« On Unicorns, Rhinoceros And Wild Oxen
Main
Happy Labor Day To Me »
September 6, 2009
What The Heck Is Wrong With This Guy
Do these two lists describe the same disease?
a ghost, a Rabiṣu-demon, a Eṭemmu-spirit, a Lilû-spirit, goose bumps, dizziness, paralysis of the flesh, vertigo, stiffness (and), confusion weigh on me and leave me mourning(?) every day.
a Eṭemmu man seized him, a evil Alû-demon or a Saḫulḫuza-demon has seized him or something evil his hand [. . . ] and it is not removed, convulse (tremble) him,
The first is a list from the prayer to Shamash that I've been working on. The second list is from the ritual of which the prayer is a part. I see some commonality between the two lists: an "Eṭemmu-spirit" with an "Eṭemmu man" and "paralysis of the flesh" and "stiffness" with "convulsed him." But, between the two lists the specified demons are different. And the issue of confusion and vertigo is not in the opening lines that describe the ritual's target. Technically the list from the beginning of the ritual is part of the protasis for the ritual proper: if this set of symptoms, then . . . Assuming the protasis for the ritual lists any, what we might consider, physical symptoms, it's the case that the prayer seems to have a good number more. And being bound by a certain demon or other may itself translate into a physical symptom.
Is the prayer some kind of plug-in only vaguely related to the ritual? Or did the professionals have a "better" understanding what was wrong than the patient did? If the latter, why did they make him recite a prayer with a different set of symptoms than those in the protasis for the ritual? If they knew what was wrong with him, why didn't they include exactly that in the prayer? Or is the disease simply being bound by an "Eṭemmu man," a dead man, with all the other things of lesser importance? Or, on the other hand, is it that we should understand these two lists as general indications of the types of symptoms against which the ancient practitioners and their patients thought the ritual and its prayer effective? And should we then not be too worried about a specific disease or set of diseases at all?
Abnormal inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by Duane Smith at September 6, 2009 6:57 PM | Read more on Akkadian |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2998
Comments
Duane,
I cannot tell you what is wrong with this guy, but I have a question about his affliction. Is the Lilû-spirit related to the Lilith, the night demon?
Claude Mariottini
Posted by: Claude Mariottini at September 6, 2009 8:06 PM
Claude,
Interesting question? I haven't really researched this as yet. I'm working my way through these demons now. But it is very possible that the two are related in some way. Akkadian also has a goddess, lillītu. But, if Semitic in origin, the demon lilû seems to have been based on a final weak root while the root of Lilith is middle weak (or so it seems). I know that some scholars think they are related but those who do also think that Lilith has nothing to do with night. This thought process would associate both the Hebrew and the Akkadian spirit with Sumerian LIL, "fool," "foolish," "idiot" or perhaps the same Sumerian sign meaning "air" > "wind(?)." In fact, the Akkadian word I normalize as lilû is written with the ideograms LÍL.LÁ. If Lilith and lilû are related by way of Sumerian LIL and depending on the linguistic pathway from Sumerian into Hebrew, all bets are off with regard to the nature of a supposed Semitic root. When I'm through researching this, I'll let you know; it might make an abnormally interesting post.
Posted by: Duane at September 7, 2009 8:51 AM
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.