A late-Roman Defixio (Curse Tablet) from the Eccles Villa

A LATE-ROMAN DEFIXIO (CURSE TABLET) FROM THE ECCLES VILLA R.S.O. TOMLIN This piece of tattered and corroded sheet lead (Figs. 1 and 2) was found, rolled up, in rubble filling on the floor of Room 121 of the Eccles Roman viJla (N.G.R. TO 722605), during the ninth season's excavation in 1970. 1 That it was inscribed was by no means obvious, but some years later, when it had been unrolled, it was passed by the director of the excavation, Dr A.P. Detsicas, to Mr R.P. Wright, and by him to the present writer. It is a rectangle, 89 by 71 mm., which has lost both its bottom corners and a few other small pieces, mostly at top and bottom. It has been inscribed on both sides with a needle-like instrument, presumably a stylus. The first two lines and the second half of the third line of the main text (Side (b)) are virtually undamaged and easily legible under a smooth purplish patination, but the rest of it is mostly obscured and sometimes obliterated by surface cracking and yellowish corrosion. The cracking is due to the tablet having been folded on itself seven or eight times after inscribing, and then being unfolded after discovery. The drawing (Fig. 2), which was traced from an enlarged photograph with constant reference to the original, reproduces what can still be read under favourable lighting conditions. The main text consists of eight lines of writing inscribed boustrophedon, up and down like a plough-team; alternate lines are inverted, a feature not found in any other curse tablet from Britain, but in keeping with the inversions that some of them also display (letters written mirror-image, letters written in reverse sequence, whether within words, line, or from beginning to end). The intention, like that of folding the tablet on itself when completed, was surely to keep the text a secret between the god and his petitioner. The top 1 Arch. Cant., lxxxvi (1971), 29, with Fig. I. 19 R.S.O. TOMLIN Fig. 1. The Eccles Defixio, Side (a) (Scale: 1=1). edge is almost intact; the beginning and end of lines 7-8 have been lost in the pieces which have broken away, but there seem to be traces of the bottom edge which, with the crowding of what survives of line 8, suggest that the text was originally no more than eight lines. The script is 'New Roman Cursive', the remote ancestor of modern handwriting, which surerseded classical cursive towards the end of the third century A.D. The A is not the usual form (which resembles a modern u), but one found in two of the Bath curse tablets3 and elsewhere. There are two forms of D, the usual lower-cased (as in diebus), and a capital letter (donatio). There are two forms of E, the typically late-Roman E made with two hooked strokes (perit), and another resembling a modern Greek e ( diebus). There are two forms of S, the late-Roman one resembling a modern V (diebus), and one of earlier form (sanetate). There is no interpunctuation or worddivision, and only a few ligatures (as in perit). The text contains at least one 'Vulgar' spelling (sanetate for sanitate), that is, it was written as it was pronounced; it may contain others (diebus, que, nesi). The syntax is confused, but the state of the text makes it impossible to assess the confusion. The text seems to have been put together 2 See A.K. Bowman and J.D. Thomas, Vindo/anda: the Latin writing tablets (1983), 53ff. 3 Britannia, xiv (1983), 339, no. 4, and 341, no. 7. 20 THE ECCLES DEFIXIO Fig. 2. The Eccles Defixio, Side (b) (Scale: 1=1). from half-understood formulas, formulas which confirm what one would expect on finding a rolled-up inscribed lead sheet, that this is a defixio or curse tablet, a written text cursing someone; in Britain he is usually a thief. Much of this tablet remains obscure, but it seems to be aimed against the health and safety of someone, presumably Butu, until ... Analogy with other British curse tablets would suggest that the curse was only lifted when stolen property was returned, perhaps 'in the house of God' (in domo dei). This phrase may have Christian significance, but unfortunately it is far from certain. Some of these points are discussed further in the commentary which follows the transcript and reconstructed text. Transcript Side (a): 􀃀ti Side (b): donatiodiebusquo peritbuturesque que. u.[. ]!necantesa l)etateQ.c;:􀃁􀃂ute l)esiguajndo.odei .. c􀃃anetatyiO(;IQ [c. 4hlll). .. an[c. 3]p[l-2] (5 - 6] sum [. ..? ] 21 R.S.O. TOMLfN PLATE I (Photo. R.L. Wilkins, F.S.A.) The Eccles Defixio; Side (a) (Scale l=l). Reconstructed Text Side (a): abbreviation, perhaps s(. ..) s(upra)s(crip)ti Side (b): donatio diebus quo perit Butu resque qu(a)e ... nee ante sanetate nee salute nesi qua(m) in do(m]o dei ... sanetate in do- [ mo dei?) ... 'A gift to the gods (?) by which Butu has perished, and the property which ... neither health nor safety before unless in the house of God .. . health in the house of God (repeated?) .. .' 22 Commentary Side (a) THE ECCLES DEFIXJO PLATE II (Photo. R.L. Wilkins, F.S.A.) The Eccles Defu:io; Side (b) (Scale !=!). Five letters only, all but the T elongated, like the address on a Roman letter. The first three seem to be S like that in sanetate (b 3). The horizontal line drawn across them afterwards suggests an abbreviation, •like the double S with line in curse tablets from Uley4 and Ratcliffe-on-Soar,5 deo ssto for deo s(upra)s(crip)to. The third S remains unexplained. Side (b) l. donatio: a common formula in curse tablets from Britain is the 'gift' to the god of the stolen property to be recovered, or of the thief himself, using dona, donat, or donatur. This is the first instance of donatio. 4 lbid., x (1979), 344, no. 3. 5 JRS, liii (1963), 122 ff. 23 R.S.O. TOMLIN diebus: properly the dative plural of dies (day), but since curs< tablets are usually addressed to a god, diebus is probably an error fo; dibus ('to the gods'); it may be a 'Vulgar' spelling of the variant forn diibus. quo: its antecedent is presumably donatio (f.), and it is thus 􀁸 solecism for qua. 2. perit: contracted form of the perfect indicative of pereo (perish) the intention being apparently to state as an accomplished fact what i· is hoped the curse tablet will achieve. One would have expected tht present subjunctive pereat. Butu resque: this seems to be the likeliest word-division, in vie"' of the curse tablets which refer to stolen property as res, as in om from Uley,6 donat ita ut exsigat istas res quae s(upra)s(crip)ta(e) sunt Butures is not attested as a personal name. The repetition of qu, might be an error, but it seems better to take the first as a conjunctior and the second as a 'Vulgar' spelling of qu(a)e. Butu: attested once as a samian potter's name7 but perhaps ar abbreviation of But(t)ur(r)us; which is well attested as a cognomen Butto is found in Pannonia and Buttus in Noricum as a cognomen. 3. The e of que and succeeding letters are damaged by corrosion The first resembles ligatured LV (cf. salute), but with trace of ar extra vertical. After possible trace of M there is a gap, and then , suprascript horizontal, which probably belongs to T: this suggests [u] (see next note) or perhaps a verb-ending. 3-4. nee ante salnetate nee salute: the division of sanetate betweer lines means that the text was written, and intended to be read, in the line-sequence followed in these notes. sanetate is a 'Vulgar' spellin! of sanitate. The ablative case is unexplained: one should eithe1 understand fruatur ('let him not enjoy health ...' ) or see it as ar error for the accusative. A formula seems to be intended like that in , tablet from Uley, 9 erogat deum Mereurium ut nee ante sanitate,r. habeant nissi . . 5. nesi qua(m): the dotted letters are damaged, and there is ar unexplained diagonal below N (not however suggesting D), but thii reading seems reasonable. A blundered nes(e)i(o)qua ('any sort 01 safety') is less likely than the word-division proposed, a 'Vulgar spelling of nisi ( cf. the Uley tablet cited in the previous note) followed by qua(m) with ante as its antecedent. 6 BriJannia, x (1979), 343, no. 3. 7 CIL, xiii 10010, 373, BVTV F. 8 Ibid., 374. 9 BriJannia, x (1979), 342, no. 2. 24 THE ECCLES DEFIX/O in do[m}o dei: there is trace of what may be M. domus is used with the god's name (domus Veneris, etc.) in the sense of 'temple', and curse tablets from Britain often require the return of stolen property to the temple, but domus dei is a common phrase in Christian authors in the sense of ecclesia, whether meaning the Church (or Christian community) or a church.10 The polytheism of diebus (dibus) does not preclude, though it makes less likely, a Christian interpretation of in domo dei: one of the Bath tablets 11 invokes the goddess Sulis, but also alludes to Ch(r)istianus. The Anglo-Saxon place-name Eccles, with its hint of a sub-Roman Christian community, makes it tempting to give in domo dei a Christian significance when it occurs in a fourth-century text from the area, but this can only remain a hypothesis. 6-7. Damaged by corrosion. There seems to be a repeat of the formula in 3-5, so in do(mo dei] is a reasonable restoration, but the space is cramped. 7-8. Corrosion and other damage have left only isolated letters recognizable, and no restoration seems possible. 10 See Thesaurus Unguae Latinae, s.v. domus, 1970, 17 ff. 11 Britannia, xiii (1982), 404, no. 7. 25