The Augusta

Thank you, as always, Silentum, for your help on this. I knew I could count on you to provide us with far more than Google. You are a veritable cornucopia of information. It also helps to know that there are two distinct places - the fraction and the actual Grotto. Whatever the legends and history, it has always struck me that if these places are named after Sejanus, it is interesting to see that his name lives on in this area - despite the malignant tradition about him in the written histories.

Navigation has never been my strongpoint, Pertinax. I could not tell you exactly where, as in the coordinates - but it was somewhere between Sorrento and Amalfi! I have taken that coastal drive on at least three hols down there, and I always see the signpost. I notice it precisely because it seems to scream Sejanus at me.

Welcome, Alex - I hope you enjoy your time as a member of our community. I too wish to learn more about Roman Africa, although my knowledge at the moment is very rudimentary and has been fostered largely by my growing interest in the Emperor Septimius Severus. There is a brief history of the province - or, more especially, the Tripolitana area, in Birley's biography: Septimius Severus: The African Emperor, which I am currently reviewing for the Forum. Other than that, the one volume of the Cambridge Ancient History that I possess (Vol X: The Augustan Empire) has useful overviews of the province of Africa during the principate of Augustus. But I would certainly be willing to join in any discussions as our collective knowledge grows on this topic.

I was wondering if Silentum or any of our other Italian experts could shed some light on the small town of Seiano near Naples. On visits to the area in the past I know that I have definitely seen signposts for this town, and on a quick Google search I have found references to a 'Grotto di Seiano' and a small town in the Sorrento area. However, I cannot find any meaningful information on the Internet regarding the history of the town. Now - this may be fanciful - but surely the name 'Seiano' must take itself from Sejanus (d. 31AD)? So - is the town named after him? Is it perhaps associated with him in some other way? Was the 'Grotto di Seiano', for instance, the place where Sejanus reputedly saved Tiberius from a rock-fall? Or was this little town the place of his birth? And if so, why don't the histories mention it? Or is it simply a huge coincidence? It has such an unusual name that I am very curious to know more about it - just as a general interest point. Any ideas, anyone?

GPM - may I second PP's recommendation of Harris' Imperium. Exquisite novel. And it even had the Forum's biggest anti-Ciceronian (aka - me) rooting for the old devil and actually liking him. You should enjoy it. And talking of which - if Mr. Harris or his agent ever deigns to spy on us here: Please, please can we have the second part of this trilogy as promised!

But didn't the Greeks believe that earthquakes started under the water? I don't know where the fault lines are in that part of the world, but it wouldn't surprise me, given the mountainous nature of the geography, that there are plenty of fault lines all over. So when an earthquake struck, the waves rise up, and people would think that they came from the ocean. Sounds very plausible indeed, Doc - as does Asclepiades' explanation above.

Poseidon was also the god of earthquakes among the earlier Greeks. I don't know if this had any bearing on his horse creation - but I just thought I would point out that he wasn't always associated simply with the watery realms.

Good heavens - this question is akin to 'how long is a piece of string?'. I have read so many wonderful books that I could not list them all here. So, we'll cut to the chase. Current reading is 'Helen of Troy' a novel by Margaret George that I picked up in the local supermarket for

It is amazing, Doc - but I remember when I worked (25 years ago!) at a local hospital of ours that was attached to Manchester University and we actually x-rayed mummies for Dr. Rosalie David, a famous Egyptologist of the time. I worked in the Neuroradiology Department and we often scanned the old wrapped beauties and carried out several medical tests on them. No doubt techniques have improved a thousand fold since then, but we could tell such simple things as joint degeneration or nutritional health from evidence of bone composition and teeth. I found it fascinating, even though anything at all to do with the ancient Egyptians terrifies me (it's just a little idiosyncracy of mine). Hehe - I have fond memories of opening a filing cabinet on a Monday morning, wondering what on earth I would find. It was often a box, bearing the words 'Mummified Cat' plus a very long serial number in black felt-tip pen! Or 'Skull of mummified female from the nth dynasty' - those really terrified me! I actually typed x-ray reports on them too!

Thank you indeed, Asclepiades - you are quite right. In fact the whole affair of the younger Julia's banishment is even more transparent a case of a covered-up conspiracy. And let's face it, folks - adultery and scandalous sexual encounters have been used throughout history by many a monarch to rid himself/herself of political nuisances. Ovid's veiled references to his part in the scandal of the younger Julia's banishment have been argued over by scholars ad nauseum - but all seem to be agreed that she wasn't simply banished for wayward ways alone. The timing of her banishment and that of her brother Postumus (within a year of each other) is enough to set alarm bells ringing. The speedy dispatching of Postumus upon Tiberius' accession at least suggests that the young man - in exile as he was - could still be seen as a political rival and a rallying point for the discontented. No matter how the Senate viewed Postumus, it must have been obvious to Tiberius and Livia that he had supporters somewhere and could be a possible danger.

Given augustus anger over his public humiliation then yes, it was. Was there any politics in the background? None that was directly connected I think. It was purely embarrasement at these youngsters behaviour that got them exiled. Augustus was performing a balancing act during his reign - his own personal power vs the dislike of tyrants/kings/dictators. His detractors would pounce on his families wayward behaviour (as the media does now to our own royal family) and given the murderous qualities of roman politics, then it was essential that such scandalous behaviour was seen to be punished. Augustus was keenly aware that he must show an example as much as preach his moral stance. We regard him as a hypocrite for that reason, but lets not forget that his womanising wasn't unusual for male romans and not considered scandalous. At least he was relatively discrete compared to the arrogant antics of his successors. Sorry, Caldrail - I have to disagree with you here 100%. Even the most cursory glance through the names of the elder Julia's lovers suggests an attempted coup. I do not doubt that Julia's scandalous sexual behaviour offered Augustus the perfect front for her banishment. Far better to bemoan an errant daughter who fornicated in public than to admit before the Senate and People that his own flesh and blood were conspiring against him. This would have undermined the whole constitution he was trying to create and establish on a firm footing. The younger Julia's adherents were also highly political men. All the elder Julia's lovers were either executed or took their own lives. I really cannot accept that such a punishment - or such a reaction from them - would have been necessary had they simply been guilty of adultery. Why were they so publicly 'named and shamed'? Above all, Augustus needed to create at least the illusion of a united front within his own family. Factional in-fighting was not to be countenanced - let alone admitted to openly. He had learned that through the crucial events of 23BC. And it was a particular thorn in his successor's side, as we know. Agrippina's support not only sprang from her being the widow of Germanicus, but also as the daughter of the late, exiled Julia, who was a popular lady with the People. Let us not forget that Augustus was often screamed at in the street by common folk wanting his daughter brought back to Rome. So much so that he eventually did relent late in his life, allowing her to return providing that she stayed in Rhegium. There is no record of the Senate's officially complaining to Augustus about either of the Julias' behaviour - only that of Postumus. Had the Senate been ready to complain, why then did Augustus remain in ignorance of her 'wild lifestyle' for so long? Nor did Augustus ever bother too much about what was said about him and his family. Suetonius himself quotes the emperor's famous saying of 'Let us be content that they stop at angry words.' Scandal alone would not have made him act in so harsh a manner, I am convinced of it.

I would agree with you, Silentum - but I recall a statue of Claudius in this pose either at the Capitoline or Vatican Museum. However, this one of Augustus - I don't know. The more I study it, the more I do not believe it is an original Roman statue. I will admit that if it had been in a private collection for centuries (i.e. a family heirloom or something) then this would explain why we haven't seen it before. But it seems almost too perfect - without any damage whatsoever. It screams Victoriana to me. I don't know if anyone else can shed any light here.

Indeed, GPM - Bamber is always sheer class in whatever he is in. The revelation for me has been Purefoy. I have seen quite a bit of his work and he was always the nice, mild-mannered guy (Prince and the Pauper, The Mayor of Casterbridge spring to mind). To see him take a totally unpleasant character like Antony by the scruff of the neck is a joy to see. Story lines apart, Purefoy has become a very fine actor indeed.

Before he departed for his holiday, our esteemed member Northern Neil treated me to some of his usual pearls of wisdom: "I bet you will watch Rome," he insisted. "You won't be able to help yourself." And there you have it. So shallow and transparent a person am I, that our dear NN knows me better than I know myself after less than a year on the Forum! There were no Wimbledon highlights last night on TV, I noticed - and I had looked forward to watching that lovely Spaniard knock out the dismal Tim Henman. But lo and behold, there on the Sky TV Guide was 'Rome' - a double helping from 11.20pm. The kids and I sat down to watch. To groan? To complain? To laugh? I am not sure what our intentions were, but in any case, we watched. There were highlights, however, which I'll come to a little later. Where to begin? Such a vividly rich period of history. Such a wasted opportunity. I found myself screaming at the TV to 'fast forward' to Octavian and the actual history of the time. I found the laborious, tedious subplot of Vorenus and his collegia the biggest turn-off, and i no longer have any interest in him and his sidekick, when I had invested some care in them during parts of Series 1. Yes, the grime and filth of the Aventine is authentic, and criminality and chaos wererampant in the confused aftermath of Caesar's death - but must the point be laboured like this? For god's sake, we get the picture! As for Timon and his Levi - I couldn't really work out where the heck that was going, or even why it was there in the first place. I didn't actually add up the minutes of screen time wasted on these two story lines, but surely they could have been put to better use. Even our glorious liberators were reduced to a humiliating little cameo among the Bithynians - who all seemed to have been painted with a Dickensian-type brush to turn them into complete caricatures. Cassius needs ships, men and money: instead he must now train a baboon to amuse the King. Meanwhile, dear Brutus has lost the plot and wanders aimlessly in a shroud of dishevelled guilt like the very best of Lady Macbeths. Poor men. Their historical characters deserved better treatment and screen time than this. But then, great swatches of screen time are not always necessary when an actor can give us a gem in a few seconds. David Bamber, with a few choice facial expressions and tiny subtle gestures, conveyed Cicero's total distaste of Antony's melodramatic micturition into a nearby plant pot. A nice moment that I enjoyed immensely. I enjoyed it even more when his letter arrived in the Senate! That particular scene was well constructed, to leave the drunken lout 'shooting the messenger' and looking around an empty Senate to gauge his support. A nice touch. All decent men, and even those not so decent, had fled to leave him to his temper tantrum. Purefoy himself continues to impress, and is now beginning to look authentically dissipated. Atia, however, continues to grate. My favourite line was that of Servilia: "Why is Atia still alive?" Why, indeed! And like all good Chav women, she sides with the current bedwarmer against her own flesh and blood and watches as her baby is battered to a pulp - a scene that made me wince, actually. With a mother like that, no wonder Octavian took his battered and bruised face off to Campania to be soothed by Marcus. And then - scene with Octavia strumming a lyre (she has diverse hobbies indeed - lesbian love scenes with enemies, incest, drug-addiction, and now we find she is musical into the bargain) - and ....drum-roll....the Big A arrives. I willingly put out of my mind memories of Colin Farrell's dismal Alexander-from-Limerick. Allowing Alan Leech to keep his brogue helped to convey Agrippa's rusticity, so I have no complaint there. He was also incorruptible and not cowed by the ghastly Atia, so that was also a bonus. And off he goes to Cicero, flying in the teeth of threats. Good old Marcus, a promise of sanity amid carnage and corruption. So, Octavian has decided to enter public life. Thank the gods! Someone must put an end to Antony. Now, if only he could do the same to the superfluous subplots. Yes, go on - I'll see it through. After totally giving up on the DVD of O'Toole's 'Augustus', this tawdry soap opera with a bit of history thrown in doesn't seem as bad after all. But I never, ever, thought I'd see the day when I'd want more screen time for Brutus and Cassius!

Hehe - and talking of which, this reminds me that there was actually a historical equine, name of Pertinax, who raced during Commodus' reign (fittingly enough...)

Especially any clips that involve the scrumptious Colin Firth! (Yes - I do have my girly moments!) Seriously - I see its from a book by Manfredi. I have never read any of this author's works, GPM. Would you recommend the book if not the film?

I would have considered him neither. Whilst it is best not to attempt to equate the politics of ancient Rome with the modern day party system across various democracies, even in the loosest sense I cannot see how he would have fit into either category. I believe Caesar was an autocrat - not because I am one of his detractors on the Forum, but because I am putting him firmly in his own time. He wanted sole rule and would play whatever card he had to at the time to get it. So did his successor. Both traditional 'republicans' and 'democrats' - or to be more precise 'optimates' and 'populares' - were content to carry out their duties within constitutional bounds - serve their terms as magistrates and military leaders and retire gracefully from the scene or debate matters in the senate until death. I cannot honestly believe that Caesar would have ever retired gracefully as Sulla had before him, and. had the conspiracy not emerged, he would have happily ruled Rome as Dictator in perpetuum for as long as the Senate and People allowed it.

Good review, DF. Can my bookshelves stand yet another 'rise of Octavian'? On reading your review, yes they can. I may well take a punt on this.

Ah, GPM - if we are sticking with the equine theme - Our Pertinax is more Red Rum than Eeyore.... As for this thread - did someone mention 'game'? I'm off to join in... ETA: I've just had a quick visit and completed the first one. Delightful stuff, Flavia! I look forward to solving more mysteries.

Sonic, you have made some very good points - but I have to jump in on this one. I note that you are from the UK, as am I - and the North, as am I. You must remember the old Whitsun celebrations, when all we children put on our new clothes and went around to our neighbours' houses to be given money for showing off the new clothes. There then followed the Whit Walks where we all displayed our new clothes again walking in some pageant or other behind banners associated with our churches or Sunday Schools. I was brought up a working class girl. I can honestly say that the whole of my class in school and my neighbours in the local community all saw the main objective of Whitsuntide to be the sallying forth to show off new clothes, and 'walk with the scholars'. Our parents saved through the year to make sure we were well turned out. That was the sole meaning of Whitsun for us. The fact that it represented the ascension of Christ into heaven totally passed us by - and I am NOT joking. Couldn't a similar mindset have operated in ancient Rome? The poor and working classes would see the great festivals and sacrifices where the edible parts of animals were given to the populace as a reason to celebrate in itself. They may not have gone home to dwell on the deeper meaning of sacrificing an ox to whatever god it was. Just a thought.

Lagers? (And that from you, GPM - you should wash your mouth out!). By Bacchus - you're all amateurs! Call yourself beer drinkers. Get a pint of Robinson's down you, dammit! One of the best beers in Britain, but very hard to keep. Pubs that keep a good 'Robbie's' are famous in these 'ere parts. My dear Doc - you call yourself a beer snob? You need a night out with yours truly - lol Ahem - and now that we have explored this little bibulous byway - are there any new members who are awaiting welcome on the thread?

"Someone called?" The Augusta has realised that at last her services are required. She eyes Romanus Darkus with purpose and cracks her knuckles..... She has grown very fond of Doc, whose party is being constantly sabotaged by the rabble. While her mild-mannered husband attempts to conciliate all parties (will he never learn?) she sets about taking Darkus on one side to show him the delights of her pharmacopia..........

Some wonderful, thought-provoking posts here. Now, pardon my ignorance, experts, (I certainly do not consider myself any kind of expert concerning the ancient religions) but the thought is striking me that as animals were seen within a broad agricultural context (i.e. perhaps a gift from the gods), was the sacrifice some way for mortals to give back this gift, to be sure that the gods' favours were perpetuated? Pan has mentioned the relevance of a red dog being sacrificed in the Robigalia, and again this brings us back to the most important consideration for ancient - even prehistoric man - to ensure survival (food) through crops. And after all, we hear of bloodless sacrifices too, of oat cakes and the like - all of which could be seen as gifts of agriculture. Even Mars was an agricultural god in his early days. But Nephele raises a very good point about the horse. The Greeks were also known to sacrifice horses to Poseidon - but then he was the god of horses and earthquakes as well as the sea. For the Romans, was Mars linked with horses, and thus worthy to receive the gift of the chariot race winner?

Ooops! How embarrassing. You're right--Publius Appius Claudius Pulcher. Similar naval disaster against the same enemy, but (mea culpa) a different culprit. Phew - thanks, Cato - I thought I was going mad! But to get back to the topic, I very much take the point you were making regarding him not quaking in fear of the priests. And I should imagine there were very many people who did not truly believe in the gods, but merely paid lip service to the state religion. It makes the Romans no different to any people through history. As I think we have discussed on the Forum before, an organised state religion was merely a means to control the masses. However, I can also see Sonic's point when he says that there may well have been many who did believe - even among the elite. Where I do not agree with him is that someone such as Pulcher should be considered 'arrogant' - both in ancient times and ours - for disregarding these superstitions. Are you thinking of something like the Eleusinian Mysteries, here, Doc? (It springs to mind as regards the ancient world, at least)

Or just intelligent individuals who were not quaking in fear of priests. Regulus (whose name you couldn't recall) is presumably a good example of this ordinary courage in the face of extraordinary superstition. Regulus? Surely it was Claudius Pulcher who threw the chickens into the water!