Epemitreus and the Cult of Mitras

[Axerules]

Hello Kintire,

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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:

 

[kintire]

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.

I'm not sure they would. Its irrelevant to the plot, Epimetreus doesn't appear in Hour of the Dragon, and Howard didn't tend to burden his work with irrelevant details.

Or it would be an oversight that I don't want to credit REH.

Its not an oversight. What Epimetreus may have done thousands of years ago is completely irrelevant to the plot of Hour of the Dragon. Why go into a discussion of ancient history when it doesn't affect the plot in any way?

BTW, does Epemitreus look or act like a feathered shaman/primitive priest ? No.

Epimetreus lived for three lifetimes and then meditated in the heart of a mountain for several thousand years. The fact that two hostile witnesses picked those prejorative descriptions of one part of his career says nothing about what he's like now.

The Hyborian Age is quite vague at the crucial point

The main problem here is that the concept of Acheron arose after THA was finished.

"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...

There IS an inconsistency here. On the one hand, Epimetreus is very clear about his role: both the poem and his statements lead you to believe that it was he who overthrew Set. On the other hand he seems to have lived too late. It can be solved by a resurgence of Set worship, but there is no other evidence for this, and Epimetreus refers to a time when the "world was young and men were weak"... not really a time of civil war.

My preferred soloution is this. 3,000 years ago Epimetreus destroyed Acheron and defeated Set. After three lifetimes he "died" and was laid to rest in a tomb somewhere. The followers of Set made several attempts to attack his tomb and desecrate the body, and 1,500 years ago his remains were translated to the secret tomb in Golamira. In popular memory, this translation has been confused with his original burial.

 

[Darkstorm]

I am not, however, stating that you are wrong in your take on the exchange. It can certainly be taken in that context. I'm just pointing out that your assertion that Mitra existed during the age of Acheron needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

It seems, from reading your last post, that you changed your mind: "this passage doesn't prove anything".
Fine.
Can you prove that my assertion "Mitra was worshipped before the fall of Acheron" is wrong ? I mean, if my "take", "could be taken in that context" a few days ago... and if you changed your opinion, it means that you must be aware of something I don't know...
I would gladly learn about any REH-related evidence that contradicts it. :wink:

It's funny, because I don't see this as changing my mind at all; it's simply acknowledging that we can never actually determine Howard's authoral intent when writing the exchange between Orastes and Xaltotun. Could your interpretation be correct? Of course! Could my interpretation be what Howard intended? Quite possible. The very fact that the two of us interpret it differently makes the passage useless from the point of "proving" either of our assertions.
I've re-read the Hour of the Dragon over the last couple of days to get a "fresher" take on our debate. In doing so I realized something. Even if Xaltotun has total knowledge of Mitra and his priesthood at the time of his exchange with Orastes, it doesn't prove that Mitra had to exist prior to the destruction of Acheron. Xaltotun didn't die with Acheron, he fled into exile in Stygia. He was poisoned by Stygian priests while attempting to track down the whereabouts of the Heart. Now Howard never states how long Xaltotun lived in Stygia before his death, but its possible that he could have learned about Mitra at that time. Common sense would dictate that the priests of Set in Stygia would be seriously upset with the setback of their diety in Acheron and would be actively attempting to discern what had occurred so that they could best protect their lord in Stygia. Since Xaltotun was a high priest of Set, he should easily be in a position to learn what they discovered. Now I understand that this appears to support your assertion that Mitra existed prior to the fall of Acheron, but it doesn't actually.

And since "the feathered shaman" was also called "a primitive PRIEST"...
Then it validates my assertion: MITRA WAS WORSHIPPED BEFORE THE FALL OF ACHERON.

Actually, we don't know if the two are the same person; Howard never names them. However, I'm not going to pursue that point and accept that they are indeed the same guy. Because even if they are the same, it doesn't automatically mean that Mitra was worshipped before the fall of Acheron.
The man that took down Xaltotun was, according to Howard, a "feathered shaman". The man that placed the Heart in the cave was a "primitive priest". I can understand that to an unenlightened person that the two might be considered the same (both deal with "spiritual" matters), but in reality they are completely different in application.
A shaman uses drugs and rhythmic dancing and/or chanting to reach an altered state of consciousness in an effort to access information that is unavailable to him in the mundane world. He uses this information primarily to help individuals of his tribe, whether as an aid in hunting or for health reasons. It is why African shamans are called "witchdoctors" and Native American shamans are called "medicine men". They are more of a healer than anything else. The important thing to note is that his "spirituality" is directed inward; the whole process takes place inside the shaman's head.
A priest, on the other hand, deals with spiritual matters in a way that is primarily external. He prays to a diety that exist outside of himself in an effort to get said diety to interceed on his behalf.
So, in my opinion, the two cannot be considered to be functionally identical.

I also believe that Howard uses words in a very specific way. He was really well read about different religions and philosophies. If he use the word shaman, he meant shaman. When he claimed the guy was a primative priest, he meant that too.

So this is how I see the whole thing tie together.

Shortly before it's destruction, a Hyborian shaman enters a cave located within the nation of Acheron in order to find a way to help his tribe protect itself from the hostile sorcerers. While he is in there, he is contacted by Mitra, in much the same way that Mitra contacted Epemetreus and Yasmela. Mitra tells the shaman how to defeat the priests of Acheron; it requires obtaining the Heart of Ahriman and using it to nullify their sorcery. Somehow, the shaman manages to aquire the Heart and does as Mitra directed. The mighty priest of Set become powerless before the sorcery of the shaman (note Howard writes that it's a SHAMAN, not a priest, that achieves this feat). Acheron is destroyed and Xaltotun flees to Stygia. The shaman becomes a celebrity among the Hyborians and he relates that it wasn't actually his magic, but the magic of a god called Mitra. And so the men of Hyboria begin to worship Mitra. The shaman, who has now become the first "primative" priest of the new religion, takes the Heart back to the cave where he first encountered Mitra and places it within as a tangible symbol of the the god's love, building the first temple dedicated to Mitra above the cave (sort of a Hyborian Age "Church of the Nativity"). Meanwhile, down Stygia way, the priests of Set first learn about the god Mitra. Xaltotun first learns about Mitra at his time, shortly before his death.

While the above paragraph contains a measure of speculation, it does show that Mitra worship doesn't neccesarily have to predate the fall of Acheron. :wink:
I really, truely believe that the defeat of Acheron was the defining moment that kick-started the religion of Mitra into being.

As far as Epemetreus being the shaman, that will have to wait until I have a bit more time to present it properly. 8)

 

[kintire]

I really, truely believe that the defeat of Acheron was the defining moment that kick-started the religion of Mitra into being.

I think you are absolutely right, and since Epimetreus seems to be the father figure of Mitraism, thats one of the reasons I identify them. I would add one caveat however. I'm a little wary of your reliance on the accuracy of the terms used by Xaltotun and Hadrathus. You say "Howard says that..." Actually, Howard says that Xaltotun says that... which isn't the same at all. Xaltotun is speaking of a man he hates, probably above all others in his entire life. He cannot be considered a reliable source: "Feathered shaman" is as or more likely to be a term of contempt than an accurate description. I suspect Hadrathus' description is more reliable.

 

[Axerules]

Hello both,

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".

You know that I subscribe to the idea that most gods gods of the Hyborian Age are "real". But if some gods can mingle into human affairs, I don't believe it to be true for all of them. The problem with this paragraph is that you generalize too much.

I don't see Mitra mating with humans. His statue doesn't even represent him. He is not Zeus !

Clontarf ? Bad example. Odin fell. When did Set "fall" ? In Conan's time, Set is still powerful and active, Thoth believes he is potent in Phoenix.
Beware to not identify too much real-world religions with those of the Hyborian Age.


REH was "dismissive of high faluting philosophy" ?
It holds true for most Conan stories, but what about this :

"I have not said that you are dead, as you name it. As for that, you may be still upon your little planet, as far as you know. Worlds within worlds, universes within universes. Things exist too small and too large for human comprehension. Each pebbles on the beach of Valusia contains countless universes within itself, and itself as a whole is as much a part of the great plan of all universes, as is the sun you know. Your universe, Kull of Valusia, may be a pebble on the shore of a mighty kingdom.
You have broken the bounds of material limitations. You may be in a universe which goes to make up a gem on the robe you wore on Valusia's throne or that universe you knew may be in the spider web which lies there on the grass near your feet. I tell you, size and space and time are relative and do not really exist.

The Striking of the Gong. Read again some Kull yarns, they're good too.


No "figurative" ?
When did Set rule the world ?
At his best, Set "ruled" over the northern Black Kingdoms, Stygia, Acheron, the oldest Hyborian lands and Shem.
Nordheirm, Cimmeria, Hyperborea, Pict"land", ALL the EAST, Zamora and possibly Zingara, the southern Black Kingdoms were FREE of "Set's rule".
You have to be VERY "figurative" to call what Set once "ruled" the "world".
Be it 1500, 2000 or 3000 years before Conan.

Its irrelevant to the plot, Epimetreus doesn't appear in Hour of the Dragon, and Howard didn't tend to burden his work with irrelevant details.

Never ? Isn't the whole beginning of Phoenix on the Sword (and even more so, the drafts) full of "irrevelant details" ?
BTW, I like to know that Cimmerians drank only water and I'm happy REH wrote those "details". They don't add anything to the plot.
Is Bel's beard relevant to the plot of the Queen of the Black Coast ?
I could spent hours (in fact, I did) to find those "details".

There IS an inconsistency here. On the one hand, Epimetreus is very clear about his role: both the poem and his statements lead you to believe that it was he who overthrew Set. On the other hand he seems to have lived too late. It can be solved by a resurgence of Set worship, but there is no other evidence for this, and Epimetreus refers to a time when the "world was young and men were weak"... not really a time of civil war.

My preferred soloution is this. 3,000 years ago Epimetreus destroyed Acheron and defeated Set. After three lifetimes he "died" and was laid to rest in a tomb somewhere. The followers of Set made several attempts to attack his tomb and desecrate the body, and 1,500 years ago his remains were translated to the secret tomb in Golamira. In popular memory, this translation has been confused with his original burial.

There's no other evidence for Acheron except The Hour of the Dragon. If Acheron can be "shoehorned" 3000 years before Conan, then Epemitreus can be shoehorned 1500/1700 years before him.
I repeat my "paradigm". The stories are "official". They prevail, for me, upon The Hyborian Age. Only when they contradict each other do I use another approach.

"popular memory" ? Is the resting place of Epemitreus known by someone else than the "chosen fews"? The secret lore, one of the deepest Mysteries of the inner circle of Mitra's priesthood is not "popular memory". Only the death of Epemitreus 1500 years ago !
Epemitreus was put in Golamira by his "chosen priests". He chose them 1500 years after he died ?

The crypt in Golamira was hewn by "unknown hands". Figures of the Nameless Old Ones and "Half-forgotten gods" don't fit Mitra's "Heavenly Host". These "unknown hands" can't be, IMHO, Mitran priests.




About Asura/Mitra. Asurans hate Set. Mitrans hate Set.
"Enemy of my Enemy". Do you think that Epemitreus persecuted the Asurans ? Where they around ? I seriously doubt that they came from the East so soon. Wouldn't Hadrathus see Epemitreus as an ally against Set ?
I said earlier that Hadrathus knows that the Heart has to come back to Aquilonia. Did he tried to keep it out of the hands of the Mitrans at the end of THotD ?
Perhaps REH intended them to occupy the same spiritual/social "place" in Aquilonia as Jews did in medieval England/France (REH's AQUILONIA). Ivanhoe could have been an influence, but certainly the Jews in Tros and King of the Khyber Rifles by Talbot Mundy were much more influential. They are on a separate, but mostly parallel, path with the "worldview" of the heroes in Mundy's novels. They are outcasts who supply secret aid to the heroes in time of need.

Actually, we don't know if the two are the same person

We do.

Howard never names them. However, I'm not going to pursue that point and accept that they are indeed the same guy.

Hadrathus, The Hour of the Dragon, The Bloody Crown of Conan, Del Rey, p 159.

When Acheron was overthrown, the primitive priest who had stolen it and turned it against Xaltotun hid it in a haunted cavern and built a small temple over the cavern.

Xaltotun, p 87:

At last it was stolen, and in the hands of a feathered shaman of the barbarians it defeated all my mighty sorcery.

The SAME MAN. No doubt.

The man that took down Xaltotun was, according to Howard, a "feathered shaman". The man that placed the Heart in the cave was a "primitive priest". I can understand that to an unenlightened person that the two might be considered the same (both deal with "spiritual" matters), but in reality they are completely different in application.
A shaman uses drugs and rhythmic dancing and/or chanting to reach an altered state of consciousness in an effort to access information that is unavailable to him in the mundane world. He uses this information primarily to help individuals of his tribe, whether as an aid in hunting or for health reasons. It is why African shamans are called "witchdoctors" and Native American shamans are called "medicine men". They are more of a healer than anything else. The important thing to note is that his "spirituality" is directed inward; the whole process takes place inside the shaman's head.
A priest, on the other hand, deals with spiritual matters in a way that is primarily external. He prays to a diety that exist outside of himself in an effort to get said diety to interceed on his behalf.
So, in my opinion, the two cannot be considered to be functionally identical.

I also believe that Howard uses words in a very specific way. He was really well read about different religions and philosophies. If he use the word shaman, he meant shaman. When he claimed the guy was a primative priest, he meant that too.

Wrong.
In THotD the feathered shaman IS the primitive priest.

In the Bran Mak Morn stories, Gonar acts according to your definition of a SHAMAN. He makes dream-voyages. He's, several times, called either a PRIEST or a WIZARD (also "Wise Gonar or "old Gonar"). And, in Kings of the Night, a SHAMAN. (Bran Mak Morn, Del Rey, p 35).

In Beyond the Black River, Zogar Sag is called a WIZARD (Del Rey p 50, 54 and later), a SHAMAN (p 66, 67, 68, 72 and later).
It was a BLACK WITCH-FINDER of KUSH (p 75) who teached the sign of Jhebbal Sag to Conan...
And, according to Jhebbal Sag's SON, the Devil-in-Fire,

You dared make the sign which only a PRIEST of Jhebbal Sag dare make."

IMHO, he knows how to call his father's "holy-men."


This distinction between SHAMAN and PRIEST is not supported by REH's texts.

Shortly before it's destruction, a Hyborian shaman enters a cave located within the nation of Acheron in order to find a way to help his tribe protect itself from the hostile sorcerers. While he is in there, he is contacted by Mitra, in much the same way that Mitra contacted Epemetreus and Yasmela. Mitra tells the shaman how to defeat the priests of Acheron; it requires obtaining the Heart of Ahriman and using it to nullify their sorcery. Somehow, the shaman manages to aquire the Heart and does as Mitra directed. The mighty priest of Set become powerless before the sorcery of the shaman (note Howard writes that it's a SHAMAN, not a priest, that achieves this feat). Acheron is destroyed and Xaltotun flees to Stygia. The shaman becomes a celebrity among the Hyborians and he relates that it wasn't actually his magic, but the magic of a god called Mitra. And so the men of Hyboria begin to worship Mitra. The shaman, who has now become the first "primative" priest of the new religion, takes the Heart back to the cave where he first encountered Mitra and places it within as a tangible symbol of the the god's love, building the first temple dedicated to Mitra above the cave (sort of a Hyborian Age "Church of the Nativity"). Meanwhile, down Stygia way, the priests of Set first learn about the god Mitra. Xaltotun first learns about Mitra at his time, shortly before his death.

While the above paragraph contains a measure of speculation, it does show that Mitra worship doesn't neccesarily have to predate the fall of Acheron.
I really, truely believe that the defeat of Acheron was the defining moment that kick-started the religion of Mitra into being.

The last paragraphs are interesting. Even if they're based upon a false assertion. More later. 8)

 

[Axerules]

Hello Kintire,

About the "figurative" words, I have to ask you one question:
How can you repeat again and again that REH was never "flowery and figurative" ?

We're talking about a (great) poet !

The Lion strode through the Halls of hell,
Across his path grim shadows fell
Of many a mowing, nameless shape-
Monsters with dripping jaws agape.
The darkness shuddered with scream and yell
When the lion stalked through the Halls of hell

Was Conan a "Lion"...
or a barbarian, king of Aquilonia ?

Was he "in the Halls of Hell"...
or in the Scarlet Citadel, Khorshemish, capital of Koth ?


I don't want to sound sarcastic.
I respect you, Kintire, and expect reciprocity.
But, please, stop repeating that REH couldn't be "figurative" in a poem written to open a chapter, like the one you're constantly refering to.
You can't seriously assert that.



Hello Mr Rippke,

I believe that Mitra was already the primary god of the Hyborians who overthrew Acheron. Why ? The primitive priest/feathered shaman (no difference for REH) already worshipped him.
The "first of his kind" theory based upon a - non-REH - SHAMAN/PRIEST dichotomy isn't convincing.
Before the fall of Acheron, Mitra had a priest/shaman and followers, and they bested Xaltotun.

"The barbarians who overthrew Acheron set up new kingdoms, "quoth Orastes."Where the empire had stretched now rose realms called Aquilonia, and Nemedia, and Argos, from the tribes that founded them. The older kingdoms of Ophir, Corinthia and western Koth, which had been subject to the kings of Acheron regained their independance with the fall of the empire."

THotD, Del Rey, p 88.
Same thing in the draft, p 335.
I see Bori as the primary gods of the "early" Hyborians and Mitra could be the god of the Nemedians/Aquilonians/Argosseans, the "late" Hyborians, outside the Gunder, who were certainly Bori worshippers at this time (The Hyborian Age). But if we don't stick to the "official" stories and use drafts (no answer about my "paradigm" ?), we have some hints that Koth was originally Mitran (In the Tombalku draft). Mitra could have been there for a LONG time.

In Jack London's Star-Rover, chap XXI, Mitra is an important god for the Aryans.
In Bran Mak Morn: The Last King, Notes on Miscellanea, Rusty Burke told us that REH wrote that it was:

"a book that I've read and re-read for years, and that generally goes to my head like wine."
The thousand-year long treks, the superior Aryans or Nordics driving "lesser breeds" before them (...) all are borrowings from London.

You're both outlining "inconsistencies". There's cohesiveness between the stories. It fits also with REH's influences.

IMHO Mitra is a potent god for REH.

According to Conan:

"Mitra of the Hyborians must be a strong god because his people have builded their cities over the world."

Queen of the Black Coast, p 133, Del Rey.

He knows history, "many gods" and is not so often "figurative", our Conan. :wink:

 

[kintire]

About Asura/Mitra. Asurans hate Set. Mitrans hate Set.
"Enemy of my Enemy". Do you think that Epemitreus persecuted the Asurans ? Where they around ? I seriously doubt that they came from the East so soon. Wouldn't Hadrathus see Epemitreus as an ally against Set ?

It doesn't work that way. Mitrans think Asurans are Setites under another name. And it doesn't matter whether Epemitreus himself persecuted them, he's the holy figure of the enemy religion. And dead for millenia: theres no reason to suppose Hadrathus has any idea that he's still active.

But if some gods can mingle into human affairs, I don't believe it to be true for all of them. The problem with this paragraph is that you generalize too much.

You want me to be specific about everything in every post? They'd all be five times as long, and some might say they're too long already. Yes, some gods don't meddle with mortals much, either because they are different, like Mitra, or fake like Yelaya. Or disinterested. But selection effects mean that generally those who are worshipped as gods will be the active ones.

Clontarf ? Bad example. Odin fell. When did Set "fall" ?

When Epimetreus defeated him.

In Conan's time, Set is still powerful and active

Really? what does he do? Does he manifest and fight as Khosatral Khel or Ollam Onga do? Does he issue instructions to punish sacrilege as Jhebbal Sag does? Does he give oracles, as Mitra does? He never does anything. Under the shadowed pyramids great Set coils asleep.

No "figurative" ?
When did Set rule the world ?
At his best, Set "ruled" over the northern Black Kingdoms, Stygia, Acheron, the oldest Hyborian lands and Shem.
Nordheirm, Cimmeria, Hyperborea, Pict"land", ALL the EAST, Zamora and possibly Zingara, the southern Black Kingdoms were FREE of "Set's rule".

Three thousand years ago, Nordheim was yet to be founded, Cimmeria was a backwater, Hyperborea's status is unknown, Pictland was less important than Cimmeria, The East was a ruin still recovering from the revolt of the Lemurians, and the South East's status is unknown, but given Asura's apparent hostility to Set it can't be assumed it wasn't affected by his rule. Zingara did not exist, and the southern Black kingdoms were also barbarous, and status unknown. The only parts of the world Set is known not to have ruled are Zamora, and a load of thinly populated wastelands. He may not have ruled literally all the world, but he ruled all the bits that mattered.

Never ? Isn't the whole beginning of Phoenix on the Sword (and even more so, the drafts) full of "irrevelant details" ?
BTW, I like to know that Cimmerians drank only water and I'm happy REH wrote those "details". They don't add anything to the plot.

Rubbish. They establish some important facts about Conan's background, his opinions of civilised kingship and his relationship with Pallantides. Similarly in Queen of the Black Coast: his attitudes and relationship with Belit are important to the plot.

I repeat my "paradigm". The stories are "official". They prevail, for me, upon The Hyborian Age. Only when they contradict each other do I use another approach.

Fine. In that paradigm, Epimetreus was a later prophet who fought some mild upsurge of Set worship and seriously promoted his role in history. I've never pretended a strict reading of the books say anything else. I prefer, however, to suggest a mild reinterpretaion that give a more satisfying outcome. But it involves a lose reading of the texts. If you don't like that, and nothing says you have to, then you won't accept it. Fine.

"popular memory" ? Is the resting place of Epemitreus known by someone else than the "chosen fews"?

"But why?" bewilderedly asked Conan. "Men say you sleep in the black heart of Golamira, whence you send forth your ghost on unseen wings to aid Aquilonia in times of need

The crypt in Golamira was hewn by "unknown hands". Figures of the Nameless Old Ones and "Half-forgotten gods" don't fit Mitra's "Heavenly Host". These "unknown hands" can't be, IMHO, Mitran priests.

Unknown to Conan... and adversaries as well as allies can appear in holy murals. Anyway I don't see why that's any different whether they buried or reburied him.

 

[kintire]

About the "figurative" words, I have to ask you one question:
How can you repeat again and again that REH was never "flowery and figurative" ?

We're talking about a (great) poet !

Quote:
The Lion strode through the Halls of hell,
Across his path grim shadows fell
Of many a mowing, nameless shape-
Monsters with dripping jaws agape.
The darkness shuddered with scream and yell
When the lion stalked through the Halls of hell

Err.. have you actually read the story? I don't see much figurative talk here!

Was Conan a "Lion"...
or a barbarian, king of Aquilonia ?

Both. He was also called "Amra" which translates as "the Lion". In any case, you're being nitpicky here. Of course I don't mean that REH never used common similies. "Lion" is an epithet meaning courageous and fierce. Its compltetly different from talking about gods and really meaning philosophical personified concepts that say interesting things about the eternal verities of the universe.

Was he "in the Halls of Hell"...
or in the Scarlet Citadel, Khorshemish, capital of Koth ?

Both. The latter was commonly referred to as the former, and a well connected the two.

 

[Axerules]

It doesn't work that way. Mitrans think Asurans are Setites under another name. And it doesn't matter whether Epemitreus himself persecuted them, he's the holy figure of the enemy religion. And dead for millenia: theres no reason to suppose Hadrathus has any idea that he's still active.

So if people in Aquilonia know that Epemitreus can send his help through "unseen wings", Hadrathus can't be aware of it ? Hadrathus knows the secret moves of the high priest of Mitra in THotD. He wouldn't know that a demon attacked Conan one or two years earlier when Conan claimed in front of the nobles of his court that he talked with Epemitreus ? You don't need "secret means of knowledge" but only an informer in the palace for that...

They'd all be five times as long, and some might say they're too long already.

As long as you're discussing REH's texts, they're not too long for me. I can't speak for the other members of this forum.

Yes, some gods don't meddle with mortals much, either because they are different, like Mitra, or fake like Yelaya. Or disinterested. But selection effects mean that generally those who are worshipped as gods will be the active ones.

How can you be so affirmative ? Does it not contradict what you write below ? Set IS worshipped and a few lines later, you claim that Set isn't active any more... I don't understand your logic. Other gods are not shown as "interfering" directly in the time of Conan: is Bel still stealing the kings at Conan's time ? He's still worshipped. Is Crom interfering ? He could send doom upon Cimmerians if they displease him according to Conan, but does he have a huge effect on the world ? Does Hanuman interfere ? He's worshipped in Zamboula and doesn't come to the help of his high-priest when Conan kills him.
This "actives"= "worshipped" take doesn't work. Gods can be worshipped because of the political power of their priesthood, can be fake or inactive for a long time and still have cults. Or can be real, active beings. Diversity.

(Set) never does anything. Under the shadowed pyramids great Set coils asleep.

Where does this sentence come from ?

ANOTHER POEM !

Thoth's Ring has nothing to do with Set ? No invocation to the "serpent of Set" at the time of Conan ?

As long as you believe that REH could never be "figurative" in a poem, we can't agree about anything.

"But why?" bewilderedly asked Conan. "Men say you sleep in the black heart of Golamira, whence you send forth your ghost on unseen wings to aid Aquilonia in times of need

But the crypt, "the resting place" I was talking about, is still a secret known by a few chosen people. Look back at the beginning of the thread for the quotes, if you forgot them. And I'm "nitpicking" ? Not very nice, Kintire. What are we doing BOTH if it's not "spliting hairs" ?

 

[Axerules]

Err.. have you actually read the story? I don't see much figurative talk here!

Thanks for that ! I try to stay polite but it becomes difficult. Are you trying to infuriate me ? It won't work, I'm neither a troll nor a kid.

Its compltetly different from talking about gods and really meaning philosophical personified concepts that say interesting things about the eternal verities of the universe.

Kintire do you really think that IN A POEM, REH CAN'T BE "FLOWERY AND FIGURATIVE ?" Because YOU want it to reveal some hidden truth ?
Do you realize what you're saying ?
Isn't that, how did you say... "rubbish" ? (not very nice, too)

Think about it twice. And please, don't resort to cheap tactics too.

The "Old Ballad" was perhaps not the best example, but do you want me to quote several poems used to open chapters by REH ?

Was he "in the Halls of Hell"...
or in the Scarlet Citadel, Khorshemish, capital of Koth ?


Both. The latter was commonly referred to as the former, and a well connected the two.

I will be "nitpicky" again: in which story written by REH was it COMMONLY referred to as "the Halls of Hell", please ?

Because in The Scarlet Citadel, in my Del Rey book, I read the words : "in nameless pits below the hill where his palace sat" and later "the very Halls of Horror". Rinaldo wrote "The Song of the Pit".
The words "Halls of Hell" (note the capital letter for "Hell") are only in the POEM !

As long as you're focused on the idea that a poem used to open a chapter can't be figurative, we can only agree to disagree. For me it remains a very tenuous "evidence" of anything. You don't need to forget politeness ("rubbish, nitpicky, have you read the story..."). Or perhaps you can't, then it's not worth my time to answer you anymore.

 

[kintire]

Set IS worshipped and a few lines later, you claim that Set isn't active any more... I don't understand your logic

The key word there is "any more". He ruled the world only a few thousand years ago: thats a hell of a lot of momentum.

This "actives"= "worshipped" take doesn't work. Gods can be worshipped because of the political power of their priesthood, can be fake or inactive for a long time and still have cults.

Yes. Axerules, I just said that.

Look:

Yes, some gods don't meddle with mortals much, either because they are different, like Mitra, or fake like Yelaya. Or disinterested.

See where I just said that?

I then said that GENERALLY those who are worshipped will be the active ones.

As long as you believe that REH could never be "figurative" in a poem, we can't agree about anything.

Have you read anything I said? Yes, REH uses poetic language in poems. No, Conan is not a four footed feline predator with a mane. Yes he uses similies, and colourful epithets. But have you read the poem you cited with the book?

The Lion strode through the Halls of hell,

Taking the torch from the niche, he set off down the corridor, sword in hand. He saw no sign of the serpent or its victim, only a great smear of blood on the stone floor.

Darkness stalked on noiseless feet about him, scarcely driven back by his flickering torch. On either hand he saw dark openings, but he kept to the main corridor, watching the floor ahead of him carefully, lest he fall into some pit

Across his path grim shadows fell

He heard the pad of stealthy feet, and in the mouths of the tunnels caught glimpses of shadowy forms, monstrous and abnormal in outline.

Of many a mowing, nameless shape-

Stepping closer, he halted in sudden horror at the amorphic bulk which sprawled before him. Its unstable outlines somewhat suggested an octopus, but its malformed tentacles were too short for its size, and its substance was a quaking, jelly-like stuff which made him physically sick to look at. From among this loathsome gelid mass reared up a frog-like head,

Monsters with dripping jaws agape.

Now the great barrel reared up and the head was poised high above his own, as the monster investigated the torch. A drop of venom fell on his naked thigh, and the feel of it was like a white-hot dagger driven into his flesh

The darkness shuddered with scream and yell

The tunnels were not silent. From the bowels of the earth in all directions came sounds that did not belong in a sane world. There were titterings, squeals of demoniac mirth, long shuddering howls, and once the unmistakable squalling laughter of a hyena ended awfully in human words of shrieking blasphemy

When the lion stalked through the Halls of hell

Well for you," said the stranger. "Had you been able to tear it up, you might have found things clinging to the roots against which not even your sword would prevail. Yothga's roots are set in hell."

Actually not very figurative stuff, I would suggest.

 

[Axerules]

And you, Kintire, could you please answer the other points of my post ? And of the earlier ones ?

Or did you forget the sentence "the Old Ballad was not the best example" ?

I could also write half a page about "Kintire does not read my posts".

It's easy to write a post about this example, but perhaps a little bit more difficult to make us forget that your take isn't really supported by anything else than a few words in a POEM.

 

[kintire]

Thanks for that ! I try to stay polite but it becomes difficult. Are you trying to infuriate me ? It won't work, I'm neither a troll nor a kid.

Do you indeed? not the impression I got from your replies to Darkstorm I have to say. I find especial irony in the move from this:

I'm sorry, but criticizing sentences I NEVER WROTE is not what I call a "good debate"...

to this:

KINTIRE: "IN A POEM, REH CAN'T BE FLOWERY AND FIGURATIVE ?"

Heres a hint: if you use quote marks, you are expected to actually quote me. Putting something in quote marks that I didn't say, and don't believe, is.. what did you call it again?

I call it a (cheap) rhetoric trick.

Ahh yes, that's the one.

I don't think we're going anywhere with this. I think the Epimetreus = destroyer of Acheron is probably what Howard intended, but accept it isn't what he said. I also hold that REH wasn't one for abstruse philosophical concepts in his Conan tales, and interpreting his statements figuratively is a mistake. By this, I mean (for example) that when he says Epimetreus defeated Set, he means Epimetreus defeated Set, not that he overthrew the dominion of a philosophical approach to the world personified as the entity commonly referred to as Set. I do not mean that he was incapable of using poetic language and simile in saying these things... especially in poems.

Your desire to take the words as written as canon is, of course equally (or more) valid. Although you might cut a little more slack to those who have alreay made clear they are not doing that, and be warier about the difference between your interpretation of what people have said, and what they actually mean.

No offence, I hope.

 

[kintire]

And you, Kintire, could you please answer the other points of my post ? And of the earlier ones ?

I'm losing interest fast, to be honest. Pick your favourite three, and I'll do those.

perhaps a little bit more difficult to make us forget that your take isn't really supported by anything else than a few words in a POEM.

Howards poems are often very literal. and anyway, Epimetreus' speech:

Ages ago Set coiled about the world like a python about its prey. All my life, which was as the lives of three common men, I fought him. I drove him into the shadows of the mysterious south, but in dark Stygia men still worship him who to us is the arch-demon. As I fought Set, I fight his worshippers and his votaries and his acolytes. Hold out your sword."

Is not a poem.

 

[Axerules]

KINTIRE: "IN A POEM, REH CAN'T BE FLOWERY AND FIGURATIVE ?"

Heres a hint: if you use quote marks, you are expected to actually quote me. Putting something in quote marks that I didn't say, and don't believe, is.. what did you call it again?

Quote marks ? This was a question, I admit it was badly (and too quickly) written. It was a question, addressed to you and not a quote Kintire: do you think that in a poem, REH can't be flowery and figurative ? I will edit it. DONE.
You still don't wanna answer specifics points ? Fine.

"I'm loosing interest" I don't wanna be rude, I was as polite as I could, but this is condescending. Do you always resort to this tactic ? I know I can't prove anything, so I try to infuriate the guy I'm talking to ? It won't work, I told it before.

 

[kintire]

Quote marks ?

Yes. These things "". They indicate that the staement is a quote. as does "kintire: ..."

It was a question, addressed to you and not a quote Kintire: do you think that in a poem, REH can't be flowery and figurative ? I will edit it. You still don't wanna answer specifics points ? Fine.

My loss of interest in your specific points is partly attributable to the fact it doesn't seem to achieve anything. Take for example this very question, which I have already answered, at some length, in the negative. Twice.

As, indeed, I have ALSO said that I can't prove my idea, and have also said that a straight reading of the books contradicts it.

 

[Axerules]

I don't think we're going anywhere with this. I think the Epimetreus = destroyer of Acheron is probably what Howard intended, but accept it isn't what he said. I also hold that REH wasn't one for abstruse philosophical concepts in his Conan tales, and interpreting his statements figuratively is a mistake. By this, I mean (for example) that when he says Epimetreus defeated Set, he means Epimetreus defeated Set, not that he overthrew the dominion of a philosophical approach to the world personified as the entity commonly referred to as Set. I do not mean that he was incapable of using poetic language and simile in saying these things... especially in poems.

I liked this paragraph, really.

Your desire to take the words as written as canon is, of course equally (or more) valid. Although you might cut a little more slack to those who have alreay made clear they are not doing that, and be warier about the difference between your interpretation of what people have said, and what they actually mean.

This one too. Don't worry, I mean it. I will "cut a little more slack".
I also liked this one:

As, indeed, I have ALSO said that I can't prove my idea, and have also said that a straight reading of the books contradicts it.

Because, earlier, in another paragraph I read and understood something else.

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.

I'm not "nitpicking". You sounded, more than once, very affirmative.

I don't want to be impolite. I have no problem with someone who is not interested in a "strict" reading of the texts.
Look at the RPG players. What are we doing, essentially, except doing our "own" pastiches ? Is someone playing Conan adventures as they were written by the author, with one player as Conan ? No.
Same things about the books. I don't have any problem with someone who enjoys the tales without trying to search all hints of knowledge about the world dissemined through the stories.
I have no problem with someone who prefers the comics or the movie to the books. As long as he's not explaining me that he's "right", I can live with that.

What I have a problem with is intellectual consistency. If you want to enjoy or understand things in your way and express your own takes, as long as you clearly admit it, no problem. 8) They can be creative, fun , interesting or not.
But when you sound so affirmative (don't worry, no further quotes), I can't accept it.
You can choose to understand what REH had to say or not. I know, by writing this, that I will certainly sound as a geek fan (I am one ! :wink: ), who tries to catch a spark of light from "The Big Man". I know that I'm still only a student. Mr Rippke, which I was accused of disrespecting, is (I wrote it in another thread) a great Scholar. He wrote in Conan.com a few words that I believe as absolutely true :

I tend to define the likeliness of some "fact" in a story being possible hyperbole as one of "weight". The likelihood of a character in the story making an exaggerated claim is fairly high. The probability that Howard, as the story's narrator, would engage in hyperbole is quite a bit lower and, in fact, nearly nonexistant. You really need to draw the line somewhere or this all becomes meaningless.

I think this sums up some of my feelings.

You have to decide. You can delve into some kind of "scholarship", which is what I'm only starting to do, by trying to read carefuly the texts, "drawing lines" and trying to read as much as possible from brilliant and knowledgeable scholars like Don Herron, Steve Tompkins, Rusty Burke, Patrice Louinet...and Dale Rippke, then compare what they wrote with your understanding and choose a position.
You can also enjoy and interpret things in your own way.
If you don't accept the "Scholar" approach, yes, I also think we're not going anywhere with this. But, for me, there's no middle ground. You can't be so often affirmative if you didn't make the same choice.

 

[kintire]

I'm not "nitpicking". You sounded, more than once, very affirmative.

Nitpicking is probably not the word. However, you have taken my remark to extremes. Yes, I am very affirmative that REH does not, generally, use figurative style. Some of his characters do, but they are (interestingly) almost invariably the bad guys! Even then he doesn't dwell on it much. However, you seem to have taken this to mean that he doesn't use normal similies. I'm sorry, but your counter example (is Conan a lion?) is totally missing my point.

Try an example: "Richard the Lion-Heart went on a journey to Acre"

Person A may interpret this as a psychological comment. The journey represents the path of self discovery, and Acre represents the compromise goal rather than the ideal.

Person B may interpret this to mean that the journey represents travelling to Acre, which is a city in the near east.

Person A is interpreting the line figuratively. Person B, literally. But neither of them are under the impression that Richard actually had a lion's heart.

I'm taking a similar approach to REH's poetry. As I demonstrated above, when the poems apply to events that we know about, you can match them to the events pretty much line by line. I'm extrapolating that to the ones applying to events we don't know about, especially since they seem to be in the same style (epic). So, when a poem talks about Epimetreus defeating Set, I am inclined to believe that Epimetreus defeated Set in a pretty literal way. Obviously I accept that poetic language is being used: I don't think Set was actually coiled around the world (although given REH's interest in Norse myth...) but I do think he dominated it in a very real way: a way difficult to fit into the timeline convincingly after the fall of Acheron.

Still, it is a fact that REH's writings put Epimetreus 1500 years ago and Acheron 3000, and on a strict reading that is pretty much that,

 

[Darkstorm]

Hadrathus, The Hour of the Dragon, The Bloody Crown of Conan, Del Rey, p 159.

When Acheron was overthrown, the primitive priest who had stolen it and turned it against Xaltotun hid it in a haunted cavern and built a small temple over the cavern.

Well, I must say that this killed my argument pretty effectively. I'm not sure how I missed it. I concede the point.

On to further examination of this topic....

I've always rather seen Epemitreus' name as a bit of a pun on Howard's part. The name breaks down into Epe (épée is French for sword) and mitreus (having to do with Mitra). Thus the name means "Sword of Mitra".:wink:

It’s sort of interesting to read the arguments for and against the primitive priest being (or not being) Epemitreus the Sage. A strict reading of the stories seems to settle the matter, as they couldn’t possibly live in the same time. However, there are other avenues to approach this material that are valid (and yield interesting results). One such approach is context.

I’m going to provide a (hopefully) brief overview of Howard’s creation of Conan’s world, because it should provide insight into what his intentions were (and thus provide context).

The Conan saga begins when Howard writes THE PHOENIX ON THE SWORD. In the story he introduces the concept of conflicting gods (Mitra and Set) by telling us a bit of the backstory of the sage, Epemitreus, who lived 1500 years prior to Conan’s life, during an age when “the world was young and men were weak”. Epemitreus fought Set and drove him out of the Hyborian lands into the “shadows of the mysterious south”; Stygia. Epemitreus fought Set his entire life, which lasted as long as the lives of three average men (around 200 years or so).

Howard then went on to write THE FROST-GIANT’S DAUGHTER and then THE GOD IN THE BOWL, shipped the stories off to Weird Tales magazine, and decided to use some of the time waiting for a response to organize a history of Conan’s world, in an attempt to make the Hyborian history more consistent. The result was THE HYBORIAN AGE essay.

Howard writes his history as a series of snapshots: the Thurian Age ends in the Great Cataclysm and the ancestors of the Hyborians head into the Polar Regions. [This is year 1]

Five hundred years later, there is a lesser cataclysm. [This is year 500]

A thousand years after that, the Hyborian tribes in the polar regions have grown vigorous and warlike and some tribes begin drifting southward. [This is year 1500]

Another five hundred years passes, and The Hyborian drift has become a flood, the Hyborians are all over the southlands, conquering and absorbing the inhabitants of the lands they traverse. It is during this flood that the first Hyborian kingdom of Hyperborea has come into existence. [This happens by year 2000]

Howard begins the next section with an interesting (and extremely misunderstood) line: “The tale of the next thousand years is the tale of the rise of the Hyborians…” The line is misunderstood because people (me included) have used it to insert a spurious 1000 year period into Howard’s timeline. Since Howard is relating a history, this should be taken literally. All Howard is really doing is setting up a thousand year timeline enfolded within his history. [The “next thousand years” covers years 2000 to 3000]

This “next thousand years” starts off by recounting events that occur between 2000 and 2500. It is an age when rude Hyborian kingdoms begin to take shape. The Hyborians begin to dominate the southlands and they begin to come in contact with the older established nations of the regions. The nation of Koth is founded. Hyperborea is overthrown and replaced by a newer drift of Hyborians (I think that Howard is implying that the exiles from the older Hyperborean kingdom may have been a “civilizing factor” on the wilder Hyborian tribes and this led to the rude kingdoms taking form at the time).

Five hundred years later [year 2500], the Hyborian world is taking shape. “Aquilonia, Nemedia, Brythunia, Hyperborea, Koth, Ophir, Argos, Corinthia, and the Border Kingdom exist and dominate the world. Koth dominates the land of Shem by destroying the Stygian influence over the land.

500 years later [year 3000 and the end the thousand year ‘rise of the Hyborians”] the Hyborian Age has reached its apex. The “high-tide” of Hyboria has commenced. It is sometime during this age that the life of Conan takes place. It’s my personal opinion that Conan lived very near the end of this age and that his reign could well have started the ball rolling that lead to the end of Hyboria.

The height of the Hyborian Age lasts for five hundred years [until year 3500] at which point it is swept away between invasion by the Hyrkanians and the Picts.

This is the original historical timeline that Howard was invested in when he began the Conan series. Now some of you might ask “What does this have to do with anything?”

What it has to do with is context.

Epemitreus lived 1500 years prior to Conan’s life, when “the world was young and men were weak”. Now Conan lived somewhere between 3000 and 3500, which means that Epemitreus’ time was somewhere between years 1500 and 2000. [This, by the way, is the absolute best evidence that Mitra worship existed prior to Xaltotun’s life, I was way wrong on that score.] This means that Howard’s original conception placed Epemitreus’ jihad against Set in the period that the Hyborians were drifting into the southlands prior to the founding of Koth (which occurs shortly after the year 2000). This is where Epemitreus can be found in context within Howard’s history.

Unfortunately, Howard upended all of the wonderful chronological datings of THE HYBORIAN AGE when he published the story BLACK COLOSSUS. I’m not so sure that he changed his history much, though. Even though the historical essay doesn’t mention Set-worshippers living in the regions that the Hyborians drifted into, THE PHOENIX ON THE SWORD certainly does. All he really does is bring the inchoate Set-worshippers into sharper focus. For whatever reason, in BLACK COLOSSUS, Howard relates that the events that led to the founding of the nation of Koth (the destruction of Kuthchemes and the fall of Stygia’s northern kingdom) took place three thousand years prior to the life of Conan.

The three thousand year date also comes up in THE HOUR OF THE DRAGON, and it is the length of time between the fall of Acheron and Conan’s life. It is of interest to note that Koth, Ophir, and Corinthia existed at this point and were subject to Acheron. When Acheron fell the three nations regained their independence, which pretty much means that Acheron’s fall came a while after the Hyborians kicked the Stygians out of the eastern southlands.

However, just using the context of THE HYBORIAN AGE alone, what I see as Howard’s intent runs something like this:
[Prior to year 2000] The Hyborians drift into the southlands and encounter the Set-worshippers of Acheron in the western regions and the northern Stygian kingdom in the eastern part of the southlands. Epemitreus the Sage begins his mission to drive the Set-worshippers out of the region.
[Around Year 2000] The Hyborians drive the Stygians out of the eastern uplands and found the nation of Koth. The kingdoms of Ophir and Corinthia are founded shortly thereafter. The three nascent kingdoms become subject to Acheron for a time and regain their independence when the evil empire is destroyed. Aquilonia, Nemedia, and Argos are then founded.

As for whether Epemitreus is the primitive Heart-wielder, from the context alone, it’s possible. He lived somewhere between 1500 and 2000. If his life took place toward the end of that period he could have been around for the driving of the Stygians out of the uplands and the destruction of Acheron. He lived for around 200 years or so. The destruction of Acheron and the driving of the Stygians beyond the Styx certainly fit with Epemitreus’ life-long mission of driving Set out of the Hyborian lands into the “shadows of the mysterious south”.

So why doesn’t Howard call the Heart-wielder Epemitreus? I personally don’t know. I imagine that it has to do with the revision of the timeline and not wanting to contradict what he’d already had published. Plus, the backstory of Epemitreus is pretty insubstantial as to specific details. So he just left the identity of the Heart-wielder vague and hopefully solved that problem.

The only remaining problem I see is that the context of Epemiteus’ life gets buggered in the process. A strict reading of THE PHOENIX ON THE SWORD places the sage 1500 years before Conan. And really, that’s the way it is; there should be no arguing with that. But it pains me more than a bit to see the context get shafted, since it runs counter to Howard’s intention when he wrote it. Ahhh well…

 

[Fernando]

It wouldn't be easy to believe that, around 1500 years after Acheron's fall, the cult of Set was menacing again the Hyborian Kingdoms, and then Epemitreus helped to drive it back to Stygia? The timeline you are posting in "REH - Complete Inspirated Timeline" - based upon all Howard's writings - is the most complete and the best I've ever seen in my life! So, why worry to use the time's space from The Hyborian Age? :? I believe that, if Howard had a longer life, he would rewrite that essay with a much more thousands of years between the Great Cataclysm and the Age of Conan, Ice Age, the Last Cataclysm and the first Aryan migrations, and he would doubtless include Acheron, Imperial Atlantis, and other facts he didn't mention in the essay we know.