A brief report

[montagnarde1793]

Sorry for the semi-absence. I've been a bit on the busy side. Still, I'm back at school now and have not forgotten my obligations. :D Which is to say, article-translating is still on, though it will probably take longer than it would have over the summer.

And I am still working on your (now unfortunately rather late) birthday fic, . I'm just trying to work out the political context - you and I will both be happier with it if it has some political context - which means at this point that I'm trying to work in a short discussion of the federalist revolts, since they are referenced in That Song. I'm thinking the time-frame should be sometime in August-September 1793. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Among the other things I did not forget are Saint-Just's 242nd birthday on the 25th and David's 261st on the 30th. Let it be recorded that I wish both of their memories as well as ever.

So. Classes. I'm taking Roman History, History of Ancient India, Latin 201: The Aeneid, and French Lit from the Middle Ages to the Revolution (or more precisely from la Chanson de Roland to le Mariage de Figaro, which means we don't really make it to the Revolution).

Having been to one of each (they're all on the same days), here are my notes:

I'm really not sure what to make of my Roman History prof. This was her first day teaching here and she seemed like she was on the verge of tears several times during the lecture. Which I can relate to. What I can't relate to is what seems to be her strange affinity for dictators. She spent the introductory lecture fawning over Octavianus (I refuse to call him Augustus), which, while far from laudable, is also far from uncommon among classicists of a certain stripe. It was when she started speaking of Mussolini in rather similar terms that I began to get freaked out. I really hope I'm imagining things, or this could turn out to be an, er, interesting semester.

On the other hand, I have no complaints about the Indian History prof. The class was highly recommended to me and it seems not without reason. The prof's first lecture was informative and interesting and he let us know from the first things like where the emphasis of the course is going to be (he's more a historian of culture/religion/philosophy than economics). And once I've taken this course, my non-Western history requirement will be out of the way.

My Latin class is definitely going to be my hardest this year. I know already I'm going to have problems with the meter... And well, let's just leave it at that for now. No complaints about this professor either. So far, anyway.

The French lit class was and will likely continue to be pretty basic. But I promised the professor I would take it and I haven't read all the books on the syllabus, so I might as well. One potentially good point: When the prof asked us what periods/historical figures/currents/etc. we liked most in the period 800-1800, another girl said the Revolution. I must try to find out her perspective... Oddly, the class was all girls. Which is especially bizarre when you consider our gender ratio is supposed to be perfectly even. Oh well. Another unfortunate point is that several people expressed fondness for the monarchy. What is that?

Anyway, off to eat tarts with the rest of the Maison francophone. I'm sure Maxime would approve.

Comments

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Oh my, a Mussolini admirer :-O I can understand people can admire Octavianus, after all he was not so awful for the standards of his era, especially taking to consideration those who followed him. But IL DUCE, that clown? A university teacher admiring Mussolini? What's going on? Is it something in the food, are these the effects of the genetically manipulated vegetables, is humankind degenerating that fast? :-O
This "literature is for girls" is quite worrying. Here it is a bit different, the writers have great prestige, so the boys still feel they should know about literature and write it, too ;-) That said, it has negative side-effects, too, as the writers feel free to give their opinions on any topic they know nothing about. They think their opinion is interesting just because they can use the language well. You know, the form beats the contents.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

I don't know. That kind of scared me. She was from Texas, so maybe it's something in the water over there. I think I'm going to take Calculus instead--since I'm going to have to take a math class anyway, I might as well get it overwith now, instead of with this apparently crazy Roman history professor. (Octavianus was obviously not as bad as, say, Caligula, and I can see why some people would admire him, but I can also see very good reasons not to. I mean, when I look at the Roman Republic, my first reaction does not tend to be, "An oligarchy? That's cool, but you know what we could use around here? More despotism!" Maybe that's just me though.)

It *is* really sad. I can't say I get it either, since La chanson de Roland is about the least stereotypically girly book ever. That said, I think writers' being viewed as an authority on everything is an inevitable (though unfortunate) consequence of a democratic society (or at least one that is trying to be democratic). Because, in the end, how do you persuade other people of your opinions if not through eloquence?

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Uhuh, from Texas, that explains a lot (sorry, my prejudice speaking :-)
Calculus can be quite useful, more than a Mussolini fan's lectures, it seems to me...Anyway, keep us informed about the progress ;-)
I understand your stance on Octavianus; I have just spent too many hot days visiting marvellous marble ruins from his period, so I must admit I have certain weakness for that guy, I know, it's not very revolutionary :-(
As for the writers: I agree only partially. I think that an expert opinion on, let's say functionning of neurotransmitters, although it must be open to criticism, is almost always more valuable that an improptu improvisation on this topic of a writer that has to fill his weekly column in the newspaper. You know, I mean, there is something going on in Sri Lanka, and instead of calling an expert on that region to give his/her opinion, they ask the same writer as every week to write his/her opinion on in. So you can guess in advance what he/she will think, and moreover, he/she will often take a strong, beautifully argued stance without knowing ANYTHING on what's going on there ;-) This is what I was hinting on.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Quite. Well, I've dropped Roman History and am now enrolled in Calculus. I can't say I regret it all that much.
Well I have a weakness for Cicero, who, though not half bad by Roman standards, is hardly a revolutionary either, so I can't really talk. >.>;
I hardly meant to suggest that listening to writers on subjects they know nothing about is a good thing. I was just being perhaps a bit pessimistic and noting that beyond the present fact that our society tends to put writers on a pedestal, people are probably more likely to listen to someone who is eloquent than someone who has excellent ideas but no flair for expressing them.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Totally agree. We can take the pessimism even farther, saying that good oratory has very limited possibility to flourish in this age of short "slogans for tomorrow's headline" or TV-spots :-(

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Too true. Not to mention it's been about one hundred years since they've taught it in schools...

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

However, your president is not bad in this respect. I was quite impressed by his speecha fter his victory. I know it's not him who writes the speeches, which sort of spoils the game, but anyway...
Yes, now even the actors cannot pronounce well, nor people on the TV, they are horrible. Only the theater-actors still know how to articulate.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

In my view, if you haven't written the speech yourself, all you are is a theatre-actor, who, as you point out, are the best "orators" around these days. Still, I wouldn't care so much if there were any evidence that Obama is actually attempting to live up to his grand rhetoric, which I don't think he is. Not that that ought to be his responsibility; the legislative branch of the US government has long since abandoned its duties...

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

I agree with every word you say. The normality of having one's speech written is a depressing sign of the fakeness of the world we live in.
And yes, the politicians, both in the legislative and in the executive, don't have much real power anymore, do they?
Since we are all supposed to believe in the magical incontrolable self-healing power of the turning wheels of the market, it's not surprising that the banks, not the parliaments are the temples of today :-(

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

It's truly amazing; my home state of California is bankrupt, and the US government has no money to give it (and is unwilling to override the provision in the state constitution that the state legislature requires a 2/3 majority in order to raise taxes, which would also solve the problem), but has billions of dollars to give to the banks. The banks, you see, are "too big to fail," but I guess one of the largest US states isn't. This kind of thing is so blatant that really it's a wonder more people don't see it, even through the propaganda.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

That's the twofold strategy of
1) fear
2) life-long enslavement of people through indebtment

People are told that if "the banks ar left to fall", it will be the Doom, everything will fall apart. The Apocalypsis. So don't even dare to imagine it ;-)

People are tied to the system through mortgages and loans, not due involving in random irresponsible pleasures, but due to their need to cover their basic necessity - accommodation, education for children and, in the US propably also the medical care. That makes them very conformist.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

One we're all only too familiar with, unfortunately. Of course, the choice between letting the banks fail and throwing money at them without conditions was a false one, those being just the two worst of a range of options.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Of course, but, sadly, the alternatives are not really "publicized".

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Of course not. That wouldn't be to the reigning oligarchy's advantage.

[trf-chan.livejournal.com]

O_O!! Good luck with your Roman History professor. I hope she's not really all that crazy.

Another unfortunate point is that several people expressed fondness for the monarchy. What is that?

Because when they project themselves back in time, they naturally assume that they would be part of that oh-so-stylish, opulent nobility. Never mind that only about, what, 1% belonged to that category, so the likelihood is much greater that they would have been among the vulgar, nasty commoners. We're raised on those sugar-coated fairytales that tell us how wonderful and magical a monarchy is, and a startling percentage of people...never seem to move to a more sophisticated understanding, do they? -_-

In my French textbook, we follow the blogs of several characters in francophone countries. One of these characters uses a fleur-de-lys icon. Every time it comes up, I draw a big, fat X over it, like the mature person I am.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Whether she is or not, I think I'm probably going to have to take Calculus this semester instead. I'm not sure whether that's a good thing, ultimately. :/

The weird thing is, a lot of them not only seemed to like monarchy as some kind of fairytale concept, but Louis XIV in particular. I don't know if he's just the only monarch they've ever heard of or just that it makes sense, if you *really* like monarchy, to like the most absolutist French monarch. Or maybe I'm just trying to read too much into this...

I would definitely do that. XD;