Hesiod “Theogony”
Now we come to Theogony, Hesiod’s account of the old gods and the coming of the Olympians. It’s rougher going than Works and Days. Some sections feature interminable lists as hard to keep straight as the Biblical begetting, while others draw out episodes with varying degrees of intrinsic interest. All the same, the Theogony is a good introductory overview of the Greek Old Gods, and there’s a primitive brutality to the stories that makes them compelling reading.
In the beginning, there was Chaos. The Babylonian Enûma Eliš embodies chaos in the goddess Tiamat, a badass beast who must be destroyed before civilization can commence; she is also winter, but what great poetic insight it is that chaos is winter! The Babylonians and Egyptians describe an amorphous fluidity. The Scriptures describe the chaos as formlessness and darkness, an abyss with God bringing light; the void is quickly glossed over. In most of the polytheistic mythologies, however, Chaos had time to dance drunk in the void, screw in the darkness, and spawn all sorts of wild monsters. This seems to me the more accurate account, told here in about 725 BCE.
Hesiod begins by evoking the Muses, those nine “fresh-voiced daughters” of Zeus and Mnemosyne who give men the gift of persuasive speech. By supernatural means, the Muses guide us as we create literature or lead kingdoms through our words. The uncanny ability of some men to cast a spell with their honeyed words is a recurrent theme in literature down to the present, likely because the demos is a recurrent governing structure. Hesiod describes leaders, poets, and singers in the same Mused group. Perhaps, we’re more skeptical now about great oral persuaders. We think of them as Don Juans, great seducers- as Hitler described political leaders- with the public as a virginal damsel in distress! To the founders of modern democracy the ideal orator was Cicero; our jaundiced ears turn to Cagliostro or the Dictator. Perhaps we need to revive the Muses, beautiful goddesses whose gifts are divinely-given.
The Muses call on Hesiod to describe the Old Gods, the primitive gods whose downfall made way for the current order that rules on Mount Olympus. He’s a bit of an anthropologist, here, detailing the earlier polytheistic panoply that, even compared to the rowdy roundtable discussions on Olympus, appears downright savage. There is something irrational and lurid to the early gods; they’re pure inchoate Id, like something out of the psychopathological imagination. This is not uncharacteristic of early creation myths.
In addition to a cosmogony, Hesiod is writing a theogony- a genealogy of the gods, establishing Zeus as their King. Zeus achieves near omnipotence here and there is a brief mention of a creator God. Nevertheless, Eric Voegelin reminds us, in characteristically difficult prose: “The theogonic speculation of a Hesiod was not the beginning of a new religious movement in opposition to the polytheistic culture of Hellas.” The shift to a single deity radically removed from mundane existence has not yet come to Greece; but the old immanent polytheism isn’t exactly cutting it either. This suggests the work was written in a time of social crisis.
So the family tree: in the beginning, there was Chaos; then appeared Earth (Gaia), Love, and the murky depths of the underworld (Tartarus) all by a sort of spontaneous generation. The gods and goddesses flooded the world with offspring: Chaos gave birth to Night and Erebos (more Underworld); Earth (Gaia) gave birth to Heaven (Ouranos); Night & Erebos gave birth to Day. Gaia then mated with her son Ouranos, producing the twelve Older Gods: the Titans, including Oceanus and Cronos. The incestuous union also produced three terrible monsters, Kottos, Gyges and Briareus. Ouranos took offense to these offspring and shut them up inside Gaia, causing her great discomfort. In response, she conspired with her Titan children to kill their father, convincing Cronos.
Early creation mythology often abounds with incest and the war of sons against fathers. Here, Cronos, often associated with the harvest, takes a jagged sickle to his father’s genitals, throwing them over his shoulder! Ouranos had a fairly impressive prick; the splattered drops of blood produce the Furies and Giants from the soil, while the severed schlong, bobbing Bobbit-like in the ocean, foams up Aphrodite. Dark Night, meanwhile, gives birth to Blame, Distress, the ruthless Fates, Work, Nemesis, Forgetfulness, Famine, Strife, Murders, Lawlessness and other abstracted horrors. It becomes difficult to keep the beasts in Hesiod’s menagerie straight in your mind. He writes too much! Hesiod is describing the “golden age” as something of a free-for-all; a wild, uncontrollable and terrifying jungle of gods and monsters.
Eventually, though, the gods fell in line under a powerful ruler. Cronos became something of a tyrant, After Cronos forces himself on the Titan Rhea, she gives birth to the first Olympians: Demeter, Hestia, Hades, Hera, Poseidon, and Zeus. Haunted by the thought that one of his children will overthrow him, Cronos swallows them, but Rhea has other plans. She hides Zeus and gives Cronos a stone to swallow, causing him to throw up the other children. Zeus and the Olympians will eventually defeat the Titans, driving them underground, and then he will dethrone Cronos and become the King of the Gods.
Hesiod is showing the civilizing order that came with the strong leader Zeus, an order that Works and Days suggests Hesiod yearns for among men. Theogony grates a bit at times because it is such thoroughgoing propaganda for the king of the gods. Zeus is all-powerful, and men are powerless over gods; also over women. No romantic, Hesiod believes that Zeus created womankind to deceive and manipulate men. Hesiod’s misogyny gets tiresome; to him, all women are Raymond Chandler fatales. This extends to the gods; the highlights being goddesses conspiring with their children to kill their mates. I think it’s part of a larger war of all against all though. The fundamental nature of the world is war. For Hesiod, even the order of civilization is established by violence.
To be honest, I find something unapproachable about the primeval image of the natural world as a godly realm. I cannot look at a river, a mountain, or even a storm as the work of a local divinity, and to do so seems somehow paranoid to me: like living in a haunted world, in which every dawn could bring the calamitous wrath of a phantom. I lack the sense of awe. As a modern, it’s uncomfortably easy for me to look at a field or a forest and quickly see something usable, something that could be mastered and worked by human hands. And yet, when I consider the myriad examples of environmental devastation we’ve caused; of which I think we can disagree about the extent, but not the fact; it’s hard not to think that something has been lost with all we’ve gained in mastering nature and dethroning the gods.
Endnotes:
1. Next up is the Odyssey, although I’m not too sure I can add much to that longstanding discussion!
2. Currently, I’m reading The Histories by Herodotus and the Oresteia by Aeschylus. Expect posts before long.
A Voegelin quote, if that doesn’t lure Bob out then nothing will.
I’m with you on the last paragraph, I also can’t imagine what it would have been like to view every natural landscape and event as a consequence of whim on behalf of some local entity. How helpless it must have felt to see the world around oneself as so unpredictable and uncontrollable.Report
Yeah, I don’t want to overdo it. There is an order to the Greek world, which is certainly better than nothing. But I’m often struck, especially in the dramas, how easy it is to violate that order and how severe the punishments are for doing so.Report
Yeah, I put the Voegelin quote in there because I thought ‘why not give Bob something to smile about?’ (Aside from Maker’s Mark)Report
The other day, in the computer lab, I was arguing about Superboy. Specifically, Smallville.
A co-worker tells me that I would absolutely adore the show. I don’t know. I don’t watch television much anyway and though I am a DC partisan, I find Batman far more interesting than Superman (let alone Superboy!). In any case, I asked about how Smallville handled Lex Luthor’s hair loss… specifically, I was wondering if the main cause was Superboy blowing out a chemical fire into a building where Lex was causing it.
When he told me that some of the Kryptonian debris that showered down and caused Lex to lose his hair, I surprised myself by saying “that’s not what happened!”
And it dawned on me that I was capable of having a Talmudic discussion over exactly how a guy who didn’t exist lost his hair and getting irritated when a show I didn’t watch devoted to a character I didn’t particularly like screwed it up.
And I wonder how much analogy there is to this and to how the ancients related to their gods. Not that they believed that they were “really” real and “really” turned chaos into order but that they were a metaphor for what “really” happened. (Shout out to Chris D!!!)
I explained this theory to Maribou after we saw a “I believe in Harvey Dent” bumper sticker and she shook her head and said “you’re just trying to make the strange familiar. We don’t build temples to Batman.” So maybe that’s what’s going on.
But it still feels analogous.Report
It’s hard to say. There are writings about atheists from back then and they take a rather dimmer view of said atheists than we might about a Batman “non-believer.” One thing that I find interesting about that time is that, if the people in the next city over worship another god, I don’t get much sense that people cared much.Report
To expand on the quote above:
I have the (undereducated and hazily informed) opinion that for the vast majority, they took these things SERIOUSLY. Se. Ri. Ous. Ly. Monuments, sacrifices, ruin your life to suit your understanding of the gods seriously. However, where I think Jaybird’s interpretation does have validity is when you look at the works of some of the major dramatists. Aeschylus, Euripides…. those guys *were* using the gods as literary characters, and did have “canon” type dust-ups about them. Sometimes the self-awareness is so thick it’s practically palpable. And that does make me wonder about what other elite intellectuals of the time thought… it does not strike me as implausible that they were giving good speech to the idea of the gods being Really Really Real and internally thinking of them more as Velveteen Rabbit Real. Sort of crypto-atheists?
But that’s really quite speculative as I don’t even *read* Greek. Nor even Latin.Report
Yeah, I’d actually be interested in finding out if someone’s written a history of atheism. I don’t know how seriously the elite took the gods.Report
There are a few. We actually own both Thrower’s “Western Atheism: A Short History” and Jennifer Hecht’s “Doubt: A History” (not exactly the same thing but I expect there’s a fair amount of overlap)…. but I haven’t read either of them yet.
*eyes her many towering stacks of unread books sheepishly*Report
“And yet, when I consider the myriad examples of environmental devastation we’ve caused; of which I think we can disagree about the extent, but not the fact; it’s hard not to think that something has been lost with all we’ve gained in mastering nature and dethroning the gods.” I’m not convinced the ancients were any more entranced by the natural world than moderns. They may have staked out certain areas as belongng to or having been created by one god or another but it did not stop the overgrazing of Mesopotamia and the Greek peninsula by newly domestiated goats and sheep. It did not stop the eradication of the cedar forests of Lebanon or the erosion and siltification of many of the Mediterranean river deltas. I often wonder if there was more hypocrisy and cynicism in the ancient world than now. Or perhaps it was more an attitude of, “Our gods’ lands are sacred but we can despoil the lands of our enemies since their gods are weak or false.”Report
That’s a good point. It might also help to have someone to make offerings to.Report
Ya wanna make an eco warriors nose scrunch up, point out what the “earthloving ancient cultures” did to their environments. The ancient peoples didn’t lack the will to shape the world to suit them. They just lacked our means.Report
I think one other important thing you can get out of all this is the idea that the more civilized man becomes, the more civilized his God, or his Gods, become. The farther back you go, the more capricious, brutal, and bloodthirsty they seem to appear. By the time somebody came up with the idea that there might just be one God who actually loves people so much he is willing to take on human flesh and suffer a horrible fate, so you don’t have to, its little wonder so many people were willing to say, yeah I can go for that. It didn’t really matter much that the same God was going around exterminating entire population centers in an earlier time. He must have had his reasons, right?Report
Hrm. I dunno. For every step forward, there seems to be a step back.
Look at the G-d of the Hebrews. Sure, he wipes out the world every now and again. Genocide is something that happens. Life in the state of nature is something something something. Not terribly subtle nor sophisticated.
By the time we move forward enough to have an afterlife, we see non-believers given to torment for eternity.
We have moved from a place where life was a crapshoot and then you got to rest (if you were lucky, rest in the bosom of Abraham) to a place where, after you die, you either get to live in a nice house or torment.
I understand that the birth of Christianity was bloody and the thought of the gladiator who impaled your children getting torment for eternity (perhaps even while you watch) is a comforting one… there’s a seriously troubling undercurrent there.
I understand that Hell has also evolved over the past few centuries… we’ve got the whole “God’s face turned away” interpretation, the “annihilation” interpretation, so on and so forth…
But we did move from a God that only tested you in this life to a God that would torment you for all time. That isn’t exactly a step up.Report
I guess one step up was replacing family line curses with eternal damnation. Both of them answer the question of the evildoer who seems to be making out okay. The idea that the family line will be cursed means at least his descendants will get it in the neck; and the idea of eternal damnation means he’ll get it after he’s dead. Admittedly, there’s quite a bit in the Old Testament about the sins of the fathers being visited on the sons, but I don’t think it appears after Jeremiah. So, that’s an improvement.
But, yeah, I’d note that most of the Greek myths talk about angry gods who can kill you, not punish you for eternity. At least, not if you’re mortal. On the other hand, the Greek afterlife was sort of dark and miserable for everyone as I understand it.Report
Actually, the idea of hell as we understand it today originated with pagan mythology. The Greek Tartarus was the ultimate destination of criminals and miscreants, and it was seen as eternal punishment of a severe form. Whereas the good people were given a lifetime of bliss, free of pain and woe, in the Elysian Fields. There are other examples of a belief in a good or a bad afterlife in other pagan cultures. If anything, the Christians seem to have borrowed a page from their book in this matter.
The only real innovation of Christianity, as I see it, is a belief in a physical resurrection, and even that might have begun as a belief in reincarnation, it is just unclear. It was actually an adoption and expansion of later, post-Babylonian captivity Jewish belief, which was a bone of contention between rival Jewish schools of thought.
For example, the Sadducee movement, which was comprised of the upper class, believed it manifested through later generations. Your life and its works would manifest through your descendants. At least some sects of the Pharisees believed it was an actual, physical resurrection from the grave. But its not exactly clear to me how widespread this belief was or exactly what it meant, or what came next.
The Christians seem to have fused the two beliefs, in a judgment leading to heaven or hell following a resurrection from the grave of the physical body.
Where their beliefs represent a step up is in the belief that God loves all people equally and gives them the opportunity and an avenue to achieve heaven and avoid hell, the latter of which is seen as a natural consequence of a rejection of God and his laws. In other words, God doesn’t put you in hell, you put yourself there, more or less, by refusing his love and mercy.Report
I don’t know. Lazarus and the Rich Man seems to display a different dynamic.
Luke 16:25 seems to come out and explicitly say “the tables have been turned”. There wasn’t a refusal of love/mercy as much as the Rich Man was a dick and he went to Hell. This was Justice, not a repudiation of Mercy.Report