Siegmund Hurwitz

 

 

Lilith – The First Eve

 

Historical and Psychological Aspects of the Dark Feminine

 

 

With a Foreword by Marie-Louise von Franz

 

 

 

 

DAIMON

VERLAG

 

This English language edition of the original work, Lilith – die erste Eva, eine Studie über dunkle Aspekte des Weiblichen by Siegmund Hurwitz, first published in Zurich, Switzerland, in 1980 by Daimon Verlag, was expanded and updated by the author, edited by Robert Hinshaw and translated by Gela Jacobson.

 

 

© 2020, 1999, 1992 Daimon Verlag, Einsiedeln, Switzerland.

 

All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without the written permission from the publisher.

 

ISBN 978-3-85630-900-8

 

Cover design by Hanspeter Kälin

 

Contents

Preface to the English Edition

Foreword by Marie-Louise von Franz

Introduction

 Part I: Historico-Religious Section – The Myth and its History

1) The Dual Aspect of Lilith

a) The Lamashtû Aspect

b) The Ishtar Aspect of Lilith

2) The Arslan Tash Inscriptions and the Burney Relief

a) Arslan Tash I

b) Arslan Tash II

c) The Burney Relief

3) Lilith in the Bible and Talmud

4) The Aramaic Magic Texts

5) Lilith in Gnosticism

6) Pseudepigraphic Writings

a) The Testament of Solomon: Obyzouth

b) The Alphabet of ben Sira

c) The Book of Raziel

7) Lilith in Folk Legend

8) Lilith in Arabic Literature: the Karina

9) Lilith in the Kabbalah: Lilith and Samael

10) Amulets against Lilith

Part II: Psychological Section – On the Psychology of the Lilith Myth

1) The First Encounter: The Lilith Dream

2) Lilith and Saturn: Melancholy

3) Lilith and Adam: The Power Struggle

4) Fear and Fascination

5) The Second Encounter: An Active Imagination

Psychologo-Religious Reflections

Bibliography

Abbreviations

 

 

For my granddaughter Ruth Lena

 

Preface to the English Edition

Many people have suggested to me that I should make my German-language study available to English-speaking readers who have an interest in psychology. I am all the more happy to fulfill this wish, since it gives me the opportunity to make a number of corrections and amplifications.

This present work is based in the main on the first German edition, published in 1980, and its second edition, which appeared in 1983. Since then, several works have been published which deal with the same subject, either in depth or in passing. With just a few exceptions, these were by female psychologists, who clearly find this subject particularly attractive.

I would like to take this opportunity to refer to two factors with which these women writers are confronted. First, not a single one of them has any knowledge of Hebrew – an absolute requirement for an accurate textual interpretation. Scientific research lays a quite special responsibility on the author: it demands a conscientious study of source material in the original. This is also true for so-called interdisciplinary research, though with certain qualifications. In such cases, the occasional use of secondary literature cannot be avoided. But even in this instance, the researcher is obliged to take great care to apply only scientific material that can stand up to stiff criticism. If this requirement is disregarded, the danger arises that what is found in the texts will be just what was projected into them at an earlier stage.

A second factor which seems to me just as important is that the source material under discussion originates without exception from men and is intended for male readers. Judaism has encountered female writers who deal with Judaic research only within the last decade. It must be presumed, therefore, that our material reflects patriarchal-masculine psychology first and foremost; i.e., it is above all about the anima problem of the Jewish male. And it is precisely this point that is almost completely overlooked in the various studies. What corresponds to the inner anima image only applies externally to the real woman in a secondary fashion.

The chapter on “The Alphabet of ben Sira,” in particular, has undergone changes, in that another version of the text has been used which has proved to be more accurate as a result of new findings. The corresponding chapter on the power struggle between Adam and Lilith has also been revised, in the light of my studies of recent works on the subject.

My thanks go above all to the publisher, Dr. Robert Hinshaw, who went to great effort to make this publication possible. I also wish to thank the translator, Mrs. Gela Jacobson, who has not only kept as faithfully as possible to the wording in translating this often difficult text into idiomatic English, but has also succeeded in conveying the meaning behind it.

Finally, I would like to thank the Linda Fierz Foundation for its financial assistance, without which this English-language edition would not have been possible.

 

S.H.

 

Foreword by Marie-Louise von Franz

Although nowadays the call for interdisciplinary scientific study rings out constantly, it is seldom heeded, simply because it is difficult to show oneself competent in more than one field. In the case of the goddess Lilith, this has created additional difficulties because Lilith has become a theme in the feminist–anti-feminist discussion. The result is that psychological studies, when they consider historical material, often suffer from an inability to portray it seriously. And when historians venture psychological interpretations, these rarely go beyond the trivial. Thus, the contribution of Siegmund Hurwitz strikes me as particularly valuable in that he has done justice to the claims of both disciplines. His psychological interpretation of the dreams and active imaginations of a depressive man probes the depths and his portrayal of Lilith as an ancient mythological illustration of the negative anima – in short, as a corrupter of men – is competent and thorough. By combining the experience of a modern man with this historical material, Siegmund Hurwitz sheds new light on both. That is the point of the Jungian amplification method.

That an unbridled life urge which refuses to be assimilated lies hidden behind depression – that “Saturnian melancholy,” as it was called in earlier times – seems to me to be a new and important discovery. Siegmund Hurwitz has not only demonstrated this among much else but has also illuminated the manner in which a man can handle his “inner Lilith” so as to find his way out of the Saturnian melancholy.

This book presents us with a gift not only in its new discoveries, but also in providing a means of coping with them.

 

 

First pictorial representation of Lilith
Terra-cotta relief from Sumer c. 1950 B.C.
© Trustees of the British Museum

 

Illustration 1.
A carved ivory lady (perhaps a cult woman) at her window;
© Trustees of the British Museum

 

Illustration 2: Silver amulet from Kurdistan.

 

Translation: Top outer row: 42-letter name (27 letters)

Lower outer row: 42-letter name (15 letters),

in the name of Shaddai, Trigrammaton.

Inner Panel, Line 1. Lilith

2. Aviti, Abizu

3. Amrusu, Hakash, Odem

4. Ik, Pudu, Ayil, Matruta

5. Avgu, Kish, Shatrugah, Kali.

 

Illustration 3: Amulet for protection against Lilith,

 

Persia, 18th century.

A Lilith bound in fetters is depicted with outstretched arms, and on her body is written: “Protect this newborn child from all harm.” On either side of her are the names of Adam, Eve, the patriarchs and matriarchs, and above are the initial letters of a passage from numbers 6:22-27, and below from Psalms 121.

[G. Scholem: Kabbalah, pag. 360]

 

Illustration 4: Protective amulet.

 

The first illustration of the three angels, Sanvai, Sansanvai and Semanglof, sent to bring back Lilith, who had fled from Adam to the shores of the Red Sea, where she was associating with the demons infesting those waters. Lilith refused to return until later so compelled by Elijah the Prophet, whose authority as Sandalphon the Archangel could not be denied. She was forced to accept that the inscription of these three angels’ names at childbed would protect against her evil designs. The injunction remains valid to this day and the three names often appear on such amulets designed to protect women at childbirth.

(from T. Schrire: Hebrew Amulets. London, 1966, p. 118).

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

This study represents a considerably expanded version of an original short monograph on the Lilith motif in Jewish tradition, which originated as a result of a dream image of one of my analysands. The study expanded more and more in the course of time, through consultation with parallel comparative material. From these analytical conversations, it emerged that this figure could not be a form from the world of the dreamer’s consciousness but that it exists as a widespread mythological motif. However, this led to the question of whether the myth is still living – and, should this be the case, what kind of meaning it has for people today.

In view of the scientific nature of this study, it proved necessary to add a corresponding scientific apparatus. This called for a series of studies of complex problems and controversies from the fields of archaeology, Assyriology, epigraphy, Gnosticism, etc. into which this subject had unexpectedly drawn me.

A further difficulty arose from the way in which the question should be formulated. Because a psychologo-religious study was concerned, the available material from mythology, the history of religion, legend, folklore, etc. had to be examined from both the historical and the psychological standpoint. As a result, a certain danger arose that the reader who was chiefly interested in psychology might make the charge that the study was overweighted with historico-religious material. On the other hand, the religious historian might possibly take a sceptical view of the psychological interpretation of the material or even reject it – and perhaps suspect me of psychologism.

It is difficult if not impossible to stay out of this dilemma completely. All the same, the present study is concerned to do equal justice to both points of view. That is why, in the historico-religious section, all the historical material is examined and an historical commentary is appended in each case. In the psychological section, an attempt is made to demonstrate some psychological aspects of the problem. The present-day importance of the Lilith myth is emphasized by the fact that, in this connection, two spontaneous manifestations from the unconscious of a modern man in which Lilith appears are presented and commented on.

The Lilith motif has received a whole series of literary and pictorial depictions, e.g., – to cite but a few – by Guillaume Apollinaire, Robert Browning, Arthur Collier, Marie Corelli, Gustave Flaubert, Anatole France, John Erskine, Richard Garnett, Victor Hugo, Isolde Kurz, Maurice Magre, John Milton, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, George Bernard Shaw, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette and Joseph Viktor Widmann.1 These have not been considered in this survey because I have restricted myself to the mythological and psychological aspects of the problem. In addition, the above-mentioned authors dealt with only one aspect of the Lilith motif in every case, as it were: namely, Lilith in her relations with men, i.e., that side that C.G. Jung’s psychology usually designates as the anima.2 All the other characteristics that Lilith possesses – in legend and folklore, in particular – fail to appear here. In the first place, this must be connected with the fact that, with the exception of Isolde Kurz, all the above-mentioned writers are men, on whom this aspect of Lilith naturally makes a special impression.

Apart from a short historical survey in an article by Gershom Scholem,3 a thorough and comprehensive scientific account of this subject has been lacking until now. A psychological interpretation did not exist until this present study appeared. Since then, numerous studies have tried to examine the subject from the woman’s point of view, in particular. A series of articles on the subject from the astrological side tried to interpret Lilith, “la lune noire,” from this angle. Based on observations made by certain astrologers, Alfred Fankhauser4 had already advanced the assertion that, besides the moon, the earth has another satellite called Lilith. He refers to A. Jenik5 and to a German astrologer named Walthemath, who is alleged to have observed and described this satellite of the earth’s. In addition, he mentions an astronomer, M. Gama, who is supposed to have claimed that Lilith’s effects on men are of a highly destructive nature – she causes a certain bestiality and sadism in men whose horoscope is characterized by a dominant Lilith. Fankhauser also refers to a little-known “occult teaching,” according to which Lilith’s monsters are those who came into being as a result of the “interbreeding of the primeval sons of the gods with animals from the foreworld, i.e., the earliest stages of animal life.”

Similar speculations were made by some French astrologers. Thus, J. Desmoulins and R. Ambelain start out from the allegedly secure hypothesis that Lilith is the second satellite of the earth. Referring to a certain “Docteur Wynn Westcott, particulièrement versé en Kabbale” and also to a writer with the mysterious name of “Sépharial,” they assert that Lilith “favorisera le libertinage, les contes gaillards, les conversations perverses” as well as “un certain amoralisme.”6 Other astrologers such as J. de Gravelaine and J. Aimé at least acknowledge that “L’étude de la Lune Noire se trouvant encore à un stade de recherche, il est prématuré d’affirmer des rapports précis entre les diverses déesses de la mythologie grecque.”7

I do not wish to enter here into the controversial question of the scientific nature of modern astrology. It seems to be reasonably certain that astrology is not simply a question of an antiquated superstition. As I have been assured by reliable astronomical sources, in the meantime, the existence of a second satellite of the earth can be ruled out with absolute certainty. In this case, the astrologers’ speculations clearly represent projections of their spiritual activities into cosmic space, just as, in their day, the alchemists projected their unconscious spiritual contents into the darkness of matter which was unknown to them. Therefore, neither the opinions of the above-mentioned astrologers nor those of the alchemists have any scientific worth. Nevertheless, they do present interesting testimony of the spiritual processes of their authors.8

Certain psychological studies are considerably more serious than the above-mentioned works.

However, the framework of this present study would be exceeded if I were to take a detailed critical look at all these subjects. So I will give only a quick overview of the work that has appeared since the first edition of this book. I cannot avoid going into somewhat greater detail, though, in the case of certain controversial opinions.

Mention must be made of a short article by Ean Begg,9 based on a seminar given in the Analytical Psychology Club, London. The author tries to uncover connections between Lilith and the black mother goddess. There are no new, original ideas; the author bases himself above all on the work of Sylvia Brinton Perera10 and Raphael Patai,11 as well as on my own study.

Two diploma theses have appeared from the C.G. Jung Institute, Küsnacht, which, among other topics, also deal with the figure of Lilith. They both share the same point of departure – namely, the problem of evil or the demonic and man’s attitude toward this question. In her chapter on Lilith, Anne Lewandowski12 uses as her primary source the original manuscript of this present study. Ethel Vogelsang13 deals exclusively with the section of the Lilith myth as it is described in the “Midrash of ben Sira.” A further dissertation from the Institute of Applied Psychology in Zurich has been submitted by Christine Lenherr-Baumgartner.14

Barbara Black-Koltuv’s15 attempt to investigate and interpret the Lilith myth strikes me as rather a failure. Analysts of the Jungian school are not infrequently reproached for carelessness in their pulling together of historical, mythological and ethnological material for the purpose of amplification, in that they tend to find things in texts that they themselves had earlier projected into them. This criticism can well be applied to Koltuv’s text. Like her predecessors, the writer in question has knowledge of neither Hebrew nor Aramaic. As a result, she is forced to rely exclusively on secondary literature. To the extent that these sources are reliable, there would be no objections to such a procedure.

The main source used by Koltuv is the Zohar, in the fragmentary and controversial translation by Harry Sperling and Maurice Simon. Due to the author’s one-sided anthroposophic viewpoint, E. Müller’s unusable translation is also employed. The fundamentally older Midrash, “The Alphabet of ben Sira,” is presented in an extremely inaccurate translation. A substantial part of the book consists of personal poems, fantasies and so-called “research” by contemporary women, which at best testify to the personal psychology of their authors. In addition, the detailed bibliography does not list any of the works on this subject that had been previously published, giving the impression that this is the very first publication on the subject. All of these objections lead to the conclusion that this study is scientifically irrelevant.

The present study intentionally does not address the motif of “Lilith and the Queen of Sheba” because this has already been covered in a monograph by Scholem.16 However, two further writers – Rolf Beyer17 and W. Daum18 – have also dealt with this subject recently. In her contribution to Daum’s book, A. Klein-Franke19 presented a large amount of hitherto practically unknown Yemeni material. Patai’s20 book, which has already been mentioned, contains a long chapter on Lilith, which takes a quite general look at the problem of the feminine in Judaism. As this work and my study are partly based on the same source material, a certain amount of overlapping – especially in the chapter on Lilith in Jewish mysticism – cannot always be avoided. But both the point of departure and the objective of the two studies are completely different. While Patai approaches the Lilith motif exclusively from the historico-religious viewpoint, I am less concerned with uncovering new historical connections and relations than with uncovering the collective, archetypical background to this myth and bringing out the psychological consequences for modern man which result from this view.

The historical section of this study is based mainly on the results of Scholem’s modern, historico-religious investigations, while the psychological section is indebted to Jung’s analytical psychology, especially his teachings on the structural elements of the psyche, the Archetypes. Accordingly, a certain knowledge of Jung’s psychology is a prerequisite, especially in connection with the psychological section of the study, and in particular as regards the interpretation of the two encounters with Lilith.

From time to time, the material from comparative religious history and from parallel myths, legends and folklore which has been consulted in order to interpret the dreams, and especially the Lilith myth, may seem somewhat farfetched. It should be pointed out, though, that the work of Jung and his followers furnished the proof that the so-called amplification method – in contrast to the free association method employed by Freud – is particularly suited to illuminating and clarifying dreams which are difficult to interpret so that they become psychologically comprehensible. However, what is valid in the individual sphere, namely for the dream of one single individual, is also valid for the collective contents of the unconscious, which are expressed in myths, fairy tales and legends, etc. Just as the dream of an individual can be described as his individual myth, so the myth of a whole people can be described to a certain extent as the dream of this collective.21

This method of amplification elaborated by Jung and further developed by his followers,22 which draws on parallel comparative material from general religious history, comparative mythological research, archaeology, prehistory, ethnology and other sciences, is particularly suited to providing an in-depth understanding of Archetypes and the archetypical images in which these manifest themselves. Consequently, according to Jung, it is chiefly

“… appropriate when dealing with some obscure experience which is so vaguely adumbrated that it must be enlarged and expanded by being set in a psychological context in order to be understood at all.”23

But certain dangers exist in the amplification method, just as they do in Freud’s free association method: one such danger consists in the possibility that, through an infinitely continued amplification or association, the connection with the point of departure could finally be lost. That is why Erich Neumann24 was right to point out that the amplification should always be followed by a kind of actualization, by means of which a reference can be made to the point of departure. Similarly, just as cult and ritual provide a re-experiencing of a single, historical situation, so the personal element is brought into contact with the archetypical background through the actualization of the amplification. At the same time, it isn’t enough that the material gained through amplification should be understood exclusively on an intellectual level. It should also be experienced emotionally and comprehensively.

My most grateful thanks go to my late friend Prof. Gershom Scholem, Jerusalem, for checking and correcting the historical section of this study, as well as for numerous pieces of advice, both verbal and written. I would also like to thank Dr. Marie-Louise von Franz, Küsnacht, for correcting the manuscript and also for her willingness to write a foreword to this study. My thanks to Prof. Joseph Naveh, Jerusalem, for his comments on the Arslan Tash Inscriptions, to Rabbi Dr. Jacob Teichmann, Zurich, for his help in translating the passages from the Zohar, and to Dr. Robert Hinshaw for his editorial work.

 

 

 

 

---

 

 Part I:
Historico-Religious Section
– The Myth and its History

 

 

 

 

May the eye not be turned to the outside

lest it simultaneously drive out the images.

Sister Elsbet Stagel of the Töss Monastery

(14th Century)