Lit Literature member interviews

Oh, I already have three notepad windows open -- a "things to do," a blog post, and just some general notes and references scrawled. Notepad is the writing tablet of kings.

I like to think on the grand scale.

 

GrandAdmiralJello

18. Recently you traveled seemingly all over the world. What was the purpose of this trip? And in all of your travels, what's the place you've liked visiting the best?

And remember, this time use notepad or word or something.

 

XVII. Alright -- took a while on this one because it's a longer answer than most... and naturally, I wrote half of it twice already! Gah. Notepad this time.

I have to say at the start that people are always surprised when I say that I'm pro-Senate. I am: and I'm pro-republic, conceptually. The problem was that the Roman Republic turned into a trainwreck that was pretty much mortally ill by at least the first quarter of the first century BC. It couldn't have conceivably ever been restored. This, by the way, is my biggest issue with the film Gladiator. Though it's one of my favorites, it's stupid. The plot is stupid. Marcus Aurelius did not want to restore the republic. He would have had to have been an idiot to want such a desire -- restoring the republic just meant setting the stage for another civil war, because somebody else would've wanted power and the legions would've had no one to swear loyalty to in order to prevent that. Moreover, he wouldn't have gotten emo about how he spent his whole life warring to "expand the Empire" and "bring the sword" -- he was warring to prevent civilization from being ground down into nothingness. The really interesting part about all this is that people he was protecting wasn't Roman Italy -- but Roman Gaul: the Gallo-Roman culture which wanted nothing to do with barbarians and wouldn't have seen them as liberators at all, but rather saw German tribes as a menace even before they were conquered by the Romans! But of course, that doesn't stop pop history from presenting every barbarian culture as the same and working all to free one another as if the barbarians (or Spartacus, sometimes!) were proto-internationalists working for the UN. Barbarians mostly just cared about their own people and nobody else. Want to know who valued other cultures? Romans!

Anyway, that was a bit of a digression, wasn't it? Anyway, the point is that the establishment of the Roman Empire -- at least the Principate -- was necessary for the survival of Roma. And here's the interesting thing: the Roman Republic was a parasitic thing, much like the Athenian democracy during its own imperial heyday: the Republic looted and stole and robbed all the subject peoples in order to enrich itself. A Roman governor of the republican period existed only to make sure that the looting and robbery was orderly enough that the province stayed quiet. It was only under the emperors that a conception of the governor as someone who should actually work for the benefit of the provinces came about. It was only under the emperors that looting and pillaging and corruption were criminalized. It was only under the emperors -- well, C. Julius Caesar started it I suppose -- that provincials of standing and education were admitted to the Roman Senate such that it actually somewhat resembled a representative body (not that it was ever intended to be one!).

y'see, it was the Roman Empire that came closest to achieving the Greek ideal, funny as it may sound. It was the Empire that was essentially the Platonic politeia: the Greeks never achieved it because they could never conceive of a state larger than a city-state that wasn't a despotism. And to the Greeks, despotism wasn't even worth considering a form of government: it was akin to slavery (funny, given extreme Zoroastrian hatred for slavery...). The Roman Empire wasn't a centralized government at all. It had a tiny bureaucracy: miniscule. It didn't need anything larger, because the Empire was essentially a league of city-states on the grand scale. Each city-state self-governed (the Romans replaced the old Hellenistic kingdoms with republican city institutions), and the Roman government ensured the roads and the seas were safe. Taxes only existed to keep up the armed forces: everything else was paid for by private hands. That's right, in those days, the Roman city-state councils -- just like the Roman Senate -- paid for roads and public amenities out of their own pockets, and that was how they justified their rulership and wealth. There were no commie revolutions in those days because the wealthy had the burden of ruling, and then paying for that rule themselves -- far different from the more exploitative methods of government seen after the fall of the Roman city-state model.

So why the Senate? Because it was the senatorial system that was responsible for this. It was the Senatorial system that encouraged a civic culture that was bound up in the city-state, respect for its politics and its history. In order to become a member of the Senate or the city-state councils, one had to go possess paideia -- essentially the Greco-Roman high culture common throughout the ruling classes of the Empire, of whatever race and nationality, which encouraged virtuous upright behavior and conformity with the exemplars of Homeric, Aristotelian, and Virgilian good character. It was a culture that prescribed restraint and good government, and civic flourishing. It encouraged people to give more of themselves to their communities rather than to their base, individual natures. It discouraged cruelty and vice, and deplored the excesses of brutal punishments: for it was an ethical system premised not on rules of conduct or on assessment of the consequences (road to evil paved by notions of the "Greater good") but rather on the cultivation of good character, of the cardinal virtues (the one thing the movie DID get right about Aurelius!). It was the centralizing, militaristic imperial court that destroyed all this. So while the establishment of imperial rule was good for the Empire, it was only good while the emperor behaved himself: acted like a republican magistrate, like a first citizen. When that ended: when the emperor set himself above everyone else, like an eastern potentate or a god, that's where things went awry. When military leaders who weren't senators ascended to the imperial throne, they had no knowledge of or respect for the Empire's republican traditions: they were just soldiers, and war was all they knew. So they would raise ruinous taxes which would make the city councillors unable to serve their cities, thereby causing the collapse of the city-state model and the ultimate ruin of the Empire's economic base. It's no coincidence that in the last century of the West and the early Byzantine period, the old monumental city-state vanished for good, replaced with the medieval fortress / peasant hinterlands model. Society was smaller and closer to home, and that was a result of the collapse of the republican city-state system that was cultivated by the early Empire. City-states may have been a Greek conception, but they reached their greatest scale and splendor under the Roman Empire.

Most of our historians are senators too: they'll tell you about the increasing cupidity among the imperial court, the lackies and the hangers-on who gained power and influence based on their proximity to the imperial household rather than their education and culture (paideia). They'll tell you how these individuals, in turn, lacked the proper virtue to cultivate the responsibility of governing, and sought instead to enrich themselves. They'll tell you how the emperors, too, were little more than warlords themselves, especially the ignorant zealots that succeeded Constantine.

In fact, I once read a book where the author was attempting to debunk the "myth" of the Senate -- he said that the Empire only truly prospered under those emperors such as Diocletian and Constantine who took power away from the Senate. I told my professor that this was absolute twaddle, that the Empire was in a decline of competence and prosperity under their rule and their inadequate responses to those crises betrayed their unsuitability for rule, being peasant soldiers and all. You can even view the obvious decline in craftsmanship too -- the monuments of that age are decidedly inferior, as is the literary culture: though a few gallant senators such as Symmachus, the wonderful urban prefect during the Theodosian dynasty, kept up the old ways. Anyway, my professor said that I ought to tell that author when he arrived at school later in the week. So I did -- I contested every bit of what he wrote there, and he was apparently delighted that I cared enough to refute him. Why, he even reported gleefully to my professor that "I think your student just called me a rabble-rouser... and it's true!"

The incompetence of the post Diocletianic emperors (of course, not that the predecessors of the tetrarchs were such gems either, but they were barracks emperors as well ever since the end of the Severans) is made most manifest in Ammianus, where he shows Constantius II visiting the Eternal City for the first time. No longer the seat of the imperial court (though still the capital! -- ignore the "pop history" that conflates the capital -- ever Roma -- with the seat of government), Roma was not in decline, for she was still the grandest city in all the world. Constantius, though raised in Constantinopolis his whole life, rode through the city in blank astonishment, and in particular gaped at the scale and grandeur of the Forum Trajanum like some sort of backwater hick! Which he was, of course -- descended from some Moesian rustic (I refer to, of course, "Marcus Flavius (lol!) Valerius (HAH!) Constantius Herculius (n00b) Augustus --- seriously, inadequate much? Not only swiping names from one of the founding patrician families of the Republic, but a dynasty of Sabine farmers? This, from the guy who was emperor of the west? gods, what a fool. Even his portrait is completely dopey).

...errr, sorry what was the question again??

 

GrandAdmiralJello 18. Recently you traveled seemingly all over the world. What was the purpose of this trip? And in all of your travels, what's the place you've liked visiting the best?

19. What is your favorite alcoholic beverage/concoction?

 

XVIII. Oh, it was just a little safari. All the random stops I was posting from were mostly involved in just getting there -- some were just airport layovers, others were stop little mini-trips because might as well, if you're traveling. But yeah, the main purpose was to see all the animals and things.

Place I've liked visiting the best? That's a deceptively tricky question. My favorite place in the world is, of course, the Eternal City -- Roma. Only been there a couple of times, but it really just feels like home: I can instinctively navigate the city like I've lived there my entire life.

But my most pleasant foreign trips have always been England. Every time has always been delightfully memorable, and the last time I was there -- a couple years back now -- I had a very enjoyable time there. London, of course, is wonderful. It's the closest thing we have to a modern great world city -- that is, a city that is cultural, economically, and politically the center: we have the split between NYC and DC in the U.S., alas. London's got both livability, wonderful museums, a great and lively arts scene, and of course: the Palace (which I spent 7 hrs in last time, doing a 1hr tour -- I comparatively only spent about 5-6 hrs in the British Museum, although that was just in the classical wings: I'd have liked to be there longer). I also have a particular fondness for Oxford which will stay with me as long as I live.

Also I feel like I ought to give a shoutout to Wellington, New Zealand and Melbourne, Australia which are both lovely and wonderful cities.

In fact, you'll note that I like visiting cities the most. Nature's fun and all, and I've seen a great deal of the natural wonders of the world, but despite being in an adventurous mood every now and again, cities are where I'd like to stay.

IXX. Unlike what seems like most people, I don't enjoy drinking for the sake of drinking. I do not enjoy intoxication and I endeavor to avoid it as much as possible. I drink for flavor and texture, and that's really all. It's good for social occasions, and occasionally a nice meal. That's really it.

I'll have to say red wine is my favorite: particularly northern Italian reds (Barolo, Barbaresco, Ripasso, and AdmiralNick22 introduced me to Allegrini, which uses the same grapes as Amarone but isn't as rough), though my overall favorite is Aglianico -- it's unique and of incredible historical significance. I also like Spanish and Latin American reds too. I'm also fond of Cotes du Rhone, and Caucasus reds too. I prefer old world wines, although I am extremely tired of the usual restaurant varietals -- I have no time for cabernet sauvignon, cabernet franc, merlot, pinot noir, etc (with rare exceptions -- had an incredible Russian River Valley pinot noir a few months back).

I used to be a big cognac fan, but I avoid it these days. Same with scotch -- for some reason I became the "Scotch guy" to certain people who would always insist on drinking it with me, and always in absolutely barbarous ways (back label? really? don't waste my time -- gimme a single malt. And for goodness sakes, you don't take scotch in shots!). I occasionally partake in port and sherry, having a slight preference for sherry, although I stay away from port these days too again from overexposure: my friends found a fondness for port, and they drink it in wine glasses (!!), ridiculous. Moderation! It's a digestif!

Oh and speaking of goodness sakes, I also enjoy the occasional sake: preferably sipped, chilled, and cloudy. Filtered sake is boring.

 

There was certainly a time where I thought alcohol and everything associated with it was evil, yes.

I still think that, but only for people who get drunk.

 

GrandAdmiralJello 20. What would you do if you won the lottery?

21. How would you survive in a Zombie Apocalypse?

 

XX. Well, I might go for a Ph.D and try teaching or some other socially/culturally constructive thing once freed from the pressures of having to make a living. So many people either suggest donating to charity (which is great, but unguided -- and also usually blatantly an attempt to get tax privileges) or living off of the money (usually, unless it's a massive jackpot, the yearly distributions wouldn't be enough to live off of). Consequently I could do something that's both smart and still reasonably unselfish.

And if I did work for a museum or a school or something, I'd also be able to donate some of the money since that'd be where I'd like to work anyway.

XXI. I would walk up to the zombie overlord or whatever their leader is called and inform them that zombies are both passé and cliché, and therefore I was unimpressed by their attempted takeover.

If that failed, I would play some Michael Jackson music so that they were too busy dancing to try and eat me.

 

GrandAdmiralJello 22. What is the funniest thing you've ever seen/done?