Delitzsch is therefore not wide of the mark in describing Mesopotamia as the cradle of the sinister belief in demons. It is true in so far as European belief is concerned and may be considered as demonstrated by literary remains and written documents, the same holding good of the Christian belief in angels. It must be recognized that already before the introduction of Christianity demonological ideas existed in Europe, but their formidable development in the Middle Ages is due to the influence of the primitive East.1
In Mesopotamia as in primitive societies, all forms of sickness including psychic ones were considered as the work of evil spirits, a sort of possession. To combat them innumerable formulæ of conjuration were used and have come down to us. Unfortunately to the best of my knowledge no texts containing information as to possession in Babylon have yet come to light. Up to the present they have all been concerned with the exorcism of sickness and not of possession in our sense of the word.
It therefore seems to me that Delitzsch, in the italicized words of the above quotation, goes a little too far. In the sources which he kindly indicated to me on a personal request, I have been unable to discover documents adequate to support him.2 The collected works of Jastrow and Jeremias on Babylonian religion and civilization3 contain just as little. At the utmost it may be possible to read as a state of possession the following passage, which is Thompson’s English version of a Babylonian cuneiform inscription:
.… in the desert … they spare not,
… the ghoul after the man hath sprinkled
Spreading heart disease, heartache,
Sickness (and) disease over the city of the man
Scorching the wanderer like the day,
And filling him with bitterness;
Like a flood they are gathered together
(Until) this man revolteth against himself
No food can he eat, no water can he drink,
But with woe each day is he sated.1
The interpretation of this picture as a state analogous to possession is evidently very hazardous; and it would certainly be no more than analogous. For the present, therefore, I can give no document of any value on possession in the region of the Euphrates and Tigris. On the other hand an Egyptian inscription gives us indirect proof, at least so far as Syria is concerned, that possession existed there.
In a temple at Thebes in Egypt has been found an inscription in the form of a short story in which a Syrian princess is represented as possessed by an evil soul.2 It runs thus:
His Majesty (the King of Egypt) was in Mesopotamia engaged in receiving the year’s tributes; the princes of the whole earth came to prostrate themselves in his presence and implore his favour. The people began to present their tributes: their backs were loaded with gold, silver, lapis-lazuli, copper, tanuter wood. Each in turn (offered his dues). When the chief of Bachtan caused his presents to be brought he placed his eldest daughter in the forefront so as to implore His Majesty and beg from him the favour (of life?). This woman was beautiful, she pleased the King above all things; he gave her, as first royal wife, the name of Neferou Ra (beauty of the sun), and on his return to Egypt he caused her to accomplish all the rites of the queens.
In the year 15, on the 22nd day of the month of Epiphi, while His Majesty was in the building of Tama, the queen of temples, engaged in chanting the praises of his father Ammon-Ra, master of the thrones of the earth, in his noonday panegyris of the Ab, the seat of his heart, it happened that for the first time they came to tell the King that a messenger from the prince of Bachtan was bringing rich presents to the royal spouse.
Led into the King’s presence with his offerings he said, invoking His Majesty: “Glory to thee, sun of all peoples! Grant us life in thy presence.” Having thus pronounced his adoration before His Majesty he went on to speak thus: “I have come to thee, supreme King, oh my lord, for Bint-Reschid, the young sister of the queen Neferou-Ra; an evil has entered into her substance; let Thy Majesty be pleased to send a man learned in science to examine her.”
The King then said: “Let the college of Hierogrammatists be brought hither, the doctors of mysteries (of the interior of our palace?).” When they had come instantly, His Majesty said to them: “I have had you summoned to hear what is asked of me, choose me amongst you a man of wise heart (a master with nimble fingers?).” The basilicogrammatist Thothem-Hesi having presented himself before the King received the order to set out for Bachtan with the prince’s emissary.
When the man knowing all things had arrived in the land of Bachtan he found Bint-Reschid obsessed by a spirit; but he recognized himself (powerless to drive it out?).
The prince of Bachtan sent a second time to the King to say to him: “Supreme sovereign, oh my lord! If Thy Majesty would order that a god should be brought (to the country of Bachtan to combat this spirit?).”
This new request came to the King in the year 26, in the first of the month of Pachons, during the panegyris of Ammon; His Majesty was then in the Thebaid. The King came back into the presence of Chons, the god tranquil in his perfection, to say to him: “My good lord, I return to implore thee on behalf of the daughter of the prince of Bachtan.” Then he caused Chons, the god tranquil in his perfection, to be taken towards Chons, the counsellor of Thebes, a great god driving out rebels.
His Majesty said to Chons, the god tranquil in his perfection: “My good lord, if thou would’st turn thy face towards Chons, the counsellor of Thebes, the great god driving out rebels, and send him to the country of Bachtan by a signal favour.”
Then His Majesty said: “Give him thy divine virtue, I will then send this god that he may cure the daughter of the prince of Bachtan.”
By his most signal favour, Chons of Thebaid, the god tranquil in his perfection, gave four times his divine virtue to Chons, counsellor of Thebes. The King commanded that Chons, counsellor of Thebes, should be sent in his great naos with five little baris and a small chariot; numerous horsemen walked on his left and on his right.
The god arrived in the country of Bachtan after a journey of a year and five months. The prince of Bachtan came with his soldiers and his chiefs to meet Chons the counsellor; having prostrated himself with his face to the ground, he said to him: “Thou comest then to us, thou descendest amongst us by the orders of the King of Egypt, the sun, the lord of justice, approved by the god Ra.”
Then came the god to the abode of Bint-Reschid; having communicated his virtue to her, she was instantly relieved. The spirit which dwelt within her said in the presence of Chons, the counsellor of Thebes: “Be thou welcome, great god who drivest out rebels; the town of Bachtan is thine, the peoples are thy slaves, I myself am thy slave. I will return to the gods from whence I came to content thy heart on the matter of thy journey. Let Thy Majesty be pleased to order that a feast be celebrated in my honour by the prince of Bachtan.”
The god deigned to say to his prophet: “The prince of Bachtan must bring a rich offering to this spirit.”
While these things were taking place and while Chons the counsellor of Thebes was conversing with the spirit, the prince of Bachtan remained with his army, seized with deep fear. He caused rich presents to be offered to Chons, counsellor of Thebes, and also to the spirit, and celebrated a feast in their honour; after which the spirit departed peacefully where he would, at the order of Chons, the counsellor of Thebes.
The prince was transported with joy, as were all the people of Bachtan.
Then follows the description of the return of Chons to Egypt.
The contents of this inscription show that possession was a phenomenon well known in Syria as well as in Egypt. Erman attributes the inscription to the fourth century B.C. The legend itself is older.1
According to Harnack the priests of Egypt were, moreover, “celebrated exorcists from very remote times.”2
It is possible that several Egyptian papyri in which are mentioned also offer proof of the existence of states analogous to possession. The hypothesis formulated by K. Sethe3 that the word should no
t be taken to mean “possessed” but that it was used purely and simply to denote men who had not the right to leave the sanctuary of Serapis, has been rejected by the other investigators. It even appears to be demonstrated that the expressions , etc., denote a subjection to the temple and not a state absolutely identical with possession in the usual sense of the word. But on the other hand it does not indicate imprisonment properly so-called. This theory of Sethe is in conflict with the sayings of the themselves, from which it emerges that they were not kept in the sanctuary by any external constraint. They might leave it at any moment; what held them there was solely an inner compulsion from the god who had taken possession of them. A psychic affection due to the god must have arisen.1 Unfortunately the evidence as yet available does not permit a thorough study of its exact nature. It has been thought that the were distinguished only by special dreams like those desired and obtained by persons frequenting certain secret and consecrated parts of the temple. Wilcken had already advanced this explanation at an earlier date.
Abandoning the idea of imprisonment of the , I see in the an entirely inner relationship of a mystic kind between Serapis and his worshipper. The god holds him, takes possession of him () so that he is a possessed of god. We cannot, however, conceive of a lasting ecstasy, for the state often continued for several years, but of a lasting subjection during which he was in close communion with the divinity, receiving his commands, etc. Only the god could liberate him () after which he generally returned to his own country, whereas formerly in the state of subjection he had had no right to leave the precincts of the temple. The means by which the god enters into communion with the , particularly in the act of taking possession (), and that of liberation () is manifested in a dream.2
If this interpretation is correct, we find here a new conception of possession: he who received dreams from a divinity would be possessed. It nevertheless appears to me that the cause of the compulsion which is implied in has not as yet been considered. The above theory would entail the supposition that the god had given in these dreams the command to remain in the sanctuary.
There is also in Sethe a piece of evidence which may be considered as a proof that states analogous to possession existed in Egypt. He declares that certain constellations give rise to disturbances in hearing and speech amongst men born under their sign and that these men become possessed in the temple, so that they prophesy and fall sick in mind.3
In view of the passage from Vettius Valens, also quoted by Kroll,4 it may be admitted as certain that with the there was question not merely of dreams, but seemingly of possession in the true sense of the present work: 1
But what leads the to the sanctuary? On this point Kroll gives a reply once more taken from Vettius Valens: 2 Misfortune also brought men to the sanctuary ( does not give the exact sense. Kroll proposes instead. Might not the correct reading perhaps be ?).
As regards the further question of how the spiritual subjection to the temple was effected, no sufficient explanation has yet been offered. Nothing can be gathered from the accounts of eye-witnesses except that the felt themselves bound to the sanctuary until liberated by the god. Concerning the nature of the bond and the way in which liberation followed we are for the present reduced to conjecture.
That psychic were often desired emerges from a fragment of Philodemos to which Diels has drawn attention in his edition of the remains of that author’s writings on the gods. It is there stated in an Epicurean-rationalistic style:
Everything is full to weariness of people who try to fall into a god-inspired “temple sleep,” to receive the ecstasy of the holy spirit, to dedicate their thankofferings to the nude statues, and to hold tambourines raised on high in their hands while visiting all the available gods.3
This passage also shows that the were not put under restraint against their will. But on the other hand a contradiction appears in the fact that they—at least, some of them—longed for deliverance after having become . It must often enough have happened that they attained the psychic state of more easily than the subsequent deliverance therefrom. The thing obtained was a “deep sleep” () as well as a true state of possession.
Sudhoff interprets the documents in question thus:
To be possessed by the god, that is the . When he experiences this feeling of possession the goes to the temple to be delivered from his malady or from some other affliction. He sleeps in the temple and either is directly delivered from the demon of sickness or else receives in sleep the indication of what he must do in order to be cured.1
Thus according to Sudhoff the already existed before entry into the temple and was not produced afterwards.
It is to be hoped that future discoveries of papyri will shed that clear light which is still wanting, as much through lack of documents as through the ambiguity of the word which is discussed by Sethe. He also gives a number of documents which may allude to similar in other temples.
A deeper insight into the psychological states of many of these “temple-dreamers” is moreover given by the of Ælius Aristides.2 Nothing is to be found on the word —there is, moreover, an interval of three centuries between them and this author; the papyri in question belong to the middle of the second century B.C., while Aristides lived in the second century A.D.
The theologian Semler has already collected from classical antiquity a very large number of testimonies concerning possession, for the purpose of showing its diffusion amongst Christians and non-Christians.3 More recently Julius Tamborino has again collected systematically the documents of Christian and non-Christian antiquity.4 His collection is in many ways much wider in scope than that of Semler, but nevertheless fails to contain all the passages which the latter has gathered together.
The contrast between the pre-Christian and Christian eras is striking enough, according to the documents adduced by Tamborino. Judging by the number of pages, the difference is not great; the whole bulk of documents relating to the non-Christian epoch occupies twenty-four pages, while those of the Christian period occupy twenty-eight. But on closer inspection it appears that for the first part all the possible quotations relating in a general way to states of enthusiasm have been collected, even the briefest references in detached phrases, while the second admits only real states of possession and veritable descriptions. In addition the Christian testimonies are not even complete, as may be convincingly shown by a simple comparison with the index-volume of the Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, and in order to make the second part correspond to the first its scope would have to be extended, and all evidence relating to states considered as inspired by the Holy Ghost included. The space occupied by the testimonies of the Christian era would then be infinitely the greater. This contrast between the two groups of evidence can scarcely be explained, except by admitting that possession has played a much more important part during the Christian era than in earlier times.
As regards Greek civilization, the Homeric period as well as the classical period proper are strikingly empty of these demoniacal manifestations. This is in keeping with their conception of life, so lacking in mists and half-lights that even now in moments of depression we go to the Homeric poems for brightness and joy of living.
Neither the possessed person nor the idea of possession plays any part in Homer. Nevertheless, Finsler thinks he sees a glimmering of this idea in many places:
The true sense of the word () has persisted unchanged in the adjective . It designates someone of whom a demon has taken possession, a possessed person. This meaning is everywhere evident, whether Zeus, in his terrible speech, calls Hera “mad-woman” or whether Hector consoling the weeping Andromache calls her “little fool.”1
Even granted that this be so, the belief in possession rings no truer than when we say that someone is “possessed by the gambling fiend.” Under Homer’s sun the daylight is too splendidly bright for a serious belief of this nature.
In the same way the seers of Homer, whether men or women, are not possessed; they know the future, the
y have visions, they may fall into great agitation of mind, but their ego always remains human; no divine person speaks by their mouth. The oracle of Delphi is only mentioned once. The idea of possession is really demonstrable in the poet himself: it is not he who sings, but the muse within him: . Frankly speaking, this idea seems more conventional than real.
In later times a great change appears to have taken place in the Greek conception of the world. The historically obscure centuries between the Homeric and classical periods seem to have been filled to an extraordinary degree with belief in the invasion of the real, and even of the human soul, by the transcendental. But then, no more than later, did it tend to weigh heavily on life. Belief in the immanence of the divine occupied a far more prominent place than the corresponding belief in the diabolic. In the mysteries, oracles, and also the Dionysiac cult it was everywhere the divine, and not the diabolic which broke through the outer husk of this world and streamed into the soul of man. Any attempt to characterize the religious spirit of Hellenism must needs represent this divine inspiration as one of its lofty and specific aspects.
Possession, Demoniacal And Other Page 22