HUC AND DUBOIS COMPARED.
Huc was a keen and observing traveller; he was well acquainted with the languages and customs of the Mongolians; his tour into Thibet was replete with incident, and his narrative never flags in interest. Still, in Thibet he was only a traveller; the upper classes of the Buddhist priesthood looked upon him with suspicion. The lower orders of priesthood and people did seem to consider him as a Lama from the far East, but he did not succeed in gaining the confidence of the Thibetans to the extent possessed by Dubois among the Brahminical sects. The history of the latter author is a peculiar one: A French priest, driven from his native land by the excesses of the revolution, he took refuge in India, devoting himself for nearly twenty years to missionary labor among the people, with whom he became so thoroughly identified that when his notes appeared they were published at the expense of the British East India Company, and distributed among its officials as a text-book.
While it is possible to consult earlier authorities, the determination of this matter should not be allowed to remain in controversy. The first Europeans known to have penetrated to Thibet (or Barantola, as they called it) were the Jesuits Grueber and Dorville, who, returning from China to Europe, walked through Thibet, and down through India to the sea-coast. This was in 1661; another member of the same order, Father Andrade, claimed to have succeeded in the same perilous undertaking at an earlier date (1621), but the names of the cities he visited proves that he did not get beyond what is now known as Afghanistan, at the foot of the mountains bordering on Thibet. While Grueber and Dorville were making their journey, or not many years after, Father Gerbillon, also a Jesuit, had taken up his abode among the nomadic Tartars, acquiring an influence with them of which the Emperor of China was glad to avail himself in emergencies. None of these travellers claimed to have seen the Grand Lama in person.
“Grueber assures us that the grandees of the kingdom are very anxious to procure the excrements of this divinity (i. e., the Grand Lama), which they usually wear about their necks as relics. In another place he says that the Lamas make a great advantage by the large presents they receive for helping the grandees to some of his excrements, or urine; for, by wearing the first about their necks, and mixing the latter with their victuals, they imagine themselves to be secure against all bodily infirmities. In confirmation of this, Gerbillon informs us that the Mongols wear his excrements, pulverized, in little bags about their necks, as precious relics, capable of preserving them from all misfortunes, and curing them of all sorts of distempers. When this Jesuit was on his second journey into Western Tartary, a deputy from one of the principal lamas offered the emperor’s uncle a certain powder, contained in a little packet of very white paper, neatly wrapped up in a scarf of very white taffety; but that prince told him that as it was not the custom of the Manchews to make use of such things, he durst not receive it. The author took this powder to be either some of the Great Lama’s excrements, or the ashes of something that had been used by him.”—(“A Description of Thibet,” in Pinkerton’s “Voyages and Travels,” London, 1814, vol. vii. p. 559).
“Grueber, in his late account of his return from China, A.D. 1661, by way of Lassa, or Barantola, as Kircher calls it (see Kircher, China Illustrata, part ii. c. 1), but Grueber himself Barantaka (where, he saith, no Christian hath never been) ... above all, he wondered at their pope (the Grand Lama of Thibet), to whom they give divine honors, and worship his very excrements, and put them up in golden boxes, as a most excellent remedy against all mischiefs.”—(Stillingfleet, “Defence of Discourse concerning Idolatry in Church of Rome,” London, 1676, pp. 116-120, quoted by H. T. Buckle, in his “Commonplace Book,” p. 79, vol. ii. of his Works, London, 1872).
Turner, “Embassy to Thibet,” London, 1806, makes no reference to the use of the excrements of the Grand Lama.
Friar Odoric, of Pordenone, visited L’hassa, Thibet, between A.D. 1316 and 1330 (see Markham’s edition of Bogle’s “Thibet,” London, 1879, p. 46). Markham believes that the Jesuit Antonio Andrada, “in 1624,” whom he styles “an undaunted missionary,” “found his way over the lofty passes to Rudok,” “climbed the terrific passes to the source of the Ganges, and eventually, after fearful sufferings, reached the shores of the sacred lake of Mansorewar, the source of the Sutlej.”—(Introduction to Bogle’s “Thibet,” London, 1879).
Warren Hastings speaks of the Thibetan priests of high degree, the “Ku-tchuck-tus,” who, he says, “admit a superiority in the Dalai Lama, so that his excrements are sold as charms, at great price, among all the Tartar tribes of this religion.”—(“Memorandum on Thibet,” accompanying the instructions to Mr. Bogle, the first English embassador to that country. See in Markham’s “Thibet,” London, 1879, p. 11.)
It is truly remarkable that neither in the report nor letters of Bogle, nor in the notes of Manning, nor in the fragments of Grueber, Desideri, nor Horace Della Penna, preserved in Markham’s “Thibet,” can any allusion be found to the use of the excrements of the Grand Lama in religion or medicine.
“Les grands du royaume” (i. e., of Barantola), “recherchent fort les excréments de cette divinité” (i. e., Lamacongiu). “Ils les portent ordinairement à leur col comme des reliques.”—(“Voyage de P. Grueber à Chine,” taken from Conversations with P. Grueber. See, in Thévenot, vol. ii., “Relations de Divers Voyages curieux,” Melchisédec Thevenot, Paris, 1696, vol. ii.)
Several authorities from whom much was expected are absolutely silent.
No mention is to be found in Rubruquis of any use of human ordure or urine among the Tartars among whom he travelled; all that he says is that they baked their bread on cow-dung. This monk, a Franciscan, was sent by King Louis IX. (Saint Louis), of France, on a mission to the Grand Khan of Tartary in 1253, in the execution of which office he travelled for thousands of miles through their territory. In Pinkerton it is said: “The travels of Rubruquis are equally astonishing in whatever light they are considered. Take them with respect to length, and they extend upwards of five thousand miles one way and nearly six thousand another.”—(Vol. vii. p. 96.)
During such a long journey he should have been able to notice much, but we are to bear in mind that the manners of the Tartars of the Grand Khan were at that time somewhat modified by contact with European civilization, having among them many prisoners, as Rubruquis points out, who officiated as artificers, while, on the other hand, we know that the monk was thoroughly ignorant of all their dialects. Marco Polo, who lived among the Tartars about the same time, says: “But now the Tartars are mixed and confounded, and so are their fashions.”—(Marco Polo, “Travels,” in Pinkerton’s “Voyages,” London, 1814, vol. vii. p. 124.)
Du Halde, although he gives an account of Thibet in his fourth volume, and seems to be familiar with all the works on that country, mentioning Fathers Grueber and Dorville, yet makes no allusion to the use of the excrements of the Grand Lama as amulets or internally. (See Du Halde’s “History of China,” London, 1736.) The fault may lie with his translator in his zeal to “expurgate.”
Du Halde, a Jesuit missionary, had the assistance of all the members of his order on duty in China; no less than a score or more aided him; one of the number, Father Constancin, had a tour of service in the Flowery Kingdom, as a missionary, of over thirty-two consecutive years. During the generation preceding the appearance of Du Halde’s work, the Jesuits had traversed China, Tartary, and Thibet. Tavernier, whose opportunities for observation were excellent, asserted the fact without ambiguity. The excrement of the Grand Lama was carefully collected, dried, and in various ways used as a condiment, as a snuff, and as a medicine.
“The Butan merchants assured Tavernier that they strew his ordure, powdered, over their victuals.”—(Tavernier, “Travels,” vol. ii. p. 185. Footnote to page 559, vol. vii. Pinkerton’s “Voyages and Travels,” London, 1814.)
“Unde tantis venerationis indiciis ab omnibus colitur, ut beatum ille se reputet, cui Lamarum (quod summis et pretiosis muneribus eum in finem, non sine magno eorum lucro corrumpere solent) benignitate aliquid ex naturalis secessus sordibus aut urina Magnæ Lamæ obtigerit. Ex ejusmodi enim collo portatis, urina quoque cibis commixta.”—(Letter of Father Adam Schall, S. J., “Aulæ Sino-Tartaricæ Supremi Concilii Mandarinus,” in Thevenot, vol. ii.; Thevenot’s second volume contains three short letters in Latin from Grueber to members of his order, but in none is there any mention made of the ordure of the Grand Lama.)
“There is no king in the world more feared and respected by his subjects than the king of Butan; being in a manner adored by them.... The merchants assured Tavernier that those about the king preserve his ordure, dry it, and reduce it to powder like snuff; that then putting it into boxes, they go every market-day and present it to the chief traders and farmers, who, recompensing them for their great kindness, carry it home as a great rarity, and when they feast their friends, strew it upon their meat. The author adds that two of them showed him their boxes with the powder in them.”—(“A Description of Thibet,” in Pinkerton, London, 1814, vol. vii. 567.)
The expression “king of Butan,” as used by Tavernier, means the Grand Lama of Thibet. Tavernier’s statement has been accepted by the most careful writers. “Indorum nonnullos, incolas scilicet regni Boutan Homerda seu excrementis alvinis Regis sui siccatis et pulverisatis cibos amicis et convivis suis appositos condire, refert Johannes Baptista Tavernier, Itinerar. Indic. lib. 3, cap. 15, fol. m.” (Schurig, “Chylologia,” Dresden, 1725, p. 775.) The same paragraph quoted in the Bibliotheca Scatalogica, pages 29, 93, and 96, to which the anonymous author adds, “et les Tartares et les Japonais tenaient en pareille vénération la merde du grand lama et du Dairi.”
Rosinus Lentilius, in the Ephemeridum Physico-Medicorum, Leipsig, 1694, speaks of the Grand Lama of Thibet as held in such high veneration by the devotees of his faith that his excrements, carefully collected, dried, powdered, and sold at high prices by the priests, were used as a sternutatory powder, to induce sneezing, and as a condiment for their food, and as a remedy for all the graver forms of disease. He quotes all this from Tavernier, and from Erasmus Franciscus, p. 1662. There is also another citation from Tavernier, lib. 4, cap. 7.
“Nec de rege in Bantam, et summo Tangathani Regni Pontifice, magno Lama, quos tanto in honore subditi habent ut merda eorum magno studio collectam, et in pulverem comminutam (quam Brachmines ære multo simplicibus divendunt) illi quidem scil. Boutamenses, loco pulvere nasalis utantur, eoque lautius, victuri cibos condiant hi vero scil. Tangat hani pro remedio longe presentissimo ad varios desperatissimosque morbos habeant, aliisque medicamentis admisceant, per sæpe memoratum” Tavernier, Itin. lib. 3, cap. 15, et Franciscus, loc. cit. p. 1662.
References to “amulets” among the peoples of Tartary and Thibet are made by nearly all travellers; but few seem to have considered it worth while to determine of what these amulets were composed.
Fathers Grueber and Dorville say of the Kalmuck Tartar women, “each with a charm about their necks to preserve them from dangers.” These may have been ordure amulets of the Grand Lama.
In his condensation of the travels into Thibet of Fathers Grueber and Dorville, Pinkerton omits what they had to say about these amulets, although in another place, already cited, he refers to it.
(Burats of Siberia.) “I could observe no images among them except some relics given them by their priests which they had from the Delay-Lama; these are commonly hung up in a corner of their tents, and sometimes about their necks, by way of an amulet to preserve them from misfortunes.” (Bell, “Travels in Asia,” with the Russian Embassy to China, in 1714, in Pinkerton, vol. vii. p. 347). Undoubtedly, these were amulets of human ordure, etc., received from the Grand Lama.
(Kalmucks of Siberia.) “Des pilules bénites qui viennent du Tibet méritent attention; on les appelle Schalir. Les prêtres ne les donnent qu’aux Kalmouks riches ou de distinction; ils les portent toujours sur eux, et ils n’en font usage que dans les maladies graves où la mort leur paraît presqu’inévitable. Ils prétendent que ces pilules servent à distraire l’ame des choses temporelles, et à la sanctifier: elles sont noires et de la grosseur d’un pois. Je presumai qu’elles renfermaient de l’opium ou autre narcotique; mais on m’assure au contraire que leur vertu était purgatif.”—(Voyages de Pallas, Paris, 1793, vol. i. pp. 567, 568.)
(Mongolia.) “When famous lamas die and their bodies are burnt, little white pills are reported as found among the ashes, and sold for large sums to the devout, as being the concentrated virtue of the man and possessing the power of insuring a happy future for him who swallows one near death. This is quite common. I heard of one man who improved on this by giving out that these little pills were in the habit of coming out through the skin of various parts of the body. These pills, called Sharil, met with a ready sale, and then the man himself reaped the reward of his virtue and did not allow all the profit to go to his heir.”—(“Among the Mongols,” Rev. James Gilmour, London, 1883, p. 231.)
This writer says that these sacred pills are white; another one, already noted, describes them as black, while those obtained by the author from Mr. W. W. Rockhill are red.
Vambéry instances one of the holy men of the Turkomans who, after reciting a number of sacred verses, “used to place before him a cup of water into which he spat at the end of each poem, and this composition ... was sold to the best bidder as a wonder-working medicine.”—(“Travels in Central Asia,” New York, 1865, p. 272.)
Such use of the excrement of ecclesiastical dignitaries was indicated in Oriental literature. In the “Arabian Nights” King Afrida says to the Emirs, among other things, “‘And I purpose this night to sacre you all with the Holy Incense.’ When the Emirs heard these words, they kissed the ground before him. Now the incense which he designated was the excrement of the Chief Patriarch, the denier, the defiler of the truth, and they sought for it with such instance, and they so highly valued it, that the high-priests of the Greeks used to send it to all the countries of the Christians in silken wraps, after mixing it with musk and ambergris; hearing of it, kings would pay a thousand gold pieces for every dram, and they sent for and sought it to fumigate brides withal; and the Chief Priests and the Great Kings were wont to use a little of it as a Collyrium for the eyes, and as a remedy in sickness and colic; and the Patriarchs used to mix their own skite (excrement) with it, for that the skite of the Chief Patriarch would not suffice for ten countries.”—(Burton’s edition, vol. ii. pp. 222, 223). In Burton’s Index this is called “Holy Merde.” Burton also says, “The idea of the Holy Merde might have been suggested by the Hindus; see Mandeville, of the archiprotopapaton (prelate) carrying ox-dung and cow-urine to the king, who therewith anoints his face and breast, etc. And, incredible to relate, this is still practised by the Parsis, one of the most progressive and sharpest-witted of the Asiatic races.”—(Idem.)
Rochefoucauld tells us that we ascribe to others the faults of which we ourselves would be guilty, had we the opportunity. The Arabians no doubt were fully acquainted with just such customs; possibly, the Greeks also.
The Kalmucks believe in spirits or genii called “Bourkans,” and in a maleficent one known as “Erlik-khan.” They tell a story of three of these “Bourkans,” one of them being Sakya-Muni: “Étant un jour assis ensemble, firent leurs prières dans la plus grande ferveur, ayant les yeux fermés, ainsi que cela se pratique chez les Kalmouks, le génie infernal s’approche d’eux, et fit ses ordures dans la coupe sacrée que les prêtres ont devant eux lorsqu’ils font la prière. Dès que les dieux s’en aperçurent, ils tinrent conseil. Ils conclurent que s’ils répandoient cette matière venimeuse dans les airs, ils féroient périr tous les habitants de cet élément; et que s’ils la jétoient sur la terre, ils féroient mourir tous les êtres vivans qui l’occupent. Ils résolurent donc, pour le bien de l’humanité, de l’avaler. Sakya-Muni eut pour sa part le fond de la coupe; le levain étoit si fort que son visage devint tout bleu. C’est la raison pour laquelle on lui peint la figure en bleu dans les images; ses idoles ont seulement le bonnet vernissé en bleu.”—(Voyages de Pallas, Paris, 1793, vol. i. p. 548).
This is a lame explanation, invented by the Lamas after men had become somewhat refined, and had begun to evince a repugnance to these diabolical usages. Compare with the notes presented by Mr. W. W. Rockhill, the Oriental scholar and Thibetan explorer, on p. 37.
The following is from a manuscript by Mr. W. W. Rockhill, entitled “The Lamaist Ceremony called the Making of the Mani Pills:”—
“Certain indestructible particles of the bodies of the Buddhas and saints, as well as certain other bodily remains, have ever been considered by Buddhists to enjoy certain properties, such as that of emitting light, and of having great curative properties. The travels of Huein-Tsang and of Fa-hsien are filled with accounts of the discovery of such treasures, and of the supernatural properties which they possessed. Among Thibetans, the first class of these relics is known as ‘pedung’ (upel-gedung), the second as ‘dung-rus’ (gdung-rus). They say the pedung are minute globules found in the bones of Buddhas and saints, that they possess wonderful brilliancy, and that sometimes they may be seen on the exterior of some saintly person, when they have the appearance of brilliant drops of sweat. While these pedung have most potent curative properties, they become also the palladium of the locality fortunate enough to have them. By a natural extension of the idea of the power of pedung, Thibetans have come to think that if one preserves and carries about on one’s person even a little of the excretions, or of the hair or nail-trimmings of a saint who is known to have pedung, such, for instance, as the Tale-Lama, or the Panchan-Rimpoche, they will shield him from gun or sword wounds, sickness, etc.; hence the extraordinary objects one so often finds in Thibetan charm-boxes (Ka-Wo).
“The properties of pedung have also given rise to another belief, with which this paper is more properly concerned,—that of manufacturing pills, to which the god Shourizog, at the supplication of the officiating lamas, imparts the properties of his own divine body, and then imparts to them the curative and protective properties of real pedung. These pills are known as mani-rilbu, or ‘precious pills,’ and are in constant use as medicine among the people of Thibet and Mongolia. Large quantities of them are also sent by each tribute-bearing minion to the Emperor of China. In Chinese, they are called ‘Tsu-mu-yas,’ or ‘thih-ma-yao,’ and must not be confounded with a liliaceous plant of same name (Hanbury’s Anemarhena asphodeloides), the rhizome of which is used in medicine, and which is also a product of Thibet.
“Perhaps the better name for ‘mani-rilbu’ is ‘tzu-sheng-wan,’ ‘dilated pills,’ which I have heard used for them in Pekin, as will be better seen after reading the following account of the manner in which they are manufactured.
“The greater part of the account here given of the process of making the pills is taken from a Thibetan work containing a minute account of the ceremony, together with the prayers to be recited, etc., the title of which is ‘Ceremony of Making Mani Pills’ (Mani Rilbu grub gi choga), in seven leaves.
“Verbal explanations from the lamas who explained the text to me are incorporated wherever necessary.
“Seven days prior to the commencement of the ceremony the lama who is to conduct it and the priests who are to take part in it commence to abstain from the use of meat, spirits, garlic, tobacco, and other articles of food held impure, or which are bad-smelling, and during the progress of the ceremony, which is twenty-one, forty-nine, or one hundred days in length, none of the above articles are allowed in the temple, nor are unclean persons or those who are partaking of the above prohibited substances.
“The ceremony begins by making the pills, and the process is described, in the work mentioned above, as follows: “The Lama, his head clean-shaved, and his vestments being as they should be, grinds into fine flour some roasted grain, then mixing it with pure and sweet-scented water, he makes the necessary amount of paste; the pills are then made and coated over with red. When all this has been done, a vase is taken which is dry and without any flaw or blemish, and which is also perfectly clean, and in it the pills are poured until it is two-thirds full. The vase is then wrapped in a silk cover, which is tied on with a silk thread, and sealed. The vase, after this, is put on a stand, in a perfectly upright position, and around the latter are arranged bowls of water and other offerings, two by two. The most revered image of Tug-je-chon-po (i. e., Shouresig) which the lamasery possesses is then clothed in its robes, and placed on top of the vase; then, without shaking the vase, a dorje (a marginal note explains that this is the Thunder-bolt or Sadjra of Indra: it is in constant use in all the Lamaist ceremonies, and is generally held in the right hand, between the thumb and index, while prayers are being read. In the left hand the lama usually holds a bell), wrapped in a clean piece of cotton or woollen stuff, is tied to the string around the neck of the vase. After an interval of meditation and prayer, offerings are made of ‘water, flowers, incense, lamps, perfumes, food, etc., ... while music plays.’ Then the help of the god is invoked ‘to impart the necessary virtues to the pills, ... for this world is sunk in sin and iniquity, and Shouresig alone can help it, and drag it out of the mire.’ As a means thereto he is now besought, in his great mercifulness, to bless these pills, so that they may free from the orb of transmigration those who shall have attained maturity of mind, to impart to them by absorption the peculiar flavor of his resplendent person, so that they may become indistinguishable from it, like water poured into water, etc., etc.
“This ceremony, which is a most expensive one, and most trying on the Lamas, is not at all common in the Lamaseries of China or Mongolia, and is confined to the larger one in Thibet; the only one at Pekin, where it is sometimes performed, is the Shih-fang-tang, to the west of the Hsi-huang-tsu, outside of the north side of the city.”
The above ceremony describes a symbolical alvine dejection, and the most plausible explanation is, that the lamas, finding trade good and the Buddhist laity willing to accept more “amulets” than the Grand Lama was able, unaided, to supply, hit upon this truly miraculous mode of replenishing their stock.
Mr. Rockhill explains that the word “pedung,” used in the above description, means “remains.” Taking into consideration the fact that these people, although remotely, are related to the Aryan stock, which is the ancestor of the English, German, Irish, Latin, and others, from which we spring, the meaning, as here given, is certainly not without significance. “Dung,” in our own tongue, means nothing more nor less than remains, reliquiæ of a certain kind.
Webster traces the word “dung” to the Anglo-Saxon dung, dyncg, dincg,—excrement; Dyngan, to dung; N. H. German, dung, dunger; O. H. German, Tunga; Sw. Dynga; Danish, Dynge and Dyngd; Icelandic, Dyngia and Dy. This shows it to be essentially Indo-Germanic in type, and fairly to be compared with the words “pedung” and “dung-rus” of Mr. Rockhill’s manuscript.
In the country of Ur of the Chaldees, which was the home of Abraham (Gen. xi. 2), there reigned a king, “the father of Dungi.” The exact meaning of the name “Dungi” has not been made known. The name of the king himself, strangely enough, was “Urea,” or “Uri,”—it is read both ways. His date has been fixed at 3,000 years B.C.
The information in preceding paragraph was furnished by Prof. Otis T. Mason, of the National Museum, Washington, D.C.
Lenormant makes him out as of high antiquity,—“the most ancient of the Babylonian kings,” “kings who can vie in antiquity with the builders of the Egyptian pyramids,—Dungi, for instance.”—(“Chaldean Magic,” p. 333.)
Smith ascribes him to the date of at least 2,000 B.C.—(“Assyrian Discoveries,” New York, 1876, p. 232.)
Mr. W. W. Rockhill, for six years secretary of the Legation of the United States, in Pekin, is a member of the Oriental Society, and a scholar of the highest attainments, more particularly in all that relates to the languages, customs, and religions of China and Thibet, in which countries he has travelled extensively.
The sacred pills presented by him to the author were enclosed in a silver reliquary, elaborately chased and ornamented; in size they were about as large as quail-shot; their color was almost orange, or between that and an ochreous red.
Through the kindness of Surgeon-General John Moore, U. S. Army, they were analyzed by Dr. Mew, U. S. Army, with the following results:—
“April 18, 1889.
“I have at length found time to examine the Grand Lama’s ordure, and write to say that I find nothing at all remarkable in it. He had been feeding on a farinaceous diet, for I found by the microscope a large amount of undigested starch in the field, the presence of which I verified by the usual iodine test, which gave an abundant reaction.
“There was also present much cellulose, or what appeared to be cellulose, from which I infer that the flour used (which was that of wheat) was of a coarse quality, and probably not made in Minnesota.
“A slight reaction for biliary matter seemed to show that there was no obstruction of the bile ducts. These tests about used up the four very small pills of the Lama’s ordure.
“Very respectfully and sincerely yours,
(Signed) “W. M. Mew.”
IX.
THE STERCORANISTES.
That Christian polemics have not been entirely free from such ideas may be shown satisfactorily to any one having the leisure to examine the various phases of the discussion upon the doctrine of the Eucharist.
The word “stercoranistes,” or “stercorarians,” is not to be found in the last edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica; but in the edition of 1841 the definition of the word is as follows: “Stercorarians, or Stercoranistes, formed from stercus, ‘dung,’ a name which those of the Romish church originally gave to such as held that the host was liable to digestion and all its consequences, like other food.” This definition was copied verbatim in Rees’s Cyclopædia of Arts, Sciences, and Literature, Philadelphia.
The dispute upon “Stercoranisme” began in 831, upon the appearance of a theological treatise by a monk named Paschasius Radbert.—(See the “Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,” John Lawrence von Mosheim, translated by John Murdock, D.D., New Haven, 1832, vol. ii. p. 104 et seq.)
The grossly sensual conception of the presence of the Lord’s body in the sacrament, according to which that body is eaten, digested, and evacuated like ordinary food, is of ancient standing, though not found in Origen, nor perhaps in Rhabanus Maurus. It certainly originated with a class of false teachers contemporary with or earlier than Rhabanus Maurus, whom Paschasius Radbert condemns,—“Frivolum est ergo in hoc mysterio cogitare in stercore ne commisceatur in digestione alterius cibi” (De Corp. et Sanguin. Domin. cap. 20). He does not, however, apply the term “Stercoranistes” to his opponents. Cardinal Humbert is the first to so employ the word. This use was in a polemic against Nicetas Pectoratus, written in support of Azymitism, etc. From this source the word was adopted into common usage.—(Schrockli Kirchengesch. XXIII.? 429, 499; Herzog, Real Encyclop., s. v.; McClintock and Strong, Cyclop. of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York, 1880; see also Schaff-Herzog, “Cyclopædia of Religious Knowledge,” New York, 1881, article “Stercoranistes.”)
(Stercoranistes.) (Hist. Eccles.) “Nom que quelques écrivains ont donné a ceux qui pensoient que les symboles eucharistiques êtoient sujets à la digestion et à toutes ses suites de même que les autres nourritures corporelles.... Ce mot est dérivé du Latin, ‘stercus,’ excrement. On ne convient pas généralement de l’existence de cette erreur. Le président Manguin l’attribue à Amalaire, auteur du neuvième siècle.... Et le cardinal Humbert dans sa réponse a Nicetas Pectoratus, l’appelle nettement stercoraniste, parceque celui-ci prétendoit que la perception de l’hostie rompoit le jeûne. Enfin, Alger attribue la même erreur aux Grecs. Mais ces accusations ne paroissent pas fondées, car; ... Amalaire propose à la vérité la question si les espèces eucharistiques se consument comme les aliments ordinaires; mais, il ne la décide pas. Nicetas prétend aussi que l’Eucharistique rompt le jeûne, soit qu’il reste dans les espèces quelque vertu nutritive, soit parce qu’après avoir récu l’Eucharistique, ou peut prendre autres aliments; mais, il ne paroit pas avoir admis la consequence que lui impute le Cardinal Humbert. Il ne paroit pas non plus que les autres Grecs soient tombés dans cette erreur. S. Jean Damascene les en disculpe. Mais, soit que le Stercoranisme ait existé ou non, les protestans n’en peuvent tirer aucun avantage contre la présence réele, que cette erreur suppose plutôt qu’elle ne l’ébranle.”—(Voyez M. Wuitass, traité de l’Eucharistie, première partie, quest. 2, art. 1; p. 416 et suiv. Encyclop. ou Diction. Raisson. des Sciences, des Arts, et des Metiers, tome quinzième, Neufchatel, 1765, art. “Stercoranistes.”)
“Si qui fuerunt, fuere nonnulli nono sæculo, qui Corpus Christi quod in Eucharistia continetur secessui, ac defectioni obnoxium esse putabat ita ut corruptis speciebus et ipsum Corpus Christi corrumperatur.”—(“Dict. of Sects and Heresies,” etc., T. H. Blunt, Oxford, 1874, where a number of references are given.)
“Stercorantistarum, nomen non sectæ, sed convitii fuit.”—(Baronius, “Annales,” Lucca, 1758.)
Stercoranisme. Stercoranistes. Stercus. “Membre d’une secte qui souténait que les espèces de l’Eucharistie étaient digérées et transformées en excrément comme les autres aliments” (Encyclop.).
“On a désigné dans le XIX. siècle sous le nom de Stercoranistes, les théologiens qui niaient que la substance du pain et du vin fut changée dans l’Eucharistie au corps et au sang de Jesus Christ.”
“Tout ce qui entre dans la bouche, descend le ventre et va au rétrait.”
“Prétendirent que si le corps et le sang de Jésus Christ, avaient pris la place de la substance du pain et du vin, ils devraient subir les mêmes accidents qui seraient arrivés à cette substance si elle avait été reçue par le communiant.”—(P. Larousse, “Grand Dictionnaire Universel,” Paris, 1875.)
Brand, in his “Encyclopædia of Science, Literature, and Art,” article “Stercoranism,” says: “A nickname which seems to have been applied in the Western churches in the fifth and sixth centuries to those who held the opinion that a change took place in the consecrated elements, so as to render the divine body subject to the act of digestion.” He refers to Mosheim’s “Ecclesiastical History” for a fuller account.
The same ideas obtained among the illiterate as a matter of course.
The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ seems to have been received by the Gnostics of the second century as canonical, and accepted in the same sense by Eusebius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others of the Fathers and writers of the Church. Sozomen was told by travellers in Egypt that they had heard in that country of the miracles performed by the water in which the infant Jesus had been washed. According to Ahmed ben Idris, this gospel was used in parts of the East in common with the other gospels; while Ocobius de Castro asserts that in many churches of Asia and Africa it was recited exclusively. (See Introduction to the “Apocryphal New Testament,” William Hone, London, 1820.) But, on the other hand, all the apocrypha were condemned by Pope Gelasius in the fifth century; and this interdict was not repealed until the time of Paul IV. in the sixteenth century.—(See Bunsen, “Analecta,” Hamburg, 1703.)
In the following extracts it will be noted that the miracles recorded were wrought either by the swaddling-clothes themselves or by the water in which they had been cleansed; and the inference is that the excreta of Christ were believed, as in many other instances, to have the character of a panacea, as well as generally miraculous properties.
The Madonna gave one of the swaddling clothes of Christ to the Wise Men of the East who visited him; they took it home, “and having, according to the custom of their country, made a fire, they worshipped it.... And casting the swaddling cloth into the fire, the fire took it and kept it” (1 Inf. iii. 6, 7).
We read of the Finnish deity Wainemoinen that “the sweat which dropped from his body was a balm for all diseases.” The very same virtues were possessed by the sweat of the Egyptian god Ra (“Chaldean Magic,” Lenormant, p. 247, quoting the Kalewala, part 2, r. 14).
On arrival in Egypt after the Flight—“When the Lady Saint Mary had washed the swaddling clothes of the Lord Christ and hanged them out to dry upon a post ... a certain boy ... possessed with the devil, took down one of them and put it upon his head. And presently the devils began to come out of his mouth and fly away in the shape of crows and serpents. And from this time the boy was healed by the power of the Lord Christ.”—(1 Inf. iv. 15, 16, 17.)
“On the return journey from Egypt, Christ had healed by a kiss a lady whom cursed Satan ... had leaped upon ... in the form of a serpent. On the morrow, the same woman brought perfumed water to wash the Lord Jesus; when she had washed him, she preserved the water. And there was a girl whose body was white with leprosy, who being sprinkled with this water was instantly cleansed from her leprosy.”—(1 Inf. vi. 16, 17).
There is another example of exactly the same kind in 1 Inf. vi. 34. See, again, 1 Inf. ix. 1, 4, 5, 9; x. 2, 3; xii. 4, 5, 6. “And in Matarea the Lord Jesus caused a well to spring forth, in which Saint Mary washed his coat. And a balsam is produced or grown in that country from the sweat which ran down there from the Lord Jesus.”—(Gospel of the Infancy, viii.: “The Apocryphal New Testament,” William Hone, London, 1820, p. 47.)
“In Ireland, weakly children are taken to drink the ablution, that is, the water and wine with which the chalice is rinsed after the priest has taken the communion,—the efficacy arising from the cup having just before contained the body of our Lord.” (See “Folk-Medicine,” Black, London, 1883, p. 88.) The same cure was also in vogue in England, and in each case for the whooping-cough.
This has all the appearance of a commingling of two separate streams of thought; compare with it the notes on the expression from Juvenal, “Priapo ille bibit vitreo,” page 428, as well as those in regard to the canons of Beauvais on page 429.
“An offshoot of the Khlysti, known as the “Shakouni,” or Jumpers, openly professed debauchery and libertinism to excess.... Others of their rites are abject and disgusting; their chief is the living Christ, and their communion consists in embracing his body,—ordinary disciples may kiss his hand or his foot; to those of a more fervent piety, he offers his tongue.”—(“The Russian Church and Russian Dissent,” Albert F. Heard, New York and London, 1887, pp. 261-262.)
The subjoined extract is from “Mélusine” (Gaidoz), Paris, May 5, 1888.