Re: Durbadath

From: Andrew Larsen <aelarsen_at_mac.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:25:58 -0600

> From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_quicksilver.net.nz>
> Subject: Durbaddath
> To: glorantha_at_rpglist.org
> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20050327230644.00c56ad0_at_pop.qsi.net.nz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Andrew Larsen:
>
>> AL>> Additionally, by ignoring
>>>> the details about who beheaded him, there are probably important
>>>> ideas being left out. Take the birth of Athena from Zeus' head, for
>>>> example.
>
>> Me> But then again take the myth of the Three Kings from the Orient. They
>>> are widely told but who they are, where they came from and what gifts
>>> they brought has no larger significance on the life of the person they
>>> are honoring.
>
>> Not a good example. The parallel would be if the Nativity story said
>> that Jesus was given gold, frankincense, and myrrh, but didn't say by whom.
>
> Which happens to be the case in the gospels. Is our knowledge of Jesus
> be increased, diminished or unchanged?

     Hardly. Although the Nativity account does not mention their names or say how many there were, it gives considerable information about who brought the gifts--they were Magi--Persian priests and astronomers, they came from the east, they wanted to adore the infant king, they learned about him through astronomy, they interacted with Herod, they had a miraculous dream warning them to avoid Herod, they returned home by a different route. In all, about a dozen lines of text describe the incident, and we're provided with considerably more information about them than about many more important figures in the gospels. Our knowledge of Jesus as a religious figure is significantly heightened by the text. While one may challenge the historicity of the account, it tells us that Jesus was marked out as special from the time of his birth, that he was revered as a king, that evil forces (Herod) wanted him dead because he was seen as a threat, that he was revered even by non-Jews. Allegorically, the three gifts foretell his role as the Great Priest who offers the final sacrifice, himself, and will rule as king.

     Using your approach to the text, all it would say is "Jesus was offered gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh" (or something close to that.) That's why it's a poor example.

>> And the story is frequently understood to have allegorical signifinace, with
>> the three gifts prefiguring Christ's royalty, priesthood, and death.
>
> In other words, it has about as much value as a Rorschach test.

     Only if you're being a skeptic about the text and its interpretation. Regardless of whether you accept the possible allegorical interpretation, it is a theologically valid one. Most Christian traditions place considerable importance on the event. It has its own festival, albeit one that is less important now that in the Middle Ages. The account explains why his family fled to Egypt and why he later settled in Nazareth. Indeed, without the Magi, the slaughter of the Innocents, the flight into Egypt, and the relocation to Nazareth would not have happened, and the prophecies about those events would not have been fulfilled. The story about the Magi is, from this perspective, a critical one in Jesus' life, and it's all dependent on who they were and what they did. Again, that's why this is a poor example.

>>> But the old mindset was lost and unimportant in terms of the new
>>> mindset. That is why I invoked the parallel of the regiment. The
>>> new mindset is not going to have a grudge against the person who
>>> beheaded him.
>
>> The old mindset may have been lost, but it would still be useful to
>> know.
>
> Why? Because the old mindset has gone, there is nothing to
> _connect_ Durbaddath's worshippers to it.

     It would be useful for _us_ to know, because small bits of information often inspire interesting scenarios, and can provide background color for role-playing. Even if the modern Durbadathi know nothing about it, there's no reason that we as GMs shouldn't. You do understand that I'm approaching this from the standpoint of a GM wanting to run a game, I assume. I'm not interested in this as a purely intellectual exercise in the made-up mythology of a non-existent group of people.

>>> No, it's not because they are _different_ myths. One is a myth
>>> told by Durbaddath cultists while the other is a Dara Happan view.
>>> Combining the two to yeild a third perspective is a erroneous
>>> shortcut that the God-Learners engaged in - the two originals
>>> are mythically true but the third synthetic myth is not.
>
>> Nothing in the text of Anaxial's Roster says that its a Durbadathi cult
>> myth.
>
> Who else would be telling the myths of Durbaddath? The Dara
> Happan mythology is known and Durbaddath is absent in the
> definite Plentonius edition save for a single chance mention on
> the Gods Wall.

     So, what you're saying is that what is known right now about Dara Happan mythology is the sum total of all that will ever be known about Dara Happan mythology? The Plentonius edition absolutely defines Dara Happan mythology, and anything not mentioned in it will never be known, and Greg won't in the future 'discover' another work on the subject, or modify what we know about the text? Additionally, you're arguing that no other Gloranthan source will ever address Durbadath. That's the only way you can reasonably insist that the only possible source for this myth is the Durbadathi themselves. That seems to go against the way Gloranthan scholarship operates.

     Why not simply say there might be some interesting ground to explore in this fragment of a myth? Does Glorantha really benefit from such hard-line puritanical orthodoxy?

>> The story is present as straight-forward history, not as myth.
>
> The history of that period *is* myth with all the maddening
> vagarities that implies. I've already pointed out that some
> deeds of Urvairinus (who is written as a historical emperor)
> predate and postdate Murhazarm.

     As I acknowledge in the next sentence of my last post (which you're trimmed out here). The text treats the material in what appears to be historical fashion, as historical as any Gloranthan myth gets. My point was, and still is, that nothing in the text makes it a unequivacally Durbadathi myth.

>> indeed, the statement that
>> he 'revolted' after Urvairinus' death suggest that it is a Dara
>> Happan myth, given the negative connotation of 'revolt'.
>
> But if the statement wasn't a Dara Happan myth, the negative
> connotation vanishes. So this is hardly a strong argument.

     It's still stronger than your assertion that the myth isn't Dara Happan, because there is a way to read the myth as being Dara Happan, based on a piece of internal evidence. Your argument is essentially that there's no other way to read this myth, but clearly there is another way to read it.

Andrew E. Larsen


Powered by hypermail