Smiting Valgard during a sea battle, Skafloc shouts:
"'That for Freda!... I'll have you done to her.'" (p. 104)
What does that mean? There is a clue in Valgard's reply:
"'Not so ill as I think you have...'" (ibid.)
Ill? Yes. The original edition confirms:
"'That for Freda!' he shouted. 'Ill have you done to her.'
"'Not so ill as I think you have,' snarled Valgard..."
-Poul Anderson, The Broken Sword (London, 2014), 15, p. 105.
It is helpful to be able to compare editions. I do not remember noticing that anomalous apostrophe on previous readings. For a summary of the entire sea battle, see:
The plot thickens.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I checked my 1977 Del Rey/Ballantine paperback edition of the revised version of THE BROKEN SWORD, to look up the text you quoted (which happens to be on page 96). My copy does not have that plainly misplaced apostrophe, which was obviously a misprint in your copy.
Now reading Chapter 24 of THE BROKEN SWORD. Usually, I'm slower than you!
Ad astra! Sean
Elves evidently don't have an incest taboo. He was raised among the elves, so he doesn't either. Some human cultures don't, though there's a selective pressure towards it because inbreeding has bad results. If you doubt me, look at ancient Egyptian royals...
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
You reminded me of how recent studies of the body/mummy of King Tutankhamun have shown that both of his parents were full siblings. And that Tutankhamun suffered from ailments caused by excessive inbreeding in his family.
And you don't even have to go back that far back in history. The Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs intermarried so often and closely that the last Spanish Habsburg, Charles II (r. 1665-1700) had parents who were more closely related to each other than if they had been brother and sister.
Unsurprisingly, the luckless Charles II suffered from ailments almost certainly caused by such inbreeding. It's surprising he lived to be almost 39 years old. Recent studies have also shown the king was not either stupid or senile, just unlucky He's also reported as being kindly and generous.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Charles II was the smartest of the Stuarts. He handed a kingdom fully under control to his brother... who then managed to produce a revolution in only a few years.
James was an idiot, functionally. He grossly underestimated how attached the English nobility and gentry were to the Anglican settlement -- not least because a lot of their land had belonged to the Church before the split with Rome.
Charles II was just as much a Catholic as James; he just kept it quiet until he was on his deathbed.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, whatever his very real virtues, James II was a catastrophe at politics. If he had been wise enough to rule like Charles II, James would have died on the throne and his son might have been able to persuade the Anglican establishment to agree to Catholic emancipation long before 1829.
I do quibble a bit about your comment re the lands stolen from the Church. I recall Fr. Philip Hughes writing in his 3 vol. THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND that the Church decided no demand for return of the plundered lands or restitution for them would be made after Queen Mary succeeded Edward VI. What the Church asked for was contrition and remorse for the theft. Given what human beings are like that was probably too much for many of the thieves.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the English gentry and aristocracy really worshipped land and the possession of land. Everything else was secondary. They managed to hand it down intact, too, rather than splitting up estates the way many continental nobilities did.
Note that everyone in England was a commoner -until- they inherited a title -- English law was strange that way. But it was an advantage.
So actually only actual members of the House of Lords had the status of 'nobility'. Very different from mainland Europe, where every legitimate child of a noble was a noble.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Because, for a long time (till at least the 18th century?) land was considered the only true or durable source of wealth. And I agree English land-owners practice of handing down estates to either single or very heirs was good. It made for more efficient use of land. And that was not limited to the aristocracy/gentry, you've told us of how your mother's ancestors in Yorkshire did the same thing: their land was bequeathed to a single heir. I would guess about 100 acres of land.
Even if it was accidental, I think it was good aristocratic status was legally limited to actual peers. That, plus inheriting little or no land, would encourage younger sons to seek their fortunes elsewhere, to the benefit of the UK.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment