Re: [tied] The evil eye

From: Rex H. McTyeire
Message: 5633
Date: 2001-01-19

David James asks
> In much of southern Europe and Asia Minor there is the 'evil eye'
> superstition, which I beleive is like a malicious curse. Believers in
> the evil eye think that children and babies are particularly
> suceptible to it. Would anyone like to speculate whether this
> superstition originated from Indo-European mythology. Surprisingly
> the tradition appears to be very strong in Turkey where 'good eye'
> medalions are very popular to ward off the evil eye. I supose this may
> be a legacy of the peoples who lived in Asia Minor before the Turks
> invaded. Also how widespread is this tradition in other parts of
> Europe?

The oldest known textual references are in eastern clay (Sumerian,
Babylonian, Assyrian)...and it shows up in the Bible: "Eat thou not the
bread of him that hath an evil eye," Proverbs (23:6). That does not
necessarily go to origin however, but supports your suggestion that Turk
invaders found it in place (which I also believe).
The misfortune of the "Evil Eye" to individuals, livestock, children,
wives can be passed (IAW the tradition) deliberately or passively:
Voluntary, characteristic of demons, witches, and vicious humans, is more
predominant in the post-christian literature and earlier greek and Roman
texts; Involuntary, or natural, is more eastern and considered a congenital
affliction of those who do not wish to do harm but are helpless to prevent
it.
Most modern languages have a word for it, as Romans called the total
package of cause and effect: fascinatio. There is a Greek centered
"Artemisian" aspect: brides, menstruating women, and women in childbirth
have been considered dangerous unintentional potential passers of the evil,
as well as unusually vulnerable victims. Perhaps some corruption or
misdirection of the power of "The shining eyed Light Bringer" (Callimachus,
Hymm III, refering to Artemis) Particularly dangerous "passers" in the east
included various physical defects, such as cross-eyes, walleyes, red hair,
and heavy eyebrows meeting over the nose. (Red hair as defect is also a
Turkish perception.) Paralleling the Greek concepts of the souce of the
evil, easterners also found themselves most susceptible at marriage, during
pregnancy, and at childbirth. Later Christian and Hebrew traditions
carried this period of susceptibility forward with a new child to include
specifically the night before circumcision or baptism. Also considered
possible sources of the pass are the opposite posts represented by a)
exceptionally attractive women, and b) ugly old crones..parelleling later
susceptibility to "witchiness". Romans extended periods of danger to
include: receiving praise, refusing favors, or appearing in public at a time
of triumph.
Specific counter incantations and prayers have been recorded since 7th
century BCE. Amulets as protection are also common: Greeks favored the
Medusa head; Romans a small phallus of gold, silver, bronze, or coral;
Eastern versions include the crescent moon, and animal horns. The Turks
favor a stylized glass eye as a counter, and the small concentric circles of
blue and white are ubiquitous today, seen on lapels of professors, and
hanging from rear bumpers of the cars of Armani clad businessmen as well as
olive growers..everywhere..urban and rural. The market for these various
amulets continues to exist, even in the US.
Manual gestures as a defense: the mano fica (thumb thrust between first
and second fingers), and the mano cornuta (second and third fingers enclosed
by the thumb with first and fourth fingers extended). (The origin of "The
Finger"?) Defensive phrases: Romans, to avoid alarm when offering praise
said "Praefiscini" (Wishing no harm)"; Italian, "May the evil eye not
strike"; Greek, "May no evil come to you"; English countryman, "Mus'n zay
too much." The recipient of praise in Italy says, "God be thanked"; in
England, "Lord be wi' us."
Speculation: Its older than dirt :-) ..but I can find no evidence beyond
almost universal Southern European and Middle Eastern application to
channelize the origin before the known eastern clay references, but argue
that is not a valid indicator of origin..its a case of oldest known
reference, period. Origin (in my view) is between the Indus, Rhine and Med:
but pinning it closer..or charging it to pre IE Semitic or IE European is a
bit more speculative than I care to be..(and I can be dangerously so :-) (If
the Artemesian aspect could be pinned as source..I would then favor NE
Pontic..but it can't be so pinned and that association may very well be
syncretization of unrelated older concepts coming from opposing points of
origin.)

Regards;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania
<rexbo@...>