The Lochlanna and Gwydiona languages are descended from Anglic whereas the Namericans speak Ispanyo. Thus, Tolteca, a Namerican, does not find the Gwydiona speech easy. He recognizes a reference to "God" but is not sure whether he has understood it correctly especially since his own culture is secular. Whatever the Gwydiona mean by "God," they are at least using a word with a known history whereas, when Eriau-speaking Merseians refer to "the God," and, when Planha-speaking Ythrians refer to "God the Hunter," they are using a word that has been translated as "God" but that has had a completely different history in an extra-solar species. Might some other word have made a better translation? Or a word can simply be adopted into another language without being translated. The English for "yoga" is "yoga." Neither the Eriau nor the Planha concept seems to allow for a personal relationship with the deity - but then Terrestrial ideas of "gods" have been diverse and open-ended.
CS Lewis' Elwin Ransom must learn a language spoken on the planet Malacandra which he does not yet realize is Mars. When natives, the hrossa, tell him of a being called Oyarsa who knows everything, rules everyone and has always been in a place called Meldilorn, Ransom asks whether Oyarsa made the world. The hrossa are shocked. Do the people of Thulcandra not know that Maleldil the Young made and still rules the world? Maleldil is with the Old One. The Old One is not the sort that has to live anywhere...
Later, when Ransom has returned to Earth, his friend, Lewis, reflects:
8 comments:
The Ythrians, by referring to "God the Hunter", make it plain that they are referring to a -person-, not a concept or principle. And the Christian narrator of "The Problem of Pain" also seems to feel that "God" is a good translation, and he speaks Ythrian and is acquainted with Ythrians.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And even the Merseian concept of "the God" seems best understood as referring to a Person, not a mere principle. Remote and distant, maybe, but still a Being.
Ad astra! Sean
I agree that the Planha and Eriau concepts refer to a personal being even though one that does not seem to enter into personal relationships with finite beings.
Paul: a lot of polytheisms have a remote, non-relational "ultimate God", while turning day-to-day interaction over to subordinate Gods (or saints).
Very true. CS Lewis, at least in his fiction, tries to incorporate lesser gods into Christianity:
Aslan AND Bacchus in Narnia;
planetary angels (the Oyarsa/Oyersu) corresponding to the Classical gods, Mars, Venus etc, all under Maleldil, of course.
Kaor, Paul!
I like better JRR Tolkien's conception of how God was called Eru Iluvatar in his Middle Earth legendarium. And how Eru created angelic beings: the greatest being the Valar and lesser spirits being the Maiar. And one of the mightiest of the Valar rebelled against Iluvatar and became the Great Enemy: Melkor, who was renamed Morgoth.
But Iluvatar was not a remote and non-relational Being, but took an intense in Arda and the peoples inhabiting it.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That is the difference between Tolkien (Catholic) and Lewis (Anglican) on the one hand and the paganisms with a remote great god on the other.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Meaning, I think, you were saying Catholics like Tolkien and Anglicans like Lewis believe one God alone exists and is a very personal Being.
But I'm not sure all paganisms came to think there was a remote and ultimate great god. That was not the case with either the Greco-Roman Olympians or the Scandinavian pagan gods, the ones most familiar to Western peoples.
Well, people who read the OT would come across mention of Semitic pagan gods like Baal, Moloch, Ashtart, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment