Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant ~ Volume III, Part 3 ~ Nonfiction
jane
December 11, 2003 - 03:59 pm


What are our origins? Where are we now? Where are we headed?

Share your thoughts with us!





  
"I want to know what were the steps by which man passed from barbarism to civilization." (Voltaire)





Volume Three ("Caesar and Christ")

"Four elements constitute Civilization -- economic provision, political organization, moral traditions, and the pursuit of knowledge and the arts. "

"I shall proceed as rapidly as time and circumstances will permit, hoping that a few of my contemporaries will care to grow old with me while learning. "

"These volumes may help some of our children to understand and enjoy the infinite riches of their inheritance."

"Civilization begins where chaos and insecurity ends." "








NERO







"Under the guidance of the philosopher-premier, the Empire prospered within and without."

"To divert Nero from interference with state affairs, Seneca and Burrus allowed him to indulge his sensuality unrestrained."

"What this uninhibited satyr really wanted was to be a great artist."

"Tragedy was rapidly catching up with his comedy."





In this Discussion Group we are not examining Durant. We are examining Civilization but in the process constantly referring to Durant's appraisals.

In this volume Will Durant recounts the flaming pageant of the rise of Rome from a crossroads town to mastery of the world. He tells of its achievements from the Crimea to Gibraltar and from the Euphrates to Hadrian's Wall, of its spread of classic civilization over the Mediterranean and western European world. He relates Rome's struggle to preserve its ordered realm from a surrounding sea of barbarism and its long slow crumbling and final catastrophic collapse into darkness and chaos.

Turning to the eastern Mediterranean, we accompany Christ on his ministry, witness the tragic scenes of the Passion, and sail and walk with Paul on his missionary labors. The Empire attains a new invincibility under the Emperor Aurelian, declines, and finally stiffens into a bureaucratic mold.

This volume, and the series of which it is a part, has been compared with the great work of the French encyclopedists of the eighteenth century. The Story of Civilization represents the most comprehensive attempt in our times to embrace the vast panorama of man's history and culture.

This, then, is about YOU. Join our group daily and listen to what Durant and the rest of us are saying. Better yet, share with us your opinions.



Your Discussion Leader:

Robby Iadeluca




Story of Civilization, Vol III, Part 1
Story of Civilization, Vol III, Part 2


Books main page | B&N Bookstore | Suggest a Book for Discussion
We sometimes excerpt quotes from discussions to display on pages on SeniorNet's site or in print documents.
If you do NOT wish your words quoted, please email books@seniornet.org



Internet Citation Procedure



jane
December 11, 2003 - 04:01 pm
Remember to subscribe!

robert b. iadeluca
December 14, 2003 - 08:26 am
Time after time throughout the era of "our Oriental Heritage" and even during "The Life of Greece" we have seen leaders summarily executed by those who captured them. Now let us click on to this ARTICLE and consider what will be done to our latest dictator.

Should we do as was done millennia ago or has Mankind actually "progressed?"

Robby

Bubble
December 14, 2003 - 08:26 am
Thank you Jane, I did!



Wow, A new place to inaugurate. Lets fill it with challenging learning and intense thinking> Master Robby?
Bubble

Scrawler
December 14, 2003 - 10:47 am
"So the amours of men mingle with the commotions of states."

"Julius Caesar divided his energies between politics and love. He was handsome, though already worried about his thinning hair. When Cornelia died he married Pomeia, granddaughter of Sulla. As this was a purely political marriage, he did not scruple to carry on liaisons in the fashion of his time. But in such number and with such ambigendered diversity that Curio called him omnium mulierum vir et omnium virorum mulier - 'the husband of very woman and the wife of every man."

First of all I don't think the Romans thought of sex in quite the same that we do in our time, especially here in the USA. I grew up in a European family and we girls would gossip about the various liaisons that our uncles, male cousins or fathers were having. It was always understood that the family came first, but when it came to sex men and women lived under different rules and regulations. It always seemed natural to me.

Therefore I can't fault Caesar in his liaisons with women. Oh, I'm sure he used numerous people including women, but when you consider all that he did for Rome, how can you find fault with the man. I think we tend to put too much emphasis on extracurricular activities of our politicians here in the USA. If a man does his job in the arena, what he does in his own time is his own business.

"We must not forget, as we rejoice at his faults, that he was a great man notwithstanding. We cannot equate ourselves with Caesar by proving that he seduced women, bribed ward leaders, and wrote books."

Question: When did he have time to write a book?

I too can't remember this being discussed in my high school history classes. However, I do remember discussing his conquests in my Latin class, but I still think those referred to his travels in Gaul.

Scrawler

robert b. iadeluca
December 14, 2003 - 11:42 am
"Creative betrayal is the essence of successful statesmanship. Loyalty is a very attractive quality, but it doesn't get you anything."

- - Richard Norton Smith, Director, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library

robert b. iadeluca
December 14, 2003 - 01:23 pm
This ARTICLE shows where betrayal pays off.

Robby

Justin
December 14, 2003 - 02:01 pm
It is nice to know that Saddam has been found in a hole in the ground. His trial and disposal will keep the media busy for many months.

georgehd
December 14, 2003 - 02:46 pm
Since we are considering leadership and sex in Roman times, I thought you might be interested in the following article written by Gabriel Marquez. It was posted in the discussion of 100 Years of Solitude.

http://www.salon.com/news/1999/02/cov_02news.html

Ginny
December 14, 2003 - 03:02 pm
Joan, you asked Do you think Latin is an exceptional language? If so in what way? Do you think it is more beautiful, richer, clearer, or more logical (fill in your own adjective) than English? (That is a completely unfair question. I think it is always easier to appreciate another language than one's own. We take our own for granted. But I'd still like to know what you think. Have we gone forward or backward linguistically since we inherited our Latin roots?)

I'll take a stab at answering that.

Yes I personally think it's exceptional? And more beautiful, richer, clearer and definitely more logical than English. Yes I think linguistically we've definitely gone backwards.

Latin is one of the few languages that, as you study it, the deeper you go into it, the more years you study it, the richer it gets, and the more logical, unlike many modern languages, in which the exception comes to represent the rule.

You never cease to learn something new in the study of Latin, and no one person, even if he studied for his entire life, can know it all.

There are so many Latins! There is the Latin of Cicero, the Latin of Plautus and Terence, the Latin of the Medievalists, Church Latin, the Latin of the Late Empire, and more!

It's been lauded through the centuries, for instance Lord Byron wrote,

"I love the language, that soft bastard Latin,
Which melts like kisses from a female mouth<"

Winston Churchill said, "I would make them all learn English, and then I would let the clever ones learn Latin as an honor and Greek as a treat."

There are, of course, plenty of stats: 60 Percent of English words come from Latin. Knowledge of Latin roots makes some of our more difficult English words instantly recognizable and comprehensible. Students who take Latin score higher on all standardized tests, including the SAT's. "Understanding the etymological history of a word gives the user vividness, color, punch, and precision. Many professions, such as medicine and law, use Latin terms continually. Accurate translation from Latin disciplines the mind, and provides a training in observation, analysis, judgment, evaluation, and a sense of linguistic form, clarity, and beauty which is excellent training in the shaping of one's own English expression." (Wheelock) Since so many of the "Romance Languages" come from Latin, a knowledge of Latin makes their study easier.

Latin is a discipline. There is an accuracy learned in translation which is transferable to any thinking and reasoning process, such as those employed by mathematicians.

To read the thoughts of the ancients in the original with all of their meanings laid out for the individual reader is an incredible and new experience, every time. Many Latin mottoes abound in everyday life, like carpe diem, pro bono, de gustibus, etc., Reading the words and messages of Horace, Virigil, Caesar, Cicero and other writers illuminates the foundation in which our own civilization is rooted, and there is much left to translate which has never been read. The study of Latin aids in the understanding of English grammar, for instance, the compound complex sentence structure is learned through analysis of the different styles of the ancient authors. The study of Latin sharpens the mind and forces the student whatever his age, to think. It improves the memory AND in addition to all of that, it's fun!

In sum, as Martha Stewart would say, "it's a good thing!"

ginny

robert b. iadeluca
December 14, 2003 - 03:19 pm
George:--We refrain in this discussion group from referring to current political figures. You will have every opportunity to do that if you sign up for "Hope Dies Last" which begins Feb. 1st.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 14, 2003 - 03:25 pm
Ginny:--Thank you for your answer to Joan's question. This is a fast-paced discussion group and it has been a while since she asked that question -- but -- 1)You have many responsibilities as Host of Books & Literature and 2)The world has been moving fast in recent days!

Your answer, however, is relevant as Durant is constantly giving us Latin words and phrases. These will now become much more meaningful to us.

Robby

Justin
December 14, 2003 - 04:03 pm
Ginny ; I was hoping you would come in and field Joan's Latin question. You've convinced me. Latin is a good thing and it's pro bono.

kiwi lady
December 14, 2003 - 04:08 pm
Very good article George!

While Caesar may have been good for the Romans as a man I don't admire him at all. He was a typical Politician, he was corrupt, I believe drunk with power and like Politicians today bought himself into office. I read a lot about Caesar last year and feel that in our world today history is sure repeating itself. Power and Greed seem to be the things which attract many people to become Politicians even today. I can't think of any Politician today I really admire. I just have to choose the best of a bad lot!

Justin
December 14, 2003 - 04:21 pm
Suetonius, writing about the Deified Julius, tells us "when his army gave way, he often rallied it single handed, planting himself in the way of the fleeing men, laying hold of them one by one and forcing them to face the enemy. In the assembly he addressd them not as soldiers but as comrades. He furnished them with arms inlaid with silver and gold to make them hold faster to the weapons in battle. He made them most devoted to his interests as well as most valiant. When he began the civil war, every centurian in each legion proposed to supply a horseman from his own savings and the soldiers , one and all,offered their service without pay and without rations, the richer assuming the care of the poorer. Throughout the long struggle not one deserted and many on being taken prisoner refused to accept their lives on condition of serving against Caesar."

We are dealing here with a very smart general, this Caesar.

JoanK
December 14, 2003 - 04:24 pm
GINNY: thanks for answering my question. I always felt I had made a mistake not learning Latin, now I'm sure of it. But it's never too late.

JUSTIN: thank you for your well thought out answer to my question on Cicero. It shows how important it is to get more than one point of view. If I had only read Durant, I would have come away thinking of Cicero as a typical politician, veering as the wind blows. (Durant suggests this over and over -- he clearly doesn't like Cicero, even though he says he does). A complex man, clearly.

Ginny
December 14, 2003 - 04:28 pm
Thank you, Robby, Justin, and Joan, actually Joan, no, it's never too late and we have another SeniorNetter trying to learn Latin 101, if we got another one we'd have quorum, wouldn't we? THAT would be fun.

Justin, I did enjoy your excerpt of Caesar the General, I think that the more one knows about him as the song says, "to know, know, know him is to love , love, love him" hahahaah

Joan K, the new biography of Cicero is splendid and has a lot of somewhat unknown information, (or that is information known only to a few, it's full of things I did not know) and good read, as well as many translations by the author, I think it's an excellent book... I myself can't get the image of Cicero at the last out of my mind.

ginny

Justin
December 14, 2003 - 04:52 pm
Suetonius thinks Caesar abused his power and was justly slain. He accepted excessive honors such as an uninterrupted consulship, the dictatorship for life, and the censorship of public morals, as well as the forename Imperator, a statue among those of the kings, a golden throne in the House, a chariot and litter in the Circus,temples,altars, and statues beside the gods, a special priest, and the calling of one of the months by his name.

Justin
December 14, 2003 - 05:04 pm
Again paraphrasing Suetonius, Caesar's public utterances were arrogant. "The state is nothing,a mere name without body or form. Sulla did not know his ABC when he laid down his dictatorship. That men ought to be more circumspect when addressing him (Caesar), and to regard his word as law."

robert b. iadeluca
December 14, 2003 - 05:10 pm
Durant continues:--

"When Cato, leader of the conservatives, heard that his party was buying votes, he unbent and approved the procedure as in a noble cause. The populares elected Caesar, the optimates Bibulus. Caesar had hardly entered upon his consulate (59) when he proposed to the Senate the measures asked for by Pompey:--a distribution of land to 20,000 of the poorer citizens, including Pompey's soldiers, the ratification of Pompey's arrangements in the East, and a one-third reduction of the sum which the publicans had pledged themselves to raise from the Asiatic provinces.

"As the Senate opposed each of these measures by every means, Caesar, like the Gracchi, offered them directly to the Assembly. The conservatives induced Bibulus to use his veto power to forbid a vote, and had omens declared unfavorable. Caesar ignored the omens and persuaded the Assembly to impeach Bibulus. An enthusiastic popularis emptied a pot of ordure upon Bibulus' head.

"Caesar's bills were carried. As in the case of the Gracchi, they combined an agrarian policy with a financial program pleasing to the business class.

"Pompey was impressed by Caesar's performance of his pledges. He took Caesar's daughter Julia as his fourth wife, and the entente between plebs and bourgeoisie became a feast of love. The Triumvirs promised the radical wing of their following that they would support Publius Clodius for the tribunate in the fall of 59.

"Meanwhile they kept the voters in good humor with profuse amusements and games."

Politics make strange bedfellows. In the meantime the people sleep.

Robby

JoanK
December 14, 2003 - 05:16 pm
ELOISE: I was fascinated by your post:

"I think that French sound more beautiful than English but English is clearer and it expresses a thought more accurately because it has more words to choose from (500,000 and only 250,000 in French, McGill University statistics)".

I had no idea that English has more words than French. I assume it is because we have Saxon as well as Latin roots. Do you have a link to those stats? I'm interested in the totals for other languages.

GINNY: who is the author of the recent biography of Cicero?

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 14, 2003 - 05:47 pm
JoanK, I want to clarify about Stats. Years ago when I was working I was often asked to translate although I had never studied translation. In Montreal in those days, secretaries often were requested to perform tasks at a level far above that of their formal education. It saved our employers a lot of money so I took a course on "Stylistique comparée du français et de l'anglais" at McGill University and our professor, I don't remember her name, said that. I was flabbergasted because I thought French seemed to be a more a difficult language than English. When French is translated into English, the same sentence is up to one third longer than the English equivalent to describe the same thing. English can say more using fewer words than French. I don't have the source of my teacher's statistic, I am sorry but I can do research for it.

Eloïse

robert b. iadeluca
December 14, 2003 - 05:47 pm
Here is an interesting LINK telling us about the Triumverate. Note the sentence pointing out that when Caesar needed to choose between glory and power, he chose power.

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 14, 2003 - 06:22 pm
JoanK, Here is a link about the number of WORDS in the English language. I have not found one for the French language yet. Sorry Robby for the diversion.

Justin
December 14, 2003 - 06:44 pm
The difficulty in French as I see it, is the word order and the need to say things in the most basic manner. There are no word shortcuts and the language police ensure the purity of the lexicon. One further difficulty is the sound of the language and blending of words.

JoanK
December 14, 2003 - 08:07 pm
ELOISE: thanks a lot; that looks like a fascinating site. Sorry ROBBY if I sent the discussion off track.

Justin
December 14, 2003 - 08:13 pm
The speed, that is the movement over time, with which we cover material is so rapid that it is difficult to grasp the significance of events that occur in a moment. This movement is often referred to as the sweep of history.

We are ranging over several centuries in Roman history. The pace has slowed to decades while we treat the life of Caesar as he interracts with Cicero, a consul in 63 and a contemporary of Caesar who is in Gaul in 55 and who in 49 crosses the Rubicon to start the civil war. He is Consul and dictator until 44 when Pompey, Cassius, Crasus,and Brutus as well as 60 odd others manage to asassinate him. We slow down further to look at Caesar in Gaul and then again slower to examine the Civil war and the second (uninterrupted) consulate. We slow to a moment as we look at the asassination.

The cast of characters and the changing time lapses can be confusing. I hope everyone is abreast of the flow of events and the significance of the characters. I am hard pressed sometimes and have been looking for a way to express all of this in a meaningful way.

georgehd
December 14, 2003 - 09:21 pm
I am not sure Robby, why you seemed to object to my last post. It seemed particularly appropriate given the content of previous posts and if the article were read carefully, it was an excellent view of how others might view politics in the US. The author did win the Noble prize for literature and is currently on the best seller list. It would make excellent material for a historian writing about current American politics.

JoanK
December 15, 2003 - 12:45 am
JUSTIN: I have to admit I sometimes get confused as to who's who and who is on which side (especially since they seem to change sides so often).

kiwi lady
December 15, 2003 - 01:23 am
History filled with plots and sub plots - yes it is confusing I agree.

Malryn (Mal)
December 15, 2003 - 03:12 am
Julius Caesar Timeline

Ancient Rome Timeline

Malryn (Mal)
December 15, 2003 - 03:19 am
Julius Caesar by Suetonius in translation and Latin. Click "Insert Latin" to see Latin text

robert b. iadeluca
December 15, 2003 - 04:22 am
"Caesar submitted his second land bill, by which the areas owned by the state in Campania were to be distributed among poor citizens who had three children. The Senate was again ignored, the Assembly passed the bill and, after a century of effort, the Gracchan policy triumphed.

"Bibulus kept to his house and contented himself with periodical announcements that the omens were unpropitious to legislation. Caesar administered public affairs without consulting him, so that the town wits referred to the year as 'the consulate of Julius and Caesar.'

"To bring the Senate under public scrutiny, he established the first newspaper by having clerks make a record of Senatorial and other public proceedings and news, and post these Acta Diurna, or 'Daily Doings,' on the walls of the forums. From these walls the reports were copied and sent by private messengers to all parts of the Empire.

"Toward the end of this historic consulate, Caesar had himself appointed governor of Cisalpine and Narbonese Gaul for the ensuing five years. As no troops could lawfully be stationed in Italy, the command over the legions stationed in north Italy gave its possessor military power over the whole peninsula. To guarantee the maintenance of his legislation, Caesar secured the election of his friends Gabinius and Piso as consuls for 58 and married Piso's daughter Calpurnia. To ensure continued support from the plebs he lent his decisive aid to the election of Clodius as tribune for 58.

"He did not let his plans be influenced by the fact that he had recently divorced his third wife, Pompeia, on suspicion of adultery with Clodius."

A man for the people? A smooth political operator? A benign tyrant? Any descriptions in your mind?

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 15, 2003 - 04:30 am
Wonderful link #31 Mal, Folks, make sure you click on "Persons With Images" in this link, all the images are beautiful.

Persian
December 15, 2003 - 06:00 am
ROBBY - thanks for your recent message. I'm back home now, after meeting my son at BWI airport and driving him to his family home in NC. We waved to you as we passed the exit to Warrenton! And MAL, we waved and gave you a BIG CHEER as we flew South on Interstate 95!

robert b. iadeluca
December 15, 2003 - 06:21 am
Good to see you back home, Mahlia. Wave to us occasionally in this discussion group! Your comments are always welcome.

Robby

Ginny
December 15, 2003 - 07:37 am
Joan, the author of the book Cicero is Anthony Everitt, and he's writing one now on Caeaar. He did much of his own translation for the text, it's quite a picture of the man.

ginny

Scrawler
December 15, 2003 - 10:36 am
Caesar:

Caesar was 22 years old and unable to gain office so he left Rome and went to Rhodes, where he studied rhetoric; he returned to Rome in 73 BC, a persuasive speaker. In 74 BC he had been elected to the pontificte, an important college of Roman priests.

In 71 BC Pompey returned to Rome, having defeated the Populares general Sertorius in Spain. Pompey and Crassus both ran for the consulship. In 70 BC Pompey was helped by Caesar and won office. Crassus became the other consul. In 69 BC Caesar was elected quaestor and in 65 BC curule aedile, gaining great popularity for his lavish gladiatorial games. To pay for these, he borrowed money from Crassus. This united the two men, who also found common cause with Pompey. When Caesar returned to Rome in 60 BC after a year as governor of Spain, he joined forces with Crassus and Pompey in a three-way alliance known as the First Triumvirate; to cement their relationship further, Caesar gave his daughter Julia to Pompey in marriage. Thus backed, Caesar was elected consul for 59 BC despite Optimate hostility, and in 58 BC he was appointed governor of Roman Gaul.

"If our economy of freedom fails to distribute wealth as ably as it has created it, the road to dictatorship will be open to any man who can persuasively promise security to all."

"When liberty becomes license, dictorship is near."

I would say that at this time he was well on his way to being a dictator, but I'm not sure that he even knew it. Oh, there's no doubt that Caesar was an opportunist and I'm sure that his liaisons with both men and women helped him.

Scrawler

Justin
December 15, 2003 - 02:42 pm
Thank you, Mal, for the time line on Caesar.

robert b. iadeluca
December 15, 2003 - 03:15 pm
"Publius Clodius Pulcher (the Handsome) was a scion of the Claudian gens, a young aristocrat whose courage knew no fear and his morals no restraint. Like Catiline and Caesar he descended from his rank to lead the poor against the rich. To be eligible as a tribune of the people he had himself adopted into a plebeian family.

"To redistribute the concentrated wealth of Rome and to destroy Cicero -- who had abused his sister Clodia and stood for the sanctity of property -- he served as a subaltern to Caesar until he could take power into his own hands. He admired Caesar's policies and loved Caesar's wife. To gain access to her he disguised himself as a woman, entered the house of Caesar, then (62) high priest, took part in the ceremonies offered by women alone to the Bona Dea, was detected, accused, and publicly tried (61) for having violated the mysteries of the Good Goddess.

"Caesar, called as a witness, said that he had no charge to make against Clodius. Why, then asked the prosecutor, had he divorced Pompeia? Said Caesar:-'Because my wife must be above suspicion.' It was a clever answer, which neither exonerated nor condemned a valuable political aide.

"Various witnesses -- perhaps bribed -- told the court that Clodius had had relations with Clodia and had seduced his siter Terria after her marriage to Lucullus. Clodius protested that he had been away from Rome on the day of the alleged sacrilege. Cicero, however, testified that Clodius had on that day been with him in Rome.

"The populace thought the whole affair a Senatorial plot to destroy a populares leader and cried out for acquittal. Caesar -- some say at Caesar's behest -- bribed a number of judges for Clodius. The radicals for once had the more money, and Clodius was freed.

"Caesar took advantage of the situation to exchagnge an inconveniently conservative wife for the daughter of a senator allied to the popular cause."

What individual or what culture decides what is moral and what is not? Are these guys all a bunch of trash? If our answer is "yes," on what basis do we come to that conclusion? Is bribing wrong? Is it wrong to get next to the wife of someone else? Is it wrong to act as a subordinate to a leader so that greater power can be obtained? Who says so?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 15, 2003 - 04:18 pm
Here are some definitions of MORALITY. Take your choice.

Robby

JoanK
December 15, 2003 - 05:14 pm
" the morality of a group decreases as its size increases" (from Robby's link on definitions of morality.

That's an interesting statement!!!

robert b. iadeluca
December 15, 2003 - 05:16 pm
Well, I guess our individual traits disappear within a crowd but stand out when we are alone. We may tend to let our "animal" traits come out when no one is looking.

Robby

Justin
December 15, 2003 - 05:54 pm
The Roman system of justice is flawed by acceptance of bribery as an allowable method for establishing one's innocence. I suppose our contemporary system is subject to the same strains but there is considerably less acceptance of bribery as a method of achieving an end. Generally, citizens of the US, and I think similar nations, strive for fair play in the courts. We are not always successful.

Would the Romans accept the idea that their system is flawed or is bribery so part and parcel of the system that Romans expect it? Why have a justice system at all if bribery is condonned? If someone steals your wife or borrows her for over night, go get her if you want her back. Kill the thief if necessary. But don't conduct a sham trial. One wastes time, denys justice, and expends needless funds in sham trials.

Why do the Romans go through the process at all? It seems to me they want a semblance of law and order in their governing process, but to avoid inconvenient outcomes they resort to bribery which nullifies the process. There were trials in Greece but the jury consisted of thousands who gathered in the agora to hear the case. Bribery may not have been worthwhile in the Greek system.

robert b. iadeluca
December 15, 2003 - 06:02 pm
It is my understanding from news items I have read over the years that bribery is common (and often expected) in the majority of cultures in the world and that immigrants from those cultures appear amazed that we consider it unethical. Am I correct in that belief?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 15, 2003 - 06:15 pm
"Cato did not conceal his opinion that these 'Julian laws' should be wiped off the statute books. The Senate hesitated to fling so open a challenge to Caesar armed with legions and to Clodius wielding the tribunate.

"In 63 Cato had wooed the populace for the conservatives by renewing the state distribution of cheap corn. Now (58) Clodius countered by making the dole completely free to all who came for it. He passed bills through the Assembly forbidding the use of religious vetoes against legislative procedures and restoring the legality of the collegia, which the Senate had tried to disband. He reorganized these guilds into voting blocs and won such fealty from them that they provided him with an armed guard.

"Fearing that after his year as tribune had expired Cato or Cicero might attempt to undo Caesar's work, Clodius persuaded the Assembly to send Cato as commissioner to Cyprus, and to pass a decree banishing any man who had put Roman citizens to death without securing, as law required, the Assembly's consent. Cicero saw that the measure was aimed at him and fled to Greece, where cities and dignitaries rivaled one another in offering him hospitality and honors.

"The Assembly decreed that Cicero's property should be confiscated, and his house on the Palatine was razed to the ground."

Greece offered Cicero hospitality and Rome burned his house. Interesting.

Robby

Justin
December 15, 2003 - 07:55 pm
The Roman Assembly has been described by Durant as the mob that gathered daily in the forum. These plebian citizens could be moved by skilled orators and by those who plead with money. Caesar and Clodius, had money and the will to make travel arrangements for their enemies- Cicero and Cato. What better thing to do with one's enemies than to get them out of the country where they can do little harm?

anneofavonlea
December 16, 2003 - 01:15 am
really consider bribery a bad thing, rather feel that the only difference in todays society is that media coverage allows we plebians to know what is going on, or at least more than roman citizens knew.

re Cicero, one mans meat is anothers poison.

robert b. iadeluca
December 16, 2003 - 04:58 am
Nice to see you posting here, Anne. Good question. Do the rest of you believe that bribery today would be just as common as in Roman times if there were not so much media coverage?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 16, 2003 - 05:24 am
"It was Cicero's good fortune that Clodius, overcome with success, now attacked both Pompey and Caesar, and planned to make himself sole leader of the plebs. Pompey retaliated by supporting the petition of Cicero's brother Quintus for the orator's recall.

"The Senate appealed to all Roman citizens in Italy to come to the capital and vote on the proposal. Clodius brought an armed gang into the Field of Mars to supervise the balloting, and Pompey engaged a needy aristocrat, Annius Milo, to organize a rival band. Riot and bloodshed ensued, many men were killed, and Quintus barely escaped with his life.

"But his measure carried, and after months of exile Cicero returned in triumph to Italy (57). Multitudes greeted him as he passed from Brundisium to Rome. There the welcoming crowd was so great that Cicero feigned fear that he would be accused of having contrived his banishment for the sake of this glorious restoration.

"Apparently he had pledged himself to Pompey, and perhaps to Caesar, as the price of his recall. Caesar lent him large sums to recoup his finances and refused to take interest. For several years now Cicero became the advocate of the Triumvirs in the Senate. When a dearth of grain threatened Rome (57), he secured for Pompey an extraordinary commission with full power for six years over all the food supply of Rome and over all ports and trade. Pompey again acquitted himself well, but the constitution of the Republic suffered another blow, and government by men continued to replace government by laws.

"In 56 Cicero persuaded the Senate to vote a substantial amount for the payment of Caesar's troops in Gaul. In 54 he unsuccessfully defended the extortionate provincial administration of Aulus Gabinius, a friend of the Triumvirs. In 55 he canceled all the favor he had gained with Caesar by an abusive attack upon another provincial governor, Calpurnius Piso.

"He remembered too vividly that Piso had voted for his banishment. He forgot that Piso's daughter was Caesar's wife."

"A government of men and not of law." Armed gangs to "supervise the balloting." Poverty stricken aristocrats paid to supervise killing. Cicero "sells himself" to Pompey and Caesar in order to retain his high state. Caesar refuses to take interest on money he had lent. Wasn't he generous? The Senate votes to pay soldiers stationed in a foreign land.

It may be unfair to compare the Italy of today with the "Italy" of two thousand years ago, but haven't there been scores (I forget the number) of changes in administration since World War II? And hasn't "corruption" been the constant cry? Corruption regarding the courts and the prime minister? Can a trait last two millennia?

Robby

georgehd
December 16, 2003 - 05:30 am
While we do not call it bribery, campaign contributions are often really bribes in disguise. McCain and Feingold have valiantly tried to change campaign finance laws and have just had one of their measures passed.

Having said that, we in the US are blessed with a stable government; none of us worry too much when we go to sleep on election day. We are a nation of laws and the separation of powers.

Malryn (Mal)
December 16, 2003 - 05:33 am
I don't know about traits, ROBBY, but traditions can last that long.

Mal

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 16, 2003 - 05:40 am
Ah! that is what is different in today's world, Robby. Today's media will expose every misconduct of a prominent personality to make headlines, especially the juicy kind. The media will gleefully expose the secret errancy of a president to discredit him in the eyes of his country and, because of global communication, in the eyes of the world if they can.

One country's apparent moral code is different from another where such errancy is not only private, but common place, except that in other countries the media finds that the private life of their prominent personalities is not worthy of a scandal as nobody is perfect.

There are two sets of moral codes, one for the plebes, and another for the the aristocrats. Now, the Premiers must have a flawless past, married to the same woman for decades and an apparent saintly behavior. Would America elect a president who was divorced 3 times? I doubt it.

Still, the media also can be silenced with enough bribery. As Anneo said, "one man's meat is another's poison".

Eloïse

robert b. iadeluca
December 16, 2003 - 05:44 am
This is just ONE EXAMPLE of what is happening these years (decades?) in the homeland of Rome.

Robby

tigerliley
December 16, 2003 - 06:41 am
Robby on your question about bribery.....My answer would be a resounding YES.....I believe there have been instances of that very thing but am a little to lazy this morning to research it........

robert b. iadeluca
December 16, 2003 - 07:06 am
Nice to see you, Tiger. You give a resounding YES as to whether bribery is wrong. But why do you think it is wrong? Doesn't the "greased palm" sometimes lead toward a wonderful thing being done for a deserving person or organization? We may thing it untenable that good works be measured in terms of money but what if the alternative is to do nothing?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 16, 2003 - 07:27 am
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do." In the Story of Civilzation discussion, try to think as the Romans did.

It's not easy without an investigation of the culture. I don't really see anything the Romans did that went against their moral code or religion. Were the Romans perhaps more realistic in a way than we are? What makes us think we should only be led by lily white pure people of flawless character? What brought this attitude about when all we have to do is look around and see that we're not. What moral codes and religions created this idea of perfection which has escalated in the past fifty years to a point where many people find it intolerable?

Mal

Persian
December 16, 2003 - 07:27 am
Isn't "bribery" part of everyday life? What's the difference between bribery and "tipping" the Host in a restaurant to make sure that one has a good table and excellent service? Or tipping the server (who will share the tip with the Bus Person)after the meal has been served in a satisfactory manner. Or tipping the Manager at a car wash so that he will assure that those performing the work will do a good job and then making a contribution to the communal tips when one exists.

In an office setting, one tips the delivery personnel to make sure that all items are received in a timely manner. Or the daily mail delivery person so that no important mail goes astray. Or the service personnel who frequently attend to the numerous machines which our modern offices cannot do without. During special celebrations, meetings or holidays, one tips the restaurant deliverymen who bring the cateredd food to the office or for conferences or meetings. One tips the AV staff; the Concierge staff; the housekeeping staff to assure that all service is excellent.

Is the difference simply the words? Bribery has a poor connotation, while tipping seems resonable for a service performed well or expected to be performed well in the future.

Bribery at the political or corporate level involves much more money, obviously, but seems to be for the same reason: the results one wants on a continuing basis. Bribery at the judicial level (especially in small or rural locations) seems almost a normal part of life. Bribery within a police community has been ongoing forever.

IMO, bribery is just not spoken of openly on a regular level. One does not announce to colleagues or constituents that bribery is the name of the game. One just goes about it in a quiet way. Greasing the wheels reduces the noise (public acknowledgement), since "a greased wheel doesn't squeak." This is certainly the case in the Middle East, Central Asia and China (all regions with which I am personally familiar), as well as in the USA.

My personal experience with bribery includes losing a govt. contract in the metropolitan Washington DC area, when I learned that one of the principals was being bribed and I blew the whistle. His contact in the agency then refused to acknowledge that my company had received the contract; I threatened to sue; there was a settlement, including the awarding of the contract to my company, and I wrote into the Miscl. section of the contract that if any threat were to be extended to my company or my employees, a full and descriptive article would appear in the Washington Post newspaper and I would personally contact the Secretary of the agency which awarded the contract. Viva la Roma!

Scrawler
December 16, 2003 - 10:36 am
"Meanwhile they kept the voters in good humor with profuse amusements and games."

"As the Senate opposed each of these measures by every means, Caesar, like the Gracchi, offered them directly to the Assembly. The conservatives induced Bibulus to use his veto power to forbid a vote, and had omens declared unfavorable. Caesar ignored the omens and persuaded the Assembly to impeach Bibulus. An enthusiastic popularis emptied a pot of ordure upon Bibulus's head."

"Caesar's bills were carried. As in the case of the Gracchi, they combined an agrarian policy with a financial program pleasing the business class."

Let's examine these statements carefully. If you lived in ancient Roman, which man would you have more faith in Caesar or Bibulus? Or neither? It would seem to me that Caesar would be the better choice. "The conservatives induced Bibulus to use his veto power to forbid a vote, and had omens declared unfavorable." On the other hand, Caesar had the support of the people. He gave the masses what they asked for. Pompey's soldiers were happy with the agrarian policy and the financial program pleased the business class. From our reading about Caesar's liaisons we already know that Caesar knew how to work his "magic" with the people. And finally if everything else failed he gave the voters "amusements and games". This last statement may seem trivial in our time period, but in Roman times the average person probably lived for these amusements and games. Their lives must have been harsh. Prices for food and clothing must have soared. Caesar's bills probably eased some of this burden. So what if he had to resort to bribes to get what he wanted. But I guess the big question is did he do it for the people of Rome or himself?

Scrawler

robert b. iadeluca
December 16, 2003 - 12:09 pm
They tell the story of the doorman of a large upscale apartment house who, in the usual manner at Holiday time, sent a Greetings card to every resident. Every resident realized that this was a reminder that it was tip (bribe) time. The residents of course complied but one resident chose not to take part or perhaps just forgot.

A few days later he found in his box a Greetings card which said: "Merry Christmas! Second notice."

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 16, 2003 - 12:25 pm
"Upon Cato's return (57) from his brilliant reorganization of Cyprian affairs, the conservatives re-formed their lines. Clodius, now the enemy of Pompey, accepted the invitation of the aristocracy to lend it the assistance of his popularity and his thugs.

"Literature took on an anti-Caesarian tint. The epigrams of Calvus and Catullus flew like poisoned darts into the camp of the Triumvirs.

"As Caesar moved farther and farther into Gaul, and news came of the many dangers that he faced, hope sprung anew in noble breats. After all, said Cicero, there are many ways in which a man may die.

"If we may believe Caesar, several conservatives opened negotiations with Ariovistus, the German leader, for the assassination of Caesar. Domitius, running for the consulate, announced that if elected he would at once move for Caesar's recall -- which meaant Caesar's indictment and trial.

"Veering with the wind, Cicero proposed that on May 25, 56, the Senate should consider the abrogation of Caesar's land laws."

Very different from the public figures of our day who state their beliefs and then stick firmly to them.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 16, 2003 - 12:34 pm
Click HERE to learn about Ariovistus.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 16, 2003 - 12:41 pm
This LINK tells of the first contact between the Germanic and Mediterranean peoples.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 16, 2003 - 12:47 pm
Read HERE of the Suebi tribes led by Ariovistus who, Caesar believed, met with the conservatives in planning to assassinate Caesar.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 16, 2003 - 01:45 pm
Here is a MOST INTERESTING LINK telling of Caesar in Gaul. In a previous posting of Durant's writings, comments were made about those men who looked for glory and those who looked for power.

In this link, please note the following phrases:--"It seemed by the spring of 59 that peace had broken out. Caesar was not about to let any outbreak of peace stand in the way of his quest for glory."

Robby

tigerliley
December 16, 2003 - 03:36 pm
Robby you make me think to hard......bribery to me has a dishonest feel to it....a tip is thanking a person for a job well done and may be withheld or not given at all.......In answer to your question about some good coming out of bribery I am afraid I would have to say that the end does not justify the means........ It would be an unfair way of doing business ..... for the good or the bad....I would not want to deal with someone who requires bribes.......

anneofavonlea
December 16, 2003 - 04:21 pm
Re the bribery, I wonder also why we expect such high standards of our leaders, downright hypocritical really.As for present day Romans, even though I am a follower of the Roman faith tradition, am very well aware of the culture of corruption within the Vatican.

I imagine if one found themselves in a position of real power, it would be a test of character to wield it fairly.We all of us engage in a little nepotism, if the opportunity arises I feel.Mum on tuckshop, sees her little Johnny gets the best sandwich etc.

kiwi lady
December 16, 2003 - 06:08 pm
Last Friday I got a $30 tip from my dog minding and today I got a tin of biscuits and a box of chocolates. I don't expect tips or Christmas presents but it does make me feel valued as I do take VERY good care of the five little dogs I mind when their owners work late or take vacations. Tips I think, if not mandatory, are an appreciation of a job well done.

gaj
December 16, 2003 - 08:07 pm
I don't like the idea of bribery. Caesar did it because it worked. The big problem comes when your enemy can give a bigger bribe.

robert b. iadeluca
December 16, 2003 - 08:29 pm
"In the spring of 58 Caesar took up his duties as governor of Cisalpine and Narbonese Gaul -- i.e. northern Italy and southern France. In 71 Ariovistus had led 15,000 Germans into Gaul at the request of one Gallic tribe seeking assistance against another. He had provided the desired aid and then had remained to establish his rule over all the tribes of northeastern Gaul.

"One of these, the Aedui, appealed to Rome for help against the Germans (61). The Senate authorized the Roman governor of Narbonese Gaul to comply, but almost at the same time it listed Ariovistus among rulers friendly to Rome.

"Meanwhile 120,000 Germans crossed the Rhine, settled in Flanders, and so strengthened Ariovistus that he treated the native population as subject peoples and dreamed of conquering all Gaul. At the same time the Helveti, centering about Geneva, began migrating westward, 368,000 strong, and Caesar was warned that they planned to cross his province of Narbonese Gaul on their way to southwestern France.

"Says Mommsen:-'From the sources of the Rhine to the Atlantic Ocean, the German tribes were in motion. The whole line of the Rhine was threatened by them. It was a movement like that when the Alemanni and the Franks threw themselves upon the falling empire of the Caesars five hundred years afterward.'"

Now Northern Europe and Southern Europe begin to be aware of each other. Any comments about this?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 16, 2003 - 09:11 pm
Here is a MAP of Cisalpine Gaul. Click onto its thumbnail for enlargement.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 16, 2003 - 09:19 pm
Here is a MAP of Narbonese (Transalpine) Gaul, the section in yellow. Allow time for downloading. This map illustrates the Roman Empire at a later date but does give an idea of the size of Transalpine Gaul.

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 17, 2003 - 06:00 am
This link takes us to CISALPINE GAUL. I am always amazed that armies could go over the Alps to conquer land on foot north of Italy but it has been done several times throughout history.

Eloïse

robert b. iadeluca
December 17, 2003 - 06:04 am
A great link, Eloise. Thank you!

Robby

Scrawler
December 17, 2003 - 10:51 am
Morals:

Morals are derived from the Latin word "mores" or customs. Morals are that which human conduct can be judged right or wrong. Philosophers determine goodness in human conduct according to two principles (good or bad). The principal standards of conduct are happiness or pleasure, duty, virtue, or obligation and perfection.

Depending on where you live and at what historical time period you are in, good conduct has been the will of God, the pattern of nature, the rule of reason, the will of state (Hagel's philosophy) and the will of class (Marxist doctrine). When the will of God is the authority, obedience to the divine commandments is accepted standard. If the pattern of nature is the authority, conformity to the qualities attributed to human nature is the standard. When reason rules, behavior is expected result from rational thought.

In answer to your questions what individual or what culture decides what is moral and what is not, it depends on what the individual or culture believes in at the moment. Did the Romans conduct themselves according to the will of their gods, the pattern of nature, or the rule of reason? I think we can safely rule out Hagel's philosophy and Marxist doctrine. I don't think Caesar conducted himself according to the will of his gods. So that leaves us with the pattern of nature and rational thought. We can already see that Caesar didn't really conform to anything that he didn't agree with. We have seen that he went over the heads of the Senate and went to the Assembly in order to get his bills passed. So that leaves with "the rule of reason".

This is what Casesar himself said: "Caesar, called as a witness, said that he had no charge to make against Clodius. Why, then asked the prosecutor, had he divorced Pomeia? Said Caesar: 'Because my wife must be above suspicion'. It was a clever answer, which neither exonerated nor condemned a valuable political aide." Is bribing wrong or is it wrong to get next to the wife of someone elese? Is it wrong to act as a subordinate to a leader so the greater power can be obtained? To all of these questions "the rule of reason" can be applied.

Scrawler

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 17, 2003 - 11:10 am
A LINK to Verona in Cisalpine Gaul showing major roads in one image, a Plan of the Riman City in the next, and an earliest cartographic painting of Verona in vivid colour.

Eloïse

anneofavonlea
December 17, 2003 - 02:37 pm
Your link sends me rushing for Shakespeare, should we ever manage time travel, I"m most certainly off to Caesar's Rome.

Anneo

robert b. iadeluca
December 17, 2003 - 07:17 pm
"At his own expense, and without the authority he should have sought from the Senate, he raised and equipped four extra legions besides the four already provided him. He sent a peremptory invitation to Ariovistus to come and discuss the situation. As he had expected, Ariovistus refused.

"Deputies came now to Caesar from many Gallic tribes, asking for his protection. Caesar declared war against both Ariovistus and the Helvetii, marched northward, and met the Helvetian avalanche in a bloody battle at Bibracte, capital of the Aedui, near the modern Autun. Caesar's legions won, but by a narrow margin. In thse matters we must for the most part follow his own account.

"The Helvetii offered to return to their Swiss homeland. Caesar agreed to give them safe passage, but on condition that their territory should accept the rule of Rome. All Gaul now sent him thanks for its deliverance, and begged his aid in expelling Ariovistus.

"He met the Germans near Ostheim (ten miles west of the Rhine, 160 miles south of Cologne), and slew or captured (he tells us) nearly all of them (58). Ariovistus escaped, but died soon afterward."

These battles make me think of World War II where the Germans (Nazis) and the Italians (Fascists) were nominally on the same side. However, it is my understanding that the Germans and the Italians never cared that much for each other and had it not been for the Hitler-Mussolini pact, the descendants of the Romans and the descendants of the tribes of Ariovistus might have again fought near Cologne.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 17, 2003 - 07:27 pm
Here is an INTERESTING INFORMAL ESSAY about the battle between Caesar and the Helvetii.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 17, 2003 - 07:37 pm
Here is a DETAILED COMMENTARY of the Gallic war -- written by Julius Caesar himself.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 17, 2003 - 07:47 pm
Here is a MAP of Burgundy. In the south-central section is the modern city of Autun near which had been the city of Bibracte where Caesar met the Helvetian avalanche in a bloody battle.

Robby

Justin
December 18, 2003 - 12:05 am
In Caesar's Book lV, on the gallic wars he expresses a wish to cross the Rhine to demonstrate to the Germans that their home areas are not safe from attack his legions. Some German tribes who have made peace with Caesar and have provided hostages, offer to supply boats to transport the Roman army to the opposite shore. Caesar thinks travel by boat is undignfied for his troops. He elects to build a bridge across the Rhine. The whole work was completed in ten days from that on which the collecting of timber began. He spent 18 days across the Rhine burning and pilaging. He then returned to the opposite side, destroyed the bridge and started for Britain.

Robby will remember the difficulties the American and British armies experienced in crossing the Rhine in early 1945. Remagen bridge, as I recall from news dispatches, was the last bridge standing and it was in poor condition. I am sure Robby can tell us much more about the event and may wish to compare our crossing with that of Caesar.

Justin
December 18, 2003 - 12:21 am
In Book 1 of Caesar's Gallic Wars he describes a day in which Ariovistus probes but does not engage his legions who are 600 paces from them. Caesar questions prisoners and discovers," it was a custom among the Germans that their matrons should declare by lots and divinations whether it was expedient or not to engage. The matrons declared that Heaven forbade the Germans to win a victory, if they fought an action before the new moon.

When the Germans at last led their own forces out of camp and posted them at intervals by tribes and set the line about with wagons. Upon these they set their women, who with tears and outstretched hands entreated the men, as they marched out to fight, not to deliver them to Roman slavery.

robert b. iadeluca
December 18, 2003 - 05:21 am
The story of the crossing at the Remagen bridge was one of those stories of the "flukes" of war where the quick action of a couple of American soldiers enabled our troops to cross a bridge that the Germans had planned to blow up. I was in another sector and shortly after crosssed the Rhine on a pontoon bridge. This was created by our wonderful Combat Engineers who never receive enough credit.

Apparently this famed river which, in peace time, is the source of fable and beauty, has always been a strategic line of defense during wartime.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 18, 2003 - 05:26 am
Here is an ARTISTIC MAP of the Rhine River showing the location of the various castles (which of course did not exist in those days).

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 18, 2003 - 05:38 am
While Germany, as a nation, did not exist in the times of Julius Caesar, this MAP shows the location of the river Rhine and other rivers. It also indicates the distance from Rome that Caesar had to travel. Allow time for downloading.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 18, 2003 - 05:50 am
"Caesar began at once to reorganize Gaul under Roman authority with the excuse that in no other way could it be protected against Germany. Some Gauls, unconvinced, rebelled, and invoked the aid of the Belgae, a powerful tribe of Germans and Celts inhabiting north Gaul between the Seine and the Rhine.

"Caesar defeated their army on the banks of the Aisne. Then, with a celerity of movement that never allowed his foes to unite, he moved in succession against the Suessiones, Ambiani, Nervii, and Aduatici, conquered them, despoiled them, and sold the captives to the slave merchants of Italy. Somwwhat prematurely he announced the conquest of Gaul, the Senate proclaimed it a Roman province (56), and the common people of Rome, as imperialistic as any general, shouted the praises of the distant champion.

"Caesar recrossed the Alps into Cisalpine Gaul, busied himself with its internal administration, replenished his legions, and invited Pompey and Crassus to meet him at Luca to plan a united defense against the conservative reaction."

The comment about "slave merchants" makes me wonder. Where were they located all the time? Did they follow the army and take over the slaves after their capture? Were they back in Rome waiting for the slaves to be brought to them? Just how was this all handled? Perhaps someone here can enlighten us?

And then Caesar's entire army re-crossed the Alps. Imagine going over these mountains once, never mind twice!

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 18, 2003 - 06:22 am
This ARTICLE from today's NY Times reminds us that while tribes around the Mediterranean Sea were developing over the millennia, that tribes in the northern part of what is now "Europe" were doing the same. Our current examination of the forays of Julius Caesar are apparently some of the first contacts between these two civilizations.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 18, 2003 - 08:44 am


"As Caesar's army crossed the Alps and into Gaul in the 1st century B.C., they built temples, aqueducts, amphitheatres and roads. Along those roads, Rome's army planted the vine. There is still evidence today in Brouilly and Morgon of those Roman vineyards. After Rome left, the area was invaded by the Barbarians and then the Arabs who also tended the vines and enjoyed the fruits thereof."

Malryn (Mal)
December 18, 2003 - 08:53 am
The Conquest of Gaul

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 18, 2003 - 01:08 pm
The Romans brought their civilization with them as they conquered Gaul establishing their engineering expertise. This LINK takes us to the Pont Du Gard, a 15th century BC aqueduct in the South of France still in good condition. In this link I browsed through for a while recalling the places I have visited several times in the past 20 years. Menton, Eze, Monaco, Nice, Nîmes, Vintimiglia, San Remo, St. Jean Cap Ferrat.

It is hard to imagine armies marching over the Alps and perhaps they circled wide westward to avoid high mountains on their way north to what is now Germany and England. On the other hand, that would not be very practical since the mountains reach the sea between Italy and France.

Eloïse

Scrawler
December 18, 2003 - 01:47 pm
"Caesar took it for granted that his liberation of Gaul was also a conquest of it: he began at once to reorganize it under Roman authority, with the excuse that IN NO OTHER WAY COULD IT BE PROTECTED AGAINST GERMANY." - Now Northern Europe and Southern Europe begin to be AWARE of each other.

Gallic Wars:

Gaul is the English name for the region called "Gallia" by the Romans. Gaul occupied the territory that now consists of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the part of Germany that lies west of the Rhine River, and the section of the Netherlands that lies south of the Rhine. The people of the region, called Gauls, spoke forms of Celtic, a language group that includes modern Irish and Welsh. The leaders of their religion were priests called "Druids". These priests had great influence in politics. The Romans called the Gauls "long haired" because they did not shave their beards or cut their hair.

By training, Caesar was a politician rather than a soldier. But he knew he needed military victories to gain greater fame. Celtic Gaul was independent, but the Aedui, a tribe of Roman alies, appealed to Caesar for help against another Gallic people, the Helvetii, during the first year of his governorship. Caesar marched into Celtic Gaul with six legions, defeated the Helvetii, and forced them to return to their home area. It soon becomes clear that he was a military genius. Next, he crushed Germanic forces under Arivistus (about 71-58 BC). By 57 BC, following defeat of the Nervii, Rome was in control of nothern Gaul. He also invaded Britian twice, in 55 and 54 BC. (A last revolt of the Gauls, led by Vercingetroix was suppressed in 52 BC). During his nine years in Gaul, Caesar lost only two battles in which he personally took part.

Scrawler

robert b. iadeluca
December 18, 2003 - 06:02 pm
I am getting the impression as we examine the actions of Julius Caesar that we are witnessing the building of a tremendous war machine. I realize that there are participants here who get a bit "tired" of reading about war but, unless I have missed something, what is happening in this period is what caused the creation of the great Roman Empire. The fighting never seemed to stop. They fought not only civilizations surrounding the Mediterranean sea but the Germanic tribes and the Belgae tribes. They traveled north, east, south, and west to conquer other civilizations and even as they did so, they learned from these war experiences and their military increased not only in size and power but in the skills of fighting. Their technology improved and their operating methods became more efficient. There seemed to be no end to the constant build-up of their war machine. At least this is what I am seeing. Click HERE for more details.

How do you folks see this?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 18, 2003 - 06:27 pm
The following is from "Malcolm Bull's Trivial Trail" showing the origin of the Belgae Tribes which were conquered by Julius Caesar. Please note that they are Celts (pronounced with a hard "k" sounds.)



The Celts were a powerful people who dominated much of central and western Europe in the first millennium BC. They were known variously as Celts, Belgae, Gauls, Keltoi and Galatians, and are often associated with the Iron Age culture. About the beginning of the 5th century BC, the Celts began to migrate, and during the Late Iron Age from 100 BC-AD 43, the Celtic culture was brought from northern Gaul (what is now France and Belgium) to south-east England, and gradually, more Celtic tribes moved from Europe into Britain. In time, the Celts were pushed into the west and the north, leaving only Wales, Ireland and the Scottish Highlands Celtic-speaking. In the 6th century, a group of Celts moved from Cornwall and south Wales to Brittany. The adjectives are: Celtic and Belgic.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 18, 2003 - 06:54 pm
As I indicated in a previous posting, we are at that period when Julius Caesar is attacking and conquering tribes from Northern Europe. Slaves were brought back to Rome. Roman soldiers brought back "wives." Children of mixed heritage were born. The civilizations simultaneously clashed and blended.

I found this LINK fascinating -- perhaps because I am of mixed Roman-Nordic heritage. I printed it out and am reading it carefully. Please note that I did not say I believe every statement to be accurate. As always, I remind participants here to consider the source of each link. The article is very long and may not be of interest to many here. Others here, however, may find it intriguing.

Robby

gaj
December 18, 2003 - 09:20 pm
Being part Irish, I am interested in the Celts. As I was reading the above posts I was remembering that Caesar never did hold Ireland.

A sad fact of history is war. But a good side effect was new blood. The new comers helped prevent some inner marrying of family members in some of the more isolated areas.

robert b. iadeluca
December 19, 2003 - 05:11 am
"Two German tribes had crossed into Belgic Gaul as far as Liege, and the nationalist party in Gaul was seeking their help against the Romans. Caesar met the invaders near Xanten (55), drove them back to the Rhine, and slew such of them -- women and children as well as men -- as were not drowned in the river.

"His engineers then built in ten days a bridge over the great stream, there 1400 feet wide. Caesar's legions crossed, and fought long enough on German soil to establish the Rhine as a secure frontier. After two weeks he retraced his steps into Gaul.

"We do not know why he now invaded Britain. Possibly he was lured by rumors that gold or pearls abounded there. Or he wished to capture the tin and iron deposits of Britain for Roman exportation. Or he resented the aid that Britons had sent to the Gauls, and thought that Roman power in Gaul must be made secure in every direction.

"He led a small force across the Channel at its narrowest point, defeated the unprepared Britons, took a few notes, and returned (55).

"A year later he crossed again, overcame the British under Cassivelaunus, reached the Thames, exacted promise of tribute, and sailed back to Gaul."

It would seem to me that Caesar's legions were made up of far more than infantrymen. There had to be engineers to build bridges. And who was qualified to determine that there was tin and iron in the soil? And he and his legions crossed the Channel at the very same point where they were crossed by Allied forces in D-Day! Who built the boats? Who sailed them? Who were the navigators?

This is the man who spent most of his youth in the beds of various women. There must be a message here.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 19, 2003 - 06:02 am
Here's a picture of a model of Caesar's bridge taken from the article I linked in Post #89 yesterday.

Caesar's bridge across the Rhine

georgehd
December 19, 2003 - 07:42 am
Robbie, I am surprised at you. "This is the man who spent most of his youth in the beds of various women." I think the message is obvious. Some of us just dont get the message when we are young.

When I think back to my history courses in high school, I seem to remember that much of what we studied were the various wars of western civilization. Unfortunately I had no history in college.

Scrawler
December 19, 2003 - 01:14 pm
Roman slavery:

Roman slavery differed in several important aspects from that of ancient Greece. Roman masters had more power over their slaves, including, by law, the power of life or death. Slavery was also far more necessary to the economy and social system of Rome, especially during the empire, than it had been in Greece. Wealthy Romans, often maintaining large city and country homes, depended on numerous slaves for efficient operation of these households. Imperial conquests and expansion eventually strained the native Roman work force, so great numbers of foreign slaves had to be imported to fill agricultural labor needs. The primary way of acquiring slaves was through war; tens of thousands of captured prisoners of war were brought to Rome as slaves. Other sources of slaves were debtors, who sold themselves or members of their families into slavery, and persons convicted of serious crimes. Ultimately, dependence on slavery contributed significantly to Rome's downfall.

In answer to your questions I think the "slave merchants" were primarily in Rome, but it would not surprise me to see the merchants follwing the army into conquered lands. I would imagine it was handled not ulike the sale of the slaves in the American south in the 1850s.

"Until relatively modern times, a parent or guardian could sell a child, and a man could dispose of a wife or concubine in like manner." - Uncle Tom's Cabin and the Mid-nineteenth Century

robert b. iadeluca
December 19, 2003 - 05:11 pm
"Caesar moved on to assail Gergovia. There, however, the Gauls resisted so resolutely that he was compelled to withdraw. The Aedui, whom he had rescued from the Germans, and who heretofore had remained his allies, now deserted him, captured his base and stores at Soissons, and prepared to drive him back into Narbonese Gaul.

"It was the lowest ebb of Caesar's fortunes, and for a time he considered himself lost. He staked everything upon a siege of Alesia (Alise Ste.-Reine), where Vercingerorix had gathered 30,000 troops. Caesar had hadly distribued a like number of soldiers around the city when word came that 250,000 Gauls were marching down upon him from the north.

"He ordered his men to raise two concentric walls of earth around the city, one before them, the other behind them. Against these walls and the desperate Romans the armies of Vercingetorix and his allies threw themselves in repeated vain attacks. After a week the army of relief broke up in disorder for lack of discipline and supplies, and melted into ineffectual bands at the very moment when the Romans had reached the end of their stores.

"Soon thereafter the starving city sent Vercingerorix at his own suggestion as a prisoner to Caesar, and then surrendered to the Roman's mercy (52). The town was spared, but all its soldiers were given to the legionaries as slaves.

"Vercingetorix was led in chains to Rome. There he later graced Caesar's triumph and paid with his life for his devotion to liberty.

"The siege of Alesia added to the Roman Empire a country twice the size of Italy and opened the purses and markets of 5,000,000 people to Roman trade. It saved Italy and the Mediterranean world for four centuries from barbarian invasion. It lifted Caesar from the verge of ruin to a new height of reputation, wealth, and power.

"After another year of sporadic revolts, which the angry general put down with uncharacteristic severity, all Gaul accepted subjection to Rome. Once his victory was certain Caesar became again the generous conqueror. He treated the tribes with such lenience that in all the ensuing Civil War, when he and Rome would have been helpless to retaliate, they made no move to throw off the yoke.

"For three hundred years Gaul remained a Roman province, prospered under the Roman peace, learned and transformed the Latin language, and became the channel through which the culture of classic antiquity passed into northern Europe.

"Doubtless neither Caesar nor his contemporaries foresaw the immense consequences of his bloody triumph. He thought he had saved Italy, won a province, and forged an army. He did not suspect that he was the creator of French civilization."

Any comments here about the effect Caesar had on modern day France?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 19, 2003 - 05:19 pm
Here's one way:

Pictures of Roman Aqueducts in Spain, Portugal and France

Malryn (Mal)
December 19, 2003 - 05:25 pm
Roman tower near Nimes, France

anneofavonlea
December 19, 2003 - 05:33 pm
language, is one of the great romance languages,its syntax of verbs at end etc.

The architecture of course. Rome Influenced france but not shaped would be my call.

Anneo

robert b. iadeluca
December 19, 2003 - 05:55 pm
The following is not from Durant but is an excerpt from an article by Jona Lendering. I have read it 2-3 times and find it most thought-provoking:--

"Originally it was not Caesar's intention to attck Gaul. However, the migration of the Helvetians, a coalition of tribes forced him to think about this. It was a golden opportunity to impress the Senate and People's Assembly. A victory over the Germans would place him on the same rank as his uncle Marius.

"Caesar ought to have taken his armies back to the south but Caesar had by now changed his mind. He now set out to conquer all of Gaul. It seemed easy. And he was not blind to trade.

"In Caesar's propaganda, this was a preventive war. He could boast about his successes. He could explain why he had to attack the rest of Gaul. It was successful. No Roman ever asked if it was really necessary to conquer these vast territories.

"Meanwhile in Rome, public thansgiving last fifteen days were decreed by the Senate. No one had been granted this honor before.

"Caesar spent some time in Italy where he met Pompey and Crassus. The trimvirs decided to contine their conspiracy against the Roman republic and agreed that Caesar's generalship in Gaul would be prolonged. Caesar's fellow-conspirators demanded in return Caesar's support to be consuls in the next year.

"Two tribes crossed the Rhine and were attcked by the Caesar's troops during an armistice. Many women and children were killed. When this genocide became known in Rome, the leader of the conservatives exclaimed that Caesar was to be handed over to the Germans.

"After this incident, Caesar was forced to divert the Senate's attention to other subjects."

Robby

gaj
December 19, 2003 - 06:34 pm
Caesars plan to "divert the Senate's attention to other subjects" reminds me of this line from Throughly Modern Milly "Everything Old is new again." Modern governments like to keep voters minds away from the bad stuff they have done and only think about the good stuff.

Justin
December 19, 2003 - 10:58 pm
I am reading Book 7 of Caesar's Gallic Wars. Paraphrasing bits and pieces I find that Vercingetorix, a youth of supreme influence ( his pop was king), sent out deputations to all the tribes, requesting hostages. Then he ordered a certain number of soldiers from each tribe. Laggards he sent home with one eye and no ears to encourage others to report more quickly. In this way he raised an army very quickly. The modern method is called a National Draft. It is less bloody but equally effective. Once a man's number is called he had better show up or go to jail. Selective service makes strange bed fellows. Does any one recall whether the army asked draftees about things like homosexuality. I am sure Caesar and Vercingetorix did not ask and everyone enjoyed the mix.

robert b. iadeluca
December 20, 2003 - 06:20 am
"Meanwhile Pompey too had levied an army, presumably to complete the conquest of Spain. Had Caesar's plans matured, Pompey would have brought Farther Spain, and Crassus Armenia and Parthia, within the orbit of Roman power at the same time that Caesar was extending the frontier to the Thames and the Rhine.

"Instead of leading his legions to Spain, Pompey kept them in Italy, except for one which he lent to Caesar in the crisis of the Gallic revolt. In 54 the strongest tie that held him to Caesar was cut by the death of his wife Julia in childbirth. Caesar offered him his grandniece, Octavia, now Caesar's nearest female relative, and asked for the hand of Pompey's daughter. But Pompey refused both proposals.

"The debacle of Crassus and his army in the following year removed another balancing force, for a victorious Crassus would have opposed the dictatorship of either Caesar or Pompey.

"Henceforth Pompey openly allied himself with the conservatives. His plan to secure supreme power through legal forms had now only one obstacle -- the ambition and army of Caesar. Knowing that Caesar's command would expire in 49, Pompey secured decrees continuing his own command to the end of 46, and requiring all Italians capable of bearing arms to take an oath of military fealty to him personally.

"In this way, he trusted, time itself would make him master of Rome."

A power struggle between three potential dictators. The concept of Democracy begins to fall.

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 20, 2003 - 07:19 am
In trying to think of how the Romans influenced “les Gaulois” I am sure it did in more ways than I can way. The French and the Italian languages are cousins being both Latin, but they sound differently. Both have a musicality and I believe it reflects the geography of their country. Italy situated southward is sunnier than France whose climate is more like England in the North.

La Côte d’Azur has all the characteristics of the Italian climate as it hugs the Mediterranean. The French spoken in the South of France have that singing lilt of Italian and unfortunately, with television, that tends to slowly disappear even if it is very lovely to hear, a bit of patois has its charm. Italy has given the world the most famous opera singers. Italian music is preferred by many people and even Mozart, who was German wrote the music to an Italian opera score, The Marriage of Figaro. Italian artistic influence is felt in French architecture, and paintings.

As for the Roman influence in the people’s physical appearance, in the South, the locals look exactly the same as Italians. In fact, the Spaniards, the French and the Italians are all similar in physical appearance, they are shorter, have dark hair and eyes. When we travel north the French language becomes sharper, more guttural, typical of Parisian French. The ‘Nordics’ left their influence in the way people talk, dress, build, and behave generally, the Romans there had less artistic influence. Northern Europeans are more scientific, are sturdier looking and more pragmatic.

When I go to Switzerland, it is noticeable to see that in the Suisse Romande, where French is spoken, they have acquired several German character traits. They are exact to a fault, a train is never one minute late for instance. You can count on the train schedule to be exact. Whereas in Italy, what does it matter if a train is late? Switzerland is not as relaxed as Italy and even as in France where creativity in everything is more welcomed.

I think that the Romans have influenced the southern part of Europe more than the northern part. I believe this is due in part to the climate. Northern countries have a hardier constitution able to withstand large variations of weather, especially in Roman times, and this is not conducive to artistic pursuit. In the South, the climate is pleasant almost all year around and to me that has a big influence on how people are.

Now in America, the giant mixture makes that country a melting pot of races all speaking English. That alone makes Americans different than any other race on earth. Along with a democratic government, it has become a formidable country that now influences the behavior of whole world.

Eloïse

Mary W
December 20, 2003 - 10:09 am
ROBBY: It has been a couple of years since I have posted anything. It was not by choice but because I have experienced great visual difficulties.

However-your post #94 has prodded me onto this activity. Since there have been no responses to your link I must assume that I am the only person who actually read it. My first reaction was surprise at its content- then anger. I was born in 1915 and was a precocious child and heard, understod, and remembered adult conversations. I do remember talk of racial differences and eugenics but didn't remember Madison Grant.I was so outraged that I looked him up. He was a fascist, a racist and an anti-semitic bigot. How did tou find him, Robby? And how did it make you feel about you predecessors?

We have come a very long way since the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The word "civilization" has always disturbed me. It has come to be accepted as the current way of life in some parts of our world.Every culture in history has produced its own civilization. Each following culture has built upon its predecessor. added, rejected. ond evolved its own Civilization is a work in progress not static. Witness the changes in this world over my lifetime-the better part of a century.

Thanks, Robby, and thanks to all of you whose contributions have given me such great pleasure. Happy Holidays to all! Don't eat too much! On second thought- do eat too much! Thee is no better time.

Malryn (Mal)
December 20, 2003 - 10:19 am
Happy, Happy Holidays to you, dear HANK !!!

Love,

Mal

Scrawler
December 20, 2003 - 10:56 am
The Roman Army:

About 200 BC Rome had instituted for the first time a conscription of all able-bodied men between 17 and 46 years of age. A rigid physical training program for those selected in early childhood to become soldiers ensured a superior state of readiness, especially for men chosen to serve in the legions. The Campaigns of these celebrated units of foot soldiers and cavalry - organized in three lines of small phalanxes called maniples or cohort - were expedited by the great Roman military engineering skills that provided the necessary roads, bridges, and forts.

The relaxtion of army discipline and the drafting of slaves and criminals into the service, together with problems caused by incursions of Teutonic tribes and by internal social dissent, necessitated far-reaching military reforms, achieved under the consul Gaius Marius. In 104 BC wealthy and part-time soldiers were replaced by a professional army, recruited for a 20-year period. The maneuverability of the legions was balance system of fixed fortifications, which were the key defenses of the far-flung Roman provinces.

Construction of Fortifications:

The primary aim in fortifying a fixed position is to erect a physical barrier that cannot be suddenly overrun and that is strong enough to enable the defending force to hold the position for a period of time. Over the ages and in most locales the classic defensive barrier has been a masonry wall surrounding the area to be defended, and usually itself surrounded by a deep ditch.

The variety of fronteir walls built by the Romans against barbarian attack - involved three basic concepts that remained unaltered until the age of gunpowder. In order to reach the defenders, the attackers had to scale the wall, break a passage through it, or burrow under it. The techniques of siege warfare were directed toward the accomplishment of these same aims, singly or simultaneously, and the techniques of fortifiction were aimed at preventing such accomplishment.

The art of fortification developed through local necessities and, as the wealth and power of the cities grew, often became undermined by complacency. The art of attack by seige, on the other hand, was stimulated by the efforts of those who would be conquerors.

robert b. iadeluca
December 20, 2003 - 11:47 am
We have really missed you, Hank (Mary W) and I am pleased to see that your visual difficulties have improved to the point where you can occasionally post. I am anything but a fascist, racist, and anti-semitic bigot ragardless of what any ancestors of mine might be.

I hope we will see you here from time to time and you are cordially invited to "sign up" to participate in a discussion group beginning Feb. 1st for which I will be Discussion Leader in addition to this one -- "Hope Dies Last" by Studs Terkel. There are already 12 people who have indicated their desire to participate.

Have a quiet pleasant Holiday!!

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 20, 2003 - 12:21 pm
"While the potential dictators maneuvered for position, the capital filled with the odor of a dying democracy.

"Verdicts, offices, provinces, and client kings were sold to the highest bidders. In the year 53 the first voting division in the Assembly was paid 10,000,000 sesterces for its vote.

"When money failed, murder was available.

"A man's past was raked over, and blackmail brought him to terms.

"Crime flourished in the city, brigandage in the country. No police force existed to control it.

"Rich men hired bands of gladiators to protect them, or to support them in the comitia.

"The lowest elements in Italy were attracted to Rome by the smell of money or the gift of corn, and made the meetings of the Assembly a desecration.

"Any man who would vote as paid was admitted to the rolls, whether citizen or not. Sometimes only a minority of those who cast ballots were entitled to vote.

"The privilege of addressing the Assembly had on several occasions to be won by storming the rostrum and holding it by main force.

"Legislation came to be determined by the fluctuating superiority of rival gangs.

"Those who voted the wrong way were, now and then, beaten to within an inch of their lives, after which their houses were set afire.

"Following one such meeting Cicero wrote:-'The Tiber was full of the corpses of citizens, the public sewers were stuffed with them, and slaves had to mop up with songes the blood that streamed from the Forum.'"

How easy it is for Democracy to die!! Does the populace of any culture really care? And, in a Democracy, what if the government is "of" the people and "for" the people -- but not BY the people? Is "survival of the fittest" the bottom line?

Robby

Mary W
December 20, 2003 - 01:42 pm
Hey Robby: Not for an instant did I mean to imply that you were either a racist or a bigot. Anyone who has even a tiny brush with you would know better. I meant to ask how do you evaluate your Nordic and Mediterranean ancestry in the light of that mans writing. Nothing more. Most of us have some mixture of countries or cultures and I think this makes us more interesting

robert b. iadeluca
December 20, 2003 - 02:37 pm
Hank:--I understood you perfectly. I was referring to my ancestors by comparing them to me. I might have had a horse thief or two.

And while we're talking about ancestors. We spoke a few postings back about ""Caesar inviting Pompey and Crassus to meet him at Luca" which they indeed did. Not a single astute person here commented on the similarity to my name. I even posted a map showing the location of the modern city "Lucca" in Burgundy, the site of the original "Luca" where they met.

Now I am sure that almost everyone here has heard the name DeLuca. It is a very common Italian name. It means, of course, "from Luca" or "of Luca." But have you ever, except in this forum, ever met anyone with the name Iadeluca? Of course not! We are talking about class! We are talking about nobility! I have been told that the prefix "Ia" indicates someone from aristocracy. So that one or more of my ancestors might have been the Count of Luca, for example.

And please note that it is "Luca," the ancient name, not "Lucca." The story as it comes on down through my family is that one day, while one of my ancestors was giving a bit of advice to Julius, that . . . But that's a tale for another day!!

In the meantime, I don't get no respect!

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 20, 2003 - 04:23 pm
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

- - H. L. Mencken

Justin
December 20, 2003 - 07:21 pm
We are witnessing the fall of a republic. Mobs have taken over the Assembly in the forum, power is vested in a Triumvirate and money and bribery rules both Senate and assembly. Civil war is in the air. Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar vy for a dictatorship. A democratic republic is slipping away to chaos. I wonder if much of the citizenry noticed.

I am not sure that very many Americans noticed the recent diminution of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court added restrictions to the power of free speech last week by rejecting a challenge to Mc Cain-Feingold. That's how it goes- a little at a time. It looks like the right thing to do at the time. Then one day, it's all gone.

The incumbant in the Presidency has been striving to expand the role of the Presidency through something called the Patriot Act. The Act is not without challenges but unless we are careful we could lose another piece of our Republic. We think we are safe, that it could not happen here but it does happen. It happened to Rome.

Justin
December 20, 2003 - 07:41 pm
Count de Luca may have been the ruling honcho in a burg in Burgundy but Lucca is a fair sized city in Italy- in Liguria to be exact. Luca is the same place and it is there that Caesar and his buddies held a conference in 56.

Justin
December 20, 2003 - 07:48 pm
Hank: It is nice to know you are well and still a little feisty. Count de Luca is always a little feisty. May your Holidays be happy and shared with warm, friendly, folks. I wish you were back in the conversation.

anneofavonlea
December 20, 2003 - 08:20 pm
Robbie saw a little on television about celebration of saturnalia, and its similarity to the reasons for celebrating christmas.Has that been looked at here?

I am curtsying to your royal status as I ask.

Anneo

robert b. iadeluca
December 20, 2003 - 08:42 pm
Anneo:--Interesting that you should ask about "saturnalia." Just a few minutes ago I came back from a Solstice Celebration hosted by a couple of friends of mine. No, they are not witches (that I know of). They are environmentalists. She works at the national headquarters of the Nature Conservancy which, as many of you know, regularly buys up property to save it from development. One of their current projects is the saving of the Everglades in Florida.

Each year they host this celebration. There were about 25 of us present eating scrumptious foods of various sorts. After that, we circled a large bonfire outside and some people brought drums to beat. There was also a circular labyrinth lit by torches that one could walk through in order to attain peace.

So you see, I am not that far from my Jupiter fearing ancestors.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 20, 2003 - 09:14 pm
"Clodius and Milo were Rome's most distinguished experts in this brand of parliament. They organized rival bands of ruffians for political purposes, and hardly a day passed without some test of their strength.

"One day Clodius assaulted Cicero in the street. Another day his warriors burned down Milo's house. At last Clodius himself was caught by Milo's gang and killed (52).

"The proletariat, not privy to all his plots, honored Clodius as a martyr, gave him a mighty funeral, carried the body to the senate house, and burned the building over him as his funeral pyre.

"Pompey brought in his soldiers and dispersed the mob. As reward he asked from the Senate, and received, appointment as 'consul without colleague,' a phrase that Cato recommended as more pleasant than 'dictator.'

"Pompey then put through the assembly -- cowed by his troops -- several measures aimed at political corruption, and another repealing the right (which his bill of 55 had granted to Caesar) to stand for the consulate while absent from Rome. He impartially supervised, with military force, the operation of the courts. Milo was tried for the murder of Clodius, was condemned despite Cicero's defense, and fled to Marseilles.

"Cicero went off to govern Cilicia (51), and acquitted himself there with a degree of competence and integrity which surprised and offended his friends.

"All the elements of wealth and order in the capital resigned themselves to the dictatorship of Pompey, while the poorer classes hopefully awaited the coming of Caesar."

The plot thickens.

Robby

gaj
December 20, 2003 - 10:18 pm
I very much agree with post #117.

Justin
December 20, 2003 - 10:43 pm
I suppose we will be forced to deal with Saturnalia before we come to it in Durant simply because December 25th is now upon us and we are in Rome. The giving of gifts is characteristic of the Saturnalia. It is also characteristic of Christmas celebrations,today. Ask any American retailer.

I have lately noticed signs of a public movement away from the religious aspects of Christmas. The schools now refer to a "winter break" rather than the "Christmas holidays". Is it possible, the public schools have recognized a bias in giving preference to one religion and wishing to avoid conflict, have adopted a pc descriptor. I'll bet the schools in our "Bible Belt" States think they would be breaking the law if they adopted any other descriptor than Christmas Holiday break.

Bubble
December 21, 2003 - 05:13 am
Robby, didn't you have a Jewish ancestor by any chance? After all in ancient Hebrew "ia and io" are prefixes for God. Yonathan= God gave. Yours could be the God of Luca, not only Count.

My respect, Sir.

Malryn (Mal)
December 21, 2003 - 05:50 am
Oh, BUBBLE, stop it! It's bad enough he thinks he's royalty.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca
December 21, 2003 - 06:01 am
Bubble:--I knew it! I knew it! I could feel it in my bones! However, rest easy everyone. I am of a compassionate and understanding nature. Some of us have it and some of us don't.

With your permission (which I don't really need) I will continue Durant's remarks.

Robby

tigerliley
December 21, 2003 - 06:04 am
Justin....you might be surprised at how people in the "bible belt" handle the holiday season.... We have many refugees in our area, many nationalities here as well due to the University.....when out and about people refer to the season as Holiday.....when it comes down to people's personal lives then you may see religious symbols in yards as well as not.....of course we have many Christian churches here as well as a Mosque, and a synagoue....there are interdenominational celebrations.......

georgehd
December 21, 2003 - 06:11 am
The intrigue in our little group grows. Small groups, as well as large, often kill off their leaders. I learned this at a wonderful week of studying group behavior many years ago (sponsored by the Washington School of Psychiatry).

I am astounded at the personal rivalry that seems to govern the Roman Empire at this time. Men (there are no women mentioned) seem solely interested in self agrandizment.

Apropos 'our loss of freedoms', I believe commented on by Justin, I offer the following link to Tom Friedman's article in today's Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/opinion/21FRIE.html

georgehd
December 21, 2003 - 06:24 am
As I live in another country, Cayman, you may be interested in the holidays here. This is a very Christian country with many, many small churches and no synagogues or mosques. It is a rather conservative country religiously. And of course, we have no cold weather and no snow.

People here celebrate the season with many parties that begin in early December and last through the first week of the new year. Many houses are decorated with festive lights and some are truly amazing constructions of thousands of individual bulbs. The entire island glows at this time of year. There is a parade of lights in mid December, when many boats are festooned with lights and motor around the harbor. We are treated to firework displays then and again at the new year. Christmas is always a two day holiday because the day following December 25th is Boxing Day, named after the English practice of presenting boxes to the Lord of the manor on that day. Churches are filled both on Christmas eve and the following morning. Many church choirs can be heard rehearsing during the weeks before the holiday.

Though I am Jewish, I do find this a rather magical time here. We will have a small Hannukah celebration tonight. And I misspoke as there is now a small synagogue on Cayman Brac, built by a Jewish man to honor his wife. I have not yet seen it.

And now back to Rome and the pre-Christian world.

robert b. iadeluca
December 21, 2003 - 06:38 am
The change in the GREEN quotes in the Heading indicate the direction in which Rome is going.

"A century of revolution had broken down a selfish and narrow aristocracy, but had put no other government in its place. Unemployment, bribery, bread and circuses had corrupted the Assembly into an ill-informed and passion-ridden mob obviously incapable of ruling itself, much less an empire.

"Caesar agreed with Pompey that the Republic was dead. It was now, he said:-'a mere name, without body or form.' Dictatorship was unavoidable.

"But he had hoped to establish a leadership that would be progressive, that would not freeze the status quo, but would lessen the abuses, inequities, and destitution which had degraded democracy. He was now fifty-four, and surely weakened by his long campaigns in Gaul. He did not relish a war against his fellow citizens and his former friends.

"But he saw the snares that had been prepared for him, and resented them as an ill-reward for one who had saved Italy. His term as governor of Gaul would end on March 1, 49. He could not run for the consulship until the fall of that year. In the interval he would lose the immunity of an officeholder, and could not enter Rome without subjecting himself to those proscriptions which were among the favorite weapons of party warfare in Rome.

"Already Marcus Marcellus had proposed to the Senate tht Caesar should be deposed from his governship before its expiration -- which meant self-exile or trial. The tribunes of the plebs had saved him by their veto, but the Senate clearly favored the motion.

"Cato frankly expressed the hope that Caesar would be accused, tried, and banished from Italy."

As I read this, I think of the American pre-Civil War period when friends and even brothers saw the possibility of their fighting against each other.

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 21, 2003 - 07:24 am
Oh! please lets have a bit of fun and continue with the good cheer for a little with Ia's permission.

I love the winter solstice because starting today, the days will get LONGER here in Montreal as it is dark starting at 4 pm when you draw the curtains and put on the lights. The snow on the hill in front of the house and the kids sliding down at top speed is a lovely sight. Especially after dark, the Christmas lights in all colors light up the houses on the street. Some now are shaped like Santas and sleighs and all the themes of the Holiday season. We also greet each other with "Joyeuses Fêtes" meaning Happy Holidays. It is a continuous time of celebration from now till after the New Year.

Bubble, Hebrew Greek and Latin should be taught to every child in school. I am sorry I didn't have the chance to study it.

George, it must be lovely in Cayman as you describe it, and that you have warm weather to boot. I must plan to go down to Florida some day again in the winter.

Robby, Durant said: "Dictatorship was unavoidable". If Dictatorship follows Democracy, is this what awaits us?.

Eloïse

robert b. iadeluca
December 21, 2003 - 07:36 am
"Nature abhors a vacuum."

Malryn (Mal)
December 21, 2003 - 07:37 am
The most astounding displays of holiday decorations I ever saw were in Brooklyn, New York the year I spent Christmas there with my son and his wife. Not only were there thousands and thousands of lights, there were moving figures of every size and description. Streets looked like Macy's Department store windows. We spent Christmas Eve with my daughter-in-law's mother and dozens of relatives on Staten Island, which was all decorated, too. Serena is of Italian heritage, so on the buffet table, which was loaded with food, there were the traditional "Seven Fish".

Click for Happy Holidays!

robert b. iadeluca
December 21, 2003 - 08:00 am
Really cheery music, Mal! Thank you.

You are probably talking about the Bensonhurst and Dyker Heights section of Brooklyn which is 90% (if not more) Italian. The competition goes on to this day. And I use the term "competition" advisedly. Of course the spirit of Christmas is there as the Italians are Christian (Roman Catholic). But it is far past that.

There is no way that "Caesar" in one house is going to let "Pompey" next door out-decorate him! It can get vicious (but with an outward smile). This is also the section of Brooklyn where many top leaders of the Mafia lived (and live?) and so it is Roman against Roman -- Napolitano vs Calabrese vs Siciliano.

Mal is not exaggerating about the comparison with Macy's Store Window. In that section of Brooklyn at that time of the year -- which begins well before Christmas itself -- the city fathers could turn off all the street lights and it would still be like daylight.

Buon Natale, everyone!

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 21, 2003 - 08:16 am
Yes, my son, Christopher, pointed out some known Mafia houses to me. On the garage of one was a thick pink marble door. The decorations on that house were spectacular.

The fenced yard was full of animated figures and trees with lights. On a balcony on the second floor there were more moving figures and lights, plus nativity scenes in the upper windows. The roof had a huge Santa Claus and sleigh.

There was music coming from somewhere which was no less than the New York Philharmonic Orchestra. You couldn't just see the competition that was going on among the people in these houses, you could feel it.

Mal

Scrawler
December 21, 2003 - 10:13 am
France:

Language:

French is one of the Romance languages, which developed from Latin. When Julius Caesar conquered Gaul, he found the people speaking a language called Gaulish. The Gauls gradually adopted the language of the Roman soldiers. This language, callled vernacular (common) Latin, differed from the Latin used by educated people. The Gauls did not learn to speak popular Latin as the soldiers spoke it. They changed the vocabulary on the basis of the way the words sounded. For example, a Gaul hearing the stressed sylables "bon" and "ta" of the word "bonitatem" (kindness) shortened the word to "bonta". This word has become "bonte" in modern French.

Law:

Beginning with Julius Caesar, a long line of Roman rulers tried to organize all the empire's laws into an orderly code. Even today, the codes of most civil law countries are based on Roman law.

The belief in natural law led to the idea that non-Romans within the empire should have the same rights as citizens. The principles of natural law set down in the "jus gentium" remained part of Roman law. These principles were important to future generations because they led to the belief in equal rights for all citizens. Hundreds of years passed before people fully developed teh principles of equality that were outlined by the Romans. Once the principles had been developed, they contributed to the building of democratic governments in the United States, France, and many other countries.

robert b. iadeluca
December 21, 2003 - 10:33 am
Scrawler, you say:--"Even today, the codes of most civil law countries are based on Roman law."

I am not knowledgeable in this field. Are the American civil laws based on Roman law? I have heard that they are based on "English law." What is the relationship between the two?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 21, 2003 - 01:50 pm
"When, at Pompey's suggestion, the Senate asked both generals to release to it a legion for use against Parthia, Caesar at once complied, although the force was small. When Pompey asked Caesar for the return of the legion sent him a year before, Caesar dispatched it to him without delay.

"His friends informed him, however, that instead of being sent to Parthia these legions were being kept at Capua. Through his supporters in the Senate Caesar requested a renewal of the Assembly's earlier decree permitting him to stand for the consulship in absence. The Senate refused to submit the motion and demanded that Caesar dismiss his troops. Caesar felt that his legions were his only protection. Perhaps he had nourished their personal loyalty with a view to just such a crisis as this.

Nevertheless, he proposed to the Senate that both he and Pompey should lay down their commissions -- an offer which seemed to the people of Rome so reasonable that they garlanded his messenger with flowers. The Senate favored the plan, 370 to 22, but Pompey balked at it.

"In the last days of the year 50 the Senate declared Caesar a public enemy unless he should abandon his command by July 1. On the first day of 49 Curio read to the Senate a letter in which Caesar agreed to disband all but two of his ten legions if he might retain the governorship until 48. But he spoiled the offer by adding that he would look upon its rejection as a declaration of war. Cicero spoke for the proposal, and Pompey agreed to it. But the consul Lentulus intervened and drove Caesar's lieutenants, Curio and Antony, from the senate house.

"After a long debate the reluctant Senate, persuaded by Lentulus, Cato, and Marcellus, gave Pompey orders and powers to 'see that no harm shold come to the state' -- the Roman phrase for dictatorship and martial law."

On which side are you?

Robby

Fifi le Beau
December 21, 2003 - 02:03 pm
Robby your question, Is "survival of the fittest" the bottom line?

The answer is yes to survival in nature where strength and fitness is required to survive.

In the quest for power and control over any country, the answer would be no. Although strength and mental ability are compliments to any ruler, they are not the most important ingredient.

As has been shown over and over through history, it was the man who was most willing to kill his opponents through any means, who took the throne. This did not always necessitate outright murder, but took the form of demonization and trials which most often led to death, exile, or slavery.

Corruption was a trait more important than fitness, in the quest for keeping power once you acquired it. If you can't kill them, bribe them. Once power was obtained, corruption and bribery seems the norm. There have been so few through history who had the interest of the people they ruled in mind when enacting and enforcing laws. The power of law used as a form of control and manipulation has been used throughout history, and is still in use today.

In the desire to attain power, it does not always fall to the survival of the "fittest", but more often to the survival of the most ruthless and corrupt.

......

robert b. iadeluca
December 21, 2003 - 02:25 pm
Fifi:--In nature the term "fitness" does not necessarily indicate physical power. The butterfly with the camouflaged color survives or the antelope with the smaller antlers which don't get tangled up. Wouldn't being ruthless or corrupt then be considered a form of being "fit?"

Robby

Fifi le Beau
December 21, 2003 - 03:34 pm
Wouldn't being ruthless or corrupt then be considered a form of being "fit?"

The object of ruthlessness is ruthlessness. The object of corruption is corruption. I see both as a form of being "unfit" to rule over others.

You write of animals, and I write of humans. In the animal world size, fitness, speed, and ruthlessness rules the chain of life. In the human world that changes because we can think and act without any of these attributes. Ghandi had none of those qualities, yet he made a great impact on the world.

Humans do not require ruthlessness and corruption for survival, only for power over others and avarice.

P.S. Those small antlers won't help the antelope when the lion is hungry.

......

Malryn (Mal)
December 21, 2003 - 03:51 pm
I don't know whether it's an instinct of Nature, human and otherwise, but any time a person shows visible signs of not being fit somebody comes along who wants to eat him or her up.

Mal

Malryn (Mal)
December 21, 2003 - 03:54 pm
Influence of Roman Law on Common Law of England

robert b. iadeluca
December 21, 2003 - 03:55 pm
Does being fit always equate to what most of us would describe as a "positive trait?"

Robby

Justin
December 21, 2003 - 06:55 pm
It is not "fitness" that one should be concerned about but "application."If one has capability and uses it to achieve socially acceptable ends, I see nothing wrong with that. If, on the other hand, one is fit but uses his or her skills for evil ends then there is cause for concern.

Countries with sufficient military power to successfully engage others may use that power to protect, to aggrandize or to rescue.

Justin
December 21, 2003 - 07:20 pm
I think Caesar and Pompey are both honorable men. They are on a collision path which neither can deny. Each has supporters who prefer a favorite for the top role in Rome. The process is somewhat like a chess game. Pompey has his Cicero and the Senate. Caesar has his legions, the Assembly and his Pontifex Maximus. The citizens , as usual, are the pawns. Rome is the board upon which the game is played.

Had Crassus lived, the Triumvirate, would have survived for a time and civil war might have been averted.

I am reminded of the power play of General Mac Arthur. He had enormous prestige based on his war accomplishments. He wanted to return to the US in triumpth and to assume the Presidency.Instead, he reached too far, overriding Presidential orders in Korea and had to be relieved. He returned to the US still an enormous source of power only to report to the Congress and to retire from public life.

anneofavonlea
December 21, 2003 - 07:34 pm
or is fitted to the task, it may not be a valiant task. Maybe fitness an essential in what is commonly called the natural world. Mind you those claiming things should carry on according to natural law do often exclude humankind from this category. An old teacher of my misguided youth claimed "man stands alone because man alone stands". and since then have seen the same quote with stands being replaced with understands.

Julius Caesar seemed 'fit' for his task, to me, inspite of his womanising ways. I seem to remember your country being governed rather well, by a man constrained to a wheelchair, and by one or two who were not seen as morally fit for the job.There are many instances in the sporting arena, where a fit player has been overcome by an injured yet determined counterpart.

Anneo

georgehd
December 21, 2003 - 09:43 pm
Anneo, technically in a biological sense, Caesar was more fit because of his 'womanizing ways'. Theoretically he would have left more offspring and therefore been fitter. Plants and animals that leave more offspring gradually replace those which are less fertile.

gaj
December 21, 2003 - 10:04 pm
Eloïse -- I sure agree with you about the days getting longer after the winter solstice.

I was talking to my husband today about our discussion and said to him dictatorship follows democracy. We are both concerned about the curent loss of rights in the US that we fought against Britian to get.

Fifi le Beau - I agree with you about the surival of the most ruthless and corrupt. When I was younger I believed that right overcomes wrong, but not anymore.

robert b. iadeluca
December 22, 2003 - 05:33 am
Could the three branches of the American government be considered a Triumverate?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 22, 2003 - 05:50 am
"Caesar hesitated more than was his wont. Legally the Senate was right. He had no authority to name the conditions under which he would resign his command. He knew that civil war might bring Gaul to revolt and Italy to ruin.

"But to yield was to surrender the Empire to incompetence and reaction. Amid his deliberations he learned that one of is nearest friends and ablest lieutenants, Titus Labienus, had gone over to Pompey. He summoned the soldiers of his favorite Thirteenth Legion and laid the situation before them.

"His first word won them. Commilitones!--'fellow soldiers.' They who had seen him share their hardships and perils, who had had to complain that he risked himself too readily, recognized his right to use this word. He had always addressed them so rather than with the curt Milites! of less gracious commanders.

"Most of his men came from Cisalpine Gaul, to which he had extended Roman citizenship. They knew that the Senate had refused to recognize this grant and that one senator had flogged a Cisalpine Gaul just to show his contempt for Caesar's enfranchisment -- it was illegal to flog a Roman citizen.

"They had learned to respect Caesar -- even, in their rough mute way, to love him -- during their many campaigns. He had been severe with cowardice and indiscipline, but he had been lenient with their human faults -- had winked at their sexual escapades -- had spared them unnecessary dangers -- had saved them by skillful generalship -- had doubled their pay -- and had spread his spoils among them handsomely.

"He told them of his proposals to the Senate and how these had been received. He reminded them that an idle and corrupt aristocracy was unfit to give Rome order, justice, and prosperity. Would they follow him?

"Not one refused. When he told them that he had no money with which to pay them, they emptied their savings into his treasury."

I have in mind a leader who spoke to the nation by radio weekly and always began with the term "My friends!"

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 22, 2003 - 07:17 am
Below is a link to one of Franklin Roosevelt's Fireside Chats. Click the blue link at the top right to hear the entire talk in audio. This is an mp3 file, and may take a while to download.

Franklin Roosevelt's first Fireside Chat, March 12, 1933

georgehd
December 22, 2003 - 07:51 am
I do not see our three branches of government as a triumverate in the historical sense. A triumverate was three individuals who shared power in a fashion determined by them and not by law or constitution. The separation of powers in the US was a magnificent step in the history of Western Civilization towards a rule by law under a constitution. Through out our history there have been times when one branch of government seemed more powerful than the others, but usually there was a correction. In recent times there seems to have been a concentration of power in the Presidency, which the other branches have not responded to. And most importantly, the separation of church and state was essential to our founders. As we conclude this volume of Durant, we shall see the union of church and state.

robert b. iadeluca
December 22, 2003 - 10:07 am
Thank you, Mal, for that link. I have Real Player which downloaded the audio but then could not locate the clip. However, I read his words. He was a real leader who spent quite a few minutes explaining in detail. Notice his choice of phrases:--

"My friends. I want to talk for a few minutes with the people of the United States. I want to tell you what has been done in the last few days, and why it was done, and what the next steps are going to be. I know that when you understand what we in Washington have been about, I shall continue to have your cooperation as fully as I have had your sympathy and your help during the past week.

"Your government does not intend that the history of the past few years shall be repeated. We do not want and will not have another epidemic of bank failures. Let me make it clear to you that the banks will take care of all needs except the hysterical demands of hoarders. I can assure you, my friends, that it is safer to keep your money in a reopened bank than it is to keep it under the mattress.

"It became the Government's job to straighten out this situation and do it as quickly as possible. And that job is being performed. It has been wonderful to me to catch the note of confidence from all over the country. I can never be sufficently grateful to the people for the loyal support that they have given me. It is your problem, my friends, your problem no less than it is mine. Together we cannot fail."

Like Caesar, FDR came from the monied class but appeared to have the ability to bring the populace together.

Robby

Scrawler
December 22, 2003 - 10:41 am
For those of us who would be king: "All hail, Macbeth, that shalt be King hereafter! - "Macbeth", I, iii

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken

Democracy vs. Republic:

Democracy comes from the Greek word "demos" meaning the people and "kratein" meaning to rule. Although often interchangeably, the terms democracy and republic are not synonymous. Both systems delegate the power to govern to their elected repesentatives. In a republic, however, these officials are expected to act on their own best judgment of the needs and interests of the country. The officials in a democracy more generally and indirectly reflect the known or ascertained views of the constituents, sometimes subordinating their own judgment.

The major features of modern democracy include individual freedom, which entitles citizens to the liberty and responsibility of shaping their own careers and conducting their own affairs; equality before the law; and universal suffrage and education. Such features have been proclaimed in great historic documents, for example, the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which asserted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the citizen, which affirmed the principles of civil liberty and equality before the law; and the Atlantic Charter, which formulted the four basic freedoms.

But as Justin said in his post #117: "I am not sure that very many Americans noticed the recent diminution of the First Amendement to the Constitution. The Supreme Court added restrictions to the power of free speech last week by rejecting a challenge to McCain-Feingold. That's how it goes - a little at a time. It looks like the right thing to do at the time. Then one day, it's all gone." "The incumbent in the Presidency has been striving to expand the role of the Presidency through something called the Patriot Act. The Act is not without challenges but unless we are careful we could lose another piece of our Republic. We think we are safe, that it could not happen here but it does happen. It happened to Rome."

So what will we give up next? It WILL happen! It is only a question of time.

Malryn (Mal)
December 22, 2003 - 11:15 am
Happy Chanukah!

robert b. iadeluca
December 22, 2003 - 11:32 am
"On January 10, 49, Caesar led one legion across the Rubicon, a small stream, near Ariminum, that marked the southern boundary of Cisalpine Gaul. Iacta est alea, he is reported to have said -- 'the die is cast.' It seemed an act of folly, for the remaining nine legions of his army were still distant in Gaul and could not reach him for weeks to come. Pompey had ten legions, or 60,000 troops, authority to levy as many more as he pleased, and funds to arm and feed them.

"Caesar's Twelfth Legion joined him at Picenum, the Eighth at Corfinium. He formed three legions more from prisoners, volunteers, and levies upon the population. He had little difficulty in getting recruits. Italy had not forgotten the Social War (88), and saw in Caesar a champion of Italian rights.

"One by one its cities opened their gates to him, some turned out en masse to welcome him. Wrote Cicero, 'the towns salute him as a god.' Cordinium resisted briefly, then surrendered. Caesar protected it from sack by his soldiers, freed all captured officers, and sent to Pompey's camp the money and baggage that Labienus had left behind.

"Although almost penniless, he refrained from confiscating those estates of his opponents that fell into his hands -- a characteristically wise measure, which won to neutrality most of the middle class. It would be his policy, he announced to consider all neutrals his friends.

"At every new advance he tried again for reconciliation. He sent a message to Lentulus begging him to use his consular influence for peace. In a letter to Cicero he offered to retire to private life and leave the field to Pompey, provided he should be allowed to live in security.

"Cicero labored to effect a compromise, but found his logic helpless before the rival dogmatisms of revolution."

I keep wondering here -- what was the thinking deep in Caesar's mind? -- what was the thinking deep in Pompey's mind? Caesar seems to be giving away everything he had gained -- even sending to the enemy "money and baggage they had left behind." Pompey is offered just about everything imaginable but turns all these offers down.

What is going on here? Psychological warfare?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 22, 2003 - 11:51 am
On this map of Italy you will see the RUBICON RIVER in the upper section flowing into the Adriatic Sea.

Robby

Justin
December 22, 2003 - 07:08 pm
You ask good questions, Robby. What is going on here? We are at a major turning point in history and it behooves us to understand it well. Durant says that Caesar is concerned about yielding to incompetence and reaction. If he yields he does so to Pompey, the Senate, and Cicero. The Senate is the weak link but the two ex-consuls are experienced and probably competent. Pompey is already "Dictator" and martial law has been declared.

Caesar and Pompey have asessed the condition of the Republic and both recognize the Republic is no more. The aristocracy has been corupted and the Assembly is an unruly mob. Decent citizens of the middle class and the merchants stay away from the forum where to disagree is to risk one's life. The political combination that made Rome a republic is disolved.

It is in this vacuum that Caesar and Pompey vy for control of the government. Pompey has control as Dictator. The Senate threatens Caesar with trial and banishment. Caesar proposes alternatives which are rejected. Finally, there is no other choice for Caesar. He crosses the Rubicon to launch the first strike in civil war.

When one looks at the causes for this civil war, they appear to be multiple and complex. But I see simplicity. The citizens of Rome, the aristocracy and the plebs failed in their duty to be vigilant. They allowed corruption in government to exist as though it were an expected part of governmental function.

robert b. iadeluca
December 22, 2003 - 07:32 pm
"Caesar and Pompey vy for control of the government. Pompey has control as Dictator. The Senate threatens Caesar with trial and banishment. There is no other choice for Caesar. He crosses the Rubicon to launch the first strike in civil war."

But Caesar did have a choice. He could have discharged his legions and gone off somewhere to lead a quiet life with his friends. Are we talking here about ego?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 22, 2003 - 07:40 pm
"Though his forces still far outnumbered Caesar's, Pompey withdrew with them from the capital, and a disorderly stream of aristocrats followed him, leaving their wives and children to Caesar's mercy. Rejecting every overture of peace, Pompey declared that he would consider as an enemy any senator who did not abandon Rome and join his camp.

"The majority of the Senate remained in Rome, and vacillating Cicero, despising Pompey's vacillations, divided himself among his rural estates. Pompey marched to Brundisium and ferried his troops across the Adriatic. He knew that his undisciplined army needed further training before it could stand up to Caesar's legions.

"Meanwhile, he hoped, the Roman fleet under his control would starve Italy into destroying his rival."

They are now "rivals." I thought that at one time they were friends. What happened?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 22, 2003 - 07:53 pm
Here is a MAP of Italy showing Brundisium in the "heel" of Italy on the Adriatic Sea.

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 22, 2003 - 08:03 pm
Justin: "The citizens of Rome, the aristocracy and the plebs failed in their duty to be vigilant. They allowed corruption in government to exist as though it were an expected part of governmental function."

If someone dares to blow the whistle on corruption in government, they either get hush money or are silenced by other means. To be vigilant and do your duty takes lots of cash and courage. Not everybody has the guts of an Erin Brockovitch.

Democracy or Aristocracy always need to run its course. Some last longer than others and toward the end of the course, as corruption sets in, no one seems to know how to stop it from tumbling down. It has been a recurring phenomenon throughout history we are told.

Eloïse

robert b. iadeluca
December 22, 2003 - 08:15 pm
Here is a MAP of Italy showing Brundisium in the "heel" of Italy on the Adriatic Sea.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 22, 2003 - 08:17 pm
Durant stated that Pompey "ferried" his troops across the Adriatic but, looking at this MAP, one can see how close the heel of Italy is from what is now Albania.

Robby

Justin
December 22, 2003 - 11:13 pm
If Caesar dismissed his troops and went off somewhere in hiding he would be facilitating banishment and conviction at a trial in absentia. He would be condemned to death in absentia and a price put upon his head. Troop dismissal is an action that is virtually impossible for a man who has conquered Gaul, left it well governed and in peace, and brought the loot to Rome's door. Rome owes him. An honorable man may not pass under the yoke in victory unless he wills it. To offer troop dismissal and flight as a viable alternative is tantamount to asking Mac Arthur to bow to the representatives of Emperor Hirohito upon the USS Missouri.

Justin
December 22, 2003 - 11:40 pm
Brundisium and Bari are also the departure points for Pope Urban's Crusaders in the early 11 century. The waters of the Otranto straits are treacherous.

I find the actions of Pompey overly cautious. He had Caesar outnumbered five to one but chose flight to Asia to strengthen his troops. He chose not to defend the City and worse caused Senators to evacuate with him abandoning their wives and children to Caesar's Legions.

Caesar, on the other hand, leaves his legions bivouacked on the outskirts and enters the city alone and unarmed. This is a man with sand. His first thoughts are with the welfare of the city and his legions. He orders Curio south to protect the grain supply at Sicily. He adds his booty from Gaul to the treasury of Rome.

Justin
December 22, 2003 - 11:56 pm
Eloise: Most of us are sheep, maybe as much as 95%. Some of us grumble but when push comes we often do what you say. The five percent who participate rule the world. But in a democratic republic the republic depends for it's existance on the observance and honest participation of most citizens. It takes more than one whistle blower to be successful in quelling corruption. As citizens we have a duty that cannot be denied. If we fail the republic fails.

robert b. iadeluca
December 23, 2003 - 04:37 am
"Caesar entered Rome (March 16) unresisted and unarmed, having left his troops in near-by towns. He proclaimed a general amnesty and restored municipal administration and social order.

"The tribunes convoked the Senate. Caesar asked it to name him dictator, but it refused. He asked it to send envoys to Pompey to negotiate peace, but it refused. He sought funds from the national Treasury. The tribune Lucius Metellus barred his way, but yielded when Caesar remarked that it was harder for him to utter threats than to execute them.

"Henceforth he made free use of the state's money. With unscrupulous impartiality he deposited in the Treasury the booty from his later campaigns. Then he returned to his soldiers, and prepared to meet the three armies that the Pompeians were organizing in Greece, Africa, and Spain.

"To secure the grain supply upon which Italy's life depended, he sent the impetuous Curio with two legions to take Sicily. Cato surrendered the island and withdrew to Africa. Curio pursued him with the recklessness of Regulus, gave battle prematurely, was defeated, and died in action, mourning not his own death, but the injury he had done to Caesar.

"Meanwhile Caesar had led an army to Spain, partly to ensure the renewal of its grain exports to Italy, partly to ensure the renewal of its grain exports to Italy, partly to forestall a rear attack when he marched to meet Pompey.

"In Spain, as in Gaul, he made serious blunders in strategy. For a time his outnumbered army faced starvation and defeat. But, as usual, he redeemed himself by brilliant improvisation and personal bravery. By altering the course of a river he turned blockade into counterblockade. He waited patiently for the entrapped army to surrender, although his troops fretted for action. At last the Pompeians gave in, and all Spain came over to Caesar (August, 49).

"Returning toward Italy by land, he found his way blocked at Marseilles by an army under Lucius Domitius, whom he had captured and released at Corfinium. Caesar took the town after a hard siege, reorganized the administration of Gaul, and by December was back in Rome."

I may be reading in to this but I get the impression that Caesar is often impetuous in planning (reflections of his youth?) but is excellent at "pulling himself out of a pickle" when his back is against the wall (to mix metaphors!) He almost seems to welcome problems. Are there some people who do better when they are "losing?"

What surprises me here is the extent of this battle -- all across the Mediterranean.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 23, 2003 - 05:49 am
"When liberty exceeds intelligence, it begets chaos, which begets dictatorship."

- - - Will Durant

robert b. iadeluca
December 23, 2003 - 05:58 am
"Democratic principles do not fourish on empty stomachs. People turn to false promises of dictators because they are hopeless and anything promises something better than the miserable existence that they endure."

- - - Gen. George C. Marshall, Nobel Peace Prize winner

robert b. iadeluca
December 23, 2003 - 06:08 am
"Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori"

(It is sweet and proper to die for one's country)

- - - Latin Poet Horace

Malryn (Mal)
December 23, 2003 - 01:15 pm
I don't buy what Horace said. In my opinion, there is nothing sweet about death, for whatever reason.

Mal

Malryn (Mal)
December 23, 2003 - 01:17 pm

"All things must be nurtured, or they die."

- - - Marilyn Freeman

robert b. iadeluca
December 23, 2003 - 05:01 pm
I'm back on after trying to get back on all day. For a while I thought that Pompey had ultimately won out!

Robby

Justin
December 23, 2003 - 05:30 pm
Let him learn to suffer poverty's strictness
gladly, a young man toughened by hard army training
and be a horseman whose spear
is feared, a plague to savage Parthians,


And spend his life under the sky in danger
and action.Watching from the enemy walls ,
May the wife of the warring ruler
and the virgin who is ripe for marriage


Sigh; Ah God, our royal lover knows little
of battles, may he not arouse the lion
who is wild when touched, whose thirst for blood
drives him on through the heart of the slaughter.


Precious and proper is death for one's country
And death comes swiftly after the runaway
And shows no mercy to the hamstrings
And the boneless backs of peace-loving boys.


Horace Book 111 Ode 11

Horace writes about twenty years after Caesar opened the civil war. He was a batchelor who loved boys and girls and admired the Roman ideal of the soldier-farmer who had been trained to a life of privation,to sacrifice his wishes to the needs of Rome and to die rather than surrender. It is the code of the Samarai and the Spartan.

These things may be necessary for the good of the state but they are never "sweet". In truth, they smell of stale sweat and dirty clothes.

robert b. iadeluca
December 23, 2003 - 05:45 pm
The Ancient Romans at the time of the WINTER SOLSTICE.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 23, 2003 - 05:57 pm
Here's some REALLY FASCINATING STUFF about the Winter Solstice.

Robby

Justin
December 23, 2003 - 11:08 pm
Durant took us to Mesopotamia and the area between the rivers. While we were there we met the Magi who interpreted dreams for people who believed the gods spoke to them in the sleep. The Magi were astrologers who linked the stars and planets and their movements to the dreams of people.

We meet these Magi again at the this time of year. It is the Magi who come, following a star and bringing gifts, to the cradle of a child they call the new King of Israel. It is a difficult thing to do since the Romans have already appointed Herod Agrippa to the throne. The new king is called a messiah in the tradition of Saul, David, and Solomon.

If the Magi point out the new King of Israel, the Romans and certainly Herod Agrippa, will dispose of him. Well, they find the stable. Dispose of their gifts and go on their way. Herod, not being a good follower, misses the stable but just to be sure he dispatches his rival, orders all male children under the age of two years slaughtered.

This birth and these deaths are a monarchical issue. Christians and Jews in their wisdom have since made the issue a religious one. Much later the word "Messiah" will come to have divine meaning.

kiwi lady
December 24, 2003 - 02:55 am
Merry Christmas everyone.

Its Christmas Eve here in NZ. I am up late waiting for one of my doggies mums to pick him up. She is working til 11 so I should see her at midnight. The doggie is sick and very old so he can't stay home alone. He is flaked out on his sheepskin rug at the moment.

Have a great holiday.

Carolyn

Malryn (Mal)
December 24, 2003 - 04:23 am
MAGI

robert b. iadeluca
December 24, 2003 - 05:24 am
That's a beautiful picture, Mal.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 24, 2003 - 06:24 am
For over two years we have built up a family here, getting to know each other and spending our time discussing the traditions of families, tribes, and cultures of thousands of years ago. I think it would be apropos if each of us (if we wish) shared how we are spending Christmas Eve in this Year of 2003.

This particular Christmas Eve I am spending alone. Please do not confuse the term "alone" with "lonely." Over the years I have learned to be comfortable with myself and to entertain myself if that is necessary. As I will also be alone tomorrow, there is no necessity today for me to prepare for tomorrow. I have no decorated Christmas tree in the house, no decorations either inside or outside, and no lights outdoors or in the windows.

Am I a grinch? I don't think so. There have been Holidays living in a house garlanded from one end to the other -- and the Future may see this again. But I live in the here and now and for Christmas Eve 2003 the house and grounds give no sign of a holiday. But perhaps that is not true. On my front lawn is an absolutely perfectly shaped spruce 10-12 feet high. As I looked out at it a few days ago, it was "decorated" from a new fallen snow and was as festive as any tree decorated by Man.

Of course I have memories, not that I dwell on them. Some at church -- some not. Some in uniform overseas. Memories of a happy childhood having received an absolute guarantee that Santa would arrive. Various memories during adulthood of decorating the tree -- some before parenthood and some afterward. Laughter at the differences people have in placing tinsel on a tree. (Tinsel doesn't seem to be the thing these days). Yes, there are memories of hot disagreements on Chritmas Eve which spilled over into Christmas. But the past is a fading sunset.

And so my daughter, Lynda, with whom I spent last Christmas and Christmases before and who lives nearby is away visiting her son in South Carolina. Other children live hundreds of miles away.That means that today I am not looking forward to a sumptuous feast tomorrow. (That may be good. "Sumptuous" usually means fat.)

I will drop in today to see if any member of our Family wants to share what they are doing on this Christmas Eve. And I may drop in just to say "Hi."

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 24, 2003 - 06:49 am
ROBBY, I'll be alone, too, except perhaps tomorrow night's dinner, if they can figure out a way to get me into the main house. I'll drop by here and see you today and tomorrow!

Click the link below.
Christmas Memories by Dr. Robert Bancker Iadeluca

robert b. iadeluca
December 24, 2003 - 07:25 am
Boy, Mal, you save everything, don't you!!

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 24, 2003 - 07:35 am
This year is different because we moved since last year but it will be the same all over again for me. Christmas has always been something to rejoice about with many children around. We prepare ourselves for that a month in advance thinking what we are going to do to cook. The birth of Jesus is uppermost in our minds. La crèche et les personnages. We loved to do it at home sometimes. We have never bought Christmas gifts on credit and have always been something we could afford. Very modest fun things and my kids never expected and got anything very expensive.

Last year all of my family came from all over the world and 19 of us (only 3 were missing) spent Christmas in a country cottage up North. This has only happened once since many of them moved far away. Since then we have moved to a new house, my daughter, her husband, 2 kids, and me, I live upstairs in my own apartment. Another daughter and her son will come to celebrate Christmas together as well as my two single sisters.

As usual I cooked the traditional dish, tourtière, a traditional Quebec meat pie, and apple pie. My daughter will make all other side dishes. The stuffed turkey will go into the oven around 2 pm. and we will eat downstairs. Afterwords we will go down to the family room where there is a large fire place and we will sing traditional Christmas carols, and songs my mother used to play on the piano. My two sisters and I will make fools of ourselves singing to the delight of the family, while my SIL shoots it on film. He is a film producer by trade. We exchange gifts and afterwords each go home replete with togetherness.

Merry Christmas everybody, and Happy Holidays.

Eloïse

georgehd
December 24, 2003 - 07:44 am
First I would like to thank Justin and Mal for the Hanukkah presents, which are their fabulous posts. I am a little behind in my reading of the posts because each one of them is adding to my understanding of this period of history. And of course, you too Robbie.

Robin (my wife) and I will spend the evening at home quietly. We are actually very happy about this as the last four nights have been one continuous party. I do not know the customs in other countries, but on this tiny island, Christmas is a time of real celebration and festive spirit. Office parties begin in early December and family parties occur nightly during the week before the 25th. We shall also be home for Christmas day and it will give me time to have a major practice on the piano - sorely needed.

I am hopeful that either tonight or tomorrow night will be clear enough for me to get out the telescope and do some observing. This is a particularly good time of year for star and planet watching. But we have had cloudy skies for about a week and that seems to be the weather pattern we are in.

And now to get back to reading your posts. Thanks again one and all.

robert b. iadeluca
December 24, 2003 - 08:05 am
For over two years we have been discussing various cultures and their traditions and, lo and behold, we are still doing the same! I don't plan on picking up on Durant's remarks until the day after Christmas.

Eloise says "it will be the same all over again" and that is said, of course, in a positive manner. Traditions! Makes me thing of that song from "The Fiddler on the Roof." How important traditions are and how often we don't pause to think of that. To Eloise, if I understand her correctly, Christmas would not be the same without La Creche, les Personnages, thinking about what to cook, tortiere, apple pie, singing Christmas carols, exchanging gifts.

To George, the Holiday means the receipt of Hanukkah gifts and this year spending the evening quietly with his wife, Robin, (WELCOME ROBIN!) which can be a tradition in itself, can't it?

Thank you for all this sharing!!

Robby

moxiect
December 24, 2003 - 10:01 am


For the first time in years I will not be with my family for Christmas, I will be alone and yet I am never alone! Like many of us I have the good/bad memories. I have put up some decorations to indulge myself with the spirit of Christmas! Ah traditions some are assuredly missed!

click here: Merry Christmas

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 24, 2003 - 11:39 am
Between cooking, baking and washing dishes over and over, I am thinking of this family right here whose members live in every corner of the world, and because we share our most intimate thoughts in our posts it makes us a closely knit family who do not always think alike, but who understand and accept each other's differences, so I wish to say how much I care for every one here, those I have known for a long time, and the more recent participants. It is a time for regrouping and as we are reading the Durants, find ways that the world could be a better place to live in, by offering solutions to problems we have seen recurring throughout history.

Mal, I love all your links and the last one of the Maggi is absolutely lovely.

Robby, thanks for keeping us together and your fine leadership.

Justin, George, Bubble, Carolyn, Moxie, Anna, Anne and all the other participants, and lurkers too, thank you for being part of this family.

Eloïse

Scrawler
December 24, 2003 - 12:44 pm
"If there is to be peace in the world, there must be peace in the nations.

If there is to be peace in the nations, there must be peace in the cities.

If there is to be peace in the cities, there must be peace between neighbors.

If there is to be peace between neighbors, there must be peace in the home.

If there is to be peace in the home, there must be peace in the heart." - Thich Nhat Hahn

Peace always,

Scrawler
December 24, 2003 - 01:18 pm
Code:

Code, in jurisprudence, a systematic compilation of law in written form, issued by rulers in former times, and promulgated by legislative authority after the rise of representative governments.

Justinian Code:

Of all the codes of antiquity, that of the Roman emperor Justinian I, entitled the Corpus Juris Civillis (Body of Civil Law) and known as the Codex Justinianus, Justinian Code, or simply The Code, most closely resembles the codes of later times. It was in part of a compliation and consolidation of statute law, but it lacked the systematic arrangement and the concentration on a single branch of law, such as criminal or civil law. Long after the fall of Rome, Roman law, as codified by Justinian continued to serve as a source of law in Europe in the form of civil law. Through the 13th century Spanish code called Siete Partidas (Seven Parts) that was based partly on the Justinian Code, the Justinian Code was extended to the New World and became the basis for the leagal systems of most of Latin America.

British Codes:

In Great Britian, the legal system is based on common law, and codification has been largely a problem of consolidating common and statute law.

US Codes:

In the US, law is derived in large part from English law; the problem of codification has been complicated by the existence of a multiplicity of sovereign governmental jurisdictions. The federal government is supreme in foreign policy and in fields in which its authority is essential to the national welfare, as in interstate commerce, but its powers are sharply circumscribed by the constitutionally established sovereignty of the states in other matters. More than half the states have adopted uniform codes of civil and criminal procedure, and all of them have enacted uniform legislation with respect to negotiable credit instruments. One US code that has wide ranging jurisdiction is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which applies to all US military personnel throughout the world.

robert b. iadeluca
December 24, 2003 - 01:24 pm
Moxi:--Thank you very much for that lovely poem by Robert Frost and accompanied by Holiday music. We aren't doing too badly are we?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 24, 2003 - 01:28 pm
Scrawler:--Heart leads to home leads to neighbors to cities to nations to the world.

It makes good logic, doesn't it?

Robby

Ginny
December 24, 2003 - 01:32 pm
I had put this somewhere else and Robby thought I might share it here with you all, so here goes:
Sunday night we attended a Cantata in my son and daughter in law's church and there were 12 choir members and they honestly sounded like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, so much so, in fact, I thought for a minute that they were dubbed like the old Andy Griffith Show dubbed Barney that time?

But the way that church does it, each of the singers came forward during the singing and either sang a solo or read a verse or sang in a quartet, or trio, etc., and it became strikingly apparent that there were, at best, two people who could sing, and the rest just gave it their best shot, but the point is (and I'm NOT saying YOU can't sing!) haahahah but the point was TOGETHER, together they rang the rafters, the choice of music, the presentation, it was incredible, I had goosebumps through the whole thing, it was inspiring and masterful and that's the way we are here, together, in the Books, TOGETHER as A WHOLE we reverberate beyond our own kitchens and this room into the world and make a difference.

All of us, the Hosts in the Books, the Coordinators, the Books Discussion Leaders and our Loyal Readers and Participants, it takes ALL of us together to make what we have done here.

We've made a Joyful Noise for 7 years and in 2004 we'll try for 8, with your help.

Thank you all, and the best to each of you.

ginny

Malryn (Mal)
December 24, 2003 - 01:33 pm
Like ROBBY, I remember Christmases when there was a gathering of family as a child, and I remember Christmases alone when I was an adult. Some were good; others were not.

The Christmas I best remember when I was married was when my husband had just returned from the hospital after a complicated kidney operation. I was close to being nine month's pregnant. My daughter was born on January 15th.

I had done a little shopping for my two little boys, but wasn't able to do much what with running back and forth to the hospital. I know I was exhausted from changing my husband's dressing every two hours. There came a knock at the door. My husband's superior at the laboratory and his wife came in loaded with Christmas cookies and cakes for us. What a nice thing to do!

The dishes I cooked for my family and guests on Christmas varied from Rock Cornish game hens stuffed with wild rice to roast beef and Yorkshire pudding to a big paella full of shrimp, chicken, sausages, wine, rice and saffron. In those days it was one glass of wine for the pot and half a one for me!

The most alone Christmas I ever spent was in St. Augustine. I puttered around in the morning; then had the bright idea that if I went to the Denny's type restaurant I went to once in a while, I might meet somebody I knew in a 12 Step program. Floyd was there, but he was on his way out. He took one look at me and told me to go home and review every one of the 12 Steps. I did, and felt a whole lot better. Anybody familiar with these programs will know what I'm talking about.



Today my poor old "gick" leg woke me before 4 a.m. It's been infected. (Like when is it not?) I got up and began making Christmas web pages, some of which I have posted here.

My daughter returned from Massachusetts at 1 a.m. Monday morning. She had visited with her father and his wife, my New York son, his wife and my little four year old granddaughter, Leah Paris Freeman, whom I haven't seen for two years, and my 27 year old granddaughter, Megan Moss Freeman, whom I haven't seen for over a year, for several days. Dorian immediately became sick on her arrival home. Her son, my 18 year old grandson, Hil, went up to see his grandfather not fully recovered from the flu, and I was concerned that Dorian might have it. She's feeling better today, and brought me in a branch off her Christmas tree that is now hanging between the windows in this room. That's my Christmas tree!

Tomorrow Dory and her partner, Jim, will probably take me in the wheelchair into the main house, so I can have dinner with them. I can't climb the stairs over there any more, so transporting me demands some lifting. The last time I was in the main house was last Christmas! I think Dor is making a mussels soup and some fish dish or other for Christmas dinner. It will be a special treat, whatever it is, and a fun time for me!

I'll spend the rest of the day getting the January-February issues of Sonata and the January issue of the WREX publication, Allegro ! on the web, and working on my new novel, Malveen, if I can get over the mental block I have about this book. It's a sequel to another book I wrote, and sequels are not always easy to write. I'll be dropping in here to say hello to ROBBY and MOXIE and everyone else, too!

Mal

Malryn (Mal)
December 24, 2003 - 01:47 pm
Count me in as a tenor for the next seven years, GINNY! My soprano has dropped a notch or two.

O Holy Night

moxiect
December 24, 2003 - 01:48 pm


Robby - Malyrn - we surely are okay! I have spent this day getting my High School Website news updated which I haven't completed yet! Maybe later. Will pop in again later!

robert b. iadeluca
December 24, 2003 - 01:51 pm
I decided to take a couple of hours to go to a big Mall in Manassas an hour away to buy a 2004 Calendar Book I needed. There was hardly a parking space available in the huge lot. And the rain was pouring! As I braved my way through the packed throngs (there to celebrate Christmas Eve I assume) I passed by a long line of crying infants waiting to be forced up to see Santa. Santa was sitting there with a Kleenex in his hand dealing with a gift he apparently had received from countless running noses and wet hands.

I quickly left and on the way home stopped by the supermarket to buy some more fruit and vegetables to hold me over. As I opened the front door of my home, I smelled something delicious but couldn't figure out what it was. Could it be the remnants of the frozen food dinner I had "cooked" the previous evening? But as I walked into the kitchen, there was the answer. While I was gone, my daughter Lynda had dropped by to leave a platter with a freshly roasted turkey, with plenty of stuffing, cooked broccoli, a container of gravy, and home baked banana bread for dessert.

I had thought she had already left to see her son in South Carolina but she left a note saying the "plans were up in the air" and she had been afraid to make plans to have me over for Christmas.

To me, this is the best kind of gift one can receive. She gave of herself!

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 24, 2003 - 02:24 pm
What a lovely, thoughtful daughter you have, ROBBY!

THE GIFT OF THE MAGI BY O. HENRY

Justin
December 24, 2003 - 02:40 pm
Christmas Eve in this part of California is rainy. The other night we had some wind coming off the ocean strong enough to knock over a 100' foot tall spruce and a number of large branches from one of my redwoods. The spruce missed the house by inches and the redwood branches are wrapped around my outhouse where the computer is located. So Christmas at Grandma's has been moved to Christmas at Granddaughter's. What a task she has undertaken. She has a husband to help but she also has a ten year old and a one year old. Thirty odd adults and many additional children will show up at her door Christmas afternoon. It might work if we all help. But you know the guys will stand around, talk about football, and let the gals do all the work.

We select names by lot at Thanksgiving and at Christmas buy one gift for our selected name. Everyone gets a gift and everyone has fun trying to figure out an appropriate gift for their exchange partner. The children get gifts from everyone.

There is a game I am going to try this year. We put everyone's name in a hat and draw the names out two by two. The members of each pair must promise to be a devoted friend to the other for a full year. My granddaughter's in-laws will be there and I think the game will help to bring us closer.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good holiday.

robert b. iadeluca
December 24, 2003 - 03:10 pm
"The members of each pair must promise to be a devoted friend to the other for a full year."

Devotion by fiat, so to speak? And how is devotion to be defined? I don't know, Justin. Good Luck!

When I spoke of my daughter, Lynda, giving of herself, I was not in my mind ignoring her sister, Cheryl, who lives in San Diego. In March of 1980 (almost 24 years ago, Wow!) I was having constant pain in my back to the point where I couldn't walk properly and couldn't stand up straight but the orthopaedic surgeon could find nothing wrong. I kept assuring Cheryl and her husband that I was doing OK but she knew better and insisted that I come to stay at her house a half hour down the road.

I guess I didn't fight her off too much as I was walking around bent over like the Hunchback of Notre Dame. So I went to her house, fell into bed, and was in bed for almost a month. My pain was so great that whenever it came I would involuntarily cry out, knowing I was waking them up in the next room. Walking to the bathroom was a chore. But they never said a thing.

Cheryl brought me food regularly and a daily newspaper to read. Three months prior to that she had given birth to a baby and when it was necessary for the both of them to go out of the house simultaneously, they would put Joslyn into a tiny carrier and place her on my bed. The standing joke was that Joslyn was baby sitting me while her parents were gone. Cheryl gave of herself throughout that month. Toward the end of the month I gradually improved and have never had that problem since.

Oh, by the way -- in that same period of time Lynda wouldn't have anything to do with me (for an entirely different reason) and didn't talk to me for quite a few months.

Yes, the same Lynda who now sees me regularly and brought me tomorrow's Christmas dinner!

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 24, 2003 - 04:03 pm
A wonderful story of caring, ROBBY. I think caring is almost as important as love. I know about on again off again times with children. It's so nice to be all together again, isn't it?

Mal

kiwi lady
December 24, 2003 - 08:14 pm
I am back from my Kiwi Christmas dinner. We left early this morning at 9.30 as all of the littlies had been up since daybreak. The last family arrived at 10.30 and we commenced present opening. Brooke who can read now proudly handed out each gift. The pride in her little body and the smile on her face as she solemnly read out each name. Brooke is very intelligent is a maths whizz but has a learning disability regarding reading. Her school picked it up early and she has been having special tuition and it has paid off dividends. She now reads everything she sees including road signs and advertising hoardings (bless her heart) Her heart burst with pride today. She can read!

Graham cooked all the meat and he had 4 banquet chickens and a giant ham in the oven when we got there. We had five different sorts of salads including a hot salad with an Italian flavour. For dessert we had Vanessa's famous trifle topped with brandy cream. There was fresh strawberries and cherries, mince pies and Karen had made her first ever Christmas Cake. This was a major as she had never learnt to cook prior to marriage. She was used to servants. We had a very good NZ white wine to accompany our meal and there was Irish coffee to finish off with.

The kids were all very quiet today and we think they were either worn out or they are all coming down with something - normally with 6 under 7's we cannot hear ourselves speak. Karens parents were over from England and took lots of video footage and some digital stills.

I also found out Vanessa's fiances surname today. He is Turkish and I have never bothered to ask as I assumed it would be unpronouncable. Its Attadeniz ( I think) Cenk says Atta is something to do with coming from a centuries old Military background. Remember Attaturk. It could be two words I forgot to ask!

We all had a very nice time and the children all enjoyed their time together. Its so funny to see them all interacting and having the most hilarious conversations. We left mid afternoon with the intention of everyone going home to nap because of the early morning wake up! Apparently the first grand was up at 4am peering down the staircase to see if Santa had been. Grace was up at 5am as was Nikolas the rest slept in until 7.30. The parents had all been up until 2am assembling bikes and trampolines etc so they did not have much sleep at all.

Now I am going to have my nap! One of the gifts I got was a huge hamper filled with all sorts of very fattening goodies. I will not dip into it today!

I hope all of my friends in Books have as good a Christmas day as I am having. (Needless to say the doggies were ecstatic when I got home - I left them at home as Grahams home is not fenced. (not allowed to under the covenant.) There is a stream at the bottom of the garden which worries me a bit. There is an olive grove behind the house on three quarters of the back boundary. Its a nice outlook.

TTFN

Carolyn

Malryn (Mal)
December 24, 2003 - 09:30 pm
Sounds like a lovely day, CAROLYN. Here it's still . . . .

The Night Before Christmas

Fifi le Beau
December 24, 2003 - 10:02 pm
We currently have five generations living in my family. My mother is in her nineties and until this year we all met at her farm for Christmas dinner. Tomorrow she will come and have dinner with me and the large extended family.

A Christmas past that was memorial to me was one spent alone in complete silence. On Christmas eve a misting rain fell all day and soon after noon began to freeze on the trees and roads. By early evening we were incased in an ice storm.

I was busy making desserts for the Christmas dinner, and had just started a chocolate roue, when the lights flickered. Only off for a minute, and right back on. I continued stirring and had to work quickly on this special concoction I make for my youngest son. No sooner had I dropped the last dollop on the waxed paper, the lights flickered again and everything went black.

Having an all electric house, everything went silent. I reached for a flashlight, and found a candle to light. I sat for a while, and like Scarlett decided to go to bed and face the problems tomorrow, which would be Christmas day.

I had no sooner gone to bed when I heard the owl. I had heard this same owl before, but tonight he seemed to be much nearer and his "hoot" clearer.

My bedroom is only 40 yards from a large woods that goes for miles. I was awakened early by a strange noise, it was the sound of limbs crashing to the ground from large trees overburdened by ice. I was to hear this sound for the next four days, and it was the only noise I heard other than the owl.

Silence is essential for my well being. I search it out in this loud noisy world, and relish every moment. I threw back the drapes to let in the weak winter light, piled a stack of books by my window seat and read each day, until the light faded.

Then it was off to bed and a night visit by my only connection to the outside world, the "hoot" owl. Even though it was 20 degrees and I had no heat in my bedroom, I raised my window to hear him and hoped he could survive this storm. He never returned after that winter.

Since I had made all the desserts for the now unseated Christmas dinner, I sampled the sweets all day, and unwrapped some books that were Christmas gifts, and fulfilled my dreams as a ten year old.

I remember reading, "Out of Egypt" by Andre Aciman, a gift from my daughter. I spent Christmas day with him in Alexandria as he grew up and then prepared quickly to leave his home and a way of life that no longer exists. His description of the brilliant sun and searing heat, actually made me feel warmer.

My Christmas day was silent, but I never felt alone or lonely.

......

Malryn (Mal)
December 25, 2003 - 04:19 am
A lovely memory, FIFI.
Christmas morning

JoanK
December 25, 2003 - 04:35 am
I checked in here tonight for the first time in days to find a wonderful gift of all your Christmas stories.

My daughter, son-in-law and three grands came from 3000 miles away to visit us. Unfortunately, they brought the flu with them. I've spent the last 4 days coughing my brains out, and wiping whatever snotty nose was running by. Plans were canceled with the rest of the family (who didn't seem too eager to see us) but we eight "sickies" had a wonderful Christmas eve, coughing at each other. My mother started the custom of opening our Christmas presents on Christmas eve (I suspect she didn't want to get up at 2 am on Christmas) and we have continued it. So our "Christmas was yesterday", and the tidal wave moves to the in-laws today, while we have a quiet day.

I haven't been able to sleep, grateful for the wonderful family I have. We are all feeling rotten, but everyone pulled together and produced a great meal and loads of presents. My husband, daughter, and son-in-law all cooked, my son helped me finish the shopping, and the two and four year olds made great "Santas" giving everyone their presents and politely waiting until it was opened before getting the next. Only the baby didn't get with the program. Completely overwhelmed, he cried the whole time. But people took turns holding him and we kept on going. You could barely hear him over the caughing. I'm thinking: snotty noses or no, they're my noses and I love them. I love you all too. Have a wonderful Christmas.

Malryn (Mal)
December 25, 2003 - 05:22 am
Merry Christmas !!

robert b. iadeluca
December 25, 2003 - 06:26 am
WOW!! You folks are up and about early! My clock radio woke me at the usual 5:30 and I told myself I had no need to get up right then, went back to sleep and was truly awake at 7:30. I said "Merry Christmas" to my cat, Cookie, made myself some hot cocoa and here I am.

What great stories! I'm sure Mal, the editor, licked her chops after reading some of them. Or course, none of you wrote with the idea of their being "stories" but they were, nevertheless, because you all wrote from the heart and that is what make a memorable tale.

Grandma Carolyn (Kiwi) received the gift of hearing Brooke read and who, despite what the school tests say, is obviously not learning disabled. Fifi's memory of a "Silent Night" gives us pause to examine the real meaning of this time of the year when even the "hoot" of a friendly owl is a gift. And Joan? I just have to pick out one sentence in your post. "Snotty nose or no, they're my noses and I love them." Now that's my understanding of the Christmas spirit!!

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 25, 2003 - 06:52 am
Newspaper Editorials and TV outlets around the world give their views of Christmas. Here is this morning's editorial from the NY Times



A Holiday Set Apart



Strange what a corner of our lives this Christmas season is. The lights get brighter every year, the shopping more frenetic, the music more familiar, if that's possible. By mid-December, the Christmas songs — the sincere and the insincere alike — form an everlasting medley that sticks in the mind like chewing gum. Every emotional string has been tugged to fraying, and every appeal that can be made to the spirit of the season has been made over and over. The calendar is already crowded with commitments well into the New Year, as if you were to have no rest at all, and it may be that the coming of Christmas makes you feel less like Mr. Fezziwig and more like Scrooge every year. Yet somehow this holiday still feels as if we had all been snowbound into one week of the calendar and time couldn't go on until we dug ourselves out.



That familiar effect is partly the pileup of special days and special observances, the convergence of private traditions and communal ceremonies. It's the long, long list of things that need to be done before Christmas finally comes. It's the feeling, too, that we've reached the welcome pivot of the year, when the days pause in their tracks as they begin to grow longer with the returning sun. It's only a metaphor to say that by Christmas Day the year is very, very old.



Every Christmas reaches back into our past, which is also one reason this day stands apart from the usual run of days. For some of us, Christmas reaches all the way back to those ancient shepherds in the first chapters of Luke, to that angelic announcement in the night. For others, it harks back to childhood. By "Christmas," you may not mean the purity of a divine child born to a couple obeying a summons from Caesar Augustus to all the world. But there is regeneration in remembrance too, in recovering a sense of who we might be based on the memory of who we once were. That, too, is part of the age-old story of this day.



After all the preparation, all the lights and music and the exchange of presents and the knee-deep rubble of wrapping paper, it is still traditional to say that these things are not Christmas. The decorations don't add up to Christmas, nor does an even blanket of snow on the ground, or anything else corporeal. This is the only holiday we have that always aspires to be purer than it is, a holiday that openly welcomes an emotional response to one another and to the very idea of season, which a good many of us find hard to acknowledge for much of the rest of the year. Christmas may be an entire time of year, but it all comes down to the one day in the calendar when many of us attest in our own ways to the solemn, joyous miracle of our lives. This is that day.

Malryn (Mal)
December 25, 2003 - 08:01 am
Merry Christmas to everybody in S of C from Black Cat Mitta Baben

moxiect
December 25, 2003 - 10:17 am


Have A Great Christmas Day Everyone!

robert b. iadeluca
December 25, 2003 - 10:19 am
How are you spending your day, Moxi?

Robby

moxiect
December 25, 2003 - 12:29 pm


My day is quiet, Robby. Yesterday spent the day making web pages for my high school class reunion. Today I am playing computer games! Thinking of a subject to write on while I am waiting for my youngest daughter to pick up the goodies for my mother who is in a nursing home, which I can't go to because I have a cold. My mother suffers from alzhiemer. How about you? Rob how you spending this day?

robert b. iadeluca
December 25, 2003 - 12:33 pm
I am filing papers from a pile that should have been filed long ago. Isn't that thrilling? I hate filing. I absolutely hate it! But if I don't do it, and then I want a particular paper, you know the answer. Well, each of us celebrates our Christmas in our own particular way.

Robby

moxiect
December 25, 2003 - 01:10 pm


Robby, you are not the only one who hates filing, I do with a passion! If I put a piece of paper away were it belongs, I can't find it. Have a great day!

Malryn (Mal)
December 25, 2003 - 02:34 pm
Through filing yet, ROBBY? Jeet yet? (I always wanted to say that!)

I'm not filing, I'm feeling to see if I still have the belly ache which was bothering me earlier. I want to be able to eat that mussels soup and Scampi my daughter is cooking for dinner. She and Jim decided to bring the party in to me, rather than transport me and the wheelchair into the main house, so they're bringing in the food and a table. My only regret is that I won't have a chance to see their Christmas tree.

Dorian received what sounds like an interesting book from her father called The Blank Slate. "In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker, one of the world's leading experts on language and the mind (at MIT), explores the idea of human nature and its moral, emotional, and political colorings. In it, Pinker argues that the dogma that the mind has no innate traits-a doctrine held by many intellectuals during the past century-denies our common humanity and our individual preferences, replaces objective analyses of social problems with feel-good slogans, and distorts our understanding of politics, violence, parenting, and the arts. He injects calm and rationality into debates that are notorious for ax-grinding and mud-slinging." Now, that sounds like a good book to me. Luckily, Dorian is busy reading a Gabriel Garcia Marquez book for a book group she's in at Duke, so I'll be able to borrow it right away.

I ordered My Name is Red with the Amazon Gift Certificate I received as a gift, based only on what I've read here in Books and Lit discussions. I still have $20.00 left on that certificate. What should I get? Any suggestions?

Mitta Baben, black cat, is sitting here on the "Employees' Chair" right next to my computer. The chair's name is left over from when I ran a used book business.

Here come the furniture movers from the main house. The table is now in position -- with Mitta Baben right on top! She flew over there the minute she saw it. Tough luck, Mitty Christmas, the food won't come in for two hours!

I hope all of you Roman history buffs are having a wonderful day!

Mal

Malryn (Mal)
December 25, 2003 - 02:42 pm
Can you see the new rose, white and black little stripe top and the jazzy black slacks I'm wearing? I think I look great in all these brand new clothes! Santa sure was good to me this year!

Mal

robert b. iadeluca
December 25, 2003 - 03:10 pm
Early this morning I had turkey, stuffing and broccoli, followed by banana bread. Tben for my main meal I had turkey, stuffing, broccoli, and banana bread. I am now picking away on the half demolished turkey, and finishing up the stuffing and broccoli. Later I will have banana bread.

Now that's what I call balanced eating! There is plenty of fruit, salads, and soup in the kitchen but that's for ordinary eating. Today is special! An advantage of living alone is that there is no one to tell you how to eat properly. I acted "civilized" for most of my life. At age 83 I can now do what I want.

Any objections??!!

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 25, 2003 - 03:13 pm
Sounds good to me, ROBBY. Like who needs "civilized" on Christmas? Don't we get enough of that the rest of the year? Besides, who makes the rules about what "civilized" is, anyway? Can you tell me?

Mal

Malryn (Mal)
December 25, 2003 - 03:25 pm
I just had a memory from my childhood. There was a Christmas Eve service at the church I went to. I don't remember much about the service except that there were undecorated Christmas trees and other greenery on the altar and choir loft. Everyone was handed a beeswax candle when he or she walked in. At the end of the service, all the candle were lit, and, oh, my goodness, what a wonderful, Christmasy smell!

Mal

Malryn (Mal)
December 25, 2003 - 03:53 pm
Linked below are two interesting old Australian Christmas cards I found. The second one is "Christmas in the Colonies, A Christmas Dinner in the Diggings".

Australian Christmas

anneofavonlea
December 25, 2003 - 04:08 pm
it may surprise you to know, I dont go back qute that far, they are beautiful though, as was Waltzing Matilda. George says,

"mal, you is a bloody bleedin genius, good on ya cobber"

Hows that for dialogue.

Judith

Malryn (Mal)
December 25, 2003 - 04:24 pm
JUDITH, tell George he made me laugh! Thanks!

P.S. Great dialogue! That's what I was talking about on the phone.

Mal

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 25, 2003 - 05:56 pm
I am almost alone now. My grandson Charles, aged 12 is still here, his father will come and get him tomorrow. My twin daughters just left. I was not alone today after all.

It's all over folks. It was a nice break from the routine. Of course we went hog wild with 'RED MEAT', the baddie, for 24 hours. After that we go back to being just old vegetarians, well almost.

My 2 grandsons played with their toys, and all the adults had boring conversation - according to the boys - about history, politics and clothes, perfume, home decoration etc.

Mal, you always have stupendous links for us. I don't have time, or the talent, to find what you find. It must be very hard for you not to be able to go to the 'big house' more than once a year. I hope you enjoy your Christmas dinner with Dorian and Jim. Eat and enjoy your feast.

Robby, your turkey dinner sounded scrumptious. I don't blame you for having it twice in a row. We also ate the same thing as yesterday.

Eloïse

anneofavonlea
December 25, 2003 - 06:01 pm
for breakfast this morning, which is crazy, but kind of fun.

Robby, you sure had some great participation here over the holiday season.It felt like a secure place, thanks for that.

Anneo

Malryn (Mal)
December 25, 2003 - 06:14 pm
Plum duff sounds like a very good breakfast to me.

ELOISE, I didn't find those web pages I linked -- I made them. I'm glad you had a good Christmas.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca
December 25, 2003 - 07:16 pm
Well, it's after 9 o'clock (ET), I've had a very busy Christmas Day filing papers, and I feel the Sandman coming on. There will be some people going to sleep tonight with visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads.

But not you folks!!

I want you all to dream of Julius Caesar and the Senate because that is exactly what we are going to talk about tomorrow morning. We are approaching the month of Janus (the two-faced god) and it is time to banish memories from our past and to once again look forward toward the flowing words of Durant.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 25, 2003 - 07:49 pm
Snowy Christmas night

Malryn (Mal)
December 25, 2003 - 08:24 pm
Thanks to you, ROBBY, and to participants here and in the WREX discussion I had a much more pleasant Christmas than I might have. I spent a lot of time yesterday and today making Christmas web pages to post here and in WREX. For me that is fun, and I enjoyed it and your reactions to what I did.

Mal

Scrawler
December 25, 2003 - 09:51 pm
Roman Civil War:

I personally would rather not get involved in a Civil War, but if I had to I would have to go with Julius Caesar. Simply because I think he was the better general. "They had learned to respect Caesar - even, in their rough mute way, to love him - during their many campaigns. He had severe with cowardice and indiscipline but he had been lenient with their human faults - had winked at their sexual escapades - had spared them unnecessary dangers - had saved them by skillful generalship - had doubled their pay - and had spread his spoils among them handsomely.

Triumvirate:

Triumvirate, board or commission in ancient Rome, composed of three men known as triumviri. This compact was not a triumvirate in the proper sense of the term because it had no legally constituted exisence.

The Roman republican form of government suffered severely under the first triumvirate and was destroyed by the second. Both trimuvirates ended in civil war to decide the supremacy of one member of the group.

In post #154 georgehd said: "I do not see our three branches of government as a triumvirate in the historical sense." I would have to agree with him. He also brings up a very interesting point: "In recent times there seems to have been a concentration of power in the Presidency, which the other branches have not responded to." Why do you think this is happening?

Scrawler
December 25, 2003 - 10:08 pm
"Although almost penniless, he refrained from confiscating those estates of his opponents that fell into his hands - a characteristically wise measure, which won to neutrality most of the middle class. It would be his policy, he announced to consider all neutrals his friends."

I think put it simply Caesar understood people. He knew what most people wanted and gave it to them. You can win more people with honey than vinegar.

"One by one its cities opened their gates to him, some turned out en masse to welcome him. Wrote Cicero, 'the towns salute him as a god.' Cordinium resisted briefly, then surrendered. Caesar protected it from sack by his soldiers, freed all captured officers, and sent to Pompey's camp the money and baggage that Labienus had left behind."

I think he was a genius at using his charisma in winning friends and people over to his side. He may have been penniless, but he was gaining much more. While Pompey was slaughtering his captives, Caesar was giving them a second chance.

In post #160, Justin states: "The citizens of Rome, the aristocracy and the plebs failed in their duty to be vigilant. They allowed corruption in government to exist as though it were an expected part of governmental function." Any ideas of how the citizens of Rome could have stopped the corruption?

I believe there is a saying that states: "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer." I wouldn't call Pompey and Caesar friends. I think they were together in the triumvirate and were close in that Caesar had given his daughter to Pompey in marriage. But all of this was done for political purposes not because they were best "pals".

In post #169, Justin wrote: "Most of us are sheep, maybe as much as 95%...But in a democratic republic the republic depends on the existence on observance and honest participation of most citizens...As citizens we have a duty that cannot be denied. If we fail the republic fails." It seems to me that not only is it the citizen's duty to do its job, but it is also the duty of the three branches of government to do their job as well. Since 9/11 we have seen more and more power go to the presidency. It seems to me that the other two branches of our government have been weakened. Are there any strong, honest men or women left to do the job?

Caesar may be impetuous, but I think he understands what he can get from his own soldiers and I also think he knows his enemies. He certainly knew Pompey's weakness. When people are losing there is a certain charge of energy that comes forward. Nobody likes to lose. On any given Sunday you can see teams come from behind to win a sporting event.

robert b. iadeluca
December 26, 2003 - 06:25 am
When last we listened in to the "goings on" in Rome, Caesar had gone to Spain, had almost lost, but by brilliant improvisation (such as altering the course of a river) and personal bravery turned possible defeat into victory and on August, 40, all Spain came over to Caesar. Now as we tune in we find him back in Rome sparring with the Senate.

"His political position had been strengthened by this campaign, which had reassured the worried bellies of the capital. The Senate now named him dictator, but he surrendered that title after being elected one of the two consuls for 48. Finding Italy in a credit crisis due to the fact that the hoarding of currency had depressed prices, and debtors were refusing to pay in dear money what they had borrowed in cheap money, he decreed that debts might be paid in goods valued by state arbitrators at prewar prices. This, he thought, was 'the most suitable way both of maintaining the honor of the debtors and of removing or diminishing the fear of that general repudiation of debts which is apt to follow war.'

"It is a revelation of how slowly reform had moved in Rome that he was compelled again to forbid enslavement for debt. He permitted the interest already paid on debts to be deducted from the principal, and limited interest to one per cent per month. These measures satisfied most creditors, who had feared confiscation. Correspondingly they disappointed the radicals, who had hoped that Caesar would continue Catiline by abolishing all debts and redividing the land.

"He distributed corn to the needy, canceled all sentences of banishment except Milo's, and pardoned all returning aristocrats. No one thanked him for his moderation. The forgiven conservatives resumed their plotting against his life.

"While he was facing Pompey in Thessaly the radicals abandoned him for Caelius, who promised them a complete abolition of debts, the confiscation of large properties, and the reallotment of all land."

"Middle of the road" didn't seem to satisfy anyone. Both rich and poor wanted it "my way."

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 26, 2003 - 06:36 am
Some people wait for Godot. I'm waiting for Durant and his facilitator, ROBBY, who may have posted when I go back to the discussion.

In his book The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker, who appears to lean toward Evolutionary Psychology and is now at Harvard, not MIT, says:
"The Judeo-Christian theory is based on events stressed on the Bible. We know that the human mind has nothing in common with the minds of animals because the Bible says that humans were created separately. We know that the design of women is based on the design of men because in the second telling of the creation of women Eve was fashioned from the rib of Adam. Human decisions cannot be the inevitable effects of some cause, we may surmise, because God held Adam and Eve responsible for eating the fruits of knowledge, implying that they could have chosen otherwise. Women are dominated by men as punishment for Eve's disobedience, and men and women inherit the sinfulness of tha first couple.

"The Judeo-Christian conception is still the most popular theory of human nature in the United States. According to recent polls, 76 percent of Americans believe in the biblical account of creation, 79 percent believe that the miracles actually did take place, 76 believe in angels, the devil, and other immaterial souls, 67 percent believe they will exist in some form after their death, and only 15 percent believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is the best explanation for life on Earth."
Pinker also says "every society must operate with a theory of human nature." Had the Bible been written in Caesar's time? On what theory of human nature did Caesar, Pompey and the Romans operate?

Mal

Malryn (Mal)
December 26, 2003 - 09:27 am
"In A History of Christianity, the former Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Owen Chadwick, reminds us that Christmas as we now know it was originally a combination of three distinct elements. These, he writes, were 'the junketings of the Roman crowd trying to relieve the gloom of winter; the Roman cult of the sun and its light; and, at the heart, the memory of a birth in a manger in the Palestinian town of Bethlehem'. At this time of year, Christians recall the last of these but they do so amid the distractions of the modern-day equivalents of the other two (merry-making and the commercialised myth of Santa Claus). Often those distractions are so powerful that it seems the third element - the memory - is struggling to stay alive.

"There is nothing new in this. The Gospels, of course, give no indication of the date of the birth of Jesus beyond Luke's reference to it being 'when Cyrenius was governor of Syria' and Matthew saying that it occurred before the death of Herod (in 4BC). The earliest Christians do not seem to have placed much emphasis on the birth of Jesus as an important feast - Easter was the focus of their religious calendar - and its celebration on December 25 is first attested in Rome in AD336. The day set aside for Christmas was most likely chosen to oppose a Roman feast that coincided with the winter solstice. This feast, says Chadwick, was observed by the Romans with 'drunkenness and riot' and although the church sought to bring a more purposeful meaning to these festivities, Christians - then, as now - generally ignored appeals from their religious leaders not to drink and eat to excess in the manner of their non-Christian neighbours."


Source:

The Memory of Christmas

Malryn (Mal)
December 26, 2003 - 09:31 am
Caelius

robert b. iadeluca
December 26, 2003 - 09:40 am
We will come later to the Gospels and other aspects of Christianity as we move on in Durant. Curently we are 49 years BCE. (I know, it's hard to leave the spirit of Christmas.)

"Near the end of 49 Caesar joined the troops and fleet that his aides had collected at Brundisium. A winter crossing of the Adriatic by an army was in those days unheard of. The twelve vessels at his dispolal could carry over only a third of his 60,000 men at one time. Pompey's superior squadrons patrolled all islands and harbors along the opposite coast.

"Nevertheless, Caesar set sail and crossed to Epirus with 20,000 men. On their way back to Italy his ships were wrecked. Wondering what delayed the remainder of his army, Caesar tried to recross in a small skiff. The sailors rowed out against the surf and were nearly drowned. Caesar, dauntless amid their terror, encouraged them with the possibly legendary exhortation:-'Fear not. You carry Caesar and his fortune.' But wind and wave tossed the boat back upon the shore, and Caesar had to abandon the attempt.

"Meanwhile Pompey, with 40,000 men, seized Dyrrhachium and its rich stores. Then, with the indecision that marked his obese years, he failed to attack Caesar's depleted and starving force.

"During this delay Mark Antony gathered another fleet and brought over the rest of Caesar's army."

"Caesar and his fortune." I wonder which appealed more to the soldiers -- Caesar or the loot?

Robby

georgehd
December 26, 2003 - 12:08 pm
Mal, I would love to know the source of the statistics cited by Pinker in your post 236. I cannot believe that the percentage of those in the US who believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution is that low. Most religions now accept the Darwinian concept I believe.

Shasta Sills
December 26, 2003 - 03:18 pm
Hi, everyone. I have been dutifully following your discussion of the Romans although they are not my favorite people. I thought all of your descriptions of Christmas were delightful, from Caymon to Canada. Mal, I am reading Pinker's "Blank Slate" too. I've read about half of it. He's a very interesting writer, but if I were his editor, I would have cut out about a third of that book. He makes a point, and then repeats it again and again, until you want to say, "Okay, I get it. Move on."

Malryn (Mal)
December 26, 2003 - 03:48 pm
Shasta, I know what you mean.

George, I'll answer your question; then I'm going to hibernate (hopefully for the rest of the winter.)
"Creation Opinion Dynamics, Aug. 30, 1999; miracles: Princeton Survey Research Associates, April 15, 2000l angels: Opinion Dynamics, Decenber 5, 1997; devil: Princeton Survey Research Associates, April 20, 2000, afterlife: Gallup Organization, April 1, 1998; evolution: Opinion Dynamics, August 30, 1999. Available through the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut Public Opinion Online: www.ropercenter.uconn.edu."

Justin
December 26, 2003 - 06:05 pm
Princeton SRA reveals the percentage of folks in the USA who accept the devil as a real bad guy ( as opposed to a fictional bad guy). Will you get the numbers for us, Mal?

Not since Scopes have we had a face to face in the public eye on Darwin. Evangelists have been getting all the publicity. Biologists have been a pretty quiet bunch. I think the policy of the ABA is intended to ignore the creationists hoping they will just go away.

Justin
December 26, 2003 - 06:21 pm
Caesar's motivation for crossing the Rubicon and for starting the civil war is complex. Was he just angry with the Senate for not giving him his due laurels after his conquest of Gaul? Was he concerned that he could not achieve good ends for Rome if he had to share the Consulship with Pompey? Was he afraid the state would take his life if he continued to sit in Ravenna with out sufficient troops to defend himself? In my judgement, all three apply but have importance in reverse order. Does any one think he was justified in taking this action?

gaj
December 26, 2003 - 06:30 pm
Darwin is right. Surival of the fittest rules in nature. But in saying this I am not saying God didn't have a part in the process. I believe that when the human apes got to a certain development God breathed in a soul.

The bigger question to me is are 'we' 'fitter' now than 2000 years ago? Did Caesar rise to the top because he was the fittest?

When looking at history I have to remember to set it all in the context of the time it was lived in. Later when we get to the fall of Rome will it mean they were no longer 'fit' and the so called barbarians were? Caesar lived and reacted to his environment as a product of his time.

Justin
December 26, 2003 - 08:01 pm
Ginny Ann: Nice to be talking with you. Barbarian means one who does not speak Greek. The Romans are barbarians. So am I for that matter.

It's a little early for Darwin but it's my fault he is in here. George brought him up and Robby failed to crack the whip.

That's an odd twist you give evolution. It's apparently ok up to a point but then the ape needs an outside force to move it beyond that point. Where is that point?

Justin
December 26, 2003 - 08:22 pm
Christmas dinner went well at my grand daughter's. Everyone helped except those of us who stood around and watched. The rain continues here in CA and my BIG trees fill the front lawn. I'll be chipping away at the stumps with chain saws until late spring, maybe late summer. Two BIG ones came down in a storm just before Christmas leaving us buried in leaves and branches. Both missed the main house but one a redwood curled it's parts around an outhouse I use for a library-den-computer-hideaway. I put the telephone and electrical wires under ground a few years ago so everything in the outhouse works but I can smell the open redwood branches.

Justin
December 26, 2003 - 08:51 pm
George: Do you think evolution is the best explanation for life on earth? I don't. However, I realize I will never learn the full story if I accept the idea that a supernatural is responsible for life on earth. It is only through the use of scientific method that we can come to understand the nature of life on earth.

robert b. iadeluca
December 27, 2003 - 03:02 am
Returning now to Durant:--

"Ready now to join battle, but still loath to turn Roman against Roman, Caesar sent an envoy to Pompey proposing that both leaders should lay down their commands. Pompey gave no reply. Caesar attacked and was repulsed. Pompey failed to follow his victory with pursuit.

"Against Pompey's advice his officers put all captives to death, while Caesar spared his -- a contrast that raised the morals of Caesar's troops and lowered that of Pompey's. Caesar's men begged him to punish them for the cowardice they had shown in this their first fight against Roman legions. When he refused, they besought him to lead them back to battle but he thought it wiser to retreat into Thesaly and let them rest."

What I am seeing here is not so much a battle on the battleground in the usual sense of the word but an "internal" battle within the minds and souls of Caesar and Pompey. Each of them is a Roman. Each of them were (and perhaps are?) friends.

Pompey finds it difficult to pursue Caesar after having been victorious on the battle field. Caesar finds it difficult to put fellow-Romans to death even though they were technically captives. Caesar's soldiers describe their own actions as cowardice but were they, in fact, reluctant to kill fellow-Romans? Caesar does not punish them for this but orders them back to the rear lines to undergo what I would call a "cooling off" period.

A period of time when each soldier can search within himself and even Caesar and Pompey can pause to reflect what they are doing. A moral conflict, if you will.

Robby

JoanK
December 27, 2003 - 05:27 am
I'm still caughing my head of from the flu my family brought here from California. I'm still catching up.

Just a brief warning. Seniors, be very careful this flu season. There is a preventative medicine you can take if you've been exposed. The three of us seniors who had had our flu shots didn't take it, because we thought we were protected. And we all got the flu. The two who hadn't had flu shots took the medicine, and haven't gotten it yet. It is the flu, too, the first "sickies were tested.

JoanK
December 27, 2003 - 05:55 am
Mal, what great links. Thanks.

No, Robby, I haven't been dreaming of Caesar. I have better things to dream about.

It looks like Caesar was already showing himself to be a great statesman, even while he was being a general.

I'm impressed by the amount of time he must have spent marching. First he's in Spain, then in Italy, then somewhere else. Given the distances, and how long it takes to get somewhere on foot, most of his life must have been spent slogging on down the road.

robert b. iadeluca
December 27, 2003 - 06:06 am
Joan:--Speaking of time, we must keep in mind that behaviors described in a sentence or two in Durant may have taken years, if not decades or centuries.

Any comments about what I described as the "moral conflict?"

Robby

georgehd
December 27, 2003 - 06:19 am
I do not see these men as having moral conflicts. I think that their decisions were based on which action would achieve what they wanted and had nothing to do with morals. I am not sure if there was any kind of morality as we know it, at this time in Rome. These were very practical, powerful, ruthless men. I see Caesar as possibly more intelligent in seeing the value of the velvet glove at times instead of the iron fist.

Joan K - what is this preventative medicine which you mention.?? I had the flu shot and will be in the states in January.

robert b. iadeluca
December 27, 2003 - 06:42 am
George, you say:-"I am not sure if there was any kind of morality as we know it, at this time in Rome."

I am not sure what you mean by "as we know it." Considering the quote by Durant in the Heading above which begins "Four elements. . . ", are you implying that their type of morality was different from ours? And if so, how so?

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 27, 2003 - 07:15 am
George, I agree with you that what we think morals today could very well be something else for the Romans. Then in war, they killed and plundered, raped and that was considered good and if they didn't they would be killed and as you said, "These were very practical, powerful, ruthless men.." Life was much shorter that today and you had to make your mark in life by any means at your disposal before you died in either war or diseases, whereas now we live beyond our prime and in our youth, we prepare ourselves to live three times longer than the Romans did. That gives life a totally different dimension.

Although there is violence on television and even in video games for children, we make laws whereby what the Romans considered normal living, we put people in jail for it. For instance the use of narcotics, opium was available and not a criminal act. Anything that that could sweeten their short life was OK, enjoy it while you may, sort of thing.

Today, although you see violence, multi killings and atrocities on television, in reality when a soldier gets killed in a war, he is given a state funeral as the 6 Italians who were killed in Irak. Healdines are full of murders, crimes, rapes and we seem to find this awful, yet it seems like a lot of people find it fun to watch that on television,

Eloïse

georgehd
December 27, 2003 - 09:32 am
Robbie, I am a little vague as this is not my field. But from what we have read, morals do not seem to be an important part of Roman life; and this may be part of the reason that the Roman Empire fell. Christianity was not yet a force in Roman life and the moral codes of the Jews and other Eastern religions did not take root in Rome. Roman religion, if we can call it that, did not seem to include a moral code. If other members of the group disagree please enlighten me.

After posting the above I found this link on Roman morals

http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.novaroma.org%2Fvia_romana%2Fvirtues.html

This also makes for interesting reading.

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/historyan_cj.html

georgehd
December 27, 2003 - 09:41 am
In my web search I found this Great Book site that will take you to articles about much of what we are studying.

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/

robert b. iadeluca
December 27, 2003 - 10:17 am
Your link on "Roman morals" is excellent, George. The introductory paragraph gives us food for thought:--"These are the qualities of life to which every Citizen (and, ideally, everyone else) should aspire. They are the heart of the Via Romana — the Roman Way — and are thought to be those qualities which gave the Roman Republic the moral strength to conquer and civilize the world. Today, they are the rods against which we can measure our own behavior and character, and we can strive to better understand and practice them in our everyday lives."

Two thoughts enter my mind:--

1 - That the phrase "they are the rods against which we can measure our own behavior and character" seems to be diametrically opposed to Eloise's comments -- and that it requires "moral strength" to conquer the world.
2 - That Durant's phrase in the Heading beginning with "Four elements. . . " would seem to imply that morality has been an important element in every civilization we have examined so far and will continue to be so.

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 27, 2003 - 10:56 am
Robby, I should have clarified in my post what started with "Headlines are full of murders, crimes, rapes ...." I should have mentioned that this is the reality, but in fiction, the violence in television series, action films, and video games is a source of entertainment as they are very popular. There seems to be a double standard between the reality in violent crimes that people hate and fiction that the same people enjoy watching on the screen. Why is that?

Eloïse

robert b. iadeluca
December 27, 2003 - 12:32 pm
"Pompey now made the decision that cost him his life. Afranius advised him to return and recapture undefended Italy. But the majority of his counselors urged him to pursue and destroy Caesar.

"The aristocrats in Pompey's camp exaggerated the victory at Dyrrhachium and supposed that the great issue had there been decided. Cicero, who had finally joined them, was shocked to hear them dispute as to their respective shares in the coming restoration, and to see with what luxury they lived in the midst of war -- their meals served on silver plate, their tents comfortable with carpets, brilliant with hangings, garlanded with flowers.

"Cicero wrote:-'Excepting Pompey himself, the Pompeians carried on the war with such rapacity, and breathed such principles of cruelty in their conversation, that I could not contemplate even their success without horror. There was nothing good among them but their cause. A proscription was proposed not only individually but collectively. Lentulus had promised himself Hortensius' house, Caesar's gardens, and Baiae.'

"Pompey would have preferred a more Fabian strategy, but taunts of cowardice prevailed upon him, and he gave orders to march."

So much for Roman morality, at least among the military.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 27, 2003 - 12:51 pm
Here is a photo of DURRES ALBANIA and its description as the site of ancient Dyrrhachium where Pompey defeated Caesar.

Robby

gaj
December 27, 2003 - 07:44 pm
Morals -- The morals of the Romans weren't based on religious or spiritual doctrines. It was probably more like special 'codes of honor.' Psychology wasn't know in the scientific sense. It is so hard not to put our 'values' onto history.

robert b. iadeluca
December 27, 2003 - 08:09 pm
"At Pharsalus, August 9, 48, the decisive battle was fought to the bitter end. Pompey had 48,000 infantry, 7000 horse. Caesar had 22,000 and 1000. Says Plutarch:-'Some few of the noblest Romans standing as spectators outside the battle could not but reflect to what a pass private ambition had brought the Empire. The whole flower and strength of the same city, meeting here in collision with itself, offered plain proof how blind and mad a thing human nature is when passion is aroused.'

"Near relatives, even brothers, fought in the opposed armies. Caesar bade his men spare all Romans who should surrender. As to the young aristocrat Marcus Brutus, he said, they were to capture him without injuring him or, if this provied impossible, they were to let him escape.

"The Pompeians were overwhelmed by superior leadership, training, and morale. 15,000 of them were killed or wounded, 20,000 surrendered, the remainder fled.

"Pompey tore the insignia of command from his clothing and took flight like the rest.

"Caesar tells us that he lost but 200 men -- which casts doubt upon all his books. His army was amused to see the tents of the defeated so elegantly adorned, and their tables laden with the feast that was to celebate their victory.

"Caesar ate Pompey's supper in Pompey's tent."

It is difficult not to compare this (at least in certain respects) to the American Civil War.

Robby

Justin
December 27, 2003 - 08:11 pm
Caesar's legions swore allegiance to Caesar and not to Rome. I don't know about Pompey's legions. I suspect they swore allegiance to Rome. Otherwise, his officers would not have executed Roman prisoners against the wishes of Pompey. They probably considered Caesar's legionaries traitors to Rome- a crime punishable by death. Caesar was the attacking power. Pompey was the defending force for Rome.

I wonder if the question of friendship is relevant. Caesar bound Pompey to him by family alliances. Caesar's daughter, Julia, was married to Pompey to cement the family relationship. Julia died in child birth and Caesar attempted to give him another family member to continue the connection. Pompey refused the offer.

Duty may have been the motive for Pompey's actions.He was already Dictator. He greatly outnumbered Caesar's troops. Caesar's motives seem to be security, pride, and ambition.

I agree with Ginny Ann, morality, as we understand the term, had little to do with the actions of either Pompey or Caesar.

Justin
December 27, 2003 - 08:36 pm
Yes, comparison with the American Civil War is very appropriate. Brother against brother was quite common especially along the border states. Johnson, the Vice President, was a Tennesean.He remained loyal. Tennessee split in loyalty. Some counties were loyal. Others rebelled.

Many of the opposing generals in the American Civil War were friends of long standing. Many were school mates at West Point who shared rooms, teachers, training, and meals for four years. Resources, that is; armaments, food and manpower, made the difference in that war. Leadership was about equal.

In the Roman Civil War not only were the opposing generals known to one another but the opposing troops were trained in much the same style of battle. Leadership and endurance were the deciding factors.

moxiect
December 27, 2003 - 08:44 pm


If I am understanding what was written by Durant and the comments of others regarding the power struggle between Ceasar and Pompey, morals of the Romans at that point in time appears to be based on who had "strength of character"(honor)and the wisdom to use mercy upon his enemies by keeping them close to his side next to his "friends".

And to me, the struggle of the common Romans were, economics and caught between two strong power hungrey individuals.

Justin
December 27, 2003 - 11:35 pm
Yes, Moxiect, economics played a role in the civil war. Ordinary citizens were on the "corn dole". The armies lived off the land. They would have shared in the "corn dole", but the supply lines were too long. When Pompey left from Brundisi he left behind his food source. The same was true for Caesar but Mark Antony came along later and retrieved the missing baggage. How much food he brought is hard to tell.One thing is certain the armies did not fight on empty stomachs. The logistics of an army in the field is a complicated and crucial element in victory and defeat.

In WWll in the Pacific theatre, the food supply came from New Zealand and Australia. The supply lines were long and tenuous, but mutton kept us all alive and strong.

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 28, 2003 - 04:26 am
Interesting posts Justin, Moxie, Ginny Ann. When I read that Economics was what triggered the American civil war, not slavery, I was at first surprised, but then it made sense. The industrial North needed cheap labor which slaves could provide once freed. What's more, the South's elite army were not used to the rigors of war having lived a life of leisure before.

Eloïse

robert b. iadeluca
December 28, 2003 - 05:42 am
"Pompey rode all night to Larissa, thence to the sea, and took ship to Alexandria. At Mytilene, where his wife joined him, the citizens wished him to stay. He refused courteously, and advised them to submit to the conqueror without fear, for, he said:-'Caesar is a man of great goodness and clemency.'

"Brutus also escaped to Larissa, but there he dallied and wrote to Caesar. The victor expressed great joy on hearing that he was safe, readily forgave him, and at his requst forgave Cassius. To the nations of the East, which -- controlled by the upper classes -- had supported Pompey he was likewise lenient. He distributed Pompey's hoards of grain among the starving population of Greece, and to the Athenians asking pardon he replied with a smile of reproof:-'How often will the glory of your ancestors save you from self-destruction?"

"Probably he had been warned that Pompey hoped to resume the contest with the army and resources of Egypt, and the forces that Cato, Labienus, and Metellus Scipio were organizing at Utica. But when Pompey reached Alexandria, Pothinus, eunuch vizier of young Ptolemy XII, ordered his servants to kill Pompey, presumably in expectation of reward from Caesar.

" The general was stabbed to death as he stepped upon the shore, while his wife looked on in helpless terror from the ship in which they had come. When Caesar arrived, Pothinus' men presentd him with the severed head. Caesar turned away in horror and wept at this new proof that by diverse means men come to the same end.

"He established his quarters in the royal palace of the Ptolemies and set himself to regulate the affairs of the ancient kingdom."

As we end the saga of the Caesar-Pompey relationship, I am interested in comments here about the character of each man. Were they caught up in the situation of the times? Was one stronger than the other? In what way? Did the power of the aristocrats fit into their struggles? And, of course, that eternal question -- were they egomaniacs ignoring the people or did their love of Rome lead to their actions and to the death of Pompey? I keep wondering.

Robby

georgehd
December 28, 2003 - 05:45 am
Though I know that the NYTimes has its political bias (which I agree with), I thought that this editorial from today's paper was interesting as it comments on how politicians 'pay off' their constituents and I thought of how Caesar's used his actions and laws to satisfy his soldiers and Romans citizens in general.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/28/opinion/28SUN1.html

robert b. iadeluca
December 28, 2003 - 06:29 am
"The study of antiquity is properly accounted worthless except as it may be made living drama, or illuminate our contemporary life."

- - - Will Durant

Malryn (Mal)
December 28, 2003 - 04:00 pm
How could Caesar have been so naif as to think Brutus and Cassius were on his side?

Sculpture: Brutus

JoanK
December 28, 2003 - 04:15 pm
I'm back, but I've lost quite a few brain cells to flu. So if I don't make sense, forgive me.

The character of each man. Pompay seems eager for power, but vain and vacillating in his search for it. And maybe not too bright. Caesar is harder. There seem to be so many facits to the man.At one point, he offers to retire, if they will let him live in peace. If this had been accepted, do you think he would have sstayed retired? He seemed to really care about Rome, and reluctant to kill Romans. But within that, personally ambitious.

American Civil war: brother fighting against brother. In regard to earlier comments about people in the border states of the war, and devided loyalties. I live in Maryland, which was one of the four slave states that joined the north in the Civil War. I only recently found out why. Maryland was scheduled to have a vote in their legislature to determine whether they would secede and join the South. It was clear that the vote would go for joining the south. Virginia of course was already with the south. Lincoln knew that if Maryland also seceded, Washington DC. would be left an island in the middle of the confederacy and would have to fall. So he had all the Maryland senators who were for secession arrested and held in jail the day of the vote. After Maryland had safely voted to remain in the union, he had them released.

JoanK
December 28, 2003 - 04:29 pm
I've been thinking about Robbie's earlier question about acceptance of corruption by the citizens. In some ways, Rome's corruption reminds me of the situation in many US cities in the early 1900s. In New York City, the police were so corrupt, they would not investigate a crime unless the victem bribed them, and would not make an arrest if the perpetrator paid them not to. Votes were quite openly bought.etc. etc. But this situation did not continue. I have been looking for parallels. The populice of these cities were new immigrants who were very dependent on the political "bosses" for jobs and other favors, and so could be bought easily. But as these immegrants became established,and their children became more a part of the society, perhaps they weren't so ready to accept these conditions. Further, we remember that time for a number of social reformers, people who spoke out against abuses not because they wanted power themselves but because they wanted to make things better: people like Lincoln Steffans, Jacob Reis, Jane Addams, Lillian Ward. Do we have voices like that in Rome? Did Cicero campaign against the corruption?

Fifi le Beau
December 28, 2003 - 07:44 pm
the South's elite army were not used to the rigors of war having lived a life of leisure before.

Eloise, your comment is true as regards the generals and leaders of the Confederacy. They instigated the war, and sat in a position of power, and certainly lived a life of leisure before the war.

Those who actually fought the war were hardly used to a life of leisure. Like all wars before and after, they were fought mostly by the poor boys, some as young as twelve or thirteen. Cannon fodder, I believe it's called. A rich mans war and a poor mans fight.

Robbys question about Pompey and Caesar and their motivation for the war may deserve a complex answer, but mine is simple.

Two men want power and control over a people and a country. As has happened throughout history, only one man will be the victor. That decision for centuries was always settled by war. The winner took all.

If candidates today raised their own army as in Caesars time, we would see this scene played out, not at the ballot box, but on the battlefield. I can't see the candidates actually leading the charge, instead they would be safely ensconced under a mountain somewhere with a cell phone. As always the young and poor would actually do the fighting.

Civil war still rages all over the world, in small local areas to entire countries. We in this country had our own civil war where men of priviledge desired to rule their own territory, and went to war to get that power. They failed, and that is the best thing that ever happened to this country, and I say that as a Southerner. Civil war has always been the most destructive war to any country.

Now Caesar has won control of the Roman Empire, and we shall soon see the results of his victory.

......

Justin
December 28, 2003 - 11:02 pm
Oui, Fifi, we of little dollars, fight the wars and pay the taxes. The generals, generally, fight from tents. The wealthy strategize from armchairs, run the armaments factories, and get all the tax breaks. It was the case in Rome at the turn of the millennium and is now the case at the turn of the millennium. One difference, of course. We can throw the rascals out, if the Supreme Court will allow it.

robert b. iadeluca
December 29, 2003 - 05:29 am
The new GREEN quotes show us where we are headed.

"Since the death of Ptolemy VI (145) Egypt had rapidly decayed. Her kings were no longer able to maintain social order or national freedom. The Roman Senate increasingly dictated their policy, and garrisoned Alexandria with Roman troops.

"By the will of Ptolemy XI, whom Pompey and Gabinius had established on the throne, the government had descended to his son Ptolemy XII and his daughter Cleopatra, who were to marry each other and reign together.

"Cleopatra was more probably blonde than brunette. She was not particularly beautiful, but the grace of her carriage -- the vivacity of her body and her mind -- the variety of her accomplishments -- the suavity of her manners -- the very melody of her voice -- combined with her royal position to make her a heady wine even for a Roman general. She was acquainted with Greek history, literature, and philosophy. She spoke Greek, Egyptian, Syrian, and allegedly other languages, well. She added the intellectual fascination of an Aspasia to the seductive abandon of a completely uninhibited woman.

"Tradition credits her with a treatise on cosmetics and another on the alluring subject of Egyptian measures, weights, and coins. She was an able ruler and administrator, effectively promoted Egyptian commerce and industry, and was a competent financier even when making love.

"With these qualities went an Oriental sensuality, an impetuous brutality that dealt out suffering and death, and a political ambition that dreamed of empire and honored no code but success. If she had not borne the intemperate blood of the later Ptolemies in her veins she might have achieved her purpose of being the queen of a unified Mediterranean realm.

"She saw that Egypt could no longer be independent of Rome and knew no reason why she should not dominate their union."

Surely there are comments about this amazing woman!

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 29, 2003 - 05:45 am
Sculpture: Cleopatra

Another view of the same sculpture

Cleopatra and Antony

Cleopatra

Malryn (Mal)
December 29, 2003 - 06:03 am
"Julius Caesar left Rome for Alexandria in 48 BC. During his stay in the Palace, he received the most famous gift in history: an oriental carpet... with a 22 year old Cleopatra wrapped in." ( !! )



Cleopatra



Source:

Cleopatra, the Last Pharoah

Chronology

georgehd
December 29, 2003 - 06:06 am
A blond Cleopatra? That is a new slant on her lineage and I wonder about her ancestory. I will always think of Cleopatra as looking like Elizabeth Taylor! And Elizabeth Taylor wrapped in a carpet is a wonderful image. Thanks, Mal.

Ginny
December 29, 2003 - 06:32 am
In 2002 there was an eye opening exhibit on Cleopatra at the British Museum and others which had the old Elizabeth Taylor representations with some never before displayed depictions of Cleopatra in sculpture, from Egypt, and it was fascinating. I'm not sure on the blond hair but she was, apparently, of Greek ancestry or so I seem to recall they said, images of Caesarion but more startlingly, of other children she also bore to Caesar. I think it traveled around the world, did any of you see it? Fascinating thing with audio accompaniment.

The one thing historians and the ancients agree on was she was not pretty but she had, like the Duchess of Windsor, an overwhelming charm, apparently.

ginny

Fifi le Beau
December 29, 2003 - 12:06 pm
Below from Mal's link.....

The Ptolemies were of Macedonian descent, yet they ruled Egypt as Egyptians - as Pharaohs. And, indeed, Cleopatra was the last Pharaoh.

This should answer George's question about the possibility of Cleopatra having blonde hair. Think of that other Macedonian of history, Alexander the Great and the land he conquered and those who took power under his conquest.

......

......

robert b. iadeluca
December 29, 2003 - 12:56 pm
I find this ARTICLE from yesterday's NY Times most relevant to events that we have been observing in The Story of Civilization over the last couple of years. The author speaks of small events of the past which are often overlooked by the "literati of the time" but which in later decades or centuries made a "tremendous difference". As he puts it, "we never know where change will take us." He refers to the "luck" of the germination of just one acorn. What are your thoughts about this? He uses as examples the artificial forming of borders after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the creation of the ZIP code, the black migration to the North and the white migration to the South.

It will be easy to find examples throughout the last millennia or so but I would very much appreciate it if you would try to locate "small" events from any of Durant's three volumes which illustrate the author's point.

Caesar crossing the Rubicon? Suicide of Socrates? Invention of papyrus?

Justin
December 29, 2003 - 02:48 pm
Liz Taylor she is not but Aspasia she seems and that is more tantalizing, more desirable than any old movie queen. Aspasia in a rolled up carpet would delight me over and over again and so Cleopatra must have delighted Caesar for many months. No wonder she knew no reason she could not dominate a partnership with Rome. There are women and then there are WOMEN.

Justin
December 29, 2003 - 03:10 pm
The phalanx and the cohort turtle are little inventions that gave us Greece and Rome.

Justin
December 29, 2003 - 03:20 pm
The tooth paste tube gave us portable paints which enabled "plein aire" painting and brought us Impressionism. That's not in Durant but it's an interesting bit of productive trivia.

georgehd
December 29, 2003 - 03:43 pm
Could not remember who Aspasia was and found the following.

http://students.ou.edu/L/Lisa.A.Lewis-1/

Justin
December 29, 2003 - 03:50 pm
Egyptian Monotheism appearing with Akhenaton brought with it the conception of a single supreme and self existant being with attributes of eternity, and omnipowerful- the almighty. This supreme god was charged with the creation of the world and all living things. He granted immortality of the soul and arranged for reward and punishment. The concepts lasted for a short life time only but returned under new auspices to dominate the religious world for two millennia.

robert b. iadeluca
December 29, 2003 - 03:55 pm
Any remarks regarding Durant's comments on Cleopatra?

Or is this a dull subject?

Robby

Justin
December 29, 2003 - 04:34 pm
A fifty odd year old Caesar-the husband of many women, gazed on the 22 year old sensuous Cleopatra, unrolled from a carpet and said " What can I do for you?" She replied in Latin " In a little while I shall be queen."

Her brother, the Pharaoh, who thought he had gotten rid of her, was unhappy to see her back in Alexandra. He responded by killing a Roman guard troop to launch a war with Caesar. Cleopatra holed up in a fort outside the city with her benefactor who sent for his legions. Caesar came in friendship, found a mistress, and blundered into a war. Just like the movies. No wonder Shakespeare liked them.

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 29, 2003 - 04:42 pm
My Internet connection went dormant for hours.

Picasso said that there are only two kinds of women in the world, goddesses and doormats. Is that true?

Although beauty is what makes the world go around, it appears that Cleopatra didn't need it, she had everything else.

Eloïse

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 29, 2003 - 04:54 pm
The greatest BEAUTY is beauty of the soul and that beauty has to be realized in thought, in feeling, in behavior, and in every forms of action.

Justin
December 29, 2003 - 06:51 pm
Picaso was a woman basher, much like Paul. "Goddesses and doormats" is the simplification, of a Cubist. That's the way he saw women and if they were not "doormats" he bashed them until they were doormats.

Women of Cleopatra's class are neither Goddess nor doormat. They are a blend that makes them unique.

robert b. iadeluca
December 30, 2003 - 04:19 am
"Secretly Caesar sent for Cleopatra, and secretly she came. To reach him she had herself concealed in some bedding which her attendant Apollodorus carried into Caesar's apartment. The amazed Roman, who never let his victories in the field outnumber his conquests in love, was captivated by her courage and wit.

"He reconciled her with Ptolemy, and re-established her with her brother on the throne of Egypt.

"Learning from his barber that Pothinus and the Egyptian general Achillas were plotting to kill him and slaughter the small force that he had brought with him, he delicately arranged the assassination of Pothinus. Achillas escaped to the Egyptian army and roused it to insurrection. Soon all Alexandria was alive with soldiers vowing death to Caesar. The Roman garrison which had been stationed in the city by the Senate was inspired by its officers to join in rising against this treasonable inteloper who presumed to settle the succession to the throne of the Ptolemies, and even to beget an heir for its future.

"In this emergency Caesar acted with his customary resourcefulness. He turned the royal palace and the near-by theater into fortresses for himself and his men, and sent for reinforcements from Asia Minor, Syria, and Rhodes. When he saw that his defenseless fleet would soon fall into the hands of his enemies, he ordered it burned. In the fire an uncertain portion of the Alexandrian library was consumed.

"By desperate sallies he captured, lost, and recaptured the island of Pharos, as being essential to the entry of the relief he awited. In one of these engagements he swam for his life, amid a storm of arrows, when the Egyptians drove him and 400 of his men off the connecting mole into the sea.

"Thinking the rebels victorious, Ptolemy XII left the foyal palace joined them, and disappeared from history. When reinforcements arrived, Caesar routed the Egyptians and the Senatorial garrison in the Battle of the Nile.

"He rewarded Cleopatra for her fidelity to him in this crisis by making her younger brother Ptolemy XIII co-regent with her, which left her in effect the supreme ruler of Egypt."

I question the underlying motive of Cleopatra throughout these actions. She may have ended up in Caesar's bed but her goal was much larger than that. Did she decide in advance the "winner" and the "loser" and align herself accordingly? Caesar almost lost his life. What was she risking?

Participants who have been in this forum since "Our Oriental Heritage" will remember the Alexandria Library and the island of Pharos.

Side comment:-One can learn an awful lot from barbers.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 30, 2003 - 06:08 am
George gave us an excellent link regarding Aspasia, one of the great women of history. Among other items of interest, the link tells us that Aspasia was the lover of Pericles. She was highly educated and affected the minds of Plato, Socrates, Xenophon, Cicero, Plutarch and Athenaeus. She ran a courtesian salon, a school for girls of wealthy families. Socrates credits her as one of his own instructors of rhetoric.

It might be interesting to compare her to Cleopatra and their effect on history.

Robby

georgehd
December 30, 2003 - 10:14 am
Some of you may have noted the new book Pompeii by Robert Harris. It received a good review in the NYTimes book review of Dec. 21. I believe that at least one Senior Netter has read it.

moxiect
December 30, 2003 - 11:45 am
Here is a link about Cleopatra

http://interoz.com/egypt/cleopatr.htm

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 30, 2003 - 12:54 pm
Moxie, what an interesting link about Cleopatra. Thank you.

Justin
December 30, 2003 - 05:26 pm
Moxie: Very informative link about Cleopatra. The story ignores the role of Cleo in the battle of Actium. She lost the battle by leaving the scene too early. The battle of Actium is considered the end point of the civil war and the beginning of the empire. It is one of those turning points in history that mark the end of one period and the beginning of a new one. I don't suppose I am saying enough about the significance of this event but surely Durant will dwell upon the battle and its significance.

One interesting aspect of the crowning of Caesarion and Cleopatra is that of titles. Caesarion is crowned Ptolomy XV, King of Kings. This term will be used to describe another, a Jew, fifty years later, in a quest to succeed in the line of Saul, David, and Solomon.

robert b. iadeluca
December 30, 2003 - 06:29 pm
Moxi:-That is an absolutely marvelous link regarding Cleopatra. I printed it out and read all five pages in detail. It is important to understand that Durant, with his goal of writing about all of Civilization, was not able to be too detailed.

I recommend strongly that everyone read Moxi's link. It is fascinating and adds to the story as Durant is telling it.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 30, 2003 - 06:51 pm
After you have read Moxi's link, click HERE to read another fascinating article about archeologists in 1998 who have brought up from the harbor in Alexandria what they believe is the home of Cleopatra and possibly the barge from which she enticed Mark Antony.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 30, 2003 - 07:02 pm
Here is MORE INFO showing how the bust of Cleopatra's father was raised from Alexandria harbor just four years ago.

Robby

Justin
December 30, 2003 - 11:26 pm
Ptolemy l was a general in Alexander the Great's Army. When Alex died the three top generals whacked up the holdings and Ptolemy became the first of a line of rulers in Egypt reaching all the way to Cleopatra. There were 15 Ptolemies in all, reigning over 300 years. These rulers brought Hellenism to Egypt. They were Pharaohs and called themselves Pharaohs but they were all Greek in origin.

robert b. iadeluca
December 31, 2003 - 04:15 am
"Caesar remained nine months in Alexandria while hostile armies were being organized against him near Utica, and while Rome, stirred to radical revolt by Caelius and Milo, longed for his fine administrative hand. Perhaps he felt that he deservd a little rest and play after ten years of war.

"He 'often feasted with Cleopatra until daybreak,' says Suetoinius, 'and would hve gone through Egypt with her in her royal barge almost to Ethiopia, had not his soldiers threatned mutiny.' They had not all found queens.

"Perhaps he gallantly waited to share the pains of her confinement. A child was born to her in 47 and was named Caesarion. According to Mark Antony, Caesar acknowledged the boy as his son.

"It is not impossible that she whispered to him the pleasant thought of making himself king, marrying her, and uniting the Mediterranean world under one bed."

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 31, 2003 - 04:55 am
Here is a MAP of the Nile River, showing its tremendous length of which Caesar probably only sailed a short distance.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 31, 2003 - 06:44 am
Why does this story remind me of Dido and Aeneas?

Mal

robert b. iadeluca
December 31, 2003 - 06:46 am
I don't know, Mal. Please tell us.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
December 31, 2003 - 07:24 am
Oh, the wandering conqueror, the beautiful, smart, clever, calculating, ambitious pharaoh-queen. The suicides of the two women. The one element Dido did not have in her life was Antony.

Cleopatra was precded as pharaoh by Hatshepsut, born in the fifteenth century BCE, by the way. Wonder if Cleopatra took a page from her book?

Mal

Scrawler
December 31, 2003 - 11:55 am
If only it would stop snowing! Anyone know where I can rent a sleigh and reindeer? Whoever heard of snow in Portland, Oregon - bah humbug! I've been lurking and I've read your posts and hope you all had a wonderful Christmas. Speaking of Christmas, I came across this information about Christmas in "Panati's Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things".

"The idea to celebrate the Nativity on December 25 was first suggested early in the fourth century, wishing to eclipse the December 25 festivities of a rival religion that threatened the existence of Christianity.

It is important to note that for two centuries after Christ's birth, no one knew, and few people cared, exactly when he was born. Birthdays were unimportant; death days counted. Besides, Christ was devine, and his natural birh was deliberately played down. The church even announced that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ's birthday "as though He were a King Pharaoh".

Several renegade theologians, however, attempted to pinpoint the Nativity and came up with a confusion of dates: January 1, January 6, March 25, and May 20. The latter eventually became a favored date because the Gospel of Luke states that the shepherds who received the announcement of Christ's birth were watching their sheep at night. Shepherds guarded their flocks day and night only at lambing time, in the spring; in the winter, the animals were kept in corrals, unwatched. What finally forced the issue, and compelled the Church to legitimize a December 25 date, was the burgeoning popularity of Christianity's major rival religion, Mithraism.

On December 25 pagan Romans still in the majority, celebrated Natalis Solis Invicti, "Birthday of the Invincible Sun God," Mithras. The cult originated in Persia and rooted itself in the Roman world in the first century BC. By AD 274, Mithraism was so popular with the masses that Emperor Aurelian proclaimed it the offical state religion. In the early 300s, the cult seriously jeopardized Christianity, and for a time it was unclear which faith would emerge victorious.

Thus, to offer converts an occasion in which to be prideful celebratory, the Church officially recognized Christ's birth. And offer that head-on competition to the sun-worshipers feast, the Church located the Nativity on December 25. The mode of observance would be characteristically prayerful a mass, in fact, Christ's Mass."

Scrawler
December 31, 2003 - 12:07 pm
Cleopatra:

Cleopatra VII was queen of Egypt from 51-30 BC. She was the daughter of Ptolemy XI Auletes, king of Egypt 112-51 BC. On her father's death in 51 BC Cleopatra, then about 17 years old, and her borhter Ptolemy XII, a child of about 12 years succeeded jointly to the throne of Egypt with the provision that they should be married. She learned her political lessons by watching the humiliating efforts of her father to maintain himself on the throne of Egypt by buying the support of powerful Romans. In the third year of their reign Ptolemy, encouraged by his advisers, assumed sole control of the government and drove Cleopatra into exile. She promptly gathered an army in Syria but was unable to assert her claim until the arrival at Alexandria of Julius Caesar.

Cleopatra and Julius Caesar:

Cleopatra made preparations to return by force, but when Caesar arrived in Alexandria after the Battle of Pharsalus, she saw the opportunity to use him. She had herself smuggled to him in a rug. Ptolemy XIII died fighting Caesar, who restored Cleopatra to the throne with another brother, Ptolemy XIV, as co-regent.

Do you think that Cleopatra was "buying" the support of Caesar just to stay on the throne of Egypt? Contray to legend, Caesar did not dally in Egypt with Cleopatra. We have aready seen how Caesar used others, could it be that Cleopatra was using him.

robert b. iadeluca
December 31, 2003 - 12:12 pm
Very interesting, Scrawler. Thank you.

Based upon what we have been learning here, maybe each one was "using" the other.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 31, 2003 - 12:21 pm
OK -- here we are in Ancient Rome. Is tomorrow the first day of the year? Click HERE to learn all you ever wanted to know about the Roman months, weeks, days, etc. but were afraid to ask.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
December 31, 2003 - 03:17 pm
"Caesar flew to action when he learned that Pharmaces, son of Mithridates, had recaptured Pontus, Lesser Armenia, and Cappadocia, and was inviting the East to rise once more against divided Rome. His wisdom in 'pacifying' Spain and Gaul before meeting Pompey was now apparent. Had the West revolted at one time with the East the Empire would probably have broken up, the 'barbarians' would have moved southward, and Rome might never have known an Augustan age.

"Re-forming his three legions, Caesar set out in June of 47, marched with characteristic speed along the coast of Egypt through Syria and Asia Minor into Pontus, defeated Pharnaces at Zela (August 2), and sent to a friend at Rome the laconic report, Veni, vidi, vidi -- 'I came, I saw, I conquered.'

"At Tarentum (September 26) he was met by Cicero, who asked forgiveness for himself and other conservatives. Caesar consented amiably. He was shocked to find that during his twenty months' absence from Rome the Civil War had become a social revolution:-that Cicero's son-in-law Dolabella had joined forces with Caelius, and had proposed to the assembly a bill canceling all debts. That Anthony had let loose his soldiers upon Dolabella's armed proletaires, and 800 Romans had been killed in the Forum.

"Caelius, as praetor, had recalled Milo. Together they had organized an army in southern Italy and had invited the slaves to unite with them in a thorough-going revolution. They had met with small success, but their spirit was in the air. At Rome the radicals were celebrating the memory of Catiline and again garlanding his tomb. Meanwhile the Pompeian army in Africa has grown as large as the one that had been beaten at Pharsalus. Pompey's son Sextus had organized a new army in Spain, and the grain supply of Italy was once more hanging in the balance.

"Such was the situation in October, 47, when Caesar reached Rome and Calpurnia, bringing with him Cleopatra, her boy husband-brother, and Caesarion."

Apparently Caesar got back to Rome just in time. One may wonder what thoughts went through Cleopatra's head.

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 31, 2003 - 04:22 pm
SAUVE QUI PEUT

AND

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY


Eloïse

Malryn (Mal)
December 31, 2003 - 05:00 pm
Happy New Year !

Justin
December 31, 2003 - 09:27 pm
2004 better be better than 2003 or I won't come. That's it. I just won't come. I ask all the gods of antiquity (from Marduk to Allah) to make it a good year for all of us.

Justin
December 31, 2003 - 09:41 pm
One would think that Caesar in his "Civil War" documentation would say something about Cleo but he mentions only the meeting between himself and Ptolemy with cleopatra present. Nothing else. Suetonius mentions only the material posted above and nothing more. We will soon have a chance to look in the writings of Cicero for a few comments about Cleo but in the main she is ignored. I wonder why. Perhaps, because she is a woman.

gaj
December 31, 2003 - 09:49 pm
Happy
New
Year!

robert b. iadeluca
January 1, 2004 - 05:28 am
While most of the posters in Senior Net live in the here and now, and occasionally try to predict the future, we in The Story of Civilization "live" in the far distant past. We examine their behaviors and personalities as if they were right there with us -- their military exploits, their sexual exploits, their literary accomplishments, their political activities, their moral or immoral attitudes, their happinesses and sadnesses -- and yet even as we examine them as if they were existing now, we know that they are not.

But is that true? Do they not exist now? Do we not speak the languages, follow the traditions, and hold the values that they taught us? Are they alive or are they not? It causes us to ask "What is time?" Are we, in this forum, living a "pretend" life based on dead civilizations, or are we perhaps one of the most "alive" discussion groups in SN?

On this first day of only the fourth year in a brand-new century, let us pause to examine the meaning of Time. This ARTICLE from this morning's New York Times may help us to keep perspective.

Robby

georgehd
January 1, 2004 - 06:26 am
Happy New Year, one and all.

I am reading a bio of Albert Einstein and therefore your post on time, Robbie, was particularly appreciated. As I look at the stars at night, I often think of how amazing it is that energy emitted a billion years ago is just now being detected by my eyes. When placed in perspective our History of Western Civilization seems rather short. Man needs a bit of humility when examining his past.

georgehd
January 1, 2004 - 06:33 am
Mal, your New Year's greeting brought back a wonderful memory. The song being played is Puttin On the Ritz; I tapped danced to that song with a fellow student in the fourth or fifth grade at the major performing theater in Baltimore (part of a school program). And that performance also ended my tap dancing career. I bring this up only because it shows how we retain time related material in our brains.

Malryn (Mal)
January 1, 2004 - 06:55 am
Ha ha, GEORGE! You're right. It's "Puttin' on the Ritz". I know because I put the code for the midi on the Happy New Year web page when I built it yesterday.

My tap dancing memory brings back the tune of "Shuffle off to Buffalo". That's what I danced to in a recital (in a cowgirl outfit yet) the month before I had polio. Little did I know then that I'd never tap dance again or that I'd end up shuffling around my house near Buffalo some twenty-five years later.

Mal

Malryn (Mal)
January 1, 2004 - 07:16 am
Are mathematics and physics the only true philosophy? If there is no time as we know it -- and I most certainly can see this as a possibility -- then there is no past, present or future, so what is now?

Is time a continuum in which all parts exist simultaneously? If so, then Caesar and Cleopatra are making out in the space of this room which is made for sleeping, the Rubicon flows just beyond those woods across from my deck, and the Roman republic is falling right now.

I am eons old, and all the knowledge of the past, present and future is within my grasp. What a burden of time has been put on my shoulders this morning! How trivial this small human being and all other human beings are in this continuum!

Do I think in an abstract way from now on when I can't explain what now is? How to hypothesize, theorize and prove this abstract? Are there any words to describe it? How does one depict an unknown like this "time"?

Omar Khayyam had an answer in his Rubáiyat:

"But leave the Wise to wrangle, and with me
The Quarrel of the Universe let be:
And, in some corner of the Hubbub coucht,
Make Game of that which makes as much of Thee."
Mal

robert b. iadeluca
January 1, 2004 - 11:56 am
"At Thapsus, on April 6, 46, Caesar met the combined forces of Metellus Scipio, Cato, Labienus, and Juba I, the Numidian king. Again he lost the first encounter. Again he re-formed his lines, attacked, and won. His blood-crazed soldiers, blaming his clemency at Pharsalus for having to fight this second battle, slaughtered 10,000 of the 80,000 Pompeians, giving no quarter. They did not propose to meet these men again.

"Juba committed suicide. Scipio fled and died in an engagement at sea. Cato with a small division escaped to Utica.

"When the officers wished to defend the city against Caesar, Cato persuaded them that it was impossible. He provided funds for those who planned flight, but advised his son to submit to Caesar.

"He himself rejected both courses. He spent the evening in philosophical discussion. Then he retired to his room and read Plato's Phaedo. Suspecting that he would kill himself, his friends took his sword from his bedside. When they had relaxed their vigil he compelled his servant to bring back the weapon.

"For a while he feigned sleep. Then suddenly he took the sword and plunged it into his abdomen. His friends rushed in. A physician put back the extruding intestines and sewed and bandaged the wound.

"As soon as they had left the room Cato removed the bandage, tore open the wound, pulled out his entrails, and died.

"When Caesar came he mourned that he had no chance to pardon Cato. He could only pardon the son. The Uticans gave the dead Stoic a magnificent funeral, as if knowing that they were burying a republic almost five centuries old."

Do you folks believe one can tell when a particular form of government is dying?

Robby

kiwi lady
January 1, 2004 - 02:56 pm
Yes Robby I think you can. I think the type of Capitalism we know now is dying. Our society has gradually drifted back to the days of Laissez faire and the gaps between rich and poor even down here in NZ are ever widening. The poor will not be silent forever. From the sort of inequality I speak of revolutions are born. The scary thing is that I see that the rising up of the disaffected may be called terrorism by those who do not want to alter the status quo.

robert b. iadeluca
January 1, 2004 - 03:01 pm
Carolyn:--Interesting that you should bring up the term "terrorism" in this forum where we find ourselves constantly discussing class wars -- especially since we have entered the period of the Romans. Would you folks here consider the uprising of the plebs against the aristocrats in Rome a form of terrorism?

Robby

gaj
January 1, 2004 - 03:31 pm
kiwi lady you make an interesting point. Ray and I were talking with friends last night about the state of the US government. We didn't have a lot of confidence on things getting better any time soon.

Has there ever been a study of the falling of governments due to the rising of the poor/lower class?

robert b. iadeluca
January 1, 2004 - 03:55 pm
Please note the change in GREEN quotes. Let's see how Caesar handles class differences.

"After appointing Sallust governor of Numidia, and reorganizing the provinces of Africa, Caesar returned to Rome. The frightened Senate, recognizing the advent of monarchy, voted him the dictatorship for ten years, and such a triumph as Rome had never seen before.

"He paid each of his soldiers 5000 Attic drachmas ($3000), much more than he had promised them. He feasted the citizens at 22,000 tables, and for their amusement provided a sham sea battle involving 10,000 men.

"Early in 45 he left for Spain, and at Munda defeated the last Pompeian army. When, in October, he reached Rome, he found all Italy in chaos. Oligarchic misrule and a century of revolution had disorderd agriculture, industry, finance, and trade.

"The exhaustion of the provinces, the hoarding of capital, and the precariousness of investment had disturbed the flow of money. Thousands of estates had fallen into ruin. 100,000 men had been drawn from production into war. Peasants beyond number had been driven by the competition of foreign grain or latifundia slaves to join the proletariat in the towns and listen hungrily to promising demagogues.

"The surviving aristocracy, unmelted by Caesar's clemency, plotted against him in their clubs and palaces. He appealed to them in the Senate to recognize the necessity of dictatorship, and to co-operate with him in a healing reconstruction.

"They scorned the advances of the usurper, denounced the presence of Cleopatra as his guest in Rome, and whispered that he was planning to make himself king and move the seat of the Empire to Alexandria or Ilium."

A dictatorship voted in by the Senate. Bonuses given to the military. Caesar leaves to defeat a "foreign" nation. Agriculture in disorder. Industrial workers apparently out of work. Finance unstable. Investment unsure. People hoarding their money. Men pulled out of jobs into the military and into war zones. Poor people moving from the rural areas into cities and looking for subsistence. Caesar claiming that he needs total power to solve the situation.

Your comments, please?

Robby

kiwi lady
January 1, 2004 - 04:04 pm
Monarchism went to the wall in the French Revolution - the poor had had enough. They were enraged at the excesses of the King and the Aristocrats while they could not often even afford to buy bread the food of life to them. The obscene salaries of the CEOs of various Corporations compared to those on the factory floor and often the poor returns to shareholders are causing a lot of fuss in many nations. I know we now have a very vociferous shareholders association who have just managed to topple another Chairman and do a big shake up. One for the people! Nobody in any developed nation can live on the minimum wage any more. Even in my lifetime I can remember a time when mothers did not have to work. We could afford good food even on one wage. There is much more I could say.

I do not consider rebellion for a good cause as terrorism. I do not advocate violence but too often these days Govts set the troops on even peaceful protests. I have seen it here in NZ when the last far right Govt had power. It was the most dreadful sight I have ever seen. I wept for my country. The protest was over a draconian labour law which effectively broke unions and put wages for the working man back to a level of a decade before. We have still not recovered from the effects of this law even though our present Govt had it repealed immediately they took office.

Malryn (Mal)
January 1, 2004 - 04:16 pm
Wasn't New Zealand affected by the Great Depression, CAROLYN? Men and women both had to work then in the U.S. to keep a roof over their heads . . . if they could find jobs.

I'm tired of hearing only negative talk about corporations. My former husband worked for a very large one for more than twenty years. That corporation was very good to us and all of its employees right down from the top to maintenance people who cleaned the bathrooms and the floors, as well as to its shareholders. It still is.

Just in passing I'll say that when my daughter was married her and her husband's computer-teaching business was incorporated, thus a three person corporation. Sometimes I wonder if people really know what corporations are.

Mal

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 1, 2004 - 06:08 pm
Carolyn, I also see it as you do. The Have countries don't see, or want to see, the gap widening between them and the Have nots. When they see their life style threatened, the aristocrats pretend that they don't understand why they are targeted because, according to them, they are not doing anything wrong.

The gap between them was also very wide in Roman's time. It was time to make a clean slate and start new.

No Robby, we don't see the writing on the wall before a whole civilization crumbles. I guess that it is better that way.

Éloïse

gaj
January 1, 2004 - 06:21 pm
But is the slate really clean? Don't the new governments repeat the mistakes of the past? All that often changes is the individuals that are the "haves."

kiwi lady
January 1, 2004 - 06:27 pm
Mal your husband was an executive there is a difference!

Justin
January 1, 2004 - 06:29 pm
I think of time as a continuum. Now is a conscious point in the continuum. I know that events occurred prior to now and that there will be events occurring beyond the point called now. It is only when one asks, "how long ago" that measurement becomes necessary. The measurement of time is arbitrary. We chose to relate units of time to the movement of the earth in relation to other elements in our planetary system. We probably, initially, recognized two points in the continuum-night and day. Again, however, it is only when one wishes to know at what point in the daylight an event occurred that a measurement system became necessary. The system is arbitrary. A division of the time equal to two units (night and day)into moments is currently used but alternates are possible.

robert b. iadeluca
January 1, 2004 - 06:43 pm
"Caesar alone, although prematurely old at fifty-five, set himself with Roman energy to remake the Roman state. He knew that his victories would be meaningless if he could not build something better than the wreckage that he had cleared away. When, in 44, his dictatorship for ten years was extended for life, he did not much exaggerate the difference, although he could hardly foresee that in five months he would be dead.

"The Senate heaped adulation and titles upon him, perhaps to make him odious to a people that hated the very name of king. It let him wear the laurel wreath, with which he hid his baldness, and carry even in peace the imperator's powers. Through these he controlled the Treasury, and as pontifix maximus, the priesthoods. As consul he could propose and execute laws. As tribune his person was inviolable. As censor he cold make or unmake senators. The assemblies kept the right to vote on proposed measures, but Caesar's lieutenants, Dolabella and Antony, managed the assemblies, which in general favored his policies.

"Like other dictators he sought to base his power upon popularity with the people."

So with all the titles he had and all the laws written on his behalf, inevitably his power lay in the belief the people had in him.

In the final analysis, do the people really have the power as has been often said throughout history? What weapon does the populace wield?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
January 1, 2004 - 08:14 pm
Not always, CAROLYN. My former husband started with that corporation as a junior laboratory assistant at $2.85 an hour. The benefits offered were the same as if he'd been making what he did as an executive.



To answer ROBBY's question: The people have enormous power. All they have to do is mass together and use it. There's strength in numbers.

Mal

Justin
January 1, 2004 - 09:11 pm
The people are always a central source of power. Whether they exercise power or not depends on their ability to organize and to contest competitive alternatives. Dictatorships like Caesar's are successful, usually for a limited time only. Hitler and Saddam are examples of men in the modern world who held a dictatorship. They survived because the people were unable or unwilling to organize an effective opposition. Caesar fell to a conspiracy of 60 or so. The assembly (the people) was apathetic toward Caesar's power. Hitler and Saddam fell not to the power of the people but to the tendency of dictatorships to extend their reach to neighbors.

Justin
January 1, 2004 - 09:35 pm
Terrorism, as I understand the term, is a device used to frighten the people of a country to induce them to exercise their sovereign power to convince their leaders to act in a desired manner. Terrorism is a tactic of warfare. It is a weapon that may be applied to achieve a desired end. Indians on the American frontier applied the device to prevent settlement by the palefaces. Palestinians apply the device to achieve desired ends in Israel. The 9/11 attack had as a purpose the end of US support of Israel.

Justin
January 1, 2004 - 09:53 pm
Can one recognize the fall of a government in advance of it's actual demise? Absolutely, yes. Specify the characteristics of a government. Then, as the characteristics erode one can recognize their disappearance and predict an outcome. We are watching the Roman republic disappear into a dictatorship, are we not?

kiwi lady
January 2, 2004 - 03:04 am
Yes Justin, sadly I believe we are.

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca
January 2, 2004 - 04:23 am
"Caesar subordinated the Senate almost to the role of an advisory council. He enlarged it from 600 to 900 members and permanently transformed it with 400 new appointees. Many of these were Roman business men. Many were leading citizens of Italian or provincial cities. Some had been centurions, soldiers, or sons of slaves.

"The patricians were alarmed to see the chieftains of conquered Gaul enter the Senate and join the rulers of the Empire. Even the wags of the capital resented this and circulated a satiric couplet:-

"Gallos Caesar in triumphum ducit, idem in curiam;
Galli braccas deposuerunt, latum clavum sumpserunt --

"Caesar leads Gauls in his triumph, then into the Senate;
The Gauls have removed their breeches, and put on the broad-rimmed toga" of the senators.

"Perhaps Caesar purposely made the new Senate too combersome a body for effective deliberation or unified opposition. He chose a group of friends -- Balbus, Oppius, Matius, and others -- as an informal executive cabinet, and inaugurated the bureaucracy of the Empire by delegating the clerical details of his government, and the minutiae of administration, to his household of freedmen and slaves.

"He allowed the Assembly to elect half the city magistrates. He chose the rest by 'recommendations' which the Assembly regularly approved. As tribune he could veto the decisions of other tribunes or consuls.

"He increased the praetors to sixteen, and the quaestors to forty, to expedite municipal and judicial business. He kept a personal eye on every aspect of the city's affairs, and tolerated no incompetence or waste. In the city charters that he granted he placed severe injunctions and penalties against electoral corruption and official malfeasance.

"To end the domination of politics by organized vote buying, and perhaps to secure his power against proletarian revolt, he abolished the collegia, except some of ancient origin and the essentially religious associations of the Jews.

"He restricted jury service to the two upper classes and reserved for himself the right to try the most vital cases. Frequently he sat as judge and none could deny the wisdom and impartiality of his decisions.

"He proposed to the jurists of his time an orderly codification of existing Roman law, but his early death frustrated the plan."

If I am understanding this correctly, decisions were made on behalf of the people, but Caesar was the one making the decisions. In other words -- a government of the people and for the people but not by the people. But considering the condition he found Rome upon his return, was that necessarily bad? What else could he have done?

Any comments regarding the attitude of "Romans" toward allowing immigrants to be part of their legislature? Any similaries (or differences) to present-day attitudes?

Unless I have missed something, this is the first time that Durant has mentioned the Jews as part of the Roman empire.

Robby

Scrawler
January 2, 2004 - 01:32 pm
Galoshes:

In the 1820s footwear of naphtha-treated rubber acquired the name "galoshes," a term already in use for high boots. The word derived from the Roman expression for the heavy thonged sandals of the Gauls. The shoes, which tied with crisscrossed wrappings that reached to mid-calf, were called gallica solea, which translated as "Gaulish shoes," or, eventually, "galoshes".

So I would say the past still lives in the present and perhaps in the future since we in the present tend to name the things we use after similar items from the past.

Time:

The shawdow by my finger cast

Divides the future from the past:

Before it, sleeps the unborn hour,

In darkness, and beyond the power:

Behind its unreturning line,

The vanished hour, no longer thine:

One hour alone is in thy hands,

The now on which the shadow stands. - "The Sun Dial at Wells College" by Henry Van Dyke, 1904

The idea of time as the fourth dimension entered the popular mind around 1894-1895, with the first of H.G. Wells's so-called scientific romances, "The Time Machine."

Modern physics does indeed think of time as the fourth dimension, but for many powerful thinkers, from ancient times right up to our times, it hasn't been entirely clear just what time is, or even if it is real. The mystery of time was well-captured by R.H. Hutton, the literay editor of the "Spectator," in his 1895 review of Wells's "The Time Machine": "The story is based on that rather favorite speculation of modern metaphysicians which supposes "time" to be at once the most important of the conditions of organic evolution, and the most misleading of subjective illusions...and yet Time is so purely subjective a mode of thought, that a man of searching intellect is supposed to be able to devise the means of traveling in time as well as in space, and visiting, so as to be contempary with, any age of the world or future, so as to become as it were a true 'pilgrim of eternity'.

Plato (circa 400 BC) thought of time as having a beginning, but his conception of time did not extend into the indefinite future (which is the modern view). Rather, he visualied it curving back on itself; that is, as circular time. This was a resonable reflection of nature, with the seemingly endless repetitions of the seasons, the unvarying alternation of night and day, and the rotation of the planets in the sky. Whatever might be observed today would, it seemed obvious, happen again in the future. This view of time has a powerful, ancient visual symbol: The Worm Ouroborous or World Snake that eats its own tail endlessly.

However unpleasant our age may appear to the future, surely one would expect scholars and students to visit us, if such a thing were possible at all. Though they might try to disguise themselves, accidents would be bound to happen - just as they would if we went back to imperial Rome with cameras and tape recorders concealed under our nylon togas. - "Time the Fourth Dimension" "Time Travel" Paul J. Nahin.

The explanation of "time" is up to each individual. To me "Time" is a precious commodity and I'd like to perserve it as long as I can.

Justin
January 2, 2004 - 03:04 pm
On page 41 there is a reference to the Jews. It begins, "The Carthaginians were Semites, akin in blood and features to the ancient Jews. Their language now and then struck a Hebraic note."

Justin
January 2, 2004 - 03:46 pm
One of the qualifications for the Roman Senate was membership in the Patrician class. When Caesar abrogated that requirement and added an additional 400 Senate seats to the 500 already authorized, he changed the power of the Senate to act as a body, and thereby reduced the body to a tool of the Dictator. The Republic is gone. It is no more. The citizens are ineffective and without the ability to act in any formal way. One man now controls all the offices of government. Caesar had not the patience to abide the circuitous resolutions of a democracy. Five hundred years of democratic government is coming to an end at this point in time.

The decline of the Roman Republic occurred over time not just in 30 BCE when Octavian became Emperor. Durant may yet tell us when he thinks the decline began. My guess, is that it began with the practice of bribery in the Assembly. That means it preceded Sulla. The tools of a democratic government were ineffective during Sulla's reign. Now during Caesar's reign we see him actually disassembling the tools one by one. The offices of Tribune, Consul, Censor, and Chief Priest, were entrusted to one man. The Senate is expanded to make agreement difficult. The Collegia is disallowed.

Justin
January 2, 2004 - 03:58 pm
Contemporary Americans have little qualm making immigrants part of our legislatures. The only office restricted to native born American's is the office of President. California has just elected and Austrian immigrant to the Governorship. He came in with two sound bites, money, and a lot of nerve. That should give you some idea of how accepting we are out here in La La Land about our immigrants.

robert b. iadeluca
January 2, 2004 - 06:32 pm
"Caesar distributed lands to his veterans and the poor. This policy, continued by Augustus, for many years pacified the agrarian agitation. To forestall the rapid reconcentration of landownership he ruled that the new lands could not be sold within twenty years. To check rural slavery he passed a measure requiring that a third of the laborers on ranches shold be freemen.

"Having turned many idle proletaires into soldiers and then into peasant proprietors, he further diminished their ranks by sending 80,000 citizens as colonists to Carthage, Corinth, Seville, Arles, and other centers.

"To provide work for the remaining unemployed in Rome he spent 160,000,000 sesterces in a great building program. He had a new and more spacious meeting place for the assemblies set up in the field of Mars, and relieved the congestion of business in the forum by adding, near it, a Forum Inlium.

"He embellished likewise many cities in Italy, Spain, Gaul, and Greece. Having so eased the pressure of poverty, he required a means test for eligibility to the state dole of grain.

"At once the number of applicants fell from 320,000 to 150,000."

Forum Inlium? Sounds like an indoor mall to me. Distributed lands to the veterans? Sounds like the GI Bill to me. New lands could not be sold within twenty years? Sounds like the American colonial land grants to me. Sent citizens to various centers? Sounds like the American "Go West" movement. Embellished many cities? Sounds to me like the Works Progress Administration. Means test for eligibility to dole of grain? Reminds me of the "welfare program."

Do you folks believe that Julius Caesar was good for Rome?

Robby

Justin
January 2, 2004 - 07:23 pm
Yes, I do believe Caesar was good for Rome. It is unfortunate that he was asassinated early in his career. Benevolent dictators can be very useful in revitalizing a community very quickly. Caesar was smart enough to know what was needed and applied his powers wisely.

Malryn (Mal)
January 2, 2004 - 09:14 pm
Yes, Caesar was good for Rome. Was Franklin Roosevelt a dictator? There are some who think so.

Mal

Justin
January 2, 2004 - 09:47 pm
The principle of "separation of powers" got FDR under control. He fought hard to stack the Court but failed. Stopping the current seat warmer may not be so easy.

robert b. iadeluca
January 3, 2004 - 06:20 am
"So far Caesar had remained true to his role as a champion of the Populares. But since the Roman revolution was more agrarian than industrial, and was aimed chiefly at the landed slave-driving aristocracy, then at the money-lenders, and only mildly at the business classes, Caesar continued the Gracchan policy of inviting businessmen to support the agrarian and fiscal revolution.

"Cicero sought to unite the middle classes with the aristocracy. Caesar sought to unite them with the plebs. Many of the great capitalists, from Crassus to Balbus, helped to finance him, as similar men helped the American and French Revolutions. Nevertheless, Caesar ended one of the richest sources of financial profiteering -- the collection of provincial taxes through corporations of publicans.

"He scaled down debts, enacted severe laws against excessive interest rates, and relieved extreme cases of insolvency by establishing the law of bankruptcy essentially as it stands today.

"He restored the stability of the currency by basing it upon gold and issuing a golden aureus, equivalent in purchasing power to the British pound sterling in the nineteenth century. The coins of his government were stamped with his own features and were designed with an artistry new to Rome.

"A novel order and competence entered the administration of the empire's finances, with the result that when Caesar died the Treasury contained 700,000,000 sesterces, and his private treasury 100,000,000."

Interesting, to me at least, how people with money often use their funds to fight people with money.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
January 3, 2004 - 06:46 am
Royal Imperiatorial Coinage of Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar and coins

Julius Caesar Denarius

Scrawler
January 3, 2004 - 11:15 am
Marx and Engels Correspondence:

Marx to Engels: January 2, 1863

"The Times and Co." are utterly furious over the workers' meetings in Manchester, Sheffield and London. It is very good that the eyes of the Yankees are opened in this way. For the rest, Opdyke (Mayor of New York and political economist) has already said at a meeting in New York: "We know that the English working class are with us, and that the governing classes of England are against us."

I greatly regret that Germany does not hold similar demonstrations. They cost nothing and "internationally" bring in large returns. Germany would have all the more warrant for these, as in this war she has done more for the Yankees than France in the eighteenth century. It is the old German stupidity of not making herself felt in the world theater and stressing what she actually accomplishes." - "The Civil War in the United States" Karl Marx and Frederick Engles

"Do the people really have the power? The answer would be yes. The example above demonstrates that. The key words that Marx explains is "They (demonstrations) cost nothing and "internationally" bring in large returns.

The problem that I can see is that because in America we are so vast with so many individual requests that unless we find a "common" cause that touches ALL Americans we can do little to wield our greatest weapon - our strength in numbers.

"But considering the condition he found Rome upon his return, was that necessarily bad? What else could he have done?"

We came close to a dictatorship in America when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.

"The president lay in bed for another hour and a half while several members of the cabinet held a meeting called by Stanton moments after Lincoln's death. He ordered that the door to the room where Lincoln's body lay be locked and a guard posted to make sure no one entered without his express permission. The WAR SECRETARY WAS IN CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT. It is not known what was discussed during this special meeting, but whatever it was it required an hour of critical time." - "Blood on the Moon" Edward Steers Jr.

Like Caesar I think Stanton found that he needed to take charge of the situation. In times of crisis we look for someone to take control. But once they have control and the crisis will they return control?

robert b. iadeluca
January 3, 2004 - 01:18 pm
"As a scientific basis for taxation and administration, Caesar had a census taken of Italy, and planned a like census of the Empire. To replenish a citizenry decimated by war, he granted the Roman franchise widely -- among others, to physicians and teachers in Rome.

"Long disturbed by the fall in the birth rate, he had in 59 given precedence in land allotments to fathers of three children. Now he promulgated rewards for large families and forbade childless women under forty-five to ride in litters or wear jewelry -- the weakest and most futile part of his varied legislation.

"Still an agnostic, although not quite free from superstitions, Caesar remained high priest of the state religion and provided it with the usual funds. He restored old temples and built new ones, honoring above all his alma mater Venus.

"But he allowed full liberty of conscience and worship, withdrew old prohibitions against the Isis cult, and protected the Jews in the exercise of their faith.

"Noting that the calendar of the priests had lost all concord with the seasons, he commissioned the Alexandrian Greek Sosigenes to devise, on Egyptian models, the 'Julian calendar.' Hence forth the year was to consist of 365 days, with an added day in every fourth February. Cicero complained that Caesar, not content with ruling the earth, was now regulating the stars. But the Senate accepted the reform graciously and gave the dictator's family name, Julius, to the Quinctilis -- which had been fifth when March opened the year."

Dictator notwithstanding -- now this was a MAN! A forward looking administrator aside from his military abilities. Seeing the importance of the census. (I assume this was the census which existed at the time of the birth of Jesus -- but Durant will take us to that later). Rewards for large families. Didn't France do that in the 20th Century? Wise enough to make the priests and the people of all beliefs happy although he had his doubts. Wise enough to look for advice from astronomers (not astrologers) and other scientists.

I had no idea that in this 21st century we count 365 1/4 days per year because of the dictate of this Roman Emperor. That shows how much of a historian I am!!

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 3, 2004 - 01:31 pm
Click HERE to learn about the various religions or beliefs that existed within the Roman Empire. I ask that we not get into comments about Christianity until Durant takes us there.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 3, 2004 - 01:40 pm
Ancient Rome reminds me very much of New York City. If you don't know where to find a particular religion or kind of church, a particular ethnic group, a particular language, a particular color of skin, a particular kind of trade or profession, etc. etc., just go there and you'll find it somwhere in its environs.

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 3, 2004 - 01:58 pm
In Democracy in America Tocqueville mentions that in America Equality is at a maximum (written around 1835) it is hard for Americans to polarize themselves because of their intelligence and their wealth. He says: "When the citizens are all about equal, it becomes difficult to defend their independence against the aggressions of power. None being strong enough to fight alone with an advantage, only a combined force of all can guarantee liberty. Therefore such a combination of force can seldom me found."

When life has become unbearable and there is nothing to lose, the people want to use their combined power to fight against injustice. In America right now that is not the case.

The few people who have studied history and know the warning signs cannot band together to fight against a powerful machine like a government. Who wants to become an activist when your belly is full and you are warm and cozy?

During the time of Karl Marx, there was great distress in the world and the governing classes abused their power, the time was ripe for a revolution. But with economic success, I don't see a revolution brewing in the Western World, a revolution would have to come from outside of it and again they would have to combine their forces to win against the powerful forces of the West. There is strength in numbers no matter how poor they are.

Eloïse

robert b. iadeluca
January 3, 2004 - 02:12 pm
Speaking of "warm bellies" and being "warm and cozy" and plebs and aristocrats and revolutions and class war and activism, here are some FACTS AND FIGURES about poverty in America.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
January 3, 2004 - 04:11 pm
Here are later figures about poverty in the United States:
"In 2000, 31 million people were poor (11.3 percent of the population). In 2001 the number of poor and the poverty rate both rose as economic difficulties moved into recession; in 2002, 34.6 million people (12.1 percent of the population) were poor by the official measure of poverty."

Source:

Who was poor in 2002 ?

Poverty among individuals, 2002

Justin
January 3, 2004 - 04:55 pm
Anne: Steers in Blood on the Moon is full of bull. The President died at 7:20 and by 9:30 the same day Johnson was sworn in as President. Around midnight Lincoln was moved to the Peterson Lodging House across the street from Ford theatre. Johnson came over under a protective military escort. Stanton and a few Cabinet officers were in an ante room. Stanton acted as intermediary with the family and the doctors. He was at no time in CONTROL of the government or even close to it. I don't deny there were some in the Lincoln Cabinet who felt uncertain about Johnson because he was a Democrat and a Southerner, but when he took over he followed the Lincoln policies completely.

Justin
January 3, 2004 - 06:43 pm
The fat US govt. surplus that Siddiqi says we had in 1999 was due to policies of the prior administration. The incumbent dispensed with those policies, ate up the surplus and put us in the hole for many years to come. Sorry guys, the money is gone. Spent on firearms to attack unruly Muslims.

robert b. iadeluca
January 3, 2004 - 07:03 pm
I am confused as to what all this has to do with Julius Caesar.

Robby

Justin
January 3, 2004 - 08:50 pm
It has something to do with a posting by Scrawler. It's just a slight deviation.

Justin
January 3, 2004 - 09:01 pm
This question about the census is worth exploring. Mary, Joseph, and the Child went home to be counted. If the birth was in Herod's time period that would make it before 4 BCE when Herod died. The timing is ok for a census started by Caesar in 44 BCE,if the Romans did one every ten years as we do.

Justin
January 3, 2004 - 09:13 pm
I think the Roman census had more to do with tax collection than with representation. Business organizations formed to collect taxes. I think they paid the total tax in advance and then collected the tax for their own coffers. It meant buying the rights to taxes in a specific geographic area for a fee paid in advance. A census would let Caesar know how much tax should be collected in total and the magnitude of the collector's share.

Justin
January 3, 2004 - 11:34 pm
In the last three weeks I have read about Caesar in Durant, Suetonius, Plutarch, Caesar in Gaul and the Civil War, and parts of Cicero. They all tell the same story. There are no contradictions that I can see. Caesar's reports are favorable to him and sometimes seem a little exaggerated but no one says he did not do what he said he did. I think that's amazing. No modern politician has been so reported.

robert b. iadeluca
January 4, 2004 - 05:35 am
"As impressive as these things done are the works begun or planned by Caesar but postponed by his assassination.

"He laid the foundations of a great theater, and of a temple to Mars proportioned to that god's voracity.

"He appointed Varro to head an organization for the establishment of public libraries.

"He designed to free Rome from malaria by draining Lake Facinus and the Pontine marshes, and reclaiming these acres for tillage.

"He proposed to raise dykes to control the Tiber's floods. By diverting the course of that stream he hoped to improve the harbor at Ostia, periodically ruined by the river's silt.

"He instructed his engineers to prepare plans for building a road across central Italy and for cutting a canal at Corinth.

"The most resented of his undertakings was to make the freemen of Italy equal citizens with those of Rome, and the provinces ultimately equal with Italy. In 49 he had enfranchised Cisalpine Gaul. Now (44) he drew up a municipal charter, apparently for all the cities of Italy, equalizing their rights with Rome's. Probably he was planning some representative government by which they would have had a democratic share in his constitutional monarchy.

"He took the appointment of provincial governors out of the hands of the corrupt Senate and himself named to these posts men of proved ability, who remained at every moment subject to recall at his will.

"He reduced provincial taxes by a third, and entrusted their collection to special officials responsible to himself.

"He overrode ancient curses to restore Capua, Carthage, and Corinth -- completing again the work of the Gracchi.

"To the colonists whom he sent to found or people a score of cities from Gibralter to the Black Sea, he gave Roman or Latin rights, and evidently hoped to extend Roman citizenship to all free adult males in the empire. The Senate was then to represent not a class in Rome, but the mind and will of every province.

"This conception of government, and Caesar's reorganization of Rome and Italy, completed the miracle whereby the youthful spendthrift and roisterer had become one of the ablest, bravest, fairest, and most enlightened men in all the sorry annals of politics."

"Some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them."

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
January 4, 2004 - 06:51 am
I guess once in a while there comes along a leader who is benevolent and just. Caesar was one. I had forgotten all the things he did for Rome. Not since Tiberius Gracchus had Rome known such a leader. His wife, Cornelia, was a woman held in great esteem. On the death of Tiberius, one of the Ptolemy kings wanted to marry her. She refused, preferring to raise her children and continue the work her husband, Tiberius, had started.

After the turmoil Rome had been through, it seems like a blessing that there was such a dictator as Julius Caesar. I can see why he had enemies, though. Benevolence and justice don't seem to sit too well with many people who have political ambitions. Is this a statement about human nature which has come down through history? I wonder.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca
January 4, 2004 - 06:51 am
A quick glance of the position of Corinth on this MAP shows us why Caesar instructed his engineers to prepare plans for cutting a canal at that location.

Scroll to the bottom and wait for the download.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
January 4, 2004 - 06:56 am
Picture: Corinth Canal

robert b. iadeluca
January 4, 2004 - 07:05 am
Here are a few more PHOTOS of the Corinth Canal. Click onto the photos to enlarge and to get the full impact of the scope of the engineering needed.

And this canal was completed in 1892, a full two thousand years after Julius Caesar proposed it.

Robby

Scrawler
January 4, 2004 - 01:45 pm
Dictartorship:

According to the traditional Republican constitution, this office was only to be held for six months during a dire emgergency. That rule, however, had been broken before. Sulla had ruled as a dictator for several years, and Caesar now followed suit. He was also made consul for ten years in 45 BC and received the sanctity of tribunes, making it illegal to harm him. Caesar also obtained honors to increase his prestige: He wore the robe, crown, and scepter of a triumphant general and used the title "imperator". And as Pontifex Maximux, he was head of the state religion. Above all he was in total command of the armies, and this remained the backbone of his power.

As a ruler Caesar instituted various reforms. In the provinces he eliminted the highly corrupt system, sponsored colonies of veterans, and extended Roman citizenship. At home he reconstituted the courts and increased the number of senators. His reform of the calendar gave Rome a rational means of recording time.

A number of senatorial families felt that Caesar threatened their position, and his honors and powers made them fear that he would become a rex (king), a title they, as Republicans, hated.

Yes, I do believe that Caesar on a whole was good for Rome. It is unfortunate that he was assassinated just five months into his office. I often wondered if Caesar knew of the plots that were against him. Did he have premonitions of his death? Didn't his wife tell Caesar that she had a dream about his death and warned him about going to the senate that fateful day?

I also agree with Justin in that I think it will be difficult to stop the present "seat warmer". If only the courts and legislative bodies would do the job they were sent to do then we wouldn't have to worry because the separation of powers will insure balance!

gaj
January 4, 2004 - 01:52 pm
I totally agree with your statement: "I also agree with Justin in that I think it will be difficult to stop the present "seat warmer". If only the courts and legislative bodies would do the job they were sent to do then we wouldn't have to worry because the separation of powers will insure balance!"

robert b. iadeluca
January 4, 2004 - 02:22 pm
"Like Alexander, Caesar did not know where to stop. Contemplating his re-ordered realm, he resented its exposure to attack at the Euphrates, the Danube, and the Rhine. He dreamed of a great expedition to capture Parthia and avenge his old pocketbook Crassus -- of a march around the Black Sea and the pacification of Scythia -- of the exploration of the Danube and the conqust of Germany.

"Then, having made the Empire secure, he would return to Rome laden with honor and spoils -- rich enough to end economic depression -- powerful enough to ignore all opposition -- free at last to name his successor -- and to die with the pax Romana as his supreme legacy to the world.

"When news of this plan trickled through Rome, the common people, who love glory, applauded. The business classes, smelling war orders and provincial loot licked their chops.

"The aristocracy, foreseeing its extinction on Caesar's return, resolved to kill him before he could go."

The common people saw upcoming glory. The business men saw upcoming money. The aristocrats saw the upcoming death of their power.

In a situation like this, which group wields the greatest power?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 4, 2004 - 02:32 pm
Here are some definitions of PATRICIANS -- that class of people in Rome who began to run scared when they heard of Caesar's plans.

Robby

Justin
January 4, 2004 - 02:44 pm
The man with the knife, the will to use it, and access. In Rome, the senators satisfied these requirements.

Justin
January 4, 2004 - 03:00 pm
I have often wondered about the motivation of the conspirators. That isn't brought out too clearly in the literature. But Durant makes it hard to miss. Provincial representation in the senate would end patrician dominance of that body. Fear of patrician displacement is strong enough to drive Cassius, and Brutus to the defense of class against a true friend and ruler.

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 4, 2004 - 03:00 pm
As the common people are always those who need to have everybody at the same level, they will do what is necessary to bring the mighty down from their pedestal. They don't need money or titles, all they need is numbers.

Eloïse

robert b. iadeluca
January 4, 2004 - 03:00 pm
Justin:--I guess a pleb or a businessman could have a knife and the will to use it. The aristocrat, however, has the access. Apparently, danger is more likely to be close at hand.

Based upon what Eloise says, the plebs need numbers of people, with the patricians, just one can do it.

Robby

georgehd
January 4, 2004 - 03:15 pm
It would seem that no matter what kind of leadership or what kind of government, there comes a time when some people will see their personal desires and fortunes at risk. These people will seek to overturn the government either legally or illegally. Selfishness seems to be a part of the fabric of human life. We do not tend to do things for the 'greater good' of all the people. This kind of idea is not taught in most schools. Winning is everything.

robert b. iadeluca
January 4, 2004 - 03:35 pm
"Caesar had treated these bluebloods with such generosity as to stir Cicero's eloquence in his praise.

"He had forgiven all surrendering foes and had condemned to death only a few officers who, defeated and pardoned, had fought against him again.

"He had burned unread the correspondence he had found in the tents of Pompey and Scipio.

"He had sent the captured daughter and grandchildren of Pompey to Pompey's son Sextus, who was still in arms against him.

"He had restored the statues of Pompey which his followers had thrown down.

"He had given provincial governorships to Brutus and Cassius, and high office to many others of their class.

"He bore silently a thousand slanders, and instituted no proceedings against those whom he suspected of plotting against his life.

"To Cicero, who had trimmed his wind to every sail, he offered not only pardon but honor, and refused nothing that the orator asked for himself or his Pompeian friends. He even forgave at Cicero's urging, the unrepentant Marcus Marcellus.

"In a pretty speech For Marcellus (46) Cicero acclaimed Caesar's 'unbelievable liberality,' and admitted that Pompey, victorious, would have been more vengeful.' Said Cicero:-'I have heard with regret your celebrated and highly philosophical remark, Iam satis vixi, 'I have lived enough, whether for nature or for fame.' Put aside, I beg you, that wisdom of the sage. Do not be wise at the cost of our peril. You are still far from the completion of your greatest labors. You have not yet laid their foundations.' Cicero solemnly promised Caesar, in the name of all the Senate, that they would watch over his safety and oppose with their own bodies any attack upon him.

"Cicero now prospered so well that he planned to buy still aother palace -- no less than that of Sulla himself. He enjoyed the dinners to which he was invited by Antony, Balbus, and others of Caesar's aides. Never before had his letters been so gay. Caesar was not deceived. He wrote to Matius;- 'If anyone is gracious, it is Cicero. But I doubt not that he hates me bitterly.'

"When reassured Pompeians resumed their opposition, this unctuous Talleyrand of the pen fell in with their hopes and wrote a culogy of the younger Cato that should have put Caesar on his guard. Caesar contented himself with writing a reply, the Anti-Cato, which did not show the dictator at his best. In this duel he had given Cicero the choice of weapons, and the orator had won.

"Public opinion praised Cicero's style, and the mildness of a ruler who composed a pamphlet when he might have signed a death warrant."

Is there such a thing as hating someone because he is "too good?"

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 4, 2004 - 03:46 pm
"Men who have been deprived of wonted power cannot be mollified by pardoning their resistance. It is as difficult to forgive forgiveness as it is to forgive those whom we have injured."

- - - Will Durant

Justin
January 4, 2004 - 04:36 pm
Hate as a response to excessive goodness is too psychological for me. What do the behaviorists say?

robert b. iadeluca
January 4, 2004 - 05:07 pm
I am thinking not so much of results of psychological experiments as anecdotal experiences where people find themselves becomng annoyed at others who always complete their assignments, always get good marks, are always generous and kindly, etc. -- ad nauseum (to use a Latin phrase). Has anyone ever thought or said: "I hate that goodie-goodie!"

Robby

Justin
January 4, 2004 - 06:37 pm
Envy, perhaps. Usually one admires a person who always appears to do the desired thing. They are generally thought to be reliable, with all the Boy Scout virtues. However, James Bond is a bore because he never screws-up. When he has been snared it is while doing the right thing, the well dressed thing. He is so handsome, so capable, and so confident, he is a bore. The guy is too much a good thing. Were it not for the ladies, I would not pay attention to his films. This is a lower grade response than hate but perhaps it is on the trail.

Bubble
January 5, 2004 - 04:34 am
We like people to be human and have failings too. Not the ever goodi-goodie. They do not seem natural!

I sailed through Corynth canal once in the LoveBoat. It seemed that if we extended an arm we could touch those wondrous sides. If there was the tiniest mistake in steering we would have scraped the paint for sure.

robert b. iadeluca
January 5, 2004 - 04:57 am
"The aristocrats fretted in a Senate that dared not reject the proposals that Caesar so constitutionally submitted to them. They patriotically denounced the destruction of a liberty that had fattened their purses, and would not admit that the restoration of order required the limitation of their freedom.

"They looked with horror upon the presence of Cleopatra and Caesarion in Rome. It was true that Caesar was living with his wife Calpurnia apparently in mutual affection. But who could say -- who would not say -- what happened on his frequent visits to the gorgeous queen? Rumors persisted that he would make himself king, marry her, and place the capital of their united empires in the East.

"Had he not ordered his statue to be erected on the Capitol next to those of Rome's ancient kings? Had he not stamped his own image upon Roman coins -- an unprecedented insolence? Did he not wear robes of purple, usually reserved for kings?

"At the Lupercalia, on February 15, the consul Antony,sacerdotally naked, and impiously drunk, tried thrice to place a royal crown upon Caesar's head. Thrice Caesar refused, but was it not because the crowd murmured disapproval? Did he not dismiss from office the tribunes who removed from his statue the royal diadem placed upon it by his friends?

"When the Senate approached him as he sat in the Temple of Venus, he did not rise to receive them. Some explained tht he had been overcome by an epileptic stroke. Others, that he was suffering from diarrhea and had remained seated to avoid a movement of his bowels at so unpropitious a moment.

"But many patricians feared that any day might see him proclaimed a king."

Do you folks believe he should have been stopped? Or was he that good for Rome that he should have been allowed to continue in his behavior?

Robby

Bubble
January 5, 2004 - 05:05 am
Too much power can never be good...

robert b. iadeluca
January 5, 2004 - 05:08 am
But what if the power is for the good of the people?

Robby

Bubble
January 5, 2004 - 05:11 am
Even then. If there is no control, it leads to excesses. The same good can be done without total power... especially when you are that near to the top.

robert b. iadeluca
January 5, 2004 - 05:53 am
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

- - - Lord Acton

Malryn (Mal)
January 5, 2004 - 07:41 am
"They patriotically denounced the destruction of a liberty that had fattened their purses."

Did Caesar really misuse his power? His relationship with Cleopatra did not affect the way he governed, did it? What difference did it make if he had his image put on coins? Did that act have a negative effect on Rome? It seems to me that Caesar's enemies were looking for and making up excuses to get rid of him. They appear to have been selfishly motivated, jealous and envious, and looking for ways to get their feet in his sandals.

Mal

georgehd
January 5, 2004 - 07:53 am
I have long felt that the best form of government was 'the benevalent dictator'; of course I envisioned myself as the dictator.

Malryn (Mal)
January 5, 2004 - 08:05 am
Having met you, GEORGE, what you've said makes me smile. Where would you dictate, 0h Emperor George?

Mal

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 5, 2004 - 08:35 am
George and Mal. You make me laugh, I love it. Perhaps Caymen Islands?

Benevolent Doctator? sounds like a contradiction in terms. Please tell me if there has ever been one because I can't think of any who was benevolent throughout his dictatorship?

Eloïse

georgehd
January 5, 2004 - 09:28 am
ELOISE, What is a Doctator? If it is a combination of Doctor and Dictator, I will have the best of all possible worlds. I will be able to cure myself and pay myself with taxes collected from my subjects. Vote for me in 2004!

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 5, 2004 - 10:14 am
George: ))) OK then, I will vote for you only if you run for President!!! Some typos are so cute.

robert b. iadeluca
January 5, 2004 - 01:39 pm
Are we permitted, considering the part of our heading which asks "Where Are We Headed", to digress just briefly toward the subject of MARS?

What would the Ancient Romans have thought?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 5, 2004 - 01:52 pm
Here are MORE FACTS AND FIGURES about Mars unknown to the Romans.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 5, 2004 - 02:45 pm
Those who have been with us since the Sumerians and Babylonians may be interested in THIS INFORMATION regarding the Ancients and the planet Mars.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 5, 2004 - 06:33 pm
And now, if you will forgive me, I will once again interrupt our move toward the impending assassination of Julius Caesar -- this time, not to concentrate on where Civilization is heading but the reverse. In this TIMELY ARTICLE in today's NY Times, we see where the rest of America is beginning to catch on to what the participants of this discussion group have known for a long time.

Robby

Justin
January 5, 2004 - 06:50 pm
The loss of 14,000 artifacts from the Bagdad museum is very unfortunate. I hope that when things settle down over there and they stop killing Americans, we will have time to launch a large scale, meaningful recovery program. Since we are responsible for not protecting the museum and its artifacts, I feel honor bound to encourage our government to pay for the recovery effort.

georgehd
January 5, 2004 - 07:02 pm
I am also an amateur astronomer and found the following site on Mars helpful in following today's exciting events.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html

Justin
January 5, 2004 - 07:08 pm
Caesar's death was as untimely as his birth. It could not be avoided because the Senate and the patricians were fighting for their political and economic lives. The patricians had been exclusive seat holders in the Senate for 500 years. Anyone who seriously threatened that right was doomed to anilhilation. Caesar gave evidence that he would extend Senate membership to representatives from other parts of the empire and from Italy generally. That act would end Patrician control of the Senate.

When it is said, " Caesar wishes to be King," one means that Caesar wishes to rule without the Senate. A Senate is a bothersome nuisance to a guy who is on a reform kick. He wants to get the job done. But Caesar as Dictator had the power to by-pass the Senate. There was nothing to stand in his way. Royal crowning was not necessary.

I think the conspiracy erred in judgement. They were all good civic minded Romans. If their intent had been to ensure the good of Rome, they failed. Caesar was on the side of Rome. He should have been allowed to continue. The Senate was playing PYA.

robert b. iadeluca
January 5, 2004 - 08:13 pm
Durant continues:--

"Shortly after the Lupercalia, Gaius Cassius, a sickly man -- 'pale and lean,' as Plutarch describes him -- approached Marcus Brutus and suggested the assassination of Caesar. He had already won to his plan several senators, some capitalists whose provincial pillage had fallen with Caesar's restriction of the publicans, even some of Caesar's generals, who felt that the spoils and offices awarded them had not quite equaled their deserts.

"Brutus was needed as the front of the conspiracy, for he had won a wide reputation as the most virtuous of men. He was supposedly descended from the Brutus who had expelled the kings 464 years before. His mother Servilia was Cato's half sister. His wife Portia was Cato's daughter and the widow of Caesar's enemy Bibulus. Says Appian:- 'It was thought that Brutus was Caesar's son, as Caesar was the lover of Servilia about the time of Brutus' birth. Plutarch adds that Caesar believed Brutus to be his son.

"Perhaps Brutus himself shared this opinion, and hated the dictator for having seduced his mother and made him, in the gossip of Rome, a bastard instead of a Brutus. He had always been moody and taciturn, as if brooding over a secret wrong. At the same time he carried himself proudly, as one who in any case bore noble blood in his veins.

"He was a master of Greek and a devotee of philosophy. In metaphysics a follower of Plato, in ethics, of Zeno. It was not lost upon him that Stocism, like Greek and Roman opinion, approved tyrannicide. He wrote to a friend:-'Our ancestors thought tht we ought not to endure a tyrant even if he were our own father.'

"Through intermediaries he lent money at forty-eight per cent to the citizens of Cyprian Salamis. When they balked at paying the accumulated interest he urged Cicero, then proconsul in Cilicia, to enforce the collection with Roman arms.

"He governed Cisalpine Gaul with integrity and competence and, returning to Rome, was made urban praetor by Caesar (45).

A "front" man was need for the assassination so the chosen one was someone who may not have been that virtuous inside but gave the appearance of being so. Hiding behind him were those whose pockets had not been filled to the extent they had wished.

Robby

JoanK
January 6, 2004 - 02:33 am
ROBBY: what wonderful posts on Mars. JUSTIN I imagine you already know the Nasa web site "Picture of the day" which, on Jan 6 shows a picture from the 3-D simulation of Mars http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

By following up the links they give and past day's pictures, you can find some wonderful sites.

I'm interested in the contrast of Roman feeling toward "kings" and "dictators", considering in modern usage, it is the latter that get the negative press. (George: are you sure you wouldn't rather be king like Robby). I'm not too clear on the distinction. I suppose the king had some sort of devine authority and was completely independent of everyone.

robert b. iadeluca
January 6, 2004 - 03:48 am
Do you folks have any answer to Joan's question? In your mind - what is the difference between a king and a dictator?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 6, 2004 - 05:08 am
When last we listened in, Gaius Cassius was suggesting to Marcus Brutus that Caesar be assassinated.

"Every generous element in the nature of Brutus rebelled against Cassius' proposal. Cassius reminded him of his rebel ancestry, and perhaps Brutus felt challenged to prove it by imitation. The sensitive youth blushed when he saw, affixed to statues of the older Brutus, such inscriptions as 'Brutus, are you dead?' --or, 'Your posterity is unworthy of you.' Cicero dedicated to him several treatises written in these years.

"Meanwhile it was whispered among the patricians that at the next meeting of the Senate, on March 15, Lucius Cotta would move that Caesar be made king, on the ground that according to the Sibylline oracle the Parthians would be conquered only by a king. A Senate half filled with Caesar's appointees, said Cassius, would pass the measure, and all hope of restoring the Republic would be lost.

"Brutus yielded, and the conspirators then made definite plans. Portia drew the secret from her husband by stabbing her thigh to show that no physical injury could make her speak against her will.

"In a moment of unprophetic sentiment Brutus insisted that Antony should be spared."

Any thoughts here on how conspiracies come about? Who goads whom? Where do the strengths (or weaknesses) lie? Do pride or shame fit into any of this?

I remember an old shout on the school playground:-"Let's you and him fight!"

Robby

georgehd
January 6, 2004 - 08:43 am
When did the term 'dictator' come into common usage? I tend to associate it with modern nationalism. Were there any dictators in the ancient world? Kings, I believe, have their origin in the divine, a concept that would not be accepted by many dictators.

This site should be of interest to those of you who have dictatorial tendencies.

http://www.poisonedminds.com/tests/dic/

I am not sure if this site has been posted before. It deals with Caesar as Dictator.

http://heraklia.fws1.com/

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 6, 2004 - 08:46 am
It looks like Dictators are more often assassinated than Kings because a Dictator's seat is not hereditary, but in a Monarchy, the populace can count on the King's descendant or someone in the family to access the throne at whatever age they may be or if they are fit to rule or not. Conspiracy to kill a Dictator seems more likely than a King today. I think Canada is doing well enough under a Constitutional Monarchy. In any case the majority of Canadians love their Queen and I would be very surprised if she was ever assassinated. Of course she is more a figurehead than a ruler.

Eloïse

georgehd
January 6, 2004 - 08:51 am
For some reason I could not edit my last post. The last site mentioned on Caesar is wonderful and worth exploring. (as I mentioned someone else may have previously posted this site but it was new to me)

Scrawler
January 6, 2004 - 02:04 pm
"Men who have been deprived of wonted power cannot be mollified by pardoning their resistance. It is as difficult to forgive forgiveness as it is to forgive those whom we have injured" - Will Durant

"Money" can buy a lot! I see the power as those welding the most money. Those in the senate that thought Caesar might think of doing away with the arostpcracu would find and buy someone with a knife.

A number of senatorial families felt that Caesar thretened their position and his honors and powers made them fear that he would become a Rex (king). An assassination plot was hatched by a group of senators, inculding Gaius Cassius and Marcus Junius Brutus. On March 15 in 44 BC, when Caesar enters the Senate house, the group killed him.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Action

Some regard Caesr as an unscrupulous tyrant, with an insatitable lust for power, and blame him for the demise of the Roman Republic. Others, admitting that he could be ruthless, insist that the Republic had already been destroyed. They maintain that to save the Roman world from chaos a new type of government had to be created. In fact Caesar's reforms did stabilize the Mediterranean world. Among ancient military commanders, he may be second only to Alexander the Great.

I think Caesear was good for the stability of Rome."When the news of this plan trickled through Rome, the common people, who love glory, applauded. The business classes, smelling war orders and provincial loot licked their chops. The aristocracy, foreseeing its extinction on Caesar's return, resolved to kill him before he could go."

Good luck to you George in your endeavor, but you might consider an advisory position instead. I'll vote for you one way or the other. To be honest the Caribbean islands looks better the closer we get closer to the Presidential elections.

Justin
January 6, 2004 - 03:26 pm
Distinction between Dictator and King in the Roman world of 44 BCE is quite clear cut I think. As Dictator Caesar held all the offices of power and controlled through stacking the power of the Senate and the Assembly. All the offices of power continued to exist but they were resident in one man. The Senate and the Assembly also continued to exist. If Caesar were dead all the offices of power would be filled again by independent people and democracy would return to Rome.The Republic would live.

If Caesar were King, all the offices of power (Questar, Praetor, Tribune, Censor, Consul, etc) would completely disappear. The Assembly would be unnecessary and would dissolve. The Senate would be an appendage. It too might dissolve. If Caesar were dead, it would be necessary to establish an hereditary line of succession because all the offices of power, except the regency, no longer exist. The only way the Republic could be reactivated then is by revolution.

Justin
January 6, 2004 - 03:35 pm
One additional thought on the King/Dictator distinction; Divinity is not a consideration. Caesar had been Chief Priest since he was quite young. It was his first official office. He held the office as Dictator and would hold it as King. Caesar was not Deified until after death.

Justin
January 6, 2004 - 04:14 pm
Motivation of the conspirators is worth exploring. Two impulses are strong in the human psyche- possession and creation. Let's look at possesion first. It has two parts, it seems to me. Acquisition and preservation. The latter, preservation, is the strongest motive among the Roman conspirators. They see the Republic disappearing if Caesar becomes King. They see the power of the Senate diminishing- a power the Patricians have an hereditary right to exercise.

Already, as Dictator, Caesar has begun to stack the Senate in his favor by the appointment of 400 new Senators, some of whom are not Patrician. The threat is evident. Further, Caesar proposes to extend the empire and to provide for territorial representation in the Senate. More, he is capable of taking the Parthians but must be a king to do it. The threat to the Patricians is significant.

They conspire to remove the threat-to assassinate Caesar. All that remains is to convince some key players that assassination is the only way to cure the problem. The conspirators are already 60 senators strong. Brutus, Caesar's son from an earlier dalliance, is the last to agree.

robert b. iadeluca
January 6, 2004 - 05:16 pm
"On the evening of March 14, to a gathering at his home, Caesar proposed as topic of conversation, 'What is the best death?' His own answer was:-'A sudden one.' The next morning his wife begged him not to go to the Senate, saying that she had dreamed of seeing him covered with blood. A like-minded servant sought to provide a deterrent omen by causing an ancestral picture to fall from the wall.

"But Decimus Brutus, who was one of his closest friends and was also one of the conspirators -- urged him to attend the Senate if only to adjourn it courteously in person. A friend who had learned of the plot came to warn him, but Caesar had already left.

"On his way to the Senate he met a soothsayer who had once whispered to him, 'Beware the ides of March.' Caesar remarked, smiling, that the ides had come and all was well. 'But they have not passed,' answered Spurinna. While Caesar was offering the usual precession sacrifice before Pompey's theater, where the Senate was to meet, a tablet informing him of the censpiracy was put into his hands.

"He ignored it, and tradition says that it was found in his hand after his death.

"Trebonius, a conspirator who had been a favored general of Caesar, detained Antony from the meeting by conversation. When Caesar entered the theater and took his seat, the 'Liberators' flung themselves upon him without delay. Reports Suetonius:-'Some have written that when Marcus Brutus rushed at him he said, in Greek, kai su teknon -- 'You, too, my child?' When Brutus struck him, says Appian, Caesar ended all resistance, drawing his robe over his face and head, he submited to the blows and fell at the foot of Pompey's statue.

"One wish had been granted to the most complete man that antiquity produced."

Is anyone here feeling a pang of sadness at the death of this great man?

Any comments regarding the GREEN quote which begins "Like Alexander . . ."?

Robby

Justin
January 6, 2004 - 06:05 pm
Yes, Caesar's passing is a sad thing. He might have done much to advance civilization beyond the barbarism of what we know today as Rome. His passing did not restore the Republic. It led to greater civil war.

robert b. iadeluca
January 6, 2004 - 07:20 pm
Here is a PAINTING of the Death of Caesar by Sassu created in 1938. Be sure to click onto the painting to enlarge it.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 6, 2004 - 07:27 pm
Here is ANOTHER VERSION of the death of Caesar created in 1867. I notice that the statue of Pompey is present in both paintings.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 6, 2004 - 07:33 pm
Don't miss this STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT MURAL of Caesar's assassination.

Robby

Justin
January 6, 2004 - 11:03 pm
Robby; Thank you for posting the paintings of the Assassination. The work of Sassu leaves much to be desired. It is most unconvincing. The Gerome piece on the other hand is a successful depiction in classical realism. I particularly liked the manner of the conspirators in Gerome. The deed has been done. They stand in a body some distance from the bloody corpse with swords raised as though in victory. A lone, disinterested senator lolls in his seat observing the event in a detached manner. Clearly, not every senator was a conspirator.

robert b. iadeluca
January 7, 2004 - 04:18 am
Antony

44-30 B.C.

robert b. iadeluca
January 7, 2004 - 04:22 am
"The assassination of Caesar was one of the major tragedies of history."

- - - Will Durant

robert b. iadeluca
January 7, 2004 - 04:37 am
"The assassination of Caesar was a tragegy not merely in the sense tht it interrupted a great labor of statesmanship and led to fifteen years more of chaos and war. Civilzation survived, and Augustus completed what Caesar had begun. It was a tragedy also in the sense that probably both parties were right -- the conspirators in thinking that Caesar meditated monarchy, Caesar in thinking that disorder and empire had made monarchy inevitable.

"Men have divided on the issue ever since the Senate sat for a moment in consternation at the deed and then fled in tumult and terror from the hall. Antony, arriving after the event, saw valor in discretion and fortified himself in his house.

"Cicero's eloquence lost its tongue, even when Brutus, dagger in hand, hailed him as 'Father of His Country.' Emerging, the conspirators found an excited populace in the square. They tried to win it with catchwords of Liberty and the Republic, but the dazed crowd had no homage for phrases so long used to cover greed. Fearing for their lives, the assassins took refuge in the buldings on the Capitol and surrounded themselves there with their personal gladiatorial guards.

"Toward evening Cicero joined them. Antony, approached by their emissaries, sent a friendly reply."

Your comments, please?

Robby

georgehd
January 7, 2004 - 07:19 am
Post 419 - that mural could be one of the great tragedies of art history. IMO

Scrawler
January 7, 2004 - 11:29 am
"Et tu, Brute?"

Brutus, Marcus Janius was a Roman political leader, son-in-law of the Roman philosopher Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger, born in Rome, and educated in law. During the civil war between Pompey and Julius Caesar, Brutus supported Pompey. After Caesar's victory at Pharsalus in 48 BC, Brutus was pardoned and taken into Caesar's favor. He became governor of Cisalpine Gaul in 48 BC and praetor of Rome two years later. In 44 BC he joined the Roman general Gaius Cassius Longinus in a conspiracy against Caesar. Together they were the principal assassins of Caesar.

Cassius Longinus, Gaius was a Roman general. Cassius distinguished himself in the war against the Pathians. In 49 BC he fought agaisnt Caesar in the civil war as fleet commander under the Roman general and statesman Pompey. Although pardoned by Caesar, who made him a legate, Cassius subsequently became one of the leaders of the conspiracy against Caesar and participated in Caesar's assassination.

"Julius Caesar" has become a popular play because of its magnificient language and sharp portraits. For example, Caesar describes the plotter Cassius as having a "lean and hungry look". But the real interest in "Julius Caesar" centers on the character of Brutus. A thoughtful, withdrawn man, he is torn between his affection for Caesar and his strong sense of duty to the state.

In spite of its title, the play's central character is Brutus and Caesar's best friend. Brutus reluctantly joins a plot to murder Caesar beause he believes Rome's safety requires his death. The plotters attack Caesar in the Roman Senate. He resists until he sees Brutus. Caesar's last words are "Et tu, Brute? [You too, Brutus?] Then fall, Caesar!"

Brutus defends the assassination to a crowd of Romans. But he unwisely allows the clever and eloquent Mark Anthony to deliver a funeral speech over Caesar's body. Anthony tells the people, "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." He then describes the plotters with heavy sarcasm as "honorable men". At the same time Anthony points our Caesar's virtues and thus gradually turns the crowd into a mob ready to burn and kill in order to avenge Caesar's death.

King: a male monarch of a major territorial unit, one whose position is HEREDITARY and one who rules for life.

Dictator: a person granted absolute EMERGENCY power; especially one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome.

robert b. iadeluca
January 7, 2004 - 11:46 am
"The next day a larger crowd gathered in the Forum. The conspirators sent agents to buy its support and organize it into a legal assembly. They ventured down from the Capitol, and Brutus delivered an oration which he had prepared for the Senate. The speech failed to move its hearers. Cassius tried and was met with cold silence.

"The Liberators returned to the Capitol, and as the crowd thinned out they stealthily departed to their homes. Antony, thinking himself Caesar's heir, obtained from the stunned Calpurnia all the papers and funds that the dictator had left in his palace. At the same time he secretly summoned Caesar's veterans to Rome.

"On the 17th, by his authority as tribune, he convened the Senate and astonished all parties by his amiability and calm. He accepted Cicero's proposal for a general amnesty, and agreed that Brutus and Cassius should receive provincial governorships (i.e. flight with safety and power), on condition that the Senate should ratify all the decrees, legislation, and appointments of Caesar. Since a majority of the Senate owed office or emoluments to these acts, it consented. When it adjourned Antony was acclaimed as a statesman who had snatched peace out of the jaws of war. That evening he entertained Cassius for dinner.

"On the 18th the Senate met again, recognized Caesar's will, voted him a public funeral, and appointed Antony to deliver the customary eulogy."

Now,let me see if I have this correctly. The mob is angry at what was done to Caesar. Agents of the conspirators go down the steps and circulate among the crowd bribing them in one way or another to "cool it." With money in their pockets, they accept being named members of an assembly right out there in the street. Brutus takes a speech which he had already written for presentation to the Senate and gives it instead to the citizen "assembly." The mob remains quiet (with money in their pockets) but does not applaud. Cassius gives it a try and the silence is deafening.

The Liberators (using that term loosely) realize that discretion is the better part of valor and slowly climb up the steps back to the Capitol, go out the side door and, looking back over their shoulders, sneak into the back door of their own homes.

While this is all being done, Antony goes to see Caesar's widow, who is still in a state of shock, and cons her into giving him all the important papers which probably include stocks, bonds, CDs, IRA's, and any loose cash that might be lying around. (Yes, I know. These are not the words that Durant uses.) His agent goes out to see Caesar's veterans (possibly reminding them that he is now the bigwig-tribune) and "commanding" them to come to Rome.

The next day he meets with Brutus and Cassius and they work out a CYA. (If you don't know what that means, check with one of your close Senior Netters). To begin with they decide, on Cicero's suggestion, that they will announce publicly that they forgive themselves. Brutus and Cassius agree to allow Antony to influence the Senate in accepting all the benefits for which they had been hungering anyway. In return, Antony annoints them as governors (read power) of distant provinces and prepares to allow them to disappear quickly (probably in dead of night) where they can hide out until the coast is clear. That evening they celebrate it all over a bottle of Charbonnet and a roast beef dinner (mad cows not yet having been discovered.)

The next day the Senate decides that Caesar's funeral will be public (what other choice did they have?) Speeches to the populace by Brutus and Cassius having received only one-hand clapping, the Senate decides that Antony is to give the eulogy.

The curtain lowers in preparation for the next act.

Or did it all really happen?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
January 7, 2004 - 11:46 am
Antony by Plutarch

Malryn (Mal)
January 7, 2004 - 11:51 am
Images Mark Antony

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 7, 2004 - 12:56 pm
Robby, that is so funny, now I understand what Durant really means.

ANTONY, CLEOPATRA, COINS AND SHIPS where you see a beautiful Cleopatra watching Anthony approaching her from the shore where his ship had just landed.

Eloïse

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 7, 2004 - 01:41 pm
"CYA. (If you don't know what that means, check with one of your close Senior Netters)." I don't know what it means, and I keep wondering, what DOES it mean?

Malryn (Mal)
January 7, 2004 - 02:17 pm
I don't know either, ELOISE. Choose your agenda? Chew your apple?

Mal

kiwi lady
January 7, 2004 - 02:23 pm
I guess it means work out what propaganda you are going to use to turn public opinion in your favor! Remind you of current events?

I am regularly lurking but I am no scholar so don't have much to say.

Carolyn

Justin
January 7, 2004 - 03:14 pm
How about "calm yourself, Antony". That works.

robert b. iadeluca
January 7, 2004 - 05:46 pm
Very smooth, Justin! He knows exactly what it means.

It's a common expression used in the Federal Government and in business circles. If you have done something you don't want to be caught at, you cover your derriere so you won't be blamed at a later date. Now look back at what the Conspirators did.

Who? Me? It was "their" fault. I was just minding my own business!

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 7, 2004 - 06:06 pm
"On the 19th Antony secured the will from the Vestal Virgins, with whom it had been deposited, and read it, first to a small, then to a larger gathering. It bequeathed Caesar's private fortune to three grandnephews and (to the astonishment and anger of Antony) named one of them, Caius Octavius, as adoptive son and heir.

"The dictator had devised his gardens to the people as a public park and had left 300 sesterces to every citizen of Rome. The news of these benefactions sped through the city. When, on the 20th, Caesar's body, which had been embalmed in his home, was brought into the forum for the last rites, a great concourse of people, including Caesar's veterans, gathered to do him reverence.

"Antony seems to have spoken at first with cautious restraint. As he went on, his pent-up feelings flared into eloquence.

"When he raised from the ivory bier the torn and bloody robe through which Caesar had been stabbed, the emotions of the crowd were stirred beyond control. Amid weird wailing and frenzied cries, men gathered wood anywhere and built a fire beneath the corpse. Veterans threw their weapons upon the pyre as an offering, actors threw their costumes, musicians their instruments, women their most precious ornaments.

"Taking brands from the fire, some enthusiasts sought to burn down the houses of the conspirators. But these buildings were well guarded, and their masters had fled from Rome.

"A large part of the crowd stayed all night long by the smoldering pyre. Many Jews, grateful for Caesar's sympathetic legislation, remained there three days, intoning their ancient funeral chants. During those days riot surged through the capital.

"At last Antony directed his soldiers to restore order and to fling persistent marauders from the Tarpeian rock."

Any thoughts, folks?

Robby

Fifi le Beau
January 7, 2004 - 08:47 pm
I never read history that some comparison from today doesn't enter the scene.

From Durant, "During those days riot surged through the capital," and "Anthony directed his soldiers to restore order and to fling persistant marauders from the Tarpeian rock."

I of course am reminded of Iraq, and the overthrow of another dictator and the riots, looting, and marauding that ensued afterward. Like Anthony, the Americans soon did their own version of the Tarpeian rock with helicopter gunships, rockets, and house raids.

I am not comparing Caesar to the dictator of Iraq, just the similar circumstances of the events following their downfall. I see little difference between the constant plots, schemes, and overthrows in ancient Rome to events happening today.

Two thousand years is only the blink of an eye for our universe. We have only improved our weapons, not the quality of the men who rule. Now instead of having to hustle and drag a man kicking and screaming to the edge of a cliff and shove him off, we can simply push a button while sitting in a palace in an easy chair, and destroy dozens and if desired hundreds and thousands.

Uneasy the head that wears the crown......

......

Justin
January 7, 2004 - 10:48 pm
Caesar,you will recall, abolished the "Collegia" but allowed the Jewish groups to continue. The significance of that action is not entirely clear to me. It may be the first and perhaps the last time the Jews have ever been exampted from any thing distasteful. But is that what Durant refers to when he says, the Jews were grateful to Caesar for legislation and therefore remained at his funeral chanting.

It is my understanding that Romans did not come in contact with Jews until Pompey in 67 invested Jerusalem while on his Piracy adventure. Twenty-three years later this little tribe from Asia is exempted by Caesar from the ban on Collegia. Is anyone familiar with these events? I see nothing in "Suetonius" or in "Caesar's Civil War."

robert b. iadeluca
January 8, 2004 - 04:42 am
Thank you, Fifi, for bringing to our attention what deep inside us we "know" and yet tend to forget on the level of conscious awareness. This is why is is helpful for all of us to occasionally pause while in the Heading (instead of quickly scrolling through) and to re-read Voltaire's question or to re-examine Durant's "four elements" of Civilization.

Good questions about the Jews, Justin. Perhaps Durant will tell us a bit more later or perhaps someone here can share a relevant link with us.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 8, 2004 - 05:03 am
"Antony was a good general, Augustus a superlative stateman. Neither would be both. Born in 82 B.C., Antony had spent a large part of his life in camps and more in the quest of wine, women, good food, and fun. Though of high lineage and handsome features, he had the characteristic virtues of the common man -- strength of body, animal spirits, good nature, generosity, courage, and loyalty.

"He had scandalized even Caesar by keeping a harem of both sexes in Rome, and trveling with a Greek courtesan in his litter. He had bought in Pompey's house at auction, occupied it, and then refused payment.

"Now he found in Caesar's papers, or (some said) placed there, whatever it suited him to find -- appointments for his friends, decrees for his purposes, perequisites for himself. In two weeks' time he had paid off $1,500,000 in debts and had become a rich man. He seized the $25,000,000 that Caesar had deposited in the Temple of Ops and took another $5,000,000 from Caesar's private treasury.

"Noting that Decimus Brutus, whom Caesar had appointed governor of Cisalpine Gaul, had assumed that lucrative office despite sharing in the assassination of Caesar, Antony passed through the assembly a bill giving himself that strategic province and consoling Decimus with Macedonia. Likewise Marcus Brutus and Cassius were to surrender Macedonia to Decimus and Syria to Dolabella, and were to content themselves with sharing Cyrene and Crete.

"Alarmed by Antony's spreading power, the Senate invited to Rome, as a foil to him, Caesar's adopted son. Caius Octavius, who was to make himself the greatest statesman in Roman history, was eighteen years old in 44. By natural custom he took his adoptive father's name. Adding his own as a modifier, he became Caius Julius Caesar Octavianus until, seventeen years later, he received that lofty name of Augustus by which the centuries have known him.

"His grandmother was Caesar's sister Julia. His grandfather had been a banker of plebeian stock at Velitrae, in Latium. His father had served as plebeian aedile, then praetor, then governor of Macedonia. The boy was trained to Spartan simplicity, and educated in the literature and philosophy of Greece and Rome.

"In the last three years he had lived a good part of the time in Caesar's palace. It was one of the sorrows of Caesar's life that he had no legitimate son and one of his profoundest insights that he adopted Octavius. He took the boy with him to Spain in 45 and was pleased to see the courage with which the frail and nervous invalid endured the perils and hardships of the campaign. He had him carefully instructed in the arts of war and government.

"Many statues have made his features familiar -- refined, delicate, serious, at once diffident and resolute, yielding and tenacious -- an idealist forced to be a realist, a man of thought painfully learning to be a man of action.

"He was thin and pale and suffered from a poor digestion. He ate little, drank less, and outlived the strong men around him by abstinence and the regularity of his life."

The Senate calls up a delicate boy with brains to compete with a brutish man with brawn. What were the odds that the boy (or the Senate through him) had any chance to win out?

Robby

georgehd
January 8, 2004 - 09:50 am
This site on the Jews in Roman Times seemed to be a good one.

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/life/life5b.html

This page can be found as part of the above site.

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/voices/voices2b.html

Malryn (Mal)
January 8, 2004 - 10:43 am
Picture: Augustus

Scrawler
January 8, 2004 - 01:15 pm
"The assassination of Caesar was a tragedy not merely in the sense that it interrupted a great labor of statesmanship and led to fifteen years more of chaos and war. Civilization survived and Augustus completed what Caesar had begun. It was a tragedy also in the sense that probably both parties were right - the conspirators in thinking that Caesar mediated monachy, Caesar in thinking that disorder and empire had made monarchy inevitable."

Yes, it was a tragedy, but can you see Caesar retiring after all he had accomplished. Caesar knew of the plot against him, but preferred to go out with a bang! I agree with the last part of the above paragraph, I think it goes beyond a tragedy not only because both parties were right, but also it led to fifteen years more of chaos. But most important Civilization survived!

In Shakespeare's play "Julius Caesar", Mark Antony says at the funeral of Caesar:

"You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown. Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious. And, sure, he is an honorable man. I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, but here I am to speak what I do know..."

Antony, Mark, in Latin, Marcus Antonius, Roman statesman and general was born in Rome and educated for a short time in Greece. From 58 to 56 BC he served as a leader of cavalry in Roman campaigns in Palestine and Egypt, and from 54 to 50 BC he served in Gaul under Julius Caesar. With Caesar's aid he attained the offices of quaestor, augur, and tribune of the people. At the outbreak of civil war Antony was appointed Caesar's commander in chief in Italy. He commanded the left wing of Caesar's army at the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC he shared the consulship with Caesar.

After the assassination of Caesar in 44 BC, Antony's skillful oratory, immortalized by Shakespeare in his play, turned the Roman people against the conspirators, leaving Antony for a time with almost absolute power in Rome.

robert b. iadeluca
January 8, 2004 - 03:15 pm
Here is a TANGLED WEB of possible conspirators related to Lincoln's assassination. Does anyone here see any similarity to the events related to Caesar's assassination?

Robby

Justin
January 8, 2004 - 10:32 pm
Post assassination trials sometimes result in the punishment of innocent people. Emotions are high in this period and there is a great tendency to rush to judgement. Looking back on the Lincoln conspiracy trials we can, today, see several victims who might have been innocent. Such times create a wonderful opportunity to get rid of one's enemies. Antony managed to get rid of Cicero who was his gad fly and hundreds of others who probably had little to do with the Caesar conspiracy.

JoanK
January 8, 2004 - 11:02 pm
"The assassination of Caesar was a tragedy not merely in the sense that it interrupted a great labor of statesmanship and led to fifteen years more of chaos and war"

It is always a tragedy when someone is killed. In terms of a tragedy for Rome, we'll never know. Surely whenever Caesar died there would have been civil war over his successor, maybe with the same actors, maybe with others. And it might not have ended up with Augustus, who we are told was the greatest statesman. Did he accomplish much of what Julius might have done (tune in later, and we'll find out).

The piece on Lincoln shows that conspiracies remain much the same over the years. So do conspiracy theorists. With every assasination there are those who claim a wider conspiracy, backed by powerful men; that those found guilty were innocent, and those thought innocent were guilty. Some of this is doubtless true, but it always sounds the same to me. It reminds me of a psychological test, I studied in psychology clas where one of the questions was "Do you think people are plotting against you in corners?"

3kings
January 9, 2004 - 02:01 am
Well JUSTIN, tell us. Do you ? (BG) === Trevor

robert b. iadeluca
January 9, 2004 - 04:49 am
Trevor:--I was wondering if you were stilll with us. Good to see you again.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 9, 2004 - 04:58 am
"Late in March of 44 a freedman arrived at Apollonia, in Illyria, where Octavian was stationed with the army, and brought the news of Caesar's death and will. The sensitive youth was horrified at men's ingratitude. All his love for the great-uncle who had so cherished him, and had worked so veverishly to rebuild a shattered state, welled up in him and filled him with a silent resolve to complete the labors of Caesar and avenge his death.

"He rode down to the sea, crossed to Brundisium, and hastened to Rome. His relatives there advised him to stay in hiding lest Antony destroy him. His mother likewise recommended inaction. But when he scorned such a course she rejoiced, merely suggesting that whenever possible he should use patience and subtlety rather than open war. He followed this wise counsel to the end.

"He visited Antony and inquired what was being done against Caesar's enemies. He was shocked to find Antony busy planning to lead an army against Decimus Brutus, who had refused to surrender Cisalpine Gaul. He asked Antony to disburse Caesar's legacies according to will, especially the forty-five dollars bequested to every citizen. Antony saw many reasons for delay.

"Octavian thereupon distributed the money to Caesar's veterans out of funds borrowed by him from Caesar's friends and with this approach, organized his own army."

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 9, 2004 - 06:37 am
"Infuriated by the insolence of this 'boy,' as he called him, Antony announced that an attempt had been made upon his life and the would-be assassin had named Octavian as the instigator of his plan. Octavian protested his innocence.

"Cicero took advantage of the quarrel to persuade him that Antony was a ruffian, who must be defeated. Octavian agreed, joined his two legions with those of the consuls Hirtius and Pansa, and marched with them northward to battle Antony.

"Cicero lent this new civil war the aid of his invective in fourteen powerful 'Philippics' against the public policy and private life of Antony, some delivered to the Senate or the Assembly, the rest published as propaganda broadcasts in the best tradition of martial blackening.

"In the ensuing engagement at Mutina (Modena), Antony lost and fled (44). But Hirtius and Pansa fell, and Octavian returned to Rome sole commander of the Senate's legions as well as his own. With this force behind him he compelled the Senate to name him consul, to repeal its amnesty to the conspirators, and to sentence them all to death.

" Discovering that Cicero and the Senate were not his enemies, and were merely using him as a temporary tool against Antony, he composed his differences with Antony and formed with him and Lepidus the Second Triumvirate (44-33). Their combined armies marched into Rome and took it without resistance. Many of the senators and conservatives fled to south Italy and the provinces.

"The Assembly ratified the Triumverates and gave it full power for five years."

Again - Roman against Roman.

Robby

Scrawler
January 9, 2004 - 12:13 pm
After the assassination of Caesar, Antony for a time had almost absolute power in Rome. A rival soon appeared in the person of Gaius Octavius, who was grandnephew of Caesar and Caesar's designated heir. A power struggle broke out between Antony and Octavius.

Why do you think Caesar made Octavius his designated heir? It would seem to me that Mark Antony would have made the better leader.

"Many statues have made his (Octavius) features familiar - refined, delicate, serious, at once diffident and resolute, yielding and tenacious - an idealist forced to be a realist, a man of thought painfully learning to be a man of action."

I thought that the statement "an idealist forced to be a realist, a man of thought painfully learning to be a man of action" was an interesting statement. If a man by nature is an idealist and a man of thought, how can he become a man of action? It seems to me that the Romans respected those who had "brawn" over those who had "brains". Is the fact that the Senate feared that Mark Antony could become another Julius Caesar the reason they chose Octavius? In the end the Senate would rather have a boy of 18 years old (who they thought they could control)rather than a man like Mark Antony.

robert b. iadeluca
January 10, 2004 - 04:21 am
Now and then I insert a link which may be of interest to those who have been with us since we began with "Our Oriental Heritage." This LINK refers to an article in today's NY Times about Ancient Egypt and may even be of interest to some of you who joined us later.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 10, 2004 - 04:40 am
"To pay their troops, replenish their coffers, and revenge Caesar, Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus now let loose the bloodiest reign of terror in Roman history.

"They listed 300 senators and 2000 business men for execution.

"They offered 25,000 drachmas ($15,000) to any freeman, and 10,000 to any slave, who would bring in the head of a person proscribed.

"To have money became a capital crime. Children to whom fortunes had been left were condemned and killed. Widows were shorn of their legacies. 1400 rich women were required to turn over a large share of their property to the Triumvirate.

"At last even the savings deposited with the Vestal Virgins were seized.

"The Triumverate set their soldiers to guard all exits from the city. The proscribed hid in wells, sewers, attics, chimneys. Some died resisting. Some submitted quietly to their slayers. Some starved, hanged, or drowned themselves. Some leaped from a roof or into a fire. Some were killed by mistake. Some, not proscribed, committed suicide on the bodies of slain relatives.

"Salvius, the tribune, knowing himself doomed, gave a last feast to his friends. The emissaries of the Triumvirate entered, cut off his head, left his body at the table, and bade the feast go on.

"Slaves took the opportunity to get rid of hard masters. Many fought to the death to protect their owners. One disguised himself as his master and suffered decapitation in his stead.

"Sons died to protect their fathers. Others betrayed their fathers to inherit a part of their fortunes.

"Adulterers or deceived wives surrendered their husbands. The wife of Coponius secured his safety by sleeping with Antony.

"Antony's wife Fulvia had tried to buy the mansion of her neighbor Rufus. He had refused to sell. Now, though he offered it to her as a gift, she had him proscribed and nailed his severed head to his front door."

I am asking everyone here to think carefully. To what extent will you stretch your values to save your life or the life of someone you love? Is your integrity as strong as you believe -- or have you never been really tested?

Robby

Bubble
January 10, 2004 - 06:40 am
One should never underestimate the instinct of staying alive. In the last extremity it seems it is the only thing that matters, even if one is not afraid of death itself, even to the point of deluding oneself that alive maybe we could still be of help to our loved ones.

JoanK
January 10, 2004 - 07:09 am
ROBBY: what on earth are you doing up so early? From one who has been up all night.

robert b. iadeluca
January 10, 2004 - 07:11 am
Joan:--I usually am up by 5:30 a.m.

Do you have any answer to my question?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
January 10, 2004 - 07:15 am
How far would we stretch our values to save our own or another life? I don't think we know unless we're tested by an actual situation, do we?

Would I do what Coponius's wife did to save the life of my husband? I want to say, "Well, sure I would," but if I was facing that situation I'm not sure what I'd do.

Would I sacrifice myself to save someone else's life? When push came to shove I don't know what I'd do. I'll let you know when it happens!

This is not an example of sacrificing values, but it's what actually occurred when I was alone with my three kids at a rustic summer cottage in Maine years ago and one of my sons fell out of rowboat he and his brother had taken out on the lake.

Without thinking at all, I walked into the water fully dressed with my brace and shoe on one leg and foot and my shoe on the other, all ready to swim out and rescue him.

The brace and shoe weighed close to ten pounds. I might have been able to swim for a while, but when I tired, the brace would have dragged me under. Did I think of that? Not at all. Did I plan on doing what I did? Of course not.

Luckily, a man with a motor on his boat and more sense than I had at that moment went out and pulled my boy out of the water.

Mal

Scrawler
January 10, 2004 - 11:26 am
The Second Triumvirate:

The name applied to the division of the government of Rome made in 43 BC between Octavian, Mark Antony, and the younger Marcus Lepidus, after the murder of Caesar. Their joint administration, sanctioned by the Senate, is known as the second triumvirate. Lepidus was excluded from it in 36 BC, and it was finally dissolved in 32 BC. The Roman republican was destroyed by the second triumvirte.

Does anyone have any information about Marcus Lepidus?

robert b. iadeluca
January 10, 2004 - 11:34 am
Hi Scrawler:--Any reaction to my question in Post 452?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
January 10, 2004 - 11:35 am
There's plenty on the web about Marcus Lepidus if you do a search.

Marcus Lepidus

JoanK
January 11, 2004 - 02:59 am
Would I sacrifice my life for my family? I had this discussion with a friend, and said I would do it in a heartbeat for my children and grandchildren. After all, although I would like more, I have had a life and theirs is just beginning. But this is theory. In real life, who knows: I might be so scared, I would freeze and not do anything. Harder questions: would I sacrifice my life for a stranger? a child? I doubt it. I think of the people in Germany who risked their own lives to hide Jews when they could have walked away. What of the situation we read of in Germany where a mother is told she can chose which of her children will be spared, and which not?

What a horrible thing. I take back what I said about Caesar's death not being a tragedy for Rome. I had hoped that Octavious (Augustus) who Durant calls such a great statesman, would prove more something-or-other than the previous leaders. I'm getting pretty fed up with the Romans.

Bubble
January 11, 2004 - 03:00 am
Mal, the urge to save a dear one when one oneself is not in danger at the moment is a totally different reaction. It is an immediate response to that situation with no time for pros and cons. By being under threat of losing one's life oneself, we react differently to situations.



I an sure I already told the true story of the terrorists invading a house in Naharya a few years ago and starting to kill all from a many kids family. The mother hid with her youngest in the "entresol" (story space under the ceiling) and to stop the infant whimpers, she covered his face and he was suffocated to death. She wanted to survive.

georgehd
January 11, 2004 - 05:27 am
Post 452 - an interesting and vovocative question that I have considered before. I am not sure that one sacrifices 'values'. At any rate, I believe that I come up lacking in courage and feel that I am probably selfish. This is not a confession or session on a couch but rather an assessment I have made of myself over the years. I have never been tested with real physical pain, nor have I had to make life and death decisions, and more particularly a decision that would require a major sacrifice on my part. I have lived a rather lucky life and have not had to endure pain of a physical sense and only twice have had to face emotional pain of any consequence. So as Mal points out, I have not been tested.

I seem to recollect that in Jewish law, one is supposed to always try and save another life. But saving one's own life takes priority. I think that is correct and do not think I have a source to look it up.

robert b. iadeluca
January 11, 2004 - 05:37 am
Joan:--You say "I'm getting pretty fed up with the Romans" and I can thoroughly understand how you, I, and most of us here can dislike their actions compared to the "sweetness and light" as demonstrated during the Greek civilization.

So what are we to do? Are we to all move away from examining this period in history? Shall we all close our eyes? Shall we jump ahead to a time when there was a little less bloodshed (such as the this planet in the Year 2004)? Or shall we follow Lord Acton's advice and try to learn from those terrible deeds? And simultaneously learn from the good deeds as well?

It is my understanding the the Founders of America were students of both the Greek and Roman civilizations and based the foundation on what they learned from both cultures.

Thank you, Bubble, for your anecdote about the mother who suffocated her child. This was not a pleasant story either but this forum which tells us of historical facts helps us to examine ourselves, even traits that we don't want to admit that we have. George finds himself "lacking in courage and probably selfish." Is there anyone among us, certainly not I who live in a glass house, ready to throw stones?

May I suggest that we "take the bitter with the sweet" and be ready to soon move on to what Durant calls "Augustan Statesmanship?" In the meantime, here is a bit more of the "bitter" so that we can learn some more about Antony -- the same Antony who is constantly mentioned in history classes and who caused Shakespeare to mention him.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 11, 2004 - 06:04 am
"Antony placed Cicero high on the list of those who should be killed. Antony was the husband of Clodius' widow and the stepson of the Catalinarian Lentulus whom Cicero had slain in jail. He resented with some reason the unstinted vituperation of the 'Philippics.'

"Octavian protested, but not too long. He could not forget Cicero's glorification of Caesar's assassins and the pun by which that reckless wit had excused the conservatives his dalliance with Caesar's heir. Cicero tried to escape but being buffeted and sickened by the sea, he disembarked and spent the night in his villa at Formiae.

"The next day he wished to stay there and await his executioners, preferring them to a chopy sea. But his slaves forced him into a litter and were carrying him toward the ship when Antony's soldiers came upon them.

"The servants wished to resist, but Cicero bade them set the litter down and yield. Then, 'his person covered with dust, his beard and hair untrimmed, and his face worn with his troubles,' he stretched his head out so that the soldiers might more conveniently decapitate him (43). By Antony's command Cicero's right hand was also cut off and brought with the head to the Triumvir.

"Antony laughed in triumph, gave the assassins 250,000 drachmas, and had head and hand hung up in the Forum.

"Early in 42 the Triumvirs led their forces across the Adriatic and marched through Macedonia into Thrace. There Brutus and Cassius had massed the last republican army, financed by exactions beyond even Roman precedent. From the Eastern cities of the Empire they demanded, and received, ten years' taxes in advance.

"For the most part Brutus, loving philosophy, tarried in Athens. But the city was filling with young Roman nobles clamoring for a war of restoration. When sufficient funds had been raised Brutus closed his books, joined his troops with those of Cassius, and took the field.

"The rival armies met at Philippi in September of 42. Brutus' wing forced back Octavian's and captured his camp. Antony's routed the legions of Cassius. Cassius ordered his shield bearer to kill him and was obeyed.

"Antony could not follow up his success at once. Octavian was confined to his tent with illness, and his troops were in disorder. Antony reorganized the whole army and after a few days' rest led them against Brutus and put the last remnants of the republican forces to flight. Seeing his men yield, Brutus realized, perhaps with relief, that all was lost. He threw himself upon the sword of a friend and died.

"Antony, coming upon the body, covered it with his own purple robe. They had once been friends."

A new era in Rome begins.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
January 11, 2004 - 09:17 am
Has there ever been a time in history when there wasn't war, killing, massacre and bloodshed? I have lived through World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm and what's going on now. Who knows what will happen in the next 10, 15, 20 years? I think what happened with the Romans has probably been better documented than what came before, so we know more about it, don't we? What will historians say about Barbaric Us ?

Mal

JoanK
January 11, 2004 - 10:37 am
ROBBY, MAL: you guys are right. It is also true that it is the wars and massacres that get carried down in history books, not the quiet, ordinary lives or the good things. Our age will perhaps be known as the age of the Holocost and the atomic bomb. Slog on, and let's look for the good amoung all this bloodshed.

robert b. iadeluca
January 11, 2004 - 10:50 am
Joan having said that, let us "slog on" to the section that Durant Calls:==

Antony and Cleopatra

robert b. iadeluca
January 11, 2004 - 11:02 am
"The old aristocracy fought its last land battle at Philippi. Many of them -- Cato's son, Hortensius' son, Quintilius Varus, and Quintus Labeo -- joined Brutus and Cassius in suicide. The victors divided the Empire between them -- Lepidus was given Africa -- Octavian took the West -- Antony, having his choice, took Egypt, Greece, and the East.

"Always needing money, Antony forgave the Eastern cities their cntributions to his enemies on condition that they give him a like sum -- ten years' taxes within a year. His old geniality returned as victory made him seemingly secure.

"He reduced his demands upon the Ephesians when their women, dressed as Bacchantes, greeted him as the Dionysus, but he gave his cook the house of a Magnesian magnate as reward for a distinguished supper.

"He called an assembly of the Ionian cities at Ephesus and settled the boundaries and affairs of these states with such good judgment that Augustus a decade later found little to change. He pardoned all who had fought against him except those who had shared in killing Caesar. He gave relief to the cities that had suffered most severely from Cassius and Brutus -- released several of them from every Roman tax -- freed many who had been sold into slavery by the conspirators -- and liberated the cities of Syria from the despots who had overthrown their democracies."

Antony -- another word for great generosity. Especially when it came to women and good food. And nothing in return?

Robby

Scrawler
January 11, 2004 - 12:13 pm
Thanks Mal for your link on Marcus Lepidus.

To what extent will you stretch your values to save your life or the life of someone you love? Is your integrity as strong as you believe -- or have you never been really tested?

I think Mal said it best. You do whatever you have to in order to protect the ones you love from harm. I've thought about this a lot and I'm not sure I would have protected myself as much as I protected my children. I'm not really sure that values or integrity come into play when you are in the "mix". For me the problem was the fact that I have to live with the memories for the rest of my life - I liken it to battle fatigue. It's as if I had fought on the front lines of a war.

robert b. iadeluca
January 11, 2004 - 03:39 pm
I am posting this LINK to a column in today's NY Times but although it discusses Christianity and the Pope, I urge you not to move onto that subject. Durant will give us plenty of opportunity for that later on.

Why, then, do I post this link? Because the author, an Italian passionate on this subject, emphasizes that "Italians are an ancient tested bridge between past and future" and that, in his opinion, "the archetype from which the pope descends is that of the imperial Caesar." We can, at a later date, discuss whether we believe this to be so or not but the point is that the Roman Empire is not dead in the minds of millions of people. He weeps that his country has "lost its last universal sign of power" which descended "from the emperors."

We are only on Page 204 in a volume of over 650 pages. We have much to learn about this new Roman Empire just coming into being -- this empire which apparently is still having a strong effect around the world 2,000 years later.

Robby

Justin
January 11, 2004 - 04:28 pm
There is a very relevant observation to be made from today's news. We are each of us concerned that war will never end. Robby suggested we look at 2004 and skip over the Roman experience as a response to JoanK. I open the morning paper and find O'Niel, ex Secretary of the Treasury disclosing things we are not supposed to talk about in this discussion. He said, only an excuse was lacking and in the words of Caesar," It came. He went. He conquered." Its importance and relevance to our current topic cannot be denied.

Fifi le Beau
January 11, 2004 - 10:06 pm
As one who has been seasick, I can understand Cicero preferring death to the undulating sea. What a choice to make, leave the sea and risk being killed or stay on board and wish you were dead.

If you have never been seasick, you probably could not understand how anyone who could probably have escaped with his life, would risk it to stop the seasickness.

I was young and on my first sea voyage when I became violently seasick. The doctor gave me a pill that helped some, but as soon as it wore off, I was sick again. I spent most of the trip on deck in a deck chair and never really got my sea legs.

When I think of my ancestors sailing from England to America in the 1600's in a small wooden ship that they had escaped from France in, I wonder that I am here at all. They settled in New York on the island of Manhattan and my grandfather XIV made trips to Suriname in South America as a privateer. Britain owned Suriname but traded it to the Dutch for the island of Manhattan.

Cicero's dilemma garners my sympathy.

......

robert b. iadeluca
January 12, 2004 - 03:47 am
Fifi:--Your heritage is most interesting. Thank you also for explaining the miseries of sea sickness to those of us who do not have that experience.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 12, 2004 - 04:55 am
"Wile displaying these graces of his simple character, Antony surrendered to such exuberant sensuality that his subjects lost respect for his authority. He surrounded himself with dancers, musicians, courtesans, and roisterers, and took wives and concubines whenever a fair woman struck his Olympian fancy.

"He had sent messengers to bid Cleopatra present herself before hm at Tarsus and answer charges that she had aided Cassius to raise money and troops. She came, but in her own time and way. While Antony sat on a throne in the forum, waiting for her to plead and be judged, she sailed up the river Cydnus in a barge with purple sails, gilded stern, and silver oars that beat time to the music of flutes and fifes and harps.

"Her maids, dressed as sea nymphs and graces, were the crew, while she herself, dressed as Venus, lay under a canopy of cloth of gold. When the news of this seductive apparition spread among the people of Tarsus they flocked to the shore, leaving Antony solitary on his throne.

"Cleopatra invited him to dine with her on her ship. He came with an overawing retinue. She feted them with every luxury, and corrupted his generals with gifts and smiles. Antony had almost fallen in love with her as a girl in Alexandria. Now he found her, at twenty-nine, in tne full maturity of her charms.

"He began by reproving her, and ended by presenting her with Phoenicia, Coele-Syria, Cyprus, and parts of Arabia, Cilicia, and Judea. She rewarded him accordingly to his desire and invited him to Alexandria. There he spent a carefree winter (41-40), drinking the Queen's love, listening to lectures at the Museum, and forgetting that he had an empire to rule.

"She herself was not in love. She knew that Egypt, rich but weak, would soon attract the cupidity of omnipotent Rome. The only salvation for her country and her throne lay in marriage with Rome's lord. She had sought this with Caesar. She sought it now with Antony.

"And he, who had no policy but Caesar's, was tempted to realize the dream of uniting Rome and Egypt and making his capital in the fascinating East."

Happy Birthday, Cleopatra! Open up your presents. Here are Phoenicia -- and Syria -- and Cyprus. Oh, and a couple of little bonuses -- a part of Arabia, Cilicia, and Judea. Enjoy!

Robby

georgehd
January 12, 2004 - 09:20 am
Just a general information note. For those of you who have access to a telescope, go out and look at Saturn. It is as close to earth as it will be for some time and its angle is perfect to see the rings. Saturn is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful and awesome sights in the night sky. This month is particularly good for viewing. The Casseni spacecraft which was launched in October 1997 will approach Saturn this spring arriving on July 1. The pictures should be fantastic. Most cities have astronomy clubs which love to show off their wares. Saturn rises at sunset and is up most of the night. Hope that this post takes your minds off all those horrible battles and intrigues that seem to plague the Romans.

Malryn (Mal)
January 12, 2004 - 09:28 am
No bauble was too brilliant or extravagant for Cleo.

Antony and Cleopatra by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema

Scrawler
January 12, 2004 - 11:26 am
Antony and Cleopatra:

Leaving Octavia pregnant with her second child Antony sails to Alexandria where he expected funding from Cleopatra, the mother of his twins. The queen of Egypt loaned him the money needed for the army, but the campaign proved a disaster. After a series of defeats in battle, Antony lost most of his Egyptian army during a retreat through Armenia in the peak of winter.

In Antioch he sent for Cleopatra and went through a ritualistic marriage not recognized under Roman law. He also recognized the twins Cleopatra had with him. Several times Antony was summoned to Rome, but remained in Alexandria with Cleopatra and her funds. Surrounded by Cleopatra and her children, Antony put an end to his alliance with Octavian. He distributed kingdoms between his children. It seemed Octavian was right to accuse Antony of "becoming native" an unforgivable crime to the Romans.

During 33 and 32 BC Anthony accused Octvian of usurpation of power, of being a social upstart and forging the adoption papers of Julius Caesar. Octavian responded with treason charges, of illegally keeping provinces that should be given by lots to other men. Antony was also held responsible for Sextus Pompeiu's execution with no trial.

In 31 BC, the war started. Agrippa captured the naval ports of Methone, loyal to Antony. In September, the naval battle of Actium took place. The Battle of Actium was fought for control of the Roman Empire. Cleopatra insisted on taking part in the campaign. At the naval engagement, believing Antony's defeat to be inevitable, she withdrew her fleet from action Antony. Cleopatra's navy was destroyed and they were forced to escape to Egypt deserted by the Egyptian fleet and by most of Antony's own army.

After Actium, Cleopatra tried to negotiate with Octiavian for the recognition of her children as her successors in Egypt. But as his price Octavian demanded the death of Antony and Cleopatra refused.

I can't help but wonder what the world would have looked like if Antony and Cleopatra had won and Antony had made his center the East instead of Rome.

robert b. iadeluca
January 12, 2004 - 01:25 pm
"While Antony frolicked in Alexandria, his wife Fulvia and his brother Lucius were plotting to overthrow Octavian's power in Rome. Octavian had found no happiness there. The Senate was a rump of adventurers and generals -- labor was restless with unemployment -- the populares were disorganized -- Sextus Pompey was blocking the import of food -- business was petrified with fear -- taxation and spoliation had ruined nearly every fortune -- and many men were living in a reckless and sensual riot on the ground that the morrow might in any case bring repudiation of the currenty, or further spoliation, or death.

"Octavian himself was anything but an exemplar of chastity at this time. To perfect the confusion, Fulvia and Lucius raised an army and called upon Italy to oust him. Marcus Agrippa, Octavian's general, besieged Lucius in Perusia and starved him out (March, 40).

"Fulvia died of illness, frustrated ambition, and grief over Antony's neglect of her. Octavian pardoned Lucius in the hope of maintaining peace with Antony, but Antony crossed the sea and besieged Octavian's troops in Brundisium. The armies, showing more sense than their leaders, refused to fight each other, and compelled them to a peaceable agreement (40). As a pledge of good behavior Antony married Octavian's sister, the gentle and virtuous Octavia.

"Everybody was briefly happy and Virgil, writing how his Fourth Eclogue, preducted the return of Saturn's utopian reign."

Armies on both sides disobey their leaders and refuse to fight and one of the leaders solidifies the truce by marrying the sister of the other leader.

There must be a message here somewhere.

Robby

Justin
January 12, 2004 - 03:09 pm
The Battle of Brundisium between Antony's forces and those of Octavian resulted in a standoff stalemate because the troops refused to fight one another. This was the objective of Lysistrada's forces during the wars between Athens and Sparta. It appears that withholding the boob is not as effective as common sense in preventing battles.

robert b. iadeluca
January 12, 2004 - 03:14 pm
I'm afraid that a couple of you folks are ahead of Durant. We are still at 40 B.C. (Page 205)

Robby

Justin
January 12, 2004 - 05:15 pm
Sorry, Robby. I did move ahead. I see we are at Tarsus. I have no wish to provoke comment but it is probably worth noting at this point that Tarsus is the birthplace of Saul, later known as Paul. The character of the place may not have changed very much in the century that elapses between Antony and Saul. Antony sees the place as a setting for a punitive tryst with Cleopatra. She seductively barges up the river rowed by nude young girls with silver oars and musical accompaniment. The scene is redolent of twentieth century Hollywood.

JoanK
January 12, 2004 - 05:56 pm
Whatever you think of Cleopatra, she certainly had a sense of style. Actually, she is doing the same thing the men are doing: taking up whatever consort suits her political aims. But since she was not a man, she had to make that attractive to the man she wanted. The men didn't have to bother.

robert b. iadeluca
January 12, 2004 - 06:25 pm
"In 38 Octavian fell in love with Livia, the pregnant wife of Tiberius Claudius Nero. He divorced his first wife Scribonia, persuaded Nero to release Livia, married her, and found, in her persuasive counsel and her aristocratic connections as a member of the Claudian gens, a passage to reconciliation with the propertied classes.

"He reduced taxes, returned 30,000 runaway slaves to their masters, and set himself patiently to restoring order in Italy. With the help of Agrippa, and of 120 ships contributed by Antony, he destroyed the fleet of Sextus Pompey, secured Rome's food supply, and ended the resistance of the Pompeians (36). The Senate by acclamation named him tribune for life.

"After marrying Octavia in a state ceremony at Rome, Antony went with her to Athens. There for a time he enjoyed the novel experience of living with a good woman. He put aside politics and war and, with Octavia at his side, attended the lectures of philosophers.

"Meanwhile, however, he studied the plans that Caesar had left for conquering Parthia. Labienus, son of Caesar's general, had entered the services of the Parthian king and had led Parthian armies victoriously into Cilicia and Syria -- lucrative provinces of Rome (40). To meet this threat Antony needed soldiers. To pay soldiers he needed money. Of this Ceopatra had plenty.

"Suddenly tiring of virtue and peace, he sent Octavia back to Rome and asked Cleopatra to meet him at Antioch. She brought him a few troops, but she disapproved of his grandiose plans and apparently gave him little of her fabulous treasury. He invaded Parthia with 100,000 men (36), tried in vain to capture its citadels, and lost almost half his forces in a heroic retreat through 300 miles of hostile country.

"On the way he annexed Armenia to the empire. He awarded himself a triumph and shocked Italy by celebrating it at Alexandria. He sent a letter of divorce to Octavia (32), married Cleopatra, confirmed her and Caesarion as joint rulers of Egypt and Cyprus, and bequeated the Eastern provinces of the Empire to the son and daughter that Cleopatra had borne him. Knowing that he would soon have to square accounts with Octavian, he abandoned himself to a year of frolic and luxury.

"Cleopatra encouraged him to dare the last gamble for omnipotence, helped him to raise an army and a fleet, and chose as her favorite oath, 'As surely as I shall one day give judgment in the Capitol.'"

Robby

Justin
January 13, 2004 - 01:01 am
I agree JoanK, Cleopatra was a woman of considerable depth. She had a deep sense of responsibility to Egypt. She pursued marriage to Caesar and to Antony as a political objective- to protect Egypt through linkage with Rome. She was still a child when she sought Caesar but Antony agreed. Divorced his wife and married Cleopatra but in doing so gave Octavian the evidence he needed to declare war on Cleopatra. She becomes the enemy of Rome and the linkage she achieved is broken.

There are few women in history with her political insight and sense of duty. Deborah perhaps, and later the Queens Elizabeth and Mary and more recently, Magaret Thatcher, who played a strong role in Government.

georgehd
January 13, 2004 - 01:23 am
Queen Victoria and Golda Meir come to mind. There do not seem to be any woman leaders of importance in the Orient? Is that true.?

robert b. iadeluca
January 13, 2004 - 04:36 am
"Octavia bore her rejection silently, living quietly in Antony's house at Rome, and brought up faithfully his children by Fulvia and the two daughters that she herself had given him. The daily sight of her mute desolation inflamed Octavian's conviction tht both Italy and he were doomed if Antony's plans succeeded.

"He saw to it that Italy should realize the situation. Antony had married the Queen of Egypt, had assigned to her and her illegimate offspring the most tribute-yielding of Rome's provinces, was seeking to make Alexandria the capital of the empire, and would reduce Rome and Italy to subordinate roles.

"When Antony sent a message to the Senate (which he had for years ignored) proposing that he and Octavian should retire to private life, and that the institutions of the Republic should be restored, Octavian escaped a difficult situation by reading to the Senate what he claimed was Antony's will, which he had taken by force from the Vestal Virgins. It named Antony's children by Cleopatra his sole heirs, and directed that he should be buried beside the Queen in Alexandria. The last clause was as decisive for the Senate as it should have proved suspicious. Instead of raising doubts that a will filed in Rome should have made such provisions, it convinced the Senate and Italy that Cleopatra was scheming to absorb the empire through Antony.

"With characteristic subtlety Octavian declared war (32) against her rather than Antony, and made the conflict a holy war for the independence of Italy.

"In September, 32, the fleet of Antony and Cleopatra sailed into the Ionian Sea, 500 warships strong. No such armada had been seen before. Supporting it was an army of 100,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry, mostly supplied by Eastern princes and kings in the hope of making this a war of liberation from Rome.

"Octavian crossed the Adriatic with 400 vessels, 80,000 foot, 12,000 horse. For almost a year the rival forces prepared and maneuvered. Then, on September 2, 31, they fought at Actium, in the Ambracian Gulf, one of the decisive battles of history. Agrippa proved the better tactician, and his light ships more manageable than Antony's heavy towered leviathans. Many of these were consumed by fires set by burning brands cast upon them by Octavian's crews.

"Antony saw that he was losing and signaled to Cleopatra to carry out their prearranged plan for retreat. She headed her squadron southward and waited for Antony. Unable to extricate his flagship, he abandoned it and rowed out to hers.

"As they sailed for Alexandria he sat alone on the prow, his head between his hands, conscious that everything was lost, even honor."

Roman still fighting Roman. For what?

Robby

Bubble
January 13, 2004 - 07:45 am


georgehd - Indira maybe? and there is a Chinese Empress, but her name eludes me, who is famous in Chinese history books.

kiwi lady
January 13, 2004 - 10:39 am
I disagree about Margaret Thatcher her Prime Ministership was mostly driven by her far right ideology and she was one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in Britain especially in regard to the Implementation of the Poll Tax. Do you mean she was great because she was willing to go to War for the Falklands?

robert b. iadeluca
January 13, 2004 - 10:47 am
Keeping in mind Cleopatra's seductive methods on behalf of her nation, what measures are you folks using in comparing these modern women leaders with Cleopatra?

Robby

kiwi lady
January 13, 2004 - 11:27 am
Our PM is a very strong woman and competes very much on a level with her male counterparts. Appearance means nothing to her and she mostly wears trouser suits ( for which she has been criticised). She is not afraid to speak her mind even to the President of the United States. In the polls she is consistently rated the preferred Prime Minister. She certainly does not use feminine wiles she uses her very superior intellect to get her point across. Helen Clarke can consistently win out in the debating chamber. I don't agree with some of her policies but I certainly believe she is one of the strongest politicians we have ever had.

georgehd
January 13, 2004 - 01:23 pm
pOST 489- Robbie, only Elizabeth Taylor can compare with Cleo's seductive methods. She was well cast. But then she was not working for a nation, only herself and Richard.

Justin
January 13, 2004 - 04:53 pm
Queen Victoria? Not in my book. She alowed colonialism to develop in the British Isles. Aided and abetted the problems in Ireland and failed to understand the Moslem- Hindu relationship in India. I think her lack of awareness set the civilized world back a couple of centuries. The same may be true of some more recent male leaders. Golda Meir? In my judgement she is another Deborah. The lady from China was The Dowager Queen.

Justin
January 13, 2004 - 05:12 pm
The Battle of Actium cannot easily be called "Roman against Roman" for most of Antony's troops were supplied by Cleopatra and these were the troops of African Kings. They were mercenary troops paid by Cleopatra. Antony had only a few legions of his own controlling the land battle.

robert b. iadeluca
January 13, 2004 - 05:18 pm
"From Actium Octavian went to Athens. Thence to Italy to quell a mutiny among his troops, who clamored for the plunder of Egypt. Then to Asia to depose and punish Antony's adherents and raise new funds from long-suffering cities. Then to Alexandria (30).

"Antony had left Cleopatra and was staying on an island near Pharos. Thence he sent offers of peace, which Octavian ignored. Unknown to Antony, Cleopatra sent Octavian a golden scepter, crown, and throne as tokens of her submission. According to Dio he replied that he would leave her and Egypt untouched if she would kill Antony. The beaten Triumvir wrote to Octavian again, reminding him of their former friendship and of 'all the wanton pranks in which they shared as youths' and agreed to kill himself if the victor would spare Cleopatra. Again Octavian made no reply.

"Cleopatra gathered all that she could of the Egyptian treasury into a palace tower and informed Octavian that she would destroy it all, and herself, unless he granted an honorable peace. Antony led what small forces remained to him in a last fight. His desperate courage won a temporary victory. But on the next day, seeing Cleopatra's mercenaries surrender, and receiving a report that Cleopatra was dead, he stabbed himself.

"When he learned that the report was false he begged to be brought to the tower in whose upper chamgers the Queen and her attendants had locked themselves. They drew him up through the window, and he died in her arms.

"Octavian allowed her to come forth and bury her lover. Then he granted her an audience and, immune to what lure survived in a broken woman of thirty-nine, he gave her terms that made life seem worthless to one who had been a queen. Convinced that he intended to take her as captive to adorn a Roman trimph, she arrayed herself in her royal robes, put an asp to her breast, and died. Her handmaidens Charmion and Iris followed her in suicide.

"Octavian permitted her to be buried beside Antony. Caesarion, and Antony's eldest son by Fulvia, he slew. The children of Antony and the Queen he spared and sent to Italy, where Octavia reared them as if they were her own.

"The victor found the Egyptian treasury intact and as abundant as he had dreamed. Egypt escaped the indignity of being named a Roman province. Octavan merely mounted the throne of the Ptolemies, succeeded to their possessions, and left a praefectus to administer the country in his name. Caesar's heir had conquered those of Alexander, and absorbed Alexander's realm.

"The West again, as at Marathon and Magnesia, had triumphed over the East. The battle of the giants was over, and an invalid had won."

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 13, 2004 - 05:23 pm
"The Republic died at Pharsalus.

The revolution ended at Actium.

Rome had completed the fatal cycle known to Plato and to us:-monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchic exploitation, democracy, revolutionary chaos, dictatorship.

Once more, in the great systole and diastole of history, an age of freedom ended and an age of discipline began."

Justin
January 13, 2004 - 05:55 pm
Kiwi: The reason I picked M. T. was that she represented the interest of the right with all the forces in her power. Queen Victoria, on the other hand was a nice lady who lived a long time but was without any significant overriding objectives. Cleo, on the other hand, had the good of Egypt in mind in all her actions. Egypt would be safe, she thought, if she could link with the power of Rome.

These selections are arbitrary judgements at best. Helen Clark sounds like a lady to be reckoned with.

Justin
January 13, 2004 - 06:37 pm
We leave Actium too quickly and come to the asp too soon. This battle is one of the most significant in history. It is the separation point between the old Rome and the New Rome.

There is a significant difference between Durant's version of the battle and Plutarch's version. Durant says, "Antony saw that he was losing, and signaled to Cleopatra to carry out their prearranged plan for retreat. She headed her squadron Southward and waited for Antony; unable to extricate his flagship, he abandoned it and rowed out to hers. As they sailed for Alexandria, he sat alone on the prow, his head between his hands."

Plutarch on the other hand says," But the fortune of the day was still undecided, and the battle equal, when on a sudden Cleopatra's sixty ships were seen hoisting sail and making out to sea in full flight, right through the ships that were still engaged.The enemy was astonished to see them sailing off with a fair wind. Here it was that Antony showed to all the world that he was no longer actuated by the thoughts and motives of a commander or a man, or indeed by his own judgment at all, and what was once said as a jest, that the soul of a lover lives in someone else's body, he proved to be a serious truth. For as if he had been born part of her, as soon as he saw her ship moving away, he abandoned all that were fighting and spending their lives for him, and put himself aboard a galley to follow her that had so well begun his ruin and would hereafter accomplish it. She perceiving him to follow, gave the signal to come aboard. He sat alone, in the ships prow , covering his face with his two hands."

There is a significant difference is there not? This is the first time I have noted serious editing by Durant of a quotable source. Judging from the construction and language used by Durant it appears that Plutarch is his source.

robert b. iadeluca
January 13, 2004 - 06:55 pm
Yes, Justin, there is a difference. I assume, as I have said in previous postings, that Durant, realizing that he was trying to write a story of the entire civilization, cut his words short.

Thank you for pointing this out to us. This also helps to show us the advantage of links in addition to Durant's words.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 13, 2004 - 07:01 pm
I find THIS STORY of the Battle of Actium and its importance in history most helpful.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 13, 2004 - 07:07 pm
Here is ANOTHER VERSION of the Battle of Actium. I find that reading a couple of versions helps me to see the entire picture.

The main point, as Durant states -- an age of freedom had ended and an age of discipline had begun.

Robby

JoanK
January 13, 2004 - 09:08 pm
Here we see Cleopatra's sense of style again. By committing suicide in that dramatic way, she has entered our literature with a new dramatic figure: the asp.

My favorite asp story is from a tape my children gave me of that old radio show: the Shadow. Remember the Shadow: he had the ability to cloud men's minds so they could not see him. In this episode (probanly from the 1940s) the villianess, a mysterious egyptian princess (!!!) plans to kill the Shadow by having her asp bite him (aparantly, he doesn't have the ability to cloud asp's minds so the asp could see him). But he gets wind of the plot, goes to the zoo, and borrows an asp of his own. In the showdown, the Shadow's asp kills the villianess's asp so he can capture her.

Ah, Cleopatra, what a legacy you left us. They don't make plots like that anymore!

Justin
January 13, 2004 - 11:17 pm
Neither of these historians mention a departure signal by Antony. In fact, both Dio Cassius and Plutarch say just the opposite. Where did Durant get the story of the signal and prior plans? His language is so close to that of Plutarch it looks as though he read it all, took some of it and rejected other parts. Do the plans and signal come out of Durant's head?

Livy, born in Dalmatia where Antony anchored his fleet, has nothing to say about the battle. Isn't that interesting? Livy lived from 57BCE to 17 CE. Sixty years through the heart of the civil wars and not a word. Am I mistaken? Are there lost manuscripts? Extant works I am unaware of.

Where is Ginny when we need her?

Justin
January 13, 2004 - 11:30 pm
I see now, the Battle of Actium is included in Book 133 by Livy. Not in my library. Maybe it's on the Internet somewhere. Also a correction... Livy was born in Padua not Dalmatia. His father was a Roman ambassador in Dalmatia. This stuff is only two millennia old. One would think we would know it all from that period.

georgehd
January 14, 2004 - 01:46 am
Thank you Robbie and Justin for the most interesting posts on the battle of Actium. The writing of history is difficult and at times subjective. What we read as 'facts' may in reality be someone's biased view. Durant does do an amazing job of giving his readers as accurate account as he can.

robert b. iadeluca
January 14, 2004 - 03:19 am
The Principate

30 B.C. - A.D. 192

robert b. iadeluca
January 14, 2004 - 03:43 am
The new GREEN quotes in the Heading move us on.

"From Alexandria Octavian passed to Asia and continued the reallotment of kingdoms and provinces. Not until the summer of 29 did he reach Italy. There almost all classes welcomed and feted him as a savior and joined in a triumph that lasted three days. The Temple of Janus was closed as a sign that for a moment Mars had had his fill.

"The lusty peninsula was worn out with twenty years of civil war. Its farms had been neglected, its towns had been sacked or besieged, much of its wealth had been stolen or destroyed. Administration and protection had broken down. Robbers made every street unsafe at night. Highwaymen roamed the roads, kidnaped travelers, and sold them into slavery.

"Trade diminished, investment stood still, interest rates soared, property values fell. Morals, which had been loosened by riches and luxury, had not been improved by destitution and chaos, for few conditions are more demoralizing thatn poverty that comes after wealth.

"Rome was full of men who had lost their economic footing and then their moral stability -- soldiers who had tasted adventure and had learned to kill -- citizens who had seen their savings consumed in the taxes and inflation of war and waited vacuously for some returning tide to life them back to affluence -- women dizzy with freedom, multiplying divorces, abortions, and adulteries.

"Childlessness was spreading as the ideal of a declining vitality. A shallow sophistication prided itself upon its pessimism and cynicism.

"This was not a full picture of Rome, but a dangerous disease burning in its blood. On the sea piracy had returned, rejoicing in the suicide of states. Cities and provinces licked their wounds after the successive exactions of Sulla, Lucullus, Pompey, Gabinius, Caewar, Brutus, Cassius, Antony, and Octavian.

"Greece, which had been the battlefield, was ruined. Egypt was despoiled. The Near East had fed a hundred armies and bribed a thousand generals. Their peoples hated Rome as a master who had destroyed their freedom without giving them security or peace.

"What if some leader should arise among them, discover the exhaustion of Italy, and unite them in another war of liberation against Rome?"

This section gives us much to think about and perhaps gives us an opportunity to learn when we look at our own civilization.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
January 14, 2004 - 03:54 am
Good morning, ROBBY. It sounds like an exciting discussion coming up.

Mal

Malryn (Mal)
January 14, 2004 - 06:42 am
Mosaic of a Roman ship


More pictures of Roman ships

Malryn (Mal)
January 14, 2004 - 06:54 am
Octavian's general, Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa

Scrawler
January 14, 2004 - 11:42 am
Armies on both sides disobey their leaders and refuse to fight and one of the leaders solidifies the truce by marrying the sister of the other leader. There must be a message here somewhere. Roman still fighting Roman. For what?

If anyone has ever watched a nature show you can see how vicious the animal and insect world can be. If you believe that mankind is also a part of nature than it does not surprise me to find the same viciousness in mankind as well. But mankind is different from the rest of nature. We have a conscious. As we will see throughout history sometimes we forget that we have this conscious but nevertheless it is a part of "our" nature. What do men and women fight for? Is it for the idels that we believe in or simply for survival like the rest of nature? The fact that the bloodthirsty Romans as we have sometimes described them "refused to fight" gives me hope that mankind is now evolving slowly into a thinking man.

robert b. iadeluca
January 14, 2004 - 02:38 pm
Thanks for those pictures of the Roman ships, Mal. I found the links in both Post 499 and Post 500 most helpful in understanding the battle at Actium. Having read them, then those pictures you furnished aided me in better visualizing the battle.

As for "mankind being a part of nature," do you folks agree with Scrawler's comments?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
January 14, 2004 - 02:55 pm
Scrawler says in Post 510, "But mankind is different from the rest of nature. We have a conscious." I'm sure she means "conscience" here.

When I thought about this it came to me that the concept of "conscience" appears to vary according to the differences in culture. In some cultures today human life is not regarded in the same way that it is in the West.

The Romans acted as if human beings were easily expendable. They were not alone. He insulted you? Cut off his head. Where's the conscience in that? Did the Romans, in fact, have conscience at all? Is the idea of conscience based on religious belief? Is it a fairly modern concept? I truly don't think it's innate. Where did conscience come from?

Mal

robert b. iadeluca
January 14, 2004 - 03:42 pm
"Once a virile Senate would have faced these dangers, raised sturdy legions, found for them able captains, and guided them with far-seeing statesmanship. But the Senate was now only a name. The great families that had been its strength had died out in conflict or sterility, and the traditions of statecraft had not been transmitted to the businessmen, soldiers, and provincials who had succeeded them.

"The new Senate gratefully yielded its major powers to one who would plan, take responsibility, and lead.

"Dio Cassius represents Octavian as discussing the matter at great length with Maccenas and Agrippa. Since in their judgment all governments were oligarchies, the problem could not present itself to them as a choice among monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. They had to decide whether, under the given conditions of space and time, oligarchy was to be preferred in a monarchical form based upon an army, or an aristocratic form rooted in heredity, or a democratic form resting on the wealth of the business class.

"Octavian combined them all in a 'Principate' that mingled the theories of Cicero, the precedents of Pompey, and the policies of Caesar."

The legislature yielded its powers to the nation's leader. This leader discussed the situation with his cronies (is that a Roman word?) who had the same philosophy of government. Together they agreed that they did not want to turn the wheel of state over to the people. Their choice was to give power to either "old money" or "corporate money" or the military.

The leader said:--"Let's put them together with me in charge."

Do I have that correct?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 14, 2004 - 03:57 pm
"And one should bear in mind that there is nothing more difficult to execute, nor more dubious of success, nor more dangerous to administer than to introduce a new order to things; for he who introduces it has all those who profit from the old order as his enemies; and he has only lukewarm allies in all those who might profit from the new."

-- Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince

robert b. iadeluca
January 14, 2004 - 04:02 pm
"From this arises an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared. I reply that one should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking."

-- Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince

Justin
January 14, 2004 - 04:22 pm
Emil Ludwig in his 1937 biography of Cleopatra seems to partially confirm the view of Durant about a signal. He says, "Cleopatra gave the order for her fleet to put to sea. When Cleo's ships passed among the smoking, roaring, fighting ships to the open sea, Antony perceived her and had seen the prearranged signal-on this point all the records are agreed- he did not hesitate for a moment. He immediately put off in a boat."

The above is some confirmation of the "prearranged signal". The signal, what ever it's intent, was not given by Antony to direct the movement Cleo's ships. They were already underway an hour or more toward the open sea.

The magnitude of this event is incredible. Imagine Patton on the way to relieve Bastogne, breaking off the action to lodge with his favorite lady or Eisenhower calling off the invasion of Europe to spend a little time with his favorite Chevy driver.

gaj
January 14, 2004 - 06:40 pm
The Code of Hammurabi came before the Roman's and Greeks. So did laws come from a conscience or were they just to maintain some order? It seems to me that with power comes the need to exercise it. Rulers always teach that the enemy is somehow less than human or civilized or what ever excuse works to get people to kill others. This means to me that there must be an internal resistance to harming ones own tribe.

robert b. iadeluca
January 14, 2004 - 06:45 pm
"Did laws come from a conscience or were they just to maintain some order?"

Excellent question, Ginny Ann. Any thoughts?

Robby

JoanK
January 14, 2004 - 07:54 pm
The ten commandments also precede the time we are talking of. And yet, the Torah/Old Testament is full of exhortations to kill your enemy. I think you are right, that in most times and places, the OTHER people are not viewed as human in the same way as one's own people. We all understand the armies in the civil war that refused to fight each other. If they had refused to fight a strange armt, we would feel differently about it.

I would like to think our "conscience" is growing in scope, and in the realization that all humans are related. But I'm not sure.

I remember once seeing a mafia boss interviewed on TV. He was in jail foe executing a rival. He was bemoaning the fact that one of his men who was killed had a grieving wife and children. But, he was asked, the man you killed had a wife and children. How could you kill him. The mafia boss looked startled. But, he said, I never met them. They were not real people to him.

georgehd
January 14, 2004 - 10:33 pm
Joan's last comment brought to mind the fact that in WW I and II, there was much more personal contact with the enemy. They were human to us. In our most recent wars, we have used smart bombs and missles and therefore introduced a distance between us and them. We depersonalize the enemy. Watching missles hit Iraqi targets on TV is a far cry from hand to hand combat.

I also thought of the fact that in Roman times, life was much harder and shorter than it is today. People probably did little more than survive if they were poor. I think that this would affect one's views of other humans particularly if they were your enemy. I am not trying to justify Roman behavior; I am merely pointing out that it is hard for us to imagine what it was like in those days. After all they did not have TV and Ben and Jerry's.

I also do not see religion as serving the same role for the early Romans as it does for us. Philosophers may have written of conscience - I do not recall. But these writings would not have been available to many if not most of the population.

robert b. iadeluca
January 15, 2004 - 12:37 am
"The people accepted Octavian's solution philosophically. They were no longer enamored of freedom, but wearily wished for security and order. Any man might rule them who guaranteed them games and bread.

"Vaguely they understood that their clumsy comitia, clogged with corruption and racked with violence, could not govern the Empire, could not restore health to Italy, could not even administer Rome. The difficulties of freedom multiply with the area it embraces. When Rome ceased to be a city-state, empire drove it inexorably toward the imitation of Egypt, Persia, and Macedon. Out of the collapse of freedom into individualism and chaos a new government had to be created to forge a new order for a widened realm. All the Mediterranean world lay in disorder at Octavian's feet, waiting for statesmanship.

"He succeeded where Caesar had failed, because he was more patient and devious, because he understood the strategy of words and forms -- because he was willing to move cautiously and slowly where his great-uncle had been forced by the brevity of time to wound living traditions and crowd a generation of changes into half a year of life.

"Moreover, Octavian had money. When he brought the treasury of Egypt to Rome, says Suetonius, 'money became so abundant that the interest rate fell' from twelve to four per cent, and 'the value of real estate rose enormously.' As soon as Octavian made it clar that property rights were again sacred -- that he was through with proscriptions and confiscations -- money came out of hiding, investment took courage -- trade expanded -- wealth resumed its accumulation -- and some of it trckled down to the workers and the slaves.

"All ranks in Italy were pleased to learn that Italy was to remain the beneficiary, and Rome the capital, of the Empire -- that the threat of a resurrected East had for a time been laid -- and that Caesar's dream of a commonwealth with equal rights had been replaed by a quiet return to the privileges of the master race."

"no longer enamored of freedom but wearily wished for security and order."

Let us suppose that you must choose one or the other -- freedom or security and order. You cannot have both. You can have freedom as most of us here have known it but there is chaos. No security. No order.

Or life is secure and orderly but you have lost your freedom as we know it.

Think slowly and clearly, folks. What is your choice? And this is not just a philosophical exercise. Many nations today find it necessary to make such a choice. The Romans in that period of time leaned toward security and order.

Robby

Justin
January 15, 2004 - 12:42 am
Conscience implies the existance of a code of behavior and some degree of remorse if one violates the code. Personal committment to the code will result in remorse for violations. Violators are often asked by the keepers of the code to examine their conscience as though conscience were a store house of code breaches.

Laws are a social necessity. They serve to keep order in the community. If one commits to live in a community and to keep order one must also commit to obey the laws of the community. If one breaks the law they are expected to feel remorse. But that does not happen in all cases.

When criminals are executed, members of the press are often concerned that the criminal does not feel remorse for his actions as though that were a serious failing in the criminal. I think if the criminal shows remorse, it makes the press and the prison officials feel they have been successful. The criminal has somehow been rehabilitated before he is executed.

3kings
January 15, 2004 - 01:46 am
I, too, am in accord with those who think that conscience is as old as human society. I do not think a society could exist, should its individual members not have a conscience. That 'small inner voice' we all hear in the silence of our own minds. I believe it is the glue that binds individuals into social groups.

True, there are 'strong men', would be leaders, who commit some stupid, or dastardly act, and wanting to be thought decisive and determined, seek to hide their feelings of regret.

They do this, I suppose, because they are afraid to display what they think others will condemn as weakness. The 'macho male' has always been with us, often to society's detriment.

Durant also writes of " women dizzy with freedom, multiplying divorces, abortions, and adulteries." I wonder where this belief that freedom for women leads to the above social flaws, comes from ? In societies where only men exercise their 'rights' such misdeeds as above are equally common, but publically hidden, and spoken of only in whispers, or in drunken bravado with the boys... Well perhaps not divorces, but the latter two that Durannt speaks of, are practised.( am never sure if that last word should be spelled with an 's' or a 'c' ). == Trevor

Bubble
January 15, 2004 - 02:24 am
Security and peace above all, Robby. How can freedom be enjoyed when you are scrambling for your life or for a crust of bread? And noone can stop or conquer the freedom of mind, the spiritual freedom...

georgehd
January 15, 2004 - 02:49 am
It seems to me that Sea Bubble lives in a nation that must make the choice that Robbie suggests. It is a matter of survival. Security is probably more important in today's world than freedom. This reality will be very difficult for Americans to understand and live with. And it will require the wisdom of Solomon to enact laws that insure security without at the same time taking away the freedom that we all want and love. Individual rights and freedoms are cherished and stressed in the US, sometimes at the expense of society's needs.

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 15, 2004 - 03:39 am
Like Bubble, I think that there is no freedom where there is no security. We can always have spiritual freedom, but peace is harder to come by, especially for her.

To have both as George says is becoming harder and harder in the world, and in America we seem to prefer freedom to security. The threat of law enforcement is becoming less of a deterrent for terrorists and criminals.

Eloïse

georgehd
January 15, 2004 - 05:25 am
As I looked back at my post 525, I thought of the issue of gun control. This issue pits individual rights,(so called in this case IMO) and the needs of society.

robert b. iadeluca
January 15, 2004 - 06:18 am
So apparently Octavian gave the Romans the most wanted of the two concepts. This may help us in the Western Civilization to better understand the minds of those in developing nations -- give us bread in our stomachs, a street where we can safely walk, a little fun and games now and then -- and who cares who lives in the palace and how they run the nation.

Boils down to simple survival, doesn't it? Maybe the answer to Voltaire's question in the Heading is not that important.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 15, 2004 - 06:28 am
"From this bountiful rapine Octavian first paid his debts to his soldiers. He kept 200,000 men in srvice, each bound to him by an oath of personal loyalty. The remaining 300,000 he discharged with an allotment of agricultural land. To each soldier he gave a substantial gift of money. He lavished presents upon his generals, his supporters, and his friends. On several occasions he made up deficits in the public treasury from his private funds.

"To provinces suffering from political depredations or acts of God he remitted a year's tribute and sent large sums for relief. He forgave property owners all tax arrears and publicly burned the records of their debts to the state. He paid for the corn dole, provided prodigal spectacles and games, and presented cash to every citizen. He undertook great public works to end unemployment and beautify rome, and paid for them out of his purse.

"Was it any wonder that the nations looked upon him as a god?

"While all this money slipped through his hands this bourgeois empereur lived simply, shunning the luxuries of the nobles and the emoluments of office, wearing the garments woven by the women in his home, and sleeping always in one small room of what had been the palace of Hortensius.

"When this burned down after he had occupied it for twenty-eight years, he built his new palace on the plan of the old, and slept in the same narrow cubiculum as before. Even when away from the eyes of the city he lived like a philosopher rather than a prince.

"His sole indulgence was to escape from public affairs by sailing leisurely along the Campanian coast."

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 15, 2004 - 06:56 am
Singapore is one of those states where they brag about how little crime they have. Security and order are paramount. This ARTICLE in this morning's NY Times tells the latest in the freedom enjoyed by their citizens.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
January 15, 2004 - 07:55 am
Singapore's system seems extreme. New York City reduced its crime rate a great deal by increasing the number of cops on the street. People do react to seeing law enforcement officers in the United States. They also react to seeing patrol cars on the highway.

Here's some information about the city where I live, population around 55,000 people, much more when the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill is in session.
"In the last year there were no murders, thirteen rapes, sixty-three robberies, one hundred forty-three assaults, eight arsons and one hundred thirty-eight auto thefts. This puts Chapel Hill in the twenty-fifth national percentile for crime, which means their crime rate is comparably minimal compared to other regions."
Here are some interesting facts about this city:
"The city of Chapel Hill has a median income of approximately forty-seven thousand dollars per year, which puts them in the sixty-eighth national percentile. The average age in Chapel Hill, North Carolina is approximately forty years old, where forty-one percent are married and twenty-three percent have children. Education-wise, ninety three percent are high school graduates; while seventy-one percent are college graduates."

Source:

The City of Chapel Hill

Scrawler
January 15, 2004 - 10:12 am
After the Battle of Actium:

After the final battle outside Alexandria on Aug. 1, 30 BC, in which his troops deserted him, Antony stabbed himself when he received a false report that Cleopatra was already dead. Antony died in Cleopatra's arms inside her mausoleum, where she had barricaded herself with the treasures of the Ptolemies to keep them from Octavian.

Tricked into surrendering herself, Cleopatra tried again to negotiate with Octavian. Rebuffed, she carefully planned her own death. On Aug. 10, after paying last honors to Antony, she retired to her quarters for a final meal. How Cleopatra died is debatable, but on her left arm were found two tiny pricks, presumbly from the bite of an asp.

Asp:

Asp is the common name for a poisonous snake of the cobra family. Also called the Egyptian cobra, it is found throughout northern Africa. The asp was worshiped in ancient Egypt and was used as the symbol on the crown of the Pharaohs.

I found it interesting that Cleopatra should have chosen this way to die. Symbolically the asp, which was represented on the crowns of Pharaohs, brought death to the Egyptian crown repersented by Cleopatra.

Cleopatra's Life:

Cleopatra's life has formed the basis for many literary works, the most notable of which was the plays "Anthony and Cleopatra" by Shakespeare, "All for Love" by the English dramatist John Dryden, and "Casesar and Cleopatra" by the Brish playwright George Bernad Shaw.

gaj
January 15, 2004 - 11:44 am
As an American I prefer freedom over 'security.' It seems to me that when the state has many powers of enforcement there really isn't security. How do you know when someone may accuse you of some treasonist comments to the law enforcement community. Off to jail you would go. A lawyer, not right away after all you might be a terrorist.

Who in Rome had a real choice of freedom over security? Not the nonexant middle class. So It has to be the monied people and they can often buy their way out of trouble.

robert b. iadeluca
January 15, 2004 - 04:27 pm
"Octavian kept always the title of imperator, as commander in chief of all the armed forces of the state. As the army remained for the most part outside the capital and usually outside Italy, the citizens could forget, while they went through all the forms of the dead Republic, that they were living under a military monarchy in which force was hidden so long as phrases could rule.

"Octavian was chosen consul in 43 and 33, and in every year from 31 to 23. By the tribunician authority conferred upon him in 36, 30, and 23, he had for life the inviolability of a tribune, the right to initiate legislation in the Senate or the Assembly, and the power to veto the actions of any official in the government.

"No one protested against this amiable dictatorship. The businessmen who were making hay under the sun of peace -- the senators who sniffed Octavian's Egyptian spoils -- the soldiers who held their lands or status by his bounty -- the beneficiaries of Caesar's laws, appointments, and will -- all were now agreed with Homer that the rule of one man is best, at least if he should be so free with his funds as Octavian, so industrious and competent, and so visibly devoted to the good of the state."

The citizens saw all the "forms" of a Republic that was no longer in existence, and forgot that they were living under a military monarchy. They were ruled by phrases and force was hidden (shades of 1984?). Everybody was doing well. Don't rock the boat.

A benign dictator. Is there such a thing?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 15, 2004 - 04:35 pm
Here is a NEWSPEAK GLOSSARY taken from George Orwell's "1984." He wrote of a culture where "phrases ruled."

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 15, 2004 - 05:18 pm
MAPS AND IMAGES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 14 AD

gaj
January 15, 2004 - 05:31 pm
Interesting you bringing up 1984 Robby. I recently said to friends "I think we are in a time of 1984 and Brave New World"

You asked:"A benign dictator. Is there such a thing?" - I don't think so. The word dictator overwhelms the word benign.

robert b. iadeluca
January 15, 2004 - 06:49 pm
Those were magnificent links, Eloise! I printed out the maps of the Roman Empire and Imperial Rome for me to look at as we move along. The scope of the Empire is awesome, both in its north and south dimensions as well as its east to west dimensions! It's hard for me to imagine the Romans way up in what we now call Holland.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 15, 2004 - 07:04 pm
I have been getting some emails asking me if I am dropping out as DL of Story of Civilization now that I will be DL for Studs Terkel's book, "Hope Dies Last," which starts two weeks from now, Feb. 1st. Already there are 20 people who have indicated their intent to participate and who have obtained their book or are in the process of getting it.

NO! NO! NO!

I am really looking forward to that hot and heavy discussion but I am estimating that it will last only a month or so. Story of Civilization will continue -- for years -- right? And I will be here.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 15, 2004 - 08:00 pm
"In 28, as co-censor with Agrippa, he took a census of the people, revised the membership of the Senate, reduced it to 600, and was himself named permanently princeps senatus. The title had meant 'first on the roll call of the Senate.' Soon it would mean 'prince' in the sense of ruler, just as imperator, through Octavian's life tenure of the name, would come to mean 'emperor.'

"History rightly calls his government, and that of his successors for two centuries, a 'principate' rather than strictly a monarchy. Until the death of Comodus all the 'emperors' recognized, at least in theory, that they were only the leaders (principes) of the Senate. To make the constitutional facade of his authority more imposing, Octavian in 27 surrendered all his offices, proclaimed the restoration of the Republic, and expressed his desire (at thirty-five) to retire to private life.

"Perhaps the drama had been arranged. Octavian was one of those cautious men who believe that honesty is the best policy, but that it must be practiced with discrimination. The Senate countered his abdication with its own, returned to him nearly all his powers, implored him to continue his guidance of the state, and conferred upon him the title of Augustus which history has mistaken as his name.

"Hitherto the word has been applied only to holy objects and places, and to certain creative or augmenting divinities (augere, to increase). Applied to Octavian it clothed him with a halo of sanctity, and the protection of religion and the gods."

Be honest -- but discriminately.

Robby

Justin
January 15, 2004 - 10:50 pm
Scrawler:Several historians mention very limited desertions to Caesar Octavia. The figure most often mentioned is about a thousand. But this number is trivial. It was Antony who deserted his men. Not the other way around. When Cleo, his tootsie, weighed anchor in the middle of the battle, Antony deserted his men, all of them, to follow her. Antony might have won that battle. He was certainly a better general than either Octavia or Aggripa.

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 16, 2004 - 04:35 am
When Cleo ... ..... weighed anchor in the middle of the battle Antony deserted his men, all of them, to follow her. Antony might have won that battle.

Some women are worth losing an Empire for but I think that Caesar would not have done the same thing for her as Antony did. I am thinking of Edward the Eight renouncing the throne of England, the biggest kingdom on earth for Wallis Simpson, he said: "I can't rule the country without the help of the woman I love". Antony needed Cleopatra's guidance to rule the Empire, without her he couldn't either it seems. Antony's passion for her was used by his enemies and perhaps it was time for Antony to go. History has to march on.

"Octavian was one of those cautious men who believe that honesty is the best policy, but that it must be practiced with discrimination. Is it: "be honest only when it suits your purpose?"

Eloïse

robert b. iadeluca
January 16, 2004 - 05:32 am
"The people of Rome seem to have thought for a while that the 'restoration' was real, and that they were receiving back the republic in return for an adjective. Did not the Senate and the assemblies still make the laws, still elect the magistrates? It was so. Augustus or his agents merely 'proposed' the laws and 'nominated' the more important candidates.

"As imperator and consul, he ruled the army and the Treasury and administered the laws. By his tribunician privileges he controlled all other activities of the government. His powers were not much greater than those of Pericles or Pompey, or any energetic American president. The difference lay in their permanence.

"In 23 he resigned the consulate, but received from the Senate a 'proconsular authority' that gave him control of all officials in all provinces. Again no one objected. On the contrary, when a scarcity of grain threatened, the people besieged the Senate with demands that Augustus be made dictator. They had fared so ill under the Senatorial oligarchy that they were inclined toward a dictatorship, which would presumably cultivate their favor as a foil to the power of wealth.

"Augustus refused. But he took charge of the annona, or food supply, quickly ended the shortage, and earned such gratitude that Rome looked on with complacency as he remolded its institutions in his image."

His power, therefore, was limited to being in control of only the military and the money! The people did nothing about that. All they wanted was food.

Your comments, please?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 16, 2004 - 05:36 am
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."

- - - Edmund Burke

Malryn (Mal)
January 16, 2004 - 11:09 am
That's what I'm worried about. People like Augustus scare me.

Mal

Scrawler
January 16, 2004 - 11:11 am
Give me freedom or give me death because without freedom we are dead.

Thanks Mal for your correction of my earlier post. I did mean "conscience."

As for "mankind being a part of nature," do you agree?

Nature: I think mankind is a part of nature because we are a part of the world, universe, or the cosmos.

Roman Theories: Because passion and emotion are considered irrational movements of the soul, the wise individual seeks to eradicate the passions and consiously embrace the rational life. This doctrine was popularized among the Romans by the 1st century BC by Cicero, who gave a famous definition of natural law in his "De Republica": "True law is right reason in agreement with Nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions...There will not be different laws of Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and for times. In the "Corpus luris Civilis" a compiltion and codification of Roman legal material prepared (534 AD) under Emperor Justinian, a "ius naturle" is acknowledged, but there is no assertion that natural law is superior to positive law and no vindication of human rights (slavery, for example, was legal).

Conscience: Conscience, in modern usage, terms denoting various factors in moral experience. Thus, the recognition and acceptance of a principle of conduct as binding is called consience. In theology and ethics, the term refers to the inner sense of right and wrong in moral choices, as well as to the satisfaction that follows action regarded as right and the dissatisfaction and remorse resulting from conduct that is considered wrong. In earlier ethical theories, conscience was regarded as a separate faculty of the mind having moral jurisdiction, either absolute or as a representative of God in the human soul.

JoanK
January 16, 2004 - 12:04 pm
"His power, therefore, was limited to being in control of only the military and the money! The people did nothing about that. All they wanted was food.

Your comments, please?

I think we have to remember that even though the government had been called a republic, it had been a long time since it had been anything close to that. Seventeen years of civil war and before that Pompey and before that so much corruption that it was basically a dictatorship of whoever was the best briber. I've lost count of the time, but most of the people alive in Octavian's time had probably never known "freedom as we know it".

That is an excuse for them. And I think it is important for us to remember in some of the countries now that are trying to be democracies. The people there may have very little understanding of what that means.

It is not an excuse for us. We grew up with a strong tradition of democracy, and government by law, not by individuals. Still, many Americans have very little understanding of what that means.

That is not to say that if my children were starving, I wouldn't support anyone who would feed them. But they are not.

Joan Pearson
January 16, 2004 - 02:13 pm
Last fall my husband and I were fortunate to have visited Italy for the first time. We worked hard, learning the language and as much of the history as we could before visiting Venice, Florence and then Rome. When he heard we were planning this trip, Robby invited us to share photographs of our trip with you. Well, modern (?) Venice and Florence provided few photo ops that would relate to ancient Rome and its influence. Much of the art/architecture underwent great renovation from the Roman times...Napolean saw to that. But Roma, well, that was a different story! Nothing prepared us for the shock of seeing old, ancient buildings, intermingled with the modern at every turn.

One memory that stands out from all the rest - running to catch a train through a Metro tunnel on our first day and noticing on one wall some sort of plexiglass, behind which you could see the lighted ruins of the ancient city - right there, on the other side of the wall!

We never had to look far to see the old Roman buildings, mingled with the new. To say that modern civilization is built on ancient Rome is not an exaggeration. Touring the city is visual proof of that.
Look at this ...
modern manhole cover.

The letters "SPQR" are everywhere you look...even on trash receptacles! "The Senate and the People of Rome"...now look at the top of the Temple of Saturn in the Ancient City...

Were you able to read it? Try this ...it's clearer...the Arch of Titus

The principle of Senate representation of the people is a timeless concept. Monarchs and emperors come and go. I have a few photos of J. Caesar's Senate, which may be of interest.

Justin
January 16, 2004 - 03:24 pm
Eloise; I agree with you, completely. Caesar would not have left the battle for Cleo. Also I think he knew he could not have ruled the kingdom without her. She had the "brains" in that outfit. Just as Wally Simpson was needed to guide the man on the English throne so too was Cleo needed to keep Antony in line.

Justin
January 16, 2004 - 03:31 pm
If there is no bread, let them eat cake.

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 16, 2004 - 04:18 pm
Said Marie Antoinette when the plebs asked Louis XV1 for bread just before the French Revolution. After they had enough of their lavish life styles, 'les citoyens' decapited the monarchs and the Aristocracy. Today the plebs can walk inside the Tuileries palace. It is lavish beyond description.

robert b. iadeluca
January 16, 2004 - 04:41 pm
Joan, those photos are so clear. Thank you for posting them! Here in this forum we think we are talking about people who lived 2,000 years ago. It's obvious that in Rome that civilization continues to live.

Yes, we would be interested in seeing photos of Julius Caesar's Senate.

Robby

Joan Pearson
January 16, 2004 - 05:08 pm
Robby, I always thought that Caesar was assassinated over where the Forum is located in the ancient city...but had another surprise!
By Julius Caesar's time, the market and Senate had been moved from the ancient city to a site near the Pantheon. The irony is that Caesar himself made the decision to move, due to crowding and flooding.

We were walking on the Via di Torre Argentina...sort of a bus terminus - and looked downward beyond the railing you can see in this picture, and there was a marker telling us that this was the site where Caesar was assassinated as he left the Senate on March 15, 44BC. Right here midst all the noise of the buses and cars...

The site is overrun with cats - it is a cat sanctuary of sorts... This is another shot, same area - it's called the Area Sacra" More cats! You'd love this place, Robby!

robert b. iadeluca
January 16, 2004 - 05:20 pm
One wonders if those residents living nearby ever look at the spot of assassination or even pause to think of that momentous event which took place at that very spot.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 16, 2004 - 05:34 pm
"Let us study this principate government in some detail, for in many ways it was one of the subtlest political achievements in history.

"The powers of the prince were at once legislative, executive, and judicial.

"He could propose laws or decrees to assemblies or Senate.

"He could administer and enforce them.

"He could interpret them.

"He could penalize their violation.

"Says Suetonius, Augustus regularly sat as a judge, sometimes until nightfall, 'having a litter placed upon the tribual if he was indisposed. He was highly conscientious and very lenient.' Bearing the duties of so many offices, Augustus organized an informal cabinet of counselors like Maecenas, executives like Agrippa, generals like Tiberius, and an incipient clerical and administrative bureaucracy chiefly composed of his freedmen and slaves.

"Caius Maccenas was a wealthy businessman who devoted half his life to helping Augustus in war and peace, in politics and diplomacy, at last, unwillingly, in love.

"His palace on the Esquiline was famous for its gardens and its swimming pool of heated water. His enemies described him as an effeminate epicurean, for he flaunted silks and gems and knew all the lore of a Roman gourmet. He enjoyed and generously patronized literature and art, restored Virgil's farm to him and gave another to Horace, inspired the Georgias and the Odes. He refused public office, though he might hve had almost nay. He labored for years over principles and details of administration and foreign policy. He had the courage to reprove Augustus when he thought him seriously wrong.

"When he died (8 B.C.) the Prince mourned his loss as beyond repair."

"One of the subtlest political achievements in history."

Robby

Joan Pearson
January 16, 2004 - 06:24 pm
The site where JC was assassinated was not discovered until the 1920's, I think. By then, the growth had already begun.

Marc Antony's famous funeral oration took place back in the Forum, and Brutus tried to defend why the conspirators' actions were necessary. Marc Antony's sarcastic references to Brutus as "an honorable man" turned the crowd into a frenzy of mourners. Caesar, the dictator, was now a martyr. Mourners swarmed over the platform, took his bloody body and burned it in the middle of the forum. First an impromptu burial of the ashes, and then Augustus ordered the building of the Temple of Caesar when he was deified. Of the original temple only the podium and the front part with the altar remain.

What is quite amazing, people still lay flowers on the funeral mound...some are artificial, but some are fresh!

robert b. iadeluca
January 16, 2004 - 07:00 pm
Fresh flowers to mourn someone dead for 2,000 years!! This to better help us understand that article linked here where the author (an Italian) insisted that popes must be Italian and that the heritage of the Emperor must be carried on.

Robby

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 16, 2004 - 10:30 pm
Thank you Joan for showing us these photos. They are so clear, they feel like if I was right there on the spot. It must have been a wonderful trip that you will always remember.

Eloïse

Justin
January 16, 2004 - 10:53 pm
Linked where, Robby?

Justin
January 16, 2004 - 10:57 pm
Joan: Bene. Bene.

georgehd
January 17, 2004 - 03:25 am
Robbie, I wonder if you could do me a favor. I have gotten a little behind and would find it most helpful if you began each of your book quoting posts, with a reference to a page number from the book. This would help those of us who would rather read from the book itself and not the computer. I tend to read the book in chapters and not in short segments.

robert b. iadeluca
January 17, 2004 - 05:22 am
George:--I hear what you are saying but even those of here who have the book approach it in small segments following the GREEN quotes above. In that way we remain together as we move along. I assume that you are subscribed to this discussion group, so hitting the "check subscription" button will tell you when there is something new here (which is daily). It is, as you have learned, a fast-moving forum.

Justin, I no longer remember the Post # where I put that link. Links are most important in this discussion group and I recommend that all of us click on to whatever links are given us.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 17, 2004 - 05:31 am
"At the suggestionn of Augustus the meetings of the Senate were confined to the first and fifteenth of each month and usually lasted but a day. As the princeps senatus presided, no measure could be submitted without his consent, and in fact all measures presented had been prepard by himslf or his aides.

"The judicial and executive functions of the Senate now outweighed the lawmaking. It served as a supreme court, governed Italy through commissions, and directed the performance at various public works. It ruled those provinces which required no extensive military control, but foreign relations were now controlled by the Prince.

"Shorn in this way of its ancient authority, the Senate grew negligent in even its limited functions, and yelded ever more responsibility to the Emperor and his staff.

"The assemblies still met, though with decreasing frequency. They still voted, but only on measures or nominations approved by the Prince. The right of the plebs to hold office was practically ended in 18 B.C. by a law restricting office to men having a fortune of 400,000 sesterces ($60,000) or more. Augustus ran for the consulate thirteen times and canvassed for votes like the rest. It was a gracious concession to dramatic technique."

A legislature which did not use its ancient authority.

Use it or lose it!

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 17, 2004 - 05:47 am
Justin, I believe that THIS is the link to which you were referring. As I read this morning's NY Times, I searched and found the article in which the author relates the pope to the Roman Empire. I posted it on January 11.

I also asked everyone at that time not to get off into a discussion of Christianity. We will do that when Durant leads us into that area. My point was indicating that, to the Italians, the Roman Empire is still very much alive. Joan Pearson's photos help to prove that point.

Robby

georgehd
January 17, 2004 - 07:20 am
Robbie, I do not believe that subscribing answers my question. I have been a subscriber for a year. I would still like to see the page number associated with your quotations. That is a usual procedure when citing the work of an author. And I believe that it would help some of the group. Particularly someone who joins in late or who misses a week or two. Of course they do have to have access to the actual book.

I am not refering to the GREEN QUOtes. Rather the normal everyday black quotes.

robert b. iadeluca
January 17, 2004 - 07:24 am
George:--That adds one more thing for me to think of but if a significant number of people here want that in addition to the GREEN quotes, I'll do it.

Robby

georgehd
January 17, 2004 - 07:26 am
For those of you who are classisists, there is a most interesting article in the January 12th issue of The New Yorker, entitled Theaters of War by Daniel Mendelsohn. It is a lengthy discussion of ancient Greek drama and has a subtitle "Why the battles over ancient Athens still rage". I do not know if the article is available on line.

I did find the link: http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/

robert b. iadeluca
January 17, 2004 - 08:30 am
I would add this thought, George. You can assume that each day I cover another page or two. Today, for example, I am on Page 216. I will be moving later today or tomorrow onto Page 217 and 218 and so forth. As most participants here check in on a daily basis, that gives an idea of the page for those who want to know.

Based upon what I have been told, we are one of the fastest moving discussion groups in Books & Literature.

Robby

georgehd
January 17, 2004 - 09:13 am
Thanks Robbie. The post in the New Yorker is particularly good if you can find the entire article.

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 17, 2004 - 10:03 am
George, I think personally that the way this discussion is led is the best way. I used to have Book No. 2, but I didn't follow from the book. I prefer to see the quotes here following with a pertinent question because this way I don't have to concentrate on too much at a time. HaHaHa my poor brain is tired.

The discussion has been going well for three years, but if you have the book, it should be easy for you to see where we are. It is hard not to stray away from Durant and yet sometimes it brings a relief of some sort from just plain history.

Eloïse

Scrawler
January 17, 2004 - 10:37 am
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Gaj: It's interesting that you should mention that we might be "in a time of "1984" and "Brave New World". I would have to agree with this statement, but I also think we could be in the world of Julian West in Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward". Written in 1888 he describes the exploits of "a young Bostonian taveling to the year 2000. A year with full employment, material abundance, and social harmony can be found everywhere". Ah! Perhaps it is only a fantasy at that.

In regards to a benign dictator. I had an associate that I worked for who thought Hitler was a benign dictator. Before she committed suicide she was a very interesting person to work with. She had been part of Hitler's youth. She didn't seem real- her actions were almost "robotic". One thing that drove my fellow Americans nuts was that she was convinced the secret police were watching us. We used to tell her she didn't have to worry because she was in America, but I for one caught myself more than once looking over my shoulder.

Augustus Caesar: By 29 BC, at the age 34, Octavianus was sole rule of Rome, and the Senate granted him a string of titles, including Tribune, Consul, Pontifex Maximus (chief priest) and Augustus, by which title he became generally known. He was also Princeps (first citzen) and Impertor (commander-in-chief). From this latter title Augustus's regime came to be called an Empire, although the title was not hereditary and Augustus was careful to perserve the ancient facade of Roman republican government.

Augustus, having gained power by means of great audacity, ruled with great prudence. In exchange for near absolute power, he gave Rome 40 years of civic peace and increasing prosperity. He created Rome's first permanent army and stationed the legions along the Empire's borders, where they could not meddle in politics. A special unit, the Praetorian Guard, garrioned Rome and protected the Emperor's person.

robert b. iadeluca
January 17, 2004 - 10:51 am
Scrawler tells us that "Augustus, having gained power by means of great audacity, ruled with great prudence. In exchange for near absolute power, he gave Rome 40 years of civic peace and increasing prosperity."

These are words which are not always used together -- audacity and prudence -- absolute power and peace and prosperity. Any thoughts here as to how often these traits occur together in the same person?

It is said that "as the twig is bent, so grows the tree." Did Augustus' upbringing have anything to do with this? Any examples in the minds of those here of personages with the strength to be a dictator and who yet use that strength on behalf of the people?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 17, 2004 - 11:26 am
"Augustus conferred Roman citizenship, or the limited franchise of 'Latin rights,' upon all Italian communities that had borne their share in the war against Egypt.

"He helped the Italian cities with gifts, embellished them with new buildings, and devised a plan whereby their local councilors might vote by mail in the assembly elections at Rome.

"He divided the provinces into two classes -- those that required active defense, and those that did not. The latter (Sicily, Baetica, Narbonese Gaul, Macedonia, Achaea, Asia Minor Bithynia, Pontus, Cyprus, Crete and Cyrene and north Africa) he allowed the Senate to rule. The others -- 'imperial provinces' -- were governed by his own legates, procurators, or prefects.

"This pleasant arrangement allowed him to keep control of the army, which was mostly quartered in the 'endangered' provinces. It gave him the lush revenue of Egypt. It enabled him to keep an eye on the Senatorial governors through the procurators whom he appointed to collect the tribute in all the provinces.

"Each governor now received a fixed salary, so that his temptation to mulct his subjects was moderately reduced. Furthermore, a body of civil servants provided a continuing administration and a check upon the malfeasance of their temporary superiors.

"The kinglets of client states were treated with wise courtesy and gave Augustus full allegiance. He persuaded most of them to send their sons to live in his palace and receive a Roman education. By this generous arrangement the youths served as hostages until their accession, and then as unwitting vehicles of romanization."

In the provinces where uprisings were possible, Augustus took personal charge. Where the provinces had money to obtain, Augustus took personal charge. In dealing with kings of states, he had them send their sons to live in the very same palace where he was and took personal charge.

Simultaneously he conferred citizenship and presented gifts. A kindly man.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 17, 2004 - 05:19 pm
"The provinces prospered and raised altars of gratitude or expectation to Augustus the god. Even in sophisticated Rome he had to censure the people for the extravagance of their eulogies. One enthusiast ran through the streets calling upon men and women to 'devote' themselves to Augustus -- i.e. promise to kill themselves when he died.

"The Senate, pleased to have so little responsibility while retaining honors and wealth, gladly heaped upon the Emperor this and other titles of praise. The business classes, now richer than ever, celebrated his birthday with a two-day festival year after year.

"When fire destroyed his old palace, every city, apparently every tribe and guild, in the Empire sent him a contribution to rebuild it. He refused to take more than a denarius from any individual, but nevertheless he had more than enough.

"All the Mediterranean world, after its long ordeal, seemed happy. Augustus might believe that his patience and labor had accomplished his great task.

"He destroyed his own happiness by trying to make people good as well as happy. It was an imposition that Rome never forgave him. Moral reform is the most difficult and delicate branch of statesmanship.

"Few rulers have dared to attempt it. Most rulers have left it to hypocrites and saints."

Morality through legislation? Makes one to think.

Robby

Justin
January 17, 2004 - 07:45 pm
One of the monuments built to commemorate the Augustan peace period was called the "Ara Pacis"- the "Altar of Peace." It is an enclosed marble structure embellished on eight sides( four sides outside and four sides inside) by relief sculpture depicting the Julii origin of Augustus, his entire family in casual procession, Roman origins in the Trojan legends, swags of great deep cut beauty, The piece is a treasure of Roman sculptural skill

It is an example of the world wide good will generated by Augustus. The "Altar" remained buried until modern times. when it was found to hold up a corner of another building. Retrieval was made difficult for excavators because the "Altar" formed part of the foundation for another building.

robert b. iadeluca
January 17, 2004 - 09:13 pm
If we have not seen any postings or links from Mal recently, it's because she is sick in bed with the flu. Yesterday she developed pain in her right side and back. She has been feverish, has nausea, is headachy, has a slight sore throat, stuffy head and is coughing. She has been in bed all day and says that if she is not feeling better by Monday, she will contact the doctor.

She has not only not shown herself here but wasn't even well enough today to post in the WREX forum where she is the DL.

We are all missing her and wishing her quick recovery.

Robby

gaj
January 17, 2004 - 09:26 pm
That is what I think is happening in this country (USA). We have become a lititigus(sp?) society. Too many people want too many laws. Stuff that should be common sense now seems to need a law. This causes unrest because conseratives and liberals see things from different perspectives.

"Moral reform is the most difficult and delicate branch of statesmanship." Is it really statemanship to say your morals are right and the other guys morals are wrong?

Justin
January 17, 2004 - 10:01 pm
Ginny Ann: Folks who find their morals preferable to the morals of others are usually religious. They tend to be called Vicar or Minister rather than statesmen.

Justin
January 17, 2004 - 10:06 pm
George: If you are reading the book you should recognize the quotes as they appear. I hesitate to place any additional burden on Robby. I am so grateful he does as much as he does to keep us functioning.

Justin
January 17, 2004 - 10:59 pm
The practice of housing and schooling the sons of kings of the empire lasted through Claudius. Claudius grew up with King Herod's son whose name was Agrippa. He became Herod Agrippa during the reign of Tiberius. It was Herod Agrippa's grandfather who did all the distasteful things to the Jews when he heard about a messiah successor. But that's getting ahead of ourselves.

Éloïse De Pelteau
January 18, 2004 - 02:53 am
I am sorry to hear that Mal is sick. She seldom is away from Seniornet and I was wondering too because I did not see her anywhere. I hope she gets better soon.

THE ALTER OF PEACE

Eloïse

robert b. iadeluca
January 18, 2004 - 05:22 am
Justin:--You are right that entering the topic of Christianity would be getting ahead of ourselves. However, if we hold that topic in the back of our minds, it can be interesting to note particularly names that are familiar to us from the Bible but now observe these people from the Roman point of view. For example, I had not known the Herod-Agrippa connection. Thank you for that information.

Thank you for that Altar of Peace link, Eloise. It is again a reminder that the Roman Empire still "lives" in Rome.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca
January 18, 2004 - 05:55 am
"Augustus began modestly enough by seeking to check the racial transformation of Rome. Population there was not declining. On the contrary, it was growing by mass and dole attraction and the import of wealth and slaves.

"Since freedmen were included in the dole, many citizens freed old or sickly slaves to have them fed by the state. Kinder motives freed more, and many slaves saved enough to buy their liberty.

"As the sons of freedmen automatically became citizens, the emancipation of slaves and the fertility of aliens combined with the low birth rate of the native stocks to change the ethnic character of Rome. Augustus wondered what stability there could be in so heterogeneous a population, and what loyalty to the Empire might be expected of men in whose veins ran the blood of subject peoples. By his urging, the lex Fufia Caninia (2 B.C.) and later measures enacted that an owner of not more than two slaves might free them all -- the owner of from three to ten slaves might free half of them -- the owner of from eleven to thirty one-third -- the owner of from thirty-one to one hundred one-fourth -- the owner of from 101 to 300 one-fifth -- and no master might free more than a hundred.

"One might wish that Augustus had limited slavery instead of freedom. But antiquity took slavery for granted, and would have contemplated with horror the economic and social effects of a wholesale emancipation, just as the employers of our time fear the sloth that might come from security.

"Augustus was thinking in terms of race and class. He could not conceive a strong Rome without the character, courage, and political ability that had marked the old Roman -- above all, the old aristocracy.

"The decay of the ancient faith among the upper classes had washed away the supernatural supports of marriage, fidelity, and parentage. The passage from farm to city had made children less of an asset, more of a liability and a toy. Women wished to be sexually rather than maternally beautiful. In general the desire for individual freedom seemed to be running counter to the needs of the race.

"To accentuate the evil, legacy hunting had become the most profitable occupation in Italy. Men without children were sure to be courted in their declining years by expectant ghouls. So large a number of Romans relished this esurient courtesy that it became an added cause of childlessness.

"Protracted military service drew a considerable proportion of young men from marriage in their most nubile years. A large number of native-stock Romans avoided wedlock altogether, preferring prostitutes or concubines even to a varied succession of wives.

"Of those who married, a majority appear to have limited their families by abortion, infanticide, coitus interruptus, and contraception."

As so often in our watching the progress of Civilization, the topic of class differences arise. Along with that topic, the topic of morals seems to rise.

Rome, if I understand this correctly, increased in population due the influx of peoples from other lands. Many of these went on welfare. As the proportion of slaves was greater than that of freemen, Augustus had many slaves become free (but not all). Many of these went on welfare.

The foreigners from other lands had larger families than those of Roman heritage. Sons of farmers sang "How ya gonna keep them down on the farm after they've seen Rome." On a farm a son is an asset but not in the city so the birthrate declined -- therefore, less marriage and more "immoral" activity. Augustus was concerned about the decline in morals.

Lawyers came into the picture. People looked for men who had no sons so they could inherit their wealth.

Check me out, folks. Do I have all this correct?

"Esurient?"

Robby

georgehd
January 18, 2004 - 07:31 am
The mention of lawyers reminded me (I am sorry to post this)

"I heard it was so cold in the northeast this past week that lawyers had their hands in their own pockets."

robert b. iadeluca
January 18, 2004 - 07:39 am
George:--Did the mention of lawyers also lead you to some thoughts regarding Post 583?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)
January 18, 2004 - 08:49 am
If I lean to the left I don't feel the pain on my right side and back as much, so I've decided to follow my "I'm okay" method I use when I'm sick. (I think I pulled a muscle transferring myself from the wheelchair to bed or something, thus the pain.) That method is to do as much as I usually do as I can, or at least try. So here I am, fuzzy-headed and not brilliant, to thank you for your get well wishes and intelligent posts, and to thank Joan for the wonderful pictures and stories of Rome, and Eloise for the links.

Up to now I haven't seen too much to compare to our own civilization, but today's quotes from Durant seem all too familiar. I'm wondering exactly how Augustus limited and restricted freedoms besides prohibiting the voice of the people in government. It seems as if Romans had all kinds of freedoms socially. Welfare, eh? At least there was some. That's an improvement over other civilizations, isn't it? Somewhere, somehow there must be some sort of happy medium -- Golden Mean -- between tight restrictions on people and letting them run wild.

That's all I can come up with right now. My daughter brought me in some chicken broth, dry toast and tea, and I'm trying to eat. Then she changed the sheets on my bed. I always thought I was a not good mother because I had so many interests besides cleaning house and raising children, but I must have done something right. This Dorian of mine is a pretty special woman.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca
January 18, 2004 - 09:29 am
"Augustus was disturbed by these insignia of civilization. He began to feel that a movement backward to the old faith and morals was necessary. Respect for the mos maiorum revived in him as the years cleared his vision and tired his frame. It was not good, he felt, for the present to break too sharply with the past. A nation must have a continuity of traditions to be sane, as a man must have memory.

"He read with aging seriousness the historians of Rome, and envied the virtues they ascribed to the ancients. He relished the speech of Quintus Metullus on marriage, read it to the Senate, and recommended it to the people by imperial proclamation.

"A large part of the older generation agreed with him. It formed a kind of puritan party eager to reform morals by law. Probably Livia lent them her influence.

"By his powers as censor and tribune Augustus promulgated -- or passed through the Assembly -- a series of laws of now uncertain date and sequence, aimed at restoring morals, marriage, fidelity, parentage, and a simpler life."

Where have I heard that -- back to old values? Augustus called the "new" values which disturbed him the "insignia of civilization." Is this the tendency of "older" people? Looking backward with fondness? Becoming concerned about the younger generation?

Robby

Scrawler
January 18, 2004 - 12:24 pm
Praetorian Guard, bodyguard of the ancient Roman emperors. By the 2nd century BC the bodyguard of a Roman general was known as the pratorian cohort, but Augustus, the first Roman emperior, in 27 BC instituted the Pratorian Guard as a separate force by organizing nine cohorts, each consisting of 500 men, under the command of a prefect, who was called the pratorian prefect. The only large permanent body of troops allowed in Rome itself, or near the city, it soon acquired great political power. Members served 16 years, receiving special privileges and pay.

Augustus:

The First Citizen: In 27 BC the Roman Senate gave Octavian the title Augustus ("consecrted," or "holy") by which he is knwon, and his reign has often been considered a dyarchy* because of the Senate's participation in it. The Senate bestowed on him a host of other titles and powers that had been held by many different officials in the Republic. In 36 BC he had been given the inviolability of the plebeian tribune, and in 30 BC he also received the tribunican power, which gave him the veto and control over the assemblies. In addition, the Senate granted him ultimate authority in the provinces; together with the consulship, which he held 13 times during his reign and which gave him control of Rome and Italy, this vested in him paramount authority throughout the empire. After the death of Lepidus he also became Pontifex Maximus ("chief priest") with the consequent control of religion. The summation of his powers was the title princeps, or first citizen. Despite all this, and the title impertor (from which "emperor" is derived), Augustus was always careful not to take on the trappings of monarchy. In fact, he made much of the claim that he was restoring the Roman Republic.

  • Dyarcy; government shared by two powers.
  • JoanK
    January 18, 2004 - 12:41 pm
    "A nation must have a continuity of traditions to be sane, as a man must have memory."

    An interesting thought provoking quote. It must apply to nations today (I am thinking of Russia -- trying to replace a bad form of government with a better one but finding all kinds of problems arising. What hope for Iraq). On a personal level this is relevent to our study of Alzeimers.

    "Where have I heard that -- back to old values? Augustus called the "new" values which disturbed him the "insignia of civilization." Is this the tendency of "older" people? " Definately! In reading history, one find again and again in all ages, people lamenting "It's not like it used to be when I was young". I do it myself, even though I might not have liked those times that much when I was living through them.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 18, 2004 - 01:08 pm
    Joan:--Your comparison of Russia and Iraq to Caesar's comment about a "continuity of traditions" is thought-provoking.

    Scrawler:--I would be interested in some of your reactions to Post 583.

    Robby

    Ginny
    January 18, 2004 - 01:29 pm
    Your post 583 is interesting, Robby, I was listening to an audio tape of I, Claudius, and had just about reached the point where Augustus had, as an older man, called in all the senate and separated them apart, those who had married and were fathers and those who had not and how he berated them for not carrying on the traditions of Rome, etc., when I quit listening to it, but it seems on the same topic. A very difficult book to listen to, when driving!

    ginny

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 18, 2004 - 01:39 pm
    Apparently Augustus had some rigid opinions. I wonder if that came (or comes with) age.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 18, 2004 - 02:33 pm
    "The new laws of Augustus forbade adolescents to attend public entertainments except in the company of an adult relative -- excluded women from athletic exhibitions -- and restricted them to the upper seats at gladiatorial games -- limited expenditure on homes, servants, banquets, weddings, jewels, and dress.

    "The most important of these 'Julian laws' was the lex Iulia de pudicitia et de coercendis adulteris (18 B.C.) - 'The Julian law of chastity and repressing adultery.' Here for the first time in Rman history marriage was brought under the protection of the state, instead of being left to the patria potestas. The father retained the right to kill an adulterous daughter and her accomplice as soon as he discovered them. The husband was allowed to kill his wife's paramour if caught in the husband's house, but he might kill his wife only if he found her sinning in his own home.

    "Within sixty days of detecting a wife's adultery, the husband was required to bring her before the court. If he failed to do this, the woman's father was required to indict her. If he too failed, any citizen might accuse her.

    "The adulterous woman was to be banished for life, was to lose a third of her fortune and half her dowry, and must not marry again. Like penalties were decreed for a husband conniving at his wife's adultery. A wife, however, could not accuse her husband of adultery, and he might with legal impunity have relations with registered prostitutes.

    "The law applied only to Roman citizens."

    Any comments?

    Robby

    gaj
    January 18, 2004 - 02:45 pm
    Justin said: "Folks who find their morals preferable to the morals of others are usually religious. They tend to be called Vicar or Minister rather than statesmen." I disagree with Justin's statement. Not all stanch moralists are ordained by a religion. In fact, the moralists usually have gone off on tangents of their own. Augustus, because of his position of authority could make his morality law. Statesmen want the best for both sides of a conflict and look for things they have in common. Pres. Jimmy Carter is a statesman now, but he wasn't when he was president. I don't think that someone with a rigid sense of morality just got that way when they got older. They were always that way, but maybe not as vocal about it. Augustus probably used his 'morality' to give himself the strength to rise to the top of his government.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 18, 2004 - 02:51 pm
    Ginny Ann says:--"I don't think that someone with a rigid sense of morality just got that way when they got older. They were always that way."

    My gerontology professor used to say "when people are older, they are the same way they were when they were younger -- only more so."

    Robby

    gaj
    January 18, 2004 - 03:00 pm
    All this law did was put in law what had probably been practiced by men. Notice that men couldn't be adultrous, just women. I see red when I see laws like this. If we are speaking of morality, morality is for everyone. This was just a ploy to help men control money. It was to give men power over women. Notice it was just for citizens. So it didn't matter if a noncitizen (female) broke her marrige promises?

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 18, 2004 - 03:11 pm
    Who created these morals in the various civilizations we've discussed? Who's to say what morality is?

    It sounds to me as if Augustus's laws controlled the lives of women and children, whom we all know are the cause of immorality in any society. Gimme a break! Didn't Augustus have his own little fling when he was younger? Of course, it wasn't his fault. Blame those pretty little Roman girls. They done it, not him.

    What happens to some people when they get old? Can't they see anything of themselves in the kids of today? Somebody was complaining about how young people dance, in a discussion recently. Don't they remember the Jitterbug and Boogie Woogie? Don't they know about the Charleston or the Lindy? The waltz was outlawed by some moral societies. Others banned any kind of dancing at all. Did it help? Was society any more moral from then on?

    Don't start me on drug use and drinking. I'll refer you to the diary of a female laudanum user in the early 19th century and plenty of other true accounts.

    Read some articles and books about immorality in the Victorian era, the 20's and 30's, the 40's, any time. Of course, in those days immoral acts were conducted behind closed doors. Now they're "in your face", just as they were in the time of the Romans. (And the Greeks and other civiizations.)

    It's like a tide, this progress toward civilization. It flows in, and it flows out. The process has been two steps forward and one step back throughout history. Light Age followed by Dark Age ad infinitum.

    Mal

    Justin
    January 18, 2004 - 05:51 pm
    Casius had a lean and esurient look.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 18, 2004 - 06:02 pm
    This LINK takes you to "esurient."

    There's no end to what Durant does for us.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 18, 2004 - 06:18 pm
    "Probably at the same time Augustus passed another law, usually named lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus, from its chapter on marriage in the 'orders' -- i.e. the two upper classes. Its purpose was threefold:-to encourage and yet restrict marriage -- to retard the dilution of Roman with alien blood -- and to restore the old conception of marriage as a union for parentage.

    "Marriage was to be obligatory upon all marriageable males under sixty and women under fifty. Bequests conditional on the legatee remaining unmarried were made void. Penalities were imposed upon celibates. They could not inherit, except from relatives, unless they were married within a hundred days after the testator's death. They could not attend public festivals or games.

    "Widows and divorcees might inherit only if remarried within six months after the death or divorce of the husband. Spinsters and childless wives could not inherit after fifty, nor before if they possessed 50,000 sesterces ($7500).

    "Men of the Senatorial class could not marry a freedwoman, an actress, or a prostitute. No actor or freedman could marry a senator's daughter. Women owning above 20,000 sesterces were to pay a one per cent annual tax until married.a After marriage this tax decreased with each child until the third, with whose coming it ceased.

    "Of the two consuls the one with more children was to have pecedence over the other. In appointments to office the father of the largest family was as far as feasible to be preferred to his rivals.

    "The mother of three children acquired the ius trium liberorum -- the right to wear a special garment, and freedom from the power of her husband."

    Through the power of law, Augustus has taken action to promote marriage and to emphasize that the purpose of marriage is to have children. Those not married were ostracized from various events or could not, in certain instances, inherit money. The fathers of the largest families were given preferences.

    The state enters in a strong way the concept of marriage.

    Robby

    Justin
    January 18, 2004 - 06:53 pm
    Lets consider the problem of the "younger generation". There is no question that those born between 1950 and 1970 all received a hyperdermic injection of new original sin.These youngsters have been fed a different intellectual diet from that on which their parents were fed. We must not lose sight, however, that this fare has been prepared for them by their parents, or at least by their elders.

    These youngsters are going off to college by the tens of thousands. The responsibility for what happens to them there intellectually is squarely up to the older generation. The colleges are provided and run by that same older generation. It is the older generation providing the instruction. Therefore, much of what we observe in our youngsters, we put there. Change occurs not because the younger generation achieved it but rather because the parental generation encouraged it. Think, think for yourselves, we said. Question authority. Now we reap what we have sown.

    moxiect
    January 18, 2004 - 07:17 pm


    I find it odd that we have reached this point in SC by Durant regarding interference of Augustus: "Through the power of law, Augustus has taken action to promote marriage and to emphasize that the purpose of marriage is to have children." Course I am quoting Robby, but isn't that what the current administration is trying to do?

    Two steps forward one step back! and the circle goes round and round.

    Justin
    January 18, 2004 - 07:22 pm
    Mal: It grieves me to hear that you have the flu. It is such a messy thing and so dangerous for people our age. It is the one thing we import that deserves a high tariff. Take chicken soup in abundance and with patience you will return to us. I am confident.

    Justin
    January 18, 2004 - 07:29 pm
    I agree with you, Moxiect. That is exactly what the current administration is trying to do. That and get reelected.

    Modern parallels with Roman experience are so obvious. The birth rate of immigrants to the US far exceeds that of the native born. Soon we will experience another hybridization in the US.

    Justin
    January 18, 2004 - 07:45 pm
    Mal; I am reminded that the word "Jazz" implied frivolous and obscene behavior. During the French Revulution the word "Sarabande" implied equally frivolous behavior in France and in Spain. These dances were the proud Hidalgo's and the proud Frenchman's Dirty dancing. These dances may have been shocking in their day but they made the soil in which has sprung the music of the orchestral symphony.

    Fifi le Beau
    January 18, 2004 - 07:55 pm
    The following was from the url posted by Eloise.

    Augustus used religion to reorganize state and to establish his own rule. He assumed the title of Pontifex maximus (head priest) and revived old religious traditions like the Lupercalia festival to further associate the emperor with the state cult. He also promoted the cult of emperor as divine by building a temple to the Divine Julius.

    As has happened through all the different civilizations we have read, when a leader is seizing power and setting the tone for his rule, religion has been used as the catalyst. He promoted the cult of Emperor as divine. Now, if you are divine, your laws are not as apt to be challenged.

    As has happened through all the different civilizations we have read, when a leader wants to pass laws regarding morals, women are always the chosen culprit. Her husband, father, or any citizen could haul her into court and charge her with adultery, if her husband had not already legally killed her off as an easier alternative.

    To be banished for life from her home, children, family, and friends, and not allowed to marry again could be a death sentence for many. Unless she was wealthy, slavery. concubine, or prostitution seemed to be the only job openings for unmarriable women.

    Looking at the rape statistics of modern America, and assume that we have progressed in 2,000 years, the odds of a raped woman surviving in Rome without censure seem slim to none. Women have not fared very well in the law through all the civilizations we have studied, and Augustus has done no better by us than any of the others.

    The exclusion of the husband from the adultery statute, shows that Augustus was not moral himself, and simply used the law to punish those without power to promote himself in his desire for absolute power.

    Durant says that men, if left to their own devices, would not marry at all and have children, but preferred prostitutes and concubines to wives. In a television show recently on Italian families, they showed that nothing has changed. Men are still refusing to marry and many men in their thirties and forties are still living at home with their parents. Most have had several girlfriends, but no trip to the altar. It seems the government is complaining of too many bachelors and not enough Italian children being born.

    Augustus had that problem and two thousand years later Italy seems not to have solved it.

    ......

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 19, 2004 - 04:35 am
    Yes, Fifi, it is amazing, isn't it, that in terms of marriage, Italy is no different today from Italy 2000 years ago.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 19, 2004 - 05:08 am
    "These laws of Augustus offended even the puritans -- who complained that the 'right of three children' dangerously emancipated the mother from male authority. Others excused their celibacy on the score that the 'modern woman' was too independent, imperious, capricious, and extravagant.

    "The exclusion of bachelors from public shows was considered too severe and impossible to enforce. Augustus had the clause rescinded in 12 B.C.

    "In A.D.9 the les Papia Poppaea further softened the Julian laws by easing the conditions under which celibates might inherit, doubling the period in which widows and divorcees must remarry to inherit, and increasing the amount that childless heirs could receive.

    "Mothers of three children were freed from those limits which the les Voconia (169 B.C.) had placed upon bequests to women.

    "The age at which a citizen might stand for the various offices was lowered in proportion to the size of his family. After the law was passed men noted that the consuls who had framed it and given it their names were childless celibates. Gossip added that the reform laws had been suggested to Augustus, who had only one child, by Maecenas, who had none -- that, while the laws were being enacted Maecenas was living in sybaritic luxury, and Augustus was seducing Maecenas' wife.

    "It is difficult to estimate the effectiveness of this, the most important social legislation in antiquity. The laws were loosely drawn, and recalcitrants found many loopholes. Some men married to obey the law and divorced their wives soon afterwards. Othes adopted children to secure offices or legacies and then 'emancipated' -- i.e. dismissed -- them.

    "Tacitus, a century later, pronounced the laws a failure. 'Marriages and the rearing of children did not become frequent, so powerful are the attractions of a childless state.'

    "Immorality continued, but was more polite than before. In Ovid we see it becoming a fine art, the subject of careful instructions from experts to apprentices. Augustus himself doubted the efficacy of his laws and agreed with Horace tht laws are vain when hearts are unchanged. He struggled heroically to reach people's hearts. In his box at the games he displayed the numerous children of the exemplary Germanicus -- gave a thousand sesterces to parents of large families -- raised a monument to a slave girl who (doubtless without patriotic premeditation) had borne quintuplets -- and rejoiced when a peasant marched into Rome with eight children, thirty-six grandchildren, and nineteen great-grandchildren in his train.

    "Dio Cassius pictures him making public addresses denouncing 'race sicide.' He enjoyed, perhaps inspired, the moral preface of Livy's history. Under his influence the literature of the age became didactic and practical. Through Maecenas or in person he persuaded Virgil and HOrace to lend their muses to the propaganda of moral and religious reform. Virgil tried to sing the Romans back to the farm in the Georgics, and to the old gods in the Aeneid. Horace, after a large sampling of the world's pleasures, tuned his lyre to stoic themes.

    "In 17 B.C. Augustus presented the ludi saeculares -- three days of ceremonies, contests, and spectacles, celebrating the return of Saturn's Golden Age. Horace was commissioned to write the carmen saeculare to be chanted in procession by twenty seven boys and as many girls.

    "Even art was used to point a moral. The lovely Ara Pacus showed in relief the life and government of Rome. Magnificent public buildings rose to represent the strength and glory of the Empire. Scores of temples were erected to stir again a faith that had almost died."

    When Augustus speaks of "race suicide," I ask myself -- is he talking of all those in Rome or only those of the "original stock." Is he concerned about the infiltration of foreign blood? If so, why? I assume (perhaps wrongly) that he wants only the "original Romans" to increase their families.

    He appeals to the hearts of the Romans. Are most of us who have been here for some time upset when the population ratio changes?

    Polite immorality? An interesting concept.

    Robby

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 19, 2004 - 06:23 am
    There is so much in this post that one small sentence could be elaborated at length.

    To limit the size of families creates am imbalance, like in China for instance where male babies are preferred, naturally if you are allowed only one child. Female babies are killed at birth or aborted if the sex of the fetus is known. In one generation, you will see a nation where there will be much more men than women and these will be courted by several men and I pity the poor girl who can't bear children. When a law like that happens, you see mothers killing their baby girls, an unnatural phenomena. When a nation reaches the point when children are not wanted any more, it signals the start of its downfall.

    "Augustus himself doubted the efficacy of his laws and agreed with Horace that laws are vain when hearts are unchanged. He struggled heroically to reach people's hearts"

    Eloïse

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 19, 2004 - 09:09 am
    ELOISE has said, "To limit the size of families creates am imbalance." What about birth control measures we use in the West to counteract overpopulation? Do they create an imbalance?

    Today we are celebrating the birthday of Martin Luther King. He had a dream he acted on non-violently and peacefully. How few people like this there have been in history.

    Mal

    Fifi le Beau
    January 19, 2004 - 12:07 pm
    Durant writes.......

    Horace, after a large sampling of the world's pleasures, tuned his lyre to stoic themes.

    This quote from Durant reminds me of another attributed to St. Augustine.

    "Oh Lord, help me to be pure, but not yet."

    If you want the public to follow your lead, then you had better be purer than the driven snow, in my opinion. There is nothing worse to me than a hypocrite, and the policy of do as I say and not as I do has never worked. Robby's last post from Durant has proven that. Even Augustus was questioned as to his morals, as well he should be.

    ......

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 19, 2004 - 02:00 pm
    Birth control limiting families to one or two children create several kinds of imbalance and the imbalence is different from one country to another.

    In China birth control limiting couples to one or two children is imposed by law due to a population surplus that certainly has been a factor of impoverishment in that country. But before that children were needed to till the soil and a procreation explosion got out of hand partly due to their particular culture and partly because they needed people for agriculture. Limiting families to one or two children in China will provoke an ageing of the population and the young, just like in the West, will have to work harder to support the elderly.

    Poor and large families have always been a provider of cheap labor. The Civil war in America started because the North needed cheap labor for their new industries cropping up like fields of corn and freeing slaves could provide them with plenty of cheap labor. The noble cause of abolition of slavery was camouflaged under the real reason, the Economy.

    Europe is concerned about the ageing of the population and are thinking of giving incentives to young couples to have more children as their elderly are increasing at a fantastic rate creating a burden on government funding for the elderly. They are seriously considering pushing retirement age to 70 and 75 as people reach an advanced age as in America.

    Augustus knew that small families spelled disaster, provided subsidies to encourage Romans to have children but it was too late. Chaos ensued.

    Eloïse

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 19, 2004 - 02:01 pm
    "In the end Augustus, skeptic and realist, became convinced that moral reform awaited a religious renaissance. The agnostic generaton of Lucretius, Catullus, and Caesar had run its course, and its children had discovered that the fear of the gods is the youth of wisdom.

    "Even the cynical Ovid would soon write, Voltairenly:-expidit esse deos, et ut expedit esse putemus (It is convenient that there should be gods, and that we should think they exist.)

    "Conservative minds traced the Civil War, and the sufferings it had brought, to neglect of religion and the consequent anger of Heaven. Everywhere in Italy a chastened people was ready to turn back to its ancient altars and thank the deities who, it felt, had spared it for this happy restoration.

    "When, in 12 B.C., Augustus, having waited patiently for the tepid Lepidus to die, succeeded him as pontifex maximus, 'such a multitude from all Italy assembled for my election,' the Emperor tells us, 'as is never recorded to have been in Rome before.' He both led and followed the revival of religion, hoping that his political and moral reconstruction would win readier acceptance if he could entwine it with the gods. He raised the four priestly colleges to unprecedented dignity and wealth, chose himself to each of them, took upon himself the appointment of new members, attended their meetings faithfully, and took part in their solemn pageantry.

    "He banned Egyptian and Asiatic cults from Rome, but he made an exception in favor of the Jews, and permitted religious freedom in the provinces. He lavished gifts upon the temples and renewed old religious ceremonies, processions, and festivals. The ludi saeculares were not secular. Every day of them was marked with religious ritual and song. Their chief significance was the return of a happy friendship with the gods.

    "Nourished with such soveriegn aid, the ancient cult took on fresh life, and touched again the dramatic impulses and supernatural hopes of the people.

    "Amid the chaos of competing faiths that flowed in upon Rome after Augustus, it held its own for three centuries more. When it died it was at once reborn, under new symbols and new names."

    Morality through legislation didn't work. It was time to bring religion back.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 19, 2004 - 03:36 pm
    In this LINK you will see the responsibilities of the Pontifex Maximus, the title now held by Augustus. Please note the mention of the Pope in the next to last paragraph.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 19, 2004 - 03:47 pm
    And ONE MORE LINK with enlightening information about the Pontifex Maximus.

    Robby

    gaj
    January 19, 2004 - 09:55 pm
    They are having a week of the Barbarians. Tonight they had a two hour show about the Vikings and Goths.The History Channel

    JoanK
    January 19, 2004 - 10:07 pm
    "To limit the size of families creates am imbalance, like in China for instance where male babies are preferred, "

    China is going through the same thing that the United States went through one hundred years ago in the early 1900s. It is called the "demographic transition". In a pre-industrial society, the birth rate is very high, but so is the death rate. So population stays in balance. As a country industrializes, at the time when people are moving into cities where children are harder to feed and less of an asset, increased sanitation decreases the death rate sharply while the birth rate remains unchanged. So there is a tremendous surge in population, causing all kinds of social problems. In another generation, by one means or another, people bring the birth rate down to bring population growth under control. Every country that has industrialized has gone through this.

    In this country, the problem was made worse by the fact that the time when the demographic transition was occuring, the early 1900s was also a time of enormous immigration from other countries. Furthermore, the frontier had closed: the enormous tracts of unsettled land that had been available to people were no longer there, and the new people were moving into the cities. These factors together created a pressure cooker. The population of this country literally doubled in ten years. While the numbers were small compared to population today, they exceeded all of the resources: jobs, housing food supply etc.

    The social response to this was a kind of panic. As in Rome, it was immigrants and poor families that were having a disproportionate number of children. Cries of racial purity were heard everywhere, but the "social engineering" was aimed at lowering the number of the "racially impure". In immigration, immigrants were given "IQ" tests in English. Since they could not speak English, of course they could not pass them. So they were labeled "morons" and refused entry. Eventually, the Immigration and Naturalization act was passed which restricted immigration for decades. To lowering the birth rate, in many states, laws were passed mandating forced sterilization in some cases. Thousands of people of color were forcibly sterilized. More long-lastingly, this was the time of the birth control movement. Birth control techniques which had been illegal were smuggled into this country, and eventually legalized.

    Within a generation, the population growth was brought under control.

    This period is very personal to me. My fathers family immigrated from Italy in 1900, and suffered all of the hardships of trying to feed a large family with inadequate jobs and housing. My mothers family had been pioneers, and had been farmers in Ohio for generations. They exemplify the "demographic transition". My great great grandparents, farmers in the mid 1800s, had ten children but only two lived to adulthood. I have preserved letters from my g-g-g father expressing his feelings as he is going on a trip and passes the cemetary where eight of his children are buried.

    My granparents, moving to the city in the early 1900s, also had ten children but in that healthier time all of them lived. I also have letters from my g-mother as she finds she is pregnant fot the nineth time in not many more years, and wonders how they can possibly take care of so many children. (in the event, my g-father died after the tenth child was born and left her to raise them by herself).

    My parents in the mid 1900s had two children. Like others, they were able to restrict there childbearing. The demographic transition was over.

    Justin
    January 19, 2004 - 10:56 pm
    Eloise: You raise a thought I had not considered before.Is it possible that northern manufacturers in the years before the Civil War saw the slave as a prospective employee? I think not in the north, but as cheap labor in a defeated south? That's a possibility but I don't think it is very realistc. I don't think northern manufacturers seriously considered that prospect.

    After the War carpetbaggers went south to exploit southern resources but few were able to convert the slave into a productive factory hand. The Reconstruction program was more successful with agricultural projects which used the ex-slave as he had been used as a slave.

    Was it a cause of the Civil War in the US? I don't assign it much credence. Eloise: Thanks for the chance to toss that around for the first time. I will give it some more thought.

    Justin
    January 19, 2004 - 11:08 pm
    Evidence of a declining birthrate in the US appears in my family as I am sure it does in many of yours. My mother was one of nine. My father was one of eight. As parents they had four. I had three. My brother had three. My daughters have had three, two, and two respectively. My gd has two. Some of this downward trend has occurred because (thanks to Margaret Sanger) we have had contraception but it has also occurred because we tend to recognize our economic limits. We are not a nation of farmers but a nation of urbanites and suburbanites.

    Justin
    January 19, 2004 - 11:25 pm
    Augustus is the first among the rulers of the world, whom I have encountered, to try social engineering through legislation. When the laws failed, as they did early on, Augustus tried to bring back the old tried and true tool of religion.

    He played up the Roman gods. Showed them in sculptural art forms throughout the capital. The Ara Pacis contains images of the Julii link to the gods as does several other Roman art pieces.

    He denied the Egyptian and Eastern cult religions a place in Rome but not in the Empire. Surprisingly, he allowed to Jews to continue to thrive in Rome. Why does he make an exception in the case of the Jews?

    Perhaps, because he thinks Jews are not competitive with the Roman gods while the Egyptian and Greek gods are competitive. Why are the Jews not competitive? Perhaps because few adult males consider circumcision a desirable thing to do. Later, we will discover that Saint Paul considered the same question and came up with the right answer.

    Justin
    January 19, 2004 - 11:37 pm
    Papal inheritance of Roman religious practices appears in references to the Pope as The Roman Pontif. The Church dropped the title of Flamin but retained Pontif. I think, one of the leading Church advisory groups is called a Regis. Some one more familiar with Papal organization should straighten me out here. I am certain if we examine Church protocol and custums and nomenclature we will discover many more examples of Roman adoption.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 20, 2004 - 03:52 am
    Thank you, Joan, for sharing your family's personal experiences with us. Regarding your grandmother, it is almost impossible to visualize a single mother raising ten children. You helped us to understand the feelings in those days (perhaps even now) of those of "pure" stock toward foreigners moving in -- especially in cities where, as you said, it became a "pressure cooker."

    Quoting you:-"As in Rome, it was immigrants and poor families that were having a disproportionate number of children. Cries of racial purity were heard everywhere, but the "social engineering" was aimed at lowering the number of the "racially impure".

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 20, 2004 - 03:58 am
    Speaking of Augustus, Justin says:-"He denied the Egyptian and Eastern cult religions a place in Rome but not in the Empire. Surprisingly, he allowed to Jews to continue to thrive in Rome. Why does he make an exception in the case of the Jews?"

    This is a question I have been asking myself. Any comments here on that topic?

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 20, 2004 - 04:10 am
    Durant continues:-

    "Augustus himself became one of the chief competitors of his gods. His great-uncle had set the example two years after being murdered. Caesar had been recognized by the Senate as a deity, and his worship spread throughout the Empire.

    "As early as 36 B.C. some Italian cities had given Octavian a place in their pantheon. By 27 B.C. his name was added to those of the gods in official hyumns. At Rome, his birthday became a holy day as well as a holiday. After his death the Senate decreed that the genius, or soul, was thereafter to be worshiped as one of the official divinities.

    "All this seemed quite natural to antiquity. It had never recognized an impassable difference betwen gods and men. The gods had often taken human form, and the creative genius of a Heracles, a Lycurgus, an Alexander, a Caesar, or an Augustus seemed, especially to the religious East, miraculous and divine.

    "The Egyptians had thought of the Pharaohs, of the Ptolemies, even of Antony, as deities. They could hardly think less of Augustus. The ancients were not in these cases such simpletons as their modern counterparts would like to believe. They knew well enough that Augustus was human. In deifying his genius, or that of others, they used deus or theos as equivalent to our 'canonized saint.'

    "Indeed, canonization is a descendant of Roman deification. To pray to such a deified human being seemed no more absurd then than prayer to a saint seems now."

    More and more I see the passage of history as a steady stream rather than discrete periods of time. People are people are people.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 20, 2004 - 04:26 am
    For those who have been wondering about Sea Bubble, I understand from one of her comments in Mal's WREX forum that she and her husband have not been well and I believe are undergoing tests. We wish you both well, Bubble!

    Robby

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 20, 2004 - 04:51 am
    Justin and Robby, This may shed a light on the EDICT OF AUGUSTUS ON JEWISH RIGHTS 1 BCE

    Eloïse

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 20, 2004 - 04:54 am
    That is an excellent link, Eloise! I am printing it out and will read it in detail.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 20, 2004 - 10:28 am
    "In Italian homes the worship of the Emperor's genius became associated with the adoration given to the Lares of the household and the genius of the paterfamilias. There was nothing difficult in this for a people which through centuries had deified their dead parents, built altars to them, and given the name of temples to the ancestral tombs.

    "When Augustus visited Greek Asia in 21 B.C. he found that his cult had made rapid headway there. Dedications and orations hailed him as 'Savior,' 'Bringer of Glad Tidings,' 'God the Son of God.' Some men argued that in him the long-awaited Messiah had come, bringing peace and happiness to mankind.

    "The great provincial councils made his worship the center of their ceremonies. A new priesthood, the Augustales, was appointed by provinces and municipalities for the service of the new divinity. Augustus frowned upon all this, but finally accepted it as a spiritual enhancement of the Principate, a valuable cementing of church and state, a uniting common worship amid diverse and dividing creeds.

    "The moneylender's grandson consented to become a god."

    Interesting how someone "frowns" on being handed accolades and then finally "reluctantly" accepts the highest praise. Are any of us different? Especially if it meets a hidden agenda? In Augustus' case, that of cementing church and state.

    Others here more knowledgeable in history than I may not be surprised but I am beginning to realize that the constant "church-state conflict" which is currently existing in our young 225-year old nation has been going on "forever" in the world.

    Robby

    Scrawler
    January 20, 2004 - 11:49 am
    "These are words, which are not always used together - audacity and prudence - absolute power and peace and prosperity. Any thoughts here as to how often these traits occur together in the same person?"

    I think those who have "money" can achieve both absolute power and preach peace and prosperity. I think Augustus learned from his uncle, Julius Caesar. Although I believe Augustus showed more prudence than did his uncle.

    "Any examples in the minds of those here of personages with the strength to be a dictator and who yet use that strength on behalf of the people?"

    Actually I can see any politician who has money to carry himself to a dictatorship and yet use his strength on behalf of the people if he wanted it to happen. Perhaps, FDR and Jack Kennedy are two examples that come to mind and they are both debatable subjects.

    "Morality through legislation? Moral reform is the most difficult and delicate branch of statesmanship."

    I have to agree that "most rulers have left it to hypocrites and saints."

    "Augustus was concerned about the decline in morals."

    It always makes me wonder why when a country is just beginning that they open up their arms and embrace women and foreigners to come and "sow" the seeds that will make the country great, but as soon as the country starts to decline than it is these same persons that are blamed for the decline.

    I'm sure Augustus was concerned with the decline in morals, but I can't blame the people of Rome for not wanting marriage and concerning themselves with "immoral" activity after 15 years of civil war. People have to change according to the circumstances that surround them. If they do not change, than their lives will no longer exist or at the very least decline.

    "Becoming concerned about the younger generation."

    I don't think there is an older generation that hasn't been concerned with a younger generation. But if as parents we have taught our children what we value and allow them to make their own mistakes without our interference than I don't see where we have anything to worry about. Each generation has their own demons to battle.

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 20, 2004 - 06:13 pm
    the constant "church-state conflict"

    The wearing of a head scarf that Muslim women wear outside their home has made headlines for the past few months now in France as legislation is underway to make it unlawful for Muslim women to wear a veil or a head scarf in school. French Muslims are marching on the streets in Paris in protest against secularization.

    I feel that Muslim women can wear what they want just as much as other school children. The veil is to me just another woman's garment but to Muslims, it represents their culture and their culture happens to be associated with their religious beliefs.

    That to me is a good example of a church-state conflict.

    Eloïse

    Justin
    January 21, 2004 - 12:30 am
    In Rome in this period, 27 BCE to 200 CE, it is common place to refer to the Emperors as gods in human form. The average family refers to its ancestors as deified personages. The human personification of god is quite an ordinary thing. When Paul of Tarsus deified Jesus in this same period it was quite acceptable. Nothing unusual about a human being called god or about god being a human.

    Justin
    January 21, 2004 - 12:42 am
    Eloise: As I understand it the French are concerned about wearing and displaying religious symbolism in the schools. Such symbols tend to set one apart and lead to the formation of clicks which breed conflict.

    In the US certain colors became associated with gangs. School children wearing these colors were assumed to be members of gangs. Schools responded by assigning colors of their own to students. They provided uniforms for students to wear. I think they eliminated the color problem but not the gangs.

    Justin
    January 21, 2004 - 12:45 am
    Eloise: Thank you for the link on Augustus and the Jews. It was very helpful.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 21, 2004 - 03:53 am
    As we approach the Golden Age, let us for a day or two be "psychologists." Durant helps us, almost invites us, to do exactly that by setting aside a section which he calls AUGUSTUS HIMSELF.

    Please examine Durant's words carefully as he describes in detail this man who not only affected the Golden Age but the centuries following that.

    Trying to look inside this one human being, what do you see?

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 21, 2004 - 03:54 am
    AUGUSTUS HIMSELF

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 21, 2004 - 04:00 am
    "What sort of man was this who was heir to Caesar at eighteen -- master of the world at thirty-one -- ruler of Rome for half a century -- and architect of the greatest empire in ancient history?

    He was at once dull and fascinating -- no one more prosaic, yet half the world adored him -- a physical weakling not particularly brave -- but able to overcome all enemies, regulate kingdoms, and fashion a government that would give the vast realm an untrampled prosperity for two hundred years.

    "Sculptors spent much marble and bronze in making images of him.

    "Some showing him in the timid pride of a refined and serious youth.

    "Some in the somber pose of a priest.

    "Some half covered with the insignia of power.

    "Some in military garb -- the philosopher unwillingly and uneasily playing the general."

    Here are are a mixture of traits -- some of them appearing contrary -- in one individual. Some traits as a youth. Some as an adult.

    What do you see?

    Robby

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 21, 2004 - 04:43 am
    "Since people in the antiquity could not read, Imperial Art was used for propaganda. Augustus was one of the emperors who maximized this power."

    Most of the statuary from Antiquity represents men of great youth and beauty. Even if Augustus lived to be 77, there probably is no statues of him as an old man. This article mentions that Augustus was sickly and not a brave soldier, and not as physically powerful as his statues represent him.

    The fact that most people could not read, only speeches and art could elevate leaders to some form of a deity in order to appeal to the masses sentiments. Without television and the press, imagine Presidential candidates with only 'imperial art' to persuade voters.

    AUGUSTUS HIMSELF

    Eloïse

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 21, 2004 - 05:03 am
    Durant's description of Augustus reminds me of John Kennedy. Kennedy was a sickly child. He was not as good-looking as his brothers. He was not brilliant in school. He was not able to be as much of an athlete as the rest of his family, but he tried to meet their standards and be as competitive as they were. All of these things, and some people have almost deified him. Why? He was daring; he took risks. He had charm and charisma that attracted both the powerful and the ordinary person. There was something about him that made people want to follow him and what he said.

    Mal

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 21, 2004 - 10:55 am
    Eloise believes that most Romans elevated Augustus to a deity because most of them were unable to read about him and, I assume, could not get to know the "real" him.

    Mal sees him as being raised to being a deity because he took risks despite his being sickly as a youth. This makes me think of Theodore Roosevelt.

    Any other analyses of Augustus?

    Robby

    Scrawler
    January 21, 2004 - 01:46 pm
    Augustus waged no major wars, instead merely advancing Rome's northern border to the natural frontier of the Danube. Further west, an attempt to advance into Germany ended in defeat at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD. Thereafter he accepted the Rhine as the Empire's permanent border. In the east he satisfied himself with establishing Roman control over Armenia and the Transcaucasus. He left the Parthian Empire alone.

    In domestic matters, Augustus channeled the enormous wealth brought in from the Empire to keeping the army happy with generous payments, and keeping the Romans happy by beautifying the capital and staging magnificent games. He famously boasted that he "found Rome brick and left it marble". He built the Senate a new home, the Curia, and built temples to Apollo and to the Divine Julius. He also built a shrine near the Circus Maximus. It is recorded that he built both the Capitoline Temple and the Theater of Pompey without putting his name on them.

    In regards to economics, he over-taxed agriculture and spent the revenue on armies, temples and games. Once the Empire stopped expanding, and had no more loot coming in from conquests, its economy began to stagnate and eventually decline. The reign of Augustus is thus seen in some ways as the high point of Rome's power and prosperity. Augustus settled retired soldiers on land in an effort to revive agriculture, but the capital remained dependent on grain imports from Egypt.

    A patron of the arts, Augustus showered favors on poets, artists, sculptors and architects. Horace, Livy, Orid, and Vergil flourished under his protection, but in return they had to pay due tribute to his genius. He eventually won over most of the Roman intellectual class, although many still wished in private for the Republic.

    Lke Casesar, Augustus had no legitmate son, although he married three times. By his second wife Scibonia he had a daughter, Julia, who had children by marriage to Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, but Julia's sons Gaius and Lucius died before he did. Finally he married Livia, a member of the powerful Claudian family, and adopted her son Tiberius Claudius.

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 21, 2004 - 02:32 pm
    AUGUSTUS CAMEO

    This site has 60 beautiful pictures of Augustus.

    Eloïse

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 21, 2004 - 02:55 pm
    As we psychologists continue to analyze the character and personality of Augustus, take the following comments of Durant into consideration. Our mutual analysis may help us to better understand The Golden Age when we enter that era.

    "The effigies of Augustus do not reveal, though sometimes they suggest, the ailments that made his war against chaos depend precariously at every step upon his fight for health.

    "He was unprepossessing.

    "He had sandy hair, a strangely triangular head, merging eyebrows, clear and penetrating eyes.

    "His expression was so calm and mild, says Suetonius, that a Gaul who came to kill him changed his mind.

    "His skin was sensitive and intermittently itched with a kind of ringworm.

    "Rheumatism weakened his left leg and made him limp a bit.

    "A stiffness akin to arthritis occasionally incapacitated his right hand.

    "He was one of many Romans attacked in 23 B.C. by a plague resembling typhus.

    "He suffered from stones in the bladder.

    "He found it hard to sleep.

    "He was troubled each spring by 'an enlargement of the diaphragm and when the wind was in the south he had catarrh.'

    "He bore cold so poorly that in winter he wore 'a woolen chest protector, wraps for his thighs and shins, an undershirt, four tunics (blouses,) and a heavy toga.'

    "He dared not expose his head to the sun.

    "Horseback riding tired him, and he was sometimes carried in a litter to the battlefield."

    What is your analysis, folks?

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 21, 2004 - 03:23 pm
    Ungrammatically said, Augustus sounds as human as me!

    Mal

    Justin
    January 21, 2004 - 05:06 pm
    Not enough evidence yet to say "who" he was. We have seen only the exterior of this man. We must look deeper to offer more than the surface stuff that is available at the moment. Where are the Maslows of Roman times?

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 21, 2004 - 05:29 pm
    OK - let's see what else Durant has to tell us about him.

    "At thirty-five, having lived through one of the most intense dramas in history, he was already old -- nervous, sickly, easily tired. No one dreamed that he would live another forty years.

    "He tried a variety of doctors, and richly rewarded one, Antonius Musa, for curing an uncertain illness (abscess of the liver?) with cold fomentations and baths. In Musa's honor he exempted all Roman physicians from taxation.

    "For the most part, he doctored himself. He used hot salt water and sulphur baths for his rheumatism.

    "He ate lightly and only the plainest food -- coarse bread, cheese, fish, and fruit.

    "He was so careful of his diet that 'sometimes he ate alone either before a dinner party or after it, taking nothing during its course.'

    "In him, as in some medieval saints, his soul bore its body like a cross.

    "His essence was nervous vitality, inflexible resolution, a penetrating, calculating, resourceful mind.

    "He accepted an unheard-of number of offices, and took upon himself responsibility only less than Caesar's.

    "He fulfilled the duties of these positions conscientiously, -- presided regularly over the Senate -- attended innumerable conferences -- judged hundreds of trials -- suffered ceremonies and banquets -- planned distant campaigns -- governed legions and provinces -- visited nearly every one of them -- and attended to infinite administrative detail.

    "He made hundreds of speeches, and prepared them with proud attention to clarity, simplicity, and style.

    "He read them instead of speakaing extemporaneously, lest he should utter regrettable words.

    "Suetonius would have us believe that for the same reason he wrote out in advance, and read, important conversations with individuals, even with his wife."

    So what do we have here? Is he sick or is he not?

    Robby

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 21, 2004 - 05:44 pm
    He reminds me of Gandhi.

    Justin
    January 21, 2004 - 06:03 pm
    What are the elements of a psychological make-up?

    Was he an innie or an outie? (mental direction)

    Was he full of doubts or did he exude confidence?

    Sculptors often try to capture the inner person when finishing off a portrait. There are many portraits of Augustus available so we can have fun trying to guess what the sculptor had in mind when he completed the work. Some of these have been idealized and are not much use in character deliniation.

    Augustus was a writer, a poet, so we have something available that expresses his interests and his peculiar way of looking at subjects. The Res Gestae is available in total. Fragments of letters to Livia, to Tiberius, to his daughter Julia, to Agripina, to Gaius Caesar, to Horace, to Maecenas, to Claudius, to Antony, are all available but I have not found them in translation. Here for example is a quote from Augustus.

    When Augustus heard that Herod, King of the Jews, had ordered the death of all boys under two years of age, including Herod's own son, he said, " Mallem Herodis porcus esse quam filius." I wish Traude were available or Ginny to help out with the translation. I recognize a few words, "wicked, Herod, pig, son but I can't put it all together. However, this is the kind of quote, I think, that is needed to get some psychological insight.

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 21, 2004 - 06:55 pm
    My loose translation would be Herod prefers porc to his son.

    JoanK
    January 21, 2004 - 09:17 pm
    He reminds me of Gahndi to in his obsession with his body and near anorexia. They both seem obsessed but by very different things. Could Augustus have been obsessed with making his reign perfect?

    Justin
    January 21, 2004 - 10:41 pm
    The "Res Gestae" is an autobiography of Augustus. It is carved in stone and resident in parts in several parts of the Empire. You can read it in the Latin Discussion where Eloise has posted it. It is well worth the trip to the Latin quarter. One can discover, by reading the document that Augustus was a man searching for continual approval. He gave away over 2 billion sesterces during his lifetime, in addition to achieving magnificent goals for Rome. It is all in the Bio and at great length. Maybe Eloise will post it here for us to read.

    Justin
    January 21, 2004 - 10:57 pm
    I don't know of any ruler who has accomplished more for the citizens of his country than has Augustus. Many of his achievements lasted several centuries after his death.

    Lesser men followed him and we moderns seem to associate them with Rome and with Roman decadence in preference to the Rome of Augustus. Perhaps the figures of Nero, and Caligula in their excesses are more interesting to moderns. But Julius Caesar and Octavian, together in the same century was a Roman miracle.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 22, 2004 - 04:15 am
    A man searching for continuous approval? Very interesting. Our analysis of Augustus continues from reading Durant's words.

    "Like most skeptics of his time, he retained superstitions long after losing his faith. He carried a sealskin about him to protect against lightning.

    "He respected omens and auspices and sometimes obeyed warnings derived from dreams.

    "He refused to begin a journey on what he reckoned to be unlucky days.

    "At the same time he was remarkable for the objectivity of his judgment and the practicality of his thought. He advised young men to enter soon upon an active career, so that the ideas they had learned from books might be tempered by the experience and necessities of life.

    "He kept to the end his bourgeois good sense, conservatism, parsimony, and caaution. Festina lente -- 'make haste slowly' -- was his favorite saw.

    "Far more than most men of such power he could take advice and hear reproof humbly.

    "Athenodorus, a philsopher who was returning to Athens after living with him for years, gave him some parting counsel:-'Whenever you get angry, do not say or do anything before repeating to yourself the twenty-four letters of the alphabet.' Augustus was so grateful for the caution that he begged Athenodorus to stay another year, saying, 'No risk attends the reward that silence brings.'

    "Even more surprising than Caesar's development from a roistering politican into a grat general and statesman was the transformation of the merciless and self-centered Octavian into the modest and magnanimous Augustus.

    "He grew. The man who had allowed Antony to hang Cicero's head in the Forum -- who had moved without scruple from one faction to another -- who had run the gamut of sexual indulgence -- who had pursued Antony and Cleopatra to the death unmoved by friendship or chivalry -- this tenacious and unlovalbe youth, instead of being poisoned by power, became in his last forty years a model of justice, moderation, fidelity, magnanimity, and toleration.

    "He laughed at the lampoons that wits and poets wrote about him.

    "He advised Tiberius to be content with preventing or prosecuting hostile actions and not seek to suppress hostile words.

    "He did not insist upon others living as simply as himself.

    "When he invited guests to dinner he would retire early to leave their appetite and merriment unrestrained.

    "He had no pretentiousness. He buttonholed voters to ask their suffrages.

    "He substituted for his lawyer friends in court.

    "He left or entered Rome secretly, abhorring pomp.

    "In the reliefs of the Ara Pacis he is not set apart from the other citizens by any mark of distinction.

    "His morning receptions were open to all citizens, and all were affably received. When one man hesitated to present a petition, he jokingly chided him for offering the document 'as if he were giving a penny to an elephant.'

    It is as if we are talking about two different men. How can these opposing traits, some of them 180 degrees different, be within one man?

    Robby

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 22, 2004 - 05:38 am
    Voilà,

    RES GESTAE

    Eloïse

    Shasta Sills
    January 22, 2004 - 08:55 am
    Augustus is too complicated for any psychologist to figure out, but I was fascinated by Justin's attempt to do it. Here is a historian attempting a psychological analysis. He operates on pure reason, not intuition. I always like to hear what Justin has to say because I use so little reason myself that it fascinates me to see how it works.

    Scrawler
    January 22, 2004 - 12:32 pm
    Augustus:

    Suetonius has given a description of Augustus, which is confirmed by the many statues of him. "In person he was usually handsome and exceedingly graceful at all periods of his life, though he cared nothing for personal adornment. He had clear, bright eyes, in which he liked to have it thought that there was a kind of divine power, and it greatly pleased him, whenever he looked keenly at anyone, if he let his face fall as if before the radiance of the sun. He was short of stature but the fine proportion and symmetery of his figure concealed this."

    Cold, calculating, and extraordinarily ambitious, Augustus made himself master of the Roman world. In his long reign as its first emperor, he transformed the state into a monarchy while maintaining the outward forms of a republic, a brilliant feat of statesmanship that enabled the Roman Empire to survive another five centuries after he came to the throne. His work of consolidation crowned the centuries of territorial expansion that had preceded him and made the Roman Empire a viable, functioning political organism. A patron of the arts, he presided over what has since come to be considered the Golden Age of Roman Civilization.

    Emperor Augustus was one of the greatest rulers in world history - a statesman without, peer, whose administrative reorganization of the Roman Empire was a work of political and legislative genius. Taking a faltering republic, which for all its faults had the genuine devotion of its best citizens, Augustus devised a method of rule that however dictatorial, never openly trod upon the ideals and traditions that Rome held dear. Cordial nd accessible, his absolute rule was conducted with careful attention to public opinion as represented by the senate, and, though he brooked no public opposition, he allowed everyone in his entourage to express their views freely. While during the early years of his rise he had sometimes been ruthless, even cruel, his 41 years as ruler revealed a different nature, and clemency, even kindness, marked his rule. When Augustus came to the Roman world, it was a faltering republic built on sand. He left it a mighty empire founded on rock.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 22, 2004 - 01:25 pm
    Scrawler:--This is a description of Augustus -- and a complete one it is. Thank you. Please share with us your personal psychological analysis of him based on this description? As you look at him as a boy, then as a man, then the combination. Do you trust him? Are you frightened of him? Would you want him as your husband? As your father? As our President?

    Robby

    Justin
    January 22, 2004 - 02:37 pm
    Merci, Eloise. After reading the "Res Gestae," it seems to me that Augustus was personally driven to accomplish great tasks. One can find constant reinforcement through the process of task completion.

    His adoptive father was similarly driven. He found reinforcement in military victories. Octavian must have learned early, by watching Caesar, the personal value of task completion. The list of accomplishents is long as one can attest by reading the "Res Gestae."

    It is possible, Augustus sought to achieve what his father did not. The idealization of Roman government and society. If he strove for immortality, he achieved it. Here we are two millennia later appreciating the character of his effort and his results. I feel confident two millennia from now others will examine his accomplishents and find them exemplary.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 22, 2004 - 02:49 pm
    In a previous posting, Justin said that Augustus was a man "searching for continual approval." Now he says that he was a man "personally driven to accomplish great tasks." Justin may be on to something here. Can any of us think of anything in Octavian's childhood that might be inside him and driving him toward accomplishment and approval? As a child, was he a "failure?"

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 22, 2004 - 03:20 pm
    Here are some of Durant's comments about Octavian from previous postings.

    "The Senate invited to Rome, as a foil to Caesar, Caesar's adopted son, Caius Octavius. He was eighteen years old. The boy was trained to Spartan simplicity, and educated in the literature and philosophy of Greece and Rome.

    "The frail and nervous invalid endured the perils and hardships of the Spanish campaign. He was an idealist forced to be a realist - a man of thought painfully learning to be a man of action. He was thin and pale and suffered from a poor digestion.

    "The sensitive youth was horrified at men's ingratitude. A freedman brought the news of Caesar's death. All his love for the great-uncle who had so cherished him welled up in him and filled him with a silent resolve to complete the labors of Caesar and avenge his death."

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 22, 2004 - 08:58 pm
    I know from experience and observation that some sickly and frail children often try very hard to keep up with people who are not. They sometimes feel compelled to excel to prove themselves to their peers. Such children can be very bookish and grow up in a rather ideal life of the mind. When out in the real world they can be shocked at injustices they see and take the side of underdog. This is reaction to being treated as a "lesser" by their peers. Despite certain persistent weaknesses, they may take up causes and vow to try to change various wrongs they perceive in society, frequently meeting great resistance. Somehow all these things put together can make such a person very, very strong. To me, Augustus seems to have been that type of man.

    Mal

    Justin
    January 22, 2004 - 09:35 pm
    I think you are on the right track, Mal.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 23, 2004 - 03:49 am
    "In his senile years, when disappointments had embittered him, and he had grown accustomed to omnipotence, even to being a god, he lapsed into intolerance, prosecuted hostile writers, suppressed histories of too critical a stamp, and gave no ear to Ovid's penitent verse.

    "Once, it is said, he had the legs of his secretary Thallus broken for taking 500 denari to reveal the contents of an official letter. He forced one of his freedmen to kill himself when found guilty of adultery with a Roman matron.

    "All in all, it is hard to love him. We must picture the frailty of his body and the sorrows of his old age before our hearts can go out to him as to the murdered Caesar or the beaten Antony.

    "His failures and his tragedies were almost all within his home. By his three wives -- Claudia, Scribonia, Livia -- he had but one child. Scribonia unwittingly avenged her divorce by giving him Julia. He had hoped that Livia would bear him a son whom he might train and educate for government. Though she had rewarded her fine husband with two splendid children -- Tiberius and Drusus -- her marrige with Augustus proved disappointingly sterile. Otherwise their union was a happy one.

    "She was a woman of stately beauty, firm character, and fine understanding. Augustus rehearsed his most vital measures with her and valued her advice as highly as that of his maturest friends. Asked how she had acquired such influence over him, she replied, 'by being scrupulously chaste -- never meddling with his affairs, and pretending neither to hear of nor to notice the favorites with whom he had amours.' She was a model of the old virtues, and perhaps expounded them too persistently. In her leisure she devoted herself to charity, helping parents of large families, providing dowries for poor brides, and maiantaining many orphans at her own expense.

    "Her palace itself was almost an orphanage. There, and in the home of his sister Octavia, Aaugustus supervised the education of his grandsons, nephews, nieces, and even the six surviving children of Antony. He sent the boys off early to war, saw to it that the girls should learn to spin and weave, and 'forbade them to do or say anything except without concealment, and such as might be recorded in the household diary.'"

    Robby

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 23, 2004 - 04:44 am
    Behind a great man, there is a woman giving him that which is lacking in his character to accomplish the goals she perceives essential in achieving greatness.

    The women behind great men often stay in the background, leaving him the spotlight, but she knows in her heart that without her he might not be such a great man.

    Eloïse

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 23, 2004 - 04:53 am
    What I am hearing here so far in analyzing Augustus is the story of a frail youth who was determined to revenge the death of his great-uncle, this determination and other actions in his life being aided by the moral strength of his wife.

    Any other names in history with a similar situation come to mind?

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 23, 2004 - 06:10 am
    "Augustus learned to love Livia's son Drusus, adopted and reared him, and would gladly have left him his wealth and power. The youth's early death was one of the Emperor's first bereavements. Tiberius he respectd but could not love, for his future successor was a positive and imperious character, inclined to sullenness and secrecy.

    "But the comeliness and vivacity of his daughter Julia must have given Augustus many happy moments in her childhood. When she had reached the age of fourteen he persuaded Octavia to allow the divorce of her son Marcellus, and induced the youth to marry Julia. Two years later Marcellus died, and Julia, after brief mourning, set out to enjoy a freedom she had long coveted.

    "Soon the matchmaking Emperor, craving a grandson as heir, coaxed the reluctant Agrippa to divorce his wife and marry the merry widow (21 B.C.) Julia was eighteen, Agrippa forty-two, but he was a good and great man and agreeably rich. Rumor accused Julia of deceiving her new husband. When Agrippa died (12 B.C.) Augustus turned his hopes to Julia's oldest sons, Gaius and Lucius, overwhelmed them with affection and education, and had them promoted to office far sooner than was legally warranted by their years.

    "Again a widow, Julia, richer and lovelier than ever, entered with saucy abandon upon a succession of amours which became at once the scandal and the joy of Rome. Augustus made a third match for Julia. Livia's son Tiberius was compelled to divorce his pregnant wife and to marry the equally reluctant Julia (9 B.C.).

    "The young old Roman did his best to be a good husband, but Julia soon gave up the effort to adjust her epicurean to his stoic ways, and resumed her illicit loves. Augustus, now (2 B.C.) an invalid of sixty, suffered all that a father and ruler ccould bear from the simultaneous collapse of his family, his honor, and his laws. By these laws the father of an adulteress was bound to indict her publicly if her husband had failed to do so. Proofs of her miscondujct were laid before him.

    "He issued a decree banishing his daughter to the island of Pandateria, a barren rock off the Campanian coast. One of her lovers, a son of Antony, was forced to kill himself. Julia's freedwoman Phoebe hanged herself rather than testify against her. The distraught Emperor, hearing of the act, said:-'I would rather have been Phoebe's father than Julia's.'

    "The people of Rome begged him to forgive his daughter. Tiberius added his request to theirs. Pardon never came. Tiberius, enthroned, merely changed her place of residence to a less narrow confinement at Rhegium. There, broken and forgotten after sixteen years of imprisonment, Julia died."

    Any changes in your analysis of Augustus? Kindly? Cruel?

    Robby

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 23, 2004 - 06:37 am
    I don't think that revenge ever accomplishes anything but destruction. Ambition is a stronger motivator especially in a man who was born and raised in such a powerful family as the Caesars.

    Eloïse

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 23, 2004 - 06:47 am
    Augustus was a man of his time. Mores and forms of punishment were different then. Augustus had been raised a stoic. I imagine that Julia's behavior really went against his grain. I can think of some world leaders today who probably would send some of their daughters to a rocky island because of negative publicity they caused, if they had the chance.

    Mal

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 23, 2004 - 10:38 am
    "All Rome resigned itself to the fact that though Augustus was still prince, Tiberius had begun to rule.

    "Life's final tragedy is unwilling continuance -- to outlive one's self and be forbidden to die. When Julia went into exile Augustus was not in years an old man. Others were still vigorous at sixty. But he had lived too many lives, and died too many deaths, since he had come to Rome, a boy of eighteen, to avenge Caesar's murder and execute his will.

    "How many wars and battles and near-defeats -- how many pains and illnesses -- how many conspiracies and perils, and bitter miscarriages of noble aims, had befallen him in those crowded forty-two years -- and the snatching away of one hope and helper after another, until at last only this dour Tiberius remained.

    "Perhaps it had been wiser to die like Antony, at the peak of life and in the arms of love. How sadly pleasant must have seemed, in retrospect, the days when Julia and Agrippa were happy. Grandchildren frolicked on the palace floor. Now another Julia, daughter of his daughter, had grown up and was following her mother's morals as if resolved to illustrate all the amatory arts of her friend Ovid's verse.

    "In A.D. 8, having received proofs of her adultery, Augustus exiled her to an isle in the Adriatic, and at the same time banished Ovid to Tomi on the Black Sea. Mourned the feeble and shrunken Emperor:-'Would that I had never married or that I had died without offspring!" Sometimes he thought of starving himself to death.

    "All the great structure that he had built seemed to be in ruins. The powers that he had assumed for order's sake had weakened into degeneration the Senate and the assemblies from which he had taken them. Tired of ratifications and adulations, the senators no longer came to their sessions, and a mere handful of citizens gathered in the comitia. Offices that had once stirred creative ambition by the power they brought were now shunned by the able as empty and expensive vanities.

    "The very peace that Augustus had organized, and the security that he had won for Rome, had loosened the fibre of the people. No one wanted to enlist in the army, or recognize the inexorable periodicity of war. Luxury had taken the place of simplicity. Sexual license was replacing parentage.

    "By its own exhausted will the great race was beginning to die."

    As we look back at our life, no matter our age, do any of us wonder if we have accomplished anything? Do any of us feel that we are "outliving ourselves?" Do we know anyone who feels like that?

    Do the years we have lived seem "crowded? What "structure" have you built in your lifetime? Do you see less simplicity (more complexity) and more luxury in our culture?

    Augustus felt that the peace and security he had won had "loosened the fibre of the people." Apparently there were two sides of this coin. In examining Civilization, Augustus believed in the "inexorable periodicity of war."

    Do you?

    Robby

    Scrawler
    January 23, 2004 - 11:33 am
    I haven't forgoten about Augustus himself - I'm just still thinking about it.

    Medications:

    The Ebers Papyrus, a scroll dating from 1900 BC and named after the German Egyptologist Georg Ebers, reveals the trial-and-error know-how acquired by early Egyptian physicians. Constipation was treated with a laxative of ground senna pods and castor oil; for indigestion, a chew of peppermint leaves and carbonates (known today as antacids); and to numb the pain of tooth extraction, Egyptian doctors temporarily stupefied a patient with ethyl alcohol.

    The scroll also provides a rare glimpse into the hierarchy of ancient drug preparation. The "chief of the preparers of drugs" was the equivalent of a head pharmacist, who supervised the "collectors of drugs," field workers who gathered essential minerals and herbs. The "preparers' aides" (technicians) dried and pulverized ingredients, which were blended according to certain formulas by the "preparers." And the "conservator of drugs" oversaw the storehouse where local and important mineral, herb, and animal-organ ingredients were kept.

    By the seventh century BC the Greeks had adopted a sophistictated mind-body view of medicine. They believed that a physician must pursue the diagnosis and treatment of the physical (body) causes of disease within a scientific framework, as well as cure the supernatural (mind) componets involved. Thus, the early Greek physician emphasized something of a holistic approach to health, even if the suspected "mental" causes of disease were not recognized as stress and depression but interpreted as curses from displeased deities. Apollo, chief god of healing, and Prometheus, A Titan who stole fire from heaven to benefit mankind, ruled over the preparation of all medications.

    We can assume than that the Romans gained knowledge from both the Greeks and Egyptians and that Augustus was the beneficiary of such preparations as described above.

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 23, 2004 - 01:23 pm
    Many times in the past I have asked myself whether everything I lived, worked and sacrificed for was worth it. Many times, I said to myself “No, it’s not worth it” It is too hard too painful and what will I get out of it in the long run. Then a few years later, I thought the contrary, it was well worth it.

    Of course I am living a long time, but I know I am still useful to my family and to society. I am happy to see that my husband and I have raised children who keep and transmit the same values they acquired in childhood. When I become feeble and “old” they will assist me, if they want to, going through my last years, but not yet, I still want to feel needed.

    The softness of our lives has contributed to our longevity. At an advanced age, it is selfish to sit back and just enjoy. The wisdom acquired in our long life can still bring a valuable contribution to make the world we live in a better place. I am positive that most of you do that.

    Eloïse

    Shasta Sills
    January 23, 2004 - 02:48 pm
    Speaking of the woman behind the man, George Bush made this comment:

    "Behind every successful man is a surprised woman." One of his most intelligent remarks.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 23, 2004 - 06:24 pm
    "All these things the old Emperor keenly saw and sadly felt. No one then could tell him that despite a hundred defects and half a dozen idiots on this throne, the strange and subtle principate that he had established would give the Empire the longest period of prosperity ever known to mankind. That the Pax Romana, which had begun as the Pax Augusta, would in the perspective of time be accounted the supreme achievement in the history of statesmanship.

    "Like Leonardo, he thought that he had failed.

    "Death came to him quietly at Nola in the seventy-sixth year of his age (A.D. 14). To the friends at his bedside he uttered the words often used to conclude a Roman comedy:-'Since well I've played my part, clap now your hands, and with applause dismiss me from the stage.'

    "He embraced his wife, saying;-'Remember our long union, Livia. Farewell.' With a simple parting he passed away.

    "Some days later his corpse was borne through Rome on the shoulders of senators to the Field of Mars, and there cremated while children of high degree chanted the lament for the dead."

    This amazing person established a principate which brought the longest period of prosperity not to various eras of antiquity, but in the history of mankind. Here in the 21st Century, 2000 years later, we are still searching for peace.

    As we prepare to enter the Golden Age, any additional comments about Augustus?

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 23, 2004 - 06:26 pm
    May I ask that political comments be posted in the political discussion groups? I understand that they are going hot and heavy over there.

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 23, 2004 - 08:21 pm
    Just for the record I would like to say that I've accomplished a great deal in my life. I'm still accomplishing things, and have more to do. I also have given of myself to many, many people along the way, and still do. I certainly have not outlived myself, though I sometimes feel as if I'd outlived my income.

    If "crowded" means busy, then, yes, the years of my life have been that way.

    The structure I built was a disciplined one of work because I feel better when I'm working toward a goal, with or without pay.

    I don't call having a roof over one's head and food to eat, outlets to education, and certain amenities "luxury". Compared to the stark, poverty-stricken Depression times when I was a child, I'd much rather have what we have now. Why suffer? Why live in pain? Having had certain kinds of struggle, discomfort and pain nearly all my life, I know truly that I'd have accomplished more without them.

    If there was a time of peace and prosperity during Augustus's time, I see no reason why it won't happen again.

    Mal

    Justin
    January 23, 2004 - 11:07 pm
    ... and so Augustus comes to the end of life-a mean old man with great power who breaks legs for small infractions. There are historians who think Livia helped him along on the way to the grave in order to give Tiberius full control. We know she cleared the competition away for Tiberius.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 24, 2004 - 04:25 am
    The Golden Age

    30 B.C. - A.D. 18

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 24, 2004 - 05:04 am
    Having examined the personage of Augustus himself, we are about to enter the Augustan age, a form of dictatorship following the previous Republic. Following is the results of a research which may be applicable to our thoughts regarding that period of time.

    Within a Republic the citizens have many choices. Under a dictatorship, as benign as it may be, the choices are much less. There is growing evidence that increased choice can lead to a decrease in satisfaction. Too many options can result in paralysis, not liberation. Increased choice can make people feel worse.

    Examples in some studies:--

    Psychologists at Columbia and Stanford universities showed that as the number of flavors of jam or varieties of chocolate available to shoppers increased, the likelihood that they will leave the store without buying either goes up.

    At Columbia it was found that as the number of job possibilities available to college graduates goes up, applicants' satisfaction with the job search process goes down

    In another study it was found that as the number of mutual funds in a 401(k) plan offered to employees goes up, the likelihood that they will choose a fund -- any fund -- goes down.

    Research at the University of Michigan found that patient satisfaction goes down when the choice of pharmaceutical and medical treatment goes up.

    In other words, it was found, once people's standard of living is above subsistence levels, it is usually the subjective quality of the experience that really matters. Increased choice creates an enormous burden on people to seek the information needed.

    What's more, plentiful choice increases the chances that people will regret the decisions they make. Choice also increases the sense people have of missed opportunities with respect to all the options they have forgone.

    Finally, increased choice forces people to take personal responsibility for all choices that turn out to be less than perfect. There is no excuse for anything less than perfection. The fault must be yours.

    Getting back to Rome, could it not be true that more choice under the Republic inevitably led to less freedom and happiness? There may be a point when choice tyrannizes people more than it liberates them. The implication of this is that sound social policy simply cannot consist of throwing an ever greater menu of options at the citizens.

    Rome was in chaos. People were unhappy. Augustus looked over the situation and said:-'This is the way it is going to be.' The people became happy. His "benign" dictatorship brought much more peace and prosperity than the previous Republic.

    Your thoughts, please?

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 24, 2004 - 05:55 am
    Well, I'm disappointed. The Golden Age went up in bright gold letters. I wait to see what Durant will say about that. Come in and find results of psychological studies. There has to be a reason. Are we analysing the fall of Rome? Or what?

    My initial reaction to your comments, ROBBY, is that it's too bad so many people need a Daddy to put limits on them.

    Civilizations need strong central governments, whether there is prosperity and choice or enough for only subsistence. Without it a civlization will founder.

    Augustus was strong enough to put Rome back on its feet, but he put a leash on things. Is such a tight leash really necessary?

    It's very hard to talk about this without mentioning today, and I'm gravely worried about the boundaries and restrictions on freedoms of today.

    Mal

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 24, 2004 - 06:06 am
    "If peace and security are more favorable than war to the production of literature and art, yet war and profound social disturbances turn up the earth about the plants of thought and nourish the seeds that mature in peace. A quiet life does not make great ideas or great men, but the compulsions of crisis, the imperatives of survival, weed out dead things by the roots and quicken the growth of new ideas and ways.

    "Peace after successful war has all the stimulus of a rapid convalescence. Men then rejoice at mere being, and sometimes break into song.

    "The Romans were astonished to find themselves rich so soon after devastation. They were elated to note that despite their recent defenseless disorder they were still masters of what seemed to them the world.

    "They looked back upon their history, from the first to this second Romulus, from creator to restorer, and judged it epically wonderful. They were hardly surprised when Virgil and Horace put their gratitude, their glory, and their pride into verse, and Livy into prose.

    "Better still, the region they had conquered was only partly barbarous. A large area of it was the realm of Hellenistic culture -- of refined speech, subtle literature, enlightening science, mature philosophy, and noble art. This spiritual wealth was now pouring into Rome, stirring imitation and rivalry, compelling language and letters to spruce up and grow.

    "Ten thousand Greek words slipped into the Latin vocabulary. Ten thousand Greek statues or paiantings entered Roman forums, temples, streets, and homes."

    War is good because of the peace that comes afterward? Reminds me of the old tale of the man who kept sitting on a tack because it felt so good when he got up.

    Robby

    Ginny
    January 24, 2004 - 06:44 am
    Salvete, Happy Roman Scholars!

    I've just got my tickets and am going to be in Rome again this June and thinking of you and staying right across from the Ara Pacis of Augustus this time (cross your fingers it's finally opened, it's been in restoration since 2000, ) I wondered IF you would like to have a photo of anything you are studying in particular? If you want to say what you'd like to see the 2004 appearance of, just say and I'll try to bring it to you from Rome?

    Valete!

    ginny

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 24, 2004 - 07:00 am
    Thank you so much, Ginny! The temptation is to say "take photos of everything!" but I'm sure participants here will have specific ideas.

    I have no idea where we will be in or shortly after June but we will probably be at the latter part of Durant's volume or might even have completed in and in the hiatus between this volume and the fourth volume. That should make no difference as we keep this forum open for comments.

    Let me however give you some items taken from the latter part of this volume for your consideration -- Sculpture, Painting, Temples, Stage, Music, Pompeii, Plutarch -- and then photos related to what Durant calls "The Youth of Christianity" -- The Vatican and anything related to it.

    I know you check out our discussion regularly and others here may have some ideas.

    Robby

    Ginny
    January 24, 2004 - 07:36 am
    Got it, Robby


    Sculpture, Painting, Temples, Stage, Music, Pompeii, Plutarch -- and then photos related to what Durant calls "The Youth of Christianity" -- The Vatican and anything related to it.
    I'm staying about a half a block from the front of St. Peter's and the Vatican, and I'll be checking back in!

    ginny

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 24, 2004 - 10:06 am
    Oh! Ginny how happy I am for you. Historical, Sunny, Musical, Gourmet Italy. You will have all this not to mention the wine. Just sitting outside at a café watching people is entertainment in itself. Bring us back any photo you find interesting, we will love it.

    Eloïse

    kiwi lady
    January 24, 2004 - 11:00 am
    In the book 'I Claudius' Augustus is portrayed as cold and unbending. He has not been treated as sympathetically in this book as he has here. The book is very historically accurate as I compare the Durant account of his life and 'I Claudius'

    Carolyn

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 24, 2004 - 11:11 am
    ROMAN ART AND ARCHITECTURE

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 24, 2004 - 11:25 am
    Durant stated that during the time of Augustus "ten thousand Greek words slipped into the Latin vocabulary." Here is an ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING ARTICLE indicating just this and entitled "The Power of Greek Words."

    Consider the following:-

    All Arts and Sciences were born, developed and are still operating with a pure Greek vocabulary.

    The vast majority of everyday's talking includes words of Greek origin.

    Alterations take place, for example, moving the original Greek word (which I cannot print due to lack of proper type) to the word which Latinos call NAUCLERUS and end up as NOCHER in French.

    The different expression of sounds depends on the mouth cavity, the vocal cords and the respiration, which (are you ready for this?) is determined by the climate.

    Large material of Greek vocabulary rushed in the West when the Gospel and other religious texts were translated in Latin, German, English, directly from the Greek prototype.

    The mother language of all Western languages is possibly the Greek language and the Greek language was perhaps not derived from the Sanscritic, but the opposite.

    This article points out that the fertilization of the European speech from the powerful Greek original words took place gradually and that the peak of all times was at the time of August when thousands of Greek words entered the Latin vocabulary.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 24, 2004 - 11:34 am
    Excellent link, Eloise!

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 24, 2004 - 11:47 am
    "Money was passing down, even to poets and artists, from the captors of Egypt's treasure, the absentee owners of Italy's soil, and the exploiters of the Empire's resources and trade. Writers dedicated their works to rich men in the hope of receiving gifts that would finance their further toil. So Horace addressed his odes to Sallust, Aelius Larnia, Manlius Torquatus, and Munatius, Plancus. Messala Corvinus gathered about him a coterie of authors whose star was Tibellus, and Maecenas redeemed his wealth and poetry by presents to Virgil, Horace, and Propertius.

    "Until his final irascible years Augustus followed a liberal policy toward literature. He was glad to have letters and art take up the energies that had disturbed politics. He would pay men to write books if they would let him govern the state. His generosity to poets became so renowned that a swarm of them buzzed around him wherever he went.

    "When a Greek persisted, day after day, in pressing verses into his hand as he left his palace, Augustus retaliated by stopping, composing some lines of his own, and having an attendant give them to the Greek. The latter offered the Emperor a few denari and expressed his regret that he could not give more.

    "Augustus rewarded his wit, not his poetry, with 100,000 sesterces."

    Does anyone here know of any leaders on the international scene who take that positive attitude toward literature and the arts?

    Robby

    kiwi lady
    January 24, 2004 - 11:58 am
    Yes I do Robbie - Our PM Helen Clarke has greatly fostered the arts. There has been a lot of criticism about the amount of Govt money that has been used. The fostering also includes the Film Industry which I think is a good thing. Great things are happening here in film making. Good films coming out not the trash we have been subjected to for the last five years. Helen Clarke believes in the Arts being an essential part of any culture.

    Carolyn

    Scrawler
    January 24, 2004 - 12:08 pm
    For the most part the people of Rome believed their lives were controlled by the Roman gods. If they failed or were sickly in their life, it would be because they some how had displeased the gods. On the other hand if they were successful the Roman gods were pleased with them. Let us assume for a moment that Augustus believed that the gods controlled his life as well. Therefore, Augustus would do everything he could to overcome the displeasure of the Roman gods. Let's examine a few examples of Augustus's life:

    "The frail and nervous invalid endured the perils and hardships of the Spanish campaign. He was an idealist forced to be a realist - a man of thought painfully learning to be a man of action. He was thin and pale and suffered from a poor digestion."

    At this point in his life he must of felt that for him to be this sickly he must have displeased several gods. He was still in the throngs of youth. He called himself an idealist, but was this really who he ws. He was unsure of himself and looked to the gods for guidance.

    "The sensitive youth was horrified at men's ingratitude. A freedman brought the news of Caesar's death. All his love for the great-uncle who had so cherished him welled up in him and filled him with a silen resolve to complete the labors of Caesar and avenge his death."

    Since he succeeded in these obligations over a stronger Antony, the gods must have been pleased with him.

    "His failures and his tragedies were almost all within his home."

    Once again the Roman gods were not pleased that after three wives none could bare him a son - an heir to the Roman Empire. Perhaps this is why even after the pleading from Tiberious and the people Augustus could not forgive Julia. It was not him that wouldn't forgive his daughter's actions, but the gods who would not permit it.

    Therefore we might say that all of Augustus's successes and failures came not from himself but rather in his belief in what the Roman gods wanted for Rome.

    To me whether I accomplish anything is not important, but rather the journey toward accomplishment is what matters. At the moment I'm working on simplifying my life. Augustus may have believed in the "inexorable periodicity of war" but we live in different times. I would hope that Homo sapiens use our superior brains to avoid the periodicity of war, but as things have gone in the last year I fear we are moving swiftly toward what Orwell reveled in "1984".

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 24, 2004 - 12:29 pm
    Carolyn:-It is heartening to know that there is at least one leader on the international scene who believes in the Arts that strongly.

    Scrawler:-A very thought-provoking post. Did Augustus indeed believe so strongly in the gods that he attributed his successes or failures to them? Somewhere along the line, I got the feeling that he was not a believer but pretended to be in order to relate more strongly with the populace and to achieve his goals.

    You say we "move in different times" yet you "fear we are moving swiftly toward what Orwell reveled in "1984". Do you not, then, believe in the periodicity of war?"

    Robby

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 24, 2004 - 01:15 pm
    From the link Robby posted: "The Greek language because of its plasticity and its mathematical nature, has the unique attribute to describe analytically or synthetically all minor meanings, details and gratings."

    I heard this from a Greek and I believe it, but now English is the International language spoken around the world, all this because at one time, England had spread its language in all its colonies and became the most powerful country on earth and America who adopted English as their only official language now has become the most powerful country.

    In the back of my mind I can't help but to think that English is the most unifying language on earth, not only because of its high number of words and meanings, but because it is a lively language, a language evolving with discoveries and necessities of the time. Unfortunately French does not have that capacity because the Académie Française does not allow changes easily, to their disadvantage.

    Eloïse

    JoanK
    January 24, 2004 - 01:37 pm
    "Getting back to Rome, could it not be true that more choice under the Republic inevitably led to less freedom and happiness?"

    ROBBY: I'm not sure why you keep identifying the corruption and chaos that existed in the last years of the republic with choice? For the ordinary person, this must have imposed strictures as onorous as dictatorship: worse because they kept changing as rulers changed. Choice for an individual presupposes some control over their life, which is not true in times of disorder. We are getting down to the meanings of choice and freedom here. Maybe someone can help me out.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 24, 2004 - 02:18 pm
    "The stream of books swelled to proportions unknown before. Everyone from fool to philosopher wrote poetry. Since all poetry, and most literary prose, were designated to be read aloud, gatherings were formed at which authors read their productions to invited or general adiences or, in rare moments of tolerance, to one another.

    "Juvenal thought that a compelling reason for living in the country was to escape the poets who infested Rome. In the bookshops that crowded a district called the Argiletum, writers assembled to compute literary genius, while impecunious bibliiophiles furtively read snatches of the books they could not buy. Placards on the walls announced new titles and their cost. Small volumes sold for four or five sesterces, average volumes for ten $1.50), elegant editions like Martial's epigrams, usually illustrated with a portrait of the author, brought some five denarii ($3).

    "Books were exported to all parts of the Empire, or were published simultaneously in Rome, Lyons, Athens, and Alexandria. Martial was pleased to learn that he was bought and sold in Britain.

    "Even poets now had private libraries. Ovid affectionately describes his. We gather from Martial that there were already book fanciers who collected de luxe editions, or rare manuscriipts.

    "Augustus established two public libraries. Tiberius, Vespacian, Domitian, Trajan, and Hadrian built others. By the fourth century there were twenty-eight in Rome. Foreign students and writers came to study in these libraries and in public archives. So Dionysius came from Halicarnassus, and Diodorus from Sicily.

    "Rome was now the rival of Alexandria as the literary center of the Western world."

    The picture of the family in the Heading next to Voltaire's quote now takes on an importance when defining "civilization."

    Robby

    Justin
    January 24, 2004 - 03:58 pm
    Ginny; Some pictures of the refurbished Ara Pacis Augustae would be very nice. As you probably know, the altar was lost, buried for over a millennium and a half. It was not until 1934 that all the fragments were retrieved and reconstruction begun. Paste parts were supplied for missing noses etc. but several panels remained in damaged condition. I will be very interested in the character of the repairs attempted this time.

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 24, 2004 - 04:50 pm
    Dozens of photos here:

    1976 - 2002 PHOTOS, DRAWINGS of ARA PACIS AUGUSTAE

    I love those pictures. I put a coin in the Fountain of Trevi in 1976, but I didn't know history then.

    Eloïse

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 25, 2004 - 04:54 am
    "This efflorescence transformed both literature and society.

    "Letters and the arts took on new dignity. Grammarians lectured on living authors, people sang snatches from them in the streets. Writers mingled with statesmen and highborn ladies in luxurious salons such as history would never know again until the flowering of France.

    "The aristocracy became literary. Literature became aristocratic. The lusty vigor of Enneus and Platus, Lucretius and Catullus, was exchanged for a delicate beauty, or a teasing complexity, in expression and thought. Writers ceased to mingle with the people, ceased therefore to describe their ways or speak their language. A divorce set in between literature and life that finally sucked the sap and spirit out of Latin letters.

    "Forms were set by Greek models, themes by Greek tradition or Augustus' court. Poetry, when it could spare time from Theocritean shepherds or Anacreontic love, was to sing didactically the joys of agriculture, the morality of ancestors, the glory of Rome, and splendor of its gods.

    "Literature became a handmaiden of statesmanship, a polyphonic sermon calling the nation to Augustan ideas.

    "Two forces opposed this conscription of letters by the state. One was Horace's hated and 'profane crowd,' which liked the salty tang and independence of the old satires and plays rather than the curled and perfumed beauty of the new. The other was that demimonde of jollity and sin to which Clodia and Julia belonged.

    "The younger set was in full rebellion against the Julian laws, wanted no moral reform, had its own poets, circles, and norms. In letters as in life the two forces fought each other -- crossing in Tibullus and Propertius -- marching the chaste piety of Virgil with the oscene audacities of Ovid -- crushing two Julias and one poet with exile, and at last exhausting each other in the Silver Age.

    "But the ferment of great events, the releasing leisure of wealth and peace, the majesty of a world acknowledging Rome's sway, overcame the corrosion of state subsidies and produced a Golden Age whose literature was the most perfect, in forms and utterance, in all the memory of men."

    A war between classes and a war between generations, this time using Arts as a battlefield.

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 25, 2004 - 05:09 am
    Better that than weapons of mass destruction.

    Monologue from Casina by Plautus

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 25, 2004 - 05:40 am
    Ovid Metamorphosis, Book I (Illustrated)


    Book I, Plate 3

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 25, 2004 - 05:49 am
    "When I was young I was amazed at Plutarch's statement that the elder Cato began at the age of 80 to learn Greek. I am amazed no longer. Old age is ready to undertake tasks that youth shirked because they would take too long. --- W. Somerset Maugham

    Why are people amazed that we can still learn at an advanced age?

    Eloïse

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 25, 2004 - 05:49 am
    "The pen is mightier than the sword."

    - - - Edward George Bulwer Lytton

    English novelist (1803-1873)

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 25, 2004 - 05:54 am
    Virgil

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 25, 2004 - 06:06 am
    "The most lovable of Romans was born in 70 B.C. on a farm near Mantua, where the river Mincio wanders slowly toward the Po. The capital would henceforth give birth to very few great Romans. They would come from Italy in the century that was divided by the birth of Christ, and thereafter from the provinces.

    "Perhaps Virgil's veins contained some Celtic blood for Mantua had long been peopled by Gauls. Technically he was a Gaul by birth. It was only twenty-one years later than Cisalpine Gaul received the Roman franchise from Caesar. The man who most eloquently sang the majesty and destiny of Rome would never show the hard masculinity of the Roman stock, but would touch Celtic strings of mysticism, tenderness, and grace rare in the Roman breed.

    "His father saved enough as a court clerk to buy a farm and raise bees. In that murmurous quietude the poet spent his boyhood. The full foliage of the well-watered north lingered in his later memory and he was never really happy away from those fields and streams.

    "At twelve he was sent to school at Cremona -- at fourteen to Milan -- at sixteen to Rome. There he studied rhetoric and allied subjects under the same man who was to teach Octavius. Probably after this he attended the lectures of Siro the Epicurean at Naples.

    "Virgil tried hard to accept the philosophy of pleasure, but his rural background had ill-equipped him. He seems to have returned north after his education, for in 41 B.C. we find him swimming for life to escape a soldier who seized by force his father's farm. Octavian and Antony had confiscated it because the region had favored their enemies.

    "Asinius Pollio, the learned governor of Cisalpine Gaul, tried to have the farm returned, but failed. He atoned by giving his patronage to the young man, and encouraging him to continue the Eclogues he was composing."

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 25, 2004 - 06:12 am
    Here are some facts about MANTUA.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 25, 2004 - 06:28 am
    Here is an EXCELLENT MAP of Northern Italy showing exactly the location of Mantua, the birthplace of Virgil.

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 25, 2004 - 07:06 am
    The Eclogues by Virgil

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 25, 2004 - 07:11 am
    The Annals by Tacitus

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 25, 2004 - 07:34 am
    I began reading the Annals by Tacitus and found it hard to drag myself away. It was like a Soap Opera. I realize that Tacitus lived 100 years after Augustus and therefore felt free to write those things.

    I find this a good supplementary to Durant especially considering the fact that it was written by a Roman.

    Robby

    Scrawler
    January 25, 2004 - 01:03 pm
    The first emperor died at Nola on Aug. 19, AD, 14. On his deathbed, according to Suetonius, he quoted a line used by actors at the end of their performance: "Since I've played well with joy your voices raise/And from your stage dismiss me with your praise."

    "Rome was in chaos. People ere unhappy. Augustus looked over the situation and said: 'This is the way it is going to be'. The people became happy. His "benign" dictatorship brought much more peace and prosperity than the previous Republic."

    Let's face it living in a Republic is hard work. It reminds me of trying to raise my children. I always had to keep two or three feet ahead of them. In a Republic you are always asked to make decisions. This in it self is hard work. When we were children we depended on others to make our decisions, but as we grew up we had to start making our own decisions. Freedom has its rewards, but it also has its responsibilities. The fact that Augustus brought the people "peace and prosperity" was points for him and his "benign" dictatorship. After 15 years of Civil War I think the majority of the people of Rome must have welcomed this and the fact that someone other than themselves were making decisions.

    "Until his final irascible years Augustus followed a liberal policy toward literature. He was glad to have letters and art take up the energies that had disturbed politics. He would pay men to write books if they would let him govern the state. His generosity to poets became so renowned that a swarm of them buzzed around him wherever he went."

    The Golden Age (of Literature) was followed by what is often called the Silver Age of Latin Literature, in the 1st century AD; although it was overshadowed by the brilliance of the preceding century, a substantial body of accomplished work was produced during this time. Virgil's "Aeneid" seemed so much the perfection of the epic genre that subsequent epic poets were more hampered than helped by his example. Effective use of the epic tradition was made by Lucan, whose "Pharslia" treats incidents of the Roman civil war in an animated style and by Pubilus Papinius Statius, a writer. The "Thebais" by Statius' major work, is an energetic and loosely organized epic that pushes each feature of Virgilian style to its extreme. A dominant figure of the silver age was Seneca, the tutor of the notorious emperor Nero. Seneca expounded the doctrines of the Stoic philosophy in letters and treatises that had great influence, and he worte a series of grisly tragedies.

    Here in the United States many of the first ladies of our presidents have had a positive attitude toward literature and the arts. Hilary Clinton, Barbara Bush, Jackie Kennedy, and Eleanor Roosevelt to name just a few.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 25, 2004 - 03:41 pm
    "The iron tools of war were laid aside. A new generation took charge, armed and infatuated with gold. Through the brief remainder of Virgil's life, Rome would know no further turmoil. Prosperity and happiness increased, and Augustus was hailed as a savior, though not an Apollo.

    "The quasi-royal court welcomed the optimism of the poet's verse. Maecenas invited him, liked him, and saw in him a popular instrument of Octavian's reforms. This judgment showed insight. To all appearances Virgil, now thirty-three, was an awkward rustic, shy to the point of stammering, shunning any public place where he might be recognized and pointed out, ill at ease in the voluble and aggressive fashionable society of Rome.

    "Besides, even more than Octavian, he was an invalid, suffering from headaches, throat ailments, stomach disorders, and frequent spitting of blood. Virgil never married, and seems to have felt no more than his Aeneas the full abandon of love.

    "Apparently he consoled himself for a time with the affection of a boy slave. For the rest he was known at Naples as 'the virgin.'"

    Robby

    Shasta Sills
    January 25, 2004 - 04:03 pm
    I am confused. Are Octavian and Augustus the same person?

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 25, 2004 - 04:05 pm
    Yes, Shasta! Others here can explain it better than I but it is my understanding that the citizens of Rome gave Octavian this title to indicate their opinion of him.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 25, 2004 - 04:54 pm
    Shasta, click HERE for the answer to your question. Click onto "Timeline" and then look for Jan. 13, 27 B.C.

    Robby

    Justin
    January 25, 2004 - 05:32 pm
    Scrawler: How did Barbara Bush express a positive attitude toward the arts and literature? Hillary successfully attacked Jesse Helms on funding questions. Jackie brought Pablo Cassals to the White House. Eleanor supported and may be credited with bringing about the artists and writers program in the WPA.

    Justin
    January 25, 2004 - 05:35 pm
    Ovid in Metamorphoses describes a creation process. He introduces fire and then he introduces air. The sequence is a little awry, is it not?

    kiwi lady
    January 25, 2004 - 05:52 pm
    I think the emphasis on the arts etc here is that we have few minerals etc to export so we are concentrating on intellectual property in all sorts of fields bio technology, software etc and also in the art and literature area. This is the reason I think for our PM's interest. Ireland did very well with this approach.

    JoanK
    January 25, 2004 - 06:14 pm
    JUSTIN: Ovid seems to introduce air twice. First he says air separates from earth, and the grossair sinks near earth. Then, after he introduces fire, he says that air rises from the earth.

    In spite of this confusion, I find this poem remarkable. How did they know then that the earth was hottest at the equator, and cold at the poles? It's also interesting how he "hedges his bets" -- he doesn't know whether it is God or nature that is doing this. At this point he seems to be talking about one God. That, and the description of the initial chaos make me wonder if he had access to Genisis. Does anyone know?

    Justin
    January 25, 2004 - 06:20 pm
    In Book 1 of the Annals, Tacitus describes Augustus' reasons for attacking the Germans. Previously, Quintilius Varus and his Roman army had been wiped out and the Roman eagles captured by the Germans. That was a disgrace which Augustus could not bear. He attacked the Germans to retrieve the eagles, not to extend the Empire nor to gain recompense in the form of booty.

    The need to save family honor is very strong. In modern times, the ex-Secretary of the Treasury in the US charges our current President with a like motivation. His Daddy failed to complete his mission and thereby left a stain on the family name which had to be erased. There was no intent to extend our borders,nor to reap any booty.

    Fortunately, it is not too late to pass on to my juniors the folly of not reading history. It has all been done before. It is just difficult to see what is happening at the moment of occurance and to relate it to prior experience. I read this morning in our local newspaper, that Carl Rove, who is a principal advisor to the President, is a voracious reader of history.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 25, 2004 - 06:39 pm
    The Aeneid

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 25, 2004 - 06:54 pm
    "Every school boy know the story of the Aeneid. As Troy burns, the ghost of the slain Hector appears to the leader of his Dardanian allies, the 'pious Aeneas,' and bids him resume from the Greeks the 'holy things and household gods' of Troy -- above all, the Palladium, or image of Pallas Athene, on the retention of which the preservation of the Trojans was believed to depend.

    "Says Hector, 'Seek for these sacred symbols. The city which, when you have wandered over the sea, you shall at last establish.' Aeneas escapes with his old father Anchises and his son Ascanius. They set sail and stop at divers places. But always the voices of the gods command them to go on. Winds drive them ashore near Carthage, where a Phoenician princess, Dido, is founding a city. Aeneas falls in love with her.

    "A convenient storm enables them to take refuge in the same cave and to consummate what Dido considers their marriage. For a time Aeneas accepts her interpretation, and shares with her and his willing men the tasks of construction.

    "But the relentless gods -- who, in classic myth, never cared much for marriage -- warn him to depart. This is not the capital that he must make. Aeneas obeys, and leaves the mourning queen with a theme song in his words:-

    "I will never deny, O Queen that thous hast deserved of me the utmost thou canst set forth in speech...
    I never held out the bridegroom's torch, nor took the marriage vow ...
    But now Apollo has bidden me sail...
    Cease then to consume thyself and me with these complaints. Not of my own will do I seek Italy."

    Italiam non sponte sequot:-this is the secret of the tale. We who, after eight centuries of sentimental literature, judge Virgil and his hero in its terms, attach far more significance to romantic love, and to extramarital relations, than did either Greece or Rome.

    "Marriage was to the ancients a union of families rather than of bodies or souls. The demands of religion or fatherland were placed above the rights or whim of the individual. Virgil treats Dido sympathetically, and rises to one of his finest passages in telling how she flings herself upon a funeral pyre and is burned alive.

    "Then he follows Aeneas to Italy."

    Robby

    Justin
    January 25, 2004 - 06:56 pm
    JoanK: Several ancient societies have expressed the creation as coming out of chaos. Genesis is one of many creation ideas that were extant at the time and probably accessible to Ovid.

    The Septuagint is a translation of the Pentateuch in Greek. It was accomplished in Alexandria in the third century BCE to satisfy the needs of Greek speaking Jews who could not understand Aramaic or Hebrew.

    Further, there was an extensive colony of Jews just across the Tiber. They were the children and grandchildren of slaves, captives and others. Augustus gave them special rights to practice in Rome when other Asiatic religious groups were forbidden to practice in Rome.

    So we have a book in Greek and Jews in Rome at the time of Ovid. I think it's fair to speculate that Ovid may have had access to Genesis among other sources.

    Justin
    January 25, 2004 - 10:22 pm
    There are two places in the Fourth Eclogue where Virgil seems to suggest the coming of a god like child.

    Justice returns, returns old Saturn's reign,
    With a new breed of men sent down from heaven.
    Only do thou , at the boy's birth in whom
    The iron shall cease, the golden race arise,

    Assume thy greatness, for the time draws nigh,
    Dear child of gods, great progeny of Jove!

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 26, 2004 - 06:05 am
    ROBBY, are you all iced in up in Virginia the way we are here in central North Carolina?

    The Aeneid by Virgil

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 26, 2004 - 06:26 am
    Yes, we are, Mal. All my patient's appointments were cancelled out today. So my day will be spent between doing documentation work and The Story of Civilization. So let us continue with Virgil and the Aeneid.

    "To understand and appreciate the Aeneid we must at every turn remind ourselves that Virgil was writing not a romance, but a sacred scripture for Rome. Not that he offers any clear theology. The gods who pull the strings of his drama are as vicious as Homer's and not as humorously human. Indeed, all the mischief and suffering in the story are caused not by men and women but by deities.

    "Probably Virgil conceived these divinities as poetical machinery, symbols of tyrannous circumstance and disruptive chance. In general he oscillates between Jove and an impersonal Fate as the ruler of all things.

    "He likes the gods of the village and the field better than those of Olympus. He loses no opportunity to commemorate them and describe their rites. He wishes that his fellow men could recapture the pietas -- the reverence toward parents, fatherland, and gods -- which was nourished by that primeval rural creed. Heu pietas! heu prisca fides! he mourns -- 'alas for the old piety and faith!'

    "But he rejects the traditional conception of a Hades in which all the dead bear alike a gloomy fate. He plays with Orphic and Pythagorean ideas of reincarnation and a future life, and makes as vivid as he can the notion of a rewarding heaven, a cleansing purgatory, and a punishing hell."

    A rewarding heaven and a punishing hell. Sounds familiar.

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 26, 2004 - 06:38 am
    As I recall, we saw the roots of the heaven-hell concepts in Oriental civilizations in Our Oriental Heritage long before the Ancient Greek civilization came about, or Christianity was ever thought of. Perhaps JUSTIN or someone will remember exactly when that was.

    Mal

    tooki
    January 26, 2004 - 07:45 am
    Is anyone familiar with the opera?

    Cupid As A Shoe Shine Kid

    Or with the painting, for that matter? I think as an interpretation of what Durant calls our eight centuries of sentimental involvement with romantic love it's correctly done.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 26, 2004 - 07:50 am
    Tooki:-Good to hear from you again. That is a wonderful link!! I always find it intriguing that artists turn to the stories of the Ancients as subjects for their paintings.

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 26, 2004 - 07:52 am
    Hey, TOOKI ! Where have you been? It's good to see you here!

    Chalk me up as one who can't stand Henry Purcell's music. I had to sing it when I was in college. It was torment because I love to sing Fauré, Samuel Barber, Poulenc, etc. No, obviously I don't know Purcell's opera.

    Mal

    tooki
    January 26, 2004 - 08:12 am
    Mal and Robby, and all others. I have returned from the shadowy worlds wherein I pondered violence and civilization, to no avail. Hence my return.

    However, in a fit of wild enthusiam I managed to order, not yet receive, a new six volume opus called, "Rising Up and Rising Down," by William T. Vollman, "the mad genius of American letters." This opus promises that it's the definitive study of violence in civilization. Upon sober reflection about blowing $120.00, reality set in. If the Durants and Arnold Toynbee spent a lifetime studying the phenomenon of civilization and, by default, violence, what will a mere 46 year old, non-scholar have to say? The book has been nominated for a Book Critics Circle award, or something like that. The NYT has not reviewed it as of this Sunday, although his other books are mentioned extensively. He is a writer of novels and travelogues. More anon.

    Mal, OK by me if Purcell's excellence escapes you. Robby, artists and antinquity is a fascinating topic.

    P.S. Studs Terkel will be awarded a lifetime achievement award by this same group this year.

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 26, 2004 - 08:17 am
    TOOKI, was that a dig? I recognize Purcell's technical excellence, all right, having had to analyze it. I don't like his music, and that's all there is to that. We all have our own personal tastes in art, music and literature, so it's fine if you love what Purcell wrote, and perfectly okay if I don't.

    Mal

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 26, 2004 - 08:23 am
    Tooki:--You seem to be "obsessed" with the topic of violence and its relationship to civilization. I say that with neither a positive or negative attitude. It can, in itself, be a fascinating topic. And there can be no doubt to those of us who have been in this forum for over two years that violence is a constantly recurring behavior. In fact, Durant himself pointed out that "war and profound disturbances turn up the earth about the plants of thought and nourish the seeds that mature in peace." So while many (if not most) of us do not like the thought of recurring war, it does appear to have a beneficial effect.

    Some participants here have temporarily dropped out saying that there was too much violence as we discussed the various past cultures. Then others here called their attention to the fact that there is much violence in the culture in which we live. I take the approach that Durant, in the process of describing unemotionally what Mankind has done, is helping me to understand myself.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 26, 2004 - 08:34 am
    Tooki:--You mentioned that prestigious award being given to Studs Terkel and I wonder if you are aware that beginning next Sunday, Feb. 1, there will be a new forum discussing his book. I will be the discussion leader and there are already twenty-two people signed up for it. I don't see your name on the list. Click HERE to learn the details about the new group. Please read the Heading in detail. We'd love to have you. Post your intention there if you are interested.

    Robby

    georgehd
    January 26, 2004 - 10:27 am
    I am sorry not to have been posting and once again I need to catch up with the group. Tomorrow I leave for Baltimore (Oh joy - it is snowing and sleeting there) and while I will not have the book, I may be able to get caught up as I will be there for ten days.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 26, 2004 - 10:37 am
    Just keep your eyes on the GREEN quotes in the Heading, George. In that way you will always know where we are.

    Robby

    tooki
    January 26, 2004 - 10:51 am
    I set no great store by Percell, except some great variations that someone did on a theme he wrote. Sometimes ironic statements should be accompanied by looks to communicate intent. Ah, one of the few inadequacies of discussions on Senior Net. I will try to be clearer.

    Robby: rather than "obsessed," even with quotes around it, I prefer intensely curious. My curiousity actually begins with the world's current preocuppation with violence and goes backward, so to speak.

    Thank you for your kind invitation to the Studs Terkel discussion. I will lurk about, and then probably jump in and say something untoward, which is my wont. I find that memoirs and reminiscences ordinarily are not my cup of tea. But perhaps Studs is still hopeful, vigorous, and spirited.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 26, 2004 - 10:56 am
    "The real religion of the Aeneid is patriotism, and its greatest god is Rome.

    "The destiny of Rome moves the plot, and all the tribulations of the tale find meaning in 'the heavy task of establishing the Roman race' -- tantae molis erat Romanam condere gentem. The poet is so proud of the Empire that he looks with no envy upon the superior culture of the Greeks.

    "Nor does Virgil resent the death of the Republic. He knows that class war, not Caesar, killed it. At every stage of his poem he foreshadows the restorative rule of Augustus, hails it as Saturn's reign returned, and promises him, as reward admission to the company of the gods. No man ever fulfilled a literary commission more perfectly.

    "Why do we retain a warm affection for this pietistic, moralistic, chauvinistic, imperialistic propagandist? Partly because the gentleness of his spirit is on every page. Because we feel that his sympathies have spread from his own fair Italy to all men, even to all life.

    "He knows the sufferings of the lowly and the great -- the obscene ghastliness of war -- the brief mortality that stalks the noblest men -- the griefs and pains -- the lacrimae rerum, or 'tears in things' that mar and accentuate the sunshine of our days. He is not merely imitating Lucretius when he writes of 'the nightingale mourning beneath the poplar's shade the loss of her young ones, whom some hard plowman has seen and torn unfledged from their nest. All night long she cries, and perched on a spray, renews her pitiful song, filling the woods with her sad lament.'

    "What draws us back to Virgil again and again is the persistent loveliness of his speech. It is not in vain that he pored over every line, 'licking it into shape as the she-bear does her cubs.' Only the reader who has tried to write can guess the toil that made this narrative so smooth and adorned it with so many passages of sonorous melody that every second page cries out for quotation, and tempts the tongue.

    "Perhaps the poem is too uniformly beautiful. Even beauty palls upon us if its eloquence is prolonged. There is a delicate feminine charm in Virgil, but seldom the masculine power and thought of Lucretius or the surging tide of that 'many-billowed sea' called Homer.

    "We begin to understnd the melancholy ascribed to Virgil when we picture him preaching beliefs that he could never rcapture, writing for ten years an epic whose every episode and line required the effort of artificial art, then dying with the haunting thought that he had failed, that no spark of spontaneity had set his imagination on fire or spurred his figures into life.

    "But over his medium, if not over his subject, the poet won a complete victory. Artifice has seldom achieved a brighter miracle."

    Did you get this out of your history class? Did you get this out of your literature class? Durant is telling us the STORY of Civilization.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 26, 2004 - 10:59 am
    Tooki:--If you tend to say something "untoward," then Hope Dies Last is your cup of tea. You will be in good company.

    Robby

    Scrawler
    January 26, 2004 - 11:20 am
    Did Augustus indeed believe so strongly in the gods that he attributed successes or failures to them?

    Virgil's "Aeneid" might have an answer to that question. For the story of the "Aeneid", Virgil used many sources. The most important were the "Illiad" and the "Odyssey"; the two Greek epics attributed to Homer. Virgil based the first six books of the "Aeneid" on the "Odyssey" and the last six on the "Iliad". The "Aeneid" describes the adventures of "Aeneas," the legendary Trojan hero who survived the fall of Troy to the Greeks. Aeneas sailed westward to Italy. There he formed a new nation where his descendants founded the city of Rome. The poem, however, is not just the story of Aeneas. It also shows Rome as the fulfillment of a DIVINE PLAN and mentions the greatest achievements of Roman history up to Virgil's time.

    Virgil treats Aeneas as the ancestor of Augustus. He showed that just as the gods appointed Aeneas to create the people of Rome, so THEY appointed his descendant Augustus to save Rome and re-create the city after the Roman civil wars of the 40s and 30s BC. In this way, Virgil "glorified" both Augustus and his country, but also reminded Romans that power must be used to benefit others and to bring peace to the world.

    While Virgil's "Aeneid" may not be conclusive evidence that Augustus believed in the gods, I feel strongly that it at least suggests that he did. Keeping in mind that Augustus asked the poets to show him as a genius, I doubt that if Augustus would have allowed Virgil to publish anything that did not reflect positively not only on his person, but also in what he believed in. Also, Virgil asked that the unfinished "Aeneid" be burned, but Augustus commissioned two of Virgil's friends, Politus Tucca and Varius Rufus, to edit and publish the work. It seems to me that if Augustus didn't agree with everything that Virgil wrote in the "Aeneid" he would not have gone out of his way to have it published against the wishes of the poet.

    You can certainly make the argument that "1984" does make for the periodicity of war, but I saw the book from a different viewpoint. I saw "1984" as showing what it is like to have our lives manipulated even down to our most intimate actions. This frightens me more than the periodicity of war, the fact that even as we speak our lives are being "manipulated" with the option that the end result would be a world as decribed in "1984" if we are not careful.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 26, 2004 - 11:53 am
    Scrawler says:--"It seems to me that if Augustus didn't agree with everything that Virgil wrote in the "Aeneid" he would not have gone out of his way to have it published against the wishes of the poet."

    In other words, it was irrelevant as to whether August believed in the gods or not. He did whatever was beneficial to him. In other words, he was a dictator.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 26, 2004 - 11:58 am
    Horace

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 26, 2004 - 12:07 pm
    "One of the pleasantest pictures in the world of letters -- where jealousy is only less rife than in love -- is Virgil introducing Horace to Maecenas. The two poets had met in 40 B.C. when Virgil was thirty and Horace twenty-five. Virgil opened the doors of Maecenas to him a year later, and all three remained fast friends until death.

    "In 1935 Italy celebrated the two thousandth birthday of Quintus Horatius Flaceus. He was born in the little town of Venusia, in Apulia. His father was an ex-slave who had risen to the dignity of a tax collector -- or, some said, a fishmonger.

    Flaccus meant flap-eared. Horatius was probably the name of the master whom the father had served. Somehow the freedman prospered, sent Quintus to Rome for rhetoric, and to Athens for philosophy. There the youth joined the army of Brutus, and received command of a legion.

    It was dulce et decorum pro patria mori -- 'sweet and honorable to die for one's country' but Horace, who often imitated Archilochus, dropped his shield in the midst of battle and took to is heels. After the war was over he found himself shorn of all property and patrimony, and 'bare-faced poverty drove me to writing verses.'

    "Actually, however, he buttered his bread by being a quaestor's clerk."

    Discretion is the better part of valor.

    And can you imagine having a two-thousandth birthday being celebrated?

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 26, 2004 - 01:00 pm
    Don't be too eager to ask
    What the gods have in mind for us,
    What will become of you,
    What will become of me,
    What you can read in the cards,
    Or spell out on the Ouija board.
    It's better not to know.
    Either Jupiter says
    This coming winter is not
    After all going to be
    The last winter you have,
    Or else Jupiter says
    This winter that's coming soon,
    Eating away the cliffs
    Along the Tyrrhenian Sea,
    Is going to be the final
    Winter of all. Be mindful.
    Take good care of your household.
    The time we have is short.
    Cut short your hopes for longer.
    Now as I say these words,
    Time has already fled
    Backwards away--
    Leuconoë--
    Hold on to the day.


    Carpe Diem

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 26, 2004 - 01:01 pm
    Ars Poetica by Horace

    tooki
    January 26, 2004 - 01:18 pm
    who said "Seize the day," and that's a great poem, but my head reels at "Ouija board." Translators are lauded for using current idioms when they do a new translation, but "Ouija board?" Your thoughts on that, Mal?

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 26, 2004 - 02:49 pm
    TOOKI, that ode was translated by David Ferry. These are his credentials:




    "David Ferry was born in Orange, New Jersey, in 1924. He completed his education at Amherst College and Harvard University, and served as a Sergeant in the United States Army Air Force from 1943 to 1946. His books of poetry and translation include His Epistles of Horace: A Translation (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001), Of No Country I Know: New and Selected Poems and Translations (University of Chicago Press, 1999), The Eclogues of Virgil (1999), The Odes of Horace: A Translation (1998), Dwelling Places: Poems and Translations (1993), Gilgamesh: A New Rendering in English Verse (1992), Strangers: A Book of Poems (1983), On the Way to the Island (1960), and The Limits of Mortality: An Essay on Wordsworth's Major Poems (1959).

    "Of No Country I Know: New and Selected Poems and Translations won the Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize, the Bingham Poetry Prize from Boston Book Review, the Rebekah Johnson Bobbitt National Prize for Poetry and was a finalist for The New Yorker Book Award and the L.L. Winship/PEN New England Award. Ferry's other awards include the Sixtieth Fellowship of The Academy of American Poets, the Harold Morton Landon Translation Award, the Teasdale Prize for Poetry, the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship, the Ingram Merrill Award, and the William Arrowsmith Translation Prize from AGNI magazine. In 1998 he was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is the Sophie Chantal Hart Professor Emeritus of English at Wellesley College and a Visiting Lecturer in Creative Writing at Boston University. He lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts."

    tooki
    January 26, 2004 - 04:51 pm
    he can say anything he wants. Here is a painting of Horace that I deduce is by David. It seems to me that Horace is not "throwing down his sword," rather he is giving them away. It tells a better story that way, I suppose.

    David's Horace

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 26, 2004 - 05:06 pm
    That's a great painting, Tooki. The type that holds your attention for a long period of time.

    Robby

    hegeso
    January 26, 2004 - 06:27 pm
    As far as I know, the David painting has nothing to do with the poet Horatius. The title is "The oath of the Horatii".

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 26, 2004 - 06:37 pm
    "Horace was short and stout, proud and shy, disliking the common crowd and yet not having the garb or means to move in circles whose education might equal his own. Too cautious to marry, he contented himself with courtesans who may have been real or may have been forms of poetic license invented to demonstrate maturity.

    "He wrote of prostitutes with scholarly restraint and intricate prosody, and thought he deserved much for not seducing married women. Too poor to ruin himself sexually, he took to books and composed Greek and Latin lyrics in the most recondite of Greek meters.

    "Virgil saw one of these poems and praised it to Maecenas. The kindly epicure was complimented by Horace's stammering timidity and found a sly relish in his sophisticated thought. In 37 Maecenus took Virgil, Horace, and some others on a jaunt by canal boat, stagecoach, litter, and foot across Italy to Brusdisium. Shortly afterward he introduced Horace to Octavian, who proposed that Horace should become his secretary. The poet excused himself, having no passion for work. In 34 Maecenas gave him a house and income-producing farm in the Sabine valley of Ustica, some forty-five miles from Rome.

    "Horace was now free to live in the city or the country, and to write as authors dream of writing -- with lazy leisure and laborious care.

    "Horace's estate, unearthed in 1932, turned out to be a spacious mansion, 363 by 242 feet, with twenty-four rooms, three bathing pools, several mosaic floors, and a large formal garden surrounded by a covered and enclosed portico. Beyond this was an extensive farm, worked by eight slaves and five families of leasehold coloni."

    Now that's an artist's life!

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 26, 2004 - 06:39 pm
    Hegeso:--Good to hear from you! Let us hear more of your comments.

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 26, 2004 - 08:09 pm
    Turn up your sound. The Latin is read aloud on this page.

    Horace Epistle

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 26, 2004 - 08:16 pm
    Life of Horace by Suetonius (in Latin and English)

    Traude S
    January 26, 2004 - 08:19 pm
    Just stopped by for a moment and don't know whether the question regarding "seize the day" was answered. "Carpe diem" is the Latin and Horace is the author.

    In haste.

    tooki
    January 26, 2004 - 09:21 pm
    At least I hedged my bet and said "I deduced" the David painting was of Horace. It's not, but it could be, judging from the action.

    The Horatii were an important early Roman clan, and here is the story of the alleged "Oath."

    Fifi le Beau
    January 26, 2004 - 09:25 pm
    After reading the Augustus autobiography, Res Gestae, I am reminded of what Churchill said when asked how he thought history would treat him. Churchill said, "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."

    Perhaps he took his cue from Augustus who wrote his own history before others did so, who may not have been so kind. Augustus then employed poets and artists to further enhance his reign in words and pictures. In other words he left little to chance and time.

    I am far behind in my reading, and today I picked up a New Yorker from November 10, 2003 from a stack of magazines, and found an interesting article on the current Prime Minister of Italy. I looked for an url, but it had not been archived on the New Yorker web site.

    Silvio Berlusconi has already written his autobiography, and in his 2001 campaign printed 12 million copies to be given to Italian citizens. He was the first to have grasped that whoever controlled the media could appropriate almost any amount of political power.

    He owns the state television networks and radio stations, three of Italy's four commercial television networks, two big publishing houses, two national newspapers, fifty magazines, the largest movie production and distribution company, and a chunk of its Internet services. This is more than half of all media in Italy, and there is a law in parliment now that if it passes will allow him to control even more.

    In the time of Augustus, to achieve power meant war and battles, and destroying and killing your opponents. The story of Berlusconi's rise to power is also fascinating. When his benefactor Bettino Craxi fled to Tunisia after being charged with graft and corruption, he invented a new party "Forza Italia" named after a soccer cheer. He picked 267 candidates to run for parliment from a list of his employees, and within two months won the election.

    Those who write of their own great deeds, and employ other to sing their praises, have a running start on a critical look at their reign. By the time the critics arrived, their popularity was often too widespread for much effect.

    I found a profile of Silvio Berlusconi in The Observer titled "A Roman Emperor for the 21st Century."

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1123962,00.html

    ......

    Justin
    January 26, 2004 - 11:05 pm
    Tooki: It is nice to have you back. "The Oath of the Horatii" as you have deduced is not one of Horace and his sons but one of the triple defenders of Rome in the time of the early republic. The story is told by Livy. The leaders of the Roman and Alban armies decide the outcome of the battle should be determined by personal combat between leading families on each side. The Roman choice fell on the three Horatius brothers. The Albans chose the three Curatius brothers. A sister of the Horatii is bride to be of one of the Curatius brothers.

    The theme was relevant in Paris just before the outbreak of revolution because it showed patriotism and sacrifice for the good of the country. Parisians were aware of the theme because a play by Corneille on that theme was running at the time and of course it is the time of the discovery of Herculaneum and Pompey. David developed a neo classical style to express his ideas and the "Oath" fit the style perfectly. Later on he would use the neo classic format to enhance the image of Napoloeon.

    While the theme is not that of Horace, it is one of early Rome and very appropriate in this time and place. I regret that I did not think to bring it out when we were dealing with the Horatii and Curatii.

    Justin
    January 26, 2004 - 11:19 pm
    JoanK: Here is a little more evidence that Ovid was aware of Jewish practices and perhaps had some knowledge of Genesis. In Ovid's poem about the " Art of Love" he says,
    Millions of Matrons of the graver sort,
    In common prudence, will not balk the sport.
    In summer heats thou needst only go
    --Venus' temple, where on annual nights,
    They mourn Addonis with Assyrian rites.
    Nor shun the Jewish walk, where the foul drove,
    On Sabbaths, rest from everything but love.
    Nor Isis temple, for that sacred whore
    Makes others, what to Jove she was before.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 27, 2004 - 05:04 am
    Some absolutely wonderful postings and links here.

    Rome lives! Literature lives!

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 27, 2004 - 05:29 am
    Durant continues:--

    "For a while Horace stayed in Rome, enjoying the life of an amused spectator of the hurrying world. He mingled with all ranks, studying the types that made up Rome, contemplating with clinical pleasure the follies and vices of the capital.

    "He pictured some of these types in two books of Satires (34 and 30 B.C.) modeled at first on Lucilius and later in a milder and more tolerant strain. He called these poems sermones -- not by any means sermons, but informal conversations, sometims intimate dialogues, in almost colloquial hexameters. He confessed that they were prose in everything but meter, 'for you would not call me a poet who writes, as I do, lines more akin to prose.'

    "In these racy verses we meet the living men and women of Rome and hear them talking as Romans talked -- not the shephereds, peasants, and heroes of Virgil, nor the legendary lechers and heroines of Ovid, but the saucy slave -- the vain poet -- the pompous lecturer -- the greedy philosopher -- the gabbing bore -- the eager Semite -- the businessman -- the statesman -- the streetwalkers.

    "This at last, we feel, is Rome.

    "With homicidal playfulness Horace lays down for the hunter of legacies the rules for success in that ghoulish game. He laughs at the gourmets who feast on delicacies and limp with gout. He reminds the laudator temporis acti -- the 'praiser of times past' -- that 'if some god were for taking you back to those days you would refuse every time.' The chief charm of the past is that we know we need not live it again.

    "He wonders, like Lucretius, at the restless souls who in the city long for the country, and there long for the city -- who can never enjoy what they have because there is someone who has more -- who, not content with their wives, hanker with too great and yet too little imagination for the charms of other women who have in turn become prose to other men.

    "Money-madness, he concludes, is the basic disease of Rome.

    "He satirizes himself, too. He represents his slave telling him to his face that he, the moralist, is hot-tempered, never knows his own mind or purpose, and is the menial of his passions like anybody else.

    "It is doubtless to himself, as well as to others, that he recommends the golden mean -- aurea mediocritas; est modus in rebus -- 'there's a limit, a measure in things,' which the intelligent man will neither fall short of nor exceed."

    There are some Senior Netters who do not participate in The Story of Civilization because they say they are not interested in discussing "the past." Can there be anything more modern than these comments made by Horace?

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 27, 2004 - 06:19 am
    I hope you all have listened to the spoken Latin on the page with the Horace Epistle which I posted yesterday. I've heard Latin intoned and chanted, but never before have I heard it spoken in a conversational way. It reminds me some of spoken Italian. You can listen to it by clicking

    HERE

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 27, 2004 - 06:33 am
    Mal:-I clicked onto both of your links and didn't hear any sound. Usually I don't have any trouble with the sound.

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 27, 2004 - 07:20 am
    ROBBY, the WAV file is playing on WinAmp on my computer. Do you have WinAmp? If you do, click the arrow button at the left of the dial at the top of the page; then the file should play.

    Mal

    Scrawler
    January 27, 2004 - 11:41 am
    Virgil's influence:

    Roman schools began to use Virgil's works as textbooks soon after his death. Copies of the "Aeneid" were kept in Roman temples, and people practiced prophecy by opening the poem at random and interpreting the first words they saw. Later, Christian writers used verses from Virgil's poems to expess Christian beliefs. During the Middle Ages, people thought of Virgil as a prophet who had forseen the coming of Jesus. Some even believed he had been a magician. The Italian poet Dante Alighieri based his great epic "The Divine Comedy" (1321) on the sixth book of the "Aeneid". In Dante's poem, it is Virgil who guides the poet on his journey through Hell and Purgatory.

    During the Renaissance, Virgil's "Eclogues" influenced the pastoral poetry of such writers as Petrach in Italy, Joachim du Bellay in France, and Sir Phillip Sidney in England. In the 1500s and 1600s, English writers regarded Virgil as the ideal poet. The poet John Milton imitated Virgil in his own works, especially "Paradise Lost" (1667). Virgil also influenced many poets of the 1800s, including William Wadsworth and Lord Tennyson. In the 1900s, the poet T.S. Eliot admired and imitated Virgil's poetry, and there are fine modern translations of the "Aeneid" by American and British poets.

    Other poets and writers:

    Interesting work was done in the Silver Age in various satiric modes. The slave Phaedrus, who became a freeman under the emperor Augustus, produced Latin verse versions of the popular fables of the Greek writer Aesop. Perhaps the most original writer of his time was the urbane Petronius Arbiter whose astonishing "Satyricon", a vast work in verse and prose of which only a part is extant, is a powerfully entertaining narrative vividly depicting a wide range of human excess. Vivid writing is a feature also of the great writers of verse satire, the harsh and difficult Persius and the bitter and cranky - but entertaining - Juvenal. That shortest of poetic forms, the epigram, was perfect by Martial, whose spicy and witty verses are models for their genre.

    The prose of the first century AD includes the work of a number of noteworthy didactic writers. Pliny the Elder was prolific writer whose "Historia Natualis" remained a standard encyclopedial natural history textbook for generations. The "Institutio Ortoria" of the rhetorician "Quitilian" is an equally authoritatively study; devoted to the theory and practice of oratory, it includes some of the most judicious Roman literary criticism. Several outstanding historians also wrote during this period. Cornelius Tacitus dramatically narrated the events of his age and the one preceding it in his "Historiae" and "Annales"; he also wrote a famous description of Germany and its inhabitants, "Germania". "De Vita Caesarum" by Suetonius is famous for its animated biographies of the Caesars and its often-lurid depiction of what is for modern reders the most sensational period of Roman history.

    tooki
    January 27, 2004 - 11:48 am
    The "Horatian Ode," as it is called in the annals of poetry, is a "short, lyric poem written in stanzas of two or four lines in the manner of the first century BC Latin poet Horace."

    The Horatian Ode, its form and content (lyrical, not epic, lofty, or heroic) has been influencial in English poetry. Here are a couple of better-known examples of the form and appropriate content.

    Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

    Know then thyself, presume not God to scan,
    The proper study of mankind is man.


    Andrew Marvell (1626-1678)

    The grave's a fine and private place,
    But none, I think, do there embrace.


    Michael Drayton (1563-1631)

    Since there's no help, come let us kiss and part
    Nay, I have done, you get no more of me,
    And I am glad, yea, glad with all my heart
    That so cleanly I myself can free.


    I think the use of the Horatian Ode form for expression of pithy sentiments can be found throughout the world of poetry. My source also mentions Jean de La Fontaine.

    Justin: Thank you for the background to David's "Oath." I realized it was important in his oeuvre, but not why. The context helps explain David's popularity.

    tooki
    January 27, 2004 - 11:58 am
    Having just lately returned to the fold (please excuse the metaphor, Robby)it is regretable that I seem to be having computer problems. Perhaps there's a message here? However, if I leave suddenly, I will return. I tell you this only so that some of you don't think me any more capricious that I am.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 27, 2004 - 12:15 pm
    Tooki:--I never doubted but that you would return here. Story of Civilization is an addiction, isn't it?

    Robby

    JoanK
    January 27, 2004 - 04:37 pm
    Here is a fragment from Virgil. If you wonder what it was like to live through the last days of the Republic, here's your answer. Mars, of course, was the Roman god of war. translation by David R. Slavitt.

     
    From GEORGICS I
     

    by Virgil
     

    I feel the dread, and the sun burns me, burns like a fever. The world is full of war, and at home, crime resembles a war. Men flock to the city leaving their fields to weeds, their tools to rust. Plowshares now are beaten into swords. It’s bad in Asia, bad in Europe, bad... No treaties hold, no laws hold, nothing But Mars, blood red ... He holds it all hurtling through the sky in his chariot. I feel those wheels rumble. I feel the sway of speed. The horses are mad and running faster. They ought to check. They ought to answer the reins. There ought to be reins.
     

    But there are none.

    tooki
    January 27, 2004 - 05:14 pm
    Another famous line appears, "Plowshares now are beaten into swords." The mood is really T.S. Eliotian, isn't it? Scrawler indicated above that Eliot was influenced by Virgil. Sounds, that is, feels, just like parts of "The Waste Land."

    The river's tent is broken; the last fingers of leaf
    Clutch and sink into the wet bank. The wind
    Crosses the brown land, unheard. The nympths are departed.

    Sigh! I'm much too busy reading "Story of Civilization," to begin going through all of Horace and Virgil. But, I must, I must.

    Sorry, folks, good poetry makes me run amuck.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 27, 2004 - 05:24 pm
    "There is nothing in the world's literature quite like the poems of Horace -- delicate and yet powerful, exquisite and masculine, subtle and intricate, hiding their art with perfect art, and their toil with seeming ease. This is music in another scale than Virgil's, less melodious and more intellectual, meant not for youths and maidens but for artists and philosohers.

    "Choose a subject suited to your powers, Horace says, beware of laboring like a mountain and producing a mouse. The ideal book is that which at the same time instructs and entertains, he who has mingled the useful with the pleasant wins every vote -- omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci.

    "Avoid words that are new, obsolete, or 'sesquipedalian' -- foot-and-a-half words. Be as brief as clarity allows. Go straight to the heart of the matter -- in medias res.

    "In writing poetry do not imagine that emotion is everything. It is true that you must feel an emotion yourself if you wish the reader to feel it (si vis me flere, dolendum est primum ipsi tibi.) But art is not feeling. It is form (there again is the challenge of the classic to the romantic style. To achieve form, study the Greeks day and night. Erase almost as much as you write. Delete every 'purple patch' (purpureus pannus). Submit your work to a competent critic, and beware of your friends.

    "If it survives all this, put it away for eight years. If then you do not perceive the uses of oblivion publish it, but remember that it can never be recalled except by time -- verba volant, scripta manent.

    "If you write drama let the action, not your words, tell the story and delineate the characters. Do not represent horror on the stage. Obey the unities of action, time, and place. Let the story be one and ocur within a brief time in one place.

    "Study life and philosophy, for without observation and understanding even a perfect style is an empty thing. Sapere aude - dare to know."

    What do you think of that, all you editors out there?

    Robby

    Justin
    January 27, 2004 - 05:50 pm
    JoanK; Your posting of lines from the Georgics was very relevant. Virgil's comments, though often puctuated by the influence of the gods, is, in the Georgics, a clear description of the strife in pre-Augustan Rome.

    Mal: I am unable to hear the Latin conversation in your posts. I need Voyetre version 6 to make it work. I have version 5.

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 27, 2004 - 07:15 pm
    "The horses are mad and running faster. They ought to check. They ought to answer the reins. There ought to be reins. But there are none."

    It feels like 2004 doesn't it?

    I love that: "Avoid words that are new, obsolete, or 'sesquipedalian' -- foot-and-a-half words. Be as brief as clarity allows. Go straight to the heart of the matter -- in medias res..

    Eloïse

    Justin
    January 27, 2004 - 07:34 pm
    Horace also has a view of the "Horrors of Civil War".


    Another age ground down by civil strife!
    Rome by her children , impious and accurst,
    Down trampled out of life!
    Great Rome, our Rome, our mother, she that erst
    Rolled back the Marsian, scattered the array
    of old Etruria's monarch, Porcena:
    Humbled the pride of Capua, broaved the sword
    Of Spartacus; The blue eyed German horde;
    The craft and fury of the Gaul;
    And him abhorred by mothers, Hanibal.

    Justin
    January 27, 2004 - 07:35 pm
    Good advice. Avoid foot and a half words. Go straight to the heart of the matter. Guilty I am and ready to mend my ways, Horace, my boy.

    3kings
    January 28, 2004 - 02:29 am
    Swords and plowshares? Isn't there a verse somewhere ( the Bible ?) that goes :-

    And they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
    And their spears into pruning hooks,
    neither shall they learn war anymore.

    Could Virgil have got his line from the Jews, and reversed it ? == Trevor

    JoanK
    January 28, 2004 - 02:34 am
    TREVOR: I wondered that too, since we were talking about whether Virgil had seen Genesis (or B'rashith).

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 28, 2004 - 04:06 am
    Trevor, it looks like it doesn't it?

    Isaiah 2:4 - "He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation nor will they train for war anymore." N.I.V.

    Although leaders know they are not to attack other nations, for territory, for spoils, for slaves, they will do it and feel compelled to justify their attacks by any means at their disposal.

    Eloïse

    Bubble
    January 28, 2004 - 04:24 am
    Nation will not take up sword against nation nor will they train for war anymore.

    Lo issa goy el goy kherev, lo yilmedoo od milkhama.

    This was learned as a song by all of us new immigrants in Israel, while at the Ulpan school learning Hebrew. Such a yearning for generations...

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 28, 2004 - 04:49 am
    Bubble:--So good to see you again! I hope you are feeling better.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 28, 2004 - 05:01 am
    "Horace had not learned to weep. Because his feelings were too thin, or had been stifled into silence, he seldom rose to the high art that gives form to sincere sympathy, or to 'emotion remembered in tranquillity.' He was too urbane. Nil admirai, 'to marvel at nothing,' was poor advice. To the poet everythng should be a miracle, even when, like the sunrise or a tree, it greets him every day.

    "Horace observed life, but not too deeply. He studied philosophy, but kept so persistently an 'even mind' that only his Odes rise above a 'golden mediocrity.' He honored virtue like a Stoic, and respected pleasure like an Epicurean. He asks and answers:-'Who, then, is free? The wise man, he who is lord over himself, whom neither poverty nor death nor bonds affright, who defies his passions, scorns ambition, and is to himself a whole.'

    "He did his best to preach religion, bu he had none. Death, he felt, ends all. His last days were clouded with this thought. He had his share of pains -- stomach trouble, rheumatism, and much else. He mourned, 'The years as they pass rob us of all joys, one by one. He recalled how in his first satire, he had hoped, when his time came, to quit life contentedly 'like a guest who has had his fill.' Now he told himself:-'You have played enough, eaten enough, drunk enough. It is time for you to go.'

    "In 8 B.C. Maecenas died, and a few months later Horace followed him. He left his property to the Emperor, and was laid to rest near Maecenas' tomb."

    Any further comments as we leave Horace?

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 28, 2004 - 06:57 am
    What Durant quoted by Horace is some of the best advice about writing I have ever read or heard.

    I have posted Horace's statements in the WREX discussion so writers there may benefit from it.

    Mal

    ALF
    January 28, 2004 - 07:03 am
    That is an excellent synopsis and finish, Robbie.

    I have one question- how does one attempt to preach religion when one has none? That is an interesting thought, to me.

    tooki
    January 28, 2004 - 07:57 am
    A final snippet from the worthy Horace:

    Ligurnus, young and vain and rich
    With Venus' gifts, when those tender cheeks
    Begin to bristle, that long waving hair
    Falls out, that rosebloom lovelier than rosebloom
    Fades, that cruelly beautiful face goes shaggy,
    Rough, and you stare at the mirror and you sigh:
    "Oh, where was ambition when I was only a boy?
    "And where is that lovely face, now that I have it?


    The source adds, "Been there? Done that? Then you have a friend in ancient Rome."

    Scrawler
    January 28, 2004 - 11:07 am
    "The chief charm of the past is that we know we need not live it again." But is this really true? Don't we re-live our past in our memories, dreams or nightmares?

    "In these racy verses we meet the living men and women of Rome and hear them talking as Romans talked - not the shepherds, peasants, and heroes of Virgil, nor the legendary lechers and heroines of Ovid, but the saucy slave - the van poet - the pompous lecturer - the greedy philosopher - the grabbing bore - the eager Semite - the businessman - the statesman - the streetwalkers. This at last, we feel, is Rome.

    Can we relate with any of the men and women described about? When we read the poems of Horace or Virgil can we see ourselves in their poems?

    Horace:

    In 33 or 34 BC, Maecenas presented Horace with a farm in the Sabine country near Tibur (Tivoli), which not only provided him with a modest competence and independence and leisure to write but also was a major source of delight to him during his life.

    Horace led a life of comfort and retirement in the company of his books and good friends, including many of the most prominent men in Roman political and literary life, and the major events of his life were the publication his various books: the first three books of his "Odes" in 23 BC, by which time he was already recognized as being almost a poet laureate; the first book of his literary and philosophical "Epistles" in 20 BC; the "Camen saeculare", composed under commission to be sung at Augustus's revival of the Secular Games in 17 BC; the second book of "Epistles" published about 14 BC; and at Augustus's express request, the fourth book of the "Odes", published perhaps in 13 BC. In the last years of his life, probably after the composition of the fourth book of the "Odes," he wrote his "Ars poetica".

    Suetonius related that at one time Augustus had offered Horace the position of private secretary; but Horace, who had by then acquired a love of leisure and lazy habits totally unsuited to regular work (Suetonius says that Horace lay in bed until 10, which is even more indolent than it would be today, since the Romans were up by dawn), also had the tact, and confidence in the Emperor's good graces, to refuse without offending. He also says that Augustus once wrote complaining that Horace was not mentioning him and his regime's accomplishments enough and asking further references to him.

    JoanK
    January 28, 2004 - 12:28 pm
    SEA BUBBLE: which Ulpan did you go to? I went to the one in Beer Sheva, and we only sang:

    Col ahad ohev motze shabat.

    (Everybody loves Saturday night).

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 28, 2004 - 01:46 pm
    Andy (ALF):-I would think that anyone could preach on any subject without believing it. Hypocrisy is not that uncommon a trait. In my lifetime, I have met at least one minister who, in my opinion, was not in any way a man of God although he spouted out the words regularly.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 28, 2004 - 02:24 pm
    Livy

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 28, 2004 - 02:37 pm
    "Augustan prose achieved no triumphs equal to those of Augustan verse. Oratory subsided as the making of laws and decisions passed in reality if not in form from Senate and assemblies to the secret chambers of the prince. Scolarship continued its quiet course, sheltered from present storms by its ghostly interests. It was only in the writing of history that the age achieved a masterpiece in prose.

    "Born in Patavium (Padua) in 59, Titus Livius came to the capital, devoted himself to rhetoric and philosophy, and gave the last forty years of his life (23 B.C. - A.D. 17) to writing a history of Rome. That is all we know of him. 'Rome's historian has no history.'

    "Like Virgil he came from the region of the Po, retained the old virtues of simplicity and piety, and -- perhaps through the pathos of distance -- developed a passionate reverence for the Eternal City. His work was planned on a majestic scale and was completed. Of its 142 'books' only thirty-five have come down to us. As these fill six volumes we may judge the magnitude of the whole. Apparently it was published in parts, each with a separate title, and all under the general heading, Ab urbe condita -- 'From the city's foundation.'

    "Augustus could forgive its republican sentiments and heroes, since its religious, moral, and patriotic tone accorded well with the Emperor's policies. He took Livy into his friendship and encouraged him as a prose Virgil who was beginning where the poet had left off. Halfway on his long journey from 753 to 9 B.C., Livy thought of stopping, on the ground that he had already won lasting fame.

    "He went on, he says, because he found himself restless when he ceased to write."

    I get the impression that Livy was Augustus' "speechwriter" pouring out the words that pleased the Emperor.

    Robby

    Bubble
    January 28, 2004 - 03:28 pm
    Joan, Ulpan Akiva in Nathanya in'62.

    ALF
    January 28, 2004 - 03:54 pm
    He believed and related in his stories, did he not, that Rome was meant for greatness?

    JoanK
    January 28, 2004 - 04:24 pm
    SEA BUBBLE: I was in Beer Sheva in '63. It sounds like we came about the same time but you stayed and I didn't.

    I didn't mean to sound flip about the prayers for peace. By sheer blind luck, I managed to spend my three years in Israel in a time of (relative) peace, leaving just before the '67 war (the man who took over my job was killed in that war). By a strange quirk of mind, I always think of Israel as the pleasant place I knew and enjoyed, and when I read about the horrors now, I think of them as happening to some other place.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 28, 2004 - 07:31 pm
    "Roman historians looked upon history as a hybrid child of rhetoric and philosophy. If we may believe them, they wrote to illustrate ethical precepts with eloquent narrative -- to adorn a moral with a tale. Livy was trained as an orator.

    "Finding oratory censured and dangerous, 'he took to history so that he could still be an orator.

    "He began with a stern prefce, denouncing the immorality, luxury, and effeminacy of the age. He buried himself in the past, he tells us, to forget the evils of his time, 'when we can bear neither our disease nor their remedies.' He would set forth through history, the virtues that had made Rome great -- the unity and holiness of family life -- the pietas of children -- the sacred relation of men with the gods at every step -- the sancitity of the solemnly pledged word -- the stoic self-control and gravitas.

    "He would make that stoic Rome so noble that its conquest of Mediterranean would appear as a moral imperative, a divine order and law cast over the chaos of the East and the barbarism of the West. Polybius had ascribed Rome's triumph to its form of government. Livy would make it a corollary of the Roman character.

    "The chief faults of his work derive from this moral intent. He gives many signs of being privately a rationalist. But his respect for religion is so great that he accepts almost any superstition, and litters his pages with omens, portents, and oracles, until we feel that here too, as in Virgil, the real actors are the gods.

    "He expresses his doubts concerning the myths of early Rome. He gives the less credible ones with a smile. As he goes on he ceases to distinguish legend from history, follows his predecessors with scant discrimination, and accepts at their face value the laudatory romances that earlier historians had composed to ennoble their ancestry.

    "He rarely consults original sources or monuments, and never bothsrs to visit the scene of an action. Sometimes he paraphrases Polybius for pages. He adopts the old priestly method of annals, narrating events by consulates. Consequently there is in him, aside from his moral theme, no tracing of causes, but only a succession of brilliant episodes.

    "He mades no distinction between the rude patres of the early Republic and the sristocracy of his day, nor between the virile plebs that had created Roman democracy and the venal mob that had destroyed it.

    "His prejudices are always patrician."

    I am confused as to whether Livy is writing about Rome as it is or Rome as he imagines it to be.

    Robby

    tooki
    January 28, 2004 - 09:16 pm
    well describes Livy's works, in my opinion. HERE are his books. Start anywhere to get a sample of his writing. The Romans look good, i.e., Augustanian, lofty, honest, upright and true.

    Early in Book I, after Aeneas and Latinus, chief of some folks Aeneas was going to fight in Laurention, decided not to fight, "A formal treaty was made between the leaders and mutual greetings exchanged between the armies." Now that's the way wars should be conducted.

    tooki
    January 28, 2004 - 09:52 pm
    Machiavelli had a great deal to say about Livy's account of how the Romans did things. Machiavelli seems to approve of the Roman way, as far as I can determine in a brief sampling. SAMPLE THIS for Machiavelli's thoughts.

    I liked, "The Romans being very often at War, they always did so with every advantage." They didn't like the expense of a siege, hence worked out more cost effective methods of subduing the ancient world. Machiavelli approved.

    Bubble
    January 29, 2004 - 02:03 am
    Sorry to butt in and interrupt this way. A question about the Romans has been puzzling me for over a week and I am unable to find the answer.

    Did the Roman use concrete in building around the world? Did they n knew the use of Cement? Someone is claiming mordicus that Richborough fortifications in Kent (Rutupiae for the Romans) were built with it. Thank you for any help you can give me.

    Richborough is believed to be the landing point of the Roman invasion armies in 43 AD. The foundations of a quadrifrons triumphal arch thought to commemorate this are in the middle of the earthworks. The earthworks themselves were added in the third century when the arch became a coastal signal tower watching for pirates. The huge stone walls were added in the late third century when the site became what is known as a Saxon Shore Fort, guarding the coast against marauders. After the fall of the Roman Empire, an early Christian site was established within the abandoned fort walls. www.ifip.com/roman-fort.html

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 29, 2004 - 03:21 am
    "The patriotic pride that makes Rome forever right in Livy was the secret of his greatness. It gave him an enduring happiness in his long toil. Seldom has any writer executed so vast a plan so faithfully. He gave his readers, and still gives us, a sense of Rome's grandeur and destiny.

    "This imperial consciousness contributed to the energy of Livy's style, the vigor of fhis characterizations, the brilliance and power of his descriptions, the majestic march of his prose. The invented speeches in which his history abounds are masterices of oratory, and became models for the schools. The charm of good manners pervades the work. Livy never shouts, never severely condemns. His sympathy is broader than his scholarship and deeper than his thoughts. It fails himm forgivably when he comes to Hannibal. He atones with a sweep and splendor of narrative that reaches its zenith in describing the Second Punic War.

    "His readers did not mind his inaccuracies or his bias. They liked his style and story, and gloried in the vivid picture that he had drawn of their past. They took the Ab urbe condita as a prose epic, one of the noblest moments of the Augustan age and mood. From that time onward it was Livy's book that would color for eighteen centuries men's conception of Rome's history and character. Even readers in subject lands were impressed by this massive record of unprecedented conquetsts and titanic deeds.

    "The younger Pliny tells of a Spaniard who was so moved by Livy's work that he traveled from far Cadiz to Rome in the hope of seeing him. Having accomplished his purpose and rendered his worship, he neglected other sights and returned content to his Atlantic home."

    I am wondering, therefore, how much of what we read these days is the "real" Rome and how much is fiction by Livy. Invented speeches. Inaccuracies. Bias. As Durant says, it "colors" our conception of Rome.

    Robby

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 29, 2004 - 04:09 am
    Bubble, CONCRETE - A ROMAN INVENTION

    Eloïse

    Bubble
    January 29, 2004 - 05:20 am
    Thanks Eloise. Wow.



    Robby, is history ever totally accurate? It is hard for anyone to be totally unbiaised and more so in describing momentum events.

    JoanK
    January 29, 2004 - 05:27 am
    " is history ever totally accurate?"

    Furthermore, so much happens at any one time that in telling the (his)tory, we always have to select. Our selection will always depend on our interests and biasses of the minute. For example, history has usually meant the history of the upper class/race/gender/ etc.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 29, 2004 - 05:37 am
    We say here that we are learning from the past. Are we learning from what is perhaps mostly fiction?

    Robby

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 29, 2004 - 07:11 am
    Yes Joan, that is what I feel too. If the plebs in ancient times could write history, they would tell a totally different story. It would be even more cruel because of what the elite makes them go through. We are fortunate plebs because we can read and write and still we are no match for today's elite who have the power that money brought them.

    Eloïse

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 29, 2004 - 07:13 am
    The new GREEN quotes show the direction in which Durant is taking us.

    "Only supreme artists like Virgil or Horace can produce good verse to governmental specifications. Greater men would refuse. Lesser men are unable to comply. Of the three major sources of poetry -- religion, nature, love -- two had been brought under imperial sway. The third remained lawless, even in Horace's Odes. Now, mildly in Tibullus and Propertius, recklessly in Ovid, poetry escaped from the bureau of propaganda and staged a rebellion that proceeded with mounting gaiety to a tragic end."

    Governmental specifications? Bureau of propaganda?

    Robby

    tropicaltramp
    January 29, 2004 - 07:28 am
    HOLA: Bk finally for a while. I have been reviewng past posts and am somewhat up to date, keep up the good work.

    tooki
    January 29, 2004 - 08:27 am
    From my brief samplings of Livy and Machiavelli's take on Livy, I think that Livy was a long winded apologist and devious proponant of the wonders of the Augustinian era. If that is the case, then he was an advocate of monarchical dictatorship. If this seems to be a harsh view of Augustus, remember, any man beginning his career by murdering the children of a rival and ending it banishing his daughter to a barren rock, must be pretty much a bad guy.

    Maybe if I read the totality of Livy and Machiavelli I might have a different opinion. Somehow, I doubt that.

    Scrawler
    January 29, 2004 - 12:02 pm
    "Choose a subject suited to your powers..."

    "The ideal book is that which at the same time instructs and ENTERTAINS..."

    "Avoid words that are new, obsolete, or a foot-and-a-half words. Be as brief as clarity allows. Go straight to the heart of the matter..."

    "In writing poetry do not imagine that emotion is everything. It is true that you must feel an emotion youtself if you wish the reader to feel it. But art is not feeling. It is form (there again is the challenge of the classic to the romantic style. To achieve form, study the Greeks day and night. Erase almost as much as you write. Delete every 'purple patch'. Submit your work to a competent critic, and beware of your friends.

    "If it survives all this, put it away for eight years. If then you do not perceive the uses of oblivion publish it, but remember that IT CAN NEVER BE RECALLED EXCEPT BY TIME..."

    "If you write drama let the action, not your words, tell the story and delinete the characters. Do not represent horror on the stage. Obey the unities of action, time, and place. Let the story be one and occur with a brief time in one please."

    "Study life and philosophy, for without OBSERVATION and UNDERSTANDING even a perfect style is an empty thing. DARE TO KNOW!!!!!"

    Wow! What great advice. I found it interesting that he advised against "horror on the stage". Considering this was ancient Rome with all its bloody wars etc you'd think the people would be acceptable of "horror" anywhere. I wonder how he'd feel about today's productions.

    The "Ars poetica" (Art of Poetry), the last of Horace's works, is in form letter to Pisones, based on a lost Hellenistic treatise. It is divided into three parts, discussing, respectively, poetry in general, the form of the poem, and the poet. Throughout, sutiability - of subject, of form and language to the subject, of thought and dialogue to the character - is stressed, and the poet is advised to read widely in the best models, to be meticulous in his composition, and to submit his work to the best criticism which he can obtain.

    A very large part of the poem is concerned with the drama, and Horace's descriptions and precepts, hardened into unbreakable laws, had a great influence in and after the Renaissance, especially in setting the rigid rules which French classical drama imposed on itself. The poem as a whole, in fact, seems to the modern reader to suffer because it has be so often quoted and adapted, and its teachings so absorbed into the elements of criticism, that it perforce seem hackneyed. Few works of literary criticsm have ever had an influence approaching that of the "Ars poetica" or have contained such sound advice.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 29, 2004 - 04:12 pm
    Tropical Tramp:-We are pleased that you are reviewing past posts but I am sure that participants here would also be interested in your comments regarding the words of Durant. Please share some of your opinions.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 29, 2004 - 06:34 pm
    "Albius Tibulius (54-19), like Virgil, lost his ancestra lands when the Civil War reached the little town of Pedum -- near Tibur -- that had seen his birth. Messala rescued him from poverty and took him in his train to the East, butbullus fell ill on the way and returned to Rome. He was happy to be free from war and politics. Now he could give himself to genderless love and the polishing of elegiac verse in the manner of the Alexandrian Greeks.

    "To Delia he addressed the usual supplications and reminding her, as so many maids have been reminded, that youth comes but once and soon steals away. It did not disturb him that Delia was married. He put the husband to sleep with undiluted wine -- but fumed when her new lover played the same trick upon him.

    "These ancient themes might not have harassed Augustus. What made Tibullus, Propertius, and Ovid really disagreeable to a government that was finding it hard to enlist recruits for the army was the persuasive anti-militarism of this love-loose set. Tibullus laughs at warriors who forage for death when they might have been seducing women.

    "Born in Umbria, educated in Rome, Sextus ropertius (49-15) soon lapsed into verse. Though few readers could fetch his thought from the wells of his pedantry, Maecenas took him into his circle on the Esquioline.

    "He describes with pride and pleasure the dinners there on the banks of the Tiber, when he wold drink the wine of Lesbos in cups chiseled by great atists, and 'seated as on a throne amid merry women,' would watch the vessels gliding by on the river below. To his mistress Cynthia he sang another tune:-'Why should I raise sons for Parthian triumphs? No child of ours shall be a soldier.'P>" Not all the martial glory in the world, he assured her, could equal one night with Cynthia."

    The young Romans said "Make love, not war" and the government was unhappy.

    Robby

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 29, 2004 - 07:45 pm
    THIS LINK will take you to a wealth of great Roman Art and Architecture. Each image is a link to other great pieces. It is worth spending time admiring them.

    Eloïse

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 30, 2004 - 05:47 am
    "Of all these epicureans, light of heart and head, who spent their lives climbing and descending the mount of Venus, Publius Ovidius Naso was the happy model and poet laureate. Sulmo (Soloma) saw his birth (43 B.C.) in a pleasant valley of the Apennines some ninety miles east of Rome. How beautiful, from the cold exile of hs later years, would seem Sulmo's vineyafds, olive groves, cornfields, and streams!

    "His rich middle-class father sent him to Rome to study law, and was shocked to hear that the boy wished to be a poet. He held up to the lad the awful fate of Homer who, according to the best of authorities, had died blind and poor. So warned, Ovid managed to rise to the post of a judge in the praetorial courts. Then, to his father's dismay, he refused to run for the quaestorship (from which he would have emerged a senator) and retired to the cultivation of literature and love.

    "Ovid traveled leisurely to Athens, the Near East, and Sicily and, returning, joined the loosest circles in the capital. Possessed of charm, wit, education, and money, he was able to open all doors. He married twice in early manhood, was twice divorced, and then grazed for a time in public pastures. He sang:-'Let the past please others. I congratulate myself on being born into this age, whose morals are so congenial to my own.' He lost his head to a pretty courtesan, whose anonymity or multiplicity he hides under the name of Corinna. His racy couplets about her had no trouble in finding a publisher. Under the title of Amores they were soon (14 B.C.) on the lips and lyres of youthful Rome."

    Two themes here. Children not doing what their parents wanted and the heart winning out over the head. Any thoughts on these subjects?

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 30, 2004 - 06:19 am
    Typical behavior for children, I'd say. It sounds to me a if Ovid used his head instead of his heart when he decided to ditch his wives and play the field before settling down. Look at what all his wild oat-sowing did for literature!

    Mal

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 30, 2004 - 06:22 am
    "the heart winning out over the head". It is the heart that rules the head, in my opinion.

    Eloïse

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 30, 2004 - 06:35 am
    Book I Elegy II: Love’s Victim

    How to say what it’s like, how hard my mattress
    seems, and the sheets won’t stay on the bed,
    and the sleepless nights, so long to endure,
    tossing with every weary bone of my body in pain?
    But, I think, if desire were attacking me I’d feel it.
    Surely he’s crept in and skilfully hurt me with secret art.
    That’s it: a slender arrow sticks fast in my heart,
    and cruel Love lives there, in my conquered breast.
    Shall I give in: to go down fighting might bank the fires?
    I give in! The burden that’s carried with grace is lighter.
    I’ve seen the torch that’s swung about grow brighter
    and the still one, on the contrary, quenched.
    The oxen that shirk when first seized for the yoke
    get more lashes than those that are used to the plough.
    The hot steed’s mouth is bruised from the harsh curb,
    the one that’s been in harness, feels reins less.
    Love oppresses reluctant lovers more harshly and insolently
    than those who acknowledge they’ll bear his slavery.
    Look I confess! Cupid, I’m your latest prize:
    stretching out conquered arms towards your justice
    . War’s not the thing – I come seeking peace:
    no glory for you in conquering unarmed men.
    Wreathe your hair with myrtle, yoke your mother’s doves:
    Your stepfather Mars himself will lend you a chariot,
    and it’s fitting you go, the people acclaiming your triumph,
    with you skilfully handling the yoked birds.
    leading captive youths and captive girls:
    that procession will be a magnificent triumph.
    I myself, fresh prize, will just now have received my wound
    and my captive mind will display its new chains.
    You’ll lead Conscience, hands twisted behind her back,
    and Shame, and whoever Love’s sect includes.
    All will fear you: stretching their arms towards you
    the crowd will cry ‘hurrah for the triumph!
    You’ll have your flattering followers Delusion and Passion,
    the continual crew that follows at your side.
    With these troops you overcome men and gods:
    take away their advantage and you’re naked.
    Proudly, your mother will applaud your triumph
    from high Olympus, and scatter roses over your head
    You, with jewelled wings, jewels spangling your hair,
    will ride in a golden chariot, yourself all golden.
    And then, if I know you, you’ll inflame not a few:
    and also, passing by you’ll deal out many wounds.
    You can’t, even if you wish, suspend your arrows:
    your fiery flames scorch your neighbours.
    Such was Bacchus in the conquered land by Ganges:
    you drawn by birds, he by tigers.
    So since I will be part of your sacred triumph,
    victorious one, spend your powers frugally on me now!
    Look at Caesar’s similar fortunes of war –
    what he conquers, he protects with his power.

    Amores: Elegies by Ovid

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 30, 2004 - 06:38 am
    Sad is the day when my heart rules my head.

    Mal

    ALF
    January 30, 2004 - 07:21 am
    I would guess that one would have to be a romantic, allowing his heart to rule his head, in order to provide inspiration for his amorous stories of the gods and goddesses.

    As a lawyer, I'm certain that Ovid artfully enlightened the masses with his adeptness of selecting words of floridity as he described their romances of seduction and intrigue.

    In my book, that should make his daddy proud. We're still discussing Ovid and reading his tales.

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 30, 2004 - 07:39 am
    Yet how many empires were lost because a King lost his heart over a woman? How many marriages are broken because the heart chooses the wrong mate? How many wars were started on passion and greed?

    History is a logical account of excesses of passion.

    Eloïse

    tooki
    January 30, 2004 - 08:01 am
    I am unsympathic to all dualisms (that I know about). The Cartesian distinction between thought and extension, called mind and matter or the mind/body problem; the body and soul view; and this heart and mind one, don't mean much to me, at least as far as I am aware of. Perhaps my emotions are hidden to me. I like the irony of that last statement.

    There is an old story, probably apocryphal, that Descartes formalized the mind/body distinction when he was on duty in the army. He became soaking wet and had to lay about in his dreadful wet, itchy, sweaty, cold, just awful wool clothes for the whole night! In such a situation I can understand his epiphany, his need to divorce his mind from the wretched discomfort of his body.

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 30, 2004 - 09:14 am
    Fact:~~ Hearts can't be lost. They are always in the same place.

    Marriages can't be broken because of a heart's wrong choice. There never has been, or will be, a heart which could make a choice. I might as well ask the water pump what to have for dinner as wait for my heart pump to decide.

    Emotions and passion can't choose a darned thing. It is the mind which makes choices.

    It is reason which stops impulsive, emotional decisions. Reason doesn't exist in the arms, the legs, or any other place except the mind, which exists in the organ called the brain.

    The foot bone is connected to the ankle bone. The ankle bone is connected to the leg bone. The leg bone is connected to the hip bone, on and on. They are all controlled by the brain. So, too, are emotions and passions, which we wrongly attribute to the heart.

    Mal

    tooki
    January 30, 2004 - 09:17 am
    Eloise: That site you just furnished is full of surprises. I sorta look like the "Roman Matron," in the Vatican! I had my people, those who were about, look at it too. They agreed; the resemblence was strong. Is this an omen? An augury? Am I a reincarnation? The thought amazes the heart!

    Scrawler
    January 30, 2004 - 11:22 am
    Livy's History:

    Livy's great work, "Ab urbe Condita" (From the Foundation of the City,) covered the history of Rome from its mythical foundation in 753 BC to his own day, and its composition went on continually throughout his life. The first five books were published between 27 and 25 BC, and Livy continued the history's publication thereafter in periodic batches of several books. It is probable that the last 22 books, covering the career of Augustus to 9 BC, were not published until after the Emperor's death in AD 14 and, therefore, also after Livy's own death.

    At its completion, "Ab urbe condita" was an enormous work in no less than 142 books. Only about a quarter of the text has survived - we have 35 books complete: 1-X, which cover the first 460 years of Rome's history, and XXI-XLV, which cover the events of 219-167 BC. In addition we have "Perioche," or summaries, of all but two of the lost books, but these are very brief and were complied not from Livy's full text but from an abridged edition that is now lost.

    Moreover, the anonymous copiler of the "Periochae" was capable of misunderstanding the text in front of him, and consequently the summaries give only a very shadowy picture of the lost books. The scale of the work increased steadily as Livy got closer to his own times. Book I covered the whole of the regal period, nearly 250 years, and the next 9 books dealt with more than 200 years but the 10 books XXI-XXX cover only the 18 years of the Second Punic War, and by the time he got down to the 1st century BC, Livy was devoting a whole book to almost every year.

    His style, which owned much to Cicero and to Latin poetry, was vivid and colorful. He approached his task with a vision of the greatness and splendor of that past which was certainly not very realistic but was still a able and inspiring concept. He brought to his work an old-fashioned concept of moral excellence which may not have enhanced his performance as a historian, but, together with the attractive literay style with which he told so effectively the story of Roman Republic, and particularly the half-legendary tales of its earliest days, it had made his history an enduring part of the heritage of Western Europe.

    This prompts a question: it is style or content that is more important when writing a history?

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    January 30, 2004 - 11:38 am
    One learns people through the heart, not the eyes or the intellect. Mark Twain.

    All that is worth cherishing begins in the heart, not the head. Suzanne Chapin

    A loving heart is the truest wisdom. Charles Dickens

    The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart. Helen Keller

    Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts. Albert Einstein

    Every great achievement is the victory of a flaming heart. Ralph Waldo Emerson

    To handle yourself, use your head; to handle others, use your heart. Donald Laird

    Keep your feet on the ground, but let your heart soar as high as it will. A.W. Tozer

    A man’s heart changes his countenance, either for good or for bad. Ecclesiastus 13.25

    HubertPaul
    January 30, 2004 - 01:49 pm
    In those situations wherein it is totally helpless to save itself from danger and death, every creatures sends forth an anguished cry from the heart. And this is as natural to animals as to human beings.

    Shasta Sills
    January 30, 2004 - 03:01 pm
    When writing history, style is nice to have, but content is absolutely essential. I think Livy was writing historical fiction.

    I can't get sentimental about "heart." The emotions are primitive components of the human psyche that we inherited from our animal ancestors. "Reason" we worked to develop over eons of time. Emotion comes natural; reason must be achieved. But I can't agree with Mal that we use reason more than emotion. We ought to, but most of us don't.

    Justin
    January 30, 2004 - 03:08 pm
    However many there were, there were too few nights with the sheets awry and my body in the grip of cupid to make me not wish for more. Ovid, you rascal, you send me to the bone of contention, to the heart of life, to love, and to action. You make of me a mind in turmoil.

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 30, 2004 - 03:11 pm
    I didn't say that, SHASTA. Read my post #816. I can't get sentimental over "heart", either, even if Valentine's Day is only 2 weeks away.

    ELOISE: "A person convinced again his-her will remains a firm believer still." ~~Anon.

    Enough of this game. I have more important things to do.

    Mal

    Justin
    January 30, 2004 - 03:33 pm
    Just is my prayer: let the maid who has lately made me her prey either give me love, or give me REASON forever to love! Ah, I have asked too much- let her but suffer herself to be loved; may Cytherea hear my many prayers. Amores 1.iii

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 30, 2004 - 06:20 pm
    Lots of wonderful interaction here among all you participants! Serves no purpose to add my thoughts except for this. Some of you here are using the term heart anatomically and some using it symbolically. Let me blend the two by citing recent research which indicates the strong correlation between clinical depression and the heart. Many cases where a significant number of people with clinical depression end up with cardiac problems and also a significant number with heart problems who end up with clinical depression. No connection between emotions and the heart?

    Let us continue with Durant's comments about Ovid.

    "About the third year of our era Ovid married a third time. His new wife belonged to one of the most distinguished families in Rome. Now forty-six, the poet settled down to domestic life and seems to have lived in mutual faith and happiness with Fabia. Age did to him what law could not. It cooled his fires and made his poetry respectable.

    "In the Heroides he told again the love stories of famous women -- Penelope, Phaedra, Dido, Ariadne, Sappho, Helen, Hero -- told them, perhaps at too great length, for repetition can make even love a bore. Startling, however, is a sentence in which Phaedra expresses Ovid's philosophy:-'Jove decreed that virtue is whatever brings us pleasure.

    "About A.D. 7 the poet published his greatest work, the Metamorphoses. These fifteen 'books' recounted in engaging hexameters the renowned transformations of inanimate objects, animals, mortals, and gods. Since almost everything in Greek and Roman legend changed its form, the scheme permitted Ovid to range through the whole realm of classical mythology from the creation of the world to the deification of Caesar.

    "These are the old tales that until a generation ago were de rigueur in every college, and whose memory has not yet been erased by the revolution of our time:-Phaethon's chariot, Pyaramus and Thisbe, Perseus and Andromeda, the Rape of Proserpine, Arethusa, Medea, Daedalus and Icarus, Baucis and Philemon, Orpheus and Eurydice, Atalanta, Venus and Adonis, and many more.

    "Here is the treasury from which a hundred thousand poems, paintings, and statues have taken their themes. If one must still learn the old myths there is no more painless way than by reading this kaleidoscope of men and gods -- stories told with skeptical humor and amorous bent, and worked up with such patient art as no mere trifler could ever have achieved.

    "Little wonder that at the end the confident poet announced his own immortality:-per saedula omnia vivum -- 'I shall live forever.'"

    "Virtue is whatever brings us pleasure." Wasn't it only a decade or two ago when our young people were spouting their "new" philosophy -- "If it feels good, it is good."

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 30, 2004 - 06:24 pm
    The facilitator has spoken.
    I retreat.
    Poof! I'm gone.

    Mal

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 30, 2004 - 06:34 pm
    Mal:-Where did you go?

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 30, 2004 - 07:02 pm
    ROBBY: Back to the realm of reason so I can try to control my emotions!

    Seriously, I am a very emotional person, was more so when I was younger. As SHASTA, I believe, said, one has to learn to use reason, to think before one makes decisions and acts. I've spent years learning how.

    I am in full agreement that emotions affect a person's physical health. I've been sick recently, and any time I became in the slightest way stressed in the past two weeks, I was sicker.

    Mal

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 30, 2004 - 08:10 pm
    When you feel that way, Mal, don't retreat into yourself. We all care about you here and you know that. Just stay with us.

    Robby

    Justin
    January 30, 2004 - 08:29 pm
    Do not retreat, Mal. Charge! is the right word for people our age. We must hang in here together and make a life for ourselves in meaningful conversation. We are all connected by our contributions to the discussion. Do you not see us that way. Alive, because we have someone to talk with who shares our values. Happy, because we continue to be useful to others. Hang in here, Mal.

    tooki
    January 30, 2004 - 09:32 pm
    Cancers KNOW about feelings. That's how Cancers are, and you are a Cancer,Mal. Remember, we have our 75th birthdays coming up. Aren't we going to be here together?

    tooki
    January 30, 2004 - 09:43 pm
    is whatever brings us pleasure." Isn't that idealogically what the Marquis de Sade's philosophy was? That is, isn't that how he defended his actions? The Durants just sort of toss out the idea prefaced with the word "Startling," making me think there is something here unsaid. I'm on thin ice here. Ovid has left a bad taste in my mouth, except for the "Heroides." I find his famous sensuality trivial and superficial. Thus I am inclined to think the worst of him.

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 30, 2004 - 10:12 pm
    76 on July 2nd, TOOKI.

    Mal hangin' in there
    Goodnight, everybody.

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 31, 2004 - 02:23 am
    See who woke up at 3:15 feeling terrible! A little better now, thank you.
    Narcissus
    From Ovid's Metamorphoses

    Narcissus drinkeing at a faire cleare Spring
    Sees his owne shape a faire and comlye thing
    on which he dotes and so much falls in Loue
    That from the place he hath no power to Moue
    But with his shaddow, talkes, woes, kisses, playes,
    And pineing in that manner ends his dayes
    His body did consume, and from the same
    A flower sprong which beareth still his Name.

    Bubble
    January 31, 2004 - 04:34 am
    Narcissus... it is his lovely face I see whenever I look at and inhale the strong parfume of this flower...



    Ovid was much more fun to translate, compared to Caesar's war reports.



    In youth we are captives of our emotions, passions; hopefully with the years we learn of reason and the wisdom of not being impulsive. Hopefully We also become less self-centered and more compassionate. Is it true that with old age we become -per force- more virtuous? Bubble

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 31, 2004 - 06:21 am
    Tooki says:-"Ovid left a bad taste in my mouth." And guess what happened? --

    "News came that Augustus had banished him to cold and barbarous Tomi on the Black Sea -- even today unalluring as Constanta. It was a blow for which the poet, rounding fifty-one, was wholly unprepared. He had just composed, toward the close of the Metamorphoses, an elegant tribute to the Emperor, whose statesmanship he now recognized as the source of that peace, security and luxury which Ovid's generation had enjoyed. He had half completed, under the title of Fasti, an almost pious poem celebrating the religious feasts of the Roman year.

    "In these verses he was on the way to making an epic out of a calendar, for he applied to the tales of the old religion, and to the honoring of its shrines and gods, the same lucid facility, delicacy of word and phrase, and even flow of racy narrative that he had devoted to Greek mythology and Roman love.

    "He had hoped to dedicate the work to Augustus as a contribution to the religious restoration and as an apologetic palinode to the faith he once had scorned.

    "The Emperor gave no reason for his edict, and no one today can fathom its causes confidently. He offered some hint, however, by at the same time banishing his granddaughter Julia, and ordering that Ovid's works should be removed from the public libraries. The poet had apparently played some role in Julia's misconduct -- whether as witness, accomplice, or principal. He himself declared that he was punished for 'an error' and his poems, and implied that he had been the unwilling observer of some indecent scenes.

    "He was given the remaining months of the year (A.D. to arrange his affairs. The decree was relegatio, softer than exile in allowing him to retain his property, harsher in commanding him to stay in one city. He burned his manuscripts of the Metamorphoses, but some readers had made copies, and preserved them.

    "Most of his friends avoided thim, a few dared the lightning by staying with him until his departure, and his wife, who remained behind at his bidding, supported him with affections and loyalty.

    "Otherwise Rome took no notice as the bard of the joys sailed out of Ostia on the long voyage from everything that he had loved. The sea was rough nearly all the days of that trip, and the poet thought once that the waves would engulf the vessel.

    "When he saw Tomi he regretted that he had survived, and gave himself over to grief."

    After apparently going too far in taking advantage of Augustus' "liberality," he suddenly "found religion" (in the words of the book "1984" he now loved Big Brother)but it was too late. His friends, seeing "which side their bread was buttered on," avoided him, and the citizens of Rome who had enjoyed his poems and perhaps followed their dictates, now kept their mouths shut.

    So much for loyalty.

    Robby

    tooki
    January 31, 2004 - 06:51 am
    "for a song and an error." After all these years, many, many scholars, and apologists for Ovid, you'd think someone would have found out WHY? Mal, since you are feeling better, a fact to be celebrated, why don't you turn your internet skills to unearthing the reason he was banished.

    And Robby, Surely I didn't say Ovid "led" a bad taste in my mouth, although as a methaphor it has promise.

    tooki
    January 31, 2004 - 07:41 am
    There are all kinds of suppositions afloat in the Web about Ovid's exile. Most of them are charmingly conspiratorial. He wasn't exiled; he had a stroke and was comotose; he is alive and well and living in Brazil.

    HERE is one.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 31, 2004 - 07:44 am
    Thanks for letting me know, Tooki. I corrected the typo.

    While we are on the subject of the Arts in the Italy of ancient times, it is possibly not too far afield to give this LINK to a musical event taking place in the Italy of today.

    Robby

    Bubble
    January 31, 2004 - 09:19 am
    http://www.classicsunveiled.com/

    about Roman History with timelines and tables of rulers, Roman life and Latin vocabulary

    Scrawler
    January 31, 2004 - 11:53 am
    However the poet might expess Love at some point the head must overcome the heart if the body wants to survive in the real world.

    Livy as a historian:

    Except for the boldness and scope of his undertaking, and the untiring industry with which he worked at it throughout a lifetime, Livy cannot really be classed as one of the world's major historians. For the most part he depended for his material on earlier writers of the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, and there is no sign that he made any attempt to consult the history of his own times, for which he must have had to do most of the research himself, as the "Periochae" of the last 20 books are more than usually brief and uninformative.

    In his choice of sources to follow, Livy was often quite shrewd, as when he picked the Greek historian Polyboios as his main guide for the Eastern wars of the early 2nd century BC, and if elsewhere his sources were less reliable, that was sometimes because they were all he had. But Livy's use of them was quite uncritical, and his choice between alternative accounts of an event was often determined not so much by logic or reason as by a preference for a story that pointed a moral or redounded to the greater glory of Rome.

    Livy's ignorance of war and politics made it hard for him to judge properly the reliability of his sources or to allow for any political bias that might have affected them. In addition he was sometimes careless in matters of chronology, and although his knowledge of geography was slight, he does not seem to have taken much trouble to see for himself even those sites which lay close at hand in Italy. But for all its weakness Livy's history is still one of the best accounts of the Roman republic, and the loss of three-quarters of his work is one of the most serious gaps in our knowledge of Roman literature.

    JoanK
    January 31, 2004 - 12:10 pm
    MAL and TOOKI: I should have known you two were Cancers, since I've lived with one fo 47 years. I thought you seemed familiar.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 31, 2004 - 12:39 pm
    Scrawler:--How would you rank Durant? Is he a historian? Is he a story teller? I have been most impressed about his knowledge in other fields which he uses as he moves along. I have attended history classes where all I received was "history" -- who did what when and where. I have enjoyed the Latin phrases which Durant uses along with their translations. He also uses rather uncommon English words which I have had to look up. I have enjoyed reading about the personal aspects of their lives. He also makes comparisons with other eras of history, e.g. the Elizabethan age or the French revolution.

    Any comments here about Durant?

    Robby

    Fifi le Beau
    January 31, 2004 - 01:35 pm
    In looking at the url provided by Bubble, I read the history of how the Romans handled their dead.

    The rich built mausoleums and crypts, while the poor and others of misfortune were dumped into an open pit. It had become such a problem that Augustus finally covered it over with 25 feet of earth and moved the burial site.

    Even though Roman burial rites have been discussed earlier by Durant, I thought this site interesting, and I wanted to refresh my reading because of an article in my local paper recently, which follows.

    American and Italian scientists will exhume 49 members of the Medici clan to study what they ate and what illnesses they suffered. The two year study of an elite group on which there is much documentation, will compare them to other populations that have been studied.

    Studies have been done on crypts of monks, and hundreds of Capuchin friars in southern Italy, but noone has ever worked on a royal population.

    The project to be filmed by the Learning Channel, will give researchers a better look at the lives of the Medicis, who ruled Tuscany during the Renaissance, and sponsered much of its most famous art.

    All the rituals, elaborate rites, and rules governing burial through the centuries, all seem for naught. Today you might be on display in some museum under glass, or exhumed to see what your last meal was, or bulldozed up to create a new parking lot, as recently happened in my area.

    Rome embraced cremation after their population grew, but went back to burial after Christianity came to the area.

    I remember what an Iraqi said during the recent war. A large dust storm had engulfed the countryside, and he said about death, "The air is full of the dead today, you are breathing their dust."

    I have changed my mind about burial. I now favor cremation, and my own child dead at 21 is buried in what once was a field where clover grew. It is now divided into plots with vases of brass and a sea of artifical flowers. I dislike it intently, and am considering having a cremation and burial under the cedar tree that I pulled up from my mothers pasture, and planted in memory of my child.

    Who knows when that cemetary will be needed for a clover field again some time in the future.

    From Bubbles url......

    http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/romedead.html

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 31, 2004 - 01:41 pm
    Fifi:-Thank you so much for that very personal sharing. I, also, intend to be cremated. I want people to remember me as I was, imperfections and all.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 31, 2004 - 02:37 pm
    Durant continues:-

    "A simple vocabulary that made him a pleasure even in school -- scenes vividly realized by insight and imagery -- characters brought to life by touches of psychological subtlety -- phrases compact with experience or thought -- an unfailing grace of speech and flowing ease of line -- all these stayed with him in his exile, attended by a seriousness and tenderness whose absence makes the earlier poems unworthy of a man. Strength of characer never came to him, as once he had spoiled his verse with superficial sensuality, so now he flooded his lines with tears and suppliant adulation of the Prince.

    "He envied these poems which could go to Rome. In every letter he still hopes for pardon, or pleads for at least some milder home. He thinks each day of his wife and calls her name in the night. He prays that he may kiss her whitened hairs before he dies.

    "But no pardon came. After nine years of exile the broken man of sixty welcomed death. His bones, as he had begged, were brought to Italy and buried near the capital.

    His prediction of lasting fame was justified by time. He was the great romanticist of a classic age. With his passing ended one of the great flowering spochs in the history of letters. The Augustan was not a supreme literary age, like the Periclean or Elizabethan. Even at its best there is in its prose a pompous rhetoric, and in its verse a formal perfection, that seldom come from soul to soul.

    "But within the classic range this age deserved the compliment of its name. Never had sober judgment found expression in such perfect art. Even the madcap revelry of Ovid ws cooled into a classic mold. In him and Virgil and Horace the Latin language as a poetic medium reached its enith.

    "It would never be so rich and resonant, so subtle and compact, so pliant and melodious again."

    Any comments as we leave "The Golden Age?"

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    January 31, 2004 - 03:14 pm
    Here's how I would rate Will Durant:
    1. Scholar
    2. Historian
    3. Writer
    4. Philosopher
    5. A good man
    Mal

    JoanK
    January 31, 2004 - 04:27 pm
    Right on, Mal. Furthermore, he is so much fun to read. I went looking in recent posts to find "quotable quotes" and was soon buried in them. Here are a few.

     

    From Durant:
     
    warriors who forage for death when they might have been seducing women.
     
    Sextus ropertius (49-15) soon lapsed into verse. Though few readers 
     could fetch his thought from the wells of his pedantry ...
     
    these epicureans, light of heart and head, who spent their lives 
     climbing and descending the mount of Venus,
     
    Of the three major sources of poetry -- religion, nature, love -- 
     two had been brought under imperial sway. The third remained lawless
     
    Scholarship continued its quiet course, sheltered from present storms 
     by its ghostly interests.
     

    Horace had not learned to weep. Because his feelings were too thin, or had been stifled into silence, he seldom rose to the high art that gives form to sincere sympathy
     
    hiding their art with perfect art
     
    repetition can make even love a bore.

    JoanK
    January 31, 2004 - 04:38 pm
    I don't know why the above posted in such odd type. Anyway, a longer search would have found even better nuggets. As to Durant's accuracy,I am no judge. As he says of one of the poets, his sympathies are clearly patrician, but I do not see any bias toward making the patricians better than they were, and he has only patrician sources to work with. He tries to present both the best and the worst. JUSTIN, I judge from your reaction when we studied Cleopatra, that you find him pretty accurate?

    tooki
    January 31, 2004 - 05:11 pm
    I realize the joint authorship wasn't acknowledged with this volume, but I thought the group had decided to call them "the Durants." It's a compliment to their cooperation that there is no separation of voice. However, I'll say him for now.

    I trust him, allowing for necessary updating on various facts. At first I didn't, but after having proven myself wrong frequently I do now.

    Finally, you gotta admire authors who mix metaphors, laspe into non sequiturs, and score a telling insight - ALL IN THE SAME SENTENCE!

    I give you my current paradigm: (About Propertius) "Born in Umbria, educated in Rome, he soon lapsed into verse; and though few readers could fetch his thought from the wells of his pedantry, Maecenas took him into his circle on the Esquiline." Now that's a sentence.

    Justin
    January 31, 2004 - 07:42 pm
    The Durants are first and foremost, scholars. Accuracy, as we all know is a function of source material and selection. The bias of modern man creeps in from time to time but very often the Durants minimize it by putting us in the scene. When there is conflict they let us know the character of the conflict. I am very pleased with their work. The presentation is skillful and entertaining.

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 31, 2004 - 07:47 pm
    Although we use the single word "Durant" regularly because of its ease of use, let us always keep in mind that Will and Ariel collaborated on just about every volume. We acknowledge this in the Heading above.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    January 31, 2004 - 07:59 pm
    When great men stoop to sentiment, the world grows fonder of them.

    When sentiment governs policy, empires totter.

    - - - Will Durant

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 1, 2004 - 05:38 am
    The Other Side of Monarchy

    A.D. 14-96

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 1, 2004 - 05:53 am
    Once again, the GREEN quotes in the Heading indicate where we are. Please keep in mind that, from now on, all dates will be A.D. unless otherwise noted.

    "Augustus had chosen Tiberius wisely, but too late. When Tiberius was saving the state with patient generalship, the Emperor had almost loved him. One of his letters ended:-'Farewell, most agreeable of men -- most valiant of men -- most conscientious of commanders.'

    "Then the pathos of propinquity blinded Augustus, as later Aurelius. He set Tiberius aside for his pretty grandsons -- compelled him to renounce a fortunate marriage to become the cuckold of Julia -- resented his resentment -- and let him grow old with philosophy in Rhodes. When at last Tiberius reached the principate he was already fifty-five, a disillusioned misanthrope who found no happiness in power.

    "With Tiberius began the Claudian branch of that Julio-Claudian dynasty which ended with Nero. Through both parents he inherited the proudest blood in Italy, the narrowest prejudices, the strongest will.

    "He was tall, powerful, and well featured, but acne accentuated his shyness, his awkward manners, his moody diffidence, and his love of seclusion. The fine head of Tiberius in the Boston Museum shows him as a young priest, with broad forehead, large deep eyes, and pensive countenance. He was so serious in youth that wags called him 'the old man.'

    "He received all the education that Rome, Greece, environment, and responsibility could afford. He learned the two classic languages and literatures well, wrote lyrics, dabbled in astrology, and 'neglected the gods.' He loved his brother Drusus despite the young man's superior popularity. He was a devoted husband to Vipsania, and so generous to his friends that they could safely give him presents in the expectation of a fourfold return.

    "The severest as well as the ablest general of his time, he gained the admiration and affection of his soldiers because he watched over every detail of their welfare, and won his battles by strategy rather than by blood."

    A new era begins with new leaders.

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 1, 2004 - 06:29 am
    Image: Tiberius

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 1, 2004 - 08:42 am
    Sculpture: Tiberius

    Scrawler
    February 1, 2004 - 12:08 pm
    Well said Justin in your #830 post. Mal do hang in there. I can't remember which one of our ancestors said it but I think it went something like this: "I may not always agree with you, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

    Ovid his exile:

    The reasons behind Ovid's exile have been the subject of much speculation. He himself tells us that the reason was "a poem and a mistake." The poem was his "Art of Love." With this work, its companion piece, "The Remedies for Love," on how to get over an unsuccessful love affair, and its predecessor, "On Cosmetics," Ovid had invented a new kind of poetry, didactic and amatory. "The Art of Love" consists of three books, which parody conventional love poetry and diactic verse while offering portrayals of contemporary Roman society.

    The witty sophistication of this work made it an immediate and overwhelming success in fashionable society and infuriated the emperor Augustus, who was attempting to force a moral reformation on this same society. To the Emperor, this work must have seemed, in the strictest sense, subversive, and he excluded it, along with Ovid's other works, from the public libraries of Rome. What the "mistake" may have been, we do not know. It was, Ovid says, the result of his having eyes, and the most widely accepted suggestion is that he had somehow became aware of the licentious behavior of the Emperor's daughter Julia (who was banished in the same year as he) without his informing Augustus about her.

    Upon receiving word of his exile, Ovid dramatically burned the manuscript of his masterpiece, the "Metamorphoses." The unreality of this gesture can be seen from the fact that his friends already had copies and that he took the unfinished manuscript of his "Fasti" along with him into exile. The journey to Tomi lasted nearly a year, and when he arrived, he found it a frontier post, where books and educated people were not to be found and Latin was practically unknown. Tomi was subject to attack by hostile barbarians and to bitterly cold winters. The production of the last 10 years of his life consists largely of tedious and interminable complaints mingled with appeals for recall, in the "Sorrows" and "Letters from the Black Sea," but Augustus was too bitterly offended to relent, and the accession of Tiberius in AD 14 brought an even more unyielding emperor to the throne.

    Ovid's exile was not so unbearable as his letters indicate. He learned the native languages and his unconquerable geniality and amiability made him a beloved and revered figure to the local citizens, who exempted him from taxes and treated him as well, he said, as he could have expected even in his native Sulmo.

    Traude S
    February 1, 2004 - 07:13 pm
    MAL, I have read here only sporadically but wanted to thank you for # 760. The sound was perfectly intelligible.

    Yes, the Latin sounded almost Italian; in fact I am convinced the reader IS Italian. That is the most unusual ponouncuation of Latin I ever heard.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 2, 2004 - 05:18 am
    Four weeks after the death of Augustus, Tiberius appeared before the Senate and asked it to restore the Republic. He was unfit, he told them, to rule so vast a state. Not daring to take him at his word, the Senate exchanged bows with him until at last he accepted power 'as a wretched and burdensome slavery' and in the hope that someday the Senate would permit him to retire to privacy and freedom.

    "The play was well acted on both sides. Tiberius wanted the principate, or he would have found some way to evade it. The Senate feared and hated him, but shrank from re-establishing a Republic based, like the old, upon theoretically sovereign assemblies. It wanted less democracy, not more.

    "It was pleased when Tiberius (A.D. 14) persuaded it to take over from the comitia centuriata the power of choosing the public officials. The citizens complained for a time, mourning the loss of the sums they had received for their votes. The early political power now left to the common man was the right of electing the emperor by assassination.

    "After Tiberius, democracy passed from the assemblies to the army, and voted with the sword."

    If I get this correctly, the Senate which supposedly represents the people voted for less democracy.

    Robby

    Bubble
    February 2, 2004 - 06:13 am
    Aren't many today saying: let the ones qualified decide what is best for us, I can't be bothered with it? Especially when votes don't seem to make a change or to show truly what the people voted for.

    tooki
    February 2, 2004 - 06:46 am
    Bubble has summed up attitudes toward voting and reasons for them succinctly. There are some complicated accounts on the Web about how this happened in Rome. But the simple fact is that voting means an assumption of responsibility; historically this is not a popular pastime.

    Small wonder that those folks who do act responsibility and step up to the plate to run for office, when elected act contemptously toward those that voted, and mostly not-voted, for them! It appears to be a Catch 22.

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 2, 2004 - 07:08 am
    In his Post #860 ROBBY gave me a very good argument to use when I urge people to vote. From now on I'm going to tell them if they don't use their voting privilege it could happen that a regime could come in and say, "Get to the polls and vote this way, or you'll be killed." Then I'll say, "Which do you prefer? Voting today under this democratic system, or the alternative?"

    Mal

    Scrawler
    February 2, 2004 - 11:19 am
    I believe that all historians have to be storytellers first and than historians. Here is a good example of this from "From Dawn to Decadence" by Jacques Barzun:

    "The careful historian, before he ventures to predict the course of history, murmurs to himself "Schedel." It is not a magic word, but the name of a learned German who, in 1493 - note the date - compiled and published the "Nuremberg Chronicle." It announced that the sixth of the seventh ages of mankind was drawing to a close, and included several blank pages for recording anything of interest that might still occur during the final days. As we know, what occurred was the opening of the New World and all innovations that followed from it - hardly a close."

    The difficulty that I see that a historian has to overcome is a tendency to inflict his or her own personal opinions on an unsuspecting readership. In so far as I have read I believe that Durant has successfully told his story as purely as he could. As we get closer to our own time period we will be better judges of this, since we ourselves have lived a portion of this historical period.

    Tiberius the early years:

    The 44 BC assassination of Julius Caesar, which divided the people of Rome, also divided the family of Tiberius. Though Octavian, Mark Antony, and Lepidus who had formed the Second Triumvirate joined forces to eliminate those who had plotted against Caesar, they soon began to struggle for power with one another. Tiberius's father, a loyal follower of Mark Antony, conspired against Octavian, and with tensions growing between Octavian and Mark Antony, Tiberius's family fled Italy. Escaping first to the island of Sicily they later traveled to the eastern region of the Roman world. Roman historian Suetonius wrote that Tiberius's childhood and youth were "beset with hardships and difficulties, because Nero [Tiberius's father] and Livia took him wherever they went in their flight from Augustus." According to Suetonius, as the family fled, the infant Tiberius "nearly betrayed them twice by crying."

    In 39 BC, an agreement was signed allowing the family to return to Rome. But shortly after their arrival, OCTAVIAN DEVELOPED A PASSION FOR TIBERIUS'S MOTHER LIVIA. Thus, when Tiberius was two years old, his father agreed to divorce Livia, who was six months pregnant with Tiberius's brother Drusus, and Octavian and Livia were married on January 17, 38 BC. This marriage linked Tiberius to the most powerful man in Rome and ultimately resulted in his own rule as emperor. (Once again a woman influences the course of Rome.)

    As Tiberius grew, he was carefully educated, studying with the finest tutors available in the Empire. He learned rhetoric under the tutelage of Theodore of Gadara; he also studied philosophy as well as Greek and Roman literature. Tiberius became a 'philhelene', a lover of Greek culture, languge, and philosphy.

    JoanK
    February 2, 2004 - 01:05 pm
    Today is a holiday which precedes the Romans: the ancient Celtic holiday of Imbolc. It is the day halfway between the winter and spring solstices. (slightly off from the Roman/Babylonian calendar -- the holiday evidently survived the Roman invasion) Literally, Imbolc means "in milk", the time when animals get their milk for nursing, and we look for the first signs of Spring. Later, the English and Germans celebrated it as Candlemas. As far as I can tell from brief reading, this is when the idea started that if it was fair, Winter would last for six more weeks. The Germans used a bear, seeing its shadow as an indication of this. When the came to the US, it was changed to a groundhog.

    In true Imbolc fashion, I saw my first robin today, Now excuse me, I am going to sit with a cup of cocoa by the window next to the field where the groundhogs live and wait.

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    February 2, 2004 - 03:15 pm
    Scrawler: "The difficulty that I see that a historian has to overcome is a tendency to inflict his or her own personal opinions on an unsuspecting readership."

    Me too. Eloïse

    hegeso
    February 2, 2004 - 05:05 pm
    Robby, in answer to your post #750, I am sorry to say that I will have to wait until we reach the medieval period, in which I am presently very interested. I am also way behind with the reading of the posts, because my interests--history of literature, visual arts, and certain other periods in history take up all my time. I can hardly wait until something like those come up.

    A private word to you, Robby, I will be 82 in May, and lost my husband a little more than one year ago. It is reading and the Internet that keep me on my spiritual feet.

    ALF
    February 2, 2004 - 06:33 pm
    I watched the TRUE Channel today for hours viewing The Last Days of Pompeii.

    It was a miniseries showing the decadance and greed of Pompeii in 43 (?) 44 AD. I wonder how much of it was fact and how much was fiction.

    Justin
    February 2, 2004 - 06:53 pm
    Historians , of necessity, inject a personal opinion in their tomes by virtue of the process of selection. If One shows two sides of an issue but does not indicate a preference, one is a reporter not an historian. Reporting has its place but the result is dull reading.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 2, 2004 - 07:18 pm
    Hegeso:-Congratulations on your being so active at age 82, but if you are waiting until this forum reaches the Medieval period, we won't see you again for another 3-4 years. I hope that isn't so!!

    Justin:--Interesting - your comparison of being a reporter with being a historian. I never thought of that before.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 2, 2004 - 08:21 pm
    "Tiberius seems to have sincerely disliked monarchy and to have considered himself the administrative head and arm of the Senate. He refused all titles that savored of royalty, contented himself with that of princeps senatus -- stopped all efforts to deify him or offer worship to his genius -- and made evident his distaste for flattery.

    "He rejected a proposal that he should revise the Senatorial list. Nothing could surpass his courtesy to this ancient 'assembly of kings.' He attended its meetings -- referred 'even the smallest matters' to its judgment -- sat and spoke as merely a member -- was often in the minority -- and made no protest when decrees were passed contrary to his expressed opinion.

    "Without additional taxes -- despite many benefactions to stricken families and cities -- the careful repair of all public property -- the absence of booty yielding wars -- and the rejection of bequests made to the Prince by persons with children or near relatives, Tiberius, who had found 100,000,000 sesterces in the Treasury on his accession, left 2,700,000,000 there at his death.

    "He tried to check extravagnce by example rather than by law. He labored carefully on every aspect of domestic and foreign affairs. To provincial governors anxious to collect more revenues he wrote that 'it was the part of a good shephered to shear his flock, not fleece it.

    "Though skilled in the art of war, he denied himself, as Prince, the glories of the battlefield. After the third year of his long reign he kept the Empire at peace."

    Seems almost too good to be true. And we all know the hidden meaning of that phrase.

    Robby

    tooki
    February 2, 2004 - 10:01 pm
    Actually, Scrawler, I find that Barzun's "From Dawn to Decadence" is all about his views, opinions and prejudices about the periods he deals with, "1500 to the present." Boy, talk about long winded, old white guys! And I can't find any humor in it anywhere. Or is it that to find humor in history is being guilty of frivolity?

    Justin
    February 2, 2004 - 11:45 pm
    An able historian not only tells what happened in an event, but also attempts to understand and express the implications of that event on contemporary others and on subsequent life. He must be free from bias, in the sense that he does not have "an axe to grind".He lets the facts and the evidence speak to the reader. But he is responsible for selecting the events which make up the story.

    Over time people and events tend to be reduced to kernals of truth. The full story tends to disappear, to blend in with other events, making it difficult to extract from what is left an accurate rendition of an event. The historian's job is not an easy one.

    JoanK
    February 3, 2004 - 12:16 am
    TOOKI: I agree with you completely about Barzun. Many hundred pages of "things aren't as good as they used to be". sprinkled with sneers at us plebes for thinking we can have a culture, when culture is only for the elite.

    In graduate school, we used to have long arguments about whether it was possible to be without bias. My position was of course it's not possible, but the dce between trying and not trying is the difference between good work and bad. Both those who say "I'm not biased" and those who say "of course I'm biased, everyone is" find it too easy then to forget the matter and let their biases hang ouy all over the place.

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    February 3, 2004 - 05:47 am
    Many things produce bias, upbringing, education, intelligence, environment and judgment. As I had graduated in Nothing when I was young, I had to compensate with the thirst for reading and retaining, but what I have learned to trust my instinct over the years and it proved to me that I was right 85% of the time. Biases are nuggets of words and meanings that appear out of nowhere but seem to be part of a personality. I would call it a penchant, or a preference but I don't know of if it is possible to be completely unbiased.

    Historians like the Durants are rare, perhaps he is unique in his genre. He is a gifted writer who is able to make history alive. He is humorous and brilliant. It is a pleasure to read him.

    Eloïse

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 3, 2004 - 08:55 am
    "Tiberius' mother, Livia was a major problem of state. Tiberius' failure to remarry left him with no protection against a strong-minded woman accustomed to exercise authority over him. She felt that her maneuvers had cleared his way to the throne, and she gave him to understand that he held it only as her representative.

    "During the earlier years of Tiberius' reign, though he was approaching sixty, his official letters were signed by her as well as by himself. Says Dio:-'Not satisfied to rule on equal terms with him, she wished to assert a superiority over him and undertook to manage everything like a sole ruler.' Tiberius long bore this situation patiently, but as Livia survived Augustus fifteen years, he at last built himself a separate palace and left his mother in undisputed possession of that which Augustus had raised.

    "Gossip accused him of cruelty to her, and of having starved his exiled wife.

    "Meanwhile Agrippina was pushing her son Nero to succeed -- if possible, to replace -- Tiberius. This, too, he bore with hot patience, merely chiding her with a Greek quotation:-'Do you think a wrong is done you, dear daughter, if you are not empress?' Hardest of all for him to bear was the realization that his only son, Drusus, borne to him by his first wife, was a worthless rake, cruel, ill-mannered, and lecherous.

    "The self-control with which Tiberius supported these tribulations left his nerves on edge. He retired more and more into himself, and developed a gloom of countenance and severity of speech that scattered all but his most hopeful friends.

    "One man seemed unfailingly loyal to him -- Lucius Aelius Sejanus. As prefect of the Praetorian Guard, Sejanus professed it his duty to protect the Prince. Soon no one was admitted to the Emperor's presence except through the hands and under the watch of the crafty vizier. Gradually Tiberius entrusted to him more and more of the government. Sejanus persuaded him that the imperial safety required the eloser presence of the Praetorian Guard. Augustus had stationed six of its nine cohorts outside the city limits. Tiberius now allowed all nine to pitch their camp at the Viminal Gate, only a few miles from the Palatine and the Capitol. There they became first the protectors, then the masters, of the emperors.

    "So supported, Sejanus exercised his powers with increasing boldness and venality. He began by recommending men for office -- he advanced his fortune by selling offices to the highest bicdders -- he ended by aspiring to the principate.

    "A senate of real Romans would soon have overthrown him. But the Senate had, with many exceptions, become an epicure's club too listless to wield competently even the authority that Tiberius had urged it to retain. Instead of unseating Sejanus, it crowded Rome with statues voted by it in his image and honor, and at his suggestion it banished one after another of Atgrippina's followers.

    "When Tiberius's son Drusus died, Rome whispered that Sejanus had poisoned him."

    A weak "momma's boy" who finally built himself a little dwelling behind the big house and hid behind the power of the military leaders. The leader of the entire world at that time.

    Robby

    Scrawler
    February 3, 2004 - 11:30 am
    Public life of Tiberius:

    The public life of Tiberius began (in 33 or 32 BC) at the age of nine when he delivered his father's funeral eulogy. Octavian developed closer ties with his stepsons, Tiberius and Drusus, after the death of their father. In 20 BC, the 22-year-old Tiberius accompanied his stepfather to the East to recover the Roman standards lost 33 years earlier in a war with the Parthians. (Octavian, who was now known as Caesar Augustus, had become emperor in 27 BC.) This journey began an outstnading military career for Tiberius, whose personal life was also happy at the time. He married Vipsania Agrippina, daughter of Augustus's powerful lieutenant, Marcus Vipsanisu Agrippa. In 13 BC, Vipsania bore Tiberius's only son Drusus the Younger.

    But the following year, Tiberius's situation became more difficult as Augustus forced Tiberius to divorce the mother of his child and marry the emperor's own recently widowed daughter Julia. In love with Vipsania, Tiberius was very unhappy with the marriage to Julia, who had a scandalous reputation. Suetonius remarked: "One day, [Tiberius] accidently caught sight of Vipsania and followed her with tears in his eyes and intense unhappiness written on his face." Henceforth, safeguards were taken to ensure that he would never see her again.

    Once again women become "pawns' in the grand scheme of things.

    Despite the pain in his personal life, Tiberius's military campaigns were successful. From 12-9 BC, he led the conquest to the north in the region called Pannonia (part of Yugoslavia, Austria, and Hungary), which was added to the Empire. Another personal loss followed in 9 BC, when his younger and highly favored brother Drusus fell from a horse to his death during campaigns to subdue the Germany territories. Tiberius continued to fight against the stubborn German forces until 7 BC, when suddenly, at the height of his successful military career, he retired to the Aegean island of Rhodes.

    Many have speculated about the motivation for his abrupt departure. Several factors may have led to his self imposed retreat from public life, among them his unhappy marriage to Julia, who was finally exiled by her father Augustus in 2 BC for sexual promiscuity. Another underlying reason for his withdrawl was the problem of succession. Augustus' lack of a male heir to the throne - and only one daughter by his first wife Scribona - had in part led to his marriage with Tiberius's mother Liva, who provided him with two stepsons and a hopeful chance for bearing a male heir to become emperor. Livia, howver, did not fulfill Augustus's dream of having a son of his own. Therefore, Augustus turned his favor towrd Drusus while ignoring the elder stepson Tiberius. Following Drusus's unexpected death, Augustus passed over Tiberius again and made clear his intention that his grandsons Gaius and Lucius, Julia's sons by her marriage to Agrippa, would become his heirs apparent. Tiberius's decision to move to the island of Rhodes came on the heels of this announcement. But by AD 2, both grandsons had died, Tiberius had returned to Rome, and Augustus had somewhat reluctantly recognized him as his heir. Two years later, in AD 4, Augustus adopted Tiberius as his son. Tiberius was then ordered to adopt his nephew Germanicus as his son, revealing Augustus's desire that Germanicus become the emperor upon the death of Tiberius, rather than Tiberius's natural son, Drusus the Younger.

    Any comment on the methods used by Augustus to assure a male heir?

    tooki
    February 3, 2004 - 01:24 pm
    Or, is truth, masquerading as beauty, in the eye of the beholder? Thanks, JoanK, for the support about Barzun's overatedness. I rereviewed him to see if my comments were too harsh. They weren't; I think he is repetitive, has no new insights, is unoriginal, and loves the sound of his own typing.

    However, I did wish to rant a bit about writing and reading history. Bear with me, or skip this part!

    Historians learn how to do history in graduate school. There are few autodidactics out there, and as far as I can determine, they are resented. And graduate schools are victims of intellectual fashions that come and go. Eg., history as geographic determinism; the great man theory; economics as the prime mover, and other theories about why civilizations rise and fall. Current theory, called sometimes post-modernism or deconstructionism, or other such word, emphasizes the inability of the historian to see dispassionately because of his cultural placement.

    One dates oneself by the theory(s) one espouses about why things happened the way they did, both as a reader and writer. That's OK, not a big deal, but it's more fun and stimulating not to have grand theories, letting the chips fall where they may, so to speak. That's why I have come to appreciate the Durants. As Robby reminds us from time to time, this is the STORY of civilization.

    Recent years have seen the emergence of cross overs, writers doing history who were trained in other fields, to the frequent discomfit of traditionally trained historians. Their views are exciting as they attempt new approaches and syntheses

    Jared Diamond, for example, although he is now a Professor of Geography was a Professor of Physiology when he wrote "Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies." The book rolls over vast periods of human history looking for reasons why white folks have all the stuff. His conclusions are basically geographic determinism.

    Charles Murray, he of the infamous "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, has a new book out, "Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Science, 800 B.C. to 1950. He is a sociologist/statistician by trade and training. He looked in a bunch of books usually recognized as influential and tallied results of the folks that were mentioned. (To my delight Durant was among his sources.) His purpose is "to describe the ways in which the characteristics of civilizations help us to understand their accomplishment. "

    Both of these examples are basically history, but their approaches indicate we may be in for a treat of history written by non-historians. In the quest for sweeping histories such as these, I anticipate a reevaluation and renewed interest in the Durants. What fun!

    Now, sorry for the digression. Back to Tiberius and his dreadful mother.

    JoanK
    February 3, 2004 - 03:40 pm
    TOOKI: very interesting!! Please never apologize for such interesting posts. I enjoyed "Guns, Germs, and Steel" immensely. Although I don't think he proved all of his theories, and sometimes stretched them much too far, he really made me think of many things I had never thought of. In other words, he didn't always demonstrate his answers, but his questions were right on the mark.

    I admit to a lot of bias against reading professors from Harvard who write books with racist implications. There have been too many of them. But perhaps I am missing something in Murray's second book.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 3, 2004 - 08:02 pm
    "Overcome with disappointment and bitterness, Tiberius, now a lonely and melancholy man of sixty-seven, left the hectic caital and removed to the inaccessible privacy of Capri. But gossip followed him without impediment. People said that he wished to conceal his emaciated figure and scrofulous face, and to indulge himself in drink and unnatural vice. Tiberius drank considerably, but was no drunkard.

    "He continued to administer carefully the affairs of the Empire, except that he communicated his views and desires to officials and the Senate through Sejanus. Since the Senate increasingly feared him, or Sejanus, or the hovering Guard, it accepted the wishes of the Emperor as commands. Without any change in the constitution, and with no clear insincerity on Tiberius' part, the principate became a monarchy under the man who had proposed to restore the Republic.

    "Sejanus took advantage of his position to exile more of his enemies by having them accused under the 'law of majesty' and the weary Emperor no longer interfered. Tiberius was now often guilty of cruelty. We have the word of the unreliable Tacitus that he asked and obtained the death penalty for Poppaecus Sabinus on the grounds that spies had overheard him plot against the government.

    "A year later (27) Livia died, sad and lonely in the home of her former husband. Tiberius, who had seen her but once since leavng Rome, did not attend her funeral. Freed from the restraint that the 'Mother of her Country' might have exercised, Sejanus now persuaded Tiberius that Agrippina and her son Nero had been involved in the conspiracy of Sabinus.

    "The mother was banished to Pandateria, and the son to the island of Pontia, where shortly afterward he killed himself."

    The plot thickens.

    Robby

    Justin
    February 3, 2004 - 08:52 pm
    Sejanus acquired control of the Roman government by controling access to the Emperor and by moving his source of strength, the Praetorian Guard, close to the capitol. Only Livia, the Emperor's mother was able to breech Sejanus' wall. It occurs to me that Adolph Hitler came to power in a similar way. He was an outsider, a leader of a small faction in the Reichstad, who insinuated himself into Von Hindenburg's good graces. It was Von Hindenburg who moved Hitler into the Chancelorship and when Von H died Hitler took over. I wonder if there are any lessons for us moderns here.

    3kings
    February 4, 2004 - 01:04 am
    While thinking about 'bias' in historical writing I just want to say that the environment in which one spends one's formative years makes bias inevitable.

    I think we can see this very clearly in a chance remark by Robby. I don't offer this as any criticism of our very fair moderator, but Robby you did write:-

    A weak "momma's boy" who finally built himself a little dwelling behind the big house and hid behind the power of the military leaders. The leader of the entire world at that time. (my underlining )

    Now after leading us through "Our Oriental Heritage" Robby knows as well as anyone that Southern Europe and the coastal Med. constitutes but a minor part of the geographical and historical world. 'Entire', it is not.

    It is probably the area in which all here have their 'tribal roots' and it is this fact of historical connection, which makes us all feel that 'yes, this is the real centre of THE world'. Now, I think that is bias.... == Trevor

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 4, 2004 - 04:43 am
    Very true, Trevor. Tiberius was not the Emperor of China, India, etc.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 4, 2004 - 05:00 am
    "Having won everything else, Sejanus now reached for the throne. Irked by a letter which Tiberius had written to the Senate recommending Gaius, son of Agrippina, as successor to the principate, Sejanus formed a plot to kill the emperor (31). Tiberius was saved by Germanicus' mother, Antonia, who risked her life to send him a warning.

    "The old Prince, not yet destitute of resolution, secretly placed a new prefect over the Praetorians, had Sejanus arested, and accused him to the Senate.

    "Never had that body so gladly complied with the imperial wishes. It condemned Sejanus with expedition and had him strangled that very night.

    "A reign of terror followed, led partly by senators whose interests, reltives, or friends had been injured by Sejanus and partly by Tiberius, whom fear and anger, topping an accumulation of disillustionments, had plunged into a fury of revenge.

    "Every important agent or supporter of Sejanus was put to death. Even his young daughter was condemned. Since the law forbade the execution of a virgin, she was first deflowered and then strangled.

    "Apicata, his divorced wife, committed suicide, but only after she had sent Tiberius a letter assuring him that Antonia's daughter Livilla had joined with Sejanus in poisoning her husband Drusus, the Emperor's son. Tiberius ordered Livilla tried, but she refused food, and she died.

    "Two years later (33) Agrippina killed herself in exile, and another of her sons, having been imprisoned, starved himself to death.

    "Tiberius lingered for six years after the fall of Sejanus. Probably his mind was now disorderd. Only on this supposition can we explain the incredible cruelties attributed to him. We are told that he now supported, instead of checked, accusations for maiestas. All in all sixty-three persons were indicted on this charge during his reign. He begged the Senate to provide protection for 'an old and lonely man.'

    "In 37 he left Capri after nine years of self-imprisonment, and visited cities in Campania. While stopping at Lucullus' villa in Misenum he fell in a fainting fit, and seemed dead. The courtiers at once flocked about Gaius, soon to be Emperor, and then were shocked to learn that Tiberius was recovering. A friend of all concerned ended the embarrassment by smothering Tiberius with a pillow (37).

    "Said Mommen:-'He was the ablest ruler the Empire ever ever had.' Almost every misfortune had come to him during his life and after his death he fell upon the pen of Tacitus."

    Any final comments about Tiberius?

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 4, 2004 - 05:03 am
    Wow, what a horror story. Somebody should make it into a movie!

    Mal

    JoanK
    February 4, 2004 - 07:27 am
    So much for our benevelant dictator!!

    tooki
    February 4, 2004 - 08:09 am
    I'm not sure we viewed this one, and I'm not going back to find out! If so, apologies. I think his upper body in this full body sculpture looks like Cindy Sherman's photograph of herself in one of those T-shirts that look like muscle men. That is, phoney.

    Are These Muscles Real?

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    February 4, 2004 - 08:36 am
    Tooki, some time back I was just wondering about those muscles in ancient sculptures and how they all looked like a young Arnold D. I thought that today muscles are the result of hours and hours working out in a gym or on fitness equipment because in real life men lead a sedentary life.

    In Ancient times, young men, walked miles and miles every day either while farming or in the army and they had to carry very heavy armament, or farm equipment. The women also looked strong and lean. Their diet was a Mediterranean diet, much leaner and they ate less meat than we do, more fruit and vegetables.

    In this link, Tiberius's face looked older and the muscles do not match the contour of his face, so it does look phony.

    Eloïse

    tooki
    February 4, 2004 - 10:13 am
    No, this message has little to do with ancient Rome. But,and Eloise agrees, Tiberius's muscles look phony. I am suggesting he was wearing a prosthesis. Cindy Sherman is a contemporary photographer who specializes in taking photos of herself in various guises. In many of them she wears a prostheis of one sort or another. HERE is one of my favorites. Perhaps Justin can identify the historical antecedent.

    Scrawler
    February 4, 2004 - 02:06 pm
    Tiberius - Military Campaigns: Power and control slowly shifted from Augustus to Tiberius, who returned to Germany from AD 4 to 6 and put down new rebellions. From AD 6 to 9, he fought to maintain Roman authority once again in Pannonia and Illyrcum (Yugoslavia and Albania). By AD 13, Tiberius was granted powers equal to that of Augustus.

    Augustus died on August 19, AD 14. The senate, which shortly thereafter recognized Tiberius as emperor of Rome soon, defied him - though he seemed somewhat reluctant to accept the honor. When news of Augustus's death spread to the legions, rebellions broke out in Pannonia near the Danube River and in lower Germany along the Rhine Rimer. Tiberius sent his son Drusus the Younger and his adopted son Germanicus to put down these insurrections.

    While Germanicus was very popular in Rome and among the troops, he always remained loyal to his adoptive father. Regardless, while statioend in Antioch, Syria, in AD 19, his unexpected death elminiated him as a possible rival to Tiberius and his son Drusus. The convenience of Germanicus's death did not escape Roman historian, Tacitus, who retold rumors that Tiberius had arranged for the popular Germanicus to be poisoned. Drusus the Younger was the logical heir to Tiberius's throne, but he died in AD 23. Rumors surround his death pointed to Sejanus as his murder.

    Tiberius Reign: Sejanus's father was the leader of the emperor's personal army known as the Praetorian Guard. A close relationship had developed between Sejanus and Tiberius, when Sejanus was named to succeed his father. Tiberius' reign was soon marred by a succession of trials for treason and executions, and Tiberius grew vulnerable to suspicion and treachery. In AD 26, he was finally persuaded by Sejanus to retreat to the island of Capri, located near Italy in the Mediterranean Sea. This afforded Sejanus the opportunity to seize even more power, and he virtually became emperor by default.

    For ten years, Tiberius retired to his magnificent villas on Capri and did not return to Rome for the remainder of his reign. He came accompanied by his favorite astrologers who were to help guide him in his self-imposed isolation. Suetonius reiterates rumors of his day that charged Tiberius with indulging in many violent sexual encoutners and orgies while at Capri. It seems likely that he stayed away to avoid the crowded cities and his domineering mother Livia. He was also awre that he lacked popularity, especially with the senators who did not agree with many of his policies. Fearing he was danger, Tiberius found in Capri a secure secluded island stronghold.

    Mal maybe we should get together and write a script for Hollywood. We could call it: "Tiberius"

    Scrawler
    February 4, 2004 - 02:12 pm
    Evaluation of Tiberius:

    Tiberius's coldness and reserve and his desire for economy in government rendered him unpopular with the people and, together with his supposed depravity, gave him a bad name in legend and history. Most modern scholars, however, reject the tales of his cruelty, hypocrisy, and debauchery that are related by the historians Tacitus and Suetonius. Tiberius seems to have been an able soldier and administrator who retained the republican form of government as much as possible.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 4, 2004 - 02:16 pm
    Scrawler:-Why would economy in government make one unpopular with the people?

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 4, 2004 - 02:52 pm
    "The populace celebrated the old Emperor's passing with cries of 'Tiberius to the Tiber!' and hailed the Senate's ratification of Gaius Caesar Germanicus as his successor. Born to Agrippina as she was accompanying Germanicus on his northern campaigns, Gaius had been brought up among soldiers, had imitated their dress, and had been affectionately named Caligula, or Little Boot, from the half boot (caliga) worn in the army.

    "He now announced that he would follow the principles of Augustus in his policy and would co-operate respectfully with the Senate in everything. He distributed among the citizens the 90,000,000 sesterces that Livia and Tiberius had bequeathed him, and added a gift of 300 sesterces to each of the 200,000 recipients of state corn.

    "He restored to the comitia the power to choose the magistrates, promised low taxes and rich games, recalled the banished victims of Tiberius, and brought his mother's ashes piously to Rome. He seemed to be in all ways the opposite of his predecessor -- prodigal, cheerful, humane.

    "Within three months of his accession the people had sacrificed 160,000 victims to the gods in gratitude for so charming and beneficent a prince."

    Did anyone catch that he promised "low taxes?"

    Robby

    Justin
    February 5, 2004 - 12:39 am
    Had Sejanus bumped off Gaius instead of trying for Tiberius he would have lived and had a good chance to succeed the Emperor. The people of Rome might well have been better off with that outcome rather than the insanity of Gaius.

    Justin
    February 5, 2004 - 12:58 am
    Here we are in 37 CE. Sejanus is dead. Tiberius has been smothered. Jesus' life has come and gone and no one in Rome has taken notice. We will soon have to deal with this threat to the messianic ruling house of Judah. Herod is long gone and his successor plays with Claudius who will ascend the Roman throne in a few years.

    Justin
    February 5, 2004 - 01:10 am
    The sculpture of Tiberius was a common form in Rome at this time. Bodies were stock. One could buy them off the shelf. Heads were custom cut and the bronze parts were melded. The technique made it possible for citizens to have statues of the pater familias in the home garden.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 5, 2004 - 06:04 am
    "The populace had forgotten Gaius' lineage. His father's mother was the daughter of Antony. His mother's mother was the daughter of Augustus. In his blood the war between Antony and Octavian was renewed, and Antony won.

    "Caligula was proud of his skill as a dueler, a gladiator, and a charioteer, but he was 'troubled with the falling sickness' and at times was 'hardly able to walk or collect his thoughts.' He hid under the bed when it thundered, and fled in terror from the sight of Aetna's flames. He found it hard to sleep and would wander through his enormous palace at night crying for the dawn.

    "He was tall, huge, hairy, except for a bald crown. His hollow eyes and temples made him look forbidding, to his delight. He 'practiced all kinds of fearsome expressions before a mirror.' He had received a good schooling, was an eloquent orator, had a keen wit, and a sense of humor that knew no scruple and ow law.

    "Infatuated with the theater, he subsidized many performers and himself privately acted and danced. Desiring an audience, he summoned the leaders of the Senate as if to some vital conference, and then displayed his steps before them.

    "A quiet life of responsible labor might have steadied him, but the poison of power made him mad. Sanity, like government, needs checks and balances. No mortal can be omnipotent and sane. When Caligula's grandmother Antonia gave him some advice he rebuked her with the remark, 'Remember that I have the right to do anything to anybody.' In the midst of a banquet he reminded his guests that he could have them all killed where they reclined.

    "While embracing his wife or mistress, he would say pleasantly, 'Off comes this beautiful head whenever I give the word."

    Your comments, please?

    Robby

    tooki
    February 5, 2004 - 07:28 am
    The 19th century fashion of determining character by reading faces has recently become respectable again. Or at least respectable enough that there are experts who go around teaching others, airport security folks for example, how to peer in someone's face and determine their intentions.

    The many extant portraits of Caligula encourage this fashion. His broad forehead, dwinling down to a weak pointed chin with a small petulant mouth makes physiognomical conclusions tempting. HERE's ONE

    tooki
    February 5, 2004 - 07:31 am
    HERE'S ANOTHER

    tooki
    February 5, 2004 - 07:34 am
    This Is The Last One, I Promise

    tooki
    February 5, 2004 - 07:40 am
    THIS SITE is to back up my claim of the currency of face reading.

    Interesting about assembled Roman sculpture, Justin. Then Cindy Sherman certainly belongs in the history of art.

    Scrawler
    February 5, 2004 - 12:50 pm
    The people would be unhappy with government economy because it would probably mean cutbacks in government funding and projects. We just had that happen in Portland, Orgeon when the people voted down the latest government bond. Everybody is hurting now. Schools, jobs, etc. If only the government could really budget their projects that would be a great thing, but unfortuantely when the government has gotten their monies in the past they've tended to go on doing just what got them in trouble in the first place.

    Caligula: Tiberius died in 37, and Caligula was acclaimed emperor in March. During the first months of his reign he distributd the legacies left by Tiberius and Livia to the Roman people, and after the austerity which Tiberius had paracticed the games and chariot races Caligula held were welcomed. He was respectful to the Senate, adopted his cousin Tiberius Gemellus as his son and heir, and recalled political exiles who had been banished during the reigns of his predecessors.

    But by the spring of 38 the character of Caligula's rule changed drastically. An illness late in 37 seems to have seriously affected his mind. Suetonius claims that, after the illness, Caligula succumbed completely to the role of Oriental despot. In all things he became arbitrary and cruel. He murdered, among others, Tiberius Gemellus, humilated the Senate, and spent money recklessly. He revived treason trials so that he could confiscate the property of convicted. Caligula's extravagances included building a temple to himself in Rome and appoint his favorite horse as high priest.

    Appointing your favorite horse as high priest?

    JoanK
    February 5, 2004 - 12:59 pm
    Another benevolent dictator. If prople lived forever and never changed then having a benevolent dictator might be a good system. But we see here what is wrong with it.

    "economy in government" presumably meant cutting down on the "bread and circusses" Remember, romans had gotten used to free corn and lots of entertainment. Of course they resented them being cut off.

    I notice, the rulars have stopped promising forgiveness of debts. Does that mean that Rome has become less of a debtor economy? I pick on this point of course because I am worried about our modern debt ridden people.

    "Sanity, like government, needs checks and balances. No mortal can be omnipotent and sane". Interesting. Do you agree?

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    February 5, 2004 - 02:27 pm
    Joan: "No mortal can be omnipotent and sane. Interesting. Do you agree?"

    Absolutely

    Eloïse

    tooki
    February 5, 2004 - 02:43 pm
    The sources used by the Durants for Caligula are, at this point, according to the footnotes, Josephus, Suetonius and Dio Cassius. (Later in the book all three are participants in the unfolding drama, bringing up the possibility that this is a book of meta-history.) The Durants qualify their discussion of Caligula by saying, "If we may believe Dio Cassius....," and, "Suetonius loved gossip." Are there views here about the veracity of these well known and often quoted sources of Roman history?

    "No mortal can be omnipotent and sane," seems a bit sweeping to me. Since we just finished discussing Julius Caesar and Augustus the statement sort of begs the question. Although they were omnipotent and, albeit capricious, they were not insane. Don't get me wrong; it's a great statement! I wish I'd said it.

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 5, 2004 - 02:58 pm
    It all boils down to the fact that no human being can be God or an all-powerful god. Try it, and one way or another you'll get yourself in trouble.

    Mal

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 5, 2004 - 06:55 pm
    "The young Prince who had been so respectful of the Senate began to give it orders and exact an Oriental subservience. He let senators kiss his feet in homage, and senators thanked him for the honor.

    "He admired Egypt and its ways, introduced many of these to Rome, and longed to be worshiped, Pharaoh-like, as a god. He made the religion of Isis one of the official cults of the Roman state. He did not forget that his great-grandfather had planned to unite the Mediterranean region under an Oriental monarchy. He too thought of making his capital at Alexandria, but distrusted the wit of its people.

    "Suetonius describes him as living in 'habitual incest with all his sisters.' It seemed to him an excellent Egyptian custom. Ill, he made his sister Drusilla heir to his throne. When she married he made her divorce her husband, and 'treated her as his lawful wife.' To other desired women he sent letters of divorce in their husbands' names, and invited them to his embraces. There was scarcely one woman of rank whom he did not approach.

    "Amid these and some homosexual amours he found time for four marriages. Attending the wedding of Livia Orestilla and Gaius Piso, he took the bride to his own house, married her, and in a few days divorced her.

    "Hearing that Lollia Paulina was very beautiful, he sent for her, divorced he from her husband, married her, divorced her, and forbade her to have relations with any man thereafter.

    "His fourth wife, Caesonia, was pregnant by her husband when he married her. She was neither young nor fair, but he loved her faithfully."

    Would anyone here call that insane?

    Robby

    Justin
    February 5, 2004 - 07:12 pm
    Caligula had the falling sickness (epilepsia) just as Julius Caesar had it although Caligula is a blend of Antony and Julian lines. Augustus' daughter, Antonia was his grandmother. I think, we know he had that problem from birth. So it is not epilepsia that caused him to turn dippy after a few months in office. He was ill early in his reign. Robby, what do you suppose he contracted that would cause him to veer into insanity so sharply and suddenly? The Durants say it was the poison of omnipotence but I think that provides only the occasion to express his deranged personality.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 5, 2004 - 07:15 pm
    It seems to me, Justin, that he was not psychotic in the usual sense. Epilepsy is a "storm" in the brain. Circuits going off all over the place. Much fear within him that led to what I would call "I'll get you before you get me."

    Robby

    3kings
    February 6, 2004 - 01:41 am
    OMNIPOTENT Having infinite power. God. Durant, in his quote, lessens the meaning of the word. All that can be said is, " No mortal can be omnipotent." Period. == Trevor

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    February 6, 2004 - 07:01 am
    Trevor I believe you pointed out something that revealed Durant's spiritual penchant in your post #910.

    It is much easier to read the mind of a person from his writing than from his physiognomy and that is the reason why writers are often emprisoned in a revolution even if they don't seem to instigate political unrest.

    I can only detect kindness in the link that Tooki provided of Caligula. I would be a lousy detective I guess.

    Eloïse

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 6, 2004 - 07:21 am
    "In this imperial frolic government was an aside, and could usually be left to inferior minds. Caligula ably revised the roster of the business class and promoted its best members to the Senate. But his extravagance soon exhausted the full treasuries left him by Tiberius.

    "He took his baths not in water but in perfumes. On one banquet he spent 10,000,000 sesterces. He built great pleasure barges with colonnades, banquet halls, baths, gardens, fruit trees, and gem-set sterns. He had his engineers span Baiae's bay with a bridge resting on so many boats that Rome suffered famine for lack of ships to import corn. When the bridge was completed a great celebration took place, illuminated by flood lights in the modern manner. The people drank merrily, boats overturned, and many were drowned.

    "From the roof of the Basilica Julia he would scatter gold and silver coins among the people below and watch with glee their fatal scrambling. He was so devoted to the green faction at the races that he gave a charioteer 2,000,000 sesterces. He built a marble stall and an ivory manger for the race horse Incitatus, invited it to dinner, and proposed to make it consul.

    "To raise funds for his lifelong Saturnalia, Caligula restored the custom of presenting gifts to the emperor. He accepted these in person, on his palace terrace, from all who came to give. He encouraged citizens to name him heir in their wills.

    "He levied taxes upon everything -- a sales tax on all food, a tax on all legal processes, a twelve and a half per cent tax on the wages of porters. Suetonius avers he laid a tax 'on the earnings of prostitues as much as each received for one embrace. The law prvided that those who had ever been prostitutes should remain subject to this tax even after they married.'

    "He had rich men accused of treason and condemned to death as an aid to the Treasury. He personally auctioned off gladiators and slaves, and forced aristocrats to attend and bid. When one of these slept, Caligula interpreted his nods as bids, so that the sleeper, waking, found himself richer by thirteen gladiators and poorer by 9,000,000 sesterces.

    "He compelled senators and knights to fight as gladiators in the area."

    Any reactions to all this?

    Robby

    Scrawler
    February 6, 2004 - 11:33 am
    "Caligula claimed to be all the gods at once." Interesting he wasn't claiming to be just "A" god but "all" gods. This I think goes beyond insane. He also claimed to have defeated Neptune, so in a since if he were all gods he actually defeated himself.

    "Caligula claimed he had defeated the British and Germans, but he had not fought them. He spent the winter of 39/40 in Gaul and on the Rhine. His plans aroused some patriotic fervor until abandoned."

    "After his return to Rome, Caligula lived in cosntant fear and real danger of assassination. He was murdered by a tribune of the Praetorian Guards on Jan. 24, 41. His fourth wife and his daughter, who was his only child, were murdered at the same time."

    What else could the people of Rome have done besides accept Caligula as their Emperor?

    Justin
    February 6, 2004 - 03:05 pm
    Tooki's post 900 shows Caligula sculptured in idealized form. The ideal form is appropriate for a god for a god is an ideal form.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 6, 2004 - 08:01 pm
    "After three years a conspiracy was formed to end this humiliating buffoonery. Caligula detected it and revenged himself by a reign of terror enhanced by his maniac joy in inflicting pain. The executioners were instructed to kill his victims 'by numerous slight wounds, so that they may feel that they are dying.'

    "If we may believe Dio Cassius, he forced his saintly grandmother Antonia to kill herself. Suetonius recounts that when meat ran short for feeding the beasts kept for gladiatorial games, Caligula ordered 'all bald-headed' prisoners to be fed to the animals for the public good. He had men of high rank branded with irons, condemned to mines, thrown to beasts, or shut up in cages and then sawn in two.

    "There are stories that we have no means of disproving and must record as the tradition. More credible is the report that Caligula began the war between the principate and philosophy by exiling Carrinas Secundus and sentencing two other teachers to death. The young Seneca was marked fo execution, but was spared because he was sickly and might be relied upon to die without prodding.

    "Claudius, uncle of Caligula, escaped because he was, or pretended to be, an insignifcicant book-ridden dolt.

    "Caligula's final pleasantry was to announce himself as a god, equal to Jupiter himself. Famous statues of Jove and other deities were decapitated and crowned with heads of the Emperor. He enjoyed sitting on a throne in the Temple of Castor and Pollus and receiving divine worship. At times he would converse with an image of Jupiter, often in terms of reproof. He had a contrivance made by which he could reply to Jove's thunder and lightning peal for peal and stroke for stroke.

    "He set up a temple to his godhead, with a corps of priests and a supply of select victims, and he appointed his favorite horse as one of the priests.

    "He pretended that the moon-goddess had come down to embrace him, and asked Vitellius could he not see her. Answered that wise courtier, 'No, only you gods can see one another.'

    "The people were not deceived. When a Gallic cobbler saw Caligula masquerading as Jupiter, and was aked what he thought of the Emperor, he said, simply, 'A big humbug.'

    "Caligula heard, but did not punish such refresshing courage."

    What do you folks think of all that?

    Robby

    moxiect
    February 6, 2004 - 08:10 pm


    Caligula of all the Roman Emperors was in my humble opinion a nut!

    Roman leaders were ruthless and unrelenting in their quest for power, they used every viable means from bribery to betrayal of friends and peers; one can not EXCLUDE their inhumanity treatment of fellow humans.

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 6, 2004 - 08:50 pm
    I'm going to have to try and figure out what made Caligula feel so inferior that he had to put himself on a pedestal at the expense of so many others and himself.

    His sexual excesses and thirst for blood say to me that he was desperately seeking relief from something terribly big which was bothering him and had probably bothered him all his life. Release, relief, need for control and power are what I see, with none of them ever satisfied.

    Mal

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 7, 2004 - 05:51 am
    "At age twenty-nine this god was an old man, worn out by excesses, proably venereally diseased, with a small and half-bald head upon a fat body, with a livid complexion, hollow eyes, and a sinister glance.

    "His fate came suddenly and from that Praetorian Guard whose support he had long purchased with gifts. As tribune of the Guard, Cassius Chaerea, insulted by the obscenities that Caligula gave him as passwords day after day, killed him in a secret passage of the palace (41).

    "When the news went out, the city hesitated to believe it. Men feard that this was a trick of the imperial prankster to find out who would rejoice at his death. To clarify the issue the assassins killed Caligula's final wife and dashed out his daughter's brains against a wall.

    "On that day, says Dio, Caligula learned that he was not a god."

    Robby

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    February 7, 2004 - 09:31 am
    "On that day, says Dio, Caligula learned that he was not a god."

    Did Durant mean "On that day, says God, Caligula learned that he was not a god" or does it mean something else that have missed? Because if it means that, Durant would believe that God exists. Or rather that Caligula thought of himself as Dio?

    Eloïse

    tooki
    February 7, 2004 - 10:00 am
    of Roman history, Caligula, presents an interesting case in the relativity of truth. In a previous post (905) I expressed curiosity over the Durants sources, and I continue curious. The Durants say, "These are stories that we have no means of disproving and must record as the tradition; but Suetonius loved gossip; the senator Tacitus hated the emperors, and Dio Cassius wrote two centuries after the event." Durants' other sources include Josephus, a Jewish historian contemporary with Catilgua, who had just cause to be prejudiced.

    Robby asks at one point something to the effect of what do you think of all this? If the Durants' question their own sources as incorrect, biased, and inaccurate, I think what does it matter and of what import is it?

    It all makes me wonder: is there a real truth about Caligulia? Or are opinions and conclusions based on erroneous suppositions all we have? Are we left with thumping the table and voicing our version of the truth? Is this all there is?

    Surely, to get from facts or non-facts about Caligula to the relatively and subjectivity of truth is a Kirkgardian leap of faith. I rest my case.

    tooki
    February 7, 2004 - 10:11 am
    Nice try, Eloise. Dio Cassius, called by some scholars, Cassius Dio, AD 164-229, was a senator and author of an 80! book history of Rome, from its beginnings to AD 229. Thus he was writing about two centuries after Caligula, and is not to be wholly trusted, according to the Durants.

    It is the case that Will attended Divinity School for some time. I do not have the exact details, but if so he probably believed in "God," which explains his continuing hopefullness in the face of the facts of history.

    Scrawler
    February 7, 2004 - 10:58 am
    As we have studied Roman history we have been subjected to endless intrigue and slaughter. But don't we see this every night in our own 21st century. Our TV guides are full of murder, slaughter, and death in all forms. And that's just the news. Also for our viewing pleasure are endless movies and TV programs which to the ancient Romans would seem like a series of gladiatorial fights and massacres. Why? Why do we watch? What does it mean? Down deep inside do people really need to see this slaughter? The poets have attempted to answer the question.

    Tomorrow; and tomorrow, and tomorrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recording time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out brief candles, Life's but shadow; a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more; it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. ~ Shakespeare

    But poets tend to romantize life and death and so that's not the answer. What than makes us continually become excited as we watch a made for TV-movie and see the champion gladiator meeting his final end in the bloody sand as the the sword goes through his chest, much the same way the Romans did in ancient times. Are we therefore any different than they were?

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    February 7, 2004 - 11:04 am
    In this link, I learned all I wanted to know about WILL AND ARIEL DURANT. Several photos Wonderful biography. Written by Oscar Wilde.

    Eloïse

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 7, 2004 - 04:18 pm
    I printed that out, Eloise, and will read it at my leisure.

    Robby

    Shasta Sills
    February 7, 2004 - 05:17 pm
    I don't like violence on TV and I don't watch it. But I think people who do watch it are simply looking for some excitement that won't result in any real danger to themselves. They can watch Mafia movies because they know the real Mafia is not knocking at their door. We have lots of violence in our society but we don't have a Caligula running the country. I used to read Ann Landers' advice columns so I could say, "Well, at least I don't have any of those problems." And I like to watch the weather channel showing snowstorms up north because it makes me appreciate my own mild climate.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 7, 2004 - 05:58 pm
    I finished reading the article about the Durants to which Eloise gave a link. I heartily recommend that everyone here read it. As we spend the months reading the words of Durant, this wonderful background biography will help each of us understand the person who is telling us the story.

    Robby

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    February 7, 2004 - 06:32 pm
    I found this quote most revealing in his bio which has been a concern for some of us. Durant writes:

    "It (S of C) is a fascinating but difficult subject, for almost every word that one may write about it can be disputed or give offense. I have tried to be impartial, though I know that a man's past always colors his views, and that nothing else is so irritating as impartiality. The reader should be warned that I was brought up a fervent Catholic, and that I retain grateful memories of the devoted secular priests, and learned Jesuits, and kindly nuns, who bore so patiently with my brash youth. But he should note, too, that I derived much of my education from lecturing for 13 years in a Presbyterian Church under the tolerant auspices of sterling Protestants like Jonathan C. Day, William Adams Brown, Henry Sloane Coffin and Edmund Chaffee, and that many of my most faithful auditors in that Presbyterian Church were Jews, whose search for education and understanding gave me a new insight into their people. Less than any other man have I excuse for prejudice, and I feel for all faiths the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates than the simplest urchin in the streets.

    Eloïse

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 7, 2004 - 07:54 pm
    Durant's religious persuasion ( or lack of it ) hasn't bothered me at all, ELOISE. It's interesting. I posted links to the whole of that Durant site in the beginning of the Our Oriental Heritage discussion.

    Mal

    JoanK
    February 7, 2004 - 08:58 pm
    ELOISE: a very interesting biography. Thank you. (Note: Wilde wrote only the quote at the beginning. Probably just as well. He's not the man I would choose to write my biography).

    MAL: I'm very glad some of these posts are repeated for latecomers like me.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 8, 2004 - 05:24 am
    Many of us here followed the PBS saga "I, Cladius." The GREEN quotes gives us an idea of the man as seen by Durant.

    "Caligula left the Empire with the Treasury empty, the Senate decimated, the people alienated, Mauretania in rebellion, Judea in arms at his insistence on placing his cult statue in the Temple of Jerusalem. No one knew where to find a ruler fit to face these problems.

    "The Praetorians, coming upon the apparently imbecile Claudius hiding in a corner, proclaimed him imperator. The Senate, in terror of the army, and perhaps relieved by the prospect of dealing with a harmless pedant instead of a reckless lunatic, confirmed the choice of the Guard.

    "Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus hesitantly mounted the throne.

    "He was the son of Antonia and Drusus, the brother of Germanicus and Livilla, the grandson of Octavia and Antony, of Livia and Tiberius Claudius Nero. He had been born at Lugdunum (Lyons) in the year 10 B.C. and was now fifty years old. He was tall and stout, with white hair and an amiable face, but infantile paralysis and other diseases had weakened his frame.

    His legs were precariously thin and gave him a shambling gait. His head wobbled as he walked. He loved good wines and rich food and suffered from gout. He stuttered a bit, and his laughter seemed too boisterous for an emperor. In anger he would foam at the mouth and trickle at the nose.

    "He had been brought up by women and freedmen, had developed a timidity and sensitivity hardly advantageous to a ruler, and had had few opportunities to practice government. His relatives had looked upon him as a feeble-minded invalid. His mother, who had inherited Octavia's gentleness, called him 'an unfinished monster' and when she wished to stress a man's dullness, she would term him 'a bigger fool than my Claudius.'

    "Scorned by all, he lived in safe obscurity, absorbed in gambling, books, and drink. He became a philologist and antiquarian, learned in 'ancient' art, religion, science, philosophy, and law. He wrote histories of Etruria, Carthage, and Rome, treatises on dice and the alphabet, a Greek comedy, and an autobiography.

    "Scientists and savants corresponded with him and dedicated their tomes to him. Pliny the Elder cites him four times as an authority. As Emperor he told his people how to cure snakebite, and forestalled superstitious fears by predicting a solar eclipse on his birthday and explaining its cause. He spoke Greek well, and wrote several of his works in that language.

    "He had a good mind. Perhaps he was sincere when he told the Senate that he had pretended stupidity in order to save his head."

    What are your thoughts as this new personage enters the scene?

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 8, 2004 - 05:38 am
    I didn't know Claudius had polio. I didn't see the public television program. Did they use an actor who'd had polio? I know there are some around. In fact, you're looking at one right now.

    Picture: Claudius

    tooki
    February 8, 2004 - 06:28 am
    Mal probably is aware of THIS site, but I wasn't. I also found and lost a site that had a photo of an Egyptian relief of a polio victim, the first visualization in history. I haven't been able to find it again, so this will have to do.

    tooki
    February 8, 2004 - 06:34 am
    THIS site can be reached via the one I gave above. However, it deserves a place of its own.

    tooki
    February 8, 2004 - 06:39 am
    FOUND IT! Now I can eat breakfast.

    moxiect
    February 8, 2004 - 08:28 am


    "Claudius - He had a good mind. Perhaps he was sincere when he told the Senate that he had pretended stupidity in order to save his head."

    It takes a smart person to know when to play stupid!

    Scrawler
    February 8, 2004 - 11:39 am
    With the usual political avenues of action closed to him, Claudius turned to writing of history, While still a boy, with the encouragement of the great historian Livy and some assistance from another scholar, Claudius wrote a history of Rome beginning with the death of Julius Caesar. On the advice of his mother and grandmother his account skipped the years of the Second Triumvirate. Claudius was given the privilege of reading publicly from some of this work, but as so often happened, he ws unable to make a dignified public appearance.

    Claudius contuned his scholarly pursuits through his years of enforced idleness, writing a twenty-volumne history of the Etruscans and an eight-volume history of the Carthaginians. He later continued adding to his history of Rome when he became emperor, but a professional reader gave the public presentations.

    Claudius did not confine his scholarly activities merely to history. He wrote an autobiography and a treatise on dicing (games with dice). He learned Greek and could quote from Homer extensively. Noting certain problems with Latin spelling in his studies, he proposed adding three letters to the alphabet to resolve the difficulties. As emperor, he used his imperial authority to decree these letters into effect. According to Suetonius, though the leters had by his time fallen again into disuse, they could still be seen on public buildings and in certain books.

    When not enjoying scholarly pursuits, Claudius consorted with people from nonaristocratic classes - gambling, drinking, and womanizing. He learned to place his trust in those who were personally loyal, particularly his own freedmen who still had social obligations toward him, several of whom he relied on both for friendship and administering his household. Despite the royal family's negative assessment of him, certain people did see a worthwhile side to him. For instance, the Equestrians, people from the second-highest group of social standing, chose Claudius on two different occasions to represent them on a mission to the consuls. Caligula chose him for his first colleague as consul, and in this way Claudius finally embarked on his political career in his late 40s. Therefore, Caligula often appointed Claudius to take his place in presiding at the games; even so Claudius often remained the butt of jokes and was continually subjected to small humiliations.

    JoanK
    February 8, 2004 - 04:22 pm
    "Claudius often remained the butt of jokes and was continually subjected to small humiliations."

    Perhaps his trouble was not stupidity, but the fact that people with disabilities are often seen as stupid, the butt of jokes, and available for humiliating treatment.

    Shasta Sills
    February 8, 2004 - 05:08 pm
    Mal, I saw "I, Claudius." It was very good, but I don't remember who the actor was who played Claudius. I don't think he was really a polio victim though.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 9, 2004 - 05:04 am
    "Claudius acknowledged the sovereignty of the army, while canceling again the power of the Assembly to choose the magistrates. With wiser generosity he ended accusations de maiestate -- released persons imprisoned on such charges -- recalled all exiles -- restored confiscated property -- returned to Greece the statues that Gaius had stolen -- and abolished the taxes that Gaius had introduced.

    "He put to death Caligula's assassins on the theory that it was unsafe to condone the murder of an emperor. He ended the practice of prostration, and announced simply that he was not to be worshiped as a god. Like Augustus he repaired the temples and with antiquarian fervor sought to reanimate the old religion.

    "He applied himself personally and conscientiously to public affairs. He even 'made the rounds of those who sold goods and let buildings, and corrected whatever he deemed to be abuses.' But in truth, though he emulated the moderation of Augustus, his actual policies went beyond that cautious consevatism to the bold and varied plans of Caesar -- the reform of government and law -- the construction of public works and services -- the elevation of the provinces -- the enfranchisement of Gaul -- and the conquest and Romanitzation of Britain."

    Did nice things for the people but kept the army on his side. A very practical man?

    Robby

    tooki
    February 9, 2004 - 09:54 am
    This site seems to be slumbering along, with Rob being perfunctory and discussion participants taking only a seemingly desultory interest. Is this a Roman augury? A portent? An omen?

    Nonetheless -

    Those "original" clans of Rome, the founding fathers who became the traditional patricians, were an incestuous lot. What they practiced, as did other aristocracies, monarchies, and dictators, is in animal breeding called " line breeding." Line breeding, of course, brings to the fore some characteristics better not bred for. (Dog breeders always "out cross" every few generations, bringing in strong, new blood.)

    The ruling classes stuck together to keep power in the aristocratic families and to sully the bloodlines was NOT DONE. Hence the tortuous, complex relationships that arose, much like the Mormon guy in the papers recently who got busted for marrying his cousin, who was also his aunt.

    Because the emperorship was so dependent upon familial relationships and is so confusing, I have been working on a genealogy starting with Julius Caesar. But perhaps Scrawler might have one handy. I'm sure scholars have worked on them for years, though I am unable to locate one. Anyone got one tucked away in an old drawer?

    If there is no response to this posting you will all have to suffer through the one I'm constructing. You'll be sorry!

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 9, 2004 - 10:14 am
    Tut, tut, TOOKI. I'm in Activist mode, ROBBY's Studs Terkel discussion entices me to it off and on. Plus the fact that some of us are saddened by the fact that Lorrie Gorg, Books Discussion Leader and good friend to many of us, is gravely ill.
    ". . . (Claudius') policies went beyond that cautious consevatism to the bold and varied plans of Caesar -- the reform of government and law -- the construction of public works and services -- the elevation of the provinces -- the enfranchisement of Gaul -- and the conquest and Romanization of Britain."
    This guy was no dumbo, regardless how stupid he might try to appear. I'd like to read more about his polio, frankly. After all, he did his job with a real handicap, and should be respected for that. Maybe I'll find something after I finish writing the latest chapter of my book.

    Mal

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 9, 2004 - 10:17 am
    Tooki:-I have found in the two plus years that we have been discussing the progress of Mankind, that comments come in cycles. And so I am not concerned. Sometimes it is as you say a "desultory interest" and sometimes the postings come hot and heavy. There are lots of factors -- the sub-topics may be of great interest or not, participants may be ill or out of town -- but Civilization (the actual one and our discussion) moves on.

    You point out that "the emperorship was so dependent upon familial relationships and is so confusing." This raises a question which has often been in my mind. Almost any school child knows the name "Julius Caesar" and perhaps a few facts about his life. But what do they know about Nero? That he played a violin? What do they know about Antony? That he had a girl-friend named Cleopatra? And did they ever hear about Tiberius or Claudius? I wonder why, considering the power and activities of these many emperors, why the name of Julius stands out.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 9, 2004 - 10:30 am
    "Like Caesar and Augustus, Claudius was convinced that the local magistrates were too few and untrained, the Senate too proud and impatient to do the complex work of municipal and imperial administration. He bowed to the Senate, and left it many powers and more dignifities.

    "The real labor of government was performed by himself, a cabinet of his appointees, and a civil service gradually organized, as under Caesar, Augustus, and Tiberius, out of the freedmen of the Emperor's household, and using 'public' slaves for clerical and minor tasks.

    "Four cabinet members headed this bureaucracy:-a secretary of state (ab epistulis - 'for communications') -- a treasurer (a rationibus - 'for accounts') -- another secretary (a libellis - for petitions), and an attorney general (a cognitionibus - 'for actions at law'). Able freedmen -- Narcissus, Pallas, and Callistus -- held the first three posts.

    "Their rise to power and wealth was the symbol of a wide elevation of the freedman class, which had been going on for centuries and reached a new height in Claudius' reign.

    "When the aristocracy protested against the empowerment of these parvenus, Claudius revived the office of censor -- had himself chosen to it -- revised the list of persons eligible to the Senate -- eliminated the chief opponents of his policies -- and added new members from the knights and the provinces."

    Again a class warfare - which seemed to be constant throughout the period of the Roman Empire. Aristocracy looking down their noses at those who "used to be slaves." And he "eliminated" opponents of his policies. I wonder what that means>

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 9, 2004 - 10:42 am
    Some very funny comments about Claudius' "pollio" in a review of I Claudius

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    February 9, 2004 - 10:45 am
    In my Larousse, the first violin appeared in Italy in 1529. In Ancient times, other chord instruments were played but not the violin. Perhaps the Lyre as the movies about Caesar showed?

    Eloïse

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 9, 2004 - 10:47 am
    Mal:-Now that review of Claudius was really funny!! Just like talking to your teen-age child.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 9, 2004 - 11:30 am
    For years those of us here have been talking about dead people. What's the point? Click HERE to find out the relevance.

    Robby

    Scrawler
    February 9, 2004 - 01:34 pm
    At age 50, he became emperor by a quirk. Soon after members of the Praetorian Guard assassinated Caligula, some of them discovered Claudius hiding behind a curtain in the royal palace, trembling in fear that because of his royal blood, he too would be assassinated. The Praetorian Guard had a special attachment to Clauius's family, for the name of his brother Germanicus still retained a charismatic aura for the men. The soldiers took Claudius from behind his curtain to their camp, and once there he was persuaded to claim the authority of the empeor.

    Now that Caligula had been disposed of, the Senate looked back with longing to Republican days. They requested that Claudius hand over the government to the Senate but pressured by the Praetorian Guard, he refused.

    Claudius received the emperorship because he had immediate and powerful military support in the Praetorian Guard, whereas the Senate had none. When this became apparent to the senators, they gave their official blessing to Claudius.

    Once formally established as emperor, Claudius began working to gain broad support for his rule. His first action was to grant amnesty to any and all who had opposed his reign and to recall exiles who had been unfairly deported by Caligula. The only people he punished were Caligula's direct assassins, holding that they had also intended to assassinate. He attempted to repair the breach with the seante by following procedural forms. Claudius also participated in the senate himself, encouraging senators to speak their minds.

    In an effort to place his claim to authority on a more charismatic basis, in the year AD 43 Claudies engaged in the conquest of Britain to gain both military glory and the goodwill of the senate. Julius Caesar almost a century before had invaded Britain, and Rome had established treaties with various tribes and exacted tribute ever since.

    Ordering his army to take Britain, Claudius then made a personal appearance just in time to claim the victory over a major tribe as his own. He returned to Rome and clebrated a "triumph" - a victory procession traditionally granted only to the Augustus, and it appears that the victory did enhance Claudius's prestige.

    Is it just my imagination or does it only take the appearance of yet another war to gain an emperor or for that matter a president that necessary prestige that he needs?

    Justin
    February 9, 2004 - 06:10 pm
    Some of Suetonius' comments about the early days of Claudius' reign explain how it all came about. I paraphrase here.

    Claudius is removed from the area while the murder takes place. He is frightened. When he hears of the murder he thinks he is next so he hides himself behind a curtain in an adjoining apartment. As he cowered there a common soldier discovers him. Claudius falls at his feet in terror. The soldier hails him as emperor.He and his comrades bear Claudius in terror in a litter to their camp where he continues to be terrified. A few days pass.

    The Senate fiddles while the populace stand about calling for Claudius to be ruler. He (Claudius)then allows an armed assembly of soldiers to swear allegiance to him.I return he promises each man 15,000 sesterces. Claudius is the first of the Caesars to bribe the troops - to buy fidelity. That establishes his power and from that moment on he acted as an emperor.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 9, 2004 - 06:45 pm
    Justin:-You got right to the point with that brief history!!

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 9, 2004 - 06:54 pm
    But to get back to the details --

    "Equipped with these administrative organs, Claudius set himself an ambitious program of construction and reform. he improved the procedure of the courts, decreed penalties for the law's delays, sat patiently as judge many hours every week, and forbade the application of torture to any citizen.

    "To prevent the floods that endangerd Rome all the more frequently as the Apennines were being denuded of timber, he had an additional channel dug for the lower course of the Tiber. To expedite the import of grain, he had a new harbor (Portus) built near Ostia, with commodious warehouses and docks, two great moles to break the fury of the sea, and a channel connecting the harbor with the Tiber above the river's salted mouth.

    "He finished the 'Claudian' aqueduct begun by Caligula, and constructed another, the Anio Novus, both immense works and notable for the beauty of their lofty arches. Observing that the lands of the Marsians were periodically swamped by the overflow of Lake Fucinus, he provided state funds for the labor of 30,000 men during eleven years, digging a three-mile tunnel from the lake through a mountain to the river Ciris.

    "Before releasing the waters of the lake he staged on it a sham naval battle between two fleets manned by 19,000 condemned criminals, before spectators gathered from all Italy upon the slopes of the surrounding hills.

    "The combatants salued the Emperor with a historic phrase:-Ave Caesar! morituri salutamus te -- 'Hail Caesar! we who are about to die salute you.'"

    I never knew the origin of that phrase.

    Robby

    Justin
    February 9, 2004 - 07:19 pm
    Me too, Robby.

    Some of Suetonius' comments fit well with those of the Durants. In the first days, Claudius acts to calm things. There were those who had a new form of government in mind. They are forgiven and forgotten. The boys who finished off Gaius are executed, because it won't do to have assasinators unpunished.

    Claudius has the Senate vote divine honors for his grandmother Livia making her a goddess. His mother is named Augusta. He refuses divine honors for himself and refrains from taking the forename Imperator.

    3kings
    February 9, 2004 - 09:35 pm
    ROBBY, you ask why we remember Caesar and Antony, and not much about other Roman leaders. This is just further evidence of the accidents of history that have their own built in bias..

    We here, received our schooling in English speaking lands. It was Caesar who invaded England and of whom Shakespear wrote his famous historical play.

    It is little wonder then that we, and our contemporaries know of this section of Roman history, more than all the rest.

    People schooled in Greece or Russia, have a different knowledge of the Roman times... == Trevor

    Bubble
    February 10, 2004 - 12:25 am
    Caesar! morituri salutamus te! In schhol I learned that the sentence was textually "Ave Caesar, Morituri te Salutant" and that it was what the Gladiators, combatants in the amphitheaters, or those thrown to the lions said to the emperor. Caesar mens emperor.

    Mal, that Pollio, Cato, Claudio was hilarious!

    Trevor, it was the same in Africa in Belgian of French schools. Julius C. was the most prominent maybe because we had to translate him in extendo. We never heard of Claudius or any other emperor's writing. The importance of Julius C''s territorial conquests, and thus of the Roman history, are very explicit and detailed in his texts.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 10, 2004 - 04:40 am
    "The provinces prospered under Claudius as in Augustan days. He punished decisively the malfeasance of officials, except in the case of Felix, procurator of Judea, whose misrule was concealed from him by Pallas, brother of Saint Paul's inquisitor.

    "He busied himself with every phase of provincial affairs. His edicts and inscriptions, found throughout the Empire, are marked by his characteristic fussiness and prolixity, but they show a mind and will intelligently devoted to the public good.

    "He labored to improve communication and tranport -- to protect travelers from brigandage -- and to reduce the cost of the official post to the communities it served. Like Caesar he wished to raise the provinces to the level of Italy in a Roman commonwealth.

    "He carried out Caesar's design in granting full citizenship to Transalpine Gaul. If he had had his way he would have enfranchised all freemen in the Empire. A bronze tablet unearthed at Lyons in 1524 has preserved for us part of the rambling speech in which he persuaded the Senate to admit to its membership and to imperial office those Gauls who held the Roman franchise.

    "Meanwhile he did not allow the army to deteriorate or the frontiers to be infringed. His legions were kept busy and fit, and great generals like Corbulo, Vespasian, and Paulinus developed under his choice and encouragement. Again deciding to complete Caesar's plans, he invaded Britain in 43, conquered it, and was back in Rome within six months of setting out. In the triumph accorded him he violated precedent by pardoning the captured British king, Caractacus.

    "The people of Rome laughed at their strange Emperor, but loved him, and when, on one of his absences from the capital, a false rumor spread that he had been killed, so great a turmoil of sorrow swept the city that the Senate had to issue official assurances that Claudius was safe and wold soon be in Rome."

    We now hear, I believe for the first time, a term applied to a Roman Emperor -- Love!

    And Durant's reference to Saint Paul reminds us that we are living in the period of the start of Christianity.

    Robby

    tooki
    February 10, 2004 - 10:37 am
    Perhaps one of the reasons history covers and we hear about so few of the Roman Emperors is because there were so many.

    From Pompey the Great, 81-48 BC to Justianian, 527AD to 565, there were 100, give or take a few, rulers of the Roman Empire.

    A complete list of rulers includes Imperators and Caesars. "Imperator" was an honorific given by Roman soldiers to their commander. Later the title was conferred by the Senate and carried privileges. After the fall of the republic the title was assumed by Augustus and his successors and came to have the meaning now attached to the word emperor.

    First there was Juli, then Augi, and over the years the term "Caesar" came to have many meanings, among them heir presumptive, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, finally, metaphorically, as in Germany's Kaiser, any powerful ruler.

    Below is a list of around 132 names of men involved in ruling the Roman Empire. Of this I count around 100 "Emperors." But who knows, other than the Durants, who did what and when to whom. I can guess what usurpers did, but I'm sure the Durants will tell us in due time.

    WHAT A LIST! Way too much to read about each one, but fascinating to brouse

    Shasta Sills
    February 10, 2004 - 11:05 am
    I finally got around to reading Eloise's link about the Durants. What an interesting woman Ariel Durant was. (Nee Chaya Kaufman.) And what a wonderful love story the Durants had. Something I had not realized was that Ariel Durant only began to collaborate on Story of Civilization after Volume VII, so we really haven't heard anything from her so far.

    Scrawler
    February 10, 2004 - 11:07 am
    Even without the conquest of Britain, and despite resentment from the senatorial class, Claudius seems to have been quite popular with the Roman people. Dependent to some degree on their support, he seems to have been mindful of his subjects' needs and sympathetic to their problems. One event which demonstrated his concern took place as he sat in court dispensing justice. The city of Rome had grown quickly and the populace had become dependent on the government to supply them with their daily bread. The supply was threatened, and people felt desperate. An angry mob attacked the Emperor in court, pelting him with dry bread crusts and demanding bread. Rather than punish them for their effrontery, Claudius listened to their grievances and began offering insurance for ships which would make the daring voyage to procure grain in midwinter. Those who built new grain ships were rewrded, while Claudius also took long-range action to protect the grain supply. He enlarged the harbor of Ostia, the port nearest Rome, to provide a larger and better anchorage for ships, and he constructed granaries there to ensure a back-up source in times of scarcity. Though his grand, 11-year scheme to generate farm land nearer Rome by draining the Fucine Lake proved unsuccessful and Claudius was criticized for his foolish wste, the idea proved nearly 2,000 years later, when the task ws successfully accomplished.

    To provide more fresh water, Claudius built two famous aqueducts, teh Aqua Claudia and the Anio Novus. Like his other major building projects, these were practical in nature; they put people to work, enhanced the livability of Rome, and added to the Emperor's popularity.

    Claudius is also known for certain "enlightened" legislation which he brought to the senate for approval. One remaining inscription for instance announces legislation enacted to protect tenants from landlords who wanted to tear down buildings for profit and speculation; another famous law protected slaves who, when abandoned by their masters to die on a certain island in the Tiber River, could not be reenslaved if they survived; sill another allowed women to make their own property decisions unless they were under guardianship of their fathers or former slaveowners. Though by our standards not all his legislation can be termed "humanitarian," Claudius acted with a concern for individuals and a desire to promote justice.

    Claudius displayed a marked concern for his subjects in provinces as well. In Gaul, he built roads and an aqueduct. In the east, he provided relief after earthquakes, restored various buildings, and protected the privileges of particular groups. He also established colonies of Roman citizens in strategic areas around the Empire.

    Claudius was also noted (and criticized) for granting citizenship to certain favored provincial towns and peoples. In a speech to the senate recorded on a bronze tablet, he went a step further, advocating that prominent citizens from "civilized" Gallic townships be permitted into the senate at Rome. Such actions naturally brought Claudius widespread provincial support, but if his gestures served his own interests, they also demonstrated a broad concern for the well-being of all his subjects.

    Even "though by our standards not all his legislation can be termed "humanitarian"" you have to admit that Claudius has to be better than the previous emperor. Does anyone remember how Claudius was protrayed in the TV series "I, Claudius"? Did this "humanitarism" come out in the movie?

    Justin
    February 10, 2004 - 03:24 pm
    We have seen, thus far, only snatches of municipal economics. I presume Durant is going cover the material later but for now we must do with references to the distribution of grain. What was the diet of a city dweller and how did the food get to him on a daily basis? No one could live in the city for very long if food were not available. Was there a farmer's market that came to the forum etc. on a daily basis?

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    February 10, 2004 - 03:47 pm
    Justin, That is something I am always wondering, what did the soldiers eat on their marches during war in Roman times and who supplied them. In cities it must have been like it is here. They had farmers carting the foot each day.

    Robby, as a vegetarian, you will most likely agree with this kind of diet. Where did we get the idea that meat was indispensable to us.

    They cooked their bread AFTER a 20 to 24 mile walk.

    "Basic Food For Ordinary people Hearty Food For Country People Has Changed Little in the Last Two Millennia

    Food for the common people consisted of wheat or barley, olive oil. a little fish, wine, home grown vegetables, and if they were lucky enough to own a goat or cow or chickens, cheese and a few eggs. The grain was ground into flour and baked into loaves of bread. Plaster casts of Roman bread from Pompeii can be seen today exactly as they came from the oven 1913 years ago. These loaves are almost identical to the round Italian loaves that can be bought today at a market in Italy (or Great Britain or the USA.) Roman soldiers carried their grain and flour grindstones with them on the march. With a little olive oil they made pasta and baked bread in the evenings after a 20 or 24 mile daily march. (The efficiency and highly organized distribution of duties within the Roman army camp is the subject for several chapters in several volumes.) The Roman peasants got very little meat and did not seem to miss it much. Roman legionaries in Britain under Agricola actually complained of having to eat meat when the grain supply ran low. Occasionally a little meat was used but it was considered by many Romans to be "barbarian food."


    Eloïse

    Ginny
    February 10, 2004 - 04:18 pm
    Derek Jacobi played Claudius in I, Claudius, Shasta, and he does not limp normally.

    ginny

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 10, 2004 - 07:39 pm
    Eloise:--Those foods eaten by the Roman soldiers sound much more appealing than the rations given us during WWII.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 10, 2004 - 07:54 pm
    "From that great height Caludius fell because he had built a government too complex for his personal supervision, and because his amiable spirit was too easily deceived by his freedmen and his family. The bureaucracy had improved administration and had made a thousand new openings for corruption.

    "Narcissus and Pallas were excellent executives, who considered their salaries unequal to their merits. To make up the difference they sold offices, extorted bribes by threats, and brought charges against men whose estates they wished to confiscate. They ended by being the richest individuals in all antiquity. Narcissus had 400,000,000 sesterces ($60,000,000). Pallas was miserable because he had only 300,000,000. When Claudius complained of a deficit in the imperial Treasury, Roman wags remarked that he would have enough and to spare if he would take his two freeedmen into partnership.

    "The old aristocratic families, now comparatively poor, looked with horror upon these accumulations and powers, and burned with anger when they had to court ex-slaves to obtain a word with the Emperor.

    "Claudius was busy writing to appointees and scholars, preparing edicts and speeches, and attending to the needs of his wife. Such a man should have lived like a monk and barricaded himself against love. His wives proved a ruinous distraction, and his domestic policy was not as successful as his foreign.

    "Like Caligula he married four times. His first wife died on her wedding day, the next two he divorced. Then, aged forty-eight, he married Valeria Messalina, sixteen. She ws not unusually pretty. Her head was flat, her face florid, her chest malformed, but a woman need not be beautiful to commit adultery.

    "When Claudius became Emperor she assumed the rights and manners of a queen, rode in his triumpth, and had her birthday celebrated throughout the Empire. She fell in love with the dancer Mnester. When he rejected her advances she begged her husband to bid him to be more obedient to her requests. Claudius complied, whereupon the dancer yielded to her patriotically.

    "Messalina rejoiced at the simplicity of her formula, and adopted it with other men. Those who still refused her were accused of invented crimes by officials pliant to her influence, and found themselves deprived of their property and their liberty, sometimes of their lives."

    Maybe Claudius was more intelligent that he appeared.

    Robby

    Justin
    February 10, 2004 - 11:00 pm
    Yes, Robby. There was nothing quite as tasty as a K ration, particularly, the chocolate bar and the three cigarettes just topped it all off. C rations were much better but they did not fit in a gas mask bag.

    I'm sure Claudius was more intelligent than he appeared. Any man, who at forty eight marries a sixteen year old and gives her a male harem to keep her occupied must be pretty smart. Bing Crosby did not have the sense to do that and look what happened to him. He died the way many men dream of dying. Alban Barkeley and Charlie Chaplin had similar problems.

    tooki
    February 11, 2004 - 06:50 am
    Maybe she had so many curls to cover her flat head, as described by the Durants, ". . .her head was flat, her face florid, her chect malformed. But, a woman need not be pretty to commit adultry." However, it helps!

    CURLY TOP

    tooki
    February 11, 2004 - 07:15 am
    I now accept that slavery was a "natural condition" in the ancient world, and that our concepts of born free and so on, are a product of historical development. If this idea has any validity, is it the case that the rise of freedmen, "the elevation of the freedman class, which had been going on for centuries," was connected with the beginnings of the concept of being free? Was the rise of the concept of freedom helped with ex-slaves becoming important in Roman government and its bureaucracy?

    And in Christainity isn't there an idea of being free to choose? In short, is there a connection between the rise of the freedman class and the rise of Christainity? I await the Durantain Word.

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 11, 2004 - 07:26 am
    Roman portrait sculpture, including Messalina

    Shasta Sills
    February 11, 2004 - 09:59 am
    How could Roman soldiers march and fight on nothing but bread? Today, we are constantly hounded about eating a balanced diet, with plenty of fruits and vegetables, supplemented with vitamins and minerals. Those soldiers had no vegetables or vitamin pills, and yet they seemed to be strong and healthy. I'm beginning to suspect that all this talk about healthy diets is a lot of baloney.

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    February 11, 2004 - 11:18 am
    Shasta, I seem to remember that they also ate legumes, you know a variety of beans. Asians also eat their rice accompanied with beans which contain good protein making the meal complete. They carried with them sacs of raw kernels of grains, wheat, barley, oats, soy, etc. which they ground every night. If we compare our refined bleached flour,(you would be appalled to know how flour is bleached) supplementing their diet with beans, and a bit of meat as they passed through farm lands, I would think that with their outdoor activities they would be well fed enough to march 24 hours a day. Besides people then didn't eat 3 times a day like we do rather only once a day.

    Scrawler
    February 11, 2004 - 11:36 am
    Claudius was never able to overcome the fact that he had taken power by force against the will of the senate. Third-century historian Cassius Dio noted that the Emperor often behaved inappropriately, not having been groomed for public service. Sickly and subject to "terrors" as a child, he consequently acted in ways which seemed cowardly; having spent much of his time with people from the lower classes, he therefore often acted plebian; burdened with visible handicaps, he learned to act foolish in self-defense. Claudius was not in any way deficient of intellect, but he claimed in later life that the only reason he had survived Caligula's reign was that he had assumed a mask of stupidy. As a result, despite his accomplishments, he never acquired the refinement and acculturation that the aristocratic class expected in a Roman ruler.

    It seems it would be well to play "fool" at times.

    It is also possible that the senatorial class resented Claudius's reliance on his freedmen to perform the most important administrative tasks in his regime. Suetonius listed the various "departments" and the particular freedmen who were responsible for them, leading some scholars to hold that Claudius was innovating and centralizing his rule in a rationalized manner, and leading others more recently to conclude that he was merely relying upon those men he trusted the most, those who were most loyal. Above all, ancient historians criticized him for being easily manipulated. Several deaths of prominent people were allegedly machinated by his wives and freedmen working in concert who skillfully played on Clauius's greatest fears, deceiving him into ordering executions without fully examining the issues.

    Claudius's freedmen generally proved loyal; if only the same could be said for his wives. Messalina was allegedly involved in a treasonous plot and went so far as to publicly celebrate a marriage to Gaius Silius, a senator who entertained hopes of taking over the empire. When those involved in the conspiracy, several of them senators, were caught, they were summarily executed. When Messalina begged for special mercy, Claudius's powerful freedman Narcissus exercised the authority Claudius had delegated him, ordering that she be slain before claudius could relent.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 11, 2004 - 08:18 pm
    "The Emperor was immoderate in his passion for women, according to Suetonius. Claudius was wholly free from unnatural vice. Messalina, says Dio, 'gave him some attractice housemaids for bedfellows.' Needing funds for her escapades, the empress sold offices, recommendations, and contracts.

    "Juvenal has handed down the story that she would disguise herself, enter a brothel, receive all comers, and gladly pocket their fees. The tale was probably taken from the lost memoirs of Messalina's successor and foe, the younger Agrippina. While Claudius according to Tacitus 'devoted all his time to the duties of his censorial office -- including the supervision and improvement of Roman morals -- Messalina 'gave a loose to love' and at last while her husband was in Ostia, formally married a handsome youth, Caius Silius 'with pomp and all accustomed rites.

    "Narcissus informed the Emperor through the latter's concubines and told him that an uprising was being planned to kill him and put Silius on the throne. Claudius rushed back to Rome, summoned the Praetorian Guard, had Silius and other lovers of Messalina slain, and then retired in nervous exhaustion to his rooms.

    "The Empress hid herself in those gardens of Lucullus which she had confiscated for her pleasure. Claudius sent her a message inviting her to come and plead her cause. Fearing that the Emperor would forgive her and turn against him, Narcissus dispatched some soldiers with instructions to kill her. They found her alone with her mother, slew her with one blow, and left her corpse in her mother's arms (48). Claudius told the Paraetorian Guard that if he should ever marry again they would be justified in killing him.

    "He never mentioned Messalina again."

    It's rough having a beautiful young wife.

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 11, 2004 - 09:17 pm
    Painting, Getty Museum: Death of Messalina

    Justin
    February 11, 2004 - 11:32 pm
    Mal; Solimena's death scene does not respond to clicks.

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 12, 2004 - 01:59 am
    Because Messalina's dead and can't get up and answer the door? The file opens for me, JUSTIN.

    Mal

    ALF
    February 12, 2004 - 08:20 am

    Shasta Sills
    February 12, 2004 - 10:00 am
    These Roman paintings and sculptures are always interesting and I like to look at them. But most of the time they aren't showing you what the individual really looked like. An artist didn't dare portray any trait that was unflattering, so he was usually making his patrons look better than they really were. Even today, artists have to be cautious about offending their subjects. If you want somebody to buy the portrait you do, it had better be flattering. Well, what can you expect? Nobody wants to see how ugly he is!

    tooki
    February 12, 2004 - 10:27 am
    flat head and all. I just noticed on this second viewing how long her left arm is. The Durants didn't say anything about that! Actually, Shasta, I think the Praetorian Guardian is pretty cute.

    I once did a portrait sculpture of a rich rancher, hoping he'd buy it. I made sure it was really, really flattering, no flat head he! He didn't buy it, and I was stuck with this dumb old head sitting around reminding me of the error of my ways.

    Scrawler
    February 12, 2004 - 11:33 am
    ""A woman in every plot," is almost a proverb among those who have had much to do with successful conspiracies and treachery." ~ Lafayette Baker, "History of the United States Secret Service", 1867

    A few months after the conspiracy, Claudius was persuaded to marry his niece Agrippina the Younger. Tacitus describes this remarkable woman as "the daughter of a great commander and the sister, wife, and mother of emperors." Using the leverge of her position, Agrippina gradually built herself a power base in the court; she saw to it that men loyal to her were appointed to key positions and persuaded Claudius to adopt her son Nero as his own. When Nero reached 16, and his chief potential rival for the throne - Claudius's son Brittancius - was still too young to rule, Claudius died.

    Most accounts agree that Agrippina poisoned Claudius by feeding him a plump, juicy, lethal mushroom from her own plate, and he died during the night. The official version released by the the court, however, was that Claudius died the next day about noon, having just been entertained by comic actors. Agrippina successfully arranged for Nero to be proclaimed emperor immediately after the announcement of Claudius's death.

    Overall Caludius received mixed reviews from the ancient historians who recorded his good intentions and attempts to rule justly, while highlighting his vulnerabilities and failings. It is symbolic that after his death Claudius was defied - declared a god by the senate. He was the only Julio-Claudian emperor besides Augustus to receive this honor.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 12, 2004 - 05:38 pm
    Scrawler:-I appreciate your sharing some information about Claudius from other sources but I am interested also in your reactions to Durant's narrative.

    Robby

    Justin
    February 13, 2004 - 05:30 pm
    The thirty five senators and three hundred knights who were condemned to death were executed on the orders of Agrippina, not Claudius. She gained power by absorbing the assets of the condemned and when Claudius became aware of her machinations he planned to take preventive action. But, Agrippina out smarted him. Fed him a poison mushroom and watched him die agonizingly for twelve hours.

    This poor guy was a victim of grasping women in a day when women were thought to be docile and subservient. Messalina enjoyed the role of a whore who tried to take the throne away from him. Agrippina succeeded in getting the throne from Claudius and giving the succession to her son, Nero- a man whose excesses were beyond those of his mother whose life he took.

    I am often amazed by the failure of a oppressed people to revolt in the face of cruel excesses. I see how power is retained. But the absence of a slave revolt, a serf revolt, a civil revolt, is often very slow in coming; vis a vis: the American revolt, the French revolt, and the Russian revolt.

    tooki
    February 13, 2004 - 10:01 pm
    Were they merely Freudian bitches or Roman shrews? Where did these wretched Roman women come from. Scrawler, Justin, you are bad mouthing them. Where and how did they get their power?

    I wonder that a case could be made that in such a militaristic society, where machoness was next to godliness, women were encouraged to be bold, and demand and command power, as did the worthy males.

    I see no evidence that in the Patrician Class women were expected to be docile and subservient.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 14, 2004 - 07:10 am
    "Agrippina when she reached the throne was thirty-two - Claudius fifty-seven. Playing upon him with all her charms, she persuaded him to Adopt Nero as his son, and to give his thirteen-year-old daughter Octavia to the sixteen-year-old youth in marriage (53). She assumed more and more political power with each year, and finally sat beside him on the imperial dais.

    "She recalled the philosopher Seneca from the exile to which Claudius had condemned him, and made him the tutor of her son (49). She had her friend Burrus appointed prefect of the Praetorian Guard. So poised, she ruled with a virile hand and established order and economy in the imperial household. Her ascendancy might have been a boon to Rome had she not indulged her avarice and her revenge.

    "She had Lollia Paulina put to death because Claudius, in a careless moment which no wife forgives, remarked on the elegance of Lollia's figure. She had Marcus Silanus poisoned because she feared that Claudius might name him his heir. She conspired with Pallas to overthrow Narcissus, and this moneyed potentate, as faithful as he was corrupt, ended his career in a dungeon.

    "The Emperor, weakened by ill-health, many labors and sexual enterprise, allowed Pallas and Agrippina to establish another reign of terror. Men were accused, exiled, or killed because the Treasury was exhausted by public works and games and needed replenishment by confiscated wealth.

    "Thirty-five senators and 300 knights were condemned to death in the thirteen years of Claudius' reign. Some of these executions may have been justified by actual conspiracy or crime. We do not know. Nero later claimed that he had examined all the papers of Claudius and that from these it appeared that not one prosecution had been set on foot by the Emperor's order.

    "After five years of his fifth marriage Claudius awakened to what Agrippina was doing. He resolved to put an end to her power, and circumvent her plans for Nero by naming Britannicus his heir.

    "But Agrippina had more dete4rmination and less scruple. Perceiving the Emperor's intentions she risked everything. She fed Claudius poisonous mushrooms, and he died after twelve hours of agony, without being able to utter a word (54).

    "When the Senate deified him, Nero, already enthroned, remarked that mushrooms must be the food of the gods, since by eating them Claudius had become divine."

    Caludius had appeared to be a good man. Does might always win out over right?

    Robby

    Shasta Sills
    February 14, 2004 - 09:13 am
    Well, this is all very discouraging, all these evil women. Who was it who said earlier that if you gave women any rights, they would stir up all kinds of trouble? Cicero? Maybe he was right. I have always said that if women ruled the world, they would do a better job of it than men have done. But history doesn't seem to prove that, does it?

    Mary W
    February 14, 2004 - 09:21 am
    Happy Valentine's Day

    It's snowing! Really snowing! This is the most snow Dallas has had in twenty years-two to three inches! The children are enchanted. Most of them have never seen snow. In the sixty-two years I've lived in this part of the country I have seen snow perhaps a dozen times.

    It is beautiful. I had almost forgotten how lovely it is.

    The whole area (called the Metroplex) has gone absolutely nuts. I don't know what their usual morning programming is but all the local channels have only winter scenes, condition of our interstate and highway jungle and wonderful pictures of kids making angels, building incredible huge snowmen and having fierce snowball fights.

    This has noyhing to do with SoC but I had to share my excitement with someone. You guys are it.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 14, 2004 - 09:25 am
    I think "Happiness" has everything to do with Civilization. We tend to be affected strongly by (and perhaps remember easily) the evil activities but as I look back at SofC for the last two plus years, I remember lots of wonderful things happening in those various cultures.

    Robby

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 14, 2004 - 09:43 am
    Happy Valentine's Day, Mary W. It's so good to see you!

    Picture: Agrippina and Nero

    Scrawler
    February 14, 2004 - 09:52 am
    I think it is only human for a mother to want to see their sons and daughters to succeed, but I think these Roman women took it to the extreme. Two things would seem to be in their favor. Agrippina had powerful friends (Burrus of the Praetorian Guard) and she also had money. I agree with you Tooki that I too see no evidence that in the Patrician Class women were expected to be docile and subservient. I think most women from both the poor and upper classes have always found a way to appear to be docile and subervient while in truth they got exactly what they wanted. It is also interesting that these powerful women had such power over men who were in ill-health.

    I can't say that might always wins over right. Take our own fight for independence for instance, but I do think on the average if you have the backing of the military and have plenty of money you will be more successful. Don't you think that success comes also from the personality of the person who is trying to succeed? I think it would be very hard for any man to to be good when his wife "had more determination and less scruples".

    Sorry about the snow! Right now I'm enjoying the brillant sunshine and 40 degrees - it's supposed to rain later in Portland, Oregon but right now it feels like Spring has sprung. Happy Valentine's Day!

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 14, 2004 - 03:11 pm
    "On his father's side Nero belonged to the Domitii Ahenobarbi -- so named from the bronzelike beards that ran in the family. For five hundred years they had been famous in Rome for ability, recklessness, haughtiness, courage, and cruelty. Nero's paternal grandfather had a passion for games and the stage -- drove a chariot in the races -- spent money with open hand on wild beasts and gladiatorial shows -- and had to be reproved by Augustus for barbarous treatment of his employees and slaves.

    "He married Antonia, daughter of Antony and Octavia. Their son Cnacus Domitius enhanced the reputation of the family by adultery, incest, brutality, and treason. In A.D. 28 he married the second Agrippina, then thirteen years old. Knowing his wife's ancestry and his own, he concluded that 'no good man can possibly be born from us.' They named their only child Lucius, and added the cognomen Nero, meaning, in the Sabine tongue, valiant and strong.

    "The chief authors of his education were Chaeremon the Stoic, who taught him Greek, and Seneca, who taught him literature and morals but not philosophy. Agrippina forbade the last on the ground that it would unfit Nero for government. The result was creditable to philosophy.

    "Like many a teacher, Seneca complained that his labors were thwarted by the mother. The boy would run to her when reproved, and was sure to be comforted. Seneca sought to train him in modesty and courtesy, simplicity and stoicism. If he could not retell to him the doctrines and disputes of the philosophers, he could at least dedicate to him the eloquent philosophical treatises that he was composing, and hope that someday his pupil might read them. The young prince was a good student, wrote forgiveable poetry, and addressed the Senate in the graceful manner of his master.

    "When Claudius died, Agrippina had no great difficulty in securing the confirmation of her son on the throne, especially since her friend Burrus brought to him the full support of the Guard."

    As we move from emperor to emperor within the same family, I begin to see the importance of certain genes being passed along in the Roman Empire. Could one say that this has something to do with the stability of the Empire -- whether for good or evil?

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 14, 2004 - 05:30 pm
    As we have been moving from emperor to emperor to emperor, I find myself intrigued by the spirit of the Empire itself. I find this ARTICLE most enlightening (at least to me) in understanding the character and personality of the Romans themselves.

    Robby

    tooki
    February 14, 2004 - 05:31 pm
    Wow! What a sculpture! I assume she's putting the crown on his head. There's much detail here, and I suppose it's symbolic of all those things that Romans cared about. Justin, I would appreciate a bit of information on the sculpture's construction. Assembled? Pieces carved individually, and then glued together? It seems to be stone, not bronze.

    Scrawler noted above that Agrippina had money. I think that because Roman women could inherit, it's presence gave to those that had it great confidence; they did not have to depend on their menfolk to provide. Interesting what independence will do for a person.

    MaryW: I'll drink to all the enchanted children in Texas tonight.

    tooki
    February 14, 2004 - 10:10 pm
    THIS is an interesting comparison.

    Justin
    February 14, 2004 - 11:29 pm
    The Claudian era sculpture of Nero and Agrippina is an unusual piece.It was probably commissioned by Agrippina in the peaceful early period. The work is in marble and in high relief. The figure of Nero is almost in the round but I suspect he was cut out of a slab. I have not previously seen this sculpture so it's hard to tell from the photo whether it is all one piece or two pieces and its size. It might have been building decoration or a grave stellae or perhaps a sarcophagus end. If Mal has any provenance on the piece it would help.

    A "ruler style" was developed for Augustus and it is applied here, perhaps because Nero associated himself with Augustus and his divinity to establish his right to be emperor. The iconography includes bacanalian symbols of divinity, the ruler style of military dress, a praetorian helmet at his feet, and Agrippina, the empress, in the act of crowning him. He is clearly sixteen and she is clearly a sexy woman.

    The language of gesture; heads engaged, an interactive pair, exceeds that of the Ara Pacis. In fact, the language of this work exceeds that of the Flavian school of sculpture which follows it. This sculpture is an advanced Hellenistic piece of carving well beyond what we normally see in the Claudian era. The drapes are Hellenistic and the tunic of Nero is Augustan. This mode of presentation can be found all over the Roman world- in the provinces and in Rome. It had universal recognition as Augustan dress.

    The question of whether the figures are portraits is an interesting one. The family reliefs on the Ara Pacis are thought to be portraits. This piece follows that one in time and because Nero was interested in art as an artist and his mom was interested in propaganda I suspect the heads closely resemble the pair. Her figure may be idealized to reflect a little of Mother Roma and , of course, he had to fit the image of the Augustan uniform.

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 15, 2004 - 03:58 am
    Can't help you, JUSTIN, but these are some pictures of Roman artwork I found.



    Artwork Rome

    Agrippina and Claudius

    Agrippina by Rubens

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 15, 2004 - 05:34 am
    "Nero rewarded the soldiers with a donative, and gave 400 sesterces to every citizen. He pronounced over his predecessor a eulogy composed by the same Seneca who would soon publish anonymously, a pitiless satire on the late Emperor's rejection from Olympus.

    "Nero made the usual obeisance to the Senate, modestly excused his youth, and announced that of the powers heretofore taken by the prince he would keep only the command of the armies -- a highly practical choice for the pupil of a philosopher. The promise was probably sincere, since Nero kept it faithfully for five years -- that quinquennium Nerois which Trajan later accounted the best period in the history of the imperial government.

    "When the Senate proposed that statues of gold and silver should be raised in his honor, the seventeen-year-old Emperor rejected the offer. When two men were indicted for favoring Britannicus, he had the accusations withdrawn. In a speech to the Senate he pledged himself to observe throughout his reign tht virtue of mercy which Seneca was then extolling in an essay De clementia.

    "Asked to sign a death warrant for a condemned criminal, he signed, 'Would that I had never learned to write!' He abolished or reduced oppressive taxes, and gave annuities to distinguishshed but impoverished senators. Recognizing his immaturity, he allowed Agrippina to administer his affairs. She received embassies, and had her image engraved beside his own on the imperial coins.

    "Alarmed by this matriarchate, Seneca and Burrus consired, by playing upon Nero's pride, to win from her the administration of his powers. The infuriated mother announced that Britannicus was the true heir to the throne, and threatened to unmake her son as decisively as she had made him. Nero countered by having Britannicus poisoned.

    "Agrippina retired to her villa and wrote her Memoirs as a last vindictive stroke -- blackening all the enemies of herself and her mother, and providing Tacitus and Suetonius with that museum of horrors from which they drew the darker colors for their portraits of Tiberius, Clausius, and Nero."

    Am I the only one here who is beginning to think that over the centuries the Empire had empresses, not emperors?

    Robby

    Scrawler
    February 15, 2004 - 09:18 am
    "The chief authors of his education were Charemon the Stoic, who taught him Greek, and Seneca, who taught him literture and morals but not philosophy. Agrippina forbade the last on the ground that it would unfit Nero for government."

    Now how would philosophy be unfit for government. I would think that just the opposite would be true, unless of course Agrippina wanted to be in uncontrol of her son.

    "As we move from emperor to emperor within the same family, I begin to see the importance of certain genes being passed along in the Roman Empire. Could one say that this has something to do with the stability of the Empire - whether for good or evil?"

    Interesting question. Are we born with certain "genes" that could make us good or evil? Does this mean if our parents were of the criminal element that we will be too? I think that some people could have some tendancies from birth within themselves to make them "evil", but I think that environment contributes more to the situation than whether or not a person is born evil. Of course if you had a mother like Agrippina I think in order to survive you might find yourself doing some things that you might wish you wouldn't have to do: "Asked to sign a death warrant for a condemned criminal, he signed, "Would that I had never learned to write!"

    "Am I the only one here who is beginning to think that over the centuries the Empire had empresses, not emperpors?"

    What is the saying: "Behind every man there is a woman." I think through history there have always been strong women. Perhaps this was because the emperors or kings have either been too young, too old, or too sick. If you are sick or hurt who is the first person you run to? "The boy would run to her when reproved, and was sure to be conforted."

    "Agrippina retired to her villa wrote her Memoirs as a last vindictive stroke - blackening all the enemies of herself and her mother, and providing Tacitus and Suetonius with that museum of horrors from which they drew the darker colors for their portraits of Tiberius, Causius, and Nero."

    Ah! Perhaps the above statement would mean that they were better than reported. If left alone, would the Empire had benefited from these men without the influence of their wives and mothers?

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 15, 2004 - 10:00 am
    Scrawler:--Regarding the oft-quoted phrase: "Behind every man there is a woman,' I have been watching here women who were not only often by the side of the Emperor, but at times in front of him.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 15, 2004 - 10:07 am
    Well folks, we are about to reach the 1000th posting (for the third time) in "Caesar and Christ." We will just continue right on when the "technies" move us to another page but be sure to SUBSCRIBE when you get there.

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 15, 2004 - 10:19 am
    "Says Tacitus:-'At a time when vice had charms for all orders of men, it was not expected that the sovereign should lead a life of austerity and self-denial.' Nor could religious belief encourge Nero to morality. A smattering of philosophy had liberated his intellect without maturing his judgment. Says Suetonius:-'He despised all cults and voided his bladder upon an image of the goddess whom he most respected, Cybele.'

    "His instincts inclined him to excessive eating, exotic desires, extravagant banquets where the flowers alone cost 4,000,000 sesterces.' Only misers, he said, counted what they spent. He admired and envied Caius Petronius, for that rich aristocarat taught him new ways of combining vice with taste.

    "Nero was not subtle enough to achieve artistic epicureanism. He disguised himself and visited brothels. He roamed the streets and frequented taverns at night with the comrades of his mood, robbing shops, insulting women, 'practicing lewdness on boys, stripping those whom they encountered, striking, wounding, murdering.' A senator who defended himself vigorously against the disguised Emperor was soon afterward forced to kill himself.

    "Seneca sought to divert the royal lust by condoning Nero's relations with an ex-slave, Claudia Acte. But Acte was too faithful to him to keep his affections. He soon exchanged her for a woman of superlative refinement in all the ways of love. Poppaea Sabina was of high family and great wealth. Says Tacitus, 'She had everything except an honest mind.' She was one of those women who spend all the day in adorning their persons, and exist only when they are desired.

    "Her husband, Salvius Otho, boasted of her beauty to Nero. The Emperor at once commissioned him to govern Lusitania (Portugal), and laid siege to Poppaea. She refused to be his mistress, but agreed to be his wife if he would divorce Occtavia."

    The imperial genes continue.

    Robby

    kiwi lady
    February 15, 2004 - 03:53 pm
    Why do so many madmen ascend to great heights of power? All through history and even today, we have had and do have madmen in charge. Ye Gads! What is wrong with us? Surely we have grown enough to pick up on this fact. As for Nero he truly was a product of his upbringing. The influence a mother has on her child is enormous. I believe wholeheartedly if we do not learn to think for ourselves at an early age and learn self discipline nothing is going to change - not in my lifetime. Its depressing to live in 2004. There are days when I wonder if we will survive this century.

    Justin
    February 15, 2004 - 06:04 pm
    Who are the madmen in government? Are they few and far between the rational governors who may be power driven and who thus cause great damage to society? Was Napoleon mad? What about Hitler? Think about Saddam and the Shah. Was it madness that caused Saddam to resist inspections? Was Stalin mad when he purged his colleagues? How about Phillip ll? Torquemada, the Dominican? Savonarola? All these guys dealt in excesses but is that madness? Roosevelt thought Stalin was rational. Is madness an absence of rationality?

    I wonder how much of the madness we see in Gaius and in Nero is due to inbreeding. I realize maternal encouragement and the opportunity, as well as the violent character of the culture contributed. But weak strains in the blood line are multiplied by in breeding. Both Gaius and Nero appeared to be rational, though young, when they assumed command. It was only later that they showed irresponsible cruelties. Robby,this is your field. The behaviorists must have given this period in history some thought.

    kiwi lady
    February 15, 2004 - 07:56 pm
    Justin I prefer to think those people you mentioned were madmen rather than just plain evil.

    Malryn (Mal)
    February 15, 2004 - 08:49 pm
    What about the Divine Right of Kings? What did that do to our Western civilization?

    Mal

    tooki
    February 15, 2004 - 10:20 pm
    I don't think it's madness, nor the thin blood that comes from over breeding, or the wretched women behind the men, or as Robby notes, two steps ahead, that made these folks behave the way they did.

    After the downfall of the Republic and the institution of the Emperorship, it became necessary to force one's claim to it. There were so many legitimate heirs that scheming, plotting, and killing were the only ways to get it.

    The clew to the evilness that ensued is the complete lack of thinking of the participants. As Hannah Arendt observed in her book about the Eichmann trial, the banality of evil is about the thoughtlessness that allows it to happen.

    The habit of thinking about things, she observed and I agree, means examining and reflecting upon whatever come to pass. This kind of thinking seems to condition men against evildoing. To have the moral depth necessary to contemplate one's behavior, thinking is necessary.

    These trashy Roman rulers are embodiments of thoughtlessness. I wonder what it will take to bring them to their senses.

    Thank you, Justin, for the discussion and details of that sculpture.

    Justin
    February 15, 2004 - 10:55 pm
    I think you and Hannah are onto something Tooki. I note a casual off-handedness about the way the emperors deal with murder and execution. The process does not seem to be one of thoughtful, responsible,( if that is an ok word here) killing. Suicide, banishment, and murder are just three of the tools used by emperors to secure their authority and their daily peace of mind.

    Why did Nero order the execution of his mum? Was she just a pain in the ass or was she a realistic threat to Nero's control of the empire. Early in his reign she handled the empire. He handled the ceremony and the fun stuff. Senneca caused the change that made mama a threat. Then Mama made Nero insecure and caused the death of Britainicus and herself. Was Nero mad because he killed his mama? No, Hannah would say, it was just pya.

    Consider the joy Nero experienced when he was able to watch the agaonizing deaths of the Christians from his own back porch. Was that just part of the culture or was it Nero's special quirk?

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 16, 2004 - 05:18 am
    Does being "rational" simply mean doing things the way I, or my friends, think they should be done? Would Saddam or Stalin consider the Roman Emperors irrational?

    Robby

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 16, 2004 - 05:32 am
    "Octavia had borne the transgressions of Nero silently, and had preserved her own modesty and chastity amid the stream of sexual license in which she had been forced to live from her birth. It is to the honor of Agrippina that she lost her life in defending Octavia against Poppaea. She used every plea against the proposed divorce, even, says Tacitus, to offering her own charms to her son.

    "Poppaea fought back with hers and won. Youth was served. She taunted Nero with being afraid of his mother, and led him to believe that Agrippina was plotting his fall. Finally, in the madness of his infatuation, he consented to kill the woman who had borne him and given him half the world.

    "He thought of poisoning her, but she had guarded against this by the habitual use of antidotes. He tried to have her drowned, but she swam to safety from the shipwreck he had arranged. His men pursued her to her villa.

    "When they seized her she bared her body and said, 'Plunge your sword into my womb.' It took many blows to kill her. The Emperor, viewing the uncovered corpse, remarked, 'I did not know I had so beautiful a mother.' Seneca, it is said, had no share in the plot. But the saddest lines in the history of philosophy tell how he penned the letter in which Nero explained to the Senate how Agrippina had plotted against the Prince and, being detected, had killed herself.

    "The Senate gracefully accepted the explanation, came in a body to greet Nero returning to Rome, and offerd thanks to the gods for having kept him safe."

    Durant says that Nero was mad but "mad with infatuation." As we look at today's news, is it that extraordinary that men kill due to their lust? Hasn't it ever been thus? Perhaps the difference here was that the man doing so was an Emperor of a culture where murder was common.

    Robby

    tooki
    February 16, 2004 - 07:35 am
    I suppose I'll be embarrassed when you tell me what it means, Justin. But I don't have a clew.

    "Responsible killing," is an OK term. Hannah would accept it; so would, I think, Heidigger, her teacher. I accept it as a descriptive term here because, in my view, Caesar and Augustus killed in pursuit of the glory, power, and everlastingness of the mighty Empire. There was little personal thoughtlessness in their killing. Augustus killed Celeopatra's children because they were a threat to Rome, not to him personally. Nero's killing of his mother was a personal thing.

    These are strange nits to be picking, aren't they. But to scream in horror at all killing is to miss the point of history. N'est-ce pas?

    Scrawler
    February 16, 2004 - 10:13 am
    All of us at one time or another are ruled by "passion". Passion, according to the dictionary is the "the state or capacity of being acted on by external agents or forces - emotions as distinguished from reason." Passion is what makes us write, sing, dance, or make love, but when it goes to the extreme it can also be deadly. In Nero's case according to Durant "Nero was mad but "mad with infatuation."

    An example of such an extreme action came in 58 AD. Nero became enamored of Poppaea Sabina, a young woman of noble birth who was married to Otho, a noted member of the Roman aristocracy. The Emperor now proposed to mary Poppaea, but two things stood in his way: adverse public opinion over the divorce of Octavia, and his mother, Agrippina. Agrippina's oposition was removed by her murder in 59, and public horror at the crime was diverted by successful campaign against the Pathians and the conquest of Armenia, as well as the quelling of revolt in Britain.

    "Madness" according to the dictionary is the quality or state of being mad: as rage, insanity, extreme folly, ecstacy, or ethusiasm. According to the above statement were men like Hitler, Napoleon, or Stalin mad? Did their own countries recognize them as madmen or was it the outside world that saw them as such. Did the Romans see Nero as mad or was he considered a god and therefore his actions accepted? Where would the Roman people draw that fine line between madness and genius?

    Justin
    February 16, 2004 - 05:02 pm
    Tooki; PYA means "protect your rear."

    One of Nero's weaknesses was his gullibility. He was not uneducated. Seneca was his teacher. But he must have believed what Poppea told him without weighing the thought in his mind. He had the facts in his hands. He knew what his mother had achieved for him. How could he think she wanted to replace him? The only possible replacement was Britanicus and Nero removed him. Lust is an ok motivation for an inexperienced teenager but for a man with a harem at his beck and call, it does not seem enough inducement to dispense with a proven supporter, especially one's mum. He knew he would be alone with only Seneca to guide him. Rational people do not cut one's legs off for a tantalizing flit. It's not the killing that bothers me. It's the removal of a recognized asset that is troublesome.

    tooki
    February 16, 2004 - 05:21 pm
    I KNEW I would be embarrassed; how could I not see its meaning? Ah,well, I was always more familiar with it being spoken.

    HERE'S another opera and painting I know nothing about. It's amazing what I'm learning here.

    POPPEA looks like most snotty, rich sixteen year olds to me. She must have enjoyed all the fuss she created.

    robert b. iadeluca
    February 16, 2004 - 06:55 pm
    "It is hard to believe that this matricide was a youth of twenty-two with a passion for poetry, music, art, drama, and athletic games. He admired the Greeks for their varied contests of physical and artistic ability, and sought to introduce like competitions to Rome.

    "In 59 he instituted the ludi iuvenales, or Youth Games, and a year later he inaugurated the Neronia on the model of the quadrenial festival at Olympia, with contests in horse racing, athletics, and 'music' -- which included oratory and poetry. He built an amphitheater, a gymnasium, and a magnificent public bath. He practiced gymnastics with skill, became an enthusiastic charioteer, and finally decided to compete in the games. To his philhellenic mind this seemed not only proper, but in the best tradition of Greek antiquity. Seneca thought it ridiculous, and tried to confine the imperial exhibitions to a private stadium. Nero overruled him and invited the public to witness his performance.

    "It came, and applauded lustily.

    "Having every power, he longed also for every accomplishment. It is to his credit that he applied himself with painstaking seriousness to engraving, painting, sculpture, music, and poetry.

    "To improve his singing 'he used to lie upon his back with a leaden plate upon his chest, purge himself by a syringe or by vomiting, and deny himself fruits and all foods injurious to the voice.' On certain days, for the same purpose, he ate nothing but garlic and olive oil.

    "One evening he summoned the foremost senators to his palace, showed them a new water organ, and lectured to them on its theory and construction. He was so fascinated by the music which Terpnos drew from the harp that he spent entire nights with him in practicing on that instrument.

    "He gathered artists and poets about him, competed with them in his palace, compared his paintings with theirs, listened to their poetry, and read his own. He was deceived by their praise, and when an astrologer predicted that he would lose his throne, he replied cheerfully that he would then make a living by his art.

    "He dreamed of performing publicly in one day on the water organ, the flute, and the pipes, and then appearing as actor and dancer in the part of Virgil's Turnus. In 59 he gave a semipublic concert as a harpist (citharoedus) in his gardens on the Tiber.

    "For five years more he controlled his longing for a larger audience. At last he dared it in Naples. There the Greek spirit ruled, and the people would forgive and understand him. The auditorium was so overcrowded for his exhibition that it crumbled to pieces shortly after the audience had left. Encouraged, the young Emperor appeared as singer and harpist in the great theater of Pompey at Rome (65). In these recitals he sang poems apparently composed by himself. Some fragments have survived and show a moderate talent.

    "Besides many lyrics, he wrote a long epic on Troy (with Paris as hero), and began a still longer one on Rome. To complete his versatility, he came upon the boards as an actor, playing the roles of Oedipus, Heracles, Alemacon, even the matricide Orestes.

    "The populace was delighted to have an emperor entertain it and kneel on the stage, as custom required, to ask for its applause. It took up the songs that Nero sang and repeated them in the taverns and the streets. His enthusiasm for music spread through all ranks.

    "His popularity, instead of waning, grew."

    From time to time over the centuries artistic ability and emotional illness has been shown to exist together. Do we have here an artist in the guise of an "emperor?"

    Robby

    kiwi lady
    February 16, 2004 - 08:50 pm
    Yes Robby you are right some very sick people are extremely creative. I often wonder if its the sickness that gives the creativity. I have known quite a few people with bi polar disorder who are tremendously talented and creative - almost a genius in whatever medium they chose to work with.

    Carolyn

    Justin
    February 16, 2004 - 11:18 pm
    Monteverdi is one of the earliest opera composers. He was writing music in 1600 at the height of the Baroque. I saw and heard Poppea performed in San Francisco in 1975, I think. It was probably the last time for the opera in SanFrancisco because I don't recall it ever appearing again. Early operas tended to be singing versions of Greek Drama. Monteverdi changed all that. His characters were historical- Poppea, Seneca, Nero, Ottavia, etc. The story line is not historical but all the cruelty of Nero and the snottiness of Poppea are the moving parts. Poppea a courtesan, has a former lover who contributes. Ottavia is divorced and put to sea to die. Seneca suicides on the orders of Nero. And in the last scene Nero and Poppea sing a love duet and prepare for a little whoop de do. I made some notes at the time because the opera was so unusual otherwise I would not have been able to recall very much.

    The painting is probably by Francois Boucher or a member of his school. Boucher studied in Rome in the 1730's and painted some of the most voluptuous gals in the art world. This one is reminiscent of Janet Jackson but with more volume.

    Scrawler
    February 17, 2004 - 10:39 am
    "Do we have here an artist in the guise of an "emperor"?

    Having lived with an artist for 28 years I can vouch that he showed both the signs of the artist in him and that of a man mentally tormented. Both contributed toward his success as a landscape artist. I saw both the beauty and the torment in his paintings. Therefore, I'd have to answer "yes" I think we do have an artist in the guise of an "emperor".

    jane
    February 17, 2004 - 02:57 pm
    It's time again to move to a new discussion area.

    This part of SOC will be archived, as have all the past parts.

    This present discussion is now READ ONLY.

    To get to the new discussion and post Click here!

    jane