Everritt's Augustus

[Caesar CXXXVII]

The book asserts Augustus gave some unspoken signal to Livia that he wanted to die to allow a smooth transition for Tiberius. Thus, she poisoned him with figs when he was already recovering from an illness.

 

 

Thank you for your reply , I thought I was losing my ability (some kind of...) to read English .

 

I hope (too) that the writer have good evidence to support his thesis (or otherwise joke) .

Edited November 21, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII

[The Augusta]

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.

[P.Clodius]

I'm upto about 17 BC. The book has shed some light onto those foggy years between 27-23BC. So far I like the book and will gladly give it a re-read when I'm bored. He certainly liked a bit on the side!

[Ursus]

I have read the book but will defer to P. Clodius or anyone else in making a full review. I don't feel sufficiently motivated to write several paragraphs on it. I will only offer a "pocket review" as Pertinax would say.

 

Informative. Much information. Views the many shades of Augustus, including his relations with his two key advisors, his family members, and the other key players of the Late Republic. Whether or not there is new info here depends on how much you have read about Augustus. If you know little, you will certainly be educated.

 

The prose is delightful. Intelligent but not complicated.

 

The author makes a few interesting points, take them for what they are worth to you:

 

Augustus seemed a coward on the battlefield, but risked his life to face angry mobs. Augustus conceived of courage as an individual act to confront those defying his will, not a team effort in a military context.

 

The choice between Augustus and Antony was a choice between a prudish but efficient monarchy, and a more laid back but less well organized monarchy, respectively. We can be thankful Augustus won because Antony's regime would presumably not have had the lasting impact on Western Civilization.

 

Augustus was a deliberate, long range thinker, but not quite blessed with extraordinary visions. Many mistakes were made and much luck was needed. Plans were conducted often on an ad hoc basis.

 

The book has a central flaw, and this is what averted me from reviewing it. The introduction gives us a fanciful tale of how Livia poisoned Augustus, with his consent, to make way for Tiberius. One expects the rest of the book to help prove this thesis. It doesn't. The book showcases the characters of both Augustus and Livia, and while it would not be out of character for either of them, the opening hypothesis is left unproven. The author himself admits the real truth can never be known.

 

So why include it anyway? I guess to hook the reader into buying the book, thinking there will be something novel here. There isn't though.

 

All in all, a decent enough read, but perhaps not worth the hype.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Ursus , what Everitt has to say about the Varo Murena conspiracy ? (maybe that Augustus ordered it ? )

 

Seriously .

[The Augusta]

Thanks for that, Ursus. When you mentioned the book earlier in the thread, I remember thinking that here was another author advancing a crackpot theory to make a name for himself. The fact that he does not go on to prove his thesis is even worse! And didn't you say in an earlier post that Everitt had 'evidence' for this?

 

As I said before, I haven't found a review of this yet in our serious newspapers - which I find unusual, because Everitt at one time wrote for The Guardian.

[Ursus]

Ursus , what Everitt has to say about the Varo Murena conspiracy ? (maybe that Augustus ordered it ? )

 

 

I honestly forget the exact details of his rendering, sorry.

 

Thanks for that, Ursus. When you mentioned the book earlier in the thread, I remember thinking that here was another author advancing a crackpot theory to make a name for himself.

 

 

I think the introduction was basically to try to put a new spin on a very old topic. Either he couldn't manage proving it, or had no intention to (i.e., the intro was a cynical way of grabbing one's attention).

 

The rest of the book is actually an informative and enjoyable read, as P. Clodius alludes. However, for someone already well educated on the topic, such as yourself, there is probably no reason to buy it.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

From Amazon - Publishers Weekly -

"British author Everitt begins his biography of Augustus (63 B.C.

Edited November 26, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII

[spittle]

Livia poisoned Augustus with his consent?

 

Its the ending to I CLAUDIUS!

Stupid idea.