“Dr. Frazer is read no less for his learning than for his style, and his latest book will not be found wanting in any of the qualities which lent charm to his former work.”
| + + | Acad. 71: 569. D. 8, ’06. 1280w. | |
| Am. Hist. R. 12: 446. Ja. ’07. 30w. |
“These fascinating studies ... require ... no further recommendation from the reviewer. But there are also perpetual phases like ‘may probably be,’ ‘seem to indicate’; etc., which produce in the reader a feeling of vagueness and uncertainty.”
| + + − | Ath. 1906, 2: 540. N. 3. 1500w. |
“The exposition displays the erudition, both literary and archaeological, that we are familiar with in Dr. Frazer’s writings; also, in spite of certain irrelevant chapters a more orderly method and relevance than he usually observes. His exposition of the great religious idea of the death and resurrection of the God is clear and sound and rests on solid evidence. Of much less value are the sociological hypotheses that he associates with the religious facts. Here the weakness of his work and method is most manifest. In spite of certain defects and hasty assumptions this book well deserves success and a grateful recognition.” Lewis R. Farnell.
| + − | Hibbert J. 5: 687. Ap. ’07. 1590w. |
“As compared with the first series of studies destined to be incorporated in the new edition of the ‘Golden bough,’ the ‘Lectures on the early history of the kingship,’ published last winter, the argument in the present volume is conducted with more reserve, and the conclusions are advanced with more caution. Mr. Frazer writes with rare literary skill.” Wendell T. Bush.
| + | J. Philos. 4: 21. Ja. 3, ’07. 1150w. |
“We would suggest that, when the matter of this book comes to be incorporated in ‘The golden bough’, Dr. Frazer should make somewhat clearer what he conceives to be the relations of ‘the god of Ibreez’, Sandan, and the Baal of Tarsus respectively.”
| + + − | Lond. Times. 5: 342. O. 12, ’07. 1200w. |