Patrician Or Peon

Cassiel C. MacAvity

About Class, and the social clases,         Patricians, defined,     Peons, defined,     Peons vs adults,     Assorted authors

    A wee briefing paper started in mid 2009, and after awhile the concession was made that this isn't a wee paper, this is A Book.

---It's finally somewhat mostly finished at some 150 to 200 or so pages, where a small amount of extra polishing and additional research is supposed to get added in a bit, sometime, other projects pending, but currently the book is basically mostly Done. Mostly. . . . .

See the rest of this page, below, for a general introduction.

See HERE >>> Patrician Or Peon, <<< THERE for a pdf of the completed book, so far . . . . .

The pointers had to be added there just from the number of people who are looking for that pdf link and go sailing right by it.

Patrician Or Peon
In very, very simple terms, this book is about two very different and opposing concepts.

One concept states: "I have Tea. Tea is what patricians have, and I have tea. Because I have tea, you are to admire me and openly acknowledge that I must be considered important." Rather clearly and simply, this is the undoubted and documented worldview of the peon.

Completely in contrast, and forever the superior of the peon is the opposing concept: "Would you like a cup of tea? I don't care who you are, I don't care where you come from. If you don't want any tea, that is perfectly fine. At this moment, I can offer a cup of tea. Would you like a cup of tea?" This second and opposing concept is the worldview of the patrician.

A rather vacuous claim has turned up at times of You can never be too rich or too thin. As numerous historians and anthropologists document repeatedly and unceasingly, anyone making that claim is and will never be anything more than frantically middle class, and utterly tasteless, and with the greater the demands, the lower the class.

Class and all style and taste associated with it has never been about money.

A Matter Of Class--Three historic forms, and a fourth that joins everything together

The overall issue, basically, does indeed become that of class, both social and taste. Class has become one of those subjects that one allegedly does not speak of, while pretending it has ceased to exist, and then the next peon to come along instantly drags back into the open the certainty of class and the peon's lack of any.

Admittedly, even if it may not get openly talked about, very common knowledge is that these two worldviews of patrician and peon do exist, along with the awareness that by definition, the patrician is superior to and more important than the peon. Such common knowledge does then beg the question of why bother to write another book on the subject?

One reason is that as much as one would prefer, the peon keeps being around, and the patrician keeps having to clean up the resulting mess. One can argue that the early 21st century recession, the collapse of the Icelandic and Irish economies, all those individuals with multiple mortgages and nothing but debt and ongoing demands for even more credit, all are fiascoes that only the peon would ever practice. Certainly no patrician is that idiotic and seeing the level of ongoing screwups that the peon manages to stage, a review and reminder of what one just does not do is always in order.

At the same time, another reason for writing comes from the assorted studies of groups of people and their histories, and noting that assorted levels of sophistication, or for the peon, the lack of sophistication, just do keep occurring. Initially, what one sees with a review of these studies is that over time a number of conflicting models have been developed for discussing social classes. There tends to be a general agreement that three general models do pretty much explain and demonstrate the various types of classes. However, even with such general agreement, a particular set of oddities does keep getting noticed that so far the three models just have not been able to address. The recurring issue is the matter of trying to explain and define class while comprehensively answering the question of where the peon fits among the classes, aside from the inevitable “Take that creature somewhere else”.

Following a bit of review, this book notes that as others have documented, the models that class follows do indeed have three main varieties of A) Us vs Them, B) the ever resilient three level form of upper, middle, and lower, and also C) the general gradual spectrum from lower to upper. From there, however, this book notes that there is an additional fourth model which comprehensively combines the first three and ties off all the loose ends caused by the peon. In doing so, this book explains how it is that even while the patrician is universally admired and preferred, blatantly obvious examples of the peon do still turn up in the seemingly oddest spots, even as in its own way each peon remains just like every other peon, and below everyone else.

The chart below has slightly more notes in it than the edition in the text, but both are basically the same.

The Patrician: The Upper, Middle, and Lower/Working Class.
The three general patrician divisions, and further subdivision of Low, Mid, and High.
Comparative military ranks are added for reference, they've not changed for centuries

The Three General Divisions Lower Class

Work on things, build things, move things. When in the military, is always following the dictum:

"If it moves, salute it,
if it doesn't move, move it,
it you can't move it, paint it."

The unquestioned supreme example is the Sergeant Major
Middle Class

Run things, work on ideas, follow ideas, follow instructions related to ideas
Upper class

Creates, refines, and runs the ideas, the companies, the areas, the countries.---But runs them.

The Duvaliers, the Marcos', the Trumps, are all clearly and quite established middle class.

Running a country does not necessarily mean merely having a title or holding office---Consider Edward VIII, below.
Upper, within each division,

The High
High Lower

Particularly lead or command those who do things.

"Don't call me Sir, I work for a living."

Comparative military rank:
Sergeant Major
High Middle

Run ideas, work on ideas.

Comparative military rank:
Captain, Colonel
High Upper

Invisibly out of sight, the inhabitant of an entire privately owned complex that is on its own land.

Dresses like everyone else of quality, looks just like everyone else of quality, always blends in, never stands out. Drives some basic reasonable car that works for the moment and next moments.

Absolutely understated, or at most basically stated.

Extreme supporter of quality, which is why opera and ballet will get attended, even while totally bored.

While money is well noted, the very definite emphasis is because of money being a very useful tool that takes major work to get, However, where money is clearly and totally recognized as being only a tool, and Only just One tool of many.

As always, ever, forever, without end, the main issue remains who the person is, and is the person patrician or peon, where only that person can make that decision, provide personally that which makes one a patrician.

Comparative military rank:
Middle, within each division,

The Mid
Mid Lower

Follow the lead of the Sergeant Major.

Comparative military rank:
Sergeant, Corporal
Mid Middle

Work on ideas;

Comparative military rank:
Mid Upper

Family history of building ideas, running ideas, and family May be literal family, can also be "adopted", literally or situationally, due to being a genuine "up and comer", of genuine merit and not merely some common handful of cash or items with a mere brand name or label.

Comparative military rank:
General or Admiral
Lower, within each division,

The Low
Low Lower

Lower class Work on things, build things, move things.

"If it moves, salute it, if it doesn't move, move it, it you can't move it, paint it."

Comparative military rank:
Low middle

Follow ideas, follow instructions related to ideas.

Comparative military rank:
Cadet, Third Lieutenant
Low Upper

Builds ideas, countries, companies

Comparative military rank:
Lower ranking General or Admiral: Major General, Brigadier General, Rear Admiral, Etc.
The Peon: The Lowest Class
Those who pass out in a metaphoric, literal, or reality show gutter, the poser, the classless, the destitute.
The individual can and does get out of this gutter, the Actions and Indicators and Behavior do not.
The destitute. Lower class peon

Best known as the yobbo, yob, upscale, the underclass, trendy, sapeur, pretentious, plebeian, plebe, pimp, neighborhood based street gang, ned, InsertRelevantSlangOrCodeNameHere, hoi polloi, hipster, fail, chav.

Fantasizes being a peon with more things.
Middle class peon

Best known as the yuppy, yobbo, yob, upscale, the underclass, trendy, sloane, pretentious, preppy, plebeian, plebe, lad, InsertRelevantSlangOrCodeNameHere, hoi polloi, hipster, gatsby, fraternity/sorority, fail, douche, douchebag, bro.

Fantasizes getting mistaken for Being Executive, apparently also tends to want one's own "reality show".

One behavior favored in the early twenty-first century is being seen talking on the phone while behind the wheel of a car in motion, instead of driving.

Idealized decade being the nineteen-empties, the decade of the stylized, the superflous, the tacky, the tasteless.
Upper Class Peon

Totally brainless.

When in its worst form, the trust fund child---who then gravitates towards the lower peons.

A clear and at the time ongoing example being England's King Edward VIII.

At best, the UCP finally learns to just sit in the corner and not say anything: The servants will at least keep the UCP fed, watered, washed and dressed, and the UCP is too stupid to think of trouble to get into---when the UCP does get into trouble it tends to have been some other peon's idea.


    Let us consider some fellow who is, oh, not too familiar with varieties of champagne. Or "Sparkling Wine" as the case, or even just a bottle, may be. Like me he may even have taste buds that totally can not stand the taste of alcohol, so aside from the occasional very ceremonial large thimblefull, he doesn't drink any either. Let us say that he does work as the head gardener/groundskeeper at a vineyard, so he is around a lot of varieties of wine, but if he were inclined the most he could afford would be just a bottle here and there, or something like that.

    Let us consider that this groundskeeper is most assuredly not a peon. On a scale made of patrician and peon, this fellow must therefore be a patrician.

    Let us consider the fellow who wanders out of one of the vineyard administrative offices, taking a break from sorting out taxes, planning the vineyard expansion, and lining up assorted contracts with buyers across at least three continents. Several layers of employment up from the groundskeeper, he is the vineyard owner and if inclined could buy the entire schooling of all of the groundskeeper's children, from preschool all the way out to a Ph.D apiece at name any quality university, because the children will also genuinely Get Taught and bloody well will earn those Ph.Ds, with honors . . ..

    Certainly he is not a peon. On a scale made of patrician and peon, this fellow must also therefore be a patrician.

    Now let us consider a couple of people who are visiting the vineyard. One has had too interesting a week, and just wants to stare at something else, and yeah, a vineyard can be something else, and why not pick up a couple of bottles, or maybe some more, but only if generally convenient. The other one is extremely interested in varieties of wines, or for this paper, different authors, or the subtleties of different quilts, or any number of things. In this example the second person picked the vineyard to tour, really wants to see what is there, will very likely be doing a good deal of buying, and then off to dinner, somewhere, maybe, they will see.

    And let us consider that these two are also definitely not the peons. On a scale made of patrician and peon, these two must therefore be a pair of patricians enjoying a day in the counry.

    And, quite finally, let us consider as the groundskeeper and the vineyard owner both look off thataway. And in unison, each has the same reaction of Oh, bugger, here come a couple of peons . . .

    Thus, quite finally, let us consider a couple . . . or two or three more as well, they just haven't turned the corner yet. Each and all of 'em very insistently scanning for Where are the cool place and people, so I can be seen there., and they don't mean temperature. Back during the horrors of the Nineteen-Empties, they made absolutely certain they had at least one set of football pads on. A number of them still go about wearing pleated pants, and these days usually turn up in clam diggers, or culottes or knee breeches. The collar is on end, and whenever possible the shoulder seams still manage to creep towards the elbows, even though style did return in greater visibility in the last few years. Either they think they are to be the center of attention, or they come to a screeching halt when they notice being recognized as banal and boring. To their limited imagination and minuscule intellect, everything else exists to revolve around them, and the all time fantasy is not only to be mistaken for being stylish, but to be mistaken for being important. The ongoing screaming insecurity keeps them perpetually having to ignore reality, or actively oppose it---one popular practice these days involves "driving" while talking on a cell phone.

    Yes, these creatures are, by their own choice, with no room for any doubt whatsoever, peons.

A Matter Of Class

    The overall issue, basically, is class. Class has become one of those subjects that one is not supposed to speak of, while pretending it's long gone, and then simply by being present, some peon drags it screaming back into the open.

    Of course one issue remains of trying to explain and define class, and to come up with something a bit more precise than vaguely noting that of course one is of a better class than those peons. Part of the problem comes from the perceptions of class as being an Us Or Them dichotomy, or occasionally a sort of spectrum. Following a bit of review, this paper notes that as others have documented, there is indeed a variety of both Us vs Them and also that spectrum, but there is also another additionally encompassing overview. What this additional overview explains is how blatantly obvious peons turn up in the seemingly oddest spots, but in their own way remain just like all the other peons. The practice for this is to borrow from chemistry and the periodic table of the elements; the fact that peons keep themselves at the bottom of every heap and also seem to somehow relate to separate groups can be explained if one considers class as forming a grid of the uppers, the middles, the working/lowers, and of course the peons always being the lowest class, below everyone else and culturally in line with the totally destitute.

Forms and divisions.

    A very common occurrence, in repetition as well as quality, is any of the surreally ridiculous "fashion" advertisements that have particularly congealed out of the nineteen empties. The fantasy that is implied and never achieved is that by having some particular label visible to the world, anyone scammed into buying the costumes should be able to hope to get mistaken for looking like something resembling someone actually important and reputable.

    In complete contrast there are the actually genuine discussions of class, and I'm going to work with a number of them here. Some clearly discuss aspects and details of assorted classes and class structures, some have more of an oblique approach, and all relate to the discussion.

David Cannadine; "The Rise And Fall Of Class In Britain."

    Of Cannadine, from the book's inside front cover; "Cannadine proposes that "class" may best be understood as a shorthand term for three distinct but abiding ways in which the British have visualized their social worlds and identities; class as "us" versus "them"; class as "upper," "middle," and "lower,"; and class as a seamless hierarchy of individual social relations. From the eighteenth through the twentieth century, he traces the ebb and flow of these three ways of viewing "British society, unveiling the different purposes each model has served."

    Cannadine covers British society over about three centuries, looking at historic movements and moments. As he does so and in excellent detail and reason, I'm going to grab some large chunks of text from the introduction to his book.

    "How, across a long time span and from a broad geographical perspective, can we recover the ways in which Britons saw and understood the manifestly unequal society in which they lived? For a suggestive answer, we might usefully turn to Montpellier in 1768, when a bourgeois citizen set out to "put his world in order" by describing the social structure of his town.

    He concluded that there was no single comprehensive or authoritative way in which this could be done. Instead, he offered three very different yet equally plausible accounts of the same contemporary ,social world. The first was Montpellier as a procession: as a hierarchy on parade, a carefully graded ordering of rank and dignity, in which each layer melded and merged almost imperceptibly into the next. The second was Montpellier divided into three collective categories of modified estates: the nobility, the bourgeoisie, and the common people. And the third was a more basic division: between those who were patricians and those who were plebeians. Clearly, these were very different ways of characterizing and categorizing the same population. The first stressed the prestige ranking of individuals and the integrated nature of Montpellier society. The second placed people in discrete collective groups that owed more to wealth and occupation and gave particular attention to the bourgeoisie. And the third emphasized the adversarial nature of the social order by drawing one great divide on the basis of culture, style of life, and politics.

    Thus Montpellier in 1768, and thus Britain during the last three hundred years. That, in essence, is the argument that I advance and unfold in the following pages. When Britons have tried to make sense of the unequal social worlds they have inhabited, settled, and conquered, across the centuries and around the globe, they have most usually come up with versions or variants of these same three basic and enduring models: the hierarchical view of society as a seamless web; the triadic version with upper, middle, and lower collective groups; and the dichotomous, adversarial picture, where society is sundered between "us" and "them." These were, and still are, the conventional, vernacular models of British social description used by ordinary people, by pundits and commentators, and by politicians, and it is with the history of these three models that this book is primarily concerned. Strictly speaking, they were mutually exclusive, using different criteria to describe the same unequal society in very different ways and often (though diminishingly) using their own specific languages. Thus regarded, these three depictions of society do not amount to what the sociologist Gordon Marshall would call "a rigorously consistent interpretation of the world. Far from it; indeed, quite the opposite.

    But in practice and like the Montpellier bourgeois, most people move easily and effortlessly from one model to another, recasting their vision of British society to suit their particular purpose or perspective. And one of the reasons they were able to do so was that they gradually came to use the same language, regardless of the particular model they were employing. Often it was the vocabulary of ranks and orders. But it was also, and increasingly, the language of class that was most commonly used for describing all three models of contemporary British society: class as hierarchy; class as "upper," "middle," and "lower"; and class as just "upper" and "lower." Thus regarded, the history of class is not the master key that unlocks the entire historical process: the history of class struggle as classes come into being and do battle with each other. Nor is it the history of innumerable subjective social identities exclusively constituted by language. Rather, it is the history of the three different ways in which, across the centuries, most Britons have visualized their society: the history of three models of social description that are often but not always expressed in the language of class. Redefined and understood in this way, the history of "class" should properly be regarded as the answer to the following question: how did (and do) Britons understand and describe their social worlds? It is that answer, and that history, that this book aims to provide.

    "All societies," George Watson has rightly noted, "are unequal; ... but they describe their own inequalities variously." In the British case, it is these three idealized models, not always but often articulated in the language of class, that have lain behind most popular perceptions and descriptions of social structure since the early eighteenth century. Like all such popular perceptions, they were the jumbled product of custom and habit, history and experience, politics and inquiry, information and misinformation, ignorance and prejudice; then, as now, there were limits to what Britons knew about the social worlds in which they lived. None of these three idealized models constitute what Ernest Gellner recently called "real social knowledge." All of them are ignorant oversimplifications of the complexity of society. Yet they have remained remarkably enduring, and they are still in existence in Britain today. Indeed, it is precisely because of their continued existence that Britain cannot possibly be described as a "classless society" and that historians are mistaken in dismissing class from their current agenda. For if we are to understand class historically, we need to understand how it is over time that these three models of society have coexisted and why it is that for different people, and at different times, one or another of these models has been the preferred account of how things are."

Jilly Cooper; "Class"

    Another quality discussion of class is Jilly Cooper's "Class", which is a direct overview of types of classes in Britain in the late twentieth century. Originally published in 1979, Cooper then updated and rereleased in 1999. In the introduction to the 1999 update, Cooper notes that while she does outline in very general terms, with just a few changes, and regardless of the attempts of the Thatcherites in the interval, the descriptions did hold up very well over the twenty year period. Like Cannadine, Cooper also notes the difficulties in nailing down the details of class, and that two particular issues also very quickly turn up; The initial statement of "There is no class" gets very quickly followed by a detailed outline of the various classes.

    Quoting, in turn, from the introduction to the 1999 edition;

    "In the middle of the seventies when I tentatively suggested writing a book about the English class system, people drew away from me in horror.

    `But that's all finished,' they said nervously, `no one gives a hoot any more. Look at the young.' They sounded as if I was intending to produce a standard work on coprophilia or child-molesting. It was plain that, since the egalitarian shake-up of the 'sixties and early 'seventies, class as a subject had become the ultimate obscenity.

    What struck me, however, as soon as I started the book was the enormity of the task I had taken on. It was like trying to catalogue the sea. For the whole system, despite its stratification, is constantly forming and reforming like coral. `Even a small town like Swansea,' wrote Wynford Vaughan Thomas `has as many layers as an onion, and each one of them reduces you to tears.' To me the system seemed more like a huge, striped rugger shirt that had run in the wash, with each layer blurring into the next and snobbery fiercest where one stripe merged with another.

    I found, too, that people were incredibly difficult to pin down into classes. John went to a more famous boarding school than Thomas, who has a better job than Charles, who's got smarter friends than Harry, who lives in an older house with a bigger garden than David, who's got an uncle who's an earl, but whose children go to comprehensive school. Who is then the gentleman?

    A social class can perhaps be rather cumbersomely described as a group of people with certain common traits: descent, education, accent, similarity of occupation, riches, moral attitude, friends, hobbies, accomodation and with generally similar ideas and forms of behaviour, who meet each other on equal terms and regard themselves as belonging to one group. A single failure to conform would certainly not exclude you from membership. Your own class tend to be people you feel comfortable with -'one of our sort'- as you do when you are wearing old flat shoes rather than teetering round on precarious five-inch heels. `The nice thing about the House of Lords,' explained one peer, `is that you can have incredibly snobbish conversations without feeling snobbish. Yesterday I admired a chap's wife's diamonds; he said they came from Napoleon's sword, and before that from Louis XIV.'

    Cooper's solution involves a cast of characters running from top to bottom. She has the division of three, but then she does also note a particular better and worse division.;

    "The aristocracy and upper classes are represented by The Hon HARRY STOW-CRAT. . . . He has a long-suffering wife, CAROLINE, . . . . an eldest son, GEORGIE, a daughter called FIONA, and several other children. He has numerous mistresses, but none to whom he is as devoted as to his black labrador, SNIPE.

    To illustrate the three main strands of the middle classes we again fall into archetypes, with GIDEON and SAMANTHA UPWARD as the upper-middle-class couple, HOWARD and EILEEN WEYBRIDGE as the middle-middles and BRYAN and JEN TEALE as the lower-middles. . . . Gideon and Samantha have two children called Zacharias and Thalia

    Our archetypal working-class couple are Mr and Mr: DEFINITELY-DISGUSTING. They have two children SHARON and DIVE, . . .

    The other couple you will meet are the NOUVEAU-RICHARDS, of working-class origin but have made a colossal amount of money. . . . children, TRACEY-DIANE and JISON

    "While writing this book I found that there were very much two strands in the character of the aristocrat: first the wild, delinquent, arrogant, capricious, rather more glamorous strand; and second the stuffy, `county', public-spirited, but publicity-shy strand, epitomized by the old baronet whose family were described `as old as the hills and infinitely more respectable'.

    Or, as a small boy writing in my son's school magazine pointed out: `Gentleman are of two types: the nose-uppish and the secluded.'

    The working classes divide themselves firmly into the Rough and the Respectable. The Rough get drunk fairly often, make a lot of noise at night, often engage-in prostitution, have public fights, sometimes neglect their children, swear in front of women and children, and don't give a stuff about anything---just like the upper classes, in fact. The Respectables chunter over such behaviour, and in Wales sing in Male Voice Choirs; they are pretty near the Teales. They also look down on people on the dole, the criminal classes and the blacks, who they refer to as `soap dodgers'.

Paul Fussell; "Class"

    Another excellent view comes from a book of the same name, this time by Paul Fussell, and about the American class system.

    In turn, from the early pages of Fussel's book:

    "In his book Inequality in an Age of Decline (1980), the sociologist Paul Blumberg goes so far as to call it "America's forbidden thought." Indeed, if people often blow their tops if the subject is even broached. One woman, asked by a couple of interviewers if she thought there were social classes in this country, answered: "It's the dirtiest thing I've ever head of!" And a man, asked the same question, got so angry that he blurted out, "Social class should be exterminated."

    "Actually, you reveal a great deal about your social class by the amount of annoyance or fury you feel when the subject is brought up. A tendency to get very anxious suggests that you are middle class and nervous about slipping down a rung or two. On the other hand, upper-class people love to topic to come up: the more attention paid to the matter the better off they seem to be. Proletarians generally don't mind discussions of the subject because they know that can do little to alter their class identity. Thus the whole class matter is likely to seem like a joke to them - the upper classes fatuous in their empty aristocratic pretentiousness, the middles loathsome in their anxious gentility. It is the middle class that is highly class-sensitive, and sometimes class-scared to death. A representative of that class left his mark on a library copy of Russell Lynes's The Tastemakers (1954). Next to a passage patronizing the insecure decorating taste of the middle class and satirically contrasting its artistic behavior to that of some more sophisticated classes, this offended reader scrawled, in large capitals, "BULL SHIT!" A hopelessly middle-class man (not a woman, surely?) if I ever saw one.

    "If you reveal your class by your outrage at the very topic, you reveal it also by the way that you define the thing that's outraging you. At the bottom, people tend to believe that class is defined by the amount of money you have. In the middle, people grant that money has something to do with it, but think education and the kind of work you do almost equally important. Nearer the top, people perceive that taste, values, ideas, style, and behavior are indispensable criteria of class, regardless of money or occupation or education."

    Fussell also notes the division of upper and lower, and the grouping in threes, and himself proposes a list of nine:

    "My researches have persuaded me that there are nine classes in this country, as follows:

    Top out-of-sight
    Upper middle
    High proletarian
    Low proletarian
    Bottom out-of-sight"

William Bayer; "Breaking Through, Selling Out, Dropping Dead and Other Notes on Filmmaking"

    In addition, there is a book by William Bayer; "Breaking Through, Selling Out, Dropping Dead and Other Notes on Filmmaking". The primary focus of this book is on making movies, film production, aspects of financing, film related interpersonal and organizational filters, among other things. One very important additional item is the chapter which clearly discusses that particularly in making movies can one find patricians among an immense sea of peons. As well as such can be discussed, the chapter outlines the differences rather as they get outlined here. He has a particular comment in his revised and updated edition to the book.

    "When this book was published this section (inspired by Susan Sontag's 'Notes On Camp') was the most controversial. Many people told me it was their favorite part of the book; some even said it was the only part worth reading. Still others found it perplexing, and stared at me with furled brows as if I were some kind of psychopath. All I can say is if you get it you will get it, and if you don't you probably never will."

    There are also some other sources and examples regarding peons and their tendencies which one can draw from as well, such as street gangs and sports references, Soviet Realism, military hierarchy and why it exists, and the post WWII pacific island cargo cults, and they will get mentioned in time.

Combining all into a new form

    Having noted the varieties that have turned up over time, let us consider an additional way of sorting, but one which encompasses all the others. That there could be yet another way comes from noting that various layers do keep turning up as a variety of spectrum, but as Cooper has noted, there is a somewhat conflicting better and worse division that keeps turning up where one would think it shouldn't. While the lower classes have their division of, basically, the lower class and the lowest class, that two part division also turns up with the upper classes. The rather evident upper classes remain unmistakable, but what to do with an equally unmistakable variety of lowest class that clearly isn't upper class, but isn't anything else?

    The answer to this apparent contradiction is a Periodic Table Of The Classes, as it were, covering and encompassing all three varieties of sorting out the classes.

    Consider that chart, above:

    The first three categories make up the patricians. The last row at the bottom constitutes the peon. Keeping the spectrum in mind, the descriptions are very general and each patrician layer does blur into the next, as always. Of the patrician layers, they can even fold into each other depending on the person, depending on the situation.

    Also as always, the peon always places him or herself below the rest of us.


Cassiel C. MacAvity