Julia C

Yeah, I think it is--at least, that's what the other pictures in that person's album tend to suggest.

I found that on flickr there, and it's quite a stunning piece--but I have no idea who it is! Does anybody know the name of this one?

Please include me in the drawing. Thanks!

Well, it looks a lot like this one--and this one seems to be the most modern "definitive" Julia so far: The eyes and nose in particular are very, very similar. And there is a trace of Augustus in there, but you're right in that it doesn't look as much like him as say, portraits of Octavia. But yes, it's nice to be back. I'm always so busy so it's hard to keep track of this place sometimes.

Oh, really? That's surprising, she looks so Claudian! I read about a head recently unearthed in Corinth that has been identified as Julia by a wide array of scholars, including some who have refused positive IDs on everything except the single Roman denarius with Gaius/Julia/Lucius on the reverse. It's interesting because that piece strongly resembles an older version of the one used in my icon, which is a relief to me since I've only ever seen this piece discussed on the internet and not in any scholarly work. It's in the Pergamon in Berlin, and I keep trying to find helpful Germans to take pictures of it from different angles but no dice. EDIT: There's also apparently a sword sheath in Bonn that has her between Gaius and Lucius--I can't find a picture of that anywhere!

Ingsog: I don't have any problem buying provincial coins--in fact, they're probably a lot easier to find, like you said. I just want something depicting her in my possession, but coins are hard to come by and busts (reproduction or otherwise) are nonexistant. I do occasionally find a few coins online resembling both: Augustus w/Julia as Diana, or the Livia/Julia pair but they've always been sold already. I wouldn't even care if the coin was fake so long as it had a likeness of Julia on it! The 400 dollar one I mentioned earlier is gone, although the 6000 dollar one is still around--and is actually on CNG, in fact. The Augusta: I think they may have both been provincial coins, and she was on the reverse of both of them. There's no way she'd be on the obverse, agreed--I just want something with her on it. Do you know, by chance, which bust it was that was misidentified as Julia? I'm not even sute if the one in my icon is a legitimate likeness or not.

Since we're using dictionaries, here is the more authoritative Oxford English Dictionary: pan-ethnic: "Of or relating to all ethnic groups; affecting or embracing people of all ethnic backgrounds. " And here is the verb 'to collaborate': "2. spec. To co-operate traitorously with the enemy. " The Third Reich was explicitly xenophobic, which I'm sure I needn't mention. And Polybius did not engage with the Romans to subdue Greece, but was taken as a hostage and only came around to them after his social engagement to the Scipionic Circle. It's a rhetorical parlor-trick to call him a collaborationist, as it misrepresents what happens for the purpose of an emotive reaction. The same thing applies to the comparison to the Third Reich, which is wholly inappropriate and unnecessary--people were fully able to appreciate the implications of Roman imperialism before 1933. As for the sources, I'll happily get those once I check the citations made in the secondary literature I looked at pertaining to the Macedonian wars. I do have Livy 41-45, but I'm not sure what he says in it.

Since when was the common man ever accepted to the highest echelons of power? From the start, political power was only granted to wealthy and highborn white property owners. The Americans were far more restrictive about the franchise than even the Romans were. Observe: "The mass of men are neither wise nor good, and virtue, like the other resources of a country, can only be drawn to a point and exerted by strong circumstances ably managed, or a strong government ably administered." -John Jay "The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government... Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the public good?" - Alexander Hamilton Note, too, that the US Senate was once called the "Millionaire's Club" at the turn of the 19th century, and is fairly recent that US politicians have been dependant on corporate fundraising because they simply do not possess the funds themselves. The Bush family may be part of the old Yankee aristocracy, but it is the last of a dying breed; witness the fate of Senator Chafee of Rhode Island in 2006, or the defeat of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. to Kennedy in 1952. The American Northeastern Establishment is akin to the more conscientious sort of idealized Roman patrician--the kind that monopolizes power to itself and its progeny, but adds a strong sense of public duty and responsibility to it. Do note that this is hardly unique to America and Rome, and that these are shared features with most other polities in western history.

Then I would wonder how reliable those old fasti are, especially with the sack in 390 and the like. The notion of later nobiles adding their names to the historical record would seem to make the most sense to me, as it's something that they would happily do. That Cicero bit there seems to suggest that sort of thing could/would have happened.

Asclepiades: Well, the Third Reich is pretty much the opposite of a pan-ethnic state, given its theories on power and organization... I objected to the term because I don't really see either of them as collaborationists, and certainly not individuals in a position to enact meaningful stage on the level of statecraft. With regards to Greek democracy being extinguished by the Romans--I would ask, what democracy? What can we say about the sad vestiges of their democratic institutions still remaining in the second century? Minerva: I wouldn't mind a verse translation if it were done properly, as the problem for me is not how entertaining they are--but how faithful to the original they are. I dislike the notion of "modernizing" a work of literature; it's like doing a cheap movie remake, regardless of the production value. The prose translation I like best is the David West version, but I will check out Knight's translation on your recommendation. I'll see if I can find an excerpt online, as my usual test is to check my favorite passages from Book I and Book VI and see how they're written.

Ingsoc: I'm not sure I follow that line with the twelve tables--wouldn't the existence of a law forbidding intermarriage tend to strengthen the point that there was a legal distinction between the two in the early republic? And isn't the very notion of what it means to be patrician tied up with the earliest composition of the Senate? That is, if a name appears on the consular fasti in such dates, that it must by necessity be patrician even if it had lost that status later on? The patricians were the original patres, were they not? And therefore, they were the original senators. It seems counterintuitive to think otherwise, unless the whole etymology behind the word patricians is going to be overturned.

Is it really fair to call either of them Quislings, or to use blatantly nationalistic terms to describe supporters of a pan-ethnic state? The comparison to Hitler only runs one way--one cannot use Hitler to speak of the Romans, after all. His actions are not at all relevant to those of the Romans, and the appropriation of Roman ideology has been seen with almost every single western nation since. Let's not play at Godwin here. The only real way to judge the Roman conquests is to look at the evidence, objectively. As I said, the Greeks probably did not care to admit that Roman rule brought them any advantages. Deferring the matter to subjectivity is not sufficient; we are fully capable of judging for ourselves by looking at the state of Greek polities before and after Roman rule. It would seem that the general sweep of history's judgment would be inclined to agree with Virgil's poetic interpretation.

PMs sent, let me know what you think!

Yes, the heroic couplets used by the so-called 'Augustan poets' of the 17th century destroy the poetry of the original and strain the ear, I think. I have yet to come across a translation of the

How could he possibly be a plebeian, though? The consulship (or praetorship at that date, I suppose) was not granted to plebeians until the third century, was it not?