Themiclesian Nationalist Heresy

The Themiclesian Nationalist Heresy (辰旦人治邪說, ta-tanh-ning-lreqs-mla-lwats) refers to a set of beliefs most notably held by some factions of the Themiclesian Nationalist Party (TNP), especially in the late 20s and early 30s, as well as those adherents themselves. These beliefs were built upon early literature written in the late 19th century dissenting against the Constitutional school of Themiclesian politics that had evolved from the late 18th century and was reaching consensus by the mid-1800s.

The original grievance, according to holders of the belief, was the the constitutional political system was a system that unfairly enriched the mercantile class and industrialists at the expense of the Themiclesian nation and deprived of the Monarchy of its necessary rights and powers to maintain a society for the benefit of all its members. By way of extension and re-invention after the turn of the 20th century, it entertained elements of nationalism, racism, and eventually authoritarianism, fascism, and Pan-Hemitheanism by the early 1930s.

While the term "Heresy" is by definition derogatory, it has become the most common name of the final form of this school of thought as it emerged in public in the 1930s. However, some scholars also caution applying the label of "Heresy" to more primitive iterations of this school, which also affected and, arguably assisted, the rise of socialist thinking in Themiclesia.

Constitutional politics

After Themiclesia's consecutive defeats in Solevant, Maverica, and Camia in the closing years of the 18th century, the Monarchy was hurled into disrepute due to its heavy involvement in all three conflicts; the emperor's opponents called the wars "gambles" from which only the emperor stood to gain if won. Emperor ′Ei was thoroughly alienated from his courtiers as well as influential individuals not at court, and his coffers stood depleted. Out of money to court supporters, he faced calls to abdicate, and republicanism sharply rose in popularity amongst the political class. Nevertheless, a cabal of nobles led by the Baron of Gar-lang secured the emperor's confidence to form the first responsible government, promising to keep the emperor on his throne as well as to ameliorate the effects of the wars.

Gar-lang's ministry lasted 18 years and was succeeded by his protégé, the Baron of Men-lang, whose 6-year administration was seen as a continuation of Gar-lang's. After the sharpest effects of the wars ebbed away by 1820, Themiclesian intellectuals developed stronger interests in foreign forms of government as well as a new analysis of their own form of government, producing a wide array of publications about its continuity with former forms of government in the country. Political turmoil rose in the 1830s, evidenced by a growing middle class demanding political enfranchisement. Up to this point, the right to present oneself in the imperial court was based on hereditary title, though a parliament of title-holders has informally existed since earlier centuries. The imperial ministry, accused of corruption, also came under increasing scrutiny.

After riots and an unprecedented government strike in 1841, the Representation of the People Act of 1844 enfranchised all untitled males who held real property worth at least 6 qik gold, amounting to 2.6% of the adult population in 1844. The Constitutional Act of 1845 provided a bicameral parliament, where the untitled public and those who held baronetcies were represented in one house, and those who held higher titles in a separate house. These laws represented the compromise of power between the ruling classes as well as demands of the public. Many writers celebrated the reforms as the first succesful introduction of liberal politics in a Hemithean state.

On the Laws of Themiclesia

In 1857, Lord ′At's monograph On the Laws of Themiclesia was published in Shinasthana and Anglian were published, quickly selling 40,000 copies and gathering a reputation as the authoritative statement on the constitution of Themiclesia. In the work, ′At "gracefully unites" the autocratic origins of the monarchy, democratic impulses of contemporary politics, and continuity of laws in previous centuries. He adapted several Casaterran theories of the two bodies of the monarch, asserting that the Themiclesian emperor too had a body natural and a body politic; the former was in flesh, visible, mortal, and fallible, while the latter was in spirit, invisible, immortal and omnipotent, in the sense it could not fall in error or have limited ability (except those surrendered by itself).

In this scheme, the body politic sometimes acts through the body natural in functions such as opening Parliament but also acts through legally ordained actions, such as a clerk paying money out to contractors. According to ′At, since the clerk is not acting under his own volition or judgement, the impluse of the action is of the Emperor's body politic, which for the duration and purpose of this legally required action, dwells in the body of the clerk and accomplishes that action. Had the clerk commit an error in so doing, it is always the clerk that disobeys the imperial body politic and is therefore worthy of the punishment of disobedience. ′At further employs the example of an underaged or sleeping ruler to explain the body politic was not only unlimited but wholly unconnected to the body natural, since the body politic accomplishes feats no physical body could:

...the body politic of the imperial person which safekeeps and compels to obey each of millions; that such awesome and mysterious might and power should be consigned to the mortal person of flesh and blood cannot be contemplated, even as a loving parent is strained by the guardianship of more than a few children.

Since the body politic had no physical existence, ′At says that the only way to discern its will is to examine its pronouncements through its physical agents, of which the supreme is Parliament. He asserts this is because it was by a parliament of Themiclesian peoples that the title of Emperor was first proclaimed, and so only in Parliament can the will of the body politic be expressed fully and unreservedly. However, ′At conspicuously leaves open the question whether the Emperor sitting in Parliament was allowed to veto its bills, saying that this is a question only to be resolved by the exact nature of the bill and the Emperor's relationship with his parliament, which is mysterious and cannot be exhaustively described.

Prosecution

In 1931, Major Carl Prap was arrested by a special warrant issued by the Attorney-general authorized by the Supreme Court of Themiclesia, on suspicion of incitement, due to some words he spoke to his subordinates. Prap, a long-time adherent to the Nationalist cause, told his men that as soldiers they must be ready to do "everything" (率盡) to protect their sovereign and country, and to the same goal he pledged himself and exhorted them to make the same commitment. According to the Attorney-general, Prap continued to say that the armed forces was the final guarantor of the freedom and justice of Themiclesian society, and the importance of these things should compel his men to make extraordinary sacrifices. Prap, however, disagreed with this account and testified these words were not spoken to his men at all.

The Attorney-general summoned other witnesses against Prap, who testified that Prap constantly complained that the army's regulations were tiresome and an impeditment to the fulfilment of his duties. By this reason the prosecution argued that Prap had wished to put himself above the law.