Finally finished the post on magicians realism.

4 files changed, 422 insertions, 121 deletions

diff --git a/faith/dark-magic.rst b/faith/dark-magic.rst
index 85054e6..10fcaea 100644
--- a/faith/dark-magic.rst
+++ b/faith/dark-magic.rst
@@ -36,3 +36,245 @@ Let me suggest my personal theory about what is better
 explanation of these questions. Moreover, I hope, that the
 distinction I want to develop here is useful even for Muggles in
 the non-magical world.
+
+https://www.reddit.com/r/HPfanfiction/comments/i9h9at/the_character_of_hp_magic/g1flpsp/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
+
+I love all thoughts in this thread tremendously. I have been
+planning (but not much more unfortunately) to write some kind of
+essay (or essay pretending to be record of Flitwick’s lesson) on
+the nature of Dark magic, but I haven’t got to it. My pet peeve
+how some people tend to consider it something good, but I would
+have to sit down on my behind and actually write something to
+explain myself.
+
+My idea is that the “normal” magic (Lumos, etc. … most if not all
+spells taught at Hogwarts) are based on the power from the caster
+herself. It was the original magic discovered by the Neolithic
+people (think Stonehenge), who happily used this magic for their
+everyday lives and all was fine. However, then later somebody
+(probably some Celtic druids) discovered that one can harness
+power of somebody or something else, and that even more power can
+be obtained when you don’t leave enough magic for the other to
+survive (e.g., human sacrifice). And that’s the foundation of all
+Dark Magic, using power of somebody or something (animal, etc.)
+else.
+
+There is, not well studied (because nobody cares enough) the
+opposite Light Magic, which is not using your own native power,
+but willing to sacrifice oneself for others. And that is what
+Lily did when protecting Harry. However, as I said, it is very
+obscure and not much studied branch of magic, because of lack of
+interest.
+
+And it goes to rather deeper morale: either we are living for
+others (to serve them), or we are living for oneself (to be
+served). Think about the Kant’s categorical imperative (“Act in
+such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or
+in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end,
+but always at the same time as an end.”), or Mark 3:9 (NET): “If
+anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and servant of
+all.”.
+
+----
+
+    … which would imply that even muggles and squibs have enough
+    magic …
+
+I would argue that there is some like vital force or vital magic
+which is contained in every human being and which enables us to
+live. That is actually part of magic I seriously believe in the
+real life. I am a father of two children, I was present at the
+birth of both, I was holding them shortly after they were born,
+and there is nothing in the world which persuades me that it
+wasn’t miracle I have seen there. You can talk to me about the
+science and biology of childbirth until you are blue in your
+face, and yet I am persuaded that every female has something very
+magical/supernatural in herself to be able to create new life.
+
+Concerning Neville, I don’t think his muscles, bones etc. were
+not capable of gymnastics, but as with all such thing it was the
+matter of his mind to coordinate all that. And of course, in case
+of Imperio exactly his brain is what’s switched off and replaced
+by the will of the caster.
+
+And I am not sure whether it is fanon or canon, but Longbottoms
+were claimed to be very strong wizard and witch (see Neville
+later, after all).
+
+----
+
+https://www.reddit.com/r/HPfanfiction/comments/iduokw/dark_wizards_patronus/g2biamt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
+
+It’s all turning around the nature of Dark Magic. Most contrarian
+teenagers reading and authoring fanfiction stories love the idea
+that the wrong is right, and that only nasty old codgers like
+Dumbledore stops people from using wonderful Dark Magic. I don’t
+agree (as seen from the linked comment) and yes I am an old
+codger myself. I really think that Dark Magic taints your soul
+and yes inability to produce the super-light magic like Patronus
+may be one of (many) costs.
+
+level 2 FUAllVeryMuch 2 points · 3 months ago 
+Okay so your comment was about dark magic being magic that takes
+from others while light magic is giving for others in a sense. Or
+at least that's what I understood from it.
+
+In that case, what do you gain from casting the cruciatus? Next,
+and I'm sure this has come up before, wouldn't intent be more
+important? Like it is possible to kill using a basic levitation
+charm, so would it have no effect? Also, suppose someone was
+about to kill other people, and you kill him to protect the
+others, does it taint you? How many times can you cast dark magic
+before the taint is permanent?
+
+level 3 ceplma 3 points · 3 months ago · edited 3 months ago
+That was just my basic very general premise. There are many
+details where it gets muddy and where the theory needs a lot of
+development.
+
+So, Cruciatus is certainly one such case. I am not sure how does
+it work. I could try something about energy for the torture
+coming from the tortured, so they are effectively made to torture
+themselves, but it doesn’t for Muggles, who can quite certainly
+be tortured as well. (BTW, concerning this curse, I was working
+for some time for a professor of pathophysiology who was
+researching pain; there are medicinal situations where part of
+the nervous system is intentionally so overwhelmed with pain,
+that it stops working, and so it allows some horrible surgery,
+e.g. amputation, be done; I wonder whether Cruciatus was
+originally meant as something like this; the same goes for some
+variant of Imperio … it could be deadly useful for medicinal
+purposes).
+
+Concerning intent. Yes, that’s another question. With my theory,
+Dark Magic would certainly not cover all bad magical actions. Mrs
+Weasley with her enchanted knives (normally, chopping vegetables)
+can certainly make a lot of damage if she wishes, and that
+certainly falls into the original Neolithic magic.
+
+Concerning righteous killing. Yes, certainly it can happen
+(soldiers in war, self-defence), but I don’t think even in such
+situations Dark Magic would be allowed. If I understand Bellatrix
+Lestrange correctly, you have to want cause pain for the joy of
+causing pain, not out of the righteous anger (how did Harry
+manage to curse Alecto Carrow? I have no idea, but it was just
+one bout of magic, effectively rather painful Stunner, not sure;
+or we will rather silently ignore it as one of many
+inconsistencies of Mrs Rowling). The same goes for the Killing
+Curse … you cannot use it for good reasons, in Self-Defence. You
+have to have your soul tainted, you have to want to have somebody
+killed just for the Death itself. Yes, Snape could do it as the
+former Death Eater, but that’s probably the only one from the
+anti-Riddle side. Soliders in war just have to use some other
+curse … Reducto/Expulso/Confringo (I still have problem to
+distinguish which is which) to your head would do just nicely.
+
+Notice, that for example we never saw Umbridge using Cruciatus.
+She was rather slowly making up her mind to curse Harry, and we
+don’t know if she could manage to do it.
+
+level 4 ceplma 3 points · 3 months ago
+BTW, I am afraid, one of the reasons why people are so willing to
+accept Dark Magic, is that JKR books were PG-13 and we haven’t
+seen some truly horrendous parts of the Dark Magic (nothing
+sexual in nature, no real human sacrifice, not much real torture;
+e.g., the tortured child in linkao3(Inner Demons by
+serendipity_50)), so it doesn’t look as horrible as it
+could/should.
+
+level 5 FUAllVeryMuch 1 point · 3 months ago
+True, that and the line "There is no dark and light, there is
+only power."
+
+level 4 FUAllVeryMuch 1 point · 3 months ago
+I see. That's a pretty well thought out theory. It does explain
+some things quite well. The unforgivable curses have indeed been
+defended using the reasons you gave, with the AK being "mercy
+killing" cuz it gives an instantaneous, painless death.
+
+level 4 Sescquatch Slytherin At Heart 1 point · 3 months ago
+The same goes for the Killing Curse … you cannot use it for good
+reasons, in Self-Defence. You have to have your soul tainted, you
+have to want to have somebody killed just for the Death itself.
+Yes, Snape could do it as the former Death Eater, but that’s
+probably the only one from the anti-Riddle side.
+
+.
+
+    (Sirius:) The Aurors were given new powers—powers to kill rather than capture, for instance. And I wasn’t the only one who was handed straight to the Dementors without trial. Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects.
+
+(GoF)
+
+That said, I also disagree on various levels outside of Canon
+objections. On the most technical level, this ignores -- or
+presents a too simplistic version of -- human psychology. Not
+everyone who wants to kill is necessarily evil. And not everyone
+who doesn't kill isn't evil. If a requirement of the Killing
+Curse were a desire to kill, then, given the right circumstances,
+most people should be able to. People can be one thing thing one
+minute and something completely different the next. Yes, some
+people operate on absolute principles. And some of them might
+even remain unwavering in adversity and temptation. But they'd be
+the exception, not the norm. Darkness is in all of us. And it is
+this darkness that would fuel dark magic.
+
+But I don't think I agree that that is how dark magic works. I'm
+inclined to go with the phenomenological explanation Rowling gave
+us: Dark magic is intrinsically different in that its spells,
+used for harm, are difficult or impossible to heal or reverse.
+But they do not require different dispositions in the caster; nor
+(the Cruciatus curse aside, if Bellatrix wasn't lying) a special
+motivation, nor a specific mindset. The most striking example is
+Sectumsempra, which Harry uses without even knowing what it does,
+beyond it being "for enemies".
+
+So, it seems to me that dark magic isn't metaphysically
+different. This also has the positive effect that it's not the
+arbiter over good and evil. It allows for the obvious truth of
+being able to do evil without dark magic, and also for the
+possibility of conflicted natures like Snape, whose actions
+cannot be compressed into a single bottom line of good or evil.
+
+level 5 ceplma 1 point · 3 months ago
+    Not everyone who wants to kill is necessarily evil.
+
+I have never said that. I have said that according to my theory using Killing Curse is necessarily evil.
+
+Crouch Sr. allowing use of Unforgivables. When Sirius talked
+about it, he was specifically saying that Aurors (I guess, those
+who followed this order) were getting really close to being as
+evil as Death Eaters. Or I would just put it among JKR’s internal
+inconsistencies.
+
+The same goes for Harry using Sectumsempra without knowing what
+it is. It is just such world-building disaster, I would rather
+not talk about it at all. Whole seven books we are told (heck,
+that’s whole purpose of Hogwarts as a school), that doing magic
+is much more complicated than just random waving your wand and
+saying random weird incantations. Heck, even with study most
+students don’t manage even the most simple spells (Lumos,
+Wingardium Leviosa) on their first try. And that is not to
+mention whole theories about intent being significant (I am not
+sure whether it is or it isn’t, but it certainly makes more sense
+than this scene). Here we have spell without any diagram for wand
+movement, without Harry even knowing what it does (so, whole
+intent goes out of the window), and it on the first try makes
+significant damage to Malfoy. It just doesn’t compute for me.
+
+-----
+
+https://www.reddit.com/r/HPfanfiction/comments/eyl2tz/magic_corruption/
+
+Posted byu/Sphericalism 10 months ago Magic Corruption Prompt
+
+I'm imagining a story where if a witch or wizard uses more magic
+than they have, they kind-of earn debt with the magical universe,
+corrupting their physical bodies; not too much to be disastrous
+in small amounts, but to have both good and bad side effects.
+Like a body part starts changing to a glowyish purple or
+something
+
+
+ceplma 2 points · 10 months ago
+That is actually quite good addition to my theory about the
+nature of the Dark Magic as something fundamentally unnatural.
diff --git a/faith/magicians-realism.rst b/faith/magicians-realism.rst
index 84da602..db5c427 100644
--- a/faith/magicians-realism.rst
+++ b/faith/magicians-realism.rst
@@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
 Magicians’ Realism
 ##################
 
-:date: 2018-01-03
-:status: draft
+:date: 2021-01-02
 :category: faith
 :tags: HarryPotter, review, blogComment, realism
 
@@ -16,8 +15,8 @@ comment on Reddit`_)
 
 Kingstone_ on Reddit said:
 
-> Realism is a quixotic quest when writing fantasy. There can be
-> no realism in a fic about wizards.
+   Realism is a quixotic quest when writing fantasy. There can be
+   no realism in a fic about wizards.
 
 I would slightly dispute that. I understand what he (she?
 Kingstone somehow feels masculine, I am sorry, if I am wrong)
@@ -28,22 +27,73 @@ conclusions as possible”, right?
 
 Let me point out the literary movement of the nineteenth century
 called realism. Henry James is quoted on that BBC show as saying
-that “realism is what in some shape or form we might encounter,
-whereas romanticism is something we will never encounter.”
-
-On the one hand you have novels like `H. G. Wells’ “History of Mr
-Polly” <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Mr_Polly>`__
-with normal story of normal person in the normal world. On the
-other hand you have `“Ivanhoe” by Sir Walter Scott
-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanhoe>`__, the story in history,
-about kings, bandits, knights. However, my point is that the
-difference is deeper than just stage set of the story, it is
-about the story itself. The realist story deals with normal
-passions of normal people (here infidelity, meaning of life,
-finding a life partner). The romantic one is all about extremes:
-extreme love, saving the kingdom, the main opponent “[u]nscathed
-by the lance of his enemy, […] died a victim to the violence of
-his own contending passions”.
+
+    Realism is what in some shape or form we might encounter,
+    whereas romanticism is something we will never encounter.
+
+Let us focus more on the story itself and not just on magic,
+which seems unimportant to me. Let us not think about fantasy
+stories at all, but let’s consider for example “Ivanhoe_” by
+Walter Scott on the one side as a romantic story, and let’s say
+“Kidnapped_” by Robert Louis Stevenson. Both of them are
+adventure stories full of suspension and drama, both them of
+course completely Muggle and completely free of any magic,
+supernatural or whatever else. I would say that the key word
+which differentiates them is “**exceptional**”. Whereas “Ivanhoe”
+is the novel about exceptional people (Robin Hood and his merry
+men, king Richard the Lion Heart, king John, historic and thus
+exotic knights and princesses) doing exceptional things (saving
+the kingdom for the rightful king among other things),
+“Kidnapped” has the only historic event of any notice (Appin
+murder) in three paragraphs and it just an excuse in background
+for the rest of the story, which is about two completely
+insignificant (*sub specie aeternitatis*) persons doing something
+completely historically insignificant: saving their lives and
+freedom (and inheritance for David). Realist stories (despite the
+bad rap they got from “Middlemarch”, Balzac and similar stuff)
+don’t have to be boring (jury is still out, whether the legendary
+novel “Mr Bailey, Grocer” supposedly written by the character
+Harold Biffen in the novel “New Grub Street” by George Gissing
+and just describing the ordinary life of an ordinary grocer could
+be a good idea).
+
+I really like “`History of Mr Polly`_” by H. G. Wells, which is
+beautifully written story despite being about pub-owner mixed
+with a tramp and history of his unfortunate first marriage. In
+the same way similar good realist stories are also most
+detective stories (from Hercule Poirot to Law & Order), and
+I have also mentioned stories by `Arthur Ransome`_ (probably now
+mostly forgotten stories about children and their small
+adventures during their holidays) or Kipling’s “`Stalky
+& Co.`_”.
+
+It is not only about characters and main story lines.
+Exceptionality is also in the characters of characters. The
+realist story deals with normal passions of normal people (for
+mzzbee stories infidelity, meaning of life, and finding a life
+partner). The romantic one is all about extremes: extreme love,
+saving the kingdom, the main opponent “[u]nscathed by the lance
+of his enemy, […] died a victim to the violence of his own
+contending passions” (Brian de Bois-Guilbert from “Ivanhoe”).
+
+All fantasy novels and comics are in this perspective romantic
+stories, because all those Supermans, Batmans, Conans, etc., and
+the least problem they are willing to care for is saving of the
+whole world, nothing less.
+
+It is slightly shocking talking about Harry Potter books with all
+magic as the realist ones, moreover they are all about saving the
+world from the potential evil overlord, true, but it is
+remarkable how incredibly normal (in good sense of the word) all
+characters are (with exception of Tom Riddle and Dumbledore). JKR
+managed brilliantly avoid `The Problem of Peter Pevensie`_ and
+the positive part of the incredibly convoluted resolution of the
+story (yes, the thing about the wand ownership is pure *deus ex
+machina* pulled out the author’s hat in the last few chapters of
+the book) is that in the end Harry is slightly battered,
+certainly more experienced, but quite distinctly seventeen year
+old young man, drop-out after the sixth year of Hogwarts, not
+a superhero.
 
 I probably cannot claim that Harry Potter books are the realist
 adventure stories in line with “Farewell to Arms”, “All Quiet on
@@ -53,70 +103,35 @@ I would claim, that they are surprisingly closer to these than
 the classical fantasy (“Conan the Barbarian”, Marvel superheroes,
 but even perhaps “The Earthsea Cycle”), and that exactly not
 noticing this difference makes most crossovers and all attempts
-to create super!Harry (isn’t it remarkable how incredibly
-non-superhero Harry is in books?) are doomed from the beginning.
-
-----
-
-The novel “Mr Bailey, Grocer” supposedly written by the character
-Harold Biffen in the novel “New Grub Street” by George Gissing.
-
-----
-
-Brothers and sister, I am coming to you ashamed, because I have 
-to admit a horrible sin I have committed: I have not particularly 
-enjoyed “One Hundred Years of Solitude” by Gabriel García Márquez 
-and least of it I enjoyed its magical realism. It seems to me 
-that magical realism is a way how to make a bit boring story 
-spiced up by random flashes of magic. It is a long time when 
-I read the book, so I may forgot a lot from it, and that novel as 
-such is not the point of this essay, the magic as used in the 
-book is. What I mean, is that the magic there seemed to me like 
-something external bolted on the top of the story, not inherent 
-to the universe heroes of the story lived in.
-
-.. the following paragraph was originally about LotR, rewrite for 
-    HP
-
-I know that the comparison is rather shocking, but let me 
-contrast magic in the magical realism novel with the one in 
-normal fantasy stories, particularly in J. K. Rowling’s saga 
-about Harry Potter. Yes, it is an adventure story, but the 
-overall style of story-telling is rather realistic, rather plain. 
-The magic is inherently present in the world, but it is something 
-so “normal” to all (non-Muggle) participants in the world, we are 
-eventually more focused on the story itself rather than on magic 
-which serves more as an enabling mechanism than it is a focus of 
-the story itself.
-
-The BBC show mentioned above quoted Henry James saying:
-
-   realism is what in some shape or form we might encounter, 
-   whereas romanticism is something we will never encounter.
-
-Of course, it seems silly to talk about realism while thinking 
-about literature where magic is real, and although I have no 
-problem to keep Harry Potter books (and most of the better pieces 
-of the gigantic mass of its fanfiction stories) in the realm of 
-the fantasy literature, it might be helpful to contrast Harry 
-Potter universe with some other ones.
-
-
-I think that there are more important factors for distinguishing 
-between the two, like presence of exceptional heroic persons 
-towering over everybody else. In this respect JKR (and yours) 
-stories are remarkably realistic: Harry is not a superman, but 
-normal ministerial official (yes, a bit better than average, but 
-not Superman / Rambo / Barbar Conan level) and sometime confused 
-father. I know that some readers (and fanfiction writers) this 
-irritates to no end (and they end to write a poor 
-Harry-is-a-supewizard stories), but I really like it. In this 
-trend of magician realism (comparing to the magical realism, 
-which I really dislike, but that's another issue) the Strangers 
-are probably the most realistic of all HP fanfics. Thank you.
+to create super!Harry are doomed from the beginning.
+
+The realist atmosphere of the original books is perfectly kept by
+Northumbrian_ or mzzbee_, and it is one of reasons why their
+stories are so good. It is also the reason how all Lord Potter
+stories fair poorly, because Harry Potter books and its
+characters are quite clearly middle class, inhabited by small
+businessmen, bureaucrats etc., not lords and ladies.
+
+By the way, when talking about the magicians realism, I don’t
+want to have anything to do with `magical realism`_ of authors
+like Gabriel García Márquez (e.g., “`One Hundred Years of
+Solitude`_”). It seems to me that magical realism is a way how to
+make a bit boring story spiced up by random flashes of magic. It
+is a long time when I read the book, so I may forgot a lot from
+it, and that novel as such is not the point of this essay, the
+magic as used in the book is. What I mean, is that the magic
+there seemed to me like something external bolted on the top of
+the story, not inherent to the universe heroes of the story lived
+in.
+
+.. _Northumbrian:
+   https://archiveofourown.org/series/103340
+
+.. _mzzbee:
+   https://archiveofourown.org/users/mzzbee/pseuds/mzzbee
 
 .. _`Victorian Realism`:
-    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00548ks
+   http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00548ks
 
 .. _`Strangers at Drakeshaugh`:
    http://www.siye.co.uk/viewstory.php?sid=129036
@@ -127,5 +142,35 @@ are probably the most realistic of all HP fanfics. Thank you.
 .. _`the comment on Reddit`:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/HPfanfiction/comments/gpzey1/realistic_stories_are_less_real_than_canon/frr5aud
 
+.. _Ivanhoe:
+   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanhoe
+
+.. _Kidnapped:
+   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapped_%28novel%29
+
+.. _`History of Mr Polly`:
+   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Mr_Polly
+
+.. _`Arthur Ransome`:
+   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ransome
+
+.. _`Stalky & Co.`:
+   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalky_%26_Co.
+
+.. _`The Problem of Peter Pevensie`:
+   {filename}problem-of-wands.rst
+
+.. _`Operation Wandless by EllianaDunla`:
+   https://archiveofourown.org/works/784221
+
+.. _Spooks:
+   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooks_(TV_series)
+
 .. _Kingstone:
    https://www.reddit.com/user/Kingsonne/
+
+.. _`magical realism`:
+   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_realism
+
+.. _`One Hundred Years of Solitude`:
+   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Hundred_Years_of_Solitude
diff --git a/faith/religionless-hp.rst b/faith/religionless-hp.rst
index dfbe7bc..8e43716 100644
--- a/faith/religionless-hp.rst
+++ b/faith/religionless-hp.rst
@@ -94,17 +94,17 @@ bookmark lists):
 
 6. `The Friar's Calling`_ by Chthonia. A rare example of 
    a medieval story from the HP universe, and it is very good. 
-   Brother Thomas turns out to be a wizard and he is sent by his 
-   prior, Robert Grosseteste (true historical figure, famous 
-   medieval philosopher) to Hogwarts. Although he is always 
-   suspicious whether his powers are not a bit demoniacal, he is 
-   forced by God (and the Sorting Hat) to live in the wizarding 
-   world as a humble friar. Lovely description of medieval 
-   wizarding world, which is precisely not developed enough to be 
-   persuasive (he participates in developing the Floo powder). 
-   Brother Thomas is of course later the Fat Friar (who cannot 
-   leave his students for whom he cares pastorally). Sir Cadogan 
-   is present as well as his friend and not completely crazy 
+   Brother Thomas turns out to be a wizard and he is sent by his
+   prior, `Robert Grosseteste`_ (true historical figure, famous
+   medieval philosopher) to Hogwarts. Although he is always
+   suspicious whether his powers are not a bit demoniacal, he is
+   forced by God (and the Sorting Hat) to live in the wizarding
+   world as a humble friar. Lovely description of medieval
+   wizarding world, which is precisely not developed enough to be
+   persuasive (he participates in developing the Floo powder).
+   Brother Thomas is of course later the Fat Friar (who cannot
+   leave his students for whom he cares pastorally). Sir Cadogan
+   is present as well as his friend and not completely crazy
    knight.
 
 7. `Hermione Before the Beit Din`_ by facingthenorthwind 
@@ -195,6 +195,9 @@ mocking, no anti-religious) let me know.
 .. _`The Friar's Calling`:
    https://archiveofourown.org/works/7460772
 
+.. _`Robert Grosseteste`:
+   https://historyofphilosophy.net/grosseteste
+
 .. _`All Are His Children`:
    https://archiveofourown.org/works/4426211
 
diff --git a/faith/thou_shalt_not_suffer_witch_live.rst b/faith/thou_shalt_not_suffer_witch_live.rst
index 3560713..84673d4 100644
--- a/faith/thou_shalt_not_suffer_witch_live.rst
+++ b/faith/thou_shalt_not_suffer_witch_live.rst
@@ -56,21 +56,22 @@ should really appreciate action of the pope Leo III who made
 Charlemagne the first Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire on the
 Christmas Day of year 800.
 
-Year 800 AD is very good year for couple of thoughts. First of
-all, what do you know about that year in the history (of course,
-you know that Holy Roman Empire was founded, but something else).
-What happened here in the are of the current Czechia?
-
-No, Saint Wenceslaus is hundred years later (died most likely in
-year 935). And no, Great Moravia and Saint Cyril and Methodius
-are fifty years later (that is truly the beginning of the history
-of these lands). And for comparison from other countries with
-better documented history, no, Alfred the Great is fifty years
-later as well. For Czech lands we really know almost nothing.
-Some German chronicles barely mentioned that the area exists, and
-there are some rumours about Charlemagne going through Bohemia
-around 805, but that’s basically all we know about this place in
-that time.
+Year 800 AD is very good interesting point in the history for
+couple of reasons. First of all, what do you know about that year
+in the history (of course, you know that Holy Roman Empire was
+founded, but something else). What happened here in the are of
+the current Czechia?
+
+No, Saint Wenceslaus lived hundred years later (died most likely
+in year 935). And no, Great Moravia and Saint Cyril and Methodius
+came to our lands fifty years later (that is truly the beginning
+of the history of these lands). And for comparison from other
+countries with better documented history, no, Alfred the Great is
+fifty years later as well. For Czech lands we really know almost
+nothing. Some German chronicles barely mentioned that the area
+exists, and there are some rumours about Charlemagne going
+through Bohemia around 805, but that’s basically all we know
+about this place in that time.
 
 Let me put here few notes about year 800 AD. First one is really
 brief: when we think what happened eight hundred years ago
@@ -80,20 +81,20 @@ Christianity was that old in that year. Because it was long time
 ago from our point of view, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t long time
 from the beginning of the Church as well.
 
-Next one is by Chesterton: we have tendency to always view
-history as something which happened in past, and we are the
+Next comment is by Chesterton: we have tendency to always
+view history as something which happened in past, and we are the
 glorious (or not-so-glorious) culmination of past events. What if
 we are not the end of history, what if we are just the beginning?
 What if thousands years later, people will sing heroic songs
 about our deeds, and discuss whether somebody so unbelievable as
-President Nelson Mandela truly existed or if he was just a myth?
-Just a food for thought.
+Presidents Nelson Mandela or Václav Havel truly existed or if
+they were just a myth? Just a food for thought.
 
 Second note is substantially longer. We can use those twelve
 hundred years which separate us (roughly) from that year as
-a measurement with which we can consider the flow of time. One
-step from us is year 800, second step is 800 AD - 1200 = 400 BC.
-It is one year from the death of Socrates, and it is roughly what
+a measure with which we can consider the flow of time. One step
+from us is year 800 AD, second step is 800 AD - 1200 = 400 BC. It
+is one year from the death of Socrates, and it is roughly what
 could be declared the beginning of the Classical Antiquity.
 I heard this example originally from a historical podcast about
 philosophy, where they wanted to stress that although the history
@@ -121,7 +122,14 @@ important, chronology of that era is really vague and uncertain).
 And somewhere there we finally get to the times the Old Testament
 writes about. That is how really far away we are.
 
-So, let us return back to witches in the Old Testament. There are
+What I wanted to say by this example is to emphasize how
+incredibly distant were people living in the Biblical times from
+us. We usually don’t have any problems to accept that most of us
+know almost nothing about this era outside of the Biblical
+narrative, so I don’t think it is so outrageous to be cautious
+about our understanding of the Biblical text from those times.
+
+Let us return back to witches in the Old Testament. There are
 surprisingly few verses explicitly dealing with witchcraft. Most
 important are four verses (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 19:26, 20:27,
 and Deuteronomy 18:10-11). Let us start with the last one (YLT):
@@ -194,7 +202,9 @@ fully understand it. And just to make it clear, there are over
 so we really don’t know what the Noah’s ark was really made from
 (the idea it was cypress which is a common translation is just
 because it was the wood ships were usually made from, but there
-is no evidence it was really so).
+is no evidence it was really so; what is the biblical author
+wanted to emphasize something by Noah building a ship from some
+unusual wood?).
 
 Back to our verse in Deuteronomy.
 
@@ -214,9 +224,10 @@ study Bible, it means some kind of divination by observing either
 spread lots or arrows shot in front of the diviner. Another
 commentaries (NET Bible) claims it is just a generic term for any
 diviner who predicts future from observing various omens and
-signs.
+signs. However, it is obvious it is some kind of divination,
+although we are not completely certain how exactly it was done.
 
-*menakhesh* has very complicated meaning. According to one it is
+*menakhesh* has very complicated meaning. According to some it is
 just a generic term for any divination by observing signs and
 omens (Strong’s Dictionary). According to other (Czech Bible
 commentary, Wikipedia) this word derives from the word for snake,
@@ -248,11 +259,11 @@ shape of clouds), which is documented from the late ancient Rome
 ancient Babylonian priests. Given how accessible clouds usually
 are, I have no problems to imagine that some kind of divination
 from them could exist, but it is certainly not something which
-would be very widespread. On the other hand, NET Bible commentary
+was very widespread. On the other hand, NET Bible commentary
 explains that it is not about clouds, but about conjuring spirits
 and apparitions. Rashi’s commentary mentions, that The Sages
 said, that this referred to those who “catch the eyes” [i.e.,
-they deceived by creating optical illusions].
+they deceived public by creating optical illusions].
 
 *mekhashef* is translated as “sorcery”, but this meaning is far
 from certain and obvious. (khashef and khesh come from the same