PLUCKING THE GOLDEN BOUGH:

JAMES FRAZER'S METAMYTH IN MODERN NEOPAGANISM

By
Robert No!" P#$%ett
T&e'('
S#b)(tte* to t&e F!$#ty o+ t&e
Gr!*#!te S$&oo o+ ,!"*erb(t U"(-er'(ty
(" .!rt(! +#+()e"t o+ t&e re/#(re)e"t'
+or t&e *e0ree o+
MASTER OF ARTS
("
Re(0(o"
A#0#'t1 2333
N!'&-(e1 Te""e''ee

1
CHAPTER I
T&e Met!)yt&
In the introduction to the 1996 anthology Myth and Method, Laurie Patton and Wendy
Doniger note that theories of myth tend to take on the properties of myths themselves.
he study of myth has involved the recasting and reinterpreting of
narratives in such a !ay that scholars of myth cannot avoid "ecoming
mythmakers themselves, deeply implicated in the narrative pro#ect, and
not "y any means the outsiders they may present themselves to "e. $ust as
there is no telling of a myth %even in the conte&t of theory' that does not
change the narrative (( !hether it "e through media, conte&t, content, or a
com"ination of the three %6'.
$ust as L)vi(*trauss remarked in +he *tructural *tudy of ,yth+ that -reud.s theory
regarding the /edipus myth constituted an actual version of the myth %011', Doniger and
Patton hypothesi2e that mythical theory "ecomes myth itself, that is, it "ecomes a
+metamyth.+ 3lthough Doniger and Patton use this term repeatedly, they never offer a
definition, ho!ever they do note that +like the tellers of myths themselves, the makers of
theories of myths 4i.e., +metamyths+5 construct and deconstruct cultural values+ %6'.
3 !orking definition of a +metamyth+ then might "e6 a theory a"out myth !hich
retells a mythic narrative in such a !ay that it recasts or reinterprets the narrative, and
thus creates a ne! version of the myth, !hich may then function as a myth, and "e used
to construct or deconstruct cultural values.
7iven this definition, it seems that large(scale comparative theories of myth %such as
the those of ,ircea 8liade, 9arl $ung, 9laude L)vi(*trauss, or $ames -ra2er' are likely to
have more influence as metamyths than other theories, "ecause they retell many myths
and reinterpret them "y attempting to fit them all into a single mythic scheme. In doing
so, they not only create a ne! version of each myth %a mini(metamyth', "ut also a larger
0
over(arching metamyth %or !hat $oseph 9amp"ell, taking a term from $ames $oyce.s
Finnegan's Wake, refers to as a +monomyth+ %The Hero With a Thousand Faces :;''.
While the mini(metamyths may "e of interest to structuralists or folklorists !ho take into
account every version in e&amining a given myth, it is the larger metamyths that have
more impact in constructing and deconstructing cultural values.
Patton and Doniger argue that !e should study these metamyths as !e !ould other
myths, placing them in their political and intellectual conte&ts, and e&amining their
impacts upon culture. While Patton argues that scholars are "ound to consider the effects
of their metamyth(making %:91', I !ill attempt to illustrate that one metamyth in
particular has had unintended and undesired effects, constructing and deconstructing
cultural values in une&pected !ays. his process is most likely due to the mass
dissemination of these theories, as Patton notes %09<'. =ecause these metamyths are
!idely accessi"le in the t!entieth century, many different interpretations may "e placed
upon the te&t, and these may come to have more popularity than the interpretations of the
author.
In this paper I have chosen to take on one of the specific challenges that Patton sets
forth !hen she says,
If -ra2er.s The Golden Bough has attained the status of a myth itself, then
mythologists might e&amine its impact upon the t!entieth(century culture
in the same !ay that one traced the trail of the priest of >emi %:9<'.
While I do not intend to !rite a t!elve(volume treatise outlining the full effect of -ra2er
on the t!entieth(century
1
, I !ould like to consider The Golden Bough.s impact upon one
specific t!entieth(century religious movement, namely >eopaganism. I !ill attempt to
1 It !ould certainly take at least t!elve volumes, for as 8ric ?iolko!ski notes, The Golden Bough !as the
primary stimulus for this century.s o"session !ith myth %061'. 3s an aside, all citations of The Golden
Bough in this te&t !ill "e from the 1900 one(volume a"ridged edition, as this is the version !hich had the
!idest circulation, and !hich you are most likely to find on the "ookshelves of modern >eopagans.
:
sho! ho! -ra2er constructed the metamyth of the Dying and @ising 7od, and ho!
-ra2er.s theory a"out the Dying and @ising 7od acts as a metamyth in modern
>eopaganism, and ho! this metamyth ironically undermines the modernist metamyth
that -ra2er espoused.
<
CHAPTER II
4&!t (' Neo.!0!"(')5
he Latin !ord paganus !as applied "y the @omans to descri"e the provincial
peoples of the 8mpire. @oughly translated, it meant those !ho lived in the country. It !as
later applied "y the early 9hristians to refer to those +uncivili2ed people+ !ho still
!orshipped the pre(9hristian deities. here !as no dou"t a connection made "et!een
those !ho lived in the country and those !ho did not accept this ne! religion, for early
9hristianity !as primarily an ur"an phenomenon %*tark 1991'. 9ontrary to this, the
religions of the non(9hristiani2ing peoples of the 8mpire !ere primarily rural in nature,
"eing concerned largely !ith issues of nature and fertility. he gods of these religions
!ere perceived as immanent in nature. In addition, the @oman army used the !ord
paganus to refer to civilians, and this etymology !as adopted "y 9hristians !ho applied
it to all !ho !ere not enrolled in the +army of 7od.+ $udaism and Islam also !ere
e&cepted from the la"el +Pagan+ "ecause of their monotheistic affinity to 9hristianity.
herefore a tentative definition of +Paganism+ %"oth ancient and modern' might "e +a
group of non(3"rahamic religious traditions !hich see divinity as immanent in >ature,
and !ho direct their !orship to!ard immanent divinity instead of to a transcendent
deity.+
he >eopagan
0
movement is attempting to revive and re(create the pre(9hristian
polytheistic nature religions of 8urope and the ,editerranean "asin. Ao!ever, this
process of revival and re(creation is radically decentrali2ed6 there is no >eopagan
0 3 note on terminology6 !hile +>eopagan+ refers specifically to the modern revival of ancient pre(
9hristian religions, +Pagan+ is used to descri"e "oth the archaic religions as !ell as their modern
descendants. I !ill use the term +>eopagan+ in this te&t for the sake of consistency, although most
>eopagans refer to themselves simply as +Pagan,+ thus not ackno!ledging that there is any "reak "et!een
their religion and that of their pre(9hristian ancestors.
B
9hurch, no central authority figure%s', nor any sacred te&t !hich unites the entire
community. >eopaganism is made up of a diverse set of religious traditions, including
Wicca %>eopagan Witchcraft, the largest and most influential >eopagan tradition today',
Druidism %reconstructions of 9eltic Pagan traditions', Aeathenism %reconstructions of
>orse Pagan traditions, also kno!n as 3satru and /dinism', >eoshamanism %culturally
specific or non(specific shamanic techniCues', and the 9hurch of 3ll Worlds %a >eopagan
tradition "ased in part on the science fiction classic Stranger in a Strange Land "y @o"ert
Aeinlein'. hus to actually speak of a +>eopagan !orldvie!+ or +>eopagan theology+ is
difficult. Instead, here I must descri"e a set of "eliefs and practices !hich, !hile not
universally held "y those calling themselves +>eopagan,+ are common to most traditions.
3s a starting point, I !ould like to ela"orate on >eopagans. relation to nature, and to their
relation to their gods through nature, as this is pertinent to the understanding of ho!
-ra2er.s metamyth has influenced >eopaganism.
3ccording to >eopagan theology, all po!er in the universe flo!s from the gods.
Ao!ever, these are not transcendent "eings, !hose po!er is not reacha"le or
comprehendi"le. -or >eopagans, the gods, and thus this po!er, are manifest in this
!orld. o >eopagans, the divine is immanent. *tarha!k, !ho is one of the pre(eminent
>eopagan theologians of the past t!o decades, defines immanence as +the a!areness of
the !orld and everything in it as alive, dynamic, interdependent, interacting, and infused
!ith moving energies6 a living "eing, a !eaving dance+ %Dreaming the Dark 9'.
>eopagans "elieve that they use these energies in their religious ritual and magical
practice
:
. Ao!ever, these energies are not conceived of as +supernatural,+ "ut as flo!ing
: +,agic+ is loosely defined "y >eopagans as the use of these perceived natural divine energies to!ards
specific goals. It is often spelled +magick+ "y many >eopagans to distinguish it from stage illusion.
6
from the natural immanence of divinity in the !orld.
Aere I shall also take the time to "riefly discuss the differing vie!s on the nature of
divinity in the >eopagan community. *ome >eopagan groups are polytheistic, insisting
that there are a num"er of deities !ho manifest themselves in the !orld in various !ays.
/thers %especially practitioners of Wicca' are duotheistic, insisting that there are only the
7od and the 7oddess, !ho manifest themselves in various aspects6 as Dion -ortune
proclaims in her novel The Goat Foot God6 +3ll the gods are one god and all the
goddesses are one goddess+ %:D1'. /ther >eopagans are ultimately monistic6 +the 7od
and the 7oddess are one,+ or +the 7oddess includes the male in her aspects.+
hose traditions that are more polytheistic emphasi2e the comple&ity of e&istence and
espouse a more pluralistic !orldvie!. he duotheistic interpretation, on the other hand,
leads not to dualism, "ut to an emphasis on "alance. >eopagans attempt to achieve
"alance in their lives6 "alance of masculine and feminine, outer and inner !orlds, reason
and intuition, etc. hese pairs of opposites are not seen as contradictory, rather as
complementary6 reflecting a divine polarity in the +9reative Po!er of the Eniverse,+ as it
is theistically manifested in the 7od and 7oddess (( the male and female divine
principles. o achieve this "alance of polarity is to live in harmony !ith nature and its
cycles, for this is also the "alance of the cycle of "irth, death, and re"irth.
he order of the universe, according to >eopagans, is not static, "ut ever(changing.
he >eopagan !orldvie! concentrates heavily on the natural cycles of "irth, gro!th,
decline, death, and re"irth. his order is seen in the phases of the moon, the daily #ourney
of the sun, the agricultural cycle, and the progression of the seasons, also kno!n as the
Wheel of the Fear. his !heel is descri"ed as having eight spokes, "ecause most
1
>eopagans cele"rate eight seasonal festivals, or *a""ats. hese are the summer and
!inter solstices and spring and fall eCuino&es, as !ell as the 9eltic cross(Cuarter days of
Im"olc %-e"ruary 0', =eltane %,ay 1', Lammas %3ugust 1', and *amhain %/cto"er :1'.
his cyclical pattern is the prima facie conception of universal order for >eopagans.
his order is cyclical and not linear, and is constantly changing and never static. ,any
>eopagans su"scri"e to the "elief in reincarnation as part of this cyclical !orldvie!. $ust
as the sun is re"orn at da!n, #ust the ne! moon emerges after the three nights of
darkness, #ust as spring comes after !inter, so >eopagans "elieve that they !ill "e re"orn
into a ne! life after this one is complete.
he fundamental "asis of >eopagan theology is pantheism, the "elief that divinity is
immanent !ithin the !orld and !ithin human "eings, and thus everything that e&ists is
sacred. In >eopagan theology, there is no -all of humanity6 7od and man are not separate
from nature. ,an is not granted dominion over nature %7enesis 160D', and the earth is not
cursed "y 7od %7enesis :611', "ut instead humans are part of nature, and nature is
7odGdess. -or >eopagans, the divine is immanent, and everything that is alive, i.e.,
everything that is, in all its diversity, shares in this divine immanence. hus, everything is
sacredH everything in nature is a part of the immanent divine presence of the gods. >ature
is enchanted. he gods are every!here, in everything and everyone. -rom this idea
comes the ritual saying, +hou art 7od+ or +hou are 7oddess.+ Ao!ever, the concept of
pantheism is not Cuite as simplistic as it may sound. $oseph 9amp"ell e&plains6
o say that divinity informs the !orld and all things is condemned as
pantheism. =ut pantheism is a misleading !ord. It suggests that a personal
god is supposed to inha"it the !orld, "ut that is not the idea at all. he
idea is trans(theological. It is of an undefina"le, inconceiva"le mystery,
thought of as a po!er, that is the source and end and supporting ground of
all life and "eing %The o!er of Myth :1'.
D
-or >eopagans, this mystery and this po!er are represented "y the gods.
3s a result of this pantheistic philosophy, pagans are often animistic as !ell.
3nimism is a !ord coined "y nineteenth century anthropologist 8.=. ylor, referring to
the so(called +primitive+ "elief in living, personal po!ers in all things %ylor <0B(<0D'.
-or many >eopagans, nature is im"ued !ith these living, personal po!ers. rees, rocks,
animals, plants, "odies of !ater, as !ell as human "eings, are seen as im"ued !ith a life
force as !ell as a consciousness. -or >eopagans, all things are infused !ith the divinity
of the gods.
3lso flo!ing from pantheism is the central tenet of all >eopagan theology6 holism ((
that everything is interconnected. *tarha!k states, +Interconnection is the understanding
that !e are linked !ith all of the cosmos as parts of one living organism+ %The Spiral
Dance 1;'. *elena -o&, founder of the 9ircle *anctuary, descri"es the >eopagan concept
of holism6
I am a Pagan. I am part of the !hole of >ature. he @ocks, the 3nimals,
the Plants, the 8lements, and the *tars are my relatives. /ther humans are
my sisters and "rothers, !hatever their races, colors, genders, ages,
nationalities, religions, lifestyles. he 8arth is my ,other and the *un is
my -ather. I am part of this large family of >ature, not master of it %-o&
<<'.
3ccording to >eopagans, !e are part of a greater !hole, !hich encompasses the entire
planet. his philosophy also underlies $ames Lovelock.s 7aia Aypothesis6
he entire range of living matter on 8arth from !hales to viruses and from
oaks to algae could "e regarded as constituting a single living entity
capa"le of maintaining the 8arth.s atmosphere to suit its overall needs and
endo!ed !ith faculties and po!ers far "eyond those of its constituent
parts... 47aia can "e defined5 as a comple& entity involving the 8arth.s
"iosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soilH the totality constituting a
feed"ack of cy"ernetic systems !hich seeks an optimal physical and
chemical environment for life on this planet %Lovelock 9(11'.
9
Lovelock even !ent as far as to say that +in man, 7aia has the eCuivalent of a central
nervous system+ %Wood!ard <9'. =ecause >eopagans "elieve this, they +recogni2e that
our 4humans, not #ust pagans5 intelligence gives us a uniCue responsi"ility to!ard our
environment+ %9ouncil of 3merican Witches, +Principles of Wiccan =elief,+ as Cuoted in
3dler 1;1(1;0'. >eopagans reali2e that !e all depend upon the earth, no matter ho!
isolated from it !e may "e. =ecause their theology is this(!orldly, in We"er.s terms,
>eopagans reali2e that the earth is their home, and that they are not #ust +passing
through+ on their !ay to a +"etter place.+ 3 popular >eopagan chant sings, +he 8arth is
our ,other, !e must take care of her.+
+3nd the "alance of the Wheel goes round and round, and the "alance of the Wheel
goes round,+ sings another >eopagan chant. he Wheel, or the circle, is the >eopagan
sym"ol for this greater !hole. >eopagans !orship !ithin a sacred space shaped as a
circle, !hich, in addition to serving as a sacred space, is also sym"olic of this unity and
the interconnectedness of all things !ithin it6 it is, to paraphrase Walt Disney6 the 9ircle
of Life. he circle is usually conceived of as Cuartered, !ith the four directions
corresponding to the four elements of nature6 8arth, 3ir, -ire, and Water. he center of
the circle is associated !ith a fifth element ( *pirit, +!hich represents the unity, harmony,
and "alance of the four directions, of the male and female aspects of the Divine, and of
the immanentGtranscendent sacred !hole+ %9arpenter 60'.
he sacred space of the magic circle is considered "y >eopagans to "e a place
+"et!een the !orlds,+ on the "oundary "et!een the ordinary mundane space and the
space of the divine. Aere the ritual participants may communicate !ith "oth !orlds. he
magic circle is truly a place of liminality, in urner.s terms.
1;
he sacred space of the magic circle serves practical as !ell as sym"olic purposes (( it
serves a protective function (( keeping out negative energies, as !ell as containing the
magical energies raised !ithin it. *tarha!k says +Fou cannot "oil !ater !ithout putting it
in a pot, and you can.t raise po!er effectively unless it is also contained+ %The Spiral
Dance 10'. -urthermore, "ecause >eopaganism does not %for the most part' have
institutional places of !orship %such as church "uildings', the 9ircle also serves another
function (( it is a porta"le temple !hich may "e erected in any space, "e it a pu"lic park
or a private living room. *acred space can "e created any!here.
,oreover, the circle is also sacred "ecause time itself is considered to "e cyclical, not
linear, in the model of the Wheel of the Fear. 3s Pauline 9ampanelli notes in her "ook
"ncient Ways, +he Wheel of the Fear is in time !hat the ,agick 9ircle is in space, and
"oth represent the 7oddess and the eternal cycle of =irth, Death, and @e"irth+ %<6'.
11
CHAPTER III
Fr!6er'' Met!)yt&
=efore !e proceed !e must look "ack at our definition of a metamyth. We defined a
metamyth as6 a theory a"out myth !hich retells a mythic narrative in such a !ay that it
recasts or reinterprets the narrative, and thus creates a ne! version of the myth, !hich
may then function as a myth, and "e used to construct or deconstruct cultural values.
herefore to demonstrate ho! $ames -ra2er.s theories act as a metamyth for modern
>eopaganism, !e must e&amine three components6
1' ho! -ra2er retells ancient Pagan myths in such a !ay that he recasts or
reinterprets them, thus creating a ne! version of the myth %i.e., the metamyth',
0' ho! this metamyth functions as a myth for >eopagans, and
:' ho! this metamyth is used to construct and deconstruct cultural values.
-irst !e must turn to -ra2er.s creation of the metamyth. What is the metamyth that
-ra2er has contri"uted to >eopaganismI In 9hapter JJIJ of The Golden Bough, -ra2er
outlines the myth of the Dying and @ising 7od. -irst !e must e&amine ho! this myth fits
into -ra2er.s argument.
he riddle that -ra2er !as attempting to solve in The Golden Bough !as the Cuestion
of the succession of the priesthood of Diana at >emi. 9iting *tra"o, -ra2er outlines the
rule for attaining this perilous office, +3 candidate for the priesthood could only succeed
to office "y slaying the priest, and having slain him, he retained office till he !as himself
slain "y a stronger or craftier+ %-ra2er 1'. =y comparing this ritual murder to customs
from around the !orld
<
, -ra2er concludes that the priest of Diana at >emi %referred to as
< his comparative methodology is at the heart of -ra2er.s argument. -ra2er.s "elief that similar rituals and
customs are the result of similar "eliefs allo!s him to ignore the particular cultural conte&ts of his
10
the #e$ %emorensis, or the +King of the Wood+' !as a +divine king.+ he divine king !as
the archetype
B
that -ra2er deduced from his interpretation of cross(cultural customs of
actual or sym"olic ritual regicide. 3ccording to -ra2er, the divine king !as a
representative of the Dying and @ising 7od, another archetypal construct !hich -ra2er
devised from the myths of the *yrian 3donis %or ammu2', the Phrygian 3ttis, and the
8gyptian /siris. -ra2er concludes that the King of the Wood !as a representative of the
@oman god Lir"ius, the consort of Diana, and interprets Lir"ius as a Dying and @ising
7od in the mould of 3donis, 3ttis, and /siris.
In retelling the myths and e&plaining the rituals associated !ith 3donis, 3ttis, and
/siris, -ra2er reinterprets them !ithin the conte&t of his archetypal Dying and @ising
7od, "rushing aside their particular cultural conte&ts and their differences. Indeed, "efore
he even "egins the chapters on these three deities, -ra2er makes this statement6
Ender the names of /siris, ammu2, 3donis, and 3ttis, the peoples of
8gypt and Western 3sia represented the yearly decay and revival of life,
especially vegeta"le life, !hich they personified as a god !ho annually
died and rose again from the dead. In name and detail the rites varied from
place to place6 in su"stance they !ere the same. he supposed death and
resurrection of this oriental deity, a god of many names "ut of essentially
one nature, is no! to "e e&amined %:1D'.
evidence. hus he may rely on analogies as evidence for his theories. -ra2er has "een sharply critici2ed for
this methodology. 3nthropologist 8dmund Leach, in his article +7olden =ough or 7ilded !igI+ says6 In
fact, of course, the +evidence+ has no relevance !hatsoeverH it is Cuite possi"le that the ancient rites of
>emi !ere such as -ra2er suggestsH it is eCually possi"le that they !ere something entirely differentH the
+analogies+ from other parts of the !orld have no "earing on the matter. Politicians can argue in this
fashion, "ut not professional scholars %:19'.
B he !ord +archetype+ here, is used not in the $ungian sense, "ut more in the 8liadean sense of a certain
pattern of religious phenomena that may "e discerned cross(culturally. -ra2er.s archetypes are formed from
his comparative method and his use of analogies. here is no relationship of this +archetype+ to any
collective unconscious. Ao!ever, neither is it dependent on the diffusion of religious ideas. =efore
attempting to fit the 7reek god Dionysus into his archetypal Dying and @ising 7od pattern, -ra2er says6 We
need not, !ith some enCuirers in ancient and modern times, suppose that these Western peoples "orro!ed
from the older civilisation of the /rient the conception of the Dying and @eviving 7od, together !ith the
solemn ritual, in !hich that conception !as dramatically set forth "efore the eyes of !orshippers. ,ore
pro"a"ly the resem"lance !hich may "e traced in this respect "et!een the religions of the 8ast and West is
no more than !hat !e commonly, though incorrectly, call a fortuitous coincidence, the effect of similar
causes acting alike on the similar constitution of the human mind in different countries and under different
skies %<<D'.
1:
3lready !e see here that -ra2er regards these three gods as of +essentially one nature+ ((
that of the Dying and @ising 7od. *o !hat !as the nature of -ra2er.s Dying and @ising
7odI *imply put, he !as a god of vegetation, !ho died and rose according to seasonal
changes !hich affected the life of the plants on !hich humans depended. -ra2er "egins
his outline of this myth "y descri"ing ho! natural cycles inspired +primitive+ humans to
create the myth of the Dying and @ising 7od6
he spectacle of the great changes that annually pass over the face of the
earth has po!erfully impressed the minds of men in all ages, and stirred
them to meditate on the causes of transformations so vast and !onderful.
heir curiosity has not "een purely disinterestedH for even the savage
cannot fail to perceive ho! intimately his o!n life is "ound up !ith the
life of nature, and ho! the same processes !hich free2e the stream and
strip the earth of vegetation menace him !ith e&tinction %:16(:11'.
-ra2er argues that this cycle leads to a magical theory (( that humans could control the
progression of the seasons and the fertility of the earth. Ao!ever, -ra2er argues an
evolution from magic to religion %and ultimately from religion to science'. 3t this point,
humans reali2ed that they had no control over these natural phenomena. Instead,
hey no! pictured to themselves the gro!th and decay of vegetation,
the "irth and death of "eings, of gods and goddesses, !ho !ere "orn and
died, !ho married and "egot children, on the pattern of human life.
hus the old magical theory of the seasons !as displaced, or rather
supplemented, "y a religious theory. -or although men no! attri"utes the
annual cycle of change primarily to corresponding changes in their deities,
they still thought that "y performing such magical rites they could aid the
god !ho !as the principle of life, in his struggle !ith the opposing
principle of death. hey imagined that they could recruit his failing
energies and even raise him from the dead. he ceremonies !hich they
o"served for this purpose !ere in su"stance a dramatic representation of
the natural processes !hich they !ished to facilitateH for it is a familiar
tenet of magic that you can produce any desired effect "y merely imitating
it. 3nd no! they e&plained the fluctuations of gro!th and decay, of
reproduction and dissolution, "y the marriage, the death, and the re"irth or
revival of the gods, their religious or rather magical dramas turned in great
measure on these themes. hey set forth the fruitful union of the po!ers of
1<
fertility, the sad death of one at least of the divine partners, and his #oyful
resurrection %:11(:1D'.
Ao!ever, -ra2er.s trio of Dying and @ising 7ods do not all follo! this pattern. In
-ra2er.s account of the myth of ammu2, the god dies and his lover Ishtar descends into
the under!orld to retrieve him. Ao!ever, !hile Ishtar returns, -ra2er can only speculate
that ammu2 returns !ith her6
he stern Cueen of the infernal regions, 3llatu or 8reshkigal "y name,
reluctantly allo!ed Ishtar to "e sprinkled !ith the Water of Life and to
depart, in company pro&a&ly !ith her lover ammu2, that the t!o might
return together to the upper !orld, and that !ith their return all nature
might revive %-ra2er :19'.
In fact, -ra2er has the plot of the story out of order. In *tephanie Dalley.s 19D9 translation
of the 3kkadian cuneiform ta"lets, Ishtar decides of her o!n free !ill to #ourney to the
under!orld. *he gains entrance and is led through seven gates, !here she is stripped of
all her clothing and accoutrements. *he is "rought "efore her sister 8reshkigal, the Mueen
of the Ender!orld, and is killed. he other gods learn of her death and send a messenger
to rescue her "y sprinkling her !ith the !ater of life. Ishtar is allo!ed to return to earth
on the condition that a su"stitute is provided (( her hus"and ammu2. ammu2. sister
mourns him, "ut there is no evidence of his resurrection %Dalley 1B<(16;'. 3ccording to
Dalley.s introduction, there is evidence of the annual death and resurrection of the
*umerian god Dumu2i %ammu2. counterpart' in the *umerian te&t %!hich !as not
uncovered until 196:', "ut not in the 3kkadian %1B<', !hich !as -ra2er.s source. While it
is possi"le that the =a"ylonians did interpret this myth in a similar fashion to their
*umerian predecessors, -ra2er did not have the evidence to conclude this.
What -ra2er did have, ho!ever, !as the myth of ammu2 +mirrored in the glass of
7reek mythology+ %-ra2er :D;' in the myth of 3donis, !ho spent half of the year in the
1B
under!orld !ith Persephone, and the other half on /lympus !ith 3phrodite. Aere -ra2er
has a legitimate Dying and @ising 7od in the myth, "ut !hen he discusses the ritual of
3donis, -ra2er relies on analogy to provide evidence for the resurrection of the god and
its link !ith the natural cycles of plants6
-rom the similarity of these customs to each other and to the spring and
midsummer customs of modern 8urope !e should naturally e&pect that
they all admit of a common e&planation. Aence, if the e&planation !hich I
have adopted of the latter is correct, the ceremony of the death and
resurrection of 3donis must also have "een a dramatic representation of
the decay and revival of plant life %:91'.
When -ra2er turns to 3ttis, he has evidence for the resurrection of the god in the
@oman ritual, "ut not in the myth. 3ccording to -ra2er.s version of the myth, after 3ttis.
death, he is said to have "een changed into a pine tree, not resurrected %<;<'. Ao!ever,
-ra2er does state that in the ritual of the god, his resurrection !as cele"rated !ith a
carnival(type atmosphere on the vernal eCuino&, although this interpretation may "e
Cuestioned, as the language that -ra2er employs is thoroughly 9hristian %-ra2er <;1'.
In considering the myth of the 8gyptian god /siris, -ra2er first retells Plutarch.s
version of the myth. 3ccording to Plutarch, /siris, the king of 8gypt, civili2ed the
8gyptians and delivered them from their +destitute and "rutish manner of living+
%Plutarch 1:'. Ae taught them arts and crafts, hunting, and most importantly, agriculture.
Ao!ever, /siris is killed at the hands of his "rother *et. *et shut his "rother up in a
sarcophagus, !hich he then floated do!n the >ile. Isis recovers the "ody of /siris, and
*et then finds the "ody and dismem"ers it. Isis recovers all the pieces of the "ody, e&cept
for the phallus, and erects shrines at the location of each. /siris. son Aorus then
challenges and defeats *et and "ecomes the ne! king of 8gypt %-ra2er <01(<0<'.
>o!here in Plutarch.s account is /siris resurrected. Ao!ever, -ra2er does supplement
16
Plutarch !ith native 8gyptian accounts !hich state that after his death, /siris is revived
and "ecomes Lord of the Dead %<0B'. 3gain, this is not the prototypical +resurrection+
scenario of the metamythical +Dying and @ising 7od,+ "ecause /siris does not return
from the under!orld to Isis.
@egardless of these differences, -ra2er maintains that these gods are +of essentially
one nature,+ and thus in #u&taposing these three myths, he com"ines elements of all them
to create his metamyth of the Dying and @ising 7od. In doing so, he has created a ne!
version of each of these myths !here"y 3donis, 3ttis, and /siris all are considered to
have "een resurrected, even though this is not stated e&plicitly in any of the primary
sources of these myths. ,oreover, -ra2er has also created an overarching metamythic
pattern into !hich he can no! fit the #e$ %emorensis. We have seen already that he does
this "y interpreting these Dying and @ising 7ods as gods of vegetation, and more
specifically as gods of the primary food plants6 corn and grains %even though he presents
very little evidence for the interpretation of 3ttis or /siris as a grain god'. Ae also
e&plains these gods as tree(spirits, !hich provides him !ith the link "ack to the grove of
>emi and the 7olden =ough.
11
CHAPTER I,
A T&eoret($! I"ter#*e: T&e F#"$t(o" o+ t&e Myt&
/ur ne&t goal is to descri"e ho! the myth of the Dying and @ising 7od functions as a
myth for >eopaganism. -irst !e must e&amine !hat the function of myth is. here have
"een numerous theories a"out the function of myth, and it is not necessary to re(e&amine
them all here. Instead, I !ill provide my o!n theory on this su"#ect.
he starting point for my theory is structuralism, as it is outlined in is L)vi(*trauss.
famous 19BB article, +he *tructural *tudy of ,yth.+ L)vi(*trauss "egins his argument
"y noting that in myths, almost anything can happen. =ut this presents a pro"lem, +if the
content of a myth is contingent, ho! are !e going to e&plain the fact that myths
throughout the !orld are so similarI+ %0;D'.
L)vi(*trauss patterned his structural theory of myth on -erdinand de *aussure.s
theory of linguistics. L)vi(*trauss makes a comparison "et!een the study of language
and the study of mythology. =ut, he says
o invite the mythologist to compare his precarious situation !ith that of
the linguist in the prescientific stage is not enough. 3s a matter of fact !e
may thus "e led only from one difficulty to another. here is a very good
reason !hy myth cannot simply "e treated as language if its specific
pro"lems are to "e solvedH myth is language6 to "e kno!n, myth has to "e
toldH it is a part of human speech %0;9'.
=ut myth is a very special kind of language, !hich e&hi"its specific properties, !hich
are found +a"ove the ordinary linguistic level, that is, they e&hi"it more comple& features
than those !hich are to "e found in any other kind of linguistic e&pression+ %01;'. In our
e&amination of the function of myth, !e must then consider the function of language. We
may agree that the function of language is the communication of information, ideas, and
1D
there"y meaning. We then may ask ho! myth, on this higher linguistic level,
communicates its meanings %synta&', and !hat those meanings are %semantics'. L)vi(
*trauss is primarily concerned !ith the synta& of myth, as !e shall see.
L)vi(*trauss goes on to postulate that myths are made up of constituent units, #ust like
language, and that these +gross constituent units,+ or +mythemes+ consist of a relation
%01;(011'. Ao!ever, these mythemes are inadeCuate for use in a structural analysis, so he
argues that the true constituent units of a myth are not these isolated relations, "ut
"undles of such relations, and that it is only as "undles that these relations can "e put to
use and com"ined to produce meaning %011'.
L)vi(*trauss then delineates the structure of the chart he !ill use to analy2e these
"undles of relations, +a t!o(dimensional time referent !hich is simultaneously diachronic
and synchronic+ %010'. Ae demonstrates this chart and his method !ith the /edipus myth
%01:(016'. Ae e&plains the chart6
We thus find ourselves confronted !ith four vertical columns, each of
!hich includes several relations "elonging to the same "undle. Were !e to
tell the myth, !e !ould disregard the columns and read the ro!s from left
to right and from top to "ottom. =ut if !e !ant to understand the myth,
then !e !ill have to disregard one half of the diachronic dimension %top to
"ottom' and read from left to right, column after column, each one "eing
considered as a unit %01<'.
It is via this method that L)vi(*trauss derives his algorithm of the structure of myth +3 6
= 66 9 6 D+ %00D', and the hypothesis that the function of myth is +to provide a logical
model capa"le of overcoming a contradiction+ %009'.
his method also eliminates the pro"lem of +the Cuest for the true version or the
earlier one+ %016'. L)vi(*trauss defines a myth as +consisting of all of its versions+ %011',
and argues that +structural analysis should take them all into account+ %011'. What is the
19
cause of all the repetition in myth, he asksI Ae ans!ers, +If our hypotheses are accepted,
the ans!er is o"vious6 he function of repetition is to render the structure of the myth
apparent+ %009'.
-inally, L)vi(*trauss concludes, there is a +kind of logic in mythical thought that is as
rigorous as that of modern science, and that the difference lies, not in the Cuality of the
intellectual process, "ut in the nature of the things to !hich it is applied+ %0:;'.
I "elieve that L)vi(*trauss has produced a convincing model for the synta& of myth.
Ao!ever, he tries to e&tend this system too far !hen he claims that +these relations can
"e put to use and com"ined so as to produce meaning+ %011'. 8lse!here, L)vi(*trauss has
stated, +,eaning is not directly perceived "ut deduced, reconstructed from an analysis of
synta&+ %L)vi(*trauss, +@eponses a CuelCues Cuestions,+ 6:1'. If !e e&tend the linguistic
parallel, one should "e a"le to derive the meaning of a given sentence solely from an
analysis of the relation "et!een its nouns, ver"s, ad#ectives, etc. his is not possi"le,
"ecause this reCuires a prior kno!ledge of the signification of the constituent !ords
themselves %or a good dictionary'. L)vi(*trauss gives us no le&icon, no method of
determining the signification of the mythemes. *peakers of a language can intuitively
understand an indefinite num"er of sentences %!hich have never "een spoken "efore'
!ithout stopping to think +!hat part of speech is this !ordI+ It is only later, !hen !e are
put through grammar lessons that !e come to find out that +cat+ is a noun, +sit+ is a ver",
etc. >oam 9homsky has illustrated !ith his famous sentence +9olorless green ideas sleep
furiously,+ that it is possi"le to create a syntactically perfect sentence that is devoid of
meaning %9homsky 1B'. We cannot determine the meaning of this sentence simply "y
analy2ing its grammar. he sentence has no semantic value in the 8nglish language,
0;
"ecause in our shared perception of the !orld
6
, ideas cannot "e green, they cannot "e
green and colorless at the same time, ideas cannot sleep, and sleeping cannot "e done
furiously.
L)vi(*trauss also implies that meaning can "e found "y comparing different versions
of a myth, and demonstrating the transformations and inversions of its structure. 3fter
analy2ing the structure of the 3sdi!al myth, "ut "efore proceeding to analy2e its variants,
he says, +Aaving separated out the codes, !e have analy2ed the structure of the message.
It no! remains to decipher the meaning+ %L)vi(*trauss, +he *tory of 3sdi!al+ 16B'.
3gain e&tending the linguistic parallel, !e should "e a"le to determine the meaning of a
sentence "y comparing the !ay that a normal 8nglish speaker says it and the !ay that the
$edi master Foda !ould say it.
/n the !hole, L)vi(*trauss. semantics are lacking. Ae never clarifies ho! the this
+mythical logic+ of oppositions and transformations produces meaning. We must turn
"ack to linguistics, and specifically the field of semantic theory, in order to deduce the
meanings of myths.
here are multiple theories of semantics in the field of linguistics, "ut t!o of the
prominent theories today are truth(conditional semantics and cognitive semantics. ruth(
conditional semantics vie!s meaning as the relationship "et!een !ords and the o"#ective
+real !orld+ %*!eetser <'. his approach is not a"le to deal !ith the comple&ities of
meaning such as polysemy %!ords !ith multiple meanings' and change of meaning
%*!eetser <(B, 9(1;'. -urthermore, an application of this theory to the study of religion
!ould take us "ack to the intellectualist theories !hich posit that religion is false.
6 his shared perception of the !orld is referred to "y cognitive scientists as our +conceptual system.+ his
!ill "e discussed later in the chapter.
01
9ognitive semantics, on the other hand, "ases its theory of meaning in the human
perceptions and understandings of the !orld %*!eetser 0'. 9ognitive semanticists +accept
the direct influence of e&perience or cognition on meaning(structures+ %*!eetser 10'.
3ccording to this school, +Language is systematically grounded in human cognition...
he conceptual system that emerges from everyday human e&perience 4is5 the "asis for
natural(language semantics in a !ide range of areas+ %*!eetser 1'.
he theory in the field of cognitive semantics !hich is most relevant to the study of
myth is the metaphor theory of 7eorge Lakoff and ,ark $ohnson. Lakoff, a linguist at the
Eniversity of 9alifornia at =erkeley, and $ohnson, a philosopher at the Eniversity of
/regon, colla"orated on the ground"reaking "ook Metaphors We Li'e By in order to
e&plore the role of metaphor in our language and cognition and its social implications.
3ccording to their thesis, metaphors are not merely the literary devices of poetry, they
are pervasive in everyday life %:'. When !e use a metaphor, !e understand and
e&perience one kind of thing in terms of another %B'. /ur conceptual system is largely
metaphorical %:'. his conceptual system is grounded in human physical and cultural
e&perience %119'. We typically conceptuali2e the nonphysical in terms of the physical
through metaphor %B9'.
Enderstanding emerges from interaction, from constant negotiation !ith the
environment and other people %16B'. ,ost of our indirect understanding involves
understanding one kind of entity or e&perience in terms of another kind (( that is,
understanding via metaphor %11D'.
,etaphor is one of our most important tools for trying to comprehend partially !hat
cannot "e comprehended totally6 our feelings, aesthetic e&periences, moral practices, and
00
spiritual a!areness %19:'. ,etaphor provides a !ay of partially communicating unshared
e&periences, and it is the natural structure of our e&perience that makes this possi"le
%00B'. ,etaphor unites reason and imagination. ,etaphor is thus imaginative rationality
%19:'.
=ecause language is an important source of evidence for the conceptual system %:',
Lakoff and $ohnson e&amine the linguistic evidence for metaphoric concepts in 8nglish.
In doing so, they attempt to reveal the !ays in !hich they propose that metaphors
structure our conceptions, understandings, and e&periences of the physical and cultural
!orlds !e inha"it.
he application of the metaphor theory to mythic studies revives the intellectualist
vie! of myth, "ut under a different type of lens. Lakoff and $ohnson "riefly address the
issue of myth themselves6
,yths provide !ays of comprehending e&perienceH they give order to our
lives. Like metaphors, myths are necessary for making sense of !hat goes
on around us. 3ll cultures have myths, and people cannot function !ithout
myth any more than they can function !ithout metaphor. 3nd #ust as !e
often take the metaphors of our o!n culture as truths, so !e often take the
myths of our o!n culture as truths %1DB(1D6'.
In cognitive semantics, in contrast to truth(conditional semantics, myths, metaphors, and
meanings are not #udged "y their truth(value. @ather, +meaning is al!ays meaning to
someone. here is no such thing as meaning of a sentence in itself, independent of any
people+ %1D<'. his e&periential vie! of meaning is very appropriate to the study of myth,
!here the multivalence of the myths is Cuite evident.
Ao!ever, neither L)vi(*trauss nor Lakoff and $ohnson consider one essential element
of myth (( the sacred. ,ircea 8liade considered the "asis of religion %and therefore myth'
to "e !hat he calls +he *acred.+ Ae says6
0:
he myth reveals a"solute sacrality, "ecause it relates the creative activity
of the gods, unveils the sacredness of their !ork. In other !ords, the myth
descri"es the various and sometimes dramatic irruptions of the sacred into
the !orld %8liade 96(91'.
8liade has "een critici2ed "ecause his +*acred+ is an essence, and therefore is su"#ective.
It can only "e intuited, not deduced. Ao!ever, 7uilford Dudley refutes this "y noting that
8liade claims that the sacred may "e discerned structurally in opposition to the profane
%Dudley 1:D(1:9'.
8ven if seen in opposition to the +profane,+ 8liade.s +sacred+ is itself a metaphor
1
, "ut
one !hich is generally agreed upon "y religious scholars to "e at the core of the matter at
hand. *o in considering the function of myth, !e must take into account all of these
factors6 synta&, semantics, and the sacred. 9om"ining these three factors into a !orka"le
theory of the function of myth, !e should ackno!ledge myth as language, that this
mythic language is metaphorical, and that it reveals the sacred through these metaphors.
*o our !orking theory !ill "e6 ,yth functions to provide a metaphorical language
%!hich reflects a metaphorical conceptual system' capa"le of relating the human
e&perience of the sacred. his metaphorical language and conceptual system is thus
capa"le of constructing and deconstructing cultural values.
/f course, this theory too could "e considered as a metamyth itself. Indeed, the
implications of the notion of myth as metaphor functioning as a myth !ill also "e
considered "riefly in the ne&t chapter in discussing the !ays in !hich >eopagans vie!
their myths.
1 -or as Lakoff and $ohnson note, !e cannot talk a"out or even think a"out a"stract concepts !ithout the
use of metaphorN
0<
CHAPTER ,
T&e F#"$t(o" o+ Fr!6er'' Met!)yt& (" Neo.!0!"(')
Aaving no! e&amined ho! -ra2er.s created the metamyth of the Dying and @ising
7od in The Golden Bough, !e may no! e&amine ho! this metamyth functions as a myth
for >eopaganism. Let us no! recall our theory of the function of myth6
,yth functions to provide a metaphorical language %!hich reflects a metaphorical
conceptual system' capa"le of relating the human e&perience of the sacred. his
metaphorical language and conceptual system is thus capa"le of constructing and
deconstructing cultural values.
>o! !e must e&amine ho! -ra2er.s metamyth of the Dying and @ising 7od acts as a
metaphorical language !hich relates >eopagan perceptions and e&perience of the sacred.
he Cuestion of the construction and deconstruction of cultural values !ill "e dealt !ith
in 9hapter LI.
3s !as alluded to in 9hapter II, most >eopagans vie! their myths as metaphorical. 3s
*tarha!k says6
he myths, legends, and teachings are recogni2ed as metaphors for +hat(
Which(9annot(=e(old,+ the a"solute reality our limited minds can never
completely kno!. he mysteries of the a"solute can never "e e&plained ((
only felt or intuited. *ym"ols and ritual acts are used to trigger altered
states of a!areness, in !hich insights that go "eyond !ords are revealed.
%he *piral Dance, 00'.
>eopagans use these metaphors to try to relate their e&periences of the sacred, !hich are
for them more adeCuately revealed in the cycles of nature. herefore, these metaphors not
0B
only operate as myths, "ut the notion of the myth as metaphor itself functions as a myth,
providing a certain frame in !hich to vie! the e&perience of the sacred. he implications
of the myth(as(metaphor vie! !ill "e discussed "riefly at the end of the chapter.
he cycle of the seasons
D
make up the >eopagan +Wheel of the Fear,+ as !as noted in
9hapter II. In >eopagan theology, the Wheel of the Fear marks important events in the
cycle of life of the Aorned 7od and the 7reat ,other 7oddess, the divine pair !hom
modern >eopagans !orship. here are at least three different mythological cycles
through !hich the Wheel is understood in modern >eopagan theology %3m"er K 1B;'.
27 T&e Go*'' L(+e Cy$e:
=y far the most !idespread >eopagan mythological cycle does not split the year "et!een
the 7od and 7oddess or aspects of the 7od. Instead, it conceives of a single Dying and
@ising 7od, as did -ra2er. *tarha!k retells this myth from the oral teaching of the -aery
Wicca tradition6
In love, the Aorned 7od, changing form and changing face, ever seeks
the 7oddess. In this !orld, the search and the seeking appear in the Wheel
of the Fear.
*he is the 7reat ,other !ho gives "irth to Aim as the Divine 9hild
*un at the Winter *olstice. In spring, Ae is so!er and seed !ho gro!s
!ith the gro!ing light, green as the ne! shoots. *he is the Initiatri& !ho
teaches Aim the mysteries. Ae is the young "ullH *he the nymph,
seductress. In summer, !hen light is longest, they meet in union, and the
strength of their passion sustains the !orld. =ut the 7od.s face darkens as
the sun gro!s !eaker, until at last, !hen the grain is cut for harvest, Ae
too sacrifices Aimself to *elf that all may "e nourished. *he is the reaper,
the grave of earth to !hich all must return. hroughout the long nights and
darkening days, Ae sleeps in Aer !om"H in dreams, Ae is Lord of Death
!ho rules the Land of Fouth "eyond the gates of night and day. Ais dark
tom" "ecomes the !om" of re"irth, for at ,id!inter, *he again gives
"irth to Aim. he cycle ends and "egins again, and the Wheel of the Fear
D !hich -ra2er recogni2es as the origin of this myth6 c.f., the Cuotation from -ra2er :16(:11, cited in
9hapter III.
06
turns, on and on %The Spiral Dance <:'.
*tarha!k here outlines the >eopagan Wheel of the Fear in terms of the life, death, and
re"irth of the 7od. In this version of the myth, the 7od is "orn at Fule %the Winter
*olstice, appro&imately Decem"er 01' and gro!s throughout the !inter and spring.
hree *a""ats mark Ais gro!th. 3lthough it is traditionally associated !ith the
7oddess, the festival of Im"olc %-e"ruary 0', also cele"rates the infancy of the 7od. he
*pring 8Cuino&, or /stara %appro&imately ,arch 01', cele"rates the childhood of the
7od, as Ais po!er "alances that of the 7oddess. 3t =eltane %,ay 1', the 7od, no! in Ais
adolescence, meets the 7oddess in love, and the 7oddess initiates the 7od into the
mysteries.
$ust as Im"olc, /stara, and =eltane mark points in the gro!th of the 7od, the four
*a""ats of ,idsummer, Lammas, ,a"on, and *amhain all mark the death of the 7od in
different aspects. 3t the *ummer *olstice %,idsummer or Litha, appro&imately $une 01',
the 7od has reached Ais maturity and is at the height of Ais po!er. /n this day Ae is
married to the 7oddess, consummating their relationship. ,idsummer also is the
sacrifice of the solar god, the "eginning of the decline of the po!er of the sun. 3t
Lammas, or Lughnasadh %3ugust 1', the festival of the grain harvest, the 7od, in his
aspect as god of the grain, sacrifices Aimself and "egins Ais #ourney to the *ummerland.
,a"on, the 3utumn 8Cuino& %appro&imately *eptem"er 01', is the fruit harvest, and is
often considered the sacrifice of the vine or fruit god. *amhain %/cto"er :1' !as
traditionally the time of the slaughter of the domestic animals. herefore, the 7od in Ais
aspect of Lord of the 3nimals dies on this date. 3t *amhain, the 7od is honored as Lord
of the *ummerland. 3t Fule, Ae is re"orn to the 7oddess, and the Wheel turns round
01
again.
87 T&e O!% K("0 !"* t&e Hoy K("0:
he /ak King and the Aolly King are t!o aspects of the 7od (( the /ak King ruling the
!a&ing year %Fule to ,idsummer' and the Aolly King ruling the !aning year
%,idsummer to Fule'. $anet and *te!art -arrar ela"orate on this theme6
hey are the light and dark t!ins, each the other.s .other self., eternal rivals
eternally conCuering and succeeding each other. hey compete eternally
for the favour of the 7reat ,other... .Light and dark. do not mean .good
and evil.H they mean the e&pansive and contractive phases of the yearly
cycle, each as necessary as the other. -rom the creative tension "et!een
the t!o of them, and "et!een them on the one hand and the 7oddess on
the other, life is generated %0<'.
97 T&e Go**e'' L(+e Cy$e:
Dianic Wiccans, all(female groups that focus primarily, or sometimes e&clusively on the
7oddess, see the Wheel of the Fear in terms of Aer life cycle. In this interpretation, the
7oddess is "orn at Fule %Winter *olstice', gro!s and "ecomes a young maiden in the
spring, gro!s into a "ountiful 8arth mother in the summer, and a !ise crone in the fall,
sometimes seen as dying at *amhain and again "eing re"orn at Fule.
he first model, of the 7od.s Life cycle, is heavily influenced "y -ra2er.s model of the
Dying and @ising 7od. 3fter summari2ing the myth of the Dying and @ising 7od,
*tarha!k ackno!ledges her de"t to -ra2er %The Spiral Dance <:'. -ra2er also influenced
those !orks !hich !ere important in the %re'formation and early history of
>eopaganism, such as anthropologist ,argaret ,urray.s The Witch()ult in Western
*urope %16;' and author @o"ert 7raves.s The White Goddess %0<0'. -ra2er also !as a
0D
strong influence on poet William =utler Feats %Lickery 119(0:0', !ho !as a mem"er of
the Aermetic /rder of the 7olden Da!n, a late nineteenth(century occult society !hich
influenced much of the early >eopagan movement.
,oreover, >eopagans dra! on various sources %including -ra2er and those influenced
"y him' for their o!n ritual construction6
3dler %19D6', /rion %199;', and 9arpenter and -o& %199:' have sho!n
that >eo(Pagans read more !idely than the general population, and my
research "ears this out. ,ost have e&tensive collections of "ooks, "oth
>eo(Pagan and academic, on various aspects of history, religion, folklore,
and anthropologyH often the first step in ritual construction is reading...
7enerally, individuals do not limit themselves to a single sourceH most rely
on many. 3 fe! nota"le !orks my informants mentioned include... @o"ert
7raves.s The White Goddess, -ra2er.s The Golden Bough %,agliocco
1;6'.
7raves takes -ra2er.s Dying and @ising 7od and splits him into the /ak and Aolly Kings
%7raves 116(1D1'. *ome >eopagans, such as the -arrars, have dra!n on this tradition to
e&plain the Wheel of the Fear, as noted a"ove. he tradition of the Wheel of the Fear as
part of the 7oddess. life cycle may "e seen as a feminist version of -ra2er.s Dying and
@ising 7od, su"stituting goddesses such as Inanna, Ishtar, and Persephone for -ra2er.s
trio of 3donis, 3ttis, and /siris. In some cases this model has evolved so that the
7oddess is never seen as never dying, "ut nonetheless is re"orn every year, as in the
e&planation a"ove.
3s !e have seen in 9hapter III, -ra2er.s methods, and therefore his theories and
conclusions have "een roundly critici2ed "y the scholarly community. Ao!ever, this does
not mean that his metamyth is not valid for >eopagans6
/f course, material !hich inspires >eo(Pagans is often not that !hich
inspires academics, and some of the sources informants cited are no!
looked upon askance in academia. Ao!ever, most >eo(Pagans are not
interested in the academic validity of their sources, "ut in their emotional,
09
intuitive validityH thus academic #udgments do not affect their choices
%,agliocco 1;6'.
=ecause >eopagans vie! their myths as metaphors, they do not concern themselves
a"out the origins or so(called +validity+ of these myths. Instead they concern themselves
!ith !hat their myths reveal a"out their e&perience of the sacred. In all three of these
models, the myth reveals the >eopagan e&perience of the sacred in nature. We have
already seen in 9hapter II that for >eopagans, the divine is immanent, that is, nature is
seen as sacred. his sacrality is demonstrated through the cycles of "irth, gro!th, decline,
death, and re"irth. hough each of these models employs a different metaphor to relate
this sacred mystery, this sacred cycle is the common thread that runs through them all.
>eopagans also see themselves and their o!n lives as part of the cycles of nature, so the
myth of the Dying and @ising 7od also presents a model for "elief in reincarnation. 3s
such, this myth mediates the opposition of life and death %as L)vi(*trauss !ould
emphasi2e' and relates human lives to these sacred cycles as !ell.
:;
CHAPTER ,I
T&e Co"'tr#$t(o" !"* De$o"'tr#$t(o" o+ C#t#r! ,!#e'
>o! !e address a secondary function of myth, !hich !e identified in 9hapter I, the
construction and deconstruction of cultural values. Aere I am attempting to sho! that the
>eopagan interpretation of -ra2er.s metamyth is postmodern in nature, and therefore
ironically deconstructs the modernist cultural values that he espoused.

Fr!6er !' ! Mo*er"('t
/ur first step is to define modernism. David 7riffin defines modernism as the atheistic
and materialistic +!orldvie! that has developed out of the seventeenth(century 7alilean(
9artesian(=aconian(>e!tonian science+ %&ii'. his mechanistic vie! of nature leads to
the dualistic vie! that the self is separate from the rest of creation. 7riffin further
e&plains some other implications of this !orldvie!6
3 central feature of this materialism is its complete ontological
reductionism. 3ll +!holes+ are assumed to "e reduci"le, at least in
principle, to their tiniest parts... he resulting dogma is that everything
that happens in the !orld is in principle e&plaina"le in terms of one or
more of the four forces recogni2ed "y physics... -rom such a perspective,
the idea that the human mind has po!er of its o!n "eyond that of the
"rain, po!er !ith !hich it can directly perceive and act on things "eyond
the "ody, can scarcely "e entertained... 3ccordingly, the mechanical
philosophy.s implication that events not understanda"le in terms of action
"y contact cannot happen naturally came to mean that they cannot happen
at all %00(0:'.
-ra2er.s theory of magic "ears out his modernist !orldvie!. -ra2er adopts Aume.s
tripartite epistemology, of the association of ideas. Aume, in his 11:9 !ork " Treatise of
Human %ature, theori2ed that humans associate ideas in three fundamental !ays6 "y
:1
resem"lance, "y contiguity, and "y cause and effect %Aume 11'. -ra2er, in applying this
scheme to ideas of magic and science, validates science "ecause it is "ased on the
causality principle, and discredits magic "ecause it is "ased on the +false+ principles of
resem"lance and contiguity.
It 4magic5 is a false science... If my analysis of the magician.s logic is
correct, its t!o great principles turn out to "e merely t!o different
misapplications of the association of ideas. Aomeopathic magic is founded
on the association of ideas "y similarity6 contagious magic is founded in
the association of ideas "y contiguity. Aomeopathic magic commits the
mistake of assuming that things !hich resem"le each other are the same6
contagious magic commits the mistake of assuming that things !hich have
once "een in contact !ith each other are al!ays in contact %1:'.
Aere !e can see that -ra2er.s su"scri"es to modernist materialistic scientific paradigms.
-ra2er also emphasi2es the evolution of thought from magic through religion to modern
science %D0<(D0B', as !as noted in 9hapter III. -or -ra2er, science is the culmination of
the history of human thought, and has completely replaced the need for magic and
religion, !hich, according to his intellectualist theory, are simply false e&planations of
the !orld.
Neo.!0!"(') !' Po't)o*er"('t
he movement kno!n as postmodernism seemingly defies definition. he "est
definition is the attempt to go "eyond modernism due to its failures. ,odernist dualism,
atheism, and materialism are seen as such failures. he current environmental pro"lems
of the planet are seen "y >eopagans as one symptom of these failures.
7riffin advocates a constructive postmodernism %as opposed to the +deconstructive
postmodernism+ of Derrida and other philosophers', "uilt from a +creative synthesis of
modern and premodern truths and values+ %&iii'.
:0
>eopaganism is one such synthesis. In attempting to revive the religions of their
premodern ancestors in a modern conte&t, >eopagans have created a truly postmodern
religion. >eopaganism retains modern ideas of individualism and individual freedom.
his is evidenced "y their vie!s on religious freedom, and ethics. 3s a result of their
pluralistic !orldvie!, >eopagans do not proselyti2e. >eopagans "elieve that all persons
have their o!n individual spiritual paths, and therefore everyone should have the freedom
to !orship and "elieve as they choose, so long as it does not harm others. his is in
keeping !ith their individualistic ethical standard, kno!n as the Wiccan @ede, !hich
states, +3n it harm none, do !hat ye !ill.+
In a very simplistic interpretation, >eopagan ethics may "e seen as an attempt to
"alance the modern value of self(interest %!hat ye !ill' !ith the premodern value of the
needs of the greater !hole (( !hich also includes the self %harm none'. /f course, !hat
constitutes +harm+ is a source of great importance and de"ate to >eopagans. here is no
universally agreed upon standard, for as !as noted in 9hapter II, >eopaganism is
decentrali2ed. 8thical choices are left to individuals and their consciences. Ao!ever,
most >eopagan traditions offer training and guidance in ethical matters.
>eopagan ethics are also grounded in a holistic principle kno!n as the hreefold La!.
his principle states that "ecause everything is connected, !hatever you send out returns
to you threefold. *imply put, this is the old adage that you reap !hat you so!. If a
>eopagan does magick for good, then good !ill come to them %three times over'.
Ao!ever, if they do magick for harm, harm !ill come to them %three times over'. his
"elief is similar to the 8astern concept of karma, e&cept that >eopagans generally "elieve
that this karma does not carry over from life to life.
::
Wiccan Aigh Priestess Phyllis 9urrot descri"es a different !ay of looking at of
>eopagan ethics "ased on the idea of pantheism, +It comes from the idea that everything
that e&ists, at least in the natural !orld, is an em"odiment of the sacred. *o it.s to "e
treated as sacred (( !ith respect and care+ %D:'.
3s !as noted in 9hapter II, >eopagans also generally har"or very positive attitudes
to!ards science and technology. 3lthough the careers of >eopagans !idely vary, many
!ork in scientific and technical fields and the most common careers are computer
programmer, systems analyst or soft!are developer %3dler :D<(:DD'. Lady 9y"ele said6
I.m all for technology, as long as it doesn.t destroy the earth in the process.
I.m very happy !ith technological advances. I.m very happy to hop in my
car and drive t!o hundred miles to see Pagan friends... =esides, modern
conveniences have eliminated a lot of drudgery. ,odern technology has
freed up time so people can develop philosophical pursuits %3dler :90'.
he common vie! is that technology is not inherently "ad, "ut that it can "e used to help
or to harm, and can even have unintended conseCuences, especially for nature.
>eopagans have the responsi"ility to try to make sure that their technology, like their
magick, does no harm. his may mean reducing their personal use of such technology,
promoting alternative technologies, or lo""ying against the misuse of technology "y
others.
Ao!ever, >eopaganism also opposes many of the central philosophies of modernism.
*pecifically, the >eopagan concept of holism, discussed in 9hapter II, directly challenges
the dualism of modernist thought. >eopagans do not vie! themselves as separate from
the rest of nature, nor do they vie! nature as simply reduci"le to the sum of its parts. his
holism, is of course, a metaphysical "elief, as is the dualism of modernist thought. his
holistic !orldvie! flo!s from their nature("ased theology, including the myth of the
:<
Dying and @ising 7od. 3s !e discussed in 9hapter L, >eopagans recogni2e the myth of
the Dying and @ising 7od as part of a metaphorical language "y !hich they may relate
the e&perience of the divine in the cycles of nature. his myth correlates the cycles of
"irth, gro!th, death, and re"irth in nature6 in the sun, in the grain, in the fruits, in the
animals, in the seasons, and in humans. In doing so, the myth of the Dying and @ising
7od sho!s the interconnection "et!een all forms of life %i.e., holism' (( that they all
partake in the cycles of nature and in the divinity that is immanent in nature. his is not a
tautologous statement, "ecause it directly opposes the modernist dualistic "elief that
humans are separate from nature and not dependent upon it.
his interconnection of all things through their divine energy is the "asis for the
>eopagan "elief in magic. >eopagans claim to use the divine energy inherent in nature to
perform magic, that is, to cause changes to occur in conformity !ith their !ill
9
.
>eopagans "elieve in the po!er of the mind, !ith the help of the divine energy, to act on
things "eyond the "ody. hey thus re#ect the modern mechanistic vie! of nature. -or
>eopagans, the four forces of physics %at least as they are currently understood "y
science' form an incomplete vie! of causality. 3s =one!its says, +he science and art of
magic deals !ith a "ody of kno!ledge that, for one reason or another, has not yet "een
fully investigated or confirmed "y the other arts and sciences+ %#eal Magic ::'.
hus the >eopagan !orldvie! presents a challenge to -ra2er.s vie! of magic as false
science6 it instead vie!s magic as an art and science that is not yet understood. 3gain,
this is a "elief is "ased in metaphysics. -or >eopagans, science has not erased the need
for magic and religion, for it still cannot e&plain these phenomena. -or >eopagans, magic
9 his is the definition of magic used "y the infamous early t!entieth century magician 3leister 9ro!ley
%&ii'.
:B
fulfills the postmodern need for a re(enchantment of nature and a re(connection of the
self and other6
he contemporary resurgence of magic... can "e seen as a postmodern
response to the disenchanted and depersonali2ed !orldvie! of modernity.
Locating the source of the crisis !ithin the 9artesian vision of a radical
separation "et!een self and !orld, humans and nature, conscious and
unconscious, the resurgent magical tradition is thus a response to the
present ecological crisis. In contrast to the 9artesian self(other dis#unction,
an e&plicitly postmodern imaginalGmagical pra&is affirms the ceaseless
interplay "et!een +self+ and +other...+ he contemporary resurgence of
magical religion can "e seen, then, as an attempt to enrich the +psychic
ecology+ of contemporary culture "y remythici2ing and re(+storying+ our
!orld and the living "eings that make it up. %Ivakhiv 0BB(0B6'.
While >eopaganism can "e seen as a response to the environmental crisis, this is only a
symptom of the larger philosophical pro"lems of modernism. >eopaganism !ishes to
challenge the 9artesian dualism !ith a holistic !orldvie!. he myth of the Dying and
@ising 7od helps to deconstruct the modern value of dualism and construct the
postmodern value of holism for >eopagans, and the practice of magic reinforces this
holistic !orldvie!.
Co"$#'(o"
3s !e have sho!n, -ra2er.s metamyth of the Dying and @ising 7od has "een adopted
"y >eopagans to challenge the modernist !orldvie! that he espoused in The Golden
Bough. Literary critic Lionel rilling, noted in 1966 ho! -ra2er.s !ork !as "eing used to
support premodern !orldvie!s6
*cientific though his purpose !as, -ra2er had the effect of validating those
old modes of e&periencing the !orld !hich modern men, "eginning !ith
the @omantics, have sought to revive in order to escape from positivism
and common sense %11'.
Ao!ever, >eopagans do not see themselves as trying to escape common sense. Instead
:6
they use this myth to deconstruct the modern values of dualism, atheism, and materialism
and to construct postmodern cultural values of holism, immanent divinity, and magical
practice. In doing so, they are trying to overcome the failures of modernism and live in
accordance !ith the common sense they find in nature.
:1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
3dler, ,argot. Dra!ing Do!n the Moon. =oston6 =eacon Press. 19D6.
3m"er K. )o'encraft+ Witchcraft for Three or More. *t. Paul6 Lle!ellyn Pu"lications.
199D.
=one!its, Isaac. #eal Magic. Fork =each, ,86 *amuel Weiser, Inc. 19D9.
=one!its, Isaac. +What >eopagans =elieve, or >eopagan Polytheology 1;1.+ Pu"lished
on the World Wide We" at http6GG!!!.neopagan.netG>eopagans=elieve.A,L. 1999.
9ampanelli, Pauline. "ncient Ways+ #eclaiming agan Traditions. *t. Paul6 Lle!ellyn
Pu"lications. 1991.
9amp"ell, $oseph. The Hero With " Thousand Faces. =ollingen *eries JLII. Princeton6
Princeton Eniversity Press. 19<9.
9amp"ell, $oseph. The o!er of Myth. 8d. =etty *ue -lo!ers. >e! Fork6 Dou"leday.
19DD.
9arpenter, Dennis. +8mergent >ature *pirituality6 3n 8&amination of the ,a#or *piritual
9ontours of the 9ontemporary Pagan Worldvie!.+ Magical #eligion and Modern
Witchcraft. 8d. $ames @. Le!is. 3l"any6 *E>F Press. 1996. :B(10
9homsky, >oam. Syntactic Structures. he Aague6 ,outon O 9o. 19B1.
9ro!ley, 3leister. Magick in Theory and ractice. >e! Fork6 9astle =ooks.
9urrot, Phyllis. Book of Shado!s. >e! Fork6 =road!ay =ooks. 199D.
Dalley, *tephanie, rans. Myths From Mesopotamia. >e! Fork6 /&ford Eniversity Press.
19D9.
Dudley, 7uilford. #eligion on Trial+ Mircea *liade and His )ritics. Philadelphia6 emple
Eniversity Press. 1911.
8liade, ,ircea. The Sacred and the rofane. rans. Willard rask. >e! Fork6 Aarvest.
19B1.
-arrar, $anet and -arrar, *te!art. " Witches Bi&le+ The )omplete Witches' Hand&ook.
9uster, W36 Phoeni& Pu"lishing. 1996.
-ortune, Dion. The Goat Foot God. London6 3Cuarian Press. 19:D.
-o&, *elena. +I 3m a Pagan.+ )ircle Guide to agan Groups. 8d. 9ircle *taff. ,t. Aore",
:D
WI6 9ircle. 199;.
-raser, @o"ert. The Making of The Golden Bough. >e! Fork6 *t. ,artin.s Press. 199;.
-ra2er, $ames. The Golden Bough. /ne Lolume 3"ridged 8dition. >e! Fork6 9ollier
=ooks. 1900.
7raves, @o"ert. The White Goddess. >e! Fork6 he >oonday Press. 19<D.
7riffin, David. arapsychology, hilosophy, and Spirituality+ " ostmodern *$ploration.
3l"any6 *E>F Press. 1991.
Aume, David. " Treatise of Human %ature. 8d. L.3. *el"y(=igge. *econd 8dition. >e!
Fork6 /&ford Eniversity Press. 191D.
Ivakhiv, 3drian. +he @esurgence of ,agical @eligion as a @esponse to the 9risis of
,odernity6 3 Postmodern Depth Psychology Perspective.+ Magical #eligion and Modern
Witchcraft. 8d. $ames @. Le!is. 3l"any6 *E>F Press. 1996. 0:1(06B.
Lakoff, 7eorge and ,ark $ohnson. Metaphors We Li'e By. 9hicago6 Eniversity of
9hicago Press. 19D;.
Leach, 8dmund. +7olden =ough or 7ilded !igI+ Daedalus. Lol. 9;. 1961. :11(:D1.
L)vi(*trauss, 9laude. +he *tructural *tudy of ,yth.+ Structural "nthropology. rans.
9laire $aco"son and =rooke 7rundfest *choepf. >e! Fork6 =asic =ooks. 1916. 0;6(0:1.
L)vi(*trauss, 9laude. +he *tory of 3sdi!al.+ Structural "nthropology --. rans.
,oniCue Layton. 9hicago6 Eniversity of 9hicago Press. 1916. 1<6(191.
L)vi(*trauss, 9laude. +@)ponses a CuelCues Cuestions.+ *sprit. Lol. :1. 196:. 60D(6B:.
Lovelock, $ames. Gaia+ " %e! Look at Life on *arth. >e! Fork6 /&ford Eniversity
Press. 1919.
,agliocco, *a"ina. +@itual is ,y 9hose 3rt -orm6 he 9reation of @itual as -olk 3rt
3mong 9ontemporary Pagans.+ Magical #eligion and Modern Witchcraft. 8d. $ames @.
Le!is. 3l"any6 *E>F Press. 1996. 9:(119.
,urray, ,argaret. The Witch )ult in Western *urope. /&ford6 9larendon Press. 1901.
Patton, Laurie and Doniger, Wendy, 8ds. Myth and Method. 9harlottesville6 Eniversity
Press of Lirginia. 1996.
Plutarch +Isis and /siris.+ lutarch's Li'es. Lol. B. rans. =ernadotte Perrin. 9am"ridge,
,ass.6 Aarvard Eniversity Press, 19B1. :1(<B.
:9
*tarha!k. Dreaming the Dark+ Magic, Se$, and olitics. =oston6 =eacon Press. 19D0.
*tarha!k. The Spiral Dance. *an -rancisco6 Aarper and @o!. 19D9.
*tark, @odney. The #ise of )hristianity. *an -rancisco6 Aarper*an-rancisco. 1991.
*!eetser, 8ve. From *tymology to ragmatics. 9am"ridge *tudies in Linguistics. >e!
Fork6 9am"ridge Eniversity Press. 199;.
rilling, Lionel. Beyond )ulture. London6 *ecker and War"urg. 1966.
ylor, 8d!ard =. rimiti'e )ulture. *eventh 8dition. >e! Fork6 =rentano.s Pu"lishers.
190<.
Lickery, $ohn. The Literary -mpact of the Golden Bough. Princeton6 Princeton Eniversity
Press. 191:.
Wood!ard, Kenneth !ith Lorraine Kisly. +,other 8arth.+ %e!s!eek. ,arch 1;, 191B.
<9.
?iolko!ski, 8ric. +*ancho Pan2a and >emi.s Priest6 @eflections on the @elationship of
Literature and ,yth.+ Myth and Method. 8ds. Laurie L. Patton and Wendy Doniger.
9harlottesville6 Eniversity Press of Lirginia. 1996. 0<1(099.
<;