The problem of the study of the mysteries of Cybele, Isis and Mithras is one that continues to challenge scholars of Graeco-Roman Religion. The questions centered on systems of belief, systems of value, and finally around ritual systems have not found any definite answer, especially in light of the fact that sources are indeed scarce. If Jaime Alvar’s new work does not provide any firm, indisputable answer to the way the mysteries function, it does not take away from the main merit of the work: the interpretation offered is strengthened by a strong methodology coupled with a tremendous synthesis of both primary documents and secondary scholarly debates. Ultimately the work achieves three distinct objectives. The first two are of historical value, while the third is of methodological value. Indeed, Alvar has proven in the first place that the ‘oriental’ cults, in spite of recent trends seeking to point out their differences, do exhibit enough similarities that a scholar might group them under the umbrella of a single analysis. In the second place, Alvar argues, quite successfully, that these three religions, despite their particular dynamics, cannot be dissociated from the general system of Graeco-Roman cults. Finally, the third merit is that methodology can be used to supplement lack of primary document.
The book is divided in five chapters. The first chapter, ‘Religion, Cult and Mystery’ is a purely theoretical work, which purpose is not just to lay down the theoretical basis of the analysis, but also to consider the validity of the grouping on a purely philosophical basis, without delving into the specifics of each cults. Ultimately, Alvar argues, myth and procession, both integral parts of the mystery cults, are essential constituencies in the creation of a religious identity.1 The special character of the ‘oriental’ mysteries does not preclude the presence of these elements, and, due to their origins outside of the Graeco-Roman orbit, display a similar vision of the mystery system.2
The next two chapters, ‘Systems of Belief’ and ‘Systems of Value’ are concerned specifically with the mythography of Cybele, Isis and Mithras. In spite of the extremely fragmentary nature (and in the case of Mithras, complete absence) of a narrative of the myths of the mysteries, Alvar, in the first place reconstructs the myths from the iconography, the few indirect references in the literature, and epigraphic evidence. Once the narrative is completed for each myth, Alvar shows that each mystery3 displays the same fundamental characteristic: each cult offers two distinct paradigms. First, the cults do offer some form of ordering of the chaos of life by providing a deity that has some form of control over fate; and second, the cults offer some form of reward in the afterlife.4 The third chapter is a slight departure from the myth and considers how these rewards are dispensed. In short, Alvar shows that in each mystery is included a moral code centered on total devotion to the deity, and is shadowed in the initiation.5
The fourth chapter, 'The Ritual Systems', steps away from the myths themselves and looks at the way the deities were worshiped. The ritual itself is perhaps the strongest element of continuity between the Roman civic cults and the mysteries. Indeed, Alvar argues, the mysteries exhibit some very key components of the Roman civic cults, including procession, sacrifice and prayer (focusing on health, and wealth). The initiation, Alvar states, is the major structural difference that differentiates the mysteries from the Roman civic cults, even though it serves a similar purpose: indeed, Alvar argues, the initiation is perhaps the most important part of the creation of communal bonds. 6
The contrast occurs at the micro-level, that is, the specific ways in which a given deity is worshiped Still, Alvar argues, the differences may not be that relevant. For instance, the lack of a head priest in the mithraic iconography does not show the presence of the 'sacrificing pater'. Departing from the notion that mithraic sacrifices were performed without a priest, Alvar shows that the iconography should be read at the symbolic level: Mithras himself is the 'sacrificing pater.'7 Lastly, even strange practices should not deter us from establishing the parallels between Roman cult practices and the mysteries. For instance, the 'traditional' self-gelding performed in the Magna Mater cults is toned down as being neither common, nor done hastily in a trance. Rather, the emasculated priests had in all likelihood been prepared and the gelding was performed under control reenactment (which does not occlude a ritualistic reenactment).8
The last chapter serves as conclusion and destroys the link between Christianity and the mysteries on the levels of prayer, belief system, and ritual. Instead of viewing the success of the mysteries as a precursor to the success of Christianity, he views them as competing ideologies that evolved in the great melting pot of Roman Religion. Thus, both Christianity and the mysteries were in fact Romanized, and transformed side-to-side.
I would not recommend this book to the uninitiated in the discourses of Roman Religion. Indeed, by its very nature, a study of the mysteries is necessarily complex. No contemporary narrative of the myths remains, and, in the case of Mithras, no text pertaining directly to the cult is extant. Alvar takes this gaping hole in the sources in the manner of a successful imposition of silence on the initiates. Perhaps heavily influenced by Apuleius (which I will get to in a subsequent part of the review), Alvar follows Lucius's statement that he cannot repeat what the priest Mithras has said to him during the initiation rites9 à la lettre. This in itself is very limiting. Indeed, that the lack of surviving textual evidence is the result of obedience to an apparent rule of silence is but one possible alternative. Focusing on the cult of Mithras, one finds a wealth of evidence that, not only were intellectuals aware of the cult (as was the case with Augustine or Porphyry) but that there were 'experts' in the cults. Indeed, in his De antro nympharum, Porphyry mentions a certain Euboulus who wrote extensively about the cults.10 This would at least suggest an oral tradition, and more likely, a written tradition. One possible avenue of inquiry would pertain to textual transmission in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. At any rates, this problem of sources is one that deserves better treatment than using Foucault's philosophy as axiomatic in all circumstances.
Therein lies the fundamental problem with Alvar's analysis. To remedy to the paucity of extent documents, he relies on methodology and personal beliefs to expound on various themes. One can see these issues particularly well in two instances: in the case of Mithraic myth-making, and again in his blind use of Apuleius as a valid source for the cult of Isis. For Mithras, the situation is especially difficult, as there is indeed no written myth, and the paradigms of the myth are to be derived from the iconography, and perhaps supplement the iconography with the sparse myth of the Iranian Mithra. Alvar adds one variable to the mix: the reconstruction of Cumont, which despite his warnings, he uses rather extensively.
The use of the iconography is the only reliable source that Alvar uses for the cult of Mithras. The Cumont narrative has been widely discredited. Alvar himself states that every sentence not taken directly from the iconography 'may very well be mistaken.'11 The parallel with the Iranian Mithra is also one that Alvar discredits subsequently in the book: the Persian deity that emerged out of Iron Age Iran has evolved.12 What then, can be derived from Alvar's analysis? Did the Mitroacs indeed possess a system of belief based on the myth of the their deity? The answer must come from comparative evidence with the other mysteries. Ultimately, no answer can be decisive.
In the case of Isis, the problem is again in the use of the source material. The main source that Alvar uses is the Golden Ass, which he takes to be true, not by analysis, but rather, because 'he [Apuleius] was writing for a sophisticated audience capable of appreciating the truth-value of his account from its own circumstantial knowledge.'13 Again, this is not only a simplistic vision of the text of Apuleius, but also erroneous on a few counts. First, he fails to consider the Golden Ass as a work of comedy, and that we must, therefore, be careful of the literary tropes. A careful reading of the ritual shows an overwhelming presence of words pertaining to flowers, which, on the one hand may be associated with the cult of Isis, but may very well be a hyperbole. Also, the presence of legal jargon (for instance in XI.24) indicates the more traditional contractual nature of the bonds between a person and the deity, which in turn would indicate that Lucius's audience may not have been so knowledgeable.14 Lastly, Alvar argues that the various branches of the cult were not in contact with one another, which he takes from the refusal of the Isis priest in Rome to recognize the initiation of Lucius in book XI of the Golden Ass.15 If such is the case, what evidence can we draw from Apuleius? To what extent is Apuleius's discussion of Isis an isolated incident, with iconography specific to that area? Ultimately, without an external source to confirm or deny what is said by Apuleius, little can be achieved from a reading of the Golden Ass.16
In spite of this criticism, Alvar attempts to restore the link that once allowed scholars to link the 'oriental' cults of Isis, Cybele and Mithras.17 And indeed, he explains rather well the structural similarities between the three. What he successfully convinces this reader of is that the cult of Magna Mater and the cult of Isis were incredibly similar, and that gaping holes about understanding in one cult, can be used to construct a narrative about the other cult. However, the Mithraic cult appears to be significantly different both a the structural level, and at the mythological level. Most notably, the absence of women, and the astrological character of the cult are important differences. Thus, Alvar's synthesis of the mysteries offers his reader a challenging yet coherent and cogent account of the three major mysteries, highlighting not just the similarities between the cults, but forces the reader to think about the material and form his own opinion of the mysteries.
1 Jaime Alvar, Romanising Oriental Gods, trans. by Richard Gordon (Leiden: Brill, 2010), pp.17-23, esp. pp.21-22.
2 Ibid, p.23.
3 I will use this word loosely to describe specifically Cybele, Isis and Mithras.
4 Jaime Alvar, Romanising Oriental Gods, esp. pp.132-142.
5 Although the form varies, this does indeed seem to be a universal: castration in the cult of Cybele, abstinence in the case of Isis. The Mithraic evidence is more tenuous, but I am overall convinced that the myths did contain some form of morality. Jaime Alvar, Romanising Oriental Gods, pp.146-155, pp.200-203.
6 Ibid, the comparison is set up specifically pp.206-231.
7 Ibid, pp.351-353.
8 Ibid, pp. 246-261.
9 Apuleius, The Golden Ass find reference.
10 Jaime Alvar, Romanising Oriental Gods, pp.74-75.
11Ibid, p.78.
12 This point is unfortunately made too late in the book. Ibid, p.345.
13Ibid, p.337.
14See Apuleius, The Golden Ass, XI.24: Perfectis sollemnibus: the word sollemnibus has both a legal connotation, and can be used for civil rituals. It indicates that Lucius is still reasoning as a Roman, and is aware that he is addressing a Roman, non-initiated audience. See XI.23: Quaeras forsitan satis anxie, studiose lector, quid deinde dictum, quid factum; dicerem si dicere liceret, cognosceres, si liceret audire. The two past contrafactuals indicate that the audience cannot know the secret initiation rites. Linking this to the perfectis sollemnibus, we see Lucius's desire to express what has just happened in a way that makes sense to his audience. The exempla is interesting, and it can be inferred that these rituals were perhaps not so unique. This interpretation would follow with the rest of the book, where Apuleius hints at the fact that these cults are, in fact, shams.
15Alvar, Romanising the Oriental Cults, pp.217-221.
16In this respect, I follow the view of Bowden. Hugh Bowden, Mystery Cults of the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), p.167.
17Alvar spends the bulk of the introduction explaining how that break came about, while the first chapter reconciles the three cults as possible unity.
No comments:
Post a Comment