The Mything Link

[stahrwe]

As for Frazer; his theories and my ignorance, I have read Frazer's book The Golden Bough; have any of you?

It is likely that Tolkien was at least aware of this book as it was first published in 1890 and possibly was at least indirectly addressing Frazer's theory in his, Tolkien's, discussion with Lewis. Tolkien's theory corrects Frazer's mistake.

[geo]

As for Frazer; his theories and my ignorance, I have read Frazer's book The Golden Bough; have any of you?

Frazer's book would make a great BookTalk selection wouldn't it? I mean, why aren't we already reading it?

Stahrwe, which edition did you read? Not the 12-volume one I hope?

This looks like a good one . . .

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/147910 ... PDKIKX0DER

[Interbane]

If this is a duplicate post, please forgive me but it appears to be waiting for submission so I am submitting it .

That's what it is! You don't scroll back through previous posts. Yes, it's a duplicate post Stahrwe. We've already responded to that post. What's more, we've responded to the comments within that post numerous times in other posts. You seem to skip right over our responses without seeing them.

A good practice is to scroll back through the thread and find the last post you've made, then go forward from there to see what's new.

[geo]

If this is a duplicate post, please forgive me but it appears to be waiting for submission so I am submitting it .

That's what it is! You don't scroll back through previous posts. Yes, it's a duplicate post Stahrwe. We've already responded to that post. What's more, we've responded to the comments within that post numerous times in other posts. You seem to skip right over our responses without seeing them.

A good practice is to scroll back through the thread and find the last post you've made, then go forward from there to see what's new.

Ha ha. Why should Stahrwe want to read our posts? He's the teacher, remember?

[Vishnu]

Frazer... I also scanned the list of books he wrote and none are familiar to me.

I have read Frazer's book The Golden Bough;

have any of you?

Yes, I have.

It is likely that Tolkien was at least aware of this book as it was first published in 1890 and possibly was at least indirectly addressing Frazer's theory in his, Tolkien's, discussion with Lewis. Tolkien's theory corrects Frazer's mistake.

I already mentioned Frazer has been outdated. I also mentioned how Jonathan Z. Smith corrected Frazer more than anyone (up to that point at least) and yet Smith is an atheist, just like Frazer.

And that was part of the point in my having even brought up Frazer in the first place- to point out that an elite knowledge on mythology does not inevitably lead one to Christianity.

[stahrwe]

As for Frazer; his theories and my ignorance, I have read Frazer's book The Golden Bough; have any of you?


Stahrwe, which edition did you read? Not the 12-volume one I hope?

I don't know how many volumes it is. It is the Dead Dodo edition for the Kindle. One of the things which struck me is that for a scholarly work, it lacks supporting reference material. It might as well be Frazer's own opinions.

Another thing which struck me is the similarity of the title with another book I have read;

Frazer's book is called: The Golden Bough: A Study of Magic and Religion.

Lynn Throndike's book is called: A History of Magic and Experimental Science.

And, of course, Tolkien's theory of myths projecting portions of the True Myth is perfectly represented by Frazer's book. In that context Frazer's book would be an excellent candidate for discussion on BookTalk.org.

[geo]

As for Frazer; his theories and my ignorance, I have read Frazer's book The Golden Bough; have any of you?


Stahrwe, which edition did you read? Not the 12-volume one I hope?

I don't know how many volumes it is. It is the Dead Dodo edition for the Kindle. One of the things which struck me is that for a scholarly work, it lacks supporting reference material. It might as well be Frazer's own opinions.

Another thing which struck me is the similarity of the title with another book I have read;

Frazer's book is called: The Golden Bough: A Study of Magic and Religion.

Lynn Throndike's book is called: A History of Magic and Experimental Science.

And, of course, Tolkien's theory of myths projecting portions of the True Myth is perfectly represented by Frazer's book. In that context Frazer's book would be an excellent candidate for discussion on BookTalk.org.

Read the preface of your Dead Dodo edition. Frazer himself explains that The Golden Bough was originally published in two volumes and later expanded to 12 volumes with references and notes.

He then created an abridged one-book version to make the work more accessible. The Dead Dodo edition is that later abridged version. As Frazer says in the preface, "Readers who desire to ascertain the source of any particular statement must therefore consult the larger work, which is fully documented and provided with a complete bibliography."

I only know all this because I just bought a (physical) copy of the book myself. I also bought the Dead Dodo edition for 99 cents to put on my wife's Kindle (which I'm sort of absconding with).

http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Bough-Sir- ... lden+bough

As for the True Myth part. I don't think you'll find that in Frazer's book.

[stahrwe]

Frazer's book is a tour-de-force of what Tolkien cites as examples of the reflection of the True Myth in the pagan myths.

I'll check the references.

It might be interesting to discuss the book, but I suspect it would not garner much discussion since it would necessitate either a very superficial comment or in-depth analysis for which most of us would not have the time.

[stahrwe]

Here is what Ron Hogan has to say about Frazer's The Golden Bough on Amazon.com review.

"While highly influential in its day, The Golden Bough has come under harsh critical scrutiny in subsequent decades, with many of its descriptions of regional folklore and legends deemed less than reliable. Furthermore, much of its tone is rooted in a philosophy of social Darwinism--sheer cultural imperialism, really--that finds its most explicit form in Frazer's rhetorical question: "If in the most backward state of human society now known to us we find magic thus conspicuously present and religion conspicuously absent, may we not reasonably conjecture that the civilised races of the world have also at some period of their history passed through a similar intellectual phase?"

[Vishnu]

It is the Dead Dodo edition for the Kindle. One of the things which struck me is that for a scholarly work, it lacks supporting reference material. It might as well be Frazer's own opinions.

No, this work was very thoroughly referenced. It sounds like what you saw was the drawback of Kindle, something they seem to be dragging their heels about improving. Even Murdock has complained about things that are left out of her books when being stripped down for Kindle. Plus if it was the slimmed down abridged version Geo mentioned, then you might even have whittling upon whittling.

However, one problem with Frazer's references that frustrated me personally is that many of the works he cites are so old now they are nearly impossible to find, and even then the titles are often in French and German, which most lay persons such as myself do not read. Moreover, even sources I could locate give you the run around, i.e., it's chasing the chimera to actually get to a primary source. Frazer cites so-and-so, who in turn cites so-and-so in German, who in turn cites so-and-so in French, who in turn cites so-and-so whose work is either no longer extant or pretty much impossible to track down. Or sometimes the last so-and-so will just cite a previous so-and-so, making me pull my hair out from running around in circles.

As for the Ron Hogan fellow's comment, that seems redundant since I had already mentioned here twice before that scholarship since the 60s has deemed Frazer outdated. Unlike Hogan, however, I also balanced that out with scholars then & now who still acknowledge the significance of his work.
I don't know how many more times it needs to be stated here that Frazer is outdated. We all know it now, so to keep bringing it up at this point just seems like a deliberate attempt to just make sure Frazer is only viewed negatively here. At least, negatively when compared to Tolkien. But the problem there is that Tolkien's scholarship is now academically outdated as well.

And Tolkien's "true myth" rationalizing of comparative mythology like Frazer is starting to sound like simply a theistic spin on Jungian Archetypes, and simply moving the source from the "collective unconscious" of mankind to the the mind of God. Reminds me a bit of how Augustine interpreted Plato's Forms/Ideas as being ideas in the mind of God. I can see how that can sort of work for the Christian view. I suppose in a sense I sort of had that view myself since I was high on the doctrine of prophetic typology, thus parallels in the life of Joseph or Moses etc with the life of Christ were simply archetypes divinely orchestrated by God himself as a sort of prophetic foreshadowing of Christ.