The Utility of History and One's Bad Memories
It was Lord John Dalberg-Acton who said “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Ironically, his most famous words were a side note to his larger point. Acton believed that position and time period were irrelevant when judging a crime. In direct opposition to Machiavellian thought, Acton once wrote to a bishop:
“There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of liberalism meet and keep high festival and the end learns to justify the means.’
That is, he believed judging leaders or historical figures differently than everyone else went against both the universal morals of Catholicism and the liberalist goal of an improving society. In fact, Acton even takes it a step further:
“You would hang a man like Ravaillac [a religious zealot who killed Henry IV of France]; but it what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greatest names coupled with the greatest crimes. You would spare these criminals for some mysterious reason. I would hang them higher than Haman [a Persian who was hanged for plotting against the Jews] for reasons of quite obvious justice, still more, still higher for the sake of historical science.”
Acton says, we should, in fact, judge people in higher positions and those in the past harsher than plebs and contemporaries to serve the function of history. I’m assuming Acton is saying that a liberal society learns from history. Thus, focusing on past injustices with great scrutiny would lead to improvement.
Acton makes a valid point and I can’t help but think of my own life. For some reason, a couple of moments in my life really stick out and give me guilt. When I was maybe 8, I smashed some phessant eggs after someone told me that the mother would no longer return after I touched the eggs (turns out that’s not true). Also, one year at camp when I was 14, I implied a girl was fat and made her cry. Now, I’ve done many things worse that these things, but for some reason, these ones really stick and annoy me with shame and embarrassment.
Now, many would say to move on. Many would say I was young and I should forgive myself. But, like Acton is saying, isn’t the whole point of history (in this case my memories) to learn from the past? Does not the shame and the embarrassment aid me in being a better person? Boy Dilettante is a criminal of sorts. Why should he be spared for mysterious reasons? Should he not be hung higher than Haman for the sake of improving Adult Dilettante?
Society, though, seems to disagree with Acton. Leaders are often pardoned or get off easy. Historical figures are mostly forgiven for their murders, enslavements and pedophilia. And, with regard to the Dilettante, children are almost always spared the full punishment of crimes.
“There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of liberalism meet and keep high festival and the end learns to justify the means.’
That is, he believed judging leaders or historical figures differently than everyone else went against both the universal morals of Catholicism and the liberalist goal of an improving society. In fact, Acton even takes it a step further:
“You would hang a man like Ravaillac [a religious zealot who killed Henry IV of France]; but it what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greatest names coupled with the greatest crimes. You would spare these criminals for some mysterious reason. I would hang them higher than Haman [a Persian who was hanged for plotting against the Jews] for reasons of quite obvious justice, still more, still higher for the sake of historical science.”
Acton says, we should, in fact, judge people in higher positions and those in the past harsher than plebs and contemporaries to serve the function of history. I’m assuming Acton is saying that a liberal society learns from history. Thus, focusing on past injustices with great scrutiny would lead to improvement.
Acton makes a valid point and I can’t help but think of my own life. For some reason, a couple of moments in my life really stick out and give me guilt. When I was maybe 8, I smashed some phessant eggs after someone told me that the mother would no longer return after I touched the eggs (turns out that’s not true). Also, one year at camp when I was 14, I implied a girl was fat and made her cry. Now, I’ve done many things worse that these things, but for some reason, these ones really stick and annoy me with shame and embarrassment.
Now, many would say to move on. Many would say I was young and I should forgive myself. But, like Acton is saying, isn’t the whole point of history (in this case my memories) to learn from the past? Does not the shame and the embarrassment aid me in being a better person? Boy Dilettante is a criminal of sorts. Why should he be spared for mysterious reasons? Should he not be hung higher than Haman for the sake of improving Adult Dilettante?
Society, though, seems to disagree with Acton. Leaders are often pardoned or get off easy. Historical figures are mostly forgiven for their murders, enslavements and pedophilia. And, with regard to the Dilettante, children are almost always spared the full punishment of crimes.
posted by American Dilettante at
4:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home