What do you think?
Rate this book
Kral Mitler ve Simgeler
Jean-Paul Roux, bu kitapta kendisine aşina olan okuyucunun karşısına bambaşka bir yönüyle çıkıyor; bir yandan kral teması etrafındaki efsaneleri, tarihi olayları ve nesneleri mercek altına alırken diğer yandan bunların simgesel anlamını ortaya koyuyor. Roux, yeryüzünün dört ikliminde, tarihin farklı dönemlerinde hüküm sürmüş uygarlıklara ait kral tasavvurlarını derleyerek birçok farklılığa rağmen hükümdar tasvirlerinin benzerliklerini ortaya koyuyor.
Roux’nun ifadesiyle bir “arkeolojik çalışma” olan Kral: Mitler ve Simgeler, Çin’deki Yasak Şehir’den İran’daki Yüz Sütun Sarayı’na; Cennetin Krallığı’ndan Orta Asya bozkırlarına uzanan geniş bir alanı, kazı sahası olarak belirler. Tarihsel bir perspektifle ele alınan kral temasına “arkeolojik” bir boyut katan yaklaşım ise Roux’nun sadece tarihsel kişiliklere odaklanmaktan kaçınarak kralların kullandığı nesnelere, toplumun krala atfettiği anlamlara, ruhani temsillerin eşlik ettiği ritüellere yönelmesidir.
Roux’nun ifadesiyle bir “arkeolojik çalışma” olan Kral: Mitler ve Simgeler, Çin’deki Yasak Şehir’den İran’daki Yüz Sütun Sarayı’na; Cennetin Krallığı’ndan Orta Asya bozkırlarına uzanan geniş bir alanı, kazı sahası olarak belirler. Tarihsel bir perspektifle ele alınan kral temasına “arkeolojik” bir boyut katan yaklaşım ise Roux’nun sadece tarihsel kişiliklere odaklanmaktan kaçınarak kralların kullandığı nesnelere, toplumun krala atfettiği anlamlara, ruhani temsillerin eşlik ettiği ritüellere yönelmesidir.
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
438 pages, Paperback
First published February 10, 1988
1 person is currently reading
43 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Paul Roux
42 books54 followersJean-Paul Roux, PhD (5 January 1925 - 29 June 2009) was a French Turkologue and a specialist of Islamic culture.
He was a graduate of Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales, the École du Louvre, and the École Pratique des Hautes Études. In 1966 he was awarded a doctorate in literature in Paris. He was Director of Research at CNRS from 1957 to 1970, the Science Secretary for the Department of Oriental Languages and Civilizations from 1960 to 1966, and a teacher of Islamic art at École du Louvre. He was General Commissioner for the Islamic Arts at the Orangerie de Tuileries in 1971 and also the Grand Palais in 1977. Jean-Paul Roux's Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire (2003) has been described as an "admirable short introduction" by historian David Morgan.[1]
He was a graduate of Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales, the École du Louvre, and the École Pratique des Hautes Études. In 1966 he was awarded a doctorate in literature in Paris. He was Director of Research at CNRS from 1957 to 1970, the Science Secretary for the Department of Oriental Languages and Civilizations from 1960 to 1966, and a teacher of Islamic art at École du Louvre. He was General Commissioner for the Islamic Arts at the Orangerie de Tuileries in 1971 and also the Grand Palais in 1977. Jean-Paul Roux's Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire (2003) has been described as an "admirable short introduction" by historian David Morgan.[1]
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 29, 2023
“Blood”, in my opinion, was a good book. Maybe not perfect, but I felt satisfied with it. Initially, I was almost put off reading it by its negative review. So here I would like to argue with them (a bit) to convince you that Roux's book is worth giving it a chance. It's possible that I wouldn't have read it if I hadn't read "Woman in History and Myth" by this French author. And "Blood" itself was also mentioned in the introduction to "Woman..." and it intrigued me. In general, the topic of blood or blood sacrifices seemed a bit scary at first, and scared were other people I talked to about the book. But with time it turned out that the book was not only about bloody ritual sacrifices. Blood intrigues and attracts as well as causes fear. Although I got used to it a bit by reading other anthropological or religious studies books about religion and “primitive” communities.
So what was the book about? I would say it was about the role of blood in both primitive and more developed communities, including (especially?) those different from us. In any case, it is an anthropological and religious studies’ perspective. Equally important was the role of blood in the religion of these cultures. The book deals not only with the rituals of animal or human sacrifice (Aztecs, Islam, Judaism, Christianity), but also with how blood binds a community together or influences it. It tells us about kinship - blood ties - or blood brotherhood, marriages organized by kinship or a lack of it, menstruation in women (which is subject to many taboos and creates the status of a woman as an impure being), the law of killing or wars ... Also about blood in mythology and the connections of gods or heroes with it, how the dead are hungry for blood - so also about vampires. It is worth adding here how Roux reads the myth of a vampire or a ghoul and their need for blood in an interesting way, giving them a deeper meaning. There is also an interesting exploration of what region he or she is associated with and what region the vampire comes from. And yes, blood baths (as in Countess Bathory) and the connection with early Christian saints and their blood sacrifices with their own lives is also interesting. Self-mutilation (including religiously motivated one) and circumcision are also interesting. There is also a general chapter on the sight of blood. That's roughly it for the content.
It is worth emphasizing here once again how interesting the treatment of myths is. There are gods, heroes and other mythological characters. I really liked Roux's take on mythology. In general, Roux interprets stories, messages, signs about which he talks in an interesting way, I think that he quite frequently reaches their essence. At the same time, it reveals the core of humanity, what is important in general. It is true that Roux's interpretations are somewhat peculiar. There are many examples and listings. However, I do not think that the author dealt only with listing and did not explain anything. Often, as with Marx, mass turns into quality. (: D). But seriously, it seems to me that the individual examples are grouped into groups that are explained and interpreted at the beginning. Often, examples are not left without a commentary, and the detail completes the picture as a whole. As I said, Roux's comments and analysis seem quite complete to me, even if it is not always the anthropological interpretation of the highest quality that we are accustomed to because of reading of other anthropology books. It seems to me that with such a wealth of examples it would also be impossible to examine everything very thoroughly. Although, of course, it is true that the reader may feel a sense of lack at times. Personally, however, I was mostly satisfied with Roux's explanations and found them very interesting, quite in-depth.
I've heard opinions that some of Roux's own interpretations are peculiar and rather pseudo-poetic. Personally, however, I didn't get that impression, I liked them. I think that interpretations deserve attention, especially if they stem from an unusual way of thinking or worldview.
I think that what might be annoying while reading Roux (at least for people with a different worldview) is the author's characteristic worldview, which he sometimes expresses through quite firm opinions. Roux seems to be quite a far conservative, with a worldview like the conservatives had many generations ago. Although, honestly, I noticed it more in "Woman in History and Myth", where Roux spoke about women and their place in society or modern society. Maybe I'm partly used to it. I would say that Roux in his strong judgments resembles the conservative Rene Girard (autor of "Violence and the sacred"), only he expresses his opinions even more directly. Although, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit when I talk about strong conservative judgments (one could even say far right) expressed directly. I would say that for the most part the book is free of such opinions of his, but they do appear from time to time, in parts, I suspect, which are particularly close to his heart. For the most part it's not so bad, I only winced when the part about the role of blood in the Aztecs started with "let's try to contain disgust", maybe because in other parts his contempt is rather absent.
Roux considers Christianity to be the true religion, and in the section devoted to it, he tries to convince the reader to embrace it. But nevertheless, honestly, I appreciated that Roux tries to base his arguments on science, responds to the expected counter-arguments, reader's doubts. I think that, as in the other parts of the book, the author also tries to rely on research. The problem may be that Roux sometimes tends to rely on original sources without questioning them or without the context that other scholars provide. So Roux relies on the Koran, the Bible, and ancient historians. Even so, I didn't feel like his persuasion for reader to embrace Christianity pervaded other chapters.
Roux's strongly conservative views are tempered by the fact that he professionally deals with the world of Islam - Turks and probably also (non-Muslim) Mongols. The author, both in "Blood" and "Woman in History and Myth" gives examples from numerous cultures that are exotic for the man of the Western world. He knows a lot about their rites, culture, beliefs and does not talk about them with contempt, he seems to be interested in them. The multitude of cultures present in Roux's book makes reading it greatly interesting and is its great advantage. While reading Roux, I was also reading the book “The Bible and Its Culture. Old Testament” and even though the book on the Bible was also quite interesting, before I finished it, I managed to read two of Roux's books because they were so interesting.
Of course, whether one likes Roux’s "Blood" or "Woman..." may be subjective, and my arguments may be considered insufficient. I understand this and I also see Roux's weaknesses, but I would like to convince the potential reader to try to give the books of this scholar a chance and not write him off before reading them.
Oh my. I have already written a lot, but I would like to point out a few more interesting points in Roux's books. Sorry for the amount of text. ^^” Well, it seems to me that Roux in his books creates an interesting vision of humanity for whom blood, religions and kinship ties are important, for whom hunting was essential for survival. Roux interestingly asks about the importance of an individual's willingness to kill. He seems to argue that it is important for society and cannot be easily avoided. This throws an interesting light on the willingness of citizens to kill in defense of their homeland in times of war. It really got me thinking. Besides, religiosity is fascinating in "Blood", it is a bit like fate, a force that binds people together and which inspires respect and fear. Certain bloody customs, rituals associated with religious fervor, such as self-flagellation or bloodletting for the gods, particularly piqued my interest.
The author also interestingly writes about Christianity. He writes about the last supper and the crucifixion of Christ, about the Holy Grail and search for it, and about the texts that described it. The Frenchman in an intriguing way tries to measure the biblical torment with physicality, asking why exactly death happens during the crucifixion, what did the crucifixions look like in the past and what is their origin. He also analyzes the stigmata. I found this aspect very interesting, the story of a certain miracularity of blood mixed with divinity, a bit like in works of Roger Caillois or Georges Bataille. This "Christian chapter" was one of my favorites, I really enjoyed reading about the Holy Grail, radiant with immense brightness, held by a virgin. Roux also refers to Christian mystics.
I hope this review makes some sense. ^^” I found blood and the religiousness associated with it fascinating, and it was fascinating to look at it through Roux's eyes. It would be great to read some more of similar Roux’s books in the future. "Blood" made anthropological or sacral topics even more interesting and vital to me.
Maybe I'll write a bit more about the ending of the book itself. Roux praises the idealistic vision of the monarchy, the king as the representative of God (anointed by him) and the people. He interestingly describes the last moments of Louis XVI during the French Revolution, as a divine anointed suffering for the people and not asking the military to intervene to avoid bloodshed. In the finale, Roux stands against modern civilization which (in his opinion) is full of death, doubt, renounces its past and religiousness, spirituality, and instead worships science and its own idols. The author longs for an ancient community based on blood rituals, which, in his opinion, as a primordial community, (perhaps I might even add - "based on the cyclical nature of time") ultimately made people happier. Despite everything, however, Roux tries to be optimistic, believing that people will see the value in religion and God again and will return to the original, mythical community, a mythical age. (although perhaps to some extent this is my overinterpretation. Roux in the last chapter seems to long above all for the Catholic monarchy. However in the ending he also writes about the importance of primordial communities)
Of course, depending on your views, you can agree or disagree with Roux, but I thought it was interesting to read the reflections on what we have lost by entering modernity, it was interesting to hear an alternative narrative.
So what was the book about? I would say it was about the role of blood in both primitive and more developed communities, including (especially?) those different from us. In any case, it is an anthropological and religious studies’ perspective. Equally important was the role of blood in the religion of these cultures. The book deals not only with the rituals of animal or human sacrifice (Aztecs, Islam, Judaism, Christianity), but also with how blood binds a community together or influences it. It tells us about kinship - blood ties - or blood brotherhood, marriages organized by kinship or a lack of it, menstruation in women (which is subject to many taboos and creates the status of a woman as an impure being), the law of killing or wars ... Also about blood in mythology and the connections of gods or heroes with it, how the dead are hungry for blood - so also about vampires. It is worth adding here how Roux reads the myth of a vampire or a ghoul and their need for blood in an interesting way, giving them a deeper meaning. There is also an interesting exploration of what region he or she is associated with and what region the vampire comes from. And yes, blood baths (as in Countess Bathory) and the connection with early Christian saints and their blood sacrifices with their own lives is also interesting. Self-mutilation (including religiously motivated one) and circumcision are also interesting. There is also a general chapter on the sight of blood. That's roughly it for the content.
It is worth emphasizing here once again how interesting the treatment of myths is. There are gods, heroes and other mythological characters. I really liked Roux's take on mythology. In general, Roux interprets stories, messages, signs about which he talks in an interesting way, I think that he quite frequently reaches their essence. At the same time, it reveals the core of humanity, what is important in general. It is true that Roux's interpretations are somewhat peculiar. There are many examples and listings. However, I do not think that the author dealt only with listing and did not explain anything. Often, as with Marx, mass turns into quality. (: D). But seriously, it seems to me that the individual examples are grouped into groups that are explained and interpreted at the beginning. Often, examples are not left without a commentary, and the detail completes the picture as a whole. As I said, Roux's comments and analysis seem quite complete to me, even if it is not always the anthropological interpretation of the highest quality that we are accustomed to because of reading of other anthropology books. It seems to me that with such a wealth of examples it would also be impossible to examine everything very thoroughly. Although, of course, it is true that the reader may feel a sense of lack at times. Personally, however, I was mostly satisfied with Roux's explanations and found them very interesting, quite in-depth.
I've heard opinions that some of Roux's own interpretations are peculiar and rather pseudo-poetic. Personally, however, I didn't get that impression, I liked them. I think that interpretations deserve attention, especially if they stem from an unusual way of thinking or worldview.
I think that what might be annoying while reading Roux (at least for people with a different worldview) is the author's characteristic worldview, which he sometimes expresses through quite firm opinions. Roux seems to be quite a far conservative, with a worldview like the conservatives had many generations ago. Although, honestly, I noticed it more in "Woman in History and Myth", where Roux spoke about women and their place in society or modern society. Maybe I'm partly used to it. I would say that Roux in his strong judgments resembles the conservative Rene Girard (autor of "Violence and the sacred"), only he expresses his opinions even more directly. Although, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit when I talk about strong conservative judgments (one could even say far right) expressed directly. I would say that for the most part the book is free of such opinions of his, but they do appear from time to time, in parts, I suspect, which are particularly close to his heart. For the most part it's not so bad, I only winced when the part about the role of blood in the Aztecs started with "let's try to contain disgust", maybe because in other parts his contempt is rather absent.
Roux considers Christianity to be the true religion, and in the section devoted to it, he tries to convince the reader to embrace it. But nevertheless, honestly, I appreciated that Roux tries to base his arguments on science, responds to the expected counter-arguments, reader's doubts. I think that, as in the other parts of the book, the author also tries to rely on research. The problem may be that Roux sometimes tends to rely on original sources without questioning them or without the context that other scholars provide. So Roux relies on the Koran, the Bible, and ancient historians. Even so, I didn't feel like his persuasion for reader to embrace Christianity pervaded other chapters.
Roux's strongly conservative views are tempered by the fact that he professionally deals with the world of Islam - Turks and probably also (non-Muslim) Mongols. The author, both in "Blood" and "Woman in History and Myth" gives examples from numerous cultures that are exotic for the man of the Western world. He knows a lot about their rites, culture, beliefs and does not talk about them with contempt, he seems to be interested in them. The multitude of cultures present in Roux's book makes reading it greatly interesting and is its great advantage. While reading Roux, I was also reading the book “The Bible and Its Culture. Old Testament” and even though the book on the Bible was also quite interesting, before I finished it, I managed to read two of Roux's books because they were so interesting.
Of course, whether one likes Roux’s "Blood" or "Woman..." may be subjective, and my arguments may be considered insufficient. I understand this and I also see Roux's weaknesses, but I would like to convince the potential reader to try to give the books of this scholar a chance and not write him off before reading them.
Oh my. I have already written a lot, but I would like to point out a few more interesting points in Roux's books. Sorry for the amount of text. ^^” Well, it seems to me that Roux in his books creates an interesting vision of humanity for whom blood, religions and kinship ties are important, for whom hunting was essential for survival. Roux interestingly asks about the importance of an individual's willingness to kill. He seems to argue that it is important for society and cannot be easily avoided. This throws an interesting light on the willingness of citizens to kill in defense of their homeland in times of war. It really got me thinking. Besides, religiosity is fascinating in "Blood", it is a bit like fate, a force that binds people together and which inspires respect and fear. Certain bloody customs, rituals associated with religious fervor, such as self-flagellation or bloodletting for the gods, particularly piqued my interest.
The author also interestingly writes about Christianity. He writes about the last supper and the crucifixion of Christ, about the Holy Grail and search for it, and about the texts that described it. The Frenchman in an intriguing way tries to measure the biblical torment with physicality, asking why exactly death happens during the crucifixion, what did the crucifixions look like in the past and what is their origin. He also analyzes the stigmata. I found this aspect very interesting, the story of a certain miracularity of blood mixed with divinity, a bit like in works of Roger Caillois or Georges Bataille. This "Christian chapter" was one of my favorites, I really enjoyed reading about the Holy Grail, radiant with immense brightness, held by a virgin. Roux also refers to Christian mystics.
I hope this review makes some sense. ^^” I found blood and the religiousness associated with it fascinating, and it was fascinating to look at it through Roux's eyes. It would be great to read some more of similar Roux’s books in the future. "Blood" made anthropological or sacral topics even more interesting and vital to me.
Maybe I'll write a bit more about the ending of the book itself. Roux praises the idealistic vision of the monarchy, the king as the representative of God (anointed by him) and the people. He interestingly describes the last moments of Louis XVI during the French Revolution, as a divine anointed suffering for the people and not asking the military to intervene to avoid bloodshed. In the finale, Roux stands against modern civilization which (in his opinion) is full of death, doubt, renounces its past and religiousness, spirituality, and instead worships science and its own idols. The author longs for an ancient community based on blood rituals, which, in his opinion, as a primordial community, (perhaps I might even add - "based on the cyclical nature of time") ultimately made people happier. Despite everything, however, Roux tries to be optimistic, believing that people will see the value in religion and God again and will return to the original, mythical community, a mythical age. (although perhaps to some extent this is my overinterpretation. Roux in the last chapter seems to long above all for the Catholic monarchy. However in the ending he also writes about the importance of primordial communities)
Of course, depending on your views, you can agree or disagree with Roux, but I thought it was interesting to read the reflections on what we have lost by entering modernity, it was interesting to hear an alternative narrative.
December 11, 2019
Το αίμα
Μύθοι, σύμβολα και πραγματικότητα
http://www.biblionet.gr/book/4296/Rou...
Μύθοι, σύμβολα και πραγματικότητα
http://www.biblionet.gr/book/4296/Rou...
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews