When I have read more of Mother Of Kings, I will comment on it as an individual work. Meanwhile, as always, I am overwhelmed by the impression that Anderson really presents a single long series covering many centuries of history:
before the Vikings, Lir was one of the Three Gods of the city of Ys;
Skafloc, bearer of "the broken sword," saw the submerged Ys;
during the quest to reforge the sword, Lir's son told Skafloc of Gunnhild's grandfather;
Book One of Mother Of Kings describes Gunnhild growing up, learning magic and marrying Erik Blood-Ax, son of Harald Fairhair;
the Afterword to Mother Of Kings summarizes the career of Harald Fairhair's great-great-grandson, Harald Hardrede, the title character of Anderson's The Last Viking Trilogy, whom Anderson shows as reflecting on the history of Gunnhild;
Harald Hardrede died failing to conquer England in 1066, the same year in which his remote relative William of Normandy succeeded in the Conquest.
England has been a monarchy, with one brief interregnum, since 1066. Lir's mother was Tiamat, the primordial chaos, slain by a god in Babylonian and Ysan myths. Thus, a slight extension of Anderson's multi-volume narrative generates a story beginning with Tiamat and culminating in the present Queen Elizabeth II, who is expected to be succeeded in due course by her son, grandson and soon to be born great-grandchild.
7 comments:
Hi, Paul!
I wanted to let you know I came back from my trip to Hawaii on Friday. I had a good, if sometimes tiring time visiting my older brother.
But, I can't help but wonder if you are trying too hard to link together very different works by Poul Anderson. After all, THE KING OF YS is NOT that closely "related" to either THE LAST VIKING or MOTHER OF KINGS. THE KING OF YS has a chief viewpoint character, Gratillonius, who thinks and acts as an educated Roman soldier who was a Mithraist before becoming a Catholic. Late Roman society was very different, and in many ways, more sophisticated than that of the Scandinavians.
Poul Anderson was certainly fond of adding allusions to times, persons, places, etc., in one book which were to be found in others. But that does not mean those books should be too forcibly "linked" together.
Sean
Hi, Paul!
I forgot to add in my previous comment that England had been a monarchy LONG before 1066. I think Edmund, the son of Edward the Elder, was the first to call himself King of the England (or King of the English) around 940. In fact, I would call the kingdom of England the offpsring of the still older kingdom of Wessex. Wessex was the only survivor of the Anglo Saxon Heptarchy to escape conquest by the invading Danes and Norse during the Viking wars. And, of course, the union of England and Scotland in 1603 led to the current kingdom of Great Britain.
Sean
Sean, welcome back!
Not forcibly linked, of course. I am struck by the historical continuity but other readers are bound to see it differently.
Well, I think "King of the English" might be slightly different? But the Norman Conquest is regarded as making a decisive break in English history. The current monarchy is regarded as tracing back to William although I have been told recently that Queen Elizabeth is descended from an even earlier, Pagan, English King.
Would it be fair to say that, before the Conquest, the Kingship belonged to whoever could enforce his claim to it whereas, after that, there was at least the principle of primogeniture and only one heir at a time whenever a King died? The Wars of the Roses were to settle who was the legitimate heir, not just who was the most powerful claimant - and there was no longer an institution like the Thing to confirm who should be King. William centralised power in himself so that every local baron had direct fealty to him instead of relying on the old pyramidal feudal structure where "My lord's lord is not my lord."
Hi, Paul!
Thanks for your comments. I'll reply to both in this note.
Oh, I have no objection to you and other fans of Poul Anderson seeing links or continuity between one of his books and another of his works. I merely argue that should not be over emphasized.
Yes, before 1066, kings of England were sometimes called Kings of the English. That does make for a slight, if real difference, from the situation after the Norman Conquest. If I remember correctly, the number of kings and queens in Great Britain today is still done, roughly like this, "Elizabeth, after the Conquest, the Second of that name." That does mean it was believed a decisive break occurred.
And, yes, Elizabeth II is descended from the pre 1066 Saxon kings. Henry I's wife was a Scottish princess whose mother came from the line of Alfred the Great.
And, yes, I agree William I's version of feudalism was more centralized than it was on the Continent. But hereditary succession to the crown was not instituted by him. That too was the PREFERRED rule in Wessex/England before the Conquest. That is, the line of Alfred the Great was considered the legitimate dynasty.
Harold II Godwinson was able to get himself "elected" king because the dire political situation in 1066 made most English leaders agree it was better to accept as king an able adult like him than an inexperienced boy like Edgar the Atheling, the grandnephew of Edward the Confessor (and thus the legitimate dynastic heir).
Sean
Sean, Wow. Thank you for this detailed history. Good historical fiction, like Anderson's, makes us find out some of the history.
I found out about England in the seventeenth century partly by reading a series of novels about a Cromwellian secret agent.
I hope soon to read THE LAST VIKING, Vol 3, and thus to get Anderson'a account of Harold Godwinson's election and defeat of Hardrada.
Hi, Paul!
I absolutely agree with what you said about the very high quality of Anderson's historical fiction. Such as THE LAST VIKING.
My first serious reading, as a boy, of English/British history came from reading the Canadian writer Thomas Costain's series of four books about the Angevin/Plantagenet kings. Eventually I became dissatied with Costain because I came to believe he too often read back into the past modern day ideas and beliefs which simply had not existed in those days. That is a very UN historical thing for a writer of history to do. While we certainly can approve or disapprove of what historical persons have done, they should primarily be understood by the ideas and beliefs they held. And by the standards and beliefs of their times.
Later, after Costain, I read both Churchill's HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES and David Hume's HISTORY OF ENGLAND. In different ways they pleased me better than Costain's too "popular" works had done. Even though Hume's anti Catholic prejudices did irritate me.
And I look forward to whatever you say about Vol. 3 of THE LAST VIKING!
Sean
Post a Comment