Darrell J. Pursiful

Home » Articles posted by Darrell J. Pursiful (Page 130)

Author Archives: Darrell J. Pursiful

Sunday Inspiration: Dragons

Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.

—G. K. Chesterton

Interview: “Faery”

Into the Wonder: Your name is Danny…?

Danny: If it’s all the same to you, Professor, sir, I’ll just stick with Danny.

ITW: Your Kind seem to be a bit touchy about names.

D: Yeah, well. You try living amongst folk who can…do things…if they know your name.

ITW: Fair enough.

D: Oh, your everyday name is usually pretty safe. Not much magic in it, at least compared to your true name. But if you’re really gonna share this little talk with the whole Topside world…

ITW: Yes, I see your point. And is that why Your Kind object to the word “faery”?

D: That’s part of it, I suppose. It’s not really a bad word, so to speak. Just a little forward, you know? Say your boss is named Charles. You don’t just go around calling him Charlie—not to his face, anyway!

ITW: And Your Kind consider yourselves our bosses?

D: I ain’t never said that! Oh, the Gentry’ll take that attitude, I admit. But most of us don’t. We got more sense than that. But anyway. Yeah, “faery” just don’t sound right. We’ll use the word to describe our animals, our magic, stuff like that. But ourselves? Forget it!

ITW: You prefer “fae.”

D: Most of us, anyways. A fella down in South Carolina explained it to me once. You see, fae comes from an old French word, faé. “Enchanted.” I don’t exactly know how you spell it, though.

ITW: Don’t worry, I’ll spell-check it later.

D: Thanks. So, if you look at it scientifically, faery relates to fae the same as witchery relates to witch or knavery relates to knave.

ITW: So it’s not a person. It’s a concept? A characteristic?

D: You got it. It’s the whole shebang. It ain’t just Our Kind; it’s the realm we share with all kinds of magical creatures.

ITW: But it’s also those creatures themselves, right?

D: Right. Call one of Our Kind a faery, you’re lumping him in with everything in the Wonder: the plants, the animals, the whole deal, you see? How’d you like it if I called you by the same name I called your dog?

ITW: That’s very helpful. So it’s fine to talk about faery dogs or faery horses…

D: Some of my best friends are faery dogs and horses.

ITW: Just not…uh…faery faeries.

D: Bingo.

ITW: Thank you, Danny, for taking the time to visit. Is there anything else you’d like to say?

D: Just that Our Kind are just like Topsiders. We can be some of the friendliest, most helpful folk you’d ever want to meet. But we can also be cruel, selfish, petty, and destructive. You’ve got to take the good with the bad.

ITW: That’s a lesson all of us could learn.

Into the Wonder

None of this made any sense. Maybe she was right, and Danny had drugged her. Maybe she was having some kind of seizure. This had to be a dream. To be sure, it was a very lifelike dream complete with nausea and asthma attacks, but still just a dream. Right? Until somebody woke her up, there wasn’t much she could do but go with it.

“So…what’s all this stuff about faeries?” she said.

“I’d rather you not use that word,” Danny said. “It’s not really politically correct. A while back, some of us wanted to say ‘eldritch Americans,’ but it never caught on. ‘The Fair Folk’ or ‘Our Kind’ is better. Most just say ‘fae,’ or else refer to each other according to their kindred.”

Taylor stared at him blankly.

“You see, Our Kind comes in a lot of different tribes or families: kindreds. I guess you could say they’re like Topsider ethnic groups. For example, I’m a pooka. Bryn is a huldra. That sort of thing.”

“O-o-o-kay.”

“I know this is hard to take in all at once.”

You can say that again! Taylor thought.

“But,” she began, “…and I don’t mean to be rude or anything… Faeries don’t exist!”

“We get that a lot,” Danny shrugged. “And ‘eldritch Americans’ or ‘fae,’ if you don’t mind.”

“All right, ‘fae.’ But…people like you…are supposed to be tiny! And have little butterfly wings!”

Danny smiled—then winced. His cheek was starting to turn purple. Taylor had given him a serious bruise with that tree branch back in Macon!

“One thing you gotta to know about Our Kind, Taylor: Between the shapeshifting, the size-shifting, glamours, and all the other spells and whatnot, powerful fae can pretty much look however they want. And as for the tiny bodies and the wings and all, that’s what we want you to think! It makes us look like a joke, you see? Something nobody would take seriously. Get enough people believing that Our Kind are nothing but faery godmothers, or tiny women in mini-dresses, or jolly toymakers who live at the North Pole…”

“Or the tooth faery….”

Never let one of Our Kind anywhere near your teeth!” Danny said, suddenly serious.

“Okay,” Taylor agreed, startled at Danny’s abruptness. “Good advice. Thanks.”

Fairies in the Bible?

Joel Hoffman is blogging today about unicorns and other mythological creatures in the Bible—or at least in the King James Version. As he usually does, Dr. Hoffman raises an intriguing question about how the original Hebrew words the KJV rendered as “dragon,” “unicorn,” and so forth should be handled. Did the original writers intend their readers to understand these as real-world creatures (e.g., as serpents, rhinoceroses, etc.) or did they mean to depict creatures of fantasy? He writes,

More generally, I think the real translation question with all of these creatures is whether they were intended to be mythic or — for want of a better word — real.

Even if they were intended to be real, “dragon” and “unicorn” may have been right once. It seems that people thought that both existed. (As late as the 17th century, scholars in Europe argued that griffins were real, and the only reason we didn’t see them was that, quite naturally, these magnificent creatures tended to stay away from people who would steal their gold). But now those translations wrongly take the real and turn them into fantasy.

On the other hand, if they were not meant to be real, then attempts to identify the exact species may be misguided, and maybe we should stick with “dragon” and “unicorn” and so forth.

Hoffman deals mainly with “unicorns” (re’em) and “dragons” (tannin), although he makes passing reference to a possible merperson in the character of Dagon, the god of the Philistines.

Along these same lines, I would suggest that there are a handful of possible reference to fairies in the Bible—at least if the rabbis of the medieval period were interpreting these passages rightly.

Two Hebrew words are of interest: shedim and se’irim, both translated daimonia (“demons”) in the Septuagint. Shedim only appear twice in the Hebrew Bible, both times in the plural (although the singular form would be shed). Psalm 106:37 says, “They sacrificed their own sons and daughters to demons!” (CEB). In a similar context, Deuteronomy 32:17 says,

They sacrificed to demons, not to God,
to deities of which
they had no knowledge—
new gods only recently on the scene,
ones about which your ancestors
had never heard.

Shedim are therefore obviously bad news in the Bible. Oddly enough, the term seems to be related to the Akkadian shedu, a benevolent or protective spirit, perhaps something we might think of as a guardian angel. Then again, people around the world have made offerings to various local protective spirits to secure their goodwill. The biblical writers were obviously interested in discouraging such a practice. Thus, in the Bible, they are depicted not as helpful minor spirits but as false gods to be avoided.

The next word is se’irim (singular se’ir), meaning “hairy beings” or “shaggy beings.” In the KJV, the word is translated “satyrs.” There are a few more references to se’irim than there are to shedim. According to Leviticus 17:7, “The Israelites must no longer sacrifice their communal sacrifices to the goat demons that they follow so faithlessly. This will be a permanent rule for them throughout their future generations.” The LXX renders se’irim as mataiois, “to empty or vain things.”

Se’irim dwell in the desolate wilderness and are apparently fond of dancing. According to Isaiah 13:21,

Wildcats will rest there;
houses will be filled with owls.
Ostriches will live there,
and goat demons (LXX, daimonia) will dance there.

And again in Isaiah 34:14:

Wildcats will meet hyenas,
the goat demon will call to his friends,
and there Lilith will lurk
and find her resting place.

I saw you wondering about Lilith in that verse. We’ll come back to her in a minute. It should be noted, that the Septuagint translation removes Lilith from the picture but possibly gives us a completely new mythological creature. My fairly wooden translation of the Greek is as follows:

Demons will meet onocentaurs
and they will shout one to the other,
There onocentaurs will rest
for they found a resting place for themselves.

If you’re not up to speed on medieval bestiaries, let me quickly explain that an onocentaur is part man, part ass. (And please refrain from any comments about half-ass blog posts. Thank you.)

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the se’irim are “are satyr-like demons, described as dancing in the wilderness…identical with the jinn of the Arabian woods and deserts.” Azazel, the goat-like wilderness demon (Lev 16:10ff) and Lilith (whom we already encountered in Isa 34:14) are said to be of the same class of beings. Further, it should be noted that some see in Lilith a prototype for later vampire legends. The Jewish Encyclopedia also raises the possibility that “the roes and hinds of the field” (gazelles and wild deer in the CEB) in Song of Songs 2:7 and 3:5 are “faunlike spirits similar to the se’irim, though of a harmless nature.”

How does all this apply to fairies? Thomas Keightley argued in The Fairy Mythology (1870)  that the prototypes of European fairy legends were to be found not only in the nymphs and satyrs of Greco-Roman mythology but also in Near Eastern stories of jinns and peris (or jinn and parian, to use the correct Arabic and Persian plurals). He even argued  that our English word “fairy” derives ultimately from Persian pari (or peri). This linguistic argument may or may not hold, but anyone who looks at Persian peri-stories will find many parallels to what was believed about fairies in rural Europe until fairly recent times.

If Keightley is correct, then the European conception of fairies owes a good deal to the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world(s) in which the Bible was written. It therefore would not be unusual to find references to the such creatures in biblical and other early Semitic materials.

After tracing the fairy mythology throughout northern Europe, Keightley makes quick reference to Jewish legends about similar creatures found in the rabbinic corpus. These beings are in fact called shedim and seirim (although Keightley transliterates them shedeem and shehireem). Another term, maziqin (or mazikeen in Keightley’s transliteration), is Aramaic and applies specifically to a malevolent spirit. According to rabbinic tradition, all these beings are in fact directly analogous to the jinn of Arabic folklore. Keightley writes,

It has long been an established article of belief among the Jews that there is a species of beings which they call Shedeem, Shehireem, or Mazikeen. These beings exactly correspond to the Arabian Jinn; and the Jews hold that it is by means of them that all acts of magic and enchantment are performed.

The Talmud says that the Shedeem were the offspring of Adam. After he had eaten of the Tree of life, Adam was excommunicated for one hundred and thirty years. “In all those years,” saith Rabbi Jeremiah Ben E’liezar, “during which Adam was under excommunication, he begat spirits, demons, and spectres of the night, as it is written, ‘Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begat children in his likeness and in his image,’ which teaches, that till that time he bad not begotten them in his own likeness.” In Berasbith Rabba, R. Simon says, “During all the one hundred and thirty years that Adam was separate from Eve, male spirits lay with her, and she bare by them, and female spirits lay with Adam, and bare by him.”

These Shedeem or Mazikeen are held to resemble the angels in three things. They can see and not be seen; they have wings and can fly; they know the future. In three respects they resemble mankind: they eat and drink; they marry and have children; they are subject to death. It may be added, they have the power of assuming any form they please; and so the agreement between them and the Jinn of the Arabs is complete.

Keightley shares three Jewish legends about the shedim: “The Broken Oaths,” “The Moohel,” and “The Mazik-Ass.”

As with dragons and unicorns, there are probably some who will pounce on “rational” or “scientific” explanations for fairies. Some do, in fact, attribute European fairy-lore to dim memories of diminutive tribes driven underground—and ultimately to extinction—by later invaders with the advantage of iron weapons (in both Europe and the Middle East, iron is a potent weapon against the Fair Folk).

In my experience, however, I think most interpreters would see shedim and se’irim as terms intended to describe supernatural or otherworldly beings and not merely misidentified pygmies or “wild men”—whether or not they judge such creatures to be “real.”

Reclaiming Mystery

Bosco Peters links to a story about a fascinating character, the Wizard of New Zealand. Since New Zealand is the stunt double for Middle Earth, it really shouldn’t surprise me that they have their very own “non-fictional, non-commercial, wizard” whose mission in life is to conduct “a largely solo attempt to re-enchant the world, making use of [his] training as an academic sociologist and psychologist.”

Peters elaborates a bit on the importance of mystery for and in the church. His comments are worth a thorough reading, but I’ll simply share a few paragraphs to give you the gist:

Fundamentalists, antitheists, and the insipid are three natural results of the disenchantment.

Fundamentalists reject the enchantment of our spiritual world, accepting instead a flat rationalistic literalism. Antitheists are the shadow side of fundamentalists. Like fundamentalists, they also do not go beyond a flat rationalistic literalism. Rather than accepting the flat literalism as the fundamentalists do, antitheists reject it. For fundamentalists God is scary. For antitheists God is silly.

The third category, that I here call the insipid, is that category that one meets so often in churches: led by clergy who, if they have training at all – it consists in a university degree in the dismembering of the scriptures. These clergy have little to no liturgical study and training. Sacraments have been desiccated to things that occur solely in one’s head. Bells, smells, and symbols are reduced to a couple of candles on a table (if you are lucky). Vesture is degraded to what the majority of Christian history would regard essentially as underwear. They hold to the last vestiges of the outward form of godliness but deny its power.

Indeed.

Μάμμη ἐπατήθην ὑπ᾽ ἐλάφου

My little contribution to the decline of western civilization:

Μάμμη ἐπατήθην ὑπ᾽ ἐλάφου.
περὶ προτὰς χείμονος ἔβαινεν.
περὶ Ἁγίου Νικολάου ένδιαζεις;
πάππος γε κἀγὼ πιστεύομεν.

I would translate the verses, but that would mean actually studying the lyrics of the song, and I just don’t have the inclination to do that.

If I had the time, however, I think this has the makings of a great Lenaia carol. Perhaps “Grandma Got Run Over by a Maenad”?

Carmina Nativitatis in Lingua Latina!

Laura Gibbs of Bestiaria Latina has rounded up a month’s worth of Latin Christmas carols (and two Hanukkah songs, too!). I’m not just talking about “real” Latin hymns like “Adeste fideles,” “Gaudete,” “Hodie Christus natus est,” etc. She has also compiled Latin versions to more modern carols and holiday songs such as  “Deck the Halls” (Aquifolia Ornate), “Silent Night” (Silens nox), and even  “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer” (Avia Renone Calcabatur).

Caucasian Rednecks?

Google.org has launched a new initiative called the Endangered Languages Project. According to the website,

With the Endangered Languages Project, Google puts its technology at the service of the organizations and individuals working to confront the language endangerment by documenting, preserving and teaching them. Through this website, users can not only access the most up to date and comprehensive information on endangered languages as well as samples being provided by partners, but also play an active role in putting their languages online by submitting information or samples in the form of text, audio or video files. In addition, users will be able to share best practices and case studies through a knowledge sharing section and through joining relevant Google Groups.

This is a commendable goal that a language-junkie like myself can only applaud.

I found one slight problem, however. Exploring on their interactive map, I decided to zoom in on the United States to see what endangered languages might be spoken near me. There are no state boundaries on the map, but I believe the dot representing the Bezhta language is placed somewhere in north Georgia.

Bezhta USAI had never heard of this language. Assuming it was a Native American dialect, I clicked for more information. This is what I found:

Caucasian language and it belongs to the Dido subgroup of the northwestern group (Avar-Ando-Dido) of the Dagestan languages. Bezhta is also called the Kapucha language, a name which originates in the Georgian name for the village of Bezhita. There is no scholarly agreement on the genealogical classification of the Bezhta (Kapucha) language. E. Bokarev considers it to belong to the Dido subgroup, whereas Georgian linguist, E. Lomatadze, thinks it is a dialect of the Kapucha-Hunzib language. Bezhta is divided into three dialects: Bezhta, Tljadali and Hochar-Hota. The vocabulary has been greatly affected by Avar and Georgian, through which there have also been some borrowings from Arabic, Turkish and Persian. During the Soviet era the biggest influence was Russian. (The Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire)

As they say, I see what you did there. Someone apparently confused the STATE of Georgia in the USA with the REPUBLIC of Georgia in the Caucasus. There is, however, another dot for the Bezhta language in the Caucasus region where it belongs.

Bezhta CaucasusIf there are, in fact, Bezhta-speakers hanging out somewhere between Rome and Chattanooga, I’d love to hear from you. Otherwise, I’m going to put this in the “somebody needs a geography lesson” file.

Thank you, Endangered Language Project, not only for the important work you’re undertaking, but also for providing me a much-needed chuckle today.

Comment to Dr. Dallemand

I left the following comment on the most recent blog post of Dr. Romain Dallemand. It is currently awaiting moderation.

Dr. Dallemand,

I am part of the Macon community that has attempted to make it “very plain” that your “Macon Miracle” plan has many substantive problems that are profoundly troubling to me as an educated and involved parent. It is desperately in need of “revisions, additions, and deletions,” as you say; and, your assurances to the contrary, I am not convinced that you intended the plan as it now exists to be the beginning of a conversation but rather its end.

If the plan being unveiled today were merely “a good start for us,” then why the fanfare? I fail to see the logic of balloons, confetti, and acrobats (!) to announce that you and the Board have put an opening bid on the table. And if this is how you roll out a proposal for extended discussion, then I can only imagine how much of the taxpayers’ money you intend to waste when the final product is unveiled.

If the plan were merely “a good start,” then why avoid meeting with Tanner Pruitt and Brett Felty when they arrived at your office—along with some two hundred of their classmates—to express their concerns about what was in the plan? Surely you knew they were coming and had ample time to clear your morning schedule. At the least, a brief meeting with concerned students would have signaled a willingness to listen to all the stakeholders. It may well have earned you some much-needed goodwill from people like me.

If you intended this plan to begin a conversation about what needs to change in the Bibb County School District, and I do not dispute for a moment that substantive changes must be made, then how did you and the Board manage to miscommunicate your intentions so utterly that large numbers of Bibb County residents were under the impression that there was going to be a vote on accepting the plan today? Could it possibly be because the original plan was to vote on the Macon Miracle at today’s “unveiling” event—as WMAZ and other news outlets have reported?  If the vote was merely to put the plan on the table—not to ratify it as official policy— it would seem an able leader and communicator should have been able to explain this quickly and clearly and thus avoid the potential embarrassment of having to back-pedal on voting at all.

Don’t get me wrong, Dr. Dallemand. I am not necessarily opposed to every detail of your plan. But in my estimation the negatives far outweigh the positives, and even where I agree in principle (foreign language learning, year-round school), I have grave misgivings about the proposed implementation. Far more worrying than your proposals, however, I am deeply concerned about the heavy-handed manner in which they are being advanced. If I may be blunt, you have not assured me that your talk about openness to “revisions, additions, and deletions” is anything more than a last-minute damage control maneuver.

I will watch with interest how you and the Board proceed in the weeks to come. An attitude of transparency and humility would be a refreshing change, and a good start to a more fruitful and healthy relationship with the people who pay your salary.

Regards,

Darrell J. Pursiful, Ph.D.

 

The Macon “Miracle”?

Dispatched today to William Thomas Barnes III, President of the Bibb County School Board:

Mr. Barnes,

My parents were teachers at a public high school in the inner city of Detroit. They could tell you stories about incompetent teachers, school-board politics, disengaged parents, and unprepared students that would make your toes curl. And yet, they inculcated in me a deep appreciation for public schools. I am a product of a public school education, and it never entered my mind to send my child to a private school—until we moved to Macon.

It was with profound displeasure that I learned last week that Dr. Dallemand’s plan to revitalize the Bibb County School system involved closing schools and eliminating teachers. I cannot fathom how this will result in anything other than larger class sizes, less individualized attention to students, and further academic decline.

I am, furthermore, mystified at the idea of shifting fourth- and fifth-graders into middle school and what were once middle-schoolers into high school.

What leaves me most stupefied is that Dr. Dallemand is unable to answer legitimate questions about how much his so-called “miracle” will cost in the short term. It is simple due diligence to know what the plan is likely to cost and make that information available.

While I agree that we must do something for the good of Bibb County Public Schools, we don’t have to do this! A bad idea doesn’t become a good one just because we have to do “something.” Dr. Dallemand is asking for the largest and most radical change in the history of Bibb County Schools since integration, and he is asking for this change to be approved after only seven days of consideration. At the very least, one would have thought he would take the time to sell his plan to the stakeholders—the parents—rather than ramrodding it through the board. That is what leaders do when they have a grand vision. Only the insecure try to rush a decision before all the details are known and explored.

Among some of my closest friends—who represent a wide array of political perspectives but who all possess advanced degrees in their fields and are more than knowledgeable and involved in their children’s education—I am not aware of any who support this morass of a plan.

Rest assured, I will be looking very carefully into private school options for my child should the school board fail to apply the brakes to Dr. Dallemand’s half-baked agenda. The board may be willing to experiment on my child, but I do not have to like it, and I certainly do not have to stand for it.

Regards,

Darrell J. Pursiful, Ph. D.

UPDATE: Just learned about the petition at Change.org: “Stop the ‘Macon Miracle’ Plan.”