Oh what I would not give to stand in the Roman Senate when power was transferred from the noble fathers of the nation to one Pompey; a fantastic transaction involving the world.
“Bibulus, therefore, a friend of Cato’s, moved the senate to create Pompey sole consul; for that either he would reestablish the lawful government, or they should serve under the master. Cato stood up, and, contrary to all expectation, seconded this motion, concluding that any government was better than mere confusion, and that he did not question but Pompey would deal honourably, and take care of the commonwealth thus committed to his charge”.
What speeches must have been given at this moment of emergency, this moment when a state is truly a state! And how wonderful, anew, Rome turning to a ditactorship – a system sactioned and made legitimate by precedence – at a time of crisis. A revolutionized Rome, to use this great adjective used by Tacitus to describe a Rome under the yoke of Augustus, that wonderful character that ruled the world under the aegis of primus inter pares; the noble prince, the delightful actor!
And what of the meeting between Pompey and Cato, one of the leaders of the Résistance! Instantly these mere mortals were metamorphosed into the rôle of heroic and romantic saviors of the Commonwealth! This stuff is à la Dostoevsky!
I can only imagine the words that were exchanged. What utter desperation, what sense of crisis, to place power in the hands of a mere mortal, albeit styled Magnus, a mortal none-the-less!
Such fantastic times! There are no words to describe such moments; they are simply awesome.
Ah wonderful digression and arrest from my work. My thesis is coming … it is rather raw and unpolished but it is proceeding. I just needed to write my instant reaction to what I am reading. I love history. I love talking about – I become so passionate!
Also, once I finish my paper, I shall investigate the following:
1. A discussion on the modern obession with knowledge and also, the sharing of information. A look into what Nietzsche says concerning this ‘problem’ – do people really need to know what music I just listened to? And why do I feel a need to make this information available?
Should we ask not ‘what do I need to know’ but rather, ‘what is good for me to know’?
Also, is Adam and Eve’s sin disobeying God or is it a greater sin, a thirst for knowledge? Again, we are confronted with the question, what is good for me to know?
2. Is myth essential to the genesis of civilization? Is myth necessary and essential to any system?
This seems to answer itself, since all systems are based on axioms, things taken a priori, e.g., Euclid and his point (yes what’s the point of it all! sorry for the pun), which in essence are nothing more than myths!
But myths are based on some truth n’est pas? So then we must ask ourselves, in which direction did the mind trave. By this I mean to ask, for example if we take Plato or Euclid since they both deal with Ideas (Forms), did they observe the particular and then deduce from this the universal or did they think of the universal and then observe the particular in nature – raw and unperfect?
3. How different is the West from ‘Islam’? The confusion and ambiguity of these terms. Islam is not necessarily a place but a culture, yet it is used to designate both. The West is a place but it is used as a cultural term.
Isn’t Islam part of the West historically and culturally? And why do we ignore this? How different are we really?