And nobody would have to be nailed to anything, this time.

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Alex Ferguson (alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Wed 13 Jul 1994 - 00:14:41 EEST

Nick Brooke on Hrestol Martyr:
> Now, martyrdom ain't necessarily crucifixion. But that particular method
> would tie up a number of semiotic loose ends in Greg's early, unpublished
> notes, where the Cross is defined as a Hrestoli heraldic symbol
[...]
> Hrestol [would be] able to
> attain Solace even though nailed to a Death Rune (in Brithini terms, an
> unclean & contaminating item)

In Brithini terms, a meaningless pagan icon, shurely. Maybe cross-as-death- rune makes sense for the latter-day Hrestoli, what with them being Wicked God Learners, but why would the runes have significance for Dawn Age Westerners? Unless the gods speak Tradetalk, of course. ;-)

> My story of Hrestol's death gives us a good reason for the hatred/rivalry
> between Hrestoli Knights and Zzaburi Sorcerers (present in the earliest
> sources, never explained), and it also (as Alex pointed out) gives us a
> prototype for the king-as-martyr attitude of the modern Loskalmi.

I don't think the modern Loskalmi forsee their king being nailed to anything, though. Riding to a glorious death at the head of their army, doubtless.

> Given that published sources already
> include crucifixion as a Gloranthan custom, while the Rune shape positively
> encourages it, where's the harm in having one prominent instance?

Because it'd be better to have the prominent instance in the Empire, the known practicioners, I think.

Alex.

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:35:52 EEST