|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1855343487
| 9781855343481
| B00BO480JE
| 3.68
| 28
| Mar 2003
| Mar 15, 2003
|
liked it
|
All the Myths, All the Legends 9 January 2020 It certainly took me quite a while to read this book, but then again I was basically just reading it a bi All the Myths, All the Legends 9 January 2020 It certainly took me quite a while to read this book, but then again I was basically just reading it a bit at a time, namely when I was at home considering that it does happen to be one of those large hard cover books that you tend to find in people’s TV cabinets (namely to impress their guests because I’ve never really known anybody to actually read one of these books, unless of course, that person happens to be me because, well, books are meant to be read). Anyway, this book basically goes through quite a number of famous myths from the Ancient Greeks. So, you have the story of the Trojan War and the story of Odysseus’ homecoming. There is also the story of Theseus, Oedipus, and many, many others (including Pyramus and Thisbe, and Orpheus’ trip to the underworld). At the end of the book, we then have a huge dictionary that basically covers all of the people and places from both the Roman and Greek myths (namely because they all pretty much happen to be the same). One interesting thing that I learnt is that Saturn isn’t actually the Roman version of Chronos, but rather a separate diety that represents agriculture. However, somewhere along the line both of these deities became merged (which I always found interesting considering that Chronos was deposed by Zeus and sent into exile). The problem with many of these myths though is that there is no real set standard, and you will discover that when you read the varying accounts. The labours of Heracles is a classic example, because even though it is considered that he performed twelve tasks, what these tasks actually were is disputed (though there are a number of core tasks that is generally accepted across the various writings of the Ancient Greeks). The other issue is that in many cases a lot of these myths seem to exist out on their own, and aren’t actually a part of a grander story, though of course people like Ovid and Apollodorus have attempted to bring them all together. Sure, we do have their works, but the sources that they were relying on have been lost to us. Unfortunately, this book follows the habit of isolating many of the myths, despite the fact that Heracles was one of the Argonauts (until he got left behind), and that Theseus was pretty much connected with many of the other myths and legends – which included being friends with Heracles, and also welcoming Oedipus into Athens, though if we consider the Medea of Euripides, the king of Athens is somebody completely different. Oh, and he was also involved in the kidnapping of Helen when she was quite young, though from the works of Plutarch I gather that he had died before the whole Trojan War mess came about. As such, I certainly wouldn’t be considering this book to be canon by any sense of the word, namely because there really isn’t any true canon out there – the stories change quite a lot as they were passed down through history. Yet it is quite useful, and entertaining reading as well, though I should point out that it does tone down on some of the more sordid tales (such as the stories about where some kings, Thyestes comes to mind, were fed their children), or even avoids them completely. All in all, it is a pretty good book. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 03, 2019
|
Jan 06, 2020
|
Jun 03, 2019
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1576467627
| 9781576467626
| 1576467627
| 3.48
| 738
| -350
| Jul 30, 2004
|
it was ok
|
Welcome to Atlantis 15 January 2019 This incomplete ancient book has certainly triggered quite a stir over the centuries, particularly in the modern ag Welcome to Atlantis 15 January 2019 This incomplete ancient book has certainly triggered quite a stir over the centuries, particularly in the modern age. In fact, from all of my readings of historical and early literature, it really only seems that the whole Atlantis fad is a recent phenomena, which is quite odd because it isn’t as if this book is a recent discovery – people have known about it for donkey’s years. Okay, there are countless numbers of science-fiction shows, with a number of them starring Jason Moma, about this mythical lost continent, and let us not even go down the road of those new age philosophies. So, the question is what do we make of it. Well, one of the issues I have with it is that Plato is not an historian. In fact, he doesn’t even touch on history in any of his other texts, so why, all of the sudden, is he talking about an ancient empire now? Then again, Plato doesn’t touch science either, but we have the Timaeus, which is clearly him attempting to explore the world in a scientific manner. Well, at least as far as the ancients did. The other odd thing is that this is the only text in which Atlantis is mentioned – nowhere else do they talk about this particular place. Well, there are a number of theories, with the general consensus (at least as far as my Classics Lecturer was concerned) was that Plato is actually talking about the Minoan Empire, and its destruction came about due to the eruption of the island of Santorini – but why then did he refer to it as Atlantis, when the legends of Theseus didn’t refer to it as such? Another idea, is that it could actually be referring to the Antediluvian world, you know, that world that existed before Noah and all that. In fact, there are actually quite a few theories floating around, and theories that come out of academia, that have proposed some ideas regarding Noah’s flood (one of them involving the Black Sea). Interestingly, a Youtuber has posted a number of videos speculating that the empire could have been located in the middle of the Sahara desert at a place known as the Richat Structure, a structure that has only recently been discovered (thanks to satalites, and aeroplanes, of course). He might have a point, but he lost me when he started making statements about conspiracy theories and cover ups, such as the fact that there is no mention of it on Wikipedia, and whenever somebody attempts to make that connection the moderators promptly remove it. Honestly, I’m not at all surprised, and I actually wonder whether he has done some more thorough research as to why the moderators remove these comments. In fact, the reasons are actually quite easy to find, and the major one is that a Youtuber isn’t sufficient grounds to make mention of something on a Wikipedia page, particularly when you are dealing with something as controversial as Atlantis. The thing is that a youtube video simply cannot be considered to be a peer reviewed work of academia. Sure, there have been academics that have rocked the community with new ideas – Einstein and Newton come to mind – but the thing is that sometimes these ideas take time to become accepted. Oh, and there is also the comparison with Troy, but the thing with Troy is that this particular city so permeates Greek culture that it is hard to miss, whereas there is only one mention of Atlantis – Plato. So, what is the point of this particular piece of work. Well, I’m not actually sure. In fact, it seems as if Plato started writing it, but then decided to leave it and to move onto something a bit more substantial. This is one of the problems that Plato was struggling with, and that is seeing the ideal and the actual work together. He theorised his ideal government in The Republic, but when he attempted to actually set something up, it simply didn’t work (the whole Sicilian experiment was a complete disaster). The other thing that I suspect is that as he was writing, and thinking about this work, he realised that no, this wasn’t an example of his ideal government, and there was no way he could see that it would work out this way. Maybe, he also realised that it was just a load of rubbish, and decided that he had better things to waste his time on, such as running an Academy. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 14, 2019
|
Jan 15, 2019
|
Jan 16, 2019
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 3.72
| 79,171
| Oct 05, 2005
| 2006
|
liked it
|
Meanwhile, Back on Ithaca 11 July 2018 – Brisbane I guess the main reason that I grabbed this book was because the concept intrigued me somewhat, that Meanwhile, Back on Ithaca 11 July 2018 – Brisbane I guess the main reason that I grabbed this book was because the concept intrigued me somewhat, that is writing the Odyssey from the view of Penelope. Honestly, I’m not entirely sure whether it is necessary for Atwood to actually give Penelope a voice in the story because she does happen to have a pretty substantial role in the book, and I’m not entirely sure if she is actually mistreated by Homer either (well, ignoring all the philandering on his behalf that is). In fact, I have always considered Penelope to be a pretty strong character, you know with the way that she stared down all the suitors and such. In fact, from my reading of Greek mythology there are some pretty strong women that appear, particularly with the likes of Athena and Artemis. Sure, these strong women also tend to be unmarried, until you encounter the likes of Hera, who can be pretty nasty at times, though I note that she tends to take out her frustrations on innocent mortals as opposed to her philandering husband. However, Atwood is quite right when she explores the ins and outs of Greek Mythology here. For instance, by looking at the various stories from two different angles, the exotic and the ordinary, does really put this into perspective. For instance, the story of where Odysseus and his crew were trapped on Circe’s island, in Atwood’s mind, really comes down to they pretty much spending a year in a whorehouse where Odysseus had managed to charm the Mamasang. I’m still convinced that the lotus is more than just alcohol though – in my mind it sounds to be a lot more like some narcotic, and the story with regards to the Cyclops, in some circles at least, is suggested that he may have been a blacksmith as opposed to Atwood’s tavernkeeper. Sure, Odysseus is very much a teller of tall tales, and we all know that. This isn’t being disputed here. Penelope understands this, as does Atwood. The interesting thing is that he doesn’t seem to be portrayed in too much of a bad light, though we should remember that Penelope really didn’t have all that much of a choice. After he left, and while he was philandering his way around the Mediterranean, Penelope really had nowhere to go. Sure, she could have gone back to Sparta, but the suggestion here was that that really wasn’t an option, if only due to the fact of the Helen problem. Yeah, I don’t think Atwood really likes Helen all that much. Sure, she is known as the face that launched a thousand ships, until you realise that half the reason that all of the Grecians went off to Troy was because of a pact that they made with Menelaus (thanks in part to Odysseus) to prevent the competition for her hand in marriage to pretty much descend into all out bloodshed. Oh, and sure enough, Odysseus is somewhat of a wanderer, and in fact as soon as he returns home, and as soon as he pretty much cleans up all of the mess that has sprung up since his departure, he pretty much disappears again, namely because of the bloodguilt on his hands due to killing all of the suitors. Interestingly, Atwood finishes the book off here, and doesn’t make mention of the story that Odysseus ends up ditching Penelope for a much younger wife – so much for the reward for her faithfulness there. In fact, when I read that in the Library of Greek Mythology I was somewhat dismayed – I guess it is a good thing that the Odyssey finishes where is does – at least Homer rewards Penelope for her faithfulness. That faithfulness thing – Atwood does point out that through the ages Penelope’s character has been used as an example by some pretty brutal men to keep their wives in line. I’m not sure if that is what Homer was trying to get at here, but then again the Odyssey is pretty much a tale of high adventure. In fact, it is probably one of the very first adventure novels ever written, though it then went on to become one of the primary sources of education for the Ancient Greeks. However, this wouldn’t be the first, or the only, time that brutal people have misused sayings, and books, to get their own way, I’m sure you can work out some examples without me having to say anything further. Let us consider a couple of problems first. Atwood seems convinced that Penelope was wandering around wearing a veil. Look, I’m not entirely sure if that is quite correct. Sure, that may have been the case in Athens, but then again Athens was a pretty conservative society, especially when it came to the treatment of women. Actually, I don’t think conservative is quite the correct word – oppressive is probably much better. However, I’m not entirely sure if the veil was worn in every city across the world at that time. In fact, there are suggestions by Atwood that Helen didn’t even wear the veil, and sure, while the Greek pottery art tends to show women as being unveiled, we probably should once again remember that this is artwork and we are talking about a time that has pretty much been lost in the mists of history – the Greek artists were more likely painting their works based upon their own experiences as opposed to any real knowledge about Mycenean society beyond what has handed down to them by word of mouth. [image] Now, I’ll finish off by talking about the maids, though the word slave is probably much more precise. Yeah, that’s the funny thing with a lot of these translations – we seem to want to try to move away from the word slave, but then again it is a pretty ugly word in this day and age. Yet we need to remember that the maids were basically slaves. Atwood suggests that as well as doing household chores, guests and owners would also have their way with the slaves, in the sexual sense, but you probably already worked that one out. However, we need to also remember that this is Greek society, which basically means that it wasn’t just the female slaves that were being abused, but also the male ones, except that male love affairs, at least where the Athenians were concerned, where of a completely different order – I get the impression that guys didn’t sleep around with other guys as much. As for women, well, in their mind they didn’t really count, unless you were unfortunately enough to stumble upon a god having a bath in the forest – that was certainly bad news. I guess we have come a very long way, even in the short space of time since Victorian England where women literally had no rights whatsoever, property or otherwise. In fact, I still remember seeing something on one of my teacher’s desks at highschool that indicated that women were only allowed to work while they were single – as soon as they were married then they pretty much had to stop. Then again, this is also very much of a class thing. Remember, we are looking at the well healed sections of societies – not just the kings and queens, but also the aristocrats. Pretty much if you weren’t in that world then you pretty much didn’t count. I guess this is what the really challenging part of the story actually is – it isn’t the fact that Penelope didn’t have a voice, but rather that the maids, while in the Odyssey it is suggested that they were traitors, Atwood turns the around and reminds us that they were slaves, at the beck and call of the suitors who were pretty much destroying Odysseus’ livelihood, and really didn’t deserve the death sentence that they received. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 09, 2018
|
Jul 09, 2018
|
Jul 09, 2018
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||||
| 0140441700
| 9780140441703
| 0140441700
| 3.72
| 6,679
| 1136
| 1977
|
really liked it
|
Rule Brittania 14 February 2018 – Siem Reap Maybe I should have written my review on A Farewell to Arms on Valantine's Day as opposed to some semi-myth Rule Brittania 14 February 2018 – Siem Reap Maybe I should have written my review on A Farewell to Arms on Valantine's Day as opposed to some semi-mythological text about a bunch of British kings that probably never existed, but then again I've never been a big fan of Valantine's Day, especially when I started working only to discover that in an office environment you suddenly have this huge competition among the ladies as to whose partner loves them the most (based on the biggest bunch of flowers). I still remember that first Valantine's Day, seeing lady after ladying going down stairs and returning with a bunch of flowers, and one particular woman going down three times, returning with ever bigger bunches (and it was from the same person, or so she claimed). Anyway, this is the second time I've read this book, and the first time I absolutely loved it, but then again back then I was one of those people who believed anything. At that time I never realised that Britain was originally colonised by the Trojans, that the British were the ones who sacked Rome (and that Brennius was a Brit as opposed to a Gaul). Nor did I realise that Constantine was a Brit, and that it was King Arthur that brought an end to the Roman Empire. Well, as it turns at I'm not entirely sure whether that really is the case anyway, but as Chopper Read once said, why let the truth get in the way of a good yarn. So, the Historia Regum Britanae was a history written by Geoffrey of Monmouth sometime in the 10th Century, which puts it after the Norman invasion. Geoffrey, in his introduction, explains that he was always interested in who the kings of Britain were before the Roman invasion, and while he had been doing some research on the kings that came later (namely referring to sources such as Bede, Nennias, and Gildas), he was mystified as to what went on before. Well, to his surprise he was handed a mysterious Red Book, which gave him his answers so he then proceeded to write his own history. While many of his claims are dubious in the least, I suspect that this red book may have actually existed. It is a great story, and a great history, though Geoffrey focuses more on battles as opposed to any real philosophical or political dialogue. In this text we learn of the origins of the British people – they were Trojan. A man named Brutus, who was about two generations after Aeneas, accidentally killed his mother and father so was exiled. He took a group with him to Greece to establish a new land, and in doing so went to war with his neighbours. In a act of deceit he slaughtered some of his enemies, only to be told that it would be best to leave because he had pretty much upset everybody else around him and that he would never have any rest from war if he remained. So he travelled around, landing in some places only to discover that the locals really didn't want him there, so instead of wasting manpower by constantly fighting, he moved on until he came to the British Isles. As we make our way through the history we encounter Brennius, the aforementioned Gaul who sacked Rome, except that he wasn't a Gaul but actually a Briton. We encounter King Lear (however in this text it is Leir), who doesn't go mad in the moors and ends up dying along with all of his daughters, but flees to France, raises an army, and returns and reclaims his kingdom. We also encounter the Roman invasion of Britain, but Geoffrey writes this from the perspective of the British, and thus paints them as being much more capable, and unified (as opposed to the tribal structure that historians believe was actually the case). Finally, as we come to the 4th Century, we encounter the famous Uther Pendragon (which he suggests is a corruption of the name Uther ben Dragon, or son of the Dragon), who as a child flees to France when his Uncle Vortigern seizes the throne for himself. This then sets the stage for the final part of the book, where there is a constant struggle between the British and the Saxons, where in the end, as we all know, the Saxons win (and the British are confirmed to a small section of the island that we now know as Wales – it is Geoffrey's assertion that the Welsh are the true descendants of the Britons). There is a suggestion that this history is the springboard for the Arthurian romances that come into play in both England and France. I noticed that when I read Bede, he skips over the period of time where Geoffrey places the story of Arthur. I suspect Geoffrey used this jump to insert the story (which probably was in the form of an oral legend at the time anyway, or at least in that Little Red Book), and it is one of the longest in the book. Geoffrey's account goes that Vortigern was ruling the island with an iron fist and with the help of the Saxons, but the alliance was coming apart. When Uther and his older brother Aurelius, came of age, they returned and fought against Vortigern and the Saxons, and of course won. However, both of them died, and this is where Arthur ascends the throne. Arthur does have a powerful sword, but it isn't Excalibur, nor does he pull it from a stone. Merlin also appears, but he has more to do with Vortigern and Uther than he does with Arthur (though Geoffrey does make mention that they do meet on one occasion). Interestingly there is an entire chapter dedicated to a series of apocalyptic style prophecies told by Merlin, who foresees the coming of Arthur. The way these prophecies are written suggest a heavy Biblical influence (though Geoffrey does refer to Biblical events as he is telling his story). The story of the cuckolding of Arthur does not appear here, however while Arthur is away in France fighting the Romans, he does leave Mordred in charge of Britain (along with Guinevere). Once the Romans had been dealt with, he discovers that Mordred had claimed the throne of Britain for himself, so he returns with an army to take it back, which could flag the Lancelot affair down the track. Interestingly, I notice that Arthur is basically perpetually at war, but then again this isn't so much a defensive war because not only does he invade Gaul (Geoffrey seems to use Gaul and France interchangeably), but he goads the Romans into attacking him as well. Thus it is not surprising that we he eventually dies (sort of – he is mortally wounded and taken off to Avalon never to be seen again, sort of because the suggesting is that he may return), it is in battle. I suspect that this work is very much like the Aenead was to Rome, and I do note that Geoffrey does start his book from where the Aenead ends. In one sense he is claiming British heritage from the Romans, thus suggesting, that like Rome, Britain is destined for greatness. While many of his battles aren't resounding victories, and his kings immortal killing machines, he does have the British conquer large swathes of Europe at least three times, as well as making certain well known figures British. Mind you, this was the 10th Century, and Britain had just been conquered by the Normans – except, they were really British. Geoffrey seems to refer back to a part of France called Little Britain (or Brittany as it is known today). In a way what Geoffrey seems to be trying to establish here is not so much a justification for the Norman invasion – that had happened about fifty years ago, but probably still in living memory of many of the older people – but rather suggesting that Britain was now returning to her original roots, and the Saxon domination now being over turned. Then again, the Norman invasion, within a a couple of hundred years, suddenly evolved into a struggle between the English and the French, and a part of me wonders whether the Historia Regum Brittanae was playing in the back of the king's minds, particularly since that for quite a while Geoffrey's text was considered history (and I believe even Holinshed includes Brutus in his history). ...more |
Notes are private!
|
2
|
Feb 09, 2018
Jun 08, 2006
|
Feb 13, 2018
Jun 12, 2006
|
Feb 09, 2018
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0140449191
| 9780140449198
| B01BITBVTK
| 3.74
| 110,505
| -1200
| Jan 01, 2014
|
really liked it
|
Explores the question of why we die 14 July 2012 With the possible exception of sections of the Bible (and many of the dates that we ascribe to the var Explores the question of why we die 14 July 2012 With the possible exception of sections of the Bible (and many of the dates that we ascribe to the various books are speculative at best) this would be the oldest piece of literature that I have read and reviewed. The epic was discovered in 1853 and was first translated in 1870 which means that we have not had the actual story for very long, however its influences do stretch out over all recorded history, particularly with the similarities between the flood story here and the flood story in Genesis (though as previously mentioned it is my position that the flood story in Genesis supersedes this flood story, as I shall explain). The problem with this epic is that unlike the Bible or Homer we do not have a standard text. The date that I have given the poem is the earliest recorded date of tablets that have been found, however these tablets, and many of the other tablets that we have do not provide a standard telling of the story, and even by creating an outline of how we understand the story progresses, it is still incredibly corrupt and trying to piece the story together is a method of trial and error. The story begins with Gilgamesh, the king of Uruk, who was using his kingly powers to pretty much have his way with all of the women of the city, and in particular he would deny the husband the right to sleep with their new brides until after Gilgamesh had had the pleasure. It is an indication of the nature of Babylonian tyranny in that it appears that there was no law that bound the king, and the fact that he was two-thirds god appeared to make him even more authoritarian. I actually believe that there is a biblical reference to Gilgamesh in Genesis, namely a character known as Nimrod, who was a mighty hunter before the lord, and ironically appears to have had a number of cities attributed to him which are similar to the cities that Gilgamesh was said to have established. Anyway, the people of Uruk cry out to the gods to deal with Gilgamesh's actions, so they create a wild man named Enkidu. However Enkidu proves to be quite difficult in that it appears that he is roaming the land destroying civilisation, so they send a prostitute to him to teach him about sex. After seven days of passionate love making, Enkidu is broken of his wild ways. This story has some interesting aspects to it in the nature of civilisation verses the wild. The people of Uruk represent civilisation while Enkidu represents the uncivilised man, and it appears that even as far back as then the constant conflict between civilisation and barbarity was in full swing. Even though Enkidu is only one man, it appears that he could be a representation of uncivilised tribal cultures and bandits who have no respect for the hard work of honest men. However, the use of the prostitute is something that is reflective of a civilised nature. Tribal cultures, particularly those without a form of commerce, would unlikely have had prostitutes, therefore the existence of the prostitute reflects a civilised society because for a prostitute to be able to exist there must be some form of commerce to allow her to make a gain from the services that she provides. I do not believe that the poem is reflective of sex as being a mechanism of civilisation, however the use of a prostitute is. Since her services must be paid for, if no payment is forthcoming, then the person is in her debt. This is what happens to Enkidu. Enkidu and Gilgamesh become friends after Enkidu confronts the king on one of his nightly escapades. One wonders if this is reflective of a homosexual relationship, however I don't feel that this is the case. It appears that the problem was that Gilgamesh was lonely, which is the nature of kingship. As a king he has total authority and he can have what he wants when he wants, as is indicated by his sexual escapades. However, what they do not create is a sense of companionship, especially when you are stealing other people's wives. What Enkidu does is to give Gilgamesh a companion and a sense of companionship, and as such, he has what he wants, and like the prostitute served to civilise Enkidu, the pact of friendship that Gilgamesh and Enkidu form, serves to civilise Gilgamesh. They go on adventures together, though only two of them are mentioned: the trek to Lebanon to defeat the ogre Humbaba, and then the fight against Ishtar's bull that is sent to destroy the city of Uruk. I will not go into much more details of these adventures with the exception to flag them as a very early adventure story. Considering that the adventures appear to be complete in themselves, it is quite possible that these stories are shortened versions of longer texts, and examples of other stories, in which the two characters star. In a way, this is probably a very early example of the modern serialised novel. In fact, we could change Gilgamesh and Enkidu to Sherlock Holmes and Watson. The main part of the text though deals with Gilgamesh's quest for immortality and his failure to find it. He is part god, but his human nature means that he must die like every other human. Enkidu dies of a wasting disease and this sends Gilgamesh into a long period of mourning, however he does not seek immortality to bring Enkidu back, but rather to stop himself from dying. It is not the loss of a loved one that drives him, but his fear of death, and this fear of death is something that is prevalent in literature throughout recorded history. Gilgamesh then goes on a long journey to find Umpashtim, the sole survior of the flood, and also the last human to be gifted with immortality, however while Gilgamesh learns the secret, he does not gain immortality. There are reasons for this flagged elsewhere, but note that Gilgamesh is not the wisest of characters. Umpashtim is a wise sage and his discussions with Gilgamesh indicate this. One of his tests is to stay awake for seven days (the number seven appears very regularly in Babylonian mythology, and this has come down to us in the Bible), and this he fails, with the explanation that if he cannot stay awake for seven days, how is he to fight death, which is a much more powerful opponent than sleep. We also note that as mentioned he is foolish, particularly when he goes off half-cocked to kill some giants only to discover that these giants were the only way to allow him to move forward (but his cunning allows him to do so anyway). Finally, we have the rather nasty ending to the story. Gilgamesh sees the flower that will make him young again, and thus give him immortality, and it is within his reach, only to have it taken away from him by a serpent (which I read as a dragon). Here is another biblical parallel, as in this epic, Gilgamesh has immortality in his grasp, only to have it taken away from him at the last moment by a serpent. In the Genesis account, we have the serpent steal immortality from Adam and Eve by lying to them and getting them to disobey God. So it appears that in this mythology, the serpent is represented by the loss of immortality. This was probably a popular and well known story to the Mesopotamians, in that it answers, or tries to answer, the question of 'why do we die'. In a sense it could also be a nursery rhyme of some sort, with the child asking the question and the nursemaid responding with this story. Mesopotamia, while a civilised state for his period, was still a violent and nasty place where life was cheap. As such death would be all around them, and there was a need and a desire to understand why this was the case. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 13, 2012
|
Jul 14, 2012
|
Mar 07, 2017
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0140444459
| 9780140444452
| 0140444459
| 3.87
| 71
| 1400
| Jan 03, 1989
|
liked it
|
Betrayal of a Legend 19 December 2016 You certainly have to love the occasional lyric poetry, especially when it is about the end of everybody’s favour Betrayal of a Legend 19 December 2016 You certainly have to love the occasional lyric poetry, especially when it is about the end of everybody’s favourite legendary English king, Arthur Pendragon. Actually, I’m not sure if that is actually his last name, though it seems that this guy, and the legend that surrounds him, is much like Robin Hood – he may have existed, he may not have, but a huge legend has arisen around them while there doesn’t actually seem to be any consistency in these legends. In fact, this particular book contains two contrasting versions of his death, though the common feature is that he was killed by Mordred (though whether Mordred was his son or not is also up in the air because one of them suggests that he is, while the other suggests that he is just naughty lord). Anyway, these two poems contain literally everything, and it is no wonder that the story of Arthur has been picked up by so many authors and film makers, and the stories that come out of it are vastly different in nature. For instance there was a film from the eighties called Excalibur which focused much more on the fantasy elements, with Excalibur, Merlin, and a tragic end as he searched for the holy grail. Another version (named King Arthur), was set during the times when the Romans pulled out of England, and Arthur was basically a Knight from the other side of the empire and was fighting to stop the Picts from overrunning the England. There was also this book I remember called The Mists of Avalon, which I remember seeing as a kid, but never getting around to reading it, probably because upon looking at it I came to the conclusion that it was the thickest book ever written – in fact it was huge. Mind you, there are probably much, much thicker books these days, but that one still sits in my mind as being pretty thick. Oh, and we cannot forget to mention this all time classic. As I previously mentioned there are two versions of the story, both of them dealing with Arthur’s death, so there is no mention of Merlin, nor of the sword, nor of the Lady in the Lake (or the test to remove the sword from the stone). In fact both stories seem to eschew the fantasy elements and come across much more historical. Anyway, the first story deals with Arthur going on conquests across Europe and coming to blows with the Emperor of Rome. He eventually defeats the emperor, however discovers that back in England Mordred has taken the throne for himself. Mind you, after going to war with Rome, Arthur has actually lost a lot of men, but with the handful of men he does have he returns to England, confronts Mordred’s much larger army, and defeats Mordred while dying in the process. There are a couple of things that come out of this story, one of them being the plot where the King is abroad and the person keeping the throne warm decides to name himself as king. This is something that has happened a number of times in history, but the one event that comes to mind is that of Richard II (of which I have written two blog posts, the second being here). Mind you, I would hardly equate Arthur with Richard, particularly since if it wasn’t for Shakespeare’s play he would probably be little more than a footnote in history – Arthur is a legend. Mind you, it is noticeable that both die, because we can’t have Mordred defeating Arthur and giving us an evil laughter and riding off into the sunset. Mind you, even in Shakespeare’s tragedies the bad guy eventually gets it in the neck. In a way it seems as if you simply cannot have a situation where the bad guy wins, and the good guy simply cannot come back and eventually win the day – it is almost as if it is anathema in literature. The other thing is how Arthur pretty much conquers Europe. This is taken directly out of History of the Kings of Britain, and seems to attribute the barbarian invasions of Rome to being an invasion let by Arthur. Mind you, Monmouth puts Arthur around 700 AD, which is sometime after Rome collapsed, but it is interesting how we have no record of any legendary king carving out a huge empire in Europe. However, it should also be noted that this is one of those empires that exists only on the personality of a single man, and it appears that after his death the kingdom pretty much disintegrates. Another thing that I have noticed is that Bede seems to have a gap in his Ecclesiastical history right around the time Monmouth has Arthur appear. That’s not to say that I am suggesting Arthur existed because, other than Charlemagne, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of a king establishing an Empire on the Continent, especially one where the throne was in England. Mind you, this whole thing reeks of nationalism, yet it is interesting that England did have an identity as far back as the 10th century. Monmouth also suggested that two English Kings were responsible for crossing the channel in around 400 bc, conquering Europe, crossing the Alps, and sacking Rome. Obviously what is happening here is a medieval version of ‘Fake News’, though it is probably better described as being ‘fake history’ (though the Romans seems to have a lot of problems with this fake history) – this is history that really has no substance to it, and no archaeological support. Mind you, writers of history back in those days really didn’t take the academic and scientific approach that we do today (though all history is still tainted by opinion), but rather wrote from the legends that were in vogue. The second story is pretty much the same (that is about how Arthur died), however it’s focus is more on the love affair between Lancelot and Guenevere. In fact, this affair could be considered one of the greatest affairs in literature (okay, there are probably others, but I really have no interest in stories about love affairs – I would call them forbidden love but it sounds so clichéd – still, something that you can’t have always seems much more desirable than something that you can). Whereas the first story has a lot more action and large scale battles, this one has a lot more intrigue where people are being killed, and then the murder is being covered up, and there is adultery, poisonings, duels, and finally King Arthur’s death. In a way this is an incredibly painful episode to watch because we all know how it is going to end – badly – especially since Lancelot is one of Arthur’s most trusted knights. However, this episode is set mostly in the court of Camelot, and doesn’t even have any mention of wars and expeditions to foreign lands. Actually, come to think of it there is always the story of David and Bathsheba in the Bible – that’s a pretty well known love affair, but I digress. Anyway, it seems as if the story of Arthur is a story of betrayal, with his wife and best friend having hanky panky behind his back, and Mordred going off and stealing his throne (and dying in the process). Anyway, before I finish off, I probably should end with this cartoon, especially considering the state of politics these days: [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 08, 2016
|
Dec 20, 2016
|
Dec 08, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| B0DM92ZCB7
| 3.80
| 49
| unknown
| Jan 18, 2011
|
really liked it
|
The Story of Winter 8 October 2016 While the title of this poem is ‘The Hymn to Demeter’ and the poem is a part of a collection of poems referred to as The Story of Winter 8 October 2016 While the title of this poem is ‘The Hymn to Demeter’ and the poem is a part of a collection of poems referred to as the Homeric Hymns, a part of me feels that these titles are a little misleading, which is why I am more inclined to refer to this as a poem (or a song) as opposed to a hymn. First of all, having grown up in a Christian tradition my idea of a hymn is a song that is basically about how wonderful the Christian God (and in turn Jesus Christ) happens to be and is generally accompanied by an organ and a choral ode. Further, most of these songs tend to follow along the similar pattern of, well, Amazing Grace, which is basically a song about how John Newton (the composer) was this huge crook, but then he discovered that Jesus loved him and died for his sins, and all of the sudden everything was fine and dandy (despite the fact that he continued trading slaves). The second problem that I have with the categorisation of it being a Homeric hymn is that it doesn’t feel like it was written by Homer. Okay, I would hardly call myself an expert on Homeric writings, and while I did study the Odyssey in the original language back at university I don’t sit in my sun room with a copy of the Greek text and a pot of tea, and casually read it (in fact the only book that I happen to read in Greek is the Bible, and that is usually when somebody is reading it aloud in English). However, despite my lack of authority, I still don’t believe that it was written by Homer – it just didn’t feel right. First of all the poem doesn’t take up 24 scrolls, nor does it go into explicit details of the surroundings and the people, nor does it break off into massive tangents. In fact the poem is actually quite self-contained (and pretty short as well). The other thing was that as I was reading it (though it may have more to do with the translation, which was pretty shocking by the way) it reminded me for some of the Ancient Babylonian texts that I had read in times past. Actually, when I read a commentary on this poem, the explanation as to why it was considered a Homeric Hymn was not because they believed Homer wrote it but because tradition since the Roman times had attributed it to Homer. Actually, the whole debate over the attribution of these songs, as well as the Odyssey and the Iliad, to Homer has more to do with them being written down as opposed to composition. Actually, come to think of it, if Homer was blind as legend has it then it does make me wonder how he would have been able to write it down anyway (though no doubt he could still have been an oral poet). Well, being blind hasn’t stopped people from becoming famous poets in the past, as was the case with Milton, but that is beside the point. Anyway, the attribution to Homer, in my opinion, has more to do with the poems being written down from an oral tradition as opposed to the original composer. I probably should actually start talking about the poem itself as opposed to the reasons as to why I don’t consider it a hymn, or having been composed by Homer. So, the story is about the Greek God Demeter, who happens to be the god of the harvests. Basically she is the one that makes sure all of the wheat grows so that nobody starves. Anyway she had a daughter by Zeus (who else – it seems that whenever a god, or a mortal, becomes pregnant, Zeus seems to have something to do with it, which makes me wonder whether this arose as an excuse for pregnant women to cover up infidelity) and one day Zeus sort of lets his brother Hades kidnap Demeter’s daughter and take her into the underworld to be his wife. The thing is that Demeter doesn’t know what happened to her daughter (Persephone), despite the fact that not only was Zeus well aware of this, but he basically feigned ignorance when asked. Mind you, despite the fact that most of the gods were being tight lipped about the whole event, not all of them were, and Demeter soon found out what happened. As a result he basically turned her back on Olympus and traveled to the city of Eleusis where she basically becomes a domestic servant. [image] The Ruins of Eleusis The problem was that now that Demeter had left Olympus there wasn’t anybody there to make sure that the crops grew and as such the Earth plunged into a period of darkness and sterility – can anybody say Ice Age? However, this was turning out to be a bit if a problems for the gods because, well, despite the fact that they are immortal, they still need to be worshipped, and feared, and with humanity dying off through hunger they knew something needed to be done, so they pressured Hades to let Persephone return to her mother. There was one problem – she had eaten a pomegranate, which meant that she was now a denizen of the underworld and while she could return to her mother, she couldn’t stay, so for three months every year she had to return, which as it happens tends to coincide with the winter months. So what we have here is what is called an aetiological myth, namely a myth that tells a story of why something is the case at a time when people didn’t have a rational scientific explanation as to why the world did what it. It is like that story of the witch with the salt machine that broke down and ended up dumping countless tonnes of salt into the ocean which is the explanation as to why the ocean is salty. However, while this myth is supposed to explain the seasons I think that it goes a little deeper than that, namely because it also tells of a time when there appeared to be a huge famine in the land, which could well have been an account of an ice age. Mind you, the origins of this myth may have been far back in the mists of time if it is talking about what could have been some sort of ice age, or even just a time when there was a severe famine, though the suggestion also is that it was after this that the seasons started to become noticeable. The other really cool thing about this poem is how it happens to be about Demeter disguising herself as a human and becoming a nurse maid for a family in Eleusis. This event eventually gave rise to what became known as the Eleusian Mysteries, a yearly festival that was performed in a small city on the outskirts of Athens. In fact even today you can visit the city, and even visit the well of the Nymphs, which is the well that the story indicates Demeter was sitting beside when she was discovered, and taken in, by this family (and no doubt the festival was based entirely around this event). Yet I also find it interesting as to how complex this myth actually is – here we have a story of a god becoming a human and living amongst humans, not so much in the Jesus is God and lived among us sinful humans type story, but rather the story of the member of an aristocratic class having a fight with the monarch and leaving to live among the normal people. In a way it is a story that is still told in different forms even today (though many of these stories tend to be based more on the story of Jesus Christ as opposed to the Ancient Greek versions). Oh, and here is a photo of the Well of the Nymphs that I took when I visited Eleusis back in 2011. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Oct 08, 2016
|
Nook
| ||||||||||||||||
| 019283584X
| 9780192835840
| 019283584X
| 3.87
| 135,898
| -19
| 1986
|
really liked it
|
The epic foundations of the Roman State 10 August 2014 Here I am, sitting on my parents' couch back in Adelaide on a brisk Sunday morning after seeing The epic foundations of the Roman State 10 August 2014 Here I am, sitting on my parents' couch back in Adelaide on a brisk Sunday morning after seeing my football team lose last night and now I am wondering what I am going to write about the Aeneid. There is certainly a lot that I want to write about this epic poem but I really don't know where to start - so I got up, walked around the back yard and realised that all I was thinking about was the pubs that I was going to visit so that I could take a photo of them, and why I was doing such a pointless exercise, so instead I decided to come back inside, with my cup of tea, and simply do what I normally do, and that is to just start writing (and it seemed to have worked). Anyway, the first thing that struck me as I was reading this story (and there is quite a few things, as you can tell by my updates) was that this is basically a story about a group of boat people (or refugees) who are fleeing war and persecution and are looking for a new place to call their home. The further interesting thing is that pretty much most places that they go (with the exception of Carthage) they are unwelcome and face an incredibly hostile reception. The entire second section of the book have them arriving at the land that they have been told by the gods that will be their home involves them fighting the current inhabitants. It is interesting to reflect on this because we have, at the time of its writing, a story of the origins of the Roman Empire, the greatest empire that has existed in the Mediterranean basin, which is painted as having arisen from a ragtag collection of refugees. Maybe this is why there is so much hostility towards refugees in many of our Western Nations these days because this history which in effect forms apart of our collective history, shows how powerful and influential foreigners arriving at our shore and establishing a new home can be. Maybe there is some collective fear that by allowing refugees to settle in our home they will end up dominating and undermining our own identity and pushing us into a lower social status and lower economic order (not that this is what happened with the Romans – even if the story is true, which I do not believe is the case, the Roman Empire arose as an amalgamation of cultures, and was also very inclusive in its makeup, at least early on). Another thing that struck me about the story is how similar it is to the story of the Israelite Exodus from Egypt and the settlement in Palestine. In the Aeneid we have the Trojans fleeing persecution and looking for a new place to live – an exodus if you will. They land in one place and face disease, and then move to another place and face war. However the gods (Venus I believe) appears to Aeneas and tells him that she already has a land set apart for him and that this place is not it (a promised land, if you will). As such they then travel to this promised land and set themselves up only to discover that the current inhabitants do not want them them, so they go to war, and despite the odds being squarely against them, they end up winning and establishing themselves (the conquest, if you will). The funny thing is that it is not as if Virgil would not have known about the stories of the Jewish history, and no doubt, if he had been exposed to it (the Old Testament was available in Greek, and Judea was a part of the Roman empire at the time, thanks to Pompey and Julius Caesar, so it is not a stretch of the imagination for him to have read the stories himself), it could have influenced him in writing this poem. Further, it helped me reflect on some of the themes of Augustine's City of God, where in that work he writes about two kingdoms, the kingdom of God, as reflected in the story of the Jews, and the kingdom of men, as reflected in the story of Rome. Here we have similar origins for both peoples, which creates more of a connection between the two kingdoms that I initially realised. The final thing that I wish to reflect upon in this story is how it works to establish the foundations of the Roman Empire and the reasons behind their antagonisms against Carthage and Greece. Personally I do not believe the events in the Aeneid even occurred (which is actually moving away from my belief that all myths have some grain of truth in them, some much more than others). The reason that I suggest that is because this appears to be little more than a work of propaganda which no doubt sets up the reasons for the hostilities Rome has faced with the Greek and Cartheginian world. The hostility towards the Greeks is established by connecting the Romans with the Trojans, and that the reason that Rome invaded and conquered Greece was simply because of that long memory regarding the defeat at Troy. In effect what this was is payback. Then we have the establishment of the wars against Carthage by having Aeneas visit, and fall in love with, Queen Dido of Carthage. However, because he was not destined to remain in Carthage he had to leave, and this resulted in the suicide of Dido and the beginnings of the animosity between the two city states. Of course, my position of the origins of these hostilities had more to do with two (or in this case three) empires all competing over control of the same lake (or the same piece of real estate, as is the case with the Greeks because Greece had long established cities in Southern Italy) and when that occurs, hostilities were no doubt going to begin. However, the nature of the historical discourse at the time was much different to our view of the world, and as such much more concrete reasons that exist beyond economic intentions had to be created (such as the reason for going to war against Troy was not that Agamemnon wanted to create an Aegean Empire, but because Paris kidnapped Menelaus' wife and they went to war to get her back). What I have noted though is that the Aenied had such an impact upon the culture of the Roman Empire that historians since had accepted this story as the origins of the Roman Empire (and some writers, such as Geoffrey of Monmouth had extended it to Britain as well). ...more |
Notes are private!
|
2
|
Jul 30, 2014
not set
|
Aug 08, 2014
not set
|
Jul 30, 2014
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0192839241
| 9780192839244
| 0192839241
| 3.92
| 2,330
| 200
| Feb 25, 1999
|
it was amazing
|
All the Greek myths we know and love - and then some 19 July 2014 This manuscript was a pretty good find, or at least the sections that we did find to All the Greek myths we know and love - and then some 19 July 2014 This manuscript was a pretty good find, or at least the sections that we did find to complete the manuscript that was handed down to us, because it gives us all of those Greek stories that we know and love, from this: [image] to this: [image] and finishes of with this: [image] but unfortunately it does not contain this: [image] The book is actually only a brief overview of each of the legends and is divided into a number of sections which outline various Greek families, or tribes, so the book is not strictly chronological. What the library does is that it gives us a brief rundown of the legends that make up the mythology of the Ancient Greeks as it existed at the time of Apollodorus. In fact, it is the earliest complete outline of Greek mythology that we possess (though it is not necessarily complete because sections of the manuscript were lost, however a fortuitous discovery in the Vatican library allowed us to reconstruct most of it). This is not the only complete source that we have because we also have Ovid's Metamorphoses, however the difference between Apollodorus and Ovid is that Ovid writes from Roman point of view, so is a lot more sympathetic towards the Trojans. Ovid is also wrote the Metamorphoses as an epic poem (which excludes the genealogies) as opposed to an outline, which is how Apollodorus wrote the library. The library is full of genealogies, which outlines the parentage of many of the Greek heroes and demigods, and it also divides them into a number of tribes, being the Deucalionids (from which comes Jason and the Argonauts), the Argives (from which comes Heracles), the Anegorid, the Inachids, the Asopids, and the Pelopids. Each of these tribes (the members all have a common ancestry) come from different parts of Greece, which suggests that the myths that come out of the tribes originated from this part of Greece (and Ancient Greece was not a unified country, but rather a loose collection of city states that shared a common language and culture, and even then the various city states would war against each over because of an accent or a disagreement that originated in mythology – which is what still seems to be happening today, except on a much larger scale). There is an interesting distinction between history and myth that comes out in Herodotus. The common understanding of myth is that it is a story that suggests an origin, and it does not necessarily mean that the story is not true. Herodotus takes a different position in that history is written down, where as myth is passed down by word of mouth. As such the writings that create history are written down while still within living memory, while myth comes about after generations of passing the story down, which suggests that the story may have been true, however it has become corrupted as it has been passed down from generation to generation. Take for instance the story of Achilles. In the Illiad there is no mention of his invulnerability due to being dipped into a river. This is not even the story that occurs in the library as the story that occurs here is that Achilles' mother would bury him in fire at night and rub him with ambrosia during the day. The story about Achilles being dipped into the River Styx did not appear until the 1st Century AD, in a book (now lost) known as the Achilleid . As you can see, as time passes, the stories become more and more corrupted (and that occurs even with an original story having been written down). This book gives me a lot of opportunities to speculate on the truth behind many of these tales, though we also have earlier sources which we can also refer to, being the tragic plays and the epic poems, however these sources tend to focus mainly on the Trojan War, with the other stories only touched upon (and I believe that the Library is the earliest source for the story of Perseus, though he does receive a mention in Herodotus, but there we are only told that he married Andromeda and that he because the ancestor of the Persians). ...more |
Notes are private!
|
2
|
Jul 09, 2014
not set
|
Jul 16, 2014
not set
|
Jul 09, 2014
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1852270284
| 9781852270285
| 1852270284
| 3.29
| 21
| Oct 01, 2002
| Jan 01, 2003
|
it was ok
|
A New Age search for forgotten civilisations 18 January 2013 There are not all that many books that look into the evidence supporting the existence of A New Age search for forgotten civilisations 18 January 2013 There are not all that many books that look into the evidence supporting the existence of a sophisticated antediluvian civilisation so when I do discover one I generally read it with interest. However one of the problems that I find with these books is they tend to be written by new age scholars. While they resort to objective evidence at times, they end up spiralling down into very subjective proofs. This book, for instance, has a lot of subjective elements, such as apparent evidence for reincarnation and past lives. Unfortunately I am not the type of person that puts much faith in evidence of reincarnation that comes from somebody's meditative experience (though I must admit that I am guilty of that as well, though I try not to argue in favour of Christianity based on subjective experiences). What I do like about this book and these types of books in general, are the pieces of objective evidence that are used to support the proposition of an advanced antediluvian civilisation. Personally, I believe that there was one, though it is more of a pet hobby of mine than the basis of my life's research. However such ideas do go to support my belief that humanity is not evolving but rather devolving. This is one of the premises of this book: that civilisations fall because of their movement away from a spiritual reality to a more materialistic reality. Spiritual enlightenment and intellectual growth is replaced with the desire to have stuff, and our measure of importance is based upon the car that we drive and the suburb in which we live. Practicality is displaced by aestheticism. This reality is no more evidenced than by the existence of the BMW X5, which in my opinion is one of the most useless vehicles ever made. It is purely a status symbol and nothing more (and really, if you want a status symbol, get yourself a Rolls Royce). For those who do not know, the X5 is a Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) which is, surprisingly, quite misnamed, because it is not all that useful. The reason that I say that is because while it looks like a 4WD, it is not a 4WD (they actually created a term called all wheel drive for these types of vehicle). Basically, the undercarriage is so low that if you take if off road (even onto the lawn) there is a danger that the entire undercarriage will be ripped out. However, let us get back to the book for a bit. The issue I will raise is one of evidence. Basically, and this is coming from somebody who is legally trained, evidence is a fact, or something that can be based on a fact. Okay, we have expert evidence, which is the statement of opinion by an expert, and we also have the evidence of an eye-witness, which is a person's interpretation of an event that was witnessed, but we also have physical evidence, such as a knife, a gun, or even a corpse (though I don't think they drag corpses into the court room, they just show photographs). Now, while the object may be physical, the object itself may not actually say much, therefore the evidence needs to be interpreted. For instance, we present a blood stained knife, and it turns out that the blood in the knife is not from a human, but from a pig. We also have a corpse with stab wounds, but it turns out that the stab wounds came about because the deceased fell onto a pile of scrap metal, yet a blood stained knife and a corpse with stab wounds could also suggest that the victim was stabbed with a knife. I raise the issue of evidence because that is what Lawton looks at in this book, and he presents us with a lot of interesting evidence. By bringing these things together he is able to suppose that this points to the existence of an antediluvian civilisation. For instance, the fact that the myth of a world wide flood appears in numerous cultures around the world, is supportive of such an idea. Other evidence suggests that coal and oil deposits found deep underground are also evidence of a world wide flood, while others will simply argue that this is the result of millions of years of geological movement. However, the problem is that we can only rely on this evidence (which in many cases is circumstantial) as there were no eye-witnesses that we are able to consult on this issue, much in the same way that there are no eye-witnesses that we are able to consult on what the Mayans were really up to when they made that calendar. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Feb 14, 2006
|
Feb 19, 2006
|
Jan 18, 2013
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1859581706
| 9781859581704
| 1859581706
| 3.88
| 8
| Jun 1966
| Jan 01, 1995
|
liked it
|
Exploring some non-Biblical legends 18 January 2013 I guess the thought that went through my mind when I first saw this book was typical of my ignoranc Exploring some non-Biblical legends 18 January 2013 I guess the thought that went through my mind when I first saw this book was typical of my ignorance, and that was 'what myths and legends could Ancient Israel have that is outside the Bible?' Well, the first and major one (which doesn't appear in this volume as this volume deals with the early monarchy, particularly King Solomon) would be the myth of Lilith. As the myth goes, before God created Eve as a companion for Adam, God created Lilith. In fact Lilith was the first woman, but her sin was that she refused to take Adam as her husband and thus she was cursed. I personally do not know the full myth beyond that which is reproduced in some roleplaying products (such as Vampire the Masquarade), but I am sure if you search the internet you can find it. As mentioned, this book primarily deals with the myths that arose from King Solomon, and to be quite honest, there are quite a few of them. For instance, when I was a kid I remember a carpet store called Solomon's carpets, and their logo was some Persian guy riding a magic carpet. [image] The Solomon of Solomon's carpets was actually the King Solomon of the Bible, the guy that asked for wisdom, and got wealth and long life as well. Yes, he did actually have a magic carpet according to the myth, but this wasn't some small magical carpet, this carpet was humongous. In fact it was big enough to carry an entire army. No wonder Solomon was one of the greatest kings of his time, since according to myth, he could load his army onto the carpet and fly over his enemy's territory and drop his army off paratrooper style. Another story of Solomon was how he built the temple. According to the Bible he used slave labour (I suspect that much of the labour was also Israelite, but then since Solomon was a great king and ruled a large kingdom, he probably had lots of slaves). Well, the Bible suggests that the slaves were human, but the myths say that the slaves were demons. Apparently Solomon had a ring that had a demon lord bound to it, and as long as the ring was in his possession, the demon lord, along with the demons under this particular lord, were all bound to Solomon. Thus, with this ring he was able to command a legion of demons, which he forced to build the Temple of the Lord. Personally, I think to suggest that Ancient Israelite legend is restricted to the Bible really does not do justice to the nature of the culture. We do know, from the Bible, that in Jesus' time a lot of tradition had passed down through the ruling class, tradition that sat pretty much outside of the biblical account. For instance we have the apocrypha, which was apparently written between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Many pastors I have heard hold the idea that the book of Malachi was the last time God spoke to his people, which was why John the Baptist was so popular because, after 400 years, a prophet had returned to Israel. However, what is generally ignored (unless it forms part of the sermon of course) is that John the Baptist lived and acted as Elijah the prophet. When some guy dressed in camel skins suddenly appeared spouting theology, the Jews did not go 'oh, woah, a prophet' no, they actually said 'oh, woah, the prophet Elijah'. Look, I'm not going to lean either way on the argument as to whether God sent prophets in the intertestimental period or not, nor am I going to indicate whether God still sends prophets today (particularly since some so called prophets are not really prophets, and the Bible indicates how you can tell, and it usually involves them making the statement that they are a prophet who has been sent by God to tell you to give him all your money, or some such thing), but still, I find such legends coming from Israel (who had its fair share of impressive miracles without needing any myths or legends) rather entertaining. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 06, 2006
|
May 12, 2006
|
Jan 18, 2013
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0941051005
| 9780941051002
| 0941051005
| 3.73
| 5,999
| -700
| Jan 01, 1987
|
did not like it
|
The Greek Genesis 26 October 2012 There seems to be a debate as to the usefulness of this little text and I would pretty much fall into the category of The Greek Genesis 26 October 2012 There seems to be a debate as to the usefulness of this little text and I would pretty much fall into the category of not much. The reason that I say that is because if this book was lost then we would lose very little of our understanding of Greek Mythology. Everything that is contained in this little book is also contained in more expanded works such as the Library of Greek Mythology and Ovid. While it is a primary source, it is still something that we could probably do without. Fortunately its small size means that it does not take up much space on my bookshelf, however I would probably not find myself ever actually needing to reference it. Okay, we could probably use it to talk about the accuracy of later works, but then again, this is Greek mythology, there is no consistency in it. In fact, there isn't even any consistency with the twelve tasks of Heracles. Now, you would probably say that since this book is one of the earliest Greek texts then it gives us an idea of the development of Greek mythology, and yes, that is probably true to an extent, and from an anthropological view that is probably important, but I am not interested in that. On the other hand a lot of authors seem to look back at Hesiod with some sought of awe, and granted, it helps us understand the background from which they were writing, but remember most of Greek mythology back at this time was passed down by word of mouth and Hesiod is only one view of it. I have written before, and will continue to write, about how my position with regards to the Greek gods is that they were humans that were deified, and Hesiod once again goes on to prove that point. This is a genealogical text much in the same way that sections of the Bible are genealogical texts, however by the time that Hesiod came around the Greek Gods had already been deified. There are some major differences between the two forms of genealogy though. As mentioned, the non-biblical genealogies tend to deal only with the gods, unless you are looking at a familial genealogy, where as the Biblical genealogies all deal with humans, and the Bible is very specific that the people mention in the genealogies are human. Secondly the biblical genealogies actually serve a purpose where as the non-biblical genealogies are simply a list of names. The purpose of the biblical genealogy is to trace the line of people who in the end become the ancestors of Christ. These genealogies tend to reach their fulfillment in the Gospels, with both Matthew and Luke (and also, as some have argued, with John as well) containing genealogies. We do note that there are differences in the genealogies, and some have criticised the Bible for that, but I will simply say that the differences simply come out of methodology as opposed to inherent errors. My understanding is that in both maths and science one can reach the same proof even though two different methodologies were used. Basically, whenever we see a genealogy in the Old Testament we are always looking at how it is directing us towards the saviour that was promised in Genesis 3. For those who are familiar with these genealogies you will note that they tend to only go down in one line, meaning that while a list of children may be given, the genealogy will end up focusing only one a handful of these children to narrow it down to a specific point. The exception is the table of nations in Genesis 10, the purpose of which is to outline the beginning of the nations as the readers would have known them to be at the time (namely during the Exodus). We do see a similarity between the table of nations and some Greek genealogies as it appears that a nation back then was defined by the father of the nation as opposed to a specific culture, language group, or location (and Apollodorus does give us that idea in the library of Greek Mythology). There is a mention of the war of the Gods in Hesiod, and once again I have speculated on the origins of these wars. They can be twofold. The first is the idea that these wars developed out of different tribal groups moving into an already inhabited area bring their own culture and gods with them, winning a victory over the inhabitants, and installing their own culture (as defined by their gods). For instance, in early times we have a people group who worshipped Chronos as their chief God, but then they are invaded by a people who worshipped Zeus as their chief God and as the new group overran and conquered the old group, then Chronos was sidelined in favour of Zeus. The second idea is the idea that I have proposed that these gods are little more than deified humans whose existence has been lost in the midst of times, so what we are actually seeing is some form of succession crisis. This would be particularly relevant if we are looking at an Antediluvian civilisation. In the era of short life spans and high morality, such succession crises would not be evident since when the old king died then the new king would still be old enough to assume the throne, but young enough not to have a number of children that would have to wait a long time for them to ascend the throne amongst a multitude of competeing claims. It differs today in that the Queen of England, the matriarch of the royal family, is still alive and well, and her grandchildren are now ready to marry and have kids. Pope John Paul II was the oldest living Pope in the history of the papacy, and it is likely that Pope Benedict will be around for a long time yet (unless he meets either with an unfortunate accident, or is removed for some reason or another - noting that this review was written prior to him stepping down). When you have the antediluvian civilisation, where biblically (and elsewhere) you have people living for hundreds of years, even if you did not begin having children until the age of a hundred, by the time you die (even if it is five to six hundred years old) you still have at least four living generations below you, all of them struggling to get your position, and knowing that for them to get to that position they would have to wait a very long time. This is something that we see in this text, namely a fear in Chronos that his children would rise up and overthrow him, so he acts proactively and removes them before they have a chance of removing him. Much of it is allegorical though (and for the sake of space I will not go into detail here, for instance the gods all seem to have been born as adults, and also Chronos eats his children, but upon his defeat, all of them are released) so it can be difficult to understand what actually went on, though to take it literally can in itself be dangerous (and also somewhat ridiculous). The final point I wish to make is the interesting note that Hesiod was a shephard tending sheep on Mount Helicon when he received this vision and wrote it down. This is something that seems to happen throughout the history of humanity in that many religious icons seem to have come from humble pasts and have made a tremendous impact upon human history. Many have suggested (and it is true to an extent) that history, up until the mid 18th century, was written by the upper class. However the reason for that is because it was only the upper class that had the time to write histories, as well as being the only ones who could read and write. However, this is not always the case, particularly with these early civilisations, because much of the history was passed down by word of mouth. This is why we can have shepherds actually becoming literary heroes because they did not need to read and write, they simply needed to be able to tell a story people could remember, and also convince them that they had a vision (or actually have had a vision) to make people sit up and listen. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
3
|
Oct 24, 2012
not set
not set
|
Oct 24, 2012
not set
not set
|
Oct 24, 2012
| |||||||||||||||
| 0192817892
| 9780192817891
| 0192817892
| 4.00
| 2,623
| 1989
| Jan 01, 1991
|
it was amazing
|
A collection of stories from the beginning of civilisation 20 June 2012 Okay, before I begin by discussion of this book, I will mention that the book i A collection of stories from the beginning of civilisation 20 June 2012 Okay, before I begin by discussion of this book, I will mention that the book itself was first published in 1989 and was edited by Stephanie Daley, however the reason that I have gone for the original dates is because I am more interested in the content of the ancient myths than any commentary or translation. There are many translations of these texts available on the internet or even in book form and Daley is really only one of many (or not so many as the case may be) that have looked at and translated these texts. Okay, I cannot read cuneiform (the Ancient Mesopotamian written language) and I also suspect that there are numerous phrases and words that are difficult to translate, however while I will give credit to the translators for allowing me to access these stories, I generally do look beyond them to the original author (whoever that may be). Now I have already looked at three of the myths in this book elsewhere, the Atrahasis, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Enuma Elish, so I will not go over ground that I have previously explored. However before I look at some of the other myths in this book there are a couple of things that I wish to point out. First of all we encounter creatures with what appear to be untranslatable names, such as the Mushussu Dragon. Now there is a page of drawings (page 316 of this edition) which includes pictures of some (but not all) of these creatures, so if you would like an idea of what they are referring to, look at that page. Anyway, there is a Mushussu Dragon (I originally wrote this prior to working out how to use HTML): [image] However there are some instances where we don't even have a description; one case is that of Tiamat. Now, being a roleplayer of old, I cannot help but envisage Tiamat as a multiheaded dragon. [image] The truth is that there is no connection between the Dungeons and Dragons image of Tiamat (above) and the Mesopotamian image. Maybe there is a drawing of her somewhere, but from the Enuma Elish, all we know is that she had a tail. [image] The myths I want to touch upon include Ishtar in the underworld. Ishtar was a major female deity in Mesopotamian mythology, probably connected to the female deities in other religions (such as Isus or Hera), however here we see her take on the role of Persephone in that she travels to the underworld. However, unlike the Greek myth, she is not kidnapped, but goes down herself and performs a hostile takeover. It is interesting, and we see a similar thing in the story of Nergal (though that is a marriage) in that to reach the underworld, she must not only pass through seven gates, but must perform a ritual at every gate, which involves her removing an item of clothing so that when she does reach the underworld she is naked. Maybe that is a representation that in death we are not able to take anything with us, or maybe even a reflection that for us to be able to truly ascend (or in her case descend, but remember this is a power grab) one must dispense of all worldly wealth, which is what Ishtar has done. We have another couple of myths, the Entana and the Anzu, which also seem to be stories of power grabs. Unlike Ishtar and Nergal, this is not a power grab in the underworld (apparently taking authority over the realm of the dead) but rather a power grab in heaven. We see quite a few of them, with Tiamat making a grab for power in the Elish Enuma. The Anzu is more detailed than the Elish Enuma as here we have Anzu stealing the Tablet of Destiny as a means of securing his authority in heaven. It looks as if the authors of the Forgotten Realms Avatar Trilogy stole the idea from Mesopotamian mythology (and it isn't the first time that the creators of Dungeons and Dragons have done that, as per my comment on Tiamat above). Now, the Tablets of Destiny represent the law as handed down by the gods (or at least the original creators of civilisation). It appears that in stealing the tablets, Anzu gives himself authority because he now is the one who holds the law. This is the nature of power in our world. The legislators create the law, the executive enforces the law, and the judiciary interprets the law. It is also a theme that runs through the Bible, in that he (or she) who holds the law has power and he (or she) who can create and enforce the law, has power. Now I will finish off with a word on the structure of these stories. While some of the stories (Gilgamesh and Enuma Elish) seem to be complete in themselves, others seem to simply be a bare bones outline. There really does not seem to be much in the way of padding in these stories. For instance in Nergal we have a list of seven gates which Nergal passed through to enter the underworld, however there is no indication of what Nergal confronted when passing through the gates, or what rituals were required to be performed (as in the case of Ishtar). My suspicion is that these clay tablets served more a prods to memory that actually being the story itself, and if they were spoken as is, it would probably have taken no more than 10 minutes to tell. We see similar things in the Bible where we have a 10 minute sermon recorded, though it is likely that the writer only noted the salient points that we needed to know or understand. The classic example is the Sermon on the Mount. The Bible seems to suggest that Jesus taught a lot longer than what is recorded in Matthew (and Luke). I suggest that the same is the case here. This is probably also a good explanation as to why the stories seem to change. My final comment will be on the last myth in this book and that is Erra and Ishum. At the very end of this story we have what could be considered an Ancient Assyrian copyright notice. Assurbanipal pretty much says that this story was written by him, and woah betide anybody that attempts to plagerise his work. It seems as if copyright and plagerism were as important back then as it is today. Oh, and I should also mention that a number of names (such as Marduk) appear in the Bible as well, though they tend to refer to blind, death, and dumb idols. That is not surprising because we are talking about people who, at the time that the biblical account was written, were long dead. Okay, while a persons legacy may have an influence on future history (such as Socrates) praying to them and asking them for help is pointless: they are dead. What the Bible is doing is not undermining any reality that may have existed for these particular people, but rather pointing out the fruitlessness of ancestor worship. If there is only one true God, and this one true God can hear and answer prayers, it is futile to pray to a dead person who, in reality, cannot respond. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
2
|
Mar 29, 2007
not set
|
Apr 04, 2007
not set
|
Jul 20, 2012
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1599869195
| 9781599869193
| 1599869195
| 3.83
| 1,558
| -1800
| Jan 27, 2007
|
really liked it
|
The Mesopotamian creation myth 20 July 2012 When I has handed a copy of this text in Old Testament I was not sure if I had actually read it or not even The Mesopotamian creation myth 20 July 2012 When I has handed a copy of this text in Old Testament I was not sure if I had actually read it or not even thought I had the Oxford World Classic's Myths from Mesopotamia. However, when I recently returned to that book to read the myths again (so that I could be more accurate when commenting on them, and the book as a whole, for Goodreads) I discovered that the 'Epic of Creation', as it is called in that book, is the Enuma Elish. I guess I had read it. I have now read it again so I feel in a much better position to be able to write some decent comments, and in doing so I will outline the story, try to give my understanding of this story (though it will be quite speculative which is likely to put me in the madhouse alongside Immanuel Velikovsky) and then throw down some thoughts on its relationship to the biblical account. Basically the Enuma Elish is a creation myth – well, not quite, but I will say that it is to ease some confusion. The story opens with the god Tiamat rebelling against the other gods, creating a race of monsters, and then setting a guy named Qingu up as the chief god and her consort. I guess even in Ancient Mesopotamia the saying still holds true that behind every great man is an equally great woman. Anyway, Tiamat, who is basically using Qingu as a puppet, prepares to go to war against the other gods so that she may fulfil her goal of becoming all powerful. A couple of gods attempt to confront her but her power is so great that they are either defeated or flee in terror. Then Marduk presents himself as the champion, confronts Tiamat, and in an epic battle, slays her. Qingu is then captured and later executed for treason. The gods then take Tiamut's body and from her remains create the world. From the remains of Qingu they create humanity to pretty much do all of the work that they no longer wish to perform. The tale then ends with a list of the gods and their role in the governance of creation. While the poem seems to be fairly short I notice that the style is similar to some of the styles that appear in the Bible. One interesting aspect is that the poem will repeat entire tracts that have previously been said: for instance, something happens and then when somebody reports that event the entire text of that event is repeated, and then when the next person goes and reports it the entire text is repeated once again. This seems to occur a number of times in Mesopotamian literature, and as mentioned (though I cannot cite any passage off hand) appears to be a similar style used in some of the earlier parts of the bible. This obviously flags the possibility that parts of the Bible were written contemporaneously with these ancient Mesopotamian myths. We must remember that all of these events occurred before the flood, so we are dealing with prehistoric accounts. My theory is that the gods that are mentioned here were actually at one point real human beings, however due to time and also the nature of primitive religion, these gods had been deified and thrust into the realm of mythology. One of my theories of antideluvian civilisation is that they were substantially more advanced than humanity at the time that these myths were written down. Take for instance the book of Genesis. We learn that three generations after the fall humanity had discovered literature, music, and metallurgy, however technological development stops at that point. The reason being is that the writers of Genesis had no concept of technology beyond what they understood at the time of writing. So to would have the ancient Mesopotamians, and we see that in this book with references to spells and flood weapons, as well as creation of monsters and humanity out of the blood of a dead god. Now, I am not ascribing the creation of humanity to a cloning vat, but I shall point to references in the earlier parts of Genesis of the sons of god and the daughters of men coming together and producing great heroes as well as giants known as Nephalim. Did the antideluvians have cloning technology along with being excellent bioengineers? We do not and probably will never know unless that information is revealed to us in the restoration. However, it is interesting to see the possibility of how the ancients viewed potential technology far in advance of what they actually knew at the time. We should also note that after Tiamat's death Marduk went out and destroyed all of Tiamat's creation. My theory of how this story was elevated to mythology with the main actors being gods, is as such: the Bible indicates that the reason for the fall was because humanity chose to remove God from his rightful place as ruler of creation and place themselves up there instead. In a sense humanity was worshipping humanity. In a primitive culture, deity is usually ascribed to the older and deceased generations, a term we refer to as ancestor worship (however if you actually speak to a Christian ancestor worshipper, as I have done, we come to understand that ancestor worship is much more than simply deifying your ancestors, but rather respecting their wishes and holding their memory in high regard). However, as time passes and these ancestors drift into distant memory they cease to be human and instead become gods. Now, with the Egyptian and Babylonian deities we notice that they take the form of animals with humanoid features, whether it be the body of an eagle and the head of a man as with Anzu, or the head of an eagle and the body of a man as with Ra. These features do not necessarily indicate that that is what the deity looked like, but rather the deity has taken on an animal form to represent an aspect of their character, in the similar way that we see animals used in the Bible to represent certain qualities (such as a bull representing strength and a dragon representing destruction). So, by bringing them out of mythology we have an idea that maybe it is not so much the creation of the world that we are seeing but rather the development of civilisation, and the gods that we are seeing are early antideluvian human beings. Now, as with our society, so with theirs, there are is ruling class and a working class, and what we have here is a rebellion amongst the ruling class. Tiamat is attempting to overthrow the established order, and her army of monsters suggest that she has skills and abilities that are able to overrealm the established order (much the same was that Germany's advances during World War II were to give them an advantage over the less developed allied powers). However, Marduk, the champion, was able to defeat her, suggesting that the usage of her body to continue and complete creation reflects the sacking of her compound and using her technology to continue the development of civilisation. In particular we see references to the setting of times and dates (and it is interesting that the week is established on a seven day roster, and the month is established on a 30 day roster, which is very similar to the Biblical account). As I have mentioned previously, it is my position that the biblical account will supersede all other accounts, including this one. As the academic Christians like to put it, the Genesis account was handed down to stand apart from the ancient mythologies that were surrounding the Isrealite nation at the time, and the general consensus is that this was while they were either in Egypt, or after that they left. I sort of disagree slightly because we must remember that the revelation appeared to a number of earlier people, including Adam and Eve (which is to be discounted because it is quite likely that the events in this poem occurred after them, however would have possibly occurred before Enoch), Noah, and Abraham. We will take Abraham as an example (and whether Noah was alive when Abraham was alive can be debated and while I would like to think that the answer to that speculation is yes I am going to fall the other way and say no, namely because Abraham received a special revelation from God, something that probably would not have been necessary is Noah was still alive). Abraham, remember, grew up in Mesopotamia, so he would have been exposed to and surrounded by these myths, which is why he received the special revelation from God, and I suspect it was a lot more than simply 'pack up your bags go to the other side of the known world'. To be honest with you, we are told that Abraham was a man of Faith, but I am doubtful he was a man of blind faith. A mysterious voice (we actually don't know how God appeared to Abraham) coming out of nowhere and telling him to pack his bags would have needed some examination as to its truth. Remember, many of the men of faith in the Bible would turn to God and say 'if you are who you say you are, prove it to me'. God never asks for blind faith, that is dangerous, no, when God asks you to step out in faith, he does it in a way that we know that we can trust him (such as Christ's resurrection, which was necessary to prove that Christ's death was more than just the execution of a revolutionary). ...more |
Notes are private!
|
3
|
Jul 19, 2012
not set
not set
|
Jul 19, 2012
not set
not set
|
Jul 20, 2012
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1433311534
| 9781433311536
| 1433311534
| 3.91
| 11
| 2009
| Nov 20, 2009
|
liked it
|
The Ancient Mesopotamian Creation Myth 11 July 2012 This is a very ancient story, probably one of the oldest that we have, having been written in ancie The Ancient Mesopotamian Creation Myth 11 July 2012 This is a very ancient story, probably one of the oldest that we have, having been written in ancient Mesopotamia. Despite its age it is still a relatively recent discovery, namely because we did not actually know about it until the clay tablets were dug up in northern Iraq. In fact many of the stories from ancient Mesopotamia are relatively recent discoveries having been hidden under the desert sands for millennia. I guess that is one of the good things about clay tablets in that they preserve quite well (though paper does as well, as the Nag Hammadi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to). This is the Mesopotamian story of the creation of humanity and it includes a story about the flood. In a way it has connections with the Genesis account in the Bible, in that there are a few similarities in both works. However there are also a number of differences as well. We must keep in mind though that this text is quite corrupt, meaning that there are sections of the text that are missing and in many cases it is impossible for us to actually piece together what is being said, though the style of writing can help (the Mesopotamians seemed to like repeating lines in much the same way that the Old Testament does). I should make clear my opinion of the Genesis account first of all. Now, traditionally it is held that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, which are the first five book of the Bible. Now, I do not dispute that, however my position is that Genesis was compiled and added to the Penteteuch by Moses, but the sources from which he complied Genesis are much older. Personally I do not buy into the redactionist argument in relation to the Old Testament, nor do I accept the source criticism approach, in that the Old Testament was written in Babylon during the captivity by a collection of priests who compiled a collection of myths that had developed over the intervening years. I consider that the biblical account is a first hand account, and considering my theological stance, see no problem with a omnipotent deity making sure that the true account is handed down. Also, I see no reason why this account should supercede the Genesis account, and the only argument seems to be that people are so challenged by the biblical account that they must look for a different explanation for our origins and thus we turn to other ancient accounts despite the fact that these accounts are corrupted. I do not accept the 6000 odd year old Earth theory that was concocted by the Bishop of Ulster simply because I believe that the purpose of dating in the Old Testament was not necessarily put in place a method to enable us to calculate the exact age of the Earth. Since the Bible is not meant to be a scientific text, I do not believe that we should be applying scientific and mathematical concepts to it. One of the things that I did notice about this story was that it seemed to be a political text. It is difficult for me to understand how the story was delivered and who it was delivered too. Was it something that was kept and shared amongst the nobility and the priesthood, or were these stories told to the slave population as well? It seems in a way to be something that would be told to the hoi poloi as a means to reminding them of their place in the world. The reason I say this is because of the reason behind the creation of man and the fear that the gods had in relation to humanity. At the beginning we seem to have two layers within the realm of the gods. There were the gods that were in charge of the world, and then there were the Igigi who seemed to the the labourers. However it appears that the Igigi rebelled against the gods and laid siege to their holy city, and as such humanity was created to perform the work that the Igigi were performing, and this allowed the gods (who decided they no longer wanted to work) to sit back and relax. This seems to be a common theme in relation to a class system. The upper class does not want to work, so they force the lower classes to work, however as one class becomes more numerous or influential, they rebel and force themselves into the lazy class, as I will call them. In fact, this seems to reflect a Marxist view of history, in that it is dominated by class war, and we can see from this ancient text that the class war was being fought as far back as ancient Mesopotamia. The problem with humanity was that the gods had made them too powerful, and as they became more powerful, and more populous, they became more of a threat. One suggestion is that the gods became annoyed because of all of the chattering that would come from humanity, though I suspect that it has more to do with fear of being overthrown. We see some connections with the biblical account as well since humanity went to war against the deity numerous times, and each time the deity acted to defend his position (not that it was threatened anyway). In the biblical account we see the beginning of a shortened lifespan, the dispersion of the population, and also the creation of languages. We see similar events in this epic. What is noticeable is the actions that the gods perform to defend their position against an ever increasing human population. First of all disease is sent to wipe them out, however that does not succeed and humanity keeps on expanding, so they then send drought and famine, however one of the gods shows mercy and sends dew to water the land. Then there is something about 'tying up the air'. This is quite baffling as some people could almost suggest as if the population of Earth was being cut off from the rest of the galaxy. Is this an ancient account of the end of interstellar travel? Who is to know, though I will not be staking my reputation on it, but rather just float the idea simply because it is there. In any case, how did the ancient Mesopotamians know about the atmospheric covering of Earth, and how did they know that if they went too high then there would be no air? The only explanation is that they noticed that as they climbed higher up the mountains then the air would become thinner. Finally we have the flood, though I do not necessarily want to go into too much details. Now, I am a supporter of a world wide flood as indicated not only in the Bible but here as well. Now, it is not surprising that an ancient Mesopotamian story would talk about a flood, the reason being is that it would always be flooding in the cradle of civilisation, and sometimes the floods would be so massive that the entire desert would be covered in water. This is possible and factual, however that is also ignoring all of the other flood stories the world over. It is not simply a question of stories and myths traveling around the Middle East by merchants, but rather ancestral memories dating back to the first post-deluvian man, that being Noah. We also consider that Palestine was mountainous (and still is), as is Greece (who have their own story of the flood with the survivor being Deucalion). Now mountainous countries do not make good settings for a world wide flood story, unless of course the flood was world wide (and I suspect that there is enough water on the Earth, especially if the sunken continental plates are risen, to flood the Earth). Look, I could go into a very deep scientific argument on the possibility of a world wide flood (and some Christian writers have done so), but I really don't want to go down that path at this time, and when I get to Gilgamesh (which is the next book on my list, sort of), I will probably try to steer away from it and focus more on the question of immortality and defeating death. More speculation on the creation myth 20 August 2012 Now, even though I have already completed a commentary on this book I still cannot help but go over a few more aspects of this story because I feel that there is actually a lot more to consider than meets the eye. It is also very useful to compare with the biblical account, if only to see the similarities. Some would suggest that this book disproves the biblical account, however I generally take a different approach by saying that it actually goes a long way to support it. Others argue that the biblical account was written to counter these creation myths, and that I do not doubt, however we must still consider that the main purpose of the biblical account (as well as the others) is to outline our origins and to explain why the world is in the state that it is in. First of all there is the creation of man, however it is interesting to note that this does not occur until later in the first tablet (the story is divided into tablets, which are basically the same as pages). Humanity was created from clay (which is the same as the biblical account) however the clay was also mixed with the blood of a dead god and with the spittle of each of the living gods. This, once again, is similar to the biblical account in where God breaths life into humanity thus indicating a divine origin and nature of our race. However, it differs in that the creator is the female god, and that she used a womb as a means of creating humanity. This obviously is reflective of what the ancients originally could see around them, particularly noting that a baby is formed in the womb of a female. Being an origin myth the Atrahasis also explores the nature of the main Mesopotamian gods, with Anu, Ellil, and Enki dividing the world up amongst them. Anu was given the sky to be his domain, Ellil was given the Earth, and Enki was given the seas. In a way it is similar to the division in the Greek myths, with Zeus taking command over the sky, Hades being given the underworld (namely because the Earth was the domain of humanity) and Poseidon being given the sea. I suspect if we look closer to the Mesopotamian gods we will see a number of similarities with the Greek gods, though we should note that Ellil seems to be the god that has the biggest gripe with humanity while Enki is the one who always seems to step in and protect them. The final aspect that I wish to explore is the nature of rebellion, something that I have flagged above as being central to the text itself. It appears that the text is really about rebellion and how the gods dealt with humanity's rebellion. This is critical as it provides the link to the biblical account in that the bible is really about humanities rebellion against God, and his response to it (though the Bible is also the story of how God redeems humanity). The interesting thing in the Atrahasis is that there are two rebellions, the first being the Igigi and the later being humanity. While not explicitly stated in the bible, there are a number of hints as to an angelic rebellion. This seems to be the same as the rebellion of the Igigi, however it differs in that the bible is very clear that the rebellious angels were cast out of heaven where as the Igigi's demands were met. Further, note that the Mesopotamian gods were not overthrown. This differs from the Greek myths in that there are also two rebellions, the first being the Titans rebelling against the rule of the old gods, and then the new gods rebelling against the Titans. In both events the rebels won and overthrew their predecessors. This could be reflective of the invasions that occurred over the period of Ancient Greek history known as the Dark Ages. It is quite possible, or more than possible, that the later gods were introduced by the invaders, and that the changes in the heavenly powers is indicative of these invasions. Finally, the Atrahasis can be found here: Atrahasis ...more |
Notes are private!
|
2
|
Jul 10, 2012
not set
|
Jul 11, 2012
not set
|
Jul 11, 2012
|
Paperback
|
Loading...
15 of 15 loaded
