What does it mean to be a
Greco-Egyptian or Greco-Roman-Egyptian polytheist?
I suspect there will be as many answers as there are practitioners (not
that there are in this modern age presently many practitioners). I
would refuse to define any one else's path when I myself do not have
all the answers. Nonetheless I see, broadly speaking, several notable
approaches to the subject (which in theory are not mutually exclusive,
though in practice sometimes are). Let us take a look at these
viewpoints.
Probably the simplest method is to pay homage to both the Hellenic and
Egyptian pantheons (to which some people would add the Roman pantheon).
To honor every god in even one pantheon is difficult, and to honor
everyone in two or three would be damn near impossible.
The majority of people, in practice, seem to draw a few deities from
one pantheon while honoring one or two from the other pantheon(s).
And this makes sense: the Greeks and Romans adopted some of the gods of
their neighbors, and while the Egyptians were less cosmopolitan they
too imported a few foreign cults. Among Ancient Greeks and Romans, the
Isis cult (though Hellenized to a fair degree - more on this later) was
very popular. Isis still has a following among a few modern
adherents of Hellenic and Roman polytheism; other popular Egyptian gods
include Thoth, Anubis and Bast. The Ancient Egyptians drew
mostly from their Near East neighbors; in the modern era, Hellenic gods
such as Dionysus and Hermes seem to have a broad appeal and attract
those who otherwise have little to do with the Greek
pantheon. A self described Hellenistic pagan might
furthermore honor the major gods of the Hellenic pantheon, Hellenized
gods of Egypt such as Isis, and pay homage to the cult of Rome and its
rulers.
Truly, this is a path with many options, and it is small wonder that
seemingly the majority of Neos Alexandria members hold a
practice similar to something described above. It allows a
member to remain true to one tradition while still allowing latitude to
honor a deity or two who fall outside that
tradition.
Theoretically one could honor several core deities from the Greco-Roman
pantheon and several core deities from the Egyptian pantheon.
Then if one tries to furthermore pay homage to these deities according
to their separate cultural understandings without in any way conflating
those cultural practices and understandings, you have what some people
call dual traditions. Being "dual trad", as it is
known, doesn't seem particularly popular. For one thing it is
very demanding to honor several deities each from a different pantheon,
all the while keeping the practices separate. For another thing this
method was not the historic understanding of the Mediterranean peoples.
A more focused method would be to concentrate on the gods that were
especially linked with the Ptolemaic regime: their patron gods, as it
were. This would include at the very least Isis, Serapis and Dionysus.
It may very well also include Hercules, Zeus-Ammon and Agathos Tyche.
Then there are the deified Ptolemies themselves.
To the degree that Greco-Egyptian polytheism was shaped in its
definitive form by the Ptolemies, and to the degree that the
aforementioned deities and daimons were critical to the policies and
self-identity of the Ptolemaic regime, then honoring these divine
powers would afford one a condign and manageable focus in
Greco-Egyptian polytheism. Some of the gods above interest me very
much, while others do not: I suspect the same would be very true of
many others. Ruler cults are in particular a contentious issue, and
some may say the Dynastic approach to Greco-Egyptian polytheism is too
narrow and too overtly political. In practice there only seems to be a
few people who deliberately contract with all of these deities.
There is however a broader approach, and one I am coming rapidly to
internalize.
While gods are obviously the centerpiece of any polytheistic religion,
gods are interpreted according to a certain cultural lens. To me being
a Greco-Roman-Egyptian syncretist means blending these cultural mores
and perceptions as was done historically. Let us look at these
civilizations as broadly and generally as we can without losing a
critical perspective or descending into useless
stereotypes.
The Greeks fashioned an intellectual and artistic culture of broad
appeal. In the Western tradition, architecture and art, literature and
drama, science and philosophy all begins with Greece - as
does democracy. Rome's native gifts in engineering, law and
republican politics still inspire many modern Western countries. The
cosmopolitan and pragmatism of Rome made their empire possible, and the
educated among them had the good sense to adopt Hellenistic aesthetics.
The religions of the Greeks and Hellenizers did however not always
satisfy their citizens, being generally devoid of a definite ethical
creed, a promising afterlife, and a deep spirituality that speaks to
many people's souls.
The Egyptians came from one of the world's oldest
civilizations, with all the weight of authority that the seniority
implies. Theirs was a religion very much interested in ethics and
ontology, a religion that promised a means of immortality, and provided
an exotic spirituality for the present. It did however have a certain
animal fetish and crude artistic convention that would leave many
Westerners cold (even if archaeology reveals that Nilotic cults with
Egyptian style art were accepted by some). Egypt's lack of democratic
or republican governments, its relative lack of development of the
arts, and its somewhat insular attitude is also a source of contention
for those more familiar to the Greco-Roman experience.
Ptolemy was however able to blend the best of Greek and Egypt into the
Isis and Serapis cults. The Egyptian longing for immortality, its
compelling spirituality, its
concern with ethics, was still there on the inside. But externally it
was elevated by the Greek artistic and intellectual traditions,
downplaying the native animal fetish in favor of the humanistic focus
more acceptable to Hellenic sensibilities. A Hellenistic polytheist
could still feel a child of all Hellenism had to offer in culture and
government - but through the Isis and Serapis cults he could also
partake of Egyptian spirituality. Under the Pax Romana,
the cults would become even more cosmopolitan and universal in nature.
The cults of Isis and Serapis are at the forefront of this fusion,
though they do not by any means represent the totality of that fusion.
Other syncretic deities include a conflation of Hermes and Thoth known
as Hermes Thrice-Great, who was furthermore subject to Jewish and
possibly even Gnostic influences in the great cultural melting pot of
Alexandria. The cult of Hermes
Thrice-Great and the resulting magical movement known as Hermeticism is
outside my own personal practice and the scope of this essay, but I
mention it as a further example of cultural conjoining.
The heart of an Egyptian, the mind of a Greek and the body of a Roman
is a powerful and satisfying vision, for either the past or present.
To me this is what being a Greco-Roman-Egyptian syncretist implies -
the mingling of the best of these three cultures, especially as can be
experienced in the cult of Isis. But it is one approach among
many, and hopefully neophytes to Neos Alexandria who read this essay
can garner a better sense of what works best for them under the
guidance of the deities they honor and the cultures they revere.
