The History Book Club discussion
ROMAN EMPIRE -THE HISTORY...
>
1. HF - THE FIRST MAN IN ROME - THE FIRST YEAR (1 - 95) (09/06/10 - 09/12/10) ~ No spoilers, please
date
newest »
newest »
At least the wife showed a little dignity by being put off by the whole thing, at least at first. Romans - everything is negotiable.
Mod
It will be interesting to see how the strategy plays out over the novel. Caesar has a lot of goals he wants to play out with this marriage. I am sure there will be twists and turns ahead. I also suspect we are being set up in these early pages for other strategic unions.
Garret I agree. As well, we have seen a few glimpses of a few other characters that touch on military power, namely Jugurtha, his quandry over getting a grip on control of Numidia, and his relationship with Bomilcar. Jugurtha seems to be struggling with his strategy as to the Romans and his own assertion of military power and control. Seems to me he needs help if he is going to survive.
Not knowing the period, I also found it bold when Caesar said to Marius can you divorce your wife and Marius says yes; I was taken a back a little. But politically, it is the right move. I bet Machiavelli studied Roman history.
Mod
Mod
Yes Vicki, I think you are right, in that marraige seems to be used as a political means to an end. If we're seeing it in the first 95 pages it is bound to recur as a theme or event, that seems fair to suggest, eh?
Mod
It was creepy for sure and even during these times; it certainly was not the proper thing to do. I am sure that there were many such arrangements among that political class. And most marriages were arranged for just those kinds of means to an end. I think that for the most part many marriages were enduring because of these family pre-arrangements. But this was a fairly bold and brazen maneuver especially for GJC
Bentley I don't know that it was such a brazen move though. Our man GJC here was looking for a capital infusion, which he got. I suppose it was brazen in that Marius could have turned him down, but he essentially opened his checkbook. It was a desperate move perhaps, but not sure it was all that bold.
Mod
It was brazen to think that Marius would go for it and that the respectibility he needed was going to be obtained through GJC (given GJS's monetary situation).
But I respect your views that you think differently; just think if Marius had turned him down..the humiliation that he could possibly have faced if Marius had decided to "talk about it" and the proposition.
I wonder if McCullough intends for this marriage to exemplify a change coming to Rome in the growth of the equestrian class and their infiltration into patrician families and politics, similar to the American heiresses at the turn of the 20th century with their infusion of money into the cash-poor British aristrocracy, or the kingpins of the Industrial Revolution marrying their sons and daughters into the needy nobility?
Mod
Mod
Could be Evelina and/or you are never down and out if you have good lineage (smile). I guess that in Rome a good name was for sale.
Part of what I think the author is illustrating is the many ways in which power can be acquired: by birthright, citizenship, land ownership, wealth, marraige, conquering, etc. In that scenario anything can be bought or sold including a good name.
Mod
Well, no. In Roman times I think it was very different than today at least in those particular respects. Thankfully! That said, where money, power, and privilege are inextricably intertwined it is almost a certainty that the access to any of those things are open to being bought, however corrupt that may be. I'm not sure the Romans thought of this as corruption, at least in Ms McCullough's version. In her defense, during the subject time period there isn't a lot of moral compass to guide civilization. Daily life is seemingly consumed with some pretty basic stuff, and governing is right up there. And what is governing, but standards of behavior. What else is there to rely on but stuff like wealth and 'class' as determined by lineage, and the almighty land grab aka war. Ultimately this is a period of searching for a system of control. In my view.
Mod
Agreed. Political gamesmanship in Rome was tricky and I think a bit intellectually stimulating to those that participated. Lets hope General David Petraeus doesn't lead his army on Washington D.C. Even though he would probably get a lot of support for a revolt regardless of party affiliation.
One reminder that this is a novel is how this segment wraps up between Marius and Julia. He trots off to buy her jewels on his way home to tell his wife he is divorcing her. Really? This seems like pure fiction to me.
Mod
I think both Bentley and Alisa might be right. I understand that McCullough did a lot of research. I wonder what we know. We probably found references to pearls and the sale of them, maybe archaeological evidence, possibly necklaces and rings on remains. Then add a dash of fiction and there you go!
One thing is for certain - the Romans do keep up appearances! She will quickly be a noticed woman about town and she best look the part.
Mod
He trots off to buy her jewels on his way home to tell his wife he is divorcing her. Really? This seems like pure fiction to me.I agree, Marius' love-at-first sight schtick (along with Caesar's ridiculous progressiveness) were a bit hard to swallow.
My copy of this novel just arrived last night, so I have been busy catching up. I thought the author's description of each character's political situation was most interesting, and I'm sure it's laying a foundation for what will follow. It does seem like a big horse race, with each politically ambitious person jockeying for the best position.I am a complete novice at Roman history, aside from the Western Civ course I took in college some 30 years ago! Since much of the western world's political systems, language, etc. has its roots in the Roman empire (at least I've been told), that's really too bad on my part. I do get the sense in this early section of the book that the author has done some in-depth research - things seem to ring true with the little I do remember from that college class. Anyway, I'm looking forward to learning more in what I HOPE will be an entertaining and well-crafted story.
I'm grateful for everyone who is posting, and it's great to see some among us who are well-educated in the era. Your insights are already helping me better understand the book, as well as finding that blurry line between fact and fiction that is inherent in historical fiction.
Kay, we are very glad you are joining the discussion and good to have you here. In my view a book discussion is best where the participants have different levels of knowledge and perspective. We all learn from each other and end up with a more robust dialogue as a result. The reading schedule for the first two weeks is a little aggressive but settles into an easier pace after that so you have plenty of time to catch up and/or get to a place where you can read along.
Justus wrote: "He trots off to buy her jewels on his way home to tell his wife he is divorcing her. Really? This seems like pure fiction to me.I agree, Marius' love-at-first sight schtick (along with Caesar's r..."
Maybe we are romantic cynics, eh? Then again, with so much marraige and divorce going on maybe this was just part of the drill.
It definitely was. Marriage became a big part of the political gamesmanship in Rome. The realignment of political interests or capturing of greater wealth. It was bad enough when a man felt it necessary to do so on his own for purposes of upward mobility, but it was a mixed bag when it was a dictate by someone such as the first man in Rome.
Alisa wrote: "Justus wrote: "He trots off to buy her jewels on his way home to tell his wife he is divorcing her. Really? This seems like pure fiction to me.I agree, Marius' love-at-first sight schtick (alon..."
Remember he is a 40ish year old man who has had little to do with his wife, no attraction to her for years. Then there's this beautiful young woman who is engaging and intelligent telling him how much she likes him and wants to marry him. I can feel his male ego bursting on the page. Marius also places value on having the best of material goods so I can see how he would like to reward her with beautiful things.
I found it interesting that Romans upon conquering other countries would set up businesses within the countries that would benefit themselves but also the economy of the country itself. Unlike others who would just conquer, pillage, and then leave. The British did this as well in creating their own empire. It is less likely that a country would rise up and fight Roman rule if they relied on them for trade.
Mod
Jodi you make an interesting point. So many places when you visit them still have that English look and feel and even the architecture and layout of these places are British. They really did immerse themselves in the background of the locations and embed themselves in the communities yet were able to keep their conquering distance and power.
Bentley wrote: "Jodi wrote: "I found it interesting that Romans upon conquering other countries would set up businesses within the countries that would benefit themselves but also the economy of the country itself..."Yes the Romans also brought with them advancements into the region, like you mentioned buildings, aqueducts, and other structures. This is also described in Guns, Germs and Steel on how civilizations advanced.
Guns, Germs and Steel
Jared Diamond
I agree with Jodi's statement about Marius's relationship with his first wife.
Jodi you are right about Marius' lack of attraction to Grania. He made little secret of his lackluster feeling toward her. I kind of wonder though if she was infertile and not able to have children as she obviously never got pregnant. I don't have the feeling Marius put a lot of effort into that endeavor but I would think early in their marraige if since she didn't bear children that his interest in her would wane. Seems to me he would pretty quickly reach the conclusion that if they weren't going to have children then what was the point, as he wasn't getting anything status wise from the relationship.
The difference betweeen conquering and empire building. Conquering is more limited in that it seems all about the land possession and shoving other people out of the way so that you can just take over. Empire building is intended to be more sustainable so that once you occupy the land (and perhaps shove the occupants out of the way, at least as masters of their own destiny), then you have captured the region for the long term. It's more sustainable. The Romans were going to have to depend on rebuilidng resources after being victors to both sustain their victory and fight other battles and expand their influence.
Mod
Very true Alisa and the British example I used is certainly very much like the Roman one (empire building)...Jody really made an excellent distinction.
Good post Alisa (message 87)
Mod
It is all about the Romans, according to the Romans, and if you play along dutifully they seem satisfied.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (other topics)The Aeneid (other topics)
The First Man in Rome (other topics)
The First Man in Rome (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Jared Diamond (other topics)Plutarch (other topics)
Appian (other topics)
Cassius Dio (other topics)
Publius Cornelius Tacitus (other topics)
More...
Yes sort of like the prenups of today.