L'Année épigraphique (Année 1901), pp. 50-51, number 183 =
Defixionum Tabellae 135 Audollent (pp. 191-193), translation and text in Henk S. Versnel, "
καὶ εἴ τι λ[οιπὸν] τῶν μερ[ῶ]ν [ἔσ]ται τοῦ σώματος ὅλ[ο]υ[.. (... and any other part of the entire body there may be ...) An Essay on Anatomical Curses," in Fritz Graf, ed.,
Ansichten griechischer Rituale. Geburtstags-Symposium für Walter Burkert (Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner, 1998), pp. 216-267 (at 223):
A) Malchio son/slave of
Nikon: his eyes, hands, fingers, arms, nails, hair, head, feet, thigh, belly, buttocks,
navel, chest, nipples, neck, mouth, cheeks, teeth, lips, chin, eyes, forehead, eyebrows,
shoulder-blades, shoulders, sinews, guts, marrow (?), belly, cock, leg, trade, income,
health, I do curse in this tablet.
B) Rufa the public slave: her hands, teeth,
eyes, arms, belly, breasts, chest, bones, marrow (?), guts, ....., mouth, feet, forehead,
nails, fingers, womb, navel, cunt, vulva (?), groins: Rufa the public slave I do curse in
this tablet.
A) Malcio Nicones oculos, manus, dicitos, bracias, uncis, capilo, caput, pedes,
femus, venter, natis, umlicus, pectus, mamilas, collus, os, bucas, dentes, labias,
me[nt]us, oclus, fronte, supercili, scaplas, umerum, nervias, ossu, merilas (?), venter,
mentula, crus, quastu, lucru, valetudines, defico in as tabelas.
B) Rufa Pulica, manus, detes, oclos, bracia, venter, mamila, pectus, osu, merilas,
venter, .... crus (?) os, pedes, frontes, uncis, dicitos, venter, umlicus, cunus, ulvas (?),
ilae, Rufas Pulica de[f]ico in as tabelas.
Image of side A:
Image of side B:
For the nominatives (Malcio, Rufa) see J.N. Adams,
Social Variation and the Latin Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), p. 212:
A curse may begin with a heading
consisting of the name of the victim in the nominative, standing outside
the syntax of the rest of the tablet.
On the text of side B see Celia Sánchez Natalías,
Sylloge of Defixiones from the Roman West, Vol. II (Oxford: BAR Publishing, 2022), pp. 133-134 (Italy, number 51):
The reading of the beginning of B, l. 7 has proven somewhat
controversial: while Borsari read quas il(l)ae (B, l. 7, as did I during my autopsy, with an interpunct separating
the words), Audollent (and later Gager 1992: no. 80,
Solin 1995: 571, Versnel 1998: 223, Urbanová 2019: 428)
proposed the reading [v]ulva(m). Furthermore, Cimarosti
(2005: 452f., notes 14 and 2) reads quasil(l)a{e}(ria), a
reference to the slave's duties, while Kropp (2008: no.
1.4.2/3) reads qua<e>stum. While the latter two readings
do not take into account the interpunct that divides the two
words, the first proposal, ([v]ulva(m)), is impossible for
several reasons. First (and most importantly), it ignores the
fact that that same corner is preserved in full, which means
that the text is also fully preserved and, consequently, that
the reconstruction of [v] is artificial. In addition, the ul
that should be following the imaginary [v], presents some
palaeographical problems: compare this l with the ones
found in the rest of the text (which never have a horizontal
stroke on top of the vertical stroke). Thus, the reading quas
· il(l)ae (B, l. 7) is secure. That said, it is a matter of debate
how quas should be analysed: it could either be taken as
qua(e)s[tum] (cf. A, l. 9) or the relative pronoun, though
its gender does not agree with the immediate antecedents.
