neoplatønic
02-07-2009, 06:37
Except from The Legal Theory of Hell
Introduction
Of great concern to the sovereigns of the infernal realms is the disposition of the human souls in their possession. While it is well-known that each human soul is a resource to be used in the eternal war against the Above, less well known is the fact that the number of souls husbanded by the individual infernal courts is directly related to the prestige of that court among its peers. In truth, pursuing the War against the Above is a minor activity, compared to the efforts carried out by the infernal lords to obtain and hoard souls within their individual realms.
The process whereby the courts accumulate souls has changed over the long stretches of time. Initially, the legions of the courts met on the dread Field of Gathering and battled viciously for each arriving soul. Later, this uncoordinated carnage was replaced with a series of ritualized duels, where the champions of the courts fought individually for groups of souls as they arrived. This system in turn gave way to a rudimentary tribunal that judged and allocated souls to the various courts. The infernal jurist, Abiter, originally a servant of the Lord of Hatred, initiated the series of reforms that led to the current Magistry of Judgment.
The Magistry sits in a vast complex on the Field of Gathering and evaluates each human soul as it arrives to the infernal realm. The life of a soul is examined in depth, with each act of sin listed and categorized under either Terror, Hatred, or Destruction. The soul is allocated to the court of the lord whose category of sin constitutes at least a plurality among the three types. For example, a soul who committed more sins of Terror than sins of Hatred or sins of Destruction is allocated to the court of the Lord of Terror. The system has, so far, proven remarkably consistent in distributing the souls equally among the three infernal courts.
There have been a number of complaints concerning the Magistry. First and foremost is the length of time it takes to judge an individual soul. Human souls have proven to be quite adept at accumulating sins, both mortal and venial, and the catalogue of a lifetime of evil often runs into the hundreds, if not thousands, of pages. Once each sin is listed, it must be then be categorized, and those discussions add voluminously to the soul’s record. Records of decisions can easily consist of several thousand pages, and a judge can spend several years working on an individual soul’s file. The judgment of especially heinous individuals could easily last a century and result in a decision of a hundred thousand pages. While the soul receives no consideration in this matter, and possesses no appellate rights (this is, after all, their just reward), the representatives of the infernal lords have often complained of the length of time it takes to assign souls to the sovereign courts. The appellate process is outside the scope of this essay, but it must be noted that once an infernal representative appeals a particular decision, a soul’s case may easily be extended for another century or two.
The second great issue concerning the Magistry is the vast body of jurisprudence that has grown up around its practice over the millennia. It remains no easy matter deciding what is a sin or not, and then categorizing this sin. There are now at least four recognized codifications (lex, pl. leges) of sin, and attached to each lex are dozens of glosses and commentaries discussing and interpreting the lex. Complicating this is the existence of over a hundred jurisprudential schools and sub-schools, which differ in matters of precedence, interpretation, and practice. Oftentimes, a decision based on a particular lex and jurisprudential school may be unintelligible to a proponent of another lex or a practioner of a different school. Especially during the appellate process, decisions may be written and rewritten several times.
Despite the above flaws, and others, the Magistry remains a strong institution and continues to operate with the support of the three infernal courts. Offered below is an excerpt of a typical decision. A decision will describe the act in question, determine whether or not it is a sin, and then categorize the sin. A good portion of any decision consists of oft-repeated literary formulas and legal citations, so most of the passage below is paraphrased, abbreviated, or abridged in its entirely. The editor nevertheless feels that the excerpt is an accurate portrayal of infernal jurisprudence. Bear in mind that this section refers to a single act; a complete decision would be composed of a vast number of acts committed over an entire lifetime.
The Facts of the Instance
1. On the eight thousand, seven hundred, eight-fifth day, sixteenth hour, and twenty-first minute of its life, the wretch [legal term for a human soul] was walking from its domicile to a market to purchase food for the purposes of consuming its evening meal. [The decision lists in excruciating detail the route followed by the soul and describes the exact location where] the wretch came upon a dog. The creature was sitting, tied to a pole. The wretch recognized the dog as belonging to [here is the name of the person inserted, along with details about his relationship to the soul]. The wretch walked by the dog, which, while looking at the wretch, did not move other than to turn its head. After the wretch passed by the dog, it looked around and saw that it was alone on the street. The wretch then turned back toward the dog and delivered a swift kick from its right leg to the hindquarters of the creature. The dog proceeded to whine, and the wretch hastily departed from the area.
2. The wretched thereafter never told another of this incident. The dog began to express fear toward the wretched, and the wretched would, at times, feel pride from this display.
The Judgment of the Wretched
3 [A sin is defined as an act of harm (“ill act”) or a thought of an act of harm (“ill idea”) toward another being. There are no mitigating factors. While motive is essentially of no import, infernal law nevertheless refers to “ill will,” which is a nebulous concept that seems to encompass nearly every relationship possible between mortals. An “act” is either an action taken or an action deliberately avoided. “Harm” is difficult to define in mortal terms, but generally refers to an infringement upon the person, rights, abilities, reputation, or mind of another. To infernal minds, “harm” consists of a wider range of activities than normally contemplated by mortals; the end result is that what a mortal might consider benign or even beneficial is more often than not “harm” under infernal jurisprudence.]
4. [Authorities are cited supporting the proposition that a sin can be committed against an animal. Mitigating factors, such as acts of self-defense, excuse the act of harm only if there had previously been no ill thoughts toward the animal.]
5. [Acts of harm to an object (such as theft or arson) are construed to be acts of harm against the owner. This is the doctrine of “transferred ill act.” An animal can be considered an object subject to ownership toward which harm can be directed.]
6. [The decision concludes that the soul committed a number of sins toward both the dog and its owner. The soul committed the sin of ill thought against the dog and the sin of ill thought against the dog’s owner when the soul conceived of the idea to hurt the creature. The soul committed the sin of ill action toward the dog and the sin of ill action toward the dog’s owner via the concept of transferred ill act.]
Allocation of the Wretched
7-9. [These sections are perhaps the most difficult to describe for mortal readers. While the vast majority of sins are of similar types, the motivations for those sins are as infinitely varied as one mortal mind from another. Once a sin has been committed, it must be categorized among the realms of Terror (fear), Hatred, or Destruction (wrath). Infernal jurisprudence has recognized that a sin may be motivated by any number of considerations, yet the very nature of the Magistry demands that a judgment be made as to which was the primary motivation. The finest infernal jurists have grappled with these matters for millennia, and a typical decision may cite to hundreds of authorities.
[For the case at hand, the Magistry goes into considerable depth, primarily because the attack upon the dog was not premeditated. Spontaneous actions tend to be more difficult to categorize. The soul did experience fear during the attack, but this was primarily due to the instinctual apprehension of being “caught in the act.” However, authorities have held that this kind of fear (“apprehension, first class”) is merely a byproduct of the act itself, and not the primary motivator of the act. The remainder of the fear consisted of another, separate type of “apprehension, fourth class,” that the dog would retaliate to the attack. This type of apprehension is also considered a byproduct of the act. The soul experienced hatred, in that it had long nursed a grudge toward the mortal owner of the dog. This ill will related to a slight the soul had experienced as a child from the owner. The hatred toward the dog’s owner, as related to the attack upon the dog, was considered to be minor, for the soul had previously committed nothing more than ill ideas toward the owner. Also, the soul had previously shown no ill will and committed no ill ideas toward the dog, and had actually considered it somewhat likeable. Finally:]
As determined by this noble Magistry, the primary motivation of the wretched was merely to cause the creature physical pain. The urge was instantaneous, fully conceived, and resistible; the perfected goal of the attack was to cause injury and revel in that injury. As the Glossator [an early interpreter of the Lex Destructis, whose name is now lost] stated, a sin committed with the goal of causing injury is an act of Destruction, for it seeks only to cause chaos and bewilderment upon the victim.
[The decision continues to list authorities for a number of pages, narrowing the definition of an act of Destruction through cited precedents and dismissing mitigating factors. Given that the instantaneous and overwhelming goal of the attack was to cause injury to the animal, it clearly falls under the category of Destruction.]
10. [The Magistry concludes that the soul’s sin was a sin of Destruction.]
[iDiscussion Questions[/i]
1. The system of allocating human souls among the infernal courts has evolved from an unregulated and violent practice to an orderly and well-regulated jurisprudential system. Formulate a rationale for the transition to the current system.
2. The infernal realm initially experienced a great deal of trouble in categorizing acts of theft, especially against persons completely unknown to the thief. The ownership of personal property is unknown among the infernals, and theft did not seem to comport with either Terror, Hatred, or Destruction. It took the reasoning of the Learned Ghrostum Tber to provide a jurisprudential framework for evaluating such sins.
LEX TBERIS
VII. SINS AGAINST PROPERTY
1. It is a sin for a soul to take possession of an item to which the soul does not have a right.
6. One who wishes to violate the natural order of society wishes Destruction. BATAK, Digests, book 156:21.
111. The possession of an item for the purposes of defending the self is an act of Terror [fear]. BATAK, Digests, book 25:5.
259. A Hateful soul possesses an item for the purposes of gaining power over others.
The Lex Tberis does not define what constitutes “rightful” possession of an item. Do you think this omission was intentional? Subsequently issued leges have attempted to define this term, but nearly half of the jurisprudential schools ignore these definitions. A number of jurists rely primarily on the concept of transferred ill act (which was developed some time after the publication of the Lex Tberis). What issues to you think arise from applying this concept to theft?
Debate continues over whether the definitions of theft of Destruction, Terror, and Hatred are sufficient. Do you think the definitions provided by the Learned Ghrostum Tber are adequate in categorizing the various acts of theft?
Introduction
Of great concern to the sovereigns of the infernal realms is the disposition of the human souls in their possession. While it is well-known that each human soul is a resource to be used in the eternal war against the Above, less well known is the fact that the number of souls husbanded by the individual infernal courts is directly related to the prestige of that court among its peers. In truth, pursuing the War against the Above is a minor activity, compared to the efforts carried out by the infernal lords to obtain and hoard souls within their individual realms.
The process whereby the courts accumulate souls has changed over the long stretches of time. Initially, the legions of the courts met on the dread Field of Gathering and battled viciously for each arriving soul. Later, this uncoordinated carnage was replaced with a series of ritualized duels, where the champions of the courts fought individually for groups of souls as they arrived. This system in turn gave way to a rudimentary tribunal that judged and allocated souls to the various courts. The infernal jurist, Abiter, originally a servant of the Lord of Hatred, initiated the series of reforms that led to the current Magistry of Judgment.
The Magistry sits in a vast complex on the Field of Gathering and evaluates each human soul as it arrives to the infernal realm. The life of a soul is examined in depth, with each act of sin listed and categorized under either Terror, Hatred, or Destruction. The soul is allocated to the court of the lord whose category of sin constitutes at least a plurality among the three types. For example, a soul who committed more sins of Terror than sins of Hatred or sins of Destruction is allocated to the court of the Lord of Terror. The system has, so far, proven remarkably consistent in distributing the souls equally among the three infernal courts.
There have been a number of complaints concerning the Magistry. First and foremost is the length of time it takes to judge an individual soul. Human souls have proven to be quite adept at accumulating sins, both mortal and venial, and the catalogue of a lifetime of evil often runs into the hundreds, if not thousands, of pages. Once each sin is listed, it must be then be categorized, and those discussions add voluminously to the soul’s record. Records of decisions can easily consist of several thousand pages, and a judge can spend several years working on an individual soul’s file. The judgment of especially heinous individuals could easily last a century and result in a decision of a hundred thousand pages. While the soul receives no consideration in this matter, and possesses no appellate rights (this is, after all, their just reward), the representatives of the infernal lords have often complained of the length of time it takes to assign souls to the sovereign courts. The appellate process is outside the scope of this essay, but it must be noted that once an infernal representative appeals a particular decision, a soul’s case may easily be extended for another century or two.
The second great issue concerning the Magistry is the vast body of jurisprudence that has grown up around its practice over the millennia. It remains no easy matter deciding what is a sin or not, and then categorizing this sin. There are now at least four recognized codifications (lex, pl. leges) of sin, and attached to each lex are dozens of glosses and commentaries discussing and interpreting the lex. Complicating this is the existence of over a hundred jurisprudential schools and sub-schools, which differ in matters of precedence, interpretation, and practice. Oftentimes, a decision based on a particular lex and jurisprudential school may be unintelligible to a proponent of another lex or a practioner of a different school. Especially during the appellate process, decisions may be written and rewritten several times.
Despite the above flaws, and others, the Magistry remains a strong institution and continues to operate with the support of the three infernal courts. Offered below is an excerpt of a typical decision. A decision will describe the act in question, determine whether or not it is a sin, and then categorize the sin. A good portion of any decision consists of oft-repeated literary formulas and legal citations, so most of the passage below is paraphrased, abbreviated, or abridged in its entirely. The editor nevertheless feels that the excerpt is an accurate portrayal of infernal jurisprudence. Bear in mind that this section refers to a single act; a complete decision would be composed of a vast number of acts committed over an entire lifetime.
The Facts of the Instance
1. On the eight thousand, seven hundred, eight-fifth day, sixteenth hour, and twenty-first minute of its life, the wretch [legal term for a human soul] was walking from its domicile to a market to purchase food for the purposes of consuming its evening meal. [The decision lists in excruciating detail the route followed by the soul and describes the exact location where] the wretch came upon a dog. The creature was sitting, tied to a pole. The wretch recognized the dog as belonging to [here is the name of the person inserted, along with details about his relationship to the soul]. The wretch walked by the dog, which, while looking at the wretch, did not move other than to turn its head. After the wretch passed by the dog, it looked around and saw that it was alone on the street. The wretch then turned back toward the dog and delivered a swift kick from its right leg to the hindquarters of the creature. The dog proceeded to whine, and the wretch hastily departed from the area.
2. The wretched thereafter never told another of this incident. The dog began to express fear toward the wretched, and the wretched would, at times, feel pride from this display.
The Judgment of the Wretched
3 [A sin is defined as an act of harm (“ill act”) or a thought of an act of harm (“ill idea”) toward another being. There are no mitigating factors. While motive is essentially of no import, infernal law nevertheless refers to “ill will,” which is a nebulous concept that seems to encompass nearly every relationship possible between mortals. An “act” is either an action taken or an action deliberately avoided. “Harm” is difficult to define in mortal terms, but generally refers to an infringement upon the person, rights, abilities, reputation, or mind of another. To infernal minds, “harm” consists of a wider range of activities than normally contemplated by mortals; the end result is that what a mortal might consider benign or even beneficial is more often than not “harm” under infernal jurisprudence.]
4. [Authorities are cited supporting the proposition that a sin can be committed against an animal. Mitigating factors, such as acts of self-defense, excuse the act of harm only if there had previously been no ill thoughts toward the animal.]
5. [Acts of harm to an object (such as theft or arson) are construed to be acts of harm against the owner. This is the doctrine of “transferred ill act.” An animal can be considered an object subject to ownership toward which harm can be directed.]
6. [The decision concludes that the soul committed a number of sins toward both the dog and its owner. The soul committed the sin of ill thought against the dog and the sin of ill thought against the dog’s owner when the soul conceived of the idea to hurt the creature. The soul committed the sin of ill action toward the dog and the sin of ill action toward the dog’s owner via the concept of transferred ill act.]
Allocation of the Wretched
7-9. [These sections are perhaps the most difficult to describe for mortal readers. While the vast majority of sins are of similar types, the motivations for those sins are as infinitely varied as one mortal mind from another. Once a sin has been committed, it must be categorized among the realms of Terror (fear), Hatred, or Destruction (wrath). Infernal jurisprudence has recognized that a sin may be motivated by any number of considerations, yet the very nature of the Magistry demands that a judgment be made as to which was the primary motivation. The finest infernal jurists have grappled with these matters for millennia, and a typical decision may cite to hundreds of authorities.
[For the case at hand, the Magistry goes into considerable depth, primarily because the attack upon the dog was not premeditated. Spontaneous actions tend to be more difficult to categorize. The soul did experience fear during the attack, but this was primarily due to the instinctual apprehension of being “caught in the act.” However, authorities have held that this kind of fear (“apprehension, first class”) is merely a byproduct of the act itself, and not the primary motivator of the act. The remainder of the fear consisted of another, separate type of “apprehension, fourth class,” that the dog would retaliate to the attack. This type of apprehension is also considered a byproduct of the act. The soul experienced hatred, in that it had long nursed a grudge toward the mortal owner of the dog. This ill will related to a slight the soul had experienced as a child from the owner. The hatred toward the dog’s owner, as related to the attack upon the dog, was considered to be minor, for the soul had previously committed nothing more than ill ideas toward the owner. Also, the soul had previously shown no ill will and committed no ill ideas toward the dog, and had actually considered it somewhat likeable. Finally:]
As determined by this noble Magistry, the primary motivation of the wretched was merely to cause the creature physical pain. The urge was instantaneous, fully conceived, and resistible; the perfected goal of the attack was to cause injury and revel in that injury. As the Glossator [an early interpreter of the Lex Destructis, whose name is now lost] stated, a sin committed with the goal of causing injury is an act of Destruction, for it seeks only to cause chaos and bewilderment upon the victim.
[The decision continues to list authorities for a number of pages, narrowing the definition of an act of Destruction through cited precedents and dismissing mitigating factors. Given that the instantaneous and overwhelming goal of the attack was to cause injury to the animal, it clearly falls under the category of Destruction.]
10. [The Magistry concludes that the soul’s sin was a sin of Destruction.]
[iDiscussion Questions[/i]
1. The system of allocating human souls among the infernal courts has evolved from an unregulated and violent practice to an orderly and well-regulated jurisprudential system. Formulate a rationale for the transition to the current system.
2. The infernal realm initially experienced a great deal of trouble in categorizing acts of theft, especially against persons completely unknown to the thief. The ownership of personal property is unknown among the infernals, and theft did not seem to comport with either Terror, Hatred, or Destruction. It took the reasoning of the Learned Ghrostum Tber to provide a jurisprudential framework for evaluating such sins.
LEX TBERIS
VII. SINS AGAINST PROPERTY
1. It is a sin for a soul to take possession of an item to which the soul does not have a right.
6. One who wishes to violate the natural order of society wishes Destruction. BATAK, Digests, book 156:21.
111. The possession of an item for the purposes of defending the self is an act of Terror [fear]. BATAK, Digests, book 25:5.
259. A Hateful soul possesses an item for the purposes of gaining power over others.
The Lex Tberis does not define what constitutes “rightful” possession of an item. Do you think this omission was intentional? Subsequently issued leges have attempted to define this term, but nearly half of the jurisprudential schools ignore these definitions. A number of jurists rely primarily on the concept of transferred ill act (which was developed some time after the publication of the Lex Tberis). What issues to you think arise from applying this concept to theft?
Debate continues over whether the definitions of theft of Destruction, Terror, and Hatred are sufficient. Do you think the definitions provided by the Learned Ghrostum Tber are adequate in categorizing the various acts of theft?