{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5390", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 5390, "subject": "\"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "messages": 17, "voices": 11, "first": "2009-04-02T17:29:59+00:00", "last": "2009-04-07T14:16:59+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-04-02T17:29:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "refresher quote, questions below:\n\nSHADOW XXXII Five Legs:\n\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\n\"Severian. Name for me the seven principles of governance.\"\nIt was an effort for me to speak, but I managed (in my dream, if it was a dream)to say, \"I do not recall that we have studied such a thing, Master.\"\n\"You were always the most careless of my boys,\" he told me, and fell silent.\nA foreboding grew on me; I sensed that if I did not reply, some tragedy would\noccur. At last I began weakly, \"Anarchy . . .\" \n\"That is not governance, but the lack of it. I taught you that it precedes all governance. Now list the seven sorts.\"\n\"Attachment to the person of the monarch. Attachment to a bloodline or other\nsequence of succession. Attachment to the royal state. Attachment to a code\nlegitimizing the governing state. Attachment to the law only. Attachment to a\ngreater or lesser board of electors, as framers of the law. Attachment to an\nabstraction conceived as including the body of electors, other bodies giving\nrise to them, and numerous other elements, largely ideal.\"\n\"Tolerable. Of these, which is the earliest form, and which the highest?\"\n\"The development is in the order given, Master,\" I said. \"But I do not recall\nthat you ever asked before which was highest?'\nMaster Malrubius leaned forward, his eyes burning brighter than the coals of the\nfire. \"Which is highest, Severian?\"\n\"The last, Master?\"\n\"You mean attachment to an abstraction conceived as including the body of\nelectors, other bodies giving rise to them, and numerous other elements, largely ideal?\"\n\"Yes, Master.\"\n\"Of what kind, Severian, is your own attachment to the Divine Entity?\"\nI said nothing. It may have been that I was thinking; but if so, my mind was too much filled with sleep to be conscious of its thought. Instead, I became\nprofoundly aware of my physical surroundings. The sky above my face in all its\ngrandeur seemed to have been made solely for my benefit, and to be presented for my inspection now. I lay upon the ground as upon a woman, and the very air that surrounded me seemed a thing as admirable as crystal and as fluid as wine.\n\"Answer me, Severian.\"\n\"The first, if I have any.\"\n\"To the person of the monarch?\"\n\"Yes, because there is no succession.\"\n\"The animal that rests beside you now would die for you. Of what kind is his\nattachment to you?\"\n\"The first?\"\n\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\n\nok, is the last one meant to be a joke about our current situation? Abstraction, largely ideal.\n\nmaybe some conservatives can help me out here.\n\"Attachment to the person of the monarch\"\n\nOn one hand, I don't understand how \"Attachment to\" is governance. Are the people attached, or is the governance attached?\n\nAnother question this brings up for me. This notion of a Divine Ruler...\nYou get it in the Grail myths, and I suppose in the Jesus Myth, this idea of bringing back the Divine King. I'm not sure if that's right, but it's something that seems to come up in various traditions. Anyway, While anyone could sort of get behind letting God's Vicar rule, if it could be proven. Yet we've had plenty of crappy rulers claiming God's mandate.\nanyway, How can this idea of a Monarch that is the best system jibe with reality lacking an unambiguous 'seal of approval' from God?\n\nLet me rephrase? This seems like a sort of religious right position (maybe I'm totally wrong) So, would anyone toss away democracy in favor of a monarch? How can this notion not be \"largely ideal\" when it hinges upon the character of a single person? \n\nI'm not sure if I'm making this clear. I'm trying to understand how this can be considered the highest state of governance in a practical, non-ideal world.\n\njust asking...\n\n~Witz" } ] }, { "message_id": "<93d4039f0904021041k574ee39fm474d4221098bc0aa@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-04-02T17:41:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\nrefresher quote, questions below:\n\nok, is the last one meant to be a joke about our current situation?\n Abstraction, largely ideal.\n\nmaybe some conservatives can help me out here." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think so. The idea is that attachment to abstract principles is higher\nthan loyalty to any particular laws or men." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"Attachment to the person of the monarch\"\n\nOn one hand, I don't understand how \"Attachment to\" is governance. Are the\npeople attached, or is the governance attached?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's the principle of governance, right? I take that as \"the principle by\nwhich the government operates\"--does the government command the assent of\nthe people via loyalty to the person of the monarch, loyalty to his dynasty,\netc.\n\nAs for your question below, I think it's the result of a misreading. I\ndon't think Wolfe should be read as suggesting that monarchy is truly the\nideal form of government unless the monarch is in fact God Himself. C.S.\nLewis makes a similar point in *The Weight of Glory*--I'm fairly confident\nthat Wolfe had this passage in mind:\n\n\nI believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for\nbeing a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in\nthe government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs\ntheir advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of\ndemocracy. On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked\nthat not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his\nfellows.\n\nThat I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God\ncreated an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child,\nhusband over wife, learned over simple to have been as much a part of the\noriginal plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had\nnot fallen, Filmer would be right, and partiarchal monarchy would be the\nsole lawful government. But since we have learned sin, we have found, as\nLord Acton says, that “all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts\nabsolutely.” The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute\na legal fiction of equality. The authority of father and husband has been\nrightly abolished on the legal plane, not because this authority is in\nitself bad (on the contrary, it is, I hold, divine in origin), but because\nfathers and husbands are bad. Theocracy has been rightly abolished not\nbecause it is bad that learned priests should govern ignorant laymen, but\nbecause priests are wicked men like the rest of us. Even the authority of\nman over beast has had to be interfered with because it is constantly\nabused. (C.S. Lewis, “Membership,” from *The Weight of Glory*, pp. 168-7)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Another question this brings up for me. This notion of a Divine Ruler...\nYou get it in the Grail myths, and I suppose in the Jesus Myth, this idea\nof bringing back the Divine King. I'm not sure if that's right, but it's\nsomething that seems to come up in various traditions. Anyway, While anyone\ncould sort of get behind letting God's Vicar rule, if it could be proven.\nYet we've had plenty of crappy rulers claiming God's mandate.\nanyway, How can this idea of a Monarch that is the best system jibe with\nreality lacking an unambiguous 'seal of approval' from God?\n\nLet me rephrase? This seems like a sort of religious right position (maybe\nI'm totally wrong) So, would anyone toss away democracy in favor of a\nmonarch? How can this notion not be \"largely ideal\" when it hinges upon the\ncharacter of a single person?\n\nI'm not sure if I'm making this clear. I'm trying to understand how this\ncan be considered the highest state of governance in a practical, non-ideal\nworld.\n\njust asking...\n\n~Witz\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<8856.67.142.130.20.1238694505.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2009-04-02T17:48:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Witz: go read Plato's \"Republic\", Aristotle's \"Politics\" and Niccolo\nMachiavelli's two works \"Discourses On The First Ten Books Of Titus\nLivius\" and \"The Prince\".\n\nThis will give you the vocabulary that you currently lack for discussing\nthis kind of thing.\n\n\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "refresher quote, questions below:\n\nSHADOW XXXII Five Legs:\n\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\n\"Severian. Name for me the seven principles of governance.\"\nIt was an effort for me to speak, but I managed (in my dream, if it was a\ndream)to say, \"I do not recall that we have studied such a thing, Master.\"\n\"You were always the most careless of my boys,\" he told me, and fell\nsilent.\nA foreboding grew on me; I sensed that if I did not reply, some tragedy\nwould\noccur. At last I began weakly, \"Anarchy . . .\"\n\"That is not governance, but the lack of it. I taught you that it precedes\nall governance. Now list the seven sorts.\"\n\"Attachment to the person of the monarch. Attachment to a bloodline or\nother\nsequence of succession. Attachment to the royal state. Attachment to a\ncode\nlegitimizing the governing state. Attachment to the law only. Attachment\nto a\ngreater or lesser board of electors, as framers of the law. Attachment to\nan\nabstraction conceived as including the body of electors, other bodies\ngiving\nrise to them, and numerous other elements, largely ideal.\"\n\"Tolerable. Of these, which is the earliest form, and which the highest?\"\n\"The development is in the order given, Master,\" I said. \"But I do not\nrecall\nthat you ever asked before which was highest?'\nMaster Malrubius leaned forward, his eyes burning brighter than the coals\nof the\nfire. \"Which is highest, Severian?\"\n\"The last, Master?\"\n\"You mean attachment to an abstraction conceived as including the body of\nelectors, other bodies giving rise to them, and numerous other elements,\nlargely ideal?\"\n\"Yes, Master.\"\n\"Of what kind, Severian, is your own attachment to the Divine Entity?\"\nI said nothing. It may have been that I was thinking; but if so, my mind\nwas too much filled with sleep to be conscious of its thought. Instead, I\nbecame\nprofoundly aware of my physical surroundings. The sky above my face in all\nits\ngrandeur seemed to have been made solely for my benefit, and to be\npresented for my inspection now. I lay upon the ground as upon a woman,\nand the very air that surrounded me seemed a thing as admirable as crystal\nand as fluid as wine.\n\"Answer me, Severian.\"\n\"The first, if I have any.\"\n\"To the person of the monarch?\"\n\"Yes, because there is no succession.\"\n\"The animal that rests beside you now would die for you. Of what kind is\nhis\nattachment to you?\"\n\"The first?\"\n\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\n\nok, is the last one meant to be a joke about our current situation?\nAbstraction, largely ideal.\n\nmaybe some conservatives can help me out here.\n\"Attachment to the person of the monarch\"\n\nOn one hand, I don't understand how \"Attachment to\" is governance. Are\nthe people attached, or is the governance attached?\n\nAnother question this brings up for me. This notion of a Divine Ruler...\nYou get it in the Grail myths, and I suppose in the Jesus Myth, this idea\nof bringing back the Divine King. I'm not sure if that's right, but it's\nsomething that seems to come up in various traditions. Anyway, While\nanyone could sort of get behind letting God's Vicar rule, if it could be\nproven. Yet we've had plenty of crappy rulers claiming God's mandate.\nanyway, How can this idea of a Monarch that is the best system jibe with\nreality lacking an unambiguous 'seal of approval' from God?\n\nLet me rephrase? This seems like a sort of religious right position\n(maybe I'm totally wrong) So, would anyone toss away democracy in favor\nof a monarch? How can this notion not be \"largely ideal\" when it hinges\nupon the character of a single person?\n\nI'm not sure if I'm making this clear. I'm trying to understand how this\ncan be considered the highest state of governance in a practical,\nnon-ideal world.\n\njust asking...\n\n~Witz\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<935105.37199.qm@web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2009-04-02T17:49:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "<93d4039f0904021041k574ee39fm474d4221098bc0aa@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think you're absolutely right. I think the fact that the quote ends with a reference to Triskele is supposed to show that there's a right way to understand the kind of \"attachment\" and a wrong way. There's blind devotion to a master (dog/man) and there's loyalty to a true Divine Ruler, which isn't blind at all.\n\nThen there's also the fact that Severian is answering still with the Torturer's in mind, whose secret is total obeisance. So is this supposed to be a \"universal\" answer to Wolfe's ideas on governance, or something more specific to Severian's situation?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As for your question below, I think it's the result of a misreading. I don't think Wolfe should be read as suggesting that monarchy is truly the ideal form of government unless the >>monarch is in fact God Himself. C.S. Lewis makes a similar point in The Weight of Glory--I'm fairly confident that Wolfe had this passage in mind:" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows.\nThat I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen, Filmer would be right, and partiarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government. But since we have learned sin, we have found, as Lord Acton says, that “all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality. The authority of father and husband has been rightly abolished on the legal plane, not because this authority is in itself bad (on the contrary, it is, I hold, divine in origin), but because fathers and husbands are bad. Theocracy has been rightly abolished not because it is bad that learned priests should govern ignorant laymen, but\n because priests are wicked men like the rest of us. Even the authority of man over beast has had to be interfered with because it is constantly abused. (C.S. Lewis, “Membership,” from The Weight of Glory, pp. 168-7)\n \n \n\nAnother question this brings up for me. This notion of a Divine Ruler...\nYou get it in the Grail myths, and I suppose in the Jesus Myth, this idea of bringing back the Divine King. I'm not sure if that's right, but it's something that seems to come up in various traditions. Anyway, While anyone could sort of get behind letting God's Vicar rule, if it could be proven. Yet we've had plenty of crappy rulers claiming God's mandate.\nanyway, How can this idea of a Monarch that is the best system jibe with reality lacking an unambiguous 'seal of approval' from God?\n\nLet me rephrase? This seems like a sort of religious right position (maybe I'm totally wrong) So, would anyone toss away democracy in favor of a monarch? How can this notion not be \"largely ideal\" when it hinges upon the character of a single person?\n\nI'm not sure if I'm making this clear. I'm trying to understand how this can be considered the highest state of governance in a practical, non-ideal world.\n\njust asking...\n\n~Witz" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-04-02T18:01:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "ok, is the last one meant to be a joke about our current situation?\nAbstraction, largely ideal." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Essentially it means that the attachment is to the representative system \ndivorced from the representatives themselves." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On one hand, I don't understand how \"Attachment to\" is governance.\nAre the people attached, or is the governance attached?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I believe \"attachment to\" equals \"the authority upon which the governing \nbody governs the governed.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Let me rephrase? This seems like a sort of religious right position\n(maybe I'm totally wrong)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're wrong so far as I know." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So, would anyone toss away democracy\nin favor of a monarch? How can this notion not be \"largely ideal\"\nwhen it hinges upon the character of a single person?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, Severian doesn't call this Divine Right but Divine Right king would be \na subset of this.\n\nThe Athenians did it with regularity. The Romans did it with Augustus (and \nmade him a god). The Germans did it in the 30s. The Russians allowed their \nshort-lived democracy to be overthrown by the Bolsheviks and soon devoted \nthemselves to a personality cult centered around Stalin. It happens all the \ntime when the stakes become high enough and a democracy lacks (or fails to \ntolerate) genuine leaders the people trust to make hard choices untainted by \npersonal aggrandizement/enrichment. It's something to think about in the US \nright now with public approval of congress steadily closing in on 10% for \nthe last 4 years or so." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm not sure if I'm making this clear. I'm trying to understand how this \ncan be considered the highest state of governance in a practical, \nnon-ideal world." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, Severian doesn't say Divine Right is the highest. He says it is the \nfirst after Anarchy. Perhaps that explains how Democracy moves to Divine \nRight.\n\nJ.\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<294271.89133.qm@web50705.mail.re2.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2009-04-02T22:15:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "--- On Thu, 4/2/09, Son of Witz wrote:\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "ok, is the last one meant to be a joke about our current\nsituation? Abstraction, largely ideal." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, only not necessarily a joke. (At least, I didn't\nlaugh.) I think the majority of Americans who think about\nsuch things are attached to our form of government, not\nbecause of specific leaders or laws, but because of\nabstract qualities such as popular voting, representation\nrather than deciding everything by referendum, checks and\nbalances, rule of law, protection of individual freedoms,\nand maybe others.\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So, would anyone\ntoss away democracy in favor of a monarch?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of course some would. Not me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "How can this\nnotion not be \"largely ideal\" when it hinges upon\nthe character of a single person? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I take \"ideal\" to mean \"existing in the realm of ideas\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm not sure if I'm making this clear. I'm\ntrying to understand how this can be considered the highest\nstate of governance in a practical, non-ideal world." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Because it allows for personal attachment, a praiseworthy\ntrait in humans and dogs (as Master Malrubius's questions\nare designed to point out) and possibly a more reliable\nkind of loyalty than an abstract system can claim.\n\nI think we're supposed to take the classification\nSeverian learned as naive and Master Malrubius as showing\nwhat's wrong with it. At the least, we and Severian are\nsupposed to consider that there's as much to be said for\nmonarchy as against it, as in the quotations from Aquinas\nand the ancients that Stanislaus kindly posted (so I could\npretend I knew all along about those opinions). And we\nmay even be supposed to think that Severian's list is\ncompletely backwards, contrary to what he and we were taught.\nPlacing monarchy \"highest\" would be relative--not\nnecessarily good, but least evil.\n\nIn \"The Best Introduction to the Mountains\", Wolfe praises\nthe societies of a time and place where democracy was\nknown, but hereditary rulers and conquerors were more\ncommon (I think).\n\nAnyway, Severian is destined to be the sole ruler (except\nfor some internal colleagues), so he needs to appreciate\nthe advantages of sole rule.\n\nThe Commonwealth shows no sign of democracy that I remember,\na fact compatible with the classification of principles of\ngovernance from low to high, not bad to good. It's striking\nthat nonetheless Severian was taught that our kind of\ndemocracy is the highest form. Condition of Primitivity?\nOr just a way of putting the reader's likely preconceptions\non the table in order to subvert them?\n\nJerry Friedman\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "palaeologos at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-04-02T22:20:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "<294271.89133.qm@web50705.mail.re2.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\n\n\nI think we're supposed to take the classification\nSeverian learned as naive and Master Malrubius as showing\nwhat's wrong with it. At the least, we and Severian are\nsupposed to consider that there's as much to be said for\nmonarchy as against it, as in the quotations from Aquinas\nand the ancients that Stanislaus kindly posted (so I could\npretend I knew all along about those opinions)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure that's at all the case. I think here Wolfe is making a point\nabout how he believes God established governance in the human sphere, and\nhow far human beings have departed from it. It would certainly be\nconsistent with Wolfe's Thomism." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Matt +\n\nWithout friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods.\nAristotle (384-322 B.C.), Nicomachean Ethics, bk. VIII, ch. 1" } ] }, { "message_id": "<704224.72362.qm@web50709.mail.re2.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2009-04-02T23:27:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "--- On Thu, 4/2/09, Matthew Weber wrote:\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Jerry Friedman\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I think we're supposed to take the classification\nSeverian learned as naive and Master Malrubius as\nshowing\nwhat's wrong with it. At the least, we and\nSeverian are\nsupposed to consider that there's as much to be\nsaid for\nmonarchy as against it, as in the quotations from\nAquinas\nand the ancients that Stanislaus kindly posted (so I\ncould\npretend I knew all along about those opinions)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm not sure that's at all the case. I think here\nWolfe is making a point\nabout how he believes God established governance in the\nhuman sphere, and\nhow far human beings have departed from it. It would\ncertainly be consistent with Wolfe's Thomism." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That is, God established monarchy, and we (but not the\nCommonwealth) have departed from it? But which do you\nthink Wolfe means is \"higher\", monarchy or our kind of\ndemocracy?\n\nA question that just occurred to me: Which of the\nprinciples applies the best to the Ascians? To\nCommunist and Fascist dictatorships?\n\nJerry Friedman\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-04-03T03:15:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "<704224.72362.qm@web50709.mail.re2.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\n\n--- On Thu, 4/2/09, Matthew Weber wrote:\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Jerry Friedman\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I think we're supposed to take the classification\nSeverian learned as naive and Master Malrubius as\nshowing\nwhat's wrong with it. ?At the least, we and\nSeverian are\nsupposed to consider that there's as much to be\nsaid for\nmonarchy as against it, as in the quotations from\nAquinas\nand the ancients that Stanislaus kindly posted (so I\ncould\npretend I knew all along about those opinions)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'm not sure that's at all the case. ?I think here\nWolfe is making a point\nabout how he believes God established governance in the\nhuman sphere, and\nhow far human beings have departed from it. ?It would\ncertainly be consistent with Wolfe's Thomism." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That is, God established monarchy, and we (but not the\nCommonwealth) have departed from it? “But which do you\nthink Wolfe means is \"higher\", monarchy or our kind of\ndemocracy”\n\nA question that just occurred to me: Which of the\nprinciples applies the best to the Ascians? “To\nCommunist and Fascist dictatorships”\n\nJerry Friedman" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Ascians we aren't told much about, but I think from the Tale of\nthe righteous Asican, we are meant to assume that the glimpses confirm\nour suspicious of a Chinese mandarin-style system: one where a small\ngroup of officials are ultimately in charge, in the name of the\npeople/social harmony.\n\n\"The roots of the tree are the populace. The leaves fall, but the tree\nremains.\"\n\"Correct Thought is the thought of the populace. The populace\ncannot betray the populace or the Group of Seventeen.\"\n\"How shall the state be most vigorous? It shall be most vigorous when\nit is without conflict. How shall it be without conflict? When it is\nwithout disagreement. How shall disagreement be banished? By banishing\nthe four causes of disagreement: lies, foolish talk, boastful talk,\nand talk which serves\nonly to incite quarrels. How shall the four causes be banished? By\nspeaking only Correct Thought. Then shall the state be without\ndisagreement. Being without disagreement it shall be without conflict.\nBeing without conflict it shall be vigorous, strong, and secure.\"\n\nI don't know how familiar y'all are with the Chinese classics, but\nwhen I first read _The Citadel of the Autarch_, I found this to be a\nchilling parody of both the style and content of Confucian works like\n_The Great Learning_.\n\nAnyway, so given the 'Group of Seventeen', and the threat of suicide\nif they are insulted, one of the classifications seem most apt:\n\n\"Attachment to a greater or lesser board of electors, as framers of the law.\"" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370904031051td112d3fs1a17a2f0aceb3b4a@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-04-03T17:51:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nI don't know how familiar y'all are with the Chinese classics, but\nwhen I first read _The Citadel of the Autarch_, I found this to be a\nchilling parody of both the style and content of Confucian works like\n_The Great Learning_." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Interesting. I was reminded of Mao's Little Red Book." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Thornton", "address": "adam at io.com" }, "date": "2009-04-03T18:38:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370904031051td112d3fs1a17a2f0aceb3b4a@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Apr 3, 2009, at 12:51 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nOn Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Gwern Branwen \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I don't know how familiar y'all are with the Chinese classics, but\nwhen I first read _The Citadel of the Autarch_, I found this to be a\nchilling parody of both the style and content of Confucian works like\n_The Great Learning_." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Interesting. I was reminded of Mao's Little Red Book." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm pretty sure the intended allusion was the second, but I would be \ngreatly surprised if Mao didn't have the first in mind when penning \nthe second.\n\nAdam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-04-03T18:44:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370904031051td112d3fs1a17a2f0aceb3b4a@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nOn Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I don't know how familiar y'all are with the Chinese classics, but\nwhen I first read _The Citadel of the Autarch_, I found this to be a\nchilling parody of both the style and content of Confucian works like\n_The Great Learning_." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Interesting. I was reminded of Mao's Little Red Book." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I've never actually read his Little Red Book. Perhaps if I had, I'd've found it a closer match," }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "<93d4039f0904031157i17b7308qff09131193ed52fd@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-04-03T18:57:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Agreed. It's far more likely that the idea of superficially Confuscian\ntotalitarianism came from Mao than from Wolfe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Adam Thornton wrote:\n\nOn Apr 3, 2009, at 12:51 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\nOn Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I don't know how familiar y'all are with the Chinese classics, but\nwhen I first read _The Citadel of the Autarch_, I found this to be a\nchilling parody of both the style and content of Confucian works like\n_The Great Learning_." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Interesting. I was reminded of Mao's Little Red Book." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm pretty sure the intended allusion was the second, but I would be\ngreatly surprised if Mao didn't have the first in mind when penning the\nsecond.\n\nAdam\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<227218614.20090403211640@poczta.fm>", "from": { "name": "Stanisław Bocian", "address": "sbocian at poczta.fm" }, "date": "2009-04-03T19:16:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) : \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "<294271.89133.qm@web50705.mail.re2.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hello!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3 kwietnia 2009, Jerry Friedman wrote:\n--- On Thu, 4/2/09, Son of Witz wrote:\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "ok, is the last one meant to be a joke about our current\nsituation? Abstraction, largely ideal." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, only not necessarily a joke. (At least, I didn't\nlaugh.) I think the majority of Americans who think about\nsuch things are attached to our form of government, not\nbecause of specific leaders or laws, but because of\nabstract qualities such as popular voting, representation\nrather than deciding everything by referendum, checks and\nbalances, rule of law, protection of individual freedoms,\nand maybe others.\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "So, would anyone\ntoss away democracy in favor of a monarch?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Of course some would. Not me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "How can this\nnotion not be \"largely ideal\" when it hinges upon\nthe character of a single person? " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I take \"ideal\" to mean \"existing in the realm of ideas\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'm not sure if I'm making this clear. I'm\ntrying to understand how this can be considered the highest\nstate of governance in a practical, non-ideal world." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Because it allows for personal attachment, a praiseworthy\ntrait in humans and dogs (as Master Malrubius's questions\nare designed to point out) and possibly a more reliable\nkind of loyalty than an abstract system can claim." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think we're supposed to take the classification\nSeverian learned as naive and Master Malrubius as showing\nwhat's wrong with it. At the least, we and Severian are\nsupposed to consider that there's as much to be said for\nmonarchy as against it, as in the quotations from Aquinas\nand the ancients that Stanislaus kindly posted (so I could\npretend I knew all along about those opinions). And we\nmay even be supposed to think that Severian's list is\ncompletely backwards, contrary to what he and we were taught.\nPlacing monarchy \"highest\" would be relative--not\nnecessarily good, but least evil." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In \"The Best Introduction to the Mountains\", Wolfe praises\nthe societies of a time and place where democracy was\nknown, but hereditary rulers and conquerors were more\ncommon (I think)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Anyway, Severian is destined to be the sole ruler (except\nfor some internal colleagues), so he needs to appreciate\nthe advantages of sole rule." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The Commonwealth shows no sign of democracy that I remember,\na fact compatible with the classification of principles of\ngovernance from low to high, not bad to good. It's striking\nthat nonetheless Severian was taught that our kind of\ndemocracy is the highest form. Condition of Primitivity?\nOr just a way of putting the reader's likely preconceptions\non the table in order to subvert them?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jerry Friedman" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, the classification of types of government in Wolfe repeats\nmodern views. It can seem unfamiliar because it uses somewhat more\nprecise terms than in school class, but if you will look into some\ngood handbook, eg Giovanni Sartori, THE THEORY OF DEMOCRACY REVISITED.\n\nhttp://www.ou.edu/cas/psc/booksartori.htm\n\nyou will see essentially that kind of definition. \"Attachment to an\nabstraction conceived as including the body of electors, other bodies giving\nrise to them, and numerous other elements, largely ideal.\"\n\nThis has many functions. It makes us think whether our instinctive\nsupport for our own form of government is necessarily right, of\ncourse. But it is also historically correct. The ecumenical empires\n(this is a technical term) of such a sort as Commonwealth, do not\ngive rise to new theories; they arise after the previous form of\ngovernment failed, very often out of desperation.\n\nIn the Roman Empire the emperors were worshipped as gods, as a matter\nof common-sense policy. At the same time in elite schools the future\nadministrators of Empire were composing speeches praising Harmodius\nand Aristogeton, the Tyrannicides, and proclaiming that the freedom\nwas the highest value, and the killing of a tyrant the greatest\nservice to the Republic. Copies of their statues were mass-produced.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannicide\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmodius_and_Aristogeiton_(sculpture)\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmodius_and_Aristogeiton\n\n\nIn fact, until the fall of Byzantium in 1453, and also for most of\nthe history of the Holy Roman Empire, until its abolition in 1806,\nemperors were legally not hereditary, but elected. Roman Emperors\nwere elected by the Senate, Byzantinian by Senate, army and people\n(in practice, the Army and People were \"electing\" the emperor by\nappropriate cries during the coronation, but the legal pretense was\nthere).\n\nhttp://books.google.com/books?id=ozN1uextK7IC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=election+of+emperor+of+byzantium+legal+theory&source=bl&ots=Pu_BxzMPK0&sig=NfJXQdTTXXu5IJrX6YPBSz4XKiw&hl=en&ei=fiHWSd7HNsuKsAbyisWTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6\n\nhttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/corpus1.html\n\nCorpus Iuris Civilis of Justinian:\n\"The Digest: Prologue\nThe Emperor Caesar, Flavius, Justinianus, Pious, Fortunate, Renowned,\nConqueror, and Triumpher, Ever Augustus, to Tribonianus His Quaestor, Greeting:\n\nWith the aid of God governing Our Empire which was delivered to\nUs by His Celestial Majesty, We carry on war successfully.\nWe adorn peace and maintain the Constitution of the State,\nand have such confidence in the protection of Almighty God\nthat We do not depend upon Our arms, or upon Our soldiers, or\nupon those who conduct Our Wars, or upon Our own genius,\nbut We solely, place Our reliance upon the providence of the Holy Trinity,\nfrom which are derived the elements of the entire world and\ntheir disposition throughout the globe.\n...\nOur law is partly written, partly unwritten, as among the Greeks.\nThe written law consists of statutes, plebiscites, senatusconsults,\nenactments of the Emperors, edicts of the magistrates, and answers\nof those learned in the law. A statute is an enactment of the Roman people,\nwhich it used to make on the motion of a senatorial magistrate,\nas for instance a consul. A plebiscite is an enactment of the commonalty,\nsuch as was made on the motion of one of their own magistrates, as\na tribune.... A senatusconsult is a command and ordinance of the\nsenate, for when the Roman people had been so increased that it was difficult\nto assemble it together for the purpose of enacting statutes, it seemed right\nthat the senate should be consulted instead of the people. Again, what\nthe Emperor determines has the force of a statute, the people having\nconferred on him all their authority and power by the lex regia,\nwhich was passed concerning his office and authority.\nConsequently, whatever the Emperor settles by rescript,\nor decides in his judicial capacity, or ordains edicts, is\nclearly a statute: and these are what are called constitutions. \"\n\nThe description of the Commonwealth shows similar disconnect between\ntheory and practice. Commonwealth is the English translation of\nRepublic, and the officials are taught in the schools that the\ndemocracy is the final form of government. But in practice the state\nis governed by Autarchs, and administered by military officers and\ntroop detachment. People - not officials or nobles - are worshipping\nAutarch.\n\nNotice also that the suggestions supporting monarchy come not from\nthe real Malrubius, but from an aquastor, ie from Hiero-xxx.\n\nFinally, I think that it is important to remember a peculiar\nChristian doctrine about the government: each legal government is\nsuch only because it is given its power directly by God. In fact,\nthe familiar XVI-century theory of the divine right of kings\nis a convenient corruption of that teaching. Of course, a hereditary\nking has been given his right to govern directly by God, but the same\napplies to any government, including democratic ones. This explains\nhow can Justinian claim in the same letter to have his power both\ndirectly from God, and by the law made by people.\n\nhttp://www.drbo.org/chapter/52013.htm\nEpistle Of Saint Paul To The Romans, Chapter 13\n\" Let every soul be subject to higher powers:\nfor there is no power but from God: and\nthose that are, are ordained of God.\n2Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.\nAnd they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.\n3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil.\nWilt thou then not be afraid of the power?\nDo that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.\n4 For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear:\nfor he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister:\nan avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.\n5 Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for\nconscience' sake\"\n\n(Incidentally, this\nis an application of the more general rule of secondary and primary\ncausation.\nhttp://www.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/causality-primary-secondary\n\nI suggest you read this entry carefully, since the distinction is\ncrucial for understanding of the New Sun tetralogy. - BTW, I hope you\nwill not be overly offended by that suggestion.)" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Best regards,\nStanislaus B.\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\nKredyt z doplata, nawet 200 000 zl. Sprawdz!\nhttp://link.interia.pl/f20fc" } ] }, { "message_id": "<841637.16716.qm@web50706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2009-04-04T20:40:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) : \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "<227218614.20090403211640@poczta.fm>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- On Fri, 4/3/09, Stanis?aw Bocian wrote:\nFrom: Stanis?aw Bocian \nSubject: Re: (urth) : \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics\nTo: \"urth\" \nDate: Friday, April 3, 2009, 1:16 PM\nHello!\n\nOn 3 kwietnia 2009, Jerry Friedman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, the classification of types of government in Wolfe\nrepeats\nmodern views. It can seem unfamiliar because it uses\nsomewhat more\nprecise terms than in school class, but if you will look\ninto some\ngood handbook, eg Giovanni Sartori, THE THEORY OF DEMOCRACY\nREVISITED.\n\nhttp://www.ou.edu/cas/psc/booksartori.htm\n\nyou will see essentially that kind of definition.\n\"Attachment to an\nabstraction conceived as including the body of electors,\nother bodies giving\nrise to them, and numerous other elements, largely\nideal.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I may not read that right away. :-)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This has many functions. It makes us think whether our\ninstinctive\nsupport for our own form of government is necessarily\nright, of\ncourse. But it is also historically correct. The ecumenical\nempires (this is a technical term)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Meaning what? It's not in the NSOED." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "of such a sort as Commonwealth, do not\ngive rise to new theories; they arise after the previous\nform of\ngovernment failed, very often out of desperation." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[Roman lip service to tyrannicide]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In fact, until the fall of Byzantium in 1453, and also for\nmost of\nthe history of the Holy Roman Empire, until its abolition\nin 1806,\nemperors were legally not hereditary, but elected. Roman\nEmperors\nwere elected by the Senate, Byzantinian by Senate, army and\npeople (in practice, the Army and People were \"electing\"\nthe emperor by\nappropriate cries during the coronation, but the legal\npretense was there).\n\nhttp://books.google.com/books?id=ozN1uextK7IC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=election+of+emperor+of+byzantium+legal+theory&source=bl&ots=Pu_BxzMPK0&sig=NfJXQdTTXXu5IJrX6YPBSz4XKiw&hl=en&ei=fiHWSd7HNsuKsAbyisWTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I didn't know that about the Roman emperors, so thanks.\nI probably don't need to say that the Communist countries\nmaintained a similar pretense and a few still do, including\nthe hereditary ruler of North Korea.\n\nAnyway, I think this is a very interesting and believable\nanswer to my question about why the political theory\nSeverian learned is inconsistent with the reality of his\nnation. Though the idea of democracy must have survived\nquite a long time, since the Commonwealth doesn't have\neven nominally democratic institutions, and other than\nthe real Master M.'s lesson, there's no trace of democracy\nin the past.\n\n[Justinian on Roman law]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The description of the Commonwealth shows similar\ndisconnect between\ntheory and practice. Commonwealth is the English\ntranslation of Republic," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "More or less. As first used, it meant the common good\nrather than a political entity (NSOED), and I'd say it\nretains that as a connotation." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "and the officials are taught in the schools that the\ndemocracy is the final form of government. But in practice\nthe state\nis governed by Autarchs, and administered by military\nofficers and\ntroop detachment. People - not officials or nobles - are\nworshipping Autarch.\n\nNotice also that the suggestions supporting monarchy come\nnot from\nthe real Malrubius, but from an aquastor, ie from\nHiero-xxx." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(Incidentally, this\nis an application of the more general rule of secondary and\nprimary\ncausation.\nhttp://www.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/causality-primary-secondary\n\nI suggest you read this entry carefully, since the\ndistinction is\ncrucial for understanding of the New Sun tetralogy. - BTW,\nI hope you\nwill not be overly offended by that suggestion.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not at all. I did mildly resent your telling me to notice\nthat the questioning Malrubius is an aquastor, but then I\nnoticed that I'd referred to him twice as plain \"Master\nMalrubius\", so that ended my resentment, as you had reason\nto say what you did.\n\nI read the article on primary and secondary causation.\nNo surprises, but it did say clearly what I'd occasionally\nunderstood vaguely.\n\nBy the way, thanks for the comment on the translation of\nsundial mottoes, which I think does go well with Severian's\ntranslations.\n\nJerry Friedman\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<754BF133-AC24-426A-803D-F9242812F46C@butcherbaker.org>", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-04-07T13:56:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) : \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "<841637.16716.qm@web50706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Apr 4, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\nThough the idea of democracy must have survived\nquite a long time, since the Commonwealth doesn't have\neven nominally democratic institutions, and other than\nthe real Master M.'s lesson, there's no trace of democracy\nin the past." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "well, there is this detail at least:\nShadow X The Last Year:\n\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\n\"Then that is enough for you. Look here,\" she held up the brown book. \n\"Here it\nsays, 'It was the thought of Thalelaeus the Great that the \ndemocracy'---that\nmeans the People---'desired to be ruled by some power superior to \nitself, and of\nYrierix the Sage that the commonality would never permit one differing \nfrom\nthemselves to hold high office. Notwithstanding this, each is called \nThe Perfect\nMaster.' \"\nI did not see what she meant, and said nothing.\n\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\n\nFWIW" } ] }, { "message_id": "<581708.81403.qm@web50707.mail.re2.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2009-04-07T14:16:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) : \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics", "in_reply_to": "<754BF133-AC24-426A-803D-F9242812F46C@butcherbaker.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- On Tue, 4/7/09, Son of Witz wrote:\nOn Apr 4, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Though the idea of democracy must have survived\nquite a long time, since the Commonwealth doesn't\nhave\neven nominally democratic institutions, and other than\nthe real Master M.'s lesson, there's no trace\nof democracy\nin the past." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "well, there is this detail at least:\nShadow X The Last Year:\n\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\n\"Then that is enough for you. Look here,\" she\nheld up the brown book. \"Here it\nsays, 'It was the thought of Thalelaeus the Great that\nthe democracy'---that\nmeans the People---'desired to be ruled by some power\nsuperior to itself, and of\nYrierix the Sage that the commonality would never permit\none differing from\nthemselves to hold high office. Notwithstanding this, each\nis called The Perfect\nMaster.' \"\nI did not see what she meant, and said nothing.\n\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah, good one. So Severian is taught that something like\nour democracy is the \"highest\" form of government, while\nthe word itself (or what Wolfe decided to translate that\nway) is so rare that Thecla thinks she needs to explain\nit. At least to a boy below her class.\n\n\nJerry Friedman\n\n\n " } ] } ] }