Something that I forgot to mention here:
"...from half-savage Vlach to half-civilized Bulgar." (p. 57)
Half empty or half full? What is the difference between "half-savage" and "half-civilized"? There is a difference in implication. Did the formerly civilized Vlach become half-savage whereas the formerly savage Bulgars have become half-civilized? Or something?
The passengers include "...a native Euboean." (p. 62) Euboea is a Greek island with five vowels and only one consonant in its name. A mythological Greek island with five vowels and no consonants in its name is Aeaea to which I find that we have alluded twice before. See here.
The Euboean says, "'The saints forbid!'" (p. 63) when he fears that the ship might be delayed. Lucas advises, "'Offer them candles...,'" then thinks, "Or else a sheep." (ibid.) So he too conflates offerings to saints and to gods. See Gods And Saints Of The Sea. However, he is then alarmed because:
"...such thoughts were said to be caused by invisible fiends..." (ibid.)
I was taught that my faith was a divine gift and that it was sinful to risk losing it. Now I value freedom of thought. A Jesuit said, "I cannot in a sermon of this nature go into the philosophy of dialectical materialism..." I thought, "Why not? If it is erroneous, then you should be able to refute it." Of course, I have since learned that it is an easy matter to refute someone else's "errors" to our satisfaction but not necessarily to theirs! Dialectical materialism (i) is not reductionist mechanical materialism and (ii) acknowledges that being has not always been conscious but instead has become conscious. That seems to me to fit the facts. Casual references to saints and gods can lead us into deep philosophical waters.
To cover his alarm, Lucas sings "...a ballad of Roland." (ibid.)
5 comments:
Lucas' alarm is not at the thought of a pagan sacrifice, or equating offerings to the saints with it; it's at considering them both equally (non)effective, except as reassurance.
Poul accurately gives Lucas extremely unusual doubts because of his background and also because he's traveled so widely not only outside Christendom, but outside monotheistic territory altogether, into shamanist and Buddhist/Taoist lands.
Incidentally this was one reason why both civil and ecclesiastical authorities frowned on any but the most arm's-length contact with non-Christians.
Eg., in the 15th century a settlement of Muslim merchants in Venice asked for a compound of their own so they could do the daily prayers there.
The Venetian city council was divided -- one group arguing that this would imperil souls less, because there would be less non-business contact with infidels, while others were afraid that allowing Muslim rites, even behind a wall, would call God's curse down in the form of plague.
And that, mark you, was in a cosmopolitan trading city long in contact with the whole southern and eastern Mediterranean, and one which had a widespread reputation as libertine and irreligious.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Your comments about the half savage Vlach and the half civilized Bulgar reminded me of how I overthought the "subtle stews" Anderson mentioned in THE GOLDEN SLAVE. I think the simplest explanation in the current case was Anderson saying the same thing in different ways.
Mr. Stirling: I emphatically dislike and disagree with Islam, but if I had been a member of the Venetian city council I would have voted for letting these Muslim merchants have their walled compound.
Yes, Venice had a reputation of being libertine and irreligious, but that should not be carried too far. I'm sure even Venice had its full share of sincerely devout and convinced Christians.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: religious belief was different before the modern era.
It wasn't a matter of choosing to believe. It was the universally accepted explanation for the universe. Atheism was vanishingly rare; effectively, it wasn't psychologically-culturally available. Even in Classical times, even the most 'advanced' philosophical types were rarely outright materialists, and most regarded those who were with horror.
(Rather like Eodan and his Roman captor/captive.)
So in a 14th century setting, people might be more or less pious, or attentive to ritual or whatever. But they all -believed-. Not in the way a believer in our context does; it was more the way we believe in atoms.
Mr Stirling,
I agree with this differentiation between medieval and modern belief.
I think that "choosing to believe" is the wrong way to put it. Either I am persuaded/convinced by evidence for the Resurrection or I am not. I cannot simply "choose" to believe in it - which is what Evangelicals tell me that I am morally obliged to do!
Paul.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Mr. Stirling: And I am inclined to sympathize with that "Medieval" outlook. Because I believe both God and atoms are real. Bit then, I am a Catholic, not an "Evangelical" Protestant. I see no contradiction between science and faith or belief in God.
Paul: And I have tried to tell "evangelical" Protestants that it is not enough to quote the Bible to atheists/materialists. That they are using the wrong methods or arguments with such people. I've suggested they first try to find common grounds for agreement. Iow, start with philosophy and the simplest things. Not with the "strong meat" of revealed truths.
It would also help if evangelical Protestants would stop making idiots of themselves on things like evolution and the age of the Earth!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment