, New Haven–London, 2002, p. 103.
See, e.g., J. Milton Cowan (ed.), Arabic-English Dictionary: The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, Urbana, 1993, p. 265; and Martin Hinds & El-Said Badawi, A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic Arabic-English, Beirut, 1986, p. 241.
Reinhart Pieter Anne Dozy, Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes, Vol. 1., p. 352.
Michael Zellman-Rohrer, “A Syriac-Arabic Dream-Request and Its Jewish Tradition,” p. 65; and Michael Zellman-Rohrer, “More on the ‘Book of Protection’,” p. 123.
Ibid.
For possible reading of sˀyt see the word sāyah in Edward Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, Vol. 1, London–Edinburgh, 1877, p. 1458 (ḍaraba fulānun ˁalā fulānin sāyatan ‘Such a one did to such a one a thing that caused displeasure to him, such a one made a way to do what he desired to such a one’). Other possible interpretations that assume corruption are reading the word saˀt ‘side of the throat’ (J. G. Hava, Arabic-English Dictionary for the Use of Students, Beirut, 1899, p. 296) or the word saˀaˀah ‘cambrure au bout de l’arc retourné en dehors’ (Albert de Bibrestein-Kazimirski, Dictionaire Arabe-Français, Vol. 1, p. 1039). None of these interpretations easily fits the context.
Joseph Moukarzel, “Le Garchouni. Remarques sur son Histoire et son Évolution,” p. 135.
For the use of ḏū in Classical Arabic see, e.g., Hermann Reckendorf, Arabische Syntax, Haidelberg, 1921, p. 152 (note the attributive use:
See, e.g., al-Murtaḍā al-Ḥusaynī al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ˁArūs min Jawāhir al-Qāmūs, Vol. 39, al-Kuwait, 2001, p. 498 (
For possible variants see, e.g., the whole article under fūhun in Edward Lane, An Arabic- English Lexicon, Vol. 6, p. 2464.
Karl Friedrich Krämer, Textstudien zu Ostsyrischen Beschwörungsgebeten, pp. 8–9, §13. See also p. 84, §40 “Ein unverständlicher Text zur Beschwörung des Windes”, which also refers to our block of texts, namely, the Arabic charm.
J. Milton Cowan (ed.), Arabic-English Dictionary: The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, Urbana, 1993, p. 432.
Robert Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, Oxonii, 1879–1901, p. 3878, Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin. Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum, Winona Lake–Piscataway, 2009, p. 1455.
Cf. Jewish Babylonian Aramaic ryḥyˀ ‘mill, millstone’ (Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, p. 1075), Jewish Palestinian Aramaic rḥy, det. ryḥyyh ‘millstone, mill’ (Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, p. 520). Both forms go back to *riḥy-.
See ˁaynā d-ra/eḥyā ‘mill’s eye’ in ll. 5, 13, 16–17; (perdē d-)ḥeṭṭē ‘(grains of) wheat’ in ll. 6, 16. Also see presumably pwhˀ ‘its (i.e. the mill’s) opening’ in l. 12. See also what follows on the Geniza parallel.
Here all the manuscripts but I agree, the peculiarities of which were discussed above.
Zellmann-Rohrer plausibly assumes “successive cycles of copying by uncomprehending scribes” (Michael Zellmann-Rohrer, “A Syriac-Arabic dream-request and its Jewish tradition,” p. 70).
For the Syriac charms which mention Solomon and their Jewish parallels see Hermann Gollancz, The Book of Protection, pp. xii–xix; for a Syriac charm, belonging to Solomonic tradition, specifically close to the Testament of Solomon, and not attested in Gollancz’s corpus, see
Hans Alexander Winkler, Siegel und Charaktere in der Muhammedanischen Zauberei, Berlin–Leipzig, 1930, especially pp. 110–114, 127–132, for Solomon’s ring in Arabic literature see Georg Salzberger, Die Salomo-Sage in der Semitischen Literatur, Berlin–Nikolassee, 1907, pp. 120–129; see also Allegra Iafrate, The Long Life of Magical Objects: A Study in the Solomonic Tradition, Pennsylvania, 2019, pp. 50–59.
Alexey Lyavdansky, “Syriac Charms in Near Eastern Context: Tracing the Origin of Formulas,” in: Oral Charms in Structural and Comparative Light. Proceedings of the Conference of the International Society for Folk Narrative Research’s (ISFNR) Committee on Charms, Charmers and Charming, 27–29 October, Moscow, eds. T. A. Mikhailova, J. Roper, A. L. Toporkov, D. S. Nikolayev, Moscow, 2011, pp. 17–18; Hans Alexander Winkler, Siegel und Charaktere in der Muhammedanischen Zauberei, p. 17.
See, e.g., The History of al-Tabari. An Annotated Translation. General Introduction and from the Creation to the Flood, Vol. 1., translated and annotated by Franz Rosenthal, Albany, 1989, p. 298 (English translation); Annales quos Scripsit Abu Djafar Mohammed Ibn Djarir at-Tabari, Vol.1, ed. M. J. De Goeje, Leiden, 1979–1881, p. 127 (original text).
Cf. Text 106 (“Curse to bring seventy different diseases upon victim”) in Marvin W. Meyer & Richard Smith, Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power, Princeton–New Jersey, 1999, pp. 215–216, Text 110 (“Curse to harm a person through the use of wax dolls”) in ibid., pp. 222–223, and other curses against enemies (Texts 88–112) in ibid.
Cf., e.g., Geniza 16 7:1–13 (“causing fire”) in Joseph Naveh & Shaul Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, Jerusalem, 1993, pp. 174–181, Geniza 24 2:8–12 (“for hatred”) ibid., pp. 222–225, Geniza 26 2:1–8 (“meant for every need, for causing disease, for killing, for causing fire, also for hatred”) ibid., pp. 230–232.
Michael Zellmann-Rohrer, “More on the ‘Book of Protection’,” pp. 122–123.
Dan. 3.
Ps. 18:10.
“She who shouts at the oven so that the bread does not fall (…), she who silences for the lentils and she who cools/sucks for the rice” (
.
Sefer ha-Razim, Third firmament, §186–188 (Bill Rebiger & Peter Schäfer, Sefer ha-Razim i und ii: Das Buch der Geheimnisse i und ii, 2 vols, Tübingen, 2009. Vol. 1, in collaboration with E. Burkhardt, G. Reeg and H. Wels: Edition, pp. *64–*65):
Sefer ha-Razim, Third firmament, §189 (Rebiger & Schäfer, Sefer ha-Razim i und ii, Vol. 1, p. *66):
See, e.g., PGM 111. 1–164 (Hans Dieter Betz (ed.), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells, Chicago–London, 1992, pp. 18–22). For recipes for binding wild animals, see Sefer ha-Razim, Second Firmament, §155 (Rebiger & Schafer, Sefer ha-Razim i und ii, Vol. 1, p. *52}; Ḥarba de-Moshe (Yuval Harari, “The Sword of Moses,” p. 91).
See, e.g. Sefer ha-Razim, Second Firmament, §155 (Rebiger & Schafer, Sefer ha-Razim i und ii, Vol. 1, p. *52): “(if you wish to quell) a river or a sea which is rising and washing against buildings” (
This category may have been alluded to in the Twelve Tables law on “enchanting” crops (qui fruges excantassit), that was interpreted in later periods either as stealing crops with the help of magic, or ruining them by invoking storms. For a recent treatment of this law, with reference to previous literature, see J. B. Rives, “Magic in the XII Tables Revisited,” Classical Quarterly, 52 (2002), pp. 270–290. Conversely, for examples of magical practices meant to positively affect agricultural products, see Ḥarba de-Moshe: “For trees that do not produce fruit” “For white rot that afflicts fruit”, “For blight that afflicts the field” (Yuval Harari, “The Sword of Moses,” pp. 87–88, 92).
See Ḥarba de-Moshe, a binding recipe “to detain a ship at sea”, followed by a releasing recipe:
See Korshi Dosoo, Edward O. D. Love & Markéta Preininger (chief editors). “KYP T55: Destruction of a water-wheel,” Kyprianos Database of Ancient Ritual Texts and Objects, www.coptic-magic.phil.uni-wuerzburg.de/index.php/text/kyp-t-55. Accessed on 07/04/ 2022. We are grateful to Korshi Dosoo for this reference and the following one.
See Korshi Dosoo, Edward O. D. Love & Markéta Preininger (chief editors). “KYP T174: Curse to destroy a business (?),” Kyprianos Database of Ancient Ritual Texts and Objects, www.coptic-magic.phil.uni-wuerzburg.de/index.php/text/kyp-t-174. Accessed on 07/04/2022.
Joseph Naveh & Shaul Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae, pp. 227–230, Geniza 25.
Joseph Naveh & Shaul Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae, pp. 216–219, Geniza 22.
Gideon Bohak, A Fifteenth-Century Manuscript of Jewish Magic, Ms New York Public Library Heb. 190 (formerly Sassoon 56): Introduction Annotated Edition and Facsimile (in Hebrew), 2 vols., Los Angeles, 2014.
Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 222.
For a broader discussion of the division of languages in magic texts, see Gideon Bohak, “Towards a Catalogue of the Magical, Astrological, Divinatory and Alchemical Fragments from the Cambridge Genizah Collections,” in: “From a Sacred Source”: Genizah Studies in Honour of Professor Stefan C. Reif, ed. Ben Outhwaite and Siam Bhayro, Leiden, 2011, pp. 53–79 (62–64, 68–69).