Various questions about Almea

[sasasha]

I did some further playing with a pen.

See what you think!

Eretladan astronomical symbols revised calligraphic.jpg (95.81 KiB) Viewed 16866 times

To explain: for Caiem and Hírumor, it is easier not to lift the pen. To my personal taste there's a pleasing typological similarity.

For Vlerëi, mirroring the little circle and flattening the C-curve create better conditions to measure the mid-line and overall create a neater graphic.

For Išire, it seems a natural development to join the two elements.

For Vereon, this was a complete redesign that went through many versions. I think this is the best horse figure I came up with in about half an hour of experiments. It also has typological cohesion with Išire, and to an extent many of them, with the little circles. The extra mark is an optional saddle; not sure if this would fit the idea of Vereon or not. Or it's a tail in the wind.

For Ënomai, one suggestion is to make the circle smaller than for the digit 4 or letters R, Ť or Ď, and floating near the midline. We all know the sun is big, but in the sky it doesn't really look it. I also like the slight development like hiragana no, but it has no rationale really other than 'there are a lot of circles already in this writing system'.

For Almea, the lozenge was an experiment and not IMO a successful one; I think it's a question of whether it's a rectangle or a square that the wavy line sits on.

[sasasha]

More examples.

More: show

Untitled19_20251006173528.jpg (146.24 KiB) Viewed 16863 times

[zompist]

Thanks, some of these are quite nice. I will be working on a font for these, which won't be quite so calligraphic, but the more connected ones would be likely variations.

For Caiem, I want to avoid the Mac command prompt ⌘!

[sasasha]

Thanks, some of these are quite nice. I will be working on a font for these, which won't be quite so calligraphic, but the more connected ones would be likely variations.

For Caiem, I want to avoid the Mac command prompt ⌘!

Ok, I look forward to seeing the font.

[sasasha]

Still mulling all the following over, and reading Price; here are a few responses for now.

Ok, this gives me pause for thought! Not quite what I was expecting: I think I expected weekly ceďnare sacrifices. There is some ritual significance to ceďnare, right? It’s a feast, more than anything else, right ‒ featuring the meat of the animal sacrificed? I remember reading about rooms in bigger temples where the feasts happened ‒ but only, generally, for the nobles.

Meat sacrifices, among Romans, Vedic Indians, Temple Jews, and Aztecs, were mostly for the elite.

I gather from Price’s book that lower classes sometimes joined in by buying meat from a butcher; you didn’t necessarily get to eat the sacrificed meat, but you could still join in. Do you think this might go on for the bigger Caďin festivals?

Among the Caďinorians, it'd ebb and flow as with other religious trends. I see there being regular feasts; it fits the more popularist role of Caďinorian religion.

Ok, just checking, do you mean here, ‘more populist than Roman religion’?

Perhaps rites have to be performed in the temples regularly, but they don’t have to be (and generally aren’t) attended by large crowds. Like, you can attend if you want, but no compunction unless it’s a special occasion, or you yourself are bringing a sacrifice...?

No compunction, but my idea is that the whole idea is to make the spectacles both attractive and edifying. Come for the free meal and music, stay for the plays and a sermon.

Ok. I’m going to lay out an idea I’m brewing. This is that the vast majority of temples employ musicians on an ad hoc basis. A musician with a liturgical skillset lives in a town or city as a freelancer, essentially, and might often be found to work in several or many temples, only in some cases on a regular basis. Sometimes remuneration might be mainly or entirely in the form of food (including sharing in a sacrificial feast, though usually in a different area of the temple and not usually as generous as for those actually sharing in the feast), but accommodation is not normally part of the deal.¹ (If this sounds strange to state, consider that Anglican cathedrals often house their lay clerks.)

They might very well secure a regular weekly gig² in this or that temple, if it does regular feasts like you mention above ‒ and be in competition with other musicians for the best gigs at the big feasts in the big temples, too ‒ but they probably make just as much or more money from music made for ad hoc sacrifices. I’m now just speculating that these exist, by the way: I’m imagining they happen by arrangement between the priest and the, er, sacrificer, whenever the latter wants to make an offering and whenever the priest/building/staff are available to do it. They might be anything from extremely modest to inordinately lavish, with fees to match.

In a similar vein (i.e. it’s the people that ask to hold the service who pay for it inc. any musicians) there are weddings and funerals (and coming of age ceremonies...?) which, obviously, are irregular engagements too, but (I’m imagining) more infrequent than the ad hoc sacrifices.

Finally, if temples are rich (that is, they have a lot of generous benefactors) you might find that they do maintain a particular musical ensemble that is valued by that cult (or the individuals who finance it!), but this is kinda random, i.e. the Nečeron temple in Ulian looks well-to-do; and maybe traditionally it maintains a 5-part kena ensemble, who give much of what that particular temple does a distinctive sound which is a marker of its worshippers’ sense of belonging, prestige, and numinous aesthetic; this is just a local quirk, and a musician that falls into a job like that has just got lucky, as there’s no guarantee another temple would be interested in the same thing.

¹The exceptions might be (a) the very big temples, in which you might expect at least some music to happen every day, which will probably employ and possibly house a full time director of music; (b) if you, as a worshipper of a particular cult, end up with a regular gig in your own god’s temple ‒ they might be able to find you somewhere to lodge if you’re in need.

²I’m using the word gig the way we use it in the UK in an liturgical music context: it just means that you are employed to sing at a service, either once or regularly.

How does all that sound?

Ok cool, but where does he live/how is he sustained? By a temple with which he is mainly associated, despite his overall responsibilities? Or is there like a house in the town for the claetanda-trained priest, maintained by the claetanda?

As it happens I've been reading about Rome, and its basic problem of government: ruling 50 million or so people with, by modern standards, a handful of people. Imperial China had the same problem. Basically, a premodern state has to do a lot with minimal administrative overhead. In both cases a governor might be sent out with basically no institutional backing (i.e. budgets, staff, guards). They could call on the army for backup, but also might use their own resources, and definitely had to co-opt local resources. E.g. Romans could commandeer horses and carts for travel. In both Rome and China the locals could essentially be milked for fees, but the governor probably also had to pay locals to help out.

I feel like the situation I’ve laid out chimes better with this than what I was imagining before (musicians by default usually having regular posts at particular temples).

[zompist]

I gather from Price’s book that lower classes sometimes joined in by buying meat from a butcher; you didn’t necessarily get to eat the sacrificed meat, but you could still join in. Do you think this might go on for the bigger Caďin festivals?

Even more so. As the Caďin religion page says: "Public rites or festivals (curendet) are organized by the local noble, or the community. These were conducted by a noble, included an animal sacrifice, and concluded with a communal meal. For the poor these might be the only time they ate meat".

It''s good to know about Roman religion, but it's not the model. Caďin religion, since the Munkhâshi invasion, has had a goal of educating the people, and bribery with food and music is a part of that.

Ok. I’m going to lay out an idea I’m brewing. This is that the vast majority of temples employ musicians on an ad hoc basis. A musician with a liturgical skillset lives in a town or city as a freelancer, essentially, and might often be found to work in several or many temples, only in some cases on a regular basis. Sometimes remuneration might be mainly or entirely in the form of food (including sharing in a sacrificial feast, though usually in a different area of the temple and not usually as generous as for those actually sharing in the feast), but accommodation is not normally part of the deal.¹ (If this sounds strange to state, consider that Anglican cathedrals often house their lay clerks.)

I think this makes sense for smaller towns. In the capital, or even a provincial capital, you can have very large establishments with a permanent staff of priests, musicians, and other specialists. In a small town the work is more scattershot.

You could even assume that a major sacrifice (i.e. one involving meat) must include a musician. This was certainly true of Vedic rites. FWIW it's also what's described for David's Temple, though the thousands of musicians he describes are certainly off by an order of magnitude or more.

they probably make just as much or more money from music made for ad hoc sacrifices. I’m now just speculating that these exist, by the way: I’m imagining they happen by arrangement between the priest and the, er, sacrificer, whenever the latter wants to make an offering and whenever the priest/building/staff are available to do it. They might be anything from extremely modest to inordinately lavish, with fees to match.

In a similar vein (i.e. it’s the people that ask to hold the service who pay for it inc. any musicians) there are weddings and funerals (and coming of age ceremonies...?) which, obviously, are irregular engagements too, but (I’m imagining) more infrequent than the ad hoc sacrifices.

Other way around, I'd say. Personal rites come in a steady stream.

For a smaller temple, I expect the nearby notables fund the ceremonies. The calendar gets filled out. The highest local noble takes the biggest festivals; then other nobles and notables claim other dates. I think this is more likely than Rich Guy #22 deciding hey, this week I'll have a sacrifice. The gods obviously value constancy.

All this would mean that the number of support jobs, like the number of animals needed, does vary year by year, and payment is likely to be per gig.

Finally, if temples are rich (that is, they have a lot of generous benefactors) you might find that they do maintain a particular musical ensemble that is valued by that cult (or the individuals who finance it!), but this is kinda random, i.e. the Nečeron temple in Ulian looks well-to-do; and maybe traditionally it maintains a 5-part kena ensemble, who give much of what that particular temple does a distinctive sound which is a marker of its worshippers’ sense of belonging, prestige, and numinous aesthetic; this is just a local quirk, and a musician that falls into a job like that has just got lucky, as there’s no guarantee another temple would be interested in the same thing.

I'm not sure if we've discussed musicians' pay in general. If we haven't, I'd suggest some guidelilnes.

-- Musical ability is common, so the lower end is probably the average wage (1.5 f/day).
-- Someone who is highly trained in an instrument and knows dozens of songs could be worth 2 to 3 times that.
-- Someone you'd go to hear could be 5 times the minimum... 10 times, if you'd pay to hear him.
-- Teaching is probably in line with the second category.
-- Add some falî if the knowledge requires literacy and extensive study.

If you have better info on medieval/Renaissance pay for musicians, do share!

I think this fits what you've got going for Kaidan: that he is by no means rich, but can support himself as he travels with music. He's probably in between the 2nd and 3rd categories (in his early life).

The idea is also that a rich temple can hire some permanent musicians exactly as it can hire masons or cooks. It's not unskilled labor but it's relatively cheap for them. And a less rich temple hires musicians, masons, and cooks only when it needs them.

An interesting corollary is that if Kaidan sweeps into town and gets a job with his superior training, he may be taking some local's gig. Maybe there's a custom that such an itinerant skilled worker buys drinks for the local musicians, or whatever.

if you, as a worshipper of a particular cult, end up with a regular gig in your own god’s temple ‒ they might be able to find you somewhere to lodge if you’re in need.

I may be going back and forth on this, but I would not overemphasize devotion to a single god. For sure you could have a favorite god, for personal or career reasons. But you can also absolutely go worship another god to hedge your bets or because they meet your present needs (e.g. you're taking a sea voyage, so you make an offering to Ažirei). And a temple would not say "We can't hire this person, they worship Išira." In a smaller town, a priest might well serve several gods.

It's likely there are some stereotypes about worshipers of particular gods ("oh, Eši worshipers are flaky"), but with the major gods this is never very serious.

Things change if you're in a cult per se. E.g. if you worship Žantom, you may well disdain the other gods entirely.

[hwhatting]

For a smaller temple, I expect the nearby notables fund the ceremonies. The calendar gets filled out. The highest local noble takes the biggest festivals; then other nobles and notables claim other dates. I think this is more likely than Rich Guy #22 deciding hey, this week I'll have a sacrifice. The gods obviously value constancy.

Don't understimate the random part (which for the donator is not random, but has meaning) - from cursory reading of medieval and early modern history, it looks like a frequent occasion that a noble or merchant gives money to a church to have a mass read every year for the remembrance and salvation of soul of this or that deceased family member (or for their own soul, especially in wills). I could easily imagine that the temple calendars are filled with services and sacrifices that were instituted by nobles and merchants as part of wills or for special reasons and don't get canceled.

[sasasha]

For a smaller temple, I expect the nearby notables fund the ceremonies. The calendar gets filled out. The highest local noble takes the biggest festivals; then other nobles and notables claim other dates. I think this is more likely than Rich Guy #22 deciding hey, this week I'll have a sacrifice. The gods obviously value constancy.

Don't understimate the random part (which for the donator is not random, but has meaning) - from cursory reading of medieval and early modern history, it looks like a frequent occasion that a noble or merchant gives money to a church to have a mass read every year for the remembrance and salvation of soul of this or that deceased family member (or for their own soul, especially in wills). I could easily imagine that the temple calendars are filled with services and sacrifices that were instituted by nobles and merchants as part of wills or for special reasons and don't get canceled.

Just addressing this part for now, i.e. the income of temples.

There are mentions in zomp’s output of temples functioning as, essentially, something a bit like banks. (To paraphrase.) For instance travellers can travel with letters of credit which can be be redeemed at temples. So they must have generally reliable income streams in and of themselves (at least when things are going well). In other words, it can’t be that all their income comes from nobles paying for services. (I’m not saying this was what zomp was stating, I’m just trying to establish that that probably isn’t the whole story.) This is because there are various overheads that temples have in order to sustain themselves that sit outside of things that specifically occur in services.

We’ve already had this discussion to an extent about claetandet and established that they don’t exactly (or regularly) get particular central funding. So I’m going to assume that the same holds for temples for this discussion, though correct me if I’m wrong.

Where does this income come from? Might nobles / merchants / anyone with money also regularly donate some of their wealth to temples merely as a matter of course? (To a greater or lesser extent, tithe, zakat etc, seems a common feature of organised religion.)

By the 3480 ‘now’ temples large and small presumably aim to have endowments, administered by real banks, which they add to whenever they can (especially through wills and large one-off donations) and which generate regular income through interest. I don’t know how old this system would be, but, surely, about as old as banking.

They might also own land and property, and might be in receipt of rents and cuts of trades which are conducted thereon.

There’d also be giving in kind, where people sit on committees or volunteer in whatever myriad other ways for free.

Perhaps temples appoint someone to be a ‘chief benefactor’ that gives them privileges and responsibilities, the way towns and cities have often elected mayors, who fund the office themselves?

Is there a potential for wealth-sharing among temples ‒ especially those of the same god, and in a different sense, those under the same patriarch and in the same location? I.e. the patriarch orders temple A to give temple B a bunch of money.

Do monasteries sometimes contribute financially to (a) temple(s) with which they are associated? Monasteries may have means to generate wealth such as manufacturing.

The payments for private rites and the system zomp laid out of noble patronage, essentially, of prestigious services could certainly contribute to regular overheads, i.e. more money is received than is used. Plus what hwhatting said.

Are there other obvious/likely income streams I’m missing?

Cooking now so going to leave it there...

[zompist]

Just addressing this part for now, i.e. the income of temples.

There are mentions in zomp’s output of temples functioning as, essentially, something a bit like banks. (To paraphrase.) For instance travellers can travel with letters of credit which can be be redeemed at temples.

I remember this, but I can't find it right now— can you?

The thing is, if it was still important in the 3400s I'd have put it in the Visiting classical Eretald document. It seems to me a premodern expedient, before banks existed.

The idea is not that money is actually moving around; it's that a large multi-city institution has an inherent credit situation. The traveler puts money in at point A and withdraws it at point B, simply because A and B are used to dealing with large sums of money and have some on hand, and are used to trusting communications from each other. It's supposed to be balanced by transactions from B to A. It's not a system that's likely to scale up for tens of thousands of users.

So they must have generally reliable income streams in and of themselves (at least when things are going well). In other words, it can’t be that all their income comes from nobles paying for services.

Oh, I can give you a major source of income: land. At some point land was dedicated to the god, either by a rich individual, or by the government. Probably the land cannot be sold, or only with difficulty. What that means of course is that there are peasants on that land and their taxes go to the temple.

As Eretald moves to an industrial economy, bequests are more likely to be financial.

The services are also a major source of income; also programs (e.g) to refurbish a temple or create a new one. If you're the local noble, it's expected that you be generous to the temples/churches— plus, as noted, it's a way of keeping the people happy. This is modeled on medieval Europe where the churches were largely financed by local wealth.

Is there a potential for wealth-sharing among temples ‒ especially those of the same god, and in a different sense, those under the same patriarch and in the same location? I.e. the patriarch orders temple A to give temple B a bunch of money.

Yes and no. The general answer is, it's not that temples are on their own as individual units. They may pool priests, share in a bequest, help each other out. But it's less collegial— or less top-down— than the Catholic Church. People can be prickly about what is or is not traditional.

To put it another way, if the temple of Nečeron is falling down, you appeal primarily to local sources— the pagans in the town, especially though not only the rich ones. Only if they fail would you approach the provincial or royal authorities. If there's a very rich temple of Nečeron in the next biggest town, they're likely to at least help out.

Do monasteries sometimes contribute financially to (a) temple(s) with which they are associated? Monasteries may have means to generate wealth such as manufacturing.

Monasteries were, as in Europe or China, sources of wealth production, generally more efficient than noble estates. So they would probably support associated temples in some way.

--

Separate issue, that I'm mentioning because it just occurred to me: there was very likely a financial crisis for the temples when Eleďát became popular. That's because if the nobles or the rich convert, they switch their contributions to the churches.

This would be somewhat counterbalanced by the increasing wealth of the country: you can support the same mass of temples with a smaller fraction of the economy. Also by the fact that the elite was the slowest to convert.

Still, it probably didn't improve interfaith relations in 3200s Verduria, or 3000s Érenat. This also helps explain why the established hierarchy hated the cults: they represented a substantial diversion of income.

[bradrn]

The idea is not that money is actually moving around; it's that a large multi-city institution has an inherent credit situation. The traveler puts money in at point A and withdraws it at point B, simply because A and B are used to dealing with large sums of money and have some on hand, and are used to trusting communications from each other. It's supposed to be balanced by transactions from B to A. It's not a system that's likely to scale up for tens of thousands of users.

Isn’t that just a hawala system, which (to my limited understanding) seems to have scaled up just fine?

[Man in Space]

The idea is not that money is actually moving around; it's that a large multi-city institution has an inherent credit situation. The traveler puts money in at point A and withdraws it at point B, simply because A and B are used to dealing with large sums of money and have some on hand, and are used to trusting communications from each other. It's supposed to be balanced by transactions from B to A. It's not a system that's likely to scale up for tens of thousands of users.

Isn’t that just a hawala system, which (to my limited understanding) seems to have scaled up just fine?

Hawala typically involves a transfer to another party—it’s a payment system, not individual money management.

[bradrn]

The idea is not that money is actually moving around; it's that a large multi-city institution has an inherent credit situation. The traveler puts money in at point A and withdraws it at point B, simply because A and B are used to dealing with large sums of money and have some on hand, and are used to trusting communications from each other. It's supposed to be balanced by transactions from B to A. It's not a system that's likely to scale up for tens of thousands of users.

Isn’t that just a hawala system, which (to my limited understanding) seems to have scaled up just fine?

Hawala typically involves a transfer to another party—it’s a payment system, not individual money management.

Ah, I missed that distinction.

[sasasha]

Just addressing this part for now, i.e. the income of temples.

There are mentions in zomp’s output of temples functioning as, essentially, something a bit like banks. (To paraphrase.) For instance travellers can travel with letters of credit which can be be redeemed at temples.

I remember this, but I can't find it right now— can you?

It’s a very small mention, actually, in the Travel in Eretald Almeopedia page.

“Money is usually carried in the form of gold, sewn into one's clothes; but where possible travelers make use of letters of credit from brokerages or temples.”

I think the “where possible” and the fact that temples are not the only source of this chime with your following statements that it’s not actually that expansive a system.

The thing is, if it was still important in the 3400s I'd have put it in the Visiting classical Eretald document. It seems to me a premodern expedient, before banks existed.

The idea is not that money is actually moving around; it's that a large multi-city institution has an inherent credit situation. The traveler puts money in at point A and withdraws it at point B, simply because A and B are used to dealing with large sums of money and have some on hand, and are used to trusting communications from each other. It's supposed to be balanced by transactions from B to A. It's not a system that's likely to scale up for tens of thousands of users.

Oh, I can give you a major source of income: land. At some point land was dedicated to the god, either by a rich individual, or by the government. Probably the land cannot be sold, or only with difficulty. What that means of course is that there are peasants on that land and their taxes go to the temple.

As Eretald moves to an industrial economy, bequests are more likely to be financial.

The services are also a major source of income; also programs (e.g) to refurbish a temple or create a new one. If you're the local noble, it's expected that you be generous to the temples/churches— plus, as noted, it's a way of keeping the people happy. This is modeled on medieval Europe where the churches were largely financed by local wealth.

This all makes a lot of sense.

Is there a potential for wealth-sharing among temples ‒ especially those of the same god, and in a different sense, those under the same patriarch and in the same location? I.e. the patriarch orders temple A to give temple B a bunch of money.

Yes and no. The general answer is, it's not that temples are on their own as individual units. They may pool priests, share in a bequest, help each other out. But it's less collegial— or less top-down— than the Catholic Church. People can be prickly about what is or is not traditional.

To put it another way, if the temple of Nečeron is falling down, you appeal primarily to local sources— the pagans in the town, especially though not only the rich ones. Only if they fail would you approach the provincial or royal authorities. If there's a very rich temple of Nečeron in the next biggest town, they're likely to at least help out.

Ditto this.

Do monasteries sometimes contribute financially to (a) temple(s) with which they are associated? Monasteries may have means to generate wealth such as manufacturing.

Monasteries were, as in Europe or China, sources of wealth production, generally more efficient than noble estates. So they would probably support associated temples in some way.

And this.

Separate issue, that I'm mentioning because it just occurred to me: there was very likely a financial crisis for the temples when Eleďát became popular. That's because if the nobles or the rich convert, they switch their contributions to the churches.

This would be somewhat counterbalanced by the increasing wealth of the country: you can support the same mass of temples with a smaller fraction of the economy. Also by the fact that the elite was the slowest to convert.

Still, it probably didn't improve interfaith relations in 3200s Verduria, or 3000s Érenat. This also helps explain why the established hierarchy hated the cults: they represented a substantial diversion of income.

This is a great point, and interesting food for thought.

It brings me to the observation (fairly obvious, but worth stating/checking) that temples (and later, churches) seem likely to have been an important forum for status display among the nobles, and indeed the bourgeois. Ostentatious benefaction may have been a factor in choosing matches for marriages and alliances. Alliances might even be forged over joint benefaction; on the other hand, rivalries between elite families could have driven developments in architecture, liturgy, music, theatre, sculpture etc via sponsoring these things competitively in rival temples.

[zompist]

I finished the font containing the symbols discussed above. Oh, and a long description of how the Cuzeian and Caďinorian numeral systems worked. And more.

It's on my Patreon as a free post.

(It's late and I've been proofreading mathematics, tiny symbols, and Word elements all day long. There are probably mistakes.)

[WeepingElf]

Great stuff, as usual! Zompist, you are the Tolkien of our time.

[zompist]

Great stuff, as usual! Zompist, you are the Tolkien of our time.

Thank you! Off to learn to smoke a cigar now!

[WeepingElf]

Great stuff, as usual! Zompist, you are the Tolkien of our time.

Thank you! Off to learn to smoke a cigar now!

Well, you are in many ways different from Tolkien - first of all, you are much more modern. No need to adopt his habit of smoking cigars

[zompist]

Great stuff, as usual! Zompist, you are the Tolkien of our time.

Thank you! Off to learn to smoke a cigar now!

Well, you are in many ways different from Tolkien - first of all, you are much more modern. No need to adopt his habit of smoking cigars

I spoiled the joke anyway-- it'd be pipes.

[WeepingElf]

Thank you! Off to learn to smoke a cigar now!

Well, you are in many ways different from Tolkien - first of all, you are much more modern. No need to adopt his habit of smoking cigars

I spoiled the joke anyway-- it'd be pipes.

Yes, I noticed that error, too. I can't remember seeing a photo of the professor smoking a cigar, but there are several showing him smoking a pipe.

The titles "American Tolkien" and "Tolkien of our time/the 21st century" are frequently awarded to G. R. R. Martin, but you are IMHO a much better candidate. Your conworld is even richer and more detailed than Arda, and like Tolkien, you place a lot of emphasis on its langauges. Yet, what regards the world itself and also the anthropology you apply to it, it is much more modern.

[Man in Space]

Well, you are in many ways different from Tolkien - first of all, you are much more modern. No need to adopt his habit of smoking cigars

I spoiled the joke anyway-- it'd be pipes.

Yes, I noticed that error, too. I can't remember seeing a photo of the professor smoking a cigar, but there are several showing him smoking a pipe.

You must now adopt the vape. Though call it something befitting Tolkien—maybe an “electromechanical tobacco aid”, or perhaps “tobacco atomizer”.

The titles "American Tolkien" and "Tolkien of our time/the 21st century" are frequently awarded to G. R. R. Martin, but you are IMHO a much better candidate. Your conworld is even richer and more detailed than Arda, and like Tolkien, you place a lot of emphasis on its langauges. Yet, what regards the world itself and also the anthropology you apply to it, it is much more modern.

Indeed. When you initially gave him that appellation I remember thinking two things: 1) high praise indeed, and 2) totally appropriate praise.