From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk
Date: Wed 06 Apr 1994 - 13:28:28 EEST
Martin:
>As for Urox, I believe his emergence as a separate cult is a second
>or third age development.
> The same with Humakt. Before that, they
> were just what we would call subcults of Orlanth.
Sandy:
> My failure to concur with this is unfortunately un-backed up
> by any evidence for the Bull. However, I submit that the tales of
> Arkat and his betrayal provide strong evidence for Humakt being a
> separate cult even at the dawn.
Why? The Orlanthi regard themselves as being collectively betrayed by Arkat getting Uzzed, not just the Humakti.
> Plus Humakt's own mythology, which
> places great weight on being separate from Orlanth.
Could be merely mythic protestation, of course.
I have no idea what the historical truth of this argument might be (does anyone?): but I'm inclined to note that this argument is ridden somewhat by the (in my view) false dichotomy of `sub-cult' vs `entirely separate cult'. There are likely, I should think, to be degrees and shades of distinction between the two, especially before the God Learners got at the cult structures, and turned them into RQ2 cults^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H artificially regular structures. In fact, much the same as I was blathering about associate cults, earlier.
Alex Ferguson.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:33:33 EEST