‘Who will write our battles and what we won and what we lost and who will tell the truth?” (Howard Fast, Spartacus)

The story of Spartacus has inspired writers, from the time of the Servile Wars to the present day. Roman writers began penning their version of events from the moment of Spartacus’s defeat in 73 BC until well into the Christian era. From the eighteenth century onward, this rebellious gladiator has become a source of inspiration for a new generation of writers and dramatists.

Spartacus’s story continues to be a source of dramatic action in literature and film. Arguably, the definitive image we have of Spartacus today is from Howard Fast’s novel, Spartacus, and Stanley Kubrick’s associated film starring Kirk Douglas. In both cases, Fast and Kubrick present Spartacus as a historic freedom fighter and proto-communist.

The question is, what similarities do these modern versions of the Spartacus legend share with ancient sources written closer to Spartacus’s own time? Do all the versions share a common Spartacus? Or is the Spartacus of ancient times and the twentieth century’s interpretation of the doomed gladiator a product of each author’s particular agenda?

 

The Gladiators Escape from the Ludus of Lentulus Batiates

 

Both Fast’s novel and Kubrick’s film highlight the revolt, led by Spartacus and brought on by the harsh and degrading treatment suffered by the gladiators at the hands of their owners. In Life of Crassus, Plutarch offers this historical description of a similar revolt: “one Lentulus Batiates trained up a great many gladiators in Capua, most of them Gauls and Thracians, who, not from any fault committed by them, but simply through the cruelty of their master, were kept in confinement for this object of fighting one another.”

Kubrick’s Spartacus draws upon this description and expands upon it. In the film, it is the fictional death of the gladiator Draba that acts as the catalyst. However, the escape from the ludus in both the film and Fast’s novel could be lifted straight from the sources, with the slaves arming themselves, as Plutarch describes, with “chopping-knives and spits” from the kitchen/mess area.

 

Spartacus: A Man of the People

 

Once out of the ludus, the question remains as to Spartacus’ motivation for changing the Roman world.  Howard Fast presents us with a Spartacus whose character is very much like Karl Marx’s vision of “a genuine representative of the ancient proletariat.”

Unfortunately, the ancient sources tell us little about who Spartacus was. We do know that he began his life as a free man, not a slave from a long line of slaves, as portrayed by both Fast and Kubrick. According to Florus, Spartacus was a “mercenary Thracian, ”enslaved by the Romans because he had become a “deserter and robber.” In Fast’s novelized version of the gladiator, Spartacus is a koru, a product of three generations of slaves, laboring in the hell of the Roman mines. Kubrick, basing his film on the novel, follows suit.

This fundamental change of origin may stem from the idea that an enslaved deserter and bandit would have made a less sympathetic dramatic character than a man born and bred a slave. A slave who, despite his conditioning and circumstances, rose up against the odds and defeated the might of Rome.

For Fast, making Spartacus a mine slave helps identify him with a proletariat oppressed by capitalism. The mines are the perfect place to showcase the evils of Roman “capitalism,” where men are kept naked because “even shreds of dirty cloth cost something,” thus eating into the owners’ profits.

Apart from the fact that Spartacus headed a disparate force of slaves, sources offer little to support the view that Spartacus was an egalitarian. Appian describes the gladiator general dividing his army’s plunder  “impartially,” but is quick to state that as a result, “he soon had plenty of men,” suggesting canny generalship rather than a spirit of equality.

 

Rising Against Rome: The Slave Army

 

A further debate arises when considering Spartacus’s motives in assembling his slave army. Plutarch and Sallust describe Spartacus’s motivation as simple: he wanted to escape Rome. Florus, on the other hand, is the only ancient writer who suggests the gladiator turned general wished to challenge the empire that had enslaved him.

In his novel, Fast presents a righteous revolutionary, intent on overthrowing an unjust system and establishing a new order. Kubrick’s film, on the other hand, chooses the more innocuous option which is also echoed in the ancient sources and portrays a man who merely wants to return to his homeland. However, both the novel and the film depict the slave army as a united “band of brothers,”diverse in ethnicity, yet united by the common cause of freedom.

The sources, however, tell a different story. All of the historical accounts describe a factionalized army, whose divisions ultimately led to the failure of the gladiator’s revolt. Spartacus’ led just one of these factions. The other was led by a Gaulish gladiator named Crixus, who refused to follow orders from Spartacus, preferring instead to “ravage Italy.”

 

Spartacus: Violence and Retribution

 

This dissent among the slaves and gladiators resulted in actions that were graphically described by Sallust. The slaves went about the country “raping the young girls and mothers, and others . . .and torment[ing] those who remained in a shocking way with horrible wounds, and sometimes [leaving] their mutilated bodies still half alive.’”

In his novel, Fast takes advantage of these atrocities because they fit his agenda of presenting Spartacus as an underdog hero. He describes a scene in which a fleeing landowner is killed by his slave. Spartacus does not intervene because the victims ‘had harvested only what they had sown.’  In this, Spartacus is championing the proletariat.

Hollywood of the 1960s, though, did not consider such behavior heroic. Kubrick’s film includes no reference to such events. Indeed, the only kind of vengeance portrayed occurs when two captured Romans are forced to fight as gladiators. Ultimately, this scene has a moral purpose, for Spartacus stops the fight, lecturing the slaves against becoming like their oppressors.

 

Spartacus’ Wife: Varinia

 

The ancient sources do not name Spartacus’ wife, mentioning her only in passing. Both Fast and Kubrick, however, give her a more significant role in the uprising as well as a name: Varinia.

The Varinia that Fast creates is an Amazonian German, a spirited and courageous fighter who stands by her man in battle. Fast’s Varinia is the perfect metaphor for the revolutionary female. Kubrick’s Varinia, on the other hand, is gentle and passive. She is a true Hollywood heroine: The love interest.

 

Spartacus in Fiction: Conjecture Fills the Gaps left by History

 

The historical sources leave many gaps in the narrative of Spartacus, not least about Spartacus himself, his motives and his character. So, fiction from sheer necessity has to fill in many of the gaps left by history with conjecture.

There is nothing in the sources to uphold Fast’s proto-communist or Kubrick’s whiter-than-white Hollywood hero. Both versions of the story of Spartacus pick and choose from historical records, selecting those details that are useful, discarding others and inventing yet more. This is because, ultimately, Fast and Kubrick do not want to tell the historical truth. Like the Roman writer’s before them, they are using Spartacus to tell their own story.

 

 

Sources

Appian. The Civil Wars, Book 1. Accessed Aug 8. 2013.

Fast, H. Spartacus. (1951). Published by H. Fast.

Florus. Epitome of Roman History, Book 2.Accessed Aug 8. 2013.

Kubrick, S. Spartacus.(1960). Film: Universal Studios.

Plutarch. Life of Crassus, 9. Translation by John Dryden. Accessed Aug 8. 2013.

Sallust. Histories, Book 3. Accessed Aug 8. 2013.

Sextus Julius Frontinus. Strategemata, Book V.

Velleius Paterculus. The Roman History, 2.29.Ac