[Discussion] On the Gods and the World, Ch. XV

[sdi]

Good morning and happy Wednesday! Let us pick the puzzle-box back up, shall we?

XV. Why we give worship to the Gods when they need nothing.

This solves the question about sacrifices and other rites performed to the Gods. The Divine itself is without needs, and the worship is paid for our own benefit. The providence of the Gods reaches everywhere and needs only some congruity* for its reception. All congruity comes about by representation and likeness; for which reason the temples are made in representation of heaven, the altar of earth, the images of life (that is why they are made like living things), the prayers of the element of thought, the mystic letters† of the unspeakable celestial forces, the herbs and stones of matter, and the sacrificial animals of the irrational life in us.

From all these things the Gods gain nothing; what gain could there be to God? It is we who gain some communion with them.

* Gilbert Murray notes, "ἐπιτηδειότης ['epitedeiotes']." Thomas Taylor and Arthur Darby Nock both give "fitness."

† Concerning these "mystic letters," Murray references a different section of his book on the history of Greek religion, which reads, "The planets in their seven spheres surrounding the earth continued to be objects of adoration. They had their special gods or guiding spirits assigned them. Their ordered movements through space, it was held, produce a vast and eternal harmony. It is beautiful beyond all earthly music, this Music of the Spheres, beyond all human dreams of what music might be. The only pity is that—except for a few individuals in trances—nobody has ever heard it. Circumstances seem always to be unfavourable. It may be that we are too far off, though, considering the vastness of the orchestra, this seems improbable. More likely we are merely deaf to it because it never stops and we have been in the middle of it since we first drew breath.

"The planets also become Elements in the Kosmos, Stoicheia. It is significant that in Hellenistic theology the word Stoicheion, Element, gets to mean a Dæmon—as Megathos, Greatness, means an Angel. But behold a mystery! The word Stoicheia, 'elementa', had long been used for the Greek A B C, and in particular for the seven vowels α ε η ι ο υ ω. That is no chance, no mere coincidence. The vowels are the mystic signs of the Planets; they have control over the planets. Hence strange prayers and magic formulæ innumerable."

Comments

[boccaderlupo]

Really fascinating comments from Murray regarding the mystic letters. Would be interesting to suss out if there are any correspondences with the Hebrew language, which is frequently ascribed magical properties.

In this I hear echoes of the "like unto like" theme we touched on previously, and which, IMHO, is the theoretic basis for sympathetic magic (and, I would add, divination). In this case, the ritual objects or places share in some way with the gods above (perhaps as material manifestations of them), and the adherent is afforded a degree of communion (insofar as any mortal may, and depending on an individual's aptitude for receiving the influence) by observing specific rites.

[sdi]

Regarding the seven letters and their use for commanding the planets, I remember running across this link quite some time ago regarding their use in the Greek Magical Papyri, suggesting an Egyptian (rather than Hebrew) phonetic root. I'm not a mage, so it's—ahem—all Greek to me, but maybe somebody else would find it interesting?

[boccaderlupo]

That is a very thought-provoking post. Nice find. I believe it was Iamblichus who insisted on the specificity of the names of the gods...and this may be part of the reason.

[temporaryreality]

I love the symbolism inherent in the building and consecrating of temples. I don't have anything particularly bright to say about it other than I appreciate being reminded that symbolism isn't "just" or "mere" symbolism. It's tightly packed and condensed meaning, reminding us here of our connection with the Divine.

Last semester my daughter had an art history course that, not unexpectedly, could not convey the deeper meanings of the symbolism. I guess it was about what you'd expect of an undergrad class at a state schoo. It was cringeworthy to listen to the "explanations."

[sdi]

I guess it was about what you'd expect of an undergrad class at a state school.

For whatever it's worth, I have an arts minor (4 credit hours shy of a dual-major) from one of the top institutions in the country, and it would shock me if any single person came away learning anything at all from those courses. Much, much better to buy a few textbooks on ones own and meditate through them!