Saturday, 29 November 2025

Real And Fantastic Histories

Poul Anderson's Time Patrol series encapsulates considerable - concentrated - political and military history and geography covering several ancient and medieval periods. I focus on the mythology, theology and philosophy because that is my field of interest whereas one or two blog readers comment knowledgeably on the conflicts and personalities of Roman and medieval history.

The religious traditions present a series of fantastic reflections of real history:

one of the epic sources of the Pentateuch presented history as culminating in the Davidic monarchy;

however, history continued so various later prophecies were made, e.g., that not David but his descendant and successor would rule a universal kingdom;

Veleda prophesies the imminent overthrow of Rome by Germanic barbarians whereas Virgil/Anchises prophesies an eternal empire for Rome;

some might view the Virgilian prophecy as currently fulfilled spiritually instead of politically.

Poul Anderson does not show us Veleda's alternative history but does show us two alternative outcomes of the medieval church-state conflict.

We live in real history where, so far, no prophesies of Armageddon have been fulfilled. Indeed, empirically, history does not work that way. There is much conflict and unpredictability but all from purely human agencies.

16 comments:

  1. "imperium sine fine" actually is a bit different from "eternal empire". It literally means "empire/authority without limits in time or space".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kaor, Paul!

    I believe the Suffering Servant oracles in Isaiah and the oracles in Jeremiah about a new covenant were meant to nudge the Jews away from a too "this worldly" conception of the Messiah. A conception fulfilled by Christ.

    Ad astra! Sean

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sean: or, alternately, they realized that restoring the Kingdom of David and Solomon just wasn't on.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

    Except I believe in the guiding hand of God as He was preparing the way for the Incarnation and birth of His Son. IOW, providing a corrective to a merely worldly view of the Messianic kingdom.

    Ad asrtra! Sean

    ReplyDelete
  5. The simpler explanation is to be preferred. What people believed and said reflected the conditions that they were living in.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kaor, Paul!

    No, that makes sense only if you deny the supernatural is real. I do not, meaning I believe in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures and God's gradual revelation of His plan for mankind.

    Ad astra! Sean

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sean,

    Occam's Razor is still that the simplest explanation, whatever that is, whether it turns out to be "supernatural" or not, is to be preferred.

    I do not BEGIN by denying the supernatural. But I question the need to affirm it. You give the impression that you think that it is legitimate to begin any discussion or line of thought by affirming the supernatural and that those who do not affirm it are thereby denying it and are already by definition somehow in the wrong? There is a stumbling block here which I try to penetrate or see around but it seems to remain firmly in place.

    Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kaor, Paul!

    Nonetheless, you are still speaking from disbelief in the supernatural. Occam's Razor cannot apply to what Christians believe are divine revelations.

    Ad astra! Sean

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sean,

    Occam's Razor applies to all experience. The simplest explanation is better as an explanation because a more complicated explanation makes assumptions that are not warranted by the evidence.

    Well, of course I am currently speaking from my current unbelief! My views have changed and can change again. But they will not be changed by someone simply stating that he believes in a particular alleged revelation, Christian as against Muslim, Spiritualist or anything else.

    You still give the impression that you believe that it is legitimate to begin all your thinking by assuming the truth of a particular set of supernaturalist beliefs and that those who do not begin with this premise are somehow ruled out of court as wrong from the word go. To think like that is not to start a discussion but to prevent any discussion from getting started.

    Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kaor, Paul!

    I continue to disagree on how or when to Occam's Razor.

    I don't expect you to change your opinion because of what I say.

    Of course, I'm going to think and speak as one who believes in the literal truth of Christianity. What else can a Catholic or convinced Protestant do? Nor do I understand your use of "discussion." I have listed, one way or another, the sources/evidence for what Catholics believe: the Scriptures, Sacred Tradition (including the works of the Fathers), declarations of the Magisterium of the Church when speaking in both the ordinary forms (ex cathedra definitions of popes and ecumenical councils being the latter). You deny all these, so what more can be said?

    Again, that makes me think only "signs" like the miracles recorded at Lourdes might sometimes "get thru" to people who think as you do. Something big, obvious, impossible to deny. Which was one of the points Anderson made in "A Chapter of Revelation."

    Ad astra! Sean

    Ad astra! Sean

    ReplyDelete
  11. "...ordinary or extraordinary forms..." Grrrrrrrrr!

    Sean

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sean,

    If you take it as a premise, even as an axiom, that someone who denies, as you put it, the supernatural is wrong, then you prevent discussion. You seem to to think that it is sufficient to point out that this person "denies" the supernatural and leave it at that.

    In discussion, we try to find common ground as a basis for comparing different views and we each try to understand the other point of view better, not just dismiss it.

    How do you know that the Scriptures are inspired? Everything that you list is not a premise but a conclusion.

    Impossible to deny? Who is trying to deny anything? That word, "deny," again. I don't want to be "got thru to." I want to know more and understand better.

    Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kaor, Paul!

    In these matters I don't think any common ground is possible, because of irreconcilable basic premises.

    I continue to believe one reason for the miracles at Lourdes is precisely that, to "get thru" to some, to shake their confidence the supernatural is not real.

    But the only kind of "knowledge" some who think as you do seem willing to accept is whatever convinces them the supernatural is not real.

    Ad astra! Sean

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sean,

    But what are the basic premises?

    I accept whatever knowledge (no quotes needed) I find. I do not refuse to consider evidence that the supernatural exists. I consider that evidence and reach different conclusions from you.

    I think that one of your premises is that the supernatural does exist? That is not a premise. It is a conclusion. It should not be a starting point.

    You can only believe what you do about Lourdes because you accept monotheist and Christian beliefs. I have explained why I do not accept monotheism on philosophical grounds and why I do not accept Christianity on historical grounds. Your reply to this is merely that you will continue to believe what you already believe. That applies to all of us.

    Instead of merely accepting this situation, you seem to imply that those who think as I do are willfully blinding ourselves to something that we should just accept without question. To impugn the motives of those who disagree with you is to put yourself outside the parameters of reasoned discussion.

    Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  15. My premises (I think): Logic, mathematics and empirical science all work and we also gain insights through art and meditation.

    ReplyDelete