BMCR REVIEWS: a couple of new ones of tangential interest:
Stephen Mitchell, Peter Van Nuffelen (ed.), One God. Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Pp. 239. ISBN 9780521194167. $95.00.
Reviewed by Michele Renee Salzman, University of California at Riverside (michele.salzman@ucr.edu)
[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]
This is one of two volumes edited by these same scholars after a 2006 conference at Exeter on ‘Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire (1st-4th century A.D.)’.1 This conference aimed to clarify the differences between pagans and Christians in matters of monotheism.
The title of this volume, One God, suggests that the authors agree that there was a notion of ‘one god’ among pagans and that some form of religion had existed that could rightly be called ‘pagan monotheism.’ This is not the case, however, for there is no agreement on the existence of pagan monotheism, nor is there agreement among those scholars who accept this term on how to define it. Two of the papers argue strongly for the view that most of the documentary evidence for what others see as pagan monotheism should be interpreted from a polytheistic viewpoint, that is, as a exalting a divinity within a pluralistic context.
The argumentation on both sides of the issue by authors with strongly held views makes this an exciting volume to read. The contributors confront central issues of definition and theory as well as praxis. Their disagreement on the concept of pagan monotheism shows that there is room for more work on a topic that has contemporary relevance; as Christoph Markschies’s paper shows, the political consequences ascribed to monotheism, including its potential to justify hate and violence based on religious intolerance, would be called into question if one could argue that pagans also practiced monotheism. Indeed, the attributes of monotheism might have to be redefined if pagans could be demonstrated as having practiced it.
[...]
I noted this conference at the time
here and
here.
Wolfgang Hübner (ed.), Manilius, Astronomica, Buch V (2 vols.). Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Commentare. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2010. Pp. x, 303; 4 p. of plates; 450. ISBN 9783110206708. $249.00.
Reviewed by Joanna Komorowska, Paedagogical University, Krakow (joannina@wp.pl)
Table of Contents
The second half of the twentieth century may well be considered a lucky period for Manilius’ Astronomica: the renewed interest in it, fueled by the research both in historical poetics and in the history of science, which finally came to encompass the history of non-Sartonian disciplines, resulted in re-evaluation of the work, which came to be recognized not only as the oldest surviving treatise on Greco-Roman astrology, its contents displaying considerable complexity and advanced character of the doctrines involved, but also as a consummate poem, a veritable testimony to the supreme craft of its author and a proof of the descriptive as well as pedagogical capacities of the epic genre. Its structure, language, and metaphorical apparatus aimed to project an image of a continuous and interconnected world, each part linked to the others by ties of sympatheia, the Astronomica aim to provide an exposition of astrology – yet, their contents remain strangely truncated, for Manilius never enters into the discussion of planetary influence. He does, however, incorporate into his work a discussion of the subject of paramount importance in the astral lore: the concept and influence of paranatellonta, the extra-Zodiacal ‘accompanying’ constellations. The last (i.e. fifth) book of his poem remains devoted to this one subject, a subject often disparaged in scholarly research (particularly in the history of science), yet of considerable influence in the history of Western civilization. It is possibly here that the Manilian art reaches its climax – as the author wanders through the celestial realm, he faces several challenges, posed respectively by philosophical implications, astrological (divinatory) content, and the descriptive character of the section. Following in the footsteps of Hesiod, Aratus, Virgil and others, he nonetheless faces complexities of Fachsprache foreign to all these; even if one regards the Astronomica as ‘a coffee-table book’,1 one has to acknowledge its immense innovativeness and appreciate the flawless execution of the task at hand. Yet, to appreciate it, one needs to consult a commentary… And it is to the great credit of Wolfgang Hübner that he provided us with such a tool, a tool improving on the earlier commentaries, including that of Feraboli and Scarcia2 by virtue of its detailedness alone.
[...]
It was only after going through the Loeb
Astronomica that I felt I understood ancient astrology. I'm glad to see this new edition and commentary coming out.
