Pantocrator

David Stockhoff · 04 Dec 2008, 19:19 · from 2008-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:19:18 -0500
Subject: (urth) Pantocrator
In-Reply-To: <mailman.31041.1228415573.21489.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
References: <mailman.31041.1228415573.21489.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <49382D36.3030507 at verizon.net>

I enjoy the ambiguity of "all-powerful." 

Doesn't it also suggest "all-doing," as in an active (male, Sun, bright/look-at-me) aspect vs a passive (female, moon, dark/look-away-mortal) aspect? Certainly, if the Increate thought it cricket to just make good things happen, s/he would have done so. But s/he uses sentient beings as pawns and miracleworkers.

And the conflation with pankratiast may be more fertile than I first thought. What if the Increate were literally willing to do anything to achieve his aims? Might s/he not: (1) drown everyone on Earth but for a single family? (2) give his only begotten son? (3) use aliens and torturers and oceandwelling giants at apparent cross-purposes?
(Maybe the Increate was pretty desperate by this time in Urth's history.)

Just thinking.

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 13:25:48 -0500
From: "Mark Millman" <markjmillman at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Pantocrator
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID:
	<c873c2920812041025l105524f3hc7c5c1c71c9003ed at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Dear Mr. Watkins and Son of Witz,

Actually, the _Lexicon Urthus_ definition of pantocrator is taken
almost verbatim from Wolfe's own glossary entry for it in _The Castle
of the Otter_ (page 28), so it shows what he was thinking when he used
it.

The etymology is as Son of Witz cites in his posts:  from _pant-_,
meaning all--it's a combining form of _pan_--and _-kratia_, rule or
ruler, as in "aristocrat", "kleptocracy", and "thalassocrat", deriving
from _kratos_, strength or power.  However, the _Encyclopedia of the
Middle Ages_ (page 1077) says of it:

"Etymologically, the Greek word "pantocrator" means "all-ruler".  It
was used regularly in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew
_Sabaoth_, an attribute of Jahweh.  When the Christian profession of
faith was formulated in Greek, the term _pantocrator_ was applied to
*G-d the Father, but translated into Latin as _omnipotens_.  Thus
pantocrator was taken to mean all-powerful rather than all-ruler.  In
spite of its etymology, this would also seem to be the word's meaning
in Byzantine Greek.  Omnipotence was also attributed to the *Holy
Spirit, but more particluarly to God the Son who, as it were, usurped
the attribute, so that by the 12th c. it was applied to *Christ almost
exclusively."

Wolfe's own definition, as Mr. Watkins points out, does seem to have
been influenced by a confusion with pankration or pankratiast,
possibly abetted by the Latin and Byzantine understandings of the
word.

Sometimes, Jupiter nods.

Best,

Mark Millman

------------------------------

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 081203-0, 12/03/2008
Tested on: 12/4/2008 2:19:20 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net