Where did 'pagan' come from?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Was it an actual singular religion or just a term for all of the non-abrahamic religions in Europe and the fertile crescent?

I noticed that some users here are religious in this direction and, while not religious myself, I would very much appreciate some information from people knowledgeable on the topic.

[Stalinist Speaker]

could these text maybe interest you? some text/books on paganism.

http://www.digitalbookindex.com/_search/search010religionpagana.asp

http://everythingunderthemoon.net/forum/free-books-here-list-t5380.html

[Marshal of the People]

Definition: An adherent of a polytheistic religion (usually in antiquity), especially when viewed in contrast to an adherent of a monotheistic religion.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

See Marshal of the People's definition. There was never one single pagan religion, and there isn't one single neo-pagan religion now (former neo-pagan here).

[Marshal of the People]

See Marshal of the People's definition. There was never one single pagan religion, and there isn't one single neo-pagan religion now (former neo-pagan here).

Thanks and the definition was completely mine I got it from here; http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pagan and edited it a bit to fix a mistake.

[Blake's Baby]

Latin word for 'country dweller' (pagus is field or more broadly country both as in terms of 'region' and 'rural area'), paganus is country-dweller. Contrasted with urbanus meaning 'town dweller'.

It means someone who isn't in touch with what is happening in the city (where lots of people were Christian and educated) and instead worships like rocks and stuff. It's basically a term of abuse directed at the unsophisticated. It's never referred to a codified system or particular religion.

However neo-pagans use the term to mean adherents of their syncretic theology, which is in part derived from speculations on the 'Celtic' religions (which were regarded as 'pagan' by the early Christians).

EDIT: bearing in mind exactly what Danielle said above. I do think it's fair enough to say that neo-pagan philosophies share many similarities.

[Stalinist Speaker]

here is some older threads about/related to paganism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/wicca-new-age-t163465/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/types-pagani-t130288/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-pagans-marxistsi-t182741/index.html?t=182741&highlight=Pagan

http://www.revleft.com/vb/paganismi-t183338/index.html?t=183338&highlight=Pagan

http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-christianity-borrow-t161376/index.html

[Marshal of the People]

Paganism I find quite interesting I sometimes wonder what the world would be like if christianity had never risen and paganism had stayed dominant in Europe (I think the world would probably be a much better place and the Roman Empire might even survive to this day :grin:). I personally find paganims to be an interesting religion and even though I am an atheist I wouldn't mind pretending to be some kind of pagan just for fun :grin:.

FUN FACT: Roman catholicism and christian orthodoxy are both the products of mixing christianity with a bit of Roman paganism (e.g. christmas, saints, etc).

FUN FACT: Roman and Greek paganism (and probably other types of paganism also) didn't discriminate against homosexuals and other people like christians did, a lot of the Roman and Greek gods even committed it (along with abortion) :grin:.

[Crabbensmasher]

I always got the impression that early Christians first used it in a formal, textbook-definition sense.

Like very early, 1st century CE. They used it when speaking about adherents to Greek or Roman mythology.

Probably wrong though, that's just what I thought

[hatzel]

I think the world would probably be a much better place and the Roman Empire might even survive to this day :grin:

I'm pretty sure the world wouldn't be a better place if the Roman Empire still existed, so...


FUN FACT: Roman and Greek paganism (and probably other types of paganism also) didn't discriminate against homosexuals and other people

Hah, how about taking those rose-tinted specs off for a second? Fact of the matter is the Greeks (much like the Romans, and the Mesopotamians, and the Egyptians, and the Vikings, and...) often considered the idea of people penetrating their social superiors a rebellion against the natural order (often justified with a fair bit of casual sexism, too, stuff like 'as the male penetrates the woman, so the aristocrat penetrates the commoner, and the master the slave; the superior always penetrates the inferior, and never the reverse'), whilst the Romans are attested to have had laws stating that male citizens were permitted to penetrate male foreigners, but a male citizen could not be penetrated by anybody, given his status. That is to say, what we might call 'passive male homosexuality' was widely considered shameful, and penetration of males was used to shame and denigrate people seen as inferior.

If you want to sugar-coat that and say that it isn't discriminating against homosexuals, simply because it allows the act itself to take place, then sure, feel free, but that's hardly the full story; it obscures the fact that men penetrating men - playing the 'male' role - was accepted because it was not necessarily considered any deviation from heterosexuality (a word used totally anachronistically, but I think you know what I mean. Penetrate a woman, penetrate a man, what's the difference? You're still doing as a man should!), whereas playing the 'female' role very much was, and was often frowned upon. For me, that counts as discrimination against homosexuals, certainly against one half of the participants in each individual act, and can hardly be called a glowing endorsement of free same-sex orientation. Even without that, it certainly constitutes discrimination against other people, namely non-citizens - remember, as homosexual acts were only accepted given the inferiority of the receptive partner, equality between citizen and foreigner or master and slave would render 'acceptable' homosexual intercourse technically impossible, as nobody would be allowed to take on the receptive role; the very acceptance of homosexuality after the common 'pagan' model is in fact discriminatory in and of itself...

[Marshal of the People]

I'm pretty sure the world wouldn't be a better place if the Roman Empire still existed, so...

Why do you think the world would be a worse place with the Roman Empire still in existence? Do you like witch (women) burning, book burning, excessive racism, did you like the dark ages (if the Roman Empire never collapsed we would never have had the dark ages) or any other things christianity has brought us? I personally wouldn't want to be burned because I wasn't a christian or have my ideas or beliefs destroyed because they conflicted with christianity! At least in the Roman Empire you could believe whatever you wanted to (as long as it didn't threaten the empire), at they encouraged scientific learning.

And what makes you pretty sure, how on earth are you pretty sure that the world would be worse, are you somehow able to predict what the world would be like thousands of years after a specific event? Perhaps the Roman Empire would become socialist, perhaps anarchist, perhaps capitalist, you don't know, you can think, guess, hypothesise but you can't be pretty sure without being able to predict the future!



Hah, how about taking those rose-tinted specs off for a second? Fact of the matter is the Greeks (much like the Romans, and the Mesopotamians, and the Egyptians, and the Vikings, and...) often considered the idea of people penetrating their social superiors a rebellion against the natural order (often justified with a fair bit of casual sexism, too, stuff like 'as the male penetrates the woman, so the aristocrat penetrates the commoner, and the master the slave; the superior always penetrates the inferior, and never the reverse'), whilst the Romans are attested to have had laws stating that male citizens were permitted to penetrate male foreigners, but a male citizen could not be penetrated by anybody, given his status. That is to say, what we might call 'passive male homosexuality' was widely considered shameful, and penetration of males was used to shame and denigrate people seen as inferior.

If you want to sugar-coat that and say that it isn't discriminating against homosexuals, simply because it allows the act itself to take place, then sure, feel free, but that's hardly the full story; it obscures the fact that men penetrating men - playing the 'male' role - was accepted because it was not necessarily considered any deviation from heterosexuality (a word used totally anachronistically, but I think you know what I mean. Penetrate a woman, penetrate a man, what's the difference? You're still doing as a man should!), whereas playing the 'female' role very much was, and was often frowned upon. For me, that counts as discrimination against homosexuals, certainly against one half of the participants in each individual act, and can hardly be called a glowing endorsement of free same-sex orientation. Even without that, it certainly constitutes discrimination against other people, namely non-citizens - remember, as homosexual acts were only accepted given the inferiority of the receptive partner, equality between citizen and foreigner or master and slave would render 'acceptable' homosexual intercourse technically impossible, as nobody would be allowed to take on the receptive role; the very acceptance of homosexuality after the common 'pagan' model is in fact discriminatory in and of itself...

I actually didn't know that, I have read several books about the Ancient Rome (and one about Ancient Greece) and they seem to contradict what you said just there, I guess the Authors must have been wrong.

And there were several Roman emperors who were homosexual e.g. Nero, Elagabalus, etc. I don't know if they would just allow themselves to be discriminated against, but maybe they did for some reason? And I don't see how the paganism would look down upon homosexuality if the gods actively practised it?

[Blake's Baby]

...

And there were several Roman emperors who were homosexual e.g. Nero, Elagabalus, etc. I don't know if they would just allow themselves to be discriminated against, but maybe they did for some reason? And I don't see how the paganism would look down upon homosexuality if the gods actively practised it?

Are you serious? There were several medieval kings of England who were homosexual too - Richard I, Edward II, Richard II - I don't see why they would allow themselves to be discriminated against. Maybe then everything you said about attitudes to homosexuality in the middle ages is wrong?

Or, you know, powerful people can do what they like, even if it goes against the mores of the day. There's a radical idea.

You have a view of the Roman Empire and other Antique Slave societies that seems to me relies not just on rose-tinted spectacles but rose-tinted eyes and a rose-tinted brain.

You could 'believe what you wanted to as long as it didn't conflict with the Empire' - yes, you could believe whatever you liked (except atheism) as long as you still worshipped the divine emperors. However, if you were Jewish or a Druid, you were persecuted (because you were unlikely to want to worship the Emperor, and because your cult was seen as dangerous to the state. But it wasn't 'religious' persecution, the Romans didn't do that lalalala; just political. Not sure it doesn't amount to the same thing). If you want to get an idea how 'benign' the Romans' religious policy was I recommend checking the works of Jane Webster on 'syncretism', colonialism, and 'othering'.

'...encouraged scientific learning'? Not really. The Romans had steam engines and railways and water wheels and coal fires but didn't do anything much with them. Didn't use them to spark an industrial revolution. I'd argue that Roman society actually retarded scientific invention.

Look at the history of the waterwheel as an example of that if you wish. It was invented in Palestine in the 1st century AD but in 300 years hardly penetrated into the West. But after 400 the Church built masses of them. Bad old 'Dark Ages' (we don't really use that term any more). i wouldn't go so far as Terry Jones (and Barry Cunliffe) who think 'Roman = bad, barbarian = good' but honestly, you're bending the stick far to far in the opposite direction.

[Zostrianos]

'...encouraged scientific learning'? Not really. The Romans had steam engines and railways and water wheels and coal fires but didn't do anything much with them. Didn't use them to spark an industrial revolution. I'd argue that Roman society actually retarded scientific invention.
Look at the history of the waterwheel as an example of that if you wish. It was invented in Palestine in the 1st century AD but in 300 years hardly penetrated into the West. But after 400 the Church built masses of them. Bad old 'Dark Ages' (we don't really use that term any more). i wouldn't go so far as Terry Jones (and Barry Cunliffe) who think 'Roman = bad, barbarian = good' but honestly, you're bending the stick far to far in the opposite direction.

There is a reason why the early middle ages were once called the Dark Ages. The church outlawed other faiths, and imposed a reign of terror on non-Christians (especially in the early Byzantine empire in the east by Justinian and his successors), demolishing temples and synagogues, torturing and executing non-Christians and heretics, and yes burning non-Christian books. While monasteries would become the centers of learning, and they did preserve many writings from antiquity, Pagan literature and philosophy became highly disdained until the Renaissance, and blind faith became the good Christian attitude to have. The 10th century Byzantine historian Michael Psellus, who wrote extensively on Pagan philosophy, was attacked by his contemporaries, who accused him of being a secret Pagan because of his interests. This attitude was encouraged by the Church fathers who ridiculed classical learning, judging it inferior to Christianity:

“These views have Augustine as their most authoritative proponent. For him, inquiry of any sort we would call science is a target for ridicule. The Greeks, silly men, lavished their time and effort on the identifying of the elements in nature, etc. But 'to the infinite number of points regarding such matters as they have discovered, or think they have discovered, a Christian will pay no mind" No need to know how nature works, for such pretended knowledge is irrelevant to blessedness....'Augustine will go back a stage further and argue that all events (ultimately) depend upon the will of God' Why bother with books and philosophy?......Chrysostom, just like earlier bishops, vaunts the wisdom of the believing unlearned over the unbelieving learned; ridicules and rejects Plato and the other great names of the philosophic pantheon, just as Constantine had done; dismisses their teachings as mere cobwebs; and in the end approves only "rustics and ordinary folk." His is the cast of mind prevailing in the Byzantine world to come. - Ramsay Macmullen, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, pg 88-89

The Pagan Roman empire certainly wasn't perfect, but it was much more tolerant than what came after - and it was multicultural. The golden age of religious thought in the western world from the 1st to the 4th centuries happened thanks to the Roman empire's tolerant policies, as well as the multiculturalism and fertile climate for learning which permeated places like Egypt and Asia Minor. The church put an end to all this. With the end of free thought, naturally learning would suffer greatly. As bad as the Romans were with their own colonialism, they adopted the customs and traditions of the people they conquered and allowed them to retain them. While Christian colonialism, ancient and modern, aimed to destroy conquered cultures, and convert them to Christianity.

[Marshal of the People]

Are you serious? There were several medieval kings of England who were homosexual too - Richard I, Edward II, Richard II - I don't see why they would allow themselves to be discriminated against. Maybe then everything you said about attitudes to homosexuality in the middle ages is wrong?

Or, you know, powerful people can do what they like, even if it goes against the mores of the day. There's a radical idea.

You have a view of the Roman Empire and other Antique Slave societies that seems to me relies not just on rose-tinted spectacles but rose-tinted eyes and a rose-tinted brain.

You could 'believe what you wanted to as long as it didn't conflict with the Empire' - yes, you could believe whatever you liked (except atheism) as long as you still worshipped the divine emperors. However, if you were Jewish or a Druid, you were persecuted (because you were unlikely to want to worship the Emperor, and because your cult was seen as dangerous to the state. But it wasn't 'religious' persecution, the Romans didn't do that lalalala; just political. Not sure it doesn't amount to the same thing). If you want to get an idea how 'benign' the Romans' religious policy was I recommend checking the works of Jane Webster on 'syncretism', colonialism, and 'othering'.

'...encouraged scientific learning'? Not really. The Romans had steam engines and railways and water wheels and coal fires but didn't do anything much with them. Didn't use them to spark an industrial revolution. I'd argue that Roman society actually retarded scientific invention.

Look at the history of the waterwheel as an example of that if you wish. It was invented in Palestine in the 1st century AD but in 300 years hardly penetrated into the West. But after 400 the Church built masses of them. Bad old 'Dark Ages' (we don't really use that term any more). i wouldn't go so far as Terry Jones (and Barry Cunliffe) who think 'Roman = bad, barbarian = good' but honestly, you're bending the stick far to far in the opposite direction.

I don't see how there being homosexual medieval kings would mean there were no homosexual Roman emperors. I actually don't wear glasses at all (I have no idea why you keep saying I do). How can your brain be tinted at all let a lone with roses(Definition of tinted: colour (something) slightly; tinge.)

I understand that you don't agree with me, so I am sorry if I upset you.

EDIT: I don't mean to be rude but I don't see how the medieval Christians more technologically advance than the Romans were since they had a habit of burning precious literature which was only partially saved by the Muslims. The Romans had superior technology and engineering skills compared to the christian Europeans (the medieval French for example never would have been able to build the Colosseum), I don't see how you could see otherwise given all the evidence to back up my conclusion.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't see how there being homosexual medieval kings would mean there were no homosexual Roman emperors...

You said that Romans were not anti-homosexual as there were homosexual Roman Emperors - but that the Middle Ages were anti-homsexual.

My point was that there were also homosexual kings in the Middle Ages, and that the sexual orientation of rulers is not an indication of the cultural attitudes of the societies they ruled.


...
EDIT: I don't mean to be rude but I don't see how the medieval Christians more technologically advance than the Romans were since they had a habit of burning precious literature which was only partially saved by the Muslims. The Romans had superior technology and engineering skills compared to the christian Europeans (the medieval French for example never would have been able to build the Colosseum), I don't see how you could see otherwise given all the evidence to back up my conclusion.

And where did I claim that they were more technologically advanced?

You said that Roman society 'encouraged science'. It didn't. It utterly failed to generalise the scientific advances that it knew about. It retarded science.

Medieval society however was responsible for generalising some of the advances (such as the waterwheel) that Roman society didn't.

Did it make any difference for most people? No.

Honestly, 'Romans good, Feudals bad' is a simplistic approach to history (as much as 'Romans bad, barbarians good' is).

[Marshal of the People]

You said that Romans were not anti-homosexual as there were homosexual Roman Emperors - but that the Middle Ages were anti-homsexual.

My point was that there were also homosexual kings in the Middle Ages, and that the sexual orientation of rulers is not an indication of the cultural attitudes of the societies they ruled.



And where did I claim that they were more technologically advanced?

You said that Roman society 'encouraged science'. It didn't. It utterly failed to generalise the scientific advances that it knew about. It retarded science.

Medieval society however was responsible for generalising some of the advances (such as the waterwheel) that Roman society didn't.

Did it make any difference for most people? No.

Honestly, 'Romans good, Feudals bad' is a simplistic approach to history (as much as 'Romans bad, barbarians good' is).

I am sorry and I respect and value your opinion, how about I just say thank you for debating with me and leave it like that. I am sorry if I was rude or upsetting.

[Blake's Baby]

It's not upsetting or rude; and I hope you don't think I'm being either. If I am, I apologise, but it does I suppose irk me when people come to somewhat sweeping judgements on what seems to be a very superficial reading of the evidence.

Read more. Not in a 'read more, and then come back and debate when you've reached my level of knowledge' kind of way, but in 'read more, get more opinions and analysis, and then you'll have a greater understanding of how these questions can be approached' kind of way.

[Marshal of the People]

It's not upsetting or rude; and I hope you don't think I'm being either. If I am, I apologise, but it does I suppose irk me when people come to somewhat sweeping judgements on what seems to be a very superficial reading of the evidence.

Read more. Not in a 'read more, and then come back and debate when you've reached my level of knowledge' kind of way, but in 'read more, get more opinions and analysis, and then you'll have a greater understanding of how these questions can be approached' kind of way.

Oh no you were not being rude at all (I am sorry if you thought that). And yes I shall read more thanks:grin:.

[Alonso Quijano]

At least in the Roman Empire you could believe whatever you wanted to (as long as it didn't threaten the empire), at they encouraged scientific learning.
In the Roman Empire you could believe whatever you wanted to, unless it was in a God who is not the Emperor. That belief, by people who weren't given citizenship in the Empire, definitely threatened it.

Refusal to pay taxes to fund the rich foreigners or to worship them would cost you genocide.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Is it true that there was a lot of persecution of European inhabitants under Roman imperial rule? Were there any language-conversion laws? Because the language family that Basque resides in was supposedly a lot more widespread throughout north-west Europe and the Iberian peninsula (the only reason Basque as a language still exists is basically because the Roman empire didn't bother with the mountains in which it was spoken). Were slaves often made of the barbarian groups throughout Northern, Western and Eastern Europe?

[helot]

I actually didn't know that, I have read several books about the Ancient Rome (and one about Ancient Greece) and they seem to contradict what you said just there, I guess the Authors must have been wrong.

And there were several Roman emperors who were homosexual e.g. Nero, Elagabalus, etc. I don't know if they would just allow themselves to be discriminated against, but maybe they did for some reason?

That author is wrong. I know more about Greece than Rome but the notion was to be penetrated was to become a woman. You can see this in their culture for example various plays by the comedic playwright Aristophanes centre character assassinations around speculation of a man being penetrated by another.

[Marshal of the People]

In the Roman Empire you could believe whatever you wanted to, unless it was in a God who is not the Emperor. That belief, by people who weren't given citizenship in the Empire, definitely threatened it.

Refusal to pay taxes to fund the rich foreigners or to worship them would cost you genocide.

The Romans didn't think everyone of their gods was the emperor (they had hundreds and hundreds of gods, only christians believe in one god which is actually 3 gods). Only some Roman emperors believed they were a god Elagabulus for example.

I don't think the Romans wiped out entire races because one person didn't pay taxes because most of the people in the Empire would be dead (including Romans).

The reason the Romans didn't like christianity is that it taught that they don't need to obey their emperor instead they should only obey god, this was incredibly dangerous to the empire.

[Marshal of the People]

Is it true that there was a lot of persecution of European inhabitants under Roman imperial rule? Were there any language-conversion laws? Because the language family that Basque resides in was supposedly a lot more widespread throughout north-west Europe and the Iberian peninsula (the only reason Basque as a language still exists is basically because the Roman empire didn't bother with the mountains in which it was spoken). Were slaves often made of the barbarian groups throughout Northern, Western and Eastern Europe?

Slaves could be from any race from basque, parthian, jewish, macromanni to even roman.

[Marshal of the People]

That author is wrong. I know more about Greece than Rome but the notion was to be penetrated was to become a woman. You can see this in their culture for example various plays by the comedic playwright Aristophanes centre character assassinations around speculation of a man being penetrated by another.

Okay thanks, I better through away those books.

[Alonso Quijano]

The Romans didn't think everyone of their gods was the emperor (they had hundreds and hundreds of gods, only christians believe in one god which is actually 3 gods). Only some Roman emperors believed they were a god Elagabulus for example.

I don't think the Romans wiped out entire races because one person didn't pay taxes because most of the people in the Empire would be dead (including Romans).

The reason the Romans didn't like christianity is that it taught that they don't need to obey their emperor instead they should only obey god, this was incredibly dangerous to the empire.
Romans didn't like Christians because they didn't trust anything connected with Judaism. Romans didn't like Jews because Jews refused to worship Greco-Roman Gods, and didn't take kindly to putting Greco-Roman idols in their synagogues and Temple, and ordering them to worship Caligula as a god.

The Jewish religion changed radically during the Roman period, somewhat as a response to Roman occupation.

Jews had to pay taxes for the Romans without being Roman citizens, seeing how Roman citizens in their own land have more rights than they did. When Jews demanded citizenship in Alexandria, Egypt, and equal status as the Greek had their, it ended in massacre.

[Alonso Quijano]

Slaves could be from any race from basque, parthian, jewish, macromanni to even roman.
If you think there was no racism in the rule of the Empire, you should read about Egypt under Roman rule. Roman treatment of Greeks and Egyptians was not equal.

[Marshal of the People]

If you think there was no racism in the rule of the Empire, you should read about Egypt under Roman rule. Roman treatment of Greeks and Egyptians was not equal.

Where did I say there was no racism under Roman rule? All I said is that anyone could become a slave which is true. In the city of Herculaneum their was an African freedman who owned several Roman slaves, that is just one example of Romans being slaves but there are many more. In Roman society slavery wasn't based on race!

Evidence below you can find more if you look harder (I just found these quickly:)).

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/slaves_freemen.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-slavery.php

http://www.crystalinks.com/romeslavery.html

[Zostrianos]

Also important is how slaves were treated better in Pagan religions than they were in organized Christianity. Slaves were allowed access to nearly all temples, worshipping alongside the free, and many went on to form their own congregations (R. Macmullen, Christianity and Paganism in the 4th to 8th centuries, pg. 7). Moreover, “Christian leaders….looked down on those beneath them with the same hauteur as their non-Christian equivalents”
In addition, with regard to the suffering endured by slaves under Pagan emperors, “nothing indicates that they were made easier by Christian masters” (ibid, 7). And, in the 5th century, Pope Leo forbade slaves from access to the priesthood, because their “vileness” would pollute the holy office of the priesthood.

[Alonso Quijano]

Now we only need to honour Manifest Destiny and we have the most reactionary debate ever.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Blake's Baby]

Also important is how slaves were treated better in Pagan religions than they were in organized Christianity. Slaves were allowed access to nearly all temples, worshipping alongside the free, and many went on to form their own congregations (R. Macmullen, Christianity and Paganism in the 4th to 8th centuries, pg. 7). Moreover, “Christian leaders….looked down on those beneath them with the same hauteur as their non-Christian equivalents”
In addition, with regard to the suffering endured by slaves under Pagan emperors, “nothing indicates that they were made easier by Christian masters” (ibid, 7). And, in the 5th century, Pope Leo forbade slaves from access to the priesthood, because their “vileness” would pollute the holy office of the priesthood.

Slaves were treated better in the pre-christian Empire, because Christian leaders acted the same as non-Christians? How is what you've quoted 'better'? I'd pretty certain slaves couldn't become priests of the Roman state either.

Christians at least were under the obligation to free Christian slaves. Pagans were under no such obligation.

In the end all you've demonstrated is that the Roman imperial system - both under pagan Emperors of Chritian ones - was a slave-owning aristocracy.

Why is it that the search for the 'lesser evil' has to be extended into history?

[Rafiq]

Roman emperors, in the tradition of Augustus, were defied only after death. This was clearly a 'first as tragedy' kind of affair.