When Skafloc, returned from Jotunheim, rides to the Erlking:
his horse is gaunt and hungry;
his clothes are ragged and faded;
his armour is battered and rusty;
his cloak is worn thin;
his weight is down;
great muscles lie under tight skin over big bones;
his face is lined and aged;
his fair hair is wind-tossed.
"So might Loki look, riding to Vigrid plain on the last evening of the world." (p. 167)
I think that that is an authentic touch. In the Sagas, a comparison would be made with a mythic story.
Next comes a description of nature:
air is chill;
wind is strong;
spring wind frolicks and shouts;
sky is high and blue;
sun strikes through clouds;
wet grass gleams and sparkles;
thunder rolls;
the southeast is dark;
a rainbow shines;
geese honk;
a thrush sings;
squirrels play;
warm days, light nights, green woods and nodding flowers approach;
Skafloc remembers Freda.
Don't read past. Reread.
24 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Both are well worth rereading--albeit more impatient readers might well skip over the nature descriptions.
Ad astra! Sean
Weather and nature are more important to people in this situation than they are to us.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I never thought of that before, but it makes sense. People living in the 900's did not have amenities we take for granted, like central heating, piped water/plumbing, and ACs. In fact, I ordered a 14,000 BTU AC to replace an ancient, worn-out AC today. To say nothing of how my "horseless carriage" has powered windows, heating, and its own AC!
People in Skafloc's time had to pay more attention to how hard it was to travel, and to endure extreme discomfort from heat or cold. Compared to them we live in the lap of sybaritic luxury!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yes, we do. And we can eat fresh food year-round, too -- whereas even the rich in winter had to settle for preserved foods and vegetables that would last.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly, because of the genius of free enterprise economics. I think the basics of free enterprise was understood in an empirical way long before Adam Smith. But it needed a subtle mix of technological and socio/political changes to really take off.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: necessary but not sufficient. For example, the Age of Exploration was driven by rivalry between differenet European countries -- China had one a bit earlier, but the central government closed it down.
And the scientific revolution from the 16th century on, with experiments on things like atmospheric pressure, was also a product of the division of Europe -- isolated countries could close down research (because it threatened religion) but others would continue it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I forgot about the crucial role played by competitive struggles between rival states and empires. The rise of the hostile Ottoman Empire cut off the usual trade routes to the Far East from Europe. Giving an incentive for Portugal and Spain for seeking alternate routes.
Yes, competition drove scientific and technological research/advances in Europe. That was hindered in Muslim controlled regions due to Islamic theology.
That mention of China reminded me of how, during the Yongle Emperor's reign (1402-24) he sent massive exploratory missions commanded by his admiral Cheng Ho. I think I recall reading of one expedition going as far west as either the Red Sea or the east coast of Africa.
My recollection was that after Yongle's death the civil service was able to shut down this exploratory effort due to fears of it being disruptive.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: well, they also wanted to concentrate resources on the northern frontier. Nomad conquests had been frequent in Chinese history, and they were usually disasterous.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And that too, the Chinese desire to repel nomadic incursions. The Ming suffered its share of setbacks in the north, with one Emperor getting defeated and captured by the Mongols in the 1440's.
All the same, shutting down Yongle"s exploratory efforts was a bad mistake for China. It encouraged the perennial Chinese temptation to retreat into isolation and scorn contact with the outside world.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: that was specifically Confucian, not just Chinese. Confucianism was an elaborate ideology that had uniformly negative consequences -- it was anti-Urban and anti-mercantile, for example. Chinese merchants were always keen on business, but they had to contend with a hostile state.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
While I agree Confucianism, at least the form that became dominant during and after Han times, had many negatives, I don't think it was all negative. I knew of its anti-mercantile bias, but not that it was hostile to cities. Some writers have argued that the harsher aspects of Confucianism came from it being influenced by the School of Law, as exemplified by Lord Shang, from essays written by him and his disciples in THE BOOK OF LORD SHANG.
The ANALECTS of Confucius and the MENCIUS, two of the basic Confucian works, never struck me as being unduly harsh or Legalistic.
Chinese merchants still have to somehow cope with a heavy handed State. I recall the comments you have left here explaining how the kind of gov't managed "capitalism" we have been seeing since the early 1980's has run out of steam. Because you can't have a truly successful free enterprise economy without the right kind of State, one accepting limits on what it can do, including a true rule of law.
And, of course China faces a catastrophic demographic crash, largely because of the brutal measures taken by the Maoists to "limit" population.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: actually, most countries in East Asia have declining populations these days -- China's "one-child" program probably just speeded it up.
Mainland China and Taiwan have extremely similar birth-rates, for example, and Japan's population dropped by 3 million last year.
Mainland China's trying hard to increase the birth-rate and failing miserably. Which is the usual pattern.
For that matter, Kenya (where I lived most of the 60's) had a total fertility rate of 8 children per woman while I was there. It's now 3 per woman, and falling at 1%-2% per year. It'll be down below replacement by the early years of the next decade.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Certainly, what you said about the demographic problems of East Asia. What I had in mind was the gruesome brutality of the Maoists' One Child Only policy.
If Peking really wants to encourage more births, then it should stop persecuting Chinese Christians, who are more willing than other Chinese to have children. If more Taiwanese Chinese and Japanese converted to Christianity, then more children might be born in those countries.
I am not happy about all these declining birth rates--taken too far, they will be catastrophic for the human race.
Tyrannical gov'ts or bad "philosophies" can kill population growth, but it's much harder to reverse such bad trends.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yeah, governments can drive birth-rates -down-. Pushing them up is much harder -- it requires altruism, for starters.
My parents had four children -- of course, my father's mother was the youngest of 13...
I was a last try for a girl. My father wanted daughters, and ended up with four sons.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly, what you said about "altruism." If catastrophic demographic crashes are to be averted, you will need more openness to hope, belief in something bigger than one's-self, such as in a faith. Or, possibly, an opening up of new frontiers off Earth, on other worlds, will also do that. Or both.
Ad astra! Sean
Possible contributing factor to declining birth rates.
This is a discussion about endocrine disruptors in plastics being a problem for fertility.
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/reality-roundtable-23
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Jim!
Mr. Stirling: Of course, there was nothing at all wrong with your father's hope of having at least one daughter. But, if a daughter had been born instead of you, then not only would you have never existed, but neither would your books have been written. Even if this hoped for daughter had become a writer herself, they would have been different books.
Jim: What a dismal thought! It reminded me of P.D. James' novel THE CHILDREN OF MEN, where the story opens with the nightmare situation of no children being born globally for over 20 years. Ugh!!!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: religious people have higher birth-rates than atheists -- they'll probably be more common in the future.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Because whatever might be thought of a particular faith, religious believers are holding to something bigger than themselves, something that makes them willing to be altruistic. Dogmatic atheistic secularism offers nothing like that.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"Dogmatic atheistic secularism" is one of your bogeymen. Non-acceptance of theism is not a dogma. Many secularists work for something bigger than themselves: mankind and knowledge.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree, because there are indeed dogmatic atheistic secularists. And something as vague and wispy as "mankind and knowledge" is not going to move the hearts and minds of millions of people over long periods of times. Only religions, bad or good, has done that.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You disagree with what? There are indeed dogmatic atheist secularists just as there are dogmatic theists. But mere non-acceptance of theism is not a dogma.
Mankind and knowledge are vague and whispy? Religions HAVE moved millions but our understanding is changing.
Google Richard Feynman. He argues and I agree that a being capable of designing cosmic complexity and order would have to be more complex and ordered than the universe and therefore would not explain complexity or order.
There is awe and wonder in the following:
something exists instead of nothing;
the universe is complex and ordered without having been designed;
a small part of the universe (us) has become conscious and tries to understand;
we are indeed part of something much bigger than ourselves - we can see that even more clearly now;
"We do not understand how order and consciousness have arisen but will now enquire and learn" is the beginning of a journey, not a dead end.
Paul.
Post a Comment