On a Nikean farm, two horses draw a wooden haycutter, its blades merely metal-edged, its creaking and bouncing demonstrating its lack of wheel bearings or springs. Two boys walk behind, ordering the windrows with wooden rakes.
"The people, like the animals, were of long slim deep-chested build, brown-haired and fair-complexioned. Their garments were coarsely woven smock and trousers.
"No weapons showed..." (p. 492)
"No weapons showed..." (p. 492)
Yasmin deduces no local bandits or vendettas. This short descriptive passage presents many visual details that should be directly transferable from page to screen. The horses must be long, slim etc.
Dagny and Yasmin are noticing and interpreting oddities in the Nikean environment. Dagny has seen many planets and Yasmin has received some classical scientific education. During the Long Night, any knowledge, however acquired, is to be appreciated and applied.
22 comments:
That's actually more advanced than most farms until the 19th century.
It's surprising what simple wood-and-metal, horse-drawn machinery can do. Increases of productivity per hour on the order of 10x happened repeatedly.
Just to take one example, Jethro Tull's (the farmer, not the band) seed drill of 1701 reduced the amount of seed grain you had to use per acre from 3-4 bushels to 1.
Considering that yields per acre were usually 20 bushels or less, that's a massive increase -- instead of having to reserve 1/4 of the yield for next year's seed, you've only got to reserve 1/10th to 1/20th.
And with the sprouts coming up in neat rows, you can weed the wheat, which you can't with broadcast sowing.
Note that Tull's 'machine' could have been made at any time back to the Bronze Age; it only needed the -idea- and some fiddling, not anything new in the way of tools or materials.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Now that was fascinating, since I admit never having heard of seed drills before now. So, we can expect, on some of the more fortunate planets of the fallen Empire, remnants of knowledge and technology of this kind to survive or be rediscovered from records and books.
And the fact these Nikean farmers felt no need to go about their daily activities armed is another telling sign. It means the lord of their "cavedom" kept the territory he ruled well policed and free of bandits/raiders.
Ad astra! Sean
Mr Stirling
So Jethro Tull's machine is something else for your time travelers to show the Romans, aside from the advanced scythe.
It really is time for me to get a copy of your latest book.
Kaor, Jim!
Alas, Book 5 of Stirling's BLACK CHAMBER series, THE WARLORD OF THE STEPPES, comes out only on
December 31st. And the final version of the first of his Antonine series, TO TURN THE TIDE, only comes out on August 24, 2024. Frustrating!
Ad astra! Sean
Jim: you can read the first 6 chapters at my website, though -- smstirling.com
Sorry, first 5 chapters. 6 in the middle of this month.
Rock on.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I was esp. interested by Chapter XV of your draft version of TO TURN THE TIDE, where we see Marcus Aurelius conferring with his advisers as they made decisions on how to handle the Marcomannic invaders. And the totally unexpected time travelers!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yes, that was fun to do. He's an interesting character.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
He was! And for more than half a century I've had a copy of Jowett's translation of his MEDITATIONS. Marcus Aurelius is an interesting example of a ruler better known for what he wrote, instead of for what he did as Emperor.
I sometimes leave comments at John Wright's blog. About a month ago I left some comments there speaking well of Marcus Aurelius as a decent, well meaning, and able ruler. Some combox commentators criticized that by saying he persecuted the Christians. I responded first by saying it's my belief the Emperor tried to be as good a man as it was possible given his upbringing and background. Secondly, I pointed out that before Decius' reign (AD 249-51) persecution of the early Catholics was largely sporadic, localized, and due as often as not to popular outbursts of anti-Christian hostility than by any direct action by the Imperial gov't.
Ad astra! Sean
Correction, the translation I have of Marcus Aurelius' MEDITATIONS (Washington Square Press: 1964) was by George Long, not Jowett.
Sean
Sean: Yes, that's a good point. In Marcus Aurelius' time, most highly-placed Romans were only vaguely aware of Christians and had no substantial knowledge of their beliefs, only rumors.
Re: persecution of Jews and Christians.
There is a webcomic on the historical development of ideas about law & justice.
This and the next page show the differences in attitudes that made pagans regard them as 'evil', for refusing to participate in ceremonies honoring other gods.
https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=9579
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Jim!
Mr. Stirling: Correct. Altho early Christians were producing a varied literature by Marcus Aurelius' time their writings spread slowly (no printing in those days!). Meaning the works of apologists like St. Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Athenagoras of Athens, etc., would not reach more than a few upper class Romans in Marcus' time.
Jim: I knew of how, before Constantine's time, pagan Romans believed that to show loyalty to the State and the Emperor you had to worship the gods. A favorite charge of some pagans was accusing Christians of being atheists, because of them refusing to believe in the Olympians.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: it was more a matter of refusing to -pay public respect- by -engaging in the religious ceremonies- associated with the State.
You didn't have to actually -believe- in them.
Plenty of Romans were followers of mystery cults, for example, which were what engaged their real religious sentiments.
But they obeyed the 'mos maiorum', the 'customs of the ancestors' in public.
Sacrificing to the 'spirit' (guardian tutelary) of the Emperor and the Goddess Roma, for example.
Nobody actually 'worshipped' the Goddess Roma in the sense that monotheists use the term, or even in the sense that Romans worshipped the lares and penates of their household.
It was more like pledging allegiance to the flag.
And remember that while Romans weren't all that religious, they were superstitious to a faul.
Refusing to engage in traditional ceremonies was considered hideously bad luck -- not only personally, but for the State and the people collectively.
In the Roman Empire, I would take part in state ceremonies and also meditate. Meditators would have different attitudes to the gods.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Yes, I knew about most of what you described. And that would certainly cause conflicts between pagan and strict monotheists.
A pity something liked what had been done for the Jews before the revolt of AD 66 had not been worked out between Christians and the Imperial gov't. That is, Christians would pray "for" the Emperor, but not "to" him, as tho to a god. And even burn a pinch of incense before images of the Emperor, to show honor and respect for him and the State. As long as everybody understood that was not meant as an act of divine worship. That was what Harry Turtledove had the Christians in GUNPOWDER EMPIRE doing.
Paul: And I hope I would have the courage to refuse to take part in any worship of pagan gods. Because that would be an act of apostasy, to deny Christ.
Ad astra! Sean
If I were running any kind of state, then I would ask all citizens to express their loyalty in their way, not in any one way, but I was not running the Roman Empire!
My motto: Difference without division. Unity without uniformity.
Kaor, Paul!
It's almost always never going to be that simple. Humans are geniuses at mucking up things!
I think some kind of rite, formula, oath, etc., that everyone could accept would need to be worked out. Such as the revised oath of allegiance that became the norm in the UK after Catholic Emancipation was passed in 1829.
Ada astra! Sean
My understanding is that the Quakers regarded oaths as something like "taking the lord's name in vain", so some formula like "I do solemnly affirm" became acceptable for them to use in eg: court. This is also the obvious solution for anyone who disbelieves in, or at least doubts, the existence of God.
Kaor, Jim and Paul!
Jim: I did not think of the Quakers but you raised an interesting point and example.
Paul: I don't think it's wrong to swear on the Scriptures to tell the truth at trials. But you raised a point I am sure Catholic theologians have debated. Something to look up!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment