A question arose about “mythic history”, those people and events in a country’s history which take
on a mythic significance, in particular the storms which prevented  the Spanish Armada’s attack on Britain, and the Divine Wind which scattered the enemies of Japan.  Aristasia’s mythic history also turns on the repulsion of an invader by Divine intervention – in our case the defeat of the Outlander by the Sun-Daughter Sai Rayanna.

Lhi Raya Chancandre Aquitaine commented:

The distinction between “myth”  and “history” is a very recent one. It really only became fully formed during the 19th century.

The modern “historical consciousness” takes as its axiom that history is a set of “brute facts” that simply “happened”: any attempt of ours to read a hugher or spiritual meaning into them is merely a product of ignorance and superstition.

The traditional consciousness, on the contrary has always valued history for what it means. In particular the history of a nation or a people is its validating “story”.

The underlying point at issue is: do things happen at random or is there a meaning or pattern underlying them? The modern “scientistic” approach is committed to the hypothesis of randomness. The rest of humanity has always believed that events have meaning and are the outworking of eternal themes in the medium of time.

The modern practice of “debunking” traditional mythic-history in the light of supposed “superior knowledge” which is often purely hypothetical or based on circular arguments (“this history is untrue because it postulates miracles and we know miracles don’t happen” – which simply means “they believe in miracles, we don’t; and we know they are wrong because we know we are right”) is simply an attack by the “accidentalist” school upon traditional thought. Such attacks often shows great ferocity and emotionalism because their perpetrators are often very deeply and ideologically opposed to a universe with meaning and symbolism.

Aristasians, like all traditional people, draw no distinction between “mythic history” and “factual history” since historical events are merely the outworking of eternal themes in time. If the telling of the story sometimes errs on the side of conveying the fundamental meaning at the expense of the brute fact, that is because the underlying meaning is the more important truth about history. The raw facts are relatively unimportant.

One might even say that, in an imperfect world, the facts may sometimes be inaccurate about the truths they are intended to manifest. In such cases it may be our duty to correct them.

Advertisements