"...that day fourteen years ago when Agnete came back out of the sea." (p. 9)
This assumes that someone called Agnete had gone into the sea. Indeed she did, in an earlier story. Thus, Anderson's novel is not an adaptation of but a sequel to that previous story, as its title indicates. In fact, Agnete, the title character of the Danish ballad, has died and her children have grown to adulthood before this novel opens. Anderson is free to invent whatever happens next. There are two limitations. First, he must not contradict any known history. Secondly, he must acknowledge the empirical fact that there are not nowadays any merfolk towns in the waters around Europe. Where did all the magic go?
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Your comments here, esp. the next to last sentence, reminded me of Anderson's early novel THE BROKEN SWORD. In particular, I would bring to readers attention the last paragraph of Anderson's Foreword to the 1954 edition of that book: "As for what became of the people of this story, and the sword, and faerie itself--which obviously no longer exists on Earth--that is another tale, which will perhaps someday be told." In 1971 Anderson pub. a revision of THE BROKEN SWORD, including revised Foreword, explaining why he thought it desirable to revise that early work of his. What I stress here is how he that last paragraph of the original Foreword quoted above: "As for what became of those who were still alive at the end of the book, and the sword, and Faerie itself--which obviously no longer exists on Earth--that is another tale, which may someday be told."
Unfortunately, Anderson never did get to writing a sequel to THE BROKEN SWORD. But I would argue THE MERMAN'S CHILDREN does give us an explanation of how and why Faerie no longer exists on Earth. First, and most immediately, because of the rise of Christianity, and then because of how Christianity encouraged the rise of very different ways of looking at the world. I mean the rise of an inquiring, pragmatic, problem solving mindset. A mindset leading to the development of science. And we see that being stressed by Pavle Subitj, the "Kingmaker" in THE MERMAN'S CHILDREN.
Ad astra! Sean
It's interesting how depictions of the medieval period changed in Poul's work as he did more research.
The earlier portrayals show Europe as much wilder and wilderness-y than the later ones.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
But wasn't the former Roman Diocese of Britannia, after the end of Roman rule, exactly like that, more "wildernessy"? I would not expect the Anglo-Saxon invaders to have run matters as the Romans had done. That is, many things, like roads and bridges, would fall into ruins, and wooded areas would become more like wild forests.
And I'm sure the lands north and east of the Rhine and north of the Danube rivers--roughly, the boundaries of the Empire--were pretty wild and wildernessy in AD 500.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: but by the 1300's, Western Europe's population was back up to the level it would bounce around until the 18th century. England had about as many people in 1300 as it had as Roman Britannia and as it would have as Shakespearian England.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And, I agree. I'm sure population had risen nearly to Roman levels in Western Europe by 1300. England might well have had at least four million, France maybe three times that, and so on.
Albeit, the Black Death of 1346-48 would cause a huge drop in the population. One of those "bounces" you mentioned.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the bounces and crashes can be quite dramatic.
Eg., Britannia had around 3.5-4 million; but by Domesday book in 1086, England was at around 1.5 million.
And that was after a long period of increase, so it may well have bottomed out at well under 1 million.
There was widespread famine and crop failure in Europe after 1300 as the "little Ice Age" set in; then the Black Death killed half the population in many areas (England among them), and then there were recurrent waves of bubonic plague in the next few centuries, none of them as bad as the original, but bad enough.
England may well have dropped under 2 million again, and real growth didn't set in until the late 1400's, and then hit a wall in the 17th century.
Iraq probably had a smaller population in 1900 than it did in 1200 -- the gradual breakdown of the Sassanid-era irrigation systems, culminating in the Mongol invasion.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I forgot about how the Little Ice Age starting around 1300 also did its bit to making life poor, nasty, and short for all too many people! A part of THE MERMAN'S CHILDREN shows us how THAT was affecting the Norse colony in Greenland.
So, really, it was only in the 18th century that population truly started growing in England.
And I'm assuming the Black Death's ravaging of Mesopotamia contributed to that breaking down of the Sassanid irrigation system. With the Mongol invasion putting a cherry on top of all that general misery!
Ad astra! Sean
Whoops! I erred. The Mongol Invasion and sack of Baghdad occurred around 1259, long before the arrival of the Black Death.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the Sassanid irrigation system started decaying with the Arab/Muslim invasion, with period attempts at reconstruction -- under the early Abbasid caliphs, for example, who were more "Persian" in their orientation.
Islam always had a heavily urban/mercantile bias, whereas the Sassanids were dominated by their landed aristocracy.
By 1259, the canal system was already far below its peak, but the Mongols systematically destroyed it and it was never again before the 20th century more than a pale shadow of its former extent.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
But the Mesopotamian system of irrigation canals was far older than Sassanid Persia. It went straight back to Sumeria, Babylon, Assyria, etc. And the very first cities in the world seems to have been Mesopotamian, so an urbanized culture was not necessarily a barrier to having irrigation canals.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: a particular type of urban civilization. Arabian cities were less integrated with rural hinterlands than most, particularly Mecca and Medina.
NB: the Mesopotamian canal -system- was a relatively late development. The Sumerians dug canals, but generally only -local- ones.
A coherent -system- using the different levels of the Tigris and Euphrates and shifting water over long distances only got going in Neo-Babylonian times, and then increased to a peak under the Sassanids.
Incidentally, Sassanid society was not only dominated by rural landowners, it also had a religion that emphasized that virtue in men of power was linked to their maintenance of irrigation works, and that increasing the sown area had a moral charge.
"Good deeds of husbandry" were an obligation the Avesta laid special emphasis upon -- building irrigation works was a good deed, injuring or destroying them was pleasing to Ahriman, the deity of evil.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Understood, the Muslim conquerors of Persia, which then included Mesopotamia, had a very different culture from that of Iran.
Besides what I read elsewhere of how there were local canals around Mesopotamian cities, I als had in mind how, in your Nantucket books, irrigation canals were important for the Babylon of King Kashtiliash. And that was long before Neo-Babylonian times.
And of course I approve of how Zoroastrianism urged and encouraged good husbandry! One possible analogy I thought of from Medieval times in western Europe was of how it was a highly commended deed of piety for wealthy persons to build and endow bridges.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: one of the perennial problems of Mesopotamia is that the water of the rivers is extremely silt-heavy, and also high in dissolved solids (salts). And the velocity of the water, even in flood season, drastically slows down in the lowland parts of their runs, due to the extremely low gradient between the head of the alluvial plain and the Gulf.
This means that the rivers, and any canals leading from them, tend to build up their beds and then silt up, spill over the banks, and flood the lower grounds further away from the rivers which either become swamps, or become salt-encrusted. At times there are major changes in the course of the rivers because of this.
This was a massive problem from early Sumerian times.
As the canal system extended, it became worse until they learned to use the difference in height between the Tigris and the Euphrates to keep the water flowing and the land drained.
This was a delicate balancing act, but it improved the overall situation.
What's happening in that scene in Babylonia in ON THE OCEANS OF ETERNITY is a (substantial) local canal silting up. A steam dredger can reverse the build-up problem.
With the available technology in 1250 BCE, there's not much you can do about that except abandon the canal (and the cropland it waters/drains) and dig another.
Which is why the country is laced with layer upon layer of periodically abandoned canals.
The peak-period system avoided this, but required constant, massive maintenance with central direction.
After it broke down, they relapsed into more local management with all the attendant problems.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I remember that scene from your book, and of how EXCITED those Babylonian peasants were! That steam dredger and how it was reversing the problem posed by silt/salts build up was something they could UNDERSTAND. Hitherto the new technology seen from the Nantucketers had seemed more like Heap Big Magic, stuff beyond their comprehension. But that steam dredger and what it was doing was something the Babylonians could UNDERSTAND.
And the Mongol destruction of the Mesopotamian canals and the peak period system of canal management kicked the whole country back to Sumerian era methods.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment