Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 3, 1892.djvu/470

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
462
The Easter Hare.

XII. To descend to the region of prosaic fact, it should be noted as an essential link in the argument, that the hare was undoubtedly well known to the prehistoric Aryan people, and in times still more ancient.

"If we find sasa for hare in Sanskrit", writes Max Müller, "and haso for hare in OHG, we need not hesitate to claim for the united Aryas an acquaintance with that animal."[1] Remains of the hare have been found in Pleistocene cave deposits in England,[2] and in the Belgian caves.[3] Among the early British hares were as common as vermin.[4] It is probable that this profusion, far from endangering the sanctity of the animal, actually enhanced it. Rare beasts are objects of terror to the savage, who generally takes his god or totem from the familiar surroundings of his everyday life. Thus the frequent occurrence of the hare as a corn-spirit is naturally explained by the fact that hares are the animals which most frequently took refuge in the last patch of standing corn, and, as they rushed out of it, were identified with the escaping spirit of the crop.[5]

Now, taking all these groups of testimony into consideration, we have, I think, such evidence of the deep and almost universal sanctity of the hare in prehistoric times as would lead us to expect that the ritual connected with it might very probably leave its mark upon popular custom. It remains to be shown that the form of the Easter ceremonies observed at Leicester and Hallaton is compatible with and suggestive of an origin in religious ritual.

Now the essential features of these customs appear to be the following:

1. They are municipal or corporate functions, acts of the whole community.

  1. Max Müller, Biographies of Words, and the Home of the Aryas, London, 1888, p. 145, and cf. p. 164.
  2. Geikie's Prehistoric Europe, pp. 31, 87, 97.
  3. Ibid., p. 103, 107-8.
  4. Elton, op. cit., p. 219.
  5. Frazer, op. cit., ii, 33-4.