Anthropomorphism

An owl with it's own darting/gleaming
eyes, is this Athena in true form?

Anthropomorphism is a fascinating topic; cultures have been partaking in humanising gods well before the Greeks. But why would we depict something that we consider a superior and in-human being…as human? The notion seems absurd. Yet it is undeniably a truth that most people (including myself) might make that mistake to envisage the Greek gods in humanised forms. I am fully aware that Ares is not only the god of war…but he also embodied war as a concept. And this is the same with many of the gods and their simplified attributes- Hades as the underworld, Nike as victory, Zeus as thunder. Yet I still picture them in their human counterparts. Is this the same for the Greeks? And what are the gods ‘true forms’ if they even exist? These are questions I want to try and answer in this posting.

Gods and goddesses can be portrayed in many ways; these different depictions tend to serve different contexts. They can embody an attribute (as above) or they can be personified in a weapon (Zeus as a thunderbolt, Poseidon as a trident etc.) and even as an animal in zoomorphism (Zeus as a swan/eagle, Diana as deer.) In the latter, these animals can be portrayed with the deity or as the deity. And so is this animal an agent for the god, or is the god an animal? We know that when a deity takes human form, they have human attributes (such as lust and hate) so when they are zoomorphised are they simply impersonating this beast or do they literally become the beast? This is addressed in the myth of Leda and the swan. Zeus, in swan form, seduces/rapes Leda, which leads to her laying eggs, a truly bird thing to do! It could be argued that if Zeus were simply acting as a swan then his offspring would be birthed normally. How can we ever know which is the correct form? In which case, do the gods have no true form?

Athena Tetradrachm. 
Athens, approx 450 BC. British Museum

Aniconic images are particularly holy in ancient Greece. These simple images were thought to have fallen from heaven and so were sacred, they were thought to depict the ‘true’ divinity. One example is the Xoanon, or the wooden Athena. It was thought to be the crude image of Athena, but also Athena herself. Is this her true form? Often the gods represented animals or objects that they were meant to symbolise. Athena was often accompanied by an owl, as was she often depicted as such. Both Athena and the owl are known to be wise. They embodied the same qualities. She is frequently described in literature as Athena Glaukopis, which roughly translates into darting/gleaming eyes. This image is of an Athenian Tetradrachm. It depicts Athena on one side and an owl on the other. It is interesting to see that the humanised depiction has similar attributes to the animal counterpart- large ‘darting’ eyes and a beaked nose. These animal representations show the gods known traits. In a further example, Deacy discusses how Hera is described as Bo-Opis (Doe-eyed) advocating modesty and femininity.

One thing to consider is how the Greeks took myth. Did they truly believe them in the literal sense? This is once again connected to Christianity; do they believe that the bible is full of truth, or more of a metaphor? This is something that can arguably never be fully discovered nor understood from the Greeks.

However, one thing for certain is that human forms are much more accessible to humans beings. By anthropomorphising Athena, it makes her far more familiar, attainable and understandable. Humans fear the unknown and having a physical and ‘constant’ image of a deity allows them to recognise features and attributes on vases and paintings and thus allows them to worship not only the deity, but also their image.  It is also key to note that as Lefkowitz discusses, many Greeks traced their ancestry back to the gods (the Spartans to Hercules) and by anthropomorphising them; it makes this claim far more realistic.

By depicting Athena and her fellow deities in a human form, it allowed the Greeks to have a much greater scope of deities and their powers. Their gods had an essence or particular energy about them that couldn’t only be shown with anthropomorphism. It makes the divine dangerous.

It is also very important to point out the convenience of having humanised gods; it is the same in Christianity. As I said earlier, it is familiar and easier to make gods in the form of humans in certain situations. It creates a binary opposition of reachable human depictions versus the ‘other’ unknown and dangerous depictions. It shows that Greek gods can be inferior and superior (breaking human laws such as incest yet they are divine.) This sets them apart from our Christianised God, who is omnibenevolent, yet still in human form. Anthropomorphism is not Greek deities true form in my opinion. Xenophanes in the 6^th Century even claims the absurdity of anthropomorphism as a concept, stating that ‘if oxen had gods, they would be in the forms of oxen’. They are familiar and convenient. Yet it isn’t always for convenience as we have previously discussed. The gods had varied representations for varied reasons. 

My next topic of discussion will be the Olympic gods vs. the Chthonian gods.

Polytheism

Today’s topic is very interesting. I say this because I think we often take it for granted that the ancient Greeks worshipped many deities. What I mean by this is that we don’t think about it as a complex and confused network, instead we think of each deity as a single being. Of course each deity has their own attributes, flaws and personality and looking at each individually may help you to understand them better. But you can never fully understand how a certain deity works and fits in Greek society until you look at them in the centre of a vast system.

The image I’ve used today is a picture I took of the whiteboard in the lecture. You can see how messy and disordered it is! It is meant to be a representation of the Olympic gods. Our first task was to list all of the twelve Olympians that we could remember…easy right? Wrong! It was much harder than I expected to list the gods that we talk about in every lecture and once you have named them, putting them in any kind of order is almost impossible! This proves the complexity of the Greek gods discussed above.

Firstly I want to discuss how polytheism is on the surface a very alien concept to a monotheistic Christian society. In previous posts we have thought about how this needs to be cast aside in the journey through Greek religion but in this instance it is a curious pathway to delve down. In Christianity we worship one god, God. Yes? I’m not so sure. I believe that within Christianity there are many figures that are ‘worshipped’. We have the angels- protectors and deliverers of divine messages. Virgin Mary is often in the receiving ends of prayer, as is Jesus Christ. Even Saints are arguably worshipped; St. Christopher is on sovereigns across the world as a symbol for safe travel (this is not totally dissimilar to Hermes, god of travel.) Yes they are all worshipped in different ways to God, yet they are still looked upon as sanctified beings. Mortals with human flaws: looked at and worshipped for differing attributes. This sounds a lot like our network of Greek gods. A more apparent comparison would be the religion of Hinduism. They worship many gods in a very similar fashion to the Greeks, as well as having ‘minor gods’ in the form of spirits. These gods have different roles and different forms, some even personify what they represent in a similar way that Hades is the underworld and also the guardian on the underworld and Nike both the representative and personification of victory. In this respect Hinduism is arguably a better counterpart to Greek polytheism. Unfortunately for my research, I know less about Hinduism than I do about the ancient Greeks! But the bare bones of the argument show that polytheism does still exist, perhaps strangely in Christianity as well as Hinduism. It is also worth noting Buddhism. Buddha was a human being, a mortal man that accomplished enlightenment to the highest level. This is very fascinating as this somewhat parallels the Greek gods and how they had limitations and other mortal attributes. It also has a small connection with Hercules who (although the son of Zeus) has his own journey to becoming a god himself (whether Hercules is a hero or god is an entirely different blog!)

                 

Confronting polytheism is as complex as my accompanying picture. It seems only natural to take each god or goddess separately and this is a reasonable approach as each god has clear and defined qualities. However, this is deeply problematic. It totally removes the idea of polytheism. As we have discussed, these gods are a part of a group, a network. You can’t detach one god in order to understand them better. This is over-simplifying polytheism with a Christian mentality. To understand any of the gods, you must understand where he/she fits into this system or pantheon of gods. You can’t look at a god in seclusion. This is truly depicted in the tale of Hippolytus, a man that refuses to revere Aphrodite in favour of Artemis. The story ends with Hippolytus’ death. A somewhat severe metaphor on how not to confront polytheism. 

The pairing example used in class was that of Hermes and Hestia. On the base of the statue of Zeus at Olympia, each of the gods is paired including these two apparently opposite deities. But upon inspection it is a sure example of how god pairings can compliment each other and bring forth each other’s attributes.

                 Hermes= the moving outside messenger…change.
                 Hestia= the fixed space of the interior hearth…constant.

This is a small example of how the gods fit together and how they accompany and overlap each other perfectly.

With that said I want to try and begin to confront the diversity of the gods, specifically Athena. All of the major gods held several functions and our modern perception of them is somewhat simplified (the idea of Ares as the god of war and Poseidon as the sea god etc. perhaps we can blame Disney for this?) Athena is particularly diverse and therefore has many epithets that show her roles in the Greek world:

Epithet	Meaning
Athena Polias	City protectress.
Athena Promachos	Champion.
Athena Parthenos	The Maiden.
Athena Hygieia	Promoted health.
Athena Nike	Victory.
Athena Polymetis	Cunning in many ways.

That is just a small collection of her many manifestations. Deacy states, “Who was Athena, we will consider: a unified being with numerous specialised qualities? Or is her diversity the point of her nature?” (p.5) This is something that is difficult to answer. Athena is so diverse she almost pairs and compliments with herself, as Hermes and Hestia do with each other above. She possessed characteristics that appose each other, such as war and women’s work. And when you do pair her with other gods, her varieties of qualities are amplified even further! Deacy further examines this:

As a power of technology she had affinities with her fellow craft deity Hephaistos. 

As a power of war, she complemented Ares. She supported Zeus, meanwhile, in his 

role as guarantor of divine and human justice…As the virgin warrior…she is on one

 level the opposite of Aphrodite, the power of sexuality and love. But in certain 

contexts…she possesses traits characteristic of that goddess.” (p.6)

This alone shows how hard it is to pinpoint Athena as a deity. Due to her vast qualities she contrasts and shows unity with each god you consider. Poseidon shows anger and brute force compared with her intelligence and skill, yet they both have connections with the horse (Poseidon Hippios and Athena Hippia.) Even working as one in myth, with Poseidon birthing Pegesos and Athena giving Bellerophon the ability to ride him. Parker says “It can be argued…that the two gods relate to horses in different ways: Poseidon symbolises the raw power of the mighty beast, Athena the technological skill needed to master that power…” (p.389) He then goes on to say that this connection can be nullified as other sources say Poseidon was the first to tame a horse.  But either way, this shows that everyday human life involved many different gods adding their own skills and qualities. Looking closer at Athena, Deacy goes on the explain that one way to attempt to seek out Athena’s true nature is to look at her manifestation of Athena Polymetis, metis or cunning. This is perhaps a vehicle to decipher why she is ever changing. And that perhaps trying to label Athena with absolute statements is going against everything that she is meant to represent. She is cunning and therefore she can fit into any necessary situation, or as Deacy puts it, “…her cunning. But rather than enabling us to sum her up, it shows us that the point of Athena was that she was ever ‘on-the-move’.” (p.6-7) Perhaps the very point of Athena is that she is unexplainable. She is connected to each of her fellow deities in the network with both opposing and complimenting characteristics. She is a convenient instrument in both myth and modern day explanations.

I fear this is a topic that could have an entire dissertation written on, a small blog post doesn’t do it justice! Next week we will be studying anthropomorphism.