Ancient History RPF: It isn't just for Yuletide

[vaznetti]

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.

That report, reply'd Ovid, is one of the most cruel Circumstances of my Misfortune. I receiv'd the Sentence of Banishment with Fortitude enough, but I cannot with any patience remember that the excellent Terentia is suspected of a Weakness of which I am sensible she never can be guilty..."

It continues with Hortensius basically saying "Aha! Now I am sure that you love her," and Ovid totally denying it, and then there's a whole thing about Augustus and Maecenas, and then Ovid starts his narrative for real.

What makes this a particularly beautiful piece of crack is the complete and reckless disregard of the author for anything to do with chronology. In our world, Ovid was exiled in 8 CE, the same year as (Vipsania) Julia the granddaughter of Augustus -- her mother had been exiled already 10 years earlier in 2 BCE, so the whole thing about Ovid being exiled because of an affair with the elder Julia is nonsense (especially when the Amores are adduced as evidence, since the first book was published perhaps as early as 20 BCE). But it gets better, because Augustus' affair with Terentia, Maecenas' wife, is so much earlier, probably in the 30s BCE, and would, I think, have to be over by 22 or 23 BCE at the latest, that finding her in this story is like the HEIGHT OF CRACK. Now I am reading Ovid's narration, and I have a feeling that he is about to have an affair with Sulpicia, who I am willing to bet is going to turn out to be the poetess Sulpicia, in further chronological confusion.

Awesome! But sadly, no help at all for my work.

* * *

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.

Comments

[loligo]

"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."

That is *awesome*.

[vaznetti]

Oh no! It seems that it is Junia who is obsessed with Ovid, but he is more interested in Rosalina!

Also, a "Prince Marcellus" has appeared in Ovid's narrative of his entanglement with Julia. I am amazed and confused!

[vehemently]

That is delightful nonsense you've found, there. All the moreso because of its age and style of language.

In re the movie Spartacus, there are several speeches about being a thing to be looked at; and after all the initial revolt is in the fighting ring, when gladiators suddenly leap the barrier between spectator and actor, and run riot over the audience. But in general (and generally thanks to the film code), we see subtler invocations of power: Olivier interrogates his new slave Tony Curtis on his skills, and in the cut scenes on his sexual inclinations, but it's much more the velvet glove than the iron fist, you know? Till the end, anyway.

(That screenplay, by Dalton Trumbo, is a regular favorite of the film crit crowd, specifically because of all of its references to gaze and objectification and the ownership implicit in looking.)

[vaznetti]

I wanted to type f for s where it occurred in the edition I have downloaded to enjoy at home. But that seemed excessive.

I suppose what strikes me is the difference between "a thing to be looked at" and a thing to be touched and fucked and beaten and killed on a whim and all the other things that happen to slaves. Which is very much a sign of the change in what people are willing to show on TV.

[vehemently]

Well the "thing to be killed" part gets across in the movie, because violence is totally okay, but the only overt references to the sexual availability of a slave are (A) slave-on-slave, with women being made available for the gladiators (Jean Simmons) and (B) clipped by the code, i.e. the famous "I like both snails and oysters, why yes you're scrubbing my back in the bath" discussion, which got cut despite the fact that both Olivier and Curtis were wearing body-socks, and it was all silhouettes, and it was actually just talk and implication. Apparently the code people were not so dumb, and knew what snails and oysters signified.

What little I've seen of the made-for-TV version has appeared to be all over the male-on-male, and sometimes the low-status-male on high-status-female, but I don't think there's a Jean Simmons in the bunch, is there? Anyway, what little I've seen of same made me eye-rolly, so I'm not especially competent to judge.

[cofax7]

I have not seen any Spartacus but hradzka watched the entire season and had very amusing commentary on it.

[vaznetti]

Thanks for the link!

[marina]

Hi! Not sure how I got here, I think we have some friends in common? :)

HEEE! Spartacus! My pet show! I actually think it's a mixture of both. It was both "yay sex!" and a desire to make a few statements about slavery and objectification. A lot of things about that show are too deliberate to be the product of just OOH PORN. Like the pubic hair on the women, and the way the gladiators (instead of just the house slaves) are constantly brought into various performing-as-sextoys situations. Anyway, aside from some fail I was very disappointed with (really? That's your statement about gay male characters? Really?) it was actually really marvelous as a show about sex and objectification.

[vaznetti]

Hi!

I do wonder whether they just stumbled onto the slavery stuff while they thought they were talking about objectification in a celebrity kind of context -- since gladiators (a century later, granted) were major celebrities in their way, which is why we see them sexually objectified the way they are here. Gladiator semen is the kind of thing that ends up included in Roman potions and medicines, for example. And Juvenal goes on and on about how aristocratic women pant after gladiators and have them brought up for sex sessions. (Just because Juvenal talks about it doesn't mean it actually happened, obviously, but it's the the kind fo thing people liked to think.)

[marina]

I... just the idea of the creators doing anything more than watching Rome (on mute) and Gladiator as their historical research is a bit too much for me to buy into.

[vaznetti]

Hahahaha! True, true. Although I think some of the producers were also involved in Xena & Hercules, which was a farrago, but an occasionally inspired farrago. And gladiators = celebrities is pretty much common knowledge.

[aceofkittens.livejournal.com]

Did you get to see the 2-hour pilot of Spartacus where it's established that he's of course not the REAL Spartacus, but the Romans name him that due to his legendary prowess in the arena.

I'm not surprised that it's good, because it's the same people who did Xena/Hercules. When those shows were good, they were really REALLY good. :) Anyway, I've only seen the first 3 episodes, because we don't subscribe to the channel that it's on, but I would like to see the rest.

Now: have you seen the trailer for Song of Ice & Fire? Winter is coming! And so is this show - March 2011!!! :)

[vaznetti]

I didn't get "not the real Spartacus" from the first episodes, especially given the way they're setting up the historical characters -- or was this a different pilot?

It is a very odd show, but very good in its porntastically violent way -- worth borrowing the disks from Netflix or whatever.

I am so amazed that they are actually making the SOIAF series, I cannot even tell you. Of course, I am one of those people who kind of hopes GRRM never publishes another book in the series again, just so I'll never have to read it.

[aceofkittens.livejournal.com]

There was a 2-hour pilot episode... did you see that?

"Spartacus" is definitely not the guy's real name -- there's much about this online. :)
http://www.avclub.com/articles/spartacus-blood-and-sand-the-red-serpent,37433/
http://www.tv.com/spartacus-blood-and-sand/what-is-spartacus-real-name/topic/92839-1554012/msgs.html

As for GRRM... well, I sadly think he's never going to finish that series. :)

[vaznetti]

If you meant the first episodes, all about how he got to Capua and got renamed Spartacus, then yes. But I think here they were just called "Episode 1."

I see what you mean about the "real name" thing, but Spartacus was almost certainly not the historical Spartacus' real name either -- slaves almost always get renamed!