Cicero

[wood jim]

These Law essays are excellent. Note how several
essays reach the same conclusion, that is, P's method
is Paradoxical/Agonistic. Why doesn't P like
dialecticians? 
Not long ago I suggested that P cannot be an anti
christian and is certainly not
anti-Protestant, anti- puritan or anti religious. P is
far too complex, his treatment of each of these, far
too subtle, but he does reject, repeatedly, Plato's
(neo-Platonic, Judeo Christian) Dialectical Method and
its "gnostic" anti-materialism. The gnostic stuff is
old and tired, but the Dialectal stuff  does tell us
something about P's political views. 

"…Pynchon welcomes the emerging
            Protestant counter-culture precisely
because it
            might have led to a pluralistic culture
more
            tolerant of religious differences." 

MIGHT HAVE! 

I'll skip over the Protestant Reformation stuff and go
straight to the Roman Empire (Cicero). 

Excerpts: First Hegel, then Rome. 


Oklahoma City University Law Review 
                 Volume 24, Number 3 (1999) 
             reprinted by permission Oklahoma City
University Law Review 

              LAW, HISTORY, AND THE SUBVERSION OF
             POSTWAR AMERICA IN THOMAS PYNCHON'S
                   THE CRYING OF LOT 49 

                     ROBERT J. HANSEN*



Instead of viewing the Hegelian dialectic as
            a progressive realization of human freedom
or
            unfolding of world spirit into new ideal
unities,
            Pynchon understands the synthesizing
process
            as a violent conquest of the Other in the
            service of hegemonic interests. Far from
            constituting an obstacle which must be
            overcome, social division signals to
Pynchon
            the possibility of an irreducibly diverse,
            non-hegemonic culture in which the Other
is
            not conquered or co-opted but retains its
            otherness. The mere presence of history's
            Other, which is revealed most clearly in
            moments of diremption, belies the fiction
of
            unity that is the foundation for the
received
            history of postwar America and for the
legal
            and social structure it serves. To counter
this
            pernicious relationship between history
and the
            postwar order, Pynchon reconfigures
Hegel's
            dialectical system by casting the Other as
the
            hero of his historical satire.

http://www.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/okla/hansen24.htm

Pynchon's emphasis upon the Holy Roman
            Empire is also an appropriate choice to
locate
            the emergence of an agency representing
            difference and diversity. Nominally under
the
            central authority of an elected Holy Roman
            Emperor, power in the Empire was in fact
            notoriously decentered. As historian Mary
            Fulbrook points out, the Empire "had
evolved a
            rather different political pattern from
that of the
            more centralised monarchies of England and
            France."23 In contrast to the unified
            nation-state, the "political map of [the
Empire
            ... was exceedingly complex, a patchwork
of
            dynastic and ecclesiastical territories
dotted
            with imperial free cities and the castles
of
            independent imperial knights."24 Pynchon
            would  

                         [598]


            probably agree with Fulbrook that the
Empire's
            decentered structure should not be
"viewed,
            anachronistically, with the assumption
that the
            unified nation state is the ultimate goal
of
            history."25 Rather than viewing (as Hegel
            certainly did)26 the Empire's unusual
structure
            as an anomaly which requires explanation
or
            apology, Pynchon identifies a lost
opportunity
            for the formation of social and political
orders
            far less authoritarian and monological
than
            elsewhere in Europe. 
                 Pynchon situates the next opportunity
for
            the Tristero at a time when the source of
            political authority in the Empire was most
            uncertain. When the Empire plunges into
virtual
            anarchy during the Thirty Years War
            (1618-1648) and its immediate aftermath,
the
            "actual locus of power" in Thurn and Taxis
            "remained uncertain." With "signs of decay
in
            the system," the Tristero believes "the
great
            moment [was] finally at hand."27 Pynchon
            welcomes decay in the Empire because the
            "coming descent into particularism"28
seemed to
            represent a golden opportunity for
pluralism. 
                 Although the Reformation and the
            disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire
            signaled the possibility for a culture
tolerant of
            radical difference and diversity, their
promise
            went unfulfilled as new political and
religious
            formations reconsolidated power,
knowledge,
            and culture. After the resolution of the
Thirty
            Years War, the Empire entered a period of
            political history characterized by
structural
            stability in the form of authoritarian
local
            governments. In this "Age of Absolutism,"
the
            metaphysical uncertainty occasioned by the
            Reformation failed to deliver religious
freedom.
            As Fulbrook notes, after the Peace of
Augsburg
            dissenters "from the religious confession
of a
            given territory would have to emigrate
....
            'Freedom' of religion thus meant freedom
at the
            territorial, rather than individual, level
.... This
            was an ironic outcome of a struggle which
had
            started as a struggle for individual
experience of
            faith...."29 
                 Pynchon supplies a possible reason
for this
            failure in the performance of The
Courier's
            Tragedy. As the narrator notes, the
off-stage
            presence of the Trystero appears to
represent
            an unspeakable force, even more terrible
than
            the mundane evils of torture, incest, and
            murder that fill nearly every scene of the
play.
            Whenever the possibility of The Trystero's
            intervention in state affairs occurs to
the
            characters, 

                         [599]


               a gentle chill, an ambiguity, begins
               to creep in among the words.
               Heretofore the naming of names has
               gone on either literally or as
               metaphor. But now ... a new mode
               of expression takes over. It can only
               be called a kind of ritual reluctance.
               Certain things, it is made clear, will
               not be spoken aloud; certain events
               will not be shown onstage; though it
               is difficult to imagine, given the
               excesses of the preceding acts, what
               these things could possibly be.30

                 Perhaps The Trystero is perceived as
            frightening because it represents to the
            Jacobean audience a fate worse than mere
            death--religious uncertainty. The Trystero
is a
            religiously ambiguous force, neither good
nor
            evil but radically Other.


http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/cicero.htm#On the
Republic


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/

O' Manners & Wood & "Associates" 




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/