The Augusta

Two excellent posts - thank you gentlemen. Although, initially, you confused me, Cato by posting the above quoted comment after making a very good case for 'revisionism', I do see that the 'jurist' approach and the 'revisionist' approach need not be mutually exclusive. When I came to undergraduate history I was taught by a man who employed the methods Ursus outlines. Now, am I right or wrong in saying that this approach is what we can call the 'empiricist' approach? If not, then I have been labouring under a misapprehension for some years, as I've always considered myself to be such an 'empiricist'. We cannot simply take any ancient source at face value without examining its own provenance, etc. But I am also in agreement with Cato that it is our own age that informs our perceptions of what we consider to be bias or prejudice. I agree, too, that not to read modern scholarship shows a closed mind. Although I am still to be severed from my 'Roman oligarchy' theory as set out by Syme, I am at this very moment awaiting delivery of Millar's 'The Crowd in the Roman Republic', whose central thesis is said, in the synopsis, to challenge such views. That is precisely why I want to read it, to see if Millar sheds any new light on recently produced evidence or offers perhaps neglected contemporary evidence that was not used by Syme, and I will hope to make up my own mind when comparing the two historians. I have never held the view that 'revisionism' is a negative thing: in fact, every new generation of historians are, by very definition, 'revisionists'. On a personal level, I think I was born to this! When first hearing at high school about the Persian King Xerxes, for instance, I can remember my first thought was: 'But was he really that bad? Who is telling us this, and why?'. I was reminded of the very thing today when I began to read my latest book-through-the-door: 'Ancient Persia' by Joseph Wiesehoffer. There was a chapter dealing with this very point: the traditionalist views of Cyrus (wonderful) and Xerxes (rat-bag!). With the discovery of more inscriptions and other arcaheological findings in Iran in the last 20 years, historians are having to revise this picture of the two kings, and this may well lead to a reassessment of the characters of each, and perhaps their place in history as opposed to their place in folklore. I am only just beginning my in-depth study of this civilisation that has always fascinated me (almost as much as Rome), so I am keeping an open mind - which is all any of us can do. However, I am less convinced by the historian Suzanne Dixon - who does have the 'jurist' approach that we all seem to admire. On slogging through her 'Reading Roman Women' (and believe me, it's a hard slog) I find I am admiring her method, but feeling totally disatisfied by her lack of conclusions. In fact, Dixon's central argument seems to be that our sources can tell us nothing at all about Roman women in any helpful way! So she has now adopted an approach to find 'what isn't there', i.e. what is NOT said about women in a source is more enlightening that what is. I'm not sure I can agree with this at all. Of course, just because we have no evidence that there were women farmers, for instance (one of her own examples), does not mean that there weren't any. Fine. But where will we find evidence to say that there were, before we can draw any conclusion at all? And Dixon is becoming a highly respected scholar in the field. But I suppose, her reluctance to draw conclusions is better than applying a half-baked theory. Then again - her feminine stance is colouring her judgement (IMHO) about the men who produced the sources in the first place. Its a vicious circle. I suppose that any historian, just like we enthusiasts and students, is a victim and product of his or her own society and its mores. Syme wrote amid the growth of the European fascist regimes, for instance. Today's scholars live in a world of tolerance and political correctness, that must naturally inform their own perceptions when reading the ancient sources. Can any historian totally suspend the notion of 'self'? Ideally, I suppose, they should, but whether or not it is possible, I am less than sure.

Yep. And you can start by removing that offensive photograph from your profile page! Triumvirs, where are you?

Our Kosmo wrote: This quote, on the Review thread for Scullard's History of Rome, not to mention several comments made by MPC and others throughout various threads, has prompted me to ask for a discussion on the historians as opposed to the primary sources. Kosmo has given us a great point to start off with, in that he has contrasted the broader, more pragmatic views of the 'old school' with the narrower focus of the latest scholarship. While I am not in agreement with Kosmo that such a narrow focus is a legitimate tool for history, I would welcome a debate on the various merits or shortcomings (as we see them, of course) of the various 'giants' of Roman history. Mommsen, Syme, Scullard etc. versus Gruen, Millar etc. I don't want to tie us to any particular point - the quote from Kosmo was purely to illustrate one of the things that contrast between the two schools - but I chose it because Kosmo sums up why he prefers the 'new school' or more contemporary historians. Therefore, I am not setting a single point for the discussion, but would rather leave it open-ended to see where our thoughts and debates take us. We will no doubt begin in quite a general manner and end up arguing the toss over one or two points, as we always do, but that is all to the good. We may discuss such things as whether the reading of a more contemporary historian has changed our former stance on a certain period or thesis - Cato, in another thread, admitted this very thing about Ronald Syme. For my part, I have yet to be persuaded away from Syme's 'oligarchial theory'. This is the sort of thing we could perhaps cover. But as I say, I do not want to tie us to one topic - please, all plunge in and raise any point you wish.

:wub:, DESIGNATED! "I don't need no stinking DESIGNATION, I AM!" -_- G.O., Cos. This is the most glorious hour of my life! Will you allow me to retire - and sacrifice to you at once? The divine air you exhale is too strong for me. I am fainting, Divinity...

That Vestal sounds like me in the Matthew Hrding Lower stand at Stamford Bridge! Nothing changes, then! On a more serious note, GPM, this raises a good question about Roman society and that fundamental in-built desire for victory and glory, and as I read through your quotes I actually thought of Homeric Greeks who seemed to hold a similar set of values - Achilles' famous epitaph of wishing for a short life of glory and honour rather than a long, undistinguished one. Pliny seems to be saying that this very ethos carries over to the arena, so that even slaves and criminals can redeem themselves. The violence, I think, was just the norm for the times; I believe it was the competive striving for physical excellence that drove people at the Games, whether competitors or spectators.

I find it stunning that they would go to all the trouble of building those towers just to keep track of the passing year, I wonder how long it took them, to firstly work it out and then to actually build it? One things for sure, there were some pretty clever people around 2,300 yers ago. It doesn't really surprise me that people did go to such trouble. Early civilisations recognised the importance of the Suin in their daily and yearly lives - the seasons for agriculture, day and night etc. I have to say that I have no trouble at all with accepting cults of the Sun in whatever society and at whatever time. The Sun giveth, and the Sun taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Sun. When we think that (providing man does not kill off the earth himself before) in four and a half billion years the Sun will die, and millions of years before this happens its natural expansion, when its helium supply is used up, would gradually remove all life from the earth in any case, we can safely say that yes - some pretty clever people did exist 2,500 years ago. Astrophysics has proved them right.

Phew - I have to say, you've lost me here, Ram. But March means to me, looking very carefully at the Premiership table and working out how many games are left and how many points are needed to claim the title. It also means, on a more prosaic level, spring-cleaning for we wenches. And in England it means bloody awful weather! BTW: You know I love you, Ram, but that new symbol in your signature terrifies me! What is it exactly?

Pan, he won't be content until he's designated 'Divus Octavius'. I've got my name down for priestess already. And like NN, I've noticed that I am proceeding through my military service with alacrity, as I have now been promoted to a Primus Pilus. I think it's my bawdy campfire songs that have done it

As we are now all probably feeling like hamsters on a wheel in this very enjoyable and thought-provoking thread, I have just re-read through from Page 1 and would like to highlight this question of Mosquito's, which he has reiterated in various other posts. I think what we have not covered here is the distinction between Caesar's personality (the true, inner man) and his persona (that which was deliberately shaped for the Senate and, more particularly, perhaps, the People). Mosquito has brought up the comparison and similarities between Caesar and Augustus, which I think highlights the point. What we know of Augustus - in the way Mosquito was presenting it - was his actual public persona: the benevolent despot immortalised in the Res Gestae - and let's face it - was there ever a more self-glorifying piece of propaganda published in the history of Rome? The man in the Res Gestae as we know from other sources and independent research, was not the full picture - in some parts of the work Augustus may not actually lie, but he does evade or twist the truth. So, when Mosquito asks above if the personality presented by history was real, my own humble conclusion is that part of it was personality, but a large part was persona. Kosmo also made a good point in his post above, where he says that a given man will act as he does within a given society. Could we perhaps address this? How far would Caesar get today, for instance, given he showed the same traits of personality? I daresay he may well end up the way of someone like Saddam. This is precisely because our society would not tolerate a man like Caesar. And that brings me to a final question. We have all stripped Caesar bare, trying to get to the core of the man, but he was part of his own society, for good or bad. How much do our own personalities inform our perception and interpretation of a man who lived 2,000 years ago - or indeed anyone in history? I would say that it is almost impossible to separate. To put it very simply: because I am the sort of person I am, I admire someone like Augustus, or Alexander, or Cyrus, even though I can only admire them within the context of their own day. Someone like Cato (the historical figure, not our member) I have a grudging respect for but loathe his intractability. Surely all our reactions are personal. I realise there are three different points to this post - sorry to give everyone yet another headache, but I am finding it all very fascinating.

I'll either add them to the bottom of this post on an 'edit' or post 'em again. I can't get to the link while writing a post. (Dim little me)

Although the actual withdrawal came after delegation, but I take the point. And your summing up begs another question: Has Tiberius been judged largely in the context of Sejanus' manipulation and influence? Please feel free to direct me to a new thread, as this is not strictly relevant to the 'Personality' theme. (Bit I think it might make a decent enough debate)

Well, Pertinax - you were right - the title did not immediately grab me, so I have only just read this review - but it sounds like a fascinating read, on a much neglected area of study.

Great review, Ursus. Although I have Scullard's Gracchi to Nero I have never actually read this 'prequel'. And as I am sure it will come as no surprise to anyone, being still stubornly 'one of the Old School' myself, it is nice to see an 'old master' reviewed with a modern eye.

Your fellow bat checking in, Nephele! I was thrilled to find I was a bat - and my Gothic, nocturnal, vampire-loving daughter is as jealous as hell! And BTW - what you did with Caesar was fun too - I tried Livia and she came out an owl. Even that seems right for what we know of her! Good fun link, Nephele.

But there again, PP, was his wish to delegate yet another thing he had learned from Augustus? Augustus, after all, had made Agrippa his actual co-regent in 18BC with a maius imperium over the East. And throughout his reign he good pick good men. I have always believed that Tiberius looked for just such a helper in Sejanus. Unfortunately, Tiberius was not the best judge of character! And Tiberius himself had held the tribunician power under Augustus, therefore I cannot condemn him for the act of delegating, only to whom.

If you had read my post thoroughly, you would have seen that it was in answer to the quoted post by Gaius Octavius, and I actually mentioned that it was 'off-topic'. So, no - it did not help your original question - but I did not make any pretence that it was meant to.

I wonder if any other of our members have a favourite magical moment in a film about our beloved ancient world that has either stayed with them since childhood, or taken away breath, or otherwise had a lasting effect. I am brave enough to provoke ridicule and scorn here, and plunge in with my own little gem. That gorgeous, tacky 1963 'Jason and the Argonauts' was on sale in the local supermarket the other day for a whole

Gaius - I was just about to post something similar myself on an 'off topic'. I cannot understand this modern trend to call them legionnaires.

My initial reaction was , hmm prognathic overgrowth comparable to a modern bodybuilder overdosing on growth hormones. I thought she was bordering on the acromegalic! I suppose they did have pituitary tumours in those days....

I am told his birth was by Caesarian section. Presumably, a forceps delivery would have been tried to no avail. Anoxia and pressure on the brain prior to being delivered by section may have contributed to a mild degree of damage to the cerebral cortex. This in turn may have caused his epilepsy, and also the rigid mindset we have been disussing on this thread. Neil - the caesarian birth has got to be a myth. In those days (Pertinax may correct me if he knows differently) 'caesarians' were performed to save the child and the mother invariably died. As Aurelia was alive and well during Caesar's life, I think we can forget about this one!

Come now, we're not limited to Plutarch and Suetonius in judging Caesar, the man who broke convention by having his face put on coins and naming a month of the year after himself. Are we to assume that all the coins that we have with Caesar's face on it were minted by Plutarch? Are we to assume that we refer to "July" thanks to Suetonius? Obviously not. And, really, isn't it consistent with pathological narcissism to come up with the idea of putting your own face on coins that previously had depicted deities? Isn't it consistent with narcissism to be the first one to name the months of the year--that also had religious significance--after yourself? Cato, this is a very good point. However, could there perhaps be an argument for saying that with the expansion of Rome and trading with eastern monarchies etc., a leading statesmen would have been influenced by this? I know that this neither proves nor refutes the theory of pathological narcissism, and I know that other leading statesmen before and contemporary with Caesar did not choose this self-glorifying propaganda tool, but I am just wondering whether there were other influences affecting Julius' personality?

Inspired by the disenchanted posts now appearing from our UNRV members, I take the liberty of cutting and pasting a blog I actually wrote on 18th January this year, originally posted by me on 'Why Space'. It's harsh but it is how I feel. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Decline and Fall - another closet-opening admission Current mood: disappointed Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities So the second series of the HBO/BBC collaboration, 'Rome', has finally premiered in America. So far, we have no date for it to be screened on the BBC, and who knows - if the gods are kind, maybe we won't get it at all. Don't get me wrong: I am like any other member of a minority whose beloved subject does not receive enough quality TV time; we seize upon what is offered us like grateful dogs squabbling over scraps and attempt to bring all our intellectual powers and insights to bear upon the offering, in an attempt to turn it into art. 'Rome' is as far from art as 'Dynasty', and as far from history as 'Asterix the Gaul' - in fact, Asterix has the nod. I am not just a crusty old classicist/ancient historian with my nose buried in Tacitus and Dio. Of course I want my beloved Roman boys to live and breathe on the screen, and in an authentic setting, and this is where HBO have triumphed. Like Roman Abramovich, they have put in the money; and like Roman Ambrovich, they expect their millions to have some return. To do this it is necessary to sacrifice intricate and complex historical narratives for gloss, soap opera style dialogue and glittery bitches - in other words, entertainment for the masses, so the masses will tune in. In Britain, alas, for Series 1 the masses tuned in for a couple of episodes and rapidly tuned out again. This was a pity, for the series is certainly not aimed at historians. As with most US/UK collaborations, our American cousins want to involve us when they require 'class' (their interpretation - not mine). They put in the money, they gave us and the Italians the casting, and even called a historical adviser to give their soap opera that aura of authenticity. The historical advisers have done well. The enormous budget has been spent on accurately reproduced sets full of authentic details such as religious rites, wall-paintings, a grimy Aventine and Subura, and the changing of the calendar on the wall of The Regia. All of which, to we historians, adds the right flavour and seduces us into believing for a moment or two that we are really in the Rome of the first century BC. I'm even prepared to overlook the anachronisms in some of the female costumery and coiffure, for I generously allow that glittery bitches from whatever era must have a certain sex-appeal, and no-one looks sexy in a stola. I am not a prude, and love a good sexy scene as much as the next full-blooded human, but some of the sex in 'Rome' has been purely gratuitous - with even the obligatory titillating lesbian scene to hook in the men. Did Octavia (that paragon of ancient rectitude whom even the most scurrilous Roman chronicler could find nothing against) ever really shag Brutus's mother? I am pretty sure she didn't shag her own brother, but what the hell - trying to prove that she didn't is something akin to trying to prove the existence of God. Octavia, however, certainly shagged her first husband Marcellus, who was not in the first series at all - his place was taken by a mythical person called Glabius, who was done away with to advance a thin plot. Atia, mother of the future Emperor Augustus, was busy shagging Mark Antony, when she should have been happily shagging her second husband Phillipus - another non-person in Series 1. None of this did anything to help us understand the history; it was purely for 'entertainment'. When the show first aired on the BBC last year, I watched the first two episodes and gave up. Later, I thought I'd give it a fairer go and bought the boxed DVD set. I did give it a fair go. I carefully watched each episode about three times each, and the more I saw, the more I began to hate this overdone soap. Poor scripts can be given some life and weight by superb acting, and like its sets, the acting does rescue 'Rome' to a degree, but the liberties taken with the history have finally tipped me over the edge. I read an American review online today, in which the reviewer told us that Marcus Agrippa declares his love for Octavia. I think that may just have been the breaking point for me. If you know nothing of the history (which is fascinating in itself if dealt with properly), and wish to see good performances and impressive sets; if you can engage with Alexis Carrington in a long frock, and two largely fictional characters who seem to be changing the history of the world, then you will enjoy 'Rome'. As for me - I am putting this one to bed.

No. The psychoanalysts following Freud saw narcissism as a sexual disorder in which the libido was directed toward the ego rather than being directed outward, and narcissism was viewed a major cause of homosexuality, for which the psychoanalysts had no theory and which presented problems for their overall theory of object-relations. (I swear, you can't parody this nonsense.) If you look at the early writings on narcissism in the pre-history of modern psychology, they are overwhelmingly influenced by this focus on sexuality. In contrast to the psychoanalytic clap-trap, modern psychologists view homosexuality as a completely healthy sexual preference, and there is nothing in the diagnosis of pathological narcissism that refers to sexual preferences. Thank you, Cato - things are becoming clearer, slowly but surely (you'll be glad to hear) It really is quite a fascinating topic and I am quite glad that I've kept nagging on, because I'm learning a lot from this. But I think I'll retire gracefully now, as we've rather lost sight of our Caesar, and I can see myself being dragged to Tartarus by the Triumvirs if I'm not careful.

Sigmund Freud, the same lovable goofball who gave us the term "penis envy" and Moses and Monotheism. Sorry gals, Sigmund Freud did not provide the symptoms of NPD. Freud's narcissism was never defined precisely, and the early attempts to add any rigor to psychoanalysis (which is a term that refers only to Freud's system) provided the basis of the DSM-I and DSM-II. These diagnostic systems were no more likely to elicit identical diagnoses for a given set of symptoms than would be expected by chance. OK. I don't know whether you saw the other question in my post above, Cato - or anyone - but can I put it this way? To start at the beginning, we have an Alexander, a Xerxes, a Cyrus, a Caesar, a Napoleon, a Hitler - whatever. Let us loosely term them conquerors, living well before the period when psychoanalysis became a science (except Hitler, of course) Did the psychoanalists define their theories from a study of the actions/personality traits of men such as these?