The Augusta

Well, you've asked for it! I am of a certain age, and I think peeves come easier to us than most...whatever...I envy those of you who only have one pet peeve. A few of mine are: MP3 players on buses. Now I love music as much as the next guy, and I have been known to travel to work with my ears stuffed with headphones pouring out everything from David Bowie's early albums to Gotterdammerung, but I keep my headphones in and am no trouble to anyone else. Why, then, do today's little swines think it hilarious to play their MP3 players at full volume on public transport? Grrrrhhh. The ousting of the Gideon Bible in Hotels - I am an atheist. I have always been an atheist, and always will be an atheist - but I do respect others' beliefs, especially in a country that is supposed to be officially 'Christian'. We have lately had a ruling here that the placing of Gideon's bibles in hotel rooms has caused offence to certain parties and the bibles are therefore to be removed. Hey - they never caused offence to me as an atheist, nor have they ever caused offence to Jewish visitors over the ages - but it seems they are now taboo. Hindu and Buddist people haven't complained. A certain religion has complained. Need I go on....? The British Tabloid Press - I have worked with them for years. I know that the editorial element is comprised of pond life. Why, then, do they hold such sway with public opinion? They are the most insidious, vile people, who have no morals, no backbone and no principles. And their influence over the populace is immense. When will we stop them? Well, those are just 3 of my peeves - I'll stop here...I could go on all night.

Don't blame me - I voted Republican Vote Grip - Vote Aqueducts Forget the bread - Just give us the circuses

I have not yet begun my Gruen, but I have digested Millar's The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic. Whilst I enjoyed this very much, ironically, Millar's fresh take on things only seemed to reinforce a somewhat traditional belief about the populares - i.e. he who could control and pander to the mob could gain untold power for himself! The book was fascinating, and certainly did bring home the fact that the comitia tributa in particular had a large say in the making of policy. I also thought that Millar vividly recreated the 'outdoor' nature of Roman politics, and while his work is undoubtedly scholarly, his prose is effortless and evocative. I really did enjoy this book and it will certainly stand a second reading. However, like all good treatments of a subject, the book left me with even more questions than it answered. I would want to know just how active the crowd could be. While they could heckle and even at times descend into violent protest, did they have the right of reply, for example? Nowhere in Millar's well-researched book are we given an example of, say, an inn-keeper from the Subura being heard at a public assembly. Could they contribute to a debate beyond the vociferous clamour of assent or dissent? Obviously, the crowd gathered to hear the contiones and voiced their opinion on the same and cast their votes on laws etc., but is there not still a case for saying that they could be swayed by a very good speaker, or a man with more charisma than the rest? Do we have any evidence of just how politically astute the crowd were? Or were they the plaything of the demagogues, as we have always suspected?

J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter author - BA Classics, University of Exeter

Thanks for the tip, Moon. And I got round the 'Quick Edit' by using the 'Full edit' instead tonight - so that one's no big deal, either. But these are tiny quibbles only - I am really enjoying the new environment. A big fat accolade to all concerned!

Thanks to the generosity of the the Forum and its benefactors, I have now put my gift voucher to good use, and the following books have arrived on my shelves this morning: Anthony Birley - The African Emperor: Septimius Severus Fritz Graf - Magic in the Ancient World Michael Grant - The Antonines: The Roman Empire in Transition Peter Salway - A History of Roman Britain All of these topics are a totally new departure for me - into areas of my darkest ignorance which I can hopefully now illumine. Also, all are areas into which I have always intended to venture, and now I can, thanks to UNRV. I selected the Birley and the Grant as broad introductions to the topics in question, as I thought this would be a fairly good place to start. I will let you know how I progress! If anyone has read any of the above titles, please let me know your thoughts.

Well, with a bit of fiddling about I did manage to work out the 'Friends' bit. The thing I am having a bit of trouble with however, is using the old 'Quick Edit' facility for posts. Every time I tried it last night, I couldn't get back to a view of my edited post at all and the Forum unceremoniously slung me out and I had to log in again! However, I did start getting error messages about my Yahoo browser, so this may have something to do with it.

No doubt a winning formula for the person in need of a free ride to paradise -- but a perversion of justice for those who might have been injured in life by the unconditionally forgiven (and perhaps a bit smug) adherent of Chrestus. I can imagine how such might have rankled those who chose to remain loyal to the deities they had always known and believed to govern the natural order. In fact, I can also imagine how ancient, god-fearing polytheists might have viewed the followers of Chrestus as being immoral -- having no fear of punishment in the afterlife for any wrong-doings on their part. Again, drawing an ironic parallel between the ancient world and the modern, atheists are mistakenly viewed by Christians today as being immoral for that very same reason. -- Nephele How right you are, Nephele! Even today if Christians confess their sins on the death-bed they are still assured of heaven. I've never understood it, myself. But I don't suppose it matters to me either way as I fully believe there is no heaven. And something that Zeke said in his opening post jarred with me a bit too. That the ancient polytheistic religions were all about control of the masses. Now, that is something I have always associated with monotheist religions - but others may disagree. Nor can I agree that people turned to Christianity to give them a warm, fuzzy feeling inside (I think you commented on this in one of your previous posts).

This is a brave post, and it needed to be said! And it just goes to show that no matter what the age or nation, no one really gives a toss about the working classes. I never thought I'd live to hear myself say that (as I've always been something of a drenched Tory), but what with our nanny culture and political correctness gone mad, it terrifies me to think of where we are headed. No one wants to see free speech curtailed, but when we live in a nation where a panel of politicians on 'Question Time' can uphold the right of Abdul Hamza (sp? - him with the hook) to preach death to all non-believers ( for this read, mainly: Britons and Americans) in our own Hyde Park, one simply stands back aghast.

Yes, that's my complaint too. Additionally, it's misleading to say that the Epicureans were merely "apatheists": they not only denied any divine intervention in human affairs, they also denied any afterlife ("Where I am death is not; where death is, I am not; and never the twain shall meet"), and--most importantly--they were outspoken polemicists on these positions, unlike equally naturalistic philosophers, such as Aristotle. In my own (I'll admit) cynical and somewhat biased opinion, I have always believed that Christianity took such a hold precisely because it preached the forgiveness of sins and the promise of everlasting life. While the idea of being judged by Rhadamanthus at the gates of the Underworld was one with which the Romans and Greeks were familiar - and later Christian practice absorbed this belief too - the idea that one could die forgiven of all wrongs and thus enjoy a blissful afterlife was no doubt a winning formula! Not everyone was Achilles - longing for a short life full of glory and an equally glorious death. I am sure that there was as much concern about death in ancient times as there is now - therefore a religion that took as its central message the resurrection of its founder, a blessing extended to all his followers, must have been a great attraction among the ignorant and educated alike. This was in direct contrast to what the Epicureans preached - i.e. that there was oblivion before our birth and we would return to such oblivion after death. While the Epicureans meant to convey this as a comfort, I would say that whilst it may be easy to accept oblivion before we were born - accepting it after we have experienced existence is quite another thing. Any thoughts?

Hehe. Although I did not see it, I was grateful for the vivid description of this scene in a PM kindly sent to me by Julia Caesaris (she has been keeping me up-to-speed, bless her!). My own reaction, had I witnessed it, would have probably been to declare it - at best - laughable, and - at worst - tedious. But the thing is, Mosquito, whenever sex is depicted in historical dramas, the viewer has no real argument. None of us know exactly what went on behind the bedroom door between Livia and Augustus, and as it's such an unimportant part of the history of their lives, I can't say that it would worry me too much. And I say this as someone who has loved, respected and admired both of these people for over 30 years now. So - someone who doesn't know the first thing about Livia will now think that she was into kinky sex with her husband? Is it any worse than thinking her a poisoner for centuries? I would be willing to expend my energies on clearing her of the latter charge - one to be rumoured in historic sources - rather than wasting my time on her depiction in this series. Just my two cents....

Am I remembering incorrectly, or didn't I, Claudius show Agrippina arriving in Rome with the corpse of Germanicus (or a replication of Germanicus) carried off the ship reclining on a litter? -- Nephele That was meant to be a wax effigy of the deceased, Nephele - as his ashes were in the urn she carried. Reports of Augustus' funeral also stated that his body was enclosed in a sarcophagus on which was placed a wax effigy of him.

Erm...Maecenas! Actually, this saddens me, Skarr. If there were ever three strong characters of the late Republic/early Principate it was precisely this little unofficial triumvirate. What a pity the writers and casting directors didn't see it that way. (I haven't seen the performances yet, of course - but I trust your judgement - especially as of the three of these actors, I've only ever seen one before).

I have always prided myself on being a selfless person, therefore, I think it is my duty to aid Dr. Hollander in her investigation - and it is a post that I would accept without a fee - as the interests of scholarship far outweigh any personal gratification that may be gained in undertaking such a study. My CV is in the post to the esteemed lady as we speak.

Good point. Exotic sexual dimorphism is ubiquitous in polyandrous and polygynous species, and what we may be sampling here is merely one tail of a curvy continuum. Or something like that. As always, Cato, you have injected the voice of reason into an otherwise heavily biased thread. However, I still detect a leaning towards the original premise set out by the originator (Virgil). I do believe that some new evidence should be produced by those who adhere to the polyandrous societal view, rather than the heavily-weighted argument advanced by those of the polygynous stance.

And here I must take issue with the parameters of the study. Whilst the specimens shown are certainly persuasive as evidence for a thesis purporting to prove that racial types in Italy are perhaps somewhat superior to those throughout other areas of Europe, how can any full study not take account of the male variety of the samples shown? I would therefore suggest that this study is flawed and would welcome deep research into ALL examples of the racial type. I am prepared to do field work on this topic in the interest of scholars everywhere.

Class! Sheer Class!

Agreed! Isn't it amazing - how serious we all are in our discussion on the Forum, and then we go all slushy about Rome. We're all Romantics - and I for one, am not ashamed of it. Maladict - I see where you're coming from with the crowds - but it may not be quite so bad at this time of year. Hehe - I remember sitting in a little corner of the House of Livia years ago writing away one early morning and a couple of innocents strolled passed me asking questions and taking photos. I felt invaded! It's so stupid really. These monuments belong to everyone - I just wish others would treat them with the reverence we do. (Nobody mention Cicero, guys!) But I think you all know what I mean. Phew - are you sure your memory's serving you well here, Cato? As I recall, the Baths were a fair way out. But then you Americans and we Brits have very different definitions of 'short distances'

Why? The secret is not to look like a tourist. I have travelled to Rome alone more times than I can count and nothing untoward has ever happened to me. But all cities carry the same dangers. As our GPM is from Leeds, don't worry Maladict, he'll be clued-up - and I don't mean any disrepespect to Leeds there.

Sheer Nonsense! GPM - you'll understand the following reference: Roman's speak Italian with a cockney accent! (I really mean it) - but they're far easier to understand than those pesky Neapolitans! There was an old Italian saying - a Roman tongue in a Tuscan mouth - meaning that the Romans speak the best Italian but the Milanese pronounce it best! Do you speak Italian? GO and I could give you a few essential phrases. (But don't trust him) Lovely hotel Cato - I looked on the link. Only thing is - if GPM is leaving on Thursday, he will already have his hotel sorted out by now. But we can all certainly bear it in mind for the future. (Don't worry - we'll keep it to ourselves!) Isn't it funny how this thread has generated so much enthusiasm from us? I wonder why....

I didn't know you'd actually been there when Trajan erected his column, GPM! Now, on to serious things: If it's Rome, I'm your gal. I've been over 20 times! First of all - ignore that little Ram regarding expensive eating places. If you make sure you eat where the Italians eat - places with no fuss and plain decor etc. you will get good value for money. There was a place called 'Angela and Ausilio's' up off the Via Ventre Settembre that was absolutely fantastic for home-made cuisine at a snip, which I've recommended to umpteen people throughout the ages. I'm revisiting the old place myself in October so I really hope the little trattoria is still there. But there are lots of these family run places - try around the railway station (but make sure you're not there too late at night). If you want to PM me before your departure I can maybe offer some tips. Is your hotel centrally located etc? The best way around is on foot (I stressed in your birthday thread about footwear!) but at least one trip must be taken in a cab. You haven't lived until you've been in a taxi in Rome! I shall leave you to find out this adventure for yourself! If you approach St. Peter's up Via Ottaviano, beware when you reach Risorgimento - its a great junction where the traffic comes at you from five directions at once! This is the way most tourists would approach if going by tube/metro, as the station is Ottaviano. Other non-Roman sites worth seeing are - obviously - the Trevi fountain (you will feel the temperature drop even from the side streets approaching it); Piazza Navona; the Villa Borghese and its museum (if you're an art person, there are two original Caravaggios (not to mention other great masters - Borodino's John the Baptist is there in all its glory); the Vatican and Capitoline Museums (thump Cicero again for me, would you - sorry MPC!) and if you do get out to Hadrian's little pad at Tivoli, please, please tell me about it, because I've never been! You can tell I love the place, eh? But even for atheists (me), St. Peter's is well worth a visit, for the art alone, and Michelangelo's 'Pieta' will leave you breathless - I promise. St. Paul's without the Walls is also a good one to visit for art treasures. Phew! ... I'll think of some others, but I need to know how long you're going for.

Now that's what I call a spouse! What a lovely surprise for you, GPM - enjoy the Eternal City - you will fall in love with every brick and stone, I promise you. But let me stress the need for sensible and comfortable footwear! If the missus hasn't been before - no high-heels. Rome is wonderful, but hard on the feet! We expect lots of pix for the gallery! Have a great time.

As usual - one of your gorgeous posts, Nephele! But to be honest, he'd appreciate it more if this gift contained 22 workable legs for his football team. Now this is something you won't understand, BUT GPM WILL! :wheelchair: That one was just between us, GPM! A loving message from your fellow footy fan And Ram - it's Gaius Paulinus' birthday not the god-consul's. Ye Gods - don't let him encroach everywhere! Or is this part of your cunning plan? Come on, GPM - we're waiting for you.....

Hehe - interesting....Spring is in the air and we can all go mad.... HBO representative - You see, ma'am, this is a modern invention called television. Actors portray the lives of the great as we imagined them to be. This scene shows some of the more intimate moments you may have shared with your husband. Livia - Great Gods! - If he'd given me such a wonderful time, I'd have been happy to sit at my loom for the rest of the day!