Invocation (magical, formulary)

Egyptian (Coptic)

Coptic

Parallel text: P. Mich. inv. 603 ro ll. 6-12, vo ll. 1-24, P. Mich. inv. 596, P. Mich. inv. 598 ro ll. 9-21 (KYP M15; KYP T676).
A second manuscript from this archive has a partial parallel to this text: P. Mich. inv. 600 (KYP M16; KYP T619).

p. 13

The meaning of this text, especially in the early lines, is quite difficult to make clear sense of; Worrell (p. 261 n. 7), suggests that “[f]or the most part this hymn is nonsense, and was nonsense to our magician”. The initial lines are somewhat parallel to P. Mich. inv. 600 (KYP M16) from this same archive, but with major differences, and it is possible that the current text is the result of a complex, and not entirely faithful or thoughtful, process of transmission.
1. There are several traces of ink above the line, but as the upper margin is damaged, it is impossible to say whether these should be interpreted as letters.
1-2 ⲁⲙⲏⲉⲓⲧⲛ︦ [ⲉ]ⲃ̣ⲟⲗ ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲉϥⲧ̣ⲟⲟ̣ⲩ̣ ⲛ︦ⲧⲏ̣ⲩ ⲛ︦ⲧⲡⲉ̣ “Come forth (pl.) from the four winḍs of heaven” These are probably the winds from the four corners of heaven (cf. Jeremiah 59.36, Matthew 24.31, Mark 13.27). In I Enoch 18, the four winds are the four pillars of heaven. In Ezekiel 37.9-10, God calls forth the four winds of heaven to breathe life into the dry bones. The “great spirit’s breath” (l. 4) could thus also be related to the four winds. The four winds were likewise related to creation in older Graeco-Egyptian traditions. In an ancient Egyptian cosmogony (the Theban-Hermopolitan; cf. Zivie-Coche 2009), the sun was created from the four winds (cf. Smith 2002: p. 210). In other ancient Egyptian traditions, the supreme solar deity (e.g, Amun-Re) was responsible for blowing the breath of life into men (e.g., in P.Leiden I 350 r § 600; cf. Thiers 2021). In the Greek magical papyri, both aspects are attributed to the Agathodaimon, the interpretatio graeca of the Egyptian solar deity Pshai, as in Roman-period cosmogonies (cf. Smith 1998; Smith 2002, 210-211; Rózsa 2025) e.g., in GEMF 57/PGM IV.1605-1608 “Come to me, you who rise from the four winds, joyous Agathos Daimon” (δεῦρό μοι, ὁ άνατέλλων ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, ὁ ἱλαρὸς Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων) and GEMF 60/PGM XIII.762-763 “Come to me, the one from the four winds, the almighty god, the one who blew the breath of life into men” (δεῦρό μοι, ὁ ἐκ τῶν δ΄ ἀνέμων, ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἐνφυσήσας πνεῦμα ἀνθρώποις εἰς ζωήν).
2. ⲏ The function of the Greek ἤ is uncertain here; Mirecki and Worrell translate “or”. In this understanding, we might see the scribe as providing two alternative readings which might have been found in different manuscripts: “come forth from the four winds of heaven” or “come forth from the four lamps”. However, ἤ can also have a non-restrictive disjunctive sense in Coptic, translatable in English as “and”, which we translate here, since the scribe does not otherwise note variants; cf. Layton 110 §145b, who gives the example of Matthew 5.17 ⲡⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲏ ⲛⲉⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ (“the law and the prophets”).
2-3. ⲗⲟⲕⲅⲟⲥ Mirecki and Worrell follow the suggestion of Crum to correct to ⲛ̅ⲟⲕⲅⲟⲥ for ὄγκος, “angle” hence “corner”, but the normal meaning of this word is actually “bracket” (this is in fact the secondary meaning, from a primary meaning of “barb” of an arrow; see LSJ s.v.). For the “four corners” we would rather expect the word γωνία; compare PGM VIII.8: ταῖ⟨ς⟩ δʹ γωνίας τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (“in the four corners of heaven”). Here we understand λύχνος but the exact form is not attested, and the word seems primarily documentary in usage (see Förster WBGW p. 486). We might alternatively understand λόγος (“word, speech”), or λόγχη (“spear”), but neither would seem to make as much sense in context. We might see here a reference to the “four luminaries” (ⲫⲱⲥⲧⲏⲣ < φωστήρ) of Sethian Gnosticism, but this can only be considered a speculation, since the term used is not the same; on the Luminaries in Coptic magic, cf. Burns 2018; Piwowarczyk 2021, 56-59, 105-109, 134–137, 230-232.
3. ϩⲛ̣︦ There is a thicker line over the ⲛ which makes it look like it might have been corrected to or from a ⲓ, but the ⲓ would be very poorly written, and further to the right than we would expect.
3-4. ⲛⲉⲡ︦ⲛ︦ⲁ̣︦ ⲛ︦ⲛ︦ϩⲁⲣⲙⲁ In similar contexts discussing heavenly beings, the “chariot” most often referred to is the chariot of God, drawn by the Four Living Creatures (see Rochard 2021), who might be understood here as the “spirits of the chariot”. If we understand this writing to be an error for ⲛ̅ϩⲁⲣⲙⲁ ⲙ̅ⲡ̅ⲛ̅ⲁ̅ “spirit chariots”, compare with the Apocalypse of James (NH I, 2 p. 14 33-34) ⲁϩⲁⲟⲩϩⲁⲣⲙⲁ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲙ̅ⲡⲛⲁ ϥⲓ ⲙ̅ⲙⲁⲉⲓ ⲁϩⲣⲏⲓ̈ (“for a spirit chariot lifted me up”; Robinson 2000, p. 50), but note that here we have plural “chariots”, so the sense is less clear. Perhaps we might understand a reference to the chariots that carry the celestial bodies (the sun and moon) in older Greek cosmology? A similar idea is found in I Enoch 18, 72-75, where the winds lead the course of the sun, moon, and stars by driving their chariots across the heavens.
4-7. ⲱϣ︦ⲙ̣︦ ⲙ︦ⲡⲉⲓ̈ⲭⲁⲱⲛ̣ ⲙⲛ︦ ⲡⲉⲓ̈ⲛⲟϭ ⲛ︦ⲇⲣⲁⲕⲱⲛ “Chaos” is not a Biblical term, but rather seems to be drawn here from Greek religious and philosophical thought, filtered through Christian traditions. In its original Greek sense, it could refer to the “nether abyss”, the space below the earth linked to the underworld (LSJ s.v., sense 2), and this sense seems to have been adopted by Christians, who occasionally use as a near synonym of hell or the abyss to refer to demonic realms of punishment (CD s.v.; see Evans 2015, p. 146, 244-245 for the particularly abundant references in the Pistis Sophia, cc0687, 0692). The “great serpent” or “dragon” here is probably that mentioned in the book of Revelation 12.9, ⲡⲉⲇⲣⲁⲕⲱⲛ ⲛⲟϭ ⲡϩⲟϥ ⲛⲁⲣⲭⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϫⲉ ⲡⲇⲓⲁⲃⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲥⲁⲧⲁⲛⲁⲥ (“the great dragon, the old serpent whom they call the Devil and Satan”), who fought with Michael and was cast out of heaven and bound in the Abyss (ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲛ, Revelation 20.2), likely assimilated here to Chaos. The use of the word “quench, extinguish” (ⲱϣⲙ) is at first surprising, but can be elucidated through reference to further Biblical and extra-biblical passages. In Job 4.10 it is said of God that ⲡϣⲟⲩϣⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲛⲉⲇⲣⲁⲕⲱⲛ ⲁϥⲱϣⲙ (“he quenched (i.e. silenced) the boasting of the serpents”). Still more pertinent here is Job 20.26, which describes the punishment which God inflicts on the impious: ⲉⲣⲉⲕⲁⲕⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲁϥ ⲉⲣⲉⲟⲩⲕⲱϩⲧ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲩⲟⲙⲉϥ ⲉⲙⲉϥⲱϣⲙ (“everything will be darkness for him, and a fire which is never quenched will consume him”). This passage could easily be understood as a description of hell, and in the Dormition of John, the Apostle prays: ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥϩⲣⲟⲕ’ ⲛ̅ϭⲓ ⲡⲕⲱϩⲧ̅ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉⲡⲕⲁⲕⲉ’ ⲁⲛⲁⲭⲱⲣⲉⲓ ⲛⲁϥ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉⲡⲉⲭⲁⲟⲥ’ ⲣ̅ ϭⲱⲃ ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲉϩⲣⲱ’ ⲛ̅ⲥⲁⲧⲉ ϣⲱⲡⲉ’ ⲛⲁⲧϭⲟⲙ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉⲧⲅⲉϩⲉⲛⲛⲁ’ ⲱϣⲙ̅… ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲡⲉϥϭⲱⲛⲧ̅ ⲱ̅ϣⲙ̅ (“may the fire of the darkness be still, and the darkness withdraw from him, and the chaos become weak, and the burning furnaces become powerless, and Gehenna be extinguished… may his (the Devil’s) wrath be extinguished”; Budge 1913, 57.13-22). Here, chaos thus seems to be conceived of as a burning hell-like abyss in which the Devil dwells, and which the speaker prays to be extinguished, along with the Devil’s power.
7-11. This passage, and especially the references to the place of illumination and treasuries, are reminiscent of the Books of the Great Word According to Mystery (a.k.a, the Books of Ieou, cc0675) and the Pistis Sophia (cc0687, 0692), in which the “treasury of light” (ⲡⲑⲏⲥⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲙⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ) refers to a place in the heavenly realms, the ultimate destination of the soul in its ascension to God. In the Books of Ieou, this treasury of light is an emanation of God and contains a multitude of treasuries, or “storehouses”, all of which have doors (cf. Crégheur 2019). The passage also resonates with I Enoch 72-75, where there are several portals in heaven to allow for the rising and setting of the sun, moon, and stars, as well as windows through which the sun’s warmth can radiate.
12-13. ⲙ︦ⲡ[ⲉⲓ̈]ⲛⲟϭ ⲛ︦ⲗⲓⲧ[ⲟⲩ]ⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲛ︦ⲕⲱϩⲧ︦ For the “great fiery servant”, cf. Psalm 103.4 and Hebrew 1.7, where God is said to make “his servants a flaming fire" (ⲛⲉϥⲗⲉⲓⲧⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲛϣⲁϩ ⲛⲥⲁⲧⲉ). In Pseudo-Theodosius of Alexandria, On the Archangel Michael (cc0387) the Michael is described as “a servant of flaming fire” (ⲟⲩⲗⲉⲓⲧⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲛϣⲁϩ ⲛⲥⲁⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ); cf. BL.Or 7021, p. 7 (Budge 1915: p. 325 and 897).

p. 14

1-4. ⲡⲁⲓ̈ ⲉϣ̣ⲁⲣⲉⲧⲉϥⲁⲣⲭⲏ̣ ⲃ̣ⲱⲝ ⲛ︦ϣⲟⲣⲡ︦ ⲉ̣ⲡⲉⲓ̈ⲉⲣⲟ ⲡⲱⲕ[ⲉ]ⲁⲛⲟⲥ The “river Ocean” is understood in Late Antique Christian cosmology, and in particular in Coptic texts, as a great river which surrounds the world (Lanzillotta and van der Vliet 2022, 263-265). The being described here, whose light shines throughout the world is likely the sun or the angel whose power lies behind it; the reference to “burning trees” is perhaps a description of the great potential power of the sun, sufficient to burn every tree in the world. The word ἀρχή may mean either “beginning” or “rule, power, authority”, and its sense here is not immediately clear. Lanzillotta and van der Vliet (2022, 264) translate as “[whose] origin sprang prior to the River Ocean”, understanding this to be a claim that the solar power is older than the ocean, but this metaphorical extension (“to spring” in the sense of “to begin”) of ϥⲟϭⲥ is not attested in Crum (CD 627b). Rather, we understand this as a reference to the rising of the sun from the river Ocean; compare the Apocalypse of Paul 21.2: ⲁϥϫⲓⲧ ⲉⲙ̄ⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ϣⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣⲏ… ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ϫⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲕⲉⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲡⲓⲉⲣⲟ (“he took me to the place of the rising of the sun… he said to me, “this is the river Ocean”; Lanzillotta and van der Vliet 2022, 174.4-7). It may be that there has been a confusion of prepositions here, since the text says that the sun leaps into (ⲉ̣-) rather than out of (ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ-) the Ocean. This Christian conception is part of a broader ancient , concept of solar deities emerging from the primaeval ocean in the morning, found in ancient Egyptian (cf. Smith 2002) and Greek traditions (e.g., Helios; cf. Homer, Odyssey 3.2 and Iliad 7.42). In the Greek magical papyri (e.g., PGM XXXVI/GEMF 68 218), the Agathodaimon is also described as “the one rising from the Primaeval Ocean” (ὁ ἐκ τῆς ἀβύσσου). The “burning of the trees” might be understood as a reference to the myth of Phaethon, son of Helios, who, wanting to prove his immortal lineage, asked to drive the sun’s chariot, but drove it too close to the earth and burned up the earth, notably including the trees; see Ovid, Metamorphoses 2.212.
8-17. Angelic orders: Here, the descriptions of the invoked deity as the father of various types of being seems to draw upon popular Christian angelology, according to which angelic beings belonged to a series of distinct ‘orders’: we find here angels (ⲁⲛ̅ⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ; l. 12), archangels (ⲁⲣⲭⲏⲁⲛ̅ⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ; l. 13), powers (ll. 13-14 & p. 7, l. 3; ⲛⲇⲩⲛⲁⲩⲙⲓⲥ), thrones (ⲑⲣⲟⲛ̅ⲟⲥ; l. 17), lordships (ⲙ̅ⲛ̅ⲧ̅ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ; l. 18), and majesties (ll. 19-20; ⲙ̅ⲧⲛ̅ⲟϭ). Many of these orders are mentioned in other texts, including but not limited to magical texts; cf. Dosoo 2021, 407.

p. 15

1. There is a trace of ink above the ⲱ of ⲡⲉi̅ⲱⲧ, but it is unclear where it should be interpreted as a letter. The placement could indicate a page or folio number, although pagination/foliation is not consistent in this manuscript, and perhaps appears on pages 4-5 and 12.
6-9. In the photograph (as of 27/1/2026) it appears that these lines are fully intact, but the ⲡ of ⲙ︦ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲉⲣⲉⲱⲙⲁ is too narrow, demonstrating that there is a small gap between the fragments; this particularly affects the ⲧ of ⲟⲩⲱϣ̣ⲧ̣︦ in l. 6, which appears only as a dot, the ⲁ of ⲁ̣ⲗⲟⲩⲁⲕ in l. 8, which looks like the left-hand part of the ⲗ in the photograph, and the second ⲙ of ⲙⲁⲣⲙ̣ⲁⲣⲟⲩⲁⲕ in l. 9, of which the left part is lost.

p. 16

5. ⲓ̣̅ⲏ̅ [·] ⲃ̣ⲏⲑ The other manuscript (P. Mich. Inv. 596, Ro col. 1 (KYP M15)) has ⲓ̅ⲏ̅ⲓ̈̅ ⲃⲏⲑ; it is possible that an iota is lost in the break, but the supralinear stroke seems to end over the eta.
6-9. In the photograph (as of 27/1/2026) it appears that these lines are fully intact, but there was certainly some space between the surviving fragments; cf. the note to p. 15 ll. 7-8. This particularly affects the ⲗ of ⲗ̣ⲏⲗⲙ︦ⲁ︦ in l. 6, the ⲙ of ⲙ̣ⲟⲩⲓ̈ⲥⲣⲟ in l. 7, the ⲕ of ⲕ̣ⲁⲫ in l. 8, and the ⲱ̣ of ⲃⲓⲱ̣ⲣⲟⲩ in l. 9, which looks like a ⲟ.

p. 17

7-9. There is a noticeable ink smudge over ⲭⲓⲱⲭⲁ (l. 17), ⲙⲁⲱ̣ⲑ (l. 18) and ⲣⲟⲩⲑ (l. 19).
16. ⲁⲱⲁⲃⲣⲁⲱ . The final letter is very unclear; in KYP M15 (P. Mich. Inv. 596, vo col. 1 l. 8) this word seems to end in an omicron. Worrell and Mirecki read instead an alpha. It seems likely that there was some correction here; perhaps an omicron corrected from a dividing oblique stroke, or vice versa, but there is another oblique stroke going from upper left to lower right which would remain unexplained.

p. 18

4. ⲙⲁⲭⲁⲣⲓⲙⲁ There is a drop of ink on the ⲓ.
12. ⲫⲓⲗⲁⲑⲏ . The traces of the dotted letter might match an omega, but the manuscript is too damaged to be certain. In the parallel text in KYP M15 (P. Mich. Inv. 596, Vo col. 1 l. 25), the final letter of the word is eta.

p. 19

2. ⲥⲉⲥⲏ̣ⲕⲏ̣ⲛ The final letters seem to be an inhabitual (for this scribe) eta-nu ligature. Together with ⲃⲁⲣⲫⲁⲕⲏⲥ in the next line, this seems to be a form of the vox magica Σεσεγγεν Βαρφαραγες, common in Greek, and found in other Coptic texts. The name is originally of Semitic origin, and associated with a divine hero who combated the child-killing demoness, but in Greek and Coptic magic it seems to have become a more generic name of power without this original association. For the name in Greek, see Brashear 1995, 3598-3599; for the history of the name see Schwartz 1996, and for other occurrences of the name in Coptic, see, e.g., Cairo JdE 45060 (KYP M303) ro l. 9 (ⲥⲉⲥⲁⲛ ‧ ⲕⲉⲃⲁⲣ ‧ ⲫⲁⲣⲁⲕ ‧); P. Macq. I 1 (KYP M167) p. 10 ll. 18-19 (ⲥⲏⲥⲏⲛⲅⲏⲛⲃⲁⲣⲫⲁⲣⲁⲛⲕⲏⲥ); P. Lond. Copt. 524 (KYP M359) ll. 129–130 (ⲥⲩⲥⲩⲛⲕⲩⲥⲕⲉ ⲃⲁⲣⲫⲁⲣⲁⲛⲕⲩⲥ).
7-8. ⲡⲉⲃⲣⲏⲥⲧⲏⲣ ⸗ ⲛ︦ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ Perhaps understand ⲡⲉ-ⲡⲣⲉⲥⲃⲩⲧⲏⲣⲟⲥ (i.e. Greek πρεσβύτερος) ⲛ︦-ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ “the angelic priest” or “the elder angel”.
9. ⲓ̈ⲁⲱ̣ The omega is strangely written; it may have been corrected from another letter, or simply ligatured in an unusual way to the tail of the alpha.
13. ⲁⲏⲗ There is a dot of ink in the left margin, probably not to be read as a letter or the remains of a letter.
16. ⲫⲑⲏⲥⲏⲕⲉⲣⲉ ⲁⲃⲣⲁⲛⲁⲑⲁⲛ These two words are not divided by the usual sign (⸗) in the manuscript, but the name would otherwise be considerably longer than the others, and the other scribe (P. Mich. Inv. 598 ro l. 1 (KYP M15, T676)) introduces a separation mark. Together with the following ⲁⲗⲃⲁ, the second word (ⲁⲃⲣⲁⲛⲁⲑⲁⲛ) is a variant of the popular palindromic vox magica αβλαναθαναλβα, common already in Greek magical texts; see Brashear 1995, 3577.
16. There are ink spots at the end of the line, and in the lower margin.

p. 20

1. There are some ink traces above this line, in particular above ⲁⲗⲁⲙⲁⲣⲓ̈, but they should almost certainly not be read as letters.
2. ⲥⲉⲙⲉⲓ̣ⲥⲓ̈ The initial sigma is oddly written, with a slight mid-bar; perhaps the copyist began to write an epsilon.
3. ⲥⲉⲙⲉⲥⲓ̈ ⸗ ⲗⲁⲙ A form of the common Greek vox magica σεμεσιλαμ, a Semitic deity, “eternal sun” (see Brashear 1995, 3598).
13. ⲃⲱⲏⲁⲓ̈ ⲉⲗⲱⲁⲉⲓ̈ ⲥⲁⲙⲁⲃⲣⲁⲭⲑⲏ The scribe does not mark divisions here, but the words seem to be recognisable as distinct voces magicae. The last two words resemble the words of Jesus on the cross (Mark 15.34: Mark 15.34 (ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι) common in Coptic magical texts (see Kropp 1930, vol. 3 p. 128 (§218)).

KD, MPS, RBS (23/7/2026)