|
October 09, 2004
The unknown is always more fun than the known!
At least partially because of the election madness, Classical Values has been neglecting the classical theme a bit too much. Why more readers haven't complained, I do not know. But Justin Case reminds me that Michael McNeil at Impearls certainly has not been neglecting the ancients. Mr. McNeil (a true scholar whether writing about classical or scientific matters) has authored a couple of marvelous posts, both well worth reading. "The Builders of Hadrian's Wall" furnishes photographic documentation of the names of the actual builders of the great wall separating England and Scotland. And Sex in Antiquity is a must-read, especially for those who cling to an overly romanticized view of the sex lives of the ancients. While they didn't think of sex itself as sinful in the Christian sense, they had plenty of hangups. Among the Romans (at least according to Paul Veyne), such things as sex in the daytime, "planned pleasure" (?), and male passivity in homosexual intercourse were frowned on. (Only the partner got to do the latter, and he'd better have been a slave or low born. Got that straight?) Hmmmmm........ Might Hadrian have violated a taboo when he deified Antinous? Or was making a low-born lover into a god as a way of competing with early Christianity? (The latter I have speculated about in this blog.) There are of course many things we don't know..... Here's an excerpt from Michael McNeil's longer citation of Paul Veyne: Petrarch's praise of passion would have scandalized the ancients or made them smile. The Romans were strangers to the medieval exaltation of the beloved, an object so sublime that it remained inaccessible. They were strangers, too, to modern subjectivism, to our thirst for experience. Standing apart from the world, we choose to experience something in order to see what effect it has, not because it is intrinsically valuable or required by duty. Finally, the Romans were strangers to the real paganism, the at times graceful and beautiful paganism of the Renaissance. Tender indulgence in pleasures of the senses that became, also, delights of the soul was not the way of the ancients. The most Bacchic scenes of the Romans have nothing of the audacity of some modern writers. The Romans knew but one variety of individualism, which confirmed the rule by seeming to contradict it: energetic indolence. With secret delight they discussed senators such as Scipio, Sulla, Caesar, Petronius, and even Catiline, men scandalously indolent in private yet extraordinarily energetic in public. It was an open secret among insiders that these men were privately lazy, and such knowledge gave the senatorial elite an air of royalty and of being above the common law while confirming its authentic spirit. Although the charge of energetic indolence was a reproach, it was also somehow a compliment. Romans found this compliment reassuring. Their brand of individualism sought not real experience, self-indulgence, or private devotion, but tranquilization.Again, some of this is puzzling when contrasted with Hadrian's idealization of Antinous, but such apparent contradictions may highlight the problem. As co-blogger Dennis (a classical scholar in his own right) has said, most classical sources are fragmentary in nature. Mere glimpses of moments in time. Snapshots. It's tough for anyone to really understand an overall culture based upon what one particular writer (of unknown biases or motives) may have said. Speaking of fragments, this was Dennis's initial reaction when I apprised him of the Veyne book: Where do we begin, and who defines our age? Do we examine the architecture of my apartment, or the White House? Do we read epigrams, political histories, comedy, love letters, or tax receipts to recreate the 'world' of a people? Who is our Victoria, the token paradigm that relieves the historian of doing any real work? The Greeks and Romans had a uniform morality as much as we do, and are we really to assume that artistic fashion is the proof? The fact that smiles aren't represented in a period of art tells you about artistic practice and nothing more. What would we learn from the fact that almost everyone today poses with an artificial smile everytime sometimes says 'cheese?' I'd love to see Veyne recreate modern morality from that fact, a scrap of Robert Frost, and a few pages of the Congressional record.Hope so. Of course, the well known propensity of the Romans for satirical writing complicates things even further. (If readers are lucky, one of these days Dennis might be persuaded to write a big long post about Juvenal....) I don't think the ancients -- especially their private lives -- will be fully understood anytime soon. One thing is certain: they were quite different from us, and neither the romanticized Hollywood portrayals, nor the reflexive "pagans were totally cool" stereotype (itself often a kneejerk reaction against "Christian morality") have helped much in serious analysis. Anyway, whether you like the classics or the latest in scientific discussions, you should check out Michael McNeil regularly! posted by Eric on 10.09.04 at 06:37 AM
Comments
From what I understand for a time the worship of Antinous DID compete successfully with Christianity as a religion of slaves/low born. I suspect, though, that it was regarded as scandalous by Hadrian's successors and they stopped "pushing" it and, of course, eventually the state embraced Christianity. (And the scandal was not, of course, that the young man was male, but that he was low born and possibly a freed slave [not sure about this, though, as there was some statuary record/indication he wore the toga. OTOH, at least in Saylor's mysteries he has a freed slave wearing the toga -- so perhaps I am confused about the rules there.]) Or course the worship of Antinous had... ahem... more interesting ritual. Some mention to the "divine nights of Antinous" sticks in my mind and though I no longer remember why -- and half of my library is packed and inacessible -- I got the bizarre idea it involved both word games (perhaps as a form of scrying?) and sex. I've always thought it would be fun to do an alternate world story (or novel) in which the worship of Antinous survives to modern times and has eclipsed Christianity. Absolutely no idea who would publish it, though. Meisha Merlin, perhaps? Weirdly 99% of my practising pagan friends are very conservative politically. Or perhaps not weirdly considering Cato the Elder's point. The reason we haven't got on your case about election fever is that we have it too. I can't wait till November so I can stop chewing nails and start working again. P. Portia · October 9, 2004 07:09 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
That's because "pagan" does _not_ mean "libertine", "free-lover", "free-liver", "free-thinker", "modern, enlightened bon vivant", or "New Age experimentalist". It means just the opposite.
The word "pagan" originally meant "country-dweller", "rustic", or, in today's terms, a "hillbilly", "redneck", "Red Stater", "the rubes out there in flyover country". In other words, it referred to the Roman farmers out in the hinterlands who were the last to convert to Christianity or to any of the other Eastern "mystery religions" becoming fashionable in the cities, religions such as Mithraism, Gnosticism, or Isis-worship (which, while native to the Egyptians, was foreign to the Romans). It meant those who held fast to the Gods of their ancestors. In other words, the most conservative Romans.
I must also note that, until Constantine, Christianity was regarded by the Romans as a subversive force, and even atheistic, much as Communism has been regarded in the modern West. Perhaps the emperors who persecuted the early Christians could be accused of "McCarthyism", though the Senator never actually threw anybody to the lions.
For the next thousand or so years, after all of the Roman Empire was finally converted to the worship of the crucified Jew, "pagan" or "heathen" referred to the Celts, Slavs, Germans, and Vikings who held to the Gods of their ancestors. In other words, again, it meant the conservatives of Northern Europe.
After all of Europe was finally converted to Christianity, and the Near or Middle East to Islam (viewed as a heretical offshoot of Christianity), and men of the Western world began exploring and sending missionaries to other continents, the word "pagan" or "heathen" referred to the polytheists of Asia, Africa, and the Americas, also conservative when they held to their ancestral Deities and refused to convert to Christianity.
The closest pre-Christian equivalent to these "pagan" conservatives would be the ancient Egyptian peasants, priests, and Pharaohs who opposed Akhenaton's monotheism and restored the worship of old Gods and Goddesses after his death (as well as Egypt's military might, which Akhenaton had sorely neglected during his brief revolution).
The closest modern equivalent to the ancient "pagans" would be, ironically, fundamentalist Protestants, orthodox Catholics, and Orthodox Jews, as well as, I will say, serious Asatruars or Odinists, who are looked on by many of today's soi-disant "pagans" as dangerously Right-Wing and even Nazi. Among atheists, their equivalent would be, I think, the Peikovian Objectivists. In other words, the most conservative Americans. In Europe, they would be the admirers of Alain de Benoist.
I have been saying all this for years. I'm going to say it once again here and now: An "EVILution!"-hating snake-handler who reads Chick tracts in the middle of Tennessee, or an old Italian woman praying her rosary before a statue of the Virgin Mary, or a member of the John Birch Society, has far more kinship with the real pagans of old than does a "New Age" faddist in San Francisco who burns incense, dabbles in Zen Buddhism, lives on tofu, and sports "peace" and "ecology" slogans on his or her Volvo.
I'm proud to a "pagan" in the old, true sense of the word, a conservative, a reactionary, a "square".