M. Porcius Cato

At one point, Vercingetorix was very, very small with a head that was HUGE for his body. He was also speechless and unable to walk. With time, however, Vercingetorix overcame these obstacles... sorry, couldn't resist.

I was riveted by John Adams--the acting, the re-creation of colonial Boston, the attention to historical detail, and especially the classical allusions (e.g., to Demosthenes and De Bello Gallica). The debate over declaring independence was the highlight though--as it ought to have been, since this is where the historical John Adams made his mark on history. My only two complaints are minor. First, the depiction of the British occupation of Boston was terribly underplayed. The quartering of British troops was a policy that mothered innumerable outrages. The vaunted British regulars were frequently drunk, even selling their muskets for rum, and--like the British officer who smashed the face of a child Andrew Jackson--cruel and abusive. The Boston Massacre that opened the television series was in fact only the climax in a series of incidents stretching back to the beginning of the occupation in 1768. Indeed, the intolerable behavior of the Redcoats inflamed even British opposition to the Intolerable Acts, yet the television portrayal fails to convey any of this at a personal level. Thus, it's impossible to see what drove men into the Massachusetts militia in the first place, and why Bostonians like Sam Adams were ready to see the lobsterbacks cooked. After all this, the Massachusetts Government Act of 1774, which declared that Massachusetts "should henceforth be put upon the like footing as is established in such other of his Majesty's colonies or plantations", was merely formalizing the de facto martial law that had existed since 1768. My other minor complaint--and it's related to the first--is that the readiness of Americans for armed rebellion wasn't clear. It's certainly the case that George Washington found an under-supplied, under-trained, and undisciplined force when he came to New England. But that force was only a small part of the resistance. American school-children know the rest of the resistance from a few famous names, like Nathan Hale, Paul Revere and Ethan Allen, but what they are meant to symbolize are whole networks of spies, couriers, and spontaneous militias that gave Americans superior intelligence on enemy movements, superior communications of orders, and a superior ability to take advantage of the opportunities that arose. The capture of Fort Ticonderoga was a great example of Americans pressing their few advantages to real victory, and the John Adams series gives only passing nod to the wide array of revolutionaries that prepared the way for Washington. Still, these are only quibbles. I can't wait to see the next episode.

I have to agree with Augusta. Dickens' characters were almost uniformly unidimensional caricatures, and the result is a comic-book set of plots where everyone who opposes the protagonist does so out of malice and greed, whereas everyone who supports the protagonist does so out of benevolence and charity. Ack! Now compare that to Jane Austen's characters, who--like real people, not like cartoon characters--conflict with the protagonist out of a mistaken sense of loyalty, honor, and duty, as well as out of petty desires, personal insecurity, and just childish aspirations. The result is that Austen's richly motivated characters yield enjoyable plots, sub-plots, and sub-sub-plots, with layers of conflicts (large and small) on every level. I can't say that Austen falls on my list of favorite authors (I'm a sucker for French Romantics like Hugo, Rostand, and Dumas), but in her keen eye for human nature, Jane Austen came closer to Shakespeare than any other British writer. In my opinion, comparing Jane Austen to Dickens is like comparing Mozart to "Twinkle twinkle little star."

The combined forces assembled at Philippi must have been the largest in Roman history. According to Appian, the Liberators had 19 incomplete legions to the 19 full legions commanded by Antony (and nominally by Octavian). Can anyone find 38+ full legions assembled for another battle?

I'm thrilled--the story of Hypatia is one of the best kept secrets of the ancient world. A renowned mathematician and philosopher, Hypatia is (I think) the only woman depicted in Raphael's School of Athens. From Socrates Scholasticus: Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her by scraping her skin off with tiles and bits of shell. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. Historically, interest in her story typically waxes and wanes with the popularity of free-thought, so it's a nice cultural sign that she's garnering interest again. Maybe the Church will finally do the right thing and strip Cyril, who led the mob against her, of his sainthood.

To get back to the original post, I'm not a fan of Caesar. For just one list of reasons that I'm not an admirer of Caesar, see HERE (plenty of juicy counter-arguments also follow). Poke around, and you'll find other lists I've written, variously condemning Caesar's Machiavellian character, short-sighted laws, exaggerated military reputation, and destructive legacy. As for the greatest Roman figures, my personal favorites are the most idealistic ones: Cato the Younger and Sertorius. I also greatly admire (1) M Junius Brutus, for founding the republic and defending it against his own sons, (2) the tribune Licinius who opened Roman government to the plebeian caste, (3) the plebeian consul M. Curius Dentatus, whose armies defeated all of Rome's enemies, including Pyrrhus, and (4) Scipio Africanus, who saved Rome from the greatest general of the ancient world (and perhaps all time), Hannibal.

Happy Day!

And here in Ohio, that would be BRUTUS!

Performance excerpt courtesy of NYT.

Just do it--since it's fun for you, it'll be an exercise you keep up with. Like you, I also played tennis for my varsity high school team, but I almost totally quit for the (OMG) 12+ years of my education and early career. Somehow, I'd missed what follows mens sana. When I finally wanted to get a corpora sana, I hit with a very patient pro (cost: less than a hair cut). After a shaky (read pathetic) start, I got back to 50% of old self by the end of the first session, though I could barely walk for a week. (When this happens to you, just repeat to yourself, "Pain is only weakness leaving the body," and pretend a Stoic said it.) Most important thing, Augusta: tennis is no substitute for regular posts on Livia and her Venereal family!

Happy Birthday, PP!

Another source of similarity between Carthaginian and Greco-Roman civilization comes from the fact that the 8th C. Greeks were strongly influenced by the Phoenicians (e.g., the alphabet, geometric pottery) and Persians (e.g., the chicken, Babylonian creation myths, etc). Thus, some of the 'Hellenism' in Carthage is just recycled Phoenician culture.

Very kinky. Gaius Caecilius and Caecilia are spouses as well as siblings? If not siblings, which of the Caecilii was Caecilia's father? If none were, from whose gens did she descend? That gens should be source of her nomen (and she should have no praenomen or agnomen). I also agree with Nephele about Marius.

I play tennis twice a week.

Patrick Stewart certainly looks like Caesar, and with his Shakespearean training, he'd probably be a great one too. Still, it's hard for me to imagine a better portrayal than Hinds'. BTW, Stewart's previous role in Julius Caesar was as Cassius:

I don't know of any empirical support for this view. In fact, the whole idea of "class solidarity" with the Germans sounds totally un-Roman.

Actually, my TiVo is set to auto-record anything to do with Rome, and I manage to get at least one documentary a day. Mind you, 4 times out of 5, it's "Secrets of the Colosseum" or "What Did the Romans Do for Us?". Still.

Nice review Ursus. One of the experts interviewed, Kim Hartswick, was my Roman Art & Archaeology professor. He was a real gentleman and a scholar, and I just adored his class. Seeing him in my living room was a real jolt.

Perhaps due to the 1994 de-institutionalization of patients from psychiatric hospitals?

Very nice response WotWotius.

Normally, I don't like to give feedback on creative work before it's done. It feels presumptuous on my part. More, it's hard to do anything creative well, requiring risk-taking on the part of the artist, who is understandably proud of his work and very sensitive to feedback. But since you asked... I don't agree with the philosophy of deriving character's names from the roles they fill in the novel. Take the names of your prostitutes as an example. What mother looks upon her baby daughter and thinks to herself, "Ah! Why she looks just like a whore--I'll call her Semele, after the goddess of the night"? It's totally unbelievable. Moreover, prostitutes in the ancient world were very often sex slaves, meaning many were born as free women with their own hopes and identity before they were brutally captured, sent to Rome in chains, beaten by their masters, and raped into submission. Do you really want to give these poor women a name that says, in effect, 'This woman was a whore from birth.' I'm sure you don't mean to communicate that. There's another tack that can be effective (if used with restraint)--give your characters names that are dramatically ironic. For example, find a name for a prostitute that is derived from "chastity" or "purity" or "hope" or something like that. There's a horror to seeing a woman named 'chastity' in a brothel--it communicates what a totally unnatural and abominable situation is at hand. Moreover, in a single name, you communicate what the Empire meant to hundreds of thousands of people: "To robbery, slaughter, and rapine, they give the lying name of empire; they make a desert and call it peace" (Tacitus). As I say, it's critical to use ironic naming with restraint. Not every prostitute was born with a heart of gold (that's as tasteless a cliche as the opposite), so by all means, feel free to give one or two exotic, slutty names. In fact, the contrast between the two types of names can be very effective, saying (in effect) "Any woman could find herself in that situation." And that's how you can elicit empathy from your readers. On another note, I think the main Christian girl in Quo Vadis was named Lydia, so you might want to choose another name to avoid the appearance of imitation.

Happy birthday Viggen. Hope you have a birthday happier than Cassius' last one.

I'm not an expert on the period that Peter Heather describes, but at least during the republic, barbarian auxiliary were certainly not beloved by their Roman comrades-in-arms. For example, in Caesar's Gallic adventures, there was continual tension between Legio X and the barbarian cavalry auxilia.

Alas, not even to celebrate the Ides.

Yes, that's a good point. Maybe I don't want to be Caesar, please, to tramp round the Britons, weak at the knees, [suffering your peripatetic disease] in the Scythian frosts to freeze. Bah! Hadrian just doesn't have the comedic potential as the Venereal One.