Stonehenge is a historical fiction surrounding the building of Stonehenge - the stone monument constructed around 2000 B.C. for purposes not totally understood but thought to be a temple to the sun god and for astronomical observation. Bernard Cornwell creates a village in conflict led by three sons fighting to rule their people as a warrior, a sorcerer and a builder and lead according to the desires of Slaol, the son god and Lahanna, the moon goddess. The eldest son, Lengar slaughters his father in a bid to exalt himself. The middle son (Camaban) has been rejected by his father and the village because he was born with a club foot. Camaban's mother pleads with her husband to spare his son's life, so the second boy is cast into the forest to fend for himself, living by the old temple and listening to the gods. The youngest son (Saban) is the hope for his father, to succeed him as chief but Saban identifies more with his builder-uncle Galeth than his warrior-father.
Through various twists and turns the village of Ratharryn is led by sorcerer-priest, Camaban who, through his conversations with Slaol, assigns Saban to build the temple which will marry Slaol to Lahanna. This is a story that is gritty, earthly, violent, gruesome, hopeful and hopeless. Children and beautiful women are sacrificed easily and regularly to the gods in hopes of good crops or good health. Imperfections are taken as signs of the god's displeasure so children who are blind, deaf, etc are saved until a sacrifice is needed. Wives are taken, then taken away and then taken back. A cloud's movement, a rustling of the trees, a bird flying over are all thought to be ways the gods communicate.
This was a hard story to read, as a woman and as a mother. [Although after reading another Cornwell book - the Last Kingdom - I don't think he understands women very well. I see little difference between his female and male characters ]Power rested to the men's hands and even then it was tenuous. The power stopped ultimately with the priests and in their wishes laid the future. Paganism was a hard faith. There was little hope and no assurances. The gods and spirits could bless you in the morning, curse you in the afternoon and kill you by evening. And blood was required, preferably the blood of the innocent - children. There was so much sacrificing that the stones were soaked red. Near the end of the construction of the temple it was decided by Camaban, the sorcerer-priest-chief, that Slaol demanded a great sacrifice to initiate his temple. Camaban decided the best sacrifice would be to slaughter all the slaves who were captured (to construct the temple) over the past seven years. Saban understood from Haraag (the previous priest of the new temple who had died) that the new temple was to be without blood sacrifice (Haragg's daughter was sacrificed to Slaol and since then Haraag has turned his back on blood sacrifices). Saban rebels against his brother:
There is no need to kill any slaves, " he [Saban] protested.When I read those words I was cut to the quick. What a contrast to the true Son of the true God who requires obedience, not sacrifice, who stood in the place of the sacrifice with his own body, his own blood. There must be blood and Christ said it must be His own. Without Christ there is such fear. The world is unknown and unknowable. There are no assurances, no confidence and little hope. What hope there is could be broken with the passing breeze or rains that may or may not come. In Christ we no our hope is sure.
"I decide the need!" Camaban screamd. He drew back the bloody sword....
Camaban stared at him and Saban thought the sword must swing forward for there was a terrible madness in his brother's fire-glossed eyes, but then, quite suddenly, Camaban began to cry. "There has to be blood!" he sobbed. "None of you understands! Even Haragg did not understand! There has to be blood."
"The temple is soaked in blood,"Saban said. "Why does it need more?"
"There must be blood. If there's no blood the god won't come. He won't come!" Camaban screamed this. Men watched him with appalled faces for he was now writhing as if his belly were gripped with pain. "I don't want there to be death," he cried, "but the gods want it. We must give them blood or they will give us nothing! Nothing! And none of you understands it!"
6 comments:
Some interesting thoughts Barb. However I do not, at first, understand why you say that it is only through Christ that we have hope. "Otherwise no hope."? Although I may have arrived at an agreement with you by the end. I also read "Stonehenge" and like you was outraged and captivated by the barbaric character of these religions as Cromwell portrayed them. Throughout, I was assuming it was meant to be Celtic as Stonehenge is said to be a Celtic monument. I was so shocked by the focus on blood and the need for blood as Caliban expresses. But your words brought me to reflect more contemplatively on the blood of Christ and on what a clear symbol it is within Christianity, within the Eucharist and the crucifixion (the last supper etc). A look at Catholicism will show us that the focus is clearly on the blood of Christ and also on the crucifixion. But also on the role of sacrifice and martyrdom (as in all the martyred saints. Perhaps Romanists are truly closer to the early Romans than we suspect.) So I feel you have struck some pretty deep cords. Also was it interesting to reflect on how this Christly blood has replaced the purported blood of paganism (although it was not all Pagan religions that focus on blood sacrifice). It is as if Christ himself becomes the sacrificial lamb, of Christianity, so that all of us can overcome the obsession with blood (with the need to impose human suffering) etc. Is this logical though and does it really make sense? After all, Jehovah of the Old Testament does not require blood sacrifice of the Jews (or Hebrews) and so, by that time, and in that part of the world anyway it would seem sacrifice was long over. Albeit God did exact his punishments then too as Jehovah was a God of wrath as opposed to the Christian God of love. Perhaps, therefore, this raises the question that the birth of a "love God" requires a final death, blood sacrifice or penalty to placate, once and for all, the need for blood both by the Gods and by humans alike. And then just maybe, as you imply, this need inheres within the bloody crucifixion of Christ. I never have understood the need for the crucifixion and feel it to be distinctly barbaric (though I was raised with it). Is it just another representation of religion's obsession with blood? hmmm. Is it a way of having a God sacrifice himself to himself as a perpetual representation of universal human suffering so that in worshiping it and praying to it, we can gain conscious awareness of it. And through this we can become conscious of the horrors, the pains of inhumanity, of sin, of our terrors, and of our vengfulness. I wonder ? After all, Gods are a reflection of human dreams, dramas, hopes and an abstraction on human's lives, their longings, their needs (fears, obsessions) etc. Is Christ then the universal savior to finally save us from ourselves, the same self ultimately found and represented in Cromwell's Stonehenge, for example? Is it the final solution (taken seriously) to abolish human atrocity and inhumanity? After all how would it make any sense to make blood sacrifices to a God who theoretically blood sacrifices himself? If Christ, the ultimate person, is sacrificed and killed in an interracial, inter-tribal political hate fest doesn't this show us that the bloody action is inarguably wrong. And an act against humanity and also against God? The crucifixion,therefore, likely stands as a symbol to show us the sadness and atrocity of barbarism and as such is the ultimate humanizing symbol. Thank-you for the opportunity to think deeply over these troubling issues. Christine
Argh!!! I had spent most of yesterday writing a response to you, Christine. I thought I posted it and went to re-read and it’s not here. So here I go again!
First - it’s been almost 2 years since I read the book and compiled my thoughts so it will take me some time to recollect. But then again your comments are not directed toward the book so much as toward Jesus and the cross. Am I right?
So my spiritual background should come into play. I suppose if you needed to categorize me you could say I am a fundamentalist although that term comes with too much baggage. But the original definition of the word does fit me - believe in the trinity/Godhead, hold to Scripture, belief that Jesus Christ’s act on the cross and his resurrection are our only salvation and redemption back to right-relationship with our Creator-Father-God.
Now onto your questions...I am not a theologian, far from it so I will be answering from my limited and warped brain.
You said: A look at Catholicism will show us that the focus is clearly on the blood of Christ and also on the crucifixion. But also on the role of sacrifice and martyrdom (as in all the martyred saints. Perhaps Romanists are truly closer to the early Romans than we suspect.)
I’m not sure what you mean by the role of “martyrdom”. But I do believe it was only through Christ’s blood shed on the cross true and right sacrifice was made once and for all. Christ is the sacrificial lamb (as you stated). Through the ages Jews had to sacrifice animals to make themselves right with God. Not because God needs the sacrifice but to encourage holiness and dependence on Him from His children. When one sacrifices on the altar something that is precious, dear to them, it makes the sacrifice, well, a sacrifice. Sacrifices had to be made for offenses. God is holy. He wants his people to be holy. He cannot look on sin. He wants to look on his people. If we agonize over the sacrifice, perhaps we’d be less inclined to commit the offense. But we still commit. The sweetness of sin is a great temptation. And the animal sacrifices were not perfect. The animals could not take on our offense because they couldn’t relate to our offense. But Jesus, God in the flesh, came down and became us so he could identify with us fully - all of foibles and temptations. He didn’t commit them but took them on because God wants to be in right relationship with us and this was the only way.
You said: Is this logical though and does it really make sense? After all, Jehovah of the Old Testament does not require blood sacrifice of the Jews (or Hebrews) and so, by that time, and in that part of the world anyway it would seem sacrifice was long over.
I haven’t studied every religion out there but I do believe most (99%??) do require a blood sacrifice when it comes to redemption. The Jews today would still perform sacrifice if the temple were still around but since it was destroyed in 69BC and that is the only place sacrifice can take place, sacrifices have ceased. IN the Old Testament blood sacrifice was required.
You said: Albeit God did exact his punishments then too as Jehovah was a God of wrath as opposed to the Christian God of love. Perhaps, therefore, this raises the question that the birth of a "love God" requires a final death, blood sacrifice or penalty to placate, once and for all, the need for blood both by the Gods and by humans alike.
I believe the God of the Old testament is the same as the God of the new (jew and christian). When reading the Old Testament at first blush it seems God is wrathful but read within context, deeper, and you find God is holy, just, merciful, slow to anger, yearning for his children to turn to him. He gives opportunity after opportunity but the Old Testament is chocked full of stories displaying man’s independence and rejection of God. Again, God is holy. We are not. He showed Israel how to turn back to Him. They rejected. Over and over again, as did the nations around them. Rather then allow man to wallow in sin, God dealt with it. But the “Wrath” stuff is more man’s attempt to make it right through man’s “logic.” God’s ways are not our ways and it would be better for us to lean on His understanding then try it on our own.
You said: I never have understood the need for the crucifixion and feel it to be distinctly barbaric (though I was raised with it). Is it just another representation of religion's obsession with blood?
I think we aren’t obsessed with blood but rather ourselves and try all manner to redeem our broken relationship with God, creation and each other. Rather than turn to our Maker, we turn to ourselves and try to solve the problem.
You said: Is Christ then the universal savior to finally save us from ourselves, the same self ultimately found and represented in Cromwell's Stonehenge, for example? Is it the final solution (taken seriously) to abolish human atrocity and inhumanity? After all how would it make any sense to make blood sacrifices to a God who theoretically blood sacrifices himself? If Christ, the ultimate person, is sacrificed and killed in an interracial, inter-tribal political hate fest doesn't this show us that the bloody action is inarguably wrong. And an act against humanity and also against God? The crucifixion,therefore, likely stands as a symbol to show us the sadness and atrocity of barbarism and as such is the ultimate humanizing symbol.
Yes - Jesus is the universal savior. I’m not sure what you’re asking about in the rest of this paragraph. But the cross, to me, is a simple of salvation, not sadness. It demonstrates the incredible love God has for me - that he would send his son - to come in the flesh i inhabit, understand my struggles and see the ugliness yet “sacrifice” himself so that i can stand before the father’s throne, washed in Jesus’ sacrificial blood and become white as snow - holy - so the father can look upon me. It’s a wonderful thing.
Thanks for your comments. Thanks for reminding me. What was hopeless to me in Stonehenge was the greediness for blood sacrifice when it was for selfish gain on Camaban’s part. Yes, as a mother, the child sacrifices were especially horrific and I think if you read the Old Testament and how God was broken by Israel’s embracing of the pagan gods (molech and his desire for young blood) you can infer how much God desires holiness. His way is the way of life - the way it was intended and we warped. I suppose you could say Camaban held out hope that more sacrifices would bring greater favor by Slaol but even his brother, and others thought it was too much and needed to stop.
Christine, if you've made it through my 3 comments, whew, here is something an acquaintance in the blog world just put out today. it's far more eloquent and concise then mine.
naminghisgrace.blogspot.com/2010/02/cross-new-religions-new-theologies-and.html
Thanks Barb;
I am reading all this ! Trying to keep-up amid a stringent academic workload.
Cheers, Christine
Post a Comment