Systemic V: Virgin Legion & Maesters' Dogma

[Parwan]

Systemic Problems:

Part V "The Virgin Legion and the Maesters' Dogma"

This is the 5th of a series of threads on Systemic Problems. These are the links for the story so far:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/85950-systemic-problems/

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/87579-systemic-problems-ii/

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/88408-a-few-good-words-for-the-dothraki/

And two more that I don't have right on hand. Sorry about that, thought my records were better. I'll provide the links in the next post.

In Part V, we will discuss two important groups, The Night's Watch and the maesters. A close look at these groups will show why I do not see a constitution emerging in the western lands. A decent version of the rule of law is not to be found and may not develop. This is not because of bad people. It's because of bad principles and bad institutions. An alternate subtitle for this thread might be "What's Really Wrong?" In the next few installments of Systemic Problems, we'll take a look at a few things that have gone right and see what hope there may be for the future.

Let's start up north with the brave black brothers who are defending the kingdom. This is a profoundly strange group. They have a vital job. However, to do it, they can't "do it." Now why in the seven hells is that? We'll discuss the matter. For now, I'll say that the Night's Watch is a good lead-in to one of the things that's really wrong. We have what I call "the big three of the seven kingdoms":

rape

castration

celibacy

No wonder the place is so fucked up. The NW is partly involved in the first two; some of its members were convicted of the first and threatened with the second. A more important matter is this: The defense of the realm of men is entrusted to an incredible Virgin Legion. (Technically "Chaste Legion" would be more accurate, but "Virgin Legion" has a better ring to it.) Not surprisingly, it has become difficult to get quality recruits for this outfit. Quite surprisingly, the recruits who do arrive can be motivated to do their best. After all, what is it that the brothers are defending civilization against? It's something that isn't there anymore according to the maesters. Actually, some maesters say it was never there.

Here we arrive at another matter that is fundamentally wrong. The maesters are probably fine fellows, or some of them are. They have knowledge of things like history and medicine. They fail miserably as legal scholars though. And they are definitely not scientists. They are dogmatists.

An important question occurs: Why should we believe that the men trained down in Oldtown know anything about what's happening north of the Wall? I don't know that we should believe that any of these guys know anything about anything that has happened north of the Wall in the last thousand years or so. Has one of them ever set foot there? It certainly appears that this hasn't happened recently, maybe never. And yet we have people like Maester Luwin (yes, a nice fellow) assuring everyone that the giants and the children of the forest are all dead. He's one of the guys that thinks the Others never existed. He also accuses Osha of "filling the boys heads with folly" when she talks about the giants and the children in the far north (a place where she has been). It's clear that the main folly is coming from the Citadel. It is the worst sort of dogma--ignorance combined with certainty. It influences thinking throughout the kingdom in a very negative way. It can lead to disaster. And disaster is descending upon the realm.

One of the largest problems in Westeros concerns the vows. These things usually are promises of slavish devotion. They bind the followers, sometimes quite tightly, to the leader. On the other hand, they do not truly require much in the way of general ethical behavior, beyond obedience to the lord or monarch. Worst of all, they do not bind the leader in any way, shape, or form. I've commented on this matter in earlier threads of this series. Later I'll develop the idea as it relates to the two institutions in question.

[Parwan]

Here are the two links that I failed to provide above.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/88704-systemic-iv-daenerys-baratheon/page__st__40#entry4546647

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/84076-barristan-the-barometer/

The second one doesn't have the "Systemic" main title, but it's closely related to the others.

[Perfidious Algernon]

This looks like an interesting series. I'm looking forward to reading back through the old threads.

Some preliminary thoughts before I take a stab at addressing any of this properly: the oaths the NW swear technically require brothers not to father children, but in practice no one at the Wall seems to mind if you take your night off to go whoring in Mole Town. They even have a name for it, "digging for buried treasure," and the LC tells Jon to his face at the end of GoT that almost everyone does it. That said, the prohibition on family certainly seems to diminish the number and quality of the recruits they get and therefore leaves the realm weaker against northern aggression. This in turn (paired with the growing belief that there's no real threat out there) leads to them aggressively recruiting convicts, which further reduces the cache of NW membership and further shrinks their recruitment pool. It's a vicious cycle, and they could do a lot to combat it by lifting the ban on families.

On the other hand, there's a reason Catholic priests aren't allowed to marry. In the Middle Ages, priests and bishops would frequently leave church property to their widows and children in their wills. The practice seriously undercut the Church's bottom line (whether a church should be in the business of business is another conversation entirely). If the NW were to take wives and father children, it's very likely parts of the Gift would be re-gifted to favored family members, especially by high ranking brothers. Over the long run the NW could lose the ability to sustain itself.

So I guess there's dangers down either road. Sorry if that isn't a very decisive conclusion.

[Parwan]

...

On the other hand, there's a reason Catholic priests aren't allowed to marry. In the Middle Ages, priests and bishops would frequently leave church property to their widows and children in their wills. The practice seriously undercut the Church's bottom line (whether a church should be in the business of business is another conversation entirely). If the NW were to take wives and father children, it's very likely parts of the Gift would be re-gifted to favored family members, especially by high ranking brothers. Over the long run the NW could lose the ability to sustain itself.

So I guess there's dangers down either road. Sorry if that isn't a very decisive conclusion.

It may not be a decisive conclusion, but you are heading in the right direction. You've mentioned a matter I think worthy of consideration. Maester Aemon is a good fellow, and I'm sure he is sincere about the "So they will not love" business. He believes that is the reason that NW brothers pledge not to father children. However, I don't believe this at all. It just doesn't ring true. I'd say the original, and probably the continuing, reason for that part of the vow is much closer to what you propose.

[Perfidious Algernon]

And let's not forget what happened when the Night's King took a wife...

That was early on in their history too, 13th LC. Wouldn't surprise me to learn that this lead directly to the ban.

[Parwan]

I say that in ASoIaF there is a continuing theme of very serious inadequacy of governance . A number of individuals are honest and hardworking. They do their duty as they see it. However, there are definite existential threats, and the system just isn't responding in anything like a proper way. One sees a remarkable amount of arrogance and ignorance. Lots of this ignorance is willful. It isn't just that most high leaders ignore the existential threats. The few people who try to raise the alarm are insulted, made fun of. A good bit of this malignancy centers around the maesters and the Night's Watch.

In the prologue of AGoT, we find Ser Waymar Royce leading Will and Gared on a ranging. The young lord is arrogant, but that is not the central problem. There is something wrong, a looming threat, and he doesn't feel it. Worse, he makes light of any possibility of danger. He mocks the uncertainty and fear of his more experienced black brothers. A further matter of interest, even Will and Gared are reluctant to give any sort of specific name to their fears. It's as if knowledge of dark forces did not exist. As if, for example, they did not know of Craster's sacrifices.

Later, we find Lord Eddard Stark administering the king's justice. One can say that he was just doing his job. The ranger (Gared) had deserted, and the punishment for desertion is beheading. I'm not questioning that here. The question I'm asking is, "What did Ned learn from the event?" He is Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North. He has a concern with the Wall and the NW. Unfortunately, it seems that what Lord Eddard learned was--nothing. The executed man was a forty-year veteran, tough as nails. How likely is it that a wildling ambush would have sent him into total panic? It seems to me that the proper course would have been to keep him awhile and interrogate him after he had calmed down. We don't get a good description of the actual interview. It occurs in a Bran POV, where we learn that "There were questions asked and answers given…" and not much else. Did Lord Stark just presume the guy was mad because he talked about the walkers? Likely enough, and likely enough that this attitude came from education by and interaction with the men with the chains, men who think that magic will go away if you deny its existence. The Warden of the North could have and should have interacted with the brothers on the Wall about the matter of Gared. What was the deal? Why did the guy run? What do his comrades think? Eddard could have done this; why didn't he? One possible explanation is Maester Luwin's opinions and a general prejudice against explanations involving magic.

The issue is developed further in Eddard's conversation with Catelyn. Lord Eddard says of the deserter that "He was the fourth this year." He indicates that this is due to Mance Rayder. Catelyn says, "There are darker things beyond the Wall." Ned is gentle in his reply--gentle and rather condescending. He says his wife has listened to too many of Old Nan's stories.

"The Others are as dead as the children of the forest…Maester Luwin will tell you

they never lived at all. No living man has ever seen one."

"Until this morning, no living man had ever seen a dire wolf either," Catelyn reminded him.

"I ought to know better than to argue with a Tully," he said with a rueful smile.

The lady's comment is right on the point. The lord's reply is pure bunk. Here is an attempt at formalizing Eddard's "logic": I should know better than to argue with a Tully. Therefore, there is no evidence of magic reasserting itself in the world, and we need not worry about grumkins and snarks north of the Wall.

Grumkins and snarks--an insulting term that a gentleman like Eddard Stark wouldn't utter. It is actually first used in the text by Lord Tyrion. The youngest Lannister sibling is a good guy, or he appears that way at this point in the story. He certainly is well educated. However, the Imp is just the very essence of ignorance and arrogance. Never before has he been even as far north as Winterfell, and yet he is oh-so-sure that all this business about the Others is just a bunch of fairy tales. One of the places where the HBO version of the story is better than the books is the TV meeting between Tyrion and Benjen. The ranger tells the dwarf, "You've never been north of the Wall, so don't tell me what's out there." Absolutely right, damn good. Too bad there isn't more of this attitude in ASoIaF.

Tyrion's later interaction with Thorne shows attitudes in King's Landing toward threats from beyond the Wall. The g&s phrase is used by Varys, not the acting Hand. In fact, Tyrion comes close to the edge of belief, or at least open mindedness on the issue. In the end, however, he goes with sarcasm and put-downs. He decides that his prestige and authority are more important than the defense of the realm.

There is more to say about maesters, education, and culture. I believe, for example, that Marwyn's opinions on the grey sheep are on or at least close to the target. This post, however, is more than long enough. Someone might claim that I shouldn't blame the men of the Citadel for all the problems I'm describing. Perhaps not, but they can't legitimately escape a large part of the blame.

[Parwan]

One of the largest problems in Westeros concerns the vows. These things usually are promises of slavish devotion. They bind the followers, sometimes quite tightly, to the leader. On the other hand, they do not truly require much in the way of general ethical behavior, beyond obedience to the lord or monarch. Worst of all, they do not bind the leader in any way, shape, or form.* The vow taken by the men with the chains is a good example. What does it mean to say that "My order serves the realm," or "My order serves ______ (Winterfell, White Harbor, Riverrun, whatever place)"? Serves exactly what? The acreage? The buildings? The stones that make up the buildings? Unfortunately, what it comes down to is a promise to "Do whatever the boss says." If some jerk gets his backside in a chair of power, then the maester advises and obeys him. That's it; that's all. There is, it seems, no organized body of thought about the possibility of defying the jerk, certainly no hint that it would be permissible to help overthrow him. Now,the only worthwhile meaning of "serve" here would be to serve the people in general. Clearly though, an oath that says, "Do whatever the boss says" cannot perform such a function. Such vows would seem to be a major reason why there is no constitution and no rule of law in Westeros.

The king or the lord ultimately decides everything. No one (certainly not the maesters) questions this. All justice is said to somehow flow from a single person. Certainly those who follow him slavishly aren't going to offer public challenges to his decisions. If the big man is too busy or too uninterested, legal matters may well be decided in camera by guys like Varys and Tyrion (ACoK, Tyrion POV where he dismisses Slynt from his position as head of gold cloaks). Quite possibly, neither the victims nor the accused will know that a judgement was rendered, or even that a case was "tried" (if one can use that word here). Sailors are told to throw a guy named Deem into the water before the ship reaches Eastwatch, and they follow orders. That's it; that's all. As far as I can see, there is no position or job classification such as "magistrate" or "judge". Forget about a truly independent judiciary. There is not even a separate judiciary. What room does that leave for the rule of law? The monarch makes his decisions. If he doesn't want to be bothered, he gives the task to some fellows who make them in whatever manner they choose.

* I have pointed this out in a number of places, e.g. in "A Few Good Words for the Dothraki."

[bloody_mummer]

What room does that leave for the rule of law? The monarch makes his decisions.

Ding ding ding!..... There is no "rule of law". Might makes right. Whomever has the bigger army or the most influence/power IS the law in Westeros. Sure, there are some social customs and norms that are sometimes followed; but, as Ned said: "The king does what he wants, thats why he's king"