Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | My Orble | Login

Cenacle - In hidden crypts and dark vaults, cenacles of secret religion meet to keep their flame alive.

I like reading Browning very much. His poetry is stately. It doesn't make you feel, it makes you see. It is not built upon wispy sensations but on a train of thought. Or on that twilight zone where personality and thought merge and become indistinguishable. He does not try to understand the world through abstract arguments but by trying to reproducing mental states.His world becomes coherent when he "gets" the central cog, the cog that makes the machinery of the consciousness he is studying, work.

It is also astonishing how much he can imbue his verse with character while following metre and rhyme. He has what people say Henry James has but clearly does not -- craft. Well-crafted but able to convey passions either of the heart or of the mind.


Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came is one his most famous poems. The word used most often to describe it is "inaccessible" Alright, it doesn't tell us the whole story. It is a snippet of verse snatched from a dream. But does that make it inaccessible?

It is one of those poems which demand a lazy reading. It is a stream, not of the conscious, but of the sub-conscious. It does not lend itself to a reading with fully focused mind intent on seizing on meaning but rather to a not-particularly-focused reading which does not try to impose meaning or try to understand. Read in this latent manner, it immediately strikes you with the immediate veracity of dream life.

Browning is often quoted as saying, "When I wrote this, God and Browning knew what it meant. Now God only knows."

Now that we know it was conceived in a dream and written thereafter, like Coleridge's Kubla Khan, it is rather pointless to ask the questions about the plot of the Roland. Pointless because the poet himself probably does not know them. So, rather than searching for "meaning "which an omniscient Browning is hiding from us, let us take the journey as Browning did, as a dream.


The poem opens dramaticcally when a knight on a quest is given directions by a cripple. This tableau from many horror movies then takes the knight on the journey to the Dark Tower. The thrill of that tableau jumpstarted the dream and the search for the Dark Tower within that dream. When the poet woke up and found himself possessed with the manic energy in the wake of that dream, he rushed to pen it down.

Browning then spends a lot of time on describing the bleak territory through which the knight is passing. It is here that the poem loses some of its initial power and becomes more and more conventionalised. The poem loses the haunting dramatic nature and the extended descriptions use transparently conscious verbiage. Browning is holding onto his dream, rather than being in it. The poet is waking up and the after-effects of the dream life are wearing thin. Still, Byron is a formidable poet and he uses every ounce of his talent to give words to his night vision before it fades away.

It is also indicative of the dream action itself. In a dream, after the initial promise we tend to search a lot and look in all the places. We become self-conscious of the dramatic impulse of the initial trigger and try and find it or retain it. Either the dream changes or it, as it does here, become an endless search through vast tracts of emptiness.

Suddenly, the poet wakes up to the fact that his longish meanderings are not going to register the impact he wants and the story takes a sudden turn. The knight crosses an abrupt river and finds the said Dark Tower. Notice how quickly Browning implants the climax. He has to resolve this issue but he can't find any resolution. If he tries too hard, the vision will fade away from him. So, he ends the poem, with the attainment of the quest but ambiguous about what it all meant.

Many people search for a meaning in the poem and wonder what it referred to. I think it is self-referential. Like every dream, it records how it felt enacting itself. Like every dream it can't find what it started out is quest for and because it has not changed course midway or forgotten itself, it implants a Dark Tower, the climax it sought fully realising that it was not the thing it sought.

They also describe the hero as cynical or paranoid and he is neither. Because he is acting and feeling, just as any dream does. A dream is like a chess game played by one person who keeps changing the rules or the moves if he does not like the reality. That explains the so-called "cynicism." The quest of the Childe Roland, is not of any particular dream, but of the dream process itself.

The text to the peom can be found here.
55
Vote
   


Kiera Knightley makes for a poor Elizabeth


Today I passed by a Dymocks shop window which had a display of Jane Austen's works. So, I came home and started leafing through Pride and Prejudice.

I have a friend who rolls up his eyes whenever the name Emma is mentioned. After all, Jane Austen is the mother of chick-lit, isn't she? There was a time when I read her novels avidly. I was very young, I was big on romance and also read Barbara Cartland and Georgette Heyer and among that crowd, Austen stood out. Now, after so many years have passed by, I wasn't sure how I would react to her.

Pride and Prejudice held up surprisngly well. The first two or three chapters were slight but thereafter, the famous insights start dropping by and the novel starts to grow on you. The characters are all people whom youhave met in real life and their reactions are plausible. It's as if you are reading your own life. There is no doubt that it is quite a good read.

Still, Austen's enduring appeal is a mystery. It is not just that Pride and Prejudice regularly tops the greatest novel of all time lists but that many newpapers print more words about her than they do about many famous, contemporary authors.

The Brotherhood also joins in the praise and usually blesses the novel by praising its "sly text." A variant of this is fthe frequently quoted take by W.H.Auden,

You could not shock her more than she shocks me;
Beside her Joyce seems innocent as grass.
It makes me most uncomfortable to see
An English spinster of the middle class
Describe the amorous effects of "brass,"
Reveal so frankly and with such sobriety
The economic basis of society.

Is she sly and shocking? I don't think so. It just reveals that liberals are hopeless romantics ( even if they protest to the contrary like Shaw) who have their heads in sand, who imagine this immaculate world, free of not just suffering but even ordinariness. And once they discover real world, they usually go into agonising convulsions. What should be obvious,is not, and will be magnified and exoticised. Look at the distortion iintroduced by dropping the context in the words " the economic basis of society." Austen is not shocked because she knows and understands ordinary economic necessities but that knowledge is tempered by other things. That is why she is sober.

She comes across as a caring but cautious , a loving but not unseeing matron. Her insights are not penetrating, just sensible. One meets many such women in real life but rarely in fiction because they lack scandal and most literature is about woman's scandal and a man's defence of her honour. The non-scandalous women never appear and if they do, they are in the background. It is to Austen's credit that she revealed the half life of domestic virtue and made it interesting and lively. There's nothing more to it. We don't need to agonise over her.

I have to find a way of reading Emma again without my friend knowing though.
59
Vote
   


The Village of Stepanchikovo by Fyodor Dostoevysky


The Village of Stepanchikovo is a short novel by Fyodor Dostoevysky, one of the greatest novelists of all time and one of my all time favorites. I had discovered him via Ayn Rand who loved Victor Hugo the most but also admired Dostoevysky very highly. I read them both, only to lose Hugo and keep Fyodor.

Dostoevysky frequently wrote shorter novels or long stories in which he rehearsed ideas that would be later integrated into his major works. They provided a way to formalise recurrent themes in his mind before he stumbled on a suitable vehicle that could carry and transform them into a magum opus. He stumbled on ideas for larger novel fortuitously but he carrried the shorter novels always within him.

That is why, they lack that manic burst of energy that's the hallmark of his major novels and chief appeal as a novelist. That is why I could never finish his other short pieces like The Dream of a Ridiculous Man. This short novel too suffers from the same defect. Still, the author had confessed that he took more pains with this novel than he did with any other. Coming from the source, this assertion astonished me and that is why I persisted with it.

The story is about a young man Sergei who visits his uncle Rostanev's estate. Rostanev is hosting Foma Fomovich who has become a sort of a permanent fixture and clung to the house like a barnacle. His own uncle seems reluctant to part with the man even though he has come to accept that Foma is not a saint as he initially postured. Still, either from attachment or inability, he can't get rid of Foma and the increasingly impatient nephew to oust him. This story ,like many others from Dostoevysky, has been copied by countless others. A Devil in Paradise by the miserable Hnery Miller is the story about one such guest the author has hosted, reads as if Dostoevysky's story were rewritten from Rostanev's perspective.

It is usually said that Foma is a charlatan. Viewed from the angle of the nephew, he may be. But certainly not in the eyes of the uncle. Even when we are supposed to think that the nephew is right, he is usually not more than inarticulately indignant. Whereas the uncle is stoically eloquent in his inability to detach himself from Foma. The author leans heavily on this power structure and it is this stoicism that is under special attack. Miller, like many, miss the point that The Village of Stepanchikov is an attack on people like himself.

It can be seen as a broad metaphor for modern society and the essential failure of liberalism where evil usually commands widespread support and respect but the good has to choke on burning indignation and helplessness. And probably works as a fantasy (despite the master's penchant for realism) where such do-for nothing do-gooders are shooed away without ceremony.

Having experimented with it himself, Dostoevysky is the most profound, still unbeaten, window into the soul of collectivist politics, or what Rand would call altruism. And this simple but profound portrait about liberal commensalism is accordingly a lesson few others have been able to teach us.
50
Vote
   


The Secret Sharer by Joseph Conrad

April 28th 2007 04:35
Joseph Conrad Souce : Joseph Conrad Society of America


My history with Joseph Conrad has been an uncertain one. I never liked his most famous works like Nostromo and Lord Jim but his lesser known works like Under Western Eyes are my favorites. The Secret Sharer is usually coupled with Heart of Darkness : the later is the more famous work but I care very little about it but the former is my personal favorite. Also, it was a pleasant surprise when I got to know that Conrad wrote The Secret Sharer, to take a break from the considerable difficulties he had during the composition of Under Western Eyes.

The Secret Sharer is the tale of a young captain who mans an unfamiliar ship and an unfriendly crew, somewhere in the gulf of Siam. He is also the youngest on board (except one). In the very beginning he tells us that he is "somewhat of a stranger to myself" and wonders " how far I should turn out faithful to that ideal conception of one's own personality every man sets up for himself." He will find out exactly how.

One night he chooses to keep the lookout, officially to help his tired crew, an unusual decision in itself. He finds a man floating in the sea, hanging to a ladder of his ship. The captain helps him up. The man's called Legatt and was a chief mate on a different ship called Sephora, where he killed an infuriatingly unhelpful ruffian during a storm and was therefore arrested and kept confined to a cabin for some weeks. He is now a fugitive, desperately running away from the ship's crew.

The captain hides Legatt in his bunker and the stealthiness of this act inspires the first true signs of leadership in him, as he acts to avoid his crew's suspicions. When Sephora's skipper comes aboard clearly suspicious that his ship is hiding the fugitive, he not only makes sure that the suspicion is unconfirmed but also weaves a possibility of Legatt's death and provides for a future cover. Finally, he performs some dangerous maneouvres to help Legatt escape.

The resmblance of Legatt to the captain, whom the captain keeps calling "my double" or my double self", has been called ambiguous. I don't think it is. Legatt does not resemble the captain except superficially ( their age, their hair). It is in the consciousness of his crew, or in the obsessive fantasising of that consciousness by the captain, that they would look similar. After all, his crew does not know him yet and does not appreciate his individuality and might as well confuse him with somebody else who is in a marginally similar shape. It is by indulging in a subversive campaign against that omnipotent collective, his crew, that he begins to wield power over them.

I also think that the entire act is premeditated. The captain knows the rumours beforehand and expressly makes sure he is on the lookout and not others, just to provide for the possibility. But why?

As an analogy, imagine a young officer sent on a mission to a war and who hears that a fellow marine had done something awful ( like Haditha "massacre"), something which the so-called civilised world will not condone. And uncertain of his own first command, would he not sympathise with that marine who must have come from the same background as his? "A jury of tradesmen" will not understand it and will rush to judgement and pounce on the incident. But "to be faithful to the ideal conception of his personality", will he not wish to help that disgraced marine, his other self, escape from the clutches of the brute law, to choose and carry his own "punishment" ?

44
Vote
   


Thaleia, Third Boook of Herodotus

April 22nd 2007 10:57
Thaleia, the Muse of Comedy source: theoi.com

After a careful description of Egypt, Herodotus returns to story of Persian dynasty in this book. Its central figure is Cambysses. Just as Cyrus is revered, Cambysses is abhorred. He is an archetype of a mad king, a capricious monarch who would stoop to do anything get power. The Persian imperial raid on Egypt is condemned. Central to this antagonistic interpretation of Cambysses are doubts about the validity of his ascension to power and his desecration of Apis bull and thereby, the Egyptian religion.

After all, even Cyrus is a imperialist who had marched over various kingdoms, but we know from other sources that he was careful to preserve and respect the religions of the conquered kingdoms. Is this the motive behind the two vastly different impressions of these two men preserved here?

Cambysses decides to invade Egypt when a well-known mercenary brings the tidings of an alternative route to Egypt through Arabia, rather than the well-known adn well-watched route through Syria. After a great battle, Egypt is taken and several expeditions against adjacent countries like Carthage and Libya are planned. In fact, an army sent against the oracle of Ammon got lost in the desert, a fact which provides the springboard of The Lost Army of Cambysses.

So far so good. But, once in Memphis, comes the desecration of Apis bull and the narrative changes. Cambysses then marries his own sister and later kills her, executs Persian nobles with little reason and ransacks ancient tombs and temples. No wonder people talk that he growing mad.

As he is growing madder in Egypt, a Magian conspiracy brews in Persia. Cambysses ascended the throne after killing his brother Smerdis and therefore, a magian priest props up a pseudo-Smerdis and declares him the true king. In the resulting confusion, Cambysses dies childless, heirless and advising his retainers not to let the Magians or Medes retake the power from under the Persians. The rest of the book describes how a small band of Persians dethrone the pretender and the ascension of Darius, resulting in a Babylonian revolt cruelly crushed by the new king.

I cannot but wonder how much the depiction of Cambysses as a mad king owed to the dynastic struggle and the Magian agenda. The parallels to recent events are uncanny.






56
Vote
   


In the first book, herodotus had shown us how Cyrus an upstart froma little known tribe burst on the scene and established the Persian Empire by conquering Asia Minor. As is his custom, Herodotus also give sus the histories and ethnographies of the people involved: Lydians, Persians and Medes in this case.

In the second book, herodotus turns his attention to the successor to Cyrus: Cambysses who invaded Egypt and added that country to his empire. And before he describes the exploits of Cambysses, he gives us a great account of Egypt. This section of the book was famous in antiquity itself and source of much controversy for critics of Herodotus doubted if he ever visited the palces he described and alleged that he relied too much on hearsay. Be that as it may, the section on Egypt is vivid but I did not find it as colorful as the one on Lydia.

Egypt, of course, was of immeasurable antiquity and the Greeks themselves held that the Egyptians were very old and all their religious beliefs came from there. So, it is interesting to note that Egyptians themselves felt they were competing with Phrygians and these last were older.

Any book on Egypt, must also tackle the river that made it. The source of Nile and its annual flooding were constatn features of wonder. As usual, herodotus repeats all the theories which were current then.

Leaving Nile, he gives us a more detailed picture of Egypt because, it has more wonders than any other land and he covers almost every aspect of the land. But, he does not buy into the stories so naively:

Now as to the tales told by the Egyptians, any man may accept them to whom such things appear credible; as for me, it is to be understood throughout the whole of the history that I write by hearsay that which is reported by the people in each place.

And then he takes a detour:
Thus far then the history is told by the Egyptians themselves; but I will now recount that which other nations also tell, and the Egyptians in agreement with the others, of that which happened in this land: and there will be added to this also something of that which I
have myself seen.

This completes the Egyptian tour and now we return to the advance of the Persian empire


55
Vote
   


In his superb opening passages, Herodotus explains why he writing this history and also lays down his method when he introduces his themes by phrases like, "the Persians say that", "the Phoenicians say that" etc etc. He is letting them do the talking. Also, the beginnings of the quarrel reach firmly back into the realm of myths and the injustice done by the abduction of Europa or the rape of Helen are all current matters of debate.

After starting with the "Who threw the stone first debate?", Herodotus says that he will not take part in the debate himself but will go further with his story. And the story is "an account of the cities of men, small as well as great: for those which in old times were great
have for the most part become small, while those that were in my own time great used in former times to be small: so then, since I know that human prosperity never continues steadfast, I shall make mention of both indifferently."

There is an immense sense of sadness in that indifference for it comes with the painful realization that prosperity is never steadfast.

Then, Herodotus begins his story, not in Hellas, not in Persia, the chief protagonists but in Asia Minor, where Croesus of Lydia is "the first barbarian of whom we have knowledge." This barbarian is important for eventually he will be subdued by Persians as they begin their imperial march.

Lydian history contains the very famous Candaules episode. Candaules, proud of his wife's beauty, wants his friend Gyges to see her naked and judge for himself. When the wife notices what transpired she conspires with Gyges to kill her husband and install Gyges as the king. This is the myth behind the rise of the new dynasty and Croesus is the last king of this new Lydian dynasty.

A large section of the first book delas with history of this new Lydian dynasty and as usual in Herodotus, myth and fact are closely intertwined. The Pythian oracle pronounces that the vengeance for the murder of Candaules is to come in the fifth generation but the Gyges dynasty ignores it. Meanwhile, it has prdouced a line of kings of whom Alyattes turns Lydia into a sizeable empire. His son, Croesus, was a very famous king whose wealth had become proverbial.

The Croesus account contains such notable legends as Solon's visit and the boar of Atys. The reign of Croesus is also coincidenal with the rise of that other very famous emperor of antiquity, Cyrus of Persia. Croesus decides to invade the Persians and cut their incipient power and sends for the Pythian Oracle who replies that a grat kingdom will be destroyed in the battle. Taking this as an affirmative sign, Croesus marches against the Persians only to be defeated by them. In bitterness, when he consults the oracle again, the Oracle replies that by destruction of a grat kingdom it had meant Croesus's own. The defeated Croesus becomes the confidante of Cyrus and now the story of Herodotus turns to its chief protoganists, the Persians.

The once mighty Assyrian empire was thrown away by a ragtag tribe of Medes. Medes then form a monarchy whose chequered state of power is notable for the Scythian invasion. The Median king Astyages marries his sister Mandane to a lowly Persian called Cambyses, whose union produces Cyrus. Persians were first subordinates of Median kings and it is Cyrus who overthrows the median yoke and establishes the Persian dynasty and empire. Cyrus like every other hero has a mythical history where he is brought up by different parents than his own. (See my entry on The Myth of the Birth of a Hero by Otto Rank.)

Cyrus then overthrows the Median yoke and his victory over Croesus makes him the emperor of all Asia. This concludes the first book except that Herodotus, as much an ethnographer as a historian, includes the ethnographies of both the Lydians and the Persians.




54
Vote
   


History of Herodotus

February 16th 2007 23:35
Herodotus is frequently referred to as father of history but he is a very contentious figure both in ancient and modern times. People have always complained about his willingness to believe in fairy tales and his credulity and hold that other historians like Thucydides and Xenophon are better in comparison. Others though have regarded him as a model to emulate and his work, if it does not contain a great deal of truth in it, has at least a great deal of charm.

I am not a scholar in Greek literature or in history and am just a plain average reader with great deal of interest in reading. When I started reading Herodotus, I read him not as a historian or a polemcist but as a regular reader of books with a critical sense of his own. So, what is my verdict? I think his history is fabulous and thoroughly charming. I am something of a fan of fantasy genre( I don't like science fiction), and reading him gave me the same sense of wandering in unknown and mysterious lands that best of fantasy works produce in a reader.

I am not an academic historian concerned with nitty-gritty and hairsplitting to establish a recondite point of "truth" but what do I think is its worth as a history? I think a great deal. He has produced a new genre of writing, which in itself, is too valuable, for he has invented a new means of preserving memory of things past or passing. As for all the fantasy tales Herodotus included in his book, I think at the time he was writing, these fictions were current and an accepted means of perceiving and preserving facts, though a critical sense was developing, evident in Herodotus himself. He does not invent these fictions but reports them and they are all told to him by the people he met in his journey.

Since, the Greeks were famous for their free-thinking, his tales have aroused a great deal of scepticism among later scholars who then went on to produce a new criterion for good history, that is, it should describe facts as accurately as possible.(See my entry on Lucian's Instructions for writing History). But, I think such a spirit developed in the first because they had read him and developed a critical sense of differentiating what is real and what was merely fabulous. Plato might have ranted against Homer but his free-thinking would have been impossible without Homer. Similarly, I think the later historians, no matter how much they disbelieved him, are nevertheless indebted to him.

The History of Herodotus is divided into nine books, each bearing a name of one of the Nine muses. The concern of Herodotus is to tell the story of Greeco-Persian wars, at least the truth as percieved by the parties then extant. In his inimitable opening words, he says that he is writing this history because, "neither the deeds of men may be forgotten by lapse of time, nor the works great and marvellous,which have been produced some by Hellenes and some by Barbarians, maylose their renown; and especially that the causes may be remembered for which these waged war with one another."

Two things are noticeable in these noble opening lines. Firstly, he wanted to preserve the memory of what happened. He didn't write and epic or a novel or a drama based on some dramatic events, and there were many, of the Persian wars. He wanted to preserve the memory of it, to which end he not only travelled widely but also delved into histories of all the participants and established the method for writing histories. Also, as far as I know, he has not done this monumental work in service of some king but in commitment to his ideals.

Second, the equal weight he gives to both the Greeks and the Barbarians, including the latter in his testimony. This is remarkable. Consider the earlier histories of Assyrian tablets or the proto-history of Jews contained in the Bible. Both omit the Other. An Assyrian king would definitely not have involved the deeds of the people he conquered in his victory proclamations and neither would the Jewish priests include testimony of other people in their books.

I will blog about the entire nine books in the next few days, as an interested amateur, interested in its story and also in its myths, if at all, more interested in the latter.
71
Vote
   


Hamlet's revenge

February 2nd 2007 07:31
Hamlet has been called the "Mona Lisa of English literature", meaning it will never be solved why hamlet prevaricates taking revenge on his uncle, time after time even though he had many chances. This problem has also been called the greatest unsolved literary puzzle in English.

I always wondered what the problem was because I had no problem with it. And if I'm right, neither did Shakespeare's audiences, who were not preplexed by Hamlet's behaviour. The problem started somewhere in eighteenth century and quickly became the Mona Lisa of literary criticism.

I have not even finished all of Shakespeare's plays, let alone be aware of the tonnes of secondary literature on the bard. Still, let me take a stab at what has confounded so many bright minds over the centuries.

Why did Hamlet put off killing his uncle time after time? Simple.Hamlet is a prince. He just cannot go and kill a reigning king without risking serious political consequences. Already Denmark is ravelling from the death of the old king and the subsequent hasty marriage of Gertrude to Claudius. A prince purely bent on power could have murdered Claudius and got the power himself but Hamlet is concerned about the moral impact on Denmark. "There's something rotten in Denmark" passage indicates that.

Yes, he is commissioned by his father's ghost to affect the revenge. But, he cannot kill a king based purely on a ghost's words. First, he tries to verify the veracity of the ghost's charge. This happens during the mock play. Once, sure of the guilt of Claudius, he has to establish it to his friends and some impartial witnesses like Horatio. He cannot kill Claudius without that proof, no matter how many tempting opportunities come his way. In fact, the shifts in his moods can all be referred to the conflict between his own passion for revenge and the need for patience.

While Hamlet is weaving his plans, Claudius is weaving his own. So that by the time Hamlet can take his revenge, he is sent to death by Claudius. That's the tragedy. Something like this happened in Nepal where the current Nepal kins killed the entire royal household and then became a king. He lost all his power in a subsequent rebellion by his peoples.

So there. I am the greatest literary detective, ain't I?
63
Vote
   


How should a history be written? This is second century satirist Lucian's take on the subject.

Too many people he warns want to be a Thucydides, a Herodotus or a Xenophon. History writing is easy; all it needs is that you translate your thoughts into words.

History's purpose should be establishment of truth and not devotion to beauty. After going through a list of history writer's follies, here are some instructions to histroy writers for writing a good history:

Such an historian would I wish to have under my care: with regard
to language and expression, I would not have it rough and vehement,
consisting of long periods, {58} or complex arguments; but soft,
quiet, smooth, and peaceable. The reflections, short and frequent,
the style clear and perspicuous; for as freedom and truth should be
the principal perfections of the writer's mind, so, with regard to
language, the great point is to make everything plain and
intelligible, not to use remote and far-fetched phrases or
expressions, at the same time avoiding such as are mean and vulgar:
let it be, in short, what the lowest may understand; and, at the
same time, the most learned cannot but approve. The whole may be
adorned with figure and metaphor, provided they are not turgid or
bombast, nor seem stiff and laboured, which, like meat too highly
seasoned, always give disgust.

Wish more historians follow this sage advice.
58
Vote
   


The White Goddess by Robert Graves

December 6th 2006 09:59
Before reading The White Goddess, I had only read Robert Graves I, Claudius novels and was vaguely aware of his interpretations of Greek mythology. His novels I did not particularly admire and I was mildly antogonistic towards his attitude toward mythology in my subconscious, though I'd reserved my opinion till I read his books.

Now that I've picked up The White Goddess. In the editor, Grevel Lindop's words, the main argument of The White Goddess is that "in late prehistoric times, throughout Europe and the Middle east, matriarchal cultures, worshipping a supreme goddess and recognising male gods only as her son, consort or sacrificial victim, were subordinated by aggresive proponenents of patriarchy who deposed women from their positions of authority, elevated the goddess' male consorts into positions of divine supremacy and reconstructed myths and rituals to conceal what had taken place."

God! Or should I say, Goddess! This particular argument was everywhere. I had read a dozen works of fantasy and at least am familiar with some whacky theories in serious disciplines like anthropology which are all based on this idea. I did not know it came from Graves.

The White Goddess takes on where The Golden Bough leaves off. If "The Golden Bough demonstrated that a wide range of primitive religions were centred on a divine king." Graves's contribution was to sugges that the god-king was important not for his own sake, but because he married the goddess-queen; and that while kings come and go, the queen or goddes endured."

For Graves, it did not stop with the fact that the Goddess was worshipped in prehistory. For him, poetry ,even the poetry that survives today is a function of her worship and is used to invoke her. As he developed on this idea, Graves himself became so infatuated with it that he began to translate the idea into posturing. Apparently, he began to have an affair with "four muses" in his later day.

No wonder a work of this sort should have lasting impact on the "flower children" but how seriously can we take it? Wiki is more helpful with this one than with The Golden Bough and the answer is not much.

Graves work is rooted in Celtic mythology and wherever he starts, he comes back to it. I am not so interested in it as I am into the mythologies of, say, Greece, Rome, Egypt, India and Near East. That's why I had hard time finishing the book.

Graves writes in a dense, sophisticated manner but once you get used to his style you can see through his arguments. But, I must say, that the idea is striking and if Graves had not been fixated with sticking a certain gender so much, he could have developed a more coherent theory of religion. An ideal reading despite it flaws.
66
Vote
   


The Golden Bough by James Frazer

December 5th 2006 10:16
This was the big, lumbering book that started it all. In a sense, if we didn't have this book, there wouldn't be any contemporary fantasy, or at least most of it.

Frazer's book starts with a question: Why would a single man roam the grove of Nemi, with a sword in hand, ready on a lookout for anyone who would slay him at any time? What kind of bizarre ritual was this and what did it signify? Frazer starts with this question but the answer takes him through a labyrinthine quest that fills up a dozen volumes.

The book itself grew in stages and by its third edition was so big that it'd probably fill a library. Nevertheless, what is the destination that Frazer comes to after this circumnavigatory route? In Grevel Lindop's words, The Golden Bough demonstrates that a "wide range of primitive religions centred on a divine king, a man who represented a dying god of vegetable fertility and who either killed his predecessor, reigning until killed in his turn, or else was sacrificed at the end of a year's kingship."

Wikipedia quotes a number of authors who have been influenced by his work, but out of them I'd select Mary Renault's The Bull from The Sea which used this theory to magnificent effect. But, what to make of this theory?

I am no anthropologist but for me the kind of argument Frazer uses makes me uneasy. Is it because it looks its based on induction while we are comfortably used to deductive arguements? Frazer uses a wide range of examples from around the world for each small step of his argument and carefully prepares his way through. The problem here is of course that Frazer wouldn't be personally be an expert over such a wide area, so this looks like a culling of comfortable evidence from everywhere around the world. Though it is admissable that the range of the evidence is impressive. The unease is increased by the fact that I can discern a lack of quality in representation of the cultures I am personally acquainted with.

Frazer himself included Christianity in the intial versions of his book and later removed it after the inevitable controversy. However, many of Frazer's readers had no problem in including not just Chrsitianity but most other religions the way Frazer did. That is not new itself either. For these kind of arguments could be heard even in Roman times, though not so thorough as Frazer's.

Wiki takes issue with the fact that the anthropologists are moving away from the idea that there should be a single source for a diverse set of phenomenon around the world. I do not necessarily disagree. After all, humans can think alike and the options are limited.

Whether the argument stands in whole or in part, this was one mighty influential book and one that probably you cannot do without reading if you have to be in pace with the modern discourse.

It is available online.
64
Vote
   


The Syrian Goddess by Lucian of Samosata

November 20th 2006 04:29
Astrate Source: Sacred Texts

The tract called The Syrian Goddess is usually attributed to Lucian even though it is written in a different dialect than the one Lucian normally wrote in. No matter who wrote it, the tract remains our major source for understanding Near Eastern religion in classical times. It is also very important for understanding something about the nature of religion itself.

Lucian here describes his visit to Hierapolis where stood the great temple of Dea Syria, one of the great Mother Goddesses of the ancient times. The pantheon included Rhea, Cybele, Isis and Ishtar. Distinct from all of them was Atargatis and she had her major temple at Hierapolis and was known to Hellenic world as Dea Syria.

Lucian is an astute observer; he remains disturbed by some of the “miracles” he saw but his overall outlook is unfazed by them. If he has not understood something, he has not understood something. He is not overly mystified nor does he reject anything too quickly.
The tract describes all the exotic rituals and the phallic embellishments in detail.

Two things however stand out. One was the coterie of worshippers around the Great Goddess called galli. They were men who in a ritual frenzy emasculated themselves and then lived as chaste womanly worshippers of the Goddess. From curetes to corybants, almost all the major Goddesses had them but there are differences in the classes of worshippers. Lucian describes how galli were initiated and lived and these form the most interesting passages of his book.

The other practice that this particular temple was famous for was sacred prostitution. This too was practiced at other centres but this temple was well-known for it. On a ritual day, women even from well-to-do families would wait on the streets to be taken by foreign men and foreign men only. I wondered and still wonder how those women were treated after that day of joy.

Such practices were matters of immense spiritual and political controversy merely because the ancient world and the Near East in particular were being swept away in a tide of patriarchal religions including the then nascent Christianity. No wonder when it gained ascendancy, Christianity directed its ire against such pagan religions first.

For centuries, Lucian’s account was the only one available about this important stage of religious evolution but once archaeology unearthed near east civilizations, it was discovered that these practices went back for thousands of years. When you read Lucian’s tract, you get the felling that the worship though strong did not preserve the memories of its own traditions intact. In fact, it makes you realize how vulnerable these religions were to an attack by a young vigorous faith.

This book is available online, if you prefer it that way. Reading a straight out history like this is perhaps much better than reading ten fantasies and it gives you a high fed on strangeness and mysticism. No matter how skeptical you might be, it still can move you to the core as it did to me.













95
Vote
   


Moderated by nagster
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]