Given the ambiguous nature of the text, Casadio necessarily avoids reaching a definitive conclusion. 1 The discussion begins with the earliest evidence for the cult, a fifth-century BC inscription, and neatly summarises the published arguments as to whether the cult in question was Dionysiac or Orphic. It also presents revised summaries of previously published material.Ĭasadio focuses on the textual evidence for the cults of Dionysus at Cumae in a paper which extends previous research on the worship of Dionysus in Magna Graecia. This volume should be approached primarily as a collection of papers which offer perspectives on the current debates regarding the archaeological and literary evidence of mystic cults in southern Italy. The contributions have been divided by the editors into three categories: Dionysus and Orpheus, Demeter and Isis, and Mithras. The volume begins with an introduction by Casadio and Johnston, who place the discussion in context and clarify the themes presented in the papers, as well as offering a comprehensive overview of the previous research in this subject area. The symposium sought “to examine the evidence in the material remains and surviving literature related to cults of Greek, Oriental, and Egyptian origin in southern Italy and the religious perceptions of the practices in Rome” (p.1).
This volume presents the proceedings of a symposium on “The Mystic Cults of Magna Graecia” which took place at the Villa Vergiliana in Cuma, Italy in 2002.
0 kommentar(er)
