blogspot
visitor
Requiem for the Republic: Rome | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

ep01_1.jpg
Requiem for the Republic: Rome

The Burning Violin / Stipe42

Film Reviews | March 4, 2009 | Comments (46)


For an excellent review of Rome, check out the TV Whore’s piece here. For stipe42’s mad ramblings about the show, please continue. And yes, by Jupiter’s cock, there are spoilers, the show concluded two years ago!


“This can only mean that the Republic has fallen.” -Lucius Vorenus
“And yet, the sky is still above us and the earth still below. Strange.” - Titus Pullo

This is a story of how democracy dies.

Rome is the mother of nations. The legend lurking at the dawn of history. The altar at which our laws and governments still worship. Every courthouse and capital echoes the ruins of that ancient city we still haunt. Legalese is still half Latin a millennium since the last native speakers died. Our senators and theirs would hardly notice the difference between each other, besides the togas and Italian suits.

Rome was a young state in an old world. Just old enough to feel confident and experienced, young enough to think it would last forever. For two thousand years, Egyptian slaves had built desert mountains for god kings. Italy was such a backwater for so long that Alexander overran the world from Greece to India, but didn’t bother hopping the Adriatic. Less than three centuries later, Caesar thought he was special. Ozymandias and all that. Empires always believe they’re eternal because men never believe they’re mortal.

They conquered through ingenuity, through a granite faith that their law was the only law. Anything outside of Roman law was barbarian. Order was their one true god, immortalized in all the identical temples and standardized roads. Rational repetition fueled the legions: men trained to fight as a single machine, gears and clockwork carved from flesh, individuality burned off in the smelter. They tamed ancient Egypt, yoked Spain and France, pillaged Greece for fertile minds. They destroyed Carthage so utterly that atomic weapons could not have improved on the job. Who now remembers the American Indians?

They were the first combination of that most potent meme of state: the imperial republic. They always insist that they rule by force for the good of the people. “For the republic!” Say it enough and you believe your own press. They were the embodiment of that ancient dichotomy of war and peace. Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. It’s lightning in a bottle, catching the fever for empire along with the spasmodic beauty of freedom. An unstable equilibrium cannot last: either the empire exhausts itself or it devours its own children. The British did the former, the Romans the latter, America’s decision is pending. Rome is the story of that devouring.

“The Roman people are not crying out for clean elections. They are crying out for jobs. They are crying out for clean water, for food, for stability and peace.” -Posca

Rome presents a senate of aristocrats, bickering about rules and propriety while the mob owns the street and legions push out the frontiers. It is a state under constant siege both from within and without. This is not representative democracy, but some ancestral relation. There are is an essential freedom, at least for citizens: you may speak your mind and do as you will. And that is the heart of democracy, self governance rather than state governance.

Caesar conquers his own country while the citizens cheer. The gulf between democracy and populism is the distinction between the people as an actor and the people as a tool. Caesar wields the population as a sword. Here’s the real catch though: democracy can never be taken away, it can only be given away. One of the great tragedies of history is how the people are constantly unaware of their own power, even as rulers harness it. De Tocqueville said “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Caesar buys the Roman people with their own money, just as Octavian later does. And they love him for it.

“So this is how liberty dies: to thunderous applause.” George Lucas wrote at least one true thing.

The senators can only destroy Caesar by becoming exactly the horror they hate in him: knives in the senate, blood on their hands.

In another story, Brutus would be the hero. Shakespeare saw it: “This was the noblest Roman of them all.” What matters more? Freedom or security? Dante placed three men in the innermost sanctum of the ninth circle of hell, three men eternally trapped in the jaws of Satan himself: Judas, Brutus and Cassius. In the wake of the dark ages, the supreme sin was betraying order to chaos.

But without the support of the masses, the senate must trade one enemy for another. They invite Octavian in, give him the legitimacy he lacks.

A trick of Latin: male and female noun endings. Bellator/bellatrix: warrior/amazon. Male and female sides of the same coin. Senator/senatrix: senator/whore. Male and female sides of the same coin. Words lie, languages don’t.

“Cut off his hands and nail them to the Senate doors.” -Mark Antony

Before modern times, it was a given that the body of the state was analogous to the body of the ruler. The ruler was the state. It is the antithesis of our “by the people, for the people” conception of the state. Likewise, the psychology of the ruler became the psychology of the state. Octavian’s sexual repression inevitably becomes codified. The grand orgies are outlawed, the state regulates promiscuous behavior. The superego binds sex with shame. I didn’t bring Freud into this; Octavian did that himself whilst screwing his sister and making war upon his mother’s lover.

Id, ego, superego. It’s a cliche, but models become cliches because they fit so well. Pullo and Antony are all id: violence, wine and sex. Vorenus and Brutus are all ego: agonizing compromise between the id and reality. Caesar and Octavian are all superego: moral superiority and calculating control.

Civil wars are always about psychology because if the state is a body, then a war within must be a spiritual one. Ego holds a tenuous balance between id and superego, but by the end of this particular story, every ego-character is dead, every id-character dead or vanquished. Without balance, the system is unsustainable in the long run. You cannot kill part of your own soul without losing it all.

And so Pullo lives, vanishing into the masses with his stolen son. The Republic dies, the Empire is born.

“The story of Romulus and Remus being suckled by a wolf is not a meaningless fable. The founders of every State which has risen to eminence have drawn their nourishment and vigor from a similar wild source. It was because the children of the Empire were not suckled by the wolf that they were conquered and displaced by the children of the Northern forests who were.” - Thoreau

Stipe42 is the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. He is a hopeless romantic who can be found wandering San Diego’s strip malls and suburbs looking for his mislaid soul and waiting for the revolution to come.


Pajiba Love 03/04/09 | The Best Albums Of The Aughts Diversion





Comments

I'll repeat the guy who played Marc Anthony is: DA. MAN., I'll never forget the scene where he walks in on Ceasar's murder...then the silence as he walks away...shit was gonna go down and you knew it.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at March 4, 2009 2:09 PM

I'm not letting this happen, I can't just let America become the next Rome. We must do something about this.

Posted by: George at March 4, 2009 2:24 PM

Oh, poor Marc Antony. Beguiled by a weird-looking sex robot. You could have been so much better.

Posted by: Snath at March 4, 2009 2:25 PM

freaking awesome stipe keep 'em coming.

Posted by: Thaf at March 4, 2009 2:52 PM

A discussion of Rome without a discussion of the ladies? That shit is a travesty.

I might add that the actor who played Marc Anthony was stunning.

Posted by: samantha t at March 4, 2009 2:55 PM

Having seen the show (and loving it), I get the review...but I think it's a little light on the concrete details and heavy-handed in the incomplete political allegory department.

The best part of Rome was that this was gritty, ugly stuff. These people were playing for keeps, by whatever means necessary. And sure, you can try to overlay that message onto modern day American politics, but it's such a very broad message that it's a fairly easy fit.

Had this been the only review of Rome I'd read before watching the series, I think I'd still have watched it, but I would have been watching for anvils at every turn. Which wouldn't have been fair, because it wasn't a "message" project.

Posted by: Wednesday at March 4, 2009 3:09 PM

I loved that the story was mostly told from the perspective of two common foot soldiers. The story even contained an early mafia.

As for Marc Anthony -- nobody should be allowed to have all that good DNA to themselves. It's not fair. Although Vorenus and Caesar weren't bad, and even Pullo grew on me after a while.

Posted by: BWeaves (from a different IP address) at March 4, 2009 3:16 PM

It's funny how in each of the manifestations of Pax, each respective society has a proselytizing motive that betrays the underlying assumption that "their culture is superior to others and therefore must follow us as a model."

It has to do with the imposition of external behaviors onto those who originate from a different cultural background. Long and short, people don't like being told what to do (esp. as an entire culture) and how to do it.

When would any of these societies make this realization and cease their ethnocentric crusade?

"At the end of a gun, at the edge of a knife..."

Either way, there's nothing Pax-ful about it...

Posted by: Recondite at March 4, 2009 3:29 PM

What the fuck is this Stipe doing writing about a show that ended a couple of years ago? Good job Stipe, way to keep up with the times. What's next, a primer on "BJ and the Bear?"

Posted by: Pookie at March 4, 2009 3:37 PM

Thanks Stipe42

I loved this show so much that I couldn't bring myself to watch the final episode. We had it on the Tivo queue for 14 months.

Posted by: krix at March 4, 2009 3:45 PM

I agree with Samantha. Why no mention of the ladies of Rome? They may not have wielded any official power, but they wielded plenty behind the scenes. Servilia, Atia, Niobe, Ireni, Gaia? Come on....

I had, and still do have, a SERIOUS case of the hots for Pullo. By Jupiter's ghost, or Grapthar's Hammer or whatever....that man was put TOGETHER!!!! And, he knew how to use what he had!!

Atia of the Julii: A large penis is always welcome!

Posted by: dammitjanet at March 4, 2009 4:18 PM

I think I've said this before, but I dig the new smart kids' table in the Pajiba lunchroom. I love how you pull in the literary and historical references to make a bigger picture, stipe. Gives my brain something to chew on. (Figuratively. My brain doesn't have teeth. My vajayjay might.)

Posted by: Nicole at March 4, 2009 4:19 PM

What the fuck is this Stipe doing writing brilliant essays week after week? Where's the snark and smirk that I wallow in with every visit? Good job Stipe, way to kill my "Bash On Britney" Buzz. What's next in the way of elevating my understanding, you wacky egghead, you?

* for the record, Pookie is my hero. Just sayin'....

Posted by: Spender at March 4, 2009 4:20 PM

One thing they really captured well in this series was how everything, from top to bottom, in Rome was based on patronage. The most important moment in the whole series was when Lucius and Pullo save Octavian and he invites them into their home.

Posted by: imk at March 4, 2009 4:47 PM

"She better fuck like Helen of Troy with her ass on fire." best pullo line.

Posted by: coltaine at March 4, 2009 4:51 PM

I agree that the analysis is lacking in not mentioning Atia. The historic Atia is a shadowy figure, and some of the character's personality seems to be lifted from Nero's mother. (Nero's mother orchestrated her son's rise to power and the ungrateful little brat killed her for it.) Entire sociological treatises could probably be written about what Atia and Octavian say about the modern family, the nature of power, and parent-child relations.

Posted by: Inaras at March 4, 2009 4:56 PM

Oh God, the days when HBO was still decent.
Rome, where art thou when we plebes need you?
THIRTEEN!

Posted by: jp at March 4, 2009 5:24 PM

"Atia of the Julii: A large penis is always welcome!"

Best line of the ENTIRE series, as far as I'm concerned. Uttered with such confusion as to why the recipient would be less than pleased.

Posted by: samantha t at March 4, 2009 5:27 PM

Note to self: move up planned ode to Atia, before lynching occurs.

Posted by: stipe42 at March 4, 2009 5:43 PM

They kill Julius Caesar? Thanks a lot!

Posted by: Odnon at March 4, 2009 7:43 PM

"They kill Julius Caesar? Thanks a lot!"

I guess this wouldn't be a good time to mention where the Titanic ended up then?

Posted by: spazmodeas at March 4, 2009 8:25 PM

I love Rome. When it was on my roommate and I would rush home to watch it even though it was being recorded. We just couldn't wait. Kevin McKidd was the reason I watched: The Last Legion, Made of Honor, Journeyman, and now the only reason I watch Grey's Anatomy.

Great review, but I agree, what about the women?

Posted by: DoubleH at March 4, 2009 8:31 PM

"Kevin McKidd was the reason I watched..."

Rent Bedrooms and Hallways. He sleeps with Marc Antony in that one.

Posted by: spazmodeas at March 4, 2009 8:42 PM

Maybe you like to go to ______BlackCentury C om______ that is a free interracial dating club. American idols all like to go there, chatting and dating. they can relax themselves. maybe they have found their soul mate here.

Posted by: blkbabe at March 4, 2009 9:27 PM

Recondite: In all the Roman world, only one people consistently rebelled, and that was the Israelites. Ironically, it was the Roman's very tolerance that led to this; as long as they respected the Jerusalem Temple, it fomented rebellion, once they destroyed it, Israel became a peaceable province.

My point is that people were just fine with having the Romans tell them what to do. Pay the tax, don't kill people unless they earned it, don't steal or rape (which they unfortunately looked upon as a kind of theft), and you get a safe court to argue in, a reasonably objective judge, good roads, construction codes, trade, clean, heated water, and the legions to keep the violent from killing you. Through good times and bad for ~four hundred years, the people of the Mediterranean loved living under the rule of Rome, its engineering, and its consistently applied laws.

It was internal weakness wrought by the constant combat of a ruling class convinced that it was owed the right to rule by its blood, combined with the timely arrival of the Huns and those they had displaced, and not public opinion, that destroyed Rome.

Posted by: Julian at March 4, 2009 10:58 PM

And really, they didn't even destroy it. What they actually did was displace the twisted, self-serving monarchy which it had become to the East where the wealth was. A handful of good emperor's held it together for another thousand years until the Turks and their cannons finally conquered the Byzantium left ravaged by Western Crusaders.

Posted by: Julian at March 4, 2009 11:06 PM

While I was going through Rome, my mom randomly came in to watch an episode with me, and we had this exchange:

Me: That's Atia of the Julii. She's...well, she's kind of evil.
Mom: Yeah, I could tell by the eyebrows.

Posted by: Mimi at March 5, 2009 4:28 AM

Atia of the Julii....I seek justice. Atiia of the Julii...I seek justice.

Posted by: samantha t at March 5, 2009 7:42 AM

For the record, "meretrix" means whore in Latin. Senatrix would mean "female senator".

Posted by: wildsoda at March 5, 2009 8:47 AM

Ramblings, indeed.

My favorite Latin phrase: non sequitur.

Posted by: AM at March 5, 2009 9:09 AM

"So this is how liberty dies: to thunderous applause." George Lucas wrote at least one true thing.

Actually, that line was written by Tom Stoppard, who did an uncredited dialogue polish on Revenge of the Sith.

Posted by: Withnail at March 5, 2009 10:32 AM

Stipe 42,
I see the point you're trying to make, but there are some things that really bothered me. You've written about a subject very near and dear to me (and because I'm trying to avoid writing at the moment) I'm going to respond. If you're discussing the way the TV show is trying to represent the modern situation of America through a depiction of Rome then you have to make that clearer. And actually you have some really interesting elements and points regarding the tradition of the portrayal of Rome in popular culture throughout history and its relationship to contemporary politics. This would be an interesting thought to follow. But there were points where I got the distinct impression you were trying to draw a comparison with the historical Roman Republic and Empire. If this was your goal, you need to do some fact checking. The HBO/BBC Rome was meant as entertainment and was NOT historically accurate in many respects. It was awesome (and had many bits of historical realism), but it was not completely accurate by a long shot.

Here are a few of the things very wrong with this essay:

There is no evidence that Atia and Antony had any kind of relationship or that Octavian ever slept with his sister. Octavian's (Augustus') legislation of morality had nothing to do with any 'sexual repression.' It was a response to a perceived corruption of morality, a desire to return to the traditional values of early Rome, and also a reaction to the decline in birth rate among the upper classes.

Democracy was very different in the ancient world from how it is today. America is not a radical democracy like Athens, but a representative republic. (see L. Sammons 2004. "What's Wrong with Democracy: From Athenian Practice to American Worship").

And Rome was not a democracy though it arguably had democratic elements. (For a discussion of the democratic aspects of ancient Roman society in the late Republic, see F. Millar 1998. "The Crowd in Rome during the Late Republic.") The Roman concept of "libertas" was not the same as our concept of Liberty. Libertas was a right only of citizens, who were already conceived as a member of a society, and was not the liberty of an individual against the authority of his community.

Someone already in the comments section (sorry can't remember) pointed out the problems with your argument regarding the language (senator/senatrix). And remember that Latin is not the only language with gendered nouns. Most Indo-European languages, including Greek and the Germanic languages, also have this distinction. It is a feature of inflected languages (English still has bits of this with examples like actor/actress though they are disappearing). Senatrix isn't even a latin word since there were no female senators and indeed the Romans wouldn't have been able to understand the idea of a "senatrix". It would be like talking about a female sperm donor. It not only didn't exist, it couldn't exist. And bellatrix means female warrior not Amazon (this is a particular type of warrior/a specific peoples that existed only in literature).

The term barbarian that you make reference to simply meant non-Greek (and was adopted into Latin and meant bearded because traditionally the Romans were clean-shaven). The word itself did not have the pejorative overtones ascribed to the English word 'barbarian.'

I don't mean to come across as bitchy (which I suppose is ironic considering the slogan of the website), but the argument you're making that America could potentially end up "devouring" itself like Rome had supposedly done is pointless if your points have no historical or linguistic accuracy. This is one of the biggest problems with fictional representations which claim to be historically minded and accurate: the distinction between popular culture and historical fact become blurred. And this is not only problematic because we lose our understanding of the past, but also because the point that the modern representation is trying to make (which is unrelated to the past) is ultimately lost.

Posted by: Katie at March 5, 2009 11:46 AM

Actually, I rescind my comment above about the Romans not understanding the word senatrix. If you used this word in a conversation with a late Republican Roman, s/he would have looked confused. Then s/he would have thought about it, laughed and suggested you write a comedic play about the Roman women taking over the Senate in order to end the civil wars. And then you would be celebrated as the Roman Aristophanes.

And one of my colleagues just suggested that "Senatrix" would make a wonderful title for a porno. Apparently there is an Italian porno called "Gladiatrix."

Posted by: Katie at March 5, 2009 1:08 PM

Katie: In light of the senator/senatrix fiasco, I've done a bit of etymology on the matter. In short, it appears that we are both right and wrong in various ways.

I've got a Latin/English dictionary here from high school that does indeed have "senatrix" listed with the definition of "prostitute". I remembered finding that while in Latin class, and it being an ongoing joke of dubious humor while in high school. (The dictionary also lists "bellatrix" as both "female warrior" and "amazon", but perhaps that's just poetic license since "amazon" as you point out was an actual term for a specific group of female warriors).

It appears though that you are correct in saying that "senatrix" would not have really had that meaning to a Roman-era Latin speaker, since I cannot find it referenced anywhere in strictly classical sources.

According to always accurate Wikipedia, there was a series of women around the 10th century who were concubines of the popes and first took the title "senatrix" and held indirect control of the papacy (see Theodora and Marozia in particular). The period is known variously as "The Rule of the Harlots" and "The Pornocracy".

I assume then that "senatrix" took on the meaning "prostitute" in late medieval Latin in response to the scandal of the women who took on that title, although as you say the original literal meaning would simply have been the female form of senator.

Posted by: stipe42 at March 5, 2009 1:38 PM

Why are you worried about spoiling a show that happened two years ago when it ACTUALLY happened two millenia ago?

Posted by: Brooke at March 5, 2009 2:33 PM

I wasn't concerned about spoiling history (sorry guys Caesar dies), so much as spoiling show-specific plot points like Vorenus dying, Pullo stealing his son, etc.

Posted by: stipe42 at March 5, 2009 2:39 PM

The Roman world wasn't the only one and the contributing factors to the empire's decline were manifold. As can been seen from my previous post, it does not seek to establish an end-all, be-all reason for Rome's decline, but to indicate one of the more salient aspects of Roman "expeditionism" (namely, onto the Arabian Peninsula) that showed resistance to their so-called Pax Romana. And to throw some cold water on the legitimacy of the term Pax.

I've read Gibbon, give me some credit.

Posted by: Recondite at March 5, 2009 2:51 PM

Stipe 42: Fair enough. My knowledge of anything after 500CE is sketchy at best. Just too modern for me:) I remember reading a post a few weeks ago about 1066 and the date of the Magna Carta (1215?) being the only dates in European history that most American's know. The author definitely one-upped me with the Magna Carta.

And, you're right about 'amazon' being a poetical translation of 'bellatrix.' And my objection to this was me being too picky and making an argument out of context. Sorry! It's just in Roman (and Greek) archaeology there is currently a backlash against the tradition of applying Latin and Greek terms to archaeological things for which there is no evidence that they correspond. The term Amazon has been applied to the graves of some female bodies from the Iron Age found with weaponry and 'battle wounds' in the Eurasian steppe. Herodotus gives us a lot of specifics about Amazon culture that simply are not present in the archaeological record. So the hairs on the back of my neck get all prickly and my brain goes on autopilot when I see particular terms like 'amazon.'

Tsk tsk for using wikipedia:)

Recondite: Wow! You've read Gibbon. That is quite impressive. I simply do not have the patience to do that.

Posted by: Katie at March 5, 2009 3:43 PM

oops. Americans not American's.

Posted by: Katie at March 5, 2009 3:45 PM

Great review! I felt my simian I.Q. increase a couple of notches just reading it! Nice!

Posted by: Bob Gould at March 5, 2009 8:35 PM

I simply do not have the patience to do that.

I recommend getting the audio tapes from the Library. That's how I got through it.

Hey, I live in the DC area, I spend a lot of time commuting. I might as well use it. I also recommend Prof. Fagan's History of Rome Great Courses series.

Posted by: imk at March 6, 2009 1:49 PM

I recommend Prof. Fagetty also imk.

Posted by: Pookie at March 6, 2009 6:24 PM

I recommend Pookie keep his nose out of matters that don't involve woman-beating and tae-kwon-do.


ki-ya bitch.

Posted by: Recondite at March 7, 2009 1:58 PM

Katie: are (or were) you an Archaeology student like I was? Reading your post was slightly eerie.

"There is no evidence that Atia and Antony had any kind of relationship or that Octavian ever slept with his sister. Octavian's (Augustus') legislation of morality had nothing to do with any 'sexual repression.' It was a response to a perceived corruption of morality, a desire to return to the traditional values of early Rome, and also a reaction to the decline in birth rate among the upper classes."

I just muttered that to myself almost word for word while reading Stipe's essay. Get out of my head!! :)

Moments like these make having a degree in Classical/ Near Eastern Archaeology and not using it professionally a little more satisfying.

We need more great shows like Rome, and they need to last longer than two seasons. Something has to fill the void once BSG is done!!

Posted by: Lantee at March 11, 2009 10:12 PM

Lantee,
Sadly I have gone beyond being an archaeology student; I am now a researcher in Roman archaeology and social history. Reading over the bit you quoted from my comments , I realized I did write it in academese, which is probably why it sounded so familiar. Although in regards to the first part: (‘There is no evidence that Atia and Antony had any kind of relationship or that Octavian ever slept with his sister. Octavian's (Augustus') legislation of morality had nothing to do with any 'sexual repression.') This of course would never have ever been uttered by a university lecturer because the idea of Octavian and Octavia shagging or Augustus being sexually repressed never would have even occurred to them as there is no historical evidence to even suggest any of this. It is complete total factitious bull that the show came up with.

Your post made me very happy. I’ve been quite disturbed by seeing some of the responses to this essay, which don’t seem to acknowledge the glaring inaccuracies. I was wondering if people just don’t recognize them or if they are just ignoring them. So thank you, I feel much better now. If this were a print publication it would have needed to issue a retraction. But it isn’t and so it remains out there for all to read and believe. This is the problem with Hollywood and the internet and things like Wikipedia - they create popular realities and histories. (To be fair, citing Wikipedia as a source is really only one step above citing a tv show. And does no one watch the Colbert Report? Wikiality anyone?) Soon it won’t matter what actually happened, only what people think happened. And that is really scary. A lot of people haven’t studied Roman history and they will read this essay and think it is validating the tv show as historically accurate.

And you’re right; Rome was a kick ass show (I’ve never seen BSG though I have many friends who are big fans). How awesome would it have been if Rome could have aired all 7 seasons? The only thing is that there are so many interesting periods of Roman history and all anyone ever makes is about Caesar and the Julio-Claudians or late Antiquity (essentially the end of the Republic and the end of the Empire). I think they should do a show about Rome’s early expansion in Italy and its relationship with the Latin League.

I have to say, though, your comment about being glad you’re not using your archaeology degree professionally was perplexing. I couldn’t imagine ever having a job that didn’t let me go digging through the dirt. But I suppose digging isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. And I do suspect I’m the odd one. As you probably learned at uni most archaeologists are a bit odd.

Cheers

Posted by: Katie at March 12, 2009 2:24 PM

Katie, you are my hero! As I read the original review I felt my hackles raising as the author was using "Rome", a fictional TV series, as a primary source about actual Roman history. Most of the comments made me depressed as nobody seemed understand what a terrible mistake that waws. Then you came along and said, so well, what I wish I had said. Bravo.

Posted by: King Albert at March 17, 2009 4:06 PM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.