Hello Kintire,
And Hadrathus knows that the Heart must return to the Priests of Mitra in Aquilonia. He helped Conan to save the country and knows that the fate of Aquilonia IS linked to the Heart, who is not used only to counter Xaltotun's powers and resurrect mummies ("Heart of the Kingdom", I can't explain it better than Patrice Louinet in Hyborian Genesis), like Epemitreus IS linked to the fate of Aquilonia. Both things are explicit in TPotS and THotD. IF he was the "Heart-wielder", it would have been explicit. Or it would be an oversight that I don't want to credit REH.
BTW, does Epemitreus look or act like a feathered shaman/primitive priest ? No.
The Hyborian Age is quite vague at the crucial point. It appears that a time for Acheron can be either 1500 OR 2000 years before Conan.
According to the published stories (not in THA), Acheron (and Old Stygia) fell about 3000 years and Epemitreus fought Set 1700-1500 years before Conan.
Orastes could be wrong about three thousand years except that he seems to be backed up by Pelias (in The Scarlet Citadel) and REH (in Black Colossus).
"Old Stygia" being repelled in the South wasn't a good idea. Perhaps Epemitreus could have been fighting a resurgence of Set-worship in the Hyborian kingdoms...
Now one question must be answered and it is an important one : what prevails in your opinion ? Published stories, THA, REH's letters, drafts and notes ? A "strict reading of the works", IMO, starts with establishing a "hierarchy" among the sources.
My "takes" are based upon the "paradigm" that published stories prevail. And according to my "strict reading", they're very few inconsistencies between those stories.
All this, of course, IMHO. And I repeat it, if your "bane of Acheron=Epemitreus theory", "that a strict reading of the works doesn't support" was correct, it would validate my assertion that Mitra was worshipped before the fall of Acheron.
BTW, are we only two to be still interested in posting in this thread ? Any feedback and constructive criticism would be appreciated. :wink:
Good points about Asura's cult, but if REH really intended Epemitreus to be "Xaltotun's Bane" IMO he would have written it. One of the two characters would have said it.kintire said:Even if Xaltotun could be disdainful, it wouldn't be very respectful from Hadrathus to call him a "primitive priest". Hadrathus is VERY knowledgeable and has access to sensitive information about Mitra's cult,
And is a member of the cult of Asura, which has been vilified, hated, persecuted and otherwise oppressed by the Cult of Mitra right up to very recent times. He is aiding Conan, and seems to be largely benign, but there's no reason to believe that he's any better disposed to the cult of Mitra than Xaltotun is, though for different reason.
And Hadrathus knows that the Heart must return to the Priests of Mitra in Aquilonia. He helped Conan to save the country and knows that the fate of Aquilonia IS linked to the Heart, who is not used only to counter Xaltotun's powers and resurrect mummies ("Heart of the Kingdom", I can't explain it better than Patrice Louinet in Hyborian Genesis), like Epemitreus IS linked to the fate of Aquilonia. Both things are explicit in TPotS and THotD. IF he was the "Heart-wielder", it would have been explicit. Or it would be an oversight that I don't want to credit REH.
BTW, does Epemitreus look or act like a feathered shaman/primitive priest ? No.
Kintire, you already know that I share a lot of your opinions about the Gods and cosmology of the Hyborian age from previous threads. I do agree with most of what you wrote above. But I'm still not convinced by this specific theory.I always have grave doubts about attempts to make Howard's characters' remarks "figurative". I'm always suspicious that this process is one of molding the works to fit a personal point of view. I'm probably guilty of that myself, and I would like to make quite clear that the bane of Acheron=Epimetreus theory is a theory of mine that a strict reading of the works doesn't support. However, my experience of Howard's writing is that he really doesn't do "figurative" much. Some of his characters may use figurative language, but generally they say what they mean. He is dismissive of high faluting philosophy: his gods are beings that walk the earth, living, loving and fighting. We don't have tales of Set's fall to Mitra, but we have tales of Odin's fall to Christ, and there's nothing metaphorical about it. He shows up at the battle of Clontarf and gets his ass kicked. No, I'm inclined to believe that when Epimetreus said Set ruled the world, he meant he ruled the world, not "had significant influence over the southern reaches".
The Hyborian Age is quite vague at the crucial point. It appears that a time for Acheron can be either 1500 OR 2000 years before Conan.
According to the published stories (not in THA), Acheron (and Old Stygia) fell about 3000 years and Epemitreus fought Set 1700-1500 years before Conan.
Orastes could be wrong about three thousand years except that he seems to be backed up by Pelias (in The Scarlet Citadel) and REH (in Black Colossus).
"Old Stygia" being repelled in the South wasn't a good idea. Perhaps Epemitreus could have been fighting a resurgence of Set-worship in the Hyborian kingdoms...
Now one question must be answered and it is an important one : what prevails in your opinion ? Published stories, THA, REH's letters, drafts and notes ? A "strict reading of the works", IMO, starts with establishing a "hierarchy" among the sources.
My "takes" are based upon the "paradigm" that published stories prevail. And according to my "strict reading", they're very few inconsistencies between those stories.
All this, of course, IMHO. And I repeat it, if your "bane of Acheron=Epemitreus theory", "that a strict reading of the works doesn't support" was correct, it would validate my assertion that Mitra was worshipped before the fall of Acheron.
BTW, are we only two to be still interested in posting in this thread ? Any feedback and constructive criticism would be appreciated. :wink: