#polycentric polytheism

We begin with this quote by the philosopher Olympiodorus as it introduces the core that polycentric polytheism revolves around:

If the virtues reciprocally imply each other [antakolouthousin allêlais], nevertheless they differ individually [têi idiotêti  diapherousin]. For they are not one, but all [of the  virtues] are in courage courageously [en men têi andreia eisin andreiôs], in another [temperance, sôphrosunê] temperately [sôphronikôs]; and so too all the Gods are in Zeus zeusically  [en men tôi Dii eisi diiôs],  in another [Hera] heraically [hêraiôs]; for no God is imperfect [atelês]. And as Anaxagoras said all things are in all things but one is superabundant [in each], in this way also we speak regarding things divine.

In short what is being discussed here is the concept of the gods being perfect. Here, perfect doesn’t mean morally impeccable or the like. It is meant in the mathematical sense of a set containing all things. According to Neoplatonist thought, the gods contained all qualities and virtues in some amount. In addition, the gods express these virtues differently. For instance, the virtue of courage would be expressed very differently between Athena and between Hermes. Athena would likely express it through battle or a bold idea whereas Hermes would express it through a daring feat of thievery. So virtues are expressed in Athena “athenaically” and in Hera “heraically” and in Zeus “zeusically” and so on. 

According to Butler, this concept of “all in each” is often misinterpreted as “all in one”. This has led to people interpreting monotheistic tendencies within polytheism. Aka, that even a polytheistic belief must turn to monotheism in time. Butler explains that this is not true in the slightest. Neoplatonist thought does not classify the gods as “modes” or “names” of One elite Being. Because all of the gods are ‘perfect’ each god can be placed at the ‘center’ of a system. This placing of one god at a time in the center allows us to know each of the other gods through their relationships thus allowing us to worship many at once. Because each god is perfect we have relationships between gods in the virtues and ways these virtues are expressed. This creates unities between gods and allows for syncretization. Furthermore, this perfection prevents the gods from being altered by contradictory myths. None of this is exactly clear here so I will explain these ideas more below.

“All in each” vs “All in one” - “All in one” implies that all the gods are merely facets or aspects of one greater being. “All in each” indicates that all these virtues are in each divine being. The amounts and expressions differ and give individuality to the gods. This belief is fundamentally pluralist in nature meaning it is fundamentally tied to a concept of multiple divinities. As such, it cannot be monotheistic in nature despite misinterpretations of this saying.  (Pluralist simply means believing in multiple modes of being in regards to something as opposed to monism or believing in one way of being regarding something.) As the philosopher Proclus said “each of the gods is the universe each in a different way.” Furthermore, he states that each god, despite having the same traits, because they differ in individual expression, the gods are still distinct individuals and are named for this individuality. 

Butler explains this clearly by relating it to the tale of Indra’s Net in his short article “Polycentric Polytheism”:

A similar concept is embodied in the metaphor of Indra’s Net, which appears first in Buddhist literature (circa 3rd-4th c. CE), but which probably originated in Hindu thought. The God Indra, so the story goes, possesses a net which is studded with jewels, each one of which reflects all the others, as well as the reflections themselves. This jewel-studded net is understood to be a symbol for all things. 

Both panta-en-pasin  (all in each appropriately) and the metaphor of Indra’s net express the concept that individuality implies relation, but in a surprising way. Relations are not something external added onto individuals; instead, relations are in individuals in some fashion — relations with other things are the presence of things themselves in one another. 

This doesn’t mean that things aren’t unique. The jewels in Indra’s Net are individuals, above and beyond whatever they share. What they share above all else is reflectivity; but we can imagine this property infinitely varying, as each jewel reflects the others according to its unique shape, color, and other traits. Moreover, if we are really to appreciate the metaphor, then we must assume that there is no point of view on the whole net other than the reflections in each jewel. The jewels are not merely perspectives on the totality — rather, the universe itself is nothing other than these myriad perspectives. We may take any jewel, at any time, as the center of the net, and plot the whole system of relations starting from it and ending with it. 

This leads into the concept of each god being ‘perfect’ and how that allows for them to be the center of a system as well as how perfection allows for simultaneous individuality and unity. Butler speaks of “henads” meaning “unities” of gods. These henads can be formed because of the shared traits due to each god being perfect. As such, these henads are particularly strong and complete unities that allow gods to squish into each other and share their powers and influences so cleanly. (Aka they’re unities that normal beings cannot form because we are not perfect in this sense.) But again, the gods are by nature unique individuals due to the expression of their virtues. In any case, this property of unity the gods share is what allows for us to shift the ‘center’ of our worship around as well as worship the many through the one at a time. What does this mean?

Essentially, this: Henads are unities of things, here, we’re talking gods. Gods are united through the qualities they share with each other. However these qualities are not measurable because gods are vast. This means there are immeasurable ways to reconfigure the gods' arrangement in relationship to each other. We tend to focus on one god at a time giving the appearance of a henotheistic* approach but by approaching one god we approach others at the same time as all are connected in a henad, a unity. Thus, when we approach one god and get to know one, we approach and get to know more through them. So for instance, if one were to worship the Egyptian god Set, one would also get to know the gods related to him. Take Heru. Heru is his family as well as his mythic rival. So by reading about the Contendings, even if one is reading to focus on Set, by the nature of their relationship you will still get to know bits of Heru as reflected through Set. And when you worship Set, you are still worshiping parts of Heru as reflected and shared between them. 

* - Henotheism is the belief in multiple gods but a worship of one at the exclusion of the rest. It has polytheistic beliefs but not plural worship of gods.

Polytheism by nature has times where gods are singled out. A footnote explains when ti comes to hymns ‘Versnel  has  remarked  that  hymns, insofar as they “by definition ... concentrate on one particular deity and magnify his greatness ... are ‘henotheistic’ moments in an otherwise polytheistic context”. These moments do not define the practice as a whole or indicate monotheistic tendencies. In fact, Butler argues it’s important to limit our experiences to smaller number of gods in order to better connect with the vastness of their divinity. By trying to connect to multiple gods at once we don’t connect to their individuality so it is important to have singular encounters even within a polytheistic belief system.

Going back to the perfect nature of gods, Butler explains how this allows for the overlapping functions of gods as well as the way they remain unaffected by contradictory myths. Essentially, by being vast and containing all of these virtues and unities, the gods by nature overlap. Butler explains how the philosopher Proclus believed that certain properties of gods were caused by the reflections of the other gods within them, using an example of Hestia having powers to impel as being sourced from Hera. However, the way the impelling is executed is still purely Hestian in flavor thus preserving her integrity even if the power is sourced in a reflection from Hera. This property of gods is what allows for syncretism of gods. Syncretism, for those unfamiliar, is where gods are in essence squished together into one. However, when this happens, the gods are not lost in each other. That’s why we get syncretizations like Amun-Re. While one, they’re still also their unique, individual parts and able to re-manifest in other combinations. The vast nature of their perfection also allows for them to encompass contradictory natures and mythological stories. They contain multitudes so it’s not beyond them to also contain contradictions. Multiple deities can swap out mythic roles with each other because of their unity. This perfection also allows for shared traits in gods across cultural boundaries. However, we should not reduce them to mere facets of the same god because gods, again, are individuals and unique in their perfection.

So to sum up this discussion on the unity and individuality of gods: 

gods are perfect (meaning containing all things in a set)

this perfection allows for overlap in function

however gods express their virtues differently which allows for their uniqueness

perfection allows for unified sets of gods (unities are called henads)

perfection allows for syncretization

perfection allows for shared roles between gods even across cultures

gods are still unique even when syncretized and compared and should not be reduced to mere facets of other gods

unity of gods allows for us to worship multiple gods through one god

So that with that discussion concluded, we can move onto the topic of how polytheistic worship is organized. We’ve covered that worshiping one god at a time, sometimes above others, is not exactly an indicator of henotheism or “latent monotheism.” However we haven’t discussed how this deity at the center can both change and what its purpose is. 

The “polycentric” in polycentric polytheism comes from the idea that the center of our worship can change in polytheism. For instance, although Zeus is commonly regarded as the king of the gods in Hellenic practices and thus things are centered around him, the center can shift onto other gods instead pushing him to the sidelines in favor of others. Of course, this doesn’t eliminate the worship of Zeus due to the unity I mentioned above. Zeus is merely no longer the center. But how can we make this arbitrary shift in focus? According to Butler, it is because again, each gods is perfect. There is nothing missing from them, even if the virtues are expressed differently, so any god has the qualities necessary to assume the center of worship. And of course, through the worship of one we worship the many so we’re not cutting off worship by changing who is at the center. 

The deity at the center of the henad we worship functions as what the Neoplatonists call a “demiurge”. The demiurge is what the One of Neoplatonism throws out and all existence is sent out and organized by the demiurge. Essentially, the center of our practice functions as a demiurge organizing our practice around it and through it. For many in today’s neopagan religious communities this will be their patron deity or a divine parent or loved one. It is historically attested, however, for people to form their own henads to worship. As Butler explains:

Within the Hellenic religious field, it is clear that, for example, the onto-theology of Empedocles decenters Zeus in favor of a demiurgic  Aphrodite, and his system differs accordingly. This phenomenon finds formal expression in Egyptian religion. As Hornung remarks, “It is characteristic of the Egyptian   conception of God that the epithet ‘greatest  god’ can be given to the most varied deities, often in a single text. [...] By the end of the Old Kingdom at the latest, the Egyptians had developed their conception of a supreme being who is “king” and “lord” of all that is created, and is  also  the  creator  and sustainer of “everything that exists.” In Egypt, however, the qualities of this supreme being do not attach to a particular deity, but may be attributed to any deity, even to relatively unimportant local gods.

In short, this practice of changing and unique combinations of gods and having focus on gods not typically the ‘ruler’ of their pantheon is historically attested in both Hellenic and Kemetic practices. The center of our worship can shift and this is an essential part of practical polytheism. Who is at the center and the periphery naturally will create differences in practice and organization of our individual paths. While I don’t think Butler necessarily intended to provide a defense for this particular aspect of paganism today, he has indeed in my opinion created one with solid footing.

So the perfection and unity of gods allows for the following as well:

all gods are perfect so any god can take the center of a henad

unique henads of gods can be made

the center of a henad acts as a demiurge or organizing principle

the unique nature of the henad we work with allows for unique paths to be created

This almost wraps up the discussion of Butler’s paper but I wanted to finish with on last quote that was relevant to me but that didn’t fit neatly into the above discussions:

... in Proclus we see the return of the concept of individuality over and above functional equivalence. Nor does this come about as a regression to a more primitive structure, but through the sublation of the paradigm of translation. Functional equivalence, now occurring within its own register, need no longer imply identity.

Basically, Butler is stating that identity of gods should not be tied to their purposes/functions alone. Identifying a god thusly is to reduce them to mere actions when gods are greater than this. This also leads to reductionist equivalencies that say things like “Hermes and Thoth are just facets of the same god.” (This gets even more troublesome for deities of close cultures.) This ignores the unique identifies of each god. Similar functions do not make gods identical and ignores all of their history and cultural backgrounds. 

I'm not an expert on musical theory—I hardly know anything, to be honest—but it seems to me that a lot of music produced today employs counterpoint, weaving together two or more melodies or voices into a harmonic whole. In a polycentric framework, the gods are no different. Each deity is their own voice, their own unique melody, and they combine together to form the musical texture of the universe, so to speak. A single voice in a contrapuntal texture is a whole unit or "individual"; it does not require other voices to support or complete it. However, the inclusion of additional, unique voices enhances the musical texture in captivating ways and makes it more interesting to listen to.

The same, by polycentric standards, applies to the gods. Each god is supreme in their own right, but they're made stronger when they "sing" alongside each other. Their melodies reflect and complement one another while maintaining individuality. The end result? Our complex reality—and by extension, our multifaceted human experience. For comparison, imagine a world in which no other deity existed (or was said to have existed) except one. Our spiritual universe would be rather one-dimensional, would it not? We wouldn't have the colorful, diverse mythologies and many of the powerful archetypes we know and love today. Yes, there are plenty of monotheists out there who believe in a single divinity, but they don't exist in a vacuum; they are surrounded by the stories, signatures, and symbols of countless gods.

When we apply this concept to polytheistic worship, we have two main choices: we can listen to and appreciate the whole harmonic texture the gods produce, or we can focus on a few melodies that stand out to us. In terms of actual practice, most polytheists fall in the latter category, picking out melodies (deities) that appeal to or resonate with them and incorporating them into worship. It's impossible, after all, to venerate each and every god in existence. However, polytheists who subscribe to a polycentric framework can appreciate the whole through the worship of only a few. After all, all gods are in every god. The only thing that changes, it seems, is the manner in which one divinity manifests—or is "activated"—in another. A god like Hermes will likely manifest differently in Hekate than in Aphrodite, for example.

It's this ability to "activate" other gods within themselves that allows every god to reign as supreme. We might be tempted to limit the gods based upon the functions we have ascribed to them (e.g. Aphrodite as the goddess of love or Poseidon as god of the sea), but these functions—along with their associated mythologies and symbols—serve mostly to build the individual identity of the gods. Through a polycentric lens, all gods are capable of performing every function because they are perfect and contain the universe (and all other gods) within them. So one can pray to Ares for love or Hephaistos for a good harvest, and each of those gods will approach those functions in ways that are unique to them.

We modern thinkers might be tempted to dismiss the polycentric structure as pointless. From our perspective, we have firmly delineated the gods and their functions over the last couple thousand years, and those boundaries absolutely should not be crossed. After all, why have a pantheon of two dozen deities or more if they can all essentially perform the same functions? Would it not be simpler to worship one divinity at that point?

Sure, but polycentric polytheism emphasizes individuality, not function. When we reduce the gods to their respective functions, we strip them of their individuality. People deliberately choose to worship Aphrodite, not the abstract function of love. Why? Because Aphrodite is an individual: a unique being with a distinctive worldview. People worship Her to commune with that worldview; it is a melody with which they resonate. The same can be said of any other deity in human history, from the Great Mother Goddess to the Christian God.

The same principle occurs in the human psyche. All human archetypes dwell in each human, and we could, in theory, activate any archetype at any time and for any reason, if we wished—even if we wouldn't ordinarily associate that archetype with our personality or blueprint. A man can activate the Mother archetype, a woman the Emperor archetype, or an adult the Wounded Child archetype. So it is with the gods. Hekate can activate Hermes, Isis, Diana, or even The Morrigan if She wishes, along with every other god in existence. This is an excellent demonstration of the Hermetic Principle of Correspondence at work: as above, so below; as within, so without.

Some melodies move us; others fade into the background. Our tastes may change over time, or we may listen to the same melody for the rest of our lives. Maybe you've experienced the Apollonian melody to its fullest and are in need of a new worldview. Maybe the Hekatean melody is the only melody that will ever appeal to you. That's the beauty of the polycentric model: you can enjoy the sovereignty and individuality of any deity for as long as you need without ever truly "losing" your relationship with them—because all gods dwell in every god.

Music that doesn't employ counterpoint can still be pleasant to listen to. Maybe the listener enjoys the simplicity of a single voice or melody and is overwhelmed or overstimulated by songs that have too much going on in them. In spiritual or religious terms, we'd describe these people as monotheists or perhaps even monolatrists/henotheists, depending on their personal views. Not all polytheists subscribe to a polycentric framework, after all. Some may believe in a supreme deity (e.g. Zeus, Indra, Odin, the Great Goddess, etc.) with all other deities being subservient to them. Or some might be "soft" polytheists, believing the gods to be emanations of a single divinity or powerful, living archetypes that influence and inspire humankind.