Efficacious things
Jul 12, 2008 1:45:05 GMT -5
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jul 12, 2008 1:45:05 GMT -5
Thread Orientation: On this thread I hope to hold discussion on what is efficacious in Mesopotamian magic; that which produces or is capable or producing an effect - that which is potent and effective in an incantation or ritual action. This thread is very open ended and may evole as exploration continues.
>when a exorcism was performed, what happened to the demon, like where did it go?.
[While attempting to answer the above question on a message board some time ago, I wrote the below response. In answering the question, Kramer's comments on locutionary speech are referred to, and this in turn touchs on what is efficacious in Mesopotamian magic. To start with, I reposted the below then.]
In most case's near the end of an exorcistic incantation, a demon is delt with in rather metaphroic or poetic language. Some simply
command the demon to be expelled:
"Vicious demon and vicious seizer:
Break away!"
and
"Dimme and Dima,
who spattered the man:
bolt!"
Some finish with a humble threat aimed at expulsion:
"So long as you do not [withdraw or remove yourself] from the body of the man [son of his god], you must neither dine nor drink with him. I [have adjured you] by heaven and earth together, so that [you] will depart."
An Ur III incantation ends with:
"May the headache-demon `split the river bank' on (the
patient's) cranium, may (the demon) break up like a pot.'
Following Cunningham's examples for incantations likly to be accompanied by ritual, this last could well have been accompanied by the smashing of a pot as a ritual act of symbolic identification.Not all incantations had an obvious ritual accompaniment, and even in the case of those that did, much of the magic was still in the words themselves. Kramer (1989) refers to "locutionary" and "illocutionary" speech. While Locutionary is simply speech that is "saying something about something", Illocutionary speech is when an act is performed -in- saying something. Examples are promising, ordering, warning. In terms of Mesopotamian incantations the words do not so much describe what will happen but MAKE it happen. "In other words, word and performance are one - the very essence of magic."
In refering to an incantation in which the demon is fever, and there is an ambiguous ending, Kramer further says "The other point to notice is that the story [narrative of the incantation], to our sensibilties, is left unfinished. There is no explicit conclusion to the narrative, no statement that the "fever" left the man and he revived. Such a statement would be unneccessary- and probably destructive to the power of the saying."
In sum, if the power of the words contained the efficacy of the incantation specialist, the magic would not be served by adding at the end "and then the demon got destroyed, and the man was saved, the end." The incantation is the vehicle of change, the change takes place in victim or it doesnt - but the results arent recorded in the incantation itself.
But I realize the question was more along the lines of what was the intended result on the demon? In many cases non-descipt, sometimes a direction is given however. Here is an example from Katz 2003 p.344 which is more colorful then most (even though a direction is given the dynamic is the same as in the above examples):
>when a exorcism was performed, what happened to the demon, like where did it go?.
[While attempting to answer the above question on a message board some time ago, I wrote the below response. In answering the question, Kramer's comments on locutionary speech are referred to, and this in turn touchs on what is efficacious in Mesopotamian magic. To start with, I reposted the below then.]
What happens to the demon?
In most case's near the end of an exorcistic incantation, a demon is delt with in rather metaphroic or poetic language. Some simply
command the demon to be expelled:
"Vicious demon and vicious seizer:
Break away!"
and
"Dimme and Dima,
who spattered the man:
bolt!"
Some finish with a humble threat aimed at expulsion:
"So long as you do not [withdraw or remove yourself] from the body of the man [son of his god], you must neither dine nor drink with him. I [have adjured you] by heaven and earth together, so that [you] will depart."
An Ur III incantation ends with:
"May the headache-demon `split the river bank' on (the
patient's) cranium, may (the demon) break up like a pot.'
Following Cunningham's examples for incantations likly to be accompanied by ritual, this last could well have been accompanied by the smashing of a pot as a ritual act of symbolic identification.Not all incantations had an obvious ritual accompaniment, and even in the case of those that did, much of the magic was still in the words themselves. Kramer (1989) refers to "locutionary" and "illocutionary" speech. While Locutionary is simply speech that is "saying something about something", Illocutionary speech is when an act is performed -in- saying something. Examples are promising, ordering, warning. In terms of Mesopotamian incantations the words do not so much describe what will happen but MAKE it happen. "In other words, word and performance are one - the very essence of magic."
In refering to an incantation in which the demon is fever, and there is an ambiguous ending, Kramer further says "The other point to notice is that the story [narrative of the incantation], to our sensibilties, is left unfinished. There is no explicit conclusion to the narrative, no statement that the "fever" left the man and he revived. Such a statement would be unneccessary- and probably destructive to the power of the saying."
In sum, if the power of the words contained the efficacy of the incantation specialist, the magic would not be served by adding at the end "and then the demon got destroyed, and the man was saved, the end." The incantation is the vehicle of change, the change takes place in victim or it doesnt - but the results arent recorded in the incantation itself.
But I realize the question was more along the lines of what was the intended result on the demon? In many cases non-descipt, sometimes a direction is given however. Here is an example from Katz 2003 p.344 which is more colorful then most (even though a direction is given the dynamic is the same as in the above examples):
Enuru incantation.
Evil udug - [to your steppe!]
Evil ala - to your steppe!
Evil spirit - to your steppe!
Evil galla - to your steppe!
Take your leather bag.
Take your food offering.
Your place is not in the East,
Your place is not in the West.
Your food is the food of the spirits.
Your drinking water is the drinking water of spirits.
As for the man, son of his god,
You will not stand with him in the corner,
You will not sit with him at the side,
You may not roam inside the city.
Go to your darkness, at the base of the netherworld (kur).
Evil udug - [to your steppe!]
Evil ala - to your steppe!
Evil spirit - to your steppe!
Evil galla - to your steppe!
Take your leather bag.
Take your food offering.
Your place is not in the East,
Your place is not in the West.
Your food is the food of the spirits.
Your drinking water is the drinking water of spirits.
As for the man, son of his god,
You will not stand with him in the corner,
You will not sit with him at the side,
You may not roam inside the city.
Go to your darkness, at the base of the netherworld (kur).
