Story Evolution – Makers of Rome

I had a history teacher in college say something to the effect of, “Plutarch wrote a series of histories about famous Romans and Greeks. These are called ‘Plutarch’s Lives’. It might be better to call them ‘Plutarch’s Lies’.” It got a nerdy chuckle from most of us, and I never really delved into Plutarch after that.

After my adventures with Herodotus last year, I decided some more ancient histories could make a good read. I ran into Plutarch’s name quite a bit, and since I had recently finished watching the HBO series “Rome” it seemed like reading some of Plutarch’s Roman lives would fit the bill.

I settled on the penguin classics version called “Makers of Rome”. This covers nine lives spanning from the legendary (and possibly mythical) general Coriolanus up to Mark Antony, the infamous lover of Queen Cleopatra. I also got to read about Fabius Maximus, Marcellus, Cato the Elder, Tiberius Gracchus, Gaiu Gracchus, Sertorius, and Brutus. For those of you who could care less about all these guys with “us” at the end of there names – hold on, there is a point.

First thing, the introduction pointed out that Shakespeare used Plutarch’s lives to create three plays: The Tragedy of Coriolanus, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, and Antony and Cleopatra. Now I’d never heard of a play about Coriolanus, but like most people I had to read Julius Caesar back in high school. I remembered that the play was more about Brutus than Caesar, and reading the Life of Brutus makes it all fall into place.

The really interesting part comes with Mark Antony. The Penguin edition includes an Appendix all about this particular life. It not only points out all the changes that Plutarch made to the history, but also pointed out the changes that Shakespeare made on top of that.

Now, I should clear something up here. Plutarch never set out to write history. His goal in writing these lives was to create a biography of these famous people to prove a point. Most of the time these were ethical ideals that the famous figure would be measured against – sometimes acting as an ideal example, other times failing to make the grade. In either case, Plutarch would sometimes warp history to fit the needs of his biography. So really Plutarch should read, “Based on a true story.”

Shakespeare makes some dramatic changes as well. Most of this has to do with shortening the time in which the story takes place, but there are other historical differences. However, since he is basing his play on Plutarch’s version of events, his version of Antony comes across a bit different from the historical version of the man.

And this was the version of Mark Antony that appeared in HBO’s “Rome”. It was interesting to see how long the image of an impulsive and completely manipulated Antony has prevailed. Even Cleopatra fares on the poor side of things. She is usually shown as a woman who is driven by her base desires and impulses. These end up causing her and Antony misfortune. But modern historians find that Cleopatra was far from the impulsive woman she is usually portrayed as.

This all tells me that writers have been messing with history since the time of Plutarch (and even before if you take a look at Herodotus). It also tells me that the evolution of a story can take many forms, twisting and turning through time. Each new author adding their new take on the old tale. Does that make all us storyteller liars?

It reminds me of a Mystery Science Theater episode called, “I Accuse My Parents”. The movie revolves around a young man who lies about his parents to his friends and classmates. His parents are drunk good for nothings, but according to Jimmy, they are wonderful caregivers. Jimmy’s lies pile up and up and up. At one point in the movie one of the robots quips, “He’s a gifted storyteller”. And that actually got me thinking. Are all storytellers liars?

Have you read Plutarch? What did you think of his work? How about Shakespeare’s take on historical events? If you are a writer or storyteller, do you consider yourself a liar?

Rome if you want to - Rome

I recently read about Roberto Rosselilini, a famous Italian director who, in the later part of his career, suddenly stopped making movies. He believed film was dead and that television was going to be the new medium. Unfortunately he felt that most of the shows on television were complete crap (and this was back in the early 70's, I wonder what he would make of "reality" television). So he decided to bring history to life on the small screen creating television movies about famous historical figures.

I wonder what he would have made of HBO's "Rome". The series plunges the viewer into the ancient Roman world around 54 BC up to around 30 AD. It's full of war, sex, intrigue, double crossing, romance, tragedy, triumph, and heroism. So not only are you entertained by watching it, but the series has something for everyone and you get to learn a bit about history while you are watching.

The series covers all the high points of the early Roman Republic including the rise of Julius Caesar, his battles against Pompey, his assent to Emperor and his murder in the senate. In the second season, the aftermath of the death of Caesar entangles famous names such as Brutus, Mark Antony, Octavian, Cleopatra and Livia. The series ends with Octavian becoming Emperor over Rome and beginning the Roman Empire.

The series also introduces us to figures who aren't quite so lofty as generals, senators and Emperors. We meet lowly soldiers like Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo. Slaves like Posca and Eirene. Thugs and nar-do-wells like Timon and Quintus. We get a clearer insight into some of the powerful ladies of Rome, such as Atia, Octavia and Servillia. By weaving these other characters, some of them real some of them created for the series, the writers pull us into the action. We understand Vorenus' struggle to connect with his family after spending years battling barbarians in Gaul. We connect with the conflict of Timon who's dedication to Atia conflicts with his Jewish beliefs. And speaking of Atia, her scheming and battle of wills with Servillia is one of the highlights of the show. Both women are equally matched, but fate keeps dealing them deadly blows. It's fascinating to watch how they handle fortunes blessing and curses and how they deal with each other.

By creating such interesting characters and weaving the history as well as some interesting fiction (what really did happen to Caesar and Cleopatra’s son?) a show was created that not only brought the ancient world to life but held our attention. Watching the show on DVD with the historical track running at the same time is a real treat (for anyone interested in history). It repeats itself a bit here and there, but for the most part it goes into detail on all kinds of things from Roman diet (dormice!) to the types of units used during famous battles. All in all it is a package of entertainment and enlightenment all wrapped into one. I think Rossellini would have approved.

Do you think that it's possible to bring together history and entertainment in television? Did you see Rome? What did you think of it?