![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was browsing through the Bodleian online catalog (as one does, when one suddenly has a bibliography related panic) and happened across something truly marvelous -- a novel published in 1726 by a "Mme de Villedieu" entitled "The Exiles of the Court of Augustus: Being the History of the various Amours of Ovid, Horace, Virgil, Lentulus, Cornelius Gallus and many other Heroes of that Age." (It's the translation of a French original from the mid 17th century). It appears to be a set of 10 stories about people exiled or otherwise disgraced by Augustus, with very little attention to historical detail or probability. I have only looked at the first few pages, but it already contains the following exchange, between Ovid, newly arrived in exile, and Hortensius Hortalus (who is apparently also living in retirement on the island of "Thalassie," along with Ovid and some other Roman exiles and a whole host of beautiful women, at least one of whom, the mysterious "Rosalina" has already declared her crush on him to her dearest friend Junia (here apparently the daughter of Lepidus the triumvir, for you prosopography geeks playing along at home)).
"As soon as they were alone, Ovid thought he might now be free, and relate the whole Story of his Affairs to him, which he had refused to the others. This Noble Roman and he having been the most intimate friends, he confess'd to him that his Disgrace was owing to the Favours he had receiv'd from the Daughter of Augustus.
You speak but half the Truth, answer'd Hortensius, I have Correspondents at Rome who have informed me of the Secret you would in Vain conceal. Own it therefore, without reserve, my dear Ovid, pursued he smiling, Caesar would have easily been brought to pardon your attempt on Julia, could you have stopp'd there-- He had been accustom'd to the Gallantries his Daughter engaged herself in, and his Court would soon become a Desert, if it were made a Capital Crime to be pleasing to Julia; but you have touch'd the Emperor in a part infinitely more sensible, and Terentia is comprehended in the Number of your Amours.
( click the cut-tag for more! )
* * *
In other Roman History Fiction news, we have reached the penultimate episode of "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" and I am a little surprised (ok, more than a little surprised) by how good it has been. I really like the way the whole show is about objectification, what with all the staring at bodies and nakedness and violence, and arms and legs cut off flying here and there in the combat scenes and the way the camera lingers on the half-dressed or nude bodies of both male and female cast members. This is all about the body as object. But did they do that on purpose as a way of commenting on the condition of slavery, where one's body is literally an object? or did that happen by accident while they were thinking "yay! sex!" and "yay! violence!"? I mean, you'd think that people making a show about Spartacus would be thinking about slavery, but maybe not.
(I haven't seen the movie Spartacus in a while, but it also strikes me that Roman power is much more concrete here than in most of the film -- which has much more to say about freedom and imperialism, and much less to say about bodies.)
Also, if Roman women on TV had to wear what Roman women actually wore, many many TV producers would be very saddened. I mean, yes, this is the Late Republic, but I have a feeling that there was actually a lot less Random Upper-Class Nudity involved in the fall of the Republic than most TV producers seem to think.
"As soon as they were alone, Ovid thought he might now be free, and relate the whole Story of his Affairs to him, which he had refused to the others. This Noble Roman and he having been the most intimate friends, he confess'd to him that his Disgrace was owing to the Favours he had receiv'd from the Daughter of Augustus.
You speak but half the Truth, answer'd Hortensius, I have Correspondents at Rome who have informed me of the Secret you would in Vain conceal. Own it therefore, without reserve, my dear Ovid, pursued he smiling, Caesar would have easily been brought to pardon your attempt on Julia, could you have stopp'd there-- He had been accustom'd to the Gallantries his Daughter engaged herself in, and his Court would soon become a Desert, if it were made a Capital Crime to be pleasing to Julia; but you have touch'd the Emperor in a part infinitely more sensible, and Terentia is comprehended in the Number of your Amours.
( click the cut-tag for more! )
* * *
In other Roman History Fiction news, we have reached the penultimate episode of "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" and I am a little surprised (ok, more than a little surprised) by how good it has been. I really like the way the whole show is about objectification, what with all the staring at bodies and nakedness and violence, and arms and legs cut off flying here and there in the combat scenes and the way the camera lingers on the half-dressed or nude bodies of both male and female cast members. This is all about the body as object. But did they do that on purpose as a way of commenting on the condition of slavery, where one's body is literally an object? or did that happen by accident while they were thinking "yay! sex!" and "yay! violence!"? I mean, you'd think that people making a show about Spartacus would be thinking about slavery, but maybe not.
(I haven't seen the movie Spartacus in a while, but it also strikes me that Roman power is much more concrete here than in most of the film -- which has much more to say about freedom and imperialism, and much less to say about bodies.)
Also, if Roman women on TV had to wear what Roman women actually wore, many many TV producers would be very saddened. I mean, yes, this is the Late Republic, but I have a feeling that there was actually a lot less Random Upper-Class Nudity involved in the fall of the Republic than most TV producers seem to think.
