• In total there are 30 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 29 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Thomas Cahill on the Greeks

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Thomas Cahill on the Greeks

Unread post

I've been reading Thomas Cahill’s Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter and was really blown away by the passage below. We have discussed here on BookTalk many times the value of myth and religion, and have also wondered if the Greeks and Romans believed their gods literally or metaphorically. Cahill here does a beautiful job here in conceiving how the Greeks may have believed and to some extent the continued role of modern day religious belief. There are shades of Robert Wright here in the way Cahill discusses how religious belief follows historical events “on the ground.”

I thought this would be particularly interesting to a few here, especially DWill, Robert Tulip, and perhaps Camacho and a few others. I heartily recommend this book to anyone interested in Greek civilization. It's a rather approachable 300-page book, part of his series called the Hinges of History.

From Thomas Cahill’s Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter
What did they believe, these Greeks? Were the gods real to them or just metaphors? Certainly, they did not have creeds or dogmas, confessional or doctrinal positions such as we have come to expect from religions. And just as certainly, there was a graduated spectrum of interpretation, as there must be always be in things religious, that spanned classes and communities and that shifted in emphasis from one period to another. What is so striking about the Homeric gods—as opposed to the One that most of us are familiar with (though familiar is surely the wrong word)—is their lack of godliness. Oh sure, they have power beyond the dreams of the world’s most powerful king, but they exercise this power just the way he would—heavy-handedly, often mercilessly, even spitefully. And they are taken up with their own predictable domestic crises—who’s sleeping with whom, who’s getting back at whom, who’s belittling whom. Could anyone actually believe in such gods?

In the absence of something better, yes. It is hard for us—after so many centuries of monotheism (and more recent centuries of agnosticism and atheism)—to retroject ourselves into the Greek religious consciousness. The stories of the gods, which were multiform and seemingly limitless, came down to the Greeks from many streams of oral tradition, which they had no way of critiquing. They could not say, for instance, as we can, that the story with which this book began, of Demeter and her daughter, Persephone, was just a clever metaphor that gave a preliterate society an “explanation” for the changing seasons—in class with such things as “Why the Snake Has No Legs” or How the Giraffe Got Its Neck,” which we have long since banished to the nursery. But if we look seriously at the Demeter story, we may find ourselves even in the twenty-first century captivated by its poetry and depth of emotion—which may lead us to exclaim something like “Well, this doesn’t explain anything scientifically, but there is something very satisfying about it. It has the truth of a dream.”

Dreams, as we all know, can be very truthful, even if at the level of conscious critique they are full of mad illogic. Some such thoughts surely occurred to men like Socrates and Plato, who advised their followers to reconceive the myths as metaphors—not metaphors as naïve explanations of natural phenomena, but as attempts by society’s dreamers to find a language that can penetrate to the heart of reality. These philosophers understood that though the myths were naïve in the sense that they were anthropomorphic, presenting the gods as if they were men, the myths were also attempting—at a deeper level—to feel the intangible and say the unsayable.

The Greek gods changed as the Greeks themselves were changed by the events of their history. The rigid figures of the archaic kouroi have much in common with the gods of Homer, Hesiod, Solon, and even Aeschylus: these gods are human beings made gigantic, as full of needs as of power and requiring the stateliness of ritual—soothing actions performed in the same way over and over again—in order to be assuaged. Such actions always require loss for men and gain for the gods—libation, animal sacrifice, in great crises even human sacrifice—but there is also an exchange, an economy of the divine. For by our ritual, carried out with punctilious sincerity, we may avoid divine displeasure and find ourselves recipients of heavenly grace. When the house of Oedipus is plunged into confusion over what seem to be conflicting oracles, Jocasta emerges from the palace, carrying her suppliant’s branch, wound in wool, determined to perform the ritual of supplication that can avert the wrath of the god. She addresses the chorus, as she makes her way to Apollo’s shrine:

Lord of the realm, it occurred to me,
just now, to visit the temples of the gods,
so I have my branch in hand and incense too

Odeipus is beside himself. Racked with anguish,
No longer a man of sense, he won’t admit
the latest prophesies are hollow as the old—
he’s at the mercy of every passing voice
if the voice tells of terror.
I urge him gently, nothing seems to help,
so I turn to you, Apollo, you are nearest.


She places her branch on the altar of Apollo and continues her prayer:

I come with prayers and offerings . . .I beg you,
Cleanse us, set us free from defilement!
Look at us, passengers in the grip of fear,
watching the pilot of the vessel go to pieces.


Though Jocasta performs the prescribe rites, we know that these cannot avail because the defilement within the palace is too grave to be washed away by a few prayers and a well-placed olive branch. Lord Apollo, principle of justice and the terrifyingly unseen presence throughout the play—“nearest” in a way Jocasta has failed to reckon with—will not, in the end, be mocked. He will bring his justice to perfection, and this will entail the suicide of Jocasta, the blinding of Oedipus, and the permanent humiliation of the entire family. Jocasta cannot know all this at this point and therefore cannot be aware how insufficient are her paltry rites. At the center of Greek religion is the belief that, though we can at times successfully invoke the mercy of the gods on us and our causes, we must pay for our sins, whether they are conscious or not—and if the sins are big, we must pay big time. How different is this from common belief and practice even in our day, whatever the particular doctrines of a given religion may be? We can understand Greek religion because, at its heart, it operates on the same internal dynamic that fuels all (or certainly almost all) religion. The aboriginal Christian prayer Kyrie eleison (Lord, have mercy) is a Greek prayer far more ancient than Christianity.

But there is also an undercurrent in Jocasta’s speech that suggests a shift in religious perspective—not so much in the time of the tyrants as in the time of Sophocles, the play’s author. For there is something a tad slapdash about Jocasta’s approach to the gods. She doesn't believe in oracles, which she finds “hollow.” It has “just now” “occurred” to her “to visit the temples of the gods” and she chooses the temple of Apollo because it’s “nearest” to her palace. Does she believe or doesn’t she? She seems a skeptic in trouble beyond her usual coping mechanisms, the sort of person who in our day might slip into a church when her world is falling apart but would otherwise give scant thought to divinity.

In the period when Sophocles was writing Oedipus, Athens was reaching the acme of its arete, its moment of supreme artistic and political confidence. Its empire was booming: the Athenian colonies and sister cities from mainland Greece to Italy, from the Aegean coast of Asia to the coast of the Black sea, were creating greater general wealth through the growing exchanges of staples and exotica, and Athenian democracy and military power—which went hand in hand—were the envy of the world. Athenians held themselves, not the gods, responsible for this turn of events; and though they certainly continued to fulfill the rites and rituals of Greek religion, as does Jocasta, they relied on their own native strengths and smarts to keep their enterprise going. They had become an essentially secular people.
Last edited by geo on Mon May 14, 2012 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Thomas Cahill on the Greeks

Unread post

Great passage, geo. I picked up this book used quite a while ago and now really want to read it. Having done some reading about the Civil War recently, I was struck by the similarity between Jocasta's knowledge of the required retribution for sin and the way Lincoln, though not a religious man, came to frame the necessity for the U.S. to atone for the sin of slavery with incredible bloodshed. Providence, divine justice--whatever we might call it--required such a sacrifice in Lincoln's mind. I admit that I do wonder: if such ideas about a metaphysical imperative to do justice no longer exist, will leaders be able to do what Lincoln did? It seems impossible to me that anyone could follow such a course simply through strong personal values.
User avatar
President Camacho

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I Should Be Bronzed
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:44 pm
15
Location: Hampton, Ga
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: Thomas Cahill on the Greeks

Unread post

Greek religion can probably fill books.

It wasn't monotheistic, there were sacrificies, new gods were created, men could become gods or godlike, men could 'trace' their lineage to a god or hero, and men could even trade up when their lot improved - as Alexandros III did.

What was central was ancestor worship. You see that in mainland Greece, Ionia, and Rome. Each house had its own little shrine inside that was linked to the homeowner's ancestors and was prayed to. These would be evacuated with the family if need be - they wouldn't be left behind.

I think beyond that, the human qualities of the gods is most striking, as well as the acceptance and integration of new gods or re-worked origins/myths/theogony.

A lot of the gods were based on natural phenomena and gained popularity as they were needed. Your Demeter/Persephone that is mentioned in the excerpt... the Eleusian mysteries celebrated these gods in hopes of a good growing season. It was a very serious act of piety in which Athenians marched 14 miles in order to undergo very secret rites.

The Spartans relied heavily on 'their' oracle at Delphi as well as interpretations from those dudes that look at cattle intestines and livers - i forget what they're called.

I gotta get back to work. I'm interested in this topic.

I think education teaches people to be less superstitious and effective restraint keeps people from committing crimes. There's less need for god today - I think the heavens are only appealed to when people are in despair.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Thomas Cahill on the Greeks

Unread post

DWill wrote:Great passage, geo. I picked up this book used quite a while ago and now really want to read it. Having done some reading about the Civil War recently, I was struck by the similarity between Jocasta's knowledge of the required retribution for sin and the way Lincoln, though not a religious man, came to frame the necessity for the U.S. to atone for the sin of slavery with incredible bloodshed. Providence, divine justice--whatever we might call it--required such a sacrifice in Lincoln's mind. I admit that I do wonder: if such ideas about a metaphysical imperative to do justice no longer exist, will leaders be able to do what Lincoln did? It seems impossible to me that anyone could follow such a course simply through strong personal values.
We want to believe there's divine justice, but simple observation will show otherwise. Children get hit by cars. People are massacred or enslaved due to their skin color or some perceived flaw or "evil." Some people are just at the wrong place at the wrong time. I would think Lincoln would arrive at his decision using some metaphorical context which is is how we must have to view such complex gray moral terrains. There are times when language fails us.

I think you'll like Cahill's book. I'd be interested in hearing what you think about it. I'm thinking of getting the first in the series: How the Irish Saved the World.
Last edited by geo on Tue May 15, 2012 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Thomas Cahill on the Greeks

Unread post

President Camacho wrote:Greek religion can probably fill books.

It wasn't monotheistic, there were sacrificies, new gods were created, men could become gods or godlike, men could 'trace' their lineage to a god or hero, and men could even trade up when their lot improved - as Alexandros III did.

What was central was ancestor worship. You see that in mainland Greece, Ionia, and Rome. Each house had its own little shrine inside that was linked to the homeowner's ancestors and was prayed to. These would be evacuated with the family if need be - they wouldn't be left behind.

I think beyond that, the human qualities of the gods is most striking, as well as the acceptance and integration of new gods or re-worked origins/myths/theogony.

A lot of the gods were based on natural phenomena and gained popularity as they were needed. Your Demeter/Persephone that is mentioned in the excerpt... the Eleusian mysteries celebrated these gods in hopes of a good growing season. It was a very serious act of piety in which Athenians marched 14 miles in order to undergo very secret rites.

The Spartans relied heavily on 'their' oracle at Delphi as well as interpretations from those dudes that look at cattle intestines and livers - i forget what they're called.

I gotta get back to work. I'm interested in this topic.

I think education teaches people to be less superstitious and effective restraint keeps people from committing crimes. There's less need for god today - I think the heavens are only appealed to when people are in despair.
The last section of Cahill's book deals with religion following the Roman conquest of Greece when there was a fantastic blending of religions (what's that word that Wright used?) and when the mystery cults began to emerge, one of them becoming Christianity.

Here's how Cahill puts it: "We have reached the Meeting of the Waters, the point at which the two great rivers of our cultural patrimony—the Greco-Roman and the Judeo-Christian—flow into each other to become the mighty torrent of Western civilization."
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
President Camacho

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I Should Be Bronzed
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:44 pm
15
Location: Hampton, Ga
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: Thomas Cahill on the Greeks

Unread post

The Romans still had ancestor worship and personal family gods. I hope the word Wright used was rape - because that's what Rome did to Greek (mainly Athenian and Ionian) culture.

The PERSIAN religions, witch include Mithraism, Christianity, and Judaism, came later on when the empire was passed maturity and entering its decline and demise.

You'll see that at the same time Islam comes to take over Persia... a very warmongering religion. It wins converts through blood (although Christianity HAS done this, Islam did from the very start and promoted it).

Anyway... as history moves on it becomes Christianity V. Islam.... with Islam (Persia) coming to dominate much of the West... MUCH... They were eventually stopped in France in all places, I believe... France... I guess they're good for something after-all.
User avatar
President Camacho

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I Should Be Bronzed
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:44 pm
15
Location: Hampton, Ga
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: Thomas Cahill on the Greeks

Unread post

I'm slightly inebriated but I want to add that it was only because of top down ENFORCEMENT that christianity came to power (Constantine), as well as Islam (from the beginning). Both were ***extremely**************** marginal faiths and NON-VOLUNTARY religions. They were both FORCED on people.... and both by the sword and economic advancement.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Thomas Cahill on the Greeks

Unread post

Maybe the word Wright used for the blending of religions was snycretism? Wright also had a label for the view that religion is applied top-down by elites as a means to control the masses. He called it "Marxist," which doesn't appear to make a lot of sense, but there you are. The opposite view, the one he held, was "functionalist," meaning that people used religion in functional ways for reasons of their own. I tend to be more with that view than with Camacho's (though he's told us he was-- ahem--influenced). Although we might want to deny it, there was something intrinsically very powerful in Christianity and Islam that allowed them to sell themselves. I don't deny that these faiths also suited the needs of empire very well.
User avatar
President Camacho

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I Should Be Bronzed
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:44 pm
15
Location: Hampton, Ga
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: Thomas Cahill on the Greeks

Unread post

After Christ, Christianity went through extreme evolution and adaptation to fit the Roman Empire's needs. Originally Pagan and partial to their own religion, the new seat of government had to 'force' religion on its subjects with carrot and stick tactics. The oppressed rapidly became the oppressors but it wasn't the same religion. Government played an active role in influencing the religion itself. That the people could adapt and fit their religion to their needs was no difficult task - the virus of Christianity was well adapted and evolving each day.

The appeal can't be denied... it was meant to be appealing (with unattractive bits like communism dropped to fit the needs of the empire). Culture is king. Top down religions have failed to take root before. It's just amazing, though, that out of all the many established religions at the time - 2 come out on top: Christianity and Islam

Judaism is something special to consider in it all. The virility of it is as amazing as the virtual duopoly of Christ and Islam in the west and near east. This religion has been quite lucky considering how many times its people have been moved, persecuted, and killed.... seemingly non-stop.
User avatar
President Camacho

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I Should Be Bronzed
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:44 pm
15
Location: Hampton, Ga
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: Thomas Cahill on the Greeks

Unread post

"We have reached the Meeting of the Waters, the point at which the two great rivers of our cultural patrimony—the Greco-Roman and the Judeo-Christian—flow into each other to become the mighty torrent of Western civilization."

This isn't right. The sentence makes it seem like their was a mutual and voluntary blending when there really wasn't.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”