We have demonstrated that Poul Anderson's History of Technic Civilization is vast and spacious enough to comprise a comprehensive synthesis of several character-based series with a single future history series.
The Technic Civilization Series, Volume IV,
Young Flandry, collects three entire novels covering just the opening phase of Dominic Flandry's career. That would have been impossible on the scale of Robert Heinlein's Future History which is only five volumes in total, really just four and a half. At this Technic History mid-point -
Young Flandry - we have come a long way from the opening installment and still have a long way to go to the concluding installment. There are major historical turning points in the lifetimes of Nicholas van Rijn and David Falkayn on the one hand and of Dominic Flandry on the other hand. The van Rijn-Falkayn period turning point is the cartelization of the Polesotechnic League whereas the Flandry period turning point is the loss of legitimacy of the Terran Empire. We need no longer differentiate between a series about individual characters and one that is about successive historical periods. Poul Anderson has combined them.
When appreciating the Technic History, we can either analyze a single phrase in a single short story like "Esau" or contemplate several millennia of future history.
Sheila has taken a bus to a Christmas Fair in a nearby village. I will walk to the gym and hope to visit Andrea above the Old Pier Bookshop this week.
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, the Terran Empire suffered a crisis of legitimacy after Josip died and there was a disputed succession. Altho Hans Molitor emerged victorious his claim to the throne was, mildly put, dubious. In Chapter III of A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS AND SHADOWS Chunderban Desai expressed fear that the Empire was entering an anarchic phase in its history, and believed what Emperor Hans should focus on was ensuring the Empire had a period of peace and relative prosperity. Eventually, in about 80 years, the Empire might regain a scarred kind of unity.
Anderson obviously had in mind the civil war in the Roman Empire after the murder of Commodus and had Septimius Severus overcame his rivals to be sole Emperor. Altho a usurper Severus did give peace to the Roman Empire during his lifetime. As was also the case during the reign of Alexander Severus (r. 222-235). The agonies of the Third Century Crisis began after Alexander was murdered, and didn't end till the accession of Diocletian in 284.
Ad astra! Sean
"scale of Robert Heinlein's Future History which is only five volumes in total, really just four and a half"
I have "The Past Through Tomorrow", copyright 1967, a collection of Heinlein's future history stories from "Life Line" to "Methuselah's Children" in one thick paperback volume.
Almost complete.
Note that the Roman empire never had dynastic legitimacy. That was because Julius Caesar and Octavian had been successful warlords and everyone knew it. Tho' Octavian was much, much more -tactful- about it, pretending to be restoring the Republic.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree the last century of the Roman Republic was marked by increasingly violent struggles for power by rival war lords, with Julius Caesar and his grand-nephew Octavian being the successful warlords. Ditto, what you said about Augustus being a much smoother politician than his grand-uncle.
Yes, the Principate Augustus founded had a serious weakness, lacking a strong sense of dynastic legitimacy. But there were times when the Caesars, as a family, were accepted as having a special claim to leadership (the Julio-Claudians, Flavians, the Nerva/Antonine dynasty). But that lack of a strong dynastic legitimacy eventually led to the Third Century Crisis of the Empire.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment