A Roots of Rookeri Supplement.
The God of Facerie
According to Rothi scholars mining the Holy Book, the Mercury Curse arose with the Geeks. The Lubanthan scholars, however, while acknowledging that Hermes, born in Greek-land, was, as it were, a herald of Mercury, point to the Latins as the true progenitors of the ancient curse. Mercury, god of arts, skills and commerce; Mercury, god of Facerie.
Facere – or Fakir as it was latterly voiced, meaning ‘to make’ – is the anathema of all cursing words. Yet it is there in the Good Book. Moreover, this Facere has spawned a legion of curses. It needs no scholarly commentary to see the danger here:
All these words typify Mercury’s Curse: to make, to profit, to divide into factions; to perfect, to affect, to swell into a fashion. The once exempt word is ‘manufacture’, for to make by hand is to craft.
But there is a word less obvious and more insidious than the formerly ubiquitous Facere:
To sanctify, i.e. to make sacred
The Lubanthan scholars say this confirms Rome as the original place of the Mercury Curse. For is not Rome given in the Good Book as a place of pilgrimage. And do pilgrims not go to the Holy Land. It therefore follows that Rome was that Holy Land, so created by the unwarranted worship of all things Mercury-tainted.
In answer, the Rothi scholars point to the ancient Geek culture which put great store upon aspiration and inspiration, ‘to draw into oneself that which is holy’, i.e. to make oneself wholly a god. The Rothi scholars extend this argument by saying the Latins of Rome then applied this deification, this sanctification to all manner of makings and making-machines.
It is a hard claim to counter. Thus the Lubanthan scholars point to the Rothi and say they are lazy, that rather than copy the Good Book in full they resorted to abbreviations which now no Rothi scholar can understand. Witness Geek for what even a Lubanthan child knows is Greek, a person of Greekland.
The Good Book
Indeed, there is little in the Book upon which the Rothi and the Lubanthan scholars agree – even its name (to the Rothi, the Holy Book; to the Lubanthan, the Good Book). But they both agree that the Book is ancient, reputed the Book of the Gods – though the Rothi say the Serving Gods while the Lubanthan say Founders.
As explained in the Settlement supplement , it is, in fact, an etymology dictionary dated to 1849 (CE dating, Earth-side). Thus the words contained predate the most pernicious technology. It also contains many terms from medieval culture which the Rothi poets and scholars have more recently quarried for their poems, heroic and epic.
However, not understanding the date 1849, the scholars debate: Is this a late-written book with the terms of the Mercury Curse expunged, or is it a book written prior to the Curse’s most damaging expression? In support of the latter, scholars point to the inclusion of, for example, ‘automaton’ and ‘technical’, words which surely would have been expunged.
In Luban the Book is available at every Council House; research of the Book is part of the Verse & Comp School curriculum. In Rothi it is available in every Witan Hall, no matter the House.
If a word is not in the Book then it is an abomination and its use not allowed. Because the original Book was written in English, though containing words from other languages, English had continued as a pure language – though the Rothi have chosen one set of words, the Lubanthan another. All parents resort to it in choosing names for their children. If it’s not in the Book, it isn’t allowed.
The 41 Avatars
Finally, to be found in the Good Book is a list of the One God’s 41 Avatars. Though it has taken them centuries, the Lubanthan scholars now have worked out that the Forty-First Avatar’s name was Charles T Woodleigh, that Charles T Woodleigh spoke the English language, and that the English language derives from Anglo-Saxon.
- 1st Avatar: Yosh Ai (speaking Sanskrit)
- 2nd Avatar: E E Eggan (speaking Persian)
- 3rd Avatar: K Hubig (sp Hebrew)
- 4th Avatar: K Araya (sp Hindi)
- 5th Avatar: Xavier Anastasiou (sp Greek)
- 6th Avatar: J L Jorgensen (sp Scandinavian)
- 7th Avatar: Jeffrey Miller (sp Anglo-Saxon)
- 8th Avatar: Miguel McDermott (sp Celtic)
- 9th Avatar: M T Fassbender (sp Teutonic)
- 10th Avatar: Lorien Pasquino (sp Latin)
- 11th Avatar: C M Krueger (sp Friesic)
- 12th Avatar: L T Natalizia (sp Lithuanian)
- 13th Avatar: M J Gebhardt (sp Old Saxon)
- 14th Avatar: M A Bartesiewicz (sp Gothic)
- 15th Avatar: V Ocerbey (sp Cornish)
- 16th Avatar: R Hassan (sp Arab)
- 17th Avatar: K Salinas (sp Low L)
- 18th Avatar: R Goslin (sp Breton)
- 19th Avatar: Peter Filz (sp OHG)
- 20th Avatar: Leonard Pohlman (sp OF)
- 21st Avatar: John Powell (sp ME)
- 22nd Avatar: Eric Uson (sp MHG)
- 23rd Avatar: Ragnor Bjornsson (sp Icelandic)
- 24th Avatar: Eamon Byrne (sp Irish)
- 25th Avatar: Cirelli (sp Italian)
- 26th Avatar: M Kalita (sp Provencal)
- 27th Avatar: R S Izaguirre (sp Portuguese)
- 28th Avatar: K R Christensen (sp Norwegian)
- 29th Avatar: S Alvarez (sp Spanish)
- 30th Avatar: Leif Gunderson (sp Swedish)
- 31st Avatar: Jan T Galkowski (sp Russian)
- 32nd Avatar: A Ohman (sp Turkish)
- 33rd Avatar: Patrick J McCullough (sp Gaelic)
- 34th Avatar: Randolf Todt (sp German)
- 35th Avatar: Justin Schaefer (sp Low G)
- 36th Avatar: D K Fuerst (sp Bavarian)
- 37th Avatar: W Carlson (sp Danish)
- 38th Avatar: D DeGraaf (sp Dutch)
- 39th Avatar: N D’Amour (sp French)
- 40th Avatar: Hywel Evans (sp Welsh)
- 41st Avatar: Charles T Woodleigh (speaking English)
Scholars are still working on the language abbreviations though considerable progress has been made; not one of these languages is given in full in the original copy of the Good Book.
The current debate is on whether the ‘G’ found in OHG, MHG and Low G is for Gothic, German or Greek. The ‘O’, it is agreed, must stand for Old. And since there is ‘Low G’ and ‘Low L’ it is assumed that the ‘H’ in OHG and MHG must stand for High. But as yet there is no consensus on this, nor what is intended by ‘High’ and ‘Low’: was it the tone of the voice, the octave, the volume? Neither is there agreement on the ‘L’ of ‘Low L. Is it Low Latin, or Low Lithuanian? The same problem exists with OF: is this Old French, or Old Friesic? Linguists point to French being a Latin-born language, while, though the examples are few, Friesic would seem to belong to the Teutonic group.
So many unknowns yet to solve. The work continues.