The Augusta

Yep - Fabregas has got away with quite a lot over the last couple of seasons. And on Sunday, there was no doubt about it - he and Lamps should have both gone off for their part in the silly handbags! (And like you, I think he is one of the best young players in the Prem - but needs to grow up fast) As for JT - he's now fine, bless him! I suppose I should have known - that head would have needed to come off to keep him down - and even then he would have had it stapled back on! JT should have been a Roman!

I read through my re-drafted draft of the re-drafted draft of Parts 1 and 2 of my Livia work-in-progress last night. To anyone who has not yet realised that I am a crazy aspiring novelist with a toxicity fetish, let me clear this up now. I have been drafting things for many years. I once got as far as sending something to Macmillan many years ago, to be told that I could definitely write and should choose a more modern subject as Rome was not the order of the day. Bugger 'em - I thought. So, they published Thomas Hardy - what do they know? However, given this vague praise from an actual publishing house that people have heard of, made me thrust out my chest and get on with it. So, a novel about Octavian's rise to power languished in my bedroom drawer for about 15 years! I had entitled it 'Imperium' (thank you Robert Harris - who does not let his titles rest in his drawers!). Then I took it out and added most of Gus' reign to it (down to banishment of Postumus) and entitled it 'Emperor' (thank you, Conn Iggulden!). I finally decided to scrap all that and make the bloody thing about Livia instead - and after all, she needs to speak to the world with her own voice for once. As yet I have no title - nor will I ever tempt fate by entitling it anything until it goes off on its long round of cruising for a customer. (Imperatrix sounds far too much like *or*!) So, let us just call it 'Livia' for now and have done! And there is a bonus for me - now that the POV has shifted to a lady, I don't have to write all the battle scenes from Grip and Gus' POV! (I can remember my very first Philippi took a week just to draft, and then I had to rewrite because I realised Brutus' lines were drawn up in the wrong order!) No - I'll leave the military stuff to Conn and others. Hats off to 'em! (I didn't do a bad Actium, as I seem to remember - perhaps I'm more nautical than I thought! - although I did chicken out a bit and have Cleo frantic on her flagship while Arruntius was lurking up her pretty little posterior and Lurius was lying on his oars! ) ) Enough of such tomfoolery! I am now seriously trying to do our Livia some justice and was quite pleased with Parts 1 and 2 (down to marriage to T. Nero). But as all writers are supercritical of their own efforts, I found myself loving some of it, and hating other bits. Whole scenes need chopping, others need expanding. I need to tweak a bit here, and polish a bit there, while still trying to keep the pace of Part 1 going in an increasingly more political Part 2. I have enjoyed recreating just how devastating an effect the Proscriptions had on the nobles though, and there is a certain 'death' which happens to a purely fictional character but is part of my own story that I think goes quite well. And listen to this, folks - at last a novel/recreation or whatever you want to call it, that actually has a place for Salvidienus Rufus! (Not the nicest of guys, however.) What I am trying to do in this work, seriously, is to show how the events of Liv's early life shaped her personality and character - into the woman she would become. (And no - it does not include poisoning!) Like all heroines she has flaws as well as virtues, otherwise she would not be real, but the process is proving to be very enjoyable. What I am most pleased with is that the woman emerging is telling her story with a mixture of humour, poignancy and downright matter-of-fact Roman hard-headedness, and still managing to be a lady into the bargain. I am intending to take the story to 35BC after the victory at Sicily when the tide really turned for that little blond thing she married and she was awarded her first statue and her person was made sacrosanct, which has a direct bearing on the way I have shaped the fictional account of her childhood, thus bringing the novel full circle. For those who write (Skarr in particular) - there is a certain amount of satisfaction in seeing a character take shape into a full-blooded person from just a few scraps of historical data: Livia's father, for instance, has more or less run away with me and formed his own character. I intended him to be a cold fish, and he's turned out to be a complex, warm and honourable man who I will be sorry to part with. Her mother I have had to create almost from scratch, but I've had a lot of fun with our Alfidia. I shall be sorry to lose her too, and as we have nothing in our sources to say when, where or how she died, I may even change my mind yet about her end. My purely fictional characters are much easier to deal with as they only have constraints of historical context, not fact. But it is definitely an obsession. When I don't write for a few days, I feel her watching me! It was her birthday recently - I churned out three whole chapters! She is here, and she is keeping an eye on me. I only hope I can do her justice.

Sigmund Freud, the same lovable goofball who gave us the term "penis envy" and Moses and Monotheism. -- Nephele Thank you, Nephele - I wondered if it was indeed the lovable goofball!

Something has just struck me from MPC's post above describing the Narcissistic pesonality. Who defined this? When was it defined? I'll bet it sure as hell wasn't defined when Narcissus was a lad! Or Alexander (whom many of the criteria could also fit) or Caesar. Now, have all the criteria that are cited as signs of this disorder been defined from observation of people exhibiting these signs. Are we chicken or egg here? Or to put it more bluntly, have psychologists looked at people throughout history who 'made a name for themselves' and taken strands of their personality to use as a measure? That is an over-simplification, of course, but I hope you see what I am driving at. This may well belong in another kind of discussion, but I would be grateful for explanations - even in another thread, or PM.

Yes - all this reminds me somewhat of the Turin Shroud business several years ago - I don't know if anyone remembers? Tests were being carried on it to see if it was genuinely the shroud Jesus was allegedly wrapped in. I remember thinking at the time that of course it would not be proved to be so, but that would do nothing to alter people's faith. I really don't see what the point is of all these 'discoveries', but I don't want to get into a row with others to whom it means a lot, so I shall say nothing further as a courtesy to one and all.

Now, I know I have posted something similar to this before - no, I am not going mad - but can I find the damned thread - can I heck? But to sum up, Nephele - I became interested in Rome when I was a little schoolgirl of 11 years, forced into double Latin on a Tuesday morning! My teacher was a tyrant with a Welsh accent, whom I nevertheless ended up adoring and worshipping as if he were Augustus himself. Apart from making us learn all the usual conjugations and declensions by rote, he also devoted one of our five Latin lessons a week to what he called 'Background' - and what has today (in our more enlightened age) become 'Classical Studies'. This included everything from the Persian Wars through to the year of the 4 Emperors, and I was hooked with everything Classical. I can remember particularly thinking that Xerxes sounded like a really interesting guy who I'd like to know - and I actually wished he'd won! (I was a romantic little thing in those days!) Rome itself took even more of a hold when I watched 'I, Claudius' and, whilst loving it, thought to myself - 'Is this right?' So, I started to research for myself, and I was well and truly caught. So - thank you, Derek Southall (my Latin teacher) - living proof that tyranny does have its advantages

Yes, Mosquito - and a similar theory can be found in Balsdon's 'Emperor Gaius'. But we are going to end up going off topic - or I can hear the thundering hooves of PP's horse as he gallops towards us to split this thread into an 'Emperors - Personality' thread.

Help! I hope MPC read my explanation in the Caesar - Personality thread before he saw this! He'll never let me live it down Neil - if you visit the Hora Postilla index and look for the thread entitled 'Imperial Birthday' we started a bit of a discussion on Tiberius' personality there, although that one was not started in so serious a vein. But I'd certainly be happy to contribute to a more in depth discussion if you wish to take it further. Actually - how he has been treated by the ancient sources would make a pretty good topic.

Ah - like Maecenas before me, I seek no political position - I am just a quiet presence behind his Curule Chair! By the way - congratulations to you Gaius - this one had passed me by when I was in the land of non-cyberspace. Who held the sword to Cato's throat?

The Arsenal youngsters played a very good game, Ram. In 2-3 years time they will be the terror of the Premiership. They just need to combine the beautiful passing game with clinical finishing. It's all very well having flair and style, but if you turn back in the penalty box to go for 23 more passes - what happens? A defender takes the ball off your foot, passes it out to a striker of Drogba's quality and boom - the ball is in the other net! The youngester paid for their inexperience yesterday, but even so, it was a riveting match and I am sure they will be a force to be reckoned with in the future.

And I always thought that sign was the age-old classic 'making the sign against evil' that we read so much about.

Cato - the more I read through this thread, the more I realise that the debate in question is nothing at all to do with what I was trying to get it - which was the simple thing of theory versus diagnostics. A doctor could postulate on what a set of symptoms/signs constituted, but if he was any kind of competent medic he would add the rider: 'But I would need to examine the patient before committing myself'. Therefore, anything we try to say about Caesar is theory only, but that does not mean that it has no value (as I said before, in answer to Neil, I have retracted that opening stance of mine). There is a case, however, for saying that I've gone off at a pedantic tangent! What has struck me, however, especially from your posts, is that I also find myself hoist with my own petard! For years I have defended Tiberius because 'I understand him psychologically'. I find myself examining all the evidence about Caligula to see if 'there was a reason for his behaviour'. So - hats off to all you posters who are backing me onto the ropes here..... For me, one of the greatest things about this Forum is that we can read, learn, debate and even be willing to change our stance.

How I agree! I even want to know how they washed up the dishes! And I do not joke. I find myself Googling all kinds of things these days. It is very true that when a civilisation gets a hold of you, you need to know every last detail of the lives involved, from lowest slave to Emperor. It all helps to fill out the picture. Hehe - I wonder why? Could it be something to do with either 'Ben Hur' or 'The Robe' where Tiberius lords it on Capri with his Empress Julia? You see - I can't even remember which film it is - they all merge into one, those epics!

And how on earth would we test the DNA?

:wub: "No, you can't! No, you can't! No, you can't!" (Thank you, Ethel. ) Ethel? I thought it was Betty Hutton!

(Sorry - I cut off the quote before I meant to - Neil wne ton to state that this jaundice coudl have been caused by pancreatic cancer or biliary obstruction due to a more benign cause etc. and that is what is uncertain) Quite - and this is the fundamental element here! Symptoms in medicine are subjective - signs are what are used objectively for a clinician to make his diagnosis. But the signs can be indicative of a great many differential diagnoses. This is the same for a mental diagnosis as it is for a physical one. For instance, I may say to my doctor that I have chest pain - this could be indicative of heart problems, indigestion, GO reflux, myasthenia gravis, aortic aneurysm - and I won't go on, as it is endless. I may also say to my doctor that I ask for a tree when I need bread - this could indicate a mental disorder or an oligodendroglioma. But at least in these cases we have input from the sufferer of the symptoms. But when you try to put onto Caesar some sort of mental disorder for his actual actions, when his only manifestation of these so-called symptoms are witnessed from the observance of someone else - and in most cases, someone who is hostile - are we not getting into murky waters? Are we saying that we can look at anyone in history who may have acted out of accordance with an accepted 'norm' and insist that he/she was mentally ill because of it?

Phew - well I'm not sure I'm ready to sum up just yet, Gaius - I think this still has mileage, and may I say first that I retract my earlier statement of the thread being fruitless (thank you for pointing that out Neil) because it has clearly proved otherwise!

So this is a Roman site, but I must be indulged here. Today I watched my beloved Blues win the Carling Cup against a young Arsenal side that gave us a bloody good run for our money. But all that was nothing. Around the hour mark in the match our Captain, John Terry, was stretchered off after swallowing his tongue and being KO'd for a whole 5 minutes, after a sickening (accidental) injury in the penalty box. Despite being a central defender, he went in for an attacking header and firmly connected with the boot of Arsenal's Diaby, which wrenched his chin back and nearly knocked his head off his shoulders. These things happen, it is football. The Arsenal player responsible was in tears. JT himself, knocked out cold, came round in hospital and could not remember anything about the day at all beyond eating his breakfast. After scans on his neck, which showed it wasn't broken, and brains scans that showed ho haemorrhage, he insisted on going back to the Stadium to catch the end of the celebrations and thank the lads for winning the game for him. There are jokes about Terry in the British Press, and among British football fans. If JT's leg was severed in a match, so the saying goes, he would have the physio sew it back on and he would play on. Beneath the humour there is the truth of the matter: this is a working class hero who cares little for the money he earns - having been at Chelsea since he was a YTS lad of 15 - who bleeds for his team, and will one day, as I said to my daughter today, be prepared to offer his life for a mere football team. It's the stuff heroes are made of. Old-fashioned heroes. The boy is an old-fashioned centre-half who will dive in amongst feet when there are 92 minutes on the clock and his team are winning 4-0 - just to stop the opposition scoring. Among today's mercenaries who come to 'big' clubs so that they can earn

Welcome, Bripus - I think you'll fit in very nicely amongst us all here! I look forward to posting with you.

Bripus - if you can play UK DVDs in Denmark (I think we are the same 'Region') and PM me your address, you can have them. Busted! Yep, you are right, Paul. Anything he can do, I can do better....

Isn't this a bit early for April 1st?

Really? So no one in the ancient world was schizophrenic? No one in the ancient world was depressed? No one in the ancient world had anxiety? Or a nervous breakdown? Did you ever read about Bibulus' complete breakdown after the murder of his sons? In describing Bibulus, should we resort to quaint Victorian concepts like "melancholy"? Are we to assume that Elagabalus was just having a "bad day"? Now, now, Cato - that is not quite what I'm saying (I can't speak for anyone else) and I think you know that. Of course people were schizoid, of course men had cancer etc. Why I said it was pointless to speculate was that even with modern methods of psychoanalysis, diagnostics etc. under the proper clinical settings, it is not that simple to reach a diagnosis. How on earth can we expect to do it from two millennia away? Our ancient sources write of Bibulus - so we can accept it. Our ancient sources write about Caesar's epilepsy (or some such affliction) - so we can accept it. But Mosquito was asking for an analysis of Julius' personality, and in order to 'analyse' that we can only use our modern concepts with our modern prejudices. And for what it is worth, even modern psychoanalytical methods are sometimes dubious. With clinical medicine we are on much surer ground, but even if we were to apply these, we have to rely on symptoms or signs reported by the ancients who may not have had a clear understanding of them in the first place. By saying that it is useless to try and analyse Julius from two millennia away, does NOT equate with my thinking he is beyond moral or medical judgement. I am not leaping to anyone's defence. I should clear up here and now that I, personally, am not Julius's biggest fan! Gus is my man

Have a wonderful day, Lost Warrior!

Thank you, Ursus. This whole discussion is spurious. One cannot apply modern psychoanalytical concepts to a person in the ancient world, and any attempt to do so is fruitless. That way, madness lies.

Caldrail - please could you direct me to the ancient source that says that Gaius hated his praenomen. As for the nickname sticking because every other Roman was called Gaius - I'm not sure I can concur there. No Roman of standing was known by his praenomen - except, one presumes, among his own very close family and friends - therefore having an Emperor actually named 'Gaius' would not cause a problem. Tiberius was known as 'Tiberius' after all - his praenomen. I suppose it's a bit like later Royalty - Kings known by their Christian names etc. My own theory is that the name 'Caligula' was probably never used during his reign, except by his enemies, as a taunt. I think posterity has latched onto it in the same way. The name comes dripping with the traditional picture of a madman. Why should historians use as it as a unique identifer when there was no other emperor called Gaius? There would not be any confusion.