9* s. vm. JULY 27, 1901.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
95
from 1763 to 1772, gave a series of balls, con-
certs, and masquerades, " unparalleled in the
annals of public fashion." The " Angel, still
standing next to St. Giles's Church, can, per-
haps, claim some greater respectability in
point of antiquity. Of this inn there is a
chalk drawing in the Grace Collection, port-
folio xxviii. 99 (B.Mus. Print Department).
J. HOLDEN MACMlCHAEL.
NOTES ON BOOKS, &c.
Magic and Religion. By Andrew Lang. (Long- mans & Co.)
IN producing a book which is in part a continuation of such earlier works as ' Myth, Ritual, and Reli- gion ' and ' Custom and Myth,' and in part a con- futation of the views of recent exponents of Simitive culture such as Mr. Tylor and Mr. Frazer, r. Lang displays equal courage, energy, and erudition. His investigations extend over almost the entire field covered by Mr. Frazer, and at every point he confronts his adversary armed and prepared to do battle. The strife is between heroes, and those less admirably equipped than the antagonists will do well to keep out of the fray. We are ourselves unable to decide when " doctors disagree," and can but indicate some aspects of the matters in dispute. In common with all scholars, Mr. Lang was struck with the remarkable amount of erudition Mr. Frazer displayed in the first edition of ' The Golden Bough,' in which, treading in the footsteps of Mannhardt, Robertson Smith, Mr. Tylor, and others, he set himself the task of explaining some of the most interesting problems of primitive worship. In the second edition of that remarkable book Mr. Frazer went further than Mr. Lang can follow him. That dissent from many of the conclusions of 'The Golden Bough ' had been previously felt is certain. The appearance of the second edition has provoked a reply or replies, in which, while expressing his admiration for Mr. Frazer's industry, zeal, and knowledge, Mr. Lang challenges his conclusions at all points. What is most strongly opposed is the connexion between the Sacaean festival (in which, after a period of saturnalia, a mock-king was deposed, flogged, and executed), the Jewish feast of Purim with the death of Hainan, and the tragedy of Calvary. Of the various hypotheses shaped and put learnedly forward by Mr. Frazer none is warranted by the evidence as Mr. Lang boldly enunciates, " No, not one." In limine Mr. Lang disputes that there is conclusive evi- dence that " magic is older than religion ; that general belief [as distinguished from local legend] in any age regards gods as mortal"; that a man "has ever been sacrificed for the benefit of a god whom he incarnates " ; that a real king, at Babylon or elsewhere, was sacrificed annually to benefit a god. " The idea is incredible " that the date of the death of the Sacsean mock-king can be made to tit in with Purim or Easter. These and other points are strongly combated by Mr. Lang. In the instance of the last no more remains to be said. In the few words which Atheneeus, Book XIV. c. xliv., cites from the 'History of Babylon' of
Berosus, there is no mention of the death of the
mock* king. We quote the words themselves in
WLr. Yonge's translation of the ' Deipnosophists,'
p. 1021. Berosus says that " on the sixteenth day
)f the month Lous there is a great festival cele-
Drated in Babylon, which is called Sakeas ; and it
.asts five days ; and during those days it is the
custom for the masters to be under the orders of
- heir slaves ; and one of the slaves puts on a robe
ike the king's, which is called a zoganes, and is master of the house. And Ctesias also mentions this festival in the second book of his ' History of Persia.' " This is all that is said. For the death of the mock-king we have to depend on Dio Chry- sostom, to whom we are unable to refer. The date of the sacrifice which we may assume to have baken place, since evidence from without supports it is fixed, and there is, as Mr. Lang shows, no possibility of making the festival fit with the Hebrew Purim, the date of which was some months earlier. The mock-king, moreover, as is once more shown, was a criminal, who was not sacrificed, but degraded first and then executed. Apart from the context what we are saying has little significance and perhaps little intelligibility. It is, however, impossible to follow the argument at any length.
Mr. Lang disputes also what is said as to the origin of the "ghastly priest" beneath Arician trees, the rex nemorum, and other matters involved in the very inception of Mr. Frazer's theory. Ser- vius, some four hundred years after the date of Virgil, placed the habitat of Virgil's golden bough in the grove near Aricia haunted by the ghastly priest. Reasons for doubting this are advanced. That Virgil's branch of gold was mistletoe, that the haunted tree at Aricia was an oak, and other assumptions, are disposed of; and Mr. Lang dis- courages strongly the modern theory that all gods are gods of vegetation, and draws attention to the fact that "mythology has been of late emancipated from the universal dominion of the sun, but only to fall under that of gods of vegetation, whether of vegetable life at large, or of the corn-spirit and the oak-spirit in particular." As regards the significance of the " ghastly priest," Mr. Lang has a theory of his own, with which we will leave Mr. Frazer to deal. Supplementary chapters on ' Cup and Ring ' and on ' Walking through Fire ' have great interest. From Mr. Tyler's ascription to missionary influence of the savage conception of a great spirit Mr. Lang dissents. His latest work will receive and repay the closest study of all interested in the great problems with which he deals.
Annuaire de la Noblesse de Russie, 1900. Troisieme Annee. (St. Petersburg, Imprimerie de 1'Aca- d&nie Imperiale des Sciences.) THAT the word Annuaire is not to be taken in the full sense ordinarily assigned it is shown by the fact that the Annuaire first appeared in 1889, and has but now reached the third issue. It is edited by our correspondent Dr. Ermerin, of the Bibliotheque Imperiale of St. Petersburg; is written partly in French, partly in Russian ; is enriched with coats of arms (some of them coloured) and pedigrees ; and constitutes, as we suppose, a full guide to the Russian nobility. Portraits of members of the imperial family are given, and there is much inter- esting information, in the value and accuracy of which we are glad to believe, though we have to take both on trust. The only Russian family of princely rank with any member of which we can
