Indo-European Religions

Indo-European religions does not mean the religion of the Indo-Europeans. The notion of Indo-European is essentially based on linguistic evidence, that is, the systematic homologies that exist between several ancient languages, for example, Greek, Latin, Avestan, Sanskrit, Old Norse, Old Irish, Hittite, so that we can conclude that these languages sprang from a common origin. Thus it is impossible to define consistently such a notion by ethnic or biological features. Of course, far from being a neutral vehicle of thought, language fashions our experience of the world. Therefore the linguistic kinship should generate a cultural and spiritual community, at least an ideal if not a historical one. But the etymological Indo-European reconstructions concerning single items of the religious vocabulary are quite disappointing. The Proto-Indo-European names of gods, already known in the middle of the 19th century, are rare and seem to be theologically, mythologically, and ritually empty. A mere naturalistic allegory based thereon is not sustainable. Therefore, in 1938, the French scholar Georges Dumézil took over the hypothesis that, inside the various Indo-European areas, the same triadic structure was implicitly encapsulated in myths, epics, pseudo-histories, and rituals; he thus gave a functional turn to Indo-European religious studies: the Indo-European conception of divine and human societies was organized through a hierarchical division into three main functions—sovereign priests, warriors, and herder-cultivators. They were no longer a means to know a somehow mythical Proto-Indo-European origin, often reduced to the smallest common denominator, but a way to understand more consistently each culture with its own religious phenomena. In this respect instead of being directly based on linguistic data, Indo-European religious studies just proceeded in the same way as historical linguistics. However, such a theory could blur the question of whether a cultural fact is Indo-European or not. How to be sure that the similarities between two sacred narratives are not due to a historical influence or to a natural trend of the human mind? Can the structure of a narrative work like the structure of a verbal root? Moreover, to reduce the religious phenomena to the mere expression of social organizational forces leads to neglecting the speculative and soteriological dimensions in which the core of any religion consists. Therefore a new generation of scholars (Schmitt, Watkins, Nagy) opened a middle way between the old word by word comparison and the Dumézilian mere ideological structuralism: reconstructing the Indo-European myths and religious practices implies tracing back inherited formulas. The specific words used in telling the kernel of a mythic tale are supposed to be part of the myth itself. But most of these inherited formulas concern language itself, its levels, ontological status, and power; for becoming immortal implied deciphering the secrets of speech. So began philosophy. The author would like to thank several scholars and institutions who helped him a lot in making this article. Georges-Jean Pinault, directeur d’études at the École Pratique des Hautes Études (Paris) shared much crucial information with me; Nick Allen, professor at Oxford University, corrected a large part of this work and suggested important entries. The library of the Center for Hellenic Studies (Harvard University) and of Yale University generously granted me access to some documents I needed. Many researchers also kindly sent their papers to me. Of cause the author remains entirely responsible for every defect or inaccuracy in this work.