Stoics on the Big Screen:
Marcus and Maximus
[Delivered at the Classical Association Conference,
University of Warwick, April 2003]
JOHN SELLARS
Introduction
Ancient philosophy has not been well represented on the big screen. Aristotle
appears with his precocious pupil in the 1950s film Alexander the Great; Seneca
pops up alongside Nero in Quo Vadis; Cicero makes a brief appearance in
Cleopatra, bemoaning the impending fall of the Roman republic.1 That’s pretty
much it. There have been two television versions of the life and death of
Socrates, the most notable directed by Roberto Rossellini in 1970, but neither
of these were designed for the big screen.2 Then came Gladiator, with its
extended portrait of the Stoic philosopher and Emperor Marcus Aurelius
(played by Richard Harris).3 Although this is, in part, simply a remake of the
earlier film The Fall of the Roman Empire (with Alec Guinness as the Stoic
1
Alexander the Great, dir. Robert Rossen, with Richard Burton, Fredric March, Claire Bloom
(United Artists, 1955); Quo Vadis, dir. Mervyn LeRoy, with Robert Taylor, Deborah Kerr, Leo
Genn, Peter Ustinov (MGM, 1951); Cleopatra, dir. Joseph L. Mankiewicz, with Elizabeth Taylor,
Richard Burton, Rex Harrison (20th Century Fox, 1963).
2
The two films are Barefoot in Athens (1966), with Peter Ustinov as Socrates, and Socrate (1970),
directed by Roberto Rossellini. See J. Solomon, The Ancient World in Cinema (New Haven, 2001),
p. 42. For further discussion of the latter see T. Gallagher, The Adventures of Roberto Rossellini
(New York, 1998), pp. 609-14.
3
Gladiator, dir. Ridley Scott, with Russell Crowe, Richard Harris, Joaquin Phoenix, Oliver Reed
(Universal, 2000).
2
Emperor),4 it nevertheless marks an interesting development in the cinematic
representation of ancient philosophers. As such, it deserves our attention.
In this paper I shall focus upon the way in which Marcus’ Stoicism is
portrayed on the big screen. In particular, I shall be concerned with the claim
made by others that in Gladiator the behaviour of the character Maximus
(played by Russell Crowe) marks him as the true heir to Marcus’ Stoicism,
keeping alive not only Marcus’ plans for the future of Rome but also Marcus’
personal philosophical attitude.
I shall argue that, in fact, Maximus’ behaviour in the film is decidedly
un-Stoic. However, I shall suggest that there is another character in the film
whose behaviour more closely captures the spirit of Marcus’ Stoicism. By
comparing the behaviour of these characters in the film I shall suggest that it
is possible to gain some insight into what it might mean to put into practice
the Stoic philosophy of Marcus Aurelius.
1. Outline of the Film’s Plot
It may be helpful to begin with a brief outline of the film’s plot. The aged
Marcus Aurelius is with his troops in central Europe fighting the Germanic
tribes. Aware that he is nearing the end of his life he makes plans for the
future of Rome by asking his loyal general Maximus to hold power in trust
after Marcus’ death until the Senate is ready to rule again, returning Rome to
a republic. This naturally angers Marcus’ son and heir, Commodus, who
wastes no time in smothering Marcus to death and ordering the execution of
both Maximus and his family back in Spain.
4
The Fall of the Roman Empire, dir. Anthony Mann, with Alec Guinness, James Mason,
Christopher Plummer, Sophia Loren (Rank, 1964).
3
However, Maximus manages to escape and is picked up by a slave trader
who sells him to Proximo, the master of a provincial gladiatorial school.
Meantime Commodus assumes power in Rome and orders an extended
festival of games in the arena to celebrate his accession. Soon Proximo moves
his school to Rome in order to take part in these games. Maximus and his
companions prove themselves in the arena and, when Commodus comes to
praise these fighters, he learns that Maximus is still alive.
Soon Maximus, a number of Senators, and Commodus’ sister Lucilla are
plotting to overthrow Commodus and to put into practice Marcus’ dream of a
restored republic. The plot is discovered and Maximus is caught trying to
escape from the city. Commodus takes on Maximus in the arena himself, but
makes sure that the odds are in his favour by wounding Maximus before the
contest begins. But Maximus manages to kill Commodus, finally getting his
revenge for the murder of his wife and son, only to fall down dead himself
moments later. Commodus’ sister Lucilla and the loyal Senators return Rome
to a republic as Marcus wished, and those still left alive presumably live
happily ever after.
Naturally this bears little relation to recorded historical fact. It should
also be noted that although Gladiator begins in a similar vein to the earlier
1964 film The Fall of the Roman Empire, the two films soon diverge considerably
from one another. But history is not my principal concern here.
2. Maximus as Heroic Stoic
It has been argued by William Stephens in an interesting piece about Gladiator
that “Maximus’ determination to survive with courage, honor and dignity –
the general who became a slave, a gladiator and finally the hero who defeats
4
the evil tyrant – makes him the movie’s inheritor of Marcus Aurelius’ Stoic
philosophy”.5 Maximus’ credentials as a philosophical figure are perhaps also
given weight by the way in which Marcus appoints him as protector of Rome
precisely because he does not want the job, reminiscent of Plato’s
philosopher-ruler. But is this impression accurate? Is Maximus really a Stoic?
Maximus’ behaviour throughout the film seems to be driven by revenge
against Commodus, perhaps in part for the death of Marcus, but more so for
the murder of Maximus’ wife and son. For Maximus at the beginning of the
film, the most important thing is the opportunity to return home, as
evidenced by him keeping a count of the number of days since he was last
there and his small clay figures of his wife and son that he carries with him.
Maximus certainly does not follow the claim made by the Stoic philosopher
Epictetus that one should consider one’s close relations as if no different to
other transitory possessions, such as an earthenware jug.6 Maximus does not
accept the circumstances in which he finds himself but rather plots with his
new master Proximo to enable him to stand before the Emperor Commodus in
order to exact his passionate revenge. As he says to Commodus when they
first face each other in the arena, “father to a murdered son, husband to a
murdered wife, and I will have my vengeance, in his life or the next”. And this
is perhaps key: despite his obvious courage and fearlessness, Maximus
remains decidedly passionate.
In contrast, although Marcus clearly cares for his family, especially his
daughter Lucilla, his principal concern and duty is directed towards Rome and
the future of Rome. This is illustrated most clearly in his decision to pass over
5
W. O. Stephens, ‘The Rebirth of Stoicism?’, Creighton Magazine (Winter 2000), 34-39; revised
version online at ‘http://puffin.creighton.edu/phil/Stephens/rebirth_of_stoicism.htm’.
6
See Epictetus Handbook 3.
5
his own son Commodus in favour of Maximus as his political heir. Marcus is
also concerned with himself and whether he has been a good man and a good
ruler, echoing the Socratic-Stoic exhortation to take care of oneself.7 These
traits are absent from Maximus.
I have no problem with Maximus’ violence in the arena, which is simply
a healthy expression of his desire for self-preservation as outlined in the Stoic
theory of appropriation (oikeiôsis).8 But it is his passionate attachment to
particulars and his desire for revenge when they are taken from him that, to
me, makes Maximus decidedly un-Stoic.
Stephens’ argument in favour of Maximus being the heir to Marcus’
Stoicism is that Maximus embodies Stoic endurance in the face of adversity,
displaying ‘strength and honour’ at all times. This is a fairly common image of
Stoicism; the Stoic is one who heroically endures in the face of adversity.
Indeed, this is the essence of the OED definition of ‘Stoic’ and ‘Stoical’. This
modern image of Stoicism can be traced back to the sixteenth century
humanist Justus Lipsius and his attempt to revive Stoicism in his De Constantia
of 1584, a work written against the background of the bloody religious wars of
the sixteenth century, a period in which endurance in the face of adversity
was a prized virtue.9
To some extent Lipsius follows his philosophical mentor Seneca, whose
works he edited in 1605 and whose status as an orthodox Stoic is not beyond
7
See J. Sellars, The Art of Living (Aldershot, 2003), ch. 2. The key texts are Plato’s Apology and
Alcibiades.
8
9
See e.g. Diogenes Laertius 7.85.
See J. Lipsius, De Constantia Libri Duo (Antwerp, 1584); Two Bookes Of Constancie, trans. John
Stradling, ed. Rudolf Kirk (New Brunswick, 1939). For discussion see M. Morford, Stoics and
Neostoics: Rubens and the Circle of Lipsius (Princeton, 1991).
6
question,10 but Lipsius also adds much of his own to his ethic of endurance, a
ethic certainly inspired by Stoicism but not necessarily an orthodox Stoic
position. This attitude is not particularly prominent in Marcus’ Meditations
and it is nowhere to be found in the Discourses of Epictetus, arguably Marcus’
principal source of philosophical inspiration.11 Marcus and Epictetus are more
concerned with the affirmation of what comes to pass rather than resignation
or endurance in the face of adversity. As Richard Sorabji as so eloquently put
it, Stoicism “is not about gritting your teeth but seeing things differently so
that you don’t need to”.12 Although heroic endurance may appear in the
works of Seneca, and later in Lipsius, it is by no means the orthodox Stoic
attitude.
In any case, I cannot find much heroic endurance in the behaviour of
Maximus either, as disaster after disaster befalls him. Instead he simply fights
for his life when he has to, and schemes to kill the Emperor Commodus in
revenge for the death of his family.
3. Marcus’ Stoicism
I shall now turn from the film for a moment in order to consider the real
Marcus Aurelius, by which I mean the philosophical attitude that one finds in
the text that has come down to us under his name and commonly known in
10
See J. M. Rist, ‘Seneca and Stoic Orthodoxy’, ANRW II 36.3 (1989), pp. 1993-2012.
11
See P. Hadot, ‘Une clé des Pensées de Marc Aurèle: les trois topoi philosophiques selon
Épictète’, Les Études philosophiques 1 (1978), 65-83.
12
R. Sorabji, Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation (Oxford, 2000),
p. 1.
7
English as the Meditations.13 I have already suggested that in the Meditations
there is an attitude of affirmation – or at least acceptance – towards what
happens rather than endurance or resignation. But perhaps central to the
Meditations is the development of a physical perspective upon all things in an
attempt to create a distance between the way in which people usually
conceive things and the way in which they are in themselves.14 Marcus’ aim is
to overcome his value judgements so that he can experience the world as it is
in itself, as a continual flux of matter in motion. It goes without saying that
this physical perspective is one free from emotional attachments to particular
objects and certainly free from violent emotional reactions like revenge. In
sum, the real Marcus’ philosophy (which is not obviously distorted, in the film
although hardly portrayed in any detail either) is quite different from the
attitude motivating Maximus.
4. The True Heir to Marcus Aurelius
So, Maximus is no Stoic and does not embody the philosophical attitude of
Marcus Aurelius (contra Stephens). At the beginning I mentioned that I think
that there may be another character in the film who does follow Marcus’
Stoicism. The character who I think comes closest to doing this is Proximo,
the master of the gladiatorial school, and played by Oliver Reed in his final
screen performance. But why Proximo?
13
For studies of the Meditations see R. B. Rutherford, The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: A Study
(Oxford, 1989); P. Hadot, The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, trans. M. Chase
(Cambridge, MA, 1998).
14
See Sellars, The Art of Living, ch. 7. See e.g. the following passages in the Meditations: 6.13,
8.24, 9.36, 12.8.
8
Firstly, he adapts to circumstances, whether it be as a gladiator-slave or
a master of a gladiatorial school, whether he be in Rome or in the provinces,
and he simply gets on with doing the best he can wherever he is. This is
precisely the advice that the Stoic Epictetus gives, and mirrors Epictetus’ own
journey from a slave in Rome to master of his own philosophical school in
Western Greece. Proximo accepts his role as an “entertainer” rather than
trying to get involved in politics, following Epictetus’ advice that for the most
part one should act within the context of the role that one finds oneself in,15
but when he learns that Commodus killed Marcus, this new information
activates Proximo’s higher sense of debt and respect for the man who set him
free.
Secondly, he is not squeamish about death, accepting the daily slaughter
in the arena as but part of the larger physical processes that make up the
world. He neither relishes it nor deplores it, but simply acknowledges that
this is part of the way the world in which he lives works.
Thirdly, Proximo is the only character in the film – Marcus included – to
utter lines that sound as if they could have been lifted from the pages of the
Meditations. Reminding Maximus of the transitory nature of individual human
life, he proclaims, “we mortals are but shadows and dust, shadows and dust
Maximus”, echoing Marcus’ maxim in the Meditations that we should analyse
everything in terms of matter and cause (to hulikon kai to aition).16 Proximo also
says to his gladiators about to fight for the first time that “ultimately we are
all dead men; sadly we cannot choose how, but we can decide how we meet
that end, in order that we are remembered as men”, echoing Epictetus’
15
16
See e.g. Epictetus Handbook 30.
See the following passages in the Meditations: 4.21, 5.13, 7.29, 9.25, 12.10, 12.18, 12.29. Marcus
also uses aitiôdes in place of aition in some of these passages.
9
maxim that the only thing up to us is our internal mental attitude.17 We must
face external circumstances with the correct attitude, aware of what is and
what is not within our control. Only if we do this will we – like the Stoic sage –
be worthy of the label anthropos, the Stoic sources report.18
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, there is Proximo’s noble suicide,
something for which the Stoics are of course famous for advocating in certain
circumstances.19 Despite his appearance of heartlessness – something that all
true Stoics run the risk of displaying – when the chips are down, so to speak,
Proximo is prepared to lay down his life for the greater good of the future of
Rome, perhaps the only action in the film by any character truly in the spirit
of Marcus Aurelius. Moreover, as he waits for the soldiers to strike him down,
he repeats to himself his maxim “shadows and dust”, forming a final
meditation on the transitory nature of human life worthy of Marcus himself.
Proximo has a somewhat grumpy disposition, reminiscent of literary
accounts of the founder of Stoicism, Zeno, and face to match, bearing more
than a passing resemblance to physical portraits of the Stoic Chrysippus. He
has a healthy indifference to the suffering of others as well as his own. He has
no desire for revenge and simply wants to get on with his life in whatever
circumstances in which he finds himself. He displays a respect whenever
Marcus’ name is mentioned and greets a statue of Marcus in Rome by saying
“good to see you again old friend”. It is Proximo, then, whom I would suggest
is the real Stoic in the film Gladiator, not Maximus.
17
See e.g. Epictetus Handbook 1.
18
See e.g. Marcus Aurelius 11.18.10, Cicero Republic 1.28; also Epictetus Discourses 2.24.19-20.
19
See J. M. Rist, Stoic Philosophy (Cambridge, 1969), ch. 13.
10
In Conclusion
This has, I hope, been a somewhat entertaining account of the way in which
Stoicism has been portrayed on the big screen. But there may also be a more
substantial pedagogical point that might be made here, and I shall refer again
to Stephens. Although I might want to question some of the details of his
interpretation of the film Gladiator, I remain indebted to his piece for bringing
this to my attention. The reason why he discusses the film at all is, in part,
because he includes it in his undergraduate course on Stoicism. For Stephens,
a viewing of Gladiator followed by a discussion of its Stoic themes offers a
gentle way into a course of Stoic philosophy. Naturally Stephens’ own course
quickly progresses on to close readings of original texts by Seneca and
Epictetus, but the film offers an accessible introduction for students brought
up on popular cultural media such as cinema. There are, then, some
interesting pedagogical reasons why it might be useful to explore this big
screen Stoic epic.20
20
For further discussion see J. Sellars, ‘Teaching Ancient Philosophy’, PRS-LTSN Journal 2/2
(2003), 23-49, esp. 34-35.