Subject: The Best Introduction to the Mountains

From: treilly <treilly at ozemail.com.au>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 11:44:28 +0000

Yes, the naive political content certainly detracted from the admirably heartfelt remainder.  Can it be seriously questioned that societies of hundreds of millions require more complex self regulation than Anglo Saxon tribes of a few thousand at most?  Bureaucratic this might be, but there are worse things than bureaucracy.  I suppose Wolfe must say he would prefer to live among the Goths and Vandals than in Rome of the same era.  I would prefer now, and Rome next.

The (Heinleinesque) political asides irresistably reminded me of Sir Peter Medawar's comment on a similar essay by C S Lewis idealising the traditional feudal relationship of old England where every man knew his place and was happy.  Medawar pointed out that of course Lewis in writing this unquestionably envisaged himself as lord of the manor!  The same assumption runs deep in Wolfe's words.

I will try to find the exact quote when I return home to Sydney in a few weeks.

Tim

This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:31:52 +0000

on 1/3/02 5:16 PM, James Jordan at jbjordan4 at home.com wrote:

>> Wolfe's illustrations of Tolkien's "discovery," which he allegedly wrote
>> LOTR to propagandize for, both center on the willingness of people to serve
>> and be led by their "betters."
>> 
>> And if he is really talking about libertarianism, it's curious he should
>> pick the "Dark Ages" as his exemplar, a time not particularly known for
>> security of property.
> 
> The "Christian model" of societal hierarchy, to which Wolfe surely
> subscribes, and which people on this list are free to reject, affirms the
> following matters, among others:

[summary snipped]

I agree that these are probably Wolfe's political views, with a couple of
exceptions:

> 3. People usually but not always grow into their callings as a
> result of their upbringing.
> 3a. Corollary: Some kind of political aristocracy, with sons (and
> daughters nowadays) reared for rule, in inescapable: Kennedys, Bushes, etc.
> The "skull & bones" elite." The Eastern Establishment. Etc.

This I'm not so sure about.  None of Wolfe's "good rulers" are reared for
rule that I can recall, although Silk is "bred" for rule.  And surely you
didn't mean to imply that Wolfe sees "Kennedys, Bushes, etc. The "skull &
bones" elite. The Eastern Establishment. Etc." as the sort of people who
should be running things.  With the possible exception of the Bushes, these
are precisely the sort of people he despises.

> This is not a matter of "lessers" serving
> "betters," but of mutual service of various sorts.

Here I disagree.  Wolfe does believe in "betters," which implies the
existence of "lessers," even if he doesn't use the latter word.  Quoting
again from his essay, the Sylvan Elves "choose to be ruled by people better
than themselves...": not better at governing, but better period.  Examples
can be found in his fiction, too: Silkhorn is better than the people around
him, and the protagonist of "Tracking Song," as a true human, is better than
the animal-people he moves among.

> Thus, I did not read Wolfe's article as saying that Tolkein had
> "discovered" a society where the lessers delight to serve their betters --
> though Adam may be right that those who rejected his essay thought he was
> saying this -- but as saying Tolkein was reflecting on the nature of
> societal hierarchy as delineated above.

I'm not sure if you're objecting specifically to my use of the word
"discovered," but while the specific word may not be in Wolfe's article, I
think it accurately reflects it:

"Philology led him [Tolkien] to the study of the largely illiterate
societies of Northern Europe between the fall of Rome and the beginning of
the true Middle Ages (roughly AD 400 to 1000). There he found a quality --
let us call it Folk Law -- that has almost disappeared from his world and
ours."

It seems to me that Wolfe does indeed think that Tolkien "discovered" a
society which followed the principles you listed, however one wishes to
describe it.  I certainly don't get the impression Wolfe regards Tolkien as
a political philosopher.

> Finally, "dark ages" is just sarcasm. What most of us were taught
> in high school about this period is mostly rubbish, and Wolfe knows it (or
> believes it, anyway).

I'm aware that the popular stereotype of the "Dark Ages" is thoroughly
misleading; that's why I put it in quotes.  Wolfe used the term himself, and
I don't think he's being sarcastic.  And it is true that there wasn't much
security of property in Europe between 400 and 1000 A.D.

--Adam

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at home.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 18:03:33 +0000

Adam,
         Thanks for your reply. Just a few clarifications, bearing in mind 
that all we want to do in this discussion is to understand what Wolfe thinks:

>are precisely the sort of people he despises.

         To be sure. I was speaking generally, that some kind of ruling 
elite is inescapable in every society. Becoming part of the class usually 
involves some kind of adoption or marriage into it. Americans like to 
pretend that there is no such class in America, but of course there is and 
always has been. It's not a "conspiracy," of course. An interesting book on 
this, a few years old, is by Konolige, *The Power of Their Glory: America's 
Ruling Elite, the Episcopalians.* They called America an "episcocracy." Of 
course, there were non-episcopalians (Rockefeller) in this goodoldboy 
network, and in recent years, Jews have been able to "join." But you're 
right, I did not mean that Wolfe would like the Kennedys, or that he would 
like the fact that you cannot become President unless you are a Freemason.
         And of course, the existence of such a class need not be the whole 
story. In the Severian Quintet, the Autarch is not part of that class, and 
deliberately so, as a check and balance in the society.

>the animal-people he moves among.

         Hmmm. I guess it's the sense of "betters" that is at issue. 
Silkhorn is morally better, and the protagonist of TS is higher on the 
"evolutionary" scale. I took Wolfe's sentence about the elves to mean 
"better at ruling," since that was the context ("ruled by people better 
than themselves"). I'm used to how this works in my field (theology): the 
Son subjects himself to the Father, though they are ontologically equal. 
Parents are "betters" and children "lessers," but only in such a 
governmental sense, not in other possible senses. Given Wolfe's familiarity 
with Thomas Aquinas, I impute such a meaning to him. But I can admit that 
his brief statement was not fully clear, and that there may be something to 
what you say.

>describe it.  I certainly don't get the impression Wolfe regards Tolkien as

         No. I was not objecting to your word. I thought a bit of nuancing 
of "lessers serving betters" would be helpful; thus, my post. I was not 
writing to criticize at all, just to expand the discussion a little. Since 
I myself am sympatico with Wolfe's religious and political views, in the 
main, I thought explaining a bit of how such views work "from the inside" 
might be of help to some on this list.

>security of property in Europe between 400 and 1000 A.D.

         Hmm. Well, given Wolfe's description of the times, I took it that 
he does not think they were all that "dark," and thus was being a bit 
sarcastic. But it's neither here nor there. (Again, "dark" in what 
sense?)  And I certainly agree about the insecurity of those times!

Jim Nutria Jordan

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 19:49:58 +0000

Andy, I think you're putting too much emphasis on the libertarian elements
in Wolfe's political thought (which are certainly present), at the expense
of his call for submission to legitimate authority, which is just as
important, if not more so.  This is clear in the opening paragraphs of
Wolfe's essay, both the very first paragraph--one of the "definite duties"
of "Dark Ages" peasants was submission to those whom God had appointed to
rule over them--and the code of conduct Wolfe learned from his father:
"Legitimate authority was to be obeyed without shirking and without
question."  It's also evident in Wolfe's example of the Sylvan Elves, which
I quoted earlier.

It's found in his fiction, too, I think, though less prominently (as you
said, he's more detailed on what's wrong than with what's right).  But
Silkhorn does rule Gaon, and there's no suggestion that the Gaonese would be
better off without his rule.  A big reason why New Viron is such a mess,
iirc, is that none of the "leading citizens" are willing to submit to
another's authority.  And TBOTNS, as I noted earlier, ultimately comes down
very strongly against rebellion.

And afaik, in none of his works does Wolfe reject the state in toto, merely
unjust states.  (And I would disagree with your reading of "The Death of
Doctor Island."  Doctor Island represents authority in general, not just the
state.)

--Adam

---

From: Thomas Bitterman <tom at bitterman.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 21:32:43 +0000

Adam Stephanides wrote:

>rule over them
This pretty standard Catholic fare for every society everywhere.  See, 
for example:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03794b.htm, which states:
"Love for his country will lead the citizen to show honour and respect 
to its rulers. They
represent the State, and are entrusted by God with power to rule it for 
the common good.
The citizen's chief duty is to obey the just laws of his country. "

>--and the code of conduct Wolfe learned from his father:
>question."
This may actually be a heresy (kind of, it is described as" now 
abandoned by all Catholics, and
has become obsolete"), and it's unlikely Wolfe means it in the simple 
sense in
which it is stated.  See, for example: 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm :
"A legal enactment may be immoral, and then it cannot in conscience be 
obeyed; or it
may be ultra vires, beyond the competence of the authority that enacts 
it, in which case
compliance with the law is not a matter of obedience, but of prudence. "

on the same page, Pius IX (in his _Syllabus_) condemns the following 
statement:
"It is allowable to refuse obedience to lawful princes, and even to 
rebel against them"

Perhaps he has reserved some wriggle-room in "legitimate", but it seems 
unlikely given
the "Luciferian" element in Vodalus's opposition to the autarch.  Wolfe 
seems to be
implying that any form of civil disobedience is immoral.  I can't find a 
better cite,
but see: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03794b.htm:
"According to that teaching citizens are religiously bound to reverence 
and obey their
civil rulers in all matters which belong to the sphere of civil 
government."

>Doctor Island."  Doctor Island represents authority in general, not just the
This is straight Catholic doctrine again: from 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03794b.htm, quoting
Leo XIII in "Immortale Dei":
"Man's natural instinct moves him to live in civil society, for he 
cannot, if dwelling apart, provide himself
with the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of 
developing his mental and moral
faculties. Hence it is divinely ordained that he should lead his life, 
be it family, social, or civil, with his
fellow-men, amongst whom alone his several wants can be adequately 
supplied. "

Catholics have traditionally been Aristotelian (man as a social animal, 
naturally impelled to form a
state) as opposed to contracturalists (like Hobbes, where forming a 
society is purely a matter
of choice).  This alone would make this topic difficult for a 
Catholic/libertarian mix.

On the topic of the progenetic model of leadership, any comments on the 
theory that Silk
is a clone of Pas?  It would support this model, and make it easier for 
an eventual Pas
takeover of Silk (as, for, what happened with Oreb).

Pas comes off as a very Gnostic-type figure, aping the Catholic social 
order in which everybody
has their own special talents.  It is interesting of Wolfe to turn the 
tables on the Gnostics.
In "standard" Gnostic cosmology, the "real" God lies outside of the 
lower order the demiurge
(ie, the Catholic God) rules over.  In the Whorl the Catholic God is 
outside, and the demiurge
is inside, and the "Gnostic" Silk is actually correct.  But this post is 
getting too long already.

>--Adam
Tom

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 21:46:09 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: <treilly at ozemail.com.au>
>
> Medawar pointed out that of course Lewis in writing this unquestionably
>envisaged himself as lord of the manor!  The same assumption runs deep in
>Wolfe's words.

Nonsense.

Wolfe is what we call a Nerd, in this decadent age, and in a better one
would call an Artisan.   His interest is in working quietly, cunningly, and
well; his hope is to be ruled by a true and good King; and his nearest self
image (in his works) is the protagonist of PEACE.

This is obvious from his books.   Severian is no self-image of Wolfe: I
never read a less convincing portrayal of the interior monologue of and
aggressive and sexually violent man.   Silk, celibate and constantly
suffering for his high status, is something Wolfe is much happier with.

    Andy R

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 22:15:44 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Stephanides" <adamsteph at earthlink.net>

> important, if not more so.

I think you are right.    "Libertarianism" was just my retreat from having
to explain all that stuff that Patera Nutria explained so much better than I
ever could.

Without flattering you all, I realise am going to have to post at a rather
higher level of sophistication than I expected to keep my nose above water
here.

    Andy R

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at home.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 02:46:55 +0000

>higher level of sophistication than I expected to keep my nose above water

Yeah. You'd better do that. Last year one of the older members of this 
list, code-name Severian III, visited someone who had put up some sloppy 
posts and cut the fingers off his left hand. Severed them. So, be warned. 
And be afraid. Very afraid.

Nutria Monomanus

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 05:33:10 +0000

on 1/4/02 3:32 PM, Thomas Bitterman at tom at bitterman.net wrote:

> implying that any form of civil disobedience is immoral.

In other works Wolfe approves not just of civil disobedience but of
revolution: Silkhorn leads a revolution in Dorp, and Wolfe endorses the
revolution that is gathering at the end of "Bluesberry Jam" (perhaps his
silliest story).  (I can't put my hands on my copy of FREE LIVE FREE at the
moment, and don't remember whether the Quadrumvirate were to have been
revolutionaries.)  Which raises the question, of course, of how one knows
when rebellion is allowable.  The Autarch's rule in BOTNS seems on the face
of it more tyrannical than the judges in Dorp, yet Wolfe approves of the
latter rebellion and denounces the former ones.

--Adam

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 11:39:01 +0000

----- Original Message -----
> silliest story).

"Hour of Trust" is the obvious one here.

> I can't put my hands on my copy of FREE LIVE FREE at the
> when rebellion is allowable.

The crucial point here is that the criterion of whether revolution is
allowable is not the form of government that is being rebelled against, but
the character of those in control.    Rebellion against evil rulers is
permitted.

This is for various reasons a very difficult thing to explain to most
contemporary liberals.

Marxism designates all non-Communist forms of government as "immoral" by
their *form*, not by their actions: the function being, of course, to
validate the left's eternal quest for power, domination and control, by
validating an eternal attack on culture, customs, and morals .

The Catholic (I should say "typical human") view is slightly different.  A
society is likely to be well ruled if good people are in control.  The form
of government is not unimportant, but it is not of primary importance, since
no form of government can by itself guarantee virtuous behaviour by the
rulers.

    Andy R

---

From: matthew.malthouse <matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 10:34:04 +0000

On 02/01/2002 21:51:06 James Jordan wrote:

>Wolfe did have some nice things to say about Stephen Lawhead, to me, a few
>years ago. I imagine he considers Lawhead to be carrying the Tolkein torch
>pretty well. Never read Lawhead myself.

I've read "Taliesin", the first of his Aurthurian cycle.  It was excruciatingly
bad.  Simply bad use of language.  Normally I'm quite uncritical on a first
reading and if I get through a book I want to read the rest.  In this case I
couldn't, and still can't, bring myself to buy any of the others.  "This is not
a book to be set aside lightly..."

That said I have also read "Empyrion" and I think I was surprised that it wasn't
quite so bad.  However I don't think I've ever reread it which, given that I'll
read almost anything several times, suggests that I was deeply unimpressed.

Matthew

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:43:48 +0000

> "Hour of Trust" is the obvious one here.

I think that Wolfe disapproves of the revolution there, though he doesn't
like the corporate forces of order either (but I'd have to read it again to
be sure).

>> revolutionaries.)

I looked at a copy at a bookstore, and they weren't, or at least there's no
indication that they were.

--Adam

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 10:57:16 +0000

There is a reference to  "The Wild Knight" in "Silhouette", the story with
icefoam set in a decaying spaceship.   The character is reading an e-book
sort of thing.

I doubt one reader in a thousand has read the poem or knows who it is by.

Just be thankful Wolfe didn't go the whole hog and start on Belloc, eh?

    Andy R

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Davis" <matthew at michaelscycles.freeserve.co.uk>
> As for poetry - yes, it does seem that English speaking Catholics in the
> twentieth century lost all sense of taste. There is a pervading stink of
> Chesterton and snug-room balladry.

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:01:10 +0000

This is a post I composed and mailed right when the list went dead last
month.  I'll understand if no-one wants to continue this conversation...

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:05:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
To: urth at lists.best.com
Subject: Re: (urth) Re: The Best Introduction To The Mountains

On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, Adam Stephanides wrote:

> revolutionaries.)  Which raises the question, of course, of how one 
> knows when rebellion is allowable.  The Autarch's rule in BOTNS seems on
> the face of it more tyrannical than the judges in Dorp, yet Wolfe
> approves of the latter rebellion and denounces the former ones.

How does Wolfe "denounce" rebellion against the Autarch in BOTNS?  He
shows that the Ascian rulers are bad, probably worse than the government
of the Commonwealth, and he shows that Vodalus is no real revolutionary
(he just wants to seize power for himself and his friends) and a dupe
besides.

As it turns out, the aliens are supporting and using the Autarchy for ends
that Wolfe seems to think are ultimately good, but I can't see how you
read that as saying Wolfe would condemn a true revolutionary movement that
was trying to overthrow the Autarch not because they oppose the New Sun or
want to seize power for themselves but to free themselves from tyranny.

-Rostrum

Questions or problems: write ranjit at urth.net

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:27:31 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Straight" <straight at email.unc.edu>

> want to seize power for themselves but to free themselves from tyranny.

Politically,  no-one seems to have mentioned Wolfe's only direct statement
on the subject:

Severian:  "Unite?  Shout? I know that you have isolated yourself, Master,
to fix your mind on higher things, but I would not have thought any man
could know so little of the land in which he lives.   Carreerists,
mercenaries, and young would-be adventurers fight the war.  A hundred
leagues south it is less than a rumour, outside the House Absolute".

Master Ash:  "Your Commonwealth is stronger than I would have believed,
then.   No wonder your foes are in despair".

All of this signals that the goverment of the Commonwealth is a mystery, its
weaknesses strengths, its disunity hiding a flexible union-in-diversity that
is highly evolved and exquisitely tuned to survival.   Attempts to
understand the politics of Severian's nation are doomed unless this is
understood.

It is a nation that exists by divine right, and speaks for the whole of
Urth.

In LITTLE,BIG, John Crowley hypothesised that the Holy Roman Empire had,
through a process of amalgamation, extension, and withdrawal, moved to beome
the contemporarty USA.

I wonder if Wolfe sees his Commonwealth as the Holy Roman Empire, extended
yet furthur into the future?

    hartshorn

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:58:17 +0000

> understand the politics of Severian's nation are doomed unless this is

To me, all that quote says is that the war is so far away, and the enemy
so comparatively weak, that the Commonwealth can fight with an army of
volunteers.  If the enemy were stronger, the war would press closer to the
Commonwealth and there would be a need to conscript soldiers from among
the populace.  

That other stuff about unity-in-disunity you must be getting from
somewhere else in the book.

> It is a nation that exists by divine right, and speaks for the whole of

Do the Hierodules have a particular love for the Commonwealth, or is the
institution of the Autarchy merely a means of raising up someone who could
speak for the whole Urth?  Severian doesn't automatically get to speak for
Urth just because he's Autarch of the Holy Roman Commonwealth.  If that
were true, Ymar could have brought the New Sun.

Does Erebus support the Ascians against the Commonwealth because the
Commonwealth is some kind of Holy Empire that he opposes, or do the
Hierodules support the Commonwealth merely as a means of keeping the evil
of Erebus in check?

And, to return to the original point, how on Urth does any of this
constitute Gene Wolfe expressing the opinion that rebelling against
tyranny is wrong?!?

-Rostrum

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at home.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:45:00 +0000

>yet furthur into the future?

The Commonwealth is Byzantium.

Rostrum wrote:

"That other stuff about unity-in-disunity you must be getting from
somewhere else in the book."

         I do think it is there. I had the impression, which being years 
away from reading the books twice I cannot support directly, that the 
Vodalus part and the Autarch exist in a kind of tension, perhaps both set 
up by Severian the Conciliator. I think (think!) Wolfe is saying (a) every 
society needs diversity of leadership; thus the Autarch and the Aristocrats 
and also the Rebels; a (b) no society before the end of history will be 
perfect, so there will always be underground dissenters.
         Look at it sacramentally. The Autarchy is a kind of Established 
Church, with the Pope eating the memories of his predecessors via the 
alzabo. Vodalus's band is a kind of Sect Church, gathering in little groups 
to partake of the alzabo sacrament. That's not all there is, of course, but 
it seems to be part of it.

Rostrum also wrote:

"And, to return to the original point, how on Urth does any of this
constitute Gene Wolfe expressing the opinion that rebelling against
tyranny is wrong?!?"

         Does he? In "Hour of Trust" (*Island of Dr. Death etc.*) Wolfe 
himself joins a rebellion reciting the Lord's Prayer.

Nutria

---

From: Thomas Bitterman <tom at bitterman.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:09:30 +0000

>constitute Gene Wolfe expressing the opinion that rebelling against
Wolfe is more or less committed to the "rebellion is wrong" party due to 
his adherence
to Catholic theology.  From the Catholic Encyclopedia: >>... God is at 
the back of every
State, binding men in conscience to observe the behests of the State 
within the sphere
of its competence.<<

Whether rebelling against tyranny is is wrong depends on what is meant 
by "tyranny".
Again, from the Catholic Encyclopedia: >>"a tyrannical law, not being 
according to
reason, is not, absolutely speaking, a law, but rather a perversion of 
law" (St. Thomas,
Summa Theol., la, 2ae, q. 92, art. 1, ad 4)<<.  If Wolfe is thinking of 
a tyranny as
simply a government which enforces tyrannical laws, then his characters 
are certainly
in the right when they decline to obey such tyrannical laws.  It is not 
clear, however that
characters in such a situation have a right (or a duty) to rebel against 
such authority.

If Wolfe means by tyranny simply an unpopular dictatorship, then it is 
clear that his
characters have no right to rebel against it.  Again, from the Catholic 
Encyclopedia:
 >>... there must be authority everywhere, and that the authority 
existent for the time
being, under such and such a form, be under that form obeyed... <<

It doesn't appear that the Autarch is enforcing any tyrannical laws to 
speak of, so
Severian is clearly required to obey him.  It's possible that the 
failing of one of
the earlier versions of Sev was rebelling.

If I had to hazard a guess at the relationship between the Autarch and 
Vodalus, it
would be God:Autarch::Satan:Vodalus.  Vodalus is the "Prince of Lies", 
even to the
point of giving his followers fake currency as a token of alliegance. 
 He also serves
the Autarch, though he does not know it, and so many purportedly evil 
deeds only
turn out to serve good in the end.  And for a requisite bit of misogyny 
it can be noted
that Vodalus has a consort, while the Autarch, most pointedly, does not.

Tom

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:40:03 +0000

--- Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu> wrote:
...

> were true, Ymar could have brought the New Sun.

Why?  Maybe Ymar was judged unworthy.  Or is this something from UotNS,
about the memory of ever having read which I'm in denial?

> Hierodules support the Commonwealth merely as a means of keeping the

My impression is that Erebus supports (maybe even impels) the Ascians
against the Commonwealth because he wants to enslave everybody and the
citizens of the Commonwealth aren't his slaves.  Yet.  I don't think we
know exactly why the Hierodules oppose him, though the evil of slavery is
a sufficient reason.  The good question is the one you asked above: What's
the reason for the Autarchy, and what's its relationship to the Hierodules
and the Increate?  Can Severian speak for Urth just because he's Legion?

I don't see any kind of evidence that the Commonwealth is some kind of
Holy Empire.  The idea that it's somehow the heir to the Holy Roman Empire
strikes me as really sick (not that someone would have to be sick to make
the speculation, but somebody would have to be sick to see the HRE as so
divinely supported that it persists past its official dissolution as a
force for good).
 
> constitute Gene Wolfe expressing the opinion that rebelling against

Not that I can see.

Jerry Friedman

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:17:32 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Friedman" <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
> divinely supported that it persists past its official dissolution as a

I am surprised to find someone reading Wolfe with this sort of binary
thinking

The Empire was never simply a force for good.   It was *meant* (in Catholic
legendarium) to be a pattern of the kingdom of heaven on Earth, with the
Emperor being in the position of God.

Not that he would be god, or have divine powers, but that he would show
forth the virtues of heaven as far as it was possible for a man.

Of course in reality the Empire beame utterly corrupt, and was in fact taken
by the forces of Antichrist (as the Turks were thought to be)

This corruption was also worked into the legends.

Now of course Wolfe doesn't think his Commonwealh is the literal descendant
of the HRE: but it is like it symbolically, because it is the bit of the
Urth uniquely connected to Heaven - or rater to thos powers whch in Wolfe's
universe are the analogs of heaven.

**And Therefore** it is very corrupt.

If Wolfe thought to trace a historical link, it would be a joke he made.
However, symbolically, the Commonwealth is like the HRE.

    hartshorn

--

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 15:02:05 +0000

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> > Severian doesn't automatically get to speak for
> Why?  Maybe Ymar was judged unworthy.  

He was.  That's what I mean.  Simply being Autarch of the Commonwealth
doesn't automatically mean you have found favor with the Hierodules.  You
also have to be worthy in some sense.

Ymar was "almost Just" which means he wasn't just.  Maybe this is not a
backhanded compliment, and Wolfe's point is that no human ruler could be
perfectly just.  But it also seems to indicate that Ymar and the other
Autarchs were widely seen as unjust rulers.

Had there been a genuinely democratic movement to overthrow the tyranny of
the Autarchs (unlike Vodalus's self-centered plot to seize power for
himself), I can see that Wolfe might think it tragic, in that it would be
unknowingly opposing the coming of the New Sun, but I don't see anything
in the text to indicate that Wolfe would see such a movement as morally
wrong.  Nor do I think it makes much sense to pull a few quotes from the
Catholic Encyclpedia and think that gives you enables you a complete
understanding of Wolfe's political ideas.

-Rostrum

--

---

From: matthew.malthouse <matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 15:48:35 +0000

>Autarchs were widely seen as unjust rulers.

Questions lead to questions lead to questions...

Was this quality which the Hierodules particularly chose to judge?

Was Severian to be judged on the same criteria as previous Autarch who submitted
themselves to the process?

Would the Hierodules, Tzadkiel, Urth (or even Wolf) see "just" as we might?

As the epitome of Urth surely Severian was judged by far more than a single
quality: in fact the crux of the decision seemed to be those who would stank
with him and for him rather than any particular interior aspect at the moment he
stood in Tzadkiel's hall.

Matthew

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 15:50:00 +0000

> I am surprised to find someone reading Wolfe with this sort of binary

I'm surprised that someone can tell so much about what I think from one
comment as to draw conclusions about my literary tastes.

> universe are the analogs of heaven.

The idea I was responding to was that the Commonwealth *was* the literal
descendant of the HRE.  It seems we agree that that doesn't make sense. 
However, I went too far in calling the idea "really sick", so I apologize
to anyone I offended or insulted.

Jerry Friedman

--

---

From: Thomas Bitterman <tom at bitterman.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 22:08:22 +0000

Michael Straight wrote:

>Nor do I think it makes much sense to pull a few quotes from the
Complete, no.  But Wolfe is a dedicated, intellectual Catholic.  It 
seems prudent to assume that
he's read both the Encyclopedia and Aquinas (and agrees with them on 
such an important
matter) until proven otherwise.  It would be an interesting thing to ask 
him about in person.

To give some relevance to this discussion I'd predict that none of 
Wolfe's characters ever
approves of a rebellion except when the ruler is clearly tyrannical in 
the narrow sense used
in the Encyclopedia.

For example, Silk has that excuse, but Severian does not.  Although it 
could be argued that
Pas/Typhon is a better ruler than the Autarch, Pas/Typhon is tyrannical 
(due to his opposition
to the Outsider) and the Autarch is not.

Tom

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 15:35:37 +0000

on 2/1/02 4:08 PM, Thomas Bitterman at tom at bitterman.net wrote:

> matter) until proven otherwise.

The Catholic intellectual tradition is wide and diverse.  The Catholic
Encyclopedia may state the "mainstream" position, but that doesn't oblige
Wolfe to agree with it.  Catholics are obliged to accept papal ex cathedra
proclamations of dogma, but there aren't too many of those.

> approves of a rebellion except when the ruler is clearly tyrannical in

You quoted the Encyclopedia earlier as quoting Aquinas describing a "a
tyrannical law" as "not being according to reason."  I don't see that the
rulers of Dorp fall under this definition.  They're corrupt and unjust, but
probably no worse than the average medieval ruler or lord; and presumably
Aquinas would not give a definition of tyranny which would justify rebellion
against most rulers.

And when Silkhorn gives reasons for rebellion, he says nothing about
tyranny.  First he explains it on the grounds of necessity for himself, and
to keep Beroep and Aanvagen from being ruined; and because the judges are
corrupt. (181)  Later he tells Capsicum "The judges had taken advantage of
their [the people of Dorp's] good qualities, and so the judges had to go; if
I had not removed them, the people themselves would have within a few
years."  He also says, rejecting the idea of overthrowing Gyrfalcon, that
New Viron would probably be worse off without him. (275)  Silkhorn's
criterion, it seems to me, is pragmatic.  If rebellion would make people
better off, then it's justified; if it wouldn't (which he probably thinks is
most of the time), then it's not.  I suspect this is Wolfe's criterion as
well.

--Adam

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 02:35:14 +0000

Sorry this response is so late.

> want to seize power for themselves but to free themselves from tyranny.

As the only revolutionary leader in BOTNS, Vodalus represents the idea of
revolution.  If I read a book in which Lenin played a major role, and turned
out to be a tool of Satan, I wouldn't think that the author probably
approved of Communist revolutionaries who weren't tools of Satan.

And I think we're intended to believe the Autarch when he tells Severian
that he keeps the society of the Commonwealth frozen in barbarism because
"all else is worse," including rule by the people. (Sword and Citadel, p.
356, pb edition.)

I thought I also remembered Severian, or Thecla-in-Severian, admitting that
the revolutionary had been a fitting punishment for her, but I can't find
the reference.

--Adam

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 02:35:09 +0000

> by the forces of Antichrist (as the Turks were thought to be)

I think you're mixing up the HRE and the Byzantine Empire.  The HRE was
never taken by the Turks; it was dissolved by Napoleon (who no doubt got
labelled the Antichrist himself).  And I don't think it was particularly
corrupt: it just became decreasingly relevant as its component duchies,
electorates, etc. became practically independent states.
 
> However, symbolically, the Commonwealth is like the HRE.

Wolfe has said that the Commonwealth is modelled on Byzantium, iirc.

--Adam

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:33:06 +0000

--- Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net> wrote:
> labelled the Antichrist himself). 
...

ObLit: War and Peace.

Jerry Friedman

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

--

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:30:38 +0000

> approved of Communist revolutionaries who weren't tools of Satan.

I think that reading is way too allegorical.  Maybe Vodalus represents
Wolfe's belief that many (most?) revolutionaries fight to seize power for
themselves rather than for any sort of democratic ideals, but I wouldn't
try to argue from there to saying Wolfe revolution is inherently
illegitimate.

> "all else is worse," including rule by the people. (Sword and Citadel, p.

I think we're supposed to believe the Autarch genuinely thinks that.  I'm
not sure we're supposed to assume he's right.

Severian presents an argument that torture is more humane than
incarceration, but I wouldn't try to claim that Wolfe agrees with his
reasoning or expects the reader to.

> the revolutionary had been a fitting punishment for her, but I can't find

Again, Severian might say that because he disapproves of revolution
(or because he disapproves of Thecla's particular revolt), but I think
that's a weak weak argument for saying Wolfe thinks all revolution is
illegitimate.  

More likely Severian is just finding morbid humor/irony in her punishment
fitting the crime she was charged with, without regard to any political
opinions he might have about the legitimacy of those charges.

-Rostrum

--

---

From: Thomas Bitterman <tom at bitterman.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 23:10:47 +0000

>proclamations of dogma, but there aren't too many of those.
The RCC is pretty picky about things that are merely "teachings" but not 
dogma.  Note
the animosity between the Pope and many American Catholics on birth 
control.  Given
Wolfe's conservative nature it seems reasonable to believe he submits to 
most teachings.

>Aquinas would not give a definition of tyranny which would justify rebellion
That's debatable.  Church-state relationships were hardly cozy during 
the period that Aquinas
wrote.  The fact that most (if not all) medieval rulers were unjust was 
a handy weapon for the
Pope in those fights.

>most of the time), then it's not.  I suspect this is Wolfe's criterion as
You give good reasons.  I would view Silk, however, in the role of the 
RCC, not as an
ordinary member of society.  As the representative of the Outsider on 
the Whorl (ie, as
the representative of God on Earth) he holds ultimate decision-making 
power over
whether a government is legitimate or not.  In short (in Whorl terms), 
the theory is
that all government ultimately derives its authority from the Outsider. 
 In most
cases that authority is implicitly granted by the mere fact of the 
authoritiy's existence.
That does not change the fact, however, that the Outsider (or a suitable 
representative)
can de-legitimize any authority by withdrawing his support.  Hence, 
Silkhorn is not
bound by the rules against rebellion becuase he is not rebelling.  He is
removing the moral authority underneath the government, making it
tyrannical by fiat, so to speak.

Tom

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 01:41:56 +0000

> Wolfe's conservative nature it seems reasonable to believe he submits to

There are plenty of conservative Catholics who believe that abolishing the
Latin mass was a mistake.

> wrote.  The fact that most (if not all) medieval rulers were unjust was

While there was rivalry between secular and ecclesiastical authority in the
middle ages, the Church had no desire to propound a theory which would give
peasants a generalized right to rebel.  Most bishops and abbots were from
the nobility, and many exercised temporal lordship in their own right
(including the Pope).

> tyrannical by fiat, so to speak.

This is an ingenious argument, but I don't think Silkhorn is the
representative of the Outsider on the Whorl.  To be sure, Silk was
enlightened, and given a mission from the Outsider, but that doesn't make
him equivalent to the Pope (if it did, he presumably wouldn't have shut
himself up in a hut with Hyacinth for twenty years).  Nor are we intended to
take his words as divinely inspired a la an Old Testament prophet.  Silk
certainly doesn't think of himself in these terms.  A fortiori this holds
for Silkhorn.

--Adam

--

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 20:07:27 +0000

> certainly doesn't think of himself in these terms.  A fortiori this holds

The more I see those terms, 'Silk' and 'Silkhorn,' the more I think
they're backwards.  We oughta use 'Silkhorn' for the character named
"Silk" in the Long Sun books since he's a mix of the real Silk and Horn's
ideas about Silk, and 'Silk' for the narrator of IGJ who knows that he's
not the (nonexistent) hero that Horn was sent to find.

"Is that your real name? Silk?  Are you the man in the book?"
"I don't think so."

(IGJ, p. 207)

I am, of course, 3/4 kidding.  But once I finish rereading RTW, I'll post
my theories about how much about the varying Horn/Silk ratio in the
narrator...

-Rostrum

--