That officer at least shows restraint. He arrives to find a formidable crowd, responding only with a "long sullen grumble" that portends disaster. But the officer is wise enough to know shooting will have the worst possible result, injuring the innocent and inflaming the rest. Ferrer could have found himself with a much worse situation on his hands.
This reminds me of Tolstoy explaining the dynamics of trench warfare and how, often unpredictably, the advantage will swing to one side or the other, and the battle is won:
"In popular uprisings, there are always people who—in the heat of passion or by fanatical persuasion, sinister intentions, or an inclination for troublemaking—do everything they can to make matters worse. They propose or promote the most ruthless ideas, and blow on the fire whenever it starts to die down. Nothing is enough for them: They’d like to see the riots go on forever, uncontained. To compensate, there are always other people who, with equal ardor and equal determination, strive for the opposite effect, either motivated by friendship or affection for the persons threatened, or driven solely by a pious and spontaneous horror at bloodshed and atrocities."
"The masses loved [Antonio Ferrer] because of the favorable rate on bread he had offered to consumers, and for his heroic rejection of every opposing argument."
This satire of populist politicians, what liars they are, how they can do the most damage, their blind ambition, is hilarious. All the King's Men was far from the first novel that dramatized this problem. From before Manzoni's time, astute social critics were aware of the danger of populists. Today, we are plagued by them more than ever!
Excellent depiction of mob mentality and the role of instigators, “people who--in the heat of passion or by fanatical persuasion, sinister intentions, or an inclination for troublemaking--do everything they can to make matters worse. They propose or promote the most ruthless ideas, and blow on the fire whenever it starts to die down.” Unfortunately, this never gets old.
I'm knocked out by the passages on mob psychology, which feel chillingly relevant today, from the hoodlums who take advantage of social protest to the crazy rumors immediately adopted as truth to the violent cruelty of those who feel wronged to those unexpected heroes who crop up in every unhinged situation. My favorite phrase: "when many concordant and uncontested voices say, `Let's go' [and] return home, asking one another, `What was that all about?'" Manzoni never forgets humor, even when describing these dire matters.
"Thank heavens, since the same thing that happens all too often in the service of good also happens in the service of evil: The most ardent advocates become an impediment to their own goals." One of my favorite lines so far. I've never come across this thought before. Perfect for polarized times.
Manzoni moves effortlessly between the present and past tense when entering a moment of action in the narrative. I wonder what the conventions at the time were and if this approach would have been seen as out of the ordinary?
I'm feeling conflicted about the tense shifts. Sometimes I think it adds tension, but more often it's pulling me out of the narrative. Would love to chat more about this live on 4/10!
In this mob scene, the threat of violence is very real -- however, although Manzoni reflects on the mob dynamics at play and refers to one group urging violence and the other group as "humane", I don't believe he shows a preference for either side, nor touches on the subject of violence versus non-violence, in this regard. Instead of engaging with that potentially interesting and relevant discussion, he seems to focus on condemning both the violent and the "humane" as indiscriminate and fickle.
One result to me is that his disparaging mocking tone about all the participants almost reduces the possibility of violence to something farcical--rather than horrific.
Is that Manzoni's intention? Or perhaps I'm misreading this! What do you all think?
I think he clearly shows a preference for the humane. In his observation of the movements of the crowd, however, he sees a tug of war. I don’t think there’s a moral judgment there.
Manzoni denigrates Antonio Ferrer, the Grand Chancellor, by referring to his “humble face, filled with joy and affection, a face that he had always reserved for the times he found himself in the presence of King Philip IV, but was now forced to expend on this occasion”, and to “the greetings he was squandering on the masses''. Ferrer previously gave false hope to the masses by lowering the price of bread to unsustainable levels. Is Ferrer simply arrogant or clumsy or both?
Kill him, Jail him, Lie to our faces and promise to punish him. Do something. Anything. Except come up with a real plan to abate our hunger. I continue to be amazed at how relevant this text is.
Also, nice to be reminded of the heroic nature of Renzo’s personality (even if naive/misguided at times).
Everything everyone has observed so far about this chapter (and the one before) -- what they said!
The depictions of the crowd, from the wit and accuracy of the analysis, to the dynamics of the crowd's political and physical shifts, to the dangers it presents--all of it was extraordinary, both for its depth and precision and richness of detail and observation, and for its relevance to parallels today. The politicians, too, of course, but not so fresh or subtle as the movements of the crowd.
I spent six years studying Spanish, so it was so beautiful seeing a ghost of it floating around in the reading for this section. Dirὰ...a form of "decir"? To speak? But of what? I couldn't say. Levantese... sus manos...raise your hands?...I'm grasping, but it's fun.
That officer at least shows restraint. He arrives to find a formidable crowd, responding only with a "long sullen grumble" that portends disaster. But the officer is wise enough to know shooting will have the worst possible result, injuring the innocent and inflaming the rest. Ferrer could have found himself with a much worse situation on his hands.
This reminds me of Tolstoy explaining the dynamics of trench warfare and how, often unpredictably, the advantage will swing to one side or the other, and the battle is won:
"In popular uprisings, there are always people who—in the heat of passion or by fanatical persuasion, sinister intentions, or an inclination for troublemaking—do everything they can to make matters worse. They propose or promote the most ruthless ideas, and blow on the fire whenever it starts to die down. Nothing is enough for them: They’d like to see the riots go on forever, uncontained. To compensate, there are always other people who, with equal ardor and equal determination, strive for the opposite effect, either motivated by friendship or affection for the persons threatened, or driven solely by a pious and spontaneous horror at bloodshed and atrocities."
I thought the exact same thing!
"The masses loved [Antonio Ferrer] because of the favorable rate on bread he had offered to consumers, and for his heroic rejection of every opposing argument."
This satire of populist politicians, what liars they are, how they can do the most damage, their blind ambition, is hilarious. All the King's Men was far from the first novel that dramatized this problem. From before Manzoni's time, astute social critics were aware of the danger of populists. Today, we are plagued by them more than ever!
Excellent depiction of mob mentality and the role of instigators, “people who--in the heat of passion or by fanatical persuasion, sinister intentions, or an inclination for troublemaking--do everything they can to make matters worse. They propose or promote the most ruthless ideas, and blow on the fire whenever it starts to die down.” Unfortunately, this never gets old.
I'm knocked out by the passages on mob psychology, which feel chillingly relevant today, from the hoodlums who take advantage of social protest to the crazy rumors immediately adopted as truth to the violent cruelty of those who feel wronged to those unexpected heroes who crop up in every unhinged situation. My favorite phrase: "when many concordant and uncontested voices say, `Let's go' [and] return home, asking one another, `What was that all about?'" Manzoni never forgets humor, even when describing these dire matters.
"Thank heavens, since the same thing that happens all too often in the service of good also happens in the service of evil: The most ardent advocates become an impediment to their own goals." One of my favorite lines so far. I've never come across this thought before. Perfect for polarized times.
Manzoni moves effortlessly between the present and past tense when entering a moment of action in the narrative. I wonder what the conventions at the time were and if this approach would have been seen as out of the ordinary?
I'm feeling conflicted about the tense shifts. Sometimes I think it adds tension, but more often it's pulling me out of the narrative. Would love to chat more about this live on 4/10!
Me too!
In this mob scene, the threat of violence is very real -- however, although Manzoni reflects on the mob dynamics at play and refers to one group urging violence and the other group as "humane", I don't believe he shows a preference for either side, nor touches on the subject of violence versus non-violence, in this regard. Instead of engaging with that potentially interesting and relevant discussion, he seems to focus on condemning both the violent and the "humane" as indiscriminate and fickle.
One result to me is that his disparaging mocking tone about all the participants almost reduces the possibility of violence to something farcical--rather than horrific.
Is that Manzoni's intention? Or perhaps I'm misreading this! What do you all think?
I think he clearly shows a preference for the humane. In his observation of the movements of the crowd, however, he sees a tug of war. I don’t think there’s a moral judgment there.
Manzoni denigrates Antonio Ferrer, the Grand Chancellor, by referring to his “humble face, filled with joy and affection, a face that he had always reserved for the times he found himself in the presence of King Philip IV, but was now forced to expend on this occasion”, and to “the greetings he was squandering on the masses''. Ferrer previously gave false hope to the masses by lowering the price of bread to unsustainable levels. Is Ferrer simply arrogant or clumsy or both?
Kill him, Jail him, Lie to our faces and promise to punish him. Do something. Anything. Except come up with a real plan to abate our hunger. I continue to be amazed at how relevant this text is.
Also, nice to be reminded of the heroic nature of Renzo’s personality (even if naive/misguided at times).
Everything everyone has observed so far about this chapter (and the one before) -- what they said!
The depictions of the crowd, from the wit and accuracy of the analysis, to the dynamics of the crowd's political and physical shifts, to the dangers it presents--all of it was extraordinary, both for its depth and precision and richness of detail and observation, and for its relevance to parallels today. The politicians, too, of course, but not so fresh or subtle as the movements of the crowd.
Loved this last chapter but struggled with the Latin. ?Italian
?Spanish… would appreciate footnote with translation to get the complete picture!
I spent six years studying Spanish, so it was so beautiful seeing a ghost of it floating around in the reading for this section. Dirὰ...a form of "decir"? To speak? But of what? I couldn't say. Levantese... sus manos...raise your hands?...I'm grasping, but it's fun.