Fake Gladiators and Sham Sculptures: Interpreting Rome in the Modern World
The distant and mysterious ancient civilizations leave considerable room for imagination in our modern minds. Evidence from ancient civilization is scarce, limiting our knowledge. Most of the known history is constructed by attaching various pieces of evidence together, meaning nothing is absolutely accurate. As archaeological technology advances, our knowledge improves as well. Before further discoveries were made, popularized classical ‘afterlives’ already led to widespread misconceptions about ancient civilization. In fact, even if new discoveries emerged, some modern interpreters would purposely leave out or misuse that information in order to evoke a certain public reaction. The history of gladiators and rediscovery of ancient marble statues are two examples of the classical ‘afterlife.’ These discoveries greatly shaped our popular and often misleading understanding of Ancient Roman society.
The 2000 film Gladiator serves as a great example of pop culture representation of Roman gladiators. Although this is a much-loved movie and an impressive recreation of gladiatorial life, the number of historical inaccuracies is staggering. As much as a director might personally want to tell a realistic gladiator story, accuracy to historical events may not make for the most entertaining movie. For example, the movie portrays Commodus as the murderer of his father, Marcus Aurelius, because he did not want his father to crown Maximus emperor. However, in reality, Commodus did not kill his father. First and foremost, Maximus is a fictitious character. Though it is said that Commodus was a terrible and corrupt ruler, Aurelius would not break the lines of patrilineal succession. Moreover, the death of Aurelius was likely caused by the Antonine Plague during Marcus’ reign, not murder. Another glaring historical inaccuracy was the death of Commodus, the Roman emperor. In Gladiator, Commodus was killed by Maximus during a gladiatorial combat in the Colosseum. A more realistic movie would show that Commodus was strangled by his wrestling partner, Narcissus, while bathing because of political disputes. These are only some of the many misrepresentations Gladiator contains.
Gladiator is loosely related to Commodus’ reign during the Roman Empire, which was the framework they used for the movie. However, the focus, as the movie’s name implies, is on gladiators; unfortunately, the depiction of gladiators was not accurate either. Since the original history was not as exciting, creating a movie that was meant to be thrilling and twisted would most likely lead to changes from the original. This modified reality made Ancient Rome seem exciting and different compared to modern society, although that was not always the truth. Evidently, the filmmakers prioritized entertainment values instead of the authenticity of the history.
This movie only contributed to the instantaneous image of chanting Romans, battling men, and bloody combats; it fails to bring new information about gladiators to the table. To continue painting this basic picture purposely misleads society further away from an authentic portrayal of gladiators. For instance, not all Romans at the time enjoyed watching gladiator battles. Tertullian, a Christian author from North Africa, wrote in dē Spectaculis that “innocent men are sold as gladiators for the show, to be victims of public pleasure [. . .] God forbid [a man] should need further teaching to hate the spectacle” (Tertullian 279). He described the spectacle as dishonourable because courageous gladiators were praised, yet also stripped away from the rights of a free citizen. Tertullian argues that depriving honourable and brave men from their freedom betrays Roman virtues, thus watching such an act is not what a virtuous man should do. Clearly, there are many more perspectives regarding how Romans at the time viewed gladiator battles, but Gladiator failed to shed light on those fresh aspects. Since films are more accessible in the 21st century, watching a movie like Gladiator will only continue to spread historical misconceptions.
During the Renaissance, far before modern times, European artists and philosophers developed an interest in Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures. They started to study rediscovered statues and immediately fell in love with their lifelike appearances, dramatic expressions, but most importantly, their smooth, marble-white surfaces. However, these sculptures were originally decorated with vibrant colours. Some surviving statues even showed traces of colours from remnants of pigments on more hidden areas of a statue’s surface. If no paint is visible to the naked eye, recent technologies have allowed scientists to shine ultraviolet rays on the statues, as some pigments glow under ultraviolet light exposure. Additionally, surviving evidence from buried cities like Pompeii shows walls, mosaics, and statues covered with vivid colours and patterns.
This information reveals a common misconception of so-called ‘white beauty’ in Roman artifacts—modern audiences believe that statues and buildings were meant to be left marble white. Before much was known about the arts in the ancient world, it was understandable for people to believe that some statues were supposed to be left white. However, when new evidence proves otherwise yet some artists or historians continue to choose not to acknowledge them, it ultimately becomes purposely misused. For example, Michelangelo, one of the artists who was interested in ancient sculptures, is greatly responsible for the widespread misconception regarding ancient statues. Of his many statues, the famous early 16th century Renaissance sculpture of David was purposely left white because he believed that that was what the Romans did. Michelangelo was one of the earliest artists exposed to ancient arts, which means it was not unusual for him to believe that some marble sculptures were purposely left white. Conversely, Johann Joachim Winckelmann, an influential art historian from the 18th century, went out of his way to claim that a statue would “be the more beautiful the whiter it is, just as we see that all figures in gypsum” (Winckelmann 118). By his time, it was evident that Ancient Rome was a very colourful place through frescoes, mosaics, and vibrantly painted statues and images discovered in places like Pompeii; however, Winckelmann purposely chose to ignore these findings. The popularization of ‘white beauty’ starting from the Renaissance, continuing into modern Hollywood misled modern society to accept this false perception.
The same misconception can also be seen in other ancient artifacts, like triumphal arches. For example, the Arch of Constantine was originally constructed using purple-red porphyry as a background for the Hadrianic Roundels, Phrygian purple for the statues, Carystian green for the statues’ pedestals, and green porphyry for the entablature frieze (Cartwright “The Arch of Constantine, Rome”). However, L’Arc de Triomphe, constructed in France during Napoleon’s reign, was left unpainted because they thought that the Romans did so. Clearly, there is a shared misconception of ancient sculptures and buildings, which demonstrates how ‘white beauty’ affected a variety of artistic remnants from the ancient world. It shows that the lazy modern interpretation of history only takes objects at face value instead of considering its role and presence in ancient civilization. With misconceptions starting from the Renaissance followed by widespread television screening, ‘white-beauty’ eventually became a normalized beauty preference, but factually speaking that was not the case. Up to this day, there are still people who do not know the colourful truth behind the marble white statues and other structures from the classical world.
After discussing the two classical ‘afterlives’ of gladiators and sculptures, it is clear that the past is often misrepresented in modern culture because people misuse historical evidence. It is important to raise awareness to people not exposed to classics that many of the ‘facts’ they learned from pop culture are most likely inaccurate. More authentic presentation of the ancient world is needed to better educate the general public. Like in movies, for example, more accurate representation of someone or something can be used to educate the public in a fun and unscholarly manner. Not only will it be more authentic, the movie will also bring new classical perspectives into modern culture. In light of the previous essay on how Romans viewed themselves versus how Virgil wrote about them, it is important to consider various sources and perspectives because only then will one paint a more complete picture of a certain object or event. There needs to be encouragement for people to accept that not everything depicted in movies or presented before their eyes show the full and accurate story. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a historical drama movie or admiring a statue that lost its colour, but the truth should not be blinded for the sake of a false image. When our understanding of classical civilization and culture improves, we will develop new connections between ancient and modern societies.
Bibliography
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/497/the-arch-of-constantine-rome/.
Tertullian. De Spectaculis.
https://monoskop.org/images/f/f1/Winckelmann_Johann_Joachim_Writings_on_Art.pdf.