Jordon Harriman

'Pullo got your tongue" has replaced "Cat got your tongue" at our house.

Sweet, Pertinax, very sweet.

Cato, you made me laugh out loud. Well responded.

I think all he was saying was that Cincinnatus, the Grachi, and Marius would not negotiate or govern with a whore and a dwarf by their side - that they had dignity and respect for the office. Their particular politics were beside his point.

According to the New Yorker review linked by M. Porcius Cato, she says "Die screaming, you pig-spawned trollop."

Re the second episode, I again enjoy that Octavian does not have everything thought out. He is definitely "clever like you don't know what," but he is not all knowing and miles ahead of everyone else yet. He is only a "little" ahead, only in some things, and is not quite sure of where he is or where he will end up. I like that portrayal a little better than Colleen McCullough's (her Octavian seemed to be always too sure how everything would play out). Octavian has no self-awareness of the historical inevitability of where his path will lead. That makes the character fresher, more immediate, more real, and more dramatically satisfying.

"Passover" was powerful. I enjoyed the image of Octavian in his funeral cowl. It echoed the statue and bust of Augustus as priest. The writing was excellent, really capturing the confusion and shifting plans and ideas in the chaos following Caesar's death. No one immediately thinks of the "best" course or the one ultimately chosen, but ideas get tossed about until the plan forms. Very good. I am so captivated by the show now, I don't care as much about some historical errors. It still feels like what Rome must have been like. I can't wait for the next episode.

Primus Pilus, I agree with your wife's observation about Caesar, and it is disconcerting. Caesar was loved by the people, hated by the Boni. Yet in this series, I don't get any sense of affection between Caesar and the head count. Further, they are making Caesar seem like he does want to be king. I do not get any sense of even ambiguity from him on this point. Everything he does seems to be self protective, like trying to send Brutus out of Rome, not because he needed him to govern Macedonia, or because he was trying to help his career, but because it would make Caesar feel safer. He has a minor personage assassinated because he speaks against Caesar? Where is Caesar's mercy? Where is Caesar's confidence? Where is the man who is indifferent to threats because he has such a strong clear vision of what Rome can be? When he is assassinated, there will be no sense of a great man lost, of a dream dying, of unfinished business. I think of Caesar guiding the stream of history - this Caesar of "Rome" is just floating along in the stream with everybody else. Still and all, I love this show. I waited my whole life for something like this. I think one of the best indicators of its quality is that it is mostly so "right" that we notice all the more when something is wrong.

I love this series because of the little things they continue to do to "get it right." Last night, when Servillia is coldly greeting Brutus, you see the family Imagoes in the background, lit with candles from behind. It feels like all those little touches are for people like us, and I really appreciate them. It just makes this Rome feel fully lived in, not like other productions with those cold, sterile, marble sets where people walk around in white togas pontificating. I also liked Cleopatra's Egyptian SUV. Primus Pilus, thanks for the useful chart.

Two things that slightly bother me about the series: (1) It has thirteen people with "producer" in their title. That just seems obnoxious to me. (2) It is a series about ROME, but the copyright date is not in Roman numerals. The same thing irked me about "Gladiator," which should have used "MM" for its copyright date.

Re Episode 5 itself: The scene with Evander, Titus and Octavian was simply chilling. I was watching it pursuant to my 21st Century moral code. When Titus hesitates about torturing Evander, I think to myself, "he has scruples about this, he doesn't want to torture an innocent man." But no, he just doesn't know how to go about it, and is happy for the suggestion from Octavian about the thumbs. The long shot with the screams and Titus tossing the thumbs in the sewer was especially sobering and harrowing. That scene contrasts significantly with Vorenus's scene where he hesitates to break the businessman's arm, and refuses to kill him. Did Vorenus refuse because he thought killing that man was wrong, or because he did not want to be a hired killer? He then rejoins the Legion, where he will be ordered (and paid) to kill people he has no personal quarrel with. Vorenus is clearly a man of faith - He undergoes a religious rite when he re-enters the Legion. But he is a man of Roman faith, believing in Roman gods. I think the show's creators wanted the viewers to compare and contrast those two scenes, and think about how we view Titus and Vorenus as a result. I like that there is a lot to chew on, and no easy answer. I don't think we are being led to any one answer. Both characters are becoming fully realized, and look at reality from a Roman point of view instead of a modern one. That is one of the reasons I am really enjoying the show. Regarding Octavian being in that situation, I think it is more that the writers needed to create something for him to do. He is obviously an important character for the future of the series, but has no important position or authority right now. The scene keeps him in our minds, and illustrates again his ability to judge and see through other people. It also illustrates that he is not squeamish about torture or bloodshed. I was fine with the scene for that reason.

You are right, P.Clodius. I was just reading the part of "October Horse" last night where Cato commits suicide in Utica. I really liked Colleen McCullough's characterization of Cato in those novels. Completely unyielding and uncompromising in so many things, great and small, yet inconsistent when it suited his Boni convenience. Her Cato would definitely be spinning in his grave (or his ashes would be stirring) to see how Caesar is shown in "Rome."

Skarr, thanks for responding to my Caesar/Octavian Tryst query. I noted that scene, but completely assumed that the cook realized Caesar had a seizure, not that she might misinterpret the episode as a sexual encounter. Primus, I too thought that the first season was going to end with Caesar's death. If it does end that way, then as you said they are really going to short-change us on some great history. I read the synopsis for the next episode, "The Ram has Touched the Wall," and chronologically it does not cover very much time. I think Caesar is going to be around well into Season Two.

Primus, I missed that Caesar/Octavian tryst implication completely, but now with your comment I understand what Atia was referring to in the previews for next week. Hopefully that will be a short-lived plot arc. What poem/poet was Octavia quoting at the party?

OK, episode four was great TV. Caesar and Mark Antony had their Don Corleone and Sonny moment ("never let anyone outside the family know what you're thinking") and Pullo is fortune's pet. Servilia seemed too passive and unsure. The scene in Vorenus' house with Pompey's son when Pullo comes in and saves the day was exciting and dramatic. They got the Augers just right. I still think Ciaran Hinds is doing a good job as Caesar. What do the rest of you think about this episode?