Androgyny in Gnosticism
Androgyny in Christianity
Summary in English of
Boudewijn Koole, Man en vrouw zijn een: De androgynie in het Christendom, in het bijzonder bij Jacob Boehme (English title: Man and woman are one: Androgyny in Christianity, particularly in the works of Jacob Boehme), Utrecht 1986, with extensive `Summary in English', [with extensive Notes, Bibliographies, as well as Indexes on I. Subjects and names II. Citations of Boehme III. Citations of the Bible IV. Authors]; 341 pp.; = diss. Utrecht 1986 (Further see: Bibliography (on androgyny and related subjects))
[Short overview:]
1. Introduction: main findings and points for further
discussion and research
2. Androgyny according to seven authors
3. A general comparison of the different authors in historical
perspective
Notes
[Complete
overview:]
1. Introduction: main findings and points for further discussion and research
- [Preliminary remarks]
- 1.1 History and description of androgyny in Christianity
- 1.2 History of Gnosticism, Mysticism, Pietism, and Christian Theosophy, insofar as androgyny developed within them
- 1.3 Christian counterparts of the psychology of C.G. Jung, and a basis for comparison with eastern religions
- 1.4 Androgyny as a plea for the woman and the female in the context of a patriarchally stamped Christian thinking
- 1.5 Androgyny as a cultural ideal and the necessity to review the position of reason and science
- 1.6 Essential insights regarding androgyny
2. Androgyny according to seven authors
- [Two
lines in the sequence of chapters]
- Chapter 1
Prologue: androgyny in the works of
Gunning
and
Von Baader
and the
subject of this study
- Chapter 2
Androgyny according to
Jacob Boehme: introduction
- Chapter 3
Androgyny according to
Jacob Boehme: man and woman in God and in the
creation
- Chapter 4
Androgyny in
John Scottus Eriugena
- Chapter 5
Androgyny in
Philo
and its context
- Chapter 6
Androgyny in the
Gospel of Thomas
- Chapter 7 Androgyny in the Gospel of Philip
3. A general comparison
of the different authors in historical perspective
Notes
1. Introduction: main findings and points for further discussion and research
The main objective of this
study is to explore androgyny in Christianity, to uncover new material and make
it available for public debate. It offers not only an introduction to androgyny
in Christianity, but also to the - mostly unknown - authors on the subject, who
are important for the history of Christian Gnosticism, Mysticism, Pietism and
Theosophy. This is particularly the case with Jacob Boehme, who is generally
regarded as very inaccessible and difficult. Although this study does not
explicitly describe the structure and function of androgyny from a systematic
point of view, it provides the basis for such a description. The same is true
with regard to the relation between androgyny and the official Christian
doctrines. This study does not deal with the Jewish traditions of androgyny
(with the exception of Philo of Alexandria) although very important relations
between Jewish and Christian traditions are clearly visible; nor does it discuss
the Islamic traditions. Questions of historical dependence are also not dealt
with extensively; the third part of this Summary contains a sketch of some
important historical perspectives. The first part of this Summary lists the main
findings and points for further discussion and research. This list is not
exhaustive, but to be viewed in connection with the rest of the Summary.
1.1 History and description of androgyny in Christianity
This book offers an overall
view of the history of androgyny in Christianity and makes it possible to define
its essence more accurately. We can define androgyny - unity of 'man' and
'woman', 'male' and 'female' - as a symbol of complete identity, which can
involve aspects within one individual or the relation between different persons,
as well as the unity of the cosmos, viz. the unity with God. Our conclusion is
that androgyny is elaborated in two ways: 1. unity is found in the mutual
completion of male and female; 2. unity is found in the dissolution of male and
female as one-sidednesses. In this regard different levels can be distinguished:
the material, the spiritual, and the divine level. Some forms of androgyny can
be described in terms of one of these two attitudes on all levels; others
combine, for instance, the first attitude for the material (and eventually the
spiritual) level, with the second attitude for the divine (and eventually the
spiritual) level. Another conclusion is that in a number of cases androgyny is
connected with 'holistic' views, which try to combine separate aspects of
reality and take interest in the concepts of mediation and equilibrium (Christ
as the true Androgyne and Mediator!).
1.2 History of Gnosticism, Mysticism, Pietism, and Christian Theosophy, insofar as androgyny developed within them
Androgyny was not popular in
the mainstream of dogmatical institutional Christianity, but rather in the
circles of artists, liberals, and pietists, of Rosicrucians, Freemasons, and
alchemists. In this book we discuss androgyny in connection with the Christian
theosophist Jacob Boehme (seventeenth century), with a theoretician of medieval
mysticism, John Scottus Eriugena (ninth century), and with the Gnostic
Christians of the first centuries. Research into the historical roots of
androgyny confirms the view that later Christianity has often represented a
narrowing of several different streams flowing from its time of origin, which
were fed by, among other things, the confrontation of the Jewish religion with
the Greek and other surrounding cultures and religions. It is becoming
increasingly clear nowadays that in the first centuries of Christianity choices
were made which, in the form of later unconscious prejudices, determined
Christian thinking and Christian culture for a long time to come, and which also
were choices between alternatives which perhaps are still of value even now, and
knowledge of which is in any case an enrichment of our self-understanding.
1.3 Christian counterparts of the psychology of C.G. Jung, and a basis for comparison with eastern religions
This book shows that the
psychology of Jung not only has roots in alchemy, but that the concept of the
bi-sexuality of the soul is very old and belongs to the oldest Christian
heritage. At the same time this book provides the basis for a comparison of
androgyny in other, particularly Eastern religions, with androgyny in
Christianity (in which comparison also the Jewish and the Islamic traditions
should then be involved).
1.4 Androgyny as a plea for the woman and the female in the context of a patriarchally stamped Christian thinking
This book explores partly
the position of woman in Christianity and Western culture. The history of
androgyny is closely connected with views of sexuality and of the social
relations of man and woman. Following my teacher, Professor Quispel, who has
said that Gnosticism, Mysticism and Pietism have distinguished themselves within
Christianity in the sense that woman could develop herself within them for her
own sake, I want to stress that androgyny - unity of 'man' and 'woman', 'male'
and 'female' - cannot be thought of without the peculiar value of the woman. At
the same time, I have to note that Christian thinking in general has been marked
by the assumption that man has a higher position than woman, that man is the
starting-point and woman the derivative. We can now interpret androgyny as a
corrective to this one-sidedness, although we must admit that androgyny in
Christianity has nevertheless from its beginning shown the traces of a
patriarchal thinking. Therefore it seems legitimate to conclude that an other,
better position of woman in Christianity (at least on the ideological level), or
offering a Christian contribution towards a greater equilibrium between man and
woman in our culture, will only be possible through a much more fundamental
change of Christianity than is usually contemplated. A number of androcentric
presuppositions, i.e. presuppositions which have the man as starting-point, or
make him so, are present in Christian thinking; and it is precisely these
unconscious presuppositions which accustom the legitimation by Christian
thinking of one-sidedly patriarchal relations. Of course the spiritual
movements, mentioned above, are present to give indications of the direction in
which important aspects of deep transformations could be sought and achieved.
1.5 Androgyny as a cultural ideal and the necessity to review the position of reason and science
This book confirms the view
that Christian thinking and Western culture have been largely determined by the
strong mutual legitimation of faith and reason, or the mutual confirmation of
the superior God and the superior intellect, a confirmation which was
accompanied, as is now becoming evident, by the confirmation of the superiority
of man above woman. This could lead to the conclusion that a greater equilibrium
between man and woman not only needs a fundamental change of Christian thinking
(insofar as Christianity is concerned), but also a review of the position of
reason and science in our culture, particularly with regard to the relation of
rationality and spirituality. Our analysis of the described authors can provide
some important perspectives and elements for such a review.
1.6 Essential insights regarding androgyny
Whether one considers these conclusions - particularly with respect to the eventual necessity of fundamental change - as a reason for pessimism or for hope, is a possible subject for scientific discussion as well as a question of personal values and judgments, and perhaps too of the fact of whether one is a man or a woman.
As regards the contribution of androgyny, three central insights can be noted:
1. androgyny in Christianity is a symbol for spiritual transformation, for the way that leads to unity with God, and which always deeply affects personal experience;
2. androgyny does not neglect oppositions - neither those outside man, nor those within man - but nevertheless stresses their essential unity;
3. this unity entails things
which can be expressed by words as well as things which cannot.
[Return to Contents at top of this
document.]
2. Androgyny according to seven authors
The sequence of the chapters of this book, which are summarized here, follows two lines.
First there is the line from the nineteenth century (Von Baader and Gunning) via the seventeenth century (Jacob Boehme) and the ninth century (John Scottus Eriugena) back to the first century (Philo of Alexandria), and from there back again - forward in time - to the second century (the Gospel of Thomas) and the second or third century (the Gospel of Philip). This line proceeds from the known to the unknown. Particularly the chapter on Philo serves here also as a partial introduction to the chapters on the Gospels of Thomas and of Philip.
The second line is one from
a positive view of sexuality (Von Baader and Gunning) via some negative ones
(with Philo and the Gospel of Thomas as extreme examples) to a positive one
again (the Gospel of Philip). It will be shown that Boehme holds an intermediate
position in more than one respect. At the same time, it is clear that Philo is
on the one hand to be compared with Eriugena because of the continuities in
their interpretation of Genesis 1-3 and their rationalistic tendency, and on the
other hand with the Gospels of Thomas and of Philip with which he has an
important context of concepts and language in common.
Chapter 1 Prologue: androgyny in the works of Gunning and Von Baader and the subject of this study
Although the starting-point of this study is androgyny in the writings of Boehme (chapters 2 and 3) and we do not deal with androgyny in Christianity after Boehme because E. Benz has done this already in his book Adam (Der Mythus vom Urmenschen) (München-Planegg 1955), we first must mention Boehme's influence on the important Dutch 'ethical' theologian J.H. Gunning, Jr. (1829-1905), because Benz does not mention Gunning and because this aspect of Gunning's theology has been hitherto neglected even in the Netherlands. Boehme's influence came to Gunning mainly through F. von Baader (1765-1841), whose views on androgyny are also mentioned briefly.
Gunning finds in the androgyny of the first man support for monogamous marriage, with a special accent on the spiritual union and the overall equilibrium between male and female. The aim of such a union is the mutual restoration (reintegration) of an original (but disintegrated) human nature. This restoration is a counter-image to the 'dying' of the marital partners 'in each others arms' during the sexual act (death as a kind of sleep). For Christians, death implies resurrection. Nevertheless Gunning also assigns a high value to un- married, socially and spiritually developed (single) persons. Other elements stressed by Gunning in this context are: 1. man as 'microtheos' and his relation with Sophia, the Wisdom of God; 2. the continuaton of the Revelation as the task of man; 3. man's possibility of heavenly procreation and his loss of this, which is then replaced by earthly procreation; 4. the cosmic, universal meaning of (the androgynous) Christ; 5. the expectation of a new body and a new earth; and 6. androgyny as an ideal for society. Gunning calls his thoughts a 'theosophy', a way of thinking in the tradition of Boehme. Thus also in the Netherlands we are not alone in our interest in androgyny and in Boehme, even in theologically very influential circles.
After this introduction of
androgyny according to Gunning and Von Baader, a short outline is given of our
own study: with the supplementary aim of first describing the subjects our study
does not deal with; and second, of putting forward a number of questions
connected with the study of androgyny, to keep in mind while reading this study.
[Return to Contents at top of this
document.]
Chapter 2 Androgyny according to Jacob Boehme:
introduction
The starting-point and first objective of this study is androgyny in the works of Jacob Boehme (1575-1624), the shoemaker, visionary, and writer of influential but mostly neglected mystical works, who lived in Görlitz, on the river Neisse (now in Eastern Germany). His influence extends from German Idealism and Romanticism and a wide range of European literature and art (Blake!) to pietistic circles in the churches and esoteric ones outside them, from Germany and the Netherlands to England, France, Russia and the United States, even, here and there, to this very day.
First we give an introduction into his life and works and some of the main aspects of his theosophy, as the direct context of his ideas on androgyny. The word 'theosophy' was then not very different from 'theology' but during the rise of rationalism the word got a pejorative meaning; later the modern 'theosophical movement' used it for a different - mainly Eastern, that is not-Christian - content. Boehme's indebtedness to traditions such as alchemy and the kabbalah is clear; although they do not at all suffice to explain the very personal way in which he combines important theological and philosophical themes with psychological depth, and connects an explanation of nature and world with the most important theme of the rebirth of man. The essential thing for Boehme is that his insights - for himself as well as for his readers - should not function outside the Will and the Revelation of God, but only in relation to and taking part in these.
Boehme's system implies a theodicy, and his theosophy implies for the reborn man - when in a state of enlightenment - the possibility of an almost full knowledge of Divine Revelation, including both man and nature. Boehme's work is always aimed at the rebirth of himself and his readers.
According to Boehme,
androgyny is closely related to the evolution of man and the world, first 'in'
and later 'out of' God. God looks for partners - in Himself and outside Himself-
with whom to play the game of Revelation, of coming-into-being and becoming
(Self-) conscious. There is only one cosmic drama which implies the coming-
into-being of God, man, and the world, and which implies also the
coming-into-being of all sorts of opposite qualities, their growth (birth) from
one phase to the other till ultimately all oppositions are again united in God
as God, at the same time, becomes fully Self-conscious. Among these oppositions
we find, e.g.: spirit and matter, man and woman, eternity and time, good and
evil, anguish and joy, dark and light. In short, evil and sin play in this whole
the role of the antithesis without which a thesis cannot evolve into further
being and consciousness, i.e. synthesis: the process of God's Self-Revelation
(including the totality of Creation and Restoration, materially as well as
spiritually).
[Return to Contents at top of this
document.]
Chapter 3 Androgyny according to Jacob Boehme:
man and woman in God and in the creation
Among the aspects at every stage of God's Revelation, i.e. evolution, is the cooperation of the male and the female. In this sense, male-female unity is the essential characteristic of the first man, who is the image and likeness of God. The first man is composed - in his soul - of the two fires in God, the dark and burning fire (male) and the light and joyous fire (female). The male side of God is God the Father, whereas God the Son is the female side. The Word and the Spirit are the ways in which the Revelation is further extended to the realms of the created world. In this creative process everything comes forth from a conjunction of oppositions, from a 'marriage'. Sophia, the Wisdom of God, is the personification of God's growing Self- consciousness, pregnant with the models of the world to be created: yet nevertheless herself chaste, and spiritual.
The first man, Adam, is married to Sophia. He is created by God for the explicit task of replacing the fallen Lucifer, one of the leaders of the angels' choruses, and to help God to fulfill the goal of His (Self-)Revelation. To this end, man is imbued with all the gifts of heaven and earth, and in him is everything united. The four elements, whose quintessence he is, are in equilibrium in him, and so, as microcosm, he is in full harmony within himself and with God. The way in which man should respond to God's purpose should, therefore, be through heavenly procreation - bodilessly or 'magically'.
This, however, is prevented by Adam's fall, his longing for the material world and the weakening of his divine consciousness, as a result of which he falls asleep, and Eve is made out of his female side. From the moment that man and woman are so divided, they are in danger of falling into further sin, and - seduced by Lucifer (in the form of the snake) - they do sin, thus destroying the equilibrium between all oppositions and creating the conditions experienced in the actual situation of man and world. The most important characteristic of sin is the choice of one's own way of being 'like God', that is, without being in harmony with God's will. This is the same as directing one's consciousness only to the lower levels of reality.
Instead of to the heavenly Sophia, he is now married to the earthly woman, Eve. Procreation is now in the first place earthly, animal-like, and in constant danger of being unspiritual. The weakening of the heavenly consciousness now accompanies the growth of sexual consciousness. The inner as well as the outer struggle to renew the equilibrium and the original nature has begun. From the beginning (God's promises in Paradise), the saving Word and Love of God play their roles in this process, often personified in Sophia, who helps individual souls.
Boehme elaborates this vision into an extended exegesis of the history of the patriarchs of Israel and of the redemption by Christ, Himself the true and (as far as he is human) restored Androgyne, born of the virgin (!) Mary, and through Whom every man can be reborn to unity with God. This exegesis contains his views of the differences between circumcision and baptism, sacrifices and the eucharist. In the end, the unity of all redeemed people and the whole world with God will be restored, which implies a new heavenly body and a new heavenly life after this earthly life and the Resurrection of the dead. Then, not only will the androgyny of man and his total identity with God be restored, but the (Self-)Revelation of God will also then reach its full development - thanks and in relation to Christ and Sophia: the Wedding of the Lamb can then take place.
Although Boehme's view of earthly sexuality is negative, and although he interprets the actual domination of man over woman as a consequence of the Fall, Redemption, according to Boehme, in fact comprehends the restoration of 'the sin of the male'. Through Christ the equilibrium is restored. In terms of inwardness, man and woman are equal now, but externally the restoration will follow the Resurrection (just as we all still have to die corporally, although our spirit is reborn already). This final Restoration will even imply the 'domination' of the female over the male, i.e. of the light (flame) over the fire (burning): the eternal joy of heavenly Light.
From the viewpoint of God,
the game of Revelation came to a dead end when the first man lost his heavenly
consciousness and 'imagined' himself into the earthly reality, and was continued
in man and on earth only as an underground stream while no more seen and
practiced by man. This 'reverse' is, in turn, reversed in the reconciliation
through Christ: the retarded process of Revelation could then resume, once again
consciously realized and practiced by man.
[Return to Contents at top of this
document.]
Chapter 4 Androgyny in John Scottus Eriugena
Eriugena (ca. 81- ca. 877), the 'Irishman', was the leader of the palace-school of Charles the Bald (ninth century) and the author of, among other works, the famous Periphyseoon (De divisione naturae). He derived the idea of androgyny from the Greek church fathers, particularly Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor, whose works he translated into Latin (together with the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite). In fact, the model of thinking about the Creation is largely and in many details the same in a tradition from Philo to Eriugena. This model implies that Gen. l is the description of the 'first creation', which regards the heavenly ideas or models for the Creation, and Gen. 2-3 of the 'second creation', which regards the concrete earthly creation as having become necessary because of the Fall of man, and brought about in advance by God because he foresaw the Fall. Gen. 1:27 ('male and female' God created man in His image) is then an anticipation in the story of the 'first creation' of the situation following the 'second creation'. Maximus the Confessor had already elaborated this model into a system of divisions of reality (at every level a division into two categories) with God at the top and the visible earth at the bottom, in a hierarchical order. The last division was that between man and woman, caused by the sin of the first man.
Eriugena built this model and its implied traces of androgyny into his Christian view of the evolution of the world from before Creation to the eventual unity of all man and things in God. His view was at the same time an explanation of the Holy Scripture and a logical basis for the seven 'artes' (the sciences, including music) of his days. In logical terms, his Christian world-view was only a by-product of the logical foundation of the seven 'artes', a foundation which involved a synthesis of the biblical and the scientific truth (a mutual legitimation). This synthesis was mainly illustrated with reference to Gen. 1-3.
Characteristic for Eriugena is the notion of descent and ascent as corresponding with each other (e.g., from Eternity to Time and vice versa; cf. also Creation and Fall on the one hand, Redemption and Restoration on the other). The last phases of the descent include the Fall of man from his heavenly consciousness into the world of earthly passions, whereby man takes the sense-perceptible world as such as real instead of reducing it to its primordial causes, the ideas in God. A consequence of this is that man is divided into the two sexes, and that all sorts of variations and oppositions in earthly life become visible. Earthly matter, inclusive of the human body, is merely accidental (although not given without a purpose: man should use it to his purification). This implies that, for Eriugena as well, the Fall entails the loss of resemblance to the angels, of a heavenly body and heavenly procreation, of which the earthly is only a surrogate. According to Eriugena, sin contains two elements: a wrong choice by man's Free Will (against God's will and intellect) and a choice (against reason) for the lower passions; or, alternatively, pride (instead of submission to the will of God and man's harmony with God) and passions (instead of the use of reason).
Eriugena does not think that man's heavenly, eternal part (the model of his being-an-image-of-God) as such is damaged by the Fall. Only his blessed state is thus affected: and (re-)union with God is now much more difficult. In principle, the Fall into the sense-perceptible world was not wrong, but has come too early: man should have first grown wise enough for it. But, in the end, the true union of intellect and sense-perception will be restored (in this context woman is - already in Paradise - the symbol of the perfect sense-perceptible world, man of perfect reason, and the snake of the evil passions). Eventually evil will be reduced to nothing; but the unbelievers will still have enduring knowledge of their own sins.
For the Fall is, at the same time, the deepest moment of the descent and - by God's grace and pedagogics - the beginning of the possibility of the ascent, by which man can become again the middle of all extremes and one with God - through Christ, the true Middle, the Mediator.
Paradise is not regarded as historical (because man has never really been in this state, but sinned immediately), but as giving - in retrospect - a view of the ideal future.
The restoration of all divisions also implies, for Eriugena, the end of all differences and variations of men and things. He stresses the unity of mankind.
His view is rational, not to say rationalistic: man plays his role in Creation and Redemption mainly through the use of his intellect, by linking it to God's intellect. The Fall is man's loss of the right use of his intellect, and through the Restoration he reunites everything in himself and himself with God. The return to God is also a return from the Fall into the sense-perceptible world to the submission of this world to the intellect and to pure contemplation. After the Resurrection the continuing purification of concepts and ideas will take place until they are again identical with the divine ones. Eriugena can even say that 'being' is the same as 'thinking' or 'being thought'.
Nevertheless everything depends for Eriugena on the Free Will which gives direction to the intellect (upwards to God or downwards to this world) and on God's grace in Christ.
Eriugena was not a pantheist because he makes a clear distinction between becoming God according to grace (which is possible for the believer) and according to nature (which will never be possible to any human person).
In Eriugena we discover no
tendency to consider woman as equivalent to man. Sexuality is allowed for
procreation but not for pleasure (although pleasure is granted as unavoidable).
[Return to Contents at top of this
document.]
Chapter 5 Androgyny in Philo and its context
The roots of Eriugena's interpretation of Gen. 1-3 lie in Philo (ca. 20 B.C. - ca. 50), and Philo is also important as an illustration of the motifs which play a role in the androgyny in the Gospels of Thomas and of Philip. Therefore we deal here first with Philo. In reference to Philo, we can also particularly illustrate his opposition against androgyny, from which we can conclude at the same time that the roots of androgyny as well as the opposition against it are very old indeed.
Against the background of Hellenistic Alexandria with its large Jewish community and many cultural and religious traditions (including the mystery religions), Philo tried in his works to reconcile the Jewish religion and Greek culture for readers who could be Jewish as well as Greek. He propagated Jewish monotheism, but interpreted it in a strongly Greek-philosophical way, so that Greek education was incorporated. Particularly interesting is the way in which he interpreted the (Jewish) myths by means of an allegorical method: to read in them the deeper sense of the (Greek) Logos. Although he avoided making enemies (not wanting to alienate his readers from his 'new' interpretations!) and seldom openly used their names, one can assume that he was combating the views of some Jewish groups with 'gnosticizing' tendencies (with which he shares a similar tradition of language and ideas). All this is important because Gen. 1-3 is very central for Philo, and because he refers to the concept of the androgynous first man.
Although Philo always remained faithful to the Jewish Law, the role he attaches to the Logos and the role that he allows the intellect are so large that this becomes the framework for a new stream of thinking which not only deeply influenced Christian theology and Western culture in general, but also explains his attitude towards the concept of androgyny, and his generally Encratitic views of the subject of sexuality (enkrateia = abstinence; for Encratism see the next chapter).
In his book 'On the Creation of the World according to Moses' - of which a summary is given - Philo, by way of the exegesis of Gen. 1-3, presents his views of God, man and the world. God is eternal and unchangeable; the creation, on the contrary, is visible and temporal. Man (only his intellect, not his body and the irrational part of his soul) is an image of God's true Image: the Logos, God's 'intellect'. The creation is modeled after the heavenly ideas (!) described in Gen. 1; the concrete creation is described in Gen. 2-3. The differentiation of the genus man (in Gen. 1:27) in the species male and female is an anticipation of the (only later) actual man and woman. Philo describes man as a microcosm, with reason as his most valuable talent. He makes a sharp distinction between the 'heavenly' man (also called 'true' man, and man 'after the image of God') of Gen. 1:27 and the 'earthly' man of Gen. 2:7, who is mortal, material and soon divided into man and woman. For the first 'earthly' man, the blessed father of all men, was an androgyne. With the coming of the woman, i.e., with the division of this androgyne into man and woman, the disaster of earthly life began: the Fall of man. According to Philo the paradisiacal garden symbolizes the leading part of the soul confronted with the choice between the good and the evil (in everything) - a choice to be made by the discrimination of the soul, symbolized by the Tree of Knowledge. What happens is the seduction of sense-perception (the woman) by the passions (the snake), and consequently of reason (the man) by sense-perception (the woman). Then punishment follows: life is to become a heavy task for man (a relatively light punishment: death would have been more adequate). From all this, Philo deduces God's existence and reign over everything, God's unity and the unity of the world (which correspond with each other); namely, by interpreting Jewish mono- theism in the categories of Stoicism (world-soul) and Platonism (dualism of matter and ideas, demiurge etc.).
From the way in which Philo treated androgyny we may deduce our first conclusion: that Philo's basic material implied the androgyny of the first man, created by God, and that Philo deliberately reduced this androgyny to a characteristic only of the first actual man, the 'earthly' man of Gen. 2:7, making by this reduction the 'heavenly' man of Gen. 1:26-27 a-sexual. This becomes evident from the remarkable fact that he nevertheless relates the androgyny of the 'earthly' man to the 'heavenly' man, namely by calling the androgynous (first) 'earthly' man explicitly the one concrete species of the two genera (!) male and female of Gen. 1:27 (so in Leg. All. II, 13).
From Philo's treatment of androgyny and our recapitulation of it we also deduce our second conclusion: that the reason of Philo's reduction of androgyny lies in the contradiction which in his view exists between the androgyny of the 'heavenly' man and the a-sexual - because abstract - character of the higher world of intellect, ideas, Logos and God; precisely the world to which he wished to give a foundation in Gen. 1.
Philo's position is thereupon illustrated in reference to the way in which he formulates his spiritual ideal, particularly the motifs of 'becoming one', 'becoming a virgin' and 'becoming male', as well as the relation of God and the soul, and his description of the community of the Therapeutes - with particular attention to the use of sexual metaphors in this context. Philo established a hierarchical scheme 'God - intellect - sense perception - matter' in combination with the superior status of man in relation to woman (although Philo made the exception to regard woman as equivalent to man on the pure spiritual level as well as on the level of procreation).
This leads us to the following conclusions:
1. Philo's use of sexual metaphors actually supports an Encratitic point of view.
2. Philo's free use of sexual metaphors for divine matters can be explained by their frequent use in Philo's surroundings and by Philo's explicit limitation of this use to the level of allegorical interpretation.
3. This, however, leads to a conflict where Philo wants to base his high valuation of intellect and 'logos' (the cornerstone for his allegorical method) on the allegorical explanation of Gen. 1, all the more because Philo's basic material contained the androgynous Anthropos. This becomes clear from the fact that Philo acknowledges the mythical character of the Pentateuch, but strongly denies it to the text of Gen. 1.
4. Consequently there is a conflict in the concept of the 'logos'. Although Philo tries it, it is not possible to base the position of the 'logos' without using the 'myth'. Therefore the opposition between 'logos' and 'myth' (the evaluation of 'logos' over 'myth') cannot be as absolute as Philo states it. 'Logos' is nothing without its material, i.e. the myths.
5. Nevertheless the findings of Philo - the effect of his handling of the relation of 'logos' and 'myth' on the image of God (transcendance), the man-woman-relation (patriarchate), the relation of spirit to body or matter (dualism), the relation of faith and reason (mutual legitimation) - became and remained representative of large parts of Christianity for a long time to come.
Parallel to the fact that Philo's evaluation of the logos as superior to myth did not stop the actual use of myths, we must add here that Philo's view of the intellect does not imply a closed border between reason and transcendance (as is the case with the 'methodological atheism' of modern science); on the contrary, Philo's intellect is open to transcendance in view of his high esteem of contemplation - as a result of which he has also become of great importance to the flowering of contemplative spirituality in Christianity.
In this chapter we finally mention the possibility and the need for further research on androgyny in the Hellenistic Age, its contexts and roots. Particularly the new findings of Nag Hammadi make this research promising, but it is far from finished. In this context we also mention the occurrence in several texts of the reading 'him' instead of 'them' in Gen. 1:27.
Of particular importance is the motif of the (androgynous) 'Anthropos', mainly in Gnostic literature. This Anthropos (Man) goes back to Ezech. 1:26 in the vision of God's glory (Hebrew: kabood) - where on the throne sits 'the likeness as the appearance of a Man' - and already occurs (as Greek 'phoos', 'man') in the work of the Jewish-Alexandrian tragedian Ezekiel in the second century B.C. It was this Anthropos which was replaced by Philo's Logos (both being identified with the first light - in Greek also 'phoos' - of creation, and with the Image of God). The Anthropos was in the first place a 'heavenly' Man!
In this chapter a separate paragraph deals with the difference between our views and those of R.A. Bear jr. in his book Philo's Use of the Categories Male and Female (Leiden 1970), which also mentions most of the material dealth with in this chapter. Baer did not discover Philo's use of the microcosm-macrocosm-scheme, which brings him to an unnecessarily complicated and artificial interpretation of the difference between Op.M. 134 and 135; and although Baer has seen that there is a relation between Philo and his 'gnosticizing' opponents, he does not elaborate upon it.
In this context we draw our third conclusion: that Philo and Gnosticism differ precisely on the issue of their treatment of the notion of androgyny (in connection with their interpretation of Gen. 1:26-27 and Gen. 2:7): the prominent role of the Logos according to Philo is a deliberate alternative to or even a deliberate replacement of the androgynous Anthropos.
Our suggestion is that these
differences between Baer's views and ours are due to the fact that Baer simply
shares Philo's high preference for logos over myth, without showing that Philo
with this view (which became nearly normative for later Christian thinking)
rejected alternatives, which valuated androgyny (or sexuality as such) much
higher.
[Return to Contents at top of this
document.]
Chapter 6
Androgyny in the Gospel
of Thomas
Because the Gospel of Thomas is strongly characterized by its Syriac-Christian surroundings and because Syriac Christianity as a distinctive branch of Christianity had its own separate life for centuries alongside the Greek and Latin branches, we first describe some characteristic aspects of this Syriac Christianity, particularly its Judaic-Christian background, its mainly eschatologically motivated ascetism, and its generally Semitic character.
Because the Gospel of Thomas
is also strongly influenced by Encratism, we also sketch the most important
backgrounds of Encratism. Of particular importance is the
question of how the
Greek or Hellenistic Encratism was remodeled in Alexandria into Jewish and
Christian Encratism, by combining it with the explanation of Gen. 1-3 as the
'fall into sexuality', with the original (androgynous) nature functioning as the
ideal. We also refer to the relation of Encratism to Gnosticism (which requires
further research), and mention particularly the importance of Encratism for
Catholic Christianity which was strongly influenced by it, although it condoned
marriage for the procreation of children as opposed to absolute Encratism.
Encratism has always remained an active element in Christianity.
In the short introduction to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is seen as the teacher who reveals the secrets, the knowledge by which man can now find eternal life by becoming one with Jesus as well as with himself and with the All. From this, a distinction opens up between eternal life and the world of lies and worldly matters, notably family and trade. One should become an itinerant preacher, living on alms; the Kingdom of Heaven is a richness to be distributed. This implies suffering.
Turning to androgyny in the Gospel of Thomas, we can discern that Adam was originally one, but became two. This division implied death and sexuality and being divided within oneself. The self and particularly the light are symbols of the original unity. This reminds one of the so-called 'light body' of Adam in Jewish literature: his garments were the Light of God's glory (Hebrew: kabood). After the Fall, Adam is clothed in darkness and an earthly body. The Fall brings about the opposition between spirit and flesh, life and death, Kingdom and world. The innocent - sexually unconscious - children represent the original state. When one 'tramples the garments of shame', one discovers the original oneness.
The return to the origins implies the renewal of the revelation of the Light of the Father through the 'images' which his sons are. This implies the reunion of man (the 'sons') with his heavenly counterpart (remember that Adam was the Image of God and wore the garments of Light). This return is brought about by Jesus, who is the Light and the All, and implies the restoration of the wholeness of man and the world. The return is also caused by one's rebirth from the true Mother, the Holy Spirit.
The ideals of unity and oneness are combined in the ideal of the monachos, the 'solitary': 'Blessed are the solitary and elected ones', who are the only ones who will enter the Kingdom of God. It is very probable that monachos is the translation of the Syriac ihidaja [to be written with a dot beneath the letter h]and has the technical meaning of 'solitary, elected, bachelor' This 'solitary one' stands above sexual differentiation and is undivided as regards the direction of his soul to God.
This ideal of the return to an original oneness is illustrated by the famous Logion 22.
The last Logion, i.e. 114, describes the process of 'becoming male', in order to 'become a living spirit' as the way in which women can also take part in the Kingdom of Heaven.
We can conclude that
androgyny in the Gospel of Thomas functions within a strong Encratitic context.
The return to the original androgynous state is the end of sexuality, and the
attitude towards the practice of sexuality is obviously negative: procreation
and marriage are denounced. Where the end of sexuality is described als the end
of the female - as in Philo - we experience the influence of a patriarchal
context.
[Return to Contents at top of this
document.]
Chapter 7
Androgyny in the Gospel
of Philip
First a short introduction is given into Gnosticism, its Jewish origins and Christian existence. Particularly Valentinian Gnosticism - to which the Gospel of Philip relates - is mentioned, with the important role it attached to the divine syzygies (couples), which by their reunion restore the divine Fullness (Pleroma), and with its three levels: pneumatic, psychic and hylic. Gnosis (knowledge) is the redemptive knowledge of one-Self and implies the reunion of all syzygies, as well as of the ego with its heavenly counterpart or 'guardian angel'. Sexuality and androgyny form important parts of Gnostic mythology.
The Gospel of Philip could have originated in Antioch (ca. 200), possibly with Axionicus of Antioch as its author, and could have been built up from catechetic material or parts of sermons, having as their subject the inauguration into the secrets (including the sacraments). There is a strong opposition in the Gospel of Philip between the visible world and the hidden (spiritual, inner and true) world, of which the visible is only an image. Through gnosis one comes to know the secret true names of the realities (instead of the misleading names of earthly language), in which the author initiates his readers as once Christ did his disciples. In the end, the hidden Truth will be revealed and the Light will stream out to 'every son of the bridal chamber'. This happens by way of spiritual begettings instead of earthly ones, which implies the restoration of 'virginity'. Some characteristic citations complete the introduction to the Gospel of Philip.
The Gospel of Philip ascribes the loss of androgynous unity to the failure of 'Adam and Eve' to unite themselves spiritually ('in the bridal chamber') with each other and with God, which brings about sexual differentiation and death. Adam fails to beget spiritual children, but Cain is produced (from the communion of Eve and the snake). Where there is no real androgynous union, the male and the female demons have access to the isolated female and male souls and have communion with them. When man again becomes complete, reunited, there will be no more death, as is the case for the sons who are begotten spiritually by the Perfect Man, Christ.
Christ Himself is begotten by the spiritual union of the Father and the Virgin (the background of the theophany on the occasion of Christ's baptism), which produced the 'light body' of Jesus. On the cross Christ separated the world below from the world of God, the Fullness (Pleroma), leaving his earthly body behind, namely, by restoring the separation of the beginning. Christ begets his spiritual sons through the sacraments (including also the 'anointing', the 'redemption' and the 'bridal chamber').
The secret lies in the spiritual union of man (which is only an earthly 'image') with his heavenly counterpart, his guardian angel. This restores his mastery over the demons, over passions and over nature. This reunion is also described as the ascent to God through the spheres, as the knowledge of God, as being clothed with the Perfect Man and with heavenly clothes. This implies a knowledge of one-Self, a restoration of man's true and eternal identity with him-Self in and through Christ.
The most important symbol of this is the union of the bride and the bridegroom in the 'bridal chamber', which has its earthly image in marriage; its hidden meaning is revealed to the knowing believers (the pneumatics).
Next we deal with the evaluation of (earthly) marriage in the Gospel of Philip. It is obvious that as a part of the visible world and only an 'image' of the true reality (the 'bridal chamber') marriage involves all the negative aspects of earthly life: matter, passion, evil, death. In this aspect the evaluation of marriage runs parallel to that of Encratism and of Catholic Christianity. But for the Gnostics, who experience the spiritual reality which places them above (although yet still in) the visible world, marriage nevertheless can and even should be an 'image' of the spiritual reality of the 'bridal chamber', in a positive meaning. This is the particular contribution of Gnosticism to ideas about marriage: not only is spiritual reality described in sexual symbols, but even can earthly sexuality also become a positive phenomenon when expressing this spiritual reality. Underlying this could very well be the positive identification of human and divine sexuality in early Hermetism (with its Egyptian background), which was gradually spiritualized in later Hermetism and Gnosticism (which in turn evolved in the directions of Encratism and Catholic Christianity). The ambivalence of the Gospel of Philip in its attitude towards marriage is understandable given its position in the midst of these phenomena. This interpretation finds support in the statement of Theodotus, a pupil of Valentinus, that procreation was still needed to complete the predestined number of Gnostics, and in the sayings of Irenaeus and of Clement of Alexandria, which stressed the positive value attached to marriage by the Valentinians.
The position of women in the Gnostic communities was relatively free compared with that in the Catholic Christian communities, although the dominance of male over female is part of the Gnostic mythology in which it runs parallel to the Encratitic views.
The most important
conclusion is that androgyny in the Gospel of Philip is related to a symbolism
that uses sexuality in a positive way, and that the evaluation of marriage is
positive (compared with that of Encratism and even of Catholic Christianity)
given this Gospel's characteristic viewpoint that marriage can and should be an
image of spiritual reality. This shows the influence of the myth of the hieros
gamos. In principle, marriage is not restricted to the procreation of earthly
children, but has a spiritual meaning.
[Return to Contents at top of this
document.]
A general comparison of the different authors
in historical perspective
The historical roots of androgyny in Christianity are pre-Christian, for they go back to the Jewish creation stories and beyond, and to the view of man as a microcosm in the Greek tradition. Both traditions are connected with each other in the Hellenistic age, notably in Jewish and Christian Gnosticism which remodeled the first forms of what we now call 'androgyny'.
The de-sexualizing which is characteristic of Gen. 1 (very probable in its present form a reaction to a view or a milieu which saw divine and human sexuality as parallel to each other) was thereby undone partially or totally: the thought that the first man united in himself male and female (which was possibly still recognizable in the text) was elaborated in a variety of ways, in which the partially suppressed but elsewhere still living motifs of the hieros gamos were involved, notably in the form of the spiritual union of God and the soul, sometimes in combination with the union of the male and the female (in couples or syzygies) in God. This revival was probably favoured by influences from Egyptian religion via Hermetism which so passed into Jewish and Christian Gnosticism, albeit in the form of a spiritualization. Nevertheless human sexuality was thereby positively evaluated with respect to its relation with divine sexuality (particularly in Valentinian Gnosticism, as in the Gospel of Philip). Motifs from the context of the Great or Mother-Goddess and from the Sophia-traditions could also have an important function.
In keeping with the de-sexualizing of the image of God which we can see reflected in the books of the Old Testament, and which was connected with the establishment of Jewish patriarchal monotheism, the attitude towards sexuality was mainly negative in Christianity. The strong eschatological tendencies which could lead to Jesus' liberation from a patriarchal law of divorce (in favour of the woman and the - monogamous - marriage) as well as from marriage as such, in combination with a certain radicalisation of morality, but particularly with Encratitic influences, resulted in a preference for celibacy above marriage (as in Syriac Christianity, notably the Gospel of Thomas; but see already St. Paul in I Cor. 7), and in a principally negative view of sexuality. It is not to be denied that these two opposite views of sexuality and continence have been an important subject for discussion in the Christian movements of the first two centuries. It has also to be stated that both views could imply a liberation for women in the form of higher evaluation in comparison with the current patriarchal traditions. This 'struggle' came to an end (for the time being) in the victory of Catholic Christianity over both extreme views. As we can see from the Gospels of Philip and of Thomas, both the positive and the negative attitudes towards sexuality can be related with or even reduced to the same combination of Gen. 1-3 and androgyny.
The negative attitude of
sexuality has, however, yet another root. Together with the developments already
mentioned, still another development took place: the transcendentalization of
the image of God. Philo supported the transcendance of God in relation to
Creation with a strong position of the Logos and vice versa: the mutual
legitimation of Jewish monotheism and Greek philosophy. The Jewish myths were
allegorized on that occasion (which implies that they were de-mythologized); but
at the same time, the position of the Logos was founded in the 'myth' (!) of
Gen. 1. According to Philo, the Logos was the true Image of God, and man the
image of this Image.
By this interpretation Philo provided not only the foundations for later
Christian dogmatics (and contemplative spirituality) but also for the Jewish and
Christian forms of absolute or moderate Encratism: good = spiritual = a-sexual =
male, and bad = material = sexual = female. Philo deliberately continued the de-sexualization
of the image of God. To this end, Philo combined Platonic dualism with Platonic
and Jewish views on the relation of man and woman. Although Catholic
Christianity adopted the toleration of marriage as its main position, from
Philo's views it is understandable that for Christian thinking the negative
attitude to matter, body, sexuality and woman remained in principle the
determining one, and that this negative attitude was inexorably connected with
the prevalence of intellect (above the passions and the sense-perceptible world)
and of man (above woman).1 So one
should not be surprised that we discovered Philo's views - particularly his
explanation of Gen. 1-3 - to be a deliberate alternative to Gnostic or
Gnosticizing views which linked the notion of androgyny with a positive attitude
to sexuality.
Androgyny in the Christian traditions is thus closely connected with the androgyny of the first man, i.e. with the 'Adam' of Gen. 1-3, the Image of God, who was divided into Adam and Eve. The advent of sexuality and death is presented as a consequence of the loss of the original heavenly and divine consciousness (symbolized by Adam's sleep), i.e., the loss of contact with the highest level, or the narrowing of consciousness. The history of the world and of humanity began with an androgynous Man, the Image of God, which was obscured by the 'Fall' into the earthly level of this Man, which was split into the two sexes.
Philo already knew this heavenly Man, in Greek: the Anthropos, and replaced him with the Logos. But traces of this Anthropos, which can be found in Ezech. 1:26 - in the vision of the glory of God (Hebrew: kabood) - and which played an important role in Gnosticism, are already as old as the work of the Jewish-Alexandrian tragedian Ezekiel in the second century B.C. This heavenly Anthropos, clothed with the Light of God, became the background of the Christian elaborations of androgyny in the Gospels of Thomas and of Philip, in Encratism and Gnosticism (as well as of the Adam Kadmon-figure in the Jewish tradition, which is not dealt with here). Philo saw (the first) man as a microcosm; and already in Philo we can see traces of Plato's myth - from the Symposium - of the splitting of the primordial androgynous men, meant to symbolize the origin of 'eros'.
In all further forms of androgyny in the Christian tradition we find the connection with Gen. 1-3 as the basis of the concepts of God man and the world (in their mutual relations): the purpose which God had with Adam as ruler over the world, and so forth.
In Early Christianity we see that the restoration of the image is very important: through baptism, or the anointing before baptism, the Christian is reborn, he finds his original nature or identity, the unity with God. This 'spiritual' or 'religious' identity also entailed for the oldest Christians the foundation of a new social identity (cf. Gal. 3:28). Whereas Gnosticism elaborated upon this a mythology in which there was room for the role of sexuality (particularly in the symbolism of the 'bridal chamber' and of the 'spiritual begettings'; cf. the Gospel of Philip), we see in Encratism that the role of sexuality diminishes (cf. the a-sexual character or the spiritual unity of the 'monachos' in the Gospel of Thomas).
Within the frame of the theological or philosophical systematization in later Catholic Christianity, we can discern - in accordance with the views of Philo - a depreciation of the myths themselves in favour of their allegorical interpretation.
Nevertheless, Philo not only failed to eliminate androgyny completely, but his interpretation of Gen. 1-3 (the division into a 'first' and a 'second' creation, of the 'world of the ideas' and the 'concrete world') as well as traces of androgyny, were even to be found up to Eriugena, for whom androgyny still was a central element of the Christian doctrine of Sin and Redemption. When in the Middle Ages this doctrine was elaborated into a theologically, philosophically, juridically and politically established system, which as it were legitimated itself, its mythical basis could be reduced still more and androgyny vanished even as an ornament. After its underground existence (notably in the context of alchemy), androgyny appeared again in the works of Jacob Boehme who was also inspired by the Jewish kabbalah.
The elaborations of androgyny in Eriugena and Boehme share a number of characteristics including: 1. the combination of religious truth and a 'scientific' knowledge of nature and world in systems which recapitulate the Self-Revelation of God in Creation, Revelation and Redemption, which should further man's participation in God's Self- Revelation, and which imply at the same time a theodicy; 2. the important role of man as a microcosm in connection with the origin and the resolution of all antitheses in man and nature; 3. a striving after the most complete identity of God with man, yet with the preservation of the distinction between them; 4. a distinction between the revealed and the hidden side of God; 5. the 'Fall' from the heavenly to the earthly level is accompanied by the loss of 'heavenly procreation' (in favour of an 'earthly' one); 6. the use of Neoplatonic elements.
Eriugena's system is of a rational and optimistic character (in respect to evil as well: if the will gives the intellect its good direction, then the intellect can manage it alone). Androgyny has in his views an a-sexual character, and the relation between man and woman is seen as strictly patriarchal. In all this Eriugena is strongly akin to Philo.
Characteristic of Boehme is: 1. his elaboration of the dialectical process of the oppositions and their resolution into a new equilibrium; 2. the influence on his conceptions of alchemy and the kabbalah; 3. the inner revelation to the reborn people, who - when in an enlightened state - can (almost) fully know God, man and world; 4. his accent on the necessity, the way and the means to achieve rebirth, inclusive of the dialectics of resignation and will; 5. androgyny of and within God (the two fires and their relation), the role of 'conjunctions' and 'imaginations' (comparable to the role of the syzygies and the motifs of the hieros gamos in Gnostic mythology) as the foundation of all the processes of reality, as well as Sophia's relation to the soul; 6. the important role of evil in the process of Creation, Revelation and Redemption - at all levels, of material nature as well as of human existence and of God; 7. the combination of a 'Gnostic' spirituality with an 'Encratitic' attitude to (earthly) sexuality; 8. his nevertheless very positive view of the woman and the female, as well as of the body, in the eventual Restoration.
Although this study does not deal in length with the notion of androgyny in the time after Boehme, we mention here that androgyny was not an element in those circles in which the modern scientific world-view of Descartes was dominant, but rather where religious piety, artistic symbolism, or esoteric wisdom formed a favourable climate for it, as a conscious or unconscious counterweight against the 'Enlightenment'.
In the very positive attitude to marriage - with androgyny as its foundation - and the relatively positive appreciation of corporality in Von Baader and Gunning, we find support for the view that with androgyny in Christianity a positive as well as a negative attitude towards sexuality and marriage can be combined. Boehme's ideal of marriage as a spiritual union formed the starting-point for this attitude of Von Baader and Gunning, as well as for the 'Encratitic' consequences which Gichtel and Arnold drew form it2: the rejection of earthly marriage as incompatible with the marriage of the soul with Sophia.3
In all cases androgyny in Christianity is a symbol of perfection, namely of the perfect unity of man and God, of man with him-Self, of God within Himself.4 In all cases the Light (of God's glory) is one of its most important expressions. In every case Christ fulfills the role of the Restorer as a counter-image to Adam.
We can further note that the symbolism of androgyny is congruent with a Gnostic climate (as in the Gospel of Philip and Boehme), and that it is reduced in a climate of de-mythologization or rationalization, where the role of the intellect is more prominent (cf. Philo and Eriugena). These climates differ as well in the views of the evil, of its role and how to fight against it.
The unfamiliarity of modern readers with androgyny is due in part to its connection with the pre-modern view of the world, which was pushed aside by the scientific view of reality. Conversely, modern interest in androgyny often accompanies the search for alternatives to the rationalistic consciousness of science, which is then experienced as too determinative for our culture.
In most cases, the Christian spiritual symbolism we encountered in the context of androgyny, shows the traces of processes of spiritualization: e.g., the spiritualization of the sexual symbolism in Gnosticism, the appreciation of spirit above matter under the influence of Platonic dualism from Philo onwards, and the resulting ambivalent attitude towards the earthly, which was mainly negative, but sometimes positive. In this context we note too, that matter can on the one hand be presented as temporal; and on the other hand, yet can play a role at the heavenly level (cf. the 'heavenly corporality').
The Christian authors on
androgyny expressed, however, the conviction that the fundamental unity of the
whole reality is so simple and at the same time so strong that it can entail or
resolve all contradictions, antitheses, and oppositions, even the strongest
ones.
[Return to Contents at top of this document.]
Notes
[only of this Summary!]
1. For a much broader context (a.o. Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Hegel) see now: Genevieve Lloyd, The Man of Reason ('Male' and 'Female' in Western Philosophy), London 1984 (about Philo: 22-28). [Return to text.]
2. Cf. E. Benz, Adam (Der Mythus vom Urmenschen), München-Planegg 1955, 101- 134. [Return to text.]
3. For (partially) parallel views in the kabbalah (the refusal of the man-woman- relation as well as the glorification of it) see: G. Langer, Liebesmystik der Kabbala, München-Planegg 1956, 75-84 ('Der tragische Konflikt der beiden erotischen Richtungen und seine Folgen für die Gemeinschaft') as well as the preceding chapters in that book. Return to text.]
4. (Note added to the original text, 24 November 1997.) Perfection as concept is in a certain sense probably also a reduced or at least remodeled expression of mutual completion and reproduction as older form of it; that is to say, this reduction or remodelling is, within this context of androgyny, parallel to the reduction of the myth of androgynous wholeness into hierarchic leveled separations and oppositions as for example between God and man, intellect and sense, man and woman (see above). Insofar as perfection and completion imply and express consciousness, their distinctive forms are still to be discerned and described (cf. among many others scientific consciousness with consciousness in the psychology of Jung, the last being - through its roots in alchemy - the modern descendant of the old completion/reproduction model). [Return to text.]
[Return to Contents
at top of this document.]
See further: Summary
of lecture,
Bibliography (on androgyny
and related subjects)
URL:
http://www1.tip.nl/~t770268/androgbibl.html
Version 3 = latest revision of 13 September 2000 (Version 1: 18 Nov. 1997)
© 1997-2000 Boudewijn Koole; copying admitted in case acknowledgement is
provided
Reproduced from:
Boudewijn
Koole's Pages
Casting Precious
Into the Cracks of Doom
Androgyny, Alchemy, Evolution and the One Ring
© 2005 Jonathan Zap
Note: This is a working copy of an unfinished treatise on androgyny as the key to unlock many of the mysteries of: the 6,000 years of feminine-hating dominator societies that continue to rule our world, key forms of religious extremism, the torturous enchantments of romantic relations, gender identity, how to regain a wholeness that we lost when we become fractured into a form that allows the matrix to bind us, and the core meaning of the ring symbolism and other aspects of the Tolkien mythology. That’s a fairly tall order and I am open to your feedback as to whether I seem to b e succeeding with such (grandiose?) ambitions. Given the density of the subject matter you can expect writing with a lot of density, but I’m hoping that it is readable for you, the perpceptive reader, ---let me know if it is for you…..----the title is just a working title, it will almost certainly change , but the word “Androgny “will be in there somewhere….Also the introduction---here just a paragraph-----will be a page or two when finished… At a few points, especially at the beginning, I have some questions or comments for the unfinished draft reader. Some people have liked the way it is written, one very intelligent person, but who says he doesn’t read much any more, found the vocabularly and phrasings unnecessarily difficult. That’s a concern, because I want this to readable, not to everybody, but at least for perceptive readers I don’t want to be creating unnecessary stumbling blocks. Most of my nonfiction writing has departed from the scholarly voice, but here I have gone back to it and they may be a mistake from the point of view of accessability. The scholarly voice can also become a narcissistic affectation and I value feedback on whether that seems to be happening.
ANDROGYNY, ALCHEMY, ELVES AND THE ONE RING
© Copyright 2004 Jonathan Zap
(the single introductory paragraph that follows is more of a working outline of a roughly four part structure)
Androgyny is the key that unlocks many of the most difficult paradoxes and delusions of the interlocking realms of eros, religion, psychology, gender relations, spirituality and sexuality. This treatise on androgyny will begin with a discourse on what androgyny is and isn’t, its history and role in human development individually and historically. The second part will employ androgyny as a key to unlock the ring symbolism of the Tolkien mythology which will expand the meaning of androgyny and illustrate its extreme relevance to the present human predicament individually and collectively. (This section, and many other Tolkien allusions scattered thoughout may be a problem for people who are completely unfamiliar with the Tolkien mythology. I could give a synopsis of the story as an appendix, but that seems like a poor way for someone to be introduced to Tolkien) The third part will discuss the five thousand year era of patriarchal, dominator societies, theories about their origin, and the millennia long campaign against women and the feminine. It will consider evidence of a cycle shift underway, as well as dreams and mythologies that reflect a metamorphosis of gender. The fourth and last part will suggest ways to integrate androgyny into our psyches and lives.
My understanding of androgyny is greatly indebted to June Singer, a fellow Jungian, who has done by far the best formal study of androgyny. Our lives paralleled a little bit, June Singer is apparently Jewish and from New York. I met her briefly at a Jungian conference in New York in the Eighties, and in the introduction to her book Androgyny she particularly thanks Werner Engle, a colleague of Jung whom I also knew as well as his nephew Jonathan Goldberg, also a Jungian analyst, who is a close friend of mine. I was talking to Jonathan Goldberg when June Singer approached us at the conference. I believe her book on Androgyny (Androgyny: The Opposites Within---an earlier edition had a different title: Androgyny Toward a New Theory of Sexuality) is one of the most important books of the 20th century. (Note: Just visited with Jonathan Goldberg when I was last in New York, he told me that June Singer died just this year and more about her relationship with his uncle, Werner Engle.)
Another book on androgyny which deserves some pioneering credit for probably being the first published book to have the word androgyny in the title is Toward a Recognition of Androgyny by Carolyn G. Heilbrun. It was published just three years before Singer’s book. Unfortunately, it is no where near as insightful or useful. Ms. Heilbrun, who was an English professor at Columbia (an advocate for suicide as a conscious choice, she exercised her escape clause a year or two ago) seems to find the Western academic canon of literature to be the only part of the phenomenal world worthy of attention. For example, she makes the absurd statement that, “…America has not produced a novel whose androgynous implications match those of The Scarlet Letter…” Has Ms. Heilburn, or anyone, read every novel produced in America since The Scarlet Letter debuted in 1850? I don’t think so. She just assumes that anything that hasn’t come to her attention as an English professor can’t possibly have merit, and typical of the parochial academic literary critic doesn’t even bother to consider the whole genre of fantasy literature, which is actually the mainstream of literature, and in which she would find much more about androgyny than she or Nathaniel Hawthorne ever dreamed of.
Rather than putting her work into my words, I am going to introduce June Singer’s work on androgyny through a collection of quotes. This is no substitute for reading Androgyny: The Opposites Within which is a real master work. Quotations are presented in italics, where words are underlined that is her emphasis not mine.
(These quotes will probably be paraphrased in a finished version. Most are so well phrased that rewriting them hasn’t seemed like a priority yet.)
Androgyny may be the oldest archetype of which we still have any experience.
Find it in Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Platonic tradition, but expunged from Judeo-Christianity
The androgyne will not be discovered by turning outward into the world, but by turning inward into ourselves. It is a subtle body, that is to say “nonmaterial”…androgyny is a state of consciousness that is far from ordinary, and therefore it threatens many people’s state of equilibrium. Second, androgyny threatens many presuppositions about individuals’ identity as men or as women, and hence threatens the security of those people, including most of us.
The androgyne approaches the problem with the recognition that true change begins primarily within the psychic structure of the individual. Here is where the androgyne differs fundamentally from the bisexual. If the concerns of the bisexual are mainly interpersonal, those of the androgyne are mainly intrapsychic.
The androgyny principle is intuitively experienced as the key that unlocks the prison of sex and gender—a key that is available to anyone who has the courage and imagination to make use of it.
Dionysus is kept in the women’s quarters and disguised as a girl in order to keep him from being discovered by Hera. He is treated and educated like a girl and he grows up to be effeminate. Unable to differentiate feminine from masculine functioning in himself, he scarcely knows who he is. Like an eternal youth he wanders over the world, changing shape, going mad, drinking himself into insensibility, living the abandonment of total nature and, like nature, experiencing the cycles of death and rebirth.
Dionysus is not the true androgyne any more than Hippolyte was, for he has not come to peace with his feminine side. His masculine and feminine aspects are not fused, they are merely confused.
…
Dionysus as god of madness, ecstasy, drunkenness and frenzy—was given to wild outbursts of excitement, performed preferably before an audience.
This description of Dionysus also tells us that many of the rock stars described as androgynous, like the young Mick Jagger, were channeling the Dionysus archetype, but not androgynous as Singer defines the term. Singer very incisively points out that our culture tends to provide representations of only the immature, confused and acting out face of androgny. This type of person, where masculine and feminine are confused, Singer terms “hermaphrodite,” and she reserves the term “androgyne” for those in whom masculine and feminine are fused and integrated.
Singer quotes James Hillman in The Myth of Analysis,
….the peculiar tendency in our own culture to suppress these androgynous images. I noted that when such images do appear, they show themselves not so much as true androgynes, with their compensatory masculine/feminine aspects working in harmonious relationship to one another, but rather as the imperfect, incomplete, distorted image of the hermaphrodite. Such an image is the double-sexed Dionysus, whose borderline nature makes it impossible to tell whether he is “mad or sane, wild or somber, sexual or psychic, male or female, conscious or unconscious.”
In popular speech people continually confuse androgynes, hermaphrodites, and bisexuals. For example, in Dan Brown’s run away best seller The Da Vinci Code, the protagonist, Robert Langdon, is lecturing a group of prisoners on Leonardo Da Vinci:“
…Da Vinci was in tune with the balance between male and female. He believed a human soul could not be enlightened unless it had both male and female elements.”
“You mean like chicks with dicks?” someone called out.
Brown may be contributing to the confusion somewhat by using the terms “male” and “female” which imply anatomical differences. Jungians use the terms “feminine” and “masculine” to refer to the complimentary archetypal principles which the Chinese called “yin” and “yang.” Masculine and feminine, yin and yang, exist in all human beings. It is not uncommon at all for a particular female to be far more masculine than a particular male. A couple of years ago I gave a talk about Tolkien and androgyny and began by carefully explaining this distinction. Despite this, at the end of the talk I was amazed to get several comments (especially from women in the audience) who thought I was stereotyping men and women when I was referring to masculine and feminine. People are so used to being stereotyped by their gender that even these archetypal terms can generate automatic defenses. So let me state one more time: masculine does not equate with men, feminine does not equate with women, these are archetypal qualities all humans possess and from the point of view of androgyny need to be acknowledged and integrated parts of all self-actualizing people.
(Question for the reader: Someone who just read this draft, said that even though I explain this difference between archetypal masculine and feminine and the usual use of these terms to stereotype males and females, that it was still confusing to read these terms and have to translate them in her mind. She suggested that I substitute “yin” and “yang” for “feminine” and “masculine.” I am continuing with masculine and feminine temporarily, but if others find these terms to be dissonant than I will switch to yin and yang. Please let me know your feeling about it.)
The first mention of the androgyne in Greek Philosophy is in Plato’s Symposium. Aristophanes is speaking:
[The] original human nature was not like the present, but different. The sexes were not two, as they are now, but originally three in number; there was a man, woman and a union of the two, having a name corresponding to this double nature, which once had a real existence, but is now lost, and the word “Androgynous” is only preserved as a term of reproach.
Aristophanes describes the original humans as spherical, and containing both genders, but Zeus, wanting to humble them, divided them in half,
Each of us, when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the indenture of a man, and is always looking for his other half…the intense yearning which each of them has for the other does not appear to be the desire of lover’s intercourse, but of something else which the soul of either evidently desires and cannot tell, and of which she has only a dark and doubtful presentiment.
The movie, Hedwig and the Angry Inch, a wonderfully creative and funny film about a transexual entertainer, includes an animated version of Aristophane’s mythology of the androgyne. In an interview, the movie’s creator and star compares Hedwig’s blonde wig to the One Ring of the Tolkien books! The non-androgynous person (Hedwig would have to be considered an hermaphrodite) will crave another to complete them in the obsessive way that Gollum seeks to be reconnected to his Precious. As Singer puts it,
In the hope of achieving the feeling of love, this mystical joining of two beings into primordial oneness, people will do the most ill-advised things, beyond all reason. The loss of love can drive people to murder or suicide. …The archetype of the Androgyne is at the base of much of the anxiety that surrounds love, and especially it is connected with the emotions of jealousy, because it points to the fear of being torn asunder from that other.
(Lack of androgyny can lead to infatuation with another) person who is required to be present for the rounding out of one’s own personality----who is, in fact, required for one’s very existence.
Singer relates the loss of androgyny to the Perennial Philosophy and the densifying precession of four ages which have involved a fall from light, wholeness and androgyny (for parallels see The Mutant Vs. the Machine…, A Splinter in your Mind and Clock-Time Metastasizes toward 2012 on my web site). Singer writes,
…as we examine more mythological systems we will observe a consistent theme in which each succeeding world is of a lesser quality than that which preceded it. We saw this in the Greek system, with its progression from Golden to Silver to Bronze to Iron ages.
The four fold structure of mythology: ….Creation and the created world we know and live in belongs to the fourth stage. By this time the Primal Androgyne has either fallen from the spernal sphere to earth or the androgynous figure has split in two---and then perhaps into many parts---lost its immortality, and finally become human.
From my point of view the ultimate outer form of the androgyne would be that of a mercurial shape-shifter. Inwardly, the androgyne is a shape-shifter and inter-dimensional traveler connected to the axis mundi. As a changeling, the outer manifestation of the androgyne would alter to accord with the vicissitudes of psychic intentionality and circumstance. Singer points out that the Gnostics had a similar idea about Christ:
Another Gnostic conceptualization of the Son of Man is that he is Aipolos, the pole (also a pun on the Greek word for goat herd, the one who must turn in all directions).This figure is symbolized by Mercurius, the ever-elusive trickster who is of essence but whom one cannot grasp; also Proteus, the shape shifter, in whom every quality exists in potentia.
Although the New Testament tells us virtually nothing about Christ’s appearance, he has almost always been depicted as rather androgynous, though it is more likely that he was short, stocky, and swarthy with lots of body hair. Popular Science recently funded a study on what Jesus most likely looked like. They consulted experts in anthropology and came up with a computer composite image that would be much more likely to draw the attention of airport security than the approval of many Christians used to the androgynous, Nordic Jesus. How he is imagined to look, however, may be far more appropriate from the point of view of archetypal projection, since he has always been the bearer of an androgynous message. It is always amazing to me how right wing Christians (a recent president comes to mind) manage to take the prophet of “turn the other cheek” and “the meek shall inherit the earth” and turn his message into macho, “Onward Christian Soldiers” posturing. It is especially the Jesus who was edited out of the New Testament (mostly by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine) who expresses an alchemical gnosis of androgyny.
….from the Gnostic Gospel According to Thomas:
..Jesus said to them: When you make the two one, and when you make the inner as the outer and the outer as the inner and the above as the below, and when you make the male and the female into as single one, so that the male will not be male and the female (not) be female…then shall you enter (the Kingdom).
Singer adds,
Androgyny is the act of becoming more conscious and therefore more whole…
Singer follows Jung’s lead into alchemy, recognizing it as a science of human transformation, with much to say about androgyny. The Taoist I Ching, which employs an alchemical metaphor throughout, emphasizes the need for the conscious person to follow the path of “reverse alchemy” to regain their original essence. Acquired conditioning, beginning at birth, separates us from our original nature and wholeness, and the conditioning acquired from any culture is always full of gender role conditioning. Aristophane’s myth goes further and suggests that human incarnation, incarnating into a gender specific body, is itself a departure from wholeness. Recent research demonstrates that a good part of gender differences which were believed to be culturally conditioned, turn out to have very strong biological underpinnings. Regaining androgyny, therefore, may be more difficult than even the heroic efforts necessary to break free of acquired conditioning. Some gender limitations may be over-determined, with part of their determinative influence locked down even into our DNA. To become androgynous may be analogous to trying to break the source code of the matrix, which is multi-layered, including both social and genetic coding.
The alchemists, and consciousness pioneers like Jung and Gurdjieff, understood that their work was “contra naturum,” it was against the enormous inertial mass of nature or matrix (“matrix” actually means mother). Gurdjieff even said that the work to not be mechanical was “against God.” At first glance it would seem that such an effort would be the supreme violation of the Taoist principle of working with, rather than against, cosmic forces. But as I’ve written elsewhere (see The Taoist Path on the web site) it is our “true will” (a phrase I am borrowing from Alistair Crowley) which is our deepest inner refraction of the Tao and the aspect of the Tao to be followed above all others. True will is the inner core of our harmony with the cosmos, and this will is to be followed no matter what resistance is met with socially, politically, and even biologically.
The alchemists seemed to know
what was at stake, and how deep into the rabbit hole they really had to go to
regain their freedom and original wholeness. To break free of the matrix they
first had to break down existing structures, to regain the prima materia
out of which structures are created. Mixing alchemical and computer metaphors,
this would be a cauldron of ones and zeros, undifferentiated potential for
informational or psychic structure. Psychically, psychologically, spiritually
this requires the dark night of the soul which some, in both tribal and modern
contexts, seek to bring on with the use of ordeal poisons and/or hallucinogens.
A series of paintings in Alex Grey’s visionary book, Sacred Mirrors,
illustrates this process. We see a healer or potential shaman ascending a
mountain. At one point he seems to be blown apart into a horrifically surreal
explosion of body parts. This is a brilliant visual representation of the dark
night of the soul (what the alchemists called the “nigredo”), the death
of an ego identity, the necessary destruction of structure to create new form.
Some initiates voluntarily choose to bring this on by self-created
initiations-----fasting and wilderness isolation, hallucinogens, etc. There are
advantages to the self-initiated metamorphosis in that it is consciously chosen,
but there are also grave dangers.
A few years ago, at the Penny Lane coffee shop in Boulder, a very enthusiastic young woman told me how she was involved in a new education program for kids which would involve “tribal initiations in the wilderness.” Although not wishing to deflate her enthusiasm, I felt forced to tell her that actually she was talking about arts and crafts in the woods, that tribal initiations were impossible for any legally constituted school in our society because you would have to be willing to have some initiates die or go insane.
Self-initiations must be dangerous. If the self-initiate is fortunate, the danger proves lethal to ego structures but allows other healthy tissue to survive and reconfigure. But many self-initiations, just as those induced by the tribal collective, are shattering to the body or sanity of the initiate. There is always the danger that the self-initiate has presumed upon their inner strength, and like the naïve, young hero ends up devoured.
Another form of initiation is not self-initiated but is induced by the shocks that life supplies. (see Part IV of A Guide to the Perplexed Interdimensional Traveler on the website) Shamans often have histories of medical emergencies and/or other brushes with death in their youth. Another form of shock that could induce initiation is love shock. Someone with a great inner potential for consciousness may seek wholeness in the conventional way, through infatuation with another incomplete human, and in the shattering aftermath may sacrifice an identity and become more whole. An outcome of wholeness is relatively rare, and the more likely course is that one seeks another love object or becomes a depressed version of the former self.
The alchemists are self-induced initiates and well aware of the depth, scope and acute peril of what they undertake. Their endeavor could aptly be described by Galadriel’s words to the Ring Fellowship: “Your quest rests upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little and you will fall to the ruin of all.”
What follows are a number of interesting quotes from Singer’s exposition on androgyny and alchemy: (probably to be paraphrased in a finished draft, certainly introduced better)
Gnosticism is Mater Alchimica, the Mother of Alchemy.
There was thought to have existed before Creation a chaotic prime substance. This was referred to in alchemy as the prima materia.
The intent of the alchemists, or so many believed, was to gain control of the prime matter and recombine it so that they could fashion substances of their own choosing and design. In other words, they would initiate their own process of creation. …they admitted that their work was an opus contra naturam. In this monumental task they were forever inveighing against hubris. …
…each metal had a masculine or feminine association that corresponded with the planetary power: gold-sun-masculine, silver-moon-feminine, copper-Venus-feminine, iron-Mars-masculine…
The alchemists worked in male/female pairs in a process referred to as the alchymical wedding
The crux of the process is the engagement with the prima materia, and this is symbolized in the problematic figure of “mercurious” in whom all things were supposedly combined. The opposites are present in him at the start of the process, but not yet differentiated.
Mercurius, also called Hermes, is not only the receptacle of the prima materia and the symbol for it, he is also the agent of transformation.
Mercurius is frequently depicted as an hermaphrodite, an image designed to reflect the nature of Divinity, which is “All in One.” The mythical teacher Hermes Trimegistus, in revealing his secrets to Asclepius, says: “God has no name, or rather he has all names, since he is at once One and All. Infinitely rich with the fertility of both sexes, he is continuously bringing to birth all those things which he planned to create.” The young healer god then asks: “What, you say that God has both sexes, Trismegistus?” “Yes, Asclepius, and not God alone but all beings animate and vegetable.”
The elements with which the alchemists work are seen through the dark glass of symbol and metaphor as bipolar constructs: “Sun-moon,” “sulfur-salt,” “King-queen,” “heaven-earth,” “fire-water,” “living-dead,” “open-occult” and, of course, “masculine-feminine.” The work on the soul is an integral, though not always stated or understood, part of the process. This means being able to commit oneself to the work, to put into a secondary space the purely personal and ego concerns (the psychological concomitant of the earth-centered world view) and to see oneself as part and parcel of the entire universe. The image to be held before one is that every act by every person has an effect on all, changing the delicate balance that keeps the universe in motion. Therefore, it was considered necessary by the alchemists to so conduct their work and their lives, which were really the same thing, as if the salvation of the world depended upon it.
The breaking down of substances into the prima materia would bring about the stage called the nigredo, which is characterized by the utter blackness of the original chaos. It is a period of destruction and despair, and it is absolutely essential to the process. It has its parallel in mystical literature as the “dark night of the soul”...akin to what is experienced by an individual as deep depression, either suffering a physical illness or beset by a dis-ease, a weariness of soul…The kind of healing they seek is what the word “healing” essentially means; that is, “to be made whole…The object of this stage was to bring about a condition where a new union could take place between opposites which have been broken down through the agency of operations personified in Mercurius.”
From the Zohar (the classic Kabbalistic text) :…when they (the masculine and the feminine) unite, they look as if they were one body. From this we learn the masculine by itself is like only one part of a body, and the feminine also. But when they join together as a whole, then they appear as one real body.
….Therefore we know: what is only masculine or only feminine is called only part of the body. But no blessing rules over a faulty or incomplete thing, but only over a complete place, not one that is divided