The Augusta

This was a great series, Drusus - I remember quite a few of the plays. However, they didn't follow in a sequence, week by week, but were put on quite at random over a period of about three years, I think. There were many enjoyable ones, but my own particular favourite was the Antony and Cleopatra with Colin Blakey and Jane Lapotaire, and the late Ian Charleston as Octavian.

This was on BBC TV news the other day. The reporter was stood beside the Aurelian Walls, a portion of which have apparantly fallen down recently, and also the basements of Nero's Golden House, which are suffering from water seepage. I would have thought that the revenue Rome receives from tourists visiting these monuments would be sufficient to fund their upkeep. Unless there is simply too much to keep in good repair. It is only recently that the government have started to charge for entry into the ancient monuments, however - a charge that is long overdue in my opinion. For years entry to the Forum Romanum was free, as was the Colosseum et al. More modern monuments (for instance, Keats' house at the Spanish Steps) carried a charge for upkeep, but the ancient ruins did not.

Having worked in publishing, Primus, this is certainly my own understanding of things. Hence the translations available online at Lacus Curtius, for instance, are the old Loeb editions from 1913 and such time, which is now clearly out of copyright. (Although I think Harvard are still publishing these - I bought Appian in 1992 for instance!) FWIW this works with music too. Beethoven's 5th is public domain, but - say - a recording by the Berlin Philharmonic in the last 75 years would be subject to copyright. An orchestra could get together to play the original music, but public playing of the recording infringes copyright. This would certainly seem to make sense, Skarr. I suppose in this way they are protecting the author's copyright to a degree too.

Just don't completely dispatch her...just make her lost...or something... Spoilsport!

In the link kindly provided by Polecat above, it says that skeletal remains of horses were found with the chariot, but it says nothing of any human remains so far. This is a fascinating find - I wonder what period we are looking at? (I'm sorry if this was given in the original article posted by Primus, but I can't get that link to work for me.)

It has become clear to the Augusta that the elderly matron has now outstayed her welcome and is making several personable men feel very uncomfortable. Although she promised Doc she would be a good girl at this party, she cannot resist falling into her old ways and kindly offers to accompany the elderly matron out to the garden for a quick breath of air and a look at the fig trees.

Georgious - in complement to what Divi Filius posted above, you might find the following interesting: Essay on Tacitus and Barbarians This was a submission by our Forum member Wotwotius for our recent essay context in March 2007, and if you are able to download the file I am sure you would find it of interest. Hope this helps a bit.

I would agree entirely with Cato that a rich/poor distinction between Patricians and Plebeians is a fallacy. However, I don't think this confusion is helped by the generic term 'plebs' used by a variety of less academic sources to describe the Roman populace as a whole - or even - dare we say it - the 'mob'.

Even I had to get a copy from the British Library. The book is definitely out of print, which is a pity. However... my lips are sealed Primus has answered all of your questions, Ingsoc - but I can supply a few more snippets to supplement his knowledge. During the Sicilian War, Agrippa employed quinqueremes, however, he learned from this. They were cumbersome galleys, and at Actium, he employed the faster Liburnians to outmanouevre Cleo's quinqueremes. (This is in Reinhold) As for the harpax - the improvement he made to it was, I believe, that it could be shot over much longer distances at greater speed from a catapult. The ancient sources are silent on this one, but it is assumed that Octavian helped! I remember recently reading some theory that Antony arranged it, but I have totally dismissed this out of hand, I'm afraid. Nor can I for the life of me remember where I read it! (Shows how impressed I was... ) Again, as Primus states, this is unknown, but Reinhold speculates that he was probably in charge of a wing of cavalry. Salvidienus was in charge of the advance fleet and was then Octavian's leading general for the land battles. Whatever capacity Agrippa appeared in at Philippi, he was clearly subordinate to Salvidienus at this stage. Again, the theory of his being born Equestrian seems to be a modern one and has no evidence in the primary sources. I would agree with Reinhold's theory being the most p0lausible here - Octavian raised him and Salvidienus to Equestrian rank when he returned to Italy after Caesar's murder. Indeed, we do not know in what capacity he served. Reinhold conjectures that he certainly served in the Spanish Wars, perhaps as a junior tribune. No one knows either how he and Octavian met, or when, but the consensus among the ancients seemed to be that they were educated together - which can mean anything from schoolboys to youths at 'university' in Apollonia. PM me for more on Meyer's biography. It is extremely informative, but I warn you, it is written in the old academic style with half a page of footnotes to text. However, I found the footnotes themselves to be a mine of information. Hope this is of some help.

There was a general discussion here Gladius and the book has been reviewed on the Forum by our member Favonius here Hope this helps. I haven't read the book myself, however.

Your orders have been carried out, O Caesar! PM has been sent to Longbow.

But note Violentilla's original rider to her post - that the 'priestesses' of Magna Mater/Cybele were eunuchs and not women. This had certainly always been my own understanding of the cult. Does anyone know if women were indeed allowed to become priestesses of the goddess in the late Republic? Perhaps Ursus could enlighten us on this. I know that Suetonius mentions the 'priests' of Cybele (i.e. the eunuchs) in his Life of Augustus, so they must have still been operating during his principate. I would like to point out that Atia was actually the beneficiary of this sacrifice. Usually when a priest officiates in a ceremony he/she does so to confer benefit to a third person. Atia was the recipient of the benefit-there is a saying in my mother-tongue about the priest blessing his beard, the same applies in outr case. But still the benefactor of a religious ceremony is a third person and not the priest who officiates it, that applies to weddings,blessings etc. Therefore Atia may not have acted as priestess in the sacrifice. As to sex of actual priests do we have evidence that can verify such an hypothesis? Atia may well have been the beneficiary - but the rite described in Violentilla's post concerned the soaking of the priestess in blood. There is no mention in the quotation cited of a beneficiary taking the same part. As for evidence of the sex of Cybele's priests - I should think the word eunuch is clarification enough. It is not a mere hypothesis. See Suetonius, Div.Aug, 68: One day at the Theatre, an actor came on the stage representing a eunuch priest of Cybele, the Mother of the Gods, and as he played his timbrel, another actor exclaimed: "Look, how this invert's finger beats the drum!" See also this article for further examples in the primary sources.

In his review of this work, our esteemed Pertinax wrote: Should you buy this work? Rubicon was a good "story" and a useful popular book to give further flesh to the enjoyment of HBOs Rome; these popularising entertainments are to be welcomed as they open up imaginative windows into Romanophilia. The subject book is a heavy mixture of very vivid living snapshots linked as a perigrination around the Roman world, it adds sensuous flesh and perfume to the commoner images and worthier "hard " histories . If you are a Legion and Ballista devotee , I think this catalogue of "greek" fleshiness might not be to your satisfaction . One could not take the book and read it through without pausing and setting it aside for a day or two to consider and digest its plummy contents.I suggest reading it in little morsels at a quiet table near the seafront at Positano, whilst eating a dish of local seafood. A book for daydreaming of Rome. I am only at the stage of the tour through Campania, and already I am captivated by this book. As Pertinax says - not one for the Ballista lovers, but for those of us, like me, who have our own delusions of creativity, I am finding AD's book an invaluable source of rich background material for my own projects. AD brings the Italian countryside to life as vividly as any novelist, and I shall not hurry to finish this volume. I want to savour every moment of it.

As a little side note to this amazing 'discovery' - I was reading from the piece in The Telegraph yesterday to a work colleague. This work colleague - a devout catholic who was educated in a convent - actually asked me if this was the 'Herod in the Bible' and when I said it was, she asked, 'Oh - did he really exist then?' Sometimes, you just have to stand in wonderment.....

Any news on Longbow? Is he intending to return to us, Augustus?

But note Violentilla's original rider to her post - that the 'priestesses' of Magna Mater/Cybele were eunuchs and not women. This had certainly always been my own understanding of the cult. Does anyone know if women were indeed allowed to become priestesses of the goddess in the late Republic? Perhaps Ursus could enlighten us on this. I know that Suetonius mentions the 'priests' of Cybele (i.e. the eunuchs) in his Life of Augustus, so they must have still been operating during his principate.

That is my job and I am at the loom as we speak, Augustus. Would you like an embroidered border? Ooh - I've come over all Emily Bronte.... But I promise to dress sensibly - and you already know I have my own Doc Martens!

Great to see you back amongst us, Viggen. Belated felicitations!

WHAAT?? Come round to my place and you will get the best roast beef, Yorkshire pudding, mashed taties and veggies this side of the Pennines! I have decided to 'bump' this thread, because as I type, 'Quo Vadis' is being shown on BBC2. I must confess, the opening moments nearly had me falling off my couch with laughter at the sight of plastic legionary helmets and shields the size and thickness of A3 paper. The story seems pretty good though, and I have just got to the bit where Nero toys with the idea of burning a city. I've got to say, the sets arent bad at all! I agree with Neil on two counts. Firstly - Ursus - wash your mouth out! I will not even begin to comment on American cooking (LOL). However, do you mean cooking or ingredients? Never mind Neil's roast beef. Come and sample my lasagne, and you can have a very large slice of Humble Pie for dessert - (wink) As for Quo Vadis - I rewatched this again too on Bank Holiday Monday. Almost as funny as Life of Brian - but not quite. My favourite was the poor Christian who grappled with a lion as though it were a mere nuisance of a thing nibbling at his hand. My sister and I noted that there was only Rosalie Crutchley (Acte) and Leo Genn (Petronius) who attempted to do some actual acting (at least for 1951) - but it was all good fun. I liked Poppaea's frocks!

Hey, AC - no 'go' intended at all! As I said, the story of Das Rheingold and the entire cycle proved to me that if Zimmer had intended to plagiarise (I mean it nicely) then he had certainly given it some deep thought. The Rhine's leitmotif is used to symbolise the river that is the seat of wealth (the Rheingold) and, through wealth, power (i.e. the Ring). I thought that it was a perfect choice as a motif for Rome of the early 3rd century too. Unfortunately, I do not have the 2 DVD set, so I can't avail myself of Zimmer's commentary on his score, which is a pity. As for Rome: Total War - my son has just inherited a new computer from a generous friend and he is installing the game as we speak, so I will be able to hear that for myself soon!

Yes - this camp follower is willing to march.

I think in any age where infant mortality was high there may well have been less attachment to the child in any case - at least until it passed its second birthday or something of the sort. However, there were clearly exceptions. Livia is said to have kept a portrait head in her bedroom of a son of Germanicus who had died in infancy. Getting back to Claudius' 'infanticide' - Suetonius maintains that Augustus ordered the exposure of one of Julia the Younger's children, born in exile.

I am afraid this is just another example of scaremongering journalism. There is absolutely no evidence that the mummy population is dwindling. There is a centre in London's Westminster where many can be seen on a daily basis, flicking imaginary dust from their wrappings and making incoherent sounds.

Thwarted in all her attempts so far to bring Cato to heel, the Augusta - ever the opportunist - notices how many people are being despatched into the impluvium. Great gulps of water are thereby consumed before they emerge, drenched and sobered. An idea forms....

This is not an article - it is just a simple post on a question that has bugged me for some time. Why is it that Suetonius, our most scurrilous narrator of rumour and scandal, offers not the slightest hint of Livia as the poisoner we know in Dio. Even in Tacitus, Livia's reputation as this monster hinges on a single phrase: when relating the deaths of Gaius and Lucius, Tacitus says that they died naturally 'unless their stepmother Livia had something to do with it'. (Grant's translation). These men were virtual contemporaries and whatever 'rumours' were known to Tacitus must have been known to Suetonius too? Why did Suetonius not include such rumours? His only derogatory comment on Livia as a murderess is his speculation that she may have given the order for Postumus' death in exile (Life of Tiberius). Had she done so, it would have been the act of an astute ruler. Tacitus also mentions this, and it makes me wonder whether it is from this event that all rumours of her earlier machinations have sprung. Dio's later accounts have been embellished with years of 'folklore' no doubt, and coloured by the empresses of the later Julio-Claudian period and beyond. Not only this, Tiberius was clearly the most unpopular successor to Augustus, and the idea that his succession had been 'forced on' Augustus by a domineering wife no doubt eased the public consciousness. How could such a universally loved and respected 'god' confine Rome to the rulership of such an individual? For my own part, I fully believe that Livia was heavily involved in the removal of Postumus after Augustus' death. At the time it can hardly have upset people; the Senate itself had complained to Augustus about the young man's behaviour, and had he succeeded to the Principate it would have been a disaster. The key to all this, I believe, is that Postumus was the brother of Agrippina, and as the wife of Germanicus she commanded a great deal of influence and support. We all know that Tacitus adds to the general panegyric about Germanicus, and after the death of Augustus there were clearly two parties in the state: The Germanicus/Agrippina set versus the Tiberius/Livia set. I believe that the death of Germanicus was the key event in the 're-creation' of Livia as the wicked stepmother who had poisoned all Augustus' heirs. I will go further and lay at Tacitus' door this false portrait that has come down to us. He is, after all, the earliest source who mentions these 'rumours'. Livia was one of the first women to exercise her power and influence, which must have disgusted Tacitus - hence he calls her a 'disaster to the nation'. She was a 'disaster' no doubt because she was the mother of a hated Princeps. Interestingly, he does not condemn Agrippina for similar influence over Germanicus! Any thoughts?