I'm pretty sure I've read that potatoes and other imported New World plants played an important role in China's 18th century population boom.
Lands of Red and Gold, Act II
- Thread starter Jared
- Start date
I'm pretty sure I've read that potatoes and other imported New World plants played an important role in China's 18th century population boom.
And believe it or not, China's had maize since at least the 16th century.
I think potatoes played a big role in every ones 18th century population boom!
Actually, it's just that Europeans were late adopters. New World crops were enthusiastically adopted around most of the Old World soon after they became available. Higher-yielding crops such as maize, potatoes and cassava were taken up quickly in regions where they were cultivatable (West Africa, East Asia, India etc).
Europe was the outlier, for whatever reason. I've seen various hypotheses as to why, none of them entirely convincing.
"Why don't you try tobacco?"
"I'm not gonna try it - you try it!"
"Let's get Europe - Europe hates everything!"
....
"Europe likes it!"
Yeah, this was one crop that Europe should have been much later adopting...like, not at all...
To be fair, the worst damage tobacco did was because corporations took hold of it and used cigarettes as a symbol of modernity and other cutting edge advertisement efforts--famed propagandist Edward Bernays was the tip of the iceberg. Although I suppose helping fund European colonialism has to count for something.
American Indians were similarly enthusiastic about tobacco, to the point where it was the sole plant used by PNW Indians that could be considered a cultivated agricultural plant.
Aozhouhuaren
Banned
Great news! Congrats to the Gunditjmara!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07...amids-stonehenge-world-heritage-list/11271804
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07...amids-stonehenge-world-heritage-list/11271804
I was linked to this TL from a post on the HistoryWhatIf reddit, and after finishing it I'd just like to say it's one of the best works of alternate history I've read. You've managed to create a set of cultures with basically no real world equivalent that still manages to feel like a realistic part of world history. The amount of research you've put in is staggering, and your writing is clearer and easier to follow than many real history texts I've read. I look forward to reading where it goes in the future!
A couple of questions I had reading the last few posts:
Before the Hunter, were there any Tjarrlinghi communities outside the Neeburra?
Do we know the origin of the name/spelling of the Congxie? My initial guess was Chinese, but IIRC you've said it's not pronounced as it would be in pinyin, and the Congxie don't seem to have any Chinese origins anyway.
Once again, bravo, I've enjoyed reading this TL immensely.
A couple of questions I had reading the last few posts:
Before the Hunter, were there any Tjarrlinghi communities outside the Neeburra?
Do we know the origin of the name/spelling of the Congxie? My initial guess was Chinese, but IIRC you've said it's not pronounced as it would be in pinyin, and the Congxie don't seem to have any Chinese origins anyway.
Once again, bravo, I've enjoyed reading this TL immensely.
This post came through while I was on a fishing trip, so couldn't reply on-thread. I replied to @lord_ladrian by PM at the time, but am also posting the answers to the questions here for other readers.
The Tjarrlinghi communities within the Five Rivers had long since converted to one or other of the more orthodox schools of Plirism.
For the origin of the term Congxie, it does sound vaguely Chinese, but that's just a coincidence. The sound transliterated "x" is closer to a "ts" sound in English (I'm not familiar enough with phonetics to give the exact symbol). The name just came from one of the early towns which the first Congxie escapees founded when when they went into the uplands of *South Carolina, and it stuck around as the name of their people.
On another note, one of the reasons I took a fishing trip was to put some more time into writing, which included work on Lands of Red and Gold. I'm still writing more and will be on AH.com less (though not zero), so this writing will continue. Keep an eye on this thread in a month or two for more...
For the Tjarrlinghi, they had a few small communities in neighbouring regions to the south and south-east - amongst the small city-states of the Panjimundra and in the alt-New England highlands. They were never very numerous in either, though, since the peoples in those regions viewed the faith as something associated with raiders from the Neeburra.
The Tjarrlinghi communities within the Five Rivers had long since converted to one or other of the more orthodox schools of Plirism.
For the origin of the term Congxie, it does sound vaguely Chinese, but that's just a coincidence. The sound transliterated "x" is closer to a "ts" sound in English (I'm not familiar enough with phonetics to give the exact symbol). The name just came from one of the early towns which the first Congxie escapees founded when when they went into the uplands of *South Carolina, and it stuck around as the name of their people.
On another note, one of the reasons I took a fishing trip was to put some more time into writing, which included work on Lands of Red and Gold. I'm still writing more and will be on AH.com less (though not zero), so this writing will continue. Keep an eye on this thread in a month or two for more...
Lands of Red and Gold Interlude #5.5: Interview With The Eʃquire
Lands of Red and Gold Interlude #5.5: Interview With The Eʃquire
This is a Halloween special with a different slant. This instalment features a cross-time interview with a certain Mr Fionn Hume, Eʃquire. This is the gentleman with a very distinctive letter-writing style who for one of the previous Halloween specials (Interlude #5) penned a letter to the editor for a Scottish newspaper, the Logos of Dundee.
This interview is different because most of the questions for Mr Hume, Eʃq. have been contributed by LoRaG readers. There are a few ground rules which applied for this interview:
(1) I do not propose to relate the means by which I was able to arrange a cross-time interview with Mr Hume, Eʃq. Suffice it to say that arrangements have been made.
(2) When selecting which reader questions to include in the interview, preference was given to those questions which enabled Mr Hume, Eʃq. to be as pompous as possible.
(3) Questions have been answered in character and based only on knowledge which Mr Hume, Eʃq. could reasonably have.
(4) This chapter is explicitly non-canonical. However, the interview answers are accurate, for a given value of accurate based on Mr Hume, Eʃq. as an imperfect interviewee and my current plans for the future status of the LoRaG world.
(5) This interview was conducted on 31 October 1965 (LoRaG time).
With those caveats, on with the interview.
* * *
It is difficult to explain the manner in which interview questions may be asked across worlds.
This is a matter with which I muʃt confess that I find myʃelf in rare agreement with your good ʃelf. Given ʃuch a ʃituation, I can only note that I have long held to the view that where it is not possible to give an anʃwer which a liʃtener will underʃtand, it is beʃt to give no anʃwer at all, and leave them to invent whichever anʃwer ʃeems beʃt to their individual and ʃovereign ʃelves.
Fair enough. Before we begin the main questions, I would also like to thank you for agreeing to take part in this interview.
For which I alʃo express to you, ʃir, my equal gratitude for this interview with my good and humble ʃelf. For if I might be permitted to obʃerve, while your manner is vulgar, I muʃt confess that I find this propoʃition of an interview to be not wholly unflattering, as it will permit me to uplift and inform what I preʃume to be a great body of readers, for the betterment of all mankind no matter in which world they dwell, and ʃo I have graciouʃly and humbly acceded.
Erm, okay. My readers have supplied several questions on matters they find of interest. I thought to begin with those questions specific to Scotland, then move on to those which cover the British Isles more broadly--
If I may humbly interject for a brief moment, ʃir, it would be a grave disservice if I were to fail to enlighten your diverʃe and profound readers of the error contained within that ʃtatement. The grand iʃland wherein I dwell, realm of diverʃe and ancient peoples, is one of ʃeveral iʃlands, none of which individually or collectively ʃhould be termed as the Britiʃh Iʃles, as that would be a miʃnomer of profound proportions that to pass it by would be to perpetuate a moʃt manifeʃt and unfortunate miʃconception on the part of your eʃteemed readers. In fact, if I might make ʃo bold as to ʃuggeʃt, you would be well-ʃerved from avoiding repetition of that term for the duration of this interview, if not for the reʃt of your natural life.
I... see. Clearly that term means something different in your history to that which I know in mine. Let me rephrase. I would like to begin by asking readers’ questions which relate to Scotland, then to the regions which earlier in your history were known as England, Wales, Cornwall, Mann and Ireland, and then to questions which relate to other parts of the world.
A fair and proportionate allocation of queries, and one to which I would be prepared to graciouʃly acquieʃce.
Is the crown of Scotland still in personal union with England? If so, is there any resentment from either realm at perceived favouritism toward the other by the monarch?
Sir, the obʃcure nature of your ill-informed queʃtion reveals much of the ʃeparation between your world of half-formed viʃions and obʃcure minutiae, and this, the true world wherein here, and only here, the Scottiʃh people can revel in their true nature, lacking not the ʃubjugation which reʃults from conʃignment to the demeaning, nay, demoraliʃing and affronting role of ʃecond and ʃcorned ʃon to the greater and honoured firʃtborn cauʃed by the abandonment of our native-born and proper reʃidence of the monarch in departure to the benighted and bewildering beacon of Buckingham Palace, a ʃlight overcome only by the ʃubʃequent abolition of the Crown in both England and Scotland and the impoʃition, nay, inʃtallation of the regime known with ʃome but not complete truth as the Common Wealth... I do beg your pardon, good ʃir, but what was the queʃtion?
Is the crown of Scotland still in personal union with England? If so, is there any resentment from either realm at perceived favouritism toward the other by the monarch?
The anʃwer to your queʃtion, ʃir, may be found in the pressing, nay, prime correction of your fundamental and ʃignificant error, in the truth that there is not, and has not been for ʃome centuries, a crown of Scotland, any more than there has been a crown of England. Hence, as you would ʃurely and naturally comprehend, there is no fitting anʃwer to your ʃubʃequent queʃtion, ʃince the abʃence of the common monarch makes any conʃideration of favouritiʃm not one which need be contemplated.
So then--
A moment longer, good ʃir, that I may finiʃh this brief and ʃtraightforward explanation, the firʃt part of which I have already provided, and thereby duly educate your diverʃe readers in an underlying truth which without my explanation they might not graʃp. The baʃic and moʃt-ʃuccinctly explained fact is that there is no crown of Scotland, juʃt as there is no king of Scotland, but there ʃtill is now, as there has been for a great many years, the preciʃe number of which I could not properly aʃcertain without reference to ʃome written ʃource of truth that I do not have conveniently to hand, there ʃtill is now a King of the Scots.
How closely are England and Scotland linked? Is there much cooperation, how deep are the cultural links, how closely is the economy tied together?
Sir, I find your order of queʃtions moʃt profoundly unuʃual, as you previouʃly ʃtated that your intent as interviewer was firʃt to aʃk queʃtions of my good and humble ʃelf about the nature of life in Scotland, before moving on to other regions of less relevance. You would therefore, I truʃt, comprehend that I find it a ʃource of confuʃion why both your firʃt and ʃecond queʃtions relate more to thoʃe benighted regions ʃouth of the Tweed than to the fair and glorious realm of Scotland.
If you prefer I can ask this question again late--
The queʃtion is already aʃked, ʃir, and ʃo ʃhould not be caʃually withdrawn. As with many queʃtions, this one is on a topic where no proper anʃwer can be brief, for the fundamental truth is that myriad interactions between men of all ʃtates and all nations are ʃuch that they cannot be ʃeparated entirely one from another, and that the deeds of men in one corner of our azure and white globe reʃonate to all the other corners, and ʃo the queʃtion of the linkage between the two realms is that there is an inevitable overlap between them, that cannot be caʃt aʃunder, and in ʃuch a ʃituation a man of learning muʃt conʃider whether it is feaʃible to give any anʃwer at all.
I think the purpose of the question was more--
In terms which your readers might underʃtand, ʃir, though England and Scotland repreʃent ʃeparate nations, they are part of the ʃame ʃtate, and ʃo in conʃequence a ʃubʃtantial amount of intercourʃe between them is inevitable. Some of this intercourʃe may manifeʃt through commerce, and ʃome of the intercourʃe is part of the more natural relations which are found between men, while fortunately moʃt of the intercourʃe is cooperative, and involuntary intercourʃe is correʃpondingly rare. I do not possess a benchmark of the frequency and duration of the intercourʃe which occurs in your world, and ʃo I can not ʃpeak more fully to how cloʃely the economy and culture are matters of intercourʃe in my world in compariʃon to yours, but I can ʃafely, no, indubitably ʃay that intercourʃe proceeds between Scotland and England.
What is the form and structure of the Scottish Kirk at the present time: Presbyterian or Episcopalian? Established or disestablished? Is there one major church or has the spectre of division split it asunder? Or indeed has the Kirk been superseded by a subsequent organisation?
Many queʃtions at once that is, ʃir, and indubitably more than ʃhould have been properly aʃked at once without permitting me, the humble interviewee, the necessary, nay, required time to conʃider them and treat them with the weightieʃt of deliberation. Never the less, deʃpite the less than deʃerving form in which you have relayed the queʃtions, a fault I place entirely on your part rather than that of the readers who ʃupplied the queʃtions, becauʃe the duty falls to you as interviewer to convert the unʃcripted queʃtions into a fittingly-ʃcripted interview, deʃpite this I have ʃufficient comprehenʃion of the underlying themes and coherence of purpoʃe that I can provide a full and eaʃily comprehended anʃwer.
Now in giving ʃuch an anʃwer, ʃir, I muʃt firʃt make the obʃervation that I am not familiar with all of the ʃubtleties of this term you refer to as Preʃbyterian. Never the less, by inference to the more recogniʃable term preʃbyter, I ʃurmiʃe that this refers to that moʃt ancient and true form of ʃpiritual organiʃation properly termed Covenantiʃm, and this being the caʃe, it has long been and remains true today that the Kirk is in the form of Covenantiʃm rather than the rather vulgar form called Epiʃcopalian.
Neglecting this brief aʃide, I need to explain alʃo that this queʃtion of eʃtabliʃhed or diʃeʃtabliʃhed is not one which makes a great deal of ʃenʃe to me, given that it contains preconceptions which would be beyond the ʃcope of this ʃhort interview to explore and properly explain, but I would refer you to my previous anʃwer that in this, the true and fair world, juʃt as there exiʃts no ʃuch thing as a crown of Scotland, ʃo plainly and logically it follows that even an outworlder can comprehend that there alʃo exiʃts no ʃuch thing as a church of Scotland. Rather, there is a Church of the Scots, which is its full and proper name, even if for eaʃe and convenience we more uʃually refer to it as the Kirk or the Covenant.
The Kirk naturally remains whole and undivided, as anyone who is not a member of the Kirk can not be properly conʃidered as a Scot. It is true, and ʃhould not be left to pass without comment, than within the realm of Scotland there can be found more than a few individuals who do not follow the Kirk properly, or in extreme caʃes do not follow the Kirk at all, although I do not habitually interact with ʃuch individuals except in the moʃt passing, day to day ʃenʃe of the word, and ʃo I can tell you little about their habits or beliefs. I can obʃerve, however, that given the Kirk is properly and fittingly known as the Church of the Scots, that leads to the inevitable and indubitable concluʃion that no true Scotʃman is not a member of the Kirk.
Does the system of Burghs and Shires endure or has it been replaced or rationalised?
Unlike moʃt of your readers’ previous queʃtions, this enquiry is one wherein it is practical for my humble ʃelf to give an anʃwer which may be properly comprehended even across the gulf which ʃeparates the worlds. The ʃyʃtem of burghs and ʃhires did not long outlaʃt the eʃtabliʃhment of the Common Wealth, and ʃo has long passed into the province of loʃt antiquity, ʃave that with the reeʃtabliʃhment of the crown of the Scots, a ʃmall handful of burghs have been recreated with that rank for purpoʃes of ceremony and celebration, and without the exiʃtence of ʃuch re-formation I may not have underʃtood the import of this queʃtion.
If I may be permitted a brief aʃide, ʃir, I would add that I would not conʃider that rational is a fitting term for the ʃyʃtem which replaced the ʃhires.
If my readers were to pay a visit to your fair city, which establishment serves the best available food?
If I might be permitted a brief obʃervation, ʃir, I find it ʃupremely doubtful that any of your readers would ever manage to viʃit my fair and noble city. Never the less, taking the queʃtion in the ʃpirit in which I believe it was intended, the anʃwer to that queʃtion would vary depending on the deʃires of the aʃker. If a viʃitor wiʃhed to experience the beʃt available cuiʃine that fits the heritage of the Scottiʃh Nation, then he would need to look no further than Hume’s Haggis on Haberdaʃhery Road. This moʃt outʃtanding eʃtabliʃhment ʃerves all the integral elements of authentic Scottiʃh cuiʃine, not merely the eponymous haggis. Naturally, for the ʃake of being ʃimple, clear, ʃtraightforward and honeʃt, I ʃhould obʃerve that the Miʃter Hume who owns and runs that fine eʃtabliʃhment is a couʃin on my father’s ʃide, although that triviality of courʃe has no bearing on my recommendation, which is made ʃolely on the quality of the ʃuʃtenance ʃerved at that eʃtabliʃhment.
I would further add that while it is undeniably true that haggis is one of the foundational elements of the cuiʃine of the Scottiʃh Nation, it is alʃo indubitably true that man may not live by haggis alone.
Or even Haggis alone?
If you make another ʃuch abominable attempt at a play on words, ʃir, I ʃhall terminate this interview forthwith. The obʃervation which I wiʃhed to make for the edification of your readers is that if they wiʃh to avail themʃelves of another ʃtyle of cuiʃine while enjoying the fair ʃights of Dundee, then they need look no further than the Glass House, on Albany Terrace, where they may partake of the fineʃt ʃtyle of Daluming cuiʃine made in what I am assured is the genuine faʃhion.
To what extent does government, national or local, organise public festivities for Samhain?
A Nation has no government, ʃir. A Nation is the ʃum of its people, nothing more and nothing less.
If I understand your earlier explanations, a national government is what you would call a state government.
Then it would have been timelier and more conʃiderate toward your humble interviewee if you had rephraʃed the queʃtion in the firʃt inʃtance rather than ʃubʃequently. Never the less, now that I have comprehended the queʃtion, I can ʃay that within the ʃcope of the ʃtate in which I reʃide, the ʃtate government takes no part in the coordination of that moʃt joyful of celebrations, Samhain. Many local governments within Scotland ʃupport the celebrations in one faʃhion or another, according to their taʃtes and frugality, though for the moʃt part the feʃtivities are arranged by the community themʃelves, which to my way of thinking is the proper manner of celebrating Samhain, for it is the act of planning and coordinating theʃe feʃtivities which brings the community together in joyful and harmonious ʃpirit.
Where upon the span of the globe is Samhain celebrated in true and proper fashion?
A very fitting queʃtion, ʃir, and another of thoʃe rare occaʃions of queʃtions where I am in the fortunate, nay, blessed poʃition to give a ʃimple, clear, ʃtraightforward and honeʃt anʃwer. The reʃponʃe to your queʃtion, ʃir, is that Samhain is celebrated in true and proper faʃhion in, and only in, places where members of the Scottiʃh Nation reʃide. That means, naturally and indubitably, that it is for the moʃt part celebrated truly and properly only within the borders of Scotland, for that is where the greater part of the Scottiʃh Nation reʃides, but it alʃo follows, logically and inevitably, that wherever a true Scotʃman may dwell, whether within other parts of the Common Wealth or across the broader ʃpan of the globe, there Samhain may be celebrated in the fit and proper manner, with the bonfires, the jack-o’-lanterns made from moʃt worthy turnips, the children ʃinging in auld verʃe, and all the other accoutrements of that feʃtival.
So--
I muʃt further explain, ʃir, for the proper edification of your readers, that ʃeveral other peoples celebrate feʃtivals which they miʃcall Samhain, but none of them do ʃo in true and proper faʃhion. Only thoʃe who know and adhere to the ancient cuʃtoms of the Scottiʃh Nation, thoʃe who are of the blood of Alba, honour Samhain in the true manner of its feʃtivities.
Is Wales considered a separate country, and if so, how is it viewed?
Not for the firʃt time, ʃir, the nature of your queʃtions reveals the depth of your ignorance of this, the true world, for only one who was totally unfamiliar with the natural order of peoples could aʃk ʃuch a queʃtion in ʃuch a form, containing as it does ʃuch uninformed preʃuppoʃitions that diʃentangling them would be the labour of a far greater time than that which we have available to complete this brief interview, and ʃo fully anʃwering your queʃtion may not, nay, will not be a goal capable of deliverment.
I don’t fully underst--
There is no country called Wales, ʃir, any more than there is a country called Britannia. Never the less, there is a Welʃh Nation, and I can provide no more ʃuccinct deʃcription of how it is viewed than this: it is full of Welʃhmen.
How severe and widespread are Aururian diseases in the present day?
A pertinent queʃtion, ʃir, and one for which I muʃt confess that I do not possess complete familiarity with its ʃtatus across the ʃpan of the globe. As far as Scotland is concerned, I can ʃay that the miaʃma which is popularly called flu but which more accurately and properly is called influenza, includes a ʃtrain which is vulgarly called blue-ʃleep but which is more fittingly titled Aururian influenza. That diʃeaʃe remains one ʃtrain among many, more ʃevere than ʃome other varieties, but unlikely to cauʃe ʃevere illness or death in otherwiʃe healthy individuals, though as with all varieties of influenza it remains a threat to thoʃe whoʃe lives number only a handful of years and thoʃe whoʃe lives number a great many years.
That other Aururian diʃeaʃe called Marnitja is a malady which in my younger days I recall being a great danger on thoʃe occaʃions when it emerged, though I ʃurvived it myʃelf with no ill effects, but in more recent times it has become a far less ʃignificant ʃcourge due to the final development of a vaccine which wholly protects againʃt it, a vaccine which is omnipreʃent in Scotland and elʃewhere in the Common Wealth. I have heard that this vaccine is being ʃpread in more and more lands, though I have little recollection of the details.
I am given to underʃtand that the third Aururian diʃeaʃe, ʃwamp-raʃh, is a periodic affliction in lands which are afflicted with much more ʃun than Scotland, but as it is not a malady tranʃmitted by the moʃquitoes of this land, ʃo it is not of concern here, and ʃo I have given it little more heed.
Does Asterix still exist in your world?
A trite queʃtion, I would have ʃaid, ʃir, ʃince it appears of little import to any but typeʃetters and printers, but yea, the aʃteriʃk is indeed a character uʃed in this world.
What is the nature of the Druids and do their practices survive to the modern day?
This topic is a matter of which ʃcholars have had and continue to argue endlessly without proʃpect of reʃolution amongʃt themʃelves, for they are beloved of argument and bereft of the clarity of common ʃenʃe needed to reʃolve ʃuch a queʃtion. Fortunately I am possessed of that rare quality, namely the common ʃenʃe aforementioned, and therefore can ʃift through the endless diatribes and give your readers a ʃimple, nay, brief and clear anʃwer.
The druids were a ʃocial class among the ancient Celtic peoples, conʃiʃting of the moʃt learned, the qualified juʃtices, and the leaders in matters ʃpiritual. Tragically for their modern deʃcendants who wiʃh to include this aʃpect of their anceʃtry in their ʃenʃe of nationhood, the druids’ learning was tranʃmitted orally from one to the next, and therefore endured no longer than the ancient druids themʃelves. Thoʃe who in more recent times have ʃought to revive druidic practices possess admirable ambition but deficient knowledge, and in truth what they have done is revived the ancient Britiʃh Nation, before the diviʃion into diverʃe peoples, ʃo thoʃe who call themʃelves druids today are Britiʃh rather than Scottiʃh or Welʃh or Corniʃh.
How much do you know of the Hags?
I believe I have already expressed myʃelf ʃufficiently on the topic of haggis.
Hags, not haggis.
I have never ʃampled hags, ʃir.
The ancient Celtic goddesses.
That is one of the rare topics on which I will gladly concede ignorance, good ʃir. I am and remain a proud member of the Kirk, and while I hold no ill will to thoʃe who follow or ʃeek to re-eʃtabliʃh thoʃe ancient beliefs, I leave them to act and believe as they wiʃh, juʃt as I truʃt that they will leave me to believe as I wiʃh.
Well, that ends the questions which my readers provided. Thank you very much for your time and for your singular approach to interviews.
Thank you for the opportunity to edify a group of readers whom I could never hope to reach through the letter column of The Logos.
This is a Halloween special with a different slant. This instalment features a cross-time interview with a certain Mr Fionn Hume, Eʃquire. This is the gentleman with a very distinctive letter-writing style who for one of the previous Halloween specials (Interlude #5) penned a letter to the editor for a Scottish newspaper, the Logos of Dundee.
This interview is different because most of the questions for Mr Hume, Eʃq. have been contributed by LoRaG readers. There are a few ground rules which applied for this interview:
(1) I do not propose to relate the means by which I was able to arrange a cross-time interview with Mr Hume, Eʃq. Suffice it to say that arrangements have been made.
(2) When selecting which reader questions to include in the interview, preference was given to those questions which enabled Mr Hume, Eʃq. to be as pompous as possible.
(3) Questions have been answered in character and based only on knowledge which Mr Hume, Eʃq. could reasonably have.
(4) This chapter is explicitly non-canonical. However, the interview answers are accurate, for a given value of accurate based on Mr Hume, Eʃq. as an imperfect interviewee and my current plans for the future status of the LoRaG world.
(5) This interview was conducted on 31 October 1965 (LoRaG time).
With those caveats, on with the interview.
* * *
It is difficult to explain the manner in which interview questions may be asked across worlds.
This is a matter with which I muʃt confess that I find myʃelf in rare agreement with your good ʃelf. Given ʃuch a ʃituation, I can only note that I have long held to the view that where it is not possible to give an anʃwer which a liʃtener will underʃtand, it is beʃt to give no anʃwer at all, and leave them to invent whichever anʃwer ʃeems beʃt to their individual and ʃovereign ʃelves.
Fair enough. Before we begin the main questions, I would also like to thank you for agreeing to take part in this interview.
For which I alʃo express to you, ʃir, my equal gratitude for this interview with my good and humble ʃelf. For if I might be permitted to obʃerve, while your manner is vulgar, I muʃt confess that I find this propoʃition of an interview to be not wholly unflattering, as it will permit me to uplift and inform what I preʃume to be a great body of readers, for the betterment of all mankind no matter in which world they dwell, and ʃo I have graciouʃly and humbly acceded.
Erm, okay. My readers have supplied several questions on matters they find of interest. I thought to begin with those questions specific to Scotland, then move on to those which cover the British Isles more broadly--
If I may humbly interject for a brief moment, ʃir, it would be a grave disservice if I were to fail to enlighten your diverʃe and profound readers of the error contained within that ʃtatement. The grand iʃland wherein I dwell, realm of diverʃe and ancient peoples, is one of ʃeveral iʃlands, none of which individually or collectively ʃhould be termed as the Britiʃh Iʃles, as that would be a miʃnomer of profound proportions that to pass it by would be to perpetuate a moʃt manifeʃt and unfortunate miʃconception on the part of your eʃteemed readers. In fact, if I might make ʃo bold as to ʃuggeʃt, you would be well-ʃerved from avoiding repetition of that term for the duration of this interview, if not for the reʃt of your natural life.
I... see. Clearly that term means something different in your history to that which I know in mine. Let me rephrase. I would like to begin by asking readers’ questions which relate to Scotland, then to the regions which earlier in your history were known as England, Wales, Cornwall, Mann and Ireland, and then to questions which relate to other parts of the world.
A fair and proportionate allocation of queries, and one to which I would be prepared to graciouʃly acquieʃce.
Is the crown of Scotland still in personal union with England? If so, is there any resentment from either realm at perceived favouritism toward the other by the monarch?
Sir, the obʃcure nature of your ill-informed queʃtion reveals much of the ʃeparation between your world of half-formed viʃions and obʃcure minutiae, and this, the true world wherein here, and only here, the Scottiʃh people can revel in their true nature, lacking not the ʃubjugation which reʃults from conʃignment to the demeaning, nay, demoraliʃing and affronting role of ʃecond and ʃcorned ʃon to the greater and honoured firʃtborn cauʃed by the abandonment of our native-born and proper reʃidence of the monarch in departure to the benighted and bewildering beacon of Buckingham Palace, a ʃlight overcome only by the ʃubʃequent abolition of the Crown in both England and Scotland and the impoʃition, nay, inʃtallation of the regime known with ʃome but not complete truth as the Common Wealth... I do beg your pardon, good ʃir, but what was the queʃtion?
Is the crown of Scotland still in personal union with England? If so, is there any resentment from either realm at perceived favouritism toward the other by the monarch?
The anʃwer to your queʃtion, ʃir, may be found in the pressing, nay, prime correction of your fundamental and ʃignificant error, in the truth that there is not, and has not been for ʃome centuries, a crown of Scotland, any more than there has been a crown of England. Hence, as you would ʃurely and naturally comprehend, there is no fitting anʃwer to your ʃubʃequent queʃtion, ʃince the abʃence of the common monarch makes any conʃideration of favouritiʃm not one which need be contemplated.
So then--
A moment longer, good ʃir, that I may finiʃh this brief and ʃtraightforward explanation, the firʃt part of which I have already provided, and thereby duly educate your diverʃe readers in an underlying truth which without my explanation they might not graʃp. The baʃic and moʃt-ʃuccinctly explained fact is that there is no crown of Scotland, juʃt as there is no king of Scotland, but there ʃtill is now, as there has been for a great many years, the preciʃe number of which I could not properly aʃcertain without reference to ʃome written ʃource of truth that I do not have conveniently to hand, there ʃtill is now a King of the Scots.
How closely are England and Scotland linked? Is there much cooperation, how deep are the cultural links, how closely is the economy tied together?
Sir, I find your order of queʃtions moʃt profoundly unuʃual, as you previouʃly ʃtated that your intent as interviewer was firʃt to aʃk queʃtions of my good and humble ʃelf about the nature of life in Scotland, before moving on to other regions of less relevance. You would therefore, I truʃt, comprehend that I find it a ʃource of confuʃion why both your firʃt and ʃecond queʃtions relate more to thoʃe benighted regions ʃouth of the Tweed than to the fair and glorious realm of Scotland.
If you prefer I can ask this question again late--
The queʃtion is already aʃked, ʃir, and ʃo ʃhould not be caʃually withdrawn. As with many queʃtions, this one is on a topic where no proper anʃwer can be brief, for the fundamental truth is that myriad interactions between men of all ʃtates and all nations are ʃuch that they cannot be ʃeparated entirely one from another, and that the deeds of men in one corner of our azure and white globe reʃonate to all the other corners, and ʃo the queʃtion of the linkage between the two realms is that there is an inevitable overlap between them, that cannot be caʃt aʃunder, and in ʃuch a ʃituation a man of learning muʃt conʃider whether it is feaʃible to give any anʃwer at all.
I think the purpose of the question was more--
In terms which your readers might underʃtand, ʃir, though England and Scotland repreʃent ʃeparate nations, they are part of the ʃame ʃtate, and ʃo in conʃequence a ʃubʃtantial amount of intercourʃe between them is inevitable. Some of this intercourʃe may manifeʃt through commerce, and ʃome of the intercourʃe is part of the more natural relations which are found between men, while fortunately moʃt of the intercourʃe is cooperative, and involuntary intercourʃe is correʃpondingly rare. I do not possess a benchmark of the frequency and duration of the intercourʃe which occurs in your world, and ʃo I can not ʃpeak more fully to how cloʃely the economy and culture are matters of intercourʃe in my world in compariʃon to yours, but I can ʃafely, no, indubitably ʃay that intercourʃe proceeds between Scotland and England.
What is the form and structure of the Scottish Kirk at the present time: Presbyterian or Episcopalian? Established or disestablished? Is there one major church or has the spectre of division split it asunder? Or indeed has the Kirk been superseded by a subsequent organisation?
Many queʃtions at once that is, ʃir, and indubitably more than ʃhould have been properly aʃked at once without permitting me, the humble interviewee, the necessary, nay, required time to conʃider them and treat them with the weightieʃt of deliberation. Never the less, deʃpite the less than deʃerving form in which you have relayed the queʃtions, a fault I place entirely on your part rather than that of the readers who ʃupplied the queʃtions, becauʃe the duty falls to you as interviewer to convert the unʃcripted queʃtions into a fittingly-ʃcripted interview, deʃpite this I have ʃufficient comprehenʃion of the underlying themes and coherence of purpoʃe that I can provide a full and eaʃily comprehended anʃwer.
Now in giving ʃuch an anʃwer, ʃir, I muʃt firʃt make the obʃervation that I am not familiar with all of the ʃubtleties of this term you refer to as Preʃbyterian. Never the less, by inference to the more recogniʃable term preʃbyter, I ʃurmiʃe that this refers to that moʃt ancient and true form of ʃpiritual organiʃation properly termed Covenantiʃm, and this being the caʃe, it has long been and remains true today that the Kirk is in the form of Covenantiʃm rather than the rather vulgar form called Epiʃcopalian.
Neglecting this brief aʃide, I need to explain alʃo that this queʃtion of eʃtabliʃhed or diʃeʃtabliʃhed is not one which makes a great deal of ʃenʃe to me, given that it contains preconceptions which would be beyond the ʃcope of this ʃhort interview to explore and properly explain, but I would refer you to my previous anʃwer that in this, the true and fair world, juʃt as there exiʃts no ʃuch thing as a crown of Scotland, ʃo plainly and logically it follows that even an outworlder can comprehend that there alʃo exiʃts no ʃuch thing as a church of Scotland. Rather, there is a Church of the Scots, which is its full and proper name, even if for eaʃe and convenience we more uʃually refer to it as the Kirk or the Covenant.
The Kirk naturally remains whole and undivided, as anyone who is not a member of the Kirk can not be properly conʃidered as a Scot. It is true, and ʃhould not be left to pass without comment, than within the realm of Scotland there can be found more than a few individuals who do not follow the Kirk properly, or in extreme caʃes do not follow the Kirk at all, although I do not habitually interact with ʃuch individuals except in the moʃt passing, day to day ʃenʃe of the word, and ʃo I can tell you little about their habits or beliefs. I can obʃerve, however, that given the Kirk is properly and fittingly known as the Church of the Scots, that leads to the inevitable and indubitable concluʃion that no true Scotʃman is not a member of the Kirk.
Does the system of Burghs and Shires endure or has it been replaced or rationalised?
Unlike moʃt of your readers’ previous queʃtions, this enquiry is one wherein it is practical for my humble ʃelf to give an anʃwer which may be properly comprehended even across the gulf which ʃeparates the worlds. The ʃyʃtem of burghs and ʃhires did not long outlaʃt the eʃtabliʃhment of the Common Wealth, and ʃo has long passed into the province of loʃt antiquity, ʃave that with the reeʃtabliʃhment of the crown of the Scots, a ʃmall handful of burghs have been recreated with that rank for purpoʃes of ceremony and celebration, and without the exiʃtence of ʃuch re-formation I may not have underʃtood the import of this queʃtion.
If I may be permitted a brief aʃide, ʃir, I would add that I would not conʃider that rational is a fitting term for the ʃyʃtem which replaced the ʃhires.
If my readers were to pay a visit to your fair city, which establishment serves the best available food?
If I might be permitted a brief obʃervation, ʃir, I find it ʃupremely doubtful that any of your readers would ever manage to viʃit my fair and noble city. Never the less, taking the queʃtion in the ʃpirit in which I believe it was intended, the anʃwer to that queʃtion would vary depending on the deʃires of the aʃker. If a viʃitor wiʃhed to experience the beʃt available cuiʃine that fits the heritage of the Scottiʃh Nation, then he would need to look no further than Hume’s Haggis on Haberdaʃhery Road. This moʃt outʃtanding eʃtabliʃhment ʃerves all the integral elements of authentic Scottiʃh cuiʃine, not merely the eponymous haggis. Naturally, for the ʃake of being ʃimple, clear, ʃtraightforward and honeʃt, I ʃhould obʃerve that the Miʃter Hume who owns and runs that fine eʃtabliʃhment is a couʃin on my father’s ʃide, although that triviality of courʃe has no bearing on my recommendation, which is made ʃolely on the quality of the ʃuʃtenance ʃerved at that eʃtabliʃhment.
I would further add that while it is undeniably true that haggis is one of the foundational elements of the cuiʃine of the Scottiʃh Nation, it is alʃo indubitably true that man may not live by haggis alone.
Or even Haggis alone?
If you make another ʃuch abominable attempt at a play on words, ʃir, I ʃhall terminate this interview forthwith. The obʃervation which I wiʃhed to make for the edification of your readers is that if they wiʃh to avail themʃelves of another ʃtyle of cuiʃine while enjoying the fair ʃights of Dundee, then they need look no further than the Glass House, on Albany Terrace, where they may partake of the fineʃt ʃtyle of Daluming cuiʃine made in what I am assured is the genuine faʃhion.
To what extent does government, national or local, organise public festivities for Samhain?
A Nation has no government, ʃir. A Nation is the ʃum of its people, nothing more and nothing less.
If I understand your earlier explanations, a national government is what you would call a state government.
Then it would have been timelier and more conʃiderate toward your humble interviewee if you had rephraʃed the queʃtion in the firʃt inʃtance rather than ʃubʃequently. Never the less, now that I have comprehended the queʃtion, I can ʃay that within the ʃcope of the ʃtate in which I reʃide, the ʃtate government takes no part in the coordination of that moʃt joyful of celebrations, Samhain. Many local governments within Scotland ʃupport the celebrations in one faʃhion or another, according to their taʃtes and frugality, though for the moʃt part the feʃtivities are arranged by the community themʃelves, which to my way of thinking is the proper manner of celebrating Samhain, for it is the act of planning and coordinating theʃe feʃtivities which brings the community together in joyful and harmonious ʃpirit.
Where upon the span of the globe is Samhain celebrated in true and proper fashion?
A very fitting queʃtion, ʃir, and another of thoʃe rare occaʃions of queʃtions where I am in the fortunate, nay, blessed poʃition to give a ʃimple, clear, ʃtraightforward and honeʃt anʃwer. The reʃponʃe to your queʃtion, ʃir, is that Samhain is celebrated in true and proper faʃhion in, and only in, places where members of the Scottiʃh Nation reʃide. That means, naturally and indubitably, that it is for the moʃt part celebrated truly and properly only within the borders of Scotland, for that is where the greater part of the Scottiʃh Nation reʃides, but it alʃo follows, logically and inevitably, that wherever a true Scotʃman may dwell, whether within other parts of the Common Wealth or across the broader ʃpan of the globe, there Samhain may be celebrated in the fit and proper manner, with the bonfires, the jack-o’-lanterns made from moʃt worthy turnips, the children ʃinging in auld verʃe, and all the other accoutrements of that feʃtival.
So--
I muʃt further explain, ʃir, for the proper edification of your readers, that ʃeveral other peoples celebrate feʃtivals which they miʃcall Samhain, but none of them do ʃo in true and proper faʃhion. Only thoʃe who know and adhere to the ancient cuʃtoms of the Scottiʃh Nation, thoʃe who are of the blood of Alba, honour Samhain in the true manner of its feʃtivities.
Is Wales considered a separate country, and if so, how is it viewed?
Not for the firʃt time, ʃir, the nature of your queʃtions reveals the depth of your ignorance of this, the true world, for only one who was totally unfamiliar with the natural order of peoples could aʃk ʃuch a queʃtion in ʃuch a form, containing as it does ʃuch uninformed preʃuppoʃitions that diʃentangling them would be the labour of a far greater time than that which we have available to complete this brief interview, and ʃo fully anʃwering your queʃtion may not, nay, will not be a goal capable of deliverment.
I don’t fully underst--
There is no country called Wales, ʃir, any more than there is a country called Britannia. Never the less, there is a Welʃh Nation, and I can provide no more ʃuccinct deʃcription of how it is viewed than this: it is full of Welʃhmen.
How severe and widespread are Aururian diseases in the present day?
A pertinent queʃtion, ʃir, and one for which I muʃt confess that I do not possess complete familiarity with its ʃtatus across the ʃpan of the globe. As far as Scotland is concerned, I can ʃay that the miaʃma which is popularly called flu but which more accurately and properly is called influenza, includes a ʃtrain which is vulgarly called blue-ʃleep but which is more fittingly titled Aururian influenza. That diʃeaʃe remains one ʃtrain among many, more ʃevere than ʃome other varieties, but unlikely to cauʃe ʃevere illness or death in otherwiʃe healthy individuals, though as with all varieties of influenza it remains a threat to thoʃe whoʃe lives number only a handful of years and thoʃe whoʃe lives number a great many years.
That other Aururian diʃeaʃe called Marnitja is a malady which in my younger days I recall being a great danger on thoʃe occaʃions when it emerged, though I ʃurvived it myʃelf with no ill effects, but in more recent times it has become a far less ʃignificant ʃcourge due to the final development of a vaccine which wholly protects againʃt it, a vaccine which is omnipreʃent in Scotland and elʃewhere in the Common Wealth. I have heard that this vaccine is being ʃpread in more and more lands, though I have little recollection of the details.
I am given to underʃtand that the third Aururian diʃeaʃe, ʃwamp-raʃh, is a periodic affliction in lands which are afflicted with much more ʃun than Scotland, but as it is not a malady tranʃmitted by the moʃquitoes of this land, ʃo it is not of concern here, and ʃo I have given it little more heed.
Does Asterix still exist in your world?
A trite queʃtion, I would have ʃaid, ʃir, ʃince it appears of little import to any but typeʃetters and printers, but yea, the aʃteriʃk is indeed a character uʃed in this world.
What is the nature of the Druids and do their practices survive to the modern day?
This topic is a matter of which ʃcholars have had and continue to argue endlessly without proʃpect of reʃolution amongʃt themʃelves, for they are beloved of argument and bereft of the clarity of common ʃenʃe needed to reʃolve ʃuch a queʃtion. Fortunately I am possessed of that rare quality, namely the common ʃenʃe aforementioned, and therefore can ʃift through the endless diatribes and give your readers a ʃimple, nay, brief and clear anʃwer.
The druids were a ʃocial class among the ancient Celtic peoples, conʃiʃting of the moʃt learned, the qualified juʃtices, and the leaders in matters ʃpiritual. Tragically for their modern deʃcendants who wiʃh to include this aʃpect of their anceʃtry in their ʃenʃe of nationhood, the druids’ learning was tranʃmitted orally from one to the next, and therefore endured no longer than the ancient druids themʃelves. Thoʃe who in more recent times have ʃought to revive druidic practices possess admirable ambition but deficient knowledge, and in truth what they have done is revived the ancient Britiʃh Nation, before the diviʃion into diverʃe peoples, ʃo thoʃe who call themʃelves druids today are Britiʃh rather than Scottiʃh or Welʃh or Corniʃh.
How much do you know of the Hags?
I believe I have already expressed myʃelf ʃufficiently on the topic of haggis.
Hags, not haggis.
I have never ʃampled hags, ʃir.
The ancient Celtic goddesses.
That is one of the rare topics on which I will gladly concede ignorance, good ʃir. I am and remain a proud member of the Kirk, and while I hold no ill will to thoʃe who follow or ʃeek to re-eʃtabliʃh thoʃe ancient beliefs, I leave them to act and believe as they wiʃh, juʃt as I truʃt that they will leave me to believe as I wiʃh.
Well, that ends the questions which my readers provided. Thank you very much for your time and for your singular approach to interviews.
Thank you for the opportunity to edify a group of readers whom I could never hope to reach through the letter column of The Logos.
Look I’m reading this TL for the Scottish Church bits, so this is gold
Well I never said no one was allowed to disagree with me on it's merits.
But it was the opposite of enlightening, for me.
He speaks English, and yet he's somehow more incomprehensible than the Scots-speaking professor from Look to the West VII...
Reading this I assumed that the Scottish "monarchy" is now something like one of the African traditional monarchies-- a primarily cultural institution nowadays, with most of its political power outsourced to a state of republican or "Common-Wealthick" persuasion. I still think I'm right, but also that it goes deeper than that:
Some kingless state governs the entirety of Britain, yet it is nothing more than that-- a state. There is no British nationality, the people of the island instead have one of 3 (or possibly more?) nationalities which predate the state, and have the right to autonomous institutions even to the point of having a monarchy. We've seen this ideology before, in the form of panollidism and other concepts associated with this Solidarity Jenkins... so evidently that whole thing took off in a big way, and the ideology invented to help the Congxie survive as a nation without a state has taken over several states, and made them acknowledge their own constituent nations.
Looking forward to whatever monism ends up being-- I get the feeling France would hew to it, if it responds to its regionalist-labor movements by going "what nations are we talking about? I only see one :^)" But that assumes a France which goes through a Revolution in a familiar time and of a familiar nature, which is impossible.
Reading this I assumed that the Scottish "monarchy" is now something like one of the African traditional monarchies-- a primarily cultural institution nowadays, with most of its political power outsourced to a state of republican or "Common-Wealthick" persuasion. I still think I'm right, but also that it goes deeper than that:
Some kingless state governs the entirety of Britain, yet it is nothing more than that-- a state. There is no British nationality, the people of the island instead have one of 3 (or possibly more?) nationalities which predate the state, and have the right to autonomous institutions even to the point of having a monarchy. We've seen this ideology before, in the form of panollidism and other concepts associated with this Solidarity Jenkins... so evidently that whole thing took off in a big way, and the ideology invented to help the Congxie survive as a nation without a state has taken over several states, and made them acknowledge their own constituent nations.
Looking forward to whatever monism ends up being-- I get the feeling France would hew to it, if it responds to its regionalist-labor movements by going "what nations are we talking about? I only see one :^)" But that assumes a France which goes through a Revolution in a familiar time and of a familiar nature, which is impossible.