Phallic Worship E-Book

Robert Allen Campbell

• Herausgeber: E-BOOKARAMA
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

First published in 1887, "Phallic Worship", by Robert Allen Campbell, is an outline of the worship of the generative organs, as being, or as representing, the Divine Creator, with suggestions as to the influence of the phallic idea on religious creeds, ceremonies, customs and symbolism, past and present.

Leseprobe

Robert Allen Campbell

Phallic Worship

Table of contents

PHALLIC WORSHIP

Preface

Definitions

Introduction

Chapter 1. The Five Great Symbols. The Pillar, Triad, Triangle, Cross, And Serpent

Chapter 2. General Diffusion And Modified Forms Of Phallic Symbols

Chapter 3. Phallic Cults And Ceremonies

PHALLIC WORSHIP

Robert Allen Campbell

Preface

THE aim of this work is simply to present a popular sketch of the history, customs, and symbolism of Phallic Worship — past and present — written in plain English.

Most of the facts and illustrations given are already in print. Some of them have come down by tradition from the remote past. Many are taken from modern, and some from recent, publications. Without using quotation marks, or announcing special credits in detail, the author desires to say that he has quoted a truth, culled a fact, borrowed an illustration, and adopted an interpretation wherever found or by whomsoever before stated — and often in nearly, or even exactly, the words of the earlier writer. Those who are familiar with Higgins’ Anacalypsis and his Celtic Druids, Payne Knight’s Worship of Priapus and his Symbolic Language, Forlong’s Rivers of Life, Inman’s Ancient Faiths and his other kindred works, Lajard’s Culte de Venus, Dulaure’s Divinites Generatrices chez les Anciens et les Modernes, Hargrave Jennings’ Rosicrucians and his Phallicism, etc., will readily recognize the sources from which much in this work has been culled.

All these works, while of the highest merit as to scholarship and reliability, are not popular; for they are redundant with masses of minutia which, while important and of essential necessity to the student making an exhaustive examination of the subject, are burdensome and confusing to the general reader. These works, too, are plentifully interlarded with multitudinous quotations, descriptions, and suggestions in foreign or dead languages — thus veiling from all but the accomplished linguist much of interest and of importance to a fair understanding of this subject.

This work is intended, then, for the honorable and intelligent general reader who desires a fairly fall outline of this interesting and important department of religious, social, and political knowledge — in English — and without the constant veiling of socially tabooed ideas, organs, and operations in other languages.

This work is not meant for the instruction of the erudite and exhaustive student who wants a complete catalogue of facts, dates, and names. Such readers are referred to the works named above.

Nor is this book meant for the young, the ignorant, or the evil-minded; for it necessarily treats very fully, and in very plain English, upon topics and natural operations that — in this day — are denied discussion in a promiscuous assembly.

As to the importance and dignity of the theme, and hence the propriety of its treatment — which some may question; and as to its purity, which many will question — the author simply quotes Hargrave Jennings — whose learning and purity no one who knows him will question — and whose extensive and patient study of this and kindred subjects renders his opinion valuable. He says: —

“It may be boldly asserted that there is not a religion that does not spring from the sexual distinction. There is not a form, an idea, a glimpse, a sentiment, a felicity in art which is not owing, in one form or another, to Phallicism, and its means of indication, which, at one time, in the monuments — statuesque or architectural — covered the whole earth. All this has been ignored — averted from — carefully concealed (together with the philosophy which went with it) because it was judged indecent. As if anything seriously resting in nature, and being notoriously everything in nature and art (everything, at least, that is grand and beautiful), could be — apart from the mind making it so — indecent.”

Definitions

RELIGION is man’s worship of invisible power of powers, of an invisible being or beings — which he conceives of as like himself, but superior to himself; and which he usually denominates God — or the gods — or the divine.

Worship consists of the adoration bestowed upon this divine; of thanks for favors received and prayers for favors desired from this divine, and of obedience offered or rendered to the supposed requirements of this divine power or person — conceived of by the worshiper — as like himself, but superior to himself.

One’s religion and worship will, therefore, depend upon his conception of the attributes of the divine. One’s conception of the divine attributes will depend upon the unfolding and development of his conceptions of man and his attributes.

One cannot conceive of the divine with any attribute, the germ at least of which he has not recognized in man, any more than a blind man, who had never heard of light or color, could conceive of a being endowed with sensual vision.

Let the reader understand here, that this is not a statement as to anything the divine is — or may be; but simply as to man’s conception of the divine.

As the ancients did not conceive of an infinite divine being, they naturally thought of a number of gods, each greater and more powerful than man, but still, like man — swayed by like motives and subject to similar limitations — each endowed with certain special powers, and with evil as well as good attributes; and always sexed — masculine or feminine. When these evil attributes were supposed to predominate in any god he was feared and avoided; and they called that being a demon.

All ancient cults — and most modern as well — recognize one among the good gods as being especially superior — the god of gods; and likewise one among the evil gods as being especially malignant — the worst of demons — a devil.

The earliest worshipers probably made or adopted some physical entities which they regarded as gods. As their ideas unfolded, these images were retained as representing the conceived of, but invisible, powers or persons which they came to think upon as divine. Then symbols were introduced to represent the images, as well as the unseen, but believed in, gods; and the gods were more fully defined. That is, images were replaced by definitions of the gods, and the statements of the divines’ attributes were formulated in dogmas; and these definitions and dogmas were taught and impressed in ceremonies.

The religious world of to-day — even the Christian world — has not outgrown these conditions. The attributes of the divine are still defined as those of a good, wise, and powerful man — only complete in aggregate and infinite in degree. God is defined as one, but there is a polytheistic personalization of his attributes as Father, Son and Spirit — each of whom have special and clearly defined characteristics, which are essentially distinct, as ruler, advocate, witness — the offended king, unyieldingly exacting justice — the merciful martyr, by works of supererogation, securing the criminal’s pardon — the enlightener, making this fact and its conditions known to man. Each of these persons is in a way considered supreme in his own domain; but when, regarded as compared with each other, the Father is the head — Lord of Lords — God over all. God is defined as infinite (as if infinity could be defined), still his powers are clearly and definitely limited — not only in each of the three personalized attributes, but as to the aggregate. God is defined as masculine, and all his names — Father, Son and Spirit — are of that gender. Material images representing God are generally discarded, and by most denominations denounced; but dogmatic definitions — man-made, verbal, or intellectual images — of God are held as sacred and defended as valiantly as ever pagans protected their idols. As it is clearly illogical to define a perfectly good, wise, and powerful God as having any evil or weak attributes, these latter — which again are only those recognized in man — we recognized as aggregated in evil spirits — more wicked than men — or, as they are generally called, demons, and among whom the chief and ruler is — the Devil.

This is not written in a spirit of adverse criticism; but simply to illustrate that — the peculiarities of man’s mind, which in early days multiplied gods — of comparative rank — giving them each human characteristics, good and bad — allotting to each one of them special powers and performances in the creation of man and matter — and striving, by imagery, material or verbal, to describe them and their attributes — is still man’s peculiarity of mind in the foremost religion and civilization.

By phallic religion in this book is meant any cult in which the human generative organs (male or female), their use, realistic images representing them, or symbols indicating them, form an essential or important factor in the dogmas or ceremonies.

Phallic worship, in its origin and early use, was as pure in its intent and as reverent in its ceremonies, as far removed from any thing then looked upon as trivial or unclean in its symbolism, as is the worship and symbolism of to-day. No people, however ignorant and savage, would deliberately allow — much less designedly introduce — any ceremony in their worship which appeared in their eyes as degrading.

The dogmas entertained by the “poor heathen” of primitive ages — which, to our enlightened minds, seem absurd, and the ceremonies by them practiced - which, in this day, would be immoral and indecent, were — to those who believed in and practiced them — as dear and necessary as are now the modern creeds and ceremonies to the more enlightened worshipers of to-day. They could not then, as they cannot now, be dislodged by denunciations.

The only way to rectify the creeds and purify the conduct and ceremonies of worship is by the enlightened and earnest teacher leading the ignorant sectarian to a higher development, so he can see the truth in a clearer and broader light; and, therefore, enabling him to interpret his old dogmas anew or to form newer and holier creeds — and hence modify and purify his worship accordingly.

Divine truth, as man sees and interprets it, is the soul of all worship — past, present, and future. As the conception enlarges and clears, the forms change, but divine love and truth, as man conceives of it, is the everlasting spirit of all religion. Rites which, in our eyes, are indecent, were doubtless practiced by a primitive people with the greatest purity of intent.

Indeed, it probably never occurred to the minds of these simple people that any work of nature — much less its highest and holiest activity — producing its crowning work of creation — man — could be indelicate — much less offensive or obscene.

Even the cynical and sarcastic philosopher, Voltaire, says, speaking of Priapic worship: “It is impossible to believe that depravity of manners would ever have led among any people to the establishment of religious ceremonies. On the contrary, it is probable that this custom was first introduced in times of simplicity, and the first thought was to honor the deity in the symbol of life which it has given us.”

And Mrs. Child — whose intelligence, purity, and modesty needs no one’s endorsement — in speaking of ancient Egyptian and Hindu religions and their symbolism, says: “The sexual emblems every where conspicuous in the sculptures of their temples would seem impure in description, but no clean and thoughtful mind could so regard them while witnessing the obvious simplicity and solemnity with which the subject is treated.”

In another place she says: “Let us not smile at their mode of tracing the Infinite and Incomprehensible Cause throughout all the mysteries of nature, lest, by so doing, we cast the shadow of our own grossness on their patriarchal simplicity.”

When Abraham’s servant laid his hand upon the master’s generative organs, in taking an oath, he was simply following the custom of the times in taking a solemn obligation. The intent was as pure, and the appeal to their recognized creator as honest, and with as little thought of indecency as in modern times we have in swearing on the uplifted hand or kissing the Bible. Jacob, just before his death, swore his son — Joseph — in the same solemn manner; and the same custom is still used among some modern Asiatic and African tribes.

The ancient matron who wore a phallic amulet, or made a votive offering to the image of an erect lingam, praying for children, was as earnest and as modest as the Jewish Sarah, Rachel, or Hannah who appealed to Jehovah; and she was as pure-minded as the modern Christian who prays to the Holy Virgin or to the Father, for Christ’s sake, to give her the blessing of children. The Babylonian woman, who, in obedience to the requirements of her creed, gave herself to the embraces of the stranger who first offered her money for the temple treasury, was as earnest as any modern worshiper, and will certainly compare favorably, in purity and delicacy — to say nothing of morality — with modern wives, who would be shocked at such ornaments and procedure, and who, while enjoying all the sensual felicities of sexual congress, seek every known means to prevent conception — or to abort it even — after their preventative endeavors have failed.

Some people of our day profess religion in order to gain social standing, enlarge their acquaintance, or even increase their business; many follow Jesus for the “loaves and fishes;” and no doubt many in ancient times were pious for the sake of the sensualities; but the mass of worshipers then — as now — must be credited with pure and honest intent.

Then, as now, it was the pretenders — not those who had faith in the dogmas and god worshiped — that desecrated the rites, making them the excuse for selfish and revolting practices.

The ancients, in their worship, were not only honest in their convictions and pure in their intent, but they were careful and extended in their observations, and deliberate, as well as wonderfully discriminating in their conclusions. The foundations of essential principles which they laid and the superstructure of dogma which they erected thereon still remain in the greater part.

Only the vitality of essential truth would give such enduring life. The foundations have been deepened, broadened, and in every way improved; the superstructure has been enlarged and beautified; but the grand and eternal essentials of their cults were the germs from which have been unfolded all that we have superior to them in religion. The worship of one’s creator, and the ruler of his destinies, was with them, as with us, and as it must ever be, the life of all religion.

Introduction

THE masses of mankind, especially in religious dogmas, have always looked, as they now look, to their recognized leaders for instruction and example. These leaders have always been, as they are now, either conservative or radical. The conservative and the radical are the natural developments of two fundamentally different orders of mind, and neither class is capable of fully understanding or fairly appreciating the other class. They are opposed in purposes, plans, and methods of procedure; and are, hence, always antagonists in religion, philosophy, and politics.

Notwithstanding this continual conflict — nay, to speak correctly — in consequence of this antagonism, they are the essential and effective factors in the development of the race. They are, as it were, the centripetal and centrifugal forces in humanity. The centripetal force alone would carry the earth directly to the sun, and thus to immediate destruction by instant conflagration; while the centrifugal force alone would scatter the earth into impalpable dust, and it would be lost in the immeasurable frigidity of infinite space. So, if minds were all conservative, there would be unchanging stagnation — but no progress; and the race would wither and die out from lack of mental nourishment and needed exercise. If minds were all radical there would be incessant and grinding agitation — but no stability; and the race would destroy itself by constant and consuming friction. Yet both these parties are essential to the existence, continuance and betterment of the race; for just as the coordinate operations of the centripetal and centrifugal forces in nature causes the planets to revolve and circle in their courses around the central sun, so it is only by the constant activity of the conservative and radical minds, in their opposite tendencies, and in their apparently mutually destructive — but really cooperative — forces, that humanity is developed in affection, intellect, and power.

The conservatives, in religion, in their teachings, appeal to authority, precedent, and the pronunciamentoes of that lamented past, when God — or the gods — they say — walked the earth ; and, standing face to face with the wise and holy men of old, delivered their celestial messages — which embodied all the truth necessary, best, or possible for man to know. They naturally formulate exact creeds, and reiterate in the same formula of words the traditional revelations. They insist that the time-honored ceremonies were instituted by the wise and holy fathers as a means of pleasing God — or the gods; and thereby securing the divine favor upon those who punctiliously and reverently observe and perform these ceremonies. They cling tenaciously to all the old symbols. They build monuments to the Holy Prophets of olden time — whom their predecessors in conservatism persecuted as innovators and blasphemers — but who are, now that their teachings are accepted, canonized as inspired saints. They appeal for instruction and guidance to that lamented past, from which, they say, mankind has degenerated. Their great object is, by constant reiteration of the accepted revelation, and of the established dogmas, by never flagging insistence upon the full and frequent performance and observation of all the traditional ceremonies, and by the careful and effectual suppression of all false teachings (and teachers) — as they denominate all that tends in the least degree to modify the official worship — to retard the terrible and generally inevitable retrogression from the holiness and wisdom of man’s first estate; and gradually, though, of course, slowly, regain, for the faithful and obedient few, a return to paradisiacal peace. In short, they look back, they say, to the glorious sunrise of the past for enlightenment. By an unquestioning acceptance of the dogmas then formulated, by a strict obedience of the duties then enjoined, and by a full and constant observance of all the ceremonies then established, they seek to gain the special but uncertain favor of God — or the gods — they worship. They thus seek to secure, for a favorite — because obedient — few, release from the ills of this life, as well as desirable advantages in the life to come. They oppose all change of creed, lament every modification of ceremony as a degeneracy; and leave it for their children and successors to adapt themselves to the new order of things by accepting the inevitable in progress.

The radicals may, to some extent, acknowledge the truth and the authority of former revelations — for the time when it was given. They may also recognize, more or less, the time-honored traditions, as well as engage reverently in the observance of the established ceremonies. They will, however, claim that the truth was not fully revealed to the prophets of old — wise and holy though they were. At least they will claim that even if these ancient prophets were fully instructed, still we do not, from their revelations, fully understand all truth. They will assert that revelation has not entirely ceased; and will maintain that God — or the gods — will no more retire from the world as teachers than as creators and preservers. They profess to acknowledge the teachings of traditions and phenomena, but claim to look upward onward for fuller light through intuition and new revelations. Their almost constant argument is that the asserted new revelation is in perfect harmony with the older — with all that is understood to be true and useful in the established cult. Their claim usually is, that the new light restores a lost — or brings into prominence a neglected meaning; that it unfolds an internal or spiritual interpretation — higher and fuller than the mere literal statement, or that it adds to it a new, but still harmonious, unfoldment of truth. In either case they will generally claim that there is no attempt — and no desire — to substitute a new worship in the place of the old one. On the contrary, they aim simply to develop the already accepted dogmas and practices into a clearer light and a broader usefulness.

The radicals, when wise, honest, and enthusiastic, are the real “reformers.” They do not seek to substitute an entirely new authority, creed, or ceremony, but to improvingly modify — “reform” — those already accepted and in use.

True reformers, by the very constitution of their mental make-up, necessarily value more the truth than the special method of its expression; and they hold in higher estimation the spirit of the doctrines than the formal ceremonies and conventional symbols which illustrate, impress, and represent those doctrines. Their policy is, therefore, to unfold and enlarge dogmas, to re-interpret ceremonies and symbols. They seek to excise only that which the newer and clearer light shows to be false in creed, and misleading in ceremony and symbol. They aim to add only such new statements of doctrine as will express more clearly the larger truth of the new revelation. They profess to introduce only such modifications of ceremony and symbol as are absolutely necessary to more fully and more distinctly represent and impress this broader and clearer truth. The typical conservative and radical is here drawn with sufficient distinctness for the purpose in hand. It must, however, be remembered that mankind as they are — and were — range in all possible gradations of mental idiosyncrasy from the bigot — who says no change is desirable, to the fanatic — who wants everything changed — and at once.

Kings and priests — those who are in possession of inherited. rested, or permanent position. influence, or income — are, naturally, both from education and selfish interest, conservative in all things. The masses — that is, s majority of them — are not only naturally conservative, but lack the development to readily understand enlarged statements of truths. The vast majority of mankind are religious after the definition of religion, which is given elsewhere. All religion is based upon what is, according to some definitions. divine revelation. “There is no God but God : Mohammed is the prophet of God,” says the follower of the faith founded upon the Koran as the only inspired and perfect revelation of Allah, the Most High. And the Mohammedan is as earnest and pious in his devotions, and as well convinced that he is a professor of the only true religion as is the Christian who accepts his Jewish Bible and the Gospel as the only revelation of God to man: and who declares there is no God but Jehovah, and no Savior of man but Jesus the Christ — the only-begotten Son of the Father. The Brahmin, the Buddhist and the Parsee, are each equally well assured that his is the only true religion. his object of worship the only real God, and his sacred books the only truth man has received from the creator, preserver, and savior of the race.