inuolauerit(Cunliffe 1988: no. 10.5–7). The deity invoked for justice was to get
part of – or the whole of – what had been stolen: “To the god Nodens. Silvanus
has lost his ring. He has given half his value to Nodens. Do not allow good health
among those who possess the name of Senecianus until he brings it right to the
temple of Nodens” (Audollent 1904: no. 106; Ogden 2002: 219–22). The wish
for respect for justice turned to a call for the gods’ revenge (Cunliffe 1988: no. 35),
when it was suspected that an untimely death happened after a criminal action (Cumont
1923; Graf 1997a: 174 –5). And yet, curse procedures were built on the same con-
tractual structure as the votive relationship.Towering over Competitive Situations through the
Activation of Ritual Powers
Curses and occult practices, intended to be maleficent toward someone or to con-
strain him within a social or affective relationship, were means of another kind to
face specific problems in competitive relationships (Graf 1997b). Pliny considered
that “there is indeed nobody who does not fear to be spell-bound by imprecations
(diris precationibus)” (Nat.28.19); and he lists a range of behaviors encompassing
superstitious actions (e.g. breaking eggshells), apotropaic practices (e.g. writings
with words reputed as being powerful), ritualized, protective formulae (carmina),
and magical charms for agonistic or love issues. When a situation was critical, a civic
community itself could be tempted to search for solutions with magoi. During a plague
(loimos) that happened in Antioch (Syria), the city consulted the Delphic oracle, which
demanded the sacrifice of a citizen’s child. “The lot fell upon the son of the mage
(tou magou). The mage promises to stop the plague, if they leave his son alone”
(Libanios, Declamatio41 [Magi repulsa] Incerta, Foerster 7.367). The famous rhetori-
cian Libanios had to persuade his fellow citizens to refuse the proposition.
This contribution does not have to do specifically with what has been labeled as
“magic” in antiquity and through historiography (Phillips 1991b; Graf 1997a; J. Smith
1995; Jordan et al. 1999: esp. 55– 66). It just has to underline a point that has already
come to light: votive relationships do exist in some practices defined as “magical.”
If we examine the deuotioof ancient imperatores(Livy 8.9.5–8) from the point of
view of its architecture, it recalls many parallels in daily life, except that the ordinary
devotee does not send himself to death with his rival. Lead tablets have vows to
bestow an opponent upon superior powers in order to get rid of him: “I hand over,
I dedicate, I sacrifice to your divine power” (CIL11.1823 =Audollent 129; Graf
1997a: 148 –51). And yet, some points distinguish the two types of practice, votive
and “magical.” First, each of them refers to a peculiar context. It was a public one
when the relationship was votive, a secret one or performed in the shadows, at night
for instance, for “magical” processes (MacMullen 1981 [1987 edn.]: 89–90). “Men,
even when they offer silent prayers and vows, have no doubt that the gods under-
stand them” (Cic. Div.1.129). Some religious ceremonies required secrecy, for instance
when dead souls (the Manes) had to be appeased every February 21 at the Feralia.
The rite consisted in binding the dead souls in order to be protected from them:
Religious Actors in Daily Life 287