Inclusive Polytheism:- The belief that there are many distinct Gods but that the number of Gods are limited and that all the different pantheons in the world are the same pantheon of Gods, just known by different names and different myths. Example would be Jupiter of the Romans and Zeus of the Greeks and Indra of the Indians are the same God, as is Ceres of the Romans, Demeter of the Greeks and Isis of the Egyptians are the same God.

I am an inclusive polytheist. This means that whilst I believe in many distinct Gods ( I do not believe for even one second that all Gods are one God and all Goddesses are one Goddess or that every deity in the Universe are manifestation of a singular deity ) I believe that the number of Gods in the Universe are finite.

I therefore do not believe that each Gods are necessary distinct from each other. I believe for example that Jupiter, Zeus, Indra, Yahweh, Taranis and Ammon are the same God except they are known by different names and different cults and different myths owing to the locality of their worship and the culture of the people who worships them and by the situation which they initially establish their cult in.

This particular belief is very ancient. Many ancient Greeks and Romans saw the so called “foreign Gods” as the Greek or Roman God as known to other people. This is known as Interpretio Grecia or Interpretio Romana. Very few Greeks and Romans believed that the Gods of Greece or Rome are exclusive to either Greeks or Romans or Etruscans. Rather they saw the Gods as being known by every single culture in the world except with different names, different cultus, different myths and with different level of importance in different cultures. However the God remains the same. The difference is that the Greeks and Romans naturally believed that they have a better understanding of the Gods in general ( though it should also be noted that the Greeks and Romans whilst believing they had a better understanding of the Gods did not believe that they had a complete understanding and were continuously searching for more information. They took on information found in Egypt about the Gods for example as the Egyptians provide pieces of information that were at the time unknown to the Greeks or Romans and they did the same from information they gleaned from Asia Minor )

As an example, many ancient Greeks ( though not all ) believed that even the Gods known to the barbaric Thrakian are still the same Gods known to the Greeks, excepting that the Thrakians only worshiped Dionysius, Artemis and Ares. Herodotus when he went to Egypt clearly equated many Egyptian Gods with Greek Gods and was under the impression that the people in the Near East worshiped Dionysius and Aphrodite as their chief Gods. Aesops in his story about the Arabs already state that the Arab had the same Gods as the Greek with Hermes travelling through their country as he did through the Greek nations ( though a calamity befell Hermes goods and the Arabs took away the very thing tha Hermes was supposed to distribute equally to all pople ) Alexander the Great pretty much thought that a clearly Hindu cult in India was a cult to Dionysius and his people joined in the rites to honor Dionysius in his Indian form. Ptolemy I thought that Ra was Helios and requested that Ra be honored as such. Seleucus continued on the long standing trend amongst the Greeks to equate Ishtar with Aphrodite and raised a temple in honor of Aphrodite Ishtar.

This continued quite nicely into cultus among the Greeks, both on the Aegean Peninsula and outside Greece. The Oracle of Ammon at Siwa was called the Oracle of the Sandy Zeus or the Oracle of Zeus in Egypt by the Athenians even during the period of the Persian wars and a special envoy was actually dispatched from the city to consult the Oracle of Zeus Ammon at Siwa. The Spartans likewise had a cult to Zeus Ammon in Sparta. Temples to Dionysius Sabazios was already present throughout Northern Greece and the cult of Rhea Kybele was prevalent even before the Hellenistic period. Greeks who dwelled in Egypt long before Alexander conquered it already erected temples to Athena Neith, Apollo Horus, Zeus Ammon ( outside the main cult centre of Siwa which remained Egyptian until the Ptolemies and Romans who started introducing Greek and Roman style temple on the site ). As far as India the idea that two Gods are actually the similar God remained. In Buddhist iconography Vajrapani was so closely equated with Herakles that in Greco-Buddhist art all Herakles are Herakles Vajrapani. The same goes for Hariti, where all Tykhes in Greco-Buddhist art are by default Tykhe Hariti. In popular Buddhist stories about Vajrapani he has traits that can only be Herakles and has myths that parallels Herakles and Hariti clearly even in modern cultus has a strong Tykhe component.

This trend continued into Roman time through Interpretio Romana where the Romans equated and in fact regarded as similar the Gods of the Roman Pantheon with the Greek pantheon and tremendous effort were made to equate this. Later when the Romans went North and West they equated further. Sulis was equated with Minerva ( who is equated with Athena ), the Germanic pantheon according to Tacitus was supposed to consist of mainly Hermes, Zeus and Herakles. The Romans continued this even further with equations made official through the Flavium.

Now syncretism does not mean that the local cult get buried. Syncretism means that the local God gets equated with a Greek God and gets acknowledged as such. However the cultus is still local and celebrates the localized myth and localized belief. So for example while Aphrodite Ishtar is acknowledged to be the one and the same Aphrodite her cult celebrate Ishtar’s myth. For the people who worships Aphrodite Ishtar this is another of Aphrodite’s many mysteries but this time it is in Babylon where she is called Ishtar!!

The Greeks and Romans were however the first to acknowledge that they do not know every God in the Universe and some Gods could remain utterly unknown to them or poorly understood by them. The Greeks in Babylon and Alexandria for example worshiped Ereshkigal in a completely separate manner from Persephone after identifying Ereshkigal as a Goddess that has no parallel in Greek religion ( probably because Persephone is a Goddess who can leave the underworld while Ereshkigal cannot ). The Greeks acknowledged that some Gods are utterly unknown to them to the point that in Athens there is even an altar to the unknown Gods!!

Now why did the ancients believe that Inclusive Polytheism made sense?

Whilst the reason for this remains unknown as we do not really have any articles from ancient times that discusses why they thought this to be true, we can reason why they might have thought this to be true.

One would be the Nature of what is a God. The Greeks and Romans divided their divinities into a few scales, but they can roughly be divided into four categories.

One are Divinities who has far ranging influences, wide ranging power which covers entire spheres of activity regardless of whether they are natural, emotional, human, civilization etc.. These beings are not limited by space or boundaries and if they are limited in some they way has such influence over areas they have dominance in that they have tremendous dominance. These are the general conception of the Gods. In short Gods are considered beings with tremendous influence and power in either one sphere or many spheres of activity and are not limited by space or even time in some cases ( as in many cases they are also seen to be able to influence fate ). The only “God” which are limited by space are the River Gods or Potamis.

The second are divinities who has tremendous influence over a particular sphere of activity but really nothing else. They are not limited by space or boundaries but their influence is strictly limited over a particular sphere of activity. Such beings are classed as a type of daemon though the more powerful of these are sometimes thought to be God, but note the similarity in that they are not limited by space.

The third are divinities who has strong local influence or a local natural phenomena like a mountain, a river, a pond etc.. These are beings whose influence are limited by space and boundaries but in their locale has tremendous influence. The beings that fall into these category are the River Gods ( Potamis ) and the Mountain Gods ( Oureas ) and a class of daemons called Nymphais and to some degree satyrois. They are limited by space but in their locale exert strong influence.

The fourth class of divinity are the Heroes. Excluding Heroes who have become Gods like Herakles and Psykhe and Asklepius these class of divinities are believed to either have tremendous influence near the site their cult ( with some only having influence in areas near their temenos like Trophonious ) or have limited influence over a large geographical range, mostly as a helping hand ( like Achilles as the patron of sailors around the Black Sea, he is regarded more as a helper for those at sea, not really as a sea God per say, he is not worshiped as far as we can tell like Poseidon for calm sea, but rather worshiped to be like the second helmsman on the boat ) or both ( like Alexander the Great who is considered to protect Alexandria but also responsive to prayers from all those who prays to him, but once again prayers are more for guidance than actual direct influence ).

To the ancient Greeks and Romans it is undisputed that the number of local divinities like River Gods, nymphs and Heroes can truly only be limited by the number of hills, mountains, rivers, streams, wells, ponds, lakes, springs, trees available. Barring a few Roman cases like Arethusa there really was no attempt by either the Greeks or the Romans to syncretize local deities. The Greeks in Bactria worshiped the river Atrosokes without thinking twice about syncretizing, same as the Greeks and Romans along the river Nile.

However the number of Gods with wide ranging influences and geographically boundless influence has to be limited.

The reason for this is that wide ranging phenomenons are also limited. If we believe that a God rules over a wide ranging phenomenon that same God must rule over the entire wide ranging phenomenon. Since you cannot get many rulers over a singular phenomenon it reasons that you cannot have many Gods ruling over a singular phenomenon. The only way you can have many rulers over a singular phenomena if none rule over the totality over the single phenomena and everyone rules over a related aspect of the one phenomena OR there is a very big God that rules over the entire phenomena and there are other helpers or subrulers that helps to rule or a very limited number of co-rulers.

For example if we consider a storm. The Greeks and Romans knew very early on that a storm cloud can travel great distances. The Greeks and Romans believed that Zeus and Jupiter both ruled over the storm. Now if consider that Zeus and Jupiter are two different Gods but both rules over the same phenomenon of storms than what happens if both Gods disagree about a storm. Does a storm suddenly disappear from the sky? Does the storm split and goes two ways? Does the world suddenly stop having storms if Zeus and Jupiter are in disagreement over storms?

Some modern day Neopagan polytheist try to solve this problem by saying that the Gods rule over their particular locale, that means that Jupiter rules over Italy while Zeus rules over Greece.

Never mind the absurdity that cultural and national boundaries are always shifting, so what is Italy now is truly much smaller than the Roman empire, so by their statement it implies that the influence of the Gods depends on human political influence which is truly absurd given the common and logical conception of what is a God, let us for a moment assume they are right and investigate this line of thinking.

What happens now when a storm cloud moves from Greece across the Adriatic sea into Italy?

Does Zeus hand over the storm cloud to Jupiter? What if Jupiter does not wish that there is a storm in Italy and Zeus really wants the storm to get out of his sphere of influence. Does the storm cloud magically halt over the Adriatic sea and vanish, does it do a 180 degree turn back into Greece?

What then about storm Gods like Tinia whose influence must now be a small portion of Italy. A singular storm would probably cover a far larger geographic range than what he rules locally?

Or what about more wide ranging concrete phenomena like Health? If Hygeia and Sirona are two different Gods then does one have instantly different health the moment one flies from France to Greece? If you have hypertension in France because you did not propriate Sirona does it mean that you will become very healthy in Greece and be free from hypertension if you come into favor with Hygeia, but instantly become hypertensive again the moment you set foot in France or anywhere else?

Or what about the sun? There is only one sun visible from earth, regardless of whether you are in China, Greece, India, Egypt, USA etc.. If the sun is ruled by a sun deity or a pair of sun deities than the same sun deity or pair of sun deities must be known to all people. If therefore Ra rules the sun from Egypt, Helios from Greece, Tai Yan Gung from China, Surya from India, Amateratsu from Japan, Sunna from Germay for essentially the same sun does the sun changes Sun Gods depending on which country faces the sun at the same time?

Or what about phenomenon such as wisdom. In Egypt we have Neith and in Greece we have Athena and in Rome we have Minerva. If one propriates Athena but fails to propriate Minerva does one instantly loses wisdom the moment one takes a flight to Rome but instantly become very wise when one lands in Greece?

If you find the above picture funny than so did the ancient Romans and Greeks which must have at least lead them to the reasoning that there can truly only be one God or a pair of Gods ( usually Gods that are considered to work very closely with each other, like husband wife, brothers, sisters etc.. In the case of storms Hera is considered to work closely with Zeus ) that rules over such a large ranging phenomenon.

The other situation is when a few Gods work very closely on related aspect of a large ranging phenomena ( like Selene, Hekate and Artemis who rules over different aspect of the Moon and the Night, with Selene being the Goddess of the Moon, Artemis the Goddess of the Light of the Moon and the Activity done under the light of the Moon, while Hekate representing areas done in the dark of the Moon, or Apollo and Helios, with Apollo being the God of Light while Helios is regarded as the God of the Orb of the Sun proper, though even this fused by the end of the Hellenistic era with Apollo Helios being syncretized, or the Anemois and Zeus ( the Anemois blowing the storm ))

The other situation is when you get a supreme God who rules over a very large phenomenon with many helper Gods each specialized in their little aspect of reality. Demeter is the supreme Goddess of Agriculture, Harvest and the Cycle of Nature and is helped by the Horaes, the many agrarian Gods who has their little area of speciality. Aphrodite rules over Love and is assisted by the Kharites ( who are the ultimate helper Gods ), Peitho, Eros etc.. Eros ( who is the supreme ruler of passion and also of an aspect of love ) in turn is helped by the Erotes.

Now some people would protest and say that the myth of the Gods are too variable. Some people say that Isis and Demeter cannot be the same God even though their cultus in many respect are similar because their myth are too different especially with regards to their genealogy. Isis is supposed to be the mother of Horus ( Apollo ) and wife to Osiris ( Dionysius or Hades) which makes here completely different genealogically from Demeter.

Ironically enough the Greeks realized very early on that the genealogy and myths were the work of poets who had understanding of the Gods or were inspired in their work by the Gods or were describing a localized cultus. Also everyone had their own idea which God is related to who and that the myths though showing the activity of the Gods were not regarded as gospels and were not seen as literal truths. The realization of this began very early on, as early as the late Archaic age. This realization continued into the Roman era.

The Gods were real, but the Gods were not of their myth. The myths reveal the activity and mystery of the Gods, but the Gods are not limited or bound by their myths or are solely of their myth. Myths that are popularly circulated around or become the foundation for cultus or are used as moral stories or inspire individuals are accepted by the Gods. However the Gods are not the myth. The myth is merely a medium for people to understand or celebrate the Gods.

The ancient Greeks and Romans actually define the Gods more by their cultus characteristic and sphere of activity than by their myths, and later identified the foreign Gods more in this manner.

The reason the myths though amazing were not seen as purely authoritative ( as opposed to the Biblical myths to the Christians ) is the variable amount of myths known by the average Greek. For example the average Greek would realize that there are at least two myths of Aphrodite’s genealogy, one coming from Ouranos genital the other being daughter of Zeus and Dione ( given the prevalence of Hesiod’s and Homers work in ancient times ). This is not including the local myths which probably contained an even larger contradiction on genealogy!! This did not hamper individuals worship or identification of Aphrodite in actual cultus.

The myths were also hypervariable from one place to another and popular poetic myths were also very variable. The average Greek even from the countryside would realize this. The cult of Priapus was very popular yet his parentage is so variable. He could be the son of Hermes, Dionysius, Pan or Zeus depending where you come from.

Also the myths may not truly define cultus. Hera for example based upon Homer would truly be an unworthy Goddess to worship yet her cultus was totally different from the myth. The average Greek once again realize this.

In equating deities what mattered was sphere of activity and similarity in cultus ( and also similar gender ). If the myths shared similarity even better!!

So just because Hariti in myth has no similarity with Tykhe did not stop the Greeks in India from equating her with Tykhe because they found that Hariti was the protectress of cities and guided the fortune of cities, in the same way as Tykhe was supposed to do. The syncretism must have revealed to both the Indians and the Greeks more on the nature of the Goddess behind Tykhe Hariti that the modern Hariti is also the Goddess of Luck!!

I hope this article helps in understanding inclusive polytheism.

_{»crosslinked«}

TAGS: None