...and I echo your applause for Ciaran Hinds' Caesar, an extraordinary figure who was the Leonardo da Vinci of the politics of his day. I admire the way the series has captured the sheer strangeness and remoteness, as well as the familiarity, of that ancient imperial culture (one reason that I forgive the excesses of Fellini Satyricon). I must object, though, to the screenwriters' traducing the memories of two Roman matrons who were, on the authority of all the sources I've consulted since I took an interest in the era over thirty years ago, nothing remotely like the monsters depicted as Atia and Servilia. Against the liberties taken by Gladiator, however, these slanders may perhaps be forgiven.

I don't mean the ones eaten, or at least rent, in the Coliseum a bit later than the time of this production. I mean the good contemporary fundamentalists who are endlessly fascinated by all things Romans because the Romans were right there in the middle of the Gospels -- and of every cinematic "Tale of the Christ" since -- either killing Christ or certainly helping out, depending on just how anti-Semitic you're feeling that particular day. Also, I have some faint memory of both Victor Mature and Richard Burton in those short Roman man-skirts, giving up their bloody ways and becoming Christian converts, so manly and Gentile. I wonder how many fundies had just one moment of hope that, pre-Christian though the HBO series is, there might just be something pleasantly pagan and familiar (and not excessively obscene; just obscene enough) about this series so it could be watched the way Republicans watch "The Cherry Orchard," in a wonderful state of here-it-comes/I-could-have-told you-so.

I watched the first episode of season 1 on a lark, and have followed every episode since with fervor. It is one of two television shows I actually plan my time around. What fun! I have to say, it occasionally teeters near "Dynasty with Togas," but even then it is captivating. The editing is intelligent and concise, the acting is great, the plot is a fantastically tight knot of intrigue. I forgive the occasional silliness in light of the great entertainment HBO is providing.

Nice article; however, I have a quibble with your main point. Obscenity is a wonderful tool not just for creating otherness but for reminding us that we are all the same. When I read, say, the Decameron, I have no feeling at all for poor, innocent, much-lauded Griselda suffering silently at the hands of her lord. She's a cipher to me, and so is the audience which admired her. I see nothing to admire in her, and she speaks to no part of my personality. On the other hand, when I read the story about the naughty priest giving a woman a good seeing-to right in front of her foolish husband, it makes me laugh, and suddenly I'm right there sharing a joke with the original readers of the book. People were horny back then and they are horny today. Some of the same jokes are still funny.

I'd argue that the lack of a particular point of view about say Caesar or his assassination, which Kamiya cites as a critique from Havrilesky and with which he partially agrees, is in fact indicative of the strength of Rome.

While any fictionalized recreation of a historical era necessarily is not accurate, the conceit of a fixed interpretation would be most inaccurate of all. By Kamiya's admission, Julius Caesar is a cipher. With complex and base motives, as well as principled fear, it's not clear that the nobles who assassinated Julius Caesar would have had a clear and consistent reason for so doing. Assigning one might give a clearer story arc, but it doesn't necessarily get at the truth of the confusion.

That degree of uncertainty is precisely what makes Rome good television, and I think it is a distinguishing feature of at least some British dramatic narrative. That doesn't always sit well with an American fondness for clarity and coherence, either politically (to obliquely refer to Iraq) or dramatically. This is not engage in America-bashing; there's much to be said for avoiding a British apathy, but the two require a very different way of looking at the world. Probably to get through life you need both capabilities (or to know someone who does)...

As illustrated on the show, the sacred Republic was basically a means for achieving a balance of power between prominent wealthy tribes. A jumped up version of the kind of intertribal council they have in tribal countries in Afghanistan.

The Roman economy grew too big for this kind of tribal "democracy" to last.

The Republic was a metastable tribal equilibrium that was no longer thermodynamically possible when it grew beyond a certain size.

The symmetry had to be broken. One tribe had to dominate.

It was the Julii, and that's why we all focus on Caesar and think he's so enigmatic.

Tolstoy would argue that the question of Caesar's true intentions is moot. The forces of history acted through Caesar, like the forces of history acted through Napoleon.

My high school lit teacher, who had us read selections from Bocaccio, told us that nearly every basic sitcom and soap plot in use today was a variation of something found in the Decameron. Nothing new under the sun, I guess...

Salve Garyanas Kamiyarii

Great appraisal of a fabulous series Gary.

About the same time as the first series of "ROME" was made one of the US networks came out with a production called, I think "Empire". This 3 or 4 parter was set during the same period of Roman history and firmly illustrates many of the points you were making.

* Julius Caesar was portrayed as a great "democratic" reformer who wanted to give Rome "back to the people" so the evil aristocrats (all with posh British accents of course)killed him.

* The leading Roman General was African, casting equality at the cost of historical plausibility.

* All oppositon to Mark Anthony's ambitions are wiped out at a chaste orgy by a guild of ninja-like assasins who kill by using piosonus snakes and wolves.

*The inclusion of an Arnold S. type gladiator central character (named Tyranus no less) who hates violence but is forced into it to revenge the murder of his wife and abduction of his child

etc.

At least with "ROME" even if one knows nothing of the history one is not coming away with a swag of absurd notions designed to make the real hi/story more exciting and acceptable to a idiotic test audience.

Thanks for this article Gary. It would be wonderful to see how history written 2 thousand years from now deals with this dramatic period of the American Empire, its bizarre morality, strange religious practices and its woeful leadership.

David Edler