The opening section, I, pp. 467-469, is speculative mythological writing in which a god of agriculture marries a goddess of the sea. We have recently read of tribes marrying their pantheons in The Corridors Of Time.
Time Patrol agents can travel to the historical time of the Roman Empire but not to the mythological time of Niaerdh and Frae:
"By day Niaerdh roamed among the seals and whales she had made..." (p. 467)
Having said that, "The Sorrow of Odin the Goth" has just informed us that some mythological accounts of Odin had their origin in the Time Patrolman, Carl Farness.
The second section, designated by the Arabic numeral, 1, is set during the Roman Empire but does not feature any time travellers. Thus, the science fiction narrative begins in section 2 when Manse Everard's timecycle materializes in the Amsterdam office of the Time Patrol:
"In the closing decades of the twentieth century..." (p. 477)
The Roman Empire is threatened and, centuries later, Everard comes to the rescue!
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteWe could also speculate about a Time Patrol story by Anderson showing us an agent meeting Christ. We know the Patrol was desperately anxious to prevent time travelers/criminals from interfering with events in first century AD Judae/Samaria/Galilee.
And Stirling has those Americans stranded in Antonine Rome drastically averting the worst effects of the Marcomannic wars and the smallpox plague which so badly staggered the Roman Empire of Marcus Aurelius' time.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteThe Time Patrol and THERE WILL BE TIME seem to be deliberately ambiguous about the origin of Christianity.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteOf course, because that was more artistically effective or interesting for Anderson's stories.
Ad astra! Sean
Note that the "Barbaricum" did not exist in historical time at that point. They lived in -mythological- time.
ReplyDeleteKaor, Mr. Stirling!
ReplyDeleteNow I'm wondering what the Romans called the lands/peoples outside their Empire. I know, with the somewhat grudging exception of the Parthians/Persians, they were regarded with haughty disdain.
Ad astra! Sean
"Barbari" meant not speaking Greek or Latin, saying "Bar-bar-bar..."
ReplyDeleteKaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if "barbarian" was actually used in Roman times.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteYes. The Latin was "barbarus." "Barbari" in the plural.
Paul.
Paul: yes, but it was also a value judgment. They really, really looked down on 'barbari'.
ReplyDeleteKaor, to Both!
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying a perhaps minor puzzlement.
And the barbarians in Stirling's Antonine books often deserved that scorn.
Ad astra! Sean
Definitely a moral judgment also.
ReplyDeleteWell, the Germanics were absolute savages -- though formidable ones -- in Julius Caesar's time. By Marcus Aurelius, they'd learned a good deal from the Romans. Which just made them more dangerous.
ReplyDeleteKaor, Mr. Stirling!
ReplyDeleteWe see that kind of learning in STAR OF THE SEA, when one of the rebel Batavian auxiliaries talked about how, after the bloody drubbing the Romans were giving the barbarians at Old Camp, the Germans would start paying attention to real soldiers, on how to fight effectively.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yeah, tactical ideas disperse that way.
ReplyDeleteKaor, Mr. Stirling!
ReplyDeleteMost of us, in whatever field, seem unable to learn, except the hard way.
Ad astra! Sean