{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5391",
    "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": 5391,
    "subject": "\"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Genn ne    Wolfe's Politics",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "2009-04-02T17:50:58+00:00",
    "last": "2009-04-02T17:59:42+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<W9439530133255011238694658@webmail27>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Son of Witz",
        "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org"
      },
      "date": "2009-04-02T17:50:58+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth)\"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Genn ne    Wolfe's Politics",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: John Watkins [mailto:john.watkins04 at gmail.com]\nSent: Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:41 AM\nTo: 'The Urth Mailing List'\nSubject: Re: (urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "As 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": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I like this Lewis quote.\nthat's my point. Is Wolfe positing this as a practical solution. I agree that it couldn't work with out the monarch being essentially god. which is why I wonder why Malrubius is asking this of the future Autarch. I understand Severian is in a process of revoking false allegiance and oaths, and orienting himself to the Increate, but that's theology, not politics. Severian will also be the political ruler, and his first answer is the Democracy, but it's as if Malrubius's switch to theological perspective is intended to point out that the governance should be thought of in those terms.\n\nOR, is this Malrubius's way of using this theological metaphor as a way of telling this future ruler to orient himself to God so that he can rule best.\n\n~witz\nps, not sure how I screwed up the subject title so badly."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<93d4039f0904021059p26093662x7f3c8cf66dac9480@mail.gmail.com>",
      "from": {
        "name": "John Watkins",
        "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com"
      },
      "date": "2009-04-02T17:59:42+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Genn ne Wolfe's Politics",
      "in_reply_to": "<W9439530133255011238694658@webmail27>",
      "reply_link": "header",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I think it's the latter.  Another Lewis bit that comes to mind is his point\n(in *The Discarded Image*) that the physical arrangement of Dante's cosmos\n(with Satan in the center and the Empyrean at the periphery) is the inverse,\nas though in a mirror, of the metaphysical reality of the cosmos (in which\nGod is centrally important and Satan is the universe's least significant\nbeing.)  Lewis uses the idea in *The Great Divorce *as well when he\ndescribes the Harrowing of Hell in terms of Christ \"shrinking\" himself into\nsomething tiny and seemingly insignificant to enter into the infintesimal\nportion of Creation that is Hell.\n\nAnyway, if I'm right about the connection, I think what Wolfe is doing here\nis suggesting that the \"highest\" level of political governance might be the\n\"lowest\" level of theological--that is, loyalty to the abstract principles\nof good and evil is good politcs and bad theoloy, but loyalty to the person\nof the monarch is good theology but bad politics.  The passages doesn't come\nout and say that, of course, but it seems to me to be the allusion.\n\nAlso, I know you're fond of the bit in Long Sun when NarratorHorn portrays\nOreb as viewing Silk as his god--that, it seems to me, is an elaboration on\nthe bit about Triskele here.  The loyalty of an animal to its master is more\nakin to the loyalty of a worshipper to God than it is to the loyalty of a\ncitizen to the state (at least, so we hope!)"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>wrote:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: John Watkins [mailto:john.watkins04 at gmail.com]\nSent: Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:41 AM\nTo: 'The Urth Mailing List'\nSubject: Re: (urth) \"Principlesofgovernaaance\"Gene Wolfe's Politics"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "As 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\nin\nthe government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth\nneeds\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\nGod\ncreated an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over\nchild,\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\nsubstitute\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": "I like this Lewis quote.\nthat's my point. Is Wolfe positing this as a practical solution. I agree\nthat it couldn't work with out the monarch being essentially god. which is\nwhy I wonder why Malrubius is asking this of the future Autarch. I\nunderstand Severian is in a process of revoking false allegiance and oaths,\nand orienting himself to the Increate, but that's theology, not politics.\nSeverian will also be the political ruler, and his first answer is the\nDemocracy, but it's as if Malrubius's switch to theological perspective is\nintended to point out that the governance should be thought of in those\nterms.\n\nOR, is this Malrubius's way of using this theological metaphor as a way of\ntelling this future ruler to orient himself to God so that he can rule best.\n\n~witz\nps, not sure how I screwed up the subject title so badly.\n\n\n_______________________________________________"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}