Ahira's Hangar

I think the concept of a King brought forward in this chapter is an ancient one, only hinted at in some of our oldest European and Middle eastern legends, but which also appears in other world cultures.

Perhaps the most familiar figure in this vein of Kingship would be the Fisher King from the Grail Legends and the Arthurian Cycle.

The Fisher King had an unhealing wound (which is often reported as being to on his thigh, but is generally understood to denote that his male potency and fertility was impaired). He and his life was magically tied to the land and the land was tied to him. Because of his wound, the land he ruled had lost its fertility and was dying.

Fragments of older legends, folktales, and traditions, as explained in the classic work The Golden Bough, go further and darker into this sort of Kingship. In times of great trouble and need, Kings became human sacrifices to save the land and the people. Jesus is only one of many such Middle Eastern religious figures who were Princes or Kings who died to save others. (Remember the emphasis the Bible makes of his royal human lineage). Similar examples would include the gods Dionysus and Mithras, and Attis.

We also see this in some Native American cultures. For the Maya the sacrifice of royal blood was particularly potent and important. Mayan Kings and Queens ran sharp objects through their tongues, penises, and labia in order to sacrifice the blood to the gods for the sake of their realms. And in the Andes (home of important cultures such as the Inca) the sacrificed bodies (now mummies) of obviously high born children (as indicated by their general health at the time of their death and by their clothing and ritual objects) have been found on mountaintop shrines as sacrifices to the mountain gods.

So in some of our most ancient existing legends, Kings are central to the health and welfare of the lands which they rule, to the point of human sacrifice if need be. The King is the land andthe land is the King. Ceremonially they are one, and the health of the one directly affects the other.

Earthsea has no King - and therefore no center. It is a solar system without a sun. A monumental building with no foundation stone. Without that center, it is all starting to fall apart. The Masters of Roke can advise, but cannot Rule. In the absence of Rule there is no over reaching Law. In the absence of Law, there can be no Peace.

Note that I do not agree with the concept, either. I am also the product of a modern Western democracy, which kicked out royalty at gunpoint some centuries ago. (In fact, some of my ancestors were oathbreakers to that King, and fought in the Revolution on the side of America).

And even that form of royalty was very different from the ancient form I am describing. I think that when we Americans think of a King we think of a corrupt and cruel absolute dictator like Henry VIII. But the original concept - something that fragments of our oldest folktales and legends only hint at - was very different.

You even get hints of that in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Menelaus was king not because he was the son of a king (Atreus) and the brother of a king (Agamemnon) but because he was married to Helen, who was born a Queen. It was not just hurt pride and manhood that impelled him to get her back - she had taken his right to rule Sparta with her when she fled to Troy with another man. He did not just let her live after the war - let her live and took her back as his wife!

And look at how desperately every young blood in Ithaca pursued Penelope when it looked like Odysseus would not be returning from the war. There are hints of a matriarchy carrying the royal right there as well.

There are many hints in the oldest Greek myths and legends that a King was once the man married to the Queen - and that she could sacrifice him to the gods if her people needed it. And that the royal line was carried through the children of the Queen, regardless of who the father was. This might have been why the gods were so horrified when Agamemnon made a sacrifice of his elder daughter (who would have carried the royalty rights of her country), and why his wife felt she has every right to take on a new ruling husband while we was away at Troy AND to kill her old husband in turn when he finally returned from the war.

Some scholars believe that the culture of that area was once a matriarchy, which changed to a patriarchy when the Myceneans invaded. There was a turbulent time when those two systems met and blended to an extent before the patriarchy came out on top - and that happened to the be time of the Trojan War. Both the Egyptians and Hittites spoke of the invasion of the Sea Peoples, and the Hittite sources (which actually name not only Troy (with a different name, of course) as the capital of a Hittite vassal state but also name one of the leaders of the invaders with a name remarkably close to Atreus) are especially valuable sources of information about those world changing times.

She did do a great job. I got sidetracked on the concept of kingship and did not mention that.

I have always had a fascination with anthropology, archaeology, history, mythology, etc. Danlo. If anyone is interested, one of the definitive works on these ancient concepts of kingship is The Golden Bough by James Frasier. It is an older work, and can probably be found for free on the internet as an ebook, as I believe it is probably out of copyrite. For a funner look an historical fiction duology by Mary Renault covers some of the same material from a Greek myth perspective - The King Must Die and Bull From the Sea. They are very well written from what I remember, and should be readily available from most public libraries.

And yes - the joining of the ring might well have been what set all of the current problems off. It would certainly explain why it is all happening now in the story, as opposed to any other point in the last several centuries in that world.

Well, you didn't leave much to say, Menolly. That's about as thorough a job as I've seen.

Arren seems pretty cool. Very level-headed in ways. He can think for himself. His father trusts him to figure out how to best go about things, and Arren seems up to the task.

OTOH, he seems prone to hero-worship. Heh. But I'll forgive him, since Ged is a dozen or so cuts about most people Arren has ever met. And he can't be blamed for getting swept away by the glory that's all around him.