Themis, a study of the social origins of Greek ... - Warburg Institute

134 Totemism, Sacrament and Sacrifice [ch.
That sacrifice and sacrament are near akin the similarity of
the two words would lead us to suspect. One obvious distinction
is, however, worth noting at the outset. Sacrifice, as part of our
normal religious ritual, is now-a-days dead and gone. Sacraments
show no sign of dying, but rather of renewed life and vigour.
This need not surprise us. It will shortly appear that sacrifice is
but a specialized form of sacrament, both sacrament and sacrifice
being themselves only special forms of that manipulation of mana
which we have agreed to call magic. Of the two, sacrifice and sacra-
ment, sacrament is the more primitive ; sacrifice contains elements
that are plainly of late development. The oldest things lie deepest
and live longest; it is the specializations, the differentiations, that
dwindle and die. We begin then by asking—What is sacrifice ?
What is the late element in it as compared with sacrament?
And, incidentally, why was it doomed to a relatively early death ?
The current common-sense view of sacrifice is the gift-theory 1
do ut des, I give, at some personal ' sacrifice,' to you, the god, in
order that you may give me a quid pro quo. I bring a gift to
a god as I might to an oriental potentate to ' smooth his face.'
This theory presupposes a personality, not to say a personage, to
whom the gift may be offered. It further supposes that the
personality is fairly benevolent and open to a bribe. An important
modification of the do ut des theory of sacrifice is the do ut abeas
variety, ' I give that you may keep away.' It only differs in
supposing malevolence in the person approached. When we come
to consider animism it will be seen that do ut abeas probably
precedes do ut des.
The gift-theory of sacrifice was unquestionably held by the
Greeks of classical times, though with an increasing sense of its
inadequacy. 'Holiness,' says Socrates 2 to Euthyphron, 'is a sort
of science of praying and sacrificing ; further he adds, ' sacrifice is
'
giving to the gods, prayer is asking of them ; holiness then is
a science of asking and giving.' If we give to the gods they also
want to ' do business with us.' Euthyphron, with his orthodox
mind, is made very uncomfortable by this plainness of speech, but
has nothing he can urge against it.
1 See my Prolegomena, pp. 3—7, where I accept this theory which I now see to
be, as regards primitive sacrifice, wholly inadequate.
2 Plat. Euthyphro, 15 i>.
,