It is also about the identity of the Dara Happan Death God or Gods. In this section it appears that Rebellus Terminus is identified as Death - not Terminatus who is not mentioned.
>
>> >As for the argument of "some supporting tradition", that's rather
>>>weak considering that Plentonius spuriously identifies Doburdon
>>>as Antirius.
>
>>Yet he does not need to place the Dara Happan figure of Rebellus
>>Terminus on the God's Wall to do so.
>
>There's a guy with big bollocks on the Gods Wall. Who else is
>he going to name?
Some son of Lodril or even VogMaradan come to mind.
>
>> >Which doesn't stop the Dara Happans or anybody else ascribing
>>>the first murder to Humakt.
>
>>So the passage which constitutes your main evidence does not "rule
>>out" your view ?
>
>I was referring to _your_ statement that the Humakti do not believe
>that Humakt is the sword and at the same time you acknowledge
>they do eleswhere.
My statement was that they do not acknowledge Humakt as the weapon that killed the Evil Emperor. That deed is attributed to Orlanth's misuse of Death.
> If they do recognize Humakt as the Sword then
>there is nothing to stop the Dara Happans from saying that Humakt
>is the sword. Hence your objection isn't.
Well "there is nothing to stop them" - other than the fact that their main source for that version of the story says otherwise - still isn't evidence that they did.
>
>> >Since the myth of the Other
>>>also mentions Vinakotal and Lanatum and the myth of
>>>Yelm's Disintegration doesn't, I fail to see how you
>>>can say the second myth was influenced by the Orlanthi
>>>with the resulting implication that the first wasn't.
>
>>I didn't say that it was not influenced at all but the influence does
>>appear to be less
>
>The myth which you claim has the lesser influence has
>two Orlanthi names whereas the myth which you claim
>has the greater Orlanthi influence doesn't have _any_.
Well it has the wrong names. But more to the point, the second story reads like a synthesis of the first and the Orlanthi myth of Orlanth and the Evil Emperor.
>
>>Yet [the myth of the first murder] does not use the name
>>Humakt,
>
>So what? I never claimed it did. What I did say was that
>the weapon was identifiable as Humakt.
>
>>nor identify Terminatus as a God.
>
>Neither is anybody else in the myth for that matter.
Yet we know that the Thunderer and Yelm are Gods - but Terminatus appears only as a weapon.
>
>>Only as a weapon - just as in the Heortling story Orlanth uses
>>the power of Death while it was not in Humakt's possession.
>
>I refer you to the Arming of Orlanth (KoS p80) in which Humakt
>is clearly described as Orlanth's sword.
Which is not part of that story so it only repeats the idea that at some times Humakt is referred to as a weapon and sometimes as weaponthane. Perhaps this is explainable by the idea that on taking the power of Death Humakt gave up his own name and took that of Death instead. Or perhaps it is simply one of the inconsistencies we find in myth. However given the Humakti insistence on Honour and the stories of the misuses of death I do not believe that the idea of Humakt as a simple weapon, taking part in such events, going from master to master, is acceptable to any but a minority of his worshippers.
-- -- "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala Guide to Taoism_ Paul K. ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail