![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vaznettiOne of these things is not like the others: more comments on Rome 2x03
It's time for the sex talk, isn't it? Although I'd swear that I made a post just like this last year (ah, no, it was on lesbianism in Rome.)
The first thing to remember is that Rome is not like Greece, when it comes to homosexual sex: in many Greek cities, if you're a well-born thirteen-year-old boy and someone like Pericles or Miltiades wants to fuck you, that may be a good sign. It means that you may well grow up to be just like them, successful Athenian generals and politicians and all-around good men.
In Rome, if you're a well-born thirteen-year-old boy and a Marcus Crassus or Appius Claudius wants to fuck you, it's not really good news at all. It may well mean that you'll never be a successful Roman man: if they do manage to get to you, you may find that you're metaphorically screwed as well. Grown-up Roman men exist to penetrate others, and whether they do this with a sword or with their cocks doesn't really matter in the larger scheme of things; being penetrated means that you're not quite a man. You're either dead or effeminate and might as well be dead.
Romans can opt out of this definition of masculinity, but it involves opting out of political power, as well.
So the three instances of male/male sex in last night's Rome episode make perfect sense within the cultural context. First, and least problematic, is the scene in Atia's house, with an older and more powerful slave (possibly a freedman) screwing a younger and less powerful slave. The dynamics of Roman masculinity don't really apply to slaves, and a Roman wouldn't think that there's any wrong being done here.
Next, though, we have the spiral of violence on the Aventine, and this is much more interesting. What strikes me first of all is that in the case of the boy prostitute, Vorenus is completely in the right: the boy took money for sex, which means that it wasn't rape, which means that there's no need for anyone to be punished. Memmio and Carbo has no right to go looking for anything from Quintus Bubo, and certainly no right to treat him as if he'd raped a good Roman boy. The boy, in taking cash for sex, has essentially forfeited his chance to ever grow up to be a good Roman man; he's removed himself from the system and its protections.
This, as an aside, is why Cicero brings up the old story about Antony taking money from Curio, in exchange for sex, when he was a young man and broke. It's in the second Philippic, but I think Antony killed the messenger before we got there, anthough we get the crqack about "acting like a woman." I've added the passage below.
Interestingly, we have very little information about how crime was punished in the Republic, especially among ordinary Roman citizens; the self-help that we see in this episode isn't the only option, but it's also not improbable. The notion that you needed some kind of approval or judgment in your favor before taking such action is also plausible; ordinarily, a man in Vorenus' position would consult with a few of his friends before making the decision, but the dramatic license is fine. But of course, Vorenus makes the decision that no crime was committed (as indeed it was not), but Memmio and his gang act anyway, by gelding Quintus Bubo; Vorenus has to respond, because they've failed to show him the respect he deserves and because they've committed assault on a Roman citizen. And so he sends his own men to rape Carbo, just as an effective way of unmanning him as what happened to Bubo. Vorenus gets to prove that he has the sharpest sword and the biggest cock on the Aventine. (Not, I think, that any of this is going on consciously in Vorenus' head, but it's very much what his actions say.)
After that, they just seem to start killing each other; that works too, if you're a Roman. Then the whole thing gets interrupted by the actual civil war, or at least Vorenus loses interest in it.
For some reason I can't find the paper I have with the penalties for rape or assault in it, but I'm pretty sure both of them get you death or exile in this period.
As another aside, this is why I don't really see Pullo/Vorenus as a sexual relationship; Antony/Vorenus makes a bit more sense, but only while Vorenus believes himself to be a walking dead man.
And here's the passage about Antony, as I promised:
Shall we then examine your conduct from the time when you were a boy? I think so. Let us begin at the beginning. Do you recollect that, while you were still clad in the praetexta, you became a bankrupt? That was the fault of your father, you will say. I admit that. In truth such a defense is full of filial affection. But it is peculiarly suited to your own audacity, that you sat among the fourteen rows of the knights, though by the Roscian law there was a place appointed for bankrupts, even if any one had become such by the fault of fortune and not by his own. You assumed the manly gown, which you soon made a womanly one: at first a public prostitute, with a regular price for your wickedness, and that not a low one. But very soon Curio stepped in, who carried you off from your public trade, and, as if he had bestowed a matron's robe upon you, settled you in a steady and durable wedlock. (Cicero, Second Philippic 44)
It's time for the sex talk, isn't it? Although I'd swear that I made a post just like this last year (ah, no, it was on lesbianism in Rome.)
The first thing to remember is that Rome is not like Greece, when it comes to homosexual sex: in many Greek cities, if you're a well-born thirteen-year-old boy and someone like Pericles or Miltiades wants to fuck you, that may be a good sign. It means that you may well grow up to be just like them, successful Athenian generals and politicians and all-around good men.
In Rome, if you're a well-born thirteen-year-old boy and a Marcus Crassus or Appius Claudius wants to fuck you, it's not really good news at all. It may well mean that you'll never be a successful Roman man: if they do manage to get to you, you may find that you're metaphorically screwed as well. Grown-up Roman men exist to penetrate others, and whether they do this with a sword or with their cocks doesn't really matter in the larger scheme of things; being penetrated means that you're not quite a man. You're either dead or effeminate and might as well be dead.
Romans can opt out of this definition of masculinity, but it involves opting out of political power, as well.
So the three instances of male/male sex in last night's Rome episode make perfect sense within the cultural context. First, and least problematic, is the scene in Atia's house, with an older and more powerful slave (possibly a freedman) screwing a younger and less powerful slave. The dynamics of Roman masculinity don't really apply to slaves, and a Roman wouldn't think that there's any wrong being done here.
Next, though, we have the spiral of violence on the Aventine, and this is much more interesting. What strikes me first of all is that in the case of the boy prostitute, Vorenus is completely in the right: the boy took money for sex, which means that it wasn't rape, which means that there's no need for anyone to be punished. Memmio and Carbo has no right to go looking for anything from Quintus Bubo, and certainly no right to treat him as if he'd raped a good Roman boy. The boy, in taking cash for sex, has essentially forfeited his chance to ever grow up to be a good Roman man; he's removed himself from the system and its protections.
This, as an aside, is why Cicero brings up the old story about Antony taking money from Curio, in exchange for sex, when he was a young man and broke. It's in the second Philippic, but I think Antony killed the messenger before we got there, anthough we get the crqack about "acting like a woman." I've added the passage below.
Interestingly, we have very little information about how crime was punished in the Republic, especially among ordinary Roman citizens; the self-help that we see in this episode isn't the only option, but it's also not improbable. The notion that you needed some kind of approval or judgment in your favor before taking such action is also plausible; ordinarily, a man in Vorenus' position would consult with a few of his friends before making the decision, but the dramatic license is fine. But of course, Vorenus makes the decision that no crime was committed (as indeed it was not), but Memmio and his gang act anyway, by gelding Quintus Bubo; Vorenus has to respond, because they've failed to show him the respect he deserves and because they've committed assault on a Roman citizen. And so he sends his own men to rape Carbo, just as an effective way of unmanning him as what happened to Bubo. Vorenus gets to prove that he has the sharpest sword and the biggest cock on the Aventine. (Not, I think, that any of this is going on consciously in Vorenus' head, but it's very much what his actions say.)
After that, they just seem to start killing each other; that works too, if you're a Roman. Then the whole thing gets interrupted by the actual civil war, or at least Vorenus loses interest in it.
For some reason I can't find the paper I have with the penalties for rape or assault in it, but I'm pretty sure both of them get you death or exile in this period.
As another aside, this is why I don't really see Pullo/Vorenus as a sexual relationship; Antony/Vorenus makes a bit more sense, but only while Vorenus believes himself to be a walking dead man.
And here's the passage about Antony, as I promised:
Shall we then examine your conduct from the time when you were a boy? I think so. Let us begin at the beginning. Do you recollect that, while you were still clad in the praetexta, you became a bankrupt? That was the fault of your father, you will say. I admit that. In truth such a defense is full of filial affection. But it is peculiarly suited to your own audacity, that you sat among the fourteen rows of the knights, though by the Roscian law there was a place appointed for bankrupts, even if any one had become such by the fault of fortune and not by his own. You assumed the manly gown, which you soon made a womanly one: at first a public prostitute, with a regular price for your wickedness, and that not a low one. But very soon Curio stepped in, who carried you off from your public trade, and, as if he had bestowed a matron's robe upon you, settled you in a steady and durable wedlock. (Cicero, Second Philippic 44)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 03:06 pm (UTC)being penetrated means that you're not quite a man.
Hee! And also, this is why I have never found any "Rome" fanfic where Vorenus and Pullo are at it to be convincing.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 04:36 pm (UTC)I know! Because if Vorenus made a sexual advance on Pullo, Pullo would have to kill him, and vice versa. I think you might get away with mutual hand-jobs, but that's the limit.
I feel like a lot of people commenting on the show are confusing the mores of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome in regards to homosexuality.
I remember that this was a problem with Niobe's death as well -- a lot of people talked about it in the context of Vorenus' honor, without realizing that they were looking at the scene through a Hellenizing filter.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 04:41 pm (UTC)I think people are getting confused by the whole "men loving men" aspects of Ancient Greece (filtered through Mary Renault and who knows what else) as well as fandom's love of slash pairings. Plus (and yes, I'm projecting back several thousand years, but hey, why not!?), demonstrations of male-to-male affection without sexual overtones are still not uncommon in Mediterranean cultures, so all the stuff where Pullo and Vorenus are hugging, kissing etc. certainly reads as "love" but not as "sex" to me.
I remember that this was a problem with Niobe's death as well -- a lot of people talked about it in the context of Vorenus' honor, without realizing that they were looking at the scene through a Hellenizing filter.
Ooooh, now in what way is that so - I really want to know! My own take is that he's a jealous husband who dearly loves his wife and that in a fit of jealous rage, he'd be quite capable of killing her and bitterly regretting it afterwards. And that not being made a fool of IS quite important to Vorenus - I mean, the first thing he said to Niobe was pretty much "WHORE!" when he got back. (You know what actually strains my credulity more than anything is that none of the neighbors ratted out Niobe - I felt for sure when she was getting all snooty and high-and-mighty with them that one of them was going to get back at her by telling Vorenus! She must have been an amazingly great person to have all those people loyally keep their mouths shut :P)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 07:27 pm (UTC)Hahaha! on the neighbors not ratting Niobe out. Maybe she paid them off?
Plus (and yes, I'm projecting back several thousand years, but hey, why not!?), demonstrations of male-to-male affection without sexual overtones are still not uncommon in Mediterranean cultures, so all the stuff where Pullo and Vorenus are hugging, kissing etc. certainly reads as "love" but not as "sex" to me.
Yes, this seems reasonable as well. All these things, which seem normal male behavior in the modern context, at least, can be read as slashy by someone who wants to do so.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 07:49 pm (UTC)I think that Vorenus would have reacted in exactly the same way whenever Pullo (or anyone else) told him what had happened with Evander - he would have killed Evander and he would have killed Niobe and I daresay he would have cursed anyone who knew of his wife's disgrace. And it's not all about his being an Ancient Roman - he's also a human being and killing your wife after you find out she had an affair is sadly, not such an unusual thing at all. She did, I think, upon rereading that discussion partially try to deflect his anger away from Young Lucius. (And it didn't work, since he cursed his children right after she died. Poor Niobe!)
I guess it's a sign of how ... well, Vorenus is a clever man in some respects, but he really sucks at interpersonal relationships, and Pullo whom Vorenus definitely sees as not-very-bright managed to pick up on what was going on about two seconds after he saw Niobe and Evander together BUT is less concerned with questions of honor than he is with ensuring that Vorenus is happy with this woman whom he loves. Vorenus would do well to pay more attention to Pullo (I loved that Pullo kept repeating to Vorenus that Niobe LOVED him, because that was the truly important part of the story for Pullo.)
All these things, which seem normal male behavior in the modern context, at least, can be read as slashy by someone who wants to do so.
I'm not opposed to the slash in principle - it's just, as you say, if either Vorenus or Pullo made a move, he'd be a dead man. (Just as much of the Hornblower or Aubrey/Maturin slash ignores the substantial and horrific penalties for sodomy in His Majesty's Navy.) So contextualizing is really important to me, and I therefore shy away from all the inevitable slashy fic :P (Also, sometimes I think friendship is a more interesting and unusual dynamic than sexual relationships - certainly one that I don't see as often on TV.)
Which is all to say that I think Pullo and Vorenus are the main reasons for watching this show and I love them both dearly.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 03:30 pm (UTC)This also explains why Octavian's detractors might say that Octavian was Caesar's lover, but not why Atia seems to think this is a good plan. Seems she's confusing Greek mores as well. Although she proves herself to be quite obtuse about any number of things, so being wrong about this doesn't surprise me.
Now off to read your lesbian post which I missed first time 'round.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 03:32 pm (UTC)Well, Atia wasn't crying it out from the rooftops either. I think just as a little family secret and a means for getting preferential treatment from Caesar, she wasn't opposed to that ... but she also seems to infantilize Octavian all the time anyway, so who knows.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 04:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 04:38 pm (UTC)At the time it struck me as a false note, actually, but I think it probably plays into the way Atia is represented as sexually voracious, as well. And as QoT points out, it would be kept within the family, I guess.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 03:52 pm (UTC)There might be volumes of history and wanky opinion on this that I'm not aware of, but would you say then, that Antony would have thrived in 5th century Athens?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 04:44 pm (UTC)Yeah, that was very cool!
Antony in Athens... hm. Possibly, he might have. I mean, he does fairly well for himself in Late Republican Rome, as well -- he's a talented guy! -- so he might have done well there, as well. One problem, I think, is that Athens doesn't reward military ability to quite the same degree Rome does, so he'd need to pay more attention to oratory and that kind of thing, and there would have been a bunch of legal cases about his debts and his inheritence.
Obviously, even in Athens the accusation of being the passive partner could be damaging, if made against an adult.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 04:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 12:34 am (UTC)It's sometimes hard watching the show and balancing the knowledge of how sex was viewed by Romans with what makes good fic. I'm as wishy washy as Cicero when it comes to my where I stand on it. *g*
Speaking of Cicero, thanks for posting his full quote.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 01:19 am (UTC)It's sometimes hard watching the show and balancing the knowledge of how sex was viewed by Romans with what makes good fic.
Hee! But I have this with everything on the show, sadly. And I didn't mean to sound I was bashing the Pullo/Vorenus shippers -- I just can't quite get my head there, is all I meant.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 03:15 am (UTC)I didn't think you sounded like you were bashing P/V shippers at all. Like I said while I emotionally ship them I intellectually see how it's beyond impossible. Really what it all comes down is that I love their relationship, I love their scenes together and find the parallels to a romantic relationship very interesting with or without the sexual aspect included.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 01:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 03:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 04:37 am (UTC)The passage on Antony is great - the ancients certainly didn't pull their punches when they wanted to insult somebody.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 03:35 pm (UTC)The passage on Antony is great - the ancients certainly didn't pull their punches when they wanted to insult somebody.
It's the "I think so" that really makes the passage work for me -- you can just hear it.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-13 01:36 am (UTC)What about non-penetrative sex? Is there any kind of concept of that in this period, or would it not even be considered a sex act?
no subject
Date: 2007-02-13 02:54 am (UTC)Also, no penetration, no sex. Or really perverted sex. So the Romans think that lesbianism is really sick, because how can you have sex without a penis penetrating something? I don't know how the Romans felt about handjobs, but I'm betting that they don't really count as sex, somehow.