Scan barcode
A review by candelarius
The Myth of the Eternal Return or, Cosmos and History by Mircea Eliade
5.0
Eliade's thesis is easy enough to sum up -- events in an "archaic person's" life only acquired meaning inasmuch as they emulate an archetypal example performed in mythical time by gods, heroes, whatever. Rituals, naturally, are incredibly important -- given how closely they are modeled after mythical precedenkt, they transport the practitioner to this time before time and imbue them with whatever power was present then. This, of course, leads to a primitive struggle against history; a fixed, linear, unidirectional flow of time can only serve to disrupt the "eternal return" -- the cylical rejuvenation that mythical emulation grants. To back all this up, Eliade takes on with a truly break-neck pace on a survey through all sorts of ancient cultures -- Germanic, Japanese, Sumerian, Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Native American, Babylonian, Australian Aboriginal, &c. He really doesn't run out of examples at any point.
My hesitancy, however, comes in that I still don't know how universal this idea can be. I have read in places (though honestly will probably not follow up on it too much) that this model of valorization simply doesn't apply in all cases (though, then again, what does?) making this more a study of specific myths in specific cultures rather than a description of a premodern psychology. My other two specific issues are with his treatment on the normalization of suffering and the monotheistic creation of history.
I won't go too far into it (just read the book! it's not that long) but I think his claim of a near-universal "understanding" of suffering and its origin is a bit...bold. He spends like half a sentence making a concession regarding the Lokayata tradition but I would like to see a deeper analysis of the many, many more materialist schools of thought in the ancient world.
He also makes a contrast between (many) "polytheistic" (honestly that's almost too narrow -- non-monotheistic is better) beliefs systems and monotheism, specifically ancient Judaism -- in that in the former, gods, heroes, &c. set their example in a mythical time while God actively intervenes in the present day. Thus, for the former, the profane world can only ever be valorized by that emulation of the distant past -- for a monotheist, however, a sense of theophany can be present in everyday life -- so, there's no fear of "history" separating you from the divine. I'm just not so sure I buy the division. Maybe Romans are a bit too "modern" for his analysis but they absolutely believed in their gods' intervention not just in their daily lives but in history on a grand scale, and even with the placement of the divine within profane time (Eliade makes this point regarding ancient Hebrews -- that Moses, at a definite time, at a definite place, received the Ten Commandments from God, making this a divine action in profane time -- but isn't the same true of Numa Pompilius and Egeria?).
This gets somewhat cleared up with his introduction of how the concept of "faith" allows the "historical person" to deal with the terror of history. ...speaking OF...!! The final chapter of this book, "the Terror of History," is maybe the most thought-provoking and inspired Teofilo Ruiz's wonderful monograph of the same title ([b:The Terror Of History: On the Uncertainties of Life in Western Civilization|10823399|The Terror Of History On the Uncertainties of Life in Western Civilization|Teofilo F. Ruiz|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328016632s/10823399.jpg|15737166]). I would actually suggest reading this book -- at least this chapter -- before delving into Ruiz's work just to know precisely what he's responding to.
Regardless of these aforementioned issues, the book really is a stunning display of his research and will give a deep insight into archaic systems of myth and belief. I strongly recommend it to anyone with any interest in mythology or historical consciousness.
My hesitancy, however, comes in that I still don't know how universal this idea can be. I have read in places (though honestly will probably not follow up on it too much) that this model of valorization simply doesn't apply in all cases (though, then again, what does?) making this more a study of specific myths in specific cultures rather than a description of a premodern psychology. My other two specific issues are with his treatment on the normalization of suffering and the monotheistic creation of history.
I won't go too far into it (just read the book! it's not that long) but I think his claim of a near-universal "understanding" of suffering and its origin is a bit...bold. He spends like half a sentence making a concession regarding the Lokayata tradition but I would like to see a deeper analysis of the many, many more materialist schools of thought in the ancient world.
He also makes a contrast between (many) "polytheistic" (honestly that's almost too narrow -- non-monotheistic is better) beliefs systems and monotheism, specifically ancient Judaism -- in that in the former, gods, heroes, &c. set their example in a mythical time while God actively intervenes in the present day. Thus, for the former, the profane world can only ever be valorized by that emulation of the distant past -- for a monotheist, however, a sense of theophany can be present in everyday life -- so, there's no fear of "history" separating you from the divine. I'm just not so sure I buy the division. Maybe Romans are a bit too "modern" for his analysis but they absolutely believed in their gods' intervention not just in their daily lives but in history on a grand scale, and even with the placement of the divine within profane time (Eliade makes this point regarding ancient Hebrews -- that Moses, at a definite time, at a definite place, received the Ten Commandments from God, making this a divine action in profane time -- but isn't the same true of Numa Pompilius and Egeria?).
This gets somewhat cleared up with his introduction of how the concept of "faith" allows the "historical person" to deal with the terror of history. ...speaking OF...!! The final chapter of this book, "the Terror of History," is maybe the most thought-provoking and inspired Teofilo Ruiz's wonderful monograph of the same title ([b:The Terror Of History: On the Uncertainties of Life in Western Civilization|10823399|The Terror Of History On the Uncertainties of Life in Western Civilization|Teofilo F. Ruiz|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328016632s/10823399.jpg|15737166]). I would actually suggest reading this book -- at least this chapter -- before delving into Ruiz's work just to know precisely what he's responding to.
Regardless of these aforementioned issues, the book really is a stunning display of his research and will give a deep insight into archaic systems of myth and belief. I strongly recommend it to anyone with any interest in mythology or historical consciousness.