Anyone
who has tried a hand at fiction [I’ve made a few stabs at it – see my other two
blogspot sites] has had the experience of a story going off in in an unplanned
direction and finishing in an unexpected place. This is usually because a
character acquires a personality that refuses to cooperate; he or she demands
to speak and behave in a way that differs from whatever is in your initial
outline. It is at least somewhat comforting to know that this happens to first-rate
authors as well as to those further down the scale. Mark Twain, for example, tells
us that Pudd’nhead Wilson was supposed to be a minor character in a story
featuring the Capello twins, but he kept butting in front until Mark finally
gave up, handed the plot over to him, consigned the twins to a supporting role,
and titled the novel Pudd’nhead Wilson.
He explains this in an introduction to the short story Those Extraordinary Twins which he gave to the shortchanged twins
in compensation. This kind of divergence from plan doesn’t usually happen in nonfiction
blogs though, but it did today, thereby prompting me to double back and write
this introductory paragraph. No strong-willed fictional character took command,
but a strongly opinionated historical one beckoned down a side road. You’ll see
what I mean. Maybe I can’t blame him though; perhaps I just lost focus from a
lack of sleep.
As
that may be, last week’s musings on concrete brought to mind another material
so common we don’t think much about it: glass. There is a direct connection,
albeit a minor one, to concrete. One of the less important methods of recycling
glass is to grind it into pebble-size pieces and use it as aggregate in
concrete or asphalt (“glassphalt”). The primary uses for glass weigh more
heavily in the scheme of things of course.
Glassmaking
goes back to Sumeria. The process is pretty straightforward. Heat up a silicate
(SiO2) rock (typically quartz) to 1200
degrees C and its crystalline structure will break; the rock will turn into a
sticky liquid. Cool it fairly rapidly and the crystals won’t have time to reform;
the molecules will retain an amorphous pattern – or rather nonpattern – which
is to say the material will be glass. By adding a flux, such as potash, you can
lower the temperature at which this happens. Occasionally, but only
occasionally, glass forms naturally as in the case of obsidian. Perhaps the most
fun natural glass (assuming you are not there at the moment of formation) is
fulgerite, tubes or filaments of glass ranging from several centimeters to
several meters long that can form when lightning strikes desert sand. You have
to make glass on purpose, though, if you want industrial quantities of it.
While
making glass is uncomplicated in principle, giving it the properties you want
is more difficult; just figuring out how to make it transparent took centuries.
To work it into something useful takes art and skill. Glass production didn’t
really go into high gear until the Roman Empire. Romans not only made cheap
everyday glass bowls and drinking vessels, but elaborate cut glasses that we
still would have trouble duplicating. The Romans also were the first to make common
use of glass windows. An ancient Roman window typically had a lot of small
panes set in lead mullions. Making large panes was still a problem for them. Glass
windows are easy to underrate until you don’t have them; they let in the light
and they keep out the bugs. Before glass people used fabrics or shutters – or
they just left the hole in the wall open. None of those is very satisfactory.
It
occurs to me – in the way that one thought leads to another – that the Romans by
the first century already were so accustomed to glass that they scarcely
bothered to mention it in surviving texts. The only reference that comes immediately
to mind is by the boorish nouveau riche
character Trimalchio in Petronius’ first century novel Satyricon. Google churns up the quote swiftly: “But I prefer glass,
if you don't mind my saying so; it doesn't stink, and if it didn't break, I'd
rather have it than gold, but it's cheap and common now.” A quick look inside a
Penguin translation from my shelf of Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars to see if windows are mentioned in the
description of Nero’s Golden House turns up nothing, but I’m afraid that in the
pages of the book I’ve gotten distracted from glass. Repeated shattering of something
far more fragile is on display: elementary human decency. The Twelve Caesars is an engrossing read even if you’ve read it more
than once before.
Suetonius
(c. 69 – 122 AD) was a reactionary, which in the context of his time meant he
favored a return to governance by the Republican institutions which Julius and
his nephew Octavius had turned into rubber stamps. (Roman emperors were
surprisingly unperturbed by Republican-leaning historians; they don’t seem to
have bothered to suppress them so long as the writings were about their
predecessors.) Accordingly, he is happy to trot out the vices of the first
twelve Caesars. It therefore is tempting to dismiss his account of imperial
depravity as propaganda; yet, so much of it is backed by multiple sources and evidence
that we have to take it seriously. When he is unfair he still tells enough of
the facts for us to decide this for ourselves. For example, he quotes the
fatally ill emperor Vespasian as saying, “I feel I shall soon be a god.” This
is presented and often regarded as jaw-dropping arrogance, yet Suetonius’ own biographical
account shows Vespasian to have been down-to-earth (rare for a Caesar) and to
have had a taste for sarcastic humor. This looks to me to be an instance of it:
a reference to the Senate’s habit of voting divinity status for dead emperors,
something the hardheaded non-superstitious former general was unlikely to have
taken seriously. Besides, the imperial vices Suetonius recounts are, under the
circumstances, all too credible.
Several
of the Caesars were reasonably good imperial administrators – or at least had
the wisdom to delegate the task to unsung freedmen who were – but in their
private lives their behavior broke all bounds. In fact, there were no bounds.
How do people behave – how would you behave – when there literally are no
restrictions? When there are no legal consequences? When your word is law? The
answer pretty clearly is that they behave badly. One of the milder passages
about Nero:
“Besides
the abuse of free-born lads, and the debauch of married women, he committed a
rape upon Rubria, a Vestal Virgin. He was upon the point of marrying Acte, his
freedwoman, having suborned some men of consular rank to swear that she was of
royal descent. He gelded the boy Sporus, and endeavoured to transform him into
a woman. He even went so far as to marry him, with all the usual formalities of
a marriage settlement, the rose-coloured nuptial veil, and a numerous company
at the wedding... It was jocularly observed by some person, ‘that it would have
been well for mankind, had such a wife fallen to the lot of his father
Domitius.’”
In
accordance with Freud and Kinsey rather than 21st century
sensibilities, one might note, the Romans didn’t define their sexuality in narrow
or divisive terms such as straight or gay – they accepted that a person had a
range rather than a niche. An apparently disquieted Edward Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
nonetheless comments that of the first fifteen emperors, “Claudius was the only
one whose taste in love was entirely correct."
The
issue, of course, is not what is “correct” but what is assault – whether the
object of physical affection had any choice in the matter. Yet Nero wasn’t so
very unusual in this regard: his depravity didn’t hold a candle to that of the pedophile
Tiberius, never mind the outright insanity of Caligula.
Suetonius
remains a convincing warning about the hazards of absolute power. The hazard
also applies to the tyrant himself who may discover the hard way that power is
never entirely absolute after all: eight (maybe nine) of those twelve Caesars
were murdered.
Suetonius
wrote numerous other books on everything from grammar to timekeeping to natural
history to fashion. (The titles are listed in other sources.) Snippets from a
few survive, but most have been lost completely. Among the lost works (I kid
you not) is another biographical work, Lives
of Famous Whores. Pity.
Heart of Glass
Yeah, the bi-sexuality? of the Romans and other earlier races baffles me. By today's standards you tend to think, well you like one or the other, though even today, some still fall somewhere in the middle. Oddly in politics today, we tend to think of this as a "current" topic. And when (I'd guess with the advent of monotheism) did it change? And when it did change, it certainly went with seemingly definite results. It might make for an interesting SF story about such bi-sexual, bi-alien species if you can think of the right angle or story for such an idea. I can't off the top of my head think of any stories like that in SF or SF TV either, perhaps Star Trek address that in some fashion.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, I've heard Stephen King say some characters tend to write themselves or take over the story. He admits he doesn't outline, which I can see that freeing up the story to many degrees. I just wonder if he has an idea and starts writing, or if he has an end already planned that he shoots for ie. we're going on a journey until it ends here.
Almost everything in the 21st century is overloaded with political agenda, very much including arguments over whether sex is a matter of choice or nature. But why not defend the legitimacy of choice even (especially) when a choice is not mainstream? Why deny nature at any time? The truth more likely is a mixture of both anyway when it comes to sexual predilections: we inherit a range, which may differ in size from that of someone else, but may choose, for whatever reasons, to roam only a portion of it. On the 0-6 Kinsey scale (0 exclusively heterosexual 6 exclusively homosexual) developed in the ‘40s and which measures attraction (not behavior), only a minority scores 0 or 6.
DeleteThe pagan ancients just didn’t fuss as much over such things, though the Romans sniggered a bit more than the Hellenes. Things changed by the time of the Christian emperor Justinian (r. 527-565) though. He outlawed homosexuality because it causes earthquakes. This begs the response, “only if you do it right.”