Soon after the discovery of the Knidian texts a debate started concerning the ques
tion: what exactly did the authors do with their written tablets? The archaeologi
cal context is not very informative on their original location: the tablets were found, so N ew to n says, near some statue bases in the temple precinct. Originally they may have been buried in the ground (like defixiones frequently are), or placed near or even fixed to the altar or wall of the temple. Th e latter was suggested by the excavator N e w to n himself (1863, 724), who claimed that the tablets show holes in the corners to suspend them on a wall and thus publicize the texts. The majority of later commentators including Wachsmuth, Zundel, Bechtel, Ziebarth, Steinleitner, Zingerle, Latte and Blümel endorse this view adding further argu
ments based on the evidence provided by the texts themselves. Ziebarth (1899, 124), for instance, pointed out that the promise in one of the tablets to pay a KÖ|ilOTpov (finder’s reward) if the present illegitimate possessor brings the object back - as an alternative to the penalty by the god in case he does not - simply must imply some kind of publication: “Das ist also die reine Bekanntmachung und öffentliche W arnung!”66. And he wryly adds: “Auf die dortige Rechtspflege im zweiten Jhdt. v. Chr. scheinen (die Texte) freilich kein allzugünstiges Licht zu
C f. Wunsch D T A pr aef. X I I .
W r i t in g M o r t a l s and R e a d in g G o d s 5 7
werfen.” However, as he admits, these accusations concern cases in which the cul
prits were desperately anonymous and could not possibly be traced with the help of normal judicial procedures67. Moreover, even in classical Athens, reclamation of a deposit (m oney consigned to a third party) could not be enforced by law. This was the major reason for entrusting o n e ’s money deposit to a temple, a common practice throughout the Greek world, temples serving as banks in this and other respects. Accordingly, Steinleitner (1913, 104) concludes: “Diese Übertragung der Straffolgerungen auf die Gottheit konnte nur dann praktische Erfolg haben, wenn der Schuldige von dem auf ihn herabgerufenen Fluche auch Kenntnis nahm und aus Furcht vor der Vollstreckung desselben vonseiten der Gottheit in sich ging und sein Vergehen wieder gut machte. U m diesen moralischen D ru ck auf die Schuldigen auszuüben, hing man in Knidos die Fluchtafel an den Mauern des Temenos oder sonst an einem sichtbaren O rte innerhalb des heiligen Bezirks als öffentliche Bekanntmachung auf.” Compare, more recently, Blümel (1992, 85):
“die meisten Bearbeiter vermuten, wohl richtig, dass sie an der Tempelwand auf
gehängt wurden, denn die meisten sind an den oberen Ecken mit Löchern ver
sehen. Die in mehreren Tafeln enthaltene Aufforderung, verlorenes oder gestoh
lenes G ut zurückzugeben, hat nur in diesem Falle Sinn. Auch unterscheiden sich die Kindischen Fluchtafeln von allen anderen uns bekannten dadurch, dass die Weihenden sich hier mehrfach von übler Nachrede reinigen wollen und sich für den Fall, das sie die Unwahrheit sagen, selbst verfluchen. Auch dies hat nur Sinn, wenn auf Leute gerechnet wird, die diese Unschuldserklärungen lesen.”68
Fortunately, things are less simple than that and in being less simple become a lot more interesting. Audollent (DT, C X V I ) , for one, against all others remained firmly convinced that the tablets had been buried, just like his defixiones. First of all, he argued, the alleged holes are in fact untraceable. Th e borders of the tablets are so mutilated that there is on the whole more hole than lead. O n ly one tablet displays a hole that seems to have been made intentionally. Furtherm ore, all other commentators conveniently ignore N e w to n ’s explicit account that most of the lead sheets were “broken and doubled up” (1863, 382), that is: folded once. Surely, this should be a serious blow to the assumption that the tablets were meant to be read by any other person than the god, and if one should not be convinced by this argument - and why shouldn’t one69? - there is still the following problem. I f the
R i g h t l y C haniotis (1 9 9 7 ) 18: “ D a s A p p e lli e r e n an die G ö t t e r e r k l ä rt si ch m a n c h m a l nic h t aus d e m M isstr a u e n g e g e n ü b e r der p r o f a n e n G e w a l t o d e r de m V er tr au en zu den P ri es te rn , s on dern aus der A u s w e g lo s i g k e i t einer re ch tl i c h e n A n g e l e g e n h e i t . ”
68 C f. m o s t r e c e n t ly Riel (1 9 9 5 ) 70: “T h e tablets (i.e. th e K n i d i a n on es) we re p u b l i c l y d is
played at the te m p le , si n ce p u b l i c i ty was ind is pen sa ble f o r th eir effe cti v en ess ; the c o n f e s s i o n of guilt that ev en tu ally f o l l o w e d was also p u b l i c . ”
69 C h a n i o t i s su gge sts to me th at th e o r e tic a lly th e fo ld in g up o f th e tablet s c o u l d have h a p pened after the fu l fi lm e n t o f the d e d i c a n t’s wish. In d eed , f r o m th e c o n f e s s i o n i n s cr ip tio n s we k n o w o f the p r o c e d u r e o f c anc elling curs es and oaths. T h e su g g estion is i m p o r t a n t e n o u g h to merit a b rief d isc ussi on . G e n e r a l l y I agree, b u t w i t h an em ph asis o n th e w o r d .th e o r e t i c a l l y ’ . H ow ev er, th re e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s m a k e it less likely. Firs t, the fo l d i n g up o f lead tablets is su ch a c o m m o n ritual in the defixiones (b efo re th e y w e re d e p osed in a grave o r well), that I a ssu m e it
5 8 H e n k S. V ersnel
slanderer of Hegemone mentioned in tablet no. 4 could read what he was accused of in the tablet attached to the wall, those accused of other nasty things at the re
verse side could not! It is even more complicated with tablet no. 3, not reproduced here. O n one side of the tablet Nanas curses those who have accepted a deposit from Diokles and now refuse to give it back. O n the reverse side the same Nanas curses Emphanes and R h od o for the very same offence. Which of the two sides then should be available for inspection70?
There is one more consideration: the Attic curses with elements of prayers for justice that we quoted in the beginning, were, as far as we know, found in graves where they had been buried by their authors. At the very least this proves that public display is not an absolute or universal condition for this type of vindictive prayer. It should be noted, however, that these early Attic specimens do not con tain inquiries concerning the identity of the culprit nor requests for the restitution of stolen objects. Their one and only aim is revenge: punishment of the offender.
Apparently, this much could be unconditionally left to the sole responsibility of the gods, who, after all, were also credited with the power to execute the curses in normal defixiones. As for confession of guilt and restitution of stolen goods, on the other hand, the argument is that it might be at least helpful if the guilty person had the suspicion that somebody was after him. I am here paraphrasing ex
pressions such as “Sinn haben” and “praktischen E rfo lg ”, which were so prom i
nently featured in the arguments of modern no-nonsense observers.
Fortunately again, we are still not at the end of the complications. The numer
ous curse texts from B ath71 and other areas of England contain comparable re
quests that stolen objects be returned to the temple, sometimes including explicit stipulations that the goddess may retain the object or its value or part of what it is worth. T h e y also add that the thief may pay with his blood (this is a formulaic phrase in the Bath tablets just as the phrase “burnt by fever” is in Knidos). M y favourite, by the way, is the ingenious prayer that the thief must vomit his blood into the very vessel that he had stolen. Now, these tablets are often folded up, sometimes pierced with a needle and do not display (intended) holes. What is more, the fact that they have been recovered in such large numbers in recent years is solely due to the fact that they were definitely hidden from view after their
m a y easily have in flu en c ed th e p rac tic e in th e judicial p ra y ers . Se con dly, it is u n l i k e l y th at the ta b let s afte r their fu l fi lm e n t we re p re se rv ed at all in the te m p le (w h e re th ey have b een fou nd ).
H a v in g d o n e their w o r k such m aterials we re ge nera lly re m o v e d , as w e k n o w so well f r o m the v otive de posi ts in te m p le p re cin c ts . T h e third and m o s t i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n c o n c e r n s the c o n d i ti o n o f the n u m e r o u s tablets fr o m th e s a n c t u a r y at B a t h , fo ld e d up an d th r o w n in to the h o t sprin gs b efo re and n o t a fte r their fu lfi lm e nt, as d e scr ib ed in the text.
70 H e r e C h a n i o t i s re m in d s m e that we have the sam e p r o b l e m c o n c e r n i n g the lex sacra fr o m S e li n ou s (M. H. Ja m eso n , D. R. Jo rd an , R. D. K otansky, A L ex Sacra f r o m S c h n o u s ( G R B M o n o g r a p h s 11, D u r h a m 1 993), fo r w h i c h G. N enci ( A S N P 1 9 9 6 ) has suggested th at these sheets w e re attac hed o n w o o d e n b o ard s and cou ld b e reversed. Again , c ert a in ly n o t i m p o s sible, b u t pe rhap s m o r e p r o b a b l e fo r an offic ia l ritual i n s tr u c t i o n than f o r a private prayer.
71 C o l l e c t e d with a full d isc ussi on b y Tomlin (1 988).
W r i t in g M o r t a l s and R e a d in g G o d s 5 9
deposition: they were thrown into the hot spring, hence beyond the reach of any potentially interested person.
Altogether this survey should serve as a serious warning not too rashly to ac
cept the principle of public access as a rigid, universal and monolithic condition.
N o r would I argue for the reverse. For, in order to continue complicating matters I now must add some ammunition for the counterargument, defending the legibil
ity of the ritual accusations. We do have judicial prayers that were undeniably av a ila b le and in particular cases even indeed in ten ded for inspection. O ne is the bronze tablet dedicated to the M other of the Gods, cited above with its nice hole in the upper middle, no doubt intended to suspend the tablet so that it could be read. Th e material used for this particular tablet points in that direction as well:
bronze is practically never used for tablets that are meant to be buried. Another instance is the earliest G reek papyrus text from Egypt, namely the famous curse of Artemisia from the temple of Oserapis in the Serapeum of Memphis (late fourth century B .C .)72. I give a complete translation, but for our purpose only the last section is of importance:
O L o r d O s e r a p i s (w S e a jT O T ’O a e p ü n i ) and y o u go ds w h o sit e n t h r o n e d to g e th e r w ith O s e rapis, to y o u I d ir ec t a p r a y e r (e ir/op jcu üp iv), I A rt e m i s i a , d au gh te r of A m a s i s , against ( m x d ) the fath e r o f m y daughter, w h o r o b b e d her o f h er de ath gifts (?) and o f h er co ff in . N o w , if he has d o n e ju sti c e to m e an d to his children , th en m a y th at be just. E x a c t l y in the w ay th at he did i n ju st ice ( c iö iK a ) to me and t o m y c hildren , in th at w a v O s e r a p i s an d the god s sh ou ld b rin g it a b o u t th a t he n o t be b urie d b y his c h ild r en and th a t he h im se lf c a n n o t b u r y his parents. A s l o n g as nay ac c u sa ti o n against him ( K a t a ß o i t j c ) lies here, m ay he per ish miserably, on land o r sea, he and all his (p oss essio n s), t h r o u g h O s e r a p i s and th e go ds w h o sit e n th r o n e d w ith O s e r a p i s , an d m a y h e find n o m e r c y (pi|ÖB I X ä ov o g ri r / a v o i ) w i t h O s e r a p i s n o r w ith the god s w h o sit e n t h r o n e d w i t h O se ra p i s.
A r t e m i s i a pl ac ed this p e t i ti o n (K«T£0r|KEv xf|v lKexi]pi>]v xajü jx iy v ), beg g ing ( t K « l ' o u a a ) O s e ra p i s to d o ju stic e (xi]v ÖLKr|v Ö iK d [a ai) and likew is e th e go d s w h o reign with O se rap is.
A s l ong as this p e t i ti o n (again the w o r d is iK£xt]pia) lies h er e, m a y the fa ther o f th e girl find no m e r c y in an y w a y w i t h the god s. W h o e v e r takes a w a y thi s p e t i ti o n (xci y p c u i u a i a ) and doe s inju st ice to A rtem isia , m a y the god pu nish h im (xi’l(v) 6uct]v emOfeit]), . . . in s o fa r as A r temisia has n o t o rd e re d this to th em . . . (a n o t ve ry legible passage fo llo w s).
The text displays striking similarities with the Knidian ones. However, here at least - but we are in an Egyptian context, as in other papyri that we will discuss - it is undeniably clear that the text was not buried but could instead be touched and inspected - and removed - by anybody who had the wish to do so.
71 Fr. Blass, P h i l o l o g u s 41 ( 1 8 8 2 ) 7 4 6 ff.; Wessely,11. J a h re sb e r. d. F r a n z - J o s e p h G y m n a s i u m s (Vien na 1885 ); Wünsch, C I A I I I , ap p e nd ix X X X I ; Preisigke, S a m m e l b u c h I, 5 1 0 3 ; W ilcken, U P Z I, n o. 1; Gerstinger, W S 4 4 ( 1 9 2 4 / 2 5 ) 2 1 9 , w i t h a n ew reading ad o p te d b y W ilcken, U P Z , 6 4 6 ff.; P G M X L ; Steinleitner ( 1 9 1 3 ) 10 2; B jörck (1 9 3 8 ) 131 ff. S o m e re m ar ks: W. C rönert, in:
R a c co lta di S c r i m m O n o r e di G . L u m b r o s o (M i l a n 1 9 2 5 ) 4 7 0 - 4 7 4 ; R. Seider, in: Fe stsc h rift zum 1 5 0 jä h r i g e n B e s t e h e n des B e r l i n e r A e g y p t is c h e n M u s e u m s (B e r l i n 1 9 74) 4 2 2 - 2 3 .
6 0 H e n k S. V ersnel