Demons
I. Mesopotamia
Mesopotamia did not develop a generic term for demons. A large number of immortal beings was known that each had their own name and acted as servants of the gods and as enemies or helpers of humans. They did not have cults of their own. Since demons were only able to exercise their limited powers, which manifested themselves in physical and psychological illnesses, with the approval of the gods, they were part of the existing world order. Thus, in the Babylonian tale of the Great Flood ( Atraḫasis myth, see TUAT 3, 644 vii 3) the gods ─ after a promise to never again unleash a flood destroying all ─ installed the demoness Lamaštu, who was made responsible for childbirth fever and infant mortality, to prevent excessive multiplication of humans in the future. Other demons became ‘watchmen’ and worked on divine orders to the benefit or harm of humans. Some ancient Near Eastern myths relate that the demon-like creatures of the Primal Chaos were defeated by the hero gods that created the ordered world and then made guardians of sanctuaries. Many evil demons were personifications of diseases, epidemics or winds that were considered bearers of disease. Unlike the gods, who were always imagined as being anthropomorphic, demons were depicted as fear-inspiring monsters. For example, the lion's head and paws, bird's wings and talons of bloodsucking Lamaštu [2] symbolized her dangerousness and fast attack. The residences of evil demons were the arid lands hostile to cultivation and the Underworld. Evil demons were often not clearly differentiated by their mode of action from vengeful spirits of the dead returning to earth. Often they were named together. Unlike the other demons, Lamaštu was considered a daughter of the highest god Anu that had been cast out of Heaven. In cuneiform texts exorcistic rituals played an important role. In them the renewed benevolence of the gods was effected, the demon was rendered harmless and banished to the Underworld, often being supplied with provisions for the journey. Amulets provided protection against a renewed attack. The Babylonian belief in demons continues to this day in the Near East.
Bibliography
1 j. black, a. green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia, 1992
2 w. farber, s.v. Lamaštu, RLA 6, 1980-1983, 439-446.
II. Egypt
In Egypt demons existed both in this world and the next. They were mostly named according to their function but had no generic term. Underworld demons (and demons in general) played no special role in the official cult of the gods and the dead but they do in the Books of the Dead, especially as guardians at gates and other transitional areas. They were only dangerous to those dead who lack the requirements for entering the Underworld. Demons of this world are known especially from magical texts. Often they were messengers of the gods or illness demons. They differed in their properties (e.g., blind, dumb or deaf) and lifestyle (often in marginal areas such as the desert, foreign countries, darkness, swamps, watering holes) from humans and gods and did not belong to the ‘orderly’ world. They could be useful to humans but usually were a danger that people attempted to ward off in many ways. Demons were depicted as humans, animals or monsters, often armed with knives, fire or snakes. The spirits of the dead could also have the (useful or threatening) functions of demons.
Bibliography
h. te velde, s.v. Dämonen, LÄ 1, 980-984
l. kakosy, Zauberei im alten Ägypten, 1989, 66-84.
III. Syria-Palestine
In the 14th/13th cents. BC, demons of illness and spirits of the dead can be identified in incantations from Ugarit (KTU 1.82, 1.169 [1]). Incantations pleading that the gods Anat and Baal drive them away were helpful in warding them off. Phoenician demons are named on amulets from Arslantaş (1st millennium BC) but their authenticity is in doubt.
In Judah and Israel the demons Rešep and Deber (‘plague’), Qeṭeb (‘destruction’), Liliṯ, Šed, Ašmundai, Azāzel and Behemōṯ are documented (Deut. 32,17; 33,24; Hab. 3,5; Is. 28,2; 34,14; Ps. 91,3; 6; Hos. 13,14; Tob. 3,8; Lev. 16,8; 10; 26; Job 40,15 and passim). Partially they are personifications of illness or need. There are also evil spirits (1 Sam. 16,14), lying spirits (1 Kg 22,21-23), desert demons (Is. 13,21; 34,12; and passim), satyrs (Lev. 17,7 and passim), despoilers (Ex. 12,23) and destroying angels (2 Sam. 24,14-16 and passim). The motif of ‘fallen angels’ (Gen. 6,1-4; 1 Hen; Test XII Patr) can only be noted in passing. Exorcism is attested in 1 Sam. 16 and Tob. 8,2f. Aramaic amulets and magic bowls of the 4th-7th cents. AD for expelling demons are based on divine action in the OT. In this context the Mandaean magical texts, which express Mesopotamian ideas, must be mentioned. The NT in which the demons are subject to Satan is also based on divine action in the OT (1 Cor. 10,20; Lk. 10,19). In the NT the topic of human possession by demons as causative agents of disease is rather prominent. The importance of exorcism is closely related. The demonization of foreign gods is attested in both the OT and the NT (Ps. 95,5 LXX; Deut. 32,17 LXX; 1 Cor. 10,20f.).
Bibliography
1 m. dietrich, o. loretz, j. sanmartin, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit einschließlich der keilalphabetischen Texte außerhalb Ugarits I (AOAT 24/1), 1976.
a. caquot, Sur quelques démons de l'AT, in: Semitica 6, 1956, 53-68
c. colpe, j. maier, s.v. Geister (Dämonen), RAC 9, 562-585
w. culican, Phoenician Demons, in: JNES 35, 1976, 21-24
w. fauth, Lilits und Astarten in aramäischen, mandäischen und syrischen Zaubertexten, in: WO 17, 1986, 66-94
m. görg, w. kirchschläger, s.v. Dämonen, Neues Bibel-Lexikon I, 375-378
b. janowski, Repräsentationen der gegenmenschlichen Welt, in: d. trobitsch (ed.), FS Theißen, 1993, 154-163
j. c. de moor, k. spronk, More on Demons in Ugarit, in: Ugarit-Forschungen 16, 1984, 237-250
c. müller-kessler, The Story of Bugzan-Lilit, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 116, 1996, 185-195 (with bibliography)
j. naveh, s. shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls, 1985
k. van der toorn, b. becking, p. w. van der horst (ed.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 1995
d. trunk, Der messianische Heiler, 1994.
IV. Pre-Islamic Iran
The key term for demon in the Iranian religious tradition, Old Persian daiva- (Avestic daēuua-, Middle Persian dēw, New Persian dı̄w), is etymologically equivalent to Old Indian devá- ‘god’. In the Iranian language area it was thoroughly recoined in a sequence from ‘god’ > ‘false god’, ‘idol’ > ‘demon’ to ‘devil’ but because of scant references in the literature it is difficult to determine both in terms of chronology and religious history. In the Gathas of the Avesta, which are dated by consensus to about 1000 BC, the daēuuas are not yet demons but a separate category of gods that must be rejected. In the opinion of most researchers the demonization of the daēuuas is due to Zoroaster's reform. He wanted to break their power, which was based on arbitrariness and strength. The re-evaluation process may have begun among the East Iranian tribes amongst whom he was active and he may have only accelerated it.
In the texts of the Younger Avesta, which are more recent by several centuries, daēuua- is used for creatures that belong to the army of the ‘Evil Spirit’ in the context of Zoroastrian dualism. They appear as disease- and death-spreading demon hordes that pollute the world, that even attempted to destroy Zoroaster and must be kept at bay, for example, by the recitation of sacred prayer formulas and adherence to purification rules.
In the Pahlavi literature of the 9th to 11th cents., which reflects religious ideas of the Sassanid period (3rd -7th cents.), one of the main duties of faithful Zoroastrians is fighting demons, who as counter-creations of the ‘Evil Spirit’, Ahriman, personify almost every conceivable evil. Innumerable demons penetrate the sound creation of Ohrmazd ( Ahura Mazda) at all levels whereby the world enters a state of ‘heterogeneity’ from which it will be liberated at the end of times by a separation of the forces of good and evil.
Demons are sometimes described as creatures with faces, hair, claws and feet, sometimes as personifications of abstract concepts such as heresy or the embodiment of climatic evils (e.g., drought). Demons, which can also enter the body as diseases, maladies, impurities etc., must be warded off with good deeds and by adhering to purification rules. They are also scared off by fire and incestuous marriages, which are considered the most effective means of destroying demons.
Bibliography
e. benveniste, Que signifie vidēvdāt?, in: Henning Memorial Vol., 1970, 37-42
a. christensen, Essai sur la démonologie iranienne, 1941
l. h. gray, The Foundations of the Iranian Rel., in: Journ. of the Cama Oriental Institute 15, 1929, 1-228
s. shaked, Bagdāna, King of the Demons, and other Iranian Terms in Babylon. Aramaic Magic, in: Acta Iranica 25, 1985, 511-525.
V. Greece and Rome
A. Definition
The word ‘demon’ (δαίμων; daímōn) is often derived from δαίω (daíō) ‘divide, distribute’ because of the role it often plays in allotting destiny, but this etymology is rather uncertain [1. 1, 247; 2. 1, 369]. It is often equally uncertain which kind of being the term demon means. Often it describes a being that is called θεός (theós, god) by others (Hom. Il. 1,222; Eur. Bacch. 42, cf. 84passim). Already in Hesiod (Op. 121-126) the word demon was also used for the soul of a deceased. In philosophical texts since Plato (Symp. 202d-e), demon may refer to a being that is with regard to power between gods and humans and intermediates between them. Later authors sometimes linked Platonic and Hesiodic concepts by equating intermediating demons with souls (Phil. De gigantibus 16; Plut. De def. or. 415f; 419a). In Greek and Roman antiquity, demons could be beings with good or bad intentions but already in Homer, especially in theOdyssey, demons were more commonly associated with disagreeable events (cf. [4. 2073-79] on earlier discussions).
Bibliography
1 chantraine 1, 247
2 wilamowitz 1, 369
3 f. andres, s.v. Daimon, RE Suppl. 3, 267-322
4 f. brenk, In the Light of the Moon: Demonology in the Early Period, in: ANRW II 16.3, 2068-2145.
B. Development of word meaning
A summary of Homeric word usage is found in [1. 2071-82]. Two points are particularly important: first, demons were cited when the speaker did not know which god had caused a certain event. Homer himself rarely uses it since, as the omniscient narrator, he can always name the acting deity. This is probably the reason why the physical appearance of demons is never described. Therefore, demons indicate divine forces that cannot be identified with certainty by mortals. Second, demons are often held responsible for psychological phenomena like delusion and insanity (Hom. Od. 14,488; 12,295) but rarely for physical actions (exceptions: Hom. Il. 15,468; Hom. Od. 12,169 and perhaps Od. 5,396).
Hesiod adds two important ideas: demons help in punishing evil-doers and they are the souls of the dead (Op. 122-26). Classical sources, especially tragedies, offer numerous examples of the former idea (Aesch. Pers. 601; Eur. Alc. 1003; Eur. Rhes. 971; Pl. Resp. 469b; 540c; cf. Emp. fr. 31 B 115, 5 and 13 DK). The idea of demons as avengers of wrongs appears to have developed in classical texts into the Alastor (Aesch. Pers. 354; Aesch. Ag. 1501) and the Erinyes (Aesch. Cho. 1048-62; Eur. Med. 1389). Like demons both had contact with the souls of the dead. However, the enraged dead can also avenge themselves (Pl. Leg. 865d-e). In the classical period the actions of demons were linked to misfortune and even death (Aesch. Ag. 1175; Aesch. Sept. 812; Soph. OC 76; Antiph. 3,3,4), even though demons in the broader sense could still represent any change in fortune (Lys. 13,63; Hdt. 5,87; cf. Pind. Pyth. 5,123).
The related concept of a ‘personal’ demon that positively or negatively influences or guides the life of each individual is already encountered in archaic sources (e.g., Thgn. 1, 161-4; Heracl. 22 B 119 DK) but only clearly emerged in the classical period (Pind. Ol. 13,28; 105; Soph. Trach. 910f.; Eur. Med. 1347; Pl. Phd. 107d). Although olbiodaímōn (ὀλβιοδαίμων) and eudaimoníē (εὐδαιμονίη) each occur once in Homer (Il. 3,182; h. 11,5), the greater frequency of eudaimoníē and its derivations as well as the opposites dysdaímōn (δυσδαίμων) and kakodaímōn (κακοδαίμων) in the classical period indicate an increasing interest in the concept of a personal demon. As well, the tendency of seeing demons as a category of beings separate from the gods gained strength in the classical period (Aristoph. Plut. 81). At the same time the philosophical concept of demons as intermediaries between goods and mortals arose (see below).
The popular meaning of demon persisted to the end of Graeco-Roman Antiquity. Only under the influence of Christianity and some forms of Neoplatonic philosophy did it become exclusively associated with harmful beings, which resulted in the modern meaning of the term ‘demon’.
C. Popular belief
In addition to beings that were explicitly called demons, there was a large number of immortal or long-lived beings that were neither described as demons or gods but to whom superhuman powers were clearly attributed. In scholarship they are frequently discussed as a part of Greek demonology [2]. Sometimes these beings are called eídola (εἴδολα) or phásmata (φάσματα), terms that are also used for dreams and illusions. This apparently reflects their fleeting and often illusory appearance in the human world. However, ancient authors often use no definite term.
Most of these beings are treacherous and cause problems that extend from child death (Gello, Lamia, Mormo), nightmares (Ephialtes) and breaking of pots in kilns (Ps.-Hdt. Vit. Hom. 32 = Hom. Epigr. 14) to defeat in athletic competitions or court [3. ch. 1 and 3]. In particular, they were made responsible for misfortune whether unexpected or otherwise difficult to explain. The ‘Mid-Day Demon’ [2. 121] and Empusa belong here although their functions are not quite clear [4]. Many such beings were considered the souls of the dead that returned because of envy, rage or restlessness ( Ahoroi). Some were called heroes (Paus. 6,6,7; Aristoph. fr. 322), whereby the heroic dead could bring fortune or misfortune [5. 192-201].
That many of these beings have adjectival names that describe the nature and activity of the demon (Lamia from λαμιός (lamiós), ‘throat’; Mormo from μόρμω (mórmō), ‘to be scared’; Ephialtes from ἐφάλλομαι (ephállomai), ‘spring upon’), and many of these terms appear in plural shows that the beings individualized by myths and genealogies are only representations of ‘spirits’ imagined to be threatening. Hecate is sometimes portrayed as their leader (Adespota fr. 375 TGF; PGM 4, 2708-84) [6], which fits with her being able to protect an individual against them [7]. Protection was also provided by an inscription above the door naming Heracles Kallinikos as the house occupant [8], as well as amulets worn on the body or hung up in the house [9]. The awareness that invisible, potentially destructive forces were omnipresent is evident both in Plato's statement that kêres (κῆρες) hang above all things in life (Pl. Leg. 937d) and the personification of ills and illnesses since Hesiod (Op. 100-104; cf. Eur. Phoen. 950 and Soph. Phil. 42, where the kêres bring blindness and disease). In late antiquity this evil is imagined as a physical shape: the ‘pestilence demon’ in Ephesus manifested himself as a disgusting beggar, then as a great fear-inspiring hound (Philostr. VA 4,10). Many such demonic beings are well attested in the Byzantine period and even today in rural areas [10].
In magic demonic beings ─ especially disembodied souls ─ could be called upon for various tasks (áhoroi, Nekydaimon). The souls of the dead, including dead heroes, were considered prophetic (Plut. De def. or. 431e-432e; Trophonius).
Iconographically many of these demonic beings are linked to demons in other cultures: they are ugly, of terrifying countenance and often half human, half animal. Sometimes it was believed that they could change their shape ( Mormo, Empusa) [11. 429f.; 4].
The beings depicted on bronze seals are often called demons or ‘genii’. Sometimes they are represented as half human, half animal (especially with dog- or serpent-like traits). Occasionally, they appear to provide service in another, completely anthropomorphic shape that is interpreted as a deity. Attempts to link these beings, for example, with the Erinyes are interesting but in the end cannot be proven [12; 13. 196-200].
The only demon to be honoured in a traditional cult was the agathòs daímōn, who received the first libation of wine (Aristoph. Equ. 85; Vesp. 525; Plut. Symp. 655e; LSCG 134). In ancient art it was depicted as a snake [14. 213-218].
Comments
Post a Comment