Ilaloa dances like a nymph and Trevelyan thinks that:
"...any moment Pan might come piping from the brush." (pp. 133-134)
Not literally, of course. Especially not on another planet. Although human beings would take there gods with them, would they not? In Neil Gaiman's American Gods, European and Asian gods have all been transplanted to North America.
In any case, has Pan not died? See:
The Death of Pan in Greek Mythology
An intriguing story. Deaths of gods are always powerful. In this case, two interpretations: a mistranslation or the deaths of all the pagan gods ("pan" means "all") at the time of Christ.
I do not visualize but those who do can still see Pan and all the rest.
That single word, "Pan," has carried us far away from Poul Anderson's text but words do that. Deadpan.
20 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
In A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS AND SHADOWS we see Aycharaych quoting from Elizabeth Barrett Browning's poem "A Musical Instrument" a stanza showing how cruel and callous Pan actually was.
Ad astra! Sean
Christianity spent its first few centuries being an underdog's religion. By contrast, classical paganisms (and Shinto, which is similar) were warrior-chief religions.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
True, all the pagan pantheons I know of were as you described. I also recalled how you said the Olympians were glorified Thracian hill bandits.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yeah, they were.
That dates right back to the Proto-Indo-European pantheon; the Proto-Indo-Europeans were an overwhelmingly warlike culture -- it was standard for young men in late adolescence to go live in bands in the wilderness, worshipping wolves and attacking people, for instance.
That survived vestigially in a number of Indo-European societies -- the Irish Celts, and the Latins, for example.
Paganism is a development of animism.
There's a hierarchy, but all "spirits" are of the same basic substance, which is why I compared them to Shinto, which is a classical paganism that handily survived the arrival of Buddhism in Japan.
Amaterasu, the Japanese Sun-Goddess, is an "Omikami" -- a "Great Kami". But she's still a 'kami', like the spirits inhabiting rocks and trees.
Aesthetically, I rather like classical paganism, and the tribal religions of Europe. I'm not fond of 'meek-and-mild' religions. They're all false-to-fact, of course, but then all religions are, and if you have to have a religion, I'd pick them.
Note that by concentrating divinity in a single point, Christianity and its relatives (Mormonism, Islam, Judaism) made modern atheism possible. They "disenchanted" the world around us.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
No surprise, what you said about how warlike pagan pantheons are, they reflected what their believers were like or wanted to be.
A bit surprised what you said re "Aesthetically." I got the strong impression from your Antonine books that your preference might be Stoicism, esp. as expounded by Marcus Aurelius in the MEDITATIONS.
I don't consider orthodox Christianity to be "meek and mild" in the bad sense. What could be more dramatic, even terrifying, in God caring so much about mankind that He became Incarnate as Man, and dying/rising from the dead for us?
I agree that milksop "meek and mildness" is what we get from alleged Christians who water down the Faith, denying what makes Christianity unique, such a defiant challenge to the world.
It was good that Judaism/Christianity "disenchanted" the world, because that was the only way a true science became possible.
Not sure about Islam, tho. It was long ago and I'm not sure of correctly recalling the exact details, but I think I read the Muslim conception of God would get in the way of enabling a true science arising.
I can only hope some atheists might decide they were mistaken. (Smiles)
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: in the 12th century, Islamic and Western Europeans came to opposite conclusions about science. Pure chance but crucial.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
These doctrinal/philosophical controversies within Christianity and Islam from possibly 1050 to 1250 was what I was trying to remember. Fortunately the Church, guided as I believe by God, made the right choice. Can't remember the names of the opposing parties on these issues within Islam.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean:
Essentially, in Catholic Europe Thomas Aquinas won, and he said there was no possible breach between scientific research and religious knowledge; all knowledge was one.
In Islam, al-Ghazzali won -- and he believed precisely the opposite, that scientific research was a threat to religion.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly, what you said re St. Thomas Aquinas' argument winning out. You reminded me of the Church's declarations about evolution, beginning with Pius XII and ending with John Paul II's speech in 1996, that it was not contrary to divine revelation. There are even some Catholic theologians speculating non-humans could be baptized as Christians (including, I think, Benedict XVI).
The view within Islam represented by al-Ghazzali was a huge reason why the dar al-Islaam has been so intellectually stagnant for the past millennium. And why a true science both never originated within it or has been so slow to spread.
IIRC another hindering factor has been the Muslim conception of God as a Being Who was arbitrary and capricious, that what was true one moment could be reversed by Him the next. And that the world exists only because God was creating/recreating it second by second.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: also, Christianity in its origins never aspired to political power, unlike Islam.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, Matthew 22.15-22 had enormous consequences for Western political thought. The common Greco/Roman view being that of course the State should control religion. Also, the Church's denial of the right of any State to control her did its bit to spread notions of putting limits on the powers of the State. But Christ's insistence on rendering to Caesar what rightly belongs to him was a huge roadblock to any temptation about theocracy by Christians.
Islam has nothing like that--the ideal, beginning with Mohammed, was always a theocratic merging of Mosque and State under the rule of a caliph. It's both a religion, Islam, and also a quasi-totalitarian ideology intrinsically hostile to Western ideas of freedom. And its belief in the rightness of jihad as divinely commanded by Allah makes it permanently actively/potentially a threat to all non-Muslims.
Ad astra! Sean
Potentially only. Traditions change as does everything else. Crusades were Christian jihads. I have heard Muslims interpreting "jihad" as "just war." Of course they are reinterpreting. All traditions are reinterpreted. Jews no longer stone adulterers. Christians no longer burn each other.
Kaor, Paul!
No, Islam is always going to be both potentially/actively a threat to us. The historical pattern with Islam has always been eruptions of jihadism after a few centuries/generations of weakness or laxity. Fanatical mullahs, imams, ayatollahs, mahdis, etc., arise to denounce the "unbelievers" and lash ordinary Muslims for being corrupt. You don't even need a huge percentage of the "faithful" to be reignited into fanaticism to get new waves of jihadism.
If the Crusades were Christian jihads it seems odd they only started more than three centuries after Mohammed founded Islam. More than three centuries of jihads waged against all non-Muslims.
Nor do I put any stock in that alleged "reinterpreting" you insist on. Because these "re-interpreters" have a very poor and weak basis in Muslim theology for such unconvincing efforts.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It doesn't matter if the reinterpreters are misinterpreting. They WANT a different interpretation. There is conflict in the Middle East because of oil, not because of Islam. Material conflicts of interests are rationalized in terms of ideologies: Zionism; jihadism; "democracy" (which involves supporting and apologizing for tyrants like that Shah).
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, what matters is what orthodox Islamic theology and doctrine teaches. And it's not oil that is causing conflict, because the mere existence of the West, with all its power and wealth, that so enrages jihadist Muslims. Andrew McCarthy discussed exactly that in his book THE GRAND JIHAD, on how the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood, about 90 years ago, were infuriated by Christian, Western ideas, beliefs, customs, etc. Leading them to do exactly to do as Muslim theology dictates, reignite jihadism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I disagree. What matters is not what is written in a book. Otherwise, the whole barbaric Mosaic Law would still be applied.
Western power and wealth are based on oil! The US intervenes in the Middle East, backs Israel (IDF are STILL killing in Gaza) and now bombs Iran because of oil. That is more than enough to enrage anyone.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree, I'm standing by Andrew McCarthy's argument about Islam.
Good! I'm glad the US is smacking down the Ayatollahs. I repeat, if ignorant Luddites, many of them leftists, had not crippled nuclear energy, starting half a century ago, we would not need that oil. Like it or not a high-tech society needs vast quantities of energy, and as of now that can only be gained by fossil fuels.
Fanatical Hamas vermin lusting to kill Jews and jihadists dreaming of destroying the US enrages me!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagree. (Of course we disagree!)
I am standing by the fact that religions change. Jews no longer stone adulterers. Christians no longer burn each other. Like it or not, jihadism grows now because of US interventions in the Middle East. High tech societies need to negotiate for the energy that they need, not try to secure it by their military might.
Not "ignorant Luddites, many of them leftists" but many intelligent and informed people with different political opinions think that nuclear energy is inherently dangerous. Being ignorant in these matters, I don't know.
You are glad that Trump is waging a very destructive war of aggression, killing innocent Iranians and creating many more jihadists?
Fanatical Zionists slaughtering Palestinians do not enrage me because I believe that rage is counterproductive. Hamas is the Palestinians' defense force. There was a destructive anti-Semitic bombing in London the other day.
Leftists oppose all anti-Semitism and join with Jewish people and organizations in remembering the Holocaust.
I do not want to see the US destroyed, just changed radically! (Electing for a second term a President who instigated a riot in which people were killed...)
Do you share my feeling that exchanges like this become emotionally unpleasant?
Paul.
Post a Comment