in some days, the new lady from the east will find herself in the position of been sworn into her office as chancellor of the federal republic of germany, in which, amongst other things, she will vow to do her utmost before god and her conscience to do her duty in the best of the country. i wonder whether she can do this with a clean consciousness and whether it is enough to vow this.
apart from my belief – and i find myself not isolated in it, there are many nowadays who very much agree, i am told – that her shere incompetence to do that what she readily is to swear in public and on the bible (i.e. to do her utmost, which will not be enough, and with the help of god, who surely seems to be rather reluctant a helper of politicians), there is one other thing. an oath, nowadays, is worthless.
unforgotten is the word of mrs m.´s political father mr. kohl, that he could not uncover the sources of his parties contributions even under order of a german court, because he had given them „his word of honour“. well honour nowadays seems to be a rather fleeting thing.
not so long ago there was a time when in the port city of hamburg and the surrounding hanse-cities the burghers prided themselves to be able to conduct trade merely by guaranteeing through word-of-mouth and a handshake.
the „kaufmannswort“ held, one could buy shiploads with it, ships and even part of shipping-lines. though i hear that in some circles this is still a common habit,
louis XIV accepting an oath
and i tend to believe so, since i take it under my word of honour f.i. to finish my businesses and pay my bills, even if too late sometimes, due to other people paying mine not altogether or going bancrupt before they can, i am not so sure whether the word honour has the ring it had only some years ago, i.e. before mrs thatcher and her cronies went into business with their battle-cry: „greed is good!“
it is perhaps again time to reflect on the fact that a certain poet when confronted with the stupidity and backwardness of society was asked by his lawyer, qc, whether he could give him his „word as an english gentleman“ not to have committed the offenses upheld by the other party. this word was as good as it got, and when he gave it, the lawyer proceeded with the defence. unfortunately, the poet had lied. it is not the business of poets to tell the truth but sometimes society expects this against their better knowledge.
but an editor in chief offering a job and not being, out of politeness, expressively asked for his word on it, usually is taken for talking the truth, especially if his publication is one of the highest circulation in the country and thrives on its credibility. if you, dear reader, „stand into the prospect of belief“, i have three words for you: ha,ha,ha.
i still am laughing on myself to have had the belief that the gentleman in question is indeed a gentleman – it is in my upringing to believe it, until proven otherwise – and had it not been so disastrous in the outcome, a downfall of a whole intellectual class of the magazine and a feeling of utter dissapointment for having given so much and having received so little, i might well be a believer still. i am rather thankful of having been treated like that. i am now a bit better in discerning gentlemen from the other folks and i must say the job gets easier and easier. i am even somewhat thankful to not have been asked to accept, since i see those who have accepted nearly daily, envelopped in a tide of growing despair, greying faces, wrathful and with waning strength in the ongoing battle of putting their articles between naked women, wrong political views and texts of lessening quality. once perhaps when i was young and teeming with ambition, and perhaps even now, the poison of being on board of a ship, might it be full of fools but at full steam ahead, might have gone to my head.
but since the readership of these publications gets lazier and lazier, the circulation figures seem to be in a free fall. pr agencies and advertisement departments expect their products to be well placed between the editorials and get more pushy every year in a trade that is rapidly loosing the last threads of its honour.
the doctor of a friend of mine, an ageing gentleman, once told her, that in his youth he would have given his hand or his leg before he would breaking his word of honour. but even he now would refrain from it. he would have great doubts about it. an interesting question: what is a word of honour worth if it is heeded only by one single person, surrounded by a sea of worthless hot air, whispered against the icy winds of greed?
take my word on it: i shall observe this matter further, and perhaps in public will give a list of people whom i trust and whom i think to be trusted by others, whose word of honour is perhaps as valuable as their time (see next article), and perhaps uphold a dam against dishonour single-handedly. an illusion perhaps? i´ll try though. i swear.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 12:59
