Eyjolf who fosters Hadding's unruly daughter, Ulfhild, rides and speaks in private with Hadding. Smoke lifts, homes dwindle, fields ripen, cows graze, wildflowers nod, miles fade, bees buzz, dust puffs. In fact, that dust puffs:
"...up into windlessness..." (p. 245)
Obviously, this caught my attention. After so many dramatic textual interventions by the wind, this time peacefulness is represented by windlessness.
When Hadding at last confronts, corrects and cows Ulfhild, wind is chill, grass is sallow, beeches are stripped of leaves and crows call hoarsely. (p. 248) The wind has resumed its customary role. When Ulfhild has whispered an apology, Hadding strides away and:
"She stood long alone in the wind." (p. 249)
Under judgment.
"Yuletide neared. The household brawled with readymaking for the feast and for offerings to the gods." (p. 249)
That still happens although "offerings to the gods" have become Midnight Mass.
Hadding tells Ulfhild that, at midwinter, she will be betrothed to the guardsman, Gudorm Thorliefsson.
"She gasped. 'A yeoman.'" (p. 250)
Hadding reassures her that Gudorm is the head of a rich household which has other land and a ship in trade. He is high-born and will be raised to sheriff, then to jarl.
Some English readers would find this amusing. To a certain kind of snobbishness, the phrase, "...in trade...," would be the opposite of reassuring. A Chief Constable's wife, when asked if she knew a rich retailer, replied, "We never mix with trade!"
2 comments:
There was no sharp distinction between piracy and trade in ancient Scandinavia -- you traded where the locals were strong, and raided when they weren't.
And there was little or no prejudice against trade, either.
The landed aristocracy of Western Europe in the Middle Ages and subsequently developed that prejudice because they were much more specialized in function. In France, which was the ideological core of feudalism, engaging in trade (or a whole clutch of other economic activities) was dérogeance, and could lose you noble status.
Incidentally, this never really took in England, despite French influence.
In France (and most of Europe) all a noble's children were nobles. In England, from quite early, they weren't -- only his heir, and technically his heir was a commoner too until he inherited.
Holders of titles had legal privileges, but only the actual title-holder.
By the 17th century, it was routine for the younger sons of landowners to engage in trade -- particularly wholesale trade and overseas trade.
This went right to the top; aristocrats married bankers' daughters, and Charles II and his brother James were shareholders in a number of trading companies.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
While I agree with what you wrote here, I think some corrections are called for. Even more technically, only a peer and his wife were, legally, nobles. Even his eldest son was technically a commoner until he succeeded to the peerage.
And there was SOME disdain in the aristocracy for any of them who did traffic in commerce and trade. But, not much compared to other European countries.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment