From jbutrica@morgan.ucs.mun.ca Sun Jun 17 09:53:05 2001 Received: from mxu4.u.washington.edu (mxu4.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.11.2+UW01.01/8.11.2+UW01.04) with ESMTP id f5HGr4009866 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:53:04 -0700 Received: from cerberus.ucs.mun.ca (cerberus.ucs.mun.ca [134.153.2.162]) by mxu4.u.washington.edu (8.11.2+UW01.01/8.11.2+UW01.04) with ESMTP id f5HGr3s13525 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:53:04 -0700 Received: from [134.153.128.98] (drusus.clas.mun.ca [134.153.128.98]) by cerberus.ucs.mun.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21777 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:23:01 -0230 (NDT) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:23:01 -0230 (NDT) X-Sender: jbutrica@pop.morgan.ucs.mun.ca Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <002301c0f678$fa7d54c0$47140dd0@t9q0o0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: classics@u.washington.edu From: James Butrica Subject: Re: Swords, Sandals, and Fun (I) Many points in that review call for comment; but I was struck most by what seemed to be a contradiction in Solomon's book itself (assuming that it has been represented accurately). Solomon is quoted early on as dismissing the "Ph.D. scholars" who quibble over every single detail in historical films and dismiss anything that fails scrutiny (which is pretty much everything, of course), and I feel myself that absolute accuracy is not a criterion for judging works set in antiquity (one example: the Gracchus played by Charles Laughton in *Spartacus* was fictitious, but I wouldn't have the film without him). Solomon is quoted toward the end as saying that "Greek myths are 'flexible, dynamic tales changed and adjusted by every storyteller, songster, and poet,' so low-budget producers are merely doing what has been done through the ages." I couldn't agree more, except that I would put it another way and say that the tradition has no vitality if there can't be innovation. But in the middle the reviewer says "[Solomon] didn't like [*Gladiator*] and takes issue with its '21st-century bias,' specifically its trendy emphasis on family values. ... This overindulgence in touchy-feely sentiments distorts history. ... To portray the character of Maximus in this way, says Solomon, superimposes modern sensitivity and Roman Republican virtues onto the Roman Empire of the second century A.D." But surely social values (=3D "sensitivity") are precisely one of the things that one expects to see change in adaptations; and how could it be otherwise in a vital tradition, where old myths (a term not excluding history) are constantly reinterpreted for new societies and new ages? Popular treatments succeed most by creating sympathy with characters, which would be harder if those characters embodied only the most alienating features of ancient values -- and don't the similarities (at least between the imperial Romans and ourselves) far outweigh the differences? Why should this one area become a reserve where historical accuracy *is* demanded? And another thing. I don't know whether I'm disagreeing here with the reviewer or with Solomon, but a comparison between Maximus in *Gladiator* and Cincinnatus never occurred to me. Cincinnatus is described as "the 5th-century B.C. farmer-turned-general who was twice offered the dictatorship of Rome but turned it down to return to farming. It was his farm, not his wife and children, that Cincinnatus missed: his firm rejection of power in favor of the simple life of the soil is what made him a paragon of virtue to latter-day republican idealists like the Founding =46athers." I gather from the OCD that the supposed second dictatorship is now considered a figment; according to Valerius Maximus, he was an example of *moderatio* because he refused to hold a second consecutive consulship. But was Cincinnatus' virtue a matter of preferring "the simple life" to power (this sounds distinctly late-Republican, in fact, Maecenatic even) or was it a matter of restraint in the holding and exercising of power? That's certainly what I thought his example meant to the Romans and in the 18th and 19th centuries; and that's certainly why Byron, in his "Ode to Napoleon Bonaparte," was able to compare Nappie unfavourably to George Washington (one became emperor, the other didn't) with this immortal tribute: "But one, the first, the last, the best, The Cincinnatus of the West..." (Thanks to Arnold Sch=F6nberg for setting this horrid piece of poetry to music, thus increasing my risk of exposure to it.) James Lawrence Peter Butrica Department of Classics Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John's, Newfoundland A1C 5S7 (709) 737-7914 .