This is fascinating; I always assumed Acton was just wrong. A proper article explaining it would be great.https://twitter.com/QuasLacrimas/status/951836563218030592 …
-
-
Seems to me he's talking about popes and kings, not subordinate office-holders. I would like your interpretation better, but I'm not able to read it that way.
-
It's true his main argument is about how to judge individuals in historical writing, but the claim about "corruption" is additional to that.
-
Right: it's an empirical hypothesis to back up his claim. If the more powerful do more naughty things, a fortiori it is possible for them to do naughty things But he's comparing William III to a gov't clerk, not Louis XIV to William III
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.