Aidos - the Greek goddess of Shame

In my post, "Conservatives are more easily disgusted," I said:

I always found it ironic that the ancient Greek goddess of Shame was called Aidos because it seemed to me that AIDS came about through a lack of shame.

Shoprat, who is actually a very well-read man, commented:

I was unaware of the Greek goddess of shame.

Most people don't know. So here's the skinny:

AIDOS (or Aedos) was the goddess (or daimona) spirit of modesty, reverence and respect. She was a companion of the goddess Nemesis. Aidos, as a quality, was that feeling of reverence or shame which restrains men from wrong; Nemesis was righteous indignation aroused by the sight of the wicked living in undeserved good fortune.

...

AEDOS (Aidôs), a personification of modesty, was worshipped both in Greece and at Rome. At Athens an altar was dedicated to her. (Paus. i. 17. § 1.) At Rome two sanctuaries were dedicated to her.

...

Hesiod, Works and Days 170 ff (trans. Evelyn-White) (Greek epic C8th or C7th B.C.):

"[At the end of the Fifth Age of man ] And then Aidos (Modesty) and Nemesis (Indignation), with their sweet forms wrapped in white robes, will go from the wide-pathed earth and forsake mankind to join the company of the deathless gods : and bitter sorrows will be left for mortal men, and there will be no help against evil."

Pindar, Olympian Ode 7. 44 ff (trans. Conway) (Greek lyric C5th B.C.) :

"Now Aidos (Reverence), daughter of Prometheus (Forethought), gives to men virtue and valour’s joy."

Pindar, Nemean Ode 9. 32 ff :

"For Aidos (Honour, Reverence), who brings men high renown, by hope of gain in secret is perverted . . . under strength of war it was that goddess, Aidos (Honour), that bred within his heart the warrior mettle to fend of the havoc of Ares." [Ares was the god of war.]

The Anacreontea, Fragment 17 (trans. Campbell, Vol. Greek Lyric II) (Greek lyric C5th to C4th B.C.) :

"Make his downy cheek as rosy as an apple, and, if possible, add a blush like that of Aidos (Modesty)."

Timotheus, Fragment 789 (from Plutarch, How the young man should study poetry) (trans. Campbell, Vol. Greek Lyric V) (Greek lyric C5th B.C) :

"Have respect for Aidos (Shame), the helpmate of spear-fighting Aretas (Valour)."

...

Pausanias, Description of Greece 1. 17. 1 (trans. Jones) (Greek travelogue C2nd A.D.):

"They [the Athenians] are conspicuous . . . for their devotion to religion. They have an altar of Aidos (Modesty), one to Pheme (Rumour) and one to Hormes (Effort)."

Pausanias, Description of Greece 3. 20. 10 - 11 :

"The image of Aidos (Modesty), some thirty stades distant from the city [Sparta, Lakedaimon], they say was dedicated by Ikarios, the following being the reason for making it. When Ikarios gave Penelope in marriage to Odysseus, he tried to make Odysseus himself settle in Lakedaimon, but failing in the attempt, he next besought his daughter to remain behind, and when she was setting forth to Ithaka he followed the chariot, begging her to stay. Odysseus endured it for a time, but at last he bade Penelope to accompany him willingly, or else, if she preferred her father, to go back to Lakedaimon. They say that she made no reply, but covered her face with a veil in reply to the question, so that Ikarios, realising that she wished to depart with Odysseus, let her go, and dedicated an image of Aidos (Modesty); for Penelope, they say, had reached this point of the road when she veiled herself."

Ovid, Fasti 5. 29 ff (trans. Frazer) (Roman poetry C1st B.C. to C1st A.D.) :

"She [the goddess Majesta, majesty] took her seat high in the midst of Olympus, a golden figure far seen in purple vest. With her sat Pudor [Aidos, modesty] and Metus [Deimos, fear]. You might see every divinity modelling his aspect upon hers."

...

Seneca, Hercules Furens 686 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st A.D.) :

"[Description of the Underworld :] The foul pool of Cocytus’ sluggish stream lies here; here the vulture, there the dole-bringing owl utters its cry, and the sad omen of the gruesome screech-owl sounds. The leaves shudder, black with gloomy foliage where sluggish Sopor [Hypnos, sleep] clings to the overhanging yew, where sad Fames [Limos, hunger] lies with wasted jaws, and Pudor [Aidos, shame], too late, hides her guilt-burdened face.

The Roman name for the Greek goddess Aidos, Pudor, is the root from which we get the word pudendum meaning the outer part of the female sex organ or mons pubis/veneris.

"Gay marriage"

Carol Mac commented:

Patrick, you write:

"In the same way social conservatives can object to gay marriage and homosexuality but keep in mind that it is a free country and people are allowed to be wrong and sinful and well as righteous and virtuous. Civilized people do not impose or coerce; they accommodate differences."

I couldn’t agree more!

Can we take this issue as an example and discuss? I think it represents the struggle a lot of conservatives have between our ‘liberal’ views and our fear of the unwanted practical outcome.

For the sake of brevity I’ll bullet point my thoughts:
(My best friend of 28 years is gay – just to establish that my heart is very open minded.

1. Marriage by definition is between a man and woman. Those who argue otherwise have thousands of years of human history and cultures against them.

but…

2. As conservatives, we believe in personal freedoms and believe that consenting adults should be able to form the partnerships they want to.

3. Should the state perhaps just regulate contracts between people and leave the religious aspect to the religious community?

4. How is it ‘fair’ to allow gay marriage which by the current views as a civil rights issue would force clergy to perform gay marriages or face discrimination suites?

5. What is best for children? Whatever it is, does it matter any more?

6. If the definition of marriage is changed on the basis of ‘fairness’ (or any basis I suppose), the fact is, it DOES provide any other kind of arrangement leverage to argue for official acknowledgement. As a society, how do we manage that going forward?

I think this is a watershed issue for Republicans/conservatives, whoever you are to the right of left. To me it seems that it pits our religious values against our small government/conservative/personal freedom values like no other issue. Or at least highlights the conundrum like no other issue.

Anyway, I just feel that if we don’t take this opportunity to have better dialogue and more serious thinking on the issue, we won’t have a seat at the social issues table in the future.

Do you feel like weighing in?

Carol, "gay marriage" is not a personal issue for me so I don't have a dog in the fight but I'll respond. However I do not want to be telling social conservatives what I think they ought to do. These are just a few random thoughts.

1. "Marriage by definition is between a man and woman. Those who argue otherwise have thousands of years of human history and cultures against them."

Yes, I would have preferred that gays had never opened this can of worms but monarchy, slavery and polygamy also had "thousands of years of human history and cultures" and were accepted in the Bible. The American Revolution got rid of monarchy and opened the door (can of worms?) to individual sovereignty and freedom so I do understand how some Americans would want to push for as much personal freedom as they can. Polygamy still exists in non-Christian cultures and the only argument social conservatives have for traditional marriage is the bible which means nothing to most liberals. Even traditional Western civilization means nothing to them either.

2. "As conservatives, we believe in personal freedoms and believe that consenting adults should be able to form the partnerships they want to."

Exactly.

3. "Should the state perhaps just regulate contracts between people and leave the religious aspect to the religious community?"

Civil contracts would be the ideal solution but, unfortunately the word "marriage" is now up for grabs and we can probably not get gays to back down now and accept the terms "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" or any other new-fangled term. I know some evangelicals are now using the term "covenant marriages" to distinguish from civil marriages.

4. "How is it ‘fair’ to allow gay marriage which by the current views as a civil rights issue would force clergy to perform gay marriages or face discrimination suits?"

Most of the new gay marriage laws enacted by states have "religious discrimination" clauses protecting churches from discrimination suits. These are essential. Catholics regard marriage as one of the seven sacraments (which is why they don't allow divorce.) Of course some liberal churches will perform gay marriages but there must be clear-cut laws protecting churches from law suits.

5. "What is best for children? Whatever it is, does it matter any more?"

It seems obvious that a dad and a mom are the best for kids but many of my peers had staunch Catholic moms and dads who were alcoholics or abused them. I've known a few lesbian couples with kids from previous marriages who were good parents and my current doctor (a man) and his male partner have four adopted kids. Of course they live in a small town and aren't part of the "gay scene." Most of the gays who adopt kids are not promiscuous party animals. I'm sure there are horror stories but a roof over one's head is better than nothing. I would like to foster or adopt kids now that I have enough money but I'm too old. The dangers are obvious for children but, by the time that happens (and it probably will) our society will be totally socialized and the government will have a lot more control over children.

6. "If the definition of marriage is changed on the basis of ‘fairness’ (or any basis I suppose), the fact is, it DOES provide any other kind of arrangement leverage to argue for official acknowledgement. As a society, how do we manage that going forward?"

Do you mean polygamy, polyandry and other forms of "group marriages?" It sure is a can of worms. I still see big government and socialism as the main enemy. Holding back the stampede towards coercive Big Brother statism is the most important thing. That's why I say that we need to emphasize small government "libertarianism." Social arrangements are going to change whether we like or not. The Brave New World is coming. The real danger is state totalitarianism.

A winning strategy for the GOP Pt II: stop being bossy

Carol Mac commented on the "don't tread on me" post below:

I think I agree - but give a few examples, please.

I read a wide spectrum of blogs and news, etc. and I see the references to "issues", but often don't see them spelled out.

I'm a social conservative, but also very practical and generally very open minded. But as an example, I am pro-life and draw my line in the sand there. But, I think I’m willing for it to be a state issue. Could I vote for a pro-‘choice’ candidate? I suppose – depending on other issues. But it WOULD be painful.

And, where as Republicans or Libertarians do we draw the line at ascribing an issue to the state level? To me it seems we need to determine (and maybe that’s already common knowledge that I don’t know or understand) HOW an issue is categorized state or national level and then what those issues are.

All my liberal and/or Democrat friends say they are so for “personal liberty” issues. We use the same language. We need to do a better job of elaborating on details.

Maybe I’m crazy or dumb (or both ), but it seems the general populace of the GOP isn’t being given a real chance to be part of the discussion. I suppose these issues are discussed at the delegate level…

Carol, you do have to be involved in party politics - with time and money donated - to have influence but, even if we aren't active in the party, we can still influence those party animals whom we know personally. And we can sure talk among ourselves on the Net and refine our ideas.

There really is a Silent Majority made up of people in the middle of both parties and independents who are fairly conservative (but not ideological) commonsensical practical and open-minded. Recent poll:

Fifty-one percent of Americans consider themselves "pro-life" and just 42 percent say they are "pro-choice," the first time a majority of the country has stated a personal objection to abortion since Gallup polls began tracking the data 15 years ago.

But a majority also don't want to overturn Roe v Wade probably because they don't want to be cruel and criminalize women who have abortions. It's a compromise. A live-and-let-live "libertarian" Republican abortion policy would be exactly that: a compromise. We can say in no uncertain terms that we do not like it one bit but still hesitate to be too judgemental and dogmatic. That's the practical middle-class American way. Don't make too many waves lest you upset the boat in which we are all traveling.

We can keep our right to life plank in the GOP platform but tone down the rhetoric. Be less strident and bossy. In the same way social conservatives can object to gay marriage and homosexuality but keep in mind that it is a free country and people are allowed to be wrong and sinful and well as righteous and virtuous. Civilized people do not impose or coerce; they tolerate differences.

Of course the problem is that Leftists, being self-righteous sanctimonious liberal fascists, are strident, uncompromising and coercive. It's hard to keep our cool when faced with their ideology. But we have to, in order to remain civilized adults and live up to our own standards.

You say:

To me it seems we need determine (and maybe that’s already common knowledge that I don’t know or understand) HOW an issue is categorized state or national level and then what those issues are.

In the same way that we may never be able to turn back the clock on abortion and homosexuality, we probably can't turn the clock back to the sort of government our Founders envisaged. But we can keep trying to do so. The Federal Government has only two jobs: to raise revenue to defend the nation and regulate interstate commerce. Everything else is the job of state, county and municipal governments. Obviously that's not the case nowadays but we can try to reverse some of the worst excesses of the Feds and try to prevent any more erosion of states' rights.

We may also never be able to turn back the clock on the welfare state but that does not mean that we cannot try. And we can keep pointing out the dangers of allowing government to be Big Daddy.

In the end it's mostly a matter of us sticking to our principles and communicating them cheerfully and sincerely. Truth expressed with cheerfulness, positivity, optimism and sincerity works much better than being strident, bossy, naggy and preachy. That's what I mean when I use the word "libertarian." I mean easy-going and live-and-let-live. And it has more to do with temperament and philosophy than policies.

We must stop being the bossy party and trust adult Americans to be free to make their own decisions.

A winning strategy for the GOP: "don't tread on me"

I keep reading conservative Christian bloggers saying that the GOP should not compromise; that the base of the GOP is solidly socially conservative. That's probably true but so what?

All that means is that an uncompromising solidly socially conservative GOP will get the votes of the 20 million people who listen to Limbaugh. It sure doesn't mean that we'll ever win another election. But, for these all or nothing types, I guess it's okay to just sit on our sanctimonious butts, feel righteous and preach and pontificate.

Nonsense. There is a way for the GOP to win elections. Goldwater, Reagan and Fred Thompson all said that they had "libertarian tendencies." The GOP can become relevant again if we simply emphasize and sincerely stand for individual liberty.

Think about it. What does a "don't tread on me" libertarian have in common with a "don't tread on me" Christian conservative. Yep: the "don't tread on me" bit. Libertarians and social conservatives agree that government is a necessary evil - not a good as "social democrats" believe.

For instance: libertarians and social conservatives agree that education vouchers would be better than having our kids being brainwashed by unionized commie teachers. Libertarians and social conservatives agree that giving the government more money via taxes is not as sensible as letting people use their own money wisely to benefit their own families.

I could go on but libertarians and social conservatives agree on so many issues that I won't even bother to list them. And - guess what? Most normal Americans are "don't tread on me" people. All we need is a few politicians and pundits with enough guts to spell it out and we'll have a wining strategy.

It's time for Republicans to unite around what we do agree on and stop fighting with each other about what we don't agree on.

PS I'll probably harp on this but there's really no need to do so because it's inevitable. The GOP may go through all sorts of contortions in the coming years and decades but, in the end, the only true opposition to the "social democrats'" elevation of government over God, is "don't tread on me" libertarianism. When (not if) that happens, I'll change the name of this blog to "I told you so." Mark my words.