Final Draft - Preview Matter - Florida State University

paradoxical, as the loss of a valuable resource is meant to secure that same resource. 71 ) But such
a sacrifice need not mean that a god or goddess was believed to take the form of the sacrificial
animal. 72
The example of Aesculapius, who was often conceived of in the form of a snake, serves
to refute Frazer’s hypothesis. While the snake was key to Aesculapius’ cult, there are no
examples of snakes being sacrificed to him. There are also numerous other instances of animals
sacred to but not sacrificed to classical deities. For example, both the woodpecker and the wolf
were sacred to the Roman god of war, Mars, yet these two animals are never sacrificed to the
god. There are also no instances in which Mars is ever depicted as a wolf, wearing a wolf-skin,
or in the form of a woodpecker. In fact, the appearance as a wolf is associated with chthonic
deities such as the Etruscan Aita or sylvan deities such as Faunus. If Mars were to take the form
of animals sacrificed to him, then we would also expect to see him in the form of a horse, since
the horse was the victim of an important sacrifice to the deity. 73 Thus we can see that the
equating of deity with sacrificial animal often does not hold true.
Frazer also proposes the idea that an animal that injures a deity in a myth was once a
representation of the deity. It is by confusion of the ritual, which the myth attempts to explain by
using the animal as an enemy of the deity, that the animal becomes vilified. His theory is that
there is a shift in which the animals are sacrificed as the god, then to the god for their actions.
He bases this idea on various myths associated with the gods Attis, Adonis, and Osiris, and then
further applies them to Athena and Virbius. 74 Again, I believe that Frazer is inferring too much
from these myths and is ungrounded in his assumptions. It is too much to ask that since a boar is
71 Rice (1998, 42) outlines the theory of sacrifice described in the body of this chapter (pgs. 17-18) in reference to
the practices of the ancients, a model based on the concept of “do ut des.” A different approach to the paradoxical
nature of sacrifice is explored by R. Brightman in his text Grateful Prey: Rock Cree Human-Animal Relationships.
Brightman (1993, 224-6) defines sacrifice as a gift exchange instead of a commodity exchange. This model posits a
world in which the gods show great favor to mortals who offer them small gifts. The sacrificial animal also
participates in this mode of gift exchange by offering its flesh to the men and women who consume it during the
ceremonial feast. Godelier (1999, 186) posits a similar view that sacrifice is gift exchange between the gods and
man but further specifies that man is incapable of giving gifts equal to those that the gods give to man.
72 Kirk (1970, 4) sums up the problem with much of Frazer’s work when he states that “…Frazer tossed in
catalogues of vague similarities drawn from a dozen different cultures in apparent support of highly dubious
theories…”
73 On March 15, a chariot race was held in the Field of Mars. The right-hand horse of the victorious team was then
sacrificed to Mars. This was done as a way to insure the fertility of crops and livestock. Frazer sees this horse as an
embodiment of his corn-spirit.
74 Frazer 1922, 486-95.
18