Greek Religion: Discussion Questions. Just for Fun

Last year my professor had us keep a discussion board and at the end of the semester we were to gather our 10 best contributions and submit them to him. What follows was my submission.

* * *

We established last week that the gods have what we called "limited omniscience." That is, they are not aware of everything that is going on around them, but when they set their mind to one thing, they become masters of that particular area. It is possible to distract the gods, as Hera did to Zeus when she seduced him in the Iliad; but obviously she did not try to overthrow him by strength.

In today's reading we see that Dionysus was born first of a mortal woman, Semele, then of her father, Zeus. Hera, ever the jealous wife, attempted to kill Dionysus. The only defense given to Dionysus in the book is that of his aunt, Ino: a human. She disguises him as a girl, and hides him from the immortal Hera until at last he is strong enough to return to Olympus. Perhaps it is a minor point which was conveniently skimmed over by the Greeks, I'm not sure;but I want to know: why did Hera fail to kill Dionysus? How is it that a goddess focuses her power on a child, protected by humans, and doesn't succeed?

-------------------

Were I to visit a sacred place as an Ancient Greek, I believe my feelings would not be remarkably different than if I did the same thing today. Grand buildings and places of worship tend to instill a certain reverence in people, or at least in myself, and I imagine this was the same for the Greeks. Strongest of all I would feel awe for the amazing architecture and the sense of power behind it all: the presence of the gods. The photographs from Blackboard show a golden statue of Athena and colorful wall-engravings, giving the place a feel similar to that of a museum: timeless, and unbelievably valuable.

I find it interesting too in Warrior that the central point of a sanctuary was not the temple: in fact many sanctuaries were entirely temple-bereft. "The focal point of the sanctuary," writes Warrior, "was the alter where sacrificial offerings were made" (95). I would certainly take as much interest in the altar as I would in the temple, as it is a place not only of the gods but of holy rituals. The temple is ever the same, but the altar has seen countless sacrifices, to the point where some altars are made up entirely from the ash of their victims (Warrior 58). For this reason I view the altar as especially sacred in that it is not only important to the gods, but is in some cases made up of their own holy sacrifices.

-------------------------

My understanding of the reading is that there was no such thing as a "Sunday morning" Greek. Prayer and ritual were more than merely attending church once a week, and honestly I don't know how often a Greek would use a special word like "ritual," seeing as it was so common an aspect of their lives. Bruit and Schmitt write that "Everyday private life... was rhythmically regulated by all kinds of rituals" (27). Obviously these ritualswere not to be overlooked, but neither was there a grand ceremony over every little acknowledgement of the gods.

As for"what is prayer?"Bruit and Schmitt state, "every meal or banquet was initiated by a libation and a prayer addressed to the gods" (43). In Warrior, Plato tells us to "commune with the gods continually" (55). Never mentioned in the text though is any sort of prayer for thanksgiving. Prayer is used daily as a way not to thank the gods, but to ask for things. Warrior says the Greeks have a "contractual relationship" with the gods (56). Prayer is used to make petitions, and the gods are paid back through sacrifice (Warrior 55, 56). It would be ridiculous to expect the gods to help you without promising anything in return, and you would certainly never wear a T-shirt saying "Zeus is my homeboy."

-----------------------

In the Iliad, Apollo punishes the Greeks for their refusal to give up the captive Chryses. It's not until the Greeks consult Apollo's oracle that they discover the reason for this plague. I find this interesting because Apollo did not command them to release Chryses, he did not send omens to the Greek army, he merely saw what they had done, and proceeded accordingly. Note that Apollo makes no attempt to free his priestess or even to inform the Greeks of their sin: he sees a problem and, instead of solving it, punishes it. He shows an impersonal relationship to humanity, which goes back to the idea of do et des. If we give to the gods that they may give to us, it stands to reason that when we take from the gods, they take also from us. Apollo doesn't look to fix the problem, or to save his priestess, until he is specifically called upon. His concern is only justice for the dishonor that was done to him.

Second, abrief and unrelated point. Xenophon writes that "both Greeks and barbarians believe that the gods know everything, the present and the future." Well Icall shenanigans. There are countless examples of the gods competing, arguing, wondering, wishing, attempting, etc etc etc. It has been suggested that they are themselves subject to fate. Even in the realm of human affairs they are not omniscient, as shown in the Iliad whenZeus is distracted from the war, or whenthe gods enter the battle: not only do these gods fight against human heros, but they are not always victorious. Wecan assume toofromthe Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite that shedid not foresee the outcomes of what she did.Obviously the gods know more than men, butI see no evidence thatthey know "everything, the present and the future."

--------------------

I thought of this in class when we were discussing the manipulation of signs. It's not Greek but I thought it would be a fun example to see that the Romans, and later the Elizabethans, still thought this way.

This is an excerpt from Act 2 Scene 2 of "Julius Caesar." Just before Caesar's assassination, he confides in one ofhis "friends" (a conspirator)and says he will stay in his home today. This would foil the conspiracy, and the will-be-killer, trying to convince Caesar to change his mind, asks for the cause of this decision.

CAESAR:
The cause is in my will: I will not come;
That is enough to satisfy the senate.
But for your private satisfaction,
Because I love you, I will let you know:
Calpurnia here, my wife, stays me at home:
She dreamt to-night she saw my statue,
Which, like a fountain with an hundred spouts,
Did run pure blood: and many lusty Romans
Came smiling, and did bathe their hands in it:
And these does she apply for warnings, and portents,
And evils imminent; and on her knee
Hath begg'd that I will stay at home to-day.

DECIUS BRUTUS:
This dream is all amiss interpreted;
It was a vision fair and fortunate:
Your statue spouting blood in many pipes,
In which so many smiling Romans bathed,
Signifies that from you great Rome shall suck
Reviving blood, and that great men shall press
For tinctures, stains, relics and cognizance.
This by Calpurnia's dream is signified.

Caesar believes this twistedinterpretation, goes to court, and is killed.

-----------------------

Asclepius the healer, son to Apollo and a mortal woman, lived a human life and died when he was smitten by Zeus for his interference in the realm of death. Yet in spite of his mortal life, he is revered as a god rather than a hero. His sanctuary at Epedaurus is panhellenic, and other villages founded cults for him when he - in the form of a snake - would choose a spot forthem to build his new temple.

I dofind it likely that Dionysus' status as a god is questioned due to his mortal birth, but we remember that Asclepius, who experienced the same type of birth, is also universally considered a to be god. So I agree with yourassertion that Dionysus was never truly rejected by the Greeks, for they accepted Asclepius readily. Hence they do not shun a deity based solely off his or her origin.

----------------------

This is a branch-off from Kara's question, which was about Antigone. What I found most interesting about this storywas not the role of the gods (or lack of one) but the fact that Antigone is a woman, and she defies the king. While this was notthe original question, I want to know why women are so privileged in the realm of death. It is women who wash a corpse and lead the procession to the graveyard. The Fates and the Furies are female. Antigone, a woman, takes it upon herself to defy the king when it comes to questions of burial.

It seems to me that while Greek men did not think much of their womenfolk, the Greek gods had another idea.Over the past weeks we have seena females-onlyfestival to Demeter, and an exclusiveside to the Anthesteria which involved the queen and her female venerable ones. Also Athena is the manliest deity since Zeus, and Hera -though certainly female -is a powerful goddess and not one you want to piss off. I assume Greek men were unhappy about all ofthese things, but who can argue with the gods?

------------------------

Havingthe strong Christian background of a modern-daywhite American I'd say the people in mystery cults merely realized that our way is "better." But seriously, isn't there something in a person that wants to be known, to be paid attention? This is what mystery cults offer through a personal relationship with the gods. It elevates your importance and feelings of worth.

I find Orphism especially interesting because of the tale about Dionysus' death. The Titans consumed Dionysus just as the Orphics consume him during initiation, but then abstain from wine presumably for the rest of their lives. This is similar to the Christian idea of "conversion" through repentance: the acknowledgement of a polluted past but the hope for a pure future. Of course Orphism also teaches a form of reincarnation which is quite different from mainstream religion both in America as well as Ancient Greece. I wonder, in comparing Orphism to Christianity and also to the common Greek religion, what other similarities and what differences might we find?

Sadly, of course, Orphism was a mystery cult, so there are probably fewer texts on it than might be desired.

--------------

Our online reading by Versnel says one of the differences between magic and religion is action: "Magic is characterized by the attention paid to the technical side of manipulation, precision of formula and modus operandi."

I'm going to go ahead and call shenanigans.

While magic may have more complicated rituals, I do not believe they are any more specific. What if the Chorus in Oedipus had stopped in the middle of their dance? What if the women at a sacrifice did not give the ritual cry? What if you did not purify yourself when leaving the house of a dead man? Religion has a very "technical side" and much "precision of formula"; ignoring the rituals can be just as harmful in religion as in magic, if not more so, because it offends the gods.

Versnel goes on to say that in religion, as opposed to magic, "results are never dependant upon a professional specialist." Have we forgotten the Oracle at Delphi? If the priests screw up your order, you'll walk away believing words that did not come from Apollo. So while prayers may indeed be said in the home, and libations poured out before meals, there are also times when your answer from the gods is dependant upon the precision of a religious official.

To briefly defend Versnel in regards to the oracle I've mentioned, we remember that the Pythia herself is never wrong. But it is quite possible that her priests will misinterpret her message and you, the religious devotee, will be given a false answer because of another's mistake.

So I have to conclude thatVersnel's bit about "action" is no good, or at least needs an extra few sentences to clarify things.

-------------------

I agree with you that appearing on stage is not proof of being taken seriously, but it is proof of being well-known. "There is no such thing as bad publicity," the saying goes; if philosophers are being represented on the stage, even in humorous ways, it is because their ideas arewide-spread and their depiction will appeal to audience members.

However, as Professor Tueller pointed out, philosophers were also thought to be atheists, which was not true. The fact that they were famous, and were the butt of jokes, does not mean they were understood. Perhaps hereNorman can help us out with some ridiculous rumors about Jews who, as I understand it, were in the habit of eating babies at certain points in history. Fact is, just because someone is famous does not mean we know about them; what was it, like 25% of polled Americans who said Obama is a Muslim?

What I personally find interesting about the philosophers is Plato, who says that children should not be taught about the gods even if the stories are true. I wonder,would philosophers want to hide the truth only from impressionable youngsters, or was the goal to destroy that belief system entirely?