Page:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu/1028

Rh stoned, beaten to death or shot, torn in pieces, drowned or buried, burned to death or hung, thrown down a precipice, strangled or squeezed to death. The sacrificer may aim at causing a speedy death or a slow one. The corpse may be burnt, in part or as a whole; portions may be assigned to the priest, the sacriflcer and the gods; the skull, bones, &c., may receive special treatment; the fat or blood may be set aside, and they or the ashes may be singled out as the share of the god, to be offered upon the altar; the skin of the victim may be employed as a covering for the idol or material representative of the god, either permanently or till the next annual sacrifice. The blood of the victim may be drunk by the priest as a means of inducing inspiration, its entrails may be employed in divination, its flesh consumed in a common meal, exposed to the birds and beasts of prey or buried in the earth.

It is equally impossible to give a general survey of the purposes of sacrifice; not only are they too numerous but it is rare to find any but mixed forms; the scapegoat, for example, is also a messenger to the dead, and its flesh is eaten by the sacrificers. Certain main types may, however, be enumerated.

Cathartic Sacrifice.—In primitive cults the distinction between sacred and unclean is far from complete or well defined (see ); consequently we find two types of cathartic sacrifice—(i.) one to cleanse of impurity and make fit for common use, (ii.) the other to rid of sanctity and in like manner render suitable for human use or intercourse.

(i.) The most conspicuous example of the first class is the scapegoat. Two goats were provided by the ancient Hebrews on the Day of Atonement; the high priest sent one into the desert, after confessing on it the sins of Israel; it was not permitted to run free but was probably cast over a precipice; the other was sacrificed as a sin-offering. In like manner in the purification of lepers two birds were used; the throat of one was cut, the living bird dipped in the blood mingled with water and the leper sprinkled; then the bird was set free to carry away the leprosy. In both these rites we seem to have a duplication of ritual, and the parallelism of sacrifice and liberation is clear.

(ii.) As an example of the second class may be taken the sacrifice of the bull to Rudra. MM. Hubert and Mauss interpret this to mean that the sanctity of the remainder of the herd was concentrated on a single animal; the god, incarnate in the herd, was eliminated by the sacrifice, and the cattle saved from the dangers to which their association with the god exposed them. In the Feast of Firstfruits we have another example of the same sort; comparable with this concentration of holiness is the respect or veneration shown to a single animal as representative of its species (see ). In both these cases the object of the rite is the elimination of impurity or of a source of danger. But the Nazarite was equally bound to lay aside his holiness before mixing with common folk and returning to ordinary life; this he did by a sacrifice, which, with the offering of his hair upon the altar, freed him from his vow and reduced him to the same level of sanctity as ordinary men.

With regard to the scapegoat, it must be noted that we also meet with a more concrete idea of expulsion of evil (see, ), which is present among the most primitive peoples, such as the Australians. This raises the problem of how far the catharsis dealt with above is in its original form an elimination of impurity, and how far something more definite—a spirit or other principle of evil—is held to be expelled by scapegoat and allied ceremonies.

Communal Sacrifice.—In spite of the importance attached to the idea of the common meal by Robertson Smith, it is not a primitive rite of adoption. The custom of eating the body of the victim does not necessarily spring from any idea of communion with the god; it may also arise from a desire to incorporate the sanctity which has been imparted to it—an idea on a level with many other food customs (see ), and based on the idea that eating anything causes its qualities to pass into the eater. Where the victim is an animal specially associated with a god (the most conspicuous case is perhaps that of the corn spirit), it may be granted that the god is eaten; but precisely in these cases there is no custom of giving a portion of the victim to the god.

Deificatory Sacrifice.—The object of certain sacrifices is to provide a tutelary deity of a house, town or frontier. (a) In Burma, as in many other countries, those who die a violent death are held to haunt the place where they met their fate; consequently when a town is built living men are interred beneath the ramparts and the pillars of the gates. (b) In parts of North America the nagual or manitu animal, of which the Indian dreams during the initiation fast and which is to be his tutelary spirit, is killed with certain rites. (c) Human representatives of the corn or vegetation spirits are killed; in these, as in other cases of the sacrifice of the man-god cited by Dr Frazer, the killing of the old god is at the same time the making of a new god. (d) Suicide is treated as a means of raising a human being to the rank of a god. (e) Gods may be sacrificed (in theriomorphic form) to themselves as a means of renewing the life of the god. (f) The method of creating a fetish (see ) on the Congo resembles deificatory sacrifice; but here there is no actual slaughter of a human being; magical means are alone relied upon.

Honorific Sacrifices.—Whatever their origin, sacrifices tend to be interpreted as gifts to the god. Man seeks to influence his fellow men in various ways, by intimidation, by deceit, by bribery; and it is quite natural to find the same ideas in the sphere of religion. Food is often given to a god because he is believed to take pleasure in eating; the germ of this idea may have been identical with that of some funerary sacrifices—to nourish the divine life. At a later period, pari passu with the spiritualization of the god, comes a refinement of the tastes attributed to him, and the finer parts of the sacrifice, finally it may be only its savour, are alone regarded as acceptable offerings. Iust as attendants are provided for the dead, so the god receives sacrifices intended to put slaves at his disposal. This latter idea was the more likely to arise, as the gift theory of sacrifice is closely associated with that of the god as the ruler or king to whom man brings a tribute, just as he had to appear before his earthly king bearing gifts in his hands. The honorific sacrifice is essentially a propitiation; it must be distinguished from the piaculum (see below), to which in some aspects it is allied.

Mortuary Sacrifice.—Sacrifices, especially of human beings, are offered immediately after a death or at a longer interval. Their object may be (a) to provide a guide to the other world; (b) to provide the dead with servants or a retinue suitable to his rank; (c) to send messengers to keep the dead informed of the things of this world; (d) to strengthen the dead by the blood or life of a living being, in the same way that food is offered to them or blood rituals enjoined on mourners.

Piacular Sacrifice.—Whereas the god receives a gift in the honorific sacrifice, he demands a life in the piacular. This, according to Westermarck, is the central idea of human sacrifice: the victim is substituted for the sacrifice, to deliver him from perils by disease, famine or, more indefinitely, from the Wrath of the god in general. The essential feature of the piaculum is that it is an expiation for wrong-doing, and the victim is often human.

Human Sacrifice.—Many theories of the relation of human to animal sacrifice have been put forward, most of them on an insuiiicient basis of facts. It has been held that animal sacrifice is the primitive form and that the decay of toternism or lack of domestic animals has brought about the substitution of a human victim; but it has also been urged that in many cases animal victims are treated like human beings and must consequently have replaced them, that human beings are smeared with the blood of sacrifice, and must therefore have themselves been sacrificed before a milder régime allowed an animal to replace them. If tradition is any guide, human sacrifice seems in many important areas to be of secondary character; in spite of the great development of the rite among the Aztecs, tradition says that it was unknown till two hundred years before the conquest; in Polynesia human sacrifices seem to be comparatively modern; and in India they appear to have been rare among the Vedic peoples. On the whole, human sacrifice is far commoner