Talk:Julia (daughter of Julius Caesar)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] Welcome

Welcome to the talk page for Julia, daughter of Julius Caesar. Unfortunately, I feel that after my recent edits, the article is now quite stable. This is due to fact that there is not so much information about her in the classical sources. Nevertheless the section concerning Julia's appearances in literature should be increase its size over time. Thanks in advance for your constructive edits. :) -- Pichote 10:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Question: does anyone know who the Quintus Servilius Caepio was that Julia got engaged to, supposedly? --82.34.129.62 16:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
A majority of people believe it was Marcus Junius Brutus as he was referred to as Quintus Servilius Caepio at that point because he had recently been adopted by his uncle of the same name. --Sophie-Lou 00:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
For example Colleen McCullough in her Masters of Rome series assumes that Quintus Servilius Caepio is indeed Marcus Junius Brutus. -- Pichote 09:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
That appears to be popular fiction or brought up by confusion of historians. Although not one knows for sure, I have read that there was another Quintus Servilius Caepio who was Caesar's supporter in the consulship against Bibulus. --77.96.193.236 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


This one sentence kinda bugs me...

The slave who carried to his house on the Carinae the stained toga was seen by Julia, who, imagining that her husband was slain, fell into premature labour,[17][18] and her constitution received an irreparable shock.

I've changed this to

A slave carried the stained toga to his house on the Carinae and was seen by Julia. Imagining that her husband was slain, she fell into premature labour,[17][18] and her constitution received an irreparable shock.

I think it's a little more readable without losing any facts. Anyone agree/disagree? Jodamn 06:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly written now. Thanks. -- Pichote 16:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)