Incantations and Anti-Witchcraft Texts from Ugarit by Gregorio del Olmo Lete

Author:Gregorio del Olmo Lete [del Olmo Lete, Gregorio]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: De Gruyter
Published: 2014-06-22T16:00:00+00:00

3 Brief commentary

The first quoted part, lin. 5–14, provides a glimpse of a magical incantation that is focused on an unknown person, šrġzz, who finds himself in a lamentable situation, apparently as a result of a snakebite (cf. lin. 5) for which an inexpert individual (lydc; see KYU 1.178:1)498 was unable to provide an effective solution. Therefore, the god Šapšu raises his “voice” (ql; see KTU 1.100:2 and passim; 1.82:6) this time, in answer to the weeping/cry of the faithful. This answer oracle begins with an interrogative/exclamatory clause, according to the literary scheme that is also at work in the cases of the distressed Kirta (KTU 14 I 38ff.) and ˀAqhatu (1.17 I 15ff.). In this context, the presence of the gods Šapšu and Ḥorānu from the very beginning and in an enhanced position in the text is notable (see lin. 9, 15, 31), as is their inclusion in the “litany” that follows on the reverse of the tablet. Nevertheless, this intervention ex officio does not seem to have been effective.499

The mention of an individual (not of an inexpert serpent charmer) in the text has surprised commentators. However, we now know that the personalisation of the incantation for the benefit of a person whose name is given at the end is a normal feature in this kind of texts: ˀUrtēnu (KTU 1.178:14), Papašar-ratu (KTU 1.82:36).500 Consequently, we can assume that the divine remedy against these creatures (lin. 13, bnt; see KTU 1.82:18, 41) was delivered in the broken lin. 12–13. Moreover, the clause of repetition in line 14 and the ruled line501 also mark the end of the preceding textual unit. Lin. 15 would open up a new unit (lin. 15–27), with Šapšu sending his “cry/voice” (špš bšmm tqrủ gh)502 against what can also be supposed to be a serpent bite/attack, as supported thematically by the following text (lin. 28–54). Thus, the preserved text is an incantation miscellany or compendium tablet,503 with three units; although there may have been six textual units originally.504 In this regard, the obverse/ reverse arrangement becomes irrelevant, as it is based on inclusive arguments.

The other readable obverse part (lines 32–43) is an entreaty addressed first of all to the god Šapšu (lines 32–36), whose invocation will also close the section in a form of inclusion that enhances the significance of the deity faced with this kind of danger. Such preeminence is common in the anti-witchcraft literature from Mesopotamia (Šamaš)505 and was also encountered in KTU 1.82 (see supra p. 124). There follows a sort of litany in which the rest of the deities are invoked in pairs and in the order already laid out in KTU 1.100.506 The formula takes the form of a cliché prayer asking for the removal of the poison, thus implying that the person has already been affected by the snakebite, as the situation of šrġzz allows us to presume. The formula is in this case simpler than that of KTU 1.100, but its iterative character and function is the same.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.