I'm not exactly back but...

[montagnarde1793]

...Seeing how I've been shamefully neglecting LJ these last few weeks, I thought I would just pop in for a moment to reassure everyone that I am indeed alive, as well as to apologize for not replying to people's posts. I have been extremely busy, as you might guess, and I have something of a one-track mind when I have an exam or a presentation or a paper due. So I do hope you'll excuse me. And I'm afraid I'm not out of the woods yet either, as I have a Latin test tomorrow for which I need to know large swathes of De divinatione and Pro lege manilia, as well as several of Cicero's letters. Not to mention grammar. >__>

But anyway, now for your random (or possibly not so random) fact for the day: 216 years ago Saint-Just gave his "rapport sur la police générale". I'm not sure why I wrote that on my calendar, but I'm sure I must have had a good reason... If I were less busy I would quote from it or something, but I really shouldn't considering. Again: >__>

Also, what post would be complete without at least a mini-rant? Have you ever read a (history) book in which you can't (for the most part anyway) fault the author on facts or even really interpretations, but where in the author's attitude is really annoying? The background text for my history class this semester is a bit like that. (Though there is one thing he asserts - without actually ever attempting to prove it - that really annoys me, which is that he seems convinced that capitalism existed in the Middle Ages just because there were merchants.)

For example:

"However much modern democratic sensibilities are offended by restriction of the franchise, that does not always translate into bad government." -- Nicolas, Urban Europe, 111. (This is followed by a defense of pre-modern oligarchical municipalities.)

I mean, seriously: No, this does not "offend" my democratic "sensibilities" this outrages my democratic principles, you pretentious reactionary.... Ugh. I think maybe I should quit while I'm ahead.