Magic in Mesopotamia

chapter 2 Magic in Mesopotamia

1 Introduction

A few words at the outset regarding what I term Mesopotamian magic. It is important to start out with definitions, because magic is treated somewhat dif- ferently in Mesopotamia (and the other areas of the ancient Near East) than in biblical and classical literatures (not to speak of modern Western thought); moreover, while Western thought (and scholarship) often draws a distinction between magic and religion (to the advantage of the latter), it is difficult to carry this distinction through in a wholly consistent manner in the study of the cultures of the ancient Near East. Magic is here defined as those activities involving supernatural forces that are undertaken to serve the needs of the individual members of society, to deal with their difficulties, and to counter forces that bring evil upon them. Given that in many societies, especially in the West, the distinction between religion and magic is that one is legitimate, the other not, it must be stated at the outset that in Mesopotamia magic was regarded as legitimate and as part of the established religion. (Therefore, in a Mesopotamian context, terms usu- ally translated as “witchcraft” [e.g., kišpū, ruḫû, rusû, and upšāšû lemnūtu] refer not to magical behavior as such, but to the practice of magic for antisocial and destructive purposes.)

2 Earlier Approaches to Mesopotamian Magic

The study of Mesopotamian magic has not been unaffected by the intellectual and religious developments of the last one hundred and fifty years. In the early period, magic was treated primarily as superstition, the beliefs of the lower parts of society. This view of magic was due to a number of factors. For some, magic was thought to have been replaced by religion, which was itself ren- dered obsolete by science. Enlightenment attitudes tended to carry with them negative valuations of institutional religion. Moreover, even those who valued religion often had negative outlooks on ritual (this was partly due to anti- Catholic prejudices); there was a sense that only belief and piety were true spiritual activities and that only sin and guilt, not demonic evil, were wor- thy causes of suffering. Given the prevalence of Protestant attitudes, the

© President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004435186_003 Magic in Mesopotamia 25 marginalization of magic, and the identification of magic with the beliefs of primitives in colonial societies, often the best we can hope for among scholars of that period is illustrated by the somewhat pejorative attitudes toward magic evident in the following remarks (presented in chronological order) made by scholars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries:

In order to realize the great number and variety of such beings [scil. demons] it would be necessary to turn to the spells and incantations and magical formulae which occupy so large a place in the religious literature of the Babylonians. To ignore this lower aspect of the belief of the Babylonians would be to give a one-sided and incomplete picture of their religion.1

The Bab[ylonian] hymns and prayers to the gods reach a much higher religious level than the extensive literature of soothsaying and exorcism.2

Magic may be said to be present wherever power over the unseen is believed to be inherent in the ritual, whereas, according to the religious concept, the seat of power is regarded as resting outside the sphere of man’s deliberate control. When the term is used in this sense, it must be admitted that a great body of the religious beliefs and practices of the Babylonians and Assyrians should be more accurately described as fall- ing under the category of magic.3

But, however one evaluates these attitudes, it should also be noted that the aforementioned scholars expressing these prejudices were among the great masters of and pioneers in the field of Mesopotamian magical activity and texts, and their opinions continued to carry weight in Assyriology.4 After the First World War, the approach to magic, certainly in anthropology, was transformed. Associated with the growth of form criticism, a change also began to take place in Assyriology. This change is especially evident in the work of Landsberger and his students; here I have in mind especially the Leipzig

1 L. W. King, Babylonian Religion and Mythology (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1899), 202. 2 H. Zimmern, “Babylonians and Assyrians,” in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 2, ed. J. Hastings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark; New York: Scribner, 1910), 317. 3 L. W. King, “Magic (Babylonian),” in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 8, ed. J. Hastings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark; New York: Scribner, 1916), 253. 4 E.g., L. W. King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery (London: Luzac, 1896); H. Zimmern, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion, 2 vols., Assyriologische Bibliothek 12 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1896–1901).