Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T09:53:55.385Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Altheim: Revolutionary or Reactionary?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2011

H. J. Rose
H. J. Rose
Affiliation:
St. Andrews University, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is no longer possible for any serious researcher on the religion of ancient Rome, and especially on what may be called its proto-history (the regal period and the beginning of the Republic) to ignore the work of Franz Altheim and the little group of colleagues who, with him, form what may perhaps be called the Frankfurt school. The present writer has seen no full-length criticism of his work as a whole, though more than one article has appeared dealing with particular points on his or his colleagues' theories. This essay is an attempt to describe and evaluate his attitude, avoiding, save for the sake of illustration, discussion of details which may be right or wrong without seriously affecting the estimate of his work in general.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 1934 , pp. 33 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1934

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Their chief writings, other than those of Altheim presently to be listed, form the series known as Frankfurter Studien zur Religion und Kultur der Antike (FS).

2 E.g., Gordon, A. E., On the Origin of Diana, Trans. Am. Phil. Ass., LXIII (1932), p. 177 ff.Google Scholar; Rose, H. J., The Cult of Volkanus at Rome, J(ournal of) R(oman) S(tudies), XXIII (1933), p. 46Google Scholar ff.; Hammarström in Studi etruschi, v, p. 363 ff.

3 Klausen, R. H., Aeneas und die Penaten, Hamburg and Gotha, 1839–1840.Google Scholar

4 Studien zur vergleichenden Mythologie der Griechen und Römer; Apollon, I. und Mars, . II. Juno und Hera. Leipzig, 1873, 1875.Google Scholar

5 Its first important work was Hartung, J. A., Die Religion der Römer, Erlangen, 1836.Google Scholar

6 First ed., Munich, 1902; second ed., 1912.

7 The works of Altheim referred to are: Griechische Götter im alten Rom, Töpelmann, Giessen, 1930Google Scholar (R(eligions) G(eschichtliche) V(ersuche und) V(orarbeiten), xxii, 1); Terra Mater, same pub., 1931 (RGVV, xxii, 2); Römische Religionsgeschichte, i. Schicht, Das älteste. ii. Von der Gründung des kapitolinischen Tempels bis zum Aufkommen der Alleinherrschaft, W. de Gruyter & Co., Berlin and Leipzig, 1931 and 1932 (Sammlung Göschen, 1035 and 1052). These are abbreviated respectively GG, TM, RR i and RR ii.Google Scholar

8 RR i, pp. 6–7; cf. TM, p. 11; RR ii, p. 5.

9 Ibid., p. 8.

10 Ibid., p. 9; cf. GG, p. 3.

11 RR i, p. 18; cf. TM, passim.

12 TM, p. 11 ff.

13 GG, p. 2; cf. RR i, p. 92.

14 RR ii, p. 5.

15 RR i, p. 23.

16 Ibid., p. 38 ff.; cf. GG, p. 172 ff., 4 ff., and index under Saturnus, Volturnus; TM, p. 91 ff.

17 RR i, p. 29 ff.; C. Koch, Gestirnverehrung im alten Italien (FS iii), pp. 78–118.

18 TM, pp. 48–91; cf. RR i, p. 60 ff.

19 TM, pp. 91–145.

20 GG, p. 188 ff.; the reference to Ovid is Fast., v, 726.

21 GG, p. 175.

22 GG, p. 193 ff.

23 TM, p. 25 ff.

24 GG, pp. 93–171.

25 TM, p. 93 ff.

26 RR ii, p. 147.

27 RR ii, p. 64.

28 TM, p. 77 ff.

29 Wissowa, Rel. u. Kult. d. Röm.2, p. 2 ff.

30 Ibid., p. 14.

31 See M. P. Nilsson, Minoan-Mycenaean Religion, chs. xi, xii, xv, xvi.

32 See, e.g., Roscher's Lexikon s. v. Matres, Matronae, Matrae.

33 See Wissowa, op. cit., p. 191 ff.

34 Tellumo, Varro ap. Aug. De Ciuit. Dei, vii, 23; Tellurus, Mart. Capella, i, 49.

35 As TM, pp. 112, 148 and elsewhere. The undoubted resemblances which he points out seem to me a long way from establishing “dass die römische Ceres ursprünglich keine Andere als Demeter gewesen ist” (Ibid., p. 111).

36 See RR ii, p. 5.

37 Archaeologiai Értesitö, XLIV (1930), p. 74 ff. (in Hungarian); A. R. W., XXX, p. 271 ff. (German version of same, with some additions).Google Scholar

38 Viz., Homer's Achaioi, see especially λ, 218 ff.

39 Harv. Theol. Rev., XXV (1932), p. 357.Google Scholar

40 See Not. d. Scav., vii, p. 353 ff.

41 For this etymology in antiquity, see Weinreich, O., Menekrates Zeus und Salmoneus (Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1933), pp. 5–8, 105–108.Google Scholar

42 The possibility that both names were in use is admitted on both sides, see RR ii, p. 31, note.

43 Dr. St. Weinstock, of Breslau, expresses a similar opinion in a recent letter to the author.

44 See Orthia, Artemis (London, Macmillan, 1929), p. 403.Google Scholar

45 TM, p. 24 ff.

46 Hyginus, fab. 129 (notes in the author's forthcoming ed., Sijthoff, Leiden); cf. L'Acropole, 1932, pp. 58–62.

47 Ovid, Metam., xiv, 623 ff.

48 For instance, I am convinced, although not altogether for Altheim's reasons, that there were foreign, i.e., non-Roman and probably non-Italian elements in the oldest recoverable gods of Roman worship.