- 1 Thanks to the both of them for their help on this article, and also to Korshi Dosoo, Panagiota Sar (...)
1GEMF 55/PGMIII is a papyrus roll from Thebes of fourth-century CE date and, like its more famous contemporary, GEM 57/PGM IV, it preserves interesting invocations that creatively combine Greek and Egyptian liturgical and ritual forms. The first text takes the form of a hexametrical hymn inscribed kata stichon by the scribe, whereas the second invokes the Sun by his many names, calls itself a prayer (euchē) and is composed in prose. In the process of producing a new edition of this text with my colleagues Sofia Torallas Tovar and Raquel Martín Hernández, I was struck by the different rhetorical and syntactical patterns these invocations display and how these patterns allow us two opportunities: (i) to reconstruct the original, uncorrupted forms of these two invocations; and (ii) to learn from their later, corrupted forms how they were transmitted and changed over time in Roman Egypt.1
- 2 The line numbers in GEMF 55 differ from those in PGMIII, because of a new arrangement of the fragm (...)
- 3 GEMF 57/PGM IV 943: κάνθαρε κύκλον ἄγων ϲπο̣ρίμου πυρὸϲ, αὐτογένεθλε (“O scarab, driving the orb o (...)
2The first one hundred lines of the handbook are taken up with a recipe for prognostication (GEMF 55.1–111/PGM III 282–409)2 that bids us to do the following: (i) create a domestic version of Apollo’s shrine at Delphi, with temple, tripod and cult statue; and (ii) imitate his priests, by wearing special clothes and laurel boughs and burning incense, while we sing two hexametrical hymns that invoke the god in his Pythian guise and that refer to other mythical personalities connected with Delphi. Both in its ritual setting and in the hymn, therefore, this recipe is fairly free from non-Greek features, which are only visible in some of its small details: in the symbols (charaktēres) written on or around the cultic equipment—ten carved in a circle on a table (12–13); twelve on a metal lamella placed at the foot of the tripod (17) and one on the floor encircling the feet of the tripod—and in the dozen or so voces magicae or Jewish names invoked in a part of the hymn that equates Apollo with Jahweh. These foreign names appear at the end of most of the verses in lines 59–72 and at the start of three lacunose verses at lines 55–57, where the speaker of the hymn first refers to “Semea, king of the cosmos” (55) and where scholars have generally followed Karl Preisendanz in twice restoring vocatives that invoke Apollo as “golden-haired scarab” (56: κάν[θαρε χ]ρυϲοκόμην) and “scarab” (57: κάν[θαρε). To justify these supplements, Preisendanz noted a parallel in GEMF 57/PGM IV, where κάνθαρε appears in the same initial position in the verse, surrounded by echoes of Egyptian hymnody and ideas.3 In the GEMF III hymn, however, the scarab is a poor fit, because, aside from these two restored words, there are no other Egyptian gods or references in this hymn nor in fact in the whole recipe. As we shall see in what follows, there is a better way to fill in these lacunae, one which also explains the identity of the hitherto mysterious “Semea, king of the cosmos”.
- 4 The text is from Preisendanz [– Henrichs] (1973–1974) and the translation from Betz (1986).
3The hymn, which is intoned while facing the rising sun, begins with eight hexametrical verses that command various animals and beings to be silent, so that Apollo might approach. The verses that follow, however, do not, in fact, mention Apollo at all, but rather they invoke a fiery sun god who rises in the East (GEMF 55.55–59/PGM III 206–210) :4
Σημέα βαϲιλεῦ κόϲμου̣ [γενέτω]ρ̣ ἐμοὶ ἵλαοϲ ἔ[ϲϲο]
κάν[θαρε χ]ρυϲοκόμην κλ̣[ῄζω θεὸν] ἀθάνατόν [ϲε]
κάν[θαρε π]ᾶϲι θεοῖϲι καὶ [ἀνθρώ]ποιϲ μέγα θα[ῦμα]
[........]. π̣ο[…..]ε̣πι̣ϲ̣[......]ινον πυρε̣ϲ̣[ίθυμε]
δέϲποτα ἀν[τολίηϲ] Τίταν πυροεὶϲ ἀνατέλλαϲ
King Semea, [father] of the world, … be gracious
to me, O scarab; [I call you] immortal
golden-haired [god], O scarab, marvel great
to every god and man!…
lord of [the sunrise], risen fiery,
Titan, I call [you] rising above the horizon…
4This god, called “fiery” and then “Titan”, is presumably Helios, and here with Preisendanz’ restorations, he is addressed first as a king named Semea and then twice as the Egyptian sun god in the form of the scarab.
- 5 This is the text and translation that will appear in volume 2 of Faraone – Torallas Tovar (forthco (...)
5When the hymn continues on at the top of the next column, it is much better preserved and we see a pattern of inserting an alternate Jewish or “magical” name of Helios at the end of nearly every verse (GEMF 55.60–72/PGM III 212–224):5
κλῄζω πρω̣ϊ̣ν̣[ὸ]ν Διὸϲ ἄγγελον θεον Ϊαω 60
καί ϲε τὸν οὐρά̣ν̣ιον κόϲμον κατέχοντα Μ̣[ιχαηλ]
ἀντολίῃϲ χαίρ̣ω̣ν θεὸϲ ἵλαιοϲ ἔϲο Aβραϲα̣[ξ]
καί ϲε μέγιϲτε αἰθέριε κλῄζω ἀ[ρ]ωγόν ϲουμ[αρτα]
καὶ ϲῴζοντα βρ[ό]τους̣ ἰδίο(υ)ϲ· Αιβ̣..ϲ̣υμαλατοζ̣[…]
καὶ φύϲιν δίξοντα [κ]α̣ὶ ἐκ φύϲεωϲ φύϲιν Α[ιων] 65
καὶ κλῄζω ἀθανάτων π[ρ]οκ̣αθ̣ηγήτα ϲεϲε[νγενβ]α̣ρ̣φαραγγηϲ
παντοκράτωρ θεόϲ ἐσσι ϲὺ δ᾽ ἀθάνατoϲ ϲιμεϲι[λαμ]
ἱκνοῦμε νῦν λάμψον ἄναξ κόϲμοιο ϲα[βαωθ]
ὃϲ δύ̣ϲιν ἀντολίῃ̣ϲ̣ιν ἐπιϲκεπάζε̣ι̣ϲ Aδωνα[ι]
κόϲμοϲ ἐὼν μοῦνοϲ κόϲμον ἀθανάτων ἐ̣[φοδε]ύειϲ 70
αὐτομαθήϲ ἀδ[ί]δακτοϲ μέϲον κόϲμον ἐλ̣[αύνων]
τοῖ̣[ϲ] νυκτόϲ δ̣[.]ερουϲι αρηουϲ ακραμμαχ[αμ/]
- 6 The rest of the names placed at the ends of these lines are all very popular Jewish or magical nam (...)
Early in the morning, I summon (you), divine messenger of Zeus, Iaô
and you, who control the heavenly universe, M[ichael],
(and you), a god delighting in sunrises, be gentle, Abrasa[x],
and you, greatest ethereal one, I summon as an ally, Soum[arta],
and (you), who keep your own mortals safe, Aib[..]sumalatoz[…]6
and (you), who reveal nature and nature from nature(?) A[ion],
And I summon (you), guide of the immortals, Sese[ngen]barpharaggês,
You are the all-powerful god and you are the immortal Semesi[lam],
I beg (you) now, shine forth, lord of the universe, Sa[baôth]
you, who view the sunset with your risings, Adona[i],
you, who alone are the universe, [inspect] the universe of the immortals,
self-taught, without instruction, driving in the middle of the universe,
(with?) the… of the night…, Akrammach[amari]
- 7 For their popularity, see Brashear (1995) “Glossary” s.v.
6Here, as is common for this period, the poet equates or associates Helios with Jahweh (60: Iaô, 68: Sab[aôth], and 69: Adonai) and M[ichael] (61), as well as A[ion] (65) and four voces magicae frequently invoked in magical texts of this period: Abrasa[x] (62), Soum[arta] (63), Sese[ngen]barpharaggês (67), and Semesi[lam] (68).7
- 8 Dosoo – Torallas (2022), p. 11–31.
- 9 This is the text that appeared in Faraone – Torallas Tovar (2022).
7Restoration of some of these names and confirmation of the placement of one name per verse is assured by another short cletic hymn preserved in a recipe called “Apollonian Invocation” (GEMF 31.263: ἀπολλωνιακὴ ἐπίκληϲιϲ), that was copied in the late third century CE by a scribe also working in or near Thebes.8 This hymn is also composed in hexameters, invokes Apollo in his Pythian guise and aims at an oracular response (GEMF 31 /PGM 1 298–304):9
δέϲποτα, λίπε Παρνάϲϲιον ὄροϲ καὶ δελφίδα Πυθὼ
ἡμετέρων ἱερῶν ϲτομάτων ἄφθεγκτα λαλούντων
ἄγγελε πρῶτε τοῦ Ζηνὸϲ μεγάλοιο, Ïαω, 300
καὶ ϲὲ τὸν οὐράνιον κόϲμον κατέχοντα, Μιχαήλ·
καὶ ϲὲ καλῶ, Γαβριὴλ πρωτάγγελε, δεῦρ’ ἀπ’ Ὀλύμπου,
Aβραϲαξ, ἀνατολίῃϲ καχαρημένοϲ, ἵλαοϲ ἔλθοιϲ
ἐϲ δύϲιν ἀνατολίηϲ ἐπιϲκοπιάζει[ϲ, Ἀ]δωναί·
πᾶϲα φύϲιϲ τρομέ̣ει ϲε πάτερ κόμοιο, Πακερβηθ. 305
Lord, leave Mt. Parnassos and the Delphic Pytho,
since our holy mouths are uttering unutterable words.
O first angel of great Zeus, Iaō,
and you, who rule the heavenly realm, Michael.
And you I call, archangel Gabriel, hither from Olympus,
Abrasax, may you come from the East graciously and well disposed,
you who gaze at sunset from the dawn, Adonai.
All nature quakes (before) you, O father of the cosmos, Pakerbeth.
8Here we find a pattern very similar to that which we saw in the GEMF 55 hymn, with a Jewish name (Iaō, Michael, Gabriel, and Adonai) or a “magical” name (Abrasax and Pakerbeth) introduced into nearly every verse, four times at the very end, but also once at the start (Abrasax) and once before the midline caesura (Gabriel). The association of Apollo with Jahweh has, however, shifted down a notch. Apollo’s father Zeus is the one equated with Iaō (= Jahweh), and Apollo himself is first equated with the “first angel” Michael, and finally a further angelic equation is suggested (l. 302), when the angel Gabriel is called down from Olympus.
- 10 In GEMF 31 in addition to holding a laurel bough in our right hand (appropriate for Apollo) we are (...)
9These two passages reflect, I suggest, a rather fluid and creative process of transmission. Both recipes dress the practitioner as a Delphic priest and create a domestic place for putting oracular requests to Apollo,10 requests which begin with cletic hymns that invoke Apollo-Helios as he rises in the morning. Both of the hymns are transmitted kata stichon and contain the sections quoted above, that summon the god by his Jewish and magical names and that begin and end with similar verses focused on the Jewish names alone:
GEMF 31.300–301 and 304:
ἄγγελε πρῶτε τοῦ Ζηνὸϲ μεγάλοιο, Ιαω,
καὶ ϲὲ τὸν οὐράνιον κόϲμον κατέχοντα, Μιχαηλ·
…
ἐϲ δύϲιν ἀντολίηϲ ἐπιϲκοπιάζει[ϲ, Ἀ]δωναι
GEMF 55.60–61 and 69:
κλῄζω πρω̣ϊ̣ν̣[ὸ]ν Διὸϲ ἄγγελον θεον Ιαω
καί ϲε τὸν οὐρά̣ν̣ιον κόϲμον κατέχοντα Μ̣[ιχαηλ]
…
ὃϲ δύ̣ϲιν ἀντολίῃ̣ϲ̣ιν ἐπιϲκεπάζε̣ι̣ϲ Aδωνα[ι]
10The fact that the earlier version is only five verses long and the later version is nearly twice as long (nine verses), suggests that the process was one of accretion, beginning with the verses in GEMF 31, that focus primarily on the Jewish equivalents, but then over time inserting verses including or ending with non-Jewish magical names, beginning with Abrasax and Pakerbeth in GEMF 31 and then eight more in GEMF 55, both Jewish and with one exception the best known magical names.
- 11 See the note in GMPT ad loc. for bibliography.
- 12 See Brashear (1995) s.v. The Campbell Bonner database has five examples on gems.
11It is in this context of accretion, I suggest, that we can better comprehend the problematic section of the GEMF 55 hymn, where Preisendanz twice restored the scarab and where some have connected the name Semea with a Syrian goddess of the same name.11 This Syrian parallel is weak, of course, because in the hymn Semea is identified as “king of the cosmos” and therefore he cannot be a goddess. Others have noted in passing, however, that in a variety of Greek magical texts this name appears regularly at the start of the so-called Semea-logos:12 σημεα καντευ κεντευ κοντευ κεριδευ δαρυνγω. This turns out to be a more productive avenue, because in our recent examination of the papyrus, we were able to read additional letters at the end of line 59 of the hymn, which allows for the restoration of Δ[αρυνκ]ω. It is possible, moreover, to restore the beginning of three of the intervening verses with other names from the logos and do so in the proper order (this is the new GEMF text):
Σημέα βαϲιλεῦ κόϲμου̣ [......]ϲ̣ ἐμοὶ ἵλαοϲ ἔ[ϲϲο] 55
Καν[τευ.. χ]ρυϲοκόμην κλ̣[ῄζω θεὸν] ἀθάνατον
κ.ε.[..... π]ᾶϲι θεοῖϲι καὶ [ἀνθρώ]ποιϲ μέγα θα[ῦμα]
[Κοντευ..]. π̣ο[.....]ε̣πι̣ϲ̣[......]ινον πυρε̣ϲ̣[ίθυμε]
δέϲποτα ἀν[τολίηϲ] Τίταν πυροεὶϲ ἀνατελλαϲ Δ[αρυνκ]ω̣
55 ϲημεα Pap: ϲημ[άν]τ̣ω̣ρ̣ Fa: ϲπεύϲειαϲ Ei? | [γενέτω]ρ Pr: [πάτε]ρ Fa: πάντω]ϲ Ei: [γενέτη]ρ Ti | ἐμοὶ exp. Fa | ἔ[ϲϲο] Pr (cf. l. 62 [213]): ἔ[λθοιϲ] Fa Ei Ti BC: ἐ[λθών] Ei: ἔλθε || 56 κάν[θαρε χ]ρυϲοκόμην Pr: καλ[ὸν χ]ρυϲόκομον Fa: κάν[θαρε χ]ρυϲόκομον [κυκλῶν] καὶ Ei | κλ̣[ῄζω θεὸν] ἀθάνατόν [ϲε Pr: κλ̣[ῄζω ϲε τὸν] ἀθάνατόν [πῦρ] BC: κ[αὶ ἱερὸν] ἀθάνατον [φῶϲ] Fa: ἀθάνατον [πῦρ] Ei Ti || 57 κάν[θαρε π]ᾶϲι Pr: κλ[ῄζω π]ᾶϲι Fa Ei || 58 [Ἥλιε χρ]υϲο[κόμα δι]έπ[ων φλογὸϲ ἀκάμ]ατον πῦρ Fa: [ἵλαθι δέϲ]πο[τ᾽ ἔχων] ἐ̣π̣ὶ ϲ̣[οὶ φλόγ]ι̣νον̣ πυρὸ̣ϲ [ἀτμόν] MeTo | πυρε̣ϲ̣[ίθυμε] Pr: κ[αὶ καιόμ]ενον πυρὸϲ [ὄμμα] Ei || 1 ἀν[τολίηϲ] Pr: Ἀ[έλιοϲ] Ei Fa | l. ἀνατέλλων: ἀνατόλλαϲ Ei: ἀνατείλαϲ [ϲὲ] Pr Fa Wü | δ[] Pap.: δ[ὲ] vel δ[ίϲ]: δ[υνάϲτη]ϲ BC
Semea, king of the universe, … [be] gentle with me!
Golden-haired Kan[teu], I [summon], immortal [god],
Ken[teu,] a great [marvel] to all gods and [mortals!
[Konteu]fiery [spirited] one.
Lord of [the east], fiery Titan, rising above the horizon, D[arunk]ô
12All of this suggests that the author of this hymn or its exemplar, building on this accretive process of inserting additional hexametrical verses with Jewish or magical names, added to the beginning of the hymn an additional group of verses all keyed to names from the Semea-logos and guided by their prosody he assigned the first four (σημεα καντευ κεντευ κοντευ) to the beginning of the first four lines of this section and the last one to the last (δαρυνγω).
Fig. 1. The Planetary Gods and their Names on a Gem once in the University of Dorpat (after Arch. Zeitung 14 [1856], p. 260–263 with plate 96.2).
![Fig. 1. The Planetary Gods and their Names on a Gem once in the University of Dorpat (after Arch. Zeitung 14 [1856], p. 260–263 with plate 96.2).](docannexe/image/8760/img-1-small480.jpg)
- 13 Youtie – Bonner (1937) and SGD no. 164.
- 14 DT 286, 288, 289 and BCTH 1910 no. 2
- 15 See e.g., Bonner (1950), p. 196–197, and Michel (2004), p. 293–294 no. 28.11 (“Planetennamen”)
- 16 Arch. Zeitung 14 (1856), p. 260–263 with plate 96.2, and Bonner (1950), p. 196–197.
13The question then arises: why were the names from the Sêmea-logos appropriate for a hymn to Apollo-Helios? The logos was, in fact, a fairly popular one, appearing, for example, on a curse tablet from the Galilee (σημεα καν[τευ] κεντευ κοντευ κεριδευ δαρ[υνκ]ω κυκυ[νχ])13 and partially transliterated into Latin (cuigeu censeu cinbeu perfleu diarunco) on a series of curse tablets from Tunisia.14 They were also useful in divination, for example, in a lamp-divination ritual in a late second-century Demotic recipe with Coptic glosses over each word to aid pronunciation (GEMF 16.27–28: sēmeakanteukenteukonteu kērideu darugkō lukaux) and in a Greek recipe of fourth-century date for dream divination involving Hermes (GEMF 58/PGM V 426–427: ϲημέα κεντευ κοντευ κεντευ [κηριδ]ευ δαρυγκω λυκυνξ). They were also popular on gemstones, where scholars have shown that they were thought to be the secret names of the planetary deities15 appearing, for example, on the cast of a gem that once belonged to the University of Dorpat (Fig. 1), where these seven names were placed above the heads (Section 2c) of the images of the seven planetary deities (Section 2a), who are arranged in one of their common orders:16
σημεα | καντευ | κοντευ | κεντευ | κηριδευ | δαρυνκω | λυκυξυν
Saturn | Jupiter | Mars | Sun | Venus | Mercury | Moon
- 17 Ibid., 197; see, e.g., CBD 452, 2093, 3276, 3279, or 3344.
- 18 AGD III Kassel no. 236, pl. 105.
14This connection with the planetary deities is further supported by a heliotrope gem in Florence that depicts a lion striding to left with seven stars above (Fig. 2), each surrounded by one of the seven names: σημεα καντευ κοντευ κονρευ κηριδευ δαρυνκε λυκυζιιι and by the fact that the word δαρυνκω sometimes appears alone on gems depicting an ibis holding a caduceus under its wing, i.e., images of Hermes-Thoth.17 Perhaps most significant for our interpretation of the Apollo-Helios hymn in GEMF 55, is how the names in the Sêmea-logos get attached to images of Helios and other solar powers, perhaps because the Sun (as we saw above on the gem from Dorpat) stands at the center of the planetary deities. Illustrative examples include a green jasper gem in Kassel with a frontal Helios in a quadriga on the obverse and on the reverse: σημεω κοντευ κεντευ κηριδευ δαρυν(κ)ω λυκυνζ.18
Fig. 2. Lion and Seven Stars each labelled with the name of a planetary god on the Reverse of a Gem in Florence (after L. Agostini, Le gemme antiche figurate, vol. 2, Rome, 1686, tab. 77–78.)19
15It would seem, therefore, that there were never any scarabs in this hymn to Apollo-Helios, but the question does remain: why did the author of this hymn leave out the two of the names that usually appear in the Semea-logos? The correspondences with the planetary deities provide us with important clues. As it turns out, the two names that are missing from the hymn are those of the planet Venus (κηριδευ) and the Moon (λυκυνζ), who perhaps as female deities could not be considered alternate names for the male sun-god. This is speculation, of course, because the verses that contained these two names could have easily dropped out of a text like this. But if the names were purposefully avoided, it would mean that the author of the hymn, clearly knew that the Sêmea-logos contained the names of the planetary deities. The other hint in this direction is the designation of Semea as “king of the cosmos”, which makes sense of his equation with Saturn, since the latter was once the king of the universe, like his father Ouranos before him and his son Zeus after him.
- 20 This is the new text and translation that will appear in GEMF vol. 2; it differs slightly from PGM(...)
16At an early point in a rather long prose prayer (5‑6: euchē) to the Sun, the human speaker tries to persuade the god to do what he wishes, repeating over and over again the plea “do the NN thing, for me” and then presenting himself, as if he were a god himself, by claiming at the start to have performed various superhuman actions (GEMF 55.374–381/PGM III 536–544):20
δ̣ιό, κύριε, ποίηϲον τὸ 
πρᾶγ̣μ̣α ἀνάγκῃ, μοι τὸν οὐ-
5 [ρ]ανὸ̣ν κινήϲω, ποίηϲον τὸ π̣ρᾶγμα ἐμοί, ὁ τύποϲ,
[τ]ὸ ϲύνολον τῷ κόϲμῳ, ὃ κατ[α]κριθεὶϲ ἐφύλαξα τοῦ 375
μ̣εγά̣λου βαϲιλέωϲ ἱερόν, πο[ί]ηϲον τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐ-
μ[οί] τῷ κλιδοφύλακι τοῦ τρ[ι]γώνου παραδίϲου τῆϲ
γῆϲ, τ]ῆϲ βαϲιλείαϲ, ποίηϲον τ̣ὸ πρᾶγμα ἐμοί, τῷ τῆϲ
10 χήραϲ ὀρφανῷ κατατετιθημένης, βωϊαθυριθ, ἵ-
να μὴ ἀφέλωϲ με τὴν κυριακὴν πατρίδα καὶ πάν- 380
τα τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἐμπέϲῃ κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν
4 ϲοῦ κυρίε We | διό, κύριε Pr | l. δ(ε)ῖ(να) | μοι Pap, l. μὴ Ei Pr || 5 l. δ(ε)ῖ(να) || 6 ὁ Ei: το Pr | l. τοῦ κόϲμου Pr | l. ὃ〈ϲ〉 Pr | ἐφύλαξα〈ϲ〉 Pr || 7 ϊερον Pap | l. δ(ε)ῖ(να) || 8 l. Κλειδοφύλακι | l. παραδείϲου || 9. l. δ(ε)ῖ(να) || 10 κατὰ τετ̣ιο.η Ei: κατατετιμ̣ημένη〈ϲ〉 Pr | ϊ Pap || 11 ἀφέλωϲ〈ί〉 Pr || 12 ἐιϲπέϲῃ Ei: ἐμπέϲῃ Pr
- 21 So GMPT.
- 22 Either the (implied) command of the divine addressee (the Sun), or of the long magical name that f (...)
Wherefore, Lord, do the NN deed by necessity, lest I set the
sky in motion, do the NN deed for me, (you who are)21 the exact
replica, the entirety of the universe together, the chosen one, who
protected the sanctuary of the great king, do the NN deed for me,
the key-holder of the triangular garden of the earth, of the kingdom,
do the NN deed for me, the orphan of a greatly honored widow,
bôiathurith, in order that they not deprive me of the fatherland of
my lord and in order that all things fall into line well according to
(divine)22 command.
- 23 One of the anonymous readers for Kernos suggests plausibly that this might refer to the Nile Delta
17Unlike the hymn discussed earlier, GEMF 55 is well preserved at this point. The rhetorical strategy of the poet, however, seems confused: he begins with what sounds like a threat (to set the sky in motion, presumably in order to create havoc), and he ends differently with two claims about why the god should listen to him in particular: he is the keyholder of a special triangular garden23 and he is an orphan.
18There are, in fact, a number of problems with the text. In the first two lines, the syntax of the initial threat relies on Eitrem’s correction of μὴ for μοι, but the μοι in our text fits rather well into a wider pattern of subordinate clauses, each introduced by (ἐ)μοι:
… μοι, τὸν οὐ[ρ]ανὸ̣ν κινήϲω
… ἐμοί, ὁ τύποϲ, [τ]ὸ ϲύνολον τῷ κόϲμῳ, ὃ… ἐφύλαξα… ἱερόν
… ἐμ[οί], τῷ κλιδοφύλακι
… ἐμοί, τῷ τῆϲ χήραϲ ὀρφανῷ
19This suggests that the hymn did not begin with a threat and may have instead focused entirely on presenting the speaker as a fitting recipient of the god’s help. Such a hypothesis also helps to explain another textual problem, the one in the second iteration of the pattern, where ὁ τύποϲ must mean something like “exact replica”, which most editors suggest is the sun-god and translate as GMPT does: “do the NN deed for me, (you who are) the exact replica, the whole universe together, the selected one, who protected the sanctuary of the great king.” This creates, however, an awkward shift from the speaker (ἐμοί) to the addressee, requires us to change the transmitted first-person verb (ἐφύλαξα) to the second person and leaves us with a pair of somewhat abstract nouns (ὁ τύποϲ, [τ]ὸ ϲύνολον) in apposition.
20I suggest that all of these difficulties can be explained, if we assume that in an earlier version of this section, all of the phrases or clauses that follow ἐμοί describe the actions or the status of the speaker alone (κινήϲω, ἐφύλαξα, κλιδοφύλακι and ὀρφανῷ), a sequence which in turn suggests a cosmogonic or mythical narrative:
(i) for me, who set the heaven in motion;
(ii) for me, ὁ τύποϲ (?)
(iii) <for me,> who protected the sanctuary;
(iv) for me, who holds the keys of the garden;
(v) for me, an orphan of a widow and bereft of fatherland
- 24 In some later texts of the Greco-Roman period Horus seems to take on acts of creation that are per (...)
21In the first case (i) the text would have read something like: “do the NN thing for me, who (i.e., once) set the sky in motion” (<ἐ>μοί τὸν οὐ[ρ]ανὸ̣ν κινήϲ<αντι>). On this reading, the action was not a disruption of the heavens, but rather a claim to some cosmogonic role in the past, presumably when the heavenly bodies were set on their courses.24
- 25 An anonymous reader for Kernos rightly points out that this verb always has a judicial sense (“aft (...)
22The second boast is more difficult, because the corruption is more extensive, but here, too, if we keep the idea of a “mold” or “shape” (ὁ τύποϲ), we can restore the verbal action of the original boast with something like: ἐμοί, ὁ τυπώϲ<αϲ> [τ]ὸ ϲύνολον [τ]ὸ τοῦ κόϲμου), “for me, who (i.e., once) molded the entirety of universe”. This might be Khnum, often portrayed as a potter molding living things upon his wheel, but he does not create the whole universe. The sentence then continues on in an awkward and lapidary manner with yet another noun clause: ὃ κατ[α]κριθεὶϲ ἐφύλαξα τοῦ μ̣εγά̣λου βαϲιλέωϲ ἱερόν” (“who, as the chosen one,25 protected the sanctuary of the great king”). This is probably a reference to the god who protects Osiris’ tomb (a mortuary temple); often it is Horus, but it could also be Isis and Nephthys or even Anubis.
23Given the rhythm of the invocation, punctuated by the regular repetition of the phrase “do the NN thing for me”, followed in most cases by a single action described in a noun clause, it could also be the case that this one sentence originally preserved three different boasts about past actions, each of which was preceded by the repeated command (paraphrase):
Ποίηϲον τὸ π̣ρᾶγμα ἐμοί, ὁ τυπώϲ<αϲ> [τ]ὸ ϲύνολον [τ]ὸ τοῦ κόϲμου
<ποίηϲον τὸ π̣ρᾶγμα ἐμοί,> ὁ κατ[α]κριθεὶϲ….
<ποίηϲον τὸ π̣ρᾶγμα ἐμοί,> ὁ ἐφύλαξα<ϲ> τοῦ μ̣εγά̣λου βαϲιλέωϲ ἱερόν
Do the NN deed for me, who molded the entirety of the universe,
<do the NN deed for me,> who was chosen (or “judged”)…,
<do the NN deed for me,> who protected the sanctuary of the great king.
24This kind of corruption or confusion can easily occur, of course, because the regular repetitions of the command encouraged the scribe’s eye to jump ahead.
- 26 The letters bôiathurith seem to spell out the name of this widow and editors usually understand th (...)
The final command + boast in the sequence (ποίηϲον τ̣ὸ πρᾶγμα ἐμοί, τῷ τῆϲ χήραϲ ὀρφανῷ κατατετιθημένης, βωϊαθυριθ) seems to identify the speaker with Horus, who was indeed “orphan of a greatly honored widow” and who was being deprived of his fatherland.26 If we imagine that the speaker identifies himself with Horus throughout this section of the hymn, then the first two boasts could recall Horus’ role as a creator (in his form as the young sun god): in this reading, he was the god who first set the ouranos in motion and shaped the whole cosmos. The boasts that follow are, in turn, concerned with three roles that he played during his father’s reign, two of them keyed to specific pieces of real estate: he was chosen (κατ[α]κριθεὶϲ) for some presumably high post, he protected (ἐφύλαξα<ϲ>) the hieron of the great king and he was the keyholder (τῷ κλιδοφύλακι) of a triangular garden of the royal land. This might refer to the land of the dead, Osiris’ kingdom, although normally Anubis is referred to as the “Key-Holder” of the gates to Hades and guardian of the dead (in, e.g., GEMF 57/PGM IV.296–466 at 340–341; 1390–1495 at 1465). There is evidence, in short, that in an earlier version of this prayer, the author created a schematic biography of a god, in which the practitioner narrated the accomplishments of Horus as if they were his own.
25One problem remains with this reconstruction: why does the sequence switch abruptly from the cosmogonic past of the god to his present? There is, in fact, one helpful parallel in GEMF that helps explain both: the second half of “Hidden Stele” in the Paris Codex (GEMF 57/PGM IV.1115–1166). I print below the text schematically so that the structure is clear: a series of noun phrases describing past actions or present powers of the unnamed god, each followed by a magical name (GEMF 57/PGM IV.1146–1166):
ὁ θϲ τῶν θν
ὁ τὸν κόϲμον καταρτιϲάμενοϲ αρεω πιευα
ὁ τὴν ἄβυϲϲον θηϲαυρίϲαϲ ἀοράτῳ θέϲεωϲ ἑδράϲματι περω μυϲηλ
ὁ….. πεντωναξ
ὁ διαϲτήϲαϲ οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν και
τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν πτέρυξιν χρυϲίαιϲ αἰωνίαιϲ ϲκεπάϲαϲ ρωδηρυ ουωα
τὴν δὲ γῆν ἑδράϲμαϲιν αἰωνίοιϲ ϲτηρίϲαϲ αληιοωα
ὁ τὸν αἰθέρα ἀνακρεμάϲαϲ μετεώρῳ ὑψώματι αϊεωη ϊουα
ὁ τὸν ἀέρα διαϲκεδάϲαϲ πνοαῖϲ αὐτοκινήτοιϲ ωϊε ουω
ὁ τὸ ὕδωρ κυκλοτερὲϲ περιενέγκαϲ ωρηπηλυα
----------------
ὁ τοὺϲ πρηϲτῆραϲ ἀνάγων ωριϲθαυα
ὁ βροντάζων θεφιχυωνηλ
ὁ ἀϲτράπτω̄ ουρηνεϲ
ὁ βρέχων οϲιωρνι φευγαλγα
ὁ ϲίων περατωνηλ
ὁ ζωογονῶν αρηϲιγυλωα
ὁ θϲ τῶν αἰώνων μέγαϲ,
εἶ κε θε δέϲποτα τοῦ παντόϲ αρχιζω νυον θηναρ μεθωρ παρυ φηζωρ, θαψαμυδω μαρωμι χηλωψα
- 27 GMPT sees a long magical name here (perô musôl o pentônaks), far longer than most of those in this (...)
God of gods,
who made ready the universe, areô pieua,
who gathered the abyss on the invisible fundament of its setting, perômusôl,
who …27 pentônaks,
who separated heaven and earth,
protecting heaven with everlasting golden wings, rôdêru oyôa
and supporting earth on everlasting fundaments, alêioôa,
who suspended the ether on high, aieôê ioua,
who dispersed the lower air with self-moving winds, oiê ouô,
who turned the water around in a circle, ôrêpêlua,
-------------------------------
who leads up the hurricanes, ôristhaua,
who thunders, thephichuônêl,
who lightnings, ourênes,
who rains, osiôrni pheugalga,
who shakes, peratônêl,
who propagates, arêsigulôa,
the god of the Aeons, you are great, lord, god, master of all, archizô nuon
thênarmethôr paru phêzôr thapsamudô marômi chêlôpsa.
- 28 For a similar crossover between Zeus and Jahweh, see GEMF 15.109–110/PGM XIV 60–61, with the paral (...)
26As in the case of the prayer in GEMF 55, the god is first praised—in a quasi-Hesiodic sequence—because in the past he created the universe and all of it parts: cosmos, abyss, heaven, earth, ether, air, water. In the second section (below the dotted line), the author switches from past achievements to present powers, and describes the powers of a god, who like Zeus or Jahweh, controls the weather and propagates animal life.28
27It is difficult to identify the kind of speech act that lies behind the prayer to Harpocrates in GEMF 55. The first-person narrative, of course, recalls the form of an aretalogy and we do sometimes find similar sequences (without the magical names), for example, in a short section of the first-century BCE Isis aretalogy from Kyme, where the noun phrase is attached to the first-person formula ἐγώ εἰμι, which is a hallmark of the genre (7–9):29
ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ καρπὸν ἀνθρώποις εὑροῦσα.
ἐγώ εἰμι μήτηρ Ὥρου βασιλέως.
ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἐν τῷ τοῦ Κυνὸς ἄστρῳ ἐπιτέλλουσα.
ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ παρὰ γυναιξὶ θεὸς καλουμένη.
I am she who discovered produce for men.
I am the mother of Horus the king.
I am she who rises in the Dog Star.
I am she called goddess among women.
28Here, in brief compass, we see the move from past benefit, Isis as “first discoverer” of crops for mankind, to present titles (mother of Horus and “goddess among women”) or ongoing duties (rising in the Dog Star).
- 30 This is the new text and translation that will appear in GEMF vol. 2; it differs slightly from PGM(...)
29Roughly fifty lines later, there is one more passage in the prayer to the Sun in GEMF 55, where the letters can be clearly read on the papyrus, but the meaning is obscure (GEMF 55.416–424/PGM III 582–590):30
λίϲϲομαι, ἄναξ, πρόϲδεξαί 416
μου τὴν λιτανίαν, τὴν πρὸϲ ϲὲ ἀναφορὰν προϲτά-
ξαϲ· ἵνα με νῦν ἐρατῶν πρὸϲ ϲὲ τὴν ⟦δεαξν⟧γνῶϲιν
⟦την α.τ⟧ ἐλλυ[χνιάϲ]ῃϲ καὶ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ ηλικο ϲώμα-
τοϲ εὐμεν[ῆ ἀποκ]ατάϲταϲιν, δέομαι, κύριε, πρόϲδε- 420
ξαί μου τήνδ[ε] ἀξίωϲιν, λιτανίαν, τὴν προϲύ-
ϲ[τ]αϲιν, τὴν ἀναφορὰν τοῦ πνεύματοϲ τοῦ λεκτικοῦ,
[ὃ κ]αὶ φθαϲάτω πρὸϲ ϲέ, τω πάντων δεϲπότην, ὅπωϲ
[π]οιήϲῃϲ πάντα τὰ τῆϲ εὐχῆϲ μου. 424
417 l. λιτανείαν || 418 ϊνα Pap | ὁ κρατῶν Ei | τὴν ⟦δεαξγν⟧γ νωϲιν Pap.: l. || 419 ⟦την α.τ⟧εα̣υ[….]η Pap | την λιτ We: ἐλλυ[χνιάϲ]ῃϲ̣ Pr | ηλικο Pap.: ὑλικοῦ Pr: l. ἡλιακοῦ || 420 εὐμεν[ῆ ἀποκ]ατάϲταϲιν Pr || 421 l. λιτανείαν: 〈τὴν〉 λιτανίαν Pr || 423 [ὃ κ]αὶ φθαϲάτω Pr | τω: l. τὸν || 424 [π]οιήϲῃϲ We Pr
I am entreating (you), lord, to accept favorably my entreaty, the
petition to you (which?) you commanded, in order that by loving
me now, you may enlighten my wisdom towards you, in order that
you now illuminate me with knowledge of things beloved by you,
even after the restoration of my material body. I am begging (you),
lord, to accept favorably this demand of mine, my entreaty, my
preliminary exposition, the petition of my eloquent spirit—let
(i.e., my entreaty) even come first to you, the lord of all things, in
order that you might perform all the requests of my prayer.
30The first problem is at lines 419–421: λίϲϲομαι, ἄναξ, πρόϲδεξαί μου τὴν λιτανίαν, τὴν πρὸϲ ϲὲ ἀναφορὰν προϲτάξαϲ (“I am entreating [you], lord, to accept favorably my entreaty, the petition to you [which?] you commanded”). There has been little or no comment on the final verb “you commanded” (προϲτάξαϲ), which has no connection with what precedes, and which is difficult to understand in the usual context of Greek prayers or petitions, which are not generated by divine command. This may be true for various kinds purifications or sacrifices commanded by gods in dreams or in oracles, but why would the gods command their worshippers to pray to them for gifts or favors?
31This is, in fact, yet another place where the text of this invocation has been corrupted and we are in a good position to know this. It has not been noticed that in this same section of the prayer, the scribe or his exemplar copied a second and slightly longer version of this same appeal:
λίϲϲομαι, ἄναξ, πρόϲδεξαί μου τὴν λιτανίαν, τὴν πρὸϲ ϲὲ ἀναφορὰν προϲτάξαϲ (419–421) δέομαι, κύριε, πρόϲδεξαί μου τήνδ[ε] ἀξίωϲιν, λιτανίαν, τὴν προϲύϲ[τ]αϲιν, τὴν ἀναφορὰν τοῦ πνεύματοϲ τοῦ λεκτικοῦ (423–425)
32The second and longer version suggests that the first version also once ended with a list of feminine nouns and that originally each of them was preceded by an article. The appearance of λιτανίαν and ἀνάφοραν in both versions suggests that προϲτάξαϲ (421) was originally an accusative noun as well. It is, in fact, close in form to πρόϲταξιϲ, “command” or “ordinance”, but this seems too strong for the tone of supplication here and this would not explain the persistence of the final sigma. It is perhaps more likely that προϲύϲταϲιν was corrupted in two stages (424–425): first the loss of the final two letters (προϲυϲταϲ-) and then a “correction” by a second scribe seeking to repair the damage (προϲτάξαϲ).
33But perhaps the most obscure part of this passage is the purpose clause that lies between the two versions of the request: ἵνα με νῦν ἐρατῶν πρὸϲ ϲὲ τὴν ⟦δεαξν⟧γνῶϲιν⟦την α.τ⟧ ἐλλυ[χνιάϲ]ῃϲ καὶ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ ηλικο ϲώματοϲ εὐμεν[ῆ ἀποκ]ατάϲταϲιν. Here the scribe made and then erased two mistakes. While we were working on our new edition of GEMF 55/PGM III, Sofia Torallas Tovar noticed that the letters in and around the first erasure (τὴν⟦δεαξν⟧γνῶϲιν) are very close to those found a few lines later in the second version of the entreaty (τήνδ[ε] ἀξίωϲιν), and she rightly suggested that the eyes of the scribe mistakenly dropped down to ἀξίωϲιν and he copied the first few letters of it before he realized his mistake. It is more complicated to explain the second erasure (⟦την α.τ⟧), but if we look at the wider context of the place from where the scribe miscopied these letters—τήνδ[ε] ἀξίωϲιν, λιτανίαν—we can, in fact, see that he continued on after ἀξίωϲιν and copied five more letters (τὴν λιτ-). The problem with this hypothesis is the improbable, but not quite impossible, idea that when the scribe first and correctly copied these letters he read τήνδε ἀξίωϲιν, τὴν λιτ-, but then, after he diligently erased them, he copied them out again in the correct position in line 424, he accidently left out the article before λιτανίαν. The erased letters, in short, are an oblique witness to the appearance of τήν in line 424 of the exemplar.
- 31 “Erleuchte mich jetzt mit Erkenntnis dessen, was vor dir angenehm hast und nach der gnädigen Wiede (...)
- 32 The sunset timing of this invocation is not stated outright, but is suggested earlier (l. 409– 410 (...)
34If we remove the erasures, the remaining text is still somewhat obscure: ἵνα με νῦν ἐρατῶν πρὸϲ ϲὲ τὴν γνῶϲιν ἐλλυ[χνιάϲ]ῃϲ καὶ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ ηλικο ϲώματοϲ εὐμεν[ῆ ἀποκ]ατάϲταϲιν. GMPT, following Preisendanz closely, as is often the case,31 translate “in order that by interrogating(?) me now, you may supply me with knowledge towards you, even after the restoration of my material body”. At the start, I suggest that this approach misses one detail: the desired result is to take effect both now (421: νῦν) and after the restoration (422–203: καὶ μετὰ τὴν … ἀποκ]ατάϲταϲιν) of someone’s material body, which would seem to mean both in his current life and afterwards. A greater and unrecognized difficulty is, in fact, the ownership of “the material body” (τοῦ ηλικο ϲώματοϲ), which could also refer to “your material body” (i.e., of the sun), because the noun ἀποκατάστασις is used in astrology to refer to the periodic return to the sky of heavenly bodies and the procession of the zodiac (LSJ s.v.). On this reading, the two moments in time are (i) “now”, when the prayer is being addressed to the setting sun;32 and (ii) later (i.e., on the following day), after the Sun’s material body (i.e., the burning disk) returns to the sky. It is also fairly clear that the scribe or his exemplar was equally confused about the ownership of this “body”, because someone placed a long overstrike over the word that precedes it (τοῦ ηλικο ϲώματοϲ), as if the word were ēliko, a vox magica of the sun, or perhaps even an error for ἥλιοϲ.
- 33 LSJ and LMPG s.v., who cite, e.g., GEMF 57/PGM IV 1099, GEMF 32/PGM LXII 1 and Dsc. 1.72.4.
- 34 See e.g.: GEMF 57/PGM IV 1099 “after supplying a turquoise (?) lamp with one wick of so-called ree (...)
35A final problem is the verb ἐλλυ[χνιάϲ]ῃϲ, which is usually taken as a request “that you (i.e., the Sun) enlighten me with knowledge”, as if the prefix ἐν- refers to the process of putting “the light of the lamp (i.e., the Sun)” into the speaker. But as it turns out, ἐλλυχνιάζω and λυχνιάζω are rare technical verbs, found primarily in magical and pharmacological handbooks,33 where they refer not to light or enlightenment, but to the more practical concern of furnishing a lamp with a wick (ἐλλύχνιον) or with oil.34 The prefix, in short, apparently refers to putting things in or supplying things for a lamp, and thus yields a more pedestrian translation: “In order that now and after the restoration of your material body, you may supply me with the knowledge of things beloved by you.” The basic meaning of the purpose clause is the same, but the metaphor is different: gnosis is imagined as either the wick or the oil that the god will supply in the speaker’s mind or heart, which is imagined, in turn, as a burning lamp.
36The invocations in GEMF 55/PGM III show a wide variety of forms—poetry and prose, hymn and perhaps aretalogy—and they were clearly copied by scribes of differing talents. In the case of the hymn to Apollo Helios, despite the wretched preservation of the papyrus at this point in the roll, we saw a fairly disciplined tradition, in which the hexametrical verses were carefully transmitted kata stichon and by which we were able to trace the expansion of the hymn in the generation or two that lapsed between the shorter version in GEMF 31 and the longer one in GEMF 55. The lines shared by the two hymns show, however, little evidence of scribal corruption and, in fact, seem to be multi-forms of one another (e.g., GEMF 31: 60: ἄγγελε πρῶτε τοῦ Ζηνὸϲ μεγάλοιο, Ïαω and 55.300: κλῄζω πρω̣ϊ̣ν̣[ὸ]ν Διὸϲ ἄγγελον θεον Ιαω), suggesting that the early transmission of the hymn may have even been in oral form. In the case of the prayer to the Sun, on the other hand, despite the fairly good state of the papyrus, we were first able to make out the somewhat ruined structure of an earlier version composed in rhythmical prose and organized by a repeated pattern of command (“do the NN thing”) followed by a series of phrases in which the speaker, ventriloquizing the god Horus, boasts about various moments in the god’s life, who first set the heavens in motion and shaped the universe, who then served in important positions in his father’s court and who eventually was orphaned by the arch villain Seth. In this case, we had no earlier version, against which we might trace the diachronic evolution of the prayer, but we were able to see how the original, staccato structure of command + boast had broken down over time. And finally, in another obscure passage of the same prayer, the erroneous repetition of two versions of the same request to the setting sun allowed us to repair the first corrupt version and also to revise alleged references to human resurrection and illumination, as a more pedestrian description of the daily “rebirth” of the rising sun and as a more concrete metaphor for the provision of knowledge to the mind of the performer of the hymn.
![Fig. 1. The Planetary Gods and their Names on a Gem once in the University of Dorpat (after Arch. Zeitung 14 [1856], p. 260–263 with plate 96.2).](docannexe/image/8760/img-1-small580.jpg)
Flux RSS
