Robert Allen Campbell.

Phallic worship : 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, ce online

. (page 4 of 12)
Online LibraryRobert Allen CampbellPhallic worship : 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, ce → online text (page 4 of 12)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


mony, dedicated as " a house of God." Our own na-
tion — the freest in rehgious toleration — the wisest in
philosophy — the purest in morals — the most prosper-
ous in production that the woi-ld has yet seen, has re-
cently symbolized its superiority by ''erecting a pillar,"
or building a '' tower," higher than the world ever be-
fore saw, to commemorate the life and virtues of its
founder, and mark the world's holiest ground — the
final resting place of the " Father of his Country."


As men begat both sons and daughters, and as the
former were much more desired than the latter, it was
natural that a reason for this should be sought so that,
if possible, the sex of the offspring could be controlled.
As the j)hallus was the great object of veneration, it was,
no doubt, carefully scrutinized and closely examined in
all its peculiarities ; but no marked difference of size,
form, or condition was found that would account for
the difference of begetting sons in one case, and
daughtei's in another. It was observed, however, that
men who had diminutive testicles, as a rule, lacked in
virility, and that those who had none naturally — or
who had lost them — were unable to become fathers.
This was a revelation that the tests performed an im-
portant part in generation ; and hence led to closer
observation of their peculiarities. A marked and uni-
form difference was easily discovered. The right test
is the more pi'ominent, and hangs at a lower level than
its smaller and less pronounced fellow on the left. The


dimmest traditions of the remotest past, therefore,
brings us the theory that the larger right testicle has
the honor of giving the world its men ; while the lesser
one on the left has the minor distinction of beins: re-
sponsible for the weaker sex — a belief which is quite
general at the present time in nearly every civiliza-
tion .

How soon after the recognition of the phallus as
creator — or as the instrument and representative of
the Creator — that honor was divided with the less con-
spicuous, but equally necessary testicle appendages we
have no means of definitely determining ; certain it is,
however, that the generativ^e supremacy at first accorded
to the phalkis was in time divided with the tests — thus
recognizing cooperation in the masuline organs of gen-

The phallus Avas called Asher, which signifies to be
"straight," ''upright," "the erect one," "happi-
ness," ''' unus cui Tnemhrum erectum est, vel fascinum
ipsum " — " the erect virile member, charmed in the act
of its proper function." Axu, probably from On,
meaning "strength," "power" — especially "virile
power," the male idea of creator, was the name given
the right testicle, which, as the assistant in the genera-
tion of male children, was held next in rank to the
phallus itself. This will readily explain why Jacob
calls his son Benjamin — "son of my right side;"
while the mother called him Benoni — " son of Anu,"
"son of my On." HoA, or Hea, — while of obscure
origin, and of doubtful meaning, is clearly feminine —


and was the name applied to the third in rank — the
left testicle.

The first sacred creative trinity, as recognized by the
Assyrians, was, therefore, Asher, Ann, and Hoa —
three distinct entities (principles or persons), each per-
fect in itself, each necessary to the other, working in
harmony as one, towards one end — a veritable three
in one — and one made np of three. In this — as in
all subsequent trinities — and in fact, as in all polythe-
istic cults — the different organs, principles, or persons
were of relative rank. One was the superior — even
supreme — among the others. Their names, when
spoken of or written together, were arranged in the
order of their rank, beginning with the one considered
as the Lord of the others — Lord of Lords. When
they were spoken of as a whole, sometimes this trini-
ty — again, like subsequent trinities — bore a name dis-
tinct from the three members, but frequently the
collective unity was referred to under the name of the
one recognized as highest in rank.

In comparatively later times the Jews knew and rec-
ognized this masculine triad, giving the testicles joint
honor with the phallus ; for their law made them sacred,
so that even a profane touch was punished with death,
and a man who had lost the one, or who was wounded
in the other, " could not enter the congregation of the
Lord." That is, a man whose creative triad was im-
perfect was an abomination. Even a descendant of
Aaron could not be initiated as a priest if he was sex-
ually imperfect. This rule was not confined to the be-


nighted and licentious past, for, even in the present age
of superior intelligence, one who is sexually mutilated,
and, therefore, " not a man," cannot be consecrated as a
pi-iest, or promoted to a bishopric, much less, exalted to
the Papal throne until an examination, both interrog-
ative and occular — which is a part of every ceremony
of ordination or promotion in the Catholic hierarchy —
proves hiui '' a man — perfect in all his members."

The same rule that religious teachers shall possess a
sexual organism, perfect in form, and vital in function,
is found also among some other Christian sects, and it
is general in most non-Christian cults.

To this rule, however, there are some notable ex-
ceptions — ancient and modern. Some cults go to the
other extreme, and require that their priests should be
unmanned, either l)y castration or by fasting and con-
tinence. This is, of course, just as phallic as the oth-
er. Generally speaking, however, the eunuch has been,
and is, looked upon with contempt — sometimes mingled
with pity. This is only one of innumei*able proofs we
shall find that the much denounced " Phallic Worship "
is by no means obsolete among the best and wisest of
earth's inhabitants.

This triad was pictured plainly — sometimes moulded
in plastic material, or carved as a statuette of the or-
gans referred to in their passive condition, of natural
or diminished size. A more common forin, however,
was a realistic representation of the organs, showing the
phallus ready for active duty. These were of all sizes,
from the diminutive talisman to the towering column.


'No race of men, however primitive in development,
or however low in the scale of intelligence, would contin-
ue long to worship the phallus, or the phallic triad, before
some of the more intuitive and speculative among them
would perceive that this organ was not the real creator.
It would soon be recognized that, as the picture or
statuette of the organs only represented the organs, so
the organs themselves were only representatives of the
real creator. This dawning of truth would have two
marked effects upon those who perceived it ; first, to
develop a deeper and purer respect for the unseen power
represented by the organs ; and second, to introduce
symbols, less realistic in form, but equally suggestive,
of these organs — and, hence, of the real creative power.
At what period this open and portraitive imagery
began to be veiled in symbols — or how rapidly the
modification was generally accepted — is unknown. The
probabihty is that, at a comparatively early date — as
is the case even now — the exoteric or realistic repre-
sentations and the esoteric or veiling symbols were used
contemporaneously among different classes or under
different circumstances. The earliest traditions and the
oldest religious relics show them both in general use.

Among the earliest modifications of phalUc repre-
sentations was the substitution of plain or ornamented
columns, and the single upright stone — hewn or un-
dressed — for the shafts of realistic form . These again ,
or rather the organ — or the creator represented by the
organ — were symbolized in the single perpendicular
line, Figure 2.


111 the same way, under similar influences, the mascu-
line triad came to be represented in a triune symbol of

Fig. 2. Fig. 3. Fig. 4. Fig. 5. Jig. G. Fig. 7. Fig. 8.

a single upright line with two shorter lines — one each
side, as in Figure 3. This was again modified into the
one upright and two shorter horizontal lines, Figure 4 ;
which, in its next form, became the more permanent
symbol of the single upright line, resting upon a hori-
zontal line of equal length, or mortised into it and
protruding through it, as in Figures 5 and 6. This
was, when erected on the ground, or set up on the
temple floor, not readil}^ distinguished from the single
upright shaft. It was probably to render it more dis-
tinct that the transition was made in this form to the
next, by placing the horizontal bar or line at the top
of the upright — as shown in Figures 7 and 8. The last
four symbols seem to have been used interchangeably.
A A verbal form of the triad which

s esoterically contains all the doc-

H trines of the masculine creative

E trinity is occasionally found in an-

Axu — R — H o A cient sculptures and is shown in its

FIGURE 9. translated form in this diagram.

In all these representations, however, whether real-
istic, with all the detailed form and features of the
erect virile member — or whether suggestive in the
plain or ornamental column, or in the single upright


stone or post — or when symbolic, in the perpendicnlar
line, they each and all pointed to the living erected
phallus. When the triad was indicated, realistically or
symbolically, still the centi-al and overshadowing fea-
ture was the erected phallus, representing creative

This creative power, whether regarded as the phallus,
as the triad of male generative organs, as the whole
man, as an unseen power, as an intelligent force, or as
an intelligent and powerful, but unseen being (for we
must always bear in mind that all these ideas concerning
the creator have been contemporaneously held from time
immemorial), was, up to the time of which we write —
or rather up to the stage of development referred to —
thought of and spoken of as masculine — and mascu-
line only;


Up to this stage of human development the female
organs of generation, the feminine principle, the femi-
nine creative powers, had not been regarded as factors
in generation — in a word, woman had not been recog-
nized as human; and, hence, the creator — whether
principle, power, or person — was not thought of as
having feminine characteristics or attributes.

Among the intelligent and intuitive men of this de-
velopment there arose a new prophet, who became so
enlightened that he was enabled to perceive a new and
beautiful unfolding of truth. This new teacher had the
seership to recognize, and the enthusiastic boldness to


announce, the wonderful revelation, alike new and
startling- to priest and people, that the accepted and
official dog-mas of worship were susceptible of improve-
ment, because a broader truth had been discovered.
He announced that, while recognizing the honor and
worship due the phallus, the male genci-ative ti-iad, the
masculine principle, the masculine creator, still they
were not the all, nor the all-sufficient, in generation;
that important and essentially potent as is the mascu-
line, still the yoni — woman — the feminine principle —
the feminine generative power — the feminine cre-
ator — was also a factor, an essential factor, in fact an
equal partner, in the generation of human beings.

Some students of ancient worship, whose patient re-
search and eminent scholarship give their opinions
great weight, are inclined to think that among the
early innovators were those who not only claimed the
feminine as every way equal in honor to the mascu-
line, but carried their views to the other extreme, and
exalted the feminine hito the supreme place ; and re-
fused to recognize the masculine as at all worthy of
coordinate woi'ship.

The conservative priesthood and their adherents would
naturally cling persistently to the old cult, denouncing
the new doctrine as a blasphemous and damning heresy,
and persecuting bitterly those who accepted — and
especially those who taught — the worship of a sti-ange
god. The radicals would just as naturally go to the
extreme of their position, and in a similarly intolerant
spirit, denounce their persecutors as bigots. Each ex-


treme party would have the same form of watchword
and battle cry : " There is but one god ! Our god is
god." "All honor to our god! Death to all who
worship any god but our god." These extremists, in
true sectarian spirit, waged a bitter war of words, and
carried ou a more sanguinary nnd moi-e destructive war-
fare of weapons. Families were divided, tribes were
broken up, nations rent asunder, in this controversy ;
and not only families and tribes, but nations, were ex-
terminated in the long and savage wars which grew
out of the question of Avhich was the true worship, that
of the phalhis or the yoni — or the principles and gods
which they represented. In the meantime the great mid-
dle classes — those of the golden mean — among whom
all real reforms find their constituents — were comino-
more and more to see and understand the mutual im-
portance of the two principles, and to acknowledge both
as essential. This great middle class included all be-
tween the extremists ; and their acceptance of the two
gods ranged in every possible degree of difference from
those who, while they acknowledged both gods, held
the masculine as so much superior as to consider the
conservati\'es practically right, to those, on the other
hand, who so exalted the feminine as to be almost in full
accord with the radicals. Still, the theory of their sub-
stantial equality in power and wortliiness of worship
gradually gained ground and adherents, and finally be-
came the dominant cult. Then, and ever since, the
worship of the creator has, in its realistic aspect or
spiritual interpi-etation, ranged in the same general


direction. Then, as ever since, and now (always bear-
ing in mind that creeds, as well as ceremonies and sym-
bols, are what we read into them, in the interpretation
throngh them of onr own feelings and thoughts), the
worshiping part of mankind might be ari-anged under
five titles, which, in the Hindu terminology, would be
as follows : —






The conservatives, who maintained the old faith,
would, of course, retain the old ceremonies, as well as
the old symbols of single phallus, or the masculhie
triad. The radicals would naturally adopt the yoni as
the litei-al image to announce and illustrate the car-
dinal doctrine of the new cult. The yoni being less
prominent, and hence more difficult to reproduce in full
detail — the representations were of necessity more
veiled. The artist, therefore, depended more upon
suggestion than upon realistic reproduction to indicate
the organ and all it typified. The same natural reserve
which veiled a literal exposure or a picturative rep-
resentation of the yoni, avouM also suggest other rep-
resentations. The mons veneris, with its hirsute
covering, was often substituted for the organ it con-
cealed. This substitute is in the form of an inverted
triangle ; and this is the reason why the triangle was
chosen to symbolize the yoni. Besides the triangle


would suggest the feminine trinity — the sacred locality,
the yonic orifice, and the prolific womb, and would, there-
fore, be an especially appropriate symljol. This tri-
angle was usually di-awn plain, as in Figure 10. It
was, however, frequently rendered more literal by
adding a short interior upright line, as in Figure 11.

A symbol of the yoni — and hence of the feminine
principle or personality — which was common in
ancient, and to some extent in modern, times — though
often used with indelicate suggestiveness — was the
pointed oval, Fignre 12. This was sometimes soft-
ened into, the ellipse, rendered angular in the lozenge,
or expanded into the circle, as shown in Figures 13, 14,
and 15.

WO ooo

Fig. 10. Fig. 11. Fig. 12. Fig. 13. Fig. 14. Fig. 15.

Then the woman's breast, Figure 16, with all its
attributes of nourishment and beauty, was also adopted
as a representative of the feminine in all its peculiari-
ties. This was an especially acceptable and popular
symbol; because it could be interpreted according to
the reader's nature — cither sentimentally or fleshimen-
tally. In the swelling breast, too, the feminine triad
was suggested by the two curving lines of beauty —
one above, the other below — and the nipple in which
they culminated. The feminine trinity was also rep-
resented by the three living colors of the pink nipple,



the white field, and the intermediate band of softened
tint between them, Figure 17. This representation
was often symboUzed by the circle as showing the out-
line of the base of
the breast, Figure
18, which was again
Fig. 16. Fig. 17. Fig. 18. Fig. 19. reudcrcd more sug-

gestive by placing a dot in the center to represent the
nipple as in Figure 19.

The intermediate sects adopted representations and
symbols which, by their forms or arrangements, or by
the interpretations accorded them, indicated their pecu-
liar views as to whether the masculine Avas superior,

Fig. 21.

Fig. 22.

Fig. 24.

Fig. 25.

equal, or inferior, as compared with the feminine.
As these doctrines were gradually adopted in different

Fig. 20.


Fig. 28.

Fig. 30.

Fig. 31.

degrees, and as these symbols were used for ages
contemporaneously, they were multiplied in number,
and modified in form and combinations. Those who



acknowledged both, but held the masculine as superior,
used such symbols as Figures 20 to 31.

Those on the other hand who revered the feminine as
superior to the masculine would reverse the arrange-

Fig.32. Fig. 33. Fig. 3t. Fig. 35. Fig. 36. Fig. 37.

ment of these emblems and show their peculiar opinions
and religious ideas in such symbols as Figures 32 to 43.



Fig. 39.

Fig. 40.

Fig. 41.

Fig. 42.

Fig. 43.

Those who contended for the equality of the feminine
and masculine principles, used also the latter symbols,
but interpreted them differently — saying, in substance :
" We represent the masculine as a triad and the femi-
nine as a monad or fourth member; we, therefore, rep-
resent their equality by placing the single feminine
symbol over the masculine three." This class also used
the symbolism of the conservatives in some cases-
In the masculine triad they interpreted the upright line
as the masculine and the long horizontal line as the
feminine. Again, as the single upright line symbolized
the masculine, this class once more adopted that sign
and added their own ideas to it by placing another sim-



ilcir line by Its side, forming
Figure 48.

the double upright line

Fig 44.

Fig. 40. Fig. 46.

Fig. 47.

Fig. 48.

Fig. 49.

This simple symbol is unfolded by mystical interpreta-
tion in the most far-reaching application, but always
with the same generic value. Thus it means the mas-
culine and feminine creators, Adam and Eve, Cain
and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Moses and Aaron, Jachin
and Boaz, — the two pillars at the entrance of Solo-
mon's Temple, Peter and John, and so on, with Jeho-
vah the Eternal Father, and Mary the Universal Virgin
Mother, as the last interpretation.

The same ideas are represented, and the same mysti-
cal interpretation unfolded by placing the upright line
and the circle together, as in Figure 49.


The race — that is the more developed part of it —
was again ready to recognize, and, therefore, to accept
a still further unfolding of the truth in regard to crea-
tion. Again, the intuitive class — wiio are the spiritual
eyes of mankind — furnished the seer, who, by his supe-
rior illumination, was able to perceive the new, the
needed, and the acceptable light. He recognized the
truth in the old and modified dogmas, and saw, too,
that a clearer view of these, and a larger comprehension
of their relationship to each other and to creation,


would enlarge and improve these creeds. He fully
and heartily indorsed the equal importance, power, and
glory of the masculine and feminine creative powers.
He taught, however, that generation did not result
simply from the fact that such powers are, or are equal,
but from their activity in generative opei-ation ; and not
from their separate and independent operation — but
from their mutually reciprocal, cooperative and there-
fore harmoniously combined activity. This new per-
ception of truth — illumination — revelation — call, it
what we may — which to us may seem a very simple
and obvious truism, w\as to the less developed race a
most wonderful and important statement ; for it shed a
beauteous hght upon many of the obscure and, therefore,
disputed elements in the already estabhshed creeds. It
paved the way for sweet reconciliation between the bit-
terly warring sects, by showing that however the
comparative power and honor of the contended-for
creating principles might be regarded, that, still, each
must cooperatively act with the other.

This new doctrine did not abridge the worship ac-
corded to any recognized principle or person. It did not
introduce any new object of worship. It only recog-
nized an activity — and that a mutual activity on the
part of the creators which mankind (including, of
course, womankind, as well), have always recognized
as a delightful occupation of their energies, and for
which they were, no doubt, pleased to have a divine
example and indorsement.

This new doctrine seems to have been readily rec-



ognizcd and generally adopted by the different sects ;
for Avbile some of them contended— and m some places
still contend for the snperiority of one or the other of
the sexnal principles, all seem to hold to the necessity of
their mutual, cooperative, creative work. The accept-
ance of this addition— not otherwise a radical change —
to the dogmas, as was natural, resulted in new cere-
monials made np of the old with added new features,
some of which in time became — while heartily wel-
comed and greatly enjoyed by the worshiping partici-
pants — of a character which in this day and civilization
would be denominated scandalously licentious.

The fundamental idea of thecjiew modification of
creed was the active co-operation of the seemingly op-
posing masculine andfeminhie principles and powers as

Fig. 50. Fig. 51, Fig. 52. Fig. 53. Fig. 54. Fig. 55.

the creative cause of all that is. The imaged or pict-
ured representation of this was naturally, of course, the
masculine and feminine oi-gans, not only in full power,
ready for their special woi-k, but actually engaged in
their reciprocal and cooperative struggle to bring about
the greatest of all desired results, a new creature.
The syml)ol to veil this imagery was naturally an up-
right line in a triangle, pointed oval, ellipse, circle, or
lozenge. Figures 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54.


The upright line and circle side by side, Figure 55,
often modified into lO, and in more modern times into
'T' /^\ A /^ 10? Figures 56 and 57, are symbols
III J^ II almost synonymous with the cross.
Fig. 56. Fig. 57. They represent the union of the

sexual organs — the co-operation of the masculine and
feminine powers or persons. 1, the masculine, alone is
simply one ; 0, the feminine, alone is nothing. Their
union is not 1 + = 1, but 1 + annexed = 10 or
many. 1 is the masculine — God, alone in his majesty ;
is the feminine — I^ature, with only receptive power.
10 is God and Mature, the all-producing. 1 is the
creative but invisible spirit ; is the existence or ex-
pression of this spirit — the visible universe ; 10 is all in
all, and all expressing all. The Lingacitas say 1 is
all, simply a servant. The Yonigas reverse this,
making all important, with 1 as an assistant.

But there was a sacred symbol, the combination of
the upright and horizontal line, already in popular use ;

1 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Online LibraryRobert Allen CampbellPhallic worship : 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, ce → online text (page 4 of 12)