1923] THE GREEK MAGICAL PAPYRI IN THE BRIT. MUS. 23 



Pap. CXXIII. 



This papyrus is not a fragment, as Kenyon believed, but 

 a complete amulet, as Wessely took it to be. It is folded just 

 like a letter (all details as to folding and writing across the 

 fibres and as to the drawing are given accurately by Wessely 

 in line 62), and no doubt the writer or the possessor of this 

 amulet has used it as a <jh[/.cotixov xal 67toTax.Tr/.ov xal xuToyoc, 

 (pap. Lond. 121, 396) against all sorts of enemies. The amulet 

 is simply a copy from a magic book (v. Wess.) A book of 

 magic had consequently at that time already in itself great magic 

 power, and you might copy it just as the sorcerers in later times 

 copied subjects or psalms or anything out of the Bible on their 

 scraps of paper or tablets. In other words, you might use the 

 copy of a 7rpa£is with just the same effect as if you realised 

 the magician's prescript in practice yourself. Here the writer 

 has left out the beginning of the magical procedure, something 

 like: ypatps im ~k(x.[j.vqg ([xol^Svji;, j£pucr/j£ etc.) toutov tov ).6yov" 

 Xoyog etc. But the \6yoq itself we probably still read in full 

 in our papyrus. Then the receipt continues v. 8: å-r^ypacps) Ss 

 07a9-sv Tvjs ^.a[x[[[x]]v7)"5 — and v. 11: xal zlq to [xstcottov (se. ttjs 

 Aa[jLV7jc) ^£7iriypacps/ to 6'vo^.a auTou ((he, u7udxeiTai/ "at the head 

 you write"; for this name we just read v. 11, where it forms 

 part of the izpokoyog to be recited before the magic procedure: 



SOTE §S <JJ.STa)> TOUTO TO OVOfJia TO STTaVCO TOU TTSTaAOU <(ysypa[/.- 



[xévov) t,aoj [jLop|j.opoT05twj3at (as Ken. gives the name in the note, 

 not as he gives it in the text). 



The figure, which is given here according to a photograph 

 which I procured through the kindness of Mr. Bell, shows a 

 male deity, with hawk's head surmounted by a crescent, and in 

 his right hand holding an anch symbol — and opposite to this 

 mighty deity a human figure or a crxiXsTog, as you might call 

 it, apparently subdued to the omnipotent demon. The copy of 

 Kenyon is everywhere reliable, but on the following points I 

 venture to disagree with him or to supplement him. 



V. 2 we probably have to read ^EVTTj^tco^&to, v. 1 ^a^a^a^u^ 

 [xsvs^a/jjy. v. 5 7rav yévog appévov 8s xal xbpvuxtov (i. e. appsvcov ts 



