Monday, September 09, 2013
Opening Line: The Visit of the Royal Physician by Per Olov Enquist
This blog is undergoing revision; a temporary archive of the Opening Line series can be found here.
Johann Friedrich Struensee was appointed Royal Physician to King Christian VII on April 5, 1768, and four years later he was executed.
Sounds like the beginning of a popular history book, doesn't it? But in fact, this is The Visit of the Royal Physician, an historical novel by multi-award-winning Swedish author Per Olov Enquist. If the setting sounds familiar, it's probably because of a surprise hit film last year, A Royal Affair, directed by by Nikolaj Arcel and starring Mads Mikkelsen. Of course, it might also sound familiar because you have Danish connections; according to Mikkelsen, 'It's part of our history, everybody knows about it, but how many details is very individual. Everybody knows about this guy, Struensee the doctor, the German doctor who took over the country, had an affair with the queen, got a baby, and he got beheaded. But details - that's very individual how much you know.' It's a story the more remarkable for being true: an ambitious doctor named Johann Friedrich Struensee was appointed royal physician in Denmark to the then king, Christian VII. Christian was mentally ill, although exactly how remains a matter of speculation, and Struensee, an Enlightenment thinker in a country still based on serfdom, succeeded first in calming the king and then in gaining such influence over him that for a brief period, the German doctor became de facto ruler of Denmark. Struensee was prolific and remarkable in his reforms, which tended to be truly excellent ideas, but he was also rash enough to fall into an affair with the queen, Caroline Mathilde, and he evidently lacked the political skill to protect himself with alliances. Early in 1772 he was arrested and imprisoned, and an executioner chopped off first his right hand and then his head. It's a remarkable moment in Danish history, and it's also significant on the international stage. When the French Revolution began in 1789 its Enlightenment thinkers had a severe example to consider. This is what happened to a man who tried to break aristocratic power by non-violent means. Our guillotine for them, or their axe for us.
So the story is an intriguing one, and it's gained international interest in recent years. A Royal Affair is not, strictly speaking, based on The Visit of the Royal Physician; its makers tried to buy the rights, but they'd already been sold elsewhere and the film credits another novel, Prinsesse af blodet by Bodil Steensen-Leth, but Enquist's novel was influential enough that they had to double-check and do some rewrites on an earlier draft of the screenplay. (You'll have to run that article through Google Translate unless you happen to speak Swedish.) Most significant are the changes the film makes to Caroline Mathilde's character, which Enquist writes as ... well, as one of those female characters who are very obviously written by a man, primarily defined by sexuality and her instinctive rule over men, and while she's a well-executed version of that, to this reader at least it's a weakness in the novel, and the film's portrayal of Caroline Mathilde as Enlightenment herself is, if a romantic view, at least more humanising. But that said, the novel is fascinating - and it's not just because of the story. It's also a truly unusual feat of style.
Now, analysing the style of a work in translation is always a provisional business. The translator in this case is Tiina Nunnally, which puts us in pretty safe hands; she's another multi-award-winner, translator of another famous adapted work, Smilla's Sense of Snow, and she's evidently highly regarded in Sweden: it's hard to say which is the bigger tribute, her 2009 award for 'the introduction of Swedish culture abroad' or the fact that in 2007 she got to do a new translation of the beloved classic Pippi Longstocking. Any translation has an element of admixture - I'm sure the foreign editions of my books owe much to their respective translators, and I always remember the story of my friend's mother who first read Wordsworth through the translation of a famous Japanese poet and was deeply disappointed when she finally read the original - but while Nunnally had many choices to make about phrasing, the real feature of Enquist's style is one that survives translation. It's his use of flat, repetitive declaration.
The Visit of the Royal Physician is a deadpan book. Enquist is quite capable of metaphor and poetry when he chooses - Struensee thinks of the long-abused, confounded Christian as having 'frostbite of the soul', for instance - but he makes that choice only rarely. Instead, as befits the Enlightenment theme, the tone is strongly rational, confining itself to dry statement of facts - yet at the same time, it's fraught with emotional tension. In The Spectator, John de Falbe described the style thus:
Enquist writes in short, jerky sentences which often seem to repeat themselves. Although disconcerting at first, the technique works brilliantly. The atmosphere is suitably nervy, while the shifting ground beneath the apparent repetitions is vibrant with stealth and subterfuge.
While not all the sentences are literally short and jerky, he's right that it creates a 'nervy' atmosphere. I'd go further; I'd say it's doom-laden.
Fate and inevitability weigh heavy on the novel. Christian himself is a figure of profound pathos, a sane boy systematically tormented into helplessness at the hands of a court preferring to keep the king weak enough to leave their power unchecked; his preoccupation with acting and theatre, of which the film makes much play, is presented not as an aristocrat's vanity but as the utter confusion between reality and performance of a boy who has spent his entire life required to speak the lines given to him and kept ignorant of anything else. Struensee is, for a man who managed to revolutionise a country not his own, a curiously passive figure: it is Caroline Mathilde who seduces him and guides their sexual encounters, and his regency is unmixed with any desire for power:
It was as if he saw the aperture of history open, and he knew that it was the aperture of life, and he was the only one who could step through this opening. Perhaps, just perhaps, it was his duty.
Fear rather than ambition rules Enquist's Struensee, just as it rules Christian; Enquist's imaginative sympathy is entirely on the side of the frightened, and the Queen's fearlessness is presented as a strength of which Struensee himself is 'afraid', another way in which she dominates him. Struensee is afraid, and he's also 'doomed to destruction' because, as the Queen sees it (and the narrative tends to support her) he's too 'pure-hearted': fear, innocence and virtue are conflated, and those who do not fear, including the instinctual, physical Queen, have an element of monstrosity to them. The entire tone of the novel has a kind of impassioned caution, the desperate restraint of one who has much to say but fears to say too much.
We can hear it in the first sentence, though the style is so unusual that it takes a little time, a little practice getting one's ear in to Enquist's rhythms, before the emotion starts to strain through the facts. It deviates from plain history in one notable omission, for example: it doesn't say which country Christian was 'King' of. A popular textbook, especially one written in Swedish, would more likely say 'King Christian VII of Denmark,' just to make sure that everybody had all the relevant information at the outset. By omitting the reference to the country, the narrative assumes a certain knowledge from us.
Which, in turn, has a curious effect on the names. 'Johann Friedrich Struensee' and 'King Christian VII' are obviously formal, nothing anyone actually speaking to them would employ. But at the same time, leaving out that all-important location - it only crops up in the next paragraph, in which there's mention of 'the Danish court', still expecting the reader to do a little mild deduction, and even then it's only mentioned because it's about to quote the opinion of 'the British Ambassador to the Danish court', locating the sense of Danish foreignness in a character rather than the narrative - sounds as if, in some way, we were hearing about people we all knew. We hear their full names, but we apparently don't need telling who they are. It creates a weird sense of formality, a disconnected courtliness, as if the narrative itself is reluctant to commit straight away to calling them 'Christian' and 'Struensee' as it later does. Knowing already how Struensee's career ended - for this first sentence delivers him dead on arrival - it almost feels like reading a transcript, a statement to the police from a speaker not quite sure he won't be arrested himself if he says the wrong thing.
And we can see why when we consider the sentence's content. A man's 'visit' opens and closes in a few short years, and the close of his visit ends his life. Fortune's wheel is revolving fast in this world: to be near to power - as we must be as readers of stories of the powerful - is to be near to danger, near to death. Caroline Mathilde acknowledges this to herself in the reflection that:
To desire the queen was touch death. She was forbidden, and desired, and anyone who touched the most forbidden of all would have to die. It excited them; she knew that. She saw it in their eyes. And once she was aware of it, all the others seemed to become ensnared, ever more strongly, in an intense and silent radiance.
Enquist adds that this thought 'filled her with a tremendous sense of power', and as moments like this predominate when it comes to our insight into Caroline Mathilde's thoughts, you can see why I described her as feeling very male-written - but thematically it's central to the book and sexuality is only part of it. Life and death are intermingled, and to live too vividly is to court disaster. In a sense, the opening sentence links Struensee's rise and fall almost as cause and effect: had he not become Royal Physician, he would not have been executed. We open, in a sense, with the beginning of the end. (An impression that's heightened by the fact that the first few chapters following describe time after Struensee's death. Death hangs over Struensee before we ever meet him.)
In the face of this morbidity, performance and concealment are key: spontaneous expression tends to be destructive, as in the 'great furious confused rape of Copenhagen' that takes place in anti-Struensee riots, or self-destructive, as when Struensee sleeps with the Queen or his ally Brandt defends himself against a frantic attack from Christian, a defence that will later sign his death warrant. The narrative does not court such destruction. 'Johann Friedrich Struensee' and 'King Christian VII' are not so much naming the people as quoting their names, using an official version that no one could be blamed for saying.
It is, simultaneously, a sentence that speaks of characters more than of history. Note the order: not, 'On April 5, 1768, Johann Friedrich Struensee was appointed Royal Physician to King Christian VII,' but 'Johann Friedrich Struensee was appointed Royal Physician to King Christian VII on April 5, 1768...' The subject is the man, not the date. Now, this is a decision made by Nunnally, not Enquist; the original sentence ran thus:
Den 5 april 1768 anställdes Johann Friedrich Struensee som den danske konungen Christian den sjundes livläkare, och avrättades fyra år senare.
- and according to my Scandinavian friends, it would have been grammatically acceptable to put Struensee's name at the start. (And the Danish translation begins with the date too.) Not being a Swedish speaker I'm in no position to comment on the subtleties of Enquist's choice - very probably it involves nuances of language and literary tradition about which I can say nothing sensible - but Nunnally's makes it clear to English eyes that this is a novel, and that Johann Friedrich Struensee will be at the centre of it.
There's an added ironic emphasis that shows up on rereading, especially when we consider the title. Struensee's execution takes place a few pages from the end of the novel, in a section that concludes, '...the axe at last found its mark and severed the head of the German royal physician; and his Danish visit was over.' 'Visit' is one of those words that Enquist charges through repetition, and when we've read the entire book, we can see its significance: the 'visit' is a fatal one, not just a consultation with a patient but his engagement with an entire country and culture which will ultimately destroy him. 'The visit of the royal physician' is, in effect, summarised in the first sentence: we begin with the moment he could first be called 'royal physician', and end where he ends. The 'visit' is, like many other words in the novel, a word that contains more implication, more weight, more inevitability than a single word can comfortably contain.
And it is, indeed, an uncomfortable read, linguistically as well as narratively. This is not a fault in the book: Enquist is evidently a fine writer and Nunnally does a fine job with the translation: discomfort is an effect it works to produce. To take an example: while touring Europe, Christian has a habit of smashing furniture in fits of hysteria, and Enquist describes it thus:
In the end [Christian] was practically certain that he was a prisoner who was being escorted, in a gigantic procession, to his punishment.
Look at the final paragraph, that dry, repressed sentence, 'That was the summary.' We can hear it it both condemnation and resignation. Yes, that summary is accurate and contains within it a swathe of destruction, and in describing Christian's behaviour, more hardly needs to be said. And no, that description is a summary and nothing more, and what it omits - Christian's inner experience, the pain that motivates him and the abuse that created the pain and the profound cynicism that motivated the abuse - are the important things, and a 'summary' that omits everything important comes out of a culture that is itself the cause of the destruction. A single sentence, isolated in its own paragraph to give it weight, both affirms and blames the summary, not disagreeing with it factually, but challenging it morally - but a challenge that could, if pressed, be denied. After all, it's just a plain statement of fact.
Interpretation, then, is key. The plain statements of fact are always understatements: 'It would be a long night. First dinner. Then tea. After that the masked ball. Then the coup d'etat.' And they're understated because they take place in a narrative that has already anticipated its end. We already know when we hear a comment like 'That's how things were at the best of times,' the worst of times are in view. More or less everything is 'summary', in fact; the closest we get to authorial explanation is the odd bald description like 'The atmosphere was charged and hostile, but courteous', a description that's once again isolated in its own paragraph, too frozen to expand. Expansiveness only takes place in the characters' private reflections, and the narrative voice just quotes them rather than confirming or denying. It's clear which characters the narrative prefers, but we have to deduce that from the evidence: it isn't going to tell us directly.
The characters themselves tend to be obsessives of some kind or another, often defined by epithets - 'the wine treader', 'the Silent One' - and ruled by single guiding ideas. It's a device more commonly seen in comedy, where monomania is the staple of humour: think of Mrs Elton's 'Maple Grove' in Jane Austen's Emma, for instance, or Madeleine Basset in the P.G. Wodehouse novels and her preoccupation with rabbits, fairies and God's daisy-chain of stars. Here, though, it's frightening: while comic characters amuse us by finding endless variations on their central trait, in The Visit of the Royal Physician, variation isn't possible. The 'wine treader' Guldberg, for instance, who eventually orchestrates Struensee's overthrow, is driven by a ferocious commitment to punishing the impure who have failed to appreciate his value, and when Caroline Mathilde asks him why he destroyed them, he quotes long sections of the Bible with the air of finally revealing his character. Christian's preoccupation with unreality isn't funny: it's ridiculous, but it's also a prison that prevents him from saving his friend. When obsessives jostle against each other, it's only funny if it's survivable.
Which, as we know from the first sentence, it is not.
Pulling off a trick of style like this, and sustaining it through an entire novel without boring the reader, is a truly remarkable feat. For Enquist's style to work, we have to read at a slow pace, listening for the resonances and echoes in apparently ordinary words. By beginning as he does, with a single-sentence paragraph that contains both dry facts and the history of a man's terrible fall, he slows us down. It's as if the book is saying to us, 'Stop. Tread carefully. Listen to every word I say.' Fate is hanging over our shoulder from the very beginning, giving every word an invisible weight. In plain language, we are told that we are on borrowed time, and like condemned criminals awaiting execution, we find ourselves in a world where everything is magnified as if it were our last moment.
Writing a work of historical fiction is always a case of compromise. Every era has its values that are held too deep to see, and a writer must balance their own era's preconceptions against the foreign preconceptions of the era they depict. At the same time, every historical novel is a novel of the present day: we interpret the past according to our own lights, and what we say of it, we say of ourselves. Struensee is an interesting case of this: the Enlightenment is an era that has shaped our own and most of us accept many of its new ideas as unquestioned truths; a man like Struensee is an easy choice for our identification. Yet at the same time, he must have had a will to power - nobody becomes head of state without one - and that sits uneasily with Enlightenment values: personal advancement is the stuff of aristocracy, and an Enlightenment ruler is supposed to be ruling for the sake of the people in the name of reason. It's interesting that a 1935 film of the same story, rather than choosing the more neutral 'A Royal Affair' or the straight-faced 'The Visit of the Royal Physician', was called 'The Dictator'; Struensee was, for a brief time, a dictator, and while his reforms seem to have been all to the good, the twentieth century has taught us to fear any man who claims to be dictating for the benefit of the people. Arcel and Mikkelsen deal with the issue by creating a Struensee mostly driven by human connection - by liking for the aristocrats who press him to apply for the royal post, by compassion for the demented Christian, by love and admiration for the enlightened Caroline Mathilde. Enquist takes our fear and relocates it in Struensee. We have nothing to fear from him because he is more afraid of his power than we are.
You can see a useful contrast between the two approaches in the 'wooden horse' incident - a moment that A Royal Affair must have taken from Enquist, but adapted. If you've seen the film, you may remember it: riding together, Struensee and Caroline Mathilde pass the dead body of a peasant strapped to a torturous trestle, his widow sitting hopelessly beside him and running away in terror when she sees the aristocrats approach. Struensee dismounts, tries to reassure the widow, then unties the dead man, releasing him in death from the horrible device. In the book, it is Christian who accompanies Struensee, and the victim is alive, in the process of being whipped, probably to death. Struensee tries to explain to Christian that, 'That's the way things are in your kingdom, Your Majesty ... An entire peasant class is sitting there on that wooden horse ... That is reality. Liberate them. Liberate them.' Yet Christian is too horrified to make sense of the scene, unable to grasp its abstract 'reality', and Struensee, faced with Christian's panic, is too afraid to intervene. The boy - younger than depicted in the film, his age is guessed at sixteen - is left to his fate. All that Enquist is prepared to acknowledge is the power of Struensee's values, 'something left that could not be chopped off' after Struensee himself has been beheaded and quartered. Actual people are not saved. Enquist's novel is uncomfortable with granting any moments of hope to the past: ideals and ideas alone are safe. It's one of those novels that is as much a hymn of praise to the present, or to the future, as it is a commentary on the past. Struensee, in the abstract, is the eternal intellectual, frightened by the pragmatic brutality of the world and more potent as a symbol than as a man.
You can see why this wouldn't translate very well into a film. A Royal Affair has many influences, and cinematically it's somewhat akin to Kubrick's Barry Lyndon: visually lush, verbally understated, steady-paced and merciless. When you can see the people up on screen, their inner thoughts can only be expressed by actors' performances, and to perform a character is to render them specific, intimate, more particular than symbolic. To shoot in beautiful fields and palaces is to treat of beauty and expansiveness. What Enquist gives us, instead, is the entrapping repetition of obsession and fear, a voice that lives in the little breaks between reason and madness that make an oppressive world. What we have in the first sentence is the novel in microcosm, an ingrown fractal of fate. A man is appointed, he is executed, and the narrative voice can add no rhetoric that could possibly communicate more than the bare events. We, like the characters, must see what has happened and draw our own frightened, confused, hopeful conclusions.
So I started the book today, and I've only read the first chapter.
Enough to say thank you for the recommendation, anyway. I'd missed this one when it was first published.
Speaking of publication, this is the American edition, and in it the first sentence has the date first. Maybe just a revision to bring it into line with the Continental standard, but as an American, I was immediately reminded that April 1768 was only seven years before April 1775 and the "shot heard 'round the world." It puts us in that evolutionary frame of mind immediately.
The Visit of the Royal Physician is a deadpan book.
This would appear to be true.
the British ambassador to Copenhagen reported to his government about an incident he had witnessed. He considered the incident puzzling.
That was why he reported it.
Well, that makes sense!
But the incident is rather more than puzzling; it's sad, and worrying. As you say, discomfort is produced immediately.
Guldberg had always wished that his biography would begin with the words: "There was a man named Guldberg." This was the style of the Icelandic sagas, in which a man's greatness was not judged by his outward appearance.
And it occurs to me that the deadpan style may owe something to that saga tradition. Events will be reported, but understanding is going to require attention.
Also the epithets; saga characters are often identified by some descriptor-- Ulf the Fearless, Aud the Deep-Minded, Thorold Sledgehammer, Sarcastic Halli-- indicating their dominant character trait. And what happens, happens because the people involved are who they are, and being who they are, they could do nothing else.
Guldberg should have remembered, perhaps, that if a saga begins "There was a man..." then that man will not be the main character of the saga. He'll be the protagonist's father or grandfather or father-in-law or neighbor or enemy, but the story is going to be about somebody else.
A Revolutionary frame of mind. Evolutionary would be something else entirely.
Although I suppose you could say that the implementation of "all created equal" and "the consent of the governed" is still a work in progress.
...and once again you expose the gaps in my reading, because I'm not very familiar with sagas but now you say it I want to smack my forehead. Yes, of course. Sagas! It's a saga!
I feel the urge to go read a lot of sagas, rewrite the post and pretend I spotted that all along, but I think I'd better leave it here to give you the credit. :-)
I'd be interested to hear your views as you keep reading. It somewhat lost me as I went along - I felt the portrait of Caroline Mathilde was faulty and the portrayal of Struensee was ... well, it called to mind Lerone Bennet Jr's criticism of William Styron's The Confessions of Nat Turner:
According to the historical data, the real Nat Turner was a virile, commanding, courageous figure. Styron rejects history by rejecting this image of Nat Turner. In fact, he wages literary war on this image, substituting an impotent, cowardly, irresolute creature of his own imagination for the real black man who killed or ordered killed real white people for real historical reasons. The man Styron substitutes for Nat Turner is not only the antithesis of Nat Turner; he is the antithesis of blackness. In fact, he is a standard Styron type: a neurasthenic, Hamlet-like white intellectual in blackface.*:
Now, before I overstate that, I should add that I haven't read Styron either and The Visit of the Royal Physician is the only work of Enquist's I've read, so it's a shaky comparison that I should only make with caution. All I mean is that the portrayal of Struensee does seem somewhat irresolute and Hamlet-like when one considers the historical facts. He's a figure that does lend himself to modern projections, and of course it's not implausible that a man in his position would feel some trepidation, but it's hard to believe a man could have attained the power he did without more boldness and ego than Enquist attributes.
Of course, I don't know enough about Enquist to know if the hyper-fearful thwarted intellectual is a recurring character in his work the way Bennett alleges of Styron. But after a while, the characterisation of Struensee as eternally fearful and doubtful started to feel ... overdone, overemphasised, as if there were some motive for it that didn't have to do with history or artistic necessity.
Which may, of course, be nothing more than a mismatch of taste between Enquist and myself. But I'd be interested to hear your view.
And now I want to re-read The Saga of the People of Laxardale and then Middlemarch, to remind myself of the contrast between a saga and a novel. Possibly with a chaser of Jane Smiley's The Greenlanders, which is both.
I made it almost through the second chapter on my lunch hour today. It's true that the sagas usually do start with background, sometimes quite deep background, so I suppose that's what's happening in these first four chapters.
I haven't gotten to Caroline Mathilde yet, but I did a basic Wikipedia check for names and dates, and I notice that when she met Struensee, he was thirty-one to her seventeen-- her introductory section is titled "The English Child," even-- which kind of raised my eyebrows over who was more likely to dominate whom. Age isn't everything, but still.
I never read Styron either. But I always have to remind myself, when I'm reading a "historical" novel, that the characters are not necessarily identical to the historical personages. Well, they can't be. So how much license does a novelist have to make them up? Is is "fair," for want of a better word, to create a Nat Turner who is probably not at all like the flesh-and-blood Nat Turner?
Chapter 2 is a sad chapter. It's called "The Invulnerable One," but there's nothing but vulnerability going on here.
For a long time [Reverdil] seems to have envisioned the development from darkness to light as inevitable, gentle, and free from violence.
Later he abandoned this idea.
Oh dear. This is not looking good.
Great post.Learning different languages is hard but fun.We were able to grasps the culture of every languages we translate.A lost in Danish translation or any translation should not hinder us to know exactly about one's history and culture.I could say that translators really play a big role in our society.I can't see machines taking over the jobs of human translators in the near future, as they have done with so many other professions.
"A popular textbook, especially one written in Swedish, would more likely say 'King Christian VII of Denmark,' just to make sure that everybody had all the relevant information at the outset. By omitting the reference to the country, the narrative assumes a certain knowledge from us."
It's worth noting that the absence of Denmark in the first sentence is another decision made by the translator:
"Den 5 april 1768 anställdes Johann Friedrich Struensee som den danske konungen Christian den sjundes livläkare, och avrättades fyra år senare."
The bolded word means "Danish" in Swedish (and in Danish too, for that matter).
تمتاز ارقام مؤسسات نقل عفش بجدة التي نوفرها بمميزات منها:Post a Comment
الجدية في التداول مع الزبائن الذين يتعاملون معها.
الالتزام بمواعيد التسليم المحددة للعفش.
سرعة انجاز الهامة، وتوفير وقت الزبون بواسطة إنجاز نقل العفش الي المدينة او المقر المطلوب بأسرع ما يكون.
تلبية رغبات الزبائن للنقل من جدة الي خارجها واعتبارها رغبات مشروعة تحاول المؤسسة لتحقيقها بكل ما يمكنها، لتنال رضا عملاءها.
الاستعانة بكافة الأدوات والمعدات الجديدة التي توصل اليها العلم الجديد في ميدان الرفع والسحب والتغليف.
الاستعانة بأفضل فريق مميز من الأيدي العاملة الفلبينية المهنية المتميزة والتي تقوم بدور هائل في عملية نقل العفش الي داخل جدة وخارجها وتعد هي العمود الفقري لكل شركه نقل عفش من تلك المؤسسات.
المطواعية في التداول مع الزبائن والاستفادة التامة من ملاحظاتهم وتوجيهاتهم نحو فك وتغليف العفش حيث يتم استعانة بعض المؤسسات بالعمالة الفلبينية لنقل العفش داخل جدة وخارجها.
الاستعانة بالخبراء المتخصصين في ميدان النقل والاستفادة التامة من خبرتهم في ذلك الميدان.
الاعتماد في نقل العفش على أفضل مركبات للنقل.
تعتمد الشركه أفضل قائدي سيارات لسيارات النقل المتخصصين.
الاعتماد على الأيدي العاملة الفلبينية كأحد أفضل مكونات العماله الموجودة في مكان البيع والشراء السعودي.
النفع من الخبرات الأوربية والصينية في ساحات نقل وفك وتغليف العفش ودراسة تلك الخبرات ومحاولة تنفيذها في ميادين النقل بما يخدم تلك العملية ويحقق لنا التوفيق الباهر في تحقيقها على أرض الواقع. شركة نقل اثاث من الرياض الى جدة
شركة نقل عفش من الرياض الى جدة
شركة نقل عفش بخميس مشيط
July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 March 2014