RELIG MITHRAS CULT ROMAN EMP:MYSTERIES UNCONQ SUN PAPER: Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun

by Roger B. Beck

This volume is a study of the religious system of Mithraism, one of the "mystery cults" popular in the Roman Empire contemporary with early Christianity. Roger Beck describes Mithraism from the point of view of the initiate engaging with the religion and its rich symbolic system in thought, word, ritual action, and cult life. He employs the methods of anthropology of religion and the new cognitive science of religion to explore in detail the semiotics of the Mysteries' astral symbolism, which has been the principal subject of his many previous publications on the cult.

Genres: History, Religion, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Paganism, Mystery, Spirituality

285 pages, Paperback

First published March 9, 2006

Reviews

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 2 out of 5]

En rekonstruktion av Mithraskulten som visserligen är väldigt bra, men som hade kunnat vara en 25 sidor lång artikel, om man tog bort metodångesten bakom. De första 150 sidorna är i princip metateori om hur man bäst analyserar religionen, och vilka moderna kulter som kan ses som jämförbara.

[Mateusz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Inestimable research in ancient mystery traditions. Practicing solar traditions as a lone wolf, deep at the throne of my heart, I feel that this scholarly work contributed greatly to my path, as well as clarified some of previous private intuitions. The chapter on neurotheology, linguistics and semiotics of the Mythraeum was particulary enlightening. Technical description of Mithraic astronomy is also interesting from the astrological perspective: the "winds" or plantery currents in the path of souls/spirits caught my attention, as it reverberated with some descent/ascent formulas within Eleusinian mysteries, for example. It is interesting to read it along with Daniel Ogden's "Drakon", as some Mithraists were also initiated into Drakon mysteries (Marcus Aurelius)

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is basically a further refinement of Beck's astrological ("star-talk") methodology, not a thematic or critical exploration per se of the Mithraic mysteries. Basically he tries to explicate Mithraism in terms of astrological constructs available in the "public domain" of antiquity without resorting to a consideration of the narrative myths. He argues that these constructs (perfectly accessible for the average initiate in antiquity) form the crux of understanding the mysteries, rather than any esoteric "higher" knowledge supposedly encoded in the mysteries and understood by the Mithraic fathers.

It's a great book, expect when Beck overindulges his twin fetishes for outlines and hyperverbose section titles. If I were an uncharitable person, I would say he suffers from a moderate neurosis born of over-reading the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. The table of contents is a veritable hymnal to the god of schematization. His writing also (unnecessarily but, really, almost endearingly) fluctuates between the density level of a neutron star and that of a black hole.

I feel justified poking fun at it because

A. I really enjoyed the book
A 1. My "enjoying" derived from my perception of it as positive
A 1 a. "Positive" being a catchall referring to the following attributes:
A 1 a i. His arguments seemed reasonable
A 1 a i A. "Reasonable" being used in a vague, undifferentiated sense which I will not bother to define.
A 1 a ii. His arguments seemed well-researched
A 1 a ii A. And well-researched both...
A 1 a ii A 1. In terms of working WITH the sources*
A 1 a ii A 2. And in terms of working ON the sources** (I will distinguish "on" and "between" in appendix 4.)
A 1 a iii. He clearly has a genuine, if not always aptly deployed, wit
A 1 a iii A. To wit, a wit with which he besprinkles the monograph
A 2. My "enjoyment" derived from the above attributes (A 1 a i - A 1 a iii) was not unduly tarnished by his incredibly long, all-capped section titles***
A 2 a. His footnotes actually expanded on the text
A 2 b. He had the good taste not to use endnotes
A 2 c. The total subjective (mental? Spiritual?) displeasure derived from A 2 was not enough to outweigh the total subjective (Mental? Spiritual?) enjoyment (referred to in A and A 1) defined in terms A 1 a i through A 1 a iii.

B. I finished it in its entirety, and it was glorious. DEUS SOL INVICTUS MITHRAS.

* Primary, secondary and tertiary; textual and iconic.
** Primary, secondary and tertiary; textual and iconic.
***Actual example, taken from page 209: "6. EXEGESIS (CONTINUED): E. BEING IN THE NORTH/ ABOVE OR IN THE SOUTH/BELOW VERSUS GOING NORTHWARD/UP OR SOUTHWARD/DOWN. THE SOLSTICES, THE EQUINOXES, AND YET FURTHER MEANINGS OF THE TORCHBEARERS".

See also page 206: 5. EXEGESIS (CONTINUED): D. FURTHER MEANINGS OF THE TORCHBEARERS: THE LUNAR NODES; CELESTIAL NORTH AND CELESTIAL SOUTH; HEAVENWARD AND EARTHWARD. MEANINGS OF THE ‘TYPICAL’ AND ‘UNTYPICAL’ LOCATIONS (CAUTES LEFT AND CAUTOPATES RIGHT VERSUS CAUTOPATES LEFT AND CAUTES RIGHT).

[Fred Kohn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good. The author coins the term "star-talk" to describe the astronomy/astrology of the Mysteries, which, of course, are neither in the modern sense of the term. The discussion drove me to a better understanding of astronomy (which I thought I already understood pretty well) if not astrology (which I hardly care about.) If you don't already know your astronomy or aren't willing to learn, you should probably pass this us. The only point at which I wasn't enjoying the book very much was during what seemed a tedious discussion of a monument at Nemrud Dagh, which the author followed with the comment: "All this might seem like a monstrous digression. [p. 233]. In fact, after looking up Nemrud Dagh on the internet and reading more about it, the discussion made a lot more sense and the digression not so monstrous.