Was the Vatican Originally Associated with Evil and Magic

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18320
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Was the Vatican Originally Associated with Evil and Magic

Post by Secret Alias »

ὰν γὰρ θελήσῃς ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν Βασικανὸν ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν Ὠστίαν

For should you want to go on/at the Βασικανὸν (WTF this means) or on/at the Ostian Way
The way scholars unconsciously read "Vatican" in place of Βασικανὸν epitomizes what's wrong with scholarship. I see no evidence for what Βασικανὸν means. The closest I get is:
FA′SCINUM. (βασκανία), fascination, enchantment. The belief that some persons had the power of injuring others by their looks, was as prevalent among the Greeks and Romans as it is among the superstitious in modern times. The ὀφθαλμὸς βάσκανος, or evil eye, is frequently mentioned by ancient writers (Alciphr. Ep. I.15; Heliod. Aethiop. III.7; compare Plin. H. N. VII.2). Plutarch, in his Symposium (V.7), has a separate chapter περὶ τῶν καταβασκαίνειν λεγομένων, καὶ βάσκανον ἔχειν ὀφθαλμόν. The evil eye was supposed to injure children particularly, but sometimes cattle also; whence Virgil (Ecl. III.103) says,

"Nescio quis teneros oculos mihi fascinat agnum."

Various amulets were used to avert the influence of the evil eye. The most common of these appears to have been the phallus, called by the Romans fascinum, which was hung round the necks of children (turpicula res, Varr. De Ling. Lat. VII.97, ed. Müller). Pliny (H. N. XIX.19 §1) also says that Satyrica signa, by which he means the phallus, were placed in gardens and on hearths as a protection against the fascinations of the envious; and we learn from Pollux (VII.108) that smiths were accustomed to place the same figures before their forges with the same design. Sometimes other objects were employed for this purpose. Peisistratus is said to have hung the figure of a kind of grasshopper before the Acropolis as a preservative against fascination (Hesych. s.v. Καταχήνη.)

Another common mode of averting fascination was by spitting into the folds of one's own dress (Theocr. VI.39; Plin. H. N. XXVIII.7; Lucian, Navig. 15 vol. III p259, ed. Reitz).

According to Pliny (H. N. XXVIII.7), Fascinus was the name of a god, who was worshipped among the Roman sacra by the Vestal virgins, and was placed under the chariot of those who triumphed as a protection against fascination; by which he means in all probability that the phallus was placed under the chariot (Müller, Archäol. der Kunst, § 436.1, 2; Böttiger, Klein. Schr. III. p111; Becker, Charikles, vol. II pp109, 291).
Secret Alias
Posts: 18320
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Vatican Originally Associated with Evil and Magic

Post by Secret Alias »

Apparently fascinus means penis or phallus in Latin and most charms were in the shape of penises.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascinus
Secret Alias
Posts: 18320
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Vatican Originally Associated with Evil and Magic

Post by Secret Alias »

Can any one explain why Βασικανὸν is taken to mean "Vatican" other than scholars unconsciously "connecting the dots" between our inherited truths and what they read and can't otherwise expain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was the Vatican Originally Associated with Evil and Magic

Post by Ben C. Smith »

wrote:Can any one explain why Βασικανὸν is taken to mean "Vatican" other than scholars unconsciously "connecting the dots" between our inherited truths and what they read and can't otherwise expain.
Probably because (A) codex Mosquensis 50 has Βατικανόν instead of Βασικανόν and (B) Rufinus has Vaticanum.

Vatican Hill is hardly a stupid guess on the part of these scholars. They may not be correct, but they are not just being dense. And Vatican Hill is a far better guess than anything thus far offered on this thread.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18320
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Vatican Originally Associated with Evil and Magic

Post by Secret Alias »

The tau changes things. But in 300 years I see no discussion of other possibilities.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Was the Vatican Originally Associated with Evil and Magic

Post by perseusomega9 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:33 am [Insert X] is a far better guess than anything thus far offered on this thread.
too bad signatures are disabled
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was the Vatican Originally Associated with Evil and Magic

Post by Ben C. Smith »

perseusomega9 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:50 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:33 am [Insert X] is a far better guess than anything thus far offered on this thread.
too bad signatures are disabled
:lol:
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Was the Vatican Originally Associated with Evil and Magic

Post by perseusomega9 »

then again, I do have fault in that
Secret Alias
Posts: 18320
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Vatican Originally Associated with Evil and Magic

Post by Secret Alias »

If Rufinus DIDN'T read Vatican it would be match set point. By Constantine there are all these basilica. Fine. But how did the other reading creep in? It would be like a reference to New York becoming Neymar.
mbuckley3
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:47 am

Re: Was the Vatican Originally Associated with Evil and Magic

Post by mbuckley3 »

If I was a brutalist textual critic who regarded τόν βασικανόν as hopelessly corrupt, I 'could' emend it with τό βασιλικόν, i.e. the imperial treasury (cf. 2 Macc 3.13), which was on the Capitoline hill.
But that would be wrong and pointless. Dialectal interchangeability of sigma and tau is a given, and as Ben shows, ancient readers, who should always be our first recourse, had no problem plausibly understanding the word. More importantly, 'my' emendation would do nothing to advance your argument : it doesn't matter what goddamn hill is being referred to !
Elsewhere, you use Marcovich's (well-supported) emendation of Justin 1Apol 33.7 as essential evidence for an argument. Here, to fret about τόν βασικανόν is a needless distraction from your Ostia hypothesis...
Post Reply