THEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN OF CIRCUMCISION.
We are told that in battle man looked upon the vanquished as unfit to
bear the name of man, looking upon the weakness or want of skill which
contributed to their defeat as something effeminate. The victor then
proceeded by a very summary and effective mode, done in the most
primitive and expeditious manner, to render his victim as much like a
female as possible to all outward appearances; this was accomplished by
a removal at one sweep of _all_ the organs of generation, the phallus
being generally retained as a trophy,--a practice which was also carried
into effect with dead enemies, to show that the victor had vanquished
_men_. It has been the practice from time immemorial for a victor to
carry off some portion of the body of his victim or defeated enemy, as a
mark or testimony of his prowess; it was either a hand, head or scalp,
lower jaw, or finger. The carrying off of the phallus or virile member
was considered the most conclusive proof of the nature of the
vanquished, and, as it established the sex, it conferred a greater title
to bravery and skill than a mere collection of hands or scalps, which
would not denote the sex. In conformity with this custom, we find that
Osiris, when he returned to Egypt and found that Typhon had fomented
dissension in his absence, being vanquished by the latter in the
conflict that followed, was dismembered and cut into pieces, the
followers of Typhon each securing a piece and Typhon himself securing
the phallus or generative member. Isis, the spouse of Osiris, seems in
turn to have secured the control of government, and, having secured all
the pieces of the dissected Osiris except the phallus,--Typhon having
fled with that, and, according to some traditions, having thrown it into
the sea,--Isis ordered that statues should be constructed, each to
contain a piece of the unfortunate Osiris, who should thereafter be
worshiped as a god, and that the priesthood should choose from among the
animals some one kind which should thereafter be considered sacred. The
phallus which was missing was ordered special worship, with more marked
solemnities and mysteries; from this originated the phallic worship and
the sacredness of the white bull, Apis, among the Egyptians, which was
chosen to represent Osiris.
By gradual evolution and the progress of society, the cultivation of the
ground and the need of menials, warriors found some other use for their
prisoners taken in strife besides merely cutting off the phallus as a
trophy; these prisoners began to have some intrinsic value. From this a
change came about; the warrior instinct, however, still claimed that the
vanquished, even if a slave, should still convey or carry some sign of
servitude. The original idea of the ablation of the phallus was to
emasculate the victim; investigation developed the idea that the same
object could be accomplished by castration, an operation which also
finally reached a tolerable state of perfection through different stages
of evolution, it first being performed by a complete removal of the
whole scrotum and contents. This operation, with the ignorance of the
times in regard to stopping haemorrhage, was, however, accompanied by a
large mortality, and it finally evolved into the simple removal of the
gland, or its obliteration by pressure or violence. Bergmann conveys the
idea that circumcision was at one time the indestructible marking and
the distinctive feature of the slave, the mind of the period not being
able to emancipate itself from the idea that the genitals must in some
manner be mutilated, not being able to conceive any other degrading mark
of manhood which barbarians felt they must inflict on slaves.
The generally accepted idea in regard to the physical mutilation of
captives taken in war, or that some token from the body of the
vanquished must be carried off by the victor, has not only the support
of tradition and monumental sculptured evidence, but its practice is
still in vogue among many races. Among the ancient Scythians, only the
warriors who returned from the battle or foray with the heads of the
enemy were entitled to a share in the spoils. Among the modern Berbers
it is still a practice for a young man, on proposing marriage, to
exhibit to his prospective father-in-law the virile members of all the
enemies he has overcome, as evidence of his manhood and right to the
title of warrior. The Abyssinians and some of the negro tribes on the
Guinea coast still follow the custom of securing the phallus of a fallen
foe. However barbarous this practice may seem, its actual performance is
only secondary, the primary motive being that the warrior wished to
prove that he had been there, engaged in actual strife, and that his
enemy had been overcome. The writer remembers that, after one of the
battles in the West during the late war, many letters arrived in his
locality with pieces of the garments or locks of the hair of the
unfortunate Confederate general, Zollikoffer, who had been slain in the
battle; a disposition in the warrior, seemingly still existing, such as
animated the old Egyptians. On an old Egyptian monument,--that of
Osymandyas,--Diodorus noticed a mural sculpture, a _bas-relief_
representing prisoners of war, either in chains or bound with cords,
being registered by a royal scribe preparatory to losing either the
right hand or the phallus, a pile of which is visible in one corner of
the foreground; from this sculpture we learn that the practice was not
only an individual performance, but that it was a national usage among
the Egyptians as well, who subjected, at times, their vanquished foes to
its ordeal in a wholesale but business-like manner.
Bergmann argues that the Israelites were given to like practices, and
cites the incident wherein David brought two hundred prepuces--as
evidence of his having slaughtered that number of Philistines--to Saul,
as a mark of his being worthy to be his son-in-law. He argues that,
whereas many have made that Old Testament passage to read "two hundred
prepuces," it should have read "two hundred virile members" which David
and his companions had cut off from the Philistines, the word _orloth_
meaning the virile member, and not the prepuce. That Israelitish
circumcision could have originated from either phallic worship or any of
the hero-warrior usages is untenable as a proposition, as regards the
living prisoners, and is contrary to the monotheistic idea which ruled
Israel, or to the benign nature of their God. The strict opposition of
the religion of Judaism to any other mutilation except that of the
covenant is also antagonistic to the views advanced by Bergmann, as it
is well known that even emasculated animals were considered imperfect
and unclean, and therefore unfit to be received or offered as a
sacrifice to their deity. No emasculated man was allowed to enter the
priesthood or assist at sacrifices. The whole idea of Judaism being
opposed to such mutilations, their observance of circumcision and its
performance can in no way have developed from either phallic or other
warlike rites or usages; but we must accept its origin as a purely
religious rite,--a covenant of the most rigid observance, coincident in
its inception with the formation of the Hebraic creed in the hills of
Chaldea.
What Herodotus or Pythagoras may have written concerning the practice
among the Egyptians was written, as already remarked, some nine
centuries after Moses had recorded his laws; Moses himself having come
some centuries after Abraham. Herodotus is quoted as representing that
the Phoenicians borrowed the practice from the Egyptians, in support of
the theory that Egypt was the central nucleus from whence the practice
started, and not that it traveled toward Egypt from Phoenicia. The
difference in the ages, already mentioned, at which the rite was
practiced--that of Phoenicia and Israel being at one time
identical--shows that the testimony of Herodotus in this one particular
was the result of faulty judgment, as we find the people who have
borrowed the practice from the Egyptians, as well as their descendants,
closely follow their practice in regard to the age at which the
operation should be performed. Another evidence of the strictly
religious nature of the rite, as far as the Hebrews are concerned, lies
in the fact that, with all their skill in surgery and medical
sciences,--they being at one time the only intelligent exponents of our
science,--they never made any alteration or improvement in the manner of
performing the operation. It is evident that even Maimonides, a
celebrated Jewish physician of the twelfth century, who furnished some
rules in regard to the operation, was held under some constraint by the
religious aspect of the rite. As a summary of this part of the subject,
it may be stated that the Old Testament furnished the only reliable and
authentic relation prior to Pythagoras and Herodotus. From its evidence,
Abraham was the first to perform the operation, which he seems to have
performed on himself, his son, and servants,--in all, numbering nearly
four hundred males; he then dwelt in Chaldea. In absence of other as
reliable evidence we must accept this testimony in regard to its origin,
causes, and antiquity.
Voltaire, in his article on circumcision in his "Philosophical
Dictionary," seems more intent on breaking down any testimony that might
favor belief in any religion than to impart any useful light or
information. He bases all his arguments on the book "Euterpe," of
Herodotus, wherein he relates that the Colchis appear to come from
Egypt, as they remembered the ancient Egyptians and their customs more
than the Egyptians remembered either the Colchis or their customs; the
Colchis claimed to be an Egyptian colony settled there by Sesostris and
resembled the Egyptians. Voltaire claims that, as the Jews were then in
a small nook of Arabia Petrea, it is hardly likely that, they being then
an insignificant people, the Egyptians would have borrowed any of their
customs. To read Voltaire's "Herodotus" is somewhat convincing, but
Voltaire's "Herodotus" and Herodotus writing himself are two different
things, and the book "Euterpe" says quite another thing from what M.
Voltaire makes it say. A perusal of Voltaire and a study of his Jewish
critics on this subject, as found in the "Jews' Letters to Voltaire,"
will convince any reader that as to circumcision M. Voltaire is an
unreliable authority.