Customer Reviews

The Mysteries of Mithra

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Originally published in 1902, this was the book that started the modern interest in the Mithras-cult, and it is a must for anyone who wants to balance the more freaked-out stories of the cult. The author describes the cult of Mithras and points out most of the fundamental things that we know about it. Although many findings and theories have come since this book was written, it is still a good place to start if you want to read about this cult, or about mystery-religions in general.

I liked the book because it gives a serious and sober account of the cult. Even though it is fairly old, it is a book against which other books on the same subject can be measured.

This reprint is of a lower-than-fax quality.
Take page 19 for instance: the seven coins of the original edition are reproduced as seven black spots.
This is a good book, but you better buy a used copy of the original edition instead of this grimy reprint.

Cumont's work is generally considered to be the quintessential work on the Mithraic cult. His book presents a well researched and easily readably description of this religion. Mostly he focuses upon how the religion was spread in the Roman Empire, where it originated and some of its basic dogmas. However, if you are looking for a description of the secret initiation rituals you will have to look elsewhere. While he does mention these rituals in brief, there is no extensive description or analysis on them.

A century ago, Franz Cumont gathered together all the primary evidence about Mithraism: mentions in literary texts, inscriptions, sculptures, coins, excavated Mithraea. This he published in French in two volumes, "Textes et monuments figures relatifs aux mysteres de Mithra" (Brussels: Lamartin, 1896-9). This book is the English language translation of his conclusions from that evidence, not the evidence itself. It is thus very light on footnotes, and the quality of the drawn illustrations is not great, even in the original.

Cumont believed that the Roman cult of Mithras was derived from the ancient Persian worship of Ahura-Mazda, or Mithra, and identical to it. He was led to this view by mentions of Persia in connection with the cult, although since 'the Persian' was one of the stages of initiation, this is not necessarily so. Since about 1970, scholars have rejected this view, and felt that Mithras is a Graeco-Roman god, of a standard mystery-religion type, which only nods to Persian practises.

A better book to read is Manfred Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras. This summary of Cumont is now only of historical interest.

Franz Cumont is a scholar who spent his entire life studying Mithras, and one which students of the New Age have been trying to "refute," debunk and reinterpret for a generation. However, Cumont remains the towering figure in the field of Mithraic research.

This 1956 work is a copy of a 1903 Dover book, which itself was a boiled-down English translation of a far larger, 2-volume French-language work published decades before in Cumont's native Belgium. Cumont surveyed literally thousands of fragments from Mithraea, the ancient worship centers of the Mithraic religion.

While certainly more examples of Mithraic art and Mithraea have been found since then, his work provides a baseline from which we can begin to see a faith travel from people to people, continent to continent over many generations.

That's where the New Agers come in. Blatant attempts underway to create a "Wiccan" version of Mithraism (the latest being a ludicrous book by P. Nabarz,) or to "prove" that ancient Mithras worshippers were obsessed with the stars and little else (see Berkeley prof. Ulansey) or to sever the Persian Mithras from later, Roman worshippers, are all transparent reinterpretations of history.

Whether this is based on the need to see Mithras as relevant to the current "witch craze" and Earth-centered pagan thinking, or simply ways to cash in on a genuinely mysterious divinity by holding fancy conferences and seminars in which "new" theories are proposed, I don't know.

Whatever the reasons, I would steer clear of the Wiccanizers and innovators, and stick with Franz Cumont.

This is the classic book on Mithriac religious practice; it was written at the turn of the last century and then translated from the French. It obviously, after one hundred years has been built upon; it is still of wide use.

This is a good introduction to the religion of Mithras: its rites, its adherants, its spread: the problems that I had in using it (old forms of names, etc.) can be alleviated through use of the map that is convieniently attached to the back cover (which I did not find untl I was through the chapters where it would be of most use). This is a good book to have, especially when used in connection with other, more modern books.

I recommend this book to students interested in history and the history of religion.

In response to Geoff Puterbaugh and anyone else that doesnt know the difference between Persian Mithraism and Zoroastrianism.
It looks like you are wondering if there is any relationship between this Roman cult and Iranian Zoroastrianism.
I'm not a scholar but you may want to know that Mithraism and Zoroastrianism are not the same religion! And if you don't find many things in common between Roman Mithraism and Zoroastrianism that's why.
There are certain similarities but a world of difference.
And Mithraism in Old Persia is way older than Rome.
It's another struggle by church to separate itself from old Persian religions. At least Roman Pagan is better than Persian mysticism.

If you want to read how and why the Cumont's antique ideas were refuted pick up a copy today of "The Jesus Legend" by Eddy or "The Gospel and the Greeks" by Nash.

Here is a quote from "The Gospel and the Greeks": "While Mithraism eventually became Christianity's most serious rival, it had no importance in the Roman world in the first century; it could not possibly have influenced early Christianity" (p 133).

So you can forget the turgid prose. Forget the blurry copy machine quality of the reprint. What should really gall you about this book is that it is part of the old "History of Religions" theory. This theory was argued among biblical scholars from around 1880-1920.

Here's what they found: Cumont was wrong; in fact, many of his points were based on readings of texts that could only be called ambiguous into which he imagined practices similar to Christianity. And as far Cumont's main claim, that early Christianity borrowed dogmas and practices from Mithraism, good luck finding any scholar today who would touch the idea with a ten foot pole.

That's because archaeologists have shown that the Mithraic cult of the Roman soldiers only began in the second century. True, there was a cult to Mithris in the area of Iran that was much older. However, that religion had little in common with the famous Mithraic cult that was so beloved by Roman soldier.

The Roman Mithraic cult, which would grow into great popularity among the military (it appears only men were allowed to join, except in some rate instances) can only be dated to the second century.

That means there was no copying of Mithric dogmas by Christianity. On the contrary; any borrowing was the other way around, at least, that is now what some scholars suggest. You may be interested in Petermont's "A Separate God" a famous book of biblical scholarship which discusses the how this came about.

At any rate, the point is this: scholarship has moved on. Cumont made a good guess, but it was based on little evidence and for pity's sake archaeology and scholarship has torn his theories to pieces during the last hundred years.

Now we have the evidence. Why would anyone want to read a book with information that is now totally refuted?