Currently, Hellenism, Hellenismos, and Hellenic Polytheism are often used as analytic categories for people who worship the Greek Gods. Methodologically, this is deeply problematic because the categories risk presuming the very thing that should remain open to investigation: that shared devotion to the Greek Gods constitutes a shared religion, tradition, or Hellenic identity.

The problem with these categories is that we begin with a shared activity and quietly transform it into a shared identity. One person worships Zeus, Athena, Apollo, Dionysos, or Hekate; another does the same. From this shared devotional activity, it is then assumed that both belong to a common religion—usually called Hellenism, Hellenismos, or “Hellenic Polytheism.”

I do not think that conclusion follows. My position is simultaneously universalist and particularist, although not in the ways those terms are usually used. I believe that worship of the Greek Gods is open to everyone regardless of ethnicity. The Gods are not ethnic property, and Greek ancestry is not a prerequisite for devotion. At the same time, I reject the idea that worshipping Greek Gods automatically makes someone Hellenic or places them within something called Hellenism.

Two different questions need to be asked: Who may worship the Greek Gods? Everyone. Does worship of the Greek Gods make someone Hellenic or a participant in Hellenism simply by virtue of worship? No. Much of the confusion surrounding contemporary Greek polytheistic practice comes from collapsing these questions into one. These questions need to be asked because people can worship Greek Gods within radically different religious and philosophical frameworks.

Someone may approach Dionysos through Wicca. Another may construct a reconstructionist practice based largely on archaeological and literary evidence. Another may understand the Gods through Plato or Proclus. Another may describe themselves as Orphic. Someone else may participate in eclectic Paganism. A Greek, meanwhile, may approach the Gods through an understanding of Greek culture, language, family history, local traditions, historical memory, in addition to archaeological and textual inheritance.

All of these people may offer incense to the same God. That does not mean they belong to the same tradition. The commonality is the object of devotion. The cultural and religious meaning of that devotion may be completely different.

This is why I increasingly think that scholars studying these communities would benefit from beginning with a deliberately thin descriptive category such as “contemporary worshippers of Greek Gods.” It describes what people demonstrably share without deciding in advance what they are. The moment we instead call the population “Hellenists” or “Hellenic Polytheists,” the analytical category has already become an identity claim. That is precisely what needs to remain open for investigation.

At the heart of my disagreement is the meaning of Hellenism. I do not understand Hellenism as the name of a religion. Hellene, Hellenic, Hellenismos/Hellenism belong to an ethnocultural vocabulary associated with Greeks: a people, language, history, cultural memory, literature, philosophy, customs, artistic traditions, religious histories, and a continuing collective identity.

Religion exists within Hellenism. It does not exhaust Hellenism. This should become obvious if we consider contemporary Greeks. A Greek can be Orthodox Christian and remain Greek. A Greek can be atheist and remain Greek. A Greek can be agnostic and remain Greek. If Hellenism survives all of those religious differences, then Hellenism cannot simply mean “the religion of people who worship Greek Gods.”

The reverse is equally important. Someone does not become Greek simply because they worship Apollo. That person may be deeply devoted. They may know Ancient Greek. They may have spent decades studying Greek religion. They may understand an ancient cult better than most people born in Greece. None of that diminishes the sincerity or quality of their religious practice. But devotion, expertise, and ethnocultural belonging are different things.

This distinction matters because discussions of cultural ownership can easily slide into another mistake: the idea that ethnic Greeks possess some automatic or innate knowledge of ancient Greece. They do not. A scholar in the United States may know considerably more about ancient Greek sacrifice, Orphic fragments, Attic festivals, or Platonic theology than the average Greek.

Historical knowledge comes from evidence, scholarship, linguistic competence, training, and study. Ethnicity does not magically produce expertise. But the inverse mistake is equally problematic: assuming that scholarly expertise erases the special relationship between Greek heritage and living Greeks.

A scholar may become the world’s leading expert on an ancient Greek inscription without becoming Greek. Those are different forms of relationship. This is why I distinguish epistemic authority from ethnocultural standing. Epistemic authority answers the question: Who knows what they are talking about? Ethnocultural standing asks something different: Who belongs to the living community whose identity, language, and heritage are being discussed? The two can overlap, but neither automatically produces the other.

The concept I find useful here is living ethnocultural provenance. Ancient Greek religion did not emerge in an abstract religious marketplace. Greek Gods, myths, cults, philosophical traditions, festivals, ritual terminology, and religious institutions developed inside historical Greek communities. That alone would establish cultural provenance. But another fact complicates contemporary reception: the Greek people did not disappear.

Greek culture underwent enormous transformations. Religious institutions changed. Political systems collapsed and re-emerged. Christianity became dominant. Language evolve. Customs evolve. The previous layers still remain visible, though - linking to older versions in a historical chain.

Continuity does not mean stasis. But Greeks continued to exist as a historical people with language, collective memory, cultural transmission, relationships to particular landscapes, and consciousness of a Greek past. Ancient Greek cultural material therefore cannot be treated exactly like the religious archive of a vanished civilization with no surviving ethnocultural descendants. It remains connected (however complicatedly) to a living people.

This does not mean that Greeks possess exclusive rights to ancient Greek material. It means that the circulation of cultural material does not make that material culturally originless.

Greek philosophy can become universal. Greek texts can be translated into every language on earth. The Gods can be worshipped anywhere. None of this dissolves the historical relationship between Greek heritage and Greeks.

This brings us to appropriation. I do not believe that a non-Greek worshipping Apollo is inherently appropriative. Nor is studying Greek religion. Nor is learning Greek. Nor is practicing a reconstructed ritual. Nor is becoming deeply influenced by Plato, Proclus, Homer, or the Orphic Hymns. The problem begins elsewhere. It begins when participation in Greek cultural material becomes a basis for redefining Greek ethnocultural terminology. There is an important difference between saying: “I worship Athena” and saying “Hellenism is my religion, therefore Hellenic is my religious identity.” The first describes a devotional relationship. The second transforms terminology associated with a living people into the terminology of a modern religion.

That transformation deserves scrutiny. My objection is therefore not to participation, but to the assumption that participation automatically produces identity. Religious adoption does not automatically confer ethnocultural belonging.

Orphism provides a useful contrast in this conversation. I do not have the same objection to a non-Greek saying, “I am Orphic” or “I practice Orphism.” Why? Because Orphic does not function as an ethnonym. It identifies a relationship to Orpheus and to religious, theological, philosophical, and ritual material associated with him.

Of course, ancient Orphic material is Greek in provenance. And ancient “Orphism” itself was not necessarily a single unified, institutionally bounded religion. What scholars place under that label is diverse and historically complicated. But none of that changes the basic distinction. A contemporary person can orient their religious practice around Orphic texts and ideas without claiming Greek ethnicity.

The same is true of terms such as Platonic, Stoic, or Dionysian. These terms can identify philosophical or religious orientations. This produces a useful distinction: Orphic identifies a relationship to a body of religious authority. Hellenic identifies a relationship to a people and culture. The first can be adopted confessionally without necessarily making a claim upon the second.

Orphism therefore demonstrates that my argument is not that Greek-derived religious traditions must be restricted to Greeks. Quite the opposite. Greek-derived religious traditions can travel. What should not automatically travel with them is an ethnocultural identity.

This is perhaps the simplest expression of my position: The Gods can be universal without Hellenism becoming a universal religious identity. These propositions are not contradictory. The universality of Athena does not depend upon everyone who worships her becoming Hellenic.

Apollo does not require an ethnic passport before accepting an offering. And acknowledging the Greek provenance of Apollo’s historical cults does not require restricting Apollo to Greeks. This is where contemporary conversations often become unnecessarily polarized. One side fears that acknowledging Greek cultural provenance means saying that outsiders cannot worship Greek Gods. The other fears that universal access to the Gods requires stripping Greek cultural material of any special relationship to Greeks. Neither follows. We can simultaneously affirm: universal devotional access and a particular cultural provenance exist.

This distinction has implications for scholarship. Researchers understandably need categories. Comparison becomes difficult without them. But the category should not determine the conclusion in advance. Instead of assuming a population called “Hellenic Polytheists,” I would begin with contemporary worshippers of Greek Gods and then examine several independent dimensions.

One concerns religious framework: Orphic, Platonic, Wiccan, reconstructionist, eclectic Pagan, individually developed, or something else. Another concerns self-identification: what does the practitioner actually call themselves, and which terms do they explicitly reject? Another concerns ethnocultural relationship: is the person Greek in Greece, part of a Greek diaspora community, are they significantly embedded within Greek language and cultural life, or primarily connected to Greek material through religion, philosophy, scholarship, or texts? Another concerns authority: ancient texts, modern scholarship, teachers, philosophical traditions, personal religious experiences, community practice, family transmission, or some combination. There are also different claims of continuity: reconstruction, revival, philosophical continuity, living tradition, ethnocultural continuity, or no continuity claim at all. Finally, practitioners may hold very different attitudes toward appropriation and terminology.

These dimensions do not necessarily correlate. Someone might be non-Greek, Orphic, deeply knowledgeable, universalist regarding worship, reconstructionist regarding ritual, and extremely careful about Greek ethnocultural terminology. Another person might be Greek diaspora, philosophically Platonic, culturally continuity-oriented, universalist regarding access to the Gods, and protective of the word Hellenic. Both may worship the same Gods. But those acts of worship may mean very different things. That difference should be studied rather than flattened.

The broader methodological principle is simple: Begin with activity before assigning identity. If researchers want to compare people who worship Greek Gods, then worship provides the common field. Everything else should remain an empirical question. What does the practitioner think they are doing? What tradition, if any, do they believe they belong to? What relationship do they perceive between their religious practice and Greek culture? What authority do they recognize? How does ethnicity matter—or not matter—to them? What terminology do they use? What terminology do they reject? Those are far more interesting questions than deciding beforehand that everyone belongs to a religion called Hellenism or Hellenic Polytheism.

The analytic category should be broad enough to permit comparison, but thin enough that it does not create an identity that some of the people being studied explicitly reject. Shared devotion deserves to be studied. But shared Gods do not necessarily mean shared identity, shared ethnicity, or even a shared tradition. And recognizing that distinction may ultimately allow us to understand contemporary worship of the Greek Gods with far greater clarity.

Maria’s post resonated with me and mirrored my experiences as a diasporic Greek. I feel the same icky feeling Maria describes. My culture, history, religion, and language – all brought me joy (and still do) – but now, after approaching a decade of interacting with people who are strongly passionate (sometimes obsessed) with all things Greek, I find it difficult to want to share my love for my culture because there are too many people out there who wish to push the Greeks aside. I first started to write about this back in 2019 – just three years into my journey as a Pagan, facing Greek-American Polytheistic blogger.

Since those days, I have learned to understand the other side more by understanding the historical grand narratives that society has taught them. Narratives that diminish us and make us feel unseen.

We may feel invisible because society has designated ancient Greece as Western high culture. Assigning ancient Greece to “Western high culture” is not just descriptive; it’s doing political work: justifying power, claiming prestige, and deciding whose heritage is universal and whose is local. Once this move is made, non‑Greek Western voices feel entitled to interpret, correct, and monetize “Greek” material as if they are its natural heirs. The whole narrative structure positions “The Greeks” as the West’s symbolic ancestors and living Greeks as historically interesting but unnecessary or an annoying inconvenience.

What the Greek diaspora needs to remember is that this conflict between Greeks and the West has been ongoing for centuries. It is why I recommend Anthony Kaldellis’ new book Phantom Byzantium. In it, he writes about Western narratives that degraded Eastern Romans/Greeks by turning them into Europe’s cautionary tale: everything the West must not be. The person commenting on Maria’s post about Medusa leading her into self-doubt, even though she is educated in the Classics, is not new – it is the Western tradition doing what it does best – appropriating and vilifying.

Whenever Western Europe appropriated an eastern patrimony—Roman imperiality, Christianity, or classical Greek culture—it simultaneously condemned the eastern Romans/Greeks as unworthy custodians. It was the Western humanists who declared that Byzantines were incapable of grasping the “true spirit” of the classics and that they spoke a degenerate, “barbaric” Greek, while Western scholars alone were positioned as genuine heirs of ancient Greece. Each time the West claimed an eastern inheritance, it did so by degrading living Greeks: they became failed Romans, bad Christians, and fake Greeks.

Yes, it is difficult to be Greek (diasporic or not) – yes, we will be rendered invisible or marginalized online in these Greek-themed spaces. It is not new; it has been happening to us for centuries, yet we are still here! It remains important for us to have a voice and not be silenced, because when we stop speaking, that’s when we truly become invisible.

Listen to my interview with Anthony Kaldellis and go deeper into the topic of Byzantium as Europe’s evil doppelgänger

I am sick and tired – yet again! The latest round of ‘discourse’ about Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey is making me question what the hell I am doing at this point in my life with regard to the Hearth of Hellenism project.

The current round of online chatter about Nolan’s upcoming adaptation of Homer’s The Odyssey centers on the casting of Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy. I do not want to summarize the ‘drama’ itself here in this posting. So many others have addressed it – I will later on – but right now I simply need to get off my chest how I am feeling. This post serves more as a reflective journal entry for myself than as an educational piece I normally write.

The reactions around Lupita Nyong’o / Helen have made me seriously consider giving up educating all together – or scaling back my activities. I find myself outnumbered by the sheer volume of ignorant, racist, ahistorical, anti-Greek, which is the clusterfuck being called ‘discourse’ that is filling up social media. Reading what I am reading online is killing my love for history and the deep love I have for my culture. I find that the world around me is both uninformed and unwilling to be educated – aside from the minority of people willing to explore the nuances of history, identity, language, culture, and more.

How do I find the will to write when people cannot or do not want to process the fact that, for example, Homer does not describe Helen as a blond? Or that the English word for blond comes from an ancient Greek word that captures a wide array of colors, including brown? People are set in their narratives, such as the narrative that Helen must have been a pale blond-haired, blue-eyed, Nordic-looking woman instead of a Bronze Age Mediterranean woman if we were to imagine her. Homer gives us very little detail about what she looked like. Perhaps, as philosopher Dimitris Liantinis suggests, Homer did not want to limit our imagination of what beauty could be. If Homer had said she was blond with blue eyes, then beauty would be limited to that.

As I have said before, as a Greek-American, I support Lupita Nyong’o as Helen. A figure like Helen, known as the most beautiful woman, cannot be the exclusive domain of white, blond-haired women. That ‘standard’ depiction caters to white supremacy, and I am sick and tired of Greek history being used as a proxy for white culture. It also causes issues within the Greek community through internalization of white beauty standards. I can elaborate on this and other points made in this post, and I plan to later, when I am more collected in my thoughts. The topic is difficult because there are different communities to speak to – there is the white American audience and the Greek audience, the latter needing hand-holding in untangling whiteness from Greekness, which tests the limits of my patience and faith in humanity.

Until then, these are my raw and unfiltered thoughts at the moment concerning the ‘discourse’.

If you did not listen to my interview with Dr. Curtiz Dozier, you should listen; it is on the topic of white nationalist appropriation of the classics to justify hate. Which is important to understand given the Nolan ‘discourse’

Hearth of Hellenism

12 - Why White Nationalists Love to use Ancient Greece for Hate w/ Dr. Curtis Dozier

The White Pedestal: How White Nationalists Use Ancient Greece and Rome to Justify Hate by Curtis Dozier is a powerful exploration of how extremist movements weaponize the classical world. Dozier shows how white nationalist thinkers selectively reinterpret Plato, Sparta, Roman history, and the mythology of “Western civilization” …

Listen now

7 months ago · 9 likes · Angelo Nasios

Often, people think religion is all about blind faith – that it is without reason by nature. While some resort to blind faith to justify their beliefs (this book says XYZ, so I follow it because it says so), religion, to me, is a means for making sense of life and for engaging with divinity. In the interview, I explained that I could easily live a life without divinity, but I think it is better for me to live a life where divinity is part of it. Because I think it is best to have it in my life, I need to engage with the divine in a manner fit for humans, as the first Delphic maxim advises us to know thyself (Γνῶθι σεαυτόν) – which instructs us to know that I am human, a mortal. From there, I proceed forward in life, taking care to know my limits as a mortal. I am a human and capable of reason. I must therefore use my reason as much as possible to live life in a reasonable way, as best as possible within my capabilities.

This is the beauty of Greek philosophy: it provides reasonable paths to living a life that includes Gods deemed appropriate for humans within the frameworks of each philosophical school. While there were different schools, such as Pythagoreanism, Stoicism, and Platonism, they all shared some common concerns and sought to answer common questions – namely, how should human beings live, given the structure, limits, and meaning of the cosmos they inhabit?

While I cannot justify my religion in a way that would satisfy a scientist looking for empirical evidence, I can justify it philosophically. I cannot say with absolute certainty that the Gods are real, but that is not the point; I have already decided that I want to live a life with Gods, and I must accept them because I think this philosophy is true. The question(s) that must be put forward are, if there are Gods, what can be said logically about them (e.g., what is a God?), and how do I conduct myself in relation to them?

This is where philosophy comes in, and for the purposes of this conversation, I will stick with Proclus, as he is extremely handy for demonstrating what I am getting at here. In his Elements of Theology, Proclus adopts the Euclidean deductive style: definitions, propositions, and demonstrations to make explicit the logical presuppositions that already govern metaphysical thought. In other words, Proclus uses a mathematical style of reasoning to reveal, step by step, the underlying logical framework on which metaphysical ideas already depend, rather than introducing new doctrines by appeal to authority.

In Proclus’ Elements, we find a model of theology that neither commands belief nor abandons thought. It does not claim to prove the Gods, nor does it appeal to fear, authority, or emotional coercion. Instead, it asks what must be the case if reality is intelligible at all. From that starting point, it unfolds a vision of the cosmos in which unity, multiplicity, causation, and participation are ordered rather than opposed. In this, Proclus provides me with a means to avoid the harmful excesses that can arise from irrational religiosity rooted in fear and superstition. Religion is often blamed for many problems, and yes, people do bad things in the name of religion, but that proves my point that religion ought to be grounded in a robust philosophical system so as to limit bad actions committed in the name of religion through fear, hate, superstition, and so on.

Proclus understands that the divine reality exceeds human comprehension but refuses to conclude that reason must therefore be removed. On the contrary, it is insisted that rational inquiry—disciplined, humble, and aware of its limits—is the highest mode by which a human being can approach the divine. Polytheism follows naturally from this approach. If reality is structured, differentiated, and relational, then divinity itself cannot be collapsed into a single undifferentiated agent without distortion. Multiple Gods acknowledge that the sources of order in the world are plural and irreducible.

The Gods do not appear right away in his Elements; Proclus lays some foundational groundwork first. He begins with what must be true if reality is intelligible. The first five propositions deal with The One for example:

“Every multitude partakes in some respect of The One.” (Prop. I)

“Every thing which partakes of The One is alike one and not one.” (Prop. II)

“Every thing which becomes one, becomes so by the participation of The One, and is one so far as it experiences the participation of The One.” (Prop. III)

“Every thing which is united is different from The One itself.” (Prop. IV)

“All multitude is posterior to The One. “ (Prop. V)

Proclus lays the foundations by establishing The One as the condition for anything to exist or be intelligible. This must be done first before we speak about Gods. I do not intend this to be a full investigation or exegesis of Proclus’ Elements – simply, I want to explain the basic grounding for my polytheist reasoning and how I like to approach religion. If someone were to ask me, “What are the Gods?” I could ground my answers using Proclus. The Gods are principles of unity. The Gods are not their myths. I do not think the Gods are capricious personalities who randomly help or harm people, as they sometimes appear in myth. For Proclus, a God is defined as a self-perfect unity, not as a psychological agent.

“Every God is a self-perfect unity, and every self-perfect unity is a God” (Prop. CXIV).

“Every God is superessential, supervital, and superintellectual” (Prop. CXV).

This means the Gods are prior to emotion, impulse, and personal psychology. They are not beings inside the world reacting to events — they are principles that give order to reality itself. So when myths describe Gods as angry, jealous, or vengeful, Proclus would say those stories are symbolic ways of talking about how divine order appears to human life, not literal descriptions of divine behavior.

I don’t believe the Gods arbitrarily harm people, because Proclus says the very nature of a God is goodness and unification.

“Every God subsists through its own superessential goodness” (Prop. CXIX).

“Every God is a beneficent unity” (Prop. CXXXIII).

“Providence exists primarily in the Gods” (Prop. CXX).

For Proclus, to be a God is to be a cause of order, not disorder. Anything that looks like harm comes from how limited beings receive divine influence, not from divine intent. I highly recommend Leonidas's series of articles on Proclus on his Substack, where he breaks down Proclus and Platonism in easy-to-understand terms. Few people have the skills to explain difficult concepts in easy language – Leo is one of them.

The Vine and Veil - A Raving Oracle

Platonic Concepts - The One Beyond All

In the vast architecture of Platonic theology—especially as developed by Proclus, the 5th-century Neoplatonist philosopher of late antiquity—everything begins with the One…

Read more

a year ago · 36 likes · Leonidas

This small sample of Proclus’ work shows me that living a life with the Gods and rooting myself in a strong philosophical tradition is highly reasonable and a valid religious path. I stress this point because many new polytheists may feel insecure in their polytheism – it is not a popular path and is largely misunderstood by society.

You need not fear these obstacles, because the philosophical tradition(s) provide fortifications against them if you choose to adopt them into your polytheism. As for polytheism, which engages with the Gods through mythic literalism, I have little advice on that – I strongly encourage a philosophical integration with polytheism.

The White Pedestal: How White Nationalists Use Ancient Greece and Rome to Justify Hate by Curtis Dozier is a powerful exploration of how extremist movements weaponize the classical world. Dozier shows how white nationalist thinkers selectively reinterpret Plato, Sparta, Roman history, and the mythology of “Western civilization” to legitimize violence, exclusion, and racial hierarchy.

Curtis Dozier is Associate Professor of Greek and Roman Studies at Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, New York. He is the author of The White Pedestal: How White Nationalists Use Ancient Greece and Rome to Justify Hate and the director of the website Pharos: Doing Justice to the Classics (doingjusticetotheclassics.org) where he documents examples of appropriations of Greco-Roman antiquity by hate-groups.

Purchase The White Pedestal

https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300272734/the-white-pedestal/

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0300272731

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-white-pedestal-curtis-dozier/1147628406

After that, for some reason today, I felt the urge to find my copy of Cavafy’s poems. After fifteen minutes of searching the shelves, I found it and flipped through the pages. I stopped upon a poem, «Ένας Γέρος» (An Old Man) - which reflects on, you guessed it - φρόνησις.

One of the quiet surprises in Cavafy’s poem is how he approaches the word Φρόνησις. It is a word, as already said, in use today, going back to Homer to Aristotle. It’s a word whose meaning has remained stable across millennia. Φρόνησις then and still today means prudence or practical wisdom. Whether spoken by an ancient Athenian or a yiayia today, the core semantic field has barely shifted. It is the same word carrying the same conceptual baggage.

But Cavafy does what poets are allowed to do, what they must do, when they inherit a word with too much weight. He twists it, turns it, exposes it, and forces us to see what language does in lived experience rather than in philosophical treatises. In the classical world, Φρόνησις is the crown of practical wisdom. Aristotle describes it as the virtue that guides right action. Plato connects it to the rational soul. Φρόνησις is cultivated and admired, and it helps prevent mistakes.

But in Cavafy’s poem, Φρόνησις becomes the source of folly instead of its preventer. An inversion that can only happen within a lived culture that can play with its own language.

Καί συλλογίζεται ἡ Φρόνησις πῶς τόν ἐγέλα·

καί πῶς τήν ἐμπιστεύονταν πάντα — τί τρέλλα! —

τήν ψεύτρα πού ἔλεγε· «Αὔριο. Ἔχεις πολλύν καιρό.»

And he reflects on how Prudence deceived him;

and how he always trusted her—what folly!—

that liar who used to say: ‘Tomorrow. You still have plenty of time.’

Here, Φρόνησις is not the wise advisor of Greek ethics. She becomes a liar who whispers “tomorrow.” She is the soft voice of hesitation, the reasonable excuse for not daring, of not living fully. She is the rationalization that a cautious choice is always correct. At the same time, she represents the betrayal that only becomes clear later, when life has already passed by and one is left with regret.

Cavafy is not rejecting the dictionary meaning of Φρόνησις. If anything, the sting of the poem depends on the stability of its meaning; this is semantic irony. Cavafy knows exactly what the word signifies in both classical and modern Greek. The old man also knows what Φρόνησις was supposed to be. That is why the pain feels so sharp: he did not misunderstand prudence—he practiced it without moderation, following it too faithfully, allowing a virtue to become an excess in the absence of μεσότης – the middle between two extremes.

What Cavafy captures is the tragedy of lived prudence, prudence as it appears in a real human life rather than on the page of Aristotle’s Ethics. The voice of Φρόνησις can become the voice of timidity, avoidance, and safety at the cost of vitality. A “timeless” virtue, when encountered in the messy realm of desire and fear, can degrade into a kind of trap. And the old man realizes that the version of prudence he lived by was not virtue but inertia disguised as wisdom.

Cavafy’s Φρόνησις represents the same prudence Aristotle praised, but viewed from the other end of a life where it was misused, misunderstood, or over-trusted. It serves as a reminder that timeless ideas still require self-examination, and philosophy can be done in poetry.

Below is the whole poem translated by Evangelos Sachperoglou (Oxford World Classics)

Deep inside the noisy café,

huddled over the table sits an old man,

with a newspaper in front of him, all alone.

And in the indignity of his miserable old age

he ponders on how little he enjoyed the years

when he had vigour, eloquence, and looks.

He knows that he has aged a lot; he senses it, he sees it.

And yet the time when he was young seems like

yesterday. What a short span of time, what a short span.

And he reflects on how Prudence deceived him;

and how he always trusted her—what folly!—

that liar who used to say: ‘Tomorrow. You still have plenty of time.’

He recalls impulses that he restrained; and how much

joy he sacrificed. Every lost opportunity

now mocks his mindless wisdom.

… But from too much reflection and reminiscence

the old man becomes dizzy. And he falls asleep

leaning upon the table of the café.

Podcast mentioned in my video response

I was asked to return to a podcast to discuss why I became a polytheist. When I received the invitation, I agreed to participate in the episode. This invitation made me think: while it’s common for people to ask why others change religions, I questioned myself – why do I stay a polytheist?

I ask myself this more often now, since I am practicing alone. The Greek polytheist community here in New York has gone silent and, as far as I know, is inactive. I have nowhere to go for communal worship. This, along with the shady history of my initiatic tradition, has led me to reevaluate the last several years of my life.

Do I remain a polytheist? Yes, that’s the conclusion I reach every time. I continue to be a polytheist despite the issues I’ve outlined because being a polytheist is about more than just community or an initiatic tradition. I stay a polytheist because it’s how I see the world makes sense to me and reveals the most divine beauty. It is the grammar of divinity and philosophy I prefer to write in, the music I wish to hear, and the art I desire to see. It is the environment in which I feel I can cultivate myself best.

I suspect this is true for others as well – polytheism is a way of approaching life and spirituality that some people are naturally born for. Now that I am on a solo journey, I feel more connected to other solitary individuals who are doing their own thing, and I’m becoming more aware of individual needs versus those of a community. While it can be lonely, it’s also freeing – I am in a space and time that allows my polytheism to evolve independently, after being shaped by community and initiation. Now I can see how these lessons unfold naturally, without outside help or commentary.

One particular issue I am currently reflecting on is evaluating and reconciling how to situate my polytheism within the history of Greek culture and the current context of Hellenism. To be a Greek-American polytheist does have its challenges when interacting with the Christian Orthodox majority. When I first began my journey, I found community quickly; practicing polytheism was easier. After a few years participating and taking everything in, I developed a gnawing feeling that something was missing. In short, I developed the sense that the re-Hellenization movement was missing the mundane folk rituals and practices that are commonplace in the broader Greek community. The orientation within the re-Hellenization movement was/are reminiscent of Enlightenment thought, in that Hellenism was positioned intellectually, with religious observance confined to its monthly scheduled performance. Religion seemed decentralized or secondary to some other goal.

The mundane folk practices are what I am currently more interested in. It is here that you find numerous threads of continuity from the past: I am deeply grateful for the work that Dr. Chaitow is doing on her Substack, Thyrathen, and how she demonstrates these continuities. One small example of this is continuity between Hekate and Saint Barbara. I aim to examine the aspects that still exist today and determine what can be redeployed in a polytheistic context, rather than focusing solely on ancient sources. This makes the most sense as a means to bridge the gap of history between me in 2025 and an ancient religious practice.

The folk practices observed today carry the ancient religion within them – to reject them is to deny a significant part of history. This is something I believe the re-Hellenization movement is doing wrong. They reject or overlook the readily available practices for their own use and mock Christian piety when they should, in my opinion, be engaging with those practices and reapplying polytheism to them. When Greek Christians are mocked, all I can think is that, in a way, you’re also mocking your polytheistic ancestors who had very similar practices. Piety should not be mocked, no matter the religion.

This brings me back to my main topic: why I remain a polytheist. Aside from it being the religious orientation that I think I am best suited for and is my natural disposition towards divinity – it is also a great arena to explore history and experiment with my culture and see what I can do with it, see what I can create and what I can contribute not just to the Greek community but to other polytheists who may find my journey inspiring.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

A post on Facebook announced the incident - Photos used in this post come from this Facebook post. English translation is my own.

Vandalism of the statue of Pan in Stemnitsa

Dear all,

On July 19, 2025, a statue of Pan seated, made from a single piece of poplar wood, was placed on my private estate in Mainalon, near the central square of Stemnitsa, Arcadia.

On July 27, 2025, a joint interview was given with the wood sculptor, Mr. Angelos Patsiatzis, on Tripolis Municipal Radio. The interview, widely reported in social media, clarified that “the statue is not an object of worship but a symbolic one, and we are not aiming at a return to Dodecatheism—after all, Pan was not counted among the Twelve Gods.”

Between August 23 and 25, 2025, the statue was vandalized by unknown persons, who threw leaflets of Christian content and pinned icons of Saint Marina to the trees near the statue, while similar leaflets were scattered around it. We learned that such leaflets were also thrown in Dimitsana on the same day.

On the afternoon of August 25, 2025, a lawsuit was filed against persons unknown.

Anyone who has any information that could help identify the perpetrator(s) is asked to inform the police department of Dimitsana, which is investigating the case.

Finally, we expect the competent bodies of the Church of Greece to take a position on this incident of vandalism against a work of art which symbolizes Arcadia and the Arcadian ideal of protecting wild nature.

Ioannis Lagos

One such leaflet which was found on the ground had Psalm 95.5 written on it

The vandals, whom I assume are Orthodox fundamentalists, placed icons of Marina (remembered as a dragon-slayer) by Pan as a way of declaring Christianity's victory over the Greek Gods. Many of her icons feature a horned demon or dragon.

Shifting to the USA, fundamentalist Christianity, fueled by the cult of Donald Trump, is vandalizing our nation by undermining the Constitution. Fascism is taking deeper root every day. The right seeks to dismantle the civil rights fought for over the past 60 years and transform the USA into a ChristoFascist state.

We are living in Late Antiquity, just with WiFi, as I have been saying for some time now. My last piece focused on parallels between Emperor Julian and Donald Trump, and this post picks up on that theme and feeling. It mainly highlights the clash of opposing ideologies. In Greece, the worship of the Gods is gradually coming back—sometimes met with resistance—in the case of Pan, even vandalized. In the USA, the Constitution is being vandalized.

In both cases, what is sacred at the heart of something is being attacked, and both are identified as “all” or “everything” (Pan). I am aware that Orthodox fundamentalist vandals would claim that what they consider sacred is being attacked by the revival of polytheism, and I am sure that the right wing in the USA believes that what they hold sacred is also being threatened by the opposing side. However, the violence clearly comes from one side in each case, so we can put aside the question of “what about the other side.”

I am unsure of my main point here; I mainly write to record what is happening—writing about things I care about. Making connections, reflections, and observations. I believe the takeaway for me, and maybe for others, will be this: fight for what is sacred to you and don’t let people vandalize it. Be stoic if you can— they can vandalize a statue or erase rainbow crosswalks, but they cannot erase what is inside you—that is beyond their reach. What we carry inside us can and will regrow the sacred again.

Writing is one of the few things I still do to process my feelings – I hope it remains legal to do so. I have often said for years that we are living in Late Antiquity again, just with Wi-Fi this time. By this, I see a pattern in our era similar to the social transformation that occurred in Late Antiquity. Because of these similarities, I have called our period Late Modernity. There are many parallels I have noticed - mainly, the clash between two opposing worldviews. One is rising, trying to overthrow the established order, while the established tries to cling to life.

Late Antiquity is mainly notable for the rise of Christianity and its growing dominance throughout the Roman Empire, along with conflicts with the established order of the time, which included traditional polytheism and related intellectual traditions. In Late Modernity, we observe the emergence of left-liberal progressivism and its clashes with right-conservative traditionalism. On one side, there are values promoting equality, inclusion, and systemic reform, often challenging old social structures. On the other side, there is a focus on national myths and puritan moral codes, along with the defense of tradition against perceived cultural decline.

Right now, we see the strongest parallels between the two periods: the reactionary political figure who seeks to restore past glory. In Late Antiquity, that figure was Emperor Julian, and in Late Modernity, it's Trump. You might think this is an odd comparison; they are vastly different characters—Julian, a soldier and intellectual, and the other, a draft-dodging con man. They are, as individuals, miles apart. However, politically, they are both reactionary figures of their respective eras.

Julian and Trump rose to prominence during times when the push of cultural change seemed unstoppable, with each determined to push back against it. Julian, leading a pagan minority within an empire rapidly embracing Christianity, aimed to revive ancient cults and restore the classical cultural order. Trump, on the other hand, rallied conservatives, nationalists, the far-right, and disillusioned citizens who believed their country’s traditions and identity were slipping away under a rising progressive cultural dominance. Both positioned themselves as defenders of a declining greatness, addressing those who felt disconnected from the new order and promising to restore the ‘good old times’. Julian, you could say, wanted to Make Rome Great Again.

Now, people often say history repeats itself – I agree that it rhymes, not repeats. I hope Trump’s reign ends similarly to Julian’s, in failure. While I am sad that Julian failed in his mission, what stands out as perhaps a lesson is that the reactionary attempts to roll back time against a new, changing order are fated to fail. With this in mind, I now end this with a mind more settled and lifted than when I began.

I want to end this with two Orphic Hymns, which I turn to in times when Justice is needed.

To Nemesis

Nemesis, I call you, goddess, greatest of queens,

all-seeing, watching over the lives of many-tribed mortals;

eternal, reverend, sole delighter in the just,

changing variegate speech that is ever unstable,

whom all mortals dread, whose necks bear the yoke:

for the intentions of all are your care, nor ever escapes you

a soul over-proud, with immoderate outpour of words.

You watch all and hear all and preside over all,

in you lie the judgements of mortals, all-highest daimon.

Come, blessed, pure, ever aiding the mystai,

grant good understanding, put an end to all-hateful,

overbearing, unholy, deceitful intentions.

To Dike

The eye of Dike I sing, all-seeing, bright-form,

who sits on the holy throne of Zeus the king,

watching from heaven the lives of many-tribed mortals,

just avenger, bearing down upon the unjust,

impartially uniting the different in truth:

for all, all that evil intentions bring mortals,

is doubtful, to those willing excess with unjust designs;

you alone, approaching, bring the unjust justice:

hateful to the unjust, kind you abide with the just.

But goddess, come righteous to noble intentions,

always, until life’s destined day should arrive.

Translations by Daniel Malamis

Thyrathen: Greek Magic, Myth, and Folklore

Thyrathen FAQ

Introduction: How to Use This Page…

Read more

a year ago · 12 likes · Dr. Sasha Chaitow

In the the FAQ, Sasha addresses many common questions and or misnomers concerning Greek culture. I wanted to bring attention to the following:

20. So are Greek magical practices just watered-down versions of ancient ones? Are they “real” survivals or just echoes?

Short answer:
Many are direct descendants with documented manuscript trails; some details changed, but core functions and structures remain.

In depth:

In Greece, numerous rituals, healing charms, blessing formulas, and magical practices can be traced from ancient texts (inscriptions, papyri), through Byzantine manuscripts, into modern oral and family tradition.

Not every detail remains, and adaptation is constant, but the structure, purpose, and even many of the words persist.`

This is clearest in:

• Incantations: Many Christian prayers retain phrases or patterns from the magical papyri or earlier hymnography.

• Protective magic: The ritual of xematiasma (removing the evil eye), and incantations/amulets to protect infants use formulas directly paralleling ancient “apotropaic” practices, documented across centuries. Sometimes the wording is the same or derivative of that found in the PGM and similar sources.

• Lament and blessing: Village funerary laments (moiroloi) and seasonal rituals show continuous lines of function and form from Homeric times onward.

It is not “just an echo.” Living tradition is not about frozen replicas, but about continuity of purpose and the ability to adapt. Greek magical and ritual practices are among the best-documented cases of cultural resilience—not as nationalist fantasy, but as historical fact.

This is called functional continuity—the same ritual or magical role, but updated for new times.

I want to draw attention to the laments. I figured it would be a nice time to share a Greek lament so you get a sense of what they are about. In Greek, laments are called μοιρολόι (moiroloi).

• From μοίρα (moira) meaning “fate” or “destiny”

• and λέω (leo) or λόγος meaning “speech” or “word”

So μοιρολόι literally means “speech about fate.”

The lament and exegesis below are from A Weft of Memory: A Greek Mother’s Recollection of Folksongs, Poems, and Proverbs by Vasiliki Scotes and Thomas J. Scotes.

This is a lament or kneeing song, known as a moiroloi. Such songs were sung at the wake before the dead person was taken to the church and at the graveside. Women usually sang them and some were specifically asked to come to the funeral because of their ability to compose and sing such songs.

Death is personified in Greek as Charos (Xápoç), a form of the ancient Charon, the ferryman of the dead in ancient Greek mythology. Despite being Christian for almost two thousand years, the Greeks in their folklore still see death as a bitter and comfortless occurrence imposing a reluctant departure from the beauty and pleasures of life on earth (as described in the song) for the gloom and bleakness of the grave.

A good account of the beliefs of the Homeric Greeks concerning death and fate can be found in Thomas Seton's book, "The Gods Remain"

The Greek and English are below.

A quick post today, nothing too deep and serious. This post adds more detail to a previous post and much of my overall work concerning the appropriation of Hellenism within Pagan communities. In my article, The Appropriation of “Hellenism” - A "Profound Offense" - I wrote that within neopagan circles, Hellenism is being used to indicate a Pagan religion created and defined by other Pagans. This redefinition raises major ethical concerns about cultural appropriation, as it detaches “Hellenism” from its authentic cultural context and reduces it to a religious label. I argue that the neopagan repurposing of “Hellenism” constitutes deeply harmful cultural appropriation. Read full below article here

Throughout my work I always do my best to express what Hellenism means - it embodies the entire Greek cultural experience, including language, history, and national pride. However it did not dawn one me to actually reference a Greek dictionary, why it didn’t, I don’t know. Sometimes the obvious thing to do escapes us.

So I looked up the entry for Hellenism in The Dictionary of Modern Greek (Λεξικό της Νέας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας) by Greek Georgios Babiniotis, a Greek linguist and philologist. The entry for Hellenism (Ἑλληνισμός) is below

Translation

ἑλληνισμός (noun, masculine):

[collective, singular]

1. The totality of Greeks who live all over the world; the Greek nation.

   Syn.: Romiosýni (ῥωμιοσύνη)

2. The totality of Greeks who live in a specific geographic area outside of Greece.

   Example uses: apódimos (ἀπόδημος = diaspora), mikroasiatikós (μικρασιατικός = Asia Minor Greek), της διασπορᾶς (of the diaspora), της Κύπρου (of Cyprus)

3. Greek civilization and the totality of Greeks as bearers of that civilization.

It is important that our dictionary be used so that people understand the definitions I have been giving Hellenism aren’t just my own opinion - but are standard. It also drives home my point that Pagans who use Hellenism as a Pagan religion are by definition, are engaging in unethical cultural appropriation and to refer back to my previous article on appropriation, redefining Hellenism from the outside is not a organic shift in a language’s natural evolution.

A common counterargument that neopagans provide to justify their appropriation is that words change meaning over time. While linguistic evolution is natural, it’s important to distinguish organic shifts within a community from external appropriations that impose new meanings. Language changes are typically driven by those who use the words, and Greek society has not adopted “Hellenism” as a neopagan religion. This redefinition comes from outside, disregarding the Greek experience embedded in the term. Such an imposition undermines Greek agency over their cultural symbols.

Okay, I lied; there is a serious part to this, lol. I write this post, in part, as a response to recent slander. Just last week, on BlueSky, a scholar of Late Antiquity publicly defamed me by labeling me a “militant ethno-nationalist” along with accusations of being an “unapologetic transphobe” - I don’t understand how these lies become a thing. It does upset me.

It bothers me to be slandered for explaining basic concepts, like what Hellenism means. Hellenism, according to sources like the Dictionary of Modern Greek, primarily refers to the Greek people, not a political entity or state. It extends beyond Greece and includes the global Greek diaspora. Hellenism signifies the Greek people and their civilization—past, present, and future. This is not ethno-nationalism.

My goal has never been to exclude others from worshipping the Gods, but to affirm that Hellenism is a living cultural identity rooted in a specific people - it is not a religion, it is not a dead relic of the past.

This defamation by a scholar of Late Antiquity underscores my observations that there is a significant disconnect between academics who study the past and are ignorant of the present. Conflicts that arise when the two worlds intersect. In my opinion, scholars who study the dead Greeks of antiquity often become annoyed when they encounter living Greeks who talk back - and I love to talk back

Have a good weekend!

Sasha Chaitow, PhD, is a British-Greek scholar of the history of Western Esotericism with a background in Literature and Communication Studies. Her doctoral thesis (University of Essex, 2014) focused on the French visionary author Joséphin Péladan in relation to Symbolist art and literature in the French Occult Revival (Theion Publishing, 2022), and she has published her MA thesis (University of Exeter, 2008) as a monograph on the Renaissance alchemist Michael Maier and the initiatory content of his 1618 emblem book, Atalanta Fugiens (2020). She has published several peer reviewed articles on related topics, and has also led a parallel career as a medical editor for Elsevier.

A native speaker of Greek, Sasha has worked as an academic translator since 1999, in the Greek press industry as a columnist and reporter, and has published a monograph and several chapters in a Greek university textbook.

Her current research involves folk magical practices in Modern Greece and the history of their transmission, the entanglements of Greek Orthodox theology in relation to Hermetism and Neoplatonic theurgy, and the theology and symbolism of Orthodox icons.

She has taught extensively on the academic study of Western Esotericism, topics in Greek myth and culture, and their reception in Anglophone academic studies. She is also a visual artist and a trained iconographer and has exhibited internationally in 14 solo and several group exhibitions.

The Hieroglyphica is a captivating late antique gem that embodies the twilight of Mediterranean paganism and hieratic philosophy. Frustratingly elusive, this extraordinary text offers a thrilling glimpse into a struggle to safeguard knowledge amid clashing worldviews and the fervent religiocultural passions of its time. Echoing the harmonising tendency of late Neoplatonism, its entangled strands of Greek and Egyptian thought and language do not vie for supremacy, but merge in a battle for interpretation, reinvention, and survival. The journey of the Hieroglyphica is one of transmission and reception: we know more about this than about its creator, provenance, or intent. Its rediscovery and reinterpretation in the Renaissance renders it a touchstone for the development of Renaissance emblematics and alchemical iconography. However, until recently, its legacy was muddled by errors in dating, authorship, and interpretation, and its significance was diminished by biased commentary. The scholarship itself demands a bold reckoning, entangled as it is in ethnocentric and colonialist lenses that still cloud this artifact’s true significance. This new English translation directly from the original Greek opens a door for both curious readers and scholars alike, balancing rich context with a sharp, reliable rendering—sidestepping the pitfalls of past efforts. In this full length scholarly study, Sasha Chaitow has unearthed three groundbreaking insights that reshape our grasp of the Hieroglyphica: Compelling evidence points to its roots in oral tradition, likely penned by a student of Horapollon; a vivid blend of Alexandrian syncretism, Greek Neoplatonism, Hermetic currents; and traces of late antique alchemical hermeneutics woven between its lines. These revelations demand a fresh, urgent look at this remarkable manuscript.

PURCHASE BOOK HERE

Today’s post takes up an urgent and often misunderstood topic: the translation of Hellenismos in a letter by Emperor Julian to the high priest Arsacius of Galatia. Specifically, I want to address how rendering Hellenismos as “Hellenic religion” has contributed to a serious misreading of the term, one that continues to shape how modern Pagan communities define and appropriate the concept of Hellenism in problematic ways.

The motivation to write this came while reading Sasha Chaitow’s translation and commentary on the Hieroglyphica. In it, she touches on ideas from translation theory that highlight the inherently ideological nature of translation. One passage, cited from The Translator’s Invisibility by Lawrence Venuti, struck me in particular:

Translation is … a rewriting of an original text. All rewritings, whatever their intention, reflect a certain ideology and a poetics and as such manipulate literature to function in a given society in a given way. Rewriting is manipulation, undertaken in the service of power, and in its positive aspect can help in the evolution of a literature and a society. Rewritings can introduce new concepts, new genres, new devices… literary innovation, of the shaping power of one culture upon another. But rewriting can also repress innovation, distort and contain. (Susan Bassnett & André Lefevere eds., in Lawrence Venuti, The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York, Routledge, 1995; Taylor and Francis 2004, viii.)

In other words, every translation reflects the translator’s choices and the society they live in. The way in which Ἑλληνισμὸς has been translated by past translators reflect their choices, which were shaped by their society, values, expectations, in the process, it distorts the original, shaping it to serve certain powers or beliefs. In Julian’s context, Ἑλληνισμός does not refer to religion in the modern sense, but rather to the entirety of the Hellenic cultural, philosophical, and civic tradition, rooted in ancestral custom, paideia, theurgy, and divine imitation, but this complexity is completely lost in translation.

Ἑλληνισμὸς appears only once in Emperor Julian's surviving writings, in a letter urging Arsacius to reinforce the customs and values of the ancient tradition.The letter opens as follows in Greek:

Ὁ Ἑλληνισμὸς οὔπω πράττει κατὰ λόγον ἡμῶν ἕνεκα τῶν μετιόντων αὐτόν· τὰ γὰρ τῶν θεῶν λαμπρὰ καὶ μεγάλα, κρείττονα πάσης μὲν εὐχῆς, πάσης δὲ ἐλπίδος.

The commonly cited 1913 Loeb Classical Library translation by Emily Wilmer Cave Wright renders this line as:

The Hellenic religion does not yet prosper as I desire, and it is the fault of those who profess it; for the worship of the gods is on a splendid and magnificent scale, surpassing every prayer and every hope.

An alternative translation similarly reads: “The religion of the Greeks does not yet prosper as I would wish...” In both cases, Ἑλληνισμός is translated narrowly as a religion, thus reducing the depth of meaning found in Ἑλληνισμός. This has done much damage through the reception of such translations by Pagans. It serves as a primary point of ‘evidence’ that Pagans use to argue that Hellenism was a religion then and is a religion now. In Julian's Neoplatonic and civic context, Ἑλληνισμός encompasses far more than ritual/religious praxis. It refers to a whole civilizational and philosophical orientation. To reduce that nuance to a single modern category like “religion” distorts the term’s function and meaning.

This kind of distortion has real consequences, within academia and but more so outside. Outside of academia, many contemporary Pagans point to such translations as proof that Hellenism was, and is, a religion, one they can now reconstruct, adopt, or confess to believe in. But this relies on a conceptual framework foreign to Julian’s world. The error arises, in part, from a misunderstanding of how translation actually works. It’s not a mechanical substitution of words, but an interpretive act. Translators do not passively convey meaning between languages. They actively reshape meaning in ways that reflect their own assumptions and the cultural norms of their audience.

This is precisely what happened in Wright’s 1913 rendering. Her use of “Hellenic religion” reflects early 20th-century British assumptions about religion as a discrete, institutionally defined phenomenon; a product of Protestant-influenced categories. It presents Julian’s project in terms familiar to her readership, but in doing so, it imposes a modern religious framework on a term that never meant that.

Venuti calls this kind of erasure “domestication”, when a translator smooths over cultural differences to make a text more comfortable for the target audience. In doing so, the translator disappears, but so does the source culture. Venuti calls this a form of "ethnocentric violence," where the translator’s worldview overwrites the foreignness of a text. To resist this, Venuti promotes “foreignization,” which preserves the strangeness of the original text.

A foreignizing translation of Julian’s letter would transliterate Ἑλληνισμός as Hellenismos and explain its meaning through commentary: that it refers to the Hellenic mode of being, not a religion. Julian himself supports this reading. After referencing Hellenismos, he pivots to a new subject: ta tōn theōn (τὰ τῶν θεῶν), "the things of the Gods", to speak more directly of religious matters. In Julian’s vocabulary, and the broader context of Late Antique Platonism, τὰ τῶν θεῶν refers to religious matters writ large: sacred rites, divine mysteries, theurgy, sacrifices, and all that properly belongs to the Gods. These are treated as distinct from Hellenismos. By translating Hellenismos as "Hellenic religion," modern translators collapse that distinction and obscure Julian's intent.

In short, rendering Ἑλληνισμός as “Hellenic religion” is not only incorrect; it reflects and reinforces a modern ideological bias. It reshapes Julian’s intellectual world into something more familiar but far less accurate. When modern Pagan communities adopt this mistranslation as a foundation for their identity, they unknowingly inherit that distortion. A more faithful approach would respect the complexity of Julian’s language and preserve the conceptual difference of Hellenismos as something irreducible to modern categories.

The takeaway in all this is that Ἑλληνισμός is better understood as being Greek in the fullest cultural, philosophical, and spiritual sense, which includes speaking the language, studying the texts, cultivating the virtues, honoring the Gods, and participating in a cosmic order governed by logos. It is a way of life rooted in a particular cultural historical context. When Julian says that Hellenism is not acting according to reason, he is not saying a religion is broken. He is saying the entire cultural tradition has been disrupted by those who do not live in accordance with divine reason. The rites, the mysteries, the Gods themselves, are still what they always were, magnificent.

Daniel Malamis was born in the UK and educated there and in Zimbabwe. He completed his undergraduate degree at Rhodes and, after several years in the UK, Greece and South Korea, returned to Rhodes as a lecturer in 2008. His research interests include Homeric epic, Greek lyric poets, Greek religion and religious poetry and ancient magic, with a current focus on the poetry of ancient mystery cults and the Orphic Hymns in particular.

From the book description

The Orphic Hymns, a collection of invocations to the complete Greek pantheon, have reached us without explicit information about the contexts of their composition and performance. Combining a new critical edition and translation of the hymns with an in-depth study of the poetic strategies they employ and the forms of Greek poetry they draw upon, this book explores what the hymns can tell us about themselves. Through the use of allusion and figures that look to the earliest Greek poetry, the hymns present themselves as a text to be heard and meditated upon in performance, and as Orpheus' summative revelation on the nature and unity of the divine realm.

My interview on the Diogenes’ Lamp Podcast is up! You can go listen to it over at Spotify or Apple Podcasts.

Talking with Tom and Basil was a ton of fun. Three Greeks together—what could go wrong?! No wooden horses were built during the recording of this podcast, I promise.

This was a great crossover for both our podcasts. Hearth of Hellenism aims to examine Hellenism from antiquity to modernity, while Diogenes’ Lamp covers more recent Greek history and culture. I have mainly dealt with matters relating to the ancient world, and Diogenes’ Lamp focuses on more modern events, such as the Greek Civil War and figures like Ioannis Metaxas.

The conversation covers many topics and moves back and forth in time; it is not a linear discussion. Imagine opening a box and finding a jumbled ball of wires and cords that you need to untangle. The ball of wires in this talk represents Hellenism, and we did our best to untangle topics like cultural misappropriation, ancient history, the reception of Hellenism, polytheism, white supremacy, and whatever digressions we fell into.

One of my primary goals for the conversation is to raise awareness within the Greek diaspora that much of what they may perceive as “anti-Greek,” such as Netflix’s Cleopatra, has less to do with us as a people since we are never the intended audience when our history appears in media. Our history is often merely a backdrop, a stage, for modern issues to unfold for a contemporary audience. I want Greeks not to fall into the binary trap set up in these situations where we unknowingly support white supremacy, an ideology that Greeks should be better educated about. You’ll hear more about this in the podcast.

I suggested the name of the episode “Hellenism: Forwards, Backwards, and Sideways” in homage to Margaret Alexiou. In her After Antiquity, she writes:

There are links among these apparently disjunctive parts. The chronological range of texts discussed under the term ‘Greek,’ together with their generic diversity, is deliberate, even if it transgresses boundaries. I wish to challenge the appropriation of ‘Greek’ as defining only the ancient part of the tradition, to the exclusion of its medieval and modern inheritors; to question the validity of universalist, archetypalist, or reductionist theories; and to replace one-way Hellenist perspectives on continuity with a dynamic understanding of interaction, both across various stages of Greek and with contiguous cultures. In other words, we must look forward, backward, and sideways.

Alexiou challenges the strict division of Greek history into distinct eras—Classical, Byzantine, and Modern. She promotes a comprehensive view of Hellenism that incorporates Classical, Byzantine, and Modern Greek in an ongoing dialogue. She emphasizes the interconnectedness of these periods and rejects rigid separations, asserting that linguistic and cultural developments often do not fit neatly into historical divisions but instead evolve through dynamic interactions over time.

This is what I aim to do with my work here on Hearth of Hellenism, and part of this work is talking to the diaspora about these divisions in our history and holistic ways.

While these ancient civilizations had knowledge of numerical relationships corresponding to the theorem, it is misleading to claim they developed or proved it as Greek mathematicians later did. The key difference lies in their methods: the distinction between empirical knowledge and deductive proof. Understanding this difference is crucial for accurately placing Greek mathematics within its historical context.

The Babylonians, with mathematical records dating back to 1800 BCE, had a sophisticated understanding of right-angled triangles. Artifacts like the Plimpton 322 tablet list Pythagorean triples—whole number sets (e.g., 3, 4, 5) satisfying a^2 + b^2 = c^2. This suggests that the Babylonians understood and used these relationships, likely for architectural and surveying purposes. Another tablet, YBC 7289, approximates the square root of 2, showing their capability to calculate a square's diagonal accurately. These findings show that the Babylonians possessed advanced mathematical techniques but did not prove they had a generalized statement or proof of the Pythagorean Theorem.

This means that although they could accurately compute values for specific instances, they did not express or prove a universal mathematical rule applicable to all right triangles. Rather than framing the theorem as a general principle, they concentrated on individual cases. There is no indication that they recognized the theorem as a basic geometric truth or made any effort to demonstrate why it universally applies. Instead, their method was primarily computational, focusing on results rather than justification.

Like Babylonian mathematics, Egyptian mathematics prioritized practical applications over theoretical concepts. The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus (around 1650 BCE) mentions 3-4-5 triangles, which Egyptian surveyors used to establish right angles in land surveying and construction. However, this was more of a practical guideline than a mathematical theorem. Unlike later Greek mathematicians, the Egyptians did not investigate whether this principle applied to all right triangles, nor did they seek to explain why it was effective. Using Pythagorean triples does not demonstrate a formal understanding of the Pythagorean Theorem; it merely indicates that these civilizations recognized that specific number sets resulted in right angles.

The pivotal shift in mathematics occurred with the Greeks, notably through Pythagoras and Euclid's contributions. Differing from earlier mathematical approaches, Greek mathematics prioritized deduction rather than simple computation. Its goal was to reveal universal truths through logical reasoning, moving away from dependence on empirical data. The Pythagorean school is recognized for formulating the first formal proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. Unlike the Babylonians, who concentrated on numerical patterns, the Pythagoreans sought geometric explanations for mathematical truths. Their approach evolved from analyzing specific cases to establishing general principles, marking a significant leap in mathematical development.

Euclid’s Elements offers the most definitive proof of the Pythagorean Theorem around 300 BCE. In Book I, Proposition 47, he presents a thorough geometric proof that verifies the theorem for every right triangle. Unlike earlier civilizations that may have recognized specific instances, Euclid’s demonstration is grounded in universal logical principles. In addition, his method is axiomatic, starting with basic assumptions (axioms) and carefully constructing a logical framework from there. This systematic and logical reasoning was a hallmark of Greek mathematics, setting it apart from all prior mathematical traditions.

The tendency to overstate Babylonian and Egyptian knowledge of the Pythagorean Theorem stems from a misunderstanding of mathematical advancement. Although these cultures exhibited notable mathematical skills, knowing how to use something is not the same as understanding why it works. The Babylonians and Egyptians recognized the properties of right triangles—they could measure lengths and develop specific instances—but they did not create a comprehensive, deductive theorem or provide a logical proof. In contrast, the Greeks established formal proof, ensuring that mathematical assertions held universal validity rather than being confined to particular instances.

The difference between empirical and deductive mathematics is not just a minor detail—it marks a fundamental shift in our intellectual history. Had the Greeks not made the transition from simple observation to rigorous proof, mathematics would likely have remained just a set of practical techniques instead of evolving into a structured and theoretical field. This is why the theorem is credited to Pythagoras rather than the Babylonians or Egyptians: his school might not have been the first to discover it, but they were the first to recognize it as a universally provable truth, paving the way for Euclid’s later formalization.

While the Babylonians and Egyptians made notable contributions to mathematics, their approaches differed significantly from those of Greek mathematicians. Greek mathematics stands out because it introduced a system of rigorous logical proof, transitioning from empirical calculation to axiomatic reasoning. This change fundamentally transformed mathematics, explaining why the Pythagorean Theorem, although utilized earlier, is considered a hallmark of Greek, rather than Babylonian or Egyptian, mathematical achievement.

With all this said, it is important to stress that Greek mathematics did not emerge in isolation. I am not by any means arguing for a “Greek miracle” narrative, which is often used to justify white supremacy and Eurocentrism. I aim to properly contextualize mathematical development to better understand the Greek contribution correctly. The systematization of Greek mathematics should be viewed in the larger historical framework of cultural exchange, especially with the Near East. The Greeks did not create mathematics from nothing; rather, they received a rich legacy of mathematical traditions from Babylonian and Egyptian sources, which they then refined through a new emphasis on deductive reasoning and formal proof.

This advancement was not the result of a singular moment of intellectual brilliance. It is not a case of a “Greek miracle” but the outcome of historical conditions. The Greek polis culture emphasized public discourse, education, and civic participation, creating an environment where mathematics thrived within philosophical inquiry. Unlike centralized bureaucratic systems in Egypt and Mesopotamia that used mathematics primarily for administration, Greek mathematics developed through public debate and philosophical schools. Plato and Aristotle established academies promoting mathematics as both practical and theoretical, connected to metaphysics and logic. This open climate encouraged cultural exchanges, notably with Persian and Egyptian networks, integrating older techniques into a deductive framework.

With the rise of Hellenistic kingdoms, especially the Ptolemies in Egypt, mathematics transitioned into an institutional discipline. The Ptolemies fostered mathematical research through centers like the Library and Museum of Alexandria. Mathematicians such as Euclid, Eratosthenes, and Archimedes thrived on royal patronage, which provided essential support for scholarly work. This system enabled unprecedented intellectual specialization and collaboration in Greek history. Unlike informal, polis-based schools reliant on private wealth, royal backing created formal institutions that structured the study of mathematics, differentiating it from decentralized traditions. By merging Near Eastern and Egyptian mathematical knowledge into a theoretical framework, Hellenistic rulers solidified Greek mathematics as an elite tradition that influenced scientific thought for centuries after.

Euclid’s Elements was a monumental contribution. The Elements systematized mathematical principles through axiomatic proofs, serving as the foundational text for mathematics for almost two millennia. Euclid’s influence in mathematics continued until the 19th century, when non-Euclidean geometries by Gauss, Lobachevsky, and Riemann challenged his postulates and expanded mathematical thought.

Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.

His warning comes a little too late as an oligarchy has long been taking shape in this country. Being that it is blatantly here now, what do we do? I like to look to history and philosophy to see what has been said about the topic before. The discussion on oligarchy resonates with Plato’s Republic. Indeed, Biden’s warning mirror many of the critiques in it. Reflecting that the speech writer paid attention in class.

In the Republic, Socrates discusses oligarchy (along with other flawed governments), noting its moral and social defects; stressing its fundamental injustice and instability. Biden touches on similar ideas within his speech when referring to current economic and political disparities threatening the very democratic foundations of the United States.

Socrates describes an oligarchy as a system in which wealth becomes the standard for political power and governance is handed over to a select few. He argues that this degrades justice, placing material wealth above moral and intellectual virtues. Biden reflects on this concern in his farewell address, cautioning against “the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of very few ultra-wealthy people.” Both warn that unrestrained wealth distorts governance and alienates the wider public, undermining the fundamental principle of equal representation.

Socrates illustrates this by noting that oligarchies prevent the poor from participating in governance, effectively creating two cities within one: the wealthy rulers and the oppressed masses. Biden’s speech draws attention to our present situation, revealing how economic disparities foster societal divisions and undermine trust in democratic institutions. Biden’s critique of oligarchy underlines the need to reform tax codes and reduce corporate influence in politics to ensure that wealth does not transform into unchecked power. I have little hope that can be accomplished sadly.

Another key theme in Socrates' critique is the division of society into economic classes. He notices that oligarchies inevitably breed animosity between the wealthy and the poor, undermining the stability of the state. This divide is reflected in Biden’s remark that concentrated wealth “erodes a sense of unity and common purpose.” For both Socrates and Biden, the separation of society into privileged and marginalized groups fosters an atmosphere of mistrust and disillusionment, further alienating citizens from the political process.

Socrates argues that oligarchies often lead to demagoguery or tyranny as the disenfranchised pursue extreme measures to address their sense of injustice. This observation alone lets us know that oligarchy has been developing for decades, which has resulted to the demagogues such as Trump to rise to power.

Socrates argues that oligarchic rulers ignore the common good to protect their wealth. He describes oligarchs as risk-averse, hesitant to invest in policies or initiatives that would benefit the wider populace if they perceive a threat to their interests. We can see this concern in Biden’s speech when he says that “powerful forces want to wield their unchecked influence to eliminate the steps we’ve taken to tackle the climate crisis to serve their own interest for power and profit.”

Socrates grieves the moral decay present in oligarchies, where the quest for wealth takes precedence over the cultivation of virtue. This results in a society where greed becomes the prevailing value, eroding the integrity of both leaders and citizens. In Biden's speech, he highlights similar moral shortcomings, criticizing how the influence of dark money and unchecked corporate power skews democratic processes and weakens accountability.

With Socrates, moral decay seeps into the individual soul, where a love of money undermines the balance essential for a virtuous life. In this context, Biden's push for ethical reforms—such as prohibiting stock trading by members of Congress and enforcing corporate accountability—aligns with Socrates' focus on restoring integrity in governance.

It is in times such as these which we are in, we should examine the philosophical tradition of the Greeks for guidance and inspiration. It enrages me how the far-right misuses the works of Plato to support their agendas. However it is this very tradition which provides us the tools and means to fortify ourselves and combat them.

From the back cover

Paganism in Europe was not defeated by Christianity: it never went away. From the fourth century to the twentieth, against the background of a largely Christian culture, people repeatedly attempted to revive various kinds of pre-Christian religion - beliefs and practices that we have come to label as 'paganism'. Ancient paganism did not survive the Middle Ages in its original form; this book tells the story of the persistence of elements of paganism and the pagan idea through Europe's pagan revivals, from Byzantine Greece to medieval Eastern Europe and Renaissance Florence, from eighteenth-century Norwich to revolutionary Paris and Edwardian England. While some of these revivals are well known and others are almost entirely forgotten, they reveal the rich diversity of interpretations of paganism - and how those interpretations have been conditioned by the surrounding culture. Revived paganisms ranged from the austerely rational to the earnestly romantic, from the mystical and occult to the stridently nationalistic. Paganism Persisting reveals European paganism's long afterlife, up to and including the emergence of modern paganism as a mass movement in the twentieth century. The authors are both historians of religion specializing, respectively, in the intellectual history of the idea of paganism and in the development of popular religion and folklore. This book has much to offer to anyone interested in European cultural history, the history of ideas and religious studies.

I am interested in this subject, since I am myself part of a current revival of Hellenic polytheistic practices. I have many questions about this revival and how it may connect to the previous revivals, that of Plethon in the 15th century and beyond.

Robin along with Francis provide a “persistence model” which I think is helpful for examining the reoccurring revivals of paganism across Europe. Enjoy the conversation!

Ο Ορφισμός είναι μία από τις πιο αινιγματικές πτυχές της αρχαίας ελληνικής θρησκείας, και μου αρέσει να τον μελετώ προσεκτικά. Το «Ορφικό Ζήτημα» περιγράφει τις διαμάχες μεταξύ των μελετητών που προσπαθούν να κατανοήσουν την προέλευση και την ουσία του. Σε αυτήν την ανάρτηση, θα συζητήσω τον Ορφισμό, την τελετουργική πρακτική και τη λογοτεχνική παράδοση, ώστε να κατανοήσετε καλύτερα το «Ορφικό Ζήτημα».

Ορφισμός

Οι σύγχρονοι μελετητές χρησιμοποιούν τον όρο Ορφισμός για να προσδιορίσουν ένα θρησκευτικό κίνημα στην αρχαία Ελλάδα που απέδιδε διάφορες θρησκευτικές τελετές και κείμενα στον Ορφέα. Η ακριβής φύση και ύπαρξή του υπήρξε αντικείμενο επιστημονικής διαμάχης. Μία από τις πρώτες επιστημονικές απόψεις για τον Ορφισμό προέρχεται από τον Πρόκλο τον 5ο αιώνα μ.Χ., ο οποίος ισχυρίστηκε ότι όλη η ελληνική θεολογία πηγάζει από την ορφική μυθική διδασκαλία.

Η επιστημονική διαμάχη γύρω από τον Ορφισμό οφείλεται κυρίως στο γεγονός ότι διαφοροποιείται από την κυρίαρχη/δημόσια αρχαία ελληνική θρησκεία και εστιάζει σε συγκεκριμένες πεποιθήσεις και πρακτικές, όπως η σημασία των κειμένων, η εσωτερική γνώση και οι τελεστικές πρακτικές. Τέτοιες τελετουργικές πρακτικές συνδέονται συχνά με την κάθαρση και τη μετά θάνατον ζωή, όπως φαίνεται στις ορφικές χρυσές πλάκες.

Αυτές οι πλάκες, που βρέθηκαν σε τάφους, περιέχουν επιγραφές που καθοδηγούν τους νεκρούς στη μετά θάνατον ζωή, υποδηλώνοντας την πίστη σε μια εσωτερική γνώση που θα μπορούσε να επηρεάσει τη μοίρα κάποιου μετά τον θάνατο. Οι τελεστικές πρακτικές διαφέρουν από τις λογοτεχνικές δραστηριότητες των μεταγενέστερων ορφικών ποιητών, οι οποίοι συνέθεσαν ύμνους και θεογονίες (αφηγήσεις για την προέλευση των θεών). Η λογοτεχνική παράδοση θα είναι το κύριο θέμα αυτής της ανάρτησης.

Ορφέας

Ο ποιητής-ήρωας Ορφέας είναι διάσημος στην ελληνική μυθολογία για τις μουσικές του ικανότητες και κατέχει κεντρική θέση στην ελληνική θρησκεία ως ο ιδρυτής των Ορφικών Μυστηρίων. Μπορούσε να μαγεύει ζώα, δέντρα και ακόμα και τους Θεούς με τη λύρα του. Λέγεται ότι ο Ορφέας έλαβε τη λύρα του από τον Απόλλωνα, ο οποίος του δίδαξε και πώς να την παίζει.

Η λύρα έγινε το πιο χαρακτηριστικό γνώρισμα του Ορφέα. Αυτό το θεϊκό δώρο αποτελεί βασικό στοιχείο των ιστοριών που περιβάλλουν τον Ορφέα, συμπεριλαμβανομένου του ταξιδιού του στον Κάτω Κόσμο (κάθοδος) για να σώσει τη σύζυγό του, την Ευρυδίκη. Αυτή η κάθοδος έγινε το θεμέλιο της θρυλικής του υπόστασης και καθιέρωσε τη σύνδεσή του με τα μυστήρια της μετά θάνατον ζωής και τον ρόλο του ως πολιτιστικού ήρωα στη θρησκευτική φαντασία των Ελλήνων.

Ορφικές Τελετουργικές Πρακτικές & Λογοτεχνική Παράδοση

Οι τελετές που αποδίδονται στον Ορφέα είναι εξίσου συναρπαστικές με τους μύθους. Πιστευόταν ότι αυτές οι τελετές προσέφεραν στους μυημένους ειδική γνώση και κάθαρση, οδηγώντας ενδεχομένως σε μια καλύτερη μετά θάνατον ζωή. Ωστόσο, η ακριβής φύση αυτών των πρακτικών και η σχέση τους με τη δημόσια ελληνική θρησκεία παραμένουν αντικείμενο διαφωνίας μεταξύ των μελετητών.

Σε αντίθεση με τα μυστήρια της Ελευσίνας, οι ορφικές τελετές ήταν πιο ποικίλες και εξατομικευμένες, ενδεχομένως περιλαμβάνοντας μυστική γνώση και κείμενα που αποδίδονταν στον Ορφέα.

Η λογοτεχνική παράδοση του Ορφισμού είναι πλούσια και ποικιλόμορφη, περιλαμβάνοντας πολλά κείμενα, όπως ύμνους, θεογονίες και εσχατολογικά ποιήματα. Η προέλευσή τους αποδιδόταν συχνά στον Ορφέα για να αποκτήσουν κύρος και χαρακτηρίζονταν από θεματικές που διέφεραν από την κυρίαρχη ή δημόσια ελληνική παράδοση. Ορισμένα αντιπροσωπευτικά κείμενα είναι οι Ορφικοί Ύμνοι, η Ορφική Αργοναυτική και διάφορες θεογονίες που αφηγούνται τις γενεαλογίες των θεών.

Οι Θεογονικές Πηγές

Οι θεογονικές πηγές κατέχουν κεντρική θέση στο ορφικό corpus. Αφηγούνται τις απαρχές του σύμπαντος και των θεών. Συχνά είναι πιο περίτεχνες και εσωτερικές από τη «Θεογονία» του Ησιόδου και παρουσιάζουν μια πιο πολύπλοκη κοσμογονία. Υπάρχουν τέσσερις κύριες θεογονίες: η Δερβένια, η Ευδήμεια, η Ιερώνυμη και η Ραψωδική.

Η Θεογονία του Δερβενίου

Ένα από τα αρχαιότερα και πιο συναρπαστικά κείμενα της ορφικής λογοτεχνίας είναι η Θεογονία του Δερβενίου, που περιέχεται στον Πάπυρο του Δερβενίου και χρονολογείται στον 4ο αιώνα π.Χ. Ξεχωρίζει για την ενσωμάτωση προσωκρατικών φιλοσοφικών στοιχείων στην ερμηνεία της δημιουργίας.

Η θεογονία ξεκινά με το πρωταρχικό σύμπαν, που αναπαρίσταται ως ένα αυγό, από το οποίο αναδύεται ο θεός Φάνης. Ο Φάνης, γνωστός και ως Πρωτόγονος (ο Πρωτογέννητος), είναι μια κεντρική μορφή, που συμβολίζει την εκδήλωση του φωτός και της ζωής στο σύμπαν.

Ένας βασικός μύθος σε αυτήν την παράδοση περιλαμβάνει τον Δία, ο οποίος καταπίνει τον Φάνη και ενσωματώνει τις δυνάμεις του. Αυτή η βαθιά πράξη σηματοδοτεί τη γέννηση μιας νέας κοσμικής τάξης. Συμβολίζει την ανανέωση και την κυκλική φύση της ύπαρξης, τονίζοντας τα θέματα της ενότητας και της μεταμόρφωσης που είναι εγγενή στην ορφική κοσμογονία.

Η Ευδήμεια Θεογονία

Αποδιδόμενη στον Ευδήμο, μαθητή του Αριστοτέλη, η Ευδήμεια Θεογονία προσθέτει μια ακόμη διάσταση στην ορφική κοσμογονία. Γνωστή κυρίως μέσω αναφορών σε φιλοσοφικά κείμενα, αυτή η θεογονία παρέχει πληροφορίες για την πρώιμη ορφική ποίηση. Περιλαμβάνει μια ακολουθία πρωταρχικών θεών, που συχνά ξεκινούν με τη Νύχτα (Νύξ) ή τον Χρόνο (Χρόνος) και οδηγούν στη γέννηση του Φάνη ή άλλων πρωταρχικών οντοτήτων.

Αυτές οι αναφορές υπογραμμίζουν τη διασταύρωση του ορφικού μύθου με την πρώιμη ελληνική φιλοσοφία, αναδεικνύοντας τον τρόπο με τον οποίο αυτοί οι μύθοι ερμηνεύθηκαν και ενσωματώθηκαν στους ευρύτερους φιλοσοφικούς διαλόγους της εποχής.

Η Ιερώνυμη Θεογονία

Αυτή η θεογονία, που διασώζεται σε αποσπάσματα, χρονολογείται στην Ελληνιστική περίοδο και ονομάζεται έτσι από δύο σχετικά άγνωστους συγγραφείς, τον Ιερώνυμο και τον Ελλάνικο. Ξεκινά με πρωταρχικές θεότητες, όπως ο Χρόνος, ο οποίος γεννά τον Φάνη και άλλους θεούς.

Παρόμοια με άλλες ορφικές θεογονίες, περιλαμβάνει έναν μύθο διαδοχής, που τονίζει την κυκλική μεταβίβαση της εξουσίας μεταξύ των θεών, με αποκορύφωμα τη βασιλεία του Δία.

Η Ραψωδική Θεογονία

Από όλα τα θεογονικά κείμενα, η Ραψωδική Θεογονία είναι η πιο εκτενής και περίτεχνη. Πιστεύεται ότι αποτελεί σύνθεση παλαιότερων θεογονικών παραδόσεων και είναι δομημένη ως σειρά 24 βιβλίων ή ραψωδιών. Οι Ραψωδίες παρέχουν μια ολοκληρωμένη αφήγηση για τη δημιουργία και την οργάνωση του κόσμου, ξεκινώντας από το πρωταρχικό κενό και καταλήγοντας στην εγκαθίδρυση της τάξης των Ολυμπίων.

Το κείμενο αναλύει τη γέννηση και τον ρόλο του Φάνη, συχνά παρουσιάζοντάς τον ως γενάρχη των Θεών. Η ανάδυσή του από το κοσμικό αυγό και οι μετέπειτα αλληλεπιδράσεις του με άλλες θεότητες αποτελούν κεντρικό μέρος της αφήγησης. Ένα από τα πιο σημαντικά επεισόδια στις Ραψωδίες είναι ο μύθος του Διονύσου Ζαγρέα. Οι Τιτάνες παραπλανούν, διαμελίζουν και καταναλώνουν τον Διόνυσο, αλλά αυτός ανασταίνεται από τον Δία, συμβολίζοντας θέματα θανάτου, αναγέννησης και του αιώνιου κύκλου της ζωής.

Η σύνδεση του Διονύσου με εσχατολογικές πεποιθήσεις τονίζει την ορφική έμφαση στη μετά θάνατον ζωή, την ψυχή και το ταξίδι της. Οι Ραψωδίες δίνουν επίσης ιδιαίτερη έμφαση στον ρόλο του Δία ως απόλυτου δημιουργού και οργανωτή του κόσμου. Αφού καταπιεί τον Φάνη, ο Δίας αναδημιουργεί το σύμπαν, επιβεβαιώνοντας τη θέση του ως υπέρτατου θεού.

Η Επιστημονική Διαμάχη

Ο Ορφισμός είναι ένα από τα πιο πολυσυζητημένα θέματα στη μελέτη της αρχαίας ελληνικής θρησκείας. Τα ερωτήματα που τον αφορούν είναι γνωστά ως «Το Ορφικό Ζήτημα». Το ζήτημα περιλαμβάνει τη συζήτηση για το τι είναι ο Ορφισμός, αν υπήρξε πραγματικά, και τι ακριβώς αντιπροσώπευε. Πολλά ζητήματα έχουν διχάσει τους μελετητές και έχουν δημιουργήσει συνεχή διάλογο. Τα κύρια σημεία διαφωνίας περιλαμβάνουν το αν ο Ορφισμός ήταν ένα ενιαίο θρησκευτικό κίνημα, τον ρόλο των ορφικών κειμένων και τελετουργιών, και το δογματικό περιεχόμενο του Ορφισμού.

Πρώιμοι μελετητές υποστήριξαν την ύπαρξη μιας συνεκτικής ορφικής κοινότητας, ενώ οι σκεπτικιστές την αρνήθηκαν. Η πρόσφατη επιστημονική έρευνα τονίζει την ποικιλομορφία των ορφικών πρακτικών και κειμένων, υποδεικνύοντας μια πιο πολύπλοκη εικόνα.

Ο Friedrich Creuzer και ο Christian August Lobeck ξεκίνησαν τη διαμάχη τη δεκαετία του 1820. Ο Creuzer είδε τον Ορφέα ως μια μεταμορφωτική φιγούρα που εισήγαγε σημαντικές θρησκευτικές καινοτομίες στην ελληνική θρησκεία. Αντίθετα, ο Lobeck θεώρησε τον Ορφισμό κυρίως ως λογοτεχνική παράδοση χωρίς ενιαίο σύνολο θρησκευτικών πρακτικών ή συνεκτική κοινότητα. Αυτή η θεμελιώδης διαφωνία δημιούργησε τη βάση για μεταγενέστερες επιστημονικές διαιρέσεις τον 20ό αιώνα μεταξύ εκείνων που έβλεπαν τον Ορφισμό ως σημαντικό θρησκευτικό κίνημα (γνωστοί ως ΠανΟρφιστές) και εκείνων που τον έβλεπαν ως πιο διάχυτη συλλογή κειμένων και τελετουργιών χωρίς ενιαία κοινότητα (γνωστοί ως Ορφοσκεπτικιστές).

Οι ΠανΟρφιστές, όπως ο Otto Kern και ο Vittorio D. Macchioro, υποστήριξαν ότι ο Ορφισμός ήταν ένα ξεχωριστό θρησκευτικό κίνημα με συγκεκριμένα δόγματα και πρακτικές. Ο Kern είδε τον Ορφέα ως προφήτη, ενώ ο Macchioro παρομοίασε τον Ορφισμό με τις πρώιμες χριστιανικές κοινότητες. Αντίθετα, οι Ορφοσκεπτικιστές, όπως ο Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff και ο Ivan Linforth, αρνήθηκαν την ύπαρξη μιας συνεκτικής ορφικής κοινότητας. Το έργο του Linforth, The Arts of Orpheus, υποστήριξε ότι ο όρος «Ορφικός» αναφερόταν αυστηρά στη λογοτεχνική παράδοση, απορρίπτοντας την ιδέα μιας ενιαίας θρησκευτικής κοινότητας.

Η σύγχρονη επιστήμη έχει μετακινήσει τη συζήτηση πέρα από τη στενή διχοτομία ΠανΟρφισμού και Ορφοσκεπτικισμού, αναγνωρίζοντας την ποικιλομορφία των ορφικών πρακτικών χωρίς να τις περιορίζει σε μια μονολιθική θρησκεία. Μελετητές όπως ο Fritz Graf και η Sarah Iles Johnston υποστηρίζουν ότι, ενώ ο Ορφισμός δεν αποτελούσε ενιαίο κίνημα, ορισμένες ομάδες και άτομα εφάρμοζαν τελετές και ακολουθούσαν πεποιθήσεις που μπορούν να χαρακτηριστούν ως ορφικές.

Ο Alberto Bernabé επικεντρώνεται στις δογματικές πτυχές του Ορφισμού. Εντοπίζοντας την επαναλαμβανόμενη κοσμογονία, εσχατολογία και ανθρωπογονία στα ορφικά κείμενα, ο Bernabé υποστηρίζει ότι, αν και ο Ορφισμός μπορεί να μην ήταν ενιαίο κίνημα, διέθετε ένα ξεχωριστό σύνολο πεποιθήσεων και πρακτικών που τον διέκριναν από άλλες θρησκευτικές παραδόσεις. Ο Bernabé επικαλείται τις ορφικές χρυσές πλάκες, τον Πάπυρο του Δερβενίου και άλλα αρχαιολογικά ευρήματα ως αποδείξεις των ορφικών δογμάτων και τελετουργιών, ακόμα κι αν αυτά εφαρμόζονταν σε διαφορετικές μορφές και τοπικές παραλλαγές.

Από την άλλη πλευρά, ο Radcliffe Edmonds ακολουθεί μια πιο σκεπτικιστική προσέγγιση, υποστηρίζοντας ότι ο Ορφισμός δεν θα πρέπει να θεωρείται «εξαίρεση» στον γενικό κανόνα ότι οι αρχαίες θρησκείες αφορούσαν περισσότερο τελετουργίες και μύθους παρά συστηματικές πεποιθήσεις. Προτείνει έναν «πολυθετικό» ορισμό του Ορφισμού, ο οποίος βασίζεται σε μια χαλαρή συλλογή χαρακτηριστικών παρά σε ένα σταθερό σύνολο δογμάτων. Σύμφωνα με τον Edmonds, οι αρχαίοι συγγραφείς χαρακτήριζαν ένα κείμενο ή μια πρακτική ως ορφική λόγω της εξαιρετικής φύσης, της αρχαιότητας ή των ισχυρισμών περί ιδιαίτερης θείας γνώσης, και όχι επειδή ανήκαν σε συγκεκριμένη θρησκευτική αίρεση.

Η διαμάχη για τον Ορφισμό είναι πραγματικά συναρπαστική, τουλάχιστον για μένα. Βρίσκω ελκυστική την ενδιάμεση προσέγγιση των Fritz Graf και Sarah Iles Johnston. Η παρατήρηση του Edmonds ότι οι αρχαίες θρησκείες αφορούσαν περισσότερο τις τελετουργίες και τους μύθους παρά συστηματικές πεποιθήσεις είναι επίσης μια σημαντική υπενθύμιση. Ελπίζω αυτή η ανάρτηση να ήταν διαφωτιστική και να σας ενθαρρύνει να εξερευνήσετε περισσότερο τον Ορφισμό.