Most Helpful Customer Reviews
14 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An invitation to discovery, November 29, 2002
This review is from: Archaic Roman Religion, Volume 2 (Paperback)
... The beauty of the style, the fascinating glimpses of worlds beyond - the Vedic, Teutonic, Celtic and other data deployed casually and yet much to the point, the intellectual penetration and the ability to see common threads in different things and differences in similar things - riveted my interest for ever on the history of culture. It is true that the English version does the style of the original no favours - one must remember that the anthropologist Levy-Strauss, a man well able to judge, compared Dumezil's style to that of Voltaire: probably the highest compliment a French writer can pay to another. However, the whole is still eminently readable. It demands, however, a certain kind of reader: one who does not mind being challenged, who does not mind being introduced to unknown and obscure facts, who has no need to be cradled in his or her own convinctions, and who does not mind a certain kind of pugnacity. For there is no doubt that Dumezil, this courtly old French gentleman with exquisite olde-worlde manners, who charmed almost everyone who came into contact with him - including myself - was a fighter. His presence in the academic world was a solitary and battling one; he once wrote to me that he utterly refused to become a "chef d'ecole" and form his own academic party (this is perhaps the reason why latter-day Dumezilians are numerically rather scarce and academically not too impressive). Certainly the bites he takes out of scholars with opposing views are merciless; but one has to say that he always fought fair and face to face, that he rarely attacked anyone who had not attacked him first (comparative Indo-European studies are still today a rather contentious field) and that he never would have considered sinking to the level of the famous historian who once organized a congress "about" Dumezil's own work, or rather against it, without so much as letting Dumezil or any of his friends know about it. Now that is indeed base. Be that as it may, this book is a classic that will last as long as the work of Mommsen, or Tocqueville, or Gibbon. As an introduction to archaic Roman religion, as a systematic textbook, it may perhaps disappoint, since it neither covers all the main points systematically nor leaves out matters that interest the author but that are not, of themselves, equally important. But as an inspiration to further research, as an introduction to the idea that history is not a collection of data but an intellectual adventure, as an intellectual adventure in itself, it is magnificent. Twenty years after reading it for the first time, I went back to it, having, in the meantime, read, written and published myself about archaic Roman religion; and, guess what? Not only was the book as fresh as new, but I immediately found a whole series of new ideas and areas to develop, waiting for me to be ready to recognize them.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Quite interesting work, November 26, 2010
This review is from: Archaic Roman Religion, Volume 2 (Paperback)
In "Archaic Roman Religion," Dumezil seeks to address the topic of early Roman religion. Roman religion, as Jaan Puhvel points out (in Comparative Mythology) is traditionally one of the three pillars of comparative Indo-European studies, along with Indian and Germanic material.
While Volume 1 spends a lot of time trying to go through the Old Capitoline Triad as representative of Dumezil's three function theory (a theory which I personally think was overextended by Dumezil and taken in the wrong directions, but which is base on some valid observations), volume 2 discusses primarily foreign influences on Roman religion and the overall structure of religion within the republic. An appendix inclues This volume is not sparse on facts, contrary to the comments of another commenter.
Despite the age of the work, and that it must be seen as somewhat dated in some areas (particularly the discussion of the interplay of Carthaginian and Roman religion), the book is still worth reading. However, I cannot recommend it as the only book you'd ever read on a topic. Religion in the Roman Empire (Blackwell Ancient Religions) in particular is a book that should be read as well in part because of the insight it offers on the nature of religion in Carthage and other Semitic cultures within the Roman empire.
However, on the whole, this book is sufficiently informative to provide the reader unique insights and facts, and I would highly recommend it despite its age and intervening discoveries by other scholars.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
12 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Tedious, Spiteful, and Sparse with Facts, July 25, 2001
By A Customer
This review is from: Archaic Roman Religion, Volume 2 (Paperback)
There is certainly a need, still, for a book that covers Italian religion while excluding Greek mythology to the greatest extent possible. Unfortunately, the English version of Georges Dumezil's work has drawbacks that cause it to deserve a 'pass.' A good editor could trim Dumezil's two (paperback) volumes down to one by removing his comments on the merits of other authors, and greatly improve the text by correcting the bad English and translating the Latin quotes. Until that is done, it would be more rewarding to read a different book.
A great deal of "Archaic Roman Religion," especially the 134 pages of the "Preliminary Remarks" section, is wasted by Dumezil's tedious denigrations of other scholars' works. Some of his put-downs may have been deserved, but Dumezil published in 1966. There is no point spending time today reading slams of books published early in the 1900s, or late 1800s. The only relief is to make a game of counting how many of the same sins which Dumezil decries that Dumezil commits, and how often.
The text is very long: almost 700 pages, but it is sparse on substance, with a fair amount of repetition. There is not much material to go on in the subject of Roman religion once the Greek influence is weeded out. Dumezil brings that point home well and often. But that suggests that a shorter book is in order.
About three-quarters of the quotes of the Roman writers are given in Latin without translation. This may have been excusable for readers of the original French edition, who may have been better able to guess their way through the Latin. It certainly not good enough for English readers; Latin is rarely taught in schools in English-speaking countries. Aggravating the difficulty, some of the untranslated Latin words are archaic forms which will not be found in small Latin-English dictionaries.
The quality of the English translation is poor sometimes, unlike most of the book which is written clearly, if pedantically. It seems as if either the translator Philip Krapp, or the author Dumezil (who revised the translation), naively tried to use English words which more closely resemble the original French. The choice of words in these few cases is startlingly awkward.
One of Dumezil's lasting contribution to the study of mythology is a detailed comparison of many early European religions to the Indian Vedas; greatly to his credit this is nolonger rare. In the more than 30 years since Dumezil published, most other authors have learned to do the same.
In "Archaic Roman Religion" Dumezil unfortunately has obsessed on the "Three Functions" theory. It's really half a book about his theory, rather than being all about the Romans. Frequent failed shoe-horns of Roman religion into tripartidism were anoying for me. Dumezil applied the theory convincingly to the first two functions (magic + government, and protection + conquest) but seems to fail with the third function (nourishment + fertility + prosperity). This idea that ancient peoples recognized exactly and only three distinct parts in their society and religion was overused. Today, I think an equally brilliant mythographer would use the Three Functions theory sparingly. Or would conform the number of social divisions or functions to the beliefs and practices of the Romans' religion instead of conforming Roman beliefs to this modern notion.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
