The Cult of Animals Lord Raglan Folklore, Vol. 46, No. 4. (Dec., 1935), pp. 331-342.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-587X%28193512%2946%3A4%3C331%3ATCOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P Folklore is currently published by Folklore Enterprises, Ltd..

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/fel.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org Mon Apr 16 07:49:46 2007

T H E CULT O F ANIMALS
BY L O R D RAGLAN

A WIDELY, perhaps I might say a generally, held view of the origin of animal cults is that they arose from the fact that savage man does not distinguish clearly between animals and human beings. Thus Mr. Hornblower (Man, 1932, 331) speaks of " the mentality of hunters who lived, as it were, in community with animals, looking on them in much the same way as they did on their own kind, and who could easily imagine themselves turned into animals or descended from them." Professor Gilbert Murray, again, speaks (Bacchae, p. 85) of men who " made their gods in the image of snakes and bulls and fawns, because they hardly felt any difference of kind between themselves and the animals." Otto Spengler speaks (Decline o f the West, p. 26) of " that similarity of human history to that of any other of the higher life-groups which is the refrain of endless beastlegends, sagas and fables." Other examples of the belief will be found in Frazer's Spirits o f the Corn and o f the Wild. I once told a lady of my acquaintance that in Central Africa the natives believe that certain people can take the form of leopards, whereupon she replied, " Well, perhaps they can. They are nearer to nature than we are." The idea is the same. It is that savages, people far off in time or in space, are not really quite human ; that we are entitled to believe them capable of acting and thinking in a way in which no real human being could act or think. For no real human being, outside a lunatic asylum a t any rate, has ever been known to confuse animals with human beings. There is no European who looks on a rabbit " in
331

The Cult of Animals

much the same way as he looks on his own kind " ; who " feels hardly any difference " between himself and a snake ; or who regards the life-history of a fox as similar to his own. And has there ever been a savage who thought in this way ? There is not, so far as I can learn, the slightest evidence for it. The savage's range of ideas is narrow, and while this makes him credulous in matters outside his ken, it makes him extremely matter-of-fact when dealing with things with which he is familiar. No savage that I ever met or heard of confuses people with animals. He may believe that people can take the form of animals, but that is a very different matter. People in animal form are quite different from real animals. Between a man and a wolf there is a great gulf fixed, and so there is between a werewolf and a real wolf. The former always has traits which mark it out as a human being in disguise. It is, in fact, not a real animal a t all, but a magic animal, the product not of confused thought but of superstition, a totally different thing. It is the same with children. They never confuse the fairy-tale animals, the talking bears and wolves, with the real animals they see round them. It is quite fallacious, therefore, to suppose that children believe instinctively or naturally that animals can talk. I should like to see the adjectives "instinctive," "innate," and " natural " expunged from the vocabulary of science. Their chief use, in anthropology their sole use, is to act as a cloak for lazy and muddled thought. The belief in talking animals is neither natural nor instinctive, but, like all the phenomena of human culture, is the result of long and complex processes which we can only hope to understand by collecting, comparing and classifying the relevant facts. Of course I cannot pretend to achieve this in the time allotted, but a t any rate shall try to make a start. I shall discuss the religio-sociological aspect of animals,

The Cult of Animals

333

that is to say their non-economic aspect (it is not easy to find a suitable term) under eight heads : ( I ) Totemism ; (2) Talking animals ; (3) The ceremonial wearing of horns, hides, etc. ; (4) Lycanthropy ; (5) Gods in animal form ; (6) Animal sacrifice ; (7) Animals as omens ; (8) Animals as symbols and emblems. When we come to examine these heads, the first thing that we notice is that in each case the animals are alternatives to human beings. Where totemism exists, there we find a belief that a given clan is akin not merely to a species of animal, but to a corresponding clan in another tribe. In tales of talking animals, these animals are often alternatives to men. Thus in the case of the trickster tales, we often find them in one area told of a tricky man, Odysseus or Abu Nuwas or whoever it may be, while in the next area the same tales are told of a tricky fox or a tricky hare. Whatever part he may play, however, the talking animal is always very human. The wearing of horns, animal skins, animal masks, etc., in ceremonial is parallel to the wearing of wigs and human masks, and the skins or scalps of human enemies or victims. Lycanthropy is the belief that certain people can take the form of animals, but it exists alongside of the belief that people can take the form of other human beings, even those of opposite sex. Gods who appear in animal or partly animal form have usually if not always a purely human form as well. Animal sacrifice is in many cases certainly, and in all cases probably, a substitute for human sacrifice. Auspices were taken from the entrails of human as well as animal victims, and as it is considered lucky or unlucky to see certain animals on certain occasions, so it is considered lucky to see certain types of men or women on certain occasions. England is represented by a lion, also by Britannia or

334

The Cult of Animals

John Bull ; the U.S.A. by an eagle or Uncle Sam, and so on. On coins and stamps, in stained glass windows and coatsof-arms, we find rulers, saints and symbolic figures alternating with kangaroos, elephants, lambs, doves and snakes. But we have to notice that in all these cases there are further alternatives to human beings and animals, in the shape of trees, plants, inanimate objects and simple signs. The totem may take the form of a species of tree, of clouds, or even of an artefact. In fairy tales inanimate objects often talk, as the wall talks in A Midsummer Night's Dream. In ceremonies people disguise themselves as trees as well as animals ; Jack-in-the-Green is a familiar example. Nor is it only into animals that people are believed to be transformed. In Greek mythology people are transformed into flowers and stars. In Palestine a woman is changed into a pillar of salt, and in Indonesia people are often changed into rocks, while in the story of Pygmalion we find the reverse process. We find many deities taking the form of trees and stones ; whether the trees and stones are ever actually regarded as deities is questionable, but it is also questionable whether animals are ever actually regarded as deities. As well as human and animal sacrifices we often find sacrifices consisting of the cutting of a cake, or the pouring out of a cup of wine. Auspices may be taken by throwing dice or burning sticks, and the finding of a plant, white heather for example, may be considered as a good omen. A nation may be symbolized by a crown or a cap of liberty, by the sun or moon, or even by a group of letters, such as SPQR. To get any idea of the scope and meaning of animal cults and animal symbolism we must then, in my opinion, try to gain a view of the phenomena as a whole. It is then seen to be impossible to separate the cult of animals from the cult of human beings on the one hand and of inanimate objects on the other, and impossible to differentiate animal

The Cult of Animals

symbolism from other forms of symbolism. The idea suggests itself that all the phenomena which I have mentioned represent steps or stages in a very long and complex process of symbolization. By symbolization I understand the provision of ritually effective substitutes. Let us take some of the simpler phenomena, numbers ( 2 ) , (3) and (4) ; what do we get ? A man puts on the skin of an animal : a man transforms himself into an animal : an animal talks. This clearly suggests a rite or ceremony in which a man disguises himself as an animal, and is then supposed to be that animal, which has come to take part in the rite. The rites performed by savages a t the present day are probably degenerate forms of more complex rites, so we can a t present merely guess a t the original form of the rites. Perhaps food animals had to be present a t a rite in order that they might be magically multiplied ; perhaps dangerous animals had to be present a t a rite in order that they might be magically defeated. Vegetation and water might also have to be treated magically. It would not be possible to have a live lion present, but you might have a lionskin, and if there were a man inside it, and he did ritually whatever the lion was required to do actually, the ritual would be far more convincing. If the man who took the part of the lion did so successfully he would probably have to take it again, and eventually the place where he lived and where the lionskin was kept might come to be particularly associated with lions, and those who lived there might come to be known as the lion clan. There is, I think, a good deal of evidence to suggest that totemism originated in this way. I should say that totemism, far from being primitive, could only have originated among people who had been soaked in magico-religious symbolism for so long that they could see a man in a lionskin as a lion, though, as 1 said earlier, they always distinguished him from a real lion. When the kingship developed out of the annual human

336

The Cult of Animals

sacrifice which was associated with the creation rite, it would seem that the king took the part of one of the animals. Whether it was his totem animal, or the animal which was considered most important, we cannot say, but there seems to be no doubt that the old king was sometimes killed by his successor, or sacrificed, in the guise of an animal. Presently, however, the symbolism developed still further, and the king was allowed to go on living and reigning, while a victim, human or animal, died in his stead. From the animal victim probably came the god in animal form, and it would seem that over a great part of the world the king himself went through a pretence death in animal guise, but that instead of being actually killed, he was released from his disguise and then again installed as king. This is how I interpret the story of Beauty and the Beast, and the many stories in which, when some beast's head has been cut off, there steps from the skin a handsome prince, who marries the princess and becomes king. Many examples of this have been collected by Kittredge in his Gawain and the Green Knight, and also by Professor Saintyves in his study of the Contes de Perrault. The latter associates these stories with ritual, and also with werewolves (p. 433). I believe that he is right and that the idea of were-wolves, far from being primitive, is the'projection into real life of something often seen in ritual. It is, in fact, on all fours with the idea of demons with horns and pitchforks, which is undoubtedly a projection from ritual, and which can hardly be supposed to be primitive. The process of symbolization is an extremely complex one. It involves in the first place an idea that substitution is necessary or desirable, accompanied by a belief that it will be effective. In the second place, since the symbol is not a duplicate of the thing symbolized, there must be a division of the latter's characteristics into the essential and the non-essential. Thirdly, there must be the selection of

The Cult of A n i ~ a l s

337

a substitute possessing these essential characteristics, and lastly, there must be the identification of the substitute with the original which constitutes the actual symbolization. Let us suppose that the divine king was originally sacrificed by having his throat cut, and that later his place was taken by an animal. This process involves a great deal more than the mere physical substitution. The sacrifice is a most important rite, and the animal is not merely a substitute for, but is a symbol of the king. For this a great deal of abstract thought is needed. The attributes of the king which make him the proper sacrifice, his strength, his courage, his fertility, or whatever they may be, must be abstracted from him and transferred to the animal. But before the king's qualities can be transferred to an animal, the animal must have certain characteristics which make it a suitable recipient. Where cannibalism formed an essential part of the rite it would be necessary to select an animal that was good to eat, but if the king's wisdom was considered more important than his edible properties, it might be necessary to select some creature, such as a fox or an owl, which could be supposed capable of having the royal wisdom conferred upon it. I suggest that the attribution of human qualities to animals is always the result of some such process. The attribution of ferocity to a lamb is not made because it is too obviously absurd, but it is not really more so than the attribution of wisdom to an owl. Once it had been realized that the results of sacrificing an animal were just as satisfactory as those of sacrificing a king, the process of symbolization could proceed still further, until it became possible to represent a sacrifice merely by pouring wine out of a cup, the wine representing the victim's blood and the cup its body. It appears from the story of the Holy Grail, however, that it might be necessary to transfer certain human attributes to the cup. Symbolism began, I suggest, with the ritual substitution
Y

337

338

The Cult of Animals

of men for animals or animals for men, but it has led to the most important results, not merely in the sphere of religion, but in general human thought. Abstract thought is a complex process which is even now rare among savages. It consists in separating a quality from its possessor, strength from a strong man or wisdom from a wise one. 1 suggest that it arose from the sacrifice, and from the necessity of transferring attributes from the human to the animal victim. I know that the psychologists will not agree with me. They suppose that symbolism is instinctive or natural, and that it originates in dreams and other subconscious processes. On this question, as on many others, they have started a t the wrong end. They are like a man who should find a tennis-ball down a rabbit-hole, and who should conclude that tennis-balls originate in rabbit-holes. If symbolism were really natural, we should find symbols used universally in the same way, and this we do not find. I cannot discuss this a t length, but will give one example. In parts of China the fox is an erotic symbol, and it is believed that foxes can take the shape of women, and live with men as their wives. Professor Jameson, of Peiping, has been kind enough to send me a collection of anecdotes showing the astonishing prevalence of this belief in that region. In Western Europe, on the other hand, there is a great deal of fox symbolism, but it has nothing to do with eroticism. The male fox is a symbol of cunning, while the vixen is a symbol of savagery and spite. It is impossible to suppose the character of the Asiatic fox to be totally different from that of the European fox, and this difference in the human attitude towards the fox cannot, in my view, be due to human nature, but can only be attributed to the permutations and combinations of certain magical beliefs. The whole idea that human beliefs and human activities are natural is, in my view, a disastrous fallacy. Man is the

The Cult of Animals

unnatural animal. Nothing that he does consciously and deliberately, with the possible exception of eating wild fruit raw, is what he would do if he acted naturally, that is to say, if he were allowed to grow up among apes. It is no more natural for a man to wear clothes than it is for an organ-grinder's monkey ; it is no more natural for a man to eat cooked food than it is for a dog to eat dog-biscuits. Those who suppose that it is natural for human hunters to believe themselves related to their prey must suppose that it is natural for lions to believe themselves related to antelopes. Talking is unnatural, and that is why animals and those born deaf do not learn to talk. There is, so far as I am aware, no physiological reason why monkeys should not make articulate sounds, and if speech were natural they would have in reality the languages which some people have fondly supposed them to have. A child learns to talk, as it learns almost everything else, by imitation. Long before it has learned to talk it has been deliberately taught to imitate a great variety of movements and sounds, and, in a civilized country, has been shown a very large number of pictures. It has also seen a great many sights, all of which have probably left some impression on its mind. By the time that a child is able to express any ideas a t all, its mind is already filled with ideas derived from what it has seen, heard, and been taught. The fact that when a child begins t o talk it finds it difficult to put its ideas into words does not mean that these ideas are natural or original, but that they have been acquired through the eyes and not through the ears. The same probably applies to those ideas of adults of which we say that they are " too deep for words." Children, savages, and those who are unaccustomed to the use of grammars and dictionaries learn much more readily from representations than from words. The beliefs about animals with which I have dealt

The Cult of Animals

are largely communicated by means of representationspictures, images, dances and dramas. They are seldom completely formulated in words, and therefore present to literary persons, who are accustomed to express everything in words, a wholly fallacious appearance of naturalness and spontaneity. Now let us consider these pictures and these images. It was once generally believed-perhaps it still is-that artists draw their ideas from some mysterious internal source. Of course this is not really so ; nobody has ever drawn what he has not seen. It is of course possible for an artist to combine in one picture two or more things that he has seen a t different times, but even this is not very common. As all who have any knowledge of landscape or portrait painting know, it is very difficult to depict with success anything that is not before one a t the moment. When, therefore, we find that art, both savage and civilized, consists largely of representations of creatures half human and half animal, half animal and half bird and so on, or else of animals engaged in such human activities as carrying flags, wielding weapons and wearing boots, we shall conclude, if we belong to the great class of non-thinkers, that artists have wonderful imaginations, but if we think a t all we shall realize that the artists must have seen what they drew. Italian artists depicted the early saints in the costume of the fifteenth century, not because they imagined that that was how the saints really dressed, but because they were not trying to imagine anything a t all, but were merely painting portraits of people dressed in their best, with wooden haloes, to act the parts of the saints in the local mystery play. In the same way, when we find them showing the Paschal Lamb carrying a flag over its shoulder, we must suppose that a t one time the part of the Paschal Lamb was taken by a boy in a sheepskin, and when we see pictures

The Cult of Animals

of people with animal heads or animal tails, we may safely conclude that the artists, unless they were merely copying other pictures, had before them men disguised, or partly disguised, as animals. And we find to this day, in many parts of the world, men disguising themselves as animals to take part in some magical or religious drama, procession or dance. I decline to believe that it occurs naturally to people to make themselves an elaborate animal disguise, . and to put it on once a year for the purpose of taking part in a function. There is one other aspect of the cult of animals on which I should like to touch, and that is the effect which it has had upon human diet. Hindus may not eat the sacred cow ; Jews and Moslems may not eat the sacred pig, and Englishmen may not eat the sacred horse. It is of course generally recognized that the cow is sacred to the Hindus, but the sacredness of the pig is less well recognized. It is generally believed that the Jews may not eat the pig because it is unclean, and that uncleanness is very different from sacredness, but in fact they are the same thing. The Latin word '' sacer " means both sacred in our sense and unclean, and so does the Arabic root " haram " from which come haram," sin, and " harlm," women. This does not imply that the Arabs regard women as sinful, but that both sin and women are taboo, which word also means both sacred and unclean. Members of the Semitic religions may not eat the pig because the pig was sacred to Adonis, the Lord Tammiiz, who was the principal god of the Semites. If the prohibition were really hygienic, Jews could have no grounds for refusing to eat peach-fed ham. In the same way horseflesh is freely eaten in those countries in which the worship of Odin or Woden, to whom the horse was sacred, was less prevalent than it was in England. It would seem that the objection to eating the flesh of dogs which is found in Europe and Western Asia must be

The Cult of Animals

the result of a taboo, since in China and in Central Africa dogs are bred for food. Nor must we forget the hare, which some of the inhabitants of these islands still refuse to eat because they believe that the souls of women go into hares. We must connect this belief with another which is not yet extinct, namely that witches can take the form of hares, and again we see how all these animal superstitions are linked up. We must note in all these cases that it is not the sight or taste of the flesh but the idea of eating the animal which fills the superstitious with horror. Horror itself is always an irrational, and usually a superstitious, fear. There is no evidence of any natural disinclination for any form of possible food. To primitive man all is meat that comes to hand, whatever animal it may be and however long it may have been dead. It is only with the development of magic that we find food taboos arising. Alongside food taboos we find beliefs in the magical efficacy of certain foods. For example, it is believed in India that to eat tiger's flesh makes one brave. It would, however, be rash to assume that such beliefs are primitive, since this eating of magically beneficial food seems always to partake of a sacramental character. At any rate I never heard of anyone who believed that a diet of roast mutton would make him sheepish. All the beliefs and all the practices with which I have dealt are part of the great system of magic, which, although by no means primitive, has formed part of our culture for so long that people, and even scientists, have come to regard it as an integral part of human nature. Human nature is a living thing, but magic is a clockwork toy, which was somehow wound up a few thousand years ago, and is taking an unconscionable time to run down.