Campbell Bonner: Review of Roscher Omphalos (by JSTOR)

7/30/2019 Campbell Bonner: Review of Roscher Omphalos (by JSTOR)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/campbell-bonner-review-of-roscher-omphalos-by-jstor 1/4

Omphalos by W. H. RoscherReview by: Campbell BonnerClassical Philology, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Oct., 1915), pp. 462-464Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/261644 .

Accessed: 16/05/2013 22:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 83.112.21.162 on Thu, 16 May 2013 22:11:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/261644?origin=JSTOR-pdf






http://www.jstor.org/stable/261644?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress



462 BooK REVIEWS

in those fields. It does, thoughin brieferand more compact form, for thewhole widefieldwhat Schuchhardt's ook did for Schliemann's xcavations;not only is the entirefieldcovered,but the whole literatureof the subject is

presented n the citations.WALTER MILLER

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI

Omphalos. Eine philologisch-archaiologisch-volkskundliche Ab-

handlung ilber die Vorstellungen der Griechen und anderer

Volker vom "Nabel der Erde." Von W. H. ROSCHER. Leip-

zig, 1913. Pp. 140; 9 plates. M. 8. (From Vol. XXIX ofthe Abhandlungender Sdchs. Ges. der Wiss.)

In this monograph he veteranmythologistoffersan elaborate nvesti-

gationof the myths, cults, and monumentsof the Greekswhichhave to do

with the ideaof a "navel of the earth,"and illustrates hemwith numerous

parallelsdrawn romthe folk-loreof other peoples,civilizedandsavage.

The firstchaptertreatsof the etymologyof op,uaXo'3and umbilicus,and

of the differentapplicationsof these words; then (pp. 12-19) discussesthe

significanceof the navel in various superstitiouspractices. Theexamples

drawn rommodernGreek olk-loreare of particularnterest. In the second

chapter Roschershows that the idea of a definiteplace being the actual

physical center of the world is a widespreadone, occurringamong people

in loweras well as in higherstages of culture. He has not overlooked he

partplayedin thesebeliefsby localpride(pp.35, 132); but the humorously

inclinedAmericanreadermay miss a reference o Holmes'sAutocrat chap.

vi), with its memorablewitticismsabout"the hubof the solarsystem,"and

the axis of the earth which "sticks out visibly throughthe center of each

and everytownorcity."In the third chapter,Roscherelaboratesa theory whichhe had stated

more succinctlyelsewhere, o the effect that in the seventh and sixth cen-

turies the ancientsanctuaryof Apolloat Branchidae aid claimto the pos-

sessionof the centerof the earth. He explains he wordsE7r'tovo0 KaOVJuEiVT,

used by Iamblichusof the prophetessof Branchidae(De Mysteriis,3. 11,

p. 127 P.), as meaning"sitting on an omphalos." Representationsof an

omphalosare seenuponcoinsof Miletusandits coloniesCyzicusand Sinope

(pp. 47-53). Roscher believes, however,that the real "earth-navel" at

Branchidaewas the Xa'4la y-Afromwhichthe propheticspringarose,whilethe omphalos n the conventional ense,the roundedconeof stone, wasonly

a markfor the sacred spot.Chap.iv, the longestof the work,somefifty pages,contains an exhaust-

ive discussionof Delphiand its oracleas the centerof the world,and of the

Delphic omphalos. The literaryevidenceis not merely noted, but cited,


OMPHALOS






BOOK REVIEWS 463

as a rule, in full; then follows an enumeration of representations of the

omphalos in plastic form, and on wall-paintings, vases, and coins. The

thoroughness of the list, together with the excellent plates, makes the chapter

a very valuable archaeological essay.The author discusses more briefly certain other cults of Apollo and

Asclepius, apparently free from Delphic influence, in which omphaloi occur,and passes (chap. vi) to the subject of sepulchral monuments, baetyls, and

altars, in the form of the omphalos. Here we are at once on debated ground.Roscher attacks the theory briefly set forth by Rohde, and most elaboratelydefended by Miss Harrison, that the omphalos was originally a representa-tion of a grave-mound, perhaps the reputed grave of the Python, and that

its significance as the world-center is secondary. Having shown in chap. ii

that the idea of a world-center may be associated with rudimentary religiousand social conditions, he does, beyond question, make it probable that the

interpretation of the omphalos as the middle point of the world is of con-

siderable antiquity; in fact, we have it attested as early as Pindar, while the

view that the Delphic omphalos was a tomb is not found before Varro.

Furthermore, Roscher is right in his criticism of several of Miss Harrison's

arguments, as for instance, when he denies the connection of o,u4aXo's with

oIu44. But for all that, we do not feel that he has put Miss Harrison'singenious

theory completely out of court. It is not easy to believe withRoscher (p. 121; cf. pp. 68, 77) that Varro's explanation of the omphalos asa tomb is founded merely upon some geographer's, or philosopher's protestagainst the claim of Delphi to be the center of the world. The firm beliefthat the spirits of the dead could foretell the future from their undergroundabodes would favor the development of an oracle upon the site of an ancienttomb-the identity of the occupant of the tomb is not important; andVarro's explanation may rest upon a tradition about an obsolete method ofdivination, superseded, like others, by the Apolline inspiration. As Roscher

freely admits, certain omphalos monuments bear a close resemblance torepresentations of funeral mounds. Is it not possible that two influences,the sanctity of ancient tombs, and the custom of marking holy places, thereligious centers of their communities, with peculiar monuments, co-operatedto make the omphalos a thing of importance in cult and legend? Notenough allowance has been made in the study of ancient religions for theprobability that complex originating factors have resulted in a single ob-served phenomenon.

In minor matters, this admirable work leaves little to criticize. I am

not convinced by Roscher's view (pp. 51 f., 75, n. 136) that the 0-like object,a dot or boss within a circle, shown on the gable of Apollo-temples, is anomphalos in orbe terrarum. It seems better to regard it as a /ALXr0,/a-X0), a vessel which appears to have a special and significant connectionwith the mantic god. Again, the omphalos in connection with Asclepius(p. 113), seems to me best explained as a reminder that the cult of this god







464 BOOK REVIEWS

had its origin n chthonichero-worship-the omphalosbeing thus once morea tomb.

The printing is in general excellent. But mens aut for meus ante in the

quotation from Ovid on p. 70 is particularlydisturbing. And why, in apublication on which expensehas not been spared, should an author feelobligedto use such ugly abbreviationsas ".,".-oi," to save printing aGreekwordin full?

CAMPBELL BONNER

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Sophocles.' With an English Translation by F. STORR. In 2 vois.

London: William Heinemann;New York: Macmillan, 1912.

Pp. 15+419; 491.

Whatever pranks it may be permissibleto play with Euripides, the

translator of Sophoclesmust ever wrajEtv EavTr the self-admonitionof

Pater'sideal scholar,"I am utterly purposed hat I will not offend." Mr.

Storr's version meets this test. There is a certain proportionof hardly

avoidableconventionalityand commonplace. But thereare few lines, and,

I think, no pages, unless possibly in some untranslatablechoricode, that

will make to wincethe readerwho carries he original n his heart. Andthe

English reader,howeverfar short he may come of full realizationof theblendedsubtleties,sonorities,and splendorsof the Greek,at least receives

some consistent and harmonious mpressionof Sophocleanunity, grace,

beauty, dignity, elevation, and calm. This is in itself so considerablean

achievement hat I amnot careful o inquirewhetherMr. Storr s an English

poet in his own right. He is clearlythe best-equipped ranslatorwho has

undertakenthis particulartask. He not only does not misconstrue(a

thing which oughtto, but doesnot, go withoutsaying),but he possesses he

long and loving familiaritywith hisauthorwhich enableshim to feel, and

usually to reproduce, he true emotionaltone, the dramatic ogic, the rhe-

toricalcoloring, he idiomaticturn, and the rightrhythmicemphasisof the

original. His dictionis pure,vigorous,generallysustainedat a sufficiently

high poetical level, and enrichedbut not obtrusivelyoverloadedwith dis-

creet reminiscences f the EnglishBible, Shakespeare,Milton-and Jebb.

The blankverse,thoughnot modulatedwith the art of the masters, s rarely

pompous or flat or mechanical. It moves with fluency, ease, and some

measureof equabledistinction,and in the greatpassages ollowsnot unsuc-

cessfullythe evolutionof the long Greekpoetic period. The sobrietyand1This review was written two years ago, and withheld from publication becausethe

coolnesswith which this translation has been received by the majority of reviewersled

me to distrust the excess of my own admiration. The late Jules Lemattrelamented that

literary criticism can never be a science, because we cannot re-read our entire library

every morning. On re-reading this translation I find enough tame and commonplace

lines to explain the prevailing estimate, but not enough to alter my own.





Campbell Bonner: Review of Roscher Omphalos (by JSTOR)

Documents

Transcript of Campbell Bonner: Review of Roscher Omphalos (by JSTOR)