What do you think?
Rate this book
The Golden Bough: A New Abridgement
A classic study of the beliefs and institutions of mankind, and the progress through magic and religion to scientific thought, The Golden Bough has a unique status in modern anthropology and literature.
First published in 1890, The Golden Bough was eventually issued in a twelve-volume edition (1906-15) which was abridged in 1922 by the author and his wife. That abridgement has never been reconsidered for a modern audience. In it some of the more controversial passages were dropped, including Frazer's daring speculations on the Crucifixion of Christ. For the first time this one-volume edition restores Frazer's bolder theories and sets them within the framework of a valuable introduction and notes. With new, modern packaging this new edition is a valuable classic to add to your bookshelf.
First published in 1890, The Golden Bough was eventually issued in a twelve-volume edition (1906-15) which was abridged in 1922 by the author and his wife. That abridgement has never been reconsidered for a modern audience. In it some of the more controversial passages were dropped, including Frazer's daring speculations on the Crucifixion of Christ. For the first time this one-volume edition restores Frazer's bolder theories and sets them within the framework of a valuable introduction and notes. With new, modern packaging this new edition is a valuable classic to add to your bookshelf.
908 pages, Paperback
Published April 15, 2009
About the author
James George Frazer
766 books343 followersSir James George Frazer was a Scottish social anthropologist influential in the early stages of the modern studies of mythology and comparative religion. His most famous work, The Golden Bough (1890), documents and details the similarities among magical and religious beliefs around the globe. Frazer posited that human belief progressed through three stages: primitive magic, replaced by religion, in turn replaced by science.
He was married to the writer & translator Lilly Grove (Lady Frazer)
He was married to the writer & translator Lilly Grove (Lady Frazer)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
July 17, 2019
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Note on the Text
Select Bibliography
A Chronology of Sir James George Frazer
--The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion [Abridged]
Explanatory Notes
Index
Introduction
Note on the Text
Select Bibliography
A Chronology of Sir James George Frazer
--The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion [Abridged]
Explanatory Notes
Index
October 26, 2010
One simply cannot, in my opinion, understand anything about the history and origins of religion -- and of society (for the primitive social unit, the family, is primarily a religious unit) -- without a thorough mastery of this book.
In this context, a study of de Fustel Coulanges is also essential: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
In this context, a study of de Fustel Coulanges is also essential: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
June 7, 2008
A classic, groundbreaking piece of comparative mythology and anthropology. It's influenced Jung, Campbell, T.S. Eliot and even Apocalypse Now.
It's a bit dated, particularly in its sticking to the "primitive savage" evolves into "sophisticated civilization" model, but alot of the basic principals are still very sound.
Frazer starts a single incident, a Latin ritual of a King of the Forest, who is ritually killed and replaced by his successor.
He uses this a launching pad for a far reaching, global discussion of magical thinking, divine kings, birth/rebirth cycles, and the psychology of killing the god.
I recommend it. Yes I do.
It's a bit dated, particularly in its sticking to the "primitive savage" evolves into "sophisticated civilization" model, but alot of the basic principals are still very sound.
Frazer starts a single incident, a Latin ritual of a King of the Forest, who is ritually killed and replaced by his successor.
He uses this a launching pad for a far reaching, global discussion of magical thinking, divine kings, birth/rebirth cycles, and the psychology of killing the god.
I recommend it. Yes I do.
October 21, 2009
It's a really profound and interesting study of the origins of mythology and religion.
Since it's extensively referenced as being a great influence on the early 20th century literature, I just had to read it.
I strongly recommend it to everybody who is interested in the origins of modern literature and poetry, since it explains a lot of themes and motives that were developed by the major modernist writers.
Since it's extensively referenced as being a great influence on the early 20th century literature, I just had to read it.
I strongly recommend it to everybody who is interested in the origins of modern literature and poetry, since it explains a lot of themes and motives that were developed by the major modernist writers.
July 10, 2022
If you want an 800-page-long list of various rituals from cultures across the world, you're in luck. If you want actual analysis of what those rituals mean, and the significance they have for those cultures and the wider world, this is not that book.
In my research on C. S. Lewis, I often found scholars mention this work and its influence on Lewis and writers of his time. It was also recommended to me by an advisor. I sped-read this with the hope Frazer would eventually get to some kind of analysis section, where he draws more connections, gives more insights, and speaks to the broader implications of these rituals. And he does sprinkle a little bit here and there, kind of. But it's about 5% of the overall text. I feel like a commentary on this book would have been more helpful. Sadly, in the end, reading this a waste of time for me.
In my research on C. S. Lewis, I often found scholars mention this work and its influence on Lewis and writers of his time. It was also recommended to me by an advisor. I sped-read this with the hope Frazer would eventually get to some kind of analysis section, where he draws more connections, gives more insights, and speaks to the broader implications of these rituals. And he does sprinkle a little bit here and there, kind of. But it's about 5% of the overall text. I feel like a commentary on this book would have been more helpful. Sadly, in the end, reading this a waste of time for me.
September 27, 2009
The classic book of comparative mythology. Between this and Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces," I came to realize the universality of belief in the dead and reborn demigod at the heart of nearly all the world's religions.
(edit)
Like this review? yes 0 comments
.
(edit)
Like this review? yes 0 comments
.
January 23, 2021
Galingas įvairiausių prietarų, ritualų sąvadas. Lietuviai minimi knygoje ne vieną ir ne du kartus. Patiko migrenos (galvos skausmo) paaiškinimas. Nemėtykit kur papuola savo plaukų, jei iš jų pelė ar paukštis susisuks lizdą, galvos skausmai bus neišvengiami.
January 10, 2025
This abridgment of The Golden Bough is a palimpsest containing all three major versions, which is worthwhile to show the evolution of Frazer’s stances while maintaining the maximum evidence he drew upon, but if Frazer was not as ‘catalogue-y’ of rituals in official versions to put toward evidence of his Nemi theory, I would not know. One of the issues with first encountering this text in this particular abridged form can be well summed up with the note found on p.234 where the editor points out the anthropological source Frazer is drawing from was incorporated into the final edition but the source itself as a conclusion and piece of scholarship was already influenced by a previous version of “The Golden Bough”, an anachronistic cohesion, but particularly influenced in its lyricism and poeticism in its observations; that inclination toward beauty in drawing conclusions could itself be worthy of scholarship. But who am I kidding? I’m vulnerable to this stuff, too – to the point this made me want to visit a verdant gorge in Lebanon for its mythological significations. This deluge of globally accumulated beliefs and rituals is itself the greater background thesis of his work, and upon which the modernist thinkers drew inspiration: the great commonalities of ancient ritual as suggesting a deeper human collective unconscious tied to common prehistoric and ancient experiences: unus mundus – one almost guesses Frazer prefigures Jung’s relation to alchemical steps in the talk of black, white, and red threads of Magic, Religion, and Science at the end though it does not track. Contemporary anthropology has fairly left Frazer behind for more functional approaches, and these contemporary eyes cannot easily skip over how he looks down on the “Primitive Man” folded up into the English Empire (he’s especially bad to Australian aborigines), and I also regularly confused the application of his thesis distinctions of Magic and Religion throughout. My overall impression in quite positive for an incidental reason: the effect reading continuously all beliefs and all time regardless of geography precipitates the greater story of humanity by a thousand, similar, anecdotal points. An endless story yet it all happened.
September 16, 2020
Tung bok. Den utökade version jag läste var 1600 sidor ritualer och beskrivningar. Dess tema är religiösa övertygelser om växtlighetsgudar från olika kulturer och tidpunkter - fokus ligger kring medelhavet, men den tar in allt ifrån nordvästkustindianerna i Canada till Aboriginerna i Australien eller Keralas monarkiska periods ritualer.
Det näst första som skall sägas om dess innehåll, efter emotionella intrycket "tung", är att den är spränglärd. Jag kan en del om historiska religiösa uttryck, och jag har lärt mig väldigt mycket. Det är en bok som är väl värd att läsa, även om den kommer ta lång tid, och tidvis är ganska illa skriven.
Jag rekommenderar den starkt till alla självidentifierade nördar, som kommer uppskatta dess bredd, och de många uttrycken för det religiösa koncept (naturguden som fenomen) som den förklarar.
Det näst första som skall sägas om dess innehåll, efter emotionella intrycket "tung", är att den är spränglärd. Jag kan en del om historiska religiösa uttryck, och jag har lärt mig väldigt mycket. Det är en bok som är väl värd att läsa, även om den kommer ta lång tid, och tidvis är ganska illa skriven.
Jag rekommenderar den starkt till alla självidentifierade nördar, som kommer uppskatta dess bredd, och de många uttrycken för det religiösa koncept (naturguden som fenomen) som den förklarar.
July 19, 2020
I made it, give me a medal! Rich in intriguing second-hand ethnographic examples, but too much speculation and ethnocentrism in interpretations to be convincing. Nevertheless, a fascinating read.
May 16, 2021
[Imported automatically from my blog. Some formatting there may not have translated here.]
Sometimes enough time elapses between me (a) putting a book on the should-read list and (b) actually reading it, that I forget what the reason for (a) was. That's not the case here! National Review's Summer 2016 reading recommendations had this from rock star Kevin D. Williamson:
Consider neutralizing this ugly and stupid political season with a few beautiful and intelligent books about politics that aren’t exactly books about politics. The best book about politics that isn’t a book about politics is James George Frazer’s The Golden Bough, and it contains within it everything you really need to know about presidential campaigns. The book explores the most ancient foundations of religious thought, and argues that the earliest religions were fertility cults organized around the person of a sacred king. When the crops failed or the rains didn’t come, it was concluded that the sacred king had somehow failed in his duties — that the gods were not satisfied — and he was ritually sacrificed. All their careers ended the same way, and yet the position was a coveted one. You may notice that Colonel Kurtz is reading The Golden Bough before the unfortunate events at the end of Apocalypse Now.
Good enough for me! Google tells me that Kevin has, over the years, recommended The Golden Bough again and again.
There are a number of options for the potential reader. The original two-volume work was published in 1890, but Fraser kept dinking with it. By 1915, it was 12 volumes. In addition, its history includes removal and restoration of material on Christianity, which was judged by many Victorians to be scandalous. See Wikipedia for details. I wound up with the 1994 abridgment ("It restores the material on Christianity purged in the first abridgement.") because if you've watched The Simpsons, you can't be offended by Fraser's mild sacreligiousity.
I didn't get off easy, though. Even the single-volume "abridgment" is north of 800 pages of main text, small type, narrow margins, and paragraphs that span multiple pages. So I took it slow, roughly 25 pages/day over 32 days. Still, it was a slog. Yes, you can pull Williamson's insight out of it. A book this long, you can pull just about any thesis out of it.
Essentially: Fraser looks for grand themes uniting the religions, rites, customs, festivals, etc., worldwide and throughout history. He finds those grand themes, but this involves relating—literally—hundreds of tales from mythology, history, and anthropology. The activities involved are (variously) elaborate, foolish, disgusting, gory, wasteful, and (most importantly) nearly always pointless in accomplishing anything of benefit to the participants. This gets a little mind-numbing at times: I lost track of how many times he relates the ritual of Aztec human sacrifice. (They always manage to rip out your heart, though.)
You can get a slight amount of amusement from the Victorian-era prose. Fraser is workmanlike in relating most historical details, but occasionally bursts into Bulwer-Lytton-style flowery descriptions of some idyllic scene when it strikes his fancy. He's also refreshingly non-PC: savages are "savages", primitives are "primitives". But also: bumpkins are "bumpkins", clod-hoppers are … well, you get the idea.
More importantly, there are little signals throughout that Fraser is straining to make the anthropological facts fit into his overall thesis. The book is rife with speculative phrases like "it is not unreasonable to assume that", "it is quite possible that", "seems to be best explained by the hypothesis that". That ain't a confidence-builder, Jimmy.
While out walking the dog, I amused myself by wondering how some future Fraser would describe the present day.
Early 21st century inhabitants of New England were obviously devoted to pagan celebrations on the eve of All Hallows' Day. As shown in the so-called "comic strips" and "television specials" of that era, children with unusually large heads would worship the "Great Pumpkin". In sympathy with this cult, a tradition of leaving pumpkins on one's doorstep was established; the gourds would be left on stoops for weeks afterward, to be consumed, bit by bit, by squirrels and raccoons. There can be little doubt these creatures were considered to be disciples of the Great Pumpkin himself.
But I'm glad I read it.
August 21, 2026
I first discovered this book when it was cited as a reference in Varg Vikernes' Sorcery And Religion In Ancient Scandinavia (2011). I had first actually shelved the original version of this book on my Goodreads account in February 2019, but my copy of the book is 'A New Abridgement', so this is the version that I have shelved instead. I have been meaning to read this book for the past six (6) years, and I have finally got around to doing so. It took me just under three (3) weeks to read, from start to finish (cover to cover), and for the most part it was an enjoyable and interesting read.
On p.ix, there is an interesting quote from the 'Introduction' section, right from the "get-go" of the book: "We do not like to read our great books, yet they read us, every day of our lives. It is not we who have made the literature of the 20th century. It is the literature that has made us. If we wish to know ourselves better, it is to the literature that we must turn." This reminded me of that old quote about politics from Pericles: "Just because you do not take an interest in politics, doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." Perhaps, in the same way that politics permeates almost every aspect of our lives, whether we realise, or care about it, or participate, or not, the same can be said of literature, again, whether we realise, or care about it, or read "our great books", or not. Also on this page is a statement that this book is a "dangerous book which retains its ability to disconcert." The same was said about J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye (1951) and D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover (1928) when they were first published, but to the contemporary readers of today, such as myself, it is probably difficult to imagine how these books could be seen as such.
On p.ix-x, the author is described as, "a man deeply fascinated by religion, who could not bring himself to subscribe to any doctrinal beliefs." And, "In the late nineteenth century such people were often called free-thinkers." I am not sure what people back then thought about "free thinkers", but it is a bit of a meme in contemporary society, I would say.
On p.xii-xiii, it states that the author first studied at the University of Glasgow (before Cambridge), and studied philosophy, among other things. His philosophy course-work introduced him to the Scottish epistemological tradition, with its marked grain of scepticism, most notably to David Hume, whose Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740), with its investigation of the sources of human credulity, was to form the ground-plan of the treatment of human belief in this book.
On p.xiv, it states that the author would take the train to London (from Glasgow) a few days a week to sit his Bar examinations, "probably to appease his father who must have been doubtful that his son could make a living from mere scholarship." Talk about a commute... That is almost the length of Great Britain, not quite John o'Groats to Land's End, but still a heck of a long way to travel as a commute on a fairly regular basis, and especially for someone living in the 19th century.
On p.xxxvii, it states that even Sigmund Freud was inspired by this book, which in part led him to write 'Totem and Taboo'.
p.12 made me wonder who the current, or last, holder of the priesthood of Nemi is.
The object of this book is more or less summed up on p.13; "the object of this book is, by meeting these conditions, to offer a fairly probably explanation of the priesthood of Nemi."
On p.13, it states that the 'Golden Bough' itself refers to a branch of "a certain tree of which no branch might be broken", within the sanctuary of Nemi. "Only a runaway slave was allowed to break off, if he could, one of its boughs. Success in the attempt entitled him to fight the priest in single combat, and if he slew him he reigned in his stead with the title of King in the Wood (Rex Nemorensis)."
On p.19, it states, "On the principles of early religion, she who fertilises nature must herself be fertile". This concept of a link between human fertility and that of the natural world is explored in subsequent chapters.
On p.20, it states, "the custom of physically marrying men and women to trees is still practised in India and other parts of the East." This book was written in 1890, just before the turn of the (20th) century, and it made me wonder if this still happens today.
On p.22, it states, "The union of a royal title with priestly duties was common in ancient Italy and Greece." I think it still is today, where the King of England is still the head of the Church of England. Also, it brings to mind Jesus Christ himself as "the King of Kings", and that kingship is seen as something about being the mouthpiece of even the incarnation of God, or a god.
This concept is expanded upon on p.24; "Kings were revered, in many cases not only merely as priests, that is, as intercessors between man and god, but as themselves gods, able to bestow upon their subjects and worshippers those blessings which are commonly supposed to be be beyond the reach of mortals, and are sought, if at all, only by prayer and sacrifice offered to superhuman and invisible beings." The concept of sacrifice, mostly of humans and animals, features prominently in the subsequent chapters of this book.
On p.27, at the beginning of Chapter 3, 'Magic and Religion', in Book I, 'The Kings of the Wood', the author's mention of the "crude intelligence of the savage", in addition to "ignorant and dull-witted people everywhere", made me wonder if the practice of magic and superstition is as genuinely wide-spread around the world today, as it was during the time this book was written. You probably would not get away with calling primitive peoples "savages" these days, in the same way that the people of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932) called them that, though that book is fiction. Voodoo dolls, Ouija boards, and the occult come to mind, and indeed in the subsequent pages there is a discussion on such practices by North American Indians, who created effigies of their enemies and of "obnoxious people", so as to do harm to those people themselves.
On p.39-40, there are some comparisons between different cultures on how they regard the placenta, or "navel-string" (what we now call an umbilical cord), but there is nothing else here, or elsewhere in this book, about placenta-worship, as there is in Vikernes' Sorcery and Religion in Ancient Scandinavia. One of the cultures mentioned was in Germany (Rhenish Bavaria), of which the author begins the paragraph with the words, "even in Europe", indirectly admitting to the fact that primitivism and superstition is not limited to communities and cultures outside of Europe. I am also aware of the fact that mothers who have just given birth today will sometimes eat the placenta, but I am not fully sure why; whether it is down to tradition, superstition, or simply for the nutrients.
The author's description of homeopathic magic in Chapter 3, Book I, reminded me of a poem that I read in school lessons for GCSE English, called Night of the Scorpion (1965), by Nissim Ezekiel. Though, upon reading the poem again, it seemed to me more like religious superstition than magical superstition, as the people in the hut appealed to a higher power, instead of trying to use homeopathic magic, to ease the stung woman's pain - at any rate, it is still superstition.
On p.46, the author defines (or "understands") religion as, "a propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life". This is the definition or understanding of religion that the author strives to maintain throughout the book.
He adds to this on p.47; "On the other hand, mere practice, divested of all religious belief, is also not a religion. Two men may behave in exactly the same way, and yet one of them may be religious and the other not. If the one acts from the love of fear of God, he is religious; if the other acts from the love or fear of man, he is moral or immoral according as to his behaviour comports or conflicts with the general good." This made me think of the way I say grace before each meal, usually privately. I do this not because I am a devout Christian, or not because I am trying to act as one, but simply to thank a higher power for the provision of my meal (Providence, perhaps), and the many interconnected world-wide objects, organisms, concepts, and events that have played a role in getting it from A to B (from its origins to my plate). The bottom line is, I get to eat today, and I am really glad and thankful that this is so, seeing as there are others who do not, for whatever reason. Who do I thank for my meals instead of, or as well as, Providence?
On p.57, the author implies that belief in religion is a more intellectual pursuit than belief in magic; that is, to appeal to a higher power(s) who may or may not control nature, rather than to carry out superstitious actions in the belief that one is in control of nature. With that said, he also implies that some people will conform to a religion, and verbally profess its tenets, but at heart still cling to magical superstition(s).
On p.63-64, the two described methods of temporary inspiration (blood-drinking & use of a sacred tree or plant) made me wonder how they worked. I understand how a plant could put someone under the influence (of the divine, or simply of drugs), but drinking blood to do so makes less sense to me. However, the similarities between these two methods, throughout the ages and around the world, was interesting to me.
I suppose Vikernes referenced the parts from this book that spoke of ancient Europe (Scandinavia in particular), for his own book. He said that people were chosen or worshipped based on their ability to compete with other people, and win. But my hunch is that, in addition to this, people also need a distinctive or noble-looking face, and be of an ideal or proportional height (not too tall or too short), and possess at least enough material wealth and status among their peers so that they are thought highly-of. This hunch is supported in subsequent chapters of this book, starting with p.80, on the Cambodian "Fire King"; "in spite of his mystic vocation the sorcerer had no charm or talisman about him, and was in no way distinguishable from his fellows except by his tall stature."
The beginning of Chapter 6, 'The Worship of Trees', in Book I, struck me as the kind of thing Vikernes would be interested in (tree-worship in ancient Europe); "Nothing could be more natural. For at the dawn of history Europe was covered with immense primaeval forests". Throughout this chapter, the author described ancient & 19th-century tree-worshippers to be "heathen". He uses this word frequently in this book, just as he uses the word "savage".
On p.92-93, it states, "in Russian Lithuania, on the first of May, they used to set up a green tree before the village. Then the rustic swains chose the prettiest girl, crowned her, swathed her in birch branches and set her beside the May-tree, where they danced, sang, and shouted 'O May! O May!'" It made me wonder on what grounds they chose the "prettiest" girl, and if it was based on the same principles of "prettiness" that we conceive of today. How did the other girls feel when they were not chosen as the "prettiest"?
On p.94, it states, "At Hildesheim, in Hanover, five or six young fellows go about on the afternoon of Whit-Monday cracking long whips in measured time and collecting eggs from the houses. The chief person of the band is the Leaf King, a lad swathed so completely in birchen twigs that nothing of him could be seen but his feet. A huge head-dress of birchen twigs adds to his apparent stature." Again, it made me wonder how they chose the "Leaf King"; was it the tallest or most imposing boy?
On p.100-105, there is an interesting comparison between orgies to promote a good harvest, and abstinence for the same end, of which part of that abstinence is from illicit or forbidden sexuality, between different cultures & communities around the world.
On p.103, the incest of Oedipus is mentioned. Was it on this page that Freud discovered the idea for the 'Oedipus complex'?
On p.104-106, there is a comparison between commonly-understood religious chastity (for a higher purpose), and the magical chastity of the "savage" (in the superstitious belief that it is to let crops & vegetation grow unhindered - in other words, so that they can eat).
On p.125, on foreigners wearing the crown at Rome, it states, "...no objection will be felt to uniting girls of the highest rank to men of humble birth, even to aliens or slaves, provided that in themselves the man appear to be suitable mates." Further down the page, on the Tshi-speaking people of "Ashantee" (Ashanti), it states, "...the sisters of the reigning monarch are free to marry or intrigue with whom they please, provided only that their husband or lover be a very strong and handsome man, in order that the kings he begets may be men of finer presence than their subjects." To me, these were more clues about how people were chosen for royalty, in addition to their ability to compete with other people, and win.
On p.127, it states, "A common type of a popular tale, which relates how an adventurer, coming to a strange land, wins the hand of the king's daughter and with her the half or the whole of the kingdom, may well be a reminiscence of a real custom." The author is probably referring to folk tales or fairy tales, but even about one hundred (100) years after the book was written, we have The Legend of Zelda, which is a franchise or piece of media that reflects this statement, that comes to mind.
Chapter 10, 'The Burden of Royalty', in Book I, was pretty interesting to me, in that it was about kings would have to be very careful, even remain still as a statue without looking around, as the belief of their subjects was the belief that the slightest movement or glance could have disastrous effects upon the world, or at least the kingdom. I have seen this in media depictions of ancient kings and rulers and the like, where they barely move at all, apart from maybe raising their hand at the right time. The post of European kings holding the sceptre and the orb also comes to mind. Also in this chapter, on p.146; "the burdensome observances attached to the royal or priestly office produced their natural effect." This probably explains why people, particularly in England, generally think that the upper class & aristocracy is stuffy, antiquated, draconian, and formal. With great power comes great responsibility, right? Also in this chapter is the recognition of an early form of the separation of church and state.
At the start of Chapter 12, 'Taboos', Book I, it states, "Now of all sources of danger none are more dreaded by the savage than magic and witchcraft, and he suspects all strangers of practising these black arts." What about wild beasts and the dark? Or enemy warriors? I suppose the unknown or the "weird" can be terrifying, too. Like how the occult is often a theme of horror media. It scares us, but we cannot always explain how or why.
In the same chapter, it states that the concept of the ghost is also linked to the concept of the taboo; fear of the revenge of an angry ghost drove superstitious peoples to observe rituals and strict rules against any repercussions. It made me wonder, where did these ideas about ghosts, spirits, & demons actually come from originally? In fact, where did ideas about the afterlife or the "other side" originally come from?
On p.168, it states, "The fear thus entertained of alien visitors is often mutual. Entering a strange land the savage feels that he is treading enchanted ground, and he takes steps to guard against the demons that haunt it and the magical arts of its inhabitants." Reading this made me wonder what a "savage" would make of a modern, industrialised, capitalist society, or at least a city. What demons haunt contemporary cities, and what magical arts do people in cities possess? Huxley's Brave New World again comes to mind.
On p.198-204, about primitive people's names being taboo in given situations; is this where the origin of the military call-sign came from? Then, on p.211, the author quotes a Mr A. S. Gatschet; "How can history be written without names?" George Orwell's 1984, and the concept of the "memory-hole", comes to mind.
Book I ends with a sort of apology from the author to the "savage", and a sort of declaration that we owe a debt to our "savage forefathers"; "cum excusatione itaque veteres adiendi sunt." Which Google Translate picks up as, "Therefore, with an apology, the ancients must be heard."
On p.301, it states, "To live and cause to live, to eat food and to beget children, these were the primary wants of men in the past, and they will be the primary wants of men in the future so long as the world lasts." Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes to mind, as well as interesting speculation about the future in relation to this statement.
On p.319, the author seems to believe that music is the most powerful art.
In Chapter 7, 'Sacred Prostitution', in Book II, 'Killing the God', all of the gods mentioned are serpents. This made me think of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Was the serpent seen as a sex-symbol in antiquity?
Chapter 9, 'Attis', of Book II, contains a description of ancient men castrating themselves in a religious frenzy - but you can only do it once, and there is no going back after the fact.
p.359 made me wonder what the "highest ideal of humanity" is seen as being in today's globalised world - having the most money (i.e. Elon Musk), perhaps having the highest status (i.e. world leaders, actors, music stars)?
p.380, on the 'Kathi Kasham' festival of the Tangkul Nagas of Manipur, in Assam; "Thus the living impoverish themselves in order to enrich the dead."
Chapter 14, 'Mother-kin and Mother Goddesses', Book II, I found to be an interesting take on the concept of matriarchy; Margaret Thatcher, Anne Widdecombe, and notable queens come to mind; "Exceptions have no doubt occurred; women have occasionally arisen who by sheer force of character have swayed for a time the destinies of their people."
Related to this, on p.416, at the very end of Chapter 17, 'Women's Part in Primitive Agriculture', the author claims that we have women to thank for the agricultural revolution itself.
On p.744, it states, "The consideration of human suffering is not one which enters into the calculations of primitive man." This seems to sum up the book.
On p.ix, there is an interesting quote from the 'Introduction' section, right from the "get-go" of the book: "We do not like to read our great books, yet they read us, every day of our lives. It is not we who have made the literature of the 20th century. It is the literature that has made us. If we wish to know ourselves better, it is to the literature that we must turn." This reminded me of that old quote about politics from Pericles: "Just because you do not take an interest in politics, doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." Perhaps, in the same way that politics permeates almost every aspect of our lives, whether we realise, or care about it, or participate, or not, the same can be said of literature, again, whether we realise, or care about it, or read "our great books", or not. Also on this page is a statement that this book is a "dangerous book which retains its ability to disconcert." The same was said about J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye (1951) and D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover (1928) when they were first published, but to the contemporary readers of today, such as myself, it is probably difficult to imagine how these books could be seen as such.
On p.ix-x, the author is described as, "a man deeply fascinated by religion, who could not bring himself to subscribe to any doctrinal beliefs." And, "In the late nineteenth century such people were often called free-thinkers." I am not sure what people back then thought about "free thinkers", but it is a bit of a meme in contemporary society, I would say.
On p.xii-xiii, it states that the author first studied at the University of Glasgow (before Cambridge), and studied philosophy, among other things. His philosophy course-work introduced him to the Scottish epistemological tradition, with its marked grain of scepticism, most notably to David Hume, whose Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740), with its investigation of the sources of human credulity, was to form the ground-plan of the treatment of human belief in this book.
On p.xiv, it states that the author would take the train to London (from Glasgow) a few days a week to sit his Bar examinations, "probably to appease his father who must have been doubtful that his son could make a living from mere scholarship." Talk about a commute... That is almost the length of Great Britain, not quite John o'Groats to Land's End, but still a heck of a long way to travel as a commute on a fairly regular basis, and especially for someone living in the 19th century.
On p.xxxvii, it states that even Sigmund Freud was inspired by this book, which in part led him to write 'Totem and Taboo'.
p.12 made me wonder who the current, or last, holder of the priesthood of Nemi is.
The object of this book is more or less summed up on p.13; "the object of this book is, by meeting these conditions, to offer a fairly probably explanation of the priesthood of Nemi."
On p.13, it states that the 'Golden Bough' itself refers to a branch of "a certain tree of which no branch might be broken", within the sanctuary of Nemi. "Only a runaway slave was allowed to break off, if he could, one of its boughs. Success in the attempt entitled him to fight the priest in single combat, and if he slew him he reigned in his stead with the title of King in the Wood (Rex Nemorensis)."
On p.19, it states, "On the principles of early religion, she who fertilises nature must herself be fertile". This concept of a link between human fertility and that of the natural world is explored in subsequent chapters.
On p.20, it states, "the custom of physically marrying men and women to trees is still practised in India and other parts of the East." This book was written in 1890, just before the turn of the (20th) century, and it made me wonder if this still happens today.
On p.22, it states, "The union of a royal title with priestly duties was common in ancient Italy and Greece." I think it still is today, where the King of England is still the head of the Church of England. Also, it brings to mind Jesus Christ himself as "the King of Kings", and that kingship is seen as something about being the mouthpiece of even the incarnation of God, or a god.
This concept is expanded upon on p.24; "Kings were revered, in many cases not only merely as priests, that is, as intercessors between man and god, but as themselves gods, able to bestow upon their subjects and worshippers those blessings which are commonly supposed to be be beyond the reach of mortals, and are sought, if at all, only by prayer and sacrifice offered to superhuman and invisible beings." The concept of sacrifice, mostly of humans and animals, features prominently in the subsequent chapters of this book.
On p.27, at the beginning of Chapter 3, 'Magic and Religion', in Book I, 'The Kings of the Wood', the author's mention of the "crude intelligence of the savage", in addition to "ignorant and dull-witted people everywhere", made me wonder if the practice of magic and superstition is as genuinely wide-spread around the world today, as it was during the time this book was written. You probably would not get away with calling primitive peoples "savages" these days, in the same way that the people of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932) called them that, though that book is fiction. Voodoo dolls, Ouija boards, and the occult come to mind, and indeed in the subsequent pages there is a discussion on such practices by North American Indians, who created effigies of their enemies and of "obnoxious people", so as to do harm to those people themselves.
On p.39-40, there are some comparisons between different cultures on how they regard the placenta, or "navel-string" (what we now call an umbilical cord), but there is nothing else here, or elsewhere in this book, about placenta-worship, as there is in Vikernes' Sorcery and Religion in Ancient Scandinavia. One of the cultures mentioned was in Germany (Rhenish Bavaria), of which the author begins the paragraph with the words, "even in Europe", indirectly admitting to the fact that primitivism and superstition is not limited to communities and cultures outside of Europe. I am also aware of the fact that mothers who have just given birth today will sometimes eat the placenta, but I am not fully sure why; whether it is down to tradition, superstition, or simply for the nutrients.
The author's description of homeopathic magic in Chapter 3, Book I, reminded me of a poem that I read in school lessons for GCSE English, called Night of the Scorpion (1965), by Nissim Ezekiel. Though, upon reading the poem again, it seemed to me more like religious superstition than magical superstition, as the people in the hut appealed to a higher power, instead of trying to use homeopathic magic, to ease the stung woman's pain - at any rate, it is still superstition.
On p.46, the author defines (or "understands") religion as, "a propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life". This is the definition or understanding of religion that the author strives to maintain throughout the book.
He adds to this on p.47; "On the other hand, mere practice, divested of all religious belief, is also not a religion. Two men may behave in exactly the same way, and yet one of them may be religious and the other not. If the one acts from the love of fear of God, he is religious; if the other acts from the love or fear of man, he is moral or immoral according as to his behaviour comports or conflicts with the general good." This made me think of the way I say grace before each meal, usually privately. I do this not because I am a devout Christian, or not because I am trying to act as one, but simply to thank a higher power for the provision of my meal (Providence, perhaps), and the many interconnected world-wide objects, organisms, concepts, and events that have played a role in getting it from A to B (from its origins to my plate). The bottom line is, I get to eat today, and I am really glad and thankful that this is so, seeing as there are others who do not, for whatever reason. Who do I thank for my meals instead of, or as well as, Providence?
On p.57, the author implies that belief in religion is a more intellectual pursuit than belief in magic; that is, to appeal to a higher power(s) who may or may not control nature, rather than to carry out superstitious actions in the belief that one is in control of nature. With that said, he also implies that some people will conform to a religion, and verbally profess its tenets, but at heart still cling to magical superstition(s).
On p.63-64, the two described methods of temporary inspiration (blood-drinking & use of a sacred tree or plant) made me wonder how they worked. I understand how a plant could put someone under the influence (of the divine, or simply of drugs), but drinking blood to do so makes less sense to me. However, the similarities between these two methods, throughout the ages and around the world, was interesting to me.
I suppose Vikernes referenced the parts from this book that spoke of ancient Europe (Scandinavia in particular), for his own book. He said that people were chosen or worshipped based on their ability to compete with other people, and win. But my hunch is that, in addition to this, people also need a distinctive or noble-looking face, and be of an ideal or proportional height (not too tall or too short), and possess at least enough material wealth and status among their peers so that they are thought highly-of. This hunch is supported in subsequent chapters of this book, starting with p.80, on the Cambodian "Fire King"; "in spite of his mystic vocation the sorcerer had no charm or talisman about him, and was in no way distinguishable from his fellows except by his tall stature."
The beginning of Chapter 6, 'The Worship of Trees', in Book I, struck me as the kind of thing Vikernes would be interested in (tree-worship in ancient Europe); "Nothing could be more natural. For at the dawn of history Europe was covered with immense primaeval forests". Throughout this chapter, the author described ancient & 19th-century tree-worshippers to be "heathen". He uses this word frequently in this book, just as he uses the word "savage".
On p.92-93, it states, "in Russian Lithuania, on the first of May, they used to set up a green tree before the village. Then the rustic swains chose the prettiest girl, crowned her, swathed her in birch branches and set her beside the May-tree, where they danced, sang, and shouted 'O May! O May!'" It made me wonder on what grounds they chose the "prettiest" girl, and if it was based on the same principles of "prettiness" that we conceive of today. How did the other girls feel when they were not chosen as the "prettiest"?
On p.94, it states, "At Hildesheim, in Hanover, five or six young fellows go about on the afternoon of Whit-Monday cracking long whips in measured time and collecting eggs from the houses. The chief person of the band is the Leaf King, a lad swathed so completely in birchen twigs that nothing of him could be seen but his feet. A huge head-dress of birchen twigs adds to his apparent stature." Again, it made me wonder how they chose the "Leaf King"; was it the tallest or most imposing boy?
On p.100-105, there is an interesting comparison between orgies to promote a good harvest, and abstinence for the same end, of which part of that abstinence is from illicit or forbidden sexuality, between different cultures & communities around the world.
On p.103, the incest of Oedipus is mentioned. Was it on this page that Freud discovered the idea for the 'Oedipus complex'?
On p.104-106, there is a comparison between commonly-understood religious chastity (for a higher purpose), and the magical chastity of the "savage" (in the superstitious belief that it is to let crops & vegetation grow unhindered - in other words, so that they can eat).
On p.125, on foreigners wearing the crown at Rome, it states, "...no objection will be felt to uniting girls of the highest rank to men of humble birth, even to aliens or slaves, provided that in themselves the man appear to be suitable mates." Further down the page, on the Tshi-speaking people of "Ashantee" (Ashanti), it states, "...the sisters of the reigning monarch are free to marry or intrigue with whom they please, provided only that their husband or lover be a very strong and handsome man, in order that the kings he begets may be men of finer presence than their subjects." To me, these were more clues about how people were chosen for royalty, in addition to their ability to compete with other people, and win.
On p.127, it states, "A common type of a popular tale, which relates how an adventurer, coming to a strange land, wins the hand of the king's daughter and with her the half or the whole of the kingdom, may well be a reminiscence of a real custom." The author is probably referring to folk tales or fairy tales, but even about one hundred (100) years after the book was written, we have The Legend of Zelda, which is a franchise or piece of media that reflects this statement, that comes to mind.
Chapter 10, 'The Burden of Royalty', in Book I, was pretty interesting to me, in that it was about kings would have to be very careful, even remain still as a statue without looking around, as the belief of their subjects was the belief that the slightest movement or glance could have disastrous effects upon the world, or at least the kingdom. I have seen this in media depictions of ancient kings and rulers and the like, where they barely move at all, apart from maybe raising their hand at the right time. The post of European kings holding the sceptre and the orb also comes to mind. Also in this chapter, on p.146; "the burdensome observances attached to the royal or priestly office produced their natural effect." This probably explains why people, particularly in England, generally think that the upper class & aristocracy is stuffy, antiquated, draconian, and formal. With great power comes great responsibility, right? Also in this chapter is the recognition of an early form of the separation of church and state.
At the start of Chapter 12, 'Taboos', Book I, it states, "Now of all sources of danger none are more dreaded by the savage than magic and witchcraft, and he suspects all strangers of practising these black arts." What about wild beasts and the dark? Or enemy warriors? I suppose the unknown or the "weird" can be terrifying, too. Like how the occult is often a theme of horror media. It scares us, but we cannot always explain how or why.
In the same chapter, it states that the concept of the ghost is also linked to the concept of the taboo; fear of the revenge of an angry ghost drove superstitious peoples to observe rituals and strict rules against any repercussions. It made me wonder, where did these ideas about ghosts, spirits, & demons actually come from originally? In fact, where did ideas about the afterlife or the "other side" originally come from?
On p.168, it states, "The fear thus entertained of alien visitors is often mutual. Entering a strange land the savage feels that he is treading enchanted ground, and he takes steps to guard against the demons that haunt it and the magical arts of its inhabitants." Reading this made me wonder what a "savage" would make of a modern, industrialised, capitalist society, or at least a city. What demons haunt contemporary cities, and what magical arts do people in cities possess? Huxley's Brave New World again comes to mind.
On p.198-204, about primitive people's names being taboo in given situations; is this where the origin of the military call-sign came from? Then, on p.211, the author quotes a Mr A. S. Gatschet; "How can history be written without names?" George Orwell's 1984, and the concept of the "memory-hole", comes to mind.
Book I ends with a sort of apology from the author to the "savage", and a sort of declaration that we owe a debt to our "savage forefathers"; "cum excusatione itaque veteres adiendi sunt." Which Google Translate picks up as, "Therefore, with an apology, the ancients must be heard."
On p.301, it states, "To live and cause to live, to eat food and to beget children, these were the primary wants of men in the past, and they will be the primary wants of men in the future so long as the world lasts." Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes to mind, as well as interesting speculation about the future in relation to this statement.
On p.319, the author seems to believe that music is the most powerful art.
In Chapter 7, 'Sacred Prostitution', in Book II, 'Killing the God', all of the gods mentioned are serpents. This made me think of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Was the serpent seen as a sex-symbol in antiquity?
Chapter 9, 'Attis', of Book II, contains a description of ancient men castrating themselves in a religious frenzy - but you can only do it once, and there is no going back after the fact.
p.359 made me wonder what the "highest ideal of humanity" is seen as being in today's globalised world - having the most money (i.e. Elon Musk), perhaps having the highest status (i.e. world leaders, actors, music stars)?
p.380, on the 'Kathi Kasham' festival of the Tangkul Nagas of Manipur, in Assam; "Thus the living impoverish themselves in order to enrich the dead."
Chapter 14, 'Mother-kin and Mother Goddesses', Book II, I found to be an interesting take on the concept of matriarchy; Margaret Thatcher, Anne Widdecombe, and notable queens come to mind; "Exceptions have no doubt occurred; women have occasionally arisen who by sheer force of character have swayed for a time the destinies of their people."
Related to this, on p.416, at the very end of Chapter 17, 'Women's Part in Primitive Agriculture', the author claims that we have women to thank for the agricultural revolution itself.
On p.744, it states, "The consideration of human suffering is not one which enters into the calculations of primitive man." This seems to sum up the book.
August 18, 2024
كتاب الغصن الذهبي لمؤلفه عالم الاجتماع والانثروبولوجي الأسكتلندي سير جيمس فريزر، أحد المراجع الكلاسيكية في الأساطير وعلم الاجتماع المتعلق بها، وفيه قدم نظريته حول السحر والدين، والتي بناها على مشاهداته ومشاهدات غيره من العلماء والرحالة والمستكشفين الأوروبيين حول الممارسات السحرية والدين لدى قبائل بدائية حول العالم، كما بناها على شهادات جمعها من كتب التاريخ والأساطير والتراث الشعبي لشعوب مختلفة.
النظرية التي يسوقها فريزر في هذا الكتاب حول السحر والدين، متأثرة بالاتجاه العام في العصر الذي كتب فيه هذا الكتاب، والذي كان ينحو إلى مشابهة الظواهر الاجتماعية بالظواهر الطبيعية المادية، ويشجع على صياغة نماذج تفسيرية لهذه الظواهر تحاكي النماذج المستخدمة في علم الطبيعة على وجه الخصوص، ولذلك نجد فريزير يحاول على طريقة قوانين الديناميكا الحرارية أن يضع قانونين يفسران السحر، يطلق على الأول قانون التشابه، والذي يقول أن الشبيهة ينتح شبيهه، والمعلول يشبه علته، والثاني يسميه قانون الاتصال أو التلامس ويعني أن الجسمين المتصلين، بعد أن فقدا الاتصال، يظلا قادرين على تبادل التأثير.
يرى فريزر في كتابه أن السحر أقدم من الدين مستدلًا بذلك بأن شعوب استراليا الاصلية تعرف السحر ولم تعرف الدين قط، كما يرى أن الدين قد ظهر بعد تسليم الساحر بعجزه عن التحكم في الطبيعة، وبالتالي تسليمه للكائن الأعلى أو الكائنات العليا بالسيطرة على الكون. ويرى فريزر أن الدين هو الإيمان بوجود قوة عليا تحكم العالم (الايمان) ويتقرب لها الانسان ويسترضيها من خلال الشعائر والطقوس (الطقس). ويرى أن الإنسان بوسعه أن يغير مصيره في الحياة بالطقوس، فالعالم من وجهة النظر الدينية مرن، بعكس عالم العلم وعالم السحر المحكومين بقوانين جامدة. ويعتبر أن هذا التعارض في رؤية العالم بين الدين والعلم والسحر، هو سبب العداء بين الدين من ناحية، والعلم والسحر من ناحية أخرى. يرى فريزر أن مفهوم الإله قد نشأ مبكرًا قبل انتصار الدين على السحر من خلال شخصية الساحر، كما يتناول ظاهرة يسميها التجسد المؤقت للإله في جسد بشري وهناك حالات يكون فيها هذا الحلول دائمًا وهو ما يسميه فريزر الآلهة البشرية، تمهيدًا لمفهوم الملك الإله في الحضارات القديمة. كما يرى فريزر أن الإنسان القديم في تصوره لعالمه، قد أعتقد أن لجميع الكائنات الحيوانية والنباتية روحًا مساوية لروحه، ويرجع إلى هذا الاعتقاد نشأة عبادة الأشجار في أوروبا، وأصبحت عبادة الأشجار جسرًا إلى تعدد الآلهة عندما اعتقد الإنسان البدائي أن هناك كائنات روحية تحتل الأشجار، وهو يرى أن احتفال أول مايو في أوروبا وما يحدث فيه من زواج رمزي ما بين شاب وفتاة، ملك مايو وملكة مايو، هو من قبيل السحر التشاكلي بغرض ضمان نمو الغابات والمحاصيل وسقوط المطر.
النظرية التي يسوقها فريزر في هذا الكتاب حول السحر والدين، متأثرة بالاتجاه العام في العصر الذي كتب فيه هذا الكتاب، والذي كان ينحو إلى مشابهة الظواهر الاجتماعية بالظواهر الطبيعية المادية، ويشجع على صياغة نماذج تفسيرية لهذه الظواهر تحاكي النماذج المستخدمة في علم الطبيعة على وجه الخصوص، ولذلك نجد فريزير يحاول على طريقة قوانين الديناميكا الحرارية أن يضع قانونين يفسران السحر، يطلق على الأول قانون التشابه، والذي يقول أن الشبيهة ينتح شبيهه، والمعلول يشبه علته، والثاني يسميه قانون الاتصال أو التلامس ويعني أن الجسمين المتصلين، بعد أن فقدا الاتصال، يظلا قادرين على تبادل التأثير.
يرى فريزر في كتابه أن السحر أقدم من الدين مستدلًا بذلك بأن شعوب استراليا الاصلية تعرف السحر ولم تعرف الدين قط، كما يرى أن الدين قد ظهر بعد تسليم الساحر بعجزه عن التحكم في الطبيعة، وبالتالي تسليمه للكائن الأعلى أو الكائنات العليا بالسيطرة على الكون. ويرى فريزر أن الدين هو الإيمان بوجود قوة عليا تحكم العالم (الايمان) ويتقرب لها الانسان ويسترضيها من خلال الشعائر والطقوس (الطقس). ويرى أن الإنسان بوسعه أن يغير مصيره في الحياة بالطقوس، فالعالم من وجهة النظر الدينية مرن، بعكس عالم العلم وعالم السحر المحكومين بقوانين جامدة. ويعتبر أن هذا التعارض في رؤية العالم بين الدين والعلم والسحر، هو سبب العداء بين الدين من ناحية، والعلم والسحر من ناحية أخرى. يرى فريزر أن مفهوم الإله قد نشأ مبكرًا قبل انتصار الدين على السحر من خلال شخصية الساحر، كما يتناول ظاهرة يسميها التجسد المؤقت للإله في جسد بشري وهناك حالات يكون فيها هذا الحلول دائمًا وهو ما يسميه فريزر الآلهة البشرية، تمهيدًا لمفهوم الملك الإله في الحضارات القديمة. كما يرى فريزر أن الإنسان القديم في تصوره لعالمه، قد أعتقد أن لجميع الكائنات الحيوانية والنباتية روحًا مساوية لروحه، ويرجع إلى هذا الاعتقاد نشأة عبادة الأشجار في أوروبا، وأصبحت عبادة الأشجار جسرًا إلى تعدد الآلهة عندما اعتقد الإنسان البدائي أن هناك كائنات روحية تحتل الأشجار، وهو يرى أن احتفال أول مايو في أوروبا وما يحدث فيه من زواج رمزي ما بين شاب وفتاة، ملك مايو وملكة مايو، هو من قبيل السحر التشاكلي بغرض ضمان نمو الغابات والمحاصيل وسقوط المطر.
Read
July 25, 2011As outdated as it is, this is still a critical text, if only to observe a key moment in the history of the discipline. Highly influential, although some of Frazer's anti-Christian polemic has long since been refuted by secular as well as Christian scholarship.
March 2, 2025
1. The book is dense, boring, but UNMISSABLE. I hope this review is not the same, at least in the first part. In the second part I already know it is not.
2. This book was (just as Darwin's was) a best-seller of its time. And it is incredible but true that such an extension of erudition could have been a best-seller, however curious the controversy may be.
3. It is a milestone and a springboard from which many investigations were deepened, which, whether they agree or not, are partly due to Frazer's having been carried out.
4. Sir J. Frazer's prose can be very poetic, and abounds in a very refined sense of humor, and in a very refined way of presenting an argument, which allows one to find little gems awaiting much-deserved recognition outside of academic knowledge.
5. The book is structured in the form of many case examples (too many for me), so much so that halfway through the book I began to skip, partly out of boredom, and partly because of the violence of the descriptions. These examples are chapters in books that have a resolution at the end that justifies the effort of reading (although I have not always made it)
6. The theories he provides, true or rejected in the light of our present, speak of a mind that can analyze an almost incomprehensible multitude of data and develop creative and plausible theories from them. Reading the book is not only accessing these theories, but also accessing the way of thinking of a brilliant intelligence.
7. My personal interest in this book is in the magic, myth and religion of all of Europe, and the Mediterranean coasts of Asia and Africa. From the rest of the world, many examples were very interesting, many very repetitive. But I read comments in which they valued the examples from other regions of the world, which indicates that nothing in the book is disposable, it's just that my vision is more limited than the author's.
8. One of the things that stood out in red for me is the extreme violence that human beings can develop, both physically and psychologically. Of the many things to read in the various sacrifices, there is one description that, even taken with the tweezers that requires a second-hand reading and from a non-objective narrator, far exceeds my tolerance, such as the act of burning living beings and taking them out of the fire before their death to stab them with a knife and tear out their heart by hand while it still beats in the half-cooked body. After this, I began to skip chapters when they became gruesome and/or boring without too much remorse.
9. I suppose that a good part of the controversy that this book has generated is that it has touched on religious taboos of Christianity and treated them with the same desacralized spirit with which many other religions and cultures were described in the same context.
10. I was also struck by the fact that, just as he ventures a theory, he accepts criticism and observations, and even rewrites the text if he believes it merits it. I understand this as an enormous display of academic humility, not of the arrogance that is attributed to him. I believe that the view of Frazer as arrogant is based on the comparison of the viewer with Fraser's real stature.
NOTE: this version has an excellent and valuable introduction by Robert Fraser, which adds a lot to the book to be read. It should not be skipped but to be given special attention.
It is, in a way, the equivalent of someone telling who the murderer is before reading a detective novel. The novel is read differently, I don't just read the plot of the novel, but I try to see how the author intends to play with me. For me, it's much more fun.
2. This book was (just as Darwin's was) a best-seller of its time. And it is incredible but true that such an extension of erudition could have been a best-seller, however curious the controversy may be.
3. It is a milestone and a springboard from which many investigations were deepened, which, whether they agree or not, are partly due to Frazer's having been carried out.
4. Sir J. Frazer's prose can be very poetic, and abounds in a very refined sense of humor, and in a very refined way of presenting an argument, which allows one to find little gems awaiting much-deserved recognition outside of academic knowledge.
5. The book is structured in the form of many case examples (too many for me), so much so that halfway through the book I began to skip, partly out of boredom, and partly because of the violence of the descriptions. These examples are chapters in books that have a resolution at the end that justifies the effort of reading (although I have not always made it)
6. The theories he provides, true or rejected in the light of our present, speak of a mind that can analyze an almost incomprehensible multitude of data and develop creative and plausible theories from them. Reading the book is not only accessing these theories, but also accessing the way of thinking of a brilliant intelligence.
7. My personal interest in this book is in the magic, myth and religion of all of Europe, and the Mediterranean coasts of Asia and Africa. From the rest of the world, many examples were very interesting, many very repetitive. But I read comments in which they valued the examples from other regions of the world, which indicates that nothing in the book is disposable, it's just that my vision is more limited than the author's.
8. One of the things that stood out in red for me is the extreme violence that human beings can develop, both physically and psychologically. Of the many things to read in the various sacrifices, there is one description that, even taken with the tweezers that requires a second-hand reading and from a non-objective narrator, far exceeds my tolerance, such as the act of burning living beings and taking them out of the fire before their death to stab them with a knife and tear out their heart by hand while it still beats in the half-cooked body. After this, I began to skip chapters when they became gruesome and/or boring without too much remorse.
9. I suppose that a good part of the controversy that this book has generated is that it has touched on religious taboos of Christianity and treated them with the same desacralized spirit with which many other religions and cultures were described in the same context.
10. I was also struck by the fact that, just as he ventures a theory, he accepts criticism and observations, and even rewrites the text if he believes it merits it. I understand this as an enormous display of academic humility, not of the arrogance that is attributed to him. I believe that the view of Frazer as arrogant is based on the comparison of the viewer with Fraser's real stature.
NOTE: this version has an excellent and valuable introduction by Robert Fraser, which adds a lot to the book to be read. It should not be skipped but to be given special attention.
It is, in a way, the equivalent of someone telling who the murderer is before reading a detective novel. The novel is read differently, I don't just read the plot of the novel, but I try to see how the author intends to play with me. For me, it's much more fun.
October 6, 2025
When the book was first published, circa 1906, I can imagine the excitement it must have generated as one of the great breakthroughs interpreting ancient myths and rituals. The world was revealed to be a fabulous web of shared beliefs. The fieldwork, dating to at least the 1880s must have been a truly sensational period for the study of culture and ancient traditions. The work is encyclopedic. The presentation of each comparative myth or ritual is where I find fault with the narrative. A modern adaptation could just as effectively dissect the myth of the Golden Bough in a fraction of the time. It is still very interesting. The various myths cited for comparison are at least as intriguing as that of the Golden Bough. Not exactly a page-turner, but enriching nonetheless.
August 3, 2025
I might have only started it because of The Wasteland, it might have taken me a year to get through over 800 pages of dense text from 1890, I might be glad to see the exit of James George Frazer from my bedside table, and I might have been better just scanning the Wikipedia entry, but it’s been one hell of a journey. I feel like every ancient tradition and ritual from across the world has been forced into my brain but this is such a cornerstone of modern thinking and especially literature I can’t be mad, though this book got me close.
April 18, 2025
this man just loved to talk with nooo definitions or points
November 1, 2025
intriguing stuff, kinda tangential
August 21, 2023
I had been wanting to read The Golden Bough for several years, after slowly copping to how many of my very favorite writers were influenced by it (Shirley Jackson and Sylvia Townsend Warner to name just two). I now understand why! I learned so much and was engaged almost continuously over nearly a thousand pages. Often what held my attention was my disagreement with Frazer — this book was written 130 years ago, and...times have changed. He was an atheist but he definitely thought traditional practices of "primitive" societies were "savage" and superstitious as opposed to more modern religious practices, which he just found to be time-wasting but not irrational.
I come to a different conclusion than Frazer: most people in every society are gullible, and the fact that so many groups in so many different parts of the world shared so many customs and practices means that we humans have a lot in common with each other. We share the same questions, the same need for meaning and the same existential fears. And except for the exhausting taboos in some cultures, I think that most of these traditions were born out of practicality. (This opinion is largely informed by my reading of Braiding Sweetgrass earlier this year.) One great example is periods, as in menstruation. Frazer concludes that men all over the world are just irrationally terrified of period blood for no reason. This is assuredly true. But also, I really had to chuckle at his naïveté. The traditions surrounding menstruation prohibited touching tools, livestock, cooking implements, hunted game and many other symbols of domestic drudgery. Instead they were "forced" to hang out in an isolated area for a week and do nothing. Being a man in 1890, Frazer could not see any practical reason for these customs. But being a person who both works very hard and menstruates, I DEFINITELY DO. I give a head nod of respect to my clever menstruating ancestors.
The biggest revelation I experienced was the scapegoat/god-slaughtering traditions that presaged the foundational story of Christianity. For the first time in my life, I GET IT. I was raised in this tradition and I never ever understood how a person/deity being tortured to death expiates the sins of others. But this is a concept with extremely ancient and widespread foundations. Frazer's tracing of the various customs of transferring community sins onto animals or people who were designated the representatives of god — and then ritually sacrificed — was so cogent and elegant. Not only did it give me context for the Crucifixion, it also made me understand the value of ritualized, communal mercy and spiritual cleansing. This is something we just don't have in postmodern societies. Even at Easter, Christians commemorate an expiation that occurred thousands of years ago. There isn't that immediacy. I don't think we should bring back ritual sacrifice of humans or animals, but we could really use some widespread ritualized forgiveness.
I especially loved learning about all of the seasonal traditions that occurred on solstices, equinoxes and their midpoints. Sometimes, Frazer gets repetitive when he writes about celebrations or customs that happen in many different places over and over and over, with very little variation. However, that is also part of what I like most: the evidence that we have so much in common.
The unabridged version of this apparently runs to 12 volumes, so this thousand-page abridgment seems pretty economical. It was an ambitious and important project and I am ultimately skeptical of Frazer's stated contempt for so many traditional peoples. His tenacity to engage over TWElVE VOLUMES belies his tone. He was an absolute nerd and nobody could have completed such a work without real enthusiasm for his topic.
I come to a different conclusion than Frazer: most people in every society are gullible, and the fact that so many groups in so many different parts of the world shared so many customs and practices means that we humans have a lot in common with each other. We share the same questions, the same need for meaning and the same existential fears. And except for the exhausting taboos in some cultures, I think that most of these traditions were born out of practicality. (This opinion is largely informed by my reading of Braiding Sweetgrass earlier this year.) One great example is periods, as in menstruation. Frazer concludes that men all over the world are just irrationally terrified of period blood for no reason. This is assuredly true. But also, I really had to chuckle at his naïveté. The traditions surrounding menstruation prohibited touching tools, livestock, cooking implements, hunted game and many other symbols of domestic drudgery. Instead they were "forced" to hang out in an isolated area for a week and do nothing. Being a man in 1890, Frazer could not see any practical reason for these customs. But being a person who both works very hard and menstruates, I DEFINITELY DO. I give a head nod of respect to my clever menstruating ancestors.
The biggest revelation I experienced was the scapegoat/god-slaughtering traditions that presaged the foundational story of Christianity. For the first time in my life, I GET IT. I was raised in this tradition and I never ever understood how a person/deity being tortured to death expiates the sins of others. But this is a concept with extremely ancient and widespread foundations. Frazer's tracing of the various customs of transferring community sins onto animals or people who were designated the representatives of god — and then ritually sacrificed — was so cogent and elegant. Not only did it give me context for the Crucifixion, it also made me understand the value of ritualized, communal mercy and spiritual cleansing. This is something we just don't have in postmodern societies. Even at Easter, Christians commemorate an expiation that occurred thousands of years ago. There isn't that immediacy. I don't think we should bring back ritual sacrifice of humans or animals, but we could really use some widespread ritualized forgiveness.
I especially loved learning about all of the seasonal traditions that occurred on solstices, equinoxes and their midpoints. Sometimes, Frazer gets repetitive when he writes about celebrations or customs that happen in many different places over and over and over, with very little variation. However, that is also part of what I like most: the evidence that we have so much in common.
The unabridged version of this apparently runs to 12 volumes, so this thousand-page abridgment seems pretty economical. It was an ambitious and important project and I am ultimately skeptical of Frazer's stated contempt for so many traditional peoples. His tenacity to engage over TWElVE VOLUMES belies his tone. He was an absolute nerd and nobody could have completed such a work without real enthusiasm for his topic.
October 15, 2023
A brief reflection on Substack:
https://tmlawrence.substack.com/p/a-r...
This was a long journey, but ultimately an enjoyable and edifying one. I'd say the sheer impressive breadth of Frazer's project more than counterbalances his more dubious assumptions, and I think it's also to his credit that, for the most part, he doesn't count himself immune from his own skepticism (i.e., he lets his hypotheses remain hypotheses and doesn't treat them as being more conclusive than they are). To put it another way, I am fascinated by the evidence he amasses even as I'm not compelled by the conclusion he draws out of that evidence. He's also a much more engaging and even funny writer than you'd think given how dry the text sounds from descriptions. I am convinced that his influence runs deep in Lewis' work – and now I am honestly wondering if the character of MacPhee, the Scottish skeptic in That Hideous Strength, is a bit of an homage to Frazer.
Beyond the obvious interest of the Christological parallels, it's fun to now see motifs from The Golden Bough everywhere (which is also a large part of the fun of reading Jung, again, whether one buys his conclusions or not). The discussion of the "King of the Wood" made me think especially of Princess Mononoke and The Green Knight, the "external soul" is 100% what's going on with Voldemort and Davy Jones, and (forgive me) doesn't Ezra Bridger become the Scapegoat of Lothal at the end of Star Wars Rebels?!? And – and! – this passage is *all over* Revenge of the Sith and Return of the Jedi:
"In some cases the death of the child appears to be definitely regarded as a substitute for the death of the father, who obtains a new lease on life by the sacrifice of his offspring. But in some cases it would seem that the child has been killed, not so much as a substitute for the father, as because it is supposed to endanger his life by absorbing his spiritual essence or vital energy... The Hindoos are of opinion that a man is literally reborn in the person of his son. Thus in the Laws of Manu we read that 'the husband, after conception by his wife, becomes an embryo and is born again of her; for that is the wifehood of a wife, that he is born again by her'. Hence after the birth of a son the father is clearly in a very delicate position. Since he is his own son, can he himself, apart from his son, he said to exist? Does he not rather die in his own person as soon as he comes to life in the person of his son?
Now to people who thus conceive of the relation of father and son it is plain that fatherhood must appear a very dubious privilege; for if you die in begetting a son, can you be quite sure of coming to life again? His existence is at the best a menace to yours, and at the worst it may involve your extinction... In fact, it comes to this, Are you to live? or is he? It is a painful dilemma. Parental affection urges you to die that he may live. Self-love whispers, 'Live and let him die.'"
https://tmlawrence.substack.com/p/a-r...
This was a long journey, but ultimately an enjoyable and edifying one. I'd say the sheer impressive breadth of Frazer's project more than counterbalances his more dubious assumptions, and I think it's also to his credit that, for the most part, he doesn't count himself immune from his own skepticism (i.e., he lets his hypotheses remain hypotheses and doesn't treat them as being more conclusive than they are). To put it another way, I am fascinated by the evidence he amasses even as I'm not compelled by the conclusion he draws out of that evidence. He's also a much more engaging and even funny writer than you'd think given how dry the text sounds from descriptions. I am convinced that his influence runs deep in Lewis' work – and now I am honestly wondering if the character of MacPhee, the Scottish skeptic in That Hideous Strength, is a bit of an homage to Frazer.
Beyond the obvious interest of the Christological parallels, it's fun to now see motifs from The Golden Bough everywhere (which is also a large part of the fun of reading Jung, again, whether one buys his conclusions or not). The discussion of the "King of the Wood" made me think especially of Princess Mononoke and The Green Knight, the "external soul" is 100% what's going on with Voldemort and Davy Jones, and (forgive me) doesn't Ezra Bridger become the Scapegoat of Lothal at the end of Star Wars Rebels?!? And – and! – this passage is *all over* Revenge of the Sith and Return of the Jedi:
"In some cases the death of the child appears to be definitely regarded as a substitute for the death of the father, who obtains a new lease on life by the sacrifice of his offspring. But in some cases it would seem that the child has been killed, not so much as a substitute for the father, as because it is supposed to endanger his life by absorbing his spiritual essence or vital energy... The Hindoos are of opinion that a man is literally reborn in the person of his son. Thus in the Laws of Manu we read that 'the husband, after conception by his wife, becomes an embryo and is born again of her; for that is the wifehood of a wife, that he is born again by her'. Hence after the birth of a son the father is clearly in a very delicate position. Since he is his own son, can he himself, apart from his son, he said to exist? Does he not rather die in his own person as soon as he comes to life in the person of his son?
Now to people who thus conceive of the relation of father and son it is plain that fatherhood must appear a very dubious privilege; for if you die in begetting a son, can you be quite sure of coming to life again? His existence is at the best a menace to yours, and at the worst it may involve your extinction... In fact, it comes to this, Are you to live? or is he? It is a painful dilemma. Parental affection urges you to die that he may live. Self-love whispers, 'Live and let him die.'"
May 5, 2010
Frazer stunningly presents a progression of human thought with magic as the thesis, religion as its antithesis, and science as its synthesis. With the magical world, everything happened according to fixed patterns and the knowing man was able to intercede, manipulate these elements, and alter the future and his surroundings according to his will. With religion, everything became fixed to the whims of the gods; anything at random could happen if the gods so desired it, and man's only role in controlling it was his ability to appease and persuade divine will. With science, everything returned to being controlled by rigid laws, but man's ability to intercede became much less effective, imaginative, and obvious. Frazer explores in meticulous, sometimes fascinating detail man's attempts "since time immemorial" to control nature, focusing primarily on harvest festivals and the acceptance or evasion of death. Using colorful examples from all parts of the globe and all of human history, Frazer illustrates the intermingling in the (still-primitive) human mind of natural law, supernatural deities, and superstition.
The book is very thought-provoking, illuminating, and inspiring, but at the same time a cynical voice in the back of my mind led me to doubt a few of Frzer's explanations, conjectures, and conclusions. Were Frazer's sources accurate? Was there cultural misunderstanding and misreading? Were correlations drawn from mere coincidences? I'm not sure, but probably. It's still interesting, though.
My one major criticism is that this abridgment could have been a bit more abridged. Some of the more repetitive and less interesting examples could've been pared down. In the middle of the book there is a chapter on animal manifestations of the harvest. Frazer explains that different cultures throughout the globe see the harvest's spirit as a wolf or a bull or a cat. He cites all the locales that associate the harvest with a wolf and illustrates many examples of this illustration. He then does the same thing with bull cultures. And cat cultures. And half a dozen other animals. It's all very much the same, none of it incredibly interesting, all only tangentially related to the main topic, yet it goes on for over fifty pages. A tad frustrating, but definitely a book worth reading.
The book is very thought-provoking, illuminating, and inspiring, but at the same time a cynical voice in the back of my mind led me to doubt a few of Frzer's explanations, conjectures, and conclusions. Were Frazer's sources accurate? Was there cultural misunderstanding and misreading? Were correlations drawn from mere coincidences? I'm not sure, but probably. It's still interesting, though.
My one major criticism is that this abridgment could have been a bit more abridged. Some of the more repetitive and less interesting examples could've been pared down. In the middle of the book there is a chapter on animal manifestations of the harvest. Frazer explains that different cultures throughout the globe see the harvest's spirit as a wolf or a bull or a cat. He cites all the locales that associate the harvest with a wolf and illustrates many examples of this illustration. He then does the same thing with bull cultures. And cat cultures. And half a dozen other animals. It's all very much the same, none of it incredibly interesting, all only tangentially related to the main topic, yet it goes on for over fifty pages. A tad frustrating, but definitely a book worth reading.
January 5, 2020
Yet perhaps the self-restraint which these and the like beliefs, vain and false as they are, have imposed on mankind, has not been without its utility in bracing and strengthening the breed. For strength of character in the race as in the individual consists mainly in the power of sacrificing the present to the future, of disregarding the immediate temptations of ephemeral pleasure for more distant and lasting sources of satisfaction.
The more the power is exercised the higher and stronger becomes the character ; till the height of heroism is reached in men who renounce the pleasures of life and even life itself for the sake of keeping or winning for others, perhaps in distant ages; the blessings of freedom and truth.
One of the most important book in my life. One of the best works on the theme of mythology and religion. And if you read this book carefully, you will never be able to believe in God again.
July 9, 2015
This was recommended to me as a book that would provide some basic information on magic. While that's not what I found, it was still a fascinating study of pagan myth and ritual. Frazer himself calls it a study of "the folly and error" of mankind. I read the abridged OWC edition that adds back in the section on the crucifixion of Christ that Frazer edited out of his own abridgement. I found the whole thing quite enjoyable, despite it being 800 pages long and devoting the largest section to corn myths in Europe. There were some brilliant portions where Frazer gave up his fact-reporting anthropological style for flowery and poetic language. I don't feel the need to read additional chapters from the 12-volume original.
September 23, 2020
It took 4 years to complete reading this... too much meat to read in quick passing. Which is exactly why I only gave it 3 stars.
The overall premise is interesting. Unfortunately it bogs down in far too many examples and too many speculative conclusions along the way. If there exists a heavily abridged version of the abridged version, it would be far more readable.
Will keep it on the shelf for future reference for possible storyine details, but will never read the entire book cover to cover again
The overall premise is interesting. Unfortunately it bogs down in far too many examples and too many speculative conclusions along the way. If there exists a heavily abridged version of the abridged version, it would be far more readable.
Will keep it on the shelf for future reference for possible storyine details, but will never read the entire book cover to cover again
Currently Reading
March 9, 2008I read this ages ago, of course, but am re-reading now. My edition is 1941 (can't possibly buy a new book!), so it's not one of those listed.
My friend Stu is currently obsessed with Germanic mythology and folk tranditions...so rereading Frazer before it comes up in conversation is a natural.
I mean, obsessed.
My friend Stu is currently obsessed with Germanic mythology and folk tranditions...so rereading Frazer before it comes up in conversation is a natural.
I mean, obsessed.
June 13, 2009
So you have neither the time, money or space to chew through the entire twelve volumes of The Golden Bough-- this abridgement is a good overview of the whole series. Of course, Frazer omits all mentions of Jesus in this version, so you'll have to track down the full set to hear his take on Christian mythology.
January 11, 2014
It was an absolute pleasure returning to this book after decades. While anthropology has moved on, it remains a literary classic. Frazer's eidetic memory is simply astonishing, and his storytelling abilities are novelistic. This is a wonderful book to carry with you on the subway, on plane flights, or long car trips. You can just dip into at random and learn something new.
January 2, 2016
The theorizing is fascinating, and, while the abridgment does a good job at cutting down the interminable examples of the full third edition, there are still a huge amount of them. Nevertheless, it's worth it for Frazier's unifying explanations. If they occasionally (or often) go to far in the direction of unification, they are the more interesting for it.
July 18, 2021
Frazer gets 5 stars even though he cannot edit to save his life because I like 1. his unerring commitment to being controversial and 2. one small paragraph on page 416 that says despite what we think primitive woman actually contributed far more to the development of the human race than man. #ThisIsWhatAFeministLooksLike
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews