Once again, life got in the way of me blogging. But I'm back again, starting the new year off well.
I might as well kick off the year with a more thorough explanation of my personal religion, my path--or, rather, where I am on my path at this point in time. It might provide some context, and more personally, writing it all down helps me to understand what I'm doing and who I am.
At present, I describe myself a syncretic Roman reconstructionist. My primary religious and spiritual practices are Roman in character and structure. My household rituals are Roman, most of the gods I worship are Roman, and the concepts I use to elucidate my spirituality are mostly Roman. I use a modernized form of the Roman civil and liturgical calendar, and I celebrate most Roman festivals using Roman rituals.
At the same time, I do perform rituals outside of what is traditionally Roman. Even if I use Roman models for some of these practices, they are not things the Romans themselves did (though I can argue some of them are things the Romans would have done, if they were around today and lived where I live). I worship gods that certainly belonged to ethnicities and time periods quite distant from the Classical Romans and Greeks. I worship ecstatic Greek mystery gods; I worship the gods of my Celtic ancestors; I worship local gods and the spirits of dead heroes pertaining to the nation of my birth and residence, the United States of America.
I do not see this variety as un-Roman. The Romans were syncretic, and I would argue that their syncretism is what afforded Roman religion its success in the ancient world. It had the ability to adapt and absorb the local cults and customs of people and places upon whom the Romans left their mark. Even for individual Romans, religion didn't stop at the home and in the public, state festivities; mystery religions were quite popular, as were cults to foreign gods--though often in a Romanized form. The Roman army had considerable freedom of religion, and a great variety in shrines, votives, inscriptions, and offerings abounds in Roman military sites. Syncretism is not antithetical to Romanitas, so long as Roman custom is honoured. I think of myself a Hellenized Romano-Briton, if that helps conceptualise things; I am of mostly Celtic heritage, and that is important to me; but my main religious framework is Graeco-Roman. This is something that has clear precedent in Classical Antiquity, evidenced by the rather heavy Hellenization of Roman civilisation after the 1st century BCE and by the considerable admixture of Roman and indigenous cultures in the British Isles.
Broadly, as my sacra publica, I follow the Roman calendar and celebrate Roman festivals. I worship the Capitoline Triad, the Dii Consentes, and other Roman gods that the traditional festivals honour. In addition, I worship some local gods in a Roman manner, particularly Columbia, the personification and patron goddess of my homeland.
My domestic cult is primarily Roman in character, and I worship the lares, the penates, the local spirits, Jupiter, Juno, Janus, and Vesta in Roman rituals at my household shrine at regular intervals. I celebrate a series of three Roman and three Greek days of religious significance each month, as part of my household rites: the Kalends, the Nones, and the Ides to mark the beginning, first week, and middle of the civil month, and the Noumenia, Dikhomenia, and Hene kai Nea to mark the start, height, and end of the lunar month. I also worship my ancestral goddess Brigid/Brigantia in a sacra privata, as she too is a goddess of the hearth and home.
Connected to my domestic cult is a cult of the dead; this is an area where my syncretism is a bit obvious, as I celebrate beyond the Roman festivals to the dead at the Parentalia, Feralia, and Lemuria, but also the Celtic festival of the dead at Samhain, and the American holiday of Memorial Day. I honour my dead ancestors, those who died in service to their country, and the spirits of the dead as a whole. I also pay homage to gods who rule over and guide the dead during these times.
Now, here comes my more specific sacra privata:
I celebrate a Hellenistic fertility cult, focused on Demeter, Persephone,
Pan, Plouton, and Dionysos in their roles as agricultural and rustic
fertility deities, and is based around the mythical abduction and return
of Persephone. The main festivals for this are the Demeter festivals of
Proerosia and Thesmophoria in October and Haloa in late December. I hesitate to describe it as Eleusinian, as the mysteries died out at the end of Classical Antiquity and it would sacreligious to pretend at recreating them without being initiated; but I am influenced by what is known about Eleusinian theology.
I celebrate the life and deeds of Dionysos. I would not necessarily describe this as Dionysian Mysteries, as it is not an initiatory faith, but it does involve my developing attempt at a personal relationship with Dionysos and what his mythical deeds mean to humanity. I have a pattern of festivals I follow, some ancient and some less-ancient.
I cultivate the worship of an array of Celtic gods, primarily those of South Britain and those of Alba/Caledonia. My ancestry is heavily rooted in both area, and I have long sought a connection to that heritage through spirituality and religion. I celebrate the main four Celtic high holy days, and I worship Celtic gods in a traditional manner on these days, and on the days of the Full Moon each month. There is a considerable overlap in Celtic and Roman values, in that both uphold hospitality and reciprocity and sacred, and both place emphasis on honour and emotion. In particular, I honour Brigid/Brigantia, Epona/Rhiannon, Nodens/Nuada/Lludd, Lugus/Lu/Llew, Danu/Don, and the Continental god Cernunnos.
As you can see, religion can be a bit complicated. It helps sometimes to compartmentalise it into distinct cults, into sacra publica and sacra privata, into cultures, into traditions. But aspects of them weave together, because the gods, the spritual forces, and our lives can't be bolted down, boxed up, and constrained. They are part of a bigger, interconnected world--which I think is an idea that features well into Paganism both ancient and modern.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Friday, October 21, 2016
Roman rituals
A bit of a delay, as I wasn't able to post through the past two months (equivalent). But here I am again, and addressing some further topics of definition.
This time, we're looking at Roman religious rituals. The cornerstone of religion in the ancient Hellenistic world, not just for the Romans but for virtually all people in the Mediterranean Basin and beyond, was the regular practice of particular rituals. Often these were oriented at one or more gods, though they could just as often be oriented at lesser spirits, such as those of the dead, the land, or of natural phenomena. The distinction between "god" and "spirit" was not all that strongly delineated in some cultures, particularly among the Romans. The Greeks were a bit more strict about the difference between a god and, say, a nature spirit or a dead person's spirit. But Roman religious language is laden with terms that have multiple uses, including terms that refer to some supernatural power.
And while belief in such varied Powers are ubiquitous in ancient religion, it is not what defines the religion of each ancient culture. Since polytheism and animism were almost universal (Judaism being a main exception), it is the rituals and practices that came to define boundaries between, say, Roman religion and Greek religion, or Gaulish religion, or Phoenician religion. Each culture had their own methods, their own practices. We tend to think of the Romans as being so universal, because of the eventual "universal" scope of their claim to Empire; but their religion was just as peculiar to their culture as that of the Hebrews or the Britons or any other ethnic group. So today I'm going to discuss those ancient Roman rituals, as that is what primarily guides modern religio romana.
The Romans were peculiarly legalistic when it came to religion. The precise use of words, gestures, tools, props, and bodily orientation were of great importance. Rituals had to be done properly, under ancient guidelines, for any religious action to be successful. This was especially so when it came to public religion. Roman identity was so wrapped up in religious customs and traditions, and the view was that they were successful because of their collective piety. The Romans framed their religion, especially in the public sphere, around the concept of maintaining good relations between the gods and mankind. Religion was just as much a Roman public and civic duty as voting; it is hard for many of us living in secular states to fully understand how deeply the civic and the religious were intertwined in Rome.
This is not to say that religion was a strictly public exercise, or devoid of personal spiritual passions and activity. Religion was guided by the state, but it began and ended at home; there was a significant domestic dimension to Roman religious practice, with the home as a microcosm of the state. Just as the state would have its national hearth at the Temple of Vesta, so every Roman household would have a hearth where Vesta's flame burned. Just as each state temple had an altar for major rituals, so every Roman home had an altar in miniature for domestic offerings. Just as the Roman government made sacrifice to the founders of the city, so each family would make regular offerings to its ancestors.
Private organisations also came about at various points in Roman history that conducted rituals to very specific gods, often foreign imports, and many of them were mystery cults in the Hellenistic fashion. These were not necessarily domestic, but were not public either, straddling a place in between "proper" household religion and the public expressions of civic piety.
Whether state or domestic, private or public, major or minor, all rituals operated from the same broad underpinnings. The ultimate principle at work in Roman religious activity is thus: do ut des. This is a Latin phrase that means "I give, so that you might give". In other words, Romans performed sacrifices and gave offerings so that supernatural powers would give aid or favour in return. It was practical and contractual, depending on tried-and-true practice rather than faith or dogma to deliver results. Many different kinds of rituals were--and today, are--conducted, for a variety of culturally-specific reasons. But at their core, most can boil down to a few stages.
The preface of any ritual was a purification or cleansing rite. How elaborate this was depended on the scale of the ritual; it was fairly simplified in everyday domestic rituals, but a purification was still done in some fashion. When participating in larger community or city-state rituals, more elaborate measures were taken. At its heart, a purification was an invocation to be cleansed of one's impurities so that one may be clean in spirit as well as in body when approaching the gods. The Greek concept of miasma is related, but is a bit more involved. Once again, I recommend people to check out Elani Temperance over at Baring the Aegis for her definition and description of Greek religious concepts. Because of the Hellenistic influence over Roman civilisation and culture, there is a fair amount of overlap.
The next stages correspond somewhat to Greek religious rituals. The ritual formally begins with a procession where the cult images of the deities being invoked are brought to the altar, and where the participants stride up to the altar to formally place themselves in the sacred space. In domestic situations, this would be a brief striding from a shrine to the religious workspace; in larger functions, especially state rituals, a procession along a major road would include hundreds or even thousands of people to a temple. The big difference, aside from scale, is that in temples the cult image would already be stored there and the altar was a fixed structure in front of the temple. Think of temples as being enormous shrines--a place where the deity is held to reside, a focus for devotional thought and action. Whereas an altar, no matter how large or small or where it is placed, is a religious work space. This stage is usually where a sacred flame is either lit or brought out. The Romans in domestic religion often made use of candles or oil lamps lit from brands or coals from the home's hearth; temples employed the use of braziers filled with oil or coals. In most cases, the fire was supposed to originate from the temple of Vesta, which held the city's hearth; the domestic fire would be lit from either the temple itself, or from a neighbourhood hearth that was in turn lit from Vesta's temple. State-ran temples were lit from Vesta's flame, and sometimes used portable hearths called a foculus.
More solemn, and especially larger-scale, rituals also followed this with a devotional preface where a small offering of incense, wine, or cakes was made while invoking Janus and sometimes Jupiter, and sometimes Vesta to bear witness to the subsequent ritual. This is because Janus of the god of beginnings and endings, because Jupiter is the supreme god, and because Vesta is the goddess of the hearth and is present at all rituals through the use of fire. Most domestic rituals did not include this stage, though some did. This may be considered equivalent to the Greek custom of libations prior to a sacrifice.
The main part of the ritual began with an invocation to the main gods or spirits being addressed in the rite. The reason for the sacrifice or offering is clearly stated, and the hoped-for result is also clearly stated. Some wrote of the power of touching the altar with one's hands while speaking these parts. In any case, this is one of the most important parts of the ritual. It is vital to state clearly and directly--though, of course, courteously and respectfully--whom one is addressing, what is being given, and what blessings for which one is asking. To the Romans and many others, prayer accompanied an offering to give it meaning, and offerings (or the vow to offer) accompanied prayer to give it power.
The real "meat" of the ritual (pardon the pun) was the stage in which offerings were given. This varied widely, but the most prominent in public religion and the most ubiquitous in ancient religion, was the blood sacrifice of an animal on the altar and the subsequent butchering, cooking, and consumption of the animal by the participants. Walter Burkert in his seminal books Greek Religion and Homo Necans gives a detailed analysis as to the purpose and origin of sacrificial ritual, particularly in Graeco-Roman religion, though his findings are meant to be applicable to sacrifice in general. But animal sacrifice was not the only kind of offering given; incense was popular in domestic religion, as was wine and cakes or pieces of prepared meals. First fruits offerings in harvest seasons were popular. Various methods were employed, broadly delineated by the kind of Powers to which one was offering. Sea gods and water spirits often had their offerings tossed into the relevant body of water. Gods or spirits of the dead and the underworld, and sometimes deities of the harvest and the land, had offerings burnt or buried (usually both) in a pit dug for the purpose. Most gods were given burnt offerings on free-standing raised altars. In most cases, only a part of a thing was burnt; the remainder was utilised or consumed by the participants. The main exception is chthonic spirits--those of the dead and the underworld--with whom no one living is permitted to dine without making themselves ritually unclean. Often in this stage, other gods would be honoured; sometimes a mirror of the solemn preface would be done, with token offerings to Janus, Jupiter, and/or Vesta as the rite may have began with invocations to them.
After the prayers and offerings, the disposition of the offerings is conducted. Usually, as I said, this meant the consumption of either part or most of the item. If it was/is an offering to underworld Powers, it would usually be burnt as a whole or buried. Sometimes an offering to non-chthonic gods, called celestial or ouranic gods in some writings, would be burnt whole; but this was usually only in times of great peril or when grandiose sacrifices were being made by the state for some important purpose. The remains, such as ashes of burnt bones or incense resin, were disposed up respectfully. (Personal note: in my domestic practice, I collect my offscourings in a bin and consign it to the titaness Hekate on the night before the new moon, then bury it at a crossroads; mind, of course, I have a private cult to Hekate due to a pre-existing relationship with the goddess).
And that, broadly speaking, is the general framework of Roman religious ritual.
This time, we're looking at Roman religious rituals. The cornerstone of religion in the ancient Hellenistic world, not just for the Romans but for virtually all people in the Mediterranean Basin and beyond, was the regular practice of particular rituals. Often these were oriented at one or more gods, though they could just as often be oriented at lesser spirits, such as those of the dead, the land, or of natural phenomena. The distinction between "god" and "spirit" was not all that strongly delineated in some cultures, particularly among the Romans. The Greeks were a bit more strict about the difference between a god and, say, a nature spirit or a dead person's spirit. But Roman religious language is laden with terms that have multiple uses, including terms that refer to some supernatural power.
And while belief in such varied Powers are ubiquitous in ancient religion, it is not what defines the religion of each ancient culture. Since polytheism and animism were almost universal (Judaism being a main exception), it is the rituals and practices that came to define boundaries between, say, Roman religion and Greek religion, or Gaulish religion, or Phoenician religion. Each culture had their own methods, their own practices. We tend to think of the Romans as being so universal, because of the eventual "universal" scope of their claim to Empire; but their religion was just as peculiar to their culture as that of the Hebrews or the Britons or any other ethnic group. So today I'm going to discuss those ancient Roman rituals, as that is what primarily guides modern religio romana.
The Romans were peculiarly legalistic when it came to religion. The precise use of words, gestures, tools, props, and bodily orientation were of great importance. Rituals had to be done properly, under ancient guidelines, for any religious action to be successful. This was especially so when it came to public religion. Roman identity was so wrapped up in religious customs and traditions, and the view was that they were successful because of their collective piety. The Romans framed their religion, especially in the public sphere, around the concept of maintaining good relations between the gods and mankind. Religion was just as much a Roman public and civic duty as voting; it is hard for many of us living in secular states to fully understand how deeply the civic and the religious were intertwined in Rome.
This is not to say that religion was a strictly public exercise, or devoid of personal spiritual passions and activity. Religion was guided by the state, but it began and ended at home; there was a significant domestic dimension to Roman religious practice, with the home as a microcosm of the state. Just as the state would have its national hearth at the Temple of Vesta, so every Roman household would have a hearth where Vesta's flame burned. Just as each state temple had an altar for major rituals, so every Roman home had an altar in miniature for domestic offerings. Just as the Roman government made sacrifice to the founders of the city, so each family would make regular offerings to its ancestors.
Private organisations also came about at various points in Roman history that conducted rituals to very specific gods, often foreign imports, and many of them were mystery cults in the Hellenistic fashion. These were not necessarily domestic, but were not public either, straddling a place in between "proper" household religion and the public expressions of civic piety.
Whether state or domestic, private or public, major or minor, all rituals operated from the same broad underpinnings. The ultimate principle at work in Roman religious activity is thus: do ut des. This is a Latin phrase that means "I give, so that you might give". In other words, Romans performed sacrifices and gave offerings so that supernatural powers would give aid or favour in return. It was practical and contractual, depending on tried-and-true practice rather than faith or dogma to deliver results. Many different kinds of rituals were--and today, are--conducted, for a variety of culturally-specific reasons. But at their core, most can boil down to a few stages.
The preface of any ritual was a purification or cleansing rite. How elaborate this was depended on the scale of the ritual; it was fairly simplified in everyday domestic rituals, but a purification was still done in some fashion. When participating in larger community or city-state rituals, more elaborate measures were taken. At its heart, a purification was an invocation to be cleansed of one's impurities so that one may be clean in spirit as well as in body when approaching the gods. The Greek concept of miasma is related, but is a bit more involved. Once again, I recommend people to check out Elani Temperance over at Baring the Aegis for her definition and description of Greek religious concepts. Because of the Hellenistic influence over Roman civilisation and culture, there is a fair amount of overlap.
The next stages correspond somewhat to Greek religious rituals. The ritual formally begins with a procession where the cult images of the deities being invoked are brought to the altar, and where the participants stride up to the altar to formally place themselves in the sacred space. In domestic situations, this would be a brief striding from a shrine to the religious workspace; in larger functions, especially state rituals, a procession along a major road would include hundreds or even thousands of people to a temple. The big difference, aside from scale, is that in temples the cult image would already be stored there and the altar was a fixed structure in front of the temple. Think of temples as being enormous shrines--a place where the deity is held to reside, a focus for devotional thought and action. Whereas an altar, no matter how large or small or where it is placed, is a religious work space. This stage is usually where a sacred flame is either lit or brought out. The Romans in domestic religion often made use of candles or oil lamps lit from brands or coals from the home's hearth; temples employed the use of braziers filled with oil or coals. In most cases, the fire was supposed to originate from the temple of Vesta, which held the city's hearth; the domestic fire would be lit from either the temple itself, or from a neighbourhood hearth that was in turn lit from Vesta's temple. State-ran temples were lit from Vesta's flame, and sometimes used portable hearths called a foculus.
More solemn, and especially larger-scale, rituals also followed this with a devotional preface where a small offering of incense, wine, or cakes was made while invoking Janus and sometimes Jupiter, and sometimes Vesta to bear witness to the subsequent ritual. This is because Janus of the god of beginnings and endings, because Jupiter is the supreme god, and because Vesta is the goddess of the hearth and is present at all rituals through the use of fire. Most domestic rituals did not include this stage, though some did. This may be considered equivalent to the Greek custom of libations prior to a sacrifice.
The main part of the ritual began with an invocation to the main gods or spirits being addressed in the rite. The reason for the sacrifice or offering is clearly stated, and the hoped-for result is also clearly stated. Some wrote of the power of touching the altar with one's hands while speaking these parts. In any case, this is one of the most important parts of the ritual. It is vital to state clearly and directly--though, of course, courteously and respectfully--whom one is addressing, what is being given, and what blessings for which one is asking. To the Romans and many others, prayer accompanied an offering to give it meaning, and offerings (or the vow to offer) accompanied prayer to give it power.
The real "meat" of the ritual (pardon the pun) was the stage in which offerings were given. This varied widely, but the most prominent in public religion and the most ubiquitous in ancient religion, was the blood sacrifice of an animal on the altar and the subsequent butchering, cooking, and consumption of the animal by the participants. Walter Burkert in his seminal books Greek Religion and Homo Necans gives a detailed analysis as to the purpose and origin of sacrificial ritual, particularly in Graeco-Roman religion, though his findings are meant to be applicable to sacrifice in general. But animal sacrifice was not the only kind of offering given; incense was popular in domestic religion, as was wine and cakes or pieces of prepared meals. First fruits offerings in harvest seasons were popular. Various methods were employed, broadly delineated by the kind of Powers to which one was offering. Sea gods and water spirits often had their offerings tossed into the relevant body of water. Gods or spirits of the dead and the underworld, and sometimes deities of the harvest and the land, had offerings burnt or buried (usually both) in a pit dug for the purpose. Most gods were given burnt offerings on free-standing raised altars. In most cases, only a part of a thing was burnt; the remainder was utilised or consumed by the participants. The main exception is chthonic spirits--those of the dead and the underworld--with whom no one living is permitted to dine without making themselves ritually unclean. Often in this stage, other gods would be honoured; sometimes a mirror of the solemn preface would be done, with token offerings to Janus, Jupiter, and/or Vesta as the rite may have began with invocations to them.
After the prayers and offerings, the disposition of the offerings is conducted. Usually, as I said, this meant the consumption of either part or most of the item. If it was/is an offering to underworld Powers, it would usually be burnt as a whole or buried. Sometimes an offering to non-chthonic gods, called celestial or ouranic gods in some writings, would be burnt whole; but this was usually only in times of great peril or when grandiose sacrifices were being made by the state for some important purpose. The remains, such as ashes of burnt bones or incense resin, were disposed up respectfully. (Personal note: in my domestic practice, I collect my offscourings in a bin and consign it to the titaness Hekate on the night before the new moon, then bury it at a crossroads; mind, of course, I have a private cult to Hekate due to a pre-existing relationship with the goddess).
And that, broadly speaking, is the general framework of Roman religious ritual.
Saturday, August 13, 2016
Ides
Today (or the coming day at least) marks the Ides of Sextilis/August (depending on if you prefer the pre-imperial name for the month).
So I thought it would be prudent to talk a little bit about the Ides, and what it means. I'm going to be getting a teensy bit ahead of myself, as far as talking about Roman religious practices go, but I'll get to the specifics of that soon enough.
The Romans had a largely set and ordered calendar for the year, starting in March, periodically with an intercalary month inserted in. Under the reforms of dictator Gaius Julius Caesar, this was redone so that February had a leap day every four years, and the calendar began in January. But the monthly order of days went largely the same.
Each month begins on the Kalends, with the Ides roughly in the middle of the month, and the Nones in between the two. More than any other day of the month, these three were of special religious significance. They marked the opening stages of the month and established its cycle, and there were no public festivals before the Nones, after which the monthly holidays were announced by the priests. It was especially on these days that gods of the household were honoured, as well as the chief gods of the Roman pantheon: Jupiter and Juno.
The day immediately after any of these three was considered a dark and unlucky day, dies atri, where candles or lamps were not ritually lit, where any private religious ceremonies abstained from offerings, where the names of the gods went unspoken, and where public religious ritual was not conducted. There were very rare exceptions, but for the most part these traditions held sway.
The Kalends, as said, was on the first of the month. The Nones was held on either the 5th or 7th, and generally followed the First Quarter of the moon. The Ides was held on the 13th or 15th of the month, typically on the day after the full moon. Like most calendars in the ancient world, the original Roman calendar was at least partially lunar. This aspect, however, decreased as the Romans gradually transformed their time-keeping into a fixed solar calendar.
The Ides were given special status as a regular, cyclical Feriae Jovis, or a public festival of Jupiter. In both private and public worship, offerings would be made to the chief of the gods for prosperity and safety. This day, I will do my part in making a private offering to Jove.
So I thought it would be prudent to talk a little bit about the Ides, and what it means. I'm going to be getting a teensy bit ahead of myself, as far as talking about Roman religious practices go, but I'll get to the specifics of that soon enough.
The Romans had a largely set and ordered calendar for the year, starting in March, periodically with an intercalary month inserted in. Under the reforms of dictator Gaius Julius Caesar, this was redone so that February had a leap day every four years, and the calendar began in January. But the monthly order of days went largely the same.
Each month begins on the Kalends, with the Ides roughly in the middle of the month, and the Nones in between the two. More than any other day of the month, these three were of special religious significance. They marked the opening stages of the month and established its cycle, and there were no public festivals before the Nones, after which the monthly holidays were announced by the priests. It was especially on these days that gods of the household were honoured, as well as the chief gods of the Roman pantheon: Jupiter and Juno.
The day immediately after any of these three was considered a dark and unlucky day, dies atri, where candles or lamps were not ritually lit, where any private religious ceremonies abstained from offerings, where the names of the gods went unspoken, and where public religious ritual was not conducted. There were very rare exceptions, but for the most part these traditions held sway.
The Kalends, as said, was on the first of the month. The Nones was held on either the 5th or 7th, and generally followed the First Quarter of the moon. The Ides was held on the 13th or 15th of the month, typically on the day after the full moon. Like most calendars in the ancient world, the original Roman calendar was at least partially lunar. This aspect, however, decreased as the Romans gradually transformed their time-keeping into a fixed solar calendar.
The Ides were given special status as a regular, cyclical Feriae Jovis, or a public festival of Jupiter. In both private and public worship, offerings would be made to the chief of the gods for prosperity and safety. This day, I will do my part in making a private offering to Jove.
Saturday, July 23, 2016
Defining religio romana
What I practise, I broadly categorise as a form of Roman Reconstructionist devotional polytheism.
But what is Roman Reconstructionism? What demarcates it as 'Roman' as opposed to other ancient cultures? Why reconstruct? From where did it originate?
In its current form, the Roman Reconstructionist religion can be traced to the general wave of reconstruction-oriented Paganism that came to a head in the 1990s. Greek reconstructionists had a fair amount of success in getting their message out, and Celtic reconstructionism developed as a legitimate alternative to Neodruidry in the 1980s. Those who were oriented more towards Roman culture, gods, and history also sought this success in developing a recognisable religious tradition. To this end, certain groups were organised, the most prominent and largest amongst them being Nova Roma. A variety of issues sprang up and the group has gone into a long decline over the years, but it once was a large and active community of Roman reconstructionists--with significant contributions from the historical reenactor crowd and others who were simply interested in emulating Roman values and culture. But the religious aspect of it never went away entirely, and inspired a host of other groups to form up with a stronger focus on the religion. And it left behind an extensive network of mailing lists, digital temples, and discussion boards. And for now, that's as far as I'm touching that messy subject.
This religious movement is also referred to in Latin as Religio Romana (Roman religion) and Cultus deorum romanorum (cult to the Roman gods). This leads into what delineates it; put simply, it focuses on historical Roman methods of worship, religious customs, folklore, and theology--especially of traditions prior to the deep Hellenisation of the Late Republic. Now, because Roman historical religion was uniquely syncretistic, modern Roman revival religion tends to be more tolerant of individual cults to non-Roman gods, and syncretism between cults within a broad Roman framework. But the primary focus is on the ancestral religious customs of Roman culture and society.
Why reconstruct? This is actually a very valid question. Historical Roman society and culture had a great deal of ugliness. Its values sometimes seem strange to us, and not always were they particularly inspiring. Misogyny, violence, slavery, rape, and domination were regular parts of Roman culture. The roots of toxic ideas of cultural masculinity can be found in Roman virtues of manliness. Why would we want to reconstruct that?
The answer is complex. On one hand the simple truth is, we don't. We don't want to revive those ugly cultural values, where people were treated as property and social class determined your legal rights. But we do want to revive the virtues and values of the Romans--and their affiliate ethnic groups and peoples--that were admirable to our modern eyes. Accommodations to modernity are made as little as possible, when it comes to religious practices. But when it comes to modern ethics of human rights, human dignity, and respect, I don't believe anyone seeks to bring back Roman chauvinism.
The reconstructionism is aimed at two main goals: to revive the honourable and admirable elements of Roman culture, and to revive as best we can the religious, spiritual, and folkloric customs of ancient Roman people. Why people do the latter is a question of many answers, each different from person to person; but I think a general trend can be drawn in regards to Reconstructionism and devotional Polytheism as a whole. It is that reconstructionists seek to honour certain deities whose identities are so tied to a specific culture, and they feel that it is most respectful to honour them in a manner what would be recognisable to that culture.
But what is Roman Reconstructionism? What demarcates it as 'Roman' as opposed to other ancient cultures? Why reconstruct? From where did it originate?
In its current form, the Roman Reconstructionist religion can be traced to the general wave of reconstruction-oriented Paganism that came to a head in the 1990s. Greek reconstructionists had a fair amount of success in getting their message out, and Celtic reconstructionism developed as a legitimate alternative to Neodruidry in the 1980s. Those who were oriented more towards Roman culture, gods, and history also sought this success in developing a recognisable religious tradition. To this end, certain groups were organised, the most prominent and largest amongst them being Nova Roma. A variety of issues sprang up and the group has gone into a long decline over the years, but it once was a large and active community of Roman reconstructionists--with significant contributions from the historical reenactor crowd and others who were simply interested in emulating Roman values and culture. But the religious aspect of it never went away entirely, and inspired a host of other groups to form up with a stronger focus on the religion. And it left behind an extensive network of mailing lists, digital temples, and discussion boards. And for now, that's as far as I'm touching that messy subject.
This religious movement is also referred to in Latin as Religio Romana (Roman religion) and Cultus deorum romanorum (cult to the Roman gods). This leads into what delineates it; put simply, it focuses on historical Roman methods of worship, religious customs, folklore, and theology--especially of traditions prior to the deep Hellenisation of the Late Republic. Now, because Roman historical religion was uniquely syncretistic, modern Roman revival religion tends to be more tolerant of individual cults to non-Roman gods, and syncretism between cults within a broad Roman framework. But the primary focus is on the ancestral religious customs of Roman culture and society.
Why reconstruct? This is actually a very valid question. Historical Roman society and culture had a great deal of ugliness. Its values sometimes seem strange to us, and not always were they particularly inspiring. Misogyny, violence, slavery, rape, and domination were regular parts of Roman culture. The roots of toxic ideas of cultural masculinity can be found in Roman virtues of manliness. Why would we want to reconstruct that?
The answer is complex. On one hand the simple truth is, we don't. We don't want to revive those ugly cultural values, where people were treated as property and social class determined your legal rights. But we do want to revive the virtues and values of the Romans--and their affiliate ethnic groups and peoples--that were admirable to our modern eyes. Accommodations to modernity are made as little as possible, when it comes to religious practices. But when it comes to modern ethics of human rights, human dignity, and respect, I don't believe anyone seeks to bring back Roman chauvinism.
The reconstructionism is aimed at two main goals: to revive the honourable and admirable elements of Roman culture, and to revive as best we can the religious, spiritual, and folkloric customs of ancient Roman people. Why people do the latter is a question of many answers, each different from person to person; but I think a general trend can be drawn in regards to Reconstructionism and devotional Polytheism as a whole. It is that reconstructionists seek to honour certain deities whose identities are so tied to a specific culture, and they feel that it is most respectful to honour them in a manner what would be recognisable to that culture.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Defining Paganism
As I said in my intro, nailing down some working definitions is rather important to starting a discussion--or a rambling blog. It helps others understand what one is talking about. And when it comes to religion, things can become very confusing, very fast because so many people operate under different frames of reference on something that is very important to them, and very subjective.
First, let's get down what frame of reference we're working from: Contemporary or Modern Paganism, which I sometimes refer to as "big-P Paganism" as opposed to the historically-difficult and academically-discarded "small-p paganism". Paganism in this modern sense is a cluster of new religious movements consciously influenced by pre-Christian beliefs and practices. The term is defined differently by many people, and is used differently as well, but I feel that this is the most direct and inclusive definition.
It is best described as a movement, rather than as a unified religion or spirituality, because it contains within itself a great diversity in beliefs, practices, and identities. Contemporary Paganism has a shared history through its roots and development. It has roots in traditional folklore and folk custom, modern academic study of ancient religion, and in the Western Occult tradition, and has its direct origins in the Romantic and Modernist intellectual paradigms of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Romantics had a fascination with folk customs, and it was commonly viewed that such customs had pre-Christian origins. This continued into Modernist movement of the late 19th century, which developed Romantic ideas further with notions of a progressive narrative of history, and had a preoccupation with the supposed 'pagan roots of Western civilization'. Western occultism experienced a revival in the 19th century and contributed to this milieu, adopting Modernist ideas and syncretising Near Eastern and Oriental beliefs and practices.
This does not necessarily include religions that originated prior to the 19th century that nevertheless display a syncretism of indigenous traditions and Christianity, such as North American religions derived from West African indigenous religions. These are generally seen as standing on their own, with their own rich histories and identities. I would be hesitant to wholesale define Voodoo and Santeria as Pagan, for example, because they have their own history separate from the Pagan movement, and come from a different cultural and intellectual context than Contemporary Paganism.
Paganism can broadly be categorised into two primary ends on a spectrum: Neopaganism and Reconstructionism. It should be clarified that these are not hard-set boxes, but are more like ends on a sliding scale. Rarely does a person or group fit solely in one end or the other.
Neopaganism tends to be more eclectic and syncretistic, framed less on historical precedent and more on modern synthesis, adaptation, and personal experience. Neopaganism is very strongly influenced by its Modernist roots, including more of the occult and relying on some outdated but still rather enthralling scholarship. The Neopagan end of the spectrum includes some of the more popular Pagan religions such as Wicca and other forms of modern religious Witchcraft, as well as Neodruidism. Certain forms of nationalistic mysticism and ceremonial magic also fall into this end, though some are very much their own thing separate from the Pagan movement. Neopaganism also tends to adopt more modern political and philosophical ideas, such as Environmentalism or Postmodernism or Anarchism, and Neopagans often integrate these ideas directly into the heart of their practices and beliefs.
Reconstructionism, by contrast, places great emphasis on historical precedent and typically seeks to revive the pre-Abrahamic religious and spiritual traditions, beliefs, and practices of a particular culture. Typically, these are European and Near Eastern cultures, as their indigenous customs were partially suppressed and homogenized under the dominance of dogmatic religious faiths such as Christianity and Islam. While reconstructionism has antecedents all throughout the history of Modern Paganism, the current trend f polytheistic reconstruction largely originates from an internal controversy within the Pagan community that developed between the 1960s and 1990s. An increasingly copious body of literature accumulated from the academic study of ancient religion and mythology, and from archaeological discoveries. It became increasingly clear that the Pagan movement was not quite authentic to historical tradition--though not necessarily through any deliberate fault of its own--and a significant number of people sought a closer connection to historical precedent. At the same time, various movements arose in European and Near Eastern countries, seeking a revival of the indigenous, ethnic religions of their pre-Christian past. These two trends have seen an explosion in Reconstructionist religions, and in persons identifying with reconstructionism, since the 1990s.
But, as I said, these are broad categories. Most folks are scattered across the middle. They revive and reconstruct while having new and modern methods, tools, and lifestyles. Or they might do modern magic with ancient ritual elements. Theology is likewise very diverse; while it is often assumed that Pagans are polytheistic, this is not necessarily the case. I would opine that polytheism is probably a very high majority opinion among Pagans, but it is far from the only view. There are monotheists, there are atheists, and within polytheism itself there are an array of very different beliefs about what the gods are, how they operate, and how many there may or may not be. How centred one's religion and spirituality is around one's environment and habitat is also a matter of great variety. Paganism isn't strictly "Earth-centred", though that is one of the more common uses of the term in popular literature.
And I will clarify one more point: I used "big-P" Paganism to contrast the modern movement from "small-p" paganism. But what is this "small-p" stuff? With this term, I refer to the classical conception of "paganism" as a catch-all term for any non-Abrahamic religions, especially polytheistic ones, as an academic or sociological term. It has fallen out of formal use, being abandoned for more precise terms such as "indigenous religion", "ethnic religion", and so on. But it does continue on in popular use, and it does lay at the root of why the Pagan movement picked its name and identifies as such. The revival in pre-Christian religio-spiritual traditions is tied to a reaction against Christianity in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the term "pagan" existed in a ready-use state to describe anything that wasn't Judeo-Christian or Islamic--and to an extent, anything not Buddhist, Sikh, or Hindu either. It was "reclaimed" by early Pagan revivalists, and the use has continued ever since.
First, let's get down what frame of reference we're working from: Contemporary or Modern Paganism, which I sometimes refer to as "big-P Paganism" as opposed to the historically-difficult and academically-discarded "small-p paganism". Paganism in this modern sense is a cluster of new religious movements consciously influenced by pre-Christian beliefs and practices. The term is defined differently by many people, and is used differently as well, but I feel that this is the most direct and inclusive definition.
It is best described as a movement, rather than as a unified religion or spirituality, because it contains within itself a great diversity in beliefs, practices, and identities. Contemporary Paganism has a shared history through its roots and development. It has roots in traditional folklore and folk custom, modern academic study of ancient religion, and in the Western Occult tradition, and has its direct origins in the Romantic and Modernist intellectual paradigms of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Romantics had a fascination with folk customs, and it was commonly viewed that such customs had pre-Christian origins. This continued into Modernist movement of the late 19th century, which developed Romantic ideas further with notions of a progressive narrative of history, and had a preoccupation with the supposed 'pagan roots of Western civilization'. Western occultism experienced a revival in the 19th century and contributed to this milieu, adopting Modernist ideas and syncretising Near Eastern and Oriental beliefs and practices.
This does not necessarily include religions that originated prior to the 19th century that nevertheless display a syncretism of indigenous traditions and Christianity, such as North American religions derived from West African indigenous religions. These are generally seen as standing on their own, with their own rich histories and identities. I would be hesitant to wholesale define Voodoo and Santeria as Pagan, for example, because they have their own history separate from the Pagan movement, and come from a different cultural and intellectual context than Contemporary Paganism.
Paganism can broadly be categorised into two primary ends on a spectrum: Neopaganism and Reconstructionism. It should be clarified that these are not hard-set boxes, but are more like ends on a sliding scale. Rarely does a person or group fit solely in one end or the other.
Neopaganism tends to be more eclectic and syncretistic, framed less on historical precedent and more on modern synthesis, adaptation, and personal experience. Neopaganism is very strongly influenced by its Modernist roots, including more of the occult and relying on some outdated but still rather enthralling scholarship. The Neopagan end of the spectrum includes some of the more popular Pagan religions such as Wicca and other forms of modern religious Witchcraft, as well as Neodruidism. Certain forms of nationalistic mysticism and ceremonial magic also fall into this end, though some are very much their own thing separate from the Pagan movement. Neopaganism also tends to adopt more modern political and philosophical ideas, such as Environmentalism or Postmodernism or Anarchism, and Neopagans often integrate these ideas directly into the heart of their practices and beliefs.
Reconstructionism, by contrast, places great emphasis on historical precedent and typically seeks to revive the pre-Abrahamic religious and spiritual traditions, beliefs, and practices of a particular culture. Typically, these are European and Near Eastern cultures, as their indigenous customs were partially suppressed and homogenized under the dominance of dogmatic religious faiths such as Christianity and Islam. While reconstructionism has antecedents all throughout the history of Modern Paganism, the current trend f polytheistic reconstruction largely originates from an internal controversy within the Pagan community that developed between the 1960s and 1990s. An increasingly copious body of literature accumulated from the academic study of ancient religion and mythology, and from archaeological discoveries. It became increasingly clear that the Pagan movement was not quite authentic to historical tradition--though not necessarily through any deliberate fault of its own--and a significant number of people sought a closer connection to historical precedent. At the same time, various movements arose in European and Near Eastern countries, seeking a revival of the indigenous, ethnic religions of their pre-Christian past. These two trends have seen an explosion in Reconstructionist religions, and in persons identifying with reconstructionism, since the 1990s.
But, as I said, these are broad categories. Most folks are scattered across the middle. They revive and reconstruct while having new and modern methods, tools, and lifestyles. Or they might do modern magic with ancient ritual elements. Theology is likewise very diverse; while it is often assumed that Pagans are polytheistic, this is not necessarily the case. I would opine that polytheism is probably a very high majority opinion among Pagans, but it is far from the only view. There are monotheists, there are atheists, and within polytheism itself there are an array of very different beliefs about what the gods are, how they operate, and how many there may or may not be. How centred one's religion and spirituality is around one's environment and habitat is also a matter of great variety. Paganism isn't strictly "Earth-centred", though that is one of the more common uses of the term in popular literature.
And I will clarify one more point: I used "big-P" Paganism to contrast the modern movement from "small-p" paganism. But what is this "small-p" stuff? With this term, I refer to the classical conception of "paganism" as a catch-all term for any non-Abrahamic religions, especially polytheistic ones, as an academic or sociological term. It has fallen out of formal use, being abandoned for more precise terms such as "indigenous religion", "ethnic religion", and so on. But it does continue on in popular use, and it does lay at the root of why the Pagan movement picked its name and identifies as such. The revival in pre-Christian religio-spiritual traditions is tied to a reaction against Christianity in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the term "pagan" existed in a ready-use state to describe anything that wasn't Judeo-Christian or Islamic--and to an extent, anything not Buddhist, Sikh, or Hindu either. It was "reclaimed" by early Pagan revivalists, and the use has continued ever since.
Introduction
Salvete, omnes.
This will be my introductory statement for this blog, rather than anything topical. My name is Alexander, and I am a Roman syncretic reconstructionist. I am a member of the Roman revivalist group Roman Republic, where my adopted Latin name is Publius Julius Albinus Alexander.
This blog will be primarily a place for my musings on Contemporary Paganism, and my practice of reconstructionist methodologies as applied to Graeco-Roman religion. Throughout, I will delve into various topics, defining terms, discussing salient issues in modern Paganism, and sharing religious and ritual methods, ideas, and examples.
As for my personal history in Religio Romana, I must admit that it is a fairly recent transition for me. I have identified as Pagan and practised some form of modern, revivalist Paganism since 2006. I have been practising my cult to the Roman gods for around three years now, and have identified my religion as primarily Roman for about a year and a half. My beliefs and practices have changed significantly over the course of that time. And while I have experience practising, and I have discussed Paganism a great deal on a few forums and websites, blogging about it like so is a new frontier.
In doing so, I am taking some inspiration from other Greek and Roman recon blogs, but especially from Baring the Aegis, the blog of noted Hellenic Reconstructionist and traditionalist Elani Temperance. To anyone who winds up reading my blog, I strongly recommend hers. It's good reading.
After this post, I'll start with some basic working definitions.
This will be my introductory statement for this blog, rather than anything topical. My name is Alexander, and I am a Roman syncretic reconstructionist. I am a member of the Roman revivalist group Roman Republic, where my adopted Latin name is Publius Julius Albinus Alexander.
This blog will be primarily a place for my musings on Contemporary Paganism, and my practice of reconstructionist methodologies as applied to Graeco-Roman religion. Throughout, I will delve into various topics, defining terms, discussing salient issues in modern Paganism, and sharing religious and ritual methods, ideas, and examples.
As for my personal history in Religio Romana, I must admit that it is a fairly recent transition for me. I have identified as Pagan and practised some form of modern, revivalist Paganism since 2006. I have been practising my cult to the Roman gods for around three years now, and have identified my religion as primarily Roman for about a year and a half. My beliefs and practices have changed significantly over the course of that time. And while I have experience practising, and I have discussed Paganism a great deal on a few forums and websites, blogging about it like so is a new frontier.
In doing so, I am taking some inspiration from other Greek and Roman recon blogs, but especially from Baring the Aegis, the blog of noted Hellenic Reconstructionist and traditionalist Elani Temperance. To anyone who winds up reading my blog, I strongly recommend hers. It's good reading.
After this post, I'll start with some basic working definitions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)