[Freeciv-Dev] Re: patch catalan.ruleset

["Miguel Farah F." <miguel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Markus dijo/said:
>
>Dear Miguel,
>
>I was happy to see someone working at the catalan.ruleset about two weeks
>ago, whose original author was - as it happens - I myself. 

Well, I'll be...


>Thank you for your criticism. I would like to point out to you, why I was
>sending in the patch. 

Ok.


>In the first place it was neither planned nor intended as a correction of
>your additions. I had changed the title of Arquebisbe to Gran Inquisidor on my
>system a while ago. Let me explain the reasons to you after I refer to your
>doubts about my Catalan spelling of city names.

Ok.


>I cannot avoid the impression, that you are not a fluent Catalan speaker
>and writer - as I am even though my name sounds rather German. You do not
>seem to have been to Sant Feliu de Guíxols either. Otherwise you might have
>spottet the accent on the letter "i". Besides that the accent is required by 
>the
>pronunciation rules. Without accent you would have to put the emphasis on the
>"o". 

Jo soc català, noi.

(I was born and raised in Barcelona, and I DID speak catalan while I
lived there - haven't spoken it (due to living in a country where no one
knows it) in many years, though)

I don't want to brag, but I have indeed been to Sant Feliu de Guíxols.
My parents always referred to it as Sant Feliu de /Gixols/, with the
emphasis on the 'o', so that's why I thought it didn't have an accent in
the 'i'. Obviously my mistake, then.



>I can nevertheless imagine that I did indeed spell some names the wrong
>way, even though I checked them all in the "Atles Universal Català", the
>official atlas of the Enciclopèdia Catalana, which happens to be the
>semi-official editorial of the Catalan government.
>
>So far for the cities, let us now turn to the clergy. An archbishop has, by
>definition, power over his subordinate clergy only (and the laity, but only in
>spiritual matters). 

Nowadays. As you yourself state, they did have political power in the
past.


>In the European history yet, especially in Italy and late medieval
>Germany, one often finds that bishops ruled at the same time as dukes/earls
>over impressive territories. Not because they were bishops, but because they
>were dukes/earls. Concluding from that I would like to point out that secular
>power was only attributed to a bishop because of his additional titles. In
>the medieval ages, there was an extremely hard fight between the German
>emperors and the popes just about that point. The question was, who of the two
>would be allowed to appoint a bishop: his spiritual or his secular leader.
>
>In Spain this has never been the case. Until 1479, when the Castillian and
>Aragon/Catalan crowns were united, and afterwards as well, the church hierarchy
>has never had a share in secular power. On the contrary, it was the king, the
>dukes and other nobles who shared it exclusively. The church hierarchy, yet,
>has always been closely attached to the monarchy and was used by it as a
>political _instrument_ to secure its power. 

Yes, but... the *Church* as an institution DID have extensive
properties. And Catalan bishops weren't that separate from the politcal
power. IIRC, a few of them actually emitted coinage at some points in
the middle ages (I'll have to get my history books).


>What might be confusing here is the difference between a clerical and a
>confessional state, which is exactly the point in catholic Spain.
>
>THE EXAMPLE for catholic christian fundamentalism in European history
>is the SPANISH INQUISITION. This is even known there, where they speak about
>themselves as being outside that continent, in England. Just take Monty Pyton's
>flying circus as an example. 

Well, don't you forget that the English DID exaggerate a lot of Spain's
defects (specially the Inquisition) at the time in order to construct
the "Black Legend". Who said propaganda campaigns are modern things?



>The power of the inquisitors did not arise from their ecclesiastical
>position, but from the powers the king granted them. The inquisitors were not
>even bishops or archbishops, but mostly monks (Dominicans, etc. - watch the
>film "The name of the rose"). No abbots, just ordinary monks. But because they
>had their torturers with them and the protection of the Spanish king, they
>could kill basically everyone they wanted (if it did not destabilize the king's
>rule). Being a suspected witch/sorcerer was already enough.  And afterwards
>the poor victim's property and possessions belonged to the crown. What a
>useful coincidence! I do not want to go into further details here, but the
>political framework of the inquisition is really interesting.
>
>The one, who had the real power, thus, was _not_ the archbishop, but the grand
>inquisitor. 
>
>Do you agree with that?

For the most part, yes, EXCEPT for the "real power" statement. You should
remember that the "Santa Inquisición" acted as a *religious police*
(against crimes like heresy, witchcraft, etcetera) and that, at least in
the charter, didn't have "civil" authority (you probably remember that,
since a Church organization couldn't kill anyone, they executed their
victims "por lo civil".

The SI was allied with the government for its functioning, yes, but its
real power was strictly religious, even more than any bishop at any time
in the Iberian Peninsula, political alliances and/or implications
notwithstanding.

Even if we accept that the inquisitors had political power, they weren't
involved in government major decisions - their power was restricted to
being a police force (a religious police force, that is).


Of course, you have to add the factor that Spain wasn't *really* united
in 1479 - the marriage of Fernando II and Isabel I didn't actually unite
the Crowns of Castilla and Aragón in a single crown (proof of this is
Fernando II's son Miguel, from Germana de Foix, that would have
inherited Aragón and Nápoles had he not died at age two), and that for
many intents and purposes, both crowns were still separate (local
governments, customs, etcetera). Hell, any catalan independentist will
use THIS to tell you that Inquisition was imposed from a *foreign*
state. :->


>In the 20th century during the Franco dictatorship, the same pattern
>emerges again. This time it is the Opus Dei movement, which has an enormous
>influence, behind the scenes. Yet again, the archbishop of Madrid is not it
>leader either.

Don't you DARE putting Escrivá de Balaguer into spanish.ruleset!!!! }:->



>I hope that I was able to change your, let me quote it, "not at all humble
>opinion" (did I get that right?). If so, I hope that I have helped you to
>reduce your pride and increase your knowledge.

I am actually pretty knowledgeable, thank you. And I still think I'm
right.


>By the way, your nickname is not Sledge Hammer (see below), is it? ;-)

No, it's "Mr. I am always right". :-)


>Please excuse my irony, I appreciate very much that both of us contribute to
>this great game.

You are excused.

-- 
MIGUEL FARAH              //   miguel@xxxxx
#include <disclaimer.h>   //   http://www.nn.cl/~miguel
<*>
"Trust me - I know what I'm doing."
- Sledge Hammer