FOLKLORE STUDIES : 18 The Ritual Theory of Myth JOSEPH FONTENROSE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS 1966Unimssry oF Catsronnta PURLICATIONS Fouttors Sreomes: 18 Abvisony Eorrons BuxrRano BRonsox, WoLFRAM EBERIARD, WavLAND HAND, Srantey L. Ross, D.K. Witevs sued Jy 2, 1965 rice, 20 ‘Coemmce Uses Pas (© 16 wer acre oF ree eae oF casrORA 24955 PREFACE, ‘Movs has a great vogue today, and nowhere so much asin literary eitcim. Some tics are finding myth everywhere, expecially those who follow the banner of the “mythsitual” school—or perhaps T shoule say banners of schools, since ritualist do not form a single school or follow a single doctrine. But most of them are agreed that all myths are derived from rituals and that they were in origin the spoken part of a ritual performance. Ultimately all rtualists come to rest lunder the shadow of the Golden Bough. So in this study Lexamine not only the doctrines of Lord Raglan, Stanley Hyman, and other conspicuous ritualist, but also (both Titerally and figuratively) the tree under which they stand, I investigate ‘the bough itself and the strange priest who allegedly guarded it I investigate the Frazerian royal victim, whose unhappy fate affects ‘us still in manifold ways—it the rcualists are right. ‘The ritual interpretation of myth is by no means confined to literary criticism 1c has a wide influence in many fields, auhough few anthropologists, folklorist, for clasiciss accept it, despite ritualise assertions to the contrary, Yet classical scholars and anthropologists had much to do with the building of the ricualit interpretations: Frazer himself was both classicist and anthropologist; Jane Hari son, who is Hyman’s main scholarly support, was a classical scholar much in- fluenced by the findings of anthropology (and this statement is equally true of her close friends, Gilbert Murray and Francis Cornford). The writings of Frazer and Harrison have affected so many felds of study and have influenced so many readers that they deserve the attention that I give them here, T wish to thank Profesors William Bascom and Louis MacKay for reading portions of early drafts and for their comments and criticisms, from which T have benefited; Edwin Loeb for a copy of his In Feudal Africa, for references to books and artides, and for information drawn from his own knowledge of African peoples; William N. Fenton of the New York State Museum and Science Service for information on Iroquois rites and myths; all friends who have taken an in terest in my study of the myth-rtual relationship and who have made suggestions finally, Miss Lynda Spence of the Editorial Department of the University of California Pres for eiteful editorial work and attention co details of style JECONTENTS Prologue 1 Raglan’s Royal Victim Sacrifice of the Divine King Ancient Evidence for King Sacrifice Eunnographie Evidence fr King Scie Primeval Origins . Thomas Becket Guy Fawkes ‘Raglan’s Fuhemerison Prehistoric Drama». Conclusion of Critique of Ragtan’s Theory IL Hyman’s Goodly Themis Harrison's Theory ‘The Palsikastro Hyman Conclusion of Critique of Hyman’s Theory LL ‘The King of the Woods ‘The Ghatly Priest ‘The Succesion Combat ‘Tree and Bough Diana Vesta Virbius and Egeria Monera IV. Definition . ‘The Myth-Ricual Relation | | Definition of Myth and Other Terms ‘Functions of Myth Appendix: The Palaikastro Hymn Bibliography Index