Review on the Stygia sourcebook ?

[The King]

He would never have joined a slave-keeping culture.

What about his service in Turan's army? (Can't remember if that was REH or pastiche, though -- probably the latter...)

- thulsa

I think it's pastiche.
Now that I see my mistake (see my post above), I'm not sure. Pastiches definitly but may also be Howard.
In fact I stopped reading Conan for 2 years after a very bad pastiche (IMO) novel from R. Green (Conan and the Death Lord of Thanza).

 

[VincentDarlage]

Indeed, you are quoting the introduction by de Camp. Howard didn't precise where Conan came from but I accept it.

Ummm, he was quoting Howard. Howard stated quite explicitly where Conan came from. He came from Sukhmet where he was working for the Stygians.

 

[Dpetroc]

In fact, Conan was part of a mercenary unit fighting against the Stygian army. He would never have joined a slave-keeping culture.

I wonder what makes you say that. Conan KEPT slaves... Natala was "appropriated" in Shemite Market --- don't have the story in front of me but I think it says her lot was better than it would have been in Shem, and goes on to say "She had no choice in the matter." Sounds like a slave to me....

 

[VincentDarlage]

I wonder what makes you say that. Conan KEPT slaves... Natala was "appropriated" in Shemite Market --- don't have the story in front of me but I think it says her lot was better than it would have been in Shem, and goes on to say "She had no choice in the matter." Sounds like a slave to me....

Quite right. That would be "Xuthal of the Dusk" (AKA "The Slithering Shadow").

 

[The King]

In fact, Conan was part of a mercenary unit fighting against the Stygian army. He would never have joined a slave-keeping culture.

I wonder what makes you say that. Conan KEPT slaves... Natala was "appropriated" in Shemite Market --- don't have the story in front of me but I think it says her lot was better than it would have been in Shem, and goes on to say "She had no choice in the matter." Sounds like a slave to me....

There was a thread on slavery in the Hyborian Age one or 2 years ago where many people (folks?) expressed their opinions, including myself.
I don't need to double post.

Anyway, many pastiches do precise that Conan is fighting slavery and slavers (Andrew Offutt, Bjorn Nyberg, etc.). He also leveled a Turanian city to the ground.

 

[The King]

I wonder what makes you say that. Conan KEPT slaves... Natala was "appropriated" in Shemite Market --- don't have the story in front of me but I think it says her lot was better than it would have been in Shem, and goes on to say "She had no choice in the matter." Sounds like a slave to me....

Quite right. That would be "Xuthal of the Dusk" (AKA "The Slithering Shadow").

It s more a pleasure girl then a slave. She doesn't belong to him.

 

[kintire]

Anyway, many pastiches do precise that Conan is fighting slavery and slavers (Andrew Offutt, Bjorn Nyberg, etc.)

Pastiches, bah. Anyway, I'm sure that Conan did fight slavers; he also fought soldiers, barbarian tribesmen, knights, savages, priests, sorcerers, pirates and nomads. Doesn't mean he was opposed to any of these as a concept.

He also leveled a Turanian city to the ground

Because he hated the Turanians and the city was full of loot. Thoth Amon was a slave in Aquilonia, during Conan's reign. There is no suggestion this was illegal, or even unusual.

It s more a pleasure girl then a slave. She doesn't belong to him

She actually does... it specifically said she had been given no choice in the matter. Of course, she is actually quite in favour of the situation, so we never find out what would have happened if she tried to leave or resist him. Very possibly, not much. It certainly does seem Conan was opposed to tyranny, and was against mistreating people for whom you were responsible, but there's no reason to believe he was opposed to slavery per se.

 

[The King]

It s more a pleasure girl then a slave. She doesn't belong to him

She actually does... it specifically said she had been given no choice in the matter. Of course, she is actually quite in favour of the situation, so we never find out what would have happened if she tried to leave or resist him. Very possibly, not much. It certainly does seem Conan was opposed to tyranny, and was against mistreating people for whom you were responsible, but there's no reason to believe he was opposed to slavery per se.

This would then imply we hear from her in some other stories but this isn't the case.

 

[Dpetroc]

This would then imply we hear from her in some other stories but this isn't the case.

We have to go with the text. The text is clear that she had no choice. "Appropriated" is a euphemism for theft. Theft denotes possession. The girl was a possession. i.e. slave. Perhaps, as he was about to do before they spotted Xuthal, he slew her in the desert when the water ran out again. Do ANY women appear in a Conan story more than once? That's not a basis for her being a slave or not. Perhaps he sold her to a Kushite for all we know...

 

[The King]

This would then imply we hear from her in some other stories but this isn't the case.

We have to go with the text. The text is clear that she had no choice. "Appropriated" is a euphemism for theft...

I would rather say the word is employed with irony there. True, it means to "take without permission" (from the Webster), but Conan never asked permission for anything, especially in this matter.
Moreover, "appropriate" also means adequate.

 

[Dpetroc]

This would then imply we hear from her in some other stories but this isn't the case.

We have to go with the text. The text is clear that she had no choice. "Appropriated" is a euphemism for theft...

I would rather say the word is employed with irony there. True, it means to "take without permission" (from the Webster), but Conan never asked permission for anything, especially in this matter.
Moreover, "appropriate" also means adequate.

Is it ironic? I dunno -- maybe. However, that is your intepretation of it, and I don't see it supported by any other textual evidence from the tales that are canon. I haven't read the pastiche so can't comment on them.

Not sure how appropriate means adequate (suitable, maybe), or can within the context. Websters gives a few examples of the use of the word as:

4. to take to or for oneself; take possession of.
5. to take without permission or consent; seize; expropriate: He appropriated the trust funds for himself. (you quoted this one)
6. to steal, esp. to commit petty theft.

All three of those support Natala as property. Perhaps property that was happier with her lot with Conan, but property nonetheless. To some extent, his intention to kill her before they spotted Xuthal supports that argument in a way. You can ask whether or not he would have done that with a 'free' woman.

Conan DOES mention that he's never forced himself on a woman (Vale of Lost Women?). Doesn't mean he doesn't own her.

Let's look at another example -- Vale of Lost Women again. When Livia asks Conan to rescue her, he is initially unconcerned that she is the property of the other Chieftain. Eventually helping her because she a) promises sexual favors (which he declines in the end) and b) because she is white and her enslaver is black. I can't think of an instance where Conan condemns slavery per se. He decries it for himself of course. I'd be interested in seeing another citation where Conan condemns slavery outright. He rescues many enslaved females, but only out of self-interest, not because slavery in and of itself bothers him. As a Cimmerian, he would loathe slavery, but he would consider any man who allowed himself to be enslaved as weak, and unworthy of protection.

Hey -- it's literature, and you can read it whatever way you wish. I think everyone tends to romanticize Conan a bit. I can't see where Howard's writing supports your supposition, but that of course, is my opinion.

 

[The King]

Hey -- it's literature, and you can read it whatever way you wish. I think everyone tends to romanticize Conan a bit. I can't see where Howard's writing supports your supposition, but that of course, is my opinion.

I respectfully respect your point of view but I'll keep to mine. I think that though he is a barbarian in his way, he just enjoyed life and freedom above all. He can be selfish but also atruist.

IICR, at the end of the jewels of Gwalhur, he prefers to throw a big jewel to save a girl who he isn't in love with.

 

[VincentDarlage]

IICR, at the end of the jewels of Gwalhur, he prefers to throw a big jewel to save a girl who he isn't in love with.

That has NOTHING to do with his opinion on slavery.

 

[kintire]

Moreover, "appropriate" also means adequate

Suitable actually; but the context here is clear. It has its meaning of steal, or the sentence is meaningless.

IICR, at the end of the jewels of Gwalhur, he prefers to throw a big jewel to save a girl who he isn't in love with.


That has NOTHING to do with his opinion on slavery.

Exactly. Conan strongly believes that if you are responsible for someone, or you got them in to a situation, you should do your utmost to protect them and ensure they prosper. He saves Muriela in Jewels of Gwahlur for the same reason that he rescues Natala in Xuthal of the Dusk, returns to lead his Afghulis in People of the Black Circle, and refuses to sell his kingdom for his life in Scarlet Citadel. He is responsible for those people, and he takes that kind of responsibility very very seriously. There is no indication at all that he is especially bothered as to the form that responsibility takes.

My personal belief is that Conan sees very little difference between slavery and the various other forms of civilised hierarchy. After all, almost all people in a civilised scoeity have a superior that they cannot safely defy. Slave, serf, tenant, employee, vassal... to a barbarian, what's the difference? Conan is contemptuous of and hostile to those who treat their people badly, but he would, I suspect, be far more favourable to a slave owner who treats his slaves well than to an employer who ruthlessly exploits his "free" employees.

 

[The King]

My personal belief is that Conan sees very little difference between slavery and the various other forms of civilised hierarchy. After all, almost all people in a civilised scoeity have a superior that they cannot safely defy. Slave, serf, tenant, employee, vassal... to a barbarian, what's the difference? Conan is contemptuous of and hostile to those who treat their people badly, but he would, I suspect, be far more favourable to a slave owner who treats his slaves well than to an employer who ruthlessly exploits his "free" employees.

Sure, Cimmerians don't appreciate being ruled or enslaved by anyone. The Aquilonians received a lesson.
Conan as a king doesn't rule the same way as his predecessors. He told himself it wasn't jewels and god rings which made a king and he even disliked more those who would bow before such kings. This and his Cmmerian way of ruling makes me believe there wasn't probably any slaves under his reign.

As to your last sentence, I don't agree. As far as I know, trade unions didn't existed in the Hyborian Age to protect employees, but they still are free and receive a wage.
If they were mistreated and would still stay, Conan would despise them for accepting such a shameful condition instead of going somewhere else, while slaves can't do that. If they flee they are killed.

I don't say Conan would help a slave because he 'd rather think it's his own problem unless the slave would ask him for help. Conan is a loner and expect probably that everyone makes his own way in his life but he knows some people just can't.

Then by extrapolation, Cimmerians don't own slaves and I am not sure that Conan would because Howard tells us at every moment that Conan still thinks as a Cimmerian (his thought on civilized people and cultures is enough to understand what I mean). Why would he then integrate this way of life he despises so much?[/u]

 

[The King]

IICR, at the end of the jewels of Gwalhur, he prefers to throw a big jewel to save a girl who he isn't in love with.

That has NOTHING to do with his opinion on slavery.

It has a lot to do in the understanding of his behaviour and thought about objects (and thus ownership) and people.

 

[The King]

Moreover, "appropriate" also means adequate

Suitable actually; but the context here is clear. It has its meaning of steal, or the sentence is meaningless.

I still believe the sense is ironic because it involves of course some sexual implication which Howard used much in his stories (erotism was always present, at least in most stories). While slavery per se involves more the privation of freedom and poor living condition.

The movie Kull, while not exceptional, explains this very well: as he is a barbarian who becomes king, he is clearly breaking the rules (which he does literally in the movie) because he takes the place of all the possible heirs.
This movie was much despised by Conan fans but examinating it closely, there is much of Conan's in Kull's behaviour.

 

[Dpetroc]

IICR, at the end of the jewels of Gwalhur, he prefers to throw a big jewel to save a girl who he isn't in love with.

That has NOTHING to do with his opinion on slavery.

It has a lot to do in the understanding of his behaviour and thought about objects (and thus ownership) and people.

Sorry to beat the horse further, but what other attributions within the Howard text lead you to conclude he is against slavery in and of itself?

Phoenix in the Sword -- demonstration of slavery in Aquilonia
Vale of Lost Women - disinterest of Conan in freeing a slave JUST because she was a slave.
Xuthal of the Dusk - explicit text indicating ownership.

Further example if you take Nemedia and Aquilonia to share certain characteristics -- Hour of the Dragon, Zenobia was sold into the Seraglio of Tarascus. Likewise Conan kept a Seraglio. So, very possible that the Seraglio of Conan was not...optional.

I think you have to divorce the notion of Conan (or any Cimmerian) being against anything that impinges on his own freedom versus his opposition to slavery as an institution.

Drawing too much on Conan's innate sense of "rough" decency towards women (not letting them perish needlessly, etc.) cannot really provide insight into his thoughts on slavery as an institution. Slaves have often, historically, held high positions in a society or household. Just because a Janissary was a commander of a force in the field, didn't make him any less a slave. Nor did the major domo in a grecian household's value as an administrator make HIM any less a slave.

 

[kintire]

This and his Cmmerian way of ruling makes me believe there wasn't probably any slaves under his reign.

But there were.

Dion was alone except for the great dusky figure which lounged on a marble bench close at hand, watching the baron with deep somber eyes.
Dion gave little thought to Thoth-amon. He vaguely knew that he was a
slave in whom Ascalante reposed much trust, but like so many rich men,
Dion paid scant heed to men below his own station in life.

If they were mistreated and would still stay, Conan would despise them for accepting such a shameful condition instead of going somewhere else

Not quite his attitude in Scarlet Citadel.

I found Aquilonia in the grip of a pig like you--one who traced his genealogy for a thousand years. The land was torn with the wars of the barons, and the people cried out under oppression and taxation. Today no Aquilonian noble dares maltreat the humblest of my subjects, and the taxes of the people are lighter than anywhere else in the world.

"What of you? Your brother, Amalrus, holds the eastern half of your kingdom, and defies you. And you, Strabonus, your soldiers are even now besieging castles of a dozen or more rebellious barons. The people of both your kingdoms are crushed into the earth by tyrannous taxes and levies. And you would loot mine--ha! Free my hands and I'll varnish this floor with your brains!"

Why would he then integrate this way of life he despises so much?

The Cimmerians don't sing cheerful songs, drink anything but water, use armour or rule kingdoms. Conan is a barbarian, but he's not a very typical Cimmerian: what makes you think he dislikes slavery particularly? and all that is assuming that the Cimmerians don't keep slaves, which I'm not aware Howard ever stated.

 

[The King]

I don't see what your quotes bring to the discussion.

Thoth-Amon was an occasional slave because he lost his ring. Moreover tt is not because slavery can be forbidden in Aquilonia, that some won't keep slaves.

Murder is forbidden in the US and most countries inthe world but there still are crimes. Slavery is also forbidden in industrialized countries but there is reported cases in Europe of individual keeping clandestine immigrants as slaves for domestic labour (i.e. people for the Eastern Europe or Africa or Asia).

You should know that it is not because a law is in force that it is rightfully applied everywhere.