36 Suarez de la Torre (279-286):Layout 1 15-05-2012 16:32 Pagina 279
Emilio Suárez de la Torre
UNIVERSITAT ‘POMPEU FABRA, BARCELONA
THE ‘LIBRARY’
INTRODUCTION AND PREMISES
First and foremost, I must admit that the title of my paper is slight-
ly misleading, because it is more metaphoric or symbolic than re-
al. My purpose is to present some guidelines to draw a profile of
the literary and technical knowledge of the authors 2 of magical
papyri and, when possible, to determine their acquaintance with
books, genres, and authors of non-Egyptian origin, -mostly Greek.
In this contribution, you will find more reflection than data. I must
warn that it is not a study of the Egyptian library of the magician-
priest. The nature of the treatises and works of manifold origin
that were part of the temple scriptoria can be only partially guessed
at, thanks to a few testimonies 3 such as the catalogue inscribed
on a wall of the temple of Horus at Edfu 4, or the description by
Clemens of Alexandria of a procession in which the priests car-
ried books and symbols related to their specific functions 5. The
Egyptian origin of many of the spells and the indigenous antiq-
uity of much of the wisdom reflected in these texts are beyond
any doubt. Thus, I will focus on the appropriation of the Greek
‘code’ 6 by the priests, who realised the importance of reaching an
‘international’ audience. Conversely, it does not mean that I be-
lieve that the Greek spells are always a mere translation or adap-
tation of Egyptian models: many of them are primarily of Hel-
lenic, or, at least, non-Egyptian provenance 7, and even some of
the demotic spells have probably been translated from a Greek
source 8.
What David Frankfurter 9 rightly labels «subtle interpenetration»,
to define the characteristics of the Hellenistic and Roman peri-
1
This study is part of Research Project nº FFI2008-05239, financed by the Span-
ish MICINN. Editions and commentaries used for this paper: T. HOPFNER,
Griechisch-Ägyptischer Offenbarungszauber, I Leipzig 1921, Amsterdam 19742;
II1 Leipzig 1924, Amsterdam 19832; II2 Leipzig 1924, Amsterdam 19902 (it con-
tains useful remarks on many points). PGM. R. M ERKELBACH , M. T OTTI ,
Abrasax: ausgewählte Papyri religiösen und magischen Inhalts, I, Gebete
Opladen; II, Gebete (Fortsetzung), Opladen 1990-1991. SupplMag. BETZ 1986
- BETZ 19922.
2
For the standard, but deficient, use of this term, see infra, and E. SUÁREZ DE LA
TORRE, The Religious Background of the Greek Magical Papyri, Paper presented
to the FIEC – Conference, Berlin, 24-29 August 2009.
3
See G. FOWDEN, The Egyptian Hermes. A Historical Approach to the Late Pa-
gan Mind, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1986, pp. 57-59.
4
É. CHASSINAT, Le temple d’Edfou, 3, Le Cairo, Mémoires de la Maison
Archéologique Française, 1928, pp. 339-351. The list is: Books of the Emana-
tions of Re, Book of the temple-inventory, Book of the threatening [of Seth?],
Book with writings about the struggle [probably of Horus against Seth], Book
of the plan of the temple, specification for the painting of a wall, Book of the
OF THE MAGICIAN 1
ods in matters of religion and culture was not always an uncom-
plicated and ‘natural’ process, but the result of very different ini-
tiatives, arising from political, priestly, and, in any case, cultivat-
ed circles which could exercise some influence. We must bear in
mind that the ancient lector-priests, who were constantly reshap-
ing their functions in a continual process of adaptation, were
building a kind of (cultural) ‘bridge’, a new and impressive tool
in order to ‘transfer’ (and ‘translate’) their wisdom and expertise
to a very broad range of people. Their targets were not the prod-
uct of simple and docile submission, but very often reflected a
desire to show their (moral, technical, etc.) superiority, if not an
overt spirit of confrontation. Of course, the circulation of these
magical texts often seems ‘internal’ (from master to apprentice),
but it is a matter of fact that their diffusion has eventually tran-
scended this limited scope. The choice of the Greek language re-
veals both an interest in widening the diffusion of the texts and
a particular pretension of reinforcing the scientific authority of
the recipes. It can be argued that the use of Greek is not signifi-
cant, since it was the best rooted instrument of communication
in those territories, a kind of ‘lingua franca’ 10. Indeed, but the
point is that it is a non-standard, rather specialised, careful use
of the Greek language. And the choice of the Greek language al-
so involved the need to find parallelisms and ‘links’, in form and
content, to make the difficult (and secret!) magical tradition more
accessible. On the other hand, the search for a wide audience is
patent in the fact that those scribes use the Greek and the De-
motic languages almost simultaneously. They never lost sight of
their local clients and, though the content and characteristics of
protection of the body, Book of the protection of the King in his house, spells
for averting the evil eye, knowledge of the recurrence of the two stars [i.e. sun
and moon], control over the recurrence of the stars, enumeration of all places,
and protective formulae for the departure of Your Majesty from your temple for
Your feasts.
5
Strom. VII 4. 35-37. He lists forty-two books corresponding to ten different cat-
egories: hymns to the gods, an account of the king’s life, astrological books, hi-
eroglyphic books of varied content (mostly technical), books on education and
the art of sacrifice, hieratic books, and medical books.
6
In quite a broad sense: linguistic, stylistic, religious and so on.
7
It is not in contradiction with the fact that the magical papyri were written in
Egypt.
8
J. DIELEMAN, Priests, Tongues, and Rites: The London-Leiden Magical Manu-
scripts and Translation in Egyptian Ritual 100-300 CE, Leiden 2005, pp. 127-130.
9
D. FRANKFURTER, The Consequences of Hellenism in Late Antique Egypt: Reli-
gious Worlds and Actors, ARG 2, 2000, pp. 166-183.
10
D. FRANKFURTER, Religion in Roman Egypt. Assimilation and Resistance, Prince-
ton, New Jersey 1998, p. 250.
36 Suarez de la Torre (279-286):Layout 1 15-05-2012 16:32 Pagina 280
280
the spells in both languages often coincide, they also show a spe-
cial ability to adapt them to the idiosyncrasy of the recipients 11.
LOOKING FOR THE CONTEXT
In the chapter entitled Imagining Greek and Roman Magic 12,
Richard Gordon establishes a taxonomy of the practitioners of
magic which divides them into four groups: first, those mythical
figures belonging to the time of “magic before magic” 13, and then
three others covering the following range: at the lowest level would
be «the wise-man or woman (…) who commands only the sim-
plest skills and knowledge, a few uncomplicated rituals, incanta-
tions, plant remedies» 14; they are followed by the ‘root-cutters’
(rhizotomoi/-ai, pharmakopôlai, pigmentarii); then comes the
«more sophisticated» goes, and finally, as a fourth particular
group, «the authors of the Graeco-Egyptian receptaries put to-
gether in the Principate» 15. He says: «Through these texts we can
glimpse not merely how a highly self-conscious and learned mag-
ical tradition used a book, the receptary, to protect its claims to
power, but also how the book provides a convenient retreat from
the demand to test one’s claim sin action». He also comments the
efforts of the magicians to underline the importance of these for-
mulae and to reassure the reader that they are infallible.
What I now wish to highlight is that, as Gordon has shown, these
texts constitute a very special group which, on the one hand in-
corporate a great variety of recipes, and on the other, seem, at
least most of them, to be composed of a class of very learned
priests-magicians, heirs of an ancestral wisdom. However, and giv-
en the rich variety of recipes collected in these papyri, the prece-
dent assessment is valid only for certain texts. If it is right to af-
firm, following Betz 16, that there are good reasons to postulate
that a good amount of them is due to the new version of the tra-
ditional hierogrammateus («the papyri also provide many insights
into the phenomenon of the magician as a religious functionary»),
it is not less certain that another group of texts, most especially
those including long descriptions of particular initiation rites or
having a religious content manifestly alien to Egyptian traditions,
could have been originally written by other learned magicians of
different origin, either Greek or Jewish. And there is finally a cat-
egory of ‘lesser level texts’, full of very practical recipes similar to
the traditional Greek magical prescriptions and the popular de-
fixiones or binding formulae. In this case, the author could be as-
similated to the classic itinerant magician or «wandering crafts-
man», as Betz calls them 17, who were not experts in religious mat-
ters, but knew how to get an effective result, even if their knowl-
11
Although I will deal here mostly with spells written in Greek, I fully agree with
DIELEMAN (Priests, quoted at footnote 8) that modern research on magical papyri
is hellenocentric. To get a complete idea of the social, linguistic and religious ques-
tions aroused by these texts, it is necessary to take into account as much the Greek
as the Demotic spells. However, I wish now to emphasise the kind of use of Greek
language, as much as of the different texts written in Greek made by the scribes,
because I am interested in the way they look for an external projection of their
abilities and of the traditional Egyptian magical and religious wisdom by mixing
it with other alternative traditions.
12
R.GORDON, Imagining Greek and Roman Magic, in B. ANKARLOO, S. CLARK
(eds.), Witchcraft and Magic in Europe, Philadelphia 1999, pp. 159-275 (pp. 178-
191).
13
Circe, Medea, the Idaean Dactyls and the Telchines.
14
For instance, the Egyptian woman in Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon.
EMILIO SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE
edge of the origin and nature of the religious elements was very
superficial 18. This classification is not irrelevant, because the use
of religious elements varies considerably from one type to the oth-
er. In the first case there is a conscious selection of them, a more
intentional mixing of disparate constituents and firmer criteria to
make them function. Contrarily, in the second group, the ap-
pearance of those elements does not necessarily fit the same cri-
teria and may have been selected more mechanically or even at
random 19. However, and despite the plausibility of this classifi-
cation, a detailed reading of the magical texts proves that it is
sometimes very difficult to differentiate between a “Hellenised
Egyptian” and an “Egyptianised Greek”.
Nevertheless, in general terms, the magical papyri we can now read
are the final stage of the long process of copying and constant
(re)composition, and they are the work of more or less learned
‘priest-magicians’. Thus, the question concerning their ‘library’ (as
a symbolic summary of their cultural level) does not seem useless.
Yet more important is the fact that, although the spells and
recipes may have been written at different times in different places,
the grimoires seem finally gathered by what we could call “the
‘renewed’ priests”, those who survived under Roman power adapt-
ed to new circumstances and preserving their authority in reli-
gious matters. Magic was very well known in Greece without the
need of ancient Egyptian wisdom. But in the Magical Papyri
copied in Egypt at the time of the Principate, the main novelty is
the irruption of a new religious, theological and mystic perspec-
tive, originated in the new priestly milieu.
A learned ‘client’ as a possible ‘mirror’ of the learned authors
Do we have a criterion or reference to decide how learned these
authors were? In trying to answer to this question, I have made
recourse to the old work of Adam Abt, Die Apologie des Apuleius
von Madaura und die antike Zauberei (written in 1908, but per-
fectly worthy nowadays). As you are aware, despite his ‘absolv-
ing’ conclusion concerning the implication of Apuleius in real ma-
lign magical practices (and therefore supporting the final verdict
of innocence), Abt has shown in great detail the extent to which
Apuleius was perfectly knowledgeable of the different magical
practices of his time. Deep knowledge indeed! In the analysis of
the different features of Apuleius’ discourse, Abt has tracked the
coincidences of Apuleian arguments, vocabulary and practices with
a wide variety of literary and documentary testimonies concern-
ing magic. As a matter of fact, and reading them from the view-
point of the Magical Papyri, the number of coincidences is truly
impressive. The extent to which the Apuleian judicial process casts
light on contemporary magical practice and beliefs has also been
15
To be noted are the following examples of ritual malign magic: PGM XV, XVI,
XVIIa XIX, XXIX, LXVI, and SupplMag. nos. 37-51, 52-8 and others found in a
variety of sites in the Roman Empire (s. p. 188).
16
BETZ 1986, p. xlvi.
17
Greeks were more drastic: for them they were mere agyrtai; cf. the Roman cir-
culator, ‘surrounded by a crowd’.
18
See, for instance, the type described as ‘man-cum-sorcerer’ by M.W. DICKIE,
Magic and Magicians in the Ancient Greek World, London 2001, passim.
19
This grouping runs in parallel with the classification made by DICKIE (Magic,
quoted at footnote n. 18, see ch. 8) where, besides the learned magicians in a broad
sense (a class which embraces Pythagoreans and other philosophers, Gnostics,
theioi Andres or renowned specialists, like Pa(n)crates or Apion), he also studies
the ‘itinerant magicians’ and the «wandering Egyptian and Jewish magoi».
36 Suarez de la Torre (279-286):Layout 1 15-05-2012 16:32 Pagina 281
THE ‘LIBRARY’ OF THE MAGICIAN
clearly explained more recently by Graf 20. If I emphasise this as-
pect, it is because Apuleius gives us a concrete profile of a
‘learned’ author (a philosophus platonicus in the sense this defi-
nition has in the Principate and in the framework of the Second
Sophistic: a man versed in ‘philosophy and letters’, including rhet-
oric, sciences, including medicine, and many other abilities) who
does not belong to the class of the Egyptian priests, but who has
(at least considered superficially) a similar cultural level. In oth-
er words, he is representative (culturally and economically speak-
ing) of an upper class which knows very well the usual (and even
other not so usual) magical practices, as well as the philosophical
and religious ‘literature’ that diffuse important magical beliefs
among the readers, and who received his education in Rome,
Athens and North Africa 21.
Thus I wish to highlight three consequences to be drawn from
this comparison. First (not very spectacular), Apuleius shows that
a great amount of magical procedures identical (or similar) to those
of the papyri, were fully developed in the 2nd century A.D. This
obvious conclusion leads to a more interesting one, that is to say,
the grimmoria of the papyri are written by Egyptians who had a
great experience in the Graeco-Roman magical tradition and were
able to combine their knowledge with other different traditions
and their own inherited wisdom; they indeed had a special abili-
ty to find points of contact among disparate practices in order to
make them more effective. This leads to the third and most de-
cisive conclusion: that Apuleius may be considered representative
of the possible clients who acquired the collections of papyri ei-
ther within or without Egypt (though for the users, this alterna-
tive has the inconvenience of not having some of the required el-
ements of the recipes at their disposal: plants, stones, animals, rolls
of ‘hieratic’ papyrus and so on). Moreover, this conclusion has an
important consequence affecting religious matters. If the clients
accepted these receptaries as effective and useful, this means, on
the one hand, that they were ready to run the risk involved in those
practices (in periods of coercing legislations) and that, despite their
own religious beliefs, they recognised the utility of magic for some
aims in some given situations. And, on the other hand, that the
magicians had been highly skilful at combining the different re-
ligious elements appearing in the recipes, thanks both to their per-
fect knowledge of the convergent points of the different traditions
and to their ability to ‘market’ their articles. If compared with
Apuleius, the great difference is that, whereas the philosopher
could publicly defend himself boasting his magical experience, the
authors and clients of the magical papyri lived under very differ-
ent circumstances. From this point of view, these magical texts
could also have the value of a ‘resistance’ literature, not neces-
sarily aimed at the adepts of a secret group, but at a wider class
of readers: a very dangerous weapon!
20
F. GRAF, Gottesnähe und Schadenzauber. Die Magie in der griechisch-römis-
chen Antike, München 1996, pp. 61-82.
21
For other related aspects of Apuleius’ work, see also the commentary by H.E.
BUTLER, A.S. OWEN (eds.), Apulei Apologia sive Pro se de magia liber, Oxford
1914 (rep. Hildesheim 1967), as well as B.L. HIJMANS, Apuleius orator: ‘Pro se
de magia’ and ‘Florida’”, in ANRW 2.34.2, 1994, pp. 1708-1784, and V. HUNINK,
Apuleius of Madauros: Pro Se de Magia, Amsterdam 1997.
22
This is of course Iamblichus’ point of view; for the authors of the recipes they
were not “meaningless”.
23
A good analysis of Jamblichus’ positioning regarding contemporary magic can
be found in C. VAN LIEFFERINGE, La Théurgie. Des Oracles Chaldaïques à Pro-
clus, Liège 1999; the authoress often emphasises the resemblances between Jam-
281
A (particular) parallel for the priest: Iamblichus
I have chosen the Neo-Platonist Iamblichus as an example of a vi-
sion of the religious world and of the relations between men and
gods that, allegedly inspired by ‘true’ Chaldaean and Egyptian be-
liefs, is indeed a particular interpretatio of both trends characterised
by a selection of the points of contact between them and philo-
sophical and religious Greek traditions. The ‘hinge’ that allows this
is Hermeticism. Often in De mysteriis, Iamblichus speaks not as a
philosopher, but as a theologian (or even as a ‘priest-theologian’),
and his conviction that the texts inscribed in the temples were the
source of inspiration for Pythagoras or Plato (among others), leads
him to a Hellenised (philosophically speaking) vision of Egyptian
religion. But what I wish to emphasise is the fact that he is also an-
other mirror of the learned magician, a good counterpart of the con-
temporary Hellenised hierogrammateus: the perspective from the
other side. The themes developed in the De mysteriis are not far
from the religious elements found in the magical papyri: the nature
and classifications of gods (with the problem of the coexistence of
‘the One and the Many’) and of demons; sacrifice; prayer; divina-
tion (in diverse forms); religious symbols; division of celestial re-
gions and zones of divine influence, ‘meaningless names” (a[shma
ojnovmata 22) etc. Moreover (and this is not a ‘quantité méprisable’),
this Syrian theologian and philosopher is a practitioner of theurgy,
whose borders with magic are sometimes blurred, despite the ef-
fort of Iamblichus to draw a strict frontier between them. I am not
now postulating that Iamblichus knew the magical papyri (though
the abundant resemblances point in this direction) 23. My aim is to
underline the fact that the authors of magical papyri, the learned
priest-magicians, knew the contemporary philosophical and theo-
logical concerns and trends perfectly well, and had the ability to
harmonise the Egyptian traditions with those trends 24.
WORKS CITED, LITERARY ‘SYNCRETISM’
AND RELATED PHENOMENA
Literary constituents
Some previous remarks
These (learned) magicians 25 are indeed well acquainted with
many aspects of Greek and Roman culture, but it is the religious
facies of the imperial period that is at the heart of their interests.
How and when did they assimilate this knowledge? The answer
is not difficult. As in many other aspects, Greek domination was
a tough experience for the Egyptian priests, but their ability to
survive this earthquake was most impressive. However, the his-
tory of the coexistence between Greeks and Egyptians, and, lat-
er, by these two nations with the Romans is long and complicat-
ed, and we must refine the quest to find decisive moments in the
blichus’ work and the magical papyri.
24
Of course, many other examples could be added. On the Egyptian side we have
the interesting example of Chaeremon, Egyptian priest and stoic philosopher of
the 1st Century CE, FGrHist 618. See DIELEMAN, 2005, quoted at footnote n.8,
pp. 250-253, who underlines his endeavour to connect Egyptian and Hellenic cul-
ture (p. 251). See also P. W. VAN DER HORST, Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Sto-
ic Philosopher, Leiden 1984-19872, and M. FREDE, Chaeremon, ANRW II.36.3,
2067-2103. In the realm of Greek fiction literature, it is important to keep in mind
the testimony afforded by Lucian in the rich dialogue entitled Philopseudes. Its
importance for the knowledge of contemporary magic has recently been well
analysed by D. OGDEN, In Search of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. The traditional
tales of Lucian’s Lover of Lies, Swansea 2007.
36 Suarez de la Torre (279-286):Layout 1 15-05-2012 16:32 Pagina 282
282
cultural fusion of the different traditions. The analysis of the mag-
ical papyri points to two particular periods; or, rather, a histori-
cal period and a later cultural movement: Hellenistic and Roman
Alexandria and the Second Sophistic 26. I have signalled these two
historical moments because they are representative of the two main
sides of the learned magicians’ process of adaptation to the new
historical circumstances: the assimilation of contemporary reli-
gious trends 27 and the adoption of textual strategies to reinforce
the effects of their spells. On the one hand, there is the use of
specific tools aimed at convincing the readers of the effectiveness
of the spells, such as ‘advertising’ and ‘mystifying’ motifs 28. There
is a manifest effort to innovate and enhance their authority. This
strategy stimulates innovative means, including the formal ma-
nipulation of the texts, the use of images and so on 29. These for-
mal features are not alien to the Hellenistic, non-magical litera-
ture: they can be compared to the so-called technopaignia of Hel-
lenistic poets. On the other hand, there is another essential phe-
nomenon which underlies the trends observed in the magical pa-
pyri: this is what David Frankfurter describes as “stereotype ap-
propriation”, «serving the needs and fantasies of Roman tourists,
and generally remodelling them according to the perspective of
the Graeco-Roman world».
However, and to return to the question of the ‘library’, what seems
most important to me is the strategy of the magicians to adopt an
effective ‘koiné’ in a religious, technical, stylistic and literary sense.
At this point I should like to emphasise the coincidences of the
magical texts, at least those of the more elaborated group, with
different classes of specialised writings. Generally speaking, it is
not easy to answer to the following question: are these coinci-
dences the effect of the author’s acquaintance with different
works of the surrounding cultures (Greek, Roman, Jewish,
Mesopotamian, etc.), or are they fortuitous, due to the existence
of generalised formal features in that geographical and cultural
milieu? Perhaps both factors, lending and mere chance, are at
work. In any case, there is a remarkable abundance of features
shared between them:
(a) ‘Religious’, theosophic and similar texts:
– Hermetic texts. Nowadays, the assessment of the Corpus Her-
meticum as substantially a product of Greek Hellenic culture us-
25
See the important contributions by FRANKFURTER, cited above at footnotes 9-
10. He has shown that, on the one hand, «The thaumaturgical priest is, in some
way, a kind of folk-hero of the Egyptian scribal world», an ‘image’ continued in
Graeco-Roman literature: Diogenes Paapis, Lucian’s Panchrates, Apuleius’ Zatch-
las, Aelian’s Iachim, and Pseudo-Callisthenes’ Nectanebo (he cites F. DE SALVIA,
La Figura del Mago Egizio nella Tradizione Letteraria Greco-Romana, La Magia
in Egitto ai Tempi dei Faraoni, ed. Alessandro Roccati and Alberto Siliotti, Mi-
lan: Rassegna Internazionale di Cinematografia Archeologica 1987, pp. 343-365);
but, on the other hand, in the context of Graeco-Roman Egypt, mageia and ma-
gos refer essentially to priests and priesthood: «mageia constitutes no more than
a cheap appraisal of Egyptian ritual and priestly culture; magos denotes simply
‘priest’, or, more specifically, the lector-priest, the hry-tpk. And within Egyptian
culture a ‘magician’ was, essentially, a priest»; FRANKFURTER 1997, p. 120).
26
For the decisive role of Alexandria in the compilation of spells, and therefore
basic in the origins of the collections such as those of the magical papyri, see Ch.
A. FARAONE, Handbooks and Anthologies: The Collection of Greek and Egypt-
ian Incantations in Late Hellenistic Egypt, AfR 2, 2000, pp. 195-214.
27
See FRANKFURTER 2000, quoted at footnote n. 9.
28
A detailed analysis can be found in DIELEMAN 2005, quoted at footnote n. 8,
pp. 254 ss.
29
See R. GORDON, Shaping the Text: Innovation and Authority in Graeco-Egypt-
ian Malign Magic, in H.F.J. HORSTMANHOFF, H.W. SINGOR, F.T. VAN STRATEN,
EMILIO SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE
ing Egyptian religion and wisdom with the sole intention of
adding a venerable patina to these works must be abandoned, as
Fowden 30 has shown and has been widely accepted. As a matter
of fact, some of the descriptions of divine power and, indeed, the
perfect concomitances of the Egyptian Thot and the Greek god,
is a decisive key to construct the religious koiné of that period.
There are some explicit mentions of the Trismegistos in the Pa-
pyri 31 and, in my opinion, it may be beyond doubt that the priests
were acquainted with the contemporary trend labelled Hermeti-
cism. On the other hand, it would be erroneous to make general
judgments dealing with such a varied collection as that of the mag-
ical papyri. Hence it is normal to find texts that do not show old
Egyptian wisdom, properly speaking, but this does not prevent
them from having clear signs of Hermetic influence. This is what
happens with the so-called Mithras Liturgy, which, according to
Betz, «seems to reflect an early or nascent Hermeticism of the first
and second century CE» 32.
– Gnosticism. Some points of contact with Gnosticism must be
taken into account 33. To begin with, some of the more usual com-
binations of divine names were adopted by Gnostics, according
to different ancient sources. For instances, the frequent triad Iao,
Sabaoth, Abrasax is shared by Gnostics. On the other hand, the
magical papyri were used by Coptic groups, as can be easily shown
by the inclusion of many parts in this language. The Nag Ham-
madi Library, a translation from Greek into Coptic of an im-
pressive amount of Gnostic literature, copied and buried at about
the same time in the same Upper-Egyptian area, not only conforms
an interesting parallel from the point of view of the cross-fertili-
sation of Greek and Egyptian religious culture of the 4th Centu-
ry CE, but also due to the fact that both groups of texts show im-
portant links with Hermeticism. Analysis of their points of con-
tact would be desirable 34.
– The oracular collections belonging to very different corpora and
with very diverse origin: epigraphical and written oracles origi-
nated (or allegedly originated) in sanctuaries, Sibylline Oracles,
Chaldaean Oracles, theurgic works and neoplatonism (Porphyry),
Theosophia 35. Most of the theological oracles of the imperial pe-
riod were used by individuals, representative of different religious
trends. The case of Porphyry’s De Philosophia ex oraculis haurienda
is but one example of the interest shown by theurgy in the orac-
J.H.M. STRUBBE (eds.), Kykeon. Studies in Honour of H. S. Versnel,
Leiden/Boston/Köln 2002, pp. 69-11, limited to ‘malign’ magic.
30
FOWDEN 1986, quoted at footnote n. 3. I want to underline that this reconsid-
eration of the authenticity of the ‘Egyptianism’ of the corpus does not invalidate
the importance of the epoch-making study of Festugière (see infra no. 31). How-
ever, and to gain a better comprehension of the richness of these treatises, as well
as of the complex web conforming the multiculturalism of that period, Fowden’s
work opened an interesting way, which deserves to be continued.
31
A. J. FESTUGIÈRE, La révélation d’Hermes Trismégiste, I: L’Astrologie et les sci-
ences occultes, Paris 19502, pp. 287-308); see FOWDEN 1986, p. 25, with no. 68
and, as it concerns magic, pp. 79-87.
32
BETZ 2003, p. 37.
33
G. SFAMENI GASPARRO, Tra Gnosticismo e magia. Spazio e ruolo della prassi
magica nell’universo religioso dello gnosticismo, in Il tardoantico alle soglie del
2000. Diritto, Religione, Società, Atti del 5º Convengo nazionale dell’Associazione
di Studi Tardoantichi, Pisa 2000, pp. 1-35; DICKIE 2001, quoted at footnote n. 18,
pp. 208-209.
34
Some interesting remarks on the Nag Hammadi Library and its relationship
with the magical papyri can be found in FOWDEN 1986, quoted at footnote n. 3,
pp. 170-173.
35
E. SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE, Apollo, teologo cristiano, Annali di Scienze Religiose
8, 2003 129-153.
36 Suarez de la Torre (279-286):Layout 1 15-05-2012 16:32 Pagina 283
THE ‘LIBRARY’ OF THE MAGICIAN
ular ‘literature’ as a tool in the reflection on the nature of the di-
vine. The Church Fathers and other Christian authors will rely on
the oracular literature for the defence of their ideas, not without
adopting a very critical position indeed 36. As for the collection of
the Sibylline Oracles, we must take into account that it was born
in the Ptolemaic period and developed over centuries in the Im-
perial period under social, cultural and historical circumstances
partially shared with the magical papyri 37.
I wish to stress this point, because, along with the next group,
they show important resemblances with some parts of our spells
(substantially in the epithets and formulas chosen to describe the
powers and characteristics of gods and daemons). If there was a
field in which priestly authority remained alive, it was the oracu-
lar and divinatory activity 38. It is not strange that they had a broad
knowledge of other oracular traditions of every kind.
– Hymnic literature 39. The presence of hymns among the recipes
is an interesting phenomenon. On the one hand, they constitute
a revealing link between the spheres of ‘magic’ and ‘religion’. If
the different praxeis represent the adaptation of rituals to the mag-
ical practice (with the effect of ‘miniaturisation’), the magical
hymns, if compared with other hymnic literature, are no less im-
portant for the understanding of the magical conceptions con-
cerning gods, goddesses, and the point of view of the magician.
On the other hand, they are an important tool to realise the knowl-
edge of the Greek hymnic tradition by the Egyptian priests. As
happens with other parts of the spells, we find the usual imbri-
cations of different religious traditions, oscillating between typi-
cal Egyptian elements (myths of the gods, epithets, etc.) and Hel-
lenic constituents. In both kinds of hymns (or parts of them), it
is possible to detect parallels of style, vocabulary and religious per-
spective with different Greek collections of hymns and related
texts: for instance, the Orphic hymns and the Hellenistic areta-
logies 40. A significant feature of the hymns is that some parts of
them reappear in more than one papyrus and that they are some-
times split, with the inclusion of alien elements.
– Moreover, the style of some of those texts denotes a quite re-
markable use of rhetorical devices. I use this term in a broad sense.
I mean thereby that some of the spells show a well studied strate-
gy in the organisation of the contents. It entails equilibrated struc-
tures, impressive description using refined vocabulary, the inclu-
sion of formulas borrowed from different genres, the alternation
of prose and verse, iterative constructions, etc. Generally speak-
ing, out of the versified parts as well (otherwise not numerous), the
choice of adjectives in the description of different entities or of the
effects of the ritual spells and actions, is usually well calculated.
36
See A. BUSINE, Paroles d’Apollon, Leiden 2005; J. Mª NIETO IBÁÑEZ, Cristian-
ismo y profecías de Apolo. Los oráculos paganos en la patrística griega, siglos II
al V, Madrid 2010.
37
For a detailed description of the origins, nature and development of the
Sibylline Oracles see E. SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE, Oráculos Sibilinos, en Apócrifos
del Antiguo Testamento, III, Madrid 20022, pp. 331-444, as well as the recent (par-
tial) editions and commentaries of R. BUITENWERF, Book III of the Sibylline Or-
acles and its Social Setting, Leiden 2003, and J. L. LIGHTFOOT, The Sibylline Or-
acles, with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the First and Second
Books, Oxford 2007, both without any reference to Spanish bibliography.
38
FRANKFURTER 1998 quoted at footnote n. 10, pp. 145-197.
39
See P. POCETTI, Forma e tradizioni dell’inno magico nel mondo classico, in: L’in-
no tra rituale e letteratura nel mondo antico, Atti del colloquio tenuto a Napoli,
21-24 ottobre 1991, AION Fil. 13, 1991, pp. 179-204, and the commentaries to
several hymns by J.L. CALVO MARTÍNEZ: Dos himnos ‘mágicos’ al Creador. Edi-
283
– Poetic language. In the hymns included in the spells, their au-
thors reinforce the efficacy of the prayer with creative com-
pounds, sometimes hapax.
(b) ‘Scientific’ and specialised literature (excluding other ‘magical’
books; see infra).
The similarity between the recipes and the medical, botanical, and
technical literature of those centuries is certainly remarkable.
There is no doubt that the Egyptians had an important tradition
of treatises on those items, but the linguistic elections made by
the authors also denote familiarity with Greek and Roman scien-
tific (or para-scientific) literature. There are terms and descrip-
tions of different natural elements and magical effects which have
interesting parallels, for instance, in (pseudo-) Galen or (pseudo-
) Dioscorides works 41 as well as in the different collections of Lithi-
ka.
Specialised (‘magical’) texts and collections
A first question is: how did the ‘spells’ circulate? Gathered ac-
cording to their specific aim and/or according to their different
genres (letters, stelai, etc.)? As for the first part of the question,
this was perfectly possible: see, for instance the Egyptian treatise
of Ophiology studied by Sauneron (1989). On the other hand,
Faraone 42 has shown that the circulation of handbooks and an-
thologies was an old phenomenon. And there must be an inter-
connection between the ‘learned’ medico-magical treatises of the
Hellenistic period and the collectors of anthologies. As Dickie
points out, “although collections of magico-medical recipes may
have been primarily literary artefacts 43, it does not follow that their
recipes were not taken over by magicians, and if not put into ef-
fect, were at least incorporated into their handbooks” 44. But, have
the collectors/authors of the PGM and PDM combined the dif-
ferent recipes at random? Or can we find some criteria in the ap-
parently randomly ordered recipes?
To begin with, as I proposed at the Berlin Conference 45, we have
more or less three levels of ‘authorship’: (a) the ‘first author’ of
each individual spell (but to follow this track is an impossible task),
(b) the ‘author’ or ‘harmoniser’ of the composite texts; (c) the com-
piler of the texts under the form of a kind of grimmorium or grim-
moire. Thus, my questions about the library of the Magician con-
cern (b) and (c), also taking into account the fact that the final
compiler can either combine two or more texts in a new spell or
add a completely new one.
The different recipes can be gathered into two main groups: those
without any concrete mention of authorship and those that in-
ción crítica con introducción y comentario, MHNH 3, 2003, pp. 231-250; El him-
no Care drkwn a Helios del papiro parisino. Edición crítica con introducción y
comentario, MHNH 4, 2004, pp. 265-278; El himno a Helios erofoit twn nmwn
en la colección PGM, MHNH 6, 2006, pp. 157-176.
40
As a complementary remark to this group, it is important to add the use by the
magicians of different formal features, shared with other contemporary genres:
Direct citations (scarce; almost limited to the Homeric verses used in divination)
or literary allusions (or coincidences?: see PGM XVII, pp. 22-24, with Archilochean
antecedents).
41
See the interesting remarks of DIELEMAN 2005, quoted at footnote n. 8, pp. 185
ss., concerning PGM XII, 401-444.
42
See above, no. 27.
43
He is referring to authors such as Bolus of Mendes.
44
DICKIE 2001, quoted at footnote n. 18, p. 122.
45
SUÁREZ 2009b.
36 Suarez de la Torre (279-286):Layout 1 15-05-2012 16:32 Pagina 284
284
clude such mention. In order to determine the profile of what I
have called the ‘library’ of the magician I consider them sepa-
rately.
A. Without ‘author’s name’
This group constitutes the vast majority of the recipes, though not
exactly the most spectacular. Its contents coincide with the more
usual magical spells in different cultures (including magical prac-
tice in ancient Greece and Rome) and their origin must be very
old. A possible grouping may be as follows:
1. Love charms
2. Divination (see my classification)
3. Systaseis (the old Egyptian ph.-nt- r, not necessarily to get a rev-
elation or prognosis, but also to be blessed and get some kind
of help).
4. Instructions about phylacteries (mostly against daemons) and
amulets.
5. Spells to bind (other than love-spells) or subdue, mostly
qumokavtocoi.
6. Spells to cause illness or to kill.
7. Petitions of success in different matters (business).
8. Spells to gain memory.
9. Other aims: to become invisible, to transform one’s own shad-
ow into a servant, to get friends, or a victory or some bene-
fit, to cause insomnia or a nuktolavlhma, to escape from
prison, and for some other particular (and varied) circum-
stances, including how to cross the Nile on a crocodile.
Most of them are quite simple (but they vary from one papyrus
to another). Sometimes the spell is given a special guarantee if it
is reinforced by the name of a particular God (and not a haphaz-
ard one). Thus, a divinatory spell is surmised to gain credibility
if it includes prayers or rites directed at Apollo or Hermes or
Bes(as) or the Moon (Selene). To catch a thief, it is useful to call
upon Hermes. Astrological elements can be combined with the
prayer to Selene. A melting of Egyptian and Greek constituents
(as usual, of course) has led to the success of the spells “to the
Bear” (for instance, to receive an oracle). Some erotic spells have
the unquestionable support of Aphrodite or Eros. This phenom-
enon reappears in the case of material items endowed with spe-
cial powers: we must surmise that it is not the same (I mean, as
‘advertising policy’) to say “this is an effective vessel”, that “this
is Aphrodite’s vessel” (cf. Aphrodite’s phialomanteion of PGM IV
32009-54). A magical ring is always a useful instrument, but it gives
somewhat more credibility if it is endorsed by Hermes, and so on.
At the top of the scale is the attribution of the text to a god, who
has sent it (for example, as a letter) or revealed it in a dream or
vision. Thus we find the names of Hermes Trismegistos 46 or
Osiris 47 as being responsible for some spells. The long ‘Mithras
Liturgy’ 48 was revealed by Helios-Mithras himself. Attributions
46
PGM IV 850-929.
47
PGM III 424-466.
48
PGM IV 475-829.
49
PGM X 36-50.
50
PGM XIV 93-114.
51
PGM LXI 100-105.
52
Stelai: PGM IV 1115-1166, 1167-1226; PGM V 96-172; VIII 1-63; temples (walls,
statues, hieroglyphs etc.): PGM III 424-466, VII 862-918; XII 401-444; XXIVa 1-
25; CXXII 1-55.
53
PGM XII 121.
EMILIO SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE
to other gods are: Apollo 49, Imhotep 50 or Nephthys 51. Those cas-
es could also be classified as a particular type of ‘pseudepigra-
phy’. Another resource to enhance the venerability of the spell is
to refer to a venerable original location, be it a temple or a stele 52.
The (longer) texts including one or more invocations to one or
more deities are indeed also more complex (both in structure and
diversity of elements) and show a more refined ‘style’ (so to
speak). Most of them (totally or partially) include hymns. They
allow us to realise that the final compiler is using an important
amount of magical recipes, perhaps gathered according to spe-
cific aims and varieties and that he combines them with unequal
skill. Sometimes the method followed reminds one of the con-
temporary computer means of ‘cut and paste’. In the hymns, he
can split them and fill the gaps with innovative indications or parts
of different origins.
Finally, a special group is constituted by a few texts that exceed
the concept of ‘practical magic’ and show complex religious, philo-
sophical, soteriologic and mystery features and elements. The best
known of these texts is the so-called ‘Mithras Liturgy’, on whose
problems and complexity it is unnecessary to insist at this mo-
ment (more than simple magic: immortalisation!!). It is impor-
tant to observe that these ‘higher level’ texts can denote an in-
terest of the ‘scribal priest’ to enhance his good knowledge of all
aspects of the religious culture of his time. In my opinion, the key
term is ‘self-definition’, both in a general (or collective) sense (vs.
the successively superimposed Persian, Greek and Roman, in-
cluding Christianised Rome, dominations), and in a limited or per-
sonal sense (the Egyptian priest claiming his ancestral religious
authority). Whatever it may be, it is important to consider the fact
that a text like the ‘Mithras Liturgy’ originally belongs to a con-
crete historical and social milieu which is now far from the par-
ticular circumstances surrounding its appearance in this new mag-
ical context; at the same time, this re-usage illustrates the circu-
lation of magic-religious as a part of the ‘anonymous’ library of
the magician.
B. Texts with attribution to an ‘author’
Some of the aforementioned types of spells are attributed to a
concrete author. Of course, these ‘authors’ need not have had a
real existence. The list of names points to apocryphal designations
in most cases. There is no doubt as to the apocryphal character
when they mention venerable and legendary individuals. The long
list of names include names of both venerable and unknown au-
thors (sometimes with explicit mention of the name) belonging
to the next literary and religious traditions: Egyptian (Zminis of
Tentyra 53 , Payksakh from Cusae 54 , Pnouthis the scribe 55 ,
Manetho 56, Nephotes 57, Pitys 58, Pibechis 59, the hierogrammateus
Phthe 60, and the painter Ieu 61), Greek/Roman (Orpheus 62, Eroty-
54
PDM XIV 232-238 (a priest).
55
PGM I 42-195.
56
PGM III 424-266.
57
PGM IV 154-285.
58
Described as king in IV 1928 and 2006.
59
PGM IV 3007.
60
PGM XIII 958.
61
PGM V 96.
62
PGM XIII 934 ss.
63
Author of Orphica, PGM XIII 947.
36 Suarez de la Torre (279-286):Layout 1 15-05-2012 16:32 Pagina 285

THE ‘LIBRARY’ OF THE MAGICIAN 285

los 63, Hieros 64, Pa(n)crates/Pachrates 65, Euenos 66, Pyrrhos 67,
Himerios 68, Agathokles 69, Apollobex 70, Demokritos 71, Dard-
anos 72, Claudianus 73, Apollonius of Tyana 74, Philinna the Thes-
salian 75, Pitys the Thessalian 76, along with the pseudo-Ptolema-
ic treatise entitled “The one and the whole”, ’En kai; to; Pan 77,
and perhaps an Ourbikos [Urbicus?] 78), Semitic (Salomon 79,
Moses 80, a Syrian woman from Gadara 81, and Jacob 82), and Per-
sian (Zoroaster 83, Ostanes 84, Astrampsouchos 85).
I believe that here we have a very impressive amount of works,
usually under fictitious or merely pseudepigraphic attribution (a
real ‘orgy’ of pseudepigraphism!), covering a very large spectrum
of geographical and cultural origins and including almost all pos-
sible types of magical actions and formulas. Taking into account
the fact that in the magical papyri the alternative versions (with
frequent inappropriate, even absurd modifications), as well as the
allusions to copies of the same text, are not scarce), we could sur-
mise that, regarding the ‘technical’ texts, the library of the magi-
cian was conformed by a large amount of either anonymous
recipes, perhaps thematically grouped, and others with authorial
attribution possibly classified either by types of spell (letters, ste-
lai, rings…) or by author’s name.
CONCLUSIONS
• These papyri reflect a progressive modification of the collec-
tions either put on the shelves of an Egyptian scriptorium (‘House
of life’ per-‘nh) or those of a more isolated priest. As for the ‘Greek’
(original or ˘translated) technical texts, there was a good amount
of receptaries of different periods (some of them quite old).
Sometimes they were older grimmoires containing disparate
recipes, but there were probably more cultivated Greek collec-
tions of texts, grouped according to their different genre form:
stelai, letters, and specific formularies. Some of them were at-
tributed to a concrete author. The scribes must have had access
to a good number of anthologies of spells, circulating in the Greek
language probably since the Hellenistic period.
• The mass of apocryphal (pseudepigraphic) literature was very
impressive. The books were attributed not only to ancient, pres-
tigious Jewish, Persian, Babylonian or Greek ‘wise-men’, but al-
so to almost contemporary Greek, Roman and Egyptian authors
renowned in different religious, scientific or philosophical fields.
Indeed sometimes those names could have been added as a mere
warrant of good results, but, for instance, the different Books as-
signed to Moses were more than a simple name.
• Another important group of treatises is the multifarious ‘her-
metic’ literature. Thus, beside the books of the ancient Egyptian
wisdom circulating under the name of Thot-Hermes, and the
Greek Corpus Hermeticum, we glimpse at the existence of a vast
magical hermetic literature.
• I dare to say that in this particular scriptorium there was no
shortage of Greek philosophical and scientific works: medical and
botanical, for instance.
• Oracular collections of different kinds, either born in concrete
mystic and theological environments or reunited through other
means, are also to be presumed to be a part of the collection.
• A good amount of hymnic Greek literature was part of this
library. Knowledge of Greek repertoires of hymns, aretalogies and
related genres can be detected.
• Beside the Greek rolls gathered by the scribes, we must not dis-
miss the large amount of Jewish literature (canonical and apoc-
ryphal), as well as other non-literary Jewish texts, specifically ‘magic’.
• As an additional remark, it must be observed that translation
was probably an important part of the work of these magicians.
There is great effort for precision in the use of technical terms.
• Finally, the papyri show the spectacular role played by these
magicians in a kind of underground labour of intercultural com-
munication. Within those texts, all frontiers (regional, cultural, re-
ligious, linguistic) disappeared. They succeeded in expanding a
striking cultural koiné and, at the same time, they subtly showed
that the Egyptian cultural canvas could harmonise universal wis-
dom... for very practical aims.

76
64
PGM XIII 954. PGM IV 2140.
77
65
PGM IV 2446-2455. On his identity see now OGDEN 2007, quoted at footnote PGM XIII 980. It is described as belonging to a group of ‘Ptolemaic’ works.
78
n. 24, pp. 248-259. PGM XII 316-350.
79
66
PGM XIII 965. PGM IV 850.
80
67
PGM XIII 970. PGM VII 619-27, XIII 1-343 (the Unique or Eighth book of Moses), 343-646
68
PGM XII 96. (the Eighth or Holy Book of Moses), 971-973 (the book of Moses entitled
69
PGM XII 107. Archangelic).
81
70
PGM XII 121. PGM XX 4.
82
71
PGM VII 167-186; 795-845; XII 351. PGM XXIIb 1.
83
72
PGM IV 1716. PGM XIII 967.
84
73
PGM VII 862. PGM IV 2006, XII 122.
85
74
PGM XIa 1. PGM VIII 1-63.
75
PGM XX 13.
36 Suarez de la Torre (279-286):Layout 1 15-05-2012 16:32 Pagina 286
286
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABT 1908 = A. ABT, Die Apologie des Apuleius von Madaura und die antike Za-
uberei, Giessen 1908 (repr. Berlin 1967).
BETZ 19922 = H. D. BETZ (ed.), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, I. Texts,
Chicago-London, 1992.
BETZ 2003 = H. D. BETZ, The “Mithras Liturgy”, Tübingen 2003.
BUITENWERF 2003 = R. Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and its So-
cial Setting, Leiden 2003.
BUSINE 2005 = A. BUSINE, Paroles d’Apollon, Leiden 2005.
BUTLER-OWEN 1914 = H.E. BUTLER, A.S. OWEN (eds.), Apulei Apologia sive Pro
se de magia liber, Oxford (rep. Hildesheim 1967) 1914.
CHASSINAT 1928 = É. CHASSINAT, Le temple d’Edfou, 3, Cairo 1928.
CALVO MARTÍNEZ-SÁNCHEZ ROMERO 1987 = J.L. CALVO MARTÍNEZ, Mª. D. SÁNCHEZ
ROMERO, Textos de magia en papiros griegos, Madrid 1987, reimpr. 2004.
CALVO MARTÍNEZ 2003 = J.L. CALVO MARTÍNEZ, Dos himnos ‘mágicos’ al Creador.
Edición crítica con introducción y comentario, MHNH 3, 2003, pp. 231-250.
CALVO MARTÍNEZ 2004 = J.L. CALVO MARTÍNEZ, El himno Cai`re dravkwn a He-
lios del papiro parisino. Edición crítica con introducción y comentario, MHNH
4, 2004, 265-278.
CALVO MARTÍNEZ 2006 = J.L. CALVO MARTÍNEZ, El himno a Helios jAerofoithvtwn
ajnevmwn en la colección PGM, MHNH 6, 2006, pp. 157-176.
DANIEL 1991 = R.W. DANIEL, Two Greek Magical Papyri in the National Muse-
um of Antiquities in Leiden: A Photographic Edition of J384 and J395 (= PGM
XII and XIII), Köln 1991.
DES PLACES 1997 = É. DES PLACES, Jamblique. Les mystères d’Égypte, Paris 1997
DICKIE 2001 = M.W. DICKIE, Magic and Magicians in the Ancient Greek World,
London 2001.
DIELEMAN 2005 = J. DIELEMAN, Priests, Tongues, and Rites: The London-Leiden
Magical Manuscripts and Translation in Egyptian Ritual 100-300 CE, Leiden 2005.
EITREM 1947 = S. EITREM, Orakel und Mysterien am Ausgang der Antike, Zürich
1947.
FARAONE 2000 = C.A. FARAONE, Handbooks and Anthologies: The Collection of
Greek and Egyptian Incantations in Late Hellenistic Egypt, AfR 2, 2000, pp. 195-
214.
FESTUGIÈRE 1950-1954 = A.J. FESTUGIÈRE, La révélation d’Hermes Trismégiste,
I: L’Astrologie et les sciences occultes, Paris 19502; II: Le Dieu cosmique, 1949;
III: Les doctrines de l´âme, 19533; IV: Le dieu inconnu et la gnose, 19543.
FOWDEN 1986 = G. FOWDEN, The Egyptian Hermes. A Historical Approach to
the Late Pagan Mind, Princeton 1986.
FRANKFURTER 1997 = D. FRANKFURTER, Ritual Expertise in Roman Egypt and the
Problem of the Category ‘Magician’, in P. SCHÄFER, H. G. KIPPENBERG (eds.), En-
visioning Magic. A Princeton Seminar and Symposium, Leiden-New York-Köln
1997, pp. 115-135.
FRANKFURTER 1998 = D. FRANKFURTER, Religion in Roman Egypt. Assimilation
and Resistance, Princeton 1998.
FRANKFURTER 2000 = D. FRANKFURTER, The Consequences of Hellenism in Late
Antique Egypt: Religious Worlds and Actors, ARG 2, 2000, pp. 166-183.
FREDE 1989 = M. Frede, Chaeremon, ANRW II.36.3, pp. 2067-2103.
GORDON 1999 = R. GORDON, Imagining Greek and Roman Magic, in B. ANKAR-
LOO - S. CLARK, Witchcraft and Magic in Europe, Philadelphia 1999, pp. 159-
275.
EMILIO SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE
GORDON 2002 = R. GORDON, Shaping the Text: Innovation and Authority in Grae-
co-Egyptian Malign Magic, in H.F.J. HORSTMANHOFF, H.W. SINGOR, F.T. VAN
STRATEN, J.H.M. STRUBBE (eds.), Kykeon. Studies in Honour of H. S. Versnel,
Leiden-Boston-Köln, 2002, pp. 69-11.
GRAF 1996 = F. GRAF, Gottesnähe und Schadenzauber. Die Magie in der
griechisch-römischen Antike, München 1996.
HIJMANS Jr. 1994 = B.L. HIJMANS, Apuleius orator: ‘Pro se de Magia’ and ‘Flori-
da’, ANRW 2.34.2 (1994), pp. 1708-84.
HOPFNER 1921-24 = TH. HOPFNER, Griechisch-Ägyptischer Offenbarungszauber,
I, Leipzig 1921, Amsterdam 19742; II1 Leipzig 1924, Amsterdam 19832; II2
Leipzig 1924, Amsterdam 19902.
HORST 1984 = P.W. VAN DER HORST, Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philoso-
pher, Leiden 19872.
HUNINK 1997 = V. HUNINK, Apuleius of Madauros: Pro Se de Magia, Amsterdam
1997.
LIGHTFOOT 2007 = J.L. LIGHTFOOT, The Sibylline Oracles, with Introduction,
Translation, and Commentary on the First and Second Books, Oxford 2007.
MERKELBACH-TOTTI 1990-1991 = R. MERKELBACH, M. TOTTI, Abrasax: aus-
gewählte Papyri religiösen und magischen Inhalts, I, Gebete, Opladen, West-
deutscher Verlag, II, Gebete (Fortsetzung), Opladen 1990-1991.
NIETO 2010 = J.Mª NIETO IBÁÑEZ, Cristianismo y profecías de Apolo. Los orácu-
los paganos en la patrística griega, siglos II al V, Madrid 2010.
OGDEN 2007 = D. OGDEN, In Search of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. The traditional
tales of Lucian’s Lover of Lies, Swansea 2007.
POCCETTI 1991 = P. POCCETTI, Forma e tradizioni dell’inno magico nel mondo
classico, in: L’inno tra rituale e letteratura nel mondo antico, O Fil.-Lett. 13,
1991, pp. 179-204.
SANZI-SFAMENI 2009 = E. SANZI, C. SFAMENI, Magia e culti orientali. Per la sto-
ria religiosa della tarda antichità (prefazione di R. L. GORDON), Cosenza 2009.
SCHÄFER-KIPPENBERG 1997 = P. SCHÄFER, H.G. KIPPENBERG (eds.), Envisioning
Magic. A Princeton Seminar and Symposium, Leiden-New York-Köln 1997.
SFAMENI GASPARRO 2000 = G. SFAMENI GASPARRO, Tra Gnosticismo e magia.
Spazio e ruolo della prassi magica nell’universo religioso dello gnosticismo, in Il
tardoantico alle soglie del 2000. Driritto, Religione, Società, Atti del 5º Conveg-
no nazionale dell’Associazione di Studi Tardoantichi, Pisa 2000, pp.1-35.
SUÁREZ 20002 = E. SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE, Oráculos Sibilinos, in Apócrifos del An-
tiguo Testamento, III, Madrid 20022, pp. 331-444.
SUÁREZ 2004 = E. SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE, Apollo, teologo cristiano, Annali di Scien-
ze Religiose 8, 2003, pp. 129-153
SUÁREZ 2009a = E. SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE, La divinazione nei papiri pagici greci,
in M. MONACA (ed.), Problemi di storia religiosa del mondo tardo-antico. Tra man-
tica e magia, Cosenza 2009.
SUÁREZ 2009b = E. SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE, The Religious Background of the Greek
Magical Papyri, Paper presented to the FIEC – Conference, Berlin, 24-29 August
2009.
VAN LIEFFERINGE 1999 = C. VAN LIEFFERINGE, La Théurgie. Des Oracles Chal-
daïques, à Proclus, Liège 1999.