The Augusta

Welcome, Sarah. Must it be an actual toga? These, of course, were really only worn by male Romans. Ladies had a long tunic and the very pretty palla which could be draped from the shoulder in all manner of different ways. Married ladies would have also worn a stola - a sort of pinafore - over the tunic and underneath the final palla. Perhaps if your friends are expecting you to arrive in folds of gorgeous satin, they are definitely thinking more of the palla. A good swatch of fabric bought from any haberdashers would serve you better, I think. It would be far easier to drape (as there was no set rule) and much less cumbersome to wear. You would also need less material. (Togas were enormous circular or semi-circular things). If you need any more help, please drop me a PM and I will be happy to send you some illustrations/photos. As for a tiara, or diadem, as the palla was worn through all ages of the Republic and Empire, this would not be out of place at all. Good luck with your party.

There have been several theories - but the most popular is that at dawn on the summer solstice (20th/21st June) the sun shines directly through the structure from east to west in a perfect line. Whether this had any great significance for the ancients I do not know.

Gaius - I'm confused already! I apologise for totally disregarding the conditional phrase at the start of your post - I was convinced you were giving Traianus an example of a 'phrasal' verb by offering such constructions as 'she will have been' etc., which is what we have grown up with in England as 'a compound tense'. This has nothing to do with idiomatic usage. Remember all those Latin lessons, when we droned out our conjugations? amavero, amaveris, amaverit....etc. 'I will have loved, you (s) will have loved'...etc. This is the future perfect tense of the verb, and its meaning is 'will have done whatever'. Therefore, it is a tense, not a phrasal verb. What I consider as a phrasal verb is something like 'to go off', or 'to climb up' - i.e. a verb that is enhanced in meaning - or even changed in meaning - by the adding of a preposition or other word. However, I do not purport to be an up-to-date language scholar - I went to school just after 'thou' and 'thee' passed from everyday usage ( ) so what you term a 'phrasal verb' or 'verb-phrase' may well be the equivalent of what I would term a compound verb tense. I am not sure what you mean by giving examples of the right and wrong construction here, but I will give it a shot: a) In December I will have lived in Italy for three years. (Not the best sentence, but it illustrates the construction). There is only the one verb - 'to live' and it is put into the future perfect tense 'will have lived' by use of the auxillary verb 'to have' - thus making it 'a compound tense'. We do not consider this a phrasal verb. Just before the shop closed down, Gill bought three pairs of Prada shoes in the sale. This is what I would understand as a phrasal verb. It changes the meaning slightly - i.e. the shop has not merely closed (for the night) but has closed for good. So, 'to close down' is a separate verb than 'to close', and modifies the meaning. I am sure that is what Traianus meant. Is this any clearer? Or have I made things worse? (It wouldn't be the first time ) Here's a link: http://www.englishpage.com/prepositions/ph...dictionary.html

Felicitations, Pantagathus - may the sun always shine on you. And like most of the bibulous contributors to this thread, I am so glad that you have given me an excuse for a drink in your honour.

I agree, AD - a phrasal verb is one that forms a phrase, like 'go off'. What Gaius Octavius was describing is a compound tense - i.e. he will have been - future perfect. In Romance languages a compound tense is so-called because it is formed from an auxillary verb (e.g. avere or essere in Italian). The same obviously occurs in English by using present or past tenses of the verb 'to have'.

or when pronounced as 'ay' as in nEIghbor and wEIgh.) or when it's like EITHER and NEITHER? Ah, but the complete saying is 'I before E, except after C, when the sound is EE'. Now, I say eye-ther, but you might say ee-ther! So, neighbour and weigh aren't included in the 'rule'. (I really need to get out more )

Obviously a hairy barbarian thought it was not wort stealing! Now,I am writing from memory here - but wasn't a Christian church built around the old Curia (which isn't the Augustan one in any case), and that was why it survived? This is even worse than the barbarians ignoring it!

Yes, he has an awful lot to answer for.

Well, I don't profess to be an expert here, PP, but where vampires are concerned, I'm a bit of a fan! You raise an interesting point. Succubi/incubi were sexual predators of the night, and there is clearly a psychological link between vampirical practices and the sublimation of the sexual urge to dominate/be dominated. But I think we're getting into very deep realms here. If you read Anne Rice, none of her toothy boys perform the sexual act. She applies logic to the idea of being Undead one minute (an undead person can't have the same urges as a living person), and then makes some of her Lestat's companions such sweeties, that we fall in love with them! However, back to Rome and the matter in hand. There has always been a school of thought that equates the cult of Dionysos with a branch of vampirism/cannibalism. Those who ate of human flesh became immortal like the god etc. Although the Romans outlawed his cult, there were no doubt those who practised it in secret, and this may have given us one strand to this very complex and eclectic myth that springs from numerous sources.

I tend to approach history in layers, rather like Phil, but my approach does depend upon why I am reading it in the first place. We are all lovers of the Classical world here, but naturally we have our various areas of interest and expertise. For instance, I am mostly interested in the late Republic and early Principate, but have enough curiosity and love of all things ancient to attempt to broaden my knowledge into other eras. I am at present studying the Punic Wars, and I began with Livy. However, were I to extend my studies into the Severan dynasty (which also interests me, but I know very little of the history) I would probably begin with a good narrative overview. This is because my interest in the Severans is only lukewarm at the moment, but nevertheless the spark is there. I would 'sample' the history through a more populist type of text to see if it fired my interest further, and if so, I may well then progress to more serious in depth study. By contrast, my interest in the Punic Wars has always been deeper, therefore I began in a more scholarly manner (for want of a better term) by going to the primary source(s). M.P. Cato's general condemnation of the biography interested me, and I can indeed see his point. I will readily admit that I am drawn to history for two main reasons: I am interested in the people, great or small, who have shaped our present world for good or bad, and I find it most enlightening to see such people within the context of great political or social change. For the second of these reasons, I understand Cato's reasoning, that the biography often does not examine the subject against the backdrop of his/her context in history. However, the other side of this is that often a biography is the first introduction we have to a historical subject. For instance, when I read Plutarch's Lives years ago for the first time, I was immediately fascinated by Sulla. He had colour, and I found myself comparing him with Marius, no doubt as Plutarch intended. Until Plutarch at 16 years old, I had never heard of either Marius or Sulla! I know that the ancient biographers are perhaps not a good example to use here - I don't think Cato included them in his general condemnation. However, because Sulla had caught my imagination, I decided to widen my studies. If biography achieves only this small thing, it has perhaps achieved its aim. I agree with Cato, however, that some modern biographies that just set out to glorify the subject, contribute very little to scholarship, but I would say, in their defence, that they are perhaps aimed more at the layman and not the serious scholar. There is also a case to be made for why we are approaching the history, and not just the how. Surely this will effect our methodology. I would love to know more about the Persian Empire, for instance, but I would not wish to become an expert in the topic, to either contribute to scholarship or use the acquired knowledge in a professional capacity. My reasons for study would be a personal interest only, and I would therefore start with something like Tom Holland's book. Someone who is studying for a degree, however, would approach the subject in a different way. To sum up with myself as a case study - if I may beg your indulgence, I am now awaiting delivery of the Liddell-Hart biography of Scipio Africanus, which members of the forum recommended to me as a furtherance to my studies - it has been despatched by Blackwell's today. As I really am becoming very deeply interested in the Punic Wars, I do not intend to stop there. I will read, compare and do my best to evaluate the various primary sources and make my own judgement on Liddel-Hart's interpretation of his subject - and who knows, that may lead even further down the path. It's a method which seems to have served me well over the years.

Nor me, Pertinax. I did not watch last night's offering, as I finally had to give up after last week's episode, which reminded me - against my will - so much of The Life of Brian that I ended up chuckling. The narrator even spoke those immortal words: 'The Jewish factions had to unite against the common enemy...' Cue for a Python line, if ever there was one! Is there yet another episode to go? I thought Constantine was to be the last.

How fascinating! I have never thought of the Roman nose as being aquiline as such. My idea of a Roman nose (passed on to me from my mother, who also believed it) is one which does not have an indent under the brow in profile. A bit hard to explain in writing, but if you think of a man or woman's profile in which the nose forms a continuous downward line from the forehead, there you have it. It's more to do with the way the nose joins the forehead than the actual shape or curve. Of course, my mother wasn't known for her accuracy!

Thank you for such a full answer, Publius. I am glad I had my reading of the matter correct, as I sometimes worry that I am a little dense in the interpretation of military matters. When I read about the battle in Livy I did think it was a great tactical manoeuvre by Nero and Salinator, so I am pleased that someone with military expertise endorses my interpretation. Thank you again.

There is this rather old thread in which I went on a bit of a tirade regarding the Death of Germanicus Though I don't think the guy I was replying to read a single one of my posts... especially those that quoted the ancients verbatim... it was quite frustrating. Thank you for pointing me in the direction of this old thread, PP. I have just finished reading through it, and may I say, you are a saint! To have maintained your dignity and integrity in the face of such hamfisted posting from G. Nero is a superhuman feat indeed. I would have forgotten I was a lady had I been dealing with him, I think. I noted he has not been back since August 2005. Well, for every one of Jove's thunderbolts, Iris sends us a rainbow. Edited to add: When G. Nero kept on and on at you to name him a source that did not state that Tiberius was accused of Germanicus' murder, I would have thrown Velleius Paterculus at him. That would have also destroyed his argument about Suetonius being the closest one to the events!

I agree with your entire post, PP, but especially the paragraph quoted above. I am also of the opinion that there was a great change in Octavian's outlook after Sicily. Not only was the triple victory there the cause for great national rejoicing (the corn supply was freed, civil war for the moment (ostensibly) at an end), but a member of the Triumvirate was disposed of too - and all in the name of peace. We will never know just why Lepidus chose that moment to make his futile and misjudged bid for more power, but he played into Octavian's hands. And let us not forget that after Sicily, Octavian's popularity soared and Octavia and Livia were both honoured by the Senate and People. So confident was he becoming that he instigated his campaigns in Illyricum in 35-34BC, so as not to be seen resting on his laurels. This was in direct competition with Antony's campaigns in the east, so he was already formulating the east/west divide as you so rightly point out. Whether he did want sole rule from the outset we will never know, and I agree that Agrippa and Maecenas may well have urged him on. However, it is interesting that many people overlook Salvidienus Rufus in these early years of Octavian's bid for power. I have always had my suspicions that he was quite a driving force - and his later actions proved that he could be ambitious and unscrupulous, throwing his loyalty to the winds. The fact that Octavian had this former close associate and personal friend tried and condemned by the Senate is, I think, a telling statement of his intent. Octavian was shrewd enough to show clemency to Lucius Antony after Perusia, but arraigned his leading general of the time (and let us not forget that Rufus was indeed his leading general at this stage) on a charge of treason. Pardoning enemies and condemning friends would have done his own credibility no harm whatsoever at that time.

A glorious day indeed! And although I am still a novice regarding the Punic Wars, would I be correct in saying that The Metaurus marked a great turning point? Or do you think that other factors came into play? My reading of the Second Punic War is that if Hasdrubal had been able to meet up with his brother's forces, the outcome may have been very different. Did Metaurus pave the way for Hannibal's final defeat? I would love to read your thoughts.

When all goes as well as I'm sure it will... please do pass along the questions you were faced with Thank you for your faith, PP - and I will be happy to pass on the questions.

Forgive me, Phil - I went back and reread your post and realised that I had perhaps taken your statement out of context. But can you point to the source which says that Livilla did admit to the poisoning of her husband? I can't find such an admission in Tacitus, Suetonius or even Dio - but I may have missed something.

Let me immediately lower the tone. I would have thrown myself at Augustus! Terentia has my utmost envy. And do not imagine I jest! Providing one kept ones nose clean and didn't nag at him too much, I should think Augustus' mistress would have been a wonderful occupation. An earlier poster said the worst job would be Caligula's PA. Are you mad, Aurelianus? What an opportunity to study one of the most fascinating characters in history. And it would certainly keep you on your toes!

Back to the naughty words - CiceroD, you might also dip into any parallel text translation of Catullus for a variety of gems describing the ruder parts of our anatomy. But as a lot of our modern vulgarities are taken from a Latin original, many of them won't surprise you. And anyone who has a working knowledge of modern Italian will see even more of a connection.

Battle of Britain for me. And as I speak as a person of Jacobite heritage, Culloden was a foregone conclusion. Charles Edward's bid for the throne ended when his ridiculous advisers persuaded him to turn back at Derby. I speak with some emotion. I had an ancestor hanged, drawn and quartered. Forgive me...it is my birthday and I can be accused of levity, but that is a brillitant post, husband! It is the kind of wit I appreciate. And I mean no disrespect to Phil. As well as the more serious discussion on other threads, little gems like this are why I am so addicted to this Forum.

Talking of Trivia - I have been chosen as a candidate for my local amateur dramatic theatre's annual 'Mastermind' contest on 27th October. My specialist subject will be the Julio-Claudian Emperors, and the questions, I believe, have been set by my old Latin teacher - god help me! All your prayers are solicited.

But in an earlier post, Phil, you accuse her of disposing of Agrippa Postumus. For what its worth, my own belief is that she certainly did have something to do with the final disposal of Postumus - but that is the only death she is guilty of. Just put this down to thirty plus years of research into this amazing woman. If she did dispose of Postumus, it was a shrewd bit of business, as harsh as that may sound to us. There is nothing worse than a rival claimant. However, the truth of Drusus the Younger's death is one that intrigues me still. This man was a heavy drinker, and may well have died as a result of his own addictions. What is interesting, is that this 'murder' was only revealed some time after the event, and by Apicata, Sejanus' estranged wife who had her own axe to grind. Seager and Levick make powerful cases for his death being natural, and examine the motives behind Apicata's 'revelation'. I am still not totally convinced that Drusus' death was murder - but these discussions on 'murder' or 'natural deaths' would make a fascinating thread in themselves. It is certainly easier to believe that Drusus died so that Sejanus could marry Livilla, than some of the charges laid against Livia. Some loose-tongued slave? Just a suggestion. But worry not, Spittle, I am only playing Devil's advocate. I fully believe that Tiberius died of his stroke and nothing else. I can only say 'Hear, Hear' to that, Phil! Has there yet been a thread for the discussion of this overblown, over-praised godling?

Just a quicky to correct you Phil - there was a premature birth mentioned by Suetonius, Divus Augustus, 63, although at what stage of their marriage is not stated. Robert Graves, in what is, of course, otherwise a highly plausible tale, goes to great lengths to concoct the ridiculous excuse of Augustus being impotent with Livia due to his sense of guilt at taking her from Nero, and even deals with the Suetonius citation by stating that 'my grandmither pretended to be pregnant by him' (quoted from memory, sorry). As Augustus was something of a womaniser, a point on which the majority of sources are agreed, infertility may well have occurred at a fairly young age. Or who knows if Livia herself hadn't suffered some kind of infection that rendered her infertile? Tiberius and Julia also had a stillborn son. (Suetonius, Tiberius, 7.

I have only read the Levick, Spit, but I can recommend it. I am assuming you refer to Tiberius the Politician? Together with the Seager account (Tiberius by Robin Seager), they make a welcome - and balanced - addition to any Julio-Claudian bookshelf.