"'...two were pagans, following the bloody rites of what was called the Old Faith.'"
-Poul Anderson, "The Problem of Pain" IN Anderson, The Van Rijn Method (Riverdale, NY, 2009), pp. 103-134 AT p. 114.
Speaking of her choth, Highsky, Tabitha Falkayn tells Christopher Holm:
"'Most of us keep to the Old Faith, you know.'"
-The People Of The Wind, VI, p. 502.
Tabitha is a third generation human member of Highsky so the Old Faith is just as "old" in her experience as any other tradition might have been. However, she realizes that her Ythrian partner, Draun:
"...didn't really believe in the gods of the Old Faith, nor carry out their rites from traditionalism like most Highsky folk; no, he enjoyed those slaughterous sacrifices."
-ibid., IX, p. 548.
When Draun kills Terrans, he shrieks and yells his hate in terms of the Old Faith:
"'Hya-a-a-a-ah!...Hell-winds blow you before my chothmates! Tell Illarian they are coming!'"
-ibid., p. 549.
"'Hya-a-a-a-ah!...Cast them onto hell-wind!'"
-ibid., XVII, p. 640.
That is all.
Hell-winds seem to conduct souls to an equivalent of Greek Hades, Hebrew Sheol or Norse Hel rather than Christian Hell.
Maybe slaughterous sacrifices make more sense to beings that are winged carnivores and hunters. Nevertheless, Ythrians are capable of secularism or of conversion to the New Faith. Traditionalism is no good reason to maintain unnecessary slaughter. I attended a neopagan handfast where, at the moment when there might have been an animal sacrifice in earlier times, the congregation were informed of ways to sponsor a member of an endangered species, the point being that we create and can transform traditions, indeed can turn them inside out if we want to.
11 comments:
People who make a lot of their living raising (and eating) livestock tend to have different attitudes. I can remember beheading and plucking chickens myself, and taking cows to our neighborhood rural butcher.
We named those two cows "Rumproast" and "Ribsteak", btw.
A while back, we heard a cock crow on our street in the morning! (The beginning of Ragnarok?) A cock and a hen had escaped from somewhere and were in our back alley. They were there for three days. We heard that the cock had gone to the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals but not before the hen had disappeared into someone's cook pot.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: But how SERIOUS are these neo-pagans you know? Are they soft or hard polytheists? Their behavior strikes me as looking more like the former than the latter. Soft polytheists seem to be squeamish about things like animal sacrifices. Which leads me to what Stirling said about how people who made their living raising and eating livestock had different attitudes. If some of these were hard polytheists they would nave no problem sacrificing animals to their alleged gods.
I have more respect for hard polytheists than I do for the soft ones. The former are being more consistent than the former about what their beliefs means. The latter seem to want eat their pagan cake without accepting more unpleasant things such as animal sacrifices.
Mr. Stirling: I'm reminded of a story I read in a biography of Dorothy L. Sayers. During WW II she and her husband raised animals to supplement war time rations. One was a pig they raised and treated like a pet. But that did not stop them from EATING the pig when the time came!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't know about those particular ones.
Paganism makes less of an issue of belief than Christianity. If a speculative philosopher participates in a ceremony, no inquisitor demands to know whether he is serious.
I think that the gods do not exist but are an important part of our imagination which is an important part of us. So I am "soft." I participate in such ceremonies only when I have access to them, which is rare. I would probably visit the Hindu Temple in Preston occasionally if I lived nearer to it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I think you are underrating the pagans of former centuries. My impression is that most did SERIOUSLY believe in their gods. Which does not mean I deny their beliefs were less carefully thought out than in Christianity.
And that's why I consider Hinduism the last real pagan religion, because so many Hindus do take their gods seriously, not merely playing at it the way many neo-pagans do in the West.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Past pagans took for granted, without having to commit themselves to believing in, the literal existence of their gods but they did not insist that everyone else should believe in the literal existence of the same gods. In "The Sorrow of Odin the Goth," Carl's followers were willing to offer to Christ in Christian countries. There are definite differences both between traditions and over time.
Paul.
You can see the transition from "our God is BOSSGOD!" to downgrading other deities to evil spirits to denying that they exist in the Bible. Tho' imagining pagan deities as demons persisted for a long time among Christians.
When I read PARADISE LOST at school, I was intrigued by Milton's idea that the Olympians and other pantheons were demons. I also like the idea, read elsewhere, that fairies were spirits that had remained neutral during the war in heaven.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: I still disagree, everything I have read about pre or early Christian era pagans makes me believe most DID take their gods seriously. Including their literal existence. Only such an attitude would make sense, for example, of the VIOLENCE of the reaction against Pharaoh Akhenaten's abortive attempt at making the Aten the sole god of Egypt after he died, in the later XVIII Dynasty. His son Tutankhamen was forced to restore the worship of the other gods (and change his name from "Tutankhaten" to "Tutankhamen").
And we also see mention, in "The Sorrow of Odin the Goth," of Gothic Christians and pagans passionately debating such issues, because both sides did BELIEVE in their faiths. With King Ermanaric not caring about such theological issues, as long as he could grab as much as he could in THIS world.
Mr. Stirling: And we see that transition, in miniature, in Psalm 82. The poem begins with God arising in the assembly of the "gods," and ends with them being demoted as non gods.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But if you reread the comments you will see that I have acknowledged that ancient pagans took for granted the literal existence of their gods.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then I have to apologize for again misunderstanding you. I got the IMPRESSION you thought most pagans were "soft" rather than "hard" believers in their gods.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment