The Golden Bough by James Frazer
December 5th 2006 10:16
This was the big, lumbering book that started it all. In a sense, if we didn't have this book, there wouldn't be any contemporary fantasy, or at least most of it.
Frazer's book starts with a question: Why would a single man roam the grove of Nemi, with a sword in hand, ready on a lookout for anyone who would slay him at any time? What kind of bizarre ritual was this and what did it signify? Frazer starts with this question but the answer takes him through a labyrinthine quest that fills up a dozen volumes.
The book itself grew in stages and by its third edition was so big that it'd probably fill a library. Nevertheless, what is the destination that Frazer comes to after this circumnavigatory route? In Grevel Lindop's words, The Golden Bough demonstrates that a "wide range of primitive religions centred on a divine king, a man who represented a dying god of vegetable fertility and who either killed his predecessor, reigning until killed in his turn, or else was sacrificed at the end of a year's kingship."
Wikipedia quotes a number of authors who have been influenced by his work, but out of them I'd select Mary Renault's The Bull from The Sea which used this theory to magnificent effect. But, what to make of this theory?
I am no anthropologist but for me the kind of argument Frazer uses makes me uneasy. Is it because it looks its based on induction while we are comfortably used to deductive arguements? Frazer uses a wide range of examples from around the world for each small step of his argument and carefully prepares his way through. The problem here is of course that Frazer wouldn't be personally be an expert over such a wide area, so this looks like a culling of comfortable evidence from everywhere around the world. Though it is admissable that the range of the evidence is impressive. The unease is increased by the fact that I can discern a lack of quality in representation of the cultures I am personally acquainted with.
Frazer himself included Christianity in the intial versions of his book and later removed it after the inevitable controversy. However, many of Frazer's readers had no problem in including not just Chrsitianity but most other religions the way Frazer did. That is not new itself either. For these kind of arguments could be heard even in Roman times, though not so thorough as Frazer's.
Wiki takes issue with the fact that the anthropologists are moving away from the idea that there should be a single source for a diverse set of phenomenon around the world. I do not necessarily disagree. After all, humans can think alike and the options are limited.
Whether the argument stands in whole or in part, this was one mighty influential book and one that probably you cannot do without reading if you have to be in pace with the modern discourse.
It is available online.
Frazer's book starts with a question: Why would a single man roam the grove of Nemi, with a sword in hand, ready on a lookout for anyone who would slay him at any time? What kind of bizarre ritual was this and what did it signify? Frazer starts with this question but the answer takes him through a labyrinthine quest that fills up a dozen volumes.
The book itself grew in stages and by its third edition was so big that it'd probably fill a library. Nevertheless, what is the destination that Frazer comes to after this circumnavigatory route? In Grevel Lindop's words, The Golden Bough demonstrates that a "wide range of primitive religions centred on a divine king, a man who represented a dying god of vegetable fertility and who either killed his predecessor, reigning until killed in his turn, or else was sacrificed at the end of a year's kingship."
Wikipedia quotes a number of authors who have been influenced by his work, but out of them I'd select Mary Renault's The Bull from The Sea which used this theory to magnificent effect. But, what to make of this theory?
I am no anthropologist but for me the kind of argument Frazer uses makes me uneasy. Is it because it looks its based on induction while we are comfortably used to deductive arguements? Frazer uses a wide range of examples from around the world for each small step of his argument and carefully prepares his way through. The problem here is of course that Frazer wouldn't be personally be an expert over such a wide area, so this looks like a culling of comfortable evidence from everywhere around the world. Though it is admissable that the range of the evidence is impressive. The unease is increased by the fact that I can discern a lack of quality in representation of the cultures I am personally acquainted with.
Frazer himself included Christianity in the intial versions of his book and later removed it after the inevitable controversy. However, many of Frazer's readers had no problem in including not just Chrsitianity but most other religions the way Frazer did. That is not new itself either. For these kind of arguments could be heard even in Roman times, though not so thorough as Frazer's.
Wiki takes issue with the fact that the anthropologists are moving away from the idea that there should be a single source for a diverse set of phenomenon around the world. I do not necessarily disagree. After all, humans can think alike and the options are limited.
Whether the argument stands in whole or in part, this was one mighty influential book and one that probably you cannot do without reading if you have to be in pace with the modern discourse.
It is available online.
| 59 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
