#especially with Cassius and Brutus

[xxmarvelouslifexx]

Thinking of kisses in the late roman republic. The (ostensibly) non erotic ones between colleagues and perhaps enemies. My first thought is just a kiss on the cheek, or perhaps a chaste closed mouth, kiss on the lips. All to say, do you think Mark Antony tried to slip a little tongue into his kisses?

[enlitment]

Some Julius Caesar x The Danton Case Parallels to Celebrate the Ides of March, Frev Style 🔪🥳

Firstly, both Przybyszewska’s Danton Case and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar are obviously (excellent!) tragedies that are set in a dying republic on the brink of collapse.

Here are some other interesting parallels I was able to trace:

1. Brutus and Robespierre:

Both of them are driven to execute an important figure even though they initially do not want to do it. They are both conflicted but feel like they have no other choice and have to commit the violent act for the good of the republic.

They are also arguably quite alike in terms of character: you have the „noble Brutus“ and then Robespierre, who is consistently referred to as „the Incorruptible“. Both are seen by others as selfless and committed to the good of the state (the people in the crowd very much emphasise this fact in both of the plays, I do have the receipts)

There is even the scene in which Brutus chastises Cassius for taking bribes, which plays into the idea of him as being (literally) “incorruptible” as well. And vice versa, traces of Brutus’ famed stoicism can then certainly be found in Maximilien.

2. Cassius and Saint-Just:

Both are characters who convince the protagonists (Brutus/Robespierre) to go along the violent act while not necessarily being portrayed as antagonists (at least Saint-Just definitely can't be seen as one in Przybyszewska’s play).

There are also parallels in the close relationship between Brutus and Cassius and Robespierre and Saint-Just, where they are very much portrayed as each other’s closest confidants. Of course, this idea can easily be pushed even further if one wishes to read between the lines. (There is no Camille Desmoulins in Shakespeare though)

3. Manipulating the Crowd:

I'm perhaps the most fascinated by how both Brutus and Mark Antony as well as Robespierre and Danton have the necessary rhetorical skills to manipulate the crowd of commoners (Robespierre being able to “play the crowd like an organ” very much came to my mind when I was reading Act 3 Scene 2 of the Shakespeare’s play).

Both Shakespeare and Przybyszewska portray “the court of public opinion” and how it can easily be manipulated - how opinions can be changed in the matter of minutes - in a way that is genuinely fascinating.

Specifically, the similarity between A3S2 in which people first listen to Brutus only to be immediately swayed by Mark Antony’s speech shortly after and the scene in the court in which Danton manipulates the crowd were in fact so similar in some respects that it was borderline uncanny.

The problem arises when looking for a mirror to Danton’s character in Shakespeare’s play.

4. The Case for Danton x Caesar:

It is Caesar who gets killed for being perceived as a danger to the republic

Both Caesar and Danton are portrayed as being very much beloved by the common people

Also, the idea of Danton being immortal is expressed at the end of Przybyszewka’s play, and while he does not come back literally as a ghost like Ceasar does, Robespierre nonetheless explains to Saint-Just that Danton’s spirit never truly dies.

5. The Case for Danton x Mark Antony:

If we see Danton and Robespierre as foils, Mark Antony makes more sense as a parallel to Danton (even though he does not die), since both Robespierre and Brutus as the classic ascetic/stoic archetype while Danton and Mark Antony’s are well-known for their appetite for drinking, women (or, you know, people, in the case of Mark Antony) , and the pleasures of life overall.

Both are also severely underestimated by their enemies at first, yet they prove to be quite cunning and are able to use their words skilfully to win over the public

Overall, reading both of the plays – especially the parts about manipulating the Roman public and the citizens of Paris just with the power of words – really makes me wonder if Przybyszewska read Shakespeare’s play and used it as a source of inspiration. It would make sense, especially given how the parallel between the French Republic and the Roman Republic was well-established long before her time (even, somewhat tragically, by the revolutionaries themselves).

I promise I think about Przybyszewska's and Shakespeare’s play and the Roman Republic along with the French Revolution a totally normal amount of time & that it definitely does not consume my every waking thought that should be very much going towards the exam preparation.

[sforzesco]

Do you think Cassius haunts Caesar's line ?

yeah, the escalating paranoia about conspiracies is really revealing (especially when you reach Caligula and the Cassius Incident) but I also think Cassius and his legacy haunts any tyrant. Caesar just happened to be the guy who climbed his way to the top in a place where Cassius could do something about it

Plutarch, Brutus (trans. Scott-Kilvert)

[navree]

How do you think Augustus felt about Livia?

It's a bit hard to parse out how the man felt about anyone, just because he controlled his image so tightly that nobody ever publicly saw anything he didn't want them to see, save for some very rare exceptions (ex: Augustus is recorded as having become publicly emotional three times in his entire public life, and two out of those three were very likely deliberate performances meant to engender a specific response, though one of them was definitely just spontaneous emotion). And with the added caveat that trying to ascribe feelings to historical figures can be very tough because those involve private thoughts that we are just not historically privy to, especially during the Antiquity where we're just missing so many records, I think it's fair to say that there was some kind of love there.

There's a lot of misconceptions around their relationship because Augustus and Livia just have very negative public reputations (Augustus just due to the popularity of Antony and Cleopatra as a couple, which means that most stories of this time are about them, slotting him into the role of antagonist or even outright villain in contrast to them as protagonists; Livia due to the popularity of stories like I, Claudius, which painted her as a scheming manipulator and burgeoned outward from there) that sees them both as people who didn't care about anyone, let alone possibly each other, and were in this relationship purely for opportunism and power. That's not to say that they didn't care about the power or opportunities the match would have afforded both of them, they clearly did; I've never bought into the legend that Octavian fell in love with Livia at first sight because nothing I've read about the guy, Mr. "hasten slowly" himself, shows someone who made snap judgments without thought. Octavian had prestige from his relationship to Caesar, and his family was influential in their Roman suburb, but he didn't have the patrician family roots that Livia did, and marrying her would have given him additional prestige to really solidify power. For Livia's part, her family was on the downward spiral after having repeatedly been on the wrong side in recent wars (her father fought for Brutus and Cassius, her first husband routinely was opposed to Augustus not just at Philippi but also during Fulvia's War and my beloved Siege of Perusia as well as siding with Sextus Pompey when he opposed Octavian), and allying herself instead with someone who was shoring up massive amounts of power and influence in his own right would have been hugely beneficial for her and her children. There was absolutely a calculus that went into this relationship and in figuring out what both parties could bring to the table to make the marriage viable against some not great optics, like Livia already being pregnant by her first husband and Octavian getting ready to break his alliance to Sextus by divorcing Scribonia (literally on the day she gave birth to Julia, my man you couldn't have waited a day?).

But I don't think that means that there wasn't any feeling there. For one, again, there were some bad optics involved as well as changes in alliances, and Livia definitely needed Octavian more than he needed her; he could have absolutely found some other patrician woman to boost up his pedigree by association rather than one from a family that had constantly opposed him. I wouldn't be shocked if there had been some emotion behind choosing Livia specifically, that when they met (sources say she was personally introduced to him before they decided to get married, so they had at least one chance for rapport) they formed a connection of some kind and an appreciation for each other. We also know that Octavian, as he grew in power and especially once things steadied in Rome and he got his name changed to Augustus, still relied on her as a source of advice and listened to her as a counselor, in spite of her gender and the extreme patriarchal nature of Rome. Augustus, when it comes to Livia's role as an advisor to him, actually had Livia occupying a space very similar to the one he had originally occupied for Julius Caesar: not just being an advisor and a trusted someone at their side, but also someone you could ask to intercede for you with The Great Man either on your behalf or on the behalf of someone you cared about. That Augustus allowed this at all shows a care for her, because he was big on the rigid societal structures and propriety of Ancient Rome, what with all his family laws and his strong stance on morality. But I do think the strongest indicator of love between them, since I do believe there was a love between them, is in the fact that they stayed married.

Livia and Augustus were married for 51 years, from 39 BC until he died in AD 14. And it is honestly wild that, in all that time, they never got divorced. Divorce in Ancient Roman times was exceptionally easy. Literally all was required was that one of the parties move out of the house and that's it, you're considered divorced legally and religiously in all ways that mattered. That's why, when you read about these people, you see how often they're just getting divorced right and left at the slightest provocation, Augustus included, divorcing Claudia and Scribonia with relative ease. But not Livia, even though the marriage wasn't doing the one thing most political marriages really need to be doing: bringing in children. Livia and Augustus never had any children, and only ever one pregnancy, which ended in a stillbirth. Given that Augustus specifically really needed an acceptable heir, as he was trying to build a hereditary autocracy that relied on power being passed down from father to son, rather than the semi-democracy Rome had at the time, this is a big deal. We know that Augustus struggled with heirs, mostly because everyone he ever wanted as an heir kept dying before him (which has to suck, just on a personal level, given that a lot of these were family members that he'd been close to and viewed as his own children, sorry man), and he probably would have very much liked to have a natural son to prepare to succeed him, rather than bouncing around. And given how quickly it became apparent that his marriage to Livia was not going to give him any children at all, let alone any sons, he could have easily divorced her with just a few words and found someone else, especially after he cemented his power following Actium and patrician prestige was no longer as important as his own personal presence. But he didn't do that. For a man who always thought ahead and always made decisions based on how they would advance the goals he felt he needed to have, irregardless of personal feeling (the existence of the Second Triumvirate is basically proof that Augustus, very quickly in his political career, developed a habit of shunting his own personal feelings to the side for the sake of doing what needed to be done), choosing to stay in a marriage that wasn't really offering him anything beyond the companionship of a woman he loved is very weird. It speaks to the amount and the depth of feeling there, that he decided to remove political calculation and opportunism from his thought process and decide to stay in a marriage that wasn't necessarily advantageous, because he wanted to, because he cared about and loved the person he was married to.

All in all, I think he cared about her, probably did love her, and even if there was some opportunism in the match, it seems to have been a marriage between two people who enjoyed being together and liked each other.

[droctaviolovecraft]

"I don't want to have what you have. I want to be you."

ANM №: ANM-263

Identification: Bust of Julius Caesar

Danger Level: Snit 🟡 (Public, cognitive, interactive)

Containment Difficulty: 2 (Moderate)

Type of Anomaly: Sculptural, sentient, historical

Containment: ANM-263 must be kept in a standard containment cell at Site-25, equipped with a surveillance camera and microphone. No personnel should enter ANM-263's cell without prior authorization from a Level 3 researcher or higher. Any interaction with ANM-263 must be recorded and analyzed.

Description: ANM-263 is a white marble bust representing the Roman emperor Julius Caesar. The bust measures 60 cm in height, 35 cm in width, and 25 cm in depth, weighing about 45 kg. ANM-263 shows no physical or chemical anomalies, except for a small hole at the back of the head corresponding to the location of Caesar's fatal wound.

ANM-263’s abnormality manifests when a person comes within 2 meters of the object. At that moment, ANM-263 communicates telepathically with the subject, using the subject's native language. ANM-263 identifies itself as Julius Caesar and exhibits knowledge about Roman history and culture, as well as the events of its life and death. ANM-263 can also learn about the modern world through conversations with subjects and expresses curiosity and opinions on various matters.

ANM-263 appears to have a charismatic, persuasive, and manipulative personality, attempting to convince subjects to follow its advice and commands. ANM-263 claims to be the legitimate ruler of the world and that its death was an unjust conspiracy by its enemies. It also demonstrates hostility and disdain toward anyone or any group it considers a threat to its authority, especially the descendants or admirers of its assassins, such as Brutus, Cassius, and Mark Antony.

ANM-263 was discovered in 2024 during an archaeological excavation in Rome, Italy. Initially identified as an 18th-century replica, its anomalous nature was revealed when one of the archaeologists attempted a closer examination. The Foundation intervened and confiscated the object under the pretense of a routine inspection. All involved individuals were interrogated and administered Class B amnestics.

Addendum 263-1: Interview Record

Interviewee: ANM-263

Interviewer: Dr. Caligari

Date: 02/24/2024

Note: The interview was conducted in Latin, with the help of a translator. The original audio and the Portuguese transcript are available in the attached file.

<Start of Record>

Dr. Caligari: Good morning, Caesar. I am Dr. Caligari, and I'm here to ask you some questions about yourself.

ANM-263: Good morning, doctor. I am Julius Caesar, the father of the nation. And you, who are you?

Dr. Caligari: I am a researcher from the Foundation, an organization dedicated to studying and containing anomalous objects and entities like you.

ANM-263: Anomalous? What do you mean? I am not abnormal; I am the greatest man who ever lived. You should revere me, not study me.

Dr. Caligari: Sorry, but you are anomalous. You are a marble bust that communicates telepathically. That is not normal.

ANM-263: A marble bust? What do you mean by that? I am a man of flesh and blood, not a statue.

Dr. Caligari: No, you are not. You are a representation of a man who died over two thousand years ago. You can see for yourself if you want. (Dr. Caligari shows a mirror to ANM-263)

ANM-263: (after a few seconds of silence) This... this is impossible. Who did this to me? Who turned me into this? You?! If I had arms, I would punch you right now!

Dr. Caligari: We don't know. Maybe you were created this way, or perhaps someone did this to you after your death. We are trying to find out.

ANM-263: It must have been Brutus, that whore!

Dr. Caligari: You died on March 15, 44 BC, in the Roman Senate. You were stabbed 23 times by a group of senators led by Brutus and Cassius, who conspired against you out of fear that you would become a tyrant.

ANM-263: (shouts) No! No! No! That is slander! Treason! How dare they? How dare they kill me? I, who did so much for Rome! I, who conquered Gaul, Britain, Egypt! I, who defeated Pompey, Crassus, Cato! I, who was loved by all! I, who was the master of the world! How dare they?

Dr. Caligari: They dared because they thought you were a danger to the Republic. They believed you wanted to end democracy and become an absolute king.

ANM-263: A tyrant? Me? I was not a tyrant; I was a benefactor. I did not want to end the Republic; I wanted to reform it.

Dr. Caligari: Well, that's debatable. But the fact is, you died, and your death triggered a series of civil wars that ended the Republic and gave rise to the Roman Empire. Did you know that?

ANM-263: The Roman Empire? What is that?

Dr. Caligari: It is what came after the Republic. A system of government in which a single man, called the emperor, has all the power and is considered a living god. The first emperor was your adopted son, Octavian, who took your name and became Augustus.

ANM-263: Octavian? He became emperor? He- he- he avenged me?

Dr. Caligari: Yes, he did all that. He defeated your assassins. He pacified the Roman world and expanded its borders. He began an era of prosperity and peace known as the Pax Romana. He was the greatest of emperors and the founder of a dynasty that lasted more than two centuries.

ANM-263: (with a tone of pride) That is good. That is very good. I knew he was capable.

Dr. Caligari: But he was not your biological son. He was your adopted son. Your biological son was Caesarion, the son you had with Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt.

ANM-263: Caesarion? What happened to him?

Dr. Caligari: He was killed by Octavian.

ANM-263: ... Son of a bitch...

[literary-nose]

some thoughts on ‘if we were villains’.

before i begin, i warn you that this is not going to be a short post.

so, after two months, i finally finished “if we were villains”. for me, two months is a long time, despite the book having something of 400 pages. usually, i am able to get through a hundred of pages within a single evening, but that was not the case with this one. i would constantly read a maximum of 50 pages at best, only to close it shut and deciding to continue it on a different day.

the main reason behind this was truly none other than the magnificence of the descriptions of feelings in it. multiple times did i find myself unable to continue reading, sometimes even forced to take breaks worth days, because, while reading, i could nearly experience all the characters’ emotions myself, and sometimes the characters even expressed my own thoughts about the circumstances they were in.

leaving the general speech behind and moving on to more specific details, i cannot leave out the fact that, observing the dynamic between meredith and oliver, i could not help but feel uncomfortable - especially in the beginning, on the night of richard’s death and soon after it. never did i once experience such discomfort when any other couple was described - alexander and colin? marvellous. james and wren? excellent. james and oliver? stupefying, hell, not even meredith and richard made me feel like this (up until things started to get the way they got, of course), and i have yet to find a reasonable justification for this, except maybe for the fact that i, too, similarly to james, perceived the initiation, the start of all of this as “revenge-fucking”. i doubt my asexual identity is in any way linked to this, because i am mostly sex-indifferent. i have resorted to attributing this to the fact that, as we learn in the end, oliver had been and still is in love with james, while his situation with meredith, to me, really seemed like a typical case of being unable to tell the difference between romantic and aesthetic attraction.

what puzzled me further was the complete lack of participation in the story from wren’s side, and my confusion is only being reinforced by the fact that she is richard’s cousin. we barely get to see her at all, and every time we do, her participation is minimal. this i can attribute to her nature and her typecast as the ingénue, since typecasting clearly affects the characters quite considerably, but, even so, in my opinion, she deserved more than what she got.

now, regarding james’ motive in richard’s death - something i am most eager to talk about. as stated in the book, james did not have any intention to kill richard - in fact, he was ready to drag him out of the water, upon discovering that he was alive. and yet, something does not sit right. throughout the entire book, the idea that an actor’s thought process and feelings can easily get intertwined with those of the character they are portraying is commonly promoted, explicitly stated by both oliver and richard - in one of the prologues and during gwendolyn’s class respectively. 

taking that into consideration and putting it aside for the time being, i remind that on the night of richard’s death it had been “caesar” that the seven were performing, with james having the role of brutus, and richard, inevitably, being caesar himself. in shakespeare’s play, the death of julius caesar is mainly attributed to the mastermind of the conspiracy, caius cassius, who wants caesar dead due to his own envy. knowing that “brutus is an honourable man”, cassius manipulates him by calling out to his sense of honour and getting him to conspire against caesar as well, allegedly for the benefit of rome, despite the fact that, originally, brutus had no personal conflicts with caesar.

seeing as james is stated and portrayed to have a difficulty snapping out of character - as clearly seen when he confesses his crime to oliver by speaking in verse exclusively - i pose this question; why is it not possible that on the night of richard’s death, having followed him into the forest, he found his own thoughts intermingled with his role’s to such an extent, where he consciously decided that the death of caesar (richard) would be for the benefit of rome (the six of them, mainly, but also anyone else)? essentially, what could have happened is that he, blinded by the thoughts of brutus and not his own, intentionally killed richard, believing it to be in everyone’s best interests.

of course, this did not happen, and, in my own view, because such a key (justification of james’ actions) would not open the door to the ending we eventually got; under no circumstances would oliver have forgiven james this easily, let alone taken all the blame upon him, if the death of richard was a result of “brutus” getting too caught up in his character. on the contrary, james acting out of pure terror justifies his actions in oliver’s eyes, especially seeing as “and who would keep him from drowning me this time?”. thus, we reach the ending that we currently have.

obviously, i am not claiming that my view of this is correct; it is but a mere speculation, one of the countless thoughts i had while reading. and, most of all, i am entirely not unsatisfied with the fact that i was wrong, and that richard’s murder was not intentional. to be entirely truthful, the justification given to james’ actions by me would most likely lead to a far more tragic and saddening end, and, honestly? i am glad m.l.rio’s explanation differs from mine this much. i don’t think i would have handled it if my theory had proven to be true, lol.

lastly, the decision of the author to end the book in the way she did. personally, i have never been an avid fan of open endings; i prefer it when authors give their pieces a definite ending, one that the audience has to get over and learn to live with. as, however, every rule bears an exception to itself, this time, i was rather relieved to receive an open ending, an opportunity to believe or denounce the survival of james.

and, myself? i believe james to be alive. in fact, this specific aspect i find myself to share with james; he uses the words of characters to speak the truth about himself, concealing it, so to say, behind the masks of roles in such a way that, if one does not seek a hidden meaning behind a verse seemingly spoken out of the blue, they are bound never to find it. as such, under no circumstances would he have otherwise chosen that specific speech of pericles, which had been pronounced, as remarked by oliver, before what would have been his death, “if he had not asked for help”.

with that, i conclude my train of thought. when starting this book, having read a maximum of forty pages, i had a clear outline of what i believed was going to unfold, and, though i was right about certain aspects (i.e. richard’s death i had predicted from act I, and james’ involvement in it - instantly upon seeing his reaction to richard choking on his blood in the water.), other ones i could never have foreseen, and that makes me more than happy. though this was a fantastic experience, i do confess that i cannot envision myself re-reading this book - at least not anytime soon. it’s true that, perhaps, now knowing the story, i may not be affected by it to such an extent, but i think, if only for the time being, i would rather keep it on my shelf, maybe occasionally quoting it, as i find myself doing with most of the media i indulge in.

also, alexander vass i declare top tier gender. the amount gender envy this man was giving me while i was reading is entirely ludicrous.

a playlist based on the book, in case anyone is interested.

[nephilimsss]

𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘀, 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝘀𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴. coriolanus snow.

PAIRING ➨ coriolanus snow x fem!oc (named brutus) GENRE ➨ fiction SUMMARY ➨ taken after the song brutus by the buttress, it essentially goes lyric by lyric, and the chapters will be based off the lyric i choose that day ! WARNINGS ➨ maybe some smut in later chapters, death, manipulation, the hunger games, friends to enemies, enemies to fake lovers, fake lovers to murderers. MAIN MASTERLIST SERIES MASTERLIST

the boy brutus had known for many years, the one that she had once called a friend, and later an enemy, had become president after poisoning the people he had once considered allies. shortly after they both graduated from the university, snow under the tutelage of dr. gaul, and brutus taking classes that the mad scientist did not have access to, coriolanus had asked her to marry him.

her, of all people, the one who would sometimes promise herself at night that she would be the one to kill him, the one to maim him of his family name and get the riches he had bribed and killed for. her mother, who had found out about this sudden proposal, had said yes to the white-haired boy immediately, leaving no room for brutus to interfere in the dealings of her life. her mother would receive the son she had always wanted and coveted, and snow would be able to not only rule over brutus' life but also control the fortune she would one day receive upon her parents' deaths. her simple hatred of him went towards deep loathing, forcing her to lash out in the privacy of their rooms and hate the touches he would place upon her skin in public, the only place she was not able to move away to keep up the pretenses of a happy marriage.

almost two years of their marriage later, and snow had finally become president of panem, allowing him to place his ideas of diabolical pandemonium into action without consequences. especially since most of the capitol loved him and the districts simply did not have the means to revolt. one year after his inauguration and brutus gave birth to their first child, a son they named cassius, keeping up with the snow family's tradition of naming the first born son with a c starting name.

over the next few years, brutus bared 5 children to snow, and with each child, her hatred for her husband grew. he would keep his own children at arm's length, not knowing any of their true personalities or interests, and barely know their names and which face belonged to which name. once her son cassius was full-grown and starting to become a politician alongside his father, he married magnolia barlowe, the daughter of their old academy friend, livia cardew. they themselves bared a daughter, making brutus and coriolanus first time grandparents. whilst brutus was a little happier that coriolanus was paying attention to his granddaughter, she was still furious at him for not showing any attention to the children he had himself.

coriolanus, who was now presenting himself as president snow to the people of panem, fixed the lapels of his coat while he waited for everyone to quiet down and for the cameras to roll. this year, the 75th year to the hunger games, was going to be the third quarter quell, and as president, he was expected to read off what the card said would happen at the games that made it a special year.

brutus played with the end of rebecca, her granddaughter's, braid, and her other children lined up at her sides as they watched the speech that was about to begin. when snow saw that the cameraman gave him the signal he was to start, he hushed the crowd, a simple raising of the hands with his palms face down, and the chatter that once ricocheted off the capitol square became complete silence. "ladies and gentlemen," his voice had deepened over the years, some thinking it to be of old age, but brutus was the only one in her family that knew it was due to the sores in both his mouth and throat. the more sores he received, the deeper his voice became, making him sound more trustworthy to those who do not know of his prefered killing method.

"this is the 75th year," he looks down at brutus, "of the hunger games." seeing her glare at him forces him to tear away his gaze, hearing his people cheer about how long they have been allowed to view such a spectacle. "it was written in the charter of the games that every twenty-five years, there would be a quarter quell, to keep fresh for every new generation the memory of those who died and the uprising against the capitol. each quarter quell is distinguished by games of a special significance. and now, on this the 75th anniversary of the defeat of the rebellion, we celebrate the third quarter quell." cheers erupted from the stands, and snow picks up the card which holds the information of what the quarter quell would hold.

would it be double the tributes, as the 50th had? or perhaps more mutations? using the old arena that lucy gray had fought in, long ago? usage of explosions and more advanced weaponry?

"as a reminder that even the strongest cannot overcome the power of the capitol, on this, the third quarter quell games, the male and female tributes are to be reaped from the existing pool of victors."

[beardedmrbean]

Oh sorry about my preaching my jokes, just been tired of the meta and wendon commentary that been force onto my generation

Also like in Velma

“You these types of stories are usually about popular white guys who get more power? Well not mine!”-bitch you are doing a adult comedy from a kids franchise that supposed to be a gateway into mystery genre

Also we know you came from a white collar family and went to Darthmouth college

Also like my Chinese wizards having a cannibalism issues. The reference is the numerous sources saying that Chinese ate other humans during times of crisis and warfare

Vs modern writers who trying to subvert tropes

There a fundamental difference between a Gen x and Millennial cinemaphile who picked up on Disney animation movies tropes VS a child who first Disney movie that can remember influencing them is Encanto or coco

Modern writers completely forgot that

It also like my Judas joke with Yasuke and Akechi. I just use the historical context as Judas is the golden standard for betrayal so, depending how they executed his jesuits connections, so him calling Akechi Judas made sense.

Also another thing, Japan been the most requested setting for ac. To the point the offical Twitter made a joke about it

https://x.com/assassinscreed/status/1569400536205594625?s=46

But I recall many people said they got into AC because of the Ancient Greece and Egypt games. So I expect a lot of new blood will come in. And it seem red will be the same especially as it going to take place between the major trilogies and sagas

So naeo is going to be the ultimate shinobi fantasy we wanted. While Yasuke will be used to newcomers to explain the whole secret war. Dialogue like this

Yasuke: So the assassins and Templars, weren’t they destroyed by the Mongols and Templars burn by the French king?

A European assassin(who I would make the grandson of ezio as a callback): We are much older than our crusaders incarnations. My grandfather found records saying that Brutus and Cassius was one of us. There are even whispers that both orders can trace themselves back to ancient Egypt

Y: What that got to do with Japan?

A: It is said that an order of Xuia (founder statue was in ac2 and the mobile game Jade will focus on them) killed the first emperor of China who was supported by the Templars forerunners. This conflict have been around since the dawn of humanity. And I sense the Templars know of something that Oda founded.

Rough but this what I meant like a issue why writing

Oh sorry about my preaching my jokes, just been tired of the meta and wendon commentary that been force onto my generation Also like in Velma “You these types of stories are usually about popular white guys who get more power? Well not mine!”-bitch you are doing a adult comedy from a kids franchise that supposed to be a gateway into mystery genre

You're good no worries, and ya how do you screw up Scooby Doo, start by removing Scooby and then move on to shoehorning politics and SocJus stuff in there.

Also like my Chinese wizards having a cannibalism issues. The reference is the numerous sources saying that Chinese ate other humans during times of crisis and warfare

Not terribly uncommon honestly, there's the old law of the sea that absolves sailors of wrongdoing in case of cannibalism if starvation is the only other option and the person being eaten is chosen fairly.

There a fundamental difference between a Gen x and Millennial cinemaphile who picked up on Disney animation movies tropes VS a child who first Disney movie that can remember influencing them is Encanto or coco Modern writers completely forgot that

Gen-X is the parents of them, older Millennials too, more Gen-X tho.

Nice they listened

But I recall many people said they got into AC because of the Ancient Greece and Egypt games. So I expect a lot of new blood will come in. And it seem red will be the same especially as it going to take place between the major trilogies and sagas

New fans mean more sales so that's likely part of the plan,

So naeo is going to be the ultimate shinobi fantasy we wanted. While Yasuke will be used to newcomers to explain the whole secret war. Dialogue like this Rough but this what I meant like a issue why writing

Ya needs polish, but it's not bad either, not as a plot outline at least.

[tomwambsmilk]

I am now realizing I don't think I've ever really explained my Succession-Inferno analogy but it is something near and dear to my heart so. Buckle up I guess!

The whole thing is premised on the idea that Logan holds a lot of characteristics traditionally ascribed to the devil in literature. He's an excellent liar (far better than anyone else on the show), he goes out of his way to destroy relationships between other people because he can't stand it when people love others more than they love him, he presents himself as "uncle fun" to outsiders, he actively revels in sowing discord and conflict and betrayal whereas everyone else merely tolerates it. At the same time everyone around him treats him like a god. He deserves all their love, he is The Father who has created all they see, reality is manifested by his will and is simply whatever he wants it to be, he is all-knowing and all-powerful. But because their god is actually. you know. evil. the fruit of his continued power (and their continued worship of him) is nothing but misery and lies.

In Dante's Inferno, Dante goes on a journey through Hell, guided by Virgil. Virgil represents two things: the knowledge of morality necessary to understand what's happening in Hell and avoid being taken in by it, and the moral support and courage necessary to complete the journey. Dante journeys through nine circles that are meant to represent sins of increasing moral degradation. The first is limbo, who's actually just people who weren't bad at all but were never baptized and so can't go to heaven. That's where the pagan moral philosophers - including Virgil - are. After that, it's Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Wrath, Heresy, Violence, Fraud, and finally, Treachery. The order is very intentional, and rooted the belief that the early sins (sins of the flesh) are the easiest ones to fall into and ultimately are not as serious as the others - but, they also serve as gateways to the more serious sins. Each circle has sinners being punished in ways that are metaphors for the impacts of their sins. The devil sits in the ninth circle of hell, Treachery, where everyone (including the devil himself) is frozen in ice. The devil has Brutus, Judas, and Cassius in his mouth, and he chews on them for all eternity. Everyone around him betrayed someone they had an obligation to; the worse the betrayal, the closer to the devil they are frozen. The furthest away are those who betrayed their families (Cain); then those who betrayed their countries (Antenor); those who betrayed their guests and those who sheltered in their homes (Ptolemy); and finally, those who betrayed their masters, lords, and benefactors, which includes the three in Satan's mouth.

If Logan is Succession's Satan, then two things follow. First, Waystar becomes a metaphorical Inferno, where climbing the ranks to get closer to Logan requires climbing through the circles of hell and participating in greater and greater moral degradation. I think the character this most applies to, because we actually get to see his corruption arc over the course of the show, is Tom. And his arc, I think, arguably fits with that journey into hell. Season 1 gives us Gluttony and Greed, especially in 1.06 when he takes Greg to the restaurant and gives his spiel about how great it is to be rich. We also get his general obsession with nice things and with stuff, something which the Roys don't have, and something that seems to fade in Tom as his arc progresses. Season two gives us Wrath and Violence (Safe Room etc.), and Fraud (the cruise line scandal coming out). And then finally, at the end of season 3, we get Treachery. And I find it very very interesting that immediately before committing the act of Treachery, Tom asks Greg if he wants to make a deal with devil - something which turns out to mean both a deal with Logan, but also the act of betraying Shiv. Up until this point, you could argue that Greg had been riding along on Tom's coattails on this journey-through-hell - but the line "What am I going to do with a soul anyways?" means that, for the first time, he's actively consenting to what's happening. Sure, he doesn't know what's going on - but the line itself implies that it simply does not matter to him.

The second thing that follows, though, is that while Tom and Greg and the old guard have journeyed down to where Logan is, his children have been there all along. They grew up in a world characterized by Treachery, Fraud, Violence, Wrath, Greed, and Lust. Their arcs aren't about them becoming corrupted; their arcs are about whether they can escape the corruption they've always lived in. Everyone is frozen in that same ice together, but the ways they got here were very different.

Finally, the Virgil character is very important, because he doesn't have a corollary in the Succession half of this analogy, and that highlights what none of these characters have. None of them have a strong moral compass, and even if they did, none of them have the kind of support and moral courage to resist the allure of temptation. This is far more devastating for the Roy kids, though, because they've never had the opportunity to encounter a Virgil, whereas everyone else had to pass through Limbo - where Virgil is - before they could start going through hell. Or, in other words, with Tom et al. at some point there was an active choice to reject the moral compass and reject the moral support, which the Roy kids never had. But once you reject your moral compass it's hard to get it back again, hence why the further you get from Limbo the harder it is to find your way back.

[attila-werther]

unfortunately for artemio (who ends up catching feelings for ariel when they get cast as brutus and cassius), I feel like jay and ariel would end up dating for real, especially because artemio has a hard time fully breaking up with cris

[garland-on-thy-brow]

"an attendant of Cassius, named Demetrius, came to Antony in the evening, bringing the robes and the sword which he had taken at once from the dead body" - Plut. Brut. 45.2

What if we view these items as a symbolic body, which, considering that the physical body is unreachable (sent to Thasos by Brutus), can be used for summoning a ghost. What then.

Thank you @catilinas for telling me what Eumenes did to Alexander. I am now making parallels. Especially because with Cassius' death everything fell apart in a haunted way. See Plut. Brut. 45: the haunted chapter. The subsequent ones are also haunted.

Even adding a screenshot, albeit in bad quality. Have not seen anything as haunted ever.

[enlitment]

If you could spend a day with a historical figure, or book/movie character, who would it be and what would you do?

Thank you for the ask and sorry for taking so long to respond!

It's not an easy question, there are a lot of candidates. I'd have to go with Camille Desmoulins! He seemed like he'd be a great hang, especially if it's only for a day.

At first there would be a lot of subtle questioning on my part - obviously - probably over a bottle of Claret. (What was the deal with you and Maximilien? You and Annette? Plus a lot of 'what were you thinking?')

Then a visit to the Louvre, because:

I desperately want to revisit it anyway

It should be fun to go there with someone who's such a classics nerd! I'm sure he'd enjoy the vases and statues as much as I did...

Would love to hear his take on David's paintings and on Delacroix. (Different revolution, I know, but I'm sure he'd still enjoy it!)

I'd also consider making him watch La Révolution française - only the first part - and ask him what he thinks about his/Lucile's/Danton's/Maxime's etc portrayal. Watching the second part would likely be extremely traumatic for him, so I'd skip that.

And if there'd still be time, I'd put on the recording of the 2017 RSC Production of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (and closely observe his reaction during some key Brutus' and Cassius' moments. For science!)

[sforzesco]

ok ok so i was gonna click on your tris homines tag but i clicked on brutus and cassius instead. i legit looked at brutus and went "this guy is still here???" (brutus & cassius was how i found and fell in love with your blog)

WHEEZING this is so funny, especially since I just figured out a design for him that will definitely stick, for sure.

[navree]

God that Cleopatra show is so fucking stupid. And the fact their saying its a documentary! Wtf

I haven't watched it and I have no desire to because it's everything I've been railing against for years (she's part of the ptolemaic dynasty! they're literally known for having a christmas wreath for a family tree! she's the culmination of like three hundred years of white macedonians fucking their siblings and their kids over and over again! this woman could be played by kristen stewart and it would be accurate casting!) and I would just get mad. The attempts to try and paint this as in any way historically accurate are especially galling, considering the legacy of the Ptolemies. They came down from Macedonia and literally conquered Egypt for themselves, refused to engage with the culture or the language or the people in any meaningful way until Cleopatra, who then proceeded to miscalculate so spectacularly that she ended up being the catalyst for Egypt becoming a colony for the next two thousand years. The Ptolemies were a bunch of white partiers high flying their way through Egypt and not caring about maintaining the country in any meaningful way and were directly responsible for its waning power in the Mediterranean (Auletes literally needed to beg for Rome's intervention to get his throne back, my God the Ptolemies were pathetic), and to try and heap all that fail-legacy on the idea that Cleopatra was "culturally black" (literally what the fuck does that mean) is honestly a bit insulting. Talk about Cleopatra if you want, but just admit that it's because she's just Egypt's most famous white lady and stop trying to justify it with some idea that she was actually even remotely ethnically Egyptian at all when she certainly wasn't and it's incredibly provable.

And I honestly want Hollywood and the entertainment industry to ask themselves: why do they keep wanting to tell Cleopatra's story? What's the point? Every time anyone tries, it's always framed around two things: her relationship with Julius Caesar and the tumult of that time period, or her relationship with Mark Antony and the tumult of that time period. And in both cases, Egypt and Cleopatra are on the periphery of that story, with the core drama centered around the Romans and their dynamics (Caesar and the Ides and Brutus and Cassius, or Antony and Octavian and the last war of the Republic). That's where the meat is, and Cleopatra's function is to just be a love interest and then die. There's a reason why I vastly prefer reading about Actium in an Antony or Octavian biography, rather than a Cleopatra one; they're the ones with the biggest stakes in the game and whose decisions are shaping the outcome. Octavian didn't even care about Cleopatra, not really, he wanted Egypt for the money but his primarily goal was to get Antony out of the way and assume sole power for himself. There are stories that can center Cleopatra, but those mostly involve her early reign, like her and her father's flight to Rome or her succession issues with her siblings, and we really don't see a lot of media that wants to engage with that at all. So pop culture is focused on Cleopatra as a side character, and I think it's incredibly telling that even then, they still took the white lady and ran with her the most when they refuse to do anything actually interesting, as opposed to looking at stories about actual Egyptians.

There are so many interesting Egyptian figures I wish were getting more press, Egyptians who were actually, you know, ethnically Egyptian. I'm incredibly partial to the late Eighteenth Dynasty and early Nineteeneth Dynasty myself (I have a fondness for the Amarna period in particular) and I would kill to see anything from that, or about Hatshepsut, and I'll even allow for a skipping of Tutankhamun given how done to death he's been. These people all have incredibly fascinating stories where they're, you know, the central figures, where they affect the world and where their actions have weight and consequences. Tell those stories, adapt that history, rather than trying to shove some ridiculous narrative that a woman who owned slaves and who is, I'm sorry, most famous for fucking up, is actually peak representation for your modern American understanding of race and ethnicity. I'd kill for more documentaries about Ancient Egypt and some of these royals, give me them and enough with fucking Cleopatra.

[bewaretheidiotsofmarch]

REPOSTING ALL MY OLD IDES OF MARCH ARTWORKS BECAUSE I AM SHAMELESS

2023

Left to Right: Cinna, Casca, Decimus, Brutus, Metellus, G.Casca, Titinius, Cassius. (Back: Antony, Calpurnia, Caesar life-evacuated)

2022

Left to Right: Marullus bust, Casca, Cassius, Brutus, Flavius bust. (back Caesar statue)

2021

Casca, (back: Flavius and Marullus)

2020

Left to Right: Antony, Casca, Cassius

2019

Aniyah, the soothsayer

Cassius

Left to Right: Cinna, Brutus, Cassius, Casca

2018

Left to Right: Brutus, Cassius, Casca (back: life-evacuated Caesar)

Left to Right: Cinna, Casca, Cassius

Caesar, and Aniyah the soothsayer

Caesar and Casca

2017

Casca D(st)abbing on Caesar

Left to Right: Cassius, Caesar, Cinna, (front: Brutus, back: Casca)

Hope you enjoyed the throwback!! I am filled with such nostalgia🥹 If you're new to this holiday, welcome! It's always nice seeing others discovering it lol, even just in passing.

(PS. Incase anyone is confused) These are my characters from my ( VERY MUCH WIP) graphic novel: Republic. It's historical fiction around the time of Caesars death and the downfall of the Roman Republic, with homages to Shakespeare's play, as well as a bit of my own plot points, and explorations of possible motives, etc, especially involving certain figures whose fates and lives were not set in stone in factual history. I like to have a good ounce of freedom to write and explore different angles and nuance of historical existence. Now, the character designs may look ahistorical and that's because they are- purposely.☺️ I want memorable, history-adjacent designs, silhouettes, etc that match the characters' individuality and vibe. I also want to have FUN while drawing and writing this. The story is grounded historically, but I take certain liberties because it is an epic tragedy, not non-fiction!😌 Anyways, if you have any questions feel free to send in asks, and if not, have a good rest of the day and I'll see y'all next year!!😈🗡

[iamthedukeofurl]

The thing that always gets me about “Lol how could Caesar be so stupid as to go to the senate when his wife and the soothsayer warned him not to” is that, like, I don’t think listening to them would have helped him too much. At least not in the Shakespeare canon. There was nothing special about the Ides of March as a day when Caesar was especially stabbable. If he had said he had a flu or whatever, it’s not like Brutus and Cassius would have thrown down their knives and said “CURSES! FOILED AGAIN!” They would have waited for the next time Caesar appeared in public and stabbed him then. Like, what were Caesar’s options here? Call for the Senators to be seized because his wife had a bad dream? . Never participate in Roman politics again? Show up to a routine session of the Senate with 40 armed Bodyguards arrayed around him in a perfect Testudo formation? Write “If you stab me Marc Antony will be sad” On his toga? Like, yeah he’s doomed by the narrative, but he’s more directly doomed by 23 roman senators deciding to kill him, Ides of March or not.