#Sir James Frazer

[dejahisashmom]

The Power of the Flying Rowan Tree, Woe of the Witches | Ancient Origins

https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/woe-witches-elevated-flying-rowan-tree-004552

View On WordPress

#Beltane #Brahma #Druids #European Mountain Ash #Greek #Hebe #Hinduism #Lotus Flower #Norse #Oak Tree #Ohm #Rowan Tree #Rune Staves #Scotland #Sir James Frazer #Sorbus aucuparia #Sylvan Wonderer #The Golden Bough #Thor #Vishnu #Witch Tree #Witch Wood #Witchcraft #Witches

[natalieironside]

(Sir James George Frazer voice) "In the ancient United States, the god-king would renew the land and ensure bountiful fortune by gifting 'content' to the assembled multitude, whom they called 'subscribers'. If the subscribers deemed the 'content' to be 'cringe', they would tear the god-king apart and appoint a successor."

[violetmoondaughter]

In neopaganism the horned god is seen with two different faces representing the duality of nature and the changing of seasonal cycle. The theory of these two aspects of the god was debated by Sir James George Frazer in The Golden Bough and by Robert Graves in The White Goddess.  

According to these theories old religions were fertility cults that revolved around the worship and periodic sacrifice of a sacred king. Frazer based his thesis on the pre-Roman priest-king Rex Nemorensis who was ritually murdered by his successor. The king was the incarnation of a dying and reviving god, a solar deity who underwent a mystic marriage to a goddess of the Earth. He died at the harvest and was reincarnated in the spring. This legend of rebirth is central to almost all of the world's mythologies. Some examples of this archetypical figure are the gods Dionysus, Osiris, Tammuz, Dumuzi, Adonis, Janus, Attis. 

 The two aspects of this figure take the names of Holly and Oak king. 

The Holly King is seen as an old version of the green man, ruler of winter, death and darkness. He starts his kingdom at summer solstice when, after the longest day, ruled by his opposite king the oak king, the days start to get darker and shorter entering in the dark half of the year. The holly king is so called referring to the plant that is fruitful during the winter season.  The holly king is also referred to as a black knight and is also connected with the dark aspects of many pagan gods. 

Counterpart of the Holly King is the Oak King that is usually seen as a young green man, ruler of summer, life and light. He starts his kingdom at the winter solstice, when after the darkest night a new light is reborn, signing the beginning of the light half of the year. The oak king is called over the name of the plant that is fruitful during the hot season. Opposite to the Holly King, the Oak King, relates to the light aspect of many pagan gods and its sometimes referred to as a white knight. 

According to the theory these two kings may be seen as two brothers fighting for the throne or as a father and son passing the kingdom to each other in a perpetual cycle of death and rebirth. This cycle of life and death represents the seasonal cycle of death and rebirth of the sunlight and vegetative world.

#witchcraft #witchblr #witches of tumblr #paganism #pagan witch #oak king holly king #horned god #green man #winter solstice #yule #the golden bough #wheel of the year #darkness and light #winter #strega #italianwitch

[father-of-the-void]

Mythology has been described by Robert Graves as "the study of whatever religious or heroic legends are so foreign to a student's experience that he cannot believe them to be true. Hence the English adjective 'mythical,' meaning 'incredible.'

This strikes me as quite an accurate description of what most scholars who study myth think they are doing and also of their fundamental attitude towards their subject matter - i.e. that myths are 'incredible' fictions composed in the ancient world either "to answer the sort of awkward questions that children ask" or "to justify an existing social system and account for traditional rites and customs." In consequence, most published analyses of myth all the way back to Sir James Frazer tend to focus on its social, economic and psychological functions. There have been a very few notable exceptions, but as a rule those foolish enough to suggest that myths might in any way provide us with factual historical data have been ridiculed, abused and in some cases effectively excommunicated by their peers.

— Graham Hancock, Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization

#graham hancock #underworld #the mysterious origins of civilization #mythology #religion #ancient civilization #ancient civilizations #myth #myths #lore #folklore

[justforbooks]

The actor Ian Lavender, who has died aged 77, played the awkward, impulsive Private Frank Pike in the long-running BBC comedy Dad’s Army, and was the last surviving member of the cast who portrayed Captain Mainwaring’s Home Guard platoon.

Most of the part-time soldiers depicted in the series, which ran from 1968 to 1977, were exempted from call-up to the army during the second world war because of advanced age. Pike, their junior in most cases by several decades, had been excused because of his weak chest, and always wore the scarf insisted upon by his widowed mum, Mavis.

In spite of their foibles and foolishness, Mainwaring’s pomposity and the frequent slapstick sequences, the heroes of Dad’s Army were courageous men prepared to give their lives to protect their country, and it was this innate nobility that lifted the series, written by David Croft and Jimmy Perry, to greatness. At its peak it had more than 18 million weekly viewers, and is still regularly rerun.

There were many catchphrases – Lance Corporal Jones’s “Don’t panic!”, Private Frazer’s “We’re doomed!” and Sergeant Wilson’s languid “Do you think that’s wise, sir?” – and the best-remembered belongs to the gangster movie-fixated Pike, though he did not utter it himself: Mainwaring’s weary “You stupid boy!”

Pike was also involved in Dad’s Army’s most frequently quoted joke. “What is your name?” snarls the German U-boat commander who has been captured by the platoon. “Don’t tell him, Pike,” shouts Mainwaring. There was often great subtlety in the inter-platoon relationships, best exemplified by that of Pike and Wilson (John Le Mesurier). Wilson, whom Pike calls Uncle Arthur, is Mrs Pike’s lodger, and is forever fussing around the boy, making sure his scarf is on tight and gently steering him away from danger. It was not until the end of the final series that Lavender asked Croft if “Uncle Arthur” was actually Pike’s father. “Of course,” replied Croft.

Born in Birmingham, Ian was the son of Edward, a policeman, and Kathleen (nee Johnson), a housewife; his mother often took him to see pantomimes, variety shows and Saturday morning cinema, which gave him his first ambitions to become an actor. After performing in many school drama productions at Bournville boys’ technical school he was accepted, with the help of a grant from the city of Birmingham, by the Bristol Old Vic acting school. Clearly far from being a stupid boy, he passed 12 O-levels and four A-levels. “The only reason I don’t have a degree is because I went to drama school,” he said years later.

He made his first television appearance soon after he graduated from Bristol in 1968, playing an aspiring writer whose family want him to get a proper job, in Ted Allan’s play for the Half Hour Story series, Flowers at My Feet, with Angela Baddeley and Jane Hylton.

In the same year, he was cast as Pike, joining the seasoned veterans of comedy and the classics Le Mesurier, Arthur Lowe (Mainwaring), Clive Dunn (Jones), John Laurie (Frazer), James Beck (Private Walker), Arnold Ridley (Private Godfrey) and Bill Pertwee as Air Raid Warden Hodges. Janet Davies played Mrs Pike.

While Dad’s Army catapulted Lavender to national fame at the age of 22, the role of Pike haunted him for the rest of his long career. Not that he had any complaints.

Asked in 2014 if he got fed up with a lifetime of having “stupid boy” called out to him in the street, he replied: “I’m very proud of Dad’s Army. If you asked me ‘Would you like to be in a sitcom that was watched by 18 million people, was on screen for 10 years, and will create lots of work for you and provide not just for you but for your children for the next 40-odd years?’ – which is what happened – I’d be a fool to say ‘Bugger off.’ I’d be a fool to have regrets.”

After Dad’s Army, Lavender made further television appearances, including Mr Big (1977), with Peter Jones and Prunella Scales, and in 1983 he revived Pike for the BBC radio sitcom It Sticks Out Half a Mile, a sequel to Dad’s Army, but it was not a success and lasted only one series. In contrast, the original series, with most of the regular cast, had been rerecorded for radio from 1974 to 1976 and proved very popular.

He was also in the BBC TV series Come Back Mrs Noah (1977-78), co-written by Croft; and played Ron in a new version of The Glums (1979) for London Weekend Television, adapted from Frank Muir and Denis Norden’s original radio scripts of the 1950s. There were more smallish television parts in the 80s, such as two episodes of Yes, Minister, and bits in Keeping Up Appearances, Goodnight Sweetheart, Rising Damp and Casualty. He starred in the unsuccessful BBC series The Hello Goodbye Man in 1984 and provided the lead voice in the children’s cartoon series PC Pinkerton in 1988.

He was also in various quiz shows, including Cluedo (1990). On Celebrity Mastermind, broadcast on BBC1 on New Year’s Day 2009, when the presenter John Humphrys asked him to state his name, a fellow contestant, Rick Wakeman, shouted: “Don’t tell him, Pike!”

In addition to co-starring in the first film version of Dad’s Army (1971), he appeared in various low-level British sex farces of the 1970s, including Confessions of a Pop Performer (1975), Carry on Behind (1975), Adventures of a Taxi Driver (1976) and Adventures of a Private Eye (1976). He also starred in the thriller 31 North 62 East (2009). “I was close to getting two very big movies in the 70s,” he said without rancour in 2014, “but in the end they said: ‘We can’t get past Private Pike.’”

Lavender’s second best-known role was his delicate and sympathetic portrayal of Derek Harkinson, Pauline Fowler’s gay friend, in the BBC soap EastEnders from 2001 to 2005, and again in 2016-17.

In addition to various live Dad’s Army productions, his stage work included the Royal Shakespeare Company’s The Merchant of Venice, directed by Peter Hall and with Dustin Hoffman as Shylock in 1989, touring as the Narrator in The Rocky Horror Show in 2005, Monsignor Howard in the London Palladium production of the musical Sister Act in 2009, The Shawshank Redemption at the Edinburgh fringe in 2013, and his own one-man show of reminiscences, Don’t Tell Him, Pike.

Lavender had a great admiration for Buster Keaton, and was an expert on the silent comedian’s career. In 2011 he introduced Keaton’s Sherlock Jr (1924) at the Slapstick silent comedy festival in Bristol, and commented that finding Keaton’s grave in the Fountain Lawns cemetery in Hollywood had been one of his life’s special moments.

In 2016 a new cinema version of Dad’s Army was released, with Toby Jones as Mainwaring and Bill Nighy as Wilson. Private Pike was played by Blake Harrison, and Lavender was promoted to play Brigadier Pritchard. In a touching in-joke, his younger face was also seen on an advertisement poster in a street scene.

Lavender is survived by his second wife, Miki Hardy, whom he married in 1993; by his sons, Sam and Daniel, from his first marriage, to the actor Suzanne Kershiss, which ended in divorce; and by two granddaughters.

🔔 Arthur Ian Lavender, actor, born 16 February 1946; died 2 February 2024

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at Just for Books…?

#just for books #Ian Lavender #in memoriam

[renaultphile]

Andrew is into anthropology?

In the 1959 edition, the reference to the Golden Bough is cut.

I feel like this must be a reference to “The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion”, written by the Scottish anthropologist Sir James George Frazer, first published in 1890.

Looks like a pretty weighty tome, with a challenging premise.  Interesting that he just says 'it's like the Golden Bough' without elaborating. And notable that he is interested in anthropology, while Laurie loves fiction.

I wonder why she cut the line?  Anyone know this book or know more about it?

Personally I find that little exchange and Laurie’s embarrassed reaction to it rather delicious! And it reminds me that in the book we get the merest tip of the iceberg of their conversations. They spend a lot of time together and we see only tiny glimpses (something which is more or less reversed when we are re-introduced to a certain person later on 👀).

#tc fandom reread #andrew raynes #laurie odell #the charioteer #mary renault #The Golden Bough #James George Frazer

[talesofpassingtime]

Now of all sources of danger none are more dreaded by the savage than magic and witchcraft, and he suspects all strangers of practising these black arts.

— Sir James George Frazer, The Golden Bough 

#booklr

[imissthembutitwasntadisaster]

Rip Sir James George Frazer, author of The Golden Bough who claimed the hero who walked into death and conquered it through rebirth was the heart of almost all mythologies, you would have loved The Empty Grave by Jonathan Stroud

#lockwood and co #lockwood and co spoilers #he would've

[gatheringbones]

[“Sovereignty always represents itself as a symbolic break with the moral order; this is why kings so often commit some kind of outrage to establish themselves, massacring their brothers, marrying their sisters, desecrating the bones of their ancestors or, in some documented cases, literally standing outside their palace and gunning down random passers-by. Yet that very act establishes the king as potential lawmaker and high tribunal, in much the same way that ‘High Gods’ are so often represented as both throwing random bolts of lightning, and standing in judgment over the moral acts of human beings.

People have an unfortunate tendency to see the successful prosecution of arbitrary violence as in some sense divine, or at least to identify it with some kind of transcendental power. We might not fall on our knees before any thug or bully who manages to wreak havoc with impunity (at least, if he isn’t actually in the room), but insofar as such a figure does manage to establish themselves as genuinely standing above the law – in other words, as sacred or set apart – another apparently universal principle kicks in: in order to keep him apart from the muck and mire of ordinary human life, that same figure becomes surrounded with restrictions. Violent men generally insist on tokens of respect, but tokens of respect taken to the cosmological level – ‘not to touch the earth’, ‘not to see the sun’ – tend to become severe limits on one’s freedom to act, violently or indeed in most other ways.

For most of history, this was the internal dynamic of sovereignty. Rulers would try to establish the arbitrary nature of their power; their subjects, insofar as they were not simply avoiding the kings entirely, would try to surround the godlike personages of those rulers with an endless maze of ritual restrictions, so elaborate that the rulers ended up, effectively, imprisoned in their palaces – or even, as in some of the cases of ‘divine kingship’ first made famous by Sir James Frazer’s The Golden Bough, facing ritual death themselves.

[…] Indeed, if we are trying to understand the appeal of monarchy as a form of government – and it cannot be denied that for much of recorded human history it was a very popular one – then likely it has something to do with its ability to mobilize sentiments of a caring nature and abject terror at the same time.

The king is both the ultimate individual, his quirks and fancies always to be indulged like a spoilt baby, and at the same time the ultimate abstraction, since his powers over mass violence, and often (as in Egypt) mass production, can render everyone the same.

It is also worth observing that monarchy is probably the only prominent system of government we know of in which children are crucial players, since everything depends on the monarch’s ability to continue the dynastic line. The dead can be worshipped under any regime – even the United States, which frames itself as a beacon of democracy, creates temples to its Founding Fathers and carves portraits of dead presidents into the sides of mountains – but infants, pure objects of love and nurture, are only politically important in kingdoms and empires.”]

david graeber and david wengrow, the dawn of everything: a new history of humanity, 2021

#david graeber #history stuff #currently reading

[simonxriley]

I was tagged by the wonderful @kittiofdoom @baldurrs and @jinfromyarikawa to do this 'I have a crush on this character' template. Thank you! 💜

Tagging @playstationmademe @nightwingshero @detectivelokis @sstewyhosseini @leviiackrman @chuckhansen @corvosattano @r6shippingdelivery @chazz-anova @teamhawkeye @nightbloodraelle @voidika @phillipsgraves and anyone else that wants to do it!!

Below the cut is are the names of the characters and the blank template.

Because they are interesting:

James Flint (Black Sails)

Jesse Rentier (Evil West)

Sir Galahad/Grayson (The Order 1886)

Because they're cute:

Sihtric (The Last Kingdom)

Ronon O'Connor (Murdered: Soul Suspect)

Because they are physically attractive:

Max (Black Sails)

Lord Ba'al (Stargate SG-1)

Rachael Dalton (Strike Back)

Because they are my type of men/women:

Alexsandr "Tachanka" Senaviev (Rainbow Six: Siege)

Chloe Frazer (Uncharted)

Because i feel they are the same as me:

Simon "Ghost" Riley (OG MW2) we don't talk about reboot Ghost here 🤢

Corporal Dunn (Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2)

Because I can:

Zoran Lazarevic (Uncharted 2)

Konstantin (Rise of the Tomb Raider)

Charles Vane (Black Sails)

#Jess the homeboys are back😅 #btw i like Max more than just being physically attractive #kittiofdoom #baldurrs #jinfromyarikawa

[catilinas]

she rex on my nemorensis until i sir james george frazer

#beeps

[desert-oracle]

EPISODE #222: RANTIN' & RAVIN' AT THE RAVEN'S FUNERAL

Tonight we’re talking ravens, fishes & loaves, and the soul-crushing indoor indoctrination of the Empire’s State Religion. Sir James George Frazer, Pliny the Elder and the Gospel Mark are all involved, whether they like it or not. (And the “Bible Friends” podcast mentioned on this episode can be found here.) Thanks for listening EPISODE #222: RANTIN’ & RAVIN’ AT THE RAVEN’S FUNERAL, and for…

View On WordPress

#ravens #sacred groves

[scotianostra]

January 8th 1697 Edinburgh student Thomas Aikenhead was executed in Edinburgh.

This is a cracking, if sad tale, and shows you how religious beliefs can be a blight on our history.

So who was oor Thomas, a villain?, a murderer?, a smuggler?, or some enemy of the state? No Thomas’s crime was blasphemy who took the lord’s name in vain…….this would be comic if it wasn’t for the tragic fact that he was executed, unlike the man in Life of Brian, who uttered the words Jehova, Thomas complained that he wished he was warming himself in hell rather than that chilly night walking past the recently built Tron Kirk on Edinburgh’s Royal Mile. Well that’s the simple story that the tour guides that take you round the Old Town will tell you, there is a bit more to it so I will bore you with a bit more of the detail. Thomas Aikenhead came from a well-to-do family in Edinburgh, his father being listed as a surgeon but more probably an apothecary, a dispenser of herbs and potions. Both his parents were dead by the time he became a student at Edinburgh University at the age of 16 or 17.

His mother had been a daughter of the manse, and you would think that would have made Aikenhead wary of challenging the established religion of the time, namely the all-powerful Church of Scotland, especially while still a student and under the constant gaze of professors, lecturers and, as it turned out, his fellow students.

These were the dying days of a curious period in Scottish history. Aikenhead would have been four when the ‘Wizard of the West Bow’ Major Thomas Weir was executed in 1670. Weir was by day an extreme Calvinist but by night an incestuous Satanist and it takes no great leap of reason to see that an impressionable young boy might well have been affected by the trial and execution of a local celebrity that lived not far from him.

The 1680s was also the ‘killing time’ for the Covenanters when many died because of they worshipped their same god in differing ways!

Thomas was a keen student and an avid reader, he may or may not have known and Edinburgh bookseller, John Frazer, who had been prosecuted after admitting either reading, or being in possession of Charles Blount’s Oracles of Reason a book I know nothing about but gather it relates to Deism, which questioned the existence or more importanyly, non-existence of God or Satan, Frazer had repented ad as it was a first offence was sackclothed and jailed in the old Tolbooth for a number of months.

Anyway, Thomas had a friend, well he thought he had a friend, Murdo Craig, but Murdo, on the sly had been keeping notes on Aitkenhead, and his dalliances with blasphemous ideals, we know that because they formed a large part of the indictment against Aikenhead.

“Nevertheless it is of verity, that you Thomas Aikenhead, shakeing off all fear of God and regaird to his majesties lawes, have now for more than a twelvemoneth by past, and upon severall of the dayes within the said space, and ane or other of the same, made it as it were your endeavour and work in severall compainies to vent your wicked blasphemies against God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, and against the holy Scriptures, and all revealled religione, in soe far as upon ane or other of the dayes forsaid, you said and affirmed, that divinity or the doctrine of theologie was a rapsidie of faigned and ill-invented nonsense, patched up partly of the morall doctrine of philosophers, and pairtly of poeticall fictions and extravagant chimeras, or words to this effect or purpose, with severall other such reproachfull expressions.”

That was just for starters. Sir James Stewart of Goodtrees, the Lord Advocate of the day, had taken a personal interest in the case and he decided to throw the whole lot of Craig’s testimony at Aikenhead who was arrested in November, 1696, and charged under the Blasphemy Act of 1661 which carried the death penalty. He also charged Aikenhead under a more recent act, which made it a criminal offence to ‘deny, impugn or quarrel’ about the existence of God.The prosecution papers go on to record

“You have lykwayes in discourse preferred Mahomet to the blessed Jesus, and you have said that you hoped to see Christianity greatly weakened, and that you are confident that in a short tyme it will be utterly extirpate.”

For Mahomet, read Muhammad, could young Thomas be an Islam convert in 17th century Edinburgh, I very much doubt it, they just needed to make an example of the young student, and he knew by now that he was in very great trouble and protested in effect that he was guilty only of the sin of being youthful and had been led astray by the books he had read. He claimed to have repented of his anti-Christian beliefs and was once again a good Presbyterian. In this way he seems to have thrown himself upon the mercy of the court, but there was no mercy.  On Christmas Eve, 1696, a jury found him guilty. Sir James Stewart asked for the death penalty and it was granted and “pronounced for doom,” as Scottish judges were still saying well into the 20th century in capital punishment cases. Aikenhead pleaded for his life to the Privy Council emphasising his youth, his dire circumstances, and the fact that he was reconciled to the Protestant religion. There was some support for the death sentence to be commuted from at least two councillors and two Church of Scotland ministers, but the General Assembly of the Kirk intervened, demanding that Aikenhead suffer 

“vigorous execution to curb the abounding of impiety and profanity in this land”.

In his last letter to friends, written in the Tolbooth prison in Edinburgh as he awaited execution, Aikenhead at last gave a plausible explanation for his conduct – that he had been a disappointed seeker after truth. He wrote: 

“It is a principle innate and co-natural to every man to have an insatiable inclination to the truth and to seek for it as for hid treasure. So I proceeded until the more I thought thereon, the further I was from finding the verity I desired.” In truth, in a repressed society the student had just gone too far in rejecting the doctrines of Christianity calling it “feigned and ill-invented nonsense”

Aikenhead went to his death on January 8, 1697, hanged on the scaffold at Shrubhill between Edinburgh and Leith. It is said that before he died he proclaimed that moral laws were the work of governments and men. In his hand as the noose was plced around his neck was the Holy Bible. The execution angered many people for many years afterwards. The great English historian Thomas Babington Macaulay wrote an account of the hanging and called the execution “a crime such has never since polluted the island.”He continued: “The preachers who were the boy’s murderers crowded round him at the gallows, and, while he was struggling in the last agony, insulted Heaven with prayers more blasphemous than any thing that he had ever uttered.”

There was other evidence of church authorities being present as Aikenhead died. He was the last man in Britain to be hanged for blasphemy.

According to Arthur Herman in his book “How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe’s Poorest Nation Created Our World and Everything in It”, the execution of Aikenhead was “the last hurrah of Scotland’s Calvinist ayatollahs” before the dawning of the age of reason in the Enlightenment.

Now we can all rejoice in The Enlightenment but a full 30 years later in the small town of Dornoch in Sutherland, Janet Horne was put on trial for the “crime” of having a daughter whose feet and hands were misshapen and who had herself given birth to a son with disabilities. She was the last woman in Britain to be burned at the stake for being a witch, her death bringing to an end the “burning time” when perhaps 4000 Scottish women were executed for the crime of witchcraft.

I thought I would add a wee bit more about Shrubhill in Leith, as most of us usually only regard Edinburgh’s Old Town, The Tolbooth, and Grassmarket as sites where executions took place. I can’t find out why Aikenhead was taken to, at what at the time, was a different town for his executions I did however find records  of several taking place at the site, now student accommodation, but the site of Edinburghs tram workshops and powerstation, but beforehand not many know that it was the site of he gibbet known as the Gallow Lee, literally the “field with the gallows”,

Bodies were buried at the base of the gallows or their ashes scattered if burnt. The most famous of those that met their end here was perhaps Major Weir, the Wizard of the West Bow.

1570- Two criminals strangled and burned to death.

1570 (4 October)- Rev. John Kelloe minister of Spott, East Lothian (near Dunbar) strangled and burnt for the murder of his wife

1664- Nine witches strangled and burnt

1670- Major Thomas Weir, the self-confessed warlock, strangled and burnt for witchcraft (almost the only self-confessed witch executed).

1678- Five witches strangled and burnt

1680- Part of the body of Covenanter David Hackston was hung in chains after his execution at the mercat cross in Edinburgh for the murder of Archbishop Sharp in 1679.

1681 (10 October)- Covenanters Garnock, Foreman, Russel, Ferrie and Stewart hanged and beheaded. Their headless bodies were buried at the site and their heads placed on the Cowgate Port at the foot of the Pleasance. Friends reburied the bodies in the graveyard of the West Kirk (St. Cuthberts). The heads were retrieved, placed in a box and then buried in garden ground at Lauriston. They lay there until 7 October 1726 when the then owner, Mr Shaw, had them exhumed and reburied near the Martyrs’ Monument in Greyfriars Kirkyard.

1697 (8 January)- Thomas Aikenhead, a 19-year-old theology student at Edinburgh University became the last person to be executed under Scotland’s blasphemy laws (and the last in Britain to be executed for that crime).

1752 (10 January)- Norman Ross, a footman, hanged for the murder of Lady Baillie, sister of Home, Laird of Wedderburn. The body was left to hang in a gibbet cage “for many a year” and became a local ghoulish tourist attraction.

Post mid 18th Century the Nor’ Loch was drained and the city expanded to the north by the building of the New Town with stone quarried from nearby Craigleith quarry. In such building sand was needed to add to the lime mortar and Gallow Lee proved to be just what was needed. The owner of Gallow Lee charged the builders to cart away the sand, containing the ashes and other remains of thousands of victims.

As with all good stories there has been a drama set to the events,  I Am Thomas: A Brutal Comedy with Songs was performed at the  Royal Lyceum Theatre in 2016, before going on a short tour, it received mixed to positive reviews from critics. Read one of the reviews here https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/feb/17/i-am-thomas-aikenhead-play-told-by-an-idiot-simon-armitage-blasphemy

#scotland #scottish #edinburgh #blasphemy #religous zealots #executions #history

[grandmaster-anne]

Court Circular | 15th February 2023

Buckingham Palace

The King held a Council at 4pm. There were present: the Rt Hon Melvyn Stride MP (Acting Lord President and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions), the Rt Hon Stephen Barclay MP (Secretary of State for Health and Social Care), the Rt Hon Gillian Keegan MP (Secretary of State for Education), the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden MP, the Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, the Rt Hon Michelle Donelan MP and the Rt Hon Lucy Frazer MP. The Rt Hon Dame Sarah Falk was sworn in as a Member of His Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council. The Rt Hon Oliver Dowden MP took the Oath of Office, kissed hands upon appointment and received the Seals of Office as Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office. The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP took the Oath of Office, kissed hands upon appointment and received the Seals of Office as Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy). The Rt Hon Michelle Donelan MP took the Oath of Office, kissed hands upon appointment and received the Seals of Office as Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. The Rt Hon Lucy Frazer MP took the Oath of Office, kissed hands upon appointment and received the Seals of Office as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Digital, Culture, Media and Sport). Mr Richard Tilbrook was in attendance as Clerk of the Council. The Rt Hon Melvyn Stride MP had an audience of His Majesty before the Council. The Rt Hon Sir Clive Alderton (Principal Private Secretary to Their Majesties) and the Rt Hon Sir Edward Young (Joint Principal Private Secretary to His Majesty) were in attendance. Later, the Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP (Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury) had an audience of The King. By command of His Majesty, Mr Alistair Harrison (Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps) called upon His Excellency Mr Sebastian Mateo Corral Bustamante at 3 Hans Crescent, London SW1, this morning in order to bid farewell to His Excellency upon relinquishing his appointment as Ambassador from the Republic of Ecuador to the Court of St James’s.

St James’s Palace

The Princess Royal, accompanied by Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence, today carried out the following engagements in Wellington, New Zealand: Her Royal Highness this morning called upon the Rt Hon Christopher Hipkins MP (Prime Minister of New Zealand) at the Executive Wing, New Zealand Parliament Grounds, 40 Bowen Street, 1 Molesworth Street and 1 Museum Street, Pipitea. The Princess Royal subsequently visited the National Crisis Management Centre at the Executive Wing, New Zealand Parliament Grounds. Her Royal Highness later visited the Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa, 55 Cable Street, Te Aro. The Princess Royal, Colonel-in-Chief, Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals, this afternoon attended a Reception at Government House to mark the Centenary of the Corps. Her Royal Highness afterwards attended a Service of Remembrance and laid a wreath at the National War Memorial at Pukeahu National War Memorial Park, State Highway 1, Te Aro. The Princess Royal this evening attended a Dinner at Government House.

#court circular #princess anne #princess royal #tim laurence #king charles iii #british royal family

[deathlessathanasia]

“One of the most important areas of research in Aegean prehistory is the translation of Linear A, the writing system used by the Minoans before the Mycenaean conquest. It would appear that certain elements of a pre-Greek language have made their way into Greek, usually names ending in -nthos, -ssos, or -eus such as Knossos, Corinth(os), basileus, and Odysseus. The language that provided such words, then, should be the language (or at least a related group of languages) that was recorded in Linear A. To this date, not only can we not read the language, we do not even know to what language family, if any, it belongs. For a while, some believed that Linear A was a Semitic language, thus related to Arabic and Hebrew. Although there may have been some loan words, especially for imported items (think of the word karate being used in English now), no aspect of what is known of the language seems to conform to the linguistics of Semitic languages. For example, the consonant cluster beginning place-names such as Knossos would not be likely to exist in a Semitic language. Others have suggested, and some now do still maintain, that the language is Indo-European, possibly related to the Luwian dialects spoken in nearby Turkey. Yet others think the language may be the elusive Pelasgian, the pre-Greek dialect occasionally referred to in the writings of the ancient Greeks themselves. As the language certainly appears to be pre-Greek, such a hypothesis is not unfounded. But it provides no actual help either, as the “Pelasgians” are even less well understood in Greek history than the Minoans themselves. Finally, there are those who see the Linear A language as simply Minoan, not related to any other languages, much as modern Basque. Ultimately, the problem is that there is so little Linear A to work with. Ventris, Chadwick, and their colleagues had copious supplies of Linear B tablets with which to decode the language, many several lines long. What remains of Linear A is quite paltry, usually just a few signs on a pot or column. Add to this the fact that we really have no certain way of knowing if the phonetics discerned for Linear B are the same as those for Linear A. Thus, we cannot tell if we are even sounding the short words correctly (although see Godart 1984, 121–128, for more on this issue). . . .

Another problem now being reconsidered is the nature of Minoan religion (which would probably be helped a lot by the translation of Linear A). Sir Arthur Evans, who first brought Knossos, and thus the Minoans, to light, was heavily influenced by a school of thought known as the Cambridge School, best expressed in the work The Golden Bough by Sir James Frazer. Much of this school claimed that ancient, “primitive” religions functioned around the need for fertility. Thus, ancient myths, ancient rites, and even ancient gods were all understood as aspects of some massive fertility cult. The center point of such religions, as the ancients understood it, was an Earth Mother/fertility goddess, who usually had a son-consort vegetation god who died and was reborn annually. Even to this day, Stone Age figurines such as the Venus of Willendorf are understood as “fertility idols.” So influenced, Evans, and other scholars after him, seeing the prominence of females in Minoan iconography, have suggested that the Minoans had a fertility cult surrounding the Great Minoan Mother Goddess. This symbolism was believed to explain such “awkward” images as the prominently displayed breasts of the Middle Minoan Snake Goddesses—lactation imagery, according to the Cambridge School.

In recent years, though, scholars such as Christine Morris and Lucy Goodison have challenged such notions, most accessibly in their 1998 publication Ancient Goddesses (Goodison and Morris 1998). Here, they consider such facts as the utter lack of any pregnant goddess imagery in the Minoan repertoire, the fact that none of these “mother goddesses” are ever shown with children, and the fact that the various items decorating the different goddess images— snakes, birds, labrydes—suggest that we are dealing with several goddesses, not just one major one. In point of fact, monotheism was almost unheard of in the ancient world until the rise of Akhnaten of Egypt in the fourteenth century. Furthermore, the evidence from the Linear B tablets shows that there were several goddesses and gods in the Minoan repertoire (names appear in the tablets that are non-Greek and that are associated predominantly with Crete, having few to no cults on the mainland). Thus, deities such as Pade, Pipituna, and Qerasija appear from the records in Knossos, indicating Cretan but not Greek deities (Hiller 1997, 211). Some of the male deities, such as Enyalios and Paiawon, were apparently later absorbed by Greek gods—they became Ares Enyalios and Apollo Paean. Even the Minoan iconography shows male deities worshipped in sanctuaries, most notably the Palaikastro Kouros discussed in chapter 8. The notion of a single Mother Goddess and her Dying God consort must now be seriously reconsidered and replaced in the literature.”

 - The Ancient Greeks: New Perspectives, by Stephanie Lynn Budin

#minoans #minoan language #Linear A #minoan religion #excerpts #quotes

[stygianpen]

Literature’s 12 Archetypes

The concept of an archetype is far-reaching, appearing in behavioral and historical psychology as well as literary analysis. If you are to look up archetypes, you’ll likely come across the teachings of Jungian psychology where archetypes define a collectively inherited unconscious idea, pattern or thought, image, etc., universally present in individual psyches.

However, it was not Carl Jung who first began work with archetypes, nor Jung who popularized them in the literary world. Sir James George Frazer predated Jung by 30+ years with his workThe Golden Boughwhich dealt with cultural mythologies. A Scottish anthropologist, Frazer worked out of Cambridge University, creating this influential text that would go on to carry weight not only in anthropological studies but literary ones as well.

Today, we can look to books such asThe Hero with a Thousand Facesby Joseph Campbell andThe Seven Basic Plotsby Christopher Booker to explore archetypes of both character and plot, and learn how they can create a strong foundation for our own writing.

Now, I’m not here to write a masterpiece spanning 34 years of my life as Christopher Booker has done — I’ve already got that on the go with the fantasy epic I’m working on! I can however give you a brief rundown of archetypes where characters are concerned.

THE INNOCENT

The archetypically innocent character has a youthful sense of wonder. They’re easily impressed and tend to remain positive in the midst of a negative situation. Their naivety and simplicity can have them come across as either ignorant or authentic. They have a strong sense of hope and generally have very high expectations of others backed by positive motives. They desire goodness and are ‘glass half full’ personalities.

It’s rare that an innocent can remain as such, giving them endless possibilities of character arcs that lead them into any of ten other archetypes.

THE ORPHAN

The orphan archetype does not actually need to be an orphan, though characters like Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker are perfect examples of the type. This archetype has a strong desire for fulfillment and safety due to these needs not previously being met in their life. The orphan is the other side of the coin to the innocent. Where the innocent looks at the world with wonder, the orphan looks at it through a darker lens, seeing impure intentions behind the smiling faces of everyone they meet. Rather than opening themselves easily to others as the innocent does, they are closed and suspicious. As displayed in the Harry Potter and Star Wars series’, the orphan can take a heroic or villainous path, but that is up to them.

THE HERO

In Jungian psychology the hero is a symbol of the unconscious self. As archetypes depict aspects of human nature or life, we can find heroic potential in our own personal goals and achievements. The hero is the most popular archetype we see in stories, vanquishing evil and representing a certain ideal many of us would strive towards. The hero faces danger, braves trials, and overcomes all (many times thanks to their own special abilities) to bring peace to their loved ones or a larger population; maybe even the whole world. As humans we cannot help but focus on our inner struggles and be driven at least in part by ego, and so the hero is in most cases our primary protagonist in literature.

THE CAREGIVER

If you’re looking for selfless, that’s the caregiver archetype. Like Sam Gamgee, understanding of Frodo’s burden from start to finish, these archetypes can come off soft due to their caring nature but are oftentimes the strongest characters in a story. After all, it takes strength and courage to separate from the ego to the point where you would sacrifice your own life for that of a friend or child. Caregivers are kind, trustworthy and forgiving, often living simple and humble lives. But they are the backbone of those around them. While the hero may need to make tough decisions that reflect on an entire population, they often would not be able to do so without the decisions made by their caregiver.

THE EXPLORER

Explorers are independent and ambitious. Their spirited nature can sometimes cause them to be restless or even flaky, but this is exactly what drives them to continue the adventure. Their prevailing goal is one of fulfilment through freedom and excitement. While the orphan looks for a home, the explorer doesn’t need one. In fact, they fear it. To be tied down, bored, or blocked from learning would be the death of their character. Often charismatic, they seek thrills, and when they do land on a goal it is often unattainable. Even though the explorer may not be good for us, we can’t help but love them.

THE REBEL

The rebel goes hand in hand with the explorer, but they are far more prone to destructive and nihilistic tendencies than their freedom-craving friend. Challenging the status quo, acting in an uncensored manner, and leading causes others may be too cowardly to take on can all be seen in a positive or negative light. Like the orphan, the rebel can be a great hero or a great villain depending on the choice they take and the influences they decide to listen to. When a rebel sets out on a mission, it will always be one where the ends justify the means.

THE LOVER

The lover is the sensuous, warm partner of the archetype group. Similar to the caregiver, they can be self-sacrificing but their goals are different. Rather than taking on a parental role, their focus is on partnering with the object of their affection and supporting that person with more emotional passion than their caring counterpart. These characters are dedicated, open with their feelings, and have a love for the poetic and the beautiful in life. They are likable characters who chase that commitment and partnership they crave whether it’s in the form of a romantic relationship, friendship, or even servitude to a God figure. They have a fear of being alone, and can harm themselves by getting too lost in the object of their affection or sacrificing too much, even their own lives, for this person or deity.

THE CREATOR

Practical yet imaginative. Ordered yet chaotic. The creator often finds themselves at odds with… well, themselves. While their imaginations can carry them away, when it comes down to it they are realistic and hands-on, which makes them quite accomplished and able to bring their creations into reality. They have a natural talent for melding practicality and artistry but this focus on the project at hand and leaning to non-conformity can be their downfall. It’s hard to maintain a stable family life when you’re being pulled at by an all-consuming creative dream. Creators also have a knack for gathering rivals due to their innovations and urge for provocation and impulse. To remain a positive influence, creators must maintain balance.

THE JESTER

The jester just wants to have a laugh. Joyful and carefree, they’re often an entertaining archetype who can bring up the mood of anyone around them. They fear boredom, live in the now, and can turn to more negative attributes of frivolity such as irresponsibility and unintended cruelty through difficulty in understanding a serious situation. Attention-seeking is not always appealing, but the jester’s sense of humour can be useful in diffusing negative situations. The jester can be very hard to break, as they are experts at finding joy in all things. This can make them a deceptively strong archetype as long as they manage their own impulses.

THE SAGE

Wise and learned, the sage archetype is in search of the truth above all else. A strong believer in the principle that ‘the truth will set you free’, they are reflective, independent and enlightened, often acting as guide and teacher to other archetypes. Detail-oriented, these archetypes can sometimes get lost in those details and forget to act, making a hero-type a very useful companion to them for actually getting things done. These intelligent archetypes have faith in humankind and do not think themselves better than anyone, even though they tend to be experts in their area of research. The sage aims to be a force of good, but battles with a leaning toward judgment that can result form much critical reflection.

THE MAGICIAN

As the orphan reflects the innocent, the magician is the other side of the coin to the sage. Highly intellectual, they have a stronger charisma and are secretive rather than open about their vast knowledge. While a sage imparts knowledge, a magician forms an idea of their ideal world or situation and manipulates their surroundings and those around them to fit that ideal. They are driven, and while their intentions can often be good, their means of reaching the end goal tend towards dishonesty. The magician cares little for The Truth and much for Their Truth.

THE RULER

The ruler may appear in your story fully-formed but many orphans and heroes play out a journey to reach this role. This archetype sits at the top of the food chain and has an air of polished confidence to them. Focused on stability and power, the ruler can be a great force of good or evil because, as we all know, with great power comes great responsibility. The ruler fears being dethroned, their world spinning into chaos, and will do everything they can to avoid this. A benevolent ruler will exercise their power for the good of those around them, while a ruler-turned-dictator exerts their power with only themselves in mind.

Arm yourself with archetypes!

Some may state negatively, that archetypes are formulaic. But they are based on a universal formula we all recognize and have little ability to avoid. By arming yourself with archetypes, you can create a winning cast of characters that inspire you and those who read about them.

Making your stories relatable is important if you want others to read and enjoy them.

If you haven’t tried writing with archetypes in mind, give it a shot today and let us know what you think. We’d also love to know what your favourite archetype to write is, so drop that in the comments down below. Personally I’m tied between rebel and magician!

#writing #writing community #creative writing #new author #writing help #writing tips #writing advice #writing resources #writing tips and tricks #editing #self publishing #archetypes