The Early Dynastic Patron of Magic (B/W)
Jan 16, 2008 4:09:34 GMT -5
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jan 16, 2008 4:09:34 GMT -5
Thead Orientation: This thread pertains to the discussion on the Binsbergann and Wiggermann theoretical paper on the History of Mesopotamian Magic, for an over please see the thread Enenuru thread located
here (entitled Theoretical Understandings). The study note addressed below is as follows:
[9] Here the authors undoubtedly refer to the Early Dynastic Incantations originating mainly from Fara, Ebla and Abu Salabikh - these unlike later incantations demonstrate Enlil over Enki as the patron of the magic arts.
Geller's Comment:
In the introduction to TMH 6, Geller reflects on the rather pronounced differences between the role Enlil plays in the earliest incantations, and that he plays from the Sargonic and Ur III periods onwards. Geller: "Another surprising aspect of the descriptions of gods in these Ur III incantations is the role of Enlil himself, since he fails to appears as a major figure. By way of contrast, Enlil appears as the most prominent divine figure in the ED incantations from Fara and Ebla, and he also plays a significant role in the later Udug-hul incantations in which the demons are sent forth by Enlil. There is thus a subtle tension in later incantation between Enlil and Enki: one punishes, the other heals."
By 'later Udug-hul incantations' Geller is referring to those that have been recovered from the Neo-Assyrian period (as Madness has discussed in the thread 'Devils and Evil Spirits: CT16 + CT17'.) In is review of Krebernik's work, BSOAS 1987, Geller noted the Divine Dialogue, later a staple of Marduk/Ea typ incantations, have a noticeable difference in their ED forerunners: "In the Ebla and Fara texts, the discussion appears to be between Enlil and the goddess Ningirimma (p.211), both of whom only appear peripherally in later incantations." Of course, the Divine Dialogue in later periods is between Enki and his son.
The Theoretical Perspective:
B/W have have gone to some pains to differentiate the fundamental orientation of two modes of social operandi within the Mesopotamian system: On the hegemonic level of control there was namtar signifying the word of Enlil and emerging governmental control, and on a pre and para-hegemonic level there was the me, the laws of tradition, of which Enki was most associated. In terms of myth, the author's interpret the so called 'tension between Enki and Enlil' as the literal expression of the conflict between two distinct cultural influences. (For the best information currently posted on the 'Tension between Enki and Enlil see the post here.
B/W's below paragraph is something of an expansion on the point of tension - I have made some points in square brackets to add perspective to this paragraph.
"Surprisingly there is a second class of demons in the early incantation material, the enforcers of E n l i l ’s rule: the personified n a m t a r / shimtu, ‘Destiny’, himself, the g a l l a / gallu policemen, and the m a sh k i m / rabi_u inspectors. These essentially legitimate spirits do not have a cult either, but are expected ‘to eat at the table of their father E n l i l ’. [1] They have a demonic quality because their commander E n l i l shares an important characteristic with real demons: beyond being served in an orderly fashion, he has no interest in man. E n l i l ’s lack of interest in the fate of mankind is exemplified by the creation myths, in which man is created as a work force to replace the demurring lower gods whose task it is to serve under E n l i l . [2] When later the noise of man disturbs E n l i l ’s sleep he is immediately ready to destroy his human servants, for whether by man or by the lower gods, E n l i l will be served anyhow. Thus, although framed in a theistic idiom, ashiputu encodes a tension between the humanitarian gods of white magic and E n l i l ’s legal but oppressive rule, a clear anti-hegemonic tendency. [3] It is undoubtedly to redress this evil that some very early incantations replace E n k i / Ea by E n l i l .60"
60 M. Krebernik, 1984, Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, p. 211.
[1] It should be noted that these demons do not appear in incantations earlier than the Ur III period, and the the references to the table of Enlil, quite a bit later still (if im not mistaken.)
[2] This portrait serves the developing theory well, although overlooks materials such as the 'song of the hoe' that presents a different tradition regarding Enlil's Humanitarianism.
[3] In other words, B/W posit that the ashiputu (the texts and craft of the professional exorcist) although the prerogative of a professional class working in the temple or palace, (very much under hegemonic pretexts), have the anti-hegemonic tendency of opposing Enlil's will (we understand that to be expressed through the instrument of the demon, who transfers divine displeasure onto the victim in the form of disease and suffering.) For the incantation-priests and their idiom see a small note Ive added to the Theoretical Understandings there here (reply 6)
all this leads to the line of central importance here:
..Let me try and interpret that..
On considering that Enlil in the earliest incantation traditions is the patron god of magic, appealed to for divine intervention against agents of illness, and the Udug demon, the B/W logic train undoubtedly hit a snag here. However, the above ambiguous and somewhat non-committal explanation suggests something interesting. After re-reading it a million times, I believe by "this evil" they are referring to *the tension* between the anti-hegemonic gods of white magic and the demons who carried out the will of Enlil. Was the reason for Enlil's position in the early incantations to a theological device to "redress" [alleviate] that tension, than? This is one possibility in answering our overall question, as one must suppose the Sumerian theologians had always a hand in the roles gods were said to play, and here is a possible context for what is a rather pronounced enigma of Enlil.
Provenance of the E.D. Texts:
Of course, said theologians must have had been in the right place and time in order to further a given socio-political or propagandistic cause. Referring again to the Cunningham overview, its worth noting that of the 31 Sumerian Early Dynastic Incantations, 16 come from $huruppak (Fara), 2 from Lagash, 1 is unprovinced, and the remaining 11 come from Ebla, outside of Sumer. As the tablets from Fara are dated to 2500 B.C., its quite possible Hegemonic influence, which I think equates to Jacobsen's 'Kiengir League" would have been present in Fara at this time. Cunningham relays Krebernik's assertion that the earliest tablets are from Fara and the one's from Ebla followed the after the nature of these texts, there the former corpus would be the essential in solving this enigma.
Cunningham also states that the changes in Junior and Senior deity in the Divine Dialogues ( From Ningirim/Enlil to Asalluhi/Enki)
"reflect historical circumstances", but draws attention as well to other instances in Mesopotamian literature in which the plot remains the same but the actors change somewhat inexplicably.
Still to come: Charting the course of Hegemony I hope, with attention to its touch on Fara.
here (entitled Theoretical Understandings). The study note addressed below is as follows:
[9] Here the authors undoubtedly refer to the Early Dynastic Incantations originating mainly from Fara, Ebla and Abu Salabikh - these unlike later incantations demonstrate Enlil over Enki as the patron of the magic arts.
The Early Dynastic Incantations, the earliest incantation, DO feature Enlil as the patron of Magic. Why?
[/color][/center]Geller's Comment:
In the introduction to TMH 6, Geller reflects on the rather pronounced differences between the role Enlil plays in the earliest incantations, and that he plays from the Sargonic and Ur III periods onwards. Geller: "Another surprising aspect of the descriptions of gods in these Ur III incantations is the role of Enlil himself, since he fails to appears as a major figure. By way of contrast, Enlil appears as the most prominent divine figure in the ED incantations from Fara and Ebla, and he also plays a significant role in the later Udug-hul incantations in which the demons are sent forth by Enlil. There is thus a subtle tension in later incantation between Enlil and Enki: one punishes, the other heals."
By 'later Udug-hul incantations' Geller is referring to those that have been recovered from the Neo-Assyrian period (as Madness has discussed in the thread 'Devils and Evil Spirits: CT16 + CT17'.) In is review of Krebernik's work, BSOAS 1987, Geller noted the Divine Dialogue, later a staple of Marduk/Ea typ incantations, have a noticeable difference in their ED forerunners: "In the Ebla and Fara texts, the discussion appears to be between Enlil and the goddess Ningirimma (p.211), both of whom only appear peripherally in later incantations." Of course, the Divine Dialogue in later periods is between Enki and his son.
The Theoretical Perspective:
B/W have have gone to some pains to differentiate the fundamental orientation of two modes of social operandi within the Mesopotamian system: On the hegemonic level of control there was namtar signifying the word of Enlil and emerging governmental control, and on a pre and para-hegemonic level there was the me, the laws of tradition, of which Enki was most associated. In terms of myth, the author's interpret the so called 'tension between Enki and Enlil' as the literal expression of the conflict between two distinct cultural influences. (For the best information currently posted on the 'Tension between Enki and Enlil see the post here.
B/W's below paragraph is something of an expansion on the point of tension - I have made some points in square brackets to add perspective to this paragraph.
"Surprisingly there is a second class of demons in the early incantation material, the enforcers of E n l i l ’s rule: the personified n a m t a r / shimtu, ‘Destiny’, himself, the g a l l a / gallu policemen, and the m a sh k i m / rabi_u inspectors. These essentially legitimate spirits do not have a cult either, but are expected ‘to eat at the table of their father E n l i l ’. [1] They have a demonic quality because their commander E n l i l shares an important characteristic with real demons: beyond being served in an orderly fashion, he has no interest in man. E n l i l ’s lack of interest in the fate of mankind is exemplified by the creation myths, in which man is created as a work force to replace the demurring lower gods whose task it is to serve under E n l i l . [2] When later the noise of man disturbs E n l i l ’s sleep he is immediately ready to destroy his human servants, for whether by man or by the lower gods, E n l i l will be served anyhow. Thus, although framed in a theistic idiom, ashiputu encodes a tension between the humanitarian gods of white magic and E n l i l ’s legal but oppressive rule, a clear anti-hegemonic tendency. [3] It is undoubtedly to redress this evil that some very early incantations replace E n k i / Ea by E n l i l .60"
60 M. Krebernik, 1984, Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, p. 211.
[1] It should be noted that these demons do not appear in incantations earlier than the Ur III period, and the the references to the table of Enlil, quite a bit later still (if im not mistaken.)
[2] This portrait serves the developing theory well, although overlooks materials such as the 'song of the hoe' that presents a different tradition regarding Enlil's Humanitarianism.
[3] In other words, B/W posit that the ashiputu (the texts and craft of the professional exorcist) although the prerogative of a professional class working in the temple or palace, (very much under hegemonic pretexts), have the anti-hegemonic tendency of opposing Enlil's will (we understand that to be expressed through the instrument of the demon, who transfers divine displeasure onto the victim in the form of disease and suffering.) For the incantation-priests and their idiom see a small note Ive added to the Theoretical Understandings there here (reply 6)
all this leads to the line of central importance here:
"It is undoubtedly to redress this evil that some very early incantation replace Enki/ Ea by Enlil"
..Let me try and interpret that..
On considering that Enlil in the earliest incantation traditions is the patron god of magic, appealed to for divine intervention against agents of illness, and the Udug demon, the B/W logic train undoubtedly hit a snag here. However, the above ambiguous and somewhat non-committal explanation suggests something interesting. After re-reading it a million times, I believe by "this evil" they are referring to *the tension* between the anti-hegemonic gods of white magic and the demons who carried out the will of Enlil. Was the reason for Enlil's position in the early incantations to a theological device to "redress" [alleviate] that tension, than? This is one possibility in answering our overall question, as one must suppose the Sumerian theologians had always a hand in the roles gods were said to play, and here is a possible context for what is a rather pronounced enigma of Enlil.
Provenance of the E.D. Texts:
Of course, said theologians must have had been in the right place and time in order to further a given socio-political or propagandistic cause. Referring again to the Cunningham overview, its worth noting that of the 31 Sumerian Early Dynastic Incantations, 16 come from $huruppak (Fara), 2 from Lagash, 1 is unprovinced, and the remaining 11 come from Ebla, outside of Sumer. As the tablets from Fara are dated to 2500 B.C., its quite possible Hegemonic influence, which I think equates to Jacobsen's 'Kiengir League" would have been present in Fara at this time. Cunningham relays Krebernik's assertion that the earliest tablets are from Fara and the one's from Ebla followed the after the nature of these texts, there the former corpus would be the essential in solving this enigma.
Cunningham also states that the changes in Junior and Senior deity in the Divine Dialogues ( From Ningirim/Enlil to Asalluhi/Enki)
"reflect historical circumstances", but draws attention as well to other instances in Mesopotamian literature in which the plot remains the same but the actors change somewhat inexplicably.
Still to come: Charting the course of Hegemony I hope, with attention to its touch on Fara.