Tjorr's people, "'...the Rukh-Ansa, a confederation among the Alanic peoples...dwell on the western side of the Don River (see image), north of the Azov Sea.'" (p. 128)
Tjorr accepts Eodan as disa, chieftain, although I have not found "disa" anywhere else. The Cimmerian Greeks captured Tjorr in battle.
Throwing the dead overboard, the freed slaves, who include a black Ethiopian, promise Neptune a bull "...to pay for polluting his waters...'" (p. 134) Would Neptune not accept sailors killed in battle as human sacrifices? I think that Lir would. The bodies do not pollute the sea but feed its inhabitants.
The sun sets beyond the Pillars of Hercules. (p. 135)
Flavius had told Hwicca that:
"'...he would raise [her] up from all darkness of witches and gods, into a sunlit air where only men dwelt...'" (p. 138)
Are all gods dark? Some secularists see them as such. However, we can also value stories of light-bringing gods. See here.
Although not a sailor, Eodan is able to tell that the ship is on course by measuring the position of the North Star "...against the moonlit wake." (p. 139) How many moderns would be able to do that?
6 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I too think a grim "god" like Lir would have accepted human sacrifices.
And some religious believers see the secularists as the dark ones, bringing only a philosophy of despair and nihilism.
I would not have known how to use Eodan's method of keeping track of his course.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The secularist message is: "Enjoy and enhance this life."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And the religious believer might well interpret that as meaning only: "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!" Iow, the secularist offers only a despairing, hopeless, ultimately meaningless philosophy.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"Enjoy and enrich" might be better.
Someone else MIGHT interpret the message negatively? That's THEIR problem.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
"Enjoy and enrich"? I can agree with that. But what I have concluded from what some atheists (or "secularists") that we can hope for nothing except the purely materialist pleasures of life, that there is nothing which is transcendent, etc. So, it's easy to consider such a POV as saying life or existence is ultimately meaningless.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What is "purely material"? Matter has had a bad press. We are made of it. "Dust thou art..."
Pleasures are mental as well as physical and shared as well as individual so hedonism is not a bad philosophy when fully developed, better than its antithesis.
Some of us combine secularism with spirituality. Thus, I do not believe in a hereafter but do seek oneness with the transcendent or eternal in meditation. It is always now, not in the past or future.
Paul.
Post a Comment