Besides ranting about that... place (which should not bear thinking about), I have been reading a remarkable work by Alan Watts. I happened to find it in a second hand shop a couple of years ago, and read it for the first, and haven't returned to it in some time. Yet while writing an article on ancient hermetic symbolism, I thought I'd take it off the shelf, to see if has anything useful, and it is quite a treasure trove.
First published in 1954, Myth and Ritual in Christianity is a very astute work. Don't let the title fool you, although its main thread is Christianity (I am a devout Christian), it discusses quite a bit about comparative religion, which is not at all dogmatic. On the contrary, this book discusses certain interpretations of myths, allegories and symbolism in the Christian tradition which have not really been discussed by any other medieval or ancient Church author. It is easy, I suppose, nowadays (or even back in 1954) to read many ancient texts from different spiritual traditions: Hindu, Norse paganism, Taoism etc., but one must bear in mind the religious tension, historical context and also the availability of particular texts, which our ancient forebears probably didn't have copies of. There is also a kind of fundamentalist aspect, which is overtly hostile to anything not puritanical. Just reading some Augustine or even Propcopius or Ammianus Marcellinus, one can trace the religious tension apparent spanning the fourth century to the sixth centuries of the Christian Era. There are (obviously) evident traces of such hostility before then, particularly during the second century in Pliny's Letter to Trajan (Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96) and Trajan's response (10.97).
Anyway, despite heathens, heresies and religious tension, Watt's coverage of comparative religion is especially good. In his lectures, I quite liked Alan Watts, but in truth, I much prefer listening to (and indeed reading) Manly P. Hall. In any case, both are excellent writers and speakers, and both should come in useful in me writing this article.
The module A330 Myth in the Greek and Roman Worlds does not have much to say on the subject (of ancient serpent symbolism), except that it is a 'complex' symbol. It goes a lot deeper than that. This trend of labelling things 'complex' is actually counter productive. It's not "civilisation" (that is, apparently too politically incorrect and loaded a term) but instead "complex society". I'm a bit old fashioned. I prefer Roman civilisation (for despite their harshness and apparent barbarity, there is a clearly evident refinement and sophistication in reading Latin texts in their original language - certainly Charlemagne recognised this fact). Even Rome's own lampoon-master and equivalent to a modern day Private Eye, Juvenal, is a magnificent read. In truth, Juvenal is a very poor example of Roman civilisation, but even the poorest example of Latin literature is incredibly sophisticated, refined, profound: bearing all the hallmarks of civilisation. (Which is not complex, to a Latin scholar, except for sociologists). All societies, even family units, are complex, by simply lablelling them 'complex' does not help anybody understand anything. All 'complex society' means (for they are Latin words) are from these two words: complex is a passive participle form of the Latin deponent verb complectī, which has numerous meanings (over a dozen), but principally means 'to embrace, to surround' etc. Society comes from the Latin common noun societās which means (among other things) 'a company, an association'. Therefore all "complex society" means is "an inclusive association [of people]". Many societies in the ancient world were not at all inclusive, and did not 'embrace' very many people at all. They were highly stratified. There was not much social mobility, much like today in Britain, 2022. Education was often left up to slaves (again, much like today).
Anyway, that's enough disgressing. I have a day off, and an article to write.
Max.
No comments:
Post a Comment