# The All-Encompassing Name:: Multilingualism, Myth and Materiality in a Late Greek Papyrus of Ritual Power (PGMXIII)

Florian Audureau, Thomas Galoppin

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Florian Audureau, Thomas Galoppin. The All-Encompassing Name:: Multilingualism, Myth and Materiality in a Late Greek Papyrus of Ritual Power (PGMXIII). Alaya Palamidis; Corinne Bonnet. What's in a Divine Name?, De Gruyter, pp.641-666, 2024, 978-3-11-132627-6. 10.1515/9783111326511-033. halshs-05410980

HAL Id: halshs-05410980

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-05410980v1

Submitted on 11 Dec 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Florian Audureau and Thomas Galoppin

# The All-Encompassing Name: Multilingualism, Myth and Materiality in a Late Greek Papyrus of Ritual Power (PGM XIII)

> Todos los seres viajan de distinta manera hacia su Dios:
> La raíz baja a pie por peldaños de agua.
> Las hojas con suspiros aparejan la nube (...)
> El pez habla a su Dios en la burbuja
> que es un trino en el agua,
> grito de ángel caído, privado de sus plumas
> Jorge Carrera Andrade (1903-1978), "El viaje infinito"

**Abstract:** The Greek “magical” papyrus XIII in the corpus established by K. Preisen-danz records two versions of a ritual. Written in Egypt probably during the 4th centur-y CE, the papyrus displays a multicultural composition of ritual knowledge for addressing a divine power. Knowledge of divine names is a major focus of the ritual precisely because it grants power to the human expert. The composition of the in-structions shows that, rather than a philological work on the divine names, the actual tools for giving meaning and power to mostly non-Greek – and basically unintelligi-ble – names are the claim for multilingualism, a myth of cosmic generation and a ma-nipulation of graphic designs. Therefore, it shows how the teaching and transmission of divine denominations gives sense and purpose to a web of onomastic attributes: all things considered here, ritual instructions and complex denominations are coherent in forming the portrait of a god who “encompasses all things”.

The *Papyri Graecae Magicae (PGM)* are a corpus of Greek papyri from Roman Egypt pertaining to a multilingual, prescriptive and ritual literature.<fnref n="1" /> Most of them contain texts that were copied onto rolls or codices after the 3rd century CE, but they are re-censions or receptions of older texts, emerged from a multicultural milieu.<fnref n="2" /> The content of the texts is informed by Egyptian and Greek cultures as well as Near Eastern ritual knowledge and Jewish beliefs. However, the geographical provenance of the pa-

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">1 The *PGM* corpus was translated in 1986 (*GMPT*). Most of them are being re-edited as Greek and Egyptian Magical Formularies (*GEMF*): a first volume has been published (Faraone/Torallas Tovar 2022), but it does not include the papyrus under scrutiny here.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 See Dieleman 2005.</footnote>

<footnote>**Note:** This publication has been partly funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 741182, Project "Mapping Ancient Polytheisms").</footnote>
pyri and their pragmatic and hermeneutic strategies of ritual power have pointed to a
sacerdotal milieu: the authors of the papyri are seen today as Egyptian priests, acting
either as errant “magicians” who were acculturated to foreign stereotypes or as mem-
bers of the Egyptian elite versed in multiple religious traditions.<fnref n="3" /> Whatever the case,
the authors felt a need to compile innovative rituals, miniaturised to a personal or
domestic size,<fnref n="4" /> in order to invoke gods into apparitions and revelations, to curse and
attract loved ones, to make oneself invisible or create amusing illusions at a party – to
cite but a few effects of the ritual power.<fnref n="5" />

One of the most striking aspects of this ritual knowledge of the Imperial time is
the abundant use of “barbaric names”.<fnref n="6" /> The *barbarika onomata* are sequences of
words or sounds that do not make sense in Greek language: they include anything
from Greek altered words and series of Greek vowels or meaningless gibberish to real
transcriptions of foreign names such as the Biblical *Iaō* and *Sabaōth*, the Egyptian
*Phrē* and *Harponknouphi*, or even Sumerian *Ereschigal*. Today, these complex ways of
constructing divine power are frequently called “voces magicae”, but in Ancient texts,
they play an active role in a ritual empowerment of the agents and the objects. Pre-
cisely because of their conjunction of alterity and power, they appear to be a crucial
element in the transmission of knowledge and authority among the ritual experts of
the Imperial period. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that these name-workers tried
to answer to the question *What’s in a name?*

In this paper, we will focus on the role played by some of these *onomata* in a specific
ritual attested in only one ritual handbook where the issue of the divine names is a cen-
tral interest. *PGM* XIII is a 32-page-long papyrus codex, the first leaf of which is missing.<fnref n="7" />
It was written by two successive hands, the first one from pages 1 to 21, l. 23 (= *PGM* XIII,
1–935),<fnref n="8" /> replaced by a second hand from pages 21 to 25 (= *PGM* XIII, 936–1078), the last 7
pages remaining blank. The second hand also added *marginalia* in the upper margin of
page 4 (four lines) and in the lower margin of pages 9 and 19 (respectively, two lines and
three lines). Both hands date from the 4th century CE and copy previous manuscripts
that are lost: therefore, the textual content of the papyrus is older and it is supposed that
other versions circulated at the time of the codex. This led Morton Smith, English transla-
tor of *PGM* XIII in 1986, to hypothesise a philological development.<fnref n="9" /> However, his conclu-

<footnote n="3">3 Frankfurter 1997; Frankfurter 1998; Dieleman 2005; Escolano-Poveda 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 Smith 2003.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 For a useful overview of the corpus, see Dieleman 2019. Brashear 1995, however outdated on some points after thirty years of research, is still recommendable.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 Janowitz 2002; Tardieu/Van den Kerchove/Zago 2013; Soares Santoprete/Hoffmann 2017.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 *PLeid*. I 395 = *LDAB* 5670 = *TM* 64446 = *KYP* M161. Ed. pr. by Leemans 1885. See translation and commentary by Daniel 1991, 32–81. Pictures of the papyrus can be accessed on the Rijksmuseum’s website: https://www.rmo.nl/en/ (accessed 10/05/2023), Museum number: AMS 76.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 *I.e.* l. 933 in Preisendanz’s edition.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 Cf. Smith 1984, 1986. Translation: *GMPT* 172–195. In this paper, we use Smith’s translation with slight modifications.</footnote>
sions are based on assumptions about the history of magic and an original text structure
that most scholars no longer share.<fnref n="10" /> There are indeed several versions of the same ritual
the purpose of which is to call on the god of the universe. For M. Smith, there are three
of these versions (*PGM* XIII, 1–343, 343–646, 646–734) and he considered the next part
(*PGM* XIII, 734–1077) to be mere *addenda*, linked with the previous ceremony as regards
their themes, but disconnected from it in terms of the general codex structure. However,
it is now considered that only two independent and slightly different versions of the
same ritual are actually attested in *PGM* XIII (Fig. 1). In part A (l. 1–343), the purpose of
the ritual is to get a powerful Name from the god during a revelation and from then on,
to make use of it according to different recipes listed in an appendix at the end of part
A. In part B, a second version of the ceremony is delivered, but it differs from A in its
purpose (l. 343–734): instead of a Name, an astrological revelation about one’s future is
expected to be granted and predicted unfortunate events are to be cancelled by a prayer.
Parts A and B eventually give redundant information. The last part of the codex (part C)
contains another complex ceremony (l. 734–1078), which also consists in an invocation of
the god of the universe, but whose *praxis* appears to be of a very different kind and re-
lies on the singing of vowels and swallowing of their power.<fnref n="11" /> Since it gives the details of
a different ritual, we will leave it aside and focus on parts A and B as two versions of the
same ritual.

STRUCTURE OF PGM XIII

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1: Structure of *PGM* XIII.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="10">10 Suarez 2013. Cf. Dorandi 2020. We had access to Gordon/Yuen-Collingridge 2022 after the completion of this paper, but it must be referred to for deeper analysis of the structure of the papyrus.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 Audureau 2021.</footnote>
The grandiose ceremony in parts A and B was nicknamed *kosmopoia* from a term used by the copyist to refer to one part of the *logoi* (ritual speech) – and we will return to it later on. It is also known as the “Leiden ceremony” due to the place where the papyrus is currently kept. However, the purpose of the book copied in part A is to obtain the holy/pure Name (περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ ἁγίου, l. 3 – see Fig. 2), and the practice described in the second version, part B (l. 345–346), is entitled the “ritual of the Name which encompasses/surpasses everything” (τοῦ τὰ πάντα περιέχοντος ὀνόμα | τος). One copyist found several titles that he records in l. 731–734: *The 8th hidden (book) of Moses*, or *Hidden book of Moses on the Great Name, book for many things, in which is the Name of the One who governs all things*. The ritual leads to the knowledge of a divine Name, and our horizon here is the relationship between a ritual use of divine denominations and the textual manipulation of these names as a hermeneutical tool for reshaping divine traditions. On the linguistics, we remain in debt to former commentators such as Michel Tardieu and Michela Zago, and we mostly focus on the context of the enunciation, the role of names in ritual knowledge transmission and the structure of the texts. A very intricate network of names and ritual elements can inflict vertigo in what follows, but our aim is to show that it actually builds a well-constructed knowledge. A general overview of the text indicates that there is a coherent objective: to base a theological discourse on the exegesis of what it calls the “*authentika onomata*”, the authentic, true, or maybe powerful names of the divine – the adjective may originally mean “doing by itself” and consequently “being powerful”. This is not, therefore, a matter of truth, but a matter of power.<fnref n="12" /> Three strategies are at stake: the evidence of multilingualism, the weaving of names into narrative and the materialisation of the *onomata* in visual media. All strategies are given perspective when we consider the authoritative hermeneutics and general empowerment of the ritual expert.

<footnote n="12">12 PGM XIII, 141, 351, 388, 446, 622, 638. See also PGM I (= GEMF 31), 36, V, 363–364, IX, 14, XIV, 21 (= GEMF 16, 687).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2: P. Leid. I 395, page 1. Photo of the National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden. CC0 1.0 (Public Domain).</figcaption></figure>
# 1 Multilingualism, Narrative and Image:
## How to Make Sense and Act with a Network
## of Divine Names

In order to delve further into a detailed analysis of this document, it is necessary to sum up how the ritual works. After forty-one days of purification, the ceremony takes place on the first new moon of the year, that is, after the spring equinox. The seven days prior to the ritual, one has to “sleep on the ground on a pallet of rushes, rising at dawn [to] greet the Sun”.<fnref n="13" /> Once this preliminary part is completed, the main ritual begins at about eleven o’clock at night and consists mainly in prayers and invocations. There is a fire on the altar and two roosters are mentioned, for use in a sacrifice offering.<fnref n="14" /> At this time, the text requests the recital of “the Stele and the mystery of the god, which is [called?] Scarab”.<fnref n="15" /> The mystery in question is mentioned nowhere else in PGM XIII, while the Stele refers to a prayer written previously: on a square of natron – a sodium carbonate – a figure of a god must be drawn and an invocation written. After the recitation of the Stele, one side must be licked off and wine should be poured over the other, washing it off into a “crater containing milk of a black cow and wine not mixed with seawater”.<fnref n="16" /> A second invocation, the title of which is unclear, but which may refer to hermetism (Karl Preisendanz reads “Hermaikos”, Fig. 3) must be recited over the bowl and then the beverage must be drunk. Then, the ritual agent can sleep on the mat, having at hand a tablet and a stylus in prevision of the revelation.

We will stop on a few, but nevertheless important, divine names written or pro-
nounced in the prayers that give rhythm to the ritual. Curiously, when we delve into
the configuration of the divine names, we see that two prayers (or logoî) work differ-
ently. One is the Stele that has to be both written on a material medium and pro-
nounced at a key moment of the ritual; the other is the Hermaikos that repeats some
sequences of the Stele in a more complex and exegetic way. This second logos is instan-
taneously followed by a cosmogonic narrative, the Kosmopoia. In the meantime, atten-
tion must be paid to the images described in the ritual prescription, for they also play a
role in enacting the divine names. Prayer, exegesis, narrative and images all contribute
to webbing together the knowledge on names around the human agent that manipula-
tes them and, through them, builds a complex theological edifice.

<footnote n="13">13 PGM XIII, 116–117: χαμαικοιτῶν ἐπὶ ψιάθου θρυῦνης, | κατὰ πρωὶ ἀνιστανόμενος τὸν ἦλιον χαιρέτισον.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 Johnston 2000; Zografou 2013.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15 PGM XIII, 127–128: ἄρξαι λέγειν τὴν στήλην | καὶ τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃ ἐστὶν κάνθαρος.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 PGM XIII, 129–130: ἔχε δὲ κρα|τῆρα παρακείμενον ἔχοντα γάλα μελαίν<η>ς βοὸς | καὶ οἶνον ἀθάλασ<σ>ον. The vessel is actually called a *kratêr* in Greek, which summons up the traditional mixing of wine and water during Greek *sumposia*.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3:** *P. Leid.* I 395, page 4. Photo of the National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden. CC0 1.0 (Public Domain).</figcaption></figure>
As we saw, the *Stele* is both written on a natron square and spoken aloud. It starts with an invocation (ἐπικαλοῦμαί σε, “I call on you”) of the god as the first creator of all, empowering the Sun and the Moon, invisible and eternal (“Aion of Aiones”). This first invocation is followed by three others based on the same formula: ἐπικαλοῦμαί σε, κύριε, “I call on you, lord . . .” This series of invocations runs according to the following structure (part A):

I call on you, lord, to appear to me in a good form, for under your order I serve your angel/messenger, *Biathiar barberbir schilatourbou phroumtrōm*, and your fear, *Danoupchrator belbali-balbith iaō*. Through you arose the celestial pole and the earth.

I call on you, lord, as do the gods who appeared under your [order?] that they may have power: *Echebukrōm* of Helios, whose is the glory (οὖ ἡ δόξα), *aaa ἐεῖ ὀοῦ iii aaa ὀοῦ Sabaōth Arbathiaō Zagourō*, the god *Arathy Adōnaie*.

I call on you, lord, in “birdglyphic” (όρνεογλυφιστί): *Arai*; in hieroglyphic: *Lailam*; in Hebraic: *Anoch Biathiar bathberbir echilatourbou phroumtrom*; in Egyptian: *Aldabaeim*; in “ape-language” (κυνοκεφαλιστί): *Abrasax*; in “falcon-language” (ἰερακιστί): *chi chi chi chi chi chi tiph tiph tiph*; in hieratic: *Menephōiphōth cha cha cha cha cha cha*.<fnref n="17" />

After 3 claps of the hands, a long popping sound and a long hissing that we shall explain later, the invocator closes the *Stele* with a request for epiphany, “for I have been initiated into your name”.<fnref n="18" /> The invocations of the *Stele* are pivotal in the claim for knowledge of the divine through names and they will appear, through our analysis, as the structural basis of the onomastic at work – we synthesise this complex onomastic labyrinth in Tab. 1, at the end of this paper. The first of these invocations gives two names, related respectively to the angel/messenger (ἄγγελος) of the god and to his fear (φόβος). The second invocation contains a long sequence supposedly used by other gods. The third invocation of the *Stele* gives a succession of names in different writing styles and languages, human as well as non-human ones: the writing of the birds (birdglyphic) as well as the sacred script (hieroglyphic) and the hieratic, the languages of the Hebrews, Egyptians, apes and falcons. It is a claim for global and linguistic knowledge that allows us to study how the ritual’s author worked with multilingualism.

The *Stele* gives no further details. But the second prayer, that we call *Hermaikos* despite the complex reading of this word on the papyrus, recovers the sequences of these three invocations in a completely different manner.

<footnote n="17">17 PGM XIII, 71–87 (B: 582–600).</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 PGM XIII, 90: ὅτι τετέλεσμαί σου τὸ ὄνομα.</footnote>
## 1.1 Multilingualism

The *Hermaikos* starts with “I call on you who encompasses/surpasses everything (τὸν τὰ πάντα περιέχοντα), in every voice (φωνῆ) and in every language (διαλέκτω), as the first ...” In version B of the *Book of Moses*, some titles given to the whole ritual, as we saw, qualified the Name of the god as “encompassing everything” (τὰ πάντα περιέχον). It is a prevalent idea that the god and his name are all encompassing, and this idea may govern the claim to call them in every voice and language – a distinction that could correspond to a dichotomy between human and non-human *phōnai* on one part, and the multiplicity of *dialekta* among humankind on the other part.<fnref n="19" />

After this clear and ambitious claim, the prayer continues with a first sequence of *authentika onomata*:

> ... I invoke you (ἐπικαλοῦμαί σε) (...) as he first sang you (ὑμνησέ σε) the one who was by you appointed and entrusted all the *authentika*.<fnref n="20" /> “Helios *Achebukrōm*” (which means the flame and radiance of the disk), “whose is glory *aaa ἐεὲ ὀοο*” (because he was glorified by you who set the air and the stars of glittering forms, and who, in divine light, create the cosmos), “*iii aaa ὀοο*” (in which you have set in order all things), “*Sabaōth Arbathiaō Zagourē*” (these are the first angels to appear), “*Arath Adōnaie Basēmm Iaō*.”<fnref n="21" />

This name corresponds to the whole sequence that, in the *Stele*, is the core of the second invocation. Here in the *Hermaikos*, the explanations cut the sequence into different sub-sequences and give meaning to each of them. Part B of the papyrus shows a few changes, combining *iii aaa ὀοο* and *Sabaōth Arbathiaō Zagourē* into one sub-sequence and adding *Araga* at the beginning of the last one. The complete sequence of these *authentika (onomata)* would be *Hēlios Achebukrōm* | *hou hē doxa aaa ἐεὲ ὀοο* | *iii aaa ὀοο* | *Sabaōth Arbathiaō Zagourē* | (*Araga*) *Arath Adōnaie Basēmm Iaō*. Greek words and vowels are combined with several Hebrew names and one Egyptian formula (*Achebukrōm*, referring to the radiance of the sun disk). Whatever the etymological meaning of the phrase, what is interesting is the effort dedicated to giving the sequence sense and order (Tab. 1, part 2). This artificial *bricolage* structures a divine configuration and taxonomy under the first god: after the Sun comes the sky, the cosmos and the seven *aggeloi*. These *aggeloi* bear Semitic names and complete the cosmological hierarchy.<fnref n="22" /> Therefore, the whole sequence can indeed be read as a *panta periechon onoma*, a “Name that encompasses everything”.

<footnote n="19">19 See another case of multiple denominations attributed to different languages in *PGM* XII, 260–267.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 Morton Smith translated “with all authorities”.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 *PGM* XIII, 138–147.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">22 Zago 2013, 213–216: Sabaoth (“Lord of the armies”), Arbathiao (“the Tetragrammaton YHWH”), Zagoure (“Pure Light”), Araga/Arath (more difficult to explain), Adonaie (“Lord”), Basemm Iao (“the Name of YHWH”).</footnote>
Right after that comes the text corresponding to the last invocation of the *Stele*, that is, the multilingual sequence. Linguistic diversity certainly appears here as a means of reproducing, in language, the extension of divine power to the entire universe of beings. Some glosses can also be seen to explain the various divine names mentioned in this prayer; they have been underlined in the following quotation, from the “Hermaikos” logos:

> The first angel/messenger cries in birdglyphic *Arai* (which is [“Woe to my enemy” – and you have set him]<fnref n="23" /> in charge of the punishments). The Sun hymns you in hieroglyphic *Lailam*, and in He-brew by his own name, *Anok Biathiar barberbir schilatourbou phroumtrōm* (36 letters); he says, “I precede you, lord, I who rise on the boat of the sun, the disk, thanks to you”. Your natural name (τὸ δὲ φυσικόν σου ὄνομα)<fnref n="24" /> in Egyptian is *Aldabaeim* (9 letters, see below) [Here, version B does not count letters, but says: “This means the boat, on which he comes up, rising on the world”<fnref n="25" />]. Now, he who appears on the boat rising together with you is a clever ape; he greets you in his own language, saying: “You are the number of the year, *Abrasax*”. The falcon on the other end [of the boat] greets you in his own language and cries out to receive food, *chi chi chi chi chi chi ti ti ti ti ti ti*. He of the nine forms greets you in hieratic, *menephōiphōth* (meaning “I go before you, lord”) . . . <fnref n="26" />

Once again, the name as it is found in the *Stele* is expanded by glosses interpolated in the text so that it makes sense (Tab. 1, part 3). We are under the impression that, at some stage in the text transmission, copyists worried about giving a semantic value to certain formulas, even though these glosses are not systematic. At the same time, the reiteration of the invocations of the *Stele* with glosses gives sense to the title of this *logos*, “*hermaic*” – however difficult it is to read on the papyrus – as a text that “translates” or “explains” (*hermeneuein*).<fnref n="27" /> Names are explained thanks to (sometimes false) translations and numerical values. *Abrasax*, for instance, is accurately linked to the number of days in a year since its numerical value is indeed 365,<fnref n="28" /> but this becomes a complete sentence in the translation. *Menephōiphōth* may be read as “I am before god’s face” (Coptic), though “I go before you” can be rooted in etymology.<fnref n="29" /> However, rather than providing an etymology as a basis for ritual efficiency, these glosses aim at depicting a divine portrait.

All the addenda to the prayer, while giving an exegesis, allow for a visualisation of the boat of the Sun, preceded by a first *aggelos* and meeting an *enneamorphos* (nine-formed) god. On the boat are the Sun god and two animals, the ape and the fal-

<footnote n="23">23 Here, it is emended by Preisendanz according to part B.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">24 See Zago 2013.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25 *PGM* XIII, 462–463.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">26 *PGM* XIII, 147–161 (part B: l. 454–471).</footnote>

<footnote n="27">27 A suggestion already made by Zago 2013, 212. On the meaning of *hermeneuein* and the *hermeneia*, see Bettini 2012.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">28 Harrauer 2006. Each Greek letter corresponds to a number. When the letters composing *abrasax* are added together, they make 365.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">29 Zago 2013, 217.</footnote>
con. At the centre, the boat itself has a “natural” name in Egyptian. This structuration of the Sun boat echoes actual images such as those found on several “magical” gems, where the Sun is represented as a child god on a papyrus boat, faced by an ape and two falcons (Fig. 4). One can also find Osiris and Sarapis associated with this configuration (Fig. 5). While the Name and its glosses make the animal speak, the image evoked to the mind is a vivid, dynamic configuration of the solar deity, and an Egyptian one at that. But the claim for multilingualism is not based on an accurate repartition of the languages. If the cry of the falcon honestly resembles a real falcon in flight, the etymology of *Lailam* cannot be found in Egyptian hieroglyphics and may well be Aramaic for “The Eternal One” – as far as modern etymologies of ancient *barbarika onomata* go.<fnref n="30" /> We will explore this further with the case of the *Biathiar*- sequence in order to demonstrate that linguistics is less of a concern for the ritual expert than the general theology it serves.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4:** Jasper, 3rd c. CE, 12 x 16 x 2 mm. Obv.: Child Sun seated on a lotus flower in a papyrus boat, holding a flail in the left hand, right hand on the mouth. A star and a crescent moon on top of the field, adoring ape in the boat in front of the god, a falcon at both ends of the boat. Rev.: Ἀβρασαξ. British Museum, G 522 (EA 56522). Bibliography: Michel 2001, no. 123; Michel 2004, no. 19.3.d_3; Campbell Bonner database 523. Photo: Christopher A. Faraone, © Trustees of the British Museum.</figcaption></figure>

*Biathiar-* is introduced in this passage as a Hebraic name of the supreme solar god addressed in the invocation. However, the content of the invocative part relative to Hebrew starts with a Coptic word, *anoch*, which means “I am”.<fnref n="31" /> The word *Biathiar* could mean “eye of Horus” in Egyptian as well.<fnref n="32" /> *Barberbir*, however, is more obscure: it could be related to the Coptic meaning “to bubble up”, a verb that may refer to the sight of the god which creates a bubbling of life.<fnref n="33" /> As for *phroumtrom*, it likely means “mouth of fire”.<fnref n="34" /> Furthermore, the name is glossed thrice to indicate the number of

<footnote n="30">30 *l'olam*, Brashear 1995.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">31 *GMPT* 332.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">32 *PGM* III, 673.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">33 Zago 2008, 213.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">34 Zago 2008, 213. See *PGM* V, 154; VII, 245–246; VIII, 93–94.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5:** Jasper, 27 x 20 x 3 mm. Obv.: Osiris in front, mummified, crowned with the atef-crown and ram horns, on a papyrus boat; on his right a goddess with horns and a sun-disk on her head, a sistrum in her hand, on his left a goddess crowned with atef-crown and a sistrum; on the right end of the boat, an ape, on the left end, a falcon. Rev.: Sarapis in front, face turned to the right, mummified, standing on a pedestal and crowned with a modius; surrounding inscription: Βαινχωωωχ. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, SCL-Bonner 56. Bibliography: Bonner 1950, no. D.1; Michel 2004, no. 39.4.a_2; Campbell Bonner database 462. Photo Christopher A. Faraone, © C.A. Faraone, Ann Arbor, Special Collections Library.</figcaption></figure>

letters it is composed of: thirty-six *grammata*.<fnref n="35" /> This number stands for the decans, an astronomical division of the sky according to the solar circle during the year which is of Egyptian origin. Therefore, the name refers to the sun and, by metonymy, to the whole universe the sun travels around. The invocator neither makes sense of the name from its meaning nor its origin, and the ritual power relies on the illusion of diversity that the various names create. The focus on oddity may be a ritual strategy to exceed the limits of human languages in order to reach a divine and universal reality, and the multiplicity of languages mentioned in this prayer, including animal languages, can be linked to an emphasis on the inherent divine power of names. Here, unintelligible names serve to catch the divine essence in its infinite aspects beyond the intelligible and restrictive extent of words.

(Anoch) *Biathiar barberbir echilatourbou phroumtrōm* occurs in an invocation taking various forms throughout the text and is written on nine occurrences within the codex, four times in part A and five times in part B. Actually, this divine name appears in three different contexts which can provide insight into its value. The first one, as we saw, is the *Stele*, with a first formula that says “I serve your angel *Biathiar-*” and a second which, adding the *Anoch* element, is the supposedly “Hebraic” name. The second context is the “*Hermaikos*” that has to be recited, but this time, it is not “I” the invocator who names the god, but the Sun himself: “The Sun hymns you in hieroglyphic, *Lailam*, in Hebrew by his own name *Anoch Biathiar-*”. Now, the “*Hermaikos*” states that this (faked) Hebrew name is of the Sun and by the Sun, but complements all other names to address the all-

<footnote n="35">35 *PGM* XIII, 151; *passim*.</footnote>
encompassing god himself. In the third context, the names are not to be recited, they appear instead in a narrative.

## 1.2 Narrative

Likewise, it is possible to give a linguistic explanation for another major divine name used by the *Stele* in the first invocation. Indeed, according to Michel Tardieu, *Danoup chratōr belbali balbith iaō* can be understood as a name composed of Greek and Hebrew.<fnref n="36" /> Providing we interpret *Danoup* as an anagram for *panto-* (*tanop* sounding like *danoup*), the first two words are the equivalent of * pantocratōr*. For the next sequence, M. Tardieu suggests that *b'lb'ly(m)*, *b'lb-ytw-yhw* means “tout-puissant, maître des maîtres, maître de la maison de Yahō”. But while the copyist could possibly have ensured the understanding and transmission of the original meaning by providing a translation, they opted for another explanatory strategy, namely a textual *bricolage*. As we will see below, this *bricolage* sheds light, not on the meaning, but on the pragmatics of these two names (*biathiarbar* and *danoup chratōr*) and their ritual efficiency.

Another treatment of the names is developed in a very important section located in parts A (l. 161–206) and B (l. 471–563). It is named the *Kosmopoia* and is actually an extensive mythological excursus on world creation slotted into the framework of the *Ritual of the Name which encompasses everything*. This narrative account does not share the generic characteristics of ritual texts, it bears no clear relation with the ritual underway and suddenly interrupts the instructions on l. 161 (A) and l. 471 (B) in the middle of a prayer – the prayer that part A calls *“Hermaikos”*. In part B, the first sentence after the prayer starts with *εἰπὼν* (“having said”), giving a reader used to this kind of recipes reason to expect that the prayer has been achieved and that a new order is about to be given to a second person subject (“Having said this prayer, you should do such and such a thing”). But the aorist verb tense and the third person *ἐκρότησε* (“He clapped”) cannot refer to *σύ* (“you”), nor to any previous subject. The subject is actually postponed after the second verb *ἐγέλασε* (“he laughed”) and appears to be ὁ θεὸς (“the god”) (l. 472). Obviously, this is where a new section dealing with the cosmogony begins. It does not seem intended to be recited as a *logos*; it is rather a suddenly juxtaposed patchwork-like narrative. The question is: why did the copyist insert this mythological excerpt into the ritual text? If we pay attention to the various names that this cosmogonic account mentions, we will notice that some of them are already attested in other *logoi* of the ceremony, and they are precisely the most important ones.

According to the *Kosmopoia*, in primeval times, the god of the universe laughed seven times (*cha cha cha cha cha cha cha*). In the *Stele*, this sound is already present:

<footnote n="36">36 Tardieu 1987, 298.</footnote>
when the name is declined in different languages, the “hieratic” name is *Menephōiphōth* cha cha cha cha cha cha cha (seven times): the “Hermaikos” attributes *Menephōiphōth* to an *enneamorphos* god who claims to be placed before the god. But here, the “Hermaikos” does not abide by the seven laughs and they seem to have been moved to the *Kosmopoia* section, where they are glossed by this long narrative. Each one of the seven laughs, indeed, makes a new divine reality appear and receive a divine name. To summarise the creation process, it begins with (1) the apparition of light as the first cosmological event; then, it proceeds to (2) the division of the primeval waters and the apparition of a god in charge of the abyss, (3) the creation of the Intellect (Νοῦς or Φρένες), (4) a life principle (Γέννα) and (5) a world-ordering principle (Μοῖρα). (6) The next stage consists in the creation of time (Καιρός) with the sun and the moon. The final (7) laugh of the supreme god creates the soul (Ψυχή). Let us focus first on the narrative of the sixth stage as it appears in version B:

> He laughed the sixth time and was much gladdened, and Time (Καιρός) appeared, holding a sceptre, indicating kingship, and he gave over the sceptre to the first-created god (= Light, Φῶς), who receiving it said: "You, wrapping yourself in the glory of Light (τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Φωτὸς), will be after me, because you first gave me a sceptre. All things will be subjects to you, those that were before and those yet to be. All power will be in you". When [Time] wrapped himself in the glory of Light (τοῦ Φωτὸς τὴν δόξα<ν>), the disk which turns around Light produced a certain effluence (τινα αὖραν). The god said to the queen: "You, wrapping yourself in the effluence of Light (τὴν αὖραν τοῦ Φωτὸς), you will be after him and will encompass the whole universe (περιέχουσα τὰ πάντα). You will wax with the light you receive from him, and again you will wane because of him. With you, everything will increase and diminish". So the great and marvellous name (τὸ ὄνομα μέγα καὶ θαυμαστόν) is *anag biathiar barberbi schilatour bouphrountōrm* (36 letters).<fnref n="37" />

In *Kairos* and the Queen (βασιλίσση) it is easy to recognise a designation of the sun and the moon. *Biathiar-* is mentioned in this mythological excursus as “the great and marvellous name” related to the creation of the sun and the moon. So, instead of giving the linguistic meaning of the *Biathiar*-formula in the form of a translation, as was done for other names, the text provides a narrative value. On top of a cosmological reference, this value also contains a theological and hierarchical statement about the powers in the universe: after the supreme god comes the sun, then the moon depends on the sun. The whole mythological excursus works as a *historiola* to empower the names that the ritualist uses during the ceremony.<fnref n="38" /> The cosmological value of the *Biathiarbar*-formula is indeed activated during the ceremony, for the text of the *Stele* written on the natron clearly states:

<footnote n="37">37 PGM XIII, 506–520.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">38 Frankfurter 2001.</footnote>
Under your cosmos (ὑπὸ τὸν σὸν κόσμον), I am the servant (δουλεύω) of your angel/messenger anog biathiar barberbi schilatourbou phrountōrm and of your fear danoupchrantor belbalibalbith iað. Through you the celestial pole and the earth were set together.<fnref n="39" />

M. Smith’s translation of ὑπὸ τὸν σὸν κόσμον by “under your order” is unsatisfying here since it wipes out the explicit cosmological value of κόσμος, which hints at the world creation accounted in the myth, while adding a connotation more appropriate to ἐντολή (“command”), for example. *Kosmos*, indeed, can describe a well-ordered universe, but cannot be taken as a synonym for “command” as in French or English. Still, along with δουλεύω it is true that ὑπὸ connotes a hierarchic meaning too. The entire phrase may be difficult to render simply: the human being is placed in the universe (certainly in its lower part) as an obedient subordinate at the service of the supreme god’s emanations. Indeed, the “angel” or “messenger” of the god (τῷ σῷ ἀγγέλῳ) bears the “great and marvellous” name *Biathiar-* that the *Kosmopoia* connects with the aforementioned sixth stage and the creation of the sun. And, on the same principle, the “Fear” (τῷ σῷ Φόβῳ) of the god can be linked by its name *Danoup chratōr-* with the seventh and final stage of the cosmogony.

We have seen the possible linguistic explanation of this name; the narrative of the *Kosmopoia* provides another kind of explanation. Psyche’s birth upon the seventh laugh is indeed immediately followed by a cosmic event. When the soul (Ψυχή) is created, the whole universe is in motion – animated:

When the god saw this, he made “pop” (ἐπόππυσεν), and everything was terrified (ἐθαμβήθη), and through the popping (διὰ τοῦ ποππυσμοῦ) the Fear (Φόβος) appeared armed. He is called *Danoupchratōr berbalibalbithi* (26 letters). Then, [the god] looked down to the earth and gave a loud hiss (ἐσύρισε), and the earth received the echo (τὸν ἦχον) and opened. It gave birth to an animal of its own, the Pythian serpent, who foreknew everything through the utterance (διὰ τὸν φθόγγον) of the god. Its great and holy name (τὸ ὅνομα μέγα καὶ ἄγιον) is: *Ililloui Ililloui Ililloui ithōr marmaraugō phōchō phōbōch*. When it appeared, the earth (ή γῆ) heaved and was raised much higher, but the celestial pole (ό πόλος) stayed unmoved and was about to join [the earth]. But the god said: *iað*, and everything was fixed in place. And a great god very great (μέγας θεὸς μέγιστος) appeared, who established the things that were before in the *kosmos* and the things yet to be, so that none of the aerial bodies was thenceforth out of place.

When the Fear saw someone stronger than himself, he opposed him saying: “I am prior to you (σοῦ πρῶτός εἰμι)”. However, the other replied: “But I established everything (ἀλλ' ἐγὼ πάντα ἔστησα)”. The god declared: “You come from an echo (ἐξ ἦχους), but this one from an utterance (ἐκ φθόγγου). Now an utterance is better than an echo. The power (ἀδύναμίς) of you [Iað], who appeared last, will derive from both, so that all things may be fixed in their places”. And he was thenceforth called by the great and marvellous name (τὸ ὅνομα μέγα καὶ θαυμαστόν) *Danoup chratōr berbalibalbith iað*.<fnref n="40" />

<footnote n="39">39 PGM XIII, 582–586. Cf. PGM XIII, 72–76; 617–618.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">40 PGM XIII, 526–554.</footnote>
Three divine emanations follow the animation of the world with Ψυχή: the Fear (Φόβος), named *Danoup chratōr*–; the Pythian serpent, named *Ililloui Ililloui Ililloui ithōr marmaraugō phōchō phōbōch*;<fnref n="41" /> and *Iaō*. Here, part A is much simpler, for the Pythian serpent emerges first from a hiss of the god, followed by an “armed man” (who is not identified as *Phobos*, but the god creates him with a “pop” emitted out of fear), and then the echo *Iaō*. Both the armed god and *Iaō* are put in charge of everything. In part B, the apparition of *Phobos* and the serpent threatens to destroy everything that has just been created. Interestingly enough, this pair makes reference to the Greek myth of the Pythian serpent and Apollo, whose other name – *Phoibos* – is alluded to by the paronomasia with *Phobos*.

Therefore, while the ritual ceremony aims either to make magical use of a divine name to act on upcoming events (part A) or to proceed to a divinatory consultation in order to discover and modify one's future (part B), the narrative seems to deal with the ability of foreknowledge to bring disorder to a previously well-ordered divine cosmos. In other words, the myth and the names it contains could encode a kind of reflection on the ritual itself. Indeed, like the divine echo which, by creating the Pythian serpent, provokes the raising of the earth, the divine Name that the ritual experts can use for various purposes in part A is able to perturb the already-fixed worldly order; likewise, the oracular consultation in part B is aimed at transforming the previously-fixed events. These are perturbations which can be perceived as entering in conflict with the eternal divine organisation and providence. Yet, the threat posed to the universe is resolved by one last divine emanation (*Iaō*) the function of which is to re-establish order in the universe (ἐγὼ πάντα ἔστησα) and to fight against destruction. The antagonism between order and disorder is well epitomised in the conflict between *Phobos* and *Iaō* for priority: “I am prior to you” says *Phobos* to *Iaō* (σοῦ πρῶτος εἰμ). Finally, the supreme god settles the question and gives a new name to *Iaō*. This new name is created by adding the name *Phobos* (the *Danoup chratōr*– name) before *Iaō*. So, it comes first from a chronological point of view, but the whole name including *Iaō* is superior. This name derivation reflects the power and duties of both gods. The final name *Danoup chratōr* . . . *Iaō* is therefore in charge of fixing everything after they are threatened by a disorder-creating name. The adjunction of *Iaō* at the end of *Danoup chratōr*– may also create a more complete name since it is now composed of 28 letters instead of the 26 letters previously mentioned by the text for *Danoup chratōr*– (the iota at the end of *Danoup chratōr*– is not doubled when adding *Iaō*, so only two letters are actually added). The number 28 is famously known to embody the symbolic meaning of perfection and completeness.<fnref n="42" />

<footnote n="41">41 Tardieu, 1987, 298, explains this name as 'l-'llhy(m) eiat-hōr mármar(os) augē hof o b(ai-n-khō)ōkh, which means “dieu des dieux (x3), œil d’Horus, éclat resplendissant, grand serpent, esprit de la ténèbre”.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">42 Audureau 2021.</footnote>
*Phobos* emerges from a sound, a *poppusmos* that may be the initial p(h)- sound of his Greek name,<fnref n="43" /> and takes on the name *Danoup chratōr*; the *drakōn* emerges from a hissing sound s- and takes on the name *Ilillou*. Then, to face the threat, another sound, *Iaō*, gives birth to the eponymous god who challenges *Phobos* and the Pythian *drakōn*, as order challenging chaos, who is attributed both their powers: he now supplies and takes on the name *Danoup chratōr*. There is a hierarchy in the phonetic ontology of the *Kosmopoia*:<fnref n="44" /> the p(h)- sound creating *Phobos* is an utterance, while the s- sound creating the serpent is an echo; both are submitted to the word-god *Iaō*. The result is that, by using these names during the ritual ceremony, the human being plays a new part in the cosmogony and extends the mythological story in a new form. The narrative excursus therefore displays a kind of basis for the ritual action. Not only does the myth provide an explanation for various divine names used during the ceremony, but it also states that the human agency can be conceived, at least in some way, as an imitation, and maybe a re-enactment, of the divine power. Indeed, in both parts, A and B, the human being must declare “Lord, I imitate you [by saying] the seven vowels”.<fnref n="45" /> Then, in part B only, they must utter the name composed of 26 letters, that is *Danoup chratōr*.<fnref n="46" /> This may point directly to the final stage of the myth, when the supreme god must intercede.

## 1.3 Image

The phonetic creation of the *kosmos* reflects on the “name” written on the natron. To be precise, the name is drawn, more than written, on one face of the natron square:

> As for the name [of the great god], write (γράψον) all of it on the Greek natron. Instead of the “pop pop pop” sound (τοῦ ποππυσμοῦ) [in the name] draw (γράψον) on the Greek natron a fal-con-formed crocodile, for he greets the god four times a year at the gods’ powerful entries of new periods (αὐθεντικαῖς νεομηνίαις).<fnref n="47" />

Here, the description is explained: the falcon-headed crocodile is the figurative form of the *poppusmos*, and an entity that greats the Sun, with this sound, every new season of the year. This timely entity, that the *exegesis* of the *Kosmopoia* would relate to

<footnote n="43">43 The pronunciation of the letter φ is uncertain, since it previously sounded like an aspirated “p”, as in English “pot”, before it came to be pronounced like the “f” in “foot”.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">44 See Crippa 2012.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">45 PGM XIII, 700–701: κύριε, ἀπομιμοῦμαί σε ταῖς ἄρωναῖς. Cf. XIII, 206–207.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">46 PGM XIII, 529.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">47 PGM XIII, 383–388.</footnote>
the *Phobos*, “received the forms and the power of the nine gods that rise with the Sun”<fnref n="48" /> – who these nine gods are will become clear in a moment.

This power and form of the falcon-headed crocodile, *aka “poppusmos”*, is given to him by a “nine-formed” god. We have met this *enneamorphos* entity, who says *Mene-phōiphōth* in “hieratic” language, right before the seven laughs and the start of the *Kosmopoia*. He precedes the Sun boat and might be given more importance in this new graphic sequence. Returning to the description of the name-drawing on the natron, the text says:

> Accordingly, draw both in myrrh-ink, that is the falcon-faced (ἰερακοπρόσωπον) crocodile and the *enneamorphos* standing on him. For the falcon-faced crocodile at the four turnings [of the year] greets the god with his popping noise. For coming up to breathe from the deep he goes popping and the *enneamorphos* replies to him antiphonally. Therefore, instead of the popping, draw the falcon-faced crocodile, for the popping is the first element of the name. The second is a hissing, and instead of the hissing [draw] a serpent biting its own tail. The two elements, popping and hissing, are [represented by] a falcon-faced crocodile and the *enneamorphos* standing on it, and around these a serpent and the seven vowels.<fnref n="49" />

This is how to write/draw the “9 *onomata*”: the nine-formed entity standing on the falcon-headed crocodile, both in the centre of a graphic composition surrounded by the *ouroboros* snake and the series of the seven vowels. Seven vowels that may well record the seven laughs and gods of the *Kosmopoia*, followed by the p(h)- sound of Phobos and the s- sound of the Pythian snake – so: nine letters. All nine are merged into the name of a nine-formed god, one might think. Phonetically, the sequence closely resembles the Egyptian name of the god of time and destiny, *Pshai*.<fnref n="50" /> While the *Kosmopoia* gives a narrative to the naming and phonetic ontology of the world, the natron gives matter and image to the very same ontology of the god.<fnref n="51" /> The “great name with seven vowels” (l. 39–53 and see l. 383–423) is written on the natron as the “9 *onomata*” – *p(h) sa e ē i o u ō* –, and as such, it encompasses everything.

Another god is important given the divinatory nature of the ritual: Apollon (l. 103–114 and 659–670). He is to be drawn on a root of laurel with the tripod and Python, therefore in his Greek image, but named on the same piece of wood by a “great name in an Egyptian form”: the palindrom *Bainchōōōchōōōchniab* on his chest, *Ilillou Ilillou Ilillou* on the back, *Ithōr Marmaraugē Phōkōphōbōch* around the tripod and the snake. We came across the sequence *Ilillou Ilillou Ilillou Ithōr Marmaraugē Phōkōphōbōch* as a name for the Pythian serpent in the *Kosmopoia*. Here, etymological hypotheses would read a multilingual net of Semitic, Egyptian and Greek com-

<footnote n="48">48 PGM XIII, 395–397: τῶν ἐννέα θεῶν τῶν ἀνατελλόντων σὺν τῷ ἡλίῳ ἔλαβε τὰς μορφὰς καὶ τὴν δύναμιν.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">49 PGM XIII, 409–423.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">50 Merkelbach 1992, 59–60. See also Quaegebeur 1975, 166–175.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">51 Galoppin 2021.</footnote>
pounds meaning “God of gods (thrice), Eye of Horus, Bright light, Great snake”.<fnref n="52" />
There is also an argument in favour of the wordplay between *Phobos* and *Phoibos*. The Fear of the god might also be Apollon, the patron of all mantic activities. This reclaims a Greek prominent figure into a new divine configuration: *Bainchōōōch*-, written on his chest, is Egyptian for “the *b*’ from the darkness”, an emerging light.<fnref n="53" /> The piece of wood combining Greek image and Egyptian name is to be worn around the neck with cinnamon and acts as a phylactery: the divine image is an object of power, protecting the ritualist while he meets with a higher power.

In the course of the ritual, the technical expertise relies on a variety of skills and mediums. The ritual expert combines iconographic and onomastic attributes with a variety of materials. Writing is supplemented by acts of speech: the image-text name, carved onto the bloc of natron is activated by a recitation of the whole system of names. Therefore, the visual form of the name maintains a connection with its phonetic aspect, the cosmological importance of which is enlightened by the myth. The natron inscribed with the name is also licked and drenched in a mixture of milk and wine to be drunk, the name becoming bodily appropriated by the ritualist. Phonetic, visible and drinkable, the name is definitely sensitive, materialised by a multisensorial technique. It embodies the divine power rather than being pure intellectual representation of the divine, and this embodiment is channelled here by and through the human agent themselves. Making and incorporating divine names is inherent to the transmission of knowledge about divine names which is a sensorial creation and an embodiment of the gods that requires specific ingredients, a specific state, precise conditions and a well-arranged progression – all the components of a recipe.

# 2 Authority of Knowledge and Empowerment of Names

## 2.1 The Knowledge of the Name is Power

The aim of the ritual, in part A at least, is to obtain the true Name from the god himself and, to do so, the ritual arranges a meeting with the deity.<fnref n="54" /> The whole, complex operation ends with the epiphany of the god, while the invocator is under a tent erected in a purified room, on the ground, upon a rush mat and ready to write on a tablet (πίναξ):<fnref n="55" />

<footnote n="52">52 See note 41, *supra*.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">53 Eg. *B'n kkw*.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">54 On these divine apparitions in the *PGM*, see Dosoo 2014.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">55 *PGM* XIII, 646; 702–704.</footnote>
When the god comes in, look down and write the things he says and the Name which he gives you for himself (δίδωσίν σοι αὐτοῦ ὀνομασίων). And do not go out from under your tent until he tells you accurately, too, the things that concern you.<fnref n="56" />

In an anticipating description of the apparition, part B depicts the god standing and answering the questions of the invocator after receiving his homage:

> Now, when the god comes in do not stare at his face, but look at his feet while beseeching him, as written above, and giving thanks that he did not treat you contemptuously, but you were thought worthy of the things about to be said to you for correction of your life. You, then, ask, “Master, what is fated for me?” And he will tell you even about your star, and what kind of *daimon* you have, and your horoscope and where you may live and where you will die. And if you hear something bad, do not cry out or weep, but ask that he may wash it off or circumvent it, for this god can do everything. Therefore, when you begin questioning, thank him for having heard you and not overlooked you.<fnref n="57" />

Here is a protocol for addressing a god as a “Master” (Δεσπότης). The addresser must be grateful (εὑχάριστος) for being privileged by the deity. According to this passage, more than the Name, the human subordinate asks about the fate (εἰμαρμένη) decided for themselves, in astrological terms, and for a change in case of bad omens. In classifying terms, the whole procedure is a ritual of divination and propitiation, while from a relational perspective we observe a petition from one subordinate human agent to a divine master.<fnref n="58" /> Title and marks of deference show that the transmission of divine knowledge is an up-down process between a master and his subordinate.

As we stated earlier, the second version puts the emphasis on this petitionary divination, while the first one focuses on learning the divine Name, or “whatever [the god] will give you as his denomination”.<fnref n="59" /> Part A adds, at the end, different “uses” (χρεῖαι) of the book (l. 231–342), which are a list of miracles to be performed with the Name:

> Here is the first marvellous invisibility (ή θαυμάσιος ἀμαυρά). Take a falcon egg and gild half of it, smearing the other half with cinnabar. Wearing this, you will be invisible when you pronounce the Name (ἐπιλέγων τὸ ὄνομα).

> To attract, in front of the sun, utter the Name 3 times (εἰπὲ γ' τὸ ὄνομα): it attracts a woman to a man and a man to a woman so well that you will be amazed (imate θαυμάσαι).

> If you want someone to be repulsive, either a man to a woman or a woman to a man, take dog excrements and put them on the post-hole of their door, utter the Name 3 times (εἰπὼν τὸ ὄνομα γ'), saying (λέγων) “I cut NN from NN.”

<footnote n="56">56 *PGM* XIII, 210–213.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">57 *PGM* XIII, 704–716.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">58 This calls for a comparison with hierarchical interactions in the human sphere, something we are unable to address in this paper.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">59 *PGM* XIII, 211 (A): ἦν δίδωσίν σοι αὐτοῦ ὀνομασίαν. *Id.* l. 565–566 (B).</footnote>
If you utter the Name to a demoniac (δαμονίζομένω) while putting sulphur and asphalt to his nose, he will speak at once and be released.<fnref n="60" />

This list goes on and provides different “uses” of the Name that we could classify as “magic”, while the text only marks it as “marvellous” (θαυμάσιος).<fnref n="61" /> At that point, the Name is already imbued with power and, uttered in specific situations and sometimes with specific ingredients or explicit formulae, it can perform precise, miraculous actions.<fnref n="62" /> The ritual expert who seeks knowledge of the Name is, here, empowered by it and becomes a miracle-worker, indulging in thaumaturgy. In this perspective, they inherit from the figures of wise, wonder-making, Egyptian priests, crossing the Nile on the backs of crocodiles<fnref n="63" /> or animating corpses:<fnref n="64" />

> Awaking of dead body: “I adjure you, pneuma roaming in the air, come, inflate (ἐνπνευμάτωσον), empower (δυνάμωσον), arouse with the power of the eternal god this body, and let it walk around this place, for I am the one who acts with the power of Thauth, holy god.” Say the Name.<fnref n="65" />

This, mostly literary, figure of the Egyptian priest, agent of the god of ritual knowledge Thot in life as in demotic novels,<fnref n="66" /> once fuses with Christian figures of thaumaturgy who are freed from their bounds by divine intervention:<fnref n="67" />

> Release from bounds (Δεσμόλυτον). Say: “Hear me, Chrestos, in tortures, help in necessities, merciful in times, who died violently, very powerful in the world, creator of necessity and retribution and torture”. 12 days, hiss thrice eight times, and say the entire Name of the Sun starting from <A>chebukrōm.<fnref n="68" />

The prescriptions generally follow a pattern, with the mention of the utterance of the Name: here, the Name is clearly identified as the Name of the Sun beginning with *Achebukrōm* or *Echebukrōm*. As we saw, this word is already used in the ritual to be performed before. Here, we notice a disturbing paradox: the ritual prescription is meant to learn a divine name which it already uses to do so. One solution is to think that, with the epiphany of the god, the name which encompasses everything is empowered by the divine apparition, and that the whole ritual procedure, building a complex theology around the name, creates the conditions to change the ritual expert into a miracle-worker who is truly empowered by their knowledge and enactment of the divine Name.

<footnote n="60">60 PGM XIII, 234–244.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">61 Gordon 1997.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">62 Crippa 2019. See Iamb., Myst. 8.5.259.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">63 PGM XIII, 282–288 (“I you want to cross on a crocodile . . .”). Luc., Philops. 34.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">64 *Fight for the Armure of Inaros* 1.25–2; Apul., *Met*. 28–30.</footnote>

<footnote n="65">65 PGM XIII, 277–282.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">66 Escolano–Poveda 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="67">67 De Bruyn/Dijkstra 2011, 186, no. 14.</footnote>

<footnote n="68">68 PGM XIII, 288–292. See Pachoumi 2010.</footnote>
## 2.2 Multiculturalism and Claim of Authority

If knowledge of names and the Name is a core issue of the ritual prescription, the ritual “revelation” of the Name by the god may have more to do with a gift of power and agency than with pure knowledge and intellection. With so much power at stake, ritual knowledge must be carefully wrapped in authoritative strategies of validation.<fnref n="69" /> The attribution of the “book” to Moses is an apocryphal claim of authority like many others in late antiquity. As such, it belongs nevertheless to the history of Jewish magic and bears some relation with Salomonic literature, as exemplified in the *Hygromanteia*, for instance.<fnref n="70" /> Like in this work, in *PGM* XIII a teacher can be seen addressing a “child” in order to make him “initiated”, right between the prescription of the divination ritual and the list of miraculous actions:

> The ceremony (τελετή) called *The Monad* has been fully declared to you, child. I shall add for you, child, also the practical uses of this sacred book, the things which all the wise men (σοφισται) accomplished (ἐτέλησαν) with this sacred and blessed book. As I made you swear, child, in the sanctuary of Jerusalem, when you have been filled with the divine wisdom, dispose of the book so that it will not be found.<fnref n="71" />

The temple of Jerusalem is clearly referenced here to support the authoritative claim of belonging to a Jewish tradition and to make the ceremony holier. Jerusalem is cited again later for the same purpose. Besides, what is very noticeable in this claim is the dispute with another famous religious and magical authority, Hermes, who is accused of plagiarism when the writer addresses seven sacred incenses in Moses’ book.<fnref n="72" /> What this apparent bibliographic erudition shows is that the ritual experts attribute their use of divine names to many authorities, but it does not display a specific way of addressing the divine and naming the gods. It is a metadiscourse enfolding the ritual practice. Here, the name dropping answers to a need of authorial, written, tradition: the book is fed on books.<fnref n="73" />

Obviously, the authors of this text are trying to shape a ritual tradition exclusive from all others and to establish their ritual and theological knowledge as specific to this tradition. In actual fact, very little evidence of Hebraic words in the *onomata bar-bara* contained in this codex can be found in support of such a claim, and even though Hebraic names can be found here and there in the *PGM*, they do not prove a Jewish intervention since they could be merely a veneer and the whole ritual seems rather to stem from a Greco-Egyptian milieu.<fnref n="74" />

<footnote n="69">69 Gordon 2012.</footnote>

<footnote n="70">70 Torijano 2013.</footnote>

<footnote n="71">71 *PGM* XIII, 230–234.</footnote>

<footnote n="72">72 *PGM* XIII, 14–16.</footnote>

<footnote n="73">73 We are in the world described by Stroumsa 2016.</footnote>

<footnote n="74">74 Bohak 2003.</footnote>
We left aside another impressive ritual, part C of the codex. Contrary to the two versions of the first ritual, it does not intend to achieve a name or a revelation, but rather aims to be conjoined with the god. The ceremony implies the use of many different names, mainly the seven vowels, which must be recited according to a precise scheme, written on a gold lamella and then licked off. Another lamella, made of silver, is also inscribed with the seven vowels, but kept aside as a phylactery. The result of the procedure is summed up at the end of the prayer: “I am conjoined with you, O great one, and I have you in my heart”. After that, a list of recipes follows the prayer, like in part A. The ritual agent is thus identified with the divine, and seemingly, the ceremony grants him power over the whole world. This share in divine power is similar to the one offered by the *Ritual of the Name which encompasses everything*. There, a complex web of names and mostly unintelligible denominations tied together by exegesis, narration and visual support, progressively build a discourse on the divine, an actual “theology” in the etymological sense (Tab. 1). The fabric of names and their transmission is entirely bound to the ritual making of the divine, and here the very re-enactment of a universe in the making. After all, the very name *Kosmopoia* does not refer to the myth, as we might expect, but to the prayer itself “whose beginning is: ‘I invoke you who encompasses the whole world . . .’”<fnref n="75" />

-----------------

Audureau-Galoppin, *The All-Encompassing Name*.

<table><caption>**Tab. 1:** Structure of the divine onomastic sequences glossed in the *Ritual of the Name which encompasses everything*.</caption><thead><tr><th>N°</th><th>Speaker</th><th>Speech type</th><th>Words</th><th>Exegesis</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td>Biathiar-<br>Danoupchratōr</td><td>aggelos<br>Phobos</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td colspan="2">The name of the Sun</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td>Hēlios Achebukrōm<br>hou hē doxa aaa ēēē δῶδ<br>iii aaa δῶδ<br>Sabaōth Arbathiaō Zagourē<br>(Araga) Arath Adōnaie Basêmm<br>Iaō</td><td>“which means the flame and radiance of the disk”<br>“because he was glorified by you who . . . create the cosmos”<br>“in which you have set in order all things”<br>“these are the first angels to appear”</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="75">75 PGM XIII, 697–698: λέγε τὴν ‘κοσμοποιίαν’, ἤς ἀρχή· ἐπικαλοῦμαι σε τὸν τὰ πάντα περιέχοντα.</footnote>
<table><caption>Tab. 1 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>N°</th><th>Speaker</th><th>Speech type</th><th>Words</th><th>Exegesis</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5">Sequence “in all voices and languages”</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">3</td><td rowspan="3">1rst <i>aggelos</i></td><td rowspan="3">Birdglyphic</td><td rowspan="3"><i>Arai</i></td><td>Meaning: “woe to my enemy”<br/>Cf. punitive function of the<br/><i>aggelos</i></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">The Sun</td><td>Hieroglyphic<br/>Hebrew</td><td><i>Lailam</i><br/><i>Biathiar-</i></td><td>Name of the Sun himself<br/>36 letters (part A)<br/>Complement: “I precede you<br/>lord, I who rise on the boat . . .”</td></tr><tr><td>Egyptian</td><td><i>Aldabaeim</i></td><td>Natural name<br/>9 letters (part A)<br/>Meaning: the boat (of the Sun)<br/>(part B)</td></tr><tr><td>Ape</td><td>Cynocephalean</td><td><i>Abrasax</i></td><td></td><td>Meaning: “You are the number<br/>of the year . . .” (365)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Falcon<br/>Enneamorphos</td><td rowspan="2">Falcon<br/>Hieratic</td><td rowspan="2"><i>Chichichi . . . tititi</i><br/><i>Menephōiphōth</i></td><td></td><td>Cries out to receive food<br/>Meaning: “I go before you, Lord”</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Kosmopoia</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">4</td><td rowspan="5">The god</td><td rowspan="5">laugh</td><td rowspan="5"><i>Cha cha cha cha cha cha<br/>Bessun/Besen Ber(e)ithen Berio<br/>Eschakleō/Promsacha aleeiō<br/>Hermes / Semesilam(ps)<br/>Badētophōth zōthaxathōz(ō)<br/>Thoriobrititammaōrraggadōi<br/>(palindrom)<br/>Anoch Biathiar-</i></td><td>7 = 7 gods:<br/><i>Phōs-Augē</i></td></tr><tr><td><i>Nous or Phrenes</i></td></tr><tr><td><i>Genna and Spora</i></td></tr><tr><td><i>Moira</i> 49 letters</td></tr><tr><td><i>Kairos</i> 36 letters<br/><i>Psuchē</i></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Poppusmos-<br/>sound</td><td></td><td></td><td>Phobos = <i>Danoupchratōr</i> = falcon-headed crocodile.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Hissing sound</td><td></td><td></td><td>Cycle of the seasons<br/>Serpent (Pythian = <i>Ilillou-</i>)<br/>(ouroboros).<br/>Foreknowledge</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>7 vowels</td><td><i>Iaō</i></td><td></td><td><i>Danoupchratōr</i> . . . <i>iaō</i></td></tr></tbody></table>
Bibliography

Audureau, Florian (2021), “Le chant des voyelles dans les *Papyri Graecae Magicae* de l’Empire romain. De la pratique rituelle à l’invention moderne d’une tradition”, in: *Revue de l’Histoire des Religions* 238, 4, 617–639.

Bettini, Maurizio (2012), *Vertere. Un’antropologia della traduzione nella cultura antica*, Torino.

Bohak, Gideon (2003), “Hebrew, Hebrew Everywhere? Notes on the Interpretation of *Voces Magicae*”, in: Scott Noegel / Joel Walker / Brannon Wheeler (eds.), *Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World*, University Park, 69–82.

Bonner, Campbell (1950), *Studies in Magical Amulets. Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian*, Ann Arbor.

Brashear, William M. (1995), “The Greek Magical Papyri: An Introduction and Survey; Annotated Bibliography (1928–1994)”, in: *Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt* II, 18, 5, 3380–3684.

Crippa, Sabina (2012), “Bruissements, gestes vocaux, cris. Pour une réflexion sur le contexte sonore des rituels « magiques »”, in: Marina Piranomonte / Francisco Marco Simón (eds.), *Contesti magici – Contextos mágicos*, Roma, 289–297.

Crippa, Sabina (2019), “Aspects et rôles de la dénomination divine dans la praxis rituelle. Réflexions à partir de sources de l’Antiquité tardive”, in: Gabrièle Wersinger Taylor (ed.), *Rite et voix dans la philosophie antique* (Revue de métaphysique et de morale 3), 215–228.

Daniel, Robert W. (1991), *Two Magical Papyri in the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden*, Opladen.

De Bruyn, Theodore S. / Dijkstra, Jitse H.F. (2011), “Greek Amulets and Formularies from Egypt Containing Christian Elements: A Checklist of Papyri, Parchments, Ostraka, and Tablets”, in: *The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists* 48, 163–216.

Dieleman, Jacco (2005), *Priests, Tongues, and Rites: The London-Leiden Magical Manuscripts and Translation in Egyptian Ritual (100–300 CE)*, Leiden / Boston.

Dieleman, Jacco (2019), “The Greco-Egyptian Magical Papyri”, in: David Frankfurter (ed.), *Guide to the Study of Ancient Magic*, Leiden, 283–321.

Dorandi, Tiziano (2020), “Considerazioni sull’ecdotica dei testi magici antichi alla luce del *PLeid*. J 395 (PGM XIII)”, in: Attilio Mastrocinque / Joseph E. Sanzo / Marianna Scapini (eds.), *Ancient Magic: Then and Now*, Stuttgart, 415–424.

Dosoo, Korshi (2014), *Rituals of Apparition in the Theban Magical Library*, PhD Dissertation, Sydney.

Escolano-Poveda, Marina (2020), *The Egyptian Priests in the Graeco-Roman Period: An Analysis on the Basis of the Egyptian and Graeco-Roman Literary and Paraliterary Sources*, Wiesbaden.

Faraone, Christopher A. / Torallas Tovar, Sofía (eds.) (2022), *Greek and Egyptian Magical Formularies: Text and Translation*, vol. 1, Berkeley.

Frankfurter, David (1997), “Ritual Expertise in Roman Egypt and the Problem of the Category ‘Magician’”, in: Peter Schäfer / Hans G. Kippenberg (eds.), *Envisioning Magic. A Princeton Seminar and Symposium*, Leiden, 115–135.

Frankfurter, David (1998), *Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance*, Princeton.

Frankfurter, David (2001), “Narrating Power: The Theory and Practice of the Magical Historiola in Ritual Spells”, in: Marvin Meyer / Paul Mirecki (eds.), *Ancient Magic and Ritual Power*, Boston, 457–476.

Galoppin, Thomas (2021), “« Dessine-moi . . . » une prière. Gemmes magiques et écriture des noms divins en image dans le monde romain”, in: *Revue de l’Histoire des Religions* 238, 4, 641–671.

Gordon, Richard L. (1997), “Reporting the Marvellous: Private Divination in the Greek Magical Papyri”, in: Peter Schäfer / Hans G. Kippenberg (eds.), *Envisioning Magic. A Princeton Seminar and Symposium*, Leiden, 65–92.

Gordon, Richard L. (2012), “Memory and Authority in the Magical Papyri”, in: Beate Dignas / R.R.R. Simon (eds.), *Historical and Religious Memory in the Ancient World*, Oxford / New York, 145–180.
Gordon, Richard L. / Yuen-Collingridge, Rachel (2022), “GEMF 60 (= PGM XIII): A Study of Material, Scribal, and Compositional Issues”, in: Christopher A. Faraone, Sofia Torallas Tovar (eds.), *The Greco-Egyptian Magical Formularies: Libraries, Books, and Individual Recipes*, Ann Arbor, 232–285.

Harrauer, Christine (2006), “Abraxas”, in: H. Cancik / H. Schneider (eds.), *Brill's New Pauly*, New Pauly Online. URL: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/brill-s-new-pauly

Janowitz, Naomi (2002), *Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity*, University Park.

Johnston, Sarah I. (2000), “Le sacrifice dans les papyrus magiques”, in: Alain Moreau / Jean-Claude Turpin (eds.), *La Magie. Actes du colloque international de Montpellier, 25–27 mars 1999, vol. II, Montpellier, 19–36, republished and translated as (2002) “Sacrifice in the Greek Magical Papyri”*, in: Marvin Meyer / Paul Mirecki (eds.), *Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World*, Leiden / Boston / Köln, 344–358.

Leemans, Conrad (1885), *Papyri Graeci: Musei Antiquarii Publici Lugduni Bagdavi*, Vol. 2, Leiden, 77–198, no. W.

Merkelbach, Reinhold (1992), *Abrasax: ausgewählte Papyri religiösen und magischen Inhalts*, Vol. 3: *Zwei griechisch-ägyptische Weihezeremonien: die Leidener Weltschöpfung, die Pschai-Aion-Liturgie*, Opladen.

Michel, Simone (2001), *Die Magischen Gemmen im Britischen Museum*, London.

Michel, Simone (2004), *Die Magischen Gemmen. Zu Bildern und Zauberformeln auf geschnittenen Steinen der Antike und Neuzeit*, Berlin.

Pachoumi, Eleni (2010), “An Invocation of Chrestos in Magic: The Question of the Orthographical Spelling of Chrestos and Interpretation Issues in PGM XIII.288–95”, in: *Hermathena* 188, 29–54.

Quaegebeur, Jan (1975), *Le Dieu égyptien Shaï dans la religion et l'onomastique*, Louvain.

Smith, Jonathan Z. (2003), “Here, There, and Anywhere”, in: Scott Noegel / Joel Walker / Brannon Wheeler (eds.), *Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World*, University Park, 21–36, republished in Smith, Jonathan Z. (2004), *Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion*, Chicago, 323–339, and translated in Smith, Jonathan Z. (2014), *Magie de la comparaison, et autres études d'histoire des religions*, Genève, 81–101.

Smith, Morton (1984), “The Eighth Book of Moses and how it grew (PLeid. J 395)”, in: *Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Pirologia (Napoli, 19-26 maggio 1983)*, vol. II, Napoli, 683–693.

Smith, Morton (1986), “P. Leid. J 395 (PGM XIII) and Its Creation Legend”, in: André Caquot / Mireille Hadas-Lebel / Jean Riaud (eds.), *Hellenica et Judaica: Hommages à Valentin Nikiprowetzky*, Louvain / Paris, 491–498.

Soares Santoprete, Luciana Gabriela / Hoffmann, Philippe (eds.) (2017), *Langage des dieux, langage des démons, langage des hommes dans l'Antiquité*, Turnhout.

Stroumsa, Guy (2016), *The Scriptural Universe of Ancient Christianity*, Cambridge.

Suárez de la Torre, Emilio (2013), “Mito, teología, magia y astrología en PGM XIII (P. Leid. J 395)”, in: Emilio Suárez de la Torre / Aurelio Pérez Jiménez (eds.), *Mito y magia en Grecia y Roma*, Barcelona, 179–202.

Tardieu, Michel (1987), “Gnose et manichéisme”, in: *Annuaire de l'École Pratique des Hautes Études* 96, 296–301.

Tardieu, Michel / Van den Kerchove, Anna / Zago, Michela (eds.) (2013), *Noms barbares*, vol. I: *Formes et contextes d'une pratique magique*, Turnhout.

Torijano, Pablo A. (2013), “The Hygromancy of Solomon: A new translation and introduction”, in: Richard Bauckham / James R. Davila / Alexander Panayotov (eds.), *Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures*, I, Grand Rapid, 305–325.

Zago, Michela (2008), “L'emploi des noms divins dans la Kosmopoija (PGM XIII)”, in: Corinne Bonnet / Sergio Ribichini / Dirk Steuernagel (eds.), *Religioni in contatto nel Mediterraneo antico. Modalità di diffusione e processi di interferenza*. Atti del 3° Colloquio su « Le religioni orientali nel mondo greco e romano », Loveno di Menaggio (Como), 26–28 Maggio 2006, Pisa / Roma, 205–217.

Zago, Michela (2013), “Le nom physique du dieu”, in: Michel Tardieu / Anna Van den Kerchove / Michela Zago (eds.), *Noms barbares*, vol. I: *Formes et contextes d'une pratique magique*, Turnhout, 205–223.

Zografou, Athanassia (2013), *Papyrus Magiques Grecs: le mot et le rite. Autour des rites sacrificiels*, Ioannina.