My analysis of
Virgin Slave, Barbarian King got so long that it wouldn't have fitted easily onto the blog so
I've posted it on my website. However, as there isn't a comment facility on my website, if you'd like to comment on my analysis, please do so here.
I've focused on some key myths which I think provide a cultural context for the novel and give extra resonance to the events related in it.
One of those myths is that of Romulus and Remus,
pictured here in a painting
by Rubens. I thought it would make a change from the more well-known
Capitoline Wolf.
Laura, your analysis is truly masterful, and you've illuminated dimensions of the novel that I'd noticed but not consciously 'named.'
ReplyDeleteYour three myths took me right back to undergrad days of reading Livy and Virgil--I can't wait to read other analyses as they are posted.
Thanks, Melinda. I only studied Latin at secondary school, and I've forgotten most of it now, but we spent a lot of time on Dido and Aeneas, debating which of them had acted worst, and I ended up memorising the line "Italiam non sponte sequor".
ReplyDeleteLaura, I thought your analysis of the cultural mingling of Goth and Roman was interesting, because I read almost every comparison of Romans and Goths as coming down heavily on the side of the Goths being the better people--more honorable, more action oriented, more focused on family, more emotional with positive, warm feelings, more domestic, more honest, in better shape, etc. And while Alaric's policy of Romanizing the Goths is not necessary depicted as a bad thing, I see it as giving the Romans much more (humanity, reality, domesticity) than it gives the Goths (power, influence).
ReplyDeleteBut I loved your invocation of the actuality of the Sabine women (not a rape, but a commingling of cultures) and the Romulus myth. I also love your analysis of the new foundation myth and think you're absolutely right, both about that and about the equality of the two main characters at the end of the novel.
And I think your analysis and mine work very well together.
I read almost every comparison of Romans and Goths as coming down heavily on the side of the Goths being the better people [...] And while Alaric's policy of Romanizing the Goths is not necessary depicted as a bad thing, I see it as giving the Romans much more (humanity, reality, domesticity) than it gives the Goths (power, influence).
ReplyDeleteBut I get the sense from what you're saying that you see Alaric's policy as something which will happen in the future, whereas the way I read the novel, it seemed to me that many of the Visigoths, and Wulfric in particular, were already Romanised. In other words, they had already mingled Visigothic culture with parts of Roman culture, as evidenced by the tents they live in (which are adapted from the style of Roman military tents), the latrine that's set up in camp, the fine wines and glass cups that Wulfric has, and also, less concretely, the echoes of Aeneas's character which one finds in Wulfric. And, as I mentioned in my comment on your post, above, one can see many of the characteristics of the Visigoths (domesticity, farming, lack of political ambition) as ones which were ideals of the Roman Republic. Which is why I felt that the new foundation myth takes many (but not all) of the elements of the foundational myths/legends of Rome (possibly ones which are no longer so much in evidence in Roman society in this late period) and integrates them with Visigothic attitudes (particularly, as you point out, the respect for women's rights/freedom of choice, which certainly isn't something that's present in the myth about the Sabine women).
And I think your analysis and mine work very well together.
Yes, I think your analysis of the emphasis put on the anti-rape aspect of the depiction of Wulfric is important because of how it runs counter to what Bindel said. It also complements what I'd said about the Sabine women. I did say a little about women and the relationship between Julia and Wulfric, but I think your piece had much more analysis of that aspect of the novel, especially your focus on domesticity/home, which I hadn't mentioned at all. And yet, Aeneas is in search of a new home, so yes, I think our two responses do work very well together, even if we aren't in complete agreement on every detail. And when were two academics ever in agreement about every detail of a topic?