We saw in the last chapter that the feelings with which
The role of
parent-regarding
feelings in
primitive
notions
concerning
the Divine
men tend to look upon the holders of the highest earthly
dignity and power—the heads of churches, states and empires—are
to a large extent derived from those which had originally
shaped and coloured the child's attitude towards its parents.
From the position of supreme human authority to that of
superhuman power is, in imagination, but one further step; and
accordingly we find that the tendencies and emotions connected
with the parents can frequently and easily, by a further process
of displacement, bridge over the gulf between kings and gods;
and, by their association with the ideas of the Superhuman
and the Divine, become important factors in moulding the
religious feelings of mankind.
Apart from this however, reasons for the transfer of many
of the parent-regarding emotions to the sphere of religion are
not far to seek. There exists a close and obvious correspondence
between the attitude of the young child towards his parents
and that of man towards the superhuman powers which he
personifies as God, the Divine Father. In both cases the
individual's life and destiny are controlled by powers that seem,
in comparison with his own puny capacity and understanding,
to be immeasurable in their might and mystery. In both cases
the health, happiness and even the very existence of the
individual seem to be dependent upon the beneficence and
approval of these powers; powers which can be terrible, and
against which no effort will avail, if once aroused to wrath;
but which nevertheless can be to some extent controlled and
made to work in harmony with the individual's needs and
desires, if the latter will but conduct himself towards them
obediently and with due persuasiveness and understanding.
Small wonder then that the adult human being, confronted
with the mighty forces of nature, the laws of which he is
compelled to follow, if he would avoid destruction, but which—especially
if he be ignorant or uncivilised—he cannot comprehend,
tends to revert to the attitude of mind in which, in
childhood, he looked upon his parents as the forces—equally
powerful, as they then seemed, and equally inscrutable—that
controlled his fate. In proportion as the child, with increasing
age and experience, loses the delusions he had entertained as
regards the all-powerfulness, all-knowingness and all-goodness
of his parents, he begins to realise, both from his own experience
and from instruction and tradition, that there are powers in
the Universe which exceed the greatest human might, powers
before whom the child's own parents—together with all other
mortals—must acknowledge their own humility and impotence,
powers so vast that it may seem only reasonable and befitting
to regard the wielder of them as the possessor of those qualities
of omnipotence and omniscience that were once, in the crude
ignorance of infancy, vaguely attributed to the parents and to
other adult persons of importance. The divine and superhuman
forces, about which the child thus begins to have some notions,
constitute in this way a very natural substitute for the exaggerated
and idealised estimation of the parents which the child's increasing
knowledge of human life compels him to abandon, but
which he nevertheless, as we have seen (cp. above p. 55), gives
up reluctantly.
The displacement of the parent-regarding emotions and
The divine
and the human
parent
tendencies in this direction is, in the case of the individual,
often further facilitated in the three following ways:—(1) owing
to the generally pronounced animistic tendency of the primitive
mind, the child naturally and indeed inevitably conceives of
natural forces in a personal and usually in a human form;
(2) the child early learns to conceive of the supreme forces of
the Universe as creative—creative on a large scale, just as
his own parents and other human beings are creative on a
small scale; further he learns that he owes his own creation
to God as much as to his own parents—to God ultimately,
to his parents proximately; (3) in both these respects the
individual tendency to endow the Divinity with attributes
derived from the parents is greatly stimulated and reinforced
by the suggestive power of religious tradition, working through
the channels of direct teaching or of representation in language,
literature and art.
The correspondence between the divine and the human
Remoter
ancestors as
divine parent
substitutes
parent is one that, for these reasons among others, is very
deeply rooted in the human mind. In an advanced stage of
culture it may find its most natural expression in the related
concepts of an ultimate and an immediate creator respectively,
but at a more primitive mental level it is usually brought into
connection with the distinction between remoter ancestors and
immediate parents. There can be no doubt that the most
important aspects of the theory and practice of religion are
very largely derived from, and influenced by, ancestor worship,
even though they may not, as Herbert Spencer has contended[162],
have entirely originated from this source. Granted the
fundamental assumption of animism—the existence of an individual
soul or spirit which is to some extent independent of
the body and may survive bodily death—it becomes easy to
attribute to one's dead parents or to one's remoter ancestors
powers that exceed those of persons who are still alive. There
is not, as in the case of the living, any obvious and well
defined limit to their capacity, and it becomes possible therefore
to displace freely on to them the exaggerated notions
which it is no longer possible to hold with regard to parents
who are still subject to the conditions of earthly existence.
The tendency which thus arises is reinforced by the very
general fear of the dead[163], which easily attributes to its objects
an exaggerated power—especially for evil. The more remote
the ancestors in time, the more easy does it become to assign
to them a power which is manifestly superior to that of the
living, though the ideas of the ancestors and of their power
necessarily become at the same time more shadowy and vague.
The conditions are thus given for a religion of simple
Unsatisfying
features of
simple
ancestor
worship
ancestor worship, such as has existed in very many parts of
the world[164] and has often continued to exist alongside of a
wider state religion, as for instance in Rome. As a rule
however a further step is involved, probably because a simple
ancestor worship of this kind is both too indefinite and too
individualistic to prove permanently satisfactory, either from the
point of view of the individual himself or of the community
of which he forms a part. It is too indefinite because it does
not provide any sufficiently clear and characteristic object or
objects upon which the displaced parent-regarding feelings can
be directed; and it is too individualistic because, so long as
each family is thrown back solely upon its own ancestors as
objects of worship, the religious feelings and tendencies aroused
lack the stimulating force which they derive from the co-operation
of the herd instinct (in virtue of which the individual is particularly
liable to be affected by the emotions to which his
fellows give expression)[165] and through which alone, in many
cases, religion is able to become a permanent and stable form
of expression for the displaced parent-regarding tendencies of
childhood and a social force which has proved to be of the
greatest importance in the history and development of mankind.
For these and other reasons, ancestor worship is not often
The All-Father
found in its pure and simple form, but is usually complicated
and modified in at least two important ways:—(1) a single
ancestor is selected as the originator and founder of the family,
the high patriarchal attributes being for the most part reserved
for him alone; (2) this same ancestor is regarded as the
founder, not merely of a single family, but of the whole clan,
tribe, nation or other social unit, or, by a further extension,
of the whole human race, of all living beings or, ultimately, of
the whole Universe. There is thus created the notion of a
single All-Father, who serves at once as the supreme and
most satisfying embodiment of the father-ideal for the individual
and as a potent means of strengthening and uniting the community
through the sense of brotherhood and loyalty that
attaches to a common worship and a common origin from a
divine ancestor. The satisfying character of the religious concept
that is here reached is apt to be still further increased
by a complete or partial fusion of the notion of the divine
father with that of the kingly father which we have already
discussed. The mythical divine ancestor, the founder of the
race, is frequently supposed to have been originally a king
also, and it is usual for the reigning line of sovereigns to trace
their descent more especially from him. Very often too the
kings, or at any rate the greater ones among them, receive
divine honours at their death, being then worshipped along
with the other illustrious ancestors of the tribe, having but
exchanged their earthly power for a more exalted throne in
heaven.
It is in the early stages of tribal ancestor worship of the
Totemism
kind we have been here considering that we come across a
widespread social and religious system so curious in nature
that it may undoubtedly rank as one of the most remarkable
discoveries brought about by the study of primitive man.
I refer, of course, to Totemism. In Totemism the mythical
ancestor takes on a non-human form, being as a rule some
animal, but sometimes also a plant or even an inanimate
object. All examples of the totem class are, as a rule, held
sacred by those who belong to the respective totem, and must
be treated with care and reverence, but (in the case of animal
Exogamy
totems at any rate) are sometimes killed and eaten at a solemn
sacrificial feast. Combined with these religious or quasi-religious
manifestations of Totemism there are usually to be found
certain well marked features of social organization. A single
totem is not, as a rule, common to a whole tribe, but each
tribe consists of two or more (most often four, but sometimes
as many as eight) totem clans, which are all strictly exogamous,
no man being allowed to take a wife from his own clan; the
field of choice being indeed sometimes still further restricted,
in such a way that the women of only one small section of
the total tribe are available for this purpose. The sociological
and psychological influences that led to the creation of the
totemic system in a number of widely separated parts of the
world are still to a large extent a matter of dispute. A number
of theories have been propounded on the subject, and although
many of them are suggestive, there is perhaps no single one
as that fully and satisfactorily accounts for all the facts[166]. Among
The totem as
a father
the few points that emerge clearly from the investigations and
discussions to which the matter has given rise is the connection
of the totem with the father. It has been shown that the
totem spirit regularly, either to a complete or to a partial extent,
plays the father's part in the creation of the child; the
substitution of totem for father being rendered easier by the
existence of a confused and ignorant state of mind on the
subject of paternity; which makes it conceivable that the spirit
of an animal or other object should enter into the mother's
womb and thus produce conception[167].
That this vagueness on the subject of paternity in the
mind of primitive man finds its counterpart even in civilised
societies[168] is shown by the many legends of a supernormal
birth in which the father is dispensed with or is replaced by
some non-human being[169]. The deep rooted and persistent nature
Relics of
Totemism in
religion
of the tendency to totemism is shown also by the very frequent
occurrence at all stages of culture of theriomorphic gods, whose
cult often leads to certain animals or classes of animals being
regarded as sacred, just as in the case of totemic communities.
Even when the gods are no longer habitually regarded as
animals, they still occasionally take on animal form (cp. the
frequent animal disguises of Zeus) or are connected with, or
represented by, animal symbols (cp. the dove, the pelican, the
and in the
individual
mind
lamb, the fish and the ass in Christianity). In the individual
mind of the civilised person animals are frequently utilised as
symbols of the parents in dreams and other productions of the
Unconscious[170]. There are indeed persons who experience a
peculiar fascination for some kind of animal, which they regard
with mixed feelings among which love, admiration, awe, disgust
and hate are often to be found; those emotions usually predominating
which are most prominent in the individual's relations
to his father. Thus in one case well known to the present
writer, in which the ideas connected with the father were
chiefly those of goodness and wisdom, the hostile aspects being
much repressed, the owl was looked upon very much in the
light of an individual totem, the solemn stare and pouting
figure of the bird appearing to symbolise the kindly beneficence
and immense wisdom of the (earthly and heavenly) father—with
just so much of mystery and possibility of evil as to add a
tinge of awe and horror to the total attitude. Freud[171] and
Ferenczi[172] have each reported interesting cases in this connection,
in both of which the father-regarding tendencies and emotions
had become displaced on to a particular kind of animal (in
one case the horse, in the other the fowl) with the result that
this animal exercised an intense and persistent fascination, in
which opposing elements of love and hate could clearly be
distinguished[173].
If, as thus seems probable, we have in Totemism a peculiar
The psychological
connection
between
Totemism
and
Exogamy
form of displacement of the feelings originally directed to the
parents (and especially the father), it is not surprising that
Totemism should be frequently accompanied by manifestations
of the other, and sexual, aspect of the Œdipus complex. Such
manifestations are, in effect, not far to seek and are in all
probability to be found in the system of Exogamy which almost
invariably accompanies the institution of Totemism. Whether
or not Exogamy is co-eval with Totemism (some authorities
think that it is of later origin), there is now a very fair measure
of agreement that Exogamy has (consciously[174] or unconsciously)
been created as a means of avoiding incest. If this view is
correct it would appear that the connection between Totemism
and Exogamy (a connection the nature of which had for long
been anything but clear) is due to the fact that the two
institutions have respectively come into being as the result of
the operation of two closely-joined psychic factors, namely the
two principal elements of the Œdipus complex. Just as in the
individual mind, the presence in any high degree of one of
these elements tends to bring about the presence of the other,
so too in societies, the manifestations of the one element
tend to be closely correlated with the manifestations of the
other[175].
In touching on the subject of Exogamy, we have come
very near to the most fundamental sociological problems
connected with the main theme of this book. To these problems
and to the whole question of the meaning of Exogamy we shall
return in a later chapter. For the moment we must leave
them, in order to pass on to the consideration of certain other
aspects of the influence upon religion of psychic tendencies
connected with the family.
We have seen that the child's attitude towards his father
The ambivalent
attitude
towards
the father as
reflected in
religion
is usually an ambivalent one, i. e. it is determined partly by
tenderness and affection and partly by hostility or fear.
Naturally the relative predominance of one or other motive
varies from one case to another, both as regards the religious
life of individuals and as regards the beliefs and forms of
worship adopted by various races, nations, sects or denominations.
Thus the paternal qualities ascribed to the deity are
sometimes derived chiefly from that attitude of the child towards
its father in virtue of which it sees in him a being full of helpful
wisdom and tender pity, to whom it can turn for encouragement,
guidance and assistance in the difficult affairs of life,
and especially in times of trouble; sometimes on the other
hand more emphasis is laid upon those aspects of the father
in which he appears as a severe and perhaps cruel master or
tyrant who enforces strict obedience to his harsh commands
and who inflicts dire penalties upon all who dare to oppose
his wishes or defy his laws. In the higher forms of religion
the more directly hostile relations between child and parent
are seldom openly manifested, the conception of the father as
wicked or immoral tending to disappear with increasing culture,
though the notion of obedience to a stern, relentless authority
may be maintained. This in its turn however frequently gives
place to the idea of the kindly, helpful and forgiving father,
according to a process of development which in many respects
appears to resemble the evolution of thought as regards the
relations of the individual to the state or the king, to which
we have already drawn attention. It is a change of this nature
for instance that, more perhaps than all else, marks the step
from Judaism to Christianity; the latter giving promise of a
reign of kindliness and forgiveness in place of the harsh and
uncompromising exercise of paternal authority so characteristic
of the former. It is for this reason that Christianity (at any
rate in its primitive form) especially appealed to and encouraged
the poor, the weak and the helpless, those who were most in
need of kindness and assistance; and by so doing has encountered
the opposition or contempt of those who see the
paternal authority (and therefore its projection as the authority
of the Universe) in a sterner shape[176], or of those who (like
Nietzsche's Supermen), in their own sense of power and independence,
despise all who, as though they were still children,
require the assistance of a beneficent father to help them
through their lives.
In polytheistic religions, or those with polytheistic tendencies,
The splitting
up of parental
attributes
among two or
more divinities
the different paternal qualities may be divided among a
number of divinities; though as a rule there is a single
heavenly father who combines in his person the most exalted
aspects of creative and paternal power. Especially frequent is
the splitting up of what appear to be the desirable and undesirable
aspects of the father and the attribution of them to
distinct deities, so that a kind, benevolent, forgiving and protecting
divinity, upon the one hand, is contrasted with a stern,
wicked and cruel one upon the other. The mediaeval conception
of the Devil corresponds for instance, as has been shown by
The Devil
Ernest Jones[177] in his suggestive work upon this subject, to a
deity thus obtained by the splitting off of the evil attributes
of the father; a deity upon whom hatred, fear and even contempt
may be freely poured and who can conveniently be
made responsible for men's ill deeds and evil thoughts[178]; the
attitude towards the heavenly father being correspondingly
purged of these undesirable features. The process of duplication,
which is frequently operative in other fields than that of religion,
The
dissociation of
good and evil
in theology and
in the individual
mind
particularly in those of myth and legend[179] arises of course as
a consequence of the psychical antagonism and resulting dissociation
between the love and the hate attitudes towards the
father, and can easily be made use of in religion owing to the
general correspondence that may appear to exist between the
benevolent and malevolent aspects of the all-powerful parent
and the equally inexplicable and uncontrollable aspects of the
natural forces to which the adult human being is exposed. In
this way both the love and the hate elements in the primitive
levels of the mind have relatively free play without becoming
involved in moral or emotional conflicts or in intellectual
contradiction; the double (ambivalent) mental attitude being
projected so as to form a dualistic principle of the Universe.
Although of all the members of the family, the father, as
The mother regarding
feelings in
religion
its head, most frequently and regularly undergoes apotheosis,
the other members of the family are not without considerable
influence on the conceptions that are formed as to the nature
and qualities of divine beings. Foremost as regards such
influence, after the father, is of course the mother. In a strict
monotheism the mother elements would seem to be almost
always, if not invariably, subordinate to those of the father; the
former, so far as they are represented at all, being submerged
or incorporated into the latter[180]. But very few religions remain
strictly and consistently monotheistic; and in most of those that
show tendencies towards polytheism the mother elements are
represented in a separate person or a separate principle. Thus,
both in primitive and in more advanced forms of religion it is
usual to find mother goddesses who bear the same relation to
the earthly mother as does the father-god to the earthly
father.
Nevertheless, it would appear that the mother-goddess is,
The mother-son
relationship
and its
repression
at a certain stage of culture at any rate, liable to meet with
opposition from which the corresponding father-god is usually
exempt. This opposition would seem to be due to the admixture
of incestuous passion which is brought over into religion from
the original attachment of the child (and especially of course
the son) to his earthly mother. The relations between mother
and son fairly often find expression in religious stories, as in the
cases of Cybele and Attis, Ishtar and Tammuz, Mary and Christ
and (in the displaced form of brother and sister love) Isis and
Osiris. As a rule however the mother-son relationship is not
permanent but is disturbed and broken by evil plottings and
brutal actions on the part of some third person (usually a
father or a brother substitute), as a result of which the young
son-god often meets with his death. The relations of Attis and
of Christ to their mothers are of special interest in this
connection, inasmuch as they plainly indicate the existence of
an inner inhibition on the son's part as well as a separation
brought about by interference from without. Attis according
at least to some versions of his story, unmans himself on
discovering the incestuous nature of his affection (as Œdipus
himself had done, in a symbolic form, by putting out his eyes).
In Christ the repression of the mother-regarding tendencies
seems to have led to an attitude of aloofness towards his
mother, and through her towards all women (cp. his words
"Woman, what have I to do with thee?," John 2, 4)—an
attitude that has profoundly affected his followers throughout
the ages: for in the history of the Christian religion there is
The struggle
round
the mother
element in
Christianity
evidence—even apart from its notorious aversion from and
distrust of women in general—of the existence of a constant
struggle centering round the idea of the divine mother. In the
early days of the Church there are accounts and rumours of
sects which endeavoured to establish the worship of Mary
alongside that of the Father and the Son, and there is evidence
to show that the notion of the Holy Ghost corresponds in one
of its aspects to that of a female deity who completes the
natural trinity of Father, Mother and Son[181]. In the Roman
Church Mary, as the mother of Christ, has received a widespread
and often profound (though to some extent of course unofficial)
adoration, being regarded perhaps especially as the helper in
time of trouble, to whom men and women may go for comfort,
protection, guidance or forgiveness in just the same way as
they did to their earthly mother in their childhood: an adoration
which has tended to call forth a feeling of disgust and horror
in the Protestant Church, in which the more primite Christian
tradition of the repression of the mother-regarding feelings has
in this respect been kept alive[182].
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which has
The
Immaculate
Conception
played such a prominent part in Christian theology and
theological discussion, is of course only one of the many
similar instances of the notion of the supernatural birth[183]. Like
many of these other instances, it is due, not merely to the fact
of its being a relic from a time when there was little certainty
or knowledge as to the nature of paternity, but to the fact
that it constitutes an active expression of a strong (though
usually unconscious) wish—a wish that is compounded from
a number of separate, though of course related, elements, of
which the chief are perhaps the following:—(1) the desire for
"purity" on the part of the mother, in order that she may
belong to the revered rather than to the sexually attractive
but despised group of women (cp. above p. 110)—a desire
which at the same time purifies the mother-regarding love of
its grosser elements and renders it less liable to repression;
(2) the desire to be independent of the father and to owe
nothing to him (cp. above p. 109); (3) a desire to avoid sexual
jealousy of the father together with the envy, hostility or
contempt that would inevitably—especially in view of the
general Christian attitude towards sex—accompany the notion
of the father as a sexually active being. These factors combine
to make the idea of sexual relations between the parents one
that is peculiarly distasteful to their children, particularly when
it is a question not of ordinary human parents with their
admitted imperfections but of their heavenly and perfected
counterparts, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
satisfactorily removes the necessity for this idea[184].
In more primitive forms of religion the correspondence of
Open
depiction of
the parents
and of the
Œdipus
complex in
primitive
religions
the heavenly family to the earthly family and the projection
on to the former of the feelings and tendencies aroused in
connection with the latter (and particularly those which enter
into the Œdipus complex) can as a rule be even more clearly
and unmistakably observed. Thus in primitive cosmogonies[185]
there are usually two world parents whose relations to each
other are disturbed by their children, the son as a rule becoming
hostile to the father, deposing him from his position of
authority, killing or unmanning him or separating him from
the mother. Of these world parents the father is very frequently
regarded as a personification of the heavens, while the mother
is identified with the Earth[186]; Heaven and Earth being sometimes
considered as having been separated by their children
from the close embrace in which they had previously been
lying (as in the case of Atlas, who in this way keeps Heaven
apart from Earth—a story which has many parallels, especially
in Polynesian Mythology). In the Greek version Ouranos and
Gaia (of whom the latter seems to have been the mother of
the former, their union being thus incestuous) are separated
by their son Cronos, who, at the instigation of his mother,
deposes and castrates his father and marries his sisters Cybele,
the mother of the gods. In the next generation these barbarous
relations between parents and children are repeated. Cronos,
fearing that he in his turn will become a victim to the same
treatment as that which he himself had accorded to his father,
endeavours to escape the threatened danger by eating his children
as soon as they are born. Zeus however, being saved by a
stratagem of his mother, performs the very act which his father
had sought to prevent, and himself becomes firmly seated on
the throne of Heaven and is married to his sister Hera.
In primitive myths of this kind we see the hostile relations
Indications of
mental conflict
and repression
between successive generations displayed crudely and nakedly,
without any attempt at disguise or concealment. In others,
probably dating from a more cultured epoch, there are signs
of a mental conflict, the hostile actions being no longer performed
with the same singleness of purpose and freedom from
inhibition, but being accompanied by indications of a sense of
guilt, or of an ability to understand or sympathise with the
opponent's point of view. In the battle of the Titans against
Zeus, some of the former fought on the side of the gods (i. e.
Rebellion and
punishment
defended their parents) and those who rebelled against the
paternal power were in the end defeated and punished (though
the punishment itself may sometimes—by a piece of over-determination—constitute
a continuation of the rebellious deed,
as in the above-mentioned case of Atlas); Adam and Eve, on
transgressing the divine prohibition to eat of the tree of knowledge
(cp. the forbidden question motive, p. 104) are turned out
of Eden; the builders of the Tower of Babel (cp. the attempt
to storm Heaven by Otos and Ephialtes in Greek mythology)
likewise meet with disaster; and in the noble story of
Prometheus, who stole the fire[187] from Heaven to benefit mankind,
the offender is brought into conflict with the father from
the highest motives and bears his punishment with a resignation
and fortitude that places him among the most splendid figures
in Greek tragedy.
Christ himself is only one of the last of the long line of
filial insurgents, substituting as he does, to a considerable extent,
the milder rule of the Son for the harsher regime of the
Judaic Father-God. In so doing he surrenders his life, thus
suffering the penalty which, in one form or another, overtook
his predecessors. In his case however, as in theirs, the penalty
itself is over-determined. Christ dies:—in the first place, as a
scapegoat, taking upon himself the guilt of his brothers and
hence becoming the saviour of mankind, who are by his
sacrifice freed from the consequences of their equal guilt[188];
secondly, as one who suffers the talion punishment for the
original sin of the son towards the father, the guilt attaching
to the death of the father being wiped out by the death of the
son; thirdly, by this very sacrifice manifesting his divine nature
and raising himself to a place alongside the father, thus
ultimately pointing the way to a reconciliation between father
and son (a reconciliation that is already hinted at in the story
of Prometheus).
Not only religious beliefs, but many religious rites, ceremonies
Family
influences in
religious rites
and practices
and practices may be shown to be connected with the
ideas, feelings and tendencies which centre round the family.
We have already seen how the rite of baptism (besides of
course its significance as a purification or washing away of
sin)[189] is linked on to the ideas of re-birth and initiation, with
Baptism and
Confirmation
all that these imply (cp. above Chs. VIII and IX). Still more
intimately connected with the idea of initiation, and corresponding
to the initiation ceremonies that are performed at the time of
adolescence in so many parts of the world, is the Christian
sacrament of Confirmation; which can, appropriately enough,
only be conducted by a senior member of the Church (father
representative).
Of particular interest in this connection is the central rite
The
Communion
of the Christian Church—the sacrament of the Communion[190],
which has connections with the practices and beliefs of
Totemism, with the widespread religious rite of sacrifice and
with the relations between father and son to which we have
just had occasion to refer.
Although Totemism is by many authorities supposed to
Totemic and
sacrificial
elements in the
Communion
have been foreign to the culture and religions of those peoples
from whom western civilisation has chiefly sprung, Robertson
Smith has brought much evidence to show that many of the
religious and social practices of the Semitic races bear traces
Their psychological
significance
of totemic origin[191]. Among these not the least important are
those connected with sacrifice—animal and human. In animal
sacrifice the slaughtered animal was originally regarded as a
kinsman[192]; it was also at the same time related to or identified
with the god who protected the animal and in whose honour
the animal was slain[193]; it was also in many cases regarded
with mingled feelings of reverence and horror very similar to
those with which the totem animal is often looked upon[194], the
Semitic concept of Uncleanness corresponding closely to the
Polynesian notion of Taboo. In these respects we have a
striking resemblance to Totemism as practised in more primitive
communities.
Now we have seen that the totem animal is, in one of its
most important aspects, a father surrogate. The slaying of the
totem animal, therefore, ultimately represents the murder of
the father; at the same time the slaughtered animal represents
a sacrifice in honour of the father and a gift to him. We have
here an example of the ambivalent attitude towards the totem-father;
the father, as the God to whom the sacrifice is offered,
is honoured and regarded with affection; the father, as the
animal, is cruelly killed. At the same time the victim would
appear in another aspect to stand as a substitute for the son
who, as we have seen, may be slain instead of the father,
atoning by his own death for the intended or wished-for
murder of the father.
As regards the eating of the sacrifice, it may perhaps in
one respect be regarded as the consummation of the hostile
act. Cronos eats his children in order to be sure of getting
rid of them; and the swallowing of children or even of grown
men by an ogre, giant, monster or witch is a not uncommon
theme in folklore. The eating of the parents by the children
in their turn is a natural and obvious form of revenge; and
has actually been practised by some primitive people[195].
At the same time eating may be regarded as an honour
or as a sign of affection; as is necessarily to some extent the
case, since the totem animal represents the god and is itself
as a rule sacred and inviolable except in certain circumstances.
This aspect indeed obviously plays a part of great importance
in the Christian sacrament in its present form[196].
The most important aspect of all however is that in virtue
of which the eater is supposed to acquire or to participate in
the nature, qualities or properties of that which is eaten, the
worshipper thus becoming one with the God whose flesh and
blood he consumes; in this way at one and the same time:—(a)
himself acquiring directly some of the qualities of the
divinity, (b) becoming assured of his kinship with God, the
common meal being regarded as the especial symbol of this
kinship (as indeed of kinship in general)[197], (c) becoming likewise
assured of his kinship with his fellow worshippers, all
becoming brothers by participation in the divine meal and in
the underlying ideas—including of course the original father
hatred and the atonement for this—which this meal implies.
Thus it appears that the food which is consumed in the
Communion represents:—
(1) the Father
(a) as hated and killed,
(b) as honoured.
(2) the Son, as slain to atone for the father-murder and
offered up in honour to the Father.
The actual consumption of the food represents:—
(1) the eating of the Father
(a) as a sign of hostility,
(b) as a sign of honour or affection,
(c) as a means of partaking of the divine nature (i. e.
acquiring the father attributes).
(2) the eating of the Son, as a means of establishing
identity with him and thus sharing in the atonement which he
has made by his sacrifice.
(3) the establishment of a sense of communion and of
kinship between the fellow worshippers themselves and between
them and the deity, through participation in the divine meal
with all that this implies.
We thus see that, as regards both religious beliefs and
The influence
of family
tendencies in
religion
religious practices, the emotions, feelings and tendencies
originally aroused in connection with the family play a part of
great importance. The gods in whose form man has personified
the natural forces of the Universe, or whom he has himself
called into being, are to a very large extent projections of the
infantile conceptions of the parents—beings whom he has
created in his phantasy to serve as objects on to whom might
be transferred that part of what remains of his primitive attitude
towards the parents which has found no adequate sublimation
on to living human beings. Sometimes the phantasy is
worked out entirely in the dramatic form, the desires and
tendencies connected with the family finding their projected
expression in the behaviour of the divine beings. It is for this
reason that the conduct of the gods is, from the moral standpoint,
often below rather than above the human standard; the
crude and primitive wishes belonging to the infancy of the
individual and the race, wishes that so far as adult and civilised
life is concerned have been outgrown or at least repressed and
held in check, finding a relatively unobstructed outlet in the
(usually archaic) forms and ritual of religion. At other times
it is only the figures of the gods themselves that are projected,
the worshipper remaining himself in intimate contact with
them through a relationship which represents a sublimated
form of that which existed between child and parent.
In spite of its basis in primitive infantile fixations, there
Value of
religion as a
form of
displacement
can of course be no doubt that religion has performed a work
of very great value in the history of human culture. Both in
the case of the individual and in that of the race the displacement
of the primitive tendencies directed towards members of
the family has been, as we have seen, a matter of the greatest
importance, but at the same time of the greatest difficulty, in
the history of mental and moral development. The provision
of a suitable outlet for those parts and aspects of the tendencies
in question which could find no adequate object among living
human beings was of itself no mean service. The establishment
of a moral authority which should stand in the same relation
to adult men as parents do to children, thus affording a higher
sanction for morality than could otherwise be obtained under
primitive conditions; the solidification of the social bond
between neighbours and fellow tribesmen, through the consciousness
of a common worship and a common parentage
from the same divine ancestor; the utilisation of the
exaggerated and idealised notions that had been formed concerning
the parents in early childhood, to create the concept
of a being of more than human virtue, a being who enjoined
the nearest possible approach to his own divine perfection on the
part of his human followers, thus contributing in no small measure
to the raising of the level of morality; the confirmation (through
the idealised and sublimated love of the divine parents) of the stage
of object-love as contrasted with the lower stage of Narcissism[198];
the stimulation of interest in natural forces, objects and events
by endowing them with the strong emotional tone originally
connected with the parents; these are some (and only some)
of the benefits which humanity has derived from the displacement
of the primitive parent-regarding feelings that is
involved in religion.
It is easy of course to point to the numerous evils that
religion has directly or indirectly brought about; conservatism,
intolerance, persistent opposition to the progress of scientific
or unprejudiced thought, the fostering of manifold delusions
and absurdities, the retention of vast masses of mankind in
superstitious fear and ignorance when they should have been
acquiring confidence and knowledge. In spite however of these
and of the many other very serious charges that may be brought
against it, religion can claim to have played a very necessary
and beneficial rôle in the past history of culture. Sublimation
is, as we have seen, a process that works slowly and by finely
graduated steps, so that neither in the individual nor the race
can we expect to see far-reaching moral transformations rapidly
and easily achieved. The feelings and tendencies of the child
in relation to the family environment are in many of their
aspects so primitive and crude and yet so powerful and
persistent, that we must welcome gladly any means of displacement
that has proved itself of value to the individual and to Society.
It is for this service, above all others, that we are indebted to
religion in the past.
As regards the future, it is evident that the needs of
The future of
religion
humanity to which religion has ministered will, in some sense
at any rate, long continue to exist. The backward pull of the
tendencies of infancy and childhood, forming, as they do, the
foundation upon which all subsequent desires and aspirations
are built up; the closeness of the similarity between the
situation of the adult confronted with the vast and overwhelming
power of Nature and that of the child who helplessly depends
upon his parents both for happiness and life—these are influences
which may well continue to make religion in some form a
permanent necessity.
Nevertheless it would appear that the future progress of
human culture will demand a very considerable modification
and purification of most existing religious forms. The study of
the psychology of religion is showing that these forms are, for
the most part, based on crude unconscious motives which have
to be outgrown and superseded if civilisation is to prosper and
advance. In retaining and fostering these forms we are in many
cases playing into the hands, not of the higher, but of the
baser and more primitive aspects of our nature, aspects which,
at our present level of development, it is necessary indeed to
understand, but not to venerate or even to approve. Even in
so far as the forms of religion give expression not so much to
the direct promptings of these baser aspects as to the reactions
we have formed against them, it must be remembered that true
moral advance lies in sublimation rather than in repression
and that so long as the human mind confines itself to the
purely negative task of opposing its own primitive tendencies,
it will never achieve either true emancipation or true
progress[199].
Further, the study of religion shows that the conceptions
which religion has formed as to the nature and working of the
Universe have arisen as products of the human emotions, having
no necessary counterparts in the real world; much the same
indeed in this respect as the inventions of the fairy stories and
imaginative games of childhood or the day-dreams, romances
and novels of a later age. In adult life such phantasies must
either be abandoned or, if indulged in, recognised for what
they are—productions of the mind which, apart from objective
evidence, have no valid claim upon reality. They may indeed
guide us in our ideals and aspirations and so lead ultimately
to the reconstruction of the outer world through our own
efforts, but in themselves they must be held distinct from the
order of reality belonging to this outer world. Only so will
Man achieve his full stature and be able to play that part in
Nature's scheme of things to which, in virtue of his intellectual
powers and his moral aspirations, he appears to be entitled.