Is Syncretism The Same Thing As “Soft Polytheism”?

In a word:  No.

However, that’s never good enough, is it?  Certainly not for me!  😉

The reason this question has come up in recent times is Dver’s post mentioning her new edition of Kharis, and the Hellenic Polytheist Survey included in it.  Please note, though, that I mention this and have the answer that I do below not to criticize her, or her ideas, or her work, nor that of anyone who answered the survey by selecting that particular option.  Let me reiterate that I do not, remotely, nor in any fashion, have criticism for Dver’s work, and in fact I have nothing but respect, admiration, and approbation for all that she has done and continues to do in her own particular practice of polytheism…just so we’re clear on that, eh?  😉

I realize that my thoughts on this particular matter are nuanced and somewhat idiosyncratic, and are very definitely in the minority, and I know and am well aware of that fact.  I have shared them in the past, but they are still not very well-known nor well-understood, either within academic contexts nor in the wider spheres of polytheism or pagan practice.  The reasons for this are many, amongst them that not very many people have done any of the following:

1.  Read the posts about this on my old blog (and then commented on their own understandings or agreements with my thoughts–though a few people vehemently disagreed with me, very likely for reasons having nothing to do with my actual arguments or evidence!).
2. Attended the various sessions I have given on this topic at things like PantheaCon, or the various ways I bring this into other presentations I’ve done there and elsewhere on several occasions from 2010 onwards.
3. Read the relevant sections of A Serpent Path Primer on this subject.
4. Taken the old Academia Antinoi class on this subject (which I’m still willing to offer at present if anyone is interested and has the money and time to do so!).
5. Read the full book that I’ve written on this subject, based upon and expanding on the various things mentioned above…though the main reason for this is because it isn’t out yet, but I hope that will be remedied by the end of this calendar year, if not sooner.

But, that latter point is not worth saying too much more about at present…you’ll certainly all be made aware when I publish any future books, and that one is scheduled to be a part of a. three-volume series that will be entitled “Studies in Foundational Polytheism.”  Other details of further books I am planning to get out in the not-too-distant future can be found on this page.  Now, no more digressions…!

To begin, just a brief note on the divergent nature of the concept of “syncretism.”  It can be used in two primary fashions:  to mean a methodological system of combining two or more religious traditions, practices, or cultures into a single practice (whether individually or on a wider cultural basis, e.g. Graeco-Roman-Egyptian polytheism of late antiquity); or the theological phenomenon of the linking of two different Deities from different cultures (inter-pantheonic syncretism, e.g. Zeus-Ammon, Jupiter Taranis, etc.) or different regions of the same general culture (intra-pantheonic syncretism, e.g. the way in which Renenutet, Meretseger, and other Goddesses in Egypt were syncretized to Hathor, or how a variety of local Deities that are quite divergent in the area of Ancient Greece were eventually given the name “Zeus” or “Artemis” or “Demeter” despite major differences in myth and cultus between Them in each individual location, and that were then distinguished by particular descriptive or regional epithets afterwards, such as Zeus Lykaion vs. Zeus Olympeios, Artemis Orthia vs. Artemis Brauronia, etc.).  Theological syncretism does not always require methodological syncretism (as in the cases of intra-pantheonic syncretism), whereas methodological syncretism almost always involves theological syncretism.

The initiative for such syncretistic processes can stem from either divine agency or historical causes, and often it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish the difference between these.  We should be very careful in dismissing cases that are definitely historical from ones that are assumed to not be divine in origin; one such common assumption is that Serapis, for example, is just due to Ptolemaic fiat rather than being a further development of some originally Egyptian theological trends involving intra-pantheonic syncretism which then spread out internationally and interculturally thereafter.  There is no reason that the divine and the historical causes cannot be mutually dependent upon one another, by any means!

But, when mentioning that set of potential distinctions, we should also mention the all-too-common mistake that many modern polytheists and pagans, especially when employing a reconstructionist methodology, often assume and take for granted as a given which may not be at all:  namely, that a particular scholar (who is probably not a polytheist and may have tremendous disdain for polytheists!) states “X Deity and Y Deity are probably the same” and then the modern polytheist takes their word for it rather than asking the Deities concerned if that is the case, or even if it isn’t if it is possible to approach Them that way for some reason (expediency, sharing of cultus, or any number of other possibilities).  When these things happened historically and they were done by people we know were polytheists, we are in safe territory; where a scholar suggests such without any supporting evidence beyond linguistic reconstruction, cute theories, or simply just stating such because they implicitly have a bias that can’t imagine that many individual Deities existing, then we need to be very careful indeed.

Where theological syncretism is concerned, there are two potential ways to understand the phenomenon.  The one that is the most common amongst scholars, many polytheist and pagan practitioners, and which is in evidence in cases where it is understood as “soft polytheism,” is what I would call equative or equational syncretism.  This is the assumed meaning behind such Interpretatio Romana or Interpretatio Graeca formulations found in texts or inscriptions which seem to suggest that one Deity “is” another, functionally or existentially.

This is why many people assume, for example, that certain Greek and Roman Deities are synonymous with each other, without understanding the independent developments of the cults of each in Their respective localities and cultures:  Bacchus and Dionysos may be very much “the same,” for example, and the Greek Apollon and the Roman Apollo are definitely the same, but Diana and Artemis are less so, and Mars and Ares likewise.  Venus and Aphrodite may seem similar, but They are rather different in my own experience, and likewise Aphrodite’s origins in Near Eastern Goddesses like Astarte and Ishtar or Inanna seems pretty certain on a historical and phenomenological level, but the resulting Deities in each case are quite different and distinct.

And, of course, super-syncretistic Deities like Antinous clearly push the boundaries and break all of the rules and neat formulations that people wish to have…I don’t know anyone who seriously thinks that Antinous IS Dionysos, AND Hermes, AND Silvanus, and so forth…so, something else is clearly going on there.  Some of this may be explained by what Edward Butler has discussed as “polycentric polytheism,” which I highly suggest everyone interested in these matters familiarize themselves with, as it will provide many rewards beyond the present discussion.  Any Deity can potentially take the form of another for Their own purposes, and sometimes those temporary personae can persist, as is the case with Hermanubis, Hermes Trismegistos, and a variety of others.

Thus, with these things in mind, I have arrived at a different understanding of theological syncretism which can be in operation in many cases, without requiring or assuming that equative syncretism is necessary.  This is what I call translational or metaphorical syncretism–and, incidentally, both of those terms are synonymous in Latin and Greek, respectively, because they mean “carry-over”!  In a Latin altar inscription in Roman Britain, there might be an instance of, for example, Sulis Minerva.  Now, clearly, the name “Sulis” refers to a Goddess that was revered in a British language at the site of modern Bath for some time before the Romans arrived; but when the latter happened, the Romans thought of this Sulis as in some way connected to or even “equal” to Minerva, and hence we have what might be thought of as an inter-pantheonic equative syncretism.  However, just as “is” can be used in a metaphorical sense (e.g. “Bob is a jackass” does not mean that the human Bob is literally a male donkey, but instead that he is exhibiting characteristics which cause him to be classified in that fashion), and the Latin verb sum, esse, etc. (“to be”) can be omitted from a sentence in speech or writing while assuming that it is still there, so too can we understand that it is potentially present in these inscriptions, and can be understood in a metaphorical fashion for translational purposes.

So, the Roman reader who comes to Bath and the temple there might see the inscription and understand “Sulis is [metaphorically] Minerva” and think “Oh, I have no idea who this Sulis is, but apparently She’s like Minerva in some way.”  We forget that when translating, though we find what we assume to be equivalent words or phrases between different languages, even some of the smallest words or phrases don’t translate entirely because particular cultural nuances and references might not be caught by those who do not know the full history, contextual usage, and inferences possible with a particular word.  Especially in the cases where Romano-Celtic altar inscriptions give the Celtic Deity-name first and the Latin theonym second, this translational understanding is very likely, since the Celtic name is given priority; however, when the Latin name comes first, we can potentially assume that what is being conveyed is an understanding of the Celtic name as simply a local epithet of the overarching Deity known as XYZ.  In the latter instances, the patterns of intra-pantheonic syncretism are then simply projected onto a larger cultural sphere, and what appeared initially to be inter-pantheonic is then simply understood as the prevailing Deity having forms known in other cultures under unfamiliar names.

To use a different set of conceits for this process, and one that is both humorous but also highly illustrative of the process involved, think about this:  if I were to say “Harry Potter is the Luke Skywalker of his universe, and Luke is the Wesley Crusher of the Star Wars universe,” some people might think this is heresy for various potentially valid reasons, but others may understand that the functional role metaphorically shared between these characters (which is one that accords with particular “archetypes,” for better or worse!) can analogize in those different ways; BUT, no one would say that, outside of certain crossover fanfic situations, that one could simply pop in Luke for Harry or Harry for Wesley and expect things to run smoothly.  In other words, though they are like each other, they are not each other.

So, whether or not one agrees with any of the above, and in particular the last part of my discussion, that is how I understand these things, and it is a method of understanding them which has stood me in good stead where the actual Deities are concerned and where my direct contact with Them has been involved.  Lugus got very mad when a group of us tried to honor Him, but did so in terms that equated some of the deeds of Lug in Ireland and Lleu in Wales to Him, because we were using this idea prevalent in Celtic Studies circles that all of These “are” each other in an equative sense, even though Their various stories in Their individual cultures are highly divergent in a variety of ways.  Similar origins in shared cultural and linguistic matrices are assumed to be “the same” when one gets to the functional level in an individual cultural context, and this simply isn’t the case (as I’ve argued elsewhere on this blog).

You may disagree–it is your right to do so!–and your own experiences may vary with mine on these matters.  If you’d like to discuss it in a rational and calm manner in comments here, I’m very happy to do so; but if you begin or end with “You’re wrong,” then it will go nowhere and I’d prefer you not do so.  I’m always happy to hear about people’s experiences that are different than my own; please look at the above as an example of the same, i.e. an experience different from your own (if, indeed, it is that).  Experiences in and of themselves, no matter how divergent and perhaps even mutually exclusive, are not “wrong” in any inherent fashion; simply because they exist suggests to me that they be taken seriously, which I think isn’t a bad thing.

Why Celebrate Holidays?

Today is Sunday–a day on which many polytheists might be saying, “So what?  I’ve got a day off work…big deal!”

Today is also Easter Sunday–a day on which many pagans and polytheists might be saying, “So what?  I wish tomorrow would come, so that all of this Easter candy will go on sale and I can pay 50% of what I would today for cheap chocolate crap!”

But for a number of devotees of Antinous, today is an important day, the Megala Antinoeia.  In our yearly calendar, this is roughly the third-most-important day of the year (after Foundation Day, October 30th, and the Natalis Antinoi, November 27th).  The significance of this day is manifold, and didn’t emerge until a few years of my own Antinoan devotional practices had passed.  Originally, it was the Roman festival day of Parilia, a festival involving amongst other things the herding of goats between two fires for purification purposes (similar to what is attested about the Irish Beltaine on May 1st with cattle!), and which was formerly a kind of “foundation day” for Rome itself.  During the time of Hadrian, the festival was redefined as being in honor of Venus and Roma and the grand shared temple he had constructed for these two Goddesses, and it took on a greater significance for Romans from then onwards during the Imperial Period.  It was later revealed that astronomical alignments at both Hadrian’s Villa and the Pantheon were made so that sunrise on this day would illuminate particular places at these locations, thus confirming the special significance of this day for Hadrian himself, and for his particular circle; thus, it seems that this would have probably had some significance for Antinous Himself while He was still living, as well as Hadrian.  It was then chosen by us modern devotees as the date to mark the inauguration of the period of Antinous the Lover, the date of the festival of the Bear Hunt, and also the time when the Megala Antinoeia sacred games would be held.

As the Christian Easter is a “moveable feast” (and the history of determining this date is a lengthy and interesting one!), it is never entirely certain when it will be on a given year with any regularity.  While doubtless the Megala Antinoeia has occurred on a Sunday between 2004 (when we first began to mark this particular date for the holiday) and 2019, to my knowledge it has never been on a date coinciding with Easter Sunday as well, so this is a rather unique occasion, and one on which it might be worthwhile to stop and consider why it is that particular festivals are celebrated on particular dates.

There is an ongoing debate/discussion in some pagan circles regarding when particular festivals should be held, if at all.  While the Solstices and Equinoxes can be pinpointed more exactly now than they ever have been in the past, the quarter-days that fall in between these astronomical markers in the annual solar cycle of the Earth are not-quite-as-exact.  The Irish custom of celebrating them on the 1st of February (Imbolc), May (Beltaine), August (Lugnasad), and November (Samain), often plus the night preceding these because of the Irish practice of beginning a day with the sundown of the previous day, has been adopted in generalized pagan practice (mainly due to the assumption that “Wicca” is a “Celtic religion,” unfortunately!), but as these dates are not precisely within the “middle” of the times between the Equinoxes and Solstices, it has been seen as somewhat arbitrary to have done so.  There has been a drive to distinguish these dates from their “true” dates based on rather random assumptions about astrological times (when the sun is at such-and-such degrees of Scorpio is the “true Samain,” etc.), but this is entirely modern in origin and has nothing to do with the practices of ancient peoples.  There are some standing stone monuments that mark these quarter-days as equally as the solar dates, and there are even some such monuments in the southwestern region of Ireland that only mark the quarter-day sunrises/sunsets of the dates corresponding to Samain and Imbolc, in fact (and along their modern solar dates rather than any assumed astrological calculation)!

There is precedent in having these dates fall within a timespan of usually two weeks before and after the date concerned, which is especially the case for Imbolc (in a time period known as Faoilleach, “the wolf-month,” which used to refer to February in Ireland and is now January in Scotland), Lugnasad (in a period known as Iuchar, “the dog-days,” which is now July in Scotland), and Beltaine.  There is a record in some literary sources for a period known as the “Thirds of Samain” in Ireland, with these three thirds being comprised of the three days before Samain, the three days after, and Samain itself.  Thus, some people who observe these festivals now approximate them to the indicated calendrical “firsts” of their respective months, but locate them on an adjacent weekend in order to have the proper amount of time and freedom to fittingly celebrate them, with the understanding that they are primarily dates of seasonal significance and therefore anytime within the “general season” of two weeks before and after their taking place will suit them equally well to hold one’s official marking of the occasion and performance of the rituals.  If that works for one and one’s co-religionists, that’s fine!

With particular dates, though, which are not necessarily tied to the general seasonal flow of things, celebrating them on “the day itself” becomes more important.  Certainly, in my own practice, this is the case, and thus whenever possible I try to hold the specific dates (particularly in terms of Antinous-specific holidays) on the date itself.  Just as many people celebrate their birthdays on the day itself (though increasingly some people reserve their larger parties for convenient adjacent weekends these days, and likewise with their children!), it is often important with particular dates like Foundation Day and Natalis Antinoi to go on the date itself, particularly since Foundation Day is a date from which larger reckonings of time are determined and thus its exact occurrence is important to likewise recognize.

But why else might one do this, not only in particularly polytheist occasions but also more widely with an approach to holy-days more generally speaking?  I would argue that it is an effort very much along the lines of making material offerings, and it certainly also falls into line with doing rituals generally, which is that it has the practical and significant function of making the Deities more present in the world and in one’s own life.  If making offerings is a way in which physical objects are made full of the presence of divine beings, and likewise keeping shrines, altars, and temple spaces is a way of consecrating larger spaces to divine presences, then keeping holidays and observing them on their exact dates (or at any time, really!) then makes these periods of time holy for one’s Deities.  From smaller objects, spaces, and times, then Deities can begin to “spread out” and impact–almost by contagion!–those things around them in physical time and space.  It isn’t as if Deities are entirely limited to acting in the objects, times, spaces, and persons with which They have become involved or who have dedicated themselves to Them, though it is certainly easier to start from such a base that is regularly strengthened in that manner.  A particular holiday might have marked a certain event in which the Deity did something significant, made an important epiphany, or dedicated to some purpose, but then remembering that moment and attempting to rekindle the impacts of it on that occasion in the future doesn’t mean that the Deities-in-question will then likewise show up “on-demand” on those occasions (unless they want to!), but either the anticipation of such or the consciousness that They had done so previously can then make the lead-up and the aftermath of such events that much more infused with significance and the possibility of recognizing the impact of said Deities on the lives of Their devotees.  From these occasions, further roots can reach out into further events more distant in time from the holy-days concerned, until the presence of one’s Deities can then potentially infuse every day, and every moment.

Taking those times to deliberately cultivate such an awareness of divine presences and interventions is not only practice, but an occasion of “recharging” one’s divine interaction potential batteries, so to speak, so that these can occur more easily and frequently outside of such times.  But, one should never put the cart before the horse and simply “assume” that because Deities can operate whenever They like, that therefore They will, and that particular dates thus fall into obsolescence or can be ignored with impunity.  If “everything is holy,” then nothing is holy; and if every day is a holiday, then there is no such thing as a holiday.  While it is tempting to assume that one’s own mystical prowess and fitness makes this possible from the get-go, let us be realistic:  these kinds of feelings take time to develop, these senses take much effort and trial-and-error to cultivate, and to simply think that just because Deities can that They will and have done so, simply because one wishes that it were so, is to make the mistake that so many beginners in spiritual practice make, with polytheism and with many other religious systems and styles.  Intellectual understanding is not the same thing as spiritual experience, and the difference is not only monumental and palpable when it actually occurs, it is essential to know this distinction in order to have useful discernment.

To use a metaphor that is quite outside of my own level of comfort:  this is the difference between working on strength training regularly by working out and lifting weights and doing other such exercises on a regular and reasonable basis, and having a random adrenaline rush during an accident that allows one to lift a car off an injured person.  Yes, the latter is possible, but if one aspires to having that sort of strength at all times, it is better to make the regular effort (with all of its potential tedium and consumption of time) rather than to rely on the possibility that when the essential situation arrives, that one will be able to manage both the adrenaline and the physical necessities required to do amazing things.