The Augusta

I can't believe I've come into this thread, but here goes... I write from memory here, Marcus, but Josephus is the ancient author who has a couple of lines about the actual person later known as Jesus in his History. However, I am certain that scholars have since proved this to be an interpolation. So, we do not, as you say, have an actual contemporary reference for his existence at all. (I am prepared to be shot down in flames on such an emotive topic - especially if someone else knows about this debate of the scholars over the Josephus reference) As for me, I am not sure if he existed at all, and it is not something I spend many hours contemplating; but I would have sympathy with your idea of his being a creation of sorts. But if we accept this, we have to ask how Christianity did begin. Something or someone, or some group began it. Examining 'why' it began would, to my way of thinking, be far more interesting as a topic. Just my two penn'orth.

I doubt that there'll be an English monarch in England beyond our present queen, Cato. She is the last of a dying breed. Actually, the thought of a monarch ruling the US makes me chuckle to myself by its sheer absurdity. Happy Thanksgiving to all.

I expect there was plaster and fired clay or some such less durable stuff that would not have lasted through the ages. Wood is certainly a possibility.

Hasn't he just? I actually found myself chuckling so much at Cicero's wit through the early part of this. And I think the fact that Harris (through Tiro) portrays Cicero with all his flaws, only makes the character more 'lovable'. A silly description, I know - but that is how I perceived it. I really am enjoying the novel, and one can't help but be sympathetic to Cicero - even when Tiro presents his vanities to us. It makes him seem all the more human. I have read that Harris intends to make this a trilogy. I can't wait for Part 2.

This was a point I raised earlier in the thread, Caldrail, when I asked about the consumer (although this was in relation to the Caracalla bust). I often wonder if there was mass-production of cheap copies of important portraits and statues for the man-in-the-street to buy, to display in his vestibule to impress his friends and show his loyalty to the government. Or was art purely for the wealthy? We know that Agrippa took some measures to put great works of art on display for the common man to see. Did this foster a love of art among the populace?

Just bumping this, as I've just started the book and am loving it. Have you had a chance to read it yet, Cato? As for Colleen McCullough - I still haven't forgiven her for The Thorn Birds all those years ago. Dreadful stuff. I daren't think about her being let loose on our precious Romans.

I am going to remember that one, Cato! I think you should put in 'Saying of the Day'

I get your meaning, PP. And it's a good point. In that case, judging by some of the dross we have had to face over the last decade or so, Kiss should be at the top of the list!

Not sure. Did they pre-date Bowie? He was the biggest influence for the glam rock revolution on this side of the Pond, but it may well have been a different source for you in the US. I'm not sure wat dates Kiss spanned - only that they were 70s. Then of course, there was Alice! We've forgotten him. Does he pre-date Kiss? Ah, this is so nostalgic.....

PP - I cannot find a single UK review of the book, although Amazon UK do have it for sale. I am most surprised that one of the serious newspapers here (Guardian, Observer, Telegraph, Times or Independent) haven't reviewed it either. Let me know what you think when you have read it. I did notice that it was only published here on 5th October, so perhaps the quality title reviews are late, but I would have thought they would have appeared somewhere by now.

He's here. Ah, cheers, PP - I missed it. One of my senior moments.....

Thank you, Ursus. This is one I won't be even bothering with.... Or are you joking?

The list is endless, Numa. It would depend whether you want primary sources or modern works. Either way, it is still an endless list. Also, do you want a general overview, or more in-depth treatments?

Salve, Aelia. Welcome on board. Hope you'll join in other threads too. Nice name by the way

Tantae religio potuit suadere malorum Such are the heights of wickedness to which men are driven by superstition. - Lucretius

Agree with everyone - there are some very dubious albums on there. Like Julius, have to agree with the inclusion of Hunky Dory (and Ziggy, to be fair), but then I am unashamedly biased, as Bowie is one of my heroes to this day. But Floyd are a huge omission. And if we're talking influential, where the hell is Hendrix?

Those are great images, Wot. I would agree too, that they immediately seem more lifelike and 'accessible' if I can use that word. The head on the left in particular, looks like someone who may walk around the corner at any moment. I noticed on the right-hand head that deep frowning brow seen in the later bust of Caracalla. Phil, above, made a point that this was an artistic device - and it may well be that artists of the Severan period looked back to the more lifelike portraits of Vespasian for inspiration. To make a full assessment of whether, as you suggest, the intensity of expression was yet another artistic device, we would perhaps need to see a wide range of portraits from the age to compare the emperor with them, before we could arrive at a conclusion. I'll hunt about for more Flavian art. Strangely enough, I am re-skimming/re-reading Grant's History of Rome again at the moment, as my bedtime reading. He has just discussed that very bust of Caracalla above, and it is his opinion that the portraiture of the Severan age almost foreshadowed the Baroque movement in 17th art and sculpture. I can certainly see what he means. If we think of the rich textures and colours of a Caravaggio or Carracci painting, for instance, there are certainly the same elements present: heavily worked features; an obsession with detail; all to create an almost larger-than-life image. Even the heavy use of chiaroscuro seems to be present in the Caracalla bust, although I realise that lighting helps us here. Grant also endorses Caldrail's argument that Caracalla and the men of the Severan age wished to be seen as militaristic and fierce. Compare this with the Augustus of Prima Porta, for instance, where even though the emperor is shown in a cuirass, addressing his troops, he wears a serene and peaceful expression - consistent with his propaganda. Phil, there is a statue of Augustus as Pontifex Maximus at the age of about 50, in which he does actually look middle-aged, but I can't find it on the internet to point to the link. I'll do some scouring.... But, you are right of course. Fifty was about the limit. It would be nice if we had a portrait of him in his 70s. There are several statues of Livia at an advanced age, and Tiberius.

Not a jot! I think it was invented later in the light of Gaius' horrific reign. It would be just the sort of story to be put about to discredit him even further - i.e. he had begun his reign by murdering his predecessor.

Ah, Cicero - that's a lovely notion - but to be quite serious, I stick up for Tiberius because of all the many emperors I have studied, he is the one whose personality is laid bare for us all to see. He was a psychologist's dream, and all his actions (good and bad) can be explained so easily by events that shaped his adolescence and earlier career. He was a man not suited to his times. I have the utmost sympathy for him as a person, and when you analyse his reign objectively, he governed well for a large part of it. While we can never acquit him of the Treason Trials and the Reign of Terror that followed, I understand exactly what caused them. I am prepared to defend him as passionately as our MPC defends your namesake

Whenever I think of the Spartans schooling their lads and lasses through gruelling exercise programmes and the like, I cannot help seeing in my mind's eye those horrendous Nazi propaganda films of leggy blonde frauleins lining up to perform their out-of-door aerobics. Another poster above condemend the Spartan society as a nasty totalitarian-type regime, and I would have to agree. But I suppose it produced the level of fantacism necessary to make the last stand at Thermopylae. If I had to choose a state, it would be Athens, for its philosophy, art and its attempt at a true democracy.

Some very interesting comments - especially on the idealism of portraiture. However, when it comes to the emperors/principes themselves, we have to take into account the consumer of this art. For instance, many ordinary men in the street in the capital as well as the provinces would probably spend their lives never even seeing their ruler in person - or perhaps at a very great distance during public festivals, etc. Statuary and portrait busts placed in strategic public places would be the only 'contact' the masses had with the ruler. For consumers such as these, an idealised version of the emperor would be accepted, together with its various visual messages. But what of the men of government who knew the emperors personally. A bust of, say, Caracalla, had to be readily recognisable, and must have had at least a hint of his true looks. I was interested in Wot's and Caldrail's comments about the artificiality of Caracalla's 'fierceness' carved into the portrait. This is worthy of discussion in itself. While emperors like Augustus, and even Tiberius, chose to have themselves depicted as semi-divine, serene and benevolent beings - at least in their portraits for the masses - why would Caracalla wish to have himself portrayed as a fierce, intractable ruler? This is fascinating, but we can only answer the question if we know for whom this particular bust was produced? Do Wot, Caldrail or Phil know the provenance of this bust? Do we know where it was first discovered? Was it a public portrait from the provinces? If it was a bust meant to be for the general masses, then it does tell us a great deal about how Caracalla wished to be perceived. Or were there other portraits of him that were 'gentler', and he reserved this fierce one to remind the higher orders just who was in charge? As for the image posted by Decimus of Gratian? - you must all forgive my woeful ignorance here. Was Gratian a Byzantine emperor? I know aboslutely nothing about the period (something I hope to put right in the future), but I have seen the odd example of Byzantine art and this head seems to have the same stamp about it. Quick edit to add: Would you say, then, that even facial flaws (e.g. Caracalla's bulbous nose) were artistic contrivances?

Ursus, I have so far resisted buying this biography, as I do not feel my shelves could stand yet another Augustan biography. Does Everitt have any new insights? Would you recommend the book? Or does it just go over the same old ground?

Welcome, Sander - I hope you enjoy your time here among us. Thank you for posting the info on the second season of 'Rome'. I think we are all looking forward to it - even the old nit-pickers like me And yes - you are a blasphemer regarding 'I, Claudius' ..... the punishment decreed by we oldies is that you be tied to an uncomfortable chair and be force-fed numerous replays of Jacobi and Hurt acting out the 'You've become a god!' scene in Episode 8. Once again, glad to have you on board.

I think there are two issues here, Caldrail. The art of the Republican period tended to be more realistic, with the Republicans' taste for verismo, whereas the portraiture of the Imperial period was far more idealised, incorporating Hellenic influences, and other artifical devices to convey the new propaganda. I am not sure that Trajan's column is free of this latter influence either. Naturally, the emperor commissioned it to glorify his Dacian campaigns amongst other things, so the monument was still an object of propaganda. On the thread 'Neglected Areas', MPC sensibly suggested that I provide some links to the artwork, so I am going to spend a little time doing that today. We can then get this thread going with the help of some famous (and perhaps not so famous) images. But as a little aside, I have always been impressed (from an artistic point of view) with the famous bust of Caracalla in the Museo Nazionale in Naples, which, although it was executed during the imperial period, seems to me to convey a high degree of realism. The character of the man is conveyed brilliantly without any idealism. The great frowning brow and deep-set eyes, and the almost aggressive snarl. I have always thought that this was one of the most impressive portraits of the Roman world. Accuracy? Well, this is a man you wouldn't mess with Bust of the Emperor Caracalla in the Museo Nazionale, Napoli - image reproduced on the Wikipedia site

Thank you, WW. I would love a discussion on this very topic. But perhaps we would need to discuss it from the point of view of a couple of case studies - perhaps looking at, say, the Ara Pacis and the Pont du Gard, so that there would also be a comparison between the type of buildings: one a monument to peace with no particular utilitarian function, and the other a functional structure: one building in the capital, one in a province. Is this the sort of thing you mean?