Steven Saylor is known for his (at this writing) 11-book historical mystery series called, Roma Sub Rosa, in which Gordianus the Finder investigates historical cases in a well-researched Republican Rome context. I'd been grinding through Colleen McCullough's 8-tome rambling Masters of Rome series, when fellow Goodreaders suggested I dump McCullough for Saylor. But where to start? Three books of McCullough had already taken me from 110-67 BCE (from rise of Gaius Marius to Pompey's overthrow of Mithridates), and I knew Roma Sub Rosa covered much of the same ground (if less explicitly). So this work, which is Saylor's most recent to date and which covers the gamut of Roman Republican history from its origins as a trading post for salt merchants and metallurgists to the sunset of Augustus' reign, seemed a good bet.It's definitely an easy-reader for those with a casual interest in the origins of Rome… it even includes an annotated bibliography, something that McCullough couldn’t be bothered to publish (she claimed it would add too many pages to books which were already about 1,000 pages each). This is the Cliff's Notes of Roman history -- a simple, short, episodic highlight reel of famous Roman events both well-documented (the brothers Gracchi, Punic War 2: Hannibal’s Revenge, the death of Julius Caesar) and imaginary (Coriolanus and the rape of Lucrece, a la Shakespeare). Saylor's conceit here is to follow the trajectory of an ancient Roman talisman called a fascinus (from which we get the word 'fascination,' the warding off of the evil eye) from its imagined origins as a lover’s gift to its presence at Cleopatra’s suicide and around the necks of generations of people in between, most of whom have at least a distant relationship to the Romans most readers eventually encounter (because theirs are the only stories we can corroborate from various sources, and therefore, the only ones whose lives have lasting relevance and interest beyond their connection with ancient Rome as exotic setting). The quality here therefore varies throughout as one would expect from a collection of relatively unrelated short stories. For me, the story of the brothers Gracchi was far and away the best chapter and the sole reason I give this book 3 stars, but that may be because I enjoyed that its central characters and conflict were those of the Gracchi themselves.Gracchi aside, Saylor’s not trying to impress with his erudition by any stretch of the imagination. While McCullough goes heavy on the Latin for Latin’s sake (check out her hundred page glossaries), Saylor’s only real nod to the language is to call Rome Roma annoyingly and consistently throughout. Heck, he even translates out the Field of Mars for his readers, which is fine as far as that goes, except that he argues the word “Mars” in the “Field of Mars” context derives from natural linguistic foreshortening of “Mavors” over time. That makes no sense in the context of Campus Martius, whether or not the names “Mars” and “Mavors” are phonically equivalent. Along these shallow lines, the book’s ending (literally the third-to-last paragraph and intended to take place about 15-20 years or more before Tiberius’ succession of Augustus) struck me as so bizarre, it’s worth quoting:Young Lucius peered at the object curiously, unable to discern what it was meant to represent. After so many years and so many wearers, the details of the winged phallus had worn away. In outline, the shape appeared to be little more than a simple cross – not dissimilar, the boy thought, to the crucifixes upon which the Romans executed criminals. Huh? Whazza? Talk about jarring. What was Saylor’s point with this anachronistic non-sequitur? He hadn’t established any particular religious theme throughout the book. If he was trying to foreshadow the conversion of Constantine some 275 or more years down the road from the end of his narrative, this struck me as a particularly clumsy and unconvincing means of doing so. I’m now reading Saylor’s short-story mystery collection The House of the Vestals now, and running across equally bizarre injections of Judeo-Christian mythology (only 100 pages in and I’ve already encountered references to Noah’s flood, the burning bush, and Adam’s rib, all apparently shoehorned into pantheistic Republican Rome courtesy of the character of Gordianus’ Egypto-Jewish concubine, Bethesda). I’ll read at least one more Saylor book after this one (they go down like smoothies), so I guess I’ll find out whether there’s a pattern here. These biblical shout-outs pop out so awkwardly and so irrelevantly to his narrative that if Saylor has a hidden agenda, it’s hard to know what it is. In any case, it isn’t worth dwelling on. If Roma and the stories I’ve read in Vestals are any indication, you don’t read Saylor for his subtlety.
Roma is the story of Rome over a massive arc of time - from the mists of prehistory to the supremacy of Augustus and the establishment of Empire. The story is told from the perspective of two families - the Potitii and Pinarii. The story follows these two families as they pass through time as witnesses (and frequently) victims to great events.I'm not sure that this book will be everyone's cup of tea, but I enjoyed it immensely. I read a lot of historical fiction set in the Roman era. I always felt as if I lacked a certain amount of context and understanding of some of the background. I knew that there were Roman Kings that had been replaced by a republic. I knew vaguely about Romulus and Remus. I knew about Sulla and Marius. But I really didn't have a feel for these great events and people. Roma brings these people and events to life. Reading Roma I had a front seat view into the growth and evolution of that great city. Having read Roma I feel as if I will better appreciate other historical fiction set in the Roman period.The weakness of the book is at the same time its strength. The book is really broken up into a series of short stories and these are mixed. Some are spectacular. The story of the vestal virgin who breaks her vows was moving and heartbreaking. Other stories are weaker. My own sense is that the stories of the earlier period were better than the later period as the mists of time allow the author a little more freedom to work his magic.Despite the unevenness of the stories, I enjoyed the book. The book left me with a sense of the city and how it changed. In particular, it sharpened my sense of the role of religion in the state. Roman religious ritual and practice was intimately bound up with the state itself. Knowing that a powerufl new religion lurks just over the horizon I wonder how much of that awareness was the author's work versus my own impression. Regardless, I can smell the danger to the Roman state just around the corner and am eager to read the next book, Empire. (Empire starts at roughly the death or Augustus and continues through about 500 years).I enjoyed the book. IV out of V stars.
What do You think about Roma (2007)?
Find the enhanced version of this and other reviews at: http://flashlightcommentary.blogspot....I had no expectations whatsoever going into Steven Saylor's Roma. I only stumbled on it by accident, deciding to read it on a whim more than anything else. I had no comprehension of what I was getting myself into, nor any real grasp of the extensive scope of material covered within these pages. This being the case you might understand what a pleasant surprise my ultimate enjoyment of the piece was. Most family sagas tell the story a family against the backdrop of history, but Saylor took Roma in the opposite direction, telling the story of Rome through several generations of two ancient households. Under Saylor's pen, Rome becomes a character in and of herself, more so than any of the individuals through which her story is told. It is an approach I'd never before encountered and one I found I greatly enjoyed.I have never studied the history of Rome so many of the historic event and mythic legends Saylor incorporates into his work were entirely new to me. Not being well-versed in the the majority of the material, I found in every chapter something new and fascinating from the rape of Lucretia to the building of the Appian Way, from the founding of the Ara Maxima to the sacking of Rome by the Gallic Chieftain Brennus. Thoroughly captivating. There is just no other way to describe it.Despite my appreciation for Roma, I wouldn't recommend it to the casual reader. This isn't character driven historic fiction. If that is your interest, look to Kate Quinn's Empress of the Seven Hills. No, the beauty of Saylor's work in his recreation of the social and political intricacies of the ancient city as well as the life he breathes into the events that shaped it. One need not be an authority to enjoy this book, but all the same, I think it best suited to those with a deep interest in the city's history and ancient culture.
—Erin
Multi-generational, thousand year stories do make it impossible to get attached to any characters as they are there for a chapter and then gone. They provide continuity to the history and give a focal point but don't offer much else. I personally have little interest in pre-history so could have done without the first 3 chapters and I know more about Caesar than such a broad overview could portray, so the last 4 chapters were a bit boring for me as well.This could be a good way to learn about general roman history but I wouldn't recommend it for the fan who has done some research already.
—Dawn
Saylor sets his book in the city of Rome (and what will be the city of Rome, as the book starts well before the founding). While the writing is often somewhat plain (I say "often" because some chapters flow a lot better than some others), and occasional purple prose passages almost prudish in their choice of descriptive words, the story is captivating - especially if you are someone like me who is easily triggered by historical references to go look things up online. While it's historical fiction, the fiction isn't uppermost (the history is), but it's enough to put you in the city, and Saylor fabricates some strings to tie you into and hold you through the 800-year span of the story.Pure history aside, it's interesting to contrast some of the political and societal struggles described in this book with those of our times. It seems to me that the author put things in such a way that you'd see some parallels and draw these comparisons, but in an afterword he declaims this notion, saying that these are things of people then and now, and the commonalities are natural. But I note that he specifically brings it up in order to deny it.Clearly this book skims the surface of Roman history and mythology. It would take a whole lot of books of this size to do otherwise and would probably have a very limited audience to boot. But that's fine - it's a story set in a historical context. Individual human experience is so brief, making it hard to really grasp how large history is,hard to feel that length of time, hard to bring it close in any way. This book enhances that sense; in fact, many of the characters in this epic have lost their own historical certainties and contexts and are faced with their own sense of being dwarfed by time.
—Mark Mallett
