aneurysm time

And now I have to disengage my brain from thoughts about modern America and participatory democracy and post-racism and the disintegration of the conservative movement and all that stuff, and go back to thinking about the philosophical underpinnings of seventeenth-century monarchy.

Brain. Hurty.

0 Responses to “aneurysm time”

  1. d_c_m

    Now that’s a brain switching gears!

  2. eclectician

    I’m a wee bit fuzzy here, but weren’t the philosophical underpinnings of 17C monarchy much the same as those of 18C monarchy?

    And weren’t the philosophical underpinnings of this participatory democracy originally a direct counterpoint to the underpinnings of 18C monarchy?

    • Marie Brennan

      Ish. You’re probably thinking of absolute monarchy, which never went as far in Britain as it did on the Continent, thanks to Parliament and the weight of tradition limiting the powers of the King. But it’s true that the 17C stuff was, in part, a fight about “divine right” (which lies behind absolute monarchy) vs. the more bottom-up contractual model. But the 17C Parliament was a different, and much more limited, flavor of democracy than the one we’re currently celebrating, which means I have to police myself not to be all modern about how I present it. (Case in point: Antony, one of the protagonists, is appalled by the Levellers, who want England to be “ruled by the mob.” Our own government is a proud intellectual descendent of Leveller ideas.) And I’m not currently working on a Parliament-centric part of the book, so thinking about those things is just distracting for me.

      Plus, putting all of that aside, what I’m really tinkering with at present is a 17C faerie philosophy of monarchy. Which is another kettle of fish entirely.

  3. Anonymous

    And sent. Thanks!

Comments are closed.