Re: ah, so THAT's what you meant...

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 00:37:05 GMT

Me'n'styopa:
> >You appear to be re-interpreting the word 'sorceror' from the sense
> >originally meant; we're not talking about a separate society of
> >sorcerors, like the Brithini, but rather a different profession, or
> >to put a somewhat different (and larger) spin on it, a different
> >life-path.

> Not to Giannize :) the subject, but you mean more along the sense of
> philosophical humanists vs. the devout circa (roughly) 15thC Italy?

I believe that was the sort of sense, yes: though mind you, I was horning in too, so don't take my word for it. I wouldn't say it was *necessarily* as sharp as the humanists vs. the devout: it could (just to float the possibility rather than to especially endorse it) be more like a renaissance clergyman vs. a (more or less) pious layperson in some proto-scientific field of artisanship.

> I *was* taking "sorceror" in its prime context (Brithini vs. Malkioni)
> not in the terms of later lifestyles.

I retro-agree with you about those fellahs, then. This would indeed by the most elemental split (unless we're counting Malkioni and Vadeli).

Cheers,
Alex.

---