"Mit shout and crash and sabre flash..." etc
The lines are taken from Hans Breitmann's Ballads by Charles Godfrey Leland whose Aradia was a source for Neopaganism. The goddess Aradia taught peasants witchcraft to enable them to oppose Catholicism, like the sibyl who proclaimed that Thor had challenged Christ to single combat. See here.
Without the Internet, I would have had to go to the Public Library to find out about Leland and then would not have been able to communicate about him like this.
27 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Poul Anderson quoted from the humorous verses of Charles Godfrey Leland, but I obviously noted that name in my earlier readings of AFTER DOOMSDAY. So it was not till now that I discovered Leland's ARADIA contributed to modern neo-paganism. I used your link to look that up and the arguments about ARADIA seems confusing, with some critics believing Leland collected and used real materials about lingering remnants of paganism in Italy while others dismissed the book as a forgery. My conclusion has to remain that the paganisms we KNOW most about remains Classical Greco/Roman paganism and Scandinavian Eddaic paganism. And that the "traditions" allegedly discovered by Leland and Gardneer are dubious.
Sean
Dang! In the first sentence of my comment above I carelessly omitted "barely" after the word "obviously."
Sean
Sean,
Scholars think that paganism did not survive although a woman at a moot in Preston claimed to have been brought up in a Traveler community where women worshiped the Moon and men worshiped Herne. One reason it did not survive generally was persecution.
Gardner got a member of a coven to devise a ritual for him and then presented the ritual in one of his books as "...another ritual I have heard..." Deliberately misleading.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't think persecution was a major factor in the unlamented demise of paganism. The rise and spread of Christianity naturally led to paganism simply dying out as more and more people became Christians. Also, Poul Anderson wrote that to become a Christian was more and more a necessary entry ticket for joining a dynamic and expanding civilization. Which helps to explain why the last major European nation to convert from paganism to Catholicism, the Lithuanians (in the late 1300's) became Christians.
Yes, Gardner's behavior was dishonest and misleading. Far better for so called neo-pagans to stop claiming some lingering pagan cultists survived from Classical to modern times.
Sean
Sean,
Remember the treatment of Gratillonius and even of Christian heretics in the Roman Empire.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm not sure what you mean mentioning Gratillonius. I don't recall the later Roman Empire persecuting Mithraists. That religion was never very numerous and seems to have simply died off. Do you mean the time the usurper Maximus had Gratillonius tortured? And, yes, it was very bad how Maximus treated the Priscillianists (if I remember the name correctly).
A better example might be the atrocities perpetrated during the Albigensian Crusade. Altho my vague recollection is that Pope Innocent III was dismayed by that violence.
Sean
Sean,
Yes, there was social prejudice against Mithraists, regarded as witches etc, and Gratillonius was flogged because of his beliefs. How many converted to Christianity to avoid being treated like that?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But mere social prejudice is not the same as persecution by the state. And my recollection was that Maximus had Gratillonius tortured (not flogged) to find out more about the "magic" of the Ysan priestess queens. Not because Gratillonius was a Mithraist.
Of course some converted to Christianity simply because it made life easier. No argument there. And MANY in Communist ruled countries joined the Party and pretended to be atheists or to believe in the works of Marx because it was safer that way.
Sean
Sean,
No. There was an earlier incident when Gratillonius had just traveled to the Continent and had not yet set out toward Ys.
I have no truck with "Communist" countries that made it safer to join the Party or to profess Marxism. In such a country, I would either protest or keep my head down and try to escape.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Now I'm puzzled. I simply can't remember this incident of Gratillonius being flogged. There was the incident where he and a ship captain agreed a crewman and one of Gratillonius' legionaries needed a few lashes, for disciplinary reasons.
You would not have lasted long protesting Communist tyranny in countries like the USSR or Romania before the late 1980's. You would probably have gotten a bullet to the nape of the neck, a long prison term, or sent to a lunatic asylum. And many people joined the Party precisely in order to help keep their heads down.
Sean
Sean,
Yes the keeping the head down is far more likely than the protesting. Such regimes cannot be excused or defended and are the opposite of what Marx advocated or envisaged.
I am fairly sure that the incident was after arriving in Gaul and will look it up but not right now.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I know you will disagree, but my belief is that Marx's thought, views, proposals, etc., when actually implemented inevitably leads to tyranny and despotism. Marx himself advocated the need for dictatorship in THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. Every single Marxist country has been NOTHING but a despotism.
And I would be interested to find out Gratillonius was FLOGGED, because I can't remember that.
Sean
Sean,
I do disagree. The word "dictatorship," like the word, "party," has changed its meaning. In fact, the Manifesto talks about winning the battle of democracy, also about the free development of each and all.
I will look up that passage about Gratillonius but right now am trying to finish writing quite a complicated post for the blog.
You brought up "Communist" (I say "Stalinist") dictatorships because I was talking about treatment of pagans and heretics in the Roman Empire. I think that this kind of argumentation is invalid. I criticize one regime so you criticize another. I criticize both and certainly condemn "Marxist" (and other) one-party states.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then how is it that EVERY single Marxist regime has been NOTHING but a brutal despotism? Were they ALL of them misunderstanding or abusing Marx's thought? No, I say it's deeper than that and Marx's own views under laid or contributed to the rise of these despotisms. And the GENERAL meaning of dictatorship in 1848 was the same as today: tyrannical, arbitrary, and despotic gov't. A dictatorship of the proletariat, so called, would have been just that, tyrannical.
I disagree re Stalin/Stalinism. He did nothing that LENIN had not started or advocated. All Stalin had done was to extend, draw out to their logical conclusions, or complete what Lenin had started. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO (esp. the first volume), mercilessly demonstrated the truth of that from Lenin's own brutal words and actions.
Of course tyranny should be condemned and criticized, no matter who happens to be the despot.
Take your time about Gratillonius if you busy!
Sean
Sean,
Marxist regimes have been brutal despotisms because Marxism is a powerful set of ideas that has been misused by despots after an initially successful but then defeated social transformation in Russia.
The meaning of "dictatorship" is very important. In the Roman Republic, a "dictator" was an official appointed to a specific task for a specific period. But, in the period we are talking about, we must distinguish between politics and economics, regarding the latter as the material base of society and the former, along with law, culture etc, as part of the social superstructure. Economically, if an aristocratic or bourgeois minority controls production, then that is a "dictatorship" of the aristocracy or the bourgeoisie (in the sense of dictatorship that is intended here) whereas, if the proletarian majority, through its newly formed democratic processes, controls production, then that is a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Clearly, a "dictatorship," exercised democratically by the social majority, is not a brutal one-party dictatorship in the more familiar sense. But it is a "dictatorship" exercised over a recently dispossessed minority, preventing them from regaining control and ceasing to be necessary when that minority no longer exists as a group that might be able to regain power. My only point here is to clarify ideas, not to argue that they are realistic or feasible. That is a different issue and indeed still needs to be demonstrated in practice.
But we should not be talking about this now merely because I thought that pagans and heretics were treated badly in the Roman Empire.
Paul.
Sean,
OK. I am not finding the passage about Gratillonius as quickly or as easily as I expected. I thought that it was early in Vol I. If you can direct me to the passage that you have in mind, then I will check it and probably find that it is the one I was thinking of.
My present priority is to keep posting. There have been 680 page views so far today.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'll reply to both your notes here.
WHAT "social transformation" in Russia was aborted by Lenin and his cronies? I see nothing like that happening in the months from March 1917, during the rule of the Provisional Gov't, to Lenin's seizure of power in November. Do you think ordinary peasants, for example, cared beans about that? What they wanted was either land, or security of title in land. Yes, and peace being made with Germany/Austria-Hungary.
I'm totally skeptical any "social transformation" is possible if people who talk like that mean some mystic transformation of human beings from what we actually see in real people to something allegedly better or different.
And I believe Marxist regimes are brutal because the system of ideas derived from Marx simply does not work and never will. Any political system or philosophy which does not begin by facing hard facts about the human race quite simply will be unworkable and if its adherents stubbornly persist in trying to make it work, become tyrannical.
Yes, I knew of how the Roman "dictator" held power for only a short time and had to answer to the Senate for how he exercised the absolute powers granted him for the emergency. But I simply don't believe in Marx's dreamy view of the dictatorship of the proletariat, because we have never seen it. And I'm skeptical that in practice it would have been anything but a dictatorship as we now use that word in the non-Roman sense.
I will look for the incident in ROMA MATER about Gratillonius and the ship captain.
Yes, some pagans and heretical Christians were SOMETIMES treated badly in the Late Roman Empire. And sometimes the heretics treated orthodox Catholics badly. As the Arian Emperor Constantius II did to the Catholics.
Sean
Sean,
My last point was not that pagans and heretics were sometimes badly treated but that my saying that should not have reopened the issue of Marxist dictatorships which we have thrashed through before. I have in fact already said what I think happened in Russia and why it failed but, whatever I say, you continue to argue against it instead of at some stage recognizing that intelligent and informed people do continue to disagree about such major issues. I do not mean "some mystic transformation." I understand and accept that you think Marxist ideas do not work and never will. Meanwhile, some of us seek common cause with immigrants as fellow workers while others scapegoat them. Many things will exist in the future that we have never seen. That does not mean that my ideas will be realized but it does mean that they should not be ruled out on that ground at least. The future, if there is one, will be very different from anything that we can imagine. Our present ideas can only contribute to it. My ideas do not include me and a few like-minded others trying to seize power and force our idea of perfected humanity onto the global population whether they like it or not so at least some of this discussion is way off the point. I try to make points that clarify what the basic disagreements are rather than just to continue what becomes a repetitive exchange indefinitely.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I apologize for bringing up issues you would classify under "we agree to disagree" and move on.
I do not "scapegoat" immigrants. But I deny the notion that a sovereign nation does not have the right to set the terms and conditions on which immigrants can enter. Because otherwise it would not be sovereign at all. And I don't think you seem willing to accept that not all Britons (or Americans, for that matter) oppose unrestricted immigration for unworthy reasons.
Sean
Sean,
It is a "common sense" idea that immigration must be restricted so, of course, most people accept that there must be restrictions and do not have unworthy reasons for this. However, years ago, a former British Labour Home Secretary stated on TV that the purpose of immigration controls was to limit the number of BLACK people entering the country. In the mind of someone like my mother, immigration and race were inextricably interlinked. She would say, "We can't have unlimited numbers entering this tiny island! It's nothing to do with race!" Then she would say, "Are black people more emotionally volatile than us? I'm being as honest as I can in my own home..." or "I don't like the way they look..." or "Indian people eat different food from us and it makes them smell..." or "Your anti-racism makes me go all the other way!"
Of course I know that everyone who disagrees with me on immigration does not scapegoat immigrants but there is in fact a lot of scapegoating going on right on. Hardly surprising when there are massive problems, anyone who is different is an easy target and it is in the interests of the powers that be to direct any blame or hostility away from themselves.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm in favor of immigration controls for LEGITIMATE reasons, not piffles like skin color. We agree on that, I think. I'm more interested in what immigrants can CONTRIBUTE to a nation. So, I would put more stress on favoring educated immigrants with useful skills and knowledge. No matter their skin color or tastes in food. Also, I would take note of what kinds of beliefs immigrants have. Are their beliefs compatible with those of a reasonably open society which believes in limited or democratic gov't?
Sean
Sean,
It is interesting that a former Home Secretary stated that color WAS the reason. I also heard a representative of the Canadian government quoted as saying that they really wanted only white immigration.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't care about skin color! What matters to me is the knowledge, skills, or ideas an immigrant might have. I would exclude a WHITE fanatical jihadist Muslim and allow in a Hindu engineer from India.
Sean
Sean,
I agree in discounting skin color as a reason for exclusion but it seems to be a deeper rooted problem than we would like.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Remember what S.M. Stirling said, it is PRUDENT to be wary of outsiders in one's territory till bona fides are established. I see nothing wrong in that as a general principle. That is my basic stand as regards immigration.
Sean
Paul and Sean:
I'm remembering one fellow in the comments section of an online Washington Post article. Totally without shame, this character acknowledged that for him immigration was about color. He bemoaned the "browning" of America. He also stated that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, abolishing racio-national quotas that discriminated against non-northern Europeans, should never have been passed. To finish up, he said he would prefer the illegal immigration of one million Irishmen rather than that a single Mexican should be allowed to legally enter and become a citizen of the U.S. "None a them dark-skinned types in my 'Murikkka!" (Not an actual quote, but definitely the impression I got from the creep.)
Kaor, DAVID!
And I absolutely disagree with such trivial things as skin color being used by a nation for determining who should be allowed to immigrate! As I've already said above, I would favor a "dark-skinned" engineer or scientist from India over a fanatical white Muslim.
Sean
Post a Comment