The Person I’d like to Meet If Time and Space were not Boundaries

There are loads of questions similar to this; all of them are ridiculous. “If you were trapped on a desert island, what five albums would be essential to existence?” My answer; none. Music is not essential. But if I was forced to answer the question, I could do so. I’d bring:
1. The White Album
2. The White Stripes’- Get Behind Me Satan
3. The Rolling Stones- Hot Rocks (Because I’m a cheater and will allow best ofs)
4. Bloc Party- Silent Alarm
5. Mitch Hedberg- Mitch All Together (I really wanted to pretend I’d take Neil Diamond, but that would just be such a lie)

Actually, upon further consideration, I might purposefully bring music I dislike because that way I’d hate the music right away instead of slowly growing to despise songs I once liked. It’d be tragic—in a less than tragic way— to grow to hate Back in the U.S.S.R. or Blackbird when at one time they were favorite songs of mine.

People formulate stupid questions like the last one and the query contained in the title all the time. The truth is, if time and space were no object I would never go back in time to meet people. I mean, if I want I can read about their exploits in books. There’s a long history written about great men from past centuries, so what do I really need to meet them for. I’d definitely be more inclined to see what happens in the future, but, within the constraints of the question, I guess I can’t really go forward in time to meet anyone because they have yet to exist. Time travel is a tricky subject.

ANYWAYS, once I wrap my head around the semantic arguments for and against these stupid questions, I find that I actually like them. I like thinking about the person I would meet given no boundaries. I find myself thinking of all the men that have ever existed and I find myself thinking that I would go back in time and meet Brutus. What can I say, I like ruinous figures. The stock and therefore more boring answer, of course, is Jesus. Everyone wants to say they’d love to walk a mile with Jesus asking him those hard questions (In fact, I said he was my absolute hero back on page ____). “Why does an all-loving God allow for pain in his world.…blah blah blah.” Honestly, like Jesus didn’t have to answer this enough times before he was crucified. Furthermore, Jesus is not a doleful figure even though he died on a cross painfully. He is God’s son; you don’t get much less tragic than knowing exactly where you’re going when you die. I mean isn’t that the tragedy of life anyways, the fact that we have no real idea of why we’re here or what happens to us when we die?

So, anyways I’d like to meet Brutus. I’d like to ask him exactly what he was thinking when he stabbed his best friend in the back. It amazes me to think that a person could love his form of government with such passion that he would murder a friend. I’d love to ask him where his love for the Roman system came from.

I’d ask him if Shakespeare’s version really holds any water. I can’t imagine Caesar’s real last words were, “Et tu Brute,” it seems more plausible that they were Latin for, “What the fuck, you just stabbed me with a knife, you’re going to hell man…” I’d like to delve deeper. I’d ask Brutus what he thought he was going to accomplish by killing Caesar. He was killed soon thereafter so he never saw the rise of Octavian, but I wonder how he would feel knowing that his murder of a friend actually made the downfall of the republic inevitable. He martyred Caesar and in so doing Rome became an empire. I wonder how he would feel about this, given that he murdered Caesar to free the republic of tyrants. I’d like to ask him about the Roman transit system and maybe his thoughts on God then I’d get back to my previous line of questioning like why he really murdered him in the first place. Oh, I know he’d say to preserve the republic, but given the benefit of hindsight it is pretty clear that Rome had to become an empire. The land controlled by the Romans was too vast and the system of the republic was breaking down. Periodically, in times of great need, men had governed Rome as supreme rulers for years at a time. Then again, these rulers were often executed because Romans came to believe that they wanted the power to be emperor for life, and no man was bigger than the republic. I guess this is probably how Brutus felt at the time, but I’d like to know for sure. Anyhow, it was still inevitable. Rome was going to be governed by someone. I always wonder how Brutus would feel knowing that every emperor was referred to as a Caesar, and that the word has since disseminated throughout the remnants of the Roman Empire (Kaiser, King, Czar etc…)

I think my great wonderment about Brutus is resultant of his place in history. Here’s this guy at the turning point of a civilization who believes so fervently in the republic that he is willing to commit the ultimate atrocity, and against a friend no less. I think it further piques my interest because the country we live in now resurrected the Roman ideal almost 2,000 years later. America, basically, brought representative democracy back from its Roman grave, and I see similarities between Brutus and our founding fathers. That’s why I’ll always be sympathetic to Brutus because if our republic was ever in danger of being overthrown by some “great man” with a thirst for a great title, I’d like to think I’d be there waiting, knife in hand, and after the deed was done he’d turn to me and say, “Et Tu Austin.” Except I know it’s more likely he’d say, “What the fuck, you just stabbed me with a knife, you’re going to hell man…”