The Evolution of StatesRobertson, J. M. (John Mackinnon)
History
The Evolution of States
Robertson, J. M. (John Mackinnon)
Europe -- Politics and government; Great Britain -- Politics and government; Political science -- History
Religion being thus for centuries so peculiarly an official matter of
settled tradition, no unauthorised myth-maker could get a hearing. Even
what was known would be kept as far as possible a corporation
secret,[406] as indeed were some of the mystery practices in Egypt and
Greece. But whereas in Greece the art of sculpture, once introduced, was
stimulated by and reacted on mythology in every temple in every town,
the rigid limitation of early Roman public life to the business of war
would on that side have closed the door on sculpture,[407] even if it
could otherwise have found entrance. The check laid on the efflorescence
of the religious instinct was a double check on the efflorescence of
art. The net result is described with some exaggeration by an eminent
mythologist, in a passage which reduces to something like unity of idea
the tissues of contradiction spun by Mommsen:--
For the Latins their Gods, although their name was legion, remained
mysterious beings without forms, feelings, or passions; and they
influenced human affairs without sharing or having any sympathy
with human hopes, fears, or joys. Neither had they, like the Greek
deities, any society among themselves. There was for them no
Olympos where they might gather and take counsel with the father of
Gods and men. They had no parentage, no marriage, no offspring.
They thus became a mere multitude of oppressive beings, living
beyond the circle of human interests, yet constantly interfering
with it; and their worship was thus as terrible a bondage as any
under which the world has yet suffered. Not being associated with
any definite bodily shapes, they could not, like the beautiful
creations of the Greek mind, promote the growth of the highest art
of the sculptor, the painter, and the poet.[408]
It is necessary here to make some corrections and one expansion. The
statement as to parentage, marriage, and offspring is clearly wrong. Cox
here follows Keightley, whose pre-scientific view is still common.
Keightley admits that the early Latin Gods and Goddesses occur in pairs,
as Saturn and Ops, Janus and Jana; and that they were called _Patres_
and _Matres_.[409] To assert after this that they were never thought of
as generating offspring, merely because the bulk of the old
folk-mythology is lost, is to ascribe uncritically to the Latins an
abstention from the most universal forms of primitive myth-making. The
proposition as to "terrible bondage," again, cannot stand historically;
for, to say nothing of the religions of Mexico and Palestine, and some
of those of India, the Roman life was certainly much less darkened by
creed than has been that of many Christian countries, for instance
Protestant Scotland and Catholic Spain.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account