The cult of Serapis: Visions and Portents

Serapis, sometimes spelled Sarapis, is a Graeco-Egyptian deity promoted during the 3rd century BCE by Ptolemy I Soter as a means to unify Greeks and Egyptians in his realm.  Alexander the Great had attempted to use Amun for this purpose, but he was more prominent in Upper Egypt, and not as popular in Lower Egypt, where the Greeks had stronger influence. Ptolemy built an immense temple to the god in Alexandria which became known as the Serapeum.  

However, there is evidence the cult of Serapis existed before the Ptolemies came to power in Alexandria as a temple of Serapis in Egypt is mentioned in 323 BCE by both Plutarch (Life of Alexander, 76) and Arrian (Anabasis, VII, 26, 2).  In descriptions of Alexander's death, a temple of Serapis is said to have existed in Babylon at the time and Serapis was considered so important,  he alone is named as being consulted on behalf of the dying king.  Some scholars point out, though, that a Babylonian god named Ea (also referred to as Enki) was titled Šar Apsi, meaning "king of the Apsu" or "the watery deep", and perhaps he is the one meant in the diaries.

Plutarch claimed Ptolemy stole the cult statue of Serapis from Sinope in Asia Minor after being  instructed in a dream by the "unknown god" to bring the statue to Alexandria.  There, a member of the  Eumolpidae, the ancient family from whose members the hierophant of the Eleusinian Mysteries had been chosen, proclaimed it to be Serapis. Tacitus, however, stated that Serapis had been the god of the village of Rhakotis before it expanded into the great capital of Alexandria.

The statue suitably depicted a figure resembling Hades or Pluto, both being kings of the Greek underworld, and was shown enthroned with the modius, a basket/grain-measure, on his head, since it was a Greek symbol for the land of the dead. He also held a sceptre in his hand indicating his rulership, with Cerberus, gatekeeper of the underworld, resting at his feet. The statue also had what appeared to be a serpent at its base, fitting the Egyptian symbol of rulership, the uraeus.

Whatever its origins, by the second century Serapis was well ensconced in both the Greek world and throughout the Roman Empire.  Pausanias notes two Serapeia on the slopes of Acrocorinth, above the rebuilt Roman city of Corinth and one at Copae in Boeotia. At Rome, Serapis was worshiped in the Iseum Campense, the sanctuary of Isis built during the Second Triumvirate in the Campus Martius. The Roman cults of Isis and Serapis gained in popularity late in the 1st century CE when Vespasian experienced a vision while visiting the Temple of Serapis in Alexandria where he was securing Egypt's grain supply before returning to Rome triumphantly as emperor in 70 CE. Later, Vespasian  was confronted by two laborers, who were convinced that he possessed a divine power that could work miracles. From the Flavian Dynasty onward, Serapis was one of the deities who sometimes appeared on imperial coinage with the reigning emperor.

High Clerk in the Cult of Serapis, 230 - 240 CE,  at the Altes Museum, Berlin, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Ophelia2.

A fragmented statue of Serapis with a modius on the head, depicted as Pluto, next to him is standing the three headed dog Cerberus, guardian of the Hades, from the Roman Villa of Chiragan, 3rd - 4th century CE at the Musée Saint-Raymond in Toulouse, France, courtesy of Carole Raddato.  

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

The evils of religious zealotry theme of film "Agora"

I finally saw the film "Agora" a few weeks ago and, although it was very well acted, found it rather disturbing.  I was, of course, already aware of the history behind the murder of fourth century Greek philosopher/astronomer/mathematician Hypatia (although she was actually pulled from her chariot and literally ripped to pieces by the Christians rather than stoned).

Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her by scraping her skin off with tiles and bits of shell. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them ." - Socrates Scholasticus

But to see how the religious fervor of the period bred such brutality was hard to watch.  The Christians were definitely shown in a terrible light but the worshipers of Serapis and the Jews were portrayed as not much better.  In fact, at one point I wasn't sure who was butchering who - I think it turned out to be the Jews ambushing and stoning the Christians in retaliation for similar Christian atrocities.  Of course the Christians' glee as they destroyed centuries of knowledge in the Great Library made me shudder too, knowing that the Church elite would soon use the people's ignorance to enslave them in a repressive feudal system developed during the coming Dark and Middle Ages.

Other scenes that bothered me included one scene where you hear the Christians raptly listening to a recitation of the sermon on the mount.."Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.."  when they have demonstrated they don't have a merciful bone in their bodies.  They are in what I think are the remains of the Great Library and the words echo hollowly in the huge cavernous chamber.  I couldn't help but think that the words echoed just as hollowly in their souls.   I also found the "feeding the poor" scene rather distasteful.  The Christian rabble rouser that took the bread from Hypatia's slave  seemed to have no concern for the family the bread was intended to feed or the consequences to the slave for returning to his master's household without it.  Furthermore, it was no act of piety to hand out bread that was not his own. Instead, he seemed to relish the political "appearance" of distributing bread to the poor as modern politicians do when they are attempting to win a voter's support.  Then when Hypatia's slave takes the remains of the bread and begins to give it out, the recipients at first take the bread tentatively then seem to wolfishly snatch it from him without gratitude or consideration for the other unfortunates around them.  Compassion is conspicuously absent.

The Christians used one of Paul's diatribes against women as the rationale for attacking Hypatia. Of course Paul, himself, may not have even realized that his writings, including his own cultural prejudices, would be presented later as the word of God.

The filmmakers didn't make Hypatia out to be some kind of saint either.  Whenever she got flustered she would bad mouth slaves - the result of her ethnocentric Greek upbringing no doubt.    I just finished reading "The Golden Mean", a novel about Aristotle and Alexander the Great (my review), and it was hard to fathom how really intelligent people like Aristotle and Hypatia could consider themselves so superior to other people simply because life's circumstances resulted in someone being born into another culture or conquered and enslaved.

Anyway, I felt the film did a good job of making the case that religious zealotry (regardless of which religion it is) is the root of all evil.

Related articles

• 'Agora': Rachel Weisz shines as a heroine caught in an orbit of hate (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• MOVIES: Weisz Work in 'Agora' Won't Keep Your Attention from Roman (kitsapsun.com)
• 'Agora': A mind ahead of its time (boston.com)

           

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!