As we have seen, the move to the center (both religiously and geographically, since Prague is much closer to the heart of the Hapsburg Empire than the Polish city of Chelm) was a spectacular success. For nearly a quarter of a century after Grimm’s report there is no written record of any specific ecotype of the Golem legend, and one could imagine countless variants circulating orally. But once the tale is fixed in Prague, it quickly becomes the standard reflex and ultimately the authoritative version through Weisel, dominating the next six decades until it is swallowed up by Rosenberg’s more fully developed Prague narratives.26 That the attachment of Grimm’s uprooted Golem to the Maharal is in large part an attempt to emphasize the power of the holy word is evident in one of the main differences between Jewish and Christian accounts of the Golem in this period. All Christian accounts follow Grimm in identifying the utterance of holy words as the key to the animation process. The Jewish versions, on the other hand, emphasize the act of writing the secret name and inserting it into a cavity of the head (usually the mouth), an act which by definition defies pronunciation. It is not a magical spell that brings the Golem to life; it is an act of literacy, that is, an act of reading, studying, and writing, which are all meditations on the nature of God. This act strongly distances itself from the conjuring power of the words used by Grimm’s anonymous ‘‘they,’’ where ‘‘Schemhamphoras’’ is more like abracadabra.27 Moreover this act of literacy is about rewriting or reclaiming the creation in Eden by transferring the divine voice into the written form of the divine name. It would seem, then, that only a rabbi with a specific name can control the Holy Name. Man might not be able to speak for God, but he can quote him on parchment.
Ada Palmer, an historian at the University of Chicago, argues that Stoicism is popular in places like Silicon Valley particularly because it doesn’t require a person not to be a CEO of a successful company to be a Stoic. “The Romans loved Stoicism because it was a philosophy that was compatible with political life,” Palmer said.
It’s perhaps unsurprising then that billionaires love a philosophy that doesn’t require them to give up on their wealth, but accept their role in the world, and counsels the less fortunate to not worry so much about their circumstances and accept their lot—as Zeno did when he lost all of his possessions.
“There is a risk that the mega-rich will seek philosophies that basically validate themselves and their lifestyles rather than awakening them to their blind spots, their obligations to their fellow beings,” Evans said.
The metaphysical side of ancient Stoicism contains an explanation as to why we shouldn’t worry about external events but simply our reactions to them—but it raises more potential problems.
The Stoics were monists, and thought that the universe was all connected, made of a divine rational substance called logos. The universe, they believed, was rational because it was organized by logos: Whatever happens is what’s meant to happen. Even things that seem bad to you have been ordained by the divine spark of logic, and so what’s actually bad is your response, which you can change and have control over.
“Stoicism is thus from the outset a deterministic system that appears to leave no room for human free will and more responsibility,” wrote Gregory Hays, associate professor of classics at the University of Virginia, in the introduction to his translation of Meditations. “In reality the Stoics were reluctant to accept such an arrangement, and attempted to get around the difficulty by defining free will as a voluntary accommodation to what is in any case inevitable.” Hays described it like this: Imagine that we are like a dog tied to a moving wagon. “If the dog refuses to run along with the wagon he will be dragged by it, yet the choice remains his: to run or be dragged.”
…
Zuckerberg agreed that in the community that takes Stoicism seriously, the people she’s writing about are in short supply. But in the types of online meeting grounds she explored in her book, she said, “the use of Stoicism is much more superficial yet also more disturbing.” She maintains that it’s the “unfortunate responsibility of people who take Stoicism seriously to insist that out-of-context quotations from Marcus Aurelius aren’t the full picture when it comes to Stoicism, and the reality is a lot more nuanced and less individualistic.”
Whiting felt that Zuckerberg’s warnings in her book went unheeded, and that people dismissed her. “I thought that we did not respond as a Stoic community with kindness to Donna,” Whiting said. “I don’t think we did enough to thank her for the stance that she took and the effort that she made. People say, ‘Oh, you know, she made us look bad.’ She made us look in the mirror.”
…
Stoicism is a wonderful philosophy, but there are some elements missing, if it’s taken on too unilaterally. Evans found that focus on the rational can omit ecstatic, non-rational approaches to healing and meaning. Incidentally, this can be the case with CBT as well, which is not for everyone, or for every problem. “Some people find the idea of trying to rationalize away your negative beliefs doesn’t work, which is why some people prefer Acceptance and Commitment Therapy,” Evans said. “I have a friend with OCD, and he can’t Socratically dispute his intrusive beliefs. That just makes it worse.”
“I shall have much to say about Hephaistos [Hephaestus]. Let it suffice for the moment to say that he was, according to most tales, a skilled and sturdy master metalworker, yet at the same time only a crippled craftsman dwarf. He created young virgins made of gold, who moved as if they were alive, and thought and talked and worked. He fashioned the first woman, Pandora. She was not his wife, but the wife of beings closely resembling him. Hephaistos’s wife — according to Homer, in his Iliad, and according to Hesiod — was the youngest of the Graces, Aglaia, “the glorious”. Did more ancient tales (which these poets knew) mean that she, too, was a living work of art? It may be so, for charis (“grace”) also means the delightfulness of art. Or was it their purpose to give the smith-god a lesser Aphrodite for wife, instead of the great one? In any case, in our tongue the love-goddess could also have been called Charis. In the Odyssey, the spouse of Hephaistos was Aphrodite, and Ares was her lover.”
[Content warning. Gods do terrible things sometimes. We discuss topics like sexual assault and violence in this series.]
GABBLER: Welcome to our first post for COGS RATE GODS, where we talk about, and then proceed to rate, a god.
BLA: And then get smited – smote? – for our hubris…
GABBLER: I mean, we’ve survived this long, we’ll be fine. Just look what you’ve said about Them in our books.
BLA: You call this fine? We’re literally blogging about gods for readership. Anyone who comes here is just gawking, wanting to see our fate.
GABBLER: Moving on! So, in these posts we’re going to highlight our favorite things about a god and maybe disagree with each other a bit and then come to some sort of average rating (that you yourself might disagree with! Let us know if we’re wrong in the comments – #engagement). For this kickoff edition of CRG, we’re starting with the elephant in the room. AKA Vulcan. AKA, Hephaestus. AKA, the reason BLA wrote The Automation and The Pre-programming in the first place. One of which is permafree for you to download if you look hard enough.
BLA: Shameless plug. But yeah, He’s a main player in those memoirs.
GABBLER: Fictions, ahem.
BLA: Whatever. Also, I wouldn’t compare V. to an elephant. He’s more of a Donkey. That’s His sacred animal.
BLA: I think it’s because He’s an ass. Kind of a big one. As you’ll see in our books…
G: Who’s shameless now? lol He’s definitely played a big role in your life – our lives, now, I guess. But, you clearly have some…interesting interpretations of Him. What’s one thing you wish more people knew about Him?
BLA: Maybe that He’s the god of technology. Maybe if more people understood what automatons are and that He made some (not necessarily or specifically talking about the ones that show up in our books), Gaiman wouldn’t have created Technical Boy in American Gods and the adaptation of that book wouldn’t have weirdly inserted them and their Vulcan character.
G: Oh, geez. Don’t get started on American Gods. We promised each other we’d try not to.
BLA: What? But you even agree with me! You’ve started making comics to illustrate my point. You even said so in a press release recently.
But we’re not here to talk about AG. What is it about Vulcan’s tech that is so fascinating for you? And why do you default to “Vulcan” over “Hephaestus” usually in your writing? I think we talk about it in our FAQ, but for those who are new here?
BLA: Well, the Vulcan thing is that it’s easier to type and remember how to spell more than Hephaestus all the time. Also probably easier to pronounce, if I were to speak. Which I don’t – long story. You can read all about said story in * my memoirs. *
G: * Fictions *
BLA: But yeah, His tech is one of the most overlooked things. That, or there’s only this shallow understanding. A lot of writers seem to focus on his disability and how He’s maybe not the most attractive god, yet He married Aphrodite. The fact She cheated on Him with Ares. People love a good scandal, and they feel bad for Him. But they shouldn’t. He’s doing just fine.
G: Yeah, that’s what gods do. They have a lot of fun and sometimes cause a lot of trouble. They aren’t saints. It’s kind of like following a reality TV show.
BLA: Like rooting for your favorite wrestler in WWE. Everyone has an opinion on what’s really going on and people choose sides and choose what to believe.
G: You kind of have to. But hopefully you choose based on behavior and some sort of reality, right?
BLA: Yes, focus on what He’s done for us. For humans. He’s a Promethean figure for me, honestly. I would argue He’s on our side. He doesn’t take shit from other gods and They’re constantly going to Him because They need Him and His skills.
G: So you think people should focus on His inventions?
BLA: Yes and no. I just think they’re a more interesting aspect about Him. Sure, His trap/snare gets brought up in the Aphrodite/Ares affair but He also traps his mother Hera in a similar fashion. Those aren’t super techy things, though they do show his cleverness. I wish more people knew about His robots – His automata. His tech. Artificial intelligences. He crosses boundaries of what is “real” and what is “life.” For good or bad. The conversation about robots is not new. It’s ancient. Like you’ve even pointed out in past essays.
G: But what do you mean “He’s on our side?” He’s not always had the best track record of being a moral icon. I think it’s like you said – that we more so feel sorry for Him and what He’s gone through. Being rejected by His mother Hera and tossed out of Olympus, having a disability, being cheated on by His wife…
BLA: Yeah, he gets a pass a lot of times, I feel, because of this.
G: I guess what I’m trying to get at is that He’s not really, say, more ethical than Athena, though, right? He did try to, um, rape Her that one time.
BLA: I might argue that He is though.
G: No way! You’re taking His side on something?! Mind = blown.
BLA: Let me explain. Athena has Her own baggage like with the whole Medusa thing – what she did to her and even Arachne. Those are the big two WTFs for me. So, I’m much less afraid of V. But at the same time you can’t talk about Hephaestus without Athena. No matter what or how you interpret what He did to Athena, something happened – and, sure, I have my own interpretations – but now He’s forever associated with Her as this almost complimentary aspect. They may not be together, but They are grouped together.
Athena Scorning the Advances of Hephaestus by Paris Bordone. One of the more positive interpretations of the myth?
G: Yeah, and She ended up helping raise the child Erichthonius born of that interaction, a child that wasn’t even Hers, which is weird. You and I have grappled with that as well as a million other historians and writers.
BLA: We all know the gods do some very weird and even bad things and humans are left to make sense of it. But let’s not forget that a lot of what we hear about the gods is coming from third parties as well who put their own spins on things. Even the Muses who inspire the records are a third party and have Their biases, I’m sure.
G: * looks at fourth wall * Sure, honey… Maybe now you should ask me what I think is the most overlooked aspect of Vulcan? Be polite.
BLA: Fine. What is it?
G: Maybe the fact that no matter where the Venus/Vulcan relationship (what I also like to call the “Hephrodite” ship) stands (if you think they stayed “together-together” or not), they’re bound in a marriage of dualities. Even She and Ares are a joining of two opposites, you might say. With Athena and Hephaestus, you have this symbolic binary too – both are gods of crafts but Athena is the female born of man and Hephaestus is the male born of woman. I find Hephaestus’s role in these explorations of gender fascinating.
BLA: Don’t forget where Dionysus fits into that Athena-Hephaestus spectrum.
G: Yeah, Dionysus will have to get His own edition in CRG, but He’s certainly the most non-binary point on this triangle, full of dualities and contradictions Himself.
BLA: That and He’s bffs with Hephaestus. Enough to be the one They send to convince Hephaestus to release Hera from the trap He set.
G: Yeah, I feel like there’s more going on there than just BFFs but I’ll not add my interpretation onto this. I mean, Hephaestus isn’t the only one to ride a donkey, right? Anyways. Next, I want to get your opinion on this quote. Hesiod calls Hephaestus the “renowned Ambidexter” in the Theogony. What does that mean to you?
The Youth of Bacchus William-Adolphe Bouguereau, showing Someone Else on a donkey. Date: 1884
BLA: It’s fitting to call Him that, because ambidexterity is associated with hands. He works with His hands, not his legs or feet. He’s known as the “crippled god” — to use ableist language here, apologies. But that is also what He calls Himself in Homer: ‘I am a cripple from my birth.’ He’s reclaiming his disability and, I think, using it as a symbol and distinguishing attribute. His followers do it as well. Can flaws really be flaws if they’re divine? If the divine have them too?
G: So it makes Him relatable?
BLA: Yes, even more so than Athena, who seems to have these high standards and needs to be perfect in every way.
G: You really have it out for Athena, dude. She’s kind of the most petty and wrathful of Them All. You should maybe watch that.
BLA: Oh, so now you’re scared of rating gods?
G: Let’s get to it, all I’m saying. Out of 5 stars what do you rate Vulcan?
BLA: No stars for screwing up my life!
G: But did He? According to you He’s the reason we’re together.
BLA: True… 5 begrudging stars, then.
G: 5 stars from me too. That averages out to 5/5. Congrats, V. So far, you’re in the lead. The lead of whatever this is.
BLA: Maybe every year we should do a fantasy league contest where readers vote off the ones we score the highest.
G: That means we better start rating more gods! Until next time, mortals.
Ada Palmer, an historian at the University of Chicago, argues that Stoicism is popular in places like Silicon Valley particularly because it doesn’t require a person not to be a CEO of a successful company to be a Stoic. “The Romans loved Stoicism because it was a philosophy that was compatible with political life,” Palmer said.
“I shall have much to say about Hephaistos [Hephaestus]. Let it suffice for the moment to say that he was, according to most tales, a skilled and sturdy master metalworker, yet at the same time only a crippled craftsman dwarf. He created young virgins made of gold, who moved as if they were alive, and thought and talked and worked. He fashioned the first woman, Pandora. She was not his wife, but the wife of beings closely resembling him. Hephaistos’s wife — according to Homer, in his Iliad, and according to Hesiod — was the youngest of the Graces, Aglaia, “the glorious”. Did more ancient tales (which these poets knew) mean that she, too, was a living work of art? It may be so, for charis (“grace”) also means the delightfulness of art. Or was it their purpose to give the smith-god a lesser Aphrodite for wife, instead of the great one? In any case, in our tongue the love-goddess could also have been called Charis. In the Odyssey, the spouse of Hephaistos was Aphrodite, and Ares was her lover.”
Sure, honey… Maybe now you should ask me what I think is the most overlooked aspect of Vulcan? Be polite.
