![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rome 1x11 (Spoils?)
Because you can't be spoiled for history... You know what's weird? Caesar did set aside land in Italy for his legions. It was a whole big thing. At least, I'm pretty sure he had land reserved for them back in 48, so it seems unlikely that he wouldn't have been able to hold onto that in 44.
I can't believe it: this show has made me like Brutus. I like Brutus! What's wrong with me?
Well, I know what it was: Brutus developed a backbone. I am a complete sucker for characters who will do the wrong thing for the right reasons, and Brutus fills that description perfectly. he really does feel loyal to Caesar, and look up to him, but he also can't help seeing what Caesar has become, and he knows what it is he has to do. I wasn't thrilled with the notion of Servilia as the brains behind the assassination, so I loved seeing Brutus take charge of the matter. It is his decision, and it's the right decision. And suddenly he's stopped being all puffed up about his honor (and mopey about having lost it) because he knows that this is going to destroy any shred of honor he might have had left to him. And yet he has no option: he's Brutus, and it's what his father would have done, and his grandfather, and all his ancestors back to Lucius Brutus who drove the last king of Rome out of the city and established freedom and the consulship. The only honorable thing to do is the thing which will destroy him absolutely.
It's so marvelously Roman. When this show gets stuff right, it really gets it right.
I think Brutus' protstes -- "I loved you like a father!" -- weren't just because Caesar is treating him as a potential threat and a potnetial tool -- but also, that he loved a man who would make himself a tyrant. That's an unforgivable thing.
OK, but this was really Pullo and Vorenus' show, and what I needed after the rift of last week -- watching Vorenus cover his mouth with his wrist to keep from shouting out at Pullo, and then finally leaping into the arena to save his life. Gah. It doesn't need to be sexual -- they love each other.
Pullo is a giant, adorable, violent sweetheart (although I had Princess Bride flashbacks like whoa when that old woman was chasing him and shouting "Murderer! Murderer!") but Lucius Vorenus fascinates me. He's coming up in the world, oh yes he is, and it's not quite what he expected. Because I'm a history geek, I loved the scene where he's receiving all his clients. You know he'd have to do that every morning, too. But this week I loved the contrast between him and Brutus. Because Vorenus has tried to put his country above his personal friendships, but he can't, in part because he let Caesar persuade him that they were on the same side. And having made that awful mistake, he can't go backward and he can't go forward -- at least, not until he finally has to act to rescue Pullo from his fate.
You know, Vorenus would be Brutus if he could, but he doesn't have those resources, external or internal -- he's absolutely dependent on Caesar in a way which Brutus, the Roman aristocrat, simply can't understand. So instead, he rescues Pullo, making the precise opposite choice that Brutus makes (putting friendship over devotion to his country, rather than his country over friendship), but they've both done it because "Caesar" (the system, if not the man himself) has given them no choice. They have to rebel, they have to do the wrong thing, because it's the only right thing to do.
I can eat this stuff up with a spoon. It hits every plot-related kink I possess
As for me, I'm looking forward to the Lupercalia. And I'm not sure this icon is relevant any longer.
I can't believe it: this show has made me like Brutus. I like Brutus! What's wrong with me?
Well, I know what it was: Brutus developed a backbone. I am a complete sucker for characters who will do the wrong thing for the right reasons, and Brutus fills that description perfectly. he really does feel loyal to Caesar, and look up to him, but he also can't help seeing what Caesar has become, and he knows what it is he has to do. I wasn't thrilled with the notion of Servilia as the brains behind the assassination, so I loved seeing Brutus take charge of the matter. It is his decision, and it's the right decision. And suddenly he's stopped being all puffed up about his honor (and mopey about having lost it) because he knows that this is going to destroy any shred of honor he might have had left to him. And yet he has no option: he's Brutus, and it's what his father would have done, and his grandfather, and all his ancestors back to Lucius Brutus who drove the last king of Rome out of the city and established freedom and the consulship. The only honorable thing to do is the thing which will destroy him absolutely.
It's so marvelously Roman. When this show gets stuff right, it really gets it right.
I think Brutus' protstes -- "I loved you like a father!" -- weren't just because Caesar is treating him as a potential threat and a potnetial tool -- but also, that he loved a man who would make himself a tyrant. That's an unforgivable thing.
OK, but this was really Pullo and Vorenus' show, and what I needed after the rift of last week -- watching Vorenus cover his mouth with his wrist to keep from shouting out at Pullo, and then finally leaping into the arena to save his life. Gah. It doesn't need to be sexual -- they love each other.
Pullo is a giant, adorable, violent sweetheart (although I had Princess Bride flashbacks like whoa when that old woman was chasing him and shouting "Murderer! Murderer!") but Lucius Vorenus fascinates me. He's coming up in the world, oh yes he is, and it's not quite what he expected. Because I'm a history geek, I loved the scene where he's receiving all his clients. You know he'd have to do that every morning, too. But this week I loved the contrast between him and Brutus. Because Vorenus has tried to put his country above his personal friendships, but he can't, in part because he let Caesar persuade him that they were on the same side. And having made that awful mistake, he can't go backward and he can't go forward -- at least, not until he finally has to act to rescue Pullo from his fate.
You know, Vorenus would be Brutus if he could, but he doesn't have those resources, external or internal -- he's absolutely dependent on Caesar in a way which Brutus, the Roman aristocrat, simply can't understand. So instead, he rescues Pullo, making the precise opposite choice that Brutus makes (putting friendship over devotion to his country, rather than his country over friendship), but they've both done it because "Caesar" (the system, if not the man himself) has given them no choice. They have to rebel, they have to do the wrong thing, because it's the only right thing to do.
I can eat this stuff up with a spoon. It hits every plot-related kink I possess
As for me, I'm looking forward to the Lupercalia. And I'm not sure this icon is relevant any longer.
no subject
See, I think I've read too much Roman stuff, because the "... I would hope I'd have the nerve to betray my country" response strikes me as deeply unsettling, except in cases of tyranny. Sometimes I worry that I've gone native. Then I read Juvenal or Horace and realize that, no, that's not going to happen.
Actually, patron/client relationships are a lot more fluid than feudal relationships -- you don't have anywhere near the same kind of responsibilities, and clients can have ties to more than one patron, who may be in conflict with each other. People have a lot of negotiating space in picking and choosing among their patrons -- and in acquiring new patrons, too. (The one exception is freedmen, who are pretty much tied to their former masters.) But I think you're right that to Dante it looked like Brutus had betrayed his lord, indeed, his king, and within Dante's frame of reference that might be pretty much unforgivable.
no subject
Well, I really am talking about cases of tyranny, only I am thinking of modern-day bureaucratic tyrannies that are about the coercive power of the state, where taking the part of your friend by placing friendship over and above the needs of the state is actually an act of courage and defiance (i.e. the moral imperative of friendship trumps the need to follow society’s rules because society’s rules happen to be ruthlessly immoral.) For example, I’ve just been reading a book called Resistance of the Heart, which is about a group of “Aryan” German women who refused to divorce their Jewish husbands because divorce was basically a death-sentence for the men.
I understand that in the Roman context we are talking about something very different – that Brutus is following a moral imperative to preserve/restore the Republic over and above whatever bonds of family and friendship he feels for Caesar. But I also wonder if it could have been as clear to Brutus and his contemporaries that it would be impossible to “restore the Republic” because so much of it was already moribund by the time Caesar crossed the Rubicon. So is Brutus really grasping at a chimera? And of course, I know, though he doesn’t, that Antony and Octavian are going to be putting the tyrant in tyranny in a big, big way.
within Dante's frame of reference that might be pretty much unforgivable
Yes, I think Dante sees it exactly as a lord betraying his king and he puts Brutus and Cassius down with Judas Iscariot, which I find fascinating. (I mean, not that I agree with Dante’s perspective, I just find it a very interesting one.)
You know, when “Rome” started, I was afraid they were turning Brutus into a figure of fun with the sort of P.G. Wodehouse way of talking, but I have gotten to like him more and more and sympathize with his moral dilemma.
P.S. Can I just say how awesome it is to be having this discussion? I have seriously been CRAVING much discussion about this show and TWOP is not cutting it (and the LJ comm is REALLY not cutting it!) YAY!
no subject
I don't go to TWOP. I have fear.
I'm so thrilled with what they've done with Brutus' character -- I thought he'd be a complete waste of space, kind of laughable, but he's really not. He's come into his own so well! And really, if I can feel sympathy for Brutus, anyone can.
But I also wonder if it could have been as clear to Brutus and his contemporaries that it would be impossible to “restore the Republic” because so much of it was already moribund by the time Caesar crossed the Rubicon.
Hm. I have to admit that I remain unconvinced that the collapse of Republican government was inevitable, especially in 44. I think it's too easy to look at Octavian/Augustus' successes, and retroject them to the period of Caesar's dictatorship. It looks inevitable that Rome would succumb to autocracy, that the Senate was incapable of maintaining its position, but I think that's really hindsight. I mean, it certainly wasn't obvious to most Romans at the time. I don't think that they thought that their political system was moribund -- and I don't think that it was. think of it this way: Americans complain all the time that our democracy is moribund but we all expect to be voting in presidential elections for years to come -- and we expect the results to be meaningful. We might think that an individual election, or a single piece of the system is corrupt, but we don't think that the entire system is about to fail. The same was true of the Romans: sure, hey understood thatthere were problems, but the y expected the system as a whole to last -- and I don't think that their expectations were necessarily out of line with the plausible outcomes of their circumstances. What happened is very rarely the only thing that could have happened.
Um, sorry to ramble/rant on about that for so long. I probably think about it too much.
no subject
Yeah - this is why I get a bit frustrated. There is this LJ comm but I don't find the discussion there very stimulating - I'd rather find people's LJs (like yours although it was not through "Rome" that I found yours) and talk about the show there...
I'm so thrilled with what they've done with Brutus' character -- I thought he'd be a complete waste of space, kind of laughable, but he's really not. He's come into his own so well! And really, if I can feel sympathy for Brutus, anyone can.
Ha ha! Do you mean THIS Brutus or Brutus historically or what? I think they've done a marvellous job with him too because as I said, originally he seemed like a bit of a joke, and I had no idea he'd end up being one of the tortured people who is just trying to what he thinks is right ...
It looks inevitable that Rome would succumb to autocracy, that the Senate was incapable of maintaining its position, but I think that's really hindsight. I mean, it certainly wasn't obvious to most Romans at the time. I don't think that they thought that their political system was moribund -- and I don't think that it was.
No, of course, you are very right about this and I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of the subject - I just mean that after the earlier period of dictatorship under Sulla, it seems clearer that the system that worked OK governing a small city-state didn't work quite so well when it was meant to rule a large empire (and I feel like, and please correct if I'm wrong, because as with 90% of things I am kind of talking out of my ass, Sulla himself destroyed so much of the substance of republican form that they were left only with emptry forms?) Also, of course, it was quite a long-ago shock to my system to realize that "republic" and "democracy" were not synonymous (I got over it but you know ... Hee!)
I completely agree about the non-inevitability of history - you may know I have studied a much later period than yours, but one of the the huge "what ifs?" in what I do is "What if Stauffenberg's assassination attempt in July 1944 had succeeded in killing Hitler?" and a corollary one is "what if an earlier conspiracy in 1938 had succeeded in deposing him from power"? Nothing really is inevitable and a lot of stuff would have come out very differently, of course...
Um, sorry to ramble/rant on about that for so long. I probably think about it too much.
Hee! no, I love that I'm getting your expertise for free on LJ while your students have to pay for it :p And I love that we get to you know, DISCUSS stuff and I'm not here rolling my eyes going "I don't THINK incest was really common in Rome" ;)
no subject
Hee! Thanks. Although some of the less-informed chatter is kind of amusing -- on the livejournal groups, right after Pharsalus, there were all these posts from people who'd had no idea that Pompey would die in that episode, or how he died. They were really charming!
but one of the the huge "what ifs?" in what I do is "What if Stauffenberg's assassination attempt in July 1944 had succeeded in killing Hitler?" and a corollary one is "what if an earlier conspiracy in 1938 had succeeded in deposing him from power"?
Oh absolutely! I mean, people seem to talk a lot about the failure of the military (esp. officer) class to resist Hitler, and the weakness of the Weimar Republic, but things might have turned out very differently, as you say, if either one of those conspiracies had worked, and we would all be drawing somewhat different conclusions.
I just mean that after the earlier period of dictatorship under Sulla, it seems clearer that the system that worked OK governing a small city-state didn't work quite so well when it was meant to rule a large empire (and I feel like, and please correct if I'm wrong, because as with 90% of things I am kind of talking out of my ass, Sulla himself destroyed so much of the substance of republican form that they were left only with emptry forms?)
Well, I think you're right about your first point -- that the city-state system was having trouble with the task of governing the entire Mediterranean, more or less -- and somebody needed to come up with a different idea of what "Rome" was going to be for. But I'm not sure what Sulla has to do with it -- I mean, the ironic thing about Sulla is that he devoted his whole dictatorship to strengthening the traditional power-structures of the Republican state, by which I mean the consuls and other magistrates and the Senate. Except for the plebeian tribunate, which he did his best to wreck! And then her retired, when he thought he'd created a stable system. So I wouldn't say he left the Republic empty forms at all -- his system was pretty logical, if you like oligarchy. But maybe I'm not understanding what you meant.
I mean, I think that you can argue that the major military commands (like Pompey's or Caesar's proconsulates) were bound to throw the system out of balance, but I'm not sure they might not have found a different balance than the one Augustus settled on.
no subject
See, I told you I was talking out of my ass :p I think what I was trying to say was that Sulla kind of set the pattern for the "strong-man rule" and then the question was just more or less when the right strong-man was going to come along and rule and eventually the 'dictator for life' was what they got. But was he just the worst of a series of people like him, just a bit more bloodthirsty and good at hanging on to power, or was he something (as I with my HUGELY spotty knowledge) quite different and new? It seems like he was the first in a line of men who used military success and their legions to leverage themselves into absolute power? (And, if at any time you decide that I should go read a book, please feel free to tell me! I realize that this is a bit of a busman's holiday on LJ for you!)
(I think one thing I am struggling with as well, in terms of the show, is that I find Caesar hugely charismatic so it's hard for me to think of his death as a good thing, necessarily - I think some of what worked really well in this past episode was that I saw Caesar kind of betray people I cared about - I was all convinced that Posca was secretly going to go bribe someone to let Pullo go or something and instead, wow, it WAS Caesar who ordered the murder... Even if I'm not sure I buy that he'd go to the trouble of murdering some pleb guy making noise - although I suppose a policy of "forgive the patricians, kill of the plebs" was a more viable one than "kill everyone" or "forgive everyone." Anyway...)
And hee on Pharsalus - as soon as I saw the episode titles, I figured out some of what was going to happen in a bunch of these episodes ("Caesarion" being another one!)
no subject
I think that with Sulla, the fact that he used Roman troops against the city itself -- and they obeyed him! -- was something quite different and new. But I think that he did everything he could to avoid setting a pattern, by trying to make it impossible for anyone to need to do what he did. And he also hoped that he was setting a positive example, by laying down his power and retiring to private life, once he'd re-established republican government. Of course that's not how it worked out, and Caesar is a great example, because he takes on the kind of extraordinary command which Sulla had hoped would never happen again, and he refuses to lay down his dictatorship once he gets his teeth into it.
But I ought to say that a lot of historians do see it your way, that once the pattern had been set by Sulla and Marius, the end of Republican government was inevitable. I'm just contrary!
I think one thing I am struggling with as well, in terms of the show, is that I find Caesar hugely charismatic so it's hard for me to think of his death as a good thing, necessarily
Yes, I can see this. He really was extraordinarily charismatic (in real life and on this show!) and I think that's why the story remains so powerful, because it really is tragic. He's such a great man, and yet he creates this situation in which the people who ought to have been closest to him feel that they have no option than to destroy him.
no subject
Heh! Isn't that also what Augustus said he'd done? (And of course, I'm thinking of all the killing that Sulla ordered as well - that set a rather different precedent for others, didn't it?)
He's such a great man, and yet he creates this situation in which the people who ought to have been closest to him feel that they have no option than to destroy him.
I think the other thing that makes Caesar so charismatic is that he was, comparatively, so merciful to his defeated enemies. Now, perhaps he was just foolishly trusting (or really, really conniving) or whatever, but I think it's the fact that he did "forgive" Brutus and Cassius and Cicero and then Brutus and Cassius murder him ... that kind of sticks in my craw a little bit too, I have to say (viewed purely as a personal tragedy, I mean, not as historical necessity or as a judgment of political systems or anything else.)
I put "forgive" in parentheses, because I did really like how Brutus in last night's episode pointed out that from his perspective he hadn't done anything that NEEDED forgiveness (well, yet, anyway!)
no subject
ANd yes, there's an enormous gap between what Sulla thinks he's doing and what he actually does!
no subject
Oh, now THAT is an absolutely FASCINATING thing you have just told me - thank you very much indeed, because this is what has kind of always bugged me about the conspiracy against Caesar (he showed them mercy; they killed him), but after your explanation, I understand MUCH better how Brutus and Cassius can be heroes to their contemporaries despite what I see as vile recompense for Caesar's mercy. I guess apropos our earlier discussion, by Dante's day, this view had completely changed until it was more in line with how I see it - blahblah ingrates etc. - or in fact, the speech which Shakespeare gives Antony wherein he repeatedly and sarcastically refers to Brutus and Antony as "honorable" men, where in fact, they really WERE by Roman lights. So interesting!
no subject
no subject
no subject
I interpreted his rage over Pompey's death as related to that; I figured he was planning to forgive Pompey and show off both his clemency and his power over Pompey.
no subject
Yes, that's exactly it. Although what he thought Pompey would do is a mystery -- Pompey couldn't possibly have accepted Caesar's clemency. There's something vaguely hypocritical about Caesar's response to Pompey's murder.
no subject
I feel like I knew that at one point, but cool. Clemency (I assume that's the etymology of our word) is indeed different from forgiveness.
no subject