Jeff Russell

By all means do check out Otto's book. I have not begun to do it justice. Burkert, in Greek Religion, p.4, says: "[Otto's book] Die Götter Griechenlands (1929) is a challenging attempt to take the Homeric gods seriously as gods, in defiance of 2500 years of criticism...." This he does; and while he makes it clear that he does not himself personally or overtly worship the Homeric gods, there is none of the patronizing or evasive language one finds so often from authors who just can't take Them seriously.

I was thinking about the Indo-European parallels as I was writing my earlier post, but I didn't have time to re-read all the relevant chapters to remind myself whether or how Otto addressed them. He has to have been aware of the research that was being done on the early Indo-Europeans: apparently he finished his doctoral work in 1911 and died in 1958, so his floruit overlapped Georges Dumézil (who was 24 years younger). Yes, presumably the Pelasgians would be one way to make the story work. But also, Otto recognizes that some of the Olympians seemed to change their nature and function over time. He argues that Poseidon seems more archaic than Zeus in a number of his attributes, as well as being wilder, more chaotic, and more closely tied to natural phenomena. He also makes similar arguments about, for example, Demeter and Hermes. So I could imagine "rescuing" my story also by suggesting that in some cases, perhaps, some gods may have "changed sides," if you will.

Also, remember that the story I advanced makes no claims to scholarship. It is more of a jeu d'ésprit, where I am burbling, "Oh look how cool it is if you take these three authors and mash them up together just so!" 😃 If it turns out that my story doesn't work, I haven't invested a lot in it.


Best as always,
Hosea