were the ancients all soft polytheists?

[Ben Gruagach]

It was mentioned in another thread that hard polytheism might be a new idea, and that Pagan cultures of the past might have really considered gods to be interchangeable or perhaps one god known by many different names, or perhaps even different manifestations of one supreme deity.

Thoughts? Evidence to challenge or confirm this?

I've always thought from what I read that many Pagan cultures espoused hard polytheism, while some specific religions or subgroups did teach some form of soft polytheism -- but both concepts were present in various proportions throughout history.

[Seren_]

Depends on the culture and how you interpret the evidence you have to hand I guess. It's my understanding that in classical cultures, while soft polytheism was common it wasn't necessarily the rule. There were as wide a variety of "isms" as there are in paganism today.

It's generally considered today that the pagan Celtic cultures were hard polytheists to start with, given the very localised nature of many of the deities that we have evidence for. Many deity names refer to a specific people/tribe or geographical feature, for example - Boann after the Boyne, Sul gave her name to Aquae Sulis (Bath, in south east England), the Gaulish Nemetona leant her name to the Nemetes tribe. While many of these deities seemed to be associated with similar functions (watery deities with healing, for example), they all seem to be markedly different. In Irish myth, the heroes often swear by the gods of their tribe, for example. This doesn't suggest to me that they regarded their neighbours' (and usually enemies) deities as being basically the same beings under a different name.

With Romanisation, Celtic deities began to be conflated with gods from other cultures - Minerva, Mars and Mercury for example, and certainly some of the Celtic deities themselves can be seen to have been more widespread than others from the evidence we have after the Romans came. This is only natural, since the Celts didn't exactly keep themselves to themselves. We have an idea that some Gaulish tribes settled in Britain, and it's only natural that they'd take their gods with them. Trade must have been an influence as well.

The problem is that it's difficult to know whether these more widespread deities - like Lug, for example, where you can see Lugus in Gaul, Lug in Ireland and Llew Llaw Gyffes in Wales - were considered to be the same deity, just going by a different name, or very different. The sparse evidence we have to hand is that while there are some similarities between the tales of Llew and Lug (no mythological evidence for Lugus), naturally suggesting a common origin for them, there were also marked differences, but this doesn't say much about how the Irish or Welsh viewed things on a more practical level.

As far as the evidence suggests, there was no practise of conflating deities (which might suggest soft polytheism) until after the Romans came, and I can't think of any instances where two Celtic deities were conflated together. So my personal interpretation of it all would be that hard polytheism was the historical norm for most Celts until Rome became involved.

ETA: Southwest! Bath's in the southwest! /brainfart

[David19]

It was mentioned in another thread that hard polytheism might be a new idea, and that Pagan cultures of the past might have really considered gods to be interchangeable or perhaps one god known by many different names, or perhaps even different manifestations of one supreme deity.

Thoughts? Evidence to challenge or confirm this?

I've always thought from what I read that many Pagan cultures espoused hard polytheism, while some specific religions or subgroups did teach some form of soft polytheism -- but both concepts were present in various proportions throughout history.

I'd agree with Seren (though i don't know too much about Celtic religions, deities and 'mythology'), but i think the Roman's were, probably the main ones, to place one deity with another (but i think it was mainly political, so they could say, 'yeah, you worship our god, just in a different name, so you might as well submit to us'), but i don't think every Roman would have seen it this way (on the crookedheath.com, there's an article called 'passwords' and is about the concept of secret names of deities, and how the Roman's would go through many lengths to discover the names of the gods of the people they were fighting/wanting to conquer, in order to invite them over to Rome and win a spiritual victory (and therefore taking the backing of that god from the other people).

I think most cultures saw there deities as individuals and not as the same as others (e.g. the Sumerian's and Aztec's were very 'hard' polytheistic, and i think the Greek's may have been too, etc), i think in some cultures, it was mainly a mix, like some Greek philosophers may have said this deity was also that deity, but others were probably more polytheistic.

I'm a 'hard' polytheist 'cause it's just that i feel that the gods are individuals, it's like i know Zeus, Yahweh, Isis, Odin, Thor, El, etc are all seperate deities, even though i haven't had many experiences with deities, it's like i feel that they are seperate (if that makes any sense).

I do respect the beliefs of those who are 'soft' polytheists, but it's just not mine.

Although, going back to the Roman's, it's funny that they never got Yahweh round to their side (maybe they couldn't get his secret name....).

BTW, great thread, it's very interesting :).

[Arion]

I think it's safe to say that I have no idea. What was good about religion in ancient times was that it differed from person to person, there were no uniform beliefs that people HAD to follow or else be stoned to death.

I'm not even that sure how soft and hard polytheism differ, but I'm guessing that soft polytheism is when the Gods are all facets of One God/Divinity, and hard polytheism is when each of the gods are distinct individuals. My guess would be that they were more hard polytheists, but I'm no expert. It is interesting that a lot of cultures identified their Gods with each other's Gods, like Greeks identified Egyptian Bast with Artemis, and Hathor with Aphrodite, Amun with Zeus and so on.

That kind of soft polytheism doesn't bother me... whether the gods are distinct or facets of something higher is kind of irrelevent as long as they are seen as real. What bothers me is when the Gods are seen as archetypes or symbols. I actually used to believe thatthey were, but the Universe has a way of changing one's perspective :p

[Elderbush]

I think that politically to the Greeks and Romans it made sense to equate gods in several cultures. It was a way of saying "We're not so different. We both worship the same gods, just with different names." It provided common ground. Also it proved to be a way for Romans to honor the local gods and their own at the same time. They hoped it would have a unifying affect.

I think that when there was little contact with even the next village, each village or tribe worshipped their version of the god (the Greek gods and the aspects that were worshipped in different places is an example), but with more interaction, travel and trade, ideas about the gods and the stories about them got borrowed and spread. I have a feeling that like today some people were soft polytheists and some were hard and many did not care or think much about anything except their relationship with their own god(s).

[Carla O'Harris]

I think that politically to the Greeks and Romans it made sense to equate gods in several cultures. It was a way of saying "We're not so different. We both worship the same gods, just with different names." It provided common ground. Also it proved to be a way for Romans to honor the local gods and their own at the same time. They hoped it would have a unifying affect.

I think that when there was little contact with even the next village, each village or tribe worshipped their version of the god (the Greek gods and the aspects that were worshipped in different places is an example), but with more interaction, travel and trade, ideas about the gods and the stories about them got borrowed and spread. I have a feeling that like today some people were soft polytheists and some were hard and many did not care or think much about anything except their relationship with their own god(s).


I agree that much of this question comes down to isolation versus interaction, as well as isolationism versus interactionism. Hard polytheism to me is less a theological than a sociological position on the part of those trying to preserve their ethnic isolation. To me, hard polytheists point to all the different fingers pointing to the moon, and declare that all the fingers are different, while soft polytheists look at the moon and say, "Yah, that's what you're pointing towards." The gestures and language may be different, but the same basic reality is indicated. It may be that there is meaning in the nuances of the different perceptions, but to me that is no reason to reify the differences. But when one gathers the political motivations behind the apparent theology, the agenda becomes clear : hard polytheism is often ethnic nationalism applied to theology.

[David19]

I agree that much of this question comes down to isolation versus interaction, as well as isolationism versus interactionism. Hard polytheism to me is less a theological than a sociological position on the part of those trying to preserve their ethnic isolation. To me, hard polytheists point to all the different fingers pointing to the moon, and declare that all the fingers are different, while soft polytheists look at the moon and say, "Yah, that's what you're pointing towards." The gestures and language may be different, but the same basic reality is indicated. It may be that there is meaning in the nuances of the different perceptions, but to me that is no reason to reify the differences. But when one gathers the political motivations behind the apparent theology, the agenda becomes clear : hard polytheism is often ethnic nationalism applied to theology.

I have to disagree here, 'hard' polytheism, for the majority is not 'ethnic nationalism', i know there are a few racists that use 'hard' polytheism, in certain sectors of Asatru, Hellenic reconstructionism, and probably others too, but the majority are not (i'm a 'hard' polytheist, and it's got nothing to do with 'ethnicity', (afterall, it's pretty hard for me to be part of any ethnic group, 'cause i'm a mixture of Irish, English, Iraqi, and Jewish :)), for me 'hard' polytheism is about viewing the gods as individuals, that's what polytheism is, if not, why don't we just become monotheists (which a lot of 'pagans' do, do (e.g. people who say there's 'only' a goddess, etc)).

I can't remember if i already mentioned this, but maybe, on some level the gods are all one, but only on the same, ultimate, level that humans are all one (such as the Hindu belief that everything (including humanity) is a manifestation of Brahman, but, by and large, humans are individuals, and so are the gods).

Like PurplePanther said, i have a problem with the gods being seen as 'not real' or that they are there to 'be used' (maybe it's just 'cause i'm looking into Sumerian reconstructionism, (and have also learnt a bit about others like Aztec reconstructionism, etc), the gods are above us, there not 'servants', we're there servants (in Sumerian belief, humans are the gods slaves (although, keep in mind, in Sumeria slaves were given far, far more rights than what you think of).

I respect the 'soft' polytheist view, and i respect those that hold it, but it's not mine, and i do think , that you miss out on the personality, individuality of the deities involved (e.g. if i suddenly took an American and said this person 'represents' the whole of America, i'd be ignoring the rest of the population and ignoring the individuality of the people, etc), i've seen people say that it doesn't 'make sense' for there to be more than 1 storm god, one love god, etc that all 'manifest in different cultures', but to me it does make sense that there'd be more than one (e.g. Bush and Blair are both leaders of 2different countries, they both are powerful, both have similar abilities (although Bush is probably more powerful), they both lead us into an invasion..sorry 'war', etc but they aren't the same person).

Or to take me, for example, my name is David, i've just turned 20, gay and a Pagan, but i really doubt i'm the only guy called David, who's 20, gay and a pagan, or to put it another way, i love swimming and working out, but i doubt i'm the only one who loves swimming and going to the gym, etc (not sure if that examples makes sense, but i hope it does :)).

That's the way i think it works with deities too, just 'cause Zeus may be a god of thunder, doesn't make him the same as Odin, Indra, Yahweh, etc, they may be similar, just as i may like similar music to another person, or Aphrodite, she's usually called a love goddess (despite the fact that she was also a god of death, war, and other things, i think), but that doesn't mean she's the same as Hathor or Innana, Oshun (a Santerian Orisha), etc.

Anyway, hope that made some sense, about my views on 'hard' polytheism :).

[Elderbush]

Like you David, I am a hard polytheist in that I have no intention of telling anyone that their god doesn't exist or have the name that they say it does. I am not even prepared to tell someone that their god isn't like they say s/he is except to comment that historically, in myths, that god is portrayed a little differently. There is just no way that I can trump another's UPG. If they say Thor appeared to them, said his name was Thor, and was interested in agriculture and healing, well, that's their UPG and I'm not going to tell them they are lying or the god was lying to them.

A relationship with a god is an intensely personal thing. It is impossible to prove if the god I know as Thor is the same one that person X knows as Thor or person Y knows as Mars. We could, each of us, be worshipping a different god (as in billions) or we could all be worshipping a few gods or we could be worshipping one god. Or no god. There is no proof one way or another except for UPGs.

So what are you left with? Cultural gods, for the most part. I think that our ancestors did not have a problem with seeing gods as "like" one another, just as we don't have a problem seeing that humans from different cultures can be "like" one another. It doesn't mean that the humans are the same human or the god one person knows as Thor is the same god another knows as Mars. It is a way to celebrate the things we have in common rather than concentrating on our differences.

[shuvanilu]

A relationship with a god is an intensely personal thing. It is impossible to prove if the god I know as Thor is the same one that person X knows as Thor or person Y knows as Mars. We could, each of us, be worshipping a different god (as in billions) or we could all be worshipping a few gods or we could be worshipping one god. Or no god. There is no proof one way or another except for UPGs.
.

Now *this* I can agree with:) I'm personally a soft-polytheist leaning toward henotheism, but have complete respect for hard-polytheists, atheists, monotheists...you name it. This has to be a personal decision for each individual, and everyone's life experiences will affect how they view and experience Diety. What really hurts me on a personal level is when I get bashed for being a soft-polytheist. When I state my belief system, I am stating what works for me, not what I believe simply IS the proper way. If someone has a poly-theist view, I think that is wonderful. Difference is the spice of life. What makes me uneasy is that it feels like the pagan community is taking a slide down toward closemindedness toward eachother----The soft-polytheists and the hard poly-theists are starting to look like the Protestants and the Catholics. And neither one is *right*, we all just have a different experience with Diety.

Now, to answer Ben's original post, my thought is that our ancestors in many ways are like us. One peron's green, is another person's bluish-yellow. I'm sure there were hard, soft, non, and on-the-fence-theists. From what I have read, Hindus were generally soft-poly or henotheists, and while the Egyptians and Greeks and Romans started off as hard-polytheists, they moved into in some cases to soft-poly or henotheism, inclusive monotheism and syncretism. Not all, but some.

Oh, and by the way...When I state that I am a soft-polytheist, I AM NOT telling someone else that their god(s) doesn't exist. I am merely saying that this is how *I* experience the Divine.

Lastly, could someone clue me in on what UPG is?? Thanks----shuvanilu

[Elderbush]

UPG - Unverified Personal Gnosis. :)

[shuvanilu]

Thank you!:cheers: ---shuvanilu

[Faol-chù]

I'm not so sure it's so easy to categorically conclude that the "Celts were hard polytheists".

It seems to me that the people who became 'the Celts' were a mix of people from different backgrounds. Some of them were travellers who (in my view) likely saw enough similarities between the cultures with whom they came in contact to conclude that they just might all be different views of the same thing. Others were likely people who had never left their own living area and saw distinct differences between themselves and people from other areas, perhaps attributing part of these differences to the differences in gods.

The "Celts" themselves seemed (in my view) to have a mixture of ideas going on at one time. It seems that things in the 'lower' realms seemed more 'hard' while the 'upper' realms seemed more flexible.
In other words, the entities viewed as coming from the lower realms, as well as those associated with spirits of place were likely seen as 'specific to those areas' while those seen as being from the upper realms were likely viewed as just being viewed differently by different people.

My thoughts, and if required, I'll expand on them....:)

Le meas,

Faol-chù

[Tim]

My thoughts, and if required, I'll expand on them....:)

Please do... I know your post made it clear that this was only your opinion... but I would be interested in what formed your idea that the Celts did not consider the various Gods and Goddesses to be distinct & separate beings.

[Faol-chù]

Please do... I know your post made it clear that this was only your opinion... but I would be interested in what formed your idea that the Celts did not consider the various Gods and Goddesses to be distinct & separate beings.


Hello, Tim...:)

First of all, let me be clear...I don't necessarily think that everyone did not consider the gods and goddesses to be distinct and separate beings. On the contrary, my theory is, generally speaking, that people of particular walks of life would generally be more likely to see them as separate, and others of other walks (generally-speaking) would be more inclined to view that as a potentially huge question mark.

Also, my opinion is based, largely, on both what I've personally gleaned from reading anthropological studies, as well as what I've personally gleaned from my time learning the Scottish Gaelic language, as well as general history. Reading (and listening to) the Gaelic folklore, as well as noting the history embedded in it has given me a unique insight into a culture that is so different from our own, yet similar in so many ways.
While I realize that the folklore that I am reading and hearing is very much from a 'Christian' perspective, there are a lot of ideas that have obviously survived from that time to this.

Part of what has influenced my thinking about this is the role that druids played in society. It seems to me that druids knowingly and willfully accepted their roles as constructors and maintainers of society.
The role of the filidh, in particular, was to compose poetry and stories that glorified the gods.

If you do not already know, there are quite a few obvious resemblences between Irish Celtic 'Mythology' and that of the Indian Veddas. Such resemblences include common themes, some of which involve feast days that occur at similar times of the year; names which, though they are obviously different, have the same essential meaning. There are many, many other similarities, as well. In addition, the social structures of the Celts and the Vedic culture shared similarities with one another that neither shared with anyone else to the same degree.
It is obvious that 'Celts' and those people who created the Veddas evolved from a common cultural-linguistic background....Yet the names of the gods of the Celts that we have (those recorded by classical authors during the time of the Celts, as well as those which are famously associated with particular places) still sound, for the most part, quite different from those recorded in the Veddas....Yet they often still served the same purpose in the folklore, and were part of the same theme. This suggests to me that, while not necessarily called the same name, SOMEBODY, somewhere along the way, figured that the particular names were not all-important, as long as YOU knew to whom you were talking.

One of the unique similarities between the Celts and the Vedic culture is the structure of the Brahmin cast, as compared to the structure of the druid caste. The particular way that the priesthood held society together was unique to these two groups of people. Both of them held sway in a way that could make or break leaders. I think that both the brahmins and the druids took their charges seriously. I think there were many discussions as to how the myths could be 'tweaked' to deal with 'new' issues unfamiliar to the 'older generations'. I think that, knowing human nature, in all likelihood, quite a few involved in them accepted that a certain amount of change in perception of a god is not only likely, but necessary. In short, I think that many, over time, realized that it's not necessarily smart to hem in a god....And that by that very realization, they may have questioned where one ended and the other began.

If some druids were more likely to view the gods as less-separate entities, I think people in other occupations, likely including farming, metal-working, and warrior likely viewed them as much more 'separate'....out of sheer necessity. It is necessary to break it down that way in order to tap into something specific.

Well, that's a little about my view, and how I came to it...If you have any more specific questions, I'll try to answer from my perspective...:)

Le meas,

[Tim]

Faol-chù,

Thank you for your response. So for the most part... and I hope you don't take this the wrong way... your idea is mostly conjecture based on similarities you perceive to exist between the Celts and the Veddas... that because of these similarities, you are using the Veddas to fill in the blanks. Am I correct?

What I was hoping to find was something a little more concrete... you said, "If some druids were more likely to view the gods as less-separate entities, I think people in other occupations, likely including farming, metal-working, and warrior likely viewed them as much more 'separate'....out of sheer necessity." My focus is primarily on the Ancient Greek religion and this was definitely the case with some philosophers... I can go to the works of Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, and others... while they each had their own perspective... they believed in a single Source from which the Cosmos emanated... while the Gods and Goddesses were distinct & separate beings, they existed at a higher level of unity with that source... but this is not really what we are talking about (IMO) when we are talking about whether an ancient culture was hard polytheistic or soft polytheistic... from my understanding of the philosophers, they believed everything is a product of, contained within, and a reflection of that Source (the One, or the Good, or whatever)... so the Gods are a part of, yet still individual... and we are a part of, yet still individual... the only difference being the level of unity... the soft polytheist believes in one God (or two) with many faces... that the Gods are not distinct entities but just different perceptions or facets or archetypes of a single being.

...anyway... what I was hoping was to see if there was evidence that the Celts (or I guess at least the ancient Druids) did have similar ideas... but I guess from what you are saying is that (at this point) its more theory based an similarities in language and myth.

[Faol-chù]

Hello, Tim,



Faol-chù,

Thank you for your response. So for the most part... and I hope you don't take this the wrong way... your idea is mostly conjecture based on similarities you perceive to exist between the Celts and the Veddas... that because of these similarities, you are using the Veddas to fill in the blanks. Am I correct?


Well, you are correct in that my idea is conjecture...Yes, it's based in part on the similarities I perceive to exist between the Celts and the Veddas. (Although those similarities are well-known and verifiable. There is one book which goes into great detail about the mythological similarities, alone.)
I would not say, however, that I am 'filling in the blanks' with the Veddas. I am simply noting that there are similarities between the two, but there are also changes.



What I was hoping to find was something a little more concrete... you said, "If some druids were more likely to view the gods as less-separate entities, I think people in other occupations, likely including farming, metal-working, and warrior likely viewed them as much more 'separate'....out of sheer necessity."

Well, unfortunately (or perhaps its not so unfortunate for those who enjoy speculation), you are not going to find something 'concrete' when it comes to the druids. There is NOTHING left of their beliefs and ideas recorded in their own hand....though quite a bit can be gleaned from getting to know about the culture, and their thought processes.




My focus is primarily on the Ancient Greek religion and this was definitely the case with some philosophers... I can go to the works of Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, and others... while they each had their own perspective... they believed in a single Source from which the Cosmos emanated... while the Gods and Goddesses were distinct & separate beings, they existed at a higher level of unity with that source... but this is not really what we are talking about (IMO) when we are talking about whether an ancient culture was hard polytheistic or soft polytheistic... from my understanding of the philosophers, they believed everything is a product of, contained within, and a reflection of that Source (the One, or the Good, or whatever)... so the Gods are a part of, yet still individual... and we are a part of, yet still individual... the only difference being the level of unity... the soft polytheist believes in one God (or two) with many faces... that the Gods are not distinct entities but just different perceptions or facets or archetypes of a single being.

I obviously do not know about the earliest 'Celtic' religions, as there is nothing recorded...But for the later ones, there is more evidence.
Keep in mind as you read, that the druids oversaw all religious stories, rituals, etc...

Later Celtic religion shows that, from tribe to tribe, and from place to place, gods with different names were attributed with the same function...gods with the same name were attributed with functions which were shades different.

It is beyond me how the druids overseeing these areas could reconcile these things in their own heads, considering they were all trained similarily.

And then their is the point that the names of these gods were not really 'names', but generally speaking, descriptions of the purpose they served in society.


..anyway... what I was hoping was to see if there was evidence that the Celts (or I guess at least the ancient Druids) did have similar ideas... but I guess from what you are saying is that (at this point) its more theory based an similarities in language and myth.

Yes...due to the lack of hard sources, it is theory based on language and myth.

Le meas,

Faol-chù

[Tim]

Thanks Faol-chù

I'm not say the similarities in language and myth don't exist... just trying to see how you developed your conclusions... how about similarities in culture... and what about the Roman influence? How do you see those?

In any event... getting back to the topic of hard vs. soft polytheism... as you stated in your earlier post... some may have seen the gods as less-separate entities but I don't think that actually rises to the level of soft polytheism... it seems that many philosophers from many cultures visualized that the Gods existed at a higher level of unity... but that did not diminish their individuality.

[Faol-chù]

Hello, Tim,


Thanks Faol-chù

I'm not say the similarities in language and myth don't exist... just trying to see how you developed your conclusions... how about similarities in culture...

Which culture? Between the Celts and some other culture, or between the various tribes of Celts? Or are you talking about the Indian culture and Celtic?

Yes, the Indian culture was similar to the Celts--in ways not shared with others around the time of Caesar. Although, apparently at one time there were more similarities between the Indians and the Celts and the Greeks and Romans than there were in the 200 years before Caesar.




and what about the Roman influence?

Rome had a definite influence, once they started on their 'conquering' spree...No doubt. Even those Celtic groups close to them, I am sure, were influenced heavily by them and their views before Caesar started his campaign.
However, Ireland (and its lore, which is the lore I've been comparing to the Vedic) was not effected to the same saturation point. The Gaels still held strongly to their storytelling traditions in a way that other Celtic cultures were unable to do because of outright occupation by Rome. No doubt there were influences due to trade, etc....But Ireland was not occupied by Rome, and their native tradition remained quite strong.

In learning about the Gaelic tradition, one thing jumps out at me that is quite unlike any other tradition about which I've read....at least to the same degree...
Apparently, in the switch from the native religious tradition to Christianity, places, times of year, etc., associated with particular gods were 'baptized' , and renamed in the name of a saint. The curious thing is that there are things now ascribed to these saints which had obviously once been ascribed to gods. The gods and the saints are conflated in a way which attributes it ALL to the saint. (Even though the Catholic church does not officially recognized all that is ascribed to these saints, or for that matter, sometimes the saint him, or herself.)

It is also striking to me that in (modern) Gaelic-speaking areas, though they take their rituals seriously, and to a degree, their religion, they have no problem seeing it all as 'God's work'...and allowing the 'official position' while they, themselves have a different view....And they assume that everyone has a slightly different view. And older things from the tradition reflect the same tendancies, even in a time where people, in general held much tighter to 'religion'. (There is slightly less room for differences in areas where the people practice a Protestant form of Christianity...but the independent spirit is still there.)
I suppose it could be argued that this tendancy is due to 'Roman Influence', but in my understanding of the Gaelic people and their tradition, it strikes me as a native ideaology.


In any event... getting back to the topic of hard vs. soft polytheism... as you stated in your earlier post... some may have seen the gods as less-separate entities but I don't think that actually rises to the level of soft polytheism... it seems that many philosophers from many cultures visualized that the Gods existed at a higher level of unity... but that did not diminish their individuality.

I can only say that, while I think that, outwardly, the people who would have had the opportunity to philosophize about this took (and espoused) an 'official position'...I think that, amongst themselves, they likely questioned it.

...Much in the same way that the Jews have an 'official position' that the man most know as 'Jesus' was NOT the messiah...But I happen to know that, amongst themselves, they debate the possibility that he WAS, at least
*A *messiah.

People depend on these 'priests' to maintain order. The 'official position' does that. Letting people know that you question it would have the effect of confusing the masses.


Enjoyable discussion!

Le meas,

Faol-chù

[Tim]

Well... going back to Ben's original post and what seems to be the spirit of it... I think we have to stick with the answer that "the ancients" (kinda broad, but I'm assuming pre-Christian Europe in general) were hard polytheists... now I can see your belief that there may have been those who explored the idea of (what is called) soft polytheism... everything is possible... it comes down to how probable was it... and if there is any evidence to support it. The fact is we don't know what was going on in people's heads and we really should not project.

...but that's just my opinion.

[Ben Gruagach]

Well... going back to Ben's original post and what seems to be the spirit of it... I think we have to stick with the answer that "the ancients" (kinda broad, but I'm assuming pre-Christian Europe in general) were hard polytheists... now I can see your belief that there may have been those who explored the idea of (what is called) soft polytheism... everything is possible... it comes down to how probable was it... and if there is any evidence to support it. The fact is we don't know what was going on in people's heads and we really should not project.

...but that's just my opinion.

I think from what we've seen, and what evidence there is that is available to us, is that it's incorrect to say all pre-Christian Pagan cultures were either hard polytheists or soft polytheists.

It seems there was just as much variety among pre-Christian Pagans as there is among modern Pagans.

[Tim]

Not saying you're wrong but I'm not seeing it... what evidence points you to the conclusion that there were those in pre-Christian Europe that believed that the Gods and Goddesses where in some way manifestations of a single personal deity rather than as distinct entities?

[Ben Gruagach]

Not saying you're wrong but I'm not seeing it... what evidence points you to the conclusion that there were those in pre-Christian Europe that believed that the Gods and Goddesses where in some way manifestations of a single personal deity rather than as distinct entities?

One bit that suggests soft polytheism to me is the way Lucius Apuleius describes the cult of Isis in "The Golden Ass." This book is where modern Wiccans got the start of the Charge of the Goddess, which says,

"Listen to the words of the Great Mother; she who of old was also called among men Artemis, Astarte, Athene, Dione, Melusine, Aphrodite, Cerridwen, Dana, Arianrhod, Isis, Bride, and by many other names."

At the very least it looks like within that cult they saw a single Goddess who manifested as the multitude of goddesses known in all the cultures they knew about.

[Tim]

...by Lucius Apuleius? Which chapter are you pulling that from?

[Tim]

I think I found it... but it reads

Behold Lucius I am come, thy weeping and prayers hath moved me to succor thee. I am she that is the natural mother of all things, mistresses and governesses of all the Elements, the initial progeny of worlds, chief of powers divine, Queen of heaven! the principal of the Gods celestial, the light of the goddesses: at my will the planets of the ayre, the wholesome winds of the Seas, and the silences of hell be deposed; my name, my divinity is adored throughout all the world in divers manners, in variable customs and in many names, for the Phrygians call me the mother of the Gods: the Athenians, Minerva: the Cyprians, Venus: the Candians, Diana: the Sicilians Proserpina: the Eleusians, Ceres: some Juno, other Bellona, other Hecate: and principally the Aethiopians which dwell in the Orient, and the Aegyptians which are excellent in all kind of ancient doctrine, and by their proper ceremonies accustom to worship me, do call me Queen Isis.
- The Eleventh Book, The Forty-Seventh Chapter, The Golden Ass by Lucius Apuleius

Now the way it is written here leads me to believe that it was not a belief that all Gods are part of a single divinity, but that they believed that a God could be recognized by different cultures by different names. It also appears that they (in this case) may have been recognizing Isis as the "first principle".

[Ben Gruagach]

Now the way it is written here leads me to believe that it was not a belief that all Gods are part of a single divinity, but that they believed that a God could be recognized by different cultures by different names. It also appears that they (in this case) may have been recognizing Isis as the "first principle".

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a deity saying they are known by all (known) people under a myriad of names, and a deity being singular yet manifesting through all goddesses.

The passage you quoted is the section which served as the partial source of the Wiccan "Charge of the Goddess." (But that's beside the point for this particular thread...)

[Tim]

There is a big difference between saying that the same God is recognized by different names in different cultures, and saying that one Goddess is all Goddesses. There were those that saw Osiris and Dionysus as being the same God... that doesn't mean that Dionysus was also Apollo.

[David19]

There is a big difference between saying that the same God is recognized by different names in different cultures, and saying that one Goddess is all Goddesses. There were those that saw Osiris and Dionysus as being the same God... that doesn't mean that Dionysus was also Apollo.

But then, there are also those that saw (and some still do see) Osiris and Dionysus as being seperate, individual gods (plus, wouldn't it only have happened after the Greeks came into the contact with the Egyptians, who knows if Osiris had similar characteristics with Dionysus, it could have been the Greeks, just saying, 'hey, you worship one of our gods, so why don't you submit to us').

Just wanted to throw that in there :).

[Ben Gruagach]

The problem I have with claiming the Apuleius quote doesn't mean they saw Isis as a singular Universal Goddess is the fact that the goddesses which are specifically named are so different in their incarnations that they couldn't possibly be considered just the same person with a different name. She also specifically states that She is worshipped by people in a range of cultures so wide it's the literary way of saying "everyone" which means that She is claiming She is universal.

Isis says that She is known as Minerva, Venus, Ceres, Juno, Bellona, and even Hecate! These goddesses are so different from each other that it's not a case of a rational equivalence such as Hermes = Mercury = Thoth.

[Tim]

But then, there are also those that saw (and some still do see) Osiris and Dionysus as being seperate, individual gods (plus, wouldn't it only have happened after the Greeks came into the contact with the Egyptians, who knows if Osiris had similar characteristics with Dionysus, it could have been the Greeks, just saying, 'hey, you worship one of our gods, so why don't you submit to us').

Just wanted to throw that in there :).

I absolutely see them as separate... was only giving an example of what some of the perceptions where.

[Tim]

The problem I have with claiming the Apuleius quote doesn't mean they saw Isis as a singular Universal Goddess is the fact that the goddesses which are specifically named are so different in their incarnations that they couldn't possibly be considered just the same person with a different name. She also specifically states that She is worshipped by people in a range of cultures so wide it's the literary way of saying "everyone" which means that She is claiming She is universal.

Isis says that She is known as Minerva, Venus, Ceres, Juno, Bellona, and even Hecate! These goddesses are so different from each other that it's not a case of a rational equivalence such as Hermes = Mercury = Thoth.

It also states "the principal of the Gods celestial, the light of the goddesses"... one really has to read into it to see the claim being made that she is all Goddesses and not just the queen as stated...

You also have to take The Golden Ass for what it is... a second century literary novel... no doubt it contains certain perceptions of the time... but it was not an actual account... it's a classical work... but it's still fiction.

[Ben Gruagach]

It also states "the principal of the Gods celestial, the light of the goddesses"... one really has to read into it to see the claim being made that she is all Goddesses and not just the queen as stated...

These same sorts of descriptions and epithets are used by Hindus to describe their Divine when that Divine is definitely understood to be a single being who manifests to humans through a multitude of forms (i.e. the gods and goddesses we mortals can approach.)

Perhaps that's why I don't have as much of a hard time believing that perhaps other Pagans of the same time period had similar philosophies.


You also have to take The Golden Ass for what it is... a second century literary novel... no doubt it contains certain perceptions of the time... but it was not an actual account... it's a classical work... but it's still fiction.

There is no doubt that Apuleius' "Golden Ass" was a novel. However the idea of a single Great Goddess who manifests as all the goddesses of the known world is an idea that was clearly around back then otherwise Apuleius wouldn't have brought it up! (I've seen some people claim that soft polytheism didn't exist before the 1950s... not in this thread of course but it does come up sometimes!)

[Tim]

These same sorts of descriptions and epithets are used by Hindus to describe their Divine when that Divine is definitely understood to be a single being who manifests to humans through a multitude of forms (i.e. the gods and goddesses we mortals can approach.)

Perhaps that's why I don't have as much of a hard time believing that perhaps other Pagans of the same time period had similar philosophies.
You really have to look at other works to get a sense of what he is talking about... look at Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, and other ancient philosophers... they believe in a Source from which emanated the Gods and all that exists... rereading that passage with an understanding of the philosophies that were being discussed at the time and you will see he was personifying that source in Isis... natural mother of all things mistresses and governesses of all the Elements... the initial progeny of worlds... chief of powers divine... the principal of the Gods celestial... he is making her the embodiment of the first principle.


I've seen some people claim that soft polytheism didn't exist before the 1950s... not in this thread of course but it does come up sometimes!
I would agree with that statment... roughly about that time.

[Faol-chù]

Madainn mhath, Tim,
(Good morning,)


Well... going back to Ben's original post and what seems to be the spirit of it... I think we have to stick with the answer that "the ancients" (kinda broad, but I'm assuming pre-Christian Europe in general) were hard polytheists...


Well, I think it would be helpful to know what the 'textbook definition' of hard polytheism is....



... it comes down to how probable was it... and if there is any evidence to support it. The fact is we don't know what was going on in people's heads and we really should not project.

...but that's just my opinion.

I'm just going to point out that your first statement, above, and this last one seem to me to conflict each other...

And honestly, the fact that we don't know what was going on in other people's heads and cannot project is the reason and point for my first post to this thread.

It seems to me that the reason for the 'priesthood', to begin with was to perform a function for members of society that they cannot perform for themselves (in a thorough manner) due to their own function in society and time constraints.

A curious fact about human nature is that many of us *need* someone else to break it down for us, and help us to 'interpret' what we take in.
That is why most people seem to really like that they can become part of a religion, and not have to question. They just want to know "What do I have to do?" They either don't have the time or the inclination to figure it out on their own.

In their roles as 'mediators to the gods', priests perform this function for society. They do the thinking about this particular issue so that others won't have to. This does not mean that those piecing it together (and probably, quite often, others) do not question the particular 'reality' handed down in their tradition.

It boils down to, in your terms, Logos vs. Myth.


Le meas,

Faol-chù

[Faol-chù]

Into this mix, I am going to toss a couple of myths for consideration...

In Norse religion, we have the entire cosmos created by Ymir, the frost giant. From his death and dismemberment, all of the worlds are formed, and all of the gods within them.

(And then there is that Ragnarok thing where all the gods die and the world is recreated with new gods.)

In Hindu mythology, we have the entire cosmos created by he death and dismemberment of Manu (by a priest). From his body, all things sprung and were named by the priest.


I'll point out that in Gaelic tradition, their is an extraordinary amount of ancestor veneration. It is often perceived that an individual can be one of their ancestors, reborn. People are often conflated with the clan from which they come. The perception is that the clan, itself, is an entity over and above the sum of the individuals in the group.

There seems, to me, to be a very clear blurry line between "hard polytheism" and "soft polytheism" in ancient cultures.

Le meas,

Faol-chù

[Tim]

Well, I think it would be helpful to know what the 'textbook definition' of hard polytheism is....
These are the working definitions that I use: Hard polytheism is a perception of the Gods and Goddesses as distinct beings with separate personalities. Soft polytheism consider the Gods and Goddesses to be aspects of a single personal deity.

Using an example in simpler terms... a hard polytheist would see a tree, despite its emanation from and obvious unity with the earth, as a distinct entity; while a soft polytheist would see a tree as an aspect of the earth, that its individuality is only a perception and that the tree is not distinct at all.

If you have a different understanding of the terms then sharing them may resolve some differences of opinion.


I'm just going to point out that your first statement, above, and this last one seem to me to conflict each other...
It doesn't conflict at all... just because something is possible does not mean it is at all probable. If you play baseball, it's possible to get a hit every time you are at bat, but it is so improbable as to appear impossible.


And honestly, the fact that we don't know what was going on in other people's heads and cannot project is the reason and point for my first post to this thread.
...and my assertion is that it doesn't give us license to assume. It's possible that Newton had in his head a viable String Theory (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3AString+Theory) but we don't give him credit for it.


It seems to me that the reason for the 'priesthood', to begin with was to perform a function for members of society that they cannot perform for themselves (in a thorough manner) due to their own function in society and time constraints.

A curious fact about human nature is that many of us *need* someone else to break it down for us, and help us to 'interpret' what we take in.
That is why most people seem to really like that they can become part of a religion, and not have to question. They just want to know "What do I have to do?" They either don't have the time or the inclination to figure it out on their own.

In their roles as 'mediators to the gods', priests perform this function for society. They do the thinking about this particular issue so that others won't have to. This does not mean that those piecing it together (and probably, quite often, others) do not question the particular 'reality' handed down in their tradition.
This is probably best for a new thread... but in ancient Greece (for the most part) priests played no significant function in the spiritual lives of the people... they did not need 'mediators to the gods'... and even familiarizing myself with the other paths there seems to be a rift between some CR groups and modern Druidry over what the actual role of the ancient Druids were... and as I understand it, there are some CR groups that don't recognize Druids as playing a significant role (if any) outside the British Islands.

[Tim]

Into this mix, I am going to toss a couple of myths for consideration...

In Norse religion, we have the entire cosmos created by Ymir, the frost giant. From his death and dismemberment, all of the worlds are formed, and all of the gods within them.

(And then there is that Ragnarok thing where all the gods die and the world is recreated with new gods.)

In Hindu mythology, we have the entire cosmos created by he death and dismemberment of Manu (by a priest). From his body, all things sprung and were named by the priest.
Actually both of these, as you have posted them, is talking about the creation of individual distinct entities from the remnants of an older one... I may consider my children a part of myself, but they are still individual.


I'll point out that in Gaelic tradition, their is an extraordinary amount of ancestor veneration. It is often perceived that an individual can be one of their ancestors, reborn. People are often conflated with the clan from which they come. The perception is that the clan, itself, is an entity over and above the sum of the individuals in the group.
You are still only talking about an individual soul being reincarnated along family lines... but even with the perception that the clan is an entity, the earth is also an entity above the sum of the individuals within, yet it does not diminish the individuality of each within the whole.

[Faol-chù]

These are the working definitions that I use: Hard polytheism is a perception of the Gods and Goddesses as distinct beings with separate personalities. Soft polytheism consider the Gods and Goddesses to be aspects of a single personal deity.

Using an example in simpler terms... a hard polytheist would see a tree, despite its emanation from and obvious unity with the earth, as a distinct entity; while a soft polytheist would see a tree as an aspect of the earth, that its individuality is only a perception and that the tree is not distinct at all.

If you have a different understanding of the terms then sharing them may resolve some differences of opinion.

No, that definition works for me, and I still conclude that there was nothing, particularly in my readings of religious history that point specifically to categorizing the ancients generally as 'hard polytheists' (or soft polytheists, either, for that matter), as there is, as far as I can see, evidence for both ideaologies.



It doesn't conflict at all... just because something is possible does not mean it is at all probable. If you play baseball, it's possible to get a hit every time you are at bat, but it is so improbable as to appear impossible.

It is no more "probable" that hard polytheism was 'the norm' any more than it is probable that soft polytheism was the norm.




This is probably best for a new thread... but in ancient Greece (for the most part) priests played no significant function in the spiritual lives of the people... they did not need 'mediators to the gods'... and even familiarizing myself with the other paths there seems to be a rift between some CR groups and modern Druidry over what the actual role of the ancient Druids were... and as I understand it, there are some CR groups don't recognize Druids as playing a significant role (if any) outside the British Islands.

Well, I'll open a new thread, because I'd like that one explained to me in more detail...

Le meas,

Faol-chù

[Tim]

No, that definition works for me, and I still conclude that there was nothing, particularly in my readings of religious history that point specifically to categorizing the ancients generally as 'hard polytheists' (or soft polytheists, either, for that matter), as there is, as far as I can see, evidence for both ideaologies.

It is no more "probable" that hard polytheism was 'the norm' any more than it is probable that soft polytheism was the norm.

One may be able to make the claim that there is no specific evidence that the ancients could not be defined as either hard or soft polytheistic with an oral tradition... but to say that there is no evidence within the various cultures is to ignore their own writings or to take them out of their cultural context.

[Ben Gruagach]

These are the working definitions that I use: Hard polytheism is a perception of the Gods and Goddesses as distinct beings with separate personalities. Soft polytheism consider the Gods and Goddesses to be aspects of a single personal deity.

Using an example in simpler terms... a hard polytheist would see a tree, despite its emanation from and obvious unity with the earth, as a distinct entity; while a soft polytheist would see a tree as an aspect of the earth, that its individuality is only a perception and that the tree is not distinct at all.

The definition of soft polytheism that I use (and that many soft polytheists use in my observation) is that the singular individual Divine is so vast and unknowable that it's basically impossible for us to approach It or gain any real understanding of It. The way we mortals can approach the Divine is through the limited manifestations of It which we perceive as the countless multitude of gods and goddesses. Essentially any deity which we mortals can relate to is but a limited fragment of the ultimate Divine. While those "lesser deities" are limited fragments they are still quite distinct and individual and are far greater than we mortals who are insignificant in comparison.

It's quite different from assuming that we don't see there to be any difference between one thing (like the tree in the example) and another greater thing (like the earth.) Many soft polytheists believe the limited manifestations can be very individual and unique while at the same time being fragments of the larger Godhead.

In some Christian and Jewish philosophy the singular God is believed to manifest to humans as limited fragments known commonly as angels. In the Tree of Life diagram this fragmentary manifestation scheme is depicted as the sephiroth or spheres, with each one being quite distinct while of course being part of the greater whole which is God. Of course Christianity and Judaism is monotheistic and not polytheistic but there is some similarity with the ideas of soft polytheism.

I've also seen quite a few hard polytheists insist that attempts to equate one deity with another, such as saying Hermes and Thoth are really the same god, is soft polytheism and in violation of the hard polytheist stance that deities are not singular beings that manifest as different named deities.

[Tim]

The definition of soft polytheism that I use (and that many soft polytheists use in my observation) is that the singular individual Divine is so vast and unknowable that it's basically impossible for us to approach It or gain any real understanding of It. The way we mortals can approach the Divine is through the limited manifestations of It which we perceive as the countless multitude of gods and goddesses. Essentially any deity which we mortals can relate to is but a limited fragment of the ultimate Divine. While those "lesser deities" are limited fragments they are still quite distinct and individual and are far greater than we mortals who are insignificant in comparison.

It's quite different from assuming that we don't see there to be any difference between one thing (like the tree in the example) and another greater thing (like the earth.) Many soft polytheists believe the limited manifestations can be very individual and unique while at the same time being fragments of the larger Godhead.

In some Christian and Jewish philosophy the singular God is believed to manifest to humans as limited fragments known commonly as angels. In the Tree of Life diagram this fragmentary manifestation scheme is depicted as the sephiroth or spheres, with each one being quite distinct while of course being part of the greater whole which is God. Of course Christianity and Judaism is monotheistic and not polytheistic but there is some similarity with the ideas of soft polytheism.

I've also seen quite a few hard polytheists insist that attempts to equate one deity with another, such as saying Hermes and Thoth are really the same god, is soft polytheism and in violation of the hard polytheist stance that deities are not singular beings that manifest as different named deities.

You have to realize there are varying degrees that individuals will fall within the range that these two definitions create... it is true that a person who sees Aphrodite and Venus as the same Goddess just with different names is softer then a person who perceives them as individual, but they are both hard polytheists... and while your description of an ultimate divine which is perceived thru individuals by separate manifestations is very similar to the concept of a single source from which emanated the Gods and all existence are similar, the soft polytheist sees the Gods as archetypes or thought-forms or masks not as individual beings.

[Ben Gruagach]

You have to realize there are varying degrees that individuals will fall within the range that these two definitions create... it is true that a person who sees Aphrodite and Venus as the same Goddess just with different names is softer then a person who perceives them as individual, but they are both hard polytheists... and while your description of an ultimate divine which is perceived thru individuals by separate manifestations is very similar to the concept of a single source from which emanated the Gods and all existence are similar, the soft polytheist sees the Gods as archetypes or thought-forms or masks not as individual beings.

I understand that soft polytheism and hard polytheism could be seen as two ends of a spectrum. However a lot of the people who use the terms consider them to be two very distinct categories. Because of that, things that one person lumps in with soft polytheism is just as likely to be lumped in with hard polytheism by someone else.

Getting people to explain their definitions goes a long way in understanding why they might say something is either hard polytheism or soft polytheism.

[Tim]

I understand that soft polytheism and hard polytheism could be seen as two ends of a spectrum. However a lot of the people who use the terms consider them to be two very distinct categories. Because of that, things that one person lumps in with soft polytheism is just as likely to be lumped in with hard polytheism by someone else.

Getting people to explain their definitions goes a long way in understanding why they might say something is either hard polytheism or soft polytheism.

Just like there is right wing politics and left wing politics... most people do not fall into the extremes of either... my grandfather was a life long Democrat and union worker... he believed in many of their positions... but he was adamantly against abortion and welfare... that doesn't make him automatically a Conservative even though extremists on the left are intolerant of his positions on those two subjects.

[David19]

One bit that suggests soft polytheism to me is the way Lucius Apuleius describes the cult of Isis in "The Golden Ass." This book is where modern Wiccans got the start of the Charge of the Goddess, which says,

"Listen to the words of the Great Mother; she who of old was also called among men Artemis, Astarte, Athene, Dione, Melusine, Aphrodite, Cerridwen, Dana, Arianrhod, Isis, Bride, and by many other names."

At the very least it looks like within that cult they saw a single Goddess who manifested as the multitude of goddesses known in all the cultures they knew about.


You also have to take The Golden Ass for what it is... a second century literary novel... no doubt it contains certain perceptions of the time... but it was not an actual account... it's a classical work... but it's still fiction.

I agree with Tim, as another Kemetic (not on this forum, but another recon board) said that when the Romans came into contact with the Egyptians and the Kemetic gods, the way the Isis was worshipped and seen in the Isis Cult (of the Romans) was different to the way the Kemetics would have seen her, i think it the Isis Cult may have been like the Kabbalah Centre today (the LA one that Madonna, Britney, etc are a part of), (so, it's anyones guess if they actually knew anything about Isis or her worship and mysteries, i think).

Plus, like what Tim said, it may have been the authors way of putting the first cause that philosphers like Plato, etc talked about in Isis's image, doesn't mean the author was write (like some Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc will say Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah created the universe, but i don't believe that (i see him (or them?) as a very powerful god (or gods) but not the creator).

[Ben Gruagach]

I think I found it... but it reads

Behold Lucius I am come, thy weeping and prayers hath moved me to succor thee. I am she that is the natural mother of all things, mistresses and governesses of all the Elements, the initial progeny of worlds, chief of powers divine, Queen of heaven! the principal of the Gods celestial, the light of the goddesses: at my will the planets of the ayre, the wholesome winds of the Seas, and the silences of hell be deposed; my name, my divinity is adored throughout all the world in divers manners, in variable customs and in many names, for the Phrygians call me the mother of the Gods: the Athenians, Minerva: the Cyprians, Venus: the Candians, Diana: the Sicilians Proserpina: the Eleusians, Ceres: some Juno, other Bellona, other Hecate: and principally the Aethiopians which dwell in the Orient, and the Aegyptians which are excellent in all kind of ancient doctrine, and by their proper ceremonies accustom to worship me, do call me Queen Isis.
- The Eleventh Book, The Forty-Seventh Chapter, The Golden Ass by Lucius Apuleius

Now the way it is written here leads me to believe that it was not a belief that all Gods are part of a single divinity, but that they believed that a God could be recognized by different cultures by different names. It also appears that they (in this case) may have been recognizing Isis as the "first principle".

The passage you quoted looks like it's from Adlington's 1566 translation. Robert Graves' more recent translation from the original Latin includes an interesting phrase:

I am... the single manifestation of all the Gods and Goddesses that are...

There is a copy of the relevant passage in the original Latin at this webpage (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0533/_PEB.HTM) for anyone who wants to try their hand at translating it to English. I'm afraid I'm not a Latin scholar so I have to rely on other people's translations.

It would be interesting to see whether Adlington or Graves were more loyal to the original text in their translation.

Graves' translation thought clearly promotes the "all godesses are One Goddess" idea.

[Tim]

The passage you quoted looks like it's from Adlington's 1566 translation. Robert Graves' more recent translation from the original Latin includes an interesting phrase:

I am... the single manifestation of all the Gods and Goddesses that are...

There is a copy of the relevant passage in the original Latin at this webpage (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0533/_PEB.HTM) for anyone who wants to try their hand at translating it to English. I'm afraid I'm not a Latin scholar so I have to rely on other people's translations.

It would be interesting to see whether Adlington or Graves were more loyal to the original text in their translation.

Graves' translation thought clearly promotes the "all godesses are One Goddess" idea.

I traslated it using QuickLatin software:


See I am here shake/stir uped your, Lucius, to the prayers, of the things the natures the parent, the mistress of a family of the elements the all men, of the ages the race the original/founding members, the sum of the divine wills, queen of the shades/ghosts of deads, of the year the_Gods, the uniform shape of Gods of the goddesses, which/who the heavens the bright height/peak/top/summit/zeniths, the healthy male breezes, the those below the silences weep/lament/mourn for/cry overed I manage to the my nods: divine power by the of whom? only having many shapes sight, by the different rite, to the yoked many together name whole adored the circle. Thence first born Phryges Pessinuntia God the mother, from here the original inhabitants Atticus Cecropeia Minerva, there rise in wavesing Cyprius Paphia Venus, of carrying arrows Crete Dictynna Diana, of Siculus that has three tongues Stygia Proserpina, of ancient Eleusinius Actaea Ceres, Juno of the garlic, Bellona of the garlic, Hecata those, Rhamnusia those, and which/who being produced spontaneously of God Sol< and killing bending> are illuminated to the rays of Aethiopesus to the skin the ancient education exert power or influencing of Aegyptius me to the ceremonies of the own percolentesus call truly to the name the queen Isid. I am here your pitied the fall, I am here favoring and propitate. Send I shall go cry fored and the lamentations lay aside, drive/push out//off/away/aside the grief; I shall go to you my foreseing he/she/it begin to dawns the day the salvation. Therefore then to the commands to those my hold out the mind concerned. The day, which/who the day out of that will be produced spontaneously to the night [prima nocte => early in the night, immortalize he/she/it has called to me the supernatural constraint/taboo, where you settle to the wintry seasons and you mitigate of the sea to the stormy waves navigable I shall go to the sea the stick/rod declare/proclaimming the keel the first-fruits the supplies/provisions nibble the my priests. It the sacrifice nor disturb nor by the secular.

Now this is of course a straight unedited translation... which kinda gives you an idea how things get lost... but looking at this it appears that the 1566 translation is closer to the original... IMHO

[Zephyrstorm]

General rule - don't trust translator programs. They all suck.
They'll give you the gist, but not the sense of it. No sense of context, and no understanding of which sense of a word is the correct one.

[Tim]

the sum of the divine wills

I think this is the line... now Adlington's translation is "chief of powers divine"... probably an attempt to keep the meaning, yet create an elegant read.

We could translate it to say "the total of the godly might" or "the summation of the heavenly will" or "the entirety of the celestial power".

Graves' translation, "I am... the single manifestation of all the Gods and Goddesses that are...", seems to me to be what he took away from it as the spirit of the words... it is why it's good to read different translations... he is writing what he thinks it means, not what is written.

[Ben Gruagach]

the sum of the divine wills

I think this is the line... now Adlington's translation is "chief of powers divine"... probably an attempt to keep the meaning, yet create an elegant read.

We could translate it to say "the total of the godly might" or "the summation of the heavenly will" or "the entirety of the celestial power".

Graves' translation, "I am... the single manifestation of all the Gods and Goddesses that are...", seems to me to be what he took away from it as the spirit of the words... it is why it's good to read different translations... he is writing what he thinks it means, not what is written.

That line jumped out at me, but so did others such as
the uniform shape of Gods of the goddesses
and
having many shapes sight, by the different rite, to the yoked many together name whole adored the circle.

It seems to me that the Adlington translation left out some key ideas which Graves' translation preserved.

[David19]

Graves' translation thought clearly promotes the "all godesses are One Goddess" idea.

I've heard from several people that Graves isn't that reliable, as, i think, he was the one that promoted the idea of Hecate as a 'crone' goddess (she wasn't/isn't, i think she was depicted as a young woman or with 3 dog heads, but please correct me if i'm wrong :)).

Also, from what i've heard Graves only describes one goddess in his book 'The White Goddess', and i think it was Ceriwden(sp? i think i've spelt it wrong, but she's a Celtic god).

[Tim]

I don't agree...


of the year the_Gods, the uniform shape of Gods of the goddesses

...was translated to...


the principal of the Gods celestial, the light of the goddesses:

...and...


only having many shapes sight, by the different rite, to the yoked many together name whole adored the circle.

...was translated to...


my name, my divinity is adored throughout all the world in divers manners, in variable customs and in many names

Now... I'm not really seeing where anything was lost, other then the software gives you literal translations of words, so they are bit difficult to read... and we would need Graves' translation of the same lines.