Genealogy charts vs. cast of characters

[frankq]

Can anyone think of a work that employs a

[Nephele]

Frankq, what exactly do you mean by a "cast of characters"? Do you mean a listing of contemporaries for any given era?

 

-- Nephele

[Lanista]

Frankq, what exactly do you mean by a "cast of characters"? Do you mean a listing of contemporaries for any given era?

 

-- Nephele

 

I think he means (and I could be wrong) in novel terms. Some novels based on history have complex family trees, where as others - like Pressfield's Gates of Fire and the Afghan Campain just have entries about the character.

 

So as opposed to listing Leonidas and all his family, it would have an entry for

 

"Leonidas, King of Sparta who led the defence at the Hot Gates"

 

and "Gorgo, wife of Leonidas" and so forth.

 

But I could be wrong about that, but that's what it felt like to me).

 

Cheers

 

Russ

[frankq]

I wasn't clear, sorry. This refers to works of non-fiction. Cast of characters should have been described as an "index of characters". Quite often while reading a historical work I need a clarification about the people (or characters or players) involved and their place within the scheme of family affairs or/and as it might apply to political matters. The genealogy chart more often than not provides the answer if the author has been cheap on details or if the reader wishes to dig deeper.

[Klingan]

You could probably use the OCD (Oxford Classical Dictionary) for that. It's absolutely invaluable.

[Nephele]

I wasn't clear, sorry. This refers to works of non-fiction. Cast of characters should have been described as an "index of characters". Quite often while reading a historical work I need a clarification about the people (or characters or players) involved and their place within the scheme of family affairs or/and as it might apply to political matters. The genealogy chart more often than not provides the answer if the author has been cheap on details or if the reader wishes to dig deeper.

 

Then perhaps what you want is a biographical companion volume for whatever history book you are reading.

 

Philip Matyszak's Chronicle of the Roman Republic: The Rulers of Ancient Rome from Romulus to Augustus is not only an excellent history book in its own right, but can also serve as a biographical companion volume for other works. The book has individual entries for fifty-seven significant Romans of the Republic. Each entry includes a little "fact box" which lists the names of that individual's parents, wives, and children. The individual entries also name other family members and contemporaries, while presenting an overview of the individual's accomplishments and place in Roman history.

 

Another handy biographical companion volume is Ancient Romans by Rosalie F. and Charles F. Baker III (Oxford University Press, 1998). Both famous and overlooked ancient Romans have entries in this work, spanning the years from 396 BCE to 410 CE.

 

-- Nephele

[frankq]

Again, I realize how totally unclear i was in my original post. I was in effect asking what you, as readers, would prefer if you tackled reading a large history book. Would the genealogy charts do, or would an index of characters (personages) prove helpful....? I was also curious if anyone has run across a book using this idea.

Edited January 5, 2009 by frankq

[The Augusta]

Again, I realize how totally unclear i was in my original post. I was in effect asking what you, as readers, would prefer if you tackled reading a large history book. Would the genealogy charts do, or would an index of characters (personages) prove helpful....? I was also curious if anyone has run across a book using this idea.

 

As I'm a genealogist myself, Frankq, I personally have no problem following a family tree, but I can fully understand how awkward they can be. In some of the more academic works I have read, the Index at the back of the book often lists potted details about the 'characters' anyway - or at least their main contribution to history. A quick example would be if you found Cicero in the index to the work you were reading. Under his name of Marcus Tullius Cicero, the index would probably give little sub-headings of 'First Consulship - pp64-71'; 'divorces Terentia p80' - or something along those lines.

 

As for a book in which a list of 'characters' has been given at the beginning, I can't think of one off the top of my head. I do know that I still have on my shelves a very useful little work called Who was Who in the Roman World ed. Diana Bowder (Phaidon Press 1980) - alas, it is out of print now, but you can still get it on Amazon's Market Place. It was probably a forerunner to the works cited by Neph above. I think your best bet would be to invest in a volume like this to keep as a companion to your reading.

[frankq]

Again, my original query is not being understood. I don't directly need an index of characters or a companion volume (I already use Smith's volumes religiously for that purpose)---I'm inquiring what you folks as readers would find helpful, and whether an expanded listing or index of historical figures would be more helpful and easier to work with than a genealogy chart. Case in point, an example, the various Julias who appear in works about the Julio-Claudians. While a standard index might be helpful to explain the three Julias, i.e. Julia (the younger) etc., an expanded list explaining her parentage, etc. would be easier than thumbing back by page or having to hunt around a genealogy chart. I have no problem with charts---if they are done well---but to many readers they prove difficult to follow.

[Nephele]

frankq, I don't think you are quite understanding the responses given you by various members here. You are asking what we "folks as readers would find helpful." Well, we told you.

 

Speaking strictly for myself, I find biographical companion volumes helpful in sorting out the "cast of characters" (your expression).

 

Like Augusta, I don't have any problem with genealogy charts. But an expanded listing or index (as you suggested) obviously would contain more information. However, I believe a book of collected, alphabetically arranged, biographical entries (perhaps even cross-referenced) is the best of all.

 

Augusta, I'd forgotten about Bowder's Who Was Who in the Roman World. Thanks for reminding me of this book, which I'm fortunate to have in my library's collection. Yes, I agree, that's a very useful book!

 

-- Nephele

[frankq]

However, I believe a book of collected, alphabetically arranged, biographical entries (perhaps even cross-referenced) is the best of all.

 

 

-- Nephele

 

 

If I haven't been clear enough, (and obviously I haven't), I'll make it clear now. I should have been upfront about this from the start probably. It's not that I didn't understand your responses, it's just that I apparently didn't set people on the right track with my initial query. I'm talking about ONE BOOK---written by an author, say as an example The Story of the Plantagenets, which would make use of an extended index of the historical figures concerned. Therefore, asking again, would you as a reader find this extended index more or just as or less helpful than a genealogy chart as a reference guide in the course of the reading? Mention has been made of having a book on the side to refer to, but that defeats the purpose of the author trying to make his read all inclusive.

[Primus Pilus]

Generally speaking, I tend to read things that I already have some general knowledge of, but obviously one can't always keep everything straight. I prefer a rather simplistic index (or alphabetic list) with a short description... Titles and dates works for me, perhaps important relatives and/or political associations. If it gets too in depth in this part, it defeats the purpose of the broader text of the book (in my opinion).

[frankq]

If it gets too in depth in this part, it defeats the purpose of the broader text of the book (in my opinion).

 

Ah! Aye! There's the problem that I have feared. The key is to defining how in-depth it is or might become. Moreover, if a work is a narratrive history this index might be working against it. Or would it? There are no set rules. Nonetheless, you've given food for firm thought.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Personally, I think stemmata are awfully useful in clarifying who exactly was a contemporary of whom. Since magistracies were age-linked, knowing who fell within a given generation provides a clue about who were potential rivals and who were potential mentors.

 

That said, the stemmata aren't substitutes for knowing in depth information about the individuals within a given family. Within Cato's stemmata, for example, one can find populist partisans of Pompey as well as optimate opponents of the rising dictator (er, sole consul).

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Genealogical charts are very useful .

Let say you are reading a biography - "The life of Piso, Galba's son" .

One can say "in Mars 69 CE Galba adopted Piso" and than continue the nerrative for another 100 pages or so . that would make me frustrated (my bad English) because the first thing I would like to know is who this Piso was, a descendand of the aristocratic republican Pisones ? a relative of Piso from the Pisonian cosnpiracy of 65-66 ? who was his father ? His mother ? did he had family connections with Galba ? etc' . IMO a geneology chart could answer these question quickly and precisely .