Sacrificial King

[Carla]

Many tarot and witchcraft books I read make reference to a sacrificial king, some as if such a thing is a given and historical fact. Rachel Pollack in particular in her book 78 Degrees of Wisdom returns to this theme again and again, with no reference, which annoys the bejeebers out of me.

The best source I can come up with for this idea of a king who willingly allows himself to be ritually sacrificed is James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough', published in 1890.

What can you tell me about actual historical evidence for this? I find it nearly impossible to believe there ever existed a culture in which a series of men allowed themselves to be named king and then ritually slaughtered.

 

[Winterchild]

Sacred King

Carla try googling Sacred King.... I remember when I saw mention of this (possibly in the 78 Degrees book...) I got better results using the word Sacred rather than Sacrificial, but apparently your surmise is right.... these Kings were sometimes sacrificed, just like Jesus was.... to pay for the sins of the people.

 

[TinySpark]

Many tarot and witchcraft books I read make reference to a sacrificial king, some as if such a thing is a given and historical fact. Rachel Pollack in particular in her book 78 Degrees of Wisdom returns to this theme again and again, with no reference, which annoys the bejeebers out of me.

The best source I can come up with for this idea of a king who willingly allows himself to be ritually sacrificed is James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough', published in 1890.

What can you tell me about actual historical evidence for this? I find it nearly impossible to believe there ever existed a culture in which a series of men allowed themselves to be named king and then ritually slaughtered.

I may be way off course here, but I really want to see where this discussion will go so...

erm. Jesus (i.e. King of the Jews) who let himself be ritually sacrificed. heh. holy grail and what not.

 

[Carla]

I understand the concept, and I know about the dying god archetype. What I want to know is why a wide variety of writers seem to think that such a practice actually existed in real life. Where do they get this? What is the factual evidence, if any?

 

[TinySpark]

I understand the concept, and I know about the dying god archetype. What I want to know is why a wide variety of writers seem to think that such a practice actually existed in real life. Where do they get this? What is the factual evidence, if any?

Factual evidence? not sure if most archetypes are built from factual evidence though. From a certain angle, the myths and legends and folk tales that foster these archetypes are simply ways people cope with not being able to cope. Hmm, it's 2am I am not sure I make any sense. What I mean to ask is do the authors who refer to the Sacrificial King as having actually existed, think or believe so? It may just be a matter of semantics on my part but belief sometimes is just enough for people when enough people believe the same. You could call it divine intervention or mass hallucinating, but I digress.

I guess my question is does it matter whether or not ANY archetype comes from something real or simply imagined and engrained culturally. If you look at the "Cinderella" tales that have origins around the globe, you'll see that Korean, French, and wide variety of ethnicities have similar tales. The archetype of Cinderella endures because so many different ethnicities identify with it, not because thousands of ancient Cinderellas actually existed. anyhow thanks for an interesting post. Would love to see this develop some more.

 

[Carla]

I am not talking about archetypes, okay? I am talking about stuff like this:

'In many places, particularly India, the horse became associated with death and funerals. When the rising patriarchy abolished the ritual sacrifice of a king, a horse was killed instead.' (Pollack, 78 Degrees, p. 65)

'In ancient time when the Goddess reigned, the king performed a special function. New life can come only from death; therefore, each winter, the Goddess's representatives sacrificed the old king, very often dismembering him and planting the pieces in the ground, thereby mystically fertilizing the earth. Later, when the male dominated religions took over, the king came to symbolize the rule of law which had clamped a lid of repression on what seemed to the patriarchs as the monstrous and chaotic darkness of the old order.' (Pollack, 78 Degrees, p. 50)

'In India, the king lost his life each year to the Goddess. When the patriarchal Aryans ended this practice the image of the turning wheel became an even more powerful symbol of the new religion.' (Pollack, 78 Degrees, p. 85)

'First of all, the medieval image derives from a much earlier time, when Fortuna represented the Great Goddess and the crushed king was a real event. Every year at midwinter, the priestesses sacrificed the king.' (Pollack, 78 Degrees, p. 84).

I have run across similar references in Doreen Valiente, Fiona Walker-Craven, and Melusine Draco. I don't feel like thumbing through to find them. None of these writers say that they are talking about archetypes. They refer to sacrificial kings as if it is common knowledge that it once happened. Pollack makes that pretty clear when she calls it a 'real event'! They make no reference to a source, either. And that is what I want to know. What is the source? I may have to ask Ron Hutton!

 

[BodhiSeed]

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:
"Many cultures show traces of prehistoric human sacrifice in their mythologies and religious texts, but ceased the practice before the onset of historical records."
Therein lies the rub - was it actual or mythological? Hard to tell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

 

[Carla]

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:
"Many cultures show traces of prehistoric human sacrifice in their mythologies and religious texts, but ceased the practice before the onset of historical records."
Therein lies the rub - was it actual or mythological? Hard to tell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

Doh!

I believe this stuff originates from Margaret Murray and James Frazer. Or at least was spread widely from those sources. There should be disclaimer or at the very least a reference when such claims are made. And if someone doesn't know the source of what they are saying, they should seriously rethink whether they ought to be saying it. But paganism is full of this sort of thing.

 

[Debra]

As a myth it runs parallel to the Divine Right of Kings (an idea very popular among kings). The idea that the King's life is not his own--well no one's life is his own in those worlds, but the King's is the gigantic easy-to-see model of it.

I don't think it was the actual royalty that was sacrificed "for the good of the community" in mesoamerica and elsewhere, so why Frazer identifies the king as the sacrifice, I don't know, unless for the sake of drawing a line to the story of Christ.

When I first read the Golden Bough it knocked my socks off. Still does.

 

[Carla]

I don't think it was the actual royalty that was sacrificed "for the good of the community" in mesoamerica and elsewhere, so why Frazer identifies the king as the sacrifice, I don't know, unless for the sake of drawing a line to the story of Christ.

When I first read the Golden Bough it knocked my socks off. Still does.

I should break down and read it, I suppose.