Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Proto-Indo-European religion

Expand Messages
  • cafaristeir
    Hi Slag ! Why do you link Dumézil with Catholic Fascism ? This is not true. Because he was a free-mason, he was even banished from the university in 1941 by
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 27, 2011
      Hi Slag !

      Why do you link Dumézil with "Catholic Fascism" ? This is not true.
      Because he was a free-mason, he was even banished from the university in 1941 by the pro-German Pétain government. He had a far-right friend, Pierre Gaxotte, but this one was known for being against the German occupation !

      Olivier


      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Slag" <slag310@...> wrote:
      >
      > I just got around to updating my webpage at
      > http://pierce.yolasite.com/pierintro
      > or pierce.yolasite.com/pierintro
      > This is the Introduction for the subject of Proto-Indo-European religion and I realized I had not posted anything about it here in a while. I have opened quite a few pages since the last time I have sent a note.
      >
      > Slag310
      >
    • Slag
      ... The reason I think Dumézil was a Catholic Fascist is because his arguments are recognizable as Catholic Fascism while there is no linguistic basis for
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 4, 2011
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "cafaristeir" <cafaristeir@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Slag !
        >
        > Why do you link Dumézil with "Catholic Fascism" ? This is not true.
        > Because he was a free-mason, he was even banished from the university in 1941 by the pro-German Pétain government. He had a far-right friend, Pierre Gaxotte, but this one was known for being against the German occupation !
        >
        > Olivier

        The reason I think Dumézil was a Catholic Fascist is because his arguments are recognizable as Catholic Fascism while there is no linguistic basis for them.

        The specific argument that society is inevitably divided into three classes was made by Thomas Aquinas who is thought of as a great thinker by the Roman Catholic Church. But it's not just a theory, it was very conspicuous in history from various events, such as the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III in 800 CE, and by the interdiction of Henry II of England in 1174, which resulted in a de facto acknowledgment of the ultimate power of the Papacy over the kings of Europe. It's a power play of course and the RCC wanted to have ultimate power over kings and warriors (and leave them to control the lower and larger class). This situation held in western Europe until the invention of the printing press and the Protestant Reformation, which of course was as much about who got to tax farmers and choose the king as it was about religion.

        The argument is presented affirmatively by modern Indo-European linguists, such as Mallory and Adams, "A comparison of social institutions among the different Indo-European traditions from India to western Europe reveals a recurrent pattern of three social 'estates'; priests, warriors and herder-cultivators, a social-ideological system that continued into the Middle Ages where we find the same system of oratores, bellatores, and laboratores..." (Oxford Introduction, p. 429). Mallory and Adams at least admit that there is no linguistic basis for it and that it seems unlikely among the Proto-Indo-Europeans, given the simplicity of their society.

        It is also accepted by a number of other authors that publish in the Journal of Indo-European Linguistics and this is despite the fact that even Dumézil admits he can't prove his own argument. For example, he says, referring to his own research in support of the tripartite division of society, especially concerning evidence for any gods that would be deifications of the Third Function:

        "After 30 years there is a disequilibrium in the results" and further, "Thus though the insights gained through the comparative study of the twin gods and heroes [representing in his mind the Third Function]... no general structure has yet appeared and one may doubt whether the future will disclose one" p. ix-x in The Destiny of the Warrior.

        That's a rather confused quote, but it was the clearest statement I could find on the subject. The "twin gods" refer to the Horse Twins (Asvins), and he has tried to argue that they represent the Third Function which did not have the same status when it came to offerings in the Rig Veda. But his conclusion is that he cannot find any deity representing the Third Function that is general to the Indo-Europeans, and which presumably would be reconstructable to Proto-Indo-European. Note also that he is referring to a "comparative study", although his arguments have been applied to the society of the Indo-European speaking people as a whole. In fact, Dumézil and his followers almost never use linguistic arguments (e.g. arguments based on historical phonology), instead they use arguments based on comparative studies in which they pick and choose motifs with no criteria for examining their relevance. Dumézil is here admitting that he can't prove his own argument, which only has three parts, and it seems to be the "threeness" of it that he is so concerned with. Many authors have pointed to the Indian caste system as corroborating an Indo-European class system but it has 4 castes (or more). A comparative study that has only two points in common, and those are not very convincing, is a poor argument.

        It's hard to prove a negative of course because it more or less requires that one search everywhere to prove that the evidence is nowhere. But this chart at
        http://faculty.oxy.edu/yokatta/dumezil.paradigm.htm
        or faculty.oxy.edu/yokatta/dumezil.paradigm.htm
        whichever link works, goes a long way toward demonstrating the lack of evidence for the theory. It represents a set of concordances that are supposed to align various gods/clans/whatnot according to the trifunctional division.

        In addition to the three functions it also has a "light" and "dark" aspect which I understand to be a contribution from the Levi-Strauss school of psychological Structuralism. This chart is a confused wreck. Leaving aside repetitions, there are hardly any linguistic cognates in the whole chart. Noticeable are Zeus/Jupiter/Tyr which are generally accepted (but have no "priestly" qualities) and Mars/Maruts and possibly Ares which are arguable. The Asvins and Quirinus in the Third Function might be cognates, but I'm not sure Dumézil recognized that. Harvatat and Sarasavati are also cognates but they are basically dialect variations, so that doesn't prove anything as far as Proto-Indo-European goes. The Brahmins and Flamens (priests as a "social" group) in the First Function were believed to be cognate by Dumézil but this is now discounted. That he lists priests in the First Function is significant, because the point of this chart is apparently to try to prove that the priests should have authority over other classes in society, including the warriors and serfs. Most of the other "social" names in the first function group also have a religious connection (Druids, hieropoioi and athravani) though they often don't constitute a religious "class." Neither the Greeks, Romans or Germans had a priestly class. However Dumézil also argues that the First Function has sovereignty, e.g. royal power, or that it is a Sacred Kingship. In fact the story keeps changing and that's significant too. Although there are such things as Sacred Kings, they generally do not wield political or military power. Most actual kings are or were military generals and their power, at least traditionally stems from their high status within the military. This is rather in conflict with sacred status and the many obligations of full time priests which do not allow for military readiness and capability. I think Dumézil tried to finesse this by arguing that the First Function had a dual status (e.g. Mitra-Varuna), while "sovereignty" might be invested in both the first and second functions but no matter how flexible his use of data, they never really fit his argument.

        Speaking of repetitions, Romulus and Remus and Hadingus appear in all three groups on this chart. If the three classifications of society are so distinctive and important that they can be reconstructed back to PIE or are part of the basic mentality of Indo-Europeans, why do some gods/heroes appear in all three functions? And Hadingus is a reversed Euhemerization (not quite legendary and not quite historicized) version of Odin which I think Dumézil recognized, so given that Hadingus appears in all three categories, why doesn't Odin?

        Still this type of scheme with the light/dark divisions is apparently spoken of approvingly by Mallory and Adams in the Oxford Introduction, p. 431, where they say: "Nevertheless refinements of the Dumézilian system which distinguish between opposites with the same function, e.g. the protective but also destructive aspects of the Second Function, indicate where a structural approach may also be useful."

        Stefan Arvidsson ascribes to Momigliano and Ginzburg the flat statement that the arguments fit with fascism when he says: "Momigliano and Ginzburg argued that Dumézil's theory about the Indo-European tripartite ideology had more to do with the Fascism of the 1930's than with prehistoric religions. According to the two historians, Dumézil's work amounted to an attempt to confer historical background and legitimacy on the Fascist dream of a society that would be harmoniously integrated and, at the same time, hierarchically divided into leaders, soldiers, and workers," p. 2, Aryan Idols.

        Momigliano is right that it's fascism, but it isn't "leaders" that Dumézil wants in his first function, it's priests. It's these attempts to prove that members of the First Function were priests with sovereignty that make me think he was a Catholic Fascist. In 1929, there was a rapprochement between the Catholic Church (represented by the Pope), and the government of Italy, represented by Mussolini. As I understand it (this is not my field) Mussolini was not a Catholic Fascist, because Il Duce wanted to be Il Duce. But the Pope wanted to be Il Duce too, and if he couldn't, he would settle for being the skirt behind the throne. I think that's the source of Dumézil's constant dithering between whether sovereignty is invested in the First Function or the Second Function or both, while in real life there really is only one king at a time.

        Dumézil's theories never add up to a coherent system, much less a linguistic argument. The fact that he seems to be looking for anything to fit his trifunctional view with a priesthood at the top of a rigid hierarchical society makes it look like he came in with the Catholic theology and set about trying to prove it. I don't find his arguments convincing with regard to Proto-Indo-European society or religion.

        Sources:
        The Destiny of the Warrior by G. Dumézil, transl. by Alf Hiltebeitel, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1969.

        Aryan Idols by Stefan Arvidsson transl. by Sonia Wichmann, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2006

        Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World by J. P. Mallory and Douglas G. Adams, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.

        On Pagans, Jews and Christians by Arnaldo Momigliano, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown Conn. 1987.

        > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Slag" <slag310@> wrote:
        > >
        > > I just got around to updating my webpage at
        > > http://pierce.yolasite.com/pierintro
        > > or pierce.yolasite.com/pierintro
        > > This is the Introduction for the subject of Proto-Indo-European religion and I realized I had not posted anything about it here in a while. I have opened quite a few pages since the last time I have sent a note.
        > >
        > > Slag310
      • cafaristeir
        Hi Slag ! Thanks for this long reply. Dumézil may be right or wrong about his tripartite ideology of PIE religion and society, that s a matter of scholarly
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 5, 2011
          Hi Slag !

          Thanks for this long reply.
          Dumézil may be right or wrong about his "tripartite" ideology of PIE religion and society, that's a matter of scholarly investigation. But I still don't what this analysis has to do with politics of modern times... Dumézil himself never sought to be a politician (as I am myself French, I would be aware of that...) nor claimed that his theories about Tripartition should be applied to the political systems of the XX°century. It is unlikely that - personnally speaking - he was a supporter of "Papal supremacy" since he was a free-mason. In France, in the beginning of the XX° century, free-masons, who had an enormous political influence, were the hardest foes of the Catholic Church, and the climax of their struggle were the 1905 laws which abolished the official recognition of religions by the State, a reform that considerably diminished the political weight of Catholicism in France.
          And, about "fascism", let's remember that today's most influential figure of Indo-European studies in France, a disciple of Dumézil, Bernard Sergent, is a former trotskist !

          Frankly, you may be right in your criticisms of the tripartition - I do respect that and am looking forward to see your own researches - but you're completely going a wrong way if you want to prove the shortcomings of that theory just by putting forward reproaches about Dumézil's supposed political opinions. What's the hell about which vote he used to cast ? You're just shooting a bullet into your own foot (furthermore, political debates go beyond the scope of that forum and may lead to exclusion)



          > The reason I think Dumézil was a Catholic Fascist is because his arguments are recognizable as Catholic Fascism while there is no linguistic basis for them.
          >
          I do agree that there are not a lot of linguistic arguments which support the Tripartition.
          But, precisely, Dumézil's research is comparative mythology, not comparative linguistics. It is primarily on the field of comparative mythology that Dumézil's arguments must be defended or attacked. The English and French languages haven't dramatically changed for two centuries but most societies in which French and English are spoken have completely changed since the end of the XVIII° century. As Don Ringe wrote, the fact that we can't reconstruct a secure PIE word for "finger" does not imply that Indo-Europeans had no fingers.


          > The specific argument that society is inevitably divided into three classes was made by Thomas Aquinas who is thought of as a great thinker by the Roman Catholic Church. But it's not just a theory, it was very conspicuous in history from various events, such as the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III in 800 CE, and by the interdiction of Henry II of England in 1174, which resulted in a de facto acknowledgment of the ultimate power of the Papacy over the kings of Europe. It's a power play of course and the RCC wanted to have ultimate power over kings and warriors (and leave them to control the lower and larger class). This situation held in western Europe until the invention of the printing press and the Protestant Reformation, which of course was as much about who got to tax farmers and choose the king as it was about religion.
          >
          This tripartite division according to the Catholic Church predates Thomas Aquinas. It was already found at Adalbéron de Laon : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adalberon_(Bishop_of_Laon)#Works



          >
          > It is also accepted by a number of other authors that publish in the Journal of Indo-European Linguistics and this is despite the fact that even Dumézil admits he can't prove his own argument. For example, he says, referring to his own research in support of the tripartite division of society, especially concerning evidence for any gods that would be deifications of the Third Function:
          >
          > "After 30 years there is a disequilibrium in the results" and further, "Thus though the insights gained through the comparative study of the twin gods and heroes [representing in his mind the Third Function]... no general structure has yet appeared and one may doubt whether the future will disclose one" p. ix-x in The Destiny of the Warrior.
          >
          Yes, there is a disequilibrium. This may be due to the fact that the "upper classes" (the priests and the warriors) always seek to glorify themselves for the posterity while the main concern of the "third state" has mostly been survival.


          > It's hard to prove a negative of course because it more or less requires that one search everywhere to prove that the evidence is nowhere. But this chart at
          > http://faculty.oxy.edu/yokatta/dumezil.paradigm.htm
          > or faculty.oxy.edu/yokatta/dumezil.paradigm.htm
          > whichever link works, goes a long way toward demonstrating the lack of evidence for the theory. It represents a set of concordances that are supposed to align various gods/clans/whatnot according to the trifunctional division.
          >

          I read Dumézil's main work "Mythe et Epopée" and most of his conclusions - provided that the sources he uses are right - seem very convincing. But I join partly your point of view when one seeks to extrapolate the results of his mythological comparisons to other fields (ex: the organization of society) though there is actually no proof for this. In fact, Dumézil himself was aware of that and condemned this "structuralist" use of his own research. Just read pp. 14-15 of the 3° part of "Mythe & Epopée" :
          "Je ne connais de "structures" théologiques, mythologiques, institutionnelles, etc. (...) que celles qui sont inscrites dans les documents indiens, iraniens, romains, irlandais, etc; et, pour les temps qui précèdent ces documents, que celles qui résultent de leur comparaison. Aucune n'est imposée a priori ni par extrapolation (...)"

          So, let's not confound Dumézil with some overzealous "structuralists"...


          > Stefan Arvidsson ascribes to Momigliano and Ginzburg the flat statement that the arguments fit with fascism when he says: "Momigliano and Ginzburg argued that Dumézil's theory about the Indo-European tripartite ideology had more to do with the Fascism of the 1930's than with prehistoric religions. According to the two historians, Dumézil's work amounted to an attempt to confer historical background and legitimacy on the Fascist dream of a society that would be harmoniously integrated and, at the same time, hierarchically divided into leaders, soldiers, and workers," p. 2, Aryan Idols.
          >
          > Momigliano is right that it's fascism, but it isn't "leaders" that Dumézil wants in his first function, it's priests. It's these attempts to prove that members of the First Function were priests with sovereignty that make me think he was a Catholic Fascist. In 1929, there was a rapprochement between the Catholic Church (represented by the Pope), and the government of Italy, represented by Mussolini. As I understand it (this is not my field) Mussolini was not a Catholic Fascist, because Il Duce wanted to be Il Duce. But the Pope wanted to be Il Duce too, and if he couldn't, he would settle for being the skirt behind the throne. I think that's the source of Dumézil's constant dithering between whether sovereignty is invested in the First Function or the Second Function or both, while in real life there really is only one king at a time.
          >

          It's Ginzburg and Momigliano who wanted Dumézil's tripartition to be a "justification" of Fascism, not Dumézil. Where did he write that ?
          If I followed G & M way of thinking, I should then call Darwin a "biologistic nazi", because of his "struggle for life" theory...


          > Dumézil's theories never add up to a coherent system, much less a linguistic argument. The fact that he seems to be looking for anything to fit his trifunctional view with a priesthood at the top of a rigid hierarchical society makes it look like he came in with the Catholic theology and set about trying to prove it. I don't find his arguments convincing with regard to Proto-Indo-European society or religion.
          >
          Whether you find his arguments convincing or not, this has nothing to do with some kind of "(catholic) fascism"...
          By the way, if you want to fight against someone who blends Indo-European studies with Fascism theories, I strongly suggest you to have a look at J.Haudry's most recent "works" ;-)

          Olivier
        • Rick McCallister
          Personal poliitical ties often have little to do with the politics that informs one s writings or beliefs. Fascism is the use of irrational beliefs such as
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 5, 2011
            Personal poliitical ties often have little to do with the politics that informs one's writings or beliefs. Fascism is the use of irrational beliefs such as nationalism, racism, religion, etc. to further a corporativist state in the hands of a small elite. In the US and Europe, a high percentage of politicians, writers, scholars and other intellectuals fall into this standard definition of fascism. If Dumezil just blithely based his trinary views of IE society on the Christian Trinity, he fell into a fascist fallacy. But Dumezil was a product of his times and many of the early social scientists were fascists by practice in that they tended to concentrate on the "inferiority" of lower classes and "races." Unfortunately, many of those pseudosceintific findings still permeate everyday thought. Western "democracies" have failed to broaden power from the control of a miniscule elite and Communist regimes only created a new mini-elite.

            From: cafaristeir <cafaristeir@...>
            To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 4:31 PM
            Subject: [tied] Re: Proto-Indo-European religion

             


            Hi Slag !

            Thanks for this long reply.
            Dumézil may be right or wrong about his "tripartite" ideology of PIE religion and society, that's a matter of scholarly investigation. But I still don't what this analysis has to do with politics of modern times... Dumézil himself never sought to be a politician (as I am myself French, I would be aware of that...) nor claimed that his theories about Tripartition should be applied to the political systems of the XX°century. It is unlikely that - personnally speaking - he was a supporter of "Papal supremacy" since he was a free-mason. In France, in the beginning of the XX° century, free-masons, who had an enormous political influence, were the hardest foes of the Catholic Church, and the climax of their struggle were the 1905 laws which abolished the official recognition of religions by the State, a reform that considerably diminished the political weight of Catholicism in France.
            And, about "fascism", let's remember that today's most influential figure of Indo-European studies in France, a disciple of Dumézil, Bernard Sergent, is a former trotskist !

            Frankly, you may be right in your criticisms of the tripartition - I do respect that and am looking forward to see your own researches - but you're completely going a wrong way if you want to prove the shortcomings of that theory just by putting forward reproaches about Dumézil's supposed political opinions. What's the hell about which vote he used to cast ? You're just shooting a bullet into your own foot (furthermore, political debates go beyond the scope of that forum and may lead to exclusion)

            > The reason I think Dumézil was a Catholic Fascist is because his arguments are recognizable as Catholic Fascism while there is no linguistic basis for them.
            >
            I do agree that there are not a lot of linguistic arguments which support the Tripartition.
            But, precisely, Dumézil's research is comparative mythology, not comparative linguistics. It is primarily on the field of comparative mythology that Dumézil's arguments must be defended or attacked. The English and French languages haven't dramatically changed for two centuries but most societies in which French and English are spoken have completely changed since the end of the XVIII° century. As Don Ringe wrote, the fact that we can't reconstruct a secure PIE word for "finger" does not imply that Indo-Europeans had no fingers.

            > The specific argument that society is inevitably divided into three classes was made by Thomas Aquinas who is thought of as a great thinker by the Roman Catholic Church. But it's not just a theory, it was very conspicuous in history from various events, such as the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III in 800 CE, and by the interdiction of Henry II of England in 1174, which resulted in a de facto acknowledgment of
            the ultimate power of the Papacy over the kings of Europe. It's a power play of course and the RCC wanted to have ultimate power over kings and warriors (and leave them to control the lower and larger class). This situation held in western Europe until the invention of the printing press and the Protestant Reformation, which of course was as much about who got to tax farmers and choose the king as it was about religion.
            >
            This tripartite division according to the Catholic Church predates Thomas Aquinas. It was already found at Adalbéron de Laon : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adalberon_(Bishop_of_Laon)#Works

            >
            > It is also accepted by a number of other authors that publish in the Journal of Indo-European Linguistics and this is despite the fact that even Dumézil admits he can't prove his own argument. For example, he says, referring to his own
            research in support of the tripartite division of society, especially concerning evidence for any gods that would be deifications of the Third Function:
            >
            > "After 30 years there is a disequilibrium in the results" and further, "Thus though the insights gained through the comparative study of the twin gods and heroes [representing in his mind the Third Function]... no general structure has yet appeared and one may doubt whether the future will disclose one" p. ix-x in The Destiny of the Warrior.
            >
            Yes, there is a disequilibrium. This may be due to the fact that the "upper classes" (the priests and the warriors) always seek to glorify themselves for the posterity while the main concern of the "third state" has mostly been survival.

            > It's hard to prove a negative of course because it more or less requires that one search everywhere to prove that the evidence is nowhere. But this chart at
            >
            href="http://faculty.oxy.edu/yokatta/dumezil.paradigm.htm" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://faculty.oxy.edu/yokatta/dumezil.paradigm.htm
            > or faculty.oxy.edu/yokatta/dumezil.paradigm.htm
            > whichever link works, goes a long way toward demonstrating the lack of evidence for the theory. It represents a set of concordances that are supposed to align various gods/clans/whatnot according to the trifunctional division.
            >

            I read Dumézil's main work "Mythe et Epopée" and most of his conclusions - provided that the sources he uses are right - seem very convincing. But I join partly your point of view when one seeks to extrapolate the results of his mythological comparisons to other fields (ex: the organization of society) though there is actually no proof for this. In fact, Dumézil himself was aware of that and condemned this "structuralist" use of his own research. Just read pp. 14-15 of the 3° part of "Mythe & Epopée" :
            "Je ne connais de "structures" théologiques, mythologiques, institutionnelles, etc. (...) que celles qui sont inscrites dans les documents indiens, iraniens, romains, irlandais, etc; et, pour les temps qui précèdent ces documents, que celles qui résultent de leur comparaison. Aucune n'est imposée a priori ni par extrapolation (...)"

            So, let's not confound Dumézil with some overzealous "structuralists"...

            > Stefan Arvidsson ascribes to Momigliano and Ginzburg the flat statement that the arguments fit with fascism when he says: "Momigliano and Ginzburg argued that Dumézil's theory about the Indo-European tripartite ideology had more to do with the Fascism of the 1930's than with prehistoric religions. According to the two historians, Dumézil's work amounted to an attempt to confer historical background and legitimacy on the Fascist dream of a society that would be harmoniously integrated and, at the same time, hierarchically
            divided into leaders, soldiers, and workers," p. 2, Aryan Idols.
            >
            > Momigliano is right that it's fascism, but it isn't "leaders" that Dumézil wants in his first function, it's priests. It's these attempts to prove that members of the First Function were priests with sovereignty that make me think he was a Catholic Fascist. In 1929, there was a rapprochement between the Catholic Church (represented by the Pope), and the government of Italy, represented by Mussolini. As I understand it (this is not my field) Mussolini was not a Catholic Fascist, because Il Duce wanted to be Il Duce. But the Pope wanted to be Il Duce too, and if he couldn't, he would settle for being the skirt behind the throne. I think that's the source of Dumézil's constant dithering between whether sovereignty is invested in the First Function or the Second Function or both, while in real life there really is only one king at a time.
            >

            It's Ginzburg and Momigliano who wanted Dumézil's tripartition to be a "justification" of Fascism, not Dumézil. Where did he write that ?
            If I followed G & M way of thinking, I should then call Darwin a "biologistic nazi", because of his "struggle for life" theory...

            > Dumézil's theories never add up to a coherent system, much less a linguistic argument. The fact that he seems to be looking for anything to fit his trifunctional view with a priesthood at the top of a rigid hierarchical society makes it look like he came in with the Catholic theology and set about trying to prove it. I don't find his arguments convincing with regard to Proto-Indo-European society or religion.
            >
            Whether you find his arguments convincing or not, this has nothing to do with some kind of "(catholic) fascism"...
            By the way, if you want to fight against someone who blends Indo-European studies with Fascism theories, I strongly suggest you to have a look at J.Haudry's most recent "works" ;-)

            Olivier



          • Slag
            ... **my replies are marked with two asterisks I have snipped quite a bit of this message to shorten it, more than I have indicated. ... **It was a very long
            Message 5 of 8 , Sep 26, 2011
              --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "cafaristeir" <cafaristeir@...> wrote:

              >>messages by Olivier are marked with >>
              **my replies are marked with two asterisks
              I have snipped quite a bit of this message to shorten it, more than I have indicated.

              >> Thanks for this long reply.

              **It was a very long reply, but I thought it was easier and faster to address the issues completely and get it over with.

              >> Dumézil may be right or wrong about his "tripartite" ideology of PIE religion and society, that's a matter of scholarly investigation. But I still don't what this analysis has to do with politics of modern times... Dumézil himself never sought to be a politician
              [snipping]

              **Although your statements about Dumézil's politics and freemasonry are interesting, I don't think they are really relevant, at least not to me. I'm only interested in his ideas relative to Indo-European languages and I base my understanding of that on his publications. I'm not making reproaches about his political opinions (although I'm sure it won't surprise anyone to hear that I despise fascism). I'm saying that there is no basis for his arguments and they look like a very bad attempt to provide an "ancient" justification for Catholic fascism. That's why I think he's a Catholic fascist, not because I know or care how he voted.

              **Also the fact that the Catholic Church hates freemasonry (which I have heard from some other sources but never know the reason before) doesn't necessarily mean that he hated the RCC, especially earlier in his life. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church burned many devout Christians at the stake.

              >> I do agree that there are not a lot of linguistic arguments which support the Tripartition.

              **Are there any? I couldn't find any. I was very disappointed.

              >> But, precisely, Dumézil's research is comparative mythology, not comparative linguistics. It is primarily on the field of comparative mythology that Dumézil's arguments must be defended or attacked. [snipping]

              **Well, I addressed the weaknesses in his comparative arguments in the paragraphs in message #68008 which you deleted. No need to go over it again.

              >> This tripartite division according to the Catholic Church predates Thomas Aquinas. It was already found at Adalbéron de Laon : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adalberon_(Bishop_of_Laon)#Works

              **Interesting fact, but it supports what I have been saying.

              [snipping]

              >> Yes, there is a disequilibrium. This may be due to the fact that the "upper classes" (the priests and the warriors) always seek to glorify themselves for the posterity while the main concern of the "third state" has mostly been survival.

              **There is no dearth of evidence about the religion of "producers" if by that you mean farmers and women, which Dumézil certainly did. Grain Goddesses are everywhere, with temples, offerings and songs of praise. What Dumézil cannot find, according to his own admission, is any evidence for three hierarchically arranged estates as an organizing principal of Indo-European religion. Farmers made up the largest and possibly the oldest segment of society. Dumézil seems to be particularly interested in demonstrating that the "third function" did not get the same cultus or not the same quality of cultus (worship, offerings, prayers, temples, etc. dedicated to them) as the other two estates, but Grain Goddesses, just to give one example, obviously did.

              [snipping]

              >> So, let's not confound Dumézil with some overzealous "structuralists"...

              **As for structuralism, the word is rather vague, and I suspect that that is why it is used so much. Any sort of thing is likely, almost inevitable, to have a structure, but how relevant is the structure as an organizing principal, or what does it reveal about the evidence or data? Anyway, he uses the word himself and so does everyone else in speaking of his work. Here is a link to an interesting review by Gregory Nagy, of the book by Martin West on _Indo-European Poetry and Myth_. Nagy specifically discusses Dumézil's structuralism and also I might add in an approving tone, which I happen to disagree with.
              http://chs.harvard.edu/wa/pageR?tn=ArticleWrapper&bdc=12&mn=3226
              or chs.harvard.edu/wa/pageR?tn=ArticleWrapper&bdc=12&mn=3226
              I hope that link works.

              >> If I followed G & M way of thinking, I should then call Darwin a "biologistic nazi", because of his "struggle for life" theory...

              **People actually do reject both evolution, the defining theory of biology and also historical linguistics either because they have a religious objection or because they feel that there are moral implications that they cannot accept (or both). No need to go into that here, but it is something to keep in mind when considering which arguments people use or reject.

              >> Whether you find his arguments convincing or not, this has nothing to do with some kind of "(catholic) fascism"...

              **All of his arguments are in accord with Catholic fascism and none seem to have any evidence to support them. Hence my conclusion.

              >> By the way, if you want to fight against someone who blends Indo-European studies with Fascism theories, I strongly suggest you to have a look at J.Haudry's most recent "works" ;-)

              **No thank you! I loathe this topic, and do not wish to study war, especially World War II, fascism, modern history, Italian politics or Catholic theology and you can throw in, or out, Julius Evola with the rest of that. But I feel the subject needs to be addressed on a factual basis because Dumézil's theories are widely considered standard in Indo-European religious studies.

              **By the way, I added a little image to my webpage, of a 1936 American dime which has a fasces on the reverse. These ideas were widely accepted at one time, and still are in some circles.

              **Slag310
            • Slag
              Update: Yola was hacked in Nov. 2011 and they could never salvage their servers, so the Proto-Indo-European Religion domain has been migrated to
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 26 12:15 PM
                Update: Yola was hacked in Nov. 2011 and they could never salvage their servers, so the Proto-Indo-European Religion domain has been migrated to
                http://piereligion.org/pierintro.html
                or just piereligion.org/pierintro.html
                whichever link works better. This page gives the larger context for the discussion of Dumezil and Catholic Fascism.

                Slag310
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.