When I teach Roman history, students often ask, “So is he good or bad?” It is fascinating that there is this part in them and me that wants to look at figures in history and make heroes or villains out of them. Do I root for Augustus or Marc Antony? Is Julius Caesar the bad guy, or is Brutus? Claudius was good, wasn’t he? This happens in the movies, too. In Cleopatra, to cite one example, Marc Antony is the lover and Octavian the power-hungry tyrant.

The reality is that almost none of these figures in Roman history were the “good” guys. They were pedophiles, womanizers, brutal to subordinates, dealers of death on massive scales, persecutors of Jews and Christians, and elitists. These sins don’t negate the fact that they were brilliant generals, moving speakers, defenders of the people, etc., but almost every one of these major figures had a closet full of skeletons. One very good portrayal of this grim fact is the HBO series Rome.

So who is the good guy? Who knows? But I still root for Augustus.

In my quest for a film about the fall of the Roman republic, I came across the made-for-tv movie Imperium:  Augustus (2003), a 200-minute British-Italian production by EOS Entertainment, Lux Vide, and other little-known groups. This ambitious project begins in the middle of Augustus’s (Peter O’Toole’s) reign, and through a series of flashbacks, it tells the story of Octavian’s journey to absolute power, beginning with his relationship to Julius Caesar. I liked this format. Not only do students get to learn about Marc Antony, Cleopatra, and the rest, but they are also exposed to characters of Augustus’s later life, like Julia, Livia, Iulus, Gaius and Lucius.

Augustus’s relationship with Julia serves as a framework for the rest of the story.  Most of the flashbacks take place as he speaks with her, one when he tells her the news of her husband Agrippa’s death, and another as he tries to explain to her that marriage with Tiberius will save Rome from civil war. Like Augustus, Julia must wrestle with putting Rome ahead of her personal life. She has no interest in Tiberius and has begun to have an affair with Iulus, son of Marc Antony, who at first wants to use her as a  tool to avenge his father’s death but later truly falls in love with her. Unlike Augustus, Julia chooses not to sacrifice herself for Rome and is banished after a failed assassination attempt that she had knowledge of.

I have a lot of criticisms to offer. First, the movie comes across as pretty cheesy largely because many of the roles–Cicero, Julia, and the young Livia–were played by actors and actresses who are clearly not native English speakers. While their speech is pretty free of accents, there is something off and unnatural about their tone.

Secondly, Cicero is villainized, portrayed as an elitist who only wants to keep power in the hands of the priviliged few. I suppose this could be argued, but usually, the “new man” Cicero is admired for defending a republican government, imperfect and unrepresentative though it may have been. When he is killed, the film makers try to present him heroically faceing death but fail (heroically).

Similarly, Julius Caesar is pictured as a fatherly man toward Octavian, and he works side by side with his men. While he may have been these things, I think this is a simplistic look at a man who could kill over a million Gauls, who could work the crowd, and who had obvious aspirations for power.

A third thing I did not like about the film was Julia’s drama over marrying Tiberius, rather than the man she loves. The 20th century idea that marriage should be for love did not really come into play with these guys. It was all about political benefit or advancement.

There were other things I did not like. Peter O’Toole is too old to be playing Augustus at this point in his (Augustus’s) life. Maecenas is over the top in his flamboyance. Major events are hurried because the film is a too ambitious in the amount of history covered.

Bottom Line:  This movie has value for presenting people and events often left uncovered by other movies, but the cheese factor can be overbearing and the movie tries to do too much in too little time. My grade is a C.

(Sigh.) If only HBO’s Rome had an edited version for schools…

Cable network Starz has announced its intentions to retell the Spartacus story in thirteen episodes. Producers Rob Tapert and Steven S. DeKnight envision a much grittier version than the original film by Stanley Kubrick, this one filled with explicit violence and sexuality. Indications are that the upcoming tv series will be in the same style as 300 or Sin City, and that the filming will be done exclusively with a green screen. Though a lead actor has yet to be chosen, filming should take place this spring and the series should air shortly thereafter.

I am always excited to learn of upcoming films about the Romans or Greeks, but I am less interested in this series because of the producers’ attitude (see first source below). They seem a little too excited about their relative freedom from censorship at Starz, and to me, that means there is going to be A LOT of violence and sex. I don’t mind that some films try to be historically accurate to a point (and sometimes I wander why it necessary to graphically show historical accuracy), but I do mind it when they show tons of explicit violence and sex solely because they can or because of a puerile fascination with it. Of course, the extreme content automatically disqualifies this series from being shown in my classroom (or even recommended).

Also, I am put off by the proposed artistic style of this series. Sure, films like 300 or Sin City look interesting stylistically (I have seen neither of them, though). However, I would think it would be tiresome to watch thirteen episodes in this style. There is something to be said, in my opinion, for movies that prefer to film as naturalistically as possible. Go to Italy and film, guys. Don’t simply reproduce everything on computer, George Lucas-style.

Hopefully, I will keep up to date on future developments.

Sources: http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/01/starz-spartacus-remake-.html and http://ausxip.com/spartacus/

*Update:  The title role will be played by Andy Whitfield. Lucy Lawless (Xena: Warrior Princess) has also signed on as the proprietor of the gladiator school. Source:  comingsoon.net

Andy Whitfield

Cnn.com reports that archaeologists in Jerusalem have discovered another precious object in the remains of a building that may have been a hostel. At six by four centimeters, marble bust of an athlete, probably a boxer, is a tiny but detailed artifact of the second or third century A. D.  The archaeologists believe the object was used as a weight for a scale.

The other two artifacts found at the same site are stash of 264 gold coins and a pearl necklace.

This year I opted for the Latin For Americans textbooks instead of the Oxford Latin Course.

Here is why I do not like the Oxford Latin Course.

1.  The future tense is taught in Chapter 27, which is in the second book. (Book II starts with Chapter 17.) This means that my students were learning the future tense in their second year and missing any questions having to do with the future on their National Latin Exam, unless I quickly ran through it. By contrast, the Latin For Americans textbook teaches the future tense for the first and second conjugations in Lesson 6 (covered in the first nine weeks) and the future tense for the third and fourth conjugations in Lessons 32 and 34 (covered in the third nine weeks). Separating the two formations of the future is another improvement because the students are not overwhelmed by the two sets of endings.

2.  The introduction of grammar in general is too slow-paced. Working through the three Oxford books, I usually complete the grammar halfway through Latin 3.

Additionally, the Oxford books are divided into two halves. The first introduces vocabulary, has a lengthy translation, and describes some aspect of Roman culture. The second section, located at the back of the book, is an explanation of grammar. I think that the authors’ intent for this strange division was to emphasize learning Latin through immersion in reading, but I do not believe this works very well. I also think the explanations of the grammatical concepts are not thorough enough.

3.  The Oxford Latin Course readings are a continuous story, following the life of Quintus Horatius Flaccus (Horace) from his childhood in Venusia to his death in Rome. The editors actually do a great job with this story, taking advantage of every opportunity to tell us about Roman life and the events of this particular period of history, which includes the assassination of Julius Caesar, the defeat of Brutus (and Horace, too, who fights in his army), the Battle of Actium (Quintus hears reports about this event), and the rise of Augustus. In the third book, readers learn about poetry as Horace meets Maecenas, Vergil, and Propertius. I applaud the editors for all the information they are able to cover while writing a continuous story following one Roman’s life, and part of me actually enjoys this about the Oxford books.

On the other hand, however, confining the story to Horace’s life, no matter how creative the editors are, confines the variety of things that Latin students get to read about. In Latin For Americans, the selections cover a broad area of topics and gives the editors more freedom.

4.  The Oxford books can have very lengthy readings and long vocabulary lists with each chapter. The readings and vocabulary of LFA are much shorter and more varied. I find that students get bored if a story goes on and on.

5.  Although the Oxford books cover the Trojan War and Aeneas’s love affair with Dido pretty well (Horace’s grammaticus tells these stories to his students), they do neglect the adventures of Odysseus and the other events of the Aeneid. The Oxford books also tell the Cupid and Psyche story well, but that is the extent of the mythology.

I am not altogether against the Oxford books. As noted above, I appreciate the variety of subjects that they accomplished within the framework of the Horace story. I especially appreciate the cultural explanations that accompany each chapter. And the readings, while lengthy, do immerse the students with Latin, which probably accustoms many of them to Latin prose. As a whole, however, I am glad to put down the Oxford textbooks.

Stay tuned for the end of the year, when I hope to review the Latin For Americans textbooks.

Frequently, as I display text from a microsoft document on my smartboard, students ask me how I am able to type the vowels with macrons over them (those long marks that distinguish long vowels from short). Well, the long and short of it is (sorry, I just couldn’t resist the pun), I programmed my computer to make a vowel long when I type that vowel while holding down the Alt button. For any teachers who do not already know how to do this, simply do the following:

1.  From a Microsoft Word document, select the ”Insert” tab and then choose ”Symbol.”

2.  From the wide array of symbols, click once on the “ā.”

3.  With the symbols box still open, click on the “Shortcut Key…” box toward the bottom.

4.  A “Customize Keyboard” window will appear. In the “Press New Shortcut Key” box, type in “a” while holding down the Alt button. (Of course, you can choose anything you like here, like Ctrl A or Shift A.)

5.  Lastly, select “Assign,” then “Close,” and repeat for the other vowels.

I hope this is helpful.

 (Warning:  Spoilers below!)

As an AP:Vergil teacher, I was excited to discover Lavinia by Ursula K. LeGuin, and I have even considered adding it to the curriculum for the class. Told from the perspective of the Latin princess Lavinia, future wife of Aeneas, this book retells the events of the last six books of the Aeneid and also imagines the reigns of Aeneas’s two sons, Ascanius and Silvius.

There are three things I especially liked about Lavinia. The first is that LeGuin paints a vivid picture of Roman religion. There are no Greek gods in her Italy, only the earthy rites and festivals of wild, unhuman Roman gods. Since religion permeated a Roman’s life, it plays a prominent feature throughout this story also. As much as students enjoy the Greek pantheon with its colorful escapades, I find the more simple, spiritual religion of the Romans to be more interesting. Reading this book will help expose them to Roman religion untainted by Greek mythology.

The second thing I enjoyed about Lavinia was that LeGuin imagines her main character meeting a dying Vergil in a series of visions that Lavinia has in the forests of Albunea. Vergil learns what a fascinating and strong character Lavinia is, and he regrets his marginalization of her in the Aeneid. For her part, Lavinia learns about the future glory of Rome and the past glory of her soon-to-be husband Aeneas. However, knowledge of the future has a price, as Lavinia learns when Vergil informs her that Aeneas will rule in Italy for only three years. I thought it was a nice touch to have the poet interact with his poem.

Finally, I especially enjoyed LeGuin’s take on the death of Aeneas. After the war with the Latins, Aeneas is constantly haunted by his refusal to show mercy to Turnus. LeGuin gives him a chance to redeem himself. In the third summer of his reign in Lavinia, Aeneas and some soldiers investigate some minor raids on the borders of his kingdom. They encounter and overpower one of the bands, and Aeneas pins one of the raiders, a teenager, to the ground with his sword. He is about to kill him, but when the young man begs for mercy, he yields. Aeneas lets him go, but as he runs away, the young man picks up a discarded spear and hurls it through Aeneas’s back.

LeGuin has an interesting take on Ascanius. Although he loves his father, he feels the need to emerge from the long shadow cast by him. Proud and impatient, Ascanius lacks his father’s tact and frequently stirs up conflict with the Italian tribes surrounding the Latins. He turns out to be a bad ruler. Aeneas’s true heir is Silvius, his son with Lavinia. Reserved and brave like his father, Silvius emerges from Lavinium as a co-ruler with Ascanius whose power and affection among the Latins waxes as Ascanius’s wanes.

What I do not like about this book is LeGuin’s retelling of the war between the Latins and the Trojans. Because the story is given from Lavinia’s point of view, the fighting is told almost exclusively from reports that the princess receives from others who witness it. Hardly anything is added to Vergil’s version and the story becomes boring. Thankfully, there is much more to Lavinia than the Italian war.

All in all, I enjoyed Lavinia. I appreciated that LeGuin did not try to change the story by making Aeneas into some kind of tyrant, and I enjoyed her take on the character of Lavinia and the events that followed Aeneas’s death. B

From oncampus.richmond.edu

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has written an article for Newsweek titled, “Building Back:  How Investment In Infrastructure Will Boost the Economy.” In it, he makes the following quote about Rome:

America has failed to invest in its infrastructure for the past 50 years, and the bill is coming due. The situation is reminiscent of the ancient Roman Empire, which grew strong because of its advanced aqueduct system, but which fell into decline when that feat of engineering tumbled into disrepair. We’re in danger of repeating that history, but it’s not too late to fix the problem if we take decisive action now.

At first, I smirked to myself when I heard this comment on the radio. I thought that the governor was blowing smoke, trying to sound knowledgable by making a cliched comparison between the United States and the Roman Empire. Then, however, I found an article that says that the aqueducts’ exposure to enemy attacks did in fact contribute to the empire’s defeat at the hands of invading barbarians. Rome’s first aqueduct was built underground, but when the city grew more confident, it began building others above ground. Later, when the barbarian tribes began invading the empire, the aqueducts were an easy and strategic target, making defense more difficult.

Of course, all of that is still a far cry from suggesting that the disrepair of the aqueducts was the cause of Rome’s fall, but at least Schwarzenegger wasn’t totally off.

The second article I linked to above, titled “Four Things the Roman Aqueducts Can Teach Us About Securing the Power Grid,” is a great example for Latin students of how the Roman Empire still holds sway over current affairs. It compares Rome’s aqueduct system and our own electric power grid, observing that the structure of the aqueducts contributed to Rome’s vulnerability just as our own electrical system makes us vulnerable.

As with Ben Hur, this 1950’s Hollywood portrayel does disservice to the book, but unlike Ben Hur, it is not very enjoyable. The plot is diminished, the touching moments are gone, and the action sequences do not fully measure up. Students will find the dialogue unnatural, the action scenes laughable, and the fire unimpressive, and their reactions are primarily due to the huge gap between 1950’s cinema goers and today’s generation of movie viewers, who demand special effects and realism.

My grade, a D.

Quo Vadis by Henryk Sienkiewicz is about a Roman general  named Vinicious who falls in love with the young Christian Lygia, a hostage being kept in the home of a kind, respected family. When Vinicious converts to Christianity, his love for Lygia is threatened by the persecutions of Nero.

Quo Vadis does an expert job of describing Roman culture and history during the reign of Nero. Readers will learn about the people and events of this historical period and encounter great descriptions of:  the emperor’s lavish dinner, Nero’s infatuation with his own artistic ability, the group of flatterers surrounding the emperor, early Christianity in Rome, the monstrous fire of Rome, and the severity of the Christians’ persecution under Nero. The only historical inaccuracy that I caught was that Sienkiewicz makes Nero responsible for the fire that consumes Rome.

Students will not enjoy the slow pace of the book or the formal dialogue. They may or may not be touched like I was by tender scenes of forgiveness, repentance, loyalty, and self-sacrifice, but they will surely find the descriptions of Christian torture interesting and the episode of Ursus defeating the bull in the arena exciting.

I give the book a B.