6.24.2008
(Pagan) News of Note
My semi-regular round-up of articles, essays, and opinions of note for discerning Pagans and Heathens.
The California Literary Review has published an excerpt from “The Last Pagan: Julian the Apostate and the Death of the Ancient World” by Adrian Murdoch. A sensitive and nuanced portrayal of the man who almost stemmed the tide of Christianity.
"It is unfair that Julian is still known to us primarily for attributed and spurious dying words. That tradition has the wounded and dying emperor filling his hand with blood, flinging it into the air and crying: “Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!” But then the history, as ever, was written by the winning side. Whether the Galilean actually won or not, it is perfectly possible to go beyond an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations and look not just at Julian’s death but, beyond that, to his life, to see how he was a product of his time. It was a narrow—one might even say lucky—victory for the Galilean, and Julian might just as easily have entered the history books as Julian the Philosopher rather than as Julian the Apostate."
I can only imagine that Julian would take great pleasure in the modern resurgence of Pagan/polytheistic religions (you could argue that he prefigured the modern Pagan faiths by generations), and would no doubt keep a blog in which to publish his criticisms of "the Galileans".
Stefani "Spiral" Barner examines the high-choice ethic of modern Paganism that allows both for a pro-military warrior culture, and pacifistic conscientious objectors.
"...the Pagan community is in a unique position. It is possible to support both the service person and the CO—to honor the sacrifices that either choice demands and to embrace the paradox that comes with loving both. Let us demonstrate to the world that it is possible to be both anti-war and pro-soldier. Let us struggle together for peace, even as we recognize and support those who are sent to war. Let us cherish the wisdom that comes from speaking truth to power, as well as the insight that is gained through willingly enduring fear and pain, sacrifice and strife. Let us hear and share the truths of both soldier and CO."
Barner also references recent court decisions that seem to support granting conscientious objector status within philosophically diverse religious communities. Allowing for CO status in religions that aren't explicitly pacifist. A situation that seems confusing for top-down organizations like the military or some Christian denominations, but one that is completely normal for the average Pagan used to dozens (if not hundreds) of unique (and valid) relationships with the divine.
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has released lots of new data in its groundbreaking U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Including the political inclinations of Pagans (and the other "others").
You can read my previous examination of the Pew survey data, and what it means to modern Pagans, here. Also of interest might be my examination of the recently released Henry Institute survey.
ReligiousLiberty.TV points to two YouTube videos that examines Christian proselytism in India from the Hindu perspective.
"The video also proposed a “Code of Ethics” for religious conversion which includes language that it should be the result of true spiritual change, not manipulation or coercion. This is likely to increasingly become a larger issue in a global economy and information society. As this issue grows, churches will need re-evaluate their methods of spreading the gospel and seriously consider how they are being perceived in order to avoid sweeping attempts to ban all forms of proselytism."
A idea of a mutually-agreed upon code of conduct for religious conversions has been floating around for years now, and is supposed to come to fruition soon. It remains to be seen if such a document would be "toothless", as many groups see conversion as their highest priority, and have no qualms of moving in ethically questionable directions.
In a final note, scientists may have discovered when legendary king and hero Odysseus returned to Ithaca after the Trojan War.
"They say the epic poem appears to confirm that the return of Odysseus to the island of Ithaca coincided with a solar eclipse on April 16, 1178BC. In the Odyssey, the moment when Odysseus kills the suitors who have been courting Penelope, his wife, during his absence after the Trojan War, is marked by the Sun being “blotted from the sky”. "
Of course this calculation rests on Homer being accurate centuries after the fact, and not taking too much poetic license. So take this date with a grain of salt.
That is all I have for now, have a great day!
Labels: conversions, Homer, Julian, Military, Pagan News of Note, Paganism, Pew Forum, U.S. Religious Landscape Survey
Comments:
I can only imagine that Julian would take great pleasure in the modern resurgence of Pagan/polytheistic religions (you could argue that he prefigured the modern Pagan faiths by generations), and would no doubt keep a blog in which to publish his criticisms of "the Galileans".
But would he refer to them as "teh Galileans"? :)
As much as I love and admire Julian - he has been a great inspiration for much that I've done over the years - I just don't think there was any real chance that he was going to stem the tide. He was out of synch with the spiritual realities of the era. His hierarchical Neoplatonic pagan church was a beautiful thing, but it was too artificial, too philosophical to touch the minds and souls of the average person. He lacked the support of many of the prominent pagans of the time, and he came across as too priggish, puritanical, and fanatic to win over the cultured sensualists of the urban centers like Antioch. They had nominally embraced Christianity, but their true love was the circus, theaters, and art of the Classical world. They didn't want to hear about discipline and self-denial - messages Julian frequently preached - they wanted to enjoy life. And the Bishops were willing to turn a blind eye to that. So when Julian claimed Greek culture as the unique preserve of polytheists, he alienated them big time. He also failed to convince the rustic peasants in the rural districts - the true pagani - because his version of the faith was too philosophical, too concerned with theurgic principles and abstract ideals. And fundamentally, it lacked the structure and numbers. The old sites had lain in ruin for so long that it took antiquarians to even find them, and many of the rituals had been completely forgotten by then. It is telling that even the military - which had supported Julian from the beginning, raising him to the throne - chose as his successor not one of the members of Julian's elite circle, but a Christian to lead them back from Persia. Perhaps with time this all could have changed and Julian's vision might have won the day. But as it stood, there was really no chance of him stemming the tide.
Of course, that doesn't stop us from admiring his efforts and his story from being deeply inspiring. It's exciting to see that people still write books about him, and we are living in a time period where religious pluralism is on the rise, and Christianity's strangle-hold on our culture is waning. Some people talk about Christianity being swept away in the near future - but that will never happen. It is here to stay because it speaks to a psychological need present in many. What we should work for is a free-market on religion, where all faiths are tolerated equally and permitted to exist and compete side by side, separate from politics and government control/influence.
Although it is often repeated, it is nevertheless untrue that Julian was "out of synch with the spiritual realities of the era," as Sannion claims in his comment.
Julian was not some professorial philosophy geek - he was a highly successful military commander who became Emperor when the legionnaires under his command lifted him on their shoulders and proclaimed him Augustus. And his Paganism emphasized the traditional public cults and rites just as much as, if not more than, Iamblichean Theurgy and the various Mystery traditions.
Also, Julian's "asceticism" was very much in line with traditional Roman virtues - as anyone familiar with Livy's writings is well aware.
The power of Julian's Paganism to resonate deeply and widely is made clear by the fact that it is precisely this variety of Paganism that has had the greatest staying power over the centuries.
I'd recommend that Cornelius actually go back and read the primary sources on the life of Julian. Several prominent Pagans from the time - senators, philosophers, historians - disagreed with him profusely, and even mocked the eccentric excesses of his Platonic church. Yes, Julian initially had the support of the army - but he severely alienated a large section of the populace, for instance the cultured elite of Antioch, who found him too boorish, austere, and uncompromising (and mind that the Antiocheans at that point were all Christian) - and it's telling that in the end, the army chose not to raise a fellow-pagan to the purple, but instead picked the Christian Jovian.
We should not let our love and admiration for Julian blind us to the historical reality.
Conrelius, if you would like, I can recommend some decent primary sources on the life of Julian. You seem in desperate need of them.
Rowland Smith's "Julian's Gods: Religion and philosophy in the thought and action of Julian the Apostate" does an excellent job of putting to rest the noxious meme that Julian's Paganism was an aberration.
Julian did not worship different Gods from other Pagans, nor did he practice different rites, or hold unusual beliefs. And as I already mentioned his "spartan" (if you will) tendencies were perfectly in line with old-school traditional Roman virtues.
I see that you are unwilling to address any of the points that I made - for instance his reception by the Antiocheans, the fact that the army chose a Christian successor, or how contemporary pagan authors felt about him - and when I ask if you have read any of the primary sources on his life, you cite a secondary text. Clearly there is no point in continuing this discussion. So, good day to you sir.
There are no mysteries concerning the primary sources. These are all well known - and different people come to a wide variety of opinions all based on the same sources. But some of these opinions are more well supported than others.
And some opinions, in particular, are well known Christianizing tropes obviously intended to undermine the historic role of Julian as a defender of Paganism.
Post a Comment
I can only imagine that Julian would take great pleasure in the modern resurgence of Pagan/polytheistic religions (you could argue that he prefigured the modern Pagan faiths by generations), and would no doubt keep a blog in which to publish his criticisms of "the Galileans".
But would he refer to them as "teh Galileans"? :)
As much as I love and admire Julian - he has been a great inspiration for much that I've done over the years - I just don't think there was any real chance that he was going to stem the tide. He was out of synch with the spiritual realities of the era. His hierarchical Neoplatonic pagan church was a beautiful thing, but it was too artificial, too philosophical to touch the minds and souls of the average person. He lacked the support of many of the prominent pagans of the time, and he came across as too priggish, puritanical, and fanatic to win over the cultured sensualists of the urban centers like Antioch. They had nominally embraced Christianity, but their true love was the circus, theaters, and art of the Classical world. They didn't want to hear about discipline and self-denial - messages Julian frequently preached - they wanted to enjoy life. And the Bishops were willing to turn a blind eye to that. So when Julian claimed Greek culture as the unique preserve of polytheists, he alienated them big time. He also failed to convince the rustic peasants in the rural districts - the true pagani - because his version of the faith was too philosophical, too concerned with theurgic principles and abstract ideals. And fundamentally, it lacked the structure and numbers. The old sites had lain in ruin for so long that it took antiquarians to even find them, and many of the rituals had been completely forgotten by then. It is telling that even the military - which had supported Julian from the beginning, raising him to the throne - chose as his successor not one of the members of Julian's elite circle, but a Christian to lead them back from Persia. Perhaps with time this all could have changed and Julian's vision might have won the day. But as it stood, there was really no chance of him stemming the tide.
Of course, that doesn't stop us from admiring his efforts and his story from being deeply inspiring. It's exciting to see that people still write books about him, and we are living in a time period where religious pluralism is on the rise, and Christianity's strangle-hold on our culture is waning. Some people talk about Christianity being swept away in the near future - but that will never happen. It is here to stay because it speaks to a psychological need present in many. What we should work for is a free-market on religion, where all faiths are tolerated equally and permitted to exist and compete side by side, separate from politics and government control/influence.
Although it is often repeated, it is nevertheless untrue that Julian was "out of synch with the spiritual realities of the era," as Sannion claims in his comment.
Julian was not some professorial philosophy geek - he was a highly successful military commander who became Emperor when the legionnaires under his command lifted him on their shoulders and proclaimed him Augustus. And his Paganism emphasized the traditional public cults and rites just as much as, if not more than, Iamblichean Theurgy and the various Mystery traditions.
Also, Julian's "asceticism" was very much in line with traditional Roman virtues - as anyone familiar with Livy's writings is well aware.
The power of Julian's Paganism to resonate deeply and widely is made clear by the fact that it is precisely this variety of Paganism that has had the greatest staying power over the centuries.
I'd recommend that Cornelius actually go back and read the primary sources on the life of Julian. Several prominent Pagans from the time - senators, philosophers, historians - disagreed with him profusely, and even mocked the eccentric excesses of his Platonic church. Yes, Julian initially had the support of the army - but he severely alienated a large section of the populace, for instance the cultured elite of Antioch, who found him too boorish, austere, and uncompromising (and mind that the Antiocheans at that point were all Christian) - and it's telling that in the end, the army chose not to raise a fellow-pagan to the purple, but instead picked the Christian Jovian.
We should not let our love and admiration for Julian blind us to the historical reality.
Conrelius, if you would like, I can recommend some decent primary sources on the life of Julian. You seem in desperate need of them.
Rowland Smith's "Julian's Gods: Religion and philosophy in the thought and action of Julian the Apostate" does an excellent job of putting to rest the noxious meme that Julian's Paganism was an aberration.
Julian did not worship different Gods from other Pagans, nor did he practice different rites, or hold unusual beliefs. And as I already mentioned his "spartan" (if you will) tendencies were perfectly in line with old-school traditional Roman virtues.
I see that you are unwilling to address any of the points that I made - for instance his reception by the Antiocheans, the fact that the army chose a Christian successor, or how contemporary pagan authors felt about him - and when I ask if you have read any of the primary sources on his life, you cite a secondary text. Clearly there is no point in continuing this discussion. So, good day to you sir.
There are no mysteries concerning the primary sources. These are all well known - and different people come to a wide variety of opinions all based on the same sources. But some of these opinions are more well supported than others.
And some opinions, in particular, are well known Christianizing tropes obviously intended to undermine the historic role of Julian as a defender of Paganism.
Links to this post:
