Forgotten Roots Page 3
We learn from Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian who lived in the 1st century BCE, that ancient Gaulish people slept on animal furs around the hearth, and that they also dined sitting on them. In Ireland, a few centuries after Christ, living conditions in small rural homesteads probably did not differ too much from those in ancient Gaul. After all, in the early medieval tale of Cuchulainn and Ferdia we find a reference to the use of skin coverings as bedclothes: a charioteer asks for skin covering to be put under his head so that he can sleep for a while[6].
It is also interesting to note that Giraldus Cambriensis, writing in the late 12th century, said that his fellow Welshmen had no tables at all at their meals. Sleeping on a mattress is a relatively new phenomenon, and research shows that it isn't necessarily the best surface to rest our bodies on. It is beyond any question that too much softness (represented by cushions and soft mattresses) makes us weaker. Human beings in industrialized societies have lost a direct and uninterrupted contact with the earth. Sleeping on the floor allows our spine to realign to its natural posture much more easily. It is also said that it prevents back pain and improves blood flow. Considering the evidence, I strongly recommend trying this for yourselves at least for a few nights. Make sure you still insulate your body from the cold, by laying a blanket on the floor. After several such "grounding sessions", you will surely appreciate the luxury of sleeping in a bed. More importantly, however, you will toughen yourself up and gain the ability to be comfortable sleeping anywhere.
The next step is to consider implementing cold showers into your daily routine. We have become used to hot water in our homes to such an extent that we no longer know what it’s like to experience real coldness. Cold showers have been proven to have a magical effect on your mood, health, and willpower. The father of medicine, Hippocrates, recommended taking cold baths as a remedy for some illnesses. Both ancient Spartans and Romans often plunged into icy water in order to strengthen their bodies and to recover after battles. In the Victorian era, cold baths were prescribed for pain relief and treatment. What are the benefits of this method? First of all, immersing ourselves in cold water considerably boosts our energy, mood, and alertness – it can work as a great replacement for morning coffee. Secondly, it stimulates weight loss and makes our hair and skin look shinier and healthier. Men who want to increase their testosterone production and fertility should try taking cold showers, as research has demonstrated a strong correlation between them. Last but not least, as soon as we gradually begin reducing our need for hot water, our immune system will compensate by better protecting us against lower temperatures and harsh weather conditions.
However, it is important to state that the complete absence of warm water isn't ideal, either. Cold water is not very effective at removing dirt and bacteria. Those who suffer from heart conditions should consult their doctor before trying cold showers, and I would recommend everyone to begin with contrast showers. Historically, hot baths and sweating baths have been in use since Classical Antiquity. Ancient Greeks and Romans were known for their famous steam baths. The ancient Irish people constructed beehive-shaped buildings known as toigh-an-alluis (literally: "the house of perspiration"). Their purpose was remedial of certain diseases such as rheumatism and ague. In Seaton F. Milligan's article from 1889, "The Ancient Irish Hot-Air Bath", we can find the following description of toigh-an-alluis:
Sweat houses were common in this part of the country until 50 years ago, and from that time up to twenty years since, they were going out of use. It was heated by fires of turf; when sufficiently hot the coals, ashes, etc. were removed, and some cool thing such as sods, rushes, or stones put in for the persons to stand upon. When men used it, as many as six or eight stripped off and went in, then all openings were closed except what afforded a little ventilation. A person remained outside to attend to these matters. When they could suffer the heat no longer, the flag was removed, and they came out and plunged into a pool of water within a yard or two of the sweat house, where they washed, got well rubbed and put on their clothes. In case of women, they put on a bathing dress whilst using the bath, and generally omitted the plunge or cold bath. People had to be careful not to lean against the walls inside, otherwise they would get burned.[7]
The Roman writer Tacitus reported that ancient Germanic peoples enjoyed having warm water baths in the morning[8]. All the barbaric peoples of Europe had a form of sweat bath or a sauna (e.g. Slavic banya), as their healing and restorative properties had been discovered very early.
My main point in this essay is that rather than completely removing comfort from our lives, we should get rid of unnecessary and unwholesome modern luxuries that foster vice. Softness, warmth, and instant gratification of our desires are not good in the long run, and they turn us into lazy and weak creatures, completely dependent on civilization and technological facilities. In order to reach our full potential, we also need to experience discomfort, cold, hunger, and struggle. Trying out the aforementioned cold showers and sleeping on the floor is merely one suggestion, and there are many other ideas worth considering. For example, relying less on cars or on public transportation and choosing (whenever it's possible) to walk or to cycle instead – a much cheaper and healthier alternative. Learning how to endure minor inconveniences, such as an electricity blackout, intense exercise or manual labour, superficial injury, moderate rainfall (why do we have to use an umbrella every time it rains?), or a summer heatwave, will not only help us overcome greater struggles in future, but it will shatter the false illusion that we must preserve our comfort at all costs. Naturally, I have to stress once again that acting without restraint in our quest for daily adversities is obviously not desirable. We must strive for a fine balance between decadent hedonism and voluntary self-torture.
On heroism
He charged before three hundred of the finest,
He cut down both centre and wing,
He excelled in the forefront of the noblest host,
He gave gifts of horses from the herd in winter.
He fed black ravens on the rampart of a fortress
Though he was no Arthur.
Among the powerful ones in battle,
In the front rank, Gwawrddur was a palisade.
– Aneirin, Y Gododdin[9]
In J.R.R. Tolkien's Silmarillion it is said that after the disastrous battle of Dagor Bragollach, Fingolfin, the high king of the Noldor, filled with wrath and anguish, rode alone to Angband's gates. He blew his horn, banged loudly on the brazen gates, and challenged Morgoth to a duel. The Dark Lord came forth from his underground dwelling, clad in black armour and iron crown, armed with shield and his giant hammer called Grond. He stood before Fingolfin like a lofty tower, throwing a dark shadow of doom over him. But the Elven king feared not, for his silver mail and his blue, crystal-inlaid shield glistened like a brilliant star. Then the fight began. Each time Morgoth tried to crush his opponent with the thundering hammer Grond, Fingolfin dashed away. Seven times Morgoth was wounded with the icy sword Ringil. Eventually, as the elf was becoming increasingly weary, the Dark Lord pinned his left foot upon Fingolfin's neck, killing him. However, the Noldor's last desperate strike hewed Morgoth's foot, leaving his foe with a permanent limp from the injury. Thus ended one of the most heroic yet tragic duels in the history of Arda[10].
***
One reason why Tolkien's books have had such a tremendous impact on our culture and people's imagination, is because they depict a heroic society of warriors, kings and queens, in which there is no place for mediocrity, something so omnipresent in our modern times. In the world of Arda, honour is almost always a matter of life and death. Solemn oaths are taken, acts of vengeance are executed. Characters created by Tolkien are made of flesh and bone: they feel anger, love, grief, doubt, and joy. Even dark and treacherous entities, like the aforementioned Morgoth, are driven by extreme feelings of pure hatred and bitterness. Especially in the First Age, we find numerous cases of extraordinary heroism. In a dangerous quest to retr
ieve the Silmaril from Morgoth's iron crown, Beren and Luthien successfully sneaked into Angband and stole the jewel. They managed to return to Doriath, although on their way out they were attacked by a giant wolf called Carcharoth, who bit off Beren's hand containing the Silmaril and swallowed it[11]. In another tale, Glaurung the Dragon wished to assault the woodland realm of Brethil and decided to cross over Cabed-en-Aras, a deep ravine in the river Taeglin. Turin Turambar, after having successfully climbed up the perilous gorge, slew the beast with his own sword Gurthang[12].
In our relatively peaceful modern times, we no longer witness true acts of heroism. Even military conflicts are no longer heroic: contrary to what people think, killing someone with a machine gun bullet (not to mention weapons such as grenades or bombs) is not honourable. In most cases, your enemy does not even get the chance to see whence a fatal gunshot wound came. It is as disgraceful as stabbing someone in the back. Moreover, the wars taking place in the modern world are completely devoid of any transcendental meaning and significance. Empty slogans of nationalism and patriotism cannot conceal the simple truth: people fight for purely materialistic and economic reasons. How did warfare look like in the past? Were ancient conflicts always handled in a noble and respectful way? Isn't war mainly about killing without being killed, by any means necessary?
If we study battle narratives in the Indo-European epic tales, we will be astonished by their heroic and solemn character. Unlike today, many ancient battles (and even minor disputes) were resolved through a series of hand-to-hand duels between individual champions from the opposing sides. For example, the entire Trojan War in the Iliad or the Battle of Roncevaux Pass in The Song of Roland are depicted as such. The duel (holmgang in the Norse tradition) was usually fought in a pre-determined narrow location. Before combat began, it was customary practice for warriors to reveal their identity and lineage. We see a similar pattern in Silmarillion, in which Húrin (the father of Túrin Turambar) refused to wear hear his dragon helmet, for he wanted to look at the enemy with his own eyes. Oftentimes, the champions would also hurl intimidating insults at each other. Only then would the battle finally begin.
Historically, the perception of ranged combat varied amongst different ancient Indo-European peoples, but, as a general rule, hand-to-hand combat was always seen as preferable in the upper social strata. The ancient Spartiates (Spartan citizens with full rights) in the Classical period despised archery, perceiving it as a cowardly and womanly skill. Only helots (non-free inhabitants of Sparta), and perhaps mercenaries, were allowed to use bows in the ranks of the Spartan army. It was not until the Second Punic War that the Romans started to incorporate auxiliary units of archers and sling-men into their armies. The former were mostly recruited from the island of Crete, while the latter came from the Balearic Islands. In archaic, semi-legendary Celtic warfare, the sling seemed to be a relatively popular weapon. Lugh slew his giant grandfather Balor with a sling-stone. Cuchulainn was said to have brought down eight swans with a single sling-shot. In the Celtic Iron Age, we have archaeological and literary evidence that slings were used in siege warfare, both for defensive and offensive purposes[13]. Let us not forget about the famous bowman Arjuna from the Vedic epic poem Mahabharata. In general, however, slings and bows were weapons of the poor, who may not have been able to afford the spears and shields required for melee combat.
What we have described thus far is just one, profane aspect of classical warfare. What concerns us the most is the sacred, transcendental dimension inherently present in heroism. From this perspective, war is not just a favourable occasion for displaying martial prowess, knightly behaviour and risking one's health or life for the sake of earthly community, tribe, king, or (as is especially true of the modern world) ideals of patriotism, nationalism, and democracy. For the man of Tradition, this exoteric form of warfare was intricately linked with a far greater, inner conflict – between what attaches him to the earth (instincts, emotions, desires) and what goes beyond this attachment. In other words, the battlefield was an outer plane through which an act of inner self-mastery, aimed at connecting to the divine in man, could have been realized.
For the sake of clarity, let us now analyse some practical examples of this twofold doctrine that we have just expounded. According to the reports of the classical authors, Gaulish druids taught the doctrine of the immortality of the human soul and of its capacity to reincarnate into another form after bodily death. Inspired by this belief, many Gaulish warriors discarded the fear of death in battle. The Greek historian Polybius mentions a group of Celtic mercenaries called Gaesatae, who reportedly went into battle naked[14]. From an earthly point of view, the popular explanation is that ritual nudity was meant to unnerve their enemies and allow greater mobility. However, the esoteric dimension of this custom implies a disregard for earthly attachments (such as the care for one's body) and yearning for transcendence, strengthened by the above-mentioned doctrine of reincarnation. Appian of Alexandria, writing in the 2nd century CE, remarks that the Teutonic peoples had no fear of death because they believed in rebirth[15]. In the later Old Norse tradition, there was a belief that the bravest warriors fallen on the battlefield were taken by Valkyries ("the choosers of the slain") to Valhalla ("the hall of the slain"), where they joined the celestial host of Odin. Valkyries symbolize the transcendental part of a warrior's constitution, triumphant over lower material senses and instincts. All things considered, warfare in the world of Tradition gave the man of action a chance for inner, spiritual realization. This sacred dimension is completely absent from the modern world, which unfortunately acknowledges only the profane, naturalistic aspect of warfare[16].
The invention of the machine gun was the final nail in the coffin for heroic warfare. The absence of real heroism in our modern society necessitated the invention of artificial forms of hardships and adversities. A hero of today can be a popular football player, a successful celebrity or even a charity benefactor. Our yearning for chivalry and noble deeds has found an outlet in the realm of art and entertainment: fantasy novels (Tolkien’s previously mentioned works are the best example), popular movies, historical re-enactment, role-playing games or epic music genres – they originate from our desperate efforts to fill the spiritual void of modernity. So long as society is based upon the ideas of radical egalitarianism, however, our attempts are largely futile. Those ideas have become predominant primarily because of Abrahamic religions. With its poisonous ideas of tolerance, equality, self-abnegation, and submissiveness, Christianity has corrupted our pagan understanding of what a virtuous life should look like. Even though most Europeans no longer practise Christianity, our secular governments, universities and schools (influenced by Cultural Marxism and postmodernism) try to teach people to act and behave in an unnatural way.
It is my firm opinion that we need to fundamentally redefine the definition of heroism. There is no return to the heroic warfare of the Classical Antiquity. Joining the modern military is not a good solution, either – wars in the 21st century serve the interests of bankers and politicians. These are not our wars. But heroism is not only about physical combat. It is also a mental struggle to swim against the current, to be a true individualist who is not concerned with the opinion of crowds. A hero is a person who revolts against the modern world by rejecting and disassociating from its trends, fashions, and institutions. He chooses a simple, virtuous, and traditional life in the countryside over the hustle and bustle of big cities, endless money-making, material affluence and artificial paradises[17]. A hero is someone who has a sharp, tough, and Stoic mindset. He perceives discomfort, misfortune, and adversities as perfect opportunities for self-improvement. He is never afraid to take calculated risks. He fully recognizes the crucial importance of physical fitness in our daily life. His willingness to become stronger and more agile has a genuine and profound motivation – he works out not to mask his vain insecurities, but to honour and cultivate a divine part of his soul. A strong body reflects spiritual might. He treats wo
men with utmost respect and gentleness. For him, honour is always a matter of life and death – just like in Middle-Earth.
Can women also display a heroic attitude of mind? Absolutely, although there are some essential differences between feminine heroism and masculine heroism. For women, giving birth to children and homeschooling them is the greatest act of revolt against the modern world. A heroine is a woman who fully recognizes the hidden traps and evils of modern feminism and embraces her innate femininity instead. Acting against the unnatural expectations of modern society, she seeks to fulfil her true potential through the path of marriage and motherhood. By giving herself to one and only one man, she plants a seed of divine inspiration in his soul. She nourishes him (and their children) with her unconditional love, warmth and understanding. In the history of mankind, many great ambitions and plans could not have come to fruition without the spiritual support of a woman.
On talents
Conformity to one’s caste was considered by traditional humanity as the first and main duty of an individual.
– Julius Evola[18]
Naturally, the general principles I have discussed in the previous essay can be slightly adjusted in accordance with individual differences in men and women. When we think of a virtuous life and heroism, we need to take into consideration one’s temperament, physical and mental constitution, and life history. Not every man is destined to become a warrior and a champion of body and it is perfectly normal that some men may choose a path of a scholar or a craftsman. These paths are no less honourable if they are followed in consonance with the natural law (dharma), which manifests itself differently in every individual (svadharma). Not every woman is destined to have children (for various, often complicated reasons, such as infertility or severe emotional traumas), and it is perfectly normal that some women may decide to serve the community through alternative means. There is a worrying tendency among men in traditionalist circles to frown upon unmarried and childless women. It is beyond any shadow of doubt that deciding to become a mother is a very noble act, but it is also men's duty to treat women with respect, regardless of their personal choices and limitations.