Verso Claim Status: Fill & Download for Free

I’m going to copy and paste one of my essays that I wrote for the government politics course that I’ve taken during my stay in NUS (BE WARNED, LONG READ):Understanding the Challenges and continuing the national development of SingaporeAt the time of writing, Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, has recently passed away. In honor of his contributions to Singapore, it is of paramount importance that Singaporeans continue his legacy in doing what is considered best for Singapore. His biggest worry was “that younger Singaporeans would lose the instinct for what made Singapore tick” (Lee Hsien Loong). To cultivate such an “instinct”, it is imperative that Singapore fosters a stronger national identity and enhance national integration, yet it has difficulties. In this essay, we shall discover the main challenges of national integration mainly stems from the short history of Singapore, racial and ethnic tensions, and contradictory government policies.Before delving into the discussions of the challenges that Singapore faces, we will need to properly understand the terms being used, namely national integration and national identity, along with their purposes. The central idea being used equally in these two terms is the concept of a nation, whereby members of the same nation “may never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (Anderson 6). This notion of thought is distinct from what we know of as a state, commonly conceived as a population within a defined geographical territorial boundary, and having a government shaping affairs within such. We can regard a state as being a more tangible entity than a nation, as a nation alludes closer to a mental, abstract feeling. The important implication that we should thus conclude is that nations can exist without a state, and vice versa. An exemplar of a nation without a state is the Central Tibetan Administration, who does not hold sovereignty over any land, but is nonetheless a unifying power to Tibetans, particularly those in exile.With the concept of a nation explained above, it is now easier to reach an understanding for national identity. It is an answer to one of the most fundamental questions of humanity: who are we? The imagined community of a nation provides an answer to that by allowing a person to claim to be one of its members, and allows each member to express their individuality through commonly shared values within the community. The properties and attributes of an imagined community is thus “transferred” from the community to an individual.Granted, the transferal of the characteristics of a nation to a citizen does not happen automatically. This is where the concept of national integration arises: it is the process of creating a robust, cohesive imagined community that its members can relate to. The most important aspect of the process is to incite the feeling of relatedness to each other and the community at large – the absence of it would render national identity purposeless. Sharp readers may argue that feelings are subjective, hence individuals are the main agents, not the government or any other institutions, in national integration. While this line of reasoning is completely correct, we should also bear in mind that a suitable environment for national integration is a huge aid to the process.It is exactly the difficulty of creating an environment for national integration that causes us to consider the roadblocks along the path to nationhood. We shall first consider the short history of Singapore that hampers national integration.A nation with a short history is not a fault by the government per se; it is simply a natural obstacle when the aim is national integration. To understand this, we first need to recognize that “short history” does not refer to the age of the nation in the chronological sense – instead, a “short history” can be understood as throughout the lifetime of the nation under consideration, there are only few events that are able to elicit strong feelings of nationalism amongst the populace. In the model for national integration that we have defined above, this is equivalent to stating that the total amount of content that the imagined community of a nation can provide to its members is very limited. During the 50 years of existence, there are only two national events in Singapore that has received much attention – the separation between Malaysia and Singapore, and the recent passing of Lee Kuan Yew.While it can be argued that the variety of emotions and feelings that individuals receive from national events are subjective, the international attention given to said events is objective. Such basis for measuring the outreach of a national event is discussed first, as recognition of uniqueness from other nations is crucial for developing a sense of identity for Singapore. In Singapore, the separation from Malaysia is undoubtedly a painful experience that Singapore had to go through, and the passing of Singapore’s first prime minister has left numerous citizens in tears. In both events, the international community had indeed recognized them as uniquely Singaporean – embassies from other countries have aptly opened up in Singapore in a few months after the expulsion, and foreign ministers and heads of states have joined in the national mourning for Lee Kuan Yew.However, international recognition of national events is not enough to forge a national identity. A more intrinsic yardstick would be to judge a national event based on the symbolic reflection of a nation’s underlying value, and therein lies the weakness for Singapore – the two national events described does not adequately reflect the values commonly shared by its citizens. Out of the two, only the separation from Malaysia compels citizens towards action, as it reflects the reality that Singaporeans from then on will have to rely on nobody but itself as a city-state, directly leading us to believe that Singaporeans are “hard-working, industrious, rugged individual(s)” (Lee Kuan Yew 58) since it has survived for 50 years without wars and became a world-renowned metropolis and even honored to be one of the four Asian Tigers. However, since this event happened in 1965, the newer generations of Singaporeans would be less able to relate themselves with the determination and conviction that had greatly shaped Singapore today. The passing away of Lee Kuan Yew, while is definitely going to be a landmark in Singapore’s collective memory, only serves to mark the end of a turbulent era of Singapore’s independence, and fails to capture the interests of the young. The values that Singapore had relied upon to be what it is today may indeed change very soon in the future, and a reshaping of the psyche of Singapore would surely follow. This complicates the task of national integration even further when the core values of Singapore are so easily wavered and changed.In the worst case scenario, future Singaporeans may even start identifying themselves more along the lines of ethnicity and race. In fact, this may have already happened ever since Singapore’s conception as a city-state.To understand this challenge, consider the demographics of Singapore: 75% Chinese, 13% Malays, 9% Indians and the remaining 3% come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. As we can see, all of the major racial backgrounds have existing nations that have the ethnicity in mind as the majority – China, Malaysia and India, respectively. The problem can be conceptualized as members of Singapore’s imagined community already have pre-existing attributes and knowledge transferred from other imagined communities. As a result, the sense of belonging for such members will be low, and they would hurt the consolidation of a unified national identity for Singapore. Countries with a culture far richer and complex than Singapore, such as China and India, have a strong “cultural pull”, causing Singapore citizens of that country’s descent to recognize themselves as a member of their country of origin, and this is especially true for China. The focal point will be put on China, as Singaporeans with Chinese ancestry occupy the majority of the total population in Singapore. However, the points being described in the subsequent paragraphs regarding China can also be applied to other ethnicities, albeit to a lesser effect.In his book “When China Rules the World”, Martin Jacques described China as a “civilization-state”, and he describes it further, stating that “when the Chinese use the term ‘China’ they are not usually referring to the country or nation so much as Chinese civilization – its history, the dynasties, Confucius, the ways of thinking, their relationships and customs, the guanxi (the network of personal connections), the family, filial piety, ancestral worship, the values, and distinctive philosophy” (196). As a result of the unique Chinese view on their own identity, “the [Chinese] state has always been perceived as the embodiment and guardian of Chinese civilization” (198).Such a loose definition of what it means to be Chinese is detrimental to the process of national integration in Singapore. Although it is true that national identity and “civilizational identity” can co-exist, conflicts of interests between the two identities would inevitably arise for individuals who have chosen to identify themselves as both a Singaporean national and a descendant of the Chinese civilization. Judging by the long-standing history and the merits of the Chinese civilization as listed above, it would not be too surprising when the Chinese “civilizational identity” would take precedence over the Singaporean national identity. In fact, given the three-fourths majority of Singaporeans of Chinese descent, it is entirely conceivable that a step in a different direction for the political development in Singapore could have led it to become another Chinese polity altogether, much like the situation in Taiwan. If it were not for Lee Kuan Yew’s fore-vision of creating the GRCs to prevent the tyranny of the majority, the said outcome of becoming a tributary state of China would likely be reality, and Singapore’s national identity would likewise be extinct.Owing to such diverse ethnic backgrounds, Singapore’s policy makers are tweaking the system extensively in order to respect multiracialism and at the same time maintain Singapore’s status as an international business center. Yet these two types of policies sometimes do not complement each other, and often even contradict one another.To use our model of imagined communities to understand this, this is equivalent to having man-made errors in not knowing what to actually transfer to community members. Take the language policy for example: in order to remain unbiased towards any race, the original official language adopted by the Singaporean government was English only. This helped maintain the culturally neutral outlook in Singapore, yet later on in 1979, the government advocated the Speak Mandarin Campaign for Chinese Singaporeans. Additionally, 21 years later in 2000, the government launched the Speak Good English Campaign. The aim of these two policies are in clear contradiction of each other – the former having the desire for Chinese Singaporeans to communicate effectively with each other and also with mainland Chinese, while the latter requiring all Singaporeans to connect themselves more to the international community.These two policies, when considered in separation with each other, already erodes national identity by itself: the Speak Mandarin Campaign specifically targets the mandarin dialect of Chinese, while knowingly that most of the Chinese community comes from southern China, which uses a variety of other dialects, such as Hokkien, Hakka and Cantonese. It may have been none the wiser to use a northern dialect to unify the languages of all Chinese, but this language policy has already been adopted in the People Republic of China and Taiwan, and hence pulls the already strong sentiment of citizens identifying themselves as Chinese even further toward that end of the spectrum; on the other hand, the Speak Good English Campaign specifically targets the perceived bad usage of the local “Singlish” dialect of English, and seeks to eliminate this “improper” form of English, choosing instead to speak the standard British English dialect. Singlish may not be a very likeable and audible form of English to the government, but it is nonetheless a very dear aspect of being a Singaporean – Singlish itself combines the emotional expressiveness of southern Chinese dialects and the wide range of colorful vocabularies from the Malay language into a patchwork language that is representative of Singapore’s colonial past, the embracing of Malays into Singapore’s culture, and the kindness of citizens well-raised and bred under Singapore’s education system.This kind of policy ambivalence is sure to continue as long as Singapore’s multi-ethnical and multi-racial tensions persist, and will continue to persist as long as Singapore does not have a solid foundation of what it means to be a Singaporean. We see that there are a multitude of challenges to national integration; however, as we have discussed clearly above, the short history of Singapore is the root cause of the problem. Singapore should definitely try to make best use of the passing of a great leader to get their citizens to participate in building a monument in memory of the person who have sacrificed his life in exchange for a livable environment for Singapore – Lee Kuan Yew. This would yield great results in terms of national integration, and it is quite certain that the man would have wanted his dear citizens continue forward to the future bearing his spirit of determination and self-reliance. Perhaps this is the best way to honor him, and the best way to be a true Singaporean.Works Cited“Mr Lee Kuan Yew lived to see his life’s work come to fruition: PM Lee Hsien Loong”, Channel NewsAsia, 29 Mar 2015. Web. 3 Apr 2015.Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. New York: Verso, 1991. Print.Lee, Kuan Yew. “Speech by the Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, in Parliament on 23 February, 1977”. Parliament House, Singapore. 22 February 1977. Speech.Jacques, Martin. When China Rules the World. London: Penguin Books, 2009. Print.

Italian Renaissance Learning Resources - In Collaboration with the National Gallery of ArtTraining and PracticeCennini’s thirteen-year span for the training of an artist was considerably longer than usually occurred. The statutes of different city guilds (see Guilds) often specified fewer years. In Venice an apprentice could move on to journeyman status after only two years; in Padua the minimum apprenticeship was three years, during which masters were forbidden from trying to tempt away the students of others.Whatever the length of training, any mature artist would have mastered the skills and materials Cennini enumerated. An artist might specialize as a painter or sculptor, but he often worked as both and was frequently called on to produce works in other media as well, including such ephemera as parade shields, banners, and designs for temporary porticoes constructed for the ceremonial entrances of important visitors to a city. Titian even designed glassware.Designs for Small BronzesFilippino LippiDesigns for Small Bronzes, 1490/95Pen and brown ink on laid paper, 16.6 x 25 cm (6 9/16 x 9 13/16 in.)National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Woodner CollectionsImage courtesy of the Board of Trustees, National Gallery of ArtThese may be sketches for small decorative objects, or, as has been suggested, preliminary designs for a triumphal chariot. Filippino created a chariot for the entry of French king Charles VIII into Florence in 1495.Training usually began at an early age. Some boys were placed with a master before they were ten years old.Andrea del Sarto, a tailor’s son, was only seven when he was apprenticed to a goldsmith (his predilection for drawing soon prompted his move to a painter’s shop), but most boys were three or four years older than that when they began. Although some scholastic preparation continued once boys entered a shop—and most artists were literate—the young ages at which they apprenticed meant that their formal education was limited. Michelangelo was unusual in that he continued to attend school until he was thirteen, only then entering the shop ofDomenico Ghirlandaio.Boys who apprenticed in a workshop—called garzoni—typically became part of their masters’ extended household, lodging and sharing meals with the family. Parents often paid the master for their sons’ keep, but masters, in turn, were obliged to pay wages to their apprentices, increasing the wages as skills grew.Pupils began with menial tasks such as preparing panels and grinding pigments. They then learned to draw, first by copying drawings made by their masters or other artists. Drawing collections served not only as training aids for students but also as references for motifs that could be employed in new works (see Drawing, Vasari, and Disegno). These collections were among the most valuable workshop possessions, and many artists made specific provisions in their wills to pass them down to heirs. Young artists also learned from copying celebrated works that could be seen in their own cities—Michelangelo, for example, copied paintings by Giotto in Florence’s church of Santa Croce—and they were encouraged to travel if they could, to Rome especially, to continue their visual education. When masters obtained important commissions in distant cities, assistants who accompanied them gained practical experience and exposure to new influences.The aspiring artist’s next step was to draw from statuettes or casts. Ancient sculpture was especially valued for this purpose (see Recovering the Golden Age), and students’ study of it helped foster greater naturalism in Renaissance depictions of the human form. The practice of converting a static three-dimensional object into a two-dimensional image was a vital step before a student moved on to draw from a live model. In many cases the model was one of the shop’s garzoni, called on to assume various poses.The GarzoneSchool of Filipino LippiYoung Man (Youth Seated on a Stool), c. 1500Silverpoint heightened with white on paper with an ochre-colored preparation, 22.2 x 16.8 cm (8 3/4 x 6 5/8 in.)Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Harriet Otis Cruft FundThis garzone models a dramatic gesture. Shop boys posed for both male and female figures; the use of women models was extremely rare and probably limited to the master’s own wife or daughters. Vasari, who apprenticed in Andrea del Sarto’s workshop and disliked Andrea’s wife, Lucrezia, observed that every woman Andrea painted looked like Lucrezia. In this case, however, Vasari attributed the resemblance to Andrea’s devotion, not simply studio practice.The Alba MadonnaRaphaelThe Alba Madonna, c. 1510Oil on panel transferred to canvas, diameter 94.5 cm (37 3/16 in.)National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Andrew W. Mellon CollectionImage courtesy of the Board of Trustees, National Gallery of ArtRaphaelVirgin and Child with Saint John the Baptist and several sketches, study for the Alba Madonna, 1511Red chalk, pen and ink on white paper, 42.2 x 27.3 cm (16 5/8 x 10 3/4 in.)Musée des Beaux-Arts, LilleRéunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource, NYRaphaelSeated man with bare legs, dressed in a shirt, study for theAlba Madonna, 1511Red chalk on white paper, 38.5 x 25.0 cm (15 1/8 x 9 5/6 in.)Musée des Beaux-Arts, LilleRéunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource, NYTwo sketches, on the front and back of a single sheet, show how Raphael planned and perfected the figure composition of the Alba Madonna. To capture the complex and foreshortened pose of the Virgin, he (or, some believe, his student Guilio Romano) sketched a workshop assistant in the pose of the classically inspired Madonna.Once a student had graduated to painting, he would usually spend time executing less important parts of a composition, such as sections of landscape background. The product of a Renaissance shop was in almost all cases a collaborative effort—the substantial contributions of many people were absolutely necessary to complete a monumental work likeDuccio’s two-sided altarpiece known as the Maestà, for example, or to keep pace in a busy shop like that ofNeri di Bicci. The records Neri left of his workshop activity indicate that he produced an average of more than three altarpieces each year. Over the twenty-two-year span covered by his account, one scholar counted seventy-three altarpieces, eighty-one domestictabernacles, and sixty-nine miscellaneous jobs.5Duccio’s MaestàDuccioConjectural reconstruction of the Maestà (Madonna Enthroned). (front), 1311Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, SienaDigital reconstruction by Lew MinterDuccioConjectural reconstruction of the Maestà (Madonna Enthroned). (back), 1311Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, SienaDigital reconstruction by Lew MinterThe commission for Duccio’s Maestà specified that it be by his own hand, and Duccio signed it, but most scholars agree that many of the back panels were executed, at least in part, by assistants.The master might paint only the central figures or simply the faces in a work—or he might not paint any of it at all. Students were trained to work in the master’s style and succeeded to such a degree that it is sometimes hard for today’s art historians to distinguish the hand of a master from that of his most talented pupils. Attributions of some paintings from the studio of Verrocchio, for example, have gone back and forth between the master and various assistants. The same confusion applies to works of Perugino (one of Verrocchio’s students) and his young assistant Raphael, and those of Giovanni Bellini’s students Giorgione and Titian. Although contracts sometimes specified that the master himself execute certain parts of a composition, guild rules allowed him to sign as his own any work that emerged from his shop. “Authenticity” in the modern sense was not at issue. A master’s signature was a sign that a work met his standards of quality, no matter who had actually painted it.Madonna and Child with a PomegranateLorenzo di CrediMadonna and Child with a Pomegranate, 1475/80Oil on panel, 16.5 x 13.4 cm (6 1/2 x 5 1/4 in.)National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Samuel H. Kress CollectionImage courtesy of the Board of Trustees, National Gallery of ArtAndrea del Verrocchiowas primarily a sculptor—in bronze and marble—but also worked as a goldsmith and painter. He ran one of the most successful studios of the Italian Renaissance, and some of the most important artists from the next generation trained with him, including Perugino Lorenzo di Credi, and Leonardo da Vinci. Other painting assistants included Ghirlandaio and BotticelliThis small panel, just over six inches tall, continues to invite debate. It reproduces Verrocchio’s style—but did he paint it? Or did Leonardo? Or is it by Lorenzo di Credi, who was Verrocchio’s favorite and took over the shop after the master’s death? Current thinking gives the nod to Credi. The first work by Credi that Vasari mentions is a Madonna having a design taken from Verrocchio; Vasari goes on to note a “far better picture,” perhaps this one, which Credi based on a composition by Leonardo. This picture has also been assigned at times to Leonardo, but Leonardo’s own colors were typically more muted than the ones used here; further, it is unlikely that Leonardo would have painted the child in this awkward and somewhat puzzling pose.After a period of training in a shop, a student could proceed to journeyman status. Following submission and acceptance of a piece that demonstrated his mastery—the masterpiece—an artist could then open a shop and take on students of his own. Some artists never became independent masters themselves but continued to work, sometimes as temporary help for large commissions, in the shops of others. A few artists, including Andrea del Sarto and Franciabigio, formed joint workshops. For them it made business sense and, as Vasari observed, they found each other’s company agreeable.How to beginThe system by which you should prepare to acquire the skill to work on panel, chapter CIIII“Know that there ought not to be less time spent in learning than this: to begin as a shop boy studying for one year, to get practice in drawing on the little panel; next, to serve in the shop under some master to learn how to work at all the branches which pertain to our profession; and to stay and begin the working up of colors; and to learn to boil the sizes, and grind the gessoes; and to get experience in gessoing anconas [panels with moulding], and modeling and scraping them; gilding and stamping; for the space of a good six years. Then to get experience in painting, embellishing with mordants, making cloths of gold, getting practice in working on the wall, for six more years; drawing all the time, never leaving off, either on holidays or on workdays. And in this way your talent, through much practice, will develop into real ability.”—Cennino Cennini4Giorgio Vasari with drawings by Filippino Lippi, Botticelli, and Raffaellino del GarboPage from “Libro de’ disegni,” sheets probably 1480–1504, mounting and framework by Vasari after 1524Album page with ten drawings on recto and verso in various media with decoration in pen and brown ink, brown and gray wash, on light buff paper, 56.7 x 45.7 cm (22 5/16 x 18 in.)National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Woodner Collection, Patron’s Permanent FundImage courtesy of the Board of Trustees, National Gallery of ArtDrawing, Vasari, and DisegnoRelatively few drawings survive from the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, because almost all drawings were preparatory, and much of the preliminary drawing for fresco and tempera paintings was done on the supports themselves. Preparatory drawings on paper began to appear around 1425, as paper itself became more plentiful; twenty-five years later such drawings became common. Until the time of Michelangelo, no drawing was considered a work of art in itself. Rather, drawings were tools in the preparation of paintings or sculpture and training for the eye and hand. Even at that, drawing as a way to help an artist see and translate three-dimensional space became important only when a desire for naturalistic representation of the real world itself became an important goal.Some of the earliest drawings were preserved because they became parts of collections like the one Vasari assembled. Vasari was the greatest champion of disegno—design or drawing—which he believed underlay all the other arts. He called it the “father” to the sister arts of painting, sculpture, and architecture. Disegno was not so much a physical process as an intellectual one.Vasari began collecting drawings by contemporaries and older masters (he proudly claimed one by Cimabue) while he was still an apprentice, and assembled them into albums. His Libro de’ disegniconsisted of at least seven volumes, possibly twelve, each with one hundred or so folio-sized pages. Vasari carefully mounted the drawings, working them into elaborate architectural frames he drew in ink, sometimes adding woodcut portraits and marginal notes. Today most surviving pages from Vasari’s collection are in the Musée du Louvre and the Galleria degli Uffizi. The sheet illustrated here includes drawings in various media by Botticelli, Filippino Lippi, whose name Vasari has written in, and Raffaellino del Garbo, who was Filippino’s student. One estimate puts the total number of drawings in the volumes at 529 by 226 artists—more than half of all the artists whose biographies Vasari included in his Lives. The biographies refer often to the drawings, and Vasari appears to have considered them an important supplement to his text.Training and Practice - Italian Renaissance Learning Resources

The Vintage News - The Vintage News siteThe True Story of Commodus the Cruel Gladiator EmperorJan 3, 2019Ian HarveyLucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus was born August 31, 161 AD in what is now Lanuvio, Italy to Emperor Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the Younger, the daughter of Emperor Antoninus Pius. Having no living brothers, as his twin died at the age of four, he was brought up to be Emperor.Bust of Commodus as Hercules, hence the lion skin, the club and the golden apples of the Hesperides. Part of a statuary group representing Commodus’ apotheosis. Roman artwork.When he was sixteen, his father declared him co-Emperor. Commodus was a spoiled, narcissistic young man who was something of an embarrassment to his father. He showed no interest in government or military matters and was consumed by self-indulgence.In 180 AD, Marcus Aurelius died, leaving Commodus as sole Emperor of Rome. He promptly renamed himself Caesar Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Augustus, and, throughout his rule from 177 to 192 AD, he became increasingly cruel and sadistic.The Colosseum, Rome.He fancied himself a reborn Hercules and took to wearing lion skins, as his hero did, to make himself seem more imposing. His favorite activity was acting the part of a Gladiator dressed only in his lion skin.It was unheard of for an Emperor to engage in such activities and caused quite a scandal. Even worse, his chosen competitors, according to Ancient Origins | Reconstructing the story of humanity's past, were helpless animals and citizens of Rome who were physically infirm, often soldiers who had been maimed in a war.Gladiator painting by Jean-Leon Gerome, 1872They were sometimes tied together so Commodus could kill two at once with his club. Additionally, Commodus charged Rome financially every time he appeared in the arena. This wasn’t confined to the arena, either. He wiped out an entire family, the Quinctilius, just for being wealthy and popular. Only one child survived.The Senate was informed that his name would no longer be Commodus; he was to be called Hercules, son of Zeus. He also petitioned them to declare him a living god. He changed the names of the calendar months after himself, renamed Rome to Colonia Lucia Annia Commodiana and erected statues of himself around the city.Bust of imperator Commodus in the Capitoline Museum in Rome, Italy.According to Ancient History Encyclopedia, Roman historian Cassius Dio remarked, “This man was not naturally wicked but, on the contrary, as guileless as any man that ever lived. His great simplicity, however, together with his cowardice, missed the better life and then was led on into lustful and cruel habits, which soon became second nature.”His closest advisor, Perennis, who took on Commodus’ emperor duties, attempted to assassinate him, but the plot failed and Perennis was executed. His next advisor, Cleander, was forced to take the blame when a food shortage occurred, and, in order to appease the protesting citizens, Commodus had Cleander executed along with his wife and children and his closest friends.Bust of Bruttia Crispina. Photo by PierreSelim CC BY-SA 3.0Commodus married Bruttia Crispina when she was sixteen years old. They had no children, and, about ten years into the marriage, she was banished to Capri and later was executed for adultery. He also kept a harem of over three hundred women and one boy, who was named “The Boy Who Loves Commodus.”His favorite was a woman named Marcia who was allowed to give him advice, but even she was not immune to his cruelty. When Commodus decided to remove the Senate and rule on his own, she protested, causing him to issue an order for her death.Related Video:Marcia and several of Commodus’ advisors had had enough. In 193 AD, Marcia brought Commodus a glass of poisoned wine while he was preparing to bathe.Unfortunately, Commodus’ stomach rejected the wine, but, while he was cleaning himself off in the bath, Narcissus, a professional wrestler, was brought in to choke Commodus until the emperor was dead.Read another story from us: ‘Gladiator 2’ Moving Forward with Director Ridley ScottCommodus had upset the peaceful balance that Rome had enjoyed for almost eighty years. Currency was devalued and the economy collapsed, leading the country into a civil war that lasted four years. His rule was the beginning of the end for that most famous empire.The Vintage News - The Vintage News siteAncient Roman History RevivalGLADIATOR: The Real StoryThis site provides historical insight into the actual characters and events portrayed in Ridley Scott’s film Gladiator. It discusses the film’s plot and ending, so if you have not seen the movie yet, you may want to come back later! I would not want to spoil it for you!IS RIDLEY SCOTT’S FILM GLADIATOR A TRUE STORY?Yes and no.While it is obvious that an impressive amount of historical and scholarly research was undertaken by the filmmakers, much of the plot is fiction. The fiction does however, appear to be inspired by actual historical events, as will be shown in the appropriate sections below. In this sense, the film is perhaps best seen as a collage, or artistic representation of ancient history, rather than an accurate, chronological, reconstruction of events. While highly original in its own right, the film’s plot does curiously resemble the 1964 film The Fall of the Roman Empire directed by Anthony Mann.t appears that Scott attempts to present not just a reconstruction of empirical facts, but also to boldly present to us his vision of the culture of ancient Rome, the spirit of its time, and the psychological outlook characteristic of its period. In one word, zeitgeist, and for the psychology of the characters, their mentalite. It appears that Scott attempts to present not just a reconstruction of empirical facts, but also to boldly present to us his vision of the culture of ancient Rome, the spirit of its time, and the psychological outlook characteristic of its period. In one word, zeitgeist, and for the psychology of the characters, their mentalite.This area of the film, while imperfect, is still stronger than its actual historical accuracy. Fellini attempted in his own way to do something similarly in his 1969 masterpiece The Satyricon, based on the ancient work by Petronius Arbiter, exploring the psychology of ancient time, in addition to its history. Scott, while historiographically imperfect, due to this creative effort in characterization, is to a certain extent avoiding the anachronisms of psychology present in such films as Spartacus, Cleopatra, and Ben Hur, where the characters appear to think and act solely like modern personages, while wearing unsoiled ancient costumes.▼ Woodburytype, Jean-Léon Gérôme in his Studio with Large Model of The Gladiators,(1877), The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content Program.Clearly it would seem, director Scott, and screenwriter David Franzoni, believe that history, at least as they present it, is not a regurgitation of empirical data, but instead an attempt to understand the psychology and culture of its characters, however, the greater purpose of the film is simply to tell a good story. Nevertheless, the film does emphasize Maximus’s worship of his family and ancestors, his obsessive compulsion for virtue and duty, and the stoical elements ever present in his character, which seem to be learned and informed, on the part of those who created this character. The film is inspired by real events, but should, and can not, be taken as an accurate historical source for true events, many of which are known to be different, and with certainty.WHAT WAS MARCUS AURELIUS REALLY LIKE?Marcus Aurelius was, as well as emperor from 161 to 180 CE, a stoic philosopher. He really did wage battles along the frontier as depicted in the film, and is remembered imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, and these are the titles to which he would have been referred, not the anachronistic “sire” and “my lord” as in the film.His work The Meditations, although more a compilation of existing stoical thought than a work of great originality, remains a highly readable classic in philosophy.▼ Title pages from The Emperor Marcus Antoninus : his conversation with himself (The Meditations), Marcus Aurelius, London: (1701), Duke University Libraries.An interesting fact omitted in the film, was that his adoptive brother and husband to daughter Lucilla, Lucius Verus, was made co-emperor with Marcus. In the time of the Republic, Rome was not ruled by emperors, but rather by two consuls. These consuls, with equal power, were to guard against dictatorship. So, perhaps Marcus really did have Republican inclinations, as attested to in the film, or perhaps this was a Machiavellian maneuver undertaken in an attempt to avoid the fate of the perceived dictator Julius Caesar. This was the first time in history that the Roman Empire had two joint emperors of formally equal constitutional status and powers, although in reality, Marcus was clearly the ruler of Rome.Bronze bust of Lucius Verus, Roman, (Ca. 170 – 180 CE), The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content Program.WHAT WAS COMMODUS REALLY LIKE?If the ancient sources can be trusted, Commodus was even more bizarre in real life than he was in the film.Commodus, whose full name was Caesar Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Augustus, was proclaimed Caesar at age 5 and joint emperor (co-Augustus) at the age of 17, in 177 CE, by his father, Marcus Aurelius. Reality was very different than the film in this instance. Commodus was, as depicted in Gladiator, present with his father during the Danubian wars, and yes, this is where Marcus Aurelius died. As for the actual circumstances of his father’s death, see belowHistorians from the time of Commodus have not been kind to him. As aristocratic intellectuals, they were not amused by his crude antics. Hence, our present day historiography still reflects, rightly or wrongly, this ancient bias. His father, possessing the virtues seen as noble by the literate aristocracy, was, and often still is, regarded as a great man, while his son was hated by the Senate and ridiculed by historians. Yet it is said that the army and the lower classes loved him. Cassius Dio, a senator and historian who lived during the reign of both Commodus and his father wrote, in regards to the accession of Commodus, that “our history now descends from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust, as affairs did for the Romans of that day.”▼ Coin of Commodus Ca. 180 CE, Obverse: Laureate Bust of Commodus, facing right, COMMODVS ANT AVG TR P II, Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins.Indeed, some historians even question his sanity. Commodus, in his own time, was accused of being a megalomaniac. He renamed Rome Colonia Commodiana, the “Colony of Commodus”, and renamed the months of the year after titles held in his honour, namely, Lucius, Aelius, Aurelius, Commodus, Augustus, Herculeus, Romanus, Exsuperatorius, Amazonius, Invictus, Felix, and Pius. The Senate was renamed the Commodian Fortunate Senate, and the Roman people were given the name Commodianus.Historian Aelius Lampridius tells us that “Commodus lived, rioting in the palace amid banquets and in baths along with 300 concubines, gathered together for their beauty and chosen from both matrons and harlots… By his orders concubines were debauched before his own eyes, and he was not free from the disgrace of intimacy with young men, defiling every part of his body in dealings with persons of either sex.”Commodus went so far as to declare himself the new founder of Rome, a “new Romulus”. In attempting to boast a new “Golden Age” of Rome, he was clearly emulating his father. But the effect was to make him the laughing stock of the aristocratic class.DID COMMODUS REALLY KILL HIS FATHER?Maybe.Some sources suspect that he did. The fact that he was present at the time, made a hasty peace with the enemy, and a quick retreat back to Rome in a victory triumph, has fueled speculation. The official story is that Marcus Aurelius died of plague.DID COMMODUS REALLY FIGHT AS A GLADIATOR?Yes!In this case, the truth is even stranger than the fiction. Commodus claimed to be descended from the God Hercules, and even began to dress like him, wearing lion skins and carrying a club.The historian Herodian wrote that “in his gladiatorial combats, he defeated his opponents with ease, and he did no more than wound them, since they all submitted to him, but only because they knew he was the emperor, not because he was truly a gladiator.”gladiator.”▼ Oil on Canvas, Pollice Verso, Jean-Léon Gérôme, (1872), Phoenix ArtHe also fought wild beasts. Dio Cassius wrote that Commodus killed five hippopotami at one time. He also killed two elephants, several rhinoceroses, and a giraffe “with the greatest of ease”. Herodian tells us further that Commodus had a special platform constructed which encircled the arena, from which he would display his skills as a hunter. He is recorded to have killed one hundred leopards with one hundred javelins. As a theatrical treat, he would slice the heads off of ostriches with crescent-headed arrows, which would then run around the amphitheater headless.Dio Cassius reveals that Senators were made to attend these spectacles, and that on one occasion Commodus killed an ostrich and displayed the severed head in one hand, his sword dripping with blood in the other, thus implying that he could treat them the same way.▼ Ippolito Caffi (Italian, 1809 – 1866 ), Interior of the Colosseum, , watercolor and gouache over graphite on wove paper, National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.DID COMMODUS REALLY DIE IN THE ARENA?No.However he was assassinated, and, by an athlete. There were numerous plots and attempts upon his life, but the one which finally succeeded was carried out by a wrestler named Narcissus, while Commodus was in his bath. The plot was orchestrated by his closest advisors, and apparently even included his mistress, Marcia.It occurred on the very last day of the year 192 CE, and indeed, exactly when the rest of Rome was preparing festivities for the New Year, 193 CE. However, it was feared and believed by insiders that Commodus planned to kill the consuls-elect, who by both tradition and jurisprudence were to begin their terms upon New Year’s Day, and be sworn in as consul himself, instead. This he reportedly was going to do even outfitted as a gladiator, in his lion skins, with appropriate weapons. This was the final outrage, according to our ancient sources, and thus, his fate was sealed.▼ Terracotta lamp illustrating gladiators in combat, North Africa, (late 1st – early 2nd century CE), The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content Program.Commodus ruled for 12 years, a much longer period than alluded to in the film. Dio Cassius wrote that Commodus was “a greater curse to the Romans than any pestilence or any crime.”WAS THE REPUBLIC RESTORED AFTER THE DEATH OF COMMODUS?No.The film is very wrong on this count. A republic is a system of government which does not have a hereditary monarch. An emperor is a monarch. The United States for instance is a republic, and England is not.Rome was not founded as a republic, as was stated erroneously by a senator, who would have known better, as all educated Romans would hold this as basic knowledge, in the film. Legend has it that Rome was originally ruled by Etruscan kings. The first king was Romulus. The kings were overthrown in a revolution, which was sparked by the rape of Lucretia, in 509 BCE, by Sextus Tarquin, the son of the seventh and last king, Tarquinius Superbus.Dictators and kings were thereafter despised by Romans, hence, the ideological adulation of a republican system of government, which was a central theme of Roman history, and thus correctly emphasized in the movie, and unlikely by accident, it should be noted.After Commodus was murdered, the Senate met before daybreak, and declared sixty-six year old Pertinax, who was the son of a former slave, emperor. Pertinax thus became emperor on January 1st, but he was murdered by a group of soldiers the following March, after less than three months in power.▼ Etching, Rome Ancienne, Jean Daullé, (1759), The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content Program.WHAT WAS MAXIMUS REALLY LIKE?Maximus Decimus Meridius (his full name is stated only once in the film) is a fictitious character!Although he did not exist, he seems as if he could be be a composite of actual historical figures. In the film, Maximus was Marcus Aurelius’ general. There was in fact a general by the name of Avidius Cassius, who was involved in the military campaign shown in the film, and, upon hearing a rumor of Marcus Aurelius’ death, declared himself emperor. He however, was assassinated by his own soldiers. It is true that there was, in the later Empire, a General by the name of Maximus who appears to have had revolutionary intentions. He is most likely an inspiration as well.Maximus also reminds one of the emperor Diocletian. Remember that in the film, Marcus Aurelius names Maximus as his heir. Diocletian, who ruled Rome from 284 to 305 CE, was born in the lower classes, like Maximus. He eventually became his emperor’s trusted favourite and bodyguard, and later became a general. Finally he was named heir, and thus became emperor.▼ Marble Sculpture, Bust of Emperor Commodus, (Ca. 180 – 185 CE), The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content Program.Commodus, in reality, was not murdered in the arena by Maximus. He was however murdered by a wrestler. So the character Maximus, while fictitious, is not that far-fetched. He appears credibly, as if he could perhaps be inspired by a collage of other, real, historical figures that have been researched, even if not one himself.As for his personality, he was definitely a stoic, as evidenced by his sense of obligation to the state, and concern for duty and virtue. This makes sense, given his admiration for Marcus Aurelius, who was a stoic philosopher. One difficulty is, even though many Romans (and not just Christians) believed in an afterlife, stoics usually did not. So this is problematic pertaining to his mentalite in the film, as it is a glaring inconsistency with his other somewhat more correctly presented stoical beliefs .DID SENATOR GRACCHUS REALLY EXIST?No.The ideology which he represents is however, somewhat authentic. Senator Gracchus appears to be based upon Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. During the Republic, these two brothers, were, one after the other, plebeian tribunes (not senators). They were champions of the common people, and paid the cost with their lives.Tiberius Gracchus was elected tribune of the people in 133 BCE, and fought for reforms of benefit to the plebeians. He was murdered by opponents. His brother Gaius was elected tribune of the people in 123 BCE, and attempted the continuation of popular reforms. He was also murdered. It is problematic that in the film Gracchus was a senator, in the sense that it was the senatorial class which opposed Gauis and Tiberius, and even participated in their murder.The political infrastructure of ancient Rome evolved over time, and was actually more complex than portrayed in the film. Other important political entities, along with the Senate, were the Plebeian Tribunate, as well as the Comitia Centuriata. These, along with two Consuls who would rule jointly, are the basic Republican institutions so cherished by Romans, and which emperors would claim to restore.DID LUCILLA REALLY PLOT AGAINST HER BROTHER?Yes.Commodus really did have a sister Lucilla, and she hated her brother. Lucilla was at one time married to Lucius Verus, as her son tells Maximus in the film. What is not said is that Verus was co-emperor with Marcus Aurelius. Lucilla conspired against Commodus, and attempted to have him assassinated in 182 CE. Commodus banished Lucilla to the island of Capreae as punishment, and ordered her execution shortly after. So then, the film portrayal is actually entirely backwards, as Commodus not only outlived Lucilla, he was responsible for her death, and not the other way around, as Hollywood would have it.▼ Coin of Lucilla Ca. 180 CE, Obverse: Bust of Lucilla, facing right, LVCILLA AVGVSTA, Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins.▼ Coin of Lucilla Ca. 180 CE, Reverse: Juno standing left, raising hand and holding baby, IVNONI LVCINAE, Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins.Incidentally, ancient historians are not too shy to reveal details, such as it was his other sisters, not Lucilla, that Commodus reputedly enjoyed having degrading sexual relations with.DID WOMEN REALLY FIGHT IN THE ARENA?Yes.Some criticism by film reviewers has been levied towards Scott for having a female gladiator. However, the ancientsources are clear; they did in fact exist. Tacitus, for instance, wrote that Nero staged “a number of gladiatorial shows, equal in magnificence to their predecessors, though more women of rank and senators disgraced themselves in the arena”. Petronius, in The Satyricon, wrote of female charioteers. Dio Cassius explained how some women performed as venatores, that is gladiators who fought wild beasts. The Emperor Domitian staged games in which women battled pygmies.▼ Image of the Roman Colosseum, The Continent by Queenboro’ via Flushing, A handbook for English and American tourists, (1894), The British Library, HMNTS 10097.c.31.Women were forbidden from gladiatorial performances shortly after the time of Commodus, by the emperor Alexander Severus, in 200 CE.WHAT’S WITH THE TATTOO WORN BY MAXIMUS?S.P.Q.R., the letters of the tattoo worn by Maximus, was an abbreviation for an oft used Latin phrase whose English translation is “the Senate and People of Rome”.The Latin word for “tattoo” was stigma, and our modern meaning of stigmatize, as a pejorative, has clearly evolved from the Latin. It was slaves, gladiators, criminals, and later, soldiers, who were tattooed, as an identifying mark.Upper class Romans did not partake in tattooing, which they associated with either marginal groups, or foreigners, such as Thracians, who were known to tattoo extensively. The emperor Caligula is said to have forced individuals of rank to become tattooed as an embarrassment.▼ Image of a Roman Legion’s Standard with SPQR, L’ Algérie Ouvrage Illustré (1885), The British Library, HMNTS 10097.c.31.In late antiquity, the Roman army consisted largely of mercenaries, they were tattooed in order that deserters could be identified.The sixth century Roman physician, Aetius, wrote that:“Stigmates are the marks which are made on the face and other parts of the body. We seesuch marks on the hands of soldiers. To perform the operation they use ink made according to this formula: Egyptian pine wood (acacia) and especially the bark, one pound; corroded bronze, two ounces; gall, two ounces; vitriol, one ounce. Mix well and sift… First wash the place to be tattooed with leek juice and then prick in the design with pointed needles until blood is drawn. Then rub in the ink.”The Christian emperor Constantine, ca. 325 CE, decreed that individuals condemned to fight as gladiators or to work in the mines could be tattooed on the legs or the hands, but not on the face, because “the face, which has been formed in the image of the divine beauty, should be defiled as little as possible.”▼ Engraved Gem, Warrior or Gladiator, European, (Ca. 1750 – 1850 CE), The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content Program.In 787, Pope Hadrian the First prohibited tattooing altogether, due to its association with superstition, paganism, and the marginal classes.xx 30 xx© Procopius Canning • Perusine Press • All Rights Reserved • Contact •