We have travelled as far as possible from Chapter I set in 310 B.C., passing Cardinal Richelieu in 1640 at about the mid-point, and the adventure continues as a Star Trek film poster said. It might be argued that Richelieu and extra-solar aliens do not belong in the same novel. At least there is no direct connection between them. But any interstellar explorers, such as the Survivors, must have had some history behind them. Everything is connected, even if not directly or obviously. Richelieu did not know what lay thousands of years in his future and neither do we.
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I recall how Hanno proposed to Cardinal Richelieu that it was time for him and Rufus to reveal themselves to be "immortals," and try to find others like them. Richelieu strongly refused that, because such a revelation would make a chaotic age even more anarchical, with totally unpredictable consequences. The Cardinal could not, as a responsible statesman, assist in making European/world affairs fall into more upheavals. Hanno apparently came to agree Richelieu was right, making no further efforts to reveal himself for many more centuries.
Apparently, Anderson was deeply impressed by Cardinal Richelieu!
Ad astra! Sean
Eric Flint in his 1632 series decided to have Richelieu oppose the Americans stranded in their past because he wanted them to have a *smart* opponent.
Kaor, Jim!
I remember that, having read some of the "1632" books. I think the late Eric Flint said he could have just as easily made Richelieu an ally of those stranded Americans. But he wanted them to have a smart enemy.
I recall how Flint was dismayed to realize the first of the RING OF FIRE books had some intimations of anti-Catholicism. He was careful to make sure to avoid that in the sequels.
Ad astra! Sean
Richelieu -was- smart. Dealing with some of the French royals he had to handle made that imperative...
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Disraeli would agree! He once said something to the effect that the way to "manage" Queen Victory was to lay on the flattery thick and hard with a trowel. But I don't think a lady as shrewd as Victoria was much fooled.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: no, but she did genuinely like Disraeli. She transitioned from being a Whig at the beginning of her reign to being a Tory by the end, and Disraeli was a substantial influence in that.
Also she hated Gladstone, and wasn't alone in that among people who knew him personally.
As Disraeli once said of him, it wasn't so much his having a couple of aces up his sleeve that he disliked, it was Gladstone's insistance when they were discovered that God had put them there.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I can see why! Russell Kirk, in his book THE CONSERVATIVE MIND, discussed how crucial Disraeli was in transforming the Old Tories from a congeries of obscurantist reactionaries whose ideas didn't amount to more than irritable reflexes into a formidable Party with carefully thought out political, economical, and social ideas. A Party capable of resisting first the Liberal and then the Labor parties, and even triumph over them when the Tories remembered their legacy from Disraeli. So it's no surprise Queen Victoria "transitioned."
I'm not sure if the Queen hated Gladstone, but she certainly didn't care for him. A big part of the reason Victoria was fond of Disraeli was because he knew how to treat her not only as his Queen but also as a human being. I recall reading of she once complained of Gladstone treating her like a public institution.
Yes, Gladstone's smugness and sanctimony irritated many, including those who might have agreed with him. I've read of MPs who voted against bills Gladstone advocated for no better reason than dislike of their author.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment