• Welcome to The Worlds of Katherine Kurtz.
 

Recent

Welcome to The Worlds of Katherine Kurtz. Please login.

March 28, 2024, 04:44:30 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 27,486
  • Total Topics: 2,721
  • Online today: 180
  • Online ever: 930
  • (January 20, 2020, 11:58:07 AM)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 107
Total: 107

Latest Shout

*

DerynifanK

March 17, 2024, 03:48:44 PM
Happy St Patrick's Day. Enjoy the one day of the year when the whole world is Irish.

Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.

Started by wombat1138, June 09, 2010, 12:05:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Laurna

#45
Quote from The King's Deryni page 438:
"De Courcy, de Courcy," Alaric heard Queen Richeldis murmur to the new queen over supper one night, while he was serving at the royal table. "I know that name. My late husband had a de Courcy on his great council for many years."
"Was he Deryni?" Queen Jehana asked, with an uneasy glance at Alaric.
"Oh, I don't think so," Richeldis replied. "But I believe there were de Courcys who served the Crown a century ago. I supposed there might have been Deryni blood there, though I've never heard about it. There was certainly never anything overt. And those de Courcys were always loyal  to the Haldanes. Still I doubt there is any connection with this unfortunate young man."


This reminds me very clearly that who ever is stated as Jorian's parents on his papers to enter the Seminary would automatically be condemned for being Deryni. Since there is no mention of further family being excommunicated or even executed, then I am left to wonder if the names Alcime and Guinimande are either middle names(to hide who they are without lying) or fictitious names to hide behind.  Any ideas?
May your horses have wings and fly!

Evie

#46
It was not illegal to simply be born Deryni, even at the harshest periods, but being a known Deryni made one very vulnerable to being accused falsely of things that could get you executed.  (Or just burned at the stake for being Deryni in a country village, perhaps, but the Church tried to at least apply some veneer of legality, and the Haldane Kings--being more Deryni sympathetic, didn't execute for simply being Deryni.)  The reason Jorian was excommunicated and executed was because he had committed the "sin" of daring to be ordained as a priest, which was considered both a crime against the Statutes of Ramos (i.e. treason) and considered a major sin (defiling a sacrament) deserving of those fates by the Church powers-that-be at the time.

Sure, since it was dangerous to be a known Deryni, most people tried to keep that secret.  But unless it was widely known that the Church was in the habit of screening Deryni ordinands via merasha in their wine (and I suspect that was a closely kept secret; even Loris doesn't seem to have known what merasha was in DC and needed this explained to him by Fr. Gorony), Jorian's parents wouldn't have necessarily known that it would be safer to hide their identities just because their son wanted to enter seminary.
"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas."

--WARNING!!!--
I have a vocabulary in excess of 75,000 words, and I'm not afraid to use it!

Evie

Quote from: Laurna on March 16, 2015, 02:58:50 PM
Quote from The King's Deryni page 438:
"Was he Deryni?" Queen Jehana asked, with an uneasy glance at Alaric.
"Oh, I don't think so," Richeldis replied. "But I believe there were de Courcys who served the Crown a century ago. [/i]

What strikes me as odd about this conversation (and might be a Codex inconsistency of its own) is that didn't Michon de Courcy serve the Crown as recently as Richeldis' husband's reign?  And that certainly wasn't 'a century ago'!
"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas."

--WARNING!!!--
I have a vocabulary in excess of 75,000 words, and I'm not afraid to use it!

Laurna

QuoteQuote from The King's Deryni page 438:
"De Courcy, de Courcy," Alaric heard Queen Richeldis murmur to the new queen over supper one night, while he was serving at the royal table. "I know that name. My late husband had a de Courcy on his great council for many years."

Richeldis mentions this first referring to Michon.

Quote"Oh, I don't think so," Richeldis replied. "But I believe there were de Courcys who served the Crown a century ago. I supposed there might have been Deryni blood there, though I've never heard about it. Three was certainly never anything overt. And those de Courcys were always loyal  to the Haldanes. Still I doubt there is any Connection with this unfortunate young man."

I think here she is talking about other de Courcys that have been known to serve the Haldanes of Gwynedd for all their 200 year rein. Obviously without much attention given to the de Courcy loyalty.   I am supposing that this may refer to Jorian being from those de Courcy's of long ago and not from Michon.   I just don't have proof either way.
May your horses have wings and fly!

Evie

Yes.  Complicating the question is the fact that Richeldis married into the Haldane line, so she could be correct in thinking the de Courcys from a century before were from a different line, but she might be mistaken (because she doesn't know Michon's family is Deryni) and assuming that they are two different families. Being from Llannedd originally, she might not be as knowledgeable about Gwyneddan bloodlines as a noblewoman born and raised there would be.  Then again, she has lived in Gwynedd since she was around 15, so who knows?
"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas."

--WARNING!!!--
I have a vocabulary in excess of 75,000 words, and I'm not afraid to use it!

drakensis

Quote from: DesertRose on March 16, 2015, 09:01:50 AMOf course, there are ways in which KK takes liberties with the respective real-world history (such as, she told me in chat [when I was working on details for the 1366 story] that serfdom was never an institution in Gwynedd, which it most certainly was in the real medieval Europe), so it may not have been a bar to the priesthood in Gwynedd.
That's actually quite consistent with the stated history. Serfdom in medieval Europe could be traced back to the 3rd century Roman Empire, an era with no close equivalent in the history of the Eleven Kingdoms (the Byzantiun Empire wasn't Roman).

Sorry, inner history nerd getting out.

Evie

The Codex talks about ancient Rum (with a circumflex over the 'u') and Ruman roads, so that would seem to have been the Roman Empire analogue in the Eleven Kingdoms universe.  At least one of the roads leading into Rhemuth was supposed to be of Ruman origin.
"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas."

--WARNING!!!--
I have a vocabulary in excess of 75,000 words, and I'm not afraid to use it!

drakensis

Rum appears to have remained a republic and never made the transition to an empire. The city's capital of Etruskia and appears on the map on the very last page of my copy of the Codex,

Laurna

#53
I found a small inconsistency in my reading of Childe Morgan
page 77 the year would be summer of 1094 Duncan is two years old- Vera shrugged "There is always hope... Did I tell you that Jared is having the most beautiful little chapel built in the garden at Culdi, as a memorial to our dear Alicia?"
"What a wonderful thing to do," Alyce murmured, sorrowing anew over the child Vera had lost earlier in the year.


The Codex needs the names of Vera's daughters either changed or reversed. Page 256 under Vera Laurela McLain, her second child is listed as  the Lady Isabet Anna, born sitll, and her third child is the Lady Alicia Jesma Isaet, dead at age III of the Rosecola.
Therefore, Alicia should be listed as her second child. Does anyone recall if the Kings Deryni tells us about Vera's third child and if so, does anyone know the correct name for the daughter who died at age 3?


May your horses have wings and fly!

Elkhound

When Christopher Tolkein was editing his father's unpublished writings and couldn't decide which of two (or more) versions of some story was the old man's final take, would say something like, "Of this matter two [or however many] things are said, and which is true was known only to the wise who are now gone. " Then present the various versions.

Perhaps some of the Codex inconsistencies may be put down this way?  The result of contradictory sources which the editor could neither reconcile nor determine which was true.

Maven

There's a factor that isn't being considered. When did the year begin? We are so used to January 1 being the start of a new year that we have forgotten it hasn't always been so.

At various times and places, the year officially began on March 25 (no, Tolkien did not pull that out of his hat). Southern Europe started this earlier (c. 9th century) and changed it earlier (1582, calendar reforms of Gregory XIII). England adopted the March 25 beginning c. the 12th century, and they and the Colonies kept it up until 1752. (Russia waited until 1918, and the Old Believers still haven't made the transition.)

So, what system is the Codex using, or is it an inconsistent compilation by "divers hands", some of whom used one system and some of whom used another?

This could possibly explain some of those "seven-month" babies, if they were born between, say, January and late March.

Evie

Quote from: Maven on June 29, 2015, 02:34:27 AM
There's a factor that isn't being considered. When did the year begin? We are so used to January 1 being the start of a new year that we have forgotten it hasn't always been so.

At various times and places, the year officially began on March 25 (no, Tolkien did not pull that out of his hat). Southern Europe started this earlier (c. 9th century) and changed it earlier (1582, calendar reforms of Gregory XIII). England adopted the March 25 beginning c. the 12th century, and they and the Colonies kept it up until 1752. (Russia waited until 1918, and the Old Believers still haven't made the transition.)

So, what system is the Codex using, or is it an inconsistent compilation by "divers hands", some of whom used one system and some of whom used another?

This could possibly explain some of those "seven-month" babies, if they were born between, say, January and late March.

New Year reckonings were complicated by March 25 being the start of the new year for agricultural purposes and on Michaelmas (Sept. 27, I think?) for tax purposes (like businesses often have a new fiscal year that begins on a date other than 1 January), and IIRC our first of January date was also observed in certain situations, although you're right, if you asked the average medieval person when the new year began, they'd have said on Lady's Day. Of course, since the world of the Deryni isn't our own world (the land masses don't align with ours no matter how much you cross your eyes while looking at those maps!), but at the closest an alternate universe version of it (enough of the names and historical events there are similar enough that one could think of it as the sort of alternate dimension Earth that one might find in Sliders, if you remember that old TV show), they could have had a January 1 new year date all along. The Deryniverse is primarily fantasy that is heavily colored with historical elements, not primarily historical but heavily colored with fantastical elements, so KK isn't bound to perfectly replicate our own history in it.

I'm not sure that the "seven-months" babies problem would be solved by any calendar reckoning, though, since the problem isn't with a year to year count, but with a large number of babies in Codex being born within seven months of the listed wedding date. If a wedding happens on January 1, forty weeks of human gestation from that date would not fall in August no matter when the new year officially begins. It could perhaps be explained by some couples having conceived children during their betrothal period and only having the formal wedding once the bride had proved fertile, but even that would mean Malcolm sired Prince Richard on his future Queen Sile before his first wife Roisian was even dead, so either Malcolm was a thoroughgoing cad or else Rob Reginald didn't think the gestation times through properly.
"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas."

--WARNING!!!--
I have a vocabulary in excess of 75,000 words, and I'm not afraid to use it!

Laurna

Quote from: Evie on June 29, 2015, 11:04:28 AM

I'm not sure that the "seven-months" babies problem would be solved by any calendar reckoning, though, since the problem isn't with a year to year count, but with a large number of babies in Codex being born within seven months of the listed wedding date. If a wedding happens on January 1, forty weeks of human gestation from that date would not fall in August no matter when the new year officially begins. It could perhaps be explained by some couples having conceived children during their betrothal period and only having the formal wedding once the bride had proved fertile, but even that would mean Malcolm sired Prince Richard on his future Queen Sile before his first wife Roisian was even dead, so either Malcolm was a thoroughgoing cad or else Rob Reginald didn't think the gestation times through properly.

LOL! Evie, yes I am sure "Malcolm was a Thoroghgoing cad". But to be fair, at least is first wife Roisian was lain to rest before he set more than his eyes upon Sile.
Roisian passed on January 3, 1055.  Malcolm wed Sile on May 13, 1055.  And a strong lad, Prince Richard was born on December 31, 1055. I would say there was a little premarital playing going on there, but at least he was a widower. Remember Roisian had removed herself from court some years earlier.  At least he did not marry his long time Mistress Glovina, whom I assume he had children with after Roisian left the capital, but was still very much alive.  So yes Malcolm was a "Thoroghgoing Cad". I am just glad prince Donal loved his younger half-brother Prince Richard.
May your horses have wings and fly!

Elkhound

"Malcomb the Cad"---sounds like an interesting addition to the list, along with Imre the Butcher, Cinhil the Restorer, Javan the Lame, etc.

Evie

Quote from: Laurna on June 29, 2015, 12:08:11 PM

LOL! Evie, yes I am sure "Malcolm was a Thoroghgoing cad". But to be fair, at least is first wife Roisian was lain to rest before he set more than his eyes upon Sile.
Roisian passed on January 3, 1055.  Malcolm wed Sile on May 13, 1055. 

OK, that's a bit more reasonable. For some reason I remembered Malcolm remarrying immediately after hearing of Roisian's death (which actually made me wonder if she had a natural death or if he simply got tired of waiting and decided to replace her). I wonder if there is a date discrepancy somewhere else in the Codex or if I just remembered those dates wrong?  Do the dates in their entries line up with the dates in the timeline near the back of the book, because sometimes that's where that sort of thing creeps in.
"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas."

--WARNING!!!--
I have a vocabulary in excess of 75,000 words, and I'm not afraid to use it!