There is definitely a Nicholas van Rijn parallel character in The Long Way Home. What do we make of Ponsario en-Ostral in The Winter Of The World?
Ponsario:
adopts the mask of an effete gourmand;
likes mulled wine and cigars;
carries the latter in a rosewood case;
is described as "ridiculously fat" (pp. 36-37);
is short-legged and balding;
dyes his hair and beard;
paints gold stars on his fingernails;
wears gold rings and an embroidered fur tunic;
is long-winded;
speaks self-deprecatingly about his "dotage" (p. 37);
lovingly lists sources of profit;
curries favour with the military governor...
Van Rijn would find a way to remain independent and to influence events without currying favour.
"And curry favor. Sidir's thought was not contemptuous. He no more despised a merchant for being a merchant than a dog for being a dog." (p. 40)
That sounds eminently contemptuous to me! Van Rijn makes others underestimate him but does not inspire contempt.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Except for the currying favor and being short legged, this description of Ponsario en-Ostral does remind me of Old Nick! I could even say that currying favor was only an act on Ponsario's part.
Ad astra! Sean
In a predominantly agricultural land-based empire, the dominant class is probably going to be landowners of some sort, quite probably a warrior caste as well, and they're probably going to despise merchants because merchants bargain.
Whereas warriors take, and generally consider bargainers to be cowards.
That was certainly the pattern in many places.
Even in Confucian China, where the landowners weren't a warrior caste, they -did- despise merchants.
In Pre-Meiji Japan, where the landowners -were- warriors too, merchants were despised even more.
Ditto in Europe, though there the merchants generally dominated the cities, which were outside the framework of the rural-feudal countryside.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree! But, as time passed and conditions became more settled and stable in places like medieval Europe and Confucian China, this disdain for merchants necessarily softened. Warriors and landowners couldn't just casually kill and rob merchants. Such behavior got them facing stiffer criminal and legal penalties. As it should!
Ad astra! Sean
I suppose I lean towards despising a culture in which merchants are despised.
Merchants are not perfect, but they do more good & less harm than the warrior landed aristocracy which despises them.
Jim: not necessarily.
Take a look at what the Hanseatic League used to act like, and it was dominated by merchants.
Kaor, Jim!
The merchants of the Hanseatic League could be just as ruthless as any warrior, as we see in THE MERMAN'S CHILDREN. I also thought of how ruthless the mercantile Venetian Republic could be. The Venetians had a richly deserved reputation for ruthless ambition, avarice, and unwillingness to ever let go of grudges. As we see in Anderson's above mentioned book, ROGUE SWORD, and THERE WILL BE TIME.
Needless to say, not all Venetians were avaricious, cruel, or ruthless, but it was their reputation!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Venetian institutional culture was avaricious, cruel and ruthless.
These are not qualities which are limited to one variety of state...
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree! And it's no surprise none of their neighbors liked the Venetians, and they were also no better than the Republic.
Ad astra! Sean
James Blish mentions dislike of Venetians in THE DAY AFTER JUDGEMENT.
I guess I should have made a more nuanced statement. Here is my attempt to clarify
There is a book I read some time ago
"Systems of Survival" by Jane Jacobs
The short Wikipedia article on it fits my recollections of reading it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival
She documents how there are 2 moral 'syndromes' (set of elements that go together) each best used for certain types of activities. A Guardian syndrome and a Commercial syndrome.
Moral precepts
Guardian Syndrome
Shun trading
Exert prowess
Be obedient and disciplined
Adhere to tradition
Respect hierarchy
Be loyal
Take vengeance
Deceive for the sake of the task
Make rich use of leisure
Be ostentatious
Dispense largesse
Be exclusive
Show fortitude
Be fatalistic
Treasure honor
Commercial Syndrome
Shun force
Compete
Be efficient
Be open to inventiveness and novelty
Use initiative and enterprise
Come to voluntary agreements
Respect contracts
Dissent for the sake of the task
Be industrious
Be thrifty
Invest for productive purposes
Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens
Promote comfort and convenience
Be optimistic
Be honest
The Wikipedia article says a bit about why each set of precepts make sense for the corresponding set of activities. The book of course goes into more detail.
The problem with a society that despises merchants is that it neglects the value of Commercial activities and the corresponding set of moral precepts.
One of Jacob's major points is that mixing the two activities risks creating "monstrous moral hybrids" eg: a Mafia or Communist Party of the Soviet Union. At one point she claims that agriculture belongs in the Commercial sector, so a landed aristocracy/warrior class ends up applying applying Guardian precepts to a Commercial activity and gives *poor* results.
I suppose the Merchants of the Hanseatic League or Venice would often apply Commercial precepts to Guardian activities and give other sorts of poor results.
Kaor, Jim!
More simply, perhaps, don't be surprised if many men are as avaricious, ruthless, and cruel as they think they can get away with. Fear of retribution from either the State or God might restrain some.
Ad astra! Sean
Sure people can just not *care* about doing good, but sometimes people can think doing X is good when it is only good in circumstance Y, which doesn't happen to always hold. So someone might be following the Commercial precepts when he should be following the Guardian precepts or vice versa.
Kaor, Jim!
That makes sense, I agree. And I did notice how the Guardian and Commercial precepts overlap a fair bit, having ideas in common.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment