Nigel Hawthorne-Sex Lives of the Roman Emperors?

[longshotgene]

I picked up a copy of this book at the local seller. I have been reading, but wonder how much of this book is actually accurate? There is a part towards the beginning of the book where Hawthorne discusses Roman soldiers capturing enemy soldiers, busting out their teeth and orally raping them. How accurate is this? Does anyone have any idea where he might have obtained this information? The more I read his books, the more I think he is doing nothing more than sensationaling the truth. None of his material is really cited, so there is no way of tracing it. I would tend to believe his material is rather non-scholarly. Tell me what you all think. I believe his Sex Lives of the Popes is a load of rubbish as well.

[Primus Pilus]

Presumably no footnotes?

[longshotgene]

Correct. I have done some more research and have come to the conclusion that I should burn the book. This man is full of poppycock.

[Maty]

Correct. I have done some more research and have come to the conclusion that I should burn the book. This man is full of poppycock.

 

There was a similar work of pornography disguised as history dealing with Caius Caligula a few years back. I would recall the name if I hadn't made such an effort to forget it. On the bright side, Mr Cawthorne is continuing a long tradition of spinning stories of imperial depravity which goes back to before Suetonius. From what I have gathered by looking at some reviews, he has basically taken a historical event - e.g. the capture of Valerian by Shapur - and allowed his imagination to slobber over it.

 

It's only a matter of time before I see him quoted in student essays, and have a chance to offload my 'Did you check the original sources?' speech. Come to that, perhaps I should mail the speech to Mr Cawthorne.

[sylla]

Mr. Nigel Cawthorne (the living sex writer) should probably be distinguished from Mr. Nigel Hawthorne (the deceased gay actor).

 

There's apparently no relation between them.

[longshotgene]

Needless to say, I have not made the effort to read any more of the book. I went to bed last night with a good copy of the writings of Cicero on my stand. How can a publisher allow that stuff to be published? I will have to tell my students not to even consider him as a legitimate source. This leads me to another question. Do any of you have modern sources you just can't stand? I will start a new discussion over this topic.

[sylla]

... I went to bed last night with a good copy of the writings of Cicero on my stand. How can a publisher allow that stuff to be published? ...

An understandable complain; Cicero shows a significant tendency for insomnia...

 

Seriously, I can't understand why Mr. Cawthorne avoided references on primary sources in his book (out of pure laziness, I mean); after all, XXX material is hardly lacking from any major historian depicting the Early Principate; Suetonius, Dio, even Tacitus.

[Neoflash]

There was a similar work of pornography disguised as history dealing with Caius Caligula a few years back. I would recall the name if I hadn't made such an effort to forget it.

 

The movie was simply called "Caligula" and was released in 1979. It was not actually considered *or*, having even been, I believe, released at the Cannes festival, but it was definately smutty. Caligula - The Movie.

[sylla]

There was a similar work of pornography disguised as history dealing with Caius Caligula a few years back. I would recall the name if I hadn't made such an effort to forget it.

 

The movie was simply called "Caligula" and was released in 1979. It was not actually considered *or*, having even been, I believe, released at the Cannes festival, but it was definately smutty. Caligula - The Movie.

Definitions of "pornography" vary, but the (SIC) "depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement" (Merriam-Webster) is presumably quite representative of the modern consensus.

 

There were multiple versions of the 1979 Brass/Lui/Guccione film; the 156 to 160 minutes unrated uncut versions are probably the closest we can get to an "original" Caligula; their explicit content includes plenty of massive orgies, lesbianism, transvestism, masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, urination, anal fisting, sibling incest, rape, decapitation (by a giant moving wall!), infanticide, mutilation, and castration.

 

If we agree with MW operational definition above, and irrespectively of the merits of this movie, Caligula is as *or* as it can get. And it was hardly the only *or* movie projected at Cannes (actually a 210 minutes edited version was used).

 

This movie is frequently considered nowadays as some kind of Urban Legend, but it was actually a big failure in its own time; pretending to combine *or* and history, it became too explicit for historians and too pretentious for *or* fans.

Edited September 2, 2009 by sylla

[Neoflash]

There was a similar work of pornography disguised as history dealing with Caius Caligula a few years back. I would recall the name if I hadn't made such an effort to forget it.

 

The movie was simply called "Caligula" and was released in 1979. It was not actually considered *or*, having even been, I believe, released at the Cannes festival, but it was definately smutty. Caligula - The Movie.

Definitions of "pornography" vary, but the (SIC) "depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement" (Merriam-Webster) is presumably quite representative of the modern consensus.

 

There were multiple versions of the 1979 Brass/Lui/Guccione film; the 156 to 160 minutes unrated uncut versions are probably the closest we can get to an "original" Caligula; their explicit content includes plenty of massive orgies, lesbianism, transvestism, masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, urination, anal fisting, sibling incest, rape, decapitation (by a giant moving wall!), infanticide, mutilation, and castration.

 

If we agree with MW operational definition above, and irrespectively of the merits of this movie, Caligula is as *or* as it can get. And it was hardly the only *or* movie projected at Cannes (actually a 210 minutes edited version was used).

 

This movie is frequently considered nowadays as some kind of Urban Legend, but it was actually a big failure in its own time; pretending to combine *or* and history, it became too explicit for historians and too pretentious for *or* fans.

 

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that many aspects of the movie are pornographic in nature. But according to the MW definition it is the intent to cause sexual excitement that defines *or*. The question is, Was the entirety of Caligula made with the intent to cause sexual excitement in its viewers? If it was, than it is a pornographic movie. If it wasn't, than it is a movie with pornographic elements. The fact that the movie was "too pretentious for *or* fans" is an indication that it was not intended to cause sexual excitement. If it was, it failed miserably. After all, we all know what people watch *or* movies for (manus turbare) and Caligula would certainly be at the bottom of the list for most people as such a facilitator. *or* movies are made for the sole purpose of causing sexual excitement. Like you said, Caligula was more of crappy artsy fartsy attempt at blending history and pornography and it failed. The sex scenes had more shock value than they were sexually exciting (for most people).

 

What I meant is that Caligula was not considered by most, as being a pornographic movie, as being part of the fledgling *or* industry of the time. It was in a class of its own, and not a very good one.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Neoflash

[Primus Pilus]

Actually, Maty is talking about a book published just a couple of years ago. I can't recall the title or author either, but I do have a faint recollection of what he is talking about.

[sylla]

Actually, Maty is talking about a book published just a couple of years ago. I can't recall the title or author either, but I do have a faint recollection of what he is talking about.

You may both be talking about Caligula: Divine Carnage: Atrocities of the Roman Emperors by Stephen Barber (2006) .

[caldrail]

There was a similar work of pornography disguised as history dealing with Caius Caligula a few years back. I would recall the name if I hadn't made such an effort to forget it.

 

Caligula: Divine Wrath is the offending title. On no account buy it unless you want porno stories about Caligula, Claudius, and Commodus, not to mention some astonishing (and quite ridiculous) revelations about the behaviour of arena crowds.

 

No it isn't, I've just checked, and Scylla is correct. However I won't be checking the ciontents again.

Edited September 3, 2009 by caldrail

[Melvadius]

There was a similar work of pornography disguised as history dealing with Caius Caligula a few years back. I would recall the name if I hadn't made such an effort to forget it.

 

The movie was simply called "Caligula" and was released in 1979. It was not actually considered *or*, having even been, I believe, released at the Cannes festival, but it was definately smutty. Caligula - The Movie.

 

I seem to remember hearing at the time of its release a possibly apocrophyl story that several of the main actors claimed to have been unaware of quite how explicit the final film was going to be. The claim ran along the lines that after they had left the set body doubles and umpteen others were brought in to 'spice up' the action - alternatively there were more than one version and what was shown at Cannes was a milder version with the '*or*' element added to later versions.

 

The truth or otherwise of this story I couldn't say never having seen more than a few clips of the movie so you pays your money or not as the case may be for whichever version you wish to see.

 

Melvadius

[GhostOfClayton]

I have Caligula (the film) on DVD. Undoubtedly it is pretty tacky. However, the 'scenes of an adult nature' are tame compared to some of the stuff on HBO's Rome series, which was shown on Auntie BEEB.

 

Once you dismiss some of the tackier *or* scenes, there's quite a surprising helping of historical accuracy. And don't forget, it did have Malcolm McDowell, John Gielgud, Peter O'Toole and Helen Mirren. So I would say, do watch it, and try to look past the tackier elements. Then at least you can compare and contrast with the relevant episodes of I, Claudius.