Has anyrat been to the Roman exhibition?

Is it worth the effort of an expotition to London?

On 21/03/2024 13:59, Tonysmith wrote:
> Has anyrat been to the Roman exhibition?
>
> Is it worth the effort of an expotition to London?

I'm planning to go the Sunday after Easter. I guess it would be too late
to report back. Particularly as my POI thought it was booked out (though
a daughter managed to get a couple of tickets)

POI thinks it should be good.

john

On 21/03/2024 14:15, john ashby wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 13:59, Tonysmith wrote:
>> Has anyrat been to the Roman exhibition?
>>
>> Is it worth the effort of an expotition to London?
>
> I'm planning to go the Sunday after Easter. I guess it would be too late
> to report back. Particularly as my POI thought it was booked out (though
> a daughter managed to get a couple of tickets)
>
> POI thinks it should be good.
>
> john

My classics teacher goddaughter thinks it's great and has taken all her
sixth-formers, who also thought it was great.

--
Kate B

On 21/03/2024 14:15, john ashby wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 13:59, Tonysmith wrote:
>> Has anyrat been to the Roman exhibition?
>>
>> Is it worth the effort of an expotition to London?
>
> I'm planning to go the Sunday after Easter. I guess it would be too late
> to report back. Particularly as my POI thought it was booked out (though
> a daughter managed to get a couple of tickets)
>
> POI thinks it should be good.
>
> john

We did go - it was as good as advertised. The stand-out artefact is an
incredibly well-preserved shield from Syria which had been recommended
to me and was one of the three memorable things the local 10-year-old
identified.

john

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 08:52:46 +0100, john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 21/03/2024 14:15, john ashby wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 13:59, Tonysmith wrote:
>>> Has anyrat been to the Roman exhibition?
>>>
>>> Is it worth the effort of an expotition to London?
>>
>> I'm planning to go the Sunday after Easter. I guess it would be too late
>> to report back. Particularly as my POI thought it was booked out (though
>> a daughter managed to get a couple of tickets)
>>
>> POI thinks it should be good.
>>
>> john
>
>We did go - it was as good as advertised. The stand-out artefact is an
>incredibly well-preserved shield from Syria which had been recommended
>to me and was one of the three memorable things the local 10-year-old
>identified.
>
And did they still have as many artefacts after you had left as tney
had had before you went in?

Nick

On 08/04/2024 13:39, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 08:52:46 +0100, john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/03/2024 14:15, john ashby wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 13:59, Tonysmith wrote:
>>>> Has anyrat been to the Roman exhibition?
>>>>
>>>> Is it worth the effort of an expotition to London?
>>>
>>> I'm planning to go the Sunday after Easter. I guess it would be too late
>>> to report back. Particularly as my POI thought it was booked out (though
>>> a daughter managed to get a couple of tickets)
>>>
>>> POI thinks it should be good.
>>>
>>> john
>>
>> We did go - it was as good as advertised. The stand-out artefact is an
>> incredibly well-preserved shield from Syria which had been recommended
>> to me and was one of the three memorable things the local 10-year-old
>> identified.
>>
> And did they still have as many artefacts after you had left as tney
> had had before you went in?
>
> Nick

I couldn't possibly comment.

I did have to pull "Do you know who I am" on one of the attendants who
took exception to me shining a torch on the gems. OK, I pointed out to
him that I'd been told to bring such a torch by one of the curators of
the exhibition and then another punter pointed out that there was a
torch supplied by the museum which had exhausted its batteries and he
went all apologetic.

I was very careful not to shine the torch on the Michelangelo cartoon
for the Sistine Chapel's Adam which he copied from a cameo of the
Emperor Augustus riding a Capricorn. Apparently the paper is so fragile
that such pictures can only be exposed to the light for a few weeks
every ten years.

john

john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes:

> Emperor Augustus riding a Capricorn.

Is that what they call it these days?

Rosie

On 08/04/2024 16:12, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
> john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Emperor Augustus riding a Capricorn.
>
> Is that what they call it these days?
>
> Rosie

It's more that that is what they called it then. Apparently capricorn
was Augustus' star sign. Not that he was born under it, he chose it a)
because if yu told people your real star sign it could give them power
over you and b) he's the emperor, he can do whatever the f**k he likes
(aftet all, HM the Q and presumably now HM the K ha{d|ve} 2 birthdays a
year).

john

On 08-Apr-24 19:03, john ashby wrote:
> On 08/04/2024 16:12, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>> john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Emperor Augustus riding a Capricorn.
>>
>> Is that what they call it these days?
>>
>> Rosie
>
> It's more that that is what they called it then. Apparently capricorn
> was Augustus' star sign. Not that he was born under it, he chose it a)
> because if yu told people your real star sign it could give them power
> over you and b) he's the emperor, he can do whatever the f**k he likes
> (aftet all, HM the Q and presumably now HM the K ha{d|ve} 2 birthdays a
> year).

I don't think he ever claimed to be 'The Emperor', but people who upset
him had a tendency to not thrive.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 08/04/2024 19:12, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 08-Apr-24 19:03, john ashby wrote:
>> On 08/04/2024 16:12, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>>> john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Emperor Augustus riding a Capricorn.
>>>
>>> Is that what they call it these days?
>>>
>>> Rosie
>>
>> It's more that that is what they called it then. Apparently capricorn
>> was Augustus' star sign. Not that he was born under it, he chose it a)
>> because if yu told people your real star sign it could give them power
>> over you and b) he's the emperor, he can do whatever the f**k he likes
>> (aftet all, HM the Q and presumably now HM the K ha{d|ve} 2 birthdays
>> a year).
>
> I don't think he ever claimed to be 'The Emperor', but people who upset
> him had a tendency to not thrive.
>
Wikipedia (yes, I know) certainly refers to him as the first emperor od
Rome as did the British Museum.

john

On 08/04/2024 21:18, john ashby wrote:
> On 08/04/2024 19:12, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 08-Apr-24 19:03, john ashby wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2024 16:12, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>>>> john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Emperor Augustus riding a Capricorn.
>>>>
>>>> Is that what they call it these days?
>>>>
>>>> Rosie
>>>
>>> It's more that that is what they called it then. Apparently capricorn
>>> was Augustus' star sign. Not that he was born under it, he chose it
>>> a) because if yu told people your real star sign it could give them
>>> power over you and b) he's the emperor, he can do whatever the f**k
>>> he likes (aftet all, HM the Q and presumably now HM the K ha{d|ve} 2
>>> birthdays a year).
>>
>> I don't think he ever claimed to be 'The Emperor', but people who
>> upset him had a tendency to not thrive.
>>
> Wikipedia (yes, I know) certainly refers to him as the first emperor od
> Rome as did the British Museum.
>
The Latin word was Imperator, which really meant Commander in Chief. The
Empire as such was only just beginning...

Also, I don't quite understand this Capricorn business - Augustus'
birthday - both real and official - was 23 September. Unless it aligns
him with the turn of the year, so that Janus-like he rules the past and
the present?

--
Kate B

On 08/04/2024 21:55, Kate B wrote:
> On 08/04/2024 21:18, john ashby wrote:
>> On 08/04/2024 19:12, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 08-Apr-24 19:03, john ashby wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/2024 16:12, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>>>>> john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Emperor Augustus riding a Capricorn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that what they call it these days?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rosie
>>>>
>>>> It's more that that is what they called it then. Apparently
>>>> capricorn was Augustus' star sign. Not that he was born under it, he
>>>> chose it a) because if yu told people your real star sign it could
>>>> give them power over you and b) he's the emperor, he can do whatever
>>>> the f**k he likes (aftet all, HM the Q and presumably now HM the K
>>>> ha{d|ve} 2 birthdays a year).
>>>
>>> I don't think he ever claimed to be 'The Emperor', but people who
>>> upset him had a tendency to not thrive.
>>>
>> Wikipedia (yes, I know) certainly refers to him as the first emperor
>> od Rome as did the British Museum.
>>
> The Latin word was Imperator, which really meant Commander in Chief. The
> Empire as such was only just beginning...
>
> Also, I don't quite understand this Capricorn business - Augustus'
> birthday - both real and official - was 23 September. Unless it aligns
> him with the turn of the year, so that Janus-like he rules the past and
> the present?
>

Maybe I misunderstood my source but she was quite insistent that his
appearance on a capricorn was linked to his astrology and she has been
described as an expert by The Times (though in what, you may ask).

john

Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:

> On 08/04/2024 21:18, john ashby wrote:
>> On 08/04/2024 19:12, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 08-Apr-24 19:03, john ashby wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/2024 16:12, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>>>>> john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Emperor Augustus riding a Capricorn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that what they call it these days?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rosie
>>>>
>>>> It's more that that is what they called it then. Apparently
>>>> capricorn was Augustus' star sign. Not that he was born under it,
>>>> he chose it a) because if yu told people your real star sign it
>>>> could give them power over you and b) he's the emperor, he can do
>>>> whatever the f**k he likes (aftet all, HM the Q and presumably now
>>>> HM the K ha{d|ve} 2 birthdays a year).
>>>
>>> I don't think he ever claimed to be 'The Emperor', but people who
>>> upset him had a tendency to not thrive.
>>>
>> Wikipedia (yes, I know) certainly refers to him as the first emperor
>> od Rome as did the British Museum.
>>
> The Latin word was Imperator, which really meant Commander in
> Chief. The Empire as such was only just beginning...
>
> Also, I don't quite understand this Capricorn business - Augustus'
> birthday - both real and official - was 23 September. Unless it aligns
> him with the turn of the year, so that Janus-like he rules the past
> and the present?

If September was the turn of the year would they have called it the
seventh month?

Rosie

On 09/04/2024 14:06, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
> Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 08/04/2024 21:18, john ashby wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2024 19:12, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> On 08-Apr-24 19:03, john ashby wrote:
>>>>> On 08/04/2024 16:12, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>>>>>> john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Emperor Augustus riding a Capricorn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that what they call it these days?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rosie
>>>>>
>>>>> It's more that that is what they called it then. Apparently
>>>>> capricorn was Augustus' star sign. Not that he was born under it,
>>>>> he chose it a) because if yu told people your real star sign it
>>>>> could give them power over you and b) he's the emperor, he can do
>>>>> whatever the f**k he likes (aftet all, HM the Q and presumably now
>>>>> HM the K ha{d|ve} 2 birthdays a year).
>>>>
>>>> I don't think he ever claimed to be 'The Emperor', but people who
>>>> upset him had a tendency to not thrive.
>>>>
>>> Wikipedia (yes, I know) certainly refers to him as the first emperor
>>> od Rome as did the British Museum.
>>>
>> The Latin word was Imperator, which really meant Commander in
>> Chief. The Empire as such was only just beginning...
>>
>> Also, I don't quite understand this Capricorn business - Augustus'
>> birthday - both real and official - was 23 September. Unless it aligns
>> him with the turn of the year, so that Janus-like he rules the past
>> and the present?
>
> If September was the turn of the year would they have called it the
> seventh month?
>
> Rosie

I thin what Kate means is that by choosing capricorn as his astrological
sign Augustus could tie himself to the New Year (and the symbolism of a
new regime in Rome would not go unnoticed).

It may be that we're interpreting the astrology too much in terms of the
21st century view which strictly follows date and time of birth. While I
Clavdivs implies the 1st Century Romans thought the same that is also a
2oth Century interpretation. Or perhaps he used the date of his
conception for divination. Who knows? (probably my informant but I'll
have to wait until the weekend to ask).

john

On 09/04/2024 14:34, john ashby wrote:
> On 09/04/2024 14:06, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>> Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 08/04/2024 21:18, john ashby wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/2024 19:12, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>> On 08-Apr-24 19:03, john ashby wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/04/2024 16:12, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>>>>>>> john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Emperor Augustus riding a Capricorn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that what they call it these days?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rosie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's more that that is what they called it then. Apparently
>>>>>> capricorn was Augustus' star sign. Not that he was born under it,
>>>>>> he chose it a) because if yu told people your real star sign it
>>>>>> could give them power over you and b) he's the emperor, he can do
>>>>>> whatever the f**k he likes (aftet all, HM the Q and presumably now
>>>>>> HM the K ha{d|ve} 2 birthdays a year).
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think he ever claimed to be 'The Emperor', but people who
>>>>> upset him had a tendency to not thrive.
>>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia (yes, I know) certainly refers to him as the first emperor
>>>> od Rome as did the British Museum.
>>>>
>>> The Latin word was Imperator, which really meant Commander in
>>> Chief. The Empire as such was only just beginning...
>>>
>>> Also, I don't quite understand this Capricorn business - Augustus'
>>> birthday - both real and official - was 23 September. Unless it aligns
>>> him with the turn of the year, so that Janus-like he rules the past
>>> and the present?
>>
>> If September was the turn of the year would they have called it the
>> seventh month?
>>
>> Rosie
>
> I thin what Kate means is that by choosing capricorn as his astrological
> sign Augustus could tie himself to the New Year (and the symbolism of a
> new regime in Rome would not go unnoticed).

Exactly - and it could link him to Mithras (25 December) as well as Janus
>
> It may be that we're interpreting the astrology too much in terms of the
> 21st century view which strictly follows date and time of birth. While I
> Clavdivs implies the 1st Century Romans thought the same that is also a
> 2oth Century interpretation. Or perhaps he used the date of his
> conception for divination. Who knows? (probably my informant but I'll
> have to wait until the weekend to ask).

Conception is a good idea, I hadn't thought of it. Interestingly, Lady
Day, March 25, the feast of the Annunciation and therefore of Christ's
conception, was counted as the beginning of the official year since
early Christian times, (replacing the Roman Kalends of January) up until
1752. Give us back our eleven days, they all shouted when the calendar
was updated - all except the tax people, who simply moved the tax due
date eleven days onwards.

--
Kate B

On 09/04/2024 15:13, Kate B wrote:
> On 09/04/2024 14:34, john ashby wrote:
>> On 09/04/2024 14:06, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>>> Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 08/04/2024 21:18, john ashby wrote:
>>>>> On 08/04/2024 19:12, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>> On 08-Apr-24 19:03, john ashby wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/04/2024 16:12, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>>>>>>>> john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Emperor Augustus riding a Capricorn.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that what they call it these days?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rosie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's more that that is what they called it then. Apparently
>>>>>>> capricorn was Augustus' star sign. Not that he was born under it,
>>>>>>> he chose it a) because if yu told people your real star sign it
>>>>>>> could give them power over you and b) he's the emperor, he can do
>>>>>>> whatever the f**k he likes (aftet all, HM the Q and presumably now
>>>>>>> HM the K ha{d|ve} 2 birthdays a year).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think he ever claimed to be 'The Emperor', but people who
>>>>>> upset him had a tendency to not thrive.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wikipedia (yes, I know) certainly refers to him as the first emperor
>>>>> od Rome as did the British Museum.
>>>>>
>>>> The Latin word was Imperator, which really meant Commander in
>>>> Chief. The Empire as such was only just beginning...
>>>>
>>>> Also, I don't quite understand this Capricorn business - Augustus'
>>>> birthday - both real and official - was 23 September. Unless it aligns
>>>> him with the turn of the year, so that Janus-like he rules the past
>>>> and the present?
>>>
>>> If September was the turn of the year would they have called it the
>>> seventh month?
>>>
>>> Rosie
>>
>> I thin what Kate means is that by choosing capricorn as his
>> astrological sign Augustus could tie himself to the New Year (and the
>> symbolism of a new regime in Rome would not go unnoticed).
>
> Exactly - and it could link him to Mithras (25 December) as well as Janus
>>
>> It may be that we're interpreting the astrology too much in terms of
>> the 21st century view which strictly follows date and time of birth.
>> While I Clavdivs implies the 1st Century Romans thought the same that
>> is also a 2oth Century interpretation. Or perhaps he used the date of
>> his conception for divination. Who knows? (probably my informant but
>> I'll have to wait until the weekend to ask).
>
> Conception is a good idea, I hadn't thought of it. Interestingly, Lady
> Day, March 25, the feast of the Annunciation and therefore of Christ's
> conception, was counted as the beginning of the official year since
> early Christian times, (replacing the Roman Kalends of January) up until
> 1752. Give us back our eleven days, they all shouted when the calendar
> was updated - all except the tax people, who simply moved the tax due
> date eleven days onwards.
>
>
Though presumably March was counted as Month 1 rather earlier than
Christian times, otherwise September wouldn't be September...

--
Kate B

Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:

> Conception is a good idea, I hadn't thought of it. Interestingly, Lady
> Day, March 25, the feast of the Annunciation and therefore of Christ's
> conception,

Is it really? For years I've been celebrating it as the Feast of the
Blessed Billie Holiday.

Rosie

In message <l7l0ouFfptuU1@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 9 Apr 2024
15:13:50, Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
[]
>Conception is a good idea, I hadn't thought of it. Interestingly, Lady

Some people would have been better not conceived .. George Grundy maybe?

>Day, March 25, the feast of the Annunciation and therefore of Christ's
>conception, was counted as the beginning of the official year since
>early Christian times, (replacing the Roman Kalends of January) up
>until 1752. Give us back our eleven days, they all shouted when the
>calendar was updated - all except the tax people, who simply moved the
>tax due date eleven days onwards.
>
England (including Wales, I'm sure) in 1752; Scotland had done it in
1600.
>
The 11 days, though - although that _also_ happened in 1752 - was
because of the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, as the
former had got very out of step with reality. The change of the year
start (to 1 January) made nearly 3 months' difference, not just 11 days.
So 1752 was the shortest year ever in England for two reasons: it ran
only from 25 March to 31 December, _and_ lost 11 days from September.

(I've often suspected the "give us back our 11 days" story was/is much
exaggerated; it makes a good story - "ignorant peasants" - but I suspect
the peasants weren't as dim as they've been painted.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:13:50 +0100, Kate B wrote:

> Give us back our eleven days, they all shouted when the calendar
> was updated - all except the tax people, who simply moved the tax due
> date eleven days onwards.

Although agricultural rents (the Grundys used to pay on Michaelmas and
Lady days, IIRC) didn't move. Renters were short changed, their tax-paying
landlords weren't.

--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

Jim Easterbrook <news@jim-easterbrook.me.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:13:50 +0100, Kate B wrote:
>
>> Give us back our eleven days, they all shouted when the calendar
>> was updated - all except the tax people, who simply moved the tax due
>> date eleven days onwards.
>
> Although agricultural rents (the Grundys used to pay on Michaelmas and
> Lady days, IIRC) didn't move. Renters were short changed, their tax-paying
> landlords weren't.
>

I believe there was a Tax Official named Robin Bastard….

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

Jim Easterbrook <news@jim-easterbrook.me.uk> writes:

> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:13:50 +0100, Kate B wrote:
>
>> Give us back our eleven days, they all shouted when the calendar
>> was updated - all except the tax people, who simply moved the tax due
>> date eleven days onwards.
>
> Although agricultural rents (the Grundys used to pay on Michaelmas and
> Lady days, IIRC) didn't move. Renters were short changed, their tax-paying
> landlords weren't.

Let's not forget the other Quarter Day too, Midsummer Day (24th June),
the Feast of St John the Baptist.

Midsummer Day is significant for fans of His Dark Materials, the thinking
person's Harry Potter. The publishers of Potter tried to run a spoiler
event by launching one of their later books on 21 June, with much
hilarity from the HDM community.

Rosie