Dear Aaron

very insightful post - you and others on the list might appreciate this long
review of Dielemann's new book, snipped from another list:

(From BMCR 2005.09.25)
>
> Jacco Dieleman, Priests, Tongues, and Rites: The London-Leiden
Magical
> Manuscripts and Translation in Egyptian Ritual (100-300 CE).
Religions
> in the Graeco-Roman World, 153. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Pp. xiv, 342.
> ISBN 90-04-14185-5. EUR 65.00.
>
> Reviewed by Lynn LiDonnici, Department of Religion, Vassar College
> (lylidonnici@...)
> Word count: 2276 words
> -------------------------------
> To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2005/2005-09-25.html
> -------------------------------
>
> In this book, a revised version of the author's 2003 dissertation
> (Leiden University), Jacco Dieleman presents a scribal and
linguistic
> study of two bilingual Greek and Demotic magical formularies,
Papyrus
> Leiden I 384 verso (= PGM XII and PDM xii) and Papyrus London-
Leiden
> ((P.BM 10070 and P.Leiden I 383) = PGM XIV and PDM xiv). This is an
> important book that contributes a great deal to the study of the
> Greco-Egyptian magical formularies through focus upon the
languages and
> physical features of the manuscripts, as well as the way these
reflect
> the exemplars the scribes used, the audiences for which they
intended
> their works, and the ways their language environment affected their
> self-presentation to and negotiations with the larger world.
>
> The pursuit of this basic set of questions proceeds through several
> chapters of detailed analysis. Ch. 2 introduces and describes the
two
> manuscripts, providing an extremely clear account of their physical
> features, scripts, hands, and content. This overview is followed
in Ch.
> 3 by studies of the way the various scripts of the mss. are used
and
> what this can tell us about the social location of these texts. Not
> surprisingly, the use of Demotic and the frequent use of Hieratic
and
> Old Coptic suggest an Egyptian priestly education for both scribe
and
> intended audience. This chapter considers every combination of
> language, script and gloss found in the mss. and, though somewhat
> technical, is an extremely important analysis that is well worth
> serious consideration.
>
> One fascinating feature of this section is that within the Demotic
> sections of Papyrus London-Leiden (= PG/DM XIV) there is
occasional use
> of a cipher alphabet using Old Coptic letters within a running
sentence
> in Demotic.[[1]] Dieleman studies these instances exhaustively and
> determines that, while the script is not consistently applied, in
> general the verb forms that are encoded usually conceal acts of
harm,
> such as "HE DIES" (94), and noun forms are generally ingredients or
> praxis directions. Though Dieleman ultimately does regard these
cipher
> words as being meant to conceal, the discussion is accompanied by a
> fascinating excursus on the use of cipher or difficult script in
other
> forms of Egyptian literature where, when the ciphers are inscribed
in
> public places or when they represent hymns or invocations, they are
> actually calling attention to themselves by their uniqueness and
> strangeness (80-87).
>
> In Ch. 4, Dieleman turns to the bilingualism of the manuscripts and
> what this may reveal about the scribes' attitudes toward non-
Egyptian
> languages and their power. To summarize, the evidence from outside
the
> Demotic magical papyri suggests that, even though colloquial
speech was
> being affected by Greek, scribes usually attempted to translate
where
> possible,rather than borrow. Within the two texts studied here,
> however, that is not the pattern. Papyrus London-Leiden (= PG/DM
XIV),
> for example, contains a higher proportion of Greek loanwords than
any
> other Demotic document now known (110). The Greek loanwords,
usually
> lemmata and ingredient names, are spelled out in alphabetic
Demotic,
> sometimes glossed with Greek. There are also several Greek
invocations
> that are traditionally Egyptian in content and accompanied by
Demotic
> recipes, or in one case by a translation into Demotic. Dieleman
also
> presents strong arguments that a Greek source, fully Egyptian in
> content, has been translated and included here. This analysis makes
> clear that the Greek and Demotic sections in individual spells mesh
> well and belong together, reflecting a true bilingualism and easy
> alternation between languages, without the value judgment against
Greek
> that is found in Corpus Hermeticum XVI.
>
> Papyrus Leiden I 384 verso (= PG/DM XII) presents an additional
pattern
> of language alternation, since it contains 13 columns of continuous
> Greek with Demotic columns on either side and on the verso. In
those
> Greek columns, there is much less Demotic than the Demotic columns
have
> Greek, and, unlike the Greek invocations of Papyrus London-Leiden
(=
> PG/DM XIV), the imagery of some of these spells reaches beyond
Egypt,
> including a wide range of names and so forth, as are familiar from
most
> of the Greek papyri. This more diverse imagery is the subject of
Ch. 5.
> Based on the presence of three Demotic lemmata, Dieleman presumes
that
> the scribe of the Greek section was also an Egyptian priest (146)
and
> asks how such a reader would have understood the less Egyptian and
more
> international elements of ritual and invocation in some of the
spells
> from this section, which these alternate with spells of more
clearly
> Egyptian content. This question is pursued through analysis of two
> Greek ring consecrations with Demotic lemmata (PGM XII 201-269 and
> 270-350). The bulk of the chapter is actually a detailed running
> commentary on these two spells, linking them to various elements of
> Egyptian literature and theology, including the ritual of Opening
the
> Mouth; some linkage to Greek or other texts also appears, but this
is
> not pursued at the same level of intensity as the Egyptian
elements.
> These commentaries are extremely useful, but since the selected
> examples are, in fact, largely Egyptian in content, the ambitious
goal
> of seeing non-Egyptian religious elements through Egyptian priestly
> eyes is not fully realized. It might have provided more of a
contrast
> had Dieleman considered, e.g., PGM XII 1-13 or 14-95, even though
these
> lack Demotic lemmata.
>
> Ch. 6 is concerned with one of the thornier problems in the study
of
> ancient magic, the so-called "Translated Interpretations" of PGM
XII
> 401-444 which appear at the end of the Greek section of the
manuscript.
> The section appears to equate rare and bizarre substances with
ordinary
> ones that are readily available, and in its introduction claims
that
> this is standard priestly practice for confusing the masses.
Dieleman
> interprets this passage in terms of the grandiose claims made by
the
> introductions to many different spells that 1) claim amazing
efficacy
> for the spell that is about to follow, 2) often link the spell to
> famous people who were Egyptian priests, philosophers
or "magicians;"
> and 3) sometimes use mystification to emphasize this.
>
> The interpretation is pursued through several linked studies on the
> following subjects: 1) pharaonic botany and pharmacology; 2)
levels and
> degrees within the Egyptian priesthood in the Greco-Roman period,
and
> the respective functions of each level; 3) representations of
Egyptian
> priests from three types of sources-- the official self-
presentation of
> priests in inscriptions and decrees; the role of priests as
characters
> in Egyptian imaginative fiction; and the role of priests as
characters
> in Greco-Roman imaginative fiction-- 4) the direct consideration
of the
> various "advertising introductions" throughout PGM. Although by
the end
> of the chapter it is clear how all these pieces are meant to go
> together, several sections are relevant to the book as a whole and
> would have served the reader better by coming earlier and by not
being
> linked exclusively to the Translated Interpretations. In
particular,
> the discussion of the levels and degrees within the Egyptian
priesthood
> and the survey of representations of Egyptian priests in three
> different types of literature bear directly upon very large
> methodological questions that appear throughout the book, not only
> here.
>
> Dieleman concludes that, while claims made by the introduction to
the
> Translated Interpretations do not reflect actual Egyptian practice,
> they do reflect common ways of building prestige for a text in PGM:
> linkage with high-level priests and claims of secrecy and
antiquity.
> Dieleman also argues that, despite the fiction of the
introduction, the
> list of equivalencies does in fact contain "authentic Egyptian
priestly
> knowledge" (202). In service of this he provides several examples
of
> names of substances in Egyptian medical and botanical texts that
are of
> a similar type (e.g., "head of a donkey," 196), and he is able to
> demonstrate that in two cases[[2]] the specific equivalencies of
the
> list are also attested in Pseudo-Dioscorides as the names used by
> "prophets," which another section of the chapter links with the
highest
> degree of Egyptian priests. This is very interesting and a welcome
> increase in our knowledge of Pharaonic and Greco-Egyptian botanical
> terminology. Not all such names denote plants, however, and in some
> cases, specifically in Egyptian texts and where deities' bodies
are not
> involved, Dieleman sees "no reasons to distrust a literal reading
of
> those recipes and assume an ingredient in disguise" (198). Given
that,
> it isn't clear how Dieleman would have us regard the list of
> equivalencies in relation to other uncommon ingredients, not from
this
> list, that are called for elsewhere in PGM and PDM. If we should
assume
> a literal interpretation in default of contradictory evidence for
> Egyptian texts, is the existence of the list of Translated
> Interpretations enough to exclude this possibility for Greek texts?
> Dieleman's ultimate conclusion that the list preserves true
priestly
> terminology (203) does not address this social-historical problem.
>
> The survey of introductions to spells that use high claims of
efficacy,
> secrecy and links to important people (254-80) is extremely
valuable.
> Dieleman notices differences of both kind and degree in the
rhetoric
> used in introductions to Greek and Demotic language spells. In the
> Greek language spells, the device of uncovering or finding a lost
text
> is much more frequent, and such texts are always claimed to have
been
> found in Egypt and are always presented as being translated from
> Egyptian to Greek. Greek spells also more frequently present an
> international list of celebrities to whom their authorship is
> pseudepigraphically ascribed, whereas ordinarily Demotic language
> spells are only linked to great Egyptians of the past. Based on
this,
> Dieleman proposes different intended audiences for the Greek and
> Demotic spells, even though today they appear together in the same
> bilingual manuscripts. The Greek texts presume an audience that is
> "acquainted with, and believe[s] in, the exoticised image of
Egyptian
> priests as it is propagated in Hellenistic texts, rather than ...
> readers who are truly versed in Egyptian priestly lore," despite
the
> fact that the internal evidence of both bilingual mss. suggests a
more
> knowledgeable Egyptian priestly context for their compilation and
> copying (286).
>
> This paradox is resolved through application of David Frankfurter's
> model of "stereotype appropriation."[[3]] According to Dieleman,
> Frankfurter argues that, due to the anti-Temple economic policies
of
> Roman rule, Egyptian priests sought to supplement their incomes by
> marketing themselves to a Hellenistic audience, molding themselves
to
> that group's fantasies and preconceived notions about exotic
Egyptian
> magic (287). Though conceding that this model might explain
features of
> the Greek-language corpora, Dieleman finds it lacking for the
Demotic
> spells and bilingual texts overall, which he assumes would be
> inaccessible to anyone outside the priestly circle and thus, in his
> reading of Frankfurter, immune from stereotype appropriation.
>
> Frankfurter's position is more carefully nuanced than Dieleman's
> summary acknowledges, since stereotype appropriation occurs on
both the
> external level and on the level of internalization -- of
understanding
> one's heritage and potentialities through the lens of the blended
or
> hegemonic outside culture and of conforming behavior to this idea.
> Frankfurter also argues that the degree to which this occurs is
> directly related to the intensity of contact with these other
cultures,
> and so the phenomenon is generally more intense in towns and
cities.
> Though the specific Roman economic measures discussed would have
had an
> immediate effect, there is more involved here than the cold-blooded
> branding or labeling one's ritual wares to obtain the highest
prices in
> the magical marketplace, though of course that probably did occur.
But
> along with this, comes the phenomenon of the adoption --
appropriation
> -- of the stereotypes from the blended culture for internal use,
> whether the valence is negative or positive; and this is also part
of
> Frankfurter's basic model.
>
> This in fact is exactly the dynamic that Dieleman ultimately
suggests
> for the creation of the bilingual papyri, though he does not use
these
> terms (293-4). Dieleman concludes that the composition and
compilation
> of materials of this kind began in the culturally blended but
> Greek-language environment of Alexandria, where Egyptian priests
were
> seeking "Greek" customers and modified traditional materials to
meet
> the needs and expectations of that group. Though he does not link
the
> two, Dieleman himself, in his discussion of the Ptolemaic
> pseudo-ciphers that actually call attention to themselves, notes
this
> dynamic long before the specific time of the formularies: the
> internalization of the Ptolemaic expectation of mystification is
> externalized and celebrated, and it is used by the priests
themselves.
> Later, Theban priests encountered such materials in their travels
and
> brought some back with them to Thebes, whereupon they began to
compose
> their own ritual texts (in Demotic), rooted in their own training
but
> heavily influenced by these Greek texts, some of which were
translated
> into Demotic, as noted above. Dieleman's commitment to the idea
that
> Demotic was intelligible only to the priests leads to the
conclusion
> that, while the Greek texts may have had an external marketplace,
these
> Demotic ones were intended for "priestly circles" (294), but what
the
> priests were going to do with the texts is not specified. If the
> priests in Alexandria needed to market themselves to the
Hellenistic
> environment, did the Theban priests also seek a market, even if it
is
> one that is more exclusively and knowledgeably Egyptian, as the
> advertising introductions seem to suggest? This is a question to
which
> I hope Dieleman will turn in future work.
>
> I learned a great deal from this book, which is an important
> contribution to the study of ancient magic, in Egypt as well as the
> many other regions in which such materials are to be found. The
> arguments from Demotic, scribal practices and scripts can be
technical,
> but are tremendously rewarding, and have major implications for
several
> areas of the social history of ancient magic and religion. It is
well
> worth the time of scholars and graduate students in these areas, as
> well as Egyptology and papyrology.[[4]]
>
> ------------------
> Notes:
>
>
> 1. These are not marked in the translation of this text by Janet
> Johnson, that appears in Hans Dieter Betz (ed.), The Greek Magical
> Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells, v. 1, 2nd ed.
> (University of Chicago Press, 1992). Some, though not all, are
> mentioned in the footnotes.
>
> 2. I am grateful to Dieleman for correcting my earlier oversight of
> the two exact equivalencies. They are "Hairs of a Baboon"
and "Semen of
> Hermes," both of which are equated with dill in Ps.Dsc. III.58. It
is
> surely significant that these two list items are consecutive, and
> appear in the same passage of Ps. Dsc. (but "Semen of Hermes" also
> appears in Ps.Dsc. III.139, under "ox-eye," which appears nowhere
in
> the interpreted lists). Dieleman also assembles many other
instances of
> the terms from the list (or similar terms) that are equated with
> different substances, that the list does not use. The point of my
> article, however, was not that PGM spells do not use names of this
> type, but that they do not use these exact names -- with, however,
now
> the two exceptions listed above. The article is "Beans, Fleawort,
and
> the Blood of a Hamadryas Baboon: Recipe Ingredients in Greco-Roman
> Magical Materials," in Paul Mirecki and Marvin Meyer, eds., Magic
and
> Ritual in the Ancient World; Religions in the Graeco-Roman World,
141.
> Leiden: Brill, 2002:359-77. See also "Single-Stemmed Wormwood,
> Pinecones and Myrrh: Expense and Availability of Recipe
Ingredients in
> the Greek Magical Papyri," Kernos 14 (May, 2001): 61-91.
>
> 3. David Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and
> Resistance (Princeton University Press, 1998): 224-37.
>
> 4. I would like to make a final observation about terminology.
> Dieleman argues that to regard the Demotic and bilingual texts
under
> the rubric of "Greek Magical Papyri" is part of an improperly
> Hellenocentric paradigm for their interpretation that has caused
> scholars to overlook or minimize the importance of their Egyptian
> content and the extent to which these works are continuous with
> Egyptian priestly-scribal practices. To avoid the use of this
rubric,
> Dieleman substitutes the umbrella term "Theban Magical Library,"
which
> he uses consistently throughout. While I agree with Dieleman that
the
> Egyptian setting is critical for the understanding of these
materials,
> the use of "Theban Magical Library" to represent the overall corpus
> that would otherwise be called "PGM" is also misleading. Only a
small
> proportion of the magical formularies (including the two that are
the
> subject of this book) can be convincingly linked to Thebes on
> linguistic and papyrological grounds, and some scholars would use
this
> term only for these. Sellers on the antiquities market claimed that
> this group was found together with a few more texts in a tomb in
the
> Theban hills, and other scholars would extend the term "Theban
Magical
> Library" to this somewhat larger though still small group. The use
of
> this title for the other formularies that eventually became the
> property of the same collector, not to mention all of the other
> material eventually included in Preisendanz's PGM, does not create
> greater accuracy, it simply stresses the Egyptian rather than the
> Greek. I agree that "Greek Magical Papyri" is a misnomer for the
corpus
> published under that name. Let us, perhaps, begin to substitute
> "Greco-Egyptian Magical Papyri," or perhaps "PG/DM," eliminating
the
> distinction between lower and uppercase Roman numerals introduced
for
> the Demotic sections in the Betz translation volume. I do hesitate
to
> introduce new terms in a field where terminology already sometimes
has
> the effect of the head of Medusa, but our existing terminology is,
as
> Dieleman notes, improperly skewed.
>
>
> -------------------------------
> The BMCR website (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/) contains a
complete
> and searchable archive of BMCR reviews since our first issue in
1990.
> It also contains information about subscribing and unsubscribing
from
> the service.
>
> Please do not reply to this email as this is an unmonitored
mailbox.
> You can contact us by sending e-mail to bmr@....
>


: ) .....................................: )
Mandrake.uk.net
Publishers
PO Box 250, Oxford, OX1 1AP
+44 1865 243671
homepage: <http://www.mandrake.uk.net>
Blogs =
http://mogg-morgan.blogspot.com
http://mandox.blogspot.com
secure page for credit card <http://www.mandrake.uk.net/books.htm>



-----Original Message-----
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Aaron Cheak
Sent: 06 December 2005 22:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: local customs, was Vajrayana and magic


At 07:17 AM 6/12/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>I think this is more than defusion of ideas - dielemann is arguing for a
>specific audience to whom the bilingual magical papyri are aimed - seems
>to me that the papyri do indeed imply the existence of a 'tradition' . The
>texts are not random collections but are various unified magical handbooks
>- the whole comprising one magician's library. All this seems to me to be
>in line with what other editors of these texts have said - notable H D
>Betz, who says that the magic of the papyri is tantamount to a new
religion.



I also think the process of 'translating' a tradition from one
culture/context to another must be read in light of Kingsley's notion of
re-etymology (which he articulates precisely in the context of Hermeticsm
and the Egyptian background of the name Poimandres). I think the PGM is
undoubtedly a conscious reformulation of Egyptian temple practice for new
socio-political, linguistic (and perhaps even 'aionic') contexts. I think
it is very instructive for the dynamics of how changes in a tradition can
preserve the essence of a tradition while simultaneously assimilating 'new'
or foreign elements into its expression. It's not such a new thing,
obviously, but I do think that the process is much deeper and infinitely
more subtle in the contexts of the magical papyri and hermetica than in
modern laissez faire syncretism. The modern practitioner has much to learn
from the older process, I feel.

Haven't read the Dieleman book, but I have read a (co-authored) article of
his dealing with the continuance of the Egyptian mouth-opening ritual in
the PGM. My own research deals with this particular trajectory in some
detail, and I am quite interested in the priestly milieu which composed the
papyri, so I'm very pleased to hear about this new book.

~ A