Utrum sit curandum de mythis et historiis paganorum

Ad secundum sic proceditur: Videtur quod sit maxime curandum de mythis et historiis paganorum. Nam antiqui et Iudei et Greci appelati fuerant in unum populum Christianum. Si ergo de mythis et historiis Hebreorum curamus que invenimus in Genesi vel in libris Regum, pari ratione de mythis et historiis paganorum, que invenimus in Hesiodi Theogonia vel in Homeri Iliade et Odyssea.

E contra, nil est curandum de mythis et historiis paganorum: quia idolatre erant et idolatrie vel paganismi errores obnoxii et non sine admixtione errorum scriberunt mythos et historias, exempli gratia plena est Theogonia Hesiodi erroribus attribuentibus cuidam filio Saturni et nepoti Celi et Telluris regnum supra celum et terram, et Odyssea etiam errat quia dicit filiam quedam Iovis esse que consilio et opere iuvat Ulixem.

Insuper nil est curandum de historiis paganorum quia in eis dicitur Apollo predixisse examussim fata Oedipodis: set non est licitum credere oraculis demonum, vel curare de eis.

Set contra est quod multi autores Christiani per secula curaverunt aliquid de historiis paganorum, exempli gratia scribendo Herculem fuisse, sicut ille pater ecclesie qui eum dixit esse fortem veri Dei dono et a paganis divum propterea factum et filium Iovis. Quos non condempnavit ecclesia.

Respondeo esse dicendum libros paganorum non esse liberos ab errore sicut sunt libri veterum Hebreorum. Set non est quia liber non est immunis ab errore quod statim sit acervus errorum. Quedam autem paganorum omnino erronea videntur, sicut falsa revelatio de Chao, Tellure, Celo, de Saturno et Titanibus, de Iove et Diis quam fecerunt Muse Hesiodi. Quedam non erronea, vel non statim necesse erronea, sicut Hesiodem recipisse hanc revelationem a novem puellis que se dicebant esse Musas et immortales. Quedam autem permixta ex vera historia et falsa interpretatione, sicut credibile est Troianum fuisse Bellum, set non credibile in monte Olympo deos idolos tenuisse consilia de favore huic mortali faciendo vel denegando. Quoad pestem aput Grecos in alpha Iliados, credibile est eam esse allatam a demone, qui rectius Apollyon (quod Grece interpretatur Destructor) quam Apollo dicitur.

Ad primum dicendum quod, sicut in corpore dictum est, historie paganorum non sunt ab errore immunes. Cautius est eis utendum - si quidem utendum quia nulla est obligatio - quam historiis Hebreorum que in Sacra Scriptura inveniuntur. Nec est sacrilegium, sicut in Scriptura, quuidam historie non credere.

Ad secundum quod ex presentia errorum certissimorum non concluditur ad absentiam certam credibiliorum. Historia neque est enim una propositio ut sit aut totaliter falsa aut totaliter vera, set composita ex plurimis.

Ad tertium dicendum quod historia Oedipodis non incitat Christianos bene catechizatos ad credendum oraculum Delphicum, set potius ad exsecrandum, inquantum monstrat per que falsa demon suadebat in interitum que videbatur prophetiam adimplere. Que autem non credita non fuisset adimpleta nec immo adimpleri visa set solum ex credulitate adimplebantur hec et hoc in interitum ipsorum credentium.

Another Kind of Necklace of Beads

Reverend Jenkins stopped the car right in front of the site of the accident, as close as he could. People were helping to sort out the corpses, to identify, to help any survivors, to search wallets for identities of so far not identified (that was the police doing it) and a few more things. Some corpses were also being carried away.

Susan ran as fast as she could through the the little crowd, bustling through everyone, and after some three times she bumped into bystanders, she saw Lucy. OK, the other ones were there too, but she only had eyes for her younger sister. In her hands there was a kind of necklace ... wait, was she not into nagging about something called a Rosary, lately? Peter had taken it up when leaving the Anglican Church (she and Peter were the only ones old enough to do so without parental permission, at least she thought the limit was 21 years), even before deciding whether to become Catholic or Orthodox. Now that was a deception to Mr Jenkins ... so, there was the peaceful face of Lu, quiet and cold. And there in her hands, no it was not just any necklace. She was able to get it out of her sister's fingers and look at it. Not pearls, but wooden beads.

Beads, beads, beads all over it. Groups of, would it be ten? yes, separated by larger ones. All of wood, five groups of them. Under it there was a medallion with the Blessed Virgin Mary. Under that another three small beads and a large one, and then a crucifix.

She was sure her sister would have liked her to have it, so she took it on, as a necklace. Never mind if she believed in it or not, she had to find out later, but for now that was Lucy's gift to her.

She wished she had had the cordial, to heal some of the accident victims before it was too late, but Lucy had not taken that Christmas gift with her from Narnia.

But somehow, she did not worry. Not that she did not worry about herself as if she was sure to be forgiven: she did not worry about her sister. And that was a feeling she had not known since that awful day seven years ago in America when Eustace wrote her that letter.

Oh, Eustace!

"Ma'am?"

"Yes?" she turned to the police officer. He was a bit dubious about the procedure, but was not judging prematurely. Just being cautious and a bit suspicious.

"You seem to look alike the young dead lady here, are you related?"

"My name is Susan Pevensie, this was in her life Lucy Pevensie, my sister."

"Then I presume Alberta Scrubb would mean something to you?"

"Our aunt."

"We will see her in a minute, can you identify yourself?"

"Well ..."

"Driving licence?"

"Only in driving school as yet, sir."

"Do you mind?" Reverend Jenkins stepped in.

"Yes?" said the policeman.

"I have my drivers' licence here. It says I am Jonathan Jenkins, I am vicar of the All Hallows on the Wall parish of London, and I had the griveous duty to inform Miss Pevensie, Susan, of the demise of Lucy and her other siblings."

"I take it this means this is - or was Lucy Pevensie then?"

"Indeed" said both Susan and Reverend Jenkins.

"There are six more although Alberta Scrubb identified one of them as Eustace."

"Shall we ....?" suggested Susan.

And Alberta was just about quitting her sobbing, she had arrived only a little earlier.

"I had such hopes for Eustace Clarence ..."

"As she said, here is Eustace Clarence Scrubb, her son. And there beside him is his school friend Jill Pole, whom I taught archery." She noted with not little joy in her heart that both of them had that funny sort of necklace which she was wearing from out of her sister's hands. "And the elderly people beside them are Professor Digory Kirke and Miss Polly Plumber."

"Elderly? They look old!"

"They are only about sixty years, though first time I saw Digory I took him for at least seventy - nearly ten years ago. I later found out his hairs had gone white rapidly during what seemed to become his last cannibal's feast - and first and only one too. I mean, there are times when Professors from our lands do not quite survive such occasions. He was a good explorer. But he did not survive the railway crash ..." she added with a wimper. That made her cry again. And her eyes were already red.

"So he is really around sixty?" added the policeman when she was no longer crying.

"I take that to be rather correct," she said.

"Professor?"

"Doctor Artium Honoris Causa, Oxford, Professor of Anthropology and Comparative Religion in Leeds University, lecturer of Archeology on spot, several digouts - staying away from cannibals mostly"

"Anyone who might confirm that?"

"He said he had a splendid student called Jones. Indiana Jones funny enough. But where he is now ...? I suppose he shared the professor's taste for adventurous digouts, so ..." And Susan broke off again, because she really thought that Digory Kirke was an old dear. She would never more hear him on surviving among Papuan cannibals of New Guinea.

"It won't be necessary to contact Mr. Jones," went Reverend Jenkins. "I can confirm, since I attended one of his lectures at Leeds a few years ago."

"And there" - she pointed at two young men - "are Peter and Edmund, also brothers of mine and of Lucy." As she said it, she glanced at her brother Edmund especially. More wounded and white than when she saw him at Beruna (would she ever escape Narnia? was the memory even false?), and a smile which she could not quite place. She had seen it somewhere, but could not recall when. Narnia, that too? And Peter looked like after saving her from Maugrim, except this time it was his own blood, and the cuts were not made with his sword.

"I think that will do for now, I will leave you to your grief and your prayers. Sorry to have disturbed you at such a moment, but identification of corpses tends to be an important routine."

"Oh, no problem, sir!" said Susan through her tears.

"Thank God he's leaving!" sighed aunt Alberta.

What about the train to Bristol?

If you have read the Last Battle, you know that the Seven Friends of Narnia and Mr and Mrs Pevensie were on the train to Bristol.

Yes, at least they were when going to undig the rings that Digory and Polly had used.

But the things that happened between that train journey and the real train crash were not quite suitable to put into a children's story. I am afraid C. S. Lewis shortened the story a bit so as to leave it out. And adapted Jill's words to Tirian to this shorter story - it is actually not all the words in the stories that were exactly recorded. Remember how Aravis retold the words of Whin a bit grander than Whin recalled them? Well, C. S. Lewis also knew how to put words into the proper occasions - and leave some out too. The Narnia books are not the Holy Writ, you know.

When Lucy came home from Bristol, Susan got a visit from her.

"Su, the rings were not there, although we digged."

"What rings?"

"Of course, you were not there when Digory told us about their journey to Narnia ..."

"Will you excuse me for a minute?"

"Of course. I'll read a book and make some tea."

"Do. I'll be back in a quarter of an hour or so."

And that is when Susan got to her therapist, told him "Lucy is getting worse", got a calming comment about his just needing to see her, "probably" no need to lock her up at all. She put her hopes on that probability. Now she knew bitterly she should not have.

And after Lucy came out after a week, she did not look quite herself, she did not have quite the same smile, the Seven Friends of Narnia took another train - and their parents were on it too. But Reverend Jenkins was approaching the place where it crashed: Sevenoaks.

A un Marcelo, editor registrado de la Wikipedia Española

Como hé decho: la precesión de Mercurio fue un punto del heliocentrismo quien daba ocasión a dos teorías, la falsa de la planeta Vulcano y la controversiada de la relatividad. Eso no es una información controversiada de todo, lo encontré en el artículo. Y por eso, la conclusión immediada es que geocentrismo puede explicar la precesión de Mercurio sin el uno como el otro.

También, el obstaculo al geocentrismo es, lo que se dice en misma la sección y tampoco es controversiado, la teoria que los movimientos de los cuerpos celestos depienden de la gravitación universal y de nada otro regularmente o de importancia. De eso la conclusión immediada es que el geocentrismo es al menos posible si los movimientos de los cuerpos celestos pueden depender de otra cosa.

Movimiento directamente por voluntad de Diós es otra cosa. Movimiento por voluntad de un ángel es otra cosa. Eso tampoco es información controversiada. De cuyo la conclusión immediada es: el geocentrismo es posible y la precesión de Mercurio explicable otramente que por Vulcano (non-existente) o Relatividad General (teoría controversiada) en caso que Mercurio sea modo (no) - mudo (no) - movido (?) - (si:) movido por un ángel. Eso es una condicional que mismo un ateo no pueda controversar, solo el ateo controversara ciertamente precisamente la condición, es a decir que un ángel pueda mover Mercurio.

Y no es información controversada tampoco que un cristiano no es un ateo, que un cristiano creye en un Diós todopoderoso, y que un cristiano creye que haya creado ángeles mucho más fuertes que hombres y que la creadura espiritual - es a decir los angeles por ejemplo - es más grande que la creación material - es a decir por ejemplo los cuerpos celestes.

Entonces hé destillado algunos informaciones no controversiadas de todo en una conclusión que parecía - peró sin razón - a otro utilizador "información controversiada":

Con geocentrismo la precesión de Mercurio es plausible a la vez sin Vulcano y sin Relatividad. Lo que necesita quizás es no tener la gravitación como causa universal de movimientos planetarios, si los ángeles pueden mover a una planeta, el geocentrismo es posible. Y ese un cristiano no puede negar.

Que por favor Marcelo haya la bondad de deshacer su edición que suprime esas claridades logicas que no son de todo "informaciones controversiadas"!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Beauvais
Día del Corazón Sagrado
Viernes 15-VI-2012

Todo eso hé escrito en Discusión:Teoría geocéntrica, a propuesto de un pasaje del articulo donde hé añadido y Marcelo abolido:

Con geocentrismo la precesión de Mercurio es plausible a la vez sin Vulcano y sin Relatividad. Lo que necesita quizás es no tener la gravitación como causa universal de movimientos planetarios, si los ángeles pueden mover a una planeta, el geocentrismo es posible. Y ese un cristiano no puede negar.

Cristianismo - la verdad necesaria entre mentiras probables

Cito una filosofía panteista, cuasi espinozana - que "sinembargo" tenía culto sacrificador de hombres y mujeres:

El proceso de creación, mantenimiento y transformación del cosmos es visto en la metafísica náhuatl como un proceso esencialmente artístico. Toda la creación no es otra cosa que el disfraz o la máscara de Téotl, su nahual. El término nahual proviene de nahualli, un chamán con la capacidad de cambiar de forma. Téotl posee el mágico poder de ocultarse de los humanos. En sentido estricto, Téotl no creó el cosmos; éste consiste de Téotl y todo su contenido es simplemente parte de Téotl. El cosmos y todo lo que él alberga no son otra cosa que meras manifestaciones mágicas y momentáneas de Téotl: una gran máscara que al mismo tiempo cubre y revela el misterio (es decir, lo epistemológicamente trascendente y en última instancia no cognoscible) de la fuerza sagrada y la energía vital.

Téotl se disfraza artísticamente (nahualli) en muchas formas para ocultarse de la vista de los humanos. En primer lugar, el disfraz consiste en la apariencia material de la existencia, es decir, la apariencia de entes estáticos como los humanos, los árboles, los insectos. Pero esta apariencia es ilusoria, porque la realidad es dinámica y conformada por procesos en lugar de entes. En segundo lugar, el disfraz consiste en la aparente multiplicidad de lo existente, es decir, la existencia de entes distintos e independientes tales como humanos, árboles, insectos singulares. Esto es también ilusión, porque sólo hay una cosa: Téotl. Las aparentes entidades no solo están interrelacionadas, sino que también son uno entre sí, porque son receptáculos o "vasos" de lo sagrado (ixiptla); en última instancia, son uno con Téotl. Finalmente, el disfraz de Téotl consiste en la aparente distinción, independencia, exclusión mutua e irreconciliable oposición entre los pares vida/muerte, masculino/femenino, luz/oscuridad, etc. Lo que también es ilusión y engaño, porque todas y cada una son manifestaciones de Téotl. Cuando los humanos observan el mundo, ven a Téotl como humano, árbol, día, muerte, etc., esto es, a Téotl detrás de una máscara, pero no a Téotl mismo. Entenderlo permite a los humanos penetrar la máscara y al hacerlo, aprehender la sagrada y única presencia del propio Téotl.

El cristiano concede lo de artistico. No concede lo de disfraz, como si Dios fuese la única realidad. Por la religión nahua, Téotl es a vez el qué y el como del cosmo. Por la cristiana Dios es "el como" en tanto decide como, en tanto que hace el como. Peró no es el qué, es el productor del qué. Algunos aspectos:

En primer lugar, el disfraz consiste en la apariencia material de la existencia, es decir, la apariencia de entes estáticos como los humanos, los árboles, los insectos. Pero esta apariencia es ilusoria, porque la realidad es dinámica y conformada por procesos en lugar de entes.

Falso, hay substancias creadas, hay entes. Son ellos que son subjetos de los procesos - y Dios mismo es sujeto del proceso de gobernarles.

En segundo lugar, el disfraz consiste en la aparente multiplicidad de lo existente, es decir, la existencia de entes distintos e independientes tales como humanos, árboles, insectos singulares. Esto es también ilusión, porque sólo hay una cosa: Téotl.

Falso también, hay no solo una substancia creada, peró muchas. En el primer día creó Dios a la luz, hubiendo ya creado al cielo y a la tierra: tres primeras cosas visibles distantas de Dios (creando el cielo creó también a los ángeles, cada uno distinto de los otros y del cielo en general y de la luz y de la tierra). Y entre se mutualmente. Los días dos a seis Dios añade otras cosas distintas entre se y las primeras. Y dando la fertilidad a plantas, a animales de los aires y del agua y de la tierra y hasta al hombre, dio la posibilidad de augmentar realmente al número de las cosas distantas también a entes creados.

Finalmente, el disfraz de Téotl consiste en la aparente distinción, independencia, exclusión mutua e irreconciliable oposición entre los pares vida/muerte, masculino/femenino, luz/oscuridad, etc. Lo que también es ilusión y engaño, porque todas y cada una son manifestaciones de Téotl.

Falso también. Dios creó la vida, el pecado hizo la muerte. Dios creó la luz, peró la oscuridad fue solo condición primitiva y non graciada de la tierra. Sin embargo, Diós creó realmente hombre y mujer. Es vero que Dios hace vida y muerte, luz y oscuridad, bueno y malo: en cuanto es vero que el artista dibujador hace no solo las lineas negras, peró también las areas de papiel blanco, dejadas tales que ante. El dibujador es algo invertido para Dios, visto que Él cuando deja algo tal que ante deja un nada, algo negro, es Él que da la luz y el blanco. Mismo en haciendo el bien y el mal no hace el mal como el bien, peró es solo el bien que hace por hacerlo. Es también falso y pithagoréico y misógino de pretender que la polaridad masculino feminino sea de misma natura que las oposiciones como el ser y el nada, como son las otras.

Cuando los humanos observan el mundo, ven a Téotl como humano, árbol, día, muerte, etc., esto es, a Téotl detrás de una máscara, pero no a Téotl mismo. Entenderlo permite a los humanos penetrar la máscara y al hacerlo, aprehender la sagrada y única presencia del propio Téotl.

Ultima mentira. La verdad de un Diós que creó el cielo y la tierra es muy accesible, es la tradición primitiva de los primeros parentes, es la tradición también de Noé. Es confirmada claramente por la observación. Y, si hubiero aún dudos, porla revelación bíblica. No hay necesidad de comprender algo más profundo. No hay algo más profundo y contrario. Misma la concepción popular, no hermética de los mismos méjicas fué más buena:

En la mitología popular Téotl era considerado como eterno e invisible, creador y sustentador del mundo. Se le aplicaban por sobrenombre Tloque-Nahuaque (creador de todas las cosas) y también Ipalneomani (ser por quien se vive). No fue representado en imagen.

Fuente: Wikipedia, Téotl

Y la mentira opuesta, también definida por un articulo de la wikipedia:

Los deístas, en general, rechazan la religión organizada y los dioses personales "revelados" argumentando que Dios es el creador del mundo, pero que no interviene de forma alguna en los quehaceres del mundo, aunque esta posición no es estrictamente parte de la filosofía deísta. Para ellos, Dios se revela a sí mismo indirectamente a través de las leyes de la naturaleza descritas por las ciencias naturales.

Un Diós que ya haya creado, peró quién queda fuera su creación? Es casi hasta dar nostalgía de la metafísica nahua ... Si el sol no es una máscara de Diós, cierto no es su movimiento una consecuencia mecánica de lo que un divino constructor haya pensado en un pasado inacesible: peró son algo que Diós decide cada día. Uno será el último, como el cuarto ha sido la creación del sol, el último será cuando va quedarse finalmente. Ni es automato, ni mascara, peró más una cosa creada por Diós y manipulado por Él mismo o por un ángel quién obedece a Él.

Peró para que Diós sea moralmente libre, o para que lo parece a nosotros, es necesario que sea no una persona, peró diversas personas quienes se quieren. Para que lo sea realmente, es necesario que existe, y no hay otro Diós quien existe que el Padre, el Hijo y el Espíritu Santo. Al lados de Allah, él del Coran (los cristianos del Oriente dicen Allah como nosotros Diós, no es porque creen al Coran), al lados de él, Téotl tiene casi un favor, como imaginación: es expresivista. Es un favor, no es a decir que Islam no sea mejor que religión nahua. Peró las dos son inadecuadas, es la verdad cristiana que es adecuada.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
La Biblicoteca Universitaria
de Beauvais en Picardia
El día festivo del
Corazón Sagrado de Jesús
Viernes el 15-VI-2012

PS: no es tan difícil comprender porqué una metafísica panteista como la nahua inspire al sacrificio humano, peró por hoy, es mejor dar el contraste entre dioses cuyo sacerdotes les juzgaban tener hambre de corazones humanos y el verdadero Diós quién dio Su Corazón a nosotros, en Calvaria, sacrificado como hombre por se mismo una vez para todas. Un sacrificio que no es remplazado por otros, peró representado en cada santa misa. Y cuando el Corazón de todos corazones se disfraza, lo dice claramente (Luca 22:16-20).

Utrum omnia nomina divina paganorum sint nomina demonum

Videtur nullum esse deum paganorum quin nomen eius sit nomen demonis.

Primo quia inter duo opposita, si de uno dicitur omnes, de altero intelligitur nullus: set dicitur in psalmo omnes dii ethnicorum demonia sunt, ergo nullus est deus paganorum quin sit demon et nullum nomen divinum paganorum quin sit nomen demonicum.

Secundo quia demon est qui pulsat ad malum, principaliter, set eciam hi dei paganorum qui dicuntur fuisse mortales pulsant ad malum per malum exemplum, utpote Hercules ad iracundiam, Antinous ad lascivitatem, ambo ad vicium contra naturam, ergo sunt demonici et nomen utriusque et aliorum nomen est demonicum.

Set contra est: in secundo beati Luce scriptum est "exiit edictum a Caesare Augusto ut describeretur universus orbis" cui edicto optemperavit sanctus Ioseph. Set obedire edicta demonum peccatum est, ergo Cesar Augustus suo tempore et in historia, sacra et alia, principalius est nomen hominis quam nomen demonis. Quamvis certe iam fuit demonicus cultus eum in templis suis adorare.

Respondeo esse dicendum quod in quocumque cultu pagano adest demon recipiens honorem deo vero debito, set non quodcumque nomen quod invocatur est per se nomen demonis, set quiddam modo occasionaliter fit per indebitam invocationem. Sic nonnulli fuerunt mortales qui suo tempore vel post mortem facti sunt idoli, et interdum eodem nomine usi sunt falsam invocationem facientes et verum deum invocantes, quod in Arabica et Greca linguis presertim videtur. Nam Allah dicitur et a Christianis Terra Sancta vel Egypti vel et Melite viventibus, de Deo Uno et Trino, de Deo vero: et ante plenitudinem veritatis a poëtis dictum est nomen Zeus a poëtis ita ut Christianus legens quedam excerpta non potest Deum Verum non intelligere.

Ad primum dicendum est quod quamvis nullus sit deus cultus erronei quin sit demon, interdum nomen habet communem cum aliquo non demonico, utputa fratre nostro sole, qui creatura est Dei veri.

Ad secundum dicendum est quod non unus est tantum inimicus anime, set tres: caro, mundus et demon. Si post mortem "Hercules" et "Antinous" pulsaverunt ad malum inquantum demones erant cultum indebitum recipientes, in vita interdum id fecerunt inquantum mala exempla, quod autem pertinet ad mundum, non ita ad demonem. Set aliqui in vita et ad bona pulsaverunt, bonis exemplis, sicut patet de Enea.

[An Author's Aside]

Since I started this fan fiction novel, troubles have been coming but also apparently not from readers or anyone in particular, council, advice. Or what seems to suggest itself as such by the things I read. It irritates me.

Like this thing about Planet Narnia: if Narnia books are astrologically set to Seven Classical Planets*, to what tune goes this? Uranus, Neptunus and, is Pluto a planet? One obvious answer is: to none. This is not a Narnia book. It is set in England and the only ground which hails to the name of Narnia is Narnese rather than Narnian. It is in Umbria in Italy, as author of original series well knew. It is set on earth, and if earth being central to universe and still without motion has no tune, some of its centuries do. Or one could say it is in tune with the fixed stars: a detail being that if geocentrism is true and yet sun is not center of all stars spread through space as thought by astronomers today, but fixed stars are more or less in a sphere, according to Bessel and others, they waggle a bit. But also in the sense that apart from waggling they are fixed and so is the moral law.

Susan Pevensie has naturally, without grace, a bit more courage than Ismene, or gives the impression. Yet she knows well there are laws that do not bend. Since the book is no tragedy I will not bring her to martyrdom as Antigone, but she will testify to "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" and "thou shalt not kill" and "for anyone who scandalises one of these little ones, it would have been better if a millstone had been tied around his neck" - as a teacher in compulsory school in England, she does risk the millstone test. And, for passing it in the eyes of heaven, she pays.

But in a sense it is also another old favourite of mine apart from Narnia: Ivan Nazaroff. He knew he could not go to Chrustev and say "comrade Nikita, Christ died for my sins and yours, won't you read about it in the Bible with me"? And Susan Pevensie knew she could not stand up to England and say: "I am Queen of Narnia" - she would have aroused more panic than Jadis in London, as likely. The novels of Myrna Grant show the situation of Christians under Communism: Komsomol, Young Pioneers, Laws decreed unjustly by the party ... and teachers functioning under such laws.

Now, Psychiatry in the West has long functioned as such a Communist party. Children are materially supported even from non-wed mothers, but they are also taken away from parents more often than previous centuries and millennia. Back to days when adults were killed and children taken as slaves or for adoption by warriors whose names are known in the West. Was Attila the Hun in that branch? Genghis Khan I think was. Teachers are regularly concerned with both of these - as well as with Abortion, unless schools are Christian: not meaning every teacher gets involved personally, and when I taught for "6 months" (I was dismissed after expiration of contract) I was not approached by any teenage girl in such a situation, but if I had continued and been sufficiently respected, I am not sure how I could avoided situations in which either I would have tried to save a life by sabotaging policies about "it's her decision" (when she is approached by a pro-lifer) and "it's all for her own good" (when she is being pushed by the anti-lifers) - or earned a millstone around my neck.

Nobby was taken away from his parents in a novel by Enid Blyton: because his father goes to jail, obviously, but also because he beat him.** Now, in the novel this is seen as a humane decision, for Nobby's own good. In my fan fic, I give another side to the story. George, the daugter of Quentin and Fanny, may still have problems admitting her name is Georgina, but she is not a lesbian. Together they help Susan do what I would not think quite possible for me if I went back to non-Christian schools: so this is a cross-over of fan fictions, one in which also Father Brown and Doctor Watson (or at least a younger assistant of his) are real people whom Susan Pevensie will meet (Sherlock Holmes being already dead). Without the help of these guys, I am not sure Susan would not have continued to earn the reproach of Polly Plummer. Without the help of guys such as these, I am not sure Ivan Nazaroff could have continued to live a Christian life.

Since Ivan Nazaroff stories by Myrna Grant are considerably less well known than Narnia books by C S Lewis, known as Jack to his friends and family, I will give you some clues about him. His father once tells him his own grandfather was a property owner in Czar Russia. Oh, there were such who exploited the peasants horribly (admission to what was at least being taught in Communist schools and was perhaps true in places too), but not our ancestor back before the revolution. He tells him this in order to prepare him for his visit to exactly the same property - now a Kolkhos - and to tell him not to miss the opportunity to bring home his ancestor's family Bible. He does not miss the opportunity.

But in some ways the England of Susan Pevensie was as closed as the Soviet Union of Ivan Nazaroff - or if not, I am projecting back to English fifties what was going on in Swedish Seventies, Eighties, Nineties. You might as well know that about my novel. I am adressing that to give her an excuse to abandon Narnia in the first place, and also to give her an adventure.

If Ivan novels are novels in which Sovietic Atheism is the crook, then this is one in which Psychiatry takes that part. And indeed American and Swedish psychiatry collaborated with Chrustev's early on in the fifties. New criteria were added to what could stamp one as liable to be forced into their treatment, and I am far from sure claiming to have been to Narnia would not have been one of them. If she does not claim so, how can she avoid continuing the lie by which she placed her siblings in danger - or continue to be lied for and therefore placed in a very uncomfortable position?

If I had written this book chapter after chapter, I would obviously have placed this one after the previous and before the following. In reality I put it in the middle of extant chapters, of which I here give you the series in a table:

chapters "previous" to this	chapters "posterior" to this
previous and posterior refer to reading order only, they are previous to this in the writing order original four chapters in bold underlined
Susan has a bad fright. Who told Susan: introducing Revd. Jinx Splendour Hyaline - again Off to Sevenoaks. The Car Ride to Sevenoaks was a Flashback Reverend Pewsey's Last Sermon Explanations of a Practical Nature St John's Feast in Narnia Helpers of the Holy Souls Nobby Susan reads her story again	Susan reads Lucy's essay on Astronomy Ramandu and Galileo, part 1 Ramandu and Galileo, part 2 Susan's Teacher Talk And Friedman looked for Su in the wrong office ... Jack and Tollers discuss pipeweed Where Aslan was a Lion Cub. [expanded since] A Glass of Cremisan with the Priest Father Brown's Last Bow, part 1 Father Brown's Last Bow, Part 2 Susan's dreams become a book

* This does not preclude thematics from the Seven Sacraments! If Jupiter could serve - obviously not dominate even according to such a Christian as would accept astrology - the Eucharist and Sun being lifegiving the Font, LWW would be the Eucharist novel and VDT the Baptism novel: in reality both sacraments are closer to VDT, and LWW is about the Calvary from which they flow - or about the Sacrifice of the Mass, if the Stone Table there, like the Mass in Our World is where the the Sacrifice of Calvary is renewed, made present. Mars and Confirmation go together, since in Confirmation we are clad in the armour of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit: PC is in a very key moment about Lucy first lacking then having the grace to stand up for her faith and for truth. Funny that Prince Caspian also alludes to political correctness which is an enemy of confirmation graces - and both abbreviate as PC. Moon goes well with the Sacrament that testifies of our fickleness, and at the end Aslan tells Jill "I will not always be scolding you". HHB gets people married (like Cor and Aravis), and that reminds of Venus (unless you think very hard about the Wedding of Mercury and Philology), MN gets Frank crowned, and that is as good a reminder of priesthood as Narnia across-the-wood-between-the-worlds gives us - the Umbrian one having of course Catholic clergy - and there you have Mercury since priests are preachers. Also the Magician Uncle serves Mercury as Hermes Trismegistos, which is a bad thing, but the criteria for King Frank are those Timothy had to apply to a "bishop". And Last Battle is about people not getting extreme unction, but dying in battle: and yet Narnia is by then sick, and calling for some kind of such. A bit like Oscar Wilde on his death bed in Paris (was the bar in Magdalen College Oxford already called Oscar Wilde bar in CSL's time there?). And obviously the seven fountainheads of sin are also seven. Jadis and Edmund start off as jealous. Miraz as angry. Eustace and Pug and Gumpas are all greedy. And so on? I mean, sevenfold underthemes for a seven book series need not be about just one of these underthemes./HGL

**Read up on it, Nobby's parents were dead, he left an uncle, and as he was fourteen he got to work immediately: with farmer Mackie. Sorry, Enid, bad memory of mine!