Apart from the Homeric evidence, we have the record of the Attic
Bouphonia as attestation of the great antiquity of this type of
sacrifice in Greece. To {238} the actual statement of the details
given us by Theophrastos and Pausanias, much is added by the curious
aetiological legends that grew up around it.[238.1] We see the ox
marking himself for sacrifice by voluntarily going up to the altar and
eating the corn upon it, being thus called, as it were, by the god
into communion with himself. As he is thus full of the spirit of the
god, it is regarded a sacrilegious act to slay him; but all the
citizens partake of his flesh, and even the stranger who eats becomes
himself a citizen, as through this feast he enters into kinship with
Zeus Polieus. All this can be explained by the belief that Zeus
Polieus is in the altar; and we need not resort to such theories as
that the ox is a totem-animal or the spirit of vegetation.
We must, however, beware of concluding that because the victim was
thus temporarily possessed with godhead and in this holy state
devoured, he was therefore literally regarded as the full incarnation
of the god, or that the worshipper consciously believed he was eating
his own deity who died in the sacrifice. For religious consciousness
by no means always draws the full logical corollaries of a religious
act. The more mystic idea, that has played a great part in the
religion of Europe, can only be detected or suspected, apart from
written direct ancient testimony, where the animal is treated with
reverence apart from and before his association with the altar, or is
regarded as the habitual incarnation of the deity. The immolation and
devouring of such a victim would be of the true sacramental type,
which Robertson Smith believed was the aboriginal form of all
sacrifice. But we have no clear example of it from the earliest period
of genuine Hellenic religion, unless we {239} force the evidence or
exaggerate its meaning.[239.1] We have only certain myths that we may
doubtfully venture to interpret by means of this hypothesis. And these
are no myths about animals, but about human victims devoured in
sacrifice: the most significant is the story of the cannibalistic
feast held by King Lykaon, who cooked his own son and offered the
flesh to Zeus, a ritual of which some survival, whether mimetic or
half-real, was witnessed by Pausanias himself on Mount Lykaon.[239.2]
This would point to sacramental cannibalism, if we assume that King
Lykaon was the human incarnation of Zeus Lykaios and that his son was
therefore a divine infant. But it is possible that the story enshrines
the remembrance of the more ordinary clan-sacrifice of the life of a
clansman to procure them communion with the clan-god by the common
partaking of his flesh: the kinsman is offered rather than the animal,
not so much that the sacrificers may eat their god, but that the god
by consuming their most valued life may be more closely incorporate
with them.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account