Magnusson:
"'You have the wrong attitude. You regard the Merseians as soulless.'" (p. 395)
Flandry:
"'Well, yes. As I do everybody else, myself included.'" (ibid.)
I attended a political meeting where the speaker referred to a theologian who had believed that women did not have souls. Since his own philosophy was materialist, the speaker added, "He was right, of course. Women do not have souls. But, in this controversy, we have to support the soul wing!"
(Materialists and Buddhists agree on "no soul," although Buddhists nevertheless manage to have "rebirth.")
Flandry had said to Miriam Abrams Flandry:
"'...occasionally a pivotal event does happen.'" (CHAPTER TWELVE, p. 322)
- and now to Magnusson:
"'...every so often, a small change does make a big difference.'" (p. 394)
How often does Manse Everard of the Time Patrol say that? The Technic History and Time Patrol timelines are very different and it would need a big quantum change to transform either of these timelines into the other. However, some principles are trans-cosmic, especially when the respective cosmoses exist in Poul Anderson's imagination.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Who was that theologian with the absurd and false notion women had no souls??? (Glaring)
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Can't remember.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Someone who lived before or after 1517?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think before.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I can't convincingly think of any theologian who thought like that.
Ad astra! Sean
Small events -do- have large consequences fairly often; it's most visible in politics, but effects every human life.
Eg., to mention something brought up in research I'm doing for my current project (time-travel to 165 AD near Vienna), the period between Nerva and Marcus Aurelius in Roman history is recorded as the time of the "Five Good Emperors" -- Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, and Marcus Aurelius.
This was the apogee of the Roman Empire; mostly peaceful internally, with the maximum development of trade and urbanization.
And this was due to a series of small accidents! Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and Antonius Pius didn't have natural issue -- they adopted their successors, and adopted able men.
(For varying reasons; natural infertility, high infant mortality, or in Hadrian's case because he was stone queer.)
Marcus Aurelius -did- have sons, and the one who inherited, Commodus, was a disaster.
(For some reason, Roman Emperors did not succeed in raising their children well. The closest was Antonius Pius, who adopted Marcus Aurelius when he was quite young. There was something about life in the Imperial palace that just didn't produce stable personalities if you were born there.)
BTW, Paul, Sean, want to do some betareading on this one?
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I think a prime reason why the Roman Empire failed to evolve a stable system of dynastic succession and legitimacy were lingering anti-monarchic traditions from the Republican era. I would point out such views were esp. strong in the old Senatorial aristocracy.
Hadrian was a homosexual, but he did marry and presumably sometimes had sex with his wife, they simply did not have any children.
I remember how affectionately Marcus Aurelius wrote about his adoptive father Antoninus Pius in the MEDITATIONS.
Re your flattering suggestion: I'm not sure. I'm still recovering from cervical myelopathy surgery.
Ad astra! Sean
Betareading, ok. I might need some help with the technology. I remember it worked once before but it took me a while to get into it.
Paul: OK, will put you on the list for the next distribution. This book is going very fast, which is usually a good sign.
Sean: when you feel up to it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Many thanks! I've been told I'm making progress recovering--but sometimes it does not feels like that, usually when I'm tired.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment