What Is Hellenismos?
Long story short: “Hellenismos”, in 21st Century English, is a word used to describe Hellenic polytheism; in modern Greek, “Hellenismos” is more comparable to the English word “Hellenism”, and is used to describe anything having to do with tyhe whole of Greek/Hellenic culture, ancient or modern, including the Greek Orthodox sect of Christianity.
Short story long: The term “Hellenismos” is often credited as being initially coined by Emperor Julian, the last polytheistic/pagan Emperor of the Roman Empire. Julian, according to the current version of the Wikipaedia article about him:
After gaining the purple, Julian started a religious reformation of the state, which was intended to restore the lost strength of the Roman State. He supported the restoration of Hellenic paganism as the state religion . His laws tended to target wealthy and educated Christians, and his aim was not to destroy Christianity but to drive the religion out of “the governing classes of the empire — much as Buddhism was driven back into the lower classes by a revived Confucian mandarinate in 13th century China.”He restored pagan temples which had been confiscated since Constantine’s time, or simply appropriated by wealthy citizens; he repealed the stipends that Constantine had awarded to Christian bishops, and removed their other privileges, including a right to be consulted on appointments and to act as private courts. He reversed some favors given Christians. For example, he reversed the declaration that Majuma, the port of Gaza, was a separate city. Majuma had a large Christian congregation while Gaza was still predominantly pagan.
On 4 February 362, Julian promulgated an edict to guarantee freedom of religion. This edict proclaimed that all the religions were equal before the law, and that the Roman Empire had to return to its original religious eclecticism, according to which the Roman State did not impose any religion on its provinces. Practically however, it had as its purpose the restoration of paganism at the expense of Christianity.
In many Hellenic polytheistic fora on the Internet, the beliefs and practises of Julian are often debated, with certain people claiming to know “exactly what Julian did and did not define as ‘Hellenismos’”; all I have to say to that is, well, it’s easy to make such claims when it’s hardly any kind of secret that most people simply don’t have the patience for dry and verbose ancient texts, even in translation — and most translations are well-known to be biased and thus highly fallible, incorrect, and ultimately unreliable. It is the opinion of this blogger that, even if Julian did have an “exclusive” definition of Hellenismos, then obviously the fact that it is used inclusively in modern Hellas today is enough to imply that an inclusive definition, within reason, would make some sense. For instance, worshipping Aphrodite and Eros in a Neo-Wiccan context is not Hellenismos, it’s Neo-Wicca; but if the context of the worship is ultimately based on or inspired by ancient Hellenic practise, in some way, shape or form, then it’s Hellenismos.
The eCauldrom Hellenismos FAQ states:
http://www.ecauldron.com/dc-faq.php
An Important Note: No one speaks for the entire world community of Hellenes (including the author of this FAQ!), nor is there any central religious body that dictates dogma, ritual, or membership requirements. Hellenic religion was, and remains, pluralistic in the extreme. Therefore, not everyone who worships the ancient Greek gods will agree with every detail of what follows. That is as it should be, and need not be a cause for concern or ill will.
So, basically, just like the ancient Greeks, there are going to be differences in practise depending on the traditions a person learned; in my own personal opinion, the argument for a Classical Athens-dominating body of practises supported by a Platonic and Julianistic theology as “the only One True Hellenismos” is ultimately contradictory to not only ancient Hellas, even the 150+ years known as the “classical period”, but to the reconstructionist method of practise. eCauldron.com defines “Reconstructionist”:
Reconstructionism, as used here, is a methodology for developing and practicing ancient religions in the modern world. Reconstructionists believe that the religious expressions of the ancients were valid and have remained so across time and space. We believe that it is both possible and desireable[sic] to practice ancient religions—albeit in modified form—in the modern world.
Basically, what this says to me is that “reconstructionism”, as a method of practise and worship, is ultimately with the goal to develop a body of religious practises that “makes up for lost time” by not only reinstating certain practises of ancient times, but also develop anew where a need for certain rituals and practises, lost or otherwise, exists. For example: If you are a Transsexual or otherwise Transgendered and wish to have a dedication ritual of Hermaphroditos and/or other Theoi, then create a ritual and share it with others — the ancients were big on community, so, if you ask me, sharing rituals helps rebuild that community and thus keeps with the reconstructionist methodology. Furthermore, the ancient Athenians, obviously, didn’t even retain their practises statically from the “Classical” period onward, so I may even go so far as to say that advocation of a “purely Classical” core of practises, ultimately, defeats the reconstructionist methodology and (in this blogger’s opinion) turns what could be a spiritually fulfilling religion, intellectually fulfilling learning experience, and so forth into little more than “play time” similar to Renaissance Faires
Later periods of ancient Greece, and dare I say, even other regions such as Sparta, Boeotia, Thrace, etc…, are rich with fulfilling practise and ritual and should at least be considered when one seeks to build practise.
Is ‘Hellenismos’ Hellenic reconstruction??
Yes and no. Some Hellenistai feel that there is already enough of an established practise now, so eschew the term “reconstruction” as they don’t feel that they are “reconstructing” anything. Furthermore, some Hellenistai are so deeply wrought in their spiritual lives that their practises go far above and beyond merely “reconstructed” ancient practise and consider most of their practises and rituals to be “innovations” built from either the reconstructionist method or beyond that. Again, it’s hard to pinpoint an exact definition of “Hellenismos”, as used by Julian, so restricting “Hellenismos” to simply the religion of those whose practises are predominantly ancient in origin is using already shaky logic.
Due to the natural religious evolutions between the “classical period” and the “Hellenistic period”, and the difference of practises between Sparta, Athens, Thespiae, and so forth, means that a wide variety of practises and beliefs are acceptable under the umbrella of “Hellenismos” much in the same way a wide variety of practises and beliefs are acceptable under the umbrella of “Hinduism”. Continuing with Hinduism as an example for modern polytheists to look to in their own practises, many sects (or denominations) exist within Hinduism, each with their own traditions, practises, theologies, and so forth; ergo, if unbroken and uncloseted traditions of Hellenismos survived to the modern day, many sects would exist — Orphics would be flourishing, Pythagoreans would be continuing with their work, Platonists would be continuing, Olympian sects would as well flourish, as would other defined sects and cults to specific Theoi, and so forth. Anybody propagating the idea of a “true” or “pure Hellenismos” or simply places too much emphasis on “ancient practise”, or even one narrow faction of ancient practise, is basically redefining Hellenismos for their own purposes (most likely, either money or power, no matter how much or how little) as there is plenty enough in both primary and secondary sources on the Hellenic religion to smash those faulty arguments with a wrecking ball.
What are these terms you are using: Hellenistai, Hellenistos, Helleniste?
Hellenistos and Helleniste are the masculine and feminine forms of “Hellenic polytheist”, when using Greek loan-words. Hellenistai is the plural form.
What are primary and secondary sources? What are their differences?
“Primary sources”, for the purposes of this website (and other Hellenic websites I may link to, eventually), are surviving ancient sources. “Secondary sources” are texts, usually academic/scholarly in origin, written about Hellenismos based on archaeological findings and data, summarisings of primary sources (often including very obscure things, such as temple records, papyrus scraps that appear to be from diaries, and other such errata that isn’t normally available as primary sources — do you have any idea how many Cuneiform receipts for purchases or debts are in the “classical antiquity” room at the Toledo Museum of Art in Ohio? the plaques in there include translations), and other conclusions made by people who study these practises.
Typically speaking, primary sources for Hellenismos are only available in translation — and translations vary widely in quality. Still, a good rule of thumb when seeking a higher-quality translation is to stick with translations published by either a) those who are active or most-current university professors in a field such as Classical Studies, Greek, or Archaeology or b) are current editions published by a major university publishing label (such as Johns Hopkins University Press). If it says “Penguin Classics” or “Oxford Classics” on the spine or is a Barnes & Noble Press translation or other such very inexpensive translated edition, then the translation is almost always one that has lapsed into the public domain (usually older than 1927, with some exceptions) and is more-or-less guaranteed to be littered with Christian biases (such as monotheism in Aesop’s Fables) or simply filled with sacrifices of content and meaning for the sake of verse: A good example of the latter is the 18th Century Thomas Taylor translations of the Orphic Hymns when compared to the 1988 Apostolos N. Athanassakis; Taylor replaced many Greek names with Roman and some of his lines have apparently different connotations when compared with the same numbered line in the Athanassakis translations. Executive Pagan in this entry illustrates quite clearly that even the same hymn can vary immensely, even within modern translations, making the reputation of the translator immensely important.
Now, this is not to say that outdated translations are completely without merit. I must say, on the Neokoroi e-mail list (and maybe even Kyklos Apollon) I have argued that the Taylor translations of the Orphic Hymns are a sort of “work of literary art” on their own, even though they omit many of the finer nuances of a more-accurate translation. Spiritual gnosis can be sowed from outdated or less discriminating translations, though it will may prove anywhere from somewhat to incredibly different from that garnered from more-accurate translations.
Secondary sources, similarly, vary widely in quality. Furthermore, much like translations of primary sources, older texts are less accurate — and in some cases, may not even be at all accurate. As loathe as I am to compare Wicca and other modern Witchcraft religions to Hellenismos, allow me a moment to draw a sort of parallel:
Margaret Murray was an Egyptologist who propagated the fallacy of the pan-European widespread “witch cult”: By Murray’s definition, the “witch cult” spanned most, if not all of Europe, remained an underground anti-Christian resistance until ca. 1450, maintained practises since neolithic times, and practised in covens of thirteen members (Witch Cult In Western Europe, 1921). Her later books on “witchcraft” and “paganism” were far more imaginative and took far more liberties with documented history, even claiming that Thomas à Becket, Jeanne d’Arc, and the English King William Rufus of the Norman dynasty were all ritually killed as members self-sacrificing for the magical purposes of the “witch cult”.
Murray is important because in 1920, these bizarre and archaeologically, anthropologically, and historical unfounded ideas still made this woman enough of an “expert” on witchcraft to write an article about it for the Encyclopaedia Britannica; this definition remained in print for forty years (link).
Murray is the most obvious reason for why the credentials of secondary sources are important. Newer may not always be better, but sometimes new information is important to have uncovered. Again, hunting down good secondary sources may seem expensive, but most libraries do inter-library loans for books that they do not currently have (usually free), and if you live in a large city or the vicinity of a major university (or just any university with a good Classics department), used copies of many books can often be purchased rather inexpensively at local used book stores (yet another reason that urban paganism rules).
Pingback: Eros Worship on the ‘Net « Of Thespiae