From Melancholia: Kiergegaard's Fear and Trembling

Written under the pseudonym/persona Johannes de Silentio, John of the Silence, Frygt og Bæven (Fear and Trembling) takes a deep unflinching look at one of the Bible's most terrible and enduring mysteries. The story of Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son Isaac is regularly trotted out in sermons as an example of obedience and giving your best to God. Kierkegaard pointed instead to the burden and the bloody intent of the long journey to Mt. Moriah. He asks of the congregant who took the preacher at face value and went home to sacrifice his child:

If the orator got to know of it, he perhaps went to him, he summoned all his clerical dignity, he shouted, "O abominable man, offscouring of society, what devil possessed thee to want to murder thy son?" And the parson, who had not been conscious of warmth or perspiration in preaching about Abraham, is astonished at himself, at the earnest wrath which he thundered down upon that poor man. He was delighted with himself, for he had never spoken with such verve and unction. He said to himself and to his wife, "I am an orator. What I lacked was the occasion. When I talked about Abraham on Sunday I did not feel moved in the least." In case the same orator had a little superabundance of reason which might be lost, I think he would have lost it if the sinner were to say calmly and with dignity, "That in fact is what you yourself preached on Sunday."

Kierkegaard used the tale of Abraham and Isaac to distinguish between a merely ethical existence – one governed by prevailing social norms – and an existence based in the love of God. Abraham becomes great because he believes. He believed God's promise that he would be the root of a great tree even as he grew old childless. And after being rewarded with a child he was told to sacrifice "thine only son, whom thou lovest" (Genesis 22:2) as a burnt offering. Slaying Isaac would invalidate the promise that his lineage would accomplish great things. Carried out, this deed would make Abraham a murderer and God a liar.

Yet Abraham does what he is told, raising the blade to kill his bound child because a voice in the wilderness told him to do so. By reason of this leap of faith, "Abraham was greater than all, great by reason of his power whose strength is impotence, great by reason of his wisdom whose secret is foolishness, great by reason of his hope whose form is madness, great by reason of the love which is hatred of oneself." Seeking to understand a "knight of faith" like Abraham silent Johann finds at last "there is nothing I can learn from him but astonishment" and admits "I can well describe the movements of faith, but I cannot make them."

Turning in dread from Mt. Moriah, Kierkegaard's pseudonymous narrator considers the knight of infinite resignation. While Johannes takes pains to distance himself (and the author) from the example given, it is hard to miss autobiographical elements in the tale of a young man who "falls in love with a princess, and the whole content of his life consists in this love, and yet the situation is such that it is impossible for it to be realized, impossible for it to be translated from ideality into reality."

So the knight remembers everything, but precisely this remembrance is pain, and yet by the infinite resignation he is reconciled with existence. Love for that princess became for him the expression for an eternal love, assumed a religious character, was transfigured into a love for the Eternal Being, which did to be sure deny him the fulfillment of his love, yet reconciled him again by the eternal consciousness of its validity in the form of eternity, which no reality can take from him... The wish which would carry him out into reality, but was wrecked upon the impossibility, is now bent inward, but it is not therefore lost, neither is it forgotten

* * *

There was one who also believed that he had made the movement; but lo, time passed, the princess did something else, she married -- a prince, let us say -- then his soul lost the elasticity of resignation. Thereby he knew that he had not made the movement rightly; for he who has made the act of resignation infinitely is sufficient unto himself.

Kierkegaard's knight of infinite resignation has drained the cup of life’s profound sadness: he finds peace and rest and comfort in sorrow. But he does not gain faith: he accepts the inevitable but dares not hope for the impossible. The knight of infinite resignation affirms the ethical and universal, sacrificing his desires to a greater good and his expectations to undeniable reality. The knight of faith is willing to act against the greater good, to disregard all evidence, to become a fool, a madman, even a murderer for his personal beliefs.

So what separates Abraham from a common child murderer? How do we distinguish between the voice of God and any number of mental disorders? Fear and Trembling provides no easy answers to such questions. Johannes notes there are no sure signs by which we may tell a knight of faith from a knight of infinite resignation or from the unenlightened greengrocer across the street.  Faith is an internal and individual process, one which cannot be analyzed or memorized but can only be lived. Because it involves belief and trust, it also comes with a great deal of danger: indeed, there is nothing riskier than betting everything on an absurdity. The leap of faith comes with no assurances of a safe landing. But one must make that leap nonetheless: one must sacrifice the temporal to gain the eternal and in doing so to gain one's self.

Yet another dispatch from the Trans Wars

As the arguments between trans women and trans allies and the "womyn born womyn" crowd continue apace, I thought I would take a look at some of the issues raised and offer my thoughts and clarifications.

The first thing I want to affirm is that everyone involved has the right to free association in their own space and on their own dime.  You have the right to open your circle only to trans women, to queer people, to gay men-born-men, to Jewitches, to disabled people, to cross-country runners, etc. The right to assemble with your chosen peers is an important one and I support that right 100% no matter how I might feel about your choices.  I say this because during earlier discussions here and on The Wild Hunt a few people expressed a desire to end all "exclusionary" rituals and workshops at Pantheacon and elsewhere.  I have no interest in integrating people of color space or in freeing males from the tyranny of female-only space, nor do I think that the existence of these spaces is inherently racist, sexist, etc.

I also want to note that other people have the right to question your decisions, to criticize them, and even to exclude you from their private events based on those choices.  You have the right to declare your coven  is open only to those of entirely European descent.  Your local Pagan center also has the right to refuse you access to their ritual rooms on the grounds because they dislike your membership criteria.  The right to free association does not include the right to a cheering section. And in situations where your exclusionary ritual causes a lot of controversy and hurt feelings - and might well subject your venue to legal issues in a place like San Jose where gender identity is a protected class - the organizers have the right to say "no, you can't do that in our space and on our calendar." 

If you, gentle reader, feel the need for space open only to females assigned at birth/womyn born womyn/genetic women/etc., then I am 100% behind your right to create that space for yourself.  Yes, there are some who will criticize you for that decision: their criticisms are or should be unimportant to you. As they say in Haitian Vodou, "You in, you in. You out, you stay out." You have the right to hold the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival or the Goddess Festival in your own space and on your own dime: you're free to set the attendance requirements to those events as you see fit.  But others also have the right to say "you can't hold womyn-born-womyn only circles at our events."  Because the right to free association goes both ways: just as you get to make the rules for your gatherings, others get to make the rules at theirs.

Which brings us to this latest screed from Radfemhub, courtesy of guest blogger "Dragon Dyke." 

Trans activists are co-opting political movements and the ultimate trans agenda is to remove the rights of all subordinate groups to self-determination and movements for liberation. I do not believe that most individuals who identify as trans or their allies are consciously planning the depoliticisation of class based oppressions. Trans is a structural and colonising tactic – a tool of the patriarchy, but if you buy into trans theory, that is what you are buying into.

The trans cooption of feminism and the attacks of the right of the female class to collective self-determination is the beginning of what I believe will end up being a long running movement to co-opt all struggles of subordinate groups. Trans is a growing movement and it is no longer only focused on trans sex and trans gender. New trans movements focus on trans abled and trans age, and any day now I am expecting to see the emergence of white men who claim to be trans race. As with trans genderism, these new trans movements are largely based on the sexual fetishisation of the subordinate group. So what is the scope of the trans project and what is the impact this growing movement will have on all subordinate classes?

If I'm reading this right (and I've seen similar claims from other Radical Feminists), the trans movement is part of a plot by the patriarchy.  Trans women and their allies are tools of the Learned Elders of Penis, who seek to control the objects of their sexual fetishization by infiltrating their space and co-opting their identities. To that end, thousands of male-bodied people are taking hormones, enduring years of electrolysis and decades of social scorn up to and including violence and murder, and having painful, irreversible and uninsured genital surgery so they can take over the feminist movement. And what's more, they are now trying to infiltrate daycare centers and disability advocacy movements by pretending to be wheelchair-bound children.

(As evidence of these "trans age" movements, Dragon Dyke presents a video interview with an "adult baby." Much as she and her peers seem to have difficulty distinguishing between trans women and drag queens, she also seems incapable of separating identity movements from fetish clubs. And while she correctly notes that so far none of these adult babies are engaged in any kind of political organizing, she fears it would be "problematic" if they decided to assert their right to attend local kindergartens).

Meanwhile Cedar Cat, one of the louder if not smarter Dianics posting in the Wild Hunt's comments, noted:

They are still men, with their male “I want to control everything”, “I want admission to every group” mentality. They recently managed to get a Dianic Elder and High Priestess thrown out of Pantheacon, simply for wanting to circle with “genetic women only”. meanwhile, it’s OK for other groups to exclude bleeding women from their rites.

I presume this means that when feminists assert their rights to be accepted in the boardroom, as combat soldiers on the front lines, as factory workers, etc. they are just acting male with their "I want to control everything" and "I want admission to every group" mentality.  Because if they were real wombmoons they would be passive, nurturing and accepting without seeking "power over" by means of lawsuits, protests, and other nasty masculine behaviors.

I should also note that Z Budapest has not been "thrown out of Pantheacon."  She is no longer allowed to hold "genetic women only" rituals in official Pantheacon space on their calendar.  But she is free to hold these rituals in a private suite: she is also free to present workshops, classes or rituals which are open to all attendees, or even to all attendees who identify as women.  Cedar Cat's complaints to the contrary are rather like the common Fundamentalist whine that taking Christian prayer out of public schools amounts to a War on Jeebus.

(And what's more, "bleeding women" were not "excluded" from the Vodou rite to which she alludes: they were asked not to participate in the salute to Damballah because of longstanding taboos against bleeding people of any sex saluting that particular spirit.  But of course the feminist need to be included in everything trumps the rights of African Diaspora religions to define their own spirituality or enforce their own rules).

Which brings us to the real issue many transphobic Second Wave feminists have with the trans movement: it forces them to confront their own privilege and question many of the underpinnings of their theory.  There is no way that any white college-educated middle class or higher woman-born-woman can claim that she does not have greater privilege in our society than a homeless trans woman of color.  And because so many of them have so much vested in seeing themselves as victims of the oppressive patriarchy, it chaps their asses to imagine that they may be complicit in the oppression of others or that the world might not be easily distilled into Good Wimmyn and Bad Males.  So rather than addressing those issues, they behave in the way most privileged peoples do when called on their attitudes.  Like white conservatives claiming "blacks are the only real racists nowadays" and "nobody ever gave me any affirmative action," they disparage those beneath them and act to preserve their superior position while at the same time denying their superiority.

It's BAAAACK: the Return of Z Budapest

After inserting herself into the fray over trans inclusion at Pantheacon and destroying decades of good will with a few ill-chosen words, you would think that Z Budapest would, like the common lab rat and flatworm, have learned to avoid negative stimuli. Alas, Ms. Budapest lacks even a planarium's instinct for self-preservation.

Her latest publicity stunt involves the chant "We All Come from the Goddess."  Z wrote the lyrics for this well-known Wiccan song, and wishes (quite rightly) to stop people from recording the song for profit without compensating her or without even asking her permission.   This is a reasonable request, and one which most Pagan authors and artists, yrs. truly included, would be happy to support.  There's definitely a sense of entitlement among many Pagans, an idea that "information wants to be free" -- by which they invariably mean someone else's information. No matter how anyone feels about Z's politics, Z's religion or Z's personality, she has the right to protect her copyrighted material.  Recording her work without getting her permission is bad form and I have no problem with Z calling out people who do it..

But it doesn't stop there:

I would like you to help me spread the words that Singing "We all come from the Goddess" should NOT BE rewritten. It is my intellectual property. it is NOt a folk song, which by the way is the fate of many composers whose songs are stolen. You steal my song from now will have consequences. You put men into the song, like God,a hex will be activated...  

"My heart belongs
to Goddess..."

Seriously? A hex? A HEX???? At this point Z has to be trying to destroy her reputation.  She took a completely reasonable request and managed to turn it into arm-waving pure comedy gold. I just keep waiting for threats to break our backs and make us humble old country way. It's like watching Bette Davis as Baby Jane Budapest keeping her transgendered sister prisoner in an upstairs bedroom. Or maybe Carol Burnett's version of Gloria Swanson's Norma Desmond after a week-long binge on bath salts and Listerine.   It's one part chilling, two parts amusing and fifty parts pathetic.

Releasing a creative work into the world is rather like sending off a child: it takes on a life of its own outside your control.  (Just ask J.K. Rowling). Kathy asked what I would do if I discovered people were doing rituals from my books at public festivals without my permission and without crediting me.  I would hope that the people involved approached the lwa with reverence and respect and that the attendees had a positive and productive spiritual experience.  I would also hope that someone would recognize the source and ask why the ritual organizers chose to plagiarize their material - especially when I would have happily encouraged them to use my book as a source and would be proud that my work was useful to sincere seekers.  But I also realize that there's very little I can do if that doesn't happen. And threatening to sic the lwa on people who will not respect mah authoritah just makes me look like a buffoon.

Z, if you're reading this I urge you to consider the wisdom of that great thinker Sassy Gay Friend. Look  at your life: look at your choices. Thanks largely to your ranting, there will be no more public "genetic women with bleeding uteri only" rituals on the Pantheacon calendar. Thanks to you, many Pagans have become aware of trans issues and of the anti-trans bigotry which infects so much second wave feminist thought. And thanks to you, "womyn-born-womyn" space is now increasingly being identified with bigotry and hate rather than safety. You may want to choose your battles more carefully before you come charging in with both guns blazing: at the very least, you may want to stop aiming at your feet.

More Humility and Hubris: Responding to Comments

In response to my earlier post, Yvonne Chireau commented:

I wasn't going to comment, and then I was again, but what the hell. I missed the first part of the argument with you and Galina. But as one who embraces both the virtues of "humility in spiritual matters" as well as "The Law of Attraction/New Thought" in principle, I wonder why it is assumed that one can't do/be both? It takes a shitload of painful self awareness and honesty to balance, but I don't see these ideas as contradictory by any means.

and SeekInfinity-ICTX added:

You present this as if the only two options are "accept your place" and "live in a delusional fantasy land". This is a false dichotomy; it is entirely possible for one to accept that one has limitations currently but also be determined to overcome every one of them; you make an analogy of a swimmer swimming across the pacific ocean but forget that men build boats. While it could be argued that that's not at all the same thing the same principle can be applied to a persons body; some artificial limbs are already outperforming natural ones in some ways for example. A person can change, spiritually and physically, and they can direct these changes based on their own will if they know how. There are also some philosophies and religions in which gods simply don't have nearly as much relevence as in others; some varieities of buddhism for example take the position of "is there a creator god? maybe but that doesn't really matter since if he exists he would be in as much need of enlightenment as anyone else so even asking this question misses the point". There is also the viewpoint that it doesn't matter if a struggle is doomed since the very virtue of an act is in the willingness to do it no matter the odds rather than in the end result; by this viewpoint a person who tries to swim across the pacific and drowns is more worthy than someone who just decides it's impossible and not worth the risk which brings up the hint of naturalistic fallacy in your argument; just because this is the way things are does not mean it is the way things should be. It also doesn't mean that if we(humanity and anyone who wishes to work with it on equal terms, or at least let merit of any individual being be shown rather than simply assumed due to divinity) worked together we can create a more free universe where any being can get ahead on their own efforts without any externally imposed limitation; I believe this is a dream worth fighting for, even being tortured and dying for. Quite literally, a prize beyond all cost.

Sincerely, SeekTheLimitless-ICTX
May we all find what we seek

Perhaps in the future SeekTheLimitless can seek and find paragraph breaks.  I'd also note that the discussion between yrs. truly and Galina was more mutual agreement than argument. But those quibbles aside, let's address these concerns.

There are definitely virtues to positive thinking.  If you are convinced you are going to fail you almost certainly will.  But the corollary doesn't always apply. There are lots of people who are absolutely sure they will succeed but who end up falling flat on their faces.  (The sad tale of Mighty Casey at the Bat may prove instructive). Positive thinking and self-confidence is definitely a good thing. All else being equal, the self-confident positive thinker will probably go further than the self-doubting negative thinker. But there's a fine line between the virtue of self-confidence and the vice of hubris.

SeekTheLimitless makes a comment about boats: this actually proves my earlier contention.  So long as someone is convinced sie can swim across the Pacific, the idea of building a boat will never occur to hir. Only when we recognize our limitations can we go about overcoming them.  Accepting your limitations and recognizing your place in the grand scheme of things doesn't mean passively giving up and accepting abuse and injustice.  It means working on things you can change and making a difference  for the better instead of wasting energy trying to flap your arms and fly to the moon.

Is the person who tries to swim across the Pacific and drowns in the attempt more "worthy" than someone who realizes this is impossible?  I'd say sie's more foolish. Sie has wasted a life that could have been used to make real, lasting and positive changes in the world on a mission that was obviously impossible and that served no purpose other than to prop up hir ego.  In seeking to transcend hir human limits, sie succeeded only in reaffirming them at a terrible cost.

I'm not sure how we are to "get ahead on [our] own efforts, without any externally imposed limitation."  Taking my cue from Dion Fortune's excellent Mystical Qabalah, I've always believed that Binah served as the resistance which shapes the force of Chokmah.  If we don't confine and externally limit steam, we don't get a steam engine: our hammer blows will only shape metal if there's an anvil involved somewhere.  To have form is to be limited: that which encounters no resistance can perform no action.  To steal a phrase from Orion Foxwood, "we are spiritual beings on a human path."  Figuring out the reason for our incarnation, and acting in accordance therewith, will get us further than assuming that we  can wipe away all our human limitations if only we believe hard enough.

From Melancholia: Selective Serotonin Reuptake Enhancers

While serotonin reuptake inhibitors can be effective antidepressants, so can drugs which cause the brain to reuptake more serotonin. This reuptake enhancement decreases the amount of serotonin-fueled neurotransmissions. Yet instead of making the situation worse, in many cases SSREs are more effective antidepressants than SSRIs. A 2002 study found the SSRE tianeptine (sold in Europe as Stablon™ and Coaxil™) worked as well as fluoxetine, paroxetine (Paxil™) and sertraline (Zoloft™). A 60-day Indian study of 320 outpatients with major depression given tianeptine found that more than half showed greater than 50% improvement in the Hamilton depression rating scale (HDRS): only 23 patients (7.2%) reported side effects, none serious enough to cause the patient to withdraw from the study.

While their efficacy has been proven in numerous studies, we still do not know exactly how SSREs work. Some research suggests they may improve the brain's ability to respond to stress and limit the damage frequently seen in patients suffering from long-term depression: tianeptine appears to have a positive effect not only on the emotional affect of depressed patients but also on their cognitive ability. Other clinicians theorize that both SSRIs and SSREs result in less serotonin being available to neurons: SSREs accomplish this through increased reuptake while SSRIs cause receptors on the neurons to become less sensitive in response to greater serotonin availability. Whatever their mechanism of action, it is clear that SSREs call into question many commonly accepted ideas about the workings of antidepressant medications.

SSREs may have a greater potential for abuse than other antidepressants, since many patients report amphetamine-like stimulation. A 2004 study of 203 amineptine (Survector™) patients in Kuwait found that many were using it to relieve fatigue and induce feelings of well-being. When told to discontinue their amineptine use 93% of the patients reported a strong desire to continue taking the drug, and only 46 of the patients were able to discontinue their usage without resorting to black market amineptine or other drugs. A Turkish medical journal reported a case of a 34 year-old patient with a history of drug abuse who was taking 3,000 mg of tianeptine a day (the usual dose is 37.5 mg) to achieve euphoria and increased physical energy. Paradoxically, heroin addicts in Russia and Armenia have taken to shooting up large quantities of tianeptine pills to get an opiate-like high. (This is exceedingly dangerous as the injections are rarely filtered properly and the sludge from the pills frequently results in thrombosis, abscesses and tissue necrosis).

Currently no SSREs are available in American or British pharmacies. Amineptine production has been discontinued in most markets due to issues with liver toxicity and severe acne in some users. While tianeptine is still prescribed as an antidepressant and anti-anxiety medication in Europe and Latin America, there is little chance it will be made available to American patients. Tianeptine was developed in the mid-1960s and its patent has long since expired. Any company wishing to bring it to the American market would have to submit to rigorous and expensive safety tests to meet FDA standards: once those tests were passed, any company wishing to market a generic version could do so legally. There have been some tests suggesting tianeptine is effective in the treatment of asthma, fibromyalgia, attention deficit disorder and irritable bowel syndrome. Should it be approved for any of those conditions, American physicians would be able to write "off label" prescriptions for depressed patients.

Unofficial Pagan Blog Post: H is for Humility, Hubris and Horse$#1+

Following up on Galina Krasskova's excellent post on humility, I thought I'd offer some of my own thoughts on the subject.  The word "humility" gets a bad rap from people who equate it with servile groveling and self-abasement.  As Galina rightly points out, humility has nothing to do with that.

Instead, it has everything to do with the cultivation of the type of awareness and spirit that renders us best able to take up and maintain the ancient contracts with our Gods, our ancestors, the elemental powers, and each other. It is that quality that allows us the grace of knowing our place in the cosmic scheme of things, not because we are nothing, but because every living thing has its place within the ever weaving tapestry of wyrd. It is important to know that place so that we do not abuse the many blessings that we’ve been given and so that we are able to fulfill the calling of our wyrd well. Humility is the quality that teaches both respect and self-respect. It teaches right relationship.  It is that quality that allows us to bend our heads before the Gods without shame, because it is right and proper to do so.

One of the great American myths is that we can be anything we want to be: we are encouraged to dream big so we can achieve big.  The "Law of Attraction" promises us that we make our own reality. If we want success, fame, and fortune all we need do is ask and the universe will shower it upon us.  (A century earlier this was peddled as "New Thought."  Plus ça change... ). Horatio Alger and his disciples promised wealth for anyone with a good heart and upright moral character: Napoleon Hill promised that all we needed to do was Think and Grow Rich.  The only limitations which hold us back are the ones we accept. By that standard humility isn't just embarrassing, it's downright dangerous.

Add to this the great American myth of our classless society. We have always distrusted the aristocracy and had a healthy distaste for snobbery.  Contrary to many conservative pundits the popular Occupy Wall Street slogan "We are the 99%" doesn't encourage class warfare so much as promulgate the idea that we're all created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.  In light of that idea "humility" looks uncomfortably like bowing to the 1% and accepting that we're not as good as those who are richer, smarter, more popular, more famous or otherwise more successful than we are.

Unfortunately, we're not all created equal; neither can we be anything that we want to be.  Intergenerational class mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark.  Yet a 2000 poll indicated that 39% of Americans thought they were either in the wealthiest one percent or would be "soon," while another New York Times poll found that 11% thought it "very likely" they would become wealthy, while another 34% thought it "somewhat likely." We complain about attempts to teach our children religious myths as science, yet seem to have little problem with teaching them socioeconomic myths as history and current events.


Humility doesn't hold us back from achievement. Rather, it allows us to recognize our weaknesses and acknowledge the barriers we must overcome.  If you are convinced that success will come to us if only we want it badly enough, you may want to consider another famous American proverb: wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.  There's a reason the Greeks considered hubris a grievous failing. If we do not recognize our weaknesses our enemies will recognize them for us. If we do not acknowledge those (mortal and divine) who support us, sooner or later they will withdraw their support.

And while hubris is dangerous in the material realm, it's exponentially worse when dealing with spiritual matters.  Groveling before the Gods is not necessary.  Recognizing They are superior to you in power, knowledge and wisdom is.  Those who slap an eyepatch on Buddy Christ and make him Yr. Pal Odin, or dress him up in drag and make him Kinder Gentler Athena, insulate themselves from the Divine in all its beauty and terror. They create a clean, safe, unthreatening garden and call it wilderness: they light an LED candle and call it a forest fire.  And in doing so they shut out the wild places and turn their faces away from the sun. Instead of escaping Plato's cave, they stay happily chained up and entertain themselves with shadow-puppet shows.

Acknowledging the Gods and honoring them is no more demeaning than saying "if I get into a game of tackle football with an oncoming train, I'm going to lose" or "I am a decent swimmer, but I won't be able to make it across the Pacific no matter how hard I train." Understanding that you are the product of a thousand generations, forged in their love and their lust and carrying their strengths and shortcomings, does not minimize your individuality.  Accepting your place in the grand scheme of things does not mean you should give up striving to improve your position or the world.  In fact, it increases your responsibility.  You may not be the strongest, the fastest or the smartest. But you are here for a purpose and it behooves you to do whatever it takes to fulfill that purpose and your responsibility to those who came before you and to Those who created you.

From Melancholia: the opening to "Medieval Melancholy"

On September 4, 476 Romulus Augustulus, fifteen year-old ruler of the Western Roman Empire, was deposed by a barbarian chieftain named Odoacer. This event has historically been said to mark the fall of Rome: the truth is that by 476 Rome had been irrelevant for well over a century. The Germanic tribesmen who had long served as Rome's mightiest warriors had taken control of increasingly large swatches of territory and appointed puppet rulers to serve their interest in Rome. Roman coinage had become so debased that most transactions involved barter rather than currency: a small aristocratic class ruled over an oppressed, overtaxed, impoverished and increasingly restive majority. And a religion once persecuted for its refusal to honor Roman gods and customs was now legally recognized as the One True Faith.

Greek and Roman philosophers and physicians took pains to find rational causes for diseases and events. The Gods were to be honored: the world was to be understood. With the rise of Christiandom, this approach was far less popular. The Holy Scriptures became a compass not only for theological speculation but for all endeavors: everything could be interpreted in light of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and in the eternal battle between the Armies of Christ and the forces of darkness. And as Late Antiquity became the Early Middle Ages, what had once been seen as a disease of imbalanced humors became a dangerous temptation to despair and damnation.

Melancholia as a Moral Failing

Writing near the end of the 6th century Pope Gregory the Great listed melancholia as one of seven "Deadly Sins." In his Moralia in Job (Morals on the Book of Job), he claimed that "From melancholy there arise malice, rancour, cowardice, despair, slothfulness in fulfilling the commands, and a wandering of the mind on unlawful objects" and explained that melancholy was "wont to exhort the conquered heart as if with reason, when it says, What ground hast thou to rejoice, when thou endurest so many wrongs from thy neighbours? Consider with what sorrow all must be looked upon, who are turned in such gall of bitterness against thee."

Not only did could melancholia lead to damnation: it was often a weapon used by the Devil and his minions to ensnare believers. Speaking from his experience in the Egyptian deserts, the 5th century Desert Father St. John Cassian [Chapter ___] described "accedia," a spiritual sloth and dryness which plagued hermits and monastics and which they called "the noonday demon." This demon could be driven away only by the rigorous application of Christian discipline. An Old Irish penitential manual from 800 CE ordered that a monk "whom the Devil has mocked by means of grief and sorrows, such as the loss of friends and relatives, so that it allows him to do nothing good, but [only] to despair," be sentenced to three days of complete fasting, deprived of all food and drink. A second offense would earn the depressed monk forty days on bread and water; should this not improve his morale, he would be separated from the community and kept indefinitely on this diet in solitary confinement "until he be joyful in body and soul."

Women who showed the symptoms of melancholy or mental illness would, if fortunate, be diagnosed with "hysteria." Those who were less fortunate might find themselves in very serious trouble with their fellows. In 906 Abbot Regino of Prüm wrote of "certain abandoned women, turning aside to follow Satan, being seduced by the illusions and phantasms of demons." As the Church faced the threat of schismatic movements like the Cathari, efforts to root out sorcery and witchcraft became more serious. Cantankerous and unpopular old spinsters – the classic medieval examples of melancholic women – were often targeted for these accusations and imprisoned, tortured or killed.

Where Aristotle described melancholics as "exceptional people," medieval Christians saw them as especially prone to wickedness. Because they took little pleasure in the company of their fellows, they were untrustworthy and quarrelsome threats to the divine social order. 12th century mystic and abbess Hildegard of Bingen criticized melancholic men in her Causae et Curae (Of Causes and Cures):

[T]hey really love no one; rather they are embittered, suspicious, resentful, dissolute in their passion, and as unregulated in their interaction with women as a donkey. If they ever refrain from their desire, they easily become sick in the head so that they become crazy. If they satisfy their desire for women, they suffer no spiritual sickness. However, their cohabitation with women which they should maintain in a proper way, is difficult, contradictory, and as deadly as with vicious wolves… The influence of the devil rages so powerfully in the passion of these men that they would kill the woman with whom they are having sexual relations if they could. For there is nothing of love or affection in them… They are like ordinary stones that lie around without any shine, as if randomly scattered. Because of that, they cannot be prized among the brilliant stones, for they have no attractive gleam.

Not only did melancholy make its victims less than moral. It could, on occasion, make them less than human. 

(The next section deals with one of the medieval world's more interesting mental illnesses - lycanthropic melancholy - KF).