From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Newsgroups: sci.classics,alt.mythology
Subject: Re: sacrifice
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:10:32 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <ARA.92Sep13052226@camelot.ai.mit.edu> ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
>
>What exactly does one do when one sacrifices something to one of the gods?
>As a kid, I had the impression that it just meant one killed it and
>maybe burned the flesh afterwards. It wasn't clear to me why the god
>liked the animal dead and burned better than alive and how it got to 
>the god, etc, but I just assumed that the ancients believed silly things
>like that.
>

	The point is that *humans* like it burned (cooked), and they
	are offering a tithe to the gods.  There is a specific myth
	that relates how some human tricked the gods into accepting
	the bones and fat instead of the good meat.  Does anyone
	recall which it is?  As for how it got to the god, I believe
	that the standard scenario is that the smoke and smell of
	the sacrifice ascend to the god.  But then, there were also
	sacrifices of wine and grain.  How do these get to the god?
	Well, how does a prayer get to God?  Same difference, but
	the one is a little more material than the other.

>A few years ago, I was told that after an animal was sacrificed, the meat
>was distributed among the poor who would eat it. But if so, then in principle
>anyone could eat it.
>

	I recall reading in some book on Greek culture that temples
	were so common in the landscape (reading Herodotus or
	_The Voyage of the Argo_ really brings home to you the 
	attention they paid to local as well as general gods),
	that beggars stealing the sacrifices was something of a problem.

>This naturally presents a conflict of interests in case one sacrifices
>one of one's own livestock. For example, even if one kills the beast
>just to eat it, presumably one is supposed to offer some prayer of
>thanks to the gods. Having done so, did that make it indistinguishable
>from a sacrifice?
>

	My understanding is that *all* things you ate were eaten with
	some consciousness of the gods.  However, I think it is 
	important to avoid introducing Christian concepts in discussing
	pagan rituals.  I am not sure how mechanical or perfunctory
	these rituals were.  One gathers that in the main they were
	motions that you went through, and that whether the god
	accepted your sacrifice or not depended more on his or her
	whim, not on how sincere you were, and how you fit into
	his or her long-range plans.  But doubtless when the rituals
	were fresh and the cultures new, the believers attached as
	much importance to them as the early Christians did to
	'breaking bread.'  But both of these seem hollow today to 
	the average city dweller.  Living closer to the land and
	sea, I think they were much more inclined to animism than
	we are, substituting sacrifices to the local gods for
	scientific understanding.  I recall an essay in
	_The Concept of the Enlightenment_ in which Horkheimer
	and Adorno talk about this process of 'unification.'
	I'm sure books on mythology would discuss this in depth,
	but this area is a black hole in my knowledge.

>I am naturally very concerned about this as we approach the season during
>which Americans traditionally sacrifice the turkey to the god and then
>eat what the god decides not to eat.
>

	I guess you are being humourous here.  The Pilgrims were
	Christians, not pagans, with all that that implies.
	Perhaps others can recommend books describing the Pagan
	mindset and religion.  I have only glanced at _Pagans
	and Christians_ by Fox (shame on me -- I should have
	read it long ago).

>Allan Adler
>ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu