CLSC2500: Paper One: Greek Unity Through Religious Exclusivity
Singular or Plural: The Greekness Forged in Faith
A response to Robin Osborne’s Unity vs. Diversity (Osborne, 2015).
In his exploration of Ancient Greek worship, Osborne argues the Greeks’ non-embrace of externalized faiths fortified their own sense of cultural and national unity (Osborne, 2015). That the very concept of religion or plurality of co-located religions did not exist in preference to an understanding the same gods existed everywhere with variant ritualized methods of localized worship. Osborne discusses how the absence or absorption of a nuanced embrace of religious diversity outside of established Greek ritual, sacrifice and local custom did indeed strengthen a shared Greek identity, where religious practices served as markers of cultural belonging and distinction. This argument is juxtaposed with opposing perspectives which emphasize the heterogeneity of Greek religious expression and its potential to fragment rather than unify.
Osborne asserts that the Greeks’ inability or unwillingness to incorporate foreign religious systems reinforced a culture of otherness. As Osborne describes, they ‘either recognized their own gods in those other gods, or added a new god to the pantheon’ (Osborne, 2015). Central to this claim is the role of pan-Hellenic religious festivals, such as those at Delphi and Olympia, which transcended local particularities in crafting a shared cultural identity. These demonstrated that while Greek city-states maintained their own cults and deities, recognition of a common pantheon which absorbed elements of other faiths created a symbolic network of shared values and traditions which expanded Greek tradition, rather than embraced a diversity of differentiated non-Greek deities or means of worship.
Greek insistence on a shared mythology, centered around the Gods of Olympus, provided a unifying cultural lexicon, reinforced by the cosmology of Hesiod’s Theogony or the epic poetry of Homer in The Odyssey and The Iliad. Although interpretations of these deities varied regionally throughout Ancient Greece, the overarching belief system was sufficiently cohesive to define ‘Greekness’ in opposition to metics and non-Greeks (Osborne, 2015). Osborne suggests this lack of accommodation for foreign religious tradition, far from being a weakness, was a unifying force. By categorizing non-Greek belief as ‘other’, Greeks were able to reinforce their own cultural homogeneity and solidify a distinct identity. The cultural boundaries of those traditions, with specific reference to human sacrifice and sexual activity found beyond Greek culture, came to be identified as characteristic of what it was to be Greek, through what wasn’t. In this the Greeks also defined themselves by what they were not.
However, not all scholars agree with Osborne’s conclusions. Walter Burkert, in Greek Religion (Burkert, 1985), highlights an immense diversity within Greek religious practice, arguing local variations were so pronounced they often undermined a unified Greek identity. Burkert argues that ‘culture is not a plant sprouting from its seed in isolation; it is a continuous process of learning guided by curiosity along with practical needs and interests. It grows especially from a willingness to learn from what is 'other', what is strange and foreign’ (Burkert, 1985). The worship of specific gods such as Demeter in Eleusis or Poseidon in the Corinthian Isthmus often took forms which were unintelligible or irrelevant to other poleis. Burkert contends this fragmentation challenges the notion of a cohesive religious identity, where rituals and cult practices were so deeply embedded in local contexts and unable to neatly fit into a shared and cohesive understanding of Greekness.
Similarly, Barbara Kowalzig, in her work on religion and mobility in Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece (Kowalzig, 2007), emphasizes dynamic interactions between Greek and non-Greek traditions, particularly in the context of trade and colonization. She argues the Greeks were not as insular as Osborne suggests. Encounters with Egyptian, Phoenician, Persian and Anatolian religious practices influenced Greek rituals and mythology, creating a form of syncretism which further frustrates the idea of a uniform Greek religious identity.
Others argue such syncretism, rather than exclusion, was a critical factor in fostering the same aspects of Greek unity. Paul Cartledge, in The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others (Cartledge, 1993) highlights the adaptability of Greek religion, noting the incorporation of foreign elements often enriched local practices. The introduction of the cult of Isis in Hellenistic Greece, which offered redemption for lives poorly lived, healing, and protection at war, demonstrates the Greeks’ capacity for religious accommodation. Cartledge argues such adaptability did not dilute Greek identity but rather expanded its boundaries, enabling a more inclusive and dynamic understanding of what it meant to be Greek. As he describes, ‘The Greeks … constructed their identities negatively, by means of a series of polarized oppositions of themselves to what they were not’ (Cartledge, 1993).
Despite these counterarguments, Osborne’s focus on exclusion as a unifying strategy remains compelling, and echoes much of the populist rhetoric we still experience in modern politics. The Greeks’ tendency to dismiss non-Greek religions as exotic or inferior reinforced their own cultural superiority to themselves, even though Osborne traces its origins to adaptation from Ancient Egypt (Osborne, 2015). This exclusion is evident in the concept of ‘Hellenic purity’ celebrated in pan-Hellenic sanctuaries, but also the limitations of what was permissible in these spaces of worship. As Osborne describes, ‘these fundamental and shared expectations about not doing certain things in sanctuaries were rather a matter of defining one’s distinctive moral stature in the wider world’ (Osborne, 2015). Non-Greeks were typically excluded from these spaces, a practice which further reinforced boundaries between Greek and non-Greek identity.
For example, the Eleusinian Mysteries, while open to all Greek-speaking initiates, explicitly excluded non-Greeks, creating a religious community which was both inclusive and exclusive (Burkert, 1985). This contrary approach strengthened intra-Greek solidarity by defining Greekness through shared access to sacred knowledge. Osborne’s argument that this lack of understanding of other religions bolstered unity is supported by the idea that exclusion often functions as a tool for communal cohesion, as we continue to see in contemporary geopolitics.
These perspectives challenge Osborne’s premise by suggesting that the Greeks’ engagement with other faiths, however selective, was not inherently antagonistic. Instead, these interactions facilitated a broader cultural exchange that contributed to a more complex, yet still unified, identity (Kowalzig, 2007).
Pan-Hellenic institutions such as the Oracle of Delphi provide a lens through which both sides might reconcile. Delphi acts as a site where diverse Greek poleis sought guidance from Apollo, reflecting a shared and unifying religious framework (Osborne, 2015), reinforced through the examples of the tragedies of Sophocles. At the same time, the interpretation of Oracles often varied according to local contexts (as we also see in Oedipus Rex), highlighting a co-existence of unity and diversity.
Osborne views such institutions as emblematic bonding agents of Greek unity, symbolizing collective values and shared traditions (Osborne, 2015). However Jonathan Hall, in Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture (Hall, 2002), argues these institutions also reveal the limits of Greek unity, where competing poleis sought to manipulate them for political gain. Such tension between unity and competition underscores a deeply interwoven complexity of Greek identity, challenging overly simplistic narratives of cohesion.
The Greeks’ cultural and systematic application of faith as argued by Osborne, contributes to a compelling and unifying sense of national identity. By defining themselves in opposition to ‘others’, Ancient Greeks reinforced cultural boundaries and cultivated a shared sense of belonging. While counterarguments emphasize the diversity and adaptability of Greek practices of worship, these elements often operate within a framework of a larger, exclusionary identity. Pan-Hellenic institutions, though bridging local variations, ultimately reinforce a distinct Greek identity, consistently rooted in shared myths and rituals. Osborne’s insights, while not without limitations, illuminate the paradoxical role of exclusion in forging communal cohesion. In a world increasingly defined by encounters with the ‘other’, the Greek experience offers valuable lessons on the complexities of identity formation to today’s issues of globalization.
References:
Burkert, W. (1985). Greek Religion. Harvard University Press.
Cartledge, P. (1993). The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others. Oxford University Press.
Hall, J. M. (2002). Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture. University of Chicago Press.
Kowalzig, B. (2007). Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece. Oxford University Press.
Osborne, R. (2015). Unity vs. Diversity, in The Oxford Book of Ancient Greek Religion. Oxford University Press.
