I used to think "pithy" meant "light" or even "trite." oops.
Hi folks. Of late, I've been reading Francis Bacon's Of Empire, a collection of his essays. He's got a few pithy lines in there among his instructions as to how to build the ideal garden (30 acres, open galleries, fruit trees, an artificial heath) and how to travel the world (with a tutor, keeping a diary, and without putting down roots in any one place). My three favorite quotes are below. (Let me add, however, that this man is no Shakespeare--offbeat speculations aside.)Pithy quote # 1: "There is no question but a just fear of an imminent danger, though there be no blow given, is a lawful cause of war."
I used to think of this as the Bush Doctrine. Turns out, unsurprisingly, that it's been around much longer than Mr. Bush, and, again unsurprisingly, that it has been more explicitly and concisely stated than ever the President has done. What's interesting about Bacon, though, is the reasoning that informs the sentiment. Bacon's concern is with relative power: in a finite world, your gain in territory or trade comes only at my loss. Every time you become stronger, I become relatively weaker, and this is all that matters. Perhaps what Bacon says is obviously true in the case of territory, but it is nonobvious in the case of trade; we think of free trade and manufacturing for comparative advantage as helping all involved, but Bacon would argue that the disproportionality of benefits is deeply problematic. A neighboring state's growing power is a threat, even if that state is peaceful, and even if it comes with your own, relatively slower, growth in power. (This is, of course, an oversimplification; if my state is growing in power relative to 10 states, but to do so must lose power relative to an 11th state, we would be well-advised to accept the deal for the time being. Our world is not a two-state system, after all.)
The other interesting thing about Bacon is his presumption that all leaders and rulers will, and should, follow this precept. His understanding of war (and indeed of international negotiation) is vastly different than ours. It is one that allows for a noble enemy, one which doesn't necessarily cast armed conflict in terms of right vs. wrong, but rather in terms of two rulers each struggling to protect their nations against the encroachment of the other. For Bacon, it is morally equivalent to say, "I attacked because I felt imminent danger" and "I was attacked because I presented imminent danger." (It is not practically equivalent, just morally. What I mean is, Bacon doesn't feel the need to pick sides, or to discover which cause was the more just.) Indeed, for Bacon, a bad leader would be one who does not fight to protect his people, or even just to make them great.
If his take is very equitable, it is also very mechanistic. (Perhaps we should expect this of a sometime-dabbler in Enlightenment sciences.) While he has a sense of the noble cause, Bacon also has a strong sense of human nature; it is his contention that fighting to preserve one's nation, for example, is noble--but also that it is unavoidable. When we look at Henry the Eighth of England, Francis the First of France, and Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire, Bacon would have us see that they formed alliances and waged war in very similar ways and for very similar reasons. One reason not to proclaim the moral high ground in armed conflict, then, is the possibility of one's enemies' nobility; another reason is the certainty of our inherent similarity.
Pithy quote # 2: "All precepts concerning kings are in effect comprehended in those two remembrances: Momento quod es homo, and Momento quod es Deus or vice Dei: the one bridleth their power, and the other their will."
First, a quick translation: "remember you are human" (or, "remember you are a man"), and, "remember you are God, or God's regent on earth" (or "a God," "one of God's viceregents," etc. with various articles flowing in and out as the translator sees fit).
I like this. You're in charge--you get the power, you the responsibility, you get to boss people around and create worlds and all that. On the other hand, you're just a person, nothing special, what makes you think you deserve all this anyhow?
I'm not really in favor of divine monarchy or the whole leader-as-God's-regent kind of thing, I have to say. Give me a democracy any day. But if you have to explain the trappings of monarchy, this is not a bad beginning.
Pithy quote # 3: "It is good also not to try experiments in states, except the necessity be urgent or the utility evident; and well to beware that it be the reformation that draweth on the change, and not the desire of change that pretendeth the reformation."
Well said, Sir Francis. Spoken like a true conservative indeed.
I mean, I take the point that reformation and revolution do not break out of nowhere, and so must generally have some more immediate cause than the continuing status quo. The problem here is not the observation, but the prescription that comes with it, the "...it is good not to experiment, because that might cause--gasp!--reformation!" I mean, there is a difference between reform and out-and-out revolution, no? And there are real goods to come of change, too. I mean, Bacon is basically saying, "It's no good to change things, because changing things might cause a clamor for further reform, and reform is a kind of change, and obviously we presume that it is no good to change things." Come now. Surely this is circular. Bacon's whole prescription relies on the idea that his readers are already predisposed against any sort of governmental reform.
This, I note, was probably a good assumption. I mean, if you are at the top of an arcane pecking order, you'd rather stay there, too, wouldn't you? Suddenly you'd go all-in for the perpetual stability of the current regime, right?
Well. Or something. So there you go. A three-bulletpoint summary of Francis Bacon on statehood and empire.
posted by Skay @ 4:10 PM
6 Comments:
Hmmm, really interesting. I should look at getting myself a copy.
There is no doubt that war, power and limited resources all go hand in hand……..
Quote 1: hmmm, I find that a bit dodgy – that doctrine has only brought more problems to the world. But I can understand his reasoning and his justifications for saying so. But I think in the long run we slow ourselves down in terms of OVERALL progress. We tend to focus more on the enemy rather than what we could accomplish as a collective.
Quote 2: Monarchies can never survive in a progressive world. Democracies are definitely the best solution/model to follow – in any of its forms – but there has to be a responsibility attached to it – something that I think we lack today.
Quote 3: I actually found this one quite funny but agree with u whole heartedly:)
Take care.
John, I think you're right that "Of Empire" is just some of the essays. Coinkidink it is, though.
Zee, how could we institutionalize the responsibility you mention? And more than that, what kind of responsibility do you mean? Are you saying that voters are irresponsible, or that the politicians are, or something more complicated than that?
Just curious...
John,
I think Bacon is a fine stylist, but I don't think he has anything of the witty turn-of-phrase or the double-meaning remarks of Shakespeare. He is a very different kind of writer. I say he's "no Shakespeare" by way of knocking the popular speculations that, in fact, he WAS Shakespeare, insofar as there was one. People love to toss around the idea that Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays.
I don't have "Of Usury" in my collection. It's nice to see that not all quantities are fixed for Bacon--indeed, not even all economic quantities. You're quite right to point out the amazing degree to which Bacon practices a general suspicion of... well... everybody, however. This is not precisely Machiavellian--he does not seem to me to advocate of crushing force or assertions of power no matter the human cost--but it is a reflection of a world where competition is inevitable and winners imply losers. One does not want to act badly or ignobly, but one certainly does want to win.
What do you think about the essay on the garden, John? If there were more land in the world, I'd love a space like that.
I enjoyed reading these well written thoughts on Bacon (and I am referring to your post, not Bacon's quotes, though they are enjoyable).
However, I have not read his essays, so I don't have any deeper thoughts to share on the topic.
Somehow, writers of this calibre don't seem to exist today. Why do the old Elizabethan writers enjoy a turn of phrase lacking in today's language?
Hey, not such a bad idea at all, John.
I will consider further.
Hmmm...how much time do u have?:)
But here's a shortened version:
I believe we have 2 look at responsibility from a 3 tier approach. Responsibility attached to the politicians, responsibility attached to the citizens and collective responsibility
Resp attached to politicians: in my opinion the greatest burden of responsibility lies with the politicians/government. They were elected and they have the responsibility of being open with the public and ensuring that individual agendas are not being pursued. That being said- that can only be achieved by having stringent laws in place that would prevent politicians from pursuing there own agendas or what they feel is important for the public irrespective of public opinion. Laws preventing government ownership of the media for example should be in place. Another policy that should be in place is removing of lobby groups. Lobby groups in my opinion take away the objectivity in government making decisions because more often than not it serves to further the ambitions of big corporations rather than the man on the street. It should be unlawful for politicians to have stakes in businesses or corporations that could create bias. there are million other little points but we'll leave it at that
Resp attached to citizens: firstly I must say that we should remember that citizens make the best possible decisions of whom to vote for based on the best possible info available at the time. All people vote for a particular party because they identify with that group/policy. That being said, I don’t believe in treating ppl with kid gloves and it is the responsibility of the individual, the man on the street, the voter, the citizen, to ensure that his/her government abides to what its ppl want and not the other way around. It does not mean that just because an individual has made a choice for a particular party with the best possible info at hand at that time that they are now exempt from any further responsibility. It rather changes to responsibility of ensuring that their government does what it had set out to do. In other words, the resp that falls on citizens should be to ensure that once a party is elected they stick to their promises, they (the gov) provides its citizens with all the info required without the need for window dressing.
Responsibility as a collective: this is where world bodies come into play. The UN as it exists now does not provide the majority of countries with what it was initially intended for. Veto rights can not be allowed and each country has to be given an equal vote. The majority of votes will decide what action has to be taken. in that way, what the world feels is for the greater good of the world will have a greater chance of seeing the light of day instead of just collecting dust in a book of resolutions.
Post a Comment
<< Home