The only people who advocated any largescale freeing of slaves were the slaves themselves, and they tended to do so by largescale slave uprisings. Of course, individual slaves could be freed. The most notable freedman at that time period was probably Cicero’s slave Tiro (has he shown up yet?)
There were one or two aristocratic Romans around the time shown who did suggest the freeing of slaves; but it was more like a suggestion for a utopia than a serious idea. Slavery was an accepted norm in the ancient world - maybe one day you owned slaves, the next day your city was conquered and you were a slave. Of more concern was the clash between the Senate and the plebs. The Senate more or less ran things like Tony Soprano would, and they were horrified that one of their own - Caesar - would be a champion of the common people. Pompey was, I think, at one time a populares too. So was the infamous Cataline that we all know from Cicero. Read Parenti’s book, the Assasination of Julius Caesar for an interesting take on the time.
I think you overestimate the extent to which many of us have a classical education. In other words, I’ve never read Cicero and I’ve got a decent education.
What exactly is Cato’s story? He seems to be different than simply another senator and is always dreassed in black. What’s up?
What was Atia’s motivation in making Servilia and Caesar’s affair public?
Was she getting back at him for refusing her dinner invitations? Did she want to break them up to give her daughter a shot at him? Did she realize that it was his lust for Servilia that was keeping him from pursuing Pompey?
Was it personal or political?
I really like the attention they’re paying to the religious aspects, assuming it’s accurate.
I’m wondering why Octavius and Pullo cared so much about Virenus being cuckolded, especially Octavius. Any thoughts? Was he just bored?
What I took away was that she wanted Caesar to attack Pompey, but Caesar wasn’t going anywhere with Servilia around. When she made their affair public, she knew that Calpurnia (sp?) wouldn’t stand for the public humiliation and force Caesar to disown Servilia.
My WAG is that Pullo regards Virenus as a friend - it’s guy code. Octavius is probably just bored.
My WAG is that Pullo regards Virenus as a friend - it’s guy code. Octavius is probably just bored.
I think Pullo was probably just trying to verify his suspicions and decide whether to tell Vorenus. I think that he probably originally just intended to rough the dude up a little bit and scare the truth out of him but that Octavian turned out to be far more ruthless than anything Pullo was expecting.
I didn’t get a sense that Octavian was motivated by any real personal vindictiveness, but that he was simply following what he thought that Roman honor dictated. He may also still feel some gratitude to Vorenus for saving him from the kidnapper and saw this as a way to pay him back- to give him his honor even if Vorenus himself was unaware of it.
I saw it more as a tit-for-tat: Pullo is teaching Octavius how to fight, and Octavius is helping Pullo get the information he needs. Pullo needed Octavius’ devious and ruthless mind for a task like that.
Here’s a fairly interesting and informed discussion of that very issue:
http://boards.hbo.com/thread.jspa?threadID=600002626&messageID=600460121&start=0
I get my information from the Colleen McCullough’s First Man in Rome series, so take it with a grain of salt.
Cato is the conservative’s conservative. The black cloak he wears is supposed to be what the Senators of olde wore before adopting the toga. Which gives you a sense how much he values tradition over change
Finally got round to seeing this episode. I had a suspicion that Antony had a part in offing the slaves, thereby leading Vorenus back into his service. Not that he or his henchmen could effectively control plague, but they could have used poison and forced a story on the slave wrangler. I wasn’t sure after he left his generous offer to return mostly intact, I thought Antony (as he is portrayed here) would be more likely to stick it to Vorenus when he was vulnerable. Perhaps Antony realized that would have been a bad move, though wisdom seems a bit lost on him.
I’m liking the show more each week, this episode was very strong.
Just watched this on TiVo.
The show has gone from interesting to riveting. At first I was leery of yet another treatment of the fall-of-the-Republic-rise-of-the-Empire period, which seems to be the setting for three out of four Roman dramas, but they’re doing a bang-up job of it. Spectacular cast, great design, lots of effort to stay true to the period. Great stuff.
I also noted Atia spitting out her cherry pit, and the slave catching it and putting it in her own mouth. It’s unclear whether the slave has been ordered to clean off the pits, or if she likes eating the last bit of clinging fruit and Atia tolerates it as an amusement. Either way it’s interesting.
One thing I didn’t quite catch: When the slavemaster guy was offering the job to Vorenus, he said something along the lines of, “I could take you on myself, and show you _____.” It sounded like he said “show you the onions.” I listed to it a couple of times, and I couldn’t quite make sense of it. What did he say there? And if he did say “show you the onions,” is that some sort of ancient colloquialism?
(Sort of like how “the ram has touched the wall” came up in conversation. Speaking of which, what does that mean? Google is no help; I just get endless lists of sites mentioning the show title.)
I took it to mean ram as in battering ram, not the animal. As in, once you’ve started trying to batter down the gate to a city or fortress you can’t pull back and offer truce. You’ve got to finish the job and either conquer it or die trying. Caesar had Pompey on the run, and he couldn’t allow Pompey’s forces to slip away unharried while he held the advantage.
The ram would be the device used to break down walls or gates when storming a city. So if the ram has touched the wall, it would seem to mean that a turning point has been reached, there are no more negotiations, or one can’t turn back.
Cato is wearing a black toga (and is naked underneath it and barefoot) in protest against people who dressed ostentatiously or fashionably. He was the leader of the “Optimates”…the conservative senatorial faction, and of the belief that modern Roman society was hopelessly corrupt…that modern Romans were more concerned with luxury than morality. He protested things like bribery, Greek education, governmental spending on the poor, the high price of slaves, modern fashion, and so on and so forth. So, a lot of his actions, like the way he dressed, were just to be contrary.
Cato also had the reputation as “the only honest man in Rome”. He didn’t bribe, didn’t flatter, didn’t play favorites, and was known to be honest to the point of tactlessness.
The theory I’ve heard behind togas is that it is physically impossible to undo a loincloth while wrapped in a toga, so Roman men had to be bare underneath if they wanted to be able to relieve themselves without soiling their garments.
Also, I thought, unlike Greece, male homosexuality was much frowned upon in Rome, and could cost you politically. For Atia to be praising her son for 1) possibly being gay and 2)with his own great-uncle seemed rather odd.
Why a grain of salt? The woman did 12 years of research before setting pen to paper, so although she may have rounded out the stories a bit I think a lot of her writing is based in fact.
Because a lot of the time, she sacrifices historical accuracy for dramatic purposes, she sometimes gives her characters anachronistic viewpoints, and she’s so pro-Caesar it’s laughable. They’re good novels, though.
No amount of research on her part would have made me feel completely comfortable referencing a work of fiction.
I knew she did a lot of research and I enjoyed the series immensely.
Do ancient historians pooh-pooh her work?
::shrugs::