Hellenic Devotional Blog

Aidan - 22 - she/they - enby ace lesbian - Hestia devotee - also worships Poseidon, Apollo, and Amphitrite - pfp credit to yliade.art on instagram - follows from hellyeahunderthesea

[byjove]

Modern things that I think Dionysus is the patron god of:

assless chaps

gnc men

mechanical bulls

television

grape flavored candy and soda

juggalos

deadheads

weed

gas station cigars

trans masc people

antidepressants

[ironspdr6700]

Athena in Callimachus' Hymn

I may be a little (too) obsessed with Athena. She has always been my favorite goddess in all of Greek mythology. So I've been kicking myself for taking so long to read Callimachus' Hymn V, also known as "The Bath of Athena."

In the hymn, Callimachus tells the story of the goddess with the nymph Chariclo…

… the mother of Tiresias, whom Athena loved very much, more than any of her companions, and never separated from her… many times the goddess made her ride on her chariot; neither the conversations of the nymphs nor her dancing choruses were pleasant to her unless Chariclo directed them.

But this relationship ended badly when Tiresias accidentally saw Athena naked when they were bathing in a fountain. Athena, angry, blinded him. Cariclo obviously didn't take it well and his words are quite harsh, including:

Is this how you goddesses demonstrate your friendship?

Athena, realizing that it was all an accident, compensates him by granting him the gift of prophecy, a staff to guide her steps, a long life, and the ability to keep her mind intact in Hades.

The funny thing is that she does it specifically for two reasons:

One. Because Cariclo cares

Partner, don't complain; I have many other gifts reserved for him for love of you.

Two. Athena doesn't like hurting children (cough… Madeline Miller… cough)

It is not pleasant for Athena to snatch children's eyes.

The curious thing about the hymn is that you begin to notice a pattern that Athena's relationships with other women usually end badly. In Apollodorus, her best friend Pallas, whom she accidentally killed, is mentioned; and in Servius's comments on the Aeneid she mentions Myrmex, a maiden from Attica who was loved by Athena until she took credit for the invention of the plow, which had been Athena's creation, and the angry goddess transformed her into an ant.

I know that those of us who read the Odyssey make fun of the fact that "Athena likes to transform into a man", but I suppose that because of these kinds of experiences Athena feels much more comfortable on the battlefield and helping the heroes in their trials. And, of course, it also influences that she is a goddess fulfilling a masculine role (war) in ancient Greek society, so the authors seem to make an effort to "masculinize" the character of Athena (including Aeschylus in his Eumenides). In the same hymn, Callimachus tells the audience (the maidens in charge of carrying the statue of Athena in Argos during a ritual) not to wear perfumes because:

Athena does not like mixed ointments.

Instead, is requested to bring an oil appropriate for men for the goddess:

bring now nothing but virile oil, with which Castor, and also Heracles, anoint themselves.

But it always ends up recognizing that Athena is, always, a maiden (Prómachos)

And bring him a comb of pure gold, so that she may comb her hair, after anointing her perfumed curls.

I don´t know. She is so complex... so problematic... so incomprehensible... OF COURSE I LOVE HER!

[purrrrrrrsephone]

Last time I complained about a Greek Mythology content drought we got Lore Olympus. So I’m keeping my mouth shut this time.

[thoodleoo]

the bacchic mysteries are mysteries TO YOU. i know what's in them tho

[thoodleoo]

my limbs have been torn asunder

[expressions-of-nature]

Moonrise over The Temple of Poseidon, Greece by Thanassis Economou

[aristoteliancomplacency]

Guys.

Y’all.

I…

I just. I just… i have discovered something. And I have laughed too much. I have laughed every time I have tried to explain it to someone. I cannot get through this.

Look. Okay.

There are two things you need to know, here.

First: There’s a style of Greek pottery that was popular during the Hellenic period, for which most of the surviving examples are from southern Italy. We call them ‘fish plates’ because, well, they’re plates, and they’re decorated with fish (and other marine life).

Like this one, currently in the Met:

Or this one, currently in the Cleveland Museum of Art:

They’re very cool. We’re not 100% sure what they were for, because most of the surviving ones were found as grave goods, but that’s a different post.

The second thing you need to know is that when we (Classics/archaeology/whatever as a discipline) have a collection of artefacts, like vases, sculptures, paintings, etc. and we do not know the name of the artist, but we’re pretty sure one artist made X, Y and Z artefacts, we come up with a name for that artist. There are a whole bunch of things that could be the source for the name, e.g. where we found most of their work (The Dipylon Master) or the potter with whom they worked (the Amasis Painter), a favourite theme (The Athena Painter), the Museum that ended up with the most famous thing they did (The Berlin Painter) or a notable aspect of their style. Like, say, The Eyebrow Painter.

Guess what kind of pottery the Eyebrow Painter made?

[what-even-is-thiss]

Nobody ever talks about how the Norse did human sacrifice. They just kinda jump over that part. Ignore it, mostly.

They don’t do that for the Aztecs though.

It’s kinda a weird case study I think in how xenophobia and racism shapes the way we talk about things. The Norse and the Aztecs were fairly similar in their violence and their complexity. Both mostly had their stories and practices written down by Catholics after the fact. Both are characterized as generally brutish and war hungry. But we only really focus in on the human sacrifice with the Aztecs.

So look at the whole picture for a minute. The Aztecs had a widely practiced state religion, philosophers, a complex class system. The Norse practiced human sacrifice. My ancestors, the ancient Scandinavians, practiced human sacrifice. There is archeological and textual evidence for this.

It’s kinda stupid to reduce the Aztecs solely down to their intimidation tactics and bloody religious rituals. Those should be part of the conversation, yes, but that’s not all they have to offer. In the same vein, we can’t just gloss over the uncomfortable parts of some older civilizations just because they’re white.

Go read up on the Aztecs a bit outside of their religion. I really like their architecture and weird calendar especially.

[justanotherprettyapollodevotee]

making stupid devotional memes >>>>

[the-only-useful-lesbian]

to the fairest

Athena

Hera

Aphrodite

Voting ended onJan 24, 2024

Reblog for larger sample size whatever

[bloodied-dagger-deactivated2024]

[pastellguts]

I don't know a lot about Hestia, but I decided to try my hand in drawing her.

[draugadottir-deactivated2021011]

“Invoked or not, the Gods will be present.”

— The Oracle of Delphi (via letheane)

[jessicalprice]

Sorry, Christian atheists, but “Christianity traumatized me” is not a get-out-of-accountability-free card for upholding Christian supremacy through your treatment of members of minority cultures, reiterating Christian evangelism and colonialism but for your WASP brand of atheism, promoting Christian purity and hierarchy but with the serial numbers filed off, insisting that the Christian model of culture is the only one that exists and shouting down members of non-Christian cultures about their own cultures and experiences, etc.

Oh, you don’t like members of non-Christian cultures pointing out the ways in which your behaviors continue to normalize and uphold Christian hegemony?

THEN MAYBE STOP ACTING LIKE CHRISTIANS.

[azeriairis]

As an Atheist, there is a place for Atheists calling out Religious Harm, especially if members of that Religion fail to, but it actually has to be harm. A person believing in some god and/or choosing to abide by some rule system you don't understand isn't harm. The best way I've found to look at religious harm personally is control. Does the religion force their views onto other groups, and/or force their own members to stay. When we are talking about freedom, people should have the freedom to believe in whatever they want, and they should have the freedom to consent to any system of rules they want (even religious ones), however they should also have the freedom to decide not to, and when they decide to leave they should be able to live completely free from those rules.

[jessicalprice]

No, there’s a place for atheists in supporting and boosting the voices of people who criticize or want to leave communities said atheist isn’t part of.

When people who enjoy privilege from a hegemonic cultural background start going it on their own and criticizing the same minority cultures that their background marginalizes or tries to eliminate they, AT BEST, make fools of themselves and at worst align with white supremacists and other genocidal bigots.

If you want to mitigate or neutralize the harm done by minority cultures you’re not part of and whose practices don’t affect you, center the people who are actually being harmed. Don’t wank over theoretical harms.

[azeriairis]

I did specify Actual Harm did I not? I'm not one to support speculating on harm, but if there's people who are trying to speak out and their community isn't listening, there's absolutely a place for those outside to say something about what's going on. (Heck I even said cultural rules you don't understand doesn't constitute harm so long as nobody is being forced into following them). I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

[jessicalprice]

And I’m saying the only place for your voice is in echoing and boosting the voices of actual members of the community.

Because when people outside minoritized communities try to lead, we get things like banning hijabs instead of what Muslim women were actually asking for.

[enderlord99-deactivated20231104]

You seem to be mostly in agreement with each other, as far as I can tell. I could be wrong.

[jessicalprice]

Maybe. I deeply distrust gentile atheist interest in criticizing Judaism.

[trevel]

I think the trick is that there might not actually be such a thing as "Religious Harm". There's definitely Christian Harm, but it's hard to pick out a form of harm that's common to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Scientology, the Cult of Reason, Satanism, Pastrianism, Jainism, Wicca, Sikhism, Chinese folk religions, Zeusism, Taoism, the Order of the Solar Temple, Jediism, Ashurism, et cetera, but never ever seen amongst agnostics or atheists. (Also at *least* three of the above are atheist-friendly religions, requiring no belief in any form of divinity. Jediism is included because people keep claiming it on censuses. Ireland had 1800 Jedi Knights in 2022.)

So if you're talking about the harm that Christianity does, call it Christianity. If the problem is authoritarianism, call it authoritarianism. Call it Christian Authoritarianism, if you like, when it's specific to Christianity -- but you do not require a religion to have authoritarianism, nor do all religions have a significant authoritarian faction.

[jessicalprice]

Yeah, antitheists like to make religion out to be something uniquely mind-numbing, but there’s nothing religion does that non-“religious” ideologies don’t do just as effectively.

[penrosesun]

I also think it's incredibly telling that in general, very few atheists who talk up a generalized concept of "religious harm" actively acknowledge the fact that most cults / high-control groups today are not even religious in nature. The US in particular is drowning in extremely culty MLMs and non-religious wellness gurus, and many of these groups take even the completely non-religious elements their playbook directly and explicitly from religious movements such as Evangelical Christianity, and especially Mormonism. If there's a category of "Religious Harm" that includes missions and tithes but doesn't include LuLaRoe, then why the hell doesn't it? And conversely, if "Religious Harm" does encompass both actual religious doctrine and also a secular legging-based ponzi scheme, then in what sense is it useful to categorize the harm as "religious"? I think a lot of this goes all the way back to the (incredibly Christian) idea that religion and culture are separable – that a religion and culture that share the same fundamental fabric are nonetheless two entirely individual entities, with entirely individual harms. It's a very eurocentric way to see the world, and what's more, it's factually wrong.

[harvestmother]

“And in each corner of my soul there’s an altar to a different god.”

— Fernando Pessoa, “Time’s Passage” (via thebloodybones)

[notfairyt0pia]

here's your daily reminder that the gods love you. you don't feel connected to them right now? you are struggling with acts of devotion right now? struggling to pray regularly, struggling to give offerings regularly? they still love you. they see your struggles and they see how much you're trying <3

[diana-thyme]

Greek Gods 101: Aristaeus

Aristaeus is a God of beekeeping, shepherds, cheesemaking, honey, olive-growing, oil-milling, medicinal herbs, hunting, and cool summer winds. Excluding the universal offerings, some common offerings include:

Depictions of Bees

Depictions of Sheep

Depictions of Shepherd Dogs

Depictions of Shepherd Hooks

Olives

Medicinal Herbs

Hunting Weapons or Depictions of Them

Olive Oil

Cheese

Honey

Honeycomb

For devotional acts, some activities that can be done for him include:

Hunting

Beekeeping

Growing A Flower/Herb, Etc. Garden

Making or Using Olive Oil in Cooking

Buying/Using Natural Honey

Taking Care of Animals

Taking Care of Yourself

Baking

He is not celebrated in any Athenian holidays.

[twunkish-cleric]

Stop leaving my girl out!!!

[sparklecryptid]

I cannot stress enough how uncomfortable it makes me when I see people saying ‘when the revolution comes and everyone’s needs are met we won’t need religion!’

Like.

Oh. You want a homogeneous culture? Hm. Interesting. It’s almost like that’s exactly what the founder of the residential school system wanted! ‘Kill the Indian in the child.’ Why would they want to remain such unsightly savages when we could make them civilized? Oh? You wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing? Religion will simply fade away because everyone’s needs would be met?

Bzzz. Nope. If my needs were met, if my sisters needs were met, if my entire family’s needs were met we would be attempting to make sure the spiritual teachings and the culture that was forcibly taken from us by the residential school system were passed down to the next generation. I would be learning Cree. My sister would have time to take up beading again. We would know ourselves and our culture and spiritual practices better because our needs were met because we would have the time and resources to do such a thing.

sure! Maybe I’m being a bitchy native here but the line of thinking that says ‘when everyone has their needs met there will be no more religion’ reeks of colonialist thinking to me. You cannot separate spiritual teachings from certain cultures. The only way for such a thing to happen would be the complete annihilation of said people’s culture and history and unless you acknowledge that then there is no conversation to be had with you.