Chapter XXX. Adonis in Syria. - 366/309

Chapter XXXI. Adonis on the island of Cyprus. - 368/311

Chapter XXXII. Ritual of Adonis. - 374/316

Chapter XXXIII. "Gardens of Adonis". - 380/321

Chapter XXXIV. The myth of Attis and its ritual. - 386/327

Chapter XXXV. Attis is the god of vegetation. - 392/331

Chapter XXXVI. Human incarnations of Attis. - 393/332

Chapter XXXVII. Eastern Religions in the West. - 396/335

Chapter XXXVIII. The myth of Osiris. - 402/340

Chapter XXXIX. Ritual cycle associated with Osiris. - 408/345

Chapter XL. Attributes of Osiris. - 418/354

Chapter XLI. Isis. - 424/358

Chapter XLII. Osiris and the sun. - 426/360

Chapter XLIII. Dionysus. - 428/362

Chapter XLIV. Demeter and Persephone. - 436/368

Chapter XLV. Bread Mother and Bread Maiden in Northern Europe. - 442/374

Chapter XLVI. Mother of Bread in different countries. - 456/385

Chapter XLVII. Litiers. - 468/396

Chapter XLVIII. Animals are representatives of the spirit of bread. - 495/418

Chapter XLIX. Animal images of the ancient gods of vegetation. - 514/434

Chapter L. Communion with the Body of God. - 532/449

Chapter L.I. Homeopathic magic of meat food. - 548/463

Chapter II. The killing of a sacred animal. - 554/467

Chapter LIII. Propitiation by hunters of wild animals. - 576/486

Chapter LIV. Types of communion with animal meat. - 591/498

Chapter LV. Transference of the forces of evil. - 599/505

Chapter VI. Public exorcism of evil forces. - 607/512

Chapter LVII. Creatures sacrificed for the benefit of society. - 624/526

Chapter LVIII. People as redeemers of other people's sins in classical antiquity. - 642/541

Chapter LIX. The practice of killing a god in Mexico. - 653/550

Chapter LX. Between heaven and earth. - 658/554

Chapter LXI. The myth of Balder. - 674/568

Chapter LXII. European fire holidays. - 676/569

Chapter LXIII. The interpretation of the fire festivals. - 711/598

Chapter LXIV. Burning people at the stake. - 721/607

Chapter LXV. Balder and mistletoe. - 730/615

Chapter LXVI. The soul outside the body and its role in folk tales. - 740/623

Chapter LXVII. Incorporeal soul in folk customs. - 753/633

Chapter LXVIII. Golden branch. - 778/655

Chapter LXIX. Farewell to Nemi. - 790/664

Afterword [ S.A. Tokarev ]. - 794/668

Pointers. - 805/677

Brief geographical reference. - 805/679

Subject index. - 821/693

Index of mythological names. - 826/698

The "golden branch" of the famous English religious scholar and ethnologist James Fraser (1854-1941) belongs to those fundamental research, which are of enduring value for many generations of scientists. Devoting his life to the study of folklore and the history of religion, J. Fraser collected a huge amount of factual material, which allowed him, using the comparative historical method, to show the connection between modern religions and primitive beliefs, to reveal the earthly origins of the religious worldview.

The classics of Marxism-Leninism emphasized the need to study historical roots religion. After all, each new form Religions arise on the basis of pre-existing beliefs. Thus, the historical criticism of religion makes it possible to reveal the real origins of those religious beliefs, which are issued by theologians for divine purposes. The richest factual material collected by J. Frazer plays a huge role in refuting theological theories of the origin of religion.

This edition of The Golden Bough will undoubtedly serve as a contribution to the debunking of religious views and ideas, and will equip propagandists in their work to form the atheistic conviction of the masses.

The concept of the origin and history of religion, put forward by J. Frazer, is far from being indisputable and is not generally accepted in ethnographic science. It is impossible not to take into account the fact that he stood on the positions of bourgeois methodology; this led to the limitations of his concept. However, one thing is certain: the scientists put forward very valuable ideas that have stood the test of time and forever established themselves in scientific religious studies. A Marxist analysis of the concept of J. Frazer is given in the afterword to this edition, written by Dr. historical sciences Professor S.A. Tokarev. It is worth emphasizing once again that the concept of J. Fraser opposes the church point of view on the origin and role of religion in the history of society, and his works provide modern researchers with the richest factual material that cannot be drawn from life, because many of the customs and rituals described in the book long forgotten, and some of the ethnic groups he describes have disappeared.

IN AND. Lenin, in his article “On the Significance of Militant Materialism,” emphasized the need to closely monitor all atheistic literature in all languages, “translating, or at least abstracting

rallying everything of any value in this area. And further he emphasized that the "alliance" with the Drews (bourgeois religious scholars. - Ed.) is, to one degree or another, obligatory for us in the fight against the dominant religious obscurantists. Following this instruction, V.I. Lenin, the publishing house translated one of the most significant works of J. Frazer for the development of a scientific theory of the history of religion.

The first edition of The Golden Bough was published in London in 1890 in two volumes, and then the book was reprinted in various options, then in more lengthy, then in abbreviated ones. The work has been translated into many languages. It was first published in Russian in 1928 (issues 1-4). However, the translation was made from an authorized abridged French edition prepared by J. Fraser's wife.

This edition is the first translation of The Golden Bough into Russian from an English abridged edition prepared by the author himself (Frazer J.J.[ J.G.] The golden Bough. London. 1923).

Since in his work J. Fraser widely uses material gleaned from earlier sources, sometimes dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries, archaic ethnographic terms that are now out of scientific use (“savage”, “primitive man”) are often found on the pages of the Golden Bough. ", etc.), as well as geographical names, which are not on the modern map of the world. In addition, we should not forget that a significant part of the work of J. Fraser falls on late XIX century, which left its mark on the style and vocabulary of his works.

To make it easier for the reader to perceive the contents of the book, a subject index and a brief geographical reference are placed at the end of the edition. The text of the book contains footnotes compiled by Professor S.A. Tokarev. He also carried out the general scientific edition of the publication.

The main purpose of this book is to explain the curious rule that determined the order of succession to the office of the priest of Diana in Aricia. When I first began to study this problem more than thirty years ago, I believed that a solution could be found very quickly. However, it soon became clear that in order to find a plausible (and even simply understandable) solution, it was necessary to discuss a number of more general questions, some of which had hardly been raised before. In subsequent editions, the discussion of these and related issues took up more and more space, the study grew in many directions until the two original volumes turned into twelve. During this time, readers have often expressed a desire to reprint The Golden Bough in a more condensed form. The publication of this abridged edition is dictated by the desire to satisfy this wish and make the book accessible to a wider readership. Although the volume of the book has been greatly reduced, I have tried to keep its main ideas intact and give a sufficient number of examples to illustrate them. Despite the brevity of the presentation, for the most part, the language of the full edition was also preserved. In order to accommodate as much text as possible, I have sacrificed footnotes and exact references to sources. Therefore, to verify the source of a particular statement, readers should refer to the full edition, provided with a detailed bibliography.

In the abridged edition, I did not introduce new material and did not change the views expressed in the latest complete edition. In general, the data that I managed to get acquainted with during this time either confirmed my conclusions or illustrated the old provisions in a new way ...

Whether my theory is correct or should be abandoned, the future will show. I am always ready to abandon it in favor of a better theory. Providing new version books to the judgment of the public, I would like to warn against the wrong

understanding of its task, which continues to exist, despite the fact that in the past I have already opposed it. If I dwell on the cult of trees in this work, it is not because I am exaggerating its importance in the history of religion, and still less because I am deriving the whole mythology from it. Simply, trying to explain the meaning of the position of a priest who bore the title of King of the Forest, I could not pass over this cult in silence. Indeed, the duties of this priest included plucking the Golden Bough - a branch from a tree in a sacred grove. But I am far from ascribing the worship of trees of paramount importance in the development of religious consciousness, and, in particular, I consider it subordinate to the fear of the dead, which seems to me the most powerful factor in the formation of primitive religion. I hope that now I will not be accused of being a supporter of mythology, which I consider not only false, but ridiculous and absurd. However, I am too familiar with the hydra of delusion to cut off one of its heads and count on preventing the growth of another (or even the same) head. Nevertheless, I believe in the sincerity and intelligence of my readers: let them correct this serious error.

James George Fraser

A Scot by birth, James George Fraser (1854-1941) studied at the University of Cambridge, with whom he then maintained a scientific connection until the end of his life.

Fraser came to ethnography from the history of literature and classical philology - his first specialty. His largest work in this area was the translation and textual commentary on the famous "Description of Hellas" by Pausanias (II century AD), published by him in six voluminous volumes 1 . He also translated and published Ovid and Sallust. Known for his special essays on English literature. Fraser, however, did not leave this first specialty later.

Frazer's attention to the problems of ethnography was attracted by reading classical ethnographic literature, primarily the famous work of Edward Taylor, the patriarch of English ethnography, "Primitive Culture" (1871). The purely evolutionary ("comparative-ethnographic") method applied in this work - with all its advantages and disadvantages - had a profound effect on Frazer, who remained faithful to this method all his life.

In ethnography, Frazer made his debut with a small book, Totemism (1887), which drew the attention of scientists to this peculiar form of primitive religion. Later he returned to this problem more than once. The result of her research was the major four-volume work Totemism and Exogamy (1910). In 1890, his main work, The Golden Bough, was published in two volumes. The second, already three-volume edition of this work appeared in 1900, and in 1911-1915 Fraser prepared and published under the same title a huge, twelve-volume work. Some of its parts were published under special titles: “Readings on the Early History of royal power”, “Works of Psyche”, “Balder the Beautiful”, “Adonis, Attis, Osiris”, “Spirits of grain and game”. In 1923, a preparation was published

a one-volume, abridged edition of The Golden Bough, authored by Frazer himself. The author made the reduction primarily at the expense of the scientific apparatus: he removed all references to sources. Therefore, there are many quotations in the text, the sources of which remain unknown to the reader. Despite its shortcomings, this edition of the Golden Bough was very popular. Shortly after its publication, it was translated into French scientist's wife, Lady Fraser, under his personal editorship. From this French edition, by the way, the first Russian translation (1928) of the famous book was made. It has also been translated into other languages. This edition is the first Russian translation from the English original.

In parallel with many years of diligent work on expanding his main work, Fraser worked tirelessly on other ethnographic topics. Capital studies came out from under his pen one after another: “Totemism and Exogamy” (4 volumes, 1910), “Faith in Immortality and the Cult of the Dead” (2 volumes, 1911-1912), “Folklore in old testament"(3 volumes, 1918-1919), "Cult of Nature" (1926), "Fear of the dead in primitive religion" (2 volumes, 1933-1934), "Myths about the origin of fire" (1930), "Creation and evolution in primitive cosmogony" (1935). The creative fertility of J. Frazer is explained by his great erudition and amazing capacity for work. His biographers note that the scientist spent 50 consecutive years sitting his daily twelve-hour working day in the library of Cambridge University, not giving himself rest either on Sundays or holidays.

The list of Frazer's works at first glance gives the impression of great thematic diversity. However, this is not entirely true: they are all devoted to certain aspects of a person's spiritual culture and only partially touch upon issues of the social system. The scientist was never interested in the problems of material culture, economy, economic relations. And Fraser did not take everything from the spiritual culture: the problems of the folk artistic creativity, poetry, music, fine arts remained outside his interests. At the center of all his ethnographic studies were primitive religion and "philosophy", superstitions, myths, legends, rituals, and the psychology of "primitive man". This comparatively limited field of study, under Frazer's pen, developed into many themes, complex and obscure questions, on each of which Fraser was able to find and collate a great many facts, for the most part little known or completely unknown before. All of the above applies primarily to the book “The Golden Bough” lying before us.

In a short afterword, it is impossible to retell or even list the whole set of general and particular problems that the author touches on in this book and which are, to one degree or another, interesting.

trying to decide. Yes, there is no need for this. Nevertheless, I will draw attention here to the most interesting and significant of the issues raised by the author.

The structure of the book is unusual. Its plot is a curious description in ancient sources of the procedure for filling the position of a priest at the temple of Diana of Aricia in the sanctuary of Nemi (ancient Italy). Those who wanted to take this position had to kill their predecessor for this, defeating him in hand-to-hand combat; first, he had to break a branch ("golden branch") from a tree growing nearby. This tree was guarded day and night with a naked sword by the priest of Diana, thereby protecting his life. It is not surprising that, as a rule, people who had nothing to lose, for example, runaway slaves, and so on, applied for such a dangerous position.

This custom defies simple explanation. “In order to find an explanation for it,” says Fraser, “one should look further into the depths of centuries ... Such a custom smacks of a barbarian era and, like a primeval cliff on a smoothly trimmed lawn, rises in complete solitude in the midst of the refined Italic society of the times of the Empire” 1 .

To approach the solution of this puzzling problem, he uses the comparative ethnographic method that prevailed in ethnographic science in those years, based on the evolutionist concept of the history of man and his culture. As already mentioned, Fraser was a staunch supporter of this method. Based on the postulate of the unity of man and his culture, Fraser compares many similar facts taken from all countries and all eras.

As if guessing a riddle to the reader, Frazer himself breaks away from it and tries to find a common ideological or psychological ground that would allow us to understand the very worldview of the “primitive man”, after which different beliefs, rituals, superstitions, prohibitions, etc. would become clear. It seems to him that he groped this ground, formulating his - soon to become famous - theory of "magic and religion." This theory later in the scientific literature was firmly connected with the name of Frazer and is still considered by many to be almost the most important, if not his only contribution to science.

In its most concise form, this theory can be stated as follows. "Primitive man" at first believed in his own ability to influence the nature around him by means of "sympathetic magic". This is the "stage of magic". Later, having lost faith in this ability of his, he came to the conclusion that objects and natural phenomena obey the will of the spirits and gods, to whom he began to turn with prayers. This is the "stage of religion." Over time, the "stage of religion" will change

Xia "stage of science": a person learns the laws of nature and masters them. Frazer saw in this some formal commonality between the first and third stages. mental development man - between magic and science: both proceed from the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe immutability of the flow natural phenomena, while religion allows their violation through the miraculous intervention of a deity.

To the assessment of genuine scientific value Frazer's scheme "magic - religion - science" we will return. It should also be said here that, based on this scheme, he begins to unravel in the Golden Bough an endless tangle of different beliefs, rituals, prohibitions, etc., interconnected and designed to explain certain details in the mysterious Nemian ritual and ultimately account of the whole ritual as a whole. Numerous examples of belief in the mutual magical connection of natural phenomena are given; the rituals of the influence of the sorcerer-magician on nature are considered: the invocation of rain, wind, sunlight. The essential side of Frazer's whole concept is the thesis that thanks to this faith of primitive people in the magical abilities of sorcerers, they reach an influential position in the tribe, and later become rulers, leaders, kings. Such was, according to Fraser, the origin and early history royal power.

A significant place is given in the book to the description of the whole system of prohibitions-taboos that regulated the life of primitive man. Of these, those that fall on the person of the king-priest are especially important: in order to fulfill his function as the ruler of the forces of nature, he himself must obey numerous and painful prohibitions: such, for example, are the prohibitions to touch the ground, touch certain objects, including weapons, certain types of food; the king must remain immobile, not leave his residence, etc., etc. At the slightest violation of these prohibitions, the sacred king loses his power over nature and causes disorder in the normal course of natural phenomena. He loses his power also with the weakening of physical strength, illness, aging. Hence the custom to replace the king at the first sign of weakness, decrepitude, a custom that led in some places to the ritual killing of the old king and replacing him with a new one - young and strong, and in other cases - to the temporary replacement of the king by his son or a special temporary jester king, whom then they killed instead of the real king. These are all different ways to bring about the transfer of vitality into a younger and stronger body.

Having touched on the idea of ​​the transfer of the soul (and magical power) of a person into a new body, which is widespread among ancient or backward in its development tribes and peoples, and at the same time considering the belief characteristic of hunting tribes

about the rebirth of the soul of an animal killed in the hunt in new individuals of the same animal species, Fraser then gives a huge number of examples of beliefs about "fertility spirits" that can be embodied in both animals and plants, especially cereals, and take the form of a person. The German ethnographer W. Mannhardt first drew attention to these widespread beliefs about the "spirits of vegetation" ("demons of bread") - and Frazer completely took his concept of "lower mythology" from him. But these same “bread demons” often took the form of images of great gods: such are the gods of the ancient religions Attis, Adonis, Osiris, Dionysus and their female complements Ishtar, Isis, Cybele, Persephone, Ceres. The mythological motif associated with these images is characteristic - a dying and resurrecting deity. Frazer believes that this dying and resurrection - at least the first one - was once reproduced in magical acts of killing, or sacrificing, a person, the living embodiment of the "spirit of vegetation." The author includes here the gospel narrative of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, but does not sharpen this idea too much.

All the above facts give, according to Frazer, a convincing answer to the first of the questions posed at the beginning of the book: why could the priest of Diana take this post only by killing his predecessor? The answer is: because by this he proved that he had a greater vitality and magical power than his predecessor.

Constantly keeping the main theme of his work in the spotlight, Fraser, as it were, casually considers and partly resolves many complex scientific questions. Some of them are only indirectly related to the original problem. These include questions about religious magic

the meaning of fire, the customs associated with age-related initiations, especially of girls, the taboo on the bodies of the dead, the relationship between ritual and myth, the sacrifice of firstfruits, totemism, etc. In each case, the author tries, of course, to substantiate the scientific need to expand the main theme, inclusion in the circle of research more and more new questions. However, this rationale is not always convincing to the reader.

It must not be thought, of course, that Frazer was the first in science to pose the problems he touched upon in The Golden Bough. Each of these problems has already taken its place in the history of ethnographic ideas. The problem of the relationship between beliefs and rituals ("myth and ritual") was first posed by Frazer's personal friend, countryman and colleague, the Semitologist Robertson Smith. The problem of totemism was studied by J. McLennan. The problem of agrarian cults (zoomorphic and anthropomorphic "spirits of the grain field") was posed and developed in the brilliant works of W. Mannhardt. The cult of fire was first explored by Adalbert Kuhn 1 . About faith in the "external soul" (the stay of the soul of a living person outside the body), a lot of facts were collected in his classic work by Edward Taylor, etc. But Frazer was able, with his characteristic scientific sensitivity, to pick up these barely outlined problems, fill them with rich ethnographic content, give them a lively and brilliant literary form (after all, Fraser was a literary critic by his main specialty and even wrote poetry!); and most importantly, he managed to tie together this huge heap of problems, strung on one scientific axis - the study of the origin and meaning of the strange custom of replacing the position of a priest in the Arician sanctuary. This is the great scientific value of the main work of J. Fraser.

From what has been said, however, it does not follow that the problems posed in The Golden Bough are all correct and completely resolved by its author. Without going into a detailed criticism of some of Frazer's theoretical propositions, we note here only a few of his vulnerable conclusions and conclusions.

For example, having shown on numerous facts that the eating of the first fruits of the year among many peoples is accompanied by the performance of various propitiatory and cleansing rites, the sacrifice, Fraser tries to give this the following explanation: such rites are generated by fear of the spirits of the first fruits, no matter how they punished people who wanted to eat them (ch. 50). But this is essentially

way, not an explanation, but only a repetition of the same in other words. A consistent materialistic analysis of this custom leads to a deeper explanation of it: we have before us a relic of the ancient traditions of collective production (hunting, farming) with the regulation of consumption arising from it - hunting rules, the collective beginning of harvesting and other traditions of the communal-tribal system.

Another example is Frazer's theory of the sacred (magical) origin of royal power. Fraser believes that the first bearers of power - leaders, leaders, kings - were sorcerers, priests, magicians, and the basis of this power was faith in their witchcraft power. In this case, as in others, Frazer selected a vast gallery of sorcerer-kings and priest-kings to support his conclusion. But criticism, especially Marxist criticism, has long pointed out that Frazer here, in essence, turned the real story upside down. causality: tribal leaders and kings did not have power because witchcraft was attributed to them, but, on the contrary, it was attributed to them because they had power. True, in each individual case such a dependence may not be visible, but it is immediately noticeable with a general historical view of the connection between phenomena. Although both sides of the activity of the priest-kings - sacred and secular - were intertwined in a very complex way, it was based not on magical, but on the secular functions of the leader. How these secular functions ended up in their hands, and in whose hands exactly, is another question, more complex, which is not the place to analyze here. Let us only recall that F. Engels in his work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” connected the formation of the first embryos of hereditary nobility and royal power with the emergence in the primitive community property differences(see: Marx K., Engels F. Soch., vol. 21, p. 108) and indicated that the leader had priestly powers as the supreme representative of a tribe or alliance of tribes(see ibid., p. 107).

Finally, the third example, the most general: Frazer's notorious theory of "magic and religion." This theory is sometimes considered, as already mentioned, almost the cornerstone of Frazer's entire scientific worldview, and it is also the most criticized. But critics also often proceed from Frazer's scheme for classifying magical rites ("homeopathic" and "contagious" magic), not accepting only its purely psychological justification. Fraser's triad "magic - religion - science" is most sharply criticized as an expression of the historical sequence of the development of human consciousness. However, a careful reading of The Golden Bough shows that this three-term formula does not occupy the main place in the author's concept at all: it is simply absent in most of the problems considered by Fraser.

Another very important thing to note feature in Frazer's scientific appearance, a feature that some reproach him, while others, on the contrary, evaluate positively. This is the extraordinary flexibility and plasticity of his scientific convictions. Fraser never held on to the theory he once built, he easily assimilated new thoughts, changed his point of view. He did not hesitate to openly admit this, honestly explaining the reasons for changing his view, and sometimes not even opposing the new view to the old one.

IN different time for example, he defended three different points of view on the origin of such a peculiar form of primitive beliefs as totemism. In the first edition of The Golden Bough (1890), Fraser explained totemic beliefs as a kind of belief in the ability to hide one's soul (for its safety) in the body of some animal, which becomes a totem. this person. In 1899, after reading a description of the totemic rites of the Central Australian tribes, Fraser decided that they were the key to totemism; this is a form of "magical cooperation": individual clans of one tribe take on mutual care for the "reproduction" of food for other clans, for themselves this food is forbidden. Finally, in 1904, having learned about some new details of the totemic beliefs of the same Australians, Fraser found in them a new solution to the problem: the root of totemic ideas lies in the peculiarities of the psychology of pregnant women with their heightened imagination: it seems to them that some kind of creature has entered their womb, this being will be the child's totem when it is born. Fraser did not reject any of these opinions, expounding all three in Totemism and Exogamy (1910) 1 .

Another example is the question of the ritual meaning of fire. In the first editions of The Golden Bough, Fraser adhered to the "solar" theory of fire worship: fire is revered as a magical means of influencing the sun so that it shines brighter (such was the concept of Adalbert Kuhn and other "mythologists"). But later, under the influence of the studies of the famous Finnish ethnographer and sociologist Edward Westermark (1862-1939), he came to the conclusion that the “cleansing” theory is more plausible: fire is revered as a “cleansing” element.

The third example is the motives for the religious veneration of the oak. At first, Fraser assumed that people revered the oak for half-

the benefits expected from him (especially when making fire), and from the cult of the oak they de-transferred to the veneration of the thunder god, who most often strikes the oak with lightning. But later, referring to Jacob Grimm and other "mythologists", Frazer changed his mind on this issue: people began to revere the oak precisely because lightning often hit it; this means that the cult of the thunder god is older than the veneration of the oak (ch. 68).

Despite the fact that we are talking here about the controversial and sometimes unconvincing views of J. Fraser, his scientific honesty undoubtedly deserves approval.

Friends and admirers of J. Fraser in England, France and other countries sometimes gave directly enthusiastic assessment of his works, and especially of the Golden Bough. In their passion, they often attributed to Frazer alone what in reality was the merit of a whole galaxy of classics - ethnographers of the evolutionist school. “Frazer discovered,” they said about him, “a world completely alien to us (meaning non-European peoples. - S.T.) and tried not to laugh at his oddities, but to understand them..." infertility" 1 . Frazer was considered the pioneer of the study of primitive religion, drawing an analogy between him and Darwin.

But even if we discard these obvious exaggerations, then there remains a lot that was put in the merit of Fraser quite rightly. In particular, his biographer Angus Downey rightly points out that "thanks to Frazer's writings, students of religion have gained an idea of ​​that great substratum of primitive superstition and mythology which lies beneath all the orthodox beliefs of civilized man" 2 .

Fraser's works were also highly appreciated by people who were far from him in their specialty and style of work. Anatole France, a friend of Frazer, spoke of him as a man who "created new science". “What Montesquieu did in his time, Fraser did in our time, and the difference between the one and the other is an indicator of the progress of ideas” 3 . Bronislaw Malinovsky, an ethnographer of a completely different school, enthusiastically assessed the merits of Frazer, considering him "the greatest anthropologist of our era" 4 .

And Angus Downey is undoubtedly right, who considers Frazer's great merit to ethnography that he "through his writings ... aroused a wide public interest in this subject and attracted many scientists to engage in similar studies" 1 .

Along with these laudatory responses, Frazer's work during the life of the scientist, and especially after his death, received a critical and even sharply negative assessment. Along with sensible and constructive comments, there was no shortage of frivolous nit-picking. But let's leave that to the conscience of his critics.

In Russian and Soviet science, Fraser's works have been evaluated more than once. A detailed and strictly critical analysis of the views of the English scientist - based on one of his largest works - "Totemism and Exogamy" - was given by the prominent Russian ethnographer A.N. Maksimov 2 . He very well characterized both negative and positive sides Frazer's method. The first Soviet edition of The Golden Branch (1928) contains a detailed critical article by prof. P.F. Preobrazhensky. Written in a restrained, serious tone, this article very prominently shows the enormous scientific value of Frazer's main work and at the same time clearly fixes the serious methodological flaws in the position of its author. Very reservedly evaluates P.F. Preobrazhensky famous Frazer's three-part scheme for the development of human thought: magic - religion - science 3 .

An article about J. Fraser with a brief Marxist assessment of both the positive and negative aspects of his scientific theories contained in the Big Soviet Encyclopedia. Noting that a number of Frazer's theories have been rejected modern science, the author of the article emphasizes that his works retain great factual value.

It should also be added that in the person of Frazer we are dealing with one of the largest freethinkers scientists. In this regard, his books, especially The Golden Bough and Folklore in the Old Testament, speak for themselves. They can and should be used in the scientific-atheistic education of the masses. With their help, a wide range of readers will be able to become interested in "a conscious attitude to religious questions and a conscious criticism of religion." But it is precisely this V.I. Lenin considered one of the most important tasks of atheistic propaganda (see his article "On the Significance of Militant Materialism").

In this sense, the “Golden Bough” is useful, if only by the author’s ironic remarks already scattered throughout the text about certain religious prejudices that have taken root in European countries and the numerous parallels drawn by Frazer between these prejudices and the beliefs and rituals of primitive people.

But what is much more important is that Frazer, on concrete, clear and convincing facts, shows that the religious tradition, to some extent uniting people with common customs and rituals, pushes them for the most part to evil deeds. On the pages of The Golden Bough there is no shortage of descriptions of the brutal cruelty shown by people due to religious tradition, the torture and killing of the unfortunate victims of superstition, senseless and extremely difficult magical and religious taboos. What the religious tradition actually was, which many still continue to idealize, to cover with a romantic veil, is very clearly visible from the content of The Golden Bough. Reading it will discourage anyone from painting religion in pink, romantic colors.

In terms of debunking the idea of ​​the exclusivity and God-givenness of Christianity promoted by the church, Frazer's thoughts contained in the book about the analogies between the Christian dogma of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the cult of the ancient dying and resurrecting gods of vegetation are interesting. Using numerous examples, the scientist shows that the basis of the dogma and cult of modern religions are the beliefs and customs of the most ancient tribes and peoples, that is, what churchmen contemptuously call "superstition" and "paganism."

More than half a century has passed since the first edition of the Golden Branch in Russian. The famous book by J. Fraser has become a bibliographic rarity. I would like to think that this edition of it will be met with interest and understanding in wide circles of Soviet readers.

S.A. Tokarev

1 Frazer J.G. Pausania's Description of Greece. Vol. 1-6. London, 1910.

1 Present edition, p. 10

1 Kuhn Adalbert (1812-1881) - a prominent German philologist and linguist, one of the founders of the "astral-mythological" ("naturist") theory in folklore and religious studies, author of the book "The Descent of Fire and the Divine Drink" (Kuhn Ad. Die Herabkunft des Feuers und des Göttertranks, 1859).

1 In Soviet ethnographic science, totemism is defined as one of the most ancient religious complexes, fantastically reflecting blood relations in primitive society. The study of the nature of totemism was carried out by such prominent Soviet scientists as D.K. Zelenin, S.P. Tolstov, A.M. Zolotarev, D.E. Khaitun. Peru of the latter belongs to the special work "Totemism, Its Essence and Origin", published in 1958.

: A Study of Magic and Religion"

James George Fraser

A certain tree grew in the Nemian sanctuary, and not a single branch could be plucked from it.Only a runaway slave, if he succeeded, was allowed to break one of the branches.In case of success, he was given the right to fight in single combat with the priest and, if he won, take his place and inherit the title of King of the Forest....

According to the general opinion of the ancients, this fatal branch was the same Golden Bough, which Aeneas, at the instigation of Sibylla, plucked before undertaking a dangerous journey to the land of the dead.

The flight of the slave symbolized, according to legend, the flight of Orestes, and his duel with the priest was an echo of the human sacrifices that were once offered to Diana of Tauride.

James George Fraser - THE GOLDEN BRANCH RESEARCH IN MAGIC AND RELIGION

Here is how Frazer himself describes the peculiarity of inheriting the post of priest of Diana of Nemia in the city of Aricia (near Rome):

- A tree grew in a sacred grove, and around it all day long until late at night a gloomy figure of a man walked with a crouching gait. He held a drawn sword in his hand and carefully looked around, as if at any moment he expected the attack of the enemy.It was a priest-killer, and the one he was waiting for was also bound to kill the killer sooner or later and take his place.

fragment of the picture W. Turner

Initially, Fraser assumed that the study of this issue would take a little time. However, in order to comprehend this cult, he had to study many myths. different peoples world, which took a quarter of a century, and resulted in a multi-volume work.

According to Frazier- magic precedes religion and almost completely disappears with its advent.
In the first stage of development, people believed in their ability to change the world in a magical way, and on the second that the world obeys the gods and supernatural forces. And only at the third stage, that the world is not controlled by God, but by the "laws of nature", knowing which, you can control it.

First edition of The Golden Bough published in 1890 in London in two volumes; the second - three volumes - in 1900; and the third edition appeared in 1906-1915 and consisted of 12 volumes.

Later, scientists created abridged version of the book to make it available more readers.

dealt a decisive blow to the theological picture of the world. Theology, or theology, is a systematic exposition and interpretation of any religious teaching, the tenets of any religion.
The book vividly embodied the modern scientific approach to the discussion of religion, which from now on was considered purely objectively, as a cultural phenomenon common to all peoples.
Freud himself drew on Frazer's findings to develop a psychoanalytic explanation of magic and animism in Totem and Taboo.

Fraser developed comparative method in ethnography, he is one of the founders of comparative religion. His work covered a wide range of anthropological studies.

He was the first to suggest connection between myths and rituals.

His research was based on three principles: evolutionary development, the psychic unity of humanity, and the fundamental opposition of reason to prejudice.

This book contains and systematizes a huge factual material on primitive magic, mythology, totemism, animism, taboo, religious beliefs, folklore and customs of different peoples. This book draws parallels between ancient cults and early Christianity.

The writer R. Graves responded to Frazer's work with his own selection of poetic myths, the treatise "The White Goddess":

The main purpose of this book is to explain the curious rule that determined the order of succession to the office of the priest of Diana in Aricia.

“When I first began to study this problem more than thirty years ago, I believed that a solution could be found very quickly. However, it soon became clear that in order to find a plausible (and even simply understandable) solution, it is necessary to discuss a number of more general questions, some of which were practically never raised before," Fraser explained summing up his work on the Golden Bough book.

In subsequent editions, discussion of the book, these and related questions, took up more and more space, the study grew in many directions until the two original volumes turned into twelve.
Despite the brevity of the presentation, for the most part saved the language of the full edition I.

The "golden branch" of the famous English religious scholar and ethnologist James Fraser (1854-1941) is one of those fundamental studies that are of lasting value for many generations of scientists. Devoting his life to the study of folklore and the history of religion, J. Fraser collected a huge amount of factual material, which allowed him, using the comparative historical method, to show the connection between modern religions and primitive beliefs, to reveal the earthly origins of the religious worldview. […]

The first edition of The Golden Bough was published in London in 1890 in two volumes, and then the book was reprinted in various versions, sometimes in more lengthy, sometimes in abbreviated ones. The work has been translated into many languages. It was first published in Russian in 1928 (issues 1-4). However, the translation was made from an authorized abridged French edition prepared by J. Fraser's wife.

This edition is the first translation of The Golden Bough into Russian from an abridged English edition prepared by the author himself (Freser J. J. The Golden Bough. London, 1923) ... The text of the book contains footnotes compiled by Professor S. A. Tokarev. He also carried out the general scientific edition of the publication.

The main purpose of this book is to explain the curious rule that determined the order of succession to the office of the priest of Diana in Aricia. When I first began to study this problem more than thirty years ago, I believed that a solution could be found very quickly. However, it soon became clear that in order to find a plausible (and even simply understandable) solution, it was necessary to discuss a number of more general questions, some of which had hardly been raised before. In subsequent editions, the discussion of these and related issues took up more and more space, the study grew in many directions until the two original volumes turned into twelve. During this time, readers have often expressed a desire to reprint The Golden Bough in a more concise form. The publication of this abridged edition is dictated by the desire to satisfy this wish and make the book accessible to a wider readership. Although the volume of the book has been greatly reduced, I have tried to keep its main ideas intact and give a sufficient number of examples to illustrate them. Despite the brevity of the presentation, for the most part the language of the full edition was also retained. To accommodate as much text as possible, I have sacrificed footnotes and precise citations to sources. Therefore, to verify the source of a particular statement, readers should refer to the full edition, provided with a detailed bibliography.

In the abridged edition, I did not introduce new material or change the views expressed in the last, complete edition. In general, the data that I managed to get acquainted with during this time either confirmed my conclusions or illustrated the old provisions in a new way ...

Whether my theory is correct or should be abandoned, the future will show. I am always ready to abandon it in favor of a better theory. In presenting the new version of the book to the public, I would like to warn against the misunderstanding of its task, which continues to take place, despite the fact that I have already opposed it in the past. If I dwell on the cult of trees in this work, it is not because I am exaggerating its importance in the history of religion, and still less because I am deriving the whole mythology from it. Simply, trying to explain the meaning of the position of a priest who bore the title of King of the Forest, I could not pass over this cult in silence. Indeed, the duties of this priest included plucking the Golden Bough - a branch from a tree in a sacred grove. But I am far from ascribing the worship of trees of paramount importance in the development of religious consciousness, and, in particular, I consider it subordinate to the fear of the dead, which seems to me the most powerful factor in the formation of primitive religion. I hope that now I will not be accused of being a supporter of mythology, which I consider not only false, but ridiculous and absurd. However, I am too familiar with the hydra of delusion to cut off one of its heads and count on preventing the growth of another (or even the same) head. Nevertheless, I believe in the sincerity and intelligence of my readers: let them correct this serious error.

James George Fraser

London, June 1922

Who hasn't seen Turner's The Golden Bough? A landscape flooded with the golden glow of a dream, into which the divine spirit of Turner plunged, transforming the most beautiful of natural landscapes, the small forest lake Nemi, seen in a fit of inspiration, “Diana’s mirror”, as the ancients called it, was seen in a fit of inspiration. Unforgettable is the calm water surface, bordered by the green chain of the Alban Mountains. The seclusion of the area is not disturbed by two typical Italian villages, slumbering on the shore of the lake, and a palace - also in Italian style - with gardens that descend in sharp ledges to the lake. It seems as if Diana did not want to leave this lonely shore and continues to live in the forest thicket!

In ancient times, against the background of this forest landscape, the same strange and tragic event repeatedly played out. On the northern shore of the lake, directly under the sheer cliffs against which the village of Nemi nestled, there was a sacred grove and the sanctuary of the Nemiian, or Forest, Diana. The lake and the grove were then known under the name of the Aricians. But the city of Aricia (now called La Riccia) was located almost five kilometers away, at the foot of the Alban mountain, and was separated by a steep slope from the lake, located in a small funnel-shaped depression on the side of the mountain. A tree grew in the sacred grove, and around it all day long until late at night the gloomy figure of a man walked with a crouching gait. He held a drawn sword in his hand and carefully looked around, as if at any moment he expected the attack of the enemy. It was a priest-killer, and the one he was waiting for, sooner or later, also had to kill him and take his place. That was the law of the sanctuary. A contender for the position of a priest could achieve him in only one way - by killing his predecessor, and he held this position until a stronger and more dexterous competitor killed him.

This position, the possession of which was so unsteady, brought with it the royal title. But no crowned person was tormented by darker thoughts than a Nemian priest. From year to year in winter and summer, in good and bad weather, the dog is his lonely watch and only at the risk of his life fitfully plunged into a restless slumber. The slightest weakening of vigilance, the manifestation of bodily weakness and the loss of the art of wielding a sword put his life in jeopardy: gray hair meant a death sentence for him. From its mere sight, the charming landscape fades in the eyes of meek and pious pilgrims. The dreamy blueness of the Italian sky, the play of chiaroscuro in the summer forests and the glitter of the waves in the sun did not go well with the stern and sinister figure of the Nemian priest.

Let's better imagine the German landscape as it might appear to a belated traveler on one of those stormy autumn nights, when withered leaves fall like a thick rain and the wind sings a dirge for the passing year. What a gloomy picture set to melancholy music! In the background, a torn forest darkens against the background of a low, cloudy sky, sighs of wind in the branches, the rustle of withered leaves underfoot and a splash cold water about the coast. And in the foreground at dusk is the dark figure of a man walking to and fro; and when, having risen from a running cloud, the pale moon peers at him through the braided branches, steel flares brightly on his shoulder.

The law of succession to the title of priest in Nemi has no parallel in classical antiquity. In order to find an explanation for it, one should look further into the depths of centuries. No one, apparently, will deny that such a custom smacks of a barbarian era and, like a primeval cliff on a smoothly trimmed lawn, rises in utter solitude in the midst of the refined Italic society of the times of the Empire. But it is precisely the crude, barbaric character of this custom that gives us hope for its explanation. Research in the field ancient history mankind have discovered that, despite many superficial differences, the first crude philosophical systems worked out by the human mind are similar in their essential features. Therefore, if we can prove that such a barbaric custom as succession to the title of priest in Nemi existed in other societies, if we can uncover the reasons for the existence of such an institution and prove that the same reasons operated in most (if not all) human societies, under various circumstances, bringing to life a multitude of institutions differing in detail, but on the whole similar, finally, if we can demonstrate that the same causes, together with institutions derived from them, actually operated in classical antiquity, then we we may rightly conclude that in a more distant epoch the same causes gave rise to the rules of the succession of the priesthood in Nemi. Lacking direct knowledge of how this institution came into being, our conclusions will never reach the status of proof, but they will be more or less probable, depending on the completeness with which the specified conditions can be met. To offer a reasonably plausible explanation for the institution of priests in Nemi that satisfies these conditions is the purpose of this book.

Current page: 1 (total book has 75 pages)

James George Frazier

GOLDEN BRANCH

STUDY OF MAGIC AND RELIGION

Editorial

The "golden branch" of the famous English religious scholar and ethnologist James Fraser (1854-1941) is one of those fundamental studies that are of lasting value for many generations of scientists. Devoting his life to the study of folklore and the history of religion, J. Fraser collected a huge amount of factual material, which allowed him, using the comparative historical method, to show the connection between modern religions and primitive beliefs, to reveal the earthly origins of the religious worldview. [...]

The first edition of The Golden Bough was published in London in 1890 in two volumes, and then the book was reprinted in various versions, either longer or abridged. The work has been translated into many languages. It was first published in Russian in 1928 (issues 1-4). However, the translation was made from an authorized abridged French edition prepared by J. Fraser's wife.

This edition is the first translation of The Golden Branch into Russian from an abridged English edition prepared by the author himself (Freser J.J. The Golden Bough. London, 1923)... The text of the book contains footnotes compiled by Professor S.A. Tokarev. He also carried out the general scientific edition of the publication.

The main purpose of this book is to explain the curious rule that determined the order of succession to the office of the priest of Diana in Aricia. When I first began to study this problem more than thirty years ago, I believed that a solution could be found very quickly. However, it soon became clear that in order to find a plausible (and even simply understandable) solution, it was necessary to discuss a number of more general questions, some of which had hardly been raised before. In subsequent editions, the discussion of these and related issues took up more and more space, the study grew in many directions until the two original volumes turned into twelve. During this time, readers have often expressed a desire to reprint The Golden Bough in a more condensed form. The publication of this abridged edition is dictated by the desire to satisfy this wish and make the book accessible to a wider readership. Although the volume of the book has been greatly reduced, I have tried to keep its main ideas intact and give a sufficient number of examples to illustrate them. Despite the brevity of the presentation, for the most part the language of the full edition was also retained. To accommodate as much text as possible, I have sacrificed footnotes and precise citations to sources. Therefore, to verify the source of a particular statement, readers should refer to the full edition, provided with a detailed bibliography.

In the abridged edition, I did not introduce new material or change the views expressed in the last, complete edition. In general, the data that I managed to get acquainted with during this time either confirmed my conclusions or illustrated the old provisions in a new way ...

Whether my theory is correct or should be abandoned, the future will show. I am always ready to abandon it in favor of a better theory. In presenting the new version of the book to the public, I would like to warn against the misunderstanding of its task, which continues to take place, despite the fact that I have already opposed it in the past. If I dwell on the cult of trees in this work, it is not because I am exaggerating its importance in the history of religion, and still less because I am deriving the whole mythology from it. Simply, trying to explain the meaning of the position of a priest who bore the title of King of the Forest, I could not pass over this cult in silence. Indeed, the duties of this priest included plucking the Golden Bough - a branch from a tree in a sacred grove. But I am far from ascribing the worship of trees of paramount importance in the development of religious consciousness, and, in particular, I consider it subordinate to the fear of the dead, which seems to me the most powerful factor in the formation of primitive religion. I hope that now I will not be accused of being a supporter of mythology, which I consider not only false, but ridiculous and absurd. However, I am too familiar with the hydra of delusion to cut off one of its heads and count on preventing the growth of another (or even the same) head. Nevertheless, I believe in the sincerity and intelligence of my readers: let them correct this serious error.

James George Fraser London, June 1922

DIANA AND VIRBIUS

Who hasn't seen Turner's Golden Bough? A landscape flooded with the golden glow of a dream, into which the divine spirit of Turner plunged, transforming the most beautiful of natural landscapes, the small forest lake Nemi, seen in a fit of inspiration, “Diana’s mirror”, as the ancients called it, saw in a fit of inspiration. Unforgettable is the calm water surface, bordered by the green chain of the Alban Mountains. The seclusion of the area is not disturbed by two typical Italian villages, slumbering on the shore of the lake, and a palace - also in Italian style - with gardens that descend in sharp ledges to the lake. It seems as if Diana did not want to leave this lonely shore and continues to live in the forest thicket!

In ancient times, against the background of this forest landscape, the same strange and tragic event repeatedly played out. On the northern shore of the lake, directly under the sheer cliffs against which the village of Nemi nestled, there was a sacred grove and the sanctuary of the Nemiian, or Forest, Diana. The lake and the grove were then known under the name of the Aricians. But the city of Aricia (now called La Riccia) was located almost five kilometers away, at the foot of the Alban mountain, and was separated by a steep slope from the lake, located in a small funnel-shaped depression on the side of the mountain. A tree grew in the sacred grove, and around it all day long until late at night the gloomy figure of a man walked with a crouching gait. He held a drawn sword in his hand and carefully looked around, as if at any moment he expected the attack of the enemy. It was a priest-killer, and the one he was waiting for, sooner or later, also had to kill him and take his place. That was the law of the sanctuary. A contender for the position of a priest could achieve him in only one way - by killing his predecessor, and he held this position until a stronger and more dexterous competitor killed him.

This position, the possession of which was so unsteady, brought with it the royal title. But no crowned person was tormented by darker thoughts than the Nemian priest. From year to year, in winter and summer, in good and bad weather, he kept his lonely watch, and only at the risk of his life did he fit snatches into a restless slumber. The slightest weakening of vigilance, the manifestation of bodily weakness and the loss of the art of wielding a sword put his life in jeopardy: gray hair meant a death sentence for him. From its mere sight, the charming landscape fades in the eyes of meek and pious pilgrims. The stern and sinister figure of the Nemian priest did not go well with the dreamy blue of the Italian sky. the play of chiaroscuro in the summer forests and the glitter of the waves in the sun.

Let's better imagine the German landscape as it might appear to a belated traveler on one of those stormy autumn nights, when withered leaves fall like a thick rain and the wind sings a dirge for the passing year. What a gloomy picture set to melancholy music! In the background, the torn forest darkens against the background of a low, cloudy sky, the sighs of the wind in the branches, the rustle of withered leaves underfoot, and the splash of cold water against the shore. And in the foreground at dusk is the dark figure of a man walking to and fro; and when, having risen from a running cloud, the pale moon peers at him through the braided branches, steel flares brightly on his shoulder.

The law of succession to the title of priest in Nemi has no parallel in classical antiquity. In order to find an explanation for it, one should look further into the depths of centuries. No one, apparently, will deny that such a custom smacks of a barbarian era and, like a primeval cliff on a smoothly trimmed lawn, rises in utter solitude in the midst of the refined Italic society of the times of the Empire. But it is precisely the crude, barbaric character of this custom that gives us hope for its explanation. Studies in the field of ancient human history have found that, despite many superficial differences, the first crude philosophical systems worked out by the human mind are similar in their essential features. Therefore, if we can prove that such a barbaric custom as succession to the title of priest in Nemi existed in other societies, if we can uncover the reasons for the existence of such an institution and prove that the same reasons operated in most (if not all) human societies, bringing to life, under various circumstances, a multitude of institutions differing in detail, but on the whole similar, finally, if we can demonstrate that the same causes, together with institutions derived from them, actually operated in classical antiquity - then we can rightly conclude that in a more distant epoch the same causes gave rise to the rules of the succession of the priesthood in Nemi. Lacking direct knowledge of how this institution came into being, our conclusions will never reach the status of proof, but they will be more or less probable, depending on the completeness with which the specified conditions can be met. To offer a reasonably plausible explanation of the institution of priests in Nemi that satisfies these conditions is the purpose of this book.

Let's start with a presentation of the few facts and traditions on this subject that have come down to us. According to one such tradition, the cult of Diana of Nemia was founded by Orestes. who, having killed Phaos, king of Tauric Chersonesus, fled with his sister to Italy; in a bundle of branches, he brought with him an image of Diana of Tauride. 1 After his death, his remains were transported from Aricia to Rome and buried on the slope of the Capitoline Hill in front of the Temple of Saturn (next to the Temple of Concord). Connoisseurs of antiquity are familiar with the bloody ritual, which legend associates with Diana of Tauride. It says that every foreigner who comes ashore is sacrificed on her altar. However, being transferred to Italian soil, this ritual resulted in a milder form. A certain tree grew in the Nemian sanctuary, and not a single branch could be plucked from it. Only a runaway slave, if he succeeded, was allowed to break one of the branches. If successful, he was given the right to fight in single combat with the priest and, if he won, take his place and inherit the title of King of the Forest (Rex Nemorensis).

According to the general opinion of the ancients, this fatal branch was the same Golden Bough, which Aeneas, at the instigation of Sibylla, plucked before undertaking a dangerous journey to the land of the dead. The flight of the slave symbolized, according to legend, the flight of Orestes, and his duel with the priest was an echo of the human sacrifices that were once offered to Diana of Tauride. The law of succession by right of the sword was observed until imperial times. Among other antics of Caligula 2 was this: deciding that the priest of Nemi remained at his post for too long, he hired a hefty thug to kill him. In addition, a Greek traveler who visited Italy in the era of the Antonines (I-II centuries) wrote that the succession to the title of priest is still obtained by winning a duel.

The main features of the cult of Diana in Nemi are still to be identified. From the remains of sacrifices found there, it is clear that the ancients considered her, firstly, a huntress, secondly, blessing people with offspring, thirdly, giving women an easy birth. Fire, apparently, played a particularly important role in her cult. During the annual festival dedicated to Diana, which fell on the hottest time of the year (August 13), her grove was illuminated by the light of numerous torches, the bright red reflection of which lay on the surface of the lake. On this day, throughout Italy, sacred rites were performed at every hearth. The goddess herself is depicted on bronze figurines found within the sanctuary holding a torch in her raised right hand. Fulfilling these vows, women, whose prayers were heard by Diana, came to the sanctuary decorated with wreaths, with lit torches. An unknown Roman lit an inextinguishable lamp in a small tomb in Nemi for the health of Emperor Claudius and his family. The fired clay lamps found in the grove may have served the same purpose for mere mortals. If so, then the analogy between this custom and the Catholic custom of placing consecrated candles in churches is obvious. In addition, the title of Vesta, worn by Diana of Nemia, clearly indicates that the sacred fire was constantly maintained in her sanctuary. A large, round foundation in the northeastern aisle of the temple, raised by three stupefactions and retaining traces of a mosaic, probably served as the base of the round temple of Diana-Vesta, similar to the temple of Vesta in the Forum. In all likelihood, the sacred fire was maintained here by virgin vestals; on the site of the Nemian temple, a statue of a vestal woman made of baked clay was found. In addition, the custom of worshiping an unquenchable fire maintained by Vestal virgins has been widespread in Latium since ancient times. During the annual festival in honor of the goddess, hunting dogs were crowned with wreaths and Wild animals were not touched. Young people performed cleansing rites in her honor. Wine was brought and a feast was arranged from the meat of goats, hot cakes served on leaves, and apples plucked along with branches.

But in the grove near Nemi, Diana did not reign alone. Her sanctuary was shared with her by two deities of lower rank. One of them was Egeria, a nymph of a bright river, which, breaking into splashes on basalt rocks, fell in a graceful cascade into a lake near the town of Le Mole (so named because the mills of the village of Nemi are now located there). The murmur of a stream running over pebbles is mentioned by Ovid, who, by his own admission, often drank water from it. Pregnant women offered sacrifices to Egeria because, like Diana, she was considered capable of bestowing easy childbirth. There was a legend that this nymph was the wife or beloved of the wise king Numa and that the laws given to them by the Romans were the fruit of his communication with this goddess. Plutarch compares this tradition with other stories about the love of goddesses for mortals, such as the love of Cybele and the Moon for the beautiful youths Attis and Endymion.

According to other sources, the meeting place of the lovers was not the Nemian forests, but a grove not far from the grotto at the Capene Gate near Rome, where another holy spring dedicated to Egeria spouted from a dark cave. Every day, the Roman vestals took water from this source to wash the temple of Vesta, carrying it on their heads in an earthenware jug. In the time of Juvenal, the grotto was paved with marble, and this consecrated place was defiled by groups of poor Jews who, like gypsies, were forced to camp in a grove for the night. It can be assumed that the stream that flows into Lake Nemi was originally Egeria itself and that when the first settlers came from the Alban hills to the banks of the Tiber, they brought with them the cult of this nymph and found a new home for her in a grove outside the gates of Rome . The remains of baths found on the ground of the sanctuary, and many casts of various parts of the human body made of baked clay, suggest that the water of the Egeria spring was used to treat the sick. In accordance with a custom still observed in many parts of Europe, the sick, as a token of hope for healing or gratitude, dedicated casts of diseased parts of the body to the goddess. They assure that the source has retained its healing properties to this day.

Another lower-ranking Nemian deity was Virbius. Tradition says that Virby was none other than the young Greek hero Hippolytus, chaste and beautiful. He learned the art of hunting from the centaur Chiron and spent whole days hunting wild animals in the thick of the forest. His only companion was the virgin huntress - the goddess Artemis (the Greek counterpart of Diana). Inflamed by his divine companion, he contemptuously rejected the love of mortal women, and this ruined him. Wounded by his contempt for love, Aphrodite aroused love for Hippolytus in his stepmother Phaedra. When Hippolytus rejected the immoral courtship of her stepmother, she slandered him before his father Theseus. Believing in slander, Theseus turned to his father Poseidon with a plea for revenge. And when Hippolytus raced in a chariot along the shore of the Saronic Gulf, the sea god drove a fierce bull to the surface of the water. The frightened horses carried on, and Hippolytus, thrown out of the chariot, found death under their hooves. But out of love for Hippolyte, Diana begged the physician Aesculapius to return the beautiful young hunter to life with the help of healing herbs. Enraged that a mortal man had come out of the gates of death. Jupiter cast the doctor into Hades. 3 Nevertheless, Diana managed to hide her pet from the eyes of the angry god with a thick cloud, changed his features, made him look older, and then transferred to the wooded Nemian hollows, entrusting him to the care of the nymph Egerni. Unknown and lonely, he lived in the depths of the Italian forest under the name of Virbius. He ruled there as a king and dedicated the grove to Diana. He had a wonderful son, also Virbius, who, not afraid of the fate of his father, drove a team of hot horses to join the Latins in the war against Aeneas and the Trojans.

Virbius was worshiped not only in Nemi, but also in other places: there is evidence that Virbius even had his own priest in Campagna. Horses were not allowed into the Arician grove and the sanctuary, since they killed Hippolytus. It was forbidden to touch his statue. Some believed that Hippolytus was the personification of the sun. “But it is true,” says Servius, “that he was a deity associated with Diana in as close ties as Attis with the Mother of the Gods, Erictonius with Minerva, and Adonis with Venus.” What kind of bonds were these? To begin with, we note that throughout its long and winding path, this mythical character showed amazing vitality. It can hardly be doubted that Hippolytus, the saint of the Roman calendar who is carried by horses and who finds death on August 13, the feast day of Diana, is none other than the same Greek hero. Having twice found death as a pagan, he happily resurrected as a Christian saint.

In order to be convinced that the traditions explaining the origin of the cult of Diana of Nemia are not historical, there is no need for rigorous proof. They clearly belong to the category of widespread myths, which are invented in order to explain the origin of this or that religious cult. Moreover, this is done with the help of a real or imagined similarity, which allows us to elevate him to some foreign cult. Indeed, the Nemian myths clearly do not fit with each other, because the institution of the cult is traced back to Orestes, then to Hippolytus (depending on which feature of him is explained). The real value of these traditions lies in the fact that they vividly illustrate the essence of this cult. In addition, they indirectly testify in favor of the venerable age of the cult, showing that it has its roots in the fog of mythical antiquity. In this regard, the Nemian legends are more trustworthy than the pseudo-historical tradition, supported by the authority of Cato the Elder, according to which the sacred grove was dedicated to Diana by a certain Latin dictator Bebius (or Levi) of Tusculum on behalf of the peoples of Tusculum, Aricia, Lanuvium, Laurentum, Cora, Tibur, Pomecia and Ardea.

This tradition speaks in favor of the great antiquity of the sanctuary, since its foundation dates back to the time before 495 BC, that is, the year when Pomecia was sacked by the Romans and disappeared from the face of the earth. But we cannot admit that such a barbaric institution as the succession of the priesthood in Arpcia should be deliberately instituted by an alliance of civilized cities, which, no doubt, were the cities of Latium. It must have been handed down from time immemorial, when prehistoric Italy was still in a state of savagery. The veracity of this tradition is called into question by another tradition, which attributes the merit of founding the sanctuary to Manius Egerius, to whom the proverb "There are many Manii in Aricia" owes its existence. Some authors explain this saying by referring to the fact that Manius Egerius was the ancestor of an ancient and glorious family, while others believe that its meaning boils down to the fact that there are many ugly, ugly people in Aricia. They derive the name Manius from the word mania, which means "beech", or scarecrow, for children. One Roman satirist used the name Manius as a synonym for the beggars who wallow on the slopes of the Arician hills in anticipation of pilgrims. Suspicion arouses both this divergence of opinions, and the contradiction between Manius Egerius and Egerius Levi of Tusculum, and the similarity of both names with the name of the mythical Egeria. However, the tradition transmitted by Cato is too detailed, and his guarantor too respectable, to reject it as empty fiction. It is better to assume that it refers to the ancient rebuilding or restoration of the sanctuary, which was carried out allied states. In any case, it testifies in favor of the fact that the grove of Diana has long been a place of common worship for many of the most ancient cities of Latium, if not for the entire Latin Confederation.

Artemis and Hippolyte. As we can see, the legends about Orestes and Hippolytus, while not having historical value, nevertheless, are not completely meaningless, since they help to better understand the origin of the Nemian cult by comparing it with the cult and myths of other sanctuaries. The question arises: why do the authors of these legends turn to Orestes and Hippolytus to explain Virbius and the King of the Forest? With regard to Orestes, everything is clear. Together with Diana of Tauride, who can only be propitiated by human blood, he was needed in order to explain the bloody rule of succession to the priesthood in Aricia. In the case of Hippolytus, not everything is so clear. In the history of his death, one can easily see the reason for the ban on introducing horses into the sacred grove of Diana. But in itself this is hardly enough to explain the identification of Hippolytus with Virbius. Therefore, we must take a deeper look at the cult and the myth of Hippolytus.

At Troezen, a famous sanctuary was dedicated to Hippolyte, located on the shores of a beautiful, almost closed bay, where the now fertile coastal strip at the foot of rugged mountains is covered with orange and lemon groves, as well as tall cypresses, rising like dark spiers above the gardens of the Hesperides. On opposite side the sacred island of Poseidon rises from a transparent blue bay, and the tops of its hills are covered with dark green pines. This is the location of the sanctuary of Hippolytus. Inside was a temple with a statue of a hero. The service in it lay with the priest, who retained this position for life. Every year, in honor of the hero, a holiday was celebrated with sacrifices, and his untimely death was mourned by the mournful, mournful singing of the girls. Before marriage, young men and women left strands of their hair in the temple. There was also the tomb of Hippolytus in Troezen, but the inhabitants would not have shown it to you. It can be assumed with a high degree of probability that in the person of the beautiful Hippolytus, beloved of Artemis, who died in the color of his years and was mourned annually by young girls, we have one of the mortal lovers of the goddess who plays such a prominent role in the religions of antiquity (their most typical representative is Adonis). The rivalry between Artemis and Phaedra for the affections of Hippolytus, as has been said, reproduces the rivalry between Aphrodite and Proserpina for the love of Adonis: for Phaedra is Aphrodite's double. This theory does justice to both Hippolytus and Artemis. Initially, Artemis was the great goddess of fertility, and according to the law of early religions, the fertile nature itself must be fertile, and for this she must necessarily have a spouse with her.

According to our hypothesis, Hippolytus was considered in Troezen the husband of Artemis. The purpose of the cut strands of hair presented to Hippolytus by Troesen boys and girls before marriage was to help strengthen the union with the goddess to increase the fertility of the land, livestock and people. This view is confirmed: in the Trezen sanctuary of Hippolytus, two female deities were worshiped - Damia and Auxesia, whose connection with fertility is undeniable. When Epidaurus suffered from hunger, its inhabitants, obeying the instructions of the oracle, carved and erected images of Damia and Auxesia from the sacred olive tree, after which the earth again bore fruit. Moreover, in Troezen itself - and possibly in the sanctuary of Hippolytus - in honor of these girls, as the Troizens called them, a curious stone-throwing festival was held. It is easy to show that customs of this kind were practiced in many countries in order to get a good harvest. As for the story of the tragic death of young Hippolytus, we can trace its numerous analogies with similar stories about beautiful mortal youths who paid with their lives for a brief enjoyment of the love of immortal goddesses. These unfortunates. were probably not always mythical characters, and the legends that saw in the purple flower of the violet, in the scarlet speck on the anemone, and in the crimson blush of the rose, their blood shed, were not just poetic allegories of youth and beauty, fleeting like summer flowers. They contained a deeper philosophy of the relationship between human life and the life of nature, a gloomy philosophy that gave rise to no less gloomy practice. Later we will learn what this philosophy and this practice was.

Summary. Now it is clear to us why the ancients identified Hippolytus, the wife of Artemis, with Virbius, who, according to Servius, treated Diana in the same way that Adonis treated Venus and Attis the Mother of the Gods. Indeed, like Artemis, Diana was the goddess of fertility in general and childbearing in particular, and in this capacity, like her Greek counterpart, she needed a male partner. Such a partner, according to Servius, was Virbius, the founder of the sacred grove and the first Nemian king. Virbius was the mythical predecessor or prototype of the priests who served Diana under the title of Kings of the Forest and, like him, died a violent death. Therefore, it is natural to assume that they were in the same relationship with the goddess of the grove as Virbius - in short, the mortal King of the Forest had the Forest Diana herself as his queen. If the tree he guarded at the cost of his life served as the incarnation of Diana (which seems likely), the priest could not only worship her as a goddess, but also embrace her as a spouse. There is nothing absurd in such an assumption, at least, even in the era of Pliny, one noble Roman treated a beautiful birch in another sacred grove of Diana in the Alban Hills. He hugged and kissed her, lay in her shadow and poured wine over her trunk. This Roman clearly mistook the tree for a goddess. The custom of marrying trees is still practiced by men and women in India and other eastern countries. Why couldn't he have a place in Ancient Latium?

From the above examples, we can conclude that the cult of Diana in the sacred Nemian grove had great importance and was rooted in immemorial antiquity; that Diana was worshiped as a goddess of forests and wild beasts, and perhaps also of livestock and fruits; that the ancients believed that she would give offspring to men and women and help mothers give birth; that the sacred fire of Diana, maintained by the chaste vestals, burned constantly in the round temple of the sanctuary; that the water nymph Egeria was associated with her, who performed one of the functions of Diana (helping women during labor pains) and who, according to folk legend, married in a sacred grove with an ancient Roman king; that Diana Lesnaya had a male companion named Virbius, who treated her like Adonis to Venus and Attis to Cybele; and, finally, that in historical times the mythical Virbius was represented by the priests, the Kings of the Forest. They died at the sword of their successors, and their life was connected with the sacred tree in the grove. The priest was only guaranteed against attack as long as the tree remained intact.

These conclusions in themselves are, of course, insufficient to explain the rule of succession to the title of Arician priest. But perhaps drawing on a wider range of data will convince us that they contain the solution of the problem in the bud. Let's embark on a journey through the sea of ​​facts. It will be long and tedious, but at the same time it will have the charm of an educational journey, during which we will visit many strange foreign peoples with even stranger customs. Let us weigh anchor, fill the sails with the wind and leave the coast of Italy for a while.

James George Frazier

GOLDEN BRANCH

STUDY OF MAGIC AND RELIGION

Editorial

The "golden branch" of the famous English religious scholar and ethnologist James Fraser (1854-1941) is one of those fundamental studies that are of lasting value for many generations of scientists. Devoting his life to the study of folklore and the history of religion, J. Fraser collected a huge amount of factual material, which allowed him, using the comparative historical method, to show the connection between modern religions and primitive beliefs, to reveal the earthly origins of the religious worldview. [...]

The first edition of The Golden Bough was published in London in 1890 in two volumes, and then the book was reprinted in various versions, sometimes in more lengthy, sometimes in abbreviated ones. The work has been translated into many languages. It was first published in Russian in 1928 (issues 1-4). However, the translation was made from an authorized abridged French edition prepared by J. Fraser's wife.

This edition is the first translation of The Golden Branch into Russian from an abridged English edition prepared by the author himself (Freser J.J. The Golden Bough. London, 1923)... The text of the book contains footnotes compiled by Professor S.A. Tokarev. He also carried out the general scientific edition of the publication.

The main purpose of this book is to explain the curious rule that determined the order of succession to the office of the priest of Diana in Aricia. When I first began to study this problem more than thirty years ago, I believed that a solution could be found very quickly. However, it soon became clear that in order to find a plausible (and even simply understandable) solution, it was necessary to discuss a number of more general questions, some of which had hardly been raised before. In subsequent editions, the discussion of these and related issues took up more and more space, the study grew in many directions until the two original volumes turned into twelve. During this time, readers have often expressed a desire to reprint The Golden Bough in a more condensed form. The publication of this abridged edition is dictated by the desire to satisfy this wish and make the book accessible to a wider readership. Although the volume of the book has been greatly reduced, I have tried to keep its main ideas intact and give a sufficient number of examples to illustrate them. Despite the brevity of the presentation, for the most part the language of the full edition was also retained. To accommodate as much text as possible, I have sacrificed footnotes and precise citations to sources. Therefore, to verify the source of a particular statement, readers should refer to the full edition, provided with a detailed bibliography.

In the abridged edition, I did not introduce new material or change the views expressed in the last, complete edition. In general, the data that I managed to get acquainted with during this time either confirmed my conclusions or illustrated the old provisions in a new way ...

Whether my theory is correct or should be abandoned, the future will show. I am always ready to abandon it in favor of a better theory. In presenting the new version of the book to the public, I would like to warn against the misunderstanding of its task, which continues to take place, despite the fact that I have already opposed it in the past. If I dwell on the cult of trees in this work, it is not because I am exaggerating its importance in the history of religion, and still less because I am deriving the whole mythology from it. Simply, trying to explain the meaning of the position of a priest who bore the title of King of the Forest, I could not pass over this cult in silence. Indeed, the duties of this priest included plucking the Golden Bough - a branch from a tree in a sacred grove. But I am far from ascribing the worship of trees of paramount importance in the development of religious consciousness, and, in particular, I consider it subordinate to the fear of the dead, which seems to me the most powerful factor in the formation of primitive religion. I hope that now I will not be accused of being a supporter of mythology, which I consider not only false, but ridiculous and absurd. However, I am too familiar with the hydra of delusion to cut off one of its heads and count on preventing the growth of another (or even the same) head. Nevertheless, I believe in the sincerity and intelligence of my readers: let them correct this serious error.

James George Fraser London, June 1922

DIANA AND VIRBIUS

Who hasn't seen Turner's Golden Bough? A landscape flooded with the golden glow of a dream, into which the divine spirit of Turner plunged, transforming the most beautiful of natural landscapes, the small forest lake Nemi, seen in a fit of inspiration, “Diana’s mirror”, as the ancients called it, saw in a fit of inspiration. Unforgettable is the calm water surface, bordered by the green chain of the Alban Mountains. The seclusion of the area is not disturbed by two typical Italian villages, slumbering on the shore of the lake, and a palace - also in Italian style - with gardens that descend in sharp ledges to the lake. It seems as if Diana did not want to leave this lonely shore and continues to live in the forest thicket!

In ancient times, against the background of this forest landscape, the same strange and tragic event repeatedly played out. On the northern shore of the lake, directly under the sheer cliffs against which the village of Nemi nestled, there was a sacred grove and the sanctuary of the Nemiian, or Forest, Diana. The lake and the grove were then known under the name of the Aricians. But the city of Aricia (now called La Riccia) was located almost five kilometers away, at the foot of the Alban mountain, and was separated by a steep slope from the lake, located in a small funnel-shaped depression on the side of the mountain. A tree grew in the sacred grove, and around it all day long until late at night the gloomy figure of a man walked with a crouching gait. He held a drawn sword in his hand and carefully looked around, as if at any moment he expected the attack of the enemy. It was a priest-killer, and the one he was waiting for, sooner or later, also had to kill him and take his place. That was the law of the sanctuary. A contender for the position of a priest could achieve him in only one way - by killing his predecessor, and he held this position until a stronger and more dexterous competitor killed him.