![[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: 2007-01-30 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.