One of the issues debated for a very long time, not only in Hellenismos but also within the Reconstructionist Community as a whole, is the issue of relying on primary verses secondary sources. Most people do not understand this issue, and so I want to spell it out in detail.

Reconstructionism is a method of reviving an ancient religion using the best available information to create the most plausible reconstruction. When beginning an investigation into an ancient religion or culture, there are two methods that can be employed, Philological and Anthropological. Philological is the study of a language in unison with its literature, within a historical and cultural context, while Anthropological is the study of local traditions, through their history, literature, music, and arts, with an emphasis on in-depth examination of context and cross-cultural comparisons.

The Anthropological method is used to scientifically study the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of a religion, and its direct development from a more ancient one. The Philological method finds the most value in the works of the ancient historians, poets, orators, and philosophers. Those using this method often amateurishly neglect, eagerly ignore, or scornfully reject the popular aspects of Greek religion as less intellectual, less enlightened, and less valuable, or incompetently take written accounts at face value.

We must discern the value of primary verses secondary sources of information. A primary source is a document (or other media source of information) that was created approximately in the same time period being studied, and via a source believed to have direct knowledge of what is being described. A secondary source is a document (or other media source) that communicates or argues information that was initially obtained somewhere else. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, and provides for us analysis, synthesis, interpretation, and evaluation of the original information from multiple primary and even other secondary sources.

The big thing that a person needs to understand is that primary source does not mean truer or more valuable. Let us provide some examples. A thousand years from now both Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore will be considered primary source material for studying late Twentieth/early Twenty-first Century America. The writings and recording of both Winston Churchill and Adolph Hitler will be primary sources when discussing World War II. The writings and recordings of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will all hold the same weight as primary sources. Knowing this, a person a thousand years from now will need to rely on secondary sources to provide greater analysis, synthesis, interpretation, and evaluation of these original sources of information. A person could get a very skewed perception of what the world was like in our times relying on any one primary source over another, or by not placing these sources in context of the times we live. Within Hellenismos, that skewed perception can cause a person to practice something that is not an actual reconstruction, but a fabrication of his or her own mind.

Presume for a moment that you have a person basing their practice primarily on myth. Well, the fact is that the Greeks saw myth very differently than it is seen by other religions such as Christianity. The Greek myths are (and were) typically seen as tools to proclaim the existence of the Gods to all, but the stories are allegories for finding greater knowledge and are not to be taken as literal history or as literal descriptions of the Gods’ actions. Using them doesn’t even prove if a God or Goddess was even worshiped because, as Jon Mikalson and many others have noted, the only real proof if a Deity was worshiped is if there was an altar erected in their name.

Others try to “reconstruct” the ancient Greek religion using philosophy as their primary base. The failure of this method is that philosophy had little impact on the public religion or household practices. This method also ignores the fact that philosophical concepts (as well as the public religion of the city-states, and the mysteries) evolved out of the religious practices of the rural population. The religious and spiritual practices of the lower and middle classes defined the religion and gave it continuity.

The greatest problem with the over emphasis of primary sources is that there are those who are perfectly willing to use them as Gospel, while at the same time taking creative license to place their own spin on what is being said. These people are more than willing to quote out of context of the document, and out of context of the culture, to validate there own “beliefs” or to set their opinions above others with intellectual masturbation. Having your own personal beliefs are fine, but fakelore is fakelore, and intentional fakelore is deceit. These individuals will either downplay or disregard secondary sources with intent. Why? Some of it can be chalked up to the naiveté of being new to doing research, but some others that approach Reconstructionism not as a means to an end, but as a religion unto itself requiring constant research and fabrication of new theories about what the ancient religion was. Still others, it is outright deceit and hubris in an attempt to elevate their “opinions” above the scholarship of others, especially those who have made a lifelong career exploring, uncovering, and studying the ancient Greek religion.

I am by no means implying that any contemporary work should be blindly followed as the definitive authority source for the ancient Greek religion, or the canon of Hellenismos. Each of these works need to be compared and contrasted to each other, and even beyond that, we need to take into account the target audience of such works (meaning those which are legitimately scholarly works, and those slanted and biased towards a specific market).

Additionally, for those offering commentary on modern Hellenismos, we must ask why they may be offering a drastically different interpretation of the ancient Greek religion than is accepted. What is their motivation and intent? We must not allow ourselves to be lulled into a sense of security or become awestruck by a seemingly impressive body of work. Do not be sheep. Challenge everything you read, and do not allow yourself to become entranced by seemingly spiritual sounding rhetoric, which often times is empty and meaningless to the authors themselves. These people do not concern themselves with your spiritual wellbeing, or the development of our religion. They are only concerned with their own position, power, and prestige.

Tags: fakelore, Hellenismos, primary sources, Reconstructionism, research, secondary sources