¹ Jaffé, David “The Barberini Circle: Some Exchanges between Peiresc, Rubens and their Contemporaries,” Journal of the History of Collections 1 (1989) 119–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Meulen-Schregardus, Hermance M. van der, Petrus Paulus Rubens Antiquarius: Collector and Copyist of Antique Gems (Alphen aan den Rijn: Vis-Druk, 1975)Google Scholar ; Neverov, Oleg, “Gems in the Collection of Rubens,” The Burlington Magazine 121 (1979) 424–32Google Scholar.

³ Note, for example, the writings cited by Chiflet, Jean in his introduction to Macarius, Joannes (Jean L'Heureux), Abraxas seu Apistopistus (Antwerp: Balthasaris Moreti, 1657) 6–8Google Scholar (including a reference to Peiresc). Although the use of the term “Gnostic” as a designation for the magic gems has fallen into considerable disfavor today, there is enough overlap between the “magic” and “Gnostic” systems to argue for a serious reappraisal of their affiliation. We take this up, to some degree, below.

⁴ Koehler, H., “Erläuterung eines von Peter Paul Rubens an Nicolas Claude Fabri de Peiresc gerichteten Dankschreibens,” Mémoires de l‘Academie impériale des Sciences de Saint Pétersbourg 6.3 (1836) 1–34, esp. 11-13; 23-24Google Scholar ; Rubens, Peter Paul, Correspondence de Rubens (vol. 3; eds. Rooses, Max and Ruelens, Charles; Anvers: Veuve de Backer, 1900) 203–39Google Scholar ; Bonner, Campbell, Studies in Magical Amulets, Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1950) 80–83Google Scholar ; Barb, Alphons A., “Diva Matrix: A Faked Gnostic Intaglio in the Possession of P. Rubens and the Iconology of a Symbol,” JWCI 16 (1953) 193–98Google Scholar ; , Meulen-Schregardus, Petrus Paulus Rubens, 35 and 91Google Scholar.

⁵ See , Bonner, Studies in Magical Amulets, 80–83Google Scholar , citing the implausible theories of Matter, Jacques(Histoire critique du Gnosticisme [3 vols.; Paris: Bertrand, 1828] 3. 51–53)Google Scholar , Koehler (“Erlauterung”), and King, Charles William (The Gnostics and Their Remains, Ancient and Mediaeval [2d ed.; London: Nutt, 1887] 110–11, 300)Google Scholar.

⁶ See, for example, MS 9530, Française, Fonds, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, 234–35; MS 1809, Bibliotheque Inguimbertine, Carpentras, 400Google Scholar.

⁷ Peiresc to Claude Saumaise, 14 November 1633, Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc. Lettres a Claude Saumaise et a son entourage (1620-1637) (ed. Bresson, Agnes; Le Corrispondenze letterarie, scientifiche ed erudite dal Rinascimento all’ eta moderna 3; Florence: Olschki, 1992) 33Google Scholar.

⁸ Peiresc to Dupuy, Pierre, Lettres de Peiresc (7 vols.; ed., Larroque, Philippe Tamizey de; Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1894) 5. 559–61, 563-65, 572, 575.Google Scholar Peiresc usually refers to the inscriptions merely as “Greek letters” and once refers to a gem “with various angel names on the reverse” (Lettres, 560). Peiresc's most ambitious commentary, including a nearly correct reading of a seven-line inscription, is on a gem he owned, now in the Cabinet des Medailles, Paris (= Delatte, Armand and Derchain, Philippe, Les intailles magiques greco-e'gyptiennes [Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale, 1964] 188–89, no. 250Google Scholar ); see , Bresson, Nicolas-Claude de Peiresc, 33–34Google Scholar.

⁹ The “snake eating its tail,” or ouroboros (from the Greek оύρβόρоς/оύρоβόρоς, “devouring its tail”), is a magic figure widely studied as an Egyptian symbol of perpetuity; see Kakosy, Laszlo, “Ouroboros,” Lexikon der Āgyptologie 6 (1986) 886–93Google Scholar ; Deonna, Waldemar, “Ouroboros,” Artibus Asiae 15 (1952) 163–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Preisendanz, Karl, “Ein altes Ewigkeitssymbol als Signet und Druckmarke,” Gutenburg-Jahrbuch (1935) 143–49Google Scholar ; idem, “Aus der Geschichte des Uroboros,” in Ferdinand Herrmann and Wolfgang Treutlein, eds., Brauch und Sinnbild: Eugen Fehrle zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Schulern und Freunden (Karlsruhe: Kommissionsverlag, 1940) 195-209.

¹⁰ See plate 1; MS 9530, Fonds Française, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, 222. We are grateful to David Jaffé for information on Peiresc and for suggesting that the drawing pictured here is by his own hand.

¹¹ “Nycheuabolbach, ō loaēioueue aouaēi Bak[axichy]ch Keratagas, Iaō Master of the Universe, Iaō.” This restored reading is based on the parallel in the Peiresc gem. The beige onyx is engraved on one surface only and measures 3.3 x 2.9 cm. It was first published in Mouterde, René, “Le Glaive de Dardanos: Objets et inscriptions magiques de Syrie,” Melanges de VVniversite Saint-Joseph 15 (1930) 72–74, no. 7, plate 2, 3 and figure 7.Google Scholar The piece supposedly comes from Beirut and pictures a lion-headed ouroboros encircling the words, “Iao Master of the Universe” (see Job 5:8; Wis 6:7; 8:3), along with several ring-like characters and a small human bust. We were able to examine this piece at a Munich antiquities dealer in May, 1990. It has subsequently appeared at auction; see Frank Sternberg, AG, , Zurich, Auction 24 (19-20 11, 1990) lot 463Google Scholar.

¹² See the second half of n. 33.

¹³ See Thompson, Henry O., “Yahweh,” Anchor Bible Dictionary 6 (1992) 1011a.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See, for example, Kotansky, Roy, “Two Inscribed Jewish Aramaic Amulets from Syria,” IEJ 41 (1991) 267–81Google Scholar , with commentary on B 7 (p. 279); on “Yahobel” (Yahoba + el-terminative) in reference to the Slavonic Ladder of Jacob 2:18 Yoava, see Charlesworth, James H., ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983-1985) 2. 408Google Scholar ; Kotansky, Roy, Naveh, Joseph, and Shaked, Shaul, “A Greek-Aramaic Silver Amulet from Egypt in the Ashmolean Museum,” Mus 105 (1992) 5–24, line 4Google Scholar : loue ( = nin'). Forms like rrarr and rvanw, discussed by Naveh, Joseph and Shaked, Shaul (Amulets and Magic Bowls [Jerusalem: Magnes and Leiden: Brill, 1985] 165–66)Google Scholar , also seem to give inescapable examples, although the editors themselves sound a cautionary note by interpreting such examples as rranin as Yah-in-Yah. Numerous Greek examples of such renderings without (“in”) for the Tetragrammaton can be adduced from the papyri and the church fathers (for example, ’Ιαβέ or ’Ιαουε). The Semitic examples with, therefore, can hardly be explained as the preposition “in” (which makes little onomastic sense here), but must represent traditional pronunciations of the Divine Name. Even our gem's ηoυαυη (if articulated ή ού αυη, =/Fη/, that is, (y)ê hou wên) closely approximates Yehovah. Wolf Wilhelm Grafen Baudissin (Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, vol.1: Der Ursprung des Gottesnamens ’Ιάω [Leipzig: Grunow, 1876] 204, no. 20) cites a gem with the letters Ιαωηε (Yahweh); see also the Gnostic Ap. John 24.18-19: Eloim and Yave (NHC 3.1).

¹⁵ See the widely circulated (but unpublished) index to PGM, Register VI, s.v.; Daniel, Robert W. and Maltomini, Franco, Supplementum Magicum I (Papyrologica Coloniensia 16; Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1990) no. 44, 15Google Scholar , and commentary on 161, which cites Hopfner, Theodor, “Der religionsgeschichtliche Gehalt des groBen demotischen Zauberpapyrus,” ArOr 7 (1935) 114–15Google Scholar ; and Ritner, Robert, in Betz, Hans Dieter, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation (2d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992) 202 n. 76Google Scholar.

¹⁶ For example, PGM 5.11, 362, 366-67 (ιαεω ονω βακαζιξνξ)and elsewhere.

¹⁷ Although no Greek nouns in -άγραζ are attested thus far, in Oppian, the uncommon adjectives, δνσαγρής, -ές (“unluckily caught”); εύαγρής, ές, (“lucky in the chase”); and πολυαγρής, -ές (“catching much game”), provide a good morphological connection to the nominal type κερατάγρας, ου, ό (“hunter of horn”). The compound would be equivalent to such formations in -θήρας for which simplex masculine forms are not known: έλεφαντοθήρας, ου, ό (“elephant-hunter”); ίξθυοθήρας, ου, ό (“fish-hunter”); όρνιθoήρß (“bird-catcher”) (see óρνιθαλρεντnß, oν, ó [“bird catcher”] in Scholia to Aristoph. Nu. 731); see also Buck, Carl Darling and Petersen, Walter, A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives (Midway reprint; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975) 697, 2.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The two need not be mutually exclusive; the epithet may actually describe an age-old theriomorphic deity whose devotees would have enacted the hunting ritual clad in masks of horned prey; see our excursus below; Karageorghis, Vassos, “Notes on some Cypriote Priests Wearing Bull-Masks,” HTR 64 (1971) 261–70Google Scholar ; Sjöqvist, Erik, “Die Kultgeschichte eines cyprischen Temenos,” ARW 30 (1933) 308–59Google Scholar , esp. 344-47; Burkert, Walter (Greek Religion [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985] 65)Google Scholar mentions the Cypriot priests equated with mytho-logical Horned Ones, the Kerastai (see p. 372 n. 94, citing , OvidMet. 10.223–37)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ , Buck and , Petersen, Reverse Index, 307.Google Scholar

²⁰ Schmidt, Carl, ed., and MacDermot, Violet, trans., The Books ofJeu and the Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex (NHS 13; Leiden: Brill, 1978)Google Scholar , “Index of Greek Words,” p. 331Google Scholar (Untitled 228, 234, p. 219, with notes citing Iren. Adv. haer. 1.1, 12.3; Eugnostos 74; Soph. Jes. Chr. 90; Pistis Soph. 19); other examples from Schmidt and MacDermot include: ανιoπαιωρ, “self-engendered father” (p. 329: Untitled 228, 234, 248, etc.; Epiph. Pan. 26.10.4; Eugnostos 75; Soph. Jes. Chr. 95); απαιωρ, “fatherless” (p. 328: Jeu 104, 121); ανιoπαιωρ, “the forefatherless one” (p. 331: Jeu 121); and ανιoπαιωρ, “forefather” (p. 331: Untitled 228, 230, 248, 252, etc.).

²¹ LSJ, s.v. μóνoß, 1.2.

²² Corp. Herm. 8.2, 5; for the identity of the second being as the Cosmos, see Ibid., 8.1.

²³ “The second god is perceived as corporeal but conceives of the first as bodiless.” Ibid., 8.5.

²⁴ The first god is bodiless, immovable and indivisible. …” Porphyry De Abstinentia 231.

²⁵ σωμα here is akin to Plato's description of the whole of the cosmos in Tim. 28B, “The Cosmos has come into existence, because it is visible, tangible, and has substance” (see further, Tim. 31B-32C). Plato's Timaeus was a favorite of Gnostic and Neoplatonist cosmographers.

²⁶ Tri. Trac. 51.6-19; Attridge, Harold W. and Mueller, Dieter, trans., in Robinson, James M., ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (3d ed.; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988) 60.Google Scholar

²⁷ See LSJ, s.v. σωμα, IV.

²⁸ Tri. Trac. 54.28-32 (ET: , Attridge and , Mueller, Nag Hammadi, 62).Google Scholar

²⁹ Unlike the reading of the Mouterde gem, the Peiresc text seems to divide the magic names into an unequivocal triad in its use of the article 6 before each name of the triadic unity.

³⁰ Trim. Prot. 35.1-6; 10-11; 19-21; Layton, Bentley, The Gnostic Scriptures (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987) 89.Google Scholar Of course, the notion of an all-pervading god in all these texts owes much to Stoicism, whether the god is described as a σωμα, πνεύμα, or ψυχή. See Proclus In Platonis Timaeum (citing Chrysippus), p. 297 Schneider (= von Arnim, SVF II §1042 [p. (according to Chrysippus), being primary, pervades the cosmos and matter, and is a soul and principal not separate from its inhabitants” (see von Arnim, SVF II §1027 [p. 306, 22]). If the Peiresc gem, too, seems indebted to Stoic ideas of god, it shares this with Gnosticism as the common property of late antique thought. But the vocabulary of the Peiresc gem is not especially Stoic, eschewing, for example, the widespread terminus technicus διήκειν in favor of the common πορεύομαι, a verb indicating real motion, as in the Gnostic texts cited above.

³¹ Among the various Gnostic documents, some confusion of epithets and attributes are bound to exist when describing such primal entities as the Parent of the Entirety (the First Principle) and Barbelo (the Second Principle), who is often explained as an hypostasis or forethought of the Entirety. Before this “hypostasization,” of course, there was no “First Principle” at all, as “first” already implies the existence of what is “second.” In a sense, therefore, the inexplicable emanation of another principle from what is wholly perfect in its abstract entirety creates a sort of cosmic duality that never before existed. The first emanation from the Entirety, then, is in itself a “First” of sorts; it only becomes the “Second” Principle when defined over-and-against the Entirety. This is why the language of primacy can be readily applied to a Second Principle. Note, for example, Steles Seth 120.26: “You are a parent (produced) by a parent” (Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 154, with n. j: “The Barbelo is ‘parent’ of its constituents, even while being a product of the invisible parent or One”); further, Steles Seth 121.30: “O you who are nonexistent” (with n. f: “The Barbelo aeon is here addressed by an epithet of its parent” [p. 154]). For an excellent overview of the Gnostic cosmic drama, see Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 14–15.

³² See the description of Barbelo in Steles Seth 120.32-33: “You have come into existence from the One by the One / You have traveled: you have entered the One” (Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 154, with n. m, which equates “traveled” with becoming immanent).

³³ The tripartite name alluded to in Trim. Prot. 35.5 is later specified as “Father, Mother, Son” in 37.20 (Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 91; see 233, n. a). Elsewhere in Trimorphic Protennoia we find triadic names (formed from the luminaries), such as Phainion-Ainion-Oroiaēl (38.35); Mellephanea-Lōion-Daueithai (39.1); and Mousanion-Amethēn-Ēlēlēth (39.3-4). For other references to such triadic forms in the so-called Sethian or Barbeloite Gnostic texts, note Apocryphon of John (NHC 2.1; 3.1; 4.1; BG, 2); Gospel of the Egyptians (NHC 3.2; 4.2); Steles Seth (NHC 7.5); Zostrianus (NHC 8.1); Allogenes (NHC 11.3). Although there is no precise parallel to our Ioaeouaue-Bakaxichych-Keratagras in Gnostic texts, the rare examples given above show that virtually any triadic name could be made up. Quite close, perhaps, to our Ioaēouauē, is the name given to the parent Barbelo in Gos. Eg. 54.1-7: Iēoueaō and in 78.17: Iēeouōa (see Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 107 n. d, and 118). For the frequent occurrence of magic names in the Barbelo (Sethian) systems, note Howard M. Jackson, “The Origin in Ancient Incantatory Voces Magicae of Some Names in the Sethian Gnostic System,” VC43 (1989) 69-79.

³⁴ Note, for example, Steles Seth 122.1, 8-11: “You are a superior unit! [= Monad]/… And you have been a cause of multiplicity: / And you have found and remained One, while yet being a / cause of multiplicity in order to become divided. / You are a threefold replication: truly you are thrice replicated. You are One belonging to the One.…” (Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 155 with notes).

³⁵ Egger, Rudolf (“Inschriften,” Der römische Limes in Österreich 16 [1926] 135–56, lines 8-9Google Scholar ), publishes a similar miscopied designation onto a lead curse-tablet, but this time with a bit more of the instructions:∑ολουμ«ω»νος σπρίται έν ώρα τού ώ… (“Seal of Solomon is to be worn in the hour of the… ).” Note also the inscription on the carnelian in Philipp, Hanna, Mira et Magica: Gemmen im Agyptischen Museum der staatlichen Museen (Mainz: von Zabern, 1986) 119–20, no. 196, 11-13Google Scholar : αύτη ή σπραγή«ς» αύτή ήτι{ς} ή σπραγείς ήν γραπομένη (“This is the seal itself, the seal that was inscribed”).

³⁶ Blanchet, Adrien, “Une pierre gnostique apparentée peut-étre à la ‘Pistis Sophia,’” Mélanges Maspero, vol. 2: Orient grec, romain et byzantin (Cairo: L'Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1934-1937) 283–87Google Scholar ; , Delatte and , Derchain, lntailles magiques, 317, no. 462Google Scholar ; and Bonner, Campbell and Youtie, Herbert C., “A Magical Inscription on a Chalcedony,” TAPA 84 (1953) 60–66Google Scholar , reprinted in Youtie, Herbert C., Scriptiunculae Posteriores (2 vols.; Bonn: Habelt, 1981-1982) 2. 676–82Google Scholar.

³⁷ It is also possible that scribes copied texts in languages with which they were not familiar. They would transcribe the letters beautifully but be completely unaware of what they were copying. A good example of such a misread text was a curse tablet originally published as nonsense by Mouterde (“Glaive de Dardanos,” 106-7), but brilliantly restored to its putative, original model by Jordan, David R. (“New Defixiones from Carthage,” in Humphrey, John H., ed., The Circus and a Byzantine Cemetery at Carthage [Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988] 1. 126–27Google Scholar ). The tablet's provenance, Berytus, suggests that the scribe was a semitic-speaking Jew who did not know Greek.

³⁸ Delatte, Armand, Anecdota Atheniensia, vol. 1: Texte relatifs à l'histoire des religions (Bibliothèque de la faculté de l'Université de Liège 36; Liège: Vaillant-Carmanne, 1927) 245Google Scholar , 34sqq.; compare also 122, 19-22; 127, 1-2; 263, 7-9; see further on this tradition, Kotansky, Naveh, and Shaked, “Silver Amulet,” lines 16, 27, with commentary, 19. The most pertinent reference to Solomon's seal in the magical papyri occurs in PGM 4.3040:ότι όρκίζω σε κατά τής σπραγίδος, ήςέθετο ∑ολομών έπί τήν γήν γλώσσαν τού Ιηρεμίου, καί έλάλησεν (“because I adjure you by the seal which Solomon placed on Jeremiah's tongue, and he spoke”); see Sperber, Daniel, “Some Rabbinic Themes in Magical Papyri,” JSJ 16 (1985) 93–103, esp. 95-99Google Scholar . Further, Duling, Dennis C. (“The Eleazar Miracle and Solomon's Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus's Antiquitates Judaicae 8.42-49,” HTR 78 [1985] 1–25, esp. 15-17)Google Scholar gives references to Solomon's seal ring and amulets in rabbinic and Jewish sources; see also idem, “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David,” HTR 68 (1975) esp. 246-47. The Nag Hammadi tractate On the Origin of the World (NHC 2.5 and 13.2) also mentions a Book of Solomon as if it is widely known (107.14); and Apoc. Adam 79.3-18 (NHC 5.5) refers to the proverbial demons under Solomon's control. Duling (“Eleazar Miracle,” 17) mentions Solomon only in 2 Treat. Seth 63.11 (NHC 7.2) and in Testim. Truth 70 and 6.27 (NHC 9.3).

³⁹ See PGM 2 pl. 1.4 (on PGM 7.17)

⁴⁰ PGM 12.274-77.

⁴¹ PGM 1.143-47.

⁴² Bonner, Campbell, “Magical Amulets,” HTR 39 (1946) 25–53, esp. 25-26CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; and idem, Studies in Magical Amulets, 1-2.

⁴³ , Bonner, Studies in Magical Amulets, 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid.,135.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 135-36; originally published in idem, “An Amulet of the Ophite Gnostics,” in Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear (Hesperia Suppl. 8; 1949; re-printed Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1975) 43–46Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Bonner (Studies in Magical Amulets, 136) cites Irenaeus Adv. haer. 1.28.1-8; and Origen Cels. 6.32.15-26, 6.30-31 (see also 6.30-31). Fuller discussion and sources are available in R. van den Broek, “The Creation of Adam's Psychic Body in the Apocryphon of John,” in idem and Marten Vermaseren, eds., Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions Presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (EPRO 91; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 38-57; Jackson, Howard M. (The Lion Becomes Man: The Gnostic Leontomorphic Creator and the Platonic Tradition [SBLDS 81; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985] 21–26Google Scholar ) gives the best up-to-date treatment of the gem.

⁴⁷ PGM 1.143-46.

⁴⁸ There is much that is Gnostic in this shorter magical handbook, P. Berol. 5025 (PGM 1), especially the unusual invocation of the itponritcop in lines 195-222. The spell, called a “prayer of deliverance” (ρυστική), contains little of the ordinary kind of language found in the longer magical formularies and is rich in Gnostic slogans (πρωτοφυής [“firstborn”]; πρωτογενής θεός [“first-engendered god”]; προπάτωρ [“first father”]; άναπαύεσθαι [“to repose”]; αίών-compounds; ρίζωμα [“root”]; δεκανοi [“decans”]; σοπία [“wisdom”]; άνάγκη[“fate”]; είμαρμένη [“destiny”]; θλίβεσθαι of the ψυχή [“tribulation (of the soul)”]; δαίμων άέριος [“aerial demon”]; καταλαμβάνεσθαι [“to be constrained”], etc.). Although pointing out the particularly Adamic and Jewish character of this spell, Peterson, Erik (“Die Befreiung Adams aus der ‘Aνάγκη,” in Fruhkirche, Judentum, und Gnosis.: Studien und Untersuchungen [Freiburg: Herder, 1959] 107–28Google Scholar ) was not–before the advent of the Nag Hammadi library–in a position to recognize its Gnostic features; see further, Kotansky, Roy, “Incantations and Prayers for Salvation on Inscribed Greek Amulets,” in Faraone, Christopher A. and Obbink, Dirk, eds., Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) 107–37, esp. n. 110Google Scholar ; Fossum, Jarl and Glazer, Brian, “Seth in the Magic Texts,” ZPE 100 (1994) 86–92, esp. 87 and n. 6Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Scholem, Gershom G., Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (2d ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965) 72.Google Scholar, Jackson (Lion Be-comes Man, 16–21)Google Scholar treats the subject fully and writes, “Ariel proved to be a fashionable archontic name for Gnostic mythographers; it emerges in decadent contexts in which its original leonine associations seem either to have been neglected or forgotten altogether” (p. 21). Bonner's Ialdabaoth gemstone is not one of those “neglected or forgotten” examples; Jackson has much of importance to say about it (pp. 21-24).

⁵⁰ See, for example, PGM 4.2708-84; Artemis Agrotera (and Agraia), the “Artemis of the Hunt,” mentioned first in Il. 21.470 (with πότνια θηρών), regularly received sacrifice before battle; see Jameson, Michael H., “Sacrifice before Battle,” in Hanson, Victor D., ed., Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience (London/New York: Routledge, 1991) 197–227, esp. 209-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For Artemis in magic, see Hopfner, Theodor, “Hekate-Selene-Artemis und Verwandte in den griechischen Zauberpapyri und auf den Fluchtafeln,” in Klauser, Theodor and Rucker, Adolf, eds., Pisciculi: Studien zur Religion undKulturdes Altertums (Münster: Aschendorff, 1939) 125–45Google Scholar ; on Artemis in general, see , Burkert, Greek Religion, 149–52Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Apollo as a hunter is well-established; as Apollo Agraios at Megara (Paus. 1.41.6), he is the equivalent of his sister Artemis the huntress. , Burkert (Greek Religion, 145,Google Scholar see also 405 n. 22) also proposes some intriguing comparisons between Apollo and Semitic Rešep (and the Hittite guardian god) who are associated with the horned, stag- and bull-gods, as well as with bow and arrow. Faraone, Christopher A. (Talismans and Trojan Horses: Guardian Statues in Ancient Greek Myth and Ritual [New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992] 125–27Google Scholar ; appendix 1: “Reshep, Irra, and the ‘Oriental’ Apollo”) compares the “pestilential” Apollo to the Hittite god Irra; see further idem, “Bow-Bearing Plague Gods: Heracles, Apollo, Artemis,” in , Faraone, Talismans and Trojan Horses, 57–61Google Scholar . Of course, as god of the bow (made of horn), Apollo is a god who exerts his influence beyond the sport of chase and hunt; he is slayer of the giant Tityos and the serpent Python.

⁵² See , Burkert, Greek Religion, 65, 92, 144, and 372 n. 93.Google Scholar

⁵³ At Dreros, Psychro, and Kato Syme; , Burkert, Greek Religion, 372 n. 93Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ See LSJ, s.vv. κάρνον, κάρνος. Pettersson, Michael (Cults of Apollo at Sparta: The Hyakinthia, the Gymnopaidiai and the Karneia [Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 1992] 57–72Google Scholar ) gives the most recent assessment of the festival. See also , Burkert, Greek Religion, 234–36, esp. 236,Google Scholar on the divine epithet Karneios (of Zeus as well as Apollo). Among other things, the Karneia involves a mock foot race in which a disadvantaged runner is chased down as in a hunt (see discussion below and n. 67). The beast of sacrifice is a ram, and ram's horns are linked with the festival's traditions. See , Pettersson, Cults of Apollo, 58–59Google Scholar and , Burkert, Greek Religion, 235, 440 n. 19,Google Scholar on an early votive inscription picturing ram's horns; for a ram-horned Apollo Karneios on coins, see Imhoof-Blumer, Friedrich, “Apollon Karneios auf kyrenaischen und anderen griechischen Munzen,” Revue Suisse de Numismatique 21 (1917) 5–11Google Scholar ; , Pettersson, Cults of Apollo, 61–62 and fig. 11.Google Scholar Greek τό κάρνον, “Gallic horn,” (Hesychius); ο κάρνος, “ram,” κερέινος;, “horned” (Aquila, Symmachus, etc.); Kάρνειος, Kαρινός (see nn. 64-65, below) must all be related to Semitic *QRN [horn]: Hebrew qeren; Aramaic qarnd'; Ugaritic qrn, all “horn” (of ram, goat, etc.). See Brown, John Pairman, “The Sacrificial Cult and its Critique in Greek and Hebrew (I),” JSS 24 (1979) 159–73, esp. 169-71Google Scholar ; and most recently Levin, Saul, “The Dilemma of Quantity or Quality in Inter-Phylum Etymologies,” in Volpe, A. D., ed., The Seventeenth LACUS Forum 1990 (Columbia, SC: Hornbeam, 1991) 408–17, esp. 411–14Google Scholar ; Levin, Saul, “Comparative Grammar of Indo-European and Semitic: Is This the Right Time?” General Linguistics 30 (1990) 152–64, esp. 156-57Google Scholar ; note also that the Arabic qarn(un) is translated “part of man's head where horns are in beasts” (see BDB, 901); cf. κρανίον, τό, and κάρηνον, τό, “head” (!); καρανώ, ή, “goat” (Cretan), (Hesychius); κράνα, II. = κεφαλή “head” (Hesychius); κράς («*κράνς?), “head,” etc. That Indo-European shares the same etymon (Latin cornu, etc.) should not detract from the importance of this comparison; note Walter Burkert's seminal remarks in The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992) 33–40Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Dikaios, Porphyrios, “The Bronze Statue of a Horned God from Enkomi,” Archdologischer Anzeiger (1962) 1–39Google Scholar ; idem, Enkomi: Excavations 1948-1958, vol. 1: The Architectural Remains. The Tombs (Mainz: von Zabern, 1969) 295Google Scholar ; Hadjioannou, Kyrianos, “On the Identification of the Horned God of Engomi-Alasia,” in Schaeffer, Claude F.-A., ed., Alasia (Mission archeologique d'Alasia 4; Paris: Klincksieck and Leiden: Brill, 1971) 33–42Google Scholar ; Vermeule, Emily T., Gotterkult (Archaeologia Homerica 3; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974) 158–62Google Scholar and see additional literature at 159 n. 293; further, , Burkert, Greek Religion, 47, 65, and 365 n. 3.Google Scholar The archaeological context of the statue, which measures only approximately 55 cm high, dates the object to the early 12th century BCE; there is clear evidence, however, that the object was used in the temple for at least a century. A second horned deity (the bronze Nergal-Rešep) surfaced at Enkomi in 1963; see, for example, Schaeffer, Claude F.-A., “Göiter der Nord- und Inselvolker in Zypern,” AfO 21 (1966) 59–69Google Scholar (including discussion of the earlier horned god).

⁵⁶ , Dikaios, “Horned God from Enkomi,” 8–11, and fig. 15.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Dikaios (Enkomi Excavations, 295) says, “The statue was found in room 10 of the Ashlar Building in Area I, placed in a pit dug in the debris from the destruction of Level III B, namely the second destruction of that building.” See further, Dikaios, “Horned God from Enkomi,” 18-24.

⁵⁸ See , Burkert, Greek Religion, 145 and 405, n. 22,Google Scholar especially on Apollo of Amyklai's equation with Rešep (A)mukal; further, see Burkert, Walter, “Rešep-Figuren, Apollon von Amyklai und die ‘Erfindung’ des Opfers auf Cypern. Zur Religionsgeschichte der ‘Dunklen Jahrhunderte,’” Grazer Beiträge 4 (1974) 51–79Google Scholar ; Edward Lipiński, “Resheph Amyklos,” in idem, ed., Phoenicia and The East Mediterranean in the First Millennium BC (Studia Phoenicia 5; Leuven: Peeters, 1987) 87-99; Schretter, Manfred K., Alter Orient und Hellas: Fragen der Beeinflussung griechischen Gedankengutes aus altorientalischen Quellen, dargestellt an den Göttern Nergal, Rescheph, Apotlon (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft 33; Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft, 1974) 151–56Google Scholar ; Glover, Stephen C., “The Cults of Apollo on Cyprus: A Preliminary Study,” in Biers, Jane C. and Soren, David, eds., Studies in Cypriote Archaeology (Institute of Archaeology Monograph 18; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1981) 145–51Google Scholar ; Fulco, William J., The Canaanite God Rešep (AOS 8; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1976) 38-41, 49–54Google Scholar ; Handy, Lowell K., “Resheph,” Anchor Bible Dictionary 5 (1992) 678–79.Google Scholar There is also a particularly Cyprian Apollo in the Apollo Alasiotas, equated with Rešep in ancient inscriptions. Hadjioannou (“Identification of the Horned God”) wishes to equate Alasiotas with the Horned God (=Kereatas), which may be inevitable; more evidence from iconography, however, would support this view. That Alasia is the Bronze Age name for Cyprus is all but certain; see, for example, Hellbing, Lennart, Alasia Problems (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 57; Göteborg: Paul Alstrdms Forlag, 1979) 65–78Google Scholar , on Apollo-Rešep, 21-28; Schaeffer, Alasia, passim; Muhly, James D., “Lead Isotope Analysis and the Kingdom of Alashiya,” Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus, 1983 (Nicosia: Department of Antiquities/Zavallis, 1983) 210–18Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ The Karatepe inscription ( Donner, Herbert and Röllig, Wolfgang, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften [3 vols.; 2d ed.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966-1969] 1.5 [text], no. 26 A ii, 10Google Scholar ) names Rešep with the epithet sprm, the meaning of which (among other possibili-ties) is “he-goats” or “stags” (Donner and Rollig, Inschriften, 2. 43). See also , Fulco, Rešep, 5, 7–9, 29-30, 44-46Google Scholar (Rešep as gazelle-god, sometimes kilted [!]). Further, on Rešep-Apollo on Cyprus as a solar deity, see, for example, , Donner and , Rollig, Inschriften, 2.42, 3–4Google Scholar ; and Conrad, D., “Der Gott Reschef,” ZAWS 3 (1971) 157–83, esp. 161-63.Google Scholar Other epithets of Rešep are summarized in Faraone, Talismans, 125.

⁶⁰ The Enkomi figure is specifically styled Mycenaean and Syrian; see , Dikaios (“Horned God from Enkomi,” 29–32Google Scholar ), who stresses known contacts between Cyprus and the Syrian coast; , Hadjioannou, “Identification of the Horned God,” 33, 35Google Scholar ; further, , Vermeule, Gotterkult, 159–60.Google Scholar This Syro-Cypriote interchange may be important for our gem's Keratagras, whose provenance is also probably Syria, as discussed below.

⁶¹ Mellaart, James, Catal Hiiyu'k: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia (London: Thames & Hudson, 1967)Google Scholar ; , Burkert, Greek Religion, 37–38Google Scholar ; Settegast, Mary, Plato Prehistorian: 10,000 to 5,000 B.C. Myth, Religion, Archaeology (Hudson, New York: Lindisfarne, 1990) 161–208Google Scholar (with illustrations). It is no longer unusual to see direct cultic survivals of Bronze Age religion in archaic and classical times.

⁶² Megaw, Arthur H. S., “Archaeology in Cyprus, 1951,” JHS 72 (1952) 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; , Dikaios, “Horned God from Enkomi,” 35Google Scholar (with n. 35); , Vermeule, Gotterkult, 160 n. 295Google Scholar with additional references; , Glover, “Apollo on Cyprus,” 148–49Google Scholar.

⁶³ , Dikaios, “Horned God from Enkomi,” 35Google Scholar ; see also idem, “Evidence for the Cult of Apollo Kereates at Cyprus,” Fasti Archaeologici 6 (1951) 2686. The text of Paus. 8.34.5 reads, τούτω μέν δή αι πηγαί γής είσι τής Aίπύτιδος τού ‘Aπόλλωνος τού Kερεάτα τό ίερόν (“The fountains of this [river Karnion] in the land of Aipytis are beneath the temple of Apollo Kereatas”). Dikaios (pp. 35-36) continues with the observation that, through associations with neighboring excavations at Vounous and Ayia Irini, which disclose bull cults in the context of possible rites of fertility, the Enkomi god was first a god of fertility–as the Syrian ReSef himself was. Dikaios also asserts that the Horned God's posture with an out-stretched right arm suggests the attitude of protection. For protective statues in general, see Faraone, Talismans, esp. 3-35.

⁶⁴ LSJ, s.v. Kάρνειος; see LSJ Supplement, s.v. Kdpvetot; (on Koan inscriptions) and n. 66 below. LeRoy, Christian (“Lakonika, II,” BCH 89 [1965] 371–76)Google Scholar publishes a pyramidal block with a ram's head said to represent Apollo Karneios. , Pettersson (Cults of Apollo, 61–62)Google Scholar reinterprets a similar pillar-shaped stone from Glanitsa in Arcadia as a representation of Apollo Karneios; Metzger, Henri (“Le sanctuaire de Glanitsa [Gortynie]”), BCH 64-65 [1940-1941] 17–21Google Scholar ) had originally taken it as a depiction of Hermes.

⁶⁵ Paus. 1.44.2: (“There is in the old gymnasium near the gates called Nymphades a not large pyramidal stone. They call this stone Apollo Karinon, and there is also there a temple of the Eileithyiae”); see Jameson, Michael H., Jordan, David R., and Kotansky, Roy D., A Lex Sacra from Selinous (GRBM 11; Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993) 98–99Google Scholar , for this in the context of aniconic representations of propitiatory deities, in general; see further, , Faraone, Talismans, 16 n. 53,Google Scholar (on kindred baetyloi). On Cyprus, too, conical baetyls in the temple of Apollo Hylates have been found, see , Glover, “Apollo on Cyprus,” 146Google Scholar (with references). Intriguing, as well, is the Apollo of Kyrenia (a town located on the north shore of Cyprus); see , Glover, “Apollo on Cyprus,” 147.Google Scholar Does this geographic Apollo Kerynetes also reflect a horned ancestor (from the root *QRN)? (On the etymology of καρινός, etc., see above, n. 54).

⁶⁶ , Pettersson (Cults of Apollo, 60, with n. 344)Google Scholar gives the ancient references for the distribution of Karneios, which may also be inferred from the month name Karneion attested at Akragas, Kalymna, Kos, Epidaurus, Epidauros Limera, Gela, Knossos, Nisyros, Rhodes, Sparta, Syracuse, and Tauromenion. Apollo Karneios at Knidos is new (see SEG 39 [1989]=1992 1118). On Apollo Karneios at Kos, note Jameson, et al., Lex Sacra, 115; Herzog, Rudolf, Heilige Gesetze von Kos (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 6Google Scholar ; , Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1928) 35.Google Scholar Neither Pettersson nor others seem to mention any possible connection between Doric Karneios and the Arcado-Cypriot counterpart, Apollo Karaiatas, Kereatas, or Karinos. Only Dikaios (“Horned God from Enkomi”) and Hadjioannou (“Identification of the Horned God,” ) have ventured to equate Kereatas with the original Enkomi Horned God; we endorse this venture. We may also hazard a connection with the Spartan Apollo Agraios (nn. 50-51 above), a hunting god associated with battle, and therefore with death (like Rešep). The rise and spread of the cult of (Apollo) Karneion is, of course, obscure. We follow , Burkert (Greek Religion, 236)Google Scholar who refers to “a pre-Dorian Ram God,” adding, “Here it is scarcely possible to penetrate beyond the migration period.” Nonetheless this is a powerful admission of the god's antiquity. See also Eitrem, Samson, Beitrdge zur griechischen Religionsgeschichte, vol. 1: Christiana videnskabs-selskabs forhandlinger; 1910, no. 4 (Christiania: Dybwad, 1910).Google Scholar We suggest that an originally foreign Syro-Cypriote horned god spread first to Lakonia (and Messenia) via Arcadia, probably as a result of the Arcadian Wars in the 6th century BCE. On the possibility of cultic worship coming from Cyprus to Arcadia (and not vice versa), see Voyatzis, Mary E., “Arcadia and Cyprus: Aspects of their Interrelationship Between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BC,” Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus, 1985 (Nicosia: Department of Antiquities/Zavallis, 1985) 155–63.Google ScholarHonea, Sion M. (“Stone Age Survivals in the Myth of the Calydonian Boar,” JRH 18 [1994] 2–26, esp. 8-12)CrossRefGoogle Scholar traces the Spartan Karneia to the Stone Age hunt.

⁶⁷ As mentioned above in n. 54. The race, called staphylodromos, involved a group of youths who chase after a figure decked out with fillets while he prays for good omens on the city's behalf. The capturing of the hunted man thus bestows fortune ( Bekker, Immanuei, Anecdota Graeca [3 vols.; Berolini: Nauckium, 1814-1821] 1. 305Google Scholar ; s.v. σταφυλοδρόμοι; , Pettersson, Cults of Apollo, 57 and 68Google Scholar ); , Honea, “Stone Age Survivals,” 5–13Google Scholar . , Burkert (Greek Religion, 235)Google Scholar rightly sees in the figure an archetype of the sacrificial victim: “… what is unique about the Karneia race is that someone runs on ahead who is to be captured. It is a hunt, and yet the person destined as victim is not expected to let out a cry of despair, but to pronounce a good wish for the polis: the victim displays willing acquiescence” (our emphasis). On the other hand, , Pettersson (Cults of Apollo, 58 and 68–71)Google Scholar sees in the race the symbolic chasing of the festival's eponymous mantic seer (Karnos; see n. 72 below), who had been murdered and divinized as a sort of ghost of Apollo (φάσμα’ Aπόλλωνος, Konon FGr.H 26 frag. 1.26; see , Burkert, Greek Religion, 236 and 441 n. 25).Google Scholar The city's well-being is thus identified with the blessing that augury brings. Neither view affects our interpretation of Keratagras, for both recognize the hunting character of the race.

⁶⁸ On the number of magical objects from Syria, see, for example, Kotansky, Roy, Greek Magical Amulets: The Inscribed Gold, Silver, Copper, and Bronze Lamellae (Papyrologica Coloniensia, 22.1; Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994) part 1, nos. 45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁹ Albright, William F., Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (5th ed.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968) 79, 81Google Scholar ; see also , Handy, “Resheph,” 679Google Scholar ; , Faraone, Talismans, 125–27Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ As gatekeeper for the sun god, see Virolleaud, Charles, “Les nouvelles tablettes de Ras Shamra (1948-1949),” Syria 28 (1951) 22–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; as a solar deity of justice, see , Conrad, “Der Gott Reschef,” 161–63Google Scholar ; see also , Handy, “Resheph,” 679.Google Scholar, Dikaios (“Horned God from Enkomi,” 36)Google Scholar has suggested that the deity is protective, although its discovery in situ within a trench tells much about its underworld associations.

⁷¹ , Burkert, Greek Religion, 236Google Scholar ; , Pettersson (Cults of Apollo, 64)Google Scholar writes: “It is thus possible to view the Karneia as a rite of purification, the purpose of which was to restore a broken communication with the gods and purify the army.” He further connects the worship of Apollo Karneios with Artemis, a connection we have suggested at the outset of this excursus. The Apollo-Artemis pairing in the Karneia, and the festival's associations with martial, apotropaic, thanatological, and hunting-fertility rites, can also be detected in the role of Artemis Agrotera (Agraia)/Apollo Agraios discussed in nn. 50–51, above.

⁷² The name of this original horned god, Karneion (from the root *QRN), must surely lie behind the seer, Karnos (n. 67 above) whose unpropitious death and its atonement provides for the Karneia's aition; the Spartan Krios also plays a possible role ( , Burkert, Greek Religion, 236, 441 n. 25Google Scholar ; , Pettersson, Cults of Apollo, 58, 70Google Scholar ; and , Honea, “Stone Age Survivals,” 10–12).Google Scholar Divination associated with battle could also join Artemis/Apollo Karneios to Artemis Agrotera/Apollo Agraios (n. 71 above). The death of Karnos is the death of a seer; it brings “plague and disaster on the army” ( , Burkert, Greek Religion, 236)Google Scholar ; Artemis Agrotera routinely receives a she-goat before Spartan battle in order to obtain good divinatory signs ( , Jameson, “Sacrifice before Battle,” 209Google Scholar ). Does Karnos's murder bring symbolic destruction precisely because the mantis was needed to interpret the favorable prebattle signs?