#speeches in ancient literature

[jeannereames]

In some of your posts, you've said we can't believe the speeches in the original sources like Plutarch and Arrian. And I get it, that they wouldn't have ways to record exactly what people said, but wouldn't they try to get it at least close? Didn't orators publish their speeches, so they'd know what they said? Demosthenes published speeches about Philip, I know. And wouldn't readers back then get angry if they realized the writers were just making things up?

When it comes to ancient texts, particularly ancient historical texts, speeches, dialogue, and letters are especially problematic. Why? Authenticity.

As the asker indicated, a lack of recordings automatically problematizes this. But their memories were generally better. The real issue centers on ancient ideas of WHAT HISTORY WAS FOR.

Ancient historians were writing to entertain, as well as to educate, and promote their notions of how the past should be understood, often to school people in their present. “Cautionary tales,” if you will. Or models to emulate. When they do say where they got their information (frustratingly rarely), it’s as much to show off their education/how well-read they are, rather than to assure their readers they know what they’re talking about.

It’s critical to understand that ancient history was akin to modern creative nonfiction. I don’t say that to diss creative nonfiction (says the historian who also writes historical fiction). But it’s crucial to recognize it was nothing like modern academic history with footnotes, peer reviews, and fact-checks.*

In terms of preserved speeches (or orations), we have two types. The first (often forensic) were published after the fact by the orator himself.** Those are indeed their words, but their edited words. Unlike now, ancient speeches were typically composed aloud, not in writing. But at least speeches published by the orator are authentically their ideas, if not, perhaps, what was actually said (in court, the assembly, etc.). Nobody is putting words in their mouth.

By contrast, the orations and dialogue in our histories are the creations of the authors of those histories. Why goes back to the first (Greek) historians: Herodotos and Thucydides (and Xenophon). They set a pattern that later generations deliberately followed. All put speeches into the mouths of their major players. This is called oratio recta (direct speech), or what we’d call a quotation. Another form is oratio obliqua (indirect speech), or what we’d call a summary or a paraphrase. In general, the use of the former characterizes the Greek historians, while Roman historians preferred the latter. (There are any number of exceptions, however.)

Incidentally, these writers didn’t lie about it. Their readers/listeners realized it highly unlikely Herodotos knew what Darius or Xerxes said back in Susa or in the Persian camp, but they were there for the drama. Thucydides even admits (1.22.1) he has no clue what was said in the speeches he records from the Peloponnesian War, but he wrote what he thinks would have been proper for the situation.

Why make it up?

Orations were entertainment.

Just as modern fiction authors craft a story to forward themes and motifs, so also with ancient authors. When an author writes out a speech, PAY ATTENTION. It usually contains key points.

In our modern world with lowered attention spans, we can forget that people might listen to orations (especially longer ones) for fun.

Yet this is extraordinarily recent. For as long as we’ve been human, we’ve gathered to hear good storytellers and be inspired by good speakers. Sometimes the art of rhetoric is equated with intentional lying. That’s cynically silly. The art of rhetoric just means getting across your point clearly, and powerfully. A goodly chunk of Barack Obama’s appeal was his fine rhetoric. Ironically (and like it or not), the same can be said of Trump; the Maga crowd adores his word-salad “oration” style. Similarly, in some religious traditions, “good preachin’” is considered essential to good pastoring. And monologues, whether comedic, newsy, or folksy can develop cult followings, as The Rachel Maddow Show proves, or Stephen Colbert, or the much earlier “News from Lake Wobegon” from Prairie Home Companion (Garrison Keillor). You can probably name another half-dozen without breaking a sweat.

Because the oration was a form of entertainment in antiquity, many ancient authors sought to prove their own creative brilliance by writing speeches. That’s why you should never, ever, ever assume a verbatim speech in ANY Classical Greek or Roman text is what the speaker actually said. If you’re lucky, it may at least represent the gist. But it also might not. Dialogue is similar. They make it up.

With letters, one might think at least they could copy it—no need to remember. Like orations, letters were sometimes published by one of the authors, for posterity. (The letters of Cicero, or the Younger Pliny are good examples.) Yet the same principle applies. Letters were a way for an historian to display creative chops so “tweaked” letters were not uncommon, even if based on an original. And sometimes letters were invented whole-cloth, at need.

Yet there’s another issue with letters that moderns aren’t aware of: accidental forgeries.

How can a forgery be accidental?

It’s a rhetorical-school lesson that “escaped.”

A popular assignment for students was to write a letter (or oration) “in the style of ___ famous person,” or “as if from the point-of-view of ___ famous person.” Lessons weren’t just to learn how to turn a phrase, but also to instill proper morals. So, for instance, some ancient schoolboy’s essay prompt might be: “Illustrate pistos/fides (loyalty) in a letter from Alexander to his mother, Olympias.” To get a good grade, he had to show he knew something about Alexander, about proper pistos/fides, as well as how to write like a king.⸸

Some of these letters got confused later with the real thing. Remember, record-keeping was rather haphazard.

So…recorded speeches, dialogue, and letters in our ancient histories should be regarded much the same as you’d regard such in modern creative non-fiction: dramatization to increase reader interest.

——————————————-

* This isn’t to say ancient historians never critiqued each other; they most certainly did. Sometimes quite brutally—and from the beginning. Thucydides is our the second surviving Greek historian and he begins his history by, in his very first chapter, including an oblique criticism of Herodotos, who invented the discipline!

** Male gender used on purpose. Greek women weren’t allowed to make public speeches, and Hortensia was considered a weirdo who pissed off the Second Triumvirate. She certainly gave a speech, but Appian put words in her mouth—like most ancient writers.

⸸ Ironically, I do something very similar in my own classes on Alexander. We put him on trial for war crimes, and students write either as Alexander in his own defense, or as the prosecutor, whoever that might be (Demosthenes, the King of Tyre, a Persian noble, etc.). They must write their speech demonstrating the morals of the ancient world, not the modern, using the primary sources. To get a feel for it, they must read a couple Greek forensic speeches too, in order to understand how to properly frame their arguments. This allows them “to get into the heads” of the ancients themselves. It’s not only more fun, but more effective as a learning tool, imo.

[tanadrin]

the book of job is so interesting to me because it's the closest an ancient book of religious scripture seems to come to admitting that any attempt to seek theodicy is in vain--i.e., that a plan of divine justice can't be found because it doesn't exist. like, god not only rebukes job at the end, but he completely ignores job's (extremely reasonable) demands for an explanation, and the only thing that rescues god for the reader, gives some hint that this whole "god" thing isn't a post-hoc attempt to salvage a just world out of a universe that is in fact quite uncaring about humans in particular, is the fact that job's life ends happier than it began.

and yet somehow this story became a landmark of both jewish and christian literature! i think perhaps it's because god's whole "who are you to question me" attitude to job is very useful in service of defending religious authority, and the speeches by job's friends that intimate if you're suffering you must have done something to deserve it, even if you don't know what, also can be used to defend orthodoxy when shorn of context. but as a complete literary object, the book feels to me at best a divine version of the Melian Dialogue, and maybe even as a repudiation of, rather than an attempt to defend, a notion of divine justice. like, the whole point of the story is that job is upright and blameless, that god lets satan fuck him over for no reason. we are told this explicitly. and no amount of "you are just a mortal being, you cannot possibly understand" at the end can make up for the fact that we are told explicitly in the beginning, "the moral of this story is that this god fellow is a real son of a bitch."

[ao3cassandraic]

Angels, demons, language, and culture part 4: Literalism and metaphor

Part 1 (angels are never children, and that matters), Part 2 (written language is mostly coded human rather than ethereal/occult in Good Omens), Part 3 (human writings contain useful social rules, which is partly why Aziraphale values them)

It may be time to restate @thundercrackfic's original questions?

How good is Aziraphale’s reading comprehension? How much does he understand subtext and metaphor? Because his behavior this season struck me with the impression that he didn’t really understand the books he collects. He’s clever at puzzle solving, and contains vast knowledge; but he always seems to take things at face value (when he’s not willfully misunderstanding), and refuses to give up black-and-white thinking, which would make it very difficult to analyze texts.

I think there are definite reasons to believe that reading comprehension of human literature (as defined in the question) is difficult for Aziraphale. One of them, as stated in part 1, is that Aziraphale doesn't get the tremendous advantage of childhood and its brain plasticity, which (among other things) is known to help with learning language. I'm not surprised his French is pretty bad. Learning another language from the ground up as an adult can be a cast-iron PITA (yes, experience speaking).

Another is simply that Aziraphale is not human. He's an outsider to humanity. He's fairly empathetic, and he does learn (unlike almost all his fellow angels!), but that leaves him without much of a yardstick to gauge when human literature is being literal and when it's not. There also seems to be a general angelic tendency to believe what they're told? Muriel definitely has it, Michael seems to as well, and even s1!Gabriel can only (and barely) muster skepticism on one occasion that I recall (the photo incident). I can see this making Aziraphale's reading, especially early in his existence on Earth, a good bit harder for him than reading is for, say, me. I'm used to unreliable narrators and figurative language and other sorts of clever fun productive lying. Aziraphale's acquaintance with lying is -- well -- his lies don't usually involve much metaphor? I suppose one could argue that "big sharp cutty thing" is a kenning, but not really in the human way of kennings because he only uses it the once.

Moreover, it appears (based on the s1e3 cold open, mostly) that he bops around the world quite a bit until finally settling in London (with the occasional jaunt elsewhere when he gets peckish). Nothing at his creation other than the auto-polyglottism She bestows on Her angels seems to give him any tools for navigating the bewildering variety of human cultures and customs... and literary metaphor (along with lots of other literary things) is commonly culturally-bound, culturally-specific.

I mean, if you read something (maybe in high school (or analogue) or college) that was written A Long Time Ago and/or Very Far Away, didn't it probably have a ton of what lit-critters call "apparatus" in it? Explanatory introductions, bibliography, and above all footnotes/endnotes/margin notes, many of which explain figures of speech that otherwise wouldn't make sense? Not to mention stuff like (just as an example) which local then-current political morass Dante threw this particular historical person in this particular circle of Hell for. Stuff that if you're not there, not embedded in the culture and the time, you're just plain gonna whiff. Hell, even Shakespeare editions have a ton of apparatus, and Shakespeare's in Early Modern English for pity's sake!

(Which is not to say that something has to be ancient or not-from-here to benefit from some apparatus. What is The Annotated Pratchett File if not apparatus for Discworld?)

So our peripatetic angel reading literature of whatever time he's actually in (which mostly won't have apparatus he can rely on for help) will often find himself not clued-in enough to a given human culture to completely understand its literary figures, metaphors included. And sure, that's going to lead to some misreadings and misunderstandings and overliteral takes! I can't read Dante's Inferno and understand everything in it! It takes Italianists years, if not decades, to do that!

And to make the problem even more difficult, literature feeds on itself, and on other arts as well. (Hi hi hello, comparative literature major, I totally studied various flows of literary and artistic influence in college and wouldn't trade that major for anything ever, it was the best major.) Think about all the time and effort GO meta-ists have spent of late teasing out callbacks and allusions and references in GO s2. That kind of work is also part of what Aziraphale has to do to understand fully what he reads... and it's a lot of work, even for a reader as voracious and possibly sleepless as our angel.

So yeah, in sum, I don't think Aziraphale has a perfect -- or even good -- track record on understanding what he reads. I adore him because he reads anyway! He never gives up on trying to understand! That's absolutely praiseworthy! (Crowley has something of an analogue to this in his love for human inventions. He doesn't understand how anything actually works, for the most part, but he loves it all the same.)

I think there's also an outstanding question about what Aziraphale gains from reading, a sense of social rules (Part 3) aside? Well, it's known that reading (especially fiction, especially fiction about characters who are Not Like The Reader) increases empathy. I don't know if Aziraphale reads specifically for that reason, but I'm absolutely willing to believe that fiction works on him that way, just as it does on us, even if he doesn't fully understand everything he reads. Did you fully understand everything you read as a child? Or even as an adult? I would never claim that of myself. Yet I certainly will claim that I picked up a lot of what I suppose I will call my character -- it runs deeper than personality -- and my general understanding of life (insofar as I have one) from reading.

If I had to answer why Aziraphale reads, though? I'd think back to my own childhood, as a bullied child with somewhat neglectful parents who held outsized expectations of me. Reading for me was peace, was escape, was enjoyment, was something to think about that wasn't my own unhappiness, was -- now and then, honestly not often enough -- seeing myself reflected in a book and feeling less alone. I hope and believe that human literature and music served similar purposes for our poor angel.

[eesirachs]

For a school assignment, I'm assembling an anthology around the theme of queer divinity and desire, but I'm having a hard time finding a fitting essay/article (no access to real academic catalogues :/ ), do you know of any essays around this theme?

below are essays, and then books, on queer theory (in which 'queer' has a different connotation than in regular speech) in the hebrew bible/ancient near east. if there is a particular prophet you want more of, or a particular topic (ištar, or penetration, or appetites), or if you want a pdf of anything, please let me know.

essays: Boer, Roland. “Too Many Dicks at the Writing Desk, or How to Organize a Prophetic Sausage-Fest.” TS 16, no. 1 (2010b): 95–108. Boer, Roland. “Yahweh as Top: A Lost Targum.” In Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible, edited by Ken Stone, 75–105. JSOTSup 334. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim, 2001. Boyarin, Daniel. “Are There Any Jews in ‘The History of Sexuality’?” Journal of the History of Sexuality 5, no. 3 (1995): 333–55. Clines, David J. A. “He-Prophets: Masculinity as a Problem for the Hebrew Prophets and Their Interpreters.” In Sense and Sensitivity: Essays on Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll, edited by Robert P. Carroll, Alastair G. Hunter, and Philip R. Davies, 311–27. JSOTSup 348. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Graybill, Rhiannon. “Yahweh as Maternal Vampire in Second Isaiah: Reading from Violence to Fluid Possibility with Luce Irigaray.” Journal of feminist studies in religion 33, no. 1 (2017): 9–25. Haddox, Susan E. “Engaging Images in the Prophets: Feminist Scholarship on the Book of the Twelve.” In Feminist Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Retrospect. 1. Biblical Books, edited by Susanne Scholz, 170–91. RRBS 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013. Koch, Timothy R. “Cruising as Methodology: Homoeroticism and the Scriptures.” In Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible, edited by Ken Stone, 169–80. JSOTSup 334. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim, 2001. Tigay, Jeffrey. “‘ Heavy of Mouth’ and ‘Heavy of Tongue’: On Moses’ Speech Difficulty.” BASOR, no. 231 (October 1978): 57–67.

books: Ahmed, Sara. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. Bauer-Levesque, Angela. Gender in the Book of Jeremiah: A Feminist-Literary Reading. SiBL 5. New York: P. Lang, 1999. Black, Fiona C., and Jennifer L. Koosed, eds. Reading with Feeling : Affect Theory and the Bible. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2019. Brenner, Athalya. The Intercourse of Knowledge: On Gendering Desire and “Sexuality” in the Hebrew Bible. BIS 26. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Camp, Claudia V. Wise, Strange, and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible. JSOTSup 320. Gender, Culture, Theory 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Chapman, Cynthia R. The Gendered Language of Warfare in the Israelite-Assyrian Encounter. HSM 62. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Creangă, Ovidiu, ed. Men and Masculinity in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond. BMW 33. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010. Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. God’s Phallus: And Other Problems for Men and Monotheism. Boston: Beacon, 1995. Huber, Lynn R., and Rhiannon Graybill, eds. The Bible, Gender, and Sexuality : Critical Readings. London, UK ; T&T Clark, 2021. Guest, Deryn. When Deborah Met Jael: Lesbian Biblical Hermeneutics. London: SCM, 2005. Graybill, Rhiannon, Meredith Minister, and Beatrice J. W. Lawrence, eds. Rape Culture and Religious Studies : Critical and Pedagogical Engagements. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2019. Graybill, Rhiannon. Are We Not Men? : Unstable Masculinity in the Hebrew Prophets. New York, NY: Oxford University Press USA, 2016. Halperin, David J. Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. Jennings, Theodore W. Jacob’s Wound: Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel. New York: Continuum, 2005. Macwilliam, Stuart. Queer Theory and the Prophetic Marriage Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. BibleWorld. Sheffield and Oakville, CT: Equinox, 2011. Maier, Christl. Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2008. Mills, Mary E. Alterity, Pain, and Suffering in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. LHB/OTS 479. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2007. Stökl, Jonathan, and Corrine L. Carvalho. Prophets Male and Female: Gender and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Ancient Near East. AIL 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2013. Stone, Ken. Practicing Safer Texts: Food, Sex and Bible in Queer Perspective. Queering Theology Series. London: T & T Clark International, 2004. Weems, Renita J. Battered Love: Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets. OBT. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995.

[thetwstwildcard]

“The emotions are sometimes so strong that I work without knowing it. The strokes come like speech.”

Full Name: Des Carriedo

Gender: Male

Age: 18

Sexuality: Pansexual

Birthday: August 27

Star Sign: Virgo

Height: 194 cm (roughly 6'4)

Eye color: Pale teal

Hair color: Dark brown fading into grey tips

Homeland: Land of Hot Sands

Dorm: Ramshackle (formerly Heartslabyul)

Club: Horseback riding club

Year: 2nd

Best Subject: Music

Worst Subject: Ancient curses

Favorite Food: Sea Salt Ice Cream

Likes: His sisters(Lyss and Ire), art, music, poetry, sculpting, theater, old literature, flowers, the night sky, baking, and helping Yuu

Dislikes: His parents, seeing Lyss overexert herself, forced physical activity, cruel people, people who use others, dried out paint tubes and controlled creativity/"having to do things by the book"

Hobby: Sketching his dormmates

Personality: Soft spoken, poetic, loyal, when drawing/creating his expression is blank. He may seem stand off-ish but it is because he tries to be respectful

Unique Magic: Cálmate- the ability to quell someone's emotions if he touches them with all 5 fingers. Can be used on people overblotting, though it is dangerous. He takes the person's built up emotions two fold. He can build up several emotions but it becomes more taxing on his mental state. He does art to expell these extra emotions

Trivia

The younger brother of Lyss Carriedo and Ire Carriedo

His UM opposes hers (she riles herself up and he calls her down)

Is friendly with the ghosts of ramshackle and school portraits

He's pretty neutral about his emotions so his personal emotions may seem a mystery to the fact that if they belong to him or not.

Was scouted by the Solstice Watchers for his UM

Transfers to Ramshackle after the Heartslabyul chapter due to Lyss pushing him to not always worry about her

Is seen as a prodigy in both magic and creative skills

Is the main creator of all the new decor Yuu adds to Ramshackle

Made his own piercings though Lyss did his piercings

Calls everyone Miss/Mister/Mx for respect so he uses last names mainly (if they have one) regardless of if they are younger than him

Was a club suit when in Heartslabyul

Is very "disney princess" with being good with animals and children

In the Japanese dub, Lyss is "onee-san" and Ire is "onee-sama"

His horse is named Ava

While he bakes a lot for his dormmates, he doesn't have a sweet tooth

His eyes change colors based on the emotions he takes from others. If his eyes are brown to black he may be close to passing out from too many strong emotions

Has a large michelangelo-esque tattoo on his back

[korstudying]

하오체

Although "하오체" (Haoche) is not commonly used in contemporary spoken language, let’s read some information about it.

하오체 is an ancient speech level that was used during the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1897) in Korea. It was a highly respectful and formal form of speech, primarily used when addressing kings, royalty, or individuals of the highest social status. It was also commonly found in formal documents, poetry, and literature of that era.

Here are some characteristics of 하오체:

1. Politeness and respect: 하오체 was employed to show the utmost respect to individuals of high status or authority. It reflected the hierarchical nature of Korean society during the Joseon Dynasty.

2. Honorific expressions: The use of honorific expressions and vocabulary was an integral part of 하오체. It included specific honorific nouns, verb endings, and honorific titles to show deference and respect to the listener.

3. Formality and elegance: 하오체 had a formal and poetic quality to it. It was often used in official documents, court proceedings, and in literary works of that time. It reflected the cultural emphasis on elegance and refinement.

While 하오체 is not used in contemporary Korean, its influence can still be seen in historical dramas, traditional ceremonies, and classical literature. The modern speech levels, such as 하십시오체, 합쇼체, and 해요체, have replaced 하오체 for everyday communication in contemporary Korean society.

[ancientcraftnoccultism]

Beginner Class - Introduction to Meditation

Ancient Craft & Occultism

Introduction to Meditation

___

By KB

Introduction

Hello again, everyone! Welcome back to the next lesson for the Beginner Class. Last lesson, we talked about finding your personal center as well as a bit more in depth on grounding. Well, today, we'll be taking a closer look at the many forms and practices of meditation.

What Is Meditation?

Meditation is an essential aspect of witchcraft and magic practice as it allows you to interact with the universe (or your higher power) through conscious thought and focused desire. Ritual, spellwork, and your regular thoughts and speech are examples of other techniques. Meditation is a discipline in which one trains the mind and creates a state of consciousness in order to gain some advantage. Meditation encompasses a wide range of different activities and practices. We will go into more detail in the following sections.

Nearly every culture in the world has some connection to meditation. Whatever the design, they are typically intended to encourage connecting with spiritual guidance, feeling at ease, developing inner strength, having psychic visions, becoming closer to God, remembering former lives, going on astral journeys, and more. Meditation is a well-known, age-old technique that has been used for millennia to promote calmness, concentration, and connection with our inner selves. The benefits of meditation on the mind, body, and soul are reciprocal.

A Brief History

In actuality, nobody is certain of the exact beginning and location of meditation. But our theories are supported by facts. This ancient rite is mentioned in many civilizations and religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. All of these faiths have something to offer to the modern understanding of meditation as it is practiced today. Although the history of meditation is controversial, many people think it began there more than 5000 years ago.

India Origins

It is generally accepted that the Vedas, a collection of Hindu writings, include the oldest written account of meditation. The Vedic books were written around 1500 BCE. The Vedas include mention of a practice known as "Dhyana," which is considered to be the first example of meditation that we are aware of. In Sanskrit, the word "dhyana" implies "contemplation" or "meditation." It is intended to calm the mind and attain "thoughtless awareness." However, Vedantism is frequently rejected by Buddhist beliefs in favor of the Buddha's teachings.

The various Buddhist levels of meditation can also be found in other ancient Indian scriptures dating back to the first century BCE. These texts are known as the Pli Canon Sutras. The Pli Canon is a body of Theravada Buddhist literature. And then there's Buddha. Siddhartha Gautama, an Indian prince, was the inspiration for Buddha. He was looking for a means to end human pain. Gautama attempted numerous strategies, but none of them seemed to work. He sat down under a tree one day and determined not to move until he discovered the solution he sought. He attained enlightenment after 49 days of meditating and started the Buddhist faith. The practice of meditation is claimed to have spread throughout India from there. Buddhist monks embraced meditation as a means of achieving inner peace, frequently sitting for hours in silence, meditating on their master's teachings.

Asia Origins

Around the sixth century BCE, the practice of meditation spread to China, where it was influenced by Taoism and Buddhism. At the end of the Han dynasty, Buddhist monks from India introduced meditation to China. Over the next century, the practice began to blend into Chinese culture. The Taoists also believed in the efficacy of meditation and devised their own techniques for mind-stilling. One famous Taoist meditation practice is known as "Qigong." Qigong is a type of moving meditation that entails slow, gentle motions as well as deep breathing. Meditation extended from China to Japan, Korea, and other parts of Asia. Zen Buddhists perform "Zazen," a type of meditation practiced in Japan.

The technique was introduced to Japan by the Japanese monk Dosho, who journeyed to China to study Buddhism under the famous master Hsuan Tsang. Zazen, which translates as "seated meditation," is sitting in quiet with one's eyes closed. Korea has its own type of meditation known as "Won," which is based on Buddhist and Taoist concepts. It is a sort of moving meditation in which gentle, rhythmic motions are used to calm the body and mind.

Western Origins

Meditation became popular in the Western world in the twentieth century. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was among the first Westerners to popularize meditation. Maharishi is most known for popularizing the technique of "transcendental meditation" in the 1960s. The Yogis are a Hindu group that believes in the power of meditation to help one achieve enlightenment. The term "yoga" truly means "union" or "connection." Yoga seeks to unite the mind, body, and soul.

Other Yogis, such as Paramahansa Yogananda, who penned the classic book "Autobiography of a Yogi," also contributed to the introduction of meditation to the West. Maharishi's method of meditation is closing our eyes and reciting a mantra. A mantra is a word or phrase that is repeated repeatedly. The idea is to concentrate on the chant while clearing our brains.

Meditation & Spirituality

Spirituality is a broad topic with numerous interpretations. In general, it encourages a sense of connection to something larger than ourselves, as well as a connection with your higher self or higher awareness. It promotes the search for meaning in life and living with a broader perspective. It has a highly global appeal--something that all humans can relate to. A spiritual experience may be described as sacred, ethereal, mystical, or transcendent, or simply as a deep sense of positive emotions such as calm, amazement, wonder, connectivity, contentment, appreciation, acceptance, compassion, and unconditional love. All of these are true characteristics of our spirit.

Spiritual meditation, as the term implies, is that which connects you to your spirit. It pushes you past your limiting identities and labels to the core of who you truly are. You as your authentic self - joy, love, and tranquility. You may feel a rain of grace and happiness, as well as a deep sense of closeness and oneness, if you practice spiritual meditation. The desire to practice spiritual meditation stems from an underlying desire to perceive and think beyond the apparent world. Spiritual meditation can assist you in discovering the everlasting truth and meaning of existence. It keeps you anchored in the present moment, where you want to be and find peace.

Any genuine meditation practice, when practiced over time, can aid in your spiritual growth and will begin to provide the following spiritual benefits:

A balanced and grounded sense of being

Experience of deep inner stillness and peace

Radiating serenity, calmness, and love

A sense of awakening and freedom

Less emotional reactions

More awareness and mindfulness

Sense of inner bliss regardless of situation

The feeling of always being home

Belonging and connecting to all

Great abundance and security

Increased creativity and free thinking

More resilient to anger and stress

Meditation & General Health

Although meditation has been practiced for many years and is known to have many positive effects on the mind, it is only recently that science has established a strong connection between meditation and physical health. It's simple to feel overpowered by ideas and emotions in the fast-paced world of today. We all know the damage stress and anxiety can do to our health. Stress and anxiety are frequently caused by emotional overload. Nowadays, professionals from all over the world agree that practicing mindfulness for a little period of time each day can make a huge difference. The advantages of meditation for both the body and the mind are well-documented and very compelling. Here's just a few ways frequent meditation can improve our overall health.

daily meditation practice can improve blood circulation, lower the heart rate and help maintain a healthy heart

frequent mindfulness sessions seemed to improve meditators’ immune system functions

produces positive, lasting changes within the brain

meditation not only supports memory and attention, it also enhances mental agility and alertness

women, in general, who practice mindfulness are more aware and accepting of their bodies (also helps with PMS pain)

meditation develops mental awareness and can help you manage triggers for unwanted impulses

meditation can diminish the perception of pain in the brain

blood pressure decreases not only during meditation but also over time in individuals who meditate regularly

Meditation & Witchcraft

As magical practitioners and witches, one of the most important things we can master is the art of meditation. It allows us to still the soul and quiet the mind, which, in turn, allows us to listen to our intuition and focus on our personal energy. Meditation can also be used as a gateway for higher awareness or entering the astral realm.

Now, meditating may not come easy for a lot of you. This is perfectly normal. When I first started practicing, I had a feeling inside that made me feel extremely goofy, and stupid. The more I ignored it, the louder and stronger it grew. I eventually sat with the voice and came to the conclusion that it was my ego, driven by fear and insecurity. The more I sat with the voice, the less I felt stupid about things. I believe this was my initiative into shadow work. Anyways, back to class -

Utilizing meditation within your craft will prove to be absolutely essential the more you do ritual and spell work. Don't give up hope if "conventional" methods don't work for you. We're going to get into several different techniques of achieving the same meditative state.

Types of Meditation

There are so many different types of meditation, if I went into them all, this lesson would turn into an entire chapter. I'm just going to keep it sweet and simple here, but I absolutely encourage you to look into different methods, especially if none of the ones I have listed work for you. Let's get to it.

Active Meditation

Sitting in silence for even 2 minutes may sound like absolute torture for a lot of you. Good news is, that's not the only way to meditate. Have you ever done a yoga class, a workout session, or even taken a nice, fresh shower & felt a sense of bliss? Well, you experienced a meditative state of mind. You can do this by getting out in nature, cleaning the house, performing an art form, anything that involves movement can be a form of active meditation! Woo-hoo for us neurodivergents!

Body Scan

This method allows you to reconnect the mind to the body in a way that notices any physical sensations or tension. While relaxation naturally happens here, the goal is to pay attention to sensory experiences you typically don't notice. This allows you to be more present in your day to day life and is also a wonderful grounding and centering technique.

Mindful Breathing

The body is wiser than the mind, and this technique proves it. It is a very simple, mindless method, but has very profound effects on the body and mind. There are several breathing techniques out there, which I encourage you all to research on your own. All have different effects on the mind and body, so please be sure to choose one that is suitable for you.

Visual Meditation

This is when you focus your mind's eye, or your imagination, into an image to center the mind and the body. The main focus is to imagine and hone in on a memory or something creative and nice that opens the mind's eye. This is a wonderful exercise for those who want to enhance their visualizing abilities.

Sound Meditation

Again, this is exactly as it sounds. This meditation uses sound to provoke a meditative state of mind and align the bodily energies.

[mask131]

The myth of Apollo (3)

A continuation of these posts.

III/ Towards the perfection of the divine

With Plato, the perception of the god changes completely. The philosopher doesn’t see in Apollo just one Olympian among others: he makes him THE god by excellence. The evolution that Pindar started now reaches its peak. Closely associated with Helios (so closely in fact that we can almost talk of an assimilation), Plato’s Apollo becomes the supreme god, the unique god, the “divine essence” of which the other deities are mere aspects of. Through the character of Apollo it is the Platonic doctrine that is expressed, in a symbolical ay. It is why, despite their ludic function, the various etymologies of the “Cratylus” must be considered very carefully (see the article “Apollo, the mythical sun”). As Apolouon, the god who washes, he represents purification of both the body and the mind, and reminds us of “Phaedo”. As Aploun, he highlights the link between unity and truth, and reminds us of “Parmenides” and “Philebus”. As Aei ballôn, he who always hits/reaches, he is infallibility and perfection. As Homopolôn, the simultaneous movement, he is harmony – as musical as celestial, the harmony of the spheres and the celestial bodies ; and we think of the “Timaeus”, or of the myth of Er at the end of the “Republic”. The respect carried here for the religion of Delphi is not a passive submission to the tradition: piety becomes the foundation of metaphysics. In this context, we can understand why Plato violently rejects the image of a lying, grudge-bearing, bloodthirsty Apollo as he appears within Thetis’ speech in the fragment of Aeschylus’ “Judgement of the Weapons” (quoted before) – a fragment which was preserved only because Plato denounced it within his “Republic”.

Prepared by Pindar, ensured by Plato, the greatness of the god, now the incarnation of the divine unity, will now definitively impose itself. The killer of Achilles, Koronis or Cassandra is now far away: with might now comes moral perfection, and unity replaced multiplicity. It is what Plutarch means when, during his list and comment about the various explanation of the mysterious “E” inscribed in the temple of Delphi, he finally concludes that it means: “You are”.

IV/ The Roman Apollo: politics and religion

We know the famous sentence of Horace: “The conquered Greece conquered its fierce vanquisher” (Epistles). The history of the Greek Apollo within Rome illustrates this line. It is true that we have to account for other influences that nuanced and “filtered” the Delphic presence and adapted it to the mentality of the Roman people: the Falisci beliefs and rites, the Etruscan legends and cults, the fact that the Cumae Sibyl originally belonged to an ancient chthonian goddess… But we can still easily follow a clear progression of the god. Beginning of the 5th century BCE: Tarquin the Superb (Tarquinius) sends two of his sons to the Pythian oracle. 433: a temple is dedicated to Apollo on the Field of Mars. 212: The first “ludi Apollinares” are celebrated. The 2nd of September of 31 BCE: Octave crushes in the waters of Actium the ships of Antony and Cleopatra under the sight of Apollo, who is honored on the promontory that dominates the entrance of the Ambracian gulf.

From this moment on truly begins the entrance of Apollo within Latin literature. (Ennius, Naevius and Lucilius all evoked him, but in a shy and discreet way). Octavius, who will soon be called Augst, cleverly organizes the propaganda. He has a rumor spread according to which Atia, the mother of the new sovereign, conceived him with Apollo. The victory of Actium becomes the “miracle of Actium”. In the year 28, a temple is dedicated to Actian Apollo on the Palatine Hill, right next to the palace the prince had built for himself. On the cuirass of August’s statue (the one found at Prima Porta), Apollo is depicted riding a griffin with a lyre in his hand, while facing his sister Diana, riding a stag and holding a quiver. Apollo, after being the one who caused the victory, becomes associated with the work of peace, the “Pax Augusta” – for he is the god of harmony.

The authors participate to the Augustinian work. Already, well before Actium, in the year 40, in his fourth “Bucolic”, Virgil was announcing the rule of Apollo. Within the “Aeneid”, Apollo plays a major role: it is him that gives to Aeneas and his companions the order to regain the land of their ancestors. He is also Aeneas’ protector, and just as beautiful as the Greek poets painted him: “ the god walks on the yokes of Cynthia, his flowing hair softly pressed with foliage and crowned with a gold diadem ; ad his arrows rustle on his shoulder”. He finds back all of his old functions: he is a prophet, a musician, an archer and a healer. He is “the greatest among the gods”. As for Horace, he opens his “Carmen Saeculare” by an invocation to the two children of Leto – the “Carmen Saeculare” being sung on the 3rd of July of the year 17 BCE for the celebration of the secular games organized by Augustus: “Phebus, and you, Diana, queen of the forests, luminous jewel of the sun, you, always adorable and always adored”.

During the episode of Daphne, in the first book of his “Metamorphoses”, Ovid does treat the god with some disrespect. Apollo is vanquished by the child-Cupid that he disdained. Overtaken with desire for Daphne, he hopes to be able to unite himself with her, “fooled by his own oracles”. He gives her a very eloquent speech, that the nymph refuses to listen to as she flees away from him. And right as Apollo is about to reach for her, Daphne, turned into a laurel tree, escapes him forever. However, if we look at the way Ovid treats the gods in the entirety of his “Metamorphoses”, we do note that Phoibos-Apollo has a more important role than the others. The others gods are not presented with any kind of dignity and do not seem to fit their ranks: they are only seen embroiled in romances or taking part in petty quarrels. On the contrary, Ovid’s Apollo, just like the one of Virgil, has all of his Antique functions – he is an oracle, he is a medicine spirit, he is a musician, and to all of this is added the art of the metamorphoses, an art pushed to a level of science. He is the god of harmony and of light. His identification with the sun which, throughout the previous century was sometimes clear sometimes underlying, is here expressed with no hesitation in the speech Ovid gives to Pythagoras. With the Augustan Apollinism, the depiction of the god shifts to a solar theology, that the successors of Augustus will all make use of. The god of Lycia, the god of the wolves, is forgotten. Apollo is now the figure of light, the harmonious and perfect spirit, and it is as such that he is now forever imprinted in our cultural subconscious.

[gemsofgreece]

This is something brilliant I found on quora. Aside from the band-orchestra comparison that I have no opinion on as I should know many, many languages to dare tackle that, and which is a parallel that could perhaps only be justified coming from a man passionate enough to get a PhD in Greek literature and ethics, Mr Bošković is actually on point in what he says.

Typical western academia gets wet over Ancient Greek and typically scorns Modern Greek without a proper explanation, to the point of just referring to one form of the language: Greek, and calling it dead. In their minds, there can only be one form of Greek, the ancient one, and it is dead for good. Modern Greek doesn’t belong with their academic and lingual concerns.

But Bošković, who has obviously studied a greater span of the Greek language than the average stuck-up classicist, puts it so well and in such a short and simple text that I could never do it. I always thought Modern Greek is more flexible than Ancient Greek but I couldn’t explain why well. Here it is then: what many don’t realise is that Modern Greek operates in a very liberal fashion. It takes elements from large lingual pools. It has the Ancient Greek pool all to itself, to take elements at will. It can choose between very archaic, Koine / biblical / medieval or folk neo-linguistic elements or fuse them all together, technically without restrictions. The historical contact to Latin, Italian, Turkish, Slavic, Arabic and Albanian populations gives it access to the Romantic, Anatolian, oriental and non-Greek Balkan pools. Modern Greek has a very good ability to bend foreign elements enough to make them adjust to the Greek core of the language, instead of adjusting to them (ie all foreign loanwords are bent to follow Greek grammatic rules of inflection and their vocalisations usually change enough so that they are entered smoothly in the language). The local idiomatic element is also significant in every region and is particularly alluring in prose and verse (hence my recent comment that I prefer modern - but NOT contemporary - Greek prose).

That doesn’t mean that I don’t love Ancient Greek prose and verse. But here is the crucial nuance: the ancients and medieval people did their best to write in the highest form of the language they could master. When we read an ancient text, we witness the earnest efforts of the ancient poets and writers to be glorified through their writing.

Modern speech is unfortunately deteriorating* and we can’t compare the potential of the two ages of the language. Contemporary writers aren’t putting an effort to write in the highest lingual form they can master. On the contrary, they strive to be relevant and, in fact, as non-challenging as possible, so that they will cater to a wide, mainstream audience. And because everyone can write nowadays - it is not an activity saved for the wisest or most educated - there is a load of mediocre lingual usage inside which a specimen of high lingual form can be viewed as eccentric, pretentious and eventually undesirable.

Because of this, Modern Greek cannot utilise all its tools anymore (as well as many other languages to their own degree, of course). Reading the Iliad in its original has been fantastic so far and I was wondering why we can’t write like this anymore but now I am realising that there is nothing to prevent us from doing it from a technical aspect. There are no dead words in Greek. There are words which have become rarely used enough that some people would consider you a weirdo for using them and others would themselves refuse to learn, convinced there is no use in taking an extra step. Words that are recorded in texts, words whose meaning we know, can’t be dead, even if they are rarely used. It’s the obsession of the average person to follow the mainstream trend that threatens a word more than anything else. Another fact is that Greeks of different ages fluctuate between different forms of grammar, unsure whether a more archaic or more modern inflection is appropriate. The truth is that there is no wrong way, however Greek linguists lately try to wipe out older, more archaic forms in exchange for newer, simpler ones. The intent is always to become as approachable, as unchallenging as possible. There is no de facto death of older types of usage as long as they are recorded and we know how they work and some of us use them still - it’s literally a few linguists trying to give Modern Greek a distinct, simpler identity by ignoring the language’s most crucial characteristic: its flexibility.

Νεφεληγερέτης Ζεύς is a common characterisation of Zeus in the Iliad (Nepheliyerétis Zeús - Zeus the Cloud-gatherer) . There is no real reason to prevent someone from using this phrase intact nowadays, as both roots of the first word do exist in modern Greek. And even if someone was too self-conscious about writing so ambitiously, they could do with a more modern or folkish version like νεφελοστοιβάχτης or συννεφοστοιβάχτης or νεφομαζωχτής or νεφελαθροιστής (ie nephelostiváchtis, sinephostiváchtis, nephomazochtís, nephelathristís). Would they though? No, they wouldn’t. Why take the extra step?

My point is, Modern Greek is an overlooked, extremely potent language and we do exactly nothing with or about it.

*Whoever is quick to argue that a language never deteriorates because it always morphs into a reflection of its respective nation / society and its needs should either stop fooling themselves or immediately get alarmed by the current state of the respective society at question.

[thethirdromana]

Today's LOTR thoughts are on the theme of storytelling.

About a decade ago, I used to help run an open mic storytelling night in Dublin. (If you ever went to any Milk and Cookie Stories events back then - hi! Do make yourself known!).

We had some people who came who were expert storytellers, some of whom did it professionally or semi-professionally. We had some people who had a background in creative writing or stand-up comedy. And we had some people whose sole experience of storytelling was telling stories for their kids or younger siblings, or for friends down the pub. They were often extremely good at it.

In fact, the people who found it hardest were the people who were trying to translate a story that had been written for the page into something that could be told aloud. What makes for a good story written down can be very different from what makes for good storytelling. There are some short stories that work in both contexts (I bet the Nine Billion Names of God would be great either way) but most just don't - Hills Like White Elephants might be a great story, but it's not storytelling.

A great written story might include a lot of dialogue (a lot of modern mass-market fiction is 60%+ dialogue). Storytelling usually uses reported speech - if there is dialogue, it's often in repeated phrases, and doesn't do much to advance the narrative.

A good written story usually has rounded, realistic characters. Storytelling uses archetypes - whether that's the good king or the grumpy taxi driver - and when a character doesn't match an archetype, they're usually the opposite (the cowardly lion).

Written stories don't need to be told in chronological order. Storytelling usually requires chronology. On the other hand, written stories usually need more of a point than storytelling does; in storytelling, you can get away with a story that's a series of interesting things happening to a character, without there needing to be something that ties them all together neatly.

Written stories often benefit from unexpected or interesting imagery. Storytelling often benefits from familiar imagery - in part because it makes it easier to remember the story, in part because it makes it easier for the audience to follow along.

These aren't hard-and-fast rules, but they're generally true in my experience. And of course, there's a difference between modern people telling stories at an open mic night and people - ancient or modern - telling stories as part of an established tradition of oral literature.

Where I'm going with this is that for a written novel, the Lord of the Rings is rooted in storytelling. I guess it's unsurprising - Tolkien is drawing on mythology and ancient literature, which come from oral traditions, and the story began as a bedtime story for his son. But it's surprising to me how much the Lord of the Rings, read in chunks, comes to resemble storytelling.

I feel like, at a push, if I had to tell the Lord of the Rings as a story (stuck in a cave? On a 3-month Mars mission? who knows), I could probably do a reasonable job. I can't think of many other series of half a million words for which that's true.

[david-goldrock]

One of the best pieces of Hebrew literature in all times, especially fitting in times of war. קינת דוד

"הַצְּבִי, יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַל-בָּמוֹתֶיךָ חָלָל: אֵיךְ נָפְלוּ גִבּוֹרִים

אַל-תַּגִּידוּ בְגַת, אַל-תְּבַשְּׂרוּ בְּחוּצֹת אַשְׁקְלוֹן: פֶּן-תִּשְׂמַחְנָה בְּנוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים, פֶּן-תַּעֲלֹזְנָה בְּנוֹת הָעֲרֵלִים

הָרֵי בַגִּלְבֹּעַ, אַל-טַל וְאַל-מָטָר עֲלֵיכֶם--וּשְׂדֵי תְרוּמֹת: כִּי שָׁם נִגְעַל, מָגֵן גִּבּוֹרִים--מָגֵן שָׁאוּל, בְּלִי מָשִׁיחַ בַּשָּׁמֶן

מִדַּם חֲלָלִים, מֵחֵלֶב גִּבּוֹרִים--קֶשֶׁת יְהוֹנָתָן, לֹא נָשׂוֹג אָחוֹר; וְחֶרֶב שָׁאוּל, לֹא תָשׁוּב רֵיקָם

שָׁאוּל וִיהוֹנָתָן, הַנֶּאֱהָבִים וְהַנְּעִימִם בְּחַיֵּיהֶם וּבְמוֹתָם, לֹא נִפְרָדוּ; מִנְּשָׁרִים קַלּוּ, מֵאֲרָיוֹת גָּבֵרוּ

בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל--אֶל-שָׁאוּל, בְּכֶינָה; הַמַּלְבִּשְׁכֶם שָׁנִי עִם-עֲדָנִים, הַמַּעֲלֶה עֲדִי זָהָב עַל לְבוּשְׁכֶן

אֵיךְ נָפְלוּ גִבֹּרִים בְּתוֹךְ הַמִּלְחָמָה--יְהוֹנָתָן עַל-בָּמוֹתֶיךָ חָלָל

צַר-לִי עָלֶיךָ, אָחִי יְהוֹנָתָן--נָעַמְתָּ לִּי מְאֹד; נִפְלְאַתָה אַהֲבָתְךָ לִי, מֵאַהֲבַת נָשִׁים

אֵיךְ נָפְלוּ גִבּוֹרִים, וַיֹּאבְדוּ כְּלֵי מִלְחָמָה"

"The deer, Israel, on his back / on your stages had died in war: how do heros die?

Don't say in the Gat. Don't preach in Ashklon's streets, so that the daughters of the Philistines won't be happy, so that the daughters of the uncircumcised won't rejoice

For in the Gilboa, no dew and no rain be on you, and (no) fields of produce, for there the shield of heros, the shield of Shaul, was tarnished by blood without being anointed in oil

From blood of deads, from sweat of heros, the bow of Yonathan didn't retreat, and Shaul' sword didn't come back empty

Shaul and Yonathan, the loved and the pleasent, in their deaths and their lives, didn't seperate; lighter than eagles, stronger than lions.

Daughters of Israel. To Shaul cry. He who dressed you in crimson, he who gave you gold ornaments to wear

How did the heros fall in the war, Yonathan on his back / on your stages died in war

I am sorry for you, my brother Yonathan, you pleasented to me a lot. your love was more wonderful to me than the love of women

How did heros fall, and tools of war had been lost"

I love the word play in the beginning: במה in ancient Hebrew meant both stage and back, and because both deer and Israel are male in Hebrew, במותיך can refer to both, so it ends up being David saying in one sentence "they died on the stages of Israel" and "they died by stabbing"

This speech was made to encourage the Judean tribe's teens to enlist to go to artillery. May it serve as a pleasent reminder to our Haredi brothers and sisters of the wars we had, and the enlistment of all

[witchthewriter]

𝐁𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐃𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐠'𝐬 𝐬/𝐨 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞

a/n: female reader, requests are open. I haven’t written for Druig, ever, and this was kinda fun. 

𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒕

✧ Your dynamic is:     Enemies > aquaintances > friends > both secretly pining after each other but trying to hide it > you accidentally confess your feelings while under a spell > he grows distant > you save his life (bitterly) > he confides in Makkari and she tells him to get a grip > he confesses to you > but you rebuff him > then he keeps falling harder and harder; near begging you to forgive him

✧ Knowing that he’s an Eternal, even though you’re mortal yourself

�� You meet when Thena, Makkari and himself are off to find the other Eternals. 

✧ They enlist your help as your magical knowledge nearly exceeds the Sorcerer Supreme. You come from a long line of witches, one being your Aunt Agatha. You have natural abilities; levitation of objects and yourself, enhanced intuition and divination skills 

✧ Yet you were recruited by Dr Strange himself, and from your studies with the Mystic Arts, your abilities grew

✧ With so much going on, the Eternals needed your help as nearly everyone else was busy making sure the end of the world didn’t happen ... again

✧ So it was decided that you would travel with them on their journey. Since it was unsafe for you to be involved and left in your home town

✧ Makkari became a quick friend (pun intended...) she was so kind to you, and taught you a lot of sign language. Even though she couldn’t communicate using speech, you two had a lot of deep conversations. She was very curious about your studies and your knowledge

✧ Thena was stoic, not speeching much but when she did, you were in awe. It was like gazing upon a goddess; Athena had always been one of your favourite greek gods (thanks to the Percy Jackson books). But you could’ve never thought you would meet the actual figure Athena was based on

✧ And then there was Druig. You had read about him once, in an old reference book about ancient druidry. 

“What’s your power?” You asked, watching him lean against the far wall. 

     “I’m not a magician,” he responded harshly. 

Even Makkari looked at him with shock, however Thena had understood where his anger was coming from. They had been chasing leads for weeks without finding anything. 

 “Prick,” you replied. Clearly in ear shot, you didn’t feel Druig had a leg to stand on really. Here they were, asking you for help. You were risking your neck, and here an immortal being stood, giving you lip. 

I like her, Makkari signed to Thena, throwing a kind smile your way. 

✧ After he asked for your forgiveness, you didn’t have it in you to ignore him any longer. It felt too cruel, not just to him, but to you. Your heart felt so broken, and here he was, near begging. 

✧ He teases you a lot, like a lot.  Holding things out of reach, hiding your supplies, calling you ridiculous nicknames. 

✧ Druig loves being physically close to you; always having a hand, an arm around you, a leg hooked with yours, your head resting on his chest or shoulder. 

✧ You brought as many of your herbs onboard; Druig loves the smell of rosemary, lavender, jasmine and cinammon. 

✧ Druig likes to read all sorts of literature. He loves Shakespeare’s play Hamlet. He feels an afinity to the character - having the power to change lives, or stand by and let them make their mistakes. 

✧ He likes to read to you out loud (although no one else is allowed to hear him). 

✧ What was between him and Makkari was merely platonic. You all hold great respect for each other and know you can count on one another for anything. 

✧ You played the song, the 30th by Billie Eilish and he cried. Druig is the most connected to humanity through his power. He knows the best and worst of humans and constantly needs to see the good in them. 

✧ He doesn’t like to be touched by people, but others wouldn’t know that because you’re near inseparable 

✧ He likes Slipknot 

✧ Knows a lot about history, and yes being there was helpful. He tells you ‘what actually happened,’ and then Thena overhears and yells, “THAT DID NOT HAPPEN DRUIG, HE HIT YOU FAIR AND SQUARE.”

✧ He likes it when you trace random words, shapes, symbols on his skin

✧ Likes to play with your hair, and has picked up a lot of skills over the years. He does a mean braid 

✧ He is GREAT with children and animals 

[mightyflamethrower]

So much for the idea that if women were in charge the world would be a much kinder and less violent place.

Peruse campus literature. Watch clips from university protests. Scan interviews with pro-Hamas protestors. Read the chalk propaganda sketched on campus sidewalks. Talk to raging students in the free speech area. And the one common denominator— besides their arrogance—is their abject ignorance. Take their following tired talking points:

“Refugees” 

We are told that the Palestinians after more than 75 years of residence in the West Bank and Gaza are “refugees.” If that definition were currently true, then, are the 900,000 Jews who were forcibly exiled from Muslim countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia after the 1947, 1956, 1967 wars still “refugees?”

Most fled to Israel. Do they now live in “refugee” camps administrated by the UN? Are they protesting to recover their confiscated homes and wealth in Damascus, Cairo, or Baghdad? Do Jews on Western television dangle their keys to lost homes in Damascus a half-century after they were expelled?

How about the 150,000-200,000 Greek Cypriots who in 1974 were brutally driven out of their ancient homes in Northern Cyprus? Are they today living in “refugee” camps in southern Cyprus? Are Cypriot terrorists blowing themselves up in “occupied” Nicosia to recover what was stolen from them by Turkey?

Turkish president Recep Erdogan lectures the world on Palestinian “refugees,” but does he mention Turkey’s role in the brutal expulsion of 40 percent of the residents of Cyprus?

Are there campus groups organizing against Turkey on behalf of the displaced Cypriots? After being slaughtered and expelled, are the Cypriots a cause celebre in academia? Do the “refugee” cities of southern Cyprus resemble Jenin or Jericho?

For that matter, how about the 12 million German civilians who between 1945-50 were expelled, and mostly walked back from, East Prussia and parts of Eastern Europe, some with Prussian roots going back a millennium and more. Perhaps 1 million died during the expulsions.

Are any current survivors still “refugees?” If so, are they organizing for war to get back “occupied”  “Danzig” and “Königsberg” for Germany? So why does the world damn Israel and romanticize the Palestinians in a way it does not with any other “refugee” group?

“Apartheid”

Israel is said to practice “apartheid,” although since 2005-06 Gaza has been autonomous. Mahmoud Abbas runs in his fashion the West Bank. Like the Hamas clique, he held elections one time in 2005, and then after his election, of course, cancelled any free election in the fashion of the one election, one time Middle East. Who forced him to do that? Zionists? Americans?

At any time, Gaza could have taken its vast wealth in annual foreign aid and become completely independent in fuel, food, and energy, without need of any such help form the “Zionist entity.”

Gaza could have capitalized on its strategic location, the world’s eagerness to help, and the natural beauty of its Mediterranean beaches. Instead, it squandered its income on a labyrinth of terrorist tunnels and rockets. Today, it snidely snickers at any mention of following the Singapore model of prosperity–a former colonial city whose World War II death count vastly surpassed that of the various wars over Gaza.

Are the Israeli Arabs—21 percent of the Israeli population—living under apartheid?

If so, it is a funny sort of oppression when they vote, hold office, form parties, and enjoy more freedom and prosperity than almost anywhere else in the Middle East under Arab autocracies. Are those in sympathy with Hamas fleeing from Israel into Gaza or the West Bank or other Arab countries to live with kindred Muslims under an autocratic and theocratic dictatorship, or do they prefer to stay in the “Zionist entity” under “apartheid?”

Where then is real apartheid?

The Uyghurs in China, fellow Muslims to Middle Easterners, who are ignored by Israel’s Islamic enemies, but who reside in China’s segregated work camps to the silence of the usually loud UN, EU, and Muslim world?

How about the Muslim Kurds? Are they second- or third-class citizens in Muslim Turkey? And how about the tens of thousands of foreign workers from India, Pakistan, and other Asian countries who labor under the kafala system in the Arab Muslim Gulf countries, and are subject to apartheid protocols that allow them no free will about how they live, travel, or the conditions of their labor?

Are campuses erupting to champion the Uyghurs, the Kurds, or the subjugated workers of the Gulf?

“Disproportionate”

Israel is now damned as “disproportionally” bombing Gaza. The campus subtext is that because Gaza’s 7,000-8,000 rockets launched at Israeli civilians have not killed enough Jews, then Israel should not retaliate for October 7 by bombing Hamas targets–shielded by impressed civilians— because it is too effective.

Would a “proportionate” response be counting up all the Israelis murdered, categorizing the horrific manner of their deaths, and then sending Israeli commandoes into Gaza during a “pause” in the fighting to murder an equal number of Gazans in the same satanic fashion?

Does the U.S. lecture Ukraine not to use to the full extent its lethal U.S. imported weaponry since the result is often simply too deadly? After all, perhaps twice as many Russians have been killed, wounded, or are missing than Ukrainian casualties. Should Ukraine have been more “proportionate?” Has President Biden ordered President Zelensky to offer the Russian aggressors a “pause” in the fighting to end the “cycle of violence?”

Or did U.S.-supplied artillery, anti-armor weapons, drones, and missiles “disproportionally” kill too many Russians? Or does the U.S. assume that since Russia attacked Ukraine at a time of peace, it deserves such a “disproportionate” response that alone will lose it the war?

For that matter, the U.S. certainly disproportionately paid back Japan for Pearl Harbor, and the Japanese brutal take-over of the Pacific, much of Asia, and China—and the barbarous way the Japanese military slaughtered millions of civilians, executed prisoners, and mass raped women. Should the U.S. have simply done a one-off retaliatory attack on the imperial fleet at Yokohama, declared a “cease-fire,” and thus ended the “cycle of violence?”

Civilian casualties

Campus activists scream that Israel has slaughtered “civilians” and is careless about “collateral damage.” They equate retaliating against mass murderers who use civilians to shield them from injury, while warning any Gazans in the region of the targeted response to leave, as the moral equivalent of deliberately butchering civilians in a surprise attack.

So did protestors mass in the second term of Barrack Obama when he focused on Predator drone missions inside Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen to go after Islamic terrorists who deliberately target civilians?

At the time, the hard-left New York Times found the ensuing “collateral damage” in civilian deaths merely “troubling.” No matter—Obama persisted, insisting as he put it, “Let’s kill the people who are trying to kill us.” Note Obama did not expressly say the terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen were killing Americans, but “trying” to kill Americans. For him, that was, quite properly, enough reason “to kill” the potential assassins of Americans.

What would the Harvard President today say of Benjamin Netanyahu saying just that about Hamas?

We have no idea how many women, children, and elderly were in the general vicinity of a targeted terrorist in Pakistan or Yemen when an American drone missile struck. Then CIA Director John Brennan later admitted that he had lied under oath (with zero repercussions), when he testified to Congress that there was no collateral damage in drone targeted assassinations.

Obama was proud of his preemptive assassination program. Indeed, in lighthearted fashion he joked at the White House Correspondence Dinner about his preference for lethal drone missions, when he “warned” celebrities not to date his daughters: “But boys, don’t get any ideas. I have two words for you, ‘predator drones.’ You will never see it coming. You think I’m joking.”

Did the campuses erupt and scream “Not in my name” when their president laughed about his assassination program? After all, Obama had also admitted, “There is no doubt that civilians were killed who shouldn’t have been.” Did he then stop the targeted killings due to collateral damage—as critics now demand a cease fire from Israel?

“Genocide”

Genocide is now the most popular charge in the general damnation of Israel, a false smear aimed at calling off the Israeli response to Hamas, burrowed beneath civilians in Gaza City.

But how strange a charge! Pro-Hamas demonstrators the world over chant “From the River to the Sea,” unambiguously calling for the utter destruction of Israel and its 9 million population. Are the Hamas supporters then “genocidal?”

Is genocide the aim of Hamas that launched over 7,000 rockets into Israeli cities without warning? What is the purpose of the purportedly 120,000 rockets in the hands of Hezbollah if not to target Israeli noncombatants? Is all that a genocidal impulse?

Do Hamas and Hezbollah drop leaflets to civilians, as does Israel, to flee the area of a planned missile attack—or is that against their respective charters?

Hamas leaders in Qatar and Beirut continue to give interviews bragging about their October 7 surprise mass murdering of civilians. They even promise more such missions that likewise will be aimed at beheading, torturing, executing, incinerating, and desecrating the bodies of hundreds of Jewish civilians, perhaps again in the early morning during a holiday and a time of peace.

Is that planned continuation of mass killing genocidal? Does the amoral UN recall any other mass murdering spree when the killers beheaded infants, cooked them in ovens, and raped the dead?

Perhaps students at Harvard, Yale, Cornell, and Stanford will protest the real genocide in Darfur where some half-million black African Sudanese have been slaughtered by mostly Muslim Arab Sudanese. Did the Cornell professor who claimed he was “exhilarated” on news of beheaded Jewish babies protest the slaughter of the Sudanese? Did the current campus protestors ever assemble to scream about the Islamists who slaughtered the indigenous Africans of Sudan?

Are professors at Stanford organizing to refuse all grants and donations that originate from communist China? Remember, the Chinese communist Party has never apologized for the party’s genocidal murder of some 60-80 millions of its own during the Maoist Cultural Revolution, much less its systematic efforts to eliminate the Uyghur Muslim population?

These examples could easily be expanded. But they suffice to remind us that the Middle-East and Western leftist attacks on Israel for responding to the October 7 mass murdering are neither based on any consistent moral logic nor similarly extended to other nations who really do practice apartheid, genocide, and kill without much worry about collateral damage.

So why does the world apply a special standard to Israel?

To the leftist and Islamist, Israel is guilty of being: 1) Too Jewish; 2) Too prosperous, secure, and free; 3) Sufficiently Western to meet the boilerplate smears of colonialist, imperialist, and blah, blah, blah.

[eesirachs]

In a speech by Olga Tokarczuk, a Nobel Prize winner in literature, she said: Have you ever wondered who the marvelous storyteller is in the Bible who calls out in a loud voice: “In the beginning was the word”? Who is the narrator who describes the creation of the world, its first day, when chaos was separated from order, who follows the serial about the origin of the universe, who knows the thoughts of God, is aware of his doubts, and with a steady hand sets down on paper the incredible sentence: “And God saw that it was good”? Who is this, who knows what God thought?

I find it really beautiful, that last question. who do you think it is?

it is the priestly source that composed (and was composed by) the first creation story. it is the last source of the torah. it is written in exile, far from eden, far from this god and all that he saw to be טֽוֹב. and yet, this god is never far. nor can eden be, for a composing body in diaspora. this god keeps his affect loud, his thoughts gushing, his heart on his sleeve. even for the priestly source, so pre-occupied with garb and blood and transcendence, this god can’t squirm out of his own immanence. they look up from writing about god in eden to find god in the room with them, and the room is eden anyway, and everything is טֽוֹב, because it has to be. hashem is a good ancient near eastern god. responsive as a lover. if he likes something he’ll tell you

[chaoticquill]

"It's wiser to quit something if you can't do it. And it's important to look at yourself objectively so you can know your place... But... desperately standing against something you fear... My friend is standing against someone overwhelmingly stronger than himself, and to thoughtlessly laugh and look down on him... I won't allow that."

Who made this speech, you ask? Maybe an ancient philosopher? Maybe classical literature? Some Greek dude in an epic poem?

No. It was this dude who, in a world where magic determines everything, punches all his problems to make them go away.

God, I love anime.

[the-empress-7]

Empress, Mike's rugby podcast was such a refreshing palate cleanser and a revelation as well! Really wonderful! They all - William, Catherine, Anne, Mike - look so additionally attractive and "soft," almost, when seen animated and talking in a relaxed atmosphere among friends. It was also really enlightening vis a vis the Harkles.

As an American who shares common ancestry, history, language, literature, culture, and alliance with our British cousins, it still strikes me how the cultural nuances between our two nations differ...and how any American (cough Meghan cough) would find it difficult, challenging, and indeed ill-advised to attempt to mesh comfortably within the BRF, much less try to change/"modernize" it! The people in this podcast have a shared experience - in this case, with sport (rugby, tennis, riding, sailing/swimming) - that Meghan simply doesn't have. They easily discuss professional athletes/teams and their own personal experiences in these sports in a way that M could never. (It's doubtful that she can even converse knowledgeably about US athletes/sports. It's quite obvious to anyone in the know that she's not athletic, and that includes yoga lol.) Meghan was always going to be a fish out of water in the BRF, and this podcast really underscored that fact.

The purpose of the BRF is to embody/represent the UK, including its grand ancient culture. How arrogant then that an outsider would marry in and - rather than celebrating that culture - try to change and "modernize" it, declaring less than 2 years later that she was "carving out a progressive new role within this institution"! The gall! The hubris! No one asked her to change anything, much less the 1000-yr-old British monarchy! 

And conversely btw, the same goes for Harold, moving to the US and declaring that the First Amendment of our Constitution (freedom of speech, the press, religion, and assembly) is "bonkers"! He is ignorant of his own country's history and it's monarchy (his actual family lol), and he sure af is ignorant of US history, culture, and our Constitution.

Anyhoo...that was a wonderful podcast! Anne looked softer and prettier than she often photographs (Mike, too lol). Catherine was beautiful as usual with an easy articulateness sometimes missing from her prepared speeches. And William was glowing and more handsome than ever, and you can really see Diana's mannerisms when he speaks. The amiable, easy-going W/C in this podcast are the antithesis of the stiff, non-hugging Brits MM described in her mockumentary. Maybe the problem is Meghan? ;)