“We have bound fast (uinximus) hostile tongues and unfriendly mouths” (Ov. Fast.
2.569– 82, quotation 581). However “magical” it could be – that is, putting con-
straint on some power – the Feralia ritual was part of the religious state calendar.
Other needs might call for the use of charms. For instance, Cato advised the cure
of dislocations through “formulae” (Agr.160: cotidie cantato). But all these acts
were performed openly. The simple fact of rituals being performed secretly (not lib-
era luce, CTh9.16.3.7, in 319), as if they were clandestine, aroused much more sus-
picion than the kind of procedures they followed (Kippenberg 1997: 150 –7). A second
difference stands in the purpose of both ritual actions. Wishing to influence the ori-
entation of coming events, magical practices rely not on respect for the rights of
both orders, human and divine, but on the principle of a sympathy between nature
(this world) and the supernatural (the Under- and upper worlds) (Graf 1997a: 231–2).
This is attested by the ritual pinning of nails into representational figures (Louvre,
Paris, inv. E 27145 A, Rüpke 2001 [2007]: fig. 17). These practices call on divine
powers, even those of the traditional pantheon, not as partners in a contract, but as
auxiliaries in, or agents for, an action. This is Delphic Apollo’s task on a magical
papyrus (PGMtr2.1–10, 139 – 40).
Political ambitions were often suspected of calling for such obscure practices, when
rivalries for power grew harsher. Under Tiberius’ reign, Calpurnius Piso was accused
of poisoning Germanicus: rumor said that “spells (carmina), curses (deuotiones), leaden
tablets engraved (plumbeis tabulis insculptum) with the name of Germanicus” had
been found (Tacitus, Ann.2.69.3). Such suspicions and affairs mainly flourished when
emperors faced opposition, like Nero in the first century, or Constantius II three
centuries later, when he put Barbation on trial in 359 (Amm. 23.5.10; see Funke
1967). Public legislation was very attentive to the prevention of such actions, from
the Sullan law de sicariis et ueneficiisin 81 bceup to late antiquity. Generally, all
competitions arising from social life could lead to the desire of using these practices
(Gager 1992): games, even poetry competitions (Aug. Conf.4.2(3)), love (Ogden
2002: 227– 42), justice, and professional challenges (Ogden 2002: 210 –18, 274).
As early as the fifth century bce, in the Twelve Tables of law, we read this warning:
“No one may make incantations against another’s crop (fructus excantassit)” (apud
Seneca, Naturales quaestiones 4.7.2; Ogden 2002: 275 – 86). The African rhetori-
cian Apuleius of Madaura, who had married a very wealthy widow, had to defend
himself against an accusation of magica maleficia(Pro se de magia; Hunink 1997).
Two centuries later, Libanios, who suffered from a chronic disease, attributed it to
the maleficent charm of a chameleon hidden in his classroom (Life248 –50; Bonner
1932; Graf 1997a: 191–2). He himself was accused of performing forbidden rites
(consulting goèteisand astrologists, performing sacrifices to the dead; Life43, 63,
98). In his Oratio36 (Peri tôn pharmakôn, Foerster III.27f.), he lists the possible
authors of such accusations: his fellow citizens, local senators, his colleagues, either
advocates or professors, his pupils; in short, the whole civic society; and he decided
on contemporary sophists longing for his professorship. These stories and others
offer us a good illustration of the competitive ambience that prevailed in relation-
ships among members of civic elites, and of how much the “magic” label could be
instrumentalized.
288 Nicole Belayche