(urth) : "Principlesofgovernaaance"Gene Wolfe's Politics

[Jerry Friedman]

--- On Fri, 4/3/09, Stanisław Bocian <sbocian at poczta.fm> wrote:

> From: Stanisław Bocian <sbocian at poczta.fm>
> Subject: Re: (urth) :   "Principlesofgovernaaance"Gene Wolfe's Politics
> To: "urth" <urth at urth.net>
> Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 1:16 PM
> Hello!
> 
> On 3 kwietnia 2009, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> Yes, the classification of types of government in Wolfe
> repeats
> modern views. It can seem unfamiliar because it uses
> somewhat more
> precise terms than in school class, but if you will look
> into some
> good handbook, eg Giovanni Sartori, THE THEORY OF DEMOCRACY
> REVISITED.
> 
> http://www.ou.edu/cas/psc/booksartori.htm
> 
> you will see essentially that kind of definition.
> "Attachment to an
> abstraction conceived as including the body of electors,
> other bodies giving
> rise to them, and numerous other elements, largely
> ideal."

I may not read that right away. :-)
 
> This has many functions. It makes us think whether our
> instinctive
> support for our own form of government is necessarily
> right, of
> course. But it is also historically correct. The ecumenical
> empires (this is a technical term)

Meaning what?  It's not in the NSOED.

> of such a sort as Commonwealth, do not
> give rise to new theories; they arise after the previous
> form of
> government failed, very often out of desperation.

[Roman lip service to tyrannicide]

> In fact, until the fall of Byzantium in 1453, and also for
> most of
> the history of the Holy Roman Empire, until its abolition
> in 1806,
> emperors were legally not hereditary, but elected. Roman
> Emperors
> were elected by the Senate, Byzantinian by Senate, army and
> people (in practice, the Army and People were "electing"
> the emperor by
> appropriate cries during the coronation, but the legal
> pretense was there).
> 
> http://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

I didn't know that about the Roman emperors, so thanks.
I probably don't need to say that the Communist countries
maintained a similar pretense and a few still do, including
the hereditary ruler of North Korea.

Anyway, I think this is a very interesting and believable
answer to my question about why the political theory
Severian learned is inconsistent with the reality of his
nation.  Though the idea of democracy must have survived
quite a long time, since the Commonwealth doesn't have
even nominally democratic institutions, and other than
the real Master M.'s lesson, there's no trace of democracy
in the past.

[Justinian on Roman law]

> The description of the Commonwealth shows similar
> disconnect between
> theory and practice. Commonwealth is the English
> translation of Republic,

More or less.  As first used, it meant the common good
rather than a political entity (NSOED), and I'd say it
retains that as a connotation.

> and the officials are taught in the schools that the
> democracy is the final form of government. But in practice
> the state
> is governed by Autarchs, and administered by military
> officers and
> troop detachment. People - not officials or nobles - are
> worshipping Autarch.
> 
> Notice also that the suggestions supporting monarchy come
> not from
> the real Malrubius, but from an aquastor, ie from
> Hiero-xxx.
...

> (Incidentally, this
> is an application of the more general rule of secondary and
> primary
> causation.
> http://www.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/causality-primary-secondary
> 
> I suggest you read this entry carefully, since the
> distinction is
> crucial for understanding of the New Sun tetralogy. - BTW,
> I hope you
> will not be overly offended by that suggestion.)

Not at all.  I did mildly resent your telling me to notice
that the questioning Malrubius is an aquastor, but then I
noticed that I'd referred to him twice as plain "Master
Malrubius", so that ended my resentment, as you had reason
to say what you did.

I read the article on primary and secondary causation.
No surprises, but it did say clearly what I'd occasionally
understood vaguely.

By the way, thanks for the comment on the translation of
sundial mottoes, which I think does go well with Severian's
translations.

Jerry Friedman