Download Shane Donaldson

1
Frazer's Golden Bough:
An exploration of critical response and its influence on successive editions.
Shane Donaldson
LIS2280: The History of the Book
University of Pittsburgh
Bernadette Callery
2
INTRODUCTION. A brief overview:
The Golden Bough by James Frazer was first published in 1890 in two
volumes, in three volumes in 1900, and in its third edition (1906-1915), comprised
a total of 12 volumes. However a version comprised of just one volume was
published in 1922. So, why was a book in its first release composed of two
volumes, three volumes in its second, and twelve volumes in its third, then to be
abridged into a single volume? Was this merely to create an accessible text to the
general public or were there other implications in this compression of idea and
words? The Golden Bough, to this day remains in print, its 1922 edition being in
public domain and printed by several publishers. The abridged version, as well
as digitized copies of the second edition can be found online in full text.1 It is a
popular classical text and still remains in print, and in recent years has gone
through numerous new abridgements.2 Obvious developments and expansions,
just by counting volumes alone, occurred over the course of the various editions
Beard, Mary. "Frazer, Leach, and Virgil: The Popularity (and unpopularity) of The Golden
Bough," Comparative Studies in Society and History 34, no. 2 (Apr. 1992): 213. "Some 36,000 copies
of each volume of the complete third edition were printed between 1911 and 1922; over 33,000
copies of the abridged edition were printed between 1922 and 1939."
2
Frazer, Sir James George. The New Golden Bough: A New Abridgement of the Classic Work.
Edited by Dr. Thomas H. Gaster. Criterion Books: New York, 1959: xvi. Re-abridgements such as
Dr. Gasters' often inserted materials excised from the second and third editions, as well as
removing materials as well as general ideas that no longer applied to modern religious and
anthropological documentation.
1
3
of The Golden Bough. Frazer had gathered more archaeological and ethnographic
data over the course of these publications as well as actually visiting Nemi in
1901, the source of his entire inquiry.3 And in every edition, Nemi is the leading
position from which Frazer's narrative begins and concludes. No matter how far
he may stray, his prose eye always wanders back to the Pre-Roman rites that
occurred at the Roman site of Nemi.
The Golden Bough is a wide-ranging investigation of mythology and
religion by Scottish anthropologist Sir James George Frazer. Offering, what was
at the time, a near modernist approach when first published, The Golden Bough
discussed religion and mythology objectively, as a cultural experience, rather
than a theological viewpoint. Considered one of the first forays into an
anthropological perspective of culture, religion, and ritual, The Golden Bough
cemented Frazer’s influence in the objective analysis of culture. Frazer was
possibly the first anthropologist to look at religious customs cross-culturally,
although from an armchair perspective, systematically analyzing hundreds of
cultural references in separate regions and eras, in order to find a commonality to
religious behaviors that stretched through time and geography, and to draw
comparative parallels of custom and behavior between widely disparate peoples.
Beard, "Frazer, Leach, and Virgil: The Popularity (and unpopularity) of The Golden Bough," 207.
Some commentators have explored the notion of expansion of the Nemi grove description with
each subsequent edition, relating a subtle change, and some would say, faltering, in Frazer's
convictions of the ever present Nemi grove inquiry.
3
4
Frazer was not the first to use a comparative method, but he was the first to use it
on such a grand scale. A direct methodological comparison between Frazer and
the modern frameworks of anthropology would be dubious and questionable at
best, given the subjective in-situ approach of modern ethnography and the
polarized detached arm chair tactic of Frazer and his early allies. His
investigations did influence the future studies and theories of Branislaw
Malinowski, a true progenitor of the modern "in-house" approach of cultural
anthropology and ethnographic fieldwork. However, Frazer's premise on
homoeopathic4 and sympathetic magic still garners much evidence in
contemporary anthropological thought in pre-literate and even contemporary
cultural theory, and is still used in understanding the notion of magic in
anthropological thought today.5 However, as stated, there was extensive length
added in subsequent editions, not just in sheer volume and but in content as
well. The intent of this analysis is to observe some of the influences that might
have caused this sequence of editions and shed light on the influences of
reception and critical feedback in book publishing.
Frazer, Sir James George. The New Golden Bough: A New Abridgement of the Classic Work.
Edited by Dr. Thomas H. Gaster. Criterion Books: New York, 1959: xvii. Homoeopathic magic is
summarized by the "like produces like" "e.g., rainfall by pouring water, or sunlight by kindling
fire."
4
Stevens Jr., Phillip. "Some Implications of Urban Witchcraft Beliefs," Magic, Witchcraft, and
Religion. Edited by Arthur C. Lehmann and James E. Myers. Mountain View: Mayfield, 1993:201.
5
5
Frazer's primary purpose in the Golden Bough was not just the publishing
of an elaborate encyclopedia of world culture, but his own personal inquiry into
the pre-Roman ritual of the yearly sacrifice of the priest at Nemi. Frazer wanted
to expand on what he felt was a universal mythic template: the study of an
ancient fertility rite centered on the worship of a sacrificial king, the incarnation
of a deity, who endures a cyclic path of marriage, death, and resurrection/
reincarnation. Frazer believed this mythic framework resonated in almost all of
the world's mythologies and he was intrigued as to why and by what process did
this template permeate humanity.
This paper will endeavor to look at the process of editing that occurred
with the successive editions of Sir James Frazer's, The Golden Bough, as well as the
critical reception that The Golden Bough endured, and how this reception may
have influenced its content. Thomas R. Adams and Nicholas Barker developed a
flexible and analytical model exploring the influences of books called by them,
“The Whole Socio-Economic Conjuncture."6 This framework, specifically the
areas discussing the reception of a book as it relates to a books success and
survival is at the crux of the historical progression of the Bough. The Golden Bough
6
Adams, Thomas R. and Nicolas Barker. “A New Model For The Study Of The Book.” In A
Potencie of Life: Books in Society, edited by Nicolas Barker, New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press,
2001:14. This model was developed in response to Robert Darnton's 'communication circuit' that
held to influences through defined roles and groups rather than the Adams/ Barker reflection on
market influences.
6
shares a conceptual quality with the test group used in the development of the
model, namely, an inference of influence in its reception and promotion from all
four corners of the Adams/ Barker model.7 The text of the Golden Bough has
been through so many incarnations that it also begs the question, why? Why so
many varied editions? Frazer, in his own lifetime explored four separate
editions, including a supplement to the monolithic third edition published
twenty years after the last volume was released.
The focus of this paper will then be three fold. The first portion of this
paper will be a general history and content chart of the large alterations of
content between editions. What caused these alterations? Was it publisher
influenced? The second portion will be a brief overview of Frazer’s most ardent
supporters and honest critics. Did the popular cultural consensus demand
revisions, that influenced publisher and author, or was the author's prerogative
in accumulating and changing the structure of the material his own method to
better clarify his thesis? Though there were vast expansions to the book itself,
ideas within the book were relegated elsewhere in later additions and at times,
removed all together. The paper will then conclude with an overview, bringing
7
Adams and Barker. “A New Model For The Study Of The Book.” , 15. The Golden Bough, as
with the maritime specific test group for the New Model study, was oriented toward a
particularly focused consumer group, but with the onset of academic Victorian interests in
"savage customs" and evolutionism, its popularity expanded.
7
into focus the relationship between not just Frazer’s points in changing and not
changing text but also a look at how the reception and critique of each
subsequent Bough influenced the next one to come.
The Golden Bough:
". . .if we can show that a barbarous custom, like that of the priesthood of
Nemi, has existed elsewhere; if we can detect the motives which led to its
institution; if we can prove that these motives have operated widely,
perhaps universally, in human society, producing in varied circumstances
a variety of institutions specifically different but generally alike; if we can
show, lastly, that these very motives, with some of their derivative
institutions, were actively at work in ancient antiquity; then we may
fairly infer that at a remoter age the same motives gave birth to the
priesthood of Nemi."8
It is from this point that Frazer begins and frequently veers away from but
always returns. Ironically, with its lengthy history ahead of it, the first edition of
the Golden Bough from idea to publication took only twelve months. Frazer
began in 1889 to have it published a year later.9 With Frazer's fellowship at
Trinity College secured and a myriad back log of classical studies, Frazer delved
Fraser, Robert. The Making of "The Golden Bough": the origin and growth of an argument. London:
Macmillan, 1990: 48.
9 Fraser, Robert. The Making of "The Golden Bough": the origin and growth of an argument., 8
8
8
into his translations of Pausanias for inspiration. It was in these ancient Greek
travel writings that Frazer found his muse.
Pausanias was a Greek traveler and scholar, born in what is now modern
Turkey (143-176 CE), his Descriptions of Greece is a classicist's travelogue of
ancient ruins. Sprinkled amongst his architectural and geographical descriptions
are snippets of local folklore. One very intriguing story relates of a Diana cult in
Aricia located next to the Lake at Nemi. "The Aricians tell a tale . . . . when
Hippolytus (the son of Theseus) was killed, owing to the curses of Theseus, Asclepius
raised him from the dead. On coming to life again he refused to forgive his father;
rejecting his prayers, he went to the Aricians in Italy. There he became king and devoted
a precinct to Artemis, where down to my time the prize for the victor in single combat
was the priesthood of the goddess. The contest was open to no freeman, but only to slaves
who had run away from their masters."10
This is the kernel of Frazer's Bough, the starting point of his journey in
writing. But this account is obviously vague and incomplete, and Frazer was
aware that besides this inference of conjecture there was no direct or
corroborating evidence. He was nonetheless intrigued. So, what to do? "Fill in
Pausanias. Pausanias’ Description of Greece, translated into English with notes and index, by
Arthur Richard Shilleto. Bohn's Classical Library. London, G. Bell and sons, 1886: 27.
10
9
the gaps by resorting to analogy."11 Thus it all begins, in the groves of Aricia,
amongst a priesthood in which leadership was transferred through a ritualized
killing. Frazer, "explained the priest of Aricia - the king of the Wood - as an
embodiment of a tree spirit,"12 and therefore a deity. Through considerations
elaborated throughout the text of The Golden Bough, Frazer came to the
conclusion that this occurrence documented by Pausanias was apart of a local
precursor cult that held a yearly slaying, metaphorically revealing a transfer of
power through an incarnating deity in the guise of the triumphant new priest.
Sir James Frazer took careful consideration into the physicality of
The Golden Bough. The first printings of the first three editions (I hope that makes
sense.) were encased in a hunter-green criss-cross grain buckram cloth with
French-sewn binding. Gold gilt stamping was used on the front cover design as
well as the text of the spine for each volume. The cover design had no text,
rather an ornate square design of intertwining branches and leaves, reminiscent
of mistletoe, or "golden bough" for that matter, centered in the board in gold gilt
stamping, based on a pencil sketch by Frazer's friend J.H. Middleton.13
11
Leach, Edmund. "On The 'Founding Fathers'," Frazer and Malinowski: A CA Discussion [and
Comments and Reply], Current Anthropology 7, No. 5. (Dec., 1966): 561.
12
Brabrook, E. W "Reviews of The Golden Bough, a Study in Magic and Religion, by J. G. Frazer.",
Folklore 12, No. 2. (Jun., 1901): 219.
13
Frazer, Sir James. The Golden Bough: The Magic Art: Part 1: Vol. 1., London:
Macmillan,
1966: xv.
10
The first edition of the Golden Bough met with overwhelming
response, though it only took Frazer a year to compile the first edition, the
second edition would not appear for another decade. Frazer states in the preface
to the second edition that the first "remains almost entire" with in the text of the
second edition14. Frazer's expansion in the second edition, from two volumes to
three volumes total, was merely illustrative, more substantiated facts and
comparisons. He felt that a minor reorganization needed to be accomplished in
order to reveal more evidence toward his mythic template theory behind the
ancient Italian priesthood. The content of the book in its successive editions was
never changed as well. Chapters and subheadings were merely given more
detail in order to gather more data under separate headings. However it was in
the second edition that the exploration of Christ's crucifixion as a mythological
conspiracy, loosely based on Babylonian-Judaic-Latin connections conjectured by
Frazer himself.
It must also be stated before venturing into criticisms of Frazer
that he followed a classical evolutionary progression of culture used by
academics and anthropologists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century, the notion that peoples ascend from levels of magical, religious and
finally unto modern scientific thought, or evolutionism, for lack of a better word.
14
Frazer, Sir James. The Golden Bough: The Magic Art: Part 1: Vol. 1., xvii
11
This progression of rational steps was not concretized until the second edition of
the Golden Bough.15 BJ Coman in his analysis of The Bough stated that with
Frazer, “The advance of thought comes through disillusionment."16 Religion is
superseded by magic, but in the process man is still found wanting for more
control over his environs and so it is thought that with the advancement of the
rational mind and humanities study of natural causation that gives people an
actual notion and degree of predictability and control over their environment.
Frazer also deemed that there is no human ability to order reality around
him (meaning all persons) without available data from the human senses and
rationalism, no matter how the data may be interpreted through the lens of
magic, religion and science. For Frazer, "all magical or religious practices must have
their origins in a physical object or . . . event, be it birth, death, the waxing and waning of
the moon, or the growth and decay of vegetation."17
RECEPTION AND PUBLIC RESPONSE: Past &Present:
Reception and public response was and is varied, to say the least. The
Golden Bough experienced almost instant acclaim in the literary and academic
15
Brabrook, E. W, "Reviews of The Golden Bough, a Study in Magic and Religion, by J. G. Frazer.",
220.
Coman, B.J. “Frazer, Wittgenstein and the Savage Mind,” Quadrant (June 2004): 15. Frazer
conformed to his era in this acceptance that humanity ascends through standard revelations,
shedding ever more his ignorant superstitions.
17 Coman, B.J. “Frazer, Wittgenstein and the Savage Mind,” Quadrant (June 2004):16. All human
knowledge, though it may descend into magical, religious, i.e. irrational thought, begins its
progression rooted in natural evidence.
16
12
world when it was first ushered into the world, in 1890. The text influenced the
Cambridge Ritualists18, a group of similarly minded classicists and
anthropologists at Cambridge University. This influence in anthropology
extended across continents to Australia where Baldwin Spencer and FJ Gillen
were also followers of his comparative approach and theories. Within the area of
philosophy, Bergson, Cassirer, Durkheim and others drew from Frazer's work.
Despite all these academics, Frazer's influence and mirror into posterity seemed
to more readily flourish in the literary world, in which he is mentioned by T.S.
Eliot in his author’s notes to his poem Waste Land, specifically mentioning The
Golden Bough and its “vegetation ceremonies.” And Yeats, James Joyce, and D.H.
Lawrence all admitted influences from Frazer’s great work. There are even more
contemporary influences, such as Jim Morrison.19 In the words of William Butler
Yeats, referencing the third edition:
"To another work of anthropology I am indebted in general, one which has
influenced our generation profoundly; I mean The Golden Bough, especially the
18
Coman, B.J. “Frazer, Wittgenstein and the Savage Mind,” 14. Jane Harrison, F.M. Cornford,
and Gilbert Murray are the best known. 'The Ritualists' consisted of mostly Cambridge scholars
who centered there respective studies around the notion of ritual and symbolic practice as central
to man's nature.
Clark, Brian R. Wittgenstein, Frazer and Religion. New York: St. Martins Press, 1998: 7. Jim
Morrison, lead singer for the 1960's psychedelic rock band the Doors, used from The Golden Boughs
' table of contents heading, "not to touch the earth, not to see the sun", as a phrase in the song,
"Not to Touch the Earth."
19
13
two volumes Adonis, Attis, Osiris. Anyone acquainted with these works will
immediately recognize in the poem certain references to vegetation ceremonies."20
Later critics have not only cited Frazer influence as being thematic but that
the structure of his magnum opus is also an influential design on modern
literature, "a work . . . conceived as literature or even music."21 His ability at
combining vast fields of data with his Victorian "purple prose" seems to be the
reason his detractors were/are so critical and his supporters so loyal.
Frazer did not, initially, travel the world to search for the materials of his
magnum opus, but rested on the backs of contemporary and previous
ethnographic scholarship (His only traveling research was a visit to the shores of
Nemi between the publications of the first and second editions of The Bough.), as
well as correspondents with other travelers: missionaries, doctors and
administrators from around the world. Coman's evaluation of Frazer's
comparisons can be summarized by a rather lengthy quote from anthropologist
A.P. Elkin:
“But such is their loyalty to their secrets, that they never drop a hint to the white
‘authority’ of the great world of thought, ritual and sanction of which he is
unaware. They feel either that he would not understand it or that he would
Smith, Stan. "Review: [Untitled]," The Review of English Studies, New Series 47, No. 188 (Nov.
1996): 617.
21 Lebowitz, Martin. Martin Lebowitz His Thought and Writings. Edited by John D. Rainer.
Maryland, University Press of America, 1997: 217.
20
14
despise it, and so the ‘past-masters’, the old custodians of secret knowledge sit in
the camp, sphinx-like, watching with eagle eye the effect of white contact on the
young men, and deciding how much, if any, of the knowledge of their fathers can
be safely entrusted to them, and just when the imparting of their secrets can be
effectively made. If the young men are too much attracted to the white mans
ways, if they are inclined to despise the old ways, and above all if they show a
looseness of living which denotes lack of stability in character, the old men either
teach them nothing, or else traditional false versions of some myths as a means of
testing their sincerity and loyalty. But only too often, after contact with the white
man, the time is never propitious for the imparting of ‘truth’, and so the secrets
pass away with the old men; and thought the latter die in sorrow knowing the old
rites and myths will pass into oblivion, that the sacred places will no longer be
cared for, and that the tribe is doomed to extinction, yet they die triumphantly,
having been loyal to their trust.”22
The conclusion from this statement is that Frazer was merely gathering materials
second hand. Though ushered as a herald of scholarship in 1890,
Coman, B.J. “Frazer, Wittgenstein and the Savage Mind,” 15. A.P. Elkin was a noted Australian
anthropologist who belonged to a later school of ethnography that explored cultures distinctly
from one another rather than any need to draw theoretical parallels and correlations that could be
deemed to not only pollute interpretation but harm future interactions with said populations. BJ
Coman drew a parallel between Frazer's methodology of gathering information about people's
customs from an effective outsider with the controversy surrounding Margaret Mead's
ethnographic work with the Samoans and the difficulty she had in gathering truthful information
from these peoples as well.
22
15
anthropological scholarship had eventually begun criticizing the nature of arm
chair research and investigation. Elkins conclusion is revolutionary in
understanding the relationship between data gatherers and those from whom
they are gathering as well as the authenticity and interpretation of information
taken and analyzed from various peoples.
Edmund Leach was a British ethnographer and Provost of Kings College
from 1966-1979, and had a several issues with The Golden Bough and Frazer's
methodology and conclusions, but he held a special grievance with the
description of the Lake at Nemi and its surrounding area. Leach's particular
target was the single abridged version of The Golden Bough, which omits most of
the archaeological information on the site included in the full scale third edition.
Leaches issues carry weight as Frazer had never visited the site until after the
publication of his first edition. Leach favored the site description account given
in the third edition. The addition of this archaeological material in the second
and third editions makes little difference to Frazer's illustration of the site, which
remains remarkably consistent through all editions, both before and after his
visit. Leach felt that Frazer relied so heavily on the research of others as it
pertains to custom and behavior that he, "accused Frazer of the double crime of
plagiarism and distortion. Not only, he claimed, did Frazer's anthropological writing
consist of little more than a pastiche of direct quotations from earlier ethnographic
16
accounts; but when he did choose to make his own contribution, Frazer commonly
rewrote or improved his sources in order to give the impression that they backed up more
strongly his own tendentious theories ."23
There were also academics that strongly supported Frazer and felt that
after the excision of certain content from the Bough’s later editions, Frazer had
somehow compromised an enlightened furtherance of ideas. Robert Graves, in a
brief critique, elaborated on Frazer "skirting" the issue of Christian mythology in
the context of his thesis, the comparison with his overall dying reviving god:
"… at a University one has to be very careful indeed not to get out of step with
one's colleagues and especially not to publish any heterodox theories . . . Sir James
Frazer was able to keep his beautiful rooms at Trinity College, Cambridge until
his death by carefully and methodically sailing all around his dangerous subject,
as if charting the coastline of a forbidden island without actually committing
himself to a declaration that it existed. What he was saying-not-saying was that
Christian legend, dogma and ritual are refinements of a great body of primitive
and even barbarous beliefs, and that almost the only original element in
Christianity is the personality of Jesus."24
23
Beard, Mary. "Frazer, Leach, and Virgil: The Popularity (and unpopularity) of The Golden
Bough," Comparative Studies in Society and History 34, no. 2 (Apr. 1992): 205. Leach held very little
regard for Frazer's scholarship, having called him a, "self-seeking lapdog of the Establishment",
and "devoid of intellectual originality."
24
Graves, Robert. The White Goddess. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1975: 242.
17
Enter Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1952), great philosopher of the 20th
century. Wittgenstein had an immense interest in anthropology and history and
acquainted himself with Frazer's work, taking exception to Frazer's general
conclusions, methodology and processes:
"Frazer is much more savage than most of his savages, because these won't be
as far removed from understanding spiritual matters as an English man of the
twentieth century. His explanations of primitive customs are much cruder than
the meaning of these customs themselves."25
More contemporary reviewer's baulk at the notion of his literary and
academic legacy, feeling that his prose hides a lack of sustainability in keeping
the facts of The Bough together as a cohesive argument:
"The Bough has been broken and all that it cradled has fallen. It has
been broken not only by subsequent scholars, but also by the deliberate
action of its author."26
There are other less grandiose criticisms oriented toward specific areas of
academic investigation into comparative passages in the Golden Bough. Some
academics can be seen to taking affront to Frazer sometimes cursory summaries
of accumulated ethnography, and often times overreaching statements, Jessica
25
26
Coman, B.J. “Frazer, Wittgenstein and the Savage Mind,” 18.
Smith, Jonathon Z. "When the Bough Breaks," History of Religions 12, No. 4. (May, 1973): 342.
18
Weston elaborated on passages used from the Bible to corroborate Frazer's
notion that the son of the king would pass as a substitute sacrifice in lieu of the
king himself, an argument used in the 1890 Golden Bough text.27. Weston noted
that the biblical sacrifice in question is actually the killing of an opposing king's
son, and therefore a refutation of the passage used as evidence in support of this
substantiation theory. Yes, indeed, the vultures do roam above the dying corpse
when considering any text of this magnitude, no matter how small the pieces left
on the carrion. But this was no corpse, and neither Frazer nor his supporters had
any intention of The Golden Bough slinking into a corner to die.
Current scholarship supporting the premise and structure of the book has
reinvigorated emphasis on Frazer and his Bough. Reviewers commented on a
1994 "re-abridgement"28 of the Golden Bough, discussing a comparison especially
to the 1922 single volume edition. Discussions elaborate the controversy of the
more controversial excisions made in the single volume edition, but rather a
savior to excised materials:
"Lilly Frazer's abridgement, a literal scissors-and-paste job completed in three
weeks, sought to consciously or unconsciously to conceal the risks of her husbands
enterprise, according to Fraser embracing 'the advantages of caution', going, 'to
27
Weston, Jessica L. "'The Golden Bough': Moab or Edom?," Folklore, 12, No. 3. (Sep., 1901):347.
28
Smith, Stan, "Review: [Untitled]," The Review of English Studies ,627.
19
extreme lengths . . . not to offend . . . Gone are the risky paragraphs concerning
the crucifixion of Christ . . . the speculations concerning matriarchy, the
deliciously irreverent passages on sacred prostitution."29
The reviewer, Stan Smith, felt the essential aspects of the earlier editions,
such as the mythic comparisons of Christ's crucifixion with "primitive" mans
own mythic parallels, brought a stinging pronouncement to the Victorian world
that has all but disappeared in the 1922 abridgement as well as affective aspects
within varied volumes that inspired Yeats to write his magnum opus, The Waste
Land, excised from the 1922 text many scholars would perhaps make glaringly
inaccurate conclusions about Yeats' sources for certain content within his work.
Commentators have also discussed the relationships between Frazer and
his contemporaries who dabbled in related areas within their varied fields,
particularly Joseph Conrad, Branislaw Malinowski, and Frazer. Supporters and
detractors of Frazer's Bough find a shared understanding in this summary:
"The scholarly work which Frazer devoted himself to (as Fellow of Trinity
College in Cambridge) from roughly 1880 until his death in 1941, is often
belittled as ‘armchair anthropology’. Already at the beginning of this century,
several anthropologists disqualified work such as The Golden Bough as being too
29
Smith, Stan, "Review: [Untitled]," The Review of English Studies ,627. Contemporary scholarship
applauded Frazer's various explorations and suggestions on Judeo-Christian origins as well as
Frazer's subtle stabs at Victorian morality with his elaborations on origins of sacred sexuality.
20
speculative and literary. When evolutionism, which was firmly supported by
Frazer, was discredited, the impact of his publications in anthropological circles
also rapidly decreased. This, however, does not mean that his influence on the first
generation of academically trained anthropologists and sociologists has not been
great. He was a source of inspiration, not only for Malinowski but also for such
celebrities as Haddon, Rivers, Crawley, Marett, Durkheim, and Lang, to name
just a few. While his fame among anthropologists waned rather quickly, in other
circles Frazer remained a very popular and widely read author up to this day.
Reprints and translations of his magnum opus The Golden Bough continue to
appear. The fact that in anthropology this work lost its influence rather soon was
due not principally to its outspoken evolutionist orientation, but even more so to
its artistic, literary, fictive, and fantasmatic character, which did not fit in with
the developing idea of the discipline as an empirically and theoretically well
grounded science. Diverse scholars have pointed out that The Golden Bough
closely resembles literary works and should perhaps be classified as such, rather
than as anthropology. Frazer’s use of Turner’s romantic painting, also titled 'The
Golden Bough’, has been noted, as have his flowery and poetic style of writing, his
inclination to represent things as more beautiful (and different) than they were in
21
reality, the fact that he composed his work as a travelogue, and his powerful (plea
for the) use of imagination."30
CONCLUSION:
The survival of the Golden Bough has been predicated on its incarnations.
Its various volumes have brought the ire and adulation of critics and scholars in
opposing arenas. Those who praised Frazer in his earlier editions for relating the
Christian tradition to his resurrecting priest/king shook their fists in outrage at
his relegation in the third edition to the appendix and its complete removal in the
abridged fourth edition.
The first, second and third editions were progressions in Frazer's quest for
ALL surmountable evidence that would literally weigh in on his conclusions of
the Golden Bough at Nemi and the mythic pattern of death and rebirth found in
all human past. He faced critical attacks on his main thesis, through publication
but also praise for his literary approach to scholarly research and his languid
prose. His influence in literature is surprisingly expansive. Frazer never bowed
30
Verrips, Jojada. "The Golden Bough and Apocalypse Now: an-other fantasy,"
Postcolonial Studies 4, No. 3 (2001): 337. Verrips also notes how the literary use of the quest can be
seen as an influence on Frazer with the development of the Golden Bough from a two volume
into a twelve volume journey itself. Verrips also cites that Frazer's obsession with beauty and
meaning restricts him from a strictly rational exploration that would have tied his exploration
into future scientific ethnography and rather develops a cohesive structure and prose to the
Golden Bough, even if it is only buttressed by those facts and data that are sculpted to fit the
needs of the narrative, hence his suggestion of the Bough as a strictly literary work.
22
to criticism toward his "Nemi" thesis. His over all subject inquiry into the Nemi
cult never faltered nor altered. Where Frazer does follow a route of editing is
with the sequences emphasizing the Christian crucifixion myth which finds full
clarity in the second edition. Frazer comments on its patterning after more
ancient semi-local rituals, those of Babylonian influence as well as Latin customs,
inferring that Christ's crucifixion is nothing more than a progressive occurrence
of superstitious ritual killing that has occurred through out human history, in
typical pagan tradition. Frazer expected an instant backlash, which was
experienced, but only a year after publication, though not as haughtily a reaction
as expected. It was from critical academic circles, and not the assumed religious
front, that scholars criticized his conclusions on associations between Babylonian
and Jewish myths31. When the third edition came around, specifically the
Scapegoat volume, the "Crucifixion" section had been relegated to the appendix as
a note. Robert Fraser argues that this was acquiescence to external criticism
toward the scholarship of the premise, but some have argued that it was
apparently the "apex of the argument" in the second edition32. Sir James Frazer
Fraser, Robert. The Making of "The Golden Bough": the origin and growth of an argument. London:
Macmillan, 1990: 153. Fraser suggests that Frazer gave the orthodox believer an "out" by
allowing an overall dual interpretation of his evidence given. Either the acceptance of his
evidence mars the notion of Christianity exclusivity of the atonement of the crucifixion, or
Christianity is a culmination of an historical progression of events that underlie all human history
and pre-history.
32 Fraser, Robert, The Making of "The Golden Bough": the origin and growth of an argument. 154.
Fraser uses Andrew Lang and Robert Graves in support that Christ's Crucifixion was solid pillar
31
23
had always argued that he was answering his inquiry of the priest at Nemi and
not developing a dissertation on the pagan origins of Christian traditions. His
declarations in his opening prefaces to each edition are apparent, but despite his
written travails that explore other paths, he asserted that, ". . . the resemblance of
many of the savage customs and ideas to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity is
striking. But I make no reference to this parallelism, leaving my readers to draw their
own conclusions, one way or the other. 33"
I believe it important to look at the progression of The Bough through a
paradigm model like the Adams/ Barker "Conjecture." It reveals that an honest
assessment of influences cannot be based on defined roles and the influences that
take place between such roles but rather the interaction of active systems. Such
is the case with Frazer and his Bough. From certain critical responses he can seem
to be kowtowing to exterior influences in his constant tweaking of his text,
specifically in regards to the notes dealing with Christ's crucifixion, but rather
through persistent analysis. He was a classical scholar and literary figure who
along with a love of the accumulation of facts in his revealing them to his
of argumentation in the second edition, intended to open Christianity up to a wider context of
objective analysis. Unfortunately, Frazer's data in this regard really did not stand up to a more
focused analysis.
Irvine, Robert. Course outline information for Scottish Literature II. University of Edinburgh.
Accessed Saturday, April11, 2007 5:12PM
http://www.englit.ed.ac.uk/studying/undergrd/scottish_lit_2/Handouts/ri_frazer.htm
33
24
readers, he was also a lover of words, and loved their placement and their
meanings. Such was his confessional admonition when referring to critics who
told him that it would be geographically impossible for a traveler on the shores
of Nemi to hear the Bells ringing in Rome, he admitted that yes that is fact of the
matter, but the truth of the matter is that he prefers to hear those bells ring from a
distance, and he hopes that his readers do as well.
I find it proper to end with what I find to be an honest assessment of the
definition on which The Golden Bough, as a literary work, rests. This coming
pronouncement also works as a beguiling riddle that surmises its enduring
popularity and shifting content:
"The success of the Golden Bough rests on the undeniable fact that it is so
rarely read. It is bought; is presented as a prize; takes an assured, if not
honoured, place on the shelves of libraries; is owned by most of those who
make at least some pretence to literary culture; and is a lurking presence
behind some of the greatest pieces of modern creative literature. But few
people would claim to have read more than a couple of pages of The Golden
Bough. Its importance lies no longer in what it says, but in what it is: a
vast symbol of encyclopaedic knowledge. Behind even the abridged edition
lies a sheer and authority of the twelve volume text - a monument not so
much to scholarship, but to facts; to the possibility of collecting and
25
ordering such facts; and to the reassuring certainty that they can be
explained. Paradoxically a book which started life as a potentially
dangerous voyage of exploration into the Other has grown into a symbol
of the uncertainty of human knowledge."34
34
Beard, Mary. "Frazer, Leach, and Virgil: The Popularity (and unpopularity) of The Golden
Bough," Comparative Studies in Society and History 34, no. 2 (Apr. 1992): 203-224.
26
Works Cited:
1. Adams, Thomas R. and Nicolas Barker. “A New Model For The Study Of The
Book.” In A Potencie of Life: Books in Society, edited by Nicolas Barker,
New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press, 2001.
2. Ardener, Edwin, Edmund Leach, I. C. Jarvie, J. H. M. Beattie, Ernest Gellner
and K. S. Mathur. "Frazer and Malinowski: A CA Discussion [and
Comments and Reply]," Current Anthropology 7, No. 5. (Dec., 1966): 560576.
3. Beard, Mary. "Frazer, Leach, and Virgil: The Popularity (and unpopularity) of
The Golden Bough," Comparative Studies in Society and History 34, no. 2
(Apr. 1992): 203-224.
4. Brabrook, E. W., G. Laurence Gomme, M. Gaster, A. C. Haddon, F. B. Jevons,
Andrew Lang, Alfred Nutt, and Charlotte S. Burne, reviews of The Golden
Bough, a Study in Magic and Religion, by J. G. Frazer,
Folklore 12, No. 2. (Jun., 1901): 219-243.
5. Clark, Brian R. Wittgenstein, Frazer and Religion. New York: St. Martins Press,
1998.
6. Coman, B.J. "Frazer, Wittgenstein and the Savage Mind," Quadrant
(June 2004): 14-19.
7. Fraser, Robert. The Making of "The Golden Bough": the origin and growth of
an argument. London: Macmillan, 1990.
8. Frazer, Sir James. The Golden Bough. London: Macmillan, 1922. Reprint,
Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Reference, 1993.
9. Frazer, Sir James. The Golden Bough: The Magic Art: Part 1: Vol. 1. , London:
Macmillan, 1966
10. Frazer, Sir James. The Golden Bough: The Scapegoat Vol. 9. , London:
Macmillan, 1966
27
11. Frazer, Sir James George. The New Golden Bough: A New Abridgement of
the Classic Work. Edited by Dr. Thomas H. Gaster. Criterion Books: New
York, 1959.
12. Graves, Robert. The White Goddess. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
1975.
13. Vickery, John B. The Literary Impact of The Golden Bough. Princeton
University press: New Jersey, 1973.
14. Lebowitz, Martin. Martin Lebowitz His Thought and Writings. Edited by
John D. Rainer. Maryland, University Press of America, 1997.
15. Pausanias. Pausanias’ Description of Greece, translated into English with
and index, by Arthur Richard Shilleto. Bohn's Classical Library.
London, G. Bell and sons, 1886.
notes
16. Smith, Jonathon Z. "When the Bough Breaks," History of Religions 12, No. 4.
(May, 1973): 342-371.
17. Smith, Stan. "Review: [Untitled]," The Review of English Studies, New Series
47, No. 188 (Nov. 1996): 627-629.
18. Stevens Jr., Phillip. "Some Implications of urban Witchcraft Beliefs," Magic,
Witchcraft, and Religion. Edited by Arthur C. Lehmann and James E.
Myers. Mountain View: Mayfield, 1993
19. Varies, Jojada. "The Golden Bough and Apocalypse Now: an-other fantasy,"
Postcolonial Studies 4, No. 3 (2001): 335– 348.
20. Weston, Jessica L. "'The Golden Bough': Moab or Edom?," Folklore, 12, No.3.
(Sep., 1901): 347.
28