maguire, henry (ed) - byzantine magic

7/22/2019 Maguire, Henry (Ed) - Byzantine Magic

1/229

This is an extract from:

Byzantine Magic

1995 Dumbarton Oaks

Trustees for Harvard University

Washington, D.C.

Printed in the United States of America

published by

Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

Washington, D.C.

www.doaks.org/etexts.html

edited by Henry Maguire


2/229

ByzantineMagic


3/229


4/229

Byzantine Magic

Edited byHenryMaguire

Dumbarton OaksResearch Library andCollection

Washington,D.C.

Distributed by Harvard University Press


5/229

Copyright 1995 by DumbartonOaks

TrusteesforHarvardUniversity,Washington, D.C.

All rights reserved

Printed in the UnitedStates of America

LibraryofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Byzantine magic/editedby Henry Maguire.

p. cm.

Papers originally delivered at a colloquium held Feb.27 28,

1993, at DumbartonOaks, Washington, D.C.

Includes bibliographical references andindex.

ISBN 0-88402-230-71 . MagicByzantine EmpireHistoryCongresses. 2.MagicReligious

aspectsChristianityHistoryCongresses. I. Maguire.Henry, 1943

BF1593.B98 1995

133.4309495dc2O 94-33501

CIP


6/229

Contents

Preface vii

Introduction

Henry Maguire 1

1 The Fathersofthe Church and the EvilEye

MatthewW.Dickie 9

2 The Archaeological Context ofMagic in the Early Byzantine Period

James Russell 35

3 Magic and the ChristianImage

Henry Maguire 51

4 Holy and Unholy Miracle Workers

Alexander Kazhdan 73

5 Reactions ofTwo Byzantine Intellectuals to the Theory

and PracticeofMagic: Michael Psellos and MichaelItalikosJohn Duffy 83

6 Balsamon onMagic: FromRoman Secular Law to

ByzantineCanon Law

Marie Theres Fgen 99

7 AContribution to the Study of Palaeologan Magic

RichardP . H.Greenfield 1 17

8 Magic in Slavia Orthodoxa:TheWritten Tradition

Robert Mathiesen 1 5 5

v


7/229

vi Contents

Abbreviations 179

Index 1 8 3


8/229

Preface

The papers in this book were originally delivered at a colloquium that took

place atDumbarton OaksFebruary 27 28, 1993. I amgratefulto thescholars

whoagreed to speak at the colloquium and whosubmittedtheir texts for publi-

cation here. I would also like to thankthe members of the audience who en-

gagedin lively and interesting discussion.In particular,I amgrateful to Stanley

Tambiah,who contributed the perspectives of asocialanthropologist in a most

illuminatingwayand helped us toavoid the pitfalls of Byzantine parochialism.

Finally, thanks are due to HedySchiller,w hohelpedboth toorganizethemeet-

ing and to prepare the manuscript for publication, and to thestaffof theDum-

barton OaksPublications Office, who saw the bookthroughthepress.

Henry Maguire


9/229


10/229

Introduction

HENRY MAGUIRE

Inrecent years considerableattentionhas been given to magic in thesocietiesofancient Greece and Rome, lateantiquity, and the medieval West.Muchless

attention,however, has been given to the phenomenon ofmagic in eastem

Christendom during the medievalperiod. The papers in thisvolume, written

by specialists in a wide range ofdisciplines, explore the parameters and sig-

mficance ofmagic in Byzantine society from the fourth century to the empires

fall. Theauthors address a wide variety of questions, some ofwhich arecom-

mon to allhistorical research into magic andsome ofwhich are peculiar to the

Byzantine context.

The first question to which this book seeks an answer is the relative im-

portanceofmagic inmedievalByzantium. Anyone who has looked atByzan-

tine texts, both highbrow andlowbrow, will havebeen struck by the periodic

mention of magical or semi-magical practices. There is,for example,thestory

in theChronographyof Michael Psellos, discussed herebyJohn Duffy (Chap-

ter 5), which describeshowEmpressZoe had madeforherself a private image

of Christ that forecast the future by changingcolor. Orthere is the talein theLife of IreneofChrysobalanton, referred to by Alexander Kazhdan (Chapter

4), about the lead idols ofa nun and her suitor with which love magic had

been worked; these effigies were miraculously retrieved from a magician in

Cappadocia through the agency ofSt. Anastasia and St. Basil and given to

Irenea s shew as at prayer in the chapel ofherconvent inConstantinople. Are

such stories to be dismissed merely as quaint footnotes to the history ofByzan-

tium, ordo they represent something moreimportant and more fundamental,

which historians need to understandin order to understandByzantine civiliza-

tion as a whole?

A second question, which crops up very often in the study of Byzantine

culture, is the question ofcontinuity, ofsurvival and revival.To what extent

1


11/229

2 Henry Maguire

wasmagican aspect of the classicalworld that survivedunchanged inByzan-

tium, a part ofitsantique legacy? The problem is whether the medievalByzan-

tines innovated in the area of the occult as they undoubtedly did in the otherarts.There isalsothe question ofthe afterlife of Byzantine magic. How fardid

Byzantium transmit magic, along with its other leaming, to areas under its

cultural influence, sucha s the Slavic lands?

Related to these questions is the problem of the eastem provinces, espe-

cially Egypt, which in late antiquity hadbeen the homelandofso muchmagi-

cal lore and paraphernalia. What effect did the lossof the eastern provinces in

theseventhcentury haveonthe laterpractice ofmagicin Byzantium?Wasthe

importance of magic in the Byzantine Empire thereby reduced, or was it

changed?

Ifmagic didsurvivefrom lateantiquity intothe medievalperiod, there is

the question of where and in what forms it survived.Magic neededbothpro-

viders and consumers; accusations of magic needed both accusers andac-

cused. The historian seeks to know what is revealed about the social context

of magic by the Byzantine law codes, leamedliterature, the more popular

saints lives, and material culture itself. What was the character ofmedievallegislationagainstmagic as opposed to that of the late Roman period?Did the

medieval intellectuals of Byzantium consider magic to be merely an exercise

in antiquarianism or a living phenomenon? What light is shed by surviving

objects, as opposed totexts,onthe continuation or decline ofmagical practices

andbeliefs? Does the evidence of material culture fit in with the evidence from

thetexts?

Finally, there is the most fundamental question, that of the Byzantine

definitions of magic. How was sorcery defined by the church and by the secularauthorities?How did a Byzantine distinguish between supernatural phenom-

ena that were holy andthose that were demonic,between the miracle and the

magic trick, between the nocturnal visitations of saints and ofdemons, be-

tweenthe pagan amulets and the portable relics from Christian shrines? In the

realm of the visual arts, there was the question of which uses of art couldbe

defined as orthodox and which were unacceptable. In what circumstances

could theuse of Christianimages be termed magical?Although the authors of this book address a broad range ofquestions,

and their conclusions are varied, certain themes emerge clearly from all of

the contributions and can usefully be summarized here. Concerning the most

fundamental problem, that ofdefinition, one clear conclusion is the needto


12/229

Introduction 3

make adistinction between what we might wish to callmagican external

definitionand what the Byzantines, at any place or time in their history,

might call magican internal definition. From anexternal viewpoint magicand miracles may looksimilar, as might pagan amulets and Christiantokens,

but from an internalviewpoint they were very different. The modern anthro-

pologist who attemptsan external definition of magic that will hold good for

all societieswill have to be consistent, but, as AlexanderKazhdan shows, we

should notexpect consistency ofthe Byzantines when they made their internal

definitions. The distinctions between good and bad miracles were for them

areas of ambiguity andconflict, which might have important social implica-

tions. This meant that the psychologicalbenefits of theByzantines beliefinmiracles were mixed. With the hope for holy miracles came the dread of

sorcery.

Second, there can be nodoubt, in the light of the evidence presented here,

that the Byzantines themselvesfeltthat magicw as asignificantfactor in their

society. The richtextualmaterialdiscussed byRichard Greenfield (Chapter7 )

demonstratesthat magicwas still flourishing,at least in the minds ofcontem-

poraries,during the last phase of the Byzantine Empire. Magic, then, was a

part of the Palaeologan Renaissance, but was it an unchanging legacy from

lateantiquity? The answer to this question, as in other aspects of Byzantine

culture, is mixed.Matthew Dickie (Chapter 1 ) describes howtheearly church

fathers, by keeping distinct the powers ofhumanand of supernatural agencies,

were able to combine a continued beliefin theevil eye with orthodox Chris-

tianity. In theory,itw asthe devil who caused the harm and notjealous humans,

although some maintained that the devilmightstill use the envious for hisevil

purposes. Thebeliefin the powers ofenvy and the evil eyecertainly survivedthrough the Byzantine period and beyond. On the other hand, while there was

a measure ofcontinuity, it can alsobesaidthatinmany important respects the

Byzantinessucceeded in changing the status of magic in theirsociety.

The changed position of magic can be seen in both material culture and

writtendocuments. In the discussion of material culture,it is useful to make a

distinction between artifacts that were marked with non-Christian devices,

such as ring-signs and the names ofpagan deities, and those marked with

Christian signs or images, such as crosses and portraits of the saints, In the

case of thefirst class of objects,those with non-Christian devices, the issues

were more clear-cut, In the case of objects of the second class, those with

Christian devices, the issues were more ambiguous and complex. As James


13/229

4 HenryMaguire

Russellshowsfrom archaeological evidence(Chapter2), and John Duffyfrom

literary sources, amulets of various kinds marked with essentially non-

Christian signs were relatively widespread in the early Byzantine period.Though many churchmen certainly disapproved ofthese objects, the authori-

ties were unable to prevent their use. St. John Chrysostom, for example, in-

veighed against those who used charms and amulets and who made chains

around their heads and feet withcoins ofAlexander ofMacedon. But two

centurieslaterpeople were still wearing tunics decoratedwithrepeatedmedal-

lions depicting Alexander as a potentrider(Chapter 3, Fig. 14). Furthermore,

as Russell relates, one house at Anemurium yieldedapierced coinofMarcus

Aurelius or Lucius Veins that hadbeen worn, presumably as a charm, by an

inhabitant ofthatcity as late as the seventhcentury.But thesituationseemsto

have changed aftericonoclasm. With some exceptions, such as the Chnoubis/

Medusaamuletsthat were considered to help during pregnancy andin child-

birth, the non-Christian amulets tended to disappear from the material culture

of the latercenturies of Byzantium, to be replaced by portable crossesand

jewelry displaying Christian images or containing relics. Theearly Byzantine

site at Anemurium harbored a silver lamella (a thin sheet ofmetal)inscribedwith a magicalcharm (Chapter 2, Fig. 10), but we have little archaeological

evidence ofthiskindfrom the medieval period ofByzantium. The evidenceof

archaeology isconfirmedby the writtentexts. John Duffy showshow theatti-

tude ofAlexanderofTralles, a doctor ofthe sixth century,contrasted with that

ofthe eleventh-and twelfth-century intellectuals Psellos and Michael Italikos.

AlexanderofTralles was prepared to prescribeamulets for his wealthier pa-

tients whoobjected to the indignities of physical cures. Wemay infer thatin

his day suchamuletswereemployed quiteopenly,and notonly by the poor, an

inference that is supported by the archaeological record from Anemurium. Six

centuries later, however, Michael Italikos gave only a hint that sucha cure

might be ventured.

Wecan conclude, then, that the types ofdevice that the church fathersof

the fourth century had found most offensive,the amulets withsatanic charac-

ters such as ring-signs, were purged from the overt material culture inthe later

medieval period, to be replaced by more acceptable objects, such as crosses,relics, and intercessory iconsofthe saints. At early Byzantine Anemurium the

number of excavated pendant crosses was smaller than that of the non-

Christian apotropaic objects. But after iconoclasm, many ofthe functions that

had previously been performedby profaneamuletswere performed by objects


14/229

Introduction 5

ofexplicitly Christian character. This change was encouraged by the church

authorities themselves. As Matthew Dickieshows, in the fourth century John

Chrysostomrecommends that infants be protected from envy by the sign ofthe cross rather than bymagical signs,while at the end ofthe Byzantineperiod

Joseph Bryennios,in a passage cited by Richard Greenfleld, recommends the

wearing ofthe cross or the Virgins image insteadofprofane amulets.

The church, therefore, wassuccessfulin marginalizing thenon-Christian

magical remedies, but itcouldnot eliminate them altogether; theapparatusof

magic respondedto opposition by becoming more occult. People in the medi-

evalcenturies ofByzantium wereless likely to wear amuletsofmetal or stone

inscribed with heathen signs and symbols, but, as Richard Greenfield points

out, m the Palaeologan period we still hear of amulets written on pieces of

paper or parchment. They are mentioned, for example, in the proceedingsof

trials before the patriarchal court.Itmay be surmised that these scraps werea

safer medium for theinscribingofforbidden texts andsigns, since they could

bemore easily manufactured and destroyedthanamuletsinmore durable ma-

terials.Naturally, noneofthe perishable paper amulets has survived, though

we do possess a number ofmagic books from the late Byzantine and post-Byzantine period, which are also discussed byGreenfleld.

The question ofthe magical useofChristian images is much morecorn-

plicated andisdealt with in more detail in Chapter 3, Magicand the Christian

Image. In theearly period many ecclesiastical authoritieshad strong reserva-

tions about theprivate, unofficial useofChristian signs and images, and about

their roles in practices and beliefsystems that were not regnlated bythe church.

Similar reservations are revealed by the passage from John Chrysostom, cited

by Marie Theres Fgen, concerning the drunken andfoolishold womenwho

falsely make Christian incantations, misusing the name ofGod (Chapter 6).

Suspicions about the misuse ofChristian images by private individuals cer-

tainly addedfuelto the arguments made by the opponentsofChristian icons.

In this case, also, the church after iconoclasm was able to exert a muchstronger

control, In thelatercenturiesofByzantium, boththe theory and the conditions

ofuse ofChristianimageswere much more closely regulated, with results that

were visible in the formsofthe images themselves. Christian icons becameless ambiguous and thus less suspect. Nevertheless, we still encounter in-

stances of the magical use ofChristian images and symbols in the post-

iconoclastic period, oneofthe most interesting being letter 33 ofMichael Ital-

ikos, which isreferred to by John DuffyThis letter was written toaccompany


15/229

6 Henry Maguire

the gift of a gold coin, which MichaelItalikos claims was that of Constantine

I. As described by Italikos, the piece was mounted to be worn as a pectoral

and bore onone side the imprint ofConstantine, the most imperial, the mostpious, and the best ofemperors, together with Helena, andon the other side

an image of Christ in Roman guise.The design of the piece also incorporated

a cross, and itssurroundinginscription was in Latin characters. Italikosfurther

described the coina s an imperial nomisma investedwithan ineffable power,

which was effective against all evils but particularly against disease. Al-

though we may doubt whether the coin seen by the medieval writer really

showedConstantine and Helena, itwasclearly ancient,and it is clear that Ital-

ikos actively believed in its supernatural powers. He said explicitly that the

powers came notsimply from the crossbutfrom the coinitself. The letter of

MichaelItalikos, therefore, brings us once again to that unstable border where

Christian content shaded into magic, even while it shows us the continuity

thatunderlies change. Constantine has replacedAlexander, but the medium of

transmission ofpower,thecoin, remains the same.

Turning from material culture to texts, we find that important changes

occurred in the treatment of magic by Byzantinelegislators, as is revealed inthe paper by Marie Theres Fgen. She shows how the attacks on magic by

secular authorities becameless harsh andless crude thanthey hadbeen in the

imperial legislation of the fourth century;by the twelfth century the problem

of illicit contacts with thesupernaturalw asthe province ofreligious discipline.

Byzantine canon law, as exemplifiedby the Council in Trullo of 691/92 and

Balsamons twelfth-centurycommentary, provided greater precision indefining

thepractitioners of magic than had the late antique imperiallegislation, while

thescale of punishments becameless draconian.To use her term, magic, while

not permitted, was in a way domesticated in the medieval centuries ofBy-

zantium. In part this change came about because magic hadbeen brought into

a single unified system ofrelationshipsbetween human beings andthe super-

natural.In this system therewas ultimate divinejustice,whateverthe demons

might be allowed to get away with in the interim. Any attempts to control

demons through magic could bring only short-term advantages;inthe end they

would fail. So magic found a place in later Byzantine culture, but it was adefined place. In the late antique periodthere was more open-endedcompeti-

tion between the different supernatural forces that viedfor peoples attention,

and hence moreconflict.

The last paper in this volume (Chapter8 ) deals with the little-explored


16/229

Introduction 7

topic of the reach of Byzantine magic intoSlavic culture.Just as Byzantium

gaveorthodox Christianity to the Slays, so too it gavemuch that was unortho-

dox, includingexpertise in magic. As Robert Mathiesen shows, thecontribu-tionofByzantiumto thewrittencorpusof magical or semi-magicaltexts trans-

lated into Church Slavonic was large and varied. In addition, Byzantium

influenced the material culture of Slavic magic,as it did the art oforthodox

churches. The most spectacular example of this influence is the gold Medusa

amulet fromCernigov with its inscriptions in both Greek and Slavonic. Inits

early centuries Byzantiumhad borrowedmuch of its magical lore from the

Near East, especially fromEgypt; in its latercenturies ittransmitted a part of

thislegacy to theSlays.

The authors of thisvolume are in a sense pioneerswho have entered the

relatively uncharted territory of magic in the Byzantine middleages. Now that

they haveprovided signposts, indicatingthe scope of magic, its forms, and its

functioning in Byzantine society,other areas of research have come intoview.

The most intriguing of these unexplored areas is comparative studies:how did

magic inByzantiumdiffer from magic in western Europe during the same

period, and why? Why were there virtually no witches in the East, but onlyfoolish old women? How does magic in the Islamic world relate to early

Byzantine practices? What were the connections betweenthe magical learning

ofthe Italian Renaissance and the Byzantine tradition? Such questions must

await furtherinvestigationby the practitioners of magicalscholarship.


17/229


18/229

This is an extract from:

Byzantine Magic

1995 Dumbarton Oaks

Trustees for Harvard University

Washington, D.C.

Printed in the United States of America

published by

Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

Washington, D.C.

www.doaks.org/etexts.html

edited by Henry Maguire


19/229

1

TheFathers ofthe Church and the Evil Eye

MATTHEW W . DICKIE

The purpose of this paper is to demonstratehow difficult even the most highly

educated and sophisticated Christians of the late fourth andearlyfifthcenturies

found it to rid themselves of the idea that envy lends a malign power to mens

eyes. The idea at issue is that the eyes ofenvious men are able, unaided, to

inflict injury at adistance. This isthe beliefcalled theevil eye by speakers

of English and other modem European languages, thoughthat significantly is

not the way in which most men in pagan and Christian antiquitywould havereferred to it . The difficulty that suchfathers of the church asBasil, Jerome,

and JohnChrysostomhad with freeing themselvesfromthe idea issome indi-

cation ofhow deep-seated it must have been in the generalpopulation.

I shallalso try to show that thesechurch fathers, who do attackbeliefin

theevil eye,address only oneaspectof a much larger constellation ofbeliefs.

They leave unquestioned the assumption that thereare envious supernatural

forces out there eager todestroyprosperity, virtue, and beauty. Theirfailure to

deal with this largerissue is a further indication ofjusthow much a part ofmens mental make-up must have been the conviction that life was beset by

unseen envious forces. We see evidenceofthat fear in themany amulets that

survive from thisperiod. It is important to bear in mind that the fear reflected

in theseobjects is notdirected specifically at the evil eyeas thefathers of the

church construe it but at a much widerspectrum ofdangers. In the case of

Basil and JohnChrysostom, and perhaps to a lesser extent Jerome, thereis a

further factor that has affected their thinking aboutthe evil eye: theinfluence

of pagan philosophy has made them concentrate theirattention on aseverely

restricted conception of theevil eye to theexclusion of other related beliefs.

The fathers of the church have no reservations about condemning all

forms ofmagic-working, in which categorythey certainly included the casting

9


20/229

10 Matthew W. Dickie

of theevil eye.1 Althoughthey are unanimous andconsistent in theircondem-

nation ofmagic-working, they waveron the question of whether there isany-

thing to i t .2 Theycondemn magicians as frauds andcharlatans, but sometimes

speak of them as though they posed a real threat. They haveno doubt that

magic is the devils work, but they are not at all certain whetherthe demonic

forces magicians enlist toaid themdo in fact afford any real help or only create

theillusion ofchange.3

Theattitude ofthefathers of the church to magic reflects in partthehostil-

ity of the Roman civil authorities to magic as a socially disruptive force, in

part the skepticism found in educated pagancircles about the possibility of a

mans being able to set aside the laws ofnature, and in part the feeling thatendowing men with more than human abilities is contrary to Christian doc-

tinne.4Scripture has asurprisingly small part toplay in shapingChristian atti-

tudes towardmagic.5 How little support the church fathers can find in it for

their condemnation of magic is apparent in Jeromes palpable delight in his

commentaryon Galatians at Pauls mentioning sorcery pharmakeia immedi-

1 Formagicin the NewTestament:DavidE. Aune, Magicin Early Christianity,

ANRW 11.23.2 (Berlin-New York, 1980) , 1 5 07 57 ; for th e views ofthe ante-Nicenefatherson magic: FrancisC. R . Thee, Julius Africanus and theEarly Christian View of

Magic (Tlbingen, 1984), 316 448; forOrigen, Chrysostom, and Augustine: N.Brox,

Magie und Aberglauben an den Anfangen des Christentums, Thierer theologische

Zeitschrift83 (1974), 15780.2 Ramsay MacMullens assertion (Enemies of the Roman Order [Cambridge,

Mass., 1964], 3 23 24 note 25) that if the Church thunderedagainst magicbeliefs, thatwasbecause they werewicked, notuntrue, is too extreme andunnuancedandtakes no

account of the verydifferent positions different fathersadopted.3 On the tendency todeny that humans can perform sorcery andto blame every-

thing on thedemonic, seePeterBrown,Sorcery, Demons andtheRise ofChristianity,

in Witchcraft, ConfessionsandAccusations, ed. Mary Douglas(London, 1970), 32.

4 OnRoman legislation against magic appealed toby Augustinein support ofhisthesis that magic is pernicious and notonly condemnedby Christians, seeDe civitate

dei, 8.19; in general on Roman legislationon magic, seeMacMullen, Enemies, 12427;

on thejudicial prosecutionin the 4th century A.D. ofthose who had resortto magic, see

A.Barb, TheSurvival ofMagicA rts, in The Conflict between Paganism andChris-

tianity in theFourth Century, ed. A . Momigliano(Oxford, 1963), 10014; John Mat-thews, The RomanEmpire ofAmmianus (London, 1989), 21726.

5 Magic condemned: Deuteronomy18:1112; Galatians5:20;Didache, 2.2;Aris-

teides, Apologia, 8.2, 13.8; Justin,Apologia, 1.14.2; Pseudo-Phocylides, 149 ; Oracula

Sibyllina, 283 85.


21/229

Fathers of the Church and the Evil Eye 1 1

ately afteridolatry amongst the deeds of the flesh (Gal. 5:18): heremarksthat

we are not to imagine that magical spells and the maleficent artsarenot forbid-

den in the New Testament;they are forbidden amongstthe deeds of the flesh.The explanation he gives for their being put in thiscategory isthat because of

the magical arts unfortunate people often fall in loveand become the objects

oflove.6 The church fathers may havefound condemnations of magichardto

comeby . Theyare evenless well-placed when it comes to adducing scriptural

authority for their contention that magicians andsorcerers are impostors and

charlatans. They are firmly convinced that men cannot alter the course of

nature but cannotfind chapter andverse tosupport that view.

The attitude of the fathers of thechurch to theevil eye is a profoundlyambiguous one: they are notpreparedto accept that the eyes ofenvious men

can on their owninflict harm, but they are willing to concede either that the

virtuous and the fortunate do have something to fear fromenvious forces or

that asupernatural forcemay use theeyes ofthe envious tocause harm. This

is their consideredposition when their mind is fully focused on theissue and

its implications. When their mind is on somethingelse, they speak of theeyes

of the envious doingharnn. In essence theycontinue to believe inthe evil eye,

but qualify the expression of theirbeliefto make it philosophically and theo-logically respectable.

The position that they take on the evil eye owes a good deal more to

presuppositions aboutthe nature of man and his capabilities that the church

fathers share with educated pagans than it does to the authority of the scrip-

tures. What a church father found incredible about the evil eye was exactly

whatan educated pagan would have foundincredible. What thefathers leave

unquestioned is exactly what a paganwould have left unquestioned. They

share very much the same blind spots. Not only do paganpresuppositions

shape the attitude of the fathers of the church to the evil eye, but pagan

philosophical discussion has deeply affected the way in which such fathers

as Basil and John Chrysostom conceive of it. The limited view that they

take of the issue is a holdover from learned pagan discussion. The termsof

debate that Basil and John Chrysostom felt bound by here had been laid

6 Commentarius in epistulam ad Galatas, PL 26, col. 443: etne forsitanvene-

ficia, et maleficae artesnon viderentur inNovo prohibitaeT estamento, ipsaequoqueinter carnis opera nominantur. quia saepe magicis artibus, et amare miseris evenit et

amari.


22/229


down long before by pagan philosophers. This has meant that one belief

has been singled out from a largercomplex of beliefs of which it was part

and discussed in isolation from them. The evil eye, as I shall try to show,is a somewhat artificial construct. Ancient criticism of it is interesting as

much for what is said about it as for what is not said about the larger body

of beliefs to which it belongs.

We must step back for a moment to look more closely atwhat it is that

weare talking about when we speak of the evil eye in classical antiquity and

the late Romanworld. Michael Herzfeld has with some reason proposed that

the termevil e y e should not be used in cross-cultural comparisons, on theground that the term is frequently employed to refer to beliefs that have little

incommon with each other, althoughhe does think that it has a proper applica-

tion.7 There are problems with the notion of the evil eye, even within aculture.

In the case of classical antiquity and ofthelate Romanworld,the term evil eye

as such is hardly used at all and then only under theinfluence of certainscrip-

tural passages of uncertainimport.8 The terms mostoften used are,by Greek

speakers, p hthonosand baskania and,by speakers of Latin, invidia andfasci-

natio orfascinus. What men fearedunder these headingswas not a single ob-ject with a secure and fixed identity but a complex of objects with shifting

identities, and identities that coalesce. Very often what they fearedwill have

been inchoate and will have lacked any realidentity.9The more or less constant

factor inthis constellation offears wasfear ofenvy: men wereafraid lest their

good fortune would drawenvy on theirheads. They might fear itwould come

from their fellow men,demons, thegods, fortune, thefates, and a malign su-

pernatural powerthey calledsimplyp hthonos or invidia. Their fear will very

often havehad no clear focus to it and will havebeenno more thananundiffer-entiated sense ofapprehension.Theexplanationsthey gavefor themisfortunes

that befell them will have beenequallyfluid,and they will sometimeshave put

down the catastrophe to acombination of forces, for example, envious demons

7 The Horns of the Mediterraneanist Dilemma, American Ethnologist 1 1

(1984), 448 50; Closure as Cure: Tropesin theExploration ofBodilyan dSocialDis-

order, CurrentAnthropology 27 (1986), 108 note 3.8 Itis found in Gregory of Nyssa, Oratiofunebris in Meletium, PG 46,col. 856

and inJohn Chrysostom, Commentarius in epistulam 1 adCorinthios, PG 61, col. 106.9 1do not, for instance, share Peter Browns confidence (Witchcraft, 32) that the

identityofthe force apostrophized asInvide on Christian amulets wasalways andun-

failinglythought to be the devil.


23/229

Fathers of the Church and the EvilE ye 13

working through envious human beings; or again they will have assigned no

more secure an identity to the cause of their misfortune than that phthonos or

invidiahad struckthem down.To substantiatethesecontentionsadequatelywould take too much space.

Two passages, one fromPlatosPhaedo(95b56)and the other from Libanius

correspondence(Ep. 140 3.1 2), will have to suffice to illustrate respectively

the undifferentiated nature of fear of baskania and the identification of

baskania with fortune. When Socrates in Platos Phaedo tells Cebes not to

speak too boldly, afterCebes has expressed hisconfidence that Socrates will

have nodifficulty in dealing with thenext topic to be discussed, lest some

baskania upsetthediscussion they areabout to have,0there does notseemtobe anygoodreason to assign aprecisesource to thethreat. It seems unlikely

thatit is supposedto emanatefrom any ofthosepresentin Socrates deathcell.

Noragainis there any warrant for supposing thatit is meant to come from the

gods, despite thefact thatSocrates immediatelyproceedsto say that thematter

will be thegods concern(95b7). Furthermore, wehave absolutelyno reason

to suppose that there is in what Socrates says anyimplied reference to the

haranful gaze ofsome being. Libanius, on theother hand, declares he knew

that whenthree young men were praised a baskania would castits gazeon

them, butgoeson to say that phthonerosdaimon couldnotabidewhatwas said

aboutthem. baskania in this case does have abaneful gaze,but it is not

the baskania of anyhuman beingthat is at issue; ifanything, it is that of

envious fortune.

In pagan antiquity what is singled outfor rejection is only one smallfacet

ofthe constellation of beliefs that arise out of the deep-seated conviction that

good fortune will attract the hostility of envious supernatural forces. Menfound it impossible to accept only that other human beings could, without

physical contact, do harm from afar, not that other non-human beings and

forces might out ofenvy do damage, either by casting hate-filled eyes orby

some other means. This is not to say there would not have been those who

would not have rejected the whole complex of ideas out ofhandin theory,

this is what a Stoic or Epicurean would have doneonly that while a man

10 m e mega lege m e tis em in baskania peritrepse to n logon ton mellontaesesthai

1 1 ein o ti baskaniatis opsetai tous sous uieis e pephuken oran ekeinetousepainomenous ... oukenegken oun phthonerosdaimon ton peri auton dogon


24/229

14 MatthewW. Dickie

mighthave difficulty accepting that the interventionofanother human being

could alternatures course,he would have had a good deal less difficulty with

the ideathat theinterventionofan envious force or being, if it were other than

human,was capable ofinterrupting the normal pattern ofevents.

Some educated men in pagan antiquity, at least fromthe first century of

ourera,and probably from a much earlierdate, evidently foundthe idea that

the eyes of envious mencould cast a harmful spell somethingof an embar-

rassment.Grattius, apoet writingunderAugustus, speaksin his Cynegeticaof

fear of the maligneye as a false fearbelonging to an earlierage.7 Persius, the

Roman satirist of the time ofNero, characterizes thegrandmother and aunt

who take an infantboy from his cradle todaub saliva on his forehead and lips,

so as to negatethe effectofeyesthatburn,as fearful ofthe divine.13 In speak-

ing ofeyesthat burn, Persius is referring tothe scorching and withering effect

that the evil eye was imagined topossess. We should not assume too readily

that Grattius and Persiushave only theeyesof humanbeings in mind, but we

may fairly infer that, in speaking respectivelyoffalse fear(falsus metus)and

fear of thedivine (metuensdivum), they are referring to the stateof mind that

in Greekwould be labeled deisidaimonia,14 that is, the preternatural fear ofthedivine and demonic. Incategorizing the fear in theseterms and attributing

it to an earlier eraandto women, they distance themselves from it. Plutarch,

in his account of a conversation after a banquet at which thesubject of the

envious eye (baskanos op h tha lm os and those men able to harm with it isbrought up, says most ofthose present completely belittled and ridiculed the

idea(Quaestionesconvivales, 680c).15 Finally,inHeliodorusnovel theAethio-

pica, when an Egyptian priest suggeststhat his hostsdaughter has drawnan

enviouseye on herself, the host, a priest of DelphianApollo,smilesat theirony

12 quid, priscas artes inventaque simplicis aevi, /si referam? non illametus so-

lacia falsi /tam longam traxere fidem (400402); ac sic offectus oculique venenamaligni /vicittutela p ax impetrata deorum (4 06 7 ) .

13 ecce ania aut metuens dinum matertera cunis /exemit puerum frontemqueatque uda labella/ infamidigito et lustralibus salivis /expiat, urentisoculos inhibere

perita (2.3134).

14 Phrases of the formmetuens divum, as the commentatorson Persius point out,normallyrefer to a proper respect for thegods (Ovid,Fasti,6.25960,Metamorphoses,

1.323; Livy, 22.3.4) and not to superstitious fear. Itis unlikely, however, thatPersius

has simple piety in mind and not thesuperstitiousfear characteristic ofwomen.15 oi m e n alloi pantapasinex ep h lau r izo n t O pragma kaikategelon


25/229

Fathers of the Church andtheEvilE ye 15

ofhis guestssubscribing to abeliefto whichthe masses gavetheir allegiance

(3.7.2). 1 6

It would be foolishto make too much of these expressions of disdain anddraw theconclusion that the educated classesin theRomanEmpire were either

contemptuous of beliefin the evileye andviewed fear of it as apathological

condition or were embarrassed about admitting to theirown belief. Theydo

nonetheless constitute evidencethat thebeliefencounteredsome resistance.7

We should also becautious about placing toomuch weight on thelonely posi-

tion that Plutarch implies heoccupied in believing inthe evil eye: he gives us

to believe that, at least at the beginning ofthe dinner partys conversation on

theevil eye,onlyhe and hishost, Mestrius Florus, wereprepared to defend thebelief. We may suspect that the isolation of Mestrius and Plutarch does not

necessarily reflect any reality, butis adeviceintended to highlight the intellec-

tual tourde force that Plutarch performs in explaining how it is possible for

theenvious tocause damage at adistance.

No doubttherewere many reasonsfor an educated man to want to dis-

tance himself from giving open adherence to the belief, but one prominent

factorinfluencing his conduct may well have been concern lest he seemed to

belong to the number of thosewho were filledwith credulous and awe-struck

amazementin the face of themiraculous andwonderful. Thereis,not surpris-

ingly, a tendency to assign the evil eye to the realm of themiraculous andthe

wonderfulbecause it represents a departure from the normal course of nature

andprecisely because there seemed to be no way to explain how one man,

without being in direct physical contact with another, could harm him. Thus

Apollonius Rhodius in his Argonautica, after describing Medeas bewitching

thebronze giant Taloswith theevil eye, apostrophizes Zeus in shaken wonderthat it should be possible for death to come on someone without his being

struck or fallingsickandthat amanshould be able to harmsomeonefrom afar

(4.l673~75).18 Stories about the evil eye seem tohavebeen one ofthe staples

16 gelasas oun eironikon kaisu galr, eipen,oso podus ochlos einaitinabaraskaniran episteusan

17 MacMullen, Enemies, 121, again goes too far in maintaining of the 2nd and

3rd centuries that As time went on, all doubters disappeared. A universal darknessprevailed. He restates the same view,dismissingbrowns reservations (Witchcraft, 22)in Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven-London,1981), 7 1 74 .

19 Zeu pater em eg ad i imoi eni haresithambosaetai /ei d e m enousoisi tupesitem ouno n olethros /antiaei kai diitisapoprothen a lm m e chaleptei


26/229


of the branch ofliterature that from the Hellenistic Ageon catered to thepub-

lics taste forwonders, paradoxography.19 This taste for the miraculous was to

some extent made disreputable by the assaults of two philosophical schools,the Epicureans and the Stoics. The Stoics,about whom we are better informed

here, hadno time for wonders and simply denied the possibility of their exis-

tence.20 Much of the impetus for their attack isattributable to their eagerness

to counter the disconcerting effect that awe-struck fear might haveon amans

mental equilibrium. It will beno coincidence thenthat the philosophical stand-

point of Persius and ofthose at Plutarchsdinner party who attackbeliefin the

evil eye is a Stoicone.31

From an intellectual point of view, the difficulty educated pagans hadwith the evil eye, whenthey put theirminds to the issue, was that itwas hard

to seehow theeyes could harm without apparent physical contact. There were

three responses to this difficulty: (1) probably the mostcommon, to ignore it;

(2) to see in it an insuperable obstacle to the beliefs being true; and (3) to

arguethat there was in factphysical contact between theeyes and whatthey

restedon. Thus Plutarchs explanation of theevil eye isthat there is a physical

emanation from the eyes ofthe envious person which enters the eyes of the

envied party to cause bodily and psychic upset (Quaest. conviv., 680f~681a,

68le f). Plutarch here is deeply indebted to the presocratic philosopher De-

mocritus, who had used his theory ofatomic particles toaccount forthecapac-

ity the eyes of the envious had to harm (DK 68 A 77 =Plutarch, Quaest.

conviv., 682f 683a). What is notable aboutall of the the theories devised in

19 Pliny the Elder attributes to two Hellenistic paradoxographers, Isigonus and

Nymphodorus, stories about people who hadthe power to fascinate(Historia naturalis,7.16). On the literary form, see A. Giannini, Studi sulla paradossografia greca I,

RendIstLomb97 (1963), 246 66; idem, Studi sulla paradossografiagrecaII, Acme 1 7(1964),9 9 1 4 0 .

20 Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, ed. J. non Arnim, 4 nols. (Leipzig, 190524),

III, 642;cfibid., I,239 (Zeno); Epictetus, 1 .29.3. Strabo (1.3.21) treats Democritusa sth e precursor ofthose philosophers (i.e., the Stoics)w ho try to inculcatea resistancetoastonishment (athaumastia). O n Democritus an d th e Stoics, see R. Gauthier and J.Jolif, LEthique a Nicomaque, 2nd ed. (Louvain-Paris, 1970), on Aristotle, Nicoma-

cheanEthics, 1 125a2. Lucian couples Democritus with Epicurus and Metrodorus asmen resolute in their determination not to be awed by miracles (Alexander, 17).

21 H. Dorrie, DerKonigskult des Antiochos von Kommagene im Lichteneuer

Inschrziten-Funde, AbhGott,phil.-hist.Kl., 3rd ser.6 0 (Gottingen, 1964), 110, identifies

the scoffers position as Stoic.


27/229

Fathers of the Church and the EvilEye 17

pagan antiquityandthey are all reallyvariations on Plutarchs adaptation of

Democritusto make sense of the ability of the envious to inflict harm

through their eyes is that they assume the harm must be done through someform ofphysical contact.

22

ThatPlutarchs theory should have found its wayinto two collections of

physical and medical conundrums, one ascribed to Aristotle ([Arist.], Probi.

ined. 3.52 [BussemakerIV.3331 and the other to Alexander of Aphrodisias

([Alex. Aphrod.] Probl. 2.53 [J. L. Ideler, Physici etmedici Graeci minores

1.67 68]), is a fair indication that there wasan audience for it and that Plutarch

somewhat misrepresents his position in suggesting itwas a lonely andembat-

tled one. Many educated men will have been only too happy to embrace anexplanationthat conferred respectabilityon a beliefto whichthey might other-

wisehave been embarrassed to admit. Many othersapparently feltno embar-

rassment atall aboutthe belief. Pliny theElder, despite the robust skepticism

hedisplays about certain aspects of magic, is one such:23 there is no hint that

hewithholds his intellectual assent from what he has to say aboutfascinatio.24

Aelian,a product of the Second Sophistic who wasborn in Praeneste butwrites

in Greek, is another: hehappily recounts themeasures that animals and birds

take to protect themselvesagainst theeyesof theenvious.35

In sum, in pagan antiquity one small facet of a much larger complex of

beliefs, whose core was the feeling that good fortune was vulnerable to the

assaults ofenvious supernaturalforces, was singledout for rejection or expla-

nation. It is important to bear this in mind whenweturn to what those fathers

of the churchwho do address theissue ofbaskania orfascinatio haveto sayabout it . Those church fathers who show no sign ofhaving readany of the

philosophicaldiscussions of thetopic, although they take a somewhat largerview ofbaskania, cannot accept that one human being can harm another

throughbaskania, but do not question the existence ofan envious supernatu-

ralforce. The church fathers whose thinking does betraytheinfluenceofpagan

22 Heliodorus, Aethiopica, 3 .7 .2 8 .2 ; [Aristotle], Problemata inedita, 3 .52

(bussemakerIV.333); [AlexanderofAphrodisias],Problemata, 2 .5 3 (J .L .Ideler,Phys-ici etmedici graeciminores, 1 .67 68 ) .

23 O n Plinys disbeliefinmagic,seeMaryBeagon, Roman Nature: The ThoughtofPliny theElder(Oxford, 1992),92 123 , an assessmentthat doesnot quite bring outPlinysblind spots.

24 Historia naturalis, 7 . 1 6 18 ; 13.40; 19.50; 28.22, 35, 101; 37.145, 164.25 De naturaanimalium, 1.35; 11.18.


28/229

18 MatthewW Dickie

philosophical discussionshow in theverylimitedview they takeofbaskania

and in theircriticism ofbeliefin it their indebtedness, naturally unacknowl-

edged,to pagan thinkingonthe subject.What they attackisthebeliefthatmenin theirenvy are ablethrough theireyesalone to hurt other human beings; the

basisof their criticismisthata merepart ofthe body could not dothis onits own.

The Fathers of the Church

Nowhere is the limiting influence of pagan discussion more evidentthan in

Basils discussion of the evil eye in his homily on envy. After arguing that theenvious do themselvesmuch more harm than they do those at whomthey direct

theirenvy, he turns to an apparentcounter-example to his thesis, namely, the

beliefheld by some that envious men through thesole agency of theireyescan

inflictharmon others.20 He goes on togive afuller versionof this belief:Bod-

ies ingood condition, eventhose that are at the very apogee of physical form

and youth, waste away when exposed to fascination and lose all of their sub-

stance, inasmuch as a deadlyeffiux emanates from envious eyes to ruin and

kill.27 Having spelled out what the belief is, Basil dismisses it as a vulgarstory introduced by old women into the womens quarters.28 Then, changing

histacksomewhat, he makes what is in effect a concession:whendemons who

have a hatred of what is fair come across men withpropensities akin to their

own, they employ these propensities to further their own purposes, which

meansthat they pressthe eyes of the envious into service to secure their own

ends.29Basil concludes this part of thehomily byasking us whether we are not

afraid ofmaking ourselvesa servant of a deadly demon and the enemy ofGod

who isgood and free of all envy.

26 De invidia, PG 3 1 , c o l . 3 8 0 : tous de h a th on erou s tines oiontai kai d i oph

thalmon monon t e n blaben epiballein.27 oste ta euektikasomata kai ek tes kata ten elikirana km eseis tenak-

ran Oran uperanthesanta, ekesthaipar autOn katabaskainomena, kaiolon a-throos sunanaireisthai ton ogkon oionreumatostinos olethriou ek tOn phthoneronoph t h a lm on aporreontos, kai lumainomenou kai dirahatheirontos.

28 toutonegode touton en tO n logona p o p e m p o m ai osdemode kai te gunaikonitidipareisachthenta up o graidion

29 de ekeino dep h e m i , oti oi misokaloi oraimones,epeidan oikeiaseautoiseur-osi proaireseis pantoiosautraispros t O id io n apokechrentaibo u l em a oste kaitois O h a th a lm o is tOnbaskanoneis uperesianchresthaitou idiou thelematos.


29/229

Fathers of theChurch and the EvilE ye 19

Thebeliefthat Basil rejects as vulgar and an old wives tale, at least in

the form that he presents it, is no such thing, but a leamedinterpretation of

baskania that he gets from Plutarch, probablydirectly. Basil read Plutarch;the homily De invidiaowes a debt toPlutarchsDe invidia etodio.

30 Since the

theory ofbaskania that herejects is basically thesame as Plutarchs, and the

description of the effect of baskacania on bodies in their prime comes from

Plutarchs explanation of why good-looking young men in their prime may

fascinatethemselves ifthey see their image reflected inwater, the chances are

that hehas taken it directly from that author.31

Why Basil shoulddismiss Plutarchsexplanation ofbaskania as an old

wives tale is something of a puzzle. In calling it an old wives tale, he of

course wishes to suggest that it is a superstitiousbeliefof the sort that only

credulous old women would believe.32 Itseems unlikely, however, that it had

30 Basilsdebt particularly to Plutarchs De tranquillitate vitaehas been demon-

strated by M. Pohlenz, Philosophische Nachklange in altchristlichen Predigten,

ZWTh 48 (1905), 72 95 . See also R. Hirzel, Plutarch (Leipzig, 1912), 8485; K.Ziegler,RE21(1951), cdl. 311; D. Russell, Plutarch (London, 1973), 144 45. Case

for debt toPlutarchs Deinvid. etod. in basils De invidia:enviouswill never admit toenvy: Deinvid., PG 31, col. 373 =Mor., 537e; misfortune of the enviedputs astop toenvy: Deinvid., PG 3 1 , col. 373 = Mor., 5 3 8 b c ; doinggood to the envious does notstop theirenvy but exacerbates it:De invid.,PG 31 , cols.3 7 6 77 =Mor, 538 c d .

5 Cf. Quaest. conviv. 682e: sphaleron gar e e p akron euexia katatO n Ippokraten, kai te a sOmataproelthontam ec h ri tesaacr rasak m es O u c h esteken.

32 For oldwives talesa s an exp ression ofcontempt: Plato, Gorgias,527a, Res-

publica, 350e,Theaetetus, 176b; Herodas, 1.74; 1 Timothy 4:6;Lucian, Philopseudes,9; Philostratus, Vita Apollonii, 5.14; Porphyry , DeAbstinentia, 4.16;Julian, Oratio 5 ,

161 b; Cicero, De naturadeorum, 3.12; Tibullus, 1.3.85;Horace, Sermones, 2 .6 .7 6 7 7 ;Apuleius,Apologia, 25,Metamorphoses, 4.27;see also Headlamon Herod.1.74; non-sensical talk characteristicofold women: JohnChrysostom, InMatthaeum, PG 57,col.30,In epistulam ad Romanos,PG 60, col.414 ,In epistulam 2 ad Thessalonicenses,PG62, col. 470 ; on the superstitiousness ofwomen in general: bionfr . 30 Kindstrand =Plutarch,De superstitione, 168d;Polybius, 12.24.5;Strabo,7.3.4; on th e superstitious-ness ofold women: Plutarch, Nonposse suavitervivere secundumEpicurum, 1 I05b;Cleomedes, De motu circulari corporumcaelestium, 208 Ziegler; basil, Homilia inhexameron, 6.11, PG 2 9 ,col. 145; Gregory ofNyssa, InEunomium, PG 45, col.296 ;

John Chrysostom,InMatthaeum, PG 57, col.353;Cicero,De domosua, 105,ND, 1.55,2.5, 70 , 3.92, 96, Dedivinatione, 1.7, 2.19, 125, 141, Orationes tusculanae, 1.48, 92;Servius, in Aeneidem, 8.187;Minucius Felix,Octavius, 13.5; Lactantius,Divinaeinsti-tutiones, 1.17.3, 5.2.7; Firmicus Materuus, De erroreprofanorum, 17.4; on women andold women in particularbeing expertin warding offor taking offth e evil eye: Theocri-


30/229

20 Matthew WDickie

become part of the fabric of popularculture. A possible but only partial solu-

tion to the problem may lie in the conventions governing the way in which

Christians refer to theviews ofpaganphilosophers. TheCappadocian fathersand John Chrysostom are in the habit of speaking in an extremely dismissive

fashion of pagan philosophers when the views of these philosophers are in

conflict with what they take to be Christian doctrine.35 We find Gregory

ofNazianzus speaking of a certain theory as even more outlandish and old

womanlike thanthe atoms of the Epicureans.54 It is hard at the sametime not

tobelievethatthe contempt expressed bythe Cappadocianfathers is something

of a pose designed to reassure their hearers and readersthat, despite their edu-

cation in the paganclassics, they hadno truck with the ideas ofp agans.35Despitehisdismissal ofPlutarchs theory, Basil has more incommon with

Plutarch than perhaps hewould want toadmit: he toobelieves that theeyes of

theenvious may cause hurt, but instead ofhavingrecourse to atomic theory to

tus, 6.3940, 7.12627; H eliod., Aethiop., 4.5.3; Persius, 2.31 34; Ps. Acro, in HoratiiEpodem, 8 .1 8 ; Augustine, Confessiones, 1.7.11; old women as magic-workers: Plu-

tarch, Desuperstit., 166a; Lucian, Philopseudes, 9 , Dialogimeretricum, 4.1, 3, 5; JohnChrysostom, Adilluminandos catecheses, PG 49 , col. 240 , In epistulam 2 ad Corin-thios, PG 61 , col. 106, Inepistulam adColossenses, PG 62, cols. 3 5 8 59 ; Athanasius,Fragmentum de amuletis,PG 2, col. 1320 ; Tibullus, 1 . 8 . 17 18 ; Horace, Sermones, 1 . 8 ;Propertius, 2.4.15; Ovid,Amores, 1 . 8 ; Petronius, Satyricon, 1 3 1 .

33 Cf. Gregory ofNazianzus, Contra lulianumimperatorem, 2 , PG 3 5 , col.717,AdversusEunomianos, 1 0 , PG 36, col. 2 4 , Carmina moralia, 10 (de virtute), PG 37,col.695 ; John Chrysostom,AdpopulumAntiochenum,PG 49, col. 175,In ActaAposto-lorum, PG 60, col.47.

3 4 Gregory of Nazianzus, De theologia, 10 , PG 36, col. 36: O kai tOnEpikoureion atomonatopoteron tekai graodesteron.

35 Foran echoinbasil(Ep. 1 1 ) ofa letterofEpicurus (ft. 138Usener) suggestive

ofa certain sympathy and understanding for that philosopher: P . Von der Mlhl, basil-iusu ndder letzteBriefEpikurs, MusHelv12(1955),4 7 49 ;WSchmid,RAC5 (1962),s.v. Epikur, col. 783; on basils attitude toward Greekliterature and his use ofGreekphilosophy to bolster his arguments: N. G.W ilson,SaintBasilon the ValueofGreek

Literature (London, 1975) ,9 13 ; on the view that Basilsattacks on Greekphilosophyand science in the Hexamerondo not reflect basils ownposition but the officialvoice

of the church: E. Amand deMendieta, The Official Attitude ofbasilofCaesarea asaChristian Bishoptowards GreekPhilosophy andScience, in The Orthodox Churchesand the West,D. baker, ed., Studies in Church History 1 3 (1976),2 5 4 9 ; the cleannessof this division questioned: M. Naldini, Basilio di Cesarea, Sulla Genesi (Milan,1990) , xxivxxv.


31/229

Fathers of the Church and the EvilE ye 21

explainhow that couldbe,he appeals to thenotion ofenvious demons using

envious human beings as the instruments of their will. Basil does not spell out

his reasons forrejecting the idea that theenvious can harm through theireyesalone, but fromthe emphasisthatheplaceson its beingdonethrough the eyes

alone we may surmise that neither he nor his audience could imagine harm

beingdone without directphysical contact. The same pattern of reasoning,a s

we haveseen, liesbehindpagan rejectionofbaskania.

From ourvantage point it seems obvious that the same objection should

apply to the theory that demons may, through the eyes of the envious, effect

harm.ForBasil, on the other hand, bringingthe demonic or the divineinto the

explanation puts the explanationon a plane that excuses the further exercise of

the critical faculty. Basils rationality, like that of most men, extends as faras

it can be made to coincide with deeply held beliefs,fears, and interests, but no

further. His reservations about the envious having the power to inflict harm

through theireyesturn out to be verylimited.38He is notprepared todenythat

the eyesoftheenvious maybe dangerous, ifdemons use them, let alone that

theremay beenvious demonic anddiabolical forcesout thereintent on destroy-

ing what is fair andgood.

When John Chrysostom attacksthe notion of the evil eye as incoherent,

what he too attacks under that heading isPlutarchsconception ofthe evil eye.

His attack comes in his commentaryon apassage inPauls Letter to theGala-

tians that is somethingof a touchstone ofthesensitivity ofthosewho comment

on it to the implications of beliefin theevil eye for Christian doctrine. The

problemwith thepassage and another in theGospel ofMatthew is that they

might be taken toshow that Paul and Jesus respectively subscribed tobeliefin

the evil eye. The passage in Matthew (20:15)the parable in which the lordof the vineyard asks those who complain to him that those who have only

worked from the eleventh hourhavereceivedasmucha s theywho haveworked

all day,whether theireyeis notevilbecause he isgood3 7 isless ofan embar-

rassment thanthatin Galatians. It is notparticularly plausibleto suppose that

in it Jesushas theevil eye in mind. Nonetheless, the possibility that Jesus might

be thought to lend his authority to the notion makesChrysostom take pains to

36 Similarly CharlesStewart,Demons andthe Devil:MoralImagination in Mod-

em GreekCulture (Princeton, 1991), 290 note 16. See also RichardP . H. Greenfleld,Traditions ofBeliefin Late Byzantine Demonology(Amsterdam, 1988), 112.

37 e o o p h th al m os souponerosestin,O ti ego agathos eimi;


32/229

22 Matthew W Dickie

ensure that his readers understand the passage correctly. Pauls words inGala-

tians (3:1) incalling the Galatians foolish and asking who has put an envious

spellon them are less easilydiscounted.38

In Chrysostoms view, Galatians 3:1 is a rebuke aimed at the Galatians,

couched not in the harshest waypossible,but madeless severeby the sugges-

tion,in ebakanen, that theGalatians conduct has been sufficientlymeritor-

ious to have drawnenvy ontheir heads; what has happened is that the Galatians

have suffered theassault of a demon fiercelyhostileto theirsuccess.39 Chryso-

stom now proceeds to give a justification for his interpretation ofebaasacanen

as a reference to a demonic assault and not to fascinationby thehumaneye:40

he argues that when we hear ofphthonosin thispassage and in the Gospels ofophthalmosponeros meaning envy, then we are not to suppose that the cast

of the eye harms those seeing it , for the eye could not be bad, being only a

bodily part.41 There then follows an extremely tortured explanation of how

Christ came to useo p h th al m os poneros ofenvy,the gist ofwhich is that,a s the

eye is a passive receptor through whichthe vision of what is seen flows into

the soul,there can be nothing bad about theway in which it sees,the badness

being confinedto the reception of what is seen by soulsendowed with a bad-

ness that gives rise toenvy.42BythisChrysostom may meanthat while theeyes

of theenvious are not bad in the sensethat they can do harm, they are bad in

38

oanoetoiGalatai,tis umas ebaskanen;39 John Chrysostom, In epistulam ad Galatas commentarius, PG 61 , col. 648:

ouk amoironegkomion tenep iplexinth eis . toutogar deiknuntos estin,O ti p h t ho n ouaxia epratton proteron, kai daimonos epereia t O gignomenon en , sphodron kata

teseuemerias auton pneusantos.40 B. K otting, RAC,s . v . Boserblick,col.479 , is misleading here in paraphrasing

th eintent ofChrysostoms position to be that the danger of theevil eyecomes not fromthe eye itself but from moral distortion in theheartofth e enviousm anand inattributingthesame view to Jeromeon Gal. 3:1.

41 John Chrysostom, Inep. ad Gal.comm.,col. 648: Otan de p h t h o n o n akousesentautha, kai en t o Euaggelio O p h th a lm O n ponerOnto auto delounta,m e touto no-m ise s, O tie tOn O p h tha lm O n bole tous orontas blaptein pephuken O ph thalm O s garoukan eie poneros, autoto m elo s .

42 Ibid.: all entauthao Christosouto t O n p h t h o n o n legei. O p h th a lm O n m en gar toaplosoran tes endon diestrammenes ginetaignomes epeide gar dia tes aistheseostauteseis t e n p su ch e n umen eisreiton oromenone theoria, kai osepipoluen plouto malista O p h t h ono s tiktetai o de ploutosa p o ophthalmon oratai kaisi dunasteiai kai aidoruphoriai dia t ou t o poneron O p h t h a lm O n ekalesen,o u tO norenta, alla tonmeta b araskanias OrOntaap oteskatapsuchen ponerias.


33/229


the sense that envydistortsthevision andcauses it to put an evil construction

on what is seen.43

Chrysostoms position on Galatians3:1 is, accordingly, that the verse re-

fers to ademonic assault on the Galatiansmotivated by envy and not to somehuman beings having cast an evil eye on them. The argument presented in

support ofthis conclusion isan attack not only on the popularbeliefthatthe

eyes of the envious can harm but also on those such as Plutarch, who try to

providea reasoned defense ofi t. Thereare two indications that this is what he

isdoing: (1) an element of the propositionthat he bids us not believe(i.e., that

theeyes of the person hurt have to catch the cast of the eyes of the envious

party for harm to be done) is a feature of most ancient explanations of the

evil eye, including that ofPlutarch,but, in popularbelief, is not presumably

considered a necessary factor since therenot only are humans and animals

bewitched but also trees and crops; (2) Chrysostom is emphatic that the eye

itself does nothing but acts as the passive instrument through which what is

seen flowsinto the soul; thisview of visual perception stands in marked con-

trast to the theory of vision underlying Plutarchs explanation of the evil eye,

in which somethingflowsout of the eyesto impinge on the objectperceived.45

I am unable to demonstrate thatChrysostom knewthe Quaestionesconvi-vales, but, like Basil,he knew PlutarchsDetranquillitate animi, as M. Pohlenz

showed long ago. A strong case can also be made for Chrysostomshaving

drawnon theDeinvidia etodioin his homily De invidia.46The points in com-

mon here betweenChrysostom and Plutarch are not the same asthose between

Basil and Plutarch, a fair indication that Chrysostom, though hemay haveread

Basil, is not dependent on him in thismatter.47

43 Cf. JohnChrysostom, DeChristi divinitate, PG 48,col. 808: oigar tenp h t h o-nountonOphthalmoiu g i e s ouden blepousi.

44 Cf. Ap. Rhod., Arg., 4.1669 70 (dependenton Democritus): echthodopoisin /

O m m as i chadkeioio Talo emegeren opopas; [Alex. Aphrod.], Probl., 2 .53 : osperiodes tis kai phthoropoios aktis exeisinap o tes kores auton kai au tee eisiousadia tenO p hth alm O n toup h th on ou m eno u trepseite e n p s u c h e n kai t e n p h us in.

45 Quaest. conviv., 681a:polukinetos gar e O p s i s ousameta pneumatosaugenaphientos purode thaumastentinadiaspeirei dunamin, Oste podIakaip aschein kai

poieind i autes ton anthropon.46 Pohlenz, Nachklange, 9194.47 The case forChrysostomsindebtedness in theDe invid. (PG63, cols.67782)

to Plutarchs De invid. et od. rests on the presence in both of the following topics:

animals do not envy each otherand, though they may go to war with eachother, the

hatredis provoked by a cause: John Chrys., De invid., PG 63, col. 677 = Plut., De


34/229

24 MatthewW Dickie

Itturns out then that Basil andChrysostomtake verymuch the sameline

in interpreting theevileye andareboth concernedto reject not only popular

beliefbut also therationalization of thebeliefdevised by Plutarch. It is notsurprisingthat there should be a measure of agreementon this point between

Chrysostom and his older contemporary,Basil. ThatChrysostomshould resort

to detailed philosophical argument to support his rejection, and Basil should

not,reflectsthe differing requirements of a popular address and aleamed com-

mentary.Finally, bothChrysostom and Basil present aunifiedvoice in seeing

baskania as a form ofenvious demonic assault.Jeromes commentaryon Galatianswas probablywrittenalong with com-

mentarieson three otherPauline epistles inA .D . 387/88.It was composed in ahasty fashionand draws on the work of earliercommentators.

48 Jerome takes

a somewhat different approach to Galatians3:1 fromChrysostom: he argues

that Paul uses the language ofthepeople in this matter, but notbecause Paul

supposes there is such a thing asfascinus in its vulgaracceptance.49 He goes

on to adduce two passagesfrom theSeptuagintin whichthe terms baskania

andbaskanos are used,50and to conclude that they teach us that a man may

be tortured in his envyby anothers good luck orthat aman who is in posses-

sionofsomegoodmay be harmed byanothers fascinatinghim, that is, envying

him. Of this latterbelief,Jerome says thatfascinus issupposed particularly to

harm infants,the young, and those whosestepis notyetfirm.51 Asan example

of thebeliefhe cites averse from Vergils Third Eclogue, ascribing it not to

Vergil by name but toa certain pagan: nescioquis tenerosoculusmihi fascinat

agnos(103). Whether thebeliefis true ornot, hewill leave to Godto see,he

says.Jerome makes himself seem more open-minded on thisissue than in fact

invid. etod.,537b-c; misfortunes of enviedput an end toenvy: John Chrys.,De invid.,PG 63, col. 677 =Plut., De invid. etod., 5 3 8 b ;thereason for enmities disappears:JohnChrys.,De invid.,PG6 3, col.6 78 = Plut., Deinvid. etod., 538c.

48 See J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome (London, 1975), 145.49 Jerome, Comm. in Gal., PL 26, cols. 3 7 2 7 3 : quod autem sequitur: Qui vos

fascinavit, digne Paulo (qui etsi imperitus est sermone, non tamen scientia) debemus

exponere, non quo scierit essefascinum, qui vulgo putaturnocere; sed usus sermone

sit trivii, et ut in ceteris, ita et in hoc quoque loco, verbum quotidianae sermoci-nationisassump serit.

50 Sirach 18:18.2;SapientiaSalomonis 4:12.5 Jerome, ibid.: dicitur fascinus proprieinfantibus nocere, et aetati parvulae, et

his qui necdumfirms vestigio figantgradum.


35/229


36/229

26 MatthewW Dickie

whichhe drew may have explained theirposition more fully. Jeromes com-

mentary does nonetheless providean indication thatChrysostom hadpredeces-

sors in rejecting thepossibilityofreading Galatians 3:1 literally and in inter-preting instances of fascination as demonic rather than human assaults.

The tradition of interpretationthat wefind inChrysostom and Jeromewas

by no means universal. The two early Latin commentaries on Galatians, that

of Marius Victorinusand that of the writer given the name Ambrosiaster by

Erasmus, bothexplain whatebaskanen means, buthave nothing to say either

about whether Paul subscribes tothe beliefthat men can fascinate or whether

there is anything tothe belief.55 Victorinus, infact, writes in such a way as to

suggest that he accepts the belief.56 Augustine in his commentary quotes theverse buthas nothing tosay about it(Expositio in Galatas, PL35, col. 2116).

Ifexpressions ofdisbeliefinthe evil eyewere only to befound inBasil,

Chrysostom,and Jerome, wemight beinclined to suppose that the evileyewas

a matter oflimited and local concern andthat itwas an issue only inthe minds

of those who had read Plutarch or had in some way been influenced by him.

Thereis,however, evidenceof a morewidespread concern with fascination in

Christian circles in both the East andWest.

Two generations or more beforeBasil, the North African father Tertullian,

a convert toChristianity from paganism, had already in effect rejected what he

calledfascinus inits pagan understanding. The language he employs suggests

the position he adopts was already one that had some standing among Chris-

tians, In the Devirginibus velandis, a tract denouncing the action of a group

ofyoung Carthaginian womenwho haddecidedto remain unmarried and who

had been persuaded to stand in church with their heads uncovered and their

faces unveiled,57 he maintains that among the benefits a virgin acquires fromveiling herself from theeyes ofothers is thatshe protects herself against scan-

dalous talk, suspicion, whispering, emulation, and envy itself.38 Mention of

envy leads Tertullian togo ontosaythat there isalso somethingfearedamong

55 MariusVictorinus:In epistulamPauli ad Galatas liberI , PL 8,cols. 1 1 6 6 6 7 ;Ambrosiaster: PL 17, col. 372.

56 Victorinus, ibid.: non papiuntur fascinum, nisi qui in bono aliquo pollent, et

patiuntura malignis etinv id i s .57 On the circumstances that gaverise tothis tract, see Peterbrown, The Body

andSociety(New York, 1988) ,8 0 .50 Tertullian, De virginibus velandis, 15, PL 2 , col. 959: confugit ad velamen

capitis, quasi ad galeam, quasi ad clypeum, qu i bonum suumprotegatadversus ictus


37/229

Fathers of the Church and the Evil Eye 27

pagans, to which they give the name offascinus; it is the unhappy outcome of

too great praise andglory.39 This, Tertullian says,Christians sometimes inter-

pretby thedevil andsometimesby God; inthe one case a s a hatred of what is

good and in the other as ajudgmenton arrogance that raises up the humble

and lays low those who have got above themselves.60A piousvirgin, he con-

cludes, will therefore fear, underthe heading offascinus, the envious temper

of the Adversary and the censorious eye ofGod.61 That is to say, a virgin will

veil herself sothat her beauty may not incurthe envious eye of the devil and

sothat the pride she takes in herbeautymay not drawGodswrathon herhead.

How many Christians interpretedfascinus inquite thisway we cannot say,

and we may suspect that Tertullian is recommending rather than reporting awidely accepted interpretation of the notion. That said, it does nonetheless

soundas though he is appealing to a recognized position. He does not explain

in any detail what the nature of thefascinusfeared by paganswas.62 Hisinsis-

tence that it is to be understooda s Godspunishment of pride or the envyof

the devil would seem to indicate that he is taking issue withan understanding

of the termthat attributed special powers to human beings.On the other hand,

his definitionoffascinusastheunhappy outcomeof toogreatpraise andglory

doessuggest not onlythat he is thinking ofmen casting the evil eye but also

of their fascinatingby praising.63He has, accordingly, in mind a conceptionof

tentationum, adversus iacula scandalorum, adversus suspiciones, et susurros,et aemula-tionem, ipsum quoque livorem

59 Ibid.: Dam estaliquid etiamapud ethnicos metuendum, quod fascinumvocant,infelicioremlaudiset gloriae enormioris eventum.

69

Ibid.: hoc nosinterdumdiabolo interpretamur: ipsius est enim, boni odium,interdumDes deputamus: illius estenim superbiae iudicium, extollentis humiles, etdeprimentiselatos.

61 Ibid.: timebititaqu e virgo sanctior, velin nomine fascini, hinc adversarium,inde Deum: illius linidum ingenium, huiuscenssrium lumen.

62 Thee,JuliusAfricanus, 403 note 3,thinks thatTertulliansposition is ambigu-ous and that herefersto the evil eye in a sort of ad hominem argument, as a paganidea which at least served to reinforce his ideas about virgins wearing vei1s. RobinLane Foxs (Pagans and Christians [Harmondsworth, 1986], 370) paraphrase of

the intent of the passage is also somewhatmisleading: Tertullian drew attention tothe continuing risks of the pagans evil eye as a counter to the virgins self-congratulation?

63 There is an instance offascinareused meaning to fascinate by praising inTertulliansaccount ofM arcions attackon Lukesversion of th e nativity ofJesus: ta-


38/229

28 Matthew W Dickie

fascinusrather wider thanthat withwhich Basil, JohnChrysostom,and Jerome

wereto takeissue. Furthermore, his interpretation ofit differs somewhatfrom

theirs. What he does have in common with them is that he would deny thatthere is anything tofascinus as it was understood by pagans. He would also

agree with themin imputing at least some instancesof fascinus to thedevil.

There is then already inTertullian the germ ofthe doctrineon fascination by

the evil eye that we find in later authors.

Tertullian givesus some impression of what a preacher not influencedby

pagan philosophical discussion of the topic mightsayto hisflockabout fasci-

nation by theevil eye and in what sort of contextthe issue would arise. Some

furtherlight on these points is shedbya homily attributed to Eusebius ofAlex-

andriaon the observance ofthe Sabbath (SennoVII.:DeNeomeniis etSabbatis

etdenonobservandisavium vocibus, PG86.1, cols. 35457).64 Thesermon is

an attackonthose Christians who giveas their reason for performing some act

of charitythat it is the Sabbath or thefirstday of a new month or a birthday, or

againwhosaythat Easter iscoming and thatthey are watching the birds. Such

conduct, Eusebius declares, ischaracteristic of Jews, not Christians. He goes

on to criticize a number of other practices that takeplace on theseoccasions:not givingfireto a neighbor after sunset, paying attention to the cries of birds,

and treatingmens utterancesa s prophetic.65 He summarizes the intent of this

section of his argument by declaring that Christians ought not to spend their

timeon such days paying close attention tothe cries of birds, to what day and

hour it is,and to being ontheir guard against men(paraterein anthropous

WhatEusebius now goes on to attackare men who, instead of blaming

thedevil for whathas gone wrong, when Satan destroys some fine workthey

have made, assert that so-and-so as he went past fascinated it.66 This leadsEusebius toexclaim at thewayin which men ascribe barasacania to their fellow

men when the devil has fromthe beginning beenenvious and is at war with

ceat et anus il l a (sc. Anna, Luke 2 :36 38 ) , nefascinet puerum (Decame Christi,

PL 2, col. 800) .64 I am deeply indebted to DirkK rausmlller forpo inting outth e homily tom e. 1

fear that, butfor him, Iwould never have comeacrossit .65

alloi phulassontat p h o n a s orneon, kai acledonismous anthropon.66o deina anthropos paragonebaskanen. Forth e evil eye being cast by one

passing b y , cf . the exorcism from early 19th-century Cretequotedin Curt Wachsmuth,Das alte Griechenlandim Neuen (bonn, 1864) ,6 0 61 : kai perasasoi aggeloi k iarchaggeloikaiphtharmisasi ten.


39/229


mankind. Eusebius proceeds to explain how the devil contrives to get men to

blame theirillsonthe bassacania of their fellows: ifhe should see a man doing

good work in hisfield, heconceives envy of him andstrives to break him; butsince he is invisible,he contrivesto havethe responsibilityascribed to others

who are without guilt; again when he sees a fine ox exerting itselfpulling a

cart and people admiring it and praising i t, hecauses it tocollapse; its master

does notblame the devilbut a man who is without guilt. A furtherexclamation

at the power of the devil follows: how the devil is always able, wheneverhe

wantstodoill, to get one ofthose persons whom men are on their guardagainst

(O nmellousin paraphulattesthai to bepresent; thus a man goingon a jour-

ney away from home, from which he will return withouthavingaccomplishedhis goal, will say that he met so-and-so as he left and that was thereason

for his failure. Eusebius ends the homily with the observation that wehave a

phylacteryagainst thebaskacanis of thedevil in the form of thecross.

The connecting threadthat ties Eusebiusdenunciation ofJudaizing prac-

tices to his criticism of those men who blame their misfortunes on the

bassacaniaof theirfellows rather thanthe devil is that these men are guilty of

being on their watch against theirfellows. It is possible that a similar under-lying connection in thought is to be discerned in John Chrysostom: in two

homilies helumps together with the observance of the cries ofbirds and the

utterances ofmen theuse ofincantations andamulets,to which in one casehe

adds engaging in magic-working (In epistulam 1 ad Corinthios, PG 61, col.

38; Inepistulam] ad Timotheum, PG 62, col. 552).To Chrysostoms way of

thinking these practices were clearlyallof a piece. It isworth mentioningthat

healso attackspaying attention to the cries ofbirds and theutterances ofmen

kledonismoi kai oionismoi on the sameground as doesEusebius, namely,that theChristians who do this are guilty of Judaizing(Comm. in ep. ad Gal.,

PG 61, col. 623).Whatever the connecting thread may be that ties these prac-

tices together for Chrysostom, we can at least beconfidentthat attention to the

cries ofbirds and to mens utterances was in the eyes of Chrysostom very

closely connected with engaging in such magical practices as wearing amulets

anduttering incantations.

Eusebius, accordingly, provides us with another context in which a con-

gregation might be urged to put aside the beliefthat their fellow men could

fascinate them, either by their looks or by theirpraise: denunciation of such

Judaizing practicesa s attending tobirds cries and to the utterances of menas

thoughthey were fraught with significance. For Eusebius the same mistaken


40/229

30 MatthewW Dickie

view oftheworld is to be seen infinding significance in the calls ofbirds as is

apparentin thinkingthat men can harm by their looks or praise.Eusebiusdoes

not say why he thinks this is awrong-headedpoint ofview.Heevidently imag-ines itsufficientfor the purpose of asermontodenounce itas a piece oftrick-

ery on the part of the devil. LikeTertullian, Eusebius takes a larger view of

what men mean by baskania thando Basil and John Chrysostom: he deals

with both acts of fascination done through theeyesand fascinatingbypraising.

He certainlystill continues to believein a form of fascination in attributing the

misfortunes thatmen blameon theirfellows to theenvyof the devil. He adds,

however,a twist tothat thesis,not found elsewhere:the devildeliberately tricks

men into thinking that the ills they suffer are to be attributed to the envious

gaze of a passerby or someones admiringpraise.

Conclusions

We would go rather further thanthe evidence warrants were we to suggestthat

all ofthe prominent men in the upper reaches ofthehierarchy of the church inboth East andWest were agreed that humanbeings did not havethe capacity

to fascinate others,whether by casting their envious eyeson them orby prais-

ing them. So far as we can see, this was not anissue that troubledeveryone

equally. Thecommentaries on Galatians3:1 thatmakeno mention of theissue

are an indication that noteverybody wassensitive to the problem.On the other

hand, the testimony ofTertullian and Eusebius isproofthat it wasnot only very

highly educated Christians, such as Basil and JohnChrysostom, who found the

idea that one man could harm anotherwith hisenviousgaze incredible. It looksrather as if there was, in the hierarchy of the church from at least the end

of the third century A.D., a widely shared hostility to beliefin baskania and

fascinatio, to which Basil and John Chrysostom subscribe, though their con-

ception ofbaskania has beeninfluencedby Plutarch and what they takeissue

with is his explanation ofit.

A ll ofthe fathers ofthe church whodo attackbeliefin the evil eye take it

for grantedthat Christians do havereason to fear asupernatural force, enviousof good fortune; prosperity, beauty, and virtue. They naturally identify that

force withthe devil. Two ofthem, Basil andJerome, go further and maintain

orsuggest that thedevil orhisdemons usemens enviouseyes to accomplish

their own envious purposes. Otherssuch as Tertullian, John Chrysostom, and


41/229

Fathers of the Church and the Evil Eye 31

Eusebius excludethe action of human intermediaries and putdown the reverses

that the fortunate suffer to the direct action of the devil. Only Eusebius puts

forward theview that thedevil deliberately contrives to make hisenvious as-saults on the fortunate when there are men around on whose envious gaze or

praise thecatastrophe can be blamed.

For most ordinary Christians it was probably a matter only of academic

interest whether the harm theirneighbors envious eye inflicted on them was

his ownunaided doing or whether he was the instrument of thedevil and his

demons. The author of a Christian magical papyrus of the sixth century A.D.,

intended to protect a house andthose dwelling in it fromall ill and from fasci-

nation by the spirits of the air andthe human eye, clearly remained unaffectedand is in fact, with that concernfor differentiation characteristic of late antique

magic, anxious to distinguish between fascination by the spirits ofthe air and

fascinationby thehuman eye, so that he might the better be able to counter

them (PGMP 9).67 Nor again does the author ofan inscriptionfrom Igazin

Syria that dates to the middle ofthe fifth century A .D. betray any awareness

that he contravenes Christian doctrine when, after calling on theTrinity and

God to drive phthonosfar off, he declares that because Christs handrelievespain, he will not fear the plans of the demon who wreaks ill nor the hate-filled

andunlawfuleye of man (IGLSyr l599.6~7).68

Even JohnChrysostom when his guard is down speaks as if the eyes of

envious mencanharm. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, in a discussion of

what apotropaic devices a Christian may use without allowing himself to be

entrappedby the devil, he roundly condemns the practice followedby nurses

maguire, henry (ed) - byzantine magic

Documents