Folk-Lore/Volume 15/Notes on Miss Freer's Paper
Notes on Miss Freer’s Paper.
It is a somewhat dangerous procedure to call religious ceremonies “superstitions,” for then there will be no possible definition for “superstition.” The outgrowth from or beyond the regular form of worship and the addition of principles not recognised by the ruling faith would appear to me to cover the ground, if we carefully abstain from confusing the one with the other. The so-called worship of the moon (p. 187) is an example in point. There is not the remotest connection between the regular form of prayer to God as Creator of the moon and “superstition,” for He is praised as in every other case and as on many other occasions. The renewal of the moon at the end of its evolution and complete disappearance is taken as an occasion for uttering a prayer, which is not by a single word directed to the moon. It must be remembered that the revolution of the moon is the basis of the religious calendar, hence the immense importance attached to its appearance and to the exact notation of that period. Connected with this calendaristic importance is the mystical Messianic idea; hence the verse "David Liveth." I can not enter into a detailed discussion of this complicated question, beyond that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "superstition," and it does not contain a single item of superstitious belief or practice.
The change of the name of a patient is part of the general system of ascribing the most potent value to a name. Readers of Folk-Lore have had the opportunity of studying the extremely suggestive article by Mr. Clodd on Rumpelstiltzchen, and on the mystical and symbolical value attached to names. The same idea is expressed in the change of the name of the patient, which is equivalent to a re-birth, and is expected to save the patient by endowing him with a new life-entity, not by deceiving the evil spirit who is his enemy.
The ceremony described as an "exorcism" is merely a "propitiation" or "disenchantment," for it does not drive out any malignant spirit. Nor can the person who pronounces the "disenchantment" formula be called a "witch," for she does not refer in her practice to any connection with the "Evil Ones."[1]
The Evil Eye formula is borrowed from the Arabs. Miss Freer has evidently taken it from the Jews who came from Yemen some thirty years ago after a terrible persecution they suffered at the hands of the Arabs when occupying Sanaa after their fight against the Turks. An absolutely identical formula has been published by me from Rumanian sources, which prove the extreme antiquity of this special form of "disenchantment." It occurs also with slight variations in Assyrian tablets, and has been published by Lenormant and since then often by others.
The reference to Joseph in the amulet has a history of its own. It rests ultimately on the combination of two separate sets of ideas. In the blessing of Jacob (Genesis xlviii. 16), according to an old traditional interpretation of the Hebrew words, the translation reads, not as in the Authorised or Revised, "let them grow into a multitude," speaking of Joseph's children, but "let them multiply like the fishes," and it is further asserted that the evil eye has no power over the fishes, for they are protected by the sheen of the water. In every case where the effect of the evil eye is to be averted Joseph and this blessing are invoked, with the hope that the same result may happen now also to the afflicted one. It is a case of symbolical substitution.
The "hand" is an universal Oriental and Occidental sign for averting the influence of the evil eye (v. Jahn and Elworthy). The protection of a woman in childbirth against the attacks of Lilith and the formulas used on that occasion have been fully treated by me in the "Charm of Two Thousand Years," published in Folk-Lore vol. xi., pp. 129.
- ↑ [It is not expressly stated who are the "My Lords" whom the witch addresses, but their nature may be inferred from the prohibition to pray, mention holy names, or recite Scripture. To serve other gods is of the very essence of the witch's craft, so that Miss Goodrich Freer's terminology here seems perfectly correct. But Dr. Gaster's criticism of her application of the word "exorcism" to the ceremony seems justified. Exorcism is the banishment of spirits by the power of other mightier spirits; the ceremony in question consists merely of prayer to, and propitiation of, the haunting spirits themselves.—Ed.]