Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeNuméros34ÉtudesGods around the Grave: Hermes and...

Contents - Previous document -
Études

Gods around the Grave: Hermes and Hekate in early Attic curse tablets

Athanassia Zografou
p. 187-217

Abstracts

English Français

Τhe aim of this article is to examine (on the basis of up-to-date and recently published epigraphic material) the ways in which divine powers are involved in early Attic defixiones in order to show that the rubric “chthonian gods” encompasses a variety of divinities and modes of action that are not necessarily or exclusively related to the realm of Hades. To that end, I have used the pair of Hekate and Hermes as my main case study. In curse tablets, these two gods, do not appear to perform tasks that are radically different from their other aspects and functions, although their role in this new context cannot be directly related to specific cults. The study of their epithets (Hermes Chthonios, Katochos, Eriounios, Dolios; Hekate Chthonia, Epitymbia) as well as of select mythical and ritual material attested in curse tablets, not only reveals a concern for the locale of the ritual action but also echoes broader religious and sociocultural realities.

Top of page

Full text

I am grateful to Jan-Mathieu Carbon, Jaime Curbera and Nikolaos Papazarkadas for their insightful comments, especially on epigraphic issues, to Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge and to the anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions, and to Evan Vance for polishing my English text.

  • 1 Divine figures like Tethys in DT 68 B, 6, who, despite the opinion of Wünsch (1900), no. 16 (“Sic (...)
  • 2 See Riess (2012), p. 209: “The downward movement to chthonic deities is a reversal of the officia (...)

1The connections between defixiones and the world of the dead are self-evident, almost banal. Yet, this is not to say that all gods and other supernatural powers invoked in early—Classical and Hellenistic—curse tablets belong to the underworld.1 Nor should we assume that being invoked in a curse forced gods like Hermes to undergo a complete inversion of their typical functions known from poetry, iconography, and cult.2 Unfortunately, the generic labels “chthonic” or “chthonian” regularly attributed to the gods of the tablets tend to hinder further investigation and impede our grip on a rather complex reality.

  • 3 Concerning the role of the gods, see Curbera – Jordan (1998), p. 215–218, Eidinow (2007), p. 146– (...)
  • 4 However, we are not in a position to know the find-spots of many of the published curse tablets. (...)

2The evidence itself challenges the “chthonic/chthonian” label. Firstly, divine invocation in curses is likely to have met various needs: depending on the wording of individual tablets, the gods involved could be considered, at times, as simple witnesses or overseers offering their authority to the procedure, as mediators or even as executors of the curse, but, at other times, as the designated recipients (of the curse tablet or of the victim[s]).3 Accordingly, the cosmic purview of the gods in question could be placed in the upper- or the netherworld. Secondly, although early tablets were most often placed at tombs,4 this choice could reflect the materiality of tombs and the various connotations attached to places of burial, whether as material doorways between worlds or as sites of detention sealed by natural and divine means. It need not automatically point to the underworld as a remote fictional kingdom with its own rulers, i.e. a rather inverted picture of the world of the living.

  • 5 My study takes as a point of departure early curse tablets where Hermes and Hekate appear togethe (...)

3Α study of the divine associations and epithets in combination with a careful analysis of the phraseology of the curses can potentially illuminate the way divine assistants participate in ritual binding and thus help us avoid a strict dichotomy between the upper- and the under-worlds. In what follows, I use as case studies Hermes, Hekate and their associates in early, mainly Attic, tablets.5 It should be noted here that the systematic tendency to attach epithets to the names of Hekate and Hermes highlights the need to specify the aspect under which they are involved in cursing rather than a general ‘underworld predisposition’. It is telling in that respect that epithets are almost never used to specify Persephone’s unambiguous role.

4I argue that, despite the frequent use of the epithets chthonios/a for Hermes and Hekate, early tablets (i) do not portray these gods as permanent denizens of the underworld, but (ii) presuppose and imply religious and social/cultural realities as well as traditional myths associated with both gods. In doing so early curse tablets—although less eloquent than material from later periods—demonstrate religious resourcefulness, while simultaneously paying attention to spatial considerations such as the location of the deposition.

Groups of gods: Hekate and her associates

5Bringing gods together with the aim of achieving a goal is more than typical of Greek polytheism. It is a particularly common strategy in public invocations of gods, such as public prayers and oaths—the latter often including pronouncements of self-curses—, that aspire to exhaustiveness, solemnity and efficiency. Νot surprisingly, early Attic defixiones, which usually combine legal and administrative language with prayer- and votive formulas, regularly chose to name divine groups rather than single gods.

  • 6 From Homer to Aeschylus the god either assists the dead on their journey to Hades or leads them u (...)
  • 7 Versnel (2019), p. 348, comments: “Hermes Chthonios’ peculiar status as permanent denizen of the (...)

6The presence of Hekate in these early defixiones is often taken for granted, given the dangerous aspects of the goddess as they appear in written sources from the fifth century onwards, i.e. her association with frightening specters, mythical witches, and untimely death. On the contrary, the striking prominence of Hermes, although often linked to his psychopompic/psychagogic capacities known from poetry,6 is perceived as a troubling inconsistency between his “Olympic and chthonic” aspects.7

  • 8 For Hekate’s associations in Attic curse tablets see: DTA 82, 104–108, Ziebarth (1934), nos. 9 an (...)

7Hekate is not one of the best attested deities in the published material from the period under consideration. Although divine names can vary from one tablet to another, it is Hermes (first) and Persephone who hold pride of place in the conventional listings of gods—I have not included in this counting the few heroes that are occasionally mentioned in the tablets (or even those dead who appear operational in the curses). Contrary to Hermes who can stand alone, Hekate is almost always accompanied by other gods and goddesses: regularly by Hermes (six times)—most often called Chthonios, once Katouchios and once Eriounios—and sporadically by Artemis (one attestation), Gē and Mētēr (one attestation), and finally by the Erinyes (also once).8

  • 9 We also find Hekate along with Hermes, Leukothea, Plouton/Ploutodotas, Phersephona, Praxidika and (...)
  • 10 IG IV 496 (Fraenkel) with the few changes proposed by Jeffery (1955), p. 69–76 (see SEG 16.243), (...)
  • 11 See J.-M. Carbon’s translation in Appendix no. 1. In DTA, 108 (Appendix no. 7) Hekate also appear (...)

8It is worth noting that in early Attic defixiones we never encounter Hekate by the side of Persephone, the renowned hostess of the Underworld; even in early tablets from other places, the two goddesses only rarely appear together.9 A rather overlooked example of the late fifth century BCE is a text inscribed on a marble monument near Mycenae, which seems to be directly inspired by a curse tablet.10 The text in question is more eloquent than actual curse tablets: it records a miraculous divine intervention by Hekate and Persephone, thus giving us a glimpse of the kind of divine collaboration and of the distribution of tasks expected from an effective cursing. In the inscription, Hekate is described as the upper world executor of some kind of revenge, somewhat like an Erinys sent to fulfill a punishment. If we follow Jeffery’s ingenious reading, it is Hekate who, first, “punishes (the something) of Megara in all respects (or perhaps ‘causes the ruin of Megara in all respects’)”, and, “then Persephone is already reporting all these (prayers?) to the gods”.11

Hermes Chthonios – Hekate Chthonia

  • 12 See DTA 105–107 (Attica, early 4th cent. BCE), with Appendix no. 2.
  • 13 NGCT 2 with Curbera (2016), p. 109–118, see infra p. 203–205; see now Appendix no. 5.
  • 14 For the Anthestēria, see Johnston (1999), p. 64; Parker (2005), p. 295–297. Cf. supra n. 6 concer (...)
  • 15 It is only in 5th-century literature, and more specifically in a fragment from Aristophanes’ Tagē (...)
  • 16 Hermes is addressed in Aesch. Pers. 629–630 in order to rouse Dareios and, similarly, in Cho. 1–2 (...)

9In the case of the Hermes-Hekate pairing, the name of the goddess is regularly followed by an epithet, usually Chthonia at the side of Hermes Chthonios,12 or—only once—Epitymbia (“the one on [or ‘at’?] the grave”) with a Hermes who is in that instance called Eriounios (an epithet of uncertain meaning?), rather than Chthonios.13 This trend seems to suggest that Chthonios/Chthonia as a stereotypical epiclesis is likely to be jointly attributed to Hermes and Hekate, as if the symmetry consolidates the divine pair and the repetition enhances the power of the spell by means of a play with sounds (Hermes/Hekate and Chthonios/Chthonia). It is possible that this pairing is so frequent because professional curse scribes collected and reproduced formulaic expressions on numerous tablets, but that does not explain how this pairing came about in the first place. Whereas Hermes was celebrated as Chthonios during the Athenian festival of the Anthesteria,14 neither Chthonia nor Epitymbia is an epithet attested for Ηekate in cult.15 Moreover, in drama, it is Hermes rather than Hekate who is summoned as Chthonios during attempts to communicate with the dead, despite Hekate’s dark aspects.16

  • 17 Regarding Hermes-Hekate associations close to doors, gates and roads, see Parker (2005), p. 18–20 (...)

10Are we then entitled to think that the duo Hermes Chthonios – Hekate Chthonia of the early curse tablets is a complete novelty or even an inversion of the frequent (non-chthonic) association of Hermes with Hekate in small-scale cult? In order to answer the question, we ought to think first of the tymbos’ visible part as a gate holding back the dead and also as a place of communication between worlds where ritual action takes place through ordinary funeral rites and the secret depositing of curse tablets. What is more, most tombs were placed at the sides of roads. In that sense, the frequent cultic contiguity of the two gods in transit areas, roads and entrances,17 could have made their concomitant presence also “felt” around the grave.

  • 18 It would be interesting to think that the couple Hermes-Hekate is related to both two principal r (...)

11It is even more fruitful to examine Hekate’s and Hermes’ presence in the framework of the Eleusinian cult; for even though Hermes and Hekate meet in various other cultic and architectural contexts, this is the only case where their association is firmly tied to myths attested in narratives and iconography.18

  • 19 Clinton (1986), p. 45, and Clinton (1992), p. 116–120. See, however, Miles (1998), p. 60, 67, 219 (...)
  • 20 CGRN 25 (IG I3 250A = LSS 18). See also Humphreys (2004), p. 154 and Parker (2005), p. 332–333 (b (...)
  • 21 I.Eleusis 300 (SEG 30.93), esp. lines 9–11, a decree from 20/19 BCE honoring Themistokles, daduch (...)
  • 22 Parker (1996), p. 300–302; Blok (2017), p. 144.
  • 23 Hermes Enagōnios is mentioned together with the Charites, Plouton, the Two Goddesses and other di (...)
  • 24 IG I³ 953, lines 1–3: [ἀ]ρρήτο τελετῆς πρόπολος σῆς, πότνια Δηοῖ, | καὶ θυγατρὸς προθύρο κόσμον ἄ (...)

12It is true that no clear traces of Hekate’s cult have been found in Eleusis.19 Nevertheless, in addition to iconographic and literary representations of her and Hermes in the episode of Persephone’s abduction and subsequent return, a set of sacred regulations from the Attic deme of Paiania provides a relatively early attestation of Hekate in the company of the Two Goddesses around the middle of the fifth century BCE.20 There is also evidence that at least in the first century BCE the priest of Artemis (Hekate?) Epipyrgidia was appointed from the genos of the Kerykes, who played a most prominent role in the Eleusinian Mysteries.21 As for Hermes, being the patron of heralds, he was also considered to be the ancestor of the Kerykes, since the Attic genos derived its name from Keryx, the son of Hermes and a daughter of Kekrops.22 Moreover, Hermes regularly received honors in the context of the Eleusinia.23 Thus, despite the banality of placing herms before gates, it is perhaps no coincidence that in ca. 450 BCE, Lysistrate, the priestess of Demeter and Kore, chose to dedicate a herm in order to ornament the gates of the City Eleusinion: “Attendant of your secret ceremony, Mistress Deo, and of your daughter’s, Lysistrata, the crowning official, set up this pleasing gift as an adornment for your porch.”24

  • 25 See, for instance, the New York Krater MMA 28.57.23 (440 BCE), Metzger (1965), p. 11, no. 7, Béra (...)
  • 26 IG XII 1.141, lines 3–6 [Rhodes]: Πλούτων γὰρ αὐτὸν καὶ Κόρη κα[τ]ώικισ[αν] | Ἑ̣ρμῆς τε καὶ δαιδο (...)

13The parallel appearance of Hermes and Hekate in a number of vase paintings depicting either the moment of Persephones’ rape or that of her return (anodos)25 can be seen as a condensed and symmetrical iconographic rendering of their complementary roles already known from the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. In the hymn, Persephone’s permanent guide is Hekate, while the god escorting her the first time she returns to her mother is Hermes. In this context, which forms part of the mythical background of the Mysteries, Hermes and Hekate, as attendants of Persephone, spend considerable time in limbo, in a space between the upper and the nether worlds, going through the dangerous transition that seems to be ritualistically experienced by the initiates of the Eleusinian Mysteries. This mythical reality probably provides the inspiration for a second-century-BCE funerary epigram from Rhodes where Hekate and Hermes are jointly responsible for the Underworld Mysteries under the administration of Plouton and Persephone.26

  • 27 Manni Piraino (1973), p. 82–84, no. 53 (pl. 31), cf. Zografou (2010), p. 188. In Attica, Ἄγγελος (...)
  • 28 Jordan, Kotansky (2011), p. 54–62, col. I, A, 12–13, cf. Zografou (2016), p. 125–126.

14At any rate, in curse tablets the divine pair is not summoned to secure initiation but, instead, to oversee the inescapable transition of the victims to the state of powerless dead. This, however, could be considered as another aspect of their known role, according to the functional polyvalence most Greek gods exhibit. Traces of the close association of Hekate (alone) with Demeter and her daughter in early inscribed incantations from Sicily, a region where Hekate is honored as Angelos,27 clearly illustrate how narratives and literature can influence idiosyncratic ritual texts. As a goddess leading the way (ἡγεμονεύει) for Demeter and Kore, Hekate has a significant role in one of the embedded narratives of the so-called Getty Hexameters, an enigmatic ritual text on an opisthographic lead tablet of the late fifth century BCE from Selinous: [- - -] ἔπεται <δὲ> θεαῖς πεπιθοῦσα φαειναῖς | λαμπάδας∙ Εἰνοδία δ’ Ἑκάτη φρικώδει φωνῆι | βάρβαρον ἐκκλάζουσα θεὰ θεῶι ἡγεμονεύει, “She (?) follows, obeying goddesses with torches ablaze. Hekate of the crossroads, screaming obscurely in hair-raising voice, a goddess, leads the god”.28

  • 29 See, for instance, the late Hellenistic curse tablets or “prayers for justice” found in the sanct (...)
  • 30 Eur. Hel. 1307, cf. Hesychius, s.v. Ἄρρητος Κόρη.
  • 31 See Dimou (2016), p. 277.
  • 32 The only Attic tablets bearing the name Κόρη are later, dating to the 2nd/3rd cent. CE (DT 74, l. (...)

15Thus, we cannot preclude the possibility that the Hermes-Hekate pair on curse tablets lends a somewhat “mystical” coloring. There is one additional reason for favoring this interpretation: the Hermes-Hekate duo seems to make up for the complete absence of Demeter and Korē in Attic material. In contrast to curse tablets found in other regions,29 the early Attic examples do not mention Demeter at all and never use the Eleusinian name of Persephone, i.e. Korē (significantly also known as the “Unspoken Maiden”, Ἄρρητος Κόρη).30 They also omit the usual dual form found in contemporary inscriptions, namely θεώ/θεοῖν.31 In the early tablets from Attica, Demeter’s daughter is cautiously called Φερσεφόνη or Φερρεφάτη.32

  • 33 Furley (1996), p. 45–46; Gagné (2009), p. 217–222 and passim (p. 218: “It almost seems as if an a (...)
  • 34 See Dimou (2016), p. 258, n. 71 (unpublished tablet found in Eleusis). For a cultural parallel of (...)

16One reason for the omission of the Eleusinian cult names from the defixiones could be that the Two Goddesses were seen as highly venerable but ultimately unsuitable for the aggressive requests made in curse tablets. A further complementary explanation could be sought in the Athenians’ profound respect for the Eleusinian rituals, especially in the period of the earliest curse tablets. In fact, while we have no specific evidence for the criminalization of the deposition of curse tablets, most of the graphai asebeias have something to do with the Mysteries.33 It is not inconceivable that Athenian defigentes took extreme precautions in order to avoid the wrath (μήνιμα) of the Two Goddesses or even an actual legal prosecution for improper evocation of the mystical rites. It is probably out of such reverence that no curse tablets have hitherto been found in the City Eleusinion, whereas only one tablet comes from Eleusis itself, and even that has no divine names.34

  • 35 Curbera (1997), p. 407, argues that “unlike her fellow chthonians, she (scil. Demeter) was not co (...)
  • 36 An exception: SGD 170 (p. 135–140), see supra n. 9.
  • 37 Perhaps a similar “caesura” can explain why there is no mention of Demeter in the so-called “magi (...)

17This Attic trend is probably not unique, as Demeter’s absence has also been noted in the case of Sicilian curse tablets.35 In fact, Demeter appears either on later Roman curse tablets or in curses—mostly “prayers of justice”—from Knidos, Amorgos, and Acrocorinth, thus in close connection with her own cult places.36 Such considerations can be accounted for by the rather ambivalent relationship between “magic’’ and mysteries, as two alternative—sometimes cooperative, sometimes antagonistic or at least mutually exclusive—ways of dealing with the divine beyond standard ritual practices.37

Hermes, Hekate and Artemis

  • 38 See Lamont (2021a), cf. supra n. 8.

18A fascinating group of lead curse tablets from Piraeus dating to the early fourth century BCE was recently studied by Jessica Lamont, who has just offered a thorough edition of all five of them38. The tablets, found in a grave outside the Long Walls, all reproduce a similar text. The first line of the text in question is occupied exclusively by divine names: Hekate, Artemis, Hermes, all qualified as Chthonia/Chthonios. The repetition of the epithet Chthonia/Chthonios in this address creates an emphatic alliteration, while solemnly fixing the three names together.

  • 39 For Artemis Hekate in Attica: Pausanias 2.30.2; SEG 30.93, lines 9–10 (Artemis Hekate Epipyrgidia(...)
  • 40 Aesch. Supp. 676–677: Ἄρτεμιν δ’ ἑκάταν γυναι|κῶν λόχους ἐφορεύειν. According to the archaeologic (...)
  • 41 IG I3 383, lines 124–126 (429/8 BCE), with Zografou (2010), p. 155, n. 9.

19The outsider in this curse context is Artemis, a goddess nowhere to be found in early Attic curse tablets. Her appearance could be attributed to her close link with Hekate both in literature and cult39. The fact that the cache of the tablets was found in a young woman’s funeral pyre might provide a hint for this unusual choice since Artemis, and more specifically Artemis-Hekate, was inter alia responsible for childbirth.40 However, as Lamont has not failed to observe, the text also appears to be in tune with some very tangible fifth-century Athenian cultic realities: the association of Artemis and Hekate (or Artemis-Hekate) with Hermes is attested in the inscribed accounts of the Treasurers of the Other Gods.41 The inclusion of these cults in an official document almost certainly imparts ‘state status’ to them: rather than being parochial, these gods were well-known to most Athenians.

20The association of Hermes, Hekate, and Artemis can be seen as typical of the way lead tablet curses vary their divine groupings by combining standard invocations of gods with additional names. Are these three chthonian gods thought of as operating in Hades? As Jessica Lamont and Peter O’Connell have already noted, lines 4–6, after removal of the personal names of the victims (Demetrios and Phanagora) preserve one complete hexameter and the first half of a second one: δήσω τόγ γ᾽ ἐμὸν ἐχθρὸν ἐν αἵματι καὶ κονίαισιν | σὺμ πᾶσιμ φθιμένοις ( ͞   ͞   ͞   ͝   ͝   ͞   ͝   ͝   ͞   ͝   ͝   ͞   ͝   ͝   ͞  × |  ͞   ͞   ͞   ͝   ͝   ͞ ).

  • 42 See Lamont (2015), p. 166, and Lamont (2021a), p. 102–103, who rightly stresses that in Hom. Il. (...)
  • 43 CEG 566 (ἔδεκτο … κόνις), CEG 479, 534, 549. See Le Bris (2001), p. 20–21 (“L’expression κούφα κό (...)
  • 44 DTA 99, line 6. Richard Wünsch followed here the reading of August Boeckh, who, however, believed (...)

21The expression ἐν αἵματι καὶ κονίαισιν, harkens back to Homer.42 It also echoes inscribed funerary poetry. In fourth-century funerary epigrams from Athens φθίμενοι (“perished”) is a common way of referring to the dead, while κόνις (a synonym of the word κονία of the Piraeus tablet), “dust/ash” understood as “ground” rather than “dust”, is described as a physical element which “holds down”—the verb usually employed is (κατ)έχειν—the dead with its bulk (alternatively χθών, γαῖα, τύμβος, etc.). Frequent in the same context is the wish “may the ground (κόνις, γαῖα) be light” on the deceased.43 The same rationale probably operates in the phrase δυνατὰ αὐτοῦ <κ>όνις in an Attic tablet of the third/second century BCE, if Boeckh’s old proposition is correct.44

  • 45 See Lamont (2015), p. 167, and O’Connell (2017), p. 41–42. Both authors suggest that dust and blo (...)

22Following Jessica Lamont, Peter O’Connell believes that the formulaic expression ἐν αἵματι καὶ κονίαισιν (“with blood and dust”) means that the practitioner aims at the violent death of the targeted couple. Nonetheless, since the tablet has been found in a grave of a cremated woman, this seems to be first and foremost a Homeric way of referring to the locale of the ritual deposit and the place where the practitioner wishes the victims to be bound; a place contaminated by death which is simultaneously the grave and the land of “all the perished” closely connected to it.45 In written sources, as I have already noted, the reality of the tomb often fuses with the description of the imagined underworld; to be more precise, the grave is sometimes considered as a private conduit to Hades. Thus, as several other defixiones confirm, “to be bound with the dead” means primarily to be confined, inactive and powerless in the way dead people are both in their graves and in Hades.

  • 46 DTA 55.
  • 47 DT 44.
  • 48 See, for instance, DTA 107a = Appendix no. 2.
  • 49 NGCT 24; Curbera, Jordan (1998), p. 415; cf. Eidinow (2007), p. 225, 229, 444.

23This interpretation is consistent with the propensity of curse tablets to highlight the immediate context of the deposition ritual through expressions like καταδῶ ἐμ μνήμασι (…) ἐν τύμβοις, “I bind them in their memorials […] in their tombs”,46 adverbs like ἐνταῦθα,47 and deictic pronouns (οὗτος ὁ βόλυβδος [= μόλυβδος], οὗτος ὁ νεκρός, ταῦτα [τὰ γράμματα]).48 Even more significant is the topographical meaning expressed by the preposition πρός that usually accompanies nomina sacra in curse tablets. As Jaime Curbera and David Jordan have already noted, πρός in these contexts may not only have the abstract meaning “in the presence of ”, but might also point to the sanctuary or the cemetery where the curses are deposited. Indeed, this becomes apparent in formulations such as “in the presence of Hermes the Eriounios, in the presence of Hermes the Binder, in the presence of Hermes the Trickster or elsewhere (ἄλλοθί που)”.49

Hermes Katochos and his associates

  • 50 DT 50 (Ἑρμῆ καὶ Φερσεφόνη κατέχετε); DTA 88Α, lines 1–2 (Ἑρμῆ κάτοχε |κάτεχε) cf. 88 B, lines 1–3 (...)
  • 51 DTA 98; SGD 75.

24The epithet Κatochos, exclusively found in curse tablets and regularly attached to Hermes, seems to be chosen in order to define with precision the god as the appropriate power par excellence for binding procedures. All this is further emphasized through the wordplay katoche … kateche50. Gê, who frequently accompanies Hermes Katochos in curse tablets, is the only other divine power to share with him the epithet in question51.

  • 52 Curbera (2015a), p. 144–145, no. 2 (first published by Richard Wünsch as DTA 89).
  • 53 DTA 94, 1; given that Hermes is the only male entity called Katochos there can be no doubt about (...)
  • 54 Cf. the structure μεδέων/ουσα + gen. Contra Versnel (2019), p. 350–351, who interprets the title (...)
  • 55 Aesch., fr. 388 Radt; cf. Chariclides, fr. 1 (Kassel-Austin): Δέσποιν’ Ἑκάτη τριοδῖτι, | τρίμορφε (...)
  • 56 Ar. Vesp. 875, cf. Pherecr., fr. 92, ὦ δέσποτα Ἀγυιεῦ, ταῦτα σὺ µέµνησό µου.

25Sometimes Hermes Katochos is called Δεσπότης. The appellation appears in two Attic defixiones of the fourth century BCE, of which one explicitly addresses Hermes Katochos—Δέσποτα Ἑρμῆ | κάτοχε κάτεχε (repeated twice)52—, whereas the other omits the name of the god, simply addressing him as Katochos—Δέσποτα κάτοχε53. As comparison with other early uses of the word δεσπότης shows, the term could hardly have had the meaning of “the absolute ruler”; rather it designated “the lord of the house/place”.54 Indeed, gods thought to be linked with architectural elements, houses, sanctuaries and cities are sometimes addressed as δεσπότης/δέσποινα in the sense of “owners/watchers” of said places. Such titles can be further specified by reference to particular locales under divine control. In an Aeschylean fragment Hekate despoina is directly linked with the entrance of the royal palace: δέσποιν’ Ἑκάτη | τῶν βασιλείων πρόδομος μελάθρων.55 Similarly, in Aristophanes’ Wasps, despite the humorous exaggerating tone, Aguieus despotēs is the one who watches at the door of the entrance hall: ὦ δέσποτ’ ἄναξ γεῖτον Ἀγυιεῦ, τοῦ ’μοῦ προθύρου προπύλαιε.56 In other words, the terms δεσπότης and δέσποινα are used in drama to denote a god’s authority over a place and, thus, to stress his or her responsibility to help the worshipper. This same meaning of the term δεσπότης may be relevant in another curse tablet, which suggestively lumps together under the heading despotai a group of gods otherwise vaguely described as “chthonian” and “on the grave”: [ὦ] δεσπότ[α]ι χθόνιοι καὶ
ἐ[π]ιτύν|βιοι.

  • 57 Hesychius, s.v.; cf. Cumont (1930), p. 241–266, for the use of katochos lithos in an Imperial ins (...)
  • 58 See Leader (1997), p. 101; Garland (1989), p. 5–7; Vlachou (2012), p. 379–380.

26The first component of the word Katochos (κάτω) denotes not only a downward movement, but also an intense, one might even say aggressive, attitude in “restraining”. In fact, katochos can be used of sepulchral stones either as an adjective (<κάτοχοι>· λίθοι, οἱ ἐπὶ μνήμασιν τιθέμενοι) or by itself as a substantive.57 Given that the verb (κατ)έχειν is usually employed in funerary epigrams to denote “holding back the dead”—along with verbs such as καλύπτειν, κεύθειν, κρύπτειν—, κάτοχοs, very much like χθών, γαῖα, τύμβος, κόνις/κονία, is also to be understood as a physical barrier. It is probably not without its significance that circa 480 BCE Attic grave stelae seem to vanish only to reappear about 430 BCE, i.e. roughly at the time when Attic defixiones start appearing.58 The reemergence of grave markers might have attracted further interest in the materiality of the tombs.

  • 59 Avagianou (2002); Mili (2015), 274–278; Kravaritou – Stamatopoulou (2018), p. 144; and now Mili – (...)
  • 60 Note, however, the mention of “herms” in Cicero’s much discussed report (De Leg. 2.64) of a post- (...)
  • 61 Stamatopoulou (2007), p. 211–229; vice versa, see Bosnakis (2013) for an Attic trend in the funer (...)

27An interesting case of Hermes’ association with funeral monuments outside Attica is that of Thessalian tombstones, which from the fourth century BCE onwards, but mainly throughout the Hellenistic period, systematically bear an incised or painted herm and/or the inscription of the name of the god, usually Hermes Chthonios59. Both the inscribed name and the image of the aniconic herm, which partially reproduces the form of the bearing monument, bring to mind Hermes’ Athenian aspect as Katochos, i.e. an immobilizing power closely linked to the mnēma. Of course, this is not to say that Hermes Katochos is a Thessalian import into Athens; the epithet Katochos is not attested in Thessaly and actually antedates the Thessalian stelae.60 However, given the known contacts between Attica and Thessaly as early as the Archaic period, Thessalian and Athenian practices and beliefs could have creatively interacted in both directions.61

  • 62 See, among others, Carastro (2006), p. 173–177 (κάτοχος, “qui retient en bas”), and Eidinow (2007 (...)
  • 63 See Osborne (1985), p. 53–54 and passim.

28Thus, Hermes Katochos in the tablets could be understood not only as an “immobilizer”,62 but more specifically as “present” in the material boundaries visibly “holding down” the dead at the place of the deposition. The contrast between this aspect and that of Hermes as a swiftly moving mediator (pompaios, aggelos), the only divine messenger capable of reaching Hades, is superficial. If stiff stone herms, which were particularly popular in Attica, function as indicators of transition and movement,63 in curse tablets Hermes could sometimes appear as a prompt mediator, but could other times embody a heavy boundary that restrains the victims of the tablets along with the owners of the grave.

  • 64 Parker (2005), p. 416; Wallensten (2014), p. 193–203.

29As for Gē (“Earth”), a goddess worshipped throughout Attica,64 who often cooperates with Hermes Katochos, sometimes even sharing with him the same epithet (Katoche), she not only embraces the abode of Hades in her bosoms but could also be perceived as a physical restraining power.

Ritual and real binding: the grave and the jail

  • 65 Allen (1997), p. 130 and passim, against earlier scholarship mostly denying the retributive role (...)
  • 66 For the shared vocabulary regarding both binding and detention in prison, see Hunter (1997), p. 2 (...)
  • 67 Allen (2000), p. 147–148. On the mass production of tablets around 400 BCE in close connection wi (...)

30Before the fifth century BCE, incarceration was not really employed as a form of punishment in Athens; rather, a prison was considered to be a temporary place of detention. Things changed around the time the first curse tablets appeared. According to Danielle Allen, punitive imprisonment was introduced circa 460–450 as a substitute for monetary fines and it took another century before being firmly established as an independent penalty.65 The conception of the grave as a place of detention for curse tablets’ victims under the power of Hermes Katochos parallels the beginning of prisons functioning as places of punishment. Just as in contemporary Athenian prisons, so in curse tablets victims are not only to be confined but also to be “bound”, as per the standard verb (κατα)δέειν.66 The parallelism should not come as a surprise: as several studies have suggested, curse tablets seem to function at least in part as an alternative, private system of retribution that drew its inspiration from Athens’ penal reality.67

  • 68 [Ath. Pol.], 54.7.4: ε[ἰσὶ] δὲ πεντετηρίδες μία μ[ὲν ἡ εἰ]ς Δῆλον (ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἑπ[τ]ετηρὶς ἐνταῦθ (...)
  • 69 As a personal name Pentetēris is suitable for potential priestesses: see Blok – Lambert (2009), p (...)
  • 70 IG I3 82, lines 6 and 31; Ar. Pax, 875–876 (where pentetēris refers to a festival); Rice (1983), (...)
  • 71 Dem. 22.68 and scholia ad loc. A similar scholion (to Dem. 24.250) is worthy of mention, Scholia (...)

31The unusual phrase ὀδέ σε λύσει πρώτη πεν[θ]ετηρίς in the group of defixiones studied by Lamont further advances the analogy between prison conditions and ritual binding. As rightly noted by Lamont,68 the term refers to a period of four years in relation to religious festivals.69 It is worth noting here that in Attic inscriptions the term can be used alternately with the name of the Panathenaia or other quadrennial celebrations.70 An ancient scholion to Demosthenes’ Against Androtion reports the custom of temporarily releasing prisoners during the Dionysia and the Panathenaia.71 Hence, by referring to the pent(h)etēris the curse likens the restraints of the targeted person with the manacles of a prisoner, in order to stress their superior strength.

Hermes, Hekate and the Mother of Gods

32Hermes Katochos/Katouchios regularly appears in curse tablets without Hekate. By itself, this phenomenon would appear to suggest that the fairly regular pairing Hermes Chthonios – Hekate Chthonia obeyed a different logic. In his capacity as Katochos, Hermes is usually invoked together with Gê—the only other katochos, as mentioned above—, Persephone and, rarely, with Hades. Hekate joins Hermes Katochos/Katouchios only once, and even then they are associated with the Mother of the Gods, as seen in an Attic tablet of the early Hellenistic period (4th/3rd cent.):

  • 72 In DT 70, line 2, Olympos was also used as the name of Olympos’ shop (καπελεῖον); cf. Gager (1992 (...)
  • 73 DT 72, translation by Eidinow (2007), p. 399, slightly modified. This is one of a group of four t (...)

I bind ōphiliōn and ōphilimē and Olympos72 and Pistias and Magadis and Prōtos and Kados, Thoukleidēs and Melas and Kōmos and Bakchis and Kittos. Of these men and women, (I bind) their hopes from both gods and heroes, and all their work, both in the presence of Hermes who holds down (Katouchios) and in the presence of Hekate and in the presence of Earth, in the presence of all the Gods and the Mother of the Gods.73

  • 74 Parker (2005), p. 126, n. 40.
  • 75 See, among others, Rhodes (1972), p. 30, n. 6; Miller (1995); Shear (1995).
  • 76 For the Mother’s association with the idea of law and more specifically with written laws and pub (...)
  • 77 Rhodes – Osborne (2003), p. 112–119, no. 25, line 12; cf. SEG 26.72 = Stroud (1974), p. 157–158.
  • 78 Aeschin. 1 (Against Timocrates), 60–61.

33The appeal to the Mother of Gods, though unique in the extant evidence of that period, and even “aberrant”, as Robert Parker writes,74 is far from unexpected in this context: the Mother’s “foreignness”, her association, even conflation with Gê, and, thus with the “Earthly powers”, as well as her prominent role in Athens’ political and juridical life—her shrine in the center of the Agora, closely connected with the Council House75, housed the official city archive—, all these make up a picture that perfectly meets the needs of defigentes attempting to combine recognized authority with the power of writing and even with some ritual exaggeration76. Besides, the practice of “dedicating” fake coinage to the Mother, according to Nikophon’s famous law of 375/4 BCE, reveals a particular normative and punishing aspect of this goddess in Athens.77 Similarly, her altar was a proper place for a slave to claim reparation for injustice.78

  • 79 Eur. Hel. 1301–1368 (where the “Mountain Mother of the God”, is called Δηώ, an epithet of Demeter (...)
  • 80 For the heraldic attendants placed on either side of Mother’s sculptural representations (princip (...)
  • 81 Borgeaud (2001), p. 250 (n. 31). Steinhauer (2015) stresses the role of the genos of Kerykes in M (...)
  • 82 Cf. DT 1 (from the sanctuary of Demeter at Knidos, 2nd/1st cent. BCE), which makes reference to “ (...)

34Since the late sixth century BCE the Mother of the Gods had shared symbols and iconographical attributes with Demeter.79 The progressive equation between the Mother and Demeter is probably the reason why among the small-scale figures which usually flank the Classical and Hellenistic reliefs of the enthroned Mother (mostly on the pilasters of her naiskoi), the most common pair is that of a young man with a caduceus and/or a jug, and a torch-bearing maiden, in other words figures usually identified with Hermes and Hekate.80 As the typical attendants of the Eleusinian Goddesses, Hermes and Hekate seem ideal to install the Mother in a similarly respectful ritual frame.81 To return to DT 72, one can justifiably claim that the tablet in question builds inventively on the full title of the Mother in order to also engage the group of “all the gods”.82 But the impressive divine list adopted by the creator of this tablet is not only an appeal to an appropriately qualified divine power, the Mother of the Gods, and her attendants; through the addition of Hermes and Hekate it is also an innovative attempt at appropriating something of the Mysteries’ sacredness while circumventing direct mention of forbidden elements.

Hermes Eri(g)ounios, Hekate Epitymbia

  • 83 NGCT 2; see Appendix no. 5.

35Another unique grouping that deviates from the symmetrical invocation Hermes Chthonios – Hekate Chthonia is that of Hermes Eriounios and Hekate Epitymbia in a fourth-century curse tablet from Kerameikos: “I bind down Protophanes (?)—him and his hands and feet {and feet} and tongue and mind before Hermes Eriounios and before Hekate Epitymbia (?)—πρὸς τὸν Ἑρμῆν | τὸν Ἐριγούνιον καὶ πρὸς | τὴν Ἑκάτην Ἐπιτ{ο}υ(μ)βίαν”.83

  • 84 Curbera (2016), p. 112: “what happened here is that the writer began writing ΕΡΙΓΟΥΝΙΟΝ, realized (...)
  • 85 Cf. DTA 99, lines 9, 13–14: <θ>εο<ὶ> ἐ<πι>τύνβιοι ἐνέρ[ω]ν and [ὦ] δεσπότ[α]ι χθόνιοι καὶ
    ἐ[π]ιτύν (...)
  • 86 IG XII 8.359.
  • 87 Paus. 2.30.2–3.

36According to Jaime Curbera, the form ΕΠΙΤΟΥΜΒΙΑΝ resulted as an attempt to correct the mistaken ΕΡΙΓΟΥΝΙΑΝ (an epithet of Hermes, not of Hekate) with ΕΠΙΤΥΜΒΙΑΝ.84 It is, in any case, an epithet that establishes a more tangible link with the deceased, as it evokes the grim reality of the grave.85 Moreover, its formation is similar to that of other epithets linking Hekate to a special place, such as Ἐπαυλίη (Thasos)86 and Ἐπιπυργιδία (Athens).87

  • 88 Hom. Hymn Dem. 407.
  • 89 SEG 34.479 (250–200 BCE), a funerary epigram for the physician Dikaios and his wife Philista. See (...)
  • 90 Langella (2013), p. 258–279.
  • 91 Curbera (2016), p. 112, provides examples of analogous expressions like ταχύγουνος Ἑρμῆς (Nonnus, (...)

37The epic epithet Eriounios is present in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter—ἐριούνιος ἄγγελος ὠκὺς88— and also in other funerary contexts, for example, in a Hellenistic Thessalian inscription, where “the god eriounios Hermes leads the dead to the isle of the pious”.89 It is an epithet of obscure etymology, but generally understood to mean “wily”, “benevolent”, or “swift”,90 the last meaning possibly present in the mind of the writer who, according to Jaime Curbera, has uniquely rendered the word as ἐριγούνιος, as if it was composed of the suffix ἐρι- (“very”, “much”) and the noun γοῦνα, “knees”.91

  • 92 DTA 90, 93, and SGD 18.
  • 93 Bevilacqua (2009) (= SEG 59.1911: see Appendix no. 6).
  • 94 Athletic competition, a prime ground for unethical cheating, is one of the attested motivations f (...)
  • 95 Paus. 7.27.1–2 (transl. by Jones).
  • 96 Soph. Phil. 132–134; cf. Ar. Th. 1202 for a similar case, but also Soph. El. 1396, Ἑρμῆς σφ᾽ ἄγει (...)

38The epithet Eriounios is associated in at least three curse tablets with Hermes’ epithets Dolios and Katochos.92 Of these, only Dolios is securely attested in cult, although not in Attica. According to a recent study, a unique late sixth-century dedication inscribed on an altar from Cyrene is probably addressed to Hermes Eri(ounios) Dolios—the epithet Dolios is securely read on the monument, while Eri(ounios) is a likely, albeit not certain, reading.93 The altar is close to the local gymnasium where Hermes was worshipped together with Heracles. The whole context seems totally different from that of the defixiones, unless we think of an early aspect of Hermes as a cunning supporter in antagonistic stressful conditions94. In fact, unlike Katochos and Chthonios, both of which refer to the manipulation of the victim, the epithet Dolios highlights the link between the god and the curser. Traces of Dolios as a cultic epithet reaffirm this aspect of a supporting god. Without distinguishing between the god and his image as a herm at Pellene, Pausanias briefly comments on Hermes’ benevolent character: “As you go to Pellene there is, by the roadside, an image of Hermes, who, in spite of his surname of Crafty, is ready to fulfill the prayers of men (ἐπίκλησιν μὲν Δόλιος, εὐχὰς δὲ ἀνθρώπων ἕτοιμος τελέσαι). He is of square shape and bearded, and on his head is carved a cap.”95 Literary uses of Dolios could also point in this direction. In Sophocles’ Philoctetes, for instance, Odysseus summons the god to support him together with Nike and Athena Polias just before deceiving Philoctetes: “May escorting Hermes the Deceiver, lead us on (Ἑρμῆς δ’ ὁ πέμπων Δόλιος ἡγήσαιτο νῷν) and divine Victory, Athena Polias, who saves me always.”96 Similarly, the epithet Eriounios, understood as “swift and thieving”, appears to conceive of the god as a competent model for the curser.

Denouement

39My decision to study the pair Hermes-Hekate in early curse tablets from Athens has been largely dictated by the fact that these two gods also appear as a pair in cult and mythology. Accordingly, one of my goals was to demonstrate that Hermes and Hekate’s parallel agency in defixiones is not at variance with the roles assigned to them in other domains, e.g. the supervision of streets, doors and gates as well as their auxiliary yet substantial involvement in the Mysteries. To put it differently, it is imperative that we gauge Hermes and Hekate’s functions in defixiones as complementary to, rather than fundamentally different from, their functions in other media.

40The group of curse tablets in which the pair repeatedly features in a thoroughly symmetrical manner—Hermes’ name is always followed by that of Hekate, and both nomina sacra are additionally accompanied by the epithets Chthonios/Chthonia—does not contain any element that would compel us to place them inexorably in the realm of Hades. Their concurrent appearance recalls similar attestations of the two gods in cult and primarily their intermediary role in the myth of the abduction of Kore and her return to the upper world.

41In addition, the triad Hekate Chthonia, Artemis Chthonia and Hermes Chthonios in the recently published assemblage of defixiones from Piraeus, reflects the association of Hekate with Artemis, which was current in Athenian religion. In this case too, one cannot see why these gods’ activity should be seen as pertaining exclusively to the underworld. The metrical elements of the curses are reminiscent of the diction of funerary epigrams; the word κονία in particular cannot but evoke the heap of soil covering the tomb—regardless of whether, combined with the word αἷμα, it represents one of the ingredients actually used during the ritual of depositing the curses. Another interesting word, i.e. πεντετηρίς, links the curse with contemporary penal practices, in compliance with the often observed parallels between the ritual and real fetters, suggested by the use of the verb δέω and its cognates. The immobility of imprisonment is arguably translated by the motionless conditions of the grave or even Hades. The metaphor was probably nurtured by contemporary penal developments that advanced imprisonment as an autonomous form of legal retribution.

42Hermes’ epithet Katochos is almost never attributed to the god when he appears by the side of Hekate. Only once is Hermes described as Katouchios next to Hekate, but the two appear as members of a larger divine cluster that includes the Mother of the Gods, an enlarged group that reflects contemporary cultic and social concerns. Otherwise, the epithet Katochos, a common staple of defixiones, has been connected with Hermes more than with any other god; it seems to convey the idea of motionlessness and entrapment imposed on the dead by the soil and the sepulchral stone. This hypothesis can be further strengthened by a comparison with attestations of Hermes Chthonios in Thessalian funerary stelae. The overall connection of Hermes with boundary stones and his depiction in herms might help explain the origin of the epithet Katochos. The pressure exerted by Hermes Katochos on the deceased contributes to the image of the grave, and by association, of Hades, as a (an everlasting) penitentiary (one from which even a πεντετηρίς cannot provide any release).

43Lastly, the appearance of the pair Hermes-Hekate with the epithets Eri(g)ounios and Epitymbia respectively seems to reaffirm the observable tendencies in the earliest curse tablets, on the one hand to employ Hermes’ celebrated celerity for the benefit of the defigens, and on the other to entrust these gods with tasks related to the visible materiality of the tomb. Otherwise, neither epithet can be associated with an exclusively underworld aspect of the respective god.

44To sum up, we can consider the grave as a two-sided structure bringing together: (a) the tymbos’ visible part, seen as a gate holding back the dead and also as a place of intense ritual action both in the frame of ordinary funeral rites and binding procedures; and (b) a deep interior imagined as a hole where one is condemned to stillness and inaction but also as a place communicating with the equally inescapable crowded realm of Hades. In other words, this is a structure that, on the one hand, reflects actual constructions where inmates are brought after trial and, on the other, points to mythical Hades or Tartarus. Early Attic curse tablets, while they do not forget (b), very often refer to (a), establishing a close link between the gods invoked and the visible and material structure of the grave.

  • 97 For poetic formulaic elements attesting to a hexametrical tradition in ritual binding, see Faraon (...)

45The study of divine epithets and associations in curse tablets referring to Hermes (Chthonios, Katochos, Eriounios, Dolios) and Hekate (Chthonia, Epitymbia) reveals not only a real concern for the concrete place of the ritual action but also possible echoes of broader religious and social realities. As I have tried to show, myth is not out of place in curse tablets. Mythical and poetic material can at times be used in curse tablets and incantations as a resource to hint at or to firmly establish parallels to the special situation of the defigens and to the goal he or she wishes to achieve.97 Through the eclectic use of mythical and ritual material operated by the redactors of the curse tablets, the gods involved, although not directly related to locally fixed cults, do not appear radically different from their other aspects and functions.

Appendix

1. IG IV 496 (Fraenkel) with the changes proposed by Jeffery (1955), p. 69–76; cf. SEG 16.243; ed. pr. Baumgarten (1883). From Phychtia (near Mycenae), in the Peloponnese. Late 5th cent. BCE (lettering).

  • 98 For ram sacrifices see Jeffery (1955), p. 71, n. 10 (rams offered to Amphiaraus, Trophonius, Calc (...)

The monument, which had initially been interpreted by Baumgarten as a tombstone, seems to be a dedication, probably a column shaft turned into an altar. It has a long band in relief ending in a ram’s head. It is therefore very tempting to associate it with Pausanias’ description of Thyestes’ tomb and of the place called “Rams”, north of a precinct dedicated to Demeter and probably to Persephone and Pluto (Paus. 2.18.1–2). Given that rams are customarily offered to Kore, the animal head around which the text runs could have been considered as appropriate to hint at, or to commemorate, a real sacrifice in response to the fulfillment of a curse.98

Deciphered parts:

(i) Possible representation of a lead scroll with the original curse

[- - - κα]τέχ[ο]ι Πλοῦτ[ος - - -]
[- - -] Μεγά[ρας(?) π]αῖδα Φερ[σε]φ[ό]ν[η] [- - -]
[- - -] may Ploutos restrain [- - -]
[- - -] the child of Megara; Persephone [- - -]

(ii) Details of the fulfilment

Ἐφεσίη καθῆτο μήνυσ[ις]· πρῶτον Ἑκάτη ἀτά[ει τὰ?]
Μεγάρας πᾶσιν ⁝ εἶτα δὲ Περσεφόνη
ἤδη τάδε πάντα ἀγγέλλει θεοῖς.

An Ephesian denunciation [or invocation] is being sent down:
first, Hekate punishes [the something] of Megara in all respects;
next, Persephone immediately reports all these things to the gods.
(Translation by J.-M. Carbon.)

Zoom Original (png, 572k)

Fig. from MDAI 8(1883), p. 140 (Baumgarten)

  • 99 I have retained the Attic orthography throughout: thus ἐκε῀νος, ἐμο῀͂, βολάς, etc., instead of th (...)

2. DTA 107a–b. Attica, init. 4th cent. BCE, cf. Faraone (1989), p. 156–157 (see also DTA 105–106 with similar formulation).99

a
[Φ]ερέν[ικο]ς πρὸς τὸν Ἑρμῆν τὸν Χθόνιον καὶ [τὴν Ἑ]-
κάτην Χθονίαν καταδεδέσθω· Γαλήνην, ἥτις Φερεν[ί]-
κωι, καταδέω πρὸς Ἑρμῆν Χθονικὸν (sic or Χθόνι{κ}ον?) καὶ Ἑκάτην Χθονίαν κατα[δ]-
έω· καὶ ὡς οὗτος ὁ βόλυβδος ἄτιμος καὶ ψυχρός, οὕτω ἐκε͂νος καὶ τὰ ἐκένω ἄτιμα [κ]-
αὶ ψυρχὰ ἔστω καὶ τοῖς μετ’ ἐκένο ἃ περὶ ἐμο͂ λέγοιεν καὶ βολευοίατο.
Θερσίλοχος Οἰνό[φιλος] Φιλώτιος καὶ εἴ τ[ι]ς ἄ-
λλος Φερενίκωι σύνδικ[ος, πρ]ὸς τὸν Ἑρμῆν τὸγ Χθόν[ι]-
ον καὶ Ἑκάτην Χθονίαν καταδεδέσθω· Φερενίκο κα[ὶ ψυ]-
χὴν καὶ νο͂ν καὶ γλῶτταν καὶ βολὰς καὶ [τ]ὰ πράττει καὶ τὰ περὶ ἐμο͂ βολε[ύ]-
εται, ἅπαντ’ αὐτῶι ἀντία ἔστω καὶ τοῖς μετ’ ἐκένου βολεύοσιν καὶ πράττοσιν.
καὶ ὅσον… (amplius nil scriptum est).

b
Ἑρμῆς Χθόνιος
καὶ Ἑκάτη Χθονία.

a
Let Pherenikos be bound before Chthonian Hermes and Cthonian Hekate. I bind Galene, the one with Pherenikos, before Chthonian Hermes and Chthonian Hekate—I bind her. And just as this lead is valueless and cold, so too may that man and his belongings be valueless and cold, and may the same be true for those on his side, whatever their words and plans about me may be. Let Thersilochos, Oinophilos, Philotios, and any other court-supporter of Pherenikos be bound before Chthonian Hermes and Chthonian Hekate. Pherenikos’ spirit, and mind and tongue and plans and anything he is doing or and plotting about me, may all these be against him and against those who plot and act with him. And for any…

b
Chthonian Hermes and Chthonian Hekate.

3. ΝΠ 11948, Lamont (2021), p. 80–84. Between the port of Piraeus and the city center. Early 4th cent. BCE.

[Ἑκ]ά̣τη Χθονία, Ἄρτεμι Χθονία, Ἑρμῆ Χθ̣όνιε,
ἐπιφθόνησον Φαναγόραι καὶ Δημητρίωι
καὶ τῶι καπηλείωι καὶ χρήμασι καὶ κτήμασι.
Δήσω τόγ γ’ ἐμὸν ἐχθρὸν Δημήτριον καὶ Φανα-
γ̣όραν ἐν αἵματι καὶ κονίαισιν̣
σὺμ πᾶσιμ φθιμένοις’Oδέ σε λύσε<ι> πρώτη πεν-
[θ]ετηρίς. Τοιο<ύ>τωι σ’ ἐγὼ δήσω δεσμῶι,
[ὦ Δ]ημήτριιε, ὥσπερ κρατερώτατόν
[ἐστ]ι̣ν, γλώττει +δὲ+ κυνωτὸν ἐπεγκρο<ύ>σω̣.

Chthonian Hekate, Chthonian Artemis, Chthonian Hermes! Βear a grudge against Phanagora and Demetrios, and their shop and their property and their possessions. I bind my enemy Demetrios, and Phanagora, in blood and dust, with all the dead! Nor will the next four-year cycle release you. I bind you in such a bind, Demetrios, as strongly as possible, and upon [your] tongue a kynōton I strike in.
(Translation by Jessica Lamont slightly modified.)

4. DT 72. Attica (precise origin unknown), 4th/3rd cent. BCE.

καταδήω Ὠφιλίωνα
καὶ Ὠφιλίμη<γ> καὶ Ὄλυμπ[ο]ν
καὶ Πιστίαν καὶ Μάγα[δ]ιν
καὶ Πρ[ῶ]τον καὶ Κάδον, Θου-
κλείδην καὶ Μέλανα καὶ
Κῶμον
καὶ Βα<κ>χίδα καὶ Κίττον,
τούτων τῶν ἀνδρῶν καὶ
γυναικ[ῶ]ν καὶ ἐλπίδας
καὶ παρὰ θεῶν καὶ πα<ρ>’ ἡρώ-
ων καὶ ἐργασίας [ἁ]πάσας
καὶ πρὸς τὸν Ἑρμῆν τὸν
Κατούχιον καὶ πρὸς τὴ[ν Ἑ]-
κάτην καὶ πρὸς τὴν Γῆ[ν κ]αὶ
{τὴν Γ[ῆ]ν}
πρὸς θεοὺς ἅπαντας
καὶ Μ[η]τέρα θεῶν.

I bind Ôphiliôn and Ôphilimê and Olympos and Pistias and Magadis and Prôtos and Kados, Thoukleidês and Melas and Kômos and Bakchis and Kittos. Of these men and women, (I bind) their expectations from both gods and heroes, and all their business both in the presence of Hermes who holds down (Katouchios) and in the presence of Hekate and in the presence of Earth and in the presence of all the gods and (the) Mother of Gods.”
(Translation by Eidinow [2007], p. 399, slightly modified.)

5. NGCT 2; Curbera (2016), p. 111–112 (= SEG 66.175). Athens, Kerameikos, 360–350 BCE (lettering).

Jumbled letters of the victim’s name—l. 1 ΠΡΟΩ̣Φ̣ΝΑΤΗΝ instead of ΠΡΩΤΟΦΑΝΗΝ—are frequent in curse tablets.

καταδ[ῶvv] ΠΡΟΩ̣Φ̣ΝΑΤΗΝ καὶ αὐ-
τὸν καὶ̣ χεῖρας καὶ πόδας
{καὶ πόδα[ς} κα]ὶ γλῶ(τ)ταν καὶ
τ̣ὸν νόον, π̣ρὸς τὸν Ἑρμῆν
τὸν Ἐριγούνιον καὶ πρὸς
τὴν Ἑκάτην Ἐπι̣τ{ο}υ(μ)βί̣αν·
κ̣α̣[τ]αδῶ Ἡδεῖαν καὶ
Φαίδιμον· καταδῶ κ[αὶ]
αὐτὸν καὶ πόδας{ς} κα[ὶ]
χεῖρας {ας} καὶ γλῶ<τ>τ-
α̣ν̣ κ[αὶ] ψυχὴν πρὸς τὸν
[Ἑ]ρμ[ῆ]ν Ἐριγούνιον
[κα]ὶ πρὸς τὴν Ἑ⟨κά⟩τηvν {κα[ὶ]}
{τὸν Ἑρμῆν}· κ̣-
αὶ Ἡδεῖα, αἰεὶ καὶ̣ - -

I bind Protophanes down—him and his hands and feet {and feet} and tongue and mind before Hermes Eriounios and before Hekate Epitymbia (?). Ι bind Hêdeian and Phaidimos down; I bind him down and his feet and his hands and his tongue and spirit before Hermes Erigounios and before Hekate and Hermes. And let Hedeia for ever and…
(Translation by Curbera [2016], p. 112, slightly modified.)

6. SEG 59.1911 = Bevilacqua (2009). Dedication of an altar to Hermes Eriounios, Dolios. Cyrene, late 6th cent. BCE.

G. Bevilacqua disregards a vertical stroke on the altar which she considers as accidental (i.e. not used to separate the inscription in distinct columns). For previous readings see Dobias-Lalou (1970), no. 8, p. 241–245 (SEG 37.1673) and Dobias-Lalou (1987), p. 89, where she proposes Ζεὺς Ἐρινύμενος, as a corruption of Ἐλινύμενος (Hesychius s.v.); see now IGCyr 1040 (Dobias-Lalou): (column A: το͂ Ζε̄(νός) | το͂ Ἐρι(νυμένō?), column B: το͂ hερμᾶ | το͂ Δολίō). Neither solution is without problems. However, since Ἐρι(νυμένō?) seems rather hard to accept as a comprehensible abbreviation, I continue to find Bevilacqua’s suggestion more probable.

ΤΟΖΕ | ΤΟ ΕΡΙ / ΤΟ ΗΕΡΜΑ | ΤΟ ΔΟΛΙΟ
Τό⟨δ⟩ε το͂ Ἑρμᾶ | το͂ Ἐρι(ουνίο̄), το͂ Δολίο̄

(G. Bevilacqua)
(Αltar of) Hermes Eriounios and Dolios.

467. DTA 108 / Kaibel (1897), no. 1136. Cf. Faraone (1995), p. 5, n. 20 and O’Connell (2017), p. 41–46. Attica, 3rd/2nd cent. BCE (Kaibel).

Α
δήσω ἐγὼ Σωσίκλειαν κα[ὶ κ]τήματα (recto)
καὶ μέγα κῦδος καὶ πρᾶξιν καὶ νοῦν, ἐ-
χθρὰ δὲ φίλοισι γένοιτο· δήσω ἐγὼ κ-
είνην ὑπὸ Τάρταρον ἀερόεντ[α]
δεσμοῖς ἀργαλείοις σύν θ’ Ἑκάτ<η>ι Xθο-
νίαι.

B
ΣΩΣΙΚΛΕΙΑ ΩΤΤΙΒ ← (verso)
καὶ Ἐρινύσιν Ἠλιθιώναις.

I bind Sôsikleia and her possessions and her great renown and her business and her mind. May she become an enemy to her friends. I will bind her beneath murky Tartaros in painful bonds, together with Chthonian Hekate…

“Sôsikleia Bittô ←
… and with Erinyes who render people foolish (ēlithiōnai)”.

8. IG IV2 2.1012 (Curbera); ed.pr. Papachristodoulou (2010) (= SEG 58.313). Aigina, 5th/4th cent. BCE. The tablet was reused and contains two different texts: see Curbera (2015b), p. 107–108. Below I reprint only one of them.

B
ὡς Ἕφαιστος ἐδέσατο MANTEIAN
TANAΥΤΟΔΕΣΜΟΣΕΚΑΤΕΡΟΙ
ΚΕΡΑΥΝΟΙΑΣΣ τε παῖς Ζεὺς με-
[γά]λο Κρόνο{ι} καταέδεσεν vacat
[…..]IΣΔΕ Προμηθέα{ι} Βίαι Κράτε[ι]
P[….]AΙΔΕΥΣΕ- - - - - -ΕΙΚΑΜΟΕΙΣΑ
[.]ΥΕΤ[..]\- - - - - - - - - - - -α νικάσαιμι
ΕΚΑΤΑΙ [.]Ρ- - - - - - - - - - - -ΑΝ

As Hephaistos bound MANTEIANTANAUTOUDESMOISEKATEROIKERAUNOIASS and Zeus the son of the mighty Cronos bound [- - -] ISDE for Prometheus with Bia and Kratos, R[- - -]AIDEUSE[- - -]EIKAMOEISA [.]UET[- - -]A; may I win with Hekate(?) [- - -]R[- - -]AN.

In lines 1–3, one can readily see a sequence of Greek phrases (μαντείαν τὰν αὐτοῦ, δεσμὸς ἑκατέροι, κεραυνο῀͂ι, ἃς vel ἇς), which, however, make little sense once put together: “his own oracle, bonds (?) for each one, of lightning, whom/whose”. According to J. Curbera the scribe intended to write in hexametrical style ὡς Ἥφαιστος ἐδήσατο ματέρα τὰν αὑτοῦ δεσμοῖς κρατεροῖς, “As Hephaistos bound his own mother in powerful bonds”. It is interesting to note that not only the divine names including the personifications Bia (“Force”) and Kratos (“Power”), but also the words in the confused and enigmatic section of lines 1–3 (μαντεία, δεσμός, κεραυνός) echo the text of the Prometheus Bound. Yet the name Hekate, if this is what should be read in l. 10, appears to be independent from that mythical sectiοn.

Abbreviations

CGRN

J.-M. Carbon, S. Peels, V. Pirenne-Delforge, A Collection of Greek Ritual Norms, Liège, 2017– (http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/​).

CEG

P.A. Hansen, Carmina Epigraphica Graeca I–II, Berlin/New York, 1983–1989.

DT

A.M.H. Audollent, Defixionum tabellae quotquot innotuerunt, tam in Graecis Orientis quam in totius Occidentis partibus praeter Atticas in Corpore Inscriptionum Atticarum editas, Paris, 1904.

DTA

R. Wünsch, Defixionum tabellae Atticae, Berlin, 1897.

IG

Inscriptiones Graecae, I–XIV, Berlin, 1903–.

IGCyr

C. Dobias-Lalou, Inscriptions of Greek Cyrenaica (in collaboration with A. Bencivenni, H. Berthelot, with help from S. Antolini, S.M. Marengo, and E. Rosamilia), Bologna, 2017.

I.Eleusis

K. Clinton, Eleusis. The Inscriptions on Stone: Documents of the Sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme I–II, Athens, 2005–2008.

LSCG

F. Sokolowksi, Lois sacrées des cités grecques, Paris, 1969.

LSS

F. Sokolowksi, Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Supplément, Paris, 1962.

NGCT

D. Jordan, “New Greek Curse Tablets (1985–2000)”, GRBS 41 (2000), p. 5–46.

NGSL

E. Lupu, Greek Sacred Law. A Collection of New Documents, Leiden, 2009 [2005].

PGM

A. Henrichs, K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. I–II, 2nd edition, Stuttgart, 1973–1974.

SEG

Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Leiden, 1923–.

SGD

D. Jordan, “A Survey of Greek Defixiones Not Included in the Special Corpora”, GRBS 26 (1985), p. 151–97.

TheDeMa

Thesaurus Defixionum Magdeburgensis, Online database dir. by Martin Dreher, University of Magdeburg (http://www-e.uni-magdeburg.de/​defigo/​wordpress/​?page_id=2).
Top of page

Bibliography

D. Allen, The World of Prometheus. The Politics of Punishing in Democratic Athens, Princeton, 2000.

—, “Imprisonment in Classical Athens”, CQ 47 (1997), p. 121–135.

A.A. Avagianou, “Hermes Βρυχάλειος and Ἐριούνιος at Pharsalus. The Epigraphical Evidence Reconsidered”, Kernos 10 (1997), p. 207–213.

—, “ΕΡΜΗΙ ΧΘΟΝΙΩΙ: Θρησκεία και άνθρωπος στη Θεσσαλία”, in A.A. Avagianou (ed.), Λατρείες στην περιφέρεια του αρχαίου ελληνικού κόσμου, Athens, 2002, p. 65–111.

F. Baumgarten, “Grabmonument aus der Argolis”, MDAI(A) 8 (1883), p. 141–146.

N.F. Belousov, A. Fedoseev, “A New Defixio from Ancient Panticapaeum’s Necropolis”, Ancient Civilisation from Scythia to Siberia 22, 1 (2016), p. 18–25.

C. Bérard, Anodos. Essai sur l’imagerie des passages chthoniens, Paris, 1974.

G. Bevilacqua, “Dediche ad Hermes”, in J. Bodel, M. Kajava (eds.), Dediche sacre nel mondo greco-romano. Diffusione, funzioni, tipologie, Rome, 2009, p. 227–244.

J.H. Blok, “Solon’s Funerary Laws: Questions of Authenticity and Function”, in J.H. Blok, A.P.M.H. Lardinois (eds.), Solon of Athens: New Historical and Philological Approaches, Leiden, 2006, p. 197–247.

—, Citizenship in Classical Athens, Cambridge, 2017.

J.H. Blok, S.D. Lambert, “The Appointment of Priests in Attic Gene”, ZPE 169 (2009), p. 95–121.

Ph. Borgeaud, Η μητέρα των θεών, Αθήνα, 2001 (= La Mère des dieux, Paris, 1996).

D. Bosnakis, Ενθετταλίζεσθαι: τεχνοτροπία και ιδεολογία των Θεσσαλικών επιτύμβιων ανάγλυφων του 5ου και του 4ου αι. π.Χ., Βόλος, 2013.

B. Bravo, “Une tablette magique d’Olbia Pontique, les morts, les héros et les démons”, in A. Adler (ed.), Poikilia. Études offertes à Jean-Pierre Vernant, Paris, 1987, p. 185–218.

J.S. Bruss, Hidden Presences. Monuments, Gravesites, and Corpses in Greek Funerary Epigram, Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA, 2005.

C. Cousin, Le Monde des morts. Espace et paysages de l’Au-delà dans l’imaginaire grec d’Homère à la fin du ve siècle avant J.-C., Paris, 2012.

F. Cumont, “Un rescript impérial sur la violation de sépulture”, RH 163 (1930), p. 241–266.

J. Curbera, “Chthonians in Sicily”, GRBS 38 (1997), p. 397–408.

—, “Defixiones”, in M. Gulletta (ed.), Sicilia epigraphica: Atti del convegno internazionale Erice, 15–18 ottobre 1998, Pisa, 1999 (Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa, Classe di lettere e filosofia. Quaderni, ser. 4, 7–8), p. 159–186.

—, “Seven Curse Tablets from the Collection of Richard Wünsch”, ZPE 195 (2015a), p. 143–156.

—, “From the Magician’s Workshop”, in D. Boschung, J. Bremmer (eds.), The Materiality of Magic, Paderborn, 2015b, p. 97–122.

—, “Five Curse Tablets from the Athenian Kerameikos”, ZPE 199 (2016), p. 109–118.

J. Curbera, D.R. Jordan, “A Curse Tablet from the ‘Industrial District’ Near the Athenian Agora”, Hesperia 67.2 (1998), p. 215–218.

J.-C. Decourt, Inscriptions de Thessalie I. Les cités de la vallée de l’Enipeus, Paris, 1995.

E. Dettori, “Βρυχαλειος in un’ iscrizione tessala”, Myrtia, 15 (2000), p. 27–33.

—, “Su ΕPΙΓΟΥΝΙΟΝ: ‘ZPE’ 199, 2016, p. 112, l. 5 e 12”, ZPE 204 (2017), p. 136–137.

A. Dimou, La Déesse Korè-Perséphone: mythe, culte et magie en Attique, Turnhout, 2016.

C. Dobias-Lalou, “Pour une chronologie des inscriptions archaïques de Cyrène”, RPh ser. 3, 44 (1970), p. 228–256.

—, “Noyau grec et éléments indigènes dans le dialecte cyrénéen”, QAL 12 (1987), p. 85–91.

E. Eidinow, Oracles, Curses, and Risk among the Ancient Greeks, Oxford, 2007.

—, “Binding Spells on Tablets and Papyri”, in D. Frankfurter (ed.), Guide to the Study of Ancient Magic, Leiden, 2019, p. 351–387.

C.A. Faraone, “Aeschylus’ ὕμνος δέσμιος (Eum. 306) and Attic Judicial Curse Tablets”, JHS 105 (1985), p. 150–154.

—, “An Accusation of Magic in Classical Athens (Ar. Wasps 946–48)”, TAPhA 119 (1989), p. 149–160.

—, “The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding Spells”, in C.A. Faraone, D. Obbink (eds.), Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Religion and Magic, Oxford, 1991, p. 3–32.

—, “The ‘Performative Future’ in Three Hellenistic Incantations and Theocritus’ Second Idyll”, CPh 90 (1995), p. 1–15.

—, “Taking the ‘Nestor’s Cup Inscription’ Seriously: Erotic Magic and Conditional Curses in the Earliest Inscribed Hexameters”, CA 15 (1996), p. 77–112.

—, “Hexametrical Incantations as Oral and Written Phenomena”, in A.P.M.H. Lardinois, J.H. Blok, M.G.M. van der Poel (eds.), Sacred Words: Orality, Literacy, and Religion, Leiden, 2011, p. 191–203.

—, “Roman-Period Mystery Cults as the Focal Points of Cursing Rituals?”, Acta Ant. Hung. 58 (2018), p. 465–479.

L.R. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States III, Oxford, 1907.

D. Felton, “The Dead”, in D. Ogden (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion, Malden, MA/Oxford, 2007.

F. Ferrari, L. Prauscello, “Demeter Chthonia and the Mountain Mother in a New Gold Tablet from Magoula Mati”, ZPE 162 (2007), p. 193–202.

J. Franek, “ ‘As Isis Loved Osiris, So Let Matrona Love Theodoros…’: Sympathetic Magic and Similia Similibus Formulae in Greek and Latin Curse Tablets (Part 2)”, PhilClass 14, 2 (2019), p. 177–207.

F. Frisone, Leggi e regolamenti funerari nel mondo greco. Archeologia e storia, Congedo, 2000.

W.D. Furley, Andokides and the Herms. A Study of Crisis in Fifth-Century Athenian Religion, London, 1996.

J. Gager, Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World, New York, 1992.

R. Garland, The Greek Way of Death, New York, 1985.

A. Gartziou-Tatti, “The ‘Orphic’ Voyage of the Suitors’ Souls and the Role of Hermes in the Second Nekyia (Odyssey 24. 1–204)”, in M. Christopoulos, M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou (eds.), The Upper and the UnderWorld in Homeric and Archaic Epic, Ithaki, 2020, p. 129–161.

L. Gawlinski, “The Athenian Calendar of Sacrifices: A New Fragment from the Athenian Agora”, Hesperia 76, 1 (2007), p. 37–55.

F. Graf, “The Mysteries Process”, in L. Burckhardt, J. Ungern-Sternberg (eds.), Great Trials in Ancient Athens, Munich, 2000, p. 114–27.

G. Güntner, Göttervereine und Götterversammlungen auf Attischen Weihreliefs, Wurtzburg, 1994.

E.B. Harrison, The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens XI. Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture, Princeton, 1965.

R.F. Healey, Eleusinian Sacrifices in the Athenian Law Code (PhD diss., Harvard, 1961), New York, 1990.

J.H. Hordern, Sophron’s Mimes, Oxford, 2004.

S.C. Humphreys, “Family Tombs and Tomb Cult in Ancient Athens: Tradition or Traditionalism?”, JHS 100 (1980), p. 96–126.

—, The Strangeness of Gods. Historical Perspectives on the Interpretation of Athenian Religion, Oxford, 2004.

V. Hunter, “The Prison of Athens: A Comparative Perspective”, Phoenix 5 (1997), p. 296–326.

L.H. Jeffery, “Further Comments on Archaic Greek Inscriptions”, ABSA 50 (1955), p. 67–84.

S.I. Johnston, Restless Dead. Encounters between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 1999.

E.G. Kagarow, Griechische Fluchtafeln, Leopoli, 1929 (Eos, Supplementa 4).

G. Kaibel, Epigrammata graeca ex lapidis conlecta, Berlin, 1878.

S. Kaczko, Archaic and Classical Attic Dedicatory Epigrams, Berlin, 2016.

S. Kravaritou, M. Stamatopoulou, “From Alcestis to Archidike. Thessalian Round Trips to Hades”, in G. Ekroth, I. Nilsson (eds.), Round Τrips to Hades in the Eastern Mediterranean Tradition. Visits to the Underworld from Antiquity to Byzantium, Leiden/Boston, 2018, p. 124–162.

S. Lambert, “The Sacrificial Calendar of Athens”, ABSA 97 (2002), p. 353–399.

J.L. Lamont, “A New Commercial Curse Tablet from Classical Athens”, ZPE 196 (2015), p. 159–174.

—, “Early Greek Incantations in Late Roman Jerusalem: Kyrilla’s Judicial Curse”, ZPE 209 (2019), p. 43–53.

—, “Crafting Curses in Classical Athens: A New Cache of Hexametric Katadesmoi”, CA 40, 1 (2021a), p. 71–117.

—, “Cold and Worthless: The Role of Lead in Curse Tablets”, TAPA 151.1 (2021b), p. 35–68.

E. Langella, “Hermes ἐριούνιος: una nuova interpretazione”, Historische Sprachforschung 126 (2013), p. 258–279.

R.E. Leader, “In Death Not Divided: Gender, Family, and State on Classical Athenian Grave Stelae”, AJA 101 (1997), p. 683–699.

F. Maltomini, E. Chronopoulou, “Omero nella magia aggressiva: versi e formule”, in E. Suárez de la Torre, I. Canzobre Martínez, C. Sánchez-Mañas (eds.), Ablanathanalba. Magia, cultura y sociedad en el Mundo Antiguo, Madrid, 2020, p. 187–204.

M.T. Manni Piraino, Σικελικά VI, Palermo, 1973.

J.M. Marston, “Language of Ritual Cursing in the Binding of Prometheus”, GRBS 47 (2007), p. 121–133.

H. Metzger, Recherches sur l’imagerie athénienne, Paris, 1965.

M. Mili, Religion and Society in Ancient Thessaly, Oxford, 2015.

M. Mili, J. Wallensten, “Dedications from the Dead? The Strange Case of Hermes Chthonios”, in E. Mackil, N. Papazarkadas (eds.), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Honor of S. Aleshire from the Second North American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Leiden, 2020, p. 227–247.

S.G. Miller, “Old Metroon and Old Bouleuterion in the Classical Agora of Athens”, in M.H. Hansen, K. Raaflaub (eds.), Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, Stuttgart, 1995, p. 133–156.

M.H. Munn, The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion, Berkeley, 2006.

F. Naumann, Die Ikonographie der Kybele in der phrygischen und der griechischen Kunst, Tübingen, 1983.

P. O’Connell, “New Evidence for Hexametric Incantations in Curse Rituals”, ZPE 201 (2017), p. 41–46.

J.H. Oliver, S. Dow, “Greek Inscriptions”, Hesperia 4, 1 (1935), p. 5–90.

R. Osborne, “The Erection and Mutilation of the Hermai”, PCPhS 31–211 (1985), p. 47–73.

I. Papachristodoulou, “Κατάδεσμος ἀπὸ τὴν Αἴγινα”, Archaiognosia 15 (2007–2009) [2010], p. 55–67.

N. Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, Oxford, 2011.

R. Parker, Athenian Religion. A History, 1996.

—, Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford, 2005.

R. Parker, M. Stamatopoulou, “A New Funerary Gold Leaf from Pherai”, ArchEph 143, (2004) [2007], p. 1–32.

M. Patera, Figures grecques de l’épouvante de l’antiquité au présent. Peurs enfantines et adultes, Leiden/Boston, 2015.

M. Revermann, “Divinity and Religious Practice”, in M. Revermann (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy, Cambridge, 2014, p. 275–288.

P.J. Rhodes, R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–232 BC, Oxford, 2003.

W. Riess, Performing Interpersonal Violence. Court, Curse, and Comedy in Fourth-Century BCE Athens, Berlin-Boston, 2012.

L.E. Roller, “Reflections on the Mother of the Gods in Attic Tragedy”, in E. Lane (ed.), Cybele, Attis, and Related Cults: Essays in Memory of M.J. Vermaseren, Leiden, 1996, p. 305–321.

H. Sarian, “Hekate”, in LIMC VI (1992), p. 985–1018.

T.L. Shear, “Bouleuterion, Metroon, and the Archives at Athens”, in M.H. Hansen, K. Raaflaub (eds.), Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, Stuttgart, 1995, p. 157–190.

C. Sourvinou-Inwood, ‘Reading’ Greek Death: To the End of the Classical Period, Oxford, 1995.

M. Stamatopoulou, “Thessalians Abroad, the Case of Pharsalos”, Mediterranean Historical Review 22.2 (2007), p. 211–236.

G. Steinhauer, “ Ἀλκμαιωνίδαι, Κήρυκες καὶ ἡ ἀττικὴ λατρεία τῆς Κυβέλης”, in A.P. Matthaiou, N. Papazarkadas (eds.), ΑΞΩΝ: Studies in Honor of Ronald S. Stroud, Athens, 2015, p. 77–104.

J. Stroszeck, “Athen, Griechenland. Kerameikos. Archäologischer Kontext von Fluchtafeln: Brunnen B 34”, e-Forschungsberichte-IDAI (2019), p. 97–102 (https://publications.dainst.org/journals/index.php/efb/article/view/2249).

K. Takeuchi, “IG I3 250, the Eleusinian Cults and Zeus Herkeios”, in E. Mackil, N. Papazarkadas (eds.), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Honor of S. Aleshire from the Second North American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Leiden, 2020, p. 53–70.

L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions. Volume 1: Phonology, Berlin/New York, 1980.

C.C. Tsagalis, Inscribing Sorrow: Fourth-Century Attic Funerary Epigrams, Berlin, 2008.

M.J. Vermaseren, Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque II, Leyde, 1982.

H.S. Versnel, “Beyond Cursing: The Appeal for Justice in Judicial Prayers”, in C.A. Faraone, D. Obbink, (eds.), Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, Oxford, 1991, p. 60–106.

—, “Prayers for Justice, East and West: New Finds and Publication since 1990”, in R. Gordon, F. Marco, (eds.), Magical Practice in the Latin West: Papers from the International Conference held at the University of Zaragoza, 30 Sept., Leiden, 2009, p. 275–354.

—, “Great Hermes. Three Ways toward Stardom”, in J.F. Miller, J. Strauss Clay (eds.), Tracking Hermes, Pursuing Mercury, Oxford, 2019, p. 337–355.

V. Vlachou, “Death and Burial in the Greek World”, in ThesCRA VIII / Add. To vol. VI 1.e, (2012), p. 363–384.

J. Wallensten, “Karpophoroi Deities and the Attic Cult of Ge. Notes on IG II2 4758”, Opuscula (Annual of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome) 7 (2014), p. 193–203.

R. Wünsch, “Neue Fluchtafeln” RhM 55 (1900), p. 232–271.

F. Ziebarth, “Neue attische Fluchtafeln”, in Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wiss. zu Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse (NGG) (1899), p. 105–135.

—, “Neue Verfluchungstafeln aus Attika, Boiotien und Euboia”, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse 33 (1934), p. 1022–1050.

A. Zografou, Chemins d’Hécate. Portes, routes, carrefours et autres figures de l’entre deux, Liège, 2010 (Kernos, suppl. 24).

—, Des Dieux maniables. Hécate & Cronos dans les Papyrus magiques grecs, Paris, 2016.

Top of page

Notes

1 Divine figures like Tethys in DT 68 B, 6, who, despite the opinion of Wünsch (1900), no. 16 (“Sich wird nicht nur als Gattin des Okeanos, sondern auch als Mutter Erde”), hardly belongs to the underworld, can often generate excitement among scholars. Contrast Hekate, who in similar contexts is readily considered as a member of the group of the “chthonians” and, thus, not worthy of further discussion.

2 See Riess (2012), p. 209: “The downward movement to chthonic deities is a reversal of the official cult of the polis, which addressed the Olympian gods.” Such an inversion is sometimes deemed appropriate for the gods of the underworld, who are thought to be the exact opposite of the “Olympian” gods; see, for instance, Versnel (2019), p. 348, on Hermes Chthonios’ status in the curse tablets “as a permanent denizen of the Netherworld”. However, Eidinow (2007), p. 148, has rightly brought attention to the need for more accurate differentiations between the various so-called “chthonian” gods: “While the gods—or aspects of gods—that are named in the tablets may be ‘chthonians’, they are not necessarily simply gods of the dead except in the loosest sense.”

3 Concerning the role of the gods, see Curbera – Jordan (1998), p. 215–218, Eidinow (2007), p. 146–148, and Riess (2012), p. 208–210, and the recent overview of the discussion in Eidinow (2019), p. 372–373.

4 However, we are not in a position to know the find-spots of many of the published curse tablets. Besides, there is a great number (about 30) of 3rd-century-BCE tablets found in well B‑34 of the Kerameikos that remain unpublished: see Stroszeck (2019).

5 My study takes as a point of departure early curse tablets where Hermes and Hekate appear together and does not exhaustively discuss all early published material.

6 From Homer to Aeschylus the god either assists the dead on their journey to Hades or leads them up. See, among others, Sourvinou-Inwood (1995), p. 103–106, 303ff.; Cousin (2012), index s.v. “Hermès”; Versnel (2019), p. 347; Gartziou-Tatti (2020), p. 129–161; Mili– Wallensten (2020), p. 228. However, the epithet psychopompos, which first appears in Eur. Alc. 361 for Charon, is only much later attributed to Hermes.

7 Versnel (2019), p. 348, comments: “Hermes Chthonios’ peculiar status as permanent denizen of the Netherworld becomes most conspicuous in the curse tablets […] apart from his most determinant epithet Chthonios, is invoked with a number of other stereotyped epithets: katochos, dolios, eriounios. In general terms, then, the Hermes addressed in the defixio with (or even without) any of these epithets is conceived as the chthonic Hermes who resides in the Netherworld (from) where he exerts his influence”; cf. Parker (2005), p. 126: “The powers deployed, in whichever of these ways, are always associated with earth and the underworld, and it is in the curse tablets that the problematic category of ‘chthonian gods’ for once comes into quite sharp if one-sided focus (for their power to benefit mortals is in this context forgotten).”

8 For Hekate’s associations in Attic curse tablets see: DTA 82, 104–108, Ziebarth (1934), nos. 9 and 26; DT 72; NGCT 2, a group of 5 similar tablets published by Lamont (2021a)—supplementing Lamont (2015), where the author published the first tablet of the group—and also IG IV2 2.1012 (Appendix, no. 8). All these documents come from Attica, with the exception of IG IV2 2.1012, which was found in Aigina, a locality that was under Athenian occupation for a considerable period of time in the 5th century BCE.

9 We also find Hekate along with Hermes, Leukothea, Plouton/Ploutodotas, Phersephona, Praxidika and Demeter (all named chthonios/a except for Phersephona) in a unique sheet from a Bosporus cemetery (4th cent. BCE), SGD 170 (p. 135–140); cf. Belousov, Fedoseev (2016), p. 20, n. 3. For Hekate with Persephone, see also Ziebarth (1934), p. 26 (undated).

10 IG IV 496 (Fraenkel) with the few changes proposed by Jeffery (1955), p. 69–76 (see SEG 16.243), cf. Baumgarten (1883); see Appendix no. 1.

11 See J.-M. Carbon’s translation in Appendix no. 1. In DTA, 108 (Appendix no. 7) Hekate also appears as a power responsible for executing the curse together with the Erinyes; cf. O’Connell (2017), p. 41–46.

12 See DTA 105–107 (Attica, early 4th cent. BCE), with Appendix no. 2.

13 NGCT 2 with Curbera (2016), p. 109–118, see infra p. 203–205; see now Appendix no. 5.

14 For the Anthestēria, see Johnston (1999), p. 64; Parker (2005), p. 295–297. Cf. supra n. 6 concerning Hermes and the dead.

15 It is only in 5th-century literature, and more specifically in a fragment from Aristophanes’ Tagēnistai, that the goddess appears as Chthonia, specifically in a context associating her with Empousa, an apparition supposed to frighten the initiands: see Ar., fr. 515 (Kassel-Austin), and cf. Patera (2014), p. 271–277. It would be interesting to contemplate a fusion of Hekate’s suppers at the end of the month—νουμηνία/τριακάς—and the rites known as triakostia/triakades, “of the 30th day”, which marked the end of mourning thirty days after one’s death and which, according to some sources, had some sort of a regular version at the end of each month; see, e.g., Hordern (2004), p. 193 (on Sophron, fr. 152 Hordern, τὰς ἐν Ἅιδου τριακάδας […] λεχθείη δ’ ἂν ἡ παροιμία ἐπὶ τῶν περιέργων καὶ τὰ ἀποκεκρυμμένα ζητούντων γινώσκειν, ταῦτα καὶ παρὰ Σώφρονι ἐν μίμοις) and, also, the discussion in Zografou (2010), p. 207–211, contra Johnston (1999), p. 45, n. 27. See also Humphreys (1980), p. 100, n. 9, about triakades as a family ritual. It is worth noting that triakades are mentioned in a 4th/3rd-century-BCE curse tablet, DTA 99 (cf. SEG 37.223), τ[ὴν τῶν] | τρια[κάδων] ἀνιέ[ρωσιν], where according to Bravo (1987), p. 204–205, the expression τῆι Χθονίαι in line 1 refers either to Persephone or to Hekate. We encounter another mention of τριακάδες ([? λάβε αὐτᾶς ἱαρεῖον τρι]ακάδιν) in a probably later curse tablet from Sicily, Messana (1st/2nd CE? Jordan), SGD 112 and Curbera (1999), p. 181, no. 52, TheDeMa, 280. For the possible association of Hekate’s suppers with the specific group of the aōroi, the “untimely dead”, see Johnston (1999), p. 60–61.

16 Hermes is addressed in Aesch. Pers. 629–630 in order to rouse Dareios and, similarly, in Cho. 1–2 to assist in Orestes’ invocation of Agamemnon. In Cho. 124–129 he is summoned not only as “chthonios”, but also as “herald of the realm above and the realm below”, capable of communicating Electra’s prayers to the underworld powers. The fragmentary play Psychagōgoi (fr. 273 Radt, among the few tragic verses in hexameter) provides further confirmation for this function. Cf. supra n. 6. For the possible echo of tragic representations on curses, see also Faraone (1985), p. 150–154, Marston (2007), p. 131 (about Prometheus Bound) and IG IV2 2.1012 (Appendix no. 8).

17 Regarding Hermes-Hekate associations close to doors, gates and roads, see Parker (2005), p. 18–20; Zografou (2010), p. 153–180.

18 It would be interesting to think that the couple Hermes-Hekate is related to both two principal religious centers in Attica, that is Acropolis and Eleusis. For Hekate and Hermes close to Acropolis, see Zografou (2010), p. 155–156.

19 Clinton (1986), p. 45, and Clinton (1992), p. 116–120. See, however, Miles (1998), p. 60, 67, 219 (Cat. III, nos. 11–12) for a possible adjunct shrine of Hekate in the vicinity of the City Eleusinion.

20 CGRN 25 (IG I3 250A = LSS 18). See also Humphreys (2004), p. 154 and Parker (2005), p. 332–333 (believing that the Eleusinion mentioned in the inscription is probably located outside the deme of Paiania), p. 340, and recently Takeuchi (2020), p. 57–60, 63–64, n. 21 and 67 (for a possible restoration τοῖν θεοῖν). In Thorikos’ sacrificial calendar of circa 440–430 or 380–375 BCE, CGRN 32 (generally based on NGSL 1), line 7, the name of Hekate is mentioned just after a sacrifice to Apollon Delphinios and the “pre-ploughing” offering (πρηρο[σ|ίαν]) probably in relation to a festival of Demeter. See Humphreys (2004), p. 155–156.

21 I.Eleusis 300 (SEG 30.93), esp. lines 9–11, a decree from 20/19 BCE honoring Themistokles, daduch and priest of the Graces (Charites) and Artemis Epipyrgidia in a list of Kerykes’ priests; cf. IG II2 5050 (2nd cent. CE?) for a prohedria seat in the theater of Dionysos accorded to the same priesthood. See Clinton (1974), p. 50–57, 94.

22 Parker (1996), p. 300–302; Blok (2017), p. 144.

23 Hermes Enagōnios is mentioned together with the Charites, Plouton, the Two Goddesses and other divine powers a) in an Archaic inscription with regard to sacrifices offered at the agonistic festival of the Eleusinia, CGRN 8 (I.Eleusis 13; IG I3 5), line 3, hερμεῖ Ἐναγονίοι ⁝ Χάρισιν ⁝ αἶγα (ca. 500 BCE); b) on the official Athenian fasti from the Stoa Basileios; see Lambert (2002), p. 363–364, 379, fr. 3, col. 3, lines 82–84 (= SEG 52.48), Gawlinski (2007), CGRN 45. For the epithet Enagōnios, see Healey (1990), p. 249–256.

24 IG I³ 953, lines 1–3: [ἀ]ρρήτο τελετῆς πρόπολος σῆς, πότνια Δηοῖ, | καὶ θυγατρὸς προθύρο κόσμον ἄγαλμα τόδε | ἔστησεν στεφανω Λυσιστράτη (translation by S. Lambert, F. Schuddeboom in AIOL, modified on stephanō). The interpretation of this inscription, which echoes the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (propolos, potnia Deō), has been much disputed: see the app. crit. of IG I³ 953, and also Kaczko (2016), p. 495–500. Here I follow Harrison (1965), p. 121–122, who made a strong case that the word agalma refers to a herm (fixed in the orthogonal hole atop the inscribed marble base), and took στεφανώ (nom. sing.) to be a cultic designation of the priestess.

25 See, for instance, the New York Krater MMA 28.57.23 (440 BCE), Metzger (1965), p. 11, no. 7, Bérard (1974), p. 129–130, pl. 15, fig. 50; the krater fragment Acropolis Museum 732 (490 BCE), Metzger (1965), p. 11, no. 8, Bérard (1974), p. 133, 17, fig. 60; the skyphos fragment Eleusis Museum 1244 (430 BCE), Metzger (1965), p. 11, no. 6, Sarian (1992), no. 1. See the discussion in Zografou (2010), p. 73–80.

26 IG XII 1.141, lines 3–6 [Rhodes]: Πλούτων γὰρ αὐτὸν καὶ Κόρη κα[τ]ώικισ[αν] | Ἑ̣ρμῆς τε καὶ δαιδοῦχος Ἑκάτη̣ προσφ[ιλῆ | ἅ]πασιν εἶναι μυστικῶν τε [ἐ]πιστά̣[την] | ἔταξαν αὐτὸν πίστεως
πά[σ]ης χά̣[ριν].

27 Manni Piraino (1973), p. 82–84, no. 53 (pl. 31), cf. Zografou (2010), p. 188. In Attica, Ἄγγελος is the eponymous hero of the deme of Angele: see IG II/III³ 4.1854, with Papazarkadas (2011), p. 139.

28 Jordan, Kotansky (2011), p. 54–62, col. I, A, 12–13, cf. Zografou (2016), p. 125–126.

29 See, for instance, the late Hellenistic curse tablets or “prayers for justice” found in the sanctuary of Demeter in Knidos (DT 1–13; 2nd cent. BCE?). For this special group of curses see Versnel (1991) and (2010) and Eidinow (2019), p. 351–353.

30 Eur. Hel. 1307, cf. Hesychius, s.v. Ἄρρητος Κόρη.

31 See Dimou (2016), p. 277.

32 The only Attic tablets bearing the name Κόρη are later, dating to the 2nd/3rd cent. CE (DT 74, l. 3 and 75a, l. 6). The unusual formulation πρὸς τὴμ παρὰ Φερρεφάτηι, “before her who is near Persephone” in DT 68—if this is the correct reading of this fragmentary Attic curse—could be either a way of stressing Hekate’s role as an escort or, more probably, a ruse to leave Demeter’s name unexpressed: see Eidinow (2007), p. 146, 397–398. However, in his forthcoming new edition of the Attic curse tablets, J. Curbera provides a different reading of an analogous formulation in a very similar document (DT 69, l. 10): αὐτὴμ παρὰ Περρεφάτ[τηι], instead of [πρὸς] τ̣ὴμ παρὰ Φερρεφάτηι, which was initially proposed by Kaibel in Ziebarth (1899), p. 116–117, no. 17. In the same tablet, line 5 [κ]αταδίδημι Γῆι κ[αὶ - - -] (Ziebarth), as Curbera notes in the critical apparatus of his edition, we could alternatively read [κ]αταδίδημι τῆι Κ[όρηι]. Even so, it is worth noting that in this tablet Persephone is several times addressed as Περρεφάττη/Φερρεφάτη.

33 Furley (1996), p. 45–46; Gagné (2009), p. 217–222 and passim (p. 218: “It almost seems as if an accusation of impiety had to involve the Mysteries to be effective with the audience and in court”).

34 See Dimou (2016), p. 258, n. 71 (unpublished tablet found in Eleusis). For a cultural parallel of a sort, see Revermann (2014), p. 283, who has argued that “the Eleusinian cult and its emphasis on reverent speech or, indeed, silence” could account for the exemption of Demeter from abuse and grotesque farcical representation in Attic Comedy; cf. Parker (2005), p. 150.

35 Curbera (1997), p. 407, argues that “unlike her fellow chthonians, she (scil. Demeter) was not considered a goddess of ill omen”; cf. Zuntz (1971), p. 399–400.

36 An exception: SGD 170 (p. 135–140), see supra n. 9.

37 Perhaps a similar “caesura” can explain why there is no mention of Demeter in the so-called “magical papyri”: see Zografou (2016), p. 41. For the relationship between curses and magic, see, among others, Faraone (2018).

38 See Lamont (2021a), cf. supra n. 8.

39 For Artemis Hekate in Attica: Pausanias 2.30.2; SEG 30.93, lines 9–10 (Artemis Hekate Epipyrgidia cf. Zografou [2010], p. 84, 102); LSCG 18, A, lines 11–13 (Artemis Hekate in the sacrificial calendar of Erchia); Zografou (2010) p. 215–216 (Hekate and Artemis Mounychia through the offering of amphiphōntes); see also next page, n. 40 and n. 41. For the possible association of Hekate with Artemis Propylaia in Eleusis, see Pausanias 1.38.6 with Zografou (2010), p. 83–84. For other encounters between Hekate and Artemis in both mythical narratives and artistic representations see Zografou (2010), p. 287–294 (association through Iphigeneia), and p.  28, 52–53, 185–188, 265–266, and passim.

40 Aesch. Supp. 676–677: Ἄρτεμιν δ’ ἑκάταν γυναι|κῶν λόχους ἐφορεύειν. According to the archaeological context, the tablets were probably deposited at the time of the burial or soon thereafter, which makes it possible that the gender and age of the cremated individual were factors at play.

41 IG I3 383, lines 124–126 (429/8 BCE), with Zografou (2010), p. 155, n. 9.

42 See Lamont (2015), p. 166, and Lamont (2021a), p. 102–103, who rightly stresses that in Hom. Il. 16.796 “blood and dust” is presented as a material and particularly polluting aspect of death; she also provides a possible parallel with similar connotations in DTA 55, ἐν [βρ]ότωι, “in blood”. For other occurrences of the formula αἵματι καὶ κονίαισιν, in Homer as well as in later literature, see now Maltomini – Chronopoulou (2020), p. 198, 202.

43 CEG 566 (ἔδεκτο … κόνις), CEG 479, 534, 549. See Le Bris (2001), p. 20–21 (“L’expression κούφα κόνις semble désigner métonymiquement la tombe”) as well as Bruss (2005), ch. 2 and Tsagalis (2008), p. 125, 210, 218–219. Cf. Anth. Pal. 7.373.1–2 and later epigrams as IG II2 13375, IV, line 14 (κατέχει… κόνις).

44 DTA 99, line 6. Richard Wünsch followed here the reading of August Boeckh, who, however, believed that the inscription was funerary. Unfortunately, the inscribed monument is now lost.

45 See Lamont (2015), p. 167, and O’Connell (2017), p. 41–42. Both authors suggest that dust and blood could refer to actual implements employed for cursing; their interpretation is not incompatible with my understanding of the meaning and connotations of konis/konia.

46 DTA 55.

47 DT 44.

48 See, for instance, DTA 107a = Appendix no. 2.

49 NGCT 24; Curbera, Jordan (1998), p. 415; cf. Eidinow (2007), p. 225, 229, 444.

50 DT 50 (Ἑρμῆ καὶ Φερσεφόνη κατέχετε); DTA 88Α, lines 1–2 (Ἑρμῆ κάτοχε |κάτεχε) cf. 88 B, lines 1–3; DTA, 89 A, lines 1–2 (δέσποτα Ἑρμῆ |κάτοχε κάτεχε) cf. B 2; DTA 90 A, lines 1–5 (καὶ πρὸς | τὸν κ<ά>τοχον | Ἑρ{ι}μῆ̣ν Ἑρμῆν· | σὺ δὲ κάτοχος); DTA 102 (κατόχους … κατέχετε), DTA 94 A, lines 1 (Δέσποτα κάτοχε), 10–11 (κάτεχε); DTA 109, lines 1 (φίλαι Πραξιδίκαι κατέχετε), 6 (Ἑρμῆ κάτοχε); SGD 75 A, lines 1–2 (Ἑρμῆ κά[τ]οχε κα(ὶ) Γῆ κάτοχε κα(ὶ) Φρεσσ[ε]φόνη |κάτεχε). See Ganschinietz (1919), col. 2533, Graf (1996), p. 130–1, Parker (2005), p. 126, Eidinow (2007), 147, Riess (2012), p. 195–211. For κάτοχος, κατέχειν as Attic peculiarities, see Faraone (1991), p. 25, n. 27.

51 DTA 98; SGD 75.

52 Curbera (2015a), p. 144–145, no. 2 (first published by Richard Wünsch as DTA 89).

53 DTA 94, 1; given that Hermes is the only male entity called Katochos there can be no doubt about his identity.

54 Cf. the structure μεδέων/ουσα + gen. Contra Versnel (2019), p. 350–351, who interprets the title despotēs as an early sign of Hermes’ promotion from his modest origins to his later elevated status (p. 341).

55 Aesch., fr. 388 Radt; cf. Chariclides, fr. 1 (Kassel-Austin): Δέσποιν’ Ἑκάτη τριοδῖτι, | τρίμορφε, τριπρόσωπε, | τρίγλαις κηλευμένα.

56 Ar. Vesp. 875, cf. Pherecr., fr. 92, ὦ δέσποτα Ἀγυιεῦ, ταῦτα σὺ µέµνησό µου.

57 Hesychius, s.v.; cf. Cumont (1930), p. 241–266, for the use of katochos lithos in an Imperial inscription from Nazareth as an equivalent term to the Semitic nephesh.

58 See Leader (1997), p. 101; Garland (1989), p. 5–7; Vlachou (2012), p. 379–380.

59 Avagianou (2002); Mili (2015), 274–278; Kravaritou – Stamatopoulou (2018), p. 144; and now Mili – Wallensten (2020), who examine a small corpus of 265 stelae of this type. The motif emerges in Thessaly (and southern Macedonia) in the late 4th century; Avagianou (2000), p. 211, finds a precursor in a 5th-century epigram where Hermes is called Eriounios—see Decourt (1995), no. 69—, which, however, could be dedicatory.

60 Note, however, the mention of “herms” in Cicero’s much discussed report (De Leg. 2.64) of a post-Solonian law (post aliquando), according to which it was not permitted to decorate one’s tomb with a coat of plaster (opus tectorium) or to place herms (hermae) upon it; see Boardman, Kurz (1971), p. 121. The historicity of this passage has been disputed—see, e.g., Blok (2006), p. 240 and Osborne (1985), p. 47–48—, while the “herms” have been understood as “standing stones” in general. Be that as it may, the use of the word readily reminds us of Hermes’ link to pillar-like monuments.

61 Stamatopoulou (2007), p. 211–229; vice versa, see Bosnakis (2013) for an Attic trend in the funerary monuments of Thessaly.

62 See, among others, Carastro (2006), p. 173–177 (κάτοχος, “qui retient en bas”), and Eidinow (2007), p. 147–148 (κατέχω, “I immobilize”, κάτοχος, “who holds down”).

63 See Osborne (1985), p. 53–54 and passim.

64 Parker (2005), p. 416; Wallensten (2014), p. 193–203.

65 Allen (1997), p. 130 and passim, against earlier scholarship mostly denying the retributive role of imprisonment; Allen (2000), p. 226–230, on the development of penal imprisonment as a means to sustain the ideal of isonomy (based, among others, on Pl. Apol. 37b–c, Lys. 6.21–22, [And.] 4.4–5, Dem. 24 [Against Timocrates], 146, 151 and 132). See also D’Amico (2010), p. 470–474, insisting on how the transition to penal imprisonment corrects the inequality between the wealthier sentenced Athenians paying debts and the poorer serving jail time; for Hunter (2008), p. 195–196, however, the question remains debatable.

66 For the shared vocabulary regarding both binding and detention in prison, see Hunter (1997), p. 296–326, Allen (1997), p. 124, Riess (2012), p. 213–214; for the word desmōtērion, see also Curbera (2020), p. 19: “This is the primary legal name for ‘prison’ throughout antiquity […] δεσμωτήριον is not based on any physical characteristic of the place, but designates the prison as a place where the δεσμῶται, or chained prisoners, were kept.” For terms expressing an analogy between prison and Hades see also Curbera (2020), p. 21. For the use of deein in divine conflicts, see Delcourt (1982), p. 65–109. Curse tablets also do not fail to allude to the function of Tartarus as a prison, see DTA 108, Appendix no. 7. Last but not least, it is worth considering curse tablets that are shaped as long strips (DTA 72, 73, 78, 84, 87 and SGD 1—see Curbera [2015b], p. 100, fig. 3 and Lamont [2021b], p. 47, fig. 3, drawing also by J. Curbera), which recall fetters and, according to Curbera (2015b), p. 100–101, are probably meant to be representations of real bonds; see also the useful discussion by Lamont (2021b), p. 42–48, on lead as a binding agent in general.

67 Allen (2000), p. 147–148. On the mass production of tablets around 400 BCE in close connection with law courts and frequent legal terminology used in their curses, see, among others, Kagarow (1929), p. 53–54, Gager (1992), p. 116–150, and Eidinow (2007), p. 165–189, 302–321. Riess (2012), p. 214–218, for an extended analogy between the procession of cursing and the system of law: “From this perspective, the broad semantics of katadein not only means binding in the narrow sense of restraining or hindering someone by foiling his plans or business, but also evokes associations linked to imprisonment and preparation for execution (p. 215).”

68 [Ath. Pol.], 54.7.4: ε[ἰσὶ] δὲ πεντετηρίδες μία μ[ὲν ἡ εἰ]ς Δῆλον (ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἑπ[τ]ετηρὶς ἐνταῦθα), δευτέρα δὲ Βραυρώνια, τρίτη [δ’ Ἡράκλε]ια, τετάρτη [δ’] Ἐλευσ[ίν]ια· εʹ δὲ Πα[ν]αθήναια, καὶ τούτων οὐδεμία ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἐγγίγνε[ται. Lamont (2015), p. 168, n. 31, and (2021), p. 110, provides examples of the use of the term πεντετηρίς for a set period of four years in religious and political sphere.

69 As a personal name Pentetēris is suitable for potential priestesses: see Blok – Lambert (2009), p. 106, no. 6, Lamont (2021a), p. 110, n. 50, cf. Harp. s.v. Νεμέας Χαράδρα.

70 IG I3 82, lines 6 and 31; Ar. Pax, 875–876 (where pentetēris refers to a festival); Rice (1983), p. 186–187, for the general practice in ancient Greece to call festivals by names specifying their periodicity alternately with their official names. For a personified figure of Pentetēris in a procession, see also Rice (1983), p. 49–50 on Kallixeinos of Rhodes (FGH, 627), 198a–b.

71 Dem. 22.68 and scholia ad loc. A similar scholion (to Dem. 24.250) is worthy of mention, Scholia Demosthenica (Dilts), 24.250.1–3: ἐπειδὴ κατὰ πέντε ἔτη ἤγετο τὰ Παναθήναια, τότε δὲ ἐξῆν ἀφεῖσθαι τοῦ δεσμοῦ τοὺς δεσμώτας διὰ τὴν πανήγυριν. See also Pl. Leg. 637a–b, on the possibility of releasing a convict during the Dionysia: οὐδ᾽ ἂν Διονύσια πρόφασιν ἔχοντ᾽ αὐτὸν λύσαιτο, “nor would it save him to take as an excuse the festival of Dionysus”; cf. Farnell (1907), p. 96–97.

72 In DT 70, line 2, Olympos was also used as the name of Olympos’ shop (καπελεῖον); cf. Gager (1992), p. 165, n. 47.

73 DT 72, translation by Eidinow (2007), p. 399, slightly modified. This is one of a group of four tablets sharing a number of common names of targeted victims; the issue at stake seems to have been an economic rivalry: DT 70, 71, 73 (the other side of DT 72). See SGD 42, Gager (1992), p. 165 and Appendix, no. 4.

74 Parker (2005), p. 126, n. 40.

75 See, among others, Rhodes (1972), p. 30, n. 6; Miller (1995); Shear (1995).

76 For the Mother’s association with the idea of law and more specifically with written laws and public records, see Shear (1995), p. 189, Borgeaud (2001), p. 35–46, Munn (2006), p. 317–349 (340), and Steinhauer (2015), p. 85–91, especially n. 45–47.

77 Rhodes – Osborne (2003), p. 112–119, no. 25, line 12; cf. SEG 26.72 = Stroud (1974), p. 157–158.

78 Aeschin. 1 (Against Timocrates), 60–61.

79 Eur. Hel. 1301–1368 (where the “Mountain Mother of the God”, is called Δηώ, an epithet of Demeter), Eur. Hipp. 141–50 (Hekate, the Mountain Mother, and Dictynna are named among the deities responsible for Phaedra’s “illness”), schol. in Ar. Plut. 431, schol. in Aeschin. 3.187. Roller (1996), p. 312–313 and passim, gathers and discusses all sources about Mother in Attic drama. Very significant for the close relation between Mother and Demeter is the decision in 353/2 BCE to inscribe the decree concerning the consecration of the first fruits to Eleusinian Goddesses on a stela in front of the Metroon, IG II2 140, lines 32–35 (προσαναγράψαι τ[ὸν νόμον τόνδε] | πρὸς τὸν πρότερο[ν τὸν Χαιρημον]|ίδου εἰς τὴν στήλ[ην τὴν ἔμπροσθ]|εν τοῦ Μητρώιου). The same affinity is attested in various contexts outside Attica; see, for example, the Hellenistic hymn to the Mother of the Gods from Epidaurus and also IG IV2 131 (SEG 55.612) or a hexametrical inscription on a gold lamella of late 4th/early 3rd century BCE from Thessaly: πέμπε με πρὸς μυστῶν θιάσους· ἔχω ὄργια [– ×] / Δήμητρος Χθονίας τε τέλη καὶ Μητρὸς Ὀρεί[ας] published by Parker – Stamatopoulou (2004), p. 1–32, cf. Ferrari – Prauscello (2007), p. 196–197. For the association between Mother and Hekate, see Munn (2006), p. 160 (n. 86) and Zografou (2010), p. 189 (n. 212).

80 For the heraldic attendants placed on either side of Mother’s sculptural representations (principally of a naiskos-type), see Vermaseren (1982), nos. 45, 54, 182, 186, 206–209, 248, 251, 267, 278, 288, 311, 320, 330, 337, 339, 340, 345, 350, 352, 362, cf. 238 (double naiskos) 309, 314, 382 (grotto), Naumann (1983), nos. 134–135, 188–189, 191–196, 198–200, Güntner (1994), nos. B2–9, 11–16, 18, 20–24, cf. the discussion in Zografou (2010), p. 191–198 (figs. 14, 15).

81 Borgeaud (2001), p. 250 (n. 31). Steinhauer (2015) stresses the role of the genos of Kerykes in Mother’s important role in Athenian life (for this genos closely linked to Hermes, see p. 192 [n. 21–22]).

82 Cf. DT 1 (from the sanctuary of Demeter at Knidos, 2nd/1st cent. BCE), which makes reference to “all the gods and goddesses beside Demeter” (2–6).

83 NGCT 2; see Appendix no. 5.

84 Curbera (2016), p. 112: “what happened here is that the writer began writing ΕΡΙΓΟΥΝΙΟΝ, realized his mistake and tried to change it to ἐπιτυμβίαν.”

85 Cf. DTA 99, lines 9, 13–14: <θ>εο<ὶ> ἐ<πι>τύνβιοι ἐνέρ[ω]ν and [ὦ] δεσπότ[α]ι χθόνιοι καὶ
ἐ[π]ιτύν|βιοι (cf. supra n. 44); DTA 55 (καταδῶ ἐμ μνήμασι […] ἐν τύμβοις). Incidentally, Epitymbia is an epithet of Aphrodite at Delphi (Plut. Mor. 269b).

86 IG XII 8.359.

87 Paus. 2.30.2–3.

88 Hom. Hymn Dem. 407.

89 SEG 34.479 (250–200 BCE), a funerary epigram for the physician Dikaios and his wife Philista. See Avagianou (1997), p. 211–212.

90 Langella (2013), p. 258–279.

91 Curbera (2016), p. 112, provides examples of analogous expressions like ταχύγουνος Ἑρμῆς (Nonnus, Dion. 9, 155), contra Dettori (2017), p. 136–137, who considers ἐριγούνιος to be a phonetic variant. Be that as it may, what seems likely is that, under this epithet, Hermes was perceived as both a very quick runner/messenger and an expert thief; see Hsch. ο 1794 οὔνης, οὔνιος· δρομεύς, κλέπτης. The meaning ‘runner’ is related to ο 1793 οὖνον· Κύπριοι δρόμον, and ο 1785 οὔνη· δεῦρο. δράμε. Ἀρκάδες, whereas the sense ‘thief’ is secondary, although it was already known to the 7th-cent. BCE poet of Phorōnis, who claimed that Hermes was called ἐριούνης because “he surpassed all in cunning and thievishness” (πάντας […] κέρδεσι κλεπτοσύνῃσι τ᾿ ἐκαίνυτο: fr. 5 Bernabé; cf. Od. 19.395–396). I am grateful to J. Curbera and J.-M. Carbon for discussing with me these points.

92 DTA 90, 93, and SGD 18.

93 Bevilacqua (2009) (= SEG 59.1911: see Appendix no. 6).

94 Athletic competition, a prime ground for unethical cheating, is one of the attested motivations for cursing: see Faraone (1991), p. 12–13, 28; Gager (1992), p. 42–49.

95 Paus. 7.27.1–2 (transl. by Jones).

96 Soph. Phil. 132–134; cf. Ar. Th. 1202 for a similar case, but also Soph. El. 1396, Ἑρμῆς σφ᾽ ἄγει δόλον σκότῳ, and [Eur.] Rhes. 216, ἀλλ᾽ εὖ σ᾽ ὁ Μαίας παῖς ἐκεῖσε καὶ πάλιν πέμψειεν Ἑρμῆς, ὅς γε φηλητῶν ἄναξ. J.-M. Carbon has rightly pointed out to me two further fundamental passages to consider: Ar. Frogs 1126–1129, and 1142–1149; they both deserve profound analysis that cannot be possibly provided in these pages.

97 For poetic formulaic elements attesting to a hexametrical tradition in ritual binding, see Faraone (1992), p. 320–327; (1995), p. 5–6; (1996), 80–97; (2008), p. 135–136 and (2011), Lamont (2015) and (2021a), p. 101–109, O’Connell (2017), p. 41–46. Embedded historiolae are rare but not absent from early defixiones: see Franek (2019), p. 180–181. The fascinating, albeit fairly damaged document IG IV2 2.1012, already mentioned supra n. 8 (see Appendix no. 8) is a case in point: Hekate is arguably mentioned here, after a series of mythical examples of divine binders, such as Hephaistos and Zeus, in a context that is strikingly resonant with passages from [Aeschylus]’ Prometheus Bound. Mythical material is abundant in later, more extensive curses.

98 For ram sacrifices see Jeffery (1955), p. 71, n. 10 (rams offered to Amphiaraus, Trophonius, Calchas and Pelops) and also Ekroth (2002), p. 174–175 (for cases in which the whole head of the sacrificial victim is cut off). For ram sacrifices to Persephone, see Oliver, Dow (1935), p. 19ff, no. 2, lines 63–64 (cf. LSS, 10, A, 63–64, and Lambert [2002], p. 363–364, fr. 3, col. 3, 63–64), LSCG 20, 44.

99 I have retained the Attic orthography throughout: thus ἐκε῀νος, ἐμο῀͂, βολάς, etc., instead of the misleading renderings ἐκε<ῖ>νος, ἐμο(ῦ), βο(υ)λάς, etc. of the corpus. For these common spellings in early 4th-century BCE Attic inscriptions, see Threatte (1980), p. 177–190, 241–257.

Top of page

List of illustrations

Caption Fig. from MDAI 8(1883), p. 140 (Baumgarten)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/3876/img-1.png
File image/png, 572k
Top of page

References

Bibliographical reference

Athanassia Zografou, “Gods around the Grave: Hermes and Hekate in early Attic curse tablets”, Kernos, 34 | 2021, 187-217.

Electronic reference

Athanassia Zografou, “Gods around the Grave: Hermes and Hekate in early Attic curse tablets”, Kernos [Online], 34 | 2021, Online since 31 December 2023, connection on 06 October 2024. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/3876; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/kernos.3876

Top of page

About the author

Athanassia Zografou

University of Ioannina

aglauros@gmail.com

By this author

Top of page

Copyright

The text and other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.

Top of page
Contents - Previous document -
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search