Letter 28: Arsenius Jigger to Hermione Granger, 15th May 1998

A/N: For simplicity's sake, titles of books, journals etc are underlined and emphases are italicised. In reviving the old tradition of epistolary novels, I understand the plot may be a little slow, laborious and difficult to follow. Some might consider it AU and a little OOC.

In order not to weary the reader's patience, a number of letters from the series of correspondences have been suppressed; those only have been given which appeared necessary to a complete understanding of the events in this group. For the same reason, some letters from the actors in the events of this drama have also been suppressed.

Proestigium or What the Seasons may Bring

Letter 28: Arsenius Jigger to Hermione Granger, 15th May 1998

Arsenius Jigger

c/o University of York,

School of Magical Arts

Faculty of Alchemy

Potions Research Centre,

York,

United Kingdom

Miss Hermione Jane Granger,

Hogwarts Castle,

Head Girl's Room,

Gryffindor Tower,

Scotland,

United Kingdom.

15th May 1998

Dear Miss Granger,

Permit me to congratulate the new toast of the Alchemical world. You are the talk of the field this season. Nomos has dubbed you "the dazzling debutante in our circle"; you must be very self-congratulatory. Well, chit – do not allow vanity to get the better of you. There are others out there who are your superior and on no account forget that. I believe you have had offers from various universities? For Merlin's sake, woman! Take the one that you like best and make sure that it is a better school than York.

You need not thank me for your successes, for the ideas and refutations are your own. As for coming to York, I urge you to reconsider the matter carefully. My health does not permit me to lecture in public and I would be an indifferent supervisor if I am not around to assist you when you most need me. Furthermore, I am a harsh task master, even in absentia. IF you believe the rumours, I supposedly have eyes everywhere. Are you prepared to study under such an unreasonable tyrant? Why don't you consider the matter after the NEWT results are released? If you are the top student and would still like to undertake this foolish course of action, I will accept you as my student – on MY terms, not yours. Would you abide by it, Miss Granger? Would your pride allow it? Should such a situation happen, you must never question my instructions. Is that understood? You may question my theories, explanations and writings, but you are NEVER to question my instructions.

Now that we have established that, I wish you all the best in your coming NEWTS.

Yrs.,

A. Jigger

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Journal Article

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Arsenius Jigger, Ghosts of War in Mo Tzu's Chinese 'Voodoo' Love Potion – A Political Overview: Response to Hermione Granger, Ars Chemica, Vol. 1204, no. 6.

The ongoing debate amongst scholars of theoretical potions and Mo Tzu's role as the father of Voodoo love potions requires further clarification. As Miss Granger pointed out, the introduction of Explaining Ghosts constitutes an important yet frequently overlooked qualification to the effects of "Impartial Love", which supposedly comes about from his love potion. Yet, in so doing, I consider that there is an incomplete understanding of what Mo Tzu laid down vis-à-vis his own criticism of his writing. She did not demonstrate her r contention that Mo Tzu's attempted solution to the problem of war depends decisively on a credible demonstration of the existence of providential ghosts who are resurrected through his love potion. One must bear in mind that Mo Tzu identifies the harmful things of the world with "great countries attacking small ones, great families wrecking havoc with lesser ones, the strong robbing the weak, the many doing violence to the few, the clever deceiving the stupid, the eminent lording it over the humble". This is the reality of the socio-political conditions of China in the Warring States period caused by the excessive use of the Confucian Affections of Li and Ren potion. While Miss Granger mentions this, she does not accurate take into account the political implications of Mo Tzu's love potion and the contradictions that it seemingly produces.

Miss Granger wrote, "Against Offensive War can be roughly divided into two parts. In the first part, Mo Tzu criticises the princes of his day for their pursuit of warlike activities, characterising their actions as both unrighteous and economically senseless. In the second part, he responds to three objections raised by the princes." However, in so doing, she has underestimated Mo Tzu. I believe that many critics think he does not argue well is because his argument tends to be repetitive and sophistic in nature and as such, seems at times not to be very logical. But the key to understanding Mo Tzu is to look at these criticisms. A lot of the arguments don't seem to be strong only because the criticisms are so good. The criticisms of Mo Tzu are very good. But, it is Mo Tzu who reproduces those criticisms. This is the indication that Mo Tzu knows that there is some conception that these criticisms are themselves important things to consider as part of his arguments. And when you take the criticisms seriously enough, you can see that in the light of his criticisms his answers are not so bad. And we respect Mo Tzu because he is willing to listen to the most serious criticisms against him and attempt to rebut them. So the first objection about the Mo Tzu love potion induced universal and impartial love is that it's unrealistic and impractical, as they put it so nicely, "It may be a good thing, but how can it be put to use". And this objection may be a good thing because it says that universal love is not good enough to solve all the problems of the world. The men of world raise this criticism, "And yet the men of the world continue to criticise it (universal love)." Who are the men of the world? These are the political men – the men of action. They think they know the world very well, are realists and are worldly-wise. Then Mo Tzu responds, "If it cannot be put to use, even I would criticise it." Then he gives us a case scenario and asks us to consider this, "Suppose there are two men, one of them holding to partiality and the other to universality...So the words of these two men disagree and their actions are diametrically opposed. Yet let us suppose that both of them are determined to carry out their words in action, so that word and deed agree like the two parts of a tally and nothing they say will put t to action." This is a condition argument, a thought experiment as it were. So, these men will act according to what they say and what they believe. At that moment Mo Tzu says, "Then let us venture to inquire further." Here, I think the description is quite powerful, listen, "Suppose that here is a broad plain, a vast wilderness and a man is buckling on his armour and donning his helmet to set out the field for battle, where the fortunes of life and death are unknown;" this man is setting out for battle, he may die. Then he continues a few lines later, "Now let us ask, to whom will he entrust the support of his parents and the care of his wife and children?" So he's telling us to take this hypothetical case and to put ourselves in this situation that you have to go to war and leave your family, your parents, wife and kids and so on behind. In such a situation, who would you want to entrust your loved ones to – the partial man or the impartial man? This is a thought experiment and according to Mo Tzu, the answer is obvious – when you are confronted with a situation like that, "It seems to me that on occasions like these, there are no fools in the world...he would surely think it best to entrust his family to the universal-minded man (i.e. the impartial man)." So I think this is a very powerful illustration and a powerful line, he says that impartiality is practical and he shows us how it is so. So even if you don't really think much of impartiality, on such occasions, you want the impartial sorts to be around because you can't be around to look after your loved ones; only the impartial one can do that with all his heart. So no matter how realistic you are that man is intrinsically selfish and all that, you wish there are impartial men. And by wishing for impartial men (which his potion can supposedly produce), you are giving and adding legitimacy to Mo Tzu's argument.

The argument of the first part can be briefly stated. Mo Tzu begins by appealing to two opinions that are supposed to be widely held in his day. First, everyone praises as good (shan) that which brings benefit to Heaven, ghosts, and the people of the world (19/1–4). Second, they also agree that the ancient sage-kings constitute a model of righteousness (yi) and that their benign mode of government brought great benefit to Heaven, ghosts, and humankind (19/5, 7–10). In sharp contrast to the sage-kings, the princes of the day indulge in war of a most savage kind (19/10–11). They invade other states and visit gratuitous destruction upon the common people and their means of production. Mo Tzu thus likens these wars to murder on a massive scale (19/16–19; cf. 17/1–9). Furthermore, they are sacrilegious, as even the sacred things are not spared. Sacrificial animals are slaughtered and ancestral temples looted and destroyed (19/12–13). Mo Tzu argues that since humans are the ''caretakers of the ghosts,'' to kill them is to cause ''the spirits of the former kings to suffer neglect'' (19/17). The harmful effects of war extend to even the aggressors. Having elaborated on the enormous human and material resources needed to arm and supply an adequate army, Mo Tzu goes on to show how most of these resources would be squandered even before the army engages in battle (19/22–27). In all, offensive war is harmful to Heaven, ghosts, and humankind; it is contrary to the way of the ancient sage-kings. It is thus both unrighteous and unprofitable.

Yet the princes continue to delight in war (19/28). Although the criticism of the princes opens with the suggestion that they are ignorant of the substance of righteousness (19/5), the sequel reveals something more. For Mo Tzu shows that in order to legitimize their military campaigns the princes engage in the cynical exploitation of conventional morality (19/5–7). So, for instance, they invoke the notions of duty and honour to urge their soldiers on in battle (19/13–14), a fact that partly accounts for the savagery of the soldiers. As further testimony of their ability to manipulate the soldiers and to rationalize their actions, Mo Tzu will repeatedly stress that the princes are adept at concealing their intentions behind ''a pleasing facade'' (19/30– 31, 48–49, 53–54). No wonder Mo Tzu calls them ''perverse'' (bei) (19/28; see 28– 30). But, more importantly, Mo Tzu presents the princes as not simply rejecting his arguments. In the remainder of the chapter, the princes will offer three cleverly crafted objections to Mo Tzu's thesis, thus indicating that their resistance to his counsel against war is based on 'principled' grounds. In the first objection, the princes attempt to prove the justifiability of war by citing the examples of the sage-kings Yu, Tang, and Wu. These also embarked on military campaigns to subjugate rival states. Since the sage-kings constitute models of righteousness and success, war cannot be simply unrighteous or unprofitable (19/31–32).

In the second objection, the princes attempt to prove the profitability of war by referring to the four leading states: Qi, Jin, Chu, and Yue. Originally small, each of these states expanded by successfully absorbing neighbouring states through military action. Seen in this light, offensive war appears to be eminently profitable (19/49–51).

The third and last objection is a protestation on the part of the princes that they are not motivated by the spoils of war but by the wish to establish a reputation for righteousness and to attract other rulers to their virtue (de) (19/54).

Mo Tzu's response to each of these objections is remarkable for the implicit concessions he makes to the princes. For instance, in response to the second objection, Mo Tzu compares the use of war for the purpose of profit to the practice of a doctor who only succeeds in curing four out of ten thousand patients (19/53; cf. 18/18–20). So even if war is potentially profitable, it is the rare state that is able to gain by it. But this reply does not deny the essential point that war is potentially profitable, that except for purely prudential considerations there is nothing intrinsically wrong with following the examples of the four states. The reply to the third objection fares no better. For in dealing with the princes' claim to righteousness, Mo Tzu reveals that the virtuous ruler, too, undertakes military action to defend other states (e.g., 19/57). War as such is not simply unjust. Some forms of military action are morally justifiable.

If Mo Tzu's reply to the second objection concedes that war is potentially profitable, the reply to the third concedes that it is potentially righteous. But it is with the first objection...that the sage-kings, too, engaged in warfare...that the princes seriously challenge Mo Tzu with the claim that war is both righteous and profitable. This is potentially the most damaging objection of the three because it presupposes Mo Tzu's own premise that the sage-kings constitute models of righteous and successful conduct. Accordingly, it threatens to demolish the contrast between the actions of the present rulers and those of the sage-kings that is part and parcel of Mo Tzu's earlier condemnation of the princes' militarism. The militarism, you will notice, imply these princes' use of the Confucian Affections of Li and Ren potion to inspire people to follow them out of misguided love. By this objection the princes also suggest that there are no essential differences between the sage-kings (who use the Affections of Li and Ren potion to inspire their people to love and follow them) and the present rulers (who use Mo Tzu's love potion to inspire the same): the former were just more successful. That Mo Tzu himself is aware of the importance of this objection is underscored by the fact that he gives more space to answering it than he does to the other two put together

Rather than renounce the sages as models of righteousness or contest the princes' version of events concerning them, Mo Tzu introduces here the crucial distinction between "offensive" (gong) and "punishing" (zhu) wars (19/33). With this distinction, he is able to maintain both that the ancient sage-kings were models of righteous conduct, and that they engaged in warfare. But where one might expect him to provide relevant criteria by which the two kinds of war can be distinguished, what he does instead is to give elaborate accounts of how supernatural entities appeared to the sage-kings. For example: "a spirit with the face of a man and the body of a bird came bearing a jade baton" to Yu shortly before his military expedition against the Miao (19/35). A numinous spirit similarly appeared to Tang, encouraging him to attack Xia (19/40). And no less than three ghostly figures appeared likewise to Wu, exhorting him to attack the Shang (19/45–46). Somehow these supernatural occurrences (which these kings have resurrected from their use of the love potion) are supposed to justify the military actions of the sage-kings as "punishing" rather than "offensive" wars (19/37, 42, 48).

The brief examination above of the objections and Mo Tzu's responses brings us to the following observation concerning his arguments against war. By refusing to give up on the sage-kings as models of righteous conduct, Mo Tzu implicitly concedes that war (when supported by the right love potion to inspire love and willingness to die for the cause from that love) is potentially righteous and profitable. His criticism of the princes thus hinges on the distinction between offensive and punishing warfare. Yet the only evidence Mo Tzu offers in support of his claim that there is a decisive moral difference between the military exploits of the sage-kings and those of the princes is that various supernatural phenomena appeared to the sages. The problem confronting Mo Tzu here is not that his argument is flawed. It would be so if only we can assume in advance that ghosts do not exist. The more immediate problem is that he has chosen to tie the crucial distinction between offensive and punishing wars to the appearance of providential ghosts.

As it stands, Mo Tzu's love potion procedure for political security has a further and potentially more serious drawback. By proceeding in the manner that he does, Mo Tzu, it seems, has supplied the princes with even greater means to legitimize their military campaigns. By introducing them to the distinction between punishing and offensive war, and by suggesting that punishing wars are both righteous and profitable, he practically teaches the princes to characterize their military actions as punishing wars. And since Mo Tzu has given no more reason for believing that the sage-kings conducted righteous war than that certain supernatural omens occurred to them, his reply paves the way for the exploitation of the belief in ghosts to justify the princes' wars. It would seem easy for any ruler to claim that three spirits have visited him. Therefore, any ambitious ruler would now be able to contrive things so as to give the appearance that Heaven is on his side, and thus claim an even closer alignment between his actions and those of the sage-kings.

The analysis above shows that the central argument of Against Offensive War depends on an account proving the existence of ghosts. For unless Mo Tzu is able to prove that providential ghosts exist, his replies to the princes' objections are worse than useless: they are positively damaging. For this reason, the arguments in Explaining Ghosts are critical to Mo Tzu's attempt to resolve the problem of offensive war.

Footnotes

Proestigium is Latin for illusion. Ironically, the English word Prestige derives from it.

It's my story and I do what I want with it. In this story, Voodoo love potions (and only voodoo love potions) is based on a multi-purpose Chinese love potion, which in turn is based on the Confucian ideas of Li and Ren. The Confucian ideas are based on a lecture series that I am presently giving on Ancient Chinese political thought. The Affectations of Ren and Li potion is made up.

The numbers in parenthesis in the journal article are section references. It is an academic article; as such, it has to look like one. They are real references to Mo Tzu's writings. The words in parenthesis in the journal article are transliteration of Mandarin words.

The commentary on war is also a thinly disguised commentary on the war (against Voldemort) that the characters in this story have undergone.

For information on how Jigger delivers lectures at York c/f letter 16. It is explicitly stated there that "The reclusive Dr Jigger never delivers his lecture series in person. He presents his yearly 16 lectures via the temporus sonus charm. It has been recorded that a student's memory was completely erased in 1992 because he had sought to trace the elusive spell caster."

It is also implied in letter 16 that his thesis students get in touch with him by using the "semper eadem" on their owls (c/f Jigger's 1st letter to HG - letter 5). If they really to talk to him, he uses the temporus sonus charm to communicate wth them. What does this tell you about the temporus sonus charm? It implies the following: (1) It renders the caster audible even though he is not there, (2) the caster can be far away and he can still cast it so long as he gets his bearings and timing right. You can't give a lecture at 4 pm if you cast your spell at 6pm, for instance. it is implied, that his thesis students get in touch with him by using the "semper eadem" on their owls (c/f Jigger's 1st letter to HG - letter 5). If they really to talk to him, he uses the temporus sonus charm to communicate wth them. What does this tell you about the temporus sonus charm? it implies the following: (1) It renders the caster audible even though he is not there, (2) the caster can be far away and he can still cast it so long as he gets his bearings and timing right. You can't give a lecture at 4 pm if you cast your spell at 6pm, for instance.

Remember, no one knows (except Albus, Aberforth, Aberforth's wife - Penelope who is editor of literary agency & Prufock) that SS is Jigger. No one has actually seen Jigger.