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 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.
(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,
(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--w ether 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
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 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
"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 Thus blood sacrifice comes in; and--(whether this has ever actually happened in the case of the Central Australians
In her little book Ancient Art and Ritual 2 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,
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 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, 2 "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 ere 'laying on of hands.' In quite a different connection--we read 3 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
To suppose that by eating another you absorb his or her soul is somewhat naïve 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: 2 "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." 3
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." 2
Moving from Peru to China (instead of 'from China to Peru') we find that "the Chinese pour wine (a very
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.
54:1 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. 54:2 The same may be said of the formulated statement of the subject in Morris Jastrow's Handbooks of the History of Religion, vol. iv. 56:1 See Reinach, Eng. trans., op. cit., pp. 20, 21. 56:2 Far away and Long ago (1918) chs. xvi and xvii. 57:1 See Orpheus by S. Reinach, p. 3. 58:1 See The Golden Bough, vol. iv, p. 31. 58:2 See Andrew Lang, Custom and Myth, p. 104, also Myth, Ritual and Religion, vol. i, pp. 71, 76, etc. 60:1 See his Religion of the Semites, p. 320. 60:2 They also recall the rites of the Passover--though in this latter the blood was no longer drunk, nor the flesh eaten raw. 61:1 The Golden Bough i, 85--with reference to Spencer and Gillen's Native Tribes of Central Australia, pp. 179, 189. 62:1 Themis, p. 140. 62:2 Home University Library, p. 87. 64:1 See Art and Ritual, pp. 92-98; The Golden Bough, ii, 375 seq.; Themis, pp. 140, 141; etc. 64:2 Four Stages of Greek Religion, p. 36. 64:3 Aelian VII, iii, 12: αὐτοῖ γοῦν (οἱ παῖδες) δέονται τῶν ἐραστῶν εἰσπνεῖν αὐτοῖς. See also E. Bethe on "Die Dorische Knabenliebe" in the Rheinisches Museum, vol. 26, iii, 461. 65:1 See Crawley's Mystic Rose, pp. 238, 242. 65:2 See Notes to his translation of the Bacchæ of Euripides. 65:3 For a description of this orgy see Theocritus, Idyll xxvi; also 66:1 Religion of the Semites, p. 302. 66:2 See Doane's Bible Myths, p. 306. 67:1 From The Great Law, of religious origins: by W. Williamson (1899), p. 177. 67:2 The Golden Bough, vol. ii, p. 79. 67:3 Natural and Moral History of the Indies. London (1604). 67:4 See Markham's Rites and laws of the Incas, p. 27. 68:1 For these two quotations see Jevons' Introduction to the History of Religion, pp. 148 and 219.TOTEM-SACRAMENTS AND EUCHARISTS
Footnotes