Part 12 (2/2)
Women were persuaded that it was an honor and a privilege to be fertilized by a 'holy man' (a priest or other man connected with the rites), and children resulting from such unions were often called ”Children of G.o.d”--an appellation which no doubt sometimes led to a legend of miraculous birth! Girls who took their place as hierodouloi in the Temple or Temple-precincts were expected to surrender themselves to men-wors.h.i.+pers in the Temple, much in the same way, probably, as Herodotus describes in the temple of the Babylonian Venus Mylitta, where every native woman, once in her life, was supposed to sit in the Temple and have intercourse with some stranger. (3) Indeed the Syrian and Jewish rites dated largely from Babylonia. ”The Hebrews entering Syria,” says Richard Burton (4) ”found it religionized by a.s.syria and Babylonia, when the Accadian Ishtar had pa.s.sed West, and had become Ashtoreth, Ashtaroth, or As.h.i.+rah, the Anaitis of Armenia, the Phoenician Astarte, and the Greek Aphrodite, the great Moon-G.o.ddess who is queen of Heaven and Love.” The word translated ”grove” as above, in our Bible, is in fact Asherah, which connects it pretty clearly with the Babylonian Queen of Heaven.
(1) 1 Kings xiv. 22-24.
(2) 2 Kings xxiii.
(3) See Herodotus i. 199; also a reference to this custom in the apocryphal Baruch, vi. 42, 43.
(4) The Thousand Nights and a Night (1886 edn.), vol. x, p. 229.
In India again, in connection with the Hindu Temples and their rites, we have exactly the same inst.i.tution of girls attached to the Temple service--the Nautch-girls--whose functions in past times were certainly s.e.xual, and whose dances in honor of the G.o.d are, even down to the present day, decidedly amatory in character. Then we have the very numerous lingams (conventional representations of the male organ) to be seen, scores and scores of them, in the arcades and cloisters of the Hindu Temples--to which women of all cla.s.ses, especially those who wish to become mothers, resort, anointing them copiously with oil, and signalizing their respect and devotion to them in a very practical way. As to the lingam as representing the male organ, in some form or other--as upright stone or pillar or obelisk or slender round tower--it occurs all over the world, notably in Ireland, and forms such a memorial of the adoration paid by early folk to the great emblem and instrument of human fertility, as cannot be mistaken. The pillars set up by Solomon in front of his temple were obviously from their names--Jachin and Boaz (1)--meant to be emblems of this kind; and the fact that they were crowned with pomegranates--the universally accepted symbol of the female--confirms and clinches this interpretation. The obelisks before the Egyptians' temples were signs of the same character.
The well-known T-shaped cross was in use in pagan lands long before Christianity, as a representation of the male member, and also at the same time of the 'tree' on which the G.o.d (Attis or Adonis or Krishna or whoever it might be) was crucified; and the same symbol combined with the oval (or yoni) formed THE Crux Ansata {Ankh} of the old Egyptian ritual--a figure which is to-day sold in Cairo as a potent charm, and confessedly indicates the conjunction of the two s.e.xes in one design.
(2) MacLennan in The Fortnightly Review (Oct. 1869) quotes with approval the words of Sanchoniathon, as saying that ”men first wors.h.i.+p plants, next the heavenly bodies, supposed to be animals, then 'pillars'
(emblems of the Procreator), and last, the anthropomorphic G.o.ds.”
(1) ”He shall establish” and ”In it is strength” are in the Bible the marginal interpretations of these two words.
(2) The connection between the production of fire by means of the fire-drill and the generation of life by s.e.x-intercourse is a very obvious one, and lends itself to magical ideas. J. E. Hewitt in his Ruling Races of Prehistoric Times (1894) says (vol. i, p. 8) that ”Magha, the mother-G.o.ddess wors.h.i.+pped in Asia Minor, was originally the socket-block from which fire was generated by the fire-drill.” Hence we have, he says, the Magi of Persia, and the Maghadas of Indian History, also the word ”Magic.”
It is not necessary to enlarge on this subject. The facts of the connection of s.e.xual rites with religious services nearly everywhere in the early world are, as I say, sufficiently patent to every inquirer.
But it IS necessary to try to understand the rationale of this connection. To dispatch all such cases under the mere term ”religious prost.i.tution” is no explanation. The term suggests, of course, that the plea of religion was used simply as an excuse and a cover for s.e.xual familiarities; but though this kind of explanation commends itself, no doubt, to the modern man--whose religion is as commercial as his s.e.x-relations.h.i.+ps are--and though in CASES no doubt it was a true explanation--yet it is obvious that among people who took religion seriously, as a matter of life and death and who did not need hypocritical excuses or covers for s.e.x-relations.h.i.+ps, it cannot be accepted as in general the RIGHT explanation. No, the real explanation is--and I will return to this presently--that s.e.xual relations.h.i.+ps are so deep and intimate a part of human nature that from the first it has been simply impossible to keep them OUT of religion--it being of course the object of religion to bring the whole human being into some intelligible relation with the physical, moral, and if you like supernatural order of the great world around him. s.e.x was felt from the first to be part, and a foundational part, of the great order of the world and of human nature; and therefore to separate it from Religion was unthinkable and a kind of contradiction in terms. (1)
(1) For further development of this subject see ch. xv.
If that is true--it will be asked--how was it that that divorce DID take place--that the taboo did arise? How was it that the Jews, under the influence of Josiah and the Hebrew prophets, turned their faces away from s.e.x and strenuously opposed the Syrian cults? How was it that this reaction extended into Christianity and became even more definite in the Christian Church--that monks went by thousands into the deserts of the Thebaid, and that the early Fathers and Christian apologists could not find terms foul enough to hurl at Woman as the symbol (to them) of nothing but s.e.x-corruption and delusion? How was it that this contempt of the body and degradation of s.e.x-things went on far into the Middle Ages of Europe, and ultimately created an organized system of hypocrisy, and concealment and suppression of s.e.x-instincts, which, acting as cover to a vile commercial Prost.i.tution and as a breeding ground for horrible Disease, has lasted on even to the edge of the present day?
This is a fair question, and one which demands an answer. There must have been a reason, and a deep-rooted one, for this remarkable reaction and volte-face which has characterized Christianity, and, perhaps to a lesser degree, other both earlier and later cults like those of the Buddhists, the Egyptians, the Aztecs, (1) and so forth.
(1) For the Aztecs, see Acosta, vol. ii, p. 324 (London, 1604).
It may be said--and this is a fair answer on the SURFACE of the problem--that the main reason WAS something in the nature of a reaction.
The excesses and corruptions of s.e.x in Syria had evidently become pretty bad, and that very fact may have led to a pendulum-swing of the Jewish Church in the opposite direction; and again in the same way the general laxity of morals in the decay of the Roman empire may have confirmed the Church of early Christendom in its determination to keep along the great high road of asceticism. The Christian followed on the Jewish and Egyptian Churches, and in this way a great tradition of s.e.xual continence and anti-pagan morality came right down the centuries even into modern times.
This seems so far a reasonable theory; but I think we shall go farther and get nearer the heart of the problem if we revert to the general clue which I have followed already more than once--the clue of the necessary evolution of human Consciousnss. In the first or animal stage of human evolution, s.e.x was (as among the animals) a perfectly necessary, instinctive and unself-conscious activity. It was harmonious with itself, natural, and unproductive of evil. But when the second stage set in, in which man became preponderantly SELF-conscious, he inevitably set about deflecting s.e.x-activities to his own private pleasure and advantage; he employed his budding intellect in scheming the derailment of pa.s.sion and desire from tribal needs and, Nature's uses to the poor details of his own gratification. If the first stage of harmonious s.e.x-instinct and activity may be held as characteristic of the Golden Age, the second stage must be taken to represent the Fall of man and his expulsion from Paradise in the Garden of Eden story. The pleasure and glory of s.e.x having been turned to self-purposes, s.e.x itself became the great Sin. A sense of guilt overspread man's thoughts on the subject.
”He knew that he was naked,” and he fled from the voice and face of the Lord. From that moment one of the main objects of his life (in its inner and newer activities) came to be the DENIAL of s.e.x. s.e.x was conceived of as the great Antagonist, the old Serpent lying ever in wait to betray him; and there arrived a moment in the history of every race, and of every representative religion, when the s.e.xual rites and ceremonies of the older time lost their naive and quasi-innocent character and became afflicted with a sense of guilt and indecency. This extraordinarily interesting and dramatic moment in human evolution was of course that in which self-consciousness grew powerful enough to penetrate to the centre of human vitality, the sanctumof man's inner life, his s.e.xual instinct, and to deal it a terrific blow--a blow from which it has never yet recovered, and from which indeed it will not recover, until the very nature of man's inner life is changed.
It may be said that it was very foolish of Man to deny and to try to expel a perfectly natural and sensible thing, a necessary and indispensable part of his own nature. And that, as far as I can see, is perfectly true. But sometimes it is unavoidable, it would seem, to do foolish things--if only to convince oneself of one's own foolishness.
On the other hand, this policy on the part of Man was certainly very wise--wiser than he knew--for in attempting to drive out s.e.x (which of course he could not do) he entered into a conflict which was bound to end in the expulsion of SOMETHING; and that something was the domination, within himself, of self-consciousness, the very thing which makes and ever has made s.e.x detestable. Man did not succeed in driving the snake out of the Garden, but he drove himself out, taking the real old serpent of self-greed and self-gratification with him. When some day he returns to Paradise this latter will have died in his bosom and been cast away, but he will find the good Snake there as of old, full of healing and friendliness, among the branches of the Tree of Life.
Besides it is evident from other considerations that this moment of the denial of s.e.x HAD to come. When one thinks of the enormous power of this pa.s.sion, and its age-long, hold upon the human race, one realizes that once liberated from the instinctive bonds of nature, and backed by a self-conscious and self-seeking human intelligence it was on the way to become a fearful curse.
<script>