SPQL

[guy]

 

 

(click to see enlarged image)

 

 

I enjoy the history of England / Britain of the early 1700s. I appreciate and admire the inspiration (sometimes incorrectly interpreted) of Ancient history in forming the culture and arts at this time.

 

I enjoy the image of this travel guide from 1703 with the title of SPQL (obviously derived from the Ancient Roman SPQR or senatus populusque Romanus): 

 

Senatus Populusque Londinius (SPQL)

 

 

Then, again, many Italians today who are frustrated by the ineptitude and corruption of Rome think SPQR stands for "Sono Porci Questi Romani" or "these Romans are pigs."

 

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited July 9, 2016 by guy

[caldrail]

It is interesting isn't it? On another website I'm being bombarded by people who think the Roman Empire was technologically advanced, well organised, an example of societal perfection in all its glory. Yet so much of their activity was based on profiteering, bribery, threat, and conspiracy. Not just at the top with wealth and power available, it wasa cultural trait that was never properly addressed.

[guy]

Human nature is human nature. Always has been, always will.
 
I've developed great respect for those political thinkers of the 17th and 18th century who developed a more enlightened and tolerant modern world.
 
James Madison, from the Federalist #51 (1789) wrote:
 

The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments

If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

 

 Men were never angels. They certain weren't during Ancient Rome.
 
 
guy also known as gaius

Edited July 13, 2016 by guy

[caldrail]

Well, there does seem to be a unique feel and spread of personality in Roman records, possibly because their writers were more concerned with such things than other cultures. The Greeks for instance had more interest in valour and success, whereas the later Roman writers want to investigate a man's personality to glean some insight into why he did certain things.

 

On the one hand you have people praised for their superior morals, temperance, and deeds. Sometimes, like Saturninus, you have someone slagged off and dismissed quite harshly. Some, like Augustus, have public reputations yet writers are far less consistent or complimentary. Revered or not, they were not blind to his faults. I also note that Spartacus, for all his bad behaviour and goat herder origin, is uniquely praised despite both being a slave and a rebel slave at that. HE receives an almost heroic praise in one source, yet it's hard to imagine, despite what Mommsen thought, that a bandit, army deserter, and rebel leader could be as noble as people like to portray him.