"Real Paganism” (1 / 2): Gentilism
Jul. 11th, 2024 02:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
causticusIf there was one book that decisively “ruined” the modern pagan revival (as a serious religious endeavor with any multigenerational staying power) for me it would be The Ancient City by the French historian and proto-anthropologist Fustel de Coulanges. Well, there’s actually been a few, but this one takes the cake. In the book, the author, with what to me seems like an amazing degree of intuitive insight, teases out and explains what he sees as being the foundational element of ancient religion; what we today call “paganism.” I won’t bother droning on with any exhaustive summary of the book, but here is a very brief one:
When most of us modern people think of paganism, we think of the great civic religions and mythological traditions of late-stage classical civilization, particularly the traditions of the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial eras. We think of rigid pantheons of rudely-anthropomorphized gods and goddesses and the ossified mythological literary narratives associated with those deities. We also might think of great sages and their elaborate philosophical teachings and great works. In fact, all these things are the product of specific high cultures and their literary traditions. We think today that “paganism” is precisely that. Well, its foundational form was never that at all.
Contra these popular modern (mis)understanding, Coulanges takes us back to a time long before recorded history, i.e. long before writing technology was a thing. He parses out the archaic religion of the Indo-Europeans and their offshoots in the Mediterranean world, focusing particularly on the family cults of archaic Greece and Rome. In his view, the religion of the family is the foundation of all religion in the ancient world; tribal and civic cults are much later developments that evolved as smaller social units continuously merged into larger ones as classical civilization became ever-grander and more complex.
Private Religion, Private Law
As the story goes, religion was once a wholly private affair. By private I mean one confined to the household and its immediate surroundings. Each cultic household (i.e. what neopagans today call “ the hearth”) was an ancestor-veneration religion unto itself. The beliefs and rituals were specific to each individual family; no two families rites and beliefs were ever the same. And it was utterly taboo for anyone outside the household to partake in the rites of the family religion. Marriage and adoption were the only means by which new members could be admitted.
Western patriarchy, monogamous marriage, and archaic kingship (that of the paterfamilias) each derives from this very ancient way. When a woman would leave her natal household and join a different one via marriage, she had to ritually leave the religion of her birth and join the religion of her husband’s household (she must be carried over the sacred threshold of her new house); no one back then could be a member of two household religions at the same time. To do anything other than what ancient custom mandated would be to offend the ancestral gods; if any serious wrong were to be committed, they would become vengeful ghosts and proceed to mercilessly vex the entire household until its participants made a sufficient degree of ritualistic restitution.
The modern atheist-rationalist strawman of Abrahamic religion is that off an all-seeing busybody sky god tyrant watching your every move. Well, the ancients weren’t so different in their belief, it’s just that the all-seeing busybody was a patriarchal ancestor god dwelling under the ground instead of being an abstract all-spirit way up in the sky. Same basic stuff, different epoch. The “fear of God” being the basis of all religious piety and humility is a very ancient teaching indeed.
From Lares and Manes to Culture Gods
In the book, Coulanges supposes that the gods and goddesses we know of today began either as (a) proprietary family deities, or (b) personified parts of nature. It’s on this first supposition that he gives most of his attention to. Over time, the Lares and Manes of a triumphant family eventually become the gods of the whole culture. How this would work is that some particular family grows to prominence and, by marriage or adoptive patronage, absorbs many other families under its umbrella. Thus family becomes a clan. The paterfamilias becomes the clan Chieftain. The patron god of the clan’s leading family becomes the patron god of the entire clan; every clan member now participates in the rites of that deity; the once very-private religion has become a little less private and a little more public. In due time, other clans (for various reasons) join up with the big clan and now it’s a tribe. The patron deity of the tribe becomes the patron deity of every tribal member. The cult of the tribal deity has become even more public. Archaic kingship is born. Tribes settle down and become organized states with elaborate lore traditions and the beginnings of legalism. The same scaling-up process rinses and repeats until we get the mega-states and sprawling empires that our history books tend to lavish with the most attention.
You get the picture by now. The illustrious Athena of the Athenian Parthenon, the awesome protectress of all of Athens, was once-upon-a-time a humble family deity. That family became one of the most dominant and successful families of Athens and because of that, its patron goddess become the civic goddess par excellence. Yahweh was likely once a humble family deity of this type and over time become the clan of Judah’s tutelary god (“The god of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac” can perhaps take on a literal meaning here). And as the saying goes, the rest is history!
Forgotten Inheritance
Speaking on that tangent, it becomes quite apparent to me that the Christians inherited the remnants of these ancient gentile institutions The Ancient City talks about at length. But the early Christians understood very little about the origin of things like monogamous marriage, archaic kingship, and patriarchal families; they saw that those just worked, and left it at that. Humans in general seem to prefer the approach of doing things over and over again by rote over understanding why they do things to begin with (once you have to ask why, it’s obvious the magic has already worn off) Of course the Christians were by no means unique in this regard, as this was how most pagan religions operated as well. By the late decadent era of blustering moralists like Cicero, Cato, and Seneca, the learned Roman understood very little about the why of their venerable religion. Why these religions worked the way they did is a deeply-esoteric topic for another time.
What the author had pieced together more than 150 years ago constitutes a key component of of what ancient Natural Religion actually was. We could use the term Gentilism for this. However this is not the only piece. Animism is the other main part. It’s something that Coulanges briefly acknowledges in a few spots but tends to gloss over. After all, he was a rationalist scholar who followed the popular habit of his time, that is dismissing the notion of an enchanted world as being something more than ancient superstition. However, I’ve found an occult reading of his work to be quite illuminating, to put it lightly. This is something I’ve been working out in my own head for awhile now.
Putting the Canopy before the Roots
Sad to say, but to me this synthesis seems to be something that greatly trivializes modern-day efforts to revive ancient religions. The pantheon-first approach is highly-anachronistic and little more than romanticized classicism (ancient familial and tribal religions didn’t have fixed pantheons, but that’s another topic for a different time!). In practical terms, this approach constitutes an attempt to grow a tree starting first with the uppermost branches (yeah, imagine that). Of course, I don’t intend here to denigrate an individual’s personal spiritual practice that might involve the veneration of ancient deities; you do you! But such a practice sans any familial or communitarian element is really just a glorified occult or mystical practice, or maybe a rogue form of Folk Catholicism. In my humble view, if one can’t get their whole household to participate in whatever it is they do in front of their altar, then it’s not a religion proper.
By this criteria, I think the only successful pagan revival groups here in the Anglosphere are those Germanic pagans (Heathens) who do indeed have their whole families or even mini-communities participating in cultic activities, even if that’s just meeting up a few times a year for ritual feasts and outdoor gatherings. But even Heathens usually default to the classical pantheon approach, when really each hearth and kindred should be working with something unique, if the religion is to be an authentic gentilism (I do realize how massive a tall order this is in our postmodern era).
Back to Basics
For a whole family or household to participate, the aspiring religion has to be something more visceral and relatable than some cultic version of a D&D session or a Renaissance Fair. Fine for the nerds, but boring or just plain weird for everyone else. Whichever pioneering soul can figure out how to harmoniously blend ancestor work with strict family discipline, and with some compatible ethos and world-conception (like perhaps a combination of Nietzschean Vitalism and Animism), might really be onto a working formula that can make for a tradition that lasts for more than half a generation.
“Originally published in 1864 as La Cité Antique, this remarkable work describes society as it existed in Greece during the age of Pericles and in Rome at the time of Cicero. Working with only a fraction of the materials available to today's classical scholar, Fustel de Coulanges fashioned a complete picture of life in the ancient city, resulting in a book impressive today as much for the depth of its portrait as for the thesis it presents.
In The Ancient City, Coulanges argues that primitive religion constituted the foundation of all civic life. Developing his comparisons between beliefs and laws, Fustel covers such topics as rites and festivals; marriage and the family; divorce, death, and burial; and political and legal structures. "Religion," the author states, "constituted the Greek and Roman family, established marriage and paternal authority, fixed the order of relationship, and consecrated the right of property, and the right of inheritance. This same religion, after having enlarged and extended the family, formed a still larger association, the city, and reigned in that as it had reigned in the family. From it came all the institutions, as well as the private law, of the ancients."
When most of us modern people think of paganism, we think of the great civic religions and mythological traditions of late-stage classical civilization, particularly the traditions of the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial eras. We think of rigid pantheons of rudely-anthropomorphized gods and goddesses and the ossified mythological literary narratives associated with those deities. We also might think of great sages and their elaborate philosophical teachings and great works. In fact, all these things are the product of specific high cultures and their literary traditions. We think today that “paganism” is precisely that. Well, its foundational form was never that at all.
Contra these popular modern (mis)understanding, Coulanges takes us back to a time long before recorded history, i.e. long before writing technology was a thing. He parses out the archaic religion of the Indo-Europeans and their offshoots in the Mediterranean world, focusing particularly on the family cults of archaic Greece and Rome. In his view, the religion of the family is the foundation of all religion in the ancient world; tribal and civic cults are much later developments that evolved as smaller social units continuously merged into larger ones as classical civilization became ever-grander and more complex.
Private Religion, Private Law
As the story goes, religion was once a wholly private affair. By private I mean one confined to the household and its immediate surroundings. Each cultic household (i.e. what neopagans today call “ the hearth”) was an ancestor-veneration religion unto itself. The beliefs and rituals were specific to each individual family; no two families rites and beliefs were ever the same. And it was utterly taboo for anyone outside the household to partake in the rites of the family religion. Marriage and adoption were the only means by which new members could be admitted.
Western patriarchy, monogamous marriage, and archaic kingship (that of the paterfamilias) each derives from this very ancient way. When a woman would leave her natal household and join a different one via marriage, she had to ritually leave the religion of her birth and join the religion of her husband’s household (she must be carried over the sacred threshold of her new house); no one back then could be a member of two household religions at the same time. To do anything other than what ancient custom mandated would be to offend the ancestral gods; if any serious wrong were to be committed, they would become vengeful ghosts and proceed to mercilessly vex the entire household until its participants made a sufficient degree of ritualistic restitution.
The modern atheist-rationalist strawman of Abrahamic religion is that off an all-seeing busybody sky god tyrant watching your every move. Well, the ancients weren’t so different in their belief, it’s just that the all-seeing busybody was a patriarchal ancestor god dwelling under the ground instead of being an abstract all-spirit way up in the sky. Same basic stuff, different epoch. The “fear of God” being the basis of all religious piety and humility is a very ancient teaching indeed.
From Lares and Manes to Culture Gods
In the book, Coulanges supposes that the gods and goddesses we know of today began either as (a) proprietary family deities, or (b) personified parts of nature. It’s on this first supposition that he gives most of his attention to. Over time, the Lares and Manes of a triumphant family eventually become the gods of the whole culture. How this would work is that some particular family grows to prominence and, by marriage or adoptive patronage, absorbs many other families under its umbrella. Thus family becomes a clan. The paterfamilias becomes the clan Chieftain. The patron god of the clan’s leading family becomes the patron god of the entire clan; every clan member now participates in the rites of that deity; the once very-private religion has become a little less private and a little more public. In due time, other clans (for various reasons) join up with the big clan and now it’s a tribe. The patron deity of the tribe becomes the patron deity of every tribal member. The cult of the tribal deity has become even more public. Archaic kingship is born. Tribes settle down and become organized states with elaborate lore traditions and the beginnings of legalism. The same scaling-up process rinses and repeats until we get the mega-states and sprawling empires that our history books tend to lavish with the most attention.
You get the picture by now. The illustrious Athena of the Athenian Parthenon, the awesome protectress of all of Athens, was once-upon-a-time a humble family deity. That family became one of the most dominant and successful families of Athens and because of that, its patron goddess become the civic goddess par excellence. Yahweh was likely once a humble family deity of this type and over time become the clan of Judah’s tutelary god (“The god of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac” can perhaps take on a literal meaning here). And as the saying goes, the rest is history!
Forgotten Inheritance
Speaking on that tangent, it becomes quite apparent to me that the Christians inherited the remnants of these ancient gentile institutions The Ancient City talks about at length. But the early Christians understood very little about the origin of things like monogamous marriage, archaic kingship, and patriarchal families; they saw that those just worked, and left it at that. Humans in general seem to prefer the approach of doing things over and over again by rote over understanding why they do things to begin with (once you have to ask why, it’s obvious the magic has already worn off) Of course the Christians were by no means unique in this regard, as this was how most pagan religions operated as well. By the late decadent era of blustering moralists like Cicero, Cato, and Seneca, the learned Roman understood very little about the why of their venerable religion. Why these religions worked the way they did is a deeply-esoteric topic for another time.
What the author had pieced together more than 150 years ago constitutes a key component of of what ancient Natural Religion actually was. We could use the term Gentilism for this. However this is not the only piece. Animism is the other main part. It’s something that Coulanges briefly acknowledges in a few spots but tends to gloss over. After all, he was a rationalist scholar who followed the popular habit of his time, that is dismissing the notion of an enchanted world as being something more than ancient superstition. However, I’ve found an occult reading of his work to be quite illuminating, to put it lightly. This is something I’ve been working out in my own head for awhile now.
Putting the Canopy before the Roots
Sad to say, but to me this synthesis seems to be something that greatly trivializes modern-day efforts to revive ancient religions. The pantheon-first approach is highly-anachronistic and little more than romanticized classicism (ancient familial and tribal religions didn’t have fixed pantheons, but that’s another topic for a different time!). In practical terms, this approach constitutes an attempt to grow a tree starting first with the uppermost branches (yeah, imagine that). Of course, I don’t intend here to denigrate an individual’s personal spiritual practice that might involve the veneration of ancient deities; you do you! But such a practice sans any familial or communitarian element is really just a glorified occult or mystical practice, or maybe a rogue form of Folk Catholicism. In my humble view, if one can’t get their whole household to participate in whatever it is they do in front of their altar, then it’s not a religion proper.
By this criteria, I think the only successful pagan revival groups here in the Anglosphere are those Germanic pagans (Heathens) who do indeed have their whole families or even mini-communities participating in cultic activities, even if that’s just meeting up a few times a year for ritual feasts and outdoor gatherings. But even Heathens usually default to the classical pantheon approach, when really each hearth and kindred should be working with something unique, if the religion is to be an authentic gentilism (I do realize how massive a tall order this is in our postmodern era).
Back to Basics
For a whole family or household to participate, the aspiring religion has to be something more visceral and relatable than some cultic version of a D&D session or a Renaissance Fair. Fine for the nerds, but boring or just plain weird for everyone else. Whichever pioneering soul can figure out how to harmoniously blend ancestor work with strict family discipline, and with some compatible ethos and world-conception (like perhaps a combination of Nietzschean Vitalism and Animism), might really be onto a working formula that can make for a tradition that lasts for more than half a generation.
(no subject)
Date: 2024-07-12 01:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2024-07-12 06:37 pm (UTC)My own take here is what what we understand to be mystery cults was largely a product of the Axial Age.
(no subject)
Date: 2024-07-12 06:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2024-07-12 11:51 pm (UTC)The archaic mysteries were likely quite shamanic in character, and rather egalitarian, in the sense that likely everyone from the tribe participated in them at some point.
(no subject)
Date: 2024-07-12 03:13 am (UTC)I was glad to see your asides towards the end about the less-emphasized role of animism, and the value of Coulanges when viewed with an openness to spiritual reality. Amongst the folks I've encountered who have read Coulanges, there seem to be two main camps: 1) oh, what a wonderful piece of social technology! If only we could have families that were bound together this strongly and devolve so much of social functioning to the family level! 2) Guys, guys, guys, I've got the answer to Nietzsche's stumpers: just worship your ancestors. That's where all religion came from in the first place, so it can work for us too!
It's not that I necessarily disagree with either position entirely, it's more that I think they're inadequate. As with pantheon-centric beliefs, I don't think you can LARP your way into a society of patresfamilias and all the implications it might have. I also think that trying to "save" religious belief by grounding it in the material reality of your ancestors, without believing in their real, actual spiritual presence now, also doesn't really save you, it's just materialism with more steps.
Anyhow, maybe I'm slightly defensive because a) pantheonic Gods are the main focus of my worship, and b) despite teaching my 5 year old how to pray daddy's way, my wife and I take a very modern egalitarian approach to you "your spiritual beliefs are your business as long as we agree on values". Also, as I said, I haven't read Coulanges yet, so I don't want to start disagreeing with him too hard before I understand him.
Cheers,
Jeff
(no subject)
Date: 2024-07-12 06:33 pm (UTC)Before proceeding I have to say that after I reread my post, my writing style may have come off like I was wholly endorsing Coulanges' ideas; I sometimes write in a devil's advocate type tone where I take on the voice of something I've read. While I think he was onto something big, there's several missing key elements in his analysis, as I've alluded to. Part 2 will get into another book which provides a very different perspective, while at the same time reaffirming the ubiquity of ancestral cults in traditional folk religions all over the world.
On the folks you have encountered who have commented on this work, indeed this book has been making the rounds in certain intellectual circles we are both well acquainted with! Though I think I'm probably the first person to address it who actually believes the gods are real. You're right that the general attitude in these circles seems to be that of looking at religions and spiritual teachings as mere social technology. The Nietzschean tryhards are there too, howling in the background. I do myself take the somewhat cynical view that popular religions that last a long time do indeed function as useful social technologies. But of course these religions didn't come about with that conscious intention in mind; rather they evolve over time and become politicized to the point where they are effectively used as a way of keeping the masses in line. It's a tried and true method; the appeal to ancestry is much more convincing than any attempt to appeal to reason with every single participating individual. Did the founders of the ancient ancestral cults actually believe that the ghosts of their blood ancestors would torment the souls of their descendants for eternity if they were to slip up and break a few rules? Probably not. But someone at some point figured out that asserting such makes for an effective scare narrative and prevents a lot of fruitless debates from cropping up and constantly wasting people's time.
On that, I think there's maybe three different ways here of looking at religious and spiritual teachings:
(1) That which proves to be effective crowd control social technology
(2) Something that does a good job at preserving the wisdom of our ancestors over a very long stretch of time.
(3) That which is effective for an individual practitioner attainting specific spiritual goals.
What method(s) work well for any one or two of these might not work well for the others. This is why I'm so in favor of pluralism; we have have all three without any one feeling the need to crowd or or destroy the others. Any lasting "tradition" that develops moving forward should ideally balance all three harmoniously.
"It's not that I necessarily disagree with either position entirely, it's more that I think they're inadequate. As with pantheon-centric beliefs, I don't think you can LARP your way into a society of patresfamilias and all the implications it might have. I also think that trying to "save" religious belief by grounding it in the material reality of your ancestors, without believing in their real, actual spiritual presence now, also doesn't really save you, it's just materialism with more steps."
On the paterfamilias and ancestor stuff, I totally agree. Most people who get into these things don't actually believe in the spiritual reality of them. LARPing alone won't work. (LARPing + faith can be super powerful though!!) Also, thinking about the legality of paterfamilias-LARPing in today's political and legal climate is kind of hilarious, unless one is a member of a retro-faith that's still grandfathered into acceptance as legit.
On that last part, I can certainly understand the defensiveness. I should reiterate that I mean no denigration at all. I'd say, according to my above scheme, retro-pantheon spirituality can of course make for a very effective (3) type of practice, similar to any serious occult or mystical practice an individual works hard at. My tangent on this mainly concerns my belief that it's ineffective as something that can fulfill (1). Unfortunately, what will end up working well at (1) will probably be something that none of us like all that much (like having the Chud version of pagan revivalism go mainstream, or some sort of shrill Protestant revivalism). There's a piece I've been wanting to write for a long time on a phase of "religion-shopping" I once had and how that ended of producing nothing but dissatisfaction and annoyance on my part. This sort of ties in with my last article on how religion and politics always end up getting intertwined and how any big/popular religion that is able to last for centuries or more, has been thoroughly infused with politics.
Finally, I think your own household might be a microcosmic example of what I'm getting at. My own household and immediate family is pretty much the same kind of situation. As of right now, there is no serious faith out there that can compete with the comforts, convenience, and social inertia of the Western middle class lifestyle and its pop culture and social mores. Any popular religion right now is something that accessories rather than challenges it. Just look at how fast nearly every single church folded like an accordion in the face of Covidian government/corpo tyranny. As JMG has pointed out many times, new faiths (that end up becoming major religions) tend to emerge from the despised margins of society; people who need faith the most are usually those who don't have much else. Going back 2000 years..the prophets of the emerging Magian paradigm were most certainly not the Roman elites!
(no subject)
Date: 2024-07-12 10:37 pm (UTC)Though I think I'm probably the first person to address it who actually believes the gods are real.
Indeed! Most folks I've heard from are some flavor of Nietzschean vitalist or Christian, neither of which is necessarily aligned with believing in many Gods as "really real."
But of course these religions didn't come about with that conscious intention in mind; rather they evolve over time and become politicized to the point where they are effectively used as a way of keeping the masses in line.
I also wanted to clarify that when I said "social technology" I didn't only mean cynical control of the masses - I more meant "a body of beliefs and practices that allows society to function" with lots of leeway allowed for what constitutes "functioning." To allude to our discussion on your last post, I view courts that most folks trust and well-established and mostly fair contract law as a kind of social technology just as much as Big Brother-style propagandizing, or the adoption of/change to religion by the state for realpolitik reasons (I'm looking at you, Henry VIII).
On that, I think there's maybe three different ways here of looking at religious and spiritual teachings:
(1) That which proves to be effective crowd control social technology
(2) Something that does a good job at preserving the wisdom of our ancestors over a very long stretch of time.
(3) That which is effective for an individual practitioner attainting specific spiritual goals.
This strikes me as a useful framework, with the caveat of my above point that I'd include in (1) some potentially more organic/personally helpful practices. For example, the rite of confession seems to hit all three goals pretty well: 1) the parish priest likely uses what he learns in confession to subtly massage relations in the community for better harmony, 2) it appears that the idea of unburdening yourself of what you've done that you regret has been found helpful for a long time, and the church has semi-standardized responses on how to handle this, and 3) many individuals find confession extremely useful for their own spiritual needs.
All that said, agreed that it is likely more common than not for any given method to be better or worse suited to each of these different needs, and that pluralism of some sort is likely the sturdiest answer (even if within one over-arching tradition, such as having monastics, regular priests, deacons, confraternities, and so forth to meet different needs all under the umbrella of Catholicism).
On that last part, I can certainly understand the defensiveness.
Thanks, but I should say my tongue was certainly in the vicinity of my cheek - I didn't really take what you were saying as an attack, and I was pretty sure I was raising reasonable and mild points, but I also saw that it was in the direction of defensiveness.
My tangent on this mainly concerns my belief that it's ineffective as something that can fulfill (1).
That's an entirely reasonable supposition, and you're likely right. Any kind of retro-pantheon approach would need to accrue/develop a lot of other stuff to hit that, and/or the world around us would need to change rather a lot.
As of right now, there is no serious faith out there that can compete with the comforts, convenience, and social inertia of the Western middle class lifestyle and its pop culture and social mores. Any popular religion right now is something that accessories rather than challenges it.
This is uncomfortably incisive - definitely.
(no subject)
Date: 2024-07-13 12:07 am (UTC)One of the challenges with text-only conversation is conveying tone....well, without a tacky overuse of emoticons ;) Sarcasm and light-hearted joking can be especially tough to get across.
You are quite right, there are a much less Machiavellian ways of formulating (1). And I think we would agree that Liturgical Christianity covers all three bases quite well. I have to say though, that a lot of people in the blogsphere I've seen talking about this topic tend to frame social technology in a rather cynical manner. I think your way of looking at it makes a lot more sense.