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 its congregated head in the deliberate

effort to think out a suitable emblem for itself. That is

not the way in which nicknames are invented in a school

or anywhere else to-day. At the same time the heraldic

appeal of a certain object of nature, animate or inanimate,

would be deeply and widely felt. The strength of the lion,

the fleetness of the deer, the food-value of a bear, the

flight of a bird, the awful jaws of a crocodile, might easily

mesmerize a whole tribe. Reinach points out, with great

justice, that many tribes placed themselves under the

protection of animals which were supposed (rightly or

wrongly) to act as guides and augurs, foretelling the future.

"Diodorus," he says, "distinctly states that the hawk,

in Egypt, was venerated because it foretold the future."

[Birds generally act as weather-prophets.] "In Australia

and Samoa the kangaroo, the crow and the owl premonish

their fellow clansmen of events to come. At one time the

Samoan warriors went so far as to rear owls for their

prophetic qualities in war." [The jackal, or 'pathfinder'

--whose tracks sometimes lead to the remains of a food-

animal slain by a lion, and many birds and insects, have

a value of this kind.] "The use of animal totems for

purposes of augury is, in all likelihood, of great antiquity.

Men must soon have realized that the senses of animals

were acuter than their own; nor is it surprising that

they should have expected their totems--that is to say, their

natural allies--to forewarn them both of unsuspected

dangers and of those provisions of nature, WELLS especially,

which animals seem to scent by instinct."[1] And again,

beyond all this, I have little doubt that there are subconscious

affinities which unite certain tribes to certain animals

or plants, affinities whose origin we cannot now trace, though

they are very real--the same affinities that we recognize

as existing between individual PERSONS and certain

objects of nature. W. H. Hudson--himself in many

respects having this deep and primitive relation to nature--

speaks in a very interesting and autobiographical

volume[2] of the extraordinary fascination exercised upon

him as a boy, not only by a snake, but by certain trees,

and especially by a particular flowering-plant "not more

than a foot in height, with downy soft pale green leaves,

and clusters of reddish blossoms, something like valerian."

. . . "One of my sacred flowers," he calls it, and insists on

the "inexplicable attraction" which it had for him. In

various ways of this kind one can perceive how particular

totems came to be selected by particular peoples.

[1] See Reinach, Eng. trans., op. cit., pp. 20, 21.

[2] Far away and Long ago (1918) chs. xvi and xvii.

(3) As to the tendency to divinize these totems, this arises

no doubt partly out of question (2). The animal or

other object admired on account of its strength or swiftness,

or adopted as guardian of the tribe because of its keen

sight or prophetic quality, or infinitely prized on account

of its food-value, or felt for any other reason to have

a peculiar relation and affinity to the tribe, is by that

fact SET APART. It becomes taboo. It must not be

killed--except under necessity and by sanction of the whole

tribe--nor injured; and all dealings with it must be

fenced round with regulations. It is out of this taboo

or system of taboos that, according to Reinach, religion

arose. "I propose (he says) to define religion as: A

SUM OF SCRUPLES (TABOOS) WHICH IMPEDE THE FREE EXERCISE OF

OUR FACULTIES."[1] Obviously this definition is gravely

deficient, simply because it is purely negative, and leaves

out of account the positive aspect of the subject. In

Man, the positive content of religion is the instinctive

sense--whether conscious or subconscious--of an inner unity

and continuity with the world around. This is the stuff

out of which religion is made. The scruples or taboos

which "impede the freedom" of this relation are the

negative forces which give outline and form to the relation.

These are the things which generate the RITES AND CEREMONIALS

of religion; and as far as Reinach means by religion MERELY

rites and ceremonies he is correct; but clearly he only covers

half the subject. The tendency to divinize the totem

is at least as much dependent on the positive sense

of unity with it, as on the negative scruples which limit

the relation in each particular case. But I shall return to

this subject presently, and more than once, with the view of

clarifying it. Just now it will be best to illustrate the nature

of Totems generally, and in some detail.

[1] See Orpheus by S. Reinach, p. 3.

As would be gathered from what I have just said, there

is found among all the more primitive peoples, and in all

parts of the world, an immense variety of totem-names.

The Dinkas, for instance, are a rather intelligent well-grown

people inhabiting the upper reaches of the Nile in the

vicinity of the great swamps. According to Dr. Seligman

their clans have for totems the lion, the elephant,

the crocodile, the hippopotamus, the fox, and the hyena,

as well as certain birds which infest and damage the

corn, some plants and trees, and such things as rain,

fire, etc. "Each clan speaks of its totem as its ancestor,

and refrains [as a rule] from injuring or eating it."[1] The

members of the Crocodile clan call themselves "brothers of

the crocodile." The tribes of Bechuana-land have a very

similar list of totem-names--the buffalo, the fish, the

porcupine, the wild vine, etc. They too have a Crocodile

clan, but they call the crocodile their FATHER! The

tribes of Australia much the same again, with the differences

suitable to their country; and the Red Indians of

North America the same. Garcilasso, della Vega, the

Spanish historian, son of an Inca princess by one of the

Spanish conquerors of Peru and author of the well-known

book Commentarias Reales, says in that book (i, 57), speaking

of the pre-Inca period, "An Indian (of Peru) was not

considered honorable unless he was descended from a fountain,

river or lake, or even from the sea, or from a wild

animal, as a bear, lion, tiger, eagle, or the bird they call

cuntur (condor), or some other bird of prey."[2] According

to Lewis Morgan, the North American Indians of various

tribes had for totems the wolf, bear, beaver, turtle, deer,

snipe, heron, hawk, crane, loon, turkey, muskrat; pike, catfish,

carp; buffalo, elk, reindeer, eagle, hare, rabbit, snake;

reed-grass, sand, rock, and tobacco-plant.

[1] See The Golden Bough, vol. iv, p. 31.

[2] See Andrew Lang, Custom and Myth, p. 104, also Myth, Ritual

and Religion, vol. i, pp. 71, 76, etc.

So we might go on rather indefinitely. I need hardly

say that in more modern and civilized life, relics of the totem

system are still to be found in the forms of the heraldic

creatures adopted for their crests by different families,

and in the bears, lions, eagles, the sun, moon and stars

and so forth, which still adorn the flags and are flaunted

as the insignia of the various nations. The names may

not have been ORIGINALLY adopted from any definite belief

in blood-relationship with the animal or other object

in question; but when, as Robertson says (Pagan Christs,

p. 104), a "savage learned that he was 'a Bear' and that

his father and grandfather and forefathers were so before

him, it was really impossible, after ages in which totem-

names thus passed current, that he should fail to assume that

his folk were DESCENDED from a bear."

As a rule, as may be imagined, the savage tribesman

will on no account EAT his tribal totem-animal. Such

would naturally be deemed a kind of sacrilege. Also it

must be remarked that some totems are hardly suitable for

eating. Yet it is important to observe that occasionally,

and guarding the ceremony with great precautions, it

has been an almost universal custom for the tribal elders

to call a feast at which an animal (either the totem or

some other) IS killed and commonly eaten--and this in order

that the tribesmen may absorb some virtue belonging to

it, and may confirm their identity with the tribe and with

each other. The eating of the bear or other animal, the

sprinkling with its blood, and the general ritual in which

the participants shared its flesh, or dressed and disguised

themselves in its skin, or otherwise identified themselves

with it, was to them a symbol of their community of life with

each other, and a means of their renewal and

salvation in the holy emblem. And this custom, as the reader

will perceive, became the origin of the Eucharists and Holy

Communions of the later religions.

Professor Robertson-Smith's celebrated Camel affords an

instance of this.[1] It appears that St. Nilus (fifth century)

has left a detailed account of the occasional sacrifice in

his time of a spotless white camel among the Arabs of the

Sinai region, which closely resembles a totemic communion-

feast. The uncooked blood and flesh of the animal had to

be entirely consumed by the faithful before daybreak. "The

slaughter of the victim, the sacramental drinking of the

blood, and devouring in wild haste of the pieces of still

quivering flesh, recall the details of the Dionysiac and

other festivals."[2] Robertson-Smith himself says:--"The

plain meaning is that the victim was devoured before

its life had left the still warm blood and flesh . . . and

that thus in the most literal way, all those who shared in

the ceremony absorbed part of the victim's life into

themselves. One sees how much more forcibly than

any ordinary meal such a rite expresses the establishment

or confirmation of a bond of common life between the

worshipers, and also, since the blood is shed upon the

altar itself, between the worshipers and their god. In this

sacrifice, then, the significant factors are two: the

conveyance of the living blood to the godhead, and the

absorption of the living flesh and blood into the flesh and

blood of the worshippers. Each of these is effected in the

simplest and most direct manner, so that the meaning of the

ritual is perfectly transparent."

[1] See his Religion of the Semites, p. 320.

[2] They also recall the rites of the Passover--though in this

latter the blood was no longer drunk, nor the flesh eaten raw.

It seems strange, of course, that men should eat their

totems; and it must not by any means be supposed that

this practice is (or was) universal; but it undoubtedly

obtains in some cases. As Miss Harrison says (Themis,

p. 123); "you do not as a rule eat your relations," and as a

rule the eating of a totem is tabu and forbidden, but

(Miss Harrison continues) "at certain times and under certain

restrictions a man not only may, but MUST, eat of

his totem, though only sparingly, as of a thing sacrosanct."

The ceremonial carried out in a communal way by the tribe

not only identifies the tribe with the totem (animal), but

is held, according to early magical ideas, and when the

animal is desired for food, to favor its manipulation.

The human tribe partakes of the mana or life-force of the

animal, and is strengthened; the animal tribe is sympathetically

renewed by the ceremonial and multiplies exceedingly.

The slaughter of the sacred animal and (often) the

simultaneous outpouring of human blood seals the compact

and confirms the magic. This is well illustrated

by a ceremony of the 'Emu' tribe referred to by Dr.

Frazer:--

"In order to multiply Emus which are an important article

of food, the men of the Emu totem in the Arunta tribe proceed

as follows: They clear a small spot of level

ground, and opening veins in their arms they let the blood

stream out until the surface of the ground for a space of about

three square yards is soaked with it. When the blood

has dried and caked, it forms a hard and fairly impermeable

surface, on which they paint the sacred design

of the emu totem, especially the parts of the bird which

they like best to eat, namely, the fat and the eggs. Round

this painting the men sit and sing. Afterwards performers

wearing long head-dresses to represent the long neck and

small head of the emu, mimic the appearance of the bird

as it stands aimlessly peering about in all directions."[1]

[1] The Golden Bough i, 85--with reference to Spencer and

Gillen's Native Tribes of Central Australia, pp. 179, 189.

Thus blood sacrifice comes in; and--(whether this has

ever actually happened in the case of the Central Australians

I know not)--we can easily imagine a member of the Emu

tribe, and disguised as an actual emu, having been ceremonially

slaughtered as a firstfruits and promise of the expected

and prayed-for emu-crop; just as the same certainly

HAS happened in the case of men wearing beast-masks of Bulls or

Rams or Bears being sacrificed in propitiation

of Bull-gods, Ram-gods or Bear-gods or simply in pursuance

of some kind of magic to favor the multiplication of

these food-animals.

"In the light of totemistic ways of thinking we see plainly

enough the relation of man to food-animals. You need or

at least desire flesh food, yet you shrink from slaughtering

'your brother the ox'; you desire his mana, yet you respect

his tabu, for in you and him alike runs the common

life-blood. On your own individual responsibility you

would never kill him; but for the common weal, on great

occasions, and in a fashion conducted with scrupulous care, it

is expedient that he die for his people, and that they feast

upon his flesh."[1]

[1] Themis, p. 140.

In her little book Ancient Art and Ritual[1] Jane Harrison

describes the dedication of a holy Bull, as conducted in

Greece at Elis, and at Magnesia and other cities. "There

at the annual fair year by year the stewards of the city

bought a Bull 'the finest that could be got,' and at the

new moon of the month at the beginning of seed-time

[? April] they dedicated it for the city's welfare. . . . The

Bull was led in procession at the head of which went the

chief priest and priestess of the city. With them went a

herald and sacrificer, and two bands of youths and

maidens. So holy was the Bull that nothing unlucky

might come near him. The herald pronounced aloud a

prayer for 'the safety of the city and the land, and the

citizens, and the women and children, for peace and wealth,

and for the bringing forth of grain and all other fruits,

and of cattle.' All this longing for fertility, for food and

children, focuses round the holy Bull, whose holiness is

his strength and fruitfulness." The Bull is sacrificed.

The flesh is divided in solemn feast among those who take

part in the procession. "The holy flesh is not offered to

a god, it is eaten--to every man his portion--by each and

every citizen, that he may get his share of the strength of

the Bull, of the luck of the State." But at Athens the Bouphonia,

as it was called, was followed by a curious ceremony.

"The hide was stuffed with straw and sewed up, and

next the stuffed animal was set on its feet and yoked to

a plough as though it were ploughing. The Death is

followed by a Resurrection. Now this is all important.

We are accustomed to think of sacrifice as the death, the

giving up, the renouncing of something. But SACRIFICE

does not mean 'death' at all. It means MAKING HOLY,

sanctifying; and holiness was to primitive man just special

strength and life. What they wanted from the Bull was

just that special life and strength which all the year long

they had put into him, and nourished and fostered. That

life was in his blood. They could not eat that flesh nor

drink that blood unless they killed him. So he must

die. But it was not to give him up to the gods that they killed

him, not to 'sacrifice' him in our sense, but to have him,

keep him, eat him, live BY him and through him, by his

grace."

[1] Home University Library, p. 87.

We have already had to deal with instances of the

ceremonial eating of the sacred he-Lamb or Ram, immolated

in the Spring season of the year, and partaken of in a kind

of communal feast--not without reference (at any rate in

later times) to a supposed Lamb-god. Among the Ainos

in the North of Japan, as also among the Gilyaks in

Eastern Siberia, the Bear is the great food-animal, and

is worshipped as the supreme giver of health and strength.

There also a similar ritual of sacrifice occurs. A perfect

Bear is caught and caged. He is fed up and even

pampered to the day of his death. "Fish, brandy and

other delicacies are offered to him. Some of the people

prostrate themselves before him; his coming into a house

brings a blessing, and if he sniffs at the food that brings a

blessing too." Then he is led out and slain. A great feast

takes place, the flesh is divided, cupfuls of the blood are

drunk by the men; the tribe is united and strengthened, and

the Bear-god blesses the ceremony--the ideal Bear that has

given its life for the people.[1]

[1] See Art and Ritual, pp. 92-98; The Golden Bough, ii, 375

seq.; Themis, pp. 140, 141; etc.

That the eating of the flesh of an animal or a man conveys

to you some of the qualities, the life-force, the

mana, of that animal or man, is an idea which one often

meets with among primitive folk. Hence the common

tendency to eat enemy warriors slain in battle against

your tribe. By doing so you absorb some of their valor

and strength. Even the enemy scalps which an Apache

Indian might hang from his belt were something magical

to add to the Apache's power. As Gilbert Murray says,[1]

"you devoured the holy animal to get its mana, its swiftness,

its strength, its great endurance, just as the savage now

will eat his enemy's brain or heart or hands to get

some particular quality residing there." Even--as he explains

on the earlier page--mere CONTACT was often considered

sufficient--"we have holy pillars whose holiness consists

in the fact that they have been touched by the

blood of a bull." And in this connection we may note

that nearly all the Christian Churches have a great belief

in the virtue imparted by the mere 'laying on of hands.'

[1] Four Stages of Greek Religion, p. 36.

In quite a different connection--we read[1] that among the

Spartans a warrior-boy would often beg for the love of the

elder warrior whom he admired (i. e. the contact with

his body) in order to obtain in that way a portion of the

latter's courage and prowess. That through the mediation

of the lips one's spirit may be united to the spirit of another

person is an idea not unfamiliar to the modern mind; while

the exchange of blood, clothes, locks of hair, etc., by lovers

is a custom known all over the world.[2]

[1] Aelian VII, iii, 12: <gr autoi goun (oi paides) deontai twn

erastwn> <gr eispnein autois>. See also E. Bethe on "Die Dorische

Knabenliebe" in the Rheinisches Museum, vol. 26, iii, 461.

[2] See Crawley's Mystic Rose, pp. 238, 242.

To suppose that by eating another you absorb his or her

soul is somewhat naive certainly. Perhaps it IS more native,

more primitive. Yet there may be SOME truth even

in that idea. Certainly the food that one eats has a

psychological effect, and the flesh-eaters among the human

race have a different temperament as a rule from

the fruit and vegetable eaters, while among the animals

(though other causes may come in here) the Carnivora

are decidedly more cruel and less gentle than the Herbivora.

To return to the rites of Dionysus, Gilbert Murray, speaking

of Orphism--a great wave of religious reform which

swept over Greece and South Italy in the sixth century

B.C.--says:[1] "A curious relic of primitive superstition

and cruelty remained firmly imbedded in Orphism,

a doctrine irrational and unintelligible, and for that very

reason wrapped in the deepest and most sacred mystery: a belief

in the SACRIFICE OF DIONYSUS HIMSELF, AND THE PURIFICATION OF MAN

BY HIS BLOOD. It seems possible that the savage

Thracians, in the fury of their worship on the mountains,

when they were possessed by the god and became

'wild beasts,' actually tore with their teeth and hands

any hares, goats, fawns or the like that they came

across. . . . The Orphic congregations of later times, in

their most holy gatherings, solemnly partook of the blood

of a bull, which was by a mystery the blood of Dionysus-

Zagreus himself, the Bull of God, slain in sacrifice for the

purification of man."[2]

[1] See Notes to his translation of the Bacch<ae> of Euripides.

[2] For a description of this orgy see Theocritus, Idyll xxvi;

also for explanations of it, Lang's Myth, Ritual and Religion,

vol. ii, pp, 241-260, on Dionysus. The Encyclop<ae>dia Brit.,

article "Orpheus," says:--"Orpheus, in the manner of his death,

was considered to personate the god Dionysus, and was thus

representative of the god torn to pieces every year--a ceremony

enacted by the Bacchae in the earliest times with a human victim,

and afterwards with a bull, to represent the bull-formed god. A

distinct feature of this ritual was <gr wmofagia> (eating the

flesh of the victim raw), whereby the communicants imagined that

they consumed and assimilated the god represented by the victim,

and thus became filled with the divine ecstasy." Compare also the

Hindu doctrine of Praj<pati, the dismembered Lord of Creation.

Such instances of early communal feasts, which fulfilled

the double part of confirming on the one hand the solidarity

of the tribe, and on the other of bringing the tribe, by

the shedding of the blood of a divine Victim into close

relationship with the very source of its life, are plentiful

to find. "The sacramental rite," says Professor Robertson-

Smith,[1] "is also an atoning rite, which brings the community

again into harmony with its alienated god--atonement

being simply an act of communion designed to

wipe out all memory of previous estrangement." With

this subject I shall deal more specially in chapter vii below.

Meanwhile as instances of early Eucharists we may mention

the following cases, remembering always that as the blood

is regarded as the Life, the drinking or partaking of, or

sprinkling with, blood is always an acknowledgment of the

common life; and that the juice of the grape being regarded

as the blood of the Vine, wine in the later ceremonials quite

easily and naturally takes the place of the blood in the early

sacrifices.

[1] Religion of the Semites, p. 302.

Thus P. Andrada La Crozius, a French missionary,

and one of the first Christians who went to Nepaul and

Thibet, says in his History of India: "Their Grand Lama

celebrates a species of sacrifice with BREAD and WINE, in which,

after taking a small quantity himself, he distributes

the rest among the Lamas present at this ceremony."[1]

"The old Egyptians celebrated the resurrection of Osiris by

a sacrament, eating the sacred cake or wafer after it

had been consecrated by the priest, and thereby becoming

veritable flesh of his flesh."[2] As is well known, the eating

of bread or dough sacramentally (sometimes mixed with

blood or seed) as an emblem of community of life with the

divinity, is an extremely ancient practice or ritual. Dr.

Frazer[3] says of the Aztecs, that "twice a year, in May

and December, an image of the great god Huitzilopochtli

was made of dough, then broken in pieces and solemnly

eaten by his worshipers." And Lord Kingsborough in his

Mexican Antiquities (vol. vi, p. 220) gives a record of a

"most Holy Supper" in which these people ate the flesh of

their god. It was a cake made of certain seeds, "and having

made it, they blessed it in their manner, and broke it into

pieces, which the high priest put into certain very clean

vessels, and took a thorn of maguey which resembles a

very thick needle, with which he took up with the

utmost reverence single morsels, which he put into the

mouth of each individual in the manner of a communion."

Acostas[4] confirms this and similar accounts. The

Peruvians partook of a sacrament consisting of a pudding

of coarsely ground maize, of which a portion had been

smeared on the idol. The priest sprinkled it with the

blood of the victim before distributing it to the people."

Priest and people then all took their shares in turn,

"with great care that no particle should be allowed to

fall to the ground--this being looked upon as a great

sin."[5]

[1] See Doane's Bible Myths, p. 306.

[2] From The Great Law, of religious origins: by W. Williamson

(1899), p. 177.

[3] The Golden Bough, vol. ii, p. 79.

[4] Natural and Moral History of the Indies. London (1604).

[5] See Markham's Rites and laws of the Incas, p. 27.

Moving from Peru to China (instead of 'from China

to Peru') we find that "the Chinese pour wine (a very

general substitute for blood) on a straw image of Confucius,

and then all present drink of it, and taste the sacrificial

victim, in order to participate in the grace of Confucius."

[Here again the Corn and Wine are blended in one rite.]

And of Tartary Father Grueber thus testifies: "This only

I do affirm, that the devil so mimics the Catholic Church

there, that although no European or Christian has ever been

there, still in all essential things they agree so completely

with the Roman Church, as even to celebrate the

Host with bread and wine: with my own eyes I have seen

it."[1] These few instances are sufficient to show the

extraordinarily wide diffusion of Totem-sacraments and

Eucharistic rites all over the world.

[1] For these two quotations see Jevons' Introduction to the

History of Religion, pp. 148 and 219.