Pagan and Christian Creeds [20]
that the partition took place of the body of the god,[3] which was then eaten-- the ceremony, in fact, of which our Eucharist is only a reflection; whereas in the mysteries of Bacchus actual raw flesh was distributed, which each of those present had to consume in commemoration of the death of Bacchus dismembered by the Titans, and whose passion, in Chios and Tenedos, was renewed each year by the sacrifice of a man who represented the god.[4] Possibly it is this last fact which made people believe that the Christians (whose hoc est corpus meum and sharing of an Eucharistic meal were no more than a shadow of a more ancient rite) did really sacrifice a child and devour its limbs."
[1] See Charles F. Dupuis, "Traite des Mysteres," ch. i.
[2] Pausan, Corinth, ch. 37.
[3] Clem, Prot. Eur. Bacch.
[4] See Porphyry, De Abstinentia, lii, Section 56.
That Eucharistic rites were very very ancient is plain from the Totem-sacraments of savages; and to this subject we shall now turn.
IV. TOTEM-SACRAMENTS AND EUCHARISTS
Much has been written on the origin of the Totem-system --the system, that is, of naming a tribe or a portion of a tribe (say a CLAN) after some ANIMAL--or sometimes--also after some plant or tree or Nature-element, like fire or rain or thunder; but at best the subject is a difficult one for us moderns to understand. A careful study has been made of it by Salamon Reinach in his Cultes, Mythes et Religions,[1] where he formulates his conclusions in twelve statements or definitions; but even so--though his suggestions are helpful--he throws very little light on the real origin of the system.[2]
[1] See English translation of certain chapters (published by David Nutt in 1912) entitled Cults, Myths and Religions, pp. 1-25. The French original is in three large volumes.
[2] The same may be said of the formulated statement of the subject in Morris Jastrow's Handbooks of the History of Religion, vol. iv.
There are three main difficulties. The first is to understand why primitive Man should name his Tribe after an animal or object of nature at all; the second, to understand on what principle he selected the particular name (a lion, a crocodile, a lady bird, a certain tree); the third, why he should make of the said totem a divinity, and pay honor and worship to it. It may be worth while to pause for a moment over these.
(1) The fact that the Tribe was one of the early things for which Man found it necessary to have a name is interesting, because it shows how early the solidarity and psychological actuality of the tribe was recognized; and as to the selection of a name from some animal or concrete object of Nature, that was inevitable, for the simple reason that there was nothing else for the savage to choose from. Plainly to call his tribe "The Wayfarers" or "The Pioneers" or the "Pacifists" or the "Invincibles," or by any of the thousand and one names which modern associations adopt, would have been impossible, since such abstract terms had little or no existence in his mind. And again to name it after an animal was the most obvious thing to do, simply because the animals were by far the most important features or accompaniments of his own life. As I am dealing in this book largely with certain psychological conditions of human evolution, it has to be pointed out that to primitive man the animal was the nearest and most closely related of all objects. Being of the same order of consciousness as himself, the animal appealed to him very closely as his mate and equal. He made with regard to it little or no distinction from himself. We see this very clearly in the case of children, who of course represent the savage mind, and who regard animals simply as their mates and equals, and come quickly into rapport with them, not differentiating themselves from them.
(2) As to the particular animal or other object selected in order to give a name to the Tribe, this would no doubt be largely accidental. Any unusual incident might superstitiously precipitate a name. We can hardly imagine the Tribe scratching
[1] See Charles F. Dupuis, "Traite des Mysteres," ch. i.
[2] Pausan, Corinth, ch. 37.
[3] Clem, Prot. Eur. Bacch.
[4] See Porphyry, De Abstinentia, lii, Section 56.
That Eucharistic rites were very very ancient is plain from the Totem-sacraments of savages; and to this subject we shall now turn.
IV. TOTEM-SACRAMENTS AND EUCHARISTS
Much has been written on the origin of the Totem-system --the system, that is, of naming a tribe or a portion of a tribe (say a CLAN) after some ANIMAL--or sometimes--also after some plant or tree or Nature-element, like fire or rain or thunder; but at best the subject is a difficult one for us moderns to understand. A careful study has been made of it by Salamon Reinach in his Cultes, Mythes et Religions,[1] where he formulates his conclusions in twelve statements or definitions; but even so--though his suggestions are helpful--he throws very little light on the real origin of the system.[2]
[1] See English translation of certain chapters (published by David Nutt in 1912) entitled Cults, Myths and Religions, pp. 1-25. The French original is in three large volumes.
[2] The same may be said of the formulated statement of the subject in Morris Jastrow's Handbooks of the History of Religion, vol. iv.
There are three main difficulties. The first is to understand why primitive Man should name his Tribe after an animal or object of nature at all; the second, to understand on what principle he selected the particular name (a lion, a crocodile, a lady bird, a certain tree); the third, why he should make of the said totem a divinity, and pay honor and worship to it. It may be worth while to pause for a moment over these.
(1) The fact that the Tribe was one of the early things for which Man found it necessary to have a name is interesting, because it shows how early the solidarity and psychological actuality of the tribe was recognized; and as to the selection of a name from some animal or concrete object of Nature, that was inevitable, for the simple reason that there was nothing else for the savage to choose from. Plainly to call his tribe "The Wayfarers" or "The Pioneers" or the "Pacifists" or the "Invincibles," or by any of the thousand and one names which modern associations adopt, would have been impossible, since such abstract terms had little or no existence in his mind. And again to name it after an animal was the most obvious thing to do, simply because the animals were by far the most important features or accompaniments of his own life. As I am dealing in this book largely with certain psychological conditions of human evolution, it has to be pointed out that to primitive man the animal was the nearest and most closely related of all objects. Being of the same order of consciousness as himself, the animal appealed to him very closely as his mate and equal. He made with regard to it little or no distinction from himself. We see this very clearly in the case of children, who of course represent the savage mind, and who regard animals simply as their mates and equals, and come quickly into rapport with them, not differentiating themselves from them.
(2) As to the particular animal or other object selected in order to give a name to the Tribe, this would no doubt be largely accidental. Any unusual incident might superstitiously precipitate a name. We can hardly imagine the Tribe scratching