The Augusta

My dear Augustus, I have only just seen this post of yours! Thanks go to our dear Claudia Octavia for reviving the thread... However, as to the answer, I saw that you posted it later on. However... you left much of the scene out OK - trivia for Claudia, Drusus and anyone else: (Hehe a trivia thread may be a good idea for the Baths: 'Claudius', 'Rome', 'Quo bloody Vadis' - whatever you like. And it doesn't just have to be TV/movies) Identify these speakers and the scene. I won't make it easy.... "And what if he refuses?" "Well I should see that he doesn't if I were you. Appeal to his sense of honour. Men find that irresistible."

I feel I have to congratulate Roger Federer for winning yet another epic final to take the Wimbledon crown - 16-14 in the final set against Andy Roddick. I was rooting for Roddick - I love Federer, but I feel he has had enough cracks at the whip and I wanted Roddick to win, especially after the 2004 final between them when Roger totally trounced him. However, having said that, Roger Federer is such a likeable man, and such a fantastic player, that I was happy to see him prevail in the end. I was disappointed to learn that Rafa Nadal had pulled out of this year's Wimbledon, and said then that Roger would win it - no problem. But Andy Roddick did us proud. Our American cousins should be very proud of him. And yet another Wimbledon championship when the men's competition was far more enjoyable than the women's. Please - no more Williams girls. I am becoming very very bored - and I am a tennis fan of some 30 years or so! The prospect of years of Venus versus Serena finals is a very bleak one.

Quite! Do any of us care? Find me the ashes of Augustus and I might get excited....

Wow, Albert! Can I commission an Augustus? Fantastic work - really. You've brought them to life. Incredible talent.

Hehe - I love it! I have always had a penchant for Claudio Gentile - the Juventus/Azzurri defender who made damned sure that if he got a yellow card, the other fella went off on a stretcher! They're all pussies today.

OK - me and the rest of England are confused! The 'Red Devils' has just ONE connotation here - and believe me, they are far from third rate, gods curse 'em! I knew there was a reason I liked you Formosus. A fellow tifosa here.

Did Spain put out their reserves? No offence, but.....

As far as modern examples of training a lefty to be a righty goes - may I mention violinists? Now think about it. Imagine a left-handed chap in the first violins in an orchestra - ouch, my eye! As for antiquity - Ingsoc beat me to it about Tiberius. We do have Suetonius' 'evidence' for that. He must have thought it worth mentioning.

Nooooo, you ruined it! Actually, a little birdy told me that I'm quite wrong and that no spambots have been harmed in the making of this thread. This topic seemingly has dark and mysterious domestic roots. Fear the unknown! ...and now back to your regularly scheduled tangent into cat urine ... I think I need clarification on all these cryptic comments! What is a spambot? Are we being wound up? (Not hard to do with me...) Word of warning to any future jokers - The Augusta takes animals seriously, especially little fluffy feline thingies and huge big predatory feline thingies, so you will always get her to bite.... However, take advantage of her good nature and you may just learn why her favourite animal is a tiger Seriously - has this thread been a joke? Just shows you how preoccupied I am these days....

The Penguin Classics, translated by Ian Scott Kilvert (The Makers of Rome) and Rex Warner (The Fall of the Roman Republic) are still on my shelves, and I've never found the need to go elsewhere. Others may have other opinions, of course. Both are still available from Amazon. These do include his parallel 'Lives' with Greek counterparts to the Roman statesmen. They are cheap, readily available and reliable. I'd go for these.

Wot - I don't think you need us anymore. You are answering your own question. You make some wonderful points in your last post. I also think Maty's response was wonderful, but I think you'll agree that we are all offering avenues in which you can expand the simple question posed in that practice exam paper. So, there you are - it wasn't such a limiting question after all, was it? And for our Ursus - yes - all arts-based students waffle in exams. Some of us have had Firsts for waffling I remember waffling for two hours about Marcus Agrippa's policy in the East back in 1985. What the examiners were looking for was proof that the student had researched the topic - what he or she had to say about it was immaterial. What mattered was that he/she backed up everything with examples from primary and secondary source material. To Wot - your question about what an arts-based student is: the simplest way I can put it is that the science-based student would not think laterally around the question. The arts-based person, trained in constructing an argument and using the text/historical facts - whatever - fit that argument, is a different kettle of fish. The Arts subjects are always open to individual interpretation - I hope Maty agrees with me here. I would include history as an Arts-based subject, although some people may disagree. Let's call it Humanities. Even so, you are always free to expound your own theory - providing you back this up with the evidence. If you believe that Augustus was a transvestite, you can say so - as long as you give evidence that supports this claim (this is an extreme example, but I'm sure you'll see where I'm coming from) Unlike our sainted Maty, it is a little while since I was in the world of Academia in a full-time capacity, but I'm sure the theme still fits. Put it this way - you could approach the exam question in many different ways, but the essential thing is that you construct your essay in such a cast-iron manner that you 'prove' your argument by using examples from the sources. With such an 'open-ended' question as 'What an artist dies in me', I think you are free to set out your theme in the opening paragraph, and this can focus on whatever you like, as it is up to you to interpret that statement in whatever way you like. For example, are we to take it literallly? If so, discuss Nero's position in the world of the Arts. Are we to interpret it as Suetonius' words? If so, let's examine this particular account, and so on. But I'm preaching to the converted. You are clearly an exceptional student (we all know that already) so I'm sure your Nero paper will be a credit to you.

I would write down: Dear doctor, You didn't take composing this test very seriously. Therefore, I choose not to answer very seriously. Yours, ------ Ah, no, Ursus - I have to disagree with you here, as one used to 'arty' professors setting questions. The question is amazingly open-ended - see my reply to Wot above. You see this comes from an Arts based person who is used to digging into the most prosaic statements. I once had - in an English Lit module 'Discuss Keats' theme of transience'. 'Twas easy - choose his four Great Odes in which his theme consistently returns to the ephemeral nature of life and nature and use them to illustrate your argument. Hehe - perhaps it's just me. Arts based papers can be notoriously 'vague' but so are Arts based students....

Quite frankly, Wot, this question invites you to discuss the traditional picture we have of Nero (I'm sure you will read this as I do). The 'dying quote' thus stands for the rather negative summing up of the Princeps' life and administration as we have inherited it from the sources. So, as I would read it (and my pen is already itching to scrawl...) you have total licence to discuss the traditional account and compare it favourably/unfavourably with other evidence you have researched. What's the most famous 'myth' we have of Nero - he 'fiddled while Rome burned'. We all know its nonsense, but this is what the quote is doing. You've already done a bit of digging for yourself by questioning the translation. You're on the right lines. I think PP and me are in the same camp here, with this one. Good luck.

I'll answer you seriously, Charlie, even if these jokers won't Who let this Formosus on the Forum? (Only joking, Formosus - you're a breath of fresh air). Well, Charlie, you just have to scrub. Plenty of hot water and use a normal household cleaner like Flash, perhaps with a tiny, tiny drop of bleach too, or an antibacterial like Dettol. After that, when dry, spray with Febreeze or some other odour buster. You haven't said, however, if your cat is male or female and whether or not he/she is spayed or neutred. If you are living with an entire Tom cat (unneutred male) then you have a big problem. But I guess if your cat is old you are being treated to that ammonia-type smell. It will go eventually if you scrub and spray. But a visit to the vet is in order too. Pussums do not wee indiscriminately unless they are poorly pussums and unable to control their bladders. Get your cat checked out for any signs of kidney failure, because peeing all over the house is, I'm afraid, one of the early warning signs. Good luck. (As for Ursus - he should know better than to poke fun, and should be setting an example to all new members. I think I might complain. )

I am clearly out of step with the news here - which bunch of multinational mercenaries was playing which, and what was the result? Just the Champions League final and FC Barcelona beating Manchester United 2-0 And some of us are cock-a-hoop!! Don't get me wrong - I loathe the bull-murderers as much as anyone (apols to our Spanish members, but Grip should have finished off the Cantabrian campaign (25BC) in true Roman style) but I have been spared the smug faces of the Mancs for yet another year - and we all know they only won last year because JT slipped! When will the media who have orgasms over this bloody team realise they are quite, quite ordinary when compared to the real teams in Europe. Bottom line: the Chels limited Barca to 2 shots on target over two legs. Manure....well, it was there for all to see.... 'We'll do the quadruple' - my backside! I chose to spend the CL final doing some accounting for work while my son gleefully told me on 15 minutes that Barca were 1-0 ahead. I have to say I didn't watch it. I heartily dislike both sides, so I wasn't really bothered who won. I am not accustomed to rubbing salt into my own wounds. Four penalties anyone?....... Here's to Everton on Sunday - Keep the Blue Flag Flying High! ETA: New avatar - I thought it was about time. The Bengal - the epitome of power, grace and beauty. My ultimate ambition is to visit India to see this beauty in his natural habitat before it is too late.

I think Neil was referring to our 'least fave' topics within Roman history. That being said, mine are: 1) Gladiators and all Roman games (with the one exception of Chariot-racing - quite like that one!) - So I'm in agreement with Neil here 2) Again, rather like Neil, I can't say I'm too interested in the men in red skirts and leather... 3) Romano-British history - to be brutally frank. 4) The Empire after the Severans - it all seems very grey to me...

Well, I've never been called over-emotional before....

OK, you guys - if you think your reading is specialised.... Try the Baron and Court Leet Records of Northenden and Etchells 1603-1760, in original manuscript form in the Archives at Manchester Library! I should explain that it was for my family history project which I must now definitely write up before time runs out and I go to join all my ancestors in the big Smithy in the sky. Of course, I can't quite get the old tree back to Roman times..... And for light relief, after peering at all that 17th century secretarial script, my bus book this week is a totally rubbish novel by Margaret Dickinson, set at the turn of the last century. Predictable, not brilliantly written, and full of two-dimensional characters - but my brain can't cope with much more at the moment. This little ditty is like Catherine Cookson set in Lincolnshire - just to give you all an idea! However, on my 'To Read' list for next week's bus journeys is Levick's Vespasian - which looks nice and accessible to ease me back into the world of academia. I'll let you know how this one pans out.

And dull, Calders - she's so Dull! I remember slogging through The Mists of Avalon years ago and giving up half way.

I've never actually read Wolfram's epic, but the Wagnerian Music Drama Parsifal is among my favourites - but then I'm an unashamed Wagnerian.

Oh, congratulations, Doc - our first true Julio-Claudian woman!

I think we're in a win-win situation here, Maty. Your argument (and Caldrail's) lies in the first phrase of this sentence; mine, Sylla's and Neph's lies in the second However, to get back to the original post, i.e. using the Roman Revolution (to use the age-old Symism) as a model for modern societies/political systems whatever, do these deeply-rooted inherent human traits play a part in that? After all, the system which evolved from the administration of Caesar and Augustus was largely a political system - certainly that is the tenor of Syme's work, so I still think that there are too many differences between society in Classical times and 21st century society to draw any kind of useful parallel. But we could go round in circles on this one, and after another horrendous day at work, I think I just want to visit the Baths.

Well done to you, Aurelia - a true individual. I take my hat off to you

And this is the huge stumbling block, and the difference between us, Calders. No - they are not! Each individual is a product of his/her society, which society helps shape his/her ambitions and motives. Are you saying that a Roman woman's motives and ambitions are the same as an 18th century Swedish woman's, or a 21st century English woman's for that matter? Same for the men. Roman men were imbued with a sense of history, duty to the state and Rome's destiny. But was this ALL Romans? Or just those in government? Do we even have evidence to make an informed analysis of the urban poor and their motives/ambitions? Sweeping generalisations do not help us here.

Me too, Neph! I like the fact that I scored higher on dominance than 92% of my peers! I do try and tell them here that autocrats rule for me Now, I've proved it.