The book I am currently reading is possibly the most complex book I have ever read. Page skimming is not possible. Too many legal terms.
Summary “Absolutism in Renaissance Milan shows how authority above the law, once the preserve of pope and emperor, was claimed by the ruling Milanese dynasties, the Visconti and the Sforza, and why this privilege was finally abandoned by Francesco II Sforza (d. 1535), the last duke.”
From what I understand, “absolutism” refers to the right to act with disregard to the law so long as there is “just cause” and the person using “just cause” is acting out of the “plenitude of power.” I’m up to chapter 3, and “just cause” seems to be the term around which most of the argument occurs. What constitutes just cause? During the middle ages, Italian legal proceedings included a document that outlined the terms of the legal proceedings and the accepted understanding of the laws relevant to the case. These were called “Consilia” and were written by people who understood existing laws and previous legal cases. According to this book, one can track the metamorphosis of the terms “plenitude of power” as well as “just cause” by reading through the Consilia of this period in Italian history. By the 1400s, collections of Consilia were beginning to circulate as references for lawyers. The most contentious issues that involved “just cause” and the “plenitude of power” were cases related to property seizures. Cases such as these were frequent since new rulers had to reward supporters with property and payment. To seize and redistribute property, those in power needed to act under “plenitude of power” since they could not claim “just cause” as there was typically none. As such, they had to be acting from a plenitude of power.
Power dictates morality
Morality is open to interpretation
Over two centuries, these two terms moved from a single somewhat unimportant line in a letter written in the 1000s to “somewhat known” to “accepted” and then (through extreme misuse) to “contentious.” Each of these shifts reflects a three-part process.
1- The accommodations and explanations made by respected legal voices FOR these terms by the Consilia of the day
2- The misuse of these terms by those attempting to justify their actions with these two terms
3- The impact the misuse of these terms had on the lives of ordinary people.
Even those who used the terms liberally to justify their own actions were aware of the dangers of misuse, especially when considering how these terms might be misused in the hands of their opponents.
Appointed Dreamers
Why is any of this relevant to Llyria?
I’m looking for a thing of our real world (earth) that I can map my arguments about truth onto. “Just cause” and “Plentitude of power” work pretty well. I think that the conceptual arguments in Llyria will be over who has the power to define “Lived Truth” and what powers are needed to define this truth or act above this truth.
Currently thinking about using the term “reasonable truth” to replace “just cause” and “power under truth” or “power over truth” to replace “plenitude of power.” These ideas will form the basis of my legal systems. Yes, systems. There is one system that deals with matters of the real world, and there is a newer system that deals with matters of the dreaming. Additionally, “reasonable” is an important word because there’s a kind of implication that we can arrive at the truth through the power of reason. I wonder if we really can. I also wonder if I should just straight up call this court “The Court of Public Opinion.” But I’m not writing satire… or am I?
A quick note on dreaming. Dreaming in Llyria is a highly developed skill, and dreams are a new political frontier. My personal view is that we here on earth are only a decade away from a time when technology begins to creep into our dream world. While I don’t see this as good or bad, I’m interested in thinking about the implications.
In my next post, more on Dreaming, Dreamers, and the Court of Dreams.