Skalds etc.

From: David Cake <davidc_at_cs.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 15:58:08 +0800


> Second; I find that Australia is rather a long way to go for a con.

        But think how I feel! (Perth, West Australia, most isolated city in the world).

> the position of skald
>(as a catch-all term) among the orlanthi may of course be associated with
>some other god than Issaries, and most likely that would be Olanth Rex.
>You could make an (almost) equally good argument for skalds being
>associated with Lhankor Mhy. Or Donandar. It's a matter of opinion.

        I agree with this point of view pretty much completely.
        Skalds are most importantly sacred poets. Orlanth Rex is the only
god specifically associated with poetry. But there are good reasons for skalds to venerate other gods as well - practically, because they branch out into many other skills, and magically, because Orlanth Rex is king of the gods and respects the powers of all his subjects (ie Orlanth Rex is god Orlanths Ring and the Storm Tribe).

        I think all skalds revere Orlanth Rex and/or Orlanth Goodvoice. I think that those skalds who travel and act as heralds also revere Issaries, that those who play music also revere Donandar, and that skalds, particularly those who do not travel, are often lawspeakers and historians, and so associated with Lhankor Mhy. A skald that does not travel or sell his skills directly (ie one that has a noble patron) has no great need to revere Issaries. But there can be no such thing as a skald without poetry, so there are no skalds without the need for Orlanth Rex. I basically feel that a skald not in Orlanth Rex would be just a travelling entertainer.

        For a couple more ideas about skalds, I note that they cannot become ful priests of Orlanth Rex ('priests' are chieftains). Perhaps a skald might crown the chieftains?

>> And Eurmal gives slander, lies, and rumour, and Lhankor Mhy the
>>facts of the matter.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Pull the other one, it's got bells on! :)

        Just ask the Sages! They have several good reasons why their view of the matter can be the only reasonable interpretation of what is known. There are of course people who disagree, but as I am sure we will understand after a brief explanation, they have merely made elementary mistakes of logical syllogism. Consulting these volumes here...

        (LM proceeds to bore Peter Metcalfe until unconsciousness results)

        Cheers
               Dave

PS Michael, maybe I was a little too defensive. No offence intended or taken.

Powered by hypermail