Page:The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis III 1922 1.djvu/106

 gS BOOKEICVIEWS

Christian beliei as being 'mere mythology, not true theology'; he does not explain, however, why the mother's virginity should be impaired more in the one case than in the other. He points out that there is no reason to believe that the Christian doctrine of the Virgin-birth was borrowed from MithraJsm and adds, rather surprisingly, 'nor are there any other pre-Christian myths from which the Christian doctrine can have been borrowed '. His reason for so thinking is that ' it is hardly conceivable that the Christians would have taken over these myths, which they regarded with unfeigned abhorrence, and then branded the originals as diabolic imitations', his view being 'that the mind of the savage or the more civilized pagan was groping blindly for a truth which was clearly revealed in Christianity'.

The famous bull sacrifice which forms the central part of the Mith- raic cult is lightly dismissed as 'the symbolic representation of a nature-myth, intended to signify or to stimulate the renewal of plant- life'. He sees no resemblance between this rite and the central Christ- ian one, and we are asked to believe that the Mithraic worshippers obtained no spiritual benefit from their rite, as Christians do in the form of salvation. It is a pity that the author is unacquainted widi Ralik's studies on the significance of sacrifice and Freud's important parallelism between the alternative methods oi salvation offered by Mithra and Christ.

Similarly for the other ritual of the two cults: 'There is only a superficial resemblance between the repeated lustrations of the Mithraic cult or the mystic banquet, and the two great Sacraments of the Christian Church. Whether the baptism of Mithra took the form of water or blood, whether the mystics partook of the Draona cakes, meat, and Haoma juice, or unleavened cakes and wine, the atmosphere and accompaniments of these rites are far different from the Christian Baptism and Eucharist'.

The audior thinks that the integrity of Mithraism became impaired as die result of its syncretism, and in fact it is remarkable how Mithra became in different countries identified with other divine son-lovers, Shamash, Men, Sabazius, Helios, Attis, etc. This, he holds, is funda- mentally different from what other writers have considered to be the remarkable syncretlzing capacity of Christianity. 'The most that can reasonably be proved is that Christianity took over some popular customs of heathen religions, and purified them from unworthy and idolatrous associations '.

Apart from the obvious prejudice indicated by these passages, the book can be recommended as being a trustworthy and adequate account oi the main features of Mithraism. E, J-