(urth) "Principlesofgovernaaance"Gene Wolfe's Politics

[Craig Brewer]

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.

Then 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?

>>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:
 
I 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.
That 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
 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)
 
 

Another question this brings up for me.  This notion of a Divine Ruler...
You 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.
anyway, How can this idea of a Monarch that is the best system jibe with reality lacking an unambiguous 'seal of approval' from God?

Let 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?

I'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.

just asking...

~Witz


_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net/


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090402/858ebb27/attachment-0003.htm>