Veleda to Heidhin:
"'A Roman host has fallen into our hands, and you believe that we should do what warriors of old did, give everything to the gods. Cut throats, break weapons, smash wagons, cast all into a bog, that Tiw be slaked.'" (3, p. 499)
Tiw of the Anses/Tyr of the Aesir is the Norse god of war, equivalent to Ares/Mars. Tuesday is Mardi in French and De Mairt in Irish.
I read Myths Of The Norsemen by Roger Lancelyn Green in my teens and now realize that that kind of retelling had effectively Christianized the Aesir whose sole role had become to protect both mankind and themselves from the giants, like a superhero team defending Earth from invaders. The suggestion that Tyr might be slaked by human blood would have shocked and appalled Lancelyn Green's readers.
Myths and stories change over time but we need to know their history. And we control the gods. It is we that imagine them.
Heidhin replies that a slaughter of prisoners would be:
"'A mighty offering.'" (ibid.)
-and that:
"'It would quicken the blood in our men.'" (ibid.)
In other words, it is not just its effect on the gods that matters! Its effect on the Romans must also be considered but Heidhin thinks that:
"'...a slaughter will rouse the tribes and bring new warriors to us, more than it will set the foe on vengeance.'" (p. 499)
He adds that the gods will be glad and will remember but for practical, pragmatic, political, rabble-rousing, mobilizing purposes, it is the effect on men that counts...
(And, in my view, if that is the only way that you can rouse the tribes to rebellion, then forget it!)
23 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Unfortunately, some writers bowdlerized the Norse myths, deleting the barbarism and savagery to be found in them. Anderson refused to do that, talking bluntly about "heathen rites obscene or bloody" in HROLF KRAKI'S SAGA.
Ad astra! Sean
Actually, Tiwaz was the Germanic reflex of *Dyḗus ph₂tḗr -- Sky Father, like Jupiter and Zeus Pater and so forth.
In proto-Germanic, Proto-Indo-European "d" ==> "t", as "p" ==> "f". *Dyḗus ph₂tḗr becomes Tiwaz Fader.
He was originally the supreme God, the father of all the rest. In later times, Wotan/Odin acquired a lot of his characteristics.
Indeed. Tiwaz was demoted from Sovereign to Minister of War, to adapt political titles.
Note that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were, from all the evidence available, ferociously warlike. Eg., their young men spent some time 'living in the woods' as wolves did, and attacking anybody they could -- that was one of the mechanisms of their expansion.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I'm not objecting to anything you wrote above--my point being how some sentimentalists watered down the savagery found in the origins of these Germanic/Nordic myths.
What you wrote about how ferociously warlike young proto-proto-Indo-European males were reminded me of an African tribe whose adolescent males behaving in almost exactly the same way. They were supposed to attack/raid other tribes before being considered fully adult.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yeah. Inter-tribal competition dates back a long, long way -- probably from the development of behaviorally modern humans. It's probably why we out-competed any other branch of hominins. They had more -internal- squabbles, we directed them (mostly) outward.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly, human beings have an innate propensity for being bellicose and warlike. And one means for controlling that inclination was to direct it outwards, against other tribes.
Ad astra! Sean
Innate? Disagree.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sure the police department of Lancaster would disagree with you.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
People can be violent but it is not innate. There are many conditions and circumstances in which people have no reason or motivation to become violent and are not in fact violent.
Paul.
If it was innate, then we would be violent randomly, unpredictably in any circumstances. I might attack my own granddaughter the next time I see her. A truly horrible thought. But physically possible, of course...
Kaor, Paul!
Note, I said innately "prone" to be violent (as well as other flaws), not that all of us will be randomly and unpredictably violent at any or all times. Humans are also rational beings, meaning we can reasonably calculate the costs/benefits of doing violence. And far too many don't do even that, or not enough so to decide to avoid being violent. But that innate propensity is in all of us and anything might happen to make any of us violent at any time.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there are many conditions in which that innate propensity is not actualized and those conditions can be increased. You might just as well say that everyone has an innate propensity to be peaceful. You are one-sidedly emphasizing just one potentiality.
Paul.
Sean,
This is how God can "get through" to me if He exists and if that is what He is trying to do. I have to meet a Christian philosopher who can:
(i) adequately reply to my objections to monotheism;
(ii) demonstrate that monotheism is not anthropomorphic but instead is the only coherent account of reality;
(iii) show me that Christianity, with its blood sacrifice and its (IMHO) grossly inadequate historical evidence for the Resurrection, somehow makes sense.
My premises are that logic, mathematics and empirical science work and that we also gain insights through art and meditation.
Paul.
Paul: no, an innate tendency to be violent would -not- result in -random -violence.
It needs specific circumstances to become active.
That's because it arose in an evolutionary setting as a response to certain circumstances and/or threats.
Eg., against "strangers on my turf", which is abundantly demonstrable. People who -didn't- react with hostility to encroachments on their tribe's territory didn't leave many descendants.
Or in circumstances of competition for resources or power. Ditto on that -- if you didn't react with aggression to defend your stuff or your position of power, you were less likely to have descendants.
People get impulses to violence under those circumstances.
They don't with, eg., a baby of theirs unless their wires are crossed and they're non-functional.
Good. That is a better explanation. And now we can move away from situations where we need to cling onto and defend territory and resources. At present, a lot of effort is being put into persuading us that we must keep behaving like that forevermore! But there is also a counter-movement against all that. In Britain, as we speak, existing campaigns, trade unions and a lot of celebrities and creative types are backing a new coalition that aims to outnumber Tommy Robinson's recent mass rally in March next year.
Kaor, Paul!
It's no use, I don't believe in your "conditions" or hat humans will ever cease being aggressively territorial or likely to be violent about "something." I don't believe your "counter-movements" will ever amount to anything much. Because Original Sin and Stirling's comments explain far more convincingly why we are as we are.
1. Many philosophers have made what I believe are reasonable arguments for believing God is real. If they don't convince you nothing more can be done as far as philosophy goes.
2. Monotheism makes far more sense than believing in millions of gods. I see nothing wrong with using anthropomorphic language, which is simply the effort to express the inexpressible in ways we can somewhat understand.
3. Absolutely disagree, the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was the means chosen by God for bridging the gap between Him and us caused by the Fall. Moreover, by becoming man and accepting an agonizing death, Christ was also showing how God Himself was being like us in all ways except evil.
Again, I disagree, the origin of Christianity is far better known those of any other religion. And St. Paul discussed the matter of evidence for the Resurrection of Christ in 1 Cor. 15. But it still comes down to being willing to accept by faith that the Resurrection is real. All the witnesses Paul mentioned are long dead.
I agree that the kind of true science Christianity helped to create works, but it cannot answer the ultimate questions.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It's no use. Surely by now we do not think that either is going to persuade the other? THAT is surely not the point of any of this?
I am going out and might reply at greater length later.
Everyone lives in "conditions." You and I both live in a (partial) democracy rather than an autocracy. That is a "condition." I am not using that word in any other, esoteric, sense. In some conditions/circumstances, people become violent. In others, they do not. That is all that I mean about "conditions." We should be able to agree on that at least before going on to anything else.
There is no Original Sin.
I will come back on all the religious stuff later although I think that this kind of argumentation about it is increasingly inappropriate.
Paul.
Sean,
Replying by numbers.
1. I agree that many philosophers have made pro-theistic arguments that YOU think are reasonable. Would you have thought that they were reasonable if you had not been brought up to believe in God in the first place?
If those arguments don't convince me, then nothing more can be done? On the contrary. Although I do not currently have access to them, there are Christian philosophers who would be able to engage in mutually illuminating dialogue instead of in uncompromising disagreement and denial. They would be interested to share their understanding(s) and to compare it/them with alternative understandings. Both sides would benefit. Whether or not there was going to be an eventual conversion either way would emerge in time but it would not be insisted on from the beginning. That is the kind of dialogue that I had been hoping for here.
2. I do not believe in millions of gods. By "anthropomorphic," I meant not use of language but personification (projection of personality) onto ultimate reality. Prime facie at least, reality was unconscious and impersonal until some parts of it became organisms with central nervous systems and interacted socially.
3. Absolutely disagree. Blood sacrifice is barbaric. Both Jews and pagans practiced it. The idea was universal. Paul, despairing of salvation through the Law, reinterpreted Jesus' torture and death as a single perfect (!) sacrifice efficacious for all time. That idea resonated with people then. Let's do something better now.
Disagree. Paul listed alleged witnesses. All this time later, we cannot possibly confirm their testimony. I am applying the ordinary rules of evidence. The witnesses are long dead? Of course. That is why we cannot verify anything. Believing something by an act of will is irrational.
What became science began in the natural philosophy of Thales. The Middle Ages added Germanic pragmatism and logical reasoning which came via Christian theology from Greek philosophy. Do not overestimate the contribution of Christianity. The idea that the universe was ordered helped but it does not follow from that that we have to retain the belief that that order was created.
When I offered my points, (i)-(iii), I hoped that they would suggest different directions for dialogue, not that they would lead to a categorical restatement of already stated disagreements, taking us backwards instead of forwards. I am left with the impression that I am being implicitly accused of being unwilling to belief something whereas I think that the issue regarding belief are reasons for or against, not willingness or unwillingness. An unwarranted moral judgment has crept in here.
Can we either have dialogue of the sort that I suggested above or just not discuss this any more? "Absolutely disagree" does not really do anything for me.
Paul.
Sean,
Our "counter-movements" will never amount to anything much? I am talking about real movements in which I have been and am personally involved and I know their practical outcomes.
The Anti-Nazi League knocked back the National Front. Stand Up To Racism has knocked back the British National Party and the English Defence League. By filling the streets with people, we prevented threatened attacks on refugee hotels and advice centres. We did not rely on the police to do it. The EDL, when they were unfortunately unopposed by us, had gone on a rampage.
Hate and violence must be actively opposed by bigger numbers, not accepted, excused or defended. Surely we can unite against hate? Whether or not we will succeed next year remains to be seem but, if we do not, then that will be catastrophic for society, not just for us. If we do fail, then it will not be through indifference.
Paul.
"believe" instead of "belief" somewhere back there.
Also, "to be seen" instead of "to be seem."
Should be "issues regarding belief..." (plural)
Post a Comment