The myth and ritual school : J.G. Frazer and the Cambridge ritualists

by Robert J. Ackerman

The enduring importance of his book " The Golden Bough" keeps J.G. Frazer's name prominent on the list of the most significant figures in modern religious studies. But by no means was Fraser the sole influence on the Cambridge-based school of thought-- myth-ritualism-- most often associated with him. In this intellectual history of the fellowship of scholars to which Frazer belonged, Robert Ackerman expands our acquaintance with the myth and ritual school to include Jane Harrison, Gilbert Murray, F.M. Cornford, and A.B. Cook, all of whom were instrumental in connecting the lines of thought in myth theory, classics, and anthropology that had begun to converge at the turn of the last century. Ackerman's examination of the chief works of each member of the Cambridge group illuminates their primary interests in Greek myth, ritual, and religion and traces the threads of their arguments through the group's writings on the origins of tragedy, comedy, philosophy, art, and sport. In the book's final chapter Ackerman explores the application of myth-ritualist thought to a variety of post-classical literature.

Genres: History

253 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 1990

About the author

Dr. Robert J. Ackerman is Professor Emeritus from Indiana University of Pennsylvania and the previous Director of the Mid-Atlantic Addiction Research and Training Institute. He is co-founder of the National Association for Children of Alcoholics. He is the previous Editor of Counselor: The Magazine for Addiction and Behavioral Health Professionals and currently is the Chair of the Advisory Board.

Reviews

[Arthur George · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a valuable resource for anyone seeking to deepen one’s understanding about the relationship between myth and ritual in general and the ritual theory of myth (or “myth-ritualist” theory) in particular. This theory holds that myth and ritual are intimately linked. Originally (beginning with William Robertson Smith), and more commonly, its adherents have held that, as a historical matter, ritual came first, and that any associated myth came later to explain the ritual and so is secondary; others hold that myth came first because one must believe in or have a concept of something sacred in order to construct a ritual; others simply say that the two normally go together without giving either precedence. Whatever the case, the lesson for us is that we can understand myth better by studying any accompanying rituals, and vice versa. Just think, for example, of the relationship between the Christian liturgy and the underlying beliefs (as well explained by Alan Watts in his book, Myth and Ritual in Christianity).

As the book’s title indicates, Ackerman focuses on a particular group of British scholars associated with myth and ritual theory active mainly in Cambridge in the early 20th century, principally James Frazer, Jane Harrison, A.B. Cook, Gilbert Murray, and F.M. Cornford, and on the aftermath of their efforts. Except for Frazer, they were principally classicists seeking to uncover the origins of Greek drama in ritual and myth, and so their work generally did not extend beyond Greece into the myths and rituals of other cultures. Accordingly, other than to provide helpful background (see below), the book too does not discuss myth and ritual theory from a broader perspective, and it accords generally short attention to other scholars who from that period forward have been associated with myth and ritual theory, for example Hooke, Malinowski, and Radcliffe-Brown. From this perspective, this narrow focus limits the utility Ackerman’s book as a tool for understanding the issues in myth and ritual theory more generally. Likewise, the book’s final chapter, and account of the aftermath of their work, also focuses on subsequent scholars’ evaluations of the Cambridge group’s own efforts rather than providing Ackerman’s own evaluation of the Cambridge group’s role in later myth and ritual theory. For a broader perspective readers should turn to other works, for example the anthology of essays edited by Robert Segal entitled The Myth and Ritual Theory (Blackwell, 1998) and Segal’s own work on the subject.

Nevertheless, the book does develop two areas of general interest in connection with the theory. First, Ackerman traces the relevant preceding general developments in myth theory that influenced the Cambridge group, in particular those stemming from the rise of anthropology, archaeology, sociology, psychology as relevant disciplines, which challenged the assumptions and scholarship of older disciplines, most directly that of Classics in the Cambridge case. Second, as a result of the above the book contains enlightening discussions of cross-disciplinary issues and the relevance of the above disciplines to myth theory in general. The book also ends up showing the important role of “myth criticism” in analyzing literary and religious texts, an approach which I consider essential but which often is lacking, and which was the approach taken in my recent book analyzing the biblical Eden story from the mythological perspective.

What is lost as a result of the book’s lack of breadth is gained through the depth of its principal inquiry. Whereas most discussions of myth and ritual theory are rather general and are weak on the application of theory to the particulars, by focusing on the scholarly treatment of Greek drama, mythology, and ritual, Ackerman leads the reader through the nitty-gritty of the issues and the argumentation, and emerges from the read with a new and deeper knowledge and appreciation of the complexity of the particular problems involved in myth and ritual theory.

Ackerman displays a deep understanding of this subject, his writing is clear and lucid and he avoids rambling and tangents, and the analysis is thoughtful and persuasive. The book’s discussion is well supported by endnotes with citations and further explanations and has an adequate bibliography, but I would have liked to have a subject index and not merely an author index.

[Mike · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book gets into the history of "The Myth and Ritual School," a theoretical approach to myths of the ancient world that was advocated by several scholars. The "Myth and Ritual School" of thought in the study of mythology and ritual began to emerge in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The key figures associated with this school of thought include J.G. Frazer, Jane Ellen Harrison, and Gilbert Murray, among others. These scholars sought to understand the origins and evolution of myth and ritual, and they approached these subjects through a comparative method that looked for similarities and universal themes across cultures. The "Myth and Ritual School" was influential in its time but has since been largely discredited, and its approach has been replaced by more nuanced and diverse perspectives.

I was not a fan of the writing style of the author, but I also know that many have enjoyed this book. Spoilers abound in the following review. You have been adequately warned.

Ackerman discusses the work of J.G. Frazer, who was a British anthropologist and folklorist known for his study of mythology and religion in cultures around the world. He is most famous for his book "The Golden Bough," which outlined his theories about the relationship between magic, religion, and science in primitive societies. The Cambridge Ritualists were a group of anthropologists who followed Frazer's ideas and studied the rituals of various cultures. The Myth and the Ritual School: J.G. Frazer and the Cambridge Ritualists by Robert Ackerman examines the work of these anthropologists and how it influenced the study of mythology and ritual.

Ackerman criticizes the work of J.G. Frazer in his book. Ackerman critiques J.G. Frazer's scholarship and conclusions about myth and ritual, stating that Frazer oversimplified the complexity of myth and ritual and that his comparative method was flawed. He also criticized Frazer for seeing myth and ritual as primitive precursors to modern religion, rather than complex and dynamic cultural expressions in their own right. Overall, Ackerman concludes that Frazer's scholarship was limited in its scope and its understanding of the significance of myth and ritual in human culture.

He states:

“To put it kindly, the strength of Frazer’s mind lay in its power to synthesize vast quantities of data into a small number of manageable categories; to put it more bluntly, Frazer seems to have lacked nearly completely the analytic rigor required for such a sweeping investigation into the deepest springs of human behavior” (p. 57).

Later he says:

In short, Frazer’s epistemology has led him up a blind alley, and he seems to despair of making any sense of the fantastic diversity of myth and ritual he has so successfully displayed to the reader. One may now ask why Frazer is generally thought of today (especially by literary people) as the father of the ritual approach to myth, although he was at best a qualified ritualist and that only at the beginning of his career, when he was obscure, and not at all when his work became well known among the general public. The answer lies partly in ignorance; few have had the interest or patience to trace the convoluted and disorderly growth of Frazer’s ideas, so that his reputation of being the “onlie Begetter” of the Cambridge Ritualists is in one sense simply a vulgar error.

Ackerman sees many connections between the gods of the Egyptians, Greeks and Phrygia. He saw a connection between the dying and rising gods of these cultures. He saw Attis, Adonis, Osiris, and Dionysus as gods of vegetation who both died and then rose again (p. 60-63. See also Tryggve Mettinger, The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East, Eisenbrauns, 2001). Ackerman critiques J.G. Frazer's conclusion that Attis, Adonis, Osiris, and Dionysus share similar themes and motifs. Ackerman argues that Frazer oversimplified the complexity of these myths and their cultural significance by reducing them to a single set of universal themes. He also criticizes Frazer for assuming that these myths had a direct influence on one another, rather than being shaped by their unique cultural and historical contexts. Ackerman concluded that Frazer's approach was limited in its understanding of the diversity and complexity of myth and ritual.

Robert Ackerman acknowledges Jane Ellen Harrison as a significant figure in the study of classical mythology and religion. Ackerman discusses Harrison's contributions to the field, particularly her work on Greek mythology and her ideas on the relationship between myth and ritual. He also highlights her role as a leading member of the Myth and Ritual School, a group of scholars who sought to understand the significance of myth and ritual in ancient cultures.

Ackerman highlights some of Jane Ellen Harrisons strengths as a scholar. Some of these strengths include her innovative ideas on the relationship between myth and ritual. Ackerman notes that Harrison was one of the first scholars to study the relationship between myth and ritual in classical cultures and to argue that myth and ritual were deeply interrelated. Ackerman cites Harrison's expertise in Greek mythology, relating Harrison's extensive knowledge of Greek mythology and her contributions to the field through her studies and interpretations of classical texts. He also points out Harrison's role as a leading member of the Myth and Ritual School: Ackerman highlights Harrison's contributions to the development of the Myth and Ritual School and her status as one of its leading members.

Overall, these strengths demonstrate Harrison's importance and influence in the field of classical mythology and religion.

Ackerman also delves into some of the personal life of Jane Ellen Harrison. She and her fellow “ritualists”: Gilbert Murray, Francis Macdonald Cornford, and Arthur Bernard Cook were known as “The Cambridge Ritualists” by later commentators. The author explains:

To understand in what way the Ritualists were a group, one must know something of Jane Harrison’s life and temperament. She was one of that talented first generation of women admitted to English university education, entering the recently established Newnham College, Cambridge, in 1875. She and others like her (one thinks of her contemporary fellow Yorkshirewoman Beatrice Potter Webb) showed that women, given the chance, could pursue and attain the highest goals in intellectual life. She was born in 1850 (four years before Frazer) into an upper-middle-class Nonconformist family and, like all women of her time and class, educated at home by a series of governesses. After some struggle on her part, her exceptional gifts caused her to be sent away to school (Cheltenham) in 1867 and then on to Newnham… Ritualists may be seen, biographically speaking, as a particularly happy time in Jane Harrison’s life, when her emotional and intellectual energies were most closely unified. In one sense, then, the reason for the group’s coming-to-be was that Jane Harrison had a need for making passionate intellectual friendships. If this reading is generally correct, it may explain how and why each of the members of the group was close to Jane Harrison but not how or why they were a group. Here we might de-emphasize sentiment and point to the fact that she was the center of the group because she always seems to have had a broader conception of their common subject matter than any of the others… each man in the group (the Ritualist School) was closer to her than to any of the other members of the group. (p. 67-69).

The Cambridge Ritualists (Murray, Cornford, Cook, and Harrison), who followed the work of J.G. Frazer, have been criticized for a number of reasons.

One criticism is that they tended to view the rituals of different cultures as being primarily concerned with the maintenance of social order and the reinforcement of traditional beliefs, rather than as expressions of individual or collective religious experience. This view has been criticized for being overly simplistic and for neglecting the complexity and diversity of human religious practices.

Another criticism is that the Cambridge Ritualists were accused of imposing their own Western cultural assumptions and biases on their interpretation of the rituals they studied. They have been criticized for failing to fully understand the cultural context and meaning of the rituals they were studying.

Additionally, the idea that ritual is the primary means of maintaining social order, and the concept of 'the ritual of kingship' was also criticized as it failed to account for the role of economic and political factors in maintaining social stability.

Some anthropologists and folklorists have also criticized the Cambridge Ritualists for their lack of attention to the role of performance and symbolism in ritual practices, and for their narrow focus on the study of rituals to the exclusion of other aspects of culture, such as art, language, and mythology.

It's important to note that these criticisms are not universal and some scholars have defended the work of the Cambridge Ritualists and continue to find their ideas useful and relevant.

Who has defended the Cambridge Ritualists?

Some scholars have defended the work of the Cambridge Ritualists and continue to find their ideas useful and relevant in the study of mythology and ritual.

For example, the British anthropologist E.E. Evans-Pritchard has defended the work of the Cambridge Ritualists, particularly their focus on the study of ritual and its relationship to social organization. However, Evan Pritchard blasts Frazer in his book Theories of Primitive Religion (Oxford Clarendon Press 1965) when he says:

Frazer is, I suppose, the best-known name in anthropology… no one accepts Frazer’s theory of stages (of the development of religion from primitive to more advanced) today. (p. 28-29). However, not all that Frazer wrote about magic and religion was chaff. There was some grain. For example, he was able in his painstaking way to demonstrate what Condorcet and others had merely asserted, how frequently among the simpler peoples of the world rulers are magicians and priests. Then, although he added little to Tylor's explanation of magic as misapplication of association of ideas, he provided some useful classificatory terms.. showing that these associations are of two types, those of similarity and those of contact, homoeopathic or imitative magic and contagious magic. He did not, however, go further than to show that in magical beliefs and rites we can discern certain elementary sensation. (p. 29)

Pritchard argued that the Cambridge Ritualists were among the first anthropologists to take ritual seriously as a subject of study and that their ideas continue to be useful in understanding the role of ritual in human societies.

Another example is the British anthropologist Rodney Needham, who has defended the work of the Cambridge Ritualists by arguing that they were one of the first groups of anthropologists to try to understand the meaning of ritual in the cultures they studied, and that their ideas continue to be useful in the study of ritual and symbolism.

Additionally, some scholars in the field of comparative mythology have argued that the work of the Cambridge Ritualists and J.G. Frazer continues to be valuable in understanding the ways in which myths and rituals are interconnected and can be used to study the human mind and cultures.
It's important to note that these views are not universal and there are still some scholars that disagree with the ideas of the Cambridge Ritualists.

Ackerman presents the ritualists as misguided. He writes, “As we have seen, over the past half century the Ritualists and their work have been first cried up and then decried. Today the consensus among classicists and ancient historians is emphatically negative” (p. 184).

Ackerman does lay out some hope:

“In the nineteenth century literature was understood largely in historical and biographical terms. In our time the trend has been away from historical criticism to formalism and the analysis of literary language. Seen in these terms, it seems to me that there is a place for a yet-to-be-developed ahistorical version of ritualism as well, and therefore that the Cambridge Ritualists may not have labored entirely in vain” (p. 187).

In the final chapter of his book "The Myth and Ritual School," entitled "Aftermath," Robert Ackerman summarizes his critique of J.G. Frazer's scholarship and the broader "Myth and Ritual School" of thought. In this chapter, Ackerman highlights several main points:

1. The limitations of Frazer's comparative method: Ackerman argues that Frazer's approach was too focused on finding similarities between myths and failed to consider the unique cultural and historical context of each myth.
2. The oversimplification of myth and ritual: Ackerman criticizes Frazer for reducing complex cultural expressions to a single set of universal themes.
3. The marginalization of the study of myth and ritual: Ackerman argues that the "Myth and Ritual School" was limited in its scope and influence, and that its approach was largely discredited and replaced by other approaches to the study of myth and ritual.
4. The significance of myth and ritual in their own right: Ackerman concludes that myth and ritual deserve to be studied in their own right, rather than as precursors to modern religion or as evidence of cultural evolution. He argues that they are important cultural expressions that can provide insights into human society and the human experience.

Overall, in the "Aftermath" chapter, Ackerman reflects on the legacy of Frazer's scholarship and the "Myth and Ritual School," and argues for a more nuanced and complex approach to the study of myth and ritual. Ackerman challenges critics to stand back and try and see the bigger picture. Quoting Northrop Frye, he explains:

In looking at a picture, we may stand close to it and analyze the details of brush work and palette knife. This corresponds roughly to the rhetorical analyses of the new critics in literature. At a little distance back, the design comes into clearer view, and we study rather the content represented: this is the best distance for realistic Dutch pictures, for example, when we are in a sense reading the picture. The further back we go, the more conscious we are of the organizing design. At a great distance from, say, a Madonna, we can see nothing but the archetype of the Madonna, a large centripetal blue mass with a contrasting point of interest at its center. In the criticism of literature, too, we often have to “stand back” from the poem to see its archetypal organization. (p. 196)

[Liam Malone · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was fun to read. It was not fun learning the heaps of anti female in this. Some scholars yelled at Harrison simply because of her gender. They said she has no business in a man's scholarly world. She bemoaned studying Ancient Greek late in life, like I did. I learned Greek in my Master's program.

This book records all the important books written in the late 19th & 20th centuries. I have read many of them.

The idea is that tragedy is born from ritual. The ritual of the New Year God overwhelming the Old Year God who dies. The new year God is Jesus, Orestes, Dionysus as the New Young Zeus.

Some say the ritual is the springing to life of the crops so living and growing with the new year god.

The new year should be held on the Spring equinox and not in the middle of Christian Christmas worship.

[Kent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Arthur’s fine review here sums up matters neatly. I’d only add that Ackerman does a wonderful job of bringing to life Fraser and especially Harrison. I got a good sense of why the once wildly popular Fraser has gone into eclipse and why Harrison, by any standard a remarkable scholar and woman, merits renewed attention.