The central tendency and probably the major cause of error in modern religion is the determination to separate male and female and define them as superior or inferior in relation to each other. Even today the Catholic Encyclopedia states that women are inferior to men. “The female sex is in some respects inferior to the male sex, both as regards body and soul.”
Today, writers don’t use those terms. They might use the word ‘difference’, for example. However, the general sentiment remains the same. Christian fathers, such as Tertullian, who was born 160 AD, remain influential. Tertulian condemned all women for the part Eve played in the Garden of Eden.
The Garden of Eden is first mentioned in the second chapter of Genesis. However, some have argued that this chapter is actually an independent creation story. In the first chapter, ‘P’ or the priestly source does not mention the Garden of Eden. He only tells us that the Elohim created the earth. The Elohim also created humans, male and female.
Genesis 1, credit: RapidEye
The second chapter of Genesis was written by the J source. J stands for Jehovah. This source tends to be more politically minded. He writes of the birth of gods, or of the man-god. In this version, Yahweh creates man; then he creates the woman from the man.
This is the version that dictates the world’s social relations and organization.
In verse 23,
“Said the man, This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called Woman for she was taken from Man.”
Yahweh Creates Adam and Eve, Credit: gldburger
The Anchor Bible notes that Woman and Man are translated from ‘īš and ‘iššā. E. A. Speiser says this assonance has no etymological basis in Hebrew. [mfn]Speiser, E.A. “The Anchor Bible: Genesis”. Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1986[/mfn]
In “The Stakes of the Warrior” Georges Dumézil uses his theory of the tri-functional structure of Indo-European society as a framework for the analyses of stories belonging to three different areas of the world; India, Scandinavia, and Greece. His comparative study includes the Scandinavian saga of Starkaor, the Indian tale of Sisupala (or Shishupala), and the Greek story of Herakles.[mfn]Dumézil, Georges. The Stakes of the Warrior. Translated by David Weeks. Ed. With introduction by Jaan Puhvel, University of CA Press, Berkeley, LA, London. 1983[/mfn] In each story, the warrior commits sins and his gods demand sacrifice.
In each story the hero sins against each of the three Indo-European functions–the functions of the sovereign, the warrior, and fertility or sexuality. In the process he fails in the very duties and responsibilities that give his life meaning. An important element in each story is the rivalry of two deities who take an interest in the life of the hero, and are directly or indirectly responsible for his crimes.
Starkaor/Starcatherus and Odin
For the Scandinavian tale of Starkaor there are two sources. One is the Gesta Danorum of Saxo Grammaticus (1150–after 1216). The other is the Gautrekssage, which is a redaction of the poem, the Vikarsbálkr, from the 13th or 14th century. The saga also adds additional material from ancient sources. Saxo calls the hero Starcatherus; the saga calls him Starkaor.
Starkaor
Starkaor/Starcatherus is either a giant, or he has giant ancestry. In the saga, his grandfather was a giant but he has a human form. In Saxo he is born with extra arms and Thor prunes them off, giving him a human appearance. The child begins life under the patronage of Othinus or Odin, but also under the hostile and watchful eye of Thor, who hates giants in general, and according to the saga, Starkaor in particular.
Odin’ Has Designs on Starkaor
The people of Herthjófr take little Starkaor and Vikar in after their fathers are killed in battle. Hrosshársgrani, one of Herthjófr’s men, raises Starkaor. However, Hrosshársgrani is really Odin in disguise, and he has dark designs on Starkaor. When they are still boys, Odin decides that Starkaor will bring him Vikar as a sacrifice.
After living for nine years with Hrosshársgrani, Starkaor helps Vikar reconquer his realm, and accompanies him on many victorious expeditions. Vikar’s fleet is “becalmed” during a Viking expedition. King Vikar and his crew have a “magical consultation” and determine that Odin wants a man of the army to be sacrificed by hanging. They draw lots and the king is chosen. After this shocking development they postpone deliberations until the next day.
The Forest Assembly
Hrosshársgrani acts during the night. He wakes Starkaor, and takes him to forest on a nearby Island. They come upon a strange assembly in a clearing.
“A crowd of beings of human appearance are gathered around twelve high seats, eleven of which are already occupied by the chief gods. Revealing himself for who he is, Odin ascends the twelfth seat and announces that the order of business is the determination of the fate of Starkaor…The event comes down to a magical-oratorical duel between Odin and Thor.”
Thor’s Curses and Odin’s Blessings
Thor hates Starkaor because his grandfather was a giant. He hates him even more because long ago his grandfather abducted a young girl. This was Starkaor’s grandmother. When Thor rescued her, he found that she actually preferred the giant over the “Thor of the Æsir”! In consequence of a lasting grudge, Thor imposes Starkaor’s first curse before the council of the gods, “Starkaor will have no children.”
Odin compensates for this curse. “Starkaor will have three human life spans.”
It continues in this way, the gods taking turns.
Thor says “He will commit a villainy in each.”
Odin answers, “He will always have the best arms and the best raiments.”
Thor: “He will have neither land nor real property.”
Odin: “He will have fine furnishings.”
Thor: “He will never feel he has enough.”
Odin: “He will have success and victory in every combat.”
Thor: “He will receive a grave wound in every combat.”
Odin: “He will have the gift of poetry and improvisation.”
Thor: “He will forget all he has composed.”
Odin: “He will appeal to the well-born and the great.”
Thor: “He will be despised by the common folk.”
Odin’s Price: The Sacrifice of King Vikar and Starkaor’s Exile
As they return to the ship, Odin informs Starkaor that he must pay for the assistance he has just received. Starkaor must put Vikar in a position to be sacrificed. Then Odin will take care of the rest. Starkaor agrees to help Odin.
The next day Starkaor suggests to the king that they carry out a mock sacrifice and Vikar agrees. Starkaor bends down the limb of a tree and fastens a noose to it and also around Vikar’s neck. Then Starkaor takes a magic reed-stick given him by Odin and thrusts it at the king saying, “Now I give thee to Odin.” Then he releases the branch. The reed-stick becomes a spear and pierces the king. The branch springs up and drags the king into the leaves, where he dies.
“From this deed Starkaor became much despised by the people and was exiled from Hördaland.”
The Sacrifice of King Vikar. Credit: hayatikayhan
The Exploits and Sins of Starcatherus
Now we depend on Saxo’s version. Starcatherus accomplishes many admirable exploits in his long career. But after the death in battle of another master, a Swedish king, he shamefully flees from the battlefield. Next, he joins an army of Danish vikings. Starcatherus eventually serves the Danish king, Frotho, where he is a “model of martial virtue”.
For his third sin he allows conspirators to bribe him and he kills another master, the Danish king Olo. He has already sinned against his duty to kings and his duty as a warrior. In taking a bribe for the murder of Olo he sins against the morality of the third function–not through sexuality but through greed.
The hero has been aging during his three life spans but he keeps all of his strength until after the third crime. Finally old age, his many wounds, and his crimes burden him to the point where he wishes for his own death. He doesn’t want to die shamefully of old age so he looks for a warrior who will give him an honorable death. Providentially he meets Hatherus, the son of one of the conspirators in the murder of Olo. He confesses that he is the one who killed Hatherus’ father, (Starcatherus killed all of the conspirators). Hatherus agrees to behead him in exchange for the money that Starcatherus received for killing Olo. Starcatherus also wishes to give Hatherus his invulnerability and tells him to stand between his head and his body after his death. In a moment of suspicion, however, Hatherus stands back and does not accept this gift.
Sisupala and Kṛṣṇa
Dumézil says the character of Kṛṣṇa in the Mahabharata poses problems. His story is probably a transposition of the myth of an ancient Viṣṇu. But the relationship of Kṛṣṇa/Viṣṇu provides structure comparable to the tale of Starkaor/Starcatherus.
The story of Sisupala is not central to the cosmic conflict in the Mahabharata. Aside from his three crimes, Starcatherus was a perfect example of a defender of kingship, a warrior and a teacher. However, the Indian hero is the reincarnation of a demon that Viṣṇu has already killed twice in past lives. We learn of his previous lives after he challenges the proceedings of Yudhisthira’s sacrificial ceremony. This information, and the story of the hero’s birth, provide the justification for his hostility to Kṛṣṇa.
A Dark Prophecy at Sisupala’s Birth
Sisupala was born into the royal family of the Cedis. He had three eyes and four arms and he uttered inarticulate cries like an animal. His parents had decided to expose him, but they heard a disembodied voice saying that this was not the “Time” for the child’s death. He was to be slain ‘by the sword, and his slayer would be the lord of men.
His mother demands to know “who shall be the death of this son!”
The voice answers,
“He upon whose lap his two extra arms will both fall on the ground like five-headed snakes and that third eye in the middle of the child’s forehead will sink away as he looks at him–he shall be his death.”
Kṛṣṇa
As soon as the child is placed in Kṛṣṇa’s lap, these predictions come true. Sisupala’s mother witnesses the fulfillment of the prophecy and she is fearful for her son. She asks Kṛṣṇa to forgive the “dereliction of Sisupala”.
(Because of Sisupala’s physical similarities to Rudra/Śiva, and also because of his name, which is said to be a transposition of paśupati or lord of animals, this story is similar to the story of Starkaor/Starcatherus in its conflict between two divinities, in this case Rudra/Śiva and Kṛṣṇa/Viṣṇu.)
Sisupala’s Offenses
Kṛṣṇa promises that he will forgive one hundred offenses, even though they may be capital offenses. But by the time Sisupala challenges the proceedings of Yudhisthira’s sacrificial ceremony he has exhausted his one hundred offenses. His tirade against Krṣṇa is the one hundred and first offense. However, only five offenses are listed. The five sins, which Kṛṣṇa recited to the kings assembled at Yudhisthira’s ceremony are:
1. “Knowing that we had gone to the city of Prāgjyotiṣa, this fiend, who is our cousin, burned down Dvārakā, kings.”
2. “While the barons of the Bhojas were at play on Mount Raivataka, he slew and captured them, then returned to his city.”
3. “Malevolently, he stole the horse that was set free at the Horse Sacrifice and surrounded by guards to disrupt my father’s sacrifice.”
4. “When she was journeying to the country of the Sauvīras to be given in marriage, the misguided fool abducted the unwilling wife-to-be of the glorious Babhru.”
5. “Hiding beneath his wizardry, the fiendish offender of his uncle abducted Bhadrā of Viśāla, the intended bride of the Karūṣa!’
Sisupala’s Offenses Against the Three Functions
The sins are assigned to different functions. The first and second offenses have to do with the warrior function. The third offense has to do with sovereignty. And the forth and fifth offenses have to do with sexuality. However, they were all offenses against the king.
Sisupals’a Execution
Kṛṣṇa continues,
“For the sake of my father’s sister I have endured very great suffering; but fortunately now this is taking place in the presence of all the kings. For you are now witnesses of the all-surpassing offense against me; learn also now the offenses he has perpetrated against me in concealment.”
Sisupala does not relent. He continues to scold those who honor Kṛṣṇa, who is “no king”. Finally Kṛṣṇa throws his discus, cutting off Sisupala’s head. A sublime radiance rises from the “body of the king of the Cedis, which, great king, was like the sun rising up from the sky; and that radiance greeted lotus-eyed Kṛṣṇa, honored by the world, and entered him, O king…”
Lord Kṛṣṇa and His Discus
There is no mention of corresponding consequences after each of Sisupala’s sins and he does not offer himself for death as Starcatherus did. Also another king, Jarāsandha, is mentioned, although he has no part in the story itself. Sisupala, although a king in his own right, is said to be Jarāsandha’s general, giving him the same position as Starcatherus, who served kings but was not himself a king. Jarāsandha is accused of holding Kṛṣṇa’s clan in jail, with plans to sacrifice them. In other words, he was under contract to Rudra/Śiva, just as Starkaor/Starcatherus was under contract to Odin. This provides another correspondence between the Scandinavian and Indian stories. However, in the Indian version human sacrifice is not as believable as it is in the Scandinavian tales. Also Śiva has no particular interest in kings, as Odin does. This only makes the Indo-European framework of both stories more apparent.
Herakles and his gods, Hera, and Athena
In the Greek story of Herakles, genders are reversed–the rival deities, Hera and Athena, are female. Dumézil makes an interesting observation–the rival deities in the first two stories answer to no superior judge or authority. But in the tale of Herakles, the patriarchal Zeus is given the final word.
Herakles’s Birth and Abandonment
Herakles’ birth is told by Diodorus Siculus (iv, 9, 2-3). When Herakles was born he was not monstrous or demonic but he had a certain excess. He was the son of Zeus and Alkmene. Zeus had taken the appearance of Alkmene’s husband, Amphitryon, in order to beget an exceptional king who would rule over the descendants of Perseus. But when Hera learned of his plans she was jealous. She caused the labor pains of Alkmene to slow down and the result was that another heir, Eurystheus, was born first. Zeus then decreed that Herakles would serve Eurystheus and perform twelve labors. In this way he would earn immortality.
Alkmene abandoned her baby out of fear of Hera. Athena and Hera found him, and Athena gave him to Hera who began to nurse him. This saved his life. However he bit her and she pushed him away. Dumézil suggests that this is like the story of Sisupala, whose deformities disappeared at the touch of the very god who was destined to kill him. Hera is the sovereign whose first concern is to exclude Alkmene’s son from royalty and demote him to a champion. Athena is the warrior and becomes Herakles’ most trusted friend. The patronage of Athena and the enmity of Hera are a constant theme in Herakles’ life. As for his attitude to the two higher functions, the kingship and the labors, (or fights) he does not attempt to replace the king. He serves him and is sometimes rewarded, but his first sin actually involves his hesitation over entering the king’s service. Starkaor/Staratherus serves kings ostentatiously. Sisupala is a king who voluntarily serves as a general of another king.
The Sins and Penalties of Herekles
For his hesitation in obeying Zeus and entering the service of Eurystheus Hera strikes him with madness, causing him to kill his own children. He is consigned by Eurystheus to perform twelve labors as well as additional sub-labors.
His next sin is the killing of an enemy by a shameful trick, rather than in fair combat. For this sin he contracts a physical disease. At this point he has no choice but to become a slave of Omphale, Queen of Lydia.
The penalties are not cumulative with Herakles and he is cured of them each time, until the last one. After a new series of “free” deeds he forgets that he has just married Deianeira, and he takes another lover. Deianeira sends him a cloak that she thinks contains a love potion. However, it contains the poisoned blood of Nessos and it gives Herakles an incurable burn. Two of his companions consult the oracle at Delphi in his behalf and Apollo tells them,
“Let Herakles be taken up to Mount Oeta in all his warrior gear, and let a pyre be erected next to him; for the rest, Zeus will provide.”
The Death of Herakles
When all is made ready, Herakles voluntarily climbs onto the pyre and asks each one who comes up to him to light it. No one but Philoktetes has the courage to light the pyre, and Herakles gives him his bow and arrows. Immediately after Philoktetes lights the pyre “lightening also fell from the heavens and it was wholly consumed.”
But later the arrows caused the death of Philoktetes.
The Pyre. Credit: Ian
Summary: Three Myths Compared
The strongest similarities are between Greece and Scandinavia.
1. The divinities who oppose each other over Herakles and Starkaor are those of the 1st and 2nd functions. The ones in India (Krṣṇa/Viṣṇu and Rudra/Śiva) don’t fit in the tri-functional structure but they compare to Odin and Thor in other aspects.
2. Herakles is reconciled after his death with the sovereign Hera, wife of Zeus. The one who benefits from the death of Starkaor is Höṑr, (Hatherus) who is close to Odin, (the sovereign, and dark god comparable to Śiva). Sisupala is reconciled with Krṩṇa/Viṣṇu.
3. Herakles and Starkaor are similar in their basic nature. Herakles has no demonic component and Starkaor is made human. But Sisupala remains demonic and Sivaistic. Neither Herakles nor Starkaor provoke the deity who persecutes them. Sisupala does however, although Krṣṇa does not persecute him.
4. Herakles and Starkaor are more interesting than the deities, but Sisupala is just an incorrigible Indian Loki in the career of Krṣṇa. The reader is on the side of Starkaor and Herakles, and also on the side of Athena, but only as Herakles’s helper. The Indian story is more complementary to Krṣṇa/Viṣṇu, and against Sisupala.
5. The deaths of Herakles and Starkaor are good and serene. That of Sisupala is the result of a “frenzied delirium”.
6. A young man is asked to kill the hero in the stories of Herakles and Starkaor–but not in the story of Śiśupāla.
7. In the stories of Herakles and Starkaor the gift or payment is ambiguous. The arrows kill Philoktetes and Hatherus chooses not to receive the essence of Starkaor.
8. The types of Herakles and Starkaor are the same, a wandering hero, redresser of wrongs, given to toil
9. Both are educators.
10. Both are poets.
Other similarities tie India and Scandinavia together, in contrast to Greece
1. Śiśupāla and Starkaor are born with deformities. Heracles is not.
2. The Indian and Scandinavian legends make much of a royal ideology. The Greek legend outlines the opposition of Erystheus and Herakles but does not dwell on it.
3. The faults of Sisupala and Starkaor are foreordained. Sisupala’s fate is decided by his demonic ancestry. Starkaor’s is decided by lots.
4. Given that Jarāsandha completes the legend of Sisupala, India and Scandinavia both charge the heroes with the human sacrifice of kings. The Greek legend does not.
5. Starkaor and Sisupala are both beheaded. Herakles is burned.
6. The deities in the stories of Starkaor and Sisupala have no higher judge. Krṣṇa/Viṣṇu and Rudra/Śiva don’t answer to Brahma, for example. The divinities in the Greek story are supervised by Zeus.
There aren’t as many similarities between Greece and India, but the failings of Sisupala and Herakles are similar.
1. The first sin offended a god in the case of Herakles who resisted the command of Zeus; and a sacrificer in the case of Sisupala who stole the king’s sacrificial horse. In Starkaor’s case his failing resulted from an excess of submissiveness towards a god.
2. The second sin in the case of Sisupala and Herakles involves the unworthy betrayal of a warrior. For Starkaor it was a shameful flight on the battlefield.
3. Sisupala and Herakles have no particular prejudice against the sensuous aspect of the third function, but Starkaor, who is ruled by Odin and Thor, condemns this kind of weakness.
The subject of Dr. Walter Friedlander’s book “The Golden Wand of Medicine” was the caduceus of Hermes as the a symbol of the American medical profession. Today, runaway healthcare costs and inaccessibility of medical care have revived interest in Hermes, the liar, thief and trickster god, and his association with medicine. Who is Hermes, and why is his caduceus chosen as the symbol of American healthcare? This article explores the occult foundations of American Healthcare.
Friedlander focused mainly on Hermes in Greek mythology, but there are echoes of the same deity in other parts of the world. Edward Moor’s “The Hindu Pantheon” provides additional clues about the nature of Hermes. These clues give strength to Dr. Friedlander’s identification of the caduceus of Hermes as a malevolent influence. We begin by identifying deities similar to Hermes in The Hindu Pantheon.
Hermes, Nareda and Thoth
Narada with the Vina, Credit: reddees
Friedlander stated that it is not known why the Greeks chose to associate Hermes with the Egyptian Thoth, who has a very different personality. Edward Moor’s description of the Hindu deity Nareda provides a possible answer.
Nareda or Narada is a key figure connecting the Hindu scriptures to Hermes, and he has many of the characteristics of Thoth. Nareda is “a wise legislator; great in arms, arts, and eloquence.” He was also an astronomer, a messenger of the gods, and a musician. Also, Nareda invented the Vina, a sort of lute. In these and other points he resembles Hermes, or Mercury.
Moor tells us that Krishna himself claims to be Nareda. Crishna (in the Gita, p. 82) speaks of his ‘holy servants, the Brahmans and the Rajarshis;’ and says, ‘I am Brigu among the Maharshis…and of all the Devarshis I am Narad.’ (P. 80)
The Sivpuran contains the doctrines of the worshipers of Siva. It states that Nareda was born from Brahma’s thigh. But Nareda is also said to be the offspring of both Brahma and Saraswati. In the Hindu Pantheon, Nareda is one of the ten lords of living beings. He was also one of the seven Rishis. The seven Rishis are important characters in the Hindu story of Noah.
Noah
Noah and his Ark full of animals during the flood, Credit: Pink_frog
In American Cosmology and Arlington National Cemetery we saw that many of America’s founders were believers in the doctrines of Hermes Trismegistus. However, Hermes was discredited as an historical figure. He was then replaced by Noah.
In the Hindu pantheon, the seventh Menu was Vaivaswata, or child of the sun. Vaivaswata was saved on the ark. Therefore he is the father of the whole human race.
The seven Rishis were said to be with Vaivaswata on the ark. The Rishis are not mentioned as fathers of human families, but Vaivaswata’s “daughter Ila was married…to the first Buddha, or Mercury. He was the son of Chandra, or the Moon. Chandra was a male deity, whose father was Atri, son of Brahma.” Consequently, Vaivaswata’s posterity are divided into two branches. These are the Children of the Sun and the Children of the Moon. The Children of the Sun are from (Vivaswat, the Sun) Vaivaswata’s own father. The Children of the Moon are from the parent of his daughter’s husband.
Buddha and Woden
According to Friedlander, there are five main historical accounts of Hermes. In the classical period, the Homeric version of Hermes changed to become associated with inventing, buying and selling. This was probably due to the influence of Rome and it resulted in the Greek Hermes becoming associated with Mercury.
Moor tells us that Buddha shares the same character with Mercury. So does the Gothic Woden. Each gives his name to the same planet, and to the same day of the week: Budhvar, in India, is the same with Dies Mercurii, or Woden’s day, which is our Wednesday. Buddha, Booda, Butta, and others are varieties of his name in different parts of India. The Bud, or Wud, of the ancient pagan Arabs has the same characteristics. In China his names include Pout in Siam, and Pott, or Poti, in Tibet.
Esculapius, Hermes and Parvati
Mahadeva and Parvati, The Hindu Patheon
Parvati is the sacti or energy of Siva. She has many additional names. The most common aside from Parvati, are Bhavani, Durga, Kali, and Devi, or the Goddess. Ma is a name of Bhavani in her personification of nature. Under this name, she represents the “general power of fecundity,” and has connections both to Esculapius (Edward Moor’s spelling will be used in this article) and Hermes.
Bhavani is also known as Mahacali, Isani, or Isi. The river Kali, which is the Nile in Egypt, got its name from her, according to Wilford. In the Puranas, she made her first appearance on its banks in the character of Rajarajeswari.
Another name for the Nile is Nahushi, from the warrior and conqueror Deva Nahusha, or Deonaush. Wilford thought Deva Nahusha or Deonaush was probably the Dionysius of the ancient Europeans. Dionysius is often portrayed with similar characteristics to Nareda and Krishna.
Half Woman
Mahadeva as Ardha Nari or Half-Woman, The Hindu Pantheon
In her character of Bhavani, Parvati was “Venus presiding over generation. This is according to Sir William Jones. In this character, she is sometimes portrayed as having both sexes. She is portrayed this way by her bearded statue at Rome, in the images called Herma-thena, and in her figures which had a conical shape.” (Hermes is also said to be an hermaphrodite)
Time
Bhadra-Kali as Ashta Buja, The Hindu Pantheon
But she has a different character under another name. According to Moor, the word Cala, or Kala, signifies black. Its root, Kal, also means devouring. In this context, Kal is applied to Time, and the feminine is specified in both senses. This is the goddess in her destructive capacity. As Mahacali, she has many other epithets, all implying different shades of black or dark azure, including Cali, or Cala, Nila, Asista, Shyama, or Shyamala, Mekara, Anjanabha, and Krishna.”
As Bhadra-Kali, Maha-Kali, and by other names, she is eight-handed, ashta-buja. In one image of her, one of her right hands holds something like the caduceus of Hermes, without snakes. The caduceus of Hermes was originally topped by a figure-eight with the top open, according to Friedlander.
Bhavani’s Association with Esculapius
Bhavani is also known as Amba, or Uma, and Aranyadevi, or goddess of the forest. She is Prabha, meaning light; and Aswini, a mare, the first of the lunar mansions. “In this shape, the Sun approached her in the form of a horse, and, on their nostrils touching, she instantly conceived the twins; who are called Aswini-Kumari, the two sons of Aswini.” These are beings of importance in the identity of Esculapius.
Sons of Surya
“Surya, (the Sun) “is believed to have descended frequently from his car in a human shape, and to have left a race on earth who are equally renowned in the Indian stories with the Heliades of Greece. His two sons, called Aswina, or Aswini-Cumara together, are considered twin brothers, and painted like Castor and Pollux. They each have the character of Esculapius among the gods, and are believed to have been born of a nymph, who, in the form of a mare, was impregnated with sunbeams.” (Jones. Asiatic researches, Vol. I. p. 263.)
Fourteen Gems and the Beverage of Immortality
Edward Moor calls Dhanwantara the Esculapius of the Hindus. He has an attendant serpent like his brother of Greece. He is a physician and is generally represented as a venerable man, with a book in his hand. Dhanwantara arose from the sea when it was churned for the beverage of immortality.
The Caduceus of Hermes Gets Wings
Rādhā, Krishna, and attendant Gopia, The Hindu Pantheon
Friedlander says the staff of Esculapius had snakes by the 5th century BC, wings by the 1st century AD, and snakes and wings together by the 15th or 16th century. So, it is interesting that in Moor’s plates, there is an illustration of Krishna with a winged figure. Moor thought this was Krishna’s divine spouse Rukmeny, and he calls this picture ‘singular’. He seems to be saying that the caduceus of Hermes may have developed from the staff of Esculapius.
Esculapius carries a rod with a single snake. Many consider this a more appropriate symbol for a healer.
This was written for the Wikipedia article. Much of that article was deleted in a dispute.
What is Patriarchy?
Patriarchy is a social system in which the father or eldest male is head of the household, having authority over women and children. Patriarchy also refers to a system of government by males, and to the dominance of men in social or cultural systems. It may also include tracing title through the male line (Webster’s New World College Dictionary). Feminist theory considers rule by men to be detrimental to the rights of women. However, patriarchal systems of government do not benefit all men of all classes.
Patriarchal Institutions versus Patriarchal Attitudes
The term patriarchy generally refers to institutions but the term is sometimes used for societal attitudes. It has been argued that “Institutions are very persistent and may last, with little change, into a period in which attitudes have altered considerably since the institutions were devised.” Gordon Rattray Taylor used the words “patrist” and “matrist” to describe these attitudes. He noted that the outlook of the dominant social group seems to swing between the two extremes. However, the patrist assertion that the patriarchal system of authority was the original and universal system of social organization leads to the establishment of corresponding institutions (Taylor, Gordon Rattray. Theories of Matriarchy and Patriarchy. Sex in History ).
History of Western Patriarchy
Aristotle
Antique illustration of Aristotle Credit: ilbusca
In the third century BC, Aristotle taught that the city-state developed out of the patriarchal family. However, he thought the family and the state were different in kind as well as in scale.[mfn]Lock, John, “Two Treatises of Government, with a supplement Patriarcha by Robert Filmer, edited with an introduction by Thomas I. Cook, New York. Hafner Press, 1947[/mfn] He wrote that the highest form of human community is the political community.
The Politics
In The Politics, Aristotle attempts to illustrate the nature of the hierarchies that exist in the political community and its subordinate communities. He then argues for an origin of male rule. In Chapter Thirteen he states that men and women have different kinds of virtue, “just as those who are natural subjects differ (from those who rule by nature.)” Other types of community, such as the household, are subordinate and inferior to the polis.
Aristotle proposed that the household is subordinate to the political community because the aim of life in the household is the mere preservation of life, or the satisfaction of life’s daily needs, whereas the aim of membership in the political community is to live well. He also proposed that the household is inferior to the political community in the character of its rule. In the household, the man rules by virtue of his age and sex, monarchically at best and tyrannically at worst. In the polis, citizens choose their rulers on the basis of merit. (Stauffer, Dana Jalbert Aristotle’s Account of the Subjection of Women
Socrates
Illustration of a bust of the Greek philosopher Socrates after Visconti. credit: Gwengoat
Both Plato and Aristotle seem to have followed the lead of Socrates. Socrates denied that citizens had the basic virtue necessary to nurture a good society. He equated virtue with knowledge unattainable by ordinary people. During Athens’ struggle with undemocratic Sparta, Socrates favored Sparta (Linder, Doug, The Trial of Socrates).
Plato
Plato (Greek philosopher, 428/427 BC – 348/347 BC). Lithograph after an antique bust by Joseph Brodtmann (German-swiss engraver and publisher, 1787-1862), published c. 1830. Credit: ZU_09
Plato never mentioned Socrates’ sedition against Athens. However, the cosmology of the Timaeus includes the idea that a man who lives well will live a happy and congenial life on his consort star. Failing this a man’s second birth will be as a woman. (41E-42D, on the Creation of Souls).
The Athenians and the Egyptians Compared
Other ancient societies contemporary with Aristotle, as well as many Athenians, did not share these views of women, family organization, or political and economic structure.[mfn]del Giorgio, J.F. The Oldest Europeans. Guadeamus, Caracas, Venezuela, 2003[/mfn] Egypt left no philosophical record. Herodotus, on the other hand, left a record of his shock at the contrast between the roles of Egyptian women and the women of Athens. He observed that Egyptian women attended market and were employed in trade. In ancient Egypt a middle-class woman might sit on a local tribunal, engage in real estate transactions, and inherit or bequeath property. Women also secured loans, and witnessed legal documents.
This changed, however. Greek influence spread with the conquests of Alexander the Great, who was educated by Aristotle.[mfn]Bristow, John Temple. “What Paul Really said about Women: an Apostle’s liberating views on equality in marriage, leadership, and love”, Harper Collins, New York, 1991[/mfn] Eventually, when Alexander wanted to unite his two empires in equality, Aristotle was adamant that all non-Greeks should be enslaved.
Aristotle and the Jews
About 200 BC the Jewish Philosopher Aristobulus of Panaeas claimed that Jewish revelation and Aristotelian philosophy were identical. Within 200 years, it was assumed that Aristotle derived his doctrine directly from Judaism. In the 12th century the Talmudist philosopher and astronomer, Maimonides harmonized Aristotlianism with Judaism. Subsequent rabbinical thought includes such pronouncements as “Eve was not created simultaneously with Adam because God foreknew that later she would be a source of complaint (Gen. R. xvii). “Nine curses together with death befell Eve in consequence of her disobedience” (Pirke R. E. Xiv.; Ab. R.N. ii. 42). While Maimonides dared to contradict Aristotle’s ideas in matters of faith, it wasn’t long before the Islamic Philosopher Averroes, endorsed them without reserve. Aristotle in Jewish Legend
Adam and Eve: Patriarchy in Christianity
For the last 1800 years Christian leaders have placed great emphasis on the creation of Eve, believing that the story was historical fact, rather than androcentric myth. This has been used as evidence of insurmountable character defects, not just for Eve but for all women. In the 2nd century Tertullian, the son of a centurion and a pagan until middle life, told women believers, “Do you not know that you are Eve?…Because of the death which you brought upon us, even the Son of God had to die” (De cultu feminarum, libri duo I, 1).
In the 4th Century, the basic attitude was one of puzzlement over the fact of woman’s existence. Augustine of Hippo said he could not see how a woman could be any help for a man if the work of childbearing is excluded. However, it was only with Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century that Aristotle’s teachings emerged in the official teachings of Roman Catholicism. In the Summa Theologica, Aristotle asserted that women are misbegotten males (I 92 I ad 1). The influence of combining Aristotle’s theory with Biblical interpretations can’t be overestimated.
Christine de Pizan on the Christian Canon
In about 1404 Christine de Pizan wrote “Le livre de la cite des dames”. This was a systematic feminist treatise arguing against the misogyny in classical works and the Christian Canon. After the advent of printing, the discourse became known as “the Querelle des femmes” and continued for the next 400 years.
Sir Robert Filmer and the Divine Right of Kings
From the time of Martin Luther, Protestantism regularly used the commandment in Exodus 20:12 to justify the duties owed to all superiors. ‘Honor thy father,’ became a euphemism for the duty to obey the king. But Aristotle’s appeal took on political meaning primarily as a secular doctrine. Although many 16th and 17th century theorists agreed with Aristotle’s views concerning the place of women in society, none of them tried to prove political obligation on the basis of the patriarchal family until sometime after 1680. Sir Robert Filmer is primarily responsible for the patriarchal political theory. Sometime before 1653, Filmer completed a work entitled Patriarcha. In it he defended the divine right of kings as having title inherited from Adam, the first man of the human race. He based this theory on the Judeo-Christian tradition.
John Locke on Filmer
In 1688 John Locke called Filmer’s all-powerful prince “…this strange kind of domineering phantom called the ‘fatherhood’ which, whoever could catch, presently got empire and unlimited, absolute power.” Locke asserted that if ‘honor thy father’, places everyone in subjection to political authority, then it couldn’t mean the duty owed to natural fathers, since they are subjects. By Filmer’s doctrine fathers have no power since power belongs solely to the prince. Locke also observed that those who propose political rights based on this commandment invariably omit the word ‘mother’ which is present in the Biblical verse. (His editor, however, made a note of Locke’s inconsistency in attributing natural law to the governance of relations between a father and his children, while stating that the law governing relations between a man and his wife is based on legality, or on Eve’s punishment after the Fall. Two Treatises of Government).
Aristotle’s view was not weakened by this argument. It had been elevated to an anthropological doctrine.
Nineteenth Century Feminism
In the 19th Century, Sarah Grimké dared to question the divine origin of the scriptures. Later, Elizabeth Caddy Stanton used Grimke’s criticism of Biblical sources to establish a basis for feminist thought. She published The Woman’s Bible, which proposed a feminist reading of the Old and New Testament. Subsequently, feminist theory denounced the patriarchal Judeo-Christian tradition. [mfn]Castro, Ginette. American Feminism: a contemporary history. New York University Press. 1990[/mfn]
“Elizabeth Cady Stanton (November 12, 1815 – October 26, 1902) was an American social activist, abolitionist, and leading figure of the early woman’s movement. Illustration was published in 1882″Credit: denisk0
Theosophy, Evolution and Racism: Patriarchy at its Worst
In Europe, from about 1770, the rationalist Enlightenment and the desire for mystery had brought about a resurgence of a synthesis of Gnosticism, neoplatonism and kabbalistic theosophy. This particular version arose first in the utilitarian and industrial countries of America and England with the theosophy of Madame Helena Blavatsky. This had a profound impact in Germany where it fit into the lebenzreform movement. Blavatsky probably influenced Adolf Hitler through the writings of Guido von List and Lanz von Liebenfels.
Guido von List
List sought a chauvinistic mystique for the defense of Germandom against the liberal, socialist and Jewish political forces in the late Wilhelmine Era. His blueprint involved ruthless subjection of non-Aryans in a hierarchical state; qualification of candidates for education or positions in public service, as well as in professions and commerce, based on racial purity. All non-Aryans were to be slaves. His political principles included racial and marital laws, and a patriarchal society where only male heads had full majority and where only Ario-Germans had freedom and citizenship. Each family was to have a genealogical record, proving Aryan lineage. he proposed a new feudalism where only the first-born inherits. These ideas were published as early as 1911. They were similar to the Nuremberg Laws of 1935.
Lanz von Liebenfels
Darwinist writers, who wrote of blond, blue-eyed Aryans, were influential in the writings of von Liebenfels. Von Liebenfels had illiberal, pan-German and monarchical sentiments. He believed the lower classes were inferior races. It followed that they must be exterminated along with the weak. Socialism, democracy and feminism were his most important targets. Women were a special problem in his view because they were more prone to bestial lust. He advocated brood mothers in eugenic convents, sterilization and other practices that later influenced the Third Reich, apparent in Himmler’s anticipation of polygamy for his Schutzstaffel (SS), care of unmarried mothers in SS homes, and musings on the education and marriage of chosen women.[mfn]Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan cults and their influence on Nazi ideology: the Ariosophists of Austria and Germany, 1890-1935, New York University Press. 1992[/mfn]
Romantics and Marxists
By 1673, Francois Poullain de la Barre, “On the Equality of the Two Sexes”, had turned feminism into a systematic Enlightenment philosophy (as opposed to the previous Renaissance feminism). However, in 1861, Johann Jakob Bachofen, a German romantic and writer of the counter-Enlightenment said that matriarchy preceded patriarchy, and is superior to patriarchy on moral grounds. Bachofen influenced Karl Marx and Frederick Engles. Marxist analysis has been a basis for subsequent feminist thought.[mfn]Stjepan Gabriel Meštrović, Durkheim and postmodern culture. A. de Gruyter, New York. 1992[/mfn] From the beginning, socialist feminists in France, for example, were challenged by the republic, which “oppressed them as workers and women; by Marxism, which ignores gender; and by the misogyny of their socialist brothers. This struggle continues within all parties of the left (History of Feminism).
In his theory of American Civil Religion, Robert Bellah attempted to attribute America’s sense of community to a common religious factor independent of the church. He said that a specifically American ideology has worked to form a homogenous and unified culture from unrelated immigrants. Because of the United States’ unique beginning, Civil Religion is uniquely crucial to Americans’ sense of unity.[mfn]Bellah, Robert Neelly, The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial. University of Chicago Press. 1992[/mfn] However, it was Jean-Jacques Rousseau who first argued that every society needs a purely civil profession of faith to integrate all members. For this reason, the idea of civil religion should be examined in the context of the Enlightenment. This article will explore American Civil Religion and the Enlightenment, and the influence of these movements on modernity.
Civil Religion Failed Americans in the Iraq War
Surveys have shown the concept of Civil Religion is a useful model in analyses of American attitudes.[mfn]Baker, Wayne. America’s Crisis of Values: Reality and Perception. Princeton University Press. 2006[/mfn]However, after the attack on the Twin Towers some were shocked when they observed that the concept has no brakes. Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, went willingly to war in Iraq based on questionable evidence for the presence of al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. Apparently Civil Religion provides no moral compass. In fact, since the fall of the Soviet Union, ‘civil religion’ has been a euphemism for a religion of war. The Enlightenment has been criticized in similar ways.
One goal of the Enlightenment was the end of Europe’s Absolutist political organization. Although Absolutism had been a response to the religious wars of the Reformation, it was seen by the ‘Philosophes’ as an unnecessary annoyance. Two additional Enlightenment concerns were the equality of man and the place of morality in politics.
The Enlightenment
The Enlightenment was an historical period beginning with the eighteenth century and ending with the French Revolution in 1789. The term Enlightenment also refers to a method of thought developed during this period, which remains influential in political theory. The movement has always inspired a certain degree of mistrust. In the eighteenth century, the term ‘philosophe’ was meant to distinguish Enlightenment writers from other philosophers. The Philosophes were considered ‘popularizers’ of a doctrine, working to influence public opinion in their favor. In the most violent years of the French Revolution, the ideas of the Enlightenment were further discredited because of their perceived role that revolution.
The Enlightenment Replaced Thomas Hobbes’ Absolutism
The theory of political Absolutism, which the Philosophes worked to discredit, is attributed to Thomas Hobbes, who observed during the turmoil following the Reformation that humans fear each other. Hobbes argued that an external sovereign was necessary to maintain order in society. But Enlightenment thinkers had a very different view of human nature, arguing that reason creates a virtuous public individual.
In the Absolutist pursuit of peace, Hobbes had declared that personal beliefs must remain private. Publicly, people were expected to agree with the religion of the monarch. But the Philosophes had no memory of the religious conflicts that Absolutism had tried to address. This ‘forgetfulness’ has been an enduring characteristic of modern political rhetoric, one result being that Enlightenment assumptions were in conflict with the experience of the past1.
Deism: the Religion of the Enlightenment
The Enlightenment’s religion was deism, which holds that although God created the world, he is no longer directly concerned with the trials and tribulations of humanity. According to critic Reinhart Koselleck, Enlightenment thinkers put reason and the will of society in the place of God (p. 56). In retrospect, it seems clear that one of the unforeseen functions of the Absolutist state was to transition from the Christian focus on the heart of man to the Enlightenment’s obsession with society as a whole. Along the way, the foundation of western thought became a philosophy of materialism. Now all causes are economic or social.
In this view, in my opinion, Capitalist ideology and Marxist ideology can be seen as two sides of the same materialist coin. Critics have argued that if the Enlightenment was not successful it is because the system had no transcendent values. Such a system degenerates to physical, biological, and economic considerations, and causes more problems than it solves.
Unrestricted Capitalism Belongs to the Enlightenment, Not to Christianity
Strangely, although Enlightenment thought has become inseparable from Christianity their former differences are no longer discussed. In an older critique from the Catholic point of view, Hilaire Belloc argued that both Absolutism and Enlightenment were solutions for society in lieu of former religious solutions and interpretations. More specifically, he argued that unrestricted capitalism was not a Christian concept. True to his religious point of view, he also argued that capitalism was only made possible by changing social circumstances and by Calvin, who divorced good works from the possibility of human salvation. The only motivation left for industry was personal economic gain.[mfn]Belloc, Hilaire. The Crisis of Civilization. Fordham University Press. New York. 1937, pp. 116, 126[/mfn]
The Guilds
Of course, the guilds and city-states of the middle Ages were another restraining influence on unbridled capitalism. The guilds saw capitalism as different from the economy of the free cities only in its requirement for large amounts of capital. Guild rules guarded against this type of competition making it possible for the common man to become a master of his craft and establish his own shop. The cities of the middle Ages had become free by petitioning the king for a charter. In this way they had cut out the middlemen in the collection of rents and taxes, including Catholic bishops who were an integral part of the feudal system and who collected rents in their own behalf.
Conclusion
The theory of civil religion assumes that other countries differ from America because they share a cultural and religious background Americans never had. However, Europe and America were involved in many of the same philosophical and political debates. And both countries have struggled to find a basis for community in lieu of the church’s influence.
Koselleck, Reinhart. Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society. Oxford, New York. 1988, p. 39 [↩]
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
