PLUCKING THE GOLDEN BOUGH:

JAMES FRAZER'S METAMYTH IN MODERN NEOPAGANISM

By

Robert Nolan Puckett

Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of the

Graduate School of Vanderbilt University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in

Religion

August, 1999

Nashville, Tennessee

1

CHAPTER I

The Metamyth

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.

The study of myth has involved the recasting and reinterpreting of narratives in such a way that scholars of myth cannot avoid becoming mythmakers themselves, deeply implicated in the narrative project, and not by any means the outsiders they may present themselves to be. Just as there is no telling of a myth (even in the context of theory) that does not change the narrative -- whether it be through media, context, content, or a combination of the three (6).

Just as Lévi-Strauss remarked in "The Structural Study of Myth" that Freud's theory

regarding the Oedipus myth constituted an actual version of the myth (217), Doniger and

Patton hypothesize that mythical theory becomes myth itself, that is, it becomes a

"metamyth." Although Doniger and Patton use this term repeatedly, they never offer a

definition, however they do note that "like the tellers of myths themselves, the makers of

theories of myths [i.e., "metamyths"] construct and deconstruct cultural values" (6).

A working definition of a "metamyth" then might be: a theory about myth which

retells a mythic narrative in such a way that it recasts or reinterprets the narrative, and

thus creates a new version of the myth, which may then function as a myth, and be used

to construct or deconstruct cultural values.

Given this definition, it seems that large-scale comparative theories of myth (such as

the those of Mircea Eliade, Carl Jung, Claude Lévi-Strauss, or James Frazer) are likely to

have more influence as metamyths than other theories, because they retell many myths

and reinterpret them by attempting to fit them all into a single mythic scheme. In doing

so, they not only create a new version of each myth (a mini-metamyth), but also a larger

2

over-arching metamyth (or what Joseph Campbell, taking a term from James Joyce's

Finnegan's Wake, refers to as a "monomyth" (The Hero With a Thousand Faces 30)).

While the mini-metamyths may be of interest to structuralists or folklorists who take into

account every version in examining a given myth, it is the larger metamyths that have

more impact in constructing and deconstructing cultural values.

Patton and Doniger argue that we should study these metamyths as we would other

myths, placing them in their political and intellectual contexts, and examining their

impacts upon culture. While Patton argues that scholars are bound to consider the effects

of their metamyth-making (391), I will attempt to illustrate that one metamyth in

particular has had unintended and undesired effects, constructing and deconstructing

cultural values in unexpected ways. This process is most likely due to the mass

dissemination of these theories, as Patton notes (294). Because these metamyths are

widely accessible in the twentieth century, many different interpretations may be placed

upon the text, 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 when she says,

If Frazer's The Golden Bough has attained the status of a myth itself, then mythologists might examine its impact upon the twentieth-century culture in the same way that one traced the trail of the priest of Nemi (394).

While I do not intend to write a twelve-volume treatise outlining the full effect of Frazer

on the twentieth-century1, I would like to consider The Golden Bough's impact upon one

specific twentieth-century religious movement, namely Neopaganism. I will attempt to

1 It would certainly take at least twelve volumes, for as Eric Ziolkowski notes, The Golden Bough was the primary stimulus for this century's obsession with myth (261). As an aside, all citations of The Golden Bough in this text will be from the 1922 one-volume abridged edition, as this is the version which had the widest circulation, and which you are most likely to find on the bookshelves of modern Neopagans.

3

show how Frazer constructed the metamyth of the Dying and Rising God, and how

Frazer's theory about the Dying and Rising God acts as a metamyth in modern

Neopaganism, and how this metamyth ironically undermines the modernist metamyth

that Frazer espoused.

4

CHAPTER II

What is Neopaganism?

The Latin word paganus was applied by the Romans to describe the provincial

peoples of the Empire. Roughly translated, it meant those who lived in the country. It was

later applied by the early Christians to refer to those "uncivilized people" who still

worshipped the pre-Christian deities. There was no doubt a connection made between

those who lived in the country and those who did not accept this new religion, for early

Christianity was primarily an urban phenomenon (Stark 1997). Contrary to this, the

religions of the non-Christianizing peoples of the Empire were primarily rural in nature,

being concerned largely with issues of nature and fertility. The gods of these religions

were perceived as immanent in nature. In addition, the Roman army used the word

paganus to refer to civilians, and this etymology was adopted by Christians who applied

it to all who were not enrolled in the "army of God." Judaism and Islam also were

excepted from the label "Pagan" because of their monotheistic affinity to Christianity.

Therefore a tentative definition of "Paganism" (both ancient and modern) might be "a

group of non-Abrahamic religious traditions which see divinity as immanent in Nature,

and who direct their worship toward immanent divinity instead of to a transcendent

deity."

The Neopagan2 movement is attempting to revive and re-create the pre-Christian

polytheistic nature religions of Europe and the Mediterranean basin. However, this

process of revival and re-creation is radically decentralized: there is no Neopagan

2 A note on terminology: while "Neopagan" refers specifically to the modern revival of ancient pre-Christian religions, "Pagan" is used to describe both the archaic religions as well as their modern descendants. I will use the term "Neopagan" in this text for the sake of consistency, although most Neopagans refer to themselves simply as "Pagan," thus not acknowledging that there is any break between their religion and that of their pre-Christian ancestors.

5

Church, no central authority figure(s), nor any sacred text which unites the entire

community. Neopaganism is made up of a diverse set of religious traditions, including

Wicca (Neopagan Witchcraft, the largest and most influential Neopagan tradition today),

Druidism (reconstructions of Celtic Pagan traditions), Heathenism (reconstructions of

Norse Pagan traditions, also known as Asatru and Odinism), Neoshamanism (culturally

specific or non-specific shamanic techniques), and the Church of All Worlds (a Neopagan

tradition based in part on the science fiction classic Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert

Heinlein). Thus to actually speak of a "Neopagan worldview" or "Neopagan theology" is

difficult. Instead, here I must describe a set of beliefs and practices which, while not

universally held by those calling themselves "Neopagan," are common to most traditions.

As a starting point, I would like to elaborate on Neopagans' relation to nature, and to their

relation to their gods through nature, as this is pertinent to the understanding of how

Frazer's metamyth has influenced Neopaganism.

According to Neopagan theology, all power in the universe flows from the gods.

However, these are not transcendent beings, whose power is not reachable or

comprehendible. For Neopagans, the gods, and thus this power, are manifest in this

world. To Neopagans, the divine is immanent. Starhawk, who is one of the pre-eminent

Neopagan theologians of the past two decades, defines immanence as "the awareness of

the world and everything in it as alive, dynamic, interdependent, interacting, and infused

with moving energies: a living being, a weaving dance" (Dreaming the Dark 9).

Neopagans believe that they use these energies in their religious ritual and magical

practice3. However, these energies are not conceived of as "supernatural," but as flowing

3 "Magic" is loosely defined by Neopagans as the use of these perceived natural divine energies towards specific goals. It is often spelled "magick" by many Neopagans to distinguish it from stage illusion.

6

from the natural immanence of divinity in the world.

Here I shall also take the time to briefly discuss the differing views on the nature of

divinity in the Neopagan community. Some Neopagan groups are polytheistic, insisting

that there are a number of deities who manifest themselves in the world in various ways.

Others (especially practitioners of Wicca) are duotheistic, insisting that there are only the

God and the Goddess, who manifest themselves in various aspects: as Dion Fortune

proclaims in her novel The Goat Foot God: "All the gods are one god and all the

goddesses are one goddess" (381). Other Neopagans are ultimately monistic: "the God

and the Goddess are one," or "the Goddess includes the male in her aspects."

Those traditions that are more polytheistic emphasize the complexity of existence and

espouse a more pluralistic worldview. The duotheistic interpretation, on the other hand,

leads not to dualism, but to an emphasis on balance. Neopagans attempt to achieve

balance in their lives: balance of masculine and feminine, outer and inner worlds, reason

and intuition, etc. These pairs of opposites are not seen as contradictory, rather as

complementary: reflecting a divine polarity in the "Creative Power of the Universe," as it

is theistically manifested in the God and Goddess -- the male and female divine

principles. To achieve this balance of polarity is to live in harmony with nature and its

cycles, for this is also the balance of the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth.

The order of the universe, according to Neopagans, is not static, but ever-changing.

The Neopagan worldview concentrates heavily on the natural cycles of birth, growth,

decline, death, and rebirth. This order is seen in the phases of the moon, the daily journey

of the sun, the agricultural cycle, and the progression of the seasons, also known as the

Wheel of the Year. This wheel is described as having eight spokes, because most

7

Neopagans celebrate eight seasonal festivals, or Sabbats. These are the summer and

winter solstices and spring and fall equinoxes, as well as the Celtic cross-quarter days of

Imbolc (February 2), Beltane (May 1), Lammas (August 1), and Samhain (October 31).

This cyclical pattern is the prima facie conception of universal order for Neopagans.

This order is cyclical and not linear, and is constantly changing and never static. Many

Neopagans subscribe to the belief in reincarnation as part of this cyclical worldview. Just

as the sun is reborn at dawn, just the new moon emerges after the three nights of

darkness, just as spring comes after winter, so Neopagans believe that they will be reborn

into a new life after this one is complete.

The fundamental basis of Neopagan theology is pantheism, the belief that divinity is

immanent within the world and within human beings, and thus everything that exists is

sacred. In Neopagan theology, there is no Fall of humanity: God and man are not separate

from nature. Man is not granted dominion over nature (Genesis 1:28), and the earth is not

cursed by God (Genesis 3:17), but instead humans are part of nature, and nature is

God/dess. For Neopagans, the divine is immanent, and everything that is alive, i.e.,

everything that is, in all its diversity, shares in this divine immanence. Thus, everything is

sacred; everything in nature is a part of the immanent divine presence of the gods. Nature

is enchanted. The gods are everywhere, in everything and everyone. From this idea

comes the ritual saying, "Thou art God" or "Thou are Goddess." However, the concept of

pantheism is not quite as simplistic as it may sound. Joseph Campbell explains:

To say that divinity informs the world and all things is condemned as pantheism. But pantheism is a misleading word. It suggests that a personal god is supposed to inhabit the world, but that is not the idea at all. The idea is trans-theological. It is of an undefinable, inconceivable mystery, thought of as a power, that is the source and end and supporting ground of all life and being (The Power of Myth 31).

8

For Neopagans, this mystery and this power are represented by the gods.

As a result of this pantheistic philosophy, pagans are often animistic as well.

Animism is a word coined by nineteenth century anthropologist E.B. Tylor, referring to

the so-called "primitive" belief in living, personal powers in all things (Tylor 425-428).

For many Neopagans, nature is imbued with these living, personal powers. Trees, rocks,

animals, plants, bodies of water, as well as human beings, are seen as imbued with a life

force as well as a consciousness. For Neopagans, all things are infused with the divinity

of the gods.

Also flowing from pantheism is the central tenet of all Neopagan theology: holism --

that everything is interconnected. Starhawk states, "Interconnection is the understanding

that we are linked with all of the cosmos as parts of one living organism" (The Spiral

Dance 10). Selena Fox, founder of the Circle Sanctuary, describes the Neopagan concept

of holism:

I am a Pagan. I am part of the whole of Nature. The Rocks, the Animals, the Plants, the Elements, and the Stars are my relatives. Other humans are my sisters and brothers, whatever their races, colors, genders, ages, nationalities, religions, lifestyles. The Earth is my Mother and the Sun is my Father. I am part of this large family of Nature, not master of it (Fox 44).

According to Neopagans, we are part of a greater whole, which encompasses the entire

planet. This philosophy also underlies James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis:

The entire range of living matter on Earth from whales to viruses and from oaks to algae could be regarded as constituting a single living entity capable of maintaining the Earth's atmosphere to suit its overall needs and endowed with faculties and powers far beyond those of its constituent parts... [Gaia can be defined] as a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback of cybernetic systems which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet (Lovelock 9-11).

9

Lovelock even went as far as to say that "in man, Gaia has the equivalent of a central

nervous system" (Woodward 49). Because Neopagans believe this, they "recognize that

our [humans, not just pagans] intelligence gives us a unique responsibility toward our

environment" (Council of American Witches, "Principles of Wiccan Belief," as quoted in

Adler 101-102). Neopagans realize that we all depend upon the earth, no matter how

isolated from it we may be. Because their theology is this-worldly, in Weber's terms,

Neopagans realize that the earth is their home, and that they are not just "passing

through" on their way to a "better place." A popular Neopagan chant sings, "The Earth is

our Mother, we must take care of her."

"And the balance of the Wheel goes round and round, and the balance of the Wheel

goes round," sings another Neopagan chant. The Wheel, or the circle, is the Neopagan

symbol for this greater whole. Neopagans worship within a sacred space shaped as a

circle, which, in addition to serving as a sacred space, is also symbolic of this unity and

the interconnectedness of all things within it: it is, to paraphrase Walt Disney: the Circle

of Life. The circle is usually conceived of as quartered, with the four directions

corresponding to the four elements of nature: Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. The center of

the circle is associated with a fifth element - Spirit, "which represents the unity, harmony,

and balance of the four directions, of the male and female aspects of the Divine, and of

the immanent/transcendent sacred whole" (Carpenter 62).

The sacred space of the magic circle is considered by Neopagans to be a place

"between the worlds," on the boundary between the ordinary mundane space and the

space of the divine. Here the ritual participants may communicate with both worlds. The

magic circle is truly a place of liminality, in Turner's terms.

10

The sacred space of the magic circle serves practical as well as symbolic purposes -- it

serves a protective function -- keeping out negative energies, as well as containing the

magical energies raised within it. Starhawk says "You cannot boil water without putting it

in a pot, and you can't raise power effectively unless it is also contained" (The Spiral

Dance 72). Furthermore, because Neopaganism does not (for the most part) have

institutional places of worship (such as church buildings), the Circle also serves another

function -- it is a portable temple which may be erected in any space, be it a public park

or a private living room. Sacred space can be created anywhere.

Moreover, the circle is also sacred because time itself is considered to be cyclical, not

linear, in the model of the Wheel of the Year. As Pauline Campanelli notes in her book

Ancient Ways, "The Wheel of the Year is in time what the Magick Circle is in space, and

both represent the Goddess and the eternal cycle of Birth, Death, and Rebirth" (46).

11

CHAPTER III

Frazer's Metamyth

Before we proceed we must look back at our definition of a metamyth. We defined a

metamyth as: a theory about myth which retells a mythic narrative in such a way that it

recasts or reinterprets the narrative, and thus creates a new version of the myth, which

may then function as a myth, and be used to construct or deconstruct cultural values.

Therefore to demonstrate how James Frazer's theories act as a metamyth for modern

Neopaganism, we must examine three components:

1) how Frazer retells ancient Pagan myths in such a way that he recasts or

reinterprets them, thus creating a new version of the myth (i.e., the metamyth),

2) how this metamyth functions as a myth for Neopagans, and

3) how this metamyth is used to construct and deconstruct cultural values.

First we must turn to Frazer's creation of the metamyth. What is the metamyth that

Frazer has contributed to Neopaganism? In Chapter XXIX of The Golden Bough, Frazer

outlines the myth of the Dying and Rising God. First we must examine how this myth fits

into Frazer's argument.

The riddle that Frazer was attempting to solve in The Golden Bough was the question

of the succession of the priesthood of Diana at Nemi. Citing Strabo, Frazer outlines the

rule for attaining this perilous office, "A candidate for the priesthood could only succeed

to office by slaying the priest, and having slain him, he retained office till he was himself

slain by a stronger or craftier" (Frazer 1). By comparing this ritual murder to customs

from around the world4, Frazer concludes that the priest of Diana at Nemi (referred to as

4 This comparative methodology is at the heart of Frazer's argument. Frazer's belief that similar rituals and customs are the result of similar beliefs allows him to ignore the particular cultural contexts of his

12

the Rex Nemorensis, or the "King of the Wood") was a "divine king." The divine king was

the archetype5 that Frazer deduced from his interpretation of cross-cultural customs of

actual or symbolic ritual regicide. According to Frazer, the divine king was a

representative of the Dying and Rising God, another archetypal construct which Frazer

devised from the myths of the Syrian Adonis (or Tammuz), the Phrygian Attis, and the

Egyptian Osiris. Frazer concludes that the King of the Wood was a representative of the

Roman god Virbius, the consort of Diana, and interprets Virbius as a Dying and Rising

God in the mould of Adonis, Attis, and Osiris.

In retelling the myths and explaining the rituals associated with Adonis, Attis, and

Osiris, Frazer reinterprets them within the context of his archetypal Dying and Rising

God, brushing aside their particular cultural contexts and their differences. Indeed, before

he even begins the chapters on these three deities, Frazer makes this statement:

Under the names of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, and Attis, the peoples of Egypt and Western Asia represented the yearly decay and revival of life, especially vegetable life, which they personified as a god who annually died and rose again from the dead. In name and detail the rites varied from place to place: in substance they were the same. The supposed death and resurrection of this oriental deity, a god of many names but of essentially one nature, is now to be examined (378).

evidence. Thus he may rely on analogies as evidence for his theories. Frazer has been sharply criticized for this methodology. Anthropologist Edmund Leach, in his article "Golden Bough or Gilded Twig?" says: In fact, of course, the "evidence" has no relevance whatsoever; it is quite possible that the ancient rites of Nemi were such as Frazer suggests; it is equally possible that they were something entirely different; the "analogies" from other parts of the world have no bearing on the matter. Politicians can argue in this fashion, but not professional scholars (379). 5 The word "archetype" here, is used not in the Jungian sense, but more in the Eliadean sense of a certain pattern of religious phenomena that may be discerned cross-culturally. Frazer's archetypes are formed from his comparative method and his use of analogies. There is no relationship of this "archetype" to any collective unconscious. However, neither is it dependent on the diffusion of religious ideas. Before attempting to fit the Greek god Dionysus into his archetypal Dying and Rising God pattern, Frazer says: We need not, with some enquirers in ancient and modern times, suppose that these Western peoples borrowed from the older civilisation of the Orient the conception of the Dying and Reviving God, together with the solemn ritual, in which that conception was dramatically set forth before the eyes of worshippers. More probably the resemblance which may be traced in this respect between the religions of the East and West is no more than what we 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 (448).

13

Already we see here that Frazer regards these three gods as of "essentially one nature" --

that of the Dying and Rising God. So what was the nature of Frazer's Dying and Rising

God? Simply put, he was a god of vegetation, who died and rose according to seasonal

changes which affected the life of the plants on which humans depended. Frazer begins

his outline of this myth by describing how natural cycles inspired "primitive" humans to

create the myth of the Dying and Rising God:

The spectacle of the great changes that annually pass over the face of the earth has powerfully impressed the minds of men in all ages, and stirred them to meditate on the causes of transformations so vast and wonderful. Their curiosity has not been purely disinterested; for even the savage cannot fail to perceive how intimately his own life is bound up with the life of nature, and how the same processes which freeze the stream and strip the earth of vegetation menace him with extinction (376-377).

Frazer argues that this cycle leads to a magical theory -- that humans could control the

progression of the seasons and the fertility of the earth. However, Frazer argues an

evolution from magic to religion (and ultimately from religion to science). At this point,

humans realized that they had no control over these natural phenomena. Instead,

They now pictured to themselves the growth and decay of vegetation, the birth and death of beings, of gods and goddesses, who were born and died, who married and begot children, on the pattern of human life. Thus the old magical theory of the seasons was displaced, or rather supplemented, by a religious theory. For although men now attributes the annual cycle of change primarily to corresponding changes in their deities, they still thought that by performing such magical rites they could aid the god who was the principle of life, in his struggle with the opposing principle of death. They imagined that they could recruit his failing energies and even raise him from the dead. The ceremonies which they observed for this purpose were in substance a dramatic representation of the natural processes which they wished to facilitate; for it is a familiar tenet of magic that you can produce any desired effect by merely imitating it. And now they explained the fluctuations of growth and decay, of reproduction and dissolution, by the marriage, the death, and the rebirth or revival of the gods, their religious or rather magical dramas turned in great measure on these themes. They set forth the fruitful union of the powers of

14

fertility, the sad death of one at least of the divine partners, and his joyful resurrection (377-378).

However, Frazer's trio of Dying and Rising Gods do not all follow this pattern. In

Frazer's account of the myth of Tammuz, the god dies and his lover Ishtar descends into

the underworld to retrieve him. However, while Ishtar returns, Frazer can only speculate

that Tammuz returns with her:

The stern queen of the infernal regions, Allatu or Ereshkigal by name, reluctantly allowed Ishtar to be sprinkled with the Water of Life and to depart, in company probably with her lover Tammuz, that the two might return together to the upper world, and that with their return all nature might revive (Frazer 379).

In fact, Frazer has the plot of the story out of order. In Stephanie Dalley's 1989 translation

of the Akkadian cuneiform tablets, Ishtar decides of her own free will to journey to the

underworld. She gains entrance and is led through seven gates, where she is stripped of

all her clothing and accoutrements. She is brought before her sister Ereshkigal, the Queen

of the Underworld, and is killed. The other gods learn of her death and send a messenger

to rescue her by sprinkling her with the water of life. Ishtar is allowed to return to earth

on the condition that a substitute is provided -- her husband Tammuz. Tammuz' sister

mourns him, but there is no evidence of his resurrection (Dalley 154-160). According to

Dalley's introduction, there is evidence of the annual death and resurrection of the

Sumerian god Dumuzi (Tammuz' counterpart) in the Sumerian text (which was not

uncovered until 1963), but not in the Akkadian (154), which was Frazer's source. While it

is possible that the Babylonians did interpret this myth in a similar fashion to their

Sumerian predecessors, Frazer did not have the evidence to conclude this.

What Frazer did have, however, was the myth of Tammuz "mirrored in the glass of

Greek mythology" (Frazer 380) in the myth of Adonis, who spent half of the year in the

15

underworld with Persephone, and the other half on Olympus with Aphrodite. Here Frazer

has a legitimate Dying and Rising God in the myth, but when he discusses the ritual of

Adonis, Frazer relies on analogy to provide evidence for the resurrection of the god and

its link with the natural cycles of plants:

From the similarity of these customs to each other and to the spring and midsummer customs of modern Europe we should naturally expect that they all admit of a common explanation. Hence, if the explanation which I have adopted of the latter is correct, the ceremony of the death and resurrection of Adonis must also have been a dramatic representation of the decay and revival of plant life (391).

When Frazer turns to Attis, he has evidence for the resurrection of the god in the

Roman ritual, but not in the myth. According to Frazer's version of the myth, after Attis'

death, he is said to have been changed into a pine tree, not resurrected (404). However,

Frazer does state that in the ritual of the god, his resurrection was celebrated with a

carnival-type atmosphere on the vernal equinox, although this interpretation may be

questioned, as the language that Frazer employs is thoroughly Christian (Frazer 407).

In considering the myth of the Egyptian god Osiris, Frazer first retells Plutarch's

version of the myth. According to Plutarch, Osiris, the king of Egypt, civilized the

Egyptians and delivered them from their "destitute and brutish manner of living"

(Plutarch 13). He taught them arts and crafts, hunting, and most importantly, agriculture.

However, Osiris is killed at the hands of his brother Set. Set shut his brother up in a

sarcophagus, which he then floated down the Nile. Isis recovers the body of Osiris, and

Set then finds the body and dismembers it. Isis recovers all the pieces of the body, except

for the phallus, and erects shrines at the location of each. Osiris' son Horus then

challenges and defeats Set and becomes the new king of Egypt (Frazer 421-424).

Nowhere in Plutarch's account is Osiris resurrected. However, Frazer does supplement

16

Plutarch with native Egyptian accounts which state that after his death, Osiris is revived

and becomes Lord of the Dead (425). Again, this is not the prototypical "resurrection"

scenario of the metamythical "Dying and Rising God," because Osiris does not return

from the underworld to Isis.

Regardless of these differences, Frazer maintains that these gods are "of essentially

one nature," and thus in juxtaposing these three myths, he combines elements of all them

to create his metamyth of the Dying and Rising God. In doing so, he has created a new

version of each of these myths whereby Adonis, Attis, and Osiris all are considered to

have been resurrected, even though this is not stated explicitly in any of the primary

sources of these myths. Moreover, Frazer has also created an overarching metamythic

pattern into which he can now fit the Rex Nemorensis. We have seen already that he does

this by interpreting these Dying and Rising Gods as gods of vegetation, and more

specifically as gods of the primary food plants: corn and grains (even though he presents

very little evidence for the interpretation of Attis or Osiris as a grain god). He also

explains these gods as tree-spirits, which provides him with the link back to the grove of

Nemi and the Golden Bough.

17

CHAPTER IV

A Theoretical Interlude: The Function of the Myth

Our next goal is to describe how the myth of the Dying and Rising God functions as a

myth for Neopaganism. First we must examine what the function of myth is. There have

been numerous theories about the function of myth, and it is not necessary to re-examine

them all here. Instead, I will provide my own theory on this subject.

The starting point for my theory is structuralism, as it is outlined in is Lévi-Strauss'

famous 1955 article, "The Structural Study of Myth." Lévi-Strauss begins his argument

by noting that in myths, almost anything can happen. But this presents a problem, "if the

content of a myth is contingent, how are we going to explain the fact that myths

throughout the world are so similar?" (208).

Lévi-Strauss patterned his structural theory of myth on Ferdinand de Saussure's

theory of linguistics. Lévi-Strauss makes a comparison between the study of language

and the study of mythology. But, he says

To invite the mythologist to compare his precarious situation with that of the linguist in the prescientific stage is not enough. As a matter of fact we may thus be led only from one difficulty to another. There is a very good reason why myth cannot simply be treated as language if its specific problems are to be solved; myth is language: to be known, myth has to be told; it is a part of human speech (209).

But myth is a very special kind of language, which exhibits specific properties, which

are found "above the ordinary linguistic level, that is, they exhibit more complex features

than those which are to be found in any other kind of linguistic expression" (210). In our

examination of the function of myth, we must then consider the function of language. We

may agree that the function of language is the communication of information, ideas, and

18

thereby meaning. We then may ask how myth, on this higher linguistic level,

communicates its meanings (syntax), and what those meanings are (semantics). Lévi-

Strauss is primarily concerned with the syntax of myth, as we shall see.

Lévi-Strauss goes on to postulate that myths are made up of constituent units, just like

language, and that these "gross constituent units," or "mythemes" consist of a relation

(210-211). However, these mythemes are inadequate for use in a structural analysis, so he

argues that the true constituent units of a myth are not these isolated relations, but

bundles of such relations, and that it is only as bundles that these relations can be put to

use and combined to produce meaning (211).

Lévi-Strauss then delineates the structure of the chart he will use to analyze these

bundles of relations, "a two-dimensional time referent which is simultaneously diachronic

and synchronic" (212). He demonstrates this chart and his method with the Oedipus myth

(213-216). He explains the chart:

We thus find ourselves confronted with four vertical columns, each of which includes several relations belonging to the same bundle. Were we to tell the myth, we would disregard the columns and read the rows from left to right and from top to bottom. But if we want to understand the myth, then we will have to disregard one half of the diachronic dimension (top to bottom) and read from left to right, column after column, each one being considered as a unit (214).

It is via this method that Lévi-Strauss derives his algorithm of the structure of myth "A :

B :: C : D" (228), and the hypothesis that the function of myth is "to provide a logical

model capable of overcoming a contradiction" (229).

This method also eliminates the problem of "the quest for the true version or the

earlier one" (216). Lévi-Strauss defines a myth as "consisting of all of its versions" (217),

and argues that "structural analysis should take them all into account" (217). What is the

19

cause of all the repetition in myth, he asks? He answers, "If our hypotheses are accepted,

the answer is obvious: The function of repetition is to render the structure of the myth

apparent" (229).

Finally, Lévi-Strauss 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 quality of the

intellectual process, but in the nature of the things to which it is applied" (230).

I believe that Lévi-Strauss has produced a convincing model for the syntax of myth.

However, he tries to extend this system too far when he claims that "these relations can

be put to use and combined so as to produce meaning" (211). Elsewhere, Lévi-Strauss has

stated, "Meaning is not directly perceived but deduced, reconstructed from an analysis of

syntax" (Lévi-Strauss, "Reponses a quelques questions," 637). If we extend the linguistic

parallel, one should be able to derive the meaning of a given sentence solely from an

analysis of the relation between its nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. This is not possible,

because this requires a prior knowledge of the signification of the constituent words

themselves (or a good dictionary). Lévi-Strauss gives us no lexicon, no method of

determining the signification of the mythemes. Speakers of a language can intuitively

understand an indefinite number of sentences (which have never been spoken before)

without stopping to think "what part of speech is this word?" It is only later, when we are

put through grammar lessons that we come to find out that "cat" is a noun, "sit" is a verb,

etc. Noam Chomsky has illustrated with his famous sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep

furiously," that it is possible to create a syntactically perfect sentence that is devoid of

meaning (Chomsky 15). We cannot determine the meaning of this sentence simply by

analyzing its grammar. The sentence has no semantic value in the English language,

20

because in our shared perception of the world6, ideas cannot be green, they cannot be

green and colorless at the same time, ideas cannot sleep, and sleeping cannot be done

furiously.

Lévi-Strauss also implies that meaning can be found by comparing different versions

of a myth, and demonstrating the transformations and inversions of its structure. After

analyzing the structure of the Asdiwal myth, but before proceeding to analyze its variants,

he says, "Having separated out the codes, we have analyzed the structure of the message.

It now remains to decipher the meaning" (Lévi-Strauss, "The Story of Asdiwal" 165).

Again extending the linguistic parallel, we should be able to determine the meaning of a

sentence by comparing the way that a normal English speaker says it and the way that the

Jedi master Yoda would say it.

On the whole, Lévi-Strauss' semantics are lacking. He never clarifies how the this

"mythical logic" of oppositions and transformations produces meaning. We must turn

back to linguistics, and specifically the field of semantic theory, in order to deduce the

meanings of myths.

There are multiple theories of semantics in the field of linguistics, but two of the

prominent theories today are truth-conditional semantics and cognitive semantics. Truth-

conditional semantics views meaning as the relationship between words and the objective

"real world" (Sweetser 4). This approach is not able to deal with the complexities of

meaning such as polysemy (words with multiple meanings) and change of meaning

(Sweetser 4-5, 9-10). Furthermore, an application of this theory to the study of religion

would take us back to the intellectualist theories which posit that religion is false.

6 This shared perception of the world is referred to by cognitive scientists as our "conceptual system." This will be discussed later in the chapter.

21

Cognitive semantics, on the other hand, bases its theory of meaning in the human

perceptions and understandings of the world (Sweetser 2). Cognitive semanticists "accept

the direct influence of experience or cognition on meaning-structures" (Sweetser 12).

According to this school, "Language is systematically grounded in human cognition...

The conceptual system that emerges from everyday human experience [is] the basis for

natural-language semantics in a wide range of areas" (Sweetser 1).

The theory in the field of cognitive semantics which is most relevant to the study of

myth is the metaphor theory of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. Lakoff, a linguist at the

University of California at Berkeley, and Johnson, a philosopher at the University of

Oregon, collaborated on the groundbreaking book Metaphors We Live By in order to

explore the role of metaphor in our language and cognition and its social implications.

According to their thesis, metaphors are not merely the literary devices of poetry, they

are pervasive in everyday life (3). When we use a metaphor, we understand and

experience one kind of thing in terms of another (5). Our conceptual system is largely

metaphorical (3). This conceptual system is grounded in human physical and cultural

experience (119). We typically conceptualize the nonphysical in terms of the physical

through metaphor (59).

Understanding emerges from interaction, from constant negotiation with the

environment and other people (165). Most of our indirect understanding involves

understanding one kind of entity or experience in terms of another kind -- that is,

understanding via metaphor (178).

Metaphor is one of our most important tools for trying to comprehend partially what

cannot be comprehended totally: our feelings, aesthetic experiences, moral practices, and

22

spiritual awareness (193). Metaphor provides a way of partially communicating unshared

experiences, and it is the natural structure of our experience that makes this possible

(225). Metaphor unites reason and imagination. Metaphor is thus imaginative rationality

(193).

Because language is an important source of evidence for the conceptual system (3),

Lakoff and Johnson examine the linguistic evidence for metaphoric concepts in English.

In doing so, they attempt to reveal the ways in which they propose that metaphors

structure our conceptions, understandings, and experiences of the physical and cultural

worlds we inhabit.

The application of the metaphor theory to mythic studies revives the intellectualist

view of myth, but under a different type of lens. Lakoff and Johnson briefly address the

issue of myth themselves:

Myths provide ways of comprehending experience; they give order to our lives. Like metaphors, myths are necessary for making sense of what goes on around us. All cultures have myths, and people cannot function without myth any more than they can function without metaphor. And just as we often take the metaphors of our own culture as truths, so we often take the myths of our own culture as truths (185-186).

In cognitive semantics, in contrast to truth-conditional semantics, myths, metaphors, and

meanings are not judged by their truth-value. Rather, "meaning is always meaning to

someone. There is no such thing as meaning of a sentence in itself, independent of any

people" (184). This experiential view of meaning is very appropriate to the study of myth,

where the multivalence of the myths is quite evident.

However, neither Lévi-Strauss nor Lakoff and Johnson consider one essential element

of myth -- the sacred. Mircea Eliade considered the basis of religion (and therefore myth)

to be what he calls "The Sacred." He says:

23

The myth reveals absolute sacrality, because it relates the creative activity of the gods, unveils the sacredness of their work. In other words, the myth describes the various and sometimes dramatic irruptions of the sacred into the world (Eliade 96-97).

Eliade has been criticized because his "Sacred" is an essence, and therefore is subjective.

It can only be intuited, not deduced. However, Guilford Dudley refutes this by noting that

Eliade claims that the sacred may be discerned structurally in opposition to the profane

(Dudley 138-139).

Even if seen in opposition to the "profane," Eliade's "sacred" is itself a metaphor7, but

one which is generally agreed upon by religious scholars to be at the core of the matter at

hand. So in considering the function of myth, we must take into account all of these

factors: syntax, semantics, and the sacred. Combining these three factors into a workable

theory of the function of myth, we should acknowledge myth as language, that this

mythic language is metaphorical, and that it reveals the sacred through these metaphors.

So our working theory will be: Myth functions to provide a metaphorical language

(which reflects a metaphorical conceptual system) capable of relating the human

experience of the sacred. This metaphorical language and conceptual system is thus

capable of constructing and deconstructing cultural values.

Of course, this theory too could be considered as a metamyth itself. Indeed, the

implications of the notion of myth as metaphor functioning as a myth will also be

considered briefly in the next chapter in discussing the ways in which Neopagans view

their myths.

7 For as Lakoff and Johnson note, we cannot talk about or even think about abstract concepts without the use of metaphor!

24

CHAPTER V

The Function of Frazer's Metamyth in Neopaganism

Having now examined how Frazer's created the metamyth of the Dying and Rising

God in The Golden Bough, we may now examine how this metamyth functions as a myth

for Neopaganism. Let us now recall our theory of the function of myth:

Myth functions to provide a metaphorical language (which reflects a metaphorical

conceptual system) capable of relating the human experience of the sacred. This

metaphorical language and conceptual system is thus capable of constructing and

deconstructing cultural values.

Now we must examine how Frazer's metamyth of the Dying and Rising God acts as a

metaphorical language which relates Neopagan perceptions and experience of the sacred.

The question of the construction and deconstruction of cultural values will be dealt with

in Chapter VI.

As was alluded to in Chapter II, most Neopagans view their myths as metaphorical. As

Starhawk says:

The myths, legends, and teachings are recognized as metaphors for "That-Which-Cannot-Be-Told," the absolute reality our limited minds can never completely know. The mysteries of the absolute can never be explained -- only felt or intuited. Symbols and ritual acts are used to trigger altered states of awareness, in which insights that go beyond words are revealed. (The Spiral Dance, 22).

Neopagans use these metaphors to try to relate their experiences of the sacred, which are

for them more adequately revealed in the cycles of nature. Therefore, these metaphors not

25

only operate as myths, but the notion of the myth as metaphor itself functions as a myth,

providing a certain frame in which to view the experience of the sacred. The implications

of the myth-as-metaphor view will be discussed briefly at the end of the chapter.

The cycle of the seasons8 make up the Neopagan "Wheel of the Year," as was noted in

Chapter II. In Neopagan theology, the Wheel of the Year marks important events in the

cycle of life of the Horned God and the Great Mother Goddess, the divine pair whom

modern Neopagans worship. There are at least three different mythological cycles

through which the Wheel is understood in modern Neopagan theology (Amber K 150).

1) The God's Life Cycle:

By far the most widespread Neopagan mythological cycle does not split the year between

the God and Goddess or aspects of the God. Instead, it conceives of a single Dying and

Rising God, as did Frazer. Starhawk retells this myth from the oral teaching of the Faery

Wicca tradition:

In love, the Horned God, changing form and changing face, ever seeks the Goddess. In this world, the search and the seeking appear in the Wheel of the Year. She is the Great Mother who gives birth to Him as the Divine Child Sun at the Winter Solstice. In spring, He is sower and seed who grows with the growing light, green as the new shoots. She is the Initiatrix who teaches Him the mysteries. He is the young bull; She the nymph, seductress. In summer, when light is longest, they meet in union, and the strength of their passion sustains the world. But the God's face darkens as the sun grows weaker, until at last, when the grain is cut for harvest, He too sacrifices Himself to Self that all may be nourished. She is the reaper, the grave of earth to which all must return. Throughout the long nights and darkening days, He sleeps in Her womb; in dreams, He is Lord of Death who rules the Land of Youth beyond the gates of night and day. His dark tomb becomes the womb of rebirth, for at Midwinter, She again gives birth to Him. The cycle ends and begins again, and the Wheel of the Year

8 which Frazer recognizes as the origin of this myth: c.f., the quotation from Frazer 376-377, cited in Chapter III.

26

turns, on and on (The Spiral Dance 43).

Starhawk here outlines the Neopagan Wheel of the Year in terms of the life, death, and

rebirth of the God. In this version of the myth, the God is born at Yule (the Winter

Solstice, approximately December 21) and grows throughout the winter and spring.

Three Sabbats mark His growth. Although it is traditionally associated with the

Goddess, the festival of Imbolc (February 2), also celebrates the infancy of the God. The

Spring Equinox, or Ostara (approximately March 21), celebrates the childhood of the

God, as His power balances that of the Goddess. At Beltane (May 1), the God, now in His

adolescence, meets the Goddess in love, and the Goddess initiates the God into the

mysteries.

Just as Imbolc, Ostara, and Beltane mark points in the growth of the God, the four

Sabbats of Midsummer, Lammas, Mabon, and Samhain all mark the death of the God in

different aspects. At the Summer Solstice (Midsummer or Litha, approximately June 21),

the God has reached His maturity and is at the height of His power. On this day He is

married to the Goddess, consummating their relationship. Midsummer also is the

sacrifice of the solar god, the beginning of the decline of the power of the sun. At

Lammas, or Lughnasadh (August 1), the festival of the grain harvest, the God, in his

aspect as god of the grain, sacrifices Himself and begins His journey to the Summerland.

Mabon, the Autumn Equinox (approximately September 21), is the fruit harvest, and is

often considered the sacrifice of the vine or fruit god. Samhain (October 31) was

traditionally the time of the slaughter of the domestic animals. Therefore, the God in His

aspect of Lord of the Animals dies on this date. At Samhain, the God is honored as Lord

of the Summerland. At Yule, He is reborn to the Goddess, and the Wheel turns round

27

again.

2) The Oak King and the Holly King:

The Oak King and the Holly King are two aspects of the God -- the Oak King ruling the

waxing year (Yule to Midsummer) and the Holly King ruling the waning year

(Midsummer to Yule). Janet and Stewart Farrar elaborate on this theme:

They are the light and dark twins, each the other's 'other self', eternal rivals eternally conquering and succeeding each other. They compete eternally for the favour of the Great Mother... 'Light and dark' do not mean 'good and evil'; they mean the expansive and contractive phases of the yearly cycle, each as necessary as the other. From the creative tension between the two of them, and between them on the one hand and the Goddess on the other, life is generated (24).

3) The Goddess Life Cycle:

Dianic Wiccans, all-female groups that focus primarily, or sometimes exclusively on the

Goddess, see the Wheel of the Year in terms of Her life cycle. In this interpretation, the

Goddess is born at Yule (Winter Solstice), grows and becomes a young maiden in the

spring, grows into a bountiful Earth mother in the summer, and a wise crone in the fall,

sometimes seen as dying at Samhain and again being reborn at Yule.

The first model, of the God's Life cycle, is heavily influenced by Frazer's model of the

Dying and Rising God. After summarizing the myth of the Dying and Rising God,

Starhawk acknowledges her debt to Frazer (The Spiral Dance 43). Frazer also influenced

those works which were important in the (re)formation and early history of

Neopaganism, such as anthropologist Margaret Murray's The Witch-Cult in Western

Europe (160) and author Robert Graves's The White Goddess (242). Frazer also was a

28

strong influence on poet William Butler Yeats (Vickery 179-232), who was a member of

the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, a late nineteenth-century occult society which

influenced much of the early Neopagan movement.

Moreover, Neopagans draw on various sources (including Frazer and those influenced

by him) for their own ritual construction:

Adler (1986), Orion (1990), and Carpenter and Fox (1993) have shown that Neo-Pagans read more widely than the general population, and my research bears this out. Most have extensive collections of books, both Neo-Pagan and academic, on various aspects of history, religion, folklore, and anthropology; often the first step in ritual construction is reading... Generally, individuals do not limit themselves to a single source; most rely on many. A few notable works my informants mentioned include... Robert Graves's The White Goddess, Frazer's The Golden Bough (Magliocco 106).

Graves takes Frazer's Dying and Rising God and splits him into the Oak and Holly Kings

(Graves 176-181). Some Neopagans, such as the Farrars, have drawn on this tradition to

explain the Wheel of the Year, as noted above. The tradition of the Wheel of the Year as

part of the Goddess' life cycle may be seen as a feminist version of Frazer's Dying and

Rising God, substituting goddesses such as Inanna, Ishtar, and Persephone for Frazer's

trio of Adonis, Attis, and Osiris. In some cases this model has evolved so that the

Goddess is never seen as never dying, but nonetheless is reborn every year, as in the

explanation above.

As we have seen in Chapter III, Frazer's methods, and therefore his theories and

conclusions have been roundly criticized by the scholarly community. However, this does

not mean that his metamyth is not valid for Neopagans:

Of course, material which inspires Neo-Pagans is often not that which inspires academics, and some of the sources informants cited are now looked upon askance in academia. However, most Neo-Pagans are not interested in the academic validity of their sources, but in their emotional,

29

intuitive validity; thus academic judgments do not affect their choices (Magliocco 106).

Because Neopagans view their myths as metaphors, they do not concern themselves

about the origins or so-called "validity" of these myths. Instead they concern themselves

with what their myths reveal about their experience of the sacred. In all three of these

models, the myth reveals the Neopagan experience of the sacred in nature. We have

already seen in Chapter II that for Neopagans, the divine is immanent, that is, nature is

seen as sacred. This sacrality is demonstrated through the cycles of birth, growth, decline,

death, and rebirth. Though 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.

Neopagans also see themselves and their own lives as part of the cycles of nature, so the

myth of the Dying and Rising God also presents a model for belief in reincarnation. As

such, this myth mediates the opposition of life and death (as Lévi-Strauss would

emphasize) and relates human lives to these sacred cycles as well.

30

CHAPTER VI

The Construction and Deconstruction of Cultural Values

Now we address a secondary function of myth, which we identified in Chapter I, the

construction and deconstruction of cultural values. Here I am attempting to show that the

Neopagan interpretation of Frazer's metamyth is postmodern in nature, and therefore

ironically deconstructs the modernist cultural values that he espoused.

Frazer as a Modernist

Our first step is to define modernism. David Griffin defines modernism as the atheistic

and materialistic "worldview that has developed out of the seventeenth-century Galilean-

Cartesian-Baconian-Newtonian science" (xii). This mechanistic view of nature leads to

the dualistic view that the self is separate from the rest of creation. Griffin further

explains some other implications of this worldview:

A central feature of this materialism is its complete ontological reductionism. All "wholes" are assumed to be reducible, at least in principle, to their tiniest parts... The resulting dogma is that everything that happens in the world is in principle explainable in terms of one or more of the four forces recognized by physics... From such a perspective, the idea that the human mind has power of its own beyond that of the brain, power with which it can directly perceive and act on things beyond the body, can scarcely be entertained... Accordingly, the mechanical philosophy's implication that events not understandable in terms of action by contact cannot happen naturally came to mean that they cannot happen at all (22-23).

Frazer's theory of magic bears out his modernist worldview. Frazer adopts Hume's

tripartite epistemology, of the association of ideas. Hume, in his 1739 work A Treatise of

Human Nature, theorized that humans associate ideas in three fundamental ways: by

31

resemblance, by contiguity, and by cause and effect (Hume 11). Frazer, in applying this

scheme to ideas of magic and science, validates science because it is based on the

causality principle, and discredits magic because it is based on the "false" principles of

resemblance and contiguity.

It [magic] is a false science... If my analysis of the magician's logic is correct, its two great principles turn out to be merely two different misapplications of the association of ideas. Homeopathic magic is founded on the association of ideas by similarity: contagious magic is founded in the association of ideas by contiguity. Homeopathic magic commits the mistake of assuming that things which resemble each other are the same: contagious magic commits the mistake of assuming that things which have once been in contact with each other are always in contact (13).

Here we can see that Frazer's subscribes to modernist materialistic scientific paradigms.

Frazer also emphasizes the evolution of thought from magic through religion to modern

science (824-825), as was noted in Chapter III. For Frazer, science is the culmination of

the history of human thought, and has completely replaced the need for magic and

religion, which, according to his intellectualist theory, are simply false explanations of

the world.

Neopaganism as Postmodernist

The movement known as postmodernism seemingly defies definition. The best

definition is the attempt to go beyond modernism due to its failures. Modernist dualism,

atheism, and materialism are seen as such failures. The current environmental problems

of the planet are seen by Neopagans as one symptom of these failures.

Griffin advocates a constructive postmodernism (as opposed to the "deconstructive

postmodernism" of Derrida and other philosophers), built from a "creative synthesis of

modern and premodern truths and values" (xiii).

32

Neopaganism is one such synthesis. In attempting to revive the religions of their

premodern ancestors in a modern context, Neopagans have created a truly postmodern

religion. Neopaganism retains modern ideas of individualism and individual freedom.

This is evidenced by their views on religious freedom, and ethics. As a result of their

pluralistic worldview, Neopagans do not proselytize. Neopagans believe that all persons

have their own individual spiritual paths, and therefore everyone should have the freedom

to worship and believe as they choose, so long as it does not harm others. This is in

keeping with their individualistic ethical standard, known as the Wiccan Rede, which

states, "An it harm none, do what ye will."

In a very simplistic interpretation, Neopagan ethics may be seen as an attempt to

balance the modern value of self-interest (what ye will) with the premodern value of the

needs of the greater whole -- which also includes the self (harm none). Of course, what

constitutes "harm" is a source of great importance and debate to Neopagans. There is no

universally agreed upon standard, for as was noted in Chapter II, Neopaganism is

decentralized. Ethical choices are left to individuals and their consciences. However,

most Neopagan traditions offer training and guidance in ethical matters.

Neopagan ethics are also grounded in a holistic principle known as the Threefold Law.

This principle states that because everything is connected, whatever you send out returns

to you threefold. Simply put, this is the old adage that you reap what you sow. If a

Neopagan does magick for good, then good will come to them (three times over).

However, if they do magick for harm, harm will come to them (three times over). This

belief is similar to the Eastern concept of karma, except that Neopagans generally believe

that this karma does not carry over from life to life.

33

Wiccan High Priestess Phyllis Currot describes a different way of looking at of

Neopagan ethics based on the idea of pantheism, "It comes from the idea that everything

that exists, at least in the natural world, is an embodiment of the sacred. So it's to be

treated as sacred -- with respect and care" (83).

As was noted in Chapter II, Neopagans also generally harbor very positive attitudes

towards science and technology. Although the careers of Neopagans widely vary, many

work in scientific and technical fields and the most common careers are computer

programmer, systems analyst or software developer (Adler 384-388). Lady Cybele said:

I'm all for technology, as long as it doesn't destroy the earth in the process. I'm very happy with technological advances. I'm very happy to hop in my car and drive two hundred miles to see Pagan friends... Besides, modern conveniences have eliminated a lot of drudgery. Modern technology has freed up time so people can develop philosophical pursuits (Adler 392).

The common view is that technology is not inherently bad, but that it can be used to help

or to harm, and can even have unintended consequences, especially for nature.

Neopagans have the responsibility to try to make sure that their technology, like their

magick, does no harm. This may mean reducing their personal use of such technology,

promoting alternative technologies, or lobbying against the misuse of technology by

others.

However, Neopaganism also opposes many of the central philosophies of modernism.

Specifically, the Neopagan concept of holism, discussed in Chapter II, directly challenges

the dualism of modernist thought. Neopagans do not view themselves as separate from

the rest of nature, nor do they view nature as simply reducible to the sum of its parts. This

holism, is of course, a metaphysical belief, as is the dualism of modernist thought. This

holistic worldview flows from their nature-based theology, including the myth of the

34

Dying and Rising God. As we discussed in Chapter V, Neopagans recognize the myth of

the Dying and Rising God as part of a metaphorical language by which they may relate

the experience of the divine in the cycles of nature. This myth correlates the cycles of

birth, growth, death, and rebirth in nature: 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 Rising

God shows the interconnection between 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. This is not a

tautologous statement, because it directly opposes the modernist dualistic belief that

humans are separate from nature and not dependent upon it.

This interconnection of all things through their divine energy is the basis for the

Neopagan belief in magic. Neopagans claim to use the divine energy inherent in nature to

perform magic, that is, to cause changes to occur in conformity with their will9.

Neopagans believe in the power of the mind, with the help of the divine energy, to act on

things beyond the body. They thus reject the modern mechanistic view of nature. For

Neopagans, the four forces of physics (at least as they are currently understood by

science) form an incomplete view of causality. As Bonewits says, "The science and art of

magic deals with a body of knowledge that, for one reason or another, has not yet been

fully investigated or confirmed by the other arts and sciences" (Real Magic 33).

Thus the Neopagan worldview presents a challenge to Frazer's view of magic as false

science: it instead views magic as an art and science that is not yet understood. Again,

this is a belief is based in metaphysics. For Neopagans, science has not erased the need

for magic and religion, for it still cannot explain these phenomena. For Neopagans, magic

9 This is the definition of magic used by the infamous early twentieth century magician Aleister Crowley (xii).

35

fulfills the postmodern need for a re-enchantment of nature and a re-connection of the

self and other:

The contemporary resurgence of magic... can be seen as a postmodern response to the disenchanted and depersonalized worldview of modernity. Locating the source of the crisis within the Cartesian vision of a radical separation between self and world, humans and nature, conscious and unconscious, the resurgent magical tradition is thus a response to the present ecological crisis. In contrast to the Cartesian self-other disjunction, an explicitly postmodern imaginal/magical praxis affirms the ceaseless interplay between "self" and "other..." The contemporary resurgence of magical religion can be seen, then, as an attempt to enrich the "psychic ecology" of contemporary culture by remythicizing and re-"storying" our world and the living beings that make it up. (Ivakhiv 255-256).

While Neopaganism can be seen as a response to the environmental crisis, this is only a

symptom of the larger philosophical problems of modernism. Neopaganism wishes to

challenge the Cartesian dualism with a holistic worldview. The myth of the Dying and

Rising God helps to deconstruct the modern value of dualism and construct the

postmodern value of holism for Neopagans, and the practice of magic reinforces this

holistic worldview.

Conclusion

As we have shown, Frazer's metamyth of the Dying and Rising God has been adopted

by Neopagans to challenge the modernist worldview that he espoused in The Golden

Bough. Literary critic Lionel Trilling, noted in 1966 how Frazer's work was being used to

support premodern worldviews:

Scientific though his purpose was, Frazer had the effect of validating those old modes of experiencing the world which modern men, beginning with the Romantics, have sought to revive in order to escape from positivism and common sense (17).

However, Neopagans do not see themselves as trying to escape common sense. Instead

36

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 with the common sense they find in nature.

37

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, Margot. Drawing Down the Moon. Boston: Beacon Press. 1986.

Amber K. Covencraft: Witchcraft for Three or More. St. Paul: Llewellyn Publications. 1998.

Bonewits, Isaac. Real Magic. York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser, Inc. 1989.

Bonewits, Isaac. "What Neopagans Believe, or Neopagan Polytheology 101." Published on the World Wide Web at http://www.neopagan.net/NeopagansBelieve.HTML. 1999.

Campanelli, Pauline. Ancient Ways: Reclaiming Pagan Traditions. St. Paul: Llewellyn Publications. 1997.

Campbell, Joseph. The Hero With A Thousand Faces. Bollingen Series XVII. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1949.

Campbell, Joseph. The Power of Myth. Ed. Betty Sue Flowers. New York: Doubleday. 1988.

Carpenter, Dennis. "Emergent Nature Spirituality: An Examination of the Major Spiritual Contours of the Contemporary Pagan Worldview." Magical Religion and Modern Witchcraft. Ed. James R. Lewis. Albany: SUNY Press. 1996. 35-72

Chomsky, Noam. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton & Co. 1957.

Crowley, Aleister. Magick in Theory and Practice. New York: Castle Books.

Currot, Phyllis. Book of Shadows. New York: Broadway Books. 1998.

Dalley, Stephanie, Trans. Myths From Mesopotamia. New York: Oxford University Press. 1989.

Dudley, Guilford. Religion on Trial: Mircea Eliade and His Critics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1977.

Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane. Trans. Willard Trask. New York: Harvest. 1957.

Farrar, Janet and Farrar, Stewart. A Witches Bible: The Complete Witches' Handbook. Custer, WA: Phoenix Publishing. 1996.

Fortune, Dion. The Goat Foot God. London: Aquarian Press. 1938.Fox, Selena. "I Am a Pagan." Circle Guide to Pagan Groups. Ed. Circle Staff. Mt. Horeb,

38

WI: Circle. 1990.

Fraser, Robert. The Making of The Golden Bough. New York: St. Martin's Press. 1990.

Frazer, James. The Golden Bough. One Volume Abridged Edition. New York: Collier Books. 1922.

Graves, Robert. The White Goddess. New York: The Noonday Press. 1948.

Griffin, David. Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration. Albany: SUNY Press. 1997.

Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge. Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. 1978.

Ivakhiv, Adrian. "The Resurgence of Magical Religion as a Response to the Crisis of Modernity: A Postmodern Depth Psychology Perspective." Magical Religion and Modern Witchcraft. Ed. James R. Lewis. Albany: SUNY Press. 1996. 237-265.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1980.

Leach, Edmund. "Golden Bough or Gilded Twig?" Daedalus. Vol. 90. 1961. 371-387.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude. "The Structural Study of Myth." Structural Anthropology. Trans. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf. New York: Basic Books. 1976. 206-231.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude. "The Story of Asdiwal." Structural Anthropology II. Trans. Monique Layton. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1976. 146-197.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude. "Réponses a quelques questions." Esprit. Vol. 31. 1963. 628-653.

Lovelock, James. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. New York: Oxford University Press. 1979.

Magliocco, Sabina. "Ritual is My Chose Art Form: The Creation of Ritual as Folk Art Among Contemporary Pagans." Magical Religion and Modern Witchcraft. Ed. James R. Lewis. Albany: SUNY Press. 1996. 93-119.

Murray, Margaret. The Witch Cult in Western Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1921.

Patton, Laurie and Doniger, Wendy, Eds. Myth and Method. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. 1996.

Plutarch "Isis and Osiris." Plutarch's Lives. Vol. 5. Trans. Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957. 31-45.

39

Starhawk. Dreaming the Dark: Magic, Sex, and Politics. Boston: Beacon Press. 1982.

Starhawk. The Spiral Dance. San Francisco: Harper and Row. 1989.

Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. 1997.

Sweetser, Eve. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1990.

Trilling, Lionel. Beyond Culture. London: Secker and Warburg. 1966.

Tylor, Edward B. Primitive Culture. Seventh Edition. New York: Brentano's Publishers. 1924.

Vickery, John. The Literary Impact of the Golden Bough. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1973.

Woodward, Kenneth with Lorraine Kisly. "Mother Earth." Newsweek. March 10, 1975. 49.

Ziolkowski, Eric. "Sancho Panza and Nemi's Priest: Reflections on the Relationship of Literature and Myth." Myth and Method. Eds. Laurie L. Patton and Wendy Doniger. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. 1996. 247-299.

40