Tuesday, 13 June 2023

From The End Of Time To Roma Mater

I read Barrow's and Tipler's The Anthropic Cosmological Principle because Poul Anderson had discussed it but I wound up disappointed. I do not understand:

the mathematics;
why intelligence should be either necessary or immortal;
how a finite period of time can contain an infinity of experiences.

The Final Anthropic Principle requires the universe to collapse whereas it is now thought that it will expand indefinitely. I read somewhere on Wikipedia that Tipler has a reply to this but surely the main lesson to be learned is that we just do not know enough yet.

I return with some relief to Poul and Karen Anderson's The King of Ys, Volume I, Roma Mater, where we notice numerous details as if for the first time. Hadrian's Wall is seventy-seven miles long, the breadth of Britannia at that point. We also notice both similarities and differences between Mithraism and Christianity. Gratillonius addresses Mithras both as "Savior" and as "Lord" but also as "Warrior." Mithras was not slain but slew the Bull. He stands before "the Serpent" but also before "the Lion." And we remember the Lion of Judah.

Mithraism was mythological but not also historical and did not admit women so it lost out to Christianity. Eventually, Gratillonius will convert.

12 comments:

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

One thing I remember was how Keith Denison/Cyrus the Great swore by Mithras in "Brave To Be A King." Unfortunately, the sources used by Anderson at the time he wrote that story (mid 1950's) were in error. Mithraism as such did not exist in the real Cyrus' time. That mystery religion only started taking form after the conquests of Alexander the Great. That was not clearly understood in the 1950's.

There were many other reasons, besides refusing to accept women as members for why Mithraism faded away.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

I mentioned one other reason. Mithraism failed to synthesise its myth with history. Also, it seems to have been too elaborate. And it was easier to acquire bread and wine for communion than a white bull to slaughter.

Paul.

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: Mithraism didn't exist in Cyrus' time, but it's perfectly credible that a Persian of the period would swear by Mithras.

Mithras had been a deity in the Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan spheres for a very long time -- "Mitra" in Vedic Sanskrit, dating from the 1200's BCE.

The Zoroastrians demoted him to a sort of angel, but he was still prominent.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!

Paul: I agree, with the caveat that I believe Christianity to be sober truth and history and not in any way mythological.

Mr. Stirling: Good! I'm glad I don't have to any longer think Anderson made a mistake having
Denison/Cyrus the Great swearing by Mithras. Got it, Mithras BEGAN as an Indo-Aryan deity before being demoted by the Zoroastrians.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: The Indo-Aryan deities were a development of the original Indo-European pantheon -- "Sky Father" is common to all of them, for example.

The -names- of deities changed fairly often, because using the actual name was often considered unlucky or presumptuous - rather as Jews tended to use 'lord' or HaShem ('the Name').

So the -epithets- tended to replace the previous names.

Indra's aspects, for example, are cognate to other Indo-European gods. Thor, Perun, Indra and Zeus act as king of gods, are linked to "rain and thunder", are associated with bulls in earliest myths, are protectors of mankind, are described with legends about "milking the cloud-cows", are benevolent giants, gods of strength, of life, of marriage and the healing gods, etc.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

Very interesting. I agree what became the dominant forms of paganism in Europe had many roots in common with the upper caste gods of Hinduism.

Even now most Jews and Christians are reluctant to use the Name of God in the OT, preferring to substitute "the LORD" for it.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Our word "God" stems from a Proto-Germanic word "*guthan".

That comes from a PIE root, but it's not certain which one of two related words.

Either *ghuto "to pour a libation" or from *gheue "that which is invoked" (usually by pouring a libation).

Originally in Old English "God" was a neuter noun and probably meant something like Latin "numen", or Japanese "kami", and could refer to any major spirit.

It became a masculine noun with a more restricted meaning after conversion to Christianity.

S.M. Stirling said...

Wotan/Odin is probably a name derived from an epithet in PIE -- *wodno, meaning "fury", or "possession", which could equally apply to berserker rage, or to a poetic creative trance.

In either case you were supposed to be inspired by/possessed by a literal spirit; which is why Wotan/Odin became god of both berserkers and poets.

We'll never know the original actual name of the deity.

But keep in mind that in most cultures, names -do- 'mean' something, they're not just arbitrary noises. That's a recent development.

S.M. Stirling said...

The original PIE word for "a god" literally meant "shining one" -- the word for "day" in many IE languages is a cognate from the same root. Note Latin dies/deus, day/god.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

I love these philological notes. And I hope JRR Tolkien would as well!

Any Christians and Jews who take even a moderate interest in the Bible would be aware the generic Hebrew word for God/god would be "El." And would be a part of the names of many persons and places.

Ad astra! Sean

Jim Baerg said...

from *gheue "that which is invoked"

gheue sounds rather like ghee the clarified butter of India.
Any connection?

S.M. Stirling said...

Jim: no, it's from a Sanskrit term meaning "to sprinkle", probably from PIE *spreg.