Download the full version of the ebook at https://ebookultra.com The Greek Gods in Modern Scholarship
Interpretation and Belief in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Germany and Britain
1st Edition Michael D. Konaris
https://ebookultra.com/download/the-greek-gods-inmodern-scholarship-interpretation-and-belief-innineteenth-and-early-twentieth-century-germanyand-britain-1st-edition-michael-d-konaris/
Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that you can download immediately if you are interested.
Lords of
Misrule Hostility to Aristocracy in Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Britain 1st Edition
Antony Taylor (Auth.)
https://ebookultra.com/download/lords-of-misrule-hostility-toaristocracy-in-late-nineteenth-and-early-twentieth-centurybritain-1st-edition-antony-taylor-auth/ ebookultra.com
John Payne Collier Scholarship and Forgery in the Nineteenth Century Arthur Freeman
https://ebookultra.com/download/john-payne-collier-scholarship-andforgery-in-the-nineteenth-century-arthur-freeman/
ebookultra.com
Epic and empire in nineteenth century Britain 1st Edition
Simon Dentith
https://ebookultra.com/download/epic-and-empire-in-nineteenth-centurybritain-1st-edition-simon-dentith/ ebookultra.com
Psychological Subjects Identity Culture and Health in Twentieth Century Britain Mathew Thomson https://ebookultra.com/download/psychological-subjects-identityculture-and-health-in-twentieth-century-britain-mathew-thomson/ ebookultra.com
Britain s experience of empire in the twentieth century 1st Edition Thompson
https://ebookultra.com/download/britain-s-experience-of-empire-in-thetwentieth-century-1st-edition-thompson/ ebookultra.com
Occasionalism and the Debate about Causation in Early Modern Germany 1st Edition Christian Henkel
https://ebookultra.com/download/occasionalism-and-the-debate-aboutcausation-in-early-modern-germany-1st-edition-christian-henkel/ ebookultra.com
Fitting Sentences Identity in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Prison Narratives 2nd Edition Jason Haslam
https://ebookultra.com/download/fitting-sentences-identity-innineteenth-and-twentieth-century-prison-narratives-2nd-edition-jasonhaslam/ ebookultra.com
The History of Labour Intermediation Institutions and Finding Employment in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries 1st Edition Sigrid Wadauer
https://ebookultra.com/download/the-history-of-labour-intermediationinstitutions-and-finding-employment-in-the-nineteenth-and-earlytwentieth-centuries-1st-edition-sigrid-wadauer/ ebookultra.com
Female Transgression in Early Modern Britain Literary and Historical Explorations Richard Hillman
https://ebookultra.com/download/female-transgression-in-early-modernbritain-literary-and-historical-explorations-richard-hillman/ ebookultra.com
TheGreekGodsinModernScholarshipInterpretation andBeliefinNineteenthandEarlyTwentiethCentury GermanyandBritain1stEditionMichaelD.Konaris DigitalInstantDownload
Author(s):MichaelD.Konaris
ISBN(s):0198737890
Edition:1
FileDetails:PDF,1.76MB
Year:2016
Language:english
OXFORDCLASSICALMONOGRAPHS PublishedunderthesupervisionofaCommitteeofthe FacultyofClassicsintheUniversityofOxford
TheaimoftheOxfordClassicalMonographseries(whichreplaces theOxfordClassicalandPhilosophicalMonographs)istopublish booksbasedonthebestthesesonGreekandLatinliterature,ancient history,andancientphilosophyexaminedbytheFacultyBoardof Classics.
TheGreekGods inModernScholarship InterpretationandBeliefinNineteenth andEarlyTwentiethCentury
GermanyandBritain
MICHAELD.KONARIS GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©MichaelD.Konaris2016
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2016
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2015938209
ISBN978–0–19–873789–6 Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
Tomyparents Acknowledgments ThisbookisbasedonmydoctoralthesisatBalliolCollege,Oxford. Iwouldliketoexpressmywarmthanksfortheiradviceandguidance tomysupervisor,RobertParker,tomyexaminerfromthetransferto thevivaandOCMadvisor,ScottScullion,tomyexternalexaminer attheviva,JanBremmer,andtomycollegeadvisor,OswynMurray; toFritzGrafforhisextremelyhelpfulreview;andtoAngelosChaniotis,AlbertHenrichs,andRenateSchlesierforgenerouslyreading anddiscussingmyresearch.Myworkhasbenefitedverymuchfrom theircommentsandsuggestionsregardingthestudyofGreekreligion andthehistoryofclassicalscholarship.Responsibilityforitsshortcomingsissolelymine.
IamsaddenedthatSimonPrice,whoofferedvaluableadviceinthe earlystagesofthisproject,cannotseeitinits finalform.
AsarecipientoftwoDAADresearchgrantsandasaJunior ResearchFellowattheInstitutfürReligionswissenschaft,FreieUniversität,BerlinIhadtheopportunitytoparticipateintheproject ‘Der differenteGott.KonstruktionendesDionysosinderModerne’ ledby RenateSchlesierinthecontextoftheSFB Transformationender Antike anddevelopmythesisintoabookinahighlystimulating environmentofinterdisciplinarydialogueandexpertiseonthehistoryofmoderninterpretationsofGreekreligion.IamdeeplythankfultoProfessorSchlesierandtothemembersofherresearchteam.As aTedandElaineAthanassiadesPostdoctoralFellowattheSeeger CenterforHellenicStudiesatPrinceton,Iwasabletoconcludethe finalstagesofwritinginsuperbconditionsofresearchandintellectual exchange.IamgratefultotheCenter’sDirector,DimitriGondicas, forthegenerousacademichospitality.
IwouldliketothanktheLibraryoftheUniversityofBonnfor permissiontocitematerialfromWelcker’ s Nachlass,theRoman BranchoftheGermanArchaeologicalInstituteforpermission tocitefromWelcker’scorrespondencewithGerhard,Braun,and Henzen,andtheRectorandFellowsofExeterCollege,Oxfordfor permissiontocitematerialfromFarnell’ spapers.
Iwouldfurtherliketothankfortheirassistancethestaffsofthe BodleianandtheSacklerLibrary,theBritishLibrary,theLibrariesof
Acknowledgments theInstituteofClassicalStudiesandoftheWarburgInstitute,the StaatsbibliothekzuBerlin,theBlegenLibrary,theLibraryofDAI Athens,andtheFirestoneLibrary.
Inaddition,IwouldliketothankOUP’seditors,CharlotteLoveridgeandAnnieRoseaswellasJulietGardner,SivaramanAyyavoo, LydiaShinoj,DavidRudeforth,LizFawcett,andAnnBroughton.
IamverythankfultoDrKlaus-ValtinvonEickstedtandDrDiana Breitfeld-vonEickstedtwhowithgreatgenerosityhelpedwiththe deciphermentofthevariousformsof Kursivschrift inWelcker’ s Nachlass.
IwouldalsoliketothankWinnieSmith,EdgarBettridge,and UlrichHübingerforgoingovermytranslationsofGermanpassages intoEnglish,improvingmyrenderings,andsuggestingtheirown translations.Exclusiveresponsibilityforallerrorslieswithme.
Contents Introduction1 1.TheTyrannyofNatureovertheGreekGods: VariationsofPhysicalInterpretation52
I.TheRediscoveryofGreeceandPhysical InterpretationsofGreekReligion:PeterWilhelm Forchhammer(1801–94)57
II.ZeusKronionandtheGreekGodsbetween Natur and Cultur:FriedrichGottliebWelcker’ s GriechischeGötterlehre (1857–63)66
III.Polytheismand Naturreligion:LudwigPreller’ s AccountofGreekReligion90
IV.PhysicalInterpretationsoftheGreekGods andIndo-EuropeanComparativeMythology102
IV.ATheGreekGodsintheLightoftheVeda: FriedrichMaxMüller(1823–1900)103
IV.BComparingGreekandRomanGods: WilhelmHeinrichRoscher(1845–1923)123
2. Stammesgötter andUniversalGods:TheHistoricalCriticalApproach131
I.TheDorianApolloofKarlOtfriedMüller (1797–1840)131
II. Jahresgötter andUniversalGods:HeinrichDietrich Müller(1819–93)150
III.UnitingtheAryanwiththeSemitic:Ernst Curtius(1814–96)161
3.AncientPolytheismsandModern Antagonisms:HermannUsener’sTheoryof Sondergötter 180
4.BritishResponses195
I.TheAnthropologicalBackground195
II.BridgingAnthropologywiththeStudyofGreek Religion:AndrewLang(1844–1912)202
III.TheGreekGodsbetweenGerman Alterthumswissenschaft andBritishAnthropology: LewisRichardFarnell(1856–1934)209
IV.Anthropology,SociologyandtheReturnofPhysical Interpretation:JaneEllenHarrison(1850–1928)237
Introduction JederhatnochindenAltengefunden,waserbrauchteoder wünschte,vorzüglichsichselbst.
Fr.Schlegel
ThehistoryofmodernscholarshiponGreekreligionisanareathatis increasinglyattractingtheattentionbothofcurrentstudentsofGreek religionaswellasofstudentsofmodernintellectual,cultural,and religioushistory.InexaminingtheinterpretationoftheGreekgods innineteenthandearlytwentieth-centuryGermanyandBritain, Iwantedtoproduceastudythatwouldbeusefultothoseinterested inGreekreligionandtheinterpretivequestionsitraisesandthat couldalsocontributetothehistoryofGermanandBritishPhilhellenismandthebroaderintellectual,culturalandreligioushistoryof theperiod.
Thenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturiescompriseacrucial periodinthehistoryofscholarshiponGreekreligion.Duringits course,interpretiveapproacheswhichhadbeeninfluentialforcenturiesdeclinedandothersemergedtheimpactofwhichisstillfelt today.Scholarsdrewonphilology,archaeology,comparativemythology,anthropology,orsociologytoputforwardradicallydifferent theoriesoftheGreekgods.Theirdebatesovertheinterpretationof thegodswereofnomereantiquarianinterest.Thebookexploresthe modernbeliefs,assumptionsandagendasinformingtherivaltheories thatappearedinGermanandBritishscholarshipinthelightoftheir widerhistoricalcontext.Itlaysparticularstressonhowclosely implicatedtheinterpretationoftheGreekgodsinnineteenthand earlytwentieth-centuryGermanyandBritainwasincontemporary discussionsofmajorquestions fromtheoriginsandnatureof religionorman’sattitudetonaturetotherelationofclassical
2 Introduction antiquitytoChristianityortherelationbetweenWesternand ‘Oriental’ culture.Aswillbeseen,clashesbetweenthedevoutandproponents of ‘scientificatheism’,confessionalrivalriesbetweenCatholicsand ProtestantsornationalrivalriesbetweentheGermansandtheBritish weresomeofthefactorsthataffectedthestudyofGreekreligionandits godsandgaveitacutesignificanceforthepresent.
Inaddition,thebookconsiderstheimpactofnineteenthandearly twentieth-centurytheoriesonthedevelopmentofthestudyofGreek religioninthetwentiethandtwenty-firstcenturies,andseekstodraw implicationsforcurrentdebatesandapproaches.Theinterpretation oftheGreekgodsandofGreekpolytheismasawholecontinuestobe heavilycontested.SuchquestionsaswhethertheGreekgodsshould beseenaspowersorpersons;howtoaccountfortheirdifferent aspectsandfunctions;orwhetherGreekpolytheismwasastructured systemorasemi-chaoticconglomeratearehotlydebatedincontemporaryscholarship.1 Inadditiontothequestionofinfluences,examiningthewritingsofpastscholarscanrecoverinsightsrelevantto currentdebates,orpointtoissuesthathavesincebeenoverlooked andwouldbeworthrevisiting.Furthermore,investigatinghowthe fieldevolvedininterrelationtoitshistoricalcontextprovidesan opportunitytostandbackandreflectonitscurrentstateandonthe questionsandthemesthatdominatecurrentdiscussions.2 AsHenrichshasemphasized,thereisno ‘definitive’ viewoftheGreekgods: ourviewsnolessthanthoseofourpredecessorsare situations-und
1 W.Burkert, GriechischeReligionderarchaischenundklassischenEpoche (Stuttgart:Kohlhammer,2011,secondedition),pp.332–3,R.Parker, Polytheismand SocietyatAthens (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2005),pp.387–95,R.Parker, OnGreekReligion (Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,2011),pp.84–98, H.S.Versnel, CopingwiththeGods (Leiden:Brill,2011),J.N.Bremmer, ‘Introduction: TheGreekGodsintheTwentiethCentury’,inJ.N.BremmerandA.Erskine(eds.), TheGodsofAncientGreece.IdentitiesandTransformations (Edinburgh:Edinburgh UniversityPress,2010),pp.1–18atpp.15–17,J.N.Bremmer,GreekReligion (Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,1999),p.11,R.Seaford, ‘KarlKerényi’sInterpretationof Dionysos’,inR.SchlesierandR.SanchiñoMartinez(eds.), Neuhumanismusund AnthropologiedesgriechischenMythos.KarlKerényiimeuropäischenKontextdes20. Jahrhunderts (Locarno:Rezzonico,2006),pp.95–104atp.95.
2 A.Henrichs, ‘PhilologieundWissenschaftsgeschichte:zurKriseeinesSelbstverständnisses’,in:H.Flashar(ed.), Altertumswissenschaftinden20erJahren (Stuttgart: Steiner,1995),pp.423–57atpp.431–2.Cf.J.I.Porter, ‘ReceptionStudies:Future Prospects’,inL.HardwickandC.Stray(eds.), ACompaniontoClassicalReceptions (Malden/Oxford:Blackwell,2008),pp.469–81atp.471.
zeitbedingt. 3 Themosteloquentindicatorofthevaluethattheexaminationofthehistoryofthedisciplinecanhaveforthecurrentstudy ofGreekreligionisthatithasattractedtheattentionofsuchscholars ofGreekreligionasBonnet,Borgeaud,Bremmer,Burkert,Detienne, Graf,Henrichs,Parker,Pirenne-Delforge,Schlesier,orVersnel.4 In thepagesthatfollowmydebttotheirworkwillbeobvious.
IfocusprimarilyonGermanandBritishscholarshipas,forallthe significanceoftheworkofscholarsfromothernationaltraditionsas ofE.Renan(1823–92),L.-F.A.Maury(1817–92),orN.D.F.deCoulanges(1830–89),inthecaseofFrance,forexample,someofthemost importantdevelopmentsinthestudyofGreekreligionduringthe nineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturiesoccurredinGermany,the sourceof Altertumswissenschaft,andinBritain,thecentreofDarwiniananthropology.Aswillbeseen,Britishscholarsengagedina longlastingdialoguewiththeworksoftheirGermancounterparts whichmakesGermanandBritishscholarshipsuitableforajoint study.OnoccasionIdrawparallelswiththeviewsofcontemporary Frenchscholars.However,amorethoroughinquiryintohowFrench scholarship,aswellashowothertraditionsofEuropeanandNorth Americanscholarship,comparetotheGermanandtheBritishIleave forthefuture.
Inrecentyearsthehistoryofclassicalscholarshiphasbeen illuminatedfromdifferentangles fromassessmentsofthecontributionofindividualscholarsorgroupsofscholarstostudiesof
3 A.Henrichs, DieGötterGriechenlands.IhrBildimWandelderReligionswissenschaft (Bamberg:Buchner,1987),p.32.
4 W.Burkert, ‘GriechischeMythologieunddieGeistesgeschichtederModerne’,in LesÉtudesClassiquesauxXIXeetXXesiècles:LeurPlaceDansl’HistoiredesIdées (Geneva:FondationHardt,1980),pp.159–207,Parker(2011),H.S.Versnel, InconsistenciesinGreekandRomanReligionII.TransitionandReversalinMythandRitual (Leiden/NewYork/Cologne:Brill,1994,secondedition),M.Detienne, TheCreationof Mythology (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1986),P.Borgeaud, LaMythologie duMatriarcat.L’AtelierdeJohannJakobBachofen (Geneva:Droz,1999),C.Bonnet, V.Pirenne-DelforgeandD.Praet(eds.), LesReligionsOrientalesdansleMondeGrec etRomain:CentAnsaprèsCumont(1906–2006),(Brussels:BelgischHistorisch InstituutteRome,2009).FromthenumerouscontributionsofBremmer,Graf, Henrichs,andSchlesier,Imentionasexamples:J.N.Bremmer, ‘MythandRitualin AncientGreece:ObservationsonaDifficultRelationship’,inR.vonHaehling(ed.), GriechischeMythologieundfrühesChristentum (Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,2005),pp.21–43,F.Graf, GreekMythology.AnIntroduction (Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1993),Henrichs(1987),R.Schlesier, Kulte,Mythen undGelehrte.AnthropologiederAntikeseit1800 (FrankfurtamMain:Fischer,1994).
4 Introduction methodologiesandcontinuitiesordiscontinuities,toinvestigationsof theinstitutionalframeworkofclassicalstudies.5 Atthecentreofthis bookstandmajorrivaltheoriesofinterpretationoftheGreekgodsin nineteenthandearlytwentieth-centuryGermanandBritishscholarshipaftertheendofthecontroversysurroundingCreuzer’ s SymbolikundMythologiederaltenVölker (firstedition,1810–12),the beliefsandagendasunderlyingtheminthelightoftheirhistorical context,andtheirdevelopmentinthecourseoftime.Thebook focusesespeciallyontwokeyquestionsthatthesetheoriessoughtto address,namelywhethertheoriginalformofGreekreligionwas monotheisticorpolytheistic,andhowtoaccountfortheorigins andfunctionsofthemajorGreekgods.Asregardsthelatterquestion, forreasonsthatwillbediscussedlater,scholarsinthisperiodtended toplaceemphasisonApolloasaprimarytestcasefortheirviews.The stressonthecaseofApollointhebookreflectsthis ‘bias’ .
ThisstudymakesbynomeanstheclaimtoprovideacomprehensiveaccountofGermanandBritishscholarshipontheGreekgods duringthisperiod.Ihavelargelyleftouttheareasof Kunstmythologie andofphilosophicalapproachestotheGreekgodswhichwould requirebook-lengthinvestigationsintheirownright.Readersmay furthermisswell-knownscholarssuchas,forexample,J.J.Bachofen (1815–87)ontheGerman-speakingside,orG.Grote(1794–1871) andW.Pater(1839–94)ontheBritish.Innotincludingtheirwork, IdidnotwishtodenyitsbroadersignificanceforthestudyofGreek religionandmythology.However,besidesconsideringthewritingsof
5 Forexample,W.M.CalderIIIandR.Schlesier(eds.), ZwischenRationalismusund Romantik:KarlOtfriedMüllerunddieantikeKultur (Hildesheim:Weidmann,1998), W.M.CalderIII(ed.), TheCambridgeRitualistsReconsidered (Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1991).Onmethodologiesandcontinuities/discontinuitiesseeH.Flashar,K.Gründer, andA.Horstmann(eds.), PhilologieundHermeneutikim19.Jahrhundert.Zur GeschichteundMethodologiederGeisteswissenschaften (Göttingen:Vandenhoeck andRuprecht,1979–1983)andM.BollackandH.Wismann(eds.), Philologieund Hermeneutikim19.Jahrhundert.IIGrundlagendergeisteswissenschaftlichenForschung (Göttingen:VandenhoeckandRuprecht,1983).Ontheinstitutionalbasisof BritishclassicsseeC.Stray, ClassicsTransformed.Schools,Universities,andSocietyin England,1830–1960 (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1998).Onthedifferentmethodologies thathavebeenemployedinthelastyearsinstudiesofthehistoryofclassical scholarshipseeL.HardwickandC.Stray, ‘Introduction:MakingConnections’,in Hardwick/Stray(2008),pp.1–9atpp.2–3,G.W.Most, ‘Einleitung’,inG.W.Most(ed.) ArnaldoMomigliano.AusgewählteSchriftenzurGeschichteundGeschichtsschreibung, vol.III: DiemoderneGeschichtsschreibungderAltenWelt (Stuttgart:Metzler,2000), pp.vii–xixatp.xiii.
major figureslikeK.O.MüllerorMaxMüller,whoeitherformulated orwerethemostinfluentialadvocatesofthespecifictheoriesinvestigatedinthisbook,Iwantedtoshiftattentiontothecaseofless knownscholarswhoplayedanimportant,ifunacknowledged,rolein thehistoryofthediscipline,orwhoseviewsreflectordistortsignificanttrendsoftheperiod.
Inparticular,the firstchapterexaminesvariationsofthemethodof physicalinterpretationbothindependentof,andwithinthecontext ofIndo-EuropeanComparativeMythology.Physicalinterpretation wasthesinglemostinfluentialmethodofinterpretationofthe GreekgodsinbothGermanandBritishscholarshipforthegreater partofthenineteenthcentury.Thechapterfocusesontheworkof P.W.Forchhammer(1801–94),F.G.Welcker(1784–1868),and L.Preller(1809–61),andinasectiononIndo-EuropeanComparative Mythology,onthatofF.MaxMüller(1823–1900)andW.H.Roscher (1845–1923).Thesescholarsbelongedinparttodifferentgenerations,didnotnecessarilyregardthemselvesasmembersofthe same ‘school’ andtheirapproachescandisplaysignificantmethodologicaldifferences.Idecided,however,totreattheminthesame chapterastheycanbesaidtobeinthesameinterpretivetradition totheextentthatintheiraccountoftheGreekgodstheyhad fundamentally(orlargelyinthecaseofWelcker)recoursetophysical interpretations.Morescholarsfromthistraditionareexaminedinthe bookthanfromanyother,inparttoreflecttheprominenceof physicalinterpretationinnineteenth-centuryscholarship.
ThesecondchapterexaminesthetheorythatthemajorGreekgods hadbeentribalgodsandtherelatedtheorythattheyhadbeen universalgods.BoththeorieshadtheirrootsintheworkofK.O. Müller(1797–1840),afounderofthehistorical-criticalapproach,and werefurtherdevelopedbyH.D.Müller(1819–93)andE.Curtius (1814–96).Thesetheoriesarguablyprovidedthemostimportant alternativetophysicalinterpretationsoftheGreekgodsbeforethe emergenceofanthropologyandtherivalrybetweenthemwasa dominantthemeinGermanscholarshipfromthe1820stothe 1890s.ThewritingsofK.O.Müllerappearedearlierthanthoseof the firstscholarexaminedinthechapteronphysicalinterpretation, P.W.Forchhammer,and,furthermore,inmanywayshisworkcan beseenasrespondingtothatofearlierscholarssuchasG.F.Creuzer (1771–1858).However,Iexamineitinthesecondchapteras Ifeltthathis,andespeciallyhisfollowers’ views,wouldbebetter
understoodiftheviewsofscholarsinthephysicaltraditionwere discussed first.
Asweshallsee,allthreeadvocatesofthehistorical-critical approachtreatedhadtiestotheUniversityofGöttingen,which invitesthequestionoftherelationbetweeninterpretiveapproach andinstitutionalaffiliation.SeveralGermanuniversitiesbecameassociatedwithparticulartraditionsofinterpretationinlinewiththeir politicalorconfessionalallegiancespassedonthroughsuccessive generationsofteachers.ThusatKönnigsbergthetraditionofrationalistcriticismofC.A.Lobeck(1781–1860)wascarriedonbyhispupil, K.Lehrs(1802–78).6 Leipzigwasthecentreof ‘Saxonianrationalism’ , aneminentrepresentativeofwhichinthe fieldofclassicalscholarship wasG.Hermann(1772–1848).7 AftertheendofC.G.Heyne’slong tenure,8 Göttingenaswellbecameassociatedwithstronglyantimystical,rationalistviews.Theadvocatesofthehistorical-critical approachmaynothavebeenconsideredrationalistsinthesenseof LobeckorHermann,buttheyshared,intheeyesoftheircritics,an ‘enlightened’ viewofGreekreligion.Inconsideringtheroleofuniversities,however,itshouldalsobenotedthat,Heidelberg,for example,wasatthesametimehomebothtotheromanticCreuzer andtherationalistJ.H.Voss(1751–1826),9 orthatinEngland, OxfordwashomeatthesametimetothechampionofIndoEuropeanComparativeMythology,MaxMüller,andtooneofhis greatestcritics,theanthropologicalwriterA.Lang.10
ThethirdchapterfocusesonHermannUsener’s(1834–1905) theoryof Augenblicks- and Sondergötter.AlthoughUseneremployed anIndo-Europeancomparativeframeworkinhisstudyofancient
6 C.Bursian, GeschichtederclassischenPhilologieinDeutschlandvondenAnfängenbiszurGegenwart (Munich/Leipzig:Oldenbourg,1883),p.718.
7 Cf.U.vonWilamowitz-Moellendorff, GeschichtederPhilologie (Stuttgart/Leipzig: Teubner,1998),p.49.
8 OntheromantictendenciesinGöttingenatthetimeseeO.Gruppe, Geschichte derklassischenMythologieundReligionsgeschichtewährenddesMittelaltersimAbendlandundwährendderNeuzeit (Leipzig:Teubner,1921),p.112.Ontheintellectual climateatGöttingeninthelateeighteenthandearlynineteenthcenturyseefurther L.Marino, PraeceptoresGermaniae Göttingen1770–1820 (Göttingen:Vandenhoeck andRuprecht,1995).
9 O.Pöggeler, ‘Einführung’ [SectionV: MythengeschichteundReligion],inF.Strack (ed.), HeidelbergimsäkularenUmbruch (Stuttgart:Klett-Cotta,1987),pp.441–3at p.441.
10 OnClassicsinnineteenth-centuryOxfordseeC.Stray(ed.), OxfordClassics. TeachingandLearning1800–2000 (London:Duckworth,2007).
religionsand,toanextent,advancedphysicalinterpretations, Ichosenottoincludehiminthe firstchapteronphysicalinterpretation,butrathertodiscusshisworkinaseparatechapterafter theexaminationofadvocatesofthehistorical-criticalapproach,asthe theoryof Sondergötter canbeseenasthecontrastingpoletothetheory ofuniversalgods.
ThefourthchapterexaminesBritishresponsestoGermanscholarshipandthetreatmentoftheGreekgodsinthenewcontextcreated byanthropologyand,later,sociologyinthelatenineteenthandearly twentiethcenturiesintheworkofA.Lang(1844–1912),L.R.Farnell (1856–1934)andJ.E.Harrison(1850–1920).
Finally,theConclusionlooksatinfluenceson,anddevelopments in,thestudyoftheGreekgodsinthetwentiethandtwenty-first centuries.
IhavetriedtorepresentasaccuratelyasIcouldtheviewsofthe scholarsunderexaminationandavoidsuchpitfallsconfrontingthe studyofpasttexts,as,forexample, ‘themythologyofcoherence’ , 11 pointingtoshiftsordivergenceswithinthesamework,orbetween worksfromdifferenttimesinascholar’scareer,oraddressedto differentaudiencesandsoforth.Iwouldliketounderline,however, thatbothinitsaccountandanalysisofthevarioustheoriesitinvestigatesandinitsareasofemphasisandorganizationofmaterial,the presentstudyevidentlyprovidesbutoneinterpretationofpast scholarship.
Bywayofbackground,theintroductionprovidesabriefoverview ofmajortheoriesofinterpretationoftheGreekgodsfromantiquity totheeighteenthcenturyandthenconsidersthetransitiontothe nineteenth.
PhysicalandmoralallegorygoesatleastasfarbackasTheagenes ofRhegiuminthesixthcentury BC . 12 AccordingtoPorphyry,Theagenesheldthatthe fightsofthegodsinHomerweretobeseenas strugglesofelements: ‘drynessstrugglesagainsthumidity,heat againstcold thesearethestrugglesthatHomerdepictedbygiving
11 Onthemythologyofcoherence,wherebyinrepresentingtheviewsofawriter onesetsthemforthinacoherentformthattheymighthavelackedseeQ.Skinner, ‘MeaningandUnderstandingintheHistoryofIdeas’,inJ.Tully(ed.), Meaningand Context:QuentinSkinnerandhisCritics (Cambridge:PolityPress,1988),pp.29–67at pp.38–42.
12 G.R.Boys-Stones, Post-HellenisticPhilosophy (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2001),p.31.
to firethenamesofApollo,HeliosandHephaistos,towaterthoseof PoseidonandScamander ... inthesameway,hesometimesgave namesofgodstodispositionsofthesoul,tothinkingthatofAthena, tomadnessthatofAres.’13 Physicalinterpretationreappearsin,for example,theDervenipapyrus,acommentaryonanOrphictheogony fromthefourthcentury BC,14 andwastakenuponalargescalebythe Stoicphilosophers.15 AccordingtotheexpositionofStoicviewsin Cicero’ s DeNaturaDeorum, ‘Aërautem ... interiectusintermareet caelumIunonisnomineconsecratur ... ApollinisnomenestGraecum, quemsolemessevolunt,Dianamautemetlunameandemesseputant.’16
Bycontrast,inhis I æa ƪæÆç ,Euhemeros(c.300 BC )maintainedthat,whiletravellingontheislandofPanchaia,hefound inscriptionswhichindicatedthattheGreekgodshadoriginally beenhistoricalindividualssuchaskingsorgenerals.17 Alongsimilar lines,Persaeus,astudentofZenoofKitium,advancedtheview (perhapsalreadyadvocatedinthe fifthcenturybyProdicus)that thegodshadoriginallybeenmenwhohadmadesignificantdiscoveriesfortheimprovementofhumanlife.18 Thetheorythatthegods weredeifiedmortalsmetwithstrongreaction.Plutarch,forexample, accusedEuhemerosofinventinghimself ‘copiesofanincredibleand non-existentmythology’ . 19 EuhemerismbecamepopularwithChristianwritersattackingGreekandRomanreligion.20 DrawingonGreek
13 Porphyry, HomericQuestions I,240.14–241.12quotedinL.Brisson, How PhilosophersSavedMyths.AllegoricalI nterpretationandClassicalMythology (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2004),pp.35 – 6.
14 W.Burkert, ‘OrpheusunddieVorsokratiker.BemerkungenzumDerveni-Papyrus undzurpythagoreischenZahlenlehre’ , AntikeundAbendland XIV,1968,pp.93–114at p.94.OnallegoryintheDerveniPapyrusseeD.Obbink, ‘AllegoryandExegesisinthe DerveniPapyrus:theOriginofGreekScholarship’,inG.R.Boys-Stones(ed.), Metaphor, Allegory,andtheClassicalTradition.AncientThoughtandModernRevisions (Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2003),pp.177–88.
15 Graf(1993),pp.194–5.OnStoicallegoryseefurtherG.R.Boys-Stones, ‘The Stoics’ TwoTypesofAllegory’,inBoys-Stones(2003),pp.189–216.
16 Cicero, DeNaturaDeorum II.xxvi–xxvii.D.Frede, ‘TheodicyandProvidential CareinStoicism’,inD.FredeandA.Laks(eds.), TraditionsofTheology.Studiesin HellenisticTheology,itsBackgroundandAftermath (Leiden/Boston:Brill,2002), pp.85–117atp.102.
17 Graf(1993),pp.191–2.
18 OnProdicusseeR.Parker, AthenianReligion:aHistory (Oxford:Clarendon Press,1996),p.213,n.56.
19 Plutarch, DeIsideetOsiride 23.360.Cf.Cicero, DeNaturaDeorum I.xlii.119.
20 S.R.F.Price, ‘LatinChristianApologetics:MinuciusFelix,Tertullian,andCyprian’,inM.Edwards,M.GoodmanandS.Price(eds.), ApologeticsintheRoman
sourcesintheEuhemeristtraditionlikeDiodorus,Tertullian (c.150–222 AD),argued,forexample,thatSaturnhadbeenaman: anexiletoItalywhohadtaughtthelocalpeoplesvariousskillssuchas theartofwritingandtheuseofcoins.21
Inhis — æd ” Ø ŒÆd O æØ Plutarchmentionedafurther theory:themythsaboutTyphon,OsirisandIsiscouldbeseenas referringto ‘theexperiencesneitherofgodsnorofmenbutofgreat daemons’ . 22 Plutarchrelatedthat,accordingtoPythagoras,Platoand others,whohadthemselvesbeenfollowingearlierthinkers,daemons werebeingsstrongerthanmenyetnotcompletelydivine.23 The ‘daemonological’ theorytoowastakenupbyChristianwriters,who arguedthattheGreekandRomangodsweredaemons,inferiortothe trueChristianGod.24
Furthermore,intheirattemptstoaccountfortheoriginofpolytheism,Christianwritersalsoarguedthatthegodsofpolytheistic religionshadarisenoutofborrowingsfrom,ormisinterpretationsof, theBible.25
Thesetheoriescontinuedtobeinfluentialforcenturies.J.Seznec hasemphasizedhowtheGreekgods ‘survived’ inthecultureandart oftheMiddleAges.26 Inthedictionariesandcompendiaonthemyths ofantiquitythatappearedinthisperiod,andsubsequentlyduringthe Renaissance,physicalandmoralallegoryandEuhemerismwere amongthechieftheoriesemployed.27
Theeighteenthcenturyusheredinaperiodofrenewedinterest inthereligionsoftheancientworldincludingGreeceduring whichtheyoftenbecameanobjectofcontentionbetweendevout Christianwritersandcriticsofestablishedreligioninthenameofthe
Empire.Pagans,JewsandChristians (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1999a), pp.105–29atp.125.M.Bull, TheMirroroftheGods (Oxford/NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress,2005),p.15.
21 Tertullian, Apologeticus10.7–9. 22 Plutarch, DeIsideetOsiride 25.360.
23 Plutarch, DeIsideetOsiride 25.360.
24 Tertullian, Apologeticus 23.11,MinuciusFelix, Octavius 27.
25 Price(1999a),pp.125–6.
26 J.Seznec, TheSurvivalofthePaganGods (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1981),p.3.
27 Seznec(1981),pp.11–121.Cf.Bull(2005),A.Momigliano, ‘Historiographyof Religion:theWesternTradition’ , OttavoContributoallaStoriadegliStudiClassicie delMondoAntico (Roma:Edizionidistoriaeletteratura,1987a),pp.27–44atp.37. SeealsoGruppe(1921),pp.29ff.Byzantinescholars,aswell,discussedtheGreekgods intermsoftheoriesgoingbacktoantiquity:Brisson(2004),pp.107–25esp.p.114.
10 Introduction Enlightenment.28 Althoughthereappearedsomeworksthatdealt exclusivelywithGreekreligion,themaintendencyatthetimewas forgeneralaccountsofancientandmodernpolytheisticreligionsas thereligionsofthenativepeoplesofAmericaandtheFarEastbecame increasinglyknowninEurope.29 Fundamentaltoeighteenth-century enquiries,fromB.Fontenelle’ s Del’OriginedesFables (1724)to C.Dupuis’ Del’OriginedeTouslesCultes (1795),wasthequestion oforiginstowhichimmenseinterpretivevaluewasattached.30 Asa researchprinciple,thisremainedhighlyinfluentialthroughoutthe courseofthenineteenthcentury31 andintothetwentieth.32 The emphasisthattendedtobeplacedontheexplanationofmythsduring thisperiod33 shouldnotobscurethefactthatritualsaswellattracted attention.Indeed,Fontenellearguedthatpaganreligionsconsistedof practisesandthatthosewhoconductedthemcouldbelievewhatever theywished.34
Thecruxofthereligiousinvestigationsofthetimewaswhether monotheismorpolytheismhadbeentheoriginalreligionofhumankind.35 InthisquestionthevalidityofChristianaccountsofthe
28 OnthestudyofancientreligionsintheeighteenthcenturyseeF.E.Manuel, The EighteenthCenturyConfrontstheGods (Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress, 1959),C.Grell, LeDix-huitièmeSiècleetl’AntiquitéenFrance1680–1789,vol.II (Oxford:VoltaireFoundation,1995),C.MartinezMaza, ‘DelaThéologieàl’Anthropologie:UtilisationduPaganismeGréco-Romaindansl’EuropeduXVIIIeSiècle’,in C.Avlami,J.AlvarandM.RomeroRecio(eds.), Historiographiedel’Antiquitéet TransfertsCulturels (Amsterdam/NewYork:Rodopi,2010),pp.85–98,P.Gay, The Enlightenment:AnInterpretation (London:WeidenfeldandNicolson,1966).
29 Manuel(1959),pp.7,15ff.,MartinezMaza(2010),pp.93–4.
30 Manuel(1959),pp.133–4,C.Grell, LeDix-huitièmeSiècleetl’Antiquitéen France1680–1789,vol.I(Oxford:VoltaireFoundation,1995),pp.584–5.
31 Schlesier(1994),p.158,Graf(1993),p.33.
32 Henrichs(1987),p.12.
33 Oneighteenth-centuryviewsofmythseeL.M.Gisi, Einbildungskraftund Mythologie.DieVerschränkungvonAnthropologieundGeschichteim18.Jahrhundert (Berlin:DeGruyter,2007),Manuel(1959),Grell(1995),B.FeldmanandR.D.Richardson, TheRiseofModernMythology, 1680–1860 (Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1972).
34 ‘Ilyalieudecroireque,chezlespaïens,lareligionn’étaitqu ’unepratique dontlaspéculationétaitindifferente.Faitescommelesautres,etcroyezcequ ’ilvous plaira Aussivoit-onquetoutelareligionpaïennenedemandaitquedescérémonies,etnulssentimentsducœur. ’ B.Fontenelle, HistoiredesOracles [1686] (Paris:UnionGénéraled’Éditions,1966),p.44.
35 Onthedebateon Urmonotheismus versus Urpolytheismus intheperiodsee F.Schmidt, ‘Polytheisms:DegenerationorProgress?’,inF.Schmidt(ed.), TheInconceivablePolytheism.StudiesinReligiousHistoriography (HistoryandAnthropology 3 (1987),pp.9–60,GrellII(1995),pp.930–51.
originsofreligionwasatstake.AsSchmidtunderlines, ‘hewho upheldtheideathatpolytheismwastheprimaryreligionofhumanity,underminedProvidenceandputindoubttheabsolutenecessity ofreligionforman.’36 AccordingtotheconventionalChristianposition,theoriginalreligionofhumankindhadbeenmonotheistic the truereligionrevealedbyGod.Owingtohumanweakness,that religionwaslost,givingwaytopolytheism,exceptinthecaseofthe Jewsand,accordingtosomewriters,certainelitegroupsamongother peoples.37
Thenotionof Urmonotheismus metwithoppositionfromthinkers likeD.Hume(1711–76).38 In TheNaturalHistoryofReligion (1757) Humearguedthatthehumanmind ‘risesgradually,frominferiorto superior’ andfromtheconcretetotheabstract.Consequently,the abstractconceptofasingleSupremeGodcouldnothavebeenformed atanearlystage.39 ThusHumeemphasizedthat ‘polytheismoridolatry, wasandnecessarilymusthavebeen,the firstandmostantientreligion ofmankind’ . 40 Inaddition,Humelaidstressontheallegedtolerant natureofpolytheismincontrastto theintoleranceofmonotheism.41
Despitethevoicesofcriticism,theoriesof Urmonotheismus remainedprominentintheremainderoftheeighteenthcentury and,indeed,throughoutthenineteenthcentury.Thusacasefor Greek Urmonotheismus fromaChristianperspectiveappearsinBergier’sworkontheoriginsofthepagangods.Bergierposedthe questionofhowdidapeopleasenlightenedastheGreekssuccumb tothefollyofpaganism.HearguedthatGreekreligionhadnotbegun withpolytheismandidolatry.Inhisview,theGreekshadinitially knownasingleeternalGod.42 UnderJewishinfluencetheyhadat first
36 Schmidt(1987),pp.23–4.On Urmonotheismus or ‘primitivemonotheism’ see furtherManuel(1959),pp.57ff.
37 GrellII(1995),pp.882–913.
38 Manuel(1959),p.174,GrellII(1995),pp.936–8.
39 D.Hume, TheNaturalHistoryofReligion (London:Millar,1757),p.5.
40 Hume(1757),p.3.Cf.Momigliano(1987a),p.28.
41 Hume(1757),pp.58–62,Schmidt(1987),pp.24–5.Gibbonvindicatedpolytheismonsimilargrounds:J.Scheid, ‘PolytheismImpossible;or,theEmptyGods: ReasonsBehindaVoidintheHistoryofRomanReligion’,inSchmidt(1987), pp.303–25atp.313.
42 ‘ ... ilparoîtcertainquedanslepremierstempslesGrecsontconnu&adoréun seulDieuéternel.’ N.S.Bergier, L’OriginedesDieuxduPaganisme;etleSensdesFables DécouvertparuneExplicationSuiviedesPoësiesd’Hésiode,vol.I(Paris:Humblot, editionof1774),p.13,cf.GrellII(1995),p.908.
worshippedsolelyOuranos.Theirmonotheisticworshipgradually degeneratedintotheworshipofSaturnandtheTitansandlaterinto theworshipofZeusandtheOlympians.43
Theoriesof Urmonotheismus werealsoadvancedbyDeistwriters whosoughttodemonstratethattheoriginalreligionofhumankind hadbeensimilartotherational,monotheistic,naturalreligionthey themselvesadheredto.44
Relatedtotheoriesof Urmonotheismus wastheattempttodemonstratethepresenceofamonotheistictendencywithinthepolytheistic worshipsthatemergedwiththedegenerationof Urmonotheismus. Again,thisisaprominentthemeinbotheighteenth-andnineteenthcenturywritings.Anessentialelementofthisallegedmonotheistic tendencywasthenotionofaSupremeDeity.ThusVoltaire,achief propagatorofDeistideasinFrance,notedthatthemajorcriticism levelledagainsttheGreeksandtheRomansinhisdayconcernedthe pluralityofthegods.Heemphasizedthat,infact,theyonlyhada singleSupremeGod.45 Thetheoryofamonotheistictendencyinthe polytheisticreligionsofantiquityoftentooktheformofthe ‘doubletruth’ doctrine.Accordingtothisdoctrine,incontrasttothemasses whohadbeengiventopolytheism,thepaganelites,betheypoliticians,priestsorinitiatesinmysteries,hadbeenworshippersofa singleGod.46 Acharacteristicformulationofthisdoctrineappears inVoltaire’sarticleonidolatryinthe Encyclopédie inwhichitwas suggestedthatinvirtuallyeverypaganreligiontherehadbeena contrastbetweenasecretmonotheistic Théologiesacrée expounded inthemysteriesandthe erreurpopulaire. 47
Withrespecttotheinterpretationoftheancientgods,thetheories advancedbyeighteenth-centurywriterswereagainlargelythose developedinantiquity.48 Inthe firstdecadesoftheeighteenth
43 GrellII(1995),p.909.
44 Manuel(1959),pp.57ff.,Schmidt(1987),p.18.
45 Voltaire, Mélanges (1761), ‘Polythéisme’ , Dictionnairephilosophique,pp.242–3, quotedinGrellII(1995),p.933.
46 Manuel(1959),pp.65–6.GrellII(1995),pp.900–13.
47 Voltaire, ‘IDOLE,IDOLATRE,IDOLATRIE’,in Encyclopédie,ouDictionnaire RaisonnédesSciences,desArtsetdesMétiers,vol.VIII,(Neufchastel,1765),pp.500–4 atp.503.GrellII(1995),pp.933–4.
48 F.E.Manuel, TheChangingoftheGods (Hanover:UniversityPressofNew England,1983),p.xiii,Manuel(1959),pp.7–9.G.Vico(1688–1744)proceeded alongdifferentlines:Graf(1993),pp.17–18.
century,Euhemeristexplanationsappearedtohavebeenwidespread.49 ChevalierdeJaucourtattestedtotheirpopularityinhis articleonmythologyinthe Encyclopédie. 50 Awiderangeoftheories putforwardinthelateseventeenthandintheeighteenthcenturies canlooselybeseenasbeingintheEuhemeristtradition.51 Perhapsthe mostfamouseighteenth-centuryEuhemeristworkisA.Banier’ s (1673–1741)revealinglyentitled LaMythologieetlesFablesExpliquéesparl’Histoire (1738).52AccordingtoBanier, ‘idolatry’ had startedwiththeworshipofcelestialbodies,especiallyofthesun. Thiswasfollowedbytheworshipofothernaturalelementsand, ultimately,bytheworshipofhumans.53
AccordingtoonestrandinChristianmythologicalwritingsreminiscentofthewritingsoftheChristianapologists,thepagangods weretobeseenasdistortedimagesof figuresfromtheBible.Thus P.-D.Huet(1630–1721),bishopofAvranches,maintainedinhis DemonstratioEvangelica (1679)thatallpaganism,beitEgyptian, Indian,Chinese,Greek,GermanorPeruvian,ultimatelyderived fromtheJewishtraditionandthatmostoftheimportantpagan deitieswerebasedonthe figureofMoses.54 Inthesametradition, É.Fourmont(1683–1745)arguedthatthePhoenicianshaddeified theHebrewPatriarchsandtransmittedtheirgodstotheEgyptians andtheytotheGreeks. ‘AbrahamwasSaturn,’ hestated, ‘Issacwas Z or Jupiter,andIshmael Dis or Pluto. ’55 Thenotionthatthe religionsofantiquityhadoriginatedinthetraditionsofasingle people whatGrellcalls ‘lemythedupeupleinstituteur’—exercised apowerfulgripovertheimaginationofbotheighteenth-and nineteenth-centurywriters.Inthecourseoftime,severalalternatives likeEgypt,ChinaorIndiawereproposedasthecradleofancient religions.56
49 Gruppe(1921),p.62.
50 ‘Lafouledesmoderness’estrangéedeson[Euhemeros]avis.’ L.deJaucourt, ‘Mythologie’,in Encyclopédie,ouDictionnaireRaisonnédesSciences,desArtsetdes Métiers,vol.X(Neufchastel,1765),pp.924–6atp.924.
51 Manuel(1959),pp.103ff. 52 Feldman/Richardson(1972),p.86.
53 BanierI(1738),pp.170ff.,411. 54 GrellII(1995),pp.890–1.
55 É.Fourmont, RéflexionsCritiquessurlesHistoiresdesAnciensPeuples (Paris: ChezMusierPere,Jombert,Brisson,Bullot,1735),BookII,3.11citedinFeldman/ Richardson(1972),p.84.Cf.Gruppe(1921),p.64.
56 GrellII(1995),pp.962–76.OnmodernviewsofEgyptasthesourceofreligious wisdomseeJ.Assmann, MosestheEgyptian.TheMemoryofEgyptinWestern Monotheism (Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1997).
14 Introduction Bayle’ s DictionnaireHistoriqueetCritique (1697)isrepresentative ofanotherapproachthatgainedcurrencyintheperiod.57 Objecting toattemptstoexplainthe ‘irrational’ and ‘immoral’ elementsofGreek mythologythroughallegory,P.Bayle(1647–1706)arguedthatthe GreeksbelievedliterallyintheirmythsandportrayedGreekreligion asbeingonaparwiththereligionsofcontemporary ‘ savages ’ . 58 AsimilartendencyisvisibleinthewritingsofB.Fontenelle (1657–1757).59 Inhis HistoiredesOracles (1686)and Del’Origine desFables (1724)Fontenellesoughttopenetrateintothementalityof ‘primitive’ peoples.60 Inhisview,thepeopleswhohadnotbeen acquaintedwiththeJewishtraditionhadoriginallylivedinastate of ‘barbarism’ similartothatofmodern ‘ savages ’ liketheIroquois.He famouslymaintainedthatthe ‘Greekswere,forawhile,savages,just asmuchasweretheAmericans’ andthat ‘thereisreasontobelieve thattheAmericanswouldhavecomeeventuallytothinkasrationally astheGreeks,iftheyhadhadthetime[iftheEuropeanshadnot arrived]’ . 61 Rejectingtheallegoricalinterpretationofmyths,he argued, ‘letusnotlookforanythinginthefablesexceptthehistory oftheerrorsofthehumanspirit’ . 62
Thenotionofa ‘primitive’ mentalityobservablebothamongst ancientandmodernpolytheisticpeoplesandcharacterizedbya deficiencyinreasonandtheviewthatpolytheisticreligionsoriginated inanerrorofhumanreasoningwhichthemodernrationalinvestigatorundertooktoexposearethemesthatre-appearinthewritingsof nineteenth-centuryanthropologists.Asweshallsee,AndrewLang (1844–1912),amajorpopularizerofTyloriananthropology,placed himselfinthetraditionofeighteenth-centurywritersonancient religionslikeFontenelle.63
Inthelastdecadesoftheeighteenthcentury,theapproachofBayle andFontenelle,andofotherwriterslikedeBrosses,wasrivalledby symbolismandthereiterationofphysicalinterpretationsinthework
57 Manuel(1959),pp.24–40.
58 Graf(1993),p.14,Manuel(1959),pp.26–8,Feldman/Richardson(1972), pp.19–24.
59 Manuel(1959),pp.41–53,Bremmer(2005),pp.21–2,Graf(1993),pp.14–15.
60 Bremmer(1999),p.55,Feldman/Richardson(1972),p.8.
61 Feldman/Richardson(1972),p.16.J.-R.Carré(ed.), Fontenelle.Del’Originedes Fables [1724](Paris:Alcan,1932),pp.31–2,Detienne(1986),p.5.
62 Feldman/Richardson(1972),p.18.Carré(1932),p.39.
63 Feldman/Richardson(1972),p.7.
ofR.Payne-Knight(1750–1824)orC.F.Dupuis(1742–1809).64 Payne-Knight’ s AnAccountoftheRemainsoftheWorshipofPriapus (1786)wassupposedlybasedonareportclaimingthatimagesofmale genitaliawereofferedtolocalsaintsatthevillageofIserniain southernItaly.65 AccordingtoPayne-Knight,thephallicimagery andritualswentbacktoantiquityandweretobeunderstoodsymbolically.Hesuggestedthatthephallussymbolizedthegenerative powersofGodandthefemalepartsthegenerativepowersofnature ormatter.66 TheemphasiswhichPayne-Knightplacedonphallic elementsandtheampleillustrationsinsupportofhisthesisteased andscandalizedcontemporarymores.67 Asweshallsee,oneofthe reasonsdrivingthefuriousreactionofrationalistclassicalscholars againstsymbolicalinterpretationsofGreekreligionwastheir indecentstressonphallicelements.ToreturntoPayne-Knight,he advancedsolarand,morebroadly,physicalinterpretationsofthe godsofancientreligions.Thushemaintainedthatthenameof Zeuswas ‘originallyoneofthetitlesorepithetsoftheSun’.Moreover, drawingonMacrobiusheheldthatApollostoodforthediurnal, ‘Dionysius’ orBacchusforthenocturnalsun.68 Hefurtherplaced emphasisonthe figureofOsiris/Bacchus,statingthat ‘thisDeityis celebratedbytheancientPoetsastheCreatorofallthings,theFather ofGodsandMen’ . 69
DupuiswasamemberoftheNationalConventionatthetimeof theFrenchRevolution.His OriginedeTouslesCultes,ouReligion Universelle (1795)waspervadedbyrevolutionaryanti-clericalideas.70 AccordingtoDupuis,theGreekgodslargelyderivedfromEgypt.71 Moreover,likePayne-Knight,DupuisfollowedMacrobiusinputting forwardsolarinterpretationsofBacchus,Osiris,Apolloaswellasof
64 Manuel(1959),p.248.
65 OnPayne-KnightseeFeldman/Richardson(1972),pp.249–56,S.C.Humphreys, TheStrangenessoftheGods (Oxford/NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2004), pp.207–10.
66 R.Payne-Knight, AnAccountoftheRemainsoftheWorshipofPriapus (London: Spilsbury,1786),p.47.
67 Feldman/Richardson(1972),p.249.
68 Payne-Knight(1786),pp.119,134. 69 Payne-Knight(1786),pp.26–7.
70 Feldman/Richardson(1972),p.276.OnDupuisseeManuel(1959),pp.263–70, Feldman/Richardson(1972),pp.276–87,GrellII(1995),pp.958–61.
71 C.Dupuis, OriginedeTouslesCultes,ouReligionUniverselle,vol.III(Paris: Agasse,1795),p.9.
Christ.72 Inhisview,eachsun-deitytendedtorepresentadifferent aspectofthesun.ThusApollowasthediurnalsun-god.Considered asoperatinginthesublunaryworldthesunwasgiventhenamesof BacchusorOsirisetc.73 ThisBacchus-Osiris,Dupuisunderscored, wasassociatedwiththefertilityoftheearth. 74 Translatedinto English,GermanandSpanish,Dupuis’ Origine wasoneofthe best-knownworksonthereligionsofantiquitybeforeCreuzer’ s Symbolik. 75
Thetransitiontothenineteenthcenturywaspredictablymarked byaseriesofcontinuitiesanddiscontinuities.Writinginthe1860s Petersenmaintainedthatwhilea ‘morecomprehensiveeruditionand sharpercriticismdistinguishourcentury’ one-sidedearliertrends continuedtomaketheirpresencefeltinthestudyofGreekmythology.76 Aswillbeseen,foragreatpartofthenineteenthcentury,the questionsthatwereprominentinthestudyofancientmythologiesin theeighteenthcenturycontinuedtobedebated,andsomeoftheold interpretiveapproachesbecameredeployed,inthenewcontextsthat emergedwithdevelopmentsinthe fieldsuchasitsgrowingprofessionalizationandtheformulationofnewmethodologiesorthediscoveryofnew finds.
Inthecourseofthenineteenthcentury,Germanyemergedas theleadingcentreofclassicalscholarshipinEurope.Inhis ‘Aspekte derAntike-RezeptioninderdeutschenAltertumswissenschaftdes19. Jahrhunderts’,K.Christcalledattentiontothreekeyaspectsof theGermanengagementwithGreekantiquityduringthisperiod. First,theidealizationofantiquity.77 Inthisrespect,J.J.Winckelmann
72 DupuisIII(1795),pp.1ff.,C.Dupuis, OriginedeTouslesCultes,ouReligion Universelle,vol.V(Paris:Agasse,1795),pp.109ff.,Manuel(1959),p.267.Similar viewswouldbeadvancedtothe1920s:Sarasinargued,forexample, ‘DaßdiechristlicheReligion,sowiealleanderenantikenReligionen,nureinSeitensproßder allgemeinenSonnenreligion,dieserUrmutterallertheistischenReligionenist,geht ausdervergleichendenReligionsgeschichtemitSicherheithervor’.Sarasinpostulated auniversalsolar Urmonotheismus: ‘AmAnfangwardieSonneeinzigerGott,eine MonasderReligion.’ P.Sarasin, HeliosundKeraunosoderGottundGeist (Innsbruck: Wagner,1924),pp.181,3.
73 DupuisIII(1795),p.27. 74 DupuisIII(1795),p.27.
75 Manuel(1959),p.270.
76 Chr.Petersen, ‘ReligionoderMythologie,TheologieundGottesverehrungder Griechen’,inJ.S.ErschandJ.G.Gruber(eds.), AllgemeineEncylopädiederWissenschaftenundKünste,vol.82(Leipzig:Brockhaus,1864),pp.1–380atp.45.
77 K.Christ, ‘AspektederAntike-RezeptioninderdeutschenAltertumswissenschaftdes19.Jahrhunderts’,inK.ChristandA.Momigliano(eds.), L’Antichità
(1717–68)playedacatalyticrole.78 Inhis GedankenüberdieNachahmungdergriechischenWerkeinderMalereiundBildhauerkunst (1755)WinckelmannextolledthebeautyofGreekstatuary.Inwhat wouldbecomesomeofthemostfamouswordsinthehistoryofGreek artcriticism,hemaintainedthat ‘eineedleEinfalt,undeinestille Grösse’ distinguishedtheGreekmasterpieces.Thesehealsoregarded ascharacteristicofthebestofGreekliterature. 79 InwhatHowaldhas describedas ‘ascreamforrescueandsalvationforthesensesoffended byBaroqueart’ Winckelmannassertedthat ‘theonlywayforusto becomegreat,indeedifpossible,inimitable,istheimitationofthe Ancients’ . 80 TheviewsofWinckelmannconducedtothesupersession oftheearlierfascinationwithRomeandlaidthefoundation-stones foranidealizingcultofGreecewhichwouldplayadominantrolein Germancultureforatleasthalfacentury.81 Towering figuresof GermanliteraturesuchasGoetheorSchillerpartookinthecelebrationofGreeceasacultureofbeautyandharmony.Schiller’ spoem DieGötterGriechenlands (1788,1803)providesanexampleof thisidealizingtendency.Schillerdrewacontrastbetweenlifein GreekantiquityunderthereignoftheOlympiangodsandlife inthepresentunderChristianity.Aworldofbeauty,art,harmony withnatureandproximitytothegodswasjuxtaposedtothegreyness ofmodernlifeinwhichamechanistic ‘soulless’ worldviewhad nell’ OttocentoinItaliaeGermania/DieAntikeim19.JahrhundertinItalienund Deutschland (Berlin/Bologna:DunckerandHumblot,1988),pp.21–37atpp.22–7. Cf.Ch.1 ‘TheMakingofaCulturalObsession’,inS.L.Marchand, Downfrom Olympus.ArchaeologyandPhilhellenisminGermany,1750–1970 (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1996),pp.3–35,J.Wohlleben, ‘BeobachtungenübereineNichtBegegnung:WelckerundGoethe’,inW.M.CalderIII,A.Köhnken,W.Kullmann, andG.Pflug(eds.), FriedrichGottliebWelcker.WerkundWirkung (Stuttgart:Steiner, 1986),pp.3–34atpp.17–20.
78 Christ(1988),p.22,L.Uhlig(ed.), GriechenlandalsIdeal.Winckelmannund seineRezeptioninDeutschland (Tübingen:Narr,1988),p.7,Marchand(1996), pp.7–12.ForarecentexaminationoftheroleofWinckelmannseefurther K.Harloe, WinckelmannandtheInventionofAntiquity (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,2013).
79 J.J.Winckelmann, GedankenüberdieNachahmungdergriechischenWerkein derMalereiundBildhauerkunst (1755), Auszüg.,inUhlig(1988),pp.22–38at pp.36,38.
80 E.Howald, WilhelmvonHumboldt (Zürich:Rentsch,1944),p.47.Winckelmann(1755)inUhlig(1988),p.23.
81 SeetheintroductionandcollectionoftextsinUhlig(1988).
resultedinalienationfromnatureandinwhichtheChristianGod appearedtoodistant.82
AclosefriendofSchiller,W.vonHumboldt(1776–1835)played aninstrumentalpartintheinstitutionalizationoftheidealizationof GreeceinGermany.83 InhiswritingsW.vonHumboldtexpressed frustrationatthepressureofthehustleandbustleofmodernlife whichpreventedmanfromfullydevelopinghispotentialities.84 KnowledgeofGreekantiquity,hestressed,is ‘tousnotonlypleasant, usefulandnecessary,onlyinitwe findtheidealofwhatweourselves wanttobeandcreate’ . 85 Inhiseyes,theGreeksexemplifiedhowina stateof edleMüssigang humanpotentialitiescouldbedevelopedin fullnessandharmony.TheGreekshadattained ‘theblossomof imagination,theprofundityofthespirit,thestrengthofthewill, theunityofthewholebeing,whichalonegivemantruevalue’ . 86 LikeSchiller,W.vonHumboldtwasfurtheranardentbelieverinthe affinitybetweentheGreeksandtheGermans.Thishelocatedat severallevels,fromlanguageandintellectualpredispositionstopoliticalparticularismandsimilaritiesinhistoricalcircumstances,the occupationofGermanterritoriesbyNapoleonicFranceevokingthe RomanconquestofGreece.87 Theviewthataspecialrelationship existedbetweenGreeceandGermanywasbothfoundedonand encouragedtheprojectionofallegedGermanqualitiesontothe
82 H.Hatfield, AestheticPaganisminGermanLiterature (Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1964),pp.122–3.Cf.Henrichs(1987),p.6.Intermsofthe themesoffrustrationatthealienationfromnatureandnostalgiaforpaganantiquity, onemaycompareinEnglandWordsworth’ s ‘Theworldistoomuchwithus’ : R.Jenkyns, TheVictoriansandAncientGreece (Oxford:Blackwell,1980),pp.176–7.
83 Marchand(1996),pp.xvii,24–31.
84 W.vonHumboldt, ‘GeschichtedesVerfallsundUntergangesdergriechischen Freistaaten’ (1807),inA.FlitnerandK.Giel(eds.), WilhelmvonHumboldt.Werke infünfBänden,vol.II(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,2010), pp.73–124atp.93.
85 Humboldt(1807)inFlitner/Giel(2010),p.92.Cf.R.Pfeiffer, ‘Wilhelmvon Humboldt,derHumanist’ , AusgewählteSchriften (Munich:Beck,1960),pp.256–68at p.261.
86 W.vonHumboldt, ‘IdeenzueinemVersuch,dieGränzenderWirksamkeitdes Staatszubestimmen’ (1792),inA.FlitnerandK.Giel(eds.), WilhelmvonHumboldt. WerkeinfünfBänden,vol.I(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,2010), pp.56–233atp.62.
87 P.R.Sweet, WilhelmvonHumboldt.ABiography,vol.I(Columbus:OhioState Universitypress,1978),pp.279–80.NiebuhrfamouslystatedthatGreecewasthe Germanyofantiquity:W.Herbst, DasclassischeAlterthuminderGegenwart (Leipzig: Teubner,1852),p.149.
Greeks.Inthecourseofthenineteenthcentury,itappearedtoacquire ‘scientific ’ backingwiththeformulationoftheIndo-European hypothesis.88
AsPrussianministerforeducation(1809–10),W.vonHumboldt envisagedaneducationalprogrammeattheheartofwhichwouldbe thestudyofclassicalantiquity,89 andthatwouldhelp ‘tomentally preparetheuprisingagainstNapoleon’ . 90 KeyelementsofW.von Humboldt’seducationalreformsweretheorganizationofthe humanistischeGymnasium andthefoundationoftheUniversityofBerlin in1810.Throughthesereforms,hisidealizedvisionofGreecewas builtintotheGermaneducationalsystem.91 Thisisnottosaythatno objectionswereraisedagainsttheidealizationofGreece.Nolessa figurethanA.Böckh(1785–1867),forexample,raisedthequestion ‘shouldthestudentofantiquityconcealthateventhen,justasnow, everythingunderthesunwasimperfect?’ Inhisview, ‘theHellenes wereamidsttheshineofartandtheblossomoffreedomunhappier thanmostthink;theycarriedtheseedofdownfallinthemselves.’92 InpartunderGermaninfluenceatendencytoidealizeGreeceis likewiseobservableinnineteenth-centuryBritain.93 Itsmostfamous representativewasMatthewArnold(1822–88).Inhiswritings, ArnoldmountedanattackagainstwhatheperceivedasthephilistinismandcommercialismofcontemporaryEnglishculturewhich attachedlittleimportancetospiritualvaluesandstifledgenuine artisticexpression. 94 LikeW.vonHumboldt,helookeduptothe Greeksasrepresentinganidealwhichcouldprovideinspirationfor thereinvigorationofcontemporaryculturalandsocialmores.95 AclassicstatementofhisbeliefinthepoweroftheGreekexample
88 Cf.W.Burkert, TheOrientalizingRevolution.NearEasternInfluenceonGreek CultureintheEarlyArchaicAge (Cambridge/London:HarvardUniversityPress, 1992),p.2.
89 Sweet(1978),p.285. 90 Pfeiffer(1960),p.261.
91 Marchand(1996),p.25.
92 A.Böckh, DieStaatshaushaltungderAthener (Berlin,1851,secondedition), pp.2,710ff.quotedinK.Christ, Hellas.GriechischeGeschichteunddeutsche Geschichtswissenschaft (Munich:Beck,1999),p.16.
93 F.M.Turner, TheGreekHeritageinVictorianBritain (NewHaven/London:Yale UniversityPress,1981),pp.41–3,Jenkyns(1980),pp.13–20.
94 Turner(1981),pp.17–36.
95 F.M.Turner, ContestingCulturalAuthority.EssaysinVictorianIntellectualLife (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993),pp.350–1,S.Goldhill, WhoNeeds Greek? (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002),pp.213–31.
tohelpremedythepredicamentofVictoriancultureappearsinthe 1854prefacetohispoems.TherehearguedthatclassicalAthenian literature ‘canhelptocureusofwhatis,itseemstome,thegreatvice ofourintellect,manifestingitselfinourincrediblevagariesinliterature,inart,inreligion,inmorals;namelythatitis fantastic,andwants sanity.Sanity, thatisthegreatvirtueoftheancientliterature;the wantofthatisthegreatdefectofthemodern.’96 Thestereotypeof Greek ‘sanity’ wouldprovehighlyinfluentialinEnglishclassical scholarshipatleastdowntotheturnofthecentury.97
TheidealizationthatinformedtheportrayalofGreekculturewas alsoreflectedinthetreatmentofGreekreligion.Scholarstendedto extendthemajestyandtranquillity,whichtheypraised,forexample, intherepresentationoftheGreekgodsintheplasticarts,toGreek religionasawhole.Aswillbeseen,arangeoftacticswereemployed tocopewithaspectsthatill-coheredwiththeidealizedviewofthe GreekslikethepolytheismofGreekreligionorthe ‘immorality’ of Greekmyths.Archaeologyandanthropologywouldplayakeyrolein thecorrosionoftheidealizedviewofGreekreligionfromthelate nineteenthcenturyonwards.98
EspeciallysincetheappearanceofBernal’ s BlackAthena (1987)the questionofracisminnineteenth-centuryhistoriographyhasattracted attention.99 Inthecaseofsomeclassicalscholars,theothersidetothe idealizationofGreececouldbearaciallychargeddepreciationofNear EasternpeoplessuchastheSemiticPhoeniciansortheEgyptians
96 QuotedinTurner(1981),p.22.
97 OnGermaninfluencesonArnold’sviewofGreeceseeTurner(1981),p.23.
98 OntheinterestinarchaeologyandanthropologyinVictorianBritainandits impactonperceptionsofGreeceseeTurner(1981),pp.115–34.Ontheroleof archaeologyseeMarchand(1996),p.xx,A.AurnhammerandT.Pittrof, ‘Einleitung’ , inA.AurnhammerandT.Pittrof(eds.), »MehrDionysosalsApoll«.Antiklassizistische Antike-Rezeptionum1900 (FrankfurtamMain:Klostermann,2002),pp.1–17atp.8.
99 M.Bernal, BlackAthena.TheAfroasiaticRootsofClassicalCivilization.Volume 1:TheFabricationofAncientGreece1785–1985 (NewBrunswick,N.J.:Rutgers UniversityPress,1987).Bernal’sbookcausedreactioninM.R.Lefkowitzand G.MacLeanRogers(eds.), BlackAthenaRevisited (ChapelHill:UniversityofNorth CarolinaPress,1996)andresponseinD.C.Moore(ed.), BlackAthenaWritesBack: MartinBernalRespondstohisCritics (Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2001).Onthe controversyseefurtherJ.Berlinerblau, HeresyintheUniversity (NewBrunswick,N.J.: RutgersUniversityPress,1999),G.W.Most, ‘Philhellenism,Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism’,inM.Haagsma,P.denBoer,E.M.Moormann,andH.SancisiWeerdenburg(eds.), TheImpactofClassicalGreeceonEuropeanandNational Identities (Amsterdam:Gieben,2003),pp.71–91atpp.72–3,S.Marchandand A.Grafton, ‘MartinBernalandhiscritics’ , Arion 3rdseries5.2,1997,pp.1–35.
who,forearliergenerationsofscholars,hadbeentheultimatefoundersofGreekcivilization.Aswillbeseen,contrastsbetweene.g.Greek manlinessversus ‘Oriental’ effeminacyorGreekreasonversus ‘Oriental’ mysticismrecurredamongcertainstrandsofGermanclassical scholarshipthroughoutthenineteenthcenturyandlater.100 This couldnotbutaffecthowthequestionofforeigninfluenceson Greekreligionwastreatedintheperiodaftertheromanticfascination withthe ‘Orient’ asthecradleofcivilizationwaned.101 Theargument thatapeopleliketheGreekscouldnothavebeenindebtedto ‘inferior’ peopleslikethePhoeniciansortheEgyptiansforsuchanessential partoftheircultureasreligionwascertainlyonethatwasopenly advancedbysomeclassicalscholars.Atthesametime,itshouldbe notedthatitwasneitherthesoleargumenturgedfortheGreek originsofGreekreligionnorwasitstrongenoughtostiflethe discussionofforeigninfluences. 102
100 Cf.G.S.Williamson, TheLongingforMythinGermany.ReligionandAesthetic CulturefromRomanticismtoNietzsche (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2004), pp.139–40.Thepresenceofanegative,oppositionalstrandinnineteenth-century Germandiscourseonthe ‘Orient’ shouldnotobscurethe ‘richnessandcomplexityof Europeans’ relationwiththeOrient’:S.L.Marchand, GermanOrientalismintheAge ofEmpire.Religion,Race,Scholarship (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2009),p.xxii.Ondifferentviewsofthe ‘Orient’ ineighteenth-andnineteenthcenturyGermanyseeibid.Thenotionofacontrastbetween ‘masculine’ Greek religionand ‘feminine’ Asianreligions(towhichheincludedChristianity)wouldbe emphaticallyupheldinthe firsthalfofthetwentiethcenturybyW.F.Otto:O.Leege, ‘Religionswissenschaft,ReligionsgeschichteunddiemoderneKulturbeiHerman UsenerundWalterF.Otto’,inM.EspagneandP.Rabault-Feuerhahn(eds.), HermannUsenerunddieMetamorphosenderPhilologie (Wiesbaden:Harrasowitz,2011), pp.235–52atp.244.
101 OnthetreatmentoftherelationbetweenGreeceandtheEasternworldand attemptsto ‘isolate’ theGreeksfromforeigninfluencesseefurtherB.Vick, ‘Greek OriginsandOrganicMetaphors:IdealsofCulturalAutonomyinNeohumanist GermanyfromWinckelmanntoCurtius’ , JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas 63(3), 2002,pp.483–500,Burkert(1992),pp.1–3whopointstoseveralconducivefactors includinganti-Semitictendencies,G.W.Most, ‘Philhellenism,Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism’,inG.Klaniczay,M.WernerandO.Gecser(eds.), Multiple Antiquities-MultipleModernities.AncientHistoriesinNineteenthCenturyEuropean Cultures (Frankfurt/NewYork:Campus,2011),pp.29–47atpp.40–1.Cf.E.Flaig, ‘Towards ‘‘Rassenhygiene’’:WilamowitzandtheGermanNewRight’,inI.Gildenhard andM.A.Ruehl(eds.), OutofArcadia.ClassicsandPoliticsinGermanyintheAgeof Burckhardt,NietzscheandWilamowitz (London:InstituteofClassicalStudies,School ofAdvancedStudy,UniversityofLondon,2003),pp.105–27atp.106.Forarecent examinationofthequestionofEasterninfluencesonGreekcultureseeBurkert(1992) andM.L.West, TheEastFaceofHelicon:WestAsiaticElementsinGreekPoetryand Myth (Oxford/NewYork:ClarendonPress,1997).
102 SeeVick(2002).
22 Introduction Christhasfurtherpointedtothe VerwissenschaftlichungderAntike inthecourseofthenineteenthcentury.103 Theperiodsawthe increasingprocessesofdisciplinization,institutionalization,andprofessionalizationofthe fieldinGermany,whichlaidthefoundations forthemodernacademicstudyofantiquity.104 Largelytheprovince ofamateurmenofletters,ortheologicalwriters,inthepastand studied,aswesaw,inthecontextofbroaderaccountsofthereligions oftheancientworld,Greekreligionstartedtoincreasinglyattractthe attentionofprofessionalclassicalscholars.C.G.Heyne(1729–1812), widelyregardedasthefounderofthemodernstudyofancient mythologyinGermany,105 hadalreadytreated Mythologie aspartof Realphilologie 106 Inthecourseofthenineteenthcentury,Greek religiondevelopedintoanautonomousareaofacademicstudyin thecontextofacomprehensive Altertumswissenschaft asclassically formulatedbyF.A.Wolf.107 Wolfiscreditedwithhavingplayeda
103 Christ(1988),pp.27–31.Cf.S.L.Marchand, ‘ProfessionalizationofClassics’,in A.Grafton,G.W.Most,andS.Settis(eds.), TheClassicalTradition (Cambridge, Mass.:BelknapPress,2010),pp.779–82.
104 G.W.Most, ‘Preface’,inG.W.Most(ed.), DiscipliningClassics (Göttingen: VandenhoeckandRuprecht,2002),pp.vii–xiatp.viii,G.W.Most, ‘OneHundred YearsofFractiousness:DiscipliningPolemicsinNineteenth-CenturyGermanClassicalScholarship’ , TransactionsoftheAmericanPhilologicalAssociation 127,1997, pp.349–61atp.349.OnthegrowingspecializationofclassicalstudiesinnineteenthcenturyGermanyandthetensionswiththeidealofauniversal Bildung seefurther A.J.LaVopa, ‘SpecialistsagainstSpecialization:HellenismasProfessionalIdeologyin GermanClassicalStudies’,inG.CocksandK.H.Jarausch(eds.), GermanProfessions, 1800–1950 (NewYork/Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1990),pp.27–45.
105 AccordingtoK.O.Müller,Heynewasthescholarwho ‘dasStudiumaufjeden Fallneuangeregt,undwohlauchammeistenaufdasselbegewirkthat’ K.O.Müller, ProlegomenazueinerwissenschaftlichenMythologie (Göttingen:Vandenhoeckand Ruprecht,1825),p.317.OnHeyne’sviewsonmythseeM.Heidenreich, Christian GottlobHeyneunddieAlteGeschichte (Leipzig:Saur,2006),pp.429–70,Graf(1993), pp.9–11,M.Vöhler, ‘ChristianGottlobHeyneunddasStudiumdesAltertumsin Deutschland’,inMost(2002),pp.39–54atp.47.ItshouldbenotedthatHeynewas alsointerestedinrituals,as,forexample,in ‘VitaantiquiorisGraeciaeexferorumet barbarorumpopulorumcomparationeillustrata’,OpusculaAcademicaCollecta , vol.III(Göttingen:Dieterich,1788),pp.17–30.OnHeyne’sconceptionofGreek religionseeHeidenreich(2006),pp.429–70,Henrichs(1987),p.19,S.Fornaro, ‘HomerinderdeutschenundfranzösischenAufklärung’,inV.Elm,G.Lottes,and V.deSenarclens(eds.), DieAntikederModerne (Hannover:Wehrhahn,2009), pp.229–42atpp.231–4.
106 L.Preller, ‘Mythologie’,inA.Pauly’ s Real-EncyclopädiederclassischenAlterthumswissenschaft,vol.5(Stuttgart:1848a),pp.336–71atp.353.
107 ForWolf, Mythologie alongsidesuch fieldsasgeographyorpoliticalhistory belongedtothe HaupttheilederAlterthumswissenschaft:Bursian(1883),p.522.On Wolf ’sconceptionof Alterthumswissenschaft seeA.Horstmann, ‘Die “Klassische
decisiveroleintheemergenceofclassicalstudiesasadiscipline independentoftheology.108 Withhisfamousmatriculationas studiosusphilologiae atGöttingenin1777,philologyissaidtohave ‘broke[n] freeoftheology’ . 109 Itshouldbeemphasized,however,thatseveral nineteenth-centuryGermanclassicalphilologistscamefromfamiliesofpastors,andthatGermanscholarshipofGreekreligion duringthisperiodwasdominatedbyclassicalscholarswhohad studiedtheologyinadditiontoclassicalphilology. 110 Christianfaith andreligiouseducationcouldevenbeseenasprerequisitesfora properappreciationofGreekreligion.111 TheChristianandChristianizinglensesofscholarsareacrucialfactorinthehistoryofthe studyofGreekreligionaffectingitsinterpretationindiversewaysto thepresentday.
ThetermusuallyemployedinGermanscholarshipoftheperiodto refertoGreekreligionwas Mythologie112 underwhichbothmythic andculticaspectscouldbetreated.Asweshallsee,insomecasesthe term Mythologie wasusedincontradistinctionto Religion with scholarsdismissingas ‘inanemythology’ storiesaboutthegods whichdidnotconformtotheirownconceptionoftruereligion.113 However, Mythologie and Religion couldalsobeusedinterchangeably inreferencetothereligionoftheancientGreeks.Asregardsworks
Philologie” zwischenHumanismusundHistorismus.FriedrichAugustWolfunddie BegründungdermodernenAltertumswissenschaft ’ , BerichtezurWissenschaftsgeschichte 1,1978,pp.51–70.
108 Bursian(1883),pp.517–19.Cf.LaVopa(1990),p.31.ForarevisionofWolf ’ s roleinthehistoryofclassicalscholarshipseeHarloe(2013),pp.193ff.
109 Burkert(1992),p.2,W.Burkert, KlassischesAltertumundAntikesChristentum. ProblemeeinerübergreifendenReligionswissenschaft (Berlin:deGruyter,1996),p.16.
110 Onthehistoryoftherelationshipbetweentheology,classicalphilology,andthe studyofreligionsseethediscussioninBurkert(1996)whichdrawsattentionto tensionsaswellaslinks.
111 ‘werdenMythosunddieReligionderGriechenwieihrsittlichesLeben überhauptrichtiganschauenwill nichtinihrerEinzelheit,sonderninihrerwirklichengeschichtlichenStellung musschristlichenGlaubenundreligiöseBildung besitzen’ Herbst(1852),p.188.
112 A.Henrichs, ‘WelckersGötterlehre’,inCalder(1986),pp.179–229atp.187. Cf.H.S.Versnel, ‘What’sSaucefortheGooseIsSaucefortheGander:Mythand Ritual,OldandNew’,inL.Edmunds(ed.), ApproachestoGreekMyth (Baltimore,Md: JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1990a),pp.25–90atp.26.
113 OnthedistinctionbetweenreligionandmythologyseeHenrichs(1987),p.17.
24 Introduction focusingonthereligiouspracticesoftheGreeks,thesetendedtohave suchtitlesas religiöse or gottesdienstlicheAlterthümer. 114
Inadditiontothescientificationofthestudyofantiquity,religion itselfincreasinglybecameinthenineteenthcenturyanobjectof scientificenquiry.115 Inthiscontextofbothstrongtheologicalinfluencesandofprogressivedisciplinizationandscientification,andalso undertheinfluenceofdevelopmentsinneighbouringdisciplinessuch aslinguisticsorofadvancementsinthenaturalsciences,nineteenthcenturyclassicalscholarsengagedinintensedebatesoverwhich methodologicalapproachcouldleadtotheeverelusive ‘scientific ’ treatmentofGreekreligion fromthe Kampf betweenthe ‘romantic’ CreuzerandhisrationalistcriticstotheconfrontationbetweenIndoEuropeanComparativeMythologyandanthropologylaterinthe century. 116 Atthesametimeweshouldnotethepresenceofanother lineofthoughtinnineteenth-centuryscholarshiponGreekreligion accordingtowhich,religioncouldnotsufficientlybeunderstood throughtheadoptionofascientificapproachalone.Inthetwentieth century,thisviewwouldbeemphaticallyrepresentedbyW.F.Otto (1874–1958).
Oneconsequenceoftheuseofmethodologicalprinciplesinspired bythenaturalscienceswasthereinforcementoftheimportanceof
114 Petersen(1864),p.2.K.F.Hermann’ s LehrbuchdergottesdienstlichenAlterthümerderGriechen (Heidelberg:Mohr,1846)andG.F.Schömann’ s Griechische Alterthümer,vol.II(Berlin:Weidmann,1859)aretwoexamples.Forworkson Greekreligiouspracticesandespeciallysacri ficeduringthe firsthalfofthenineteenth centuryseePetersen(1864),p.191.
115 Ontheemergenceofthe ‘scientific ’ studyofreligionseeH.G.Kippenberg, DiscoveringReligiousHistoryintheModernAge (Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press,2002),M.Wheeler-Barclay, TheScienceofReligioninBritain,1860–1915 (Charlottesville/London:UniversityofVirginiaPress,2010),A.L.Molendijkand P.Pels(eds.), ReligionintheMaking.TheEmergenceoftheSciencesofReligion (Leiden/Boston:Brill,1998).
116 Cf.J.H.Blok, ‘QuestsforaScientificMythology:F.CreuzerandK.O.Mülleron HistoryandMyth’ , HistoryandTheory 33(4),1994,pp.26–52,Most(1997), pp.351–2,Detienne(1986),O.Murray, ‘InSearchoftheKeytoAllMythologies’ , inS.Rebenich,B.vonReibnitz,andTh.Späth(eds.), TranslatingAntiquity (Basel: Schwabe,2010),pp.119–29.Ontherelationbetweenclassicalscholarshipandscience innineteenth-centuryGermanyseealsoI.Gildenhard, ‘PhilologiaPerennis?Classical ScholarshipandFunctionalDifferentiation’,inGildenhard/Ruehl(2003),pp.161–203 atp.194,n.106andC.RobertPhillipsIII, ‘ApproachingRomanReligion:theCasefor Wissenschaftsgeschichte’,inJ.Rüpke(ed.), ACompaniontoRomanReligion (Malden, Mass.:Blackwell,2007),pp.10–28atp.11.Ontheunattainabilityofa ‘scientific ’ study ofmythologyseeBurkert(1980),p.159,Murray(2010),pp.127–8.
thesearchfororigins.Undertheinfluenceofthepremisethattofully explainanaturalphenomenononehadtoaccountforitsorigins, classicalscholarsattemptedwithrenewedvigourtodiscoverthe originsofGreekreligion.117 Thenotionthatprinciplesderiving fromthenaturalsciencescouldandshouldbeappliedtothestudy ofGreekreligionwouldbesubjectedtoheavycriticismbyFarnellat theturnofthecentury.Inthelate1960s,C.J.Heringtonstillargued againstit.118
Inaddition,attentionshouldbegiventotheencounterofthestudy ofGreekreligionwiththeemergingscienceofgeography.Inhis Ideen zurPhilosophiederGeschichtederMenschheit (1784–91),J.G.Herder (1744–1803)arguedthateachpeopletendedtodeveloptheirown distinctcultureinrelationtotheirgeographicandclimaticconditions.Inhiseyes,anintimatebondexistedbetween Völker and Land. 119 Aswillbeseen,hisviewsprovidedthebasisforthedefence ofthenationalautonomyofGreekcultureagainstoldertheories postulatingforeignorigins althoughHerderhimselfsuggested that,owingtoitsgeography,Greecehadbeensusceptibletocultural influencesfromabroad.120 InthewakeofHerder,Alexandervon Humboldt(1769–1859)andKarlRitter(1779–1859),thefoundersof modernscientificgeographyinGermany,placedemphasisonexploringtheconnectionsbetweenhumansandtheirgeographicalenvironment.121 Inthecourseofthenineteenthcentury,Greecebecame increasinglyaccessibletoGermanclassicalscholarsafterthefoundationofanindependentGreekstateandtheascensiontotheGreek throneofOtto,sonofkingLudwigofBavaria.122 Undertheinfluence oftheviewsofHumboldtandRitter,123 Germanclassicalscholars soughttoinvestigatetheimportanceofgeographyforthecivilization ofancientGreecefromthe fieldsofpoliticsandeconomytoartand
117 C.J.Herington,ReviewofL.SéchanandP.Lévêque, LesGrandesDivinitésdela Grèce, TheJournalofHellenicStudies 89,1969,pp.168–70atp.170.
118 Herington(1969),p.170.
119 G.Schmidt(ed.), J.G.Herder,IdeenzurPhilosophiederGeschichtederMenschheit (Wiesbaden:Fourier,1985),p.331,Manuel(1959),pp.291ff.
120 Schmidt(1985),p.330,Feldman/Richardson(1972),pp.233–4,Burkert (1992),pp.1–3,Vick(2002),p.485.
121 W.D.Smith, PoliticsandtheSciencesofCultureinGermany1840–1920 (New York:OxfordUniversityPress,1991),pp.57–9,H.-J.Gehrke, AufderSuchenachdem LandderGriechen (Heidelberg:Winter,2003),pp.7–11.
122 Gehrke(2003),p.7. 123 Bursian(1883),pp.1127ff.
religion.124 Asweshallsee,scholarswhovisitedGreeceandbecame familiarizedwithitsgeographydrewontheirinsightstoadvancevery differentinterpretationsofGreekreligion.
ToturntoBritain,asTurnernotes, ‘professionalVictorianclassical scholarsregardedtheirchieftaskastheestablishmentofGreekand Latintexts,withthewritingofinterpretivestudiesoressaysvery muchasecondarytaskintheirview.’125 Someofthemostfamous nineteenth-centuryBritishwritersonGreekreligionlikeGladstone, forexample,werenotprofessionalscholars.126 Liketheirprofessional colleagues,amateurinvestigatorssoughttomakeuseofnewtoolsand methodologiesinordertoprovide ‘scientific ’ answerstocontemporaryquestions,and,despitetensionsbetweenamateurandprofessional studentsofGreekreligion,theformercouldexercisesignificantinfluenceonacademicscholarship.127
Christfurtherunderlinedtheprocessesofthe Politisierung or Aktualisierung asacharacteristicoftheGermanencounterwith antiquityinthecourseofthenineteenthcentury.Inthiscontext,he laidparticularstressonhowthestudyofthepoliticalhistoryofthe ancientworldwasinformedbycontemporarypoliticalagendas.128 As wehaveseen,theinterestinGreekreligioninmoderntimeshada longhistoryofbeingintertwinedwithcontemporaryreligiousconcerns.Innineteenth-centuryGermany,whenthestudyofGreek religionwasdominatedbytheologicallytrainedclassicalscholars,it wouldeminentlycontinuetodoso.Turnerobservedwithrespectto VictorianstudentsofGreekreligion andthesameappliestotheir Germancolleagues that ‘theyrecognizedthatwhattheysaidabout theGreekmythsandreligiousexperiencemightbeardirectlyon Christianity’ . 129 Inthiscontext,attentionshouldbegivenespecially totwoaspectsofthetheologicalbackgroundoftheperiod.First,the
124 O.Jahn, ‘BedeutungundStellungderAlterthumstudieninDeutschland ’ , Aus derAlterthumswissenschaft.PopuläreAufsätze (Bonn:Marcus,1868),pp.1–50at p.36.Ontheroleoflandscapeinnineteenth-centuryhistoriographyseeP.Matalas, ‘HistoriensetVoyageurs:ItinérairesModernesauxSitesdel’HistoireAncienne’,in Avlami(2010),pp.105–32.
125 Turner(1993),p.286.
126 Ontheprogressionfromamateurtoacademicclassicalscholarshipin nineteenth-centuryBritainseeStray(1998),pp.117ff.Goldhillwarnsagainstviewing theprofessionalizationofclassicalscholarshipasa ‘neatteleologicalstory’:Goldhill (2002),p.194.
127 AswillbeseeninthecaseofLang.Cf.Wheeler-Barclay(2010),p.111.
128 Christ(1988),pp.31–7. 129 Turner(1981),p.83.
challengeposedtoChristianityandreligionmorebroadlybythe propagationofscientificmaterialism.130 Theformulationofscientific lawswhichaccountedfortheworkingoftheworldintermsofa ‘mechanical’ relationshipofcauseandeffectseemedtomakethe notionofGodredundantandtodispensewithfreewill.Darwinism playedakeyroleinthisrespect:thetheoryofevolutionprovideda ‘definitive’ scientificalternativetotheChristianaccountofthecreationoftheworldandofhumankind.131 ForthefollowersofDarwin, thelawsofevolutiongovernedthedevelopmentofhumanslikethat ofotheranimalswithoutreferencetoaCreatorGodandwithout assumingadivineendforhumanhistory.Moreover,asSymonds statedin1890: ‘InanotherveryimportantpointEvolutionhasreacted destructivelyonpopularChristianity.Bypenetratingourmindswith theconvictionthatallthingsareinprocess,thatthewholeuniverseis literallyinperpetual Becoming,ithasrendereditimpossibleforusto believethatanyonecreedorsetofopinionspossesses finality.’132 Strausspoignantlyexpressedtheviewsofthemodern ‘scientific ’ man in DeralteundderneueGlaube. (1872): ‘ifwewishtospeaksincerely andhonestly,wemustconfess:wearenotChristiansanymore.’ He emphasizedthat ‘tousmanisnotcreatedfromthehandofGod,but ascendedfromthedepthsofnature.His firststatewasnotparadisiacal,butmuchmorealmostanimallike.’133 Studiesonthereligions ofantiquityingeneralandonGreekreligioninparticularprovided oneofthearenasinwhichthebattlesbetweenexponentsofscientific materialismandthedevoutwerefoughtout.
ThesecondaspectthatshouldbetakenintoconsiderationconcernsCatholicandProtestantrivalry.Aseriesofdevelopmentsinthe courseofthecenturyconducedtotheexacerbationoftensions.The
130 SeethediscussioninH.Mcleod, SecularisationinWesternEurope,1848–1914 (NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,2000),p.5,P.Byrne, ‘TheFoundationsoftheStudyof ReligionintheBritishContext’,inMolendijk/Pels(1998),pp.45–65atp.53, Wheeler-Barclay(2010),p.3.
131 T.Nipperdey, ReligionimUmbruch.Deutschland1870–1918 (Munich:Beck, 1988),p.126,Turner(1993),pp.56ff.Cf.R.M.Young, ‘TheImpactofDarwinon ConventionalThought’,inA.Symondson(ed.), TheVictorianCrisisofFaith (London: SocietyforPromotingChristianKnowledge,1970),pp.13–35.
132 J.A.Symonds, ‘ThePhilosophyofEvolution’ , EssaysSpeculativeandSuggestive, vol.I(London:ChapmanandHall,1890),pp.1–41atp.7.
133 D.F.Strauss, DeralteundderneueGlaube.EinBekenntnis (Leipzig:Hirzel, 1872),pp.90,225,cf.Nipperdey(1988),p.125.
apparentCatholicrevivalintheearlyyearsofthenineteenthcentury, especiallyamongromanticcircles,metwithProtestantunease.CatholicthinkersoftheperiodlikeJ.deMaistre(1753–1821)orH.-F.de Lamennais(1782–1854)arguedthattruthinquestionsofreligion dependedexclusivelyonrevelation,accordingnoroletohuman reason.134 Inaddition,severalactionstakenbytheVaticansuchas thedogmatizationoftheimmaculateconceptionin1854,thepublicationofthe SyllabusErrorum in1864,whichincludedrationalismin thelistofmodernevils,andthedogmaofpapalinfallibilityin 1870,135 highlighted,fromaProtestantstandpoint,theanti-modern, authoritariancharacterofcontemporaryCatholicism.InGermany, tensionsculminatedinthe1870sinthe Kulturkampf betweenthe PrussianstateandtheCatholicChurch.
Afterthediscreditingof ‘romanticCatholic’ interpretationsofGreek religionintheearlynineteenthcentury,thestudyofGreekreligionin nineteenth-centuryGermanywasdominatedbyscholarswithaProtestantbackground.136 Asweshallsee,fromJ.H.Voss(1751–1826)to Usener(1834–1905),criticismofCatholicisminformedGermanProtestantwritingsonGreekreligion.ThepredominantlyChristianProtestantconceptionofreligioninGermanscholarshipaffectedthe portrayalofGreekreligioninseveralwaysfromtheimportance attachedtofaithtothestressonagenuinelymoralcoreinGreek religionbeyondthe ‘immorality’ ofGreekmyths.137
Inaddition,attentionshouldbegiventotheplacethattheideaof Godhadincontemporaryunderstandingsofreligion.Inhis Ueberdie Religion (1799),theleadingromantictheologianF.Schleiermacher (1768–1834)questionedtheabsoluteimportanceofGodforreligion.138 ForscholarsofGreekreligion,however,likeWelckeror
134 B.M.G.Reardon, ReligionintheAgeofRomanticism.StudiesinEarlyNineteenthCenturyThought (Cambridge/NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1985), p.117.
135 Nipperdey(1988),p.9.
136 OntheChristianProtestantoutlookoflateeighteenth-andnineteenth-century GermanscholarsofGreekreligionseeR.Schlesier, ‘DieLeidendesDionysos’,in A.KneppeandD.Metzler(eds.), DieemotionaleDimensionantikerReligiosität (Münster:Ugarit,2003),pp.1–20atpp.1–3.Onthebroadermarginalizationof CatholicscholarsinGermanyduringtheperiodseeMarchand(1996),p.xxiii.
137 OntheGermanProtestantscholars’ emphasisonfaithseeHenrichs(1987), p.13,Schlesier(2003),pp.2–3.
138 ‘InderReligionalsostehtdieIdeevonGottnichtsohochalsIhrmeint’ , ‘Gott istnichtAllesinderReligionsondernEins,unddasUniversumistmehr’ .
Curtius,religionwasintertwinedwiththeideaofGod.Thisaccounts, inpart,fortheemphasistheygavetothegodsintheirstudiesof Greekreligion.Bycontrast,inthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury, HarrisonwouldargueundertheinfluenceofDurkheimiansociology thatgod(s)werenotafundamentalaspectofreligion.AsMomigliano emphasizes,amajorchallengefacingreligioushistoriographyinthe nineteenthcentury(andindeedtothepresent)concernedtherelation betweenthestudyofspecificreligionsandmoderntheoriesonthe natureofreligion.139 Asweshallsee,thedebatesamongadvocates ofphysicalinterpretations,ofthehistorical-criticalapproachand anthropology,orbetweenUsenerandWilamowitz,overtheinterpretationofGreekreligionallwentbacktobroaderdisagreements overthenatureofreligion.
Insomestrandsofnineteenth-centuryliteratureandthought GreekreligionandGreekcultureasawholecouldbepresentedas antagonistictoChristianity.140 Theoverwhelmingtendencyofthe Germanscholarsunderinvestigation,however,wasnottouseGreek religionasameanstoattackChristianity(atleastnotProtestant Christianity);rathertheytendedtostresstheparallelsbetweenthe religionoftheancientGreeksandtheirownChristianreligioninline withtheirconvictionthatGreekantiquityandChristianitywerethe twinfountainsourcesofmodernGermanculture.141 Intheirwork GreekreligioncouldattimesappearasaprecursorofChristianity.142 InthisrespectscholarlyaccountsofGreekreligionprovidedaparallel F.D.E.Schleiermacher, UeberdieReligion.RedenandieGebildetenunterihren Verächtern (1799),(Berlin/NewYork:deGruyter,1999),pp.245,247.Cf. Kippenberg(2002),p.15.
139 Momigliano(1987a),pp.42–3.Momiglianoreferstodifferentexamplesfrom CreuzertoTylor.
140 M.Landfester, HumanismusundGesellschaftim19.Jahrhundert (Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1988),p.44,Burkert(1996),pp.17,21,Burkert (2011),p.12.OntheambivalentrelationbetweenChristianityandGreekantiquityin VictorianBritainseeJenkyns(1980),pp.67–73.
141 Cf.LaVopa(1990),p.40.Onfurtherattemptsto ‘reconcile’ Greeceand Christianityinnineteenth-centuryGermanyseeLandfester(1988),pp.88–93.On comparableattemptsinBritain:F.M.Turner, ‘WhytheGreeksandnottheRomansin VictorianBritain?’,inG.W.Clarke(ed.), RediscoveringHellenism TheHellenic InheritanceandtheEnglishImagination (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1989),pp.61–81atp.76,Jenkyns(1980),p.69.Onthe ‘alliance’ betweenChristianity andclassicaleducationinVictorianBritainseeGoldhill(2002),p.208.
142 Cf.Landfester(1988),p.169.
