The Golden Bough

I first heard of this book by Sir James Frazer in a Diana Wynne Jones novel, and I thought it was another version of Greek myths. It isn't; it's an early anthropology book, from the turn of last century, with myths from all over the world. Apparently some of the references are spurious, and some of the inferences dubious, but it's still a really important read from a literary point of view. It’s very easy to see how it influenced a number of writers at the turn of last century (Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, D. H. Lawrence to name only a few) and probably a significant number of philosophers as well. One of the reasons it was influential was its scope – he began to investigate a particular Roman ritual and ended up in twelve volumes analysing everything about myth, magic and religion across the entire world – but also because of its literary nature. It’s beautifully written.

I’ve been reading it over the last few weeks, mostly because it’s the kind of book you dip into. After a while, it does become quite repetitive to read of all the different kinds of sympathetic and homeopathic magical rituals; it doesn’t move forward in a cohesive manner. On the other hand, if you’re curious about the difference between magic and religion (in the first, man feels he can control the world; in the second, he realises someone else does), or about the number of different cultures which feature a soul which is separated from the body, or a man-god who takes on the sins of the people, or a King who must die, then this is the book for you. Or where many English customs originate, like Guy Fawkes night etc!

I think that if you’re a fantasy writer (or reader) then it’s almost a necessity – and it certainly should be required reading for theologians. It is disliked in some circles nowadays because of his belief (which reflects his time) that certain groups, such as Aboriginal Australians, reflect an early – i.e. primitive – kind of human being, while other groups, notably British anthropologists, reflect the zenith of man’s development. I think he’d be quite surprised to find his own views considered primitive today! On the other hand he’s quite clever in leaving options open about religion and science, for example. He tells you that “the man-god who dies taking on the sins of the world” can be found across all cultures – but he doesn’t follow that up by saying Christianity is therefore bunkum. It could be that those myths are there to lead all cultures to the truth, as many Christians believe. Equally, he doesn’t say science is the height of all knowledge, and ruminates that just as it has supplanted magic, so, perhaps, something might turn up to supplant it. As you can see, it’s a very interesting book philosophically but I’ll say it again – its literary merit is what has kept it in print ever since it was written at the turn of last century.