The Augusta

And what is this nonsense about him being assassinated on the 14th instead of the Ides? Although I realise I may be opening myself up to the gods know what here, what is the source for this, Caesar CXXXVII?

Klingan - I feel your frustration totally - and there is no real answer to your question, is there? Ye gods - they'll be offering us degrees in nose-picking next! Like Nephele, I don't want to denigrate the Beatles and their contribution to popular culture either, but the lines of academia are becoming more and more blurred these days. I can honestly say that if they offered an MA in David Bowie I'd sail through it, but as we all say - just what would I DO with such a qualification? I can understand to a point the shift in educational theory that says that degrees and qualifcations these days should be practical and fitting for the modern world. But a Masters in The Beatles, just like a degree in the music of my sainted Mr. B is purely self-indulgence as far as I'm concerned.

And now I've come away from the ancient world for a little while, and am revisiting the excellent The Sunne in Splendour by Sharon K. Penman - a novel I first read years ago. Like an old vintage it has matured beautifully with the distance of years, and captures the character of Richard III so beautifully that it must rank as THE definitive Dicky 3 novel. I need lots of escapism at the mo - my working life has taken a huge upturn, which is nice for a gal my age, but by the gods, I'm busy! Try organising twelve orthopaedic surgeons and learning an accounting course on for size! Still, at least I know I'm not on the scrap heap. My long bus journeys, during which I can curl up on the seat with a book, have never been so precious to me!

After many friends and associates recommended her to me, I finally got around to reading Lindsey Davis' The Silver Pigs, the first of her Falco novels. Absolutely gorgeous stuff! Superb characterisation, adequate Roman reconstruction (nothing's ever perfect, is it?) and I shall be buying all the series. And whaddya know - at last an author who gives us a wonderful Roman lady to admire in Helena. I was in love with Didius Falco after three paragraphs, and his flaws are as endearing as his virtues. He's a wonderful achievement. Davis writes with such wit and charm too. I drew odd glances on the bus as I chuckled out loud at many parts of this delightful little novel.

And another one who's sneaked in a birthday while I wasn't looking. Many happy returns, Decimus. Hope it was a good one.

Help! And I've been away for a few days and missed your birthday, LW. Hope you had a great time - with or without your chilled red wine And Felicitations to our Klingan and Honorius too. Now, please stop having birthdays while I'm away!

Allow me to add my congrats, Russ - great achievement!

This all sounds very familiar - who's the real Shakespeare, anyone? And just as knowing his real identity (if he is NOT the man from Stratford) wouldn't change a damned thing about his work, nor would learning the origins of Tacitus change anything about his work either. I really think these sort of speculations are just something for academics to do on their days off. They are a complete waste of everyone's time and energy. Conspiracy theory gone mad sort of stuff - alas, it's a symptom of our age.

Felicitations to you, Neil. Hope you have a great day, and we all expect reports of your hangover.

I'd be at Naulochus, oiling Agrippa's harpax.....

I can only add to the general outrage, friends. Cleopatra was pure Hellene/Macedonian. As for Octavian's propaganda, he never missed an opportunity to throw in the word 'Hellene' as a term of insult, so I think we can leave things there.

I'm with Calders on this one. It was obviously considered impolite to break wind in public in ancient Rome, as it is today (thank the gods!) I'm writing this hurriedly, so I don't have the immediate reference to hand, but there is a very vivid poem from Catullus (late Republic) in which a man is decried for having - excuse me, mods - an arse that smelled as bad as his mouth. Thus, bad breath, smelly flatulence, bad hygiene etc. were clearly all fair game for criticism among the better folk in society. I do remember this little anecdote from Suetonius making an appearance in BBC's 'I, Claudius'. Claudius is being examined by his doctor who tells him that if he has wind he should let it out. I quote: 'I don't care which end you let it out, but let it out. He who puts good manners before good health is a fool.' Perhaps this is what prompted Claudius to pass his edict. Even today, doctors will say that you shouldn't 'keep it in' - it's bad for the bowels. A lovely, light-hearted topic for a Friday evening, Caesar - especially as I've had a hard day at work! It's just what I needed.

For what it's worth here, I tend to support Klingan's theory on this one. If memory serves me correctly, Balsdon also favours this approach. Something along the lines of 'You senators are all so bloody feeble and useless, that I might as well make my horse a consul...' It illustrates just how contemptuous he was of the Senate and was not afraid to tell the Fathers what he thought of them. This would be fully within character for the Emperor as we know him. I doubt that he ever truly brought Incitatus into the Senate. I think this is a case of a reported quip being embellished. On the other hand, he may well have staged such a display as a deliberate humiliation. Either way, I doubt the glorious Incitatus was ever truly enrolled among the Consuls

Gaius was 25 when he became emperor. (Born 12 AD)

Yes, this is certainly part of the legend and myth of our Gaius - but I think the truth was somewhat different. I can not defend him entirely - for what it's worth, my view is that he was a megalomaniac with Jacksonian epilepsy. However, that does not make him insane. Far from being insane, I think he was shrewd, calculating and overbearing. But it is to our eternal loss that Tacitus' account of his reign has not survived. I will say just one thing in his favour - any poor child who had Germanicus and Agrippina for parents must have been affected in some way. I think we'd be giving him counselling in this enlightened age But to return to the original poster's question, Legio X - he/she was not looking for the legendary, scurrilous bits - but a more balanced appraisal of his reign and character.

As I'm a genealogist myself, Frankq, I personally have no problem following a family tree, but I can fully understand how awkward they can be. In some of the more academic works I have read, the Index at the back of the book often lists potted details about the 'characters' anyway - or at least their main contribution to history. A quick example would be if you found Cicero in the index to the work you were reading. Under his name of Marcus Tullius Cicero, the index would probably give little sub-headings of 'First Consulship - pp64-71'; 'divorces Terentia p80' - or something along those lines. As for a book in which a list of 'characters' has been given at the beginning, I can't think of one off the top of my head. I do know that I still have on my shelves a very useful little work called Who was Who in the Roman World ed. Diana Bowder (Phaidon Press 1980) - alas, it is out of print now, but you can still get it on Amazon's Market Place. It was probably a forerunner to the works cited by Neph above. I think your best bet would be to invest in a volume like this to keep as a companion to your reading.

It's in the prose, GPM. In parts I found this overblown and pretentious - very 'writerly'. I would agree she described things in intricate - almost painful - detail in parts, but I still found it dry and was aware that I was reading 'a-very-detailed-novel-that-the-author-had-put-an-awful-lot-of-research-into' sort of thing. Don't get me wrong, I still think it was a great achievement - just not one to stay on my shelves. And rather like Scott, she suffers from a lack of editing in places. But it's by no means the worst historical novel I've read - I just can't go overboard with it as others have done. I may try the sequel to give the author another go, and report back again. The trouble with me lately is I am reading almost everything now with my editor's hat on instead of my reader's hat. I do sometimes think it spoils the enjoyment process. I probably need to take a step or two back.

I fully believe that this whole tradition of having English actors play classical roles stems from the overwhelming influence of William Shakespeare on English-speaking drama. That, my dear old mates, is the answer, pure and simple. For so long Shakespearean actors were held as the yardstick by which all others were measured - at least in England - and along with the Shakespearean repertory went all the other Classics, such as English versions of the Greek masterpieces and Ibsen, Chekhov and the like. But Bill was the Daddy of 'em all, as far as drama is concerned. It's all very silly, of course, but I still cringe slightly when I hear an American accent speaking the Bard. This does come from the sheer 'Englishness' of Shakespeare. He's ours, therefore ye shall all speak with English accents. I am sure I would have a totally different perspective on things were I any other nationality than English, and if I were not such a live theatre fan. When it comes to films made today, it shouldn't matter, of course, but a sad fact remains that some actors are created more equal than others.... Having said that - I have seen many wonderful European films. The French and the Italians tend to produce very high quality work for the most part, and have achieved a classicism all of their own. But it is the same with all nations - good and bad actors are produced. I am far more insulted by bad acting than a 'wrong' accent these days. And I must say, I was quite taken with Denzil Washington's performance in 'Much ado about Nothing', and I thought Kline did a reasonable job as Bottom in 'Dream' - although Pfeiffer was dreadful. But back to Romans - as long as the actor can convey the gravitas of the ancient Romans, I'm not too worried what accent they have.

I'll join in the celebrations, Doc, and I'm toasting both the New Year and your birthday in lots of Scotch. Once you've had half a bottle, even my dancing will look good to you. Have a great day, and a great New year.

And yet it is out of print? Hmm.... a bit new age and pretentious for me. I'm afraid she won't stand the test of time with her work. Shame - I had such high hopes.

Michael Sheen is undoubtedly a decent technical actor (his portrayal of 'Carry On' legend Kenneth Williams was almost perfect) but he has an unfortunate tendency to overact at times. I'm afraid I loathed his Nero, and I think I said so at the time on another thread. One will have to see how he develops, but at the moment he needs to purge off his 'stagey' taint. Rather like Olivier, he is a perfect advert for the 'all-technique-and-no-feeling' type of performer that we Brits have unfortunately inflicted on the world in the past. He is better in live stage performances than on screen, in my opinion (as was Olivier), but having said that, he did a decent job with Tony Blair in 'The Queen'. But this is one of his problems. His best roles have always been impersonations of famous characters - and there is an inherent danger in that sort of typecasting. As for the Nero - sorry, but he almost spilled over into caricature here and there and alas fell into the stereotypical 'I am playing an insane megalomaniac' mindset that has marred many a portrayal of this complex Emperor in my view. And I can't resist adding - HE ISN'T BLOND!! Nero was blond. Suetonius even tells us he was BLOND! Grrrhhhh! Is it too difficult to throw a wig on an actor, or give him a rinse? Gods - they even managed that with Colin Farrell.... So - sorry, Caesar - a miss with me, I'm afraid. And I watched the whole sorry mess when it was originally screened, not just the You Tube extract. In fact - I have yet to see a Nero I could believe in, let alone a definitive portrayal of the man.

That's a valid point, Neil. His tales are timeless in a way - thus, I suppose, enjoyable. A wide audience can read him and appreciate his storytelling. I take nothing away from the man in that respect. We all look for different things in books - which is why I was at pains to point out to Votadini that my opinion is just one of many and I want him to find out for himself. You know, many people read historical fiction with this view in mind - the characters are timeless, the story could be happening now etc. To some readers this is the thing that resonates with them. Of course there is no 'right' way or 'wrong' way to write historical stories. At the end of the day, the audience will decide.

I am famous on this site for inviting Simon Scarrow to join it and then having him read a post of mine that was less than complimentary to his work. He departed in high dudgeon. I fully admit that I am in a minority here. His works are very popular and he has earned a tidy sum from his writings - so, good luck to him. He just doesn't 'do it' for me, I'm afraid. I am a very picky reader. I want my historical fiction to be a recreation not a costume drama. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Scarrow's books could be set anywhere. But if you love legionaries hacking at barbarians and can rejoice in lively characters that are more 1950s British than Roman, you'll lap him up. As for me, Under the Eagle went to our local charity shop after I'd slogged my way through about five chapters, and I really had to give up at that point. Let me be fair: the man can string words together admirably. It's just his setting that fails for me. But please, Votadini - don't let me put you off. I think we should all make up our own minds about any author. There are as many different opinions as there are readers, so go to it - and enjoy. There now - I can't be fairer than that And if you've got the book from an Oxfam shop - what have you to lose? You may love him and keep him on your shelves. Come back and let us know.

The Augusta comes out of the closet - wearing armour - Part One Although I cannot compete with Augustus's in depth report of events, I need to add my own 2 denarii on the successful meet back in July, and if the title above piques interest, let me 'out' myself here and now. As someone whose heart is wrapped entirely in the late Republic/early Principate, I have never been the biggest fan of Roman Britain's remains. In fact - big confession coming - until the meet in York last year I had never ventured to any Romano-British site other than Bath (and that was for a Uni Summer School). My area of interest and modest expertise lies squarely within Rome and Italy, and the foreign provinces as such have never really interested me - although I do sometimes dream about visiting Syria. Having said all that, I thoroughly enjoyed both meets here in the UK. The company, the camaraderie and the wealth of knowledge and mutual respect (and affection) encountered both at York and in Northumberland were certainly bigger attractions for me than the actual Romano-British sites themselves. There - I've said it! Hadrian's Wall has a big plus in its favour. It rambles along some of the most stunning countryside in England, and there is nothing quite like taking oneself off to stand on a deserted part of ruined wall to gaze out at the landscape. It is full of ancient magic: unspoiled and formidable, gentle hills and peaks alternate with sloping green valleys and the effect is breathtaking. The Wall has another attraction: the forts we visited were within easy distance of Newcastle, a vibrant, friendly and welcoming city that I shall certainly revisit one of these days. There are also lovely, quaint towns such as Hexham and Corbridge; the exquisitely named hamlets of Once- and Twice-Brewed; the forts themselves, of course, nestling under endless skies and carrying within them just a ghostly trace or two of the men who made them. And all this magic is easily negotiated by the aptly named AD122 bus service. My own particular favourite fort is Vindolanda, which is set against a beautiful backdrop of meandering hills and valleys, and it was at Vindolanda that I inflicted my talk upon the company of legionaries - Augustus, Hadriana, Caldrail and Carolus. When we were first planning this meet, Augustus and Northern Neil decided between themselves that I should take as my topic Aulus Platorius Nepos, the governor of Britain who was best pals with old Hadrian and sent off to the barbaric wilds to oversee the start of his ambitious frontier project in AD 122. My subsequent research on this somewhat forgettable person, resulted in about two paragraphs of dry facts, such as the year he was consul, an odd inscription at Vindolanda to prove he was actually there at some point, and his dubious recall to Rome by Hadrian - apparently the old boy was somewhat prodigal with the Emperor's funds and Hadrian made his displeasure known publicly. Nepos was hauled back to Rome never to be heard of again. Even the most garrulous of speakers could not spin that one out into 20 minutes! Defeated by Nepos, I therefore scoured about for something I could discuss with a modicum of intelligence and knowledge. Augustus's stipulation was that the talk had to have something to do with the Wall. As I knew less about Hadrian's Wall than I do about particle physics, I was on the verge of a nervous breakdown with only a week to go until the meet. I toyed with topics such as 'Hauntings along the Wall' (parts of it are said to be haunted); I even wondered if I could get away with a sort of 'Talking Heads' sketch a-la Alan Bennett, in which I would write a monologue from old Nepos's point of view and moan about life among the barbaric Brits, but a script that would run to 20 minutes takes one hell of a lot of writing - trust me, folks! I jettisoned that one as pressing work matters intervened etc. So, with two days to go I decided I would rattle on about something close to my heart: Writing Roman Fiction. It was a hand to mouth effort - which I'm sure showed. I had made no notes and had to extemporise. Thankfully, the landscape helped - crying out 'Mention me - Mention me'. My purpose was to give an overview of what sources an author uses in recreating the Roman past - some that may not be obvious. Not only does one need a thorough knowledge of the history of the period, but intimate details of everyday life and the setting of the novel/story are also essential. It is not enough to use exant literary sources, but archaeology, coins, landscape, epigraphy etc. The famous Vindolanda Tablets, for instance, detailing such mundane things as lists of items required by soldiers posted at the fort, give the kind of everyday, intimate evidence that could be used in research for a story. What things were considered important by those soldiers, for instance; the items that were readily available and those that were not. Historians are experts in extracting information from such tiny things as this, and to a degree the writer of fiction needs to employ similar skills to build up a picture of life at Vindolanda through the ages. I must just give a mention to Calders here. He took a very interactive part in my talk and fired umpteen questions at me, which resulted in further discussion - so thanks for that, Calders! As Augustus has reported, our last fort of the day on Saturday was Housesteads. Now, this is a fantastic site, built as it is against a long stretch of wall with all those famous views I talked about before, but I was glad that Hadriana was with me to help me down the winding path after our visit. Housesteads is not for the faint-hearted, nor the ill-shod. I am still in awe of Caldrail's march down the path and back up in record time! There was a wistful moment at Housesteads, when one of the re-enactors in full legionary regalia was sitting all alone on a stretch of the Wall, gazing out into the distance, as though looking for marauding Scots. He and I were alone against the landscape and I had a tremendous feeling of stepping back in time and watching a poor Roman legionary longing for home. For me, history will always be about the people who shaped it. I do have to add that Augustus gave us a very informative talk here about the building of the Wall itself and the history of the various forts along it. I will chime in with part 2 of this report tomorrow - which will deal with Arbeia - the account of which may be in slight disagreement with that of Augustus. (I did say I was wearing armour.)

I have PMd AC on this very subject, Ursus, but rather than delay any longer I shall post a report myself. This will be in two parts and I am polishing the first bit now. Hopefully, this will be up either later tonight, or at some stage tomorrow. If Calders is reading this post, please feel free to submit your own account of matters also - the more the merrier.