temple prostitution

[buzz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Coming in late

Sorry Humpty Dumpty but you are not the master of words you'd like to be.

So decorum is pretty much out the window for the rest of this discussion, I see.

(I'm trained in Classics as well as Enlglish so when it comes to the ancient world my "version" tends to be absolutely the most rigorously investigated and easily the most accurate version availible, refreshingly lacking in judgments and prejudice, thanks).

FURTHER PROOF OF EXPERTISE SNIPPED

I'm very happy for you. Why you think I'm somehow attacking you, I have no idea. I haven't claimed to be an authority on the subject, and I've admitted the source of my opinion (Ms. Stone) may not be considered the most reliable source on the subject. She was simply thought-provoking.

All I'm saying is, despite your assertion that you know exactly what life was like back then, it's quite possible that maybe there's room for error. Maybe we don't know exactly what was going on in those temples. Maybe the existing sources on which we base our conception of these ancient practices are biased in some way. It might be sort of like our knowledge of the Celts. So much of what we know comes from people like the Romans, the people who conquered the Celts. Is it possible that they might be coloring their depiction of the people they defeated?

I'm just trying to offer another perspective. If you want to tell me my perspective is misguided, show me why. And give me a better reason than, "You're wrong because I'm a Classics major."

And apologies to tleilaxu for getting into a boring semantic argument.

 

[Wayside]

Honestly, I think you're missing my point, but since it seems we've reached the point of the thread where people are whipping out stuff like "I'm a classics major!" I'm just going to go ahead and bow out.

I'm just trying to offer another perspective. That's all.

I think you're sort of missing the point. For example I didn't say I was a classics major (I'm not), I said I was trained in the area of classics, which I imagine anyone who has learned a classical language is. Point being you can't dismiss what people say with 'oh I suppose it depends on which version of history you subscribe to,' the cheesiest of catchalls. Come on. I've dumped girls for less disingenous remarks.

See, I get that you are trying to offer another perspective. I'm just waiting to hear it. So far all I've seen of your alleged view amounts to a kid shaking his head saying 'uh-uh uh-uh' coupled with a reference to a Merlin Stone book, which looks to me like a far more seriously radical misreading of the text than you could possibly accuse the oh-so-evil patriarchy of.

It's fine to respect new age b.s. like it was old world b.s., but writing history anachronistically backward based on the ridiculous religions people come up with these days is a big faux pas.

 

[buzz]

I think you're sort of missing the point. For example I didn't say I was a classics major (I'm not), I said I was trained in the area of classics, which I imagine anyone who has learned a classical language is. Point being you can't dismiss what people say with 'oh I suppose it depends on which version of history you subscribe to,' the cheesiest of catchalls. Come on. I've dumped girls for less disingenous remarks.

"Classics major" was just shorthand. You're flexing your credentials. I consider that kind of argument (especially on relatively anonymous Web forums) fairly cheesy as well.

I'm not dismissing, either. I'm disagreeing.

See, I get that you are trying to offer another perspective. I'm just waiting to hear it. So far all I've seen of your alleged view amounts to a kid shaking his head saying 'uh-uh uh-uh' coupled with a reference to a Merlin Stone book, which looks to me like a far more seriously radical misreading of the text than you could possibly accuse the oh-so-evil patriarchy of.

I would probably throw this same agurment back at you. My perspective seemed to be pretty clear enough, considering you told me that I was wrong. All you've really done so far is tell me that, as you do below, "no, you're just subscribing to new age b.s."

If Stone is suspect, give me some suggestions for sources that aren't. IYHO.

It's fine to respect new age b.s. like it was old world b.s., but writing history anachronistically backward based on the ridiculous religions people come up with these days is a big faux pas.

So any opinion that goes against what you, the expert, already know is "new age b.s."? A Goddess-based religion is, by its nature, "ridiculous"?

Gotcha. Goodbye.

 

[Wayside]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coming in late

So decorum is pretty much out the window for the rest of this discussion, I see.

Not at all. The Humpty Dumpty comment was an allusion to a series of exchanges on reference and speaker's meaning between Keith Donnellan and Allan McKay in
The Philosophical Review in the 1960's; a debate which was over, of all things, who has the power, the speaker or the words. Please don't think I'm being antagonistic. I know it is easy for tone to get clouded in an all text environment like this, but honestly I am interested in the discussion, not in being right or wrong.

I'm very happy for you. Why you think I'm somehow attacking you, I have no idea. I haven't claimed to be an authority on the subject, and I've admitted the source of my opinion (Ms. Stone) may not be considered the most reliable source on the subject. She was simply thought-provoking.

Again, not a classics major. Not an anything major anymore. I don't see you as attacking me at all. I am responding to comments like 'the basis of this thread is misguided' and 'I suppose this all depends on whose version of history etc.' I would say that these are 'juvenile' remarks, but the word might have too many negative connotations for you. They are just not particularly well thought out, and you havn't given us any information on the superior version of history you subscribe to, or guided the thread into the right, as it is so off course.

All I'm saying is, despite your assertion that you know exactly what life was like back then, it's quite possible that maybe there's room for error. Maybe we don't know exactly what was going on in those temples. Maybe the existing sources on which we base our conception of these ancient practices are biased in some way. It might be sort of like our knowledge of the Celts. So much of what we know comes from people like the Romans, the people who conquered the Celts. Is it possible that they might be coloring their depiction of the people they defeated?

I don't recall making that assertion. I was more invested in the idea that, say, more is to be gleaned from a firsthand reading of the real Latin love elegists, Propertius, Catullus, Tibullus, the Sulpicias, or the Mesopotamian poetry written by the Mesopotamians, like Gilgamesh or Jacobson's anthology, than a revisionist like Merlin Stone.

You may certainly be right about the Celts, as literature like the Tain bo Culaigne and the Mabinogion was obviously altered by the Christian monks who first had the foresight to write it down. This does not hold for Latin or Mesopotamian poetry however. It comes down fairly intact (as intact as millennia old clay tablets can be).

I'm just trying to offer another perspective. If you want to tell me my perspective is misguided, show me why. And give me a better reason than, "You're wrong because I'm a Classics major."

Again the with the major thing. I think I've explained this sufficiently. I still await the actual perspective, assuming there is more to it than 'your perspective could be wrong.' I will tell you how yours is misguided when I actually see it . So far there has only been the 'there are no temple prostitutes only priestesses' and 'having sex was a sacrament' assertions, which are both wrong. The Mesopotamians had such temple prostitutes. One of them seduced Enkidu out of the wild and he later curses her for being the cause of his death. Sex in this context was certainly not 'sacred' in any sense (even 7 days and 7 nights of it). As for the temple 'Goddess,' Ishtar, she offers herself to Gilgamesh, and he repudiates her in a very moving speech of lines like "which of your lovers have you loved forever?" She was, after all, a whore of a goddess.

And apologies to tleilaxu for getting into a boring semantic argument.

It was actually an argument about intentionality in meaning. What I just said was a boring semantic argument/distinction.

 

[Wayside]

I would probably throw this same agurment back at you. My perspective seemed to be pretty clear enough, considering you told me that I was wrong. All you've really done so far is tell me that, as you do below, "no, you're just subscribing to new age b.s."

If Stone is suspect, give me some suggestions for sources that aren't. IYHO.

Done and done. Also I do not say that you are subscribing to new age b.s. I said that Stone was writing history backward based on it. Homer did this too.

So any opinion that goes against what you, the expert, already know is "new age b.s."? A Goddess-based religion is, by its nature, "ridiculous"?

Gotcha. Goodbye.

Ok, you're obviously trying to misread me at this point, so like the mods always say, /ignore. If the discussion isn't going to be about ideas then I see no point in continuing. I don't know about you but my identity stakes certainly aren't wasted on messageboards.

Later.

 

[mythago]

She was, after all, a whore of a goddess.

Well, more a slut than a whore, technically.

I don't believe the woman sent out to tame Enkidu was specifically tagged as a temple prostitute.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Well, more a slut than a whore, technically.

I don't believe the woman sent out to tame Enkidu was specifically tagged as a temple prostitute.

I recall that she was, but I don't have a translation handy to check.

Man, that Gilgamesh, comin from someone who was widely known for his institutionalized system of bride rape I bet the turn down must've struck the goddess as awfully cold.

 

[Wayside]

Well, more a slut than a whore, technically.

I don't believe the woman sent out to tame Enkidu was specifically tagged as a temple prostitute.

I prefer to think of her as my kind of goddess

The temple prostitute is actually referred to as such, but, as buzz said, 'prostitute' resonates poorly with some people.

The words used are 'hamrimtu' and 'samhatu,' both of which mean, fairly literally, 'prostitute.' However there may have been a small status distinction (like, for us, whore/prostitute/slut or something like this) between the two words. Nevertheless both words are used to describe her, and appear elsewhere to be used synonymously.

Translators with an ear will say 'love-priestess' or 'temple courtesan' or something like this. I think temple courtesan has a nice ring to it.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Could anyone here recommend a good Gilgamesh? I haven't read one in over a decade.

 

[Wayside]

Could anyone here recommend a good Gilgamesh? I haven't read one in over a decade.

Absolutely. There are two that I feel are far and away better than the rest: the first is the recently published Norton Critical Edition, translated by Benjamin R. Foster, which in addition to a great translation includes a good deal of context in the way of analogues to the poem (the many other shorter Gilgamesh poems, the Hittite Gilgamesh, etc.).

The second is easily my favorite translation. It's like reading Mitchell's Rilke or Mandelbaum's Dante.. you just get the sense that if these books had been written in English to begin with, this is the English they would have been written in. The translators are John Gardner and John Maier.

I recommend getting both, but if you want just one, since you've read Gilgamesh before I recommend just the Gardner/Maier. It doesn't fill in the gaps from the broken tablets (with made up conjectures), but the critical apparatus is extensive (the conjectures are here instead) and the introduction is also great. Unlike other translations this one allows you to experience the poem as literature, rather than as simply a culturally fascinating artifact.