[94] In the case, when head-hierarch allowed that, instead of deciding by himself alone.
[95] This majority can reflect the popular public delusion, and following it can be extremely harmful for the whole society especially in crisis times.
[96] Regarding the “voting machine”, it can mean that the head of each of its participants is good, but two heads of their leaders are better than any individual head component.
[97] Through the periphery of Egyptian zhretses accompanying Moses, who was instilled in the Levites generation
[98] A very exact word in this case: tandem – is the first “even” number (“bi”=2) in the natural row, which is formed by two “odd numerals”-ones, combining with each other.
[99] It’s rather hard to tell about something, for which there’s no “words” in the culture.
[100] Cleopatra alone couldn’t replace this structure though maybe she was even clever, but played unlimitedly on male sexual instincts and thus her ruling ended with her suicide and Egypt’s joining Roman Empire as a province. But Cleopatra was the last among Egyptian monarchs who have been ruling without protecting guardianship of zhretses’ structure, which has left Egypt. Her ruling encountered the end of the process, which has begun much earlier, and she can’t resist it, because it was a long-lasting process, incomprehensible to observation and understanding of shallow and lustful minds of queen and her surroundings.
[101] This novel, first published in 1895 and many times re-published in Russia after 1985, is one of few number of fiction pieces, where the processes of public self-ruling in a state are represented in images in their connection with global civilization self-ruling. The most important feature of the novel is that the author had caught and described correctly the functional load of different public groups, stable during the change of generation, and officials within structures of state and not-state power in this process of crowd-“elitist” society self-ruling.
If trying to extract the administrative component of the subject, without its secondary facts, we should get the following interrelations system:
peasants and craftsmen, i.e. the producing labouring people masses, which, beyond their professional sphere in public labour unit, entirely depend on the activity of officials, representing the state power locally (the fragment with “living pictures” in the temple);
all the local and army official periphery, more numerous, than the central power – two Pharaohs, but nevertheless unable to resist the central politics one for himself, and entirely depending on it too;
the key scene of the novel – the episode of people outrage, synchronized with sun eclipse by znakharstvo. It shows, that even the central apparatus, heading by its nominal leader – Pharaoh, is limited in its efficiency by the activity of Egyptian znakharstvo hierarchy (usually called “zhrechestvo”), because the administrative “elite” by its world outlook can’t distinguish the administrative significant information from rubbish: it needs consulting znakhars, and that allows znakhars to manipulate different strata of the society with dosing consultations;
but it turns out, that even Egyptian znakharstvo hierarchy isn’t free in its doings, and, recognizing the superiority of Babylonian znakharstvo hierarchy, has to agree with its messenger and to change abruptly the Egyptian policy. It was considered by well-intending Pharaoh to be sabotage and betrayal, because he doesn’t belong to the number of superior consecrated, and they, faithful to the hierarchy discipline, have no right to explain him all the chain of causes and consequences in their consulting, in relation to the state, activity.
That means that the interrelation system – “above-state znakharstvo – clans of znakharstvo in the state – “elite” apparatus of state administration – productively labouring people masses” is shown quite correct in essence of their possibilities and activity in their crowd-“elitist” society.
If to parallel with our times, only one thing has changed: state znakharstvo and global znakharstvo don’t act so openly as it was in ancient Egypt and as B. Pruss has shown in his novel.
Znakharstvo wears a mask of some other social groups, and ruling above-state znakharstvo in biblical civilization and its local periphery were equated with the “elite” (that’s why K. P. Pobedonostsev, church official, crushed by Bible in his world outlook and morality, was equated to the superior zhrets, when the novel was firstly published in Russia in the beginning of Nikolai II ruling; the matter is that zhrechestvo tried to fence off the crowd by the cult, but were not crushed by its authority themselves); and the inner state znakharstvo, which were not sold to the above-state global znakharstvo and wasn’t crushed by it in their world outlook, was moved from the sphere of managing the public life and consulting the state apparatus to the sphere of “witch medicine” and people’s practical magic, though sometimes it became active again even in the politics through “order” structures of common people.
Meanwhile, we should notice, that B. Pruss is a biblical civilization product too, and by some reasons contributed his small share in keeping its stability in order. It was expressed in the reflection of Jewish-usurious theme in the novel.
Usury, suffocating Egypt by the subject, was “written off” to Phoenicians, passing from the historical stage and absent in our times as living national culture.
The beloved of a young Pharaoh, conflicting with superior zhretses, Sarah and her son – heir of the Egyptian throne, were innocent victims of znakharstvo hierarchy’s despotism. Something like that happened once in the youth of Nikolai II: he loved a Jewish girl, but the Third Department interfered, and there were no church marriage and Jewish-heir.
The author of the novel opposes Moses to malicious and despotic Egyptian znakharstvo in passing; by some character – another priest – Moses is characterized as “zhrets-apostate”, who has broken the clan discipline of hierarchy, and as a result Sarah sang openly on the river the sacred song, extolling the Only Superior God. This knowledge was destined only for superior consecrated in Egypt; it was concealed in temples and was not to be spread among people, in the opposite case it could lead to extinction of earth znakharstvo hierarchy for they were not needed in the culture offered by Moses.
But, having alluded to this truth, B. Pruss didn’t quote the inner-social doctrine of Bible, according to which the usurious power over states and peoples is not the destiny of Phoenicians, which had passed from historical stage for long-long ago, but of Jewish, historically real and contemporary to us and B. Pruss; their ancestors refused the mission of other peoples enlightenment by true religion, offered to them through Moses, for their own defending against despotism of Egyptian hierarchy, which has chosen Jews as a tool for accomplishing their world power.
That’s why, no matter what the intensions of Pruss were, this doctrine of usurious parasitism was equated silently with the teaching of Moses, Superior God’s prophet, and there were no historical or religious reasons for that. And the sympathetic attitude of a reader to Sarah and her son, perished, should also silently be spread over to all the Jewish Diaspora, realizing this doctrine of usurious tyranny during entire History time.