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

Fri Apr 3 12:16:40 PDT 2009

Hello!

On 3 kwietnia 2009, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> --- On Thu, 4/2/09, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote:
> ...

>> ok, is the last one meant to be a joke about our current
>> situation?  Abstraction, largely ideal.

> Yes, only not necessarily a joke.  (At least, I didn't
> laugh.)  I think the majority of Americans who think about
> such things are attached to our form of government, not
> because of specific leaders or laws, but because of
> abstract qualities such as popular voting, representation
> rather than deciding everything by referendum, checks and
> balances, rule of law, protection of individual freedoms,
> and maybe others.
> ...

>> So, would anyone
>> toss away democracy in favor of a monarch?

> Of course some would.  Not me.

>> How can this
>> notion not be "largely ideal"  when it hinges upon
>> the character of a single person?  

> I take "ideal" to mean "existing in the realm of ideas".

>> 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.

> Because it allows for personal attachment, a praiseworthy
> trait in humans and dogs (as Master Malrubius's questions
> are designed to point out) and possibly a more reliable
> kind of loyalty than an abstract system can claim.

> I think we're supposed to take the classification
> Severian learned as naive and Master Malrubius as showing
> what's wrong with it.  At the least, we and Severian are
> supposed to consider that there's as much to be said for
> monarchy as against it, as in the quotations from Aquinas
> and the ancients that Stanislaus kindly posted (so I could
> pretend I knew all along about those opinions).  And we
> may even be supposed to think that Severian's list is
> completely backwards, contrary to what he and we were taught.
> Placing monarchy "highest" would be relative--not
> necessarily good, but least evil.

> In "The Best Introduction to the Mountains", Wolfe praises
> the societies of a time and place where democracy was
> known, but hereditary rulers and conquerors were more
> common (I think).

> Anyway, Severian is destined to be the sole ruler (except
> for some internal colleagues), so he needs to appreciate
> the advantages of sole rule.

> The Commonwealth shows no sign of democracy that I remember,
> a fact compatible with the classification of principles of
> governance from low to high, not bad to good.  It's striking
> that nonetheless Severian was taught that our kind of
> democracy is the highest form.  Condition of Primitivity?
> Or just a way of putting the reader's likely preconceptions
> on the table in order to subvert them?

> Jerry Friedman

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."

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) 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.

In the Roman Empire the emperors were worshipped as gods, as a matter
of common-sense policy. At the same time in elite schools the future
administrators of Empire were composing speeches praising Harmodius
and Aristogeton, the Tyrannicides, and proclaiming that the freedom
was the highest value, and the killing of a tyrant the greatest
service to the Republic. Copies of their statues were mass-produced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmodius_and_Aristogeiton_(sculpture)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmodius_and_Aristogeiton

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

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/corpus1.html

Corpus Iuris Civilis of Justinian:
"The Digest: Prologue
The Emperor Caesar, Flavius, Justinianus, Pious, Fortunate, Renowned,
Conqueror, and Triumpher, Ever Augustus, to Tribonianus His Quaestor, Greeting:

With the aid of God governing Our Empire which was delivered to
Us by His Celestial Majesty, We carry on war successfully.
We adorn peace and maintain the Constitution of the State,
and have such confidence in the protection of Almighty God
that We do not depend upon Our arms, or upon Our soldiers, or
upon those who conduct Our Wars, or upon Our own genius,
but We solely, place Our reliance upon the providence of the Holy Trinity,
from which are derived the elements of the entire world and
their disposition throughout the globe.
...
Our law is partly written, partly unwritten, as among the Greeks.
The written law consists of statutes, plebiscites, senatusconsults,
enactments of the Emperors, edicts of the magistrates, and answers
of those learned in the law. A statute is an enactment of the Roman people,
which it used to make on the motion of a senatorial magistrate,
as for instance a consul. A plebiscite is an enactment of the commonalty,
such as was made on the motion of one of their own magistrates, as
a tribune.... A senatusconsult is a command and ordinance of the
senate, for when the Roman people had been so increased that it was difficult
to assemble it together for the purpose of enacting statutes, it seemed right
that the senate should be consulted instead of the people. Again, what
the Emperor determines has the force of a statute, the people having
conferred on him all their authority and power by the lex regia,
which was passed concerning his office and authority.
Consequently, whatever the Emperor settles by rescript,
or decides in his judicial capacity, or ordains edicts, is
clearly a statute: and these are what are called constitutions. "

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

Finally, I think that it is important to remember a peculiar
Christian doctrine about the government: each legal government is
such only because it is given its power directly by God. In fact,
the familiar XVI-century theory of the divine right of kings
is a convenient corruption of that teaching. Of course, a hereditary
king has been given his right to govern directly by God, but the same
applies to any government, including democratic ones. This explains
how can Justinian claim in the same letter to have his power both
directly from God, and by the law made by people.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/52013.htm
Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Romans, Chapter 13
" Let every soul be subject to higher powers:
for there is no power but from God: and
those that are, are ordained of God.
2Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.
And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.
3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil.
Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?
Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.
4 For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear:
for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister:
an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.
5 Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for
conscience' sake"

(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.)

-- 
Best regards,
Stanislaus B.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kredyt z doplata, nawet 200 000 zl. Sprawdz!
http://link.interia.pl/f20fc
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: =?windows-1250?Q?Stanis=B3aw_Bocian?= <sbocian at poczta.fm>
Subject: Re::  (urth) "Principlesofgovernaaance"Gene Wolfe's Politics
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:12:01 +0200
Size: 20312
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090403/25c3f77b/attachment-0004.eml>