>True. But Humakt as he has been presented is partial. He is only
honorably death.
>He eschews poison. Disease appears to be not his provnance, and yet all these
>things bring Death. So he is not all forms of death, even in his
quasi-impartial form
>we know.
At times Humakti talk about death as being a power of Humakt, at others they talk about Humakt being death. I think they would see this as being a limitation of human language and mortal comprehension though. For them Humakt is all death.
Poison, disease, strangulation and many other ways of killing are indirect. They cause secondary effects which then lead to death. It's true that a sword stroke may cause injury which then leads to death, but a severing blow to the neck is directly, instantly and invariably fatal where a large dose of poison isn't. Also death is the power of severing, which is precisely what swords do. Many poisons in small doses can actualy be beneficial, whereas even a blade used in surgery is still severing.
In the case of a poisoning I think humakti would say that poisons bring corruption and suffering, and that death brings that to an end.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail