"'...that weird cross-god they have...'"
-Poul Anderson, "Time Patrol" IN Anderson, Time Patrol (Riverdale, NY, December 2010), pp. 1-53 AT 5, p. 33.
Years ago, I read in an sf novel a description of the symbol placed above the grave of an extra-terrestrial. I thought then that, if it had been a man in the grave, then the symbol would have been a cross but, of course, my thought was too culturally specific.
A schoolboy drew a picture of the Temple in Solomon's time and placed a cross above the door. When I pointed out that the cross should not have been there, I expected him to realize and say, "Of course not!" but instead he looked puzzled and asked, "Why not?" He had not yet got it that the cross was historically specific.
Sometimes people think in concrete symbols rather than in abstract concepts. When I told a Polish man that there is a mosque on our street, he asked not "What do they believe about Christ?" but "Do they have - crucifix?"
I dislike the fact that an instrument of torture and execution has become a religious symbol but it might be given a wider significance. The shorter horizontal line is time extending from past to future through the present whereas the longer vertical line is eternity intersecting the present. This meaning is closer to universal.
In Poul Anderson's "Gypsy," there is no mention of churches or other places of worship on Haven but Thorkild Erling swears by "'...good Cosmos...'" (p. 263) Sandra Miesel's Chronology tells us that the Cosmic Religion begins in 2130 but we are told nothing of its concepts or practices although its name implies universality.
17 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I wondered, just now, how accurate it would be for that pagan Anglo-Saxon to be so puzzled by the "Cross God." Long before the Roman Empire fell SOME of the Germanic tribes bordering the Empire must have started becoming aware of Christianity. And some eventually converted to belief in the Arian heresy.
Before Constantine the Great abolished crucifixion Christians did avoid use of the Cross as a symbol of their faith, favoring use of a stylized fish or the Chi-Rho. But its association with an esp. brutal form of execution was distanced or lessened by Constantine's decision, making the Cross a natural emblem of the faith.
Ad astra! Sean
I remember reading an article by a reporter accompanying an Israeli patrol in the Jordan valley; they have a clash with some infiltrators, and bury them -- and put crosses on their graves.
The reporter points out that the infiltrators were probably Muslims, and they're Jews, so why the crosses?
They looked puzzled, and then said that was what the gunfighters in Western movies always did...
Sean: quite accurate. You're thinking of the Goths and so forth, who'd been in close contact with the Roman empire for a long time.
The Anglo-Saxons came from a very remote part of the Germanic sphere, with no border with the Romans, and recent DNA research has shown that their entry to Britain was an overwhelming mass-migration.
Consequently, Christianity was obliterated in the areas they ruled. When England -- as it now was -- was converted from paganism, it was by outside missionaries, from Ireland and mainland Europe.
The surviving Britons, who were Christians -- the proto-Welsh and others -- seem to have deliberately avoided attempts to proselytize among the Anglo-Saxons.
Mainly because they hated them so much. Among other things, they actively wanted them to burn in Hell.
(Note that Brittany in France has that name because it was colonized by Romano-British refugees from the Saxons, and that there the colloquial word for "Englishman" for many centuries was "Gast Saoz" -- "Saxon Whore".)
Another fictional detail about a cross that I forgot. In an X-MEN film, someone was buried and a cross was put on the grave but it fell down sideways and looked like an X, appropriately.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Amusing what you said about the Israeli soldiers who buried those Muslim terrorists. Shows how INTERNATIONAL American pop culture has become.
Yes, besides the Goths, I also had the Vandals and Burgundians in mind. They too became Arians just before invading the falling Empire.
Yes, I should have remembered the Anglo-Saxons were wholly pagan and hence had little knowledge of Christianity.
Yes, I recall mention in St. Bede's HISTORY of the hostility the Romano-Britons had for their Anglo-Saxon supplanters. It needed missionaries from Italy and later Ireland for Christianity to be adopted by the English.
Ad astra! Sean
The Lombards showed how superficial "Christianization" could be; after a century ruling Italy, there was an instance of a bunch of Lombards killings some Italians who refused to act respectful while they were making a horse-sacrifice to the old gods...
Or Hrolf the Walker(*), who became a nominal Christian when Louis the Fat "gave" him Normandy, on the condition he'd keep other Vikings out of it (which he would have done anyway).
Yup, he became a Christian all right -- and was buried in his longship, along with some human sacrifices.
Hey, he didn't promise to become a -good- Christian!
(Hrolf was also told he had to kiss Louis' foot in the ceremony of homage. According to legend, he did it... by holding Louis upside-down by one ankle.)
(*) called "the Walker" because he was seven feet tall and there wasn't a horse in Norway big enough to carry him...
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Well, the Lombards invaded Italy later, sometime around 680, so I did not think of mentioning them.
Ha! I have heard of these amusing stories about the ruffianly Hrolf or Rollo! To give him some credit, I have read of how he was at least a loyal vassal and supporter of King Charles in his many struggles and troubles. And Rollo's descendants were to be much more sincere Christians.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: no, the Lombards invaded Italy in 568.
It did take them a long time to (mostly) expel the Byzantines, but they ruled a lot of the peninsula from the mid-6th century on.
Ironically, the Byzantines may have given them the idea: they employed Lombard mercenaries during their long war with the Ostrogoths, which left Italy depopulated and devastated.
That probably gave them ideas...
Sean: yes, Hrolf/Rollo backed Louis... but then, Louis was a fairly weak monarch. As long as Rollo -did- back him, he left him pretty well alone.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I sit corrected about the Lombards! Yes, the devastation of Italy during the Ostrogothic war almost certainly gave the Lombards ideas about invading Italy. Esp. since the Eastern Empire's struggles with the Slavs and Sassanid Persians distracted it from paying more attention westwards.
The impression I get of some of the later Carolingians was that they were not personally that week, but had a weak base of power when trying to govern France.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the Carolingian dynasty was crippled by Charlemagne's adherence to the Frankish tradition of partible inheritance.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree partible inheritance was a bad, bad idea. But I don't think the division of the Carolingian Empire was entirely the fault of Charlemagne, if only because, quite by accident, only one of his sons survived to succeed him, Louis the Pious. And I THINK Louis wanted his eldest son, Lothair, succeeding to the entire Empire. But his two younger sons opposed this and forced their father to agree to division of the Empire.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: then there's the Ottoman system, where all the heirs (usually many, given the harem setup) were kept in 'cages' in the women's quarters, and when one succeeded to the throne he killed all the others.
Once introduced, this did not produce many very able Sultans... 8-).
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree there were not many able Sultans after the death of Suleiman the Magnificent--but a small correction is called for. It was the early Ottoman practice for new sultans to have their brothers killed. But, around 1600 a new Sultan could not bring himself to murdering his brother, so he was locked up in a cage. Then it became the custom to imprison "spare" brothers, some of whom became sultans via palace coups. Figureheads of their grand viziers or Chief Eunuchs.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: thanks! Should have checked.
It probably helped that the brothers usually had different mothers; IIRC, Ottoman Sultans never married free Muslim women; their mates were all concubines and nearly always started as slaves.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Yes, that was the general custom, Ottoman sultans not marrying. But I have read of a few sultans who insisted on marrying their favorite concubines.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment