Moonie Madness and Sakkars

From: Peter Metcalfe <P.Metcalfe_at_student.canterbury.ac.nz>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 18:14:36 +1200


David Cake:
        
        

>I think there was some earlier event (perhaps the attack of Shargash)
>which caused the moon to change from red to blue.

[Deep sigh]

What on earth has colour got to do with one's relationship to the transcendant world?

Me>>Umm, Lukarius married Gerra *before* Mernita fell victim and Gerra
>>was known *long* before this (as she appears on the Gods Wall).

> GRoY does record Lukarius as marrying Gerra before he shoots down
>Mernita. But more importantly she is recorded before and after that point -
>Gerra is a deity who incarnates a principle, not simply a historical
>figure.

And the relevance of this digression is?

'recorded before and after that point' - Yes I think I implied this when I said that she appeared on the Gods Wall.

'diety who incarnates a principle, not simply a historical figure' - - again I think I implied this when I spoke of her as being the head of the Gerran Cult a little later on. Oh look! You've even quoted the sentence for me!

Me>> Thus Lukarius seems to be marrying the High Priestess of the
>>Gerran Cult for some obscure reason.

> But I don't think this follows - Lukarius marries suffering, not
>just a priestess.

huh? He is marrying the High Priestess to ally her cult which is not the same as marrying 'just a priestess'.

>Peter, I think the literal interpretation where a mention of a deity
>means a priest(ess) is relevent less often than you think it is.

What in god's name are you taking issue with? The person he marries was _newly_born_ in the reign of Lukarius's father and adopted by him. Therefore Gerra cannot be the actual Goddess who is depicted on the wall! To preserve the relationship with the Suffering Goddess, I postulate that she is the High Priestess of her cult. Now David does not think this interpretation is 'relevent'!

My confusion is increased when I find that David postulates the following which seems to committing the same error which he takes me to task for:

> To expound my own shaky theory - I think Lukarius forcibly marries
>the high priestess of the Blue moon, Cerrulia, who was the queen of the
>Blue moon plateau, as part of his campaign against the moon religion.

Which makes no sense whatsoever. Lukarius marries Gerra before the troubles with Mernita started. Furthermore his reason for doing so have nothing to do with any 'campaign' against the Moon Religion. Mernita revolts effectively by refusing to send him a gift at the birth of Lukarius's First Son. But if Gerra was really Cerulia, then Mernita is effectively revolting against an heir who would unify their nations. Perhaps David can see the astounding political wisdom behind this undoubtedly astute move, but I for the life of me cannot.         

>This could also have something to do with why the Blue Moon Plateau
>is a Duchy. Isn't that strange? It is ruled by a man, which is damned
>unusual for a matriarchal trollish society.

Perhaps David could list the source for his claim that the Blue Moon Plateau is ruled by a man.

>He also bears the archaic title of Duke, otherwise unknown in
>Dara Happa.

Duke Raus of Rone?
Yanafal Tarnils, Duke of Yuthuppa?

Personally I wouldn't read too much into the title of Duchy as the origin of it is a very RW old source and probably a foreign name for it IMO.

>>The myth which states that Shargash cast down Lesilla does not
>>mention Sedenya by name.

>Which matters not at all if you accept that Sedenya and Lesilla
>were seen as aspects/ ancestors of each other even then - and as
>both were recorded as being revered by Mernita, it seems they were.

Gosh! The very *next* sentence I wrote after the one David takes exception to is:

>>Hence Shargash may have only cast down one moon if at all.

And if David took the trouble to actually read what I was replying to, he would noticed that I was arguing against the notion that Shargash downed *two* seperate moons.

If David has nothing better to do than take some of my sentences out of context, paraphrase some other sentences of mine and use them to dispute what I have written in a slipshod matter, then I suppose it'll better for me to cease to followup his posts which will save on unpleasantness at least in the digest.    

Pam Carlson:


>After all, southern Peloria has the (DH) sakkar, which seems to
>be a sort of fierce mountain lion or small leopard,

A Sakkar is a Sabre-toothed Tiger.

Powered by hypermail