|
Post by Adam on Jun 27, 2010 13:07:46 GMT -1
No, the heathen peasants chop it down with him tied to where it is about to fall, as these are the only terms under which they will do so... framed in the guise of "if you believe your god is so powerful, surely he will protect you, nyarnynarnynarnar...."
And of course the fall of the tree is turned by a miracle and a saintly gesture and all the heathens go "fucking hell, that is an ace god, I want a piece of that"... you know the sort of stuff... great propaganda piece, nicely done :-)
|
|
|
Post by megli on Jun 27, 2010 13:08:51 GMT -1
Yes, hagiography is indeed a poor source for realistic, historically accurate images of paganism! For obvious reasons---both because the medieval saint's life as a genre is there to underline the sanctity of the saint, and to empower the claims of his or her later communities at the time when the life is written, which may be centuries later. Muirchu's life of st Patrick (late 6th century) tells us a lot about Muirchu and not a lot about Patrick (late 5th c), for example.
|
|
|
Post by megli on Jun 27, 2010 13:10:02 GMT -1
No, the heathen peasants chop it down with him tied to where it is about to fall, as these are the only terms under which they will do so... framed in the guise of "if you believe your god is so powerful, surely he will protect you, nyarnynarnynarnar...." And of course the fall of the tree is turned by a miracle and a saintly gesture and all the heathens go "fucking hell, that is an ace god, I want a piece of that"... you know the sort of stuff... great propaganda piece, nicely done :-) I think there might be a very reasonable chance that *this story is not true*. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jun 27, 2010 13:18:14 GMT -1
The thing is that I suspect that folk tradition from innumerable countries supports the contention of an "older religion of the soil", include traditions that have persisted through the many forms of Christianity. But this "older religion of the soil" would not really have come from a people that make the tidy distinction between sacred and profane that we have learned to do, so distinguishing between those aspects that are spiritual/religious in origin and those that are purely practical comes from an inappropriate mindset. Though that too is a dangerous root to tread ;D
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jun 27, 2010 15:18:49 GMT -1
This is why I enjoy being part of this community, the ability and willingness to root out the potential accuracy of material still out there in a professional and objective manner, instead of working from an agenda driven perspective. The thing is that I suspect that folk tradition from innumerable countries supports the contention of an "older religion of the soil", include traditions that have persisted through the many forms of Christianity. But this "older religion of the soil" would not really have come from a people that make the tidy distinction between sacred and profane that we have learned to do, so distinguishing between those aspects that are spiritual/religious in origin and those that are purely practical comes from an inappropriate mindset. Though that too is a dangerous root to tread ;D I strongly suspect that this religion of the soil is based in fact, even though the initial mention is apparently shown to be of now, dubious origin in this particular case. The consequences of this type of thinking and interactions does seem to fit quite neatly in some ways, as I've elaborated on my link and I still see a natural progression from a religion of the soil into the realm of the Gods, which must have come about at a later date. RR
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jun 27, 2010 15:40:14 GMT -1
to be honest, I'm not 100% sure that the story *doesn't* point to an earlier religion of the soil. All I know is that I cannot say that it *does*
Why, for example, was it important to portray the benighted heathens as tree worshippers? Possibly to make them look rural and stupid? I don't know... but surely if you wanted to big up St Martin you would have made them sodomizing baby eaters! Plant worship, while not hugely Christian, doesn't reek of the abominations of the Exorcist :-)
I would be interested to read more of these early Christian "saint converts local pagan types" stories
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jun 27, 2010 16:47:20 GMT -1
to be honest, I'm not 100% sure that the story *doesn't* point to an earlier religion of the soil. All I know is that I cannot say that it *does* Why, for example, was it important to portray the benighted heathens as tree worshippers? Possibly to make them look rural and stupid? Possibly, but I would think that it would be more to do with the heathens "mistakingly" accrediting power (derived as either religious, divine or ancestral) through an inanimate object (idolatry) whereas the "new" religion would dictate that the power came through the human, suggesting a more direct contact between humanity and the divine thus implying the potential for the individual (using the correctly prescribed methods kindly supplied by the new religion) to make a direct contact with the divine using one source, instead of using numerous "third parties" i.e. the ancestors, the plant life etc, who were previously thought to be present in the soil and active on behalf of the heathens. RR
|
|
|
Post by megli on Jun 27, 2010 16:56:33 GMT -1
I don't think it's that complicated. Sacred trees etc were an important and very well-attested part of the religion of European antiquity. It's perfectly realisitic in a sense to give this Gaulish rural people a sacred tree. There's every reason why this might be true, and that a missionary saint might have felled it. The story about lying in the path of the falling tree....less so!
|
|
|
Post by megli on Jun 27, 2010 17:03:11 GMT -1
And the reason the heathens aren't represented as sodomizing baby eaters is that Sulpicius Severus' account is intended to bolster the cult of St Martin (amongst other agendas) among the people of Gaul a few decades after Martin's death. Therefore these heathens are as it were stand-ins for the immediate ancestors (grandparents, great grandparents) of rural Christians in the early 5th century. You want to make them seem foolish and misguided but quick to accept the 'truth', not wicked.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jun 27, 2010 17:29:20 GMT -1
And the reason the heathens aren't represented as sodomizing baby eaters is that Sulpicius Severus' account is intended to bolster the cult of St Martin (amongst other agendas) among the people of Gaul a few decades after Martin's death. Therefore these heathens are as it were stand-ins for the immediate ancestors (grandparents, great grandparents) of rural Christians in the early 5th century. You want to make them seem foolish and misguided but quick to accept the 'truth', not wicked. That's pretty much what I thought... you would want to believe they didn't know any better... though I hadn't quite made the leap to the realisation that it was to bolster his rep among the descendants of the benighted heathens
|
|