This is fascinating; I always assumed Acton was just wrong. A proper article explaining it would be great.https://twitter.com/QuasLacrimas/status/951836563218030592 …
-
-
Replying to @anomalyuk
Idk if it's really worth "explaining", but if you read the letter where the quote occurs (#1) you'll see the pt he's making: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/acton-acton-creighton-correspondence …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @anomalyuk @QuasLacrimas
It's true his main argument is about how to judge individuals in historical writing, but the claim about "corruption" is additional to that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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
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.