"The difference between an explosive volcano and a harmlessly bubbling crater lies partly in the hardening of the former’s crust. "
Er, no. The difference is the silica content of the magma: 45% silica and you get Mana Loa; 60% silica and you get Mt St Helens/Vesuvius. The analogy of silica content and attituded of French aristocracy is an exercise left to the reader.
I'm tempted to take your invitation to read, but it feels like an excessively "mechanical" undressing of what is essentially summed up by the 3rd quoted paragraph (containing "dynamics of obstruction").
How did the ruling elite come to brutally defeat the king in a mere 2 generations of royalty? By being concentrated in Versailles and being united against their common enemy, the monarchy. Louis XIV created a game in the capital where he essentially made all the rules and he played against the elite. When he died, the game kept going, and the elite used a lifetime of mastery to overcome the next king. It only took 2 transition periods to strip the king of his ability to play the game.
Why did it blow up (literally) in the faces of the ruling elite? Because the spoils of the game was what the king was left with at the end, divine supremacy without divine protection. They removed the protection when they challenged and won against the king, and have been unable to recreate it (the attempt to do so becomes fascism). So now the collective grief and suffering of the people gets directed at the elite who are masters at playing a game and noobs at running a society.
That's where I see the connection with today, but I think the game looks a lot different in a democracy 250 years after we started playing vs a monarchy in the early days of the game, and you'll only get a glimpse of those differences if you spend a lot of time studying the political mechanics of that early period.
Unfortunately, if unsurprisingly since the test was published in 1965, this is not available in a digital format. I can no longer read dead tree books because I require larger fonts.
Well, I ordered a copy. Let's see how far I get. I got curious about 18th century France through the Demographic Transition and the related secularization. Now I'm trying to figure out Jansenism. Surely, it was not about what it said it was about. There was also a children's card game I got in France in the 1960s, the Game of Seven Families, and so it's time I learned about the Famille Bien Aimé.
The central aristocracy versus the local aristocracy is a story as old as civilization. We've seen the upper middle class become aristocracy before. It was part of the transition from Vikings to Normans. Not every Merovingian lord had a senatorial pedigree, and we saw the new industrial aristocracy of the 19th century "sink the shop" and join the old aristocracy.
I read this book as an undergraduate, the year David Noel took over the Ancien Regime course from Peter Gay, who had left for Yale. It was a bit beyond me, to tell the truth. I just wasn't ready for the subtleties of institutional history. But the other big assignment, Paul Hazard's "The European Mind", remains on my shelf, a testimony to the wild cross-currents of the 17th century, 53 years later.
I don't seem to have the Ford book any more, but I would get it and reread it if you wanted to spar.
That is really cool. I can see why Noah won't read it. I'm afraid, you're all alone Brad. But: Jack Ma Yun may be far too young to be doing this type of thing. Unless something is brewing beneath the surface that nobody has sensed yet. Given the economic circumstances, this could probably be going on now. The NYT had an article a few days ago on how the government there is encouraging the people to become loyal informants, on the grounds that the country is overrun with spies. Can anyone smell panic?
"The difference between an explosive volcano and a harmlessly bubbling crater lies partly in the hardening of the former’s crust. "
Er, no. The difference is the silica content of the magma: 45% silica and you get Mana Loa; 60% silica and you get Mt St Helens/Vesuvius. The analogy of silica content and attituded of French aristocracy is an exercise left to the reader.
The French have a word for it, "brisance". If you are a chemist, you are probably already familiar with the term.
I'm tempted to take your invitation to read, but it feels like an excessively "mechanical" undressing of what is essentially summed up by the 3rd quoted paragraph (containing "dynamics of obstruction").
How did the ruling elite come to brutally defeat the king in a mere 2 generations of royalty? By being concentrated in Versailles and being united against their common enemy, the monarchy. Louis XIV created a game in the capital where he essentially made all the rules and he played against the elite. When he died, the game kept going, and the elite used a lifetime of mastery to overcome the next king. It only took 2 transition periods to strip the king of his ability to play the game.
Why did it blow up (literally) in the faces of the ruling elite? Because the spoils of the game was what the king was left with at the end, divine supremacy without divine protection. They removed the protection when they challenged and won against the king, and have been unable to recreate it (the attempt to do so becomes fascism). So now the collective grief and suffering of the people gets directed at the elite who are masters at playing a game and noobs at running a society.
That's where I see the connection with today, but I think the game looks a lot different in a democracy 250 years after we started playing vs a monarchy in the early days of the game, and you'll only get a glimpse of those differences if you spend a lot of time studying the political mechanics of that early period.
Interesting, I may give the book a look.
Unfortunately, if unsurprisingly since the test was published in 1965, this is not available in a digital format. I can no longer read dead tree books because I require larger fonts.
There are, I think, six copies on archive.org that you can borrow (but only for an hour at a time).
Well, I ordered a copy. Let's see how far I get. I got curious about 18th century France through the Demographic Transition and the related secularization. Now I'm trying to figure out Jansenism. Surely, it was not about what it said it was about. There was also a children's card game I got in France in the 1960s, the Game of Seven Families, and so it's time I learned about the Famille Bien Aimé.
The central aristocracy versus the local aristocracy is a story as old as civilization. We've seen the upper middle class become aristocracy before. It was part of the transition from Vikings to Normans. Not every Merovingian lord had a senatorial pedigree, and we saw the new industrial aristocracy of the 19th century "sink the shop" and join the old aristocracy.
I read this book as an undergraduate, the year David Noel took over the Ancien Regime course from Peter Gay, who had left for Yale. It was a bit beyond me, to tell the truth. I just wasn't ready for the subtleties of institutional history. But the other big assignment, Paul Hazard's "The European Mind", remains on my shelf, a testimony to the wild cross-currents of the 17th century, 53 years later.
I don't seem to have the Ford book any more, but I would get it and reread it if you wanted to spar.
:-)
I ordered it. Seems like classics on elite behavior need to be read again, given Peter Turchin's stuff (which Noah has paid some attention to).
That is really cool. I can see why Noah won't read it. I'm afraid, you're all alone Brad. But: Jack Ma Yun may be far too young to be doing this type of thing. Unless something is brewing beneath the surface that nobody has sensed yet. Given the economic circumstances, this could probably be going on now. The NYT had an article a few days ago on how the government there is encouraging the people to become loyal informants, on the grounds that the country is overrun with spies. Can anyone smell panic?
Here's the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/02/world/asia/china-spies-campaign.html