An obvious little addition: the Latin terms "pagus" and "pagere" are homologue of the Greek "pagos" and "pegnumi" with the same meaning. A curious coincidence is that pagos, in Greek, means also ice, frost, peak of mount.
As for the passage from the paganism to Christianity, everybody knows that has been favoured by the telluric Syrian/Phoenician cults coming from Asia and Africa, and the poet Porcius Licinus voiced the presentiment of it in a lapidary way:
"During the second Punic War, the Muse penetrated into the untamed, warlike people of Romulus, at winged pace."
This even, as Evola stated, after "the annihilation of Carthage, the city of the Goddess (Astarte-Tanit) and of the royal woman (Dido) who already attempted to allure the legendary founder of the roman nobility". He is talking of Aeneas, naturally.
F.
<evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
For a few months, some members have been asking us off list about the
difference between 'paganism' and 'heathenism'. In case other members
ask themselves the same question, we have decided to post onto this
list a summary of the answers we have been giving to the former in
the past months.
There is no denotative difference between the word 'heathenism' and
the word 'paganism' : "pagan" and "heathen" both mean originally "a
person who does not acknowledge the god of the Christians", just
as "Jew" and "Yid" both refer to the same reality. Just as "Yid" is
an injurious term for "Jew", "pagan" is a pejorative word
for "heathen", or rather for "a person who does not acknowledge the
god of the Christians". Few Jews like to be called "Yids" by non-
Jews. Few Jews call themselves "Yids".
Well, basically, it's as simple as that. As explained by Julius Evola
in 'Sintesi di dottrina della razza', ""paganus" is an essentially
derogatory term, used for controversial purposes by the first
Christian apologetics". It was adopted in the IVth century, some say
in the IIIth century, of the Christian era.
However, let's go further into this. First, early Christians don't
seem to have been experts in etymology. Otherwise, they would have
known that "paganus was a noun derived from the word pagus which
originally meant 'something stuck in the ground as a landmark'. The
root pag means "fixed" and is also the source of the
words "page", "pale (stake)", (...) as well as "pact" and peace",
and, therefore, even though they are generally not afraid of making
fools of themselves, they may have chosen another word to label the
Roman state cult and the Greek state cult, since the root pag turns
out to mean also - Guénon would have loved this - "POLE". Arrogance
always backfires, even through etymology, and, ultimately, not only
through etymology.
We have just said "the Roman state cult", for lack of a better word
than "cult" in English to refer to what it was all about in Rome in
this respect. As stressed by Dumézil, Latin did not have any word to
designate what Christians, Muslims and Jews mean by "religion". "The
term "Religio" does not have the same meaning as the
term "religion"". It is not by chance that most Patricians considered
the Christians, at the very best, as atheists, that is, as persons
who did not acknowledge the Roman gods. Beyond this, Latin did not
have any word to designate those who followed the mos maiorum, nor
had Germanic languages any word to designate those who followed
the "Customs of Elders". For those people, it went without saying
that, before belonging to a cult, they belonged to a people, to a
race, to a blood, of which their respective cult, with its practices
and its rites, was an integral part, an indissociable part, as
indissociable as recto and verso. For those people, to "convert"
would thus have seemed something absurd and aberrant ; whether the
modern man likes it or not, those peoples did not define themselves
according to what the modern man calls "religion", but according to
something far more profound than "religion" and which the modern man,
including the Western modern man, cannot understand, cannot
understand because he's lost touch with what is called in Buddhism
samskâra, the deep roots of the structure and of the inclinations of
his being, and which have an innate character. It is not by chance
that "heathen", which appeared in Old English as hâþen in the year
826, is in all likelihood derived from the Greek ethnos, meaning :
people.
"Paganism" was originally applied to the Graeco-Roman cults which the
Christians fought. Later, it was applied indiscriminately by the
Christians to any belief in other gods than theirs, in so-
called "false gods", from those of the Roman cult to those of the
Syrio-Phoenician cults. This had the effect of lumping together,
retrospectively, the ancient Roman cults of the Patricians, and the
cults of the various telluric goddesses of nature, from Demeter to
the Venus Verticordia and Cybele, the Magna Mater, to which, as far
as the latter are concerned, Christianity and the other Abrahamic
faiths owe much. From an Aryan standpoint, both Christianity and
those "pagan" cults in which it originates are to be fought. To a
large extent, what is now called "neo-paganism", to begin with Wicca,
is a mere resurgence of those cults. Therefore, by condemning them,
and, not to be unmasked once and for all, it cannot but condemn them,
Christianity condemns itself. It's, so to speak, the revolt of the
Daughter against the Mother. All the great goddesses of nature, which
crystallised in Christianity as Mary, the "Jewish virgin" as she was
called in Herod's time, had the serpent as attribute ; but, instead
of listening to the serpent, as did her archetypes, Mary, smashed its
head.
difference between 'paganism' and 'heathenism'. In case other members
ask themselves the same question, we have decided to post onto this
list a summary of the answers we have been giving to the former in
the past months.
There is no denotative difference between the word 'heathenism' and
the word 'paganism' : "pagan" and "heathen" both mean originally "a
person who does not acknowledge the god of the Christians", just
as "Jew" and "Yid" both refer to the same reality. Just as "Yid" is
an injurious term for "Jew", "pagan" is a pejorative word
for "heathen", or rather for "a person who does not acknowledge the
god of the Christians". Few Jews like to be called "Yids" by non-
Jews. Few Jews call themselves "Yids".
Well, basically, it's as simple as that. As explained by Julius Evola
in 'Sintesi di dottrina della razza', ""paganus" is an essentially
derogatory term, used for controversial purposes by the first
Christian apologetics". It was adopted in the IVth century, some say
in the IIIth century, of the Christian era.
However, let's go further into this. First, early Christians don't
seem to have been experts in etymology. Otherwise, they would have
known that "paganus was a noun derived from the word pagus which
originally meant 'something stuck in the ground as a landmark'. The
root pag means "fixed" and is also the source of the
words "page", "pale (stake)", (...) as well as "pact" and peace",
and, therefore, even though they are generally not afraid of making
fools of themselves, they may have chosen another word to label the
Roman state cult and the Greek state cult, since the root pag turns
out to mean also - Guénon would have loved this - "POLE". Arrogance
always backfires, even through etymology, and, ultimately, not only
through etymology.
We have just said "the Roman state cult", for lack of a better word
than "cult" in English to refer to what it was all about in Rome in
this respect. As stressed by Dumézil, Latin did not have any word to
designate what Christians, Muslims and Jews mean by "religion". "The
term "Religio" does not have the same meaning as the
term "religion"". It is not by chance that most Patricians considered
the Christians, at the very best, as atheists, that is, as persons
who did not acknowledge the Roman gods. Beyond this, Latin did not
have any word to designate those who followed the mos maiorum, nor
had Germanic languages any word to designate those who followed
the "Customs of Elders". For those people, it went without saying
that, before belonging to a cult, they belonged to a people, to a
race, to a blood, of which their respective cult, with its practices
and its rites, was an integral part, an indissociable part, as
indissociable as recto and verso. For those people, to "convert"
would thus have seemed something absurd and aberrant ; whether the
modern man likes it or not, those peoples did not define themselves
according to what the modern man calls "religion", but according to
something far more profound than "religion" and which the modern man,
including the Western modern man, cannot understand, cannot
understand because he's lost touch with what is called in Buddhism
samskâra, the deep roots of the structure and of the inclinations of
his being, and which have an innate character. It is not by chance
that "heathen", which appeared in Old English as hâþen in the year
826, is in all likelihood derived from the Greek ethnos, meaning :
people.
"Paganism" was originally applied to the Graeco-Roman cults which the
Christians fought. Later, it was applied indiscriminately by the
Christians to any belief in other gods than theirs, in so-
called "false gods", from those of the Roman cult to those of the
Syrio-Phoenician cults. This had the effect of lumping together,
retrospectively, the ancient Roman cults of the Patricians, and the
cults of the various telluric goddesses of nature, from Demeter to
the Venus Verticordia and Cybele, the Magna Mater, to which, as far
as the latter are concerned, Christianity and the other Abrahamic
faiths owe much. From an Aryan standpoint, both Christianity and
those "pagan" cults in which it originates are to be fought. To a
large extent, what is now called "neo-paganism", to begin with Wicca,
is a mere resurgence of those cults. Therefore, by condemning them,
and, not to be unmasked once and for all, it cannot but condemn them,
Christianity condemns itself. It's, so to speak, the revolt of the
Daughter against the Mother. All the great goddesses of nature, which
crystallised in Christianity as Mary, the "Jewish virgin" as she was
called in Herod's time, had the serpent as attribute ; but, instead
of listening to the serpent, as did her archetypes, Mary, smashed its
head.