NOVELA CHILENA

There are unfortunately no extra-textual or absolute dating criteria available to date the two manuscripts under study. The spells do not contain dates, names of rulers, nor references to historical events that would help to situate the spells and the manuscripts in a more precise historical context. As a consequence, one has to resort to grammar and palaeography to establish a relative date for respectively the spells and the manuscripts. It remains problematic to date by palaeography the phase of copying the extant spells onto the manuscript, because the Greek hands show very few distinctive criteria and the palaeography of Demotic hands of the Roman period is still far from precise.⁶² The hieratic signs and words interspersed with the Demotic are neither of help in establishing a date for the Egyptian hand.⁶³ P. London-Leiden

60 Spiegelberg, Der ägyptische Mythus vom Sonnenauge,380–382.

61 Montu: P. London-Leiden 9/20, 10/26, 27/5. Khonsu: P. London-Leiden 9/1;

Opet:6/18, 19. The ‘national’ gods occur frequently throughout the manuscript. Note also that the god Imhotep is mentioned in a spell’s title to validate the rite’s efficacy (P. London-Leiden 4/1 = PDM xiv 93–114 [PGM XIVa.1–11]) and invoked as god of medicine (P. Leiden I 384 verso I*/1–29 = PDM xii.21–49). Although this god originated in Memphis, his cult was very popular in Thebes during the Greco-Roman period; László Kákosy, ‘Probleme der Religion im römerzeitlichen Ägypten’ ANRW II18.5 (1995) 2894–3049, 2973–2977.

62 A major impediment in establishing a precise palaeography of Roman Demotic is the fact that there are few literary texts and that the geographical range of provenance of the texts is too wide. It is practically impossible to trace the development of Demotic hands for Roman Thebes, because the number of sources is far too few.

63 The hieratic palaeography of P. London-Leiden can conveniently be studied in B.H. Stricker, ‘Het grafisch systeem van de magische papyrus Londen & Leiden’ OMRO 36 (1955) 92–132. The hieratic signs are certainly close in form to the hieratic hands of a number of the Theban Books of Breathing, which are usually dated to the first and second century CE. However, Roman dates are now seriously challenged for certain of these manuscripts in favour of a Ptolemaic date; see, Jan Quaegebeur, ‘Books of Thoth Belonging to Owners of Portraits? On Dating Late Hieratic Funerary Papyri’, in: M.L. Bierbrier, Portraits and Masks. Burial Customs in Roman Egypt (London1997) 72–77.

is generally dated to the third century CE by the palaeography of the three short Greek invocations.⁶⁴However, the Greek hand of P. Leiden I 384 verso has until now been dated to the first half of the fourth century.⁶⁵Strangely enough, no scholar has yet drawn attention to the fact that it is very unlikely that, given the unity of the manuscripts, the Greek hands diverge considerably in date. In fact, as the glosses written above the voces magicae in the Demotic spells demonstrate, P. Leiden I 384 verso should have been written before instead of several decades after P. London-Leiden.

A terminus post quem for the magical spells is provided by the Demotic Myth of the Sun’s Eye, which is written on the recto of P. Leiden I 384 and must therefore be prior to the magical spells on its verso. The Demotic hand of the narrative is generally dated by palaeography to the beginning of the second century CE.⁶⁶ This means that the spells were copied onto the verso side of the discarded manuscript P. Leiden I 384 not earlier than the beginning of the second century CE. The small written scraps of papyrus that were pasted for reinforcement to the verso side of P. London-Leiden could indicate approximately when the papyrus roll was in use.⁶⁷Although the writing is effaced and difficult to read, a date in the first half of the third century CE seems secure, although late second century CE cannot be ruled out (Fig.2.8–

11).⁶⁸

64 F.Ll. Griffith, ‘The Date of the Old Coptic Texts and their Relation to Christian Coptic’ ZÄS 39 (1901) 78–82, 78 and 80; Griffith, Thompson, The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden,10. GMPT, xxiii gives the third century CE as date.

65 Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, vol.2, 57 gives 300–350 CE. In the recent photographic edition of PGM XII, the editor followed Preisendanz’ suggestion: Robert Daniel, Two Greek Magical Papyri in the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden. A Photographic Edition of J384 and J 395 (= PGM XII and XIII) (Papyrologica Coloniensia 19; Cologne 1990) x. GMPT, xxiii gives the fourth century CE as date.

66 Spiegelberg, Der ägyptische Mythus vom Sonnenauge, 1. Françoise de Cenival dates the hand to around 100 CE: ‘Obscurités et influences dans le Mythe de l’Oeil du Soleil’, in: Kim Ryholt (ed.), Acts of the Seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies (CNI Publications27; Copenhagen 2002) 39–43, 39.

67 These two fragments are nrs.1 and 6 in Leemans, Papyrus égyptien à transcriptions grecques, plate14.

68 For matters of Greek palaeography I rely heavily on the expertise of Klaas A. Worp and Robert W. Daniel. I thank them for their willingness to discuss with me the dating of the hands. In fragment1, line 2, the groupτο κυρουis clearly visible.

In fragment6 the phrase-ιμου δικαου Απολλωνςcan be read in line 1; the word γρ μματαoccurs at the end of line3.

Fig.2.10. Facsimile of scrap of papyrus pasted on the verso to London-Leiden manuscript, Leemans nr.1

It remains unclear whether the scraps were pasted to the papyrus before or after the spells were copied, but, since P. London-Leiden does not show any signs of being a palimpsest, it is conceivable that the scraps were applied when the magical handbook had already been in use for several years. This would mean that the spells of P. London-Leiden were copied onto the papyrus roll sometime in the late second or early third century CE. If this were correct, it follows that P. Leiden I 384 verso has to be dated to this period likewise instead of to the second half of the fourth century as has been customary until now.

The palaeography of the Greek hands of the spells of P. Leiden I 384 verso and P. London-Leiden does certainly not exclude such an early dating.⁶⁹It is therefore justified to conclude that the manuscripts were copied sometime after the beginning of the second century CE (Myth of the Sun’s Eye) and before 250 CE at the latest (papyrus fragments), in all likelihood sometime at the turn of the second to the third century CE.⁷⁰

69 I thank Robert W. Daniel and Fabian Reiter for discussing with me the palaeog-raphy of the Greek hands of P. Leiden I384 verso and P. London-Leiden. The Greek hands of the manuscripts are similar but not identical. Both can nonetheless be dated to the second half of the second century or early third century CE.

70 This date does not conflict with the date of the Demotic Gardening Agreement. Like the two manuscripts under study, the Demotic Gardening Agreement can only be dated by palaeography. Parker has suggested that the text contains a terminus post quem in the phrase ‘I will give [the gold pieces; jd] to you in gold of the infamous(?) queen, “Old Woman”’ (C,5–7). This would refer to gold pieces with the head of queen Zenobia of Palmyra, who invaded and gained control over Egypt in271 CE. Parker argues that native Egyptians saw the queen as a conqueror and therefore called her an infamous queen. However, it is very unlikely that the phrase refers to coins minted in the days of Zenobia, because she never issued gold coins. In fact, the only gold coins with the head of a queen that were minted in Egypt date to the period between Ptolemy II and Ptolemy VI (285–145 BCE). The phrase refers probably to gold coins with the head of Arsinoe II, Arsinoe III, Berenike II or Cleopatra I, which were already old when this Roman-period text was written, but far more solid than the contemporary

Fig.2.11. Facsimile of scrap of papyrus pasted on the verso to London-Leiden manuscript, Leemans nr.6

A date for the phase of composition of the spells can be gained from the grammar of the Demotic spells. The verbal paradigm of the Demotic spells displays certain distinctive ‘late’ features that do not yet occur in Demotic texts of the Ptolemaic period, but point already ahead to the Coptic verbal system.⁷¹This means that the extant spells must have been composed sometime in the Roman period, possibly not earlier than the late first or early second century CE. This would mean that the phase of compilation and editing of the extant spells lasted about a hundred years.