Rome on Film Archives - The Partial Historians: Recent Episodes
The Partial Historians
We were absolutely thrilled to be invited to join the crew over on the Movies We Dig podcast to talk about the first season of the television show Romulus. Released in 2020, Romulus was created by Matteo Rovere. Filmed in Lazio, with a script entirely in archaic Latin, you might think this show would only be of interest to hardcore language fans. Well, we’re here to encourage you to seek out this show.
Romulus as you’ve never seen him before!You’ll be forgiven for wondering WHO is Romulus in the early episodes, but watch on and all will be revealed. The first season comprises of ten episodes with plenty of drama, some great side-plots, and some fearsome takes on 8th century BCE warrior culture in central Italy.
The main youth characters of Romulus standing together. From left to right: Wiros (Francesco Di Napoli), Yemos (Andrea Arcangeli), and Ilia (Marianna Fontana).
This isn’t Matteo Rovere’s first turn about the block at the Romulus and Remus foundation story, with his film Il Primo Re coming out in 2019, also spoken in archaic Latin. Let’s take a moment to empathise with the actors in both that film and Romulus for rising to the challenge of bringing gritty emotion and passion to a language that has echoes of modern Italian, but is certainly different as well.
Our interview does contain spoilers, so consider yourself warned! You can enjoy it over on the Movies We Dig YouTube or wherever you enjoy your podcasts 🙂
The king of the Gabii, Ertas (Emilio De Marchi) standing with his people arrayed behind him.
A huge thanks to the Movies We Dig hosts Colin MacCormack, Elijah Fleming and Christie Vogler for having us on to discuss one of the topics dear to our heart: those pesky kings of Rome! And if you’re keen to delve further into this very early part of ancient Rome’s history, then oh boy, do we have a book for you. Rex: The Seven Kings of Rome is all history with a good dash of our signature humour. You can read a sample at our Gumroad store – just click the link above.
The post Romulus Season 1! appeared first on The Partial Historians.
This episode we return to the ‘Golden Age of Hollywood’ with a classic sword and sandal epic, Quo Vadis (1951). This film is available through many streaming platforms and we highly recommend revisiting it.
In Part One of two episodes on Quo Vadis, we examine the context for the film and the plot.
Quo Vadis (1951) helped to ignite Hollywood’s passion for ancient epics in this decade. It was a smash hit with some of the legendary stars of the era, including Robert Taylor, Deborah Kerr and Peter Ustinov. This film is not only epic in terms of length, but in terms of all the aspects that you could discuss in connection with it.
Special Episode – Quo Vadis (1951) – Part One
ResistanceThe tale itself has a lengthy backstory which takes us all the way back to 19th century Poland. Henryk Sienkiewicz wrote the book in a serialised format between 1894-1896. Poland had been going a through a tough time over the course of the preceding century, in the sense that it did not exist independently between 1795 and 1918. During this period, the Catholic Church was crucial in preserving Polish culture. Sienkiewicz often wrote historical novels that would lift the spirits of his fellow poles, and Quo Vadis was no exception. For Sienkiewicz, the triumph of Christian characters such as Lygia and Ursus (meant to be from Lugii, i.e. Poland) represent the ultimate triumph of Poland over its cruel oppressors, with Nero representing nations such as Russia, Austro-Hungary and Prussia.
Sienkiewicz’s novel was well-received, and was therefore adapted into toga plays, operas, and several films. The earlier film versions were made in Europe, including the notable 1912 silent classic.
Join us for the fascinating background of the 1951 film and stay tuned for Part Two!
Quo Vadis – Roll Call!There are a LOT of characters to keep track of in a film of this length, so if you need a handy reference, check out the cast list on IMDB.
The main people that you need to know for our episode include:
LygiaFictional main lady love interest. Christian, hostage-turned-adoptive daughter of Roman general Aulus Plautus, and his wife, Pomponia Graecina.
Marcus ViniciusFictional main manly love interest. Roman, not Christian (yet). Militaristic, aggressive to start, turns all moral as the film progresses.
Lygia (Deborah Kerr) and Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor) in the courtyard of her adoptive parents’ home in Rome.
Source: FilmAffinity.
Emperor NeroHistorical figure. Really was Roman emperor from 54-68 CE. Known as the last emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Really was terrible, although maybe not quite as unrelentingly awful as many suggest – including this film. Probably not as amusing as Peter Ustinov!
A gold coin showing the obverse portrait of Nero.Bust of the historical NeroPeter Ustinov as Nero in Quo Vadis (1951)Poppaea SabinaHistorical figure. Elite Roman lady. Complicated love life. Winds up as Nero’s second wife. Called beautiful but awful in the surviving sources. We say – the jury is out on that one. Typical fun, adulteress type character used to contrast to the ‘good girl’, Lygia. Historically, she is murdered by Nero while pregnant with their child. In Quo Vadis, Nero strangles her. An awful demise in reality and in film.
Statue of the historical Poppaea Sabina found in Olympia, GreecePatricia Laffan as Poppaea Sabina in Quo Vadis (1951)Petronius (Gaius Petronius Arbiter)Historical figure. Served as governor of Bithynia and was consul in either 62 or 63 CE. Did a decent job, but in his personal life seems to have made pleasure his main goal. Dubbed the ‘Arbiter of Elegance’ by Nero. Accused of being part of a conspiracy against Nero and suicided whilst chatting casually to friends. Thought to be the author of the novel, The Satyricon, which is a very unusual piece because it does NOT focus on the elite and is pretty … eye-opening. Possibly makes fun of Nero through the gross figure of Trimalchio, a freedmen who has become a wealthy show-off with no taste. Close associate of Nero. In the movie, Petronius is Vinicius’ uncle and an elegant, witty, intelligent member of Emperor Nero’s inner-circle. He also has a weird obsession with the enslaved Eunice…
From left: Petronius (Leo Genn) attempting to advise Nero (Peter Ustinov) in a scene from Quo Vadis (1951).
Image source: FilmFanatic
UrsusFictional character. Bodyguard of Lygia, Christian convert. Super strong.
PeterThat’s St Peter to you! Follower of Jesus Christ. Christian (to state the obvious). Supposedly was crucified upside down, making him a martyr, which Sienkiewicz worked into his novel. Has a very famous domed building named after him.
Pomponia GraecinaHistorical figure. Elite Roman lady who was related to the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Mentioned by Tacitus for her ballsy behaviour. She wore mourning for DECADES after Julia was bumped off by Messalina, which could have led to her own downfall, but Claudius did not punish her. (Julia Livia, granddaughter of Tiberius, daughter of Livilla and Drusus Caesar – mother of Rubellius Plautus). Her husband was told to deal with her privately after she was charged for believing in an “alien superstition”, which some have taken to mean she dabbled in Christianity. Good choice to turn into a character with Christian leanings in Quo Vadis! Adoptive mother of Lygia in the film. V V Virtuous.
Aulus PlautiusHistorical figure. Really was a Roman general who won an ovation for a campaign in Britain. Really married to Pomponia Graecina.
ActeHistorical figure. An imperial freedwoman that teenage Nero fell for HARD, much to his mother’s displeasure. Suetonius reports that she was one of the few to attend the interment of his ashes, so her devotion in the film tracks. In the film, not a Christian but still a good woman as she is virtuous and loyal. As the movie is set late in Nero’s reign, it makes sense that he has moved on from her by now. Sympathetic to Christians, so that’s something. Is in love with Nero but keeps it real with him. Helps him to commit suicide when everyone else has abandoned him. A good choice, as Nero’s suicide was supposedly aided by his slave.
EuniceFictional enslaved woman. For reasons that make absolutely no sense, she has a crush on her master, Petronius. He eventually loves her back – depends on the version of Quo Vadis that you consult as to how that happens. It’s fair to say, we’re not keen on her storyline.
Sound CreditsThanks to the fabulous Bettina Joy de Guzman for our theme music.
Our Sources Babington, B.; Evans, P. W., Biblical Epics: Sacred Narrative in the Hollywood Cinema (Manchester University Press, New York: 1993). * Cyrino, M., Big Screen Rome (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford: 2005). * Elley, D., The Epic Film: Myth and History (Routledge and Kegan Paul, Suffolk and London: 1984). * Joshel, S.; Malamud, M.; Wyke, M., ‘Introduction’, in Imperial Projections: Ancient Rome in Modern Popular Culture, ed. S. Joshel, M. Malamud & M. Wyke (John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London: 2001), 1-22. And this what Dr Rad was quoting in the episode! * Malamud, M., Ancient Rome and Modern America (Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford: 2009). * Mayer, D., Playing Out Empire: Ben-Hur and Other Toga Plays and Films, 1883-1908, A Critical Anthology (Clarendon Press, New York: 1994). * Scodel, R.; Bettenworth, A. Whither Quo Vadis? (Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell Publications: 2009). * Skwara, E. “Quo Vadis on Film (1912, 1925, 1951, 1985, 2001): The Many Faces of Antiquity.” Clássica (São Paolo) 16, no. 2 (2013): 163-174. * Solomon, J., The Ancient World in the Cinema (Yale University Press, Michigan: 2001). * Wyke, M., Projecting the Past: Ancient Rome, Cinema and History (Routledge, London: 1997). * Wyke, M., ‘Projecting Ancient Rome’, in The Historical Film: History and Memory in Media, ed. M. Landy (Rutgers University Press, New Jersey: 2001), 125-42. * You Must Remember This (7 March, 2016). The Blacklist Part 5: The Strange Love of Barbara Stanwyck: Robert Taylor*.
The classic film poster for Quo Vadis, the Roman and Christian epic!
Image course: Wikipedia.
Rome on ScreenInterested in how Rome is depicted on screen? Check out our back catalogue where we cover films and television.
Automated Transcript Edited for clarity! The AI does seem to have challenges with both Latin and Australian accents!
Dr Rad 0:08
Welcome to this special episode of The Partial Historians. I’m Dr. Rad and normally Dr. G and I discuss the history of Rome from the founding of the city. But today we begin a deep dive into Quo Vadis 1951. We ended up talking for so long about this epic that we have split the episode into two parts. This is part one of our coverage of Quo Vadis, in which we will examine the context and the plot. We hope that you enjoy this sword and sandal classic as much as we did.
Dr G 0:54
Hello, and welcome to this very special episode of the Partial Historians. I am Dr. G
Dr Rad 1:03
And I am Dr. Rad.
Dr G 1:05
And we are so excited because we’re going to be talking about the film, the film,
Dr Rad 1:12
Indeed
Dr G 1:13
Quo Vadis.
Dr Rad 1:14
Yes. And now we have talked about this on someone else’s podcast before but it was years ago really a long time ago. We’ve never done it just the two of us. So we thought we would revisit because as our time of recording it is Easter.
Dr G 1:29
It is Easter. And we did have a special request come through from one of our supporters. So shout out to you.
Dr Rad 1:37
Yeah
Dr G 1:38
This is Quo Vadis
Dr Rad 1:40
Indeed
Dr G 1:40
From us.
Dr Rad 1:41
So Quo Vadis is one of the biggest blockbuster films – sword and sandals – of the 1950s it really kicks off the decade.
Dr G 1:53
I was gonna say this is 1951.
Dr Rad 1:55
Exactly.
Dr G 1:56
And boy is the bar set high. Because this film is probably what just as long as “The Fall of the Roman Empire”. But better, like I didn’t get bored.
Dr Rad 2:04
Ah, that’s good to hear! Well see, I never know how people are going to respond to all these different ones. But yes, it was definitely I think the film that kind of set the tone for the decade you know, had Hollywood chasing the ruins constantly like this is where we’re going to make money people. This is how we’re going to save our industry. But it didn’t just come out of nowhere, Dr. G. So I thought before we actually talk about the 1951 film, we have to acknowledge some of the background.
Dr G 2:35
Ah a true historian you are
Dr Rad 2:37
Can’t help myself, because this is actually based on a blockbuster novel.
Dr G 2:44
Yes. And the success of the novel is part of what engenders the film.
Dr Rad 2:48
Exactly, exactly. So it was written in the 19th century like right at the end, it was appearing in sort of a serialised version between 1894 and 1896. Originally written in Polish, because the author was Polish. And unsurprisingly, so far makes sense. Yeah, his name was Henryk Sienkiewicz. I think that’s how you pronounce it anyway. And he he was known for writing quite a few novels, basically historical novels, generally ones that I think, showed the Polish people in a way that was going to lift morale for the people of his own time. And that I think, has a lot to do with what Poland was dealing with at this point in time. And I’ll come to that in a moment. But essentially, in this particular book that he was writing, it’s meant to be that the Christians kind of stand for, like the very earliest version of the Catholic Church, which had come to be very important for representing Polish interests against the other nations that wanted to control Poland at this point in time.
Dr G 2:48
Fair enough. Fair enough.
Dr Rad 3:58
Yeah. But I think also, it was also maybe sparked by the fact that there were large scale excavations going on in Rome at around the time that he was writing as well, from about 1870 to 1914.
Dr G 4:14
There’s lots of things being uncovered. And lots of exciting finds being shared across Europe.
Dr Rad 4:19
Indeed, yeah, because Poland, Poland has such a sad history, there is no independent Poland between 1795 and 1918, essentially, but resistance continues throughout this entire time. And the Catholic Church is just crucial for trying to preserve Polish culture, when it’s going through one of those classic periods of oppression where, you know, occupying powers are saying, “Hey, you can’t speak your language. No, not even in school”, you know, so they’re trying to preserve their identity and that sort of thing. So, one of the main characters of the novel is a girl called Lygia.
Dr G 4:57
And would I be right guessing that this is supposed to be a stand-in for Poland?
Dr Rad 5:00
Yes. As well as the blonde hair, yeah, as well as her kind of servant Ursus. So both of them are meant to be representing Catholic Poland and the Polish people.
Dr G 5:15
Nice. All right.
Dr Rad 5:17
And the fact that Nero does not end well in this novel is meant to be a bit of a threat, I think, against the various countries that are exploiting Poland at this point in time, namely, Russia, Austro-Hungary, and Prussia, not to be confused with Russia.
Dr G 5:37
All of whom would be utilising Roman symbolism as part of their regalia as part of their politics. So this is not a huge jump for the imagination of the Polish reader to be like, “Oh, I see where you’re going here.”
Dr Rad 5:52
Yeah, definitely. So I just thought that was really interesting to note and Quo Vadis, did become an international bestseller was published in many different translations. So lots of people end up becoming familiar with this particular work. In fact, in 1905, Sienkiewicz, our author, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature
Dr G 6:12
Well, but not for Quo Vadis? For something else?
Dr Rad 6:15
I actually feel like it was for Quop Vadis, but now I’m doubting myself. Maybe it’s just the way I’ve organised my notes where I’m like Quo Vadis, international bestseller, awarded Nobel Prize. Either way, he’s a good writer.
Dr G 6:31
He’s doing well for himself.
Dr Rad 6:32
Yeah, people are captured by the story. And it ends up being adapted many times into plays into operas. And eventually, there are multiple film versions of this particular novel. I thought it might be a good point, however, to pause and talk a little bit about when this is supposedly set. The context.
Dr G 6:54
Yeah, so we’ve got – we’re in the late period of Nero’s reign, from what we can tell.
Dr Rad 7:02
Yeah.
Dr G 7:03
There is the story of Agrippina, his mother, already having been knocked off.
Dr Rad 7:09
Yes.
Dr G 7:09
He’s also gotten rid of Octavia.
Dr Rad 7:13
First one.
Dr G 7:13
Yes. And he’s now married to somebody called Poppaea.
Dr Rad 7:19
Yes. So Nero, Nero is someone who’s pretty infamous. But just in case you don’t know who the Emperor Nero is – and that’s completely fine – he is part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, draw their descent from well, I mean,
Dr G 7:33
Julius Caesar, ultimately, but most people leverage the connection to Augustus.
Dr Rad 7:38
I was going to say, it’s really Augustus they’re concerned about and one of the Claudian gens.
Dr G 7:43
One of those Claudians. One of them in there somewhere.
Dr Rad 7:47
That blended together in this amazing McFlurry of a family. And Nero when he comes to power in 54. See, he is a teenager, about 16 years old about to turn 17 when he comes into power. And if you’re thinking to yourself, I don’t think I trust teenagers with that much power. You’d be correct.
Dr G 8:10
Yes, you shouldn’t. And we don’t recommend putting them into power that young because, well, there’s plenty of historical evidence to suggest they cannot handle the heady heights of power at that age.
Dr Rad 8:21
Yeah, particularly when you have a mother who, whilst amazing is extremely dominating, like Agrippina the Younger, who may very well have committed murder of her awn uncle slash husband, in order to make you emperor.
Dr G 8:35
Oft!
Dr Rad 8:36
Yeah. So in spite of all of this, allegedly, the first few years of Nero’s reign started. Yeah, well, I suppose you could say.
Dr G 8:46
There is talk of the five good years of Nero.
Dr Rad 8:50
Yeah.
Dr G 8:50
Where he’s following his advisers. He’s got a few: Seneca is probably the most famous of them.
Dr Rad 8:56
Yeah.
Dr G 8:57
And Agrippina seems to also be a moderating maternal force. She may be quite domineering, but Nero seems to –
Dr Rad 9:06
Sometimes it’s a good thing
Dr G 9:06
- to be able to go along with that initially.
Dr Rad 9:09
Yeah. And Burrus head of his Praetorian Guard set. Yeah, absolutely. All these people seem to be actually the ones calling the shots. And that’s from the good thing, because I don’t think Nero is particularly interested in the reality of politics. He’s okay with the benefits, but I don’t think he’s super interested in ruling per se. Unless it’s like, get me another eunuch.
Dr G 9:38
Yeah, look, he’s young. He’s got a lot to learn and maybe he steps into leadership in a slightly bigger way as time goes on. Certainly he makes a play to be the one who gets to decide things ultimately, and we see the shift away from what is thought of as the five good years into like, “Oh, Nero’s in charge now.”
Dr Rad 9:59
Yeah,
Dr G 10:00
“Oh, well then!”
Dr Rad 10:01
How’s that gonna go for everyone? Not Great.
Dr G 10:04
Look, if this film is anything to go by: pretty terribly.
Dr Rad 10:09
The historical accuracy we will get to that in a sec. But yeah, the major I think signs of like a turning point is that number one in 59 CE Agrippina the Younger is murdered by Nero. And I don’t think anybody disputes that.
Dr G 10:23
Everybody seems to credit him as being the killer. Yeah, there are various methods and when the collapsible boat doesn’t work out, he moves on to more fatal measures.
Dr Rad 10:35
More straightforward, certainly. And then a few years after that, Burrus dies. And Seneca also appears to take a step back, maybe because he’s losing influence. And this is around the time that his marriage falls apart with Octavia, his first wife is very popular with the people and also one of his relatives. Creepy. Yes, but let’s not dwell on it.
Dr G 11:00
Pretty normal for the Julio-Claudians.
Dr Rad 11:02
Yeah, exactly. They could look they could be closer related, let’s just say, and he starts hanging out with this other elite woman who’s apparently far more depraved Poppaea Sabina. Eventually, she will become his next wife. But he starts making more audacious moves after 62 – not just because he gets rid of Octavia and when I say it gets rid of her he doesn’t just divorce her. He also puts her to death in a really terrible way, which does not win him any friends. But in 64, we start to see Nero performing publicly on stage which is a real no-no for anyone in the elite, but particularly the emperor.
Dr G 11:40
Ah, yeah. So Nero has this reputation as somebody who enjoys the arts, enjoys the theatre. And while you might think to yourself, well, they’re innocent diversions, and many people enjoy the theatre and the arts
Dr Rad 11:54
Without being raving psychopathic murderer and mother.
Dr G 11:57
It’s not quite the same in ancient Rome, some forms of entertainment are considered very low brow. And for Nero himself to be a stage performer is considered well outside the bounds of what is morally and socially acceptable for somebody of an elite stature.
Dr Rad 12:19
Oh, definitely. And I think it also has to do with the idea of putting yourself publicly on display in that way, like using your body in that kind of a way
Dr G 12:28
Oh, hello.
Dr Rad 12:29
Yeah, it just it just ugh.
Dr G 12:31
But apparently, he counted himself as being quite the artiste. Yeah, a bit of a singer. Yeah, a bit of a instrumentalist.
Dr Rad 12:37
Oh, what can’t you do, Dr. G, is really the question? Or at least what won’t he pretend he can’t do.
Dr G 12:44
The other problem with this kind of thing is from a Roman perspective is these kinds of pursuits are also seen as being a little bit too Greek.
Dr Rad 12:52
Yes. And we know that Nero seems to have been very fond of Greek culture.
Dr G 12:56
And yes, for the Romans, this is concerning because they feel the Greeks are a little bit too effeminate for their liking.
Dr Rad 13:04
Way too soft. That’s not how you conquer the world – can be tough. The Romans, apparently, yeah. Anyway, it’s in at 65 that we have the Great Fire of Rome, we’ll get to that. I’m not going to talk about the accuracy of this event right now. I mean, there is a fire. Don’t get me wrong. That’s true.
Dr G 13:20
Rome definitely suffers from a fire and there’s definitely a rebuilding programme which Nero leads.
Dr Rad 13:25
Yeah. So there’s a very big fire very damaging, not uncommon to have a fire and we’re in but a fire on this scale is unusual. And then of course, we have one of the largest and probably better known conspiracy against your in that same year, the Pisonian conspiracy. However, Nero still –
Dr G 13:46
He survived!
Dr Rad 13:47
Yeah, he performs at the Neronia, a Greek festival he throws.
Dr G 13:53
Named after himself, Oh, how sweet!
Dr Rad 13:55
I think we’re getting a bit of a feel for him so far. And then we see a real degeneration. I think after this point, you see the death of Poppaea also, allegedly, because of Nero’s actions, he murders her, with the plague in Rome in 66 CE, which, again, is not Nero’s fault, but it’s not great. And many people are being put to death in this year. On top of that, nothing to do with the plague, just because of the conspiracy of the previous year. And if that weren’t enough, there’s another conspiracy in 66. Nero still goes on holiday in Greece. And there’s a revolt in Judea.
Dr G 13:55
Ah yes.
Dr Rad 13:58
Yeah, which isn’t great. And then in 67 CE, we start to see the execution of very competent and popular generals like a guy called Corbulo, which doesn’t again, win Nero any friends, and finally in 68, this is where we’re going to see one of the more notable revolts against Nero, mostly because it’s successful and near will eventually be ousted from power and commit suicide.
He comes to a sticky end.
Yeah. So that’s just a bit of a rough context. For those of you who don’t know Nero particularly well about when Quo Vadis is set because Quo Vadis is taking place in these latter years as you said.
Dr G 15:15
Yeah, we’re definitely in the post five good years by the time we see Nero on screen in Quo Vadis. He is married to Poppaea Sabina. Yeah. And that is where all of this is heading. And we also see the way that Nero was constructed in this film is very much in service of the broader Christianizing narrative, which is the dominant narrative for this whole film.
Dr Rad 15:41
I’m so glad you said that Dr. G, because one of the things I wanted to mention is that, I think one of the forms of adaptation that has a real legacy in the films that we see toga plays. Now toga plays were very popular in the 19th century, and even I think, into the early 20th century, to be honest, the Quo Vadis versions were not necessarily themselves, like huge smash hits like they did, okay. But the hallmarks of a toga play, I think you can see in the film version, so for example, the fact that you have to have this kind of generic Christianity, because you don’t want to specialise or get specific, because that way, everyone who’s even remotely Christian can endorse the film as being, you know, leading the way with Christianity and that sort of thing. But perhaps more important than that, even are the female characterizations that you tend to see spring up in toga plays. So you often have a Christian female in these productions, who is self-sacrificing, domestic, and she has a interesting influence over the more aggressive, perhaps bolder, smarter, even funnier, perhaps even more attractive male in the story.
Dr G 17:03
Well, well, well, I think there’s also some interesting parallels to be drawn between the way that these kinds of films and it sounds like these toga plays as well, that I’m less familiar with, are also doing a very similar thing to the way that Christian philosophical literature from the second and third century CE are doing in terms of building a convincing case for why it would be good for you to also be Christian.
Dr Rad 17:29
Yes, definitely. Well, I think that’s the interesting thing about toga plays, and then sword and sound type films or, you know, just films about Rome in general, in that Rome, for both the British and North Americans in the Victorian age, they’re often the bad guys in these sorts of things, you know, these toga plays in the early films, and even the later films, to be honest. But even though they’re the bad guys, and therefore they are the other, because of course, Britain and North America see themselves as being on the side of Christianity. But at the same time, there’s obviously got to be a lot that they recognise in themselves in terms of empire: wanting power wanting conquest, you know, the pillars of civilization.
Dr G 18:16
Oh, it’s the duelling sides of the soul, isn’t it? It’s that desire for the material gain that Rome represents so well. Yeah. And I think spiritual richness of the Christian soul.
Dr Rad 18:28
Yeah. And I always have this phrase in my head, which I didn’t actually need you to write it down, even though I have to because it really stood out for me when I was doing my research into this kind of stuff from Mayer and he says Rome and its empire were painfully familiar. I think that always sums up very well the kind of relationship that the British and American audiences are going to continue to have with Rome. Now, of course, Quo Vadis, does make it to the screen very early, in fact, and it has been adapted many times. We’re focusing on the 1951 version, but there are a couple of silent versions and there was a version from 2001. That was a mini series in 1985. You know, Quo Vadis is one of those ones that people keep going back to, like Ben Hur. And as we know, Hollywood likes to repeat success story.
Dr G 19:16
They certainly do.
Dr Rad 19:17
Hey, this works. And I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Nero’s reign really works on a Hollywood level, because it allows you to have this extravaganza of consumption and excess and lavishness on the screen whilst also being like it’s not cool.
Dr G 19:40
Oh, guys, don’t do do this. Look on but a heaven forfend that you do this?
Dr Rad 19:49
Yeah, exactly. So there was a very famous version in 1912, directed by Enrico Guazzoni. And this is generally seen as a pretty spectacular early film, you know, because they’re still experimenting with the the medium and that sort of thing. So it’s seen as having some really interesting technological innovations, which makes the story I think, much more powerful. And then we have another version in 1925, which is also interesting, because of course, it’s like the rise of fascism is happening in that at that point in time. So it’s not overly influenced by that. But anyway, but we do want to focus on the 1951 version today. So let’s skip ahead to that. Shall we talk about the general plot of the 1951 version is a bit different to the novel.
Dr G 20:38
All right. So Quo Vadis, 1951. So we’ve got essentially a cast of our Roman characters and our Christian characters. Yes. And we start with our Romans, we’ve got a Roman commander coming back to Rome, yeah, as you should, after successfully leading these legions over in Britain or whatnot. And where this sort of takes off is that he’s not allowed to go into the city straightaway, he’s got to camp outside. And he finds out later that this is for good reasons. Nero wants to put on a proper display with a whole bunch of legions and commanders coming back soon. But this means that our main character Marcus Vinicius has to end up staying with a friend, rather than popping home and doing his own thing.
Dr Rad 21:25
Awkward crashing on the triclinium.
Dr G 21:27
Yeah. And it’s a guy that he’s known for a long time, used to be a Roman commander himself. So they’ve got a history there. And that’s nice. But what seems to have happened that maybe Vinicius has hasn’t picked up on between the last time he saw this guy is that this family has become Christian.
Dr Rad 21:43
Gasphow disgusting!
Dr G 21:47
You know, he kind of doesn’t come into this knowledge for quite some time. He’s –
Dr Rad 21:51
They’re secretive!
Dr G 21:52
Yeah, he’s pretty oblivious and they’re really not being overt about it. They’re not being like, “Ooh, something new in town. Have you tried Christianity?” They’ve been very calm, very quiet. And it’s during this moment that Vinicius is also runs into their daughter, the daughter of this guy and his wife, Lygia, in the household. And he’s like, you know, every time the camera pans to her, it’s a Vaseline moment. She is. It is incredible. But he immediately starts to deploy his – what I think he thinks is charismatic charm – but is really Roman boorishness.
Dr Rad 22:32
Well for particularly someone like her and she’s, she’s an interesting character because she is meant to be a hostage of the Lygian king, but she’s become like a daughter to these people.
Dr G 22:42
Well, she’s – they say – that she’s been adopted.
Dr Rad 22:45
Yes, exactly.
Dr G 22:46
And they’ve taken her in as their own.
Dr Rad 22:48
Yeah
Dr G 22:48
But she is a hostage of a foreign kingdom. And she does have a bodyguard, who’s also from a kingdom who also lives in the household. Yeah, and this whole arrangement is very interesting. But also Vinicius is kind of like just sort of like tramples all over things, tries to do a bit of a clumsy seduction. After he’s just seen her for the first time. And she’s not having a bar of that.
Dr Rad 23:12
Yeah.
Dr G 23:12
Which is fair enough. Smart move, lady. But this means that a friction has been set up where because Vinicius has been denied, in this very sort of materialistic Roman way that they’re being characterised, you start to develop this thing, “Well, if I can’t have it, I really want it.” And, and this colours, a whole bunch of things.
Dr Rad 23:32
Yeah.
Dr G 23:33
So this leads him to create a scenario through his contacts with Nero to have Lygia transferred out of that household. He finds out that she’s the hostage. Yeah, he’s like, what do we know about how hostage law works? And they’re like, well –
Dr Rad 23:49
Sneaky bastard!
Dr G 23:50
Yeah, if the emperor says so. I mean, the hostage can be transferred to a different household. Yeah. So Vinicius sets this up. So Lygia is first of all ripped out of the home that she has come to know
Dr Rad 24:02
Totally going to win her over. 100%.
Dr G 24:04
Definitely. Yeah. She gets gussied up at the Imperial Palace into some fancy dress.
Dr Rad 24:08
I think you mean, she gets slut-ified.
Dr G 24:12
They put her in a very nice gown.
Dr Rad 24:15
Yeah, I don’t think she’s too comfortable in it. It’s too revealing.
Dr G 24:18
Too revealing and maybe a little bit too shiny. Yeah. And they put her on display in front of the emperor at a sort of a dinner party situation where Vinicius is like, “you look ravishing”, and she’s like, “What? Why am I even here? Like, I’ve just been ripped from my family, like, whatever.” Yeah. And he’s like, “Oh, well, the good news is I did that.” And she’s like, “Excuse me?. And he’s like, “So your mine now by imperial decree. Did you know?” And she’s like, “Oh. My. God.”
Dr Rad 24:49
This guy can’t take a hint!
Dr G 24:52
She finds a way to escape essentially from that situation. Yeah. Nero is kind of oblivious and doing his own thing in the meantime, and I think this is an important subplot, Poppaea has spotted Vinicius and she’s like, “Well, he looks pretty hot.”
Dr Rad 25:07
Oh, yes.
Dr G 25:08
And her reputation for debauchery knows no bounds. So everybody’s kind of like they’re not really surprised when she tries to sort of she calls him over for a bit of a chat. Yeah. Nero doesn’t seem perplexed about this kind of thing at all, like Poppaea is being Poppaea. She’s an interesting one.
Dr Rad 25:24
This is just how women act. Yeah. May want me?
Dr G 25:28
My tiger, my cheetah. So she does a bit of a thing where she makes sure Vinicius knows that she’s interested in him. Yes. And he’s like, Okay, that’s cool. But my chick’s over there. Then she disappears. Lygia is sort of whisked away. And secreted away. And it turns out –
Dr Rad 25:47
This has something to do with Acte, doesn’t it?
Dr G 25:49
Yes.
Dr Rad 25:49
Yeah. Acte is actually a historical person. Yes. Yeah. Actually, as her [Lygia’s] adoptive parents, I should say. Yeah. Acte is mentioned in connection with Nero.
Dr G 26:01
Yeah. Acte is somebody who is written about in the source material as being one of these people that he has a relationship with. And she’s an actress. I think
Dr Rad 26:11
I actually thought she was a freed woman or a slave?
Dr G 26:15
Yeah, there’s something going on there. She has, she loves she has very low status, but they have a connection. And she is written about. And in the film, she sort of running the sort of the ladies of the household. She’s kind of like a high up sort of servant it would seem.
Dr Rad 26:31
Yeah. And but she’s obviously madly in love. With Nero.
Dr G 26:35
Still in love with Nero. Nero no longer seems to care. He’s moved on – Poppaea is where it’s at.
Dr Rad 26:40
Yeah, hashtag move on.
Dr G 26:43
And Acte is very implicated in the escape of Lygia. Yes. From the imperial palace. She shows Lygia the sign of the fish.
Yeah. But she’s not a Christian herself?
No, but she she’s sympathetic.
Dr Rad 26:56
Yeah. And again, this kind of ties in with what we know about early Christianity in that it does seem to been something that I think appeals to those lower down the social scale, rather than those at the top.
Dr G 27:09
And so we find out that the Christians are sort of getting together in the caves on the outskirts of the city. Maybe they’re catacombs, maybe they’re not, but they’re getting together underground. And it’s in this sort of moment. That Peter turns up.
Dr Rad 27:28
As in St. Peter, not Dr. G.
Dr G 27:30
I didn’t turn up. You can look for that cameo You shall not find it. St. Peter turns up and he gives a bit of a sermon. And at that sermon, Marcus Vinicius, by this point, has figured out that she’s been taken by the Christians and whisked away and he’s found a way to infiltrate into the cave and the meeting. So he gets gets to hear this sermon as well. He doesn’t really buy into the Christianity stuff, but he’s certainly hearing some different material –
Dr Rad 28:00
Yeah
Dr G 28:01
- these days. Yeah. And that sort of leads into this situation where he’s trying to figure out how he can nab her. After Lygia is going home via the secret pathways, got a bodyguard, whether it’s all very hush hush. It’s all very hush hush, but it’s late at night and you think to yourself, I saw a lot of Christians in that cave. Surely the streets would be more crowded than this. But they’re not. Don’t ask those sorts of questions.
Dr Rad 28:27
She’s easily spotted.
Dr G 28:29
Ursus the, which lighting Latin for Bear, which is beautiful, because he’s a big, tall, strong guy. He’s like, “I can hear people following us.” And she’s like, “Whaaat?”, and he’s like, “No, seriously. You go. Yeah, you go ahead, and I’ll wait here.” And so he catches them unawares manages to kill the gladiator that Vinicius has hired to be his strong man for the night. He’s Greek friend who helped him infiltrate the cave runs away.
Dr Rad 28:58
Of course.
Dr G 28:58
And Vinicius gets sort of a smoosh on the head and Ursus takes him to where they’re hiding Lygia. So they’re staying in somebody else’s place. Yeah. And it’s pretty clear from the architecture that this is a bit of step down for her. Yeah, this is not the former general’s household
Dr Rad 29:16
But she’s cool with it because she’s Christian.
Dr G 29:17
She’s very Christian. She doesn’t mind. They’ve created a cross out of two sticks tied together. And that’s good enough for her. And this moment, this is kind of one of these really pivotal scenes in this film.
Dr Rad 29:29
Such a Florence Nightingale thing.
Dr G 29:32
So pivotal, because Vinicius is like, “Why did you not kill me?”
Dr Rad 29:37
Yes.
Dr G 29:37
And Ursus is like, “Well, it’s sin.” Even though he just killed a gladiator.
Dr Rad 29:41
Yeah. Yeah, him I’ll kill. You on the other hand…
Dr G 29:45
“That guy was trying to kill me. So that’s self defence.”
Dr Rad 29:47
Yeah.
Dr G 29:48
“Wheras you, you’re already out for the count.”
Dr Rad 29:50
Yeah.
Dr G 29:51
“So anyway, so it didn’t kill you.” And so there’s this moment of exchange. And then Vinicius is like, “Well, you know, all of this trouble. I – I don’t understand it. I’m just going to leave you to it. You’re not a hostage of me anymore, Lygia, I don’t care. I don’t want anything to do with it anymore.” And as soon as he rejects her, yeah, this is also opening up the pathway for her to be open and honest about how she feels because she’s no longer in a position of coercion. And immediately
Dr Rad 30:20
She’s secretly got the hots for him!
Dr G 30:22
She’s like, “but I’ve always loved you.” It is baffling.
Dr Rad 30:28
Yeah.
Dr G 30:29
And one can only assume it’s because he’s so good looking.
Dr Rad 30:32
Yeah, look, I mean, obviously, Lygia is played by Deborah Kerr, you know, she’s obviously big star at this point in time. And Vinicius is paid by Robert Taylor, also a big star of the time known to be quite attractive.
Dr G 30:48
So yeah, so apparently, he’s hot enough. And even though he’s silly. I mean, he’s really he’s really only revealed himself to be very silly up until now to her, you know, it’s like, you know, he’s tried to seduce her by being rude to her. And then he’s stolen her from her hostage family taht she likes living with.
Dr Rad 31:09
Yeah.
Dr G 31:10
And then he’s trying to follow a home from a Christian gathering, like he’s done nothing –
Dr Rad 31:15
But cause her pain
Dr G 31:15
- to warrant any affection whatsoever.
Dr Rad 31:18
Yeah.
Dr G 31:19
And she’s like, “But I’ve always…” So I think she might be talking with her downstairs rather than her upstairs at this point in time.
Dr Rad 31:25
Well, isn’t that what women think with?
Dr G 31:27
Oh. Oh! And that’s exciting because Vinicius is then immediately back in. He’s like, “Let’s do this.” Yeah.
Dr Rad 31:37
“I was just kidding. I take back everything I just said.”
Dr G 31:39
Really? Really? You’re? Now you’re into it? Cool. And so you can see how the, sort of like the people who play The Game, those sort of like, yeah, those pointed like, sort of those dating gurus that are sort of like quite popular in the late 90s- early 2000s. Yeah, about all of that kind of stuff like Mystery and things like that. You can see how they might have watched a film like this and being like, negging her was the thing that worked.
Dr Rad 32:08
Yeah.
Dr G 32:08
Like, that’s just like, No, but you’re always a terrible person. And a guy wrote this script. It’s really, really clear.
Dr Rad 32:15
Yeah yeah.
Dr G 32:16
Because Lygia is just a little bit unbelievable in this moment, but they have a discussion about you know, how they’re going to stay together and how it’s gonna be amazing and she’s like, “well, if you stay with me, you’ve got to believe in my faith”, and Vinicius is like “I could just be with you – you can bring whatever gods you want. I don’t mind. You do you.”
Dr Rad 32:34
“The more the merrier, I’m Roman”
Dr G 32:35
Yeah, he’s like “I don’t mind, there’s heaps of Gods – there’s enough for all of us.”
Dr Rad 32:38
Yeah
Dr G 32:38
And she’s like, “that’s not good enough. No, you actually have to really try to buy in here.” And he’s like, “What is wrong with you?” He snaps the wooden cross.
Dr Rad 32:49
“I thought we were together! Now you’re saying there’s all these conditions?!”
Dr G 32:53
Yeah. And he gets really mad has a temper tantrum breaks the cross throws it on the ground storms off,
Dr Rad 32:59
Like these people haven’t suffered enough. For goodness sake, their cross is made of out sticks.
Dr G 33:04
So anyway, it’s a that’s kind of like this moment of crisis for these two.
Dr Rad 33:10
Absolutely.
Dr G 33:11
And then it kind of switches to this more Nero focused side of the story.
Dr Rad 33:17
Now we’re gonna set it alight, Nero and the fire of Rome.
Dr G 33:23
In the background, while this story has been playing out between Vinicius and Lygia in the background, we’ve been seeing Nero doing little quirky things here and there. And he’s starting to get a little bit inspired by this idea that he can’t be a true artist unless he experiences the things that he wants to talk about
Dr Rad 33:42
Which to be fair,
Dr G 33:44
Is method, very method.
Dr Rad 33:45
I was gonna say kind of what some people have actually said and still practice to this day.
Dr G 33:50
Yeah, method acting never out of fashion. Nero’s buying in big time.
Dr Rad 33:54
Yeah.
Dr G 33:54
There’s been –
Dr Rad 33:55
You know Stanislavski, tell me about it.
Dr G 33:59
For Nero, there’s this really interesting dynamic that is playing out across this whole film with his relationship with one of his advisors, Petronius, and Petronius is kind of like this – like hilarious, quasi-historical, like there is a Petronius in history.
Dr Rad 34:16
Yes. And he was a friend of Nero’s. Yeah. But in this version, he’s also the uncle of Marcus Vinicius.
Dr G 34:22
Yeah, they’ve taken some liberties and that’s okay. Yeah, but Petronius is this kind of really intelligent figure who is able to say the right thing at the right time, even when it doesn’t seem like it’s going to be the right thing to bring Nero around to a certain perspective.
Dr Rad 34:40
Yeah. And he’s definitely on damage control. Like his whole mission seems to be that I mean, very much looking at himself like
Dr G 34:48
and also looking out for his nephew, Vinicius, as well. Like Nero does have a moment where he spots Lygia and he’s like, oh, wait a minute. Maybe I gave away too good a prize.
Dr Rad 34:57
Yes, exactly. Yeah. So Petronius is a all about damage control in the sense that he wants to have a pleasant life, he wants to look after his family. Standard. And then he also seems to be trying to make sure that Rome is not governed too stupidly. So he tries to always talk Nero around to something that would actually be not terrible.
Dr G 35:18
Yeah. But unfortunately for Petronius, he also seems to make maybe a slight error, where he kind of suggests that Nero needs to focus more on his art and things like that.
Dr Rad 35:27
Yeah.
Dr G 35:28
And Nero takes that up seriously, and runs with that. And the problem with that is that Nero then gets into his mind that he needs to see Rome burn in order to be able to create the Rome of his vision.
Dr Rad 35:45
Yeah. And also, you know, that idea of like, reciting a song about Troy, and, you know, writing about that, and that sort of thing, he needs to see it.
Dr G 35:54
Yeah. And it’s like, so Petronius is trying to get him to sort of exceed his own capacity as an artist being like, “you know, you know, you could go beyond Homer, you know, you could go beyond Virgil.” And Nero is kind of like, “how will I do it?” Petronius is like, “you’ve got to live it.” And Nero’s like, “well, if I have to live it, let’s burn the city, so I can live the emotion of it. And then I can build it from the ground up.” And he kind of has this relationship with the people where he needs them. But he kind of dislikes them at the same time. It’s kind of this sort of, they feed his sort of need for attention. But he’s also kind of annoyed with the fact that they’re always there and in the way.
Dr Rad 36:41
Yeah, definitely. And in this version, I think it’s probably clear, there is no doubt that Nero is responsible for lighting a fire. Not personally…
Dr G 36:50
No, but they make it Yeah, yeah. And this is something that is in contradistinction to the real complexities of the ancient evidence.
Dr Rad 36:58
Yeah, which we will, we will get into
Dr G 36:59
Yes so hold that thought. But the film definitely blames Nero. He’s the architect of the fire. He also has an architect with a new plan for Rome constructed for what will be built after the city has burned. So realistically, Nero is to blame here.
Dr Rad 37:13
Definitely. But he soon realised that I mean, I think only all his elite hangers-on they seem to be willing to tolerate Nero’s behaviour, I think up until this point, that this is something else. And so Nero is, you know, obviously feeling very unpopular from multiple angles, and he’s like, I need to do something about this, and therefore, he’s going to pin it on the Christians.
Dr G 37:40
Yes. So this idea in the film comes from Poppaea.
Dr Rad 37:44
Yes, that’s right.
Dr G 37:45
So we have this moment where Rome is on fire at that time, most of Nero’s court is in Antium. Vinicius hears that Rome is burning, realises that Lygia is still there. And even though they’ve had this thing where it’s like they’re clearly not together and it’s not working out. He’s had a chain, he’s realised that he has to go and save her –
Dr Rad 38:06
Of course.
Dr G 38:07
- so he races back to Rome. And by doing so, gets himself into a bit of trouble actually, because apparently it was Nero’s Praetorians that set fire to – everybody knows that it was the Roman military that set the fire. Yeah. And people on the ground don’t want anything to do with a guy in uniform. Vinicius is always dressed up in these military garb because he cannot help himself.
Dr Rad 38:32
Breastplates all the way.
Dr G 38:33
Yeah, and he’s never thought to take them off. Even though he’s not leading an army right now.
Dr Rad 38:37
Apart from that first scene there’s been no reason to do so.
Dr G 38:41
There’s been no, no soldiers under his command. He’s just chilling out in Rome.
Dr Rad 38:44
It’s for good posture.
Dr G 38:45
Yeah, look, he loves it. Yeah. And he turns up, and people are sort of like trying to push him away. But he manages to save people by redirecting them into the sewage system. That’s clever. Yeah. And then he does spot Lygia. And so this is a moment of reunion and all of this sort of thing. Finally, sadly, it does not last, he does end up getting arrested as does Lygia as does Ursus as, as do a whole bunch of people
Dr Rad 39:14
who are Christian
Dr G 39:15
because they’re rounded up because they are considered to be Christian.
Dr Rad 39:18
Yeah.
Dr G 39:18
Because Vinicius is hanging out with Lygia that, that doesn’t help his cause at all. So he gets lumped in with them.
Dr Rad 39:18
Yeah.
Dr G 39:20
So Poppaea has had this amazing idea that the Christians will be blamed.
Dr Rad 39:24
Yeah
Dr G 39:28
For the fire. And then they will set up a whole bunch of games and put them on display in the arena.
Dr Rad 39:40
Sounds like a fabulous evening.
Dr G 39:42
It’s a good Roman time out. You know what I’m saying?
Dr Rad 39:44
Yeah, totally, man.
Dr G 39:47
So there were some very dramatic scenes with a lot of lions.
Dr Rad 39:51
Yeah, well, you know, you don’t want to do things half hearted.
Dr G 39:55
No, but like in terms of I’m just thinking from a like a film perspective, like they were a lot of lions showed on screen,
Dr Rad 40:02
Let’s be real, I don’t want to, I’ve never looked into it because I don’t want to know what may or may not have happened on that set. This is before, really strict regulations are in place about how animals, you know, be treated by the entertainment industry. And given that we’re still in an era where factory farming is somehow okay. I just don’t want to look back. It’s not going to be good news for anybody.
Dr G 40:25
It’s fair enough. But yes, I have some concerns about how many lions were involved. Yeah. Anyway, they bring out the Christians in kind of like groups, and part of what happens in this moment of the film is Nero becomes increasingly agitated because the Christians start singing as he’s, yeah, finding a moment of peace between like the moments where they’re getting slaughtered.
Dr Rad 40:48
Yeah.
Dr G 40:49
And this discomforts him greatly.
Dr Rad 40:51
He doesn’t understand it.
Dr G 40:52
Doesn’t understand it, doesn’t like it. And you know, other people are singing and he’s the singer, really.
Dr Rad 40:58
Yeah. So no, I don’t like living under your spotlight.
Dr G 41:09
I could see him standing up and doing that. Doing doing a sing back. A dramatic scene,
Dr Rad 41:15
Don’t tell me not to live, just sit and putter.
Dr G 41:20
This kind of thing is going he’s not very happy. He kind of wants to get them all out all at once and just get rid of them all. Yes. And Poppaea is like no, no, wait. And he also does an inspection of the bodies. At the end of the first day of the Christian sort of
Dr Rad 41:35
Always this creepy inspection of bodies in these films, I’ve realised.
Dr G 41:39
He wants to see what’s going on, because a lot of them have died with smiles on their faces.
Dr Rad 41:44
Yes.
Dr G 41:45
And this creeps him out.
Dr Rad 41:46
Yeah, well,
Dr G 41:46
And fair enough. I mean people don’t die with smiles on their faces usually.
Dr Rad 41:50
Not horribly in an arena, they don’t.
Dr G 41:52
No.
Dr Rad 41:53
Now he has also managed to round up St. Peter as being a part of
Dr G 41:57
Well, yeah. And so I was just about to get to that. Because parallel to this, yeah. we had Peter, giving a sermon in the caves underneath Rome. Yeah. But then he seems in a an assigned plot kind of element. He seems to be leaving Rome with a young boy,
Dr Rad 42:14
Busy guy.
Dr G 42:14
yeah, busy guy, young kid, and they’re on the road together, and they’re heading out of the city. And Peter is in this moment where he does the famous line, “Quo Vadis, Domine?” Because he doesn’t know where to go next. He doesn’t know what to do next. He’s seeking some guidance, and a light. The light of the sun shimmers through the trees. And it seems that the Lord speaks through the child tells him that he needs to go back to Rome. And that is how he has to save people, otherwise – either Jesus has to come back down, and then do another thing where he gets killed in Rome. And Peter’s like, oh, well, we can’t have that.
Dr Rad 42:58
No.
Dr G 42:58
And he also talks to the child being like, say it again. And kid’s like, “I didn’t say anything.”
Dr Rad 43:06
“So shut up, Mr.”
Dr G 43:07
So we know it’s a miracle. So they turn around and go back to Rome. And Peter appears in the arena, and gives us a speech again, and that’s when he’s arrested. So he speaks on behalf of the Christians. And the crowd is kind of like laughing at him. And he gets arrested and he gets trapped in with the Christians, which is great, because that means that Peter is in the same cell as Lygia and Vinicius. And those two finally get married.
Dr Rad 43:34
What better place to tie the knot? Again, it’s a bit of a trope of the genre. I mean, you know, you think about Diana, Marcellus in “The Robe” True, I don’t think they actually ended up getting married per se. But you know, they got together in their moment of absolute desperation.
Dr G 43:51
Everybody gets together when they’re locked up when you’re on death row.
Dr Rad 43:54
Yeah.
Dr G 43:55
Like this is my best option.
Dr Rad 43:56
Yeah.
Dr G 43:57
And so they are now married, and this makes Poppaea’s plan for them – because she said to Nero save those two, I’ve got something special,
Dr Rad 44:09
I’m sure
Dr G 44:10
And he’s like, “Oh, I love your –
Dr Rad 44:11
“That man is no longer my sexual toy.”
Dr G 44:14
She’s like, “Yeah, I’m feeling rejected by Vinicius. I’m definitely gonna kill him the hard way.” Yeah, she’s like, “Just you wait.” They bring out Lygia all dressed up in this beautiful sort of diaphanous purple robe actually, looking gorgeous. So much Vaseline. Tie her to a post. They bring out Ursus – don’t tie him to a post – and they bring Marcus Vinicius up to the imperial stage tied and chained to a metal post so he can’t get down into the arena.
Dr Rad 44:43
Yeah, he’s gonna have to watch her die.
Dr G 44:45
He’s gonna have to watch her die. And they send out a bull.
Dr Rad 44:49
Sounds nasty.
Dr G 44:50
It’s, it is nasty. I do wonder what happened to the bull. So I hope that the bull was okay.
Dr Rad 44:55
Again, I don’t want to know,
Dr G 44:55
I don’t really want to know either. Ursus takes down the bull. That’s the essence of it.
Dr Rad 45:02
Which is an amazing feat. And obviously not what Nero was expecting. Oh, yeah.
Dr G 45:06
And somebody had said to Nero, while they were like sort of watching on, “Look, if Ursus is able to take out the bull. I mean, you’ll have to let you have to let Lygia off.”
Dr Rad 45:17
Yeah. And then you know that that’s in keeping with what we know about it, how the arena works. If the crowd are wowed by a particular performance, they’ll probably ask the patron of the games to please spare the person. Yeah.
Dr G 45:28
And as predicted, the crowd is wild for Ursus’ success. And they’re like, they’re all – they’re all like, “yes, you have to let him off!”
Dr Rad 45:36
“Set him free! Her too! Set the, both free!”
Dr G 45:41
And Nero has his most dramatic moment of doing – almost as if he’s going to go one way and with the support of the crowd, and then goes the other way. And everybody turns and it’s chaos. And it’s at this moment, where the other subplot that I have not mentioned, really comes into play. Yeah, so in parallel to some of this stuff happening, before Vinicius is arrested, he and Petronius are colluding together with others to get Galba into power. And so I’m finding it I’m getting emotional. I’m getting emotional. So they’ve organised for Galba to come with some other legions and basically depose Nero with enough signatures Galba will accept the imperial leadership.
Dr Rad 46:37
And wouldn’t you know, they turn up right about now.
Dr G 46:40
Right at the moment, where Nero has decided that Ursus will have to die.
Dr Rad 46:45
Yeah.
Dr G 46:46
The army turns up.
Dr Rad 46:47
Yeah.
Dr G 46:48
In support of Galba. Are they’re like, “Galba is your new emperor!” Vinicius is down there yelling to everybody, “It’s over!”. And Nero has to run away. Poppaea runs away. Yeah, they go back. They retreat back to the palace. Yeah, that doesn’t go well for either of them.
Dr Rad 47:05
No, because Nero blames Poppaea for this whole mess.
Dr G 47:09
Yeah, he’s like, “You were the one who wanted to blame the Christians for the fire. And now look where we are.”
Dr Rad 47:13
Yeah.
Dr G 47:14
And then proceeds to strangle her, which she was not expecting.
Dr Rad 47:17
No, but is somewhat historically accurate in that Nero did murder Poppaea, but not for that reason, or in that way.
Dr G 47:25
Yes. And so Poppaea’s then dead, and he sort of retreats further into the palace. And then there is this shadow in his room. And he’s, like, clearly, clearly scared. Like, this. Is it? Somebody’s gonna kill me? And it turns out that it’s Acte.
Dr Rad 47:45
Loyal to the end. Yeah, yeah.
Dr G 47:48
She’s like, “I told you, I’d be here at the end.” And he’s like, “I didn’t believe you. I thought I told you to go away?”
Dr Rad 47:56
Yeah. But of course, she’s not there because she’s gonna make everything goes away. I mean, she is just a freed woman slash slave woman slash something.
Dr G 48:07
She gives him the opportunity to take his life with dignity, rather than being trampled down by
Dr Rad 48:15
The Roman way.
Dr G 48:16
Yes. You know, do something honorable with your life.
Dr Rad 48:19
Yeah.
Dr G 48:19
He’s not able to do it.
Dr Rad 48:21
No.
Dr G 48:22
He asks her to do that. And she does.
Dr Rad 48:25
Yeah.
Dr G 48:26
So that’s, I think devastating for her because she’s still in love with him.
Dr Rad 48:30
Yeah. But a fitting end for Nero. But of course, we do get a happy ending, because Vinicius and Lygia have managed to come out unscathed, basically, apart from maybe being traumatised, but
Dr G 48:43
And they seem to be heading out of Rome with Ursus and the kid.
Dr Rad 48:43
Yeah, they’re heading to live on Vinicius’ property in Sicily. The remainder of their lives undisturbed. In spite of their Christianity, I’m basing that on what the novel says.
Dr G 49:02
Nice.
Dr Rad 49:03
Yeah.
Dr G 49:04
And that’s the film.
Dr Rad 49:06
Wow. And we didn’t even mention that Petronius committed suicide in the midst of all that.
Dr G 49:10
Yeah. And has Seneca deliveries letter which is scathing to Nero.
Dr Rad 49:15
Yeah.
Dr G 49:15
I love the weeping vessel, “Bring the weeping vessel.” And Nero puts one tear from each eye into the jar and he’s like, “Seal this, to memorialise my feelings for Petronius.”
Dr Rad 49:15
And look this is the issue with Quo Vadis. It’s a it’s a massive novel. It’s a massive film every time you do it.
Thank you for listening to this special episode of The Partial Historians. We’d like to thank all of our patreons for their support and allowing us to make these additional episodes especially Nick, who requested a discussion of Quo Vadis. If you too would like early access to our bonus shows, please consider becoming a patreon. This has been part one of our coverage of Quo Vadis so stay tuned and Part Two. We’ll be with you shortly. Our sources and credits for the episode can be found on our website. And until next time, we are yours in ancient Rome.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
The post Special Episode – Quo Vadis (1951) – Part One appeared first on The Partial Historians.
The Robe (1953) is a cinematic classic of Golden Age Hollywood. With its mix of ancient Rome and early Christianity, it was a winner with audiences around the globe. In this special episode, we tap into Dr Rad’s expertise in reception in film and come to grips with the power of The Robe!
Special Episode – The Robe
A Challenging ContextIt was tricky to deal with modern political issues in this era of Hollywood under the influence of HUAC (the House Un-American Activities Committee). For the makers of The Robe, which explicitly dealt with the life of Jesus under the Romans, there were additional challenges due to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Returning to the Old Testament was often a safer bet for Hollywood films.
The rights to The Robe were initially purchased by RKO, before finally being canceled in 1948. It found a new home at 20th Century Fox. The fact that The Robe was in production for a long time has raised some interesting questions about the impact of historical context.
The script was initially written by Albert Maltz, one of the infamous Hollywood Ten. The original script does seem to touch on blacklist themes. In Caligula’s original speech at the end of the film he refers to the “sedition” of the Christians and Marcellus has to deny that he is involved in a conspiracy to overthrow the state. This sounds eerily close to the experience of Hollywood Communists, who were generally not radicals trying to seize control of the government. There were also more references to the naming of names in Maltz’s version of The Robe…
People protesting in favour of the Hollywood Ten. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.
HUAC and The RobeBut HUAC lay in his future, as Maltz only worked on this project from 1942-1946. As Smith (2005) has highlighted, while Maltz could not have worked HUAC references into the script before his HUAC experiences, it is possible that the tension over Communism still shaped his draft. There were moves against Communism before the Second Red Scare that swept America in the late 1940s and 1950s, such as the actions of the Tenney Committee in the early 1940s, or the foundation of the right-wing Motion Picture Alliance for American Ideals.
Or perhaps Maltz was more focused on providing a critique of Italian fascism, given the backdrop of World War II? Maltz wrote Cloak and Dagger (1947) immediately after The Robe, which definitely took aim at Italian fascism, whilst exalting the resistance from the Communists. He would also write Crossfire (1947), a film that tackled issues of anti-Semitism within the USA.
Film poster for Cloak and Dagger (1947)
Is it possible that the next screenwriter to work on The Robe worked in some sick burns? Phillip Dunne followed Maltz and would eventually receive sole credit for the film, thanks to the blacklist. He was known to be a liberal and helped to establish the Committee for the First Amendment. This group formed in reaction to the HUAC hearings in 1947. Fellow members included other Hollywood luminaries such as William Wyler, Lucille Ball, Lauren Bacall, Bette Davis and Dorothy Daindridge.
However, Dunne was not a Communist; quite the opposite. He may have intended The Robe to be a veiled criticism of HUAC, but he may also have seen the repression of the Romans as being akin to Stalin and the Communist regime.
References Reinhartz, A. (2013). BibleandCinema:FiftyKeyFilms. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203083260 * Richards, J. (2008). Hollywood’s Ancient Worlds. Continuum. * Smith, J. (2005). ‘Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Christian?: The Strange History of The Robe As Political Allegory‘, Film Studies*, Winter: 7, 1-15.
A lobby card for The Robe
Automated TranscriptProvided by Otter AI
Dr Rad 0:16
Welcome to the Partial Historians, we explore all the details of ancient Rome. Everything from the political scandals, the love of ours, the battles waged, and when citizens turn against each other. I’m Dr. Rad.
Dr G 0:34
And I’m Dr. G. We consider Rome as the Romans saw it by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories. Join us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city.
Dr Rad 1:03
Welcome to a special episode of The Partial Historians, I am one of your hosts, Dr. Rad.
Dr G 1:10
And I am a somewhat healthy, Dr. G.
Dr Rad 1:15
I know this is true dedication, Patreons, Dr G has been suffering from the vid.
Dr G 1:22
I’ve been on my deathbed. But I’ve bounced back. Thank goodness.
Dr Rad 1:27
It was Rome that calls you for and said live live another day.
Dr G 1:33
And one must always follow the commands of Rome. And here I am. as ever.
Dr Rad 1:39
Well, I suppose luckily, or unluckily. I’m not sure. We’re not doing our normal narrative today. But instead, we’re taking a journey into Hollywood land, which could be good for a sick person, or maybe not.
Dr G 1:54
I look, I think it’s gonna be it’s gonna be good. I’m excited for this golden era. Hollywood is one of my favorite times in Hollywood.
Dr Rad 2:03
We all love it. We all adore it. So let’s get into this special episode where we get to talk all about The Robe 1953.
Dr G 2:50
What a film. I mean, I think the best thing about it is Richard Burton.
Dr Rad 2:54
Definitely let’s let’s give a bit of a cast rundown. So in typical Partial Historians fashion, we’re doing this slightly backwards in that we looked at the sequel first. But that was only for our Patreon. So for everybody else, we’re just doing The Robe. So first of all, we have Richard Burton playing the lead male character Marcellus Gallio.
Dr G 3:19
A fine specimen of a young Roman if I ever saw one.
Dr Rad 3:21
Indeed. And then we have my favorite Jean Simmons playing the lead female part, Diana, I think she’s actually really good in this role. Yeah, well, you know, she’s got that pure beauty about her. She looks very innocent.
Dr G 3:39
She does.
Dr Rad 3:39
Yeah. And then, of course, we’ve got the hero of our Patreon bonus episode Demetrius and the Gladiators, because, of course, being a sequel, he’s in this one too big to mature, playing Demetrius,
Dr G 3:53
And he does look mature, doesn’t he?
Dr Rad 3:57
He does have a mature look about him. But lest we forget, he retired at 44. So I guess he was in his 30s at this point in time.
Dr G 4:04
Oh, wow.
Dr Rad 4:06
And then we have Michael Rennie playing St. Peter.
Dr G 4:11
Yeah, I feel like that was a bit of a that’s a bit of a throw into the sequel as well, isn’t it?
Dr Rad 4:18
I believe so. I think he was in both. Yeah, definitely. I mean, they knew they were filming both when they started, as I discovered last time. And then we have Jay Robinson playing Caligula.
Dr G 4:30
Hmm. Yeah. We’ll come back to that one.
Dr Rad 4:33
Yeah. And then I think the main ones that we have to deal with there are major characters. Yeah, I think that kind of covers it. Yeah, yeah, definitely. So The Robe 1953 is a big film in many ways. Not only is an epic from the age of epics, the Golden Age of Hollywood epics, but it also has won some fame for some of the other milestones that are associated with this film. Now, just to give us an idea of exactly how big a smash it was, it costs a smidgen over $4 million to make. And, yeah, it took in $17 million in the US a market and $36 million world wide.
Dr G 5:25
Okay, so this was a profit making engine?
Dr Rad 5:29
Well, yeah, I mean, it has a cycle that’s going to tell something
Dr G 5:35
built in, apparently, as well. So yeah,
Dr Rad 5:37
I do like this detail, though, that some of the ticket sales would have been to teachers who were pressed into going to see this movie for their students, or with their students, maybe?
Dr G 5:50
Yeah, goodness. I mean, that kind of made up the bulk of sales, surely.
Dr Rad 5:56
Anyway, so let’s talk a little bit about this ethic, Dr. G. So what were your initial impressions? I’m dying to know,
Dr G 6:03
Oh, look, I think longtime listeners of this show will be well aware that I tend to classify myself as a pagan, and my position has not changed. As a result of watching the Rome, it did feel like very much that they were utilizing Roman history as a vehicle for getting to the Christian story. And I’m not a fan of that, to be honest. Christianity is not huge. In this initial face, like this is set sort of right at the moment of the passing of the Messiah.
Dr Rad 6:39
Jesus is alive in this film. That tells us something. Yeah,
Dr G 6:43
Jesus starts alive in this film. Yeah, he doesn’t stay alive. So that gives us almost everything we need to know about what moment in history we’re in. But the sense in which there is a really strong Christianizing moment that comes over all of the players who’ve been closely associated with that moment of Jesus’s death is really interesting. Yeah, and I would say, anachronistic.
Dr Rad 7:09
For sure. I mean, it’s historically accurate to place Jesus’s life in his time period. So the time period we’re talking about is the tail end of the reign of Tiberius, aka the best period ever. And we then end up going into some of calculus, rain as well. And calculus, definitely around this whole movie. He’s not, you know, off to the side, and Tiberius is a circle regular, I think, is definitely the main Roman imperial character that we get to know over the course of this film. And that is historical. As far as we can tell, Jesus was indeed around in the latter half of Tiberius, his reign. So anyway, the general setting for Jesus’s lifetime, and when he starts to become a problem for Rome, all is accurate. And so we’ve got our major players, you know, being where they should be. But as you say, this is a classic Hollywood epic in that in order for you to have a good guy and a bad guy, you know, someone to root for and someone to despise while still enjoying the things that they get up to. It’s pretty normal for Hollywood to go to a Christians versus Romans storyline, or at least Christians slash Jewish people. Question Mark versus Romans?
Dr G 8:30
Yeah. And this leads us into some like really interesting directorial choices, or maybe casting decisions as well, because the Romans quintessentially played by the English. So they’ve got that very sort of RP accent going on. Yeah, but then the people of Palestine appear to be American. Where, I mean, it’s something
Dr Rad 8:53
But I think that that actually does keep into the whole accent divide. Because I think it’s kind of meant to be the people who are on the side, that you’re meant to be rooting for generally American.
Dr G 9:06
Hmm. So Hollywood would want you to believe.
Dr Rad 9:09
Yeah, yeah, I mean, it’s not. It’s not uncommon for the movies of this era to have that accent divided so that it’s super clear, just in case you were thinking of rooting for the Romans that were crucifying Jesus, just in case you had a moment where you thought maybe I’m on their side. They go for the accent just to make it very clear.
Dr G 9:30
That and the way that they decide to portray particular were Romans. Now, Caligula, as we know, doesn’t have heaps of redeeming features, ultimately, and the Romans themselves get pretty jack of them very quickly, they do. So this is what what is about to follow is not the saving of Caligula. Now, when I say I think he might have been overplayed a little bit in this film.
Dr Rad 9:59
Oh, Though I have to admit, though, I kind of enjoy the guy who played here. And he does have the kind of voice that really grates on you in a way that makes you think, yeah, I could assassinate this guy after a few years. I think I’d be annoyed enough.
Dr G 10:15
He is frustratingly inept in his presentation, and because we don’t get a good read on motivation from Caligula, and because it just feels like he’s being played for the sort of the hysterical, maniacal, power driven figure that is portrayed as in this film. It makes him feel a little bit unbelievable, whilst also holding down the position as the bad guy.
Dr Rad 10:46
Yeah, fair enough. Well, before we get too much further into Ahala, we probably should say something about the general storyline of this film. So why don’t you tell us about the the story of Digi
Dr G 10:57
Okay, all right. Well, I mean, it starts off great opening scene. It seems like we’re in the Roman Forum. Everyone’s having a good time. It’s clearly slave-buying season. Not that anybody should be excited about that.
Dr Rad 11:11
I say Why does it not slave-buying season in Rome?
Dr G 11:14
It seems to b a particularly busy time at the moment. And this sets up the few really important dynamics. It allows us to see Marcellus re-meeting his childhood sweetheart, Diana, they haven’t seen each other for many years. So that sets up that relationship. We learn about Diana’s connection as a ward of Tiberius to calendula, potentially as a love interest for him. But we also learn about myself versus ongoing tension with Caligula as well apparently those two don’t get along. And then we have this sort of moment with the slave market, which introduces us to Demetrius as well, who is perhaps the most stoic character in this whole
Dr Rad 12:00
Oh, my God, yes.
Dr G 12:01
So stoic, and this guy kind of just accepts his fate as it is, doesn’t seem to fight one way or the other. But does seem to be motivated by an internal set of principles. And for whatever reason, Demetrius ends up coming to the attention of both Marcellus and Caligula during this slave sail. And this becomes an important point because it’s this moment. And this tension between Marcellus and Caligula, which turns Demetrius is fate. So you technically gets freed in a slave auction through being purchased at such a high price for Marcellus to sort of jab coelicolor A little bit. But because Demetrius feels that this isn’t appropriate to be bought at such a high price just to be set free, he decides to become the manservant of Marcellus anyway. So these two are now bound up together in what appears to be a kind of odd duo, because my Seles then goes on to be like, let’s be friends, if we’re going to hang out together like this. Demetrius is, like, we are not friends. I really owe you. It’s different.
Dr Rad 13:15
I do like the pairing, though. I mean, Burton’s got the voice and Mature’s got this shoulder.
Dr G 13:22
Yeah, so these two end up on adventures together, which are all bound up with calendula in particular ways Caligula is annoyed at Marcellus for this whole debacle in the slave market. So he sends him to Palestine as a bit of a punishment. While he’s there, he ends up in a situation with Pontius Pilate, so that’s good news. Everybody likes it when Pontius Pilate enters the enters the scene, Pontius Pilate sort of commands myself is to be in charge with the crucifixion of Jesus, which is awkward, but also at the same time has a Lady Macbeth moment, which is kind of beautiful, where he’s washing his hands, and he’s like, I need to wash my hands. And he’s slaves like you just wash your hands. Yeah, like the bloods invisible but he’s having trouble guys. He’s ordered the death of Jesus. Then we have some really interesting moments in Palestine, one of which is this trading of the robe. So pivotal to this entire film, it would seem is that we don’t see Jesus very much. We don’t really see his face. We sometimes hear his voice, but we he’s a mysterious figure who seems to have an effect on Demetrius straightaway. When he is on the cross, the robe that he had been wearing has been laid at the bottom of it. One of the Roman soldiers picks it up and it’s like that. We could throw this into the old gambling table. Let’s when the robe of Jesus and Marcellus wins it, but is then sort of overcome when he tries to put it on himself when it’s raining and he wants To protect himself it seems like it has a huge negative effect on him like almost like burns his skin or something. Anyway, it’s it’s horrifying to him and Demetrius just wanders off with the robe in the end does like I’ll take that.
Dr Rad 15:14
But he does have that amazing scene because there’s all that storm happening around them and I must have been I think this is probably one of Victor Mature’s finest moments on screen, where he sort of screams and Richard Burton’s face as he’s, you know, dealing with the effects of the robe and all of that kind of stuff. And he does that whole “murderers, thieves, jungle animals. Masters of the world you call yourselves. I’m curse on you. I curse on your empire.” Mwahahahaha
Dr G 15:51
Lightning strikes in the background and this thunder?
Dr Rad 15:54
Yeah, it’s great. Yeah, the evil laughter was my addition, I should say.
Dr G 16:00
Very intense moment. And Demetrius ends up walking off with the robe, completely unharmed by it, because clearly it’s there’s a connection between his faith and one’s capacity to hold this garment. Sacred as it is. Marcellus ends up back in Rome and seen Tiberius on the Isle of Capri being like what I do, I’ve got this madness. And the Romans in the wisdom decide that the road must be cursed, which is for the Romans had excellent choice really. It’s like that would explain it. So Marcellus is given an imperial commission to destroy this robe. And it’s like, use whatever means you need to.
Dr Rad 16:45
So this is great guys, how many people might have tried it on by now? Yeah,
Dr G 16:48
it’s a disaster. We’ve got to find it as soon as possible.
Dr Rad 16:52
If anybody finds out about this garment, it’s going to be a PR nightmare.
Dr G 16:56
That’s basically what Tiberius says, when when everybody leaves. And he’s like, this is the worst thing that has ever happened in my entire rule.
Dr Rad 17:03
And I’ve had some stuff happen.
Dr G 17:06
We must deal with this instantly.
Dr Rad 17:08
I mean, my brother died, I had to divorce the wife that I loved. I then had to marry a woman I hated the child that we had died, then both my natural son and my adopted son birthday, that was pretty bad. But this this robe. Okay.
Dr G 17:25
It is up there. Yeah. So Marcellus finds himself back in Palestine, because that’s where he last saw Demetrius with the robe. It is like, Well, I’m gonna go back to the source that look for more clues. And this leads to a whole bunch of unfoldings. There’s storytelling things. There’s this slow journey of Marcellus from like quintessential Roman, to like, somebody, embodied in faith, very dedicated Christian, very dedicated across this journey. Yeah, he meets some villagers who really shift his perspective on things. He finds Demetrius again. And all of this sort of nourishes his flourishing belief. So by the time he does get back to Rome, he’s now committed to the cause. And he also hasn’t told anybody that he’s back for ages as well. So
Dr Rad 18:16
Well, yeah, he’s got he’s got new friends now, the Christians. And so Peter,
Dr G 18:20
yeah. And you know, when Diana finds out about this, because she’s been waiting for him this whole time, that he’s hidden, his return from her. She’s not happy about that, and she is that she demands to be taken to him. And that’s when we find out that the Christians are living in the catacombs. Yes. Which, which is awkward, because they should not really exist. Yeah.
Dr Rad 18:47
Minor details, minor details. Yeah,
Dr G 18:50
Look, I was I was all fine for them to just be underground caves, like, Rome is literally riddled with natural springs and cave systems anyway, it’s completely, completely fine and legitimate, but they do refer to them as catacombs. And I was like, guys, you know, that people would have have to be buried in them for them to be catacombs. And the people that we know are buried in the catacombs are. And you guys are the first Christians in Rome. So
Dr Rad 19:17
There’s been a lot of persecution already.
Dr G 19:21
So much, so much persecution already. Anyway, as it turns out, one of the things it’s getting more complicated as the film goes on, but Demetrius has been captured and the Christians have to save him, cuz he’s been tortured for information. Yeah, yeah. And calendula has Demetrius in his grass. Yeah. And is turning the screw as it were. So the Christians all gather together and they managed to pull off a very effective saving of Demetrius and they hide him weirdly at Marcellus his dad’s house. Yeah, although,
Dr Rad 19:57
I was going to say it’s, I like the I like the infiltration because they use myself as a mole. You know, he’s got the clothes, he’s got the accent, he can penetrate into the palace itself in order to rescue Demetrius, which I did appreciate,
Dr G 20:14
Although it is a concern to me that throughout this entire film, Marcellus has been known consistently as the Tribune. So he’s pretty low down on the cursus honorum. And he’s definitely not progressing any higher, because for him after this film, but the thing is that I feel like given the nature of the events, we’ve had two trips to Palestine, at least in the course of this film, that we are looking at over a year. Oh, it’s way more in terms of time. Yeah. And as a magistrate holding the tribuncianship, it seems very unlikely that Marcellus would continue to be attributed over the whole course of this film, or that given the way that he’s behaved, that people would continue to recognize him as Tribune.
Dr Rad 21:03
Yeah, I definitely think it’s meant to be more than a year for sure. But do we think that he is tribune of the plebs or just a military Tribune? That? I don’t know. I feel like I kind of figured he was like a military Tribune.
Dr G 21:17
Well, that is an unfortunate place for the son of a senator to have ended up in terms of his career.
Dr Rad 21:23
I could be wrong, but that because they never really clarify that. But
Dr G 21:27
They don’t. They don’t. And he continues to be attributed throughout the whole that’s true.
Dr Rad 21:31
Yeah, that is true. I think they do use that more than his actual name. Tribune. Give me Yeah, Tribune. I’m having some trouble
Dr G 21:39
You sir, Tribune. I want you to do the crucifixions. today. I’m bored. Yeah. So our final scene. Ultimately, the plot leads us to this moment where it’s the ultimate showdown between Caligula and Marcellus.
Dr Rad 21:56
Yes. Because he’s been captured, he ends up getting captured when he’s trying to get everybody safely. Well, out of Rome, I think they’re going after.
Dr G 22:04
Yeah, he’s trying to get Demetrius safely out of Rome. Yeah. And in the course of that, they’re being run down by some cavalry. And Marcellus chooses to sacrifice himself. Yeah, that his friend can get away. Absolutely. It’s never really been clarified that they are friends now. But what assumes over the course of the travails that they’ve encountered that they now like each other, I think they do. Yeah. Yeah. This means that there is a huge public trial. Myself, his parents are there. All of the elite of Rome there.
Dr Rad 22:38
Yeah, all of them. It’s a massive crowd.
Dr G 22:40
It’s a huge crowd. So many people. Caligula comes in, in what is the reddest garment that has ever been seen on film,
Dr Rad 22:51
that the marvels of Technicolor for you?
Dr G 22:53
It’s incredible. Everybody else looks pale and washed out in comparison. But Caligula Boy, that is some Imperial read that he’s got. This leads into our whole sort of three ways sort of struggle between Diana, Marcellus and Caligula verbally duking it out, essentially.
Dr Rad 23:15
Actually, we should perhaps mentioned that Diana was meant to marry Caligula for a little while there. So yeah, yeah, it’s a triangle or
Dr G 23:24
it’s a triangle. And she certainly makes it clear where she stands to Caligula to the point that he changes his mind about being unwilling to punish her to her definitely having to die.
Dr Rad 23:37
Yeah, well, I mean, it’s a no brainer, really. I mean, when you’re choosing between Richard Burton’s sultry tones, and those of Jay Robinson, I mean, can you imagine that in the bedroom data, add data?
Dr G 23:54
It’s quite something. I mean, I hope he’s got an indoor voice. Just whispered to me, Caligula.
Dr Rad 24:03
Yeah, yeah. So basically clears like, you know what, you guys believe so much in this afterlife and this kingdom of heaven and being saved. No big deal if I execute the both of you, and so they match off quite happily just chip off into the clouds.
Dr G 24:18
Yeah, it’s the way this film ends is a little bit surprising. I felt like after two and a quarter hours of viewing time, I was not expecting the end scene to be a gentle walk by Marcellus and Diana, out of the trial into heaven.
Dr Rad 24:41
I know, I know, but I guess I guess because they knew the sequel was coming. That maybe they felt that that was okay. And look, you know, it’s kind of an anti Hollywood ending. I mean, it’s a happy ending. But it’s not your typical Hollywood ending, I suppose.
Dr G 24:56
Yeah, they do get to stay together forever in love, I suppose. Oh,
Dr Rad 25:01
there’s that. But I mean, I think if you were going for a real Hollywood ending that somehow they would both survive and Galio would become the emperor or something like that. And also maybe the Pope.
Dr G 25:14
Yeah, look, I mean, if you’re gonna rewrite history, I mean, lean in guys.
Dr Rad 25:19
Yeah, exactly. So that’s the rough storyline, which, as you can tell by the fact that it took us 13 minutes to tell you the story. But you know what, we’re saving you from watching a two and a quarter hour movie. So although if you want to it could be fun. I’m not saying you shouldn’t watch it. But you know, 13 minutes on two and a quarter hours. It’s not too bad. So let’s maybe talk about where this movie came in from Dr. G. So whilst Hollywood does love a Christians slash Jewish people versus Romans storyline, it did not come out of thin air is of course, based on a book, of course. Yeah. So it was actually written by a guy called Lloyd C. Douglas. And he was the son of an Indiana pastor. And he became a Lutheran minister himself, before moving over to the Congregational Church, for his career. But he started writing as we got into the like, the late 1920s, he started writing, he wrote this book called “Magnificent Obsession”, and it sold 3 million copies. Oh, my goodness. Yeah. And so by 1933, he was like, You know what, I don’t think I need to be a minister anymore. I think I’m going to be a novelist.
Dr G 26:35
I’ve got a winning formula. And all I need to do is write my books. Yeah,
Dr Rad 26:39
he honestly became one of the most popular novelists in America in this time period. And this is not the Rube is not the only one of his books that was adapted into a film. So well, well, well, they’re not they don’t they’re not only popular in terms of people reading them. They are popular in terms of being picked up and made into Hollywood films. So the robe had been a best seller from 1942 until 1945.
Dr G 27:09
Wow, okay. Yeah. It was on the bestseller list for years.
Dr Rad 27:13
Yeah, absolutely. I presume that publication was maybe slightly slower for like the big novels. I know. They were dying novels and stuff out, you know, in the 1950s that people could buy. And they were turned out very quickly. But I feel like it is a slightly less crowded market, perhaps at this point in time.
Dr G 27:31
It’s a very interesting time for the novel to come out as well, like you’re in the middle of the Second World War.
Dr Rad 27:38
Yeah, you are indeed. So it was eventually bought by RKO. However, they didn’t really act on it. They just sort of bought the rights to it. And you know, by the late 1940s, it’s still something that they’re just sort of sitting on at that. At that point in time. Howard Hughes is in charge of RKO biblical films were not really his thing. He wasn’t as into them as other people seem to have been at the time.
Dr G 28:06
Sounds like how would use it, I might get along. Exactly, yeah.
Dr Rad 28:10
But eventually, Darryl Zanuck and Fox Studios step in. And this is how the film finally kind of gets off the ground and gets made. So that’s just sort of a little bit of background to the film. But as a result, and not, to be honest, this is pretty common for Hollywood movies of this time. There are a number of people who ended up working on the script for the film, because it has such a long production process. But even with the ones that were shorter, it was pretty common to have more than one person, you know, take a look at the script and give their input and that sort of thing. When the film was finally made, it definitely got a huge publicity campaign. So we’re talking radio ads, we’re talking television, we’re talking newspapers, everywhere you look there’s an ad for the road.
Dr G 28:58
Have you seen Cinemascope?
Dr Rad 29:02
Nobody has. It’s the first one to have it. So of course, it’s going to be viewing this new widescreen format which the studios are hoping is going to keep people coming to the movies rather than sitting at home and watching their televisions which of course the becoming a big thing in this post World War Two era and so they make the film’s bigger, more colorful, more extravagant, the kinds of thing that television which is generally a little square, black and white box just can’t really offer you know, we’re talking about also sound you know, stereophonic sound, it’s it’s all a big thing. And it’s given this huge premiere, where it’s like a freaking circus. We’re talking about, you know, the spotlights outside the cinema, the stars are attending, you know, it’s a very, very big deal.
Dr G 29:53
There’s gladiators playing games.
Dr Rad 29:58
Yeah, so it’s definitely a huge to do when it when it comes out. So as you highlighted when this novel was first written, and people were maybe first toying with the idea of making this film, it was a world war two time. And that seems to have been thought to be part of the message of the film when they were first, you know, throwing it around that in some way, Caligula and Rome are meant to be this sort of, you know, decadent place, that they’re somehow the way they’re treating Jewish people slash Christians, because of the crossover. It’s kind of meant to be like the persecutions that were carried out, in particular, I suppose, by Hitler, but also to some extent by Mussolini. So this was definitely meant to be something that people were, I think, picking up on when they were first, you know, developing this into a film.
Dr G 30:59
Look, I think that sounds reasonable. Yeah. Yeah, you do get the sense that the way that the Romans are being positioned in this film is quite particular. And it’s quite different from other epics of this era that I’ve watched so far, because I’m not going to pretend that I’m conversant in all the Hollywood epics.
Dr Rad 31:20
But there are quite a few now.
Dr G 31:22
I have watched a few but I wouldn’t say I’m in any way an expert at this point in time. But it did feel to me like the Romans were being very much positioned in a particular way. And it was, in part to do with, obviously, the focus is on the Christian story. So the Romans are, by default, the bad guys here, but also, that it’s coming out of that sort of post Second War mindset. Well, how do we understand conflict? How do we understand the persecution of peoples? And so while I wasn’t really consciously thinking about it, when I watched it, the vibe that the Romans are giving off in this film is intriguing.
Dr Rad 32:04
Yeah. And I think it’s kind of one of those things as well, where were these sorts of moralizing films, it’s kind of that thing of people get to enjoy watching the Romans have this very fancy schmancy life that they have, whilst also being like, Oh, isn’t a terrible, look at what they’re doing to those poor Christians. So it’s like they because the moral is there, they get to enjoy watching the decadence of Rome. But I didn’t feel like it was as over the top in the robe, as it has been in some of the other movies, we’ve watched, like quovadis, and that sort of thing.
Dr G 32:38
And I feel like the decadence was actually a little bit pared back in this film, like note that it didn’t have like all of the highly colored interior scenes and the layering of different stones and things like that it was obviously trying to be quite opulent in its way. But it also felt like maybe they didn’t have quite as much budget as some other films for some of that stuff. Yeah, definitely.
Dr Rad 33:00
Now, the other interesting thing I’m going to throw in contextually Dr G is that so when this film was purchased, and when it was being made, we’re still in the time of the studio system. So this is a period where you’ve got kind of like five major movie studios that really dominate the production of movies in Hollywood, there are some minor studios. And then there are also some truly budget, you know, just pump out these really crappy movie studios, they do exist. But the major films, particularly the ones that most people would be familiar with today, they’re going to be made by one of these major studios. And it’s kind of that idea of it being like the dream factory time of Hollywood, you know, where they’re manufacturing movies. And so they’re in charge of who gets hired to be director who’s the producer, who’s on contract, like the stars are all under contract at various studios, and they have to make so many pictures per year, and they get paid this much to do it and all that kind of stuff. So huge amount of control. Now, most of these Hollywood studios, these major ones are owned by Jewish movie moguls. This puts them I suppose in an interesting position in the 20th century. Now, of course, I think part of the reason why that ended up being the case is that typically, when when movies first sort of became a thing, it wasn’t necessarily the most admired or respectable profession to be involved in, you know, I mean, it wasn’t the theater.
Dr G 34:33
In the same way that actors in ancient Rome were suffering under the pool of a lack of respect for their craft. Exactly. So too, did early filmmakers, people like that’s not
Dr Rad 34:46
exactly yeah, and I think it’s so it’s something that you do tend to get people that perhaps aren’t risking a wider reputation, I suppose, or aren’t too concerned about what this wider society You may or may not think we’re also talking about people who are potentially immigrants. You know, there’s a whole bunch of reasons why you might end up getting maybe a higher percentage of Jewish people getting involved in the film industry in the early days. And their investment, of course really pays off, because everyone starts to really fall in love with movies, which makes, which makes the people that got involved in the early film industry, very wealthy when they rise to the top. Now, it’s not by any means only Jewish people that are involved. But there is a trend where a lot of the big movie Americans at the studios are Jewish people. Now, they don’t want to be seen to be putting prou Jewish propaganda into their films or things like that, particularly once we get into this time period that we’re talking about, you know, with, obviously, World War Two, I mean, even I mean, obviously, we talk about American history, obviously, there’s always been, I think, a certain stigma against anybody who’s perceived to be an outsider. But particularly in the early 20th century, we know that we see a spike in terms of racism, not just directed against African American groups, but also directed against any immigrant groups, and Jewish people in the 1930s, are increasingly being associated Well, in the 1920s, and the 1930s. Really, they’re increasingly being associated with communism. So especially with everything that’s happened with World War Two, especially, it’s not really a great time, I suppose, to be seen, to be putting out film sort of openly, you know, Pro, the Jewish course. 1919 48, I think makes it particularly touchy issue. Because, of course, this is when we get the creation of the State of Israel. So with the creation of the State of Israel, there was actually a film release that was touching on these sorts of issues, and was kind of pro Israel called the sword in the desert. But there was a riot that broke out in a London cinema when it was shown. And so it was actually withdrawn. And so I think that showed a message of, you know, people aren’t really going to want to see these sorts of films, or at least that’s the feeling. And obviously, we’re talking about Hollywood, it’s a business, you’ve got to, you know, make your money somehow. So a way I suppose, of dealing with that was by making biblical epics, where there is a bit of a focus on, say, the Old Testament. So we do see a lot of Jewish heroes turning up in some of these 1950s epics, another one, of course, played by Victor mature Samson, Samson and Delilah. And then of course, we’ve got Moses turning up in the 10 commandments. And then you’ve got characters like Joshua Solomon, and even in terms of women, you’ve got people like Ruth and Esther turning up in some of these biblical epics. So the robe is kind of an interesting one, because it is obviously crossing that, that line between Old Testament days and entering the New Testament led by one Jesus Christ.
Dr G 38:02
Yeah, we’re in this very interesting storyline. I suspect, and it doesn’t necessarily, I don’t think it’s over in this film. But it’s clear as well, that this is about the genesis of Christianity. And it emerges out of Palestinian culture, that’s clear, both from the geographic location. And it’s clear from the way in which the robe engages with this story as well, like Marcellus goes on this journey, which involves him going into Palestine as part of his job as a Roman, but also learning and discovering things about himself while he is there. Yeah. And for him, that’s not necessarily about Jesus in the beginning. It’s a much longer journey. And so I think part of what this film is trying to do is to try to capture what does this historical moment really mean? For so that sense in which we know that there are people in Palestine during this time period historically, who are being crucified? And what kind of effect does that have on the people who are there at the time? And what kind of stories are they telling about these people? Because one of these stories ends up becoming very influential, and being retold and retold. So this is an interesting way to tackle it, I think, through the eyes of somebody who is Roman, and also through the eyes of someone who is not Roman, but he’s also an outsider.
Dr Rad 39:34
Yeah, it is a really interesting film in that respect. And I think also the choice of having it I mean, obviously, they had to place it when they did if they were going to be accurate about when Jesus was supposedly alive and when he was being crucified. But I think there is also a tendency to set these sorts of movies during the Empire, not just because historically it makes sense, but also because there are publican era of Rome had been such a model for the USA itself. And they like to think of themselves as you know, inheriting some of those Republican Roman values. So a way I suppose dealing with the fact that they like, we’re like the Romans, they’re like, oh, wait a second. Not those Romans. Yeah. When like their republic and Romans, not those decadent, Imperial Roman, it’s not the USA.
Dr G 40:26
I mean, they’re very lucky in that regard that the timeline is what it is. Because imagine if this had happened in the Republic, and it very well could have because
Dr Rad 40:35
Their heads would literally explode
Dr G 40:38
We are not that far into the imperial period.
Dr Rad 40:44
Now, of course, for that there were some minor contextual factors. So the rivalry from television, we’ve got the studio system, and the people that are behind the studio system, follow the money, did you?
Dr G 40:57
Well, yeah. Like I hear Jean Simmons had to, like, break contract and get a different contract in order to do partly to be in this film.
Dr Rad 41:04
That’s generally what they had to do. There’s always sort of like they it was, it was almost as though the celebrities were like trading cards. And, you know, studios would be like, Look, I really want so and so from this picture, they be just right for the role. What can you do I will trade you these two women for that woman for six months? Or? Or yeah, they will, they had to renegotiate their contracts. Because often their contracts would be like for seven years. So it’s quite a substantial chunk of time. So we’ve got television, we’ve got the studio system, we’ve got the creation of Israel, whilst this film is very slowly being developed. And then of course, the big thing that we need to talk about is the Red Scare of the 1950s. Don’t know. Thank you, thank you, I needed a sound effect. So by the time the room is finally like properly in production, which is by the early 1950s, we’re looking at a second round of huge hearings, which is the house of UnAmerican Activities Committee. And these are the people that are most notorious for trying to root out communists in various industries in America, but in particular, in Hollywood, and I say in particular, in that it was probably obviously the most widely publicized.
Dr G 42:23
Yeah, it’s a horrifying time to be for the progressive political nature.
Dr Rad 42:27
Yes. So there’s been a lot of talk about the robe and the whack hearings. Because of course, there are some key scenes in the room, which some people have taken to mean, that this film was trying to talk about the present happenings in America, whilst extensively talking about the past. I’m wondering if you can guess which scenes I’m talking about Dr. G. I
Dr G 42:53
don’t know that I can. I didn’t have this moment where I was like, aha, that’s a clear us moment. I had moments where I was like, this is another Lady Macbeth reference.
Dr Rad 43:04
Very possibly,
Dr G 43:05
maybe they’re the same. Look, there is this scene on the ship back to Italy, where Barcellos seems to be involuntarily moaning a bit like a lady while he’s asleep. As there is the sound of the hammer on the deck of the ship. Could this be a hammer and sickle reference that I’ve missed? Could this? Could this be a recollection of his role in the crucifixion? Where the sounds are the hammer of minds him of the of the nails that he drilled into Jesus’s body? Anyway? I don’t know. But that was a great scene.
Dr Rad 43:43
Well, basically, it is the scene where Tiberius is talking to Marcellus, the Tribune, about finding out about the road, like tracking it down. Yeah, reaching out all the Christians, all of that kind of stuff. So he explicitly says to Marcellus, you know, I need a list of names every name, I need to know who these people are, we need to hunt them down, we need to route them down. So that has sometimes been seen as a not very subtle reference to what he wack was trying to do in the late 1940s. And in the early 1950s, because this film, of course, came out in 1953. So it was out after two rounds of Hollywood hearings, the of the committee, so some people have seen that as being a reference. But I did find this article which delves into the complicated production of this film. And part of I think the reason why people were so keen to see a parallel is that the major screenwriter during the early days of production for the robe was Albert moths. Now, Albert mult isn’t a minor very well, because he was one of the Hollywood 10. So he’s one of the original guys that ends up getting called up in 1947. Before he work along with another guy, I know, Dalton Trumbo, he and Trump We’re pretty tight.
Dr G 45:02
Of course they are.
Dr Rad 45:05
Yeah, yeah. And then the next guy to work on the script is a guy called Philip Dunne. Now he ended up being part of a group of people in Hollywood called the committee for the First Amendment. So this is a reference to the fact that when the US UK hearing started to happen in 1947, quite a lot of the more liberal people in Hollywood were, of course horrified by what was happening, these people that they know, these people that they’ve worked with, and they perhaps were just liberal enough to not think that this was actually something that should be happening in America. So a bunch of them get together to try and rally support for the Hollywood 10. And they end up calling themselves the committee for the first amendment because one of the decisions one of the key decisions that the Hollywood tena decided to make in 1947, is that they were going to plead the First Amendment and not the fifth. Okay, so they’re not they’re not pleading,
Dr G 46:04
now, you’re really testing my understanding of the US Constitution, because I do not know what the First Amendment stands for adults. Basically,
Dr Rad 46:13
we’re talking about the Fifth Amendment is your right to not incriminate yourself, which tends to be what happens later on in the huge tech hearings, because the First Amendment doesn’t work. The First Amendment we’re talking about things like your freedom of speech. Okay, your your basic freedoms, like some of the things that Americans cling to, most daily, I see. And they basically say that they want to do that rather than pleading the fifth when they get called up in front of this committee, because to plead the fifth kind of has the connotation, I suppose that you have done something criminal, I was
Dr G 46:49
gonna say, surely pleading, the fifth is already an implication of
Dr Rad 46:53
kind of, I mean, like, it’s not really, that’s not really what it necessarily means, but it does have that connotation. Whereas the First Amendment, it’s more about fundamental freedom, like if you’re at risk
Dr G 47:04
of incriminating yourself, doesn’t that make you criminal?
Dr Rad 47:07
Well, I mean, this is the thing. No, it doesn’t have to, it’s more just the fact that obviously, you have the right not to incriminate yourself, maybe accidentally, but it just, it just has that connotation. So yeah. So that’s why it became a big thing because they took that stance that they were going to plead the First Amendment and argue this and it does not go well for them. And why? Yeah, yeah, that’s a shame. He’d been one of the he was he was known to be a political liberal. And he was one of the founding members of this group, which also included some very well known names like you know, Lauren Bacall, Humphrey Bogart. Yeah. Lots of people who would do you know, radio announcements, telling people look, this is what is happening right now. This is terrifying. We need to do something about it. We need to rally and show support. So there’s definitely some leftist feelings coming out of the screen writing. There’s just just like, catch Dr. G. O. Albert molts was riding the robe up until about 1946. I wonder if you can do some quick math for me and tell me what the problem is with that? Well, it’s
Dr G 48:10
after the Second World War for the huge tech hearings? I don’t know. That’s exactly
Dr Rad 48:15
right. It’s before the HUAC hearing. So how could he be making coded reference to the US hearings before the hearings?
Dr G 48:24
I mean, the guy’s got four. So what can I say? He’s a smart man. And he saw it coming. Yeah. So
Dr Rad 48:33
while says obviously potential for there to be some Anti Fascist stuff, because yeah, that album also sort of worked into the script. You know, in terms of what everyone’s just been going through with World War Two, it seems unlikely that Albert moulds would have been able to work in huge references before the huge hearings, that became a problem for him in 1947.
Dr G 48:59
You do make a very sound argument and I am convinced,
Dr Rad 49:03
I would like to claim this as my own but somebody else went into the archives in this effort. However, that still leaves the question of fill Phillip done. Okay.
Dr G 49:15
Yes, sinister.
Dr Rad 49:18
Well, not necessarily mean, I actually quite like the sound of him. He sounds like I’ve gotten a guy.
Dr G 49:23
Philip is done. That’s what I’m told.
Dr Rad 49:26
I suppose there are also they’re also supposed to pretend potential references to kind of like blacklisting and curricula being a somewhat McCarthy like figure particularly in that last big scene that you talked about. Okay, the way that he talks about the way he’s talking to Gallio in that final showdown of his seen,
Dr G 49:49
also the way he has plants in the audience to backup his position, which, which aren’t enough to get it across the line anyway, which is kind of hilarious because you think As the Emperor he’d be able to buy off more people. But he’s then also immediately called out for this by Diana being like, that’s all you got the people you planted in the crowd.
Dr Rad 50:10
I know she’s very outspoken. I love the fact that in both Demetrius and the Gladiator, and sorry, Demetrius of the Gladiators, and The Robe, we have these final scenes where Roman women are super outspoken in a public fora. Yeah, in a way that I think would not fly in reality. No, just laying into them. Yeah. But I think the thing that really came through for me when I was rewatching, it is that Marcellus is very clear to Caligula that look, this is just what I believe. I’m not trying to take down Rome, you know, I can, I can be loyal to both of you, which I think is very interesting, because that’s kind of the line that a lot of people who were brought up before the huge tech committee in the 1940s, and the 1950s, were trying to argue, the majority of them, I mean, particularly those who worked in Hollywood, sure, I’m sure there are some rogue communists out there in the states who were aiming higher, but in terms of the Hollywood people, they weren’t trying to take over the state.
Dr G 51:14
And this is also I think, tapping into some bigger ideas that I think America at this time had about itself. And maybe these ideas linger today in various ways, which is when Marcellus makes this dichotomy between his ability to serve Rome, which is completely uncompromised and his perspective, and his personal interest in pursuing his beliefs, to the extent to which they don’t affect his capacity to serve Rome, is tapping into that idea of freedom of religion. And also, this vaunted, but potentially quite false idea of the separation of religion and state, which is a very modern invention. And once we look into any state system, almost completely unsupported by the evidence at play on the ground in any nation state of today.
Dr Rad 52:10
Yeah, definitely. Now, one of the interesting things is that we do actually have a record of Maltz’s version of the script, which Philip Dunne would have used to develop his idea. And Maltz definitely had more scenes that develop this idea of the need for the naming of names. And it also included a bit more development with the character of Abbey door. Now Abbey door is the informant, that must sell us users to try and find out about the Christian, the Jewish slash Christian community that he is tracking down. So in Maltz’s, version, Marcellus actually gives avatar a coin in exchange for every name that is brought to him. These These were not kept, obviously in Dunne’s version, which begs the question, was it purely because if there’s already an incredibly long fail, or was it that by the time that done was working on the script, those sorts of references might have been seen as maybe too problematic?
Dr G 53:19
Maybe unseemly, given the circumstances that we’re facing right now in Hollywood? Let’s not mention that.
Dr Rad 53:26
Exactly. Yeah. Because it is no doubt that Philip Dunne is was somebody who was anti-HUAC, but the thing is, he was also anti communist. So the people that were part of this committee for the First Amendment, they weren’t necessarily communists themselves. In fact, I would say that generally, they were not communists at all. They were just people who thought that he work was wrong. And thought it was important to speak out against the freedoms that were to speak out because they were basic American freedoms that were being trampled on. And also because I presume, again, because of that natural affinity for people that you knew and people that you worked with being, you know, put in this horrible situation.
Dr G 54:11
Yeah, look, I think that’s completely fair. You always want to stick up for your friends.
Dr Rad 54:16
Yeah. So I mean, I guess it’s like one of those movies that in a way you can kind of read it, however you like, in that you can see it as being a critique of totalitarianism. Okay, it could be seen, as you know, you could see Caligula and the Romans as being kind of Stalinist communist figures and that you’re living in a repressive state, or you can read it as being I suppose, a critique of the kind of repression that was going on during the hue Acura, I think
Dr G 54:45
it offers itself to a range of these sorts of interpretations and the importance of the positioning of the audience in this to very much be on the side of Marcellus and that unfolding personal journey Ready to understanding is part of the key way that it’s navigating all of these tension.
Dr Rad 55:06
Yeah, definitely. Yeah. So overall, Dr. G, after, after us talking all about all these various contextual issues for the making of the room. What is your final impression of this film?
Dr G 55:21
Oh look, I don’t want to see it again. I know, I like my Roman history to just be a little bit more grandiose. I don’t know that I’m into it as being a backdrop for some other sort of moral didacticism, which it feels very strongly as what’s going on here. I did enjoy the elder Tiberius, he seemed like the most reasonable guy around traps in this building.
Dr Rad 55:54
Although I must admit, I thought you would pick up on this, did you pick up on the fact that Tiberius was very skeptical about Roman religious practices?
Dr G 56:03
I mean, I suppose he should be. He’s seen enough in his time. And in terms of my overall I probably gonna give it maybe three stars, it’s clearly been very well put together for its time and its age. I want to see more Romans, the robe, it didn’t feel like it was well explained.
Dr Rad 56:26
You mean how the magic worked.
Dr G 56:29
Look, guys, what’s going on with this robe?
Dr Rad 56:33
Well, I think it’s kind of interesting, because I suppose like a lot of blockbuster films these days. Interestingly, there was a bit of a divide between critics and the audience. So as I mentioned at the beginning, clearly it was well patronized, lots of people went to see it, you know, and I think that, that has to be partly put down to the fact that it was a new screen technology. And even though television might have been enticing people away from the movies a little bit, there’s still no way that a 1950s television could compete with the sort of star studded epics. That was so colorful. And you know, the other than that, you know, the sound has been so rich, and the colors were so dazzling. I don’t think television could really compete with these sorts of things. So I can see why the average person on the street with like them, but critics were a little bit more hesitant about this sort of film. So I did find an article which I will cite in the show notes, which had some of my favorite ways of summing up the robe, so I thought you might enjoy them as well. So from the New Statesman on the 28th of November 1953. Most of the film I have found dull and the rest nauseating.
Dr G 57:50
Goodness me Well, that one’s not not enjoying it at all.
Dr Rad 57:54
From the Daily Mail on the 20th of November 1953, fundamentally, distasteful
Dr G 58:00
Distasteful.
Dr Rad 58:03
From the evening news on the 20th of November 1953, just money down the drain. From the Evening Standard, on the 20th, November 1953, boring heavy faltered and ham fisted
Dr G 58:18
look, I think I’d agree with that, to be honest,
Dr Rad 58:21
from the Sunday Express on the 22nd of November, tediously earnest and crushingly sentimental. And finally, my favorite one from the Financial Times 20th of November 1953. Although why the Financial Times of reviewing the robe I will never know. A long lacrimose, high class sleeping draught.
Dr G 58:44
I spent a lot of money and I napped very well. Thank you. Yeah, look, and I hear that I did find it tough to get through this film. And I will say that there is a moment where I expected the robe to really do itself justice. And the robe failed to show up. And that’s the moment where Demetrius is clearly at death’s door. Oh, sure. Yeah, there at Marcellus, his dad’s house, and the Roman physician is there. And he’s like, look, there are limits to what science can achieve. It’s like I can’t put the blood back in his body. And yeah, kind of gives up on it. And then he walks out there, we have pee to go in. I was like, it’s now time for the robe. Surely a healthy application of the robe is going to fix this guy. But not only do we not get to see it, but it doesn’t seem like the robe was involved. There’s some other miracle happening there. And I was like, Guys, you really missed a trick. The robe could have done the job, and it would have made the magic. palpably real for everybody at that point.
Dr Rad 59:52
I know exactly what you mean. But it since they were already planning a sequel, lest we forget that that’s what cures Demetrius’ love in Demetrius and the Gladiators, part two of The Robe. So I wonder if they knew that that was going to be the plot device for that. Alright. I don’t want to undercut the power of the robe. No, yeah, you can’t, you got to overuse a piece of fabric. And of course,
Dr G 1:00:14
I went into this already knowing that piece of information because we’ve talked about the sequel before we’ve talked about the original. So I was kind of like, surely it’s robe time, just to wave the robe over and gently have a stand. Yeah, that’s a little blanket. And it’s like, he’s gonna come good. Trust me. We know this. But they don’t. And I was like, Ah,
Dr Rad 1:00:35
I wonder if it’s because they needed to make use of, you know, Peter, a little bit more St. Peter. They needed his talents on display. I mean, he was
Dr G 1:00:42
definitely under utilized in this film. I think I was like, Why is he here? He’s got to get to Rome. Somehow. I suppose.
Dr Rad 1:00:49
I met the guy who plays him. I mean, come on, he really does look like something out of a DaVinci painting. I love that guy. Like already, hats off to you definitely has the look. Yeah, yeah. And I think we mentioned this when we talked about Demetrius and the gladiators. Lest we forget that Christianity became a vehicle for showing your patriotism in this time period in America. And we all know how much Americans love and showing their patriotism. And so it was kind of like one of those things where if the Soviets your enemy in the Cold War, godless communists, then Americans, freedom loving Christians, and so going to church every week was a sign of not only your personal religious faith, but your loyalty to America and your patriotism. So I kind of presume that going to the sorts of films, it must have been something that was very much a part of the, you know, the general vibe, particularly in certain areas in America in this time period.
Dr G 1:01:56
Oh, yeah, definitely. And I can imagine there’d be people trying to sell the robe after you left the cinema as well.
Dr Rad 1:02:05
Well, funny, you should mention that because I do have another statistic here from also another article that I will cite in the show notes. That said that tells me that between 1950 and 1963 Ancient World epics topped the US box office in seven out of the 13 years, so I don’t so we have Samson and Delilah, Victor Mature in 1950. David and Bathsheba in 1951, The Robe in 1953. Then there’s a little bit of a lull, is it because of The Robe?
Dr G 1:02:39
Probably everybody’s like I brought all my tickets. I really can’t afford to go to the cinema.
Dr Rad 1:02:44
The Ten Commandments in 1957 Ben Hur in 1960s Spartacus in 1962 and Cleopatra in 1963. And Quo Vadis in 1952 was second only pipped at the post by the greatest show on earth. Wow. And this is the same. This is the thing whilst we might say okay, so maybe there’s a bit of a yearning for Christianity in this time period because of the cold war. But it’s the same way the world over. Now. To be fair, the world is more Christian, as in there are more people that would probably identify as Christians in general, in this time period, as well. So perhaps not surprising, but they don’t have to go and see it to show their loyalty to their governments or whatever they’re trying to do. So that’s true. Yeah, yeah. But I thought I wanted to use this to sum up with, okay, the road, we’ve done it, I agree with you. It’s not my favorite, although I do love Richard Burton and Gene Simmons, as actors in this film, and I do enjoy a bit of curricula. I actually think I enjoyed Demetrius and the gladiators more. But I thought a good way of summing this up was to take this little snippet from a Sunday Times critic called Delos Powell. She wrote something which I really enjoyed, which were the Scripture prizes 1932 to 1961. Are you ready for the awards? Dr. G?
Dr G 1:04:06
I’m ready.
Dr Rad 1:04:07
Okay. The award for most vulgar film goes to the side of the cross. Applause Applause Applause
And that’s a film from the 1930s. The award for Most nauseating film goes to Quo Vadis.
The award for the most exhausting film goes to The Ten Commandments.
Dr G 1:04:38
That is exhausting as true.
Dr Rad 1:04:40
The award for the most nondescript film goes to The Robe.
Dr G 1:04:47
Nondescript, yeah,
Dr Rad 1:04:50
the award for the most luxurious bloodbaths goes to Samson and Delilah. The award for the most idiotic additional dialogue goes to the big fisherman. award for the most genteel orgy goes to Solomon and Sheba.
Dr G 1:05:15
She’s just making these categories up.
Dr Rad 1:05:18
Yeah, that’s the point. And finally, a special chariot race award goes to Ben Hur,
Dr G 1:05:29
Hur hur hur. I mean, I’d be very surprised if it went to The Fall of the Roman Empire. But it’s up there.
Dr Rad 1:05:38
Oh, I think that would definitely be number two, surely. And I will I very much like talking to you about the road because whilst the robe might not actually be the most flashy of the ethics of the Golden Age in the 1950s, it certainly has a lot of the things that I like to talk about, which is the war on television, the studio system at play modern politics, in terms of the foundation of the State of Israel, and of course, American domestic politics, the background of the huge tech hearings and the hunt for reds under the bed.
Dr G 1:06:19
Yes, wow. Caligula did have a very red robe and that should be a hint to anybody
Dr Rad 1:06:25
Absolutely.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
The post Special Episode – The Robe appeared first on The Partial Historians.
We were thrilled to sit down and talk with Assistant Professor Katharine Huemoeller about her research into the representation of enslaved women during slave revolts in ancient Rome. This conversation reveals plenty of food for thought about the representation of women in the ancient world as well as exploring the way women go on to be represented in later eras.
Special Episode – Enslaved Women during Slave Revolts with Assistant Professor Katharine Huemoeller
The Slaves are RevoltingAnd rightly so. Conditions for enslaved people in ancient Rome could vary widely from difficult manual roles such as mining and agriculture to the challenges of proximity to enslavers in the domestic sphere. Human trafficking also has a significant role to play in understanding gladiators. Assistant Professor Huemoeller takes us through some of the main ways to consider slavery in Rome before turning our attention to three key slave revolts:
- Revolt of Volsinii (265 BCE)
- First Sicilian Slave War (135-132 BCE)
- Third Slave War/ Spartacus Slave War (73-71 BCE)
These examples offer the opportunity to consider enslaved women a little more closely and it’s here that the conversation gets really interesting.
A coloured mosaic depicting two lovers together surrounded by attendants (likely slaves).
One pour liquid from a vessel; one attends beside the bed.
Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. Taken in the Kunsthistorisches Museum (Vienna, Austria)
Things to Listen Out for The role of menstruation during Spartacus’ war against Rome! * The agricultural uprising in Sicily and the ways in which slaves treated free women * The challenges of reading with and against the evidence when it comes to the Volsinii * And no conversation about Spartacus would be complete without a deep dive into the representation of women in Kirk Douglas’ Spartacus (1960) and the more recent Starz series Spartacus: Blood and Sand*
A painting called ‘The Slave Market’ by Gustave Boulanger (1886) which shows a range of enslaved people waiting to be sold. Most wear discs around their neck indicating their enslaved status.
MusicThanks to the glorious Bettina Joy de Guzman for our theme music.
Readings Huemoeller, Katharine P. D. 2021. ‘Sexual Violence in Republican Slave Revolts‘ in Kamen, D., Marshall, C. W. (eds.) Slavery and Sexuality in Classical Antiquity (University of Wisconsin Press), 159-173. * Huemoeller, Katharine P. D. 2020. ‘Freedom in Marriage? Manumission for Marriage in the Roman World‘ The Journal of Roman Studies 110: 123-139. * Huemoeller, Katharine P. D. 2021. ‘Captivity for All? Slave Status and Prisoners of War in the Roman Republic‘ TAPA* 151.1: 101-125.
Automated TranscriptGenerated by Otter AI. Hopes and prayers for the AI learning our Australian accents, Latin terms, and other very niche phrases!
Dr Rad 0:16
Welcome to The Partial Historians,
Dr G 0:19
we explore all the details of ancient Rome.
Dr Rad 0:23
Everything from the political scandals, the love of ours, the battles waged and when citizens turn against each other. I’m Dr. Rad
Dr G 0:34
and I’m Dr. G. We consider Rome as the Romans saw it by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories.
Dr Rad 0:43
Join us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city.
Welcome to a special episode of The Partial Historians, I am one of your hosts Dr. Rad
Dr G 1:07
and I’m Dr. G.
Dr Rad 1:09
We are joined by a very exciting guest who shares some of our interests today, we are joined by Professor Huemoeller. Assistant Professor Huemoeller worked for a nonprofit, the National Women’s Law Centre in Washington, DC for several years before returning to the academic world. She has taught at Princeton University, Middlebury College, and at US correctional facilities through the prison teaching initiatives. She is currently the Assistant Professor of Roman History at the University of British Columbia. And we are very excited to talk to her today, because her special areas of interest include things like slavery and sexual violence, and we’re going to be another word excited about sexual violence. But we’re excited that we’re going to be talking about issues of slavery and gender. That’s probably what I should say. So welcome to the show.
Katharine Huemoeller 1:59
Thank you so much. That always happens to me. I can’t wait to teach this class on slavery. It’ll be interesting that Yeah.
Dr Rad 2:08
All right. So let’s kick off with one of our introductory questions. So you’ve obviously written a lot about incidents of slave results in the Roman Republic, but just to set the scene for our listeners, can you tell us a little bit about the status of slaves in Rome?
Katharine Huemoeller 2:24
Yeah, absolutely. So I’ll talk specifically about slaves in the Republican era, because slavery is quite distinct in different periods of Roman history. And it really sort of takes off in terms of numbers in the Italian peninsula, in the third and second centuries BCE, as Rome expands, more and more people are trafficked into Italy, and sold on the slave market. So there’s a direct link between Roman conquest and the growth of the Roman Empire and the growth of the Roman slave system. But what slavery looked like and how it was experienced was extremely diverse. And some people were were employed on plantation style, agricultural estates, for surplus, you know, production of food, with very, very tough conditions, very harsh conditions, and very little chance of ever being manumitted, much less living a very long life. Other people lived in an urban context, or worked in a domestic context. And the lived conditions were perhaps a bit better than agricultural slavery. But it came with its own horrors, including proximity to owners, maybe increased chance of sexual violence and sexual exploitation, especially for enslaved women, but also for enslaved men. So it looked really different depending on who your owner was, and where you lived, and also, who you were, where you came from. And if you are a man or a woman or a child or an adult.
Dr G 3:58
Yeah, it’s a there’s a lot to take in when it comes to thinking about like the status of slaves in the ancient Roman world, just because there are so many diverse areas that somebody could end up in in terms of like, their place, either like, maybe it will be mining, maybe it will be in the field, maybe it will be in the home. And all of those come with their own risks. And to I don’t think we should ever underestimate the nature of the human workforce that is being utilised in many ancient societies in particularly ancient Rome, just in terms of when you look back to see what was achieved and also the labour that was utilised to achieve those things. So thank you so much for giving us a bit of a taste of the things that are going to be coming out. As we delve further into the questions.
Katharine Huemoeller 4:53
That point about under estimating is an important one too, because the big challenge with ancient slavery is I mean, we can say It looks very diverse, that’s clearly true. But it’s hard to say much else definitively because our record for ancient slavery is is so difficult. And certain types of slavery, certain sleeving strategies appear appear more clearly in the historical record than others. So we have more information, for example, about agricultural slavery in this period, you know, and sort of less idea what’s going on in a domestic context or more information about enslaved men than about enslaved women. So it’s always the question of filling in these very large gaps in our archive.
Dr Rad 5:35
Oh, definitely. Look, we’ve found we’ve been looking at the Roman monarchy a bit because we’ve been working on a book on that period. And as you said, I tend to think of slavery more later in room’s history, you know, during the Republic, when we start to see those big wars that are happening, and lots of people being captured in a conflict and then being made slaves, and then that obviously setting up the possibility of having more slaves because their people are bought into slavery, etc, etc. But the crazy thing was that when we actually stopped and looked at the records, there were references to slaves, and they were everywhere, even in that very early period. And whilst Okay, yeah, some things you know, you might look at them as being maybe troops or something like that. There’s just so many references to think that slavery itself wasn’t a part of Roman society, even all the way back at the beginning.
Katharine Huemoeller 6:27
Yeah, I completely agree. And I think there’s still a lot of work to be done on these earlier forms of slavery. I mean, obviously, it’s in the tall tables, which I know you guys covered. And that’s a great indication that it’s, you know, significant, and it’s a maybe a fairly clear demarcated legal status. But then, of course, it’s also, you know, only one of many different types of dependency in that period, including debt bondage, and, and maybe there was less of a clear line between these types of exploitation. And then the other issue, of course, is that I think in that early period, maybe there are more enslaved people coming from closer to the city of Rome, as opposed to from very far away. And so I expect there, you know, there’s a difference there in terms of the relationship of ethnicity and slavery, but I think there’s a lot more work to be done.
Dr G 7:17
Definitely. Yeah, once you start looking into the little tidbits that we do have access to is like, Yeah, you get the sense that this is a much wider picture. And there’s much more that we can learn as we go along. So thinking about your work and where it has led you in your research, you have focused on three main revolts, slave revolts. So when people are rising up against these conditions that they have found themselves in their lack of agency, and then recapturing that through the process of revolt. And I’m wondering if we can just go through the details of them a little bit. So starting with the revolt of the Volsinii in 265 BCE? What’s going on there?
Katharine Huemoeller 8:00
Yeah, this is one I really didn’t know much about until I started researching this topic. This the Spartacus revolt is very famous, right?
Dr Rad 8:07
I’ve never heard of it.
Katharine Huemoeller 8:14
So um, so this revolt is as definitely more small scale earlier on right in the third century, middle third century. And the sources for it are a bit sketchy, but it is attested in multiple sources. And what seems to happen is that there’s some sort of uprising in this atrocity and city. And it’s a sort of class struggle, and the exact identity of the people rising after it is different in different sources. In some sources, they’re enslaved people. And it’s a serious enough for revolt that the city asks Rome to intervene and assist and, you know, setting the social order back to what it was. So that’s, that’s one of these revolts. And I think it’s an interesting one, because it’s clear that there’s actually a lot of smaller scale revolts happening in the third and second century that we only hear little snippets about, but it seems actually to have been quite frequent. And Amy racialist has done some work on gathering these into a timeline in her slave theatre book. So, just recognising that probably this is happening quite frequently in the Italian peninsula and these two in these two centuries, even though you know, the ones we hear about are these larger scale ones that are called the really the first second and third servile wars essentially. So moving into the second one there, or the first one there, that’s a little less than a century later and the 130s in on the island of Sicily. So, all of these are taking place, you know, I guess I say the Italian peninsula but including Sicily, so in you know, Italy, Southern Italy and Sicily, in regions where agriculture is, you know, predominant. And this first slave revolt is led by a charismatic figure named Yunus As who sort of rises up in one of the major cities in the Catanian plain of Sicily, again, this really important sort of grain producing region, and he manages to, you know, work with other enslaved people in the area to capture the city, and then the revolt spreads to the whole island. And you know, that’s when, of course, Rome takes notice. And then the third one that’s quite that I focus on is the Spartacus slave war, sometimes known as the third slave war, which again, is happening a little less than a century after that. So in the 70s BCE, and in this one, an interesting man, a very enigmatic man named Spartacus, who is maybe Thracian, maybe not, is captured and enslaved in a gladiatorial school in Capua, and manages to break out along with other enslaved Gladiators, and maybe his wife, but we’ll get to that. And once again, you know, similarly to the first slave revolt, the revolt is sort of, at first seen as a minor thing, and not much effort is put to putting it down. And then it sort of grows in size as the rebel army starts to grow as encompasses other people, other enslaved people, but also maybe other free but disenfranchised people in the south of Italy. And it becomes a quite massive revolts that, you know, the Roman army actually takes a few years to suppress.
Dr Rad 11:29
Amazing, thank you so much for that. So obviously, there’s a lot that is interesting about these slave revolts. But I believe the reason that you have focused on these ones in your article was that these revolts involve violence, and particularly, they are revolts that involve sexual violence. And we’ve got records of that. So what did you notice about the way this violence has been represented in the sources?
Katharine Huemoeller 11:57
Yeah, so these these revolts came to my notice, because I am currently working on a book project on the sexual exploitation of enslaved people. And what I noticed in these revolts is that one of the types of violence that the enslaved rebels are said to direct at the free people, and particularly at their enslavers is sexual violence. And so I was interested in looking at sort of what how that manifested itself, not so much to understand what happened during these revolts. But instead to understand from the perspective of these free writers, what did they think enslaved people wanted to rebel against? What kind of violence did they think they wanted to inflict on the Masters, understanding that this is essentially a sort of role reversal, where the enslaved people are said to inflict the types of violence that they themselves have experienced as slaves? So I thought this could tell me something about the conditions of slavery. What I found when I looked at the sources is that there’s actually lots of different types of sexual violence that are inflicted on free people in these revolts. But it’s all directed at free women. And so what we see is that the slave rebels are said to commit acts of rape, and other types of sexual outrage, essentially, it’s very vague, to free matrons and to free virgins, and that these are done in front of their husbands or fathers. And that second part of that second detail clued me in to the fact that these acts are actually sort of intended to injure the free men, using the free women sort of as an instrument. And so that’s, that’s what I became interested in, through studying these is the way in which these enslaved men are sort of claiming the privileges of free masculinity in the revolts.
Dr G 13:56
Yeah, this is a really interesting aspect and insight into Roman sexuality, isn’t it? Because the this ties back into these ideas about the power that is thought to be inherent from a Roman perspective in sexual encounters, where it’s partly to do with the gender of the people involved, but it’s also partly to do with how you place yourself in the patriarchal hierarchy of Roman society who gets to do who to white becomes super important for being able to like know exactly where you sit socially, not just sexually, and the utilisation of women in this not as sort of agents in their own right, but perhaps as vehicles for conveying something about Roman masculinity is not at all surprising, but incredibly infuriating. I feel like
Katharine Huemoeller 14:50
yeah, that Yeah, that’s exactly right. What I’ve what I found is that it wasn’t just that these enslaved men were raping the free women. It was also the If they were, for example, protecting some free women from rape and choosing to rape others, or so this idea that the free masculinity or hegemonic masculinity and Roman society is about not just getting to do what you want to other people, but choosing right, who experiences what and who was allowed to do what. And so that includes not only, you know, sexual violence directed and enslaved people, but also that includes the sort of protection or maybe you could say, I don’t know, supervision, control of free women. So one of the stories that we get in the slave revolts is that the slave rebels choose this one teenage free woman who was very kind to them when they were enslaved, and they escort her to the house of her family members, and explicitly are protecting her sexual virtue. And I think that is as much a privilege of free masculinity, as you know, raping the matrons in front of their husbands.
Dr Rad 16:06
Absolutely. And I mean, obviously, this sexual violence is taking place in a broader context as well. Like, that’s not the only privilege that they’re claiming all of the time. And the one that particularly stood out to me in this regard is the the revolt of Athena, which I never really heard of before reading your article, as you said, it’s the lesser known. So thinking about what the slaves might have been trying to achieve through their actions, you know, more broadly speaking, because I know that during that particular revolt, they take all sorts of crazy actions, you wouldn’t expect slaves to, you know, to be able to take or to even maybe want to take in trying to, you know, set themselves up in a new way of life after their revolt. Yeah,
Katharine Huemoeller 16:49
this is a really interesting one. So supposedly, they, they sort of enact a number of reforms. It’s actually very, it’s very legalistic, rather than, you know, crazy violence, right. So one of the things they do is they become senators, they set up a sort of their own Senate. Another thing they do is they sort of rewrite the rules of inheritance. And it’s a little unclear, either they become the heirs to their former owners, or they write their own wills, it’s not clear which one and then they also rewrite the rule of stupid, which is illicit sex in Roman law. So this is technically happening in an attractive city, but extremely Roman. And always. And so what they say is that a free woman is is not allowed to get married to a free man, until an enslaved man has, has had sex with her first, which is just an extremely strange reform, and is again clearly linked to these ideas about what masculinity is and how to punish free men. And this is the sort of ultimate punishment right to make them marry a woman over whom they’ve had no control over her chastity or sexual virtue.
Dr G 18:05
I think this also tells us something about the nature of what our written sources, perhaps fear most, they’re kind of writing a narrative about, like, what are they most afraid of happening to them? If the slaves succeed? This is not a narrative of how slaves might have pursued their own freedom or how they would have defined it. I don’t know if I was a slave, I’d want to be my first task would be inheritance law, for instance.
Katharine Huemoeller 18:30
Right? Yeah, absolutely. This is like all of these sources are about what free people fear, they, I think have give us almost nothing about what actually happened with these revolts, or what the enslaved people want. But yeah, what’s so notable about about their desires, as represented in these sources is that they just want to be the free men, they want to take over all of their life and their privileges and their wives and their daughters. There is nothing in these accounts, hardly about enslaved women, or children. Right. So the idea here is that these men, when they sort of take control of society, they want to marry the wives of their former owners. That is not like what we see, for example, in Roman comedy, which is from a similar time period, right in which matrons are like gross, no one wants. They’re not. They’re not like objects of desire, right? But in these narratives, they are like, these are the women who are raped or taken as wives by these by these freed slaves. And so what we’re seeing there definitely is intended to show what emasculation looks like, I think in the Roman worlds, that’s what’s feared. And of course, you get that in the military context, right? The slaves are actually winning battles against the Romans. That’s really embarrassing to and emasculating. And now we also see sort of what’s emasculating in the private sphere in the home, or in the domestic sphere. Well, it’s
Dr Rad 19:58
so fascinating that you mentioned this, but because we one of the categories that we use in our show, when we’re ranking, the Romans performance when we’re doing a narrative is where source. So this inherently masculine, you know, like value, I suppose you’d call it or quality. And we try and think of that as obviously the, in a way, it’s like that right to take action, and to do so in a particular way. And it kind of ties into what you’re talking about, I think a little bit here about what the slaves are trying to claim potentially.
Katharine Huemoeller 20:32
Yeah, absolutely. It’s, it’s definitely where to send the Roman the Roman definition of virtue of manliness, the ability to dictate what gets done to other people, all of these other people who are subordinate to the, you know, the free male head of household. And I think that this is really encapsulated in one other event from these revolts that we haven’t talked about, which is a very another very strange one. It is the slave supposedly throw a funeral for a free captive matron, who has committed suicide, because she was raped by these slave rebels. And then to make this inversion even stronger, they force the men to perform the free men who are also captive here to perform gladiatorial combat, in honour of this woman at her funeral, because initially, that’s where gladiatorial combat came from, it was a funeral thing. And so, you know, they’re putting the men obviously in the position that they once were as gladiators. But they’re also forcing them to, you know, to participate in this sort of strange mourning of this woman who they should have been able to protect but failed to.
Dr G 21:49
Yeah, it’s a complicated situation for everybody to be in, I mean, the woman and what she went through that led her to her committing suicide, the situation where the roles have been reversed with the slaves and the Romans, and then the gladiatorial lair of a formal mourning process.
Katharine Huemoeller 22:09
And yeah, yeah, especially an interesting story. That’s so yeah, ripe for analysis. I mean, she’s very much the woman is like, very much like this Lucretia figure, right?
Dr Rad 22:18
Yeah. And so they that particular incident that you’re talking about, I believe, takes place allegedly, in the third serve our war, or the Spartacus revolts, whatever you want to call it. And I believe it comes from a source, a rosiest? Yeah, who’s writing a lot later, who’s actually writing in a Christian context. And I think that this kind of highlights not that this is something that you’re necessarily focusing on. But this sort of highlights, I suppose the issues that you must encounter with the varying kinds of source material that you’re working with for the sorts of incidents?
Katharine Huemoeller 22:50
Oh, yeah, that’s a huge problem. You’re using a Christian source to look at sexual norms in the Roman world. It’s gonna be quite different. Certainly, then, you know, Salas, for example, who’s you know, writing in the Roman Republic, the sources for these revolts, especially, you know, as we’ll go on to talk about for, you know, the presence of enslaved women and these revolts or the participation of women, these revolts there, so fragmentary and problematic, they’ve come down to us by chance, often, and they just kind of feel like they got in there by chance. Like, we weren’t even supposed to know about this. Yeah.
Dr G 23:27
Yeah. Like, I feel like I’ve got a question forming that’s related to the way that women are represented in these in these source materials. I mean, it’s partly the Euros Yes, question, I suppose in that sort of like that Christian framing, although I do love a good a rose. Yes, he does a lot of things that we don’t get to wear. But that sense in which none of these sources seem to really consider a woman’s perspective. They’re always a sort of utilitarian device in these narratives. And I’m wondering how much we can actually get out what it might have been like for these women, either as enslaved peoples, or ones who were free and become part of these enslaved narratives through these sorts of revolts with this role reversal stuff going on? Yeah,
Katharine Huemoeller 24:15
it’s really tough. The women and the stories, both free and enslaved women are very much sort of instruments of male competition, you know, violence. Yeah, just they’re sort of communicate with each other through these women is how I see it. And that’s true of the free women and the enslaved women. So when it comes to trying to understand their experience of revolt, their role and participation in it, we kind of have to work against what our sources are doing frequently. So that’s kind of a project I’m working on now is trying to understand the role of, of women in these revolts. It’s quite clear that there were women present In all of these revolts, enslaved women present in the revolts because they kind of creep into the sources just occasionally. So you just get these sort of casual asides about them, which are very tantalising. And then so I’m trying to sort of use each of these very, you know, casual references, and you focus in on it and try to unpack what it can tell us about women and these revolts. So I could we could go through a few of them if you’d like, because they’re really fascinating.
Dr Rad 25:28
I really hoping that this is the part where you’re going to bring up the women who apparently separated themselves from the Spartacan army because they’re almost exactly my favourite.
Katharine Huemoeller 25:36
They are my favourite example. We have to excitingly we have two references to this one incident, probably the same incident, where these two women are separated from the rest of the Spartacan army. They’re on a hill of sorts. And they’re doing something on that hill. And from the vantage point of the hill, they see the Roman army approaching, trying to stage an ambush, and they sound the alarm and the ambush fails. So what’s so interesting about this, the sources that are this incident is that the two writers who record it, record different reasons for why the women are up there. So Salas, who’s writing in the Republic tells us that the women were Adminster Russell window, which is you a phrase used in other texts, in reference to menstruation. But it basically means like carrying out their monthly things, duties,
Dr Rad 26:30
rituals, women’s business.
Katharine Huemoeller 26:33
Yes, exactly.
Dr G 26:36
Just up on the hill doing what,
Katharine Huemoeller 26:38
we don’t want to get too detailed about it, but there and then Plutarch, writing later, and probably looking at Sallust says that the two women are up there sacrificing or carrying out some sort of religious ritual. These things aren’t mutually exclusive, of course, right? They might be carrying out some sort of monthly ritual.
Dr G 26:56
Look, I feel like in the ancient world, if I was menstruating, I would definitely want to have a ritual associated with that of some kind and be like, Gods what’s going on? Yeah, it’s been days. When does this stop?
Katharine Huemoeller 27:07
Yeah, yeah. But once you do it in the middle of a revolt,
Dr G 27:13
like it’s tough, and it’s like, you know, if you hang out with the revolt, and you’re down on the ground, and it’s happening, and the men are turning to you being like, Are you wounded? And you’re like, I am? I am. That’s definitely what’s happening here. Like the enemies no where here. And there is definitely a situation, I don’t know what to tell you. Like, maybe it would be easier to go up the hill and be like, you know, I just need some respite from this revolt. These guys. I don’t know.
Katharine Huemoeller 27:38
Yeah. And I’m gonna take a friend with me here, the two of us are going off. Yeah, I mean, this. So this is a perfect example of the way these women sort of creep into our sources, because the only reason we even know about the stylist is that tiny fragment was excerpted for grammatical reasons. They liked the reference that women are Gallic, and there’s this weird word for Gallic in it. So they’re accepted by this later group, Marian. And then we have one single manuscript that preserves this reference by the Grimm Aryan. So that is how these women come down to us, like, by so many different elements of chance, and without the stylus, we would really not understand what foods are. So it’s just like, they’ve kind of slipped into the record, I like to think of it that way. And, and so it’s exciting opportunity for us to, to think about, you know, in what other ways they’ve slipped in, but also like, all of the ways that they’re missing, but clearly there. So in this case, you know, my, what I think is so funny about this account is like, this is basically a very embarrassing situation for the Romans, they are already engaged in a war against enslaved people, which is embarrassing, and then they’re, they’re, you know, about to, you know, have this ambush and to women. Foreign enslaved women are the ones that spy
Dr Rad 28:57
on their periods like, yeah, it’s
Katharine Huemoeller 29:00
Just like the worst of the worst for them, right?
Dr G 29:03
Yeah, it’s hitting me, right in my virtus as a Roman man, I don’t know.
Katharine Huemoeller 29:08
Talk about virtus, exactly. Like, of course, to me. Of course, these writers want to explain their presence. In other ways. They don’t want to say, hey, they were up there scouting, and they were successful.
Dr G 29:21
Yeah, these women were actually great at reconnaissance. And that’s why we sent them up there. And their sole job was to like, watch for the Army coming. And boy, did they nail that assignment?
Katharine Huemoeller 29:31
Exactly, exactly. Instead, they’re like, well, they just happened to be up there. And like, you know, they were very lucky that they saw us, you know, and that’s the other thing. It’s like, why would why do we trust Plutarch or stylist to tell us with us? I remember doing I mean, it’s crazy talk about like, you know, who has authority to tell us information? The Roman army would have maybe they would know they had been spied right. But they would have no idea like by who or why I mean, it just doesn’t make sense.
Dr G 29:57
Oh, come on. There’s gotta be somebody from ancient Rome Entertainment Tonight interviewing people afterwards. Like you were there. What did you see? What were you doing?
Katharine Huemoeller 30:06
Yeah, I mean, actually think that the most likely source is a cat a later captive, right? Because we know like Julius Caesar, for example, regularly interrogated captives to ask like what happened to them? And you know so so that’s kind of interesting. But yeah, I just love this this incidence of you know what, to me very clearly is these women you know having a strategic role essentially in the military and instead are explained away for other reasons.
Dr Rad 30:32
He reminds me of one of my favourite scenes from Parks and Recreation, where the whole gang from Parks and Rec are out on a shooting trip, someone gets shot accidentally. And a polis character is trying to cover for how that’s happened by taking responsibility herself because she has a gun licence and the person who did it doesn’t. And so when she’s being interviewed by the Ranger, or the sheriff, or whatever, she’s like, I don’t know, I’m wearing this bra that like open at the front, and it just threw me I want chocolate. I love my period, bitches be crazy.
Katharine Huemoeller 31:05
Every possible
Dr Rad 31:07
everything related to him and every stereotype at it, you’ll it’ll land, it’ll land. And actually, I
Katharine Huemoeller 31:12
should note too, like, it’ll lands not only with an ancient audience, but with a modern one. Because What’s so weird about this source is that there is actually no attestation of menstrual seclusion. As a practice, no, in the West, like, that is not a thing. And yet everybody’s like, Oh, there it is. So we knew it was happening here, too. And you’re like, What is this the source we’re gonna use for this? Really?
Dr G 31:34
You’re one fragment that’s from a single source. Good luck, guys. Yeah.
Dr Rad 31:42
So interesting. And then of course, the other woman that we we can’t neglect to talk about is Spartacus’ wife, very intriguing character.
Katharine Huemoeller 31:51
I was about to say Varinia. But then it was like, wait, no,
Dr Rad 31:53
I was about to say exactly the same thing. Because to me, she is for any issue will always be Varinia, yes. But if we’re going by the ancient source material, the nameless woman that is known as Spartacus is why
Katharine Huemoeller 32:05
exactly, yeah, we have we here plutonic that Spartacus, basically it’s sort of Plutarch introducing Spartacus as a character, a person and he says that he came from Thrace, and that he had a wife with him, who prophesized that he would be, you know, a great force, essentially, by seeing a snake curled up around his head, I think, and this was taking place in, you know, the slave market, and then somehow that they actually wound up together at the gladiatorial school, because he also, Plutarch also says that she was with him when he escaped, or she took part in the escape. So that’s interesting, because it suggests right, that this idea that, you know, they were together for a longer period of time, and that they somehow managed to stay together. Yeah. Yeah. I think that fact especially has attracted a lot of attention and made them like kind of a good opportunity for romance, essentially. Because for a story, right, because it’s so such an interesting, unusual detail.
Dr Rad 33:04
Absolutely. And she’s such a, she’s become so much a part of Spartacus as legend, I suppose in subsequent interpretations as well. She’s been really fully fleshed out. But we have so little about her apart from the fact that she might have been, like some sort of profit tests. And that Yeah, and that she managed to stay by his side, which just seems so unlikely in given what we know about slave auctions and gladiatorial schools, it just seems so rare that they would still be together.
Katharine Huemoeller 33:34
This whole episode is we’re like, no, that didn’t happen. to happen. It didn’t happen. But I was curious Dr. G, what, like, just because the other element of her that’s interesting is right, that she’s this really yeah, she’s his profit figure. And then, you know, these other women that were part of the revolt were maybe, you know, engaged in sacrifice. So there is this sort of like aura of religiosity around these women. I was wondering what your take on that was, as you know, someone who’s looked at?
Dr G 34:01
Yeah, look, I think it’s really fascinating the way that when women crop up in narratives, it’s one of the ways that’s acceptable for them to do so is through the practice of ritual. And what we’re seeing is that this pertains not just to Roman women, but to non Roman women as well, because the in all of these cases, we’re dealing with, presumably enslaved women who have at this stage by the time we’re in the Spartacus war period when we’re talking about foreign slaves, really. And so we get that weird sort of sense. But it also, I feel like this taps back into like, really ancient narratives and stuff, and I feel like the figure that pops out to me at the moment, mostly because I’ve been working on the Roman kings is Tana Quill, and this idea, so she’s the Prophet Hess. She can read the auspices and she ends up being able to prophesize the role of her husband, Lucia Tarquinius, Priscus well, before he get gets into power. And so this kind of sense in which Romans explain unusual rises to power and shifts in power through the divine, and not just through the divine, but through a female interpretation of the acts of gods. And so those women up on the hill, maybe it was the ritual, and Renea, my flesh, rabbit. Maybe it was the ritual, although I don’t know how anyone could possibly explain her being in that gladiatorial school as being like a realistic idea about the narrative. But so I’m really fascinated to understand more about gladiatorial schools to be like, do they always just take the ladies with them to keep them happy? Or something? I don’t know. Do they come as pairs? I’m looking around. And but yeah, this idea of direct line between like Women’s Action, informing men’s action through ritual understanding in the middle, it’s really common. And I think it’s partly because of that patriarchal framing of like, one way to women fit in this society, and it’s not at all clear. And God’s being somewhat unexplainable, like women, God,
Katharine Huemoeller 36:11
both unexplained, mysterious. Yeah, I think that’s definitely that, that that makes a lot of sense to me. And it’s, I think putting that the religious aura of Spartacus, in the context of the slave revolts is important, too, because a number of this sort of leading figures are said to have this some sort of religious significance or prophetic charismatic, fire, breathing, whatever, in whatever way it manifests itself. And so in some ways that actually may have been a really important part of Spartacus is leadership of this revolt. And she’s clearly an important part of that. And yet, her significance to the revolt Overall, though, is still really slim with it. So it’s kind of interesting, because you could think, oh, this made her a really key part of the revolt, because, you know, his charisma is really significant to the revolt success. And yet, you know, it’s she’s only associated with him at the moment of breaking out and then we don’t hear what if she’s involved in the revolt for as it grows larger and larger and more significant, she drops out of the narrative altogether. So it kind of minimises her role by placing her at the very beginning, even though there’s a possibility that that prophecy was actually really significant to the level.
Dr G 37:27
And it also helps, I think, from a Roman perspective, to really explain why things don’t go their way. And having those sorts of prophecies. It really taps into that sense of like, well, we didn’t make a mistake. We’re Romans, the gods were against us.
Dr Rad 37:43
Yes, good point. Well, I mean, it kind of depends as well on what their background is potentially like, if if Spartacus was genuinely Thracian, not fought as a Thracian. Maybe she was also Thracian. And so it’s just there’s so many question marks, though, about whether they actually weren’t any of this. But certainly, in relation to your earlier question, Dr. G, it’s not out of the question, obviously, that there are women who are being used for sexual purposes in a gladiatorial school. Certainly, if you became a highly prized successful gladiator you earned, you know, more privileges in the greater terrorist gladiatorial school where you were staying, you know, you could actually be like, somewhat tolerable, apart from the fact that you had to, you know, fight for your life and that kind of thing. But I don’t know whether a new recruit to a gladiatorial school will have earned any such privilege. And so I guess it just sort of, it must be chance if it actually happened, although I’ve also highly dubious about whether it did, but it must be chance that she also just happened to be what they were looking for in terms of, you know, like pitch and stuff. Or maybe they did want her for sexual purposes. Like, who knows. But yeah, whatever the purpose was, it must have been purely accidental. There is no way they’d be doing Spartacus anything. That’s yeah,
Katharine Huemoeller 39:01
and especially the way it’s represented in Plutarch is that they are captured together, right? They come from the same place, and then they that’s why they’re together and the slave market. And then it’s like, almost like they’re bought in a lot.
Dr Rad 39:13
Exactly. Yeah. That’s very possible. Yeah. But it does seem a little a little weird for a gladiatorial school to be like yeah, man, women. Yeah, whatever. We’ll take them all. Yeah, yeah. Cuz this is before the time when it’s common for women to be fighting in the arena, so she wouldn’t have been bought for that purpose. So yeah, strange. Very strange. Yeah, but ripe for fictionalisation. Right? Yeah. Well, that’s just said I was thinking like, I spend a lot of my academic career being like, where is vernia? Why isn’t she more prominent, speaking to you just and it made me realise that actually, it’s really pretty accurate for her to drop out of the store. But it’s my sister button for modern purposes. I constantly am like, Why isn’t she more fun of the story? Why has history are being downgraded? You know, why isn’t she represented the way that she was originally intentioned by Howard Fassler novelists, you know?
Katharine Huemoeller 40:09
Well, that’s, you know what? Yeah, that’s what’s so interesting, I think about this idea that she was a prophet test because, you know, when she does appearance in fiction, and you can speak more to this, because I can’t now I don’t know exactly the distinction between the script and the way the movie, I only know the movie, the way Spartacus 1960 ends up representing her, but, you know, she is she’s a completely domestic figure, at least in the second part of the movie during the revolt itself, important as you know, a vessel for bearing a child essentially. And so that’s so different actually, from from the, you know, her significance in Plutarch.
Dr Rad 40:46
That is, I mean, I think this is where the TV show by stars plays more with her religious role. You know, it’s a, they go back, because they have more time to play with obviously, they kind of start before the revolt, obviously. And they make Spartacus and auxilary. And they, they give him a whole backstory about why he turns against Rome and all that kind of stuff. And she’s a part of that story. Her death is a part of that story. But her prophecy about how he’s going to achieve like great and glorious things and, and the snake. It’s a theme that goes throughout the whole series, because she is his motivation. And those words are constantly going back to so they make something of that angle in the TV series. But they don’t really talk about that angle very much in the Howard first novel that was used as the basis for the 1960 film. And they don’t really in all of the various versions of the script. The religious side is not really what she’s known for. But she is actually a very significant figure in how it fasts novel, because his novel is told entirely through flashback. So Spartacus is dead by the time you start reading the book, and it’s told through the memories of Varinia, and David, the Jewish guy, who’s also one of Spartacus, his crew. And so it’s really told through her through her reminiscences a lot of the time, and she’s the one that like in the movie ends up surviving goes on to have children and it’s through her and her children that the legend of Spartacus is kept alive. But she’s she’s very significant in terms of being represented as very fierce. So unlike Spartacus, who is born into slavery, and like his life is pretty dreary from the beginning. Varinia has, Varinia is more a person who earlier versions of scripture has been free, and then becomes a slave. And so she fights back like there, there were scenes that were meant to be shown of the slave, the owner of the slave school raping her and her fiercely resisting. And that’s why he gives her to Spartacus, because he couldn’t physically overpower her or at least not to his satisfaction, like it’s, it’s a bit unclear, like they don’t always see obviously, it’s like we see the attack, we see the fight, and then we see her or bruised and stuff. In some versions, I think she’s meant to have been raped in some versions not. So the way it all plays out. It’s really crazy. And then once you get into the actual scripts, they have all these different versions of what she was meant to be in some versions, she was actually meant to be really highly educated. And she teaches Spartacus to read. Yeah, yeah, they. So there’s, there’s all these sorts of things. But certainly in the in the early versions of the script, you see what you see in the Howard first novel, which is that she’s a fighter, she actually there’s actually a line from the Howard fosse novel, which always stands out to me, she says, I can fight like a man can fight. And she’s, she’s definitely portrayed as being at the forefront of these attacks is like this, almost like Valkyrie, like, you know, kind of figure. And when the slaves in the novel erect this big statue to themselves to sort of commemorate who they are, they have representations of all the men from different ethnicities, but then they also have the figure of a woman, and that’s meant to be Varinia. So she’s, she’s definitely like the mother of the slave revolt. But as they get further and further into the script development, her character receives less and less attention, and she does sort of drop out a little bit, and what you’re left with, there are elements of the novel. So her being this figure of fascination for any man that meets her, you know, Batiatus, Spartacus, Crassus, Gracchus, they all fall in love with her. That’s retained, but she’s made much more passive. And it was actually something that the screenwriter, when he first saw the first kind of the film, he rebelled against it. He’s like, what the hell this is not the Varinia that I envisioned and where all the other slave women they just like disappeared, and so they actually did reshoots to add in more families, more slave women more Varinia but I think because of the nature of the ratios, she did end up becoming this What I like to call Stepford Varinia type character?
Katharine Huemoeller 45:03
Yeah, yeah. Cuz the, these, these scenes they interspersed are like, women like doing the laundry in the river, you know, during the revolts, and these, like, very domestic.
Dr Rad 45:14
Yeah. Which I mean, to be fair, again, if I’m, if I’m being fair, obviously, it’s not like, in the Roman world, it’s not like that wouldn’t have been the kinds of things that women would have been doing if they were attached to a slave army. But it is disappointing when you know, how she could have been represented, I suppose, as this, like she only really stops fighting in some of the earlier versions of the script, because she gets pregnant.
Katharine Huemoeller 45:36
Right, right. It’s so interesting to hear that, that there was this distinction made between them, where she was the person who had experienced freedom and therefore was considered to be sort of more, you know, was willing to rebel more, because that’s, that is, you know, sort of that’s kind of a debated topic, like some of the scholarship on the slave revolt says that one of the reasons these happened in this period was because a lot of the people who are being trafficked and you know, into slavery are recently free, and that they like have this sort of memory of freedom, or, you know, impetus for it that other people who are born into slavery might not have, which I don’t think bears out historically. I’ve also recently published an article that argues that, you know, many of the people who are enslaved in Conquest were already enslaved in other contexts, right in other cities, because they’re the people who are most likely to be trafficked to be taken captive and trafficked, a lot of the male, you know, free combatants are killed. And it’s women, both enslaved and free, and enslaved men, elderly people that are the ones who are taken captive. And so I think just because these people are recently sold in, you know, Italy or Sicily, that doesn’t mean that they were free in their lifetime, necessarily, nor does that mean that you would like, be more, you know, willing to revolt necessarily, I think
Dr G 47:02
Some of this must be about like, what are the suitable conditions for a revolt to take place? Like, yeah, like, there’s the moment of becoming enslaved whenever that might happen, whether you’re born into slavery, or whether you’re captured, and you have this understanding of our freedom. But I think it would be very naive to assume that people born into slavery don’t have an idea about freedom. What conditions would permit a moment where you’re like, Okay, this is this is the time to stand up and and take that risk, because it is a risk.
Dr Rad 47:32
Yeah, look, I think it has a little bit to do with a quick of how I’d fast novels, or how I fast I was attracted to write about Spartacus because of the connection with the revolts, or attempted coup that took place in Germany in 1919. And he started looking into Spartacus and he decided that he was going to make Spartacus, someone who was born into slavery as someone who had worked in the mines most of his life. Now, anybody who knows anything about slavery, whilst you might say, whilst we might not know anything about Spartacus, a backstory that we can definitively prove, I think it’s safe to say we all know that slaves in the mines do not live for really long periods of time. So the idea that he would have somehow been a slave working in the mines, like, basically his whole life or something like that. It just, it doesn’t make sense. But it’s something that they played with, I think, in the various versions of the movie in terms of making Spartacus, someone who was born into slavery, they had all sorts of different ideas about how they were going to start the movie, they were always going to start in the minds like they do. But yeah, either way, I think it’s a quirk from Howard fast, which is probably one of his less credible interpretations of the material.
Katharine Huemoeller 48:48
That’s really interesting. Do you think that there was that, you know, he wanted him to be why did he want him to be born into slavery was this idea that he had to be slowly shown another way to live?
Dr Rad 48:59
I think that was part of it in a way. Part of the part of the thing about Spartacus is that he learns from other people like he learns from people like David Perdue, who he comes into contact with, but I think it’s meant to be his nature. His his nature, and the nature of Ernie or the nature of all the slaves is meant to somehow be in stark contrast to the Romans, almost like it’s something genetic, though they are meant to represent the right way of life, which is that men and women come together because they love each other. They have to have children, they take an interest in raising those children. It’s it’s heterosexual. And the Romans, on the other hand, everything’s perverted. So they might not have children at all. If they do. They’re not interested in them. They’re not interested in family life. That’s not their thing. They take part in all sorts of twisted sexual practices. Now I say that in the sense of 1950s contexts which for a 1950s context involved homosexuality, but also incest
Katharine Huemoeller 50:07
And the women choosing which gladiator to watch.
Dr Rad 50:12
That’s that, yeah, that kind of thing. Exactly. So everything about them is meant to be like kind of impure debauch deviant, whereas everything about the slaves is meant to be much more pure. And I think that’s, and it’s also because he’s he’s offering a commentary. I mean, he was a communist. He is he’s offering a commentary on the way that industry and business contributes to this corruption of the soul. So he has actually like some quite lengthy passages where he talks about, I think it’s crisis’s perfume business. Because you do, but yeah, so it’s meant to be about obviously, like, the way that wealth works in each society, and what each society is valuing and how they’re treating workers and the class system. It’s all of these kinds of things, which is why the slaves are meant to be kind of more pure, and the way that they the way that they erected the statue, it’s obviously very, like Soviet Union, in terms of, you know, putting up that kind of imagery of themselves.
Dr G 51:17
We need a monument. Quick, somebody
Dr Rad 51:19
Yeah, exactly.
Katharine Huemoeller 51:21
And that that actually works really well with those scenes from the movie then where there’s these kind of, it’s sort of like this idyllic pastoral existence, like they’re engaged in the middle of a revolt, but they’re, like, you know, taught like singing around a fire and out in the fields. And well, and
Dr Rad 51:37
that’s very much, that’s very much how Howard Fast had envisioned the slave society is being like faily. It is like proto communist, you know, that’s exactly how he envisioned is everything working, even the way that he imagines men and women coming together, women are supposed to be able to choose their sexual partners, they’re not just like claimed by another, Gladiator or another man, just because, well, we’re out of the gladiator school, but you’re still a woman, and I still get to say what you do, he still has this vision of people being able to choose, and that includes women being able to choose who they cohabit with, and who they have sex with, as part of their whole,
Dr G 52:14
As long as it fits the heteronormative status quo…
Dr Rad 52:18
As long as that does that. Yeah.
Katharine Huemoeller 52:21
I mean, it’s so interesting that even though, you know, the reasons that these scenes wound up in the movie contemporary to his era, and very historical, in the end, one thing that the movie does, that I think is more true in some ways, is it does indicate, you know, it represents other people and engage in revolt besides just the, you know, enslaved adult men. And so, I mean, not that I think it accurately represents what their women might be were doing necessarily, or whatever, in the revolt, but it does, it just adds new people to the scene. And so that I think that that then can make you think, as a historian think, Okay, well, is there any truth to that? What were these people doing? And, and this, you know, goes beyond just the experience of enslaved women to just to think about when, you know, these rebel armies are, you know, moving up and down all over Italy? And what is the experience of everyone in in this context of revolt, right, the people who are in the town where the rebels arrive in the rebel army, this is obviously something that’s going to affect everyone in society. But we don’t often consider right, everyone.
Dr Rad 53:35
Well, definitely, as you said, the Spartacus slave revolt does manage to last for a couple of years. And therefore, we know that there are women part as part of this collective that have gathered behind Spartacus and the other slave leaders. It is certainly not out of the question that people are having sex, women are getting pregnant women are giving birth, you know, like, it’s not another question that that is happening,
Katharine Huemoeller 54:01
Or that families joined it to begin with, because, you know, we know that what’s happening on these agricultural estates that, you know, although are the writers tend to talk mostly about enslavement on these estates? You know, historians have done work already to reveal that women were absolutely there. And children were absolutely there. They’re just not the focus of the agricultural treatises. Right. But so, you know, in that case, are they you know, what is their relationship to these revolts as the rebels move through? Are they joining? Are they assisting their owners in hiding them, right? They have to make choices essentially, there’s no way to stay neutral. And I think you know, that that is that does come out of the narrative ancient narratives, right? There’s a story in the Spartan revolt where the slave rebels enter a town and it talks about how many in the town were sympathetic allies to the slaves and basically people had to make a choice whether they were going to reveal where their masters were hiding or you know, help them hide right it it was not On a possibility to remain neutral. Yeah, then we have to think okay, so then what is the experience or revolt like for all these people?
Dr Rad 55:06
Yeah. And that’s that’s something that has was toyed with in there’s actually there were actually two Spartacus movies that were going to be made based on two Spartacus novels that came out around the same time or early 20th century. So we had the one by how fast which becomes the Kirk Douglas movie and then we’ve got the one by Arthur Koestler, which was meant to be made into a Spartacus film called the gladiators, but didn’t end up happening because of character, Douglas’ project. But in there’s an interesting crossover with these, which is some of the stuff that I’ve looked at where the director of Spartacus 1960s to cook Douglas protect Stanley Kubrick became interested in the novel by Arthur Koestler, which was meant to be the basis of the other film. So there’s all sorts of weird crossovers between them. But certainly, in the novels in the various versions of the films, there are scenes that were toyed with about the slave men having conversations about, look, these women and children and old people is slowing us down. Like what are we going to do about this? And so they have toyed with these sorts of questions about how do you actually deal with a revolt? And certainly there, there certainly were going to be scenes and whether other movie, I can’t actually remember which one at the moment, I’m pretty sure it was Spartacus, 1960, where they actually had conflicts between the slave leaders over the question of whether they actually just welcome anybody or whether they only welcome those who can fight.
Dr G 56:28
So thinking about this situation for the slave revolt and their organisation? Isn’t this presumably just as problematic fit any kind of armed force, like logistics in the ancient world depends on the people. And you’ve always got this sort of, presumably entourage that has men and women, in addition to the fighters themselves, in which case, you possibly if you’re on a really significant campaign, there may be births involved there as well. And it’s like an armed forces, not just dudes wandering around with their swords out just waiting to reach the battlefield, I don’t think and so this logistics issue that the slaves are facing is presumably the same kind of logistical issue that the Roman army proper might also be facing conceivably in different points in time,
Dr Rad 57:20
I think. So I think the difference is that obviously, the Roman army is supposed to be helped by the state, you know, they’ve got this additional backup of baby, maybe they’re helping with food supply, depending on where they’re fighting, of course. But logistically, there’s like backup, whereas I suppose for a slave rebel force, they’re constantly having to look out for potential attack people turning on them. And I guess they’re not necessarily going to have like a bunch of trained fighters, whereas the Roman army presumably has a reasonable amount of men who have seen battle or have been trained,
Dr G 57:59
and maybe not supply lines, you know, just kind of a wandering force.
Katharine Huemoeller 58:04
I think you’re right, though. I think you’re right, that that that is an issue, because, you know, there is quite a lot of concern about camp followers called, and, you know, marriage bans, right, like there is a there is there are attempts throughout human history to sort of control outside of the army and like concerns about that slowing them down and messing with discipline as well.
Dr Rad 58:25
Yeah. And I think to be fair, although I’m, I’m really speaking off the cuff here, because it’s been a little while since I’ve looked over my material. But I have a feeling that part of the arguments, and at least one of the things they imagined was actually about, do we accept fighters. So we’re sick of accepting agricultural workers, whether they’re men or women who are coming to join us, because they imagine that there’s, you know, a core group of gladiators who know how to fight. And so I think it was partly about that some of the time or their training then their gender or their age. But they also played with those questions, obviously, of children and the elderly, and women in particular, slowing people down. But yeah, I mean,
Katharine Huemoeller 59:13
that is true to the ancient sources, too. And that the way slavers thought about women was as a way to actually attach men to the estate to reduce the chances of rebellion. Women were thought of as like instruments in that way to you know, have control that men would be less likely to revolt if they have wives if they have children. Right. So the agricultural writers are very attuned to that dynamic. And I think that’s one reason that they don’t conceive of women as participating in the revolt because they’re supposed to be doing the opposite, right?
Dr Rad 59:47
Yeah, exactly.
Dr G 59:49
You were supposed to save us from a vote.
Dr Rad 59:53
Yeah, exactly. Oh, my goodness. Yeah. Obviously, this could be an entire episode in itself because Varinia is endlessly fascinating, or the character of Spartacus, his wife is endlessly fascinating. She’s had many, many different names, and many, many iterations where she had no name at all.
Dr G 1:00:13
I suspect it’s probably a good time to wrap up. So we’ve got one final question. So when we were talking about you, in the introduction, we noted that you have a background that’s not just in academia, which is, you know, cool and interesting. You know, some people have a very straight path, and some people don’t. And so, you know, the paths into these sorts of things, I think, are really fascinating. And we’re interested in your work in the nonprofit sector, and also how that might have impacted the direction you took when you came back into academia?
Katharine Huemoeller 1:00:47
Yeah, absolutely. I left university unsure what I wanted to do. But knowing that I was passionate about reproductive justice in particular, and gender equity. And so I worked for a few years in the nonprofit world, working on contemporary issues. And it didn’t end up being what I wanted to do long term. But it definitely informed my interest in the ancient world. So when I decided to go back to graduate school, it took a little while before I could combine these interests, of course, you know, not in Greek lit survey so much. But eventually, when I got to, you know, choose my own research projects, I wanted to do something that touches on these these long issues of gender inequities, and in particular, reproductive injustice. And so I, I became really interested in Roman slavery, and the path and currently I’m most interested in particular in the hereditary nature of Roman slavery, and the fact that it goes through the maternal line. And I’m interested in how that shapes the experiences of enslaved women, what kinds of sexual and reproductive exploitation that leads to. That’s why I’m so fascinated by for example, right? That this idea that in the movie, Spartacus is supposed to be born of an enslaved woman that’s like the opening lines of the 1960 movie, right? Or is that a woman I think it’s something like a woman gave birth to a child, and that increased her masters a state and that child was Spartacus. And, and you know that it’s fascinating to me that that’s in this movie, because that’s actually not really in the scholarship. We don’t we don’t talk that much about the importance of maternal dissent in slavery. So that’s absolutely shaped by my experience in the nonprofit world. And by thinking about how legal systems shape inequities in society, and and also what people do within, you know, the actors within legal systems, how to slavers, choose slaving strategies, knowing that women will bear enslaved children.
Dr G 1:02:50
It’s really interesting, isn’t it? Because just thinking about what you’re saying at the moment about the maternal line, because we know that’s the easiest way to measure a line. And it’s like, you know, a woman grows, and then all of a sudden, it’s like, oh, yeah, and there’s a cord attached for a little while. You’re like, yep, that that one definitely came from me. Exactly. Yeah.
Katharine Huemoeller 1:03:10
In Roman law, it’s the the only the mother is ever truly known.
Dr G 1:03:16
Yeah, exactly. And so it’s like, it’s like, there’s never really any doubt about the mother, and yet Roman society and many, so societies, like from a Western perspective that sort of grown out from that, a very patriarchal, they’re like, No, we’ve always got to know who the dude is. And it’s like, do though, because it’s like, really easy, really easy if we just decided that the
Dr Rad 1:03:36
difficult thing,
Katharine Huemoeller 1:03:37
Yeah, that’s why they’re so anxious about protecting about women’s chastity, right? Because that is the way so for Roman citizens status is transmitted through the line of the Father, and that creates paternal power and, and legitimate air. And so for anyone who’s not a citizen, including enslaved people, but not only enslaved people, which status transmitted through the mother, but that, you know, that is what comparatively looking at slavery over time and space. That’s not the only pattern of transmission. It’s the one that was used during the TransAtlantic slave system, slave trade. And so it’s one that’s very, I think, present in most of our minds, but actually, sometimes status is passed through the parent of highest status, or lowest status, or whatever household they’re in, or there’s lots of possible patterns of status transmission, and they all had rippling effects on the experience of being enslaved. Yeah, definitely.
Dr G 1:04:31
I think it’s really fascinating because it’s kind of like there is always in operation, a two tiered system where there is the perceived status quo of patriarchy as like the right way from for being free and things like this. And then there’s all of the other systems that will fall under that which can be classified within slave strategies, and to see that the maternal line comes out so free Currently there and I was like, Oh, guys, you know, the real answer here is just, you know, patriarchy, maybe you could put that to the side a little bit, and you make it really easy for yourselves. But it obviously goes against something that’s really quite ingrained in Roman society and how they understand themselves, it’s just not possible for them to do something like that.
Katharine Huemoeller 1:05:18
Yeah. And what’s so what’s so interesting about it is that they see transmission to the maternal line as what is natural, that’s part of the you scan to my natural law, that’s what everyone does. But what Roman citizens do, right, the special privilege of Roman citizens is to have status transmitted through the Father. So that is like wrapped up in what it means to be a citizen and what and all these you know, special, this special treatment and special privileges you get with being a citizen, that’s a key one, it’s this transmission through the Father. And that’s kind of like, unnatural, it’s like part of Roman Civil lots, you know?
Dr G 1:05:53
Yeah, yeah. And it is obviously built into the all of the sort of adoption laws that are at play within the elite classes as well, where it’s like, well, we can we can rearrange your male line a little bit to make things a little bit easier here. And that’s sort of on theory legal.
Katharine Huemoeller 1:06:10
Exactly. But I mean, getting back to that, remember that crazy revolt at Volsini right, the idea that the slaves are, you know, wanting to reform the system of inheritance, like, to me that speaks to the significance of status transmission, right, this idea that, like they can decide who their heirs will be. That’s, you know, that is a privilege of, again, we’re two’s to Roman citizen masculinity. That’s, it’s just kind of wrapped in everywhere you look, all of a sudden you see it significance, I think,
Dr Rad 1:06:40
I guess it must be particularly interesting for you to be considering these issues at the moment, given the recent developments, which have been highly publicised all over the world in terms of control over reproductive rights in America.
Katharine Huemoeller 1:06:53
Yeah, absolutely. This, I would say that my present day informs this work in many different ways and informs my work because while I’m been writing this book, I’ve had two children. And so I’ve thought a lot about what it means to be a mother, how we can, you know, think about that over time and space, what reproduction looks like in different political contexts. Now, being in Canada, I’m in a very different political context than how I grew up. In the US. I’m very relieved not to be there right now, with the current climate and the current loss of reproductive autonomy for women there, it’s hard for me to imagine myself being there or putting my children, my two daughters there, right, bringing them there. And so that all of that informed the way I look at the past. [ Dr. Huemoeller wishes to make a correction to what she said during the recording: people of all genders, not only women, are being stripped of reproductive autonomy in the US.]
Dr Rad 1:07:45
Definitely, well, we might wrap up on that note, but we hope very much that by the time we talk to you the next time because I’m sure that our research interests will cross paths again, that maybe the situation let’s call it over there has changed so that people have more rights rather than less.
Dr G 1:08:02
Thank you so much for taking the time to sit down with us. We really appreciate it and such a fascinating topic of conversation.
Katharine Huemoeller 1:08:08
Thank you.
Dr Rad 1:08:09
Absolutely. Before we before we sign off, would you like to say anything about publications or where people can find you and your work?
Katharine Huemoeller 1:08:17
The best place to find me would be at my university website. So University of British Columbia, and you can search my name. I have a few recent articles out on these topics, if you’re interested in one that’s I think, particularly accessible is in the Journal of Roman studies. And it follows one woman’s story, one woman who was enslaved and then freed to marry her owner, and then ended up leaving him of sort of form of rebellion and was cursed for it. So it’s a really interesting personal story that I think helps you maybe sort of connect on an emotional level to the past, so that would be the one I would I would recommend.
Dr Rad 1:08:54
Well, I think we’ve got our next podcast collaboration topic. Thank you so much for joining us today.
Katharine Huemoeller 1:08:59
Thank you.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
The post Special Episode – Enslaved Women During Slave Revolts with Assistant Professor Katharine Huemoeller appeared first on The Partial Historians.
At the beginning of this year, we finally got to see The Gladiators vs Spartacus in print. It took a lot of determination and hard work on behalf of Henry MacAdam, as well as co-authors Cooper and Dr Rad, to bring this story to light, so we are delighted to be able to share one of the early reviews with you all. The author of these reviews, Brian Hannan, is a true film buff, with…
Read the postThe Reviews Are In! The post The Reviews Are In! appeared first on The Partial Historians.
The Gladiators - The Story of a Lost Hollywood Epic
Yul Brynner's film The Gladiators never made it to the big screen, but the story behind its failure is an epic in itself.
Dr Rad's latest work on this is out now and we're super excited!
Read the postThe Gladiators – The Story of a Lost Hollywood Epic The post The Gladiators – The Story of a Lost Hollywood Epic appeared first on The Partial Historians.
Dr Rad pays tribute to the late and unmistakable force to be reckoned with, Kirk Douglas. His role in Spartacus and his legacy for Rome on film and Hollywood are legendary.
Read the postA Tribute to Kirk Douglas The post A Tribute to Kirk Douglas appeared first on The Partial Historians.
We sat down recently with Stephen Guerra, the host of the History of the Papacy Podcast to talk all about the classic 1951 sword-and-sandals film Quo Vadis.
Read the postSpecial Episode Quo Vadis with the History of the Papacy Podcast The post Special Episode Quo Vadis with the History of the Papacy Podcast appeared first on The Partial Historians.
This is a short blog post designed to accompany the release of the recent History by Hollywood podcast episode that features Dr Rad, which you can listen to HERE. Before the Blacklist In the mid-1920s, a young man from Grand Junction moved to L.A. with his family. For nearly a decade, he struggled to contribute to the family coffers, working in a bakery and dabbling in low-level criminal activities. This decade made him particularly aware of…
Read the postHistory by Hollywood The post History by Hollywood appeared first on The Partial Historians.
The episode in which Drs R and G explore the Coen Brothers take on the Golden Age of Hollywood with Hail, Caesar!
We may have been enticed by the prospect of George Clooney as a Roman general, but we stayed for the tribute to the big studio days of American cinema.
Read the postEpisode 61 – Hail, Caesar! (2016) The post Episode 61 – Hail, Caesar! (2016) appeared first on The Partial Historians.
For anyone who is interested in learning more about Trumbo, or DT for those in the know, here is a list of references for our latest episode. This is just a selection – there are quite a few books on the production of Spartacus! Ahl, F., ‘Spartacus, Exodus, and Dalton Trumbo: Managing Ideologies of War’, in Spartacus, ed. M. Winkler (Blackwell Publishing, Malden: 2007), 65-86. Ceplair, L.; Englund, S., The Inquisition in Hollywood (Anchor Press…
Read the postTales of Trumbo: Reference List for Episode 60 The post Tales of Trumbo: Reference List for Episode 60 appeared first on The Partial Historians.
As you know, Dr R specialises in Rome on film. In this episode, let us take on a journey through the film Trumbo (2015), which is a bio-pic of the life of screenwriter Dalton Trumbo.
Trumbo broke the blacklist when he was given screen-credit for Spartacus (1960). Herein an examination of the politics of Hollywood post Second World War, the film Trumbo, and liberal sprinklings of Rome.
Read the postEpisode 60 – Trumbo (2015) The post Episode 60 – Trumbo (2015) appeared first on The Partial Historians.
Spice up your ears with a foray into the historical and creative elements of Ridley Scott's 2000 epic Gladiator. Touted as the return of the sword-and-sandal genre, this film is an interesting mélange of historical plausibility and blatant deviation from the primary source material!
Read the postEpisode 23 – Gladiator 2000 The post Episode 23 – Gladiator 2000 appeared first on The Partial Historians.
We're taking a step back in time to examine the classic Rome on film presented in Ben-Hur, the 1959 epic extravaganza! The film builds on the novel Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ published by Lee Wallace in 1880. This means that there are many layers to parse from the perspective of historians!
Read the postEpisode 22 – Ben-Hur 1959 The post Episode 22 – Ben-Hur 1959 appeared first on The Partial Historians.
We take our last turn about the room with the enigma, the charisma, that is Spartacus. The final season of the Starz series Spartacus: War of the Damned, follows the final confrontation between the slave rebels and the might of Rome.
Read the postEpisode 21 – Spartacus 2013 Season 3 The post Episode 21 – Spartacus 2013 Season 3 appeared first on The Partial Historians.
The Doctors tackle the sources and speculation that arise from an examination of the Starz series Spartacus Vengeance.
Spartacus: Vengeance follows the nascent slave rebellion in their journey from Capua and the challenges they face along the way. You may well ask what is up with Glaber and Spartacus - find out here!
Read the postEpisode 20 – Spartacus 2012 Season 2 The post Episode 20 – Spartacus 2012 Season 2 appeared first on The Partial Historians.
In this episode, your intrepid Doctors continue to explore Spartacus and modern incarnations of his story. In 2010 the Starz series Spartacus Blood and Sand hit our television screens.
This season functions as a origin story, as our primary sources for pick up the story at the moment of Spartacus leading the slave revolt in 73 CE. With an eye for the historical sources, we consider how this series tackles the details of Spartacus' life and the blurring of history and drama.
Read the postEpisode 19 – Spartacus 2010 Season 1 The post Episode 19 – Spartacus 2010 Season 1 appeared first on The Partial Historians.
Dr Radford's is a specialist in the history of Rome on film. And where better to start than with Spartacus, the 1960 epic directed (eventually) by Stanley Kubrick and starring the one, the only, Kirk Douglas.
This film has a highly complicated array of relationships to explore. There's the 1951 novel that inspired the screenplay by Howard Fast. There's the screenplay itself, where major credit is given to Dalton Trumbo. And there's the complications that arise from the challenges of finding a director who could stick with the project. This is all before we even cut to the chase on the primary source material!
So what relationship does the film bear to the historical sources?
Read the postEpisode 18 – Spartacus 1960 The post Episode 18 – Spartacus 1960 appeared first on The Partial Historians.